HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2003/09/16 CITY COUNCIL AGE~A
September 16, 2003 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CITY OF
CHUIA VISI'A
City Council City Manager
Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr.
John McCann City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone Ann Moore
Mary Salas City Clerk
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor Susan Bigelow
The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m.
and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m.
Regular meetings may be ~iewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on
Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 68
September 16, 2003
J declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
OHice of the City Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Ac~ements. ¡J
AGENDA 0'/ ill ~ \
Dated tI (~ Signed
.00 .M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
· INTRODUCTION BY FIRE CHIEF DOUG PERRY OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH, DAVID ALBRIGHT, FIRE CAPTAIN
· PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR PADILLA TO JIM
BETTIS WORTH, COMMENDING HIM UPON 33 YEARS OF DEDICATED
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT,
CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR DIVISION
· P~SENTATION BY JIM PIERI, PRESIDENT/CEO OF MOUNTAIN WEST REAL
ESTATE, OF THE GOLD NUGGET AWARD OF MERIT TO THE CITY FOR
GATEWAY CHULA VISTA
· VIQEO PRESENTATION BY MARK AND MARY LOU BRISEÑO HIGHLIGHTING
THE F AMIL Y FINE ARTS ACADEMY
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 22)
The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items
listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a
Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be
removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out
a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed
after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 19 and August 26, 2003.
Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes.
2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A 35 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON CLUBHOUSE DRIVE BETWEEN
HUNTE PARKWAY AND NORTH/SOUTH CREEKSIDE DRIVE, THEREBY
AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY ENGINEER (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
Based on provisions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has detennined that, in
the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the
speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Park~vay and North/South Creekside
Drive be established at 35 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule X of the
register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. This ordinance was introduced on
August 26, 2003. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
3. ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHiNG A 45 M.P.H.
SPEED LIMIT ON HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEEN SOUTH GREENSVIEW
DRIVE/OAK SPRINGS DRIVE AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, THEREBY
AMENDiNG SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY ENGINEER (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
Based on provisions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that, in
the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the
speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and
Olympic Parkway be established at 45 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule
X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. This ordinance was
introduced on August 26, 2003. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
4. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A 25 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN G
STREET AND H STREET AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER AS
MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGiNEER (SECOND READiNG
AND ADOPTION)
Based on provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 22352, 22358 and 40802, and
pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City
Engineer has determined that the speed limit on Third Avenue between G and H Streets
should be decreased from the existing 35 mph limit to 25 mph. This ordinance was
introduced on August 26, 2003. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
5. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF
THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO iNCLUDE NEWLY CREATED
UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND TO DELETE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS NO
LONGER USED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
(SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
Page 2 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
Charter Section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned specifically in
Charter Section 500 be adopted by ordinance and with a four-fifths vote of the Council.
Several new unclassified positions have been created in the past~ Additionally, with the
addition of new positions, some of the previously existing positions have become
obsolete. Consequently, Municipal Code §2.05.010 must be ,amended to reflect the
changes to the unclassified positions. This ordinance was introduced on August 26,
2003. (Director of Human Resoumes)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
6. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT CREEK RANCH PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP
(SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
The applicant, McMillin Development Company, has submitted applications to amend
the City's General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch
Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Salt Creek Ranch planned community district
regulations for two sites within the Rolling Hills Ranch master planned community. The
al~lications request (1) conversion of 10 acres on the west side of Duncan Road from
low density residential to low medium density residential in Neighborhood 7, as well as a
density transfer; and (2) adjustment of land use boundaries between the parcel designated
as '.'community park" and the immediately adjacent community purpose facility site
within Neighborhood 8. This ordinance was introduced on AUgust 26, 2003. (Acting
Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
7. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING PCM-03-08 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
APPROVING A 25 PERCENT DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR A 14-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE R2P ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
815 ADA STREET (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
The applicant proposes a condominium project with certain deviations from the R-2
development standards and an increase from 12 to 14 dwelling units utilizing the
provisions for a precise plan as outlined in zoning code sections 19.14.570 - 580. The
Montgomery Specific Plan provides that a net density bonus of 25 percent may be given
to development projects "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design," if
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Division has reviewed the proposal and
found that the project is a Class 32 exemption for infill developments. This ordinance
was introduced on August 26, 2003. (Acting Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance.
Page 3 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH HOST VENDiNG, iNC. TO
PROVIDE VENDiNG SERVICES CITYWIDE ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR AN
1NITIAL FIVE-YEAR PERIOD AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASiNG AGENT
TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL, ONE-YEAR OPTION
PERIODS (Continued from August 26, 2003)
A request for proposals for vending services was sent to 13 potential respondents in
October 2002. On November 7, 2002, four responses were received. Of the 13
companies contacted, two were local vendors, but neither submitted a proposal. (Director
of Finance, Director of Recreation)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AWARDING A PURCHASiNG AGREEMENT TO PIERCE MANUFACTURING,
INC., FOR ONE TRIPLE COMBiNATION PUMPER, AUTHORIZiNG THE SALE OF
AN EXISTING TELESQURT FIRE ENGINE, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004
BUDGET BY APPROPRIATiNG $355,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF
THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND FOR SAID PURCHASE, AND $10,000
FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT FOR OUTFITTiNG OF THE FIRE ENGINE, AND AUTHORIZiNG
THE PURCHASiNG AGENT TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT (4/5THS VOTE
REQUIRED)
The existing Telesqurt fire truck was purchased in 1995 and is eight years into a twenty-
year replacement cycle. Due to its age and condition it currently has a high sale value.
Adoption of the resolution awards a purchasing agreement to Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
for one triple-combination pumper, appropriates funds for said purchase, and authorizes
the sale of the Telesqurt. (Fire Chief)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROViNG THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT
WITH MELHORN CONSTRUCTION CO. TO INCLUDE NECESSARY
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DAVID A. WERGELAND SHARK AND RAY
EXPERIENCE, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AMENDMENT
The project is near completion, and there are necessary improvements needed to
complete the project. Staff recommends that $38,907 of the project's contingency be
applied to the guaranteed maximum price for this purpose. (Director of General
Services)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
11. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENTS
NECESSARY TO OBTAiN EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION iNSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD COMMENCiNG OCTOBER 1, 2003, VIA
THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE
Page 4 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
The state of the current excess workers' compensation insurance market has made it
necessary for staff to explore alternative coverage options, such as shared risk pooling,
group purchased insurance, or group self-funding. It is necessary for the City to position
itself to be able to act quickly to take advantage of the most cost-effective means of
insuring these exposures. (Director of Human Resources)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
12 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTiNG AN AMENDED BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR iNCLUSION 1N PROPOSED COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ELEVEN)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 07-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ELEVEN) AND TO AUTHORIZE
THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OR
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORDER1NG AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR
PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-1 (OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE ELEVEN)
D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 07-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ELEVEN) TO BE SECURED BY
SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN FACILITIES
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC has requested the City to initiate proceedings to form
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 07-I (Otay Ranch Village Eleven) for the
purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of public facilities serving the
properties within Village 11. Adoption of the proposed resolutions approves an amended
botmdary map for CFD-07-I; declares the intent of the Counci! to form the district and
designates the improvements therein; describes the improvements authorized to be
financed by CFD-07-I; declares the intent of the Council to authorize the levy of special
taxes to finance the improvements; declares the intent of the Council to authorize the
district to incur a bonded indebtedness; directs the special tax consultant to prepare the
special tax report; and sets the public hearing for this district for October 21, 2003.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
Page 5 ~ Council Agenda 09/16/03
13. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RECORD
DESTRUCTION PROCEDURE
Preparations are underway to purge all unnecessary documents before moving to the new
Police Facility. With this objective in mind, a recent audit of the Police Department's
records destruction procedure was conducted. The audit identified many records that
have been accumulating that are, by law, not required to be retained. Section 34090 of
the Government Code allows the City Council to authorize the destruction of records by
resolution in conjunction with approval from the City Attorney. (Chief of Police)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
14. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE
PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 FOR CITY OF
CHULA VISTA PROJECTS UTILIZING FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FUNDING
All local agencies receiving funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) are
required to submit a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, which is designed to
allow contractors/consultants owned and controlled by minorities, women and other
socially and economically disadvantaged persons to have the opportunity to bid and work
onprojects funded by the FHA. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
15 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE BUDGET TO ADD TWO UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS,
REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSIC LABORATORY (RCFL) NETWORK
ENGINEER AND CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP (CBAG)
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT, AND APPROPRIATING $157,137 TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF ThE GENERAL FUND
BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUES (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 RELATING
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS
The California Border Alliance has requested the addition of a Regional Computer
Forensic Library Network Engineer and CBAG Management Assistant. There is no
fiscal impact to the City to add these positions. Chula Vista Charter section 500 requires
that all unclassified positions not mentioned in Charter section 500 be added by
Ordinance. Adoption of the ordinance amends Municipal Code section 2.05.010 to add
the unclassified position of Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory Network Engineer.
(Chief of Police)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first
reading.
Page 6 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
16 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DESIGNATiNG AND SETTiNG ASIDE CERTA1N CITY-OWNED REAL
PROPERTY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY
PURPOSES AS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION: OF THE OLYMPIC
PARKWAY STREET WIDENING PROJECT
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DESIGNATING AND SETTING ASIDE CERTAIN CITY-OWNED REAL
PROPERTY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY
PURPOSES AS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PALOMAR
AVENUE STREET WIDENING PROJECT
The proposed resolutions designate and set aside portions of certain City-owned lands for
street and public utility purposes as part of Olympic Parkway and Palomar Street.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
17 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FORM OF AN ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I (OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE SIX)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX), AUTHORIZING
AND PROVIDiNG FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX BONDS OF THE
DISTRICT, APPROViNG THE FORM OF BOND INDENTURE, BOND PURCHASE
CONTRACT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, AND AUTHORIZiNG CERTA1N
ACTIONS iN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS
On January 14, 2003 the Council held the public heating forming and establishing
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 08-I. The district was formed for the purpose
of providing for the financing and acquisition for certain authorized public facilities. On
January 28, 2003, the Council heard the election results, which declared that 100% of the
votes cast were in favor of the authorization to issue bonds for CFD 08-I. The first
reading of the ordinance to authorize the levy of a special tax was also heard at that time.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
18. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIViNG THE FORMAL SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROViNG AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HON CONSULTiNG
FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY
Page 7 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
Adoption of the proposed resolution approves an agreement ~vith Hon Consulting for the
provision of environmental consulting services required to coordinate the preparation of
environmental documents for vahous capital improvement program projects. There is
currently an immediate need for the consultant's services to facilitate the preparation of
environmental documents required for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
19. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 92-02, SALT CREEK RANCH,
NEIGHBORHOOD 8, UNIT 4 FINAL MAP; ACCEPTiNG ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE VARIOUS PUBLIC EASEMENTS, ALL AS
GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, APPROVING THE
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
In October 1992, the Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista
Tract No. 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch. The Final Map for Neighborhood 8, Unit 4, and the
subdivision improvement agreement, are now before Council for consideration and
approval. Resolution 2001-105 approved the supplemental subdivision improvement
agreement for the project. The developer is McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch, LLC. The
map, for 27 dwelling units, is governed by the building permit monitoring agreement,
which provides for 120 permits to be issued in the year ending 03/31/04. (Director of
Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
20. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATIFYING SUBMITTAL OF A REGIONAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 TO THE CALIFORNIA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
The City received a regional grant of $300,000 from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board in August 2001. The grant funded operating costs for the Regional
Household Hazardous Waste facility at the City's Corporation yard through March 2003.
Staff submitted a regional grant application for $300,000 to serve Chula Vista, Coronado,
Imperial Beach, and National City for the period of October 1, 2003 through March 3l,
2006. The State has recently informed the City that it received the highest ranking of all
applicants within the State and is being recommended for funding. (Director of
Conservation and Environmental Services)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
21. CONSIDERATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT
PLAN FOR F STREET FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO ITS TERMINUS AT THE
BAYFRONT (Continued from 8/26/03)
Page 8 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
The report is intended to identify the F Street corridor, from Fourth Avenue to its
terminus at the Bayfi-ont, as an area that has the potential for cohesive street
improvements at an undetermined, time in the future. It is expected that with Council
acceptance of the preliminary conceptual plan, it will be incorporated into other, more
comprehensive planning documents addressing the western portion of the City. (Director
of General Services)
Staffrecommendation: Council continue this item to the meeting of September 30, 2003.
22. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT REGARDiNG FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS SUBMITTED TO SANDAG FOR THE PROPOSED
TRANSNET EXTENSION (Continued from August 26, 2003)
SANDAG is currently in the process of working on a ballot measure to extend the
TransNet program. The program is based on a one-half-cent sales tax and funds a variety
of important transportation projects throughout the region. The current program expires
in 2008. As part of the process, SANDAG has requested each local agency to submit
proposed projects for inclusion in the extended program. (Director of Engineering)
Staffmcommendation: Council continue this item to the meeting of September 30, 2003.
ORAL C~OMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is n[~t listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
top~c for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to
three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised as public hearings as required by law.
If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form
(available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
23. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-02-13 AND AN APPEAL
OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE CONVERSION
OF AN EXISTiNG ACCESSORY BUILDING iNTO AN ACCESSORY SECOND
DWELLING UNIT LIMITED iN SIZE TO 700 SQUARE FEET AT 736 CHURCH
AVENUE (Continued from August 19, 2003)
The Planning Commission twice heard this request to add onto an existing garage/
workshop and convert it into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling. After first
denying the request, the Commission reconsidered and approved it with a stipulation
limiting the unit to 700 square feet to insure compatibility with the surrounding single-
family neighborhood. The applicant has appealed the Commission's decision, requesting
the 906 square-foot unit. (Acting Director of Planning & Building)
Staff recommendation: Conncil deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's
action approving the request but limiting the size of the accessory second unit to 700
square-feet as reflected in Resolution PCC-02-13, based on the findings and conditions
contained therein.
Page 9 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
24. CONSIDERATION OF PCM-03-38, DRAFT GREENBELT MASTER PLAN FOR
THE FORMULATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS SYSTEM
SURROUNDING THE CITY (Continued from August 26, 2003)
The proposed Greenbelt Master Plan consists of a plan for the formulation of an open
space and trails system encircling the city. This plan is intended to implement the
Greenbelt concept identified in the adopted General Plan and join together a variety of
open space programs through a 28-mile connected trail system that links existing and
proposed parks, golf courses and other activity centers around the perimeter of the city.
(Acting Director of Planning & Building)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution and direct staff to prepare
a Greenbelt Implementation Plan that identifies staffing responsibilities for management
of the Greenbelt, sets implementation priorities, and addresses budget recommendations.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE GREENBELT MASTER PLAN (PCM-03-38) FOR THE
FORMULATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS SYSTEM
SURROUNDING THE CITY
25. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE' FEE RECOVERY DISTRICT
FOR OTAY VALLEY ROAD, RELATED TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2,
TO MODIFY THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE FEES COLLECTED
In 1993, the City Council established a fee recovery district for Otay Valley Road to
collect fees from properties that benefited from the improvements financed by
Assessment District No. 90-2. The fee recovery district is a financing mechanism to
address the potential inequity in assessments should a property develop to more
impactive land uses, such as commercial, than the land uses used to determine the
assessments in Assessment District No. 90-2. The fees collected may be used to offset
the costs to those properties participating in the assessment district and for minor
administrative costs. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FEE RECOVERY DISTRICT FOR OTAY VALLEY ROAD,
RELATED TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2, TO MODIFY THE
METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE FEES COLLECTED
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
26. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
Page 10 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
27. MAYOR'S REPORTS
A. Consideration of acceptance of the Veterans Advisory Commission's
recommendation to name Joe Casillas as the 2003 Veteran of the Year.
B. Ratification of appointment of Stephen Zasueta to the Housing Advisory
Commission (Ex-officio member).
C. Appointment of Council representatives to the ad hoc task force on school
overcrowding issues.
D. Discussion and Council direction regarding membership in Heartland
Communications Facility Authority (HCFA) and policy options.
28. COUNCIL COMMENTS
· Councilmember Salas:
A. Ratification of appointment of Rosa Robles to the Mobilehome Rent
Review Commission.
B. Status report on Council referral regarding "Adopt a Street Program".
C. Status report regarding the pumhase of trees for Gayle McCandliss Park
from donations made by the public for that purpose.
' D. Report regarding continuation of program in Memorial Park for the
placement of plaques in Memorial Park in~ memory of family members of
Chula Vista residents.
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by
noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in
accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957. 7).
29. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: San Diego Gas & Electric - Gas and Electricity Franchise
(pertaining to public rights-of-way throughout the City of Chula
Vista
Agency negotiators: David Rowlands, Jr., Sid Moms, Michael Meacham, Glen
Googins
Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista and San Diego Gas & Electric (various
representatives)
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of franchise conveyance
Page 11 - Council Agenda 09/16/03
30. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: The Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course on Bonita Road and
adjacent acreage owned by the City.
Agency Negotiator: Sid Morris
Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista (Sid Morris), American Golf Corporation
(Brian Jackson).
Under Negotiation: Price, terms, and disposition of lease.
31. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG INITIATION OF
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c)
Three cases
32. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b)
· One case
33. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)
· Application of SDG&E for Authority to Update its Gas and Electric Revenue
Requirement and Base Rates (Doc. No. A-02-12-028)
· City of Chula Vista v. C & S Doctor, Inc. (SDSC No. GIC 787174)
· C & S Doctor, Inc. v. City of Chuta Vista (SDSC No. GIC 803780)
· Grippi v. City of Chula Vista (SDSC No. GIC 801393)
· Wert v. City of Chula Vista (USDC No. 03 CV 1156K)
ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on September 30, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers. The Meeting of September 23 has been cancelled.
Page 12 - CouncilAgenda 09/16/03
~'~ CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A,~I~.I~t.- SPEED LIMIT
ON CLUBHOUSE DRIVE BET~L~ HUNTE PARKWAY
AND NORTH/SOUTH CREEKSIDE DRIVE, THEREBY
AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Division 11-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348
through 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article 1 (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the
California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones," the City Engineer has
determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public
safety, the speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside
Drive be established at 35 m.p.h.; and
WHEREAS, the segment of Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South
Creekside includes a vertical curve that is 250' in length with a grade difference of 5%, and
therefore, has a design speed of 35 m.p.h.; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of July 10,
2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City
Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "Established
Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated", is hereby amended to include the following
information:
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X
ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS 1N CERTAIN ZONES
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit
Clubhouse North/South
Drive Hunte Parkway Creekside Drive 35 MPH
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full fome on the thirtieth day
from and after its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Engineering Director City Attorney
J:Attorney\Ordinance\Hunte Parkway speed limit ~.~--/
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI~
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 45 M.P.H..,~Pf}IMIT
ON HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEE~I4~Fi~I2 SOUTH
GREENSVmW DRIVE/OAK DRIVE AND
OLYMPIC PARKWAY, THEREBY AMENDING SCHEDULE
X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY ENGINEER
WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Division 11-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348
through 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article I (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the
California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones," the City Engineer has
determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public
safety, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive
and Olympic Parkway be established at 45 mph; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of July 10,
2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City
Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Established
Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated, is hereby amended to include the following
information:
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X
ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN ZONES
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit
South Greensview Olympic 45 MPH
Hunte Parkway Drive/Oak Springs Drive Parkway
SECTION II: 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
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Engineering Director City Attorney
J:Attorney\Ordinance\Hunte Parkway speed limit
3-/
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TJi~
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 25 ~,IffC_~k'~'~ED LIMIT
ON THIRD AVENUE, BETWEENe. O~I~'~ AND U STREET,
AND AMENDING SCHEDULE '~ OF THE REGISTER AS
MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
WHEREAS, based on the provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 22352.
22358 and 40803, and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that based on a Traffic Engineering Study,
the speed limit on Third Street between G Street and H Street should be decreased from
the existing posted 35 m.p.h., to 25 m.p.h.
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of
July 10, 2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City
Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated, is hereby amended to include
the following changes:
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X
ESTABLIS}IED SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN ZONES
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit
Third Avenue G Street H Street 25 MPH
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full fume on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Engineering Director City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA _Vl~-~Jk~)
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDF~.~),_~REATED..,,,,_
UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS A'N'I~ TO DELETE
UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS NO LONGER USED BY THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has created new classifications to
better reflect the needs of the City's workforce; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has deleted classifications when those
classifications have become obsolete; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Section 500(a) requires that all new unclassified management
level positions be adopted by ordinance and a four-fifths vote of the Council.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 2.05.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
2.05.010 Unclassified positions established.
In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in Section 500 of the
Charter of the city, there are established the unclassified positions entitled deputy city
manager, administrative services manager, deputy fire chief, assistant fire chief,
assistant chief of police, assistant director of finance, assistant director of budqet and
analysis, fiscal operations manager, funds development strategic planninq manager,
purchasing aqent, treasury manaqer, assistant director of human resources, director of
employee development, risk manager, assistant director of public works and operations,
assistant director of building and housing, deputy buildinq official, building services
manaqer, buildinq and park construction manager, parks and open space manager,
assistant director of recreation, housing coordinator, real property manager, transit
coordinator, assistant director of community development, community relations
manaqer, Western Chula Vista development manaqer, traffic engineer, deputy director
of engineering, assistant library director, chief learning offcer director of
communications, police captain, director of conservation and 'environment~ s----e~ice~
deputy director of planning, assistant director of planninq, special planning projects
manager, general plan project manager, chief of staff, constituent services manager,
community liaison (assigned to the Office of the Mayor and City Council), California
border alliance group deputy executive director, California border alliance qroup budqet
manager, California border alliance group meth. strike force coordinate)r, California
J:\Atiorney\Ordinance\Unclassified Position Ord..doc
Page 1 of 2
border alliance qroup network administrator, California border alliance qroup
operations/intelliqence coordinator, California border alliance group proqram analyst,
California border alliance qroup management assistant, and California border alliance
group network assistant.
SECTION I1: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its
second reading and adoption.
Submitted by: Approved as to form by:
Dave Rowlands Ann Moore
City Manager City Attorney
J:\Attorney\Ordinance\Unclassified Position Ord..doc
Page 2 of 2
ORDn NCE NO. kgO 1\0
· _ I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~I~:I~Y OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMEND~7)'THE SALT
CREEK RANCH PLANNED COIV~PI~TY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP.
I. I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is
diagrammatically represented in "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference and
for the purpose of general description herein consists of 10 acres known as Rolling Hills
Ranch Neighborhood 7C, and located at the southeast comer of Duncan Ranch Road and
Hunte Parkway within the Roll!ng Hills Ranch Planned Commumty ( 'Project Site ) and,
Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHERES, the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community
District Regulations, Zoning District Map consist of changing the adopted land use
desi'gnation of Project Site 1 from IS, Institutional Uses, to SF2, Single Family Detached
and ?roject Site 2, between OS-2, Open Space-Park and CPF, Community Purpose Facility;
and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various
entitlements and agreements, including:l) Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)
approved by City Council Resolutiqn 15875 on September 25, 1990 and amended by City Council
Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 2) Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
approved by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by City Council
Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 3) The Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District
Regulations and Zoning Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2499 on April 7,1992
and amended by Ordinance No. 2913 on May 20, 2003;4) Public Facilities Financing Plan approved
by City Council Resolution 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by Resolution 2000-190 on April
10, 2001 ;5) Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 previously
approved by City Council Resolution No. 16834 on October 6, 1992 and amended by City Council
Resolution No. 2000-190 on June 13, 2000 and Resolution 2003-199 on May 13, 2003; and 6)
Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits by City Council Resolution No. 2003-166 on April 15,
2003;
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on August 13, 2003 and voted 6-0-1-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council on the Project; and,
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public heating on this project held on August 13, 2003 and the minutes
and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding; and,
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the heating on the Project
application and notice of said heating, together with its purpose given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft.
of the exterior boundaries of the Project Sites at least ten days prior to the heating; and,
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 26, 2003 on the Project discretionary approval
applications, and to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear
public testimony with regard to same.
F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same City Council heating at which this Ordinance was
introduced for first reading on August 26, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved Resolution __by which it adopted the amendments on the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain
as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at is public
hearing on August 13, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are 1)ereby
incorporated into the record o£this proceeding.
PREVIOUS FEIR 89-03 AND FSEIR-91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED;
FINDINGS; APPROVALS
The City Council of the City o£Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered,
and certified FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the
proposed amendments have been previously addressed by FE1R 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek
Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The amendments are in
substantial conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FEIR and FSEIR
Ordinance No.
Page 3
analysis was based and therefore, approval and implementation of the GDP/SPA amendments does
not change the basic conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the
Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch.
IV. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch
Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, as
concun'ently amended, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and good zoning
practice g~tpport the amendment.
V. APPROVAL OF ZONE AMENDMENTS
The City Council does hereby approve the amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned
Community District Regulations, Land Use Districts Map as represented in Exhibit B.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon
the enfomeability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event
that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforcable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE
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
Jim Sandoval
Acting Director of Planning City Attorney
and Building
EXHIBIT A
ROLLING HILLS
RANCH
PROJECT
LOCATI
(NEIGHBOI 7)
PROCTOR
PROJECT
liN
LOCATOR
EXHIBIT 1
ORDINANCE NO.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ai~G~B~O A 25
PERCENT DENSITY BONUS TO AEI~DW FOR A 14-UNIT
CONDOMiNIUM PROJECT 1N THE R2P ZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 815 ADA STREET.
RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of 14 town homes in seven duplex buildings, and located at
815 Ada Street ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2002, Jorge Sanchez and Daniel Contreras for Jim Truesdale
Developments ("Developers") filed a Precise Plan application with the Planning and Building
Department of the City of Chula Vista for a town home condominium project in the Residential
Two Family zoning district ("Project"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled and advertised for April 21,
2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue at which time the Design
Review Committee voted 3-0-0-2 recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan
project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in accordance with the
Notice of Decision (PCM-03-08); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on June
25, 2003, and, after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented, voted 5-0-0-2 to
recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Project, in accordance with
the Development regulations shown in Exhibit "B" based on the findings listed below; and in
accordance with the Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-03-08); and
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said Project, and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
Ordinance
Page 2
general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
the public hearing on this project held on June 25, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting
there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and,
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and
notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
II. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council o£ the City Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
A. Certification of Compliance With CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the :Project was exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 32 exemption for infill developments
on January 8, 2003. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution PCM-03-08 including the
exemption from CEQA on June 25, 2003 recommending that the City Council approve the
Project.
B. Independent Judgment of City Council
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental
Review Coordinator and the Planning Commission was reached in accordance with requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
C. Precise Plan Findings
1. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity:
The issuance of a precise plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity because the development of this 14-unit condominium project is characterized by
outstanding planning or urban design that will significantly improve the adjacent
neighborhood, surrounding community and general vicinity.
The site plan layout provides for guest parking and common open space areas. The
architecture of the individual buildings is exceptional and the individual units incorporate
Ordinance
Page 3
features found in well designed single-family homes, such as pomh entries, open loft areas,
raised ceilings, kitchens with bay windows, large bedrooms and bathrooms, walk-in closets, a
study or den, laundry rooms, and ample storage space within the units adjacent to the two-car
garages.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the P modifying district as set
forth in CVMC 19.56.041:
Based upon the facts presented, Section 19.56.041(C) would apply to this project because the
basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the city
appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient use of the property and proper
relationship of the project to the uses allowed in the adjacent zones.
By strict interpretation, only six single-family dwelling units could be allowed on this
property according to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations of Residential
Low Medium (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre).
Howler, the adopted policy of the City Council for this area was that the R2P zoning
overlay would be consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plar~, and therefore the
Zoning of R2P would allow for up to six duplex buildings for a total of ~2 units utilizing the
P (Precise Plan) modifying district overlay zone.
In addition, the Montgomery Specific Plan allows for an additional 25 percent density bonus
for projects located within single-family designated areas if characterized by "outstanding
planning or urban design."
Therefore, in order to provide a 14-unit condominium project, flexible development standards
(such as the reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks, reduced common and private open
space areas, reduced two-car garage dimensions, a reduced number of guest parking spaces,
and an increase in floor-area-ratio) need to be applied to the project in order to achieve an
efficient use of the property and a proper relationship of the project to the uses allowed in the
adjacent zones.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning
requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and
application of the Precise Plan:
Exceptions to be granted which would deviate from the underlying zoning requirements are
the building setbacks, common and private open space areas, the allowable floor-area-ratio,
the two-car garage dimensions, and the number of guest parking spaces.
These deviations are appropriate because the proposed site plan and the design of the seven
two-story duplex buildings exterior architecture are exceptional and the individual units
incorporate features found in well-designed single-family homes.
Ordinance
Page 4
The Design Review Committee approved the architecture, and the City Council and/or the
Planning Commission finds that outstanding planning and urban design characterize the
project as proposed.
4. The approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of
the City Of Chula Vista:
Approval of the Precise Plan will be in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land
Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre) in that the same
land use designation was provided for on the Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Map, and
the adopted policy of the City Council for this area was that the R2P zoning overlay would be
consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan.
5. The approval of this plan will conform to the applicable sections of the Montgomery
Specific Plan
The 25 percent net density bonus as allowed by the Montgomery Specific Plan will add 2
units where only 12 units would normally be permitted, thereby providing more affordable
housing relative to the current housing market. The development will include two-car
garages for each unit, private yards and patios, sufficient gUest parking ,and common open
space recreation areas, and may also be a catalyst for the potential redevelopment of this area
in the future. The City Council concurs with the finding of the Director of Planning and
Building that the project reflects outstanding planning and urban design and therefore is
entitled to a density bonus per the provision set forth in Montgomery Specific Plan.
D. Terms of Grant of Precise Plan
The City Council hereby grants Precise Plan PCM-03-08 tbr project depiction in Exhibit "A,"
and controlled by the Development and Operational Standards in Exhibit "B" and subject to the
conditions of approval found in the Design Review Committee Notice of Decision, which are
incorporated herein by reference.
E. Execution and Recordation of Resolution of Approval
The Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the
conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County
Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant,
and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and Planning Department. Failure to
return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the
City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the
corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance
without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as
Document No.
Ordinance
Page 5
Signature o f Property Owner of 815 Ada Street Date
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC RI~VOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the
enfomeability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event
that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdicti~ to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
IV. APP-ROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN
The City C6uncil does hereby approve the Precise Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A", and including
the property Development and Operational Standards for Ada II Town homes, as represented in
Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference.
V. EFFECTIVE DATE
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
James D. Sandoval &~o~r e~-/~/~4 ~
Planning and Building Director City Attorney U
Ordinance
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this the 19th day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Steve Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of August
2003 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
__ day of 2003.
Executed this day of 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
J:\PLANNING\HAROLD\RESOL[ITlONS\PCM-03-08CCORD.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date g/19/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving a two-party agreement with Host Vending,
Inc. to provide Vending Services citywide on an "as-needed" basis for an
initial five-year period, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to renew the
agreement for five (5) additional, one (1) year option periods.
SUBMITTED BY: DirectorofFinanc-"J'J~e ~
Director of Recreation~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager j %~ (4/5 Vote: Yes No X )
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Vending Services was sent to thirteen (13) potential respondents in
October 2002. On November 7, 2002, tour (4) responses were received. Of the thirteen (13)
companies contacted, two (2) were local vendors but neither submitted a proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution appr6ving a two-party agreement with
Host Vending, Inc. to provide Vending Services citywide on an "as-needed" basis for an initial five-
year period, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to renew the agreement for five (5) additional, one
(1) year option periods.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The Recreation Department has had an ongoing need for beverages, snacks and dispensing machines
at the community centers and various park sites throughout the City. In response to this need, a
detailed Request for Proposal was drafted and sent to both local and regional vending service
companies.
The Request for Proposal covered recommended machine locations at five (5) community centers
and twenty-one (21) park sites. The intent of the RFP was to use these locations as the basis of
comparison for proposals submitted. Additional City facilities; such as, future park sites and/or
Community Centers, the Civic Center complex, the new Police Facility, the John Lippitt Public
Works Yard, and both new and existing Library branches could be added for comparable contract
pricing, financial incentives, and terms and conditions.
A pre-proposal meeting was scheduled to conduct a site inspection and answer questions.
Representatives from three (3) companies attended the meeting.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
Summary of Proposals Received
Canteen Beverages & Snacks
Coca-Cola Bottling Company Beverages Only
Host Vending, Inc. Beverages & Snacks
Pepsi Bottling Group Beverages Only
The City's selection committee consisted of John P. Coggins, Pumhasing Agent, Buck Martin,
Director of Recreation, and Shauna Stokes, Assistant Director of Recreation.
Based on the responses received, staff commenced negotiations with three (3) firms - Cola Cola,
Host, and Pepsi. It was determined that the best value to the City would be achieved by award to
Host. Host offered the largest selection of products (including both Coke and Pepsi), a favorable
commission schedule, financial and promotional incentives, and an aggressive quality control
program.
The RFP was stmctured to allow award of more than one contract (i.e. one drink contract, one snack
contract). However, the advantages of having a single contract and one point of contact allows for
uniformity and ease of contract administration.
The San Diego Sheriff's Department and U.S. Navy have been satisfactorily using Host for a number
of years. Both agencies are pleased with the quality of service and level of responsiveness.
Host Financial and Promotional Incentives
As part of the agreement between the City and Host, Host has agreed to pay or provide the City
the following incentives:
· $2,000 one-time commission bonus
· 32% monthly commission of adjusted gross sales* - cold drink sales
· 20% monthly commission of adjusted gross sales* - snacks, coffee, ice cream sales
· $10 per machine monthly electrical fee
· $1,000 annual sponsorship for recreational activities
· Fifty (50) cases of can drinks (Coke & Pepsi products) annually
· Fifty (50) cases of snacks annually
· Cold drink cooler equipment provided at no charge four (4) times annually for City-
sponsored events
· Assistance in providing sponsors for special events
*Adjusted gross sales equal all monies collected less sales tax.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
Currently, vending machines have been placed at numerous City locations through informal
arrangements. In the majority of circumstances there is no written agreement. Departments receive
various commissions, rebates or incentives, if any, without benefit to the General Fund. The vending
machines now in place are using City electricity and water, yet no reimbursement is made for utility
cost. The City is further at risk due to the lack of insurance coverage from existing service
providers.
During the term of the proposed contract, Host will have the exclusive right to provide food and
drink vending services at City facilities not otherwise currently served by existing vending service
contractors. As the existing vending service providers cease providing services, the City may give
Host the opportunity to service these locations as well. In accordance with the agreement, City staff
or non-profit organizations may still provide food and drink vending services at promotional
activities and/or for fundraising purposes.
Awarding the contract to Host will allow for consistent administration of vending services
throughoutat, he City. As machines are distributed throughout the City, both staffand the public will
see more regularity in the dispensing, selection, and cost of vended products. Host has agreed to
work with staff to provide desired products at select locations. For example, sports drinks and
bottled water will be sold at gym sites; ice cream at City pools.
Sale (vend) prices will be set by mutual agreement. Should there be a failure to roach a consensus on
sale prices, Host agrees to sell products at a price point no higher than the prevailing rate charged by
Host at a majority of non-City facilities and locations.
Furthermore, Host will maintain commercial liability, property damage, and product liability
insurance coverage while providing vending services to the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is a positive impact to the General Fund. However, due to a lack of historical data it is
difficult to estimate the benefits at this time.
Promotional incentives include no-cost products (drinks & snacks) and use of dispensers at
community events. In addition, tee shirts, advertising, and other giveaways will be provided
throughout the year for various recreational activities.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH HOST
VENDING, INC. TO PROVDE VENDING SERVICES CITYWlDE
ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS FOR AN INITIAL FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO
RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE (5) ADDITIONAL, ONE (1)
YEAR OPTION PERIODS.
WHEREAS, the Recreation Department has an ongoing need for beverages, snacks and
dispensing machines at the conununity centers and various park sites throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, a detailed Request for Proposal was sent to both local and regional vending
service companies; and
WHEREAS, the Request for Proposal, as a basis of comparison, involved recommended
machine locations at five (5) community centers and twenty-one (21) park sites; and
WHEREAS, in response to the RFP the City received proposals from Canteen, Coca-
Cola Bottling Company, Host Vending, Inc., Pepsi Bottling Group; and
WHEREAS, based on the responses received, staff commenced negotiations with three
(3) firms - Coca-Cola, Host Vending, Inc. and Pepsi Bottling Group; and
WHEREAS, Host offered the largest selection of products (including both Coke products
and Pepsi .products), a favorable commission schedule, financial and promotional incentives, and
an aggressive quality control program; and
VvT-IEREAS, during the term of the agreement, Host will have the exclusive fight to
provide food and drink vending services at one or more City facilities not otherwise currently
served by other, existing vending service contractors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve a two-party agreement with Host Vending, Inc. to provide Citywide
vending services on an "as-needed" basis for an initial five-year period, and authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to renew the agreement for additional five (5), one (1) year option periods.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Mafia Kachadoorian Ann Moore
Director of Finance City Attorney
JSattomey~resoXagreements\Host Vending agreement
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED .AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Dated: September 11, 2003
TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH HOST VENDING, INC. TO PROVIDE
VENDING SERVICES CITYWlDE ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS FOR AN
INITIAL FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH OPTION TO RENEW AGREEMENT
FOR FIVE (5) ADDITIONAL, ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS
Agreement Between
City of Chula VEsta and Host Vending, Inc.
To Provide Food and Drink Vending Services at Various Locations on City. Owned Property
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated on ,20__ for the purposes of reference only, and effective as
of the date last executed is between the City of Chula Vista, as such ("City"), a municipal chartered corporation of the State of
California, whose business address is:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910;
and Host Vending, Inc., as such ("Vendor"), whose address, terephone and facsimile numbers are as follows:
4170 Cartagena Drive
San Diego, CA 92115
Voice Phone (619) 574-6200
Fax Phone (619) 286-9219
The "Agreement" is made with reference to'the following facts:
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposel for Vending Services in October 2002; and,
WHEREAS, after reviewing submitted proposals and conducting interviews, Host Vending, Inc. was chosen as the most qualified
to provide said services; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Pumhasing Agent negotiated favorabre commissions, tinancia[ and promotional incentives, and other
terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, Vendor provides via state-of-the-art vending machines a wide range of foods, snacks, cold drinks, and gourmet
coffees from small to large-sized businesses and governmental entities throughout San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, Vendor has been operating for over 20 years; and
WHEREAS, Vendor warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can
prepare and deliver the goods and services required of Vendor to City within the time frames heroin provided - all in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Vendor do hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Term. This Agreement is for a term of FiVE (5) years, beginning on the 16th day of September 2003 and ending the 15th day of
September 2008. The City may, at its option and with the agreement of the Vendor, extend the period of this Agreement for
additional one (1) year terms up to a maximum of FIVE (5) additional terms.
2. Revenue, Goods, and Services Due City,
A. As consideration for performance of the duties described herein, Vendor shall pay or provide City the following at the times
set forth therein:
i. Two-thousand dollar ($2,000) one-time commission bonus (Date due: 2 weeks after execution of Agreement)
ii. Thirty-two percent (32%) monthly commission of adjusted gross sales*- all cold drink machine sales (Date due: 15th
day of the month for previous month's sales)
iii. Twenty percent (20%) monthly commission of adjusted gross sales*- all snack, hot drink, and ice cream machine
sales (Date due: 15th day of the month for previous month's sales)
Chula Vista/Host Vending
Vending Services Agreement Page 1 of 7
iv. Ten dollars ($10) per machine monthly electrical/water fee (Date due: 15th day of the month for previous month's
electhcity/water usage)
v. One-thousand dollars ($1,000) annually for recreational activities as determined exclusively by the City (Date due:
annually, remit on the 1s~ day of each July each year - for first year: 2 weeks after execution of Agreement)
vi. Fifty (50) cases of 12 ounce can ddnks, any combination of Coke & Pepsi products, not to exceed $350 wholesale
annually. By mutual agreement, the wholesale cash equivalent may be made in lieu of providing product. (Date due:
upon request, throughout the year [Note: Any unused allotment shall be carded forward to the next year])
vii Fifty (50) cases of snacks, or 2,500 units, not to exceed $650 wholesale annually (Date due: upon request, throughout
the year. By mutual agreement, the wholesale cash equivalent may be made in lieu of providing product. [Note: Any
unused allotment shall be carded forward to the next year])
viii. Cold drink ceoler equipment provided at no charge four (4)times annually for City-sponsored events (Date due: upon
request, throughout the year)
ix. Assistance in locating sponsors to provide tee shirts, hats, advertising, and other promotional considerations for City-
sponsored events (Date due: upon request, throughout the year)
*Note: Adjusted gross sales equal all monies collected less sales tax.
If City fails to receive the aforementioned commissions, fees, or sponsorships within fifteen (15) calendar days of the due date
specified for each item listed above, the payment shall be considered delinquent and a penalty of 10% of the amount due shall
be applied and collected. For any payments not received within thirty (30) days after being billed, an additional penalty of 1.5%
per month multiplied by the amount due and any accrued penalties shall be applied and collected.
3, Duties.
A. Vendor's Duties.
i. The Vendor shall supply vending services using state-of-the art energy efficient machines, with an average age of less
than four (4) years, at various locations approved by the City. In any event, City may order the removal of a particular
vending machine without the consent of Vendor. Such order must be in writing and Vendor must remove the specified
equipment within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the order. Vendor shall not be entitled to any damages or
compensation, including, but not limited to loss of expected profits, caused by the City's removal order.
ii. Any cost associated with the installation of the vending machines including, but not limited to: delivery, assembly, set-
up, anchors, bracing, support brackets, electric or water 'stub outs', maintenance, repairs, stocking requirements,
foundation pads, cages, and all other security measures shall be borne solely by Vendor. Security enclosures and
design require written City approval before being installed.
iii.VendorretainsownershipandtitletoallvendingmachinesplacedonCitypremises. TheCityshallnotberesponsible
for any theft, damage, vandalism, tampering, or other loss to machines provided.
iv. Vendor is responsible for removing all monies from the vending machines. Smart cards, debit cards, bankcards,
vouchers, or tokens may be used in conjunction with or in lieu of cash. Vendor shall further be responsible for
handling all refunds and consumer complaints.
v. Vendorshallkeepvendingmachinesclean, stocked, and operational. Otherthansimpleoperatinginstructionsand
product identification markings, no adverfising shall be displayed without prior written City approval.
vi. Vendor shall keep vending machines stocked with fresh food and drinks. The expiration date found on a food or ddnk
item shall not be the sole factor used to determine whether an item is fresh or not. Other factors, including, but not
limited to vending machine upkeep, machine placement, food and drink handling, and packaging quality may also be
considered.
vii. Vendor personnel or agents shall be courteous to the public and City staff. Service technicians shall wear clothing
(shirts, caps, etc.) and ddve vehicles that clearly identify them as Vendor employees.
viii. VendoragreestoworkwithstafftoprevidedesiredpreductsatalllocatJons. Sale(vend)pricesshallbesetbymutual
agreement. Should both parties fail to reach a consensus on sale prices, Vendor agrees to sell products at a price
point no higher than the average rate charged by Vendor at other San Diego County locations.
Chula Vista/Host Vending
Vending Services Agreement C,'~'~' ~ Page 2 of 7
ix. Vendor agrees to repair, replace or remove a malfunction vending machine within forty-eight (48) hours of being
notified by City or any other party of the malfunction.
x. Vendor shall process all requests for refund within seventy-two (72) hours of being notified by City or vending machine
user. If due, the refund must be mailed (flint class) or made available at a place of business within Chula Vista before
the end of the aforementioned seventy-two (72) hour period.
xi. Monthly usage reports shall be provided for each machine installed. Monthly statements and remittance shall be
submitted not later than fifteen (15) days after the end of the calendar month for which the accounting is made. The
City reserves the right to audit the accounts.
B. City's Duties.
i. City shall provide Vendor with adequate space for equipment as may be required by Vendor to carry out its contractual
obligations.
ii. City will provide use of electricity and water for vending machines installed. If an electrical or water heek-up is not
available at a site where Vendor wishes to locate a machine, then Vendor may request installation of wiring or pipe.
The City retains sole discretion as to whether or not additional hook-ups will be provided.
4. Exclusivity. During the term of this contract, Vendor shall have the exclusive fight to provide food and drink vending services at
one or more City facilities not otherwise currently served by existing vending service providers. As existing vending service
providers cease providing vending services, Vendor may be given the opportunity to provide services at those locations by
mutual a~[.eement of City and Vendor. Furthermore, the City may, at its sole discretion, allow City staff or non-profit
organizations the fight to provide food and drink vending services at promotional activities and/or for fundraising purposes.
5. Requirements Contract. Vendor signifies its understanding and agreement by signing this document, that this Agreement is a
requirements contract. This Agreement does not guarantee any services will be required. Orders will only be placed when City
identities a .need and issues an approval order to supply food or drink or locate vending services at a padicular location.
6. Standard of Care. In performing any of Vendor's Duties under this agreement, Vendor shall perform and provide them in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currenfiy practicing under
similar conditions and in similar locations.
7. Insurance. Vendor represents that it and its agents, staff, and subcontractors (if permitted) employed by it in connection with
the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following
categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A,
Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
A. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance.
B. Employer's Liability Insurance coverage with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 for each accident, $1,000,000 disease for
each employee, and $1,000,000 disease policy limit.
C. Commercial General Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence with a $2,000,000
general aggregate limit, combined limit for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal injury, and blanket
contractual coverage including, but not limited to, the liability assumed under the indemnification provisions of this
Agreement, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise
carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general
public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision, and shall not contain a
sunset provision or commutation clause, or any provision that would serve to limit third party action over claims.
D. Business Automobile Insurance coverage with a limit of not less than $1,000,000, combined limit for bodily injury and
property, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry
("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public
("Cross-liabtiity Coverage").
Chula Vista/Host Vending ~
Vending Services Agreement ~ Page 3 of 7
E Product Liability Insurance coverage with a limit of not less than $1,000,000, combined limit for bodily injury and property,
which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary
Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-
liability Coverage"). The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision, and shall not contain a sunset provision or
commutation clause, or any provision that would serve to limit third party action over claims.
The Vendor shall be solely responsible for any deductible and/or self-insured retention and the City, at its option, may
require the Vendor to secure payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions by a surety bond or an irrevocable and
unconditional letter of credit.
8. Proof of Insurance Coveraqe. Vendor shall provide the following insurance-related certificates and documentation:
A. Certificates of Insurance. Vendor shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of
duties required under this Agreement, by delivery of Cedificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating
that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. At any time,
the City reserves the right to request and to receive, within ten (10) working days, certified copies of any or all of the herein
required insurance policies and/or endorsements. The City shall not be obligated, however, to review such policies and/or
endorsements or to advise City of any deficiencies in such policies and endorsements, and such receipt shall not relieve
City from, or be deemed a waiver of the City's right to insist on strict fulfillment of City's obligations under this Agreement.
B. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cress-liability Coverage required under Vendor's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Vendor shall deliver a
policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Risk Manager.
9. Administration of Contract. Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated below as said party's
contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
City: Jay Harris, Senior Storekeeper, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA 91911, (619) 397-6182
Vendor: Jim Dominique, Host Vending, Inc., 4170 Cadagena Drive, San Diego, CA 92115, (619) 574-6200
10. Promise Not to Acquire ConflictinR Interests and Duty to Notifl/. Vendor further warrants and represents that Vendor will
not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. Furthermore, regardless of whether Vendor is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Vendor further warrants and represents that Vendor will im mediately advise th e City Attorney of City if Vendor learns of an
economic interest of Vendor's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and
regulations promulgated thereunder.
11. Hold Harmless. Vendor shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees)
arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the
Vendor, and Vendor's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Vendor is legally responsible in
connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims, damages, liability, costs and
expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its
officers, employees. Aisc covered is liability adsing from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the Vendor, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party.
With respect to losses adsing from Vendor's professional errors or omissions, Vendor shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold
harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of
City, its officers or employees.
Vendor's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers,
agents or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Vendor's obligations
under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Vendor. Vendor's obligations under this
Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Chula Vista/Host Vending
Vending Services Agreement Page 4 of 7
12. Termination of A.qreement for Cause.
A. This Agreement may be terminated if either Party fails to pay any charge when due or fails to perform or observe any other
material term or condition of the Agreement, and such failure continues for more than ten (10) calendar days after receipt of
written notice of such failure from the other Party, or if Vendor becomes insolvent or generally fails to pay its debts as they
mature. If the breaching Party fails to comply with the same term of this Agreement on more than one occasion, the ten
(10) calendar day "cure period" shall be only seventy-two (72) hours after the breaching Party is notified of its non-
compliance.
E~. By the termination date, Vendor shall remove all equipment, supplies and goods from City-owned property and leave City's
property in as good order, repair, and condition as the properly was in at the beginning of the term of this Agreement,
except for reasonable wear and tear and loss. Vendor shall repair any damage to City property caused by removal of
Vendor's equipment at the termination of this Agreement within forty-eight (48) hours, at Vendor's sole expense.
C. Vendor hereby expressly waives any and all craims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement due to early
termination of the Agreement by City.
13. Assi,qnability. The services of Vendor are personal to the City, and Vendor shall not assign an y interest in this Agreement, and
shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City.
Furthermore, Vendor shall not subcontract to another party for performance of the terms and conditions hereof without the
written consent of the City.
14. RetentionofRecords. Vend~ragreest~retaina~~financia~be~ks~rec~rds~and~therdccumentsre~evantt~thisAgreementf~r
five (5) years after final payment or until after the resolufion of any audit questions which could be more than five (5) years,
whichever is longer. The City, Federal or State auditors and any other persons duly authorized by the Department shalr have furl
access to, and the right to examine, copy and make use of, any and all said materials. If the Vendor's books, records and other
documents relevant to this Agreement are not sufficient to support and document that requested services were provided, the
Vendor shall reimburse City for the services not so adequately supported and documented.
15. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material. AIl reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs,
plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive
property of City. City shall have the use of data and reports resulting from this Agreement without additional cost or other
restriction. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use,
copyrights or patent rights by Vendor in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City.
City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the previsions of the Public Records Act),
distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other
materials or properties produced under this Agreement.
16. Independent Contractor. City is interested only in the results obtained and Vendor shall perform as an independent contractor
with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the dght
only to reject or accept Vendor's work products. Vendor and any of the Vendor's agents, employees or representatives are, for
all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of
them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement
benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal
income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Vendor shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall
hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
17. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought adsing out of this agreement,
against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be
amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures
used by the City in the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Vendor shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the
terms of this Agreement.
Chula Vista/Host Vending
Vending Services Agreement ~ ] ~ Page 5 of 7
18. Miscellaneous Provisions.
A. Vendor not authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Vendor shall have no
authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in
writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if
personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified,
with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
C. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party
shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred.
The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought.
D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody
the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereo[ Neither this Agreement
nor any prevision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by
the par~y against which enfomement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parttes. Each signat~ry and party heret~ hereby warrants and repreeents t~ the ~ther party that it has ~ega~
authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions
have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Califomia. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located
in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as peesible. Venue
for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page]
Chula Vista/Host Vending -, ,
Vending Services Agreement ~'~// Page6of7
$i~el~m Psge
Agreement 5e~ween
City of Chula Vista and Host Vending, Inc.
To Provide Food and Drink Vending Sen, Ice-, at Various Locations on City-Owned Property
IN W?TNr-$$ WHEREOF, CIB/and Vendor Ilave execuled ms Agreemer~l I~e~eby I~callng ~hat t~ey ~.ve macl and
underst~:x~d same, ard Indicate their full a~d c~mp'ete consent to ns terms:
Gated: ,20.~ Cb of Chula Vista
by:¸
Approv~ as tc form: St-I~en PaciLla, Mayor
~n I.¢oore. Cily Mtomey
Vending, I~.
Chule VistaJHost Vending
Vendin;I .~ervices A~reernent P~ge 7 of 7
COUNCILAGENDASTATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASING
AGREEMENT TO PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR
ONE TRIPLE COMBINATION PUMPER, AUTHORIZING
THE SALE OF AN EXISITNG TELESQURT FIRE ENGINE,
AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET BY
APPROPRIATING $355,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE
BALANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
FOR SAID PURCHASE AND $10,000 FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR OUTFITTING OF THE FIRE
ENGINE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT
TO EXEC_~UTE~D AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chi~,-~ ')l
Di recto or~f"F ~'n~n ce~-.~, o¢~
Director of Public Works Operation~.~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No __)
The existing Telesqurt fire engine was pumhased in 1995, and is eight years into
a twenty-year replacement cycle. Due to its age and condition it currently has a
high sale value. This resolution will award a pumhasing agreement to Pieme
Manufacturing, Inc. for one-triple combination pumper and appropriate funds for
said purchase and authorize the sale of the Telesqurt.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a purchasing agreement to
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for purchase of one-triple combination pumper and
authorize the sate of a Telesqurt and amend the Fiscal Year 2004 budget by
appropriating $355,000 from the available balance of the Equipment
Replacement Fund for purchase of a fire engine and $10,000 from the available
balance of the General Fund to the Fire Department for outfitting of the fire
engine and authorize the purchasing agent to execute said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION
The Telesqurt is a specialty type of fire engine with an extendable ladder that has
a pre-plumbed waterway capable of delivering water from the top of a ladder. It
was purchased in 1995 as a temporary cost effective measure to provide a
quasi-ladder truck for eastern Chula Vista. It is currently located at Fire Station
Four and used on a daily basis as a frontline fire apparatus. It is the only one of
its type in the City's fire apparatus fleet posing significant equipment repair and
training issues. The Telesqurt requires additional time and attention by the fire
mechanic in order to keep it running properly. In addition, the Telesqurt is more
difficult to operate then the department's standard fire engine (pumper), which
dictates the need for time and effort during the training process of all new Fire
Engineers. Replacement of the Telesqurt will result in operational efficiencies for
both the Fire Department and Public Works Operations.
Finally, the Fire Department's need for the Telesqurt as a quasi-truck in eastern
Chula Vista has changed due to the second aerial ladder truck coming online at
Fire Station Seven. The Fire Department will have two frontline aerial ladder
trucks and one reserve aerial ladder truck in the near future. The Fire
Department will be able to provide more efficient service delivery while
minimizing maintenance and training demands by utilizing a fire engine (pumper)
than by retaining the Telesqurt as a frontline piece of equipment. A fire.engine
(pumper) can be stationed at all locations throughout the City, while the Telesqurt
is limited in its station assignments due to its unique configuration. There is no
negative operational impact of removing the Telesqurt from the City's fire
apparatus fleet.
The Telesqurt currently has a high sale value. The sale value is based on its
age, mileage and maintenance records. Staff is recommending the Telesqurt be
sold while its value is still high and while the City is able to take advantage of a
discounted purchase price for a new fire engine. Pierce has offered a limited
volume discount of $10,000 below the City of San Diego bid for the purchase of a
fire engine. The volume discount is based on linking the production schedule for
the ladder truck currently on order and the manufacturing of the new fire engine.
Since the line drawing approvals for the ladder truck are scheduled for
September 29th, the volume discount cannot be extended beyond September
19th. In addition, a 3% price increase will take effect on October 1, 2003. In an
effort to take advantage of the lower cost for the fire engine, staff is
recommending Council adopt the resolution.
Award of the Purchasing Agreement
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative arrangements with other
governmental agencies for the acquisition of equipment purchased through a
competitive process. The City of San Diego has formally awarded contracts to
Pierce Manufacturing for purchase of similar equipment. The Purchasing Agent
and Fire Department have successfully negotiated a favorable price based on the
City of San Diego request for bid for similar equipment. Pierce will provide a
100% performance bond to ensure compliance with all manufacturing
specifications and deliver the new Fire Engine in seven months. The Fire
Department has purchased Pierce apparatuses recently and has been pleased
with performance and the level of support provided by Pierce.
Sale of the Telesqurt
Based on an informal market search, staff believes that the City can obtain a sale
price in excess of $125,000 for the existing Telesqurt based on the sale of similar
fire equipment. The proceeds from the sale of the Telesqurt would be
deposited in the Equipment Replacement Fund. The net cost (estimated
between $43,000 to $0) to the equipment replacement budget will be added to
the Fire Department's equipment replacement charges and repaid over a period
of three years, or sooner.
FISCAL IMPACT
Pierce Fire Truck Company has offered the City the opportunity to purchase
another fire engine (pumper) at a discounted rate dueto recent purchases. The
cost of a new fire engine (pumper) is $355,000. An additional $10,000 is needed
for outfitting of the fire engine. Staff is recommending $355,000 be appropriated
from the available balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund for the purchase
of the fire truck and $10,000 from the available balance of the General Fund for
outfitting of the fire truck.
To date a total of $187,000 has been accumulated in equipment replacement
charges for the purchase of a new fire engine. Staff estimates a sale price in
excess of $125,000 can be obtained for the Telesqurt. If the sale yields the
minimum amount of $125,000, the net impact to the Equipment Replacement
Fund is $43,000. However, most likely the proceeds will exceed the $125,000
minimum bid amount and result in little to no impact. The net cost will be paid in
installments to the Equipment Replacement Fund over the next three years.
Ongoing equipment maintenance and replacement charges are included in the
Fire Department's budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASING AGREEMENT TO PIERCE
MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR ONE TRIPLE COMBINATION PUMPER,
AUTHORIZiNG THE SALE OF AN EXISITNG TELESQURT FIRE ENGiNE,
AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET BY
APPROPRIATING $355,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND FOR SAID PURCHASE AND $10,000
FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR OUTFITTING OF THE FIRE ENGiNE AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Telesqurt is a specialty type of fire engine with an extendable
ladde~that has a pre-plumbed waterway capable of delivering water from the top
of a ladder; and,
WHEREAS, it was purchased in 1995 as a temporary cost effective measure to
provide,a quasi-ladder truck for eastern Chula Vista and is the only one of its type
in the City's fire apparatus fleet posing significant equipment repair and training
issues; and,
WHEREAS, the Telesqurt requires additional time and attention by the
department's fire mechanic in order to keep it running properly and is more
difficult to operate then the department's standard fire engine (pumper), which
dictates the need for time and effort during the training process of all new fire
engineers; and,
WHEREAS, The Fire Department would be able to provide more efficient service
delivery while minimizing maintenance and training demands by utilizing a fire
engine (pumper) then by retaining the Telesqurt as a frontline piece of equipment;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 authorizes
the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative arrangements with other
governmental agencies for the acquisition of equipment purchased through a
competitive process; and,
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego has formally awarded contracts to Pierce
Manufacturing for purchase of similar equipment; and,
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent and Fire Department have successfully
negotiated a favorable price based on the City of San Diego request for bid for
similar equipment; and,
WHEREAS, Pierce Fire Truck Company has offered the City the opportunity to
purchase another fire engine (pumper) at a discounted rate due to recent
purchases; and,
WHEREAS, the purchasing agent will sale the existing Telesqurt via an open bid
process; and,
WHEREAS, an informal market search has also indicated that the sale will yield
an amount in excess of $125,000; and,
WHEREAS, the cost of a new fire engine (pumper) $355,000 minus the total
replacement charges of $187,000 and a minimum sale price of $125,000 results
in a potential net cost of $43,000; and,
WHEREAS, the net cost will be repaid over a period of three years to the
Equipment Replacement Fund; and,
WHEREAS, $10,000 will be appropriated from the General Fund to the Fire
Department for the outfitting of the new fire truck; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
award a purchasing agreement to Pierce Manufacturing Inc., for one triple
combination pumper, authorize the sale of an existing Telesqurt fire engine and
amend the Fiscal Year 2004 budget by appropriating $355,000 from the aVailable
balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund for said purchase and $10,000 from
the available balance of the General Fund to the Fire Department for outfitting of
the fire engine and authorize the purchasing agent to execute said agreement.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Fire Chief ciA~t~ AMt~e~''-)/ '
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: JO_
Meeting Date: 09/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving the first amendment to the design build
agreement with Melhom Construction Co. to include necessary
improvements to the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said amendment.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services ~) ~.
REVIEWED BY: City Manage f, (4/Sths Vote: Yes __ No X )
During the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Project budget process, Council
approved the redesign and reconstruction of a 20-foot by 40-foot deep seawater exhibit including
ancillary facilities and site work to accommodate sharks, rays and other marine life native to San
Diego bay and wetland habitats, otherwise known as the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray
Experience (CIP GG-176). The exhibit is located at the Chula Vista Nature Center. The project
is near completion and there are necessary improvements needed to complete the project. Staff
is recommending that $38,907 of the projects contingency be applied to the guaranteed
maximum price for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the Design
Build Agreement with Melhom Construction Co. to include necessary improvements to the
David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
amendment to authorize expenditure of $38,907.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2002, Council approved by Resolution 2002-256, a Design Build Agreement with
Melhorn Construction Co. for the provisions and services to design and construct the David A.
Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience exhibit located at the Nature Center. The Design Build
Agreement set a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) not to exceed amount of $750,233. This
amount represented the estimate of costs based on information available at the time. The overall
project budget includes a number of items intended to enhance the marine environment for the
sharks and rays and the educational experience of the visitom to the Nature Center such as a
Photovoltaic System and Interpretative Signage.
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
DISCUSSION
Staff is recommending that Council amend the existing agreement with Melhom Construction
Co. to include necessary improvements to the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience
not included in the original scope of work. The adjustment is a result of needed improvements
such as improved structural design, additional concrete platforms, railings, colored concrete
walkways, and stainless steel mesh along the perimeter of the exhibit enclosure. Improvements
made to the life support building during its relocation to accommodate the exhibit include items
such as: electrical, plumbing, and equipment upgrades for a total amount of $38,907. The
amended GMP total shall be an amount not to exceed $789,140. The facility was opened to the
public on July 26, 2003. The work items included in this amendment are minor in nature and
will enhance the overall value of the exhibit as well as provide the necessary work to complete
the project. The CIP budget includes City Contingency of $87,500 not previously utilized of
which the amendment would utilize a portion of said contingency amounting to 5.2% of the
original GMP. Therefore, the amendment to the GMP does not affect the project's
appropriation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is nearing completion and staff has reviewed the necessary improvements to
complete the project. Fundraising continues for the exhibit and to date, approximately $725,000
has been raised from public and private grants and donations. With the approval of the
amendment to the GMP, no additional appropriations are necessary.
Attachment A - Amendment to the Design Build Agreement
J:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda~Shark and Ray Experience\S&R amend gmp,doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT
WITH MELHORN CONSTRUCTION CO. TO INCLUDE
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DAVD A.
WERGELAND SHARK AND RAY EXPERIENCE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAD
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in July 2002, Council approved by Resolution 2002-256, a Design
Build Agreement with Melhom Construction Co. for the provisions and services to design and
construct the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience Exhibit located at the Nature
Center; and
WHEREAS, the Design Build Agree~nent set a guaranteed maximum price
(GMP) not to exceed amount of $750,233; and
.'~ WHEREAS, the project is near completion and there are necessary
improvements needed to complete the project which have added. $38,907 to the cost of the
work; and
_ WHEREAS, the adjustment is the result of improvements including an improved
structural design, additional concrete platforms and railings, colored concrete walkways,
stainless steel mesh and life support building improvements; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that $38,907 of the projects contingency be
applied to the guaranteed maximum price for this purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby approve the first amendment to the Design Build Agreement with
Melhorn Construction Co. authorizing the use of $38,907 of the project contingency to include
necessary improvements to the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience, a copy of
which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized to execute said First Amendment on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jack Griffin /("~/I~(~ o r e //~
Director of General Services C~y Attorney
J:~attm'ney\reso\agreements\Melhorn design build- shark and ray
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED
UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
/ City Attorney
Dated:
First Amendment to the Design Build Agreement
With Melhorn Construction Co. to Include
Necessary Improvement to the
David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
the Design Build Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista
and Melhorn Construction Co.
for Design and Construction
of the David A. Wergeland Shark and Ray Experience
Recitals
The First Amendment is entered into effective as of , by and between the
City of Chula Vista ("City") and Melhom Construction Co. ("Design Builder or D/B") with
reference to the following facts:
WHEREAS, City and D/B entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement"), dated July 23,
2002 and approved by City Council Resolution 2002-256, whereby D/B provides design and
construction services to the City for the redesign and reconstruction of a 20-foot by 40-foot deep
sweater exhibit including ancillary facilities and site work to accommodate sharks, rays and other
mar/ne life native to San Diego bay and wetland habitats; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement set a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) amount of
$750,233; and
WHEREAS, the parties now design to enter into a First Amendment to expand the scope of work
to include improvements such as improved structural design, additional concrete platforms,
railings, colored concrete walkways, and stainless steel mesh along the perimeter of the exhibit
enclosure and improvements made to the life support building during its relocation to
accommodate the exhibit include items such as: electrical, plumbing, and equipment upgrades;
and
WHEREAS, the expanded scope of work amount is $38,907.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set
forth herein, the City and Design Builder agree as follows:
1. Section 1 of the Original Agreement, entitled General Scope of Work to be Performed by
D/B, is hereby amended to add the following:
1.1 D/B shall provide the necessary work to include improvements such as improved
structural design, additional concrete platforms, railings, colored concrete
walkways, and stainless steel mesh along the perimeter of the exhibit enclosure
and improvements made to the life support building during its relocation to
accommodate the exhibit including items such as: electrical, plumbing, and
equipment.
2 /0
2. Section 1.3 of the Original Agreement, is hereby amended and restated as follows:
1.3.1 Perform all services, work and obligations as described herein for the not to
exceed Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") of $789,140 which shall include
Design Services and all Hard Construction Costs necessary to provide a fully
completed and functional Project including, but not limited to, the cost for all
labor, equipment, material, and the D/B Fixed Fee which includes fees and
expenses of any type, including all expenses under this Agreement, associated
with completing the Project, whether on-site or off-site, any reimburseable cost
(as defined in §11). Any costs incurred by D/B in excess of said GMP shall be
the sole responsibility of the D/B, unless a Change Order is approved by the City
pursuant to Section 7 and 12 of this Agreement.
3. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the Original Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
[ NEXT PAGE SIGNATURE PAGE]
09/09/03 TUE 16:14 FAX 519 296 7850 ~ELIt0RN CONSTRUCTION CO ~004/004
09/09/2003 16:00 FAX 1~L9~9762~0 CI
~oo4
SIGNATIJR_E PAGE TO TI-J._E FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT BETWEENTHE CITY OF CI-IULA VISTA
AND MELI-IORN' CONSTRUCTION CO.
FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE DAVID A. WERGELAND SHARK AND RAY EXPERIENCE
City of Clmla Vista Melhom Construction Co,
Date
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clork
Approved in lbrm by:
Moore, City Attorney
10"7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item fl
Meeting Date 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to enter
into any agreements necessary to obtain Excess Workers'
Compensation insurance coverage for the policy period
commencing October 1, 2003, via the most cost effective
means available
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Human Resources/~/l/' "'
REVIEW BY: City Manager~',~ iv (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x)
The state of the current excess workers' compensation insurance market has made it
necessary for staff to explore alternative coverage options such as shared risk pooling.
It is necessary for the City to position itself to be able to act quickly to take advantage of
the most cost effective means of insuring these exposures.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution which will allow the City
to obtain Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance via the most cost effective means
available including group purchased insurance, shared risk pool, group self-funding, or
other available means within the time constraints for renewal.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BACKGROUND: Insurance above the City's self-insured retention (SIR), currently
$500,000 per occurrence, is purchased to protect the City from catastrophic losses.
This insurance is known as excess insurance. In the past the City has obtained this
coverage via a group purchase with other member cities of our liability insurance pool
(SANDPIPA), and is currently purchasing coverage independent of other agencies.
Staff has recently learned that excess workers' compensation insurance, in its current
form, may not even be available to us and if it is available it may be at prices 200%
above our current premium. The unavailability of workers' compensation insurance is
due to many factors including the impact of September 11th on the insurance market in
general and the need for reform in the delivery of workers' compensation benefits in
California.
Staff is currently working with our insurance broker, Driver Alliant, to identify coverage
alternatives given the state of the commercial market. We are currently exploring all of
the options available to us including shared risk pools, group financing and self-funding
of these losses.
I1-1
Item II
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
Unfortunately, our renewal window is very short and the exact options that will be
available to us won't be known until the last minute. It is necessary at this time for the
City to position itself to be responsive to the best available alternative. Due to time
constraints staff is asking for authorization to pursue the most advantageous alternative
and that Council delegate authority to the City Manager to enter into any pooling or
other agreements deemed necessary to obtain coverage.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is expected that one of the alternative excess workers'
compensation funding mechanisms will provide a significant savings over purchase in
the commercial excess marketplace. Based on preliminary cost indicators it appears
that sufficient funding has been included in the FY 2003/04 budget to cover these costs.
If there is no other alternative than to go to the commercial marketplace it will be
necessary to appropriate additional funds at that time.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN
EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION iNSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD COMMENCING
OCTOBER 1, 2003, VIA THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE
MEANS AVAILABLE.
WHEREAS, insurance above the City's self-insured retention (SIR), known as "excess
insurance" and currently $500,000 per occurrence, is purchased to protect the City from
catastrophic losses; and
WHEREAS, the City has obtained excess insurance coverage via a group purchase with
other member cities of the City's liability insurance pool (SANDPIPA) and is currently
purchasing coverage independent of other agencies; and
W,,HEREAS, the City has recently learned that excess workers' compensation insurance,
in its current form, may no longer be available to the City, and, if it is available, may be at prices
200% above the City's current premium; and
wHEREAS, the City is recommending that the Plan be amended to implement changes
in the compensation package for the City Manager recently approved by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City is currently working with its insurance broker, Driver Alliant, to
identify coverage alternatives, including shared risk pools, group financing and self-funding of
these losses; and
WHEREAS, since the City's renewal window is very short and the exact options
available to the City will not be known until the last minute, the City needs to be responsive to
the most advantageous alternative.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby authorize the City Manager to enter into any agreements necessary to obtain Excess
Workers' Compensation insurance for the policy period commencing October 1, 2003, via the
most cost effective means available.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Director Finance of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Marcia Raskin Ann Moore \
Director of Human Resources City Attorney
J:\Attorney5RESOXBENEFITS\Auth to Purchase Excess Workers Comp Ins,doc
//-4
Page 1, Item I ;~v
Meeting Date 9/16/03
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California adopting an mended boundary map showing the
boundaries of the territory proposed for the inclusion in proposed
Community Facilities District No. 07-I (Otay Ranch Village Eleven).
B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California declaring its intention to establish Community Facilities
District No. 07-I (Otay Ranch Village Eleven) and to authorize the levy
of a special tax therein to finance the acquisition or construction of certain
facilities.
C. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California ordering and directing the preparation of a report for
proposed Community Facilities District No. 07-1 (Otay Ranch Village
Eleven)
D. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, declaring its intention to issue bonds of Community
Facilities District No. 07-I (Otay Ranch Village Eleven) to be secured by
special taxes to pay for the acquisition or construction of certain facilities.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringfl/~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage 9r~/ u (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X.~.)
The Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC has requested the City to initiate proceedings to form Community Facilities
District No. 074 (Otay Ranch Village Eleven)(CFD-07-I) for the purpose of financing the acquisition or
construction of public facilities serving the properties within Village 11. Tonight's action will approve an
amended boundary map of CFD-07-I; declare the intent of the City Council to form CFD-07-I and to
designate the Improvements therein, describe the Improvements authorized to be financed by CFD-07-I,
declare the intention of the City Council to authorize the levy of special taxes pursuant to the rate and
method of apportionment of such special taxes to finance such Improvements, declare the intention of the
City Council to authorize CFD-07-I to incur a bonded indebtedness, direct the special tax consultant to
prepare the Special Tax Report and set the public hearing for this Community Facilities District for October
21, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) Approve the Resolution adopting the amended boundary map for CFD-07-I,
2) Approve the Resolution declaring the intention to establish CFD-07-I and to levy
the special taxes of CFD-07-I to finance certain facilities,
3) Approve the Resolution ordering and directing the preparation of the "Special Tax
Report" for CFD-07-I, and
4) Approve the Resolution declaring intention of issuing bonds of CFD-07-I for the
purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of facilities in CFD-07-I.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
Page 2, Item / ~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
DISCUSSION:
The Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC has formally petitioned the City to form Community Facilities District No.
07-I (Otay Ranch Village Eleven) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act of 1982 for financing the construction
and/or acquisition of certain public improvements serving the Brookfield Shea Otay project, as well as
selected "Traffic Enhancement" facilities within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista. This
application was received and accepted by the City Council action on August 27, 2002. On January 7, 2003
Council approved a resolution of intention to form the CFD however, due to construction delays, the
proceedings were put on hold. Tonight's action will start the formation process again. In the interim, the
property within Phase One has been subdivided and changed ownership. The amended boundary map
under consideration tonight reflects these mapping changes.
Community Facilities Districts provide the necessary funding for the acquisition or construction of public
improvements by levying an annual "special tax", which is collected from the property owners in
conjunction with the property taxes, and by issuing bonds of such community facilities district secured by
such special taxes. There is no direct cost to the City. All expenses related to the administration of a
community facilities district (including levying and collecting the special taxes) are to be funded by such
district from the proceeds of special taxes. The ultimate security for the bonds are the properties located
within the community facilities district, not the City's General Fund or its ability to tax property within its
jurisdiction. CFD-07-I will be formed in conformance with the "City of Chula Vista statement of goals and
policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts" (CFD Policy).
District Boundaries
Exhibit 1 presents the amended boundaries of the proposed CFD-07-I. The parcels are owned by either the
two major builders, Brookfield or Shea or the combined entity: Brookfield Shea Otay LLC. Otay Ranch
Village Eleven is bounded on the south and east by Hunte Parkway, the north edge is formed by Olympic
Parkway and to the west is the extension of EastLake Parkway.
At buildout, there will be some 1,392 single-family detached residential units, approximately 566 single-
family attached units, 315 multifamily units, and a 10 acre Mixed Use site for Residential and Commercial
Use~ four Parks, two CPF sites and two school sites.
The Improvements
The special tax consultant has prepared a preliminary "2% maximum tax" analysis based on estimated
house sizes and prices (see Exhibit 2). Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC has requested that CFD-07-1 be
authorized to sell two separate series of bonds to be secured by the special taxes levied upon CFD-07-I.
The size of the proposed bond authorization will depend upon the facilities requirements, appraisal, and
special taxing capacity of the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA).
The 2% tax analysis sets the amount of the maximum special tax that may be levied by CFD-07-I. The
proposed taxes are discussed below in the section "Proposed Special Taxes".
Calculations show that the maximum special tax revenue (using the proposed special taxes) from all the
properties within the CFD-07-I would support a total bonded indebtedness of approximately $ 37 million
(assuming a 6.5% interest rate and a 30-year term on the bonds). The series of bond sales would amount
to $37 million to finance an estimated $29 million in facilities (i.e. grading, landscaping, streets, utilities,
drainage, sewer, etc).
Page 3, Item l~Q
Meeting Date 9/1~/03
The balance of the proceeds of the bonds proposed to be issued would provide for a reserve fund,
capitalized interest and payment of district formation and bond issuance costs. As noted previously, CFD-
07-I will be selling bonds in two distinct series in the future and the amount of bond proceeds, interest
rates, and other pertinent requirements may change or be revised for each bond sale. These modifications
will be discussed in greater detail and brought to City Council, as the first bond sale is initiated.
The developer is proposing the financing by CFD-07-I of backbone streets and associated improvements
(i.e., grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, and utilities), TDIF Facilities, and the "Traffic Enhancement
Program". Exhibit 3 shows a preliminary list of facilities by Improvement Area, as well as the ''Traffic
Enhancement" facilities with a total cost estimate of $29 million. Tonight, Council would only be
approving the general nature of the improvements to be financed by CFD-07-I. A final priority list and
cost estimates for each of the eligible improvements for CFD-07-I will be brought later to Council in
conjunction with the City Council's consideration of the approval of an Acquisition/Financing Agreement
between the City and Brookfield Shea Otay and other bond documents.
Ultimately, as subdivision exactions, the developer will finance required improvements that CFD-07-I
cannot finance. In addition, CFD-07-I lies within the City of Chula Vista's Transportation Development
Impact Fee (TDIF) benefit area that places a cap on the ability of CFD-07-I to finance certain
improverr~ats, It should be noted that the debt placed by the proposed tax rates is identical to the TDIF
obligation for the residential land uses only within the district. The proposed tax rates relationship between
commercial and residential uses is not identical to the TDIF formtila, which makes commercial uses
payment of their TDIF obligation, through CFD tax-based debt burden, smaller than the otherwise TDIF
cash paymen~t and residential tax rates higher than otherwise cash payments. However, residential rates
including all other taxes would still be below the Council Policy of 2% of market value of the house. This
in turn would enhance the financial viability of developing the commercial land. Notwithstanding how the
debt is apportioned by the RMA, the generated TDIF credits will be allocated, within the CFD and between
commercial and residential uses, proportionate to the TDIF obligation for these uses and assigned to each
use.
The actual amount to be financed by each of the Bond Sales within CFD-07-I would depend upon a
number of factors including final interest rate on the bonds and value to lien ratio of the taxable properties
within CFD-07-I for which the bonds are issued and may be higher or less than the potential bond costs
mentioned above. Thus, staff recommends that tonight, Council declare its intention to authorize CFD -
07-I to incur a proposed bonded indebtedness of not to exceed $ 45 million. Collectively this bond
authorization is specified in the "Resolution of Intention to Issue Bonds" that is before Council tonight.
The developer concurs with staff's reconunendation.
Proposed Special Taxes
Tonight, Council would be declaring its intention to authorize the levy of special taxes pursuant to the
"Rate and Method of Apportionment" ("RMA")(Exhibit 4), that establish the procedure for levying
the special taxes within Tax Zone A and Tax Zone B of CFD-07-I which is outlined in Exhibit A and B of
the RMA.
Residential Developed Properties (single and multi family residences) are taxed based on a Dwelling Unit
Per Acre basis. This is the same determination as the City of Chula Vista's TDIF Program and described
in the RMA. The basis of the Dwelling Unit per Acre is to relate land uses based on their density and
vehicular trip generation. This Dwelling Unit per Acre rate has been determined by a preliminary "2%
maximum tax" analysis. Said analysis, which is based on estimated house sizes and prices, sets the amount
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
of the maximum special tax that may be levied by CFD-07-I on residential parcels. It should be noted that
a final test would be required at escrow closing using actual house sale prices. If the 2% limit is exceeded,
the developer is required to buy down the lien to an amount sufficient to meet the 2% criteria.
The proposed Developed Property Special Tax rates are as follows:
Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property Within Zone A and Zone B:
Land
Use Density Assigned Special Tax
Class Description (DU/Acre)
1 0 to 8 $1675 per Dwelling Unit
Residential
Property
2 >8 to 20 $1340 per Dwelling Unit
Residential
Property
3 >20 $1005 per Dwelling Unit
Residential
Property
4 N/A $6,000 per/Acre
Non
Residential
Property
The proposed Approved Property is taxed based on the Special Back Up Tax outlined in Section C. 1.b. of
the RMA. Approved Property means all Parcels of Taxable Property: (i) that are included in an 'A' Map,
excluding lettered lots thereon, or a Final Subdivision Map, excluding lettered lots thereon, that were
recorded prior to the March 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied, and (ii)
that have not been issued a building permit prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied.
The proposed Undeveloped Property is taxed based on the acreage of the parcel. The RMA proposes that
the special tax rates for Undeveloped Property would be $13,955 per acre for Tax Zone A and $24,218 for
Tax Zone B.
The Undeveloped Property category includes all the parcels for which a building permit has not been
issued. The tax on Undeveloped Property is based on the total acreage of the parcel (Refer to table above).
During buildout, the collection from Developed Properties alone will not be enough to cover the annual
debt service, as in the early years of development, and the Undeveloped Property special taxes will cover
the difference. The City Administrator will determine whether an Undeveloped Property tax is needed to
meet the annual debt service requirement and cost of administration of CFD-07-I. Even if no development
occurs and the whole property remains undeveloped, the proposed RMA will neverthbless authorize the
levy of sufficient special taxes to cover the debt service on the bonds and pay for costs of administration of
Page 5, Item ! ~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
CFD-07-I. The Assigned Special Tax Rate for Non-Residential Property has been set at $6,000/acre
for Tax Zone A and Tax Zone B.
The RMA provides that no special tax shall be levied on (i) Public Property, (ii) Property Owner
Association I?roperty~ (iii) all Assessor's Parcels defined as Community Purpose Facility Property, (iv)
Open Space and (v) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization
for other than the purposes set forth in the easement; provided, however, that no such exempt classification
shall reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 124.65 acres for Tax Zone A and 81.54 acres for
Tax Zone B.
Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as Exempt Property because such classification would
reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than 124.65 Acres for Zone A and 8 !.54 Acres for Zone
B will be classified as Provisional Undeveloped Property and shall be taxed pursuant to the fifth step of
Section D in the RMA.
In addition, the special tax rates reflected in the RMA would enable CFD-07-I to finance a variety of
public facilities as described within the City's D1F program. The estimated costs for these eligible DIF
facilities have been assembled, aggregated, and allocated to various types of land uses within the district
through the RMA according to Exhibit 3 (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.). The method of allocation by
land use category (which is a common way of allocating special tax) takes into account many variables,
such as the City's 2% maximum tax level, a minimum 4:1 value to lien ratio for bonds, market conditions,
appraised value, and other agency special taxes or assessments that m~ybe levied upon property within this
CFD-07-I. Given these variables, each land use then, has been assigned a special tax rate on an EDU basis
for residential and an acreage basis for commercial. Not withstanding the RMA, the generated
Transportation Development Impact Fee TDIF credits will be allocated, within the development and
between commercial and residential use, proportionate to the TDIF obligation for these uses and assigned
to each use.
For CFD-07-I, the projected aggregate rate of tax and assessments (including ad valorem taxation and
special taxes and assessments for facilities) has an annual percentage of less than 1.95% for the projected
sales price of the residential properties. Brookfield Shea projects have a range of housing prices from
$275,000 (attached) to $555,000 (detached). The overall value to lien ratio will be determined upon the
completion of the appraisal, which is slated to be completed by November 2003.
Collection of Taxes
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2004-05 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the
Special Tax Requirement i.e., that amount of special tax revenue required to pay scheduled debt service for
bonds issued, to replenish the reserve fund established for such bonds, to pay administrative expenses and
to pay directly for authorized facilities, and shall levy the Special Tax until the amount of Special Tax
equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied for each Fiscal Year as follows:
First, the maximum special taxes will first be levied on the Developed Property. Second, if this pool of
money is not enough to meet the annual debt service the City Administrator will levy a tax on Approved
Property, Third, if this pool of funds is not enough to meet the annual debt service, as may be the case in
the early years of development, the City Administrator will levy a tax on the Undeveloped Property.
Fourth, if additional monies are needed after the first three steps have been completed, the special tax shall
be levied proportionately on each parcel from the Assigned Special Tax to the Maximum Annual Special
Tax by the application of the Backup Special Tax. If after these four steps are exhausted and there is still
a need for additional monies, then the special tax shall be levied proportionately on each parcel of
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
Provisional Undeveloped Property from the Assigned Special Tax to the Maximum Annual Special Tax.
After buildout, if determined by the City Administrator that the annual tax need is less than the collectible
tax from the Developed Parcels, the special taxes to be levied in that specific year will be reduced
proportionally.
Since the Special Tax rates are based on the dwelling unit density of the home or acreage for non-
residential property the bondholders require protection in the event that the developer builds less than
projected. A 10% contingency has been used in calculating the expected developed Final Subdivision Map
acreage which is incorporated into the Backup Special Tax Formula and the Undeveloped Tax Rate
formula.
The RMA also include provisions for the full or partial prepayment of the special taxes in the event
the developer or a future property owner decides to do so.
Value to Lien Ratio Policy
Council policy requires a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio. A ratio of less than 4:1, but equal to or greater
than 3:1, may be approved, in the sole discretion of Council, when it is determined that a ratio of less than
4:1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of a particular CFD. A final appraisal and lien ratio
analysis will be available for Council consideration prior to the sale of bonds. The bond sale is
planned for early 2004. If the final analysis shows parcels which fail to meet the 4:1 or 3:1 ratio, one
or more of the following actions would be required:
The Developer could provide cash or letters of credit to maintain the lien ratio within
the City criteria; or,
The principal amount of the bonds to be issued for CFD-07-I will be reduced to
comply with City policy; or,
The Developer may provide sufficient information to convince Council that a lesser
lien ratio is still prudent.
Maximum Tax Policy
Council Policy establishes that the maximum annual CFD special taxes applicable to any newly developed
residential property shall be no mom than 1% of the sale price of the house. In addition, the aggregate of
all annual taxes and assessments is limited to 2% of the sale price of the house.
A preliminary calculation of the maximum tax, using estimated house prices, has been completed and all
homes fall within the 2% limit (see Exhibit 2). A final test will be performed at escrow closing using the
actual sale price of the house. Council Policy requires that at or prior to each closing of escrow, the escrow
company shall apply a "calculation formula" previously approved by the City Engineer to determine the
aggregate of regular County taxes, special taxes and assessment installments. If the 2% limit were
exceeded, the developer would be required to provide cash to buy down the lien to an amount sufficient to
meet the 2% tax ceiling. Compliance with this procedure would ensure that the aggregate special tax to be
paid by the initial purchaser of the house meets the City's criteria, since the 2% limit is a City policy and
the limit itself is not included in the rate and method of the district.
Resolutions
There are four resolutions on today's agenda that, if adopted, will accomplish the following:
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
The RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDED BOUNDARY MAP is the formal action adopting the
map and setting forth the boundaries of the proposed CFD-07-I.
The RESOLUTION OF INTENTION is the jurisdictional resolution declaring the intention on the City
Council to establish CFD-07-I, authorize the levy of special taxes, set the time, and place for the public
hearing for October 21,2003.
The RESOLUTION ORDERING THE "REPORT" is the formal action of the City Council directing the
preparation of a detailed report containing a description of the facilities and its estimated cost.
The RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS is the formal declaration of the City
Council determining that the public convenience and necessity requires that a bond indebtedness of CFD-
07-I be incurred to finance certain public facilities proposed by CFD-07-I. The proposed maximum bonded
indebtedness is $45 million. The actual amount for each bond sale will depend upon a number of factors
including interest rate on the bonds and compliance with the value-to-lien ratio criteria.
Future Actions
Adoptions of tonight's resolutions will set the district's public hearing for October 21,2003. There will be
an election following the public hearing for the landowners to vote on the authorization to levy special
taxes, the authorization to incur a bonded indebtedness of CFD-07-I and to establish an appropriations
limit. Once the votes are cast, Council will be requested to certify the election and, if the ballot measures
are approved by 2/3 of the qualified electors voting on the measures, CFD-07-I will be authorized to levy
such special taxes and incur such bonded indebtedness.
Fiscal Impacts
None, the developer will pay all costs and has deposited money to fund initial consultant costs, and City
costs in accordance with the approved Reimbursement Agreement. The City will receive the benefit of the
full cost recovery for staff time involved in district formation and administration activities. Staff
anticipates that most of the CFD-07-I adminis~'ation will be contracted out. The CFD administration cost
is estimated at $75,000 annually.
In accordance with the CFD Policy, as consideration for the City's agreement to use the City's bonding
capacity to provide the financing mechanism for the construction of the proposed improvements, the
developer will pay one percent (1%) of the total bond sales. Said requirement will be memorialized in the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement that will be brought to Council for approval at a later date. Based on the
proposed bond sizing of $ 39 million ($20 million for the first series and $19 million for the second series),
said monetary compensation would be approximately$200,000 for the first bond sale and $190,000 for the
second bond sale. Said amount shall be paid prior to each bond sale based on the principal amount of each
such sale and will be deposited into the General Fund. The CFD Policy also stipulates that said
compensation is not eligible for financing by CFD-07-I.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Proposed Amended Boundary Map - CFD-07-I
Exhibit 2: 2% Maximum tax analysis
Exhibit 3: List of facilities
Exhibit 4: Rate and Method of Apportionment
\\citywide 2000~horn e~Engineer~AGENDA~RO 1 CFD0719Sept03.doc
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I
0IROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY VILLAGE ELEVEN)
LIST OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
The developer is proposing the financing of backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e.,
grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities), a Park and certain "Traffic Enhancement"
facilities. Following is a general description of the proposed facilities:
· Hunte Parkway
· EastLake Parkway
· Kestral Falls Road
· Hidden Path Drive
· Windingwalk Street
· Discovery Falls Drive
· Birch Road
· Exploration Falls Drive
· Crossroads Street
· Evening Star Street
In addition to the above improvements, this CFD's bonding capacity maybe used for certain
"Traffic Enhancement "facilities within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista. These
transportation facilities will be traffic capacity adding improvements and could include the
following projects:
· Telegraph Canyon Road East of 1-805
· 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road an additional on-ramp lane to 1-805
· Heritage Road(Olympic Parkway to Main Street)
In addition to the above facilities, this CFD's bonding capacity maybe used to pay for other
facilities to be financed by any of the Development Impact Programs.
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-1
(Otay Ranch Village Eleven)
A Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable
Property within the City of Chuta Vista Community Facilities District No. 07-I (Otay Ranch
Village Eleven), and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2004-2005 in an
amount determined by the City Council through the application of the appropriate Special Tax
for "Developed Property," "Approved Property", "Undeveloped Property" and "Provisional
Undeveloped Property" as described below. All of the Taxable Property within CFD-07-I, shall
be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meaning:
"'A' Map" shall mean a master final subdivision or pamel map, filed in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which subdivides the land
or a portion thereof shown on a tentative map into "super block" lots corresponding to
units or phasing of combination of units as shown on such tentative map and which may
further show Community Purpose Facility Property, Property Owner Association
Property, Public Property, open space lot dedications, backbone street dedications and
utility easements required to serve such "super block" lots.
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's
Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area
shown on the applicable Final Subdix~ision Map, parcel map, condominium plan, record of
survey, or other recorded document creating or describing the land area. If the preceding
maps for a land area are not available, the Acreage of such land area shall be determined by
the City Engineer.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Administrative Fees and Expenses" means the actual or reasonably estimated costs
directly related to the administration of CFD-07-I including, but not limited to, the
following: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax
collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of
collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs of
remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal
counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the
City, CFD-07-I, or any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements
and/or responding to any audit of the Bonds by the Internal Revenue Service; the costs to
the City, CFD-07-I, or any designee thereof of providing continuing disclosure; the costs of
the City, CFD-07-I or any designee thereof of preparing Special Tax disclosure statements
and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, CFD-
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1, ~ ~ ~, / [ Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven [ G' Page 1
07-I, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the levy or application of the Special
Tax; and the costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account, if any.
Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or
CFD-07-I, for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to attorney's
fees and other costs related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of
delinquent Special Taxes.
"Approved Property" means ail Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property: (i) that are
included in an 'A' Map, excluding lettered lots thereon, or a Final Subdivision Map,
excluding lettered lots thereon, that were recorded prior to January 1st for the Fiscal Year of
2004, and a March 1st date for each subsequent year thereafter for the preceding Fiscal
Year in which the Special Tax is being levied, and (ii) that have not been issued a building
permit prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being
levied.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor of the County
designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assigned Special Tax" means the Special Tax for each Land Use Class of Developed
Property as determined in accordance with Section C.l.a.
"Available Funds" means (a)the balance in the reserve fund established pursuant to the
terms of the Indenture in excess of the reserve requirement as defined in such Indenture,
(b)delinquent Special Tax payments not required to fund the Special Tax Requirement for
any preceding Fiscal Year, (c) that portion of Special Tax prepayments allocated to the
payment of interest on Bonds, and (d) other sources of funds available as a credit to the
Special Tax Requirement as specified in such Indenture.
"Backup Special Tax" means the Special Tax as determined in accordance with Section
C.l.b.
"Bonds" means any bonds or other debt (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more
series, issued or incurred by CFD-07-I under the Act.
"Bond Year" means a one-year period beginning on September 2na in each year and
ending on September 1st in the following year, unless defined otherwise in the applicable
Indenture.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD-07-I" means City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 07-I.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1, ! ~'h .
Revise
8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven [ c? [ C)~
Page 2
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" means all Assessor's Parcels which are (a)
classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of City of Chula Vista
Ordinance No. 2002-2883 as amended on November 5, 2002 or (b) designated on an "A"
Map or a Final Subdivision Map as a community purpose facility.
"Council" means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD-07-I.
"County" means the County of San Diego.
"Density" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property the number of
Dwelling Units per gross acre determined pursuant to those provisions of Ordinance No.
2866, in effect as of January 7, 2003, that provide for the calculation of density for
purposes of calculating Transportation Development Impact Fees.
"Developed Property" means all Assessor's Pamels of Taxable Property for which a
building permit has been issued prior to March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied.
"Dwelling Unit" means each separate residential dwelling unit that comprises an
independent facility capable of conveyance or rental separate from adjacent residential
dwelling units. ., ~
"Exempt Property" means all Assessor's Parcels that are exempt 'from the Special Tax
pursuant to Section E.1.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property, created by recordation of a
final subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment, approved by the City pursuant to
the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or
recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that creates
individual lots for which residential building permits may be issued without further
subdivision of such property.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Indenture" means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution or
other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or
supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table I of Section C.
"Maximum Annual Special Tax" means the maximum annual Special Tax, determined
in accordance with the provisions of Section C, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on
any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1,
t%
Revise
8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven [ ~:~ ~ ~2
Pag, e 3
"Mixed Use Property" means all Assessor's Parcels that have been classified by the City
to allow both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property uses on each such
Assessor's Parcel. For an Assessor's Parcel of Mixed Use Property, each Land Use Class
thereon is subject to taxation pursuant to the provisions of Section C regardless of the
geographic orientation of such Land Use Classes on such Assessor's Parcel.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, for
which a building permit(s) has been issued to allow the construction of one or mom
buildings or structures for a non-residential use, excluding Community Purpose Facility
Property.
"Open Space" means property within the boundaries of CFD 07-I in which prior to June
1st of the preceding Fiscal Year (a) has been designated with specific boundaries and
acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as open space, (b) is classified by the
County Assessor as open space, (c) has been irrevocably offered for dedication as open
space to the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City, or any other
public agency or (d) is encumbered by an easement or other restriction required by the
City limiting the use of such property to open space.
"Outstanding Bonds" means all Bonds, which remain outstanding as defined in the
Indqature.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries of
CFD-07-I which is (a) owned by a property owner association or (b) is designated with
speci~c boundaries and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as property
owner association property. As used in this definition, a property owner association
includes any master or sub-association.
"Proportionately" means for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax
levy to the Assigned Special Tax or the Backup Special Tax is equal for all Assessors'
Parcels of the Developed Property. For Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and
Provisional Undeveloped Property "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the actual
Special Tax levy per Acre to the Maximum Annual Special Tax per Acre is equal for all
Assessor's Parcels of like classification.
"Provisional Undeveloped Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Public Property,
Property Owner Association Property, Community Purpose Facility Property, Open Space
or other property that would otherwise be classified as Exempt Property pursuant to the
provisions of Section E, but cannot be classified as Exempt Property because to do so
would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property below the required minimum acreage as
set forth in Section E. 1 for Zone A or Zone B as applicable.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD-07-1 which (a) is
owned by a public agency, (b) has been irrevocably offered for dedication to a public
agency or (c) is designated with specific boundaries and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final
Subdivision Map as property which will be owned by a public agency. For purposes of
City of Chula Vista . 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1, } ~-~D ~' [ ~ Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven f Pa~ge 4
this definition, a public agency includes the federal government, the State of California,
the County, the City or any other public agency.
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a
building permit has been issued to allow the construction of one or more buildings or
structures for use as a residential dwelling units.
"Special Tax" means the annual special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each
Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount of Special Tax revenue required in any
Fiscal Year for to: (i) pay annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds due in the Bond
Year beginning in such Fiscal Year; (ii) pay other periodic costs on Outstanding Bonds,
including but not limited to, credit enhancement and rebate payment; (iii) pay
Administrative Fees and Expenses; (iv) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish
any reserve funds for all Outstanding Bonds in accordance with the Indenture; and (v) pay
directly for acquisition and/or construction of public improvements which are authorized
to be financed by CFD-07-I provided that the inclusion of such amount does not cause an
increase in the levy of Special Tax on the Undeveloped Property; less (vi) a credit for
Available Funds.
"State" means the State of California.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD
07-I that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below.
"Trustee" means the trustee, fiscal agent, or paying agent under the Indenture.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal year, all Taxable Property not classified
as Developed Property, Approved Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property.
"Zone A" means a specific geographic area as depicted in Exhibits A and B attached
hereto.
"Zone B" means a specific geographic area as depicted in Exhibits A and B attached
hereto.
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, all Assessors' Parcels of Taxable Property within CFD-07-I shall be (a)
categorized as being located in either Zone A or Zone B, (b) classified as Developed
Property, Approved Property, Undeveloped Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property
and (c) subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and
D below. Developed Property shall be further classified as either Residential Property,
Non-Residential Property or Mixed Use Property. The Land Use Class of each Assessor's
Parcel of Residential Property or Mixed Use Property shall be determined based on its
Density.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1,
Ota? Ranch Village Eleven / ~ . [ ~ Revise 8-25-03
· Page 5
C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE
1. Developed Property
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential
Property, Non-Residential Property or Mixed Use Property shall be the greater o£(1)
the Assigned Special Tax described in Section a. below or (2) the Backup Special
Tax computed pursuant to Section b. below.
a. Assigned SpeciaITax
The Assigned Special Tax £or each Land Use Class o£DeveloPed Property is
shown in Table l.
TABLE 1
Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property
Within Zone A and Zone B:
Land
Use Description Density Assigned Special Tax
Class (DU/Acre)
1 Residential 0 to 8 $1,675 per Dwelling Unit
Property
2 Residential >8 to 20 $1,340 per Dwelling Unit
Property
3 Residential >20 $1,005 per Dwelling Unit
Property
4 Non N/A $6,000 per Acre
Residential
Property
The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Mixed Use Property
shall equal the total of (i) the Assigned Special Tax that would be applicable to
such Assessor's Parcel if it was classified only as Residential Property and (ii)
the Assigned Special Tax that would be applicable to such Assessor's Parcel if
it was classified as Non-Residential Property.
b. Backup SpeciaITax
When a Final Subdivision Map is recorded within Zone A or Zone B, the Backup
Special Tax for Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, shall be
determined as follows:
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-I, % ,
Otay Ranch Village Eleven c ~ ' ? ~ Revise 8-25-03
, Page 6
For each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Undeveloped Property and
Approved Property to be classified as Residential Property upon its development
within the Final Subdivision Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be the rate per
Dwelling Unit calculated according to the following formula:
Zone A
$13,955 x A
U
Zone B
$24,218 x A
U
The terms above have the following meanings:
B = Backup Special Tax per Dwelling Unit in each Fiscal Year.
A = Acreage classified or to be classified as Residential Property in
such Final Subdivision Map.
U = Number of Dwelling Units in the Final Subdivision Map which are
classified or expected to be classified as Residential Property.
For each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property classified as Non-Residential Property
or for each Assessor's Parcel of Approved or Undeveloped Property to be classified as
Non-Residential Property within the Final Subdivision Map area, the Backup Special Tax
shall be determined by multiplying $13,955 for Zone A and $24,218 for Zone B by the
total Acreage of any such Assessor's Pamel.
For each Assessor's Parcel of Mixed Use Property, the Backup Special Tax shall be
determined by multiplying $13,955 for Zone A and $24,218for Zone B by the total
Acreage of any such Assessor's Parcel.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property, Non-
Residential Property, Mixed Use Property, Approved Property or Undeveloped Property
for which the Backup Special Tax has been determined are subsequently changed or
modified by recordation of a new or amended Final Subdivision Map, then the Backup
Special Tax applicable to such Assessor's Parcels shall be recalculated to equal the
amount of Backup Special Tax that would have been generated if such change did not take
place.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1,
Ota? Ranch Villag, e Eleven / ~ ~ / 7 Revise8-25-03
Page 7
2. Approved Property
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property shall
be $13,955 per Acre for Zone A and $24,218 per Acre for Zone B.
3. Undeveloped Property and Provisional Undeveloped Property
The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property and
Provisional Undeveloped Property shall be $13,955 per Acre for Zone A and $24,218 per
Acre for Zone B.
D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council
shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the
amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be
levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
First: The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property at a rate
up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all
Approved Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Approved
Property.
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all
Undeveloped Property within Zone A and Zone B, at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum
Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. In determining the Acreage of an
Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property for proposes of determining the annual Special
Tax to be levied on such Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property, the CFD
Administrator shall not include any Acreage shown on any applicable tentative subdivision
map or other land use entitlement approved by the City that designates such Acreage for a
use that would be classified as Open Space, Property Owner Association Property,
Community Purpose Facility or Public Property.
Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first three steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Assessor's
Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is derived by the
application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the
Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Assessor's
Parcel.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1.
Otay Ranch Village Eleven / ~) Revise 8-25-03
Page 8
Fifth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
four steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all
Provisional Undeveloped Property.at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special
Tax for Undeveloped Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any
Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent per year as
a consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of Special Taxes by the owner of
any other Taxable Property.
E. EXEMPTIONS
1. The CFD Administrator shall classify the following as Exempt Property: (i)
Public Property, (ii) Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Community
Purpose Facility Property, (iv) Open Space and (v) Assessor's Parcels with public
or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the
purposes set forth in the easement; provided, however, that no such classification
shall reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 147.15 Acres for Zone A
and 59.04Acres for Zone B. Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as
Exempt Property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all
Taxable Property to less than 147.15 Acres for Zone A and 59.04 Acres for Zone
B will be classified as Provisional Undeveloped Property and shall be taxed
pursuant to the fifth step of Section D. Exempt status for purposes of this
paragraph will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in th6 Chronological order
in which property becomes Exempt Property. In the ~ven{ the Taxable Property
will be reduced below the minimum Acreage noted above for either Zone A or
Zone B as a result of a single "A" Map, the CFD Administrator shall exempt the
property in the following order: 1) Community Purpose Facility Property, 2)
Property Owner Association Property, 3) Public Property, 4) Open Space, 5) other
public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for no other such
purpose.
2. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any property which would be
classified as Public Property upon its transfer or dedication to a public agency but
which is classified as Provisional Undeveloped Property pursuant to E.1 above
shall be prepaid in full by the seller pursuant to Section H.1, prior to the
transfeffdedication of such property to such public agency. Until the Maximum
Annual Special Tax obligation for any such Public Property is prepaid, the
property shall continue to be subject to the levy of the Special Tax as Provisional
Undeveloped Property.
3. If the use of an Assessor's Parcel of Exempt Property changes so that such
Assessor's Parcel is no longer classified as one of the uses set forth in paragraph 1
that would make such Assessor's Parcel eligible to be classified as Exempt
Property, such Assessor's Parcel shall cease to be classified as Exempt Property
and shall be deemed to be Taxable Property.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1, , ~ 4~ Revise8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven ~? ~ ~ Pa~,e 9
F. REVIEW/APPEAL COMMITTEE
Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their
Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD Administrator regarding such
error. If following such consultation, the CFD Administrator determines that an error has
occurred the CFD Administrator may amend the amount of the Special Tax levied on such
Assessor's Parcel. If following such consultation and action (if any by the CFD
Administrator), the landowner or resident believes such error still exists, such person may
file a written notice with the City Clerk of the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax
levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon the receipt of any such notice, the City Clerk shall
forward a copy of such notice to the City Manager who shall establish as part of the
proceedings and administration of CFDq07-I a special three-member Review/Appeal
Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee may establish such procedures, as it deems
necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee
shall interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to
the~nnual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as
herein specified. The decision of the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding
as to all persons.
G. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as
ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD-07-I, may directly bill
the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if
necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually
foreclose on Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property that are delinquent in the payment of
Special Taxes.
Tenders of Bonds in prepayment of Maximum Annual Special Taxes may be accepted
upon the terms and conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However,
the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically
approved by the Council.
H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The following definitions apply to this Section H:
"CFD Public Facilities" means those public facilities authorized to be financed by CFD-
07-I.
"CFD Public Facilities Costs" means either $35 million, or such lower number as shall be
determined either by (a) the CFD Administrator as sufficient to finance the CFD Public
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-l. I ~ ~.~ Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven I, " ' ~J () Page 10
Facilities, or (b) the Council concurrently with a covenant that it will not issue any more
Bonds to be secured by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of
Apportionment.
"Construction Fund" means an account specifically identified in the Indenture to hold
funds which are currently available for expenditure to acquire or construct the CFD Public
Facilities.
"Future Facilities Costs" means the CFD Public Facilities Costs minus that (a) portion of
the CFD Public Facilities Costs previously funded (i) from the proceeds of all previously
issued Bonds, (ii) from interest earnings on the Construction Fund actually earned prior to
the date of prepayment and (iii) directly from Special Tax revenues and (b) the amount of
the proceeds of all previously issued Bonds then on deposit in the Construction Fund.
"Outstanding Bonds" means all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding
after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year,
excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of
Maximum Annual Special Taxes.
1. Prepayment in Full
The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation may only be prepaid and permanently
satisfied for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Prol~erty, Undeveloped Property or
Approved Property for which a building permit has been issued, or Provisional
Undeveloped Property. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation applicable to such
Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay the
Special Tax permanently satisfied as described herein; provided, however that a prepayment
may be made only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's
Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the
Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written
notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD
Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel.
The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this figure, which can be
collected prior to preparing such calculation.
The prepayment amount shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as
defined below):
Bond Redemption Amount
plus Redemption Premium
plus Future Facilities Amount
plus Defeasance Amount
plus Prepayment Fees and Expenses
less Reserve Fund Credit
less Capitalized Interest Credit
equals Prepayment Amount
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-I,
Ora? Ranch Village Eleven / ~ [ Revise 8-25-03
Page 11
As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be
calculated as follows:
Step No.:
1. For Developed Property, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the
Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Approved Property or
Undeveloped Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for
that Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property,
based upon the building permit issued for that Assessor's Pamel. For Assessor's
Parcels of Provisional Undeveloped Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum
Annual Special Tax for that Assessor's Parcel using the Maximum Annual Special
Tax for Provisional Undeveloped Property.
2. Divide the Maximum Annual Special Tax computed pursuant to stepl by the sum of
the total expected Maximum Annual Special Tax revenues which may be levied
within CFD-07-I excluding any Assessors Parcels for which the Maximum Annual
Special Tax obligation has been previously prepaid.
3. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to step 2 by the principal amount of the
Outstanding Bofids to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be retired and
prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount").
4. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to step 3 by the
applicable redemption premium(s) on the next possible Bond call date, if any, on the
Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium").
5. If all the Bonds authorized to be issued by CFD-07-I have not been issued, then
compute the Future Facilities Costs.
6. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to step 2 by the amount if any, determined
pursuant to step 5 to compute the amount of Future Facilities Costs to be allocated to
such Assessor's Pamel (the "Future Facilities Amount").
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-l, Revise 8-25-03
~ e:' ~ Page 12
Otay Ranch Village Eleven ], ¢~¢ · ,~) e
7. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from
the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year
until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds.
8. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel.
9. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal
Year, which have not yet been paid.
10. Determine the fees and expenses of CFD-07-I, including but not limited to, the costs
of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment, proceeds, the
costs of redeeming Bonds from the proceeds of such prepayment, and the cost of
recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption
(the"Prepayment Fee and Expenses").
11. Compute the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the
reinvestment of the prepayment amount, less the Prepayment Fees and Expenses,
pursuant to step 10, from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the
Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment.
12. Add the amounts computed pursuant to steps 7 and 9 and subtract the amount
computed pursuant to step 11 (the "Defeasance Amount").
13. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the
expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any,
associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment,
or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in
the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the
prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no
event shall such amount be less than zero.
14. If any capitalized interest for the Outstanding Bonds will not have been expended at
the time of the first interest payment following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized
interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to
step 2 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest
payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit").
15. The Maximum Annual Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts
computed pursuant to steps 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12, less the amounts computed pursuant to
steps 13 and 14 (the "Prepayment Amount").
16. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to steps 3, 4, 12, 13
and 14 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture
and be used to retire Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount
computed pursuant to step 10 shall be retained by CFD-07-I. The amount computed
pursuant to step 6 shall be deposited in the Construction Fund.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-I, Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven ~ Page 13
The prepayment amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of
Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be
retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next
prepayment of bonds or to make debt service payments.
As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined
under step 9 above, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special
Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any
Assessor's Parcel that is prepaid, the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in
compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the
Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to
pay the Special Tax shall cease.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless the
amount of Maximum Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within
both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual
debt service on all Outstanding Bonds.
2. Prepayment in Part
The Maximum Annual Special Tax on an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property or an
Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a building
permit has been issued may be partially prepaid. The amount of the prepayment shall be
calculated as presented in Section H. 1; except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated
according to the following formula:
PP = (Pa x F) +A
These terms have the following meaning:
PP = the partial prepayment
PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H. 1, minus Prepayment Fees
and Expenses determined pursuant to step 10.
F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the
Maximum Annual Special Tax.
A= the Prepayment Fees and Expenses determined pursuant to step 10.
The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Maximum Annual
Special Tax shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially
prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax, (ii) the percentage by which the Maximum
Annual Special Tax shall be prepaid, and (iii) the company or agency that will be acting as
the escrow agent, if applicable. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a
statement of the amount required for the partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual
Special Tax for an Assessor's Parcel within 30 days of the request and may charge a
reasonable fee for providing this service.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-1, ~ ~ Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven / ~"" c~ Page 14
With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is partially prepaid, the City shall (i) distribute
the funds remitted to it according to step 16 of Section H. 1, and (ii) indicate in the records
of CFD-07-I that there has been a partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax
and that a portion of the Maximum Annual Special Tax equal to the outstanding pementage
(1.00 - F) of the remaining Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to be authorized
to be levied on such Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section D.
I. TERM OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX
The Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2004-2005
to the extent necessary to fully satisfy the Special Tax Requirement and shall be levied for
a period no longer than the 2043-2044 Fiscal Year.
City of Chula Vista 12-02- 2002
Community Facilities District No. 07-I, ,! c :~ ~ Revise 8-25-03
Otay Ranch Village Eleven [ ~ C '*~ Page 15
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDED BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN
PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (BROOKFIELD
OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California ("City Council");
previously initiated proceedings at a regular meeting on January 7, 2003, to create a Community
Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of
Califbrnia (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted
pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of
the Constitution of the State of Califbrnia (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be
referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law") and adopted Resolutions 2003-
006, 2003-007, 2003-008 and 2003-009 in furtherance thereof. This Community Facilities District
shall hereinafter be designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I
(BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN) (the "District"); and,
WHEREAS, at the above stated meeting, the City Cour~cil adopted Resolution 2003-006
which approved a map showing the boundaries of the territory proposed J?or indlusion in the District
including properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy Of a special tax by the
District ("Boundary Map").
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Boundary Map to reflect the
modifications in the boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the District which have
occurred since the approval of the Boundary Map and to more accurately reflect the existing
properties and pamels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the District
("Amended Boundary Map").
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. The Amended Boundary Map designated as "AMENDED BOUNDARIES OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY
RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN)" showing the amended boundaries of the territory proposed for
inclusion in the District including the parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special
tax by the District is hereby approved and adopted.
SECTION 3. A certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one (1) copy ofthe map
of the District, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and within fifteen (15) days after
1
the adoption of the Resolution fixing the time and place of the hearing on the formation or extent of
such District, a copy of such map shall be filed with the correct and proper endorsements thereon
with the County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for in Sections 3110 and 3111 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:Altomcy\Reso\CFD\Approve Map 07-18 18.03
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, DECLAR/NG ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-1 (BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY
RANCH - VILLAGE 11) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY A SPECIAL TAX
THEREIN TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council"), pursuant to the
request of Brookfield Otay Shea, LLC (the "Developer") as the master developer of the property
within Village 11 of Otay Ranch, previously initiated proceedings at a regular meeting on January 7,
2003, to create a Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part I, Division 2, Title 5 of the
Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community
Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista
under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the
"Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law") and adopted Resolutions 2003-006, 2003-007, 2003-008 and 2003-009 in
furtherance thereof. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be designated as
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY
RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN) (the "District"); and
WHEREAS, at the above stated meeting, the City adopted Resolution No. 2003-007
initiating proceedings to create the District, declaring its intention to establish the District and to
authorize the levy of a special tax therein to finance the acquisition or construction of certain public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Developer the City delayed the proceedings to create the
District until the Developer substantially completed the construction of certain of such public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has substantially completed the construction of such public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Developer's substantial completion the construction of certain
of such public facilities, this City Council desires to adopt this Resolution of Intention to reinitiate
the proceedings to consider the establishment of such District, to set forth the proposed boundaries
for such District, to indicate the type of public facilities proposed to be financed by such District, to
indicate the proposed rate and apportionment of a special tax sufficient to finance the acquisition or
construction of such public facilities and the administration of the District and any indebtedness
incurred by the District, to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the establishment of
such District; and
WHEREAS, the Community Facilities District Law provides that the City Council may
initiate proceedings to establish a community facilities district only if it has first considered and
adopted local goals and policies concerning the use of the Community Facilities District Law; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has adopted local goals and policies as required pursuant to
the Community Facilities District Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
RECITALS
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
REINITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 2. These proceedings were initiated and are now reinitiated by this City Council
pursuant to the authorization of the Community Facilities District Law.
BOUNDARIES OF DiSTRiCT
SECTION 3. It is the intention of this City Council to establish the boundaries of the proposed
District. A description of the proposed boundaries of the territory to be included in the District
including the properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the
District is as follows:
Ail that property as shown on an amended map as previously approved by this City
Council, such amended map designated by the name of this District, a copy of which
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and shall remain open for public inspection.
NAME OF DISTRICT
SECTION 4. The name of the proposed District shall be Community Facilities District No. 07-I
(Brookfield Otay Shea, LLC - Otay Ranch - Village 11).
DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
SECTION 5. It is the intention of this City Council to finance the acquisition or construction of
certain public facilities authorized to be acquired pursuant to the provisions of the Community
Facilities District Law. A general description of the type of public facilities proposed to be acquired
or constructed through financing provided by the District is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Facilities").
2
The Facilities are facilities which this legislative body is authorized by law to contribute
revenue to or to construct, own or operate. It is hereby further determined that the proposed
Facilities are necessary to meet increased demands and needs placed upon the City as a result of
development within the District.
The cost of acquiring or constructing the Facilities includes Incidental Expenses as such term
is defined in Government Code Section 53317(e) and may include, but not be limited to, the costs of
planning and designing the Facilities; all costs associated with the establishment of the District, the
issuance and administration of bonds to be issued for the District, including the payment of any
rebate obligation due and owing to the federal government, the determination of the amount of any
special taxes to be levied, the costs of collecting any special taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in
order to carry out the authorized purposes of the District, together with any other expenses incidental
to the acquisition, construction, completion and inspection of the Facilities.
SPECIAL TAX
SECTION 6. It is hereby further proposed that, except where funds are otherwise available, a
special tax sufficient to pay for such Facilities and related Incidental Expenses authorized by the
Community Facilities District Law, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-
exempt real property in the District, will be levied mmually within the boundaries of the District.
Under no circumstances will the special tax levied against any parcel used for private residential
purposes be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel or
parcels within the District by more than 10 percent. For further particulars as to the rate and method
o f apportionment of the proposed special tax (the "Rate and Method of Apportionment") reference is
made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit B, which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of
apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed District to clearly estimate
the maximum amount that such person will have to pay. The Rate and Method of Apportionment
also sets forth the tax year after which no further special tax shall be levied or collected against any
parcel used for private residential purposes. A parcel shall be considered "used for private residential
purposes" not later than the date on which an occupancy permit or the equivalent for private
residential use is issued for such parcel.
The special taxes herein proposed, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same
manner as ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner at this City Council shall determine,
including without limitation, direct billing of the affected property owners, and shall be subject to the
same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad
valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected
through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer of the City of Chula Vista (the "City"), acting for
and on behalf of the District.
The special tax obligation for any parcel may be prepaid and permanently satisfied in whole
or in part pursuant to the provisions therefor contained in the Rate and Method of Apportionment.
PUBLIC HEARING
SECTION 7. NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT ON OCTOBER 21, 2003, AT THE HOUR OF 6:00
O'CLOCK P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEING THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 276 FOURTH STREET, CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD WHERE THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL
CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT, THE RATE AND
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED
WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH IN THIS
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. AT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TIME AND PLACE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING ANY PERSONS INTERESTED, INCLUDING TAXPAYERS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. THE TESTIMONY OF ALL
INTERESTED PERSONS FOR OR AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRICT,
THE EXTENT OF THE DISTRICT, OR THE FINANCING OF THE FACILITIES, WILL BE
HEARD AND CONSDERED. ANY PROTESTS MAY BE MADE ORALLY OR IN WRITING,
HOWEVER, ANY PROTESTS PERTAINING TO THE REGULARITY OR SUFFICIENCY OF
THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE iN WRITING AND CLEARLY SET FORTH THE
IRREGULARITIES AND DEFECTS TO WHICH THE OBJECTION IS MADE. ALL WRITTEN
PROTESTS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ON OR BEFORE THE
TIME FIXED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. WRITTEN PROTESTS MAY BE WITHDRAWN
IN WRITING AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF A WRITTEN MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
DISTRICT IS FILED, THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE ABANDONED. IF SUCH MAJORITY
PROTEST IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN FACILITIES OR PORTIONS OF THE SPECIAL TAX,
THOSE FACILITIES OR THAT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL TAX SHALL BE ELIMINATED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
ELECTION
SECTION 8. If, following the public hearing described in the Section above, the City Council
determines to establish the District and proposes to levy a special tax within the District, the City
Council shall then submit the levy of the special taxes to the qualified electors of the District. If at
least twelve (12) persons, who need not necessarily be the same twelve (12) persons, have been
registered to vote within an the District for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the
public hearing, the vote shall be by registered voters of the District, with each voter having one (I)
vote. Otherwise, the vote shall be by the landowners of District who were the owners of record at the
close of the subject hearing, with each such landowner or the authorized representative thereof,
having one (1) vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land owned within the District.
NOTICE
SECTION 9. Notice ofthe time and place ofthe public hearing shall be given by the City Cterk by
causing the publication cfa Notice of Public Hearing in the legally designated newspaper of general
circulation, such publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Govermment Code, with such
publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing.
The City Clerk shall also cause notice to be given by first-class mail to each registered voter,
if any, and to each landowner as defined in the Community Facilities District Law within the
proposed boundaries of the District. Such notice shall be mailed at least 15 days before the public
hearing and shall contain the san~e information as is required to be contained in the notice published
pursuant to the preceding paragraph.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO AUTHORIZE TENDER OF BONDS
SECTION 10. The City Council reserves to itself, in its capacity as the legislative body of the
District if formed, the right and authority to allow any interested owner of property within the
District, subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 53344.1 and to such conditions as
this City Council may impose, and any applicable prepayment penalties as may be described in the
bond indenture or comparable instrument or document, to tender t.o the Treasurer, acting for and on
behalfofthe District, in full payment or part payment of any installment of the special taxes or the
interest or penalties thereon which may be due or delinquent, but for which a bill has been received,
any bond or other obligation secured thereby, the bond or other obligation to be taken at par and
credit to be given for the accrued interest sho~vn thereby computed to the date of tender.
ADVANCES OF FUNDS OR WORK-IN-KIND
SECTION 11. At any time either before or after the formation of the District, the City Council may
accept advances of funds or work-in-kind from any source, including, but not limited to, private
persons or private entities and may provide, by resolution, for the use of those funds or that work-in-
kind for any authorized purpose, including, but not limited to, paying any cost incurred by the City in
creating the District. The City may enter into an agreement, by resolution, with the person or entity
advancing the funds or work-in-kind, to repay all or a portion of the funds so advanced, or to
reimburse the person or entity for the value, or cost, whichever is less, of the work-in-kind, as
determined by the City Council. The City has entered into a Community Facilities District
Reimbursement Agreement with the Developer to provide for such advances for the payment of all
initial consulting and administration costs and expenses related to the proceedings to consider the
formation of the District and to subsequently authorize, issue and sell bonds for the District. Such
advances are subject to reimbursement pursuant to the terms of such agreement. No such agreement
shall constitute a debt or liability of the City.
In addition, it is proposed that the City enter into an agreement with the Developer pursuant
to which the Developer shall construct and install the Facilities and the District shall, through the
5
acquisition of such Facilities, repay the funds expended by the Developer for such purpose or value
or cost of the work in-kind, whichever is less.
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
SECTION 12. If any provisions of this Resolution conflicts with Resolution 2003-007, the
provisions of this Resolution shall supersede any such conflicting provisions.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:Attomey~Reso\CFI)\lntent 07-18 18.03
6
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF FACiLITIES
The types of public facilities authorized to be financed by the levy of special taxes within the
proposed District shall include streets, grading, landscaping within public rights-of-way, sewers,
public utilities, a park, traffic enhancement facilities and other public improvements authorized to be
financed from the proceeds of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as may be authorized by
the goals and policies of the City Council pertaining to the use of the Community Facilities District
Law.
A-1
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A
REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I
(BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council"), pursuant to the
request of Brookfield Otay Shea, LLC (the "Developer") as the master developer of the property
within Village 11 of Otay Ranch, previously initiated proceedings at a regular meeting on January 7,
2003, to create a Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the
Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community
Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista
under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the
"Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law") and adopted Resolutions 2003-006, 2003-007, 2003-008 and 2003-009 in
furtherance thereof. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be designated as
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY
RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN) (the "District"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2003-008, adopted at the above referenced meeting, the
City Council directed, the preparation of a report to provide more detailed information relating to the
proposed District, the proposed public facilities to be financed through the District, and estimate of
the cost of providing such facilities pursuant to the provisions of Section 53321.5 of the Government
Code of the State of California, (the "Community Facilities District Report").
WHEREAS, at the request of the Developer the City delayed the proceedings to create the
District and prepare the Community Facilities District Report until the Developer substanitally
completed the construction of certain of such public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has now substantially completed the construction of certain of
such public facilities; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Developer's substantial completion of the construction of such
public facilities, the City Council desires to reinitiate proceedings to create the District and prepare
the Community Facilities District Report.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all tree and correct.
SECTION 2. The Director of Public Works is hereby directed and ordered to prepare or cause to be
prepared the Community Facilities District Report to be presented to this City Council, generally
setting forth and containing the following:
FACILITIES: A full and complete description of the public facilities the acquisition
or construction of which are proposed to be financed through the
District.
COST ESTIMATE: A general cost estimate setting forth costs of acquiring or constructing
such facilities.
SPECIAL TAX: Further particulars and documentation regarding the rates and
methods of apportionment of the special taxes proposed to be levied
within the District.
SECTION 3. The Community Facilities District Report, upon its preparation, shall be submitted to
this City Council for review, and such report shall be made a part of the record of the public hearing
on the Resolution of Intention to establish such District.
SECTION 4. If any provisions of this Resolution conflicts with Resolution 2003-007, adopted by
the City Council on January 7, 2003, the provisions of this Resolution shall supersede any such
conflicting provisions.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Cliflbrd Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:Attomey\Reso\C F D\07-18 1803
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I (BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA,
LLC - OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 11) TO BE SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES
LEVIED WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OR
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California ("City Council"),
pursuant to the request ofBrookfield Otay Shea, LLC (the "Developer") as the master developer of
the property ~vithin Village 11 of Otay Ranch, previously initiated proceedings at a regular meeting
on January 7, 2003, to create a Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of
the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of
the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community
Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista
under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the
"Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law") and adopted Resolutions 2003-006, 2003-007, 2003-008 and 2003-009 in
furtherance thereof. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be designated as
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-I'(BROOKFIELD OTAY SHEA, LLC - OTAY
RANCH - VILLAGE ELEVEN) (the "District"); and '~:
WHEREAS, at the above referenced meeting the City Council, as the legislative body of the
City, adopted Resolution 2003-009 declaring its intention to finance the acquisition or construction
of certain authorized public facilities through the issuance of bonds to be issued by the District, such
bonds to be secured by special taxes to be levied on taxable property within the District, all as
authorized pursuant to the Community Facilities District Law; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Developer the City delayed the proceedings to create the
District until the Developer substantially completed the construction of certain of such public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has now substantially completed the construction of certain of
such public facilities; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Developer's substantial completion of the construction of such
public facilities, this City Council desires to adopt this Resolution declaring its intention to reinitiate
proceedings to finance the acquisition or construction of such facilities through the issuance of bonds
to be issued by the District, such bonds to be secured by special taxes to be levied on taxable
property within the District, all as authorized pursuant to the Community Facilities District Law.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. This City Council declares that the public convenience and necessity requires
that a bonded indebtedness be incurred by the District to contribute to the financing of all or a
portion of the authorized public facilities.
SECTION 3. The purpose for the proposed debt of the District is to finance the acquisition
or construction of authorized public facilities consisting of the types of public facilities described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Facilities").
SECTION 4. The amount of the bonded indebtedness of the District may include all costs
and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of the purpose for which
the indebtedness is proposed to be incurred as authorized pursuant to the Community Facilities
District Law. The amount of the indebtedness proposed to be authorized for the District is
$45,000,000.
SF~,CTION 5. NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT ON OCTOBER 21, 2003, AT THE HOUR OF
6:00 O'CLOCK P.M. iN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE LEGISLATiVE BODY,
BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 276 FOURTH STREET,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, A HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE INTENTION OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY TO iNCUR A BONDED iNDEBTEDNESS OF THE DISTRICT TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINANCE THE FACILITIES, SUCH INDEBTEDNESS TO BE
SECURED BY THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. AT THE TIME
AND PLACE FIXED FOR SAID PUBLIC HEARING ANY PERSONS INTERESTED,
INCLUDING PERSONS OWNING PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, MAY APPEAR AND
PRESENT ANY MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED INTENTION AND NECESSITY
FOR iNCURRING A BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DISTRICT WHICH WILL finance
THE FACILITIES AND WHICH WILL BE SECURED BY A SPECIAL TAX TO BE LEVIED
WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
SECTION 6. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City
Clerk by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in a legally designated newspaper of general
circulation, said publication pursuant to Section 606 l of the Government Code, with said publication
to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing.
SECTION 7. If any provisions of this Resolution conflicts with Resolution 2003-007, the
provisions of this Resolution shall supersede any such conflicting provisions.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:Atlomey\Reso\CFDklssue Bonds 07-I8.18.03
3
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF FACILITIES
The types ofpubli~ facilities authorized to be financed by the levy of special taxes within the
proposed District shall include streets, grading, landscaping within public rights-of-way, sewers,
public utilities, a park, traffic enhancement facilities and other public improvements authorized to be
financed from the proceeds of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as may be authorized by
the goals and policies of the City Council pertaining to the use of the Community Facilities District
Law.
A-1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No
Meeting Date 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION - AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RECORD DESTRUCTION
PROCEDURE.
SUBMITTED BY: Chief of Police..~'~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~d (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X
)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution amen.ding the Police Department's
Record Destruction Procedure.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable
DISCUSSION: Preparations are underway to purge all unnecessary documents
before moving to the new Police Facility. With this objective in mind, a recent audit of
the Police Department's Records Destruction Procedure was conducted. The audit
identified many records that have been accumulating that are by law, not required to
be retained. Section 34090 of the Government Code allows the City Council to
authorize the destruction of records by resolution in conjunction with approval from
the City Attorney.
The Police Department's current Records Destruction Procedure was established in
1988. At that time the procedure did not set forth a time frame in which complaints
against police officers, and relating documentation, could be purged. In 1988 Chula
Vista employed a mere 154 officers. Currently the City has 230 sworn officers.
Although the City of Chula Vista boasts a well respected, highly professional police
force, the nature of the business is such that complaints are inevitable. The
investigation packages generated for such complaints are usually quite voluminous.
As the accumulation of the records has become burdensome, the Police Department
is recommending the implementation of the following amendment to the Record
Destruction Procedure:
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
A. The following records will be retained for six (6) years and then may
subsequently be destroyed:
1. Complaints against Police Officers, including all investigation
documentation
2. Reports
3. Witness statements
4. Findings, and any other portion of the disciplinary package
relating to complaints against Police Officers
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CHULA
VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RECORDS
DESTRUCTION PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, a recent audit of the Police Department's Records Destruction
Procedure was conducted; and
WHEREAS, the audit identified many records that have been accumulating
that are, by law, not required to be retained; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 provides that the head of a city
department may destroy certain city records, documents, or instruments under his
charge, without duplication, with approval of the City Council by resolution and with
the written consent of the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, as the accumulation of the records has become burdensome, the
Police Department is recommending the implementation of the following amendment
to the Record Destruction Procedure:
The following records will be retained for six (6) years and then may
subsequently be destroyed:
1. Complaints against Police Officers, including all investigation
~ documentation
2. Reports
3. Witness statements
4. Findings, and any other portion of the disciplinary package
relating to complaints against Police Officers
WHEREAS, there is no fiscal impact to the general fund:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of the
City of Chula Vista that the Police Department's Record Destruction Procedure has
been amended:
Presented by Approved as to form by
son Ann Moore
Chief of Police City Attorney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ¢
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
for the period of October l, 2003 through September 30, 2004 for City of
Chula Vista projects utilizing Federal Highway Administration funding
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering/~(
REVIEWED BY: CityManager~'~ -~ y- (4/5thsVote: Yes NoX)
All local agencies receiving Federally-assisted funds from the Federal Highway Administration are
required to submit a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. The Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program is designed to allow contractors/consultants owned and controlled by minorities,
women and other socially and economically disadvantaged persons to have the opportunity to bid
and work on projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for the period of October l, 2003 through September 30, 2004
for City of Chula Vista projects utilizing Federal Highway Administration funding.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
General
On September 10, 2002 City Council approved Resolution No. 2002-354 accepting the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program for the period of October 1, 2002 through September
30, 2003. The goals for the program have been revised and some modifications were made to the
program itself.
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program is a federal program operating under the
guidance of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). A new Federal regulation, Title
49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26 (49 CFR 26), which governs the DBE Program became
effective March 4, 1999. Part 23 of Title 49 has replaced 49 CFR 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as the final rule binding all local agencies DOT assisted contracts. CALTRANS has
been entrusted with local agency oversight responsibility for DBE implementation and shall
administer the Federal-aid highway funds from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs.
City staff has worked closely with CALTRANS in preparing this program.
I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
The overall goal of the DBE Program is to ensure that contractor/consultant businesses owned and
controlled by minorities, women and other socially and economically disadvantaged persons have the
opportunity to bid and work on projects funded by FHWA.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to ensure that DBE's have an equal opportunity to receive
and participate on DOT funded projects. It will be the DBE Programs goal to accomplish the
following:
1. To ensure non-discrimination in the award and administration of DOT assisted contracts;
2. To create a level playing field on which DBE's can compete fairly for DOT assisted
contracts;
3. To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law;
4. To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR 26 eligibility standards are permitted to
participate as DBE's;
5. To help remove barriers for the participation of DBE's in DOT assisted contracts; and
6. To assist the development of firms to compete successfUlly in the market place outside
the DBE Program.
City of Chula Vista DBE Program Overall Goal
As part of the DBE Progran~, the City of Chula Vista is required to calculate an overall percentage of
DBE participation in DOT assisted contracts. The overall goal is defined as a percentage of DBE
participation on all Federal-aid highway funds expended on FHWA assisted contracts in the
forthcoming fiscal year. The City of Chula Vista's base figure ~vas calculated to be 7.0 %.
The overall goal methodology is a two-step process as described in 49 CFR 26. Step 1 is to
determine a base figure percentage. The base figure was determined by researching the availability
of DBE's that are ready, willing and able to participate in the Federal-aid contracting programs
divided by the number of firms available in San Diego. Certified DBE's figures were determined
using CALTRANS databases. The number of all ready, willing and able firms located in the San
Diego area was determined using the Census Bureau's 2000 County Business Pattern Database.
Once a base percentage figure was determined, Step 2 consisted of adjusting the overall goal either
up or down based on the availability of DBE's in the local market. Based on relevant upcoming City
of Chula Vista DOT assisted projects and the availability of DBE's to participate on those projects,
the overall goal was adjusted up to 7.5%. Therefore, it is the City's annual goal to attain a 7.5%
participation of DBE's on the City of Chula Vista's DOT assisted contracts. In accordance with 49
CFR 26, the City of Chula Vista will include language in the contract specifications, encouraging
DBE's to bid on DOT federally assisted projects in order to meet our goal of 7.5% DBE
participation. Last year's overall goal was 8.2% while the actual DBE participation was about 0.8%.
/¢'3
Page 3, Item /¢
Meeting Date 9/16/03
The 0.8% DBE participation resulted from one transportation related project, TF-290, having no
DBE subcontractors, due to their specialized nature, and the Palomar Street Improvement project
(ST-922) having only a 0.9% DBE participation. Dailv-CCAC, J.V., the prime contractor on the
Palomar Street project, performed their "Good Faith Effort" per CALTRANS procedures, contacting
and requesting bids from qualified DBE Contractors. However, there seemed to be little interest and
most of the bids that they received from DBE contractors were not competitive.
City of Chula Vista DBE Program Updates
Updates to the DBE program include:
In Item VI, Cliff Swanson, Director of Engineering, has replaced John Lippitt as Director of
Public Works.
In Item XI, we have added a discussion of City's Business Development Program
In Item X1V, we refer to the Overall Goal being in Attachment 2 instead of the goal information
being part of the program. This will make it easier to update in the future.
The City of Chula Vista has published a Public Notice, announcing the City of Chula Vista's
proposed D'BE Program and the overall annual goal for the FY 2003/2004 contracts assisted by
FHWA, in general cimulation media including women/minority focused media, local trade papers
and the Star News. The DBE Program, proposed goals and their rational were available for
inspection for thirty (30) days and the City accepted comments on the goals for forty-five (45) days
from the date of the Public Notice. During the Public Notice period, no comments were made
regarding the DBE Program.
Title 49 CFR 26 requires the local agencies governing body to approve the DBE Program before
funds for Federal assisted projects can be utilized.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of managing and maintaining the DBE program will become part of
the costs of Federal Highway projects and included in reimbursements from FHWA programs. Thus,
there is no overall impact to the City for this program other than the initial staff costs to prepare this
policy and to update it each year.
Attachment: DBE Program
File No. 0735-10-LY-072
(HOME:\Engineer~Adgenda\DBE.A113-2004.doc; mji)
City of Chula Vista
CHY OF
CHUIA VISTA
DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
(DBE) PROGRAM
FOR
U.S. DOT FUNDED PROJECTS
Federal Fiscal Year
2003/2004
City of Chula Vista
This Program is in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM
FOR U.S. DOT FUNDED PROJECTS
FOR
TItE CITY OF CItULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I. Definitions of Terms
The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 CFR §26.5.
II. Objectives/Policy Statement (§§26.1, 26.23)
The City of Chula Vista has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
49 CFR Part 26. The City of Chula Vista has received Federal financial assistance from
the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the City of Chula Vista will sign
an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to ensure that DBEs, as defined it) part 26, have
an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT-assisted contractsl It is also our
policy:
To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted
contracts;
To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-
assisted contracts;
To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with
applicable law;
To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are
permitted to participate as DBEs;
To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT-assisted contracts;
and
To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market
place outside the DBE Program.
Mario Ingrasci, Assistant Civil Engineer, has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer.
In that capacity, Mario Ingrasci is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE
program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as
compliance with all other legal obligations incurred by the City of Chula Vista in its
financial assistance agreements with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
The City of Chula Vista has disseminated this policy statement to the Chula Vista City
Council and all the components of our organization. We have distributed this statement
August 15,2003 /¢ ~ Page2
City of Chula Vista
to DBE and non-DBE business communities that perform work for us on DOT-assisted
contracts by publishing this statement in general circulation, minor/W-focused and trade
association publications.
III. Nondiscrimination (§26.7)
The City of Chula Vista will never exclude any person f~om participation in, deny any
person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the
award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race,
color, sex, or national origin.
In administering its DBE program, the City of Chula Vista will not, directly or through
contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the
effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the
DBE program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national
origin.
IV. DBE Program Updates (§26.21)
The City of Chula Vista will continue to carry out this program until the City of Chula
Vista has established a new goal setting methodology or until significant changes to this
DBE Program are adopted. The City of Chula Vista will provide to Caltrans a proposed
overall goal and goal setting methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every
year.
V. Quotas (§26.43)
The City of Chula Vista will not use quotas or set aside in any way in the administration
of this DBE program.
VI. DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (§26.45)
The City of Chula Vista has designated the following individual as the DBE Liaison
Officer: Maho Ingrasci, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, (619) 476-5382,
mingrasci~ci.chula-vista.ca, us In that capacity, Mar/o Ingrasci is responsible for
implementing all aspects of the DBE program and ensuring that the City of Chula Vista
complies with all provisions of 49 CFR Part 26. This is available on the Internet at
osdbuweb.dot.gov/main.cfm. Mario Ingrasci has direct, independent access to the
Director of Engineering, Clifford L. Swanson, concerning DBE program matters. Marlo
Ingrasci will have available from the City such administrative and legal assistance as
required. The organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization is
found in Attachment 1 to this program.
The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE
program, in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include
the following:
August 15,2003
/¢.~ Page3
City of Chula Vista
1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required.
2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this
program.
3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals.
4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are available to DBEs in a timely
manner.
5. Identifies contracts and procurements so that DBE goals are included in solicitations
(both race-neutral methods and contract specific goals) and monitors results.
6. Analyzes City of Chula Vista's progress toward goal attainment and identifies ways
to improve progress.
7. Participates in pre-bid meetings.
8. Advises the City Manager and City Council on DBE matters and achievement.
9. Chairs the DBE Advisory Committee.
10. Participates with the legal counsel and project director to determine contractor
compliance with good faith efforts.
11. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding
and insurance.
12. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars.
13. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to advise them of
opportunities.
VII. Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (§26.13)
The City of Chula Vista will sign the following assurance, applicable to all FHWA-
assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program supplement agreement
for each project:
The recipient shall not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or sex in the
award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE
Program or the requirements of 49 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary
and reasonable steps under 49 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and
administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by
49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement.
Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms
shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its
failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as
provided for under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement
under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C.
3801 et seq.).
VIII. DBE Financial Institutions
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to investigate the full extent of services offered
by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals in the community, to make reasonable efforts to use these
August 15,2003 / ¢_ q Page4
City of Chula Vista
institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT-assisted contracts to make use
of these institutions.
Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained fi.om the DBE Liaison
Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance
to the DBE Liaison Officer.
IX. Directory (§26.31)
The City of Chula Vista will refer interested persons to the DBE directory available fi.om
the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at
www.dot .ca.gov/hqgoep.
X. Overconcentration (§26.33)
The City of Chula Vista has not identified any types of work in DOT-assisted contracts
that have an overconcentration of DBE participation. If in the future the City of Chula
Vista identifies the need to address overconcentration, measures for addressing
ovemoncentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval.
XI. Business Development Programs (§26.35)
The City of Chula Vista in conjunction with Southwestern College has formed a business
developpaent program to assist small and disadvantaged businesses in Chula Vista. The
program is operated by the San Diego Contracting Opportunities Center (SDCOC), and
assists contractors and other small businesses in obtaining contracts with various public
agencies, not just DOT-assisted contracts.
The San Diego Contracting Opportunities Center (SDCOC) will provide three major
categories of services to Chula Vista emerging and small business owners. The services
are designed to move businesses fi-om commemial contracting and sales into government
markets. This will result in the economic growth and job creation for the small business
and for the community. The first service, which will be delivered in Chula Vista at the
offices of the South County Career Center, is one-on-one counseling that focuses on
government procurement and contracting. Counseling will be performed by Mrs. Fran
Sedlacek, a Chula Vista resident with more than thirty years experience in government
procurement and contracting. The initial counseling session will address required and
recommended government registrations and certifications. Small businesses will be
directed to federal, state and local buying activities that match the product and service
profiles that the counselor develops with the client. Clients are assisted with technical
matters associated with the government procurement process including solicitation
services, bidding requirements, contractual issues, and post award services including
payment issues. As a second service, clients will be provided with access to electronic
bid matching or bid-plan room services administered by the SDCOC. This service
notifies the client when products or services similar to the ones that they provide are
being purchased by a government agency. The third type of service is offered through a
August 15,2003
City of Chula Vista
series of workshops. These workshop opportunities provide information about
government marketing, concerning registrations or certifications, or they deal with
technical procurement and contracting subjects.
Businesses that will be assisted by the San Diego Contracting Opportunities Center
(SDCOC) are all small, small disadvantaged, veteran owned, disabled veteran-owned,
woman-owned or HUBZone business enterprises participating in the Chula Vista
business community. The majority of these small businesses are expected to be in the
micro-business category, i.e., having very few employees. Many businesses in this
category are capable of becoming suppliers to the government but currently lack the
knowledge of how to successfully register, certify and qualify for federal, state and local
procurement and contracting opportunities. Additionally many eligible businesses are
not aware that different government agencies desire to outreach to small businesses and
that many preferences are provided to various categories of small business. Historically
Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) certification is an example that directly
impacts many Chula Vista businesses. Chula Vista micro-enterprise firms will gain
access to millions of dollars in government contract opportunities through the SDCOC
program and services. This will have an overall beneficial economic impact on the
community through business development and job creation.
XII. Required Contract Clauses (§§26.13, 26.29)
Contract Assurance
The City of Chula Vista ensures that the following clause is placed in every DOT-assisted
contract and subcontract:
The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall can'y out
applicable requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-
assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material
breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other
remedy as recipient deems appropriate.
Prompt Payment
The City of Chula Vista ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included
in each DOT-assisted prime contract:
Satisfactory Performance
The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for
satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each
payment the prime contractor receives from the City of Chula Vista. Any delay or
August 15,Z003 /¢~ ~ Page6
City of Chula Vista
postponement of payment f~om the above referenced time frame may occur only for good
cause following written approval of the City of Chula Vista. This clause applies to both
DBE and non-DBE subcontractors
Release of Retainage
The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor
within 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or
postponement of payment from the above referenced time flame may occur only for good
cause following written approval of the City of Chula Vista. This clause applies to both
DBE and non-DBE subcontractors.
XIIL Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (§26.37)
The City of Chula Vista will assign a Resident Engineer (RE) or Contract Manager to
monitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontractor reports
of payments in accordance with the following:
After Contract Award
After the contract award the City of Chula Vista will review the award documents for the
portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontractor will be performing and the dollar
value of that work. With these documents the RE/Contract Manager will be able to
determine the work to be performed by the DBEs or subcontractors listed.
Pre-construction Conference
A pre-construction conference will be scheduled between the RE and the contractor or
their representative to discuss the work DBE subcontractors will perform.
Before work can begin on a subcontract, the local agency will require the contractor to
submit a completed "Subcontracting Request," Exhibit 16-B of the LAPM or equivalent.
When the RE receives the completed form it will be checked for agreement of the first
tier subcontractors and DBEs. The RE will not approve the request when it identifies
someone other than the DBE or first tier subcontractor listed in the previously completed
"Local Agency Bidder DBE Information," Exhibit 15-G. The "Subcontracting Request"
will not be approved until any discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved
at that time, or there is some other concern, the RE will require the contractor to eliminate
the subcontractor in question before signing the subcontracting request. A change in the
DBE or first tier subcontractor may be addressed during a substitution process at a later
date.
Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Local Agency Bidder DBE
Information" will be compared to those listed in the completed Exhibit 16-1 of the LAPM
or equivalent. Either making corrections or requesting a substitution must resolve
differences.
August 15,2003
/ ~ '~/0 Page7
City of Chula Vista
Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act
(FPA). Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to the provisions within
Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State Law) Sections 4100-4144. FPA
requires the contractor to list all subcontractors in excess of one half of one percent
(0.5%) of the contractor's total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. The statute is
designed to prevent bid shopping by contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may
not substitute a subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of the
awarding authority.
The RE will give the contractor a blank Exhibit 17-F, "Final Report Utilization of
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors" and will explain to them
that the document wil! be required at the end of the project, for which payment can be
withheld, in conformance with the contract.
Construction Contract Monitoring
The RE will ensure that the RE's staff (inspectors) knows what items of work each DBE
is responsible for performing. Inspectors will notify the RE immediately of apparent
violations.
When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found performing the work, the
RE will notify the contractor of the apparent discrepancy and potential loss of payment.
Based on the contractor's response, the RE will take appropriate action: The DBE
Liaison Officer will perform a preliminary investigation to identify any potential issues
related to the DBE subcontractor performing a commercially useful function. Any
substantive issues will be forwarded to the CALTRANS Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program. If the contractor fails to adequately explain why there is a
discrepancy, payment for the work will he withheld and a letter will be sent to the
contractor referencing the applicable specification violation and the required withholding
of payment.
If the contract requires the submittal of a monthly truck document, the contractor will be
required to submit documentation to the RE showing the owner's name; California
Highway Patrol CA number; and the DBE certification number of the owner of the truck
for each truck used during that month for which DBE participation will be claimed. The
trucks will be listed by California Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a
separate piece of paper for documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors
regularly to confirm compliance.
Providing evidence of DBE payment is the responsibility of the contractor.
Substitution
When a DBE substitution is requested, the RE/Contract Manager will request a letter
from the contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The RE/Contract Manager
must review the letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are
August 15,2003
/ t age8
City of Chula Vista
included, and reason for the request is explained. If the RE/Contract Manager agrees to
the substitution, the RE/Contract Manager will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor
regarding the proposed substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE
subcontractor in accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. If
the contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, the contractor must
provide the required good faith effort to the RE/Contract Manager for local agency
consideration.
If there is any doubt in the RE/Contract Manager's mind regarding the requested
substitution, the RE/Contract Manager may contact the DLAE for assistance and
direction.
Record Keeping and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and address of each first-tier
subcontractor. The records shall also show:
1. The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor, DBE
vendor of materials and DBE trucking company.
2. The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each of the firms.
3. The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work performed by their own
forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the'work claimed toward DBE
goals.
When a contract has been completed the contractor will provide a summary of the records
stated above. Thc DBE utilization information will be documented on Exhibit 17-F and
will be submitted to the DLAE attached to the Report of Expenditures. The RE will
compare the completed Exhibit 17-F to the contractor's completed Exhibit 15-G and, if
applicable, to the completed Exhibit 16-B. The DBEs shown on the completed Exhibit
17-F should be the same as those originally listed unless an authorized substitution was
allowed, or the contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount
should reflect any changes made in planned work done by the DBE.
The contractor will be required to explain in writing why the names of the subcontractors,
the work items or dollar figures are different from what was originally shown on the
completed Exhibit 15~G when:
· There have been no changes made by the RE.
· The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in the comments section of
the completed Exhibit 17-F.
The explanation will be attached to the completed Exhibit 17-F for submittal. The RE
will file this in the project records.
August 15,2003
City of Chula Vista
The local agency's Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification status on the
Interact at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep and keep the RE informed of changes that affect the
contract. The RE will require the contractor to act in accordance with existing
contractual commitments regardless of decertificafion.
The DLAE will use the PS&E checklist to monitor the City ofChula Vista's commitment
to require bidders list information to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista f~om the
awarded prime and subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. This monitoring
will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be submitted as stipulated
in the special provisions.
The City of Chula Vista will bring to the attention of the DOT through the DLAE any
false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that DOT can
take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral
to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud
and Civil Penalties rules) provided in §26.109. The City of Chula Vista also will
consider similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility
determinations in future contracts.
XIV. OverallGoals (§26.45)
Amount of Goal
The City of Chula Vista's overall goal for the Federal fiscal year on FHWA-assisted
contracts is found in Attachment 2. This overall goal is also broken down into race-
conscious and race-neutral components.
Methodology
The methodology followed in setting the overall goal is also attached as Attachment 2.
Process
Starting with the Federal fiscal year 2002, the amount of overall goal, the method to
calculate the goal, and the breakout of estimated race-neutral and race-conscious
participation will be required annually by June 1 in advance of the Federal fiscal year
beginning October 1 for FHWA-assisted contracts. Submittals will be to the
CALTRANS' DLAE. An exception to this will be ifFTA or FAA recipients are required
by FTA or FAA to submit the annual information to them or a designee by another date.
FHWA recipients will follow this process:
Once the DLAE has responded with preliminary comments and the comments have been
incorporated into the draft overall goal information, the City of Chula Vista will publish a
notice of the proposed overall goal, informing the public that the proposed goal and its
rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at the City of Chula
Vista's principal office for 30 days following the date of the notice, and informing the
public that the City of Chula Vista comments will be accepted on the goals for 45 days
August 15,2003
City of Chula Vista
following the date of the notice. Advertisements in newspapers, minority focus media,
trade publications, and websites will be the normal media to accomplish this effort. The
notice will include addresses to which comments may be sent and addresses (including
offices and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed.
The overall goal resubmission to the CALTRANS DLAE, will include a sunu'nary of
information and comments received during this public participation process and the City
of Chula Vista's responses. This will be due by September 1 to the CALTRANS DLAE.
The DLAE will have a month to make a final review so the City of Chula Vista may
begin using the overall goal on October 1 of each year.
XV. Contract Goals (§26.51)
The City of Chula Vista will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal.
The City of Chula Vista does not project being able to meet the overall goal by the use of
race-neutral means only. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which
the overall goal applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of the
overall goal that is not projected to be met through the use of race-neutral means.
Contr~ goals will be established only on those DOT-assisted contracts that have
subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be established on every such
contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such
contract- (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular
type of~ork). The contract work items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors
willing to work on the project. A determination will also be made to decide which items
are likely to be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to be
performed by the subcontractor(s). The goal will then be incorporated into the contract
documents. Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of a
DOT-assisted contract.
XVI. Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (§26.49)
If DOT-assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, the City of Chula
Vista will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized to
bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the
requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. The City of Chula Vista will direct the
transit vehicle manufacturer to the subject requirements located on the Internet at
http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/programs/dbe/dbe.htm.
XVII. Good Faith Efforts (§26.53)
Information to be Submitted
The City of Chula Vista treats biddersVofferors' compliance with good faith effort
requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is meeting all the
requirements of the advertisement and solicitation.
August 15,2003
City of Chula Vista
Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require the
bidders/offerors to submit the following information to the City of Chula Vista, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before the fourth
day, not including Saturdays, Stmdays and legal holidays, following bid opening:
1. The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will participate in the contract;
2. A description of the work that each DBE will perform:
3. The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participation
4. Written and signed documentation of commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose
participation it submits to meet a contract goal;
5. Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is participating in the contract
as provided in the prime contractor's commitment; and
6. If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts.
Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts
The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can
demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good
faith efforts.
The following personnel are responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who
has not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith effort~ to be regarded
as responsive: Mario Ingrasci, Project Design and Management.
The City of Chula Vista will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and
adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before a commitment to the
performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made.
Administrative Reconsideration
Within 10 days of being informed by the City of Chula Vista that it is not responsive
because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request
administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the
following reconsideration official: Clifford L. Swanson, Director of Engineering. The
reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that
the bidder/offeror did not make document sufficient good faith efforts.
As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide
written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or
made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity
to meet in person with the reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met
the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do. The City of Chula Vista will send the
bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that
the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The
result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to CALTRANS,
FHWA or the DOT.
August 15,2003 Page 12
City of Chula Vista
Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract
The City of Chula Vista will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a
DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with
another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal. The prime
contractor is required to notify the RE immediately of the DBE's inability or
unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable documentation.
In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain the City of Chula Vista
prior approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended
subcontracts, or documentation of good faith efforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to
comply in the time specified, the City of Chula Vista contracting office will issue an
order stopping all or part ofpayment~work until satisfactory action has been taken. If the
contractor still fails to comply, the contracting officer may issue a termination for default
proceeding.
XVIII. Counting DBE Participation (§26.55)
The City of Chula Vista will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals
as provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint
venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of material or supplies.
XIX. Certification (§26.83(a))
The City of Chula Vista ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the
CALTRANS' directory will participate as DBEs in our program.
XX. Information Collection and Reporting
Bidders List
Thc City of Chula Vista will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information
about all DBE and non-DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT-assisted contracts. The
bidders list will include thc name, address, DBE/non-DBE status, age, and annual gross
receipts of firms.
Monitoring Payments to DBEs
Prime contractors arc required to maintain records and documents of payments to DBEs
for three years following the performance of the contract. The contractor will make these
records available for inspection upon request by any authorized representative of the City
of Chula Vista, CALTtLANS or FHWA. This reporting requirement also extends to any
certified DBE subcontractor.
August 15,2003 Page 13
City of Chula Vista
Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by the City of Chula Vista to ensure
that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the dollar amounts
stated in the schedule of DBE participation.
Reporting to CALTRANS
The City of Chula Vista - Final utilization of DBE participation will be reported to the
DLAE using Exhibit 17-F of the CALTRANS' LAPM.
Confidentiality
The City of Chula Vista will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that
may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with Federal,
state, and local laws.
Clifford L. Swanson, Director of Engineering Date:
This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is accepted by:
Gary L. Vettese, P.E., District Local Assistance Engineer Date:
mji
August 15,2003 (C:~Dbe-C\03-04DBE Program\dbeprogram03-04.doc) -Page 14
CIIY OF
CHULA VISTA
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
(FY 03/04
Clifford L. Swanson, Director of Engineenng ~
Frank River~, Deputy Director of Engineering, ~
James Holmes, Civil Engineer, ~
Greg Tscherch, EEO Officer
Assistant Civil Engineer
Roberto Solorzano, Labor Compliance Officer
Assistant Civil Engineer
Mhrio Ingrasci, DBE Liaison Officer, Assistant Civil Engineer
(C:~Dbe-C\03-04DBE Program~ATTACHMENT l,doc)
ATTACHMENT 2
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAM (DBE)
FOR U.S. DOT FUNDED PROJECTS
FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GOALS AND METHODOLOGY
FY: 03/04
1. The number of available and willing DBE's in the San Diego area was obtained by using a
database program, prepared by SANDAG, CALTRANS' "Caicert" database and the total
number of available and willing firms located in the San Diego County area that was obtained
from the 2001 Census Bureau's County Business Pattern Database. Exhibit "C" lists all the
available DBE firms and includes all Work Category Codes (WCC) codes for which they are
certified and their associated North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) Codes,
formally known as Standard Industry Codes (SIC), used for the census data. Exhibit "B" lists
all the "DBE Classifications" (WCC codes) used in Chula Vista. This list includes only those
classifications, which were likely to be used on City of Chula Vista DOT assisted projects.
2. Step 1: Overall Goal Calculation (BASE FIGURE/DBE AVAILABILITY)
Per our query of the CALTRANS' database (Exhibit "C"), there are 226 available DBE Firms
that can perform various types of work likely to be used on City o£ Chula Vista DOT assisted
projects and 7894 total firms, per the "2001 Census", in San Diego available to perform the
same work. This yields an initial Base Figure of 2.9%.
226 Available DBE Firms / 7,894 Available Firms in San Diego = 2.9 %
(See end o£ Exhibit "C", page 16)
However, due to DBE Firms performing work in many different SIC/WCC codes, in several
different NAICS codes, and in various Work Categories, resulting in many duplications of
many firms, the DBE availability can be shown in several ways. Several of the exhibits break
down the DBE's into all the various codes and categories, and availabilities.
The most fair and equitable way to determine the DBE availability and which also gives a
realistic DBE availability percentage is to compare the total number of DBE's within each
NAICS code against the total number of firms within that same NAICS Code. Although a firm
may be listed in several WCC classifications within a NAICS Classification, it is only counted
once within each NAICS Classification to calculate availability. DBE firms can still appear
within more than one NAICS Classification. Each WCC code within a NAICS Classification
will have the same percentage availability.
Our revised Base Figure is 7.0%.
(554 DBE Firms divided by 7,894 total firms, based on summaries £or each NAICS code)
(See Exhibit E)
(C:~Dbe~2\03-04DBE Program~dbemethodology2003-04.doc; mji) Page 1 of 3
3. Past Performance - (See Table "DBE Participation in Federally Assisted Projects" (Exhibit
"A")
The DBE participation goal for DOT funded projects during the last fiscal year, FY-01/02, was
calculated and set at 8.2%. The actual DBE participation for the projects finally awarded FY
02/03 will end up closer to 1% (not finalized yet).
The DBE participation rate for DOT funded projects during the fiscal year, FY-00/01, was
calculated and set at 13.4%. The actual DBE participation was 2.2%.
During the prior three fiscal years, (FY-97/98; 98/99; 99/00) the goal was set at 15%. This
figure was adopted in previous years based on CALTRANS recommendation. This figure was
not based on any calculation or participation of DBE Firms in previous federally assisted
funded projects. During this period the City of Chula Vista had two DOT assisted projects
totaling $477,727.34 with an average DBE participation of 13.1%.
The City's past performance over the last five fiscal years, on projects with goals (not zero),
has resulted in a average DBE participation rate of 2.9% on four (4) projects totaling
$8,199,223.
The City of Chula Vista has a Bidder's List. The City of Chula Vista has not collected
sufficient data to date for consideration in adjusting the base figure, however, the City of Chula
Vista will continue to capture information fi.om all bidders at the time of bid and/or proposal
submission and will utilize such information in future goal-setting analysis.
The City of Chula Vista is not aware of any current disparity studies within the City's
jurisdiction for consideration in the goal-setting analysis and/or adjustment.
4. Step 2: Overall Goal Adjustment
For the period of October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004, the City of Chula Vista expects to
continue preliminary engineering design and environmental work on the Willow Street Bridge
Replacement Project and award consultant contracts. The City will also begin construction on
Olympic Parkway/I805 interchange Project and on a Hazard Elimination Project at Fourth
Avenue and Orange Avenue. All three projects will be DOT assisted. Based on the availability
of DBE's for each type of work (Shown on Exhibit "B") on each project, a percentage of DBE
participation was calculated for each project. The average DBE Participation Rate of the three
projects is 10.2%. See the Table below.
Project Project Name Projected DBE Project % of
No. Amount Award Goals Goal
Olympic Parkway/1805
STM-328 Interchan~le $13,500,0001 $1,379,700 10.2% 94.6%
~Villow Street Bridge
STL-261 F{eplacement $800,00£ $77,376 9.7% 5.4%
TF-309 Hazard Elimination Project $54,00£ $0 $C 0%
totals $14,354,00{~ $1,457,076 10.2% 100%
The overall average rate drops to 7.5% when the City's past performance is taken into account.
This includes 10.2% on the three (3) upcoming projects and 2.9 % on past projects. See table
on Exhibit A for details.
(C:~Dbe-C\03-04DBE ProgramXdbemethodology2003-04.doc; mji) Page 2 of 3
5. The entire goal of (7.5%) is to be accomplished through race-conscious measures, which
includes establishing contract specific goals on contracts with contracting possibilities, when
needed, to meet the City of Chula Vista's overall annual DBE goal.
We will also utilize race-neutral methods to increase the DBE participation. This includes;
making efforts to assure that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by
DBE's and other small businesses; unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to
small businesses; encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they
might otherwise perform themselves; and providing technical assistance and other services to
facilitate consideration of DBEs and others small businesses.
6. In conformance with Public Participation Regulatory requirements of 49 CFR Part 26.45 and
CALTRANS Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), Chapter 9, this goal analysis has
been reviewed with minority, women, local business chambers, community organizations, and
other U.S. DOT recipients. These entities are knowledgeable about the availability of
disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged businesses and the effects of discrimination on
contracting opportunities for DBE's within the Authority's marketplace.
Additionally, the City of Chula Vista has published a Public Note in general cimulation media,
announcing the City of Chula Vista proposed overall annual goals for the FY 2002/2003
contracts assisted by FHWA. Such Notice informed the public that the proposed goals and
their rational were available for inspection at the City of Chula Vista during normal business
hours for 30 days following the date of the Public Notice and, that the City of Chula Vista and
FHWA will accept comments on the goals for 45 days from the date of the Public Notice. The
required public participation provisions will be fully satisfied prior to submitting the City of
Chula Vista's DBE Program and Overall Annual DBE Goal for Final Review and Approval.
(C:\Dbe-C\03-04DBE Program~dbernethodology2003-04,doc; mji) Page 3 of 3
t¥- 1
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DBE Participation in Federally Assisted Projects
Chula Vista's Proposed Overall DBE Goal (FY - 03/04) = 7.50 %
(Begins t04)t-03)
FUTURE/CURRENT PROJECTS - (FY - 03/04) I (Oct 2003 - Oct
2OO4)
CONTRACT AWARD INFO~
Prol No. Pro ect Name 03/04 Conb'lbutlon (%1 / Amount ($) Date/Reso. Amount AWARD Contract
Olympic Parkway/ Constr Phase I $22,000,000 I $13,500,000 I ,022%/ $1 37g 700.oolS.e~tember~2003
~o ..~/Z[~.~.~L._._...~.~.~ ............. ~g~/,~ ~ ................. ~L~ ~ ~ ~Z~ .............................................
CURRENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - (FY - 01/02 & 02/03) (Oct 2001 - Oct 2003)
COMPLETED PROJECTS
PROJECTS AWARDED FY-01/02 - (Oct 2001- Oct 2002) (ChulaVista'sCurrentOverallDBEGoal(FY.0t/02) = 10.2%)
DBE Classifications for Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B'
Category / NAIC$ Codos / Diseriptions for Consua / WCC Codes/DBE Classifications
Construction
21232 / Sand & Gravel
14 Businesses in SD County
C0625 - SAND & GRAVEL
0 DBE'sin SD County 0 00%
23411 / Hiqhway, Street, Bridge 8, Tunnel Construction
100 Businesses in SD County
C0626 - GRANITE & MARBLE
C0639 - ASPHALT
C1522 - RESET, ADJUST ROADWAY ITEMS
C1601 - CLEARING & GRUBBING
C2201 FINISHING ROADWAY
C2401 LrME TREATMENT
C2501 AGGREGATE SUBBASE
C2602 AGGREGATE BASE
C2700 CEMENT TREATED BASE
C3600 PENETRATION TREATMENT & PRIME
C3701 SEAL COAT
C3901 ASPHALT CONCRETE
C3910 PAVING ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRE
C3930 PAVEMENT REINFORCING FABRIC
C3940 PLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE &
C4040 CLEAN & SEAL PAVEMENT JOINTS - R
C4201 GROOVE & GRIND PAVEMENT
. 26 DBE'sin SD County 26.00%
23491 / Pipeline Construction
55 Businesses in SD County
C1701 - DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY
C6200 - ALTERNATIVE PiPE CULVERT
C6301 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PiPE
C6401 - ASBESTOS-CEMENT PIPE
C6500 - REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
C6552 - JACKED REINFORCED CONCRETE Pi
C6650 - CORRUGATED METAL PiPE (CSP)
C6680 - JACKED CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE)
C6700 - STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE PIPE, AR
C6800 SUBSURFACE DRAIN
C6900 DOWNDRAIN
C7000 PLASTIC PIPE
C7006 CORRUGATED STEEL PiPE INLET & R
C7026 CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE ENERGY
C7035 WELDED STEEL PiPE
C7112 REINFORCED CONCRETE SEWER PIP
C9872 SEWER CONNECTION
25 DBE's in SD County 45.45%
~tesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page I of 6
DBE Classifications For Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B"
Category / NAICS Codes / Discripti0ns for Census / It/CC Codes/DBE Classifications
23499 / Ail other Construction
97 Businesses in SD County
C2065 - IRRIGATION SYSTEM
C6811 - EDGE DRAIN
C6815 - HORIZONTAL DRAIN
C6819 - FILTER FABRIC
C7200 - ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
C7215 - CONCRETED-ROCK SLOPE PROTECT
C9828 - CRANE WORK
19 DBE's in SD County 19.59%
23521 / Paintinq, Traffic Markinq
452 Businesses in SD County
C0685 - PAVEMENT MARKERS
C8405 - THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE &
C8406 - PAINTED TRAFFIC STRIPE & MARKIN
C8501 - PAVEMENT MARKING
4 DBE's in SD County 0,88%
23593 / Gradinq
141 Businesses in SD County
C1901 - ROADWAY EXCAVATION
C1910 - GRADING
C1920 - STRUCTURE EXCAVATION
C1925 - SHAPED BEDDING
C1930 - STRUCTURE BACKFILL
C1940 - DITCHES EXCAVATION
C1970 - EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION
C1980 - IMPORTED BORROW
26' DBE's in ~D county 18.44%
23599 / Special Trade Contractor
355 Businesses in SD County
C0680 - FENCING
C8000 - FENCING
32612 / Pipes
9 Businesses in SD County
C0670 - PIPE
7 DBE's in SD County 7:7.78%
32731 / Concrete and Cement
43 Businesses in SD County
C0651 - CONCRETE & CEMENT
I DBE's in SD County 2
33~
44419 / Buildin.q Materials Dealers
289 Businesses in SD County
C0698 - BUILDING MATERIAL
C0699 - TOOLS
I DBE'sin SD County 0.35%
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 6
DBE Classifications For Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B"
Category / NAIC$ Codos / Discriptions for Consus / }YCC Codes/DBE Classifications
48411 / Truckinq
135 Businesses in SD County
C9602 - BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKING
C9605 - FLAT BED TRUCKING
C9632 - HAZARDOUS WASTE TRUCKING
C9774 - TRUCKER
12 DBE'sin SD County 8.89%
53139 / Real Estate Services
294 Businesses in SD County
C8750 - REAL ESTATE
3 DBE's in SD County 1.02%
53212 / TruckRental
48 Businesses in SD County
C9670 - TRUCK RENTAL
C9771 - TRUCK BROKER
C9907 - CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RENTA
C9908 - HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTAL
15 DBE's in SD County 31.25%
56173 / Landscapinq
~ 793 Businesses in SD County
C0620 - LANDSCAPING & NURSERY
C2000 - HIGHWAY PLANTING
C2020 - SOIL AMENDMENTS
C2021 - HYDROSEEDING
C2030 - EROSION CONTROL
19 DBE'sin SD County 2.40%
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page 3 of 6
DBE Classifications For Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B"
Category / NAIC$ Codes / Discriptions for Census / WCC Codes/DBE Classifications
Professional & Technical Services
54131 / Architectural
300 Businesses in SD County
C8704 - ARCHITECTURAL
C8716 - ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEER
15 DBE's in SD County 5.00%
54132 / Landscape Architect
96 Businesses in SD County
C8744 - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
6 DBE's in SD County , 6.25%
54133 / En,qineerin,q
896 Businesses in SD County
C6609 - TRAFFIC COUNT STATION
C8610 - SPEED MONITORING STATION
C8611 - RAMP METERING SYSTEM
C8703 - TRAFFrC ENGINEER
C8705 - DESIGN
C8706 - DESIGN BRIDGES
C8707 - FEASIBILITY STUDIES
C8710 - ENGINEERING
C8720 - CIVIL ENGINEERIN~
C8721 - RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEER
C8740 - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
76 DBE's in $[~ County 8.48%
54134 / Draffin,q
28 Businesses in SD County
C8765 - DRAFTING
{~D-E~'S in Sb County 5
54137 / Survey
51 Businesses in SD County
C0700 - CONSTRUCTION STAKING
C8101 - SURVEY OR HISTORICAL MONUMENT
C8201 - OBJECT MARKER
C8760 - SURVEYOR
C9826 - LAND SURVEYING
9_ DBE's in sD county 17.65% _
54151 / Computer
1256 Businesses in SD County
C8702 - MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTE
C8711 - COMPUTER
22 DBE's in SD County 1~5%
54161 / Mana,qement Consult
942 Businesses in SD County
C8701 ~ BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
C8712 - PUBLIC RELATIONS
C8770 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
38 DBE's in SD County 4.03%
~tesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page 4 of 6
DBE Classifications For Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B"
Category / NAIC$ Codes / Diacriptions for Consus / WCC Codes/DBE Classifications
54162 / Environmental
96 Businesses in SD County
C8722 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
. 11 ~)BE's in SD Cou~nt.y 11.46%
54169 / Profesional Consultant
278 Businesses in SD County
C8700 - CONSULTANT
102 DBE's in SD County 36.69%
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page 5 of 6
DBE Classifications For Chula Vista EXHIBIT "B"
Category / NAIC$ Codes / Discriptions for Census / WCC Codes/DBE Classifications
Specialit~ Trades
23531 / Electrical Contruction
590 Businesses in SD County
C1200 - CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS
C1201 - TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
C8602 - SIGNAL & LIGHTING
C8603 - SIGNAL
C8604 - LIGHTING
C8605 - MESSAGE SIGNS, UGHTING & SIGN
C8608 - DETECTOR
. 21 DBE's in SD County 3.56%
23541 / Masonar~, Walls
167 Businesses in SD County
C5135 - CONCRETE BLOCK & MASONRY RET
C5180 - SOUND WALL (MASONRY BLOCK - CO
C9829 - RETAINER WALLS
C9842 - MASONRY
23571 / Concrete Contruction
290 Businesses in SD County
C0683 - GUARD RAILINGS ~ BARRIERS
C1531 - PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE
C2800 - CONCRETE BASE
C4010 - PORTLAND CEMENT & CONCRETE PA
C5100 ' - CONCRETE STRUCTURE
C5105 MINOR CONCRETE STRUCTURE
C5110 CONCRETE SURFACE FINISH
C5136 REINFORCED CONCRETE CRIB WALL
C5301 AIR-BLOWN MORTAR
C7194 JUNCTION CHAMBER
C7218 AIR-BLOWN MORTAR (SLOPE PAVING
C7250 SACKED CONCRETE
C7301 CONCRETE CURB & SIDEWALK - MiS
34 DBE's in SD County 11.72%
235~1 / Structural steel
51 Businesses in SD County
C0652 - REINFORCING BAR SECTION
C0655 - STEEL
C5201 - REINFORCING STEEL
C5501 '- STEEL STRUCTURES
C5601 - SIGN STRUCTURE
11 DBE's in SD County 21.57%
23594 / Demolition
20 Businesses in SD County
C9980 - DEMOLITION
11 DBE's in SD County 55.00%
33512 / Li.qhtinq Fixtures
22 Businesses in SD County
C0686 - ELECTRICAL & SIGNALS
4 DBE's in SD C~unty
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 EXHIBIT B Page 6 of 6
W'O,l~r~ CODff.,~
FIRM8 DOING BUSINESS EXHIBIT C
IN SAN DIEGO CO(.INTY C~JU/.~ WSTA PROJF, CT$
A AND T ELECTRIC I ACTION CLEANING CORP 6
6426 SKYLINE DRIVE 1668 NEWTON AVE.
SANDIEGO CA 92114~000 SANDIEGO CA 92113-
PHONE: 1619120a~8344 FAX: (619) 527-5979 PHONE! (8191233-1881 FAX: 16191233-7431
CONTACT: EDWARD FORD JR. WCC Work Codes: CONTACT: ROBERTO VICTORIA WCC Work Codes:
(N,~[£S) 235~ ~ CS602 SIGNAL &L[GHTING tNAIC$) 23~9] C550t STEEl. STRUCTURES
(N^IC$1 23331 C8603 SIGNAL 04;dCS) 23~4 C9980 DEMOLITION
(NARCS} 23531 C8604 LIGHTING (NAICS) 23599 C8000 FENCING
(NAICS) 23531 C8605 MESSAGE SIGNS~ LIGHTING & SIGN ILLUM[ (NAIC$1 4841I C9605 FLAT BED TRUCKING
A. B. HASNMI 2 (NAiCS) 48411 C9632 HAZARDOUS WASTE TRUCKING
9520 LEYENDEKKER CT ADVANCED MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES 7
LAKESIDE CA 92040-
750 DESIGN COURT, STE. 110
PHONE: 16191708-5738 PAX: 16191708-7882 CHULAVISTA CA 91911-
CONTACT: AHMADB. HASHMI WCC Work Codes: PHONE: (6191482-2021 FAX: 16191482-7229
(NAICS) 23490 C2065 IRRIGATION SYSTEM AGUIRRE & ASSOCIATES 8
(NAICSI 23571 C5110 CONCRETE SURFACE FINISH ALLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, INC 9
(N^ICSI 23594 C9980 DEMOLITION ALONSO CONSTRUCTION 10
ABURTO MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 3 AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING 11
3485 NOELL STREET #F SERVICES
539 T L RAPH CANYON ROAD #144
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-2032 CHU~L~I~TA CA 91910-
ACCURATEENGINEERING_INTEGRATEDCONST 4 (NAICSl 541~3 CS707 FEASIBILITY STUDIES
SERVICE (~A[CS) 54134 Cg765 DRAFTING
ACME SAFETY & SUPPLY CO, LLC $ AMERI-MEX PLUMBING, INC. 12
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 1 of 16
DEE RESOURCE LIST * CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS & GRAPHICS, INC. ]3 BROKEN FRAGMENTS 2:2
9358 CABOT DRIVE SUITE C 7226 VIAR AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123- SAN DIEGO CA 92120-
(N^ICS) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT BURNS AND SONS TRUCKING, INC 23
ARMTECH 14 P.O. BOX 1640
ARTIST ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC ART 15 (NAICS) 53212 C9908 HEAVY E(~LqPMENT RENTAL
2630 ERIE STREET # 19 C & L CONSTRUCTION, INC 24
BAY CITY MARINE, INC ]6 (NA[CS} 23491 C?000 PLASTIC PIPE
BENDIX CONTRACTING CORPORATION 17 (NAI(?S} 23594 C9980 DEMOLITION
P O BOX 600339 C I C RESEARCH, INC 25
BERGGREN LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING INC 18 (NAICSi 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
6046 CORNERSTONE COURT WEST #116 C L ENTERPRISE 26
BERT WSALAS, INC 19 (NAI(TSI $6173 c2020 SOIL AMENDMENTS
PHONE: (619~ 562~7711 FAX: (8101449-4799 C M DISTRIBUTORS, INC 27
(NAiCSI 23491 C7000 PLASTIC PIPE C.P. MANAGEMENT 28
(NAI(?S) 23593 C1910 GP-~a~DING CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY 29
BIZBEE'S WARRIORS 20 CONTACT: KEVIN WILLIAM WCC Work Codes:
BLACKIPO 21 (NAICS) 23593 C1930 STRUCTURE BACKFILL
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 16
·
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
CANTARINI TRACTOR 30 COBOS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & ASSOC, INC 37
PO BOX 1181/427 YUCCA ROAD (92028) 3045 ROSECRANS STREET, #111
FALLBROOK CA 92088- SAN DIEGO CA 92110-0000
(NAICSl 25411 C250] ^GG~GAT£ SUBB^SE COLLINS & COLLINS CONSULTING, INC. 38
22365 EL TORO ROAD, STE, 228
(NAICS) 23499 C7200 ROCK SLOPE PROTECT[ON LAKE FOREST CA 92630-
(NAICS) 48411 C9602 BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKENG COLLINS PLUMBING, INC 39
(N^ICS) 53212 C9908 HEAVY EQbTPMENT RENTAL CONTACT: RICHARD COLLINS WCC Work Codes:
CASE CONSULTING 31 CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTY 40
CATS EXCAVATING, INC 32 (NAICS) 48411 C9774 TRUCKER
CONTACT: STEPHEN GROVES WCC Work Codes: CONTRERAS TRACTOR RENTAL 41
CECILIA'S SAFETY SERVICE, INC. 33 (NAIC$) 53212 C9905 HEAVY EQLrIPMENTRENTAL
DELMAR CA 92014- CORNWELLENTERPRISESINC 42
CENTURION LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION 34 (NAICS) 54151 C8711 COMPUTER CONSULTANT
PHONE: m'm~,~8-2245 PAX: m'm~ 44~-9e2'~ CRUZ ESTRELLA'S CADD & DRAFTING 43
CHANGING PLACES 35 (NA[CS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
3245 VIA ALICANTE ~59 CEA, INC.
CITY EVENT STAFF SERVICES 36 (NAICS) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT
PHONE: I858~ 268-1983 FAX: (858~ 268-4597 CYBER~flRE 45
CONTACT: JOAQUINCAMPOS WCC Work Codes:
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 3 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
D C DESIGN GROUP 40 DYNADRILL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORA TED 55
P.O. BOX 262208 PO BX 1029/PHY 10531 CNYN CT OAK HILLS
SAN DIEGO CA 92196-2208 VICTORVlLLE CA 92393-1029
PHONE: [858~ 547-1011 FAX: I8581 547-1015 PHONE: I7661 244-6047 FAX: t7661244-6057
CONTACT: DEBRAL. KOCH WCCWorkCode~: CONTACT: G/GIL. MARIE WCCWorkCodes:
(N^ICS) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT (NAtCSI 23490 C6815 HORIZONTAL DRAIN
(NAICS) 54134 C8765 DRAFTING (NAICS) 23499 C7200 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
(NAICS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL2~t'PES) (NAICSI 23499 C7215 CONCRETED-ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
D L S CONSTRUCTORS, INC 47 (NAICS) 23541 C9829 RETAINER WALLS
38700 SKY CANYON DRIVE, SUITE C DYNAMIC 56
RIVERSIDE CA 92003-0000
3517 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 410
PHONE: 17601940-8322 FAX: 17601940-1108 SANDIEGO CA 92108-4030
CONTACT: DONNAL. SIEVERDING WCC Work Codes: PHONE: 18581578-8486 FAX: I8191280-8359
(N^~CSl 2~0~ C1910 GRAmNG EREIDERENTERPRISES 57
DRVDESIGN 48 CONTACT: EVEREIDER WCC Work Codes:
PHONE: 18581592-8829 FAX: t868/592-8829 EPIC CONSUL TING ENGINEERS 58
DELTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 49 (NAICS) 5413~ C8707 FEASIBILITY STUD[ES
PHONE: (658/566-7064 FAX: 18581 566-7094 EREMICO 59
DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS INC. 50 IN^rCS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALI., TYPES)
44 BROADWAY ERGONOMIC EVALUATION & TRAINING 60
CHULA VISTA CA 91910-0000
P. o sox ~25ol
DODSONANDASSOCIATES 51 {NAICSI 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
4209 HUERFANO AVENUE EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS 6!
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-
D-S-P, DESKTOP SOLUTIONS PLUS 52 (N^ICS~ 541~ C8710 ENGINEEPJNG CONSULTANT
{NAIC$) 54161 C8701 BUSINI~SS ADM]F~[STRAT[ON ESKINDER BERHANU & ASSOClATES 62
DURAN ENTERPRISES INC. 53 2636 WEST CANYON AVENUE
(NAICSi 23571 U5105 MrNoR CONCRETE STRUCTURE ESTRADA & EDAWPARTNERSHIP 63
DYE SURVEYING, INC. 54 SANDIEGO ~A 92q01-6151
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 4 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC. 64 GONZALEZ-WHITE CONSULTING SERVICES 7!
755 BROADWAY CIRCLE SUITE 300
SAN DIEGO ~A 92101-6161 4881 MT. BIGEEOW DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92111-2525
PHONE: (619~ 236-0143 FAX: ~6191 239q)578 PHONE: /858~ 2684737 FAX: IO00~ 000-0000
CONTACT: STEVE ESTRADA WCCWorkCode~: CONTACT: TERESA GONZALEZ- WCCWorkC~es:
GARBINI&GARBINILANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE 65 (NARCS) 54151 C8702 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
715 J STREET, SUITE 106 (NA[CS) 54161 C8701 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SAN DIEGO CA g2101-5121 INA]CS) 54161 C8770 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PHONE: 161912324747 FAX: f619~232-4519 (NMCSI 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
CONTACT; GAIL DECKER GARBINI WCC Work Codes; GRAND ELECTRIC SUPPL Y, INC. 72
GARY ENGINEERING, INC. 66 PHONE: (760~727-6400 FAX: (760~727-6903
4901 MORENA BOULEVARD SUITE 304 CONTACT: LAURA DA SILVA SIMS WCC Work Codes:
SANDIEGO CA 92117- !NA[CS) 33512 C0686 ELECTRICAL&SIGNALS.SUPPLiERS
PHONE: (61014834620 FAX: (6191~83-2943 GRAYSYSTEMS, INC.
CONTACT: ROBERT B. FAUDOA WCC Work Codes: 73
(NAICS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES) CONTACT: MICHELLEG. GRAY WCCWorkCode~:
GEORGE ALVARADO TRUCKING 67 (N~JCS) 54169 c8700 CONSULTANT (ALL "I~FPES)
819 CESAR E CHAVEZ BLVD. GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 74
CALEX CO CA 92231-2106
8756 OAKWOOD AVE
PHONE: I7601357-1850 FAX: I760~357-1930 HESPERIA CA 92345-3735
CONTACT: GEORGEALVARADO WCC Work Codes: PHONE: (7601956-1252 FAX: (760~956-2034
GHASSAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 68 (NAICS 23411 C2602 AGGREGATEBASE
0005 VIEWRIDGE WAY (NAIC$ 23411 C3701 SEAL COAT
CEANSIDE CA 92056- (N^K:S 234~] C3901 ASPHALT CONCRETE
(N^ICS) 2341I C2602 AOGREGATEBASE (NAICS 23541 C5135 'CQNCP,~TEBLOCK&MASONRYRETAININ
(NAICS) 23491 C6200 ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERT (NAICSI 23541 C5180 SOU~DWALL(MASONRYBLOCK_CONCR
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 69 (N^K;Sl 23593 C1925 SHAPED BEDDING
916 MORNING SUN DRIVE (NAICS) :3593 C1930 STRUCTUKE BACKFILL
ENCINITAS CA 92024-1957 (NAICS) 23593 C1940 DITCHES EXCAVATION
CONTACT: NEUNGS. G/M WCC Work Codes: (NAICS) 23594 C9980 DEMOLITION
{NAIC$) 23411 C3910 PAVING ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRETE) HABITATWEST 75
938 S ANDREASEN STE "E"
(NAICS) 23491 C7000 PLASTIC PIPE CONTACT; GIGIHURST-WALLACE WCC Work Codes:
(NAICSJ 234,)9 C7200 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION {NAICSI 23499 C2065 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
(NA1CS) 23541 C5180 SOUND WALL (MASONRY BLOCK - CONCR HAR CONSTRUCTION INC 76
100 WEST 38TH STREET STE "P"
{NAICS) 23571 C7301 CONCRETECURB&SIDEWALK-MISC NATIONAL CITY ~A ~1950-
(NAICSj 23591 C5501 STEEL STRUCTURES CONTACT: NECTORMROMERO WCCWorkCod~$:
GOLDEN QUEST ENTERPRISES, INC. 70
~964 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR.
ORONGO VALLEY CA 92256-
CONTACT: YVETTEDUBE WCC Work Codes:
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 5 of 16
l¥- B
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PRO2ECTS
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. 77 HURRICANE & POWA Y FENCE COMPANY 85
68-315 KIELY ROAD P.O.BOX 1636
CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234- RAMONA CA 92065-
PHONE: 1619/328-1747 FAX: I619/328-7417 PHONE: 17601789-4142 FAX: (760~ 788-1537
CONTACT: TIMOTNYWLEWIS WCCWorkCodes: CONTACT: LAURANNEM. VOLK WCCWorkCodes:
(NAICS) 23411 C1522 RESET, ADJUSTROADWAYITEMS ('qAICSl 23599 C8000 FENCING
{NA[CSI 23491 C1701 DEVELOP WATER SLqPPLY HVACENGINEERING, INC. 86
(NAICS) 23491 C6200 ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERT 5402 RUFFIN ROAD, STE. 210
(NAICS} 23491 C6500 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SAN DIEGO GA 92123-
(NAICS) 23491 C9872 SEWER CONNECTION HYDROSPROUT, INC. LA WN & SLOPE SEEDING 87
HERITAGE RESOURCES 78 (NAICS) 56173 C2020 SOIL AMENDMENTS
PHONE: 17601 789-8509 FAX: (760~ 789-8509 I E PACIFIC, INC 88
CONTACT; SUEA. WADE W(~CWorkCodes: 1663PACIFICRIMCOURT
HERNANDEZ TRUCKING 79 CONTACT: DIANE KOESTER-OION WCC Work Codes:
HON CONSUL TING IN~ 80 (NAI£ S) 23571 C7301 CONCRETE CUR~I & SIDEWALK - MISC
(NAICS) 54133 C8707 FEASIBILITY STUDIES lOIS TECHNOLOGIES INC 89
HR STRATEGIC INC 81 CONTACT: ANDRESABEYTA WCC Work Codes:
SAN DIEGO CA 92125- IMPERIAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC. 90
HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENTALS 82 INA]CS) 23499 C2065 IR. RIGATION SYSTEM
PHONE: (6193 661-6180 FAX: (619~ s61-~18s INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION 91
HUMAN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 83 CONTACT: AMYR CZAJKOVVSKI WCC Work Codes:
POWAY CA 92064- INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 92
HUNTER PACIFIC GROUP 84
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 6 of 16
/./.3'./
DEE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECT,~
INTERWEST PACIFIC, LTD. 93 J. F. TEJEDA COMPANY 98
PO BOX 1450 663 GREENFIELD DRIVE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075- EL CAJON CA 92021 -
PHONE: (8581 259-2062 FAX: 18581 777-3665 PHONE: (019~ 447-2170 FAX: (6191447-2596
CONTACT: JACK NICKOLAIS£N WCCWorkCodes: CONTACT: JOSE F. TEJEDA WCCWorkCodes:
(N'n'ICS) 23411 C1601 CLEARING&GRUBBING (NA[CS) 23411 CI601 CLEARI[NG & G RLrB EHNG
(NAICSI 2341 I C2201 FINISHING ROADWAY (NAICS) 23411 C2201 FINISHING ROADWAY
(NAICS} 23411 C2401 LIMETKEATMENT (NAICSI 23411 C2401 LIME TREATMENT
(NAICS) 23411 C2501 AGGREGATESUBBASE (NAIC$) 23411 C2501 AGGREGATESUBBASE
{NAICS} 23411 C2602 AGGREGATEBASE (~AICS) 23411 C2602 AGGREGATEBASE
~,'AICS) 23411 C2700 CEMENT TREATED BASE (NAICSi 23411 C2700 CEMENT TREATED BASE
(NAICS~ 23411 C3600 PENETRATION TKEATMENT & PKIME COAT (NAICS) 23411 C3600 PENETRATION TREATMENT & PREViE COAT
( NA[C$1 23~11 C3901 ASPHALT CONCRETE (NAICS) 23411 C3701 SEAL COAT
(NAICS) 23411 C3910 PAVING ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRETE) (NAICSI 23411 C3901 ASPHA~LTCONCRETE
(NAICS) 23411 C3940 PLACE ASPI~LT CONCRETE DiKE & MISC (NAICS) 23411 C3910 PAVING ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRETE)
(NAICS) 23491 C6200 ALTERNATIVEPIPECULVERT (NAICS) 23411 C3930 PAVEMENT REINFORCING FABRIC
(NAICS) 23571 C2800 CONCRETE BASE /NAICS) 2341~ C3940 PLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKJE & MISC
(NAICSi 23571 C5105 MINOR CONCRETE STRUCTURE (NAICS) 2~571 C1531 PLANE ASP I-LA. LT CONCRETE
{NAICSI 23571 C5136 REINFORCED CONCRETE CRIB WALL (NAICSI 23571 C2500 CONCRETEBASE
(NAICS) 23571 C5301 AIR-BLOWN MORTAR {NAIC$} 23593 CI901 ROADWAY EXCAVATION
(NAICS) 23593 C1901 ROADWAY EXCAVATION (NAICS) 23593 Cl910 GR~D1NG
INA[CS) 23503 C1920 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (NAICS) 23593 C1940 DITCHES EXCAVATION
(NAICSI 23593 C1925 SHAPED BEDDING (NAIC$1 23593 C1980 iMPORTED BORROW
(NAIC$1 23593 C1930 STRUCTUREBACgJFILL J.E. MALDONADOARONITECT 99
(N^IC$1 2359~ C1940 DITCHES EXCAVATION
1288 JOHNSON AVENUE
(NAICS) 23593 C1970 EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION SAN DIEGO CA 92103-
(NAICS) 23593 C1980 IMPORTED BORROW PHONE: (6191296-2340 FAX: (619~298-4190
IR2-1NTERIORRESOURCE, INC 94 CONTACT: EDUARDO WCC Work Codes:
1500 STATE STREET, #230 MALDONADO
{NAICS) 54133 C8707 FEASmlLITY STUDIES JARKON INDUSTRIES 100
SANDIEGO CA 00000-0000 JBGENVlRONMENTALCONSULTING 101
JJDAVIS&ASSOCIATES 96 /NAtCSI 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
6540 LUSK ELVQ, SUITE 242 JCl SERVICES, INC 102
JRPINAASPHALTPAVING 97 (NAICS) 54133 C8707 FEASmlLITY STUDIES
(NAICS~ 23411 C3701 SEALCOAT JLC CONSULTANTSERVICES 103
JNE & A SSOCIA TES 104
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data ~ June 3, 2003 Page 7 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
JOHN'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL ]05 LEPORE CONSULTING ]14
11775 TOPO LANE 279 STRATFORD CT
LAKESIDE CA 92040- DEL MAR CA 92014-
CONTACT: LAURINDA DANIELS WCC Work Codes: CONTACT: LISA LEPORE WCC Work Codes:
JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND 106 (NAICS) $4133 C8707 FEASIBILITY STUDIES
LAND S (N~aCS) 54133 C8720 CIVIL ENGFNEERING
237 ROCKWOOD AVENUE LIBBY ENGINEERS, INC 115
CALEXlCO CA 92231- 4452 GLACIER AVE
ROMERO CONTACT: JEANMLIBBY WCC Work Codes:
(NAICS) 54161 C8770 CONSTRUCTION MP~NAGEMENT LINTVEDT, MCCOLL & ASSOCIATES 116
(NAICS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT(ALLTYPES) 3737 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH SUITE200
K. DUNCAN ENTERPRISES, INC. 107 SANDIEGO CA ~2108-4008
SAN DIEGO CA 92109- CONTACT: PATRICIA M. MCCOLL WCC Work Codes:
CONTACT: KIMBERLYDUNCAN WCCWorkCodes: (NAICS) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT
K2 ENGINEERING INC 108 (NAI('S) 54133 CS720 CIVIL ENGINEERING
SAN DIEGO CA 92129- ('~kIcs) 54137 C8760 SURVEYOR
CONTACT: SUSANAKEMMERRER WCCWorkCgd~; (NAICSI 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT(ALI. TYPES)
(NAICS) 54133 C8710 ENGINEERING CONSULTANT LOPEZ ENGINEERING INC 117
(NAICS} 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES) 2321 MORENA BLVO, SUITE G
KOAMENGINEERINGSYSTEMSINC 109 SANDIEGO CA 92110-4100
2645 FINANCIAL COURT #A
SAN DIEGO 'CA 92117- CONTACT: JOHN J, LOPEZ WCC Work Codes:
(NAICSl 5416I C870I BUSINESS ADMFNISTRATION LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING 118
KYLE CONSULTING 110 CONTRACTING
2495 BARTEL PLACE 2060 OAK SPRINGS VALLEY RD.
SAN DIEGO CA 92123- WRIGHTWOOD CA 92397-
CONTACT: CAROLYN E. KYLE WCCWorkCodes: CONTACT: LORI R. LOVETT WCCWorkCodes:
L C PAVING & SEALING 111 (NAICS) 23411 Cf601 CLEARING &GRUBBING
SAN MARCOS CA 92069- (NAIC$) 23411 C2602 AGGREGATEBASE
CONTACT: JOSEA. SALINAS WCC Work Codes: (NAICS) 23411 C3701 SEAL COAT
L K S & ASSOCIATES 112 (XAICS) 23491 C6900 DOWNDRAIN
10387 RUE FINISTERRE (NAICS) 23499 C7200 ROCK SLOPEPROTECTION
CONTACT: LINDAKSLOAN WCCWorkCodes: (NAICS) 23571 C5105 MINORCONCRETESTRUCTURE
LABORATORYDATA CONSULTANTS 113 (NA[CSl 23593 C1970 EMRANKMENTOONSTRUCTION
7750 EL CAMINO REAL, STE. 2C
CARLSBAD CA 920094519 MACDOC CONSULTANTS 119
CONTACT: RICHARD M. AMANO WCC Work Co0e~: SAN DIEGO CA 92168~476
CONTACT: WILMA DOCKEFF- WCC Work Codes:
MCLEOD
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 8 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
MANUEL ONClNA ARCHITECT, INC 1:20 METROPOLITAN CONSTRUCTION
5711 LA JOLLA BLVD. P.O. BOX 477
LA JOLLA CA 92037-7302 BONITA CA 91908-0000
PHONE: 18581459-1221 FAX: (8581459-1214 PHONE: t6191475-5651 FAX: (6191475-1607
CONTACT: NORMA ONCINA WCC Work Codes: CONTACT: MA'I/LING ORTIZ WCC Work Cra:les:
(NAICS) 54131 C8704 ARCHITECTURALCONSULTANT {NA[CS) 23491 C6200 ~LTERNATIVEP[PECULVERT
(NAICSI 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT (NAICS) 23491 C6500 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
(NAICS) 54134 C$765 DILMFTING INAICSI 23491 C6650 CORRUGATEDMETALPIPE(CSP)
MARIE BURKE LIA, ATTORNEYATLAW 121 (N^[¢$) 23401 (26800 SUBSURF^(2EDRAIN
427 "C" STREET, SUITE ~416 (N^](:$) 23491 C7000 PLASTiC PIPE
MARQUEZ&ASSOCIATESBIOLOGICAL 122 (NAICS} 23491 C9872 SEWER CONNECTION
CONSULTANTS (N,XU:S) 23571 C5105 MINOR CONCRETE STRUCTURE
MARUM PARTNERS INC 123 MICHELE MC LAIN, AIA 130
CONTACT: MARIANMARUM WCCWorkCodes: CONTACT: MICHELEMCLAIN WCCWorkCodes:
MATALONARCHITECTURE&PLANNING 124 ( NAI C.$i 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
910 GRAND AVENUE #203 MIS LOPEZ ENTERPRISE 131
MC LEOD TRUCKING 125 MdC CONSTRUCTION 132
MEDIATONGUE 126 (NAICS) 23411 C3910 PAVrNG ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRETE)
MEDLIN g ASSOCIATES 127 INAICS) 23593 C1980 IMPORTED BORROW
P. O. BOX 130941 ML LITTLE BEAVER CONSTRUCTION INC 133
MERI CREST COMPANY 128 (NAICS) 23599 C8000 FENCING
SAN DIEGO CA 92119- MONICA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 134
CONTACT: JOEGAONA WCCWorkCodes: LEMON GROVE CA 91946-9001
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 9 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIATES ]35 OAKCREST LANDSCAPE CO ][44
2131 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD SUITE 120 6161 EL CAJON BLVD. # 452
CARLSBAD CA 92~309- SAN DIEGO CA 92115°
(NAIC$) $4134 C8765 DRAFTING OLSEN STEEL, INC. 145
MORENO AERIAL PHOTO SURVEYS 136 CONTACT: SUSANOLSEN WCC Work Codes:
EL CAJON CA 920194806 OLSONCOMMUNICATIONS&INSTFORMGMT ][46
CONTACT: JESSMORENO WCC Work Co~e~: SOLUTION
MULTI-CULTURAL CONTRACTORS GROUP 137 PHONE: 1666~451-6545 FAXT f996~451-O144
CONTACT: RICKEYLASTER WCCWorkCodes: ONAKA PLANNING & ECONOMICS 147
MY ACCOUNTANT SAN DIEGO 138 PHONE: (856~535-1420 FAX: (8581535-1498
CONTACT: APRIL BRADFORD WCC Work Codes: OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION ][48
BONITA CA 91902-
NATIONAL CITYTROPHY 139 PHONE: (619~470-8033 FAX: (6191470-2953
NATIVE LANDSCAPE, INC 140 (NAIC$) 23411 C3910 PAVEqG ASPHALT (ASPHALT CONCRETE)
NOLBERTODOMINGUEZTRUCKING 141 (NAICS) 23571 C2800 CONCRETE BASE
NORTH STATE SIGNS 142 P. A. WILSON 149
NOVA ELECTRIC, INC. 143 (NA[CS) 2~4ql C7112 REINFORCED CONCRETE SEWER PIPE
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page tO of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECT, q
PACIFIC ELEC i t~ONICS ]50 PORTILLO CONCRETE ]5'7
1136 SANTA DELPHINA AVENUE 374 FAST H STREET, SUITE A500
CHULAVISTA CA 91913-1712 CHULAVISTA CA 91910-0000
{NAICSl 235~1 C8602 SIGNAL&LIGHTING PRECISE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 158
(NA[CS) 23531 C8604 LI G HTING
PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC. 151 CONtaCT: YOGEN DALAL WCC Work Codes:
MAILING P.O. BOX 90668 (N^ICSl 23491 C9872 SEWER CONNECTION
(NAIC$1 23491 C7000 PLASTIC PIPE PROCUREMENT CONCEPTS, INC. 159
(NAICS) 53212 C9907 CONSTRUCTION EQUhOMENT RENTAL PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING GROUP 160
PARAS & ASSOCIATES 152 PHONE: I6191660-1355 FAX: I6191660-1372
(NAICS) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT Q & S ENGINEERING 161
PARTERRE 153 QED INFORMATION S¥STEM~ 162
(NAICS) 54134 C$765 DRAFTING Q-TEC INC 163
PO BOX 298
PAYCOSPEClALTIES, INCORPORATED 154 DELMAR CA 62014-0296
PERSONAL COMPUTER SPECIALIST 155 (NAICS) 54133 C87]0 ENGINE ERrNO CONSULTANT
CONTACT: ELAINE SAMPSON WCC Work Codes: QUALITY ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS INC 164
PLATTAIVHITELAWARCNITECTS, INC 156 CONTACT: CHARLENEANITA WCCWorkCodes;
3953 GOLDFINCH STREET COTHAM
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page l 1 of 16
/q-37
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
R B K A 1~$ ROBIN BRAILSFORD STUDIO ]73
4909 MURPHY CANYON ROAD SUITE 220 P.O. BOX 426
SANDIEGO CA ~2123~000 DULZURA CA 91917-
PHONE: (858~ 496-0500 FAX: (8581 499-0905 PHONE: 1619~ 661-0061 FAX: (619~ 961-5424
CONTACT: RICHARDBRADY WCCWorkCode$: DONTACT: ROB(NBRAILSFORD WCCWorkCodes:
(NAICS) 5413~ C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT (NAR'S) 54133 C8705 DESIGN CONSULTANT
{NAICS) 54133 C8707 ~E^Sm(LI~ S~dmES ROBIN CHURCH BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 174
(NAICS) 54133 C8710 ENGINEERING CONSULTANT 12737 CAMPO ROAD
(NAICS) 54]33 C8720 CIVILENGINEEP~NG SPRINGVALLEY CA 91978-
R D H BACKHOE 166 (NAICS) 54169 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES)
4055 MENLO AVENUE RODRIGUEZ PARK 175
SAN DIEGO CA 92105-0000
RANDALL'S BACKHOE 167 (NA]CS) 54134 Cg765 DRAFTTNG
SAN DIEGO CA 92126- ROMERO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. 176
2150 NORTH CENTRE CITY PKWY SUITE I
RAUL MENDOZA C~(~ISTRUCTION, INC. 168 (NAICS) 23411 C2700 CEMENTTREATEDBASE
RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES 169 (NAICS) 23593 CI90I ROADWAY EXCAVATION
PHONE: (8S81 496-0500 FAX: (8583 496-0505 RUBIO'S CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 177
(NAICS) 54169 C~700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES) S C VALLEY ENGINEERING INC 178
RIEGER RESEARCH INC. 170 P 0 BOX 2~48
ROBERTZALDIVARMASONARY 171 (NAICS) 23491 C6650 CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CSP)
(NAICS) 541~7 C8101 SURVEY OR HISTORtCAL MONUMENT SAFDIERABINESARCHITECTS 179
ROBERTS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR 172 1101 WASHINGTON PLACE
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 12 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHUL VISTA PROJECTS
SAN DIEGO BAY AREA ELECTRIC, INC ]80 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 187
13100 K]RKAM WAY, SUITE 201 9968 HISERT STREET, SUITE #202
POWAY CA 92064-7128 SAN DIEGO CA 92131-
SAPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 181 (N^ICS) 5416I C$770 CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT
SPRING VALLEY GA 91979-1069 SMITH TRUCKING COMPANY 188
SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC 182 790s CLAIRMONT MESA SLVD. STE. F
PO BOX 1796/MAILING SAN DIEGO CA 92 11-
(NAICS) 23491 C6500 P-JErNEORCED CONCRETE PEPE SONORA PACIFIC GROUP, INC 190
(N^]C~;) 23571 C5105 M[NORCONCRETESTRUCTURE SOTA ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. 191
SClENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSOCIATED 183 (NAICS) 541~ Cg720 CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONTACT: VALORIE THOMPSON WCC Work Code~: SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION 192
f/64 ENCHANTED LAKES VILLAGE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT A WARENESS AND 184 CONTACT: BETTY DEWS WCC Work Codes:
PREVENTION /N^ICS~ 23411 C1522 RESET, AD~JST ROADWAY ITEMS
SHIRLEY HOCKING ENTERPRISE 185 (NAICS) 23571 C$105 MINOR CONCRETE STRUCTUR~
SIERRA ELECTRIC 186 SOUTHBAY EDC, INC. 193
(I'~AICSl 23531 C8602 SIGNAL & LIGHTING SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL 194
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 13 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ]95 SYNERGY ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. 20]
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE STE A 10740 KENNEY STREET SUITE 406
EL CAJON ~'~ 92021- SANTEE CA 92071-
STAR PAVING CORPORATION 196 (NAICS) 23531 C8605 MESSAGE SIGNS, LIGHTING & SIGN ILLUMI
(NAICSI 23411 C2201 FINISHING ROADWAY SYNGENUITY, INC 202
(NAIC$1 23593 C1910 GRADING TESHIMA DESIGN GROUP 203
STATEWlDESTRIPES, INC 197 SAN D~EGO CA 9~131-
INA[CS) 2~521 C8405 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE & MAKK TESTING SERVICES g INSPECTION, INC 204
STEPHENS TRUCKING 198 PHONE: I819~ 234-9904 FAX: I6191 234-4931
(NAIC$) 48411 C9602 BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKING TEZA DESIGN 205
SUNSHINE DEVELOPMENT 199 8211 VINCETTA DRIVE #10
(NAIC$) 2349t~ C2065 IRRIGATION SYSTEM THE TRAINING ALTERNATIVE 206
SUPER MARIO PORTABLE WELDING 200 (NAICS) 54169 C$700 CONSLrLTANT (ALL TYPES)
1835A SOUTH CENTRE CITY PKWy. ~455 TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC 207
(NAICSI 23491 C6680 JACKED CORRUGATED STEEL PIpE TRAINING SUPPORT NETWORK 208
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 14 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECT, q
TRAN CONSUL TING ENGINEERS 209 WARNER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SUITE 218
SAN DIEGO CA 92110- 832 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 6
SAN DIEGO CA 92107-
(NAIC$~ 54133 C8707 FEASIBILITY STUDIES WATERANDSTONE
(N.MC$1 54133 C8710 ENO INEERING CON SULTANT 218
375 NORTH HALE AVENUE
TRI'OOUNPf DRILLING, INC 210 WAT-TEK, INC.
DUDDIE CONTACT: GERALDP. WATSON WCCWorkCode~:
(N2JCSI 54]69 C8700 CONSULTANT (ALL TYPES) WELKTRUCKING, INC. 220
TRUE CHAMPIONS CONSTRUCTION 211
CONTACT: RICHARD GARCIA WCC Work Codes:
(NAILS) 2~541 C5135 CONCRETE BLOCK & MASONRY RETAiNIN WEST CONSULTANTS, INC 221
UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES 212 (NAILS) 54133 C8720 CIV1L ENGINEERING
(NAILS) 54133 C8706 DESIGNBRIDGES WESTERN Sf~L. & METALS, INC 222
VALLEY FENCE COMPANY 213 (NAICSI 23491 C6700 STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE PIPE, ARCH &
PHONE: 17601446-3100 FAX: (7601446-2988 WIGGANS & WILLETT, INC. 223
CONTACT: CAROL KING WCC Work Codes: 3355 MISSION AVE #222
VERA BERGER, PH.D.,P.E. 214 WIGGANS, JANE L. SR/WA 224
S40A2~i~E DE PALMAScA~41 92122~3000 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-0000
VERIFAX CONSULTING INCORPORA TED 2l$ WILEY CONSTRUCTION 225
INAICSI 23594 C9980 DEMOLITION
VISIONS HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES 216 (NAILS) 2~599 C8000 FENCING
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page 15 of 16
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
ZAGRODNIK & THOMAS ARCHITECTS 226
2927 MEADE AVENUE,
SAN DIEGO CA 92116-
PHONE: 16191528-1199 FAX: f61g~ 528-8181
CONTACT: JEANNEZAGROONIK WCC Work Codes:
(NAICS) 54131 C8704 ARC HI TECTURAL C ONSULTAN T
INAICSI 54133 C8707 FEASIBILITY STUDIES
(NAICS) 54169 C8700 CONSUETANT'(ALL TYPES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF DBE's
WITHIN ALL NAICS GROUPS-- 226 Firms
ALL BUSINESSES WITHIN
ALL NAICS GROUPS -- 7894Firms
DBE's as a Percentage
2.86%
of ALL Bussinesses =
EXHIBIT C Printed - JUNE 6, 2003; Data - June 3, 2003 Page :16 of 16
EXHIBIT D CHULA VISTA PROJECT
DBE FIRMS GROUPED BY NAICS CODE
Highway, Street, Bridge & Tunnel Construction s c VALLEY ENGINEERING INC 2
NAILS Code: 23411 2001 Census: ]00 SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC 2
PecentDBE: 26/ 100 = 26.00% SUPER MARIO PORTABLE WELDING
A. B. HASHMI WESTERN STEEL & METALS, INC
BERTWSALAS, INC Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23491 = 25
CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY Pipeline Construction
CANTARINI TRACTOR 4 All other Construction
CATSF--XCAVATING, INC 5 NAICSCode: 23499 2001 Census:
CONTRERAS TRACTOR RENTAL
Pecent DBE: 19/97 = 19.59%
D L S CONSTRUCTORS, INC A.B. HASHMI
GHASSAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY I AMERI-MEX PLUMBING, INC.
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
BERT W SALAS, INC
GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
C L ENTERPRISE
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. I: CANTARINI TRACTOR --
INTERWEST PACIFIC, LTD. [: I CENTURION LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION
J R PINA ASPHALT PAVING 1: I DYNADRILL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
J. F. TEJEDA COMPANY GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
L C PA VING & SEALING 1 HABITAT WEST
LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING ]~ I E PACIFIC, INC !
MJC CONSTRUCTION IMPERIAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC.
OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING
RANDALL'S BACKHOE 1! MERI CREST COMPANY !
ROMERO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP.
NATIVE LANDSCAPE, INC !
SAPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2 OAKCREST LANDSCAPE CO 1
SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC 2; OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION 2: S C VALLEY ENGINEERING INC
STAR PAVING CORPORATION 2~ SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC
SUNSHINE DEVELOPMENT 2~' SUNSHINE DEVELOPMENT
TRUE CHAMPIONS CONSTRUCTION 2( Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23499 = 19
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23411 = 26 All other Construction
;Ihway, Street, Bridge & Tunnel Constructk
Painting, Traffic Marking
Pipeline Construction NAICS Code: 23521 2001 Census: 452
NAICS Code: 23491 2001 Census: 55 Pecent DBE: 4/452 = 0.88%
Pecent DBE: 251 55 = 45.45% ACME SAFETY& SUPPLYCO, LLC
A. B. HASHMI !
ADVANCED MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACCURATE ENGINEERING_INTEGRA TED CONS T SERVICE PA YCO SPECIAL TIES, INCORPORA TED
AMERI. MEX PLUMBING, INC.
S TA TEWlDE $ TRIPES, INC
BERTWSALAS, INC Sum of DBE's in NAiCS Cod 23521 = 4
c & L CONSTRUCTION, INC 5 Painting, Traffic Marking
COLLINS PLUMBING, INC
D L S CONSTRUCTORS, INC 7 Electrical Contruction
GHASSAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NAICS Code: 23531 2001 Census: 590
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 9 Pecent DBE: 21 / 590 = 3.56%
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. !~ A AND T ELECTRIC
I E PACIFIC, INC ! A.B. HASHMI
INTERWEST PACIFIC, LTD. ACME SAFETY & SUPPLY CO, LLC
LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING !: ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS & GRAPHICS, INC.
METROPOLITAN CONSTRUCTION !, BENDIX CONTRACTING CORPORATION
MIS LOPEZ ENTERPRISE CECILIA'S SAFETY SERVICE, INC.
ML LITTLE BEAVER CONSTRUCTION INC CITY EVENT STAFF SERVICES
OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION !,~ COBOS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & ASSOC, INC
P. A. WILSON EPIC CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC. HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENTALS
PRECISE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2¢ NORTH STATE SIGNS ! i
RAUL MENDOZA CONSTRUCTION, INC. :~] NOVA ELECTRIC, INC.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page I of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION Q-TEC INC
PACIFIC ELECTRONICS 1, RUBIO'S CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 2
PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC. SAPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2
PA YCO SPECIAL TIES, INCORPORA TED SCHEIDEL.CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC 2
Q-TEL INC SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION
ROBERTS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR !1 STAR PAVING CORPORATION
SAN DIEGO BAY AREA ELECTRIC, INC SUNSHINE DEVELOPMENT 3
SIERRA ELECTRIC TRUE CHAMPIONS CONSTRUCTION
SYNERGY ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. VALLEY FENCE COMPANY
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23531 = 21 WILEY CONSTRUCTION
Electrical Contruction Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23571 = 34
Masonary, Walls Concrete Contruction
N^ICS Code: 23541 2001 Census: 167 Structural steel
Pecent DBE: 14/ 167 = 8.38% NAICS Code: 23591 2001 Census:
A. B. HASHMI Pecent DBE: 11 / 51 = 21.57%
D YNADRILL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED ACTION CLEANING CORP
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS & GRAPHICS, INC.
GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
HAR CONSTRUCTION INC I E PACIFIC, INC
I E PACIFIC, INC MIS LOPEZ ENTERPRISE
MJC CONSTRUCTION NATIONAL CITY TROPHY
ML LITTLE BEAVER CONSTRUCTION INC OLSEN STEEL, INC.
PRECISE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PAYCO SPECIALTIES, INCORPORATED
Q-TEC INC SUPER MARLO PORTABLE WELDING
ROBERT ZALDIVAR MASONARY VALLEY FENCE COMPANY
SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC WESTERN STEEL & METALS, INC I
TRUE CHAMPIONS CONSTRUCTION Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23591 = ]]
WILEY CONSTRUCTION Structural steel
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23541 = ]4 Grading
Masonary, Walls NAICS Code: 23593 2001 Census: ]4!
Concrete Contruction Pecent DBE: 26/ 141 = 18.44%
NAICS Code: 23571 2001 Census: 200 A.B. HASHMI
PecentDBE: 34~290 = 11.72% BERTWSALAS, INC
A. B. HASHMI CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY
BERT W SALAS, INC CANTARINI TRACTOR
BLACKIPO CA TS EXCA VA TING, INC
C & L CONSTRUCTION, INC CONTRERAS TRACTOR RENTAL
D L S CONSTRUCTORS, INC D L S CONSTRUCTORS, INC
DURAN ENTERPRISES INC. GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
GHASSAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INTERWEST PACIFIC, LTD.
HAR CONSTRUCTION INC J. F. TEJEDA COMPANY
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING !
I E PACIFIC, INC METROPOLITAN CONSTRUCTION !
INTERWEST PACIFIC, LTD. MJC CONSTRUCTION
J. F. TEJEDA COMPANY !~ NOVA ELECTRIC, INC. !
LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING !~. OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION
METROPOLITAN CONSTRUCTION !4 P. A. WILSON
MIS LOPEZ ENTERPRISE 1~ PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC.
MJC CONSTRUCTION !~ R D H BACKHOE 2
ML LITTLE BEAVER CONSTRUCTION INC !~ RANDALL'S BACKHOE 2
MONICA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2~ ROBERTS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR 2
OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION ;[1 ROMERO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. 2
P. A. WILSON 22 SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION 2
PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC. 23 STAR PAVING CORPORATION
PORTILLO CONCRETE 24 SUNSHINE DEVELOPMENT 22
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECT
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23593 = 26 Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 33512 = 4
Grading Lighting Fixtures
Demolition Building Materials Dealers
NAICS Code: 23594 2001 Census: 20 NAICS Code: 44419 2001 Census: 289
Pecent DBE: 11/20 = 55.00% Pecent DBE: 1/289 = 0.35%
A. B. HASHMI ABURTO MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
ACTION CLEANING CORP Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 44419 =
ALONSO CONSTRUCTION Building Materials Dealers
c & L CONSTRUCTION, INC
CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY Trucking
CANTARINI TRACTOR NAICS Code: 48411 2001 Census: 135
DEMOLI770N CONTRACTORS INC. PecentDBE: 12/ 135 = 8.89%
GUTIERREZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ACTION CLEANING CORP
I E PACIFIC, INC BURNS AND SONS TRUCKING, INC
CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY
P. A. WILSON
WILEY CONSTRUCTION CANTARINI TR~CYc~I~
CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTY
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23594 = 11
Demolition GEORGE ALVARADO TRUCKING
JOHN'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Special Trade Contractor MC LEOD TRUCKING
NAICS Code: 23599 2001 Census: 355 NOLBERTODOMINGUEZTRUCKING
Pecent DBE: 61 355 = 1.69% SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION
ACTION CLEANING CORP STEPHENS TRUCKING
HURRICANE & POWA Y FENCE COMPANY WELK TRUCKING, INC.
ML LITTLE BEAVER CONSTRUCTION INC Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 48411 =
SUPER MARLO PORTABLE WELDING
VALLEY FENCE COMPANY Trucking
WILEY CONSTRUCTION ~ Real Estate Services
NAICSCode: 53139 ' 2001 Census: 294
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 23599 = 6 Pecent DBE: '~ '31 294 = 1.02%
Special Trade Contractor LEPORE CONSULTING
Pipes WIGGANS & WILLETT, INC.
NAICS Code: 32612 2001 Census: 9 WIGGANS, JANEL. SR/WA
Pecent DBE: 7/9 = 77.78% Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 53139 = 3
ABURTO MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY Real Estate Services
c L ENTERPRISE
C M DISTRIBUTORS, INC 3 TruckRental
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. 4 N^ICS Code: 53212 2001 Census: 48
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC. S Pecent DBE: 15/48 = 31.25%
JARKON INDUSTRIES 6 BURNS AND SONS TRUCKING, INC
CALIFORNIA DIRT COMPANY
MIS LOPEZ ENTERPRISE 7
CANTARINI TRACTOR
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 32612 = ?
Pipes CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTY
CONTRERAS TRACTOR RENTAL
Concrete and Cement GEORGEALVARADO TRUCKING
NAICS Code: 32731 2001 Census: 43 GUi~=t<~=~ CONSTRUCTTON COMPANY
Pecent DBE: 11 43 = 2.33% HERNANDEZ TRUCKING
ABURTO MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENTALS
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 32731 = I JOHN'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Concrete and Cement NOLBERTO DOMINGUEZ TRUCKING !
Lighting Fixtures PACIFICA CONTRACTING, INC.
NAICS Code: 33512 2001 Census: 22 RANDALL'S BACKHOE 1
Pecent DBE: 4/22 = 18.18% SMITH TRUCKING COMPANY
C M DISTRIBUTORS, INC WELK TRUCKING, INC.
EPIC CONSULTING ENGINEERS Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 53212 =
GRAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. TruckRental
SOUTHBA Y EDC, INC.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 3 of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
Architectural HUNTER PACIFIC GROUP
NAICS Code: 54131 2001 Census: 300 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Pecent DBE: 15! 300 -- 5.00% IR2- INTERIOR RESOURCE, INC
D R V DESIGN ISAACSON PLANNING
IR2 - INTERIOR RESOURCE, INC J.E. MALDONADO ARCHITECT
J.E. MALDONADO ARCHITECT JCl SERVICES, INC
LIBBY ENGINEERS, INC 4 JNE & ASSOClA TLS
MANUEL ONCINA ARCHITECT, INC JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND S
MA TALON ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING ~ K2 ENGINEERING INC
MICHELE MC LAIN, AIA L K S & ASSOClA TLS
MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIA TLS LEPORE CONSULTING
PARAS & ASSOClA TLS LIBBY ENGINEERS, INC
PLATTA/VHITELAW ARCHITECTS, INC ]0 LINTVEDT, MCCOLL & ASSOCIATES
RODRIGUEZ PARK ]! LOPEZ ENGINEERING INC
SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS ]2 MANUEL ONCINA ARCHITECT, INC
TEZA DESIGN 13 MARQUEZ & ASSOCIATES BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
WARNER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 14 MARUM PARTNERS INC
ZAGRODNIK & THOMAS ARCHITECTS 15 MATALON ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54131 = ~5 MEDIATONGUE
Architectural MEDLIN & ASSOCIATES
MICHELE MC LAIN, AIA
Landscape Architect MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIATES ' 4
NAICS Code: 54132 2001 Census: 96 ONAKA PLANNING & ECONOMICS 4
Pecent DBE: 5 ! 96 = 6.25% PACIFIC ELECTRONICS 4
ESTRADA & EDAW PARTNERSHIP PARAS & ASSOCIA TLS 4
ESTRADA LAND PLANING, INC. PARTERRE 4
GARBINI & GARBINI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLATT/WHITELAW ARCHITECTS, INC 4
MARUM PARTNERS INC PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING GROUP
PARTERRE Q- TLC INC
TESHIMA DESIGN GROUP QUALITY ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS INC
SumofDBE's.inNAICSCod 54132 = 6 RBKA
Landscape Architect RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES
Engineering ROBIN BRAILSFORD STUDIO 5
NAICS Code: 54133 2001 Census: 896 RODRIGUEZPARK
Pecent DBE: 76 / 896 = 8.48% SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
ADVANCED MA TERIAL TECHNOLOGIES SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSOCIATED
AGUIRRE & ASSOCIA TLS SHIRLEY HOCKING ENTERPRISE
ALLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, INC SIERRA ELECTRIC
AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING SERVICES SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS & GRAPHICS, INC. SOTA ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
BERGGREN LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING INC SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL
BROKEN FRAGMENTS SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
CRUZ ESTRELLA'S CADD & DRAFTING SYNERGY ELECTRIC COMPANY INC.
CWA, INC. SYNGENUITY, INC
D C DESIGN GROUP 1~ TESHIMA DESIGN GROUP 6
D R V DESIGN 1 ] TEZA DESIGN
DELTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 12 TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
EPIC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 13 TRAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS ?
EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS 14 UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES 7
ESKINDER BERHANU & ASSOCIA TLS 15 VERA BERGER, PH.D.,P.E. ?
ESTRADA & EDAW PARTNERSHIP 16 VERIFAX CONSULTING INCORPORA TED
GARBINI & GARBINI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 17 WARNER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
GARY ENGINEERING, INC. 18 WEST CONSULTANTS, INC 7
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 19 ZAGRODNIK & THOMAS ARCHITECTS
HERITAGE RESOURCES :[0 Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54133
HON CONSULTING INC 21 Engineering
HUMAN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 22
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 4 of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECT
Drafting SYNGENUITY, INC !
NAICS Code: 54134 2001 Census: 28 UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES 2
Pecent DBE: 16 / 28 = 57.14% WAT-TEK~ INC. 2
AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING SERVICES WEST CONSULTANTS, INC 2
CRUZESTRELLA'S CADD & DRAFTING Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54151 =
D C DESIGN GROUP Computer
D R VDESIGN Management Consult
D-S-P, DESKTOP SOLUTIONS PLUS
NAICS Code: 54161 2001 Census: 942
IR2 - INTERIOR RESOURCE, INC
Pecent DBE: 38[ 942 = 4.03%
JCl SERVICES, INC A. B. HASHMI
JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND S AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING SERVICES
MANUEL ONCINA ARCHITECT, INC C.P. MANAGEMENT
MA TALON ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING CASE CONSULTING
MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIATES 1 ] COLLINS & COLLINS CONSULTING, INC.
PARAS & ASSOCIATES CORNWELL ENTERPRISES INC
PARTERRE CWA, INC.
RODRIGUEZ PARK ]4 DELTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS ]5 DODSON AND ASSOCIATES
TEZA DESIGN 16 D-S-P, DESKTOP SOLUTIONS PLUS ]
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54134 = ]6 DYNAMIC
Drafting E REIDER ENTERPRISES
Survey EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS !
NAICS Code: 54137 2001 Census: 51 ESTRADA & EDAWPARTNERSHIP
Pecent DBE: 91 51 = 17.65% GONZALEZ-WHITE CONSULTING SERVICES !
A. B. HASHMI HON CONSULTING INC
A GUIRRE & ASSOCIATES HR STRATEGIC INC
BERGGREN LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING INC I E PACIFIC, INC ·
DYE SURVEYING, INC. IR2 - INTERIOR RESOURCE, INC !
JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND S ISAACSON PLANNING 2
LINTVEDT, MCCOLL & ASSOCIATES J J DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
PA YCO SPECIAL TIES, INCORPORA TED JCl SERVICES, INC 2
ROBERT ZALDIVAR MASONARY JLC CONSULTANT SERVICES 2
VALLEY FENCE COMPANY JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND S 2
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54137 = 9 KOAM ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC 2
Survey L K S & ASSOCIATES 2
LINTVEDT, MCCOLL & ASSOCIATES z
Computer MEDIATONGUE 2
NAICS Code: 54151 2001 Census: 1256 MORAES/PHAM &ASSOCIATES 2
Pecent DBE: 22 [ 1 E+ = 1.75% MULTI-CULTURAL CONTRACTORS GROUP 3
ADVANCED MA TERIAL TECHNOLOGIES
MY ACCOUNTANT SAN DIEGO 3
AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING SERVICES
OLSON COMMUNICATIONS & INST FOR MGMT SOLUTION
BIZBEE'S WARRIORS PARAS & ASSOCIATES
C I C RESEARCH, INC Q & S ENGINEERING
COLLINS & COLLINS CONSULTING, INC. Q-TEC INC
CORNWELL ENTERPRISES INC
RBKA 3
CYBERWIRE
E REIDER ENTERPRISES RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES
EPIC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ROBIN CHURCH BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3
SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
GOLDEN QUEST ENTERPRISES, INC. SOFTCOMM
GONZALEZ-WHITE CONSULTING SERVICES
HUMAN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SONORA PACIFIC GROUP, INC
IGIS TECHNOLOGIES INC TESTING SERVICES & INSPECTION, INC
KOAM ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC VISIONS HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES 4
MEDIATONGUE Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54161 = 38
PERSONAL COMPUTER SPECIALIST Management Consult
QED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SOFTCOMM
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 5 of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
Environmental JBG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3
NAICSCode: 54162 2001 Census: 96 JCI SERVICES, INC 4
Pecent DBE: 11 / 96 = 11.46% JLC CONSULTANT SERVICES 4
ALLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, INC ! JNE & ASSOCIATES 4
EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS ~ JOSE CARLOS ROMERO, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND S 4
ESTRADA & EDAW PARTNERSHIP I~ DUNCAN ENTERPRISES, INC. 4
MEDLIN & ASSOCIATES K2 ENGINEERING INC 4
MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIATES KYLE CONSULTING 4
RBKA ~ LKS&ASSOCIATES 4
RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES LABORATORY DATA CONSULTANTS 4
SOTA ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. ~ LIBBY ENGINEERS, INC 4
SOUTHLAND GEO TECHNICAL LINTVED T, MCCOLL & ASSOCIATES
TRAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS !0 LOPEZ ENGINEERING INC
WEST CONSULTANTS, INC 1] MACDOC CONSULTANTS
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54162 = ]1 MARIE BURKE LIA, ATTORNEYATLAW
Environmental MARQUEZ & ASSOCIATES BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
MEDIA TONGUE
Profesional Consultant MEDLIN & ASSOCIATES 5
NAICS Code: 54169 2001 Census: 278 MICHELEMC LAIN, AIA
Pecent DBE: 102/278 = 36.69% MORAES/PHAM & ASSOCIATES 5
ADVANCED MA TERIAL TECHNOLOGIES MORENO AERIAL PHOTO SURVEYS
ALLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, INC MULTI-CULTURAL CONTRACTORS GROUP 6
AMERICAN CONCURRENT ENGINEERING SERVICES MY ACCOUNTANT SAN DIEGO
ARMTECH OLSON COMMUNICATIONS & INST FOR MGMT SOLUTION
ARTIST ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC ART
ONAKA PLANNING & ECONOMICS
BAY CITY MARINE, INC PARAS & ASSOCIATES
BROKEN FRAGMENTS PERSONAL COMPUTER SPECIALIST
C I C RESEARCH, INC PLATT/WHITELAWARCHITECTS, INC
CASE CONSULTING PROCUREMENT CONCEPTS, INC.
CHANGING PLACES 1( PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING GROUP
COLLINS & COLLINS CONSULTING, INC. Q & S ENGINEERING
CORNWELL ENTERPRISES INC
QED INFORMATION SYSTEMS 7
CRUZ ESTRELLA'S CADD & DRAFTING 1'~ Q-TEC INC 7
D C DESIGN GROUP 1~ QUALITY ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS INC 7
DRVDESIGN 1: RBKA 7
DELTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES ?
DODSON AND ASSOCIATES
RIEGER RESEARCH INC. 7
DYNAMIC ROBIN CHURCH BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 7
EREMICO RODRIGUEZ PARK 7
ERGONOMIC EVALUATION & TRAINING 2( SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS ?
EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS 2] SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSOCIATED ?
ESKINDER BERHANU & ASSOClATES 2; SEXUAL HARASSMENT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION 8
ESTRADA & EDAW PARTNERSHIP Z~' SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 8
GARY ENGINEERING, INC. z~ SOFTCOMM 8
GOLDEN QUEST ENTERPRISES, INC. 2~ SOTA ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
GONZALEZ-WHITE CONSULTING SERVICES Z~ SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL
GRAY SYSTEMS, INC. 27 SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
HABITATWEST 28 SUNSHINEDEVELOPMENT
HERITAGE RESOURCES 2~ TESHIMA DESIGN GROUP
HON CONSULTING INC 38 TESTING SERVICES & INSPECTION, INC
HR STRATEGIC INC 3] TEZA DESIGN 8
HUMAN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 32 THE TRAINING ALTERNATIVE
HUNTER PACIFIC GROUP 33 TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
HVAC ENGINEERING, INC. 34 TRAINING SUPPORT NETWORK
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 35 TRAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
IR2 - INTERIOR RESOURCE, INC 36 TRI-COUNTY DRILUNG, INC
J J DA VIS & ASSOCIATES 37 UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES
J.E. MALDONADO ARCHITECT 38 VERIFAX CONSULTING INCORPORATED
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 6 of 7
DBE RESOURCE LIST CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
VISIONS HUMAN RESOURC=S SERVICES
WARNER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 91
WEST CONSULTANTS, INC
WIGGANS & W1LLETT, INC. 10~
W1GGANS, JANE L. SRA/VA 101
ZAGRODNIK & THOMAS ARCHITECTS
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 54169 =+02
Profesional Consultant
Landscaping
NAICS Code: 56173 2001 Census: ?93
Pecent DBE: 191 793 = 2,40%
A. B. HASHMI
C L ENTERPRISE
CANTARINI TRACTOR
CENTURION LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRERAS TRACTOR RENTAL
EROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS
GIM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
HENDRICKSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
HYDROSPROUT, INC. LAWN & SLOPE SEEDING
I E PACIFIC, INC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC.
LORI R. LOVETT, GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTING
MERI CREST COMPANY I
NATIVE LANDSCAPE, INC
OAKCREST LANDSCAPE CO
OROPEZA CONSTRUCTION'
SCHEIDEL-CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC
SOUTH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION
WATER AND STONE
Sum of DBE's in NAICS Cod 56173 = ]9
Landscaping
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Page 7 of 7
/ -50
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
PROGRAM FOR THE PER/OD OF OCTOBER 1, 2003 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROJECTS
UTiLIZING FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINSTRATION FUNDING.
WHEREAS, on September, 10, 2002 City Council approved Resolution No. 2002-354
accepting the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) for the period of Octoberl, 2002
through September 30, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the goals for the program have been revised and some modifications were
made to t~e Program itself; and
WHEREAS, all local agencies receiving Federally-assisted funds from the Federal Highway
Administration are required to submit a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, per Title 49
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26 (49 CFR 26); and
WHEREAS, the DBE is designed to allow contractors/consultants owned and controlled by
minorities, women and other socially and economically disadvantaged persons to have the
opportunity to bid and work on projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration; and,
WHEREAS, CALTRANS has been entrusted with local agency oversight responsibility for
DBE implementation and shall administer the Federal-aid highway funds from Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) programs, and the City has worked closely with CALTRANS in preparing
this program; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to ensure that DBE's have an equal opportunity to
receive and participate on DOT funded projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby accept the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program for the period of October 1,
2003 through September 30, 2004 for City of Chula Vista projects utilizing Federal Highway
Administration funding in the form set forth in Exhibit "A".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff and the Legislative Committee are hereby
authorized to implement this program.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Cliff Swansor~ Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attomey
J:\Attorney~RESO\Disadvantagcd Business Enterprise Program.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 09/16/2003
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amend the budget to add two unclassified positions,
Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory (RCFL) Network Engineer and
California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) Management Assistant; and
appropriate $157,137 to the Police Department fi.om the available balance of
the General Fund based on unanticipated revenues.
Ordinance Amending Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
2.05.010 relatin~t,.o the establishment of unclassified positions.
SUBMITTED BY: Chief of PollcL~.J~
BY: City Manager~f~/ (4/Sth Vote: Yes X No )
REVIEWED
The California Border Alliance Group(CBAG) has requested the addition of a RCFL Network
Engineer and CBAG Management Assistant to their staff. Additionally, Chula Vista City Charter
section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned Specifically in Charter section 500
be adopted by Ordinance. The Police Department requests the addition o£the position of Regional
Computer Forensic Laboratory Network Engineer to the unclassified service.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the addition of the
positions of RCFL Network Engineer and CBAG Management Assistant, amend the FY 04 Police
Department budget and appropriating $157, 137 fi.om the available balance of the General Fund
based upon unanticipated revenues.
That Council approve the Ordinance amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010
relating to the establishment of unclassified positions.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The Police Department entered into an agreement with the Office of National
Drug Control Policy in 1996 to be the fiscal agent for CBAG. CBAG is part of the Southwest Border
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. In essence, the City receives full funding, plus a 3%
administrative fee, to hire and administer benefits for CBAG positions. To date, there are currently
eight CBAG positions with the City of Chula Vista that are fully funded from the Office of National
Drug Control Policy.
The RCFL is a countywide task force that is funded through CBAG. The RCFL provides special
enforcement and investigative assistance to local police agencies when crimes are committed
utilizing computers or retrieving evidence fi.om computers. Due to the increasing complexity of
computer networks and the high security that is required for these networks, the RCFL received
authorization from CBAG to him a Network Engineer to set-up, monitor and repair any of the day-
to-day problems with the RCFL's network.
Page 2, Item /~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
Due to the nature of the funding, this position will be in the "Unclassified" service and as such will
serve at the will of the City Manager. Additionally, this position will receive the same benefit
package as is provided to the Confidential Group. The "E" step salary shall be set at $65,000 per
year.
The CBAG Management Assistant position will assist the Director of National Methamphetamine
Chemical Initiative (NMCI) and the NMCI Coordinator with moderate to high-level administrative
functions. The workload at NMCI dictates the need for the Management Assistant position. The
position of CBAG Management Assistant already exists in the City's Compensation and
Classification plan.
Due to the nature of the funding, this position will be in the "Unclassified" service and as such will
serve at the will of the City Manager.
Chula Vista City Charter section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned
specifically in Charter section 500 be adopted by Ordinance. The Police Department requests the
addition of the position of Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory Network Engineer to the
unclassified service. Consequently, Section 2.05.010 must be amended to reflect the changes to the
unclassified positions.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to add these positions for FY 04 is $157,137. However, CBAG will
fully reimburse the City for the cost of these positions, including a 3% administrative fee. Therefore,
there is no cost to the General Fund for this fiscal year or succeeding fiscal years.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING THE BUDGET TO ADD TWO UNCLASSIFIED
POSITIONS, REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSIC
LABORATORY (RCFL) NETWORK ENGINEER AND
CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP (CBAG)
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT; AND APPROPRIATE $157,137 TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE
OF THE GENERAL FUND BASED ON UNANTICIPATED
REVENUES. ~
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is the fiscal agent for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and the Califomia Border Alliance (CBAG); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is fully reimbursed for all CBAG
positions; and,
WHEREAS, CBAG has requested the addition of a RCFL Network
Engineer and CBAG Management Assistant to their staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby authorize amending the budget to add two unclassified
positions, Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory (RCFL) Network Engineer
and California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) Mapagement Assistant; and
appropriate $157,137 to the Police Department from the available balance of the
General Fund based on unanticipated revenues.
P~re,~d by: .-. Approved as to form by:
Ri(~h~ard P. Emerson ~
Ann Moore C~
Police Chief City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE NEWLY CREATED
UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has created new classifications
to better reflect the needs of the City's workforce; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Section 500(a) requires that all new unclassified
management level positions be adopted by ordinance and a four-fifths vote of the
Council.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION h That Section 2.05.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby
Amended to read as follows:
2.05.010 Unclassified positions established.
In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in Section 500 of the
Charter of the City, there are established the unclassified positions entitled deputy city
manager, administrative services manager, deputy fire chief, assistant fire chief,
assistant chief of police, assistant director of finance, assistant director of budget and
analysis, fiscal operations manager, funds development strategic planning manager,
purchasing agent, treasury manager, assistant director of human resources, director of
employee development, risk manager, assistant director of public works and operations,
assistant director of building and housing, deputy building official, building services
manager, building and park construction manager, parks and open space manager,
assistant director of recreation, housing coordinator, real property manager, transit
coordinator, assistant director of community development, community relations
manager, Western Chula Vista development manager, traffic engineer, deputy director
of engineering, assistant library director, chief learning officer, director of
communications, police captain, director of conservation and environmental services,
deputy director of planning, assistant director of planning, special planning projects
manager, general plan project manager, chief of staff, constituent services manager,
community liaison (assigned to the Office of the Mayor and City Council), California
border alliance group deputy executive director, California border alliance group budget
manager, California border alliance group meth. strike force coordinator, California
border alliance group network administrator, California border alliance group
operations/intelligence coordinator, California border alliance group program analyst,
California border alliance group management assistant, California border alliance group
network assistant and Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory Network Engineer.
SECTION Il: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its
second reading and adoption.
Submitted by: Approved as to form by:
Marcia Raskin Ann Moore
Director of Human Resources City Attorney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Designating and setting aside certain city-owned
real property as right-o£-way £or Street and Public Utility Purposes as
necessary for the completion of the Olympic Parkway Street Widening
Project
Resolution Designating and setting aside certain city-owned
real property as right-of-way £or Street and Public Utility Purposes as
necessary for the completion of the Palomar Avenue Street Widening
Project
SUBMITTED BY: Director o£ Engineer~ng/)~Y~,,~j
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~/~f)f'~ ~" (4/5ths Vote: No X )
Thc City Council is requested to adopt resolutions designating and setting aside portions of
certain City-owned lands for Street and Public Utility Purpose as a part of Olympic Parkway and
Palomar Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt a resolution designating and se~ting aside the affected portion of City-owned land
for Street and Public Utilities as a part of Olympic Parkway.
2. Adopt a resolution designating and setting aside the affected portion of City-owned land
for Street and Public Utilities as a part of Palomar Street.
BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
Olympic Parkway
The City ha, s completed the "Olympic Parkway Street Improvement Project; Oleander to
Brandywine. This Project widened and realigned Olympic Parkway to the north requiring that a
portion of the adjacent City-owned property be utilized for the street improvements. This lot
(Lot "A", Map No. 7979) was dedicated to the public with no specific use identified, and
accepted by the City. In order to provide for fi'anchise use and to ensure continuity and
consistency of the Right-of-Way it is necessary to designate and set aside the utilized portion for
Street and Public Utility Purposes. The adoption of the Resolution and the filing of a Certified
Copy thereof with the County Recorder's Office will establish the intended and physical use of
the land.
Page 2, Item ]~
Meeting Date 9/16/03
Palomar Street
The City is currently constmcting The "Palomar Street improvement Project; I-5 to Industrial
Boulevard." This project necessitated the acquisition of the residential property located on the
Northwest corner of Palomar Street and Trenton Avenue. The new street improvements are now
being constructed on a portion of this City-owned land. 8ecanse the entire property was
acquired in fee with no specific use identified, and for the reasons outlined above, it is necessary
to designate and set aside the utilized portion for Street and Public Utility Purposes. The
adoption of the Resolution and the filing of a Certified Copy thereof with the County Recorder's
Office will establish the intended and physical use of the land.
FISCAL IMPACT: The action of the City Council on this item will not have an adverse
budgetary impact. The widened portions of Olympic Parkway and Palomar Street are being
absorbed into the City's street system and will be maintained as deemed necessary with the
repairs and maintenance being budgeted for as dictated by future needs.
File:STM 344 (OLYMPIC)
ST 922 (PALOMAR)
J:~EngineerXAGENDA\Oly Palomar ST dedication.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
DESIGNATING AND SETTING ASIDE CERTAIN CITY-
OWNED REAL PROPERTY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES AS
NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
OLYMPIC PARKWAY STREET WIDENING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is the fee owner of that certain real property in
which no designated uses were identified, situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San
Diego, State of California, more particularly described as Lot "A", of Apollo Unit No. 3,
according to Map No. 7979 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, July 12,
1974; and
WHEREAS, the public need and convenience required that certain public street and
highway improvements and appurtenant works be constructed and placed through, in, on, across,
over, under and above a portion of the above described real property, for the widening and
improverIf61~t of Olympic Parkway, said portion of Lot "A" as more particularly described in a
legal description thereof, marked Exhibit "A", and as shown oa a sketch thereof, marked Exhibit
"B", both attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, this City Council desires to designate and set aside said real property
described in said Exhibit "A" as Right-of-Way for Street and Public Utility Purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. That this City Council hereby designates and sets aside a Perpetual Right-
of-Way for Street and Public Utility Purposes through, in, on, across, over, under and above the
real property described in said Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. That said right-of-way is to continue in full force and effect so long as said
property is used for the above stated purposes and uses and until such time that said right-of-way
has been lawfully vacated or abandoned by the duly constituted public authorities, at which time
said property shall revert to the person, persons or entity entitled thereto.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego evidencing this
action.
1
SECTION 4. That said designation and setting aside shall be effective upon the filing of
said certified copy in the Official Records of San Diego County.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
JSEngineer~AGENDA\Resos\Oly rw desig reso.doc
2
J-12755
EXHIBIT
STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY DEDICATION
Parcel "A"
Being a portion of Lot "A" of Apollo Unit No. 3, in the City of Chula Vista, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 7979 filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County July 12, 1974, said portion more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said Lot"A"; thence along the Westerly
line of said Lot"A" North 07°00'56'' West 20.77 feet to the beginning of a non-
tangent 1934.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, to which a radial line
bears South 11°02'25'' East; thence leaving said Westerly line Northeasterly
along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 13°54'47" a distance of
469.63 feet; thence North 65°02'48'' East 781.04 feet to the beginning of a
tangent 3072.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly; thence Northeasterly
along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 01°55'28" a distance of
103.18 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot "A"; thence along said Northerly line
North 72°02'10'' East 228.46 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot "A"
being the beginning of a non-tangent 20.98 foot radius curve concave
Northwesterly, to which a radial line bears South 78°20'31'' East; thence
Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 59°14'24'' a
distance of 21.69 feet to the beginning of a reverse 3050.00 foot radius curve
concave Southeasterly; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through
a central angle of 05°51'05'' a distance of 311.48 feet; thence South 65°02'48''
West 888.77 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1150.00 foot radius curve
concave Northwesterly; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 17°56'17'' a distance of 360.04 feet; thence South
82 °59'04" West 10.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 0.805 acres, more or less.
Robert G. Schoettmer, L.S. 4324 '= No L004324
Exp.'6-30-2004
.lb/12755,012 ~
EXHIBIT "B'
~'~ I.~ATES STREEr ~D ~BUC OrIUW
DEDICATION, OLYMPIC PARKWAY RIENS
P~).8. INDICATES POllO' OF BEGINNING EAST OR.GE " ~ ~[~
(RI INDICATES RADIAl- BEARING AVENUE
REFER£1VCE ORA WIIV~$
MAP 7979
BA$1S OF BF.4RINEI$
VICINITY MAP
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE MADS$, ZONE 6 NO SCALE
GRID 8EARI#G BETWEEN 5TATIO# 'SD 0193"AMD STATIO31 "SD 0t94", SAID
STATIONS ARE PI/BUSHED Ill THE SAIl DIEGO COIIFrY HORIZOIO'AI_
COtVTROL BOOK, I.E. If59'OE'45~
QUOTED BEARIRGS FROM REFERENCE MAPS/DEEDS MA}' OR MAY NOT BE
IN TERMS OF SAID SYSTEM.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
I ~ ,' ~'''' ,6 y~
NO
____[~ RICK "'~'~ I' w /_ sr~r ~mc~r~o~
~,. EN'GINEF__,RINGo.~.,c.~^v- £asr oF O~E~VmR ~VENU~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING AND
SETTING ASIDE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY
PURPOSES AS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION
OF THE PALOMAR AVENUE STREET WIDENING
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is the fee owner of that certain real property
in which no designated uses were identified, situated in the City of Chula Vista, County
of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described as Lot 17, in Block R of
Harborside Unit No. 2, according to Map thereof No. 2119 filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County, July 9, 1928; said land currently designated as
Assessors Parcel No. 617-071-09, and
WHEREAS, the public need and convenience required that certain public street
and highway improvements and appurtenant works be constructed and placed through, in,
on, across, over, under and above a portion of the above describ~l real property, for the
widening and improvement of Palomar Street, said portion of sai~"Lot 17 as more
particularly described in a legal description thereof, marked Exhibit "A", and as shown
on a sketch thereof, marked Exhibit "B", both attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, this City Council desires to designate and set aside said real property
described in said Exhibit "A" as Right-of-Way for Street and Public Utility Purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. That this City Council hereby designates and sets aside a Perpetual
Right-of-Way for Street and Public Utility Purposes through, in, on, across, over, under
and above the real property described in said Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. That said right-of-way is to continue in full force and effect so long
as said property is used for the above stated purposes and uses and until such time that
said right-of-way has been lawfully vacated or abandoned by the duly constituted public
authorities, at which time said property shall revert to the person, persons or entity
entitled thereto.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to
be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego evidencing
this action.
SECTION 4. That said designation and set aside shall be effective upon the filing
of said certified copy in the Official Records of San Diego County.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\Resos~Palomar rw desig reso.doc
Exhibit A
Street Easement
An easement over a portion of the Lands of Louis O. Noriega, a married man, as his sole and
separate property and Alex Noriega, a single man as described in that document recorded as Doc
# 1993-0306739, San Diego County Records, being that portion of said Lands that lies within the
parcel of land more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at Palomar Street Construction Centerline Station 79+10.63, being a PK Nail and
Disk marked "RCE 19073", as shown on that Record of Survey 12001 and also on Record of
Survey 11896; thence along said Construction Centefline, South 83o00, 12" East, 2089.33 feet to
Station 99+99.96, being a 2" iron pipe tagged "City Engr. C. V." in a monument well as shown
on that Record of Survey 15715, being the Tree Point of Beginning; thence fi.om the Tree Point
of Beginning, North 17°56'04'' West, 101.30 feet; thence South 72°03'55'' West, 40.00 feet;
thence South 39°31 '51" West, 28.46 feet; thence North 83°00'12" West, 82.16 feet; thence
North 17°56'05" West, 29.71 feet; thence South 72°04'02" West, 21.58 feet; thence South
72°11'17" West, 2.42 feet; thence South 17°56'05'' East, 18.56 feet; thence North 83°00'12"
West, 120.52 feet; thence North 50°28'09'' West, 15.27 feet; thence South 72003'55'' West,
30.00 feet; thence North 17°56'05'' West, 41.80 feet; thence South 72°03'55" West, 30.00 feet;
thence South 42°48'52'' West, 24.54 feet; thence North 85o46'02" West, 131.56 feet; thence
North 17056'05'' West, 6.19 feet; thence South 72°11'17" West, 1.75 feet; thence South
17o56'05" East, 22.57 feet; thence South 6°59'48" West, 30.00 feet; thence North 83°00'12"
West, 196.93 feet; thence South 6059'05" West, 74.96 feet; thence along a tangent curve, the
radius point of which bears North 83000'55'' West, having a radius of 400.00 feet, thru a central
angle of 0°15'57'', for an arc length of 1.86 feet; thence South 82°44'58'' East, 30.00 feet; thence
North 52°03'27" East, 21.17 feet; thence South 83o00, 12" East, 667.27 feet; thence South
50°24'00" East, 18.96 feet; thence North 72°03'55'' East, 46.29 feet; thence North 17°56'09"
West, 58.12 feet to the Tree Point of Beginning.
Surveyors Statement
This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with Section 8761 of
the Land Surveyor's Act.
Peter H. Ehlert, PLS 5116 date EHLER'f
expires 6/3012003. UG, ~ 5116 ]
J:~ u rveyXST922'~Legals~Fin al\61 ?-071 ~09p.doc
12
\ ¡~
--\
~
Z.
--\
o
"Z-.
~
9-
c.
'"
----
----
SEMENT
A"
I
STREET EASEMENT BEING
ACQUIRED FOR SUBJECT PARCEL
2.816 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS)
PALOMAR STREET
LEGEND
PARCEL ADDRESS
V////////~/1
1198 TRENTON AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
STREET EASEMENT LIMITS
BEING ACQUIRED FOR SUBJECT PARCEL
- -
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
APN 617-071-09
LIMITS OF SUB.Æ:CT PARCEL
Q: \SDSKPROJ\ST922 \DRA W\FINAL \ROWlimits.dwg 09/07/01 11: 43: 13 AM PD T
DRAWN BY: TITLE:
GREG TSCHERCH PALOMAR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
g~;~-OI EXHIBIT B
/ 1.R~1()
PROJECT FILE ¡ST922
PREPARED BY:
GREG TSCHERCH
APPROVED BY:
JIM HOLMES
PRI"I;(IPMS
WILLIAM l. f![LDMA'"
19P_,QQØ
LAWRENCE G. RotAPP
THQM"S G. fOHNSEN
THOMAS M. DEMARS
TIMOTHY I. SCHAEFER
SOUTHU'" CAlIFOR',;¡J, OffiCE
1100MAI!\STREET
SUIH210
IRYINE,(A 92614_£>2&6
949.f,t.O.8500
FAX 94904ì4oSii3
NORTHERN CALlFOIi:NIA OfFICE
92S·933.f>096
FAX 925.93306098
CHARHR MEMBER
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF INDEPENDE~T PUBLIC
FINA.NCE ADVISORS
I ~'~~~~:N~A~a~~,c: ~~~~~,i,~:~S
September 16, 2003
~r. (¡eorge}(rempl
Assistant City ~anager
City of Chula Vista
276 F ourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1#¡;117B
Dear lli. }(rempJ:
This letter is in response to the Otay Project, LLC (the "Developer") request, dated
August 20, 2003, that the City of Chula Vista (the "City") accept a value-to-lien ratio of
less than 4: I for portions of Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Planning Areas R-
7A, R-7B, R-8, R-9B, R-9D, and MD-I). The waiver is being requested due to the fact
that parcels of land owned by the Developer and one merchant builder representing
approximately 52% of the CFD obligation, have a value-to-lien ratios of 3.51:1,3.73:1
and 3.37:1 based on an appraisal dated June 15, 2003 and debt bond sizing estimates of
September 15, 2003. The City's Statement of (¡oals and Policies for Community
Facilities Districts states that the value-to-lien ratio for a Community Facilities District
must be at least 4: I for the overall CFD and for developing areas for which no final
subdivision map has been filed. The City Council may however, approve bond issuance
where the value-to-lien is less than 4: I, but greater than 3: I if that action is deemed
financially prudent. The overall value to lien ratio for CFD 08-1 at 4.57:1 complies with
City policy, the waiver is needed for the planning areas previously referred to.
Our firm recommends to staff and the City Council that a waiver of the 4: I value-to-lien
policy be approved based on the fol1owing:
I. Development is underwav within the Community Facilities District. ~odel homes
were complete or under construction on all but four planning areas (R-5B, R-8, R-9B
and R-9D). Construction has begun on some planning areas with initial home sales
closings anticipated to occur in September of 2003. Fol1owing is a brief development
status of the planning areas that are below the 4: I value to lien ratio (Planning Areas
R-7A, R-7B, R-8, R-9B, R-9D, and ~U-I) as of August 15,2003:
· R-7 A: ~odel homes are currently under construction and building permits for 15
duplex buildings are scheduled to be puJJed.
· R-7B: Triplex models are currently under construction and building permits for
12 triplex building are scheduled to be pul1ed.
· R-8: 288 condominium homes are being processed for building permits
· R-9B: Currently under review by the City's Design Review Committee. ~odel
homes construction anticipated to begin by end of 2003.
· R-9D: ~odel homes construction anticipated to begin by end of2003.
This status of physical development indicates that further diversification of
ownership should continue and that value within planning areas of the C.F.D. should
continue to increase.
~. Cìeorge }(rempl
September 8, 2003
Page 2
2. The maDDing Drocess within the Communitv Facilities District is weJl underwav. As
of August 15,2003, "B" ~ps have been approved on all but two planning areas, R-8
and R-9B. Of the two planning areas without approved "B" ~aps, R-8 is currently
approved for 336 units of apartments and R-9B for 159 condominium units due to
approval of an "A" map. A "B" map would be required to build the proposed 288
units of condominium units on R-8. R-9B is going through the City's Design Review
process. A "B" map would be required for R-9B only if a change in housing type
were proposed, such as changing to single family detached on fee simple lots. This
progress indicates financial commitment to the project and leads to anticipation of
finalizing construction.
3. Increased value since June 15, 2003. AJI value to lien ratios, listed within the
Preliminary Official Statement are based on an appraisal with a date of value of June
15, 2003. In an August 27, 2003 letter to the City, the appraiser details physical
improvements completed between June 15, 2003 and August 15, 2003 and
documents costs expended during this period. It is highly probable that value to lien
calculations based on an August 15, 2003 date of value would be greater than value
to lien calculations based on the June 15, 2003 date of value. Therefore, the three
value to lien ratios currently less than 4: I would be closer to or in excess of 4: I if a
later date of value were utilized.
As a result ofthe above, I feel it is appropriate to recommend to the City Council that it
waive the 4: I value-to-lien ratio policy for some of the Planning Areas within C.F.D. No.
08-1. This recommendation is based upon specific circumstances and should not decrease
the commitment of the City to the adopted 4: I value-to-lien policy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
cc: Maria Kachadoorian
Nadine Mandery
Dino Serafini
Warren Diven
Bill Huck
Item I r~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: A) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, approving an Acquisition/Financing Agreement in Community
Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six)
B) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
acting in its capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities District
No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six), Authorizing and providing for the
issuance of special tax bonds of the district, Approving the form of Bond
Indenture, Bond Purchase Contract and other documents and authorizing
certain actions in connection therewith.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering j2~)
Director of Finance //~
Manager ~,fi/~.t ~0/ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED
BY:
City
On January 14, 2003 the City Council held the public hearing forming and establishing Community
Facilities District No. 08-I (CFD~08-I). The District was formed for the purpose of providing for the
financing and acquisition for certain authorized public facilities. On January 28, 2003 City Council
heard the election results which declared that 100% of the votes cast, were in favor for the
authorization to issue bonds of the District, also the first reading of the Ordinance to authorize the
Levy of a Special Tax was read.
Tonight, Council will consider approving the Acquisition/Finance Agreement with Otay Project L.P.
that establishes the procedure for acquiring the improvements from the developer, which will require
each individual component of the projects to be 100% completed before acquisition and
reimbursement. In addition, Council will consider the authorization of the issuance of special tax
bonds of CFD-08-I in the amount of approximately $25,000,000 and the approval of the form of
certain documents related to the issuance of the bonds including a Bond Indenture, Bond Purchase
Agreement, and Preliminary Official Statement.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
· Approve the Resolution (A) approving the Acquisition/Financing Agreement that (i)
establishes the terms and conditions pursuant to which the City will acquire the authorized
public improvements, (ii) establishes the terms and conditions pursuant to which the District
will agree to issue special tax bonds to finance the acquisition of such improvements and (iii)
establishes the procedure for acquiring the improvements from the developer within
Community Facilities District No. 08-I} and
Page 2, Item / ~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
· Approve the Resolution (B) authorizing the issuance of Bonds, approving the form of the
Bond Indenture, Bond Purchase Agreement, and other documents for Community Facilities
District No. 08-I and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On January 14, 2003, a public hearing was held which formed and established Community Facilities
District No. 08-I (CFD-08-I). On January 28, 2003 City Council heard the election results which
declared that 100% of the votes cast, were in favor. On February 3, 2003 Council heard the second
reading of the Ordinance authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax. The Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982 is a financing mechanism for funding the acquisition or construction of public
infrastructure improvements from the proceeds of Community Facilities Districts bonds, which are
repaid from an annual special tax collected from the property owners within the district. There is no
direct cost to the City. CFD-08-I is primarily an acquisition district wherein the developer constructs
the public improvements and the City acquires them upon completion with funds derived solely from
the sale of bonds.
District Boundaries
Exhibit 1 presents the boundaries of CFD-08-I that include certain parcels located within Otay Ranch
Village Six (189 gross acres). Village Six is comprised of properties owned by McMillin Otay, LLC,
Otay Project, LP, the Catholic Diocese of San Diego and Cornerstone Communities. This District
encompasses only properties owned by Otay Project and related companies. In general, the entire
Village Six is bounded by Olympic Parkway to the North, Birch Road to the South, La Media Road to
the West and the Proposed SR 125 to the East. This will be the second Community Facilities District
to be formed for Village Six. Community Facilities District 2001-2 (McMillin Otay Ranch Village
Six) has already been formed on their particular property and CFD-08-I will comprise the remainder
of Village Six. The property within Village Six that is owned by Otay Project, LP and its affiliated
merchant builders and which will be included in CFD-08-I is divided into two distinct sections, one in
the southwest quadrant and another in the northeast quadrant of Village Six.
At this time Otay Project, LP is anticipating that only 93 acres will be developed for commercial and
residential development with the remaining acres to be reserved for other uses. At buildout there are
proposed to be 1,305 residential units, a 2.9 acre commercial development, two Community Public
Facilities Parcels, a park and an elementary school.
The Improvements
The developer is proposing the financing of arterial and backbone streets and associated
improvements (i.e., grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, and utilities) and public facilities.
Following is a general description of the proposed facilities including, but not limited to:
/
Page 3, Item !
Meeting Date 9-16-03
· La Media Road
· Olympic Parkway
· Otay Lakes Road
· Birch Road
East Palomar Street
· View Park Way
· Magdalena Avenue
· Santa Venetia Street
· Sutter Buttes Street
In addition to the above improvements, this CFD's bonding capacity may be used for the
"Traffic Enhancement Program" within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista. These
transportation facilities will be traffic capacity adding improvements and could include the
following projects:
· Telegraph Canyon Road East of 1-805
· ~ Telegraph Canyon Road / I 805 On Ramp Improvements
· Heritage Road (Olympic Parkway to Main Street)
In addition-to the above facilities, this CFD's bonding capacity may be used to pay for facilities to
be financed, by any of the Development Impact Programs.
Preliminary estimates show that the maximum tax revenue (using the proposed taxes) from all the
taxable properties would support a total bonded indebtedness of approximately $20 million
(assuming a 6.75% interest rate and a 30-year term on the bonds). A bond sale mount of $20
million will finance approximately $16 million in facilities (i.e. grading, landscaping, streets,
utilities, drainage, sewer, etc). The balance provided would provide for a reserve fund, capitalized
interest and pay district formation and bond issuance costs.
As noted above, it is currently estimated that only $20 million will be available for funding by this
district. However, the district will be sized for $25 million to give the City flexibility in sizing the
bonds and to take advantage of lower interest rates should they occur. A final priority list and cost
estimates for each of the eligible improvements for CFD-08-I financing are included in the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement and other bond documents (see attachments).
The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to authorize and make the proceeds of any series of bonds
issued for the District available to pay the cost of construction or the purchase price for the
acquisition of Improvements for the "Traffic Enhancement Program". This could result in the
revision of the facilities priority structure for the utilization of such proceeds.
Ultimately, as subdivision exactions, the developer will finance required improvements that this
CFD district cannot finance. In addition, the proposed CFD lies within the City of Chula Vista's
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) benefit area that places a cap on the CFD's ability
Page 4, Item ]r~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
to finance certain TDIF improvements. Staff and the consultant team are working with the developer
to maximize the TDIF facilities to be constructed by the District
The actual amount to be financed by CFD-08-I would depend upon a number of factors including
final interest rate on the bonds and the value to lien ratio. The bond sale amount may be higher or
less than the $20 million mentioned above.
The developer is proposing the financing of backbone and associated improvements (i.e. grading,
sewer, streets, dry utilities, etc.) as described below. CFD policy requires a determination of the
priority for the acquisition of improvements by a CFD. Staff, consultants, and land developers have
prioritized the developer's list of projects as follows:
Priority Items:
· Traffic Enhancement Improvements
· La Media Road
· Olympic Parkway
· Otay Lakes Road
· Birch Road
· East Palomar Street
View Park Way
· Magdalena Avenue
· Santa Venetia Street
· Sutter Buttes Street
Special Tax Report
A copy of the Amended Special Tax Report for Community Facilities District No. 08-I for Otay
Ranch Village Six prepared by the Special Tax Consultant, McGill Martin Self, Inc., is on file, and
available for public review in the City Clerk's Office. Said report incorporates the "Amended Rate
and Method of Apportionment" (RMA) (approved by Council on May 13, 2003) The RMA and
Special Tax report were amended to change the rate of the Special Tax in accordance with the 2%
maximum Tax procedures.
Ci.ty Financial Criteria
Value to Lien Ratio: The City's Statement of Goals and Policies for Commtmity Facilities Districts
("CFD policy") requires a minimum value to lien ratio of 4:1. In addition, the policy establishes the
following criteria:
The required value-to-debt ratio shall be determined with respect to all taxable
property within the community facilities district in the aggregate and with respect to
each development area for which no final subdivision map has been filed A
community facilities district with a value-to-debt ratio of less than 4:1 but equal to or
greater than 3.'1 may be approved, in the sole discretion of the City Council, upon a
Page 5, Item 1__~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
determination by the City Manager, after consultation with the finance director, the
bond counsel, the underwriter and the financial advisor, that a value to debt ratio of
less than 4:1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of the particular
community facilities district."
Bruce W. Hull & Associates conducted an appraisal (June 15, 2003) on the property. Exhibit 2
illustrates a bond sale of $19,470,000 which will result in an overall lien ratio of 4.98:1. Within
CFD-08-I, the planning areas owned by the developer (Otay Project L.P.) have a lien ratio of 3.66
to 1. For the planning areas owned by the affiliated merchant builders seven planning areas have a
lien ratio of greater than 4:1 and one planning area owned by Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC has a lien
ratio of 3.82 to 1.
On August 20, 2003 Otay Project L.P. submitted a letter (Exhibit 4) requesting approval of a lien
ratio of less than 4:1 but greater than 3:1. Staff and consultants have reviewed this request and
determined that approving a lesser lien ratio for Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC's and Otay Project L.P.'s
remaining developable parcels within CFD No. 08-I is financially prudent. The City directed the
Financial Advisor (Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates) to provide a recommendation as to the
merits of a waiver under circumstances specific to the property, which recomanendation is stated
in the attached letter (Exhibit 5). Staff therefore recommends that Council approve the developer's
request based on the following:
1. Property ownership and special tax obligations within CFD No. 08-1 are diversified. The
Otay Ranch affiliate merchant homebuilders currently are responsible for approximately
64 % of the special tax obligations of the district. The letter also indicates that by the end
of the year Otay Ranch LP will have fully divested itself through sales to merchant
builders. Diversification of special tax obligation is perceived by the City finance team to
assist in mitigating the risk to the bondholders.
2. Development is underway. Model homes permits have been issued along with some
ninety additional building permits for production homes. Home sales will be starting very
soon. The status of development indicates that further diversification of ownership should
continue and that the value within the CFD should continue to increase.
3. Infrastructure construction is advanced within the District. The completion of significant
levels of infrastructure necessary to serve the district helps to mitigate the risk to the
bondholders.
Resolution
There are two resolutions on today's agenda that, if adopted, will accomplish the following:
(A) The RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT for
Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) is the formal action approving
the Acquisition/Finance Agreement (A/FA), (Exhibit 3) that establishes the procedure for
/'7-5
Page 6, Item t '~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
acquiring the improvements from the developer requiring the improvements be fully completed
and accepted by the City prior to acquisition.
· The A/FA provides that the City may reimburse 75% (50% in the case of Traffic
Enhancement projects) of the total cost of the grading, drainage, paving, utilities, and
landscaping improvements upon the determination by the City Engineer that those
improvements have been installed per approved plans with required City Inspection. Those
facilities may not be functional at that time, and certain activities (i.e. testing, completion of
punch list, preparation of as-built drawings) may still be pending. The 25% final payment
may be made once all projects within a phase are fully complete and accepted by the City.
· The A/FA also conditions the purchase of said improvements to developer's compliance with
all the applicable conditions and obligations imposed on the property within CFD-08-I
pursuant to the land use entitlements approved by the City, including but not limited to,
payment of all applicable fees, dedication of right-of-ways or other property (i.e. parks, open
space, etc), payment of assessments installments or special taxes, and construction of all
applicable public improvements.
· Staff has reviewed the proposed agreement and believes that 1) the 25% payment retention,
and 2) the condition requiring compliance with approved land use entitlement will provide
enough security to guarantee completion of the improvements while ensuring the financial
health of CFD-08-I.
· The City retained the firm of Best, Best and Krieger, LLP as Bond Counsel for CFD-08-Ii
Bond Counsel drafted this agreement for and on behalf of the City with input and review by
City staff, developer legal council, developer and financial team.
(B) THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND APPROVING THE
FORM OF CERTAIN RELATED DOCUMENTS" authorizes the issuance of limited obligation
bonds, pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act in a principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000. The final
bond sale amount will be known once the interest on the bonds is determined at bond sale. In
addition, the resolution approves the form of the following documents:
· The Preliminary Official Statement (Exhibit 6): describing the Community Facilities District
and type of bonds, including terms and conditions thereof, for the bondholders.
· The Bond Indenture (Exhibit 7): between the City and the Fiscal Agent, US Bank Trust
National Association, that sets forth the terms and conditions relating to the issuance and sale
of the bonds. The Indenture also establishes the Escrow Account and the conditions to be
met for releasing the funds deposited in said Escrow Account.
· The Bond Purchase Agreement (Exhibit 8): The Bond Purchase Contract authorizes the sale
of bonds to the designated Underwriter (Stone & Youngberg LLC). The underwriter's
discount for this negotiated sale is not to exceed 1.5% of the total bond amount.
· Continuing Disclosure Agreement: between the City and U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as dissemination agent, pursuant to whom the City is required to disclose certain
Page 7, Item / ~
Meeting Date 9-16-03
financial information on an ammal basis regarding the Community Facilities District and
certain significant events. These disclosures include but are not limited to:
Special tax delinquencies
Bond calls
Events reducing density or causing modifications
Other events reflecting financial difficulties of CFD-08-I
It should be noted that Council would only be approving the form of the aforementioned documents.
The proposed resolution authorizes the Director o£Finance to approve the final form and to execute
such documents on behalf of the City following review by and consultation with the City Attorney,
Bond Counsel, and Financial Consultant. No additions or changes in the documents are permitted
which would result in the annual interest rate on the bonds to exceed 6.75 %.
Future Actions
Adoption of tonight's Resolutions will approve the Acquisition/Financing Agreement for CFD-08-I
and authorize the'issuance of bonds, and approve the form of related documents. The issuance of the
bonds is anticipated in October of 2003. The acquisition of selected public improvements will be
audited only after 100% of the project is deemed complete.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City's General Fund receives 1% of the bond sale amount in accordance with the CFD Policy for
the use of the City's bonding capacity. The developer will pay all formation costs and has deposited
money to fund initial consultant costs, and City costs in accordance with the approved
Reimbursement Agreement. The City will receive the benefit of the full cost recovery for stafftime
involved in district formation and administration activities. Staff anticipates that most of the
CFD-08-I administration will be contracted out.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Recorded Boundary Map for CFD-08-I
Exhibit 2: Estimated Value to Lien Ratios Based on Appraisal
Exhibit 3: Acquisition/Financing Agreement for CFD-08-I
Exhibit 4: Letter from Otay Ranch Project L.P., dated August 20, 2003 addressing Value to
Lien Ratio
Exhibit 5: Letter from Financial Advisor recommending waiver of4:1 Value-to Lien ratio
Exhibit 6: Preliminary Official Statement for CFD-08-I
Exhibit 7: Bond Indenture for CFD-08-I
Exhibit 8: Bond Purchase Agreement for CFD-08-I
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\CAS 9-16-03.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FORM OF AN
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-1 (OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE SIX)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the
"City Council"), has held and conducted proceedings relating to the levy of special taxes and the
issuance of bonds in a community facilities district to finance the acquisition of certain public
improvements, as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5. Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the
Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community
Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista
under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the
"Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law"). Such community facilities district is designated as COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX) (the "District"); and,
WI~EREAS, the District was formed for the purpose of financing the acquisition of such
public improvements from Otay Project, L.P., the master developer of the property within the
District (the "Developer"); and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer have negotiated the terms and conditions
pursuant to which the public improvements are to be constructed by the Developer and acquired
by the City and bonds are to be issued to finance the acquisition or construction of such public
improvements and such terms and conditions have been memorialized in an
Acquisition/Financing Agreement by and between the City and the Developer (the
"Acquisition/Financing Agreement"), the form of which has been presented to this City Council
for its consideration and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. The form of Acquisition/Financing Agreement, herewith submitted, is approved
substantially in the form submitted. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the final form of
such agreement on behalf of the City. The City Manager, subject to the review of the City
Attorney and Bond Counsel, is authorized to approve changes to the form of the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement deemed to be in the best interests of the City, approval of such
changes to be evidenced by the execution of such agreement.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J :\Attomey\Reso\Agreements\Appmve Acquisition Agreement 9-16-03 doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0g-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE
SIX), AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL
TAX BONDS OF THE DISTRICT, APPROVING THE FORM OF BOND
INDENTURE, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL
STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (this
"City Council"), did previously conduct proceedings to form and did form a community facilities
district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982",
being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the
"Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the
powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and '7 of Article XI of the
Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred
to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law"), such Community Facilities District
designated as COMMUNITY FACILITiES NO. 08-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX) (the
"Community Facilities District") for the purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of
certain public improvements; and,
WHEREAS, this City Council has previously declared its intention to issue bonds for the
Community Facilities District to finance the acquisition or construction of such improvements, such
bonds be issued pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Act and the City of Chula Vista
Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts, as
amended to date (the "Goals and Policies"); and,
WHEREAS, at this time this City Council desires to set forth the general terms and
conditions relating to the authorization, issuance and administration of such bonds for the
Community Facilities District; and,
WHEREAS, the forms of the following documents have been presented to and considered for
approval by this City Council:
A. Bond Indenture by and between the Community Facilities District and U.S. Bank,
National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Fiscal Agent") setting forth the terms and
conditions relating to the issuance and sale of bonds (the "Bond Indenture');
B. Bond Purchase Agreement authorizing the sale of bonds to Stone & Youngberg,
LLC, the designated underwriter (the "Bond Purchase Agreement");
C. Preliminary Official Statement containing information including but not limited to
the Community Facilities District and the bonds, including the terms and conditions
thereof (the "Preliminary Official Statement"); and
D. Continuing Disclosure Agreement by and between the Community Facilities District
and MuniFinancial, as dissemination agent (the "Dissemination Agent"), pursuant to
which the Community Facilities District will be obligated to provide ongoing a~mual
disclosure relating to the bonds (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, this City Council, with the aid of City staffand its consultants, has reviewed and
considered the Bond Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement and the Preliminary Official Statement and finds those documents suitable for approval,
subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have
been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the bonds as contemplated by this resolution and
the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed or have been
ordered to have been preformed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of
California, including the Act and the applicable policies and regulations of the City of Chula Vista.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION2. Determinations. This legislative body hereby makes the following
determinations pertaining to the proposed issuance of the Bonds:
(a) The Goals and Policies generally require that the full cash value of the properties
within the Community Facilities District subject to the levy of the special taxes must
be at least 4 times the principal amount of the Bonds (as defined below) and the
principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by a special tax
levied pursuant to the Act on property within the Community Facilities District or a
special assessment levied on property within the Community Facilities District
(collectively, "Land Secured Bonded Indebtedness").The Act authorizes the City
Council, acting as the legislative body of the Community Facilities District, to sell
the Bonds only if the City Council has determined prior to the award of the sale of
the Bonds that the value of such properties within the Community Facilities District
will be at least 4 times the amount of such Land Secured Indebtedness.
The value of the property within the Community Facilities District which will be
subject to the special tax to pay debt service on the Bonds will be at least 4 times the
amount of the Land Secured Bonded Indebtedness.
The Goals and Policies further provide that the full cash value of each development
area for which no final subdivision map has been filed must also be at least 4 times
the Land Secured Bonded Indebtedness allocable to each such property. The full cash
2 i?'//
value of certain of the development areas is less than 4 times the Land Secured
Bonded Indebtedness allocable to such properties but greater than 3.6 times such
amounts. Pursuant to the Goals and Policies, the City Manager has determined, after
consultation with the Assistant City Manager, the Director of Finance, the City's
bond counsel, the City's financial advisor and Stone & Youngberg, LLC, the
proposed underwriter of the Bonds (the "Underwriter"), that the value-to-debt ratio
for such properties is financially prudent under the circumstances of the District.
Based upon the determination of the City Manager that is set forth in the staff report
related to this matter, this City Council approves the issuance of the Bonds.
The foregoing determinations are based upon the full cash value of such properties
and development areas as shown upon an appraisal of the subject properties prepared
by Bruce W. Hull & Associates, a state certified real estate appraiser, as defined in
Business and Professions Code Section 11340(c). Such determination was made in a
manner consistent with the Goals and Policies.
(b) The terms and conditions of the Bonds as contained in the Bond Indenture are
consistent with and conform to the Goals and Policies.
As a result of the current status of development of the property within the
Community Facilities District and the relative overall lack of diversity of ownership
of property therein, the private sale of the Bonds wlll result in a lower overall cost to
the Community Facilities District.
SE(~TION 2. Bonds Authorized. Pursuant to the Community Facilities District Law, this
Resolution and the Bond Indenture, special tax bonds of the Community Facilities District
designated as "City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six)
2003 Special Tax Bonds" (the "Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000
are hereby authorized to be issued. The date, manner of payment, interest rate or rates, interest
payment dates, denominations, form, registration privileges, manner of execution, place of payment,
terms of redemption and other terms, covenants and conditions of the Bonds shall be as provided in
the Bond Indenture as finally executed.
SECTION 3. Authorization and Conditions. The City Manager, an Assistant City Manager,
the Director of Finance and such other official or officials of the City as may be designated in writing
by this City Council or the City Manager (each, an "Authorized Officer") are each hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver the final form of the various documents and instruments
described in this Resolution, with such additions thereto or changes therein as such Authorized
Officer may deem necessary and advisable provided that no additions or changes shall authorize an
aggregate principal amount of Bonds in excess of $25,000,000, an annual interest rate on the Bonds
in excess of seven percent (7.00%) per year and a purchase price for the Bonds not less than ninety-
eight and twenty five hundredths percent (98.25%) of the par amount of the Bonds (excluding
original issue discount, if any). The approval of such additions or changes shall be conclusively
evidenced by the execution and delivery of such documents or instruments by an Authorized Officer,
upon consultation with and review by the City Attorney and Best Best & Krieger LLP, the
Community Facilities District's bond counsel.
SECTION 4. Bond Indenture. The form of Bond Indenture by and between the Community
Facilities District and the Fiscal Agent, with respect to the Bonds as presented to this City Council
and on file with the City Clerk is hereby approved. An Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and
directed to cause the same to be completed and executed on behalf of the Community Facilities
District, subject to the provisions of Section 3 above.
SECTION 5. Official Statement and Continuing Disclosure A~eement. The CityCouncil
hereby approves the form of the Preliminary Official Statement as presented to this City Council and
on file with the City Clerk, together with any changes therein or additions thereto deemed advisable
by the Director of Finance or, in the absence of the Director of Finance, another Authorized Officer.
Pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule") the Director of
Finance or, in the absence of the Director of Finance, another Authorized Officer is authorized to
determine when the Preliminary Official Statement is deemed final, and the Director of Finance or
such other Authorized Official is hereby authorized and directed to provide written certification
thereof. The execution of the final Official Statement, which shall include such changes and
additions thereto deemed advisable by the Director of Finance or, in the absence of the Director of
Finance, another Authorized Officer pursuant to the Rule, shall be conclusive evidence of the
approval of the final Official Statement by the Community Facilities District. The City Council
hereby authorizes the distribution of the final Official Statement by the Underwriter as the initial
purchaser of the Bonds. .:
The form of Continuing Disclosure Agreement by and between the community Facilities
District and the Dissemination Agent as presented to this City Council and on file with the City
Clerk is hereby approved. An Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed to cause the same
to be completed and executed on behalf of the Community Facilities District, subject to the
provisions of Section 3 above.
SECTION 6. Sale of Bonds. This City Council hereby authorizes and approves the
negotiated sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter. The form of the Bond Pumhase Agreement is hereby
approved and an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase
Agreement on behalf of the Community Facilities District upon the execution thereof by the
Underwriter, subject to the provisions of Section 3 above.
SECTION 7. Bonds Prepared and Delivered. Upon the execution of the Bond Purchase
Agreement, the Bonds shall be prepared, authenticated and delivered, all in accordance with the
applicable terms of the Community Facilities District Law and the Bond Indenture, and any
Authorized Officer and other responsible City officials, acting for and on behalf of the Community
Facilities District, are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as are required under the
Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bond Indenture to complete all actions required to evidence the
delivery of the Bonds upon the receipt of the purchase price thereof from the Underwriter.
SECTION 8. Actions. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the City
with respect to the establishment of the Community Facilities District and the sale and issuance of
the Bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the proper officers of the City, acting for
4 / 7... /3
and on behalf of the Community Facilities District, are hereby authorized and directed to do any and
all things and take any and all actions and execute any and all certificates, agreements, contracts, and
other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to
consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the Bonds in accordance with the Community
Facilities District Law, this Resolution, the Bond Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, and any certificate, agreement, contract, and other document
described in the documents herein approved.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson Ann Moore
Director of Engineering City Attorney
EXHIBITE,
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of September 16, 2003, is made and emered imo by and
between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a charter city duly organized and validly existing under
the Constitution and laws of the State of California, (the "City"), COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 08-I (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX), a community facilities district formed
and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California (the "CFD No. 08-I") and OTAY
PROJECT, L.P., a California limited liability company (the "Developer").
WHEREAS, the Developer is the master developer of certain property within that portion
of the City known as the Otay Ranch Village Six (the "Development Project") and Developer has
obtained certain land use entitlements from the City which permit the development of the
Development Project; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Development Project pursuant to such land use
entitlements is subject to certain conditions, including but not limited to, the requirement that the
Developer construct certain public improvements to serve the Development Project including the
improvements identified as Improvemems Nos. __ through __ in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Development Project Improvements'); and
WHEREAS, such land use entitlements also describe the threshold of building permits
that may be issued for the Development Project as the result of traffic impacts on roadways
within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee, in its annual
threshold compliance report, noted that development in the eastern portion of the City which
includes the Development Project was starting to strain the capacity of existing roadways
resulting in added congestion and traffic delays; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary to expedite the construction of
certain traffic enhancement projects, including the Traffic Enhancement Improvements defined
below (individually, a "Traffic Enhancement Improvement" and collectively, the "Traffic
Enhancement Improvements"), located in the eastern part of the City in order to maintain the
City's threshold standard and quality of life until the completion of more of the overall
transportation network in the eastern part of the City; and
WHEREAS, in order for the Developer and the master developers of other properties
located in the City east of the 1-805 freeway to continue to receive building permits beyond the
current thresholds identified in the existing land use entitlements for the Development Project
and other developments in the eastern portion of the City, such developers must contribute to the
financing of the construction of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the financing of one of the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements, the Developer, together with certain other master developers (the "Other Master
Developers"), have entered into that certain Agreement for the Construction of Roadway
1
Improvements for Traffic Enhancement (the "Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement")
made as of ,2002, to establish a system for the financing and construction of certain
roadway improvements identified in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement (the
"Traffic Enhancement Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer requested that the City consider and the City did consider and
form CFD No. 08-1 under the terms and conditions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act of 1982," as amended (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Act"), for the
purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of the Development Project Improvements
and Developer's fair share of the cost of the acquisition or construction of the Traffic
Enhancement Improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work (the
Development Project Improvements and the Traffic Enhancement Improvements are referred to
herein individually as an "Improvement" or collectively as the "Improvements"); and,
WHEREAS, Developer, in order to proceed in a timely way with development of the
Development Project, desires to construct certain of the Improvements that will, following the
completion of the construction thereof, be acquired, owned, operated and maintained by the City;
and,
WHEREAS, Developer, in order to meet its obligations under the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement and under any future agreement that the Developer may enter with the
City to finance the Developer's share, if any, of cost of the construction of other Traffic
Enhancement Improvements (a "Furore Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement"), also
desires to finance its Fair Share (as such term is defined in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement) of the cost of the design of, grading for and construction of the Traffic
Enhancement Improvements and its fair share as established by any Future Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement ("Additional Fair Share") of the cost of the construction of any other
Traffic Enhancement Improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the City, CFD No. 08-I and Developer agree that the Improvements to be
constructed by the Developer may, upon the completion of the construction thereof, be acquired
by the City through financing provided by CFD No. 08-1 at prices determined pursuant to and in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, (a) if the Developer
constructs any Traffic Enhancement Improvements only that portion of the cost of construction
of such Traffic Enhancement Improvements representing the Developer's Fair Share of such
costs shall be paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the reimbursement
to the Developer of the costs, if any, of construction of such Traffic Enhancement Improvements
which are allocable to the Other Master Developers pursuant to the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement shall be governed by the terms and conditions of thereof and (b) if the
Developer constructs any other Traffic Enhancement Improvement only that portion of the cost
of construction of such Traffic Enhancement Improvement representing the Developer's Future
Fair Share of such costs shall be paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
the reimbursement to the Developer of the costs, if any, of construction of such Traffic
Enhancement Improvement which are allocable to other parties pursuant to a Future Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Agreement applicable to such Traffic Enhancement Improvement
shall be governed by the terms and conditions of thereof; and,
WHEREAS, except for the reimbursement of (a) the costs of construction of Traffic
Enhancement Improvements constructed by the Developer which are allocable to Other Master
Developers pursuant to the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement or (b) the costs of
construction of any other Traffic Enhancement Improvement constructed by the Deve!oper which
are allocable to any other party pursuant to a Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Agreement applicable to such Traffic Enhancement Improvement, the City and the Developer
further agree that payment by the City for the acquisition of the Improvements shall be funded
solely from the proceeds of bonds which shall be issued by CFD No. 08-I and which shall be
secured by the levy of special taxes within CFD No. 08-I; and,
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Agreement that Developer shall be entitled pursuant to
the provisions of this Agreement to be paid for each of the Improvements constructed by the
Developer at the prices as determined by the City pursuant to tl-ds Agreement upon: (a) the sale
and delivery of bonds by CFD No. 08-1 the proceeds of which shall be authorized and designated
to make the payments to acquire such Improvements and (b) the completion of the construction
of each such Improvement; and,
WHEREAS, CFD No. 08-1 is willing to finance the acquisition of and acquire the
Improvements to be constructed by the Developer and to finance the Developer's Fair Share of
the cost of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements if conslzucted by a party other than the
Developet subject to the requirements of the Act, the City of Chula Vista Statement of Goals and
Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts adopted by the City
Council (the "Goals and Policies"), this Agreement, the Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Agreement and any Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement and Developer desires
that CFD No. 08-1 so finance the acqUisition and acquire such Improvements and finance
Developer's Fair Share of the cost of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements and Developer's
Future Fair Share, if any, of the cost of other Traffic Enhancement Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLy AGREED between the respective parties as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all tree and correct.
SECTION 2. Plans and Specifications. All plans, specifications and bid documents for the
Improvements (the "Plans and Specifications") and all changes in the Plans and Specifications
necessitated by change orders shall be prepared by the Developer at the Developer's initial
expense, ~ubject to City approval. The costs of acquisition of such Improvements shall include
osts of the preparation of the Plans and Specifications and all related documentation as set forth
in Sectmni 7 below.
D{veloper shall not award bids for construction, commence construction or cause
commencement of construction of an Improvement until the Plans and Specifications for such
Improvement have been approved by the City.
3
SECTION 3. Design, Bid and Co: ~struction of Improvements. Developer covenants and
agrees that each Improvement to be :quired from Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall be
designed, bid and constructed
(a) in substantial compl ncc with the approved Plans and Specifications for such
Improvement;
(b) in a good and worlmanlike manner by well-trained adequately supervised
workers;
(c) in strict compliance with all governmental and quasi-governmental rules,
regulations, laws, buil, ling codes and all requirements of Developer's insurers and
lenders;
(d) free of any known des! gn flaws and defects; and
(e) in compliance with t? requirements of Exhibit C hereto which is incorporated
herein by this referenc
SECTION 4. Inspection and Accel :ance of the Improvements. Tlae construction activities
relating to the Improvements shall b~ subject at all reasonable times to inspection by authorized
representatives of City. Once an Im[ rovement to be acquired by City is substantially completed
in accordance with the approved Pans and Specifications, then such Improvement shall be
eligible for payment of the Base Incr, :ment of the Purchase Price (as defined in Section 7 below)
therefor.
Prior to acceptance of any I] nprovement by City for purposes of paying the Retained
Increment (as defined in Section 8 b~ ~low) of the Purchase Price, the Developer shall provide to
the City Engineer of the City, or his ( r her designee (the "City Engineer"), the documentation set
forth in this Section 4 and Section 8(. ;)(ii) below and obtain approval of as-built drawings for the
Improvement in accordance with the process described below in this Section 4. The engineer of
record for the Improvement ("Eng~teer of Record") shall file form PW-E-106 (Request for
Release of Bonds) with the City Er gineer. Within 20 working days of such filing, the field
inspector of the City ("Field Inspect{ ,r") or designee shall issue and transmit to the Engineer of
Record a letter requesting (i) as-bui drawings and soils reports (when applicable) and (ii) a
punchlist of work to be complete or corrections to work to be completed before the
Improvement will be eligible for pay: ent of the Retained Increment. Within 20 working days of
receipt of the Field Inspector's lett :r, the Engineer of Record shall prepare redline as-built
drawings and submit them, together ~ith any necessary soils reports, to the Field Inspector and
the Developer shall complete the itc ms of work and/or corrections specified in the punchlist.
Within 10 working daYs of the Engin ~er of Record's submittal of the red lined as-built drawings,
the Field Inspector shall review such drawings and provide comments. The Engineer of Record
shall revise the redline as-built drawi~ tgs per the Field Inspector's comments and resubmit within
10 working days. The Field Inspecto shall make his final review within 5 working days of the
4
Engineer of Record's resubmittal an~ notify the Engineer of Record to prepare mylar as-built
drawings and a microfiche copy and :ubmit both to the Public Works Director or his designee
and notify the Developer of any pun :hiist items which remain to be completed. The City and
Developer shall make best efforts tc perform within the time periods described above. The
inability of City or Developer to p~ ',rform within each time period, notwithstanding its best
efforts, shall not constitute a breach o! 'this Agreement.
SECTION 5. Warranty of Improv, ~ments. At all times prior to the City's acceptance of an
Improvement, the Developer shall )e responsible for maintaining the Improvement at the
Developer's expense. The Developer shall be obligated for the period of twelve (12) months
immediately following the City's ~ cceptance of an Improvement to repair or replace, at
Developer's expense, any defects or 15 [ilures resulting from the work of Developer, its contractors
or agents. Upon the expiration of suc i twelve (12) month period, Developer shall assign to City
and CFD No. 08-I its rights in and to any warranties, guarantees or other evidence of contingent
obligations of third persons with res[ ect to such Improvement. As a condition precedent to the
payment of the Retained Increment (as defined in Section 8 below) of the Purchase Price,
Developer shall post a maintenance b )nd in a form reasonably approved by the City, cause such
a maintenance bond to be posted, or assign Developer's rights under such a maintenance bond
naming City and/or CFD No. 08-I as beneficiary in an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of
the Purchase Price of the Improvemer in order to secure Developer's obligations pursuant to this
Section. Upon posting of such mainl :nance bond, the City shall release any performance, labor
and material bonds for such Improven tent.
SECTION 6. Notice of Completion and Lien Releases. Upon completion of the construction
of an Improvement, Developer shall: totify the City Engineer in writing of such completion and
shall prepare and execute a Notice ol Completion for such Improvement in the form prescribed
by Section 3093 of the California Civ i1 Code and shall record such notice in the Official Records
of the County of San Diego. Develol >er shall cause its contractors to provide unconditional lien
releases for such Improvement ir accordance with Section 3262 of the Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City ~ aay waive the requirement for a Notice of Completion and
lien releases if City determines that ~ s of the date of payment of the Retained Increment of the
Purchase Price for an Improvement, title to such Improvement or portion thereof satisfies the
requirements for Acceptable Title (as hereinafter defined).
SECTION 7. Construction of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements or other Traffic
Enhancement Improvements. If and to the extent that the provisions of the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Agreeme it or Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement
pertaining to the design, constructi( n, acceptance and warranty of the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements or any other Traffic l: nhancement Improvements conflict with the provisions of
this Agreement, the provisions of th~ Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement or Future
Traffic Enhancement Improvement ;reement, as applicable, shall prevail over the conflicting
provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 8. Payment of Purchas~ Price.
(a) Amount of Purchase Price. 'he amount to be paid by City for the Improvements to be
constructed by and acquired from Developer (the "Purchase Price") shall, as to each such
Improvement, (i) be determined by (~.ity in accordance with the provisions of this Section 8, (ii)
equal the lesser of the cost or the 'alue thereof, (iii) include the reasonable cost or value of
eligible appurtenant public facilities. (iv) include the costs of the title insurance policy described
in Section 9 (a), and (v) include all her costs of construction and incidental costs eligible under
the Act and the Goals and Policies ~ a part of the cost of the Improvements; provided, however,
the Purchase Price to be paid purs aant to this Agreement for (y) any Traffic Enhancement
Improvements constructed by the D~ veloper shall not exceed the Developer's Fair Share of the
cost of the consh-ucfion of such Road ~qay Improvements determined pursuant to the provisions of
the Traffic Enhancement Agreement or (z) any other Traffic Enhancement Improvement
constructed by Developer shall not exceed the Developer's Future Fair Share of the cost of
construction of such Traffic Enhance ~ent Improvement determined pursuant to the provisions of
the applicable Future Traffic Enhan, :ement Improvement Agreement, and provided further that
the aggregate Purchase Price for an~' Improvement included in the City's Traffic Development
Impact Fee ("TDIF") program shall not exceed the aggregate TDIF obligation for the property
within CFD No. 08-I.
Incidental costs eligible to b, included in the Purchase Price of any Improvement shall
include the following:
(i) Usual and customar :lesign and engineering costs not to exceed the following
percentages:
a. Civil engine nng - 7.5% of the cost of the construction of the
Improvement: br which the service was performed.
b. Soils engineer ng- 15% of the cost of the grading for the Improvement.
c. Landscape arc hitecture - 10% of the cost of applicable landscaping and
irrigation relat ng to the Improvement.
d. Survey and onslruction staking - 2% of the combined cost of the
construction · :est> and grading for the Improvement.
e. Utility engine~ ~.fing/coordination - 3% of the cost of the construction of the
applicable dr utilities.
(ii) Construction admini ration and supervision not to exceed, in aggregate, 1.75% of
the total construction cost of he Improvement.
(iii) Special engineering :tudies related to "collector" or "transmission" facilities as
reviewed and approved by th, ~ Public Works Director.
6
(iv) Plan check and inspect: on fees (less any refunds).
(v) Capacity or connection fees related solely to the Improvement.
(vi) Costs of acquisition ~f off-site rights-of-way and/or easements including the
following:
a. Appraisal and~ tle insurance costs.
b. Costs of prepar ng acquisition plats.
c. The appraised 'alue or actual cost of right-of-way or easement, whichever
is less.
d. Legal fees and costs related to eminent domain proceedings approved by
the City Attom ;y.
(vii) Costs of environmettal review, permitting and mitigation related to the
Improvement.
In no event shall the cost or v ~lue of the construction of the Improvements be deemed to
exceed the construction contract pric~ '.s set forth in the contracts and change orders approved by
City ("Approved Change Orders") p~ xsuant to the applicable provisions of Exhibit "C" hereto,
which is incorporated herein by tis reference, or otherwise authorized pursuant to this
Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoix , the aggregate Purchase Price of the acquisition of all new
utilities to be owned by a public utili y or public utilities may not exceed 5% of the proceeds of
the series of the Bonds to be utilized to pay such Purchase Price less that portion of the reserve
fund, costs of issuance and other incic ental costs allocable to such mount.
(b) Incremental Payment of Pu :chase Price of an Improvement other than a Traffic
Enhancement Improvement. The P~ trchase Price for any Improvement constructed by the
Developer, other than a Traffic Enhar cement Improvement, shall be payable in not to exceed two
increments: (i) the "Base Incremenl" which shall be an amount equal to 75% of the audited,
eligible costs as reflected in the writt. ;n request for payment of the Base increment submitted by
the Developer and as approved by th ~ Director of Engineering and shall n,,o,t exceed 75 ¥o of th,e,
cost estimate set forth in Exhibit A for such Improvement; and (ii) the Retained Increment
which shall be an amount not to exc{ ed the remaining, unpaid portion of the Purchase Price for
such Improvement determined pursua at to the provisions of (a) above.
(c) Requisition for Incremental ayment of Purchase Price of an Improvement other than a
Traffic Enhancement Improvement.
7
(i) Base Increment. The i)eveloper may submit only one (1) written request to the
City Engineer for the paymen: of the Base Increment for an Improvement, other than a
Traffic Enhancement Improve nent, upon the substantial completion of the construction
of such Improvement in acco rdance with the approved Plans and Specifications. The
criteria for determining "subst mtial completion'~of each such Improvement is described
in Exhibit B and shall mean generally that construction, or work with respect to such
Improvement has progressed 'o the point where it is sufficiently complete s9 that such
Improvement can be utilized for the purpose for which it was intended. Substantial
completion of such an Imp~ Dvement shall also mean that all components of such
Improvement are substantiall ~ complete, e.g., in the case of Improvement including
streets (other than streets in :luded in the Traffic Enhancement Improvements), the
components are described in footnote 1 to Exhibit A. Each Base Increment payment
request must be in the form arq ached hereto as Exhibit D - 1, which is incorporated herein
by this reference, and conforrr to the requirements of (f) below. The request for payment
of the Base Increment for a ~ Improvement shall be accompanied by a copy of the
following documents related to the construction of such Improvement: (1) each
construction contract, (2) each change order, (3) each invoice submitted pursuant to such
construction contracts, (4) ev idence of payment of each such invoice such as copies of
cancelled checks or other evi~ ence of payment satisfactory to the City Engineer, and (5)
written conditional lien relea~ es executed by each applicable contractor, subcontractor
and materialman in a form ~atisfactory to the City Attorney of the City (the "City
Attorney") for such Improvem :nt.
(ii) Retained Increment. ~ 'he Developer may submit only one (1) written request to
the City Engineer for the payl aent of the Retained Increment for an Improvement, other
than a Traffic Enhancement I] nprovement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D - 2,
which is incorporated herein ~ this reference, upon the submission to the City Engineer
of (1) as-built drawings o other equivalent plans and specifications for such
Improvement in a form rea ,nably acceptable to the City, (2) evidence that the
Developer has posted a maint¢nance bond for such Improvement as required by Section 5
hereinabove, (3) evidence cf the satisfaction of the requirements of Section I0,
hereinbelow directly related :o such Improvement and (4) written unconditional lien
releases from all contractors, subcontractors and materialmen satisfactory to the City
Attorney for such Improvement. For any costs not included in the Developer's written
request for payment of the Base Increment but requested for payment in the Retained
Increment the request shall :onform to the requirements of (f) below and also be
accompanied by the followiag documents related to such additional costs of the
construction of such Improver ~ent if not done so with the written request for payment of
the Base Increment: (1) each construction contract, (2) each change order, (3) each
invoice submitted pursuant to such construction contract, and (4) evidence of payment of
each such invoice such as cppies of cancelled checks or other evidence of payment
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
(d) Incremental Payment of Pun hase Price of Traffic Enhancement Improvements. The
Purchase Price for any Traffic Enhan :ement Improvement shall be payable in not to exceed two
8
increments: the "Base Increment" ~ ~hich shall be an mount not to exceed 50% of (i) the
Developer's Fair Share of the cost of he construction of such Traffic Enhancement Improvement
or (ii) the Developer's Future Fair Share of the cost of construction of any other Traffic
Enhancement Improvement, as appl cable, and the "Retained Increment" which shall be an
amount not to exceed the remaining,' repaid portion of (y) the Developer's Fair Share of the cost
of the Traffic Enhancement Improve~ lent or (z) the Developer's Future Fair §hare of the cost of
any other Traffic Enhancement Impro ~ement, as applicable.
(e) Requisition for Incremental Payment of Purchase Price of a Traffic Enhancement
Improvement.
(i) Base Increment. Th; Developer may submit a written request to the City
Engineer in the form attache( hereto as Exhibit D - 3, which is incorporated herein by
this reference, for the paymer t of all or any portion of the Base Increment for a Traffic
Enhancement Improvement u )on the completion of fifty percent (50%) the construction
by the Developer of such T~ fffic Enhancement Improvement. A Traffic Enhancement
Improvement will be deemed o be 50% complete when the City Engineer has determined
that the Developer has expen, led an mount equal to 50% of the contract price for such
Traffic Enhancement Improve nent.
(ii) Retained Increment. rhe Developer may submit a written request to the City
Engineer for the payment )f the Retained Increment for a Traffic Enhancement
Improvement in the form atta :hed hereto as Exhibit D - 4, which is incorporated herein
by this reference, upon the cc mpletion of the construction of such Traffic Enhancement
Improvement and acceptance 1 hereof by the City.
(iii) Required Documental ion. Any request for payment of the Base Increment,
Retained Increment or any portion thereof of the Purchase Price for a Traffic
Enhancement Improvement c¢ nstmcted by the Developer shall be accompanied by a copy
of the following documents related to the construction of such Traffic Enhancement
Improvement and the payme~ t requested in such request for payment: (1) evidence of
payment of each invoice such as copies of cancelled checks or other evidence of payment
satisfactory to the City Engix eer upon which the request for payment is based and (2)
written conditional lien relea ~es executed by each applicable contractor, subcontractor
and materialman in a form sat: sfactory to the City Attomey.
(f) Documentation. Any paynent request submitted by Developer shall be properly
executed and shall include copies of', dl supporting documents required by subsection (c)(i), (c),
(d) or (e), as applicable.
(g) Review of Payment Request for an Improvement. The City Engineer or his designee
shall review each payment request and the support'rog documentation accompanying such
payment request. If the City Engi ~eer finds that any such payment request is incomplete,
improper or otherwise not suitable ~r approval, the City Engineer shall inform Developer in
writing within twenty (20) workin days after receipt thereof, the masons for his finding.
9
Developer shall have the right to res pond to this finding by submitting further documentation
after receipt of the denial. The City ~2ngineer shall review any further documentation received
from the Developer in support of a l~ayment request and inform Developer of his approval or
denial of the payment request as supl >lemented in accordance with this Section within ten (10)
working days after receipt of the s~tpplemental documentation. A resubmittal of a payment
request shall be deemed a new payme: request for purposes of this Section.
Subject to the limitations set f 'th herein, costs incurred under a construction contract for
an Improvement entered into pursu mt to the requirements of this Agreement, the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Agreer~ent or a Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Agreement, as applicable, and Appro red Change Orders shall be deemed to be reasonable and,
subject to the other provisions of this ~greement, shall be included in the Purchase Price for such
Improvement.
The City Engineer shall, afie: the sale of the series of Bonds (defined in Section 20
below) pursuant to Section 20 the 1: roceeds of which are intended to be used to acquire the
subject Improvements and after his m her approval of a payment request, immediately forward a
request to the Director of Finance o ! the City notifying the Director of Finance of his or her
approval of the payment request and requesting that such payment be made to the appropriate
payee. The Director of Finance shall process any such request of the City Engineer pursuant to
the applicable procedures of the Fina ~ce Department and shall make or authorize such payment
pursuant to such procedures and subs~ ction (h) below.
(h) Payment.
(i) Priority of Paym ;nt of Cost of Construction or Purchase Price for
Improvements. The City ant the Developer acknowledge and agree that the cost of
acquisition or construction of all Improvements may exceed the aggregate amount of the
Bond proceeds which will e available for the payment of that portion of cost of
construction or the Purchase rice, as applicable, for all of such Improvements eligible to
be paid fi:om the proceeds oft he Bonds. As a result the City and Developer agree that the
payment of the cost of c )nstmction or the Purchase Price, as applicable, for
Improvements shall be prioriti ted as follows:
Priority 1: Improve:ment No. I ("Traffic Enhancement Improvements") in
Exhibit A.
Priority 2: Improw :ment Nos. in Exhibit A.
The cost of constmcti >n or Purchase Price for any lower priority Improvement
shall not be paid until the co ;t of construction or Purchase Price for all higher priority
Improvements. has been pale or if sufficient proceeds of the Bonds are reasonably
determined to be available to ~ully fund the cost of construction or Purchase Price of the
higher priority Improvements based upon the estimates of the cost of construction or the
estimates or approved Pun ~ase Prices, as applicable, for such higher priority
Improvements on Exhibit A.
(ii) Timing of the Pay nent of the Purchase Price for an Improvement. Subject
to the limitations contained i: (i) above and (iii) and (iv) below, the increment of the
Purchase Price for each Imprt ~ement shall be paid to Developer within thirty (30) days
after the date of the City E ~gineer's approval of the payment request fo[ any such
increment; provided, however, no Retained Increment for any Improvement other than
Traffic Enhancement Improve merits shall be paid earlier than thirty-five (35) days after
the recording of a Notice of C~ ~mpletion for such Improvement.
(iii) Source of Payme~ rt. The Purchase Price or any increment thereof for an
Improvement shall be payabl: to the Developer solely from those proceeds ("Eligible
Improvement Proceeds") of lc ~e sale of that series of Bonds as provided in Section 20
hereof authorized and designa ed for the payment for such Improvement, after all costs of
formation of CFD No. 08-1 ~ td all costs of issuance of such Bonds have been paid and
deposits of accrued and capita [ized interest to the redemption fund and the initial deposit
to the reserve fund have been ~ aade.
(iv) Withholding of Pa vmena In addition to the foregoing, the City shall have the
right to withhold payment ~,f the Purchase Price or any increment thereof of any
Improvement if (a) the Der ~loper is delinquent in the payment of any assessment
installments or special taxe~, levied by the City or a community facilities district
established by the City on pre perties then owned by the Developer within CFD No. 08-I,
(b) the City Engineer reasona' ~ly determines that the Developer is not then in substantial
compliance with all applicab] ~ conditions and obligations imposed upon the Developer
hereunder or upon the Develo] ~ment pursuant to the land use entitlements approved by the
City for the Development, in :luding but not limited to, payment of all applicable fees,
dedication of all applicable rights-of-way or other property and constraction of all
applicable public improveme~ tts. The City Engineer shall provide written notice to the
Developer of the decision to ~ ~ithhold any such payment and shall specify the reason for
such decision. If the payment is withheld as a result of the delinquency in the payment of
assessment installments or sp ~cial taxes, the notice shall identify the delinquent parcels
and the mount of such delinc uency. If the payment is withheld as a result of substantial
non-compliance with a condit on or obligation, the notice shall specify such condition or
obligation and what action w [11 be necessary by the Developer to substantially comply
with such condition or obli ;ation. Upon receipt by the City Engineer of evidence
reasonably satisfactory to the City Engineer of the payment of the delinquent special
taxes or assessments or upon the determination by the City Engineer that the Developer
has substantially complied ,vith the subject condition or obligation, the City shall
forthwith make any payment a~hich has been withheld pursuant to the provisions of this
paragraph.
SECTION 9. Financing of Develop ~r's Fair Share or Future Fair Share.
(a) Financing Developer's Fair S'. tare of Traffic Enhancement Improvements.
(i) Traffic Enhancemem IrnproveraentAccounL Subject to adjustment as provided
for in the following paragraph, a por ion of the proceeds of the Bonds in an amount equal to the
Developer's Fair Share, currently e~, timated to be $1,000,000 shall be deposited in a separate
account (the "Traffic Enhancement [mprovement Account") to be established pursuant to the
bond indenture setting forth the term~ and conditions pursuant to which the Bonds shall be issued
and sold (the "Bond Indenture"). Pm mant to the requirements of this Section 9(a), the City may
from time to time authorize the disl .ursement of funds on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Account to pay for tt acquisition or construction of the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements in accordance wit the provision hereof and the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement.
(ii) Adjustment of Devel, er'$ Fair Share. The Developer's Fair Share is subject to
adjustment pursuant to the terms of the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement. If the
Fair Share specified in the preceding paragraph is modified pursuant to the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds, the portion of the proceeds of
the Bonds deposited in the Traffic Snhancement Improvement Account shall be increased or
reduced, as applicable, to equal the t air Share as modified. If the Fair Share is modified so that
the amount on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account then exceeds the Fair
Share as modified, the City shall au horize the release of such excess amount from the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account and the transfer of such amount therefrom pursuant to the
provisions of the Bond Indenture. If :he Fair Share is modified so that the amount on deposit in
the Traffic Enhancement Improveme at Account, together with all prior disbursements from the
Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account to pay Developer's Fair Share of the cost of
construction of the Traffic Enhance ment Improvements, is then less than the Fair Share as
modified, the City shall notify the Developer in writing of such deficit and request that the
Developer deposit funds in the amo mt of such deficit with Director of Finance within fifteen
(15) business days of the date of sm h notice. If the Developer fails to deposit such funds with
such time period, the City may auth ~rize the transfer of an amount equal to such deficit from
Eligible Improvement Proceeds to th~ Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account.
(iii) Construction of Tra ~c Enhancement Improvements by Parrg Other than
Developer. If the Traffic Enhancen~ mt Improvements are constructed pursuant to the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Agreeme ~t by a party other than the Developer, the City may request
pursuant to the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Agreement that the Fis,cal Agent disburse
funds from the Traffic Enhancement improvement Account to pay Developer s Fair Share of the
cost of construction of the Traff Enhancement Improvements pursuant to the Traffic
Enhancement Agreement.
(iv) Surplus Funds. If rods remain on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Account upon com'~letion of the construction or acquisition of Traffic
Enhancement Improvements and thl payment of Developer's final Fair Share amount, such
funds shall be released from the res, rvation established pursuant to this Section 9(a) and such
funds shall be made available to pay I he Purchase Price of other Improvements.
12
In the event that the City ele :ts not to require the construction or acquisition of all or
some portion of the Traffic Enhancen tent Improvements, the funds then on deposit in the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account md not then allocated or necessary to pay Developer's Fair
Share of the costs of the acquisition ~ r construction of Traffic Enhancement Improvements shall
be released from the reservation esta[ lished pursuant to this Section 9(a) and such funds shall be
made available to pay the Purchase P~ ice of other Improvements.
(v) Limitation on Use oJ Funds in Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account.
Except as provided in this Sectiea 9(a), funds on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Account may not be ut: lized to pay all or any portion of the Purchase Price of any
other Improvements.
(vi) Investment of Funa~ on Deposit in Traffic Enhancement Improvement
AccounL The Bond Indenture shall :ovide that all funds on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Account shall be inve ed in such permitted investments as may be established by
the terms of the Bond Indenture. earnings on such investments shall be deposited in the
improvement fund established by ti Bond Indenture and shall be available to pay for the
acquisition or construction of the Im rovements pursuant to the terms of such Bond Indenture
and this Agreement.
(b) Financing Developer's Future ~alr Share of other Traffic Enhancement Improvements.
(i) Traffic Enhanceme~ Improvement Account. Subject to adjustment as provided
for in the following paragraph, a porl ion of the proceeds of the Bonds in an amount equal to the
Developer's Future Fair Share of ~ e cost of the acquisition or construction of other Traffic
Enhancement Improvements may l~e deposited in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Account. Pursuant to the requireme: tts of this Section 9(b), the City may from time to time
authorize the disbursement of funcs on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Account to pay for the acquisition o] construction of other Traffic Enhancement Improvements
in accordance with the provision :reof and the Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Agreement.
(ii) Adjustment of Deve ,per's Future Fair Shark The Developer's Future Fair
Share is subject to adjustment pm suant to the terms of the Future Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement. If the Fc ture Fair Share specified in the preceding paragraph is
modified pursuant to the Future Trail c Enhancement Improvement Agreement subsequent to the
issuance of the Bonds, the portion of the proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account shall be increased or reduced, as applicable, to equal the
Future Fair Share as modified. If the ?uture Fair Share is modified so that the amount on deposit
in the Traffic Enhancement Impro' ~ement Account then exceeds the Future Fair Share as
modified, the City shall authorize the release of such excess amount from the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account and the transfer of such amount therefrom pursuant to the
provisions of the Bond Indenture. I1 the Furore Fair Share is modified so that the amount on
deposit in the Traffic Enhancement nprovement Account, together with all prior disbursements
13
from the Traffic Enhancement Improx ement Account to pay Developer's Future Fair Share of the
cost of construction of other Traffic Enhancement Improvements, is then less than the Future
Fair Share as modified, the City shall notify the Developer in writing of such deficit and request
that the Developer deposit funds in t he amount of such deficit with Director of Finance within
fifteen (15) business days of the date of such notice. If the Developer fails to deposit such funds
with such time period, the City may authorize the transfer of an amount equal to such deficit
from Eligible Improvement Proceeds :o the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Accotmt.
(iii) Construction of Tra~ '~c Enhancement Improvements by Party Other than
Developer. If other Traffic Enhancer ~ent Improvements are constructed pursuant to the Furore
Traffic Enhancement Improvement A ;reement by a party other than the Developer, the City may
request pursuant to the Future Trail ic Enhancement Improvement Agreement that the Fiscal
Agent disburse funds from the Traf~ e Enhancement Improvement Account to pay Developer's
Future Fair Share of the cost of c )nstmction of other Traffic Enhancement Improvements
pursuant to the Future Traffic Enfant :ment Improvement Agreement.
(iv) Surplus Funds. If ~nds remain on deposit in the Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Account upon eom ,letion of the construction or acquisition of Traffic
Enhancement Improvements and th~ )ayment of Developer's final Future Fair Share amount,
such fimds shall be released fi.om th: reservation established pursuant to this Section 9(b) and
such funds shall be made available to pay the Purchase Price of other Improvements.
In the event that the City elects not to require the construction or acquisition of all or
some portion of other Traffic Enha ~cement Improvements, the funds then on deposit in the
Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account and not then allocated or necessary to pay
Developer's Future Fair Share of the costs of the acquisition or construction of Traffic
Enhancement Improvements shall be released from the reservation established pursuant to this
Section 9(b) and such funds shall be made available to pay the Purchase Price of other
Improvements.
SECTION 10.Audit. The authorize representatives of City shall have the right, upon two (2)
days prior written notice to Develope and during normal business hours, to review all books and
records of Developer pertaining to c* ~sts and expenses incurred by Developer in construction of
the Improvements.
SECTION 11. Ownership and T~ansfer of Improvements. The conveyance of the
Improvements by Developer to City hall be in accordance with the following procedures:
(a) Improvements Constructed t Land not Owned by City. As a condition to the payment
of the Retained Increment otthe Purchase Price, Developer shall cause an irrevocable
offer of dedication to be ma~ e to City or an outright grant of a fee interest or easement
interest as appropriate, in the sole discretion of the City of the appropriate right, title and
interest in and to the portion ¢ f the applicable property owned by the Developer related to
the applicable Improvement, including any temporary construction or access easements.
Developer, whether or not is the entity constructing the Improvements, agrees to
14
execute and deliver to the (',ity the documents required to complete the transfer of
Acceptable Title for propert 7 owned by the Developer upon or within ,,w, hich such
Improvements are to be locat~ ',d. For purposes of this Agreement, the term Acceptable
Title" shall mean title to the ,ortion of the property to be conveyed flee and clear of all
taxes, liens, encumbrances, ssessments, easements, leases, whether any such item is
recorded or unrecorded, exc~ X (i) non-delinquent taxes and assessments and (ii) those
non-monetary encumbrances ~ nd easements which are reasonably determined.by the City
not to interfere with the int ;nded use of the portion of the property. As a further
condition to the payment ot the Retained Increment of the Purchase Price for any
Improvement, Developer at i s sole initial cost and expense, subject to reimbursement
pursuant to Section 8, shall ct use to be issued a policy of title insurance for such portion
of the property in an amount aot to exceed the Purchase Price and in the form normally
required by City in connectio] with the dedication of land for subdivision improvements
and containing such title end~ rsements as may be reasonably requested by City. City's
final acceptance of the porfim of the property and the Improvements constructed thereon
shall not be unreasonably wit[ held or delayed.
(b) Improvements Constructed Land Owned by City. If Developer is authorized to
construct an Improvement on land owned in fee by City or on land over which the City
owns an easement Developex shall obtain the necessary encroachment permits to enter
such land for purposes of c( nstmcting such Improvement. City shall cooperate with
Developer in issuing such eh, :roachment permits. The Improvements shall be inspected
by City on an ongoing basis.
SECTION 12. Grading and Subdivi sion Improvement Bonds. Except as provided below or as
may be provided in the Traffic ErR ancement Agreement or any Future Traffic Enhancement
Improvement Agreement, Developer shall be required to post or cause the posting of bonds or
other security acceptable to the City 1 D guarantee completion of the Improvements in accordance
with City's standard subdivision req JJrements and conditions of approval of the Development
(the "Conditions of Approval"). Lab( .r and materials bonds shall also be required to be provided
by the Developer's contractor for all ] mprovements to be constructed under this agreement. Such
bonds shall name the City of Chula 'vista as additional obligee and shall remain in effect until the
final acceptance of the Improvements by the City Engineer. The presence of Bond proceeds shall
not relieve the Developer of requirin~ this obligation of the Developer's contractor.
Performance and labor and material bonds for specific Improvements shall not be
required or may be released if: (1 such Improvements constitute a portion of the required
subdivision improvements, (2) Bond roceeds equal to 125% of the estimated cost to construct or
acquire such Improvements are a tailable and set aside for such purpose, and (3) the
Improvements are to be constmcte t or acquired entirely with the proceeds of the Bonds.
Provided that conditions (1) and (21 are satisfied, if an Improvement is to be constructed or
acquired only in part with the procee :ls of the Bonds, performance and labor and material bonds
shall not be required for that portion, ~f the Improvements to be so constructed or acquired except
with respect to the portion that will aot be acquired or constructed with Bond proceeds. In the
event that the Bond proceeds that are available and may be set aside to fund the cost to construct
15
or acquire an Improvement are less ti tan 125% of the estimated cost thereof, the Developer shall
be required to provide a performance and labor and material bond or other security satisfactory to
the City Engineer and the City Atto: ney in the amount of such deficiency. City will cooperate
with Developer in the termination ( r exoneration of any performance and labor and material
bonds assuring completion oflmprov ~'ments for which bonds have been sold. The City Engineer
shall be the sole judge of detenninin release of such bonds.
SECTION 13. Indemnification by )eveloper. Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless City, its officers, director.,, employees and agents, and CFD No. 08-I, its officers,
directors, employees and agents frorr and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages,
including court costs and reasonable tttomeys' fees by reason of, or resulting from, or arising out
of the design, engineering and c( nstmcfion of the Improvements by the Developer, its
employees, agents, independent cot tractors and/or representatives; provided that any claims
which relate to the Improvements hall be limited to those arising out of personal injury or
property damage caused by actions c omissions by Developer or Developer's employees, agents,
independent contractors or represent~ fives which occurred during the period prior to the transfer
of title to the Improvements by C: ty, whether or not a claim is filed prior to the date of
acceptance of the Improvements. Nc thing in this Section 13 shall limit in any manner the rights
of the City and/or CFD No. 08-I at ainst any of the architects, engineers, contractors or other
consultants employed by the Dev,qoper which has performed work in connection with
construction or fmancing of the Imp 'ovements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall
have no obligation to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City, its officers, directors,
employees and agents, CFD No. 08-I, its officers, directors, employees and agents, from and
against any claims, liabilities, losse ~ or damages (including court costs and attorneys' fees)
which result from or arise out of t ~e sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its
officers, directors, employees, or age nts, or CFD No. 08-I, its officers, directors, employees, or
agents.
Except as set forth in this Se :tion 13, no provision of this Agreement shall in any way
limit the extent of the responsibility of Developer for payment of damages resulting from the
operations of the Developer, its agent employees or contractors.
SECTION 14. Obligation of City. ~ither the City nor CFD No. 08-I has a legal or financial
obligation to construct or fmance ~e actual construction of the Improvements. Except with
respect to any portion of the cc of the construction by the Developer of the Traffic
Enhancement Improvements above ~r amount equal to the Developer's Fair Share or Future Fair
Share which is reimbursable pursuan to the Traffic Enhancement Agreement or a Furore Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Agreertent, all costs incurred for actual construction of the
Improvements, including all inciden~ ~ls thereto, shall be borne by Developer, and the obligations
of the City and Community Facilities, District are limited to the acquisition of the Improvements
pursuant to the provisions of this Agr ,~ement.
SECTION 15. Failure by Developer to Construct Improvements.
(a) Improvements Other T~an Traffic Enhancement Improvements. At any time
following commencement of the :onstruction of any Improvements, other than Traffic
Enhancement Improvements, by D:veloper City determines that such construction is not
progressing within a reasonable ti~ e in accordance with the Conditions of Approval or the
Developer fails to demonstrate a , :ontinuing ability to complete the construction of such
Improvement in accordance with the 2onditions of Approval, the City may give written notice of
such failure of performance to the Dc veloper. Developer shall have sixty (60) days from the date
of receipt of such notice to either (il cure such failure of performance by demonstrating to the
satisfaction of the City during such cure period reasonable progress in the construction of the
Improvement and a continuing abil ty to complete the construction of such Improvement in
accordance with the Conditions of ~ pproval or (ii) reasonably demonstrate that such failure of
performance is due to circumstanc:s or conditions beyond Developer's reasonable control
("Fome Majeure") including, withou limitation, the City's actions, omissions or inaction which
result in a delay of performance by Developer, labor disputes, acts of God, war, riots,
insurrections, civil commotions, mor, ttoriums, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable
substitutes for either, fzre, unusual delay in transportation, and adverse weather conditions.
Should Developer fail to reasonably demonstrate such reasonable progress or such continuing
ability to complete the construction e [ such Improvement or Force Majeure, the obligation of the
City to pay the Purchase Price fo' the acquisition of such Improvement pursuant to this
agreement may be terminated by tlte City by providing ten (10) days written notice to the
Developer. Upon termination, the C[ty may in its sole discretion then proceed to advertise and
bid the balance of the construction o:~ such Improvement, and there will be no further obligation
on the part of the City for payment oJ the Purchase Price for such Improvement due to Developer
pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that the City cho, ~ses not to advertise and bid the balance of the construction
of any such Improvement followi ng such a termination, any monies remaining in the
improvement fund for CFD No. 08-I and set aside for the acquisition of such Improvement shall
be transferred to the redemption fund for CFD No. 08-I and used to call outstanding Bonds.
(b) Traffic Enhancement Improvements. Any delay in the construction by the
Developer of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements shall be subject to and govemed by the
provisions of the Traffic Enhanceme ~t Improvement Agreement. Any delay in the construction
by the Developer of any other Tn .ffic Enhancement Improvement shall be subject to and
govemed by the provisions of th applicable Future Traffic Enhancement Improvement
Agreement.
SECTION 16. Agreement Continge] t. As a precondition to the sale of each series of the Bonds
of CFD No. 08-I, Developer shall ~ay in cash to City an origination charge of 1.0% of the
amount of the principal amount of s~ ch series of the Bonds ("Origination Payment"). Each such
Origination Payment shall be at Developer's own expense and not recoverable from the proceeds
of the special taxes or from the proceeds of the Bonds. In the event that any series of the Bonds
are, for any reason, not sold, the amc unt of the Origination Payment made for such series of the
Bonds shall be returned to the Develc ~er.
~ 17
l
This Agreement is contingent upon the successful sale of Bonds, and it shall be null and
void if the first series of Bonds are n ~t sold within a three (3) year period following the date of
this Agreement, or any mutually agre .'d extension; however, this time can be extended by request
of the Developer and concurrence of l he legislative body.
The City may, at its option suspend the performance of its obligations under this
Agreement if any legal challenge filed relating to the validity or enforceabi!ity of this
Agreement, CFD No. 08-1 proceedin or the issuance of the Bonds. The obligations of the City
and CFD No. 08-I hereunder shall reinstated upon the entry of a final judgment in any such
proceedings upholding the validity and enforceability of the Agreement, CFD No. 08-I
proceedings and the issuance of the--t fonds. In the event that a final judgment or other final and
non-appealable resolution is entere4 invalidating or declaring unenforceable this Agreement,
CFD No. 08-1 proceedings or the isst}ance of the Bonds, the City and CFD No. 08-I may, at their
option, terminate this Agreement. /
!
SECTION 17. Notice of Special Ta:~. Developer, or the successor or assigns of the Developer,
shall provide written notice to all pt tential purchasers of lots in the form required pursuant to
Government Code Section 53341.5 m d/or such additional requirements as may be established by
the City so advising the potential ow aer of the fact of CFD No. 08-I, with said document being
executed by the potential purchaser. Such notice shall be provided to the potential purchaser a
reasonable time before the potential ~urchaser becomes contractually committed to purchase the
lot so that the potential purchaser rr ty knowingly consider the impact of the special tax in the
decision to purchase the lot. A cop3 of all such notices executed by actual purchasers shall be
sent to the City Engineer.
SECTION 18. Limitation of Aggret ate Taxes and Assessments. Developer acknowledges that
Developer has included in all existin: agreements to sell all or any portion of the property to any
person or entity for the propose ~ constructing and marketing owner-occupied residential
dwelling units (a "Builder") and :veloper agrees to include in any such future agreement
provisions requiring the inclusion o!the following "escrow instructions" in all sales by such
Builder to residential home owners:
(a). At or prior to the close of et ch such escrow with a residential homeowner, the escrow
company shall apply a "calculation formula" previously approved by the City Engineer and
deposited with the escrow company by the Builder to determine the aggregate of all annual ad
valorem property taxes, all special ~ ~xes authorized to be levied to finance the construction or
acquisition of public facilities and al assessment installments authorized to be levied to finance
the construction or acquisition of pu lic facilities (the "Total Annual Taxes and Assessments")
applicable to the parcel subject to suc . escrow (the "Applicable Parcel").
(b). If the Total Annual Taxes and Assessments exceed 2% of the sales price of the
Applicable ~arcel, the Escrow Comp ~ny will make immediate written demand upon the Builder
for deposit into the escrow of the fu ~ds necessary to partially prepay the special tax obligation
for CFD No. 08-I or any other corer tunity facilities district so that the Total Annual Taxes and
Assessments will thereafter be equa to or less than 2% of the sales price of the Applicable
18
Parcel. Such funds must be received by the escrow company prior to the close of escrow of the
sale of the Applicable Parcel. The ca [culation of this prepayment amount shall be in accordance
with the method of prepayment {.f special tax as set forth in the rate and method of
apportionment of special taxes appro' ~ed by the qualified electors of CFD No. 08-I. Upon closing
of such escrow, the amount so depos [ted by the Builder pursuant to this escrow instruction shall
be sent by the escrow company to th, ~, Director of Finance, together with written instructions that
such amount is to be used to partiall ?repay the special tax obligation of the Appliqable Parcel
for CFD No. 08-I or shall be sent to ,,FD No. 08-I for which the special tax obligation has been
prepaid with similar written instructi{ ,ns.
The provisions of this Sectio: t 18 related to sales by Builders to residential homeowners
shall also apply to any sale by Devel( per of a parcel to a residential home owner.
In addition to any other reme( y provided for by law or in equity, the City may enforce the
provisions of this Section 18 by an ac tion for specific performance or injunctive relief or both.
SECTION 19. Relationship to Put lie Works. This Agreement is for the construction and
acquisition of certain Improvement: by City and the sale of the Bonds for the payment of
construction and acquisition costs fa such Improvements and such other amounts as are herein
provided, and is not intended to be a ~ublic works contract. In performing its obligations under
this Agreement, Developer is an inc )endent contractor and not the agent of City. City shall
have no responsibility for payment t~ any contractor or supplier of Developer. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Developer may be su ect to certain public contract requirements as provided in
Section 3 of this Agreement.
SECTION 20. Sale of Bonds. The C shall, immediately upon execution of this Agreement by
the parties hereto, proceed with the issuance and sale of bonds secured by the levy of special
taxes within CFD No. 08-1 (the "Be ads") to be issued pursuant to the Act. The Bonds shall be
sized so that as of the date of issuan, :e of the Bonds the aggregate appraised value of all taxable
properties within CFD No. 08-I fm which the Bonds are being issued shall comply with the
value-to-lien standards set forth in the Goals and Policies. The appraised value of taxable
property for purposes of this part graph shall be determ'med by an independent appraisal
undertaken for the City utilizing al: praisal assumptions approved by the City and, as to each
subsequent series of the Bonds, cousi stent with the applicable parity bonds requirements.
The proceeds of the Bonds ~, hall be used in the following priority to (i) fund a reserve
fund for the payment of principal a ad interest with respect to the Bonds; (ii) fund capitalized
interest on the Bonds in an amount not to exceed the amount required to pay interest on the
Bonds until sufficient special taxes may be placed on the tax roll to pay the scheduled debt
service on the Bonds; (iii) pay for c )sts of issuance of the Bonds including, without limitation,
underwriter's discount, bond counsel fees, printing, and paying agent fees; (iv) pay for the costs
of forming. CFD NO. 08-I, includi ag reimbursement of advances of funds to the City by
Developer and the Developer's legal, engineering and financial consulting expenses incurred
relating to the formation of CFD No. 08-1 and issuance of the Bonds; and (v) pay the costs of the
construction or acquisition of the Im ~rovements pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
19
The timing of the issuance ar sale of the Bonds, the terms and conditions upon which
the Bonds shall be issued and sold, tt method of sale of the Bonds and the pricing thereof shall
be determined solely by the City and ~11 conform to the Goals and Policies and this Agreement.
The sale of the Bonds shall be subject to receipt by the City ora competitively bid or negotiated
bond purchase agreement which is a :ceptable to the City. The sale of the Bonds shall also be
conditional upon the preparation of ~ t official statement that is, in the sole judgment.of the City,
"deemed fmal" as such term is used i:t Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Rule").
The principal amount of the 5onds to be issued shall be determined in accordance with
the Goals and Policies such that the ] taximum projected annual special tax revenues securing the
Bonds equals at least 110% of the p~ ojected annual gross debt service on all of the outstanding
Bonds.
Developer, on behalf of itself any affiliates of the Developer and any successor or assign
of the Developer, agrees (a) to proviz e all information regarding the development of its property
within the District, including the fin racing plan for such development, which are necessary to
ensure that the official statement for ;uch Bonds complies with the requirements of the Rule and
all other applicable federal and stat~~, securities laws; (b) to enter into a continuing disclosure
agreement to provide such contiming disclosure pertaining to the Financing District, the
development thereof and the Devel~ ~per as necessary to ensure ongoing compliance with the
continuing disclosure requirements o !the Rule and (c) to cause its counsel to provide an opinion
of such counsel in a form satisfac ory to the underwriter of such series of the Bonds and
underarriter's counsel or disclosure c~ ~unsel, as applicable.
SECTION21. Development Impa{ Fee Credit, Payment and Reimbursement. The
Improvements include public faciliti~ that are included in several City development impact fee
programs (each, a "DIF Program"). 2redits against the applicable DIF Program fees shall be
granted in accordance with the applic ~ble City ordinances, regulations and policies.
SECTION 22. Conflict with Othe~ Agreements. Except as specifically provided herein,
nothing contained herein shall be :onstmed as releasing Developer from any condition of
development or requirement imposed by any other agreement with City.
SECTION 23. General Standard ot Reasonableness. Any provision of this Agreement which
requires the consent, approval, disc retion or acceptance of any party hereto or any of their
respective employees, officers or age ats shall be deemed to require that such consent, approval or
acceptance not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless such provision expressly
incorporates a different standard.
SECTION 24. Entire Agreement; 3 mendment. This Agreement and the agreements expressly
referred to l~erein contains all. of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to the matters
contained herein and no prior or con :emporaneous agreement or understandings, oral or written,
pertaining to any such matters sh, tll be effective for any purpose. No provision of this
Agreement may be modified, waiver, amended or added to except by a writing signed by the
party against which the enforcement )f such modification, waiver, amendment or addition is or
may be sought.
SECTION 25. Notices. Any notice, payment or instrument required or permitted by this
Agreement to be given or delivered t ~ either party shall be deemed to have been received when
personally delivered or seventy-two (72) hours following deposit of the same in may United
States Post Office in California, regisl :red or certified, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Developer: )tay Project, L.P.
City: 2ity of Chula Vista
!76 Fourth Avenue
'~hula Vista, CA 91910
[ttn: City Manager
Each party may change its address or delivery of notice by delivering written notice of such
change of address to the other party.
SECTION 26. Severability. If an2 provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal or
unenforceable by a court of compel ',nt jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be
given effect to the fullest extent reaso ~ably possible.
SECTION 27. Successors and Assig ~s. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors and assigns'~ >fthe parties hereto. Developer may not assign its rights or
obligations hereunder except upon w itten notice to City within ten (10) days of the date of such
assignment indicating the name an ] address of the assignee. Upon such notice and the
assumption by the assignee of the rig~ tts, duties and obligations of the Developer arising under or
from this Agreement, Developer sba 1 be released by City from all future duties or obligations
rising under or from this Agreement Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Developer may
assign its rights and obligations her{ ..under as security to lenders for the purpose of obtairfing
loans to f'mance development with/a CFD No. 08-I, but no such assignment shall release
Developer from its obligations hereur der to City.
SECTION 28. Governing Law. TI~ is Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be
governed by and interpreted in actor{ lance with the laws of the State of California, Additionally,
this Agreement and the construction >fthe Improvements shall be subject to all City ordinances
and regulations relating to the r~ quirement of improvement agreements, land division,
improvement security or other applic~ ble development requirements.
SECTION 2.9. Waiver. Failure by; party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the
provisions Of this Agreement by any other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights
under the default of any other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist
and demand strict compliance by any other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
21
SECTION 30. Singular and Plural Gender. As used herein, the singular of any work includes
the plural, and terms in the masculin gender shall include the feminine.
SECTION 31. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original.
SECTION 32. Construction of Agr, ement. This Agreement has been reviewed by legal counsel
for both the City and the Developer and shall be deemed for all purposes to have been jointly
drafted by the City and the Deve]oper. No presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be
construed against the drafting part3 shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement. The language in all par s of this Agreement, in akl cases, shall be construed as a
whole and in accordance with its f dr meaning and not strictly for or against any party and
consistent with the provisions hereof in order to achieve the objectives of the parties hereunder.
The captions of the sections and su >sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and
shall not be considered or referred to n resolving questions of construction.
SECTION 33. No Obligation to Form Community Facilities District. Developer
acknowledges that the decision of 1 he City Council of the City to form CFD No. 08-I is a
legislative action and the City may tot enter into an agreement to obligate the City Council to
exercise its legislative discretion in particular manner or for a particular result. This Agreement
does not, therefore, in any way reate a contractual, legal or equitable obligation of or
commitment by the City to approve te formation of CFD No. 08-I.
SECTION 34. Recitals; Exhibits. my recitals set forth above and any attached exhibits are
incorporated by reference into this A :eement.
SECTION 35. Authority of Siguat 'les. Each signatory and party hereto hereby represents and
warrants to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal
to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions and/or other actions have been taken so as to
enable such party to enter into this A :eement.
[End ofp ,~e. Next page is signature page.]
Signature Page to
Acquisition/t: inancing Agreement by and between
the City of~ '.hula Vista and Otay Proj~?ct, L.P.,
EXECUTED by and between the par ies hereto on the day and year first hereinabove written.
"CITY"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MAYOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK ANN MOORE, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA
"DEVELOPER"
OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a Cali£omia limited
liability company
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
Exhibit "A"
ACQUISITION AND FINANCING kGREEMENT FOR CFD 08-1 (OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
IMPROVEIVIEI~ r DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Improvement
Number
Improvement Description~ Cost Estimtue2
1 Traffic Enhancement-Telegx ~ph Canyon Road(3) 3,000.000
2 La Media Road (Santa Vene :ia to Birch Road)
2,614,063
3 La Media Road (Santa Ve~ :ia to Birch Road)Landscaping
410,974
4 La Media Road(Birch Road Rock Mountain) 6,500,000
5 La Media Road(Birch Road Rock Mountain)Landscaping 500,000
6 Ota¥ Lakes Road 3,100,000
7 Birch Road 2,067,721
8 Birch Road Landscaping 225,156
9 Backbone Roads(Viewpark, Magdalena, Sutter Buttes and Santa Elisabeth) 5,138,613
10 Backbone Roads Landscapir g (Viewpark, Magdalena, Suttor Buttes and Santa 525,236
Elisabeth)
11 Olympic Parkway 8,615,382
12 East Palomar Street 2,101,922
13 East Palomar Street Landsc~ ping 789,929
14 Santa Venetia Street 1,442,289
15 Santa Venetia Landscaping 432,256
16 Sound Wails on SR-125 684,808
17 Traffic Signal at La Media oad and Santa Venetia Street 106,170
18 Traffic Signal at La Media oad and Birch Road 130,000
19 Traffic Signal at East Palom Street and View Park Way 129,005
20 Traffic Signal at East Palon ar Street and Magdalena Avenue 140,000
21 Pedestrian Bridges 861,648
22 Facilities to be financed by 1 ~blic Facilities Development Impact Fee 6,333,582
23 Development Slope Landsca ~ing 1,293,396
Totals
47,142.150
Notes;
Sources: Developer. McGill Martin Self, I lc.
1/ The description of the Improveme: ts set forth in this Exhibit MAM is preliminary and general. The final
plans and specifications may show substitute; or modifications to the proposed Improvements and proposed
Improvements may be added or deleted with the consent of Developer and the City Engineer. Componems of all
roadway improvements eligible for funding: hall include (i) grading, including site preparation and mobilization, (ii)
wet and dry utilities within the right-of-way, (iii) storm drain facilities, (iv) paving, (v) curb, gutter, sidewalk,
medians, (vi) traffic signals, (vii) lighting, (, iii) landscaping and (ix) all other appurtenant improvements.
2/ Cost estimates are preliminary and may be modified from time to time with the consent of Developer and
the City Engineer. The Purchase Price of m Improvement shall be based on actual costs.
3/ Cost estimate for the Telegraph Cf ayon Road Traffic Enhancement improvements constitutes the total cost
of the facility. The actual amount reserved, alii be determined and may be adjusted as set forth in Section 8 of the
EXHIBIT B
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION CRITERIA ]~OR IMPROVEMENTS
OTHER THAN TR ~F~C ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
General:
1. Substantial completion of an IF rovement, other than a Traffic Enhancement Improvement,
for purposes of determining the igibility of such Improvement for the payment of the "Base
Increment" therefore shall met that (a) the construction or work with respect to such
Improvement, including each co~ nponent of such Improvement, has progressed to the point
where it is sufficiently complete so that it can be utilized for the purpose for which it was
intended and, in the case of m Improvement which includes streets and for which
landscaping improvements const tute a separate Improvement hereunder, (b) the Developer
has provided to the City Engineer a copy of an executed agreement to provide for the
installation of the landscaping :onstituting such related Improvement. For example, the
construction of La Media Road ~ outh shall not be deemed to be substantially complete until
the City Engineer has received a :opy of an executed agreement for the installation of the La
Media Road South Landscaping Substantial completion criteria for each Improvement or
component of an Improvement is further described below.
2. Payment for the "Retained Incre~ aent" of the Purchase Price for an Improvement shall be in
accordance with Section 8, par~[graph (c)(ii) and shall be made after (a) the substantial
completion of all landscaping in :luded in any related Improvement and (b) submittal of a
payment request form, as-built pl ms and such other documentation as is required pursuant to
Section 8 paragraph (c)(ii), pos :ing of maintenance bonds, and submittal of lien release
evidence. For example, the Rem [ned Increment for the La Media Road South shall not be
made until the substantial completion of the La Media Road South Landscaping.
Substantial Completion Criteria:
A. Grading: Grading shall be deem, ~d to be complete upon (1) completion of all preliminary
grading work (mobilization, site cleating, remedial grading, overexcavation, installation of
subdrainage systems) (2) certific ttion of compaction by the geotechnical engineer, quantity
verification by the civil engineer, and confirmation by the City inspector and (3) installation
of all surface grading improven tents (brow ditches, retaining walls, slope protection and
similar improvements) and the certification thereof by the geotechnical engineer and
confirmation by the City inspecto
B. Sewer: . Sewer construction sba/ be deemed substantially complete upon the installation,
flushing, and testing of sewer main line, laterals, cleanouts, manholes, and all other
appurtenances of the sewer sys :em as shown on the approved plans and specifications
therefore and in accordance ~ ith the City standard plans and specifications and the
B-I
verification of such installation b'~ the civil engineer and confirmation of such installation by
the City inspector.
C. Storm Drain: Box culverts and teadwall structures shall be deemed substantially complete
upon installation as shown on the approved plans and specifications therefore and in
accordance with the City stantard plans and specifications and verification of such
installation by the civil engineer, md confirmation of such installation by the. City .inspector.
D. Drainage Facilities: Drai~age st uctures including energy dissipation devices (rip-rap, drop
structures, cut-off walls, etc), dr~ inage diversion structures, facilities required as part of the
environmental mitigation measu res, and other drainage channel appurtenances including
drainage pipes connecting the b 'ow ditches to the channel, shall be deemed substantially
complete for payment of the B~ .e Increment upon the installation thereof as shown on the
approved plans and specification ~ therefore and in accordance with City standard plans and
specifications and the verificatio! t of such installation by the civil engineer and confirmation
of such installation by the City in ~ector.
E. Dry Utility Backbone System: D ~ utilities (electric, gas, telephone, CATV) shall be deemed
substantially complete upon the installation of the conduits, junction boxes, payment of
utility fees, and written acceptanc ~ of the facilities by the utility companies.
F. Roadway Pavement and Roadu ay Drainage System: Roadway pavement and drainage
improvements shall be deemed s~ ~bstantially complete upon the installation thereof as shown
on the approved improvement pl~' ns therefore and in accordance with City standard plans and
specifications and confumation ~f such installation by the City inspector of all storm drain
pipes, catch basins, drainage it lets and cleanouts for the roadway storm drain system,
installation of roadway base mat '~rial, concrete curb and gutter, and AC pavement including
the preparation of the subgrade mtd base material.
G. Other Street Surface Improvem~ '.nts: Street surface improvements including street lights,
traffic signals and conduits, sig aal interconnect, street name signs, roadway signing and
striping, and appurtenances shall be deemed substantially complete when. installed as shown
on the improvement plans and in accordance with City standard plans and specifications and
upon cord'marion of such install ~tion by the City inspector.
H. Street Landscape Irrigation and ] Slanting: Parkway landscaping within the roadway right of
way including planting, irrigatio: concrete sidewalks, median maintenance strip, pedestrian
ramps, channel maintenance roar and all associated subgrade and base material preparation
shall be deemed substantially ce tplete upon installation thereof as shown on the approved
improvement plans therefore ant. in accordance with City standard plans and specifications
and confirmation of such installa ion by the City inspector.
i!~ I. Slope Landscaping: Landscape ~lanting and irrigation improvements for the slopes outside
of the roadway and channel rigl tt of way and the regional trail (DG) and fencing shall be
deemed substantially complete upon installation thereof as shown on the approved
B-2
improvement plans therefore and in accordance with City standard plans and specifications
and confimaation of such installati ~n by the City inspector.
EXHIBIT "C"
DESIGN, BID, CONTRA( :T AND CHANGE ORDER REQUIREMENTS
1. General
These requirements shall be a >plied to all improvements proposed to be acquired through
CFD No. 08-I. Any deviatio ~ from these requirements must be approved by the Public
Works Director.
References to the Public Worl :s Director means the Public Works Director, City Engineer
or their designee.
The City reserves the right to hake the final determination of cost of the Improvements to
be acquired in accordance wir ~ this Agreement.
2. Design Phase
A. Only design costs dire ctly related to the public improvements to be acquired are
eligible for inclusion.
B. Bidding Documents. Two complete sets of bidding documents, including
improvement plans, general p :ovisions, and bid proposal forms shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division for re~ iew and approval within 15 working days of submittal.
Advertising for bids shall nc take place until the bidding documents are approved in
writing by the City. This pn :edure shall be followed for each contract proposed to be
advertised. Unless otherwi :e noted, the bidding documents shall conform to the
following minimum requirem~ :nts:
1. Unless impract ical due to the nature of the improvement, the bid proposal
shall be unit priced r~ .ther than lump sum. A.C. pavement, base and sub-base
shall be bid on a squar~: foot per inch thickness basis.
2. The bidding d{ ,cuments shall require the bidder/contractor to provide the
following bonds:
a. BidB( rd- 10% ofthe amount ofthebid.
b. Materi i and Labor Bond - 50% of the contract amount.
c. Perfora ance Bond - 100% of the contract amount.
.i ~ The Contractor shall post performance and labor and material bonds for all
improvements as part of the bid. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as
'~ additional obligee witl t the right to call such bonds if needed. Such bonds shall
C-1
remain in effect until :uch time as all improvements are completed and accepted
by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall be the sole judge in determining
the release of such bon ds.
3. The bidding i ocuments shall require the successful bidder to provide
evidence of comprehe~ tsive or commercial general public liability insurance in the
amount of at least $1,C D0,000 prior to the award of the contract.
4. Unless otherwi ~e required by the City, the contractor is not required to pay
prevailing wages.
5. The bidding d( cuments must clearly state the time, date, and place where
bids are to be submitte i and opened.
6. The bidding d( cuments shall clearly state the amount of time to complete
the work. The time allowed must be reasonable for the amount of work.
Accelerated constmcti )n time allowances must be supplementally bid, and are not
eligible for public fina ice unless previously approved by the City Engineer.
3. Bidding Phase
A. The Notice inviting S~ :aled Bids shall be published in the Chula Vista Star News
and the San Diego D~ .ily Transcript. The notice inviting bids shall state where
bidding documents are available.
B. The bidding period fol owing the advertisement of the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids
shall be a minimum of 14 calendar days.
C. Developer shall provi te complete sets of bidding documents to all contractors,
subcontractors, or sup] diers requesting them. A reasonable price may be charged
for bidding document:
D. Developer shall keep [ log of all persons obtaining bidding documents, and their
mailing address.
E. Addenda shall be mai ed by first class mail to all bidding document holders and
the Public Works Dire ctor. If an addendum is required within five working days
of the noticed bid oper lng date, the bid opening date shall be extended.
F. Submitted bids shall b, ~ in sealed envelopes.
G. Bids shall not be acce ted after the stated time for submission.
c-2
H. Bid opening shall be conducted by the Developer at the Developer's' place of
business or other site mutually acceptable to the Developer and Public Works
Director.
E. Sealed bids shall be o[ ened and read aloud immediately following the submission
time. A City represenl ative shall be invited to attend the bid opening.
J. Conditioned bids, unle ss the bid proposal lists them for all to bid on, shall not be
accepted.
K. The bid proposals shal~ conform to all state and local laws governing the listing of
subcontractors and sc ~liers.
L. The arithmetic of th two lowest bid proposals received shall immediately be
checked for errors.
M. A tabulation of all bit; received shall be provided to the Public Works Director
within five working & ps of the bid opening.
N. Award shall be made ) the lowest responsible bidder within a reasonable period
of time following appr >val by the Public Works Director.
O. A preconstmcfion mee ting shall be held with the contractor prior to beginning the
work. A City represer tative shall be invited to attend the meeting.
P. The Notice to Proce ~d shall be issued within a reasonable period of time
following the contract execution.
4. Construction Phase
A. The City sball ~e provided a copy of the construction schedule.
B. Developer sba 1 require the contractor to conduct weekly construction
status meetings to whi :h a City representative shall be invited.
C. Any additiona costs incurred for the benefit of the Developer, such as
accelerating the const uction schedule, shall not be eligible for public financing
unless previously appr ~ved by the City Engineer.
D. Any additional construction costs incurred due solely to delays caused by
the Developer shall no: be eligible for public financing.
E. All contracts ~ d construction related records shall be available to the City
as and when required for the final determination of eligible costs for the public
financing. This shall include trip tickets and other confirmations of material
delivered to the Impro, :ment.
5. Change Orders
A. No single change orde for a TDIF Improvement shall be eligible for inclusion in
the Purchase Price for such Improvement that increases or decreases the original
contract amount for th: construction of such Improvement by more than $50,000
without City Council pproval.
B. All change orders sha [ be fully documented and be in a format consistent and be
in a format consisten with the original bid items (i.e., show tmits, unit costs,
extensions and total costs). The City Engineer, in his/her sole discretion shall
determine the eligibili of each change order for inclusion in the Purchase Price
for an Improvement.
C. The aggregate of all ¢ ange orders for TDIF Improvements, including those for
differences between e.~ timated and actual quantities shall not increase the contract
mount by more than 1 he amount specified below without City Council approval:
Original Contract Range Vlaximum Aggregate Increase
Up to $100,000 10%
$100,001 to $1,000,000 $10,000 plus 7% of amount over $100,000
More than $1,000,000 $73,000 plus 5% of amount over $1,000,000
The aggregate of all change orders for any non-TDIF Improvement shall not
increase the Purchase Price thereof so as to cause such Purchase Price to exceed
the cost estimate for ;uch Improvement as set forth in Exhibit A by more than
25% without City Council approval.
D. All change orders in Tolving changes in scope of the project, or increases of
contract amounts grea :er than outlined in C. above shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval ~ l~er the construction of the Improvement is completed, but
before the payment of any portion of the Purchase Price for such Improvement is
authorized by the City Engineer. Change orders that the Developer does not wish
to include in the Purr hase Price for an Improvement do not need to go to City
Council for approval.
E. Negotiated set price el range orders are acceptable where most of the items of work
in the change order h: [ve unit prices from the bids. Where change orders are for
work that does not ha, 'e unit prices for a substantial portion of the work contained
' within the bids, time a ad materials change orders are preferred.
C - 4
EXHIBIT "D-I"
BASE INCREMENT
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
(IMPROVEMENT OTHER THAN TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS)
The undersigned (the !'Developer") hereby requests payment in the total amount
of $ for the Base Ihcrement for the Improvements (as defined in the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement b~ and among the City of Chula Vista (the "City") and
Developer and described in Exhibii A to that Agreement), all as more fully described in
Attachment 1 hereto. In connection With this Payment Request, the undersigned hereby certifies,
represents and warrants to the City as ifoilows:
A. He(she) is a duly authorized representative or signatory of Developer, qualified
to execute this Payment Request for payment on behalf of Developer and is
knowledgeable as to the matters set forth herein.
B. The Improvements that are the subject of this Payment Request have been
substantially completed in accordance with Exhibits A and B.
C. This request for payment of the Base Increment for the improvements has been
calculated in conformgnce with the terms of the Agreement. All costs for which
payment is requested ihereby are eligible costs (as permitted in the Agreement)
and have not been inflated in any respect. The Base Increment for which payment
is requested has not been the subject of any prior payment request paid by the
City.
D. All items have been ~learly delineated as DIF/Non-DIF eligible (ail DIF's) and
detailed backup and cost breakdown is provided .supporting each item.
E. Supporting documentation (such as third party invoices, change orders and
checks) is attached with respect to each cost for which payment is requested.
F. The Improvements for which payment is requested were constructed in
accordance with the rbquirements of the Agreement.
G. Developer is in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Agreement.
H. No mechanics liensi or other encumbrances have attached, or to the best
knowledge of Developer, after due inquiry, will attach to the Improvements.
I. A cop(ies) of the letter(s) of conditional lien release for the Improvements for
which payment is requested is included this request. In addition, a letter from
the contractor(s) stating that have been paid in full by the Developer for the
Improvements l~or which payment is requested is also included in this request.
D-l-1
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the above representations and warranties
are tree and correct.
DEVELOPER:
Dated:
CITY
Payment Request Approved for Submission to
Director of Finance
Director of Engineering
Dated:
D-l-2
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE ACQUIRED AS PART OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
Improvement Cost Estimate Base Increment [ Disbursement
Requested
[List here all Improvements for which payment is requested, and attach supporting
documentation]
D-l-3
EXHIBIT "D - 2"
RETAINED INCREMENT
PAYIVIENT REQUEST NO. __
(IMPROVEMENT OTHER THAN TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENT)
The undersigned (the "Developer") hereby requests payment in the t~tal amount
of $ for the Retained Increment of the Purchase Price of the Improvements (as
defined in the Acquisition/Financing Agreement by and among the City of Chula Vista (the
"City") and Developer and described in Exhibit A to that Agreement), all as more fully described
in Attachment 1 hereto. In connection with this Payment Request, the undersigned hereby
certifies, represents and warrants to the City as follows:
A. He(she) is a duly authorized representative or signatory of Developer, qualified to
execute this Payment Request for payment on behalf of Developer and is
knowledgeable as to the matters set forth herein.
B. Developer has submitted or submits herein to the City, if applicable, as-built
drawings or similar plans and specifications for the Improvements and such
drawings or plans and specifications, as applicable, are true, correct and complete.
C. The Purchase Price for the Improvements has been calculated in conformance
with the terms of the Agreement. All costs for which payment is requested hereby
are eligible costs (as permitted in the Agreement) and have not been inflated in
any respect. The Reta/ned Increment for which payment is requested has not been
the subject of any prior payment request paid by the City.
D. All items have been clearly delineated as DIF/Non-DIF eligible (all DIF's) and
detailed backup and cost breakdown is provided supporting each item.
E. Supporting documentation (such as third party invoices, change orders, lien
releases and checks) is attached with respect to each cost for which payment is
requested.
F. The Improvements for which payment is requested were constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
G. Developer is in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Agreement.
H. No mechanics liens or other encumbrances have attached, or to the best
knowledge of Developer, after one inquiry, will attach to the Improvements.
D-2-1
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the above representations and warranties are true
and correct.
DEVELOPER:
Dated:
CITY
Payment Request Approved for Submission to
Director of Finance
Public Works Director
Dated:
D-2-2
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE ACQUIRED AS PART OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO..__
Improvement Purchase price Base IncrementIncrement Retained Disbursement Requested
[List here all Improvements for which payment is requested, and
attach supporting documentation]
D-2-3
EXHIBIT "D-3"
BASE INCREMENT
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
(TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS)
The undersigned (the "Developer") hereby requests payment in the total mount
of $ for the Base Incremem of the Purchase Price of the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements (as def'med in the Acquisition/Financing Agreement by and among the City of
Chula Vista (the "City") and Developer and described in Exhibit A to that Agreement), all as
more fully described in Attachment 1 hereto. In connection with this Payment Request, the
undersigned hereby certifies, represents and warrants to the City as follows:
A. He(she) is a duly authorized representative or signatory of Developer, qualified
to execute this Payment Request for payment on behalf of Developer and is
knowledgeable as to the matters set forth herein.
B. The Traffic Enhancement Improvements that are the subject of this Payment
Request have been substantially completed in accordance with Exhibits A and B.
C. The Purchase Price for the Traftic Enhancement Improvemems has been
calculated in conformance with the terms of the Agreement. All costs for which
payment is requested hereby are eligible costs (as permitted in the Agreement)
and have not been inflated in any respect. The portion of the Base Increment for
which payment is requested has not been the subject of any prior payment request
paid by the City.
D. All items have been clearly delineated as DIF/Non-DIF eligible (all DIF's) and
detailed backup and cost breakdown is provided supporting each item.
E. Supporting documentation (such as third party invoices, change orders and
checks) is attached wi~ respect to e~tch cost for which payment is requested.
F. The Traffic Enhancement Improvements for which payment is requested were
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable Traffic
Enhancement Agreement.
G. Developer is in compliance With the terms and provisions of the Agreement.
H. No mechanics liens or other encumbrances have attached, or to the best
knowledge of Developer, at~er due inquiry, will attach to the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements.
D-3-1
I. A copy of a letter of conditional lien release for the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements for which payment is requested is included this request. In
addition, a letter from the contractor(s) stating that have been paid in full by the
Developer for the Traffic Enhancement Improvements for which payment is
requested is also included in this request.
D-3-2
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the above representations and warranties are true
and correct.
DEVELOPER:
Dated:
CITY
Payment Request Approved for Submission to
Director of Finance
Public Works Director
Dated:
D-3-3
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE ACQUIRED AS PART OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
Traffic Purchase Price Base Increment l)isburkement
Enhancement Requested
Improvement
[List here all Traffic Enhancement Improvements for which payment is requested, and attach
supporting documentation]
D-3 -4
EXHIBIT "D - 2"
RETAINED INCREMENT
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
{TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENT)
The undersigned (the "Developer") hereby requests payment in the total amount of
$ for the Retained Increment of the Purchase Price of the Traffic Enhancement
Improvements (as defined in the Acquisition/Financing Agreement by and among the City of Chula
Vista (the "City") and Developer and described in Exhibit A to that Agreement), all as more fully
described in Attachment 1 hereto. In connection with this Payment Request, the undersigned hereby
certifies, represents and warrants to the City as follows:
A. He(she) is a duly authorized representative or signatory of Developer, qualified to
execute this Payment Request for payment on behalf of Developer and is
knowledgeable as to the matters set forth herein.
B. The Traffic Enhancement Improvements have been accepted by the City.
C. The Purchase Price for the Traffic Enhancement Improvements has been calculated in
conformance with the terms of the Agreement. All costs for which payment is
requested hereby are eligible costs (as permitted in the Agreement) and have not been
inflated in any respect. The Retained Increment for which payment is requested has
not been the subject of any prior payment request paid by the City.
D. Supporting documentation (such as third party invoices, change orders, lien releases
and checks) is attached with respect to each cost for which payment is requested.
E. The Traffic Enhancement Improvements for which payment is requested were
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable Traffic
Enhancement Agreement.
F. Developer is in compliance with the terms and provisions of the applicable Traffic
Enhancement Agreement and the Acquisition/Financing Agreement.
G. No mechanics liens or other encumbrances have attached, or to the best knowledge of
Developer, after one inquiry, will attach to the Traffic Enhancement Improvements.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjm'y that the above representations and warranties are true and
correct.
DEVELOPER:
Dated:
CITY
Payment Request Approved for Submission to Director
of Finance
Public Works Director'
Dated:
E-2
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE ACQUIRED AS PART OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. __
Traffic Purchase Price Base Increment Disbursement
Enhancement Requestcd
Improvement
[List here all Traffic Enhancement Improvements for which payment is requested, and
attach supporting documentation]
Augtmt 20, 2003
1~', George Y~-e~pl
City of Chula
276 4~ Aveuu~
~ Vis~ C~fo~a 91910
Re: City ~ ~ Polici~ on C~ F~ili~ Dismct F~mcing ~o. 08-I
(~y ~h Village Six)
~ ~rge:
~ you ~ow, ~ Ciw of Ch~a Vista ("Cit~) hm e~abli~ v~ue-t~H~ cn~fia in
Gomls ~d PoHci~ SI~ ~l~ve m Co~ FaciH6~ ~ct ~c~ ~ ~levmr
exc~ ~m ~ ~s md Po~ ~at~ ~ "A ~ ~ili6es ~ wi~ a value-to-
debt r~ ofl~m ~m 4:1 but ~ to or ~ ~ 3:1 ~y ~ ~v~ ~ ~e ~I~ ~on
of ~ Ciw Co~fl, ~on a de~m6on by
d~t ~o of {~ ~ 4:1 is ~ly p~m ~d~ ~e c~c~ of ~ ~cul~
co~W ~cili~ dis~cI.' B~ on ~ app~l r~ pr~ed by B~ce H~ &
~c~ 4:1, ~ ~m~ v~ f~ c~n
v~ue ~t will ~ in ~ v~e-~l ~tio of 4:l or ~ for ~e ~ay ~p~.
We ~heve ~ ~e p~ic~ ~es of C~ No. 08-I s~uld ~low ~e Ciw to d~ine
l~i ~ val~.~H~ ~o of 3:1 or more i~ ~mcially ~en~
m CFD No. 08-I ~ de~ ~ foHowm:
1. ~y Proj~ L.P. ~ ex~ ov~
improve ~e p~ ~thi~ C~ No. 08-1
improv~lm m ~ co~ ~e ~li~ to be ~1~ by ~ ~ of 2~3.
2. ~y Pmj~ L~. hm ~Y 4~ of~c 1,305 tot~ pl~d
di~ct ~g m sell to m~hml h~e~ld~. ~di6on~iy, ~y ~j~ L.P. is in
Au~-Z$-ZO03 D~:4$p~ Fr~w-VILLAGE DEVELOPt~IENT ~49644T657 T-450 P 00~/00~ F-504
ne§otiations for thc sale of an additional 154 residential units within pla~__~i~g areas 9B1, 9B2
and 9D which are anticipated m close before year end. Ou~ internal business plan provides
an expcc~alion that Olay Projca L.P. will fully divesl ~Is holdings lhrough sales vo mcrch~-t
builders by the end of 2004.
3. Although the C. FD appraiser did not provide a new value conclusion in their update leacr, a
current value conclusion would very likely bc higher than ~e current June 15, 2002 dale of
value based on:
i) increases ill home and finished 1o! pricin[~ since the appraisal da~c of value,
ii) an additional approximately $1,200,000 which has been expended on offsite
infrasuuc'mre hnprovcmen~s just on the Olay Project LP. pwpcrty since the appraiaal
date of value.
iii) Model homes in pl:mnin~ areas 2A and 2B arc complete; model homes in 7A and ?B
are unde~ consuuc~ion and 143 production homes in various pl~rmlnE areas are under
con.suucfion.
4. All property wi!bin CID No. 08-I has appwved tentative maps ~ me/n the heusinl~ demand
requirements in the residential marketplace. The cxislence of approved ~mafive maps makes
the property wifllin CID No. 08-I cxlremely marketable to merchant builder's who in mm
record final maps or condo maps and couswact houses.
5. The City's Policy Sratcmem of Assessment Dis~ias only requires a value-u~-lien raIio of 3: I.
A~ you ~,, assessment dis~icts and commumly facilities dislricts are ucated fairly
similarly from a bond pricing and security perspective.
6. Thc Community Facililies District Act of 1982 provides for a valUe-to-hen ratio of 3:l and
the vas~ majority of bouds ~ssu~ by local ~overnments in California utilize this value-to-lien
ratio.
Based on thc above-described circumstances relative to CID No. 08-I, it is respectfully
rcquesled, tha! the City apply a value-to-lien ratio of 3:1 or more for this financing- If you have
any questions or commems or desire additional information, please do not hesilate ~o call me.
Ronald P.
Chief Fimmcial Officer
cc: Bill Huck, Stone & Youngher§
Wal, ren Diven, Brown, Diven, Hcsscl, and Brewer
Tom ]ohnscn, Fieldman Rolapp & Associales
EXHIBIT ~.._~,~
September 8, 2003
Mr. George Krempl
Assistant City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Krempl:
This letter is in response to the Otay Project, LLC (the "Developer") request, dated
August 20, 2003, that the City of Chula Vista (the "City") accept a value-to-lien ratio of
less than 4:1 for portions of Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Planning Areas R-
7A, R-8, R-9B, R-9D, MU-land a portion of R7B). The waiver is being requested due to
the fact that the parcels of land owned by the Developer and one merchant builder
representing approximately 45% of the CFD obligation, have a value-to-lien ratio
of either 3.66:1 or 3.82:1 based on an appraisal dated June 15, 2003. The City's
Statement of Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts states that the value-
to-lien ratio for a Community Facilities District must be at least 4:1 for the overall CFD
and for developing areas for which no final subdivision map has been filed. The City
Council may however, approve bond issuance where the value-to-lien is less than 4:1, but
greater than 3:1 if that action is deemed financially prudent.
Our fu-m is prepared to recommend to staff and the City Council that a waiver of the 4:1
value-to-lien policy be approved based on the following:
1. Development is underway within the Community Facilities District. Model homes
were complete or under construction on all but four planning areas (R-5B, R-8, R-9B
and R-9D). Construction has begun on some planning areas with initial home sales
closing anticipated to occur in September of 2003. Following is a brief development
status of the planning areas that are below the 4:1 value to lien ratio (Planning Areas
R-7A, R-8, R-9B, R-9D, MU-1 and a portion of R7B) as of August 15, 2003:
R-7A: Model homes are currently under construction and building permits for 15
duplex buildings are scheduled to be pulled.
· R-7B: Triplex models are currently under construction and building permits for
12 triplex building are scheduled to be pulled.
· R-8:288 condominium homes are being processed for building permits
· R-9B: Currently under review by the City's Design Review Committee. Model
homes construction anticipated to begin by end of 2003.
· R-9D: Model homes construction anticipated to begin by end of 2003.
The status of physical development indicates that further diversification of ownership
should continue and that value within planning areas of the C.F.D. should continue to
increase.
Mr. George Krempl
September 8, 2003
Page 2'
2. The mapping process within the Community Facilities District is well underway. As
of August 15, 2003, "B" Maps have been approved on all but two planning areas, R-8
and R-9B. Of the two planning areas without approved "B" Maps, R-8 is currently
approved for 336 units of apartments and R-9B for 159 condominium units due to
approval of an "A" map. A "B" map would be required to build the proposed 288
units of condominium units on R-8. R-9B is going through the City's Design Review
process. A "B" map would be required for R-9B only if a change in housing type
were proposed, such as changing to single family detached on fee simple lots. This
progress indicates financial commitment to the project and leads to anticipation of
finalizing construction.
3. The 3.66:1 and 3.82:1 value-to-lien ratios were generated only for explicit disclosure
purposes. The 3.66:1 and 3.82:1 value-to-lien ratios of the Developer owned portions
are conservative. The 3.66:1 and 3.82:1 value-to-lien ratios were included within the
Preliminary Official Statement for disclosure purposes. The C.F.D as whole, as
indicated on Table 6 of the Preliminary Official Statement, has a value-to-lien ratio
of 4.98:1.
4. Otay Proiect, LLC.'s history of tax responsibility and good relationship with the City.
The history of tax responsibility, i.e., the timely payment of ad valorem taxes, special
assessments and special taxes, demonstrated by the Developer within the City of
Chula Vista, is important to the City and purchasers of bonds. Demonstrating the
ability and willingness to pay taxes, assessments and special taxes on time over an
extended period of time is critical to our recommendation of waiving the 4:1 value-
to-lien policy.
As a result of above, I feel it is appropriate to recommend to the City Council that it
waive the 4:1 value-to-lien ratio policy for some of the Planning Areas within C.F.D. No.
08-I. This recommendation is based upon specific circumstances and should not decrease
the commitment of the City to the adopted 4:1 value-to-lien policy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
Thomas G. Johnsen
Principal
CC: Maria Kachadoorian
Nadine Mandery
Dino Serafmi
Warren Divert
Bill Huck
,. Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
EX?'tI~ ~t, Draft of 9/9/03
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER , 2003
NEW ISSUE - BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY NO RATING
In the opinion of Best Best & Krieger LLP, Bond Counsel, based on an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions.
and assumtng, among other matters, compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Bonds Is excluded from gross income for j~deral
income tax purposes under Section 103 of the lnteroal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes.
In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on t~e Bonds is not a specific preference item for pur~ooses of federal individual or corporate
alternate minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observes that such interest is included in adjustea current earnings in calculating federal
corporate alternative minimum taxable income. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding a~u other federal or state income tax
consequences relating to the ownership or dispositidn of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds See "T.~X M.~ ~I'ERS" herein.
$19,470,000'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
2003 SPECIAL TAX BONDS
Dated: Date of Delivery Due: September 1, as shown on the inside page
The City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds")
are being issued and delivered to finance various public improvements needed to develop property located within Communit) Facilities
DstrctNo. 08d(OtayRanchVIlageSx)(the D~strct). TheDstrct hasbeen formed by and is located in the City ofChula Vista (the
"City"), County of San Diego, California.
The Bonds are authorized to be issued pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. as amended (Sections 53311
e_t sea. of the Government Code of the State of California), and pursuant to a Bond Indenture {the "Indenture") dated as of October 1. 2003.
by and between the District and U.S. Bank National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Fiscal Agent"). The Bonds are special obligations of
the District and are payable solely from revenues derived from certain annual Special Taxes (as defined herein) to be levied on the taxable
land within the District and from certain other f~nds pledged under the Indenture, all as further described herein. The Special Taxes are to be
levied according to the rate and method of apportionment approved by the City Council of the City and the qualified electors within the
District. See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS -- Rate and Method of Apportionment." The City Council of the City is the
legislative body of the District.
The Bonds are issuable in fully registered form and when issued will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The
Depository Trust Company, New York. New York ("DTC"). Individual purchases may be made in principal amounts of $5,000 and integral
multiples thereof and will be in book-entry form only. Purchasers of Bonds will not receive certificates representing their beneficial
ownership of the Bonds but will receive credit balances on the books of their respective nominees. The Bonds will not be transferable or
exchangeable except for transfer to another nominee of DTC or as otherwise described herein. Interest on the Bonds will be payable on
March I, 2004 and semiannually thereafter on each September 1 and March 1. Principal of and interest on the Bonds will be paid by the
Fiscal Agent to DTC for subsequent disbursement to DTC Participants who are obligated to remit such payments to the beneficial owners of
the Bonds, See "THE BONDS - Description of the Bonds" herein.
Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the County of San Diego, the State of California or any political
subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the Bonds. Except for the Special Taxes, no other taxes are pledged to the payment of the
Bonds. The Bonds are special tax obh~ations of the District payable solely from Special Taxes and other amounts held under the Indenture
as more fully described herein.
/he Bonds are subject to optional redemptiom extraordinary mandatory redemption and mandatory sinking fund redemption prior
to maturity as set forth herein. See 'THE BONDS - Redemption of Bonds herein.
CERTAIN EVENTS COULD AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE DISTRICT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND
INTEREST ON THE BONDS WHEN DUE. TIlE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT RISKS, AND THE
BONDS ARE NOT SUITABLE INVESTMENTS FOR ALL INVESTORS. SEE THE SECTION OF THIS OFFICIAL
STATEMENT ENTITLED "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS" FOR A DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN RISK FACTORS THAT SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER MATTERS SET FORTH HEREIN, IN EVALUATING THE INVESTMENT
QUALITY OF THE BONDS.
This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not intended to be a summary of the security or terms
of this issue. Investors are advised to read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed
investment decision.
MATURITY SCHEDULE
(S¢¢ Inside Cover Page)
The Bonds are offered when. as and if issued and accepted by the Underwriter, subject to approval as to their legality by Best
Best & Krieger LLP, Bond Counsel. and subject to certain other conditions. Certain legal matters will be passed on for the City and the
District by the City Anomey and for the Underwriter by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach,
California. as counsel to the Underwriter. It is anticipated that the Bonds in book-entry form will be available for delivery to DTC in New
York, New York, on or about October __, 2003.
Stone & Youngberg LLC
Dated: ,2003
Preliminary, subject to change.
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
MATURITY SCHEDULE
(Base CUSIP: )*
Maturity Maturity
Date Principal Interest Date Principal Interest
(September 1) Amount Rate Yield CUSIP' (September 1) Amount Rate Yield CUSIP'
$ % Term Bonds due I, Yield: % - CUSIP: ___
$ --% Term Bonds due 1, Yield: % - CUSIP: __
· Copyright 2002, American Bankers Association. CUSIP data herein is provided by Standard & Poor '$, CUSIP Service Bureau, a division of
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
' CITY COUNCIL
Steve C. Padilla, Mayor
Jerry Rindone, Mayor Pro Tern
John C. McCann, Councilmember
Pat~ Davis, Councilmember
Mary Salas, Councilmember
CITY STAFF
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
Sid M~rris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Assistant City Manager
Cheryl FtUchter, Assistant City Manager
Ann Moore, City Attorney
Maria Kachadoorian, Director of Finance
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Clifford Swanson, Director of Engineering
BOND COUNSEL
Best Best & Krieger LLP
San Diego, California
FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO THE CITY
Fie[dman Rolapp & Associates
lrvine, California
SPECIAL TAX CONSULTANT REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
McGill Mar~in Self, Inc. Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
Chula Vista, California Ventura, California
MARKET ABSORPTION CONSULTANT FISCAL AGENT
The Meyers Group U.S. Bank National Association
Solana Beach, California Los Angeles, California
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
Except where otherwise indicated, all information contained in this Official Statement has
been provided by the District. No dealer, broker, salesperson or other person has been authorized by
the District, the City, the Fiscal Agent or the Underwriter to give any information or to make any
representations in connection with the offer or sale of the Bonds other than those contained herein
and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having
been authorized by the District, the City, the Fiscal Agent or the Underwriter. This Official
Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be
any sale of the Bonds by a person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make
such an offer, solicitation or sale.
This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract with the purchasers or Owners of
the Bonds. Statements contained in this Official Statement which involve estimates, forecasts or
matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so described herein, are intended solely as such and are
not to be construed as representations of fact. This Official Statement, including any supplement or
amendment hereto, is intended to be deposited with a nationally recognized municipal securities
depository.
The Underwriter has provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement:
The Underwriter has reviewed the information in this Official Statement in accordance with,
and as part of, its responsibilities to investors under the federal securities laws as applied to the facts
and circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwriter does not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of such information.
The information set forth herein which has been obtained from third party sources is believed
to be reliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness by the District or the City. The
information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither the
delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made hereunder shall, under any circumstances,
create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the District, the City or any
other parties described herein since the date hereofi All summaries of the Indenture or other
documents are made subject to the provisions of such documents respectively and do not purport to
be complete statements of any or all of such provisions. Reference is hereby made to such
documents on file with the District for further information in connection therewith.
Certain statements included or incorporated by reference in this Official Statement constitute
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such statements are
generally identifiable by the terminology used such as "plan," "expect," "estimate," "project,"
"budget" or other similar words. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to,
certain statements contained in the information under the caption "THE COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT" and "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP."
All information for investors regarding the City, the District and the Certificates is contained
in this Official Statement. While the City maintains an intemet website for various purposes, none of
the information on its website is intended to assist investors in making any investment decision or to
provide any continuing information with respect to the Certificates or any other bonds or obligations
of the City.
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN RESULTS OR OTHER EXPECTATIONS
CONTAINED 1N SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS INVOLVE KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN RISKS, UNCERTAINTIES AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH MAY CAUSE
ACTUAL RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS DESCRIBED TO BE
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FUTURE RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR
ACHIEVEMENTS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS. THE DISTRICT DOES NOT PLAN TO ISSUE ANY UPDATES OR
REVISIONS TO THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT SET FORTH IN THlS OFFICIAL
STATEMENT.
IN CONNECTION WITH TI~E OFFERING OF THE BONDS, THE UNDERWRITER
MAY OVERALLOT OR EFFECT TRANSACTIONS WHICH STABILIZE OR MAINTAIN
THE MARKET PRICE OF SUCH BONDS AT A LEVEL ABOVE THAT WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE PREVAIL IN TIlE OPEN MARKET. SUCH STABILIZING, IF
COMMENCED, MAY BE DISCONTINUED AT ANY TIME.
THE BONDS HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT
OF 1933, AS AMENDED, IN RELIANCE UPON AN EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SUCH
ACT. THE BONDS HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED OR QUALIFIED UNDER THE
SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE.
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245,0143
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
General ............................................................................................................................................. 1
The District ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Sources of Payment for the Bonds ................................................................................................... 3
Description of the Bonds ................................................................................................................. 4
Tax Matters ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Professionals Involved in the Offering ............................................................................................ 5
Continuing Disclosure ..................................................................................................................... 5
Bond Owners' Risks ........................................................................................................................ 5
Forward Looking Statements ........................................................................................................... 6
Other Information ............................................................................................................................ 6
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS .............................................................................. 7
THE BONDS .. . ..................... 7
Authority for Issuance ...................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Bonds ................... 7
Description of the Bonds ........................... 7
Redemption of Bonds ................................ 8
Notice and Selection of Bonds for Redemption ............................................................................. 10
Notice of Redemption .................................................................................................................... 10
Effect of Redemption ..................................................................................................................... 11
Transfer and Exchange of Bonds ................................................................................................... 11
Debt Service Schedule for the Bonds ............................................. 13
SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS ................................. 13
Limited Obligations ....................................................................................................................... 13
Special Taxes ................................................................................................................................. 14
Reserve Fund ................................................................................................................................. 19
Issuance of Parity Bonds ................................................................................................................ 19
THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ................................................................................... 20
General Description of the District ............................................................................................... 20
Description of Authorized Facilities .............................................................................................. 20
Status of Public Improvements ...................................................................................................... 22
Principal Taxpayers ....................................................................................................................... 22
Estimated Direct and Overlapping Indebtedness ........................................................................... 23
Expected Tax Burden ..................................................................................................................... 25
Estimated Value-to-Lien Ratios ..................................................................................................... 26
Permitted Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 29
THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ................................................................ 29
General Description and Location of the District .......................................................................... 30
The Developer ................................................................................................................................ 30
Development Plan .......................................................................................................................... 31
Developer Related Entities ............................................................................................................ 32
Development Status. . ........... 33
Financing Plan ............................................................................................................................... 34
-i-
DOCSOC~978167v6~22245.0143
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Status of Entitlement Approvals .................................................................................................... 37
Environmental Constraints .............. : .............................................................................................. 38
Infrastructure Requirements and Construction Status ................................................................... 38
Potential Limitations on Development .......................................................................................... 38
Appraisal ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Market Absorption Study ............................................................................................................... 41
SPECIAL RISK FACTORS ................................................................................................................. 41
Concentration of Ownership .......................................................................................................... 42
Limited Obligations ....................................................................................................................... 42
Insufficiency of Special Taxes ....................................................................................................... 42
Tax Delinquencies of Developer Affiliates and Other Matlers ..................................................... 43
Failure to Develop Properties ......... r .............................................................................................. 44
Future Land Use Regulations and Growth Control Initiatives ...................................................... 46
Water Availability .......................................................................................................................... 46
Endangered Species ........................ ~ .............................................................................................. 47
Natural Disasters ............................................................................................................................ 47
Hazardous Substances .................................................................................................................... 47
Parity Taxes, Special Assessments and Land Development Costs ................................................ 48
Disclosures to Future Purchasers ................................................................................................... 49
Non-Cash Payments of Special Taxes ........................................................................................... 49
Payment of the Special Tax is not a Personal Obligation of the Owners ...................................... 49
Land Values ................................................................................................................................... 50
Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................ 51
FDIC/Federal Government Interests in Properties ......................................................................... 51
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure .......................................................................................................... 52
No Acceleration Provision ............................................................................................................. 53
Loss of Tax Exemption .................................................................................................................. 53
Limitations on Remedies ............................................................................................................... 53
Limited Secondary Market ............................................................................................................ 53
Proposition 218 .............................................................................................................................. 54
Ballot Initiatives ............................................................................................................................. 55
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ........................................................................................................... 55
TAX MATTERS .................................................................................................................................. 56
LEGAL MATTERS ............................................................................................................................. 57
LITIGATION ....................................................................................................................................... 57
NO RAT1NG ........................................................................................................................................ 58
UNDERWRITING ............................................................................................................................... 58
FINANCIAL INTERESTS .................................................................................................................. 58
PENDING LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................. 58
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 58
-ii-
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIX A RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX ............. A-1
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF MARKET ABSORPTION STUDY ........................................ B-I
APPENDIX C APPRAISAL REPORT ...................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ................... D-I
APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF INDENTURE .......................................................................... E-1
APPENDIX F CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OF THE DISTRICT .............. F- 1
APPENDIX G CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OF THE DEVELOPER ......... G-I
APPENDIX H FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL .................................................... H-I
APPENDIX I DTC AND THE BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM ........................................................ I-1
-iii-
DOC SOC\978167v6~22245,0143
[DISTRICT LOCATION MAP]
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245,0143
[AERIAL PHOTO]
DOCSOC\978167v6\22245.0 143
$19,470,000'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
2003 SPECIAL TAX BONDS
INTRODUCTION
General
This introduction is not a summary of this Official Statement. It is only a brief description of
and guide to, and is qualified by, more complete and detailed information contained in the entire
Official Statement and the document~ summarized or described herein. A full review should be
made of the entire Official Statement. The sale and delivery of Bonds to potential investors is made
only by means of the entire Official Statement. All capitalized terms used in this Official Statement
and not defined shall have the meaning set forth in Appendix A -- "RATE AND METHOD OF
APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES" or Appendix E -- "SUMMARY OF INDENTURE"
herein.
The purpose of this Official Statement, which includes the cover page, the table of contents
and the attached appendices (collectively, the "Official Statement"), is to provide certain information
concerning the issuance of the $19,470,000' City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District
No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds"). The proceeds of the
Bonds will be used to construct and ac~tuire various public improvements needed with respect to the
proposed development within Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the
"District") formed by the City of ChUla Vista (the "City"), to fund the Reserve Fund securing the
Bonds, to pay costs of issuance of the Bonds and to capitalize interest on the Bonds through
September 1,2004.
The Bonds are authorized to be issued pursuant to the Act (as defined herein) and a Bond
Indenture (the "Indenture") dated as of October 1, 2003, by and between the District and U.S. Bank
National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"). The Bonds are secured under the Indenture by a pledge of
and lien upon Special Tax Revenues las defined herein) and all moneys in the funds and accounts
under the Indenture other than the Rebate Fund, the Acquisition Fund and the Administrative
Expense Fund.
The District
Formation Proceedings. The iDistrict has been formed by the City pursuant to the Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Sections 53311 et seq. of the Government
Code of the State of California) (the "Act"), and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities
District Ordinance.
The Act was enacted by theI California legislature to provide an alternative method of
financing certain public capital facilit/es and services, especially in developing areas of the State.
Any local agency (as defined in the Act) may establish a community facilities district to provide for
and finance the cost of eligible publici facilities and services. Generally, the legislative body of the
· Prehmmary, subjec to change.
1
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
local agency which forms a community facilities district acts on behalf of such district as its
legislative body. Subject to approval by two-thirds of the votes cast at an election and compliance
with the other provisions of the Act, a legislative body of a local agency may issue bonds for a
community facilities district and may levy and collect a special tax within such district to repay such
indebtedness. The City Council of the City acts as the legislative body of the District.
Pursuant to the Act, the City Council adopted the necessary resolutions stating its intent to
establish the District, to authorize the levy of Special Taxes on taxable property within the
boundaries of the District, and to have the District incur bonded indebtedness for the purpose of
financing an authorized list of facilities. Following public hearings couducted pursuant to the
provisions of the Act, the City Council adopted resolutions establishing the District, and calling a
special election to submit the levy of the Special Taxes and the incurring of bonded indebtedness to
the qualified voters of the District. On January 21, 2003, at an election held pursuant to the Act, the
landowners who comprised the qualified voters of the District, authorized the District to incur
bonded indebtedness in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 to be secured by
the levy of Special Taxes (defined below) on taxable property within the District. On that same date,
the landowners within the District approved the rate and method of apportionment of the Special
Taxes on land within the District (the "Special Taxes") to pay the principal of and interest on the
bonds of the District. On June 24, 2003, a second election was held for the purpose of amending the
rate and method of apportionment to provide for an increase in tax rates. The rate and method of
apportionment of special tax, as amended, is set forth in Appendix A hereto (the "Rate and Method").
The facilities authorized to be financed by the District are referenced to herein as the "Facilities."
See "THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT -- Description of Authorized Facilities."
Description and Development. The District is located east of Interstate 805~ approximately 2
V2 miles east of Interstate 805 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road at the southeast comer of La
Media Road and Olympic Parkway. The District is located in the newly developing eastern portion
of the City and is bounded to the north by the previously developed villages of Lomas Verdes and to
the southeast by undeveloped lands. The District consists of approximately 189 gross acres.
The land use entitlements for the District permit development in sub-areas known as
"planning areas." The District has been divided into five residential planning areas and one
commercial planning area. Based on current land use approvals and projections, the land within the
planning areas is expected to be developed into 516 single family detached units, 789 single family
attached units and a commercial site. See "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP -- Potential Limitations on Development."
The grading within the District is complete, and construction of both the backbone
infrastructure and the intract infrastructure is essentially complete and certain of the landowners have
pulled initial building permits in March 2003. For a more detailed description of development
activity within the District, see "THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES D1STRiCT -- Status of Public
Improvements."
Developer. The master developer of the property in the l~istrict is Otay Project, L.P., a
California limited partnership (the "Developer"). For certain information concerning the Developer,
see "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- The Developer."
The Developer purchased the land within the District in 1997. During the fall of 2002, the
Developer completed the sale of land within each of the five planning areas to various entities related
2
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
to the Developer (the "Developer Related Entities"). The land already sold is proposed to include
443 single family detached lots and 364 single family attached units. The remaining land within the
District is currently owned by the Developer and will be developed into 423 single family attached
units, 73 single family detached units and a commercial site. See "THE DEVELOPMENT AND
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Development Plan" and "-- Developer Related Entities."
Appraisal. Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. (the "Appraiser") has conducted an appraisal
(the "Appraisal") of the land within th~ District and has concluded, based upon the assumptions and
limiting conditions contained in the APpraisal that as of June 15, 2003, the aggregate value of such
land was $96,925,000. On August 27, 2003, the Appraiser delivered its Limited Summary Appraisal
Report which determined that the current market values for the District, as of August 15, 2003 are
not less than the concluded appraised Values reported as of June 15,2003. 2-he Meyers Group (the
"Market Absorption Consultant") prepared a Market Analysis and Absorption Projection report dated
July 11, 2003 (the "Market Absorption Study") for the purpose of developing a build-out projection
for the 516 single family detached lots and 789 single family attached units planned in the District.
The Market Absorption Study concludes that the residential units within the District should be
built-out and sold-out in the 2003 to 2005 period assuming continued development with no
unanticipated delays in construction land with competitive pricing of the units. See "THE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY i OWNERSHIP -- Appraisal" and "-- Market Absorption
Study," Appendix B -- "SUMMARY OF MARKET ABSORPTION STUDY" and Appendix C --
"APPRAISAL REPORT."
Monitoring Program. In response to the conclusions in the most recent traffic study, the City
has implemented a building permit mogitoring program for a number of projects in the Otay Ranch,
including those within the District. ~he Developer and the City have entered into Monitoring
Agreement which provides that up td 1008 building permits may be issued for units within the
District between April 1, 2003 and Nlarch31, 2004, 299 permits between April 1, 2004 and
March 31, 2005 and 35 permits between April, 2005 and March, 2006. See "THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- POtential Limitations on Development."
Sources of Payment for the Bonds
Special Taxes. As used in this Official Statement, the term "Special Tax" is that tax which
has been authorized pursuant to the Aet to be levied against certain land within the District pursuant
to the Act and in accordance with the Rate and Method. See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE
BONDS -- Special Taxes" and Appendix A -- RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF
SPECIAL TAX." Under the Indenture, the District has pledged to repay the Bonds from the Special
Tax Revenues remaining after the funding of the annual Administrative Expense Requirement of
$75,000 and amounts on deposit in the !funds and accounts established under the Indenture other than
the Acquisition Fund, the Rebate Fundiand the Administrative Expense Fund. Special Tax Revenues
are defined in the Indenture to include the proceeds of the Special Taxes received by the District,
including any scheduled payments and prepayments thereof, interest and penalties thereon and the
proceeds of the redemption or sale oil property sold as a result of foreclosure of the lien of the
delinquent Special Taxes in the amount of said lien and interest and penalties thereon.
The Special Taxes are the primary security for the repayment of the Bonds. In the event that
the Special Taxes are not paid when due, the only sources of funds available to pay the debt service
on the Bonds are amounts held by the Fiscal Agent, including amounts held in the Reserve Fund.
See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS -- Reserve Fund."
3
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Foreclosure Proceeds. The District has covenanted for the benefit of the owners of the
Bonds that it will commence, and diligently pursue to completion, judicial foreclosure proceedings
against Assessor's Parcels under common ownership with delinquent Special Taxes in the aggregate
in excess of $5,000 by the October I following the close of the fiscal year in which such Special
Taxes were due, and it will commence and diligently pursue to completion judicial foreclosure
proceedings against all Assessor's Parcels under common ownership with delinquent Special Taxes
in the aggregate in excess of $2,500 by the October I following the close of any fiscal year if the
amount in the Reserve Fund is less than the Reserve Requirement. See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT
FOR THE BONDS -- Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales" herein. There is no assurance that the
propert)' within the District can be sold for the appraised value or assessed values described herein,
or for a price sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds in the event of a default in
payment of Special Taxes by the current or future landowners within the District. See "SPECIAL
RISK FACTORS -- Land Values" and Appendix C -- "SUMMARY APPILMSAL REPORT"
herein.
EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIAL TAXES, NO OTHER TAXES ARE PLEDGED TO
THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS. THE BONDS ARE NOT GENERAL OR SPECIAL
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY NOR GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT, BUT
ARE SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT PAYABLE SOLELY FROM SPECIAL
TAXES AND AMOUNTS HELD UNDER THE INDENTURE AS MORE FULLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN.
Description of the Bonds
Thc Bonds will be issued and delivered as fully registered Bonds, registered in the name of
Cede & Co. as nominee of Thc Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), and will
be available to actual purchasers of the Bonds (thc "Beneficial Owners") in the denominations of
$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, under the book-entry system maintained by DTC, only
through brokers and dealers who are or act through DTC Participants as described herein. Beneficial
Owners will not be entitled to receive physical delivery of the Bonds. In thc event that the book-
entry-only system described herein is no longer used with respect to the Bonds, thc Bonds will be
registered and transferred in accordance with the Indenture. See Appendix I -- "DTC AND THE
BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM."
Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on thc Bonds is payable by the Fiscal Agent to
DTC. Disbursement of such payments to DTC Participants is thc responsibility of DTC and
disbursement of such payments to thc Beneficial Owners is thc responsibility of DTC Participants.
In thc event that the book-entry-only system is no longer used with respect to thc Bonds, the
Beneficial Owners will become thc registered owners of the Bonds and will be paid principal and
interest by the Fiscal Agent, all as described herein. Sec "BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM" herein.
Thc Bonds arc subject to optional redemption, extraordinary mandatory redemption and
mandatory sinking fund redemption as described herein. For a more complete descriptions of thc
Bonds and thc basic documentation pursuant to which they are being sold and delivered, see "THE
BONDS" and Appendix E -- "SUMMARY OF INDENTURE" herein.
4
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
Tax Matters
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, based on an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings
and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, compliance with certain covenants, interest
on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. In
the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is not a specific preference item for
purposes of federal individual or corporate alternate minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel
observes that such interest is included in adjusted current earnings in calculating federal corporate
alternative minimum taxable income. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other
federal or state income tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or
receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See "TAX MATTERS" herein.
Professionals Involved in the Offering
U.S. Bank National Association will act as Fiscal Agent under the Indenture and as the initial
Dissemination Agent under the Continuing Disclosure Agreement to be entered into by the City and
the Developer Continuing Disclosure Agreement to be entered into by the Developer. See
Appendices F and G. Stone & Youngberg LLC is the Underwriter of the Bonds. All proceedings in
connection with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds are subject to the approval of Best Best &
Krieger LLP, San Diego, Bond Counsel. Fieldman Rolapp & Associates is acting as Financial
Advisor to the City in connection with the Bonds. Certain legal matters will be passed on for the
City and the District by the City Attorney, and for the Underwriter by Stradling Yocca Carlson &
Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California, as Underwriter's Counsel. Other
professional services have been performed by McGill Martin Self, Inc. as Special Tax Consultant,
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. as Appraiser, and The Meyers Group, as Market Absorption
Consultant.
For information concerning the respects in which certain of the above-mentioned
professionals, advisors, counsel and agents may have a financial or other interest in the offering of
the Bonds, see "FINANCIAL INTERESTS" herein.
Continuing Disclosure
Each of the District and the Developer has agreed to provide, or cause to be provided, to each
nationally recognized municipal securities information repository and any public or private
repository or entity designated by the State as a state repository for purposes of Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)
adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission certain financial information and operating
data. The District has further agreed to provide notice of certain material events. These covenants
have been made in order to assist the Underwriter in complying with Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). See
"CONTINUING DISCLOSURE" herein, Appendix F and Appendix G hereto for a description of the
specific nature of the reports to be filed by the District and by the Developer and the Developer
Related Entities and notices of material events to be provided by the District.
Bond Owners' Risks
Certain events could affect the timely repayment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds
when due. See the section of this Official Statement entitled "SPECIAL RlSK FACTORS" for a
discussion of certain factors which should be considered, in addition to other matters set forth herein,
5
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
in evaluating an investment in the Bonds. The Bonds are not rated by any nationally recognized
rating agency. The purchase of the Bonds involves significant risks, and the Bonds are not suitable
investments for all investors. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS" herein.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements included or incorporated by reference in this Official Statement constitute
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such statements are
generally identifiable by the terminology used such as "plan," "expect," "estimate," "project,"
"budget" or other similar words. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to,
certain statements contained in the information under the caption "THE COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT" and "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP."
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN RESULTS OR. OTHER EXPECTATIONS
CONTAINED IN SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS INVOLVE KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN RISKS, UNCERTAINTIES AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH MAY CAUSE
ACTUAL RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS DESCRIBED TO BE
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FUTURE RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR
ACHIEVEMENTS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS. THE DISTRICT l~OES NOT PLAN TO ISSUE ANY UPDATES OR
REVISIONS TO THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS OFFICIAL
STATEMENT.
Other Information
This Official Statement speaks only as of its date, and the information contained herein is
subject to change.
Brief descriptions of the Bonds and the Indenture are included in this Official Statement.
Such descriptions and information do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive. All references
herein to the Indenture, the Bonds and the constitution and laws of the State as well as the
proceedings of the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the District, are qualified in their
entirety by references to such documents, laws and proceedings, and with respect to the Bonds, by
reference to the Indenture. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
set forth in the Indenture.
Copies of the Indenture and other documents and information referred to herein are available
for inspection and (upon request and payment to the City of a charge for copying, mailing and
handling) for delivery from the City at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, Attention:
Director of Finance.
6
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS'
The following table sets forth the expected uses of Bond proceeds:
Sources of Funds
Principal Amount of Bonds $
TOTAL SOURCES $
Uses of Funds
Interest Account~ $
Acquisition Account
Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account
Reserve Fund
Cost of Issuance Fund
Underwriter's Discount
Administrative Expense Fund
TOTAL USES $
Represents gross funded capitalized interest on the Bonds through September 1, 2004.
THE BONDS
Authority for Issuance
The Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $19,470,000' are authorized to be issued by
thc District under and subject to the terms of the Indenture, the Act and other applicable laws of the
State of California.
Purpose of the Bonds
Thc Bonds are being issued to provide funds to: (i) finance the costs of constructing and
acquiring certain public facilities related to the proposed development within the District (See "THE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT -- Description of Authorized Facilities"); (ii) pay costs
related to the issuance of the Bonds; (iii) fund the Reserve Fund for the Bonds in the initial amount of
$ *; and (iv) gross fund capitalized interest on the Bonds through September 1,2004. See
"ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS."
Description of the Bonds
The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds without coupons in denominations of
$5,000 and any integral multiple thereof and shall be dated the date of delivery thereof. The Bonds
will be issued in book-entry only form and The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York
("DTC") will act as securities depository for the Bonds. So long as the Bonds are held in book-entry
· Preliminary. subject to change.
7
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
only form, principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds will be paid directly to DTC for
distribution to the beneficial owners of the Bonds in accordance with the procedures adopted by
DTC. See Appendix I -- "DTC AND THE BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM." The Bonds will
mature on September 1, in the principal amounts and years, and bearing rates of interest, as shown on
the inside cover of this Official Statement.
Interest on the Bonds will be payable semiannually on March I and September 1 of each
year, commencing March 1, 2004 (each, an "Interest Payment Date") and will be computed on the
basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Each Bond will bear interest from the
Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication, thereof, unless (i) such date of
authentication is an Interest Payment Date, in which event interest shall be payable from such date of
authentication, (ii) the date of authentication is after a Record Date but prior to the immediately
succeeding Interest Payment Date, in which event interest shall be payable from the Interest Payment
Date immediately succeeding the date of authentication or (iii) the date of authentication is prior to
the close of business on the first Record Date, in which event interest shall be payable from the date
of the Bonds; provided, however, that if at the time of authentication of a Bond, interest is in default,
interest on that Bond shall be payable from the last Interest Payment Date to which the interest has
been paid or made available for payment.
Interest on any Bond shall be paid to the person whose name shall appear in the books of
registration as the owner of such Bond as of the close of business on the Record Date immediately
preceding such Interest Payment Date. Such interest shall be paid by check of the Fiscal Agent
mailed to such Bondowner at his or her address as it appears on the books of registration or, upon the
request in writing prior to the Record Date of a Bondowner of at least $1,000,000 in aggregate
principal amount of Bonds, by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an account in the
United States designated by such Owner.
Redemption of Bonds'
Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on and after September 1, 2010 may be
redeemed at the option of the District prior to maturity as a whole or in part on any Interest Payment
Date on and after September 1, 2009, from such maturities as are selected by the District, and by lot
within a maturity, from any source of funds, at the following redemption prices (expressed as
percentages of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with accrued interest to
the date of redemption:
Redemption Date Redemption Price
September 1, 2009 and March 1,2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1,2011 101%
September 1,2011 and thereafter 100%
· Preliminary. subject to change
8
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Extraordinary Mandatory Redetnption from Special Tax Prepayment. The Bonds are subject
to redemption on any Interest Payment Date, prior to maturity, as a whole or in part on a pro rata
basis among maturities from the proceeds of the prepayment of Special Taxes pursuant to the Rate
and Method. Such extraordinary mandatory redemption of the Bonds shall be at the following
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed),
together with accrued interest thereon to the date of redemption:
Redemption Date Redemption Price
March 1, 2004 through March 1,2009 103%
September 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1,2011 101%
Septetnber 1,2011 and thereafter 100%
See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FoK THE BONDS -- Special Taxes -- Prepayment of Special
Taxes" and Section __ of Appendix A for a description of how a property owner may prepay, or will
be required to prepay, Special Taxes.
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20__ are
subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, in part, by lot, on September I in each year
commencing September 1, 20__ at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to
be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without
premium, in the aggregate principal amounts and in the years shown on the following redemption
schedule.
Redemption Date Principal
(September 1) Amount
$
The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20__ are subject to mandatory sinking fund
redemption, in part, by lot, on September 1 in each year commencing September 1, 20__, at a
redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid
interest thereon to the date fixed foe redemption, without premium, in the aggregate principal
amounts and in the years shown on the following redemption schedule.
Redemption Date Principal
(September 1) Amount
$
9
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
In the event of a partial optional redemption or special mandatory redemption of the Bonds.
each of the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments for such Bonds, as applicable, will be
reduced, as nearly as practicable, on a pro rata basis.
Purchase in Lieu of Redemption. In lieu of such an optional, extraordinary mandatory or
mandatory sinking fund redemption, the District may elect to purchase such Bonds at public or
private sale at such prices as the District may in its discretion determine; provided, that, un[ess
otherwise authorized by law, the purchase price (including brokerage and other charges) thereof shall
not exceed the principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the purchase date.
Notice and Selection of Bonds for Redemption
In the event the District shall elect to redeem Bonds as provided in the Indenture, the District
shall give written notice to the Fiscal Agent of its election to so redeem, the redemption date, the
principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, the maturities from which such Bonds are to be
redeemed and the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed from each such maturity, the Bonds
or portions thereof to be selected for redemption.
The notice to the Fiscal Agent shall be given not less than 60 days prior to the redemption
date or such shorter period as shall be acceptable to the Fiscal Agent. If less than all of the Bonds
Outstanding are to be redeemed, the portion of any Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 to
be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or a multiple thereof, and, in selecting
portions of such Bonds for redemption, the District shall treat each such Bond as representing that
number of Bonds of $5,000 denomination which is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such
Bond to be redeemed in part by $5,000.
Notice of Redemption
Notice by Mail to Registered Owners. The Fiscal Agent shall mail, at least 30 days but not
more than 45 days prior to the date of redemption, notice of intended redemption, by first-class mail,
postage prepaid, to the original purchasers of the Bonds and the respective registered Owners of the
Bonds at the addresses appearing on the Bond registry books. The notice of redemption shall state:
(a) the redemption date; (b) the redemption price; (c) the bond registration numbers, dates of maturity
and CUSIP numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed, and in the case of Bonds to be redeemed in part,
the respective principal portions to be redeemed; provided, however, that whenever any call includes
all Bonds of a maturity, the numbers of the Bonds of such maturity need not be stated; (d) that such
Bonds must be surrendered at the Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Fiscal Agent; (e)that
further interest on such Bonds will not accrue from and after the designated redemption date; (f) the
date of the issue of the Bonds as originally issued; (g) the rate of interest borne by each Bond being
redeemed; and (h)that any other descriptive information needed to identify accurately the Bonds
being redeemed as the District shall direct.
Further Notice. Further notice of redemption shall be sent at least two days before the notice
of redemption is mailed to the Bondholders, as described above, by registered or certified mail or
overnight delivery service to the registered securities depositories and to the national information
services listed in the Indenture or, in accordance with the then-current guidelines of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, such other securities depositories and services providing information on
called bonds, or such other securities depositories and services, as the District may determine in its
sole discretion.
10
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Failure to Receive Notice. So long as notice by first class mail has been provided as set forth
above, the actual receipt by the Owner of any Bond of notice of such redemption shall not be a
condition precedent to redemption, and failure to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of
the proceedings for redemption of such Bonds or the cessation of interest on the date fixed for
redemption.
Certificate of Giving Notice. The notice or notices described above shall be given by the
Fiscal Agent on behalf of the District. A certificate by the Fiscal Agent that notice of call and
redemption has been given to the registered Owners of the Bonds as herein provided shall be
conclusive against all parties, and no Owner whose Bond is called for redemption may object thereto,
or object to cessation of interest on the redemption date, by any claim or showing that he failed to
receive actual notice of call and redemption.
Notice from DTC to Beneficial Owners. So long as the Bonds are held in book-entry-form,
notice of redemption will be sent by the Fiscal Agent only to DTC or its nominee. Conveyance of
redemption notice by DTC to Beneficial Owners is determined by DTC and its participants and is not
the responsibility of the District. See Appendix I -- "DTC AND THE BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM."
Effect of Redemption
When notice of redemption has been given, and when the amount necessary for the
redemption of the Bonds called for redemption is set aside for that purpose in the Redemption Fund,
the Bonds designated for redemption shall become due and payable on the date fixed for redemption
thereof, and upon presentation and surrender of said Bonds at the place specified in the notice of
redemption, with the form of assignment endorsed thereon executed in blank, said Bonds shall be
redeemed and paid at the redemption price out of the Redemption Fund and no interest will accrue on
such Bonds or portions of Bonds called for redemption from and after the redemption date specified
in said notice, and the Owners of such Bonds so called for redemption after such redemption date
shall look for the payment of principal and premium, if any, of such Bonds or portions of Bonds only
to said Redemption Fund.
All Bonds redeemed shall be canceled forthwith by the Fiscal Agent and shall not be
reissued. Upon surrender of Bonds redeemed in part, a new Bond or Bonds of the same maturity
shall be registered, authenticated and delivered to the registered Owner at the expense of the District,
in the aggregate principal amount of the unredeemed portion. All unpaid interest payable at or prior
to the date fixed for redemption shall continue to be payable to the respective registered owners of
such Bonds or their order, but without interest thereon.
Transfer and Exchange of Bonds
There shall be kept by the Fiscal Agent, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of
the Bonds and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Fiscal Agent shall, under such reasonable
regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said
register, Bonds. The ownership of the Bonds shall be established by the Bond registration books
held by the Fiscal Agent. Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for registration of
transfer or exchange, the Fiscal Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of the
same maturity, for a like aggregate principal amount of authorized denominations; provided that the
Fiscal Agent shall not be required to register transfers or make exchanges of (i) Bonds for a period of
II
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
15 days next preceding the date of any selection of the Bonds to be redeemed, or (ii) any Bonds
chosen for redemption.
Bonds may be exchanged at the Principal Corporate Trust Office, for a like aggregate
principal amount of Bonds of authorized denominations, interest rate and maturity, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Indenture, including the payment of certain charges, if any, upon
surrender and cancellation of a Bond. Upon such transfer and exchange, a new registered Bond or
Bonds of any authorized denomination or denominations of the same maturity and for the same
aggregate principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor.
The transfer of any Bond may be registered only upon such books of registration upon
surrender thereof to the Fiscal Agent, together with an assignment duly executed by the Owner or his
attorney or legal representative, in satisfactory form. Upon any such registration of transfer, a new
Bond or Bonds shall be authenticated and delivered in exchange for such Bond, in the name of the
transferee, of any denomination or denominations authorized by the Indenture, and in an aggregate
principal amount equal to the principal amount of such Bond or Bonds so surrendered. In all cases in
which Bonds shall be exchanged or transferred, the Fiscal Agent shall authenticate the Bonds in
accordance with the provisions of the Indenture. All Bonds surrendered in such exchange or transfer
shall forthwith be canceled. The Fiscal Agent may make a charge for every such exchange or
registration of transfer of Bonds sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or other governmental charge
required to be paid with respect to such exchange or registration or transfer.
12
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Schedule for the Bonds*
Period Ending Principal Interest Total Debt Service
(September 1) on Bonds on Bonds on Bonds
2004 $ $ $
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total $ $ $
SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS
Obligations
are special, limited obligations of the District payable only from amounts pledged
Indenture and from no other soumes.
Special Taxes are the primary security for the repayment of the Bonds. Under the
District has pledged to repay the Bonds from the Special Tax Revenues remaining
of the annual Administrative Expense Requirement of $75,000 and from amounts
and accounts under the Indenture, other than amounts held in the Project Fund, the
the Administrative Expense Fund. Special Tax Revenues are defined in the
include the proceeds of the Special Taxes received by the District, including any
change.
13
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
scheduled payments and prepayments thereof, interest and penalties thereon, the proceeds of the
redemption of delinquent Special Taxes or sale of property sold as a result of foreclosure of the lien
of delinquent Special Taxes in the amount of said lien, and interest and penalties thereon.
In the event that the Special Tax Revenues are not received when due, the only sources of
funds available to pay the debt service on the Bonds are amounts held by the Fiscal Agent, including
amounts held in the Reserve Fund, for the exclusive benefit of the Owners of the Bonds.
NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE CITY,
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS. EXCEPT
FOR THE SPECIAL TAXES, NO OTHER TAXES ARE PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF
THE BONDS. THE BONDS ARE NOT GENERAL OR SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CITY BUT ARE SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT PAYABLE SOLELY
FROM THE SPECIAL TAXES AND OTHER AMOUNTS PLEDGED UNDER THE
INDENTURE AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
Special Taxes
Authorization and Pledge. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City Council
established the District on January 14, 2003 for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction
and installation of various public improvements to serve the District. At a special election held on
January 16, 2003, the owners of the property within the District authorized the District to incur
indebtedness secured by Special Taxes levied on property in the District in an amount not to exceed
$25,000,000, and approved the original rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax which
authorized the Special Tax to be levied to repay District indebtedness for the District, including the
Bonds. At an election held on June 24, 2003, the landowners within the District authorized an
amendment to the original rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax to provide for an
increase in tax rates and the amended Rate and Method is now in effect.
The District has covenanted in the Indenture that by July 1 of each year (or such later date as
may be authorized by the Act) it will levy Special Taxes within the District up to the maximum rates
permitted under the Rate and Method in the amount required for the payment of principal of and
interest on any Outstanding Bonds becoming due and payable during the ensuing calendar year,
including any necessary replenishment or expenditure of the Reserve Fund and the amount estimated
to be sufficient to pay the Administrative Expenses during such calendar year.
The Special Taxes levied in any fiscal year may not exceed the maximum rates authorized
pursuant to the Rate and Method. See Appendix A -- "RATE AND METHOD OF
APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX" hereto. There is no assurance that the Special Tax
proceeds will, in all circumstances, be adequate to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds
when due. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Insufficiency of Special Taxes" herein.
Rate and Method. Under the Rate and Method, all Taxable Property within the District is to
be (a) categorized as being located in either Zone A or Zone B, (b) classified as Developed Property,
Undeveloped Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property and (c) subject to the levy of annual
Special Taxes as described below.
14
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Under the Rate and Method, Developed Property is defined as all Taxable Property for which
a building permit for new construction was issued prior to March I of the prior fiscal year in which
the Special Tax is being levied. Developed Property is further classified as Residential Property or
Non-Residential Property. Residential property describes all Developed Property for which a
building permit has been issued for construction of one or more residential dwelling units, and Non-
Residential Property is defined as all Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for
non-residential use, excluding Community Purpose Facility Property. The Rate and Method defines
Undeveloped Property as all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property. Provisional
Undeveloped Property. is defined as all Public Property, Property Owner Association Property,
Community Purpose Facility Property, Open Space or other property that would otherwise be
classified as Exempt Property because to do so would reduce the acreage of all Taxable Property
below the required minimum acreage for Zone A or Zone B as applicable. See Appendix A -"RATE
AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX" hereto.
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or
Non-Residential Property shall be the greater of (1)the Assigned Special Tax described below or
(2) the Backup Special Tax computed as described below:
The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property is shown in the
table below:
Assigned Annual Special Tax for Developed Property Within Zone A and Zone B
Land Use Class Description Assigned Annual Special Tax
1 Residential Property $800 per unit plus $0.35 per
square foot of Residential
Floor Area
2 Non-Residential $6,000 per Acre
Property
When a Final Subdivision Map is recorded within Zone A or Zone B, the Backup Special
Tax for Assessor's Parcels, classified as Residential Property, Non-Residential Property and
Undeveloped Property shall be determined as described below:
For each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Undeveloped Property to be classified
as Residential Property upon its development within the Final Subdivision Map area, the Backup
Special Tax shall be the rate per lot calculated according to the following formula:
Zone A
B = $16,858xA
L
Zone B
B = $26,445 x A
L
15
DOCSOC~78167v6~2245.0143
The terms above have the following meanings:
B-- Backup Special Tax per Lot in each Fiscal Year.
A= Acreage classified as Residential Property in such Final Subdivision Map.
L= Lots in the Final Subdivision Map which are classified or to be classified as
Residential Property.
For each Assessor's Parcel of Non-Residential Property or Undeveloped Property to be
classified as Non-Residential Property upon the development thereof within the Final Subdivision
Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be determined by multiplying $16,858 for Zone A and
$26,445 for Zone B by the total Acreage of all Non-Residential Property and Undeveloped Property
to be classified as Non-Residential Property upon the development thereof within the Final
Subdivision Map area.
Notwithstanding the foregoing if an Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Non-
Residential Property or Undeveloped Property for which the Backup Special Tax has been
determined are subsequently changed or modified by recordation of a new of amended Final
Subdivision Map, then the Backup Special Tax applicable to such Assessor's Parcel shall be
recalculated to equal the amount of Backup Special Tax that would have been generated if such
change did not take place.
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Undeveloped
Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property shall be $16,858 per acre for Zone A and $26,455 per
acre for Zone B.
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Year, the City Council
shall determine the Special Tax Requirement (as defined in the Rate and Method) and shall levy the
Special Tax until the amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax
shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
First: The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property within Zone
A and Zone B at a rate up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax
Requirement.
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Undeveloped
Property within Zone A and Zone B, other than Provisional Undeveloped Property, at a rate up to
100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property.
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
two steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed
Property whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is derived by the application of the Backup Special
Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual
Special Tax for each such Developed Property.
Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all
Provisional Undeveloped Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for
Undeveloped Property.
16
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any
Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent per year as a
consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of Special Taxes by the owner of any other
Taxable Property.
Prepayment of Special Taxes. There are certain events that will result in a required
prepayment of Special Taxes as described in the following paragraph. In addition, under the Rate
and Method, the owner of any Developed Property, Undeveloped Property for which a building
permit has been issued, or Provisional Undeveloped Property, may prepay the Special Tax obligation
applicable to such parcel in whole or in part. Any required or voluntary prepayment of Special Taxes
will result in an extraordinary redemption of Bonds. See "THE BONDS-- Redemption --
Extraordinary Mandatory Redemption from Special Tax Prepayment."
A required prepayment of Special Taxes will occur on a parcel to the extent necessary to
comply with the City's policy that the total annual taxes and assessments on such a parcel, exclusive
of special taxes for services including City maintenance community facilities districts, will not
exceed two percent (2%) of the sales price of such a parcel to a residential homeowner. Pursuant to
the Acquisition Financing Agreement, the Developer has agreed to comply with the policy and the
Developer and the City expect that the current merchant builders will also agree to comply with the
policy. The Developer has agreed with the City to require all merchant builders to comply with this
policy. Based on estimated retail home sales prices, the Developer currently does not anticipate that
the total taxes and assessments, exclusive of special taxes for services, will exceed 2% of the sales
price. As shown in Table 5 under the caption "THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT --
Expected Tax Burden," the projected tax burden on a typical single family detached unit and single
family attached unit, based on the weighted averages of the respective unit sizes and current prices
and taxes, will be approximately 1.85%. Under the policy, prior to the closing of an escrow for the
sale of a residential unit, the merchant builder is to deposit into escrow the amount needed to
partially prepay the Special Taxes or other special taxes or assessments so that following such
prepayment the parcel will be in compliance with the policy. Upon the closing of the escrow, any
prepayment of the Special Taxes will be paid to the Director of Finance of the City and will be sent
to the Fiscal Agent to redeem Bonds.
Collection and Application of Special Taxes. The Special Taxes are levied and collected by
the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem
property taxes, but may be collected in any other manner the legislative body of the District may
choose.
The District has made certain covenants in the Indenture for the purpose of ensuring that the
current maximum Special Tax rates and method of collection of the Special Taxes are not altered in a
manner that would impair the District's ability to collect sufficient Special Taxes to pay debt service
on the Bonds and Administrative Expenses when due. First, the District has covenanted that, to the
extent it is legally permitted to do so, it will not reduce the maximum Special Tax rates and will
oppose the reduction of maximum Special Tax rates by initiative where such reduction would reduce
the maximum Special Taxes payable from parcels on which a completed structure is located to less
than 110% of Maximum Annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds and any other bonds issued
on a parity with the Bonds as permitted by the Indenture. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS --
Proposition 218." Second, the District has covenanted not to permit the tender of Bonds in payment
of any Special Taxes except upon receipt of a certificate of a Special Tax Consultant that to accept
such tender will not result in the District having insufficient Special Tax Revenues to pay the
17
DOCSOC\978167v6L22245,0143
principal of and interest when due on the Bonds remaining Outstanding following such tender. See
"SPECIAL RISK FACTORS --Non-Cash Payment of Special Taxes."
Although the Special Taxes constitute liens on Taxable Property within the District, they do
not constitute a personal indebtedness of the owners of such property within the District. Moreover,
other liens for taxes and assessments already exist on the property located within the District and
other such liens could come into existence in the future in certain situations without the consent or
knowledge of the City or the landowners therein. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Parity Taxes,
Special Assessments and Land Development Costs" herein. There is no assurance that property
owners will be financially able to pay the annual Special Taxes or that they will pay such taxes even
if financially able to do so, all as more fully described in the section of this Official Statement
entitled "SPECIAL RiSK FACTORS."
Under the terms of the Indenture, not later than the tenth Business Day after receipt, all
Special Tax Revenues received by the District are to be deposited in the Special Tax Fund. Special
Tax Revenues (with the exception of Special Tax Revenues representing Prepayments) are to be
applied by the Fiscal Agent under the Indenture in the following order of priority: (1) to deposit
annually up to $75,000 to the Administrative Expense Fund, (2) to pay the principal of and interest
on the Bonds when due, (3) to replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Requirement, (4) to make
any required transfers to the Rebate Fund and (5)to pay Administrative Expenses of the District
above the $75,000 referenced in (1) above. See Appendix E -- "SUMMARY OF INDENTURE."
Special Tax Revenues representing Prepayments shall be transferred to the Bond Service Fund as
provided for in the Indenture and used to redeem Bonds. See "THE BONDS -- Redemption of
Bonds -- Extraordinary Mandatory Redemption from Prepayment."
Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales. The net proceeds received following a judicial foreclosure
sale of land within the District resulting from a landowner's failure to pay the Special Taxes when
due are included within the Special Tax Revenues pledged to the payment of principal of and interest
on the Bonds under the Indenture.
Pursuant to Section 53356.1 of the Act, in the event of any delinquency in the payment of
any Special Tax or receipt by the District of Special Taxes in an amount which is less than the
Special Tax levied, the City Council, as the legislative body of the District, may order that Special
Taxes be collected by a superior court action to foreclose the lien within specified time limits. In
such an action, the real property subject to the unpaid amount may be sold at a judicial foreclosure
sale. Under the Act, the commencement of judicial foreclosure following the nonpayment of a
Special Tax is not mandatory. However, the District has covenanted for the benefit of the owners of
the Bonds that it will commence and diligently pursue to completion, judicial foreclosure
proceedings against (i) properties under common ownership with delinquent Special Taxes in the
aggregate of $5,000 or more by the October I following the close of the Fiscal Year in which such
Special Taxes were due, and (ii) against all properties with delinquent Special Taxes in the aggregate
of $2,500 or more by the October I following the close of any Fiscal Year if the amount in the
Reserve Fund is less than the Reserve Requirement. See Appendix E -- "SUMMARY OF
INDENTURE -- Other Covenants of the District" herein.
If foreclosure is necessary and other funds (including amounts in the Reserve Fund) have
been exhausted, debt service payments on the Bonds could be delayed until the foreclosure
proceedings have ended with the receipt of any foreclosure sale proceeds. Judicial foreclosure
actions are subject to the normal delays associated with court cases and may be further slowed by
18
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
bankruptcy actions, involvement by agencies of the federal government and other factors beyond the
control of the City and the District. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Bankruptcy and
Foreclosure" herein. Moreover, no assurances can be given that the real property subject to
foreclosure and sale at a judicial foreclosure sale will be sold or, if sold, that the proceeds of such
sale will be sufficient to pay any delinquent Special Tax installment. See "SPECIAL RISK
FACTORS -- Land Values" herein. Although the Act authorizes the District to cause such an action
to be commenced and diligently pursued to completion, the Act does not impose on the District or
the City any obligation to purchase or acquire any lot or parcel of property sold at a foreclosure sale
if there is no other purchaser at such sale. However, the City does have the ability' to use the
foreclosure judgment to purchase property by credit bid at a foreclosure sale, in which case the City
would have no obligation to pay such credit bid for 24 months. The Act provides that, in the case of
a delinquency, the Special Tax will have the same lien priority as is provided for ad valorem taxes.
Reserve Fund
In order to secure further the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds, the District is
required, upon delivery of the Bonds, to deposit in the Reserve Fund and thereafter to maintain the
Reserve Fund at an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement. The Indenture provides that the
amount in the Reserve Fund shall, as of any date of calculation, equal the lesser of (i) 10% of the sale
proceeds of the Bonds, (ii)the maximum annual debt service of the Bonds, or (iii)one hundred
twenty-five percent (125%) of the average annual debt service on the proceeds of the Bonds (the
"Reserve Requiremenf').
Subject to the limits on the maximum annual Special Tax which may be levied within the
District, as described in Appendix A, the District has covenanted to levy Special Taxes in an amount
that is anticipated to be sufficient, in light of the other intended uses of the Special Tax proceeds, to
maintain the balance in the Reserve Fund at the Reserve Requirement. Amounts in the Reserve Fund
are to be applied to (i) pay debt service on the Bonds, to the extent other monies are not available
therefore, (ii) redeem the Bonds in whole or in part, and (iii) pay the principal and interest due in the
final year of maturity of the Bonds. In the event of a prepayment of Special Taxes, under certain
circumstances, a portion of the Reserve Fund will be added to the amount being prepaid. As
described in the Rate and Method, this Reserve Fund Credit will be equal to the lesser of: (a) the
expected reduction in the Reserve Requirement, if any, as a result of prepayment, or (b) the amount
derived by subtracting the new Reserve Requirement in effect after the redemption from the balance
in the Reserve Fund, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. See Appendix E--
"SUMMARY OF INDENTURE" herein.
Issuance of Parity Bonds
The District covenanted in the Indenture not to issue any other obligations payable from the
Special Taxes levied on land within the District which have, or purport to have, any lien upon the
Special Taxes superior to or on a parity with the lien of the Bonds, other than refunding bonds which
satisfy the requirements below. Nothing in the Indenture prevents the District from issuing and
selling, pursuant to law, refunding bonds or other refunding obligations payable from and having a
first lien upon the Special Taxes on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds so long as the issuance of
such refunding bonds or other refunding obligations results in a reduction in the Annual Debt Service
on the Bonds and such refunding bonds or other refunding obligations taken together. See
Appendix E -- "SUMMARY OF INDENTURE" herein.
19
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
General Description of the District
The District consists of approximately 189 gross acres and is located approximately 2 V2 miles
east of Interstate 805 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road at the south side of Olympic Parkway and
East Palomar Street. The District is divided into five residential planning areas and one commercial
planning area. The District is located in the newly developing eastern portion of the City and is
bounded to the north by the previously developed villages of Lomas Verdes and to the southeast by
undeveloped lands. The Bonds will be secured by Special Taxes levied on Taxable Property within
the District. At buildout, the planning areas are expected to be developed into 516 single family
detached units, 789 single family attached units and a commercial site.
During the Fall of 2002, the Developer sold land within each of the planning areas of the
District to provide for the development of the 443 single family detached lots and 366 single family
attached units to the Developer Related Entities. The remaining land within the District is currently
owned by the Developer for the development of 423 single family attached units, 73 single family
detached units and a commercial site. See "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP -- Development Plan."
Description of Authorized Facilities
The facilities authorized to be acquired or constructed by the District with the proceeds of the
Bonds consist of various public improvements, described in Table 1 below, to serve property within
the District. In addition to or in substitution for the facilities listed below, the City and the Developer
may agree to finance additional or different eligible facilities. As set forth in Table 1 below, the
Developer expects to finance a portion of the cost of the facilities from the proceeds of lot sales and
other cash on hand. See Table 9 herein.
20
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Status of Public Improvements
Olympic Parkway improvements arc complete. Storm drain and sewer have bccn completed
on La Media Road and Birch Road street and water improvements have commenced in August 2003.
East Palomar, Viewpark Way, Santa Elisabcth Avenue, Sut~cr Buttes Street and Santa Venetia Street
improvements arc complete through paving, with landscaping underway. Improvement plans are
prepared and in third plan check for Telegraph Canyon Road. The construction for the Pedestrian
Bridges is expected to commence later this year. Preliminary improvement plans for Otay Lakes
Road have been prepared.
For a description of development activiVy within certain individual planning areas, sec "THE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Developer Related Entities."
Principal Taxpayers
Table 2 below sets forth the percentage of the Special Taxes that thc property owners in the
District would pay in fiscal year 2004-05 based on the ownership in thc District as of September 1,
2003 and a projected Special Tax levy of $1,624,460.
22
DOC SOC\978167v6~22245.0143
TABLE 2
PROJECTED PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004-05
Fiscal Year 2004-
Planning Areas Owner (~ 2005 Special Tax~2~' % of Total
Developer Affiliated Merchant
Builder Owned Planning Areas
R-2A Otay Ranch 2-A, LLC $ 163,091 10.04%
R-2B Otay Ranch Seven, LLC 163,007 10.03
R-5A Otay Ranch Eight, LLC 72,930 4.49
R-5B Otay Ranch VI-1, LLC 103,954 6.40
R-9A Otay Ranch Nine, LLC 198,601 12.23
R-7A Otay Ranch R-7A 121,736 7.49
R-7B(I) 'Otay Ranch R-7B, LLC 130,837 8.05
R-8(1) Otay Ranch R-8, LLC 83,812 5.16
Subtotal $ 1,037,968 63.90%
Developer Owned Planning Areas
R-7B(2), R-8(2), Otay Project L.P. $ 586,492 36.10%
R-9B(I), R-9B(2),
R-9D and MU-1
TOTAL $ 1,624,460 100.00%
ol Ownership information from Developer as of September 1, 2003.
(:7 Estimated Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 3004-05.
Source: McGill Martin Self, Inc.
Estimated Direct and Overlapping Indebtedness
Within the District's boundaries are numerous overlapping local agencies providing public
services. Some of these local agencies have outstanding bonds or other forms of indebtedness which
are secured by taxes and assessments on the parcels within the District and others have authorized
but unissued bonds which, if issued, will also be secured by taxes and assessments levied on parcels
within the District. The approximate amount of the direct and overlapping debt secured by such
taxes and assessments on the parcels within the District for fiscal year 2002-03 is shown in Table 3
below (the "Debt Report").
The Debt Report has been derived from data assembled and reported to the District by
California Municipal Statistics, Inc. Neither the District, the City nor the Underwriter has
independently verified the information in the Debt Report and do not guarantee its completeness or
accuracy.
· Preliminary, ~ubject to change.
23
DOC SOC\978167v6X22245.0143
TABLE 3
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT SUMMARY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)*
2002-03 Local Secured Assessed Valuation: $4,086,315
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT: % Applicable Debt 7/1/03
Metropolitan Water District 0.0004% $ 1,777
San Diego County Water Authority 0.002 33
Otay Municipal Water District, I.D. No. 27 0.084 8,938
Southwestern Community College District 0.018 7,117
Sweetwater Union High School District 0.021 7,584
Chula Vista City School District 0.030 15,200
City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I 100.000 19,470,000
TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT $19,510,649
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT:
San Diego County General Fund Obligations 0.002% $ 9,517
San Diego County Pension Obligations 0.002 16,488
San Diego County Superintendent of Schools Obligations 0.002 41
Otay Municipal Water District Certificates of Participation 0.034 8,850
Southwestern Community College District General Fund Obligations 0.019 656
Sweetwater Union High School District Certificates of Participation 0.023 5,167
Chula Vista City School District Certificates of Participation 0.032 25,387
City of Chula Vista Certificates of Participation 0.038 36,051
City of Chula Vista Pension Obligations 0.038 5,028
TOTAL GROSS OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT $I07,185
Less: Otay Municipal Water District Certificates of Participation 8,850
TOTAL NET OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT $ 98,335
GROSS COMBINED TOTAL DEBT $19,617,834
NET COMBINED TOTAL DEBT $19,608,984
Ratios to 2002-03 Assessed Valuation:
Direct Debt .................................................................................. 4.77%
Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt ............ 4.78%
Gross Combined Total Debt ........................................................ 4.80%
Net Combined Total Debt ............................................................ 4.80%
STATE SCHOOL BUILDING AID REPAYABLE AS OF 6/30/02:$0
ol Preliminary, subject to change.
Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and non-bonded
capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, lnc.
· Preliminary, subject to change.
24
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The authorized but unissued debt of existing community facilities districts with boundaries
overlapping the District as of August 1,2003 is summarized in Table 4 below. Other public agencies
may from time to time form additional districts that impose special taxes or assessments payable by
landowners within the District. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS--Parity Taxes, Special
Assessments and Land Development Costs."
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF OVERLAPPING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS
UndeYeloped Developed
Land Special Residential
Tax Per Special Tax Authorized
District Purpose Acret2I Per Sq. Ft~ Debt
Chula Vista Elementary CFD No. 15 (~) Elementm~ Schools $6,807 $.2847 $250,000,000
Sweetwater High School CFD No. 15 (t) High Schools $8,239 .3528I~) 250,000,000
01 On July I of each year, the maximum special tax rates shall be increased prior to development of a parcel by the greater of
(i) the annual percentage change in the Engineering News Record building cost index for the City of Los Angeles
determined every May 31 for the prior 12-month period, or (ii) two percent per fiscal year, and after development of a parcel
at the rate of 2% per annum.
I:) An Undeveloped Property Tax is provided for in CFD No. 15 if the debt service is not satisfied through the levy of the
Special Tax on Residential Property. To date CFD No. 15 of Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union
High School District have not been required to levy a Special Tax on Undeveloped Property.
These amounts are currently pledged to lease payments with respect to certain certificates of participation of the Sweetwater
High School District and will also be pledged to lease payments with respect to a future series of certificatas of participation.
Source: McGill Martin Self, Inc.
Expected Tax Burden
It is expected that the total tax burden on residential units in the District will be slightly less
than 2% of the initial base sales price of the units. Table 5 below sets forth an estimated property tax
bill for a typical single family detached unit of 2,060 square feet (such square footage being the
weighted average of expected unit sizes of the planned single family detached units) and 1,262
square feet in the case of a typical single family attached unit (such square footage being the
weighted average of expected unit sizes of the planned single family attached units). The total
effective tax rate for a typical single family detached unit is projected to be 1.84% and for a typical
single family attached unit 1.85% of the initial base sales price, including City Maintenance CFD's.
25
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
TABLE $
SAMPLE PROPERTY TAX BILL
PROJECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNIT
Percent of
Total
Assessed Single Family Single Family
Valuation Attached Un# Detached Un#
House Square Footage (Weighted Average) 1,262 2,060
Base Sales Price $290,815.00 $ 408,953.00
Assumed Assessed Value(1) $283,815.00 $ 401,953.00
Basic Levy 1.00000% $ 2,838.15 $ 4,019.53
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) 0.00670 19.02 26.93
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 0.00075 2.13 3.01
Otay Municipal Water District, R.D. No. 27 0.01500 42.57 60.29
Sweetwater High School District G.O. Bond 0.02196 62.33 88.27
Southwestern Community College G.O. Bond 0.01304 37.01 52.41
Chula Vista Elementary School District 0.02645 75.07 106.32
Total Taxes Based on Assessed Value 1.08390% $ 3,076.27 $ 4,356.77
Chula Vista Elementary CFD No. 15 $ 359.27 $ 586.44
Sweetwater Union High School CFD No. 15 445.26 726.81
Sweetwater Union High School District No. 15 G.O. Credit (62.33) (88.27)
Chula Vista Maintenance CFD No. 08-M 236.12 385.43
(Improvement Area 2)
Chula Vista Preserve CFD No. 97-2 17.92 29.25
City of Chula Vista CFD No. 08-I 1,241.70 1,521.00
Mosquito/Rat Control 2.29 2.29
MWD Water Standby Charge 11.50 11.50
Otay Water Availability 10.00 10.00
CWA Water Availability 10.00 10.00
Total Assessments and Parcel Charges $ 2,271.73 $ 3,194.25
Total All Property Taxes $ 5.348.00 $ 7,551.22
Total Effective Tax Rate(e) 1.84% 1.85%
(~) Includes assumed homeowner's exemption of $7,000.
(2) As a percentage of base sales price.
Source: McGill Martin Self, Inc.
Estimated Value-to-Lien Ratios
The value of the land within the District is significant because in the event of a delinquency
in the payment of Special Taxes the District may foreclose only against delinquent parcels in the
District. Table 6 summarizes the estimated appraised value-to-lien ratios for property in the District
based on the expected principal amount of the Bonds. The appraised value of the land within the
District based on the assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the Appraisal is $96,925,000.
The estimated appraised value-to-lien ratio for the property within the District currently subject to the
levy of the Special Tax, based upon land values and property ownership described in the Appraisal,
26
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
is approximately 4.98 to 1'. The estimated appraised value-to-lien ratio for the land owned by the
Developer is approximately 3.66 to 1'. Table 6 does not include the overlapping debt which is
payable from taxes and assessments on land within the District, which, as set forth in Table 3 above,
is currently estimated at $40,649. If the overlapping debt payable from taxes and assessments were
included, the estimated appraised value-to-lien ratio for the District as a whole would be 4.97 to 1 *.
The assessed value of the land within the District for fiscal year 2002-03 is $4,086,315. A
portion of the land within the District is exempt from the levy of the Special Tax. The fiscal year
2002-03 assessed value of the portion of the property within the District which is expected to be
taxed in fiscal year 2004-05 is $3,491,738. The estimated assessed value4o-lien ratio of the property
within the District expected to be subject to the Special Tax levy, based on the fiscal year 2002-03
Assessor's roll and the expected principal amount of the Bonds is .20 to I*. Table 6 will be updated
annually by the District in the Annual Report filed pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
based on the assessed value of the taxable property within the District, and not by the appraisal value
of the property within the District.
· Preliminary, subject to change.
27
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Permitted Land Use
Table 7 below describes the currently approved land uses within the District.
TABLE 7
LAND USE SUMMARY OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
Dwelling
Use Acres Units
Residential (Attached/Detached) 121.6 1,305
Commercial 2.9 N/A
Community Purpose Facility - o) 6.0 N/A
Elementary School 7.7 N/A
Neighborhood Park 7.5 N/A
Open Space, Roads and Homeowners (HOA) 43.3 N/A
Total 189.0 1,305
m Property.
Source: Developer
THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
Except for the information under the captions "--Appraisal" and "--Market Absorption
Study, "the Developer has provided the information in this section.
The information herein regarding ownership of property in the District has been included
because it is considered relevant to an informed evaluation of the Bonds. The inclusion in this
Official Statement of information related to existing owners of property should not be construed to
suggest that the Bonds, or the Special Taxes that will be used to pay the Bonds, are recourse
obligations of the property owners. A property owner may sell or otherwise dispose of land within
the District or a development or any interest therein at any time.
No assurance can be given that the proposed development within the District will occur as
described below. As the proposed land development progresses and parcels are sold it is expected
that the ownership of the land within the District will become more diversified Although planning
for the development of the District is at an advanced stage, actual construction of improvements is as
described below under the caption "Infrastructure Requirements and Construction Status." No
assurance can be given that development of the land within the District will continue to completion,
or that it will occur in a timely manner or in the configuration or intensity described herein, or that
any landowner described herein will obtain or retain ownership of any of the land within the District.
The Bonds and the Special Taxes are not personal obligations of any landowners and in the event
that a landowner defaults in the payment of the Special Tares, the District may proceed with judicial
foreclosure but has no direct recourse to the assets of any landowner. As a result, other than as
provided herein, no financial statements or information is, or will be, provided about the Developer
or other landowners. The Bonds are secured solely by the Special Taxes and other amounts pledged
under the Indenture. See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS" and "SPECIAL RISK
FACTORS."
29
DOCSOC\978 ! 67v6~2245.0143
General Description and Location of the District
The District consists of approximately 189 gross acres in thc City and is located
approximately 2½ miles east of Interstate 805 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road. Existing
residential developments in thc area include The Otay Ranch, Lomas Verdes, Rancho Del Roy,
Sunbow, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Migucl Ranch and Eastlakc. Thc District is bounded to thc north
by previous developed villages of Lomas Verdes and by undeveloped land to the southeast.
Approximately 516 single family detached units, 789 single family attached units and a commercial
site are to be constructed within the District.
The Bond proceeds and additional amounts expended and to be expended by the Developer
will be used to finance the infrastructure benefiting 1,305 housing units and a 2.9-acre commercial
site within the District. The infrastructure will include backbone road improvements relating to La
Media Road, Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, Birch Road, East Palomar Street, View Park
Way, Magdalena Avenue, Sutter Buttes Road, Santa Elisabeth Street and Santa Venetia Street. Also
eligible to be financed are improvements relating to the Traffic Enhancement Program including
Telegraph Canyon Road east of Interstate 805 and Heritage Road (Olympic Parkway to Main Street)
and improvements relating to the Pedestrian Bridge and Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
program.
To date, the Developer has sold to the Developer Related Entities land proposed to include
443 single family lots detached and 366 single family attached units. The Developer currently owns
the remaining land for development of 423 single family attached units, 73 single family detached
units and a commercial site and intends to sell such land to the Developer Related Entities or other
entities affiliated with the Developer.
The Developer
The Developer is Otay Project L.P., a California limited partnership. Otay Project L.P. was
formed on January 20, 1999 by Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company, as its
general partner and South Bay Project, LLC and Otay Ranch Development, LLC, as its limited
partners. As of May 1, 2001, South Bay Project, LLC ceased to be a member of Otay Project, LLC
and ceased to be a limited partner of Otay Project L.P.
The Developer is under the control of James and Alfred Baldwin. James and Alfred Baldwin
and their affiliated companies are land developers and homebuilders in Southern California primarily
engaged in the development of master-planned communities in coastal areas in the counties of
Orange, San Diego, Ventura and Los Angeles. Their companies have operated in the Southern
California market for 40 years and have built over 15,000 homes and developed over 20,000 lots in
the region. Certain entities owned and controlled by James and Alfred Baldwin have previously filed
for bankruptcy and have been delinquent in the payment of property taxes and assessments and were
subject to outstanding judgments in connection with these delinquencies. See "SPECIAL RISK
FACTORS -- Tax Delinquencies of Developer Affiliates and Other Matters." No parcels within the
District are currently delinquent in the payment of property taxes and assessments and no affiliate of
the Developer is currently subject to bankruptcy proceedings.
30
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The current organizational structure of the Developer is depicted in Table 8 below:
TABLE 8
James Alfred
Baldwin Baldwin
Family Family
I
I
Oriole Development, LLC I Otay Ranch Development LLC
Otay Project, LLC
1
Otay Project L.P.
Source: Developer
Development Plan
History of Development. The Developer acquired an approximately 5,300-gross acre site
commonly referred to as Otay Ranch, which includes the District and surrounding property, in
August 1997 with General Plan approvals for approximately 9,000 dwelling units and 59 acres of
commercial development.
The District is located in and constitutes a portion of Village 6 of Otay Ranch which totals
approximately 365 gross acres divided into five residential planning areas, one commercial planning
area, a private high school site, and a community purpose site. The Village 6 planning areas are
designated for 990 single family detached units and 1,242 single family attached units, for a total of
2,232 units along with a commercial site, public and community purpose facilities, a bus/rail line
stop, an elementary school, a town square and a neighborhood park.
Residential Planning Areas. The approved tentative tract map applicable to the District
allows for the development of 1,392 dwelling units. Upon buildout, development within the District
31
DOCSOC\978167v6L22245.0143
is anticipated to include a total of 1,305 residential units including 516 single family detached units
and 789 single family attached units, along with approximately 6 acres of community purpose
property, 2.9 acres of commercial use, a 7.7-acre elementary school site and approximately
43.3 acres of open space, roads and homeowner association property.
As of the date of the Appraisal, the Developer had sold all the land within five planning areas
to the Developer Related Entities. The Developer expects to sell the remaining land that is owns
with the District to Developer Related Entities or other entities affiliated with it for the development
of 423 single family attached units, 73 single family detached units and a commercial site. Lots were
delivered to the Developer Related Entities as blue top individual lots and ceaified by the civil and
soils engineer with the utilities stubbed into the tract boundary. The Developer Related Entities are
responsible for completing intract improvements such as sewer, water, dry utilities and street
improvements. The Developer is responsible for the completion of all other improvements adjacent
to the tracts including master backbone sewer and water, storm drains, dry utilities, streets, master
landscaping and trails, parks and any offsite improvements.
Table 9 below summarizes proposed development within the District as of July 15, 2003.
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Residential Minimum Lot Number of Number
Planning Product Size Proposed Building of Units Average Projected Home
Area Type (Square Feet) Developer Enti(~ Units Total Permits Close~2~ Home Size Price Range
R-2A SFD 5,060 O~ay Ranch 2-A, LLC 92 22 0 3,200 $499.900-549,990
R-2B SFD 4,250 Otay Ranch 7, LLC 106 26 0 2.394 440,000-460,000
R-5A SFD 3,450 Otay Ranch Eight~ LLC 51 51 0 1.986 400,000-420,000
R-SB SFD 3,450 Otay Ranch VI-I, LLC 55 0 0 1,640 355,000-385,000
R-7A SFA duplex Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC 92 0 0 1,495 325,000
R-7BI SFA triplex Otay Ranch R-7B, LLC 105 0 0 1,278 270,000-310,000
R-7B2 SFA triplex Entity Related To Developer 96 0 0 1.278 270,000-310,000
R-8(I) SFA condos Otay Ranch R-8, LLC 169 0 0 1.140 233,000-260,000
R-8(2) SFA condos Entity Related To Developer 119 0 0 1.140 233,000-260,000
R-gA SFD 2.890 Otay Ranch Nine, LLC 139 0 0 1,661 340,000-380,000
R-9B I SFA sixplex Entity Related To Developer 159 0 0 1.150 250,000-280,000
R-gB2 SFD 2,016 Entity Related To Developer 73 0 0 1.400 315~000-335,000
R-9D SFA duplex Entity Related To Developer 49 0 0 1.357 312,500-315,000
Source: Developer
While the overall development of the District is expected to last through 2005, the
infrastructure improvements within the District, inclusive of non-District financed infrastructure
improvements, are expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2004.
Developer Related Entities
Certain planning areas within the District were sold by the Developer to various entities
related to the Developer (collectively, the "Developer Related Entities") as described below. The
per-lot sales prices listed below are based on sales transactions which the Developer reports were not
made at an arm's-length basis. Each of the Developer Related Entities listed below is primarily
owned by various Baldwin family members.
Planning Area R-2A, consisting of 92 single family detached lots, was sold to Otay Ranch
R-2A, LLC on October 25, 2002, for $113,773 per lot. The minimum lot size is 5,060 square feet.
32
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The project will be known as Cambria with homes ranging in size from 2,875 square feet to 3,525
square feet. Base prices of these homes are expected to range from $499,900 to $549,990.
Planning Area R-2B, consisting of 106 single family detached lots was sold to Otay Ranch
Seven, LLC on September 25, 2002, for $104,571 per lot. The minimum lot size is 4,250 square feet.
The project will be known as Willow Brook with homes ranging in size from 2,287 square feet to
2,500 square feet. Base prices of these homes are expected to range from $440,000 to $460,000.
Planning Area R-5A, consisting of 51 single family detached lots was sold to Otay Ranch
Eight, [.LC on December 26, 2002, for $96,287 per lot. The minimum lot size is 3,450 square feet.
The project will be known as Madera with homes ranging in size from 1,873 square feet to 2,099
square feet. Base prices are expected to range from $400,000 to $420,000.
Planning Area R-5B, consisting of 55 single family detached lots, was sold to Otay Ranch
VI-I, LLC on November 18, 2002, for $100,287 per lot. The minimum lot size is 3,450 square feet.
The project will be known as The Willows with homes ranging in size from 1,477 square feet to
1,803 square feet. Base prices are expected to range from $355,000 to $385,000.
Planning Area R-7A, consisting of 92 single family attached units with a density of 14.33
units per acre, was sold to Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC on December 26, 2002, for $73,370 per unit. The
project will be known as Belleme Villas with duplex homes ranging in size from 1,494 square feet to
1,995 square feet. The base price of these units are expected to be $325,000 per unit.
Planning Area R-7B(I), consisting of 105 single family attached units with a density of 13.83
units per acre, was sold to Otay Ranch R-7B, LLC on October 3, 2002, for $62,000 per unit. The
project will be known as Belleme Chateaux with triplex homes ranging in size from 1,045 square feet
to 1,510 square feet. The base price of these units are expected to range from $270,000 to $310,000.
Planning Area R-8(1 ), consisting of 169 single family attached units with a density of 26.92
per acre, was sold to Otay Ranch R-8, LLC on October 17, 2002, for $35,148 per unit. The Project
will be known as Le Provence with units ranging in size from 970 square feet to 1,300 square feet.
The base price of those units are expected to range from $233,000 to $260,000.
Planning Area R-9A, consisting of 139 single family detached lots was sold to Otay Ranch
Nine, LLC on September 25, 2002, for $94,850 per lot. The minimum lot size is 2,720 square feet.
The project will be known as Rosewood with units ranging in size from 1,408 square feet to 1,913
square feet. The base sales price of these homes are expected to range from $340,000 to $380,000.
Development Status
The residential planning areas of District are at various stages of development. The status of
development for each planning area as of August 15, 2003 is described below.
Planning Area R-2A. The Final Map (dividing the property into individual lots) has been
approved for planning area R-2A. Model homes for this planning area opened June 28, 2003 and
construction has begun for 22 homes in phase 1 of this single family detached development.
Building permits for 42 homes have been pulled thus far.
Planning Area R-2B. The Final Map has been approved for planning area R-2B. Model
homes for this planning area opened July 12, 2003 and construction has begun for 25 homes in
33
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
phase I of this single family detached development. Building permits for 23 homes in phase 2 are
anticipated to be pulled by the end of August 2003. Construction for the phase 2 homes will begin by
the end of August 2003.
Planning Area R-5A. The Final Map has been approved for planning area R-SA. This
planning area will not contain model homes. As of August 15, 2003, there were 25 reservations for
homes in this planning area. Construction is well underway on 28 homes in phase 1, and
construction has commenced on the 23 homes in phase 2. The initial home closings for this planning
area are expected to take place in September 2003.
Planning Area R-SB. The Final Map has been approved for planning area R-5B. Model
homes are open and permits for the 27 homes in phase 1 are scheduled to be pulled in September
2003.
Planning Area R-7A. The Final Map has been approved for planning area R-7A. Model
homes for this single family attached planning area are currently under construction and scheduled to
open in October 2003. Building permits for 15 duplex buildings are scheduled to be pulled by the
end of August 2003.
Planning Areas R-TB(1) and R-TB(2). The Final Map has been approved for planning areas
R-7B(1) and R-7B(2). Triplex models are currently under construction and scheduled to open in
October 2003. Building permits for 12 triplex buildings are scheduled to be pulled in August 2003.
Planning Areas R-8(1) and R8(2). The preliminary map has been approved for this single
family attached planning area. 288 condominium homes are being processed for building permits.
Planning Area 9A. The Final Map has been approved for planning area 9A. Model homes
are under construction and are scheduled to open in September 2003. Construction has also began on
34 homes for phase 1. Construction for phase 2 homes is scheduled to commence in October 2003.
Planning Areas 9B(1) and 9B(2). Planning areas 9B(1) and 9B(2) are currently under review
by the City's Design Review Committee. It is anticipated that construction of model homes for these
planning areas will commence by the end of 2003.
Planning Area 9D. The Final Map has been approved for planning area 9D. Construction is
scheduled to commence on the model homes by the end of 2003 and the models are scheduled to
open in January 2004.
Financing Plan
Developer Financing Plan. The development of the District will require large expenditures
of funds to fully develop the property and the required infrastructure. The development of the
infrastructure and the lots by the Developer requires funds in addition to the Bond proceeds. The
cash sources outside of the Bond proceeds necessary to complete development of the lots and the
infrastructure are expected to come from land sales. The Developer plans to use the cash balances
reflected in Table 10 to complete the proposed development and to make distributions to its
members. The Developer has one loan outstanding which is secured by property within the District.
The Developer does not anticipate obtaining any additional loans for this purpose. The Developer
Related Entities have obtained loans as described below. See "PlanningArea Financing."
34
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The ultimate buildout of the District as planned is dependent upon a number of external
factors, including the general and local economy and the health of the local real estate market and the
ability of the Developer Related Entities and other merchant builders, if any, to obtain financing and
all required permits to build the units. Table 10 represents the Developer's current estimate of the
sources and uses of funds to complete its portion of the work for the Otay Ranch which includes a
number of projects on land owned by the Developer in Otay Ranch but outside the District. While
Table 10 represents the current estimate of the sources and uses of funds for the Developer's
operations, there can be no assurance there will not be substantial changes to the sources and uses
funds presented.
The projected sources and uses of funds in Table 10 has been prepared based on assumptions
of future sales revenues, reimbursements to the Developer, public facilities financing, development
costs, operating costs, property taxes and other items. The absorption estimates used for the soumes
and uses of funds may differ from those derived by the Appraiser. The actual revenues projected in
Table 10 may vary. Detailed construction plans have not been approved or developed for all of the
work which is contemplated within the District. As such, there is no assurance that the actual costs
will not be greater than projected or occur sooner than projected. There can be no assurance that the
actual revenues will not be less or the actual costs more than projected or occur later than projected
by the Developer and the Developer Related Entities.
To the extent that actual revenues are less than projected in Table 10 or are received more
slowly than projected in Table 10, other financing projected by the Developer Related Entities is not
put into place, or actual expenses are greater than or occur earlier than projected above, there could
be a shortfall in the cash required to complete the land development operations being undertaken by
the Developer.
35
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
TABLE 10
DEVELOPER'S PROJECTED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
(THE OTAY RANCH)
0701/03 to Year Year Totals
12/31/2003 2004 20050~
Sources of Funds
Beginning Cash Balance $ 4.820,000 -- $ 4.820.000
Net Proceeds Land in CFD 08-I 7.935.000 $ 10,420,000 $ 17,620.000 35.975,000
Net Proceeds Land not in CFD 08-t12) 40.418.000 43,079.000 494.000 83.990.000
Borrowings ......
Net Bond Proceeds - AD 97-2 348,000 -- 348,000
Net Bond Proceeds - CFD 99-1 6,031.000 3.087.000 167.000 9,286.000
Net Bond Proceeds - CFD 08-1 5,923,000 13.077~000 -- 19,000.000
CFD 99-1 3rd Part5' Cost SharingOl 6.200.000 965,000 -- 7.165.000
Total Sources $ 71.675.000 $ 70.628.000 $ 18.281.000 $160.584.000
Uses of Funds14)
PublicFacilities-CFD.99.1{~1 $ (1,033,000) $ (216,000) $ (715,000) $ (1,965,000)
Public Facilities - CFD-08-I (9.522.000) (14,186,000) (5,960.000) (29,668.000)
Other Capital improvements{6) (8.120.000) (3,627.000) 13.142.000) (14.888.000)
Subtotal Development Costs (18,675.000) (18.029,000) (9,817.000) (46.521,000)
Operating Costs(71 $ (8,083,000) $(10,494,000) $ (7.981,000) $(26.558,000)
Debt Service{al (17.004.000) (4,950.000) -- (21.954~000)
Total Uses $ (43,762~000) $ (33a473~000) $ (17.798.000) $ (95~033.000)
Sources in Excess of Uses Before Distributions $ 27.913,000 $ 37,155.000 $ 483.000 $ 65.551.000
Distributions{o) (22,000,000) (37,000~000) -- $(59.000,000)
SourcesinExcessofUsesAfterDistributions $ 5.913.000 $ 155.000 $ 483.000 $ 6,551,000
Aggregate Annual Sources Ovar Uses $ 5.913,000 $ 6.068,000 $ 6.551.000 $ 6.551,000
Developer will have operations in the year 2005 and beyond pertaining to land in other Villages which are part of the Otay
Ranch owned by the Developer.
Includes Developer's property in Village One, Village One West and Village Five.
Amounts to be contributed by the City and adjacent property owners for Olympic Parkway construction.
Includes expenditures related to development of the land within the District and other portions of the Otay Ranch owned by
Developer.
CFD improvements are complete. Costs to be incurred are for required ongoing maintenance.
Costs to improve lot to "blue top" condition.
{7) Includes salaries, bonuses, property taxes and overhead expenses.
Debt service relates to a development loan and a land loan.
i9} Includes distributions to Developer and Developer Related Entities and distributions of supplemental revenues to former
partners as part of buyout agreement.
Source: Developer
Planning Area Financing. Currently, there is financing committed by outside lenders for the
planning area owned by the Developer and the Developer Related Entities as described below.
The owner of R-2A is Otay Ranch 2-A, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area is committed to provide a $25,675,000 revolving construction loan.
36
DOCSOC\978167v6k22245.0143
The owner of R-2B is Otay Ranch Seven, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $9,000~000 construction loan.
The owner of R-5A is Otay Ranch Eight, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $10,355,000 construction loan.
The owner of R-5B is Otay Ranch VI-I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $10,743,470 revolving construction loan.
The owner of R-7A is Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC, a Delaware limited liabi!ity company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $9,000,000 construction loan.
The owner of R-7B1 is Otay Ranch R-7B, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $8,000,000 construction loan.
The owner of R-8(1) is Otay Ranch R-8, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $20,000,000 construction loan.
The owner of R-9A is Otay Ranch Nine, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
lender for this planning area has committed to provide a $10,500,000 construction loan.
Planning Areas R-7B2, R-8(2), R-9B1, R-9B2, R-9D and MU-1 are owned by the Developer.
The lender for these planning areas has committed to provide a $14,000,000 acquisition and
development loan.
Status of Entitlement Approvals
The District was zoned Planned Community ("PC") as part of the General Development Plan
("GDP") planning process. The PC zone required a multi-phase planning process beginning with a
GDP, followed by the preparation ora Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan. The SPA Plan is to be
used as a supplement to other existing City regulations, and supersedes those established in the City
Zoning Ordinance. Incorporated into the SPA Plan is the Site Utilization Plan, which designates the
zoning on the District. The SPA Plan was adopted by the City on January 22, 2002 by Resolution
No. 2002-22 as amended on March 26, 2002 by Resolution No. 2002-088. Per the SPA Plan, the
District is designated for residential and commercial development and open space lands, park lands,
two school sites, a community purpose facility site, a fire station site and both major circulation and
internal streets.
The District is covered by the Tentative Map for Village Six allowing for 545 single family
detached lots and 847 single family attached units.
The Developer believes that all discretionary approvals required for the development of the
District have been obtained.
In response to the conclusions in the most recent traffic study, the City has implemented a
building permit monitoring program for a number of projects in the Otay Ranch, including those
within the District. See "-- Potential Limitations on Development."
37
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Environmental Constraints
The land within the District has undergone extensive environmental and biological review
and has received the necessary permits for thc development of the entire property covered by the
tentative map. Thc Developer believes that it has obtained all permits and approvals required by any
environmental laws and regulations which are needed to complete thc proposed development within
the District.
Infrastructure Requirements and Construction Status
The infrastructure requirements for the District can be grouped into two categories as
follows:
Major Backbone Infrastructure. Work on the backbone infrastructure improvements for the
District are either complete or under construction. All roads within the District are paved and
landscaping of these roads is currently underway. Dry utilities are currently under construction, with
paving to follow dry utilities.
lntract Infrastructure. All planning areas, except Planning Areas 8, 9B-I and 9B-2, have
been graded to finish pads, water and sewer have been installed, dry utilities are currently under
construction, and paving of streets will follow. Planning Areas 8, 9-BI and 9B-2 have been sheet
graded to large pads, and sewers have been installed. Water improvements are currently under
construction.
Potential Limitations on Development
Growth Management Oversight Commission ("GMOC"). Thc City has established a
Threshold Standards Policy (thc "Threshold Policy") through thc adoption of a Growth Management
Ordinance, which established eleven public facility and service area "quality of life" measures. The
eleven public facility and service thresholds include police, fire and emergency medical services,
traffic, schools, parks and recreation, libraries, sewer, drainage, fiscal impact, air quality and water.
The Threshold Policy established goals, objectives, standards or thresholds and applicable
implementation measures for the eleven services. The GMOC was created to provide an annual
independent review for compliance with the Threshold Policy.
The GMOC review for compliance occurs on a fiscal year cycle. The Threshold Policy calls
for preparation of short-range, 12 to 18 month, and mid-range, five to seven year, development
forecasts. These forecasts are utilized by City staff and external service agencies to evaluate
projected service levels, identify any potential threshold problems and address implementation
measures to avoid level of service problems.
As a condition to developing property within the District, a landowner must, prior to final
map approval for a parcel, enter into an agreement with the City acknowledging that building permits
may be withheld if any of the required development threshold limits set in the City transportation
planning phase are exceeded. The tentative map conditions for the land within the District also
subject the land to the provisions of the GMOC.
The Threshold Policy includes traffic thresholds which require that level of service "C" be
maintained on the arterial street system except level of service "D' can occur for no more than two
38
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
hours of the day. The level of service is a descriptive and qualitative measure of the degree of traffic
congestion experienced by motorists. There are six levels of congestion, assigned letters 'A' through
'F.' Levels of service 'A' Through 'D' represent generally acceptable levels of service with level of
service 'A' corresponding to no congestion and level of service 'C' represents a range in which the
ability of vehicles to maneuver is affected by the presence of other vehicles and speeds begin to show
some reduction. Level of service 'D' is approaching roadway capacity with the ability to maneuver
being severely restricted and traffic is subject to speed reductions. Level of service 'E' is at roadway
capacity with unstable speeds. Level of service 'F' occurs when roadway capacity is exceeded,
excessive delays are experienced and stop-and-go traffic conditions exist. Should the traffic
threshold standard be exceeded, the Growth Management Ordinance calls for a building permit
moratorium to be considered by the City Council until the threshold problem can be mitigated. There
can be no guarantee that any such moratorium would exclude the District, even if the traffic
congestion leading to such moratorium occurs outside of the District's area.
Throughout the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, the City monitored the traffic conditions
on the major east-west arterials east of 1-805 to measure compliance with the levels of service
described in the GMOC.
In response to the conclusions in the most recent traffic study, the City has implemented a
building permit monitoring program (the "Monitoring Program") for a number of projects in the Otay
Ranch, including those within the District. The Developer and the City have entered into an
agreement (the "Monitoring Agreement") which provides that up to 1,008 building permits may be
issued for units within the District between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, 299 permits between
April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005 and 35 permits between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006.
Release of certain permits depends upon the construction of certain roadway improvements. If a
roadway improvement is not completed by the date set forth in the Monitoring Agreement, then, until
it is completed, the corresponding number of building permits attributed to such improvement will be
deducted from the total number of permits to be issued for the last 12 months of the Monitoring
Program. The amount deducted will be prorated against all developers included within the
Monitoring Program on a proportionate basis. In arriving at the conclusions in the Market
Absorption Study and the Appraisal, both the Market Absorption Consultant and the Appraiser
considered the impact of the Monitoring Agreement and have assumed that permits for all 1,305
units planned within the District will be available and will not be reduced as a result of a failure to
complete any of the roadway improvements referenced in the Monitoring Agreement.
The quality of life thresholds of the GMOC and the Thresholds Policy remain in effect and
supersede the provisions of the Monitoring Agreement. Should the City determine that the standards
of the Threshold Policy are not being met, it could impose further limitations or a moratorium on the
issuance of building permits within the District. The City does not currently anticipate that it will
need to further restrict or prohibit the issuance of building permits within the District; however,
currently unforeseen events could result in further action by the City under the GMOC.
A development slowdown beyond that resulting from the Monitoring Program imposed in the
Monitoring Agreement or a moratorium on development could adversely impact the rate of
development in the District and presents certain risks to the owners of the Bonds. See "SPECIAL
RISK FACTORS -- Failure to Develop Properties" and "-- Future Land Use Regulations and
Growth Control Initiatives."
39
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245,0143
Investors should note that, in particular, the City may amend its Growth Management
Ordinance from time to time and no assurance can be given that its terms will not be more restrictive
on development than those currently in effect.
Appraisal
The information regarding ownership of property in the District included in the Appraisal
has been included because it is considered relevant to an informed evaluation of the Bonds. The
inclusion in this Official Statement of information related to existing owners of property should not
be construed to suggest that the Bonds, or the Special Taxes that will be used to pay' the Bonds, are
recourse obligations of the property owners. A property owner may sell or otherwise dispose of land
within the District or a development or any interest therein at any time. Development ma), also be
abandoned at any time.
The Appraiser valued the property within the District, taking into consideration the lien of the
Special Taxes, based upon a number of assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the
Appraisal as set forth in Appendix C. The Appraiser has valued the property within the District
based upon a sales comparison approach to value using a sales comparison approach coupled with a
discounted cash flow analysis. Under the sales comparison approach to value, the Appraisal takes
into account the development status of the residential lots, analyzes the market for similar properties
and compares these properties to the properties in the District. Under the discounted cash flow
analysis, the Appraiser values the undeveloped acreage by discounting the cost of developing
finished lots and the probable proceeds from the sale of the finished lots. The Appraiser first
estimates the retail value of the finished lots, the costs of developing the finished lots, the estimated
absorption period and the marketing, sales and carrying costs. The Appraiser then applies a discount
rate to the projected cash flow that accounts for the risk associated with the development of the lots,
the time value of money and a profit due to the owner of the lots. Based on historical information,
the Appraiser has assumed annual appreciation of 4% on land sales and 3% on development costs. A
discount rate of 18% per year has been used by the Appraiser in arriving at the estimate of value for
the land within the District.
The Appraiser is of the opinion that the aggregate "as is" value of the land within the District
as of June 15, 2003, assuming the completion of all improvements to be financed with proceeds of
the Bonds was $96,925,000. Certain land that is expected to become exempt from the levy of
Special Taxes in the future was not assigned a value in the Appraisal.
In arriving at its statement of value, the Appraiser assumes that the remaining development
costs provided by the Developer are accurate, there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property or subsoil that render it more or less valuable, that all required licenses, certificates of
occupancy or other legislative or administrative authorizations from governmental agencies or
private entities or organizations have been or can be obtained, that no hazardous waste and/or toxic
materials are located on the property within the District that would affect the development process,
that the improvements to be funded with the Bonds are completed and that the proposed development
is constructed in a timely manner with no adverse delays (i.e., construction will proceed as proposed
with no limitations on development occurring beyond those imposed by the Monitoring Agreement).
See "-- Potential Limitations on Development" above.
40
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
On August 27, 2003, the Appraiser delivered its Limited Summary Appraisal Report which
determined that the current market values for the District, as of August 15, 2003 are not less than the
concluded appraised values reported as of June 15,2003.
No assurance can be given that the assumptions made by the Appraiser will, in fact, be
realized, and, as a result, no assurance can be given that the property within the District could be sold
at the appraised values included in the Appraisal.
Market Absorption Study
The Market Absorption Study dated July 11, 2003 has been prepared by the Market
Absorption Consultant. An executive summary of the Market Absorption Study dated
~, 2003 is included herein as Appendix B. The Market Absorption Consultant has
estimated, based upon the analysis of relevant demographic and economic conditions in the Chula
Vista area, the number of housing units in the District that can be expected to be marketed annually
using the estimated absorption schedules for each of the product types. The Market Absorption
Study concludes that given market conditions and the Monitoring Agreement it will take until 2005
for the residential units within the District to be constructed and sold. The Market Absorption Study
projects that, of the 1,305 single family units proposed within the District, 244 will be absorbed in
2003, 742 in 2004 and 319 in 2005.
The Market Absorption Study assumes that all required governmental approvals will be
obtained in a timely manner and that there will be no slowdown in the issuance of permits due to the
City's GMOC beyond those contained in the Monitoring Agreement, that there are no physical
impediments to construction such as earthquakes and hazardous waste, that the public infrastructure
necessary to develop will be provided in a timely manner, that the developers and merchant builders
in the District will respond to market conditions with products that are competitively priced and have
the features and amenities desired by purchasers, that the developers and merchant builders and their
lenders have sufficient financial strength to fund adequately the projects and that they have sufficient
cash flow reserves to supplement their cash flow positions in the event that adverse economic or
market conditions occur. The actual absorption of units could be adversely affected if one or more of
the foregoing assumptions is not realized. See Appendix B -- "SUMMARY OF MARKET
ABSORPTION STUDY."
SPECIAL RISK FACTORS
The purchase of the Bonds involves a high degree of investment risk and, therefore, the
Bonds are not appropriate investments for many types of investors. The following is a discussion of
certain risk factors which should be considered, in addition to other matters set forth herein, in
evaluating the investment quality of the Bonds. This discussion does not purport to be
comprehensive or definitive. The occurrence of one or more of the events discussed herein could
adversely affect the ability or willingness of property owners in the District to pay their Special
Taxes when due. Such failures to pay Special Taxes could result in the inability of the City to make
full and punctual payments of debt service on the Bonds. In addition, the occurrence of one or more
of the events discussed herein could adversely affect the value of the property in the District. See
"Land Values" and "Limited Secondary Market" below.
41
DOCSOC\978167v6L22245.0143
Concentration of Ownership
As of thc date of thc Appraisal, all of thc taxable land within thc District was owned by thc
Developer and thc Developer Related Entities. Based on land use status, 100% of the projected fiscal
year 2004-05 Special Tax levy will be paid by the Developer and Developer Related Entities. Sec
"THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT -- Principal Taxpayers." Until thc completion and
sale of additional parcels, the receipt of the Special Taxes is dependent on thc willingness and thc
ability of such landowners to pay the Special Taxes when due. Failure of thc current landowners, or
any successor, to pay the annual Special Taxes when due could result in a default in payments of thc
principal of, and interest on, thc Bonds, when due. Sec "-- Failure to Develop Properties" below.
No assurance can be made that such landowners, or their successors, will complete the
intended construction and development in the District. See "-- Failure to Develop Properties"
below. As a result, no assurance can be given that such landowners will continue to pay Special
Taxes in thc future or that they will be able to pay such Special Taxes on a timely basis. Sec
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure" below, for a discussion of certain limitations on thc District's ability to
pursue judicial proceedings with respect to delinquent parcels.
Limited Obligations
The Bonds and interest thereon are not payable from the general funds of the City. Except
with respect to the Special Taxes, neither the credit nor the taxing power of the District or the City is
pledged for the payment of the Bonds or the interest thereon, and, except as provided in the
Indenture, no Owner of the Bonds may compel the exercise of any taxing power by the District or the
City or force the forfeiture of any City or District property. The principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds are not a debt of the City or a legal or equitable pledge, charge, lien or
encumbrance upon any of the City's or the District's property or upon any of the City's or the
District's income, receipts or revenues, except the Special Taxes and other amounts pledged under
the Indenture.
Insufficiency of Special Taxes
Under the Rate and Method, the annual amount of Special Tax to be levied on each taxable
parcel in the District will generally be based on whether such parcel is categorized as Undeveloped
Property or as Developed Property and on the land use class to which a parcel of Developed Property
is assigned. See Appendix A -- "RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL
TAXES" and "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS -- Method of Apportionment of
Special Tax."
The Rate and Method governing the levy of the Special Tax expressly exempts property
owned by public agencies or a property owners association, or property classified as open space,
community purpose facility property provided that no such exemption shall reduce the sum of all
taxable property to less than 40.98 acres in Zone A and 42.43 acres in Zone B.
Moreover, if a substantial portion of land within the District became exempt from the
Special Tax because of public ownership, or otherwise, the maximum Special Tax which could
be levied upon the remaining property within the District might not be sufficient to pay
principal of and interest on the Bonds when due and a default could occur with respect to the
payment of such principal and interest.
42
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Tax Delinquencies of Developer Affiliates and Other Matters
Under provisions of the Act, the Special Taxes, from which funds necessary for thc payment
of principal of, and interest on, the Bonds are derived, are customarily billed to the properties within
the District on the ad valorem property tax bills sent to owners of such properties. The Act currently
provides that such Special Tax installments are due and payable, and bear the same penalties and
interest for non-payment, as do ad valorem property tax installments. See "SOURCES OF
PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS -- Special Taxes," for a discussion of the provisions which apply,
and procedures which the District is obligated to follow under the Fiscal Agent Agreement, in the
event of delinquencies in the payment of Special Taxes. See "--Bankruptcy and Foreclosure"
below, for a discussion of the policy of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC")
regarding the payment of special taxes and assessment and limitations on the District's abiliW to
foreclosure on the lien of the Special Taxes in certain circumstances.
There are no parcels in the District that are currently delinquent in the payment of ad valorem
tax installments. However, historical delinquencies of the prior owner, an affiliate of which is a
member of Otay Project LLC (the Developer's general partner), occurred in the payment of ad
valorem taxes with respect to the property now located within the boundaries of Village One and
Village 13. In the Village One area, $472~096 of such delinquent taxes were brought current in
August of 1997; $446,912 of delinquencies with respect to the land located in Village 13 are being
paid by the Developer on an installment plan; and the balance of the Otay Ranch property was
responsible for $1,339,333 delinquent ad valorem taxes which were brought current in August of
1997.
Otay Ranch Development LLC, one of the entities constituting the Developer, is owned by
the family interests of James and Alfred Baldwin. Entities that are or were controlled by James and
Alfred Baldwin and their families, including Baldwin Builders, lnc., Baldwin Building Contractors,
Ltd., Tiger Two Development, Carmel Valley Partners, Calabasas, LLC and Marlin Development
(formerly Village Development, formerly Village Properties) have been responsible for significant
delinquencies in the payment of Mello-Roos community facilities district special taxes and ad
valorem taxes with respect to property in various developments in California, as discussed below.
Marlin Development ("Marlin") is a California general partnership, which was formed in
1974 under the name "Village Properties." Village Properties changed its name in June, 1995 to
"Village Development" and subsequently changed its name again in November, 1996 to "Marlin
Development." The general partners of Marlin are James P. Baldwin and Alfred E. Baldwin. Marlin
has been in the development business for over 25 years. Marlin Development was delinquent in the
payment of Mello-Roos special taxes on property located in San Marcos and Portola Hills,
California; however, all delinquent special taxes with respect to those properties were paid in 1999.
Calabasas, LLC owned property in Calabasas, California and was delinquent in the payment
of Mello-Roos special taxes and ad valorem taxes on this property. On November 18, 1998, the
County of Los Angeles was granted a Judgment of Foreclosure against Calabasas, LLC for the
delinquent taxes, and moved to enforce the judgment by filing Notices of Levy against the property.
Calabasas, LLC sold this property and funds were withheld from the sales proceeds for the full
amount of special and ad valorem taxes. Marlin transferred ownership of its Calabasas property to
Calabasas Development, LLC, an entity owned by entities controlled by James and Alfred Baldwin.
On October 4, 2000, the County of Los Angeles filed a Complaint in Foreclosure against Calabasas
Development, LLC for the collection of $554,946 of special taxes plus interest, penalties and other
43
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
costs due for December 10, 1998 and subsequent periods. In addition, Calabasas Development, LLC
was delinquent in the payment of ad valorem taxes of approximately $172,869. On June 27~ 2001,
the Complaint in Foreclosure was dismissed. Calabasas Development, LLC has paid all current year
property taxes and entered into an installment plan for $626,104 of delinquent property taxes.
In July 1995, Baldwin Builders, Inc. a corporation owned by James and Alfred Baldwin, and
Baldwin Building Contractors, Ltd., a partnership owned 97% by Baldwin Builders, lnc. (the
"Baldwin Company"), filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In February 1996, in order to obtain new financing for the Baldwin Company, James and
Alfred Baldwin personally contributed land they owned with an estimated value of over $30 million
and agreed to transfer control of the Baldwin Company to a trustee selected by the new lenders.
Pursuant to an agreement approved by the bankruptcy court, James and Alfred Baldwin and their
affiliates exchanged mutual full releases of all claims with the Baldwin Company. Baldwin Building
Contractors, Ltd. has since had a plan of reorganization approved and has emerged from bankruptcy
under the name "New Millennium Homes." James and Alfred Baldwin are not involved in the
management of New Millennium Homes and have a de minimis ownership interest in that company.
James and Alfred Baldwin and certain of their affiliated entities, not including any entities involved
with the Developer (collectively, the "Baldwins"), were plaintiffs and defendants in various lawsuits
with New Millennium relating to alleged purchase options and related matters for two parcels of land
owned by the Baldwins. On June 21, 1999, the Baldwins and New Millennium entered into a
"Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release" which settled all litigation between the parties and
provided for full and complete releases of all claims against each other.
New Millennium Homes was delinquent in the payment of special and ad valorem taxes on
all of its properties, including special taxes on properties located in Calabasas (Los Angeles, CFD
No. 4), Anaheim Hills (City of Anaheim, CFD No. 88-1, and Orange Unified School District CFD
No. 89-2), and Portola Hills (Santa Aha Mountains Water District CFD No. 2 and County of Orange
CFD No. 87-2). As part of its plan of reorganization, New Millennium Homes has either paid or
entered into payment plans with respect to all of its delinquent special and ad valorem taxes. New
Millennium Homes currently does not own any property within the District.
Failure to Develop Properties
Undeveloped or partially developed land is inherently less valuable than developed land and
provides less security to the Bondowners should it be necessary for the District to foreclose on the
property due to the nonpayment of Special Taxes. The failure to complete development of the
required infrastructure for development in the District as planned, or substantial delays in the
completion of the development or the required infrastructure for the development due to litigation or
other causes may reduce the value of the property within the District and increase the length of time
during which Special Taxes will be payable from undeveloped property, and may affect the
willingness and ability of the owners of property within the District to pay the Special Taxes when
due.
Land development is subject to comprehensive federal, State and local regulations. Approval
is required from various agencies in connection with the layout and design of developments, the
nature and extent of improvements, construction activity, land use, zoning, school and health
requirements, as well as numerous other matters. There is always the possibility that such approvals
will not be obtained or, if obtained, will not be obtained on a timely basis. Failure to obtain any such
44
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
agency approval or satisfy such governmental requirements would adversely affect planned land
development. Finally, development of land is subject to economic considerations.
Additionally, the Developer and the merchant builders may need to obtain financing to
complete the development of the units that they are developing. No assurance can be given that the
required funding will be secured or that the proposed development will be partially or fully
completed, and it is possible that cost overruns will be incurred which will require additional funding
beyond what the Developer has projected, which may or may not be available. See "THE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Finance Plan" herein.
The future development of the vacant land within the District may be adversely affected by
existing or future governmental policies, or both, restricting or controlling the development of vacant
land in the District. See "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Potential
Limitations on Development" for a discussion of certain significant limitations on the ability of the
Developer and merchant builders to complete the projected development of the District. Specifically,
investors should consider the broad power of the City to halt or delay development under its Growth
Management Ordinance. There can be no assurance that the owners of the vacant land in the District
will be able to secure the necessary discretionary approvals if they choose to develop their properties.
See also "-- Future Land Use Regulations and Growth Control Initiatives" below.
There can be no assurance that land development operations within the District will not be
adversely affected by a future deterioration of the real estate market and economic conditions or
future local, State and federal governmental policies relating to real estate development, the income
tax treatment of real property ownership, or the national economy, or the direct or indirect
consequences of military and/or terrorist activities in this country or abroad. A slowdown of the
development process and the absorption rate could adversely affect land values and reduce the ability
or desire of the property owners to pay the annual Special Taxes. In that event, there could be a
default in the payment of principal of, and interest on, the Bonds when due.
Bondowners should assume that any event that significantly impacts the ability to develop
land in the District to a degree not considered by the Appraiser would cause the property values
within the District to decrease substantially from those estimated by the Appraiser and could affect
the willingness and ability of the owners of land within the District to pay the Special Taxes when
due.
The payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds depends upon the receipt of Special
Taxes levied on undeveloped property. Undeveloped property is less valuable per unit of area than
developed land, especially if there are no plans to develop such land or if there are severe restrictions
on the development of such land. The undeveloped property also provides less security to the
Bondowners should it be necessary for the District to foreclose on undeveloped property due to the
nonpayment of the Special Taxes. Furthermore, an inability to develop the land within the District as
currently proposed will make the Bondowners dependent upon timely payment of the Special Taxes
levied on undeveloped property for a longer period of time than projected. Because all of the land
within the District is currently owned by just six owners, five of which are affiliated, the timely
payment of the Bonds depends upon the willingness and ability of such owners to pay the Special
Taxes levied on the undeveloped property when due. See "-- Concentration of Ownership" above.
A slowdown or stoppage in the continued development of the District could reduce the willingness
and ability of such owners to make Special Tax payments on undeveloped property and could greatly
45
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
reduce the value of such property in the event it has to be foreclosed upon. See "-- Land Values"
below.
Future Land Use Regulations and Growth Control Initiatives
The City currently has the authority under its GMOC to limit or halt development within the
District if certain quality of life standards are not met within the City. See 'THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Potential Limitations on Development."
In addition, it is possible that future growth control initiatives could be enacted by the voters
or future local, state or federal land use regulations could be adopted by governmental agencies and
be made applicable to the development of the vacant land within the District with the effect of
negatively impacting the ability of the owners of such land to complete the development of such land
if they should desire to develop it. Development could also be delayed or prohibited under the City's
existing Growth Management Ordinance. This possibility presents a risk to prospective purchasers
of the Bonds in that an inability to complete desired development increases the risk that the Bonds
will not be repaid when due. The owners of the Bonds should assume that any reduction in the
permitted density, significant increase in the cost of development of the vacant land or substantial
delay in development caused by growth and building permit restrictions or more restrictive land use
regulations would cause the values of such vacant land within the District to decrease. A reduction
in land values increases the likelihood that in the event ora delinquency in payment of Special Taxes
a foreclosure action will result in inadequate funds to repay the Bonds when due. In completing their
analyses, both the Appraiser and the Market Absorption Consultant have assumed that there will be
no delays in development due to land use regulations or growth control initiatives.
Completion of construction of any proposed structures on the vacant land within the District
is subject to the receipt of approvals from a number of public agencies concerning the layout and
design of such structures, land use, health and safety requirements and other matters. The failure to
obtain any such approval could adversely affect the planned development of such land.
Under current State law, it is generally accepted that proposed development is not exempt
from future land use regulations until building permits have been issued and substantial work has
been performed and substantial liabilities have been incurred in good faith reliance on the permits.
Because future development of vacant property in the District could occur over several years, if at
all, the application of future land use regulations to the development of the vacant land could cause
significant delays and cost increases not currently anticipated, thereby reducing the development
potential of the vacant property and the ability or willingness of owners of such land to pay Special
Taxes when due or causing land values of such land within the District to decrease substantially from
those in the Appraisal.
Water Availability
The development of the land within the District is dependent upon the availability of water
for the planned units. The Otay Municipal Water District (the "Water District") is the agency
responsible for providing water to the District. The Water District receives a significant portion of its
water from the Metropolitan Water District ("MWD"), which is the primary supplier of wholesale
water in Southern California. On December 31,2002, the federal government suspended the delivery
of surplus water from the Colorado River to MWD as a result of the failure of certain water agencies
in the State to reach agreement on the transfer of water rights from the Imperial Irrigation District to
46
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
coastal San Diego County. While MWD states that it has sufficient reserves for the foreseeable
future, the ultimate impact of the federal government's decision to suspend the delivery of the
Colorado River surplus water to California is not yet known.
The Developer and the City believe that the Water District will be able to provide water to
the District to permit the construction of the planned units. No assurance can be given, however, that
water service will be available at the time that building permits are applied for, and the lack of water
availability could adversely affect the planned development in the District. A slowdown or stoppage
in the continued development of the District could reduce the willingness and ability of such owners
to make Special Tax payments on undeveloped property and could greatly reduce the value of such
property in the event it has to be foreclosed upon. See "-- Land Values" below.
Endangered Species
In recent years there has been an increase in activity at the State and federal levels related to
the possible listing of certain plant and animal species found in the southern San Diego County area
as endangered species. An increase in the number of endangered species could curtail development
in the southern San Diego County area. Any action by the State or federal governments to protect
species located on or adjacent to the property within the District could negatively impact the ability
of the owners of that land to develop it. This, in turn, could reduce the likelihood of timely payment
of the Special Taxes levied against such that land and would likely reduce the value of such land and
the potential revenues available at the foreclosure sale for delinquent Special Taxes. See "-- Failure
to Develop Land" above.
Natural Disasters
The District, like all California communities, may be subject to unpredictable seismic
activity, fires, flood, or other natural disasters. Southern California is a seismically active area.
Seismic activity represents a potential risk for damage to buildings, roads, bridges and property
within the District. In addition, land susceptible to seismic activity may be subject to liquefaction
during the occurrence of such event.
In the event of a severe earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster, there may be
significant damage to both property and infrastructure in the District. As a result, a substantial
portion of the property owners may be unable or unwilling to pay the Special Taxes when due. In
addition, the value of land in the District could be diminished in the aftermath of such a natural
disaster, reducing the resulting proceeds of foreclosure sales in the event of delinquencies in the
payment of the Special Taxes.
Hazardous Substances
A serious risk in terms of the potential reduction in the value of a parcel is a claim with
regard to a hazardous substance. In general, the owners and operators of a parcel may be required by
law to remedy conditions of the pamel relating to releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances. The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980, sometimes referred to as "CERCLA" or the "Superfund Act," is the most well-known and
widely applicable of these laws, but Califomia laws with regard to hazardous substances are also
stringent and similar. Under many of these laws, the owner or operator is obligated to remedy a
hazardous substance condition of property whether or not the owner or operator has anything to do
47
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
with creating or handling the hazardous substance. The effect, therefore, should any of the taxed
parcels be affected by a hazardous substance, is to reduce the marketability and value of the parcel by
the costs of remedying the condition, because the purchaser, upon becoming owner, will become
obligated to remedy the condition just as is the seller.
Further, it is possible that liabilities may arise in the future with respect to any of the parcels
resulting from the existence, currently, on the parcel of a substance presently classified as hazardous
but which has not been released or the release of which is not presently threatened, or may arise in
the future resulting from the existence, currently on the parcel of a substance not presently classified
as hazardous but which may in the future be so classified. Further, such liabilities may arise not
simply from the existence of a hazardous substance but from the method of handling it. All of these
possibilities could significantly affect the value of a parcel that is realizable upon a delinquency.
Neither the City nor the Developer has knowledge of any hazardous substances being located
on the property within the District.
Parity Taxes, Special Assessments and Land Development Costs
Property within the District is subject to the lien of several overlapping districts. See "THE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT -- Estimated Direct and Overlapping Indebtedness."
The Special Taxes and any penalties thereon will constitute a lien against the lots and parcels
of land on which they will be annually imposed until they are paid. Such lien is on a parity with all
special taxes and special assessments levied by the City and other agencies and is co-equal to and
independent of the lien for general property taxes regardless of when they are imposed. The Special
Taxes have priority over all existing and future private liens imposed on the property except,
possibly, for liens or security interests held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. See "-
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure" below.
Development of land within the District is contingent upon construction or acquisition of
major public improvements such as arterial streets, water distribution facilities, sewage collection
and transmission facilities, drainage and flood protection facilities, gas, telephone and electrical
facilities, schools, parks and street lighting, as well as local in-tract improvements and on-site
grading and related improvements. Certain of these improvements have been acquired and/or
completed; however, there can be no assurance that the remaining improvements will be constructed
or will be constructed in time for development to proceed as currently expected. The cost of these
additional improvements plus the public and private in-tract, on-site and off-site improvements could
increase the public and private debt for which the land within the District is security. This increased
debt could reduce the ability or desire of the property owners to pay the annual Special Taxes levied
against the property. In that event there could be a default in the payment of principal of, and interest
on, the Bonds when due.
Neither the City nor the District has control over the ability of other entities and
districts to issue indebtedness secured by special taxes or assessments payable from all or a
portion of the property within the District. In addition, the landowners within the District
may, without the consent or knowledge of the City, petition other public agencies to issue
public indebtedness secured by special taxes or assessments. Any such special taxes or
assessments may have a lien on such property on a parity with the Special Taxes and could
reduce the estimated value-to-lien ratios for property within the District described herein.
48
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
Disclosures to Future Purchasers
The willingness or ability of an owner of a parcel to pay the Special Tax even if the value of
the parcel is sufficient may be affected by whether or not the owner was given due notice of the
Special Tax authorization at the time the owner purchased the parcel, was informed of the amount of
the Special Tax on the parcel should the Special Tax be levied at the maximum tax rate and the risk
of such a levy and, at the time of such a levy, has the ability to pay it as well as pay other expenses
and obligations. The City has caused a notice of the Special Tax lien to be recorded in the Office of
the Recorder for the County against each parcel. While title companies normally refer to such
notices in title reports, there can be no guarantee that such reference will be made or, if made, that a
prospective purchaser or lender will consider such Special Tax obligation in the purchase of a
property within the District or lending of mouey thereon.
The Act requires the subdivider (or its agent or representative) of a subdivision to notify a
prospective purchaser or long-term lessor of any lot, parcel, or unit subject to a Mello-Roos special
tax of the existence and maximum amount of such special tax using a statutorily prescribed form.
California Civil Code Section I 102.6b requires that in the case of transfers other than those covered
by the above requirement, the seller must at least make a good faith effort to notify the prospective
purchaser of the special tax lien in a format prescribed by statute. Failure by an owner of the
property to comply with the above requirements, or failure by a purchaser or lessor to consider or
understand the nature and existence of the Special Tax, could adversely affect the willingness and
ability of the purchaser or lessor to pay the Special Tax when due.
Non-Cash Payments of Special Taxes
Under the Act, the City Council as the legislative body of the District may reserve to itself
the right and authority to allow the owner of any taxable parcel to tender a Bond in full or partial
payment of any installment of the Special Taxes or the interest or penalties thereon. A Bond so
tendered is to be accepted at par and credit is to be given for any interest accrued thereon to the date
of the tender. Thus, if Bonds can be purchased in the secondary market at a discount, it may be to
the advantage of an owner of a taxable parcel to pay the Special Taxes applicable thereto by
tendering a Bond. Such a practice would decrease the cash flow available to the District to make
payments with respect to other Bonds then outstanding; and, unless the practice was limited by the
District, the Special Taxes paid in cash could be insufficient to pay the debt service due with respect
to such other Bonds. In order to provide some protection against the potential adverse impact on
cash flows which might be caused by the tender of Bonds in payment of Special Taxes, the Indenture
includes a covenant pursuant to which the District will not authorize owners of taxable parcels to
satisfy Special Tax obligations by the tender of Bonds unless the District shall have first obtained a
report of a Special Tax Consultant certifying that doing so would not result in the District having
insufficient Special Tax Revenues to pay the principal of and interest on all Outstanding Bonds and
any Parity Bonds when due.
Payment of the Special Tax is not a Personal Obligation of the Owners
An owner of a taxable parcel is not personally obligated to pay the Special Tax. Rather, the
Special Tax is an obligation which is secured only by a lien against the taxable parcel. If the value of
a taxable parcel is not sufficient, taking into account other liens imposed by public agencies, to
secure fully the Special Tax, the District has no recourse against the owner.
49
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Land Values
The value of the property within the District is a critical factor in determining the investment
quality of the Bonds. If a proper~y owner is delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes, the
District's only remedy is to commence foreclosure proceedings in an attempt to obtain funds to pay
the Special Taxes. Reductions in property values due to a downturn in the economy, the direct or
indirect consequences of military and/or terrorist actions in this country or abroad, physical events
such as earthquakes, fires or floods, stricter land use regulations, delays in development or other
events will adversely impact the security underlying the Special Taxes. See "THE COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT -- Estimated Value-to-Lien Ratios" herein.
The assessed values set forth in this Official Statement do not represent market values arrived
at through an appraisal process and generally reflect only the sales price of a parcel when acquired by
its current owner, adjusted annually by an amount determined by the San Diego County Assessor, not
to exceed an increase of more than 2% per fiscal year. No assurance can be given that a parcel could
actually be sold for its assessed value.
The Appraiser has estimated, on the basis of certain definitions, assumptions and limiting
conditions contained in the Appraisal, that as of June 15, 2003 the value of the land within the
District was $96,925,000. The Appraisal is based on the assumptions as stated in Appendix C --
"APPRAISAL REPORT." The Appraisal does not reflect any possible negative impact which could
occur by reason of future actions by the City under the GMOC or future slow or no growth voter
initiatives, any potential limitations on development occurring due to time delays, an inability of the
property owners within the District to obtain any needed development approval or permit, the
presence of hazardous substances within the District, the listing of endangered species or the
determination that habitat for endangered or threatened species exists within the District, or other
similar situations. The Appraiser has conditioned the Appraisal on four special conditions in addition
to the typical list of assumptions and limiting conditions, including that the value takes into
consideration the improvements to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds, the cost estimates
provided by the Developer are accurate and complete, building permits will be made available to
projects in the District in accordance with the schedule in the Monitoring Agreement and there are no
environmental or moratorium issues which would slow or thwart development of the District to its
highest and best use. See "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP -- Potential
Limitations on Development" and Appendix C -- "APPRAISAL REPORT."
Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should not assume that the land within the District could
be sold at a foreclosure sale for delinquent Special Taxes for the appraised amount in the Appraisal.
In arriving at the estimates of value, the Appraiser assumes that any sale will be unaffected by undue
stimulus and will occur following a reasonable marketing period, which is not always present in a
foreclosure sale. See Appendix C for a description of other assumptions made by the Appraiser and
for the definitions and limiting conditions used by the Appraiser.
No assurance can be given that any bid will be received for a parcel with delinquent Special
Taxes offered for sale at foreclosure or, ifa bid is received, that such bid will be sufficient to pay all
delinquent Special Taxes. See "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS -- Special Tax --
Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales."
5O
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Terrorism
Neither the City nor the Developer can predict the economic effect of the ongoing threat of
terrorism and the response of the United States government to terrorist acts or threats, though impacts
could be significant. No assurance can be given that the direct and indirect consequences of military
and/or terrorist activities in this country or abroad will not have an effect on the District~ the
Developer or the property owners in the District, which may include, among other effects, a
slowdown in home sales and a decrease in land values in the District.
FDIC/Federal Government Interests in Properties
The ability of the District to foreclose the lien of delinquent unpaid Special Tax installments
may be limited with regard to properties in which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the
"FDIC") has an interest. In the event that any financial institution making any loan which is secured
by real property within the District is taken over by the FDIC, and prior thereto or thereafter the loan
or loans go into default, then the ability of the District to collect interest and penalties specified by
State law and to foreclose the lien of delinquent unpaid Special Taxes may be limited.
The FDIC's policy statement regarding the payment of state and local real property taxes (the
"Policy Statement") provides that property owned by the FDIC is subject to state and local real
property taxes only if those taxes are assessed according to the property's value, and that the FDIC is
immune from real property taxes assessed on any basis other than property value. According to the
Policy Statement, the FDIC will pay its property tax obligations when they become due and payable
and will pay claims for delinquent property taxes as promptly as is consistent with sound business
practice and the orderly administration of the institution's affairs, unless abandonment of the FDIC's
interest in the property is appropriate. The FDIC will pay claims for interest on delinquent property
taxes owed at the rate provided under state law, to the extent the interest payment obligation is
secured by a valid lien. The FDIC will not pay any amounts in the nature of fines or penalties and
will not pay nor recognize liens for such amounts. If any property taxes (including interest) on
FDIC-owned property arc secured by a valid lien (in effect before the property became owned by the
FDIC), the FDIC will pay those claims. The Policy Statement further provides that no property of
the FDIC is subject to levy, attachment, garnishment, foreclosure or sale without the FDIC's consent.
In addition, the FDIC will not permit a lien or security interest held by the FDIC to be eliminated by
foreclosure without the FDIC's consent.
The Policy Statement states that the FDIC generally will not pay non-ad valorem taxes,
including special assessments, on property in which it has a fee interest unless thc amount of tax is
fixed at the time that the FDIC acquires its fee interest in the property, nor will it recognize the
validity of any lien to the extent it purports to secure the payment of any such amounts. Special taxes
imposed under the Mello-Roos Act and a special tax formula which determines the special tax duc
each year are specifically identified in the Policy Statement as being imposed each year and therefore
covered by the FDIC's federal immunity.
The District is unable to predict what effect the application of the Policy Statement would
have in the event ora delinquency in the payment of Special Taxes on a parcel within the District in
which the FDIC has or obtains an interest, although prohibiting the lien of the FDIC to be foreclosed
out at a judicial foreclosure sale could reduce or eliminate the number of persons willing to purchase
a parcel at a foreclosure sale. Such an outcome could cause a draw on the Reserve Account and
perhaps, ultimately, a default in payment on the Bonds.
51
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure
Bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws generally affecting creditors rights could adversely
impact the interests of owners of the Bonds in at least two ways. First, the payment of property
owners' taxes and the ability of the District to foreclose the lien of a delinquent unpaid Special Tax
pursuant to its covenant to pursue judicial foreclosure proceedings may be limited by bankruptcy~
insolvency or other laws generally affecting creditors' rights or by the laws of the State relating to
judicial foreclosure. In addition, the prosecution of a foreclosure could be delayed due to many
reasons, including crowded local court calendars or lengthy procedural delays.
Second, the Bankruptcy Code might prevent moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts
created under the Indenture from being applied to pay interest on the Bonds and/or to redeem Bonds
if bankruptcy proceedings were brought by or against the Developer and if the court found that the
Developer had an interest in such moneys within the meaning of Section 541 (a)(1) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
Although a bankruptcy proceeding would not cause the Special Taxes to become
extinguished, the amount of any Special Tax lien could be modified if the value of the property falls
below the value of the lien. If the value of the property is less than the lien, such excess amount
could be treated as an unsecured claim by the bankruptcy court. In addition, bankruptcy of a
property owner could result in a delay in prosecuting Superior Court foreclosure proceedings. Such
delay would increase the likelihood of a delay or default in payment of delinquent Special Tax
installments and the possibility of delinquent Special Tax installments not being paid in full.
On July 30, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion
in a bankruptcy case entitled In re Glaspl¥ Marine Industries. In that case, the court held that ad
valorem property taxes levied by Snohomish County in the State of Washington after the date that
the property owner filed a petition for bankruptcy were not entitled to priority over a secured creditor
with a prior lien on the property. Although thc court upheld the priority of unpaid taxes imposed
before the bankruptcy petition, unpaid taxes imposed after the filing of the bankruptcy petition were
declared to be "administrative expenses" of the bankruptcy estate, payable after all secured creditors.
As a result, the secured creditor was able to foreclose on the property and retain all the proceeds of
the sale except the amount of the pre-petition taxes.
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (the "Bankruptcy Reform Act") included a provision
which excepts from the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions, "the creation of a statutory
lien for an ad valorem property tax imposed by... a political subdivision of a state if such tax comes
due after the filing of the petition [by a debtor in bankruptcy court]." This amendment effectively
makes the Glaspl¥ holding inoperative as it relates to ad valorem real property taxes. However, it is
possible that the original rationale of the Glaspl¥ ruling could still result in the treatment of post-
petition special taxes as "administrative expenses," rather than as tax liens secured by real property,
at least during the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings.
According to the court's ruling, as administrative expenses, post petition taxes would be paid,
assuming that the debtor had sufficient assets to do so. In certain circumstances, payment of such
administrative expenses may be allowed to be deferred. Once thc property is transferred out of the
bankruptcy estate (through foreclosure or otherwise), it would at that time become subject to current
ad valorem taxes.
52
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The Act provides that the Special Taxes are secured by a continuing lien which is subject to
the same lien priority in the case of delinquency as ad valorem taxes. No case law exists with respect
to how a bankruptcy court would treat the lien for Special Taxes levied after the filing of a petition in
bankruptcy. Glasply is controlling precedent on bankruptcy courts in the State. If the Glasply
precedent was applied to the levy of the Special Taxes, the amount of Special Taxes received from
parcels whose owners declare bankruptcy could be reduced.
The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds
(including Bond Counsel's approving legal opinion) ~vill be qualified, as to the enforceability of the
various legal instruments, by moratorium, bankruptcy, reorgan'ization, insolvency or other similar
laws affecting the rights of creditors generally.
No Acceleration Provision
The Bonds do not contain a provision allowing for the acceleration of the Bonds in the event
of a payment default or other default under the Bonds or the Indenture.
Loss of Tax Exemption
As discussed under the caption "TAX MATTERS," the interest on the Bonds could become
includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactive to the date of issuance of the
Bonds as a result of a failure of the District to comply with certain provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended. Should such an event of taxability occur, the Bonds are not subject to
early redemption and will remain outstanding to maturity or until redeemed under the optional
redemption provisions of the Indenture.
Limitations on Remedies
Remedies available to the owners of the Bonds may be limited by a variety of factors and
may be inadequate to assure the timely payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds or to
preserve the tax-exempt status of the Bonds.
Bond Counsel has limited its opinion as to the enforceability of the Bonds and of the
Indenture to the extent that enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization,
fraudulent conveyance or transfer, moratorium, or other similar laws affecting generally the
enforcement of creditors' rights, by equitable principles and by the exercise of judicial discretion.
The lack of availability of certain remedies or the limitation of remedies may entail risks of delay,
limitation or modification of the rights of the owners of the Bonds.
Limited Secondary Market
There can be no guarantee that there will be a secondary market for the Bonds or, if a
secondary market exists, that such Bonds can be sold for any particular price. Although the District
and the Developer have committed to provide certain financial and operating information on an
annual basis, there can be no assurance that such information will be available to Bondowners on a
timely basis. See "CONTINUING DISCLOSURE." The failure to provide the required annual
financial information does not give rise to monetary damages but merely an action for specific
performance. Occasionally, because of general market conditions, lack of current information, or
because of adverse history or economic prospects connected with a particular issue, secondary
53
DOC SOC\978167v6~22245.0143
marketing practices in connection with a particular issue are suspended or terminated. Additionally,
prices of issues for which a market is being made will depend upon then prevailing circumstances.
Such prices could be substantially different from the original purchase price.
Proposition 218
An initiative measure commonly referred to as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" (the
"Initiative") was approved by the voters of the State of California at the November 5, 1996 general
election. The Initiative added ArticleXIIIC and Article XIIID to the California Constitution.
According to the "Title and Summary" of the Initiative prepared by the California Attorney General,
the Initiative limits "the authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related
assessments, fees and charges." The provisions of the Initiative have not yet been interpreted by the
courts, although several lawsuits have been filed requesting the courts to interpret various aspects of
the Initiative. The Initiative could potentially impact the Special Taxes available to the City to pay
the principal of and interest on the Bonds as described below.
Among other things, Section 3 of Article XIll states that "... the initiative power shall not be
prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or
charge." The Act provides for a procedure which includes notice, hearing, protest and voting
requirements to alter the rate and method of apportionment of an existing special tax. However, the
Act prohibits a legislative body from adopting any resolution to reduce the rate of any special tax or
terminate the levy of any special tax pledged to repay any debt incurred pursuant to the Act unless
such legislative body determines that the reduction or termination of the special tax would not
interfere with the timely retirement of that debt. On July 1, 1997, a bill was signed into law by the
Governor of the State enacting Government Code Section 5854, which states that:
"Section 3 of ArticleXIIIC of the California Constitution, as adopted at the
November 5, 1996, general election, shall not be construed to mean that any owner or
beneficial owner of a municipal security, purchased before or after that date, assumes the risk
of, or in any way consents to, any action by initiative measure that constitutes an impairment
of contractual rights protected by Section 10 of Article 1 of the United States Constitution."
Accordingly, although the matter is not free from doubt, it is likely that the Initiative has not
conferred on the voters the power to repeal or reduce the Special Taxes if such reduction would
interfere with the timely retirement of the Bonds.
It may be possible, however, for voters or the City Council acting as the legislative body of
the District to reduce the Special Taxes in a manner which does not interfere with the timely
repayment of the Bonds, but which does reduce the maximum amount of Special Taxes that may be
levied in any year below the existing levels. Furthermore, no assurance can be given with respect to
the future levy of the Special Taxes in amounts greater than the amount necessary for the timely
retirement of the Bonds. Therefore, no assurance can be given with respect to the levy of Special
Taxes for Administrative Expenses. Nevertheless, to the maximum extent that the law permits it to
do so, the District has covenanted that it will not initiate proceedings under the Act to reduce the
maximum Special Tax rates on parcels within the District to less than an amount equal to 110% of
Maximum Annual Debt Service on the Bonds. In connection with the foregoing covenant, the
District has made a legislative finding and determination that any elimination or reduction of Special
Taxes below the foregoing level would interfere with the timely retirement of the Bonds. The
District also has covenanted that, in the event an initiative is adopted which purports to alter the Rate
54
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, it will commence and pursue legal action in order to
preserve its ability to comply with the foregoing covenant. However, no assurance can be given as to
the enforceability of the foregoing covenants.
The interpretation and application of the Initiative will ultimately be determined by the courts
with respect to a number of the matters discussed above, and it is not possible at this time to predict
with certainty the outcome of such determination or the timeliness of any remedy afforded by the
courts. See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Limitations on Remedies."
Ballot Initiatives
Article XIIIA, Article XIII B and Proposition218 were adopted pursuant to measures
qualified for the ballot pursuant to California's constitutional initiative process. On March 6, 1995 in
the case of Rossi v. Brown, the State Supreme Court held that an initiative can repeal a tax ordinance
and prohibit the imposition of further such taxes and that the exemption from the referendum
requirements does not apply to initiatives. From time to time, other initiative measures could be
adopted by California voters. The adoption of any such initiative might place limitations on the
ability of the State, the City or local districts to increase revenues or to increase appropriations or on
the ability of the landowners within the District to complete the remaining proposed development.
See "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Failure to Develop Properties" herein.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to a Continuing Disclosure Agreement with the Fiscal Agent, as dissemination
agent (the "Disclosure Agreement"), the District, has agreed to provide, or cause to be provided, to
each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository and any public or private
repository or entity designated by the State as a state repository for purposes of Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)
adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (each, a "Repository") certain annual financial
information and operating data concerning the District. The Annual Report to be filed by the District
is to be filed not later than February 1 of each year, beginning February 1, 2004, and is to include
audited financial statements of the City. The requirement that the City file its audited financial
statements as a part of the Annual Report has been included in the Disclosure Agreement solely to
satisfy the provisions of Rule 15c2-12. The inclusion of this information does not mean that the
Bonds are secured by any resources or property of the City other than as described hereinabove. See
"SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS" and "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -- Limited
Obligations." The City has never failed to comply in all material respects with any previous
undertakings with regard to Rule 15c2-12 to provide annual reports or notices of material events.
The full text of the Disclosure Agreement is set forth in Appendix G.
To assist the Underwriter in complying with Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the Developer and the
Developer Related Entities (defined for the purposes of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement as,
collectively, the "Developer") will enter into a certain Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the
"Developer Disclosure Agreement") covenanting to provide Semi-Annual Reports not later than
February I and August 1 of each year beginning February 1, 2004. The Semi-Annual Reports
provided by the Developer are to contain the unaudited financial statements of the Developer and, if
available, the audited financial statements, and the additional financial and operating data outlined in
Section 4 of the Developer Disclosure Agreement attached in Appendix G.
55
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The Developer's obligations under the Developer Disclosure Agreement will terminate upon
the earliest to occur of: (a) the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all the
Bonds; (b)the date on which the Developer and all affiliates of the Developer are no longer
responsible for the payment of more than 20 percent of the annual Special Tax levy; or (c) the date
on which the Developer delivers to the City an opinion of nationally-recognized bond counsel to the
effect that the continuing disclosure is no longer required under the Rule. The Developer has also
agreed that if it sells or transfers an ownership interest in any property in the District which will
result in the transferee becoming responsible for the payment of 20 percent of the annual Special Tax
levy in the fiscal year following such transfer, the Developer will cause any such transferee to enter
into a disclosure agreement described in Section 12 of the Developer Disclosure Agreement attached
hereto in Appendix G.
The Developer has not previously failed to comply in all material respects with any previous
undertakings with regard to Rule 15c2-12 to provide annual reports or notices of material events.
The Developer Disclosure Agreement will inure solely to the benefit of the District, any
Dissemination Agent, the Underwriter and owners or beneficial owners from time to time of the
Bonds.
TAX MATTERS
In the opinion of Best Best & Krieger LLP ("Bond Counsel"), based upon an analysis of
existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters,
compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal
income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and is
exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel is of the further opinion that
interest on the Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or
corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observes that such interest is included
in adjusted current earnings when calculating federal corporate alternative minimum taxable income.
A complete copy of the proposed form of opinion of Bond Counsel is set forth in Appendix H hereto.
The Code imposes various restrictions, conditions and requirements relating to the exclusion
from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on obligations such as the Bonds. The
City has covenanted to comply with certain restrictions designed to insure that interest on the Bonds
will not be included in federal gross income. Failure to comply with these covenants may result in
interest on the Bonds being included in federal gross income, possibly from the date of original
issuance of the Bonds. The opinion of Bond Counsel assumes compliance with these covenants.
Bond Counsel has not undertaken to determine (or to inform any person) whether any actions taken
(or not taken) or events occurring (or not occurring) after the date of issuance of the Bonds may
adversely affect the value of, or the tax status of interest on, the Bonds. Further, no assurance can be
given that pending or future legislation or amendments to the Code, if enacted into law, or any
proposed legislation or amendments to the Code, will not adversely affect the value of, or the tax
status of interest on, the Bonds. Prospective Bondholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors
with respect to proposals to restructure the federal income tax.
Certain requirements and procedures contained or referred to in the Indenture, the Tax
Certificate, and other relevant documents may be changed and certain actions (including, without
limitation, defeasance of the Bonds) may be taken or omitted under the circumstances and subject to
56
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
the terms and conditions set forth in such documents. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion as to any
Bond or the interest thereon if any such change occurs or action is taken or omitted upon the advice
or approval of Bond Counsel other than itself.
Although Bond Counsel is of the opinion that interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes and is exempt from State of California personal income
taxes, the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds may
otherwise affect a bondholder's federal or state tax liability. The nature and extent of these other tax
consequences will depend upon the particular tax status of the Bondholder or the Bondholder's other
items of income or deduction, and Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any such other tax
consequences.
LEGAL MATTERS
Certain legal matters incident to the issuance of the Bonds are subject to the approving legal
opinion of Best Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, California ("Bond Counsel"). A copy of the
proposed form of opinion of Bond Counsel is set forth in Appendix H hereto. The opinion of Bond
Counsel will be qualified as to the enforceability of certain of the proceedings by limitations imposed
by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratoria and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights, heretofore or
hereafter enacted, and by the exercise of judicial discretion in accordance with general principles of
equity.
Bond Counsel has reviewed the cover page of this Official Statement and the portions hereof
under the captions "INTRODUCTION," "THE BONDS," "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOP, THE
BONDS" "TAX MATTERS" and in Appendices E and H, insofar as such portions purport to
summarize certain provisions of the Bonds, the Indenture, the legal procedures required for the
authorization of the Bonds, and the opinion of Bond Counsel concerning the exclusion of interest on
the Bonds from gross income, but Bond Counsel has not assisted in the preparation of or reviewed
the remainder of this Official Statement, and accordingly Bond Counsel expresses no opinion as to
the accuracy or sufficiency of any statements, material or financial information contained in the
remainder of this Official Statement.
Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City and the District by the City Attorney
and for the Underwriter by its counsel, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation,
Newport Beach, California ("Stradling"). Although it serves as counsel to the Underwriter in
connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, Stradling represents the City in connection with
other financings.
LITIGATION
No litigation is pending or threatened concerning the validity of the Bonds or the pledge of
Special Taxes to repay the Bonds and a certificate of the District to that effect will be furnished to the
Underwriter at the time of the original delivery of the Bonds. The District is not aware of any
litigation pending or threatened which questions the existence of the District or contests the authority
of the District to levy and collect the Special Taxes or to issue and retire the Bonds.
57
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
NO RATING
The District has not made and does not contemplate making application to any rating agency
for the assignment ora rating o£the Bonds.
UNDERWRITING
The Bonds are being purchased by Stone & Youngberg LLC (the "Undei~vriter'). The
Underwriter has agreed to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ (being $
aggregate principal amount thereof, less Under, vriter's discount of $ ). The purchase
agreement relating to the Bonds provides that the Underwriter will purchase all of the Bonds if any
are purchased. The obligation to make such purchase is subject to certain terms and conditions set
forth in such purchase agreement, the approval of certain legal matters by counsel and certain other
conditions.
The Underwriter may offer and sell the Bonds to certain dealers and others at prices lower
than the offering price stated on the cover page hereof. The offering price may be changed from time
to time by the Underwriter.
FINANCIAL INTERESTS
The fees being paid to the Underwriter, Underwriter's Counsel and Bond Counsel are
contingent upon the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. The fees being paid to the Financial
Advisor are partially contingent upon the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. From time to time,
Bond Counsel represents the Underwriter on matters unrelated to the Bonds and Underwriter's
Counsel represents the City on matters unrelated to the Bonds.
PENDING LEGISLATION
The District is not aware of any significant pending legislation which would have material
adverse consequences on the Bonds or the ability of the District to pay the principal of and interest
on the Bonds when due.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The purpose of this Official Statement is to supply information to prospective buyers of the
Bonds. Quotations and summaries and explanations of the Bonds and documents contained in this
Official Statement do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to such documents for full
and complete statements and their provisions.
58
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The execution and delivery of this Official Statement by the Director of Finance of the CiD'
has been duly authorized by the City Council acting in its capacity as the legislative body of the
District.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRiCT
NO. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six)
By:.
Director of Finance
59
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
APPENDIX A
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I
(Otay Ranch Village Six)
A Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property
within the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six)
collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in an amount determined by the
City Council through the application of the appropriate Special Tax for "Developed Property",
"Undeveloped Property", and "Provisional Undeveloped Property" as described below. All of the
Taxable Property in CFD-08-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for
the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meaning:
"'A' Map" shall mean a master final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which subdivides the land or a
portion thereof shown on a tentative map into "super block" lots corresponding to units or
phasing of a combination of units as shown on such tentative map and which may further
show open space lot dedications, backbone street dedications and utility easements required
to serve such "super block" lots.
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's
Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area
shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, parcel map, condominium plan, record of
survey, or other recorded document creating or describing the land area. If the preceding
maps for a land area are not available, the Acreage of such land area shall be determined by
the City Engineer.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of Califomia.
"Administrative Fees and Expenses" means the actual or reasonably estimated costs
directly related to the administration of CFD-08-1 including, but not limited to, the following:
the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection
schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of collecting the
Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs of remitting the
Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal counsel) in the
discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the City, CFD-08-I, or
any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements; the costs to the City,
CFD-08-1, or any designee thereof of providing continuing disclosure; the costs associated
with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries
regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, CFD-08-I, or any designee thereof related
to any appeal of the levy or application of the Special Tax; and the costs associated with the
A-I
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
release of funds from an escrow account, if any. Administrative Expenses shall also include
amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD-08-1, for any other administrative
purposes of CFD-08-I, including, but not limited to attorney's fees and other costs related to
commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure on an Assessor's Parcel with
delinquent Special Taxes.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels
by Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assigned Special Tax" means the Special Tax for each Land Use Class of Developed
Property as determined in accordance with Section C. 1 .a.
"Available Funds" means (a)the balance in the reserve fund established pursuant to the
terms of the Indenture in excess of the reserve requirement as defined in such Indenture,
(b) delinquent Special Tax payments not required to fund the Special Tax Requirement for
any preceding Fiscal Year,(c)that portion of Special Tax prepayments allocated to the
payment of interest on Bonds, and (d) other sources of funds available as a credit to the
Special Tax Requirement as specified in such Indenture.
"Backup Special Tax" means the Special Tax amount set forth in Section C. 1 .b.
"Bonds" means any bonds or other debt (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more
series, issued or incurred by CFD-08-I under the Act.
"Bond Year" means a one-year period beginning on September 2nd in each year and ending
on September 1 st in the following year, unless defined otherwise in the applicable Indenture.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD-08-I" means City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I.
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" means all Assessor's Parcels which are
(a) classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of City of Chula
Vista Ordinance No. 2002-2883 as amended on November 5, 2002 or (b) designated with
specific boundaries and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as a community
purpose facility.
"Council" means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD-08-I.
"County" means the County of San Diego.
A-2
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
"Developed Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a
building permit for new construction was issued prior to March I oFthe prior Fiscal Year in
which the Special Tax is being levied.
"Exempt Property" means property not subject to the Special Tax due to its classification as
either Public Property, Property Owner Association Property, Community Purpose Facility
Property, public or utility easements in accordance with section E. 1.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property, created by recordation of a final
subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment, approved by the City pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation o£
a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that creates individual lots for
which residential building permits may be issued without further subdivision of such
property.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Indenture" means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution or
other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or
supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table I of Section C. 1 .a.
"Lot(s)" means an individual legal lot created by a Final Subdivision Map for which a
building permit for residential construction has been or could be issued.
"Maximum Annual Special Tax" means the maximum annual Special Tax, determined in
accordance with the provisions of Section C, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any
Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, For which
a building permit(s) was issued for a non-residential use, excluding Community Purpose
Facility Property.
"Open Space" means property within the boundaries of CFD 08-1 which (a)has been
designated with specific boundaries and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as
open space, (b) is classified by the County Assessor as open space (c) has been irrevocably
offered for dedication as open space, prior to June 1st of the preceding Fiscal Year, to the
federal government, the State of California, the County, the City, any other public agency or
(d) is encumbered by an easement or other restriction required by the City limiting the use o£
such property to open space.
"Outstanding Bonds" mean all Bonds, which remain outstanding as defined in the
Indenture.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries of
CFD-08-1 which is (a)owned by a property owner association or (b)is designated with
specific boundaries and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as property owner
association property. As used in this definition, a Property Owner Association Property
includes any master or sub-association.
A-3
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
"Proportionately" means for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax
levy to the Assigned Special Tax or Backup Special Tax is equal for all Assessors' Parcels of
Developed Property within CFD-08-1. For Undeveloped Property or Provisional
Undeveloped Property "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy
per Acre to the Maximum Annual Special Tax per Acre is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of
Undeveloped Property and equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Provisional Undeveloped
Property within CFD-08-I.
"Provisional Undeveloped Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Public Property,
Property Owner Association Property, Community Purpose Faci|ity Property, Open Space or
other property that would otherwise be classified as Exempt Property pursuant to the
provisions of Section E, but cannot be classified as Exempt Property because to do so would
reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property below the required minimum acreage as set forth
in Section E.I for Zone A or Zone B as applicable.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD-08-1 that which (a) is
owned by a public agency, (b) has been irrevocably offered for dedication, prior to June 1st
of the preceding Fiscal Year, to a public agency or (c) is designated with specific boundaries
and acreage on an 'A' Map or Final Subdivision Map as property which will be owned by a
public agency. For purposes of this definition, a public agency includes the federal
government, the State of California, the County, the City or any other public agency.
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a
building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling
units.
"Residential Floor Area" means all of the square footage of living area within the perimeter
of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio,
enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Residential Floor Area shall be made
by the CFD Administrator by reference to appropriate records kept by the City's Building
Department. Residential Floor Area for a residential structure will be based on the initial
building permit(s) issued for such structure.
"Special Tax" means the annual special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each
Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount of Special Tax revenue required in any
Fiscal Year for CFD-08-I to: (i) pay annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds due in the
Bond Year beginning in such Fiscal Year; (ii) pay other periodic costs on Outstanding Bonds,
including but not limited to, credit enhancement and rebate payments; (iii)pay
Administrative Fees and Expenses; (iv) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish
any reserve funds for all Outstanding Bonds in accordance with the Indenture; and (v) pay
directly for acquisition and/or construction of public improvements which are authorized to
be financed by CFD-08-I provided that the inclusion of such amount does not cause an
increase in the levy of Special Tax on the Undeveloped Property; (vi) less a credit for
Available Funds.
"State" means the State of California.
A-4
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD-08-1
that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below.
"Trustee" means the trustee, fiscal agent, or paying agent under the Indenture.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal year, all Taxable Property not classified as
Developed Property.
"Zone A" means a specific geographic area as depicted in Exhibits A and 13 attached hereto.
"Zone B" means a specific geographic area as depicted in Exhibits A and B attached hereto.
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property within CFD-08-1 shall be
(a) categorized as being located in either Zone A or Zone B, (b) classified as Developed
Property, Undeveloped Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property and (c) subject to the
levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and D. Furthermore, all
Developed Property shall then be classified as Residential Property or Non-Residential
Property.
C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE
1. Developed Property
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's ?arcel of Residential
Property or Non-Residential Property shall be the greater of (1) the Assigned Special
Tax described in Table 1 which follows or (2)the 13ackup Special Tax computed
pursuant to 1 b. which follows.
a. Assigned Special Tax
The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property is
shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property within Zone A and Zone B:
Land Use
Class Description Assigned Special Tax
1 Residential Property $800 per unit plus $.35 per square foot of
Residential Floor Area
2 Non-Residential $6,000 per Acre
Property
b. Backup Special Tax
A-5
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
When a Final Subdivision Map is recorded within Zone A or Zone B the Backup
Special Tax for Residential Property, Non-Residential Property and Undeveloped
Property shall be determined as follows:
For each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Propert~ or Undeveloped Property to be
classified as Residential Property upon its development within the Final Subdivision
Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be the rate per Lot calculated according to
the following formula:
Zone A
$16,858 x A
L
Zone B
$26,445 x A
L
The terms above have the following meanings:
B = Backup Special Tax per Lot in each Fiscal Year.
A = Acreage classified or to be classified as Residential Property
in such Final Subdivision Map.
L = Lots in the Final Subdivision Map which are classified or to
be classified as Residential Property.
For each Assessor's Parcel of Non-Residential Property or Undeveloped Property
to be classified as Non-Residential Property upon the development thereof within the
Final Subdivision Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be determined by
multiplying $16,858 for Zone A and $26,445 for Zone B by the total Acreage of all
Non-Residential Property and Undeveloped Property to be classified as Non-
Residential Property upon the development thereof within the Final Subdivision Map
area.
Notwithstanding the foregoing if an Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Non-
Residential Property or Undeveloped Property for which the Backup Special Tax has
been determined are subsequently changed or modified by recordation of a new or
amended Final Subdivision Map, then the Backup Special Tax applicable to such
Assessor's Parcel shall be recalculated to equal the amount of Backup Special Tax
that would have been generated if such change did not take place.
2. Undeveloped Property and Provisional Undeveloped Property
A-6
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped
Property or Provisional Undeveloped Property shall be $16,858 per Acre for Zone A
and $26,445 per Acre for Zone B.
D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall
determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the amount of
Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each
Fiscal Year as follows:
First: The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property within Zone
A and Zone B at a rate up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the
Special Tax Requirement.
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Undeveloped
Property within Zone A and Zone B, at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special
Tax for Undeveloped Property. In determining the Acreage of an Assessor's Parcel of
Undeveloped Property for purposes of determining the annual Special Tax to be levied on
such Assessor's Parcel, the CFD Administrator shall not include any Acreage shown on any
applicable tentative subdivision map or other land use entitlement approved by the City that
designates such Acreage for a use that would be classified as Open Space, Property Owner
Association Property, Community Purpose Facility or Public Property.
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
two steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of
Developed Property whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is derived by the application of
the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up
to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Developed Property..
Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first
three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all
Provisional Undeveloped Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax
for Undeveloped Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any
Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property be increased by more than ten pement per year as a
consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of Special Taxes by the owner of any
other Taxable Property.
E. EXEMPTIONS
1. The CFD Administrator shall classify the following as Exempt Property: (i) Public
Property, (ii) Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Community Purpose Facility
Property, (iv) Open Space and (v) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements
making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the
easement; provided, however, that no such classification shall reduce the sum of all
Taxable Property to less than 40.98 Acres in Zone A and 42.43 Acres in Zone B.
A-7
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Property which cannot be classified as Exempt Property because such classification
would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than 40.98 Acres in Zone A
and 42.43 Acres in Zone B will be classified as Provisional Undeveloped Property
and shall be taxed pursuant to the fourth step of Section D. Tax exempt status for
purposes of this paragraph will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the
chronological order in which property becomes Exempt Property.
2. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any property which would be
classified as Public Property upon its transfer or dedication to a public agency but
which is classified as Provisional Undeveloped Property pursuant to paragraph I of
Section E shall be prepaid in full by the seller pursuant to Section H.I, prior to the
transfer/dedication of such property to such public agency. Until the Maximum
Annual Special Tax obligation for any such Public Property is prepaid, the property
shall continue to be subject to the levy of the Special Tax as Provisional Undeveloped
Property.
3. If the use of an Assessor's Parcel of Exempt Property changes so that such Assessor's
Parcel is no longer classified as one of the uses set forth in paragraph 1 that would
make such Assessor's Parcel eligible to be classified as Exempt Property, such
Assessor's Parcel shall cease to be classified as Exempt Property and shall be deemed
to be Taxable Property.
F. REVIEW/APPEAL COMMITTEE
Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their
Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD Administrator regarding such
error. If following such consultation, the CFD Administrator determines that an error has
occurred the CFD Administrator may amend the amount of the Special Tax levied on such
Assessor's Parcel. If following such consultation and action (if any by the CFD
Administrator), the landowner or resident believes such error still exists, such person may file
a written notice with the City Clerk of the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax
levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon the receipt of any such notice, the City Clerk shall
forward a copy of such notice to the City Manager who shall establish as part of the
proceedings and administration of CFD-08-I a special three-member Review/Appeal
Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee may establish such procedures, as it deems
necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall
interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the
annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein
specified. The decision of the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all
persons.
G. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as
ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD-08-1, may directly bill the
Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if
necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually
foreclose on Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property that are delinquent in the payment of
Special Taxes.
A-8
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
Tenders of Bonds may be accepted for payment of Special Taxes upon the terms and
conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders
shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically approved by the Council.
H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The following definition applies to this Section H:
"CFD Public Facilities' means those public facilities authorized to be financed by
CFD-08-1.
"CFD Public Facilities Costs" means either $20 million, or such lower number as shall be
determined either by (a)the CFD Administrator as sufficient to finance the CFD Public
Facilities, or (b)the Council concurrently with a covenant that it will not issue any more
Bonds to be secured by Special Taxes levied under this Amended Rate and Method of
Apportionment.
"Construction Fund" means an account specifically identified in the Indenture to hold funds
which are currently available for expenditure to acquire or construct the CFD Public
Facilities.
"Future Facilities Costs" means the CFD Public Facilities Costs minus that (a) portion of
the CFD Public Facilities Costs previously funded (i) from the proceeds of all previously
issued Bonds, (ii) from interest earnings on the Construction Fund actually earned prior to the
date of prepayment and (iii) directly from Special Tax revenues and (b) the amount of the
proceeds of all previously issued Bonds then on deposit in the Construction Fund.
"Outstanding Bonds" means all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding
after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year,
excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of
Maximum Annual Special Taxes.
1. Prepayment in Full
The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation may only be prepaid and permanently satisfied
for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Undeveloped Property for which a building
permit has been issued, or Provisional Undeveloped Property. The Maximum Annual Special
Tax obligation applicable to such Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation
of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax permanently satisfied as described herein;
provided, however that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent Special
Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an
Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation shall
provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of
receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the
prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a
reasonable fee for providing this figure, which can be collected prior to preparing such
calculation.
The prepayment amount shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as
defined below):
A-9
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
Bond Redemption Amount
plus Redemption Premium
plus Future Facilities Amount
plus Defeasance Amount
plus Prepayment Fees and Expenses
less Reserve Fund Credit
less Capitalized Interest Credit
Total: equals Prepayment Amount
As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be
calculated as follows:
Step No.:
1. For Developed Property, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the
Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Undeveloped Property for which a building
permit has been issued to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for
that Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property,
based upon the building permit, issued for that Assessor's Parcel. For Provisional
Undeveloped Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for
such Assessor's Parcel using the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped
Property.
2. Divide the Maximum Annual Special Tax computed pursuant to step 1 by the sum of
the total expected Maximum Annual Special Tax revenues which may be levied
within CFD-08-I excluding any Assessor's Parcels for which the Maximum Annual
Special Tax obligation has been previously prepaid.
3. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to step 2 by the principal amount of the
Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be retired and
prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount").
4. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to step 3 by the
applicable redemption premium on the next possible Bond call date, if any, on the
Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium").
5. If all the Bonds authorized to be issued for CFD-08-1 have not been issued, compute
the Future Facilities Costs.
6. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to step 2 by the amount if any, determined
pursuant to step 5 to compute the amount of Future Facilities Costs to be allocated to
such Assessor's Parcel (the "Future Facilities Amount").
7. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from
the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year
until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds.
8. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel.
A-lO
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
9. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal
Year, which have not yet been paid.
10. Determine the fees and expenses of CFD-08-1, including but not limited to, the costs
of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the
costs of redeeming Bonds from the proceeds of such prepayment, and the cost of
recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the
"Prepayment Fees and Expenses")
11. Compute the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the
reinvestment of the prepayment amount less the Prepayment Fees and Expenses, as
determined pursuant to step 10, from the date of prepayment until the redemption
date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment.
12. Add the amounts computed pursuant to steps 7 and 9 and subtract the amount
computed pursuant to step 11 (the "Defeasance Amount").
13. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the
expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any,
associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment,
or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in
the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the
prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no
event shall such amount be less than zero.
14. If any capitalized interest for the Outstanding Bonds will not have been expended at
the time of the first interest payment following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized
interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to
step 2 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest
payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit").
15. The Maximum Annual Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts
computed pursuant to steps 3, 4, 6, 10" and 12, less the amounts computed pursuant to
steps 13 and 14 (the "Prepayment Amount").
16. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to steps 3, 4, 12, 13,
and 14 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture
and be used to retire Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount
computed pursuant to step 10 shall be retained by CFD-08-1. The amount computed
pursuant to step 6 shall be deposited in the Construction Fund.
The Prepayment Amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of
Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be
retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next
prepayment of Bonds or to make debt service payments.
As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under
step 9 above, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy
for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel
A-Il
DOC SOC\978167v6X22245.0143
that is prepaid, the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the
Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on
such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax
shall cease.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless the
amount of Maximum Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within
CFD-08-I, both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum
annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds.
2. Prepayment in Part
The Maximum Annual Special Tax on an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property or an
Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued may
be partially prepaid. The amount of the prepayment shall be calculated as in Section H.I,
except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated according to the following formula:
PP = (PE x F) + A
These terms have the following meaning:
PP = the partial prepayment
PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H.1, minus Prepayment Fees
and Expenses determined pursuant to step 10.
F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the
Maximum Annual Special Tax.
A= the Prepayment Fees and Expenses determined pursuant to step 10.
The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Maximum Annual
Special Tax shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially prepay
the Maximum Annual Special Tax, (ii)the percentage by which the Maximum Annual
Special Tax shall be prepaid, and (iii)the company or agency that will be acting as the
escrow agent, if applicable. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a statement
of the amount required for the partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for
an Assessor's Parcel within 30 days of the request and may charge a reasonable fee for
providing this service.
With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is partially prepaid, the City shall (i) distribute the
funds remitted to it according to step 16 of Section H.I, and (ii) indicate in the records of
CFD-08-1 that there has been a partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax and
that a portion of the Maximum Annual Special Tax equal to the outstanding percentage
(1.00 - F) of the remaining Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to be authorized to
be levied on such Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section D.
I. TERM OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX
The Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to
the extent necessary to fully satisfy the Special Tax Requirement and shall be levied for a
period no longer than the 2039-2040 Fiscal Year.
A-12
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF MARKET ABSORPTION STUDY
Bol
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
meyersgroup
August 25, 2003 Building
Mr. Dino Serafini
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Californ/a 91910
Subject: Market Analysis and Absorption Prolection for CFD No. 08-I {Otay Ranch
Village Six)[ City of Chula Vista~ San Diego Connty~ California
Dear Mr. Serafini:
Pursuant to our agreement, we have completed our analysis relative to the above subject. The
following is an Executive Summary of the Absorption Analysis report conducted in support of
the above financing. This overview examines current reg/onal economic conditions that will
affect the demand for housing within CFD No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) during the
anticipated buildont period and provides an overview of the residential product program. The
Absorption Analysis analysis for this area was completed in July 2003.
A. Regional Overview
Success in the development and sale of the residential units within CFD 08-1 will be correlated
with the strength of national, regional and local economic conditions during the sales period.
Economic conditions in San Diego County still continue to support the development of all types
of residential housing in appropriate locations and the regional economy is expected to remain
positive in the near to medium tenn. All projects in CFD 08-I (Otay Ranch-Village Six) should
be sold-out in the next three years (2003-2005). Our review of key market indicators indicates
positive growth will continue in the foreseeable future.
Propelled by low interest rates, continued home price increases, high demand for housing and
improved consumer confidante following a swift resolution to the Iraq war, the San Diego
County housing market remains strong in the Second Quarter of 2003. San Diego County job
growth has slowed down considerably, but unemployment remains low and San Diego County
has managed to avoid recession and continue to expand moderately.
2002 was an excellent year for the housing market in San Diego, with just over 11,000 new
housing units sold countywide, the highest level since the late 1980s.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 2
There were 2,536 new homes sold countywide in the First Quarter of 2003, about a 17% decline
from First Quarter 2002 (sales are about the same however as First Quarter 2001). This sales
decline is due less to a dropoff in demand than to a drop in the number of active housing projects
and homes available for sale. There were 222 active new housing projects countywide in First
Quarter 2003, compared to 241 a year ago. Detached projects have declined the most, with 166
active projects countywide in Firat Quarter 2003, down from 199 in the same quarter a year ago.
By another data source, there were a combined 5,008 new and existing home closings in San
Diego County in April 2003, the highest level ever.
Perhaps more remarkable than the continued robust sales of housing in San Diego in the face of
declining job gains are that they come about despite record levels of home price appreciation in
recent years. The First Quarter 2003 detached median price reached $493,750 in the county, up
21.6% from the First Quarter 2002 median price (the median price per square foot is also up
20.9% to $191 in the past 12 months). Despite these price gains, demand for new housing is
strong due to home price appreciation (people are using equity to move up), low interest rates
and the availability of various mortgage instruments (adjustables, etc.). While housing is higher
priced in absolute terms than it was a decade ago, the impact of lower interest rates alone can
make monthly housing costs similar or even lower than lower-priced housing a decade ago.
Interest rates have trended up sharply in July 2003 to a one-year high of 6.34% in the first week
of August 2003. This rate increase is sudden, but absolute rates remain low in historical terms. It
is important to note that these rate increases are not a result of Federal Reserve policy changes,
but result from bond market trends as investors put faith in an improving national economy. In
the short term, interest rate trends continue to motivate home buyers to act now and sales remain
strong (the rate increases have reduced refmanaing activity).
Finally, the San Diego County region has continued to maintain a low level of housing supply.
The number of active projects has declined in the past year, particularly in the detached for-sale
market. At the end of First Quarter 2003, there were only 59 detached standing inventory units
countywide and 657 released, but unsold housing units. At a current detached sales rate of 574
units per month, this is a one to two month supply. The level of attached for-sale inventory is
also quite low.
San Diego's economic outlook is good. Employment gains have halted (this should be
monitored), but unemployment remains low. San Diego County had an unemployment rate of
4.1% in May 2003, compared to 6.3% in California and 5.8% in the nation. Defense spending
CiTY OF CHULAVISTA CFD No. 08-I
August25,2003
Page 3
and improved business investment will support the area's technology and defense~related
industries. Tourism, manufacturing and government sectors are healthy or stabilizing (the quick
end to the war in Iraq means that armed forces are returning home - a positive for the region).
While 2003 is expected to be a relatively flat to stable year for the economy, conditions are
expected to improve locally as the national economy (hopefully) moves forward in 2004.
The South submarket of San Diego has become a more attractive area to reside in the last five
years with several well-designed master plmmed communities in development and relatively
affordable home prices. One of the main drivers of this region is affordability. Home prices have
increased in South County, but the submarket's 2003 (lQ) median new-detached median home
price of $456,130 is still below the countywide median of $493,750. This comparison is
somewhat misleading because new housing priced under $500,000 is largely unavailable in other
areas of San Diego County (median home prices exceed $500,000 in the Inland North and
$620,000 in the Coastal North area). The availability of new detached homes in the $400,000s in
South County influences the county median home price downwards (the county median would
be even higher without the large numbers of more affordable South County home sales in the
mix). In the NoFdi County, similar sized homes are priced $75,000 to $100,000 or more higher
than South County options.
Most of the Otay Ranch Village Six product is in the under $500,000 price categories and the
product program also includes for-sale condominiums priced under $350,000. Condominiums
are selling well in South County as a relatively affordable alternative to increasingly expensive
detached housing. The South County rental market has absorbed a large number of rental un/ts in
the past few years. While premium rents relative to the past are being achieved, a combination
of large amounts of supply and a strong for-sale market that is providing incentive to buy instead
of rent are leading to lower than expected rents. There is strong demand for attached for-sale
products that are relatively affordable and this is leading to higher levels of condo conversion.
Otay Ranch - Village Six originally included one rental project of 336 units (Parcel R-8). Strong
market conditions for more affordable attached for-sale projects have led to this being converted
instead to for-sale ufuts.
While the South County area is historically more affordable, home prices are normalizing
somewhat, at least in the eastern Chnla Vista area as this area attracts more buyers from outside
the area and as the area develops a larger executive housing market. In the past year, the move-
up and executive housing segment has been one of the strongest in South County with strong
sales for housing priced over $500,000 (this segment represented 172 sales in First Quarter
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 4
2003). Home appreciation and interest rotes are enabling households to wade up at a time that
some larger lot, executive housing projects are being developed in communities like Rolling
Hills Ranch, Eastlake (Woods, Vistas) and Otay Ranch. As the area matures, it is supporting a
more diverse housing product, fi.om rentals to large custom homes in appropriate locations.
Residential growth in the southern portion of San Diego County, and specifically in the eastern
Chula Vista area, will continue. County new home sales will continue to shiR to the South
County submarket because of its relative affordability and large supply of developable land.
Established areas like Sunbow, the first Otay Ranch component (Villages One and Five) and the
fu'st phase of Lomas Verdas are now nearing buildout and projects to the south of Olympic
parkway (Villages Six and Eleven) and further east towards the mountains (San Miguel Ranch,
Rolling Hills Ranch, Eastlake) will continue to provide housing options.
B. Otay Ranch-Village Six Overview
The portions of Otay Ranch that are the subject of this analysis are the parcels in Village Six -
Otay Ranch that will be subject to the City of Chula Vista CFD 08-1. The planned residential
projects total 1,305 for-sale uints (516 detached and 789 attached for-sale). The master plan
originally included 336 rental units, but this project has been changed to 288 attached for-sale
units. Prasalas are already underway in early July 2003 for a few of the product lines (Cambria,
Madera II) and others will start selling in the next two quarters.
The Otay Ranch master plan is located east of the 805 Freeway in the eastern portion of the City
of Chuta Vista. The eastern Chula Vista area is a major area of new residential development
activity. With over 20,000 residential units being developed in a series of villages (nearly 5,800
units have been built or sold since late 1998), Otay Ranch is the largest single piece of land
available for residential and commercial development in San Diego County. The initial phase of
Otay Ranch (Villages One and Five) was bordered on the north by Otay Lakes Road and
Telegraph Canyon Road and on the south by Olympic Parkway (which is now completed and
open to traffic).
The Subject property w/ti be the next Otay Ranch Company portion of the villages to the south
of Olympic Parkway that are now being graded by Otay Ranch Company, McMillin, Shea
Homes and Brookfield Homes (joint venture) and others. The products in Village Six will
generally start sales in the Summer of 2003 and Village Eleven sales will take place starting in
early 2004. Village Six-Otay Ranch will be marketed as the Village of Hillsborough, which will
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 5
tie it to the prior village areas developed north of Olympic Parkway in Villages One and Five
(the Villages of Heritage, Countryside and Heritage Hills).
The Otay Ranch-Village Six product army is outlined in Exhibit I-1. The detached products are
broken into five distinct minimum lot sizes ranging fi.om 2,016 to 5,060 square feet and homes
will range from 1,250 to 3,525 square feet. Recommended June 2003 base prices range from the
low $300,000s to the mid $500,000s. The attached units will range from 950 to 1,510 square
feet, with projected base prices in the $240,000s to the $320,000s. Active residential projects in
South County are selling well and projected sales rates range fi.om 5.0 to 11.0 units per month.
Product openings are scheduled in Third and Fourth Quarter 2003 (models for some products are
under construction).
At this writing in late August, several of the Village Six products have started sales. Models for
Cambria (P,2a) and Willowbrook (R-2b) are open and Cambria has 30 reservations and
Willowbrook has 21 units reserved. Madera (R-5a) does not have models but has 20 sales and 8
reservations (out of 28 units released). Finally, The Willows (R-5b) are being marketed from
models in the Village Five area and there are 8 units reserved. Models are under construction for
three other neighborhoods (R-9a, R-7a and R-7b) and initial sales are underway.
Other uses in Village Six will include schools (a new high school is nearing completion), parks
and church sites. The Catholic Archdiocese of San Diego County has also purchased a large
parcel in Village Six fi.om McMillin for a new private high school facility to service the growing
residential population in South County.
C. Market Positioning of the Ota¥ Ranch Residential Products
The development plan for Otay Ranch Village Six is somewhat different fi.om prior areas of
Otay Ranch. The upcoming products are primarily entry-level and move-up detached for-sale
housing, including high-density detached products and a large number of attached for-sale units
in various product types. Parcel R-8 was originally planned for 336 rental units to be delivered
starting in mid-2004, but this product is now being changed to a 288-unit for-sale condominium
product that will start sales in the Fourth Quarter of 2003.
Positioning
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 6
Following is a positioning analysis comparing competitive active projects with the planned units
in CFD 08-I. In general, the Subject projects are on smaller lots (under 5,500 square feet) and
target the entry-level and initial move-up markets. The Otay Ranch Village Six product array
also includes a number of attached for-sale condominiums (789 out of 1,305 units).
Condominiums were limited to just one product in Villages One and Five and the increase in
product in Village Six results from strong market demand for more affordable for-sale product
options. Projects were broken down into three categories:
Attached and Small-Lot For-Sale Product
Five of the parcels in Village Six will are currently being planned as attached for-sale units and
four of the six detached for-sale parcels will be developed with small lot detached condos. The
attached products will include an array of six-plex, triplex, and duplex units. In addition, Parcel
R-8 will offer a higher-density condominium project (3-story) with attached and detached
garages. All of the competitive projects in South County offer lower density attached townhomes
with one and two-car garages and we have provided pricing at the bottom of the new attached
for-sale market that takes into account product differences ($240,000 to $265,000). The high-
density detached for-sale products will be situated on lots ranging from 2,000 to 3,450 square
feet. All of the products are positioned comparable with other entry-level housing projects in the
market.
The attached and smalMot subject properties have a projected absorption ranging from 5.0 to
11.0 homes per month, or 16 to 34 homes per quarter. There are currently only four active
attached projects in Eastern Chula Vista and several other less competitive projects throughout
South County. Alicante, an attached project in San Miguel Ranch is being developed by
Continental Homes. Alicante has base prices in the low $300,000s and the homes range in size
from 1,342 to 1,554 square feet. Alicante is a tri-plex/six-plex product, and has sold well
averaging just under 8.0 homes per month. Gold Rush, located in the Otay Ranch master planned
community recently opened in March 2003. Gold Rush, by D.R. Horton is priced in the high
$200,000s to low $300,000s and has units ranging in size from 1,030 square feet to 1,500 square
feet. Gold Rush has sold 30 homes to date, with an average monthly sales rate of 9.18 units per
month.
There are only four active small lot projects in Eastem Chula Vista. Aside from Madem II
(located in Village Six), Wild Iris and Sonora Ridge are the most recent small lot (less than
4,000 square feet) detached projects to open in Eastern Chula Vista. Wild Iris, located in the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 7
Village Five area of Otay Ranch (Countryside), has average 9.0 sales per month since opening in
February. The minimum lot size at Wild Iris is 2,850 square feet and units range in size from
1,550 square feet to 1,800 square feet (Wild Ids is an alley-loaded product). Base prices at Wild
Iris start in mid $300,000s. Sonora Ridge by William Lyon Homes is located in Eastlake Vistas.
Sonora Ridge has averaged 13.6 sales per months since opening in February. Prices at Sonora
Ridge are similar to Wild Ids ranging from the mid to high $300,000s (the product is a higher
density cluster courtyard project).
The South County housing market is booming and the high level of demand for affordably priced
housing in San Diego County and in the South County submarket will allow the subject
properties to establish the high sales pace currently being achieved at comparable projects in the
competitive market area. With products priced in the $200,000s and the $300,000s, the Village
Six product program will deliver relatively affordable for-sale residential products to entry-level
buyers. With the escalation of prices in the area in the past years and the increase in
development of homes priced over $400,000, this category has been relatively underserved and
Village Six product should meet with success.
Entry-Level/Initial Move-up Products (Lots Under 5,000 Square Feet)
Oakwood Development will develop one product, Willowbrook, in this category on 4,250
minimum square foot lots. The homes at Willowbrook will range in size from 2,280 to 2,500
square feet and are projected to sell at 5.0 units per month.
There are a variety of competitive midsize lot projects that are active in Eastern Chula Vista.
Altamira, and Meridian, on 4,500 minimum square foot lots, are the only midsize lot comparable
projects with lots under 5,000 square feet. Prices at Altamira are in the $450,000s and the
average sales rate is just over eight homes per month. Altamira, by Buie Communities, is located
in San Miguel Ranch. Meridian, by Conerstone Communities, has averaged 6.26 sales per
month since opening in September 2002. Units at Meridian range in size from 2,150 square feet
to 2,700 square feet and axe priced in the low to mid $400,000s
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-1
August 25, 2003
Page 8
Move-up Product (Lots Over 5~000 Square Feet)
The final for-sale product located in Village Six is Cambria by Trilogy. Cambria includes units
ranging in size from 2,800 square feet to 3,350 square feet. Presales at Cambria began in June
2003 and prices start in the low to mid $500,000s. Cambria is built on a 5,060 minimum square
foot lot. A sales rote of 5.0 units per month is projected.
The current competitive market consists of 12 active competitive projects throughout South
County in master planned communities such as tray Ranch, Easflake, Rolling Hills Ranch, and
San Miguel Ranch (Exhibit 1-10). The monthly sales rate for the established projects range from
2.3 units per month at Oakridge to 9.6 homes per month at Alexandria. Prices of competitive
move-up projects start in the mid $400,000s and peak in the low $700,000s. Homebnilders
include Continental Homes, Oakwood Development, Davidson Communities, Trimark Pacific,
RWR Development, Pacific Coast Communities, McMillm Homes, and Fieldstone
Communities. The primary buyers of this product type are move-up executives. There are a
variety of new projects in this consumer segment. Oakwood Development has three large lot
projects all actively selling in Otay Ranch. All three of these projects are averaging over 6.0
home sales per month.
Active New Home Market Conclusions
Eastern Chula Vista area master plans such as Otay Ranch, Eastlake, Lomas Verdes, Sunbow,
San Miguel Ranch and Rolling Hills Ranch have established the general area as a desirable one
with new homebuyers. Eastern Chula Vista has become an affordable option for San Diego
home buyers. Prices in the South Submarket continue to increase as the area becomes one of the
most popular areas for new development in San Diego County. All projects located in Village
Six seem logical when examined fi.om a price positioning point of view as many of them are
conservatively positioned. The San Diego housing market remains strong. Many projects are
selling homes as soon as they enter the market (at every price level). Nearly every project
continues to push prices upward with each new phase release.
D. Absorption Proiection for the CFD 08-1 Residential Products
A detailed buildout schedule was developed for the CFD 08-I development plan. The detailed
bnildout schedule is shown in Exhibits I-1 through 1-4.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 08-I
August 25, 2003
Page 9
Given the proposed product and pricing parameters, it is our conclusion that residential writs
within CFD 08-I should be fully built-out in the 2003-2005 period. As projected, the absorption
in Otay Ranch-Village Six will take place between Third Quarter 2003 (some projects are
akeady pre-selling) and the Fourth Quarter of 2005. Quarterly for-sale absorption ranges from 30
to 223 units, with an overall average of 130 sales per quarter over ten quarters. In contrast,
absorption in the larger Village One/Five area averaged 182 units per quarter (but product was
primarily detached and Village Six includes more affordable attached units as well).
The following is a list of the sales per year over the past five years for a few of the active South
County master plans:
· Otay Ranch (Villages One and Five) - 321 to 907 for-sale units per year; average of 729
units/year (not including +/-1,200 rental units)
Lomas Verdes (first phase) - 145 to 461 sales per year
· Eastlake - 272 to 656 sales per year
Sunbow - 173 to 309 sales per year
· San Miguel Ranch - 206 sales in the f~rst year
· Rolling Hills Ranch - 200 to 300 sales per year
Peak sales of up to 742 sales per year are projected for Otay Ranch-Village Six in the first full
year of development (2004). We project that at peak the community will be selling
approximately eleven distinct residential products at one time. In comparison, Otay Ranch-
Villages One and Five as a whole has achieved sales of 850 to 900 sales in the past two years.
Eastlake has achieved 503 sales in 2000 and 656 sales in 2001. About 800 sales are projected in
2003 in the Woods, Vistas and Trails North area. The first phase of the Lomas Verdes master
plan sold 145 homes in the first year of development, 461 in the second year and 337 in the third
year. The three-year average was 314 homes.
An annual average of sales in Village Six is somewhat misleading because the project will start
selling in mid-year and the last year (2005) is also a partial sales year. Our projection is for the
1,305 for-sale units in Village Six to basically sell out over an eight-quarter period (there am a
CITY OF CHULAVISTA CFD No. 08-1
August25,2003
Page 10
final 84 sales in the final two quarters), for a roughly two and a half year buildout. The sales rote
averages 130 units per quarter overall. For comparison purposes, Eastlake sold 2!2 units in First
Quarter 2003, Rolling Hills Ranch sold 52 units, San Migael Ranch sold 92 units and tray
Ranch sold 85 units. Stmbow, with just two projects left, sold 68 units in First Quarter 2003.
Absorption Assumptions and Impact of Monitoring System
The provision of needed infrastructure in step with new development is a critical policy for the
City of Chula Vista. The bonds for wh/ch this analysis was prepared will pay for needed
community infrastructure. The projected buildout of CFD 08-I will also necessitate other
infrastructure, including schools and parks.
Concern about the pace of growth in the community led Chula Vista to create a building permit
monitoring system in April 2003 that will affect this project (among others). Builders in the
Village Six area have agreed to a pen-nit monitoring plan (shown in Exhibit I-2). Builders in
Otay Ranch-Village Six (CFD 08-I) will be allocated 1,008 units between April 1q, 2003 and
March 31st, 2004, 299 permits in the second 12 months after that and 35 permits in the fmal 12
months.
Exhibit I-1 shows our projected absorption in Village Six. As discussed above, the residential
projects, which began selling in the Summer of 2003, are projected to sell out in 2005 at sales
rates of 15 to 35 units per quarter. This projection assumes that the projects will sell at
established absorption rates for similar products in the area and that a normal flow of product
availability can be maintained.
Measuring the impact of the monitoring system on sales or building schedules is tough at this
point. The monitoring system allows an agreed level of new development to take place and in
addition a number of projects that are currently active are not impacted (most of these non-
impacted projects should build out in 2003). We projected likely permit issuance in Exhibit I-2
to attempt to indicate what the impact on project absorption will be. The projection of when
building permits would be pulled is based on the sales pace projected in Exhibit I-1. We
assumed permits would be pulled three months prior to sales. Our projection is for 763 permits
in the first 12 month period (Second Quarter 2003 through First Quarter 2004) versus the 1,008
permits allowed in the monitoring agreement, 481 permits in the second 12 month period (versus
299 permits allowed) and 151 permits in the final 12 month period (versus 35 allowed). Our
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CFD No. 084
August 25, 2003
Page 11
assumption is that the builders will actually pull perroJts to the level allowed and/or "save" them
for the next year as needed.
In our projection, the permits are pulled over ten quarters between Second Quarter 2003 and
Third Quarter 2005. The sales projection calls for final sales to take place in the Fourth Quarter
of 2005. To clarify, under the monitoring system, the final permits will be allowed starting
in Second Quarter 2005 and this is consistent with our projected sales absorption of Otay
Ranch Village Six, which concludes sales in the Fourth Quarter of 2005. Along the way,
there may be some delay in product release or production if permits are slowed down, but
sales can proceed and the sales/permit schedule is more or less consistent.
Combined with a similar system impacting other competitive projects and with other growth
mitigation requirements that affect various projects, particularly in 2004 and beyond, the supply
of homes in the next few years should basically reach levels similar to that of the past few years.
If housing supply is constrained or drawn out in the face of continued strong demand such as is
now being experienced, upward pressure on pricing will continue.
This assignment was directed by Peter F. Dennehy, Managing Director. It has been a pleasure
working with the Financing Team on this assignment. We are available to answer any questions
you may have regarding the conclusions in this report.
Very truly yours,
THE MEYERS GROUP
12ti Y OF CHULA VISTA
Exhibit I - 4
COMPARISON OF BUILDING PERMITS AND NEW HOME SALES
San Diego County, South County and Otay Ranch Village Six
1980 - 2008
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY
Year Buiidine permits (D q~v Home Sales (2) New Sales
I
Ratio of Sales to
SF MF TOTAL TOTAL Fer/xdts -- TOTAL % of Coun~
1980 6.254 6.913 13.167
1981 3,915 5.083 8,998
1982 3,735 3.767 7,502
1983 11.052 9.729 20,781
1984 12,318 20,862 33,180
1985 12,890 25,349 38.239
1986 16.585 27.545 44.130
1987 15.466 15,143 30,609 14,253 47% 2.124 15%
1988 14,749 13,803 28,552 15,111 53% 1.388 9%
1989 10,856 7.854 18,710 10.425 56oA 994 10%
1990 6.621 9.175 15,796 6,842 430A 762 11%
1991 5,346 2.570 7,916 6,803 86~ 677 10%
1992 3.762 2.297 6.059 5.816 960/~ 648 11%
1993 4.076 1,526 5,602 5,393 96O3 621 12%
1994 5,247 1.688 6.935 6,013 87o/, 838 14%
1995 4,731 1,872 6.603 5,482 83%~ 822 15~
1996 5,816 1.052 6,868 6,063 88% 891 15°A
1997 8,336 3,066 11,402 8,275 73% 1.103 13°A
1998 9.561 2.984 12~545 8,413 67% 1.655
1999 9.993 6.434 16,427 8,307 51% 1.999 24~A
2000 9,167 6,760 15,927 8,307 52% 2.698 32~
2001 9,326 6.324 15.650 8,307 53% 2,662 32O3
2062 8.569 5.665 14,234 8,307 58%
Minimum 3,735 1,052 5,602 5,393 43% 621
Maximum 16,585 27.545 44,130 15,111 96% 2,698 32°3
Average 8.625 8,150 16.775 8,257 68% 1,325 15~
Median 8,569 6.324 14.234 8,291 63% 994 14%'
By Year, If Total New Home Salea Are:
San Di~'~o South [lay _Ot~v Ranch ViJlaee Six VILLAGE SIX CAPTURE
County Absorotion ** (3) ~uuty South Bay
2003 9,646 3.000 244 2.5% 8.1%
2004 9,646 3,000 742 7.7% 24.7%
2005 9.646 3,000 319 3.3% 10.6%
20~6 9.646 3,000 0 0.0% 0.0%
2007 9,646 3,000 0 0.0% 0.0%
2008 9.646 3,000 0
2009 9.646 3.000 0
TOTAL 1.305
0 0
Minimum 0 0,0% .
Average
Maximum 742 7.7%
261 2.7%
SOURCE: ( 1 ) Conslruclion Induslxy Research Board; (2) The Meyers Group; (3) Estimated f°r'sale abs°rpti°n per Exhibit I- 1 '
THE MEYERS GROUP
sd047rrecs-July
APPENDIX C
APPRAISAL REPORT
C-I
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT - COMPLETE APPRAISAL
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista
San Diego County, California
(Appraiser's File No. 2003-82)
Prepared For
City of Chula Vista
276 Fou~h Avenue
Chula Vista, C~ifornia
Prepared B,y
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
1056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202 115 E. Second Street, Suite 100
Ventura, California 93001 Tustin, California 92780
(805) 641-3275 (714) 544-9978
(805) 641-3278 [Fax] (714) 544-9985 [Fax]
BRUCE W. HULL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS
July 8, 2003
Mr. George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fou~h Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Reference: Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista
San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Krempl:
At your request and authorization, we have prepared an appraisal of the property within
Community Facilities District No. 08-I ("CFD-08-I"). CFD-08-I encompasses a proposed 1,305
residential unit development and a small commercial parcel, within a portion of Village Six
located in the master planned community of Otay Ranch in Chula Vista. The 1,305 residential
units are located within various planning areas. There are 809 residential units that have been
sold to various entities that are associated with the master developer, Otay Project L.P.
This appraisal takes into account the approval of a traffic monitoring agreement, which places a
limit on building permits on both an annual and per project basis over the next three years,
beginning in April 2003. The Monitoring Agreement was approved by the City of Chula Vista
in April 2003. The subject property is included in this Monitoring Agreement.
We have valued the fee simple estate for the property subject to the CFD-08-I special tax bonds.
The property has been graded with utilities currently being installed. This appraisal report is
based on the special assumption that the property is enhanced by the improvements and/or
benefits that are to be funded by the CFD-08-I special tax bonds.
We have estimated the values for the property as follows:
NINETY-SIX MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($96,925,000)
These values are stated subject to the Limiting Conditions, Special Assumptions, and Appraiser's
Certification as of June 15, 2003.
1056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202, Ventura, California 93001 * (505) 641-3275 - Facsimile (805) 641-3278
115 E. Second Street, Suite 100, Tusfln, Ca0fornia 92780 - (949) 581-2t94 - Facsimile (949) 581-2198
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
July 8, 2003
Page Two
This report is also subject to the following special assvtmptions:
1) That the reported value takes into consideration the improvement~ and/or benefits as a
result of the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I.
2) That no environmental or moratorium issues exist, which would slow or thwart
development of the site to its highest and best use.
3) That the cost estimates as provided by the master developer are accurate and complete.
4) That building permits are available to the projects within CFD-08-I in accordance with
the schedule currently in place under the City of Chula Vista Monitoring Agreement.
This report is defined as a Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal, and is intended to
comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice CLISPAP) effective January 1, 2003 for a Summary
Appraisal Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and
analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value.
Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the
appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the
client. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized uses of this report.
The following narrative Summary Appraisal Report sets forth the data and analyses upon which
our opinion of value is, in part, predicated.
Respectfully submitted,
State Certified General State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964) Real Estate Appraiser (AG004793)
TABLE OFCONTENTS
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................ i
Special Assumptions ............................................................................................................ iii
Purpose of the Appraisal ..................................................................................................... l
The Subject Property ...........................................................................................................
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 2
Intended Use of the Report .................................................................................................. 3
Owner of Record ................................................................................................................. 4
Three Year Sales History .................................................................................................... 5
Effective Date of Value ...................................................................................................... 6
Date of Report ..................................................................................................................... 6
Property Rights Appraised ................................................................................................. 6
Appraisal Development and Reporting Process .................................................................. 6
Description of General and Immediate Areas ..................................................................... 10
Immediate Surroundings ..................................................................................................... 16
San Diego County Housing Market .................................................................................... 17
Village Six SPA Plan .......................................................................................................... 25
City of Chula Vista Monitoring Agreement ........................................................................ 27
Community Facilities District No. 08-I ............................................................................... 30
Subject Property Description .............................................................................................. 31
Highest and Best Use Analysis ........................................................................................... 37
Valuation Process ................................................................................................................ 42
Valuation Analyses and Conclusions .................................................................................. 53
Marketing and Exposure Time ............................................................................................ 67
Appraisal Report Summary ................................................................................................. 68
Appraiser's Certification ..................................................................................................... 69
ADDENDA
Cost Allocation Schedules
Sources and Uses of Funds
Price per UniUDensity Graph
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Appraiser's Qualifications
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This Summary Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements
set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it might not include full discussions
of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the
appraiser's opinion of value. Supportin, g documentation concerning the data, reasoning,
and analyses is retained in the appraiser s file. The information contained in this report is
specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The
appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report.
2. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the subject property
is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report.
3. The property is appraised subject to the easements of record, the Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 special tax lien, all existing special tax liens, and as if free and clear of
any other liens anddor encumbrances.
4. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless
otherwise stated in this report.
5. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is
given for its accuracy.
6. All engineering is assumed to be correct. Any plot plans and illustrative material in this
report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
7. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or
structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such
conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them.
8. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report.
9. It is assumed that the property is in compliance with all applicable zoning and use
regulations and restrictions, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and
considered in this appraisal report.
10. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, and other legislative or
administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity
or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value
estimates contained in this report am based.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Olay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-IJ
Cio' of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page i
11. Any sketch contained in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included
only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this
report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is
expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for
the purpose of this report.
12. It iS assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or
property lines of the property described, and that no encroachment or trespass exists
unless otherwise stated in this report.
13. The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any
comment by the appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such
substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or
toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert
relating to asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous
materials that may affect the value of the subject property. The appraiser's value
estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the
property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No
responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or
engineering knowledge required to discover such conditions. The appraiser's
descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made
during the appraisal process.
14. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific
compliance survey having been conducted to determine whether the property is in
conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence
of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature and would
restrict access to the property by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property's
value, marketability, or utility.
15. Any proposed improvements are assumed to be completed in a good workmanlike
manner in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications.
16. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and
improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate
allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other
appraisal, and such allocations are invalid if so used.
17. This report may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom
it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and, in any event, only with
proper written qualification and in its entirety. Permission is given for this appraisal to be
published as a part of the Official Statement or similar document for the bonds to be
issued by Community Facilities District No. 08-I.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page ii
18. No portion of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other
than the appraiser's or firm's client, through advertising, solicitation or public relations
materials, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the
author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with
which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or MAI.
Furthermore, the appraiser and firm assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to
any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall
make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.
SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS
1. That the reported value takes into consideration the improvements and/or benefits
financed as a result of the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I.
2. That no environmental or moratorium issues exist, which would slow or thwart
development of the site to its highest and best use.
3. That the costs provided by the master developer are accurate and complete.
4. That building permits are available to the projects within CFD-08-I in accordance with
the schedule currently in place under the City of Chula Vista Monitoring Agreement.
SuramaO, Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. RT. R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page iii
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this Summary Appraisal Report is to provide the appraiser's best estimate of
market value of the fee simple estate for the subject property, subject to the City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District 08-I special tax lien, which encompasses eleven residential
planning areas of Village Six within the master planned community of Otay Ranch, located in
Chula Vista, California. The master developer is Otay Project LLC ("Otay Project"). The lands
covered by CFD-08-I consist of approximately 189 gross~ acres and are proposed for 1,305
residential units. All of the property has been graded with most offsite infrastructure completed.
In-tract improvements have begun within the majority of the planning areas. In the case at hand,
the market value of the subject property is determined taking into consideration the special tax
lien of CFD-08-I.
TFIE SUB,.IECT PROPERTY
The subject property consists of approximately 189 gross acres divided into five residential
planning areas and a commercial planning area. Most of the planning areas have been
subdivided into smaller tracts for residential neighborhoods. In addition there is a park site, and
a community purpose site, however these are not included within this appraisal report. The
subject property is designated for 516 detached residential units and 789 attached dwelling units
and a commercial site.
The master developer, Otay Project, L.P. has sold the four planning areas planning areas to
related entities of Otay Project. The planning areas are detailed on the following page.
i Otay Ranch Village Six - Otay Project portion - includes lots designated for community purpose and all road
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Builder Minimum
Planning Area Units Lot Size
Detached
R-2A 92 5,060 sf
R-2B 106 4,250 sf
R-5A 51 3,450 sf
R-5B 55 3,450 sf
R-9A 139 2,890 sf
R-9B(2) 73 2,016 sf
i Subtotal 516
Attached
R-7A 92 Duplex
R-7B(1) 105 Triplex
R-7B(2) 96 Triplex
R-8 Ph.1 169 Condos
R-8 Ph.2 119 Condos
R-gB(1)Ph. 1 54 Sixplex
R-9B(1)Ph.2 105 Sixplex
R-9D 49 Duplex
Subtotal 789
MU-I 2.95 Comm.
: Totals 1,305 residential units
2.95 acres commercial
DEFINITIONS
.Market Value
The term market value as used in this appraisal report is defined by Federal Register, Vol. 55,
No. 165, Friday, August 4, 1990, rules and regulations, 12 C.F.R. part 34.42(f) as:
"The most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer
and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not
affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale
as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions
whereby:
I) buyer and seller are typically motivated;
Sutnma~ Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Count).. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates. Inc. Page 2
2) both parties are well informed or sell advised, and acting in what they consider
their own best interest;
3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5) the price represents the normal consideration for the proper~, sold unaffected
by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale."
Finished Lot
The term "finished lot" is defined as:
"A parcel which has legal entitlements created by a recorded subdivision map,
whose physical characteristics are a fine graded level pad with infrastructure
contiguous to each individual lot, asphalt paved road, and the necessary utilities.
This term assumes the payment of all applicable development fees with the exception
of building permit and plan check fees."
Blue-Top Lot
The term "blue-top lot" is defined as:
A parcel which as legal entitlements created by a recorded subdivision map, whose
physical characteristics are graded pads with streets cut in and utilities stubbed to
the property line."
INTENDED USE OF THE REPORT
It is the appraiser's understanding that this Summary Appraisal Report is intended to assist the
client, the City of Chula Vista, in determining the feasibility of issuing bonds secured by all
properties subject to special taxes within CFD-08-I. This report may be included in the Official
Statement for the offering of the bonds. It is the appraiser's understanding that no other intended
uses of this report exist.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Olay Project Portion of Village Six - Olay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R 7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 3
OWNER OF RECORD
The following table lists the ownership for the various planning areas within the subject
property.
Planning Land Number of
Area Use Units/Lots Builder Ownership
R-2A SFD 92 Trilogy Otay Ranch 2-A, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-2B SFD 106 Oakwood Otay Ranch Seven, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-5A SFD 51 Oakwood Otay Ranch Eight, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-SB SFD 55 PCC Otay Ranch VI-I, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-7A MF 92 Rimrock Otay Ranch R-7A, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-7B 1 MF 105 Rimrock Otay Ranch R-7B LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-TB2 MF 96 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-8(1) MF 169 Rimrock Otay Ranch R-8, LLC, a Delaware
~imited liability company
R~8(2) MF 119 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-9A SFD 139 Oakwood Otay Ranch Nine LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
R-9B 1(1) MF 54 N/A : Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-9B 1(2) ~ 105 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-9B2(1) MF 51 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-9B2(2) MF 22 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
R-9D MF 49 N/A Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
MU-1 C 2.95 Acs. Commercial Otay Project, L.P., a California limited
partnership
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 4
THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY
The entire subject property and additional lands were purchased by related entities of Otay
Project L.P. in 1997. There are have been eight sales to related entities of Otay Project and
should not be considered as arms length transactions according to the seller. All lands were sold
based on a blue top condition. The sales for the subject property are detailed as follows.
Planning Area R-2A (92 detached lots with a rmnimum lot size of 5,060 square feet) sold to
Otay Ranch R-2A, LLC for $113,773 per lot. This transaction sold in a blue-top condition and
closed October 25, 2002.
Planning Area R-2B (106 detached lots with a minimum lot size of 4,250 square feet) sold to
Otay Ranch Seven, LLC for $104,571 per lot. This transaction sold in a blue-top condition and
closed September 25, 2002.
Planning Area R-5A (51 detached lots with a minimum lot size of 3,450 square feet) sold to
Otay Ranch Eight, LLC for $96,287 per lot. This transaction sold in a blue-top condition and
closed December 26, 2002.
Planning Area R-5B (55 detached lots with a minimum lot size of 3,450 square feet) sold to
Otay Ranch VI-l, LLC for $100,287 per lot. This transaction sold in a blue-top condition and
closed on November 18, 2002.
Planning Area R-7A (92 multi-family units with a density of 14.33 units per acre) sold to Otay
Ranch R-7A, LLC for $73,370 per unit. This transaction sold in a sheet graded condition and
closed on December 26, 2002.
Planning Area R-7B Phase 1 (105 multi-family units with a density of 13.83 units per acre)
sold to Otay Ranch R-7B, LLC for $62,000 per unit. This transaction sold in a sheet graded
condition and closed on October 23, 2002.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7. R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Planning Area R-9A (139 detached lots with a minimum lot size of 2,720 square feet) sold to
Otay Ranch Nine, LLC for $94,850 per lot. This transaction sold in a blue-top condition and
closed on September 25, 2002.
Planning Area R-8 Phase 1 (169 detached condominium lots with a density of 19.14 units per
acre) sold to Otay Ranch R-8, LLC for $30,000 per unit. This property sold in a sheet graded
condition and closed on October 16, 2002.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE
Opinions and matters expressed herein are stated as of June 15, 2003.
DATE OF REPORT
The date of this report is July 8, 2003.
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property rights appraised are the fee simple rights subject to easements of record and the
special tax lien of CFD-08-I.
APPRAISAL DEVELOPMENT AND REPORTING PROCESS
The purpose of this Summary Appraisal Report is to provide the appraiser's best estimate of
market value for the subject property, which is proposed for the development of 1,305 residential
units and a small commercial site. The valuation for the subject property will take into
consideration the special tax lien of CFD-08-I and the improvements and/or credits and benefits
to be funded by CFD-08-I. In addition, the valuation will take into account the Monitoring
Summa~ Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village SLY - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 6
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
Agreement. It is a special assumption of this report that building permits are available to the
projects within CFD-08-I in accordance with the schedule currently in place under the
Monitoring Agreement (further discussed in the City of Chula Vista Monitoring Agreement
Section presented later within this report).
In appraising the subject property, the value estirnate will be based on the property's highest and
best use conclusion and will utilize both the Sales Comparison Approach to value and a
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. The subject property is under construction. The master
developer has sold four planning areas to related entities of Otay Project, the master developer.
In valuing the property, the most appropriate unit of comparison for each property type will be
determined. Due to related entities of Otay Project being the managing partner of all of the
master developer owned properties and the four sold planning areas; a Discounted Cash Flow
Analysis will apply. This will include the determination of an absorption period and the costs
associated with selling the remaining lots. As the subject property is currently vacant land, the
income and cost approaches do not apply.
The summary appraisal will be presented in the following format:
· Description of General and Immediate Areas
· Discussion of the San Diego County Housing Market
· Description of the Subject Area's Sectional Planning Area Plan
· Discussion of Community Facilities District No. 08-I
· Description of the Subject Property
· Highest and Best Use Analysis
· Valuation Analysis and Conclusions
· Appraisal Report Summary
As stated, in valuing the subject property, we will also use the Sales Comparison Approach to
Value. This approach compares similar properties that have recently sold or are currently listed
to the subject property. The approach is defined on the following page.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 7
"...an appraisal procedure in which the market value estimate is predicated upon
prices paid in actual market transactions and current listings, the former fixir~g the
lower limit of value in a static or advancing market (price wise), and fixing the
higher limit in a declining market; and the latter fixing the higher limit in any
market. It is a process of analyzing sales of similar, recently sold properties in order
to derive an indication of the most probable sales price of the property being
appraised."
For the single-family residential product, the market considers the appropriate unit of
comparison on a finished lot condition. As the majority of the property is not yet completed to a
finished lot condition, after a finished lot value is determined for the various products, the costs
to develop the properties to their finished lot condition need to be addressed. That is, if a single-
family detached planning area is partially finished and the most appropriate unit of comparison is
on a finished lot basis, the costs remaining to be spent on the property to bring the site to a
finished condition need to be considered. For the multi-family residential sites, the most
appropriate unit of comparison is on a per unit basis in a super-pad condition. Again, the
remaining costs to develop the properties to a super-pad condition will be considered. For the
commercial site, the most appropriate unit of comparison is on a per square foot basis for the
mass graded lot.
Due to the single ownership of the properties by Otay Project related entities; a Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis needs to be considered to arrive at a value for the property. The Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis is defined as:
"The t~rocedure for valuing undeveloped acreage that involves discounting, the cost
of deVelopment ~nd the probable proceeds from the sale of developed sites"~
First, the retail value of the finished lots will be determined, then the development costs will be
considered, followed by an estimated absorption period for the selling of the lands. Next,
marketing and sales costs will be addressed, along with the costs associated with the carrying of
the property over the absorption period. Finally, a discount rate that accounts for the risk
2The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, AREA, 1989
Summary Appraisal Reporl - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7. R8, R9 and MU-I)
CiG of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 8
Bruce W. Hull & Associate& Inc.
associated with the development of the lots, the time value of money, and a profit due to the
developer will be considered.
The due diligence of this appraisal assignment included the following.
1) Compilation of certain demographic information, and then relating such data to the
subject property to determine a feasibility/demand analysis.
2) Interviews with the property owners to obtain available information on the subject
property. The interviews included reviewing cost estimates to determine their validity.
3) A review of the Otay Ranch Village Section Planning Area Six Plan Land Use
Document.
4) A review of the Marketing Report and Absorption Study prepared by The Meyers Group
Consulting Services dated September 22, 2002 that covers the subject property. This
report indicates an estimated absorption period for selling the master developer-owned
lands to individual homebuyers.
5) A review of the sales documents for the subject sales provided by the master developer
for the recently closed sales and current escrows of planning areas to related entities to
the master developer.
7) A review of a preliminary title report prepared by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company dated April 23, 2002.
8) Reviewed available information provided by the City in regards to the Monitoring
Agreement.
9) A physical inspection of the subject property including the current status of development
and unique features.
10) An extensive review of the total cost estimates for the project; the costs spent to date, and
the remaining costs to develop the property to saleable condition (i.e., for single-family
detached lots to a finished lot and for multi-family sites and the commercial site to a
superpad condition).
11) An extensive search of the area for relevant comparable transactions, both sales and
offerings. Interviews with appropriate parties were then conducted to ascertain pertinent
information relating to each transaction.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Visto~ San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 9
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL AND IMMEDIATE AREAS
General Surroundings
The subject property is located in the southern portion of San Diego County (the "County"). The
County is located in the southwestern corner of the State of California, and borders Mexico to
the south, Imperial County to the east, and Riverside and Orange Counties to the north. The
Pacific Ocean is its western border. The County encompasses approximately 4,250 square miles
and includes terrain from ocean beaches to foothills to mountains and deserts. The San Diego
region has experienced faster growth rates than most of California during the past several
decades. According to the California Department of Finance, the July 1, 2002 population for the
County was 2,935,100.
The City of Chula Vista (the "City") incorporated in 1911 and encompasses an estimated 50.1
square miles. The City is located 7 miles southeast of downtown San Diego, with easy access to
the County seat. During 1997, the City annexed 9,100 acres, the largest annexation in County
history. This annexation included the subject area.
Population
The County has experienced an increasing growth pattern for several decades. Between January
1990 and January 2002, the population grow from 2,480,072 to 2,911,300, or an annual average
of approximately 1.4 percent. However, between January 1998 and January 2000, the population
increased by 116,683 persons, or an annual average of approximately 2.1 percent. This two-year
increase is due in part to major growth in the South Bay area (in which the subject property is
located). Between July 1, 2001 and July I, 2002 the population increased 1.85 percent,
suggesting a slight slowdown from the previous two years, however an increase over the average
annual increase over the past 12 years.
Based on census data, between January 1990 and January 2000, the City population grew from
135,163 to 174,319, which equates to an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. However,
between January 1998 and January 2002 the average annual increase was 4.29 percent based on
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R& R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, lnc. Page ]0
the January 2002 population of 190,900. This figure is significantly higher than the average over
the decade as a whole. The subject area has grown at a substantially higher rate than the overall
County during this period.
The population growth over the past decade in both the County and the City illustrates the results
of the economic recession that affected Southern California during 1990 to 1994. The growth in
area population since January 1998 depicts the economic growth in the region. The population
in the City reflects the recent annexations and new development. Current projections are for the
population growth rate to continue to exceed 2 percent per year, which is considered to be a
healthy, sustainable rate of growth.
Economics
Per the State of California Employment Development Department, the unemployment rate for
the County as of May 2003 was 4.1 percent. Following is a chart showing unemployment rates
for other relevant areas.
i Jurisdiction As of Unemployment Rate
Los Angeles County 05/03 6.3%
Riverside/San Bemardino County 05/03 5.4%
Orange County 05/03 3.6%
San Diego County 05/03 4.1%
State of California 05/03 6.3%
United States 05/03 5.8%
Source: State of California E.D.D.
AS shown, the County has a favorable unemployment rate compared to most surrounding
counties, the State of California, and the nation as a whole. Compared to January 2003,
unemployment rates in the subject and surrounding counties have decreased slightly from 4.4
percent. Typically Southern California follows the nation and overall state in both entering a
recession and coming out of a recession, although the area had been resilient in the last mild
downturn of 2001.
Summao, Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Count., California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 11
As stated, the economic climate in the United States as a whole slowed in the latter part of 2001.
The tragic events of September 1 l, 2001 impacted the national economy on a short-term basis.
The Southern California economy has been strong, particularly in the housing market. At the
beginning of 2002 the indications were that the national economy was entering a recovery mode
from the mild recession of 2001. Throughout 2002 however, the recovery was slow to tepid
recovery. Thus far in 2003 the stock market has been volatile with economic statistics providing
a mixed message for the economy.
Housing statistics appear to remain strong for certain areas within Southern California, including
San Diego and Orange Counties. The effects of the events of September 11 and other terrorist
activities on real estate values in these areas did not appear to have a lasting affect. We have
interviewed several builders in Southern California, including those with active projects in the
San Diego market. Although a slowdown occurred in the housing market during the months of
September and October 2001, the lowering of interest rates appears to have buyers in the market
with strong sales once again in both 2002 and thus far in 2003.
Within the City, economic growth in the last part of the 1990s saw a significant increase. In
1998, Raytheon, a defense electronics firm, opened a 100,000 square foot facility that employs
250 workers. Solar Turbines leased 92,000 square feet, and B.F. Goodrich Aerospace announced
plans to move jobs from its Arkansas operation to Chula Vista. Attractions within the City
include the ARCO U.S. Olympic Training Center, the Coors Amphitheatre, Knott's Soak City
U.S.A., the Chula Vista Yacht Harbor, the National Wildlife Refuges and the Chula Vista Nature
Center.
Housing
The 1990-94 recession had an impact on construction starts. This downturn was represented by
lower housing starts and higher unemployment rates. The resulting factors of lower growth,
higher vacancies, and higher unemployment had major impacts on real estate development in
most of Southern California during that period. The following table depicts housing growth
trends in the County.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8. Rg and MU- l )
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Number of Houses
Years Constructed
2000 - 2003 59,170'
1995 - 1999 53,478
1990- 1994 42,300
1985 - 1989 146,421
1980- 1984 89,628
1970 - 1979 258,234
1950 - 1969 299,055
1949 or prior 94,065
* Based on YTD annualized estimates
This table shows the slowdown from the early 1990s recession, along with the increase toward
the end of the 1990s. Between 1996 and 1997, there was a 28 percent increase in new homes;
between 1997 and 1998 there was a 7 percent increase; and between 1998 and 1999 there was a
35 percent increase. This growth pattern is indicative of the current positive growth in the
County's economy. In the City, them were 3,642 new residential building permits issued
between the years 1990 and 1994 and 6,561 new residential building permits issued between the
years 1995 and 1999. In 2000 through 2003 (estimated based on YTD annualized amounts)
there will be 11,306 new residential building permits issued in the City of Chula Vista.
The City has recently approved a Monitoring Agreement that links the amount of building
permits within certain portions of the City to the construction of certain roadway infrastructure.
This Monitoring Agreement allows for a certain number of new residential units to be
constructed within several master planned communities located in the City over the next three
years. This Monitoring Agreement will be discussed in detail later within this report.
Transportation
Four major interstate freeways bisect the County: Interstate 5, Interstate 15, Interstate 8, and
Interstate 805. Interstate 5 is the major north/south arterial throughout the State of California. It
generally follows the coastal route throughout the County. Interstate 15 is also a north/south
arterial; however, it is located inland in the more mountainous regions of the County. Interstate
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 0Sd
Otay Project Portion of Village Sic - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 13
8 provides east/west access through the County, while Interstate 805 generally parallels Interstate
5 beginning near Del Mar, providing an inland route south to near the Mexican border.
Both Interstate 5 and Interstate 805 bisect the City. Access to the subject property is via
Interstate 805 to Olympic Parkway, then east approximately three miles to the northern border of
the subject property. There will be major on/off ramps on Interstate 805 at Olympic Parkway.
Future access will be via SR 125 to Olympic Parkway near the subject property. SR 125 will
provide enhanced access to the subject property in the near future. Plans for SR 125 have begun,
with financing currently being obtained. Currently the design-build contractor estimated SR 125
would be open by the end of 2005. There has previously been some litigation from
environmental groups attempting to stop construction of SR 125. It is the appraiser's
understanding that an agreement has been reached with the environmental groups and no further
litigation is expected.
The County is well serviced by Amtrak and Metrolink. In addition, downtown San Diego has a
trolley which provides access around the downtown area and to the Mexican border. The San
Diego International Airport, located near downtown, also serves the County.
Conclusion
During the 1970s and 1980s, the County experienced substantial population growth, resulting in
significant residential, industrial, and commercial development. The recession of the early 1990s
had some dramatic impacts on the County as a who]e; however, the long-term forecast is for
continued substantial growth for the County. As previously discussed, homebuilders have been
buying land and building homes at significant rates for the past six to seven years. It is our
opinion that current primary concerns (national economic uncertainty, rising unemployment and
lower consumer confidence) relate to economic cycles that are typical for the nation since the
end of World War II. Such growth and recession cycles have occurred at least six times in the
last 55 years, with both "boom" and "bust" portions of the cycle seeming longer in duration in
recent years. There were indications of an economic recovery for the nation as a whole at the
beginning of 2002, however with the volatility of the stock market and weakening dollar, the
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 14
economic recovery slowed from what was anticipated at the beginning of 2002. Thus far in 2003
there has been signs of recovery once again; however, the impact of the recent war in Iraq and
recent terrorist events does provide some uncertainty. On a more micro level, most areas of the
County, especially the housing market, have not shown signs of slowing. In addition, the City
has seen significant growth due to the recent annexations, new commerce, new housing starts,
and little slowdown in its economy. This has prompted the City to approve the current
Monitoring Agreement in an attempt to have growth consistent with traffic infrastructure
development.
Sumtnary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, RS. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 15
IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS
The subject property is located east of Interstate 805 approximately 2 ~/2 miles and south of
Telegraph Canyon Road at the south side of Olympic Parkway at East Palomar Street. Current
residential developments in the area include Otay Ranch, Lomas Verdes Rancho Del Rey,
Sunbow, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake. Lomas Verdes refers to the
McMillin developed portion of the Otay Ranch. The 1997 annexation of 9,100 acres of eastern
Chula Vista included the subject property. The subject property is bounded to the north by
Olympic Parkway beyond which is the previously developed villages of Lomas Verdes, by
undeveloped lands to the south and by the Otay Ranch to the east and west.
Within the newly developing area of eastern Chula Vista is the Coors Amphitl)eater, which has
attracted many popular entertainers. The Olympic Training Center along the shores of the Otay
Reservoir has also brought a measure of status to the South Bay region. The recent opening of
Olympic Parkway provides excellent access to both the Olympic Training Center and the subject
property.
The Otay Ranch lies within the approximate 37,585-acre Eastern Territories Planning Area of the
City of Chula Vista. The Eastern Territories Planning Area is bounded by Interstate 805 to the
west; San Miguel Mountain and State Route 54 to the north; the Otay Reservoirs and the Jamul
Foothills to the east; and the Otay River Valley to the south. The subject property, which is
known as portions of Village Six of the Otay Ranch is located in the center of the Eastern
Territories Planning Area. The subject property includes the Otay Project owned portion of
Village Six and is adjacent to the McMillin Companies owned portion of Village Six, which is
also under development. The subject's surrounding area is made up of new and existing
housing.
Existing shopping is available at retail centers in the master planned communities of Terra Nova
(located at Interstate 805 and East H Street - one exit north of Telegraph Canyon Road; Eastlake
(east of the subject), and in Rancho del Rey, north of the subject.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS. RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Count)', California
Bruce }1( Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 16
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING MARKET
In evaluating the San Diego County housing market, economic conditions such as job and
population growth need to be addressed. Current economic conditions in San Diego County
support the development of all types of residential housing. Although the regional economy is
moderating from the heated pace of the past few years, the housing market has not seen a
slowdown at this time. Projections are for the housing market in the County to remain strong in
the near- to medium-term futura. The nation's economy has been mixed. In early 2001, the
national economy experienced slowing, but aggressive interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve
in the later part of 2001 and the early part of 2002 and 2003 attempted to "spark" the economy.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 provided further downward pressure for the
economy. Thus far the economy for 2003 has been steady although the fallout from the recent
Iraq conflict and recent terrorists events has yet to be determined. Although the nation's
economy experienced a short recession in 2001, the County's economy has been strong. Growth
predictions for the County are for 2 percent per year over the next few years.
Job growth in the County has slowed recently. Although the unemployment rate in the nation is
beginning to increase, the unemployment rate in the County is still near a record low. As of May
2003, unemployment in the San Diego region was 4.1 percent, compared to 6.3 percent in
California as a whole and 5.8 percent for the nation for the same period. The County's job rate
exceeded 40,000 new jobs annually during the period from 1997 to 2000, with 48,000 new non-
agriculture jobs in 1997, over 51,000 new jobs in 1998, 47,000 new jobs in 1999, and 43,000
new jobs in 2000. The year 2001 ended with an increase of almost 24,600 new jobs in the
County while 2002 ended with an increase of 10,100 new jobs. Long-term growth is estimated
per SANDAG at an average increase of over 10,500 new jobs per year between 2005 and 2010
and over 15,500 annual new jobs between 2010 and 2020. Although current year figures are
lower than previous years, the long-term job growth is a sign of a healthy growing economy.
According to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy, "San Diego is
leading California's job growth into the next century and is one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the nation".
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 17
The County is the second largest in the State of California, with a population of 2.91 million.
According to the California Department of Finance, the County population increased by 2.5
percent in 1998, 2.1 percent in 1999, and 1.9 percent in 2000. This rate of growth is compared to
a 1.6 percent population growth rate in California overall. The County population grow at an
average of 46,350 new residents per year during the 1970s; 68,450 new residents per year during
the 1980s; and 43,137 new residents per year in the 1990s. The year 2001 saw a population
increase in the County of 40,583 while 2002 saw an additional 36,760 new residents. Current
estimates are for the County to grow an average of 37,000+ new residents per year for the next
five years.
The subject property is located in the South County submarket at the southernmost part of the
County and includes the incorporated communities of National City, Imperial Beach, and Chula
Vista, as well as portions of the City of San Diego and unincorporated San Diego County. Per
The Meyers Group's San Diego County Market Analysis and Absorption Projection for CFD-08-
I, the South County submarket is projected to add 6,508 of the 37,000+ new residents per year
for the County. Also, according to The Meyers Group, this submarket increased 10,500 persons
per year in the 1980s and 5,300 persons per year in the 1990s. The South County area also has
the greatest amount of undeveloped land in the County, which suggests that the growth in
population will continue. Per the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), nearly 40
percent of the land in South County is vacant and zoned for residential or commercial
development.
With strong employment in the County, building permit issuance is striving to keep up with
demand. In 1994, employment gains began to outpace residential building permit issuance,
reaching a peak of 4.21 jobs per residential permit in 1997 and 1998 (the highest level in the past
15 years). Currently, the employment/permit ratio is 0.49 jobs per permit, indicating a balancing
market with supply not yet exceeding demand. Within the City, building permits have nearly
doubled since 1998 due to the large number of new master-planned communities. There were
2,640 residential units permitted in 2000. Of this total, 1,776 were for detached units and 864
were for attached units. Through year-end 2001, 3,525 building permits were issued for
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT. RS, R9 and MU-I )
City of Chula Vista. Sari Diego County, California Page 18
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
residential development in the City. Of this total, 2,184 were for detached and 1,341 were for
attached. This equates to a 23 percent increase in detached building permits and a 55 percent
increase in attached unit building permits. In 2002, 2,250 new building permits were issued for
residential development with 1,749 for detached units and 501 for attached units. Using actual
building permits through the first four months of 2003 on an annualized basis, the City is on
track to issue 2,891 building permits, which is less than 2001, however higher than 2002 when
product was limited. It should be noted that these projections are on an annualized basis from
the first four months of 2003, which was prior to the current Monitoring Agreement.
We have reviewed The Meyers Group San Diego County Market Analysis and Absorption
Projection for the subject CFI). New home sales in 2001 in the County overall were down 11
percent while during the year 2000 new home sales were up 20 percent over 1999 totals. The
year 2001 saw 8,962 new home sales in the County with the South Bay submarket capturing 30
pement of this total. The year 2002 saw 11,059 new home sales in the County with the South
Bay submarket capturing 25 percent. The first quarter of 2003 has seen 2,536 new home sales in
the County with the South Bay capturing 30.4 percent. The current capture rate of 30.4 percent
is strong and partially due to the South Bay market offering some of the lowest base price
housing in the County.
Per The Meyers Group, the new, detached home average base price for the County from January
to March 2003 was $533,552, which is up 17.9 percent from the same period in 2002. These
same figures for the South Bay submarket were $450,844 between January to March 2003, up
34.3 percent from the previous year but still 15.5 percent lower than the County average. In
2001 the South County detached average new home price exceeded $300,000 for the first time
and has continued to increase. For the first time during the first quarter of 2003 the South Bay
sub-market is not the lowest price sub-market in the County. The East County sub-market has an
average new home base price of $417,213, which is 7 percent lower than the South County
average. However, the East County residential market is much smaller than the South Bay sub-
market with 36 new home sales in the East County sub-market compared to 555 in the South Bay
Summary Appraisal Report - Cotnplete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, btc. Page 19
sub-market. These prices indicate that the South Bay sub-market is a more affordable new home
market than some other areas of the County, however not the lowest priced area in the County.
Between January and March 2003, 16 percent of new detached home sales within the County
overall were in the over $700,000 price range; 34.3 percent were in the $500,000 - $699,999
range; 26.5 percent were in the $400,000 - $499,999 price range and 23.2 percent were in the
under $400,000 price range. South Bay sales figures have no sales in the over $700,000 price
range; 31 percent in the $500,000 - $699,999 range; 39.5 percent in the $400,000 - $499,999
range and 29.5 percent in the under $400,000 price range during the first quarter of 2003. There
were no detached homes priced under $300,000 while attached townhomes and condominiums
began reappearing in the market. In the overall County during the first quarter 2003 there were
814 attached new home sales, which was up 63.8 percent from the previous year while there
were 1,722 detached new home sales. Within the South Bay submarket, there were 217 attached
new home sales during the first quarter 2003 while there were 555 detached home sales during
the same time period. Given that detached homes priced under $300,000 have disappeared, the
South County new home market is shifting into the higher-priced homes.
Several apartment sites have been sold to apartment builders within the past few years. Only a
few apartments have been completed and opened. As of December 2001, the average rent level
in San Diego County was $1,082 per month, while the occupancy rate for the County overall was
95.8 pement. In the City of Chula Vista, the average rental rate is lower ($943 per month);
however, the occupancy rate is higher at 96.9 percent. The average rental rates at year-end 2001
are up 5.7 percent in overall San Diego County and 9.9 percent in Chula Vista over the past
twelve months. Vacancy rates are the lowest in the newer projects, which suggests that there has
been a pent up demand for new rental product in the County. This also suggests a need for rental
units in the subject area. Several new projects opened in the subject area in the past eighteen
months. The projects have been well received in the marketplace and lease-up of the projects is
occurring. The absorption rates are considered good, however the lease prices are slightly below
what was proposed at time of construction for these apartments.
SummaO. Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. O&l
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County. California Page 20
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
The single-family detached residential market appears strong. The South County sub-market has
45 current active projects. This translates to 35 active detached home projects and 10 attached
active projects. At the same time period in 2002 there were 37 active detached home projects
and 2 attached active projects. At the end of 2001 there were 39 active detached projects and 3
attached active projects. The current increase in attached product suggests the need for lower
priced housing in the subject's sub-market. The average sales rate for all currently active projects
in the eastern Chula Vista area is 5.59 units per month. In addition, development is underway on
Villages Six of Otay Ranch (Otay Project ownership - subject property), Village Six of Otay
Ranch (McMillin ownership); Eastlake Land Swap and Village Eleven of Otay (Brookfield and
Shea ownership). Currently, homes are selling as they enter the market in each new project. The
demand for new homes is high at all price levels and prices continue m increase per The Meyers
Group. All of the for-sale lots in the near-term stage of development that have been released in
Eastlake Woods and Vistas, Sunbow, San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, Village Six of
Otay Ranch (both McMillin and Otay ownerships) are either sold or committed to merchant
builders or related entities to the master developers. There are future master-planned
communities that will need to address environmental, infrastructure, and entitlement
requirements before land development can begin. As the subject property's development is
nearing completion, the timing appears to be good for entry into the strong residential market.
Interest rates have a significant effect on home sales. In an effort to stimulate the economy, the
Federal Reserve dropped interest rates several times during 2002 and 2003, creating historic
lows. Current mortgage rates are less than 5.5%. This appears to be helping the residential
market in the subject area to remain strong. Lower interest rates create sales by making a higher
mortgage possible, enabling more people to pumhase homes. Interest rates drastically affect the
affordability of new homes. The affordability index in the County as of late 2002 was 18
percent, compared to 32 percent in Southern California overall, and 56 percent in the nation.
Thus far in 2003 the affordability index is 12.8 percent for new homes with a fixed rate mortgage
and 18.8 percent for an adjustable rate mortgage. These County figures are below 2000, when
the County had an affordability index of 24 percent, Southern California was at 33 percent, and
the nation was at 53 percent. The similarity of the affordability indexes between 2000 and 2002
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 21
for the State and Nation while prices over that same time period rose substantially appears to be
a factor of the interest rate reductions. These affordability rates compare to 1989 in the state and
nation, when the County had an 18 percent affordability index (same as 2002), Southern
California had a 17 percent affordability index (compared to 32%), and the nation had a 47
percent affordability index (compared to 53%).
In trying to determine the affects of the ten'orist attacks and recent conflict in Iraq on the San
Diego housing market, minimal conclusions can be reached. The market slowed during the last
quarter of 2001 but only slightly due to offsetting lower mortgage interest rates and the relatively
affordable home prices in the South County market. Fourth quarter sales rotes am typically
down 15 to 20 percent after the summer months. Thus, it is difficult to determine if the
slowdown was attributable to the September 11th terrorist attacks or to a typical fourth quarter
slowdown. The year 2002 did not indicate a detriment to the housing industry due to terrorist
activities. The sales slow-down was attributable to a limited supply. Thus far, 2003 has shown a
varied residential market. Sales are down 16.9 percent county wide, however, in the South Bay
sales are up 0.5 percent over the same period last year. Prices have increased 10.4 percent overall
county wide and 21.9 percent from same period sales in the South Bay sub-market. It has been
suggested that the first quarter 2003 slow-down in sales is attributable to the recent war in Iraq,
which created uncertainty for consumers. It is too soon to tell if the war in Iraq or other terrorist
events will have an effect on the County's residential market.
Within the subject property, them are 1,305 proposed units, including 516 detached lots and 789
attached units. All of the detached lots and 366 of the attached units have been sold to Otay
Project related entities. Planning Area R-2A is proposed for Cambria, with homes ranging in
size from 2,875 to 3,325 square feet and pricing in the $499,900 to $549,990 range. Planning
Area R-2 is known as Willowbrook with homes ranging in size from 2,287 to 2,500 square feet
and pricing in the $440,000 to $460,000 range. Planning Area R-5A is known as Madera with
homes ranging in size from 1,873 to 2,099 square feet and pricing in the $400,000 to $420,000
range. Planning Area R-5B is a continuation of the Willows (from Village 5) with homes
ranging in size from 1,477 to 1,803 square feet and pricing ranging $355,000 to $385,000.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 22
Bruce W, Hull & Associates, lnc
Planning Area 9A is known as Rosewood with models under construction and sizes ranging from
1,408 to 1,756 square feet and pricing from $340,000 to $380,000. These planning areas include
all of the detached lots. For the attached units, Planning Area R-7A is known as Belleme Villas
with duplex homes with models under construction while Planning Area R-7B Phase I is known
as Belleme Chateaux with triplex homes with models under construction. Planning Area R-8
Phase 1 is known as La Provence Apartments with their first phase scheduled to open in
November. The sales of the subject planning areas suggest a current strong residential market.
The discussion above suggests that the subject real estate market is still extremely strong.
However, the City has implemented a Monitoring Agreement of building permits which will
restrict new building permits to an agreed upon amount within each master planned community
until proper infrastructure is in place to avoid traffic congestion. This Monitoring A~meement
may limit the supply of housing, however, only to a minimal extent. In the 12 months April
2003 through March 2004 there are 2,475 new residential units allowed within the master
planned communities in Eastern Chula Vista (more detailed discussion later within this report).
Within the City of Chula Vista there were 2,250 new building permits issues in 2002, which is
under the allowed amount. However, in 2001 there were 3,525 new building permits issued in
the City. Using the first four months of 2003 actual building permits issued, and annualizing
them, there would be 2,891 new building permits issued over the year suggesting there may be a
slight limitation.
In summary, the population and economic growth in the County overall and more specifically in
the South County sub-market are anticipated to be good. Therefore, housing will need to meet
these future demands. With prices lower than the majority of the County, the South Bay
submarket is a positive factor for entry-level families. Rental units are strong in both the County
overall and the South County area. Attached home sales appear to have made a rebound in the
County, as well as in the South County market where there have recently been strong sales for
this type of product. The slowdown of the national economy and the terrorist attacks that began
in 2001 slowed the San Diego area economy; however, not at the same level as other areas of the
state and nation. The new Monitoring Agreement will restrict building permits over the next
Surnmary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 23
three years however demand still remains strong. In summary, the outlook for the South San
Diego County housing market is still pointing toward positive levels.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 24
VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan CGDP") was adopted in 1993 as a joint planning
effort of the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. The purpose of the Otay Ranch
GDP is to implement the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and extend the comprehensive
planning concepts and high quality standards established in previous planning and development
in the Otay Ranch Community to the next major planning phase for the community. Approval of
the GDP is the initial step in the process of planning the property for development under P-C
(Planned Community) Zoning in the City of Chula Vista. The GDP provides a policy bridge
between the Chula Vista General Plan and the detailed project development planning provided in
the Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP states that Village Six is
comprised of approximately 365 acres. Village Six encompasses the subject property and
additional lands. The Land Use is planned for a maximum of 990 single family residential units
and a maximum of 1,242 multi-family residential units, along with a commercial core, public
and community purpose facilities, a bus/rail line stop, an elementary school, a town square and a
neighborhood park.
The Village Six SPA - Otay Ranch GDP was adopted January 22, 2002 by Resolution No. 2002-
022. Village Six SPA Plan provides the entitlement linking the Chula Vista General Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP policies with subsequent project-level approvals. The Village Six SPA Plan is
the controlling land use document for the subject property. This document addresses the
development boundaries, preliminary grading, existing and proposed land uses, circulation,
parks, recreation and open space, public facilities, development standards and guidelines, and
development phasing for Village Six of the Otay Ranch planned community. The Village Six
SPA Plan was prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch GDP, the City of Chula Vista
General Plan (as amended), Title 19, Zoning of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and other City
of Chula Vista development regulations and standards, such as the Parks Development
Ordinance.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2. RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 25
The Village Six SPA Plan includes a total of approximately 365 acres and includes the subject
property being developed by Otay Project and the remainder of Village Six, which is being
developed by the McMillin Companies. The McMillin owned portion is not included in this
appraisal report. Following is a table showing the total Village Six SPA Plan as compared to the
Otay Project portion of Village Six (subject property).
Total Village Six Subject Property
(McMillin/Otay Ranch Properties) (Otay Ranch O~n_ership)
Allowed Approved
Land Use Acres Units Acres Units Units
Single Family Units 160.2 795 57.6 313 516
Multi-Family Units 76.1 1,291 64.0 1,079 789
CPF 16.7 N/A 6.0 N/A N/A
Schools 42.5 N/A 7.7 N/A N/A
Park 7.6 N/A 7.5 N/A N/A
Commercial 3.0 N/A 2.9 N/A N/A
Open Space/Circulation 80.3 N/A N/A3 N/A N/A
Total 386.4 2,086 145.7 1,392 1,305
We have reviewed a SPA Plan Amendment dated March 26, 2002 as Resolution No. 2002-088
that states in Section 11.2.2.3 (Density Transfer) that the SPA Plan is not intended to be used in a
manner which predetermines the development solution for each and every neighborhood. It
states that minor modifications to these configurations that have been approved by the Director
of Planning and Building may be implemented administratively as part of the tentative tract map
approval process. It is the appraiser's understanding that this allows the transfer of units to the
single family units from the multi-family allowed units.
The development of Otay's portion of Village Six will be implemented through the use of the
SPA Plan and subsequent Subdivision Map(s). The subject has approved "A" maps and is in the
approval process for the first two "B" maps. As individual maps and precise plans are processed,
they will be reviewed for conformance with the SPA Plan land uses, development regulations,
and design standards.
3 The total estimated acreage per the master developer is 189 the difference being open space and circulation
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Communikv Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, lnc, Page 26
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MONITORING AGREEMENT
On April 8, 2003 the City of Chula Vista City Council requested staff to bring forward a report
regarding options for addressing the need to provide traffic infrastructure in a timely manner and
to ensure that growth is being managed in accordance with the City's growth management
program. At the same time, staff had been working with several developers to implement
provisions of previously approved "traffic enhancement agreements" which address the need to
provide additional traffic capacity in eastern Chula Vista, and to consider adjustments to
previously established limitations of development prior to completion of SR-125.
Traffic monitoring has been an ongoing activity since the City adopted the Threshold Standards
Policy in 1987. The monitoring is conducted twice annually and serves as input for the Growth
Management Oversight Commission. As eastern Chula Vista grew, studies were conducted
regarding traffic capacity for the new projects. The studies resulted in a limit of 9,429 housing
units prior to the construction of SR-125 in the master planned communities in Eastern Chula
Vista, which includes Eastlake, Otay Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch and
Sunbow. Further studies resulted in limited amounts of development within Rolling Hills Ranch
and San Miguel Ranch until SR-125 was completed in this area. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the City may issue additional building permits if the City decides in its sole discretion that the
circulation system has additional capacity.
In early 2003 the 9,429 dwelling unit permit limit was reached. City staff commissioned a traffic
study to reevaluate the current capacity on the eastern Chula Vista street system and estimate the
capacity increases due to on-going and planned traffic enhancements. Using January 1, 2003 as
the base point, the study revealed additional existing capacity, and estimated future capacity
increases as shown on the following page.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU 1)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 27
Increase in
Enhancement Housing Unit Capacity
Baseline with Olympic Parkway Completed 6,150
Improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road 1,350
Improvements on East H Street 600
Olympic Parkway Interchange 940
Total 8,990
Recognizing the completion of SR 125 has been delayed, and that it is important to stabilize the
rate of residential development during the period prior to the completion of that facility, City
staff and the developers negotiated a set of agreements which set forth a three-year schedule
beginning on April 1, 2003 for the issuance of residential permits. The analysis took into
consideration the study, along with the number of permits which have been issued in 2003 prior
to April 1, and the remaining permits needed in previously approved communities. The
concluded Option 1 is as follows:
Year Units Permitted
4/1/03-3/31/04 2,475
4/1/04-3/31/05 2,375
4/1/05-3/31/06 1,780
Total 6,630
The dwelling units are then divided between the master planned communities as shown on the
following page.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU- I )
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 28
Developer Project 4/03-3/04' 4/04-3/05 4/05-3/06 Totals
Eastlake Company EastLake III 620 I 834 507 1.961
Brookfield Shea Otay LLC Villa[3e 11 378 568 492 1,438
McMillin Otay Ranch LLC Village Six 278 307 109 694
Otay Project LP4 ~ Village Six 1008 29--9 35 1,342
McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch LLC Rolling Hills 120 153 330 603
Trimark-Trimark San Miguel San Miguel 71 154 227 452
Bella Lago Bella Lago 0 60 80 140
Totals 2,475 2,375 1,780 6,630
The above totals represent the total number of units providing all of the traffic enhancement
improvements are completed. Olympic Parkway was completed in late 2002. It is the
appraiser's understanding that the East H Street improvements are under construction and due to
be completed ahead of schedule. Telegraph Canyon Road improvements are in the design stage
and financing for the improvements has been obtained. Thera is a right-of-way issue that still
needs to be resolved, however, the City believes it will be resolved in the near future and not halt
planning or development of the improvements for Telegraph Canyon Road. Construction is
estimated to begin in August 2003. The Olympic Parkway/Interstate 805 Interchange is still in
the planning stages. There are a variety of funding soumes for this $21.8 million project with
over $18 million identified at this time. It is a special assumption of this appraisal report that
whether or not the traffic enhancement projects are completed in a timely manner,
building permits will be available to projects within CFD-08-I in accordance with the
schedule set forth in the previous table.
4 Subject Property
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 29
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-1
Community Facilities District No. 08-1 was formed to fund certain public improvements that will
benefit the subject property. The bond amount for CFD-08-I is anticipated to be approximately
$19.47 million, which will finance approximately $15.95 million in facilities.
CFD-08-I bond proceeds will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements
(i.e., grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.). Specific facilities include the following:
· La Media Road
· Olympic Parkway (Landscaping)
· Otay Lakes Road
· Birch Road
· East Palomar Street
· View Park Way
· Magdalena Avenue
· Santa Elisabeth Avenue
· SutterButtes Street
· Telegraph Canyon
· Street "A"
· Pedestrian Bridge
The CFD-08-1 bond construction proceeds for these improvements are currently estimated at
$15,950,1195 per the Sources and Uses of Funds Report prepared by Stone & Youngberg LLC
dated August 4, 2003 (copy located in Addenda). The cost for these improvements exceeds the
CD eligible proceeds with the remainder being paid out of developer funds.
5 Estimated amount subject to change.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Communi~_ Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2. RS, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 30
SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Below is a property description for the all of the subject property within CFD-08-I. As
previously noted although several of the planning areas have been sold, they have all been sold
to related entities to Otay Project. Thus, under the valuation section all of the property will be
valued together.
Location: The subject property is located along the south side of Olympic Parkway
at East Palomar Street, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego,
and State of California.
APNs/
Property Taxes: Per the San Diego County Assessor's Office, the 2002-2003 property
taxes on the subject property and additional lands (open space, school site
and CPF sites) are as follows:
Assessor's Assessed 2002-2003
Parcel Number Value Tax Amount
643-051-01-00 (p) $ 953,026 $ 12,757.12
643-051-02-00 $ 0 $ 0
643-051-03-00 $ 1,952,280 $ 27,728.92
643-051-04-00 $ 0 $ 0
643-051-05 -00 $ 0 $ 0
643-051-06-00 $ 0 $ 0
643-052-03-00 $ 381,009 $ 7,440.34
643-052-04-00 $ 800,000 $ 8,751.78
Totals $ 4,086,315 $ 56,678.16
It appears that the Assessor's Office has not yet divided up the taxes to the
appropriate new assessor parcel numbers. The property is also within CFD
No. 15 of the Sweetwater Union High School District; CFD No. 15 of the
Chula Vista Elementary School District; CFD No. 97-2 (Preserve
Maintenance District, City of Chula Vista; and CFD No. 08-M.
Legal Description: The property is commonly known as Chula Vista Tract 02-05 Otay Ranch
Village Six Unit 1 "A" Map; and, Chula Vista Tract 02-05 Otay Ranch
Village Six Unit 2 "A" Map.
Size and Shape: The subject property is irregular in shape. Per the "A' Maps, the property
contains 185.918 gross acres.
Sumnmry Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, b~c. Page 31
Zoning: The subject property was pre-zoned Planned Community (PC) as part of
the GDP planning process. The PC zone required a multi-phase planning
process beginning with a GDP, followed by the preparation of a SPA Plan.
The SPA Plan is to be used as a supplement to other existing City of Chula
Vista regulations, and supersedes those established in the City Zoning
Ordinance. Where conflict exists, the SPA Plan shall apply; where a topic
is not addressed by this SPA Plan, appropriate City of Chula Vista
regulations shall apply. Incorporated into the SPA Plan is the Site
Utilization Plan, which designates the zoning on the subject property. The
Village Six SPA Plan was adopted by the City of Chula Vista on January
22, 2002 by Resolution No. 2002-022. Per the SPA Plan, the subject
property is designated for residential development, a small commercial
development, a school site, a community purpose facility site, a park and
both major circulation and internal streets.
Entitlements: The subject property is covered by two "A" Maps which have been
recorded. The first is Chula Vista Tract 02-05 Otay Ranch Village Six
Unit 1 "A" Map and the second is Chula Vista Tract 02-05 Otay Ranch
Village 6 Unit 2 "A" Map. In addition, both "A" Maps were recorded in
September 2002 as Map No. 14446 (Unit 1) and Map No. 14447 (Unit 2).
The "A" Map refers to City Tract No. 02-05, Otay Ranch Village Six and
divides the property into large developable parcels. These are as follows:
Land Planning I DU/AC /
Lot Number Use Area Units Acres[ Lot Size
Unit 1 -Parcel Map 1n, 446
Lot No. I MF R-7B(2) 96 6.895 13.92 ac
Lot No. 2 MF R-7B(1) 105 6.670 15.74 ac
Lot No. 3 ' MF R-7A 92 6.416 14.33 ac
Lot No. 4 Condos R-8(I) 169 8.829 19.14 ac
Lot No. 5 Condos R-8(2) 119 5.851 20.33 ac
Lot No. 8 SFD R-5A 51 7.024 3,450 sf
Lot No. 9 SFD R-5B 55 8.599 3,450 sf
Lot No. 10 Duplex R-9D 49 4.313 11.36 ac
Lot No. 11/12 SFD R-9A 139 16.434 2,890 sf
LOt No. 14 Cottage(SFD) R-9B(2) 73 5.156 2,016 sf
Lot No. 15 Triplex R-9B(1) 159 7.429 21.40 ac
Lot No.16/17 CPF CPF1 N/A 6.039 N/A
Lot No. 18 Comm. C-1 N/A 2.947 N/A
Sumnmry Appraisal Repor~ - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Sir- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County', California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 32
Unit 2 - Parcel Map 14447
Lot 1, 5&6 I SFD R-2A 92 21.974 5,060 sf
Lot 2, 3&4 SFD R-2B 106 19.035 4,250 sf
The "B" Maps for all of the detached planning areas have been approved.
The "B" maps divide the property in single-family detached lots where
applicable. The attached unit development planning areas do not need a
"B" map.
Topography: The subject property has been graded. Streets have been cut in (both
offsite major streets and internal streets for most tracts) and storm drains
have been installed. Sewer is currently being installed along with the
water system on the property. All single-family lots have been graded and
terraced. The multi-family and commercial sites have been graded to a
superpad or have had improvements that further improved the site beyond
the superpad condition.
Soils: We have reviewed a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation on Otay
Ranch Village Six, prepared by Geocon Incorporated of San Diego,
California. The report is dated February 16, 2001. The report concludes
that the subject property is feasible for the proposed development provided
that the recommendations contained in their report are followed. No
geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude
construction. This appraisal assumes that the soils are adequate to support
the highest and best use conclusion.
Seismic: According to the above referenced Geocon Incorporated report, the closest
known earthquake fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located offshore
approximately 11 miles from the subject property. In addition them is a
"potentially active" La Nacion Fault located approximately 3 miles west
of the site. According to the report, this potentially active fault should not
impact the proposed development. The property is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Environmental: We have reviewed the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Final Second
Tier Environmental Impact Report 98-01, dated December 2001 and
certified by the City of Chula Vista on January 9, 2002. Two significant
environmental issues include the Threshold Capacity of Poggi Canyon
Trunk Sewer Line and the Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies which
creates possible limits on development due to traffic issues. It is the
appraiser's understanding that the master developer is working with the
City of Chula Vista on these projects.
No additional environmental issues were noted upon our physical
inspection. However, we are not experts in the environmental field. If the
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Communb~ Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Area~ R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Cottnty, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 33
client has concerns relating to environmental issues on the subject
property, it is our recommendation that an expert in this field be consulted.
It is an assumption of this report that there are no environmental concerns,
which would slow or thwart development of the subject site.
Easements/
Encumbrances: We have reviewed Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Preliminary Title Report Order No. 1083513-7 dated April 23, 2002 on the
subject property. The following exception.s are noted from this report:
Item Nos. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I pertain to property taxes that were
paid current at time of the report. Item Nos. J, K, L, M and N pertain to
special taxes for CFD No. 98-2 City of Chula Vista, CFD No. 99-1 City of
Chula Vista, CFD No. 12 Sweetwater Union High School, No. 12 Chula
Vista Elementary School and CFD No. 97-2 City of Chula Vista
respectively. Item No. O and P pertain to other possible CFD liens and
supplemental taxes, if any. Item No. 1 pertains to water rights. Item No. 2
refers to any possible boundary discrepancies. Item No. 3 was
intentionally deleted. Item No. 4 pertains to the future annexation to CFD
No. 5. Item No. 5 refers to an agreement between the City of Chula Vista
and Otay Vista Associates regarding implementation of mitigation
measures and payment of fees in connection with the approval of a general
plan amendment for Otay Ranch dated February 7, 1994. Item No. 6
refers to a development agreement between the Otay Ranch L.P and City
of Chula Vista. Item Nos. 7 and 8 were intentionally deleted. Item Nos. 9
and 10 refer to easements on the property. Item No. 11 refers to a
document entitled Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement (Poggi Canyon
Drainage Improvements). Item Nos. 12 and 13 refer to development
requirements and proposed CC & Rs. Item Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to
deeds of trust on the property. Item No. 16 refers to matters which may be
disclosed by an inspection or survey. Item No. 17 refers to any rights
interests or claims of the parties in possession of the land. Item No. 18
pertains to the subdivision contemplated by the preliminary title report.
It is an assumption of this report that the subject property is free and clear
of any liens and or encumbrances with the exception of the stated special
districts including the subject CFD.
Utilities: All normal utilities will be available to serve the subject site by the
following entities:
Electrical: San Diego Gas & Electric
Natural Gas: San Diego Gas & Electric
Sewer City of Chula Vista
Water: Otay Municipal Water District
Storm Drain: City of Chula Vista
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Sir- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 34
Fire: City of Chula Vista
Police: City of Chula Vista
Telephone: Pacific Bell
CATV: Cox Cable
Streets/Access: The subject property has access via Interstate 805 to Telegraph Canyon
Road, east approximately 5 miles to La Media Road, south to the subject
property. Additional access is via Interstate 805 to Olympic Parkway, cast
to the subject properly. Additional future access will be via SR 125,
which will provide access to the subject area in the future. It is anticipated
to be complete in 2006.
Interstate 805 is a major north/south freeway paralleling Interstate 5 via
an inland route. Interstate 805 begins just south of Del Mar and rejoins
Interstate 5 north of the Mexican border.
Telegraph Canyon Road is a major eastIwest arterial through the City of
Chula Vista. Telegraph Canyon Road is known as E Street between
Interstates 5 and 805. East of Interstate 805 the road is known as
Telegraph Canyon Road for approximately 6 miles when the name
changes to Otay Lakes Road. Otay Lakes Road terminates east of the
subject property at SR 94 in an undeveloped area of unincorporated San
Diego County.
Olympic Parkway has on/off ramps at Interstates 805. Olympic Parkway
is now opened from 1-805 to the Olympic Training Center located in
Eastlake.
SR 125 is a proposed north/south main arterial providing future access to
the project. SR 125 is in the planning stages, with construction estimated
to begin in the second quarter of 2002. The estimated completion for this
arterial is in 2006.
Current Use: The subject property is currently under development. Mass grading is
complete, with lots terraced. The storm drain is complete. The majority of
the background utilities are installed. The perimeter streets are graded and
underground utilities are undetwvay. Planning Areas R2 and R-5 have
models under construction with production homes under construction.
Planning Areas R-7 and R-8 have been graded to a superpad condition
with duplex and triplex models under construction along with an
apartment complex.
Costs of
Development: We have reviewed the remaining costs of development on the subject
property as provided by Otay Project L.P. In addition we have reviewed
Otay Project's site development estimates for the project. The
summarized improvement cost budget along with allocation schedules are
Sutnmar), Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
CiD, of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 35
located in the Addenda of this report. The remaining cost estimates for the
project are listed on the following page.
Off$ite Costs:
Total Improvement Cost Budget $43,850,785
Less School and CPF Offsite Costs (1,610,566)
Spent to Date (14,867,796)
Subtotal $27,372,423
Less Remaining CFD Funded Improvements ($14,037,406)6
Total Remaining Offsite Costs $13,335,01_7
In-Tract Costs:
In-Tract Costs R-2A $ 2,078,846
In-Tract Costs R-2B 2.467,357
In-Tract Costs R-5 2,140,714
In-Tract Costs R-9A 2,361,243
Total In-Tract Costs $ 9,048,160
Spent to Date (5,295,382)
· Total Remaining In-Tract Costs $ 3,752,778
Total Rema/ning Costs $17~087~795
In addition to the costs spent to date reported above, improvements are
being constructed on three of the multi-family planning areas. The multi-
family planning areas are sold based on a superpad condition. Three of
the properties have been developed beyond a superpad with dollars
expended for in-tract land development. In the valuation analysis, multi-
family market data refers to properties sold based on a superpad condition.
Therefore, the additional development costs expended need to be taken
into consideration. These are as follows.
Planning Area R-9D $ 271,801
Planning Area R-7 1,012,851
Planning Area R-8 1,255,070
Total Costs ~; 2,539,722
These additional expenditures will be considered in the Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis later within this report.
CFD Funded
Improvements: It is an assumption of this report that the improvements to be funded by
the subject CFD are in place. As previously discussed, the CFi)
construction proceeds are estimated at $15,950,119. A portion of these
costs ($1,086,766) has been spent to date, leaving remaining construction
6 This amount has been adjusted for the School/CFP Sites Allocation.
Sulnrnary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2. R5. R7. R8, R9 and M U-I)
Ci~ of Chula Vista. San Diego Count. California Page 36
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
proceeds of $14,863,353. This amount includes allocations to the
School/CFP sites of $825,947. This appraisal does not include the school
and CPF sites; therefore, the remaining construction proceeds for the
subject property are $14,037,406.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, lnc. Page 37
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS
The highest and best use is a basic concept in real estate valuation due to the fact it represents the
underlying premise (i.e., land use) upon which the estimate of value is based. In this report the
highest and best use is defined as:
"the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property,
which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that
results in the highest value. ,,7
Proper application of this analysis requires that the subject property first be considered as if
vacant in order to identify the "ideal" improvements in terms of use, size, and timing of
development. Second, the existing improvements (if any) are compared to the "ideal"
improvements to determine if the use should be continued, altered, or demolished preparatory to
redevelopment of the site with a more productive or ideal use. In the case at hand, the subject
property is not yet improved with structures; thus, only the As Vacant analysis is relevant.
In the following analysis, we have considered the site's probable use, or those uses which are
physically possible; the legality of use, or those uses which are allowed by zoning or deed
restrictions; the financially feasible use, or those uses which generate a positive return on
investment; and the maximally productive use, or those probable permissible uses which
combine to give the owner of the land the highest net return on value in the foreseeable future.
Physically Possible Uses
The subject property is irregular in shape and contains approximately 185 gross acres. The site
is located within the City of Chula Vista, in the area known as the Eastern Territories. The site
has a generally sloping topography. Mass grading is complete on the property, with major roads
under construction and utilities being installed. Because the subject property is within a master-
planned community, an engineered drainage system is being constructed to alleviate any
7The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th Edition, 1992
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 38
potential flooding problems. We have reviewed a soils report concluding that the proposed
development is feasible on the subject property. It is an assumption of this report that the soils
are adequate to support the highest and best use conclusion. This assumption is evidenced by
structures on surrounding lands in the area. It is the appraiser's understanding that all
environmental clearances have been obtained, including 404, 401, 4(d), 1601 and 1603 permits.
Although there are two possible development concerns (i.e., traffic issues/Monitoring Agreement
and Poggi Canyon sewer), it is the appraiser's understanding that the master developer and the
City of Chula Vista are working to settle these possible issues. It is an assumption of this report
that there are no environmental issues or development issues that would slow or thwart
development of the subject site.
All standard utilities are or will be available to serve the subject site. The proposed SR 125
borders the property to the east beyond which is the master planned community of Eastlake.
North of the property is some of the Otay Ranch owned portions of Village Six and the built out
phases of Lomas Verdes Master Plan. West of the subject is future villages of Otay Ranch
(currently undeveloped) while south of the property is the McMillin owned portions of Village
Six along with undeveloped lands. Main access to the subject is currently from Olympic
Parkway to the East Palomar Street. Future access will be via SR 125, which is beginning
construction and is due for completion in 2006. Main access through the project will be the
continuation of East Palomar Street, La Media Road, Santa Venetia Street, Magdalena Avenue
and View Park Way. These major roads have all been graded.
This appraisal assumes that the improvements to be funded by CFD-08-I are completed and
installed to the subject property.
The size, access, and topography of the subject property make it physically suited for numerous
types of development; however, the grading that has occurred on the site suggests residential use
(i.e., lots being terraced). In addition, the surrounding uses of residential development appear to
make the subject property more suitable for residential use.
Summaqg Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-l )
Ci~ of Chula Vista, San Diego Count., California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 39
Based on the physical analysis (especially size and topography), the subject property appears to
be viable for numerous types of development; however, the current condition would suggest that
some of the planning areas are limited to a use of residential development due to their current
development state (graded residential lots).
Legality of Use
The subject property is located within the City of Chula Vista, which is the entity responsible
regulating land use through the implementation of a general plan and zoning ordinance. Per the
City of Chuta Vista General Plan, the property is zoned PC for planned community and is a
portion of the Otay Ranch. The Village Six SPA Plan is a detailed land use document specific to
Village Six of Otay Ranch. It was approved in accordance with the General Development Plan.
The Village Six SPA Plan was approved on January 22, 2002 and covers the subject property
and additional lands. Incorporated into the Village Six SPA Plan is the Site Utilization Plan,
which designates the zoning on the subject property ranging from Single Family to Multi Family
Residential development in addition to park sites, a Community Purpose Facility Site and a
commercial parcel. It is the appraiser's understanding that the Park Sites and the Community
Purpose Facility Site are not to be included in the valuation for the subject property.
In addition, entitlements have been obtained for the subject property. As previously detailed (see
the section The Subject Property), there are 516 single-family detached units and 789 multi-
family attached units along with a 2.9 acre commercial parcel allowed within the subject
planning areas. There has also been a recorded "A" map on the properly and approved "B" maps
for all of the single-family detached lots. The City has recently approved a Monitoring
Agreement for residential development in the eastern Chula Vista area that affects the subject
property. The Monitoring Agreement allows for the subject's 1,305 units to be permitted over
the next three years.
The current entitlements are consistent with the current zoning and general plan. Based on the
legality of use analysis, the type of development for which the subject property can be utilized is
narrowed to residential use. This is consistent with the findings of the physically possible uses.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
OtayProjectPortionofV ageSix-OtayRanch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7. RS. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 40
Feasibility of Development
The third and fourth considerations in the highest and best use analysis are economic in nature,
i.e., the use that can be expected to be most profitable. After the recession of the early 1990s,
residential subdivisions re-emerged in thc subject marketplace. The late 1980s were
characterized by rapidly escalating prices, good pre-sale activity, and a strong resale market
providing move-up buyers. The housing market began to deteriorate in mid 1990s, with home
sale prices falling from previous highs. In the mid 1990s the recession ended, and by the late
1990s, sales rates and prices had surpassed late 1980s highs. The year 2000 saw steady high-
volume sales and significant price increases. The year 2001 saw a slowdown in sales, however,
not due to an economic slowdown, but rather due to a limited supply of homes available for sale.
The fourth quarter of 2001 saw a decline due to the typical fourth quarter slowdown, the national
economic slowdown, and the reaction to the terrorist attacks. The year 2002 once again saw an
increase in both sales and pricing in the subject area. Thus far, 2003 is showing a strong
residential market in the subject's market. As described earlier within the "San Diego County
Housing Market" section of this report, the housing market activity in the South San Diego
County area is considered to be strong.
Several master-planned communities are currently under construction in the immediate area (i.e.,
Eastlake Woods and Vistas, San Miguel Ranch, Sunbow, Otay Ranch (subject), Lomas Verdes,
Rolling Hills Ranch, Rancho del Rey, and Ocean View Hills). The current phases of San Miguel
Ranch, Sunbow, Lomas Verdes, Rancho del Rey and Ocean View Hills have essentially sold out
their released phases of land to merchant builders. New phases are under development within
some of the projects.
The subject property is approved for 1,305 new homes comprised of 516 detached units and 789
attached units, along with a 2.9-acre commercial parcel. Land sales to merchant residential
builders have been strong in the area. Related entities to the master developer (Otay Project)
have purchased 809 of the total 1,305 units. The remaining units are also proposed for
construction by related entities to the master developer. There are proposed products on all of
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village SLx - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 41
the sold lots with five model complexes under construction. Home sales have been strong in the
surrounding master-planned communities.
Maximally Productive Use
In light of the current sales activity within the subject marketplace, coupled with the actual
activity on the subject property, it is our opinion that the subject property is feasible for the
proposed master-planned residential community with an adequate profit level to entice
experienced builders.
Highest and Best Use Conclusion
The final determinant of highest and best use, as vacant, is the interaction of the previously
discussed factors (i.e., physical, legal, and financial feasibility along with maximum productivity
considerations). Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is our opinion that the highest and best use
for the subject property is for the proposed development of Otay Project's portion of Village Six.
Summa~ Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No.
Otay Project Portion of Village Sir - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 42
VALUATION PROCESS
The valuation of the subject property will be presented as follows: First, a discussion of each of
the market data utilized in the valuation of the subject properties (i.e. detached residential lots,
multi-family sites and commercial parcels) will be presented. Next, the valuation analysis for the
subject property will be presented. The subject property is owned by either the master developer
or related entities to the master developer. The valuation will utilize the Sales Comparison
Approach to Value and the Discounted Cash Flow in determining the value for the subject
property due to the single ownership.
Typically single-family detached lots are sold on a "finished lot" basis, however, the subject lots
are not yet in a finished lot condition. Therefore, the remaining costs to develop each planning
area into finished lots (if applicable) will be addressed under each valuation. In addition, there is
some backbone infrastructure that needs to be completed by the master developer associated with
each of the planning areas. The remaining backbone infrastructure costs will also be addressed,
along with allocations to each planning area.
In valuing the subject property, the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (also known as the
development procedure) will be utilized. A Discounted Cash Flow Analysis is needed due to the
single ownership of the remainder of the property. In the case at hand, the Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis will take into account the retail value or "saleable condition" of the subject
property. The master developer and its related entities-owned subject property is proposed for
516 single-family detached lots, 789 multi-family units and a small commercial parcel. The
property is currently under construction, with planning areas in varying stages of development.
We have reviewed cost estimates prepared by the owner. In addition, we have reviewed
improvements installed with regard to the project in order to verify the costs spent-to-date
amounts. The most relevant unit of comparison is a finished lot value for the single-family
detached planning areas and a superpad value for the attached or apartment planning areas and
the commercial site. The majority of the subject planning areas is not yet in a saleable condition,
as there is still backbone infrastructure to be installed that benefits each planning area.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Olay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7. R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 43
Therefore, it is our opinion that the most relevant valuation process is to value the property based
on the retail or "saleable" condition, and then deduct the appropriate remaining costs to complete
the property to this condition.
In determining this retail value, we will utilize the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Sales
Comparison Approach, market value is estimated by comparing properties similar to the subject
property that have recently been sold, are listed for sale, or are under contract (i.e., for which
purchase offers and a deposit have been recently submitted). After determining the retail value
of the subject property, the next step in the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis is to determine an
absorption period to determine the timing of the sale of the master developer-owned units (in this
case, the timing of sales refer to the sale of a planning area to a memhant builder). Taken into
consideration in the absorption period is the Monitoring Agreement for building permits. Next,
the costs associated with the subject development (to bring the property from its current
condition to the "saleable" or "retail" condition) need to be determined, along with a
construction schedule. These costs then need to be deducted, as well as the estimated marketing
costs and a contingency factor associated with the costs involved in the development of the
project. Finally, the resulting cash flows need to be discounted by an appropriate discount rate
due to (1) the time value of money; (2) the risk associated with the project; and (3) a profit due to
the developer. The analysis of the above revenues and costs results in a present value for the
subject property in its "as is" condition, assuming the improvements as a result of the bonds of
the subject CFD are installed.
Market Data Discussion - Detached Residential Lots
The search for land sales included recent sales and current escrows in the subject market area.
The subject properties have alt been sold to related entities and are not considered to be arms
length transactions and are not considered in our analysis. Therefore, we will include sales
within surrounding master planned communities including Eastlake, San Miguel Ranch, Roiling
Hills Ranch and Lomas Verdes (McMillin portion of Otay Ranch). Due to the number of recent
sales within these surrounding master-planned communities, we have limited the majority of the
search to this area. The nine appropriate residential lot sales and escrows are summarized on the
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce gA Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 44
facing page and are discussed below. All are within surrounding master-planned communities
and are either current escrows or have closed escrow within the past 12 months. The market data
is considered good and significant.
Data No. 1 pertains to the recent sale of 70 single-family detached lots located in the master
planned community of Rolling Hills Ranch, north of the subject property. The lots have a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and are within a guard-gated community. A majority of
the lots have panoramic views. Standard Pacific purchased the lots in April 2003 on the basis of
a $262,000 finished lot. This recent sale portrays the recent appreciation in the subject
marketplace. Rolling Hills Ranch is not within a Community Facilities District, thus the overall
tax rates are substantially lower than the subject properties proposed overall tax rates making it
superior in comparison to the subject property.
Data No. 2 refers to the June 2002 sale of 115 lots within the Vistas in the master planned
community of Eastlake. The lots have a minimum lot size of 7,020 square feet. Davidson
purchased the property on the basis of a $133,435 finished lot. This transaction was negotiated
in late 2001, prior to a substantial amount of appreciation in the subject marketplace making this
sale inferior to the subject's current market value.
Data No. 3 refers to another sale within the master planned community of Rolling Hills Ranch,
north of the subject property near the San Miguel Ranch. Continental purchased these lots from
McMillin, the master developer. The lots have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and were
purchased on the basis of a $175,000 finished lot. The overall tax rotes are considered to be
superior to the subject's proposed overall rates as there is no CFD in Rolling Hills Ranch. This
transaction was negotiated in mid-2002, prior to a significant amount of appreciation in the
subject marketplace.
Data Nos. 4 and 5 refer to recent sales within the San Miguel Ranch. The San Miguel Ranch is
located north of the subject, northerly of Rolling Hills Ranch. Data No. 4 pertains to the Trimark
purchase of 117 single-family detached lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. These
Sumanary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 45
lots sold on the basis of a $188,000 finished lot. Although the buyer is a related entity to the
seller, it is the appraiser's understanding that this was a market transaction. Data No. 5 refers to
the Buie Communities, Inc. purchase of 75 lots from Trimark San Miguel on the basis of a
$182,000 finished lot for 4,500 square foot lots. These lots will be developed as a continuation
of an existing project, which alleviates the need for a model complex. These two transactions
were negotiated in early to mid-2002, prior to a substantial amount of appreciation in the subject
marketplace. The San Miguel Ranch has similar proposed overall tax rates in comparison to the
subject property.
Data No. 6 pertains to the sale of 135 single family detached lots within the Woods in the master
planned community of Eastlake. Cornerstone purchased the 4,500 square foot minimum lots on
the basis of a $129,000 finished lot. This transaction closed in May 2002; however, it was
negotiated in late 2001, which was prior to a substantial amount of appreciation in the subject
marketplace, making it inferior to the subject's current market value.
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within the Vistas in Eastlake. KB Home is in escrow to
purchase the 96 single-family detached lots on the basis of a $244,000 finished lot. This is a
recent transaction, which portrays the appreciation in the subject marketplace in the past few
months.
Data Nos. 8 and 9 were purchased by Cornerstone for small detached housing. The lots have a
minimum lot size of 3,150 square feet each. Data No. 8 refers to 119 lots that closed in May
2002 (negotiated in late 2001) based on a $123,600 finished lot. Data No. 9 pertains to 168 lots
that closed in June 2002 (negotiated in early 2002) based on a $139,000 finished lot.
Market Data Analysis
The market data utilized all refer to either current escrows or transactions that have closed within
the past twelve months. Data Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 9 refer to sales that were negotiated in either late
2001 or early 2002 which was prior to a substantial amount of appreciation in the marketplace.
In order to compare these sales to a current market sale, a date of sate adjustment needs to be
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Plannin$ Areas R2, RS, R7, R8. R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 46
considered. We have reviewed and paired additional sales within Eastlake Woods that have
larger lots and are not considered to be comparable to the subject lots, however do reflect the
recent appreciation in the marketplace. Planning Area 4 within Eastlake Woods, containing 72
single-family detached lots with a minimum lot size of 7,350 square feet, sold in June 2002
(negotiated in late 2001) based on a finished lot price of $141,000. Planning Area 4B (adjacent
to Planning Area 4) containing 67 single family detached lots with a minimum lot size of 7,350
square feet, is currently in escrow based on a finished lot price of $275,000. When pairing these
sales (adjacent planning areas within Easflake Woods) an appreciation factor of 95 percent is
suggested between late 2001 and April 2003 or over 5 percent per month. However, included in
this 95 percent increase is the fact that the latest sales refer to the last land pamels within
Eastlake, a highly successful master planned community. Typically the last phases of a build-out
end up have a premium attached if the project has been successful. A pairing of Data Nos. I and
3 (located in Rolling Hills Ranch) suggests an appreciation of 50 percent between July 2002 and
April 2003 or slightly more than 5 percent per month. It should be noted that Data No. 3 has a
smaller lot size in comparison to Data No. I which would decrease the appreciation factor. A
pairing of Data Nos. 6 and 7 suggests an appreciation factor of 89 percent between late 2001 and
May 2003 or approximately 5 percent per month. Again, it should be noted that Data No. 7 has a
slightly smaller sized lot than Data No. 6, which would increase the appreciation factor;
however, these transactions are located in Eastlake and it is our opinion there is a premium in the
latest sales due to Eastlake nearing build-out. In addition to appreciation, it should be noted that
the new sales all have allotments within the new Monitoring Agreement within the City. That is,
all of the newer sales could have a premium attached as they all have allotments for the 2003/04
fiscal year. This suggests that it may not be solely appreciation in the increased price of lots, but
an increase to a restrained supply. Also, as previously mentioned, Eastlake Woods and Vistas
are the last developable neighborhoods within Eastlake, a very successful master planned
community developed over the past ten plus years. Typically, the last remaining land buyers pay
a premium if the project is as successful as Eastlake. In determining a date of sale adjustment for
the appreciation in the marketplace, we are considering the above factors and concluding on a 3
pement monthly adjustment from time of negotiation for appreciation. The adjusted market data
is shown on the following page.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2. RS. R7, R8. R9 and MU-I )
CiD' of Chula Vista, San Diego County. California Page 47
Bruce W. HuH & Associates, Inc.
Data [ Min. Neg. Date Adjusted
No.I Master Plan Lot Size Dates Of Sale Price/Lot
l Rolling Hills Ranch 7,200 sf 2Q2003 04/03 $262,000
2 Eastlake Vistas 7,020 sf 4Q200i 06/02 $205,490
3 Rolling Hills Ranch 6,000 sf 2Q2002 09/02 $238,000
4 San Miguel Ranch 5,000 sf 3Q2002 12/02 $238,760
5 San Miguel Ranch 4,500 sf I 3Q2002 12/02 $231,140
6 Eastlake Woods 4,500 sf 4Q2001 05/02 $198,660
7 Eastlake Vistas 4,200 sf 2Q2003 Escrow $244,000
8 Eastlake Woods 3,150 sf 4Q2001 05/02 $190,344
9 Eastlake Vistas 3,150 sf 1Q2002 06/02 $201,550
All of the data are located within master planned communities within the City of Chula Vista.
The number of lots within each sale appears to be typical for merchant builder transactions.
With the exception of Rolling Hills Ranch (Data Nos. 1 and 3) all of the transactions have
similar proposed overall tax rates. Rolling Hills Ranch has lower overall tax rates as they are not
located within a Community Facilities District, which is considered to be superior to the subject
lands. It is the appraiser's opinion that the market data utilized in the analysis is more relevant in
determining the current market value for the subject properties.
This appropriate market data will be utilized in the valuation of the subject planning areas.
Market Data Discussion - Superpad Sales
We searched the area and found the six land transactions summarized on the facing page to be
most relevant in the subject multi-family site valuations. Most are located within the
surrounding San Miguel Ranch, Otay Ranch (subject) and Eastlake master-planned communities.
We have included one sale from San Elijo Hills, a master planned community in north San Diego
County. All of the sales are within the past 14 months. The market data is discussed below.
Data No. 1 refers to a current escrow for 600 units to be construction within the "land swap"
portion of Eastlake. Cornerstone is in escrow to purchase all of the units on the basis of
S 4Q2002 refers to fourth quarter 2002.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
( Plann#~g Areas R2, RS, RT, R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 48
$131,666 per unit. The property is in a superpad condition, which is mass graded with utilities
stubbed to the site and all surrounding infrastructure in place. The proposed products include a
planned unit development, a courtyard project, some triplex units and a sixplex project. The
property is due to close in two take-downs with the first closing in June 2003. The overall
density on the project is !4.5 dwelling units per acre.
Data No. 2 refers to a parcel within the McMillin owned portion of Village Six. Planning Area
R-10 sold to Cornerstone in October 2002 for $66,000 per unit in a superpad condition.
Cornerstone is proposing 212 attached multi-family units to be constructed on the site. This
price was negotiated in August 2002. The overall density on the site is 17.52 dwelling units per
acre.
Data No. 3 refers to a current escrow between Eastlake and Greystone for 300 units, which are
proposed for Eastlake in their Vistas neighborhood. Greystone is purchasing the site in a
superpad condition for $42,333 per unit. The proposed overall tax rates are similar in
comparison to the subject property. The overall density on the site is 24.4 dwelling units per
acre.
Data No. 4 pertains to the sale of two planning areas within Eastlake Vistas. William Lyon
purchased the 15+ acres for a proposed 170 units. The per unit price for the property in a
superpad condition was $70,053 plus an additional $14,332 per unit to be paid in fees. This sale
was negotiated in October 2001 and closed in June 2002. The overall density on the site is 10.98
dwelling units per acre.
Data No. 5 refers to the sale of VR-10 within Eastlake Vistas. VR-10 totals 7.68 acres and is
proposed for 111 units. Western Pacific purchased the site on June 25, 2002. The site was
pumhased for $53,000 per unit with an additional $14,332 per unit in fees to be paid. The
overall density on the site is 14.45 dwelling units per acre.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 05-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 49
Data No. 6 refers to the sale of a superpad for proposed attached units in the master planned
community of San Elijo Hills in San Marcos in north San Diego County. Colrich Communities
pumhased the property from the master developers in April 2002. The sales price was $80,666
per unit, however the buyer then gets credited for the CFD funded improvements. In comparison
to the subject property this location is slightly superior in addition to the CFD credit being
superior. The density on this site is 17.0 dwelling units per acre.
Market Data Analysis
Data Nos. I through 6 have densities ranging from 10.98 to 24.4 units per acre. The products
range from attached condominiums to a proposed triplex product. All were sold in a superpad
condition. This data has value ranges from $42,333 to $131,666 per unit. Data No. I is a current
escrow and not yet a closed sale with several projects with ranging densities within the sale of
600 lots. Data No. 3 refers to the highest density transaction. Data No. 6 is considered to be
superior to the subject's location. The market data is all located within Lomas Verdes, San
Miguel or Eastlake master planned communities with the exception of Data No. 6. The
remaining market data ranges from a low of $53,000 to a high of $70,053. Data No. 2 refers to a
multi-family site, which was sold within the McMillin portion of Village Six, adjacent to the
subject property, for $66,000 per unit based on a density of 14.1 units per acre. We have plotted
the various market data densities in comparison to their sales prices in order to obtain a value per
density. This market data will be utilized in the valuation of the applicable subject planning
areas.
Market Data Discussion - Commercial Land Sales
We searched the area and found the 11 land transactions summarized on the facing page to be
most relevant in the subject commercial land valuation. Due to the minimal recent commercial
land sales within the immediate area, we expanded our search to include commercial land sales
over the past five years. In addition, we expanded the search to all of San Diego County as we
were unable to locate many commercial land sales in the immediate area. The market data is
discussed on the following page.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS. R7. RS. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates. Inc. Page 50
Data No. C-1 refers to the recent closing of a gas station site located adjacent to an existing
medical building in Village One of Otay Ranch. USA Petroleum agreed to pay $775,000 for the
site which equates to a per square foot value of $41.96. According to the seller, there was a
discount of 10 percent, or $77,500, due to a separate option agreement on a different parcel
between the buyer and seller. Taking the discount into account the price per square foot is
$37.76. Typically gas station sites are not purchased based on a per square foot amount. That is,
a gas station can be constructed on both a ¥2 acre site or a 1 acre site with essentially the same
amount of building, pumps, etc., thus a per square foot amount is not as relevant as in other
commercial land sales where more square footage of improvements can be constructed on a
larger site. In addition, this sale included a conditional use permit allowing a gas station to
operate on the site. In comparison to the subject site, this sale is considered to be superior due to
(1) surrounding lands condition; (2) size of parcel; (3) location; and (4) gas station uses permit.
Data No. C-2 pertains to a mixed-use site located at the southeast corner of Palomar and Santa
Cora in the McMillin developed potion of Otay Ranch known as Lomas Verdes. Cornerstone
purchased the mixed-use site based on a price per square foot of $11.67. At the time of purchase
there was a requirement of 10,000 square foot of retail space and multi-family of 25 units per
acre. The buyer remapped the property for condominiums.
Data No. C-3 refers to a community purpose facility site that was purchased for a church. The
property is also located in the Lomas Verdes portion of Otay Ranch. Calvary Chapel purchased
the site from McMillin for a new worship location. The 4.62 acres were purchased for $5.47 per
square foot. The property was in a finished lot condition with all surrounding street
improvements complete at time of sale. In comparison to the subject property this site is
considered to be inferior due to the land use restriction of community purpose.
Data No. C-4 refers to a hotel site purchase on Hotel Circle South in San Diego. This site has
visibility from Interstate 8. The site was sloping in the rear with 5.36 gross acres and 3.44 net
acres. Hotel Circle Partners purchased the property in October 2000 for $25.69 per net square
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay P~ject Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 51
foot. This site is considered to be superior to the subject due to freeway visibility and the
surrounding hotel/motel land use.
Data No. C-5 pertains to a commercial site, which was purchased by Kitchell Development from
Sunbow for a shopping center in the master planned community of Sunbow. This 10.65-acre site
was purchased in September 2000 for $13.45 per square foot. The majority of Sunbow is built
out creating the need for a shopping center.
Data No. C-6 refers to a Home Depot site purchase in Otay Mesa. This site is located along a
frontage road for the 805 Freeway. Home Depot purchased the site from Gatlin Development in
April 2000 for $15.47 per square foot. In comparison to the subject property this site is
considered to be superior due to the freeway visibility.
Data No. C-7 pertains to the sale of another community purpose site. The reported price per
square foot included the estimated grading costs to construct the property to a finished lot. The
Taiwanese Church purchased the property for a house of worship for $8.76 per square foot. In
comparison to the subject property this data is considered to be inferior due to the limitation on
the land use.
Data No. C-8 refers to a sale of a commercial parcel within Village One of Otay Ranch. The site
was purchased for a medical building, which has been developed on the site. This property was
sold in a superpad condition. Sharp Medical purchased the property from Otay Project L.P. in
December 1999 for $11.36 per square foot. The site consisted of 4.674 acres. This sale is
considered to be similar to the subject property.
Data No. C-9 pertains to the sale of an 11.01-acre site in Torrey Hills in San Diego County. This
site is located in a new community. Vons Companies purchased the site in September 1999 for a
neighborhood shopping center. The site was purchased for $14.60 per square foot.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 52
Data No. C-10 refers to another hotel site that was sold in Escondido. The buyer purchased the
site for a 160 room, 4-story hotel. The 6.270-acre site sold for $12.45 per square foot. Javeri
Levy, LLC purchased the site from UCLD Properties (Ayres) in September 1998.
Data No. C-11 refers to the sale of a small commercial site located in the Eastlake shopping
center. The buyers constructed a medical building on the site. This property was sold in August
1997 for $10.55 per square foot.
Market Data Analysis
Although several of the commemial sales are older, due to the limited number of relevant recent
commercial sales in the area, we have considered these older sales in our analysis. Commercial
property has not seen the appreciation in the marketplace that residential property has
experienced. Data No. 1 refers to a gas station pad within an existing site, which is considered to
be superior to the subject. Data Nos. 3 and 7 have restricted land uses, which are considered to
be inferior to the subject property. Data No. 4 has freeway visibility, considered to be superior to
the subject. The remainder of the marker data ranges from a low of $10.55 to a high of $15.47.
This market data will be utilized in the valuation for the subject commercial site.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, RT, RS, R9 and MU-I )
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 53
VALUATION ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS
In valuing the subject property the Discounted Cash Flow ("DCF") Analysis will be used due to
the ownership of related entities for the subject properties.
Retail Value
Planning Area R-2A contains 92 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 5,060 square feet.
Otay Ranch R-2A, LLC, owns the lots. In valuing this parcel, we have considered the following
market data to be the most relevant.
Finished Adjusted
Data No. Master Plan Lot Size Date of Sale Lot Price F/L Price
1 Rolling Hills 7,200 sf 04/03 $262,000 $262,000
2 Eastlake 7,020 sf 06/02 $133,435 $205,490
3 Rolling Hills 6,000 sf 09/02 $175,000 $238,000
4 San Miguel 5,000 sf 12/02 $188,000 $238,760
5 San Miguel 4,500 sf 12/02 $182,000 $231,140
7 Eastlake 4,200 sf Escrow $244,000 $244,000
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within Eastlake. As previously discussed this is one of the
last available land sites within Eastlake and it is our opinion a premium is included within this
price. Data Nos. I and 3 refer to sales within Rolling Hills Ranch, which has lower overall tax
rates in comparison to the subject property. The remainder of the market data has a range of
$205,490 to $238,760. Planning Area R-2A rears La Media Road a main arterial through Village
Six. The lots have a minimum lot size of 5,060 square feet, at the lower end of the market data
range. We have concluded that the subject lots have a retail, finished lot value of $190,000. The
calculation is as follows.
$190,000 x 92 lots = $17,480,000
However, the property is not in a finished lot condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to finished lots will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Cotnmunity Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Counly, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 54
Planning Area R-2B contains 106 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 4,250 square
feet. Otay Ranch Seven, LLC owns the property. In valuing this parcel, we have considered the
following market data to be the most relevant.
I Finished Adjusted !
Data No. Master Plan Lot Size Date of Sale Lot Price F/L Price
3 Rolling Hills 6,000 sf 09/02 [ $175,000 $238,000
4 San Miguel 5,000 sf 12/02 _ $188,000 $238,760
5 Eastlake 4,500 sf 12/02 $182,000 $231,140
6 Eastlake 4,500 sf 5/02 $129,000 $198,660
7 Eastlake 4,200 sf Escrow $244,000 $244,000
8 Eastlake 3,150 sf 5/02 $123,600 $190,344
9 Eastlake 3,150 sf 6/02 $139,000 $201,550
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within Eastlake which is nearing its build-out and obtaining
a p~-emium on their remaining lots. Data No. 3 refers to a sale within Rolling Hills Ranch, which
has a lower overall tax rate in comparison to the subject property. Data No. 4 is located in San
Miguel with similar tax rates and larger sized lots. Data No. 6 refers to a previous sale within
Eastlake. Planning Area R-2B has a minimum size of 4,250 square feet. We have concluded that'
the subject lots have a retail, finished lot value of $180,000. The calculation is as follows.
$180,000 x 106 lots = $19,080,000
However, the property is not in a finished lot condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to finished lots will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-5A consists of 51 lots with a minimum lot size of 3,450 square feet. Otay
Ranch Eight, LLC owns the lots. In valuing this parcel, we have considered the following
market data to be the most relevant.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7. RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 55
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
Finished Adjusted
Data No. Master Plan Lot Size Date of Sale Lot Price F/L Price
3 Rolling Hills 6,000 sf 09/02 $175,000 $238,000
4 San Miguel 5,000 sf 12/02 $188,000 $238,760
5 Eastlake 4,500 sf 12/02 $182,000 $231,140
6 Eastlake 4,500 sf 5/02 $129,000 $198,6~0
7 Eastlake 4,200 sf Escrow $244,000 $244,000
8 Eastlake 3,150 sf 5/02 $123,600 $190,344
9 Eastlake 3,150 sf 6/02 $139,000 $20t,550
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within Eastlake which is nearing its build-out and obtaining
a premium on their remaining lots. Data No. 3 refers to a sale within Rolling Hills Ranch, which
has a lower overall tax rote in comparison to the subject property. Data No. 4 is located in San
Miguel with similar tax rates and larger sized lots. Data No. 6 refers to a previous sale within
Ear'lake. Planning Ama R-5A has a minimum size of 3,450 square feet. We have concluded that
the subject lots have a retail, finished lot value of $160,000. The calculation is as follows.
$160,000 x 51 lots = $8,160,000
However, the property is not in a finished lot condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to finished lots will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-5B consists of 55 lots with a minimum lot size of 3,450 square feet. Otay
Ranch VI-l, LLC owns the lots. In valuing this parcel, we have considered the following market
data to be the most relevant.
Finished Adjusted
Data No. Master Plan Lot Size Date of Sale Lot Price F/L Price
3 Rolling Hills 6,000 sf 09/02 $175,000 $238,000
4 San Miguel 5,000 sf 12/02 $188,000 $238,760
5 Eastlake 4,500 sf 12/02 $182,000 $231,140
6 Eastlake 4,500 sf 5/02 $129,000 $198,660
7 Eastlake 4,200 sf Escrow $244,000 $244,000
8 Eastlake 3,150 sf 5/02 $123,600 $190,344
9 Eastlake 3,150 sf 6/02 $139,000 $201,550
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Sbt- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 56
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within Eastlake that is nearing its build-out and obtaining a
premium on their remaining lots. Data No. 3 refers to a sale within Rolling Hills Ranch, which
has a lower overall tax rate in comparison to the subject property. Data No. 4 is located in San
Miguel with similar tax rates and larger sized lots. Data No. 6 refers to a previous sale within
Eastlake. Planning Area R-5B has a minimum size of 3,450 square feet. We have concluded that
the subject lots have a retail, finished lot value of $160,000. The calculation is as follows.
$160,000 x 55 lots = $8,800,000
However, the property is not in a finished lot condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to finished lots will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planni~R-9A consists of 139 lots with a minimum lot size of 2,890 square feet. Otay
Ranch Nine, LLC owns the lots. In valuing this parcel, we have considered the following market
data to be the most relevant.
Finished ] Adjusted
Data No. Master Plan Lot Size Date of Sale Lot Price FfL Price
3 Rolling Hills 6,000 sf 09/02 $175,000 $238,000
4 San Miguel 5,000 sf 12/02 $188,000 $238,760
5 Eastlake 4,500 sf 12/02 $182,000 $231,140
6 Ea~tlake 4,500 sf 5/02 $129,000 $198,660
7 Eastlake 4,200 sf Escrow $244,000 $244,000
8 Eastlake 3,150 sf 5/02 $123,600 $190,344
9 Eastlake 3,150 sf 6/02 $139,000 $201,550
Data No. 7 refers to a current escrow within Eastlake which is nearing its build-out and obtaining
a premium on their remaining lots. Data No. 3 refers to a sale within Rolling Hills Ranch, which
has a lower overall tax rate in comparison to the subject property. Data No. 4 is located in San
Miguel with similar tax rates and larger sized lots. Data No. 6 refers to a previous sale within
Eastlake. Planning Area R-9A has a minimum size of 2,720 square feet. We have concluded that
the subject lots have a retail, finished lot value of $130,000. The calculation is as follows.
$130,000 x 139 lots = $18,070,000
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities D~strict No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 57
Bruce W. Hull & Associates. Inc.
However, the property is not in a finished lot condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to finished lots will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-7A consists of a 6.416-acre parcel with approval for 92 units for an overall
density of 14.33 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $70,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$70,000 x 92 lots = $6,440,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-7BI consists of a 6.670-acre parcel with approval for 105 units for an overall
density of 15.74 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per UniffDensity graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $70,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$70,000 x 105 lots = $7,350,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-7B2 consists of a 6.895-acre parcel with approval for 96 units for an overall
density of 13.92 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per UniffDensity graph located in the
Su~nmary Appraisal Reporl - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista. San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates. Inc. Page 58
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $70,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$70,000 x 96 lots = $6,720,000
However, the prope_rty is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planni~ consists of a 8.829-acre parcel with approval for 169 units for an overall
density of 19.16 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $45,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$45,000 x 169 lots = $7,605,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planni~ consists of a 5.851-acre parcel with approval for 119 units for an overall
density of 20.33 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $45,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$45,000 x 119 lots = $5,355,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 59
Plannin~ consists of a 7.429-acre parcel with approval for 159 units for an overall
density of 21.40 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $45,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$45,000 x 159 lots = $7,155,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning Area R-9B(2) consists of a 5.156-acm parcel with approval for 73 units for an overall
density of 14.15 units per acre. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $70,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$70,000 x 73 lots = $5,110,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Planning_Area R-gD consists of a 4.313-acre parcel with approval for 49 units for an overall
density of 11.36 units per acm. We have utilized the Price per Unit/Density graph located in the
Addenda of this report to arrive at a value conclusion of $85,000 per unit for the property in a
superpad condition. The calculation is as follows.
$85,000 x 49 lots = $4,165,000
However, the property is not in a superpad condition at this time. The costs to develop the
property to a superpad in addition to the development costs expended beyond a superpad
condition will be taken into account in the discounted cash flow analysis.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 0Sd
Otay Project portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, RT, RS, Rg and MU-l )
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 60
Planning_Area MU-1 consists of a 2.95-acre parcel that is designated for commercial land use.
We have utilized the commercial market data discussed earlier within this report. The most
relevant data had a price per square foot range from $10.55 to $15.47. Based on the subject's
size, location, allowed uses, and condition, we have concluded that the subject commercial
parcel has a cu:rent market value of $12.50 per square foot.
2.95 acre (128,502 sf) x $12.50/sf = $1,606:275
Retail Value Summary
The master developer-owned property has the following retail value conclusions.
Planning No. of Lot Sized Retail
Area Lots/Units Density Value Conclusion
· ' R-2A 92 5,060 sf $ 17,480,000
R-2B 106 4,250 sf $ 19,080,000
R-5A 51 3,450 sf $ 8,160,000
R-5B 55 3,450 sf $ 8,800,000
R-9A 139 2,720 sf $ 18,070,000
R-7A 92 14.33 du/ac $ 6,440,000
R-9B(2) 73 14.15 du/ac $ 5,110,000
R-TB(1) 105 15.74 alu/ac $ 7,350,000
R-7B(2) 96 13.92 du/ac $ 6,720,000
R-8Ph. 1 169 19.14 du/ac $ 7,605,000
R-8Ph.2 119 20.33 du/ac $ 5,355,000
R-9B(1) 159 21.4 alu/ac $ 7,155,000
R-9D 49 11.36 dm'ac $ 4,165,000
MU-1 N/A N/A $ 1,606,275
Total 1,305 $123,096,275
Absorption Period
In determining an absorption period for the subject property, we have reviewed the Market
Analysis and Absorption Analysis prepared by the Meyers Group on the property. The Meyers
Group analyzed the end user (homeowner) buying the' property whereas this analysis is for the
land being purchased by the merchant builder. There is typically a 6 to 12 month lag between a
builder buying the land and selling the first home. In addition, we have taken into consideration
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Porlion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates. Inc. Page 61
the City of Chula Vista's Monitoring Agreement on building permits. It is our belief that a
builder would not purchase land until a time frame when the allocations will be available. This
is evidenced by Eastlake Development Company removing some lots from the market rather
than sell them without allocations available. We have also reviewed and taken into consideration
the master developer's projections regarding their pro-forma on the sellout of the subject lots~
Although the planning areas are under separate ownerships, all are related entities to Otay
Project L.P. We have concluded the absorption for the subject planning areas as shown on the
facing page. The periods consist of semi-annual time periods, which begin as of the date of
value.
The concluded absorption schedule is similar to the Meyers Group findings. We have taken into
account the Monitoring Agreement along with the current market conditions in determining an
absorption period. It should be noted that the Meyers Group refers to homebuyers purchasing
the completed home while the appraisal absorption refers to lot being purchased by a merchant
builder which creates a 6-12 month lag between the builder purchasing the lots and the
homebuyer purchasing the home.
The Meyers Group projection and the absorption utilized in this report are listed below.
1/03-12/03 1/04--12/04 1/05-12/05
Meyers Group Projection 244 742 31~9
6/03 - 5/04 6/04 - 5/05 6/05-5/06
Otay Absorption/Appraisal 858 37.._~4 73
Appreciation/Inflation Rates
Land appreciation in the past twelve to eighteen months has been extraordinarily impressive.
We estimate over the next several years appreciation will continue, but at a lower rate. We have
concluded future annual appreciation on the subject lots to be estimated at 4 percent per annum.
This is based on the Meyers Group report as well as other factors. It is estimated that costs will
increase at 3 percent annually for this analysis.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six-Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Brace W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 62
Remaining Costs of Development
The remaining costs of development include the remaining backbone infrastructure, which is
allocated to the master developer-owned properties; the remaining phase specific costs, which
have been allocated to the master developer-owned properties; and the in-tract costs associated
with finishing the lots for the detacbed lot tracts. These costs are specific to the subject property
only. The costs have been discussed previously within this report (under Property Description
section). Remaining costs, taking into consideration the CFI) funded improvements that are
allocated to the master developer are $i7,087,795. In addition, land development expenditures
on the multi-family sites total $2,539,722.
In determining the spread of the remaining costs, we have reviewed the master developer's
projections along with our absorption estimates of the selling of the subject properties. These
costs generally coincide with the selling of the planning areas.
Taxes
Taxes have been estimated based on current market value at an overall tax rate of !.2 percent for
ad valorem taxes and other minimal charges. In addition we have estimated the CFD obligation
for the master developer's property. It is assumed that the tax obligation to the master developer
will be reduced as the property sells off. It is further assumed there will be 12 months of
capitalized interest in the subject bond sale.
Indirect Costs
Indirect costs include administration and contingency, and sales and marketing costs for the
portion of the property owned by the developer. We have estimated administration and
contingency costs to be 1.5 percent of gross revenues, while sales and marketing costs are
estimated at 3.0 percent. Taxes have been considered separately. In determining these amounts,
we have considered the developer's proposed costs along with historical costs on similar sized
projects.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project portion of Village Si~- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-1 )
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 63
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
Discount Rate
The discount rate involves several factors, including the time value of money, the variety and
magnitude of different risks associated with the project, and profit that any developer would
expect in developing the project. It should be noted that discount rates (particularly in the case
of land development projects) are not easily derived from real estate market data. Indeed, if one
could abstract a discount rote from a previous land development project, in all probability, It
would not be relevant in today's marketplace. That is, the historical perspective of a master-
planned project that began 5 to 10 years ago and sold out last year would, in all likelihood, not be
relevant. Market conditions, as well as market expectations, change frequently, and as a result,
what the market anticipates today is more important than what has occurred in the past. The
appraiser needs to make subjective decisions on the future profit expectations during the
anticipated time frame for the income stream generated by such a large project.
Another perspective on discount rates appears in an article written for The Appraisal Journal
(January 1989, Page 85) entitled Discount Rate Derivation. The author (Robert Mason) states
that "over the past decade improved real estate investments have had a discount rate between
1.25 and 2.5 times the safe rate, while vacant or subdivision lands have had a discount rate
between 3 and 5 times the safe rate". The safe rate is the compensation paid to a lender or
investor for the use of money. Assume for the moment that the lender is the U.S. government
and a benchmark 10-year treasury bond is utilized for analysis. As of June 2003, the benchmark
10-year bill was quoted at less than 4.0 percent, which will be assumed as the "safe rate" for the
purpose of analysis. The major elements of a discount rate are risk rate and safe rate. Based on
our scenario, a discount rate would be "built-up" under the following variables:
1) As previously discussed, a safe rote of 4.0%
2) Risks associated not only with this project, but a rate that reflects the burdens and
benefits to real estate investment
The capital markets for financing any type of land development are virtually non-existent and
real estate residential values are stable at best. We have observed in the marketplace that the
typical merchant builder buying fully entitled finished lots who is planning a housing
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2. RS, R7, RS. R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Count)', California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 64
development of 50 to 100 houses (the total in a given tract) expects a minimum 10 to 12 percent
profit based on the sales price of the house. Utilizing this 12 percent factor, the following
discount rate is "built-up".
Safe Rate 4.0%
RiskJProfit 12.0%
Total 16.0%
Note that 16 pement is only 4 times the safe rate. A factor of 5 would equate to a 20 percent
discount rate. Although this analysis is helpful in determining an appropriate discount rate, the
market perspective is as important as the theoretical build-up of the rate.
Economic Research Associates (ERA) was asked by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California for its opinion regarding the appropriate discount rates for discounting cash flows to a
present value for large landholdings planned for development. Its conclusions were drawn from
its own experience in feasibility analysis and valuation of planned community development
projects over the past 15 years, including several current assignments. ERA states "the
appropriate discount rate must reflect the rate of return that a typical buyer expects". Discount
rates vary depending upon the cash flow methodology and market expectation as to the
following:
1) The availability and cost of capital
2) The degree of uncertainty in cost estimates
3) The degree of uncertainty in market forecasts
4) The degree of uncertainty in entitlements
5) The overall perceived risk in the development
6) The expected rate of appreciation in product prices, in relation to the inflation rates
employed in the cash flow forecast
An interesting article in the April 16, 1992 Wall Street Journal dealt with the concept of a
discount rate. The article, which focused on an artist's estate, discussed what an appropriate
discount rate would be for the artist's work. The sum of the individual values at the time of the
artist's death was estimated at $72.8 million. A dispute occurred between the IRS, who
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California Page 65
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
ASSUMPTIONS MATRIX
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX
CFD 08-1
PRODUCT TYPE AREA ACRES I SQ. FT. PER LOT LOTS DENSITY
Detached Residential
Carnbda
Nillowbrook R-2B 180t000 106 4,250 SF
~adera R-5A 160,000 51 3,450 SF
Nillows R-SB 160,000 55 3~450 SF
Rosewood R-gA 130,000 139 2,890 SF
~ledta~e Villas R-952 70~000 73 2~016 SF
Detached Residential Totals 51
~,ttached Residential
Be~leme Villas R-TA 70~000 92 14 D/U
Ballerne Ch~t~ R-7B(1) 70,000 105 16 D/U
Bellerne Ch~t~,~ R-75(2) 70,000 96 14 D/U
Le provence R-5(1) 45~000 169 22 D/u
Le provence R-B{2) 45~000 119 24 D/U
Unnamed R-gB (1) 45~000 159 21 D/U
Wi~dchime R-gD 85~000 49 11 D/U
Attached Residential Totab 789
Commercial
MU-1 MU-1 2.95 12.50
Commercial Totals 2.95
Grand Total 2.95 1305
Gan Dev Costs (before finance costs) ....................................................................... 17,087,795
Appreciation of Property ............................................................................................ 4000/0
Cost Increases ...................................................................................................... 3.00%
AdminJCenting ...................................................................................................... 1.50%
Sales& Marketing Costs ........................................................................................ 3.000/0
Taxes (See schedule)
Other Assumptions
Const Loan Interest Rate (inc~udea pta) ....................................................................... 7.50%
Loan Repayment ( % of Revenues ) .......................................................................... 85.00%
AnnuaJ Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 18.00%
Each time period = Semi-Annual
CONCLUSIONS
Present Value of the property (millio~ls) ....................................................................... $96.924
Bruce W. Hull, MAI
discounted the total between 10 and 37 percent, and the expert for the estate who proposed a 75
percent discount. The judge stated that the opinion of the estate's expert "defies common sense",
yet the IRS opinion was also determined to be unjustified. "Frustrated ... by the lack of a
reliable expert opinion," the judge valued the art at a 50 percent discount. Obviously, this is not
considered as a reliable discount rate in the subject case. However, we point it out for two
reasons: (1) the $72.8 million would take time to sell off and (2) the judge indicated that the rate
must reflect what the history and prospects of the sales are, the art market's general state, and the
works themselves. In a way, this is similar to what must be considered in determining a discount
rate for this project. That is, we must consider the future of the real estate market in San Diego
County, the general real estate market as a whole, and the product itself. It is worth noting that
even the IRS proposed a 10 to 37 percent range discount rate.
In'determining an appropriate discount rate, the appraiser has taken into consideration (1) the
entitlements which cover the subject property (i.e., including mapping with the "B" maps
recorded); (2) the existing sales to merchant builders including related entities to the master
developer; (3) the proposed products on each of the planning areas; (4) current market conditions
involving the capital markets; (5) the risks associated with the remaining development of the
subject property including the Monitoring Agreement which is currently in place; and (5) the
current sales activity of homes in the subject. In the case at hand, these are being "sold" out of
current trailer sales office. It should be noted that this appraisal assumes that the Monitoring
Agreement traffic enhancements are completed in a timely manner that does not slow
development of the project.
Taking all factors into consideration, we have concluded at a discount rate of 18% for the subject
property.
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Conclusion
The above information has been input into a discounted cash flow analysis. The analysis (see
facing page for assumptions and conclusions) for the subject master developer-owned property
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5. RT, RS, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 66
results in a present value of $96,925,000 (say) $96,925,000. The resulting cash flow data is
located in the Addenda of this report.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six- Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MUll)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 67
MARKETING AND EXPOSURE TIME
It is our estimation that both the exposure time and the marketing time for the subject property
(as sold in bulk or total), if on the market today at our concluded value, is less than 12 months.
Summary Appraisal Report- Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California ['age 68
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
APPRAISAL REPORT SUMMARY
This appraisal assignment was to estimate the fair market value of the subject property, which
consists of a proposed 1,305 residential units and a commemial parcel located in Village Six of
Otay Ranch, being developed by Otay Project L.P. The property is under construction, wi[h
mass grading complete and infrastructure currently being installed. There are several model
complexes under construction along with some production homes. Some of the planning areas
have recently been sold to related entities to the master developer with the remaining planning
areas still owned by the master developer. Due to this single ownership, the property was valued
using a Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. The final value conclusion is as follows:
NINETY-SIX MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($96,925,000)
The above values are stated subject to the Special Assumptions, Limiting Conditions, and
Appraiser's Certification as of the 15th day of June 2003.
Summary Appraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Village S£~ - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R& R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. Page 69
APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION
We certify, to the best of our knowledge and belief, that:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased, professional
analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or
direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the
attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
5. This appraisal was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or
the approval of any specified amount.
6. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice.
7. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
8. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report.
9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has
been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics
and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
11. As of the date of this report, Brace W. Hull, MAI, and Kitty S. Siino, MAI, have
completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal
Institute.
State Certified General State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964) Real Estate Appraiser (AG004793)
Summary ~lppraisal Report - Complete Appraisal
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
Otay Project Portion of Fillage $ix - Otay Ranch
(Planning.4reas R2, RS, R7, R8, R9 and MU-I)
City of Chula Fista, San Diego County, California Page 69
Bruce ~ Hull & Associates, Inc.
ADDENDA
COST ALLOCATION SCHEDULES
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Aug4,2003 9:36am PrepamdbyStone&YoxmgbergLLC(SEO) (Finance4.434otayRanch:OTAY_OS14)80403) Page l
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Chula Vista CFI) 08-I (Ot~y Ranch)
Special Tax Bonds, Sehes 2003
*****************************************************************
Revised Sizing for Appraisal Pu~-pos~s
Bond Proceeds:
Pax Panotmt 19,470,000.00
19,470,000.00
Project Fund
Deposit to Improvement Fund 15,950,118.75
Other Fund Deposits:
Debt Service Resexve Fund 1,549,450.00
Capitalized Interest F~nd (to Sept 1, 2004) 1~204~706.25
2,754,156.25
Cost of Issuance 350,000.00
PRICE PER UNIT/DENSITY GRAPH
CD
l!Ul'l Jed eO!~d
DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX
CFD 084
PRODUCT TYPE AREA ACRES I SQ. FT. PER LOT LOTS DENSIT~
Detached Residential
Cambda R-2A 190,000 92 5,060 SF
~llowbrook R-2B 180,000 106 4~250 SF
Madera R-5A 160,000 51 3~450 SF
~llows R-5B 160,000 55 3,450 SF
Rosewood R-gA 130,000 139 2,890 SF
MeHta~e ~llas R-9B2 70,000 73 2~016 SF
Detached Residential Total 916
Attached Residential
Belleme Villas R-TA 70,000 92 14 D/U
Belleme Chateaux R-7B(1) 70~000 105 16 D/U
Belleme Chateaux R-7B(21 70,000 96 14 D/U
Le Provence R-8(1) 45~000 169 22 D/u
Le Provence R-8(21 45,000 119 24 D/U
Unnamed R-gB (1) 45,000 159 21 DIU
V~ndchime R-9D 85,000 49 11 D/U
Attached Residential Totals 789
MU-1 MU-1 2.95 12,50
Commercial Totals 2.95
Grand Total 2.95 1305
Gert Der Costs (before finance costs) ......................................................................... 17,087,795
Inflation Rates Annually i
Appreciation of Properb~ ........................................................................................... 4.00%
Cost Increases ........................................................................................................ 3.00%
-- Indirect Costs --
Admin./Con~ng ........................................................................................................ 1.50%
Sales & Marke~ng Co~s .......................................................................................... 3.00%
Taxes (See schedule)
Const Loan Interest Rate (includes pts) ....................................................................... 7.50%
Loan Repayment ( % of Revenues) ......................................................................... 85.00%
Annual Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 18.00%
Each ~me pedod = Semi-Annual
CONCLUSIONS
Present Value of He ProperS/(millions) ........................................................................ $96.924
Bruce W. Hult, MAt
APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATIONS
QUALIFICATIONS OF BRUCE W. HULL, MAI
Business Locations: 1056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202
Ventura, California 93001
(805) 641-3275 * Facsimile (805) 641-3278
E-Mail Address - Bhul186686@aol.com
Direct Correspondence to Ventura Location
115 E. Second Street, Suite 100
Tustin, California 92780
(949) 581-2194 * Facsimile (949) 581-2198
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. is an appraisal firm that provides a wide variety of
appraisal assignments for public agencies, developers and financial institutions.
The principal, Bruce W. Hull, MAI, has been in the appraisal field since graduation in
1969 from Westmont College, Santa Barbara. After being employed by the Ventura
County Assessor's Office for five years, he established an appraisal company in Orange
County in 1974. In August of 1995 he established an office in Ventura while
maintaining an Orange County location. While most ofthe appraisal assignments are
in Southern California, assignments have been completed in areas from San
· Francisco/Bay Area and Lake Tahoe to San Diego.
The appraisal assignments completed have been diverse in nature, including such
property types as large masterplanned developments, shopping centers, large retail
uses, and mitigation land. A brief summary of the more challenging assignments is
given on the following pages.
MASTERPLANNED DEVELOPMENT
These are typically more than 1,000 acres in size and have a wide variety of residential
product, often ranging from condominiums to large estate type of properties. In
addition, there is often a commercial use within the development. I have been involved
in the following projects.
Lake Sherwood, Hidden Valley
Wood Ranch, Simi Valley
Rancho San Clemente, San Clemente
Towne Center, Rancho Santa Margarita
Rancho Trabuco North and South, Rancho Santa Margarita
Hunters Ridge, Fontana
The Corona Ranch, Corona
Mountain Cove, Ternescal
Mountain Gate, South Corona
The Foothill Ranch, Corona
Orangecrest, City of Riverside
Aliso Viejo, County of Orange
Talega Valley, City of San Clemente/County of Orange
Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista
RETAIL USE
Consultant to City of Long Beach regarding a 30 acre site (Long Beach Naval
Hospital) which the City was acquiring from the US Navy for inclusion in a 100
acre shopping center site.
Towne Center, Rancho Santa Margarita, is a masterplanned project which
contains two shopping centers (Towne Center, 160,000 SF plus a Target
Store, 122,000 SF; Plaza Antonio, 165,000 SF).
.. Mission Grove, City of Riverside, is a 395,362 SF center which included a K-
Mart Department Store among the major tenants.
Victoria Gardens Masterplan was a proposed mixed use project consisting of
3,065 acres of land which included a mixture of residential (2,150 acres);
commercial (335 acres of which 91.9 acres was a regional center site);
schools; parks; and open space for the remainder of the lands.
Menifee Village, Riverside County, is a 1977 acre masterplanned development
which had approvals for 5,256 units. The assignment included the valuation
of Planning Area 2-7 which was a commercial site that had been developed
with a Target Store, Ralph's Market, and in-line stores (190,000 SF with
eventually being a 257,000 SF center).
MITIGATION LANDS
These assignments involved valuing lands that are considered mitigation lands which
are often acquired by public agencies or nonprofit organizations.
Bolsa Chic, a, Huntington Beach, a 42-acre site which was part of a larger
wetlands conservation program. This particular acreage was unique since it
was subject to "tidal flushing" and had both fresh and saltwater impacting the
lands. This assignment was completed for Metropolitan Water District.
San Joaquin Marsh, City of Irvine, consisted of approximately 289 acres of
wetlands which were acquired for use as a "buffer" zone by the Irvine Ranch
Water District.
-2-
Eagle Valley, a 1072-acre parcel near Lake Matthews in Riverside County,
was acquired by Metropolitan Water District for use as a water treatment plant
and buffer zone.
Poormans Reservoir, Moreno Valley, a 38-acre site acquired by the City of
Moreno Valley for preservation/open space use.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/BOND ISSUES
Have been involved in the appraisals of the following Bond Issues regarding Community
Facilities Districts and/or Assessment Districts. (This represents a partial list of
assignments completed from 1990 thru Present.)
CFD No. 9 (Orangecrest - Impr. Areas 1, 3 & 5); City of Riverside
CFD No. 2000-1 (Crosby Estate @ Rancho Santa Fe); Solana Beach
CFD No. 2001-01 (Murrieta Valley U.S.D.);Murdeta
. CFD No. 90-1 (Lusk-Highlander); City of Riverside
Otay Ranch SPA I - CFD No. 99-2; City of Chula Vista
CFD No. 7 (Victoria Grove); County of Riverside
CFD No. 10 (Fairfield Ranch); City of Chino Hills
CFD No. 2000-1; Tejon Industrial Complex; Lebec
CFD No. 99-1; Santa Margarita Water Distdct
CFD No. 97-3; City of Chula Vista
CFD No. 2 (Riverside Unified School District); City of Riverside
CFD No. 89-1; City of Corona
Lake Sherwood A.D. Refunding; County of Ventura
CFD No. 9; City of Chino Hills
CFD NO. 88-12; City of Temecula
CFD No. 90-1 (Refunding); City of Corona
A.D. No. 97-1-R; City of Oxnard
A.D. No. 96-1; Valley Center Municipal Water District; San Diego County
A.D. No. 96-1; City of Oxnard
CFD No. 88-1 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.); Rancho Santa Margarita
CFD No. 89-2 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.); Rancho Santa Margarita
CFD No. 89-3 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist); Rancho Santa Margarita
Centex A.D. No. 95-1; City of Corona
Coyote Hills A.D. No. 95-1; City of Fullerton
Sycamore Creek A.D. No. 95-1; City of Orange
Prop. CFD No. 2 (Riverside Unified School District); City of Riverside
CFD No. 91-1; City of Rancho Cucamonga
Prop. CFD No. 2; City of Chino
CFD No. 9; County of San Bernardino
A.D. No. 89-1; City of Corona
CFD No. 87-1 (Series B); City of Moreno Valley
CFD No. 90-1; City of Corona
--3--
CFD No. 89-1; (Saddleback Valley Unified School District); Orange County
A.D. No. 96-1; City of Oxnard
A.D. Nos. 86-3, 87-1 and 89-1 (Refunding); City of Oxnard
CFD No. 90-1; City of Corona
CFD No. 1 (Refunding); City of Jurupa
CFD No. 88-12; City of Temecula
PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS
Have completed appraisal assignments for a wide variety of clients. A partial list of
these includes the following.
Anaheim City Unified School Distdct
Bank of America NT & SA
Bank of Montreal
Bear, Steams & Co., Inc.
Best Best & Krieger LLP (Law Firm)
Carpinteria Valley Unified School District
Chino Unified School District
Citicorp, N.A.
City of Brea
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Chula Vista
City of Colton
City of Corona
City of Fullerton
City of Huntington Beach
City of Jurupa
City of Mission Viejo
City of Moreno Valley
City of Orange
City of Oxnard
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Riverside
City of San Bernardino
City of San Marcos
City of Temecula
Coast Federal Bank
Colton Joint Unified School District
County of Los Angeles
County of Orange
County of Riverside
County of San Bernardino
County of Ventura
Downey Savings and Loan
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Financial Consultants)
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Unified School Distdct
Jurupa Community Services District
Metrobank
Metropolitan Water District
Meserve, Mumper & Hughes (Law Firm)
Munger, Toiles & Olson LLP (Law Firm)
Murrieta Valley Unified School District
Rialto Unified School Distdct
Riverside Unified School Distdct
Saddleback Valley Unified School District
Santa Margarita Water District
Sidley & Austin (Law Firm)
Solana Beach Unified School Distdct
Southern California Edison Company
Stone & Youngberg LLC (Bond Underwriters)
Talmantz Aviation
The Irvine Company
Wells Fargo Bank
Wells Fargo Mortgage Company
Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Company
COURT EXPER EN E
Qualified Expert Witness in the following courts:
United States District Court/Central Distdct of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Supedor Court
Orange County Superior Court
Riverside County Superior Court
Ventura County Superior Court
ORGANIZATIONS
Member - Appraisal Institute (No. 6894)
-5-
LICENSES
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964)
State of Califomia; Expires April 15, 2004
Licensed Real Estate Broker (00821209)
State of California; Expires August 15, 2004
GUEST SPEAKER (for)
UCLA Symposium on Mello Roos Districts - 1988
"Exploring the Rumors & Realities of Land Secured Debt in California" -
Conference sponsored by Stone & Youngberg, LLC, bond underwriters, held in
Los Angeles on January 15, 1992
"Appraisals for Land Secured Financing" presentation for Stone &Youngberg, LLC,
bond underwriters, held at San Francisco Headquarters on March 5, 1998
UCLA Symposium on Mello-Roos Districts - 2001
MISCELLANEOUS
Member Advisory Panel to California Debt Advisory Commission regarding Appraisal
Standards for Land Secured Financing (May 1994 and March 2003)
-6-
LIMITED SUMMARY APPRA/SAL REPORT - SUMMARY APPRAISAL
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 08-I
Otay Project Portion of Village Six - Otay Ranch
(Planning Areas R2, R5, R7, R8, R9 and MU-l)
City of Chula Vista
San Diego County, California
· · (Appraiser's File No. 2003-82.Limited)
Prepared For
City of Chula Vista
276 Fou~h Avenue
Chula Vista, California
Prepared By
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc.
1056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202 115 E. Second Street, Suite 100
Ventura, California 93001 Tustin, California 92780
(805) 641-3275 (714) 544-9978
(805) 641-3278 [Fax] (714) 54~. 9985 [Fax]
BRUCE W. HULL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS
August 27, 2003
Mr. George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Reference: Community Facilities District No. 08-I
Otay Ranch Village Six
City of Chula Vista, California
Dear Mr. Krempl:
At your request and authorization we have prepared a limited appraisal of the property within the
above referenced Community Facilities District No. 08-1 ("CFD-08-I"). CFD-08-I encompasses
a proposed 1,305-unit residential subdivision for which Otay Project L.P is the master developer.
This report is a Limited Summary Appraisal Report, which is defined as:
"The act or process of estimating value or an estimate of value of value performed
under and resulting fi.om invoking the Departure Provision."
The Departure Provision of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices states:
"An appraiser may enter into an agreement to perform an assignment that calls for
something less than, or different fi.om, the work that would otherwise be required bY
the specific guidelines."
Advisory Opinion 15 ("AO-15") of the Uniform Standards of Profession Appraisal Practice
indicated what enndifions under which appraisal may depart fi.om specific guidelines:
"An appraiser may enter into an agreement to perform an assignment that calls for
something less than, or different fi.om, the work that would otherwise be required by
the epeeific guidelines, provided that prior to entering into such an agreement:
1. the appraiser has determined that the appraisal or consulting process to be
performed is not so limited that the resulting assignment would tend to mislead
or confuse the client or the intended users of the report;
t056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202, Ventura, California 93001 - (805} 641-3275 - Facsimile (805) 6414278
t15 E. Second Street, Suite 100, Tustin, California 92780 - (949} 58t-2194 - Facsimile (~49} 581-2t98
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Two
In the case of the subject, this limited appraisal report is intended to be used in
conjunction with an appraisal on the subject property with a date of value of June
15, 2003. In lieu of updating the entire project the purpose was to provide a limited
report with a not less than value. The scope of work and the departure provisions
are listed in this report.
2. the appraiser has advised the client that the assignment calls for something less
than, or different from, the work required by the specific guidelines and that the
report will clearly identify and explain the departures; and
In the case of the subject I have advised the client via e-mail and phone conference
' calls that a limited report will be prepared. The City and their financial advisors
have agreed that this course of action is prudent.
3. the client has agreed that the performance of a limited appraisal or consulting service
would be appropriate."
The client and their financial advisors have agreed.
CLIENT
The City of Chula Vista.
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of the appraisal is to determine that the estimate of value for CFD-08-I has not
decreased since reporting the values in the June 15, 2003 appraisal report. This limited report
should be used in conjunction with the June 15, 2003 appraisal report.
INTENDED USE OF THE REPORT
It is our understanding that this report, in conjunction with the June 15, 2003 appraisal report,
will be utilized by the client, City of Chula Vista, in determining the feasibility of issuing bonds
for CFD-08-I.
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Three
DEFINITIONS
Market Value
The term "market value" as used in this appraisal report is defined by Federal Register, Vol. 55,
No. 165, Friday, August 4, 1990, rules and regulations, 12 C.F.R. part 34.42(f) as:
"The most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer
and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not
affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale
as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions
whereby:
i) buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2) both parties are well informed or sell advised, and acting in what they consider
their own best interest;
3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated
with the sale."
Limited Appraisal Report
This will be a limited appraisal report. Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice Standards Rule
2-2(a) states "When the Departure Provision is invoked, the assignment is deemed to be a
Limited Appraisal. Use of the term Limited Appraisal makes it clear that the assignment
involved something less than, or different from the work required by the specific guidelines (of
USPAP). The report of a Limited Appraisal must contain a prominent section that clearly
identifies the extent of the appraisal process performed and the departures taken".
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property rights being appraised are the fee simple interests subject to the special tax lien
created by CFD-08-I.
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Four
EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE
The subject property is valued as of August 15, 2003.
OWNER OF RECORD
Please refer to the June 15, 2003 appraisal report.
THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY
Please refer to the June 15, 2003 appraisal report as well as this report which details land sales
and construction activity since June 15, 2003.
SCOPE OF APPRAISAL
In the case of the subject the following is the scope of the appraisal assignment (extent of
appraisal process).
· Identifying new tracts that have begun marketing since our appraisal date of value (June
15, 2003).
· Reporting the type of product and sales activity for any new residential tracts.
· Confirm if the current land transactions in escrow or in negotiations as of June 15, 2003
are recorded transactions and, if so, at the reported price.
· Confirm the amount of costs that have been expended by the master developer since June
15, 2003.
· Arrive at a Not Less Value Conclusion.
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Five
This report will include departures from the following lJniform Standards of Appraisal Practices.
· Standards Rule l-3(a,b). This role applies to highest and best use of the lands and
consideration of land use regulations. We will reference the original appraisal report.
· Standards Rule 14 (a,b,c). This applies to collecting, analyzing, and reconciling market
data. While we have completed a certain amount of this (see above scope), we will not be
collecting all of the transactions that may have occurred within the surrounding market
area (a). While in this case we believe that we are performing the appropriate methods
(see above scope), the cost and income approaches were not considered (b,c).
On August 21, 2003 the appraiser performed a physical inspection of the subject property in
order to ascertain changes in the subject property from June 15, 2003 (date of original appraisal)
through August 15, 2003. In addition to the physical inspection, projects were surveyed and sales
closings of lots were reviewed. Between June 15, 2003 and August 15, 2003 the following
changes relate to the subject property.
1. Access has opened with portions of East Palomar and La Media paved and access
available from Olympic Parkway. Santa Venetia Street is paved and View Park Way is
paved in areas. In addition, there are several internal streets paved. All paved streets
have underground utilities complete.
2. Cambria (Planning Area R-2A) has model homes open with several phases of production
homes under construction. They have obtained permits for 42 homes. There are a total
of 92 proposed homes. Twenty-two of the homes have been released and all 22 are sold
and due to close upon completion. Cambria consists of homes ranging in size from 2,875
to 3,350 square feet with pricing from $534,990 to $584,990. In the June 15, 2003
appraisal Planning Area R-2A was valued as land only with no improvements.
3. Willowbrook (Planning Area R-2B) has open model homes with several phases of
production homes under construction. Construction has begun on 25 production homes
with the next phase of 23 anticipated in the near future. There are a total of 106 homes in
the project. Twenty-five homes have been released with reservations taken for 20.
Willowbrook consists of homes ranging in size from 2,287 to 2,500 square feet with
pricing from $464,900 to $484,900. In the June 15, 2003 appraisal Planning Area R-2B
was valued as land only with no improvements.
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Six
4. Rosewood (Planning Area R-9A) has model homes over 95 pement complete with the
opening scheduled for August 30th. There are 34 production homes under construction.
In the June 15, 2003 appraisal Planning Ama R-9A was valued as land only with no
improvements.
5. Bellame Villas (Planning Ama R-7A) consists of a proposed 92 duplex homes. Models
have begun construction and are scheduled to open October 11, 2003.
6. Bellame Chateaux (Planning Area R-7B) consists of a proposed 201 triplex homes.
Models have begun construction and are scheduled to open October 11, 2003.
7. ' Madera (Planning Area R-5A) consists of a proposed 51 homes. There are no models.
Twenty-eight homes are under construction. They have released 28 homes and sold 20
with an additional 8 having reservations. Madera has homes ranging in size from 1,873
to 2,099 square feet with pricing from $384,900 to $404,900.
8. The Willows (Planning Area R-5B) is a continuation of a previous project consisting of
55 homes. Permits are anticipated to be pulled in September 2003 for the first 27 homes.
9. planning Area R-8 is proposed for 288 condominium homes. The internal utility and
street construction has begun onsite for the project.
10. According to the master developer, $1,240,011 has been spent in additional offsite and
phase specific costs between May 31, 2003 (date of cost information for June 15, 2003
report) and July 31, 2003 (date of cost information for August 15, 2003 report). In
addition, a substantial amount of in-tract costs has also been expended.
11. According to the master developer, no additional planning areas have closed escrow to
merchant builders between June 15, 2003 and August 15, 2003. All sales within the
project are non-arms length transactions due to related entities being the builders, any
current negotiations between these same parties would not project a market value.
In addition we have reviewed the current residential market for changes between June 15, 2003
and August 15, 2003. According to The Meyers Group New Home Executive Summary for the
2aa quarter 2003, the average price for a detached new home in San Diego County increased 6.5
percent from $533,552 to $568,908 between the end of the 1st quarter and the end of the 2aa
quarter 2003. Within the subject's sub-market the average price for a new, detached home
increased 6.1 percent from $450,844 to $478,591 during the same time period. These increases,
coupled with the sales price increases within projects in the subject area suggest the market
prices are still increasing.
Mr. George Krempl
City of Chula Vista
August 27, 2003
Page Seven
.SUMMARY
This was a limited appraisal report to ascertain if the values that were concluded as of June 15,
2003 are still valid. While we have not concluded at a new value, it is evident that the home
prices have increased, that additional construction of homes have been completed, and that the
master developer has expended an additional $1,240,000 on the offsites plus additional in-tracts.
Based on our investigation, we have determined that the current market values are not less than
the concluded values as of June 15, 2003.
Furthermore, this limited report is subject to the attached Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
and the Appraiser's Certification.
Respectfully submitted,
~L& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brace W. Hull, MAI Kitty S. Siino, MAI
State Certified General State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964) Real Estate Appraiser (AG004793)
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
I. This Summary Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements
set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it might not include full discussions
of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the
appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation conceming the data, reasoning,
and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The info~-mafion contained in this report is
specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The
appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report.
2. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the subject property
is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report.
3. The property is appraised subject to the easements of record, the Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 special tax lien, all existing special tax liens, and as if free and clear of
any other liens and/or encumbrances.
4. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless
otherwise stated in this report.
5. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is
given for its accuracy.
6. All engineering is assumed to be correct. Any plot plans and illustrative material in this
report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
7. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or
structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such
conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them.
8. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report.
9. It is assumed that the property is in compliance with all applicable zoning and use
regulations and restrictions, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and
considered in this appraisal report.
10. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, and other legislative or
administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity
or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value
estimates contained in this report are based.
Pagei
11. Any sketch contained in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included
only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this
report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is
expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for
the purpose of this report.
12. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or
property lines of the property described, and that no encroachment or trespass exists
unless otherwise stated in this report.
13. The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any
comment by the appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such
substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or
toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert
relating to asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous
materials that may affect the value of the subject property. The appraiser's value
estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the
property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No
responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or
engineering knowledge required to discover such conditions. The appraiser's
descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made
during the appraisal process.
14. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific
compliance survey having been conducted to determine whether the property is in
conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence
of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature and would
restrict access to the property by disabled individuals may adversely affect the proPerty's
value, marketability, or utility.
15. Any proposed improvements are assumed to be completed in a good workmanlike
manner in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications.
16. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and
improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate
allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other
appraisal, and such allocations are invalid if so used.
17. This report may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom
it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and, in any event, only with
proper written qualification and in its entirety. Permission is given for this appraisal to be
published as a part of the Official Statement or similar document for the bonds to be
issued by Community Facilities District No. 08-1.
18. No portion of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other
than the appraiser's or firm's client, through advertising, solicitation or public relations
materials, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the
author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with
which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or MAI.
Furthermore, the appraiser and firm assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to
any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall
make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.
SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS
1. That the reported value takes into consideration the improvements and/or benefits
financed as a result of the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District 08-I.
2. That no environmental or moratorium issues exist, which would slow or thwart
development of the site to its highest and best use.
3. That the costs provided by the master developer are accurate and complete.
4. That building permits are available to the projects within CFD-08-I in accordance with
the schedule currently in place under the City of Chula Vista Monitoring Agreement.
Page iii
APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION
We certify, to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are ~ue and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the rcported
assumptions and limiting conditions, and is our personal, unbiased professional analyses,
opinions, and conclusions.
3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report
and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction
in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of
a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
5. This appraisal was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the
approval of any specified amount.
6. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in
conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal practice.
7. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
8. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report.
9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in confonnity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
11. As of the [late of this report, Bruce W. Hull and Kitty S. Siino, have completed the
tinuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.
Bruce W. Hull, MAI Kitty S. Sfino, MAI
State Certified General State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964) Real Estate Appraiser (AG004793)
Page iv
ADDENDA
APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATIONS
QUALIFICATIONS OF BRUCE W. HULL, MAI
Business Locations: 1056 E. Meta Street, Suite 202
Ventura, California 93001
(805) 641-3275 * Facsimile (805) 641-3278
E-Mail Address - Bhul186686@aol.com
Direct Correspondence to Ventura Location
115 E. Second Street, Suite 100
Tustin, Califomia 92780
(949) 581-2194 * Facsimile (949) 581-2198
Bruce W. Hull & Associates, Inc. is an appraisal firm that provides a wide variety of
appraisal assignments for public agencies, developers and financial institutions.
The principal, Bruce W. Hull, MAI, has been in the appraisal field since graduation in
1969 from Westmont College, Santa Barbara. After being employed by the Ventura
County Assessor's Office for five years, he established an appraisal company in Orange
County in 1974. In August of 1995 he established an office in Ventura while
maintaining an Orange County location. While most of the appraisal assignments are
in Southern California, assignments have been completed in areas from San
Francisco/Bay Area and Lake Tahoe to San Diego.
The appraisal assignments completed have been diverse in nature, including such
property types as large masterplanned developments, shopping centers, large retail
uses, and mitigation land. A brief summary of the more challenging assignments is
given on the following pages.
MASTERPLANNED DEVELOPMENT
These are typically more than 1,000 acres in size and have a wide variety of residential
product, often ranging from condominiums to large estate type of properties, in
addition, there is often a commercial use within the development. I have been involved
in the following projects.
Lake Sherwood, Hidden Valley
Wood Ranch, Simi Valley
Rancho San Clemente, San Clemente
Towne Center, Rancho Santa Margarita
Rancho Trabuco North and South, Rancho Santa Margarita
Hunters Ridge, Fontana
The Corona Ranch, Corona
Mountain Cove, Temescal
Mountain Gate, South Corona
The Foothill Ranch, Corona
Orangecrest, City of Riverside
Aliso Viejo, County of Orange
Talega Valley, City of San Clemente/County of Orange
Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista
RETAIL USE
Consultant to City of Long Beach regarding a 30 acre site (Long Beach Naval
Hospital) which the City was acquiring from the US Navy for inclusion in a 100
acre shopping center site.
Towne Center, Rancho Santa Margarita, is a masterplanned project which
contains two shopping centers (Towne Center, 160,000 SF plus a Target
Store, 122,000 SF; Plaza Antonio, 165,000 SF).
· Mission Grove, City of Riverside, is a 395,362 SF center which included a K-
Mart Department Store among the major tenants.
Victoria Gardens Masterplan was a proposed mixed use project consisting of
3,065 acres of land which included a mixture of residential (2,150 acres);
commercial (335 acres of which 91.9 acres was a regional center site);
schools; parks; and open space for the remainder of the lands.
Menifee Village, Riverside County, is a 1977 acre masterplanned development
which had approvals for 5,256 units. The assignment included the valuation
of Planning Area 2-7 which was a commemial site that had been developed
with a Target Store, Ralph's Market, and in-line stores (190,000 SF with
eventually being a 257,000 SF center).
MITI~
These assignments involved valuing lands that are considered mitigation lands which
are often acquired by public agencies or nonprofit organizations.
Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, a 42-acre site which was part of a larger
wetlands conservation program. This particular acreage was unique since it
was subject to "tidal flushing" and had both fresh and saltwater impacting the
lands· This assignment was completed for Metropolitan Water District.
San Joaquin Marsh, City of Irvine, consisted of approximately 289 acres of
wetlands which were acquired for use as a "buffer" zone by the Irvine Ranch
Water District.
-2-
Eagle Valley, a 1072-acre parcel near Lake Matthews in Riverside County,
was acquired by Metropolitan Water District for use as a water treatment plant
and buffer zone.
Poormans Reservoir, Moreno Valley, a 38-acre site acquired by the City of
Moreno Valley for preservation/open space use.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/BOND ISSUES
Have been involved in the appraisals of the following Bond Issues regarding Community
Facilities Districts and/or Assessment Districts. (This represents a partial list of
assignments completed from 1990 thru Present.)
CFD No. 9 (Orangecrest - Impr. Areas 1, 3 & 5); City of Riverside
CFD No. 2000-1 (Crosby Estate (~ Rancho Santa Fe); Solana Beach
CFD No. 2001-01 (Murrieta Valley U.S.D.);Murrieta
CFD No. 90-1 (Lusk-Highlander); City of Riverside
Otay Ranch SPA I - CFD No. 99-2; City of Chula Vista
CFD No, 7 (Victoria Grove); County of Riverside
CFD No. 10 (Fairfield Ranch); City of Chino Hills
CFD No. 2000-1; Tejon Industrial Complex; Lebec
CFD No. 99-1; Santa Margarita Water District
CFD No. 97-3; City of Chula Vista
CFD No. 2 (Riverside Unified School District); City of Riverside
CFD No. 89-1; City of Corona
Lake Sherwood A.D. Refunding; County of Ventura
CFD No. 9; City of Chino Hills
CFD NO. 88-12; City of Temecula
CFD No. 90-1 (Refunding); City of Corona
A.D. No. 97-1-R; City of Oxnard
A.D. No. 96-1; Valley Center Municipal Water District; San Diego County
A.D. No. 96-1; City of Oxnard
CFD No. 88-1 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.); Rancho Santa Margarita
CFD No. 89-2 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.); Rancho Santa Margarita
CFD No. 89-3 (Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist); Rancho Santa Margarita
Centex A.D. No. 95-1; City of Corona
Coyote Hills A.D. No. 95-1; City of Fullerton
Sycamore Creek A.D. No. 95-1; City of Orange
Prop. CFD No. 2 (Riverside Unified School District); City of Riverside
CFD No. 91-1; City of Rancho Cucamonga
Prop. CFD No. 2; City of Chino
CFD No. 9; County of San Bemardino
A.D. No. 89-1; City of Corona
CFD No. 87-1 (Series B); City of Moreno Valley
CFD No. 90-1; City of Corona
-3-
CFD No. 89-1; (Saddleback Valley Unified School District); Orange County
A.D. No. 96-1; City of Oxnard
A.D. Nos. 86-3, 87-1 and 89-1 (Refunding); City of Oxnard
CFD No. 90-1; City of Corona
CFD No. 1 (Refunding); City of Jurupa
CFD No. 88-12; City of Temecula
PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS
Have completed appraisal assignments for a wide variety of clients. A partial list of
these includes the following.
Anaheim City Unified School District
Bank of America NT & SA
Bank of Montreal
Bear, Stearns & Co,, Inc.
· Best Best & Krieger LLP (Law Firm)
Carpinteria Valley Unified School District
Chino Unified School District
Citicorp, N.A.
City of Brea
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Chula Vista
City of Colton
City of Corona
City of Fullerton
City of Huntington Beach
City of Jurupa
City of Mission Viejo
City of Moreno Valley
City of Orange
City of Oxnard
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Riverside
City of San Bemardino
City of San Marcos
City of Temecula
Coast Federal Bank
Colton Joint Unified School District
County of Los Angeles
County of Orange
County of Riverside
County of San Bernardino
County of Ventura
--4--
Downey Savings and Loan
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Financial Consultants)
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Unified School District
Jurupa Community Services District
Metrobank
Metropolitan Water District
Meserve, Mumper & Hughes (Law Firm)
Munger, Toiles & Olson LLP (Law Firm)
Murrieta Valley Unified School District
Rialto Unified School District
Riverside Unified School District
Saddleback Valley Unified School District
Santa Margarita Water District
Sidley & Austin (Law Firm)
Solana Beach Unified School District
Southern California Edison Company
Stone & Youngberg LLC (Bond Underwriters)
Talmantz Aviation
The Irvine Company
Wells Fargo Bank
Wells Fargo Mortgage Company
Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Company
COURT EXPERIENCE
Qualified Expert Witness in the following courts:
United States District Court/Central District of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Orange County Superior Court
Riverside County Superior Court
Ventura County Superior Court
ORGANIZATIONS
Member - Appraisal Institute (No. 6894)
-5-
LICENSES
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG004964)
State of California; Expires April 15, 2004
Licensed Real Estate Broker (00821209)
State of California; Expires August 15, 2004
GUEST SPEAKER ~for}
UCLA Symposium on Mello Roos Districts - 1988
"Exploring the Rumors & Realities of Land Secured Debt in California" -
Conference sponsored by Stone & Youngberg, LLC, bond underwriters, held in
Los Angeles on January 15, 1992
"Appraisals for Land Secured Financing" presentation for Stone & Youngberg, LLC,
bond underwriters, held at San Francisco Headquarters on March 5, 1998
. UCLA Symposium on Mello-Roos Districts - 2001
MISCELLANEOUS
Member Advisory Panel to California Debt Advisory Commission regarding Appraisal
Standards for Land Secured Financing (May 1994 and March 2003)
-6-
QUALIFICATIONS OF
KAREN S. SIINO, MAI
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration, Financial
Investments, California State University, Long Beach,
California (1980}
Post-graduate Study, Real Estate Development, University of
California, Irvine, California
Appraisal Institute Classes: Uniform Standards of Profes-
sional Appraisal Practice, A & B; Appraisal Principles;
Appraisal Procedures; Basic Income Capitalization; Advanced
Income Capitalization; Narrative Report Writing; Advanced
Applications, Case Studies. Successfully completed all
.classes in addition to successfully completing the writing
of a Demonstration Report and passing the Comprehensive Exam
for the Appraisal Institute. Became a Member of the
Appraisal Institute in December, 1996.
EMPLOYMENT
1985 - Present
Associate Appraiser for various MAI's. Duties
Include the appraisal of various types of properties
such as commercial, retail, industrial and vacant
land. Specialty properties include easements, right-
of-ways and special assessment districts. From 1985
to 1988 worked part-time; from 2/88 full-time.
1986 - 1988
Project Manager of Development for Ferguson Partners,
Irvine, California. Duties included finding land;
review of fee appraisals and valuations; analysis of
proposed development; planning and design; management
of development, construction and lease-up. The types
of properties developed were commercial and indus-
trial. Duties ranged from raw, vacant site develop-
ment through property management of recently devel-
oped projects.
1981 - 1986
Manager of Finance, Construction for Community
Development Division, The Irvine Company, Irvine,
California. Duties included originating and managing
a newly formed division of finance to bridge between
the accounting functions and project management
functions. Worked with analysis and budgets for
Community Development Division. Coordinated with
cities in forming new Assessment Districts to finance
major infrastructure improvements. Types of proper-
ties were apartments and single family residential
lots on a for sale basis to apartment and home
builders.
1980 - 1981
Investment Counselor, Ne%~ort Equity Funds, Newport
Beach, California. Duties included obtaining private
financing for residential properties and working with
appraisals of properties and analyzing the invest-
ments.
LICENSES
Real Estate Sales Person, State of California, 1980
Certified General Appraiser, State of California (#AG004793)
ORGANIZATIONS
MAI #11145 - Appraisal Institute
APPENDIX D
INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL INFORMATION
This appendix sets forth general information about the City of Chula Vista ("Chula Vista") including
information with respect to its finances. The following information concerning Chula Vista, the County of San
Diego (the "County".), the State of California (the "State") and the United States of America (the "United
States '') are included only for general backgrotmd purposes.
General Description
Chula Vista is located on San Diego Bay in Southern California, 8 miles south of thc City of San
Diego and 7 miles north of the Mexico border, in the area generally known as "South Bay." Chula Vista's city
limits cover approximately 50 square miles. Chula Vista was incorporated March 17, 1911 and became a
chartered city in 1949. Chula Vista operates under a Council-Manager form of government and provides the
following services: public safety, community services, engineering services, planning services, public works,
general administrative services and capital improvements. With a January 2003 estimated population of
199,700, Chula Vista is the second largest city in the County.
Population
The historic population of Chula Vista, the County and the State is shown below.
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego and State of California
Population Estimates
Year City of Chula Vista County of San Diego State of California
1999 164,200 2,751,000 33,140,000
2000 171,700 2,805,900 33,753,000
2001 181,000 2,856,000 34,367,000
2002 190,300 2,908,500 35,000,000
2003 199,700 2,961,600 35,591,000
Source: California State Department of Finance, E-4 Revised Historical City, County and State Population Estimates, 1991-
2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts and E-4 Population Estimates for cities, counties and the State, 2001-2003,
with 2000 DRU Benchmark.
D~I
DOCSOCX978167v6~2245.0143
Building Activity
Residential building activity for the past five calendar years for Chula Vista is shown in the
following tables.
City of Chula Vista
New Housing Units Building Permits
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Single Family Units 1,180 1,796 1,776 2,184 1,749
Multifamily Units 166 750 864 1,341 501
Total Units 1,346 2,546 2,640 3,525 2,250
Source: Construction Industry Research Board.
City of Chula Vista
Building Permit Valuations
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Residential
New Single Family $214,986,428 $307,653,358 $319,085,986 $433,850,821 $413,647,842
New Multifamily 11,452,036 53,470,818 74,634,324 107,731,702 47,388,930
Res. Alt. & Adds 5,391,192 5~085,049 4~862~879 7,987~049 10,301,301
Total Residential 231,829,656 366,209,225 398,583,189 549,569,572 471,338,073
Nonresidential
New Commercial 17,432,322 17,213,869 17,916,085 22,139,245 20,926,638
New Industrial 5,581,655 7,909,587 17,418,207 2,139,313 737,651
New Other(~) 11,483,220 5,840,339 17,890,100 11,112,335 22,761,223
Alters. & Adds. 12,783~744 13,552,638 10,527,193 13,091,600 19,367,574
Total Non- Residential 47,280,852 38,516,433 63,751,585 48,482,493 63,793,086
Total All Building $279,110,508 $404,725,658 $462,334,774 $598,052,065 $535,131,159
Includes churches and religious buildings, hospitals a,qd institutional buildings, schools and educational buildings,
residential garages, public works and utilities buildings and no-residential alterations and additions.
Note: "Total All Building" is the sum of Residential and Nonresidential Building Permit Valuations. Totals may not add to
sums because of independent rounding.
Source: Construction Industry Research Board.
D-2
DOCSOC~978167v6L22245.0143
Employment
The following table summarizes the labor force, employment and unemployment figures over
the period 1998 through 2002 for Chula Vista, the County, the State and the United States.
Chula Vista, San Diego County, State of California and United States
Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment Yearly Average
Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian
Year and Area Labor Force Employment~ Unemploymentt2~ Unemployment Rate(3~
1998
Chula Vista 69,200 66,630 2,570 3.7%
San Diego County 1,321,000 1,274,600 46,400 3.5%
California 16,336,500 15,367,500 969,000 5.9%
United States(4~ 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1999
Chula Vista 71,300 68,980 2,320 3.3%
San Diego County 1,361,600 1,319,600 42,000 3.1%
California 16,596,500 15,731,700 864,800 5.2%
United States(4) 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,580,000 4.2%
2000
"Chula Vista 72,970 70,660 2,310 3.2%
San Diego County 1,393,600 1,351,800 41,800 3.0%
California 16,884,200 16,048,900 835,300 4.9%
United States(4) 140,863,000 135,208,000 5,655,000 4.0%
2001
Chula Vista 74,830 72,270 2,560 3.4%
San Diego County 1,428,900 1,382,600 46,300 3.2%
California 17,182,900 16,260,100 922,800 5.4%
United States~4) 141,815,000 135,073,000 6,742,000 4.8%
2002
Chula Vista 76,980 73,490 3,490 4.5%
San Diego County 1,469,000 1,406,000 63,000 4.3%
California 17,404,600 16,241,800 1,162,800 6.7%
United States(n) 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8%
o) Includes persons involved in labor-management trade disputes.
(2) Includes all persons without jobs who are actively seeking work.
o) The unemployment rate is computed from unroanded data; therefore, it may differ from rates computed from rounded
figures in this table.
(4) Not strictly comparable with data for prior years.
Source: California Employment Development Department, based on March 2002 benchmark and U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
D-3
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA"), which includes Chula Vista, civilian labor
force and wage and salary employment figures for calendar years 1998 through 2002 are shown in
the following table. These figures are county-wide statistics and may not necessarily accurately
reflect employment trends in Chula Vista.
San Diego MSA
Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment
Annual Averages, March 2002 Benchmark
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Civilian Labor Force 1,321,000 1,361,600 1,393,600 1,429,300 1,468,300
Civilian Employment 1,274,600 1,319,600 1,351,800 1,383,000 1,405,300
Civilian Unemployment 46,400 42,000 41,800 46,300 63,000
Civilian Unemployment Rate 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 4.3 %
Total Farm 10,600 11,200 11,400 I 1,400 10,800
Total Nonfarm 1,105,500 1,152,900 1,193,800 1,218,400 1,228,500
Total Private 910,900 953,500 987,200 1,004,700 1,007,600
Goods Producing 184,500 190,200 192,600 194,400 188,600
Natural Resources and Mining 300 300 300 300 300
Cdnstruction 60,200 67,000 69,700 75,100 76,000
Manufacturing 124,000 122,900 122,600 119,000 112,200
Service Providing 921,000 962,700 1,001,200 1,024,000 1,039,900
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 187,900 194,200 202,600 209,000 209,400
Wholesale Trade 34,700 36,800 39,100 41,500 41,300
Retail Trade 124,700 128,200 133,800 135,600 137,500
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 28,600 29,200 29,800 32,000 30,700
Information 34,300 36,200 39,200 38,800 37,200
Financial Activities 66,000 70,400 71,200 72,000 73,800
Professional and Business Services 173,100 185,000 195,200 198,200 201,300
Educational and Health Services 107,100 112,200 115,300 116,000 118,700
Leisure and Hospitality 118,600 124,400 129,000 131,400 132,200
Other Services 39,500 40,900 42,200 44,900 46,300
Government 194,500 199,300 206,600 213,800 221,000
Total, All Industries ltl 16,100 1~164,000 1,205~200 1~229~800 1,239,300
Note: The "Total, All Industries" data is not directly comparable to the employment data found herein.
~ Based on place ofresidance.
<2~ Based on place of work.
Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, San Diego MSA Annual Average Labor Force and
Industry Employment, March 2002 Benchmark.
D-4
DOCSOC~978167v6~22245.0143
The following listings set forth Chula Vista's Principal Employers for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2002:
Chula Vista's Principal Employers
Business Industrial/Office
No. of
Name Type of Business Employees
BF Goodrich Aerospace Aerostmcturas Group Aerospace Manufacturer 2,418
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center Hospital 1,110
Scripps Memorial Hospital Hospital 818
Ges Exposition Services, Inc. Contractor 705
United Parcel Service Parcel Delive~ 466
Wal-Mart General Merchandise 375
Remedy Temporary Services, LLC Employment Services 352
Costco Wholesaler Corp #460 General Merchandise 292
Raytheon Systems Company Communications 281
Sears Roebuck & Co. Department Store 262
Costco Wholesaler Corp #405 General Merchandise 237
Bayview Behavioral Health Campus Hospital 236
Home Depot Building Supplies/Hardware 235
American Fashion Inc. Apparel Manufacturing 229
- Gcc Industries Inc. Engineering 222
ATC Vancum of California Transit Company 214
Target Retail 204
MDI Interviewing Services, Inc. Marketing 200
Source: City of Chula Vista Finance Department (excluding City of Chula Vista Employees).
D-5
DOCSOCk978167v6~22245.0143
Effective Buying Income
"Effective Buying Income" is defined as personal income less personal tax and nontax payments, a
number often referred to as "disposable" or "after-tax" income. Personal income is ~e aggregate of wages and
salmies, other than labor-related income (such as employer contributions to private pension funds), proprietor's
income, rental income (which includes imputed rental income of owner-occupants of non-farm dwellings),
dividends paid by corporations, interest income from all sources and transfer payments (such as pensions and
welfare assistance). Deducted from this total are personal taxes (federal, state and local, nontax payments,
fines, fees, penalties, etc.) and personal contributions to social insurance. According to US. govcrnmem
definitions, the resultant figure is commonly known as "disposable personal income."
The following table summarizes the total effective buying income, the per capita effective buying
income, the median household effective buying income and percent of households over $$0,000 for Chula
Vista, the County and thc State between 1997 and 2001.
Chula Vista, San Diego County and California
Effective Buying IncomeIt)
Median
Effective Per Capita Household Percent of
. Buying Effective Effective Households
lncome~ Buying Income Buying Income over $$0,000
1997
Chula Vista $ 2,217,170 $13,762 $33,267 28.9%
San Diego County 43,212,824 15,619 35,725 31.7
California 524,439,600 15,797 36,483 33.5
1998
Chula Vista $ 2,408,888 $14,187 $33,911 30.1%
San Diego County 46,056,143 16,101 36,296 32.8
California 551,999,317 16,299 37,091 34.6
1999
Chula Vista $ 2,629,899 $15,776 $37,725 35.4%
San Diego County 49,907,828 17,270 39,213 37.4
California 590,376,663 17,245 39,492 38.3
2000
Chula Vista $ 2,959,674 $17,268 $42,550 41.6%
San Diego County 54,337,662 19,150 44,292 43.7
California 652,190,282 19,081 44,464 44.3
2001
Chula Vista $ 2,917,494 $16,128 $42,229 39.1%
San Diego County 55,210,119 19,092 44,146 42~0
California 650,521,407 18,652 43,532 41.9
(o Not comparable with prior years. Effective Buying Income is now based on money income (which does not take into
account sale of property, taxes and social security paid, receipt of food stamps, etc.) versus personal income.
(2) Dollars in thousands.
Source: "Survey of Buying Power," Sales & Marketing Management Magazine, dated 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
D-6
DOCSOC5978167v6~22245.0143
Sales Taxes
The following table shows taxable transactions in Chula Vista by type of business during
calendar years 1997 through 2001. As indicated below, total retail sales for Chula Vista in 1997
increased by approximately 7.1% over the 1996 level, in 1998 increased by approximately 8.8% over
the 1997 level, in 1999 increased approximately 10.3% over the 1998 level, in 2000 increased
approximately 11% over the 1999 level and in 2001 increased approximately 4% over the 2000 level.
A summaD' of historic taxable transactions for Chula Vista is shown in the following table.
City of Chula Vista
Taxable Transactions
(Dollars in thousands)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Apparel Stores Group $ 64,979 $ 63,414 $ 61,758 $ 66,598 $ 61,937
General Merchandise Stores 337,230 382,944 439,731 495,679 524,942
Food Stores Group 81,503 81,006 85,662 90,487 92,224
Eating and Drinking Group 126,357 131,661 142,329 155,583 164,417
Household Group/Home Furn. Appli. 47,004 55,856 61,923 66,365 67,827
Building Material Group 70,930 75,812 87,902 102,370 97,827
Autoin0tive Group 89,986 107,808 126,304 145,923 151,812
Service Stations 103,994 88,570 95,546 121,244 119,050
Other Retail Stores 120,212 133,463 139,837 157,152 183,303
Retail Stores Total $ 1,042,195 $ 1,120,534 $ 1,240,992 $ 1,401,401 $ 1,463,409
All Other Outlets 171,228 199,661 215,396 206,889 225,256
TotalAIIOutlets $1,213,423 $ 1,320,195 $ 1,456,388 $ 1~608.290 $ 1,688,665
Note: Drags stores are grouped with the General Merchandise Stores and package liquor stores are grouped with the Eating
and Drinking Group.
Source: State Board of Equalization.
Education
Public educational instruction from kindergarten through high school is provided by the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District. These districts administer twenty-six
elementary schools, nine junior high schools and eight senior high schools. Southwestern College, a two year
Community College, has an enrollment of more than 15,000. There are also four adult education schools and
twelve private schools. There are seven universities or colleges within 30 minutes commuting distance from
Chula Vista in the San Diego Metropolitan Area. Chula Vista has proposed a University of California campus
in Chula Vista, to be located on a 400 acre site adjoining the Olympic Training Center.
Community Facilities
There are two acute-care hospitals, two psychiatric hospitals and three convalescent hospitals, and
more than 400 medical doctors and allied professionals in Chula Vista.
There are two daily, one weekly and one semi-weekly newspapem published and circulated in Chula
Vista. Chula Vista has one main public library and two branch libraries.
Recreational facilities within or near Chula Vista include twenty-four parks, four community centers,
six "tot lots," two ball fields, twenty-eight tennis courts, three golf courses, four municipal swimming pools,
two gymnasiums and boat launching facilities. Chula Vista's bayfront area contains a marina which houses
D-7
DOCSOC\978167v6X22245.0143
552 boats and miles of public beaches. Chula Vista also provides many trails for bicycling, hiking and
jogging.
Chula Vista is also the home of the United States Olympic Training Center. This is the third such
training center in the nation and the only year round training facility. The center is located on a 150-acre site
donated by EastLake Development Company adjacent to the Otay Lake reservoir.
Chula Vista has more than sixty churches and nearly 100 service, fraternal and civic organizations.
Transportation
U.S. Highways 5 (along the coast) and 805 (inland) provide full freeway access from Chuia Vista
north to San Diego and south to the Mexican boarder. Commuter rail service is provided by the San Diego
Trolley, a light rail system started in 1981 and eleven bus routes serve Chula Vista.
Daily bus connections serve Chula Vista, and Southern Pacific Railway and San Diego's Lindbergh
International Airport are fifteen minutes to the north of Chula Vista.
Utilities
Electric power and natural gas are provided by San Diego Gas and Electric. Pacific Bell provides
telephone service to the area. Otay Water District and Sweetwater Water District provide water service and
Chula Vista provides sewer service.
D-8
DOCSOC~978167v6~L2245.01~
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF INDENTURE
The following is a summary of certain provisions of the Bond Indenture not otherwise
summarized in the text of this Official Statement. This summary is not intended to be definitive, and
reference is made to the complete text of each of such documents for the complete terms thereof
E-I
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
APPENDIX F
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OF THE DISTRICT
This Continuing Disclosure Agreement dated as of ., 2003 (the "Disclosure
Agreement") is executed and delivered by Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch
Village Six) (the "Issuer") and MuniFinancial as dissemination agent (the "Dissemination Agent"), in
connection with the issuance and delivery by the Issuer of its $ 2003 Special Tax Bonds
(the "Bonds"). The Bonds are being issued pursuant to an Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2003
(the "Indenture"), by and between the Issuer and the Fiscal Agent. The Issuer, the Fiscal Agent and
the Dissemination Agent covenant as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Agreement. This Disclosure Agreement is being
executed and delivered by the Issuer, the Fiscal Agent and the Dissemination Agent, for the benefit
of the Owners and Beneficial Owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating
Underwriter in complying with the Rule.
SECTION 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Indenture, which
apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Agreement unless otherwise defined in this
Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings:
"Annual Report" shall mean any Annual Report provided by the Issuer pursuant to, and as
described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Agreement.
"Beneficial Owner" shall mean any person which (a) has the power, directly or indirectly, to
vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, any Bonds (including persons holding
Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (b) is treated as the owner of any
Bonds for federal income purposes.
"Disclosure Representative" shall mean the Director of Finance of the City of Chula Vista or
his or her designee, or such other officer or employee as the lssuer shall designate in writing to the
Dissemination Agent from time to time.
"Dissemination Agent" shall mean, initially, MuniFinancial, acting in its capacity as
Dissemination Agent hereunder, or any successor Dissemination Agent designed in writing by the
Issuer and which has been filed with the then current Dissemination Agent a written acceptance of
such designation.
"Listed Events" shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Disclosure
Agreement.
"National Repository" shall mean any Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities
Information Repository for purpose of the Rule.
"Official Statement" shall mean the Official Statement, dated ., 2003 relating
to the Bonds.
F-I
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
"Participating Underwriter" shall mean Stone & Youngberg LLC, whose address for
purposes of this Agreement is 50 California Street, Suite 3500, San Francisco, California 94111,
Attention: Research Department.
"Repository" shall mean each National Repository and each State Repository.
"Rule" shall mean Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time.
"State Repository" shall mean any public or private repository or entity designated by the
State of California as a state repository for the purpose of the Rule and recognized as such by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. As oftbe date of this Disclosure Agreement, there is no State
Repository.
"Tax-exempt" shall mean that interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for
federal income tax purposes, whether or not such interest is includable as an item of tax preferences
or otherwise includable directly or indirectly for purposes of calculating any other tax liability,
including any alternative minimum tax or environmental tax.
SECTION 3. Provision of Annual Reports.
(a) The Issuer shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent by written direction to such
Dissemination Agent to, not later than February I after the end of the Issuer's fiscal year (which
currently ends on June 30), commencing with the report due by February 1, 2004, provide to each
Repository and the Participating Underwriter an Annual Report which is consistent with the
requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. The Annual Report may be submitted as a
single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may include by reference other
information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement; provided that the audited
financial statements of the Issuer may be submitted separately from and later than the balance of the
Annual Report if they are not available by the date required above for the filing of the Annual
Report.
An Annual Report shall be provided at least annually notwithstanding any fiscal year
longer than 12 calendar months. The Issuer's fiscal year is currently effective from July 1 to the
immediately succeeding June 30 of the following year. The Issuer will promptly notify each
Repository or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and, in either case, the Fiscal Agent and
the Dissemination Agent ora change in the fiscal year dates.
(b) Not later than fifteen (15) Business Days prior to the date specified in subsection (a)
for providing the Annual Report to Repositories, the Issuer shall provide the Annual Report to the
Dissemination Agent and the Fiscal Agent (if the Fiscal Agent is not the Dissemination Agent). If by
fifteen (15) Business Days prior to such date the Fiscal Agent has not received a copy of the Annual
Report, the Fiscal Agent shall contact the Issuer and the Dissemination Agent to determine if the
Issuer is in compliance with subsection (a). The Issuer shall provide a written certification with each
Annual Report furnished to the Dissemination Agent and the Fiscal Agent to the effect that such
Annual Report constitutes the Annual Report required to be furnished by it hereunder. The
Dissemination Agent and Fiscal Agent may conclusively rely upon such certification of the Issuer
and shall have no duty or obligation to review such Annual Report.
F-2
DOCSOC~978167v6~22245.0143
(c) If the Dissemination Agent is unable to verify that an Annual Report has been
provided to Repositories by the date required in subsection (a), the Dissemination Agent shall send a
notice to each Repository, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A.
(d) The Dissemination Agent shall:
(i) determine each year prior to the date for providing the Annual Report the
name and address of each National Repository and each State Repository, if any; and
(ii) promptly after receipt of the Annual Report, file a report with the Issuer and
(if the Dissemination Agent is not the Fiscal Agent) the Fiscal Agent certifying that the
Annual Report has been provided pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement, stating the date it
was provided and listing all the Repositories to which it was provided.
SECTION4. Content of Annual Reports. The initial Annual Report due by February 1,
2004 shall include only a copy of the Official Statement and the audited financial statements of the
Issuer described in Section 4(a) below. Thereafter, the Issuer's Annual Report shall contain or
include by reference:
(a) Financial Statements. The audited financial statements of the Issuer for the most
rec~nt fiscal year of the Issuer then ended. If the Issuer prepares audited financial statement and if
the audited financial statements are not available by the time the Annual Report is required to be
filed, the Annual Report shall contain any unaudited financial statements of the Issuer in a format
similar to the financial statements, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same
manner as the Annual Report when they become available. Audited financial statements of the
lssuer shall be audited by such auditor as shall then be required or permitted by State law or the
Indenture. Audited financial statements, if prepared by the Issuer, shall be prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles as prescribed for governmental units by the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board; provided, however, that the Issuer may from time to
time, if required by federal or state legal requirements, modify the basis upon which its financial
statements are prepared. In the event that the Issuer shall modify the basis upon which its financial
statements are prepared, the Issuer shall provide a notice of such modification to each Repository,
including a reference to the specific federal or state law or regulation specifically describing the legal
requirements for the change in accounting basis.
(b) Financial and Operating Data. The Annual Report shall contain or incorporate by
reference the following information:
(i) the principal amount of Bonds outstanding as of the September 2 preceding
the filing of the Annual Report;
(ii) the balance in each fund under the Indenture and the Reserve Requirement as
of the September 2 preceding the filing of the Annual Report;
(iii) an update on the status of construction of the public improvements to be
constructed with the proceeds of the Bonds, which shall include an update of Table I in the
Official Statement;
F-3
DOCSOCX978167v6',22245.0143
(iv) any changes to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Taxes
approved or submitted to the qualified electors for approval prior to the filing of the Annual
Report and a description of any parcels for which the Special Taxes have been prepaid in the
Fiscal Year for which the Annual Report is being prepared;
(v) an update of the estimated assessed value-to-lien ratios within the District
substantially in the form of Table 6 in the Official Statement based upon the most recent
Special Tax levy preceding the date of the Annual Report and on the assessed values of
property tbr the current fiscal year; provided, however, that all parcels which constitute
Developed Property may be grouped as a single category;
(vi) an update of Table 2 in the Official Statement, including a list of all taxpayers
within the District which own property in the District upon which 5% or more of the total
Special Taxes for the current fiscal year have been levied, and a statement as to whether any
of such taxpayers is delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes;
(vii) any event known to the Issuer which reduces or slows the number of
residential units permitted to be constructed within the District or which results in a
moratorium on future building within the District;
·" (viii) the status of any foreclosure actions being pursued by the Issuer with respect
to delinquent Special Taxes;
(ix) the total Special Taxes levied and the total Special Taxes collected for the
prior fiscal year and the total Special Taxes that remain unpaid for each prior fiscal year in
which Special Taxes were levied; and
(x) any information not already included under (i) through (ix) above that the
Issuer is required to file in its annual report to the California Debt and Investment Advisory
Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,
as amended.
(c) Any or all of the items listed in (a) or (b) above may be included by specific reference
to other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the Issuer or related public entities,
which have been submitted to each of the Repositories or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
If the document included by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The Issuer shall clearly identify each such other document
so included by reference.
SECTION 5. Reporting of Significant Events.
(a) Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5, the Issuer shall give, or cause to be given,
notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies.
(2) an event of default under the Indenture other than as described in (1)
above.
F-4
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
(3) unscheduled draws on the Reserve Fund reflecting financial
difficulties.
(4) unscheduled draws on any credit enhancements securing the Bonds
reflecting financial difficulties.
(5) any change in the provider of any letter of credit or any municipal
bond insurance policy securing the Bonds or any failure by the providers of
such letters of credit or municipal bond insurance policies to perform on the
letter of credit or municipal bond insurance policy.
(6) adverse tax opinions or events adversely affecting the tax-exempt
status of the Bonds.
(7) modifications to the rights of Bond Owners.
(8) unscheduled redemption of any Bond.
(9) defeasances.
' (10) any release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the
Bonds.
(11) rating changes.
(b) The Fiscal Agent shall, promptly upon the obtaining actual knowledge of the
occurrence of any of the Listed Events, contact the Issuer pursuant to the Indenture, inform such
person of the event, and request that the Issuer promptly notify the Dissemination Agent in writing
whether or not to report the event pursuant to subsection (f). For purposes of this Disclosure
Agreement, "actual knowledge" of the occurrence of such Listed Events shall mean actual
knowledge by the officer at the corporate trust office of the Fiscal Agent with regular responsibility
for the administration of matters related to the Indenture.
(c) Whenever the Issuer obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event, whether
because of a notice from the Fiscal Agent pursuant to subsection (b) or otherwise, the Issuer shall as
soon as possible determine if such event would be material under applicable federal securities laws.
(d) If the lssuer has determined that knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event
would be material under applicable federal securities laws, the Issuer shall promptly notify the
Dissemination Agent in writing. Such notice shall instruct the Dissemination Agent to report the
occurrence pursuant to subsection (f).
(e) If in response to a request under subsection (b), the Issuer determines that the Listed
Event would not be material under applicable federal securities laws, the Issuer shall so notify the
Dissemination Agent in writing and instruct the Dissemination Agent not to report the occurrence
pursuant to subsection (f).
(f) If the Dissemination Agent has been instructed by the Issuer to report the occurrence
of a Listed Event, the Dissemination Agent shall file a notice of such occurrence with (i)the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or (ii) each National Repository, and in either case, to each
F-5
DOCSOC5978167v6~22245.0143
State Repository. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice of Listed Events described in subsections
(a)(8) and (9) need not be given under this subsection any earlier than the notice (if any) of the
underlying event is given to Owners of affected Bonds pursuant to the Indenture. In each case of the
Listed Event, the Dissemination Agent shall not be obligated to file a notice as required in this
subsection (f) prior to the occurrence of such Listed Event.
(g) The Issuer hereby agrees that the undertaking set forth in this Disclosure Agreement
is the responsibility of the Issuer and that the Fiscal Agent or the Dissemination Agent shall not be
responsible for determining whether the Issuer's instructions to the Dissemination Agent under this
Section 5 comply with the requirements of the Rule.
SECTION 6. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The obligation of the lssuer, the Fiscal
Agent and the Dissemination Agent under this Disclosure Agreement shall terminate upon the legal
defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If such termination occurs prior
to the final maturity of the Bonds, the Issuer shall give notice of such termination in the same manner
as for a Listed Event under Section 5.
SECTION 7. Dissemination Agent. The Issuer may, from time to time, appoint or engage a
Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under the Disclosure Agreement, and
may discharge any such Dissemination Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination
Agent. If at any time there is not any other designated Dissemination Agent, the Fiscal Agent shall
be the Dissemination Agent. The initial Dissemination Agent shall be MuniFinancial. The
Dissemination Agent may resign by providing (i)thirty days written notice to the Issuer and the
Fiscal Agent and (ii) upon appointment of a new Dissemination Agent hereunder.
SECTION 8. Amendment. (a) This Disclosure Amendment may be amended, by written
agreement of the parties, without the consent of the Owners, if all of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) such amendment is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from
a change in legal (including regulatory) requirements, a change in law (including rules or regulations)
or in interpretations thereof, or a change in the identity, nature or status of the Issuer or the type of
business conducted thereby, (2) this Disclosure Agreement as so amended would have complied with
the requirements of the Rule as of the date of this Disclosure Agreement, after taking into account
any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances, (3) the Issuer
shall have delivered to the Fiscal Agent an opinion of a nationally recognized bond counsel or
counsel expert in federal securities laws, addressed to the Issuer and the Fiscal Agent, to the same
effect as set forth in clause (2) above, (4) the Issuer shall have delivered to the Dissemination Agent
an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or counsel expert in federal securities laws,
addressed to the Issuer, to the effect that the amendment does not materially impair the interests of
the Owners or Beneficial Owners, and (5) the Issuer shall have delivered copies of such opinion and
amendment to each Repository.
(b) This Disclosure Agreement may be amended, by written agreement of the parties,
upon obtaining consent of Owners in the same manner as provided in the Indenture for amendments
to the Indenture with the consent of the Owners of the Bonds, provided that the conditions set forth in
Section 8(a)(l), (2) and (3) have been satisfied.
(c) To the extent any amendment to this Disclosure Agreement results in a change in the
type of financial information or operating data provided pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement, the
F-6
DOCSOC~978167v6~22245.0143
first Annual Report provided thereafter shall include a narrative explanation of the reasons for the
amendment and the impact of the change.
(d) If an amendment is made to the basis on which financial statements are prepared, the
Annual Report for the year in which the change is made shall present a comparison between the
financial statements or information prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those
prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. Such comparison shall include a
quantitative and, to the extent reasonably feasible, qualitative discussion of the differences in the
accounting principles and the impact of the change in the accounting principles on the presentation of
the financial information.
SECT1ON 9. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Agreement shall be
deemed to prevent the Issuer from disseminating any other information, using the means of
dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Agreement or any other means of communication, or
including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in
addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Agreement. If the Issuer chooses to include any
information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence ora Listed Event in addition to that which
is specifically required by this Disclosure Agreement, the Issuer shall have no obligation under this
Agreement to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice if
occurrence of a Listed Event.
The Issuer acknowledges and understands that other state and federal laws, including but not
limited to the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, may apply to the Issuer, and that under some circumstances compliance with this Disclosure
Agreement, without additional disclosures or other action, may not fully discharge all duties and
obligations oftbe Issuer under such laws.
SECTION 10. Default. In the event of a failure of the Issuer or the Dissemination Agent to
comply with any provision of this Disclosure Agreement, the Participating Underwriter or any
Owner or Beneficial Owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate,
including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the Issuer to comply with
its obligations under this Disclosure Agreement. A default under this Disclosure Agreement shall not
be deemed an Event of Default under the Indenture, and the sole remedy under this Disclosure
Agreement in the event of any failure of the Issuer or the Fiscal Agent to comply with this Disclosure
Agreement shall be an action to compel performance.
SECTION 11. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Fiscal Agent and Dissemination Agent.
Article VI1 of the Indenture is hereby made applicable to this Disclosure Agreement as if this
Disclosure Agreement were (solely for this purpose) contained in the Indenture and the
Dissemination Agent and the Fiscal Agent shall be entitled to the same protections, limitations from
liability and indemnification hereunder as are afforded the Fiscal Agent thereunder. The
Dissemination Agent and the Fiscal Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in
this Disclosure Agreement, and the Issuer agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent and
the Fiscal Agent and their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless against any
loss, expense and liabilities which they may incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of
their powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses (including attorneys fees) of
defending against any claim of liability, but excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent's or
the Fiscal Agent's respective negligence or willful misconduct. The Dissemination Agent shall be
paid compensation by the Issuer for its services provided hereunder in accordance with its schedule
F-7
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
of fees as amended from time to time and all expenses, legal fees and advances made or incurred by
the Dissemination Agent in the performance of its duties hereunder. The Dissemination Agent and
the Fiscal Agent shall have no duty or obligation to review any information provided to them
hereunder. The obligations of the Issuer under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of
the Dissemination Agent and Fiscal Agent and payment of the Bonds. No person shall have any
right to commence any action against the Fiscal Agent or the Dissemination Agent seeking any
remedy other than to compel specific performance of this Disclosure Agreement. The Dissemination
Agent and the Fiscal Agent shall not be liable under any circumstances for monetary damages to any
person for any breach under this Disclosure Agreement.
SECTION 12. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of
the Issuer, the Fiscal Agent, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and Owners and
Beneficial Owners from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or
entity.
SECTION 13. Notices. Notices should be sent in writing to the following addresses. The
following information may be conclusively relied upon until changed in writing.
Disclosure Representative: Director of Finance
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dissemination Agent: MuniFinancial
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Corporate Trust Department
SECTION 14. Counterparts. This Disclosure Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same
instrument.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I
(Otay Ranch Village Six)
By:
Director of Finance
MUNIFINANCIAL, as Dissemination Agent
By:.
Authorized Officer
F-8
DOCSOC~978167v6L22245.0143
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO REPOSITORIES OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT
Name of lssuer: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch
Village Six)
Name of Bond Issue: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch
Village Six) $ 2003 Special Tax Bonds
Date of Issuance: ,2003
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District
No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) located in the City of Chula Vista, California (the "District") has
not provided an Annual Report with respect to the above-named Bonds as required by Section 3 of
the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, dated as of ,2003, by and between the District
and MuniFinancial, as dissemination agent. [The District anticipates that the Annual Report will be
filed by .]
Dated:
MuniFinancial, as Dissemination Agent
cc: City of Chula Vista
Stone & Youngberg LLC
F-9
DOCSOC\978167v6~2245.0143
APPENDIX G
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OF THE DEVELOPER
This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Disclosure Agreement") dated as of
,2003 is executed and delivered by Otay Project, L.P. (the "Developer"), and U.S.
Bank National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Fiscal Agent") and as dissemination agent (the
"Dissemination Agent"), in connection with the execution and delivery by Community- Facilities
District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the "District") $ aggregate principal amount
of its City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003
Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds"). The Bonds are being executed and delivered pursuant to an
Indenture dated as of October 1, 2003 by and between the District and U.S. Bank National
Association, as Fiscal Agent (the "Agreement"). The Developer covenants and agrees as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Agreement. This Disclosure Agreement is being
executed and delivered by the Developer for the benefit of the Bondowners and Beneficial Owners
and in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12(b)(5).
This Disclosure Agreement does not address additional undertakings, if any, by or with respect to
persons other than the Developer who may be considered obligated persons or purposes of the Rule,
which additional undertakings, if any, may be required for the Participating Underwriter to comply
with the Rule.
SECTION 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Agreement, which
apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Agreement unless otherwise defined in this
Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings:
"Affiliate" shall mean, with respect to any Person, (a) each Person that, directly or indirectly,
owns or controls, whether beneficially or as an agent, guardian or other fiduciary, twenty-five percent
(25%) or more of any class of Equity Securities of such Person, (b) each Person that controls, is
controlled by or is under common control with such Person, or (c) each of such Person's executive
officers, directors, joint venturers and general partners; provided, however, that in no case shall the
District be deemed to be an Affiliate of the Developer for purposes of this Agreement. For the
purpose of this definition, "control" of a Person shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of
the power to direct or cause the direction of its management or policies, whether through the
ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise.
"Beneficial Owner" shall mean any person which has or shares the power, directly or
indirectly, to make investment decisions concerning ownership of the Bonds (including persons
holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries).
"Dissemination Agent" shall mean U.S. Bank National Association, acting in its capacity as
Dissemination Agent hereunder, or any successor Dissemination Agent designated in writing by the
Developer and which has filed with the Developer and the City a written acceptance of such
designation.
"District" shall mean Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six).
G-I
DOCSOC~978167v6~.2245.0143
"Equity Securities" of any Person shall mean (a)all common stock, preferred stock,
participations, shares, general partnership interests or other equity interests in and of such person
(regardless of how designated and whether or not voting or non-voting) and (b) all warrants, options
and other rights to acquire any of the foregoing.
"Fiscal Year" shall mean the period beginning on July I of each year and ending on the next
succeeding June 30.
"Government Authority" shall mean any national, state or local government, any political
subdivision thereof, any department, agency, authority or bureau of any of the foregoing, or any other
Person exercising executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory or administrative functions of or
pertaining to government.
"Listed Event" shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Disclosure
Agreement.
"National Repository" shall mean any Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities
Information Repository for purposes of the Rule.
"Official Statement" shall mean the Official Statement, dated ., 2003, relating
to th~ Bonds.
"Participating Underwriter" shall mean Stone & Youngberg LLC, the original underwriter of
the Bonds, whose address for purposes of this Agreement is 50 California Street, Suite 3500, San
Francisco, California 94111, Attention: Research Department, and any other underwriting firm that
provides written notice to the Developer that it is required to comply with the Rule in connection
with the offering of the Bonds.
"Person" shall mean any natural person, corporation, limited liability company, partnership,
firm, association, Government Authority or any other Person whether acting in an individual
fiduciary, or other capacity.
"Repository" shall mean each National Repository and the State Repository.
"Rule" shall mean Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time.
"Semi-Annual Report" shall mean any Semi-Annual Report provided by the Developer
pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Agreement.
"State" shall mean the State of California.
"State Repository" shall mean any public or private repository or entity designed by the State
as a state repository for the purpose of the Rule and recognized as such by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. As of the date of this Disclosure Agreement, there is no State Repository.
SECTION 3. Provision of Annual Reports.
(a) The Developer shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, not later than
February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2004, provide to each Repository,
G-2
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
the District and to Stone & Youngberg LLC a Semi-Annual Report which is consistent with the
requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. The Semi-Annual Report may be submitted
as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may include by reference
other information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement provided that the audited
financial statements, if any, of the Developer may be submitted separately from the balance of the
Semi-Annual Report and later than the date required for the filing of the Semi-Annual Report if they
are not available by that date.
(b) Not later than fifteen (15) Business Days prior to the date specified in subsection (a)
for providing the Semi-Annual Report to Repositories, the Developer shall provide the Semi-Annual
Report to the Dissemination Agent or shall provide notification to the Dissemination Agent that the
Developer is preparing, or causing to be prepared, the Semi-Annual Report and the date which the
Semi-Annual Report is expected to be available. If by such date, the Dissemination Agent has not
received a copy of the Semi-Annual Report or notification as described in the preceding sentence, the
Dissemination Agent shall contact the Developer to determine if the Developer is in compliance with
the first sentence of this subsection (b).
(c) If the Dissemination Agent is unable to provide a Semi-Annual Report to
Repositories by the date required in subsection (a) or to verify that a Semi-Annual Report has been
provided to Repositories by the date required in subsection (a), the Dissemination Agent shall send a
notice to each Repository in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A.
(d) The Dissemination Agent shall:
(i) determine each year prior to the date for providing the Semi-Annual Report
the name and address of each National Repository and the State Repository, if any; and
(ii) file a report with the Developer and the District certifying that the Semi-
Annual Report has been provided pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement, stating the date it
was provided and listing all the Repositories to which it was provided.
SECTION 4. Content of Semi-Annual Report. The Developer's Semi-Annual Report shall
contain or include by reference the information which is available as of January I and July I of each
year, as applicable, relating to the following:
a. An update to the section in the Official Statement entitled "THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP" (excluding the subsections entitled "Appraisal"
and "Market Absorption Study") including an update of the tables therein and a
discussion of the sources of funds to finance development relating to its property
within, and whether any material defaults exist under any loan arrangement related to
such financing.
b. A summary of development activity within the District, including the number of
parcels for which building permits have been issued, the number of parcels for which
certificates of occupancy have been issued, the number of parcels for which sales
have closed, and land or lot sales including the amount of land or lots sold and the
name of the purchaser of lots to be developed.
G-3
DOCSOC~978167v6k22245.0143
c. Status of any material governmentally-imposed preconditions for commencement or
continuation of development of the undeveloped parcels within the District known to
the Developer.
d. Status of any material legislative, administrative and judicial challenges known to the
Developer to or affecting the construction of the development or the time for
construction of any public or private improvements to be made by the Developer or
any of its Affiliates within the District, other than the public improvements described
in (e) below (the "Developer Improvements").
e. Status of completion of the public improvements financed by the Bonds and any
material legislative, administrative and judicial challenges known to the Developer to
or affecting the construction of such public improvements (the "District
Improvements").
fi Any material amendments to land use entitlements or Special Tax exemption status
with respect to parcels within the District that are known to the Developer, including
(i) an update of the total acres subject to the levy of Special Taxes if the amendment
affects the total number of acres subject to the levy of the Special Taxes, and
(ii) listings of any acreage that has become exempt from the levy of Special Taxes.
g. Until such time as the Developer and its Affiliates no longer own land within the
District which is responsible for 20% or more of the annual Special Tax levy,
unaudited financial statements of the Developer and its Affiliates owning land within
the District and, if prepared, audited financial statements of each of such entities for
its most recently completed fiscal year (which currently ends on each December 31),
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as promulgated
to apply to private entities from time to time by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board. If the Developer has audited financial statements prepared and the audited
financial statements are not available by the time the Semi-Annual Report is required
to be filed pursuant to Section 3(a), the Semi-Annual Report shall contain unaudited
financial statements in a format similar to the financial statements for the preceding
year, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the
Semi-Annual Report when they become available. The Developer need only provide
audited or unaudited data once per year.
h. The filing of any lawsuit against the Developer or otherwise known to the Developer
which will materially adversely affect the completion of the District Improvements,
the Developer Improvements or the development of undeveloped parcels within, or
litigation which would materially adversely affect the financial condition of the
Developer or its Affiliates that own property within.
i. Material payment default by the Developer on any loan of the Developer (whether or
not such loan is secured by property within the District) which is beyond any
applicable cure period in such loan.
Any and all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other
documents, including official statements of debt issues which have been submitted to each of the
Repositories or the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the document included by reference is a
G-4
DOCSOC~978167v6~2245.0143
final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The
Developer shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference.
SECTION 5. Reporting of Significant Events.
(a) Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5, the Developer shall give, or cause to be
given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material
under clauses (b) and (c):
1. Failure to pay any real property taxes, special taxes or assessments (including
any assessment installment) levied within the District on a parcel owned by the Developer or
any of its Affiliates;
2. Material payment default by the Developer or any Affiliate on any loan
secured by property within the District owned by the Developer or any of its Affiliates which
is beyond any applicable cure period in such loan;
3. The filing of any proceedings with respect to the Developer or any of its
Affiliates, in which the Developer or any of its Affiliates that own property within the
District may be adjudicated as bankrupt or discharged from any or all of their respective
' debts or obligations or granted an extension of time to pay debts or a reorganization or
readjustment of debts; and
(b) Whenever the Developer obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event, the
Developer shall as soon as possible determine if such event would be material under applicable
federal securities laws.
(c) If the Developer determines that knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event
would be material under applicable federal securities laws, the Developer shall promptly file a notice
of such occurrence with the Dissemination Agent which shall then distribute such notice to the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and each State Repository, with a copy to the District and
the Participating Underwriter.
SECTION 6. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The Developer's obligations under this
Disclosure Agreement shall terminate upon any of the following events:
(a) the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds,
(b) if as of the date for filing the Semi-Annual Report the Developer and its Affiliates
own property within the District which is responsible for less than twenty percent (20%) of the
Special Taxes levied in the Fiscal Year for which the Semi-Annual Report is being prepared, and the
District Improvements to be constructed by the Developer have been completed, or
(c) upon the delivery by the Developer to the District and the Participating Underwriter
of an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that the information required by this
Disclosure Agreement is no longer required. Such opinion shall be based on information publicly
provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a private letter ruling obtained by the
Developer or a private letter ruling obtained by a similar entity to the Developer. If such termination
occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the Developer shall give notice of such termination in
the same manner as for a Semi-Annual Report hereunder.
G-5
DOCSOC~978167v6~22.245.0143
SECTION 7. Dissemination Agent. The Developer may from time to time, appoint or
engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure
Agreement, and may discharge any such Dissemination Agent, with or without appointing a
successor Dissemination Agent. If the Dissemination Agent is not the Developer, the Dissemination
Agent shall not be responsible in any manner for the content of any notice or report prepared by the
Developer pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement. The Developer has initially appointed U.S. Bank
National Association as the Dissemination Agent hereunder.
SECTION 8. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure
Agreement, the Developer may amend this Disclosure Agreement, and any provision of this
Disclosure Agreement may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) If the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4 or 5, it may
only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal
requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature or status of an obligated person with
respect to the Bonds, or the type of business conducted;
(b) This Disclosure Agreement, as amended or taking into account such waiver, would,
in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel addressed to the District, the Fiscal Agent and
the participating Underwriter, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the
original issuance of the Bonds, alter taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the
Rule, as well as any change in circumstances;
(c) The amendment or waiver either (i) is approved by the Bondowners in the same
manner as provided in the Agreement for amendments to the Agreement with the consent of
Bondowners, or (ii) does not, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel addressed to the
City and the Fiscal Agent, materially impair the interests of the Bondowners or Beneficial Owners of
the Bonds; and
(d) The Developer, or the Dissemination Agent, shall have delivered copies of the
amendment and any opinions delivered under (b) and (c) above.
In the event of any amendment or waiver of a provision of this Disclosure Agreement, the
Developer shall describe such amendment in the next Semi-Annual Report, and shall include, as
applicable, a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment or waiver and its impact on the
type (or, in the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial
information or operating data being presented by the Developer. In addition, if the amendment
relates to the accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial statements, (i) notice of such
change shall be given to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the State Repository, if any,
and the Repositories, and (ii)the Semi-Annual Report for the year in which the change is made
should present a comparison (in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the
financial statements as prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on
the basis of the former accounting principles. The comparison of financial data described in
clause (ii) of the preceding sentence shall be provided at the time financial statements, if any, are
filed under Section 4(g) hereof.
SECTION 9. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Agreement shall be
deemed to prevent the Developer from disseminating any other information, using the means of
dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Agreement or any other means of communication, or
G-6
DOCSOCX975167v6X22245.0143
including any other information in any Semi-Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed
Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Agreement. If the Developer chooses
to include any information in any Semi-Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event in
addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Agreement, the Developer shall have
no obligation under this Disclosure Agreement to update such information or include it in any future
Semi-Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event.
SECTION 10. Default. In the event of a failure of the Developer to comply with any
provision of this Disclosure Agreement., any Participating Underwriter or any Bondowner or
Beneficial Owner of the Bonds may, take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate,
including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the Developer or the
Dissemination Agent to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Agreement. A default
under this Disclosure Agreement shall not be deemed an Event of Default under the Indenture, and
the sole remedy under this Disclosure Agreement in the event of any failure of the Developer to
comply with this Disclosure Agreement shall be an action to compel specific performance.
SECTION 11. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent. The
Dissemination Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure
Agreement and the Developer agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers,
directors, employees and agents, harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which they may
incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of theirs powers and duties hereunder, including
the costs and expenses (including attorneys fees) of defending against any claim of liability, but
excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent's negligence or willful misconduct. The
Dissemination Agent shall not be deemed to be acting in any fiduciary capacity for the Developer,
the Participating Underwriter, Bondowners or Beneficial Owners or any other party. The
Dissemination Agent may rely and shall be protected in acting or refraining from acting upon a
direction from the Developer or an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel. The obligations
of the Developer under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent
and payment of the Bonds. No person shall have any right to commence any action against the
Dissemination Agent seeking any remedy other than to compel specific performance of this
Disclosure Agreement.
The Dissemination Agent will not, without the Developer's prior written consent, settle,
compromise or consent to the entry of any judgment in any pending or threatened claim, action or
proceeding in respect of which indemnification may be sought hereunder unless such settlement,
compromise or consent includes an unconditional release of the Developer and its controlling persons
from all liability arising out of such claim, action or proceedings. If a claim, action or proceeding is
settled with the consent of the Developer or if there is a final judgment (other than a stipulated final
judgment without the approval of the Developer) for the plaintiff in any such claim, action or
proceeding, with or without the consent of the Developer, the Developer agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the Dissemination Agent to the extent described herein.
SECTION 12. Reportin~ Obligation of Developer's Transferees. The Developer shall, in
connection with any sale or transfer of ownership of land within the District which will result in the
transferee (which term shall include any successors and assigns of the Developer) becoming
responsible (i) for the payment of more than 20 percent of the Special Taxes levied on property
within the District in the Fiscal Year following such transfer and (ii)for the construction and/or
installation of some or all of the improvements needed to bring such sold or transferred land to
finished lot condition, cause such transferee and any Affiliate of the transferee to enter into a
G-7
DOC SOC~978167v6~?.245.0143
disclosure agreement with terms substantially similar to the terms of this Disclosure Agreement,
whereby such transferee agrees to be bound by the obligations of the Developer under this Disclosure
Agreement as an additional obligated party. Additionally, the Developer shall, in connection with
any sale or transfer of ownership of land within the District which will result in the transferee and
any Affiliate of the transferee becoming responsible for the payment of more than 20 pement of the
Special Taxes levied on property within the District in the Fiscal Year following such transfer, which
sale or transfer occurs before such sold or transferred land is in finished lot condition, and the
transferee is not responsible for the construction or installation of some or all of the infrastructure
needed to bring such land to finished lot condition, cause such transferee to enter into a disclosure
agreement with terms substantially similar to the terms of this Disclosure Agreement, whereby such
transferee agrees to provide the information of the type described in Section 4(b), (c), (d) and (f) of
this Disclosure Agreement with respect to its property; provided that such transferee's obligations
under such disclosure agreement shall terminate upon the transferee and any Affiliate of the
transferee becoming responsible for the payment of less than 20 percent of the annual Special Taxes.
A memorandum regarding the Developer's obligations under this Disclosure Agreement shall be
recorded in the Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego.
SECTION 13. Developer as Independent Contractor. In performing under this Disclosure
Agreement, it is understood that the Developer is an independent contractor and not an agent of the
City. of Chula Vista or the District.
SECTION 14. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of
the Developer, the City, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and Bondowners and
Beneficial Owners from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or
entity.
SECTION 15. Counterparts. This Disclosure Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
Otay Project, L.P., a California limited partnership
By:
Its:
U.S. Bank National Association
By:
Its:
G-8
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO REPOSITORIES OF FAILURE TO FILE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
Name of the Issuer: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay
Ranch Village Six) City of Chula Vista, California
Name of Bond Issue: City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
(Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds
Date of Issuance: ,2003
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that has not provided a Semi-
Annual Report with respect to the above-named Bonds as required by the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement. [The Developer anticipates that such Semi-Annual Report will be filed not later than
.]
Dated:
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By:
cc: City of Chula Vista, California
Stone & Youngberg LLC
G-9
DOCSOC~978167v6~22245.0143
APPENDIX H
FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL
H-1
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
APPENDIX I
DTC AND THE BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM
The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, NY, will act as securities depository
for the Bonds. The Bonds will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of
Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized
representative of DTC. One fully-registered bond will be issued for each maturity of the Bonds, each
in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC, the world's largest depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the
New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking
Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the
New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions
of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for
over 2 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S, equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and
money market instruments from over 85 countries that DTC's participants ("Direct Participants")
deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales
and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry
transfers and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical
movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S, securities
brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations.
DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ("DTCC").
DTCC, in turn, is owned by a number of Direct Participants of DTC and Members of the National
Securities Clearing Corporation, Government Securities Clearing Corporation, MBS Clearing
Corporation, and Emerging Markets Clearing Corporation, (NSCC, GSCC, MBSCC, and EMCC,
also subsidiaries of DTCC), as well as by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock
Exchange LLC, and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is
also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S, securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust
companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a
Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). DTC has Standard & Poor's
highest rating: AAA. The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Purchases of Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants,
which will receive a credit for the Bonds on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual
purchaser of each 2003 Special Tax Bond ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the
Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation
from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written
confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings,
from the Direct or lndirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the
transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on
the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial
Owners will not receive bonds representing their ownership interests in Bonds, except in the event
that use of the book-entry system for the Bonds is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Bonds deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are
registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be
I-1
DOCSOC\978167v6~.2245.0143
requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Bonds with DTC and their
registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in
beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Bonds; DTC's
records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Bonds are credited,
which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain
responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct
Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial
Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory
requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners of Bonds may wish to take
certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the
Bonds, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the 2003 Special Tax
Bond documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of Bonds may wish to ascertain that the nominee
holding the Bonds for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners.
In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the registrar
and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.
Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Bonds within a maturity are
being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct
Participant in such maturity to be redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect
to Bonds unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's Procedures. Under its
usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the District as soon as possible alter the record
date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct
Participants to whose accounts Bonds are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached
to the Omnibus Proxy).
Redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Bonds will be made to
Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.
DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and
corresponding detail information from the District or the Fiscal Agent, on payment date in
accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to
Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case
with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and
will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC nor its nominee, the Fiscal Agent, or the
District, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time.
Payment of redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments to Cede & Co. (or such other
nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the
Fiscal Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC,
and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and
Indirect Participants.
A Beneficial Owner shall give notice to elect to have its Bonds purchased or tendered,
through its Participant, to the Fiscal Agent, and shall effect delivery of such Bonds by causing the
Direct Participant to transfer the Participant's interest in the Bonds, on DTC's records, to the Fiscal
Agent. The requirement for physical delivery of Bonds in connection with an optional tender or a
mandatory purchase will be deemed satisfied when the ownership rights in the Bonds are transferred
I-2
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
by Direct Participants on DTC's records and followed by a book-entry credit of tendered Bonds to
the Fiscal Agent's DTC account.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Bonds at any
time by giving reasonable notice to the District or the Fiscal Agent. Under such circumstances, in the
event that a successor depository is not obtained, physical Bonds are required to be printed and
delivered.
The District may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry transfers through
DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, physical Bonds will be printed and
delivered.
The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been
obtained from sources that the District believes to be reliable, but the District takes no responsibility
for the accuracy thereof.
I-3
DOCSOC\978167v6~22245.0143
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081\Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
BOND INDENTURE
by and between
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
(Otay Ranch Village Six)
and
U.S. Bank National Association,
As Fiscal Agent
Dated as of September 1, 2003
Re: $
City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District No. 08-I
(Otay Ranch Village Six)
2003 Special Tax Bonds
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
E. Notice and Selection of Bonds for Redemption ........................................................... 32
ARTICLE V. SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES ..................................................... : .......... 33
SECTION 5.01 AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS ..................................................................33
ARTICLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS .......................................................... 35
SECTION 6.01 OWNERSHIP OF BONDS ................................................................................. 35
SECTION 6.02 MUTILATED, LOST, DESTROYED OR STOLEN BONDS .................................. 35
SECTION 6.03 CANCELLATION OF BONDS ........................................................................... 35
SECTION 6.04 COVENANTS .................................................................................................. 35
SECTION 6.05 ARBITRAGE CERTIFICATE ............................................................................. 39
SECTION 6.06 DEFE^SANCE ................................................................................................ 39
SECTION 6.07 FISCAL AGENT .............................................................................................. 40
SECTION 6.08 LIABILITY OF FISCAL AGENT ........................................................................ 41
SECTION 6.09 PROVISIONS CONSTITUTE CONTRACT ........................................................... 42
SECTION 6.10 CUSIPNuM~ERS ......................................................................................... 43
SECTION 6.11 SEVERABILITY .............................................................................................. 43
SECTION 6.12 UNCLAIMED MONEY ..................................................................................... 43
SECTION 6.13 NONPRESENTMENT OF BONDS ...................................................................... 44
SECTION 6.14 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ............................................................................ 44
ARTICLE VII. BOND FORM ................................................................................................ 47
SECTION 7.01 FoPdv~ OF BONDS ........................................................................ ~ ................. 47
SECTION 7.02 TEMPORARY BONDS ..................................................................................... 47
ARTICLE VIII EVENT OF DEFAULT ................................................................................ 48
SECTION 8.01 EVENTS OF DEFAULT .................................................................................... 48
SECTION 8.02 APPLICATION OF REVENUES AND OTHER FUNDS AFTER DEFAULT ............... 48
EXHIBIT "A" - FORM OF BOND ...................................................................................... A-1
EXHIBIT "B" - ARBITRAGE REBATE INSTRUCTIONS ................................................ B-1
(ii)
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
BOND INDENTURE
This Bond Indenture dated as of September I, 2003, is entered imo by and between
Community Facilities Dis~ct No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six), a community facilities district
organized and existing under the laws of the State, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Fiscal
Agent, to establish the terms and conditions and pertaining to the issuance of the Bonds. as defined
herein.
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS
SECTION 1.01 Definitions.
As used in this Indenture, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
"Acquisition Account" means the account by that name within the Proj eot Fund established pursuant
to Section 3.10 hereof.
"Acquisition/Financing Agreement" means that certain Acquisition/Financing Agreement made and
entered into on ,2003 by and between the City, acting on behalf of itself and the
Dis~ct, and Otay Project, L.P., a California limited liability company, as such agreement may be
amended from time to time.
"Act" means the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", as amended, being Chapter 2.5,
Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Administrative Expense Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01
hereof.
"Administrative Expenses" means the expenses directly related to the administration of the District,
including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing
the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or a designee thereof or both); the
costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City or otherwise); the costs of
remitt'mg the Special Taxes to the Fiscal Agent; the costs of the Fiscal Agent (including its legal
counsel) in the discharge of the duties of the Fiscal Agent required under this Indenture; the costs of
the City, the District or any designee thereof of complying with the arbitrage rebate requirements;
the costs of the City, the District, or any designee thereof of complying with City, District or
obligated person disclosure requirements associated with applicable federal or state securities laws
and of the Act; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding
to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, District or any designee thereof
related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs of any credit enhancement obtained by the City
or the District (but exelud'mg the costs of any credit enhancement required to be provided by Otay
Project, L.P. and/or its successor). Administrative Expenses shall also include Delinquency
Collection Expenses.
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081\Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Administrative Expense Requirement" means an annual amount equal to $75,000, or such lesser
amount as may be designated by written instruction fi.om an Authorized Representative to the Fiscal
Agent, to be allocated as the first priority of Special Taxes received each Fiscal Year for the payment
of Administrative Expenses.
"Annual Debt Service" means, for each Bond Year, the stun of (a) the interest payable on the
Outstanding Bonds in such Bond Year, and (b) the principal amount of the Outstanding Bonds
scheduled to be paid in such Bond Year, including from mandatory sinking fund payments.
"Assistant Director of Finance" means the Assistant Director of Finance of the City.
"Assessor's Parcel" means an Assessor's Parcel as defined in the Special Tax RMA.
"Authorized Representative" of the District means the City Manager, Director of Finance or
Assistant Director of Finance of the City, acting on behalf of the District, or any other person
designated in writing by the City Manager or the Director of Finance and authorized to act on behalf
of the District under or with respect to this Indenture and all other agreements related hereto.
"Average Annual Debt Service" means the average annual debt service on the Bonds based upon a
Bond Year during the term of the Bonds.
"Bond Counsel" means an attorney or firm of attorneys, selected by the District, of nationally
recognized standing in matters pertaining to the tax treatment of interest on bonds issued by states
and their political subdivisions, duly admitted to the practice of law before the highest court of the
State.
"Bondowner" or "Owner", or any similar term, means any person who shall be the registered owner
or his duly authorized attorney, trustee, representative or assign of any Outstanding Bond which shall
at the time be registered.
"Bonds" means the $ , City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District 08-I (Otay
Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds issued pursuant to this Indenture.
"Bond Service Fund" means the fund created and established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Bond Year" means each twelve-month period extending from September 2 in one calendar year to
September 1 of the succeeding calendar year, except in the case of the initial Bond Year which shall
be the period from the Delivery Date to September 1, 2004.
"Business Day" means a day that is not a Saturday or a Sunday or a day of the year on which banks
in New York, New York and Los Angeles, California, or where the Principal Corporate Trust Office
is located, are not required or authorized to remain open.
2
J:kEngineer\LANDDEV~CFD*s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Capitalized Interest Sub-Account" means the sub-account by that name within the Interest Account
of the Bond Service Fund established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"City" means the City of Chula Vista, California.
"City Manager" means the City Manager of the City, acting for and on behalf of the District.
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
"Costs of Issuance" means all of the costs of formation of the District and the costs of issuing the
Bonds, including but not limited to, all printing and document preparation expenses in connection
with this Indenture, the Bonds, and any and all other agreements, instruments, certificates or other
documents issued in connection therewith; any computer and other expenses incurred in connection
with the Bonds; the initial fees and expenses of the Fiscal Agent (including without limitation,
acceptance fees and first annual fees payable in advance); and other fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the formation of the District and the issuance of the Bonds, to the extem such fees
and expenses are approved by the District.
"Costs of Issuance Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Comptroller of the Currency" shall mean the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States.
"Debt Service on Parity Refunding Obligations" means the gross debt service due in any Bond Year
on any refunding bonds or other refunding obligations which have, or purport to have, a lien upon
the Special Tax Revenues on a parity with the lien of the Bonds.
"Delinquency Collection Expenses" means those fees and expenses of the District incurred by or on
behalf of the District in or related to the collection of delinquent Special Taxes.
"Delinquency Proceeds" means the amounts collected from the redemption of delinquent Special
Taxes including the penalties and interest thereon and from the sale of property sold as a result of the
foreclosure of the lien of the Special Tax resulting from the delinquency in the paymem of Special
Taxes due and payable on such property.
"Delivery Date" means the date on which the Bonds are issued and delivered to the initial purchaser
thereof.
"Depository" shall mean DTC and its successors and assigns or if (a) the then Depository resigns
from its functions as securities depository of the Bonds, or (b) the District discont'mues use of the
Depository pursuant to this Indenture, any other securities depository which agrees to follow
procedures required to be followed by a securities depository in connection with the Bonds and
which is selected by the Treasurer.
3
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081XBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Director of Finance" means the Director of Finance of the City, acting for and on behalf of the
District.
"District" means Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) situated in and
formed by the City of Chula Vista, California.
"DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors
and assigns.
"Fiscal Agent" means U.S. Bank National Association, and any successor thereto.
"Fiscal Year" means the 12 month period beginning July 1 of each year and terminating on June 30
of the following year, or any other annual accounting period hereinafter selected and designated by
the District as its fiscal year in accordance with applicable law.
"Government Obligations" means obligations described in Paragraph 1 of the definition of Permitted
Investments.
"Gross Proceeds" has the meaning ascribed to such term in Section 148(0(6) of the Code.
"Indenture" means this Bond Indenture, as amended or supplemented pursuant to the terms hereof.
"Independent Accountant" means any certified public accountant or firm of such certified public
accountants appointed and paid by the District, and who, or each of whom -
1. is in fact independent and not under domination of the District or the City;
2. does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, in the District or the City;
and
3. is not an officer or employee of the District or the City, but who may be regularly
retained to make annual or other audits of the books of or reports to the City or the
District.
"Information Services" means Financial Information, Inc's., "Daily Called Bond Service," 30
Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302, Attention: Editor; Kenny
Information Services' "Called Bond Service," 65 Broadway, 16th Floor, New York, New York
10006; Moody's Investors Service "Municipal and Government," 99 Church Street, 8th Floor,
New York, New York 10007, Attention: Municipal News Reports; Standard and Poor's
Corporation "Called Bond Record,' 25 Broadway, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10004; and,
in accordance with then current guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such other
addressees providing information with respect to called bonds as the District may designate in
wrifmg to the Fiscal Agent.
4
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Interest Payment Date" means March 1 and September 1 of each year, commencing March 1,2004.
"Investment Agreement" means any investment satisfying the requirements of Paragraph 11 of the
definition of Permitted Investments.
"Legislative Body" means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of the District.
"Maximum Annual Debt Service" means, as of the date of any calculation, the largest Annual Debt
Service during the current or any future Bond Year.
"Moody's" means Moody's Investors Service, its successors and assigns.
"Nominee" shall mean the nominee of the Depository which may be the Depository, as
determined from time to time by the Depository.
"Outstanding" means as to the Bonds, all of the Bonds, except:
I. Bonds theretofore canceled or surrendered for cancellation in accordance with
Section 6.03 hereof;
2. Bonds for the payment or redemption of which monies shall have been theretofore
deposited in trust (whether upon or prior to the maturity or the redemption date of
such bonds), provided that, if such Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity
thereof, notice of such redemption shall have been given as provided in this Indenture
or any applicable Supplemental Indenture.
"Participant" shall mean a member of or participant in the Depository.
"Permitted Investments" means any of the following which at the time of investment are legal
investments under the laws of the State for the moneys proposed to be invested therein (the Fiscal
Agent shall be entitled to rely upon any written investment direction from an Authorized
Representative of the District as a certification to the Fiscal Agent that such investment constitutes a
Permitted Investment):
1. A. Direct obligations (other than an obligation subject to variation in principal
payment) of the United States of America ("United States Treasury Obligations");
B. Obligations fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to timely payment of
principal and interest by the United States of America;
C. Obligations fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to timely payment of
principal and interest by any agency or instrumentality of the United States of
America when such obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States of America, or
5
JAEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
D. Evidences of ownership of proportionate interests in future interest and
principal payments on obligations described above held by a bank or trust company
as custodian, under which the owner of the investment is the real party in interest and
has the right to proceed directly and individually against the obligor and the
underiying government obligations are not available to any person claiming through
the custodian or to whom the custodian may be obligated.
2. Federal Housing Administration debentures.
3. The listed obligations of government-sponsored agencies which are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the Un/ted States of America:
A. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC)
(1) Participation certificates (excluded are stripped mortgage securities
which are purchased at prices exceeding their principal amounts)
(2) Sen/or Debt obligations
B. Farm Credit Banks (formerly: Federal Land Banks, Federal Intermediate
Credit Banks and Banks for Cooperatives)
(1) Consolidated system-wide bonds and notes
C. Federal Home Loan Banks (FHL Banks)
(1) Consolidated debt obligations
D. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
(1) Senior debt obligations
(2) Mortgage-backed securities (excluded are stripped mortgage
securities which are purchased at prices exceeding their principal
amounts)
E. Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA)
(1) Senior debt obligations (excluded are securities that do not have a
fixed par value and~or whose terms do not promise a fixed dollar
amount at maturity or call date)
F. Financing Corporation 0clCO)
(1) Debt obligations
G. Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP)
~.~ (1) Debt obligations
6
J:\Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD~s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
4. Unsecured certificates of deposit, time deposits, and bankers' acceptances (having
maturities of not more than 30 days) of any bank the short-term obligations of which
are rated "A-I" or better by S&P.
5. Deposits the aggregate amount of which are fully insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in banks which have capital and surplus of at least $5
6. Commercial paper (having original maturities of not more than 270 days rated "A- 1"
by S&P and "Prime-l" by Moody's.
7. Money market funds rated "AAm-I' or "AAm-G" by S&P, or better.
8. State Obligations, which means:
A. Direct general obligations of any state of the United States of America or any
subdivision or agency thereof to which is pledged the full faith and credit of a
state the unsecured general obligation debt of which is rated "A3" by
Moody's and "A" by S&P, or better, or any obligation fully and
unconditionally guaranteed by any state, subdivision or agency whose
unsecured general obligation debt is so rated.
B. Direct general short-term obligations of any state agency or subdivision or
agency thereof described in (A) above and rated "A-1 +" by S&P and "Prime-
1" by Moody's.
C. Special Revenue Bonds (as defined in the United States Bankruptcy Code) of
any state, state agency or subdivision described in A. above and rated "AA"
or better by S&P and "AA" or better by Moody's.
9. Pre-refunded municipal obligations rated "AAA" by S & P and "AAA" by Moody's
meeting the following requirements:
A. the municipal obligations are (1) not subject to redemption prior to maturity
or (2) the trustee for the municipal obligations has been given irrevocable
instructions concerning their call and redemption and the issuer of the
municipal obligations has covenanted not to redeem such municipal
obligations other than as set forth in such instructions;
B. the municipal ol~ligations are secured by cash or United States Treasury
; Obligations which may be applied only to payment of the principal of,
~: interest and premium on such municipal obligations;
7
J:\Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
C. the principal of and interest on the United States Treasury Obligations (plus
any cash in the escrow) has been verified by the report of independent
certified public accountants to be sufficient to pay in full all principal of,
interest, and premium, if any, due and to become due on the municipal
obligations ("Verification");
D. the cash or United States Treasury Obligations serving as security for the
municipal obligations are held by an escrow agent or trustee in trust for
owners of the municipal obligations;
E. no substitution of a United States Treasury Obligation shall be permitted
except with another United States Treasury Obligation and upon delivery ora
new Verification; and
F. the cash or United States Treasury Obligations are not available to satisfy any
other clairas, including those by or against the trustee or escrow agent.
10. Repurchase agreements:
With (1) any domestic bank, or domestic branch of a foreign bank, the long term debt
of which is rated at least "A" by S&P and Moody's; or (2) any broker-dealer with
"retail customers" or a related affiliate thereof which broker-dealer has, or the parent
company (which guarantees the provider) of which has, long-term debt rated at least
"A" by S&P and Moody's, which broker-dealer falls under the jurisdiction of the
..... " " tter
Sectmt~eslnvestorsProtectmnCorporat~on, or (3) any other ent~ty rated A orbe
by S&P and Moody's, provided that:
A. The market value of the collateral is maintained at levels and upon such
conditions as would be acceptable to S&P and Moody's to maintain an "A"
rating in an "A" rated structured financing (with a market value approach);
B. The Fiscal Agent or a third party acting solely as agent therefor or for the
District (the "Holder of the Collateral") has possession of the collateral or the
collateral has been transferred to the Holder of the Collateral in accordance
with applicable state and federal laws (other than by means of entries on the
transferor's books);
C. The repurchase agreement shall state and an opinion of counsel shall be
rendered at the time such collateral is delivered that the Holder of the
Collateral has a perfected first priority security interest in the collateral, any
:~ substituted collateral and all proceeds thereof (in the case of bearer securities,
~ this means the Holder of the Collateral is in possession);
D. The repurchase agreement shall provide that if during its term the provider's
i. rating by either Moody's or S&P is withdrawn or suspended or falls below
8
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"A-" by S&P or "A3" by Moody's, as appropriate, the provider must, at the
direction of the District or the Fiscal Agent, within I 0 days of receipt of such
direction, repurchase all collateral and terminate the agreement, with no
penalty or premium to the District or Fiscal Agent.
Notwithstanding the above, collateral levels need not be as specified in "A'.' above, so
long as such collateral levels are 103% or better and the provider is rated at least "A"
by S&P and Moody's, respectively.
11. Investment agreements with a domestic or foreign bank or corporation the long-term
debt or £mancial strength of which, it or its guarantor is rated at least "AA-" by S&P
and "Aa3" by Moody's; provided that, by the terms of the investment agreement:
A. the invested funds are available for withdrawal without penalty or premium,
upon not more than seven days' prior notice; the Dislrict and the Fiscal Agent
hereby agree to give or cause to be given notice in accordance with the terms
of the investment agreement so as to receive funds thereunder with no penalty
or premium paid;
B. the investment agreement shall state that it is the unconditional and general
obligation of, and is not subordinated to any other obligation of, the provider
thereof; or, in the case of a bank, that the obligation of the bank to make
payments under the agreement ranks pad passu with the obligations of the
bank to its other depositors and its other unsecured and unsubordinated
creditors;
C. the District and the Fiscal Agent receives the opinion of domestic counsel
that such investment agreement is legal, valid, binding and enforceable upon
the provider in accordance with its terms and of. foreign counsel (if
applicable);
D. the investment agreement shall provide that if during its term
(1) the provider's rating by either S&P or Moody's falls below "AA-" or
"Aa3", respectively, the provider shall, at its option, within 10 days of
receipt of publication of such downgrade, either (a) collateralize the
investment agreement by delivering or transferring in accordance
with applicable state and federal laws (other than by means of entries
on the provider's books) to the District, the Fiscal Agent or a Holder
of the Collateral flee and clear of any th/rd-party liens or claims the
: market value of which collateral is maintained at levels and upon
such conditions as would be acceptable to S & P and Moody's to
maintain an "A" rating in an "A" rated structured financing (with a
, market value approach); or (b) transfer and assign the investment
9
J:kEngineerkLANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08IkBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
agreement to a then qualifying counterparty with ratings specified
above; and
(2) the provider's mt'mg by either S&P or Moody's is withdrawn or
suspended or falls below "A-" or "A3", respectively, the provider
must, at the direction of the District or the Fiscal Agents within 10
days of receipt of such direction, repay the principal of and accrued
but unpaid interest on the investment;
E. The investment agreement shall state and an opinion of counsel shall be
rendered, in the event collateral is required to be pledged by the provider
under the terms of the investment agreement, at the time such collateral is
delivered, that the Holder of the Collateral has a perfected first priority
security interest in the collateral, any substituted collateral and all proceeds
thereof (in the case of bearer securities, this means the Holder of the
Collateral is in possession);
F. the investment agreement must provide that if during its term
(1) the provider shall default in its payment obligations, the provider's
obligations under the investment agreement shall, at the direction of
the District or the Fiscal Agent, be accelerated and amounts invested
and accrued but unpaid interest thereon shall be repaid to the District
or Fiscal Agent, as appropriate, and
(2) the provider shall become insolvent, not pay its debts as they become
due, be declared or petition to be declared bankrupt, etc. ("Event of
Insolvency"), the provider's obligations shall automatically be
accelerated and amounts invested and accrued but unpaid interest
thereon shall be repaid to the District or Fiscal Agent, as appropriate.
12. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) administered by the treasurer of the
State to the extent such deposits remain in the name of and control of the Fiscal
Agent.
Whenever reference is made in this definition of Permitted Investments to "collateral," collateral
shall be limited to (i) cash and securities issued or guaranteed by the United States Government,
includ'mg United States Treasury obligations and any other obligations the timely payment of the
principal of and interest on which are guaranteed by the United States Government, and (ii) bonds,
notes, debentures, obligations or other evidences of indebtedness issued or guaranteed by the
Government. National Mortgage Association, Federal National Mortgage Association or Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or any other agency or instrumentality of the United States or
America including but not limited to, mortgage participation certificates, mortgage pass-through
certificates, and other mortgage-backed securities.
10
J:kEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Prepayments" means Special Tax Revenues identified to the Fiscal Agent by an Authorized
Representative as representing a prepayment of the Special Tax.
"Principal Corporate Trust Office" means the office of the Fiscal Agent at 550 South Hope Street.
Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90071 or such other offices as may be specified to the.District by
the Fiscal Agent in writing; provided, however for transfer, registration, exchange, payment and
surrender of Bonds means care of the corporate trust office of U.S. Bank National Association in St.
Paul, Minnesota or such other address specified by the Fiscal Agent to the District in writing.
"Project" means the public improvements as set forth and described in Exhibit A to the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement, excluding therefi'om the Traffic Enhancement Improvements.
"Project Costs" means all expenses of and incidental to the construction, acquisition, or both, of the
Project.
"Project Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Rebate Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Rebate Instructions" means the Rebate Instructions attached as Exhibit B hereto.
"Record Date" shall mean the fifteenth (15th) calendar day of the month immediately preceding an
Interest Payment Date.
"Redemption Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Registration Books" shall have the meaning given such term in Section 2.08 hereof.
"Regulations" means the regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
"Reserve Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Reserve Requirement" means an amount initially equal to $ which amount shall, as of
any date of calculation, be equal to the least of(i) Maximum Annual Debt Service for the Bonds, (ii)
one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of Average Annual Debt Service for the Bonds, and (iii) ten
percent (10%) of the original principal amount of the Bonds less original issue discount, if any, plus
original issue premium, if any, applicable to the Bonds.
~ "Securities Depository" means, as of the Closing Date, The Depository Trust Company, 711 Stewart
~ "~'~ Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530 and, in accordance with then current guidelines of the
~: Securities and Exchange Commission, such other addressees providing depository services with
~{ ~ respect to bonds as the District may designate in writing to the Fiscal Agent.
I1
J:kEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax authorized to be levied in the District pursuant to the Act and
the Special Tax RMA.
"Special Tax Consultant" means any person or firm possessing demonstrated experience and
expertise in the preparation of special tax formulas and/or the administration of special taxes levied
for community facilities districts. Any such person or firm shall be appointed and paid by the District
and who, or each of whom -
1. is in fact independent and not under domination of the District or the City;
2. does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, in the District or the City;
and
3. is not an officer or employee of the District or the City, but who may be regularly
retained by the City or other community facilities districts formed by the City to
administer the levy of special taxes within such community facilities districts.
"Special Tax Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Special Tax Revenues" means (a) the proceeds of the Special Tax levied by the District within The
District pursuant to the Special Tax RMA and received by the District, and (b) the Delinquency
Proceeds.
"Special Tax RMA" means the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax authorized to be
levied on property within the District as approved at the special election held in the District on
,200__, as it may be modified from time to time in accordance with the Act and as
permitted hereby.
"Standard & Poor's" or "S&P" means Standard & Poor's Rating Services, its successors and assigns.
"State" means the State of California.
"Supplemental Indenture" means any bond indenture then in full force and effect which has been
duly approved by resolution of the Legislative Body under and pursuant to the Act at a meeting of
the Legislative Body duly convened and held, at which a quorum was present and acted thereon,
amendatory hereof or supplemental hereto; but only if and to the extent that such Supplemental
Indenture is specifically authorized hereunder.
"Tax Exempt" means, with reference to a Permitted Investment, a Permitted Investment the interest
earnings on which are excludable fxom gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to
Section 103(a) of the Code, other than one described in section 57(a)(5)(C) of the Code.
"Term Bonds" means the Bonds maturing on September 1, 20 and the Bonds maturing on
September 1, 20
12
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
"Traffic Enhancement Improvements" shall have the meaning given such term in the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement.
"Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account" means the account by that name within the Project
Fund established pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof.
"Traffic Enhancement Improvement Costs" means the cost of the acquisition or construction of the
Traffic Enhancement Improvements (as such term is defined in the Acquisition/Financing
Agreement) in an amount not to exceed the Fair Share (as such term is defined in the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement).
"Treasurer" means the Treasurer of the City acting for and on behalf of the District.
"Yield" has the meaning assigned to such term for purposes of Section 148(f) of the Code.
13
J:\Engineer~LANDDEVXCFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE II. GENERAL AUTHORIZATION AND TERMS
SECTION 2.01 Amount, Issuance and Purpose.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Legislative Body has authorized the issuance of the
Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $ . The Bonds shall be designated City of
Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax
Bonds. The purpose of the Bonds shall be to (a) pay for the acquisition or construction of the
Project, (b) pay for the acquisition or construction of the Traffic Enhancement Improvements, (c)
fund the Reserve Fund, (d) pay capitalized interest on the Bonds through 1,200_ and (e)
pay the Costs of Issuance.
SECTION 2.02 Type and Nature of Bond.
The Bonds and interest thereon, together with any premium paid thereon upon redemption,
are not obligations of the City, but are limited obligations of the District secured by and payable
from an irrevocable first lien on the Special Tax Revenues and on the monies in the funds and
accounts established herein (including the investment earnings thereon) with the exception of the
Project Fund, the Rebate Fund and the Administrative Expense Fund. Except for the Special Tax
Revenues, neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the District or the City is pledged for
the payment of the Bonds or the interest thereon, and no Owner of the Bonds may compel the
exercise of taxing power by the District, except as to the Special Taxes, or the City or the forfeiture
of any of their property. The principal of and interest on the Bonds and premiums upon the
redemption thereof, if any, are not a debt of the District or the City, the State of California or any of
its political subdivisions within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or
restriction. The Bonds are not a legal or equitable pledge, charge, lien or encumbrance, upon any of
the District's property, or upon any of its income, receipts or revenues, except the amounts which
are, under this Indenture and the Act, set aside for the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon and
neither the members of the Legislative Body, the City Council of the City, nor any persons executing
the Bonds are liable personally on the Bonds by reason of their issuance.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Indenture, the District shall not be required to
advance any money derived from any source of income other than the Special Tax Revenues for the
payment of the interest on or the principal of the Bonds or for the performance of any covenants
herein contained.
Nothing in this Indenture or in any Supplemental Indenture shall preclude the redemption
prior to maturity of any Bonds subject to call and redemption or the payment of the Bonds from
proceeds of the refunding bonds issued under the Act or under any other law of the State.
SECTION 2.03 Terms of the Bonds.
The Bonds shall mature on September 1 in the years, and in the respective principal amounts
set forth opposite such years, and shall bear interest at the respective rates per annum, as follows:
14
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08IYBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Maturity Date Principal Interest Maturity Date Principal Interest
(September l) Amount Rate(%) (September 1) Amount Rate(%)
2004 2015
2005 2016
2006 2017
2007 2018
2008 2019
2009 2020
2010 2021
2011 2022
2012 2023
2013 2027
2014 2033
SECTION 2.04 Description of Bonds; Interest Rates.
The Bonds of each series shall be issued in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000
or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity and shall be numbered as desired by the
Fiscal Agent. The Bonds shall be dated as of the Delivery Date, and shall mature and be payable on
September 1 in the years and in the aggregate principal mounts and shall bear interest at the rates
set forth in this Indenture. The Bonds shall mature and be payable in the years and in the aggregate
principal mounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth in Section 2.03. Interest shall be
payable with respect to each Bond on each Interest Payment Date (commencing March 1, 2004),
until the principal sum of that Bond has been paid; provided, however, that if at the maturity date of
any Bond (or if the same is redeemable and shall be duly called for redemption, then at the date fixed
for redemption) funds are available for the payment or redemption thereof, in full accordance with
the terms of this Indenture, such Bond shall then cease to bear interest.
SECTION 2.05 Payment.
The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United
States of America. The principal of the Bonds and any premium due upon the redemption thereof
shall be payable upon presentation and surrender thereof at maturity or the earlier redemption thereof
at the Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Fiscal Agent.
Interest on any Bond shall be payable from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date
of authentication of that Bond, unless (i) such date of authentication is an Interest Payment Date, in
which event interest shall be payable from such date of authentication, (ii) the date of authentication
is after a Record Date but prior to the immediately succeeding Interest Payment Date, in which event
interest shall be payable from the Interest Payment Date immediately succeeding the date of
authentication or (iii) the date of authentication is prior to the close of business on the first Record
Date, in which event interest shall be payable from the date of the Bonds; provided, however, that if
at the time of authentication ora Bond, interest is in default, interest on that Bond shall be payable
15
J:\Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
from the last Interest Payment Date to which the interest has been paid or made available for
payment. Interest on any Bond shall be paid to the person whose name shall appear in the books of
registration as required by Section 2.08 as the owner of such Bond as of the close of business on the
Record Date immediately preceding such Interest Payment Date. Such interest shall be paid by
check of the Fiscal Agent mailed to such Bondowner at his or her address as it appears on the books
of registration as required by Section 2.08 or, upon the request in writing prior to the Record Date of
a Bondowner of at least $1,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Bonds, by wire transfer in
immediately available funds to an account in the United States designated by such Owner. Interest
with respect to each Bond shall be computed using a year of 360 days comprised of twelve 30-day
months.
SECTION 2.06 Execution of Bonds.
The Bonds shall be executed manually or in facsimile by the Mayor of the City and
countersigned by the City Clerk of the City, acting on behalf of the District. The Bonds shall then be
delivered to the Fiscal Agent, for authentication and registration. In case an officer who shall have
signed or attested to any of the Bonds by facsimile or otherwise shall cease to be such officer before
the authentication, delivery and issuance of the Bonds, such Bonds nevertheless may be
authenticated, delivered and issued, and upon such authentication, delivery and issue, shall be as
binding as though those who signed and attested the same had remained in office.
SECTION 2.07 Order to Print and Authenticate Bonds.
The Director of Finance is hereby instructed to cause Bonds in the form as set forth herein, to
be printed, and to proceed to cause said Bonds to be authenticated and delivered to an authorized
representative of the purchaser, upon payment of the purchase price as set forth in the purchase
contract for the sale of the Bonds.
SECTION 2.08 Books of Registration; Book Entry System.
There shall be kept by the Fiscal Agent, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of
the Bonds (the "Registration Books") and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Fiscal Agent
shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be
registered or transferred, on said register, Bonds as hereinbefore provided. The ownership of the
Bonds shall be established by the Bond registration books held by the Fiscal Agent. Whenever any
Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for registration of transfer or exchange, the Fiscal Agent shall
authenticate and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of the same maturity, for a like aggregate principal
amount of authorized denominations; provided that the Fiscal Agent shall not be required to register
transfers or make exchanges of (i) Bonds for a period of 15 days next preceding the date of any
selection of the Bonds to be redeemed, or (ii) any Bonds chosen for redemption.
The Bonds shall be initially issued in the form of a single, fully registered Bond for each
maturity (which may be typewritten). Upon initial issuance, the ownership of such Bonds shall be
registered in the name of the Nominee identified below as nominee of the DepOsitory. Except as
16
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
hereinafter provided, all of the Outstanding Bonds shall be registered in the name of the nominee of
the Depository, which may be the Depository, as determined from time to time pursuant to this
Section.
With respect to the Bonds registered in the name of the Nominee, neither the District nor the
Fiscal Agent shall have any responsibility or obligation to any Participant or to any person on behalf
of which such a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds. Without limiting the immediately
preceding sentence, neither the District nor the Fiscal Agent shall have any responsibility or
obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee, or any
Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds (ii) the delivery to any Participant or
any other person, other than an Owner of a Bond as shown in the Registration Books, of any notice
with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, (iii) the selection by the Depository
and its Participants of the beneficial interests in the Bonds to be redeemed in the event the District
redeems the Bonds in part, or (iv) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than an
Owner of a Bond as shown in the Registration Books, of any amount with respect to principal of or
interest on the Bonds. The District and the Fiscal Agent may treat and consider the person in whose
name each Bond is registered as the holder and absolute Owner of such Bond for the purpose of
payment of principal and interest with respect to such Bond for the purpose of giving notices or
prepayment if applicable, and other matters with respect to such Bond for the purpose of registering
transfers with respect to such Bond, and for all other purposes whatsoever. The District shall pay all
principal of and interest on the Bonds only to or upon the order of the respective Owner of a Bond,
as shown in the Registration Books, or his respective attorney duly authorized in writing, and all
such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the District's obligations
with respect to payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so
paid. No person other than an Owner of a Bond, as shown in the Registration Books, shall receive a
Bond evidencing the obligation of the District to make payments of principal and interest pursuant to
this Indenture. Upon delivery by the Depository to the Owners of the Bond, and the District of
written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new nominee in place
of the Nominee, and subject to the provisions heroin with respect to Record Dates, the word
Nominee in this Indenture shall refer to such nominee of the Depository.
In the event (i) the Depository determines not to continue to act as securities depository for
the Bonds, or (ii) the Depository shall no longer so act and gives notice to the District of such
determination, then the District will discontinue the book-entry system with the Depository. If the
District determines to replace the Depository with another qualified securities depository, the District
shall prepare or direct the preparation ora new, single, separate, fully registered Bond, per maturity,
registered in the name of such successor or substitute qualified securities depository or its nominee.
If the District falls to identify another qualified securities depository to replace the Depository, then
the Bonds shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the register in the name of the Nominee,
but shall he registered in whatever name or names Owners of the Bonds transferring or exchanging
· Bonds shall designate, in accordance with the provisions hereof and the District shall prepare and
deliver Bonds to the Owners thereof for such purpose.
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFI)'s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
In the event of a reduction in aggregate principal amount of Bonds Outstanding or an advance
refunding of part of the Bonds Outstanding, DTC, in its discretion, (a) may request the District to
prepare and issue a new Bond or (b) may make an appropriate notation on the Bond indicating the
date and amounts of such reduction in principal, but in such event the Registration Books maintained
by the Fiscal Agent shall be conclusive as to what amounts are Outstanding on the Bond, except in
the case of final maturity, in which case the Bond must be presented to the Fiscal Agent prior to
payment.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Indenture to the contrary, so long as any Bond is
registered in the name of the Nominee, all payments of principal and interest with respect to such
Bond and all notice with respect to such Bonds shall be made and given respectively, as instructed
by the Depository and acceptable to the District.
The initial Nominee shall be Cede & Co., as Nominee of DTC.
SECTION 2.09 Exchange of Bonds.
Bonds may be exchanged at the Principal Corporate Trust Office, for a like aggregate
principal amount of Bonds of authorized denominations, interest rate and maturity, subject to the
terms and conditions of this Indenture, including the payment of certain charges, if any, upon
surrender and cancellation of a Bond. Upon such transfer and exchange, a new registered Bond or
Bonds of any authorized denomination or denominations of the same maturity and for the same
aggregate principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor.
SECTION 2.10 Negotiability, Registration and Transfer of Bonds.
The transfer of any Bond may be registered only upon the Registration Books upon surrender
thereof to the Fiscal Agent, together with an assignment duly executed by the Owner or his attorney
or legal representative, in satisfactory form. Upon any such registration of transfer, a new Bond or
Bonds shall be authenticated and delivered in exchange for such Bond, in the name of the transferee,
of any denomination or denominations authorized by this Indenture, and in an aggregate principal
amount equal to the principal amount of such Bond or Bonds so surrendered. In all cases in which
Bonds shall be exchanged or transferred, the Fiscal Agent shall authenticate the Bonds in accordance
with the provisions of this Indenture. All Bonds surrendered in such exchange or transfer shall
forthwith be canceled. The Fiscal Agent may make a charge for every such exchange or registration
of transfer of Bonds sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or other governmental charge required to be
paid with respect to such exchange or registration or transfer.
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD~s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFl)08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
SECTION 2.11 Authentication.
Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication substantially in
the form below, manually executed by the Fiscal Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose
or entitled to the benefits of this Indenture, and such ce~ficate of the Fiscal Agem shall be
conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, an~henticated and
delivered hereunder, and are entitled to the benefits of this Indenture:
FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds described in
the within defined Indenture.
Dated: U.S. Bank National Association,
As Fiscal Agem
By:
Authorized Officer
J',\Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE III. FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS
SECTION 3.01 Establishment of Special Funds.
The following funds and accounts identified in this Section 3.01 are hereby created and
established and shall be maintained by the Fiscal Agent:
A. Special Tax Fund;
B. Bond Service Fund, and within the Bond Service Fund, the Interest Account, and within the
Interest Account, the Capitalized Interest Sub-Account, and the Principal Account;
C. Rebate Fund;
D. Redemption Fund;
E. Project Fund, and within the Project Fund, the Acquisition Account and the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account;
F. Reserve Fund;
G. Administrative Expense Fund; and
H. Costs of Issuance Fund.
The District may, through written instructions from an Authorized Representative, direct the Fiscal
Agent to establish such other accounts or sub-accounts, as may be necessary to carry out the
administration of the Bonds and the proceeds of the Bonds.
SECTION 3.02 Special Tax Fund.
A. The District shall, no later than the tenth (10th) Business Day after which Special Tax
Revenues have been received by the District and in any event not later than February 15th and
August 15th of each year, transfer such Special Tax Revenues to the Fiscal Agent and, except as set
forth in the following sentence, such amounts shall be deposited in the Special Tax Fund. Special
Tax Revenues representing Prepayments shall be deposited into the Redemption Fund and the
Administrative Expense Fund as set forth in written instructions from an Authorized Representative.
B. The Special Tax Revenues deposited in the Special Tax Fund shall be held in trust and
deposited in the following accounts of the Special Tax Fund or transferred to the following other
funds and accounts on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the following paragraphs and in the
following order of priority:
i,
20
J:\Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
1. The Fiscal Agent shall each Fiscal Year transfer to the Administrative Expense Fund
from the first Special Tax Revenues received by the Fiscal Agent during such Fiscal
Year an amount equal to the Administrative Expense Requirement.
2. The Fiscal Agent shall transfer to the Interest Account of the Bond Service Fund, on
each Interest Payment Date and date for redemption of the Bonds, an mount
required to cause the aggregate amount on deposit in the Interest Account to equal
the amount of interest due or becoming due and payable on such Interest Payment
Date on all Outstanding Bonds or to be paid on the Bonds being redeemed on such
date.
3. The Fiscal Agent shall transfer to the Principal Account of the Bond Service Fund,
on each Interest Payment Date and redemption date on which the principal of the
Bonds shall be payable, an amount required to cause the aggregate amount on deposit
in the Principal Account to equal the principal amount of, and premium (if any) on,
the Bonds coming due and payable on such Interest Payment Date, or required to be
redeemed on such date pursuant to this Indenture.
4. On or after March 2 and September 2 of each year after making the deposits and
transfers required under 1. through 3. above, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer the
amount, if any, necessary to replenish the amount then on deposit inthe Reserve
Fund to an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement.
5. On or after September 2 of each year after making the deposits and transfers required
under 1. through 4. above, upon receipt of written instructions from an Authorized
Representative, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer from the Special Tax Fund to the
Rebate Fund the amount specified in such request.
6. On or after September 2 of each year after making the deposits and transfers required
under 1. through 5. above, upon receipt of a written request of an Authorized
Representative, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer from the Special Tax Fund to the
Administrative Expense Fund the amounts specified in such request to pay those
Administrative Expenses which the District reasonably expects (a) will become due
and payable during such Fiscal Year or the cost of which Administrative Expenses
have previously been incurred and paid by the District from funds other than the
Administrative Expense Fund and (b) the cost of which Administrative Expenses will
be in excess of the Administrative Expense Requirement for such Fiscal Year.
7. If, on or after September 2 of each year, after making the deposits and transfers
required under 1. through 6. above, monies remain in the Special Tax Fund, such
monies shall remain on deposit in the Special Tax Fund and shall be subsequently
deposited or transferred pursuant to the provisions of 1. through 6. above.
C. The Fiscal Agent shall, upon receipt of Special Tax Revenues representing Prepayments,
immediately transfer Prepayments to the Redemption Fund and utilize such funds to redeem Bonds
21
erXLAi~iDDEVXcFD,s\ ¥illage 60ta~' Ranch infrastrUC~m ' ' ' '
of their redemption as set
pmSection 4.03 B and to pay interest on such Bonds to the dat~uthorized Representative;
e Fees and Expensesthe Fiscal Agent by · :~...
. ~ ortaonofa_P.~P ~a .tedintotheAdm} ~. suchmstrucuons'
ro ever,that an_y P a~ allbe depom _~,,~'vetv t~ly upon · .
[as ~ me. ~P~7_~'structions. The vtsca~ ,*~ . s then remaining on deposit in
fo~h vmtten ut ~ _~o Outstanding, any am,°ru~n~t any lawful purpose unde[ the
· - no longer any t~o~.~o .~ District and used ~-
D. ten,ere ~ ,__u~uansferredt° uiv
the [ TaX Fund snm~ ~
Act.
' - All moneys m the. ~:~d A~ent solely for the pu~?~ ~,: Bonds redeemed
~ ~ ~tAccoun~. '~ . ..~bvttxert~' ~
~' ~nd withctrawt~ ~ ~-~ cncluding
Acc .qshall b.c. us~7, ~o~me due and payam~ ~t .:
on thuds as it shatl~ to using any other funds on deposit in the Interest Acc°unt {°r such
prio~atm-itY)- All funds in the Capitalized Interest Sub-Account shall be used and withdrawn to
pay i~st on the BondS prior
used and withdrawn by the
purp~ . ~ ~ . . al Account sha~ be ~ emamrityther.eof,°r
. ~ All moneys tn th~ pnnctp ct al of the t3ond~ a~t th~ .~ emotion meteor
x i alACcuunt- rt;~,,a¥ingtheprin p :_~;~otunu~d
Bi ~e urpose ott~j v 7 -~- the mandat°~
(ii) pag the prmc~v"' ~
purs~ to this indenture.
Fh¢ Fiscal Agent shall, upon re /nd. · ·
-. Cost of Issuance F ..... t forth in Exhibit C
SECT)N 3.~'~ cci t of a payment request tn me ~rom the Costs of Issuance
. -- esentati e, dish sem??. Luisitionto pay the C ost, s
-~--, an Authorized r-~v- ~ s-,ecified in sucn,~'~ ~ ~osit in the costs
t I execntea oj - :~ ~uch amounts as v .... maining on oep -
here.o~u y -- such dates ann t,, o. ~ n~ A~y amoumu · ~
Issuane relY{ed to eden se-~ which all Custs o~f. , ~-ent or six monmS a~2
- -~:~r of the date on . , ~ ,~ the l~lscat ,~ . .~.__ account
· *'fi~d on the eam,~ tafive aetivereu [u - -~ the Acqmsmm~ ' ~
tssuance r~ -~- ~d Represents' _ ,, ~ transferred
writin~ bY an Antno-~ . _ ~v ,he Bonds snan u~
Delivery D~e of each sene~ ~- --
Project Fu/i~:~
~ proieet Fund shall, from time m time, disburse monies from the
· entof a payment request in the form set
,~: ~ .... * The Ftscal Ag -. - ~--4nt -- ~ ~o,~ment request
;, ~ c msm edq~Co ..... ~ entatx ( the
~- , .... ~c~'~: ,:,~ ? ~ ' slaaUE~J.~', corpOration(S) or entity(les)
22
J:~Engineer~LANDDEVXCFD*s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
specified in the payment request (including reimbursements, if any, to the District). The Fiscal Agent
may rely on an executed payment request as complete authorization for said payments.
After the final payment or reimbursement of ail Project Costs, as certified by delivery of a
written notice from an Authorized Representative to the Fiscal Agent, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer
excess monies, if any, on deposit in, or subsequently deposited in, the Acquisition Account to the
Speciai Tax Fund or the Redemption Fund as an Authorized Representative may direct in writing
and the Fiscal Agent shail apply the amount so transferred in accordance with Section 3.02 or 3.08 as
directed by the Authorized Representative. Upon such transfer the Acquisition Account shall be
closed.
On or after 1, 2006, the District may deliver to the Fiscal Agent a written
certificate executed by an Authorized Representative certifying that the District, in its sole and
absolute_discretion, has determined that it will not be necessary for the District to utilize the proceeds
of the Bonds, together with any investment earnings on such proceeds, then remaining on deposit in
the Acquisition Account to fund Project Costs and directing the Fiscal Agent to transfer all such
moneys to the Special Tax Fund or the Redemption Fund and the Fiscal Agent shall apply the
amount so transferred in accordance with Section 3.02 or 3.08 as directed by the Authorized
Representative. Upon such transfer the Acquisition Account shall be closed.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if on the date which is three (3) years from
the Delivery Date of the Bonds, any funds derived from the Bonds remain on deposit in the
Acquisition Account, the Fiscal Agent shall, upon the receipt of written instructions from the
District, immediately restrict the yield on such amounts so that the Yield earned on the investment of
such amounts is not in excess of the Yield on the Bonds, unless in the written opinion of Bond
Counsel delivered to the Fiscai Agent such restriction is not necessary to prevent an impairment of
the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federai income tax purposes.
B. Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account. The Fiscal Agent shall, from time to time,
disburse monies from the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account to pay the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Costs. Upon receipt ora payment request in the form set forth in Exhibit
E hereto duly executed by an Authorized Representative, the Fiscal Agent shall pay the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Costs from amounts in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account
directly to the contractor(s) or such other person(s), corporation(s) or entity(ies) specified in the
payment request (including reimbursements, if any, to the District). The Fiscai Agent may rely on an
executed payment request as complete authorization for said payments. Funds on deposit in the
Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account may not be utilized to pay Project Costs.
After the final payment or reimbursement of all Traffic Enhancement Improvement Costs, as
certified by delivery of a written notice from an Authorized Representative to the Fiscal Agent, the
Fiscal Agent, shall transfer excess monies, if any, on deposit in, or subsequently deposited in, the
Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account to the Acquisition Account, if such account is still open,
or to the Special Tax Fund or the Redemption Fund as an Authorized Representative may direct in
23
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08EBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
writing if the Acquisition Account is closed and the Fiscal Agent shall apply the amount so
transferred in accordance with Section 3.02 or 3.08 as directed by the Authorized Representative.
On or after 1, 2006, the District may deliver to the Fiscal Agent a written
certificate executed by an Authorized Representative certifying that the District, in its sole and
absolute.discretion, has determined that it will not be necessary for the District to utilize the proceeds
of the Bonds, together with any investment earnings on such proceeds, then remaining on deposit in
the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account to fund Traffic Enhancement Improvement Costs
and directing the Fiscal Agent to transfer all such moneys to the Acquisition Account, if account is
still open, or to the Special Tax Fund or the Redemption Fund as an Authorized Representative may
direct in writing if the Acquisition Account is closed and the Fiscal Agent shall apply the amount so
transferred in accordance with Section 3.02 or 3.08 as directed by the Authorized Representative.
Upon such transfer the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account shall be closed.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if on the date which is three (3) years from
the Delivery Date of the Bonds, any funds derived from the Bonds remain on deposit in the Traffic
Enhancement Improvement Account, the Fiscal Agent shall, upon receipt of written instructions
from the District, immediately restrict the yield on such amounts so that the Yield earned on the
investment of such amounts is not in excess of the Yield on such series of the Bonds, unless in the
written opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the Fiscal Agent such restriction is not necessary to
prevent an impairment of the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal
income tax purposes.
C. Other Transfers Between the Accounts in the Proiect Fund. In addition to transfers made
pursuant to subsections A. and B. above, the Fiscal Agent shall, from time to time and as directed by
the District by written instruction from an Authorized Representative given pursuant to the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement, transfer such funds as are specified in such written instruction
between the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account and the Acquisition Account and between
the Acquisition Account and the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account.
SECTION 3.06 Reserve Fund
Moneys on deposit in the Reserve Fund shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the
principal of and interest on the Bonds as such amounts shall become due and payable in the event
that the moneys in the Special Tax Fund and the Bond Service Fund for such purpose are insufficient
therefor or redeeming Bonds as described below. The Fiscal Agent shall, when and to the extent
necessary, withdraw money from the Reserve Fund and transfer such money to the Bond Service
Fund or the Redemption Fund for such purpose.
All Permitted Investments in the Reserve Fund shall be valued at their fair market value at
least semi-annually on March 1 and September 1. On any date after the transfers required by Section
3.02B(1), (2) and (3) have been made for any Bond Year, if the amount on deposit in the Reserve
Fund is less than the Reserve Requirement, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer to the Reserve Fund from
the first available monies in the Special Tax Fund an amount necessary to Increase the balance
24
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
therein to the Reserve Requirement. If on September 1, or the first Business Day thereafter if
September 1 is not a Business Day, of each year, the amount on deposit in the Reserve Fund is in
excess of the Reserve Requirement, the Fiscal Agent shall, as directed in writing by an Authorized
Representative, (i) prior to the final payment or reimbursement of all Project Costs or a
determination by the City Manager, or the designee thereof, that amounts in the Acquisition Account
of the Project Fund are sufficient to pay all remaining Project Costs for which a payment request has
been or is expected to be submitted,_as evidenced by a written certificate of an Authorized
Representative, transfer such excess to the Acquisition Account of the Project Fund, and (ii) after
receipt of such written certificate, transfer such excess (less the hold back of funds sufficient to pay
all remaining Project Costs for which a payment request has been or is expected to be received, if
applicable) to the Special Tax Fund. In connection with any optional or extraordinary mandatory
redemption of Bonds, amounts in the Reserve Fund in excess of the Reserve Requirement following
such redemption shall be transferred to the Principal Account or the Interest Account of the Bond
Service Fund, as applicable, pursuant to written instructions of the District executed by an
Authorized Representative and applied to redeem Bonds.
Upon receipt of written instructions from an Authorized Representative instructing the Fiscal
Agent to transfer certain moneys representing a Reserve Fund credit for the prepayment ora Special
Tax obligation, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer the amount specified in such instructions from the
Reserve Fund to the Redemption Fund for the purpose of redeeming Bonds pursuant to such
instructions.
Whenever the balance in the Reserve Fund exceeds the amount required to redeem or pay the
Outstanding Bonds, including interest accrued to the date of payment or redemption and premium, if
any, due upon redemption, the Fiscal Agent shall transfer the amount in the Reserve Fund to the
Redemption Fund to be applied, on the next succeeding interest payment date, to the payment and
redemption, in accordance with Section 4.03 of all of the Outstanding Bonds. In the event that the
amount so transferred from the Reserve Fund to the Redemption Fund exceeds the amount required
to pay and redeem the Outstanding Bonds, the balance in the Reserve Fund shall be transferred to the
District to be used for any lawful purpose of the District as set forth in the Act.
SECTION 3.07 Rebate Fund.
The District shall calculate Excess Investment Earnings as del'reed in, and in accordance
with, the Rebate Instructions, and shall, in writing, direct the Fiscal Agent to transfer funds to the
Rebate Fund from funds furnished by the District as provided for in this Indenture and the Rebate
Instructions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Rebate Instructions, including the method of computing
Excess Investment Earnings (as defined in the Rebate Instructions) may be modified, in whole or in
~i ¢ part, without the consent of the Owners of the Bonds,~upon receipt by the District of an opinion of
.' Bond Counsel to the effect that such modification shall not adversely affect the exclusion from gross
income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds then Outstanding.
25
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
The Fiscal Agent shall not be responsible for calculating rebate mounts or for the adequacy
or correctness of any rebate report or rebate calculations. The Fiscal Agent shall be deemed
conclusively to have ~omplied with the provisions of this Indenture regarding calculation and
payment of rebate if it follows the directions of the District and it shall have no independent duty to
review such calculations or enforce the compliance by the District with such rebate requirements.
SECTION 3.08 Redemption Fund.
Monies may be deposited by the District or the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the terms of Sections
3.02C, 3.05 or 3.06 into the Redemption Fund and shall be set aside and used solely for the purpose
of redeeming Bonds in accordance with Section 4.03A or Section 4.03B, as applicable. Following
the redemption of any Bonds, if any funds remain in the Redemption Fund, such funds shall be
transferred to the Special Tax Fund.
SECTION 3.09 Administrative Expense Fund.
The Fiscal Agent shall deposit from time to time the amounts authorized for deposit therein
pursuant to Section 3.02. The moneys in the Administrative Expense Fund shall be used to pay
Administrative Expenses from time to time upon receipt by the Fiscal Agent of a written request
executed by an Authorized Representative specifying the name and address of the payee and the
amount of the Administrative Expense and a description thereof and further stating that such request
has not formed the basis of any prinr request for payment.
SECTION 3.10 Investment of Funds.
Unless otherwise specified in this Indenture, monies in the Special Tax Fund, the Bond
Service Fund, the Project Fund, the Reserve Fund, the Costs of Issuance Fund and Administrative
Expense Fund shall, at the written direction of an Authorized Representative given at least two (2)
days prior, be invested and reinvested in Permitted Investments (including investments with the
Fiscal Agent or an affiliate of the Fiscal Agent or investments for which the Fiscal Agent or an
affiliate of the Fiscal Agent acts as investment advisor or provides other services so long as the
investments are Permitted Investments). Monies in the Redemption Fund and the Rebate Fund shall,
at the written direction of an Authorized Representative, be invested in Government Obligations.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the absence of written investment instructions,
the Fiscal Agent shall invest solely in investments identified in paragraph 7 of the definition of
Permitted Investments.
The District acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency
or other applicable regulatory entity grant the District the fight to receive brokerage confu'mations of
security transactions as they occur, the District specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to
the extent permitted by law. The Fiscal Agent will furnish the District periodic cash transaction
statements which include detail for all investment transactions made by the Fiscal Agent hereunder.
26
J:kEngineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doe
Obligations purchased as investments of monies in any fund or account shall be deemed at all
times to be a part of such fund or account. Any income realized on or losses resulting from
investments in any fund or account shall be credited or charged to such fund or account. Subject to
the restrictions set forth herein and/or any written investment instructions received by Fiscal Agent
pursuant to this Section 3.10, monies in said funds and accounts may be from time to time invested
by the Fiscal Agent in any manner so long as:
(t) Monies in the Project Fund, Administrative Expense Fund and Rebate Fund shall be
invested in obligations which will by their terms mature as close as practicable to the
date the District estimates the monies represented by the particular investment will be
needed for withdrawal from such Fund; and
(2) Monies in the Special Tax Fund, the Bond Service Fund, the Redemption Fund and
the Reserve Fund shall be invested only in obligations which will by their terms
either mature or allow for withdrawals at par on such dates so as to ensure the
payment of principal and interest on the Bonds as the same become due; provided,
however, that except for investment agreements as described in pamgraph 11 of the
definition of Permitted Investments which permit withdrawal at par, investment of
monies on deposit in the Reserve Fund shall have an average aggregate weighted
term not greater that five (5) years.
The Fiscal Agent shall sell or present for redemption any obligations so purchased whenever
it may be necessary to do so in order to provide monies to meet any payment or transfer for such
funds and accounts or from such funds and accounts. The Fiscal Agent shall not be liable for any
loss from any investments made or sold by it in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture.
SECTION 3.11 Disposition of Bond Proceeds.
Upon the receipt of $ as the sale proceeds for the Bonds (being the par amount
of $ less the underwriter's discount of $ and less original issue discount of
$ ), the Fiscal Agent shall transfer or set aside and deposit or cause to be deposited such
funds as follows:
$ shall be deposited in the Acquisition Account of the Project Fund;
$ shall be deposited in the Traffic Enhancement Improvement Account of the
Project Fund;
$ shall be deposited in the Reserve Fund;
$ shall be deposited into the Costs of Issuance Fund;
$ shall be deposited in the Capitalized Interest Sub-Account of the Interest
Account of the Bond Service Fund; and
27
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
$ 75~000.00 shall be deposited in the Administrative Expense Fund.
The Fiscal Agent may establish such temporary funds or accounLs on its records, as it may deem
appropriate to facilitate such deposits and transfers.
J:kEngineerkLANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Boud Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE IV. REDEMPTION
SECTION 4.01 Notice of Redemption.
A. Notice by Mail to Bondholders:
The Fiscal Agent shall mall, at least thirty (30) days but not more than forty-five (45) days
prior to the date of redemption, notice of redemption, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the
original purchasers of the Bonds and the respective registered Owners of the Bonds at the addresses
appearing on the Bond registry books. The notice of redemption shall: (a) state the redemption date;
(b) state the redemption price; (c) state the bond registration numbers, dates of maturity and CUSIP
numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed, and in the case of Bonds to be redeemed in part, the
respective principal portions to be redeemed; provided, however, that whenever any call includes all
Bonds ora maturity, the numbers of the Bonds of such maturity need not be stated; (d) state that
such Bonds must be surrendered at the principal corporate trust office of the Fiscal Agent; (e) state
that further interest on such Bonds will not accrue ~om and after the designated redemption date; (f)
state the date of the issue of the Bonds as originally issued; (g) state the rate of interest bome by each
Bond being redeemed; and (h) state that any other descriptive information needed to identify
accurately the Bonds being redeemed as thc District shall direct.
B. Further Notice:
In addition to the notice of redemption given pursuant to Section 4.01A above, further notice
shall be given as set out below, but no defect in said further notice nor any failure to give all or any
portion of such further notice shall in any manner defeat the effectiveness of a call for redemption if
notice thereof is given as above prescribed.
Each further notice of redemption shall be sent at least 2 days before the notice of redemption
is mailed to the Bondholders pursuant to Section 4.01A by registered or certified mail or overnight
delivery service to the Securities Depositories and to at least one (1) Information Services that
disseminate notice of redemption of obligations similar to the Bonds or, in accordance with the then-
current guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such other services providing
information on called bonds, or no such other services, as District may determine in its sole
discretion.
C. Failure to Receive Notice:
So long as notice by first class mail has been provided as set forth in Section 4.01 A above,
the actual receipt by the Owner of any Bond of notice of such redemption shall not be a condition
precedent to redemption, and failure to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of the
. ~;~ proceedings, for redemption of such Bonds or the cessation o£ interest on the date fixed for
~: redemption.
29
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08BBond Indenture 7;15.03.doc
D. Certificate of Giving Notice:
The notice or notices required by this Section shall be given by the Fiscal Agent on behalf of the
District. A certificate by the Fiscal Agent that notice of call and redemption has been given to the
registered Owners of the Bonds as herein provided shall be conclusive as against all parties, and no
Owner whose Bond is called for redemption may object thereto, or object to cessation of interest on
the redemption date, by any claim or showing that he failed to receive actual notice of call and
redemption.
SECTION 4.02 Effect of Redemption.
When notice of redemption has been given substantially as provided for herein, and when the
amount necessary for the redemption of the Bonds called for redemption is set aside for that purpose
in the Bond Service Fund or the Redemption Fund, as provided for herein, the Bonds designated for
redemption shall become due and payable on the date fixed for redemption thereof, and upon
presentation and surrender of said Bonds at the place specified in the notice of redemption, said
Bonds shall be redeemed and paid at the redemption price out of the Bond Service Fund or the
Redemption Fund and no interest will accrue on such Bonds or portions of Bonds called for
redemption from and after the redemption date specified in said notice, and the Owners of such
Bonds so called for redemption after such redemption date shall look for the payment of principal
and premium, if any, of such Bonds or portions of Bonds only to the Bond Service Fund or the
Redemption Fund, as applicable. All Bonds redeemed shall be canceled forthwith by the Fiscal
Agent and shall not be reissued. Upon surrender of Bonds redeemed in part, a new Bond or Bonds
of the same maturity shall be registered, authenticated and delivered to the registered Owner at the
expense of the District, in the aggregate principal amount of the unredeemed portion. All unpaid
interest payable at or prior to the date fixed for redemption shall continue to be payable to the
respective registered owners of such Bonds or their order, but without interest thereon.
SECTION 4.03 Redemption Prices and Terms.
A. Optional Redemption
The Bonds maturing on and after September 1, 2010 may be redeemed at the option of the
District prior to maturity as a whole, or in part on any Interest Payment Date on and after September
1, 2009, from such maturities as are selected by the District, and by lot within a maturity, from any
source of funds, at the following redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with accrued interest to the date of redemption:
30
J:EEngineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08IkBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Redemption Date Redemption Price
September 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1,2011 101%
September 1, 2011 and thereafter 100%
B. Extraordinary Mandatory Redemption
The Bonds shall be subj eot to redemption on any Interest Payment Date, prior to maturity, as
a whole or in part on a pro rata basis among maturities fi.om the prepayment of Special Taxes
pursuant to the Special Tax RMA. An Authorized Representative shall deliver written instructions
to the Fiscal Agent not less than 60 days prior to the redemption date directing the Fiscal Agent to
utilize the Special Tax Revenues Wansferred to the Redemption Fund pursuant to Section 3.02 C and
Section 3.06 to redeem Bonds pursuant to this Section 4.03 B. Such extraordinary mandatory
re.demption of the Bonds shall be at the following redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the
principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with accrued interest thereon to the date of
redemption:
Redemption Date Redemption Price
March 1, 2004 through March 1, 2009 103%
September 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1,2011 101%
September 1,2011 and thereafter 100%
C. Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption
The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20 are subject to mandatory sinking fund
redemption, in part by lot, on September I in each year commencing September 1, 20 at a
redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued and
unpaid interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium, in the aggregate principal
amount and in the years shown on the following redemption schedule:
Redemption Date Principal
(September 1) Amount
The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20~ are subject to mandatory sinking fund
redemption, in part, by lot, on September 1 of each year commencing September 1, 20__, at a
redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued and
unpaid interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium, in the aggregate principal
amounts and in the years shown in the following redemption schedule.
31
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Redemption Date Principal
September 1) Amount
D. Purchase in Lieu of Redemption
In lieu of such an optional, extraordinary mandatory or mandatory sinking fund redemption,
the District may elect to purchase such Bonds at public or private sale at such prices as the District
may in its discretion determine; provided, that, unless otherwise authorized by law, the purchase
price (including brokerage and other charges) thereof shall not exceed the principal amount thereof,
plus the applicable premium, if any, stated above, plus accrued interest to the purchase date.
E. Notice and Selection of Bonds for Redemption
In the event the District shall elect to redeem Bonds as provided in this Section 4.03, the District
shall give written notice to the Fiscal Agent of its election so to redeem, the redemption date, the
principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, in the case of a redemption pursuant to Section 4.03A
the maturities from which such Bonds are to be redeemed, and the principal amount of the Bonds to
be redeemed from each such maturity, the Bonds or portions thereof to be selected for redemption.
The notice to the Fiscal Agent shall be given not less than sixty (60) days prior to the
redemption date or such shorter period as shall be acceptable to the Fiscal Agent in its sole
discretion. If less than all of the Bonds Outstanding are to be redeemed, the portion of any Bond o£a
denomination of more than $5,000 to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or a
multiple thereof, and, in selecting portions of such Bonds for redemption, the Dislrict shall treat each
such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denomination which is obtained by
dividing the principal amount of such Bond to be redeemed in part by $5,000.
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081LBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE V. SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES
SECTION 5.01 Amendments or Supplements.
The Legislative Body may, by adoption ora resolution from time to time, and at any time but
without notice to or consent of any of thc Bondholders, approve a Supplemental Indentur~ hereto for
any of the following purposes:
(a) to cure any ambiguity, to correct or supplement any provision herein which may be
inconsistent with any other provision herein, or to make any other provision with
respect to matters or questions arising under this Indenture or in any Supplemental
Indenture, provided that such action shall not be materially adverse to the interests of
the Bondowners;
(b) to add to the covenants and agreements of and the limitations and the restrictions
upon the District contained in this Indenture, other covenants, agreements, limitations
and restrictions to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or
inconsistent with this Indenture as theretofore in effect;
(c) to modify, alter, amend or supplement this Indenture in any other respect which is not
materially adverse to the interests of the Bondowners; and
(d) to amend any provision of this Indenture relating to the Code as may be necessary or
appropriate to assure compliance with the Code and the exclusion fi-om gross income
of interest on the Bonds.
Exclusive of the Supplemental Indentures hereto provided for in the first paragraph of th/s
Section 5.01, the Owners of not less than 60% in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then
Outstanding shall have the right to consent to and approve the adoption by the District of such
Supplemental Indentures as shall be deemed necessary or desirable by the District for the purpose of
waiving, modifying, altering, amending, adding to or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms
or provisions contained in this Indenture; provided, however, that nothing herein shall permit, or be
construed as permitting, (a) an extension of the maturity date of the principal of, or the payment date
of interest on, any Bond, or (b) a reduction in the principal amount of, or redemption premium on,
any Bond or the rote of interest thereon without the consent of the affected Bondowner(s), or penuit,
or be construed as permitting, (x) a preference or priority of any Bond or Bonds over any other Bond
or Bonds, (y) a reduction in the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds the Owners of which are
required to consent to such Supplemental Indenture, or (z) creating of a pledge of or lien or charge
upon the Special Tax Revenues superior to the pledge provided for in Section 2.02 hereof, without
the consent of the Owners of all Bonds then Outstanding.
If at hny time the Dislrict shall desire to approve a Supplemental Indenture, which pursuant to
the terms of this Section 5.01 shall require the consent of the Bondowners, the District shall so notify
the Fiscal Agent and shall deliver to the Fiscal Agent a copy of the proposed Supplemental
Indenture. The District shall, at the expense of the District, cause notice of the proposed
33
J:~Engineer~LANDDEVXCFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Supplemental Indenture to be mailed, postage prepaid, to all Bondowners at their addresses as they
appear in the Registration Books. Such notice shall briefly set forth the nature of the proposed
Supplemental Indenture and shall state that a copy thereof is on file at the principal office of the
District for inspection by all Bondowners. The failure of any Bondowner to receive such notice shall
not affect the validity of such Supplemental Indenture when consented to and approved as in this
Section 5.01 provided. Whenever at any time within one year after the date of the first mailing of
such notice, the District shall receive an instrument or instruments purporting to be executed by the
Owners of not less than 60% in aggregate principal mount of the Bonds then Outstanding, which
instrument or instruments shall refer to the proposed Supplemental Indenture described in such
notice, and shall specifically consent to the approval thereof by the Legislative Body substantially in
the form of the copy thereof referred to in such Notice as on file with the District, such proposed
Supplemental Indenture, when duly approved by the Legislative Body, shall thereafter become a part
of the proceedings for the issuance of the Bonds. In determining whether the Owners of 60% of the
aggregate principal amount of the Bonds have consented to the approval of any Supplemental
Indenture, Bonds which are owned by the District or by any person directly or indirectly controlling
or controlled by or under the direct or indirect common control with the District, shall be disregarded
and shall be treated as though they were not outstanding for the purpose of any such determination.
Upon the approval of any Supplemental Indenture hereto and the receipt of consent to any
such Supplemental Indenture from the Owners of the appropriate aggregate principal amount of
Bonds in instances where such consent is required pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5.01,
this Indenture shall be, and shall be deemed to be, modified and amended in accordance therewith,
and the respective rights, duties and obligations under this Indenture of the District and ail Owners of
Bonds then Outstanding shall thereafter be determined, exercised and enforced hereunder, subject in
all respects to such modifications and amendments. Notwithstanding anything herein to the
contrary, no Supplemental Indenture shall be entered into which would modify the duties of the
Fiscal Agent hereunder, without the prior written consent of the Fiscal Agent.
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFDTs\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081XBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
SECTION 6.01 Ownership of Bonds.
The person in whose name any Bond shall be registered shall be deemed and regarded as the
absolute Owner thereof for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal and
redemption premium, if any, of any such Bond, and the interest on any such Bond, shall be made
only to or upon the order of the registered Owner thereof or his legal representative. All such
payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond, including
the redemption premium, if any, and interest thereon, to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
SECTION 6.02 Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Bonds.
If any Bond shall become mutilated, the Fiscal Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new
Bond of like tenor, date and maturity in exchange and substitution for the Bond so mutilated, but
only upon surrender to the Fiscal Agent of the Bond so mutilated. Every mutilated Bond so
surrendered to the Fiscal Agent shall be canceled. If any Bond shall be lost, destroyed or stolen,
evidence of such loss, deslruction or theft may be submitted to the Fiscal Agent and, if such evidence
is satisfactory to the Fiscal Agent and, if an indemnity satisfactory to the Fiscal Agent shall be given,
the Fiscal Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new Bond of like tenor and maturity, numbered and
dated as the Fiscal Agent shall determine in lieu of and in substitution for the Bond so lost, destroyed
or stolen. Any Bond issued under the provisions of this Section 6.02 in lieu of any Bond alleged to
have been lost, destroyed or stolen shall be equally and proportionately entitled to the benefits hereof
with all other Bonds secured hereby. The Fiscal Agent shall not treat both the original Bond and any
replacement Bond as being Outstanding for the purpose of determining the principal amount of
Bonds which may be executed, authenticated and delivered hereunder or for the purpose of
determining any percentage of Bonds Outstanding hereunder, but both the original and replacement
Bond shall be treated as one and the same.
SECTION 6.03 Cancellation of Bonds.
All Bonds paid or redeemed, either at or before maturity, shall be canceled upon the payment
or redemption of such Bonds, and shall be delivered to the Fiscal Agent when such payment or
redemption is made. All Bonds canceled under any of the provisions of this Indenture shall be
destroyed by the Fiscal Agent, which shall execute and provide the District with a certificate of
destruction.
SECTION 6.04 Covenants.
As long as the Bonds are Outstanding and unpaid, the District shall (through its proper
members, officers, agents or employees) faithfully perform and abide by all of the covenants and
agreements set forth in this Section 6.04; provided, however, that said covenants do not require the
District to expend any funds other than the Special Tax Revenues.
35
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
A. The District will review the public records of the County of San Diego, California, in
connection with the collection of the Special Taxes not later than July 1 of each year to determine the
mount of the Special Tax collected in the prior Fiscal Year and will commence and diligently
pursue to completion, judicial foreclosure proceedings against (i) properties under common
ownership with delinquent Special Taxes in the aggregate of $5,000 or more by October 1 following
the close of the Fiscal Year in which the Special Taxes were due, and (ii) against all properties with
delinquent Special Taxes in the aggregate of $2,500 or more by October 1 following the close of any
Fiscal Year if the amount of the Reserve Fund is less than the Reserve Requirement.
B. The District shall preserve and protect the security of the Bonds and the rights of the
Bondowners and defend their rights against all claims and demands of all persons. Until such time
as an amount has been set aside sufficient to pay Outstanding Bonds at maturity or to the date of
redemption if redeemed prior to maturity, plus unpaid interest thereon and premium, if any, to
maturity or to the date of redemption if redeemed prior to maturity, the District will faithfully
perform and abide by ail of the covenants, undertakings and provisions contained in this Indenture or
in any Bond issued hereunder.
C. The District will not issue any other obligations payable, principal or interest, from the
Special Taxes which have, or purport to have, any lien upon the Special Taxes superior to or, except
as permitted in the following sentence, on a parity with the lien of the Bonds herein authorized.
Nothing in this Indenture shall prevent the District from issuing and selling, pursuant to law,
refunding bonds or other refunding obligations payable from and having a first lien upon the Special
Taxes on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds so long as the issuance of such refunding bonds or
other refunding obligations results in a reduction in each Bond Year on the Annual Debt Service on
the Bonds when combined with the Debt Service on Parity Refunding Obligations following the
issuance of such refunding bonds or other refunding obligations.
D. The District will duly and punctually pay or cause to be paid the principal of and interest on
each of the Bonds issued hereunder on the date, at the place and in the manner provided in said
Bonds, but only out of Special Tax Revenues and such other funds as may be herein provided.
E. The District shall comply with all requirements of the Act so as to assure the timely
collection of the Special Taxes in an amount sufficient to pay the Annual Debt Service on the Bonds
when due and Administrative Expenses when due. Prior to July 1 of each year, the District shall
ascertain the parcels on which the Special Taxes are to be levied in the following Fiscal Year, taking
into account any subdivisions of parcels during the current Fiscal Year. The District shall effect the
levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Special Tax RMA and the Act each Fiscal Year so
that the computation of such levy is complete and transmitted to the Auditor of the County of San
Diego before the final date on which the Auditor of the County of San Diego will accept the
trausmission of the Special Tax for the parcels within The District for inclusion on the next real
property tax roll. Upon completion of the computation of the amount of the Special Tax levy, the
District shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and shall transmit or cause to be transmitted to the
Auditor of the County of San Diego, such data as such Auditor requires to include the levy of the
Special Tax On the next real property tax roll.
36
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
The District finds and determines that, historically, delinquencies in the payment of special
taxes authorized pursuant to the Act in commuaity facilities districts in Southern California have
from time to time been at levels requiring the levy of special taxes at the maximum authorized rates
in order to make timely payment of principal of and interest on the outstanding indebtedness of such
community facilities districts. For this reason, the District has determined that, ~tbsent the
certification described below, a reduction in the Maximum Annual Special Tax (as such term is
defined in the Special Tax RMA) authorized to be levied below the levels provided would interfere
with the timely retirement of the Bonds. The District has determined it to be necessary in order to
preserve the security for the Bonds to covenant, and, to the maximum extent that the law permits it to
do so, the District does covenant, that it shall not initiate proceedings to reduce the Maximum
Special Tax Rates (as such term is defined in the Special Tax RMA), unless, in connection therewith,
(i) the District receives a certificate from one or more Special Tax Consultants which, when taken
together, certify that, on the basis of the parcels of land and improvements existing in the District as
of the July 1 preceding the reduction, the Maximum Annual Special Tax which may be levied on all
Assessor's Parcels (as such term is defined in the Special Tax RMA) of taxable property on which a
completed structure is located in each Fiscal Year will equal at least 110% of the largest sum of the
Annual Debt Service on the Bonds to remain Outstanding and the Debt Service on Parity Refunding
Obligations outstanding ("Maximum Debt Service") after the reduction is approved and will not
reduce the Maximum Annual Special Tax payable from parcels on which a completed structure is
located to less than 110% of the Maximum Debt Service, and (ii) the City Council, acting as the
legislative body of the District, finds pursuant to this Indenture that any reduction made under such
conditions will not adversely affect the interests of the Owners of the Bonds. Any reduction in the
Maximum Annual Special Tax approved pursuant to the preceding sentence may be approved
without the consent of the Owners of the Bonds.
The District covenants that, in the event that any initiative is adopted by the qualified electors
which purports to reduce the Maximum Annual Special Tax below the levels authorized pursuant to
the Special Tax RMA or to limit the power or authority of the District to levy Special Taxes pursuant
to the Special Tax RMA, the District shall, from funds available hereunder, commence and pursue
legal action in order to preserve the authority and power of the District to levy Special Taxes
pursuant to the Special Tax RMA.
F. The District will at all times keep, or cause to be kept, proper and current books and accounts
(separate from all other records and accounts) in which complete and accurate entries shall be made
of all transactions relating to the Special Tax Revenues and other funds herein provided for.
G. The District will not directly or indirectly use or permit the use of any proceeds of the Bonds
or any other funds of the District or take or omit to take any action that would cause the Bonds to be
"private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code, or obligations which are
"federally gtmranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code. The District will not allow
five percent (5%) or more of the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in the trade or business of any
non-governmental units and will not loan five percent (5%) or more of the prOceeds of the Bonds to
any non,governmental Units.
J:YEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
H. The District covenants that it will not take any action, or fail to take any action, if any such
action or failure to take action would adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the interest
on the Bonds under Section 103 of the Code. The District will not directly or indirectly use or
permit the use of any proceeds of the Bonds or any other funds of the District, or take or omit to take
any action, that would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148(a)
of the Code. To that end, the District will comply with all requirements of Section 148 9fthe Code
to the extent applicable to the Bonds. In the event that at any time the District is of the opinion that
for purposes of this Section it is necessary to restrict or limit the yield on the investment of any
monies held under this Indenture or otherwise the District shall so instruct the Fiscal Agent in
writing, and the Fiscal Agent shall take such action as may be necessary in accordance with such
instructions.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the District agrees that there shall be paid
from time to time all amounts required to be rebated to the United States of America pursuant to
Section 148(f) of the Code and any temporary, proposed or final Treasury Regulations as may be
applicable to the Bonds from time to time. This covenant shall survive payment in full or defeasance
of the Bonds. The District specifically covenants to pay or cause to be paid to the United States of
America at the times and in the amounts determined under Section 3.07.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, if the District shall obtain an opimon o£Bond
Counsel to the effect that any action required under this covenant is no longer required, or to the
effect that some further action is required, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the
interest on the Bonds pursuant to Section 103 of the Code, the Fiscal Agent may rely conclusively on
such opinion in complying with the provisions hereof, and the covenant hereunder shall be deemed
to be modified to that extent.
I. The District shall not directly or indirectly extend the maturity dates of the Bonds or the time
of payment of interest with respect thereto.
J. Not later than October 304 of each year, commencing October 30, 2003, and until October
304 following the final maturity of the Bonds, the District shall supply or cause to be supplied to the
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission by mail, postage prepaid, the information, if
any, then required by Government Code Section 53359.5 to be submitted to such agency.
K. The District covenants that it will not adopt any policy pursuant to Section 53341.1 of the
Act permitting tender of Bonds in full payment or partial payment of any Special Taxes unless it first
receives a certificate of a Special Tax Consultant that accepting such tender will not result in the
District having insufficient Special Tax Revenues to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds
when due.
L. The District shall do and perform or cause to be done and performed all acts and things
required tO be done or performed by or on behalf of the District under ~e,provisions of this
Indenture. The District warrants that upon the date of execution and delivery of the Bonds, the
conditions, acts and things required by law and this Indenture to exist, to have happened .~and to have
38
J:~EngineerLLANDDEV~CFD*s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
been performed precedent to and in the execution and delivery of such Bonds do exist, have
happened and have been performed and the execution and delivery of the Bonds shall comply in all
respects with the applicable laws of the State.
SECTION 6.05 Arbitrage Certificate.
On the basis of the facts, estimates and circumstances now in existence and in e~istence on
the date of issue of the Bonds, as determined by the Treasurer, said Treasurer is hereby authorized to
certify that it is not expected that the proceeds of the Bonds will be used in a manner that would
cause the Bonds to be arbitrage bonds. Such certification shall be delivered to the purchaser together
with the Bonds.
SECTION 6.06 Defeasance.
If the Dislxict shall pay or cause to be paid, or there shall otherwise be paid, to the Owner of
an Outstanding Bond the interest due thereon and the principal thereof, at the times and in the
manner stipulated in the Indenture, then the Owner of such Bond shall cease to be entitled to the
pledge of the Special Tax Revenues, and, other than as set forth below, all covenants, agreements
and other obligations of the District to the Owner of such Bond under the Indenture shall thereupon
cease, terminate and become void and discharged and satisfied. In the event of the defeasance of all
Outstanding Bonds, the Fiscal Agent shall pay over or deliver to the District all money or securities
held by it pursuant to the Indenture which are not required for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest due on such Bonds.
Any Outstanding Bond shall be deemed to have been paid within the meaning expressed in
the preceding paragraph if such Bond is paid in any one or more of the following ways:
(a) by paying or causing to be paid the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such
Bond, as and when the same shall become due and payable;
(b) by depositing with the Fiscal Agent, in trust, at or before maturity, money which,
together with the amounts then on deposit in the funds established pursuant to the
Indenture (exclusive of the Rebate Fund) and available for such purpose, is fully
sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such Bond, as and
when the same shall become due and payable; or
(c) by depositing with the Fiscal Agent or an escrow bank appointed by the District, in
trust, noncallable Permitted Investments of the type described in subparagraph 1 of
the definition thereof, in such amount as an Independent Accountant shall determine
(as set forth in a verification report from such Independent Accountant) will be
sufficient, together with the interest to accrue thereon and moneys then on deposit in
the funds established under the Indenture (exclusive of the Rebate Fund) and
available for such purpose, together with the interest to accrue thereon, to pay and
39
JAEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
discharge the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such Bond, as and when
the same shall become due and payable;
then, at the election of the District, and notwithstanding that any Outstanding Bonds shall not have
been surrendered for payment, all obligations of the District under the Indenture with respect to such
Bond shall cease and terminate, except for the obligation of the Fiscal Agent to pay or cause to be
paid to the Owners of any such Bond not so surrendered and paid, all sums due thereon and except
for the covenants of the District to preserve the exclusion of the interest on the Bonds from gross
income for federal income tax purposes. Notice of such election shall be filed with the Fiscal Agent
not less than ten (10) days prior to the proposed defeasance date, or such shorter period of time as
may be acceptable to the Fiscal Agent. In connection with a defeasance under (b) or (c) above, there
shall be provided to the Fiscal Agent a certificate of an Independent Accountant stating its opinion as
to the sufficiency of the moneys or securities deposited with the Fiscal Agent or the escrow bank,
together with the interest to accrue thereon and moneys then on deposit in the funds established
under the Indenture (exclusive of the Rebate Fund) and available for such purpose, together with the
interest to accrue thereon to pay and discharge the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on all
such Bonds to be defeased in accordance with the Indenture as and when the same shall become due
and payable, and an opinion of Bond Counsel (which may rely upon the opinion of the Independent
Accountant) to the effect that the Bonds being defeased have been legally defeased in accordance
with the Indenture.
To accomplish such defeasance, the District shall cause to be delivered (i) a report of the
Independent Accountant verifying the determination made pursuant to paragraph (c) above (the
"Verification Report") and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that the Bonds are no longer
Outstanding. The Verification Report and opinion of Bond Counsel shall be acceptable in form and
substance to the Disu'ict, and addressed to the District and the Fiscal Agent.
SECTION 6.07 Fiscal Agent.
The District hereby appoints U.S. Bank National Association as Fiscal Agent for the Bonds.
The Fiscal Agent is hereby authorized to and shall mail or otherwise provide for the payment of
interest payments to the Bondholders, and upon wrkten instruction of the District shall select Bonds
for redemption, give notice of redemption of Bonds and maintain the Bond Register. The Fiscal
Agent is hereby authorized to pay the principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds when the same
are duly presented to it for payment at maturity or on call and redemption, to provide for the
regis~ation of transfer and exchange of Bonds presented to it for such purposes, to provide for the
cancellation of Bonds all as provided in this Indenture, and to provide for the authentication of
Bonds, and shall perform all other duties assigned to or imposed on it as provided in this Indenture.
The Fiscal Agent shall keep accurate records of all Bonds paid and discharged by it.
The District shall from time to time, subject to any agreement between the District and the
Fiscal Agent then in force, pay to the Fiscal Agent compensation for its services, reimburse the
Fiscal Agent for all its advances and expenditures, including, but not limited to, advances to and fees
dbyitinth dp
xpens mpl
and e es of independent accountants or counsel e oye e exercise an erforrnance
40
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60t~y Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.05.doc
of its powers and duties hereunder, and indemnify and hold the Fiscal Agent, its officers, directors,
agents and employees, harmless from and against losses, claims, expenses and liabilities not arising
from its own negligence or willful misconduct which it may incur in the exercise and performance of
its powers and duties hereunder. Such obligations shall survive the termination or discharge of this
Indenture.
The District may at any time at its sole discretion remove the Fiscal AgEnt initially
appointed, and any successor thereto, by delivering to the Fiscal Agent a written notice of its
decision to remove the Fiscal Agent and may appoint a successor or successors thereto, provided that
any such successor, other than the Treasurer, shall be a bank or trust company having a combined
capital (exclusive of borrowed capital) and surplus of at least fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), and
subject to'supervision or examination by Federal or State authority. Any removal shall become
effective only upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Fiscal Agent or the Treasurer. If
any bank or trust company appointed as a successor publishes a report of condition at least annually,
pursuant to law or to the requirements of any supervising or examining authority above referred to,
then for the purposes of this Section the combined capital and surplus of such bank or trust company
shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of
condition so published.
The Fiscal Agent may at any time resign by giving written notice to the District and by
giving to the Owners notice of such resignation, which notice shall be mailed to the Owners at their
addresses appearing in the Registration Books. Upon receiving such notice of resignation, the
District shall promptly appoint a successor Fiscal Agent by an instrument in writing. Any
resignation or removal of the Fiscal Agent and appointment of a successor Fiscal Agent shall become
effective only upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Fiscal Agent.
SECTION 6.08 Liability of Fiscal Agent.
The recitals of fact and all promises, covenants and agreements contained herein and in the
Bonds shall be taken as statements, promises, covenants and agreements of the District, and the
Fiscal Agent assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the same and makes no representations
as to the validity or sufficiency of this Indenture or of the Bonds, and shall incur no responsibility in
respect thereof, other than in connection with its duties or obligations herein or in the Bonds or in the
certificate of authentication on the Bonds. The Fiscal Agent shall be under no responsibility or duty
with respect to the issuance of the Bonds. The Fiscal Agent shall not be liable in connection with the
performance of its duties hereunder, except for its own negligence or willful misconduct. The Fiscal
Agent shall have no responsibility with respect to any information, statement or recital in any official
statement, offering memorandum or any other disclosure material prepared or distributed with
respect to the Bonds.
The .Fiscal Agent shall be protected in acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent,
order, certificate, report, bond or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have
been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Fiscal Agent may consult with counsel,
who may be counsel to the District; with regard to legal questions, and the opinion of such counsel
41
J:kEngineerkLANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered
hereunder in good faith and in accordance therewith.
Whenever in the adm'mistration of its duties under this Indenture, the Fiscal Agent shall deem
it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action
hereunder, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed)
may, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the Fiscal Agent, be deemed to be conclusively proved
and established by a written certificate of the District, and such certificate shall be full warrant to the
Fiscal Agent for any action taken or suffered under the provisions of this Indenture upon the faith
thereof, but in its discretion the Fiscal Agent may, in lieu thereof, accept other evidence of such
matter or may require such additional evidence of such matter or may require such additional
evidence as to it may seem reasonable.
The Fiscal Agent shall have no duty or obligation to enforce the collection of funds to be
deposited with it hereunder or as to the correctness of any amounts received, and its liability shall be
limited to the proper accounting for such funds as it actually receives.
No provision of this Indenture or any other document related hereto shall require the Fiscal
Agent to risk or advance its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance
of its duties or the exercise of its rights hereunder.
The permissive right of the Fiscal Agent to do things enumerated in this Indenture shall not
be construed as a duty.
The Fiscal Agent may execute any of the duties of the Fiscal Agent or powers hereof and
perform any of its duties through attorneys, agents and receivers and shall not be answerable for the
conduct of the same if appointed by it with reasonable care.
The Fiscal Agent shall be responsible for only those duties expressly set forth in this
Indenture and no implied duties or obligations shall be read into this Indenture against the Fiscal
Agent.
SECTION 6.09 Provisions Constitute Contract.
The provisions of this Indenture shall constitute a contract between the District and the
Bondowners and the provisions hereof shall be enforceable by any Bondowner for the equal benefit
and protection of all Bondowners similarly situated by mandamus, accounfmg, mandatory injunction
or any other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity that is now or may hereafter be authorized
under the laws of the State in any court of competent jurisdiction. Said contract is made under and is
to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State.
No remedy conferred hereby upon any Bondowner is intended to be exclusive of any other
remedy, but each such remedy is cumulative and in addition to every other remedy and may be
exercised without e~hausting and without regard to any other remedy conferred by the Act or any
42
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081XBond Indenture 7.15.05.doc
other law of the State. No waiver of any default or breach of duty or contract by any Bondowner
shall affect any subsequent default or breach of duty or contract or shall impair any fights or
remedies on said subsequent default or breach. No delay or omission of any Bondowner to exercise
any fight or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be
construed as a waiver of any such default or acquiescence therein. Every substantive fight and every
remedy conferred upon the Bondowners may be enfomed and exercised as often as may.be deemed
expedient. In case any suit, action or proceeding to enforce any fight or exercise any remedy shall be
brought or taken and the Bondowner shall prevail, said Bondowner shall be entitled to receive from
the Special Tax Fund reimbursement for reasonable costs, expenses, outlays and attorney's fees, and
should said suit, action or proceeding be abandoned or be determined adversely to the Bondowners
then, and in every such case, the District and the Bondowners shall be restored to their former
positions, fights and remedies as if such suit, action or proceeding had not been brought or taken.
After the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, this Indenture shall be irrevocable, but shall be
subject to modification to the extent and in the manner provided in this Indenture, but to no greater
extent and in no other manner.
SECTION 6.10 CUSIP Numbers.
CUSIP identification numbers, if available, will be imprinted on the Bonds, but such
numbers shall not constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Bonds and no liability shall
hereafter attach to the District or the Fiscal Agent, or any of the officers or agents thereof because of
or on account of said numbers.
SECTION 6.11 Severability.
If any covenant, agreement or provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Indenture,
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Indenture and the application of any such covenant, agreement
or provision, or portion thereof, to any other persons or circumstances, shall be deemed severable
and shall not be affected, and this Indenture and the Bonds issued pursuant hereto shall remain valid
and the Bondholder shall retain all valid rights and benefits accorded to them under this Indenture
and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. If the provisions relating to the appointment
and duties of a Fiscal Agent are held to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, said duties
shall be performed by the Treasurer.
SECTION 6.12 Unclaimed Money.
All money which the Fiscal Agent shall have received from any source and set aside for the
purpose of paying or redeeming any of the Bonds shall be held in trust for the respective owners of
such Bonds, .but any money which shall be so set aside or deposited by the Fiscal Agent and which
shall remain unc!aimed by the Owners of such Bonds for a period ofone year after.the date on which
any payment or redemption with respect to such Bonds shall have become due and payable shall be
transferred tO the General Fund of the District; provided, however, that the Fiscal Agent, before
43
J:~EngineerkLANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
making such payment, shall cause notice to be mailed to the Owners of such Bonds, by first-class
mail, postage prepaid, not less than 90 days prior to the date of such payment to the effect that said
money has not been claimed and that after a date named therein any unclaimed balance of said
money then remaining will be transferred to the General Fund of the District. Thereafter, the Owners
of such Bonds shall look only to the General Fund of the District for payment and then only to the
extent of the amount so received without any interest thereon.
SECTION 6.13 Nonpresentment of Bonds.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.12 hereof, in the event any Bonds shall not be
presented for payment when the principal thereof becomes due, if funds sufficient to pay such Bonds
shall be held by the Fiscal Agent for the benefit of the Owners thereof, all liability of the District to
the Owners thereof shall forthwith cease and be completely discharged and thereupon it shall be the
duty of the Fiscal Agent to hold such funds (subject to Section 6.12 hereof), without liability for
interest thereon, for the benefit of the Owners of such Bonds, who shall thereafter be restricted
exclusively to such funds for any claim of whatever nature on, or with respect to, such Bonds.
SECTION 6.14 Continuing Disclosure.
The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the
provisions of that certain Continuing Disclosure Agreement dated as of September 1,2003 between
the District and the Fiscal Agent (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement"). Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Indenture, failure of the District to comply with the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement shall not be considered an breach of the provisions of this Indenture.
SECTION 6.15. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Owners.
Any request, consent, declaration or other instrument which this Indenture may require or
permit to be executed by Owners may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be
executed by Owners in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing.
Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the fact and date of the execution by any
Owner or his attorney of such a request, consent, declaration or other instrument, or of a writing
appointing such an attorney, may be proved by the certificate of any notary public or other officer
authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the state in which he purports to act,
that the person signing such request, declaration or other instrument or writing acknowledged to him
the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such a
notary public or other officer.
Any request, consent, declaration or other instrument or writing of the Owner of any Bond
shall bind all future Owners of such Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the
District or the Fiscal Agent in good faith and in accordance therewith.
J:~,Engineer'J, ANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081XBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
SECTION 6.16. Notices to and Demands on District and Fiscal Agent.
Any notice or demand which by any provision of this Indenture is required or permitted to be
given or served by ~e Fiscal Agent to or on ~e District may be given or served by being deposited
postage prepaid (first class, registered or certified) in a post office letter box addressed (until another
address is filed by the District with thc Fiscal Agent) as follows:
City of Chula Vista
Finance Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: Director of Finance
RE: Community Facilities Dis~ct No. 08-I
(Omy Ranch Village Six)
2003 Special Tax Bonds
Any notice or demand which by any provision of this Indenture ~s required or
permitted to be given or served by the District to or on the Fiscal Agent may be given or served by
being deposited postage prepaid (first ~lass, registered or certified) in a post office letter box
addressed (until another address is filed by the Fiscal Agent with the District) as follows:
U.S. Bank National Association
Attn: Corporate Trust
550 South Hope Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Reference: Chuia Vista CFD
SECTION 6.17. Applicable Law.
This IndenWre shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
California applicable to contracts made and performed in the State of California.
SECTION 6.18. Payment on Business Day.
In any case where the date of the payment of interest on or of principal (and premium, if any)
of the Bonds or (he date fixed for redemption is other than a Business Day, the payment of interest or
principal (and premium, if any) need not be made on such date but may be made on the next
succeeding day which is a Business Day with the same force and effect as if made on the date
required, and no interest shall accrue for the period fi.om and after such date.
J:~Engineer~_.a~IDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
SECTION 6.19. Counterparts.
This Indenture may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
J:~Engineer~lDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ARTICLE VII. BOND FORM
SECTION 7.01 Form of Bonds.
The format of the Bonds as authorized and to be issued for these proceedings shall be
substantially in the form as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated Exhibit "A'~.
SECTION 7.02 Temporary Bonds.
Any Bonds issued under this Indenture may be initially issued in temporary form
exchangeable for de£mitive bonds. The Bonds may be issued as one temporary bond with an
a~tached maturity schedule and interest rate schedule to represent all Bonds. The temporary bond
may be printed, lithographed or ~ypewritten, shall be of such denominations as may be determined
by the District and may contain such references to any of the provisions of this IndenWxe as may be
appropriate. Every temporary Bond shall be executed by the District in substantially the same
manner as provided in Section 2.06 hereof. If the District issues one or more temporary Bonds, it
will execute and furnish de£mitive Bonds without delay upon the request of any Owner and
thereupon the temporary bonds may be surrendered for cancellation at the Principal Corporate Trust
Office of the Fiscal Agent, and the District shall deliver in exchange for such temporary bonds an
equal aggregate principal amount of definitive Bonds of the same interest rates and maturities. Until
so exchanged, the temporary bonds shall be entitled to the same benefits under this Indenture as
de£mi~ive Bonds issued hereunder.
JAEngineer~LANDDEVXCFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081XBond Indenture 7.15;03.doc
ARTICLE VIII. EVENT OF DEFAULT
SECTION 8.01 Events of Default.
The following events shall be Events of Default under this Indenture.
(a) Default in the due and punctual payment of the principal of any Bond when and as
the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity as therein expressed, by
proceedings for redemption, by declaration or otherwise.
Co) Default in the due and punctual payment of interest on any Bond when and as such
interest shall become due and payable.
(c) Default by the District in the observance of any of the other covenants, agreements or
conditions on its part in this Indenture or in the Bonds contained, if such default shall
have continued for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, specifying
such default and requiring the same to be remedied, shall have been given to the
District by the Fiscal Agent or to the District and the Fiscal Agent by the Owners of
not less than twenty-five percent (25%) in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
at the time Outstanding; provided that such default (other than a default arising from
nonpayment of the Fiscal Agent's fees and expenses, which must be cured within
such 30-day period unless waived by the Fiscal Agent) shall not constitute an Event
of Default under this Indenture if the District shall commence to cure such default
within said thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently and in good faith shall cure
such default within a reasonable period of time; or
(d) The filing by the District of a petition or answer seeking reorganization or
arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the
United States of America, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve a
petition, filed with or without the consent of the District, seeking reorganization
under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of
America, or if, under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors,
any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of the District or
of the whole or any substantial part of its property.
SECTION 8.02 Application of Revenues and Other Funds after Default
Ifa default in the payment of the Bonds shall occur and be continuing, all revenues and any
other funds then held or thereafter received under any of the provisions of this Indenture shall be
applied as follows and in the following order:
i~, A. To the payment of any expenses necessary in the opinion ofthe District to protect the
~' interest of the owners of the Bonds and payment of reasonable ~harges and expenses
~ of the Fiscal ~Agent (including reasonable fees and disbursements of its counsel)
~:' incurred in and about the performance of its powers and duties under this Indenture;
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.dnc
B. To the payment of the principal of and interest then due with respect to the Bonds
(upon presentation of the Bonds to be paid, and stamping thereon of the payment if
only partially paid, or surrender thereof if fully paid) subject to the provisions of this
Indenture, as follows:
First: To the payment to the persons entitled thereto of all installments of interest
then due in the order of the maturity of such installments, and, if the amount
available shall not be sufficient to pay in full any installment or installments maturing
on the same date, then to the payment thereof ratably, according to the amounts due
thereon, to the persons entitled thereto, without any discrim'mation or preference; and
Second: To the payment to the persons entitled thereto of the unpaid principal of
any Bonds which shall have become due, whether at maturity or by call for
redemption, with interest on the overdue principal at the rate borne by the
respective Bonds on the date of maturity of redemption, and if the amount
available shall not be sufficient to pay in full all the Bonds, together with such
interest, then to the payment thereof ratably, according to the amounts of principal
due on such date to the persons entitled thereto, without discrimination or
preference.
49
i
J:LEngineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08IkBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the Fiscal Agent have executed this Bond Indenture
effective the date first above written.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-I (Otay
Ranch Village Six)
By:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
as Fiscal Agent
By:
AUTHORIZED OFFICER
J:~Engineer~LANDDEVkCFD*s\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
EXHIBIT "A" - FORM OF BOND
R- $
United States of America
State of California
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-1
(McMILLIN - OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE SIX)
2003 SPECIAL TAX BONDS
Interest Rate Maturity Date Bond Date CUSIP No.
% September 1, 20 ., 2003
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
Principal Amount:
City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the
"District"), situated in Chula Vista, California, for value received, hereby promises to pay, solely
from Special Tax Revenues (as hereafter defined), to the registered owner named above, or
registered assigns, on the maturity date set forth above, unless redeemed prior thereto as
hereinafter provided, the principal amount set forth above and to pay interest on such principal
amount semiannually on each March 1 and September 1, commencing March 1, 2004, (each an
"Interest Payment Date") at the interest rate set forth above, until the principal amount hereof is
paid or made available for payment. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are
payable to the registered owner hereof in lawful money of the United States of America upon
presentation and surrender of this Bond at maturity or redemption at the corporate trust office or
agency of U.S. Bank National Association (the "Fiscal Agent") ia st. Paul, Minnesota (or such
other office designated by the Fiscal Agent). Interest on this Bond is payable from the Interest
Payment Date next preceding the date of its authentication, unless (i) such date of authentication is
an Interest Payment Date, in which event interest shall be payable from such date of
authentication, (ii) the date of authentication is after the 15th calendar day of the month preceding
the Interest Payment Date (the "Record Date") but prior to the immediately succeeding Interest
Payment Date, in which event interest shall be payable from the Interest Payment Date
immediately succeeding the date of authentication or (iii) the date of authentication is prior to the
close of business on the first Record Date, in which event interest shall be payable from the Bond
Date above; provided, however, that if at the time of authentication of this Bond, interest is in
default, interest on this Bond shall be payable from the last Interest Payment Date to which the
· interest has been paid or made available for payment~ Interest on this Bond shall be payable by
check of the Fiscal Agent mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the registered owner hereof at
such registered owner's address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Fiscal
[:}~ Agent as of the close of business on the Record Date preceding the Interest Payment Date or, upon
A-1
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081\Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
request in writing prior to the Record Date received from a registered owner of at least $1,000,000
in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an
account in the United States of America designated by such registered owner.
This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of the "City of Chula Vista Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds" (the "Bonds") issued in the
aggregate principal amount of $ pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
of 1982, constituting Sections 53311, et seq. of the California Government Code, as amended (the
"Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to
the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the
Constitution of the State of California, for the purpose of financing certain public improvements in
and for the District. The creation of the Bonds and the terms and conditions thereof are provided
for by a Bond Indenture (the "Indenture") dated as of September 1, 2003, and this reference
incorporates the Indenture herein, and by acceptance hereof the owner of this Bond assents to said
terms and conditions. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in
the Indenture unless otherwise specified herein. The Indenture is authorized under, this Bond is
issued under, and both are to be construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California.
Pursuant to the Act and the Indenture, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond
are payable solely from, and shall be secured by a pledge of and lien upon, the proceeds of the
Special Tax (as defmed in the Indenture) levied and received by the District and the proceeds of
the redemption and sale of property sold as a result of foreclosure of the lien of the Special Tax to
the amount of such lien and penalties thereon (together, the "Special Tax Revenues") and certain
funds held under the Indenture. The Bonds are not general obligations of the City of Chula Vista
or the District, but are special, limited obligations of the District, and neither the faith and credit
nor the taxing power of the District, the City of Chula Vista, the State of California, or any
political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the Bonds. Except for the Special Tax
Revenues, no other revenues or taxes are pledged to the payment of the Bonds.
The District will review the public records of the County of San Diego, California, in connection
with the collection of the Special Taxes and will commence and diligently pursue to completion,
judicial foreclosure proceedings against (i) properties under common ownership with delinquent
Special Taxes in the aggregate of $5,000 or more by October 1 following the close of the Fiscal
Year in which the Special Taxes were due, and (ii) against all properties with delinquent Special
Taxes in the aggregate of $2,500 or more by October 1 following the close of any fiscal year if the
amount in the Reserve Fund is less than the Reserve Requirement.
The Bonds maturing on and after September 1, 2012 may be redeemed at the option of the District
prior to maturity as a whole, or in part on any Interest Payment Date on and after September 1,
2011, from such maturities as are selected by the District, and by lot within a maturity, from any
source of funds, at the following redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with accrued interest to the date of redemption:
A-2
J:\Engineer~S. NDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081YBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Redemption Date Redemption Price
September 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1, 2011 101%
September 1,2011 and thereafter 100%
The Bonds are subject to redemption on any Interest Payment Date, prior to maturity, as a whole
or in part on a pro rata basis among maturities, from the proceeds of the prepayment of Special
Taxes pursuant to the Special Tax RMA. Such extraordinary mandatory redemption of the Bonds
shall be at the following redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount of
the Bonds to be redeemed), together with accrued interest thereon to the date of redemption:
Redemption Date Redemption Price
March I, 2004 through March 1, 2009 103%
September 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 102%
September 1, 2010 and March 1, 2011 101%
September 1, 2011 and thereafter 100%
The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20__ are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, in
part, by lot, on September 1 of each year commencing September 1, 20__ at a redemption price
equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest
thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium, in the aggregate principal amounts and
in the years shown in the following redemption schedule.
Redemption Date Principal
(September 1) Amount
The Bonds maturing on September 1, 20__ are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, in
part, by lot, on September 1 of each year commencing September 1, 20__ at a redemption price
equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest
thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium, in the aggregate principal amounts and
in the years shown in the following redemption schedule.
J:'xEngineer'~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081%Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
Redemption Date Principal
September 1) Amount
Notice of redemption with respect to the Bonds to be redeemed shall be given by the Fiscal Agent
to the registered owner thereof at least 30 days but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption
date, by frrst class mail, postage prepaid, at their addresses appearing on the Bond Register.
This Bond shah be issued only in fully registered form in the denominations of $5,000 or any
integral multiple thereof. No transfer hereof shall be valid for any purpose unless made by the
registered owner, by execution of the form of assignment printed hereon, and authenticated as
herein provided, and the principal hereof, interest hereon and any redemption premium shall be
payable only to the registered owner or to such owner's order. Interest on this Bond shall be
payable to the person whose name appears upon the Bond Register as the registered owner hereof
as of the close of business on the Record Date or to such person's order. The Fiscal Agent shall
require the registered owner requesting transfer or exchange to pay any tax or other governmental
charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The Fiscal Agent shall not be
required to register, transfer or make exchanges of (i) Bonds for a period of 15 days next
preceding the date of any selection of Bonds to be redeemed or (ii) any Bonds chosen for
redemption.
This Bond shall not become valid or obligatory for any purpose until the certificate of
authentication hereon printed shall have been dated and manually signed by the Fiscal Agent.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED AND DECLARED that all acts, conditions and things
required by law to exist, happen and be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond
have existed, happened and been performed in due tune, form and manner as required by law, and
that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the District, does not exceed
any debt limit prescribed by the laws or Constitution of the State of California.
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Chula Vista, for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six), has caused this Bond to be dated
as of July 10, 2003 and to be signed by the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista by his or her manual
signature and attested by the City Clerk by his or her manual signature.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista, for and on Mayor, City of Chula Vista, for and on
behalf of the City of Chula Vista Community behalf of the City of Chula Vista Community
Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch
Village Six) Village Six)
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds described in the within defined Indenture.
Date: U.S. Bank National Association,
as Fiscal Agent
By:
Authorized Officer
JAEngineer~LANDDEVXCFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08BBond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
ASSIGNMENT
For value received the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
(Name, Address, and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignge)
the within-mentioned registered Bond and hereby irrevocably constitute(s) and appoint(s),
attorney, to
transfer the same on the books of the Fiscal Agent with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Signature
Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature must be guaranteed by a NOTICE: The signature onthis assignment must
qualified guarantor, correspond with the name as it appears on the
face of the within Bond in every particular,
without alteration or enlargement or any change
whatsoever
A-6
J:~Engineer~kNDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
EXHIBIT "B" - ARBITRAGE REBATE INSTRUCTIONS
This document sets forth instructions regarding the investment and disposition of monies
deposited in various funds and accounts established in cormeetion with the issuance by Community
Facilities Dis~ct No. 08-I (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the "District") of its 2003 Special Tax Bonds
in aggregate principal amount of $ (the "Bonds").
The purpose of these instructions is to provide the District with information necessary to
ensure that the investment of the monies in the funds and accounts described herein will comply with
the arbitrage requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued
thereunder.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of these instructions, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth
below:
Bond Year. The term "Bond Year" means each twelve-month period extending from
September 2 in one calendar year to September 1 of the succeeding calendar year, except in the case
of the initial Bond Year which shall be the period from the Delivery Date to September 1, 2004.
Code. The term "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Delivery Date. The term "Delivery Date" means ., 2003.
Excess Investment Earnings. The term "Excess Investment Earnings" means an amount
equal to the sum of:
(1) The excess of:
(a) The aggregate amount earned from the Delivery Date of the Bonds on all
Nonpurpose Investments in which Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are invested, over
(b) The amount that would have been earned if the Yield on such Nonpurpose
Investments had been equal to the Yield on the Bonds, plus
(2) Any income attributable to the excess described in paragraph (1).
In determining Excess Investment Earnings, (i) any gain or loss on the disposition of a
Nonpurpose Investment shall be taken into account and (ii) any amount earned on a bona fide debt
service fund .shall not be taken into account.
Gross Proceeds. The term "Gross Proceeds" means the following:
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
( 1 ) Original proceeds, i.e.. the mount received by the Fiscal Agent as a result of the sale
of the Bonds and any mounts actually or constructively received from investing the mount
received from the sale of the Bonds;
(2) Amounts, other than original proceeds, in the Reserve Fund and in any other fund
established as a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund;
(3) Amounts, other than as specified above, that are reasonably expected to be or are
used to pay debt service with respect to the Bonds; and,
(4) Amounts received as a result of investing amounts described above.
Investment Property, The term "Investment Property" means any security, obligation, annuity
contract or investment-type property in which Gross Proceeds are invested, excluding, however, the
following:
(a) United States Treasury - State and Local Government Series, Demand Deposit
securities, and
(b) Tax-exempt obligations.
For purposes of these Instructions, the term "tax-exempt obligations" shall include only
obligations the interest on which is (i) excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes
and (ii) not treated as an item of tax preference under Section 57(a)(5) of the Code. The term "tax-
exempt obligation" shall, however, also include stock in a "qualified regulated investment
company," which is a corporation that (i) is a regulated investment company within the meaning of
Section 851 (a) of the Code and meets the requirements of Section 852(a) of the Code for the taxable
year; (ii) has only one class of stock authorized and outstanding; (iii) invests all of its assets in tax-
exempt obligations (as defined above) to the extent practicable; and (iv) has at least 98% of its gross
income derived from interest on, or gain from the sale or other disposition of, tax-exempt
obligations, or the weighted average value of its assets is represented by investments in tax-exempt
obligations.
Nonpurpose Investment. The term "Nonpurpose Investment" means any Investment Property
that is acquired with the Gross Proceeds of the Bonds and is not acquired in order to carry out the
governmental purpose of the Bonds.
Purchase Price. The term "Purchase Price", for the purpose of computation of the Yield of
the Bonds, has the same meaning as the term "Issue Price" in Sections 1273Co) and 1274 of the
Code, and, in general, means the initial offering price to the public (not including bond houses and
brokers, Or s'mailar persons or organi~tions acting in the capacity of underwriters or wholesalers) at
which price a substantial amount of each maturity (at least 10 percent) of the Bonds was sold.
B - 2
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
The term "Purchase Price", for the purpose of computation of Yield of Nonpurpose
Investments means the fair market value of the Nonpurpose Investment on the date of use of Gross
Proceeds of the Bonds for acquisition thereof, or if later, on the date that Investment Property
constituting a Nonpurpose Investment becomes a Nonpurpose Investment of the Bonds.
Regulations. The term "Regulations" means temporary and permanent Regulations
promulgated under Section 148 of the Code.
Yield. The term "Yield" means that discount rate which, present value of all payments of
principal and interest case of Nonpurpose Investments which require payments in principal and
interest) on a Nonpurpose Investment or on the Bonds produces an amount equal to the Purchase
Price of such Nonpurpose Investment or the Bonds, all computed as prescribed in applicable
Regulations. The yield on Nonpurpose Investments must be computed by the use of the same
frequency interval of compounding interest as is used with respect to the Bonds.
REBATE REQUIREMENT
Calculation of Excess Investment Earnings. No later than the last day of the fifth Bond Year,
each succeeding fifth Bond Year and on the date the last Bond is discharged, the District shall
calculate or cause to be calculated the Excess Investment Earnings pursuant to the Code and
Regulations and deposit or cause to be deposited into the Rebate Fund the amount calculated to be
Excess Investment Earnings. This calculation shall be made or cause to be made by the District in
accordance with the following roles:
(1) For purposes or calculation of the yield on any investment as required under these
Instructions, the purchase price of the investment will be the fair market price of the
investment on an established market. This means that the District (or the Fiscal Agent acting
at the direction of the District) will not pay a premium and will not accept a lower interest
rate than is usually paid to adjust the yield on an investment.
(2) The market price of certificates of deposit issued by a commercial bank may be
regarded as being at a fair market price if they are determined by reference to the bona fide
bid price quoted by a dealer who maintains an active secondary market in such certificates,
or, if no secondary market exists, by satisfying subparagraph (3) below relating to investment
agreements.
(3) Investments pursuant to an investment agreement may be regarded as being made at a
fair market price if (i) at least three (3) bids are received on the investment contract from
persons without an interest in the Bonds; (ii) the winning bidder provides a certificate that,
based on its reasonable expectations on the date the investment agreement is entered into,
investments will not be purchased or sole at a price other than their fair market value; (iii) the
yield on the investment agreement is at least e~tual to the yield offered under the highest bid
received from a non-interested party; and (iv) the yield on the investment agreement is at
least eqUal t0 the yield offered on similar contracts
B-3
J:~Engineer~LANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD081~Bond Indenture 7.1 $.03.doc
(4) For other investments traded on an established market, the fair market price shall be
the mean between the bid and offered prices for such obligations on the date of purchase or,
if subsequent thereto, the date the investment becomes a Nonpurpose Investment.
(5) Where amounts must be restricted to a certain yield and investments, cannot be
purchased on an established market or a bona fide fair market price cannot be established at a
yield that does not exceed the maximum permissible yield, the District may acquire or hold,
or cause the Fiscal Agent to acquire or hold, tax-exempt securities, currency or United States
Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness, Notes and Certificates - State and Local Government
Series ("SLGs") that yield no more than the maximum permissible yield. SLGs are available
at the Federal Reserve Bank.
Payment to United States. The District shall direct the Fiscal Agent in writing to pay from
the Rebate Fund an amount equal to Excess Investment Earnings (after application 0fany available
credits) to the United States Treasury in installments with the first payment to be made not later than
thirty (30) days after the end of the fifth Bond Year, and with subsequent payments to be made not
later than five (5) years after the preceding payment was due. The District shall assure that each
such installment is in an amount equal to at least ninety percent (90%) of the Excess Investment
Earnings with respect to the Bonds as of the close of the computation period. Not later than sixty
(60) days after the retirement of the Bonds, the District shall pay from the Rebate Fund to the United
States Treasury one hundred percent (100%) of the theretofore unpaid Excess Investment Earnings
of the Bonds. In the event that there are any amounts remaining in the Rebate Fund following the
payment required by the preceding sentence, the District shall use such amount for any lawful
purpose of the District. The District shall cause payments to the United States at the address
prescribed by the Regulations as the same may be from time to time in effect with such reports and
statements as may be prescribed by such Regulations. In the event that, for any reason, amounts in
the Rebate Fund are insufficient to make the payments to the United States Treasury which are
required hereunder, the District shall assure that such payments are made to the United States
Treasury on a timely basis from any funds lawfully available therefor.
Further obligation of District. The District shall assure that Excess Investment Earnings are
not paid or disbursed except as provided in these instructions. To that end, the District shall assure
that investment transactions are on an arms-length basis. In the event that Nonpurpose Investments
consist of certificates of deposit or investment contracts, investment in such Nonpurpose Investments
shall be made in accordance with the procedures described in applicable Regulations as from time to
time in effect.
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. With respect to all Nonpurpose Investments acquired in a fund
or account established and held by the District or the Fiscal Agent, the District or the Fiscal Agent
shall record or cause to be recorded the following information: (i) purchase date, (ii) purchase price,
(iii) information establishing that the purchase price is the fair market value as o f such date (e. g., the
published quoted bid by a dealer in such an investment on the date of purchase), (iv) any accrued
interest paid, (v) face amount, (vi) coupon rate, (vii) periodicity of interest payments, (viii)
B-4
J:~EngineerkLANDDEV~CFD's\ Village 60tay Ranch Infrastructure CFD08I~Bond Indenture 7.15.03.doc
disposition price, (ix) any accrued interest received, and (x) disposition date. To the extem any
investment becomes a Nonpurpose Investment by becoming Gross Proceeds after it was originally
purchased, it shall be treated as if it were acquired at its fair market value at the time it becomes a
Nonpurpose Investment. The Dislrict shall keep and retain for a period of six (6) years following the
retirement of the Bonds, records of all determinations made pursuant to these Instructions.
AMENDMENT. In order to comply with the covenants in the Bond Indenture regarding Compliance
with the requirements of the Code and the continued exclusion from gross income for purposes of
federal income taxation of interest paid on the Bonds, the procedures described in these Instructions
may be modified as necessary, without the consent of Bond owners, and based on the opinion of
nationally recognized bond counsel acceptable m the District, to comply with regulations, rulings,
legislation or judicial decisions as may be applicable m the Bonds. Neither the Fiscal Agent nor any
of its members, agents, officers or employees shall be liable for any action taken or for its failure to
take any action in connection with these Instructions. The District may rely conclusively on the
advice of its Bond Counsel with respect to the requirements of these Instructions.
~)t,~jl'~i ............ Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
Draft of 9/9/03
$
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08~I
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
2003 SPECIAL TAX BONDS
BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
October ,2003
Community Facilities District No. 08-1
(Otay Ranch Village Six)
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Stone & Youngberg LLC (the "Underwriter"), acting not as a fiduciary or agent for you, but
on behalf of itself, offers to enter into this Bond Purchase Agreement with Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the "District"), which was formed by the City of Chula
Vista (the "City"), which, upon acceptance, will be binding upon the District and upon the
Underwriter. This offer is made subject to acceptance of it by the District on the date hereof, and if
not accepted will be subject to withdrawal by the Underwriter upon notice delivered to the District at
any time prior to the acceptance hereof by the District.
1. Purchase, Sale and Delivery of the Bonds.
(a) Subject to the terms and conditions and in reliance upon the representations,
warranties and agreements set forth herein, the Underwriter agrees to purchase from the District, and
the District agrees to sell to the Underwriter, all (but not less than all) of the Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds") in the aggregate
principal amount specified in Exhibit A hereto. The Bonds shall be dated the Closing Date
(hereinafter defined), and bear interest (payable semiannually on March 1 and September 1 in each
year, commencing March 1, 2004) at the rates per annum and maturing on the dates and in the
amounts set forth in Exhibit A hereto. The purchase price for the Bonds shall be the amount
specified as such in Exhibit A hereto.
The Bonds shall be substantially in the form described in, shall be issued and secured under
the provisions of, and shall be payable and subject to redemption as provided in, the Bond Indenture
(the "Bond Indenture") by and between the District and U.S. Bank National Association, as Fiscal
Agent (the "Fiscal Agent"), dated as of September 1, 2003, approved in Resolution No. 2003-015
adopted by the City Council of the City, as the legislative body of the District, on January 14, 2003
(the "Resolution of Issuance"). The Bonds and interest thereon will be payable from a special tax
(the "Special Tax") levied and collected on the taxable land within the District in accordance with
Resolution No. 2003-014 adopted by the City Council on January 14, 2003 (the "Resolution of
Formation") and Ordinance No. 2896 enacted on February 4, 2003 (the "Special Tax Ordinance").
Proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used in accordance with the Bond Indenture and the Mello-
DOCSOC\984961 v B22245,0143
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Sections 53311 ~t seq. of the Government
Code of the State of California) (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities
District Ordinance ("Authorizing Ordinance" and together with the Act, the "Law"), to acquire
certain public improvements described in the Resolution of Formation. The Resolution of Issuance,
the Resolution of Formation, the Special Tax Ordinance and the Authorizing Ordinance and all other
resolutions adopted with respect to the formation of the District and the issuance of the Bonds are
collectively referred to herein as the "District Resolutions."
(b) At or prior to the acceptance hereof by the District, the District shall cause to
be delivered to the Underwriter (i) a Certificate of Representations and Warranties of the City, dated
as of the date of this Bond Purchase Agreement (the "City Certificate"), in substantially the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B, with only such changes therein as shall have been accepted by the
Underwriter, and (ii) a certificate executed by Otay Project, L.P. (the "Developer"), dated on or prior
to the date of this Bond Purchase Agreement and addressed to the Underwriter and the District
deeming the information in the Preliminary Official Statement (as defined in (c) below) relating to
the Developer final and accurate as of its date.
(c) Subsequent to its receipt of a certificate from the District deeming the
Preliminary Official Statement for the Bonds, dated , 2003 (which Preliminary Official
Statement, together with the cover page and all appendices thereto, is herein collectively referred to
as the "Preliminary Official Statement" and which, as amended with the prior approval of the
Underwriter and executed by the District, will be referred to herein as the "Official Statement"), final
for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Rule 15c2-12"), the
Underwriter has distributed copies of the Preliminary Official Statement. The District hereby ratifies
the use by the Underwriter of the Preliminary Official Statement and authorizes the Underwriter to
use and distribute the final Official Statement dated the date hereof (including all information
previously permitted to have been omitted by Rule 15c2-12 and any supplements and amendments
thereto as have been approved by the District as evidenced by the execution and delivery of such
document by an officer of the District (the "Official Statement"), the Bond Indenture, the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement of the District (the "District Disclosure Agreement"), this Bond Purchase
Agreement, any other documents or contracts to which City or the District is a party, and all
information contained therein, and all other documents, certificates and statements furnished by the
City and the District to the Underwriter in connection with the transactions contemplated by this
Bond Purchase Agreement, in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds by the Underwriter.
The Underwriter hereby agrees to deliver a copy of the Official Statement to a national repository on
or before the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) and to each investor that purchases any of the
Bonds prior to the "end of the underwriting period" (as such term is defined in Section 2(g) below)
and otherwise to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations in connection with the offering
and sale of the Bonds, including, without limitation, MSRB Rule G-32 and Rule 15c2-12.
(d) At 8:00 A.M., Pacific Daylight Time, on ,2003, or at such earlier
time or date as shall be agreed upon by the Underwriter and the District (such time and date being
herein referred to as the "Closing Date"), the District will deliver (i)to The Depository Trust
Company in New York, New York, the Bonds in definitive form (all Bonds being in book-entry form
registered in the name of Cede & Co. and having the CUSIP numbers assigned to them printed
thereon), duly executed by the officers of the District as provided in the Bond Indenture, and (ii) to
the Underwriter, at the offices of Best Best & Krieger LLP, Bond Counsel in San Diego, California,
or at such other place as shall be mutually agreed upon by the District and the Underwriter, the other
documents herein mentioned; and the Underwriter shall accept such delivery and pay the purchase
2
DOCSOC\984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
price of the Bonds in Los Angeles clearinghouse funds (such delivery and payment being herein
referred to as the "Closing"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Underwriter may, in its discretion,
accept delivery of the Bonds in temporary form upon making arrangements with the District which
are satisfactory to the Underwriter relating to the delivery of the Bonds in definitive form.
2. Representations, Warranties and Agreements of the District. The District represents,
warrants and covenants to and agrees with the Underwriter that:
(a) The City is duly organized and validly existing as a charter city duly
organized and validly existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California and has duly
authorized the formation of the District pursuant to the Resolution of Formation and the Law. The
City Council as the legislative body of the City and the District has duly adopted the District
Resolutions, and has caused to be recorded in the real property records of the County of San Diego, a
Notice of Special Tax Lien (the "Notice of Special Tax Lien") (such District Resolutions and Notice
of Special Tax Lien being collectively referred to herein as the "Formation Documents"). Each of
the Formation Documents remains in full force and effect as of the date hereof and has not been
amended. The District is duly organized and validly existing as a community facilities district under
the laws of the State of California. The City has, and at the Closing Date will have, as the case may
be, full legal right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform on behalf of itself and the
District its obligations under that certain Acquisition/Financing Agreement between the City and the
Developer, together with all amendments thereto (the "Funding Agreement") and to carry out all
transactions contemplated by the Funding Agreement. The District has, and at the Closing Date will
have, as the case may be, full legal right, power and authority (i) to execute, deliver and perform its
obligations under this Bond Purchase Agreement, the District Disclosure Agreement, and the Bond
Indenture, and to carry out all transactions contemplated by each of such agreements, (ii) to issue,
sell and deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter pursuant to the Resolution of Issuance and Bond
Indenture as provided herein, and (iii) to carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions
contemplated by the Formation Documents and by the Bond Indenture, this Bond Purchase
Agreement, the District Disclosure Agreement and the Funding Agreement (collectively, the
"District Documents") and the Official Statement;
(b) The District and the City, as applicable, each has complied, and will at the
Closing Date be in compliance, in all material respects with the Formation Documents and the
District Documents, and any immaterial noncompliance by the District and the City, if any, will not
impair the ability of the District and the City, as applicable, to carry out, give effect to or
consummate the transactions contemplated by the foregoing. From and after the date of issuance of
the Bonds, the District will continue to comply with the covenants of the District contained in the
District Documents;
(c) The City Council has duly and validly: (i) adopted the District Resolutions,
(ii) called, held and conducted in accordance with all requirements of the Law the elections within
the District to approve the levy of the Special Tax, the facilities eligible for financing and the
issuance of the Bonds and recorded the Notice of Special Tax Lien which established a continuing
lien on the land within the District securing the Special Tax, (iii)authorized and approved the
execution and delivery of the Bonds and the District Documents, (iv) authorized the preparation and
delivery of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, and (v) authorized and
approved the performance by the District of its obligations contained in, and the taking of any and all
action as may be necessary to carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated
by, each of the District Documents (including, without limitation, the collection of the Special Tax),
3
DOCSOC\984961v 1~22245,0143
and at the Closing Date the Formation Documents will be in full force and effect and the District
Documents and the Bonds will constitute the valid, legal and binding obligations of the District and
(assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by other parties thereto, where necessary) will
be enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, moratorium and other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights in general
and to the application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought;
(d) To the best of the District's knowledge, neither the District nor the City is in
breach of or default under any applicable law or administrative rule or regulation of the State of
California (the "State"), or of any department, division, agency or instrumentality thereof, or under
any applicable court or administrative decree or order, or under any loan agreement, note, resolution,
bond indenture, contract, agreement or other instrument to which the District or the City is a party or
is otherwise subject or bound, a consequence of which could be to materially and adversely affect the
performance by the District of its obligations under the Bonds, the Formation Documents or the
District Documents, and compliance with the provisions of each thereof, will not conflict with or
constitute a breach of or default under any applicable law or administrative rule or regulation of the
State, or of any department, division, agency or instrumentality thereof, or under any applicable court
or administrative decree or order, or a material breach of or default under any loan agreement, note,
resolution, trust agreement, contract, agreement or other instrument to which the District or the City,
as the case may be, is a party or is otherwise subject or bound;
(e) Except for compliance with the blue sky or other states securities law filings,
as to which the District makes no representations, all approvals, consents, authorizations, elections
and orders of or filings or registrations with any State governmental authority, board, agency or
commission having jurisdiction which would constitute a condition precedent to, or the absence of
which would materially adversely affect, the performance by the District of its obligations hereunder,
or under the Formation Documents or the District Documents, have been obtained and are in full
force and effect;
(f) The Special Tax constituting the security for the Bonds has been duly and
lawfully authorized and may be levied under the Law and the Constitution and other applicable laws
of the State of California, and such Special Tax, when levied, will constitute a valid and legally
binding continuing lien on the properties on which it has been levied;
(g) Until the date which is twenty-five (25) days after the "end of the
underwriting period" (as hereinafter defined), if any event shall occur of which the District is aware,
as a result of which it may be necessary to supplement the Official Statement in order to make the
statements in the Official Statement, in light of the cimumstances existing at such time, not
misleading, the District shall forthwith notify the Underwriter of any such event of which it has
knowledge and shall cooperate fully in furnishing any information available to it for any supplement
to the Official Statement necessary, in the Underwriter's opinion, so that the statements therein as so
supplemented will not be misleading in light of the circumstances existing at such time and the
District shall promptly furnish to the Underwriter a reasonable number of copies of such supplement.
As used heroin, the term "end of the underwriting period" means the later of such time as (i) the
District delivers the Bonds to the Underwriter, or (ii) the Underwriter does not retain, directly or as a
member of an underwriting syndicate, an unsold balance of the Bonds for sale to the public. Unless
the Underwriter gives notice to the contrary, the "end of the underwriting period" shall be deemed to
be the Closing Date. Any notice delivered pursuant to this provision shall be written notice delivered
4
DOCSOC\98496 lv 1L22245.0143
to the District at or prior to the Closing Date, and shall specify a date (other than the Closing Date) to
be deemed the "end of the underwriting period";
(h) The Bond Indenture creates a valid pledge of the Special Taxes and the
moneys in the Special Tax Fund, the Bond Service Fund, the Redemption Fund and the Reserve
Fund established pursuant to the Bond Indenture, including the investments thereof, subject in all
cases to the provisions of the Bond Indenture permitting the application thereof for the purposes and
on the terms and conditions set forth therein;
(i) Except as disclosed in the Official Statement, no action, suit, proceeding,
inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, regulatory agency, public board
or body is pending or, to the best knowledge of the District, threatened (i) which would materially
adversely affect the ability of either the City or the District to perform its obligations under the
Bonds, the Formation Documents or the District Documents, or (ii) seeking to restrain or to enjoin
the development of the land within the District, the issuance, sale or delivery of the Bonds, the
application of the proceeds thereof in accordance with the Bond Indenture or the Funding
Agreement, or the collection or application of the Special Tax pledged or to be pledged to pay the
principal of and interest on the Bonds, or the pledge thereof, or in any way contesting or affecting the
validity or enforceability of the Bonds, the Formation Documents, the District Documents, the land
use approvals granted by the City with respect to the land within the District, any other instruments
relating to the development of any of the property within the District, or any action contemplated by
any of said documents, or (iii) in any way contesting the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary
Official Statement or the Official Statement or the powers or authority of the District with respect to
the Bonds, the Formation Documents, the District Documents, or any action of the District
contemplated by any of said documents; nor is there any action pending or, to the best knowledge of
the District, threatened against the City or the District which alleges that interest on the Bonds is not
excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes or is not exempt from California
personal income taxation;
(j) The District will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take
such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter as the Underwriter may reasonably request in
order for the Underwriter to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the "Blue Sky" or other
securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the
Underwriter may designate; provided, however, the District shall not be required to register as a
dealer or a broker of securities or to consent to service of process in connection with any blue sky
filing;
(k) Any certificate signed by any authorized official of the City and the District
authorized to do so shall be deemed a representation and warranty to the Underwriter as to the
statements made therein;
(1) The District will apply the proceeds of the Bonds in accordance with the
Bond Indenture and as described in the Official Statement;
5
DOCSOC\984961vI\22245.0143
(m) The information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement (other than
information therein relating to The Depository Trust Company and its Book-Entry-Only System, as
to which no view is expressed) was as of the date thereof, and the information contained in the
Official Statement (other than information therein relating to The Depository Trust Company and its
Book-Entry-Only System, as to which no view is expressed) as of its date was, and on the Closing
Date shall be, true and correct in all material respects and such information does not and shall not
contain any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact
necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading;
(n) The District shall use its best efforts to cause The Developer to cooperate
with the Underwriter in the preparation of the Official Statement; provided, however, that such
efforts shall not include the expenditure of funds by the District;
(o) The Preliminary Official Statement heretofore delivered to the Underwriter
was deemed final by the District as of its date, except for the omission of such information as is
permitted to be omitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12. The District hereby
covenants and agrees that, within seven (7) business days from the date hereof, the District shall
cause a final printed form of the Official Statement to be delivered to the Underwriter in a quantity
mutually agreed upon by the Underwriter and the District so that the Underwriter may comply with
paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 15c2-12 and Rules G-12, G-15, G-32 and G-36 of the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board;
(p) Neither the City nor the District is in default with respect to any reporting
obligation that it has undertaken under Rule 15c2-12 for any indebtedness issued by it.
3. Conditions to the Obligations of the Underwriter. The obligations of the Underwriter
to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds on the Closing Date shall be subject, at the option of the
Underwriter, to the accuracy in all material respects of the representations and warranties on the part
of the District contained herein, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date, to the accuracy in
all material respects of the statements of the officers and other officials of the City and the District
made in any certificates or other documents furnished pursuant to the provisions hereof, to the
performance by the District of its obligations to be performed hereunder at or prior to the Closing
Date and to the following additional conditions:
(a) At the Closing Date, the Formation Documents and the District Documents
shall be in full force and effect, and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, except
as may have been agreed to in writing by the Underwriter, and there shall have been taken in
connection therewith, with the issuance of the Bonds and with the transactions contemplated thereby
and by this Bond Purchase Agreement, all such actions as, in the opinion of Best, Best & Krieger
LLP, Bond Counsel for the District, and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional
Corporation, counsel to the Underwriter, shall be necessary and appropriate;
(b) Between the date hereof and the Closing Date, the market price or
marketability of the Bonds at the initial offering prices set forth in the Official Statement shall not
have been materially adversely affected, in the judgment of the Underwriter (evidenced by a written
notice to the District terminating the obligation of the Underwriter to accept delivery of and pay for
the Bonds), by reason of any of the following:
6
DOCSOC\98496IvI~22245.0143
(1) legislation introduced in or enacted (or resolution passed) by the
Congress of the United States of America or recommended to the Congress by the President of the
United States, the Department of the Treasury, the Intemal Revenue Service, or any member of
Congress, or favorably reported for passage to either House of Congress by any committee of such
House to which such legislation had been referred for consideration or a decision rendered by a court
established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America or by the Tax Court
of the United States of America, or an order, ruling, regulation (final, temporary or proposed), press
release or other form of notice issued or made by or on behalf of the Treasury Department or the
Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America, with the purpose or effect, directly or
indirectly, of imposing federal income taxation upon the interest as would be received by the holders
of the Bonds beyond the extent to which such interest is subject to taxation as of the date hereof;
(2) legislation introduced in or enacted (or resolution passed) by the
Congress of the United States of America, or an order, decree or injunction issued by any court of
competent jurisdiction, or an order, ruling, regulation (final, temporary or proposed), press release or
other form of notice issued or made by or on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
any other governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter, to the effect that obligations
of the general character of the Bonds, or the Bonds, including any or all underlying arrangements, are
not exempt from registration under or other requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or that the Bond Indenture is not exempt from qualification under or other requirements of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, as amended, or that the issuance, offering or sale of obligations of the general
character of the Bonds, or of the Bonds, including any or all underwriting arrangements, as
contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement or otherwise is or would be in violation of the
federal securities laws, rules or regulations as amended and then in effect;
(3) any amendment to the federal or California Constitution or action by
any federal or California court, legislative body, regulatory body or other authority materially
adversely affecting the tax status of the District, its property, income, securities (or interest thereon),
the validity or enforceability of the Special Tax or the ability of the City or the District to construct or
acquire the improvements as contemplated by the Formation Documents, the District Documents or
the Official Statement; or
(4) any event occurring, or information becoming known, which, in the
judgment of the Underwriter, makes untrue in any material respect any statement or information
contained in the Official Statement, or results in the Official Statement containing any untrue
statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading.
(5) any national securities exchange, the Comptroller of the Currency, or
any other governmental authority, shall impose as to the Bonds or obligations of the general
character of the Bonds, any material restrictions not now in force, or increase materially those now in
force, with respect to the extension of credit by, or the charge to the net capital requirements of, the
Underwriter; or
(6) the declaration of a general banking moratorium by federal, New
York or California authorities;
7
DOCSOC\984961 v 1\22245.0143
(7) there shall have occurred any material outbreak or escalation of
hostilities or other calamity or crisis the effect of which on the financial markets of the United States
is such as to make it impracticable, in the judgment of the Underwriter, following consultation with
the City, to sell the Bonds; or
(8) any proceeding shall have been commenced or be threatened in
writing by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the City.
(c) On the Closing Date, the Underwriter shall have received counterpart
originals or certified copies of the following documents, in each case satisfactory in form and
substance to the Underwriter:
(1) The Formation Documents and the District Documents, together with
a certificate dated as of the Closing Date of the City Clerk to the effect that each Formation
Document is a true, correct and complete copy of the one duly adopted by the City Council;
(2) The Official Statement;
(3) An unqualified approving opinion for the Bonds, dated the Closing
Date and addressed to the City, of Best Best & Krieger LLP, Bond Counsel for the District, in the
form attached to the Preliminary Official Statement as Appendix H, and an unqualified opinion of
such counsel, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that such
approving opinion addressed to the District may be relied upon by the Underwriter to the same extent
as if such opinion was addressed to it;
(4) A supplemental opinion, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the
Underwriter, of Best Best & Krieger LLP, Bond Counsel for the District, to the effect that (i) the
District Documents have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the City or the District, as
applicable, and, assuming such agreements constitute valid and binding obligations of the other
parties thereto, constitute the legally valid and binding agreements of the City or the District, as
applicable, enforceable in accordance with their terms, except as enforcement may be limited by
bankruptcy, moratorium, insolvency or other laws affecting creditor's rights or remedies and by
general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in equity or at
law); (ii) the Bonds are not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Bond Indenture is exempt from qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of
1939, as amended; (iii) the information contained in the Official Statement on the cover and under
the captions "INTRODUCTION," "THE BONDS," "SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE
BONDS," "THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT," "SPECIAL RISK FACTORS -
Proposition 218," "TAX MATTERS" and Appendices E and H thereof, insofar as it purports to
summarize certain provisions of the Law, the Formation Documents, the Bonds and the Bond
Indenture and the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes and exemption from
State of California personal income taxes of interest on the Bonds, presents a fair and accurate
summary of such provisions; (iv) the Special Tax has been duly and validly authorized in accordance
with the provisions of the Law and, except as the same may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, fraudulent conveyance or transfer, moratorium or other laws relating to or affecting
generally the enforcement of creditors' rights, by equitable principles and by the exercise of judicial
discretion in appropriate cases; and (v) Bond Counsel has examined the proceedings regarding the
levy of the Special Tax, including without limitation, the Notice of Special Tax Lien which was
recorded for the District pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code in
8
DOCSOC\984961 v 1~22245.0143
the official records of the County of San Diego on ., 2003, and based on such
examination, and its review of applicable laws of the State of California, as of the date of such
opinion, Bond Counsel is of the opinion that (a) pursuant to Section 53339.8(a) of the California
Government Code, all non-exempt property in the District became subject to the levy of the Special
Taxes as of the date of the adoption of the resolution establishing the District, (b) pursuant to Section
53340 of the California Government Code, each levy on such non-exempt property is secured by a
continuing lien; and (c) any delinquent Special Taxes levied on such non-exempt property will be
subject to foreclosure pursuant to Section 53356.1 of the California Government Code;
(5) An opinion, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter,
of Stradling Yocea Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, counsel for the Underwriter, to the
effect that (i) the Bonds are exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and the Bond Indenture is exempt from qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of
1939, as amended; and (ii) without having undertaken to determine independently the accuracy or
completeness of the statements contained in the Official Statement, but on the basis of their
participation in conferences with representatives of the City, Bond Counsel, representatives of the
Underwriter and others, and their examination of certain documents, nothing has come to their
attention which has led them to believe that the Official Statement as of its date and as of the Closing
Date contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to
be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading (except that no opinion or belief need be expressed as any
financial or statistical data, appraisals, assessed values or projections or information regarding the
book-entry system contained in the Official Statement);
(6) A certificate, dated the Closing Date and signed by an authorized
representative of the District, ratifying the use and distribution by the Underwriter of the Preliminary
Official Statement and the Official Statement in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds;
and certifying that (i) the representations and warranties of the District contained in Section 2 hereof
are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Closing Date with the same effect as if
made on the Closing Date; (ii) to the best of his or her knowledge, no event has occurred since the
date of the Official Statement affecting the matters contained therein which should be disclosed in
the Official Statement for the purposes for which it is to be used in order to make the statements and
information contained in the Official Statement not misleading in any material respect, and the
Bonds, the Formation Documents and the District Documents conform as to form and tenor to the
descriptions thereof contained in the Official Statement; (iii) the District has complied with all the
agreements and satisfied all the conditions on its part to be performed or satisfied under the
Formation Documents, the District Documents and the Official Statement at or prior to the Closing
Date; and (iv) the representations and warranties of the City contained in the City Certificate are true
and correct in all material respects on and as of the Closing Date, with the same effect as if made on
the Closing Date, except that all references therein to the Preliminary Official Statement shall be
deemed to be references to the Official Statement;
(7) An opinion, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter,
of the City Attorney, to the effect that (i) to the best of his or her knowledge and except as disclosed
in the Official Statement, no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity,
before or by any court, regulatory agency, public board or body is pending or threatened which
would materially adversely affect the ability of the District to perform its obligations under the
Bonds, the Formation Documents or the District Documents, or seeking to restrain or to enjoin the
development of property within the District, the issuance, sale, delivery of the Bonds or the exclusion
9
DOCSOC\984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
from gross income for federal income tax purposes or State of California personal income taxes of
interest on the Bonds, or the application of the proceeds thereof in accordance with the Bond
Indenture, or the collection or application of the Special Tax to pay the principal of and interest on
the Bonds, or in any way contesting or affecting the validity or enfomeability of the Bonds, the
Formation Documents or the District Documents or the accuracy of the Official Statement, or any
action of the City or the District contemplated by any of said documents; (ii) the City is duly
organized and validly existing as a charter city under the Constitution and laws of the State of
California and the District is duly organized and validly existing as a community facilities district
under the laws of the State of California, and the District has full legal right, power and authority to
issue the Bonds and each of the City and the District has the full legal right, power and authority to
perform all of its obligations under the Formation Documents and the District Documents; (iii) the
City and the District have obtained all approvals, consents, authorizations, elections and orders of or
filings or registrations with any State governmental authority, board, agency or commission having
jurisdiction which constitute a condition precedent to the levy of the Special Tax, the issuance of the
Bonds or the performance by the District of its obligations thereunder or under the Bond Indenture,
except that no opinion need be expressed regarding compliance with blue sky or other securities laws
or regulations, whatsoever; (iv) the City Council has duly and validly adopted the District
Resolutions at meetings of the City Council which were called and held pursuant to law and with all
public notice required by law and at which a quorum was present and acting throughout, and the
District Resolutions are now in full force and effect and have not been amended; and (v) each of the
City and the District has duly authorized, executed and delivered the District Documents to which it
is a party and the District has duly authorized and executed the Bonds and has duly authorized the
preparation and delivery of the Official Statement, and the District Documents and the Bonds
constitute legal, valid and binding agreements of the District and the City, as applicable, enforceable
in accordance with their respective terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization,
moratorium and other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and to the
application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought and to the limitations on legal
remedies against cities in the State of California;
(8) A certificate dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter,
the City and the District, from The Developer, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C,
and an executed copy of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement in the form attached as Appendix G
to the Official Statement;
(9) An opinion dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter,
the City and the District, by counsel to the Developer, substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit D;
(10) A certificate dated the Closing Date from McGill, Martin Self, Inc.
addressed to the City, the District and the Underwriter to the effect that (i) the Special Tax if
collected in the maximum amounts permitted pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of
Special Taxes as of the Closing Date would generate at least 110% of the maximum annual debt
service payable with respect to the Bonds, based on such assumptions and qualifications as shall be
acceptable to the Underwriter, and (ii) all information supplied by it for use in the Official Statement
is true and correct as of the date of the Official Statement and as of the Closing Date, and does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to
make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;
10
DOCSOC\984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
(11) A letter dated the Closing Date from Bruce W. Hull & Associates,
Inc. (the "Appraiser") addressed to the Underwriter, the District and the City to the effect that it has
prepared the appraisal report (the "Appraisal") with respect to the property located within the District
and that (a) the Appraisal, in the form set forth in Appendix C to the Official Statement, may be
included in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, (b) it has reviewed the
Official Statement and the Appraisal included in Appendix C and the information in the Official
Statement referring to the Appraisal is accurate and does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light
of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and (c) no events or occurrences
have been ascertained by it or have come to its attention that would materially change the opinion set
forth in the Appraisal;
(12) A letter from The Meyers Group dated the Closing Date addressed to
the Underwriter, the City and the District to the effect that it has prepared the market absorption
study (the "Study") referred to in the Official Statement and that (a) the summary of the Study in
Appendix B thereto (the "Summary") may be included in the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement, (b) it has reviewed the Official Statement and the Summary and the information
regarding the Study and the projected absorption of the proposed development included in the
Official Statement is accurate and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading, and (c) no events or occurrences have been ascertained
by it or have come to its attention that would materially change the opinion set forth in the Study;
(13) A certificate of the District dated the Closing Date, in a form
acceptable to Bond Counsel, that the Bonds are not arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section
148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
(14) A certificate of the Fiscal Agent and an opinion of counsel to the
Fiscal Agent dated the Closing Date and addressed to the City, the District and the Underwriter to the
effect that it has duly authorized the execution and delivery of the Bond Indenture and the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement with The Developer and that each of such documents is a valid
and binding obligation of the Fiscal Agent enforceable in accordance with its terms; and
(15) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and other
documents as the Underwriter may reasonably request to evidence the truth and accuracy, as of the
date hereof and as of the Closing Date, of the statements and information contained in the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, of the District's representations and
warranties contained herein and the due performance or satisfaction by the District at or prior to the
Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the District
in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and by the Official Statement.
If the District shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the Underwriter to
purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds contained in this Bond Purchase Agreement, or if
the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds shall be
terminated for any reason permitted by this Bond Purchase Agreement, this Bond Purchase
Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the District shall be under any further
obligation hereunder, except that the respective obligations of the District and the Underwriter set
forth in Section 5 and Section 6 hereof shall continue in full force and effect.
11
DOCSOC\984961 v 1~22245.0143
4. Conditions of the District's Obligations. The District's obligations hereunder are
subject to the Underwriter's performance of its obligations hereunder, and are also subject to the
following conditions:
(a) As of the Closing Date, no litigation shall be pending or, to the knowledge of
the duly authorized officer of the District executing the certificate referred to in Section 3(c)(6)
hereof, threatened, to restrain or enjoin the issuance or sale of the Bonds or in any way affecting any
authority for or the validity of the Bonds, the Formation Documents, the District Documents or the
existence or powers of the City or the District; and
(b) As of the Closing Date, the District shall receive the approving opinions of
Bond Counsel referred to in Section 3(c)(3) and (4) hereof, dated as of the Closing Date, addressed to
the City, the District and the Underwriter.
5. Expenses. Whether or not the Bonds are delivered to the Underwriter as set forth
herein:
(a) The Underwriter shall be under no obligation to pay, and the District shall
pay or cause to be paid (out of any legally available funds of the District) all expenses incident to the
performance of the District's obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to, the cost of printing
and delivering the Bonds to the Underwriter, the cost of preparation, printing, distribution and
delivery of the Bond Indenture, the Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement and all
other agreements and documents contemplated hereby (and drafts of any thereof) in such reasonable
quantities as requested by the Underwriter; and the fees and disbursements of the Fiscal Agent for the
Bonds, Bond Counsel, financial advisor to the City, counsel to the Underwriter in the amount of
$25,000, and any accountants, engineers or any other experts or consultants the District has retained
in connection with the Bonds including reimbursements to The Developer for advances of such
amounts; and
(b) The District shall be under no obligation to pay, and the Underwriter shall
pay, any fees of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, the cost of preparation of
any "blue sky" or legal investment memoranda and this Bond Purchase Agreement; expenses to
qualify the Bonds for sale under any "blue sky" or other state securities laws; and all other expenses
incurred by the Underwriter in connection with its public offering and distribution of the Bonds
(except those specifically enumerated in paragraph (a) of this section), including the fees and
disbursements of its counsel and any advertising expenses.
6. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the City under this Bond
Purchase Agreement may he given by delivering the same in writing to the City at 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910, Attention: Director of Finance; and any notice or other
communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by
delivering the same in writing to Stone & Youngberg, 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 140, San
Diego, California 92122, Attention: L. William Huck, and to One Ferry Building, San Francisco,
California 94111, Attention: Public Finance.
7. Parties in Interest. This Bond Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of
the District and the Underwriter (including their successors or assigns), and no other person shall
acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof.
12
DOCSOC\984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
8. Survival of Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of
the District and the City set forth in or made pursuant to this Bond Purchase Agreement and any
certificates delivered hereunder shall not be deemed to have been discharged, satisfied or otherwise
rendered void by reason of the Closing or termination of this Bond Purchase Agreement and
regardless of any investigations made by or on behalf of the Underwriter (or statements as to the
results of such investigations) concerning such representations and statements of the District and the
City and regardless of delivery of and payment for the Bonds.
9. Effective. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall become effective and binding upon
the respective parties hereto upon the execution of the acceptance hereof by the District and shall be
valid and enforceable as of the time of such acceptance.
10. No Prior A~reements. This Bond Purchase Agreement supersedes and replaces all
prior negotiations, agreements and understandings between the parties hereto in relation to the sale of
Bonds for the District.
11. Governing Law. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California.
13
DOCSOC\984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
12. Counterparts. This Bond Purchase Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
Very truly yours,
STONE & YOUNGBERG LLC
By:
Managing Director
ACCEPTED: ,2003
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-1
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
By:
Director of Finance
14
DOCSOC\984961v I~22245.0143
EXHIBIT A
MATURITY SCHEDULE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-1
(OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX)
2003 SPECIAL TAX BONDS
Maturity Date
(September 1) Principal Coupon Price
Par Amount $
Original lssue Discount
Underwriter's Discount
Purchase Price $
A-l
DOCSOC\98496 lv 1~22245.0143
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATE OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,2003
To: Stone & Youngbcrg LLC
San Diego, California
Re: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six)
2003 Special Tax Bonds
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are delivering to you this certificate in connection with the issuance and sale of
$ aggregate principal amount of the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District
No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds and pursuant to the Bond Purchase
Agreement, dated the date hereof (the "Purchase Contract"), by and between you and Community
Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) (thc "District"). All capitalized terms used
herein without definition shall have thc meanings assigned to such terms in thc Purchase Contract.
Thc undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of the City and not in his individual capacity,
on behalf of thc City, represents and warrants to you that:
(1) The City is duly organized and validly existing as a charter city under the
Constitution and laws of thc State of California and thc City Council of the City, as thc legislative
body of thc District, has duly and validly adopted each of the District Resolutions and authorized the
formation of the District pursuant to the Law.
(2) Thc information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement (except for
information therein as to the book-entry system as to which no view is expressed) was, as of the date
thereof and is, as of the date hereof, true and correct in all material respects and did not, as of thc date
thereof, and does not, as of thc date hereof, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light
of thc circumstances under which they wcrc made, not misleading.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Director of Finance
B-1
DOCSOC\984961 v I~22245.0143
EXHIBIT C
CERTIFICATE OF THE DEVELOPER
__.,2003
Stone & Youngberg LLC
4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 140
San Diego, California 92122
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: $ City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch
Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds")
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Otay Project, L.P., a California limited partnership (the "Developer"), hereby certifies that:
1. The Developer is the owner of certain of the land within Community Facilities
District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch Village Six) (the "District"), as described in the
Preliminary Official Statement of the District dated ,2003 relating to the
above-captioned Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement") and the Official
Statement of the District dated ., 2003 relating to the above-captioned
Bonds (the "Official Statement").
2. The Developer covenants that, while the Bonds are outstanding, the Developer will
not bring any action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity,
before any court, regulatory agency, public board or body which in any way seeks to
challenge or overturn the District, the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the
revised rate and method of apportionment contained in the Notice of Special Tax
Lien recorded as Document No. in the real property records of the County
of San Diego (the "Rate and Method of Apportionment") or the validity of the Bonds
or the proceedings leading up to their issuance. The foregoing covenant shall not
prevent the Developer from bringing an action or suit contending that the Special Tax
has not been levied in accordance with the methodology contained in the Rate and
Method of Apportionment.
3. Any and all information submitted by the Developer to the City and the Underwriter
in connection with the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement, and any and
all information submitted by the Developer to the Special Tax Consultant, the
Appraiser and the Market Absorption Consultant, was, to the best of the Developer's
knowledge, true and correct when given and remains true and correct as of the date
C-1
DOCSOC\984961 v I~22245.0143
hereof, and all information in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the
Developer and the development of its land within the District was final as of its date
for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
4. The statements relating to the Developer, its proposed development in the District, its
property ownership and its contractual arrangements contained in the Preliminary
Official Statement do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements
therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. If at any time subsequent hereto and within 25 days after the Closing
Date any statement in the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement
becomes untrue or if any material fact is omitted, the Developer agrees to notify the
City and the Underwriter immediately.
5. No proceedings are pending or, to the best of the Developer's knowledge, threatened
in which the Developer or any of its members may be adjudicated as bankrupt or
discharged from any or all of their debts or obligations or granted an extension of
time to pay its debts or a reorganization or readjustment of its debts.
6. Except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement, no action, suit, proceeding,
inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, regulatory
agency, public board or body, is pending or, to the best of the Developer's
knowledge, threatened, in any way seeking to restrain or enjoin the development of
the property within the District or in any way seeking to invalidate or set aside any
final or vesting tentative maps on land in the District.
7. Except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement, to the best of the
Developer's knowledge, no other public debt secured by a tax or assessment on the
land in the District is in the process of being authorized and no assessment districts or
community facilities districts have been or are in the process of being formed which
include any portion of the land within the District.
8. Except as disclosed in writing to the Underwriter and the City, to the best of the
Developer's knowledge, based upon due inquiry, there are no events of monetary
default or events which with the passage of time would constitute a monetary default
under any loan or similar credit arrangement to which the Developer or any of its
members is a party or to which any of its properties are subject.
9. The Developer has duly authorized and executed the Funding Agreement and will,
prior to the Closing Date, execute the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
(collectively, the "Developer Agreements"), and upon execution such Developer
Agreements will be the valid obligations of the Developer, enforceable against the
Developer in accordance with their respective terms, and none of the documents
which govern the Developer would cause such Developer Agreements to be invalid
or unenforceable against the Developer in accordance with their terms; and no event
has occurred which, with the passage of time, would constitute a default by the
Developer of any of its obligations under the Developer Agreements.
C-2
DOCSOC\984961 v 1~22245.0143
10. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in
the Bond Purchase Agreement to be entered into between the District and Stone &
Youngberg LLC relating to the sale of the Bonds.
OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California limited
partnership
By: Otay Ranch Development LLC, a California
limited liability company
Its: General Partner
By:.
Title:
C-3
DOCSOC~984961 v 1 ~22245.0143
EXHIBIT D
OPINION OF DEVELOPER COUNSEL
[CLOSING DATE]
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista, California
Stone & Youngberg LLC
San Diego, California
Re: $ City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otc0/Ranch
Village Six) 2003 Special Tax Bonds
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as counsel for Otay Project, L.P., a California limited partnership
(the"Developer"), in connection with its participation in a real estate development (the
"Development"), located in the incorporated area of the City of Chula Vista (the "City"), a portion of
the financing for which is proposed to be provided through the use of the proceeds of the above-
referenced bonds (the "Bonds") being issued by Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Otay Ranch
Village Six) (the "District"). The Bonds are being sold to Stone & Youngberg LLC as the
underwriter (the "Underwriter"). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this opinion
have the respective meanings ascribed to those terms in the Bond Purchase Agreement (as hereinafter
defined).
In rendering the opinions hereinafter expressed, we have reviewed and examined the
following documents:
1. the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of , 2003, between the
Underwriter and the District (the "Bond Purchase Agreement");
2. all District Documents as defined in the Bond Purchase Agreement;
3. the Official Statement, dated ,2003, relating to the Bonds (the "Official
Statement");
4. the Certificate of the Developer, dated _, 2003, executed by the Developer
pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement;
5. the Developer Agreements referenced in the Certificate of Developer described in (4)
above (the "Developer Documents");
6. the partnership agreement of Otay Project, L.P. (the "Partnership Agreement");
7. such other agreements and documents as we deemed necessary in order to render the
opinions set forth below.
D-1
DOCSOC\984961 v 1~22245.0143
In conducting our examination, we have assumed, without investigation: (i) the genuineness
of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, the conformity to
original documents of all documents submitted to us as certified or photostatic copies, and the
authenticity of the originals from which such copies were made; and (ii) that there are no oral or
written terms or conditions agreed to by the City and the Developer which would expand or modify
the respective rights and obligations of the City or the Developer set forth in the Funding Agreement
or which would have an effect on the opinions rendered herein.
We have not made or undertaken to make any investigation as to the state of title to the
Development, and we express no opinion with respect to title to such Development. We have made
such examination of California law and the law of the United States of America as we deem relevant
for the proposes of this opinion. We have not considered the effect, if any, of the laws of any other
jurisdiction upon the matters covered by this opinion.
Based on and subject to the foregoing, and based on our examination of such questions of
law as I have deemed appropriate under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that:
(i) Otay Project, L.P. is a duly formed and validly existing limited partnership under the
laws of the State of California, is duly qualified to transact business in the State of California, and is
possessed of full power and authority to conduct its business as presently conducted and as
contemplated to be conducted by the Partnership Agreement and to own its properties (including,
without limitation, the Development);
(ii) the Developer has full power and authority to execute, deliver and perform the
obligations set out in the Developer Documents, which have been duly authorized, executed and
delivered by the Developer, and when executed by the other parties thereto will be the legally valid
and binding obligations of the Developer enforceable in accordance with their terms, except as such
enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, fraudulent
conveyance or similar laws, or by legal or equitable principles relating to or limiting creditors' rights
generally;
(iii) the execution and delivery of the Developer Documents and compliance with the
provisions thereof by the Developer will not result in a violation of, a breach of, or a default under
the Partnership Agreement or, to our knowledge, of any trust agreement, mortgage, deed of trust,
note, lease, commitment, agreement or other instrument to which the Developer is a party, or, to our
knowledge, any order, rule or regulation of any court or other governmental body having jurisdiction
over the Developer, the breach of which might have a materially adverse effect on the ability of the
Developer to perform its obligations under the Developer Documents;
(iv) to our knowledge, there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation by or
before any court, governmental agency, public board or body, pending or threatened, against the
Developer (a) which affects or seeks to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the development by the Developer
of the Development, or (b) in which the Developer or any of its members may be adjudicated as
bankrupt or discharged from any or all of its debts or obligations or granted an extension of time to
pay its debts or a reorganization or readjustment of its debts, or (c) which seeks to grant an extension
of time to pay the Developer's debts, or (d) seeks to effect a reorganization or readjustment of the
Developer's debts; and
D-2
DOCSOC\984961 v 1~22245.0143
(v) to our knowledge, the statements contained in the Official Statement relating to the
Development and the Developer (excluding therefrom the financial and statistical data included
therein) do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required
to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading (except as to financial information contained therein, as to
which no view is expressed).
Although we are licensed to practice law in California, we do not purport to be an expert in,
or to express any opinion herein concerning, any law other than the law of the State of California and
the federal law of the United States of America. This opinion is limited to the matters expressly set
forth herein, and no opinion is implied or may be inferred beyond the matters expressly stated herein.
This opinion is as of the date shown above. We have not undertaken, and hereby disclaim
any obligation, to advise the parties to whom this opinion is addressed, or to whomever else may
(with prior written approval) seek to rely upon it and its contents, of any change in any matter stated
in this opinion subsequent to the date hereof.
This opinion is furnished solely for the benefit of addressees and may not be relied upon by
any other person nor may this opinion or any copy hereof be distributed to any other person, without
my express prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
Respectfully submitted,
D-3
DOCSOC5984961 v I X22245.0143
MEMORANDUM
September 15, 2003
TO: Dave Rowlands, City Manager
George Krempl, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Cliff Swanson, Director of Engineeringff
SUBJECT: Item #17 on 9/16/03 Council Agenda ~-
Item #I 7 (CFD 081 Resolution of Issuance) needs to be pulled from the "Consent" calendar and
added to "Action". According to Warren Diven, the resolution approving the acquisition
agreement (17A) may be adopted on the consent calendar, but issuance of bonds (17B) may not
be adopted by consent.
J :\En gineerXAGENDA~Pull #17, 9-16-03,doc
~ Fie~ldrnan, Rolapp & ~ssociates
~',tL,~L ~,~tDMa~ September 16, 2003
T.o~,sc ,O.NSEN Mr. George Krempl 1~ lZ~
AssiSt Ci~ M~er "'~
mo~s ~. vm~s City of Chula Vi~
,,~m.~ i sc.~,~ 276 Fou~ Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~00 ~,~ ,m~ Dear ~. ~empl:
su,,,0 ~s le~er is in respo~e to the Omy PrQect, LLC (~e "Developer") request, dated
,m~[, c~ ~,~.~ Au~st 20, 2003, ~t ~e CiW of Chula Vi~ (~e "Ci~") accept a value-to-lien ratio of
*~,.~o.a50o less ~ 4:1 for po~iom of Co~uniW Facihties Disthct No. 08-I ~l~ing ~e~ R-
m~.~.a~:~ 7A, R-7B, R-8, R-gB, R-9D, ~d ~-1). ~e ~mver is being reque~ed due to ~e fact
~at par~ls of l~d omed by ~e Developer ~d one merc~nt bu~der represeming
appro~mately 52% of the CFD obligation, have a vMue-to-lien ratios of 3.5 h l, 3.73:1
~oamta~ c*uma~*o,.ct ~d 3.37:1 based on ~ appmisM ~ted J~e 15, 2003 ~d debt bond s&ing esti~tes of
~;-*n.~0,s September 15, 2003. ~e CiW's Statement of Go~s ~d Policies for Co~umty
ms2;.ss~.soss Facilities Disthcts ~es ~at ~e value-to-lien ratio for a Co--umw Facilities District
mu~ be at l~t 4:1 for ~e overall CFD ~d for develophg are~ for which no f~l
subdivision map ~ been filed. ~e City Council ~y however, approve bond issu~ce
C.~TE~E~ where ~e v~ue-to-lien is less ~ 4:1, but ~ter ~ 3:1 if~t action is deemed
~nO~L ~s~m~o~ fimcially prudent. ~e overall value to lien ratio for CFD 08-I at 4.57:1 complies with
Cib, policy, ~e waiver is needed for ~e pl~g are~ previously refe~ed to.
F~CE ~V~SO~S Our tim reco~ends to s~d the City Council ~at a waiver of the 4:1 value-to-lien
policy be approved b~ed on ~e followbg:
i. Development is underway within the Community Facilities District Model homes
were complete or under construction on all but four planning areas (R-5B, R-8. R-9B
and R-9D). Construction has begun on some planning areas with initial home sales
closings anticipated to occur in September of 2003. Following is a brief development
status of the planning areas that axe below the 4:1 value to lien ratio (planmng Areas
R-7A, R-7B, R-8, R-9B, R-gD, and MU-l) as of August 15, 2003:
· R-7A: Model homes are currently under construction and building permits for 15
duplex buildings are scheduled to be pulled.
R-7B: Triplex models are currently under construction and building permits for
12 triplex building are scheduled to be pulled.
· R-8:288 condominium homes are being processed for building permits
· R-9B: Currently under review by the City's Design Review Committee. Model
homes construction anticipated to begin by end of 2003.
· R-9D: Model homes construction anticipated to begin by end of 2003.
This status of physical development indicates that further diversification of
ownership should continue and that value within planning areas of the C.F.D. should
continue to increase.
Mr. George Krempl
September 87 2003
Page 2
2. The mapping process within the Community Facilities District is well underway. As
of August 15, 2003, "B" Maps have been approved on all but two plarming areas, R-8
and R-9B. Of the two planning areas without approved "B" Maps, R-8 is currently
approved for 336 units of apartments and R-9B for 159 condominium units due to
approval of an "A" map. A "B" map would be required to build the proposed 288
units of condominium units on R-8. R-9B is going through the City's Design Review
process. A "B" map would be required for R-9B only if a change in housing type
were proposed, such as changing to single family detached on fee simple lots. This
progress indicates financial commitment to the project and leads to anticipation of
finalizing construction.
3. Increased value since June 15, 2003. All value to lien ratios, listed within the
Preliminary Official Statement are based on an appraisal with a date of value of June
15, 2003. In an August 27, 2003 letter to the City, the appraiser details physical
improvements completed between June 15, 2003 and August 15, 2003 and
documents costs expended during this period. It is highly probable that value to lien
calculations based on an August 15, 2003 date of value would be greater than value
to lien calculations based on the June 15, 2003 date of value. Therefore, the three
value to lien ratios currently less than 4:1 would be closer to or in excess of 4: I if a
later date of value were utilized.
As a result of the above, I feel it is appropriate to recommend to the City Council that it
waive the 4:1 value-to-lien ratio policy for some of the Planning Areas within C.F.D. No.
08-I. This recommendation is based upon specific circumstances and should not decrease
the commitment of the City to the adopted 4:1 value-to-lien policy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
CC: Maria Kachadoorian
Nadine Mandery
Dino Serafini
Warren Diven
Bill Huck
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution waiving the formal selection process and approving an
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Hon Consulting, for the
provision of Environmental Consultant Services required for various
Capital Improvement Program projects, and authorizing the Mayor to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering ~
Acting Director of Planning and Building
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~.~,ge/ (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
The item before the City Council is a request to approve an agreement with Hon Consulting
for the provision of environmental consulting services required to coordinate the preparation of
environmental documents, for various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. There is
currently an immediate need for the consultant's services to facilitate the preparation of
environmental documents required for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt resolution waiving the formal selection process and approving an
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Hon Consulting, for the provision of
Environmental Consultant Services required for various Capital Improvement Program
projects; and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer is a 14,000 feet sewer line that is currently being proposed to
serve the Wolf Canyon Basin. In the early part of 2000, developers within the basin
approached the City to begin the planning, design and construction effort required to facilitate
the construction of this facility. Since the City was just beginning the initial planning effort for
the Salt Creek project at that time, the intent was to plan for both facilities concurrently.
Consequently, on May 2, 2000 Council awarded a contract for the preparation of the design
plans and environmental documents required for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk
Sewer and the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer to Dudek & Associates.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 9/16/03
The first major effort for these projects was the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that analyzed impacts from both projects. The first draft of the Salt Creek
Project EIR was a joint EIR for both the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer (which was analyzed at a
project level detail), and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer (which was analyzed at a program
level detail). Staff later determined that there was insufficient information at that time to
proceed with a joint EIR, and the Wolf Canyon portion of the EIR was deleted in the final
draft.. Subsequently, due to the urgent need to have the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer operational,
staff and consultant resources were re-directed towards the completion of the final plans and
specifications for the Salt Creek project.
In August, of 2002, when the construction of the last phase Salt Creek project was just
beginning, the project team in conjunction with City Management decided that the time had
come to accelerate the planning effort for the design and construction of the Wolf Canyon
Trunk Sewer. At this time, City staff has gathered sufficient amount of information to
proceed with a detailed project level environmental analysis for the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer
project.
Consultant's Role & Responsibility
Although Dudek & Associates will be primarily responsible for the preparation of the
environmental documents required for the project, Katherine Hon, of Hon Consulting is being
retained to act as an "Extension of Staff" to the Planning Department. She will oversee the
preparation of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer EIR to be certain that it is prepared in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, she will also
oversee the work that will be done to prepare the environmental mitigation, monitoring and
reporting plan, and a re-vegetation plan (if required). As earlier stated, her services are needed
immediately for the work related to the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer. However, due to the
fluctuations in the workload in the Planning Department, there may also be a need in the
future to utilize her services on other CIP projects. Council approval of this agreement will
authorize Hon Consulting to provide limited environmental consulting services required for
various CIP projects (if needed).
Justification
The Environmental Section of the Planning & Building Department currently has a substantial
workload dealing with a variety of very complex and high priority projects in the City some of
which include the following projects: General Plan Update, processing of the proposed
development plans for Otay Ranch Villages 2 and 3, McMillin Village 7, the Salt Creek Trunk
Sewer Project and the Wolf Canyon Project. Existing staff resources have been allocated to
these projects with the exception of the Wolf Canyon project.
Due to the urgency of this project (as it relates to the Eastern Urban Center, the proposed
High School and 70-Acre park Site both to be located in Village 7), the department does not
currently have available staff with the level of expertise that this project requires that could be
Page 3, Item ID
Meeting Date 9/16/03
assigned to the project. Hence, the need to retain a Consultant who would be working as an
extension of staff.
Katherine Hon is a Registered Civil Engineer who has been in both engineering and planning
practice for over 22 years. During this period she has worked on a variety of complex projects
and has established an excellent reputation in the industry. Her rather unique background (in
engineering and planning) will be a major asset to the Planning & Building Department in
general and specifically to the Wolf Canyon Project Team. She will be able to grasp all the
complex issues related to the various alternatives being evaluated for the Wolf Canyon project
and then guide the environmental document preparation process and Resource Agency
coordination process. The City's interest will be materially better served by retaining
consultant services rather than by employing the City's formal bid process.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator sent out a notification that the City was looking
for individuals to provide extension of staff services in the environmental section through the
Association of Environmental Professionals email list. Two individuals submitted resumes for
consideration and the Environmental Review Coordinator selected Hon Consulting based on
the strengl;h of Ms Hon's experience with Capital Improvement Projects. Katherine Hon, Hon
Consulting, is a Sole Proprietor, without significant overhead; so, she is able to offer her
services at a very competitive rate. It is currently estimated ihat she will be working on this
project on a part-time basis for a period of one year, at a rate of $90/hr with a budget/contract
amount in the amount of $100,000.
Based on all these issues outlined above, staff is recommending that Council approve the
resolution approving an agreement with Hon Consulting for the provision of consultant
services required for the Wolf Canyon project and other CIP projects (if needed).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Wolf Canyon environmental consultant services will be funded
through a developer deposit account established by McMillin companies. However, in the
future, if Hon Consulting is further required to work on other CIP projects, the services
provided will be funded by the respective CIP project fund.
J:\Engineer\AGENDA\K-Hon-A 113 .ac.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAiVING THE FORMAL SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HON
CONSULTING, FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANT SERVICES REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2000, City Council awarded a contract for the preparation of the
required design plans and environmental documents for construction of Wolf Canyon Trunk
Sewer and Salt Creek Trunk Sewer to Dudek & Associates; and
WHEREAS, City staffhas gathered sufficient information to proceed with a detailed
project level environmental analysis for the Wolf Canyon Tmnl~ Sewer project; and
WHEREAS, environmental consulting services are required to coordinate the preparation
of environmental documents, for various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a need for consultant's services to facilitate the preparation
of environmental documents required for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer; and
WHEREAS, due to the urgency of the project, the lack of available City staff, and
Consultant's experience and skill level, the City's interests will be materially better served by
retaining Consultant rather than be utilizing the City's formal bid process; and
WHEREAS, Dudek & Associates will be primarily responsible for preparation of the
required environmental documents for the project, Katherine Hon, of lion Consulting, is being
retained to act as an "Extension of Staff" to the Planning Department, overseeing preparation of
the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer EIR to ensure it is prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby waive the formal selection process and approves an agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and Hon Consulting for the provision of environmental consultant services
required for various capital improvement program projects, a copy of which shall be kept on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Clifford Swanson AnnV~/-4' '
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:\Attorney\RESO\AGREEMENTS\Environmental CONSULTING SELECTION.doc
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
Dated: ~'(6 ~ 03
Agreement between The City of Chula Vista and Hon Consulting
for the provision of Environmental Consultant Services
Parties and Recital Page(s)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Hon Consulting
For the provision of Environmental Consulting Servicesrequired for various Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Projects.
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated 9/16/2003~ for the purposes of reference only, and
effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such
("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on
the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit
A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A,
paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
Recitals
WHEREAS, implementation of the Planning & Building Department's work plan
necessitates the services of an environmental consultant 'find requires the hiring of an
environmental consultant; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant is uniquely familiar with the 'City's environmental process
and procedures; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to waive the City's formal bidding process as
well as impractical, in that the City is in immediate need of an experienced environmental
consultant; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant, is uniquely qualified to serve as the Consultant for this
contract based on the firm's experience and expertise with environmental impact assessment,
resoume management and mitigation monitoring within this region; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has negotiated the details of this
agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 6.5.2 of the Environmental Review
Procedures; and
WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in
a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to
City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
9/26/01 Page 1
J:\Engineer~AGE N DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties".
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this
agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and
Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined
Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate
this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City
and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional
Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by
Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in
the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise
agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services
or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
9126/01
J:\Enginee6AGENDA\K-Hon-Agreernent.ac.doc Page 2
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the
following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of
which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or
shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage
in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City
as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry
("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as
members of the general public CCross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless
Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. ~'
G._Proof of Insurance Coverage
(I) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of servi6es required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of
Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance
Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Security for Performance
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the
City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager
9/26/01 Page 3
J:\Engineer~AG E NOA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance
Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City
an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to
the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms
of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space
adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark
in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"),
then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with
Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of
thc Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to
achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files
and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees
to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and
with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after
authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's
performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate
9/26/01 Page 4
J:\Engineer~AGEN DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth
in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to th~ governing compensation relationship indicated by a
"checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set
forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses
as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder
is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent
them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof. ~
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per-
formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate
for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of
the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the
consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by
the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to
the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the
effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it
can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
J:\Engineer~AGEN DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc Page 5
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is
deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants
and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by
the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of
interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have
9/26/01 Page 6
J:\Engin eer\AGE N DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of
the Defined Services, or in any property Within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any
property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, '"Prohibited Interest"), other
than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no prormse of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of
this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited
Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for
any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to
be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the
Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for
whom Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by
this Agreement, except only for (i) those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses
(including without limitation, attorney fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful
misconduct of the City its officers, employees, or (ii) with respect to losses arising from
Consultant's professional errors or omissions, those claims arising from the negligence or willful
misconduct of City its officers, employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all
costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not.
Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. ~ that
9/26/01 Page 7
J:\Enginee r~AG ENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and
other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the
City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work
satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice
of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City
by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to
City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions,
Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein
is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any mason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and
unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabo~)~ shall, at the option of the City,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated b~ City as provided in
this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such
termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment
or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the
portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants
identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures,
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole
and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part
under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in
the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall
have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the
Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
9/26/01 Page 8
J:\EngineerXAG E N DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are,
for ail purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be
an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees
are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation
benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal
income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible
for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
14. Administrative CLaims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City
unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the
City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.3~ of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisionsof which are incorporated by
this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the
implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing
party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable
attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party
who is awarded substantially the relief sought.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include,
or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in
dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or
document.
17. Miscellaneous
9/26/01 Page 9
J:\EngineergAGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement,ac.doc
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act
as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals
is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or
salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are
licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United
States mall, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requestecg:,~t the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
D. Entire Agreement
Thi~'Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against
which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it
has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and
that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this
Agreement.
F. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable,
the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
9/26/0 I
J:\Engineer~AG ENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc Page 10
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista
and
Hon Consulting
For the provision of Environmental Consulting Services required for various Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby
indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent
to its terms:
Dated: ., 2003 City of Chula Vista
by:.
Stephen C. Padilla
Mayor
Attest: ' ~
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Ann Moore, City Attorney
Dated: Hon Consulting
Katherine Hon, Owner
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A.
9/26/01 Page 11
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement. ac.doc
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Hon Consulting
1. Effective Date of Agreement: ..September 16, 2003_
2. City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
() Other: : a [insert business
form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant:
Hon Consulting.
5. Business Form of Consultant:
(X) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
( ) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
2226 Dwight Street San Diego, CA 92104
Telephone (619) 294-8990; Fax Number (619) 269-5515
9/26/01 Page 12
J:\engineer~aGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
7. General Duties: Under the direction of the Environmental Review Coordinator Hon
Consulting will function as an Envi?onmental Consultant acting as an extension of the
Environmental Review Section staff on various projects.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work: The primary responsibility of the Environmental
Consultant will be to provide environmental review and assessment support to
City staff pertaining to environmental projects as identified and approved by the
Environmental Review Coordinator. At the direction of City staff, tasks will
include but are not limited to:
a. Coordination and Oversight of the Preparation of Environmental Documents:
As directed by the Environmental Review Coordinator, coordinate and
provide oversight in the preparation of City environmental documents such as
Environmental Impact Reports and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Reports, including preparation of Notices of Preparation, review of screen
check drafts, coordination of public review of documents, preparation of staff
reports to Planning Commission and City Council, review of draft Findings of
Fact and any necessary statements of overriding considerations, mitigation
monitoring reporting programs and re-vegetation plans related to the
environmental document. :'~ ~
b. Preparation of Environmental Documents: As deemed necessary by the
Environmental Review Coordinator, preparation of environmental documents
including Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative
Declarations and Addendums to previously prepared documents for projects
within, but not limited to the Planned Communities located in Eastern Chula
Vista including the Otay Ranch and EastLake, or other areas as deemed
necessary by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
All tasks associated with this contract shall be coordinated with and have prior
authorization by the Environmental Review Coordinator who will be overseeing
administration of the contract. All work performed by the environmental Consultant shall
be performed to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Building.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
9/26/01 Page 13
d:\Engineer~AGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: N/A
Deliverable No. 1:
Deliverable No. 2:
Deliverable No. 3:
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: November 30, 2004
9. Insurance Requirements:
( ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
( ) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
() Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
( ) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
All applicable previous environmental documentation the Environmental Review
Coordinator deems relevant to each assigned task for each project.
11. Compensation:
A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables
set forth below:
Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Pement of Fixed Fee
( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a pementage of
completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase
only the compensation for that phase bas been paid. Any payments made
hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned
to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is
satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the
9/26/01
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc Page 14
compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set
forth in Paragraph 1'9 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase
shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts
Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the
City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the
City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance
payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing
that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the
Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not
convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as
are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of
Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall
not comn?o0nce Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a
Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase Fee for Said phase :
$
1.
$
2.
$
3.
( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of
completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase
only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made
hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned
to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is
satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the
compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set
foFth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase
shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts
Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the
City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the
9/26/0I Page 15
J:\E nginee6AG EN DA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc
City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance
payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing
that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the
Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not
convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay
Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that
Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant
~-' for $100,000.00 including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum
Compensation").
(2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to
("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any
additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and
approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing
additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
Rate Schedule
Category of Employee Name of Consultant Hourly Rate
Project Manager Katherine Hon, P.E $90
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
9/26/O I
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement.ac.doc Page 16
Cost or Rate
Reports, not to exceed $ : Cost + 15%
Copies, not to exceed $ : Cost + 15%
Travel, not to exceed $ $0.32/mile
Printing, not to exceed $. Cost + 15%
Postage, not to exceed $ Cost + 15%
Delivery, not to exceed $. Cost + 15%
Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $ : N/A
Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: Cost +15%
not to exceed $. :
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Consultant: Katherine Hon, P.E, Hon Consulting
14. Liquidated Damages Rate: N/A
( ) $.__ per day.
( ) Other:
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
( X ) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income.
Category No. 2. Interests in real property.
Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale
of real property.
Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of
the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of
9/26101 Page 17
Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of
the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No. 7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project
Property, if any: None
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants: None
18. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
(X) Monthly ·
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
(X) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C. City's Account Number: To be assigned after agreement is processed
19. Security for Performance
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:.
Amount: $_
( ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the
contrary requiring the .payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City
shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention
9/26/01 Page 18
J:\engineer~aGENDA\K-Hon-Agreement2.ac.doc
Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention
Release Event, listed below} has occurred:
( ) Retention Percentage: 10%
( ) Retention Amount: $.
Retention Release Event:
(X) Completion of All Consultant Services to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
( ) Other:
9/26/01 Page 19
J:\engineer~aGEN DA\K-Hon-Agreement. ac.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item [~
Meeting Date 09/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Chula Vista Tract No. 92-02, Salt
Creek Ranch, Neighborhood 8, Unit 4 Final Map; accepting on behal£o£the
City of Chula Vista the various public easements, all as granted on said map
within said subdivision, and approving the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for the completion of improvements required by said Subdivision
and authorizing the Mayor to execute said Agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~,~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On October 6, 1992, by Resolution 16834, City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Chula Vista Tract No. 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch ("Project"). The Final Map for Neighborhood 8,
Unit 4, and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement is now before Council for consideration and
approval. The Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the project was approved by
Resolution 2001-105. The developer is McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch, LLC.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the Final Map, the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement and authorizing the Mayor to execute said Agreement for Salt
Creek Ranch, Neighborhood 8, Unit 4.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Final Map
Neighborhood 8, Unit 4 of the Salt Creek Ranch Development (also known as the Rolling Hills
Ranch Development) is generally located south of Proctor Valley Road and east of Hunte Parkway
(see Attachment 1). The final map includes all private streets over which lays a City of Chula Vista
assignable and irrevocable general utility and access easement. This map contains 27 single-family
detached residential lots and 2 lettered private street lots ("A' and "B"). The total acreage is 7.315
gross acres.
The ~nal map for the subdivision has been reviewed by the Engineering Depa~ment and Department
of Planning & Building and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map. Approval of the map constitutes acceptance by the City of all easements within the
subdivision. There are no public streets to be accepted by the City.
t9'-I
Page 2, Item [4
Meeting Date 09/16/03
This map for 27 Dwelling Units is governed by the Building Permit Monitoring Agreement. The
agreement provides for 120 permits to be issued in the year ending 03/31/04. These 27 units are
within the 120 permit limit and do not exceed it.
Final Map Agreement
The developer has executed the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the map and has provided
bonds to guarantee construction of the required improvements and monumentation. The developer
has paid all applicable PAD fees. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement is attached and bonds
are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The improvement securities to guarantee labor, material, faithful performance, and monumentation
are as follows:
Public Improvements Labor & Materials Faithful [
Performance Monumentation
Neighborhood 8, Units 2 & 4 $175,000.00 $175,000.00 ] $6,000
The Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Neighborhood 8, Unit 2 (approved
pursuant to City Council Resolution 2001-105) encompassed the area of Unit 4 and runs with the
land to satisfy Tentative Map Condition Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 27, 55, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71,73, 83, 87,
93, 94, 102, 108, 121,123, 124, 125 and 126 of Resolutions 16834 and 2000-190 for Chula Vista
Tract No 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch. Resolution 2000-190 limits the number of units that may be
mapped before certain street improvements have been constructed. This map is in compliance with
the threshold set forth.
The Developer's Disclosure Statement is attached as Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. All staff costs associated with processing of
Improvement plans and final maps will be reimbursed from the Developer's deposits.
Attachments: Attachment 1: Plat- Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 8, Unit 4
Attachment 2: Developer's Disclosure Slatement
JSEngineer~LANDDEV~ProjectsLRolling Hills Ranch\Neighborhood 8 Unit 4~A113 RHR N8U4.doc
NEIGHBORHOOD 8 UNIT 4 o 400 800 12oo
SCALE 1"=400'
HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES
SAN DIEGO,
R:\0¢19\C1~ OVE~L4y NBU4.dwg[ 1220]Sep-OJ-2005:14:~ - WO 141J-48
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the
Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain
ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be
filed. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch, LLC
Standard Pacific Corp.
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
McMillin Companies, LLC Bank One, NA
Merced Partners Limited Partnership
Standard Pacific Corp
3. If any person* identified pursuant to ( 1 ) above is a non-profit organizhtion or {m~t, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or tmstor of the trust.
4. Pleaseidemi~ eve~ person, including anyagems, employees, eonsultants, orindependem contractors
you haveassigned ~ representyoube~re the City in this matter.
Dave Gatzke Rodney Lubojasky
Todd Galarneau Tom Tomlinson
Frank Zaidle
5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official* * of the City of
Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes__ No XX
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official* * may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member
of the Chula Vista City Council? NoXX~ Yes __ If yes, which Council member?
Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula
Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal
debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes __ No XX
If Yes, which official* * and what was the nature of item provided?
Sign c or Applicant
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant
* Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, anyother county, city, municipality, district, or
other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a
board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING CHULA VISTA TRACT
N0.92~02, SALT CREEK RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD 8, UNIT
4 FINAL MAP; ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY THE
VARIOUS PUBLIC EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista hereby finds that certain map survey entitled Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch,
Neighborhood 8, Unit 4, and more particularly described as follows:
Lots "D", "T" and "U" of Chula Vista Tract No.92-02 Salt Creek Ranch
Neighborhood 8, Unit 2 according to Map 14193 in the City of Chula Vista,
County of Stu~ Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 24, 2001.
Area: 7.315Acres No. of Lots; 29
Numbered Lots: 27 Lettered L0tsi
Open Space Lots: 0.0 Acres
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and
that said map and subdivision of land shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the City of
Chula Vista the various easements, all as granted on said map within this subdivision, subject to
the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista be and she
is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said
Council has approved said subdivision map, and that those certain easements, as granted thereon
and shown on said map within said subdivision, are accepted on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
as herein above stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Clerk be and she is hereby directed to transmit
said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement
dated September 16, 2003 for the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of
which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford Swanson ArfnS~loore ~'
Director of Engineering City Attorney
I:Attorney\Reso\Map\CVT 92-02 Final Map
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
A~n Moore~
City Attorney
Dated: ~'--(' O -- O ~3
Subdivision Improvement Agreement fbr Chula Vista
T~act NO 92~02, Salt Creek Ranch, Neighborhood 8,
Unit 4 Final Map
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance
to a public agency of less than a fee interest
for which no cash consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ day of ,2003, by and
between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and
MCMILLIN ROLLING HILLS RANCH, LLC., 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA
91950, hereinafter called "Subdivider" with reference to the facts set forth below, which Recitals
constitute a part of this Agreemeot;
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as
ROLLING HILLS RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD 8 UNIT 4 (CVT 92-02) pursuant to the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the
provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and
recordation o f subdivision map; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said-.map is finally approved by the Council of
the City of ChuIa Vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public
improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed in
subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the Council for purpose of
recording in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative
thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an approved
improvement security to insure the performance of said work pursuant to the requirements of
Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at
Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements and/or land development work
required in said subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed by said Council; and
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of
said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will
install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public improvement work required by
City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities
as approved by the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved, subject to
certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolution No. 1992-16834, approved on
the 6th day of October, 1992 ("Tentative Map Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and
completion of said public improvement work have been prepared and submitted to the City
Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 00025-01 through 00025-32 inclusive, on file in the office
of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements according
to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($350,000.00).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS' MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, .ag obligation the burden of which
encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and
requirements of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause to be done and
performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under
the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public
improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and adjoining said
subdivision, including the improvements described in the above Recitals ("Improvement Work");
and will furnish the necessary materials therefore, all in strict conformity and in accordance with
the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the
City Engineer and as described in the above Recitals this reference are incorporated herein and
made a part hereof.
2. It is expressly understood and a~eed that all monuments have been or will be
installed within thirty (30) days after the completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work,
and that Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name signs if permanent street
name signs have not been installed.
3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary
materials to be furnished and ali Improvement Work required under the provisions of this
contract to be done on or before the second anniversary date of Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement Work as
set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any buildings or
structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of
clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said subdivision, and such
-2-
certificate shall not be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of
said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said building or structures approved by
the City; provided, however, that the improvement security shall not be required to cover the
provisions of this paragraph.
5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the performance of said
Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the
ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said
work.
6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista,
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a
sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($175,000.00) which
security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider and is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a
sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($175,000.00) to
secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said public
improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and
the bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof.
8. Subdivider fitrther agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista,
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a
sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of SLX
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,000.00) to secure the installation of
monuments, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed within the time
agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used b~, City for the
completion of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with such
specifications herein contained or referred, or at the o~ption of the City, as are approved by the
City Council at the time of engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of completion
by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after certification by the Director
of Finance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required
for payment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the
terms of the improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any difference between
the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of construction
(including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the improvement
security.
10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no case will
the City of Chula Vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of
the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be
liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefore,
except to the limits established by the approved improvement security in accordance with the
requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
1 I. It is further understood and a~eed by Subdivider that any engineering costs
(including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred
by City in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and installation of
Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs and street trees as
required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that
Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money
sufficient to cover said cost.
12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work is fully
completed and accepted by City, Subdivider xvill be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and
any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer lines within the proposed
subdivision. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public
improvements for a period of one year fi'om date of final acceptance and correct any and all
defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider,
its agents or employees in the perfom~ance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the
work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public
improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance
shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove.
13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee
thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts
or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement.
Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from
any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising
out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this
agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security shall not be required to
cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless
shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from
owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction of said
subdivision and the public improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages
resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of
the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the
constrttction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing for any or
all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such
damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for the construction of
the subdivision pursuant to said approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph
shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and
effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of the improvements.
14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim; action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, advisory
agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought
within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
15. Assignability. Upon request of the Subdivider, any or all on-site duties and
obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider's successor in interest if the City
Manager in his/her sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect
the City's interest. The City Manager in his/her sole discretion may, if such assignment is
requested, permit a substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place and stead of the
original securities described herein so long as such substituted securities meet the criteria for
security as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
-S-
SIGNATURE PAGE
SUBDIVISION 12MPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
ROLLING HILLS RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD 8 UNIT 4
(CrT 92-02)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed
the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MCMILLIN ROLLING HILLS R2x2qCH,
LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
a California limited partnership
Its: Manager
Stephen C. Padilla By: Corky McMillin Construction Service
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista Inc.
a Califomia corporation
Its: General Partner
ATTEST By:
Susan B'i~elo w
City Clerk Its:
Approved-as to form by By:
Ann Moore
City Attorney
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
-6-
}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO }
On September 2, 2003 , before me, E. Breid, Notary Public personally
appeared Frank Zaidle and David C. Gatzke , personally known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument
the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Subdivision Improvement Agreement
Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 8 Unit 4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance
Form: Bond
Amount: $175,000.00
Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor:
Form: Bond
Amount: $175,000.00
Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments:
Form: Bond
Amount: $6,000.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by
City Attorney
hnprovement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
J:\Attorney\SIA\Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 8
-7-
CHUI. A¥1SI'A COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 9/16/2003
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Ratifying Submittal of a Regional Household
Hazardous Waste Grant in the Amount of $300,000 to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Conservation & Environmental ServicesX"~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager(g/e2_e (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X )
BACKGROUND: The City received a regional grant of $300,000 from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in August of 2001. The grant funded
operating costs for the Regional Household Hazardous Waste facility at the City's Corporation
Yard through March of 2003. Staff submitted a new regional grant application for $300,000 in
May 2003 to serve, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City for the period of
October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2006. CIWMB staff has recemly informed the City that it
received the highest ranking of all applicants within the State and is being recommended for
funding. The City's resolution authorizing submittal of the grant expired shortly after the grant
was submitted and the State has requested that the City adopt a new resolution authorizing the
submittal of the gram.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution as recommended by the State.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission (RCC) reviewed and approved the program design as part of the Household
Hazardous Waste Element and the first grant establishing the Household Hazardous Waste
Facility.
DISCUSSION:
The household hazardous waste (HHW) encourages residems to reduce the amoum of HHW
waste they use and the amoum of HHW products left over from their use. The program also
funds HHW public education the regional HHW facility, which provides residems with a safe
and convenient option for proper disposal of unused HHW materials. The HHW facility at
1800 Maxwell Road is open Saturdays from 9 a.m. to lp.m., except major holidays. The
facility provides a safe and convenient disposal option for residents to properly dispose of up to
a maximum of 15-gallons or 125-pounds of paints, solvents, pesticides, anti-freeze, used oil,
oil filters, transmission fluid, household cleaners, dry cell batteries or other household items
marked toxic or harmful if swallowed. Residents are asked to make a $5 co-paymem per load
and the City pays the remaining $67 per load cost. Residems are required to make larger co-
paymems for loads that exceed the 15-gallon/125-pound maximum for a single visit or for
multiple loads in a calendar year.
Page 2, Item c~O
Meeting Date 9/16/2003
The City has received approximately $700,000 in household hazardous waste (HHW) funding
to develop and operate the household hazardous waste facility. During the last grant cycle
more than (50) fifty South Bay households used the facility per week. Since the grant expired
that number has dropped to 25 or less per week. The HHW grant funds public education,
advertising and the increased disposal costs that are generated as a result of greater facility use.
In the last grant cycle the facility added sharps (syringes), and universal wastes such as
fluorescent lights. The previous grant also paid for a portion of the region's costs for
collecting and disposing of cathode ray tubes (CRT's); computer monitors and television
picture tubes which, have been declared a hazardous waste and may not be disposed of with
regular trash. Grant funds were also used to develop and distribute a "moving guide,"
general information brochure, poim of purchase displays, and movie and newspaper
advertisemems.
This grant award will cominue to fund the costs of operating the HHW facility. It will also
pay the costs of translating and reprinting many of the HHW education materials in Spanish.
The grant will also fund a series of "toxic free" gardening classes that are being incorporated
imo the new compost training facility recently built at the Nature Center.
Council previously adopted a resolution that authorized staff to apply for this class of grant
from 1998 through June 2003. The proposed resolution allows the City to submit Used Oil,
Household Hazardous Waste and related grants through fiscal year 2008/09. The total gram
request is $300,000. The grant allows the City to fund some administrative costs. Any
administrative costs not funded by the City will be funded by a portion of the surcharge for
household hazardous waste and recycling programs applied to the monthly trash rates.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact as a result of the recommended action
to adopt the attached resolution. When the grant is awarded, staff will return to Council to
request acceptance of the gram, amend the budget and appropriate the funds for the current
fiscal year.
mtm:HHW
reso-app-hhw-12~ cycle
Attachments
Exhibit A
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD USED OIL & HHW GRANTS
Household Hazardous Waste Grant 2003-04
APPLICATION COVER SHEET
Applica,,[: The South County Household Hazardous Waste Partnership (SCHHWP) with Chula Vista as the lead agency
Depar[ment or Agency: Administration - Special Operations Division
Street Address: 276 4~ Avenue, Attention: City Manager's Office
Mailing Address (if different from street address):
City & Zip Code: Chula Vista, 91910 County: San Diego
IRegional Participants (if applicable): Chula Vista (lead agency), Coronado, County of San Diego, Imperial Beach and
National City are primary participants. This will also be the closest program and available facility for additional residents
from the City of San Diego South Bay region (approximately 200,000 residents), The City of San Diego has been offered
equal access and is expected to substantially increase usage of SCHHWP facilities/programs,
Primary Contact (Name & Title): Manuel Medrano, Recycling Specialist
Phone: (619)409-5~28 . Fax: (619) 585-5716
Email Address: manuelm@ci.chuia-vista.ca.us
Signature Authority (Name & Title): Michael T. Meacham, Special Operations Manager
I Phone: (619) 691-5031 Fax: (619) 409-5884
Email Address: mmeacham@cLchula-vista.ca.us
Consultant if applicable (Name & Title): Derek D. Turbide, Executive Director of I Love A Clean San Diego, Inc.
Phone: (858)467~0103, extension 3004 Fax: (858)467-1314
Brief Description of Project (3-5 Sentences): The goals of this project are 1) To provide equal access to public recycling
and disposal services for household hazardous waste (HHW), electronic waste (e-waste), and universal waste (u-waste) in
the six bordering communities of San Diego County's South County; 2) To expand existing programs to allow for increased
collection of HHW, e-waste and u-waste in small cities, rural and underserved areas 3) To reach out to Spanish speaking
and other underserved residential generators and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) in small cities
rural and underserved areas; and 4) To engage the community to practice source reduction, pollution prevention, and
proper recycling/disposal through the implementation of a seamless Countywide publicity and education campaign.
Total Grant Request: $ 300,000
Certification:
[ Certification: I dectare, under penalty of perjury, that all information submitted for CIWMB's consideration for allocation of grant funds
is tree and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~ ,.. ., _ ~ ..~
Signature of person as authorized in the resolution:./~'.-~',~-./'?/...-~. ~~ Date: May 22, 2003
Type or print name and title: David D. Rowlands Jr., City Manaqer
-~ - (Check the box and initial.) Applicant certifies that if awarded a grant it shall in the performance
of the Grant Agreement conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or
the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels,
including minority populations and Iow-income populations of the State.
Expenditure Itemization
Household Hazardous Waste Fiscal Year 2003 / 2004
CRv of Chula Vista (South County Lead Jurisdiction~
Permanent Collection Facilities
Equipment - Relocation and Refurbishment of Coronado Facility $ 15,000
Permanent HHW Collection Facility Recycling and Disposal Operations $ 111,000
Total Permanent Collection Facilities~
Temporary Collection Events
Mobile/Curbside E-Waste Collection $ 12,000
E-Waste Collection Events - 2 ~ $10,000 each $ 20,000
Total Temporary Collection Events~_ 32,000
Publicity and Education
Printing $ 27,500
Flyers / Surveys - 10,000 copies ~ .08 a piece
Less Toxic Yard and Garden Workbooks (360 ~5.00 per book)
* HHW Booklet - Spanish
* Moving Guides - English & Spanish
* U-Waste / CED Publication
* Billing Inserts - Bi-lingual
Advertising
Movie Ads $ ] 2,000
Premiums
* Pens $ I 1,579
* PC Calendars
* Sponges
Pencils
Distribution
Booth Fees (15 events at $100 booth fee per event) $ 1,500
Consultants for Public Education Component $ 62,421
Total Publicity and Education~
Stormwater Mitigation Program
N/A
Total Storm Water Mitigation Program[ $ ]
Personnel/Other Costs
HHW/E-waste Temporary Expert Professional $ 27,000
Total Personnel / Other Casts~
TOTAL OVERALL BUDGET [ $ 300,000
* Quote estimates are attached.
Introduction: Project Summary
In an effort to provide a wide-reaching, efficient and cost-effective approach to municipal household hazardous
waste (HHW), electronic waste (E-Waste), and universal waste (U-Waste) education, recycling and disposal,
the City of Chula Vista is submitting this application on behalf of the South County Household Hazardous
Waste Partnership. The South County Household Hazardous Waste Partnership, hereafter referred to as
SCHI-IWP, includes Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, Imperial Beach and the County of San Diego's
South County communities. Additionally, elements of this partnership program will serve bordering City of
San Diego communities. This expansive regional program will provide a community vision for both pollution
prevention and source reduction. Furthermore, it will complement both local and regional HHW, E-Waste and
used oil collection and education programs while proactively educating the community about future regulated
toxic materials including universal waste (U-Waste) and consumer electronic devices (CED's).
The proposed project will expand promotion and use of the new South Bay and the Coronado collection
facilities; relocate the Coronado facility; provide mobile and temporary E-Waste collection events; and develop
a bilingual public education campaign that utilizes a variety of community-based social marketing techniques
designed to increase awareness and affect change. This application was developed to complement San Diego
County's additional regional HHW and E-Waste education, recycling and disposal efforts. Through years of
careful planning and coordination between the SCHHWP and San Diego's East and North County cities and
communities, a truly regional program has arisen; a program with the intent to maximize public access to
disposal and build and maintain a consistent county~vide publicity and education campaign.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RATIFYING SUBMITTAL OF A REGIONAL
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $300,000 TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
WHEREAS, the City received a regional grant of $300,000 from the California Integrated
Waste Management Board in August 2001; and
WHEREAS, staff submitted a regional grant application for $300,000 to serve, Chula
Vista, Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City for the period of October 1, 2003
through March 31, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the proposed resolution allows the City to submit Used Oil, Household
Hazardous Waste and related grants through fiscal year June 30, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
ratify submittal of a Regional Household Hazardous Waste Grant in the amount of $300,000 to the
Cali£omia Integrated Waste Management Board.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Michael Meacham
Director of Conservation & Environmental Services
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~l
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting a preliminary conceptual right-of way
improvement plan for F Street from its intersection with Fourth Avenue to
its terminus at the Bayfront, and directing staff to incorporate the proposal
in future planning documents for final City Council consideration.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~;~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes __No X )
That Council accept a preliminary conceptual right-of way improvement plan for F Street from
its intersection with Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront, and direct staff to incorporate
the proposal in future planning documents for final City Council consideration. This report is
simply intended to identify this corridor ofF Street as an area that has the potential for cohesive
street improvements at an undetermined time in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, Staff recommends that the above item be continued to the September 30, 2003
Council Meeting.
coUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .a..2.
Meeting Date 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Report on future transportation projects submitted to SANDAG for the proposed
TransNet extension
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~J~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager/if_P/c, (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X )
It is recommended that this item be continued to a future date.
J:\engineer\aGENDA\Transnet Extension-cont'd. DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 9-16-03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of an existing
accessory building into an accessory second dwelling unit in
compliance with State Government Code Section 65852.2(b), but
limited in size to 700 square feet. The project site is located at 736
Church Avenue in the Single-Family Residence (R-l) zone.
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Buildin~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~?~C''/'/(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X
)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny the appeal thereby upholding the
Planning Commission's action approving the request but limiting the size of the accessory
second unit to 700 square feet as reflected in the attached Resolution PCC-02-13, based on
the findings and conditions contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission twice heard this request to add onto an existing
garage/workshop and convert it into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling. After
first denying the request, the Commission reconsidered and approved it with a stipulation
limiting the unit to 700 square feet to insure compatibility with the surrounding single
family neighborhood.
DISCUSSION:
Back~ound
The subject property was originally developed with a house and detached two-car garage.
In 1998, a previous property owner received a building permit to add a workshop and
bathroom to the garage resulting in an accessory structure that is 812 square feet in size. In
June 2001, Code Enforcement sent a violation notice to the current owner, Mr. Contreras,
regarding the illegal conversion of the garage/workshop/bathroom into a dwelling unit. In
September 2001, Mr. Contreras filed a conditional use permit application for an accessory
dwelling unit that would add 498 square feet to the existing detached structure (906 square
feet of dwelling and 404 square feet of garage for a total of 1310 square feet). As part of the
Page 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
proposed expansion work the garage space would be reconverted into a useable parking area
as required for the existing house, and an open parking space would be provided on-site for
the extra unit. No efforts were made to correct the code violation involving the garage
conversion prior to the public hearings.
After a series of public hearings between March and June 2002, the Planning Commission
denied the project on June 26 without prejudice because the size of the accessory second
unit appeared out of scale with neighborhood and therefore would not be compatible with
surrounding residential uses. The Commission also expressed concerns about the safety of
the existing building since changes had been made without benefit of permits or inspections.
The Commission's findings are included in the June 26 2002, resolution included as
Attachment 3. In hearing discussions, the Commission noted that the applicant had not
made any effort to correct the violations on the property.
Mr. Contreras appealed the decision, but requested that the appeal be held in abeyance
while he corrected the violation by obtaining a permit and converting a portion of the illegal
unit back into a two-car garage. The work was done and Code Enforcement closed their
case on the property in November 2002. Since the Planning Commission mentioned the
code violations on the property, staff and the applicant agreed that before taking the appeal
to City Council it might have been beneficial to first ask the Commission to reconsider the
case. As a result, the application was placed on the April 23 .Planning Commission agenda
for rehearing. Notices were sent to the neighbors advising them of this hearing; however,
the Commission's agenda for that evening was quite lengthy and the matter was continued
to the May 14th meeting date at which time action was taken (See attached minutes).
Despite the City's adoption in January of this year of a local ordinance regulating accessory
second units with a 650 square feet size limit, and the Planning Commission's previous
action to deny the request with a finding that the size of the proposed unit would not be
compatible with the neighborhood, Mr. Contreras' has chosen not to alter the proposed size
and continues to request a 906 square foot unit. This is permissible because his application
was filed under the State guidelines for second units prior to the adoption of the City's
ordinance.
This hearing was originally scheduled for August 19; however, Mr. Contreras requested a
cor, tinuance to September. Since the hearing had already been advertised for the August
date, the City Council opened the hearing and heard testimony from one neighborhood
representative. In response to that testimony which raised questions as to how the City had
handled complaints and violations associated with the subject property, staff has attached a
chronology prepared by the Code Enforcement section. While the garage issue has been
resolved, no final enforcement action has been taken on the conversion of the workshop to a
living unit pending the outcome of this hearing.
Site Characteristics
The property is flat rectangular lot, 6,639 square-feet in size that contains an existing 904
square-foot single-family dwelling, and a detached accessory building to the rear of the
Page 3, Item No.: ~%
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
house. The accessory building originally consisted of a 404 square-foot garage and a 408
square foot workshop. As noted, the workshop portion of this accessory building has been
converted to a residential use. The uses adjacem to the property include single-family
dwellings to the north, south and east, and commercial to the west.
The commercially zoned lot to the west has an existing structure with a tall masonry wall
abutting the rear property line of the subject property. The proposed accessory unit will be
located in the rear yard behind the existing dwelling and will provide one additional on-site
parking space for the occupants of the unit.
General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
Site: Residential, Low-Medium R-1 Single-family residential
North: Residential, Low-Medium R-1 Single-family residential
South: Residential, Low-Medium R-1 Single-family residential
East: Residential, Low-Medium R-1 Single-family residential
West: Commercial, Retail C-O Administrative Professional Office
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to add 498 square feet to an existing 812 square foot
workshop[.workshop, resulting in a 1310 square foot accessory structure. The residential
unit within that structure would total 906 square feet and would include two bedrooms, a
living room, kitchen and a bathroom. As noted previously, the proposed accessory second
unit has been analyzed using the state guidelines because the application was processed
prior to the City's recently adopted ordinance regulating accessory second units. The
analysis in accordance with State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I) is as
outlined below:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented. - No Parcel Map has been
applied for to divide interest in the land, therefore the accessory second unit cannot
be sold.
(]3) The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use. - The accessory second unit
would be in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) zone.
(C) The lot contains an existing Single-family dwelling. - The subject property complies.
(D) The accessory second unit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot.
- The proposed accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot as a
single-family dwelling.
(E) The increased floor area of the attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the
existing living area. - The accessory second unit will be detached from the existing
dwelling and is therefore not subject to the 30 percent limitation.
(F) The total 'area of the detached unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet - Both the
Planning Commission approved unit of 700 square feet and the applicant's proposal
for 906 square feet would meet the State standard for maximum size.
Page 4, Item No.: ~'~d
Meeting Date: 9/'16/03
(G) Requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan
review, t`ees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the
zone. - The proposed detached second accessory unit will comply with all o£ the
required R-1 development standards, as outlined in the table below:
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ALLOWED/REQUIRED PROPOSED
Height 28 i~eet (2.5 stories) 13 feet
Lot Coverage 40 percent 33 percent
Setbacks:
Front 15 £eet 26 £eet
Rear 20 £eet 22 i~eet
Sides 5 t~eet each side 5 £eet and 4 t~eet*
Parking 3 space 3 space
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 45 percent 33 percent
· Section 19.58.020(B)(1) states that a one-story accessory building may disregard any rear or
side yard setback requirements it located in the rear 30 percent oi~ the lot, or back or' the ~ront 70
£eet of the lot.
(H) Local building code requirements £0r detached dwellings, as appropriate. - The
existing structure was constructed with a building permit and any additions or
modifications will be reviewed for conformance with building codes upon submittal
ot`permits based upon approval ot`this Conditional Use Permit.
(I) Approval by local health officer is required it' a private sewage disposal system is
utilized - Sewer service will be provided by the City of Chula Vi~sta (not a private
system). There is no requirement t`or local health official approval.
The proposed 906 square toot accessory second unit technically satisfies State standards for
this type ot` housing. However, in the case o£ unit size, the State standards represent a
maximum permitted size subject to the findings by a local agency ot`appropriateness. Given
the City's recently adopted ordinance limiting the size ot` this type unit to 650 square £eet,
and concerns with the compatibility ot` the proposed unit with this neighborhood, the
Planning Commission approved the unit with a limitation oi~ 700 square t`eet. At the
Planning Commission hearings there was much neighborhood opposition to the project
based upon concerns that the larger unit would exacerbate existing parking problems on
Church Street and would be out ot` scale with the neighborhood. In particular, the
Commission noted that the size of the resulting structure would be larger than the existing
house on the site and thus was out of scale with the site and neighborhood.
The neighborhood has remained alert to this request and, as noted in the background
section, chose to testiS' at the previous hearing even though they knew the item was being
continued. Although the neighbors have opposed this project from the beginning, they have
expressed a willingness to accept the Planning Commission's action because the unit would
be limited to a size suitable £or a one-bedroom unit. This would theoretically limit the
number ot` occupants so the unit could be adequately served by the single on-site parking
space provided. The smaller size would also be more compatible with the existing houses
and related accessory structures in the neighborhood.
Page 5, Item No.: ~5
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the Commission's action is reasonable and should be upheld. Staff
therefore recommends denial of the applicants appeal and has prepared a draft resolution
reflecting that action.
Should the Council wish to grant the applicant a unit larger than the 700 square feet they
can simply amend the size limit indicated in condition #1 in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution PCC-02-13.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Site Plan
3. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-13 denying unit on 6-26-02
4. Planning Commission minutes from 5-14-03
5. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-13 approving unit on 5-14-03
6. Site chronology memo from Code Enforcement
7. Applicants appeal letter
J:\Planning\JohnS\StaffReports\CC\2003\736 Church Appeal - PCC-02-13.doc
ALBERTSON'S
MARKET
PLAZA
US POST
OFFICE
ALVA
GARDEN
APARTMENTS
GREEN TREE
FOUNTAIN
APARTMENTS
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~PUC~NT: DANIEL CONTRERAS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 736 CHURCH AVENUE Request: Proposed 477 sf addition of two bedrooms
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: to the existing 811sf two car garage which was used
NORTH No Scale PCC-02-13 as a workshop in the past.
j:\cherylc\locators\locators03\pcc0213.cdr 06.24.03 ~,-~ '
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-
02-13, FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT BEItEND AN
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 736 CHURCH
AVENUE.
WHEREAS, in June, 2001, the City of Chula Vista Code Enforcement Division received
a complaint and found that a detached garage/workshop at 736 Church street had been converted
to a residential unit without benefit of building permits; and
WI-IEREAS, Code Enforcement notified the property owner of the need to correct the
violations of City Zoning Ordinance and Building Codes; and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Division on September 18, 2001 by Daniel Contreras; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests an accessory second dwelling unit permit for an
existing structure, which will be remodeled and expanded to include: two bedrooms, one
bathroom, dining room and living room, for a total of 906 square feet of living space, in
compliance with State Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I), for cities without
adopted accessory second unit ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location
of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit 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
and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was to be held at the time and place as advertised, namely
November 28, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to March 27, April 24, May 8, June 12 and again
to June 26 2002, and was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission
directed staffto prepare a resolution to deny the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
following findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the denial of conditional use
I
permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits
the stated finding to be made.
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The requested use would take place on a lot within an existing single-family residential
neighborhood. Public testimony has indicated that the existing nonconforming use of the
property has had a detrimental impact on the neighborhood in terms of parking, and that
the size of tl~e resulting garage and unit will not be compatible with surrounding
residential uses. The Planning Commission also observed that the size of the resulting
structure would be larger than the existing house on the site and would therefore be
incompatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission therefore fmds that the
request does not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The accessory second unit is proposed as an expansion of an existing accessory structure
that was illegally converted from a garage/workshop to a habitable space. Without
benefit of inspections, the safety of the building is in question. The Planning
Commission finds that such a structure is detrimental to the surrounding residential
neighborhood and should not be allowed to remain in its present condition.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The Planning Commission fmds that the request does not meet the requirements of the
California Government Code relating to accessory second units, namely that the request
does not meet local building code requirements for detached dwellings, as modifications
were made without permits.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The Planning Commission finds that this Conditional Use Permit is in compliance with
the General Plan. Section 65852.2b-5 of the California Government Code provides that
accessory second unit permits issued are exempt from the existing or future General Plan
and zoning density regulations, and the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan
promotes this type housing to meet the need for affordable housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
deny Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13 in accordance with the findings contained in this
resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26t~ day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: O'Neill, Castaneda, McCann, Willett
NOES: Cortes
ABSENT: Thomas, Hall
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: Kevin O'Neill, Chair
iana Vargas, Secret~
J:~Plaming~lohnS~Doeumenls~Resolutions~2002~PCC .02.13 736 Church 2nd Unit-JS.doc
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CH U LA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: i Hall, O'Neill, Cortes, Castaneda, Felber
Absent: Madrid, Hom
Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Michael Walker, Associate Planner
Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Miguel Tapia, Principal Community Develop. Specialist
Dave Hanson,Deputy City Attorney I
MSC (Castaneda/Cortes) (5-0-0-2) to excuse Commissioners. Horn and Madrid. Motion
carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS~ Read into the record by Chair Hall
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 23, 2003
MSC (O'Neill/Cortes) (4-0-1-2) to approve minutes of April 23, 2003 as submitted. Motion
carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-02-13; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow the
expansion and conversion of an existing accessory
building into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling
unit attached to a two-car garage behind the existing
single-family dwelling located at736 Church Avenue. The
project site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-I)
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 14, 2003
zone. The accessory second unit is in compliance with
State Government Code Section 65852.2(b). Applicant:
Daniel Contreras.
Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner presented an overview of the project
and a chronology of events since the application was filed. They are:
· 09/18/01 Application was filed
· 3/27 - 6/12/02 First series of hearings
· 7/10/02 Planning Commission adopted resolution of denial
· 7/19/02 Appeal of Planning Commission's denial is filed
· 9/18/02 Applicant indicates desire to remove code violations
· 11/5/02 Permit for reconversion finaled
· 1/28/03 Council adopts new local Second Unit Ordinance
The proposal includes a 498 sf addition to an existing 408 sf workshop (that is
attached to a 400 sf garage), resulting in a 906 sf accessory second unit consisting of
two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. The garage and workshop were
previously illegally converted into a dwelling unit.
Mr. Schmitz further reported that an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the project was filed, therefore, the application remains active. Although the City
currently has a newly enacted Secondary Accessory Unit Ordinance, since this is an
appeal and the project was analyzed using the State guidelines, it was determined
that the project should be considered under those guidelines.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the Commission's concerns about the size ofthe
unit, staff is recommending that the applicant reduce the proposed unit to 700 sf or
less, and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 02-13
approving the request based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the
accessory second unit.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Castaneda asked for clarification as to why the Commission is
considering this item again, after it had already rendered a decision of denial, which
the applicant appealed to the City Council. He further inquired why the project is
being considered utilizing the State guidelines, and not the City's newly enacted
ordinance.
John Schmitz responded that according to staff's recollection of discussions held by
the Commission and review of the minutes, it appears that the reason behind the
decision to deny was based upon a perception that the proposed structure was too
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 14, 2003
large for the property and not compatible with the area, as well as concerns with
existing code enforcement violations on the property. The applicant indicated that he
was willing to correct-the code violations and refer it back to the Planning Commission
to see if that would alter the Commission's decision.
Public Hearing Opened 6:20,
Tom Tomlinson, 231 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, attorney representing Mr.
Contreras, stat'ed that Mr. Contreras agrees with the scenario given by Mr. Schmitz
and it is his client's position that he is appearing once again before the Planning
Commission under his original application, which is an appeal of a denial rendered in
July 2002.
It is his understanding that one of the reasons for the denial was that there was an
existing violation of the off-street parking requirement because the garage conversion
was not legal. Furthermore, Mr. Contreras perceived he was turned down as a result
of the illegal garage conversion, event though his proposal included correcting the
viola'[~on as well as building the additional living space.
Mr. Tomlinson further clarified that if the Commission in anyway deems this to be a
newly instituted application and not an appeal of the original application, then Mr.
Contreras respectfully withdraws his application from being considered tonight and
prefers to proceed with his appeal to Council.
Dave Hanson clarified that it is counsel's, as well as staff's opinion that this
application should be reviewed applying the State guidelines and not the City's newly
enacted ordinance.
Pandra Boyle, 739 Church Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the area
residents reiterated their opposition to the proposed second unit due to its size and
enumerated the list of code enforcement violations on the property. She further
stated that although they would prefer the project be denied altogether, they
understand that this is unfeasible and staffs recommendation to approve a 700 sf unit
is an acceptable compromise, but would ask that the City conduct periodic monitoring
to ensure that the garage is not converted back to living area.
Daniel Contreras, 515 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA addressed the Commission
and stated that his only objective for the past year and a half has been to receive the
Commission's approval to move forward with the construction of the accessory unit
and correct the code violations of the illegal garage conversion. He stated the
accessory unit is needed for the family members who are providing full-time care to
his ailing mother.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 14, 2003
Public Hearing closed 6:50.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that in light of the fact that the Commission is
reviewing this application applying the ,State requirements and not the City's newly
enacted ordinance, he is inclined to go with staffs recommendation to approve a 700
sf accessory unit. Furthermore, the street parking issue remains because although
the City can require a two-car garage for a single family residence, it cannot compel
that it be used. He recommended that a condition be added stating that the portion of
the driveway in Yront of the garage be kept cleared and the garage be accessible for
vehicular parking at all times.
Commission Cortes expressed his disappointment with the amount of time and
effort it took for this project to reach a resolve. He expressed frustration with the
myriad of issues that were raised during its review, which in his opinion detracted
from an objective review of the project on the sole merit of what was being proposed,
which included correcting the existing code violations. He further stated that the State
regulations, under which this application is being reviewed, allows up to '1,200 sf, and
the City's newly enacted ordinance allows no more than 650 sf, therefore, in his
opinion, and a reasonable compromise is what the applicant is proposing; a 906 sf
accessory unit. '
Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the State-imposed mandate on
local jurisdictions as it relates to accessory units and how it compromises the integrity
of the Single Family Residential Zone. He further stated that in his opinion a
compromise of 700 sf, as recommended by staff, is a reasonable size for the use that
Mr. Contreras is stating he needs it.
MSC (Cortes/ ) that the Planning Commission approve a 906 sf accessory
unit at 736 Church Avenue. Motion failed for lack of a second.
MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (4-1-0-2) that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution PCC 02-'13 approving a 700 sf accessory unit.
Under discussion, it was suggested by Commissioner Castaneda that there should be
a proviso that staff follow-up to ensure that the garage continues to be maintained for
use for vehicles.
Cmr. O'Neill states that the compliance proviso is built into every CUP and therefore
is unnecessary to restate it; a complaint would trigger code enforcement to check it
out. He agrees that the CUP needs a condition that the driveway needs to be kept
clear for access to the garage
Cmr. Castaneda expressed concern that restrictions on the driveway use could force
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 14, 2003
the applicant to park on the street, Which the neighbors are already concerned about.
John Schmitz stated-that Condition #2 in the resolution is intended to address the
concerns being expressed
Cmr. Castaneda stated that he was not suggesting that any changes be made to
those conditions.
Motion carried.
2. HEARING: PCC 03-48; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for
Cingular Wireless to construct an anmanned cellular
communications facility at Hilltop Baptist Church, 740
Hilltop Drive.
Commis ler Castaneda excused himself from the dais.
Background: ~ette Tessitore-Lopez reported that Cing~ proposes to
construct a 47 Ill monopalm that would support twelve ante )uld be
designed to match monopalms on the site. A color and design
equipment enclosu ~3e integrated with the existing equi elter. This site
was chosen by Cin fill a gap in wireless ':es in
the Hilltop area. There is a of coverag ~ Street, L Street
and east toward 1-805. Th~ map indicates the addition of this site,
the coverage for this area will good".
The applicant commissioned a stud nulative effects of the three
facilities at this site. The report concl~ the radio frequuncies of the three
facilities combined are below the FCC, limits.
Staff Recommendation: That the adopt Resolution PCC
03-48 authorizing a Cingular facilit, Itop Baptist Church.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Felber po out that the photo simulat~'~s depict a monopalm that
has antenna arrays beyond the palm frons, and ~ked if this was simply a
photo distortion or if it v an actual depiction of what this ste~ facility will look like.
John Schmitz r ~ ps this is something the appelant can elaborate
on once the publi is opened.
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-02-13, FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT LOCATED
BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 736
CHURCH AVENUE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(1)(A)-(I).
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on September 18, 2001, by Daniel Contreras; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests a conditional use permit for an accessory second
dwelling unit for an existing structure located at 736 Church Avenue. The second unit will be
remodeled and expanded to include: two bedrooms, one bathroom, a dining room and living
room, for a total of 906 square feet of living space in compliance with the provision found in the
State Govenunent Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from enviromnental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location
of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit 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
and residents within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days pri6r to
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised, namely April 23, 2003, and subsequently continued to May 14, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission
voted 4-1-0-2 to approve the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits,
as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits, the stated
finding to be made.
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community. ,
Page 2
The requested use will take place within an existing single-family residential
neighborhood. The state legislation declares that accessory second units are a valuable
form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the
elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within
existing neighborhoods. Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and
region-wide problem of providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and does not
adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious tO property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the
surrounding residential neighborhood. The accessory unit will be architecturally
integrated in terms of design, building materials and colors used with the existing
dwelling. The accessory second unit will be located in the rear yard behind the existing
dwelling where it will be screened from public view. In addition, the unit will be
constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the~ode for such use.
The conditional approval of PCC-02-13 requires compliance with all conditions, codes
and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit for or occupancy
of any new building on the property.
The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the Ca!ifomia
Government Code relating to detached accessory second units as follows:
(A) The accessory second unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single-family use.
(C) The accessory second unit will be constructed in conjunction with a primary
single-family residence on the lot.
(D) The accessory second unit is detached and will be located on the same lot as a
single-family residence.
(E) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed 1,200-sq. ft.
(F) The accessory second unit meets local requirements related to height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural review, si~e plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning
requirements generally applicable to the zone.
(G) The accessory second unit project meets local building code requirements for
detached dwellings, as appropriate.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
This conditional use permit is in compliance with the General Plan, because Section
65852.2(b)(5) of the California Government Code provides that accessory second units
Page 3
are exempt from the existing or future General Plan and zoning density regulations.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista grants Conditional Use
Permit PCC-02-13 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant
and/or property owner(s):
Planning & Building Department
1. The project plans including the site plan, floor plan and exterior elevations shall be
revised to show a 700 square foot maximum accessory second unit, which shall include
the existing 408 square foot workshop. Said plans shall be reviewed by the Planning
Department prior to submitting for building permits.
2. The portion of the driveway in front of the garage shall be kept cleared and the garage
shall be accessible for vehicular parking at all times.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit in compliance with the 2001 Califumia
Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes, and the 2001 Energy
requirements.
4. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall
be submitted in conformance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the
accessory second unit will be architecturally compatible with and/or match the primary
single-family dwelling. Said plans shall be kept on file in the Planning Division, in
compliance with the conditions contained herein and Title 19 of the CVMCf~ubject to
the approval of the Planning and Building Director. . :
Engineering Department
5. The Applicant shall pay the following fees as required based on the final building plans
submitted: sewer capacity fee based on all new construction or additional plumbing
fixtures; and traffic signal fees based on the difference between the existing and proposed
use.
Public Works Department
6. The Applicant shall be responsible for removing and replacing the raised portion of the
sidewalk (area marked in white).
Sweetwater Authority
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/owner shall obtain a letter stating
fire flow requirements from thc Chuia Vista Fire Department and submit thc letter to the
Sweetwater Authority.
Page 4
Chula Vista Elementary School District
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate school
fees.
Standard Conditions
9. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until
such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked, and the existence of this
use permit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior
to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed unit, the applicant/property owner
shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
10. The accessory second unit shall be connected to the existing sewer lateral, or the other
existing utilities such as water, electricity, gas, cable, etc. for the main dwelling using the
same address.
11. This conditional use permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approVal of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permit-tee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition,
may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue
source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be
expected to economically recover.
12. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized withia one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
13. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
14. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including
court costs and attorney's less (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising,
directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use
Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including,
without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional
Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
Page 5
provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
15. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and
signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to
the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy
with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return
the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire
that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business
license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner of Date
736 Church Avenue
Signature of Representative Date_
16. It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and.every term~ provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalidl illegal br unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shail be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further rome and effect ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13 in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Hall, O'Neill, Castaneda, Felber
NOES: Cortes
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Madrid, Hom
Russ Hall, Chair
AT3,ES_T: -
Diana Vargas, Secretary
CHUIA VIS-IA
Department of Plennlng and Building
Date: August 26, 2003
To: Jim Sandoval, Acting Director
Via: Brad Remp, Assistant Director/Building Offici
From: Bob Vacchi, Code Enforcement Manager/~
Subject: 736 Church Avenue, Contreras Accessory Dwelling Unit
In 1996 and 1998, Code Enforcement responded to complaints about a garage being used as
an illegal dwelling unit. Code Enforcement opened its third and most recent case in May of 2001
again regarding the conversion of a garage/workshop into an illegal second dwelling unit. A brief
chronology of the case is outlined below.
May 24, 2001 Code Enforcement receives a complaint that the converted garage is being
rented as a separate dwelling unit.
June 5, 2001 Code Enforcement sends a letter to the property owner stating that an
inspection shows that the existing, permitted garage/workshop has been
converted into a dwelling unit without required permits. The letter gives the
property owner 15 days to voluntarily comply ,by either submitting for a
Conditional Use Permit or reconfiguring the structure to its permitted use.
July 2001 Mr. Contreras (Property Owner) contacts Associate Planner, Harold Phelps to
discuss the feasibility of applying for a second dwelling unit. Mr. Contreras
/is made aware that a new ordinance may come into effect that will allow him
' to establish a second dwelling unit without discretionary review.
July 19, 2001 Mr. Contreras discusses the CUP process with CEO Chris Larson and is
encouraged to set up a pre-application meeting with Planning.
Aug. 3, 2001 Code Enforcement sends a Notice of Violation after Mr. Contreras fails to
schedule a pre-application meeting or submit a CUP application.
August 28,. 2001 Mr. Contreras attends a pre-application meeting with Planning staff to discuss
C:\My Documents\736 Church Street\REV Chronology of 736 Church Ave.DOC
the elements of his CUP application.
August 28,2001 Code Enforcement sends a letter acknowledging the pre-application meeting.
The letter states that Mr. Contreras' request for an extension-of-time will only
be granted if he submits an application for a Conditional Use Permit prior to
September 12, 2001.
Sept. 18, 2001 Mr. Contreras files a CUP application [CUP PCC 02-13] for an accessory
dwelling unit.
Sept. 2001 to Mr. Contreras and Planning staff work together to finalize the application
Feb. 2002 package.
Feb. 25, 2002 Code Enforcement sends warning citation to Mr. Contreras for failing to file
a complete CUP application.
Mar. 25, 2002 Mr. Contreras completes the CUP application process.
Mar. 27, 2002 Planning Commission continues the case to April 24, 2002.
April 24, 2002 Based upon a staff recommendation, the Planning Commission continues the
case again until May 8, 2002.
May 8, 2002 Planning Commission directs Mr. Contreras to re-convert the second
dwelling unit back into a garage/workshop (with bathroom) before it will
approve an accessory dwelling unit. The Planning Commission continues the
case to allow Mr. Contreras time to perform the re-conversion.
June 26, 2002 Mr. Contreras fails to perform the re-conversion and Planning Commission
denies CUP based on findings of incompalibility with surrounding
neighborhood.
July of 2002 Mr. Contreras appeals the Planning Commission decision to City Council. He
also states that he intends to re-convert the unit back into a garage prior to
· going to a City Council heating. Based upon his statement, staff holds the
appeal in abeyance pending the re-conversion.
September 17, 2002 Code Enforcement issues a new Notice of Violation for Mr. Contreras failure
to take any action toward re-converting the unit.
September 20, 2002 Mr. Contreras obtains a demolition permit to reconvert the garage.
October 18, 2002 Mr. Contreras fails to call for any inspections. Code Enforcement issues a
new Notice of Violation.
C:\My Documents\736 Church StreefiREV Chronology of 736 Church Ave. DOC
November 5, 2002 Mr. Contreras obtains a final inspection approval for the re-conversion of the
second dwelling unit back into a garage/workshop.
November 7, 2002 Code Enforcement inspection confirms that the illegal unit has been removed.
The Code Enforcement case is closed.
April 23, 2003 Because Mr. Contreras has completed the re-conversion as directed by the
Planning Commission; staffallows his appeal to City Council to be modified
into a rehearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
approves the project subject to a floor area limitation of approximately 700
square feet.
April-August 2003 Mr. Contreras appeals to the City Council requesting a reconsideration of the
limitations placed upon the size of the proposed accessory second unit by the
Planning Commission.
August 19, 2003 Mr. Contreras requests a continuance to September of 2003. The City
Council grants a continuance until September 16, 2003.
C:\My Documents\736 Church Street\REV Chronology of 736 Church Ave. DOC
EXHIBrr
515 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 '----'~'~''l~
420-8690 / ~- .... , ,
May30,2003 ii-ii MAY 3
City of Chula Vista ' ,-
Planning Department '--~--':-':: -'~:~:::-.~ ......
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca· 91910
Attention: Members of the City Council
Re: 736 Church Avenue, Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13
We are appealing the Planning Commission decisions because we think we were not
treated fairly, and we believe that their findings to limit us to 700 sq. ft. is not justified.
Since I am going according State of California guidelines.local agencies which has not
adopted an ordinance governing second unit in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c),
receives its first application on after July1, 1983, for conditional use permit". And as we
know City of Chula Vista had not adopted such ordinance at the time of my application was
submitted·
And as per section 65901 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, Chapter 4, Section 65901,
"every local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use permit for creation of a
second unit complies with all the following: (see attached exhibit 'B") VVhich I corn lied with
· p
every single one of them, that is the reason Planning Department has always
recommended approval of the project.
They mentioned on the May 14, 2003, meeting that the proposed unit is too large, which
was never the issue on the previous meetings. But in reality by the State guideline allows
me up to 1,200 sq. ft. but I am only adding 498 sq· ft. to the existing 408 with a total of 906
sq. ft., which is below 25% which is allowable. Also my lot coverage is only 33%, and
allowable for that area is up to 40%. Any neighbor can build-up their lot up to 40% percent
and my is only 33%, and they said is too big, this does not make any sense, I would show
some pictures and information depicting conditions were neighbor have built up to the 40%
or even more, also I would show were are several neighbors that have illegal rear units.
VVe are only trying to do what is right we believe we that we comply with every single State
guideline, and according item No. 2 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, Chapter 4, were
indicates, "No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for denial of a
building permit or use permit under this subdivision".
Respectfully submitted
Daniel Contreras
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION AND UPHOLDING THE
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-02-13,
CONTRERAS, FOR A 700 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY
SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 736 CHURCH STREET.
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2001 a duly verified application for a Conditional Use
Permit (PCC-02-13) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by Daniel
Contreras (Applicant); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I)
Applicant requested permission to add 498 square-feet to an existing detached
garage/workshop to create a 906 square-foot accessory second unit and garage at 736 Church
Street; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project was
a Class 3(a) exemption form environmental review; and . ,
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission hearing was scheduled and advertised for
March 27, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time the
Planning Commission voted 4-1-2-0 to deny the Project based on the findings of
incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by the applicant and at the applicant's request a
Planning Commission rehearing was scheduled and advertised for April 23, 2003 and
continued to May 14, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time the Planning Commission voted 4-1-2-0 to approve the Project based on the
findings and subject to the conditions listed and, in accordance with Planning Commission
Resolution PCC-02-13; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by the applicant requesting City Council
reconsideration of the limitation placed upon the size of the proposed accessory second unit
by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the appeal was held before
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 19, 2003 and continued to September
16, 2003 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's action, and to hear public
testimony with regard to same.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
l. That the proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the
Planning Commission at all previous hearings on this project and the minutes
and resolutions resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of
proceedings.
2. Based upon all such evidence the City Council does hereby deny the appeal of
the Planning Commission's action on PCC02-13.
Presented by Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval Ann/t~loore ~
Acting Director of Plmming & Building C4fy Attorney
J:Attorney\Reso\736 Church St
CITY OF
CHULA VISI'A
September 12, 2003
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Ann Moore, City Attorney
FROM: Elizabeth Wagner Hull, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: 736 Church Street, Item # 23
Before you this evening is an appeal, by the applicant, from a Planning Commission decision to
approve a conditional use permit for a second dwelling unit at 736 Church Street. The applicant
has proposed a 906 square foot second dwelling unit. The Planning Cpmmission concluded a
unit of that size was incompatible with the neighborhood and determined they xvere unable to
make the findings necessary to approve the conditional use permit. This application was filed
prior to the adoption of the City ordinance governing second dwelling units and therefore, has
been evaluated pursuant to state law.
California Government Code section 65852.2 provides guidelines that enable cities without
adopted accessory second unit ordinances to process these applications. Government Code
section 65852.2(b)(1 ) requires the local agency to accept the application and approve or
disapprove the application pursuant the criteria identified. According to State law the local
agency shall grant a special use or conditional use permit for the creation of an accessory second
unit if the unit complies with the state criteria.
One of the criteria identified is that the total area of the detached unit may not exceed 1200
square feet. Government Code section 65852.2(b)(3) states the criteria established are the
maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned
for residential use which contain an existing single family dxvelling.
Government Code section 65852.2 does allow for the Ci.ty's without an adopted second dwelling
unit ordinance to require a conditional use permit. With a conditional use permit required for
approval, the City must be able to make the findings necessary to grant the permit.
As proposed the application met all of the relevant state criteria. The Planning Commission,
based upon public testimony, objected to the size of the unit. They determined the 906 square
foot second unit was out of character and incompatible with the neighborhood. Conseqeuntly, the
Planning Commission was unable to make the finding that this use at this location was necessary
or desirable to provide a service or facility which would contribute to the general well being of
the neighborhood or community at 906 square feet. After numerous hearings the Commission did
approve a conditional use permit, as required by state law, but for 200 square feet less that the
applicant had requested.
Page 2
There is no case law interpreting the provisions of Government Code section 65852.2 to clarify
whether a city may modify' the applicant's proposal or whether the application must be approved
or disapproved as presented. A city's denial of a conditional use permit for a second dxvelling
unit on the grounds that the proposed second unit was out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood was upheld in Hams v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 CA4th 963. However, this
case is distinguishable from this matter becaase Costa Mesa had an adopted local ordinance.
State law gives the local agency much greater discretion once a local ordinance has been
adopted.
The State has clearly attempted to limit the City's ability to deny these types of projects.
Arguably the state has left some area of control with the City by setting the standards as
maximums and allowing the local agency to require a conditional use permit. Based upon this
statutory scheme, an argument can be made that the City has complied, with the Government
Code requirement to approve a second d~velling unit.
Although the law is unclear, the City has a reasonable argument to support the Planning
Department's request that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission by
denying the appeal. If challenged in court, under the Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code 810-996.6) a
local government is immune from liability for injuries stemming from the issuance, denial,
revocation, or suspension of permits. This immunity prevails over liability imposed by
Government Code section815.6 for failure to discharge a mandatory duty. Consequently, if the
applicant challenged the decision of the Council and prevailed, the court would order the
issuance of the permit and may award attorney's fees.
.h Attomey\EHull',Memos',736 Chinch Street.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: _~ ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft Greenbelt Master Plan- a plan for the formulation of a
28-mile open space and trails system surrounding the city. City initiated.
PCM-03-38;
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving the
Greenbelt Master Plan (PCM-03-38) for the formulation of a 28-mile open
space and trails system surrounding the city.
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and BuildingJ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
The proposed Greenbelt Master Plan consists of a plan for the formulation of an open space and
trails system encircling the city. This plan is intended to implement the Greenbelt Concept identified
in the adopted General Plan and join together a variety of open space programs through a connected
trail system that links existing and proposed parks, golf courses and other activity centers around the
perimeter of the city. The Greenbelt, upon implementation, will provide a distinct visual break
which will distinguish Chula Vista from other adjacent jurisdictions. The master plan proposes trail
guidelines and standards as well the maintenance approach for this 28-mile open space area.
Additionally, the master plan identifies issues and recommended solutions within eight individual
segments of the Greenbelt and sets the framework for subsequent implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the attached resolution adopting the Greenbelt Master Plan; and,
2. Direct staff to prepare a Greenbelt Implementation Plan that identifies staffing
responsibilities for management of the Greenbelt, sets implementation priorities and
addresses budget recommendations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On July 30, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0-0-1)
to recommend approval of the Greenbelt Master Plan (Attachment 2).
On June 19, 2003, the Parks & Recreation Commission held a public hearing and voted (4-0-1-2) to
recommend approval of the Greenbelt Master Plan (Attachment 3).
I/
Page 2, Item No.: ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
On August 4, 2003, the Resource Conservation Commission at its regular meeting voted (6-0-0-0) to
recommend approval of the Greenbelt Master Plan with five relatively minor text edits to the plan.
Staff responded by incorporating modifications into the plan, which reflect the RCC's intentions.
These changes are in the plan before the City Council tonight and are shown in Attachment 5.
Minutes from the RCC meeting are attached as well (Attachment 4) as well.
DISCUSSION:
In 1989 the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the city's General Plan, within this plan
the concept ora Greenbelt that would encircle the city was introduced. The Greenbelt described in
the General Plan would consist ora series of open space segments linked by a 28-mile trail system
that would connect both regional and local parks surrounding the city. The General Plan describes
the major components of this Greenbelt as "the backbone of an open space and park system that
extends throughout the city." The city hired Peggy Gentry, of Chapin Land Management, Inc., as a
consultant to assist in the preparation of a master plan for implementation of the Greenbelt.
1. Proposed Greenbelt Master Plan
The intent of the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan is to provide goals and policies, trail design
standards and implementation tools that help to guide management of an open space system that
links existing and proposed parks, golf courses and other permanent open space, and that provides a
system of interlinking multi-use trails (see Attachment 1 for Greenbelt Map and Attachment 7 for the
entire text and maps). The Greenbelt is made up ora collection of existing and planned open space
areas that include the Sweetwater and Otay Valley Regional Parks, the area surrounding and
including the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes, the interface with the San Diego Bay and habitat
conservation lands to be set aside through implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Plan
(MSCP).
The Greenbelt includes land areas that fall within several political jurisdictions besides the City of
Chula Vista, including: the City of National City, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego,
the Unified Port District. Public and quasi-public land ownership and stewardship within the
Greenbelt involve several agencies, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department ofFish and Game, Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water Districts, Caltrans, San Diego
Gas & Electric, the Olympic Training Center and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
Staff has been coordinating and commtmicating with the various jurisdictions that make up the
Greenbelt during the preparation and review of the master plan and will continue to do so where
interjurisdictional and interagency issues occur. Existing and proposed open space and trail plans
within other jurisdictions, but within the Greenbelt, have been identified in the master plan as well.
Page 3, Item No.: ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
The primary goals of the Greenbelt Master Plan are as follows:
a. To establish a comprehensive and coordinated greenbelt system that visually reinforces the
natural character of the community and integrates unique historic and cultural resources,
open space areas, creeks, and trails.
b. To provide connected open space areas surrounding Chula Vista to enhance the natural
beauty and to preserve native biological and cultural resources as well as sensitive habitats
wherever appropriate.
c. To establish a greenbelt that ensures public access within the greenbelt through an active and
passive recreation park system with trails connecting each segment.
d. To provide a Greenbelt system that receives the necessary resources for open space
acl~uisition, park and trail development, maintenance, and to establish volunteer programs.
e. To establish a framework for the City to designate a staff person or department who will
serve' as the Greenbelt Manager responsible for open space and park acquisition, obtaining
funds, coordination, implementation, and ongoing maintenance of the Greenbelt.
Greenbelt Segments
The master plan identifies eight individual segments of the Greenbelt and identifies issues specific to
that segment, as well as recommendations for long-term implementation of each. Issues include
where gaps exist in the continuous trail system and where coordination with other jurisdictions or
agencies is necessary for implementation. The individual segments include:
· Lower Sweetwater
· Sweetwater Regional Park
San Miguel
Otay Lakes
· Salt Creek Corridor
· Otay Ranch Village Greenway
· Otay Valley Regional Park (east and west)
· The Bayfront
Trail Guidelines and Construction Costs
The Greenbelt Master Plan includes design criteria and standards for multi-use and rural trails and
the development of staging areas that would occur where oppommities exist around the Greenbelt.
Page 4, Item No.: ~"[
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
Guidelines are included for the siting and construction of trails through sensitive habitat areas
(consistent with MSCP guidelines), for arterial road crossings, urban runoff, accessibility, signage,
for trail sizing and materials, and fencing. In addition, estimated costs for construction of future
trails and maintenance of each segment of trail are included.
Greenbelt Maintenance
Maintenance of open space and trails within the Greenbelt are addressed using several mechanisms.
The Greenbelt is currently comprised of several different maintenance entities, including: regional
park public maintenance, homeowner associations, and maintenance assessment districts. Estimated
mmual maintenance costs for trails are included within the master plan, as well as possible future
funding sources. The Greenbelt traverses master planned communities within eastern Chula Vista.
The connected open space and trails, which were provided within these communities, were
anticipated in development project approvals and assessment mechanisms were included.
Implementation issues with maintenance coordination will be addressed through a subsequent
Greenbelt implementation plan.
Greenbelt Management
Management of the Greenbelt is anticipated to occur in several ways. Because the Greenbelt is
within the jurisdiction of many different agencies and existing open space programs, the
management of individual segments will occur independently. Management of trails and open space
within the City of Chula Vista will occur through commitments with individual development
projects and through cooperative agreements with applicable jurisdictions.
A Greenbelt implementation plan will need to be prepared that will identify department/staff roles
and responsibilities as well as funding and priorities. This implementation plan will occur
subsequent to adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan.
The Draft Greenbelt Master Plan relies heavily on a variety of open space and trails plans and
programs that are in varying stages of implementation. The following are some of those and the
agencies/jurisdictions that administer portions of the Greenbelt:
· Multiple Species Conservation Program (Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista; County of
San Diego)
· San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Otay-Sweetwater and Southbay Units)
· Sweetwater Marsh Refuge
· Sweetwater Regional Park
· Sweetwater Bikeway Plan
· San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Homeowners Association
(HOA)
· Rolling Hills Ranch SPA Plan and HOA
Page 5, Item No.: ~ ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
· EastLake Trails, Vistas and Woods SPA Plans and HOAs
· Olympic Training Center
· Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan
· Otay Valley Regional Park
· Bayshore Bikeway
· Port Authority of San Diego
· City of National City
To ensure that implementation of the Greenbelt occurs in a coordinated and comprehensive manner,
the City of Chula Vista will need to identify lead and support staff with defined roles and
responsibilities. The City should also pursue funding opportunities for the construction of new trails
and interpretive signage, and for development of staging areas. Inter-jurisdictional and interagency
coordination will be necessary in order to identify where trail connectivity issues exist, where
management issues occur, and to set appropriate implementation priorities. It is anticipated that one
or more internal City department(s) and both lead and support staffroles will be identified through
this implementation plan.
In addition to a Greenbelt implementation plan it is anticipated that the City of Chula Vista will be
preparing a city-wide trails master plan that will address other connecting trail systems within the
core of the city. The city-wide trails system should include connecting trails that not only link
community activity centers, including parks, but should also link back to the Greenbelt.
2. Public Input
The Greenbelt Master Plan has been presented to a variety of public groups as well as board,
commissions and committees. On May 5, 2003 staff conducted a public workshop to introduce the
first draft of the Greenbelt Master Plan, a meeting was also held with affected major developers to
solicit their input on the draft plan. A presentation was made to the Otay Valley Regional Park
(OVRP) Citizens Advisory Committee Trails Subcommittee, and later to a joint meeting of the
OVRP Policy Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee. Two separate meetings were held each
with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Resource
Conservation Commission through the months of May, June and July to solicit additional input
culminating in recommendations for approval of the master plan. A presentation was also made to
the Sierra Club on August 12, 2003. Input has also been received from the Crossroads II citizens
group. The draft Greenbelt Master Plan has been posted on the City's web site and several
newspaper articles highlighting progress of the plan have appeared.
3. Letter Received
A letter has been received from Mr. Jerry Livingston, Staff Counsel representing the Building
Industry Association (Attachment 6). The following is a response to Mr. Livingston's two
comments.
Page 6, Item No.: ~ l
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
a. Mr. Livingston requested that a comment be included under section 6.2.1 (Acquisition of
Greenbelt Open Space and Trails) of the master plan text that exactions only be sought where
an appropriate nexus between development proposed and the land to be acquired through the
exaction is to be used. Staff emphasizes that in all cases the City of Chula Vista will not
seek an exaction unless there is a nexus; therefore, there is no need to add modifying
language to the text.
b. Staff concurs with Mr. Livingston's comment that developer fees not be considered for
maintenance and operations and therefore has deleted "Developer Fees" from the master plan
text
4. Conclusion
Adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan will recognize the multiple open space and trails planning
and development programs, plans and efforts tkroughout the City of Chula Vista, as well as areas
adjacent to the city that make up the connected Greenbelt system. The Greenbelt Master Plan will
serve to standardize details, provide guidance for new trail and staging area development, as well as
provide a unifying system for the development of a city-wide trails master plan. Through the City's
current General Plan Update effort the Greenbelt Master Plan will be recognized as a policy
implementation plan in the text of the new General Plan. An implementation plan that identifies
departmental staff roles and responsibilities, budget commitments, sets preliminary implementation
priorities and recognizes opportunities for public input is also expected to be prepared subsequent to
adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan.
The City has a number of boards and commissions that provide an opportunity for public input as
projects are considered. An example would be the Parks and Recreation Commission or Planning
Commission. As Greenbelt implementation issues arise or implementation projects are considered
an open forum for public input will be provided and encouraged.
FISCAL IMAPCT:
Adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan will not have a direct fiscal impact to the city. However,
subsequent implementation plans may result in staffing implications as Greenbelt management staff
is identified, work programs are prepared along with budget implications, and implementation
priorities are identified and pursued. Maintenance and management of Greenbelt open space and
trails within the City of Chula Vista is currently being addressed through community facility districts
and homeowners association commitments, and it is anticipated that maintenance and management
of other open space areas will be addressed through open space programs as they materialize.
Page 7, Item No.: a~L/
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
Attachments
I. Greenbelt Master Plan Map
2. Planning Commission Minutes
3. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
4. Resource Conservation Commission Minutes
5. Staff Response to 8/4/03 Resource Conservation Commission Recommended Edits
6. Letter from Building Industry Association (BIA)
7. Greenbelt Master Plan
Planning Commission Meeting Notes
May 28, 2003
Principal Planner Duane Bazzel introduced Peggy Gentry, Chapin Land
Management, Inc., as the city's consultant and primary author of the Greenbelt
Master Plan and then presented an overview of the master plan. He identified
the process and noted each of the upcoming meetings: June 19, Parks and
Recreation Commission (2nd hearing), Planning Commission on July 9 (2nd
hearing) and the City Council hearing scheduled for July 29, 2003.
Chairman Hall stated that he felt that the document should identify the overall
cost to the city of maintenance of the trails system.
Commissioner Hom stated that the trail segment under SR'125 needs to be
resolved. The commitment by Caltrans for realignment ha~ not resulted in an
adequate trail connection.
Mr. Bazzel stated that he will coordinate a meeting with Caltrans to gather the
additional information to ensure that the connection is not severed.
Commission Castaneda stated that he had three primary comments: 1) there
needs to be more public comment-this is critical to developing a master plan that
recognizes the concerns of the public; 2) Once the trails are complete, there
needs to be a public campaign to show the public where the trails are located;
and, 3) We need to look at other opportunities for trails in the westside--he
suggested that staff consider exploring utility corridors and drainage canals.
Bazzel added that the Greenbelt Master Plan identifies trails within the greenbelt
area and the city has committed to develop a citywide trails master plan.
Commissioner O'Neil suggested that we should try to link beyond SR 125. He
stated that there is a high cost to implement these key missing links but once the
opportunities are developed the money will come. He asked whether patrols
were explored. There will need to be additional maintenance to look for potholes
and address vandalism.
Duane added that it is understood that there is the need for a budget and
assigned staff as.the greenbelt manager. At this time, we don't have a single
entity that has taken the lead to develop the greenbelt. Bazzel added that in the
preparation of the citywide trails master plan the city will focus on the additional
need for a greenbelt/trails manager to focus on maintenance issues.
Commission Madrid stated that she felt that the plan needs to ensure safety for
women and children using the greenbelt and trails. She requested that the city
consider eliminating asphalt for trail construction since it gets hot. Consideration
should be given to using concrete on trails because it is cooler. She requested
that staff consider locating water within the staging areas for dogs.
Commission Falber stated that the maintenance for trails within the HOAs could
become very expensive, depending on the amount of usage. This is an unfair
burden to the HOA and the City should consider subsidizing trail maintenance
since they provide a broad benefit to an active community.
Chairperson Hall asked if there were any more comments from the
Commissioners. He then opened the hearing to receive public comments.
Dean Ziegler, Sweetwater Planning Group, Trails Subcommittee, stated that he
felt the document should consider trails within Rice Canyon to ensure
conn~ectivity to other trails.
There were no additional comments. Chairperson Hall asked if the Commission
should take action on the Master Plan. Duane stated that the purpose of the
hearing is to present the document to the Commission and gather
Commissioners and public comments. The document will be brought back to the
Commission on July 9, 2003.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - July 30, 2003
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Greenbelt Master Plan; A plan for implementation of a
28-mile open space and trails system surrounding the City. City
Initiated.
Commissioner Felber recused himself from the dais.
Back§rou,d: Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner introduced Peggy Gentry, Consultant and
reported that on May 28, 2003 the Greenbelt Master Plan was presented to the
Commission and has subsequently been presented to a number of bodies and received
significant input.
Mr. Bazzel made a Power Point presentation delineating key elements to the Plan, which
includes:
1. Greenbelt Master Plan Goals - To establish a greenbelt system
· To provide connected open space areas
· Establish a greenbelt that ensures public access ·
· Provide resources for open space, parks and trails
· City to designate a staff person or dept. as trail manager
2. Segments of the Greenbelt encompassing a 28-mile open space corridor that links
parks and open space through a trail system.
3.Design Criteria and Standards
4.Greenbelt Issues
· Trail connectivity
· Routes
· Coordination with other jurisdictions/agencies
· Grade-separated crossing locations
· Trail alternatives
· Selection of Greenbelt Manager
5.Implementation deals with:
·Acquisition of Open Space
· Trail design & construction funding
· Greenbelt Implementation Plan dealing with staffing, funding and general
management priorities
6. Plan Modifications
· Provides more emphasis on open space and park connectivity to balance trail
fOCUS
· Provides more information on where other jurisdictions and open space programs
occur
Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 30, 2003
· Calls for implementation plan to select Greenbelt Manager, staff and an on-going
annual budget.
· Misc. edits resulting from a total of 6 public meetings on draft plan
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCM 03-38
recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Hall stated he noticed that work on the Bayshore Bikeway has stopped and
inquired what the status of that was.
Mr. Bazzel responded that the cessation of work is due to the breeding season for the
sensitive species. Work should commence at the end of the breeding season sometime
in September.
Cmr. Madrid commended staff for the great work they've done on this plan. She further
inquired if there's a marketing plan what will disseminate to the region information about
this valuable asset that will be utilized not only by Chula Vista residents, but the entire
region.
Mr. Bazzel responded that currently there is no marketing plan, however, he is confident
the City Council will echo the same sentiments and give direction to develop such a
plan.
Cmr. Castaneda recommended that part of the expertise the City should be looking for in
a Trails Manager, should be experience in community outreach and education. He
further noted that the Master Planned Communities will accommodate and maintain the
trail system that traverses those communities and inquired if there is a provision for the
same for the privately owned segment of the Mid-Bayfront property.
Mr. Bazzel responded that any proposal to develop the Mid-Bayfront would be
accompanied by extensive input from staff, and the process would most definitely
include all aspects related to the trail system, ensuring its connectivity and maintenance.
Public Hearing Ol~ened
John Willett, representing the OVRP Subcommittee stated the Otay Valley River Park has
been in planning since 1989. Addressing Cmr. Madrid's comments regarding the public
outreach, Mr. Wi llett stated that the outreach began approximately five years ago with a
series of 7 video tapes that are circulated throughout the elementary and high school
districts. Additionally, the OVRP is on Channel 24. Mr. Willett further stated that he has
coordinated the clean-up of the river valley, and to date 1,064 tons of trash have been
Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - July 30, 2003
removed between 1-805 and the Bay. The OVRP Subcommittee is very proud of the
hard work Duane Bazzel and company have put into the Plan; are supportive of the
Greenbelt Master Plan and urged the Commissions support.
Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II stated that the original Crossroads group
supported the Plan when it first came up during the 1989 General Plan Update. Now,
fourteen years later, Crossroads II is privileged to see the Plan coming to fruition and
enthusiastically supports it.
Ms. Aguilar pointed out that back in May, when the first public hearing was held,
Crossroads II submitted a letter to Mr. Bazzel with their comments. Along with its
enthusiastic support of the Plan, the letter pointed out that they believed the issue of the
trails was over-emphasized, and they felt that the system was much more than
interconnected trails. The Plan contains a substantial amount of open space, park space,
golf courses, and they felt that that aspect of the Greenbelt, as described in the
document, was missing. The other critical thing that is important about the Greenbelt is
that it serves to set aside the City of Chula Vista as a unique and special place.
Another point raised was regarding implementation. The 1989 General Plan states that
an Implementation Plan for the Greenbelt shall be done. Staff's repOrt ~tates that the Plan
consists of an implementation plan, however, it later states that th~ "master plan"
identifies issues and implementation recommendations...
Ms. Aguilar also indicated that an element that is missing is the creation an advocacy
group for the Greenbelt, much like the OVRP Committee is an advocacy group for that
park.
Duane Severn~, trails coordinator for the Bonita Valley Horsemen for the last 12 years
stated that they like the Greenbelt concept, and emphasized that the trails make up the
backbone, which interconnects the entire Greenbelt system.
Mr. Bazzel stated that there are issues that are yet unresolved, such as connectivity of
equestrian trails throughout the entire system. In due time, it is anticipated that those
issues will be addressed and worked out with the different jurisdictions.
Public Hearing Closed 8:05.
Cmr. Castaneda inquired if the public will have the opportunity to give input to this
process as projects start to develop or will the Planning Commission and City Council
have an opportunity to see those documents. He further stated that there is merit to Ms.
Aguilar's recommendation that an advocacy group similar to the OVRP Committee, is a
good vehicle to facilitate input in the process.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - July 30, 2003
Mr. Bazzel responded that most likely the Planning Commission would have a
recommending role in those major projects that come through and the City Council
would be the one making the final decision. The process may differ, however,
depending on its location and other agencies/jurisdictions that may be involved.
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution
PCM 03-38 recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan including language contained in the errata sheet. Motion
carried.
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 03-38
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GREENBELT MASTER PLAN (PCM-03-38) FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND
TRAILS SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE CITY
WHEREAS, Chapin Land Management, Inc., acting as consultant for the City, with
assistance from City Staff, prepared the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan ("Greenbelt Master Plan");
and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was conducted on May 5, 2003 by City Staff, to present
the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan and solicit public input; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on May 15, 2003 by the Parks and
Recreation Commission on the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan and the item was continued to their
next regular meeting on June 19, 2003; and '
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on May 19, 2003 by the Resource
Conservation Commission to review the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 28, 2003 by the Planning
Commission on the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan with no action being taken; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on June 19, 2003 by the Parks and
Recreation Commission on the Draft Greenb, It Master Plan and the Commission voted (4-0-1-2)
to recommend that the City Council adopt the Greenbelt Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan is
statutorily exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Draft
Greenbelt Master Plan and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 30,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, before the' Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering ail reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan, the Planning Commission voted
__ to recommend approval of the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan (PCM-03-38).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the City Cour~cil adopt the attached Resolution approving the Draft
Greenbelt Master Plan (PCM-03-38) in accordance with the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 30th day of July 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Madrid, O'Neill, Castaneda, Hom
NOES:
ABSTAiN: Fel ber
ABSENT: Cortes
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secret~ly
J:\Planning\DUANE\Greenbelt_M~ster_Plan\Reports\Greenb¢lt PC Reso-2.do¢
City of Chula Vista
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes
Thursday- 6:30 p.m. May 15, 2003
Public Works Center 1800 Maxwell Rd
Meeting called to order by Chair Larry Perondi at 6:30 p.m.
Staff Present: Buck Martin, Director of Recreation
Dave Byers, Director of Public Warks Operations
Shauna Stokes, Assistant Director of Recreation
Jack Griffin, Assistant Director af Building and Parks Construction
Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect
Ed Hall, Principal Recreation Manager
Brian Cox, Principal Recreation Manager
Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner II
Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor ill
Margarita Cellano, Recording Secretary
Guests: John Willett, C.V. Resident, Representative, Otay Valley Regional Park
Janeen Reed, Trails in Open Space
Mark Kukucher, Horse Trails
Jon Rilling, Otay Land Company
Peter Watry, Chula Vista Resident, Crossroads II Representative
Susan Watry, Chula Vista Resident
Cynthia Drake, Chula Vista Resident
Olsie Owens, Chula Vista Resident
Don Ross,
Pat Caughey, Weimer, Yamada and Coughey Landscape Architects
Brad Hiluker,
1. I~oll Call/Motion to Excuse
Members Present: Commissioner Salcido, Commissioner Ramos, Commissioner
Perondi, Commissioner Strahl, Commissioner Rios
Members Absent: Commissioner Weidner, Commissioner Rude
MSC (Rios/Ramos) to excuse Commissioner Weidner and Commissioner Rude from
tonight's meeting
2. Public Comments - Mr. Watry and Ms. Reed will address the Commission when their item
of interest comes up on the Agenda.
3. Actian items
a. Minutes of April 9, 2003 Special Meeting - MSC (Strahl/Rios) (Vote 5-0-0-2
Weidner and Rude absent) to move this item to the June 2003 Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting.
b. Minutes of April 17, 2003 - MSC (Rios/Salcido) (Vote 5-0-0-2 Weidner and Rude
absent) to approve the minutes as presented
c. Olay Ranch Neighborhood Park Village 1 West - Mr. Pat Coughey of Weimer,
Yamada, and Coughed discussed the park elements and programming of
Otay Ranch Neighborhood Park. Items discussed include: park is 5.7 acres
,-/- / '7
and is located on East Palomar Street and a soon to be constructed cul-de-
sac that will serve an upcoming Elementary school and park.
Elements and programming include: one softball field with an overlaid multi-
purpose tuff area, children's play area with accessible play equipment, picnic
facilities, basketball court (not lighted), pedestrian walkways and paths,
comfort station, on-site parking (25 spaces), and pedestrian and security
lighting. Additional feature in the park includes a council ring that serves as a
gathering area for informal socializing. Poetry phrases are embedded within
the concrete circles to sewe as a discussion and focal point.
The comfort station is located within proximity to the tot lot and picnic areas.
The floor plan design takes into consideration the architectural vernacular of
the modernized agrarian theme. Construction materials include, stone
,accents, painted stucco,~and galvanized gates. ,
Commissioner Strahl asked if the walk-way/path went around the park, and if
provisions for dog deposit stations were strategically placed and accessible.
Mr. Caughey responded that the path/walk way did go around the
parameter of the park, and dog deposit stations were placed throughout the
park. These items are standard in all parks.
Commissioner Salcido asked if secondary lighting was a provision in the park
for security purposes.
Mr. Gamble (Landscape Planner II) responded that security lighting was a
provision along the concrete pathways.
Commissioner Strahl commented that he would like 1o see the basketball
courts lit.
Ms. Hofmockel [Principal Landscape Architect) responded that discussion on
lighting program elements in parks would be discussed at the June meeting.
The Commission discussed the proposed name "Horizon Park", and decided
that it would fit the pbrk well.
JSC (Salcido/Rios) (Vote 5-0-0-2 Weidner and Rude absent) to approve the
proposed Park Master Plan in Otay Ranch Village 1 West as presented with the
caveat that lights to the basketball cou~t be stubbed underground, and
approve the proposed name of the park as "Horizon Park."
d. Proposed Greenbelt Master Plan - Mr. Duane Bazzle (Principal Planner)
introduced himself and the consultant, Peggy Gentry. Mr. Bazzle also
informed the commission on the intent and purpose of the Greenbelt
Master Plan, which is indented to link existing and future parks that occur
within the City and surrounding municipalities. A Power Point Presentation
was provided to commission on the Greenbelt Master Plan, and briefly
discussed key elements that include: General Plan Concept, Goals,
Specific Segment Issues and Recommendations, and Implementation and
Management. This Master Plan is tentatively scheduled for presentation to
the Planning Commission on May 28. Mr. Bazzle discussed specific
segments, issues, and recommendation related each element.
Chair Perondi commented that this was a well thought out planned concept,
and he could see the strong cooperation between all municipalities.
Chair Perondi apened the floor far camments by the public.
Mr. Peter Watry, representative of Crossraads II talked briefly about the
presentation. Mr. Watry stated that he was an enthusiastic suppoder of the
Greenbelt concept when it was developed 15-years ago, and that over the
years, the concept was changed withaut public input. He also stated that
there is na buffer between municipalities. He also informed the Commission
that he submitted his Greenbelt concerns and changes to the Planning
Depadment eadier in the day for consideration. He asked that the
Commission, and city staff change their culture in decision making that would
include public input. In addition, Mr. Watry requested that the Parks and
Recreation Commission not take actian on the Greenbelt Master Plan, until
they have sufficient time to review all the information from the public.
Ms. daneen Reed, representative of Bonita Trails Organization talked briefly
about the Open Space Trails, and greenbelt areas and stated that these
areas are all important in the concept. She asked that the Commission not
move the horse rink from it's present location in Rohr Park because currently,
this is the last public horse arena in the area.
Commissioner Strahl stated that before he takes action on the Greenbelt
Master Plan, he would like to receive more information that includes the
Planning Depadment's comments and public comments.
MSC (Strahl/Rios) (Vote: $-0-0-2 Weidner and Rude Absent) that the Parks and
Recreation Commission approves the Master Plan in a conceptual way with its
many positive altdbutes, but cannot approve it until they receive more public
input and Planning Commission input. It is requested that Mr. Bazzle returns in
June with comments from the Planning Commission.
City of Chula Vista
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes
Thursday - 6:30 p.m. June 19, 2003
Public Works Center 1800 N~axwell Ed
Meeting called ta order by Vice Chair, Don Salcida at 6:31 p.m.
Staff Present: Buck Martin, Director of Recreation
Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations
Andy Campbell, Director of Building and Parks Construction
Jack Griffin, Asst. Director of Building and Parks Construction
Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect
, Joe Gamble,,Landscape Planner II 0
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
.Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager
Ed Hall, Principal Recreation Manager
Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor III
Margarita Cellano, Recording Secretary
Guests: Pefer Watry, Crossroads II, Representative
John Norman, Brookfield Shea
John Moore, Brookfield Shea
Glen Schmidt, Schmidt Design Group
Peggy Gentry, Chapin Land Management, inc.
1. Roll Call/Motion to Excuse
Members Present: Commissioner Rude, Commissioner SaIcido, Commissioner
Weidner (arrived at 6:38 p.m.), Commissioner Strahl, and
Commissioner Rios
Members Absent: Commissioner Ramos, Chair Perondi
/vtSC (Salcid~)/Rios) to excuse Commissioner Ramos and Chair Perondi from tonight's
meeting.
2. Public Comments -
3. Action items
a. Minutes of April 9, 2003 Special Meeting - MSC (Rude/Rios) (Vote 4-0-0-2) to
approve the minutes as presented.
b. Minutes of May 15, 2003 - Move to meeting of July 17, 2003
c. Otay Ranch Neighborhood Park - Village 11 - Mr. Joe Gamble {Landscape
Planner II) talked briefly about the Neighborhood Park in Village 11, and
introduced Mr. Glen Schmidt of Schmidt Design Group.
Mr. Schmidt stated that this park site is in Village 11, and is the only public
neighborhood park within the Village, and its location is consistent with the
central focus theme associated with the neo-traditional concept. The park is
7 acres north and east of the intersection Windingwalk Street and Exploration
Falls Drive. West of the park is the future Village 11 Elementary School site.
San Diego Gas & Electric and San Diego County water Authority easement is
east of the park site, and also serves as an open space backdrop for the park
site. To the north of the park site and a multi-family project, which elevated
approximately 10 - 20 feet higher than the park, and single-family residences
are praposed to be located south of Windingwalk Street and the park.
Mr. Schmidt discussed the recreation programming elements that include:
softball field with overlaid multi-purpose area that is suitable for soccer
activity, children's play area, picnic facilities, basketball court (lighted), tennis
court (lighted, budget permitting), skate component, pedestrian walkways
and paths, comfort station, on-site parking, and pedestrian and security
lighting.
Mr. Schmidt discussed the design theme of the park that includes a ranch
theme, and stated that the park°is multi-tiered. In addition, architectural 0
elements in the park are based on the design principles of Irving Gill, who is a
famed San Diego architect.
Commissioner Strahl asked if dog-waste stations were an element of the park.
Mr. Gamble ILandscape Planner II) responded that dog-waste stations are a
standard park component.
Commissioner Rios asked why the San Diego Gas & Electric easement was not
being used at this park.
Mr. Gamble ILandscape Planner II) responded that San Diego Gas & Electric
was not open to include active recreation on the easement.
Commissioner Weidner asked how much space is allotted for swings, and how
many swings will be available.
Mr. Schmidt responded that 2 sets of swings are available; (1) 4-seat swing in
the school age play area, and a 4-seat swing in the tot-area.
Commissioner Weidner stated that the trellises do not look wide enough for
useable shade for park patrons, and asked about the size of the multi-
purpose field for soccer play.
Mr. Schmidt responded that the trellises could be expanded, and stated that
the multipurpose field meets the city's requirements for soccer field, and is
multifunctionaL
Commissioner Salcido asked about the pitch of the field, drainage of the
field, and adequate lighting for the field Inot for professional useI.
Mr. $chmidt responded that the pitch is 2% and the drainage is across the
field. Ms. Hofmockel [Principal Landscape Architect) responded that the
lighting issue would be addressed at the July meeting, since staff was
researching acceptable levels of lighting for certain types of play.
Discussion held on the suggested name of the park, "Windingwalk Park".
M$C (Rios/Strahl) (Vote: $-0-0-2 Perondi and Ramos absent) to approve the
Master Plan for the Neighborhood Park in Village 11 and recommend Jt to the
City Council.
MSC (Rude/Rios) (Vote: $-0-0-2 Perondi and Ramos absent) to approve the
park name for the neighborhood park in Village 11 as Windingwalk Park.
d. Greenbelt Master Plan - Mr. Duane Bazzel (Principal Planner) bdefly discussed
the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan. Mr. Bazzel reviewed and discussed the
key issues raised at public workshops. In addition, Mr. Bazzel stated that the
concerns raised (by the public, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
Planning Commission) were focused in five areas that include: Connectivity;
Clarify Mapping & Text; Public Participation; Implementation Chapter, and
Greenbelt Focus. Mr. Bazzel also distributed a copy of the Greenbelt Master
Plan Meeting Schedule.
Mr. Bazzel also stated that he attended the Environmental and Open Space
Committee of the General Plan Update (made up of Resource Conservation
Commission plus additional environmental representatives from the larger San
Diego community). Their issues included: strengthening comments in the
document regarding the open space program that make up the open space
walk within the Greenbelt system. Comments were made regarding the flood
channel, and the desire to work with government agencies to restore the
area where it is currently concrete (beyond Chula Vista control). In addition,
Mr. Bazzel stated that they expressed support for the plan with focus on the
trails, and connection to the park systems.
Mr. Bazzel stated that at the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting,
concerns raised included: Home Owners Association Fees, maintenance costs
to the City (incase of a catastrophic event) for the trail system, patrolling the
open space system, and safety (in the Otay Valley area).
Commissioner Salcido asked about the southwest section of the Greenbelt
Plan, and asked whether this area would be developed or left as an open
space area, and asked about connecting both north and south through mJd-
bayfront area.
Mr. Ba77el responded that the Sweetwater Marsh is a protected wildlife
refuge, and development would not take place, There are existing nesting of
birds currently. In addition, there is a joint Master Planning effort with Port
District area (by J Street), to connect both sections to ensure there is a
connected frail system. They are concerned about where open space trails
will'be placed; in addition, they have concerns related to having maximum
flexibility with the Master Plan. The City is going to ensure that there is
connected trail system through the area, and have appropriate open space
links with the interface with the bay. The ultimate land-use is unknown at this
time.
Discussion held on signage throughout the system.
Commissioner Strahl commented that he ,is concerned about how the
Greenbelt will be maintained or what will happen after it is approved by the
City Council.
Mr. Peter Watry stated that he is pleased that the Commission did not take
action on the Greenbelt Master Plan on May 15, 2003, and waited to receive
additional information from the public and Planning Commission. Mr. Watry
also thanked the Commission for their efforts on the Greenbelt.
MSC (Rios/Strahl) (Vote: 4-0-1-2 with Perondi and Ramos absent and Weidner
abstained because she was not at the 5/15/03 meeting when substantial
discussion took place about the Greenbelt Master Plan) to recommend to the
City Council to adopt and approve the Greenbelt Master Plan, and request
that Mr. Bazzel return on July 17, 2003 and discuss any substantial changes to
the Master Plan that he received subsequent, and place this item on the
agenda as an action item.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
RESOURCE CONSERVATI* ~N COMMISSION
Augl 20,
Ken Lee Bui Co~
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by ;resa Thomas; ).m.
ROLL CALL/MOTION TO EXCUSE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Teresa hair Doug
Commissioners ~asek, :hAvez
Bensoussan,,~ Juan D'iaz (~
STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Por~eggi, E~nmental Review'CeQr.~ator
Duane B~~ ...........
Dai Hoan~, Planning 're~hnici~-I~. /
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 16, ~Q03
Commissioner ChAvoz recall~a-~bout a v~rkshop~ith EnJneering regarding
traffic. He would lik~ to see t,~..~appen?
MSC (Reid/Chavez) to/apprOve thl~.minutes of June 16, 2003 as submitted.
Vote: (5-0-0-1) with D~_.~,.absent.
ORAL eOM M U NICATION__S'~.~
1. Master Plan
Duane~a/Planner) an overview of the Greenbelt Master
Plan. /~.... "~
Commission Co~m~ents
lissio.n.er_Ben~(~ifthe Re Manor house and adobe were being
Mr. Bazzel stated tha~ the does not deal with that.
He that Commissioner Bensoussan contact the Recreation
Department. Also , may be a citizen committee.
RCC Minutes - 2 - August 4, 2003
Vice-Chair Reid noted that the Plan states the trails I-5 to 1-805. He
thought they were being.constructed west r the I-5. Mr. that what is
being constructed right now is a bri ~n I-5.
way to "E" Street. When the approved, the
go within that project.
Chair Thomas referred to the ~CP on pa-l:je 16 of ~. The wo~
'draft' needs to come out and ~1~ ,paragraph update~. She asked a-'t'the-wo/r
'habitats' be added to the end o 3baJ~2 on page 17. Ch~omas handed out a list
of policies that she requested be addeh~o Plan. Staff a'f~t~e Commissioners
discussed her suggestions at length. /...... ~
MSC (Bensoussan/Reid) to recommend ~e Greenbelt M~ster
Plan with inclusion of the followir locations/in the
document: ./
1. Policy: Chula Vista Mu Species Program
(MSCP) and other mit for general and s )lans
and projects belt trails ap[
2. Policy: Recommend in areas of
floodplain, potential may lead to
the Jrces or' sustainability,
quality and ;ntal of the ;s of our City,
community ion.~
3. Policy: The ~Je nuh3~ber and location or type of future staging or
educational areas will bb~.~etermined as opportunities and funding
becomes~.~ ~ ble. There "ace...three examples of staging areas
discussed i~ ' plan. ~
Add the following to .~oal 2.0 o~ 17: ",.., and habitats as well
as Bio __ ~rces wherever a date."
2, Election cers
MSC (I late Thomas as Chair and Doug Reid as
and Reid abstaining.
ENVlR( None.
CHAIR COMMENTS:
Attachment 5
STAFF RESPONSE TO 8/4/03 RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED EDITS:
RCC Recommended Policy: "Chula Vista City Multiple Species Conservation Parogram
(MSCP) and other mitigation agreements for general and specific plans and projects shall
take priority over the Greenbelt trails applications."
Staff Response: Added Policy 2.6 on page 17 as follows:
"Ail proposed trails shall adhere to guidelines contained within the City's
adopted MSCP as well as stipulations contained within other mitigation
agreements."
RCC Recommended Policy: "Recommend impervious trails not be applied in areas of
floodplain, potential for flooding, watershed or areas that may lead to the contamination
of needed resoumes or threaten the sustainability, quality and environmental health of the
resources of our City, community or region."
StaffResponse: Added Policy 2.7 on page 17 as follows:
"Impervious trails should be avoided in watershed and flood plain areas
~where potential contamination of resources could occur."
RCC Rbcomtnended Policy: "The precise number and location or type of future staging
or educational areas will be determined as opportunities and funding becomes available.
There are three examples of staging areas discussed in this plan."
Staff Response: Modified text on page 34 as follows:
"The precise number and location or type of future staging or educational
areas will be determined as opportunities and funding becomes available.
Update the MSCP paragraph on page 16.
Staff Response: Done.
Add the following to the end of Goal 2.0 on page 17: "...and habitats as well as Bio
Resources wherever appropriate."
StaffResponse: Modified Goal 2.0 on page 16 as follows:
"To provide connected open space areas surrounding Chula Vista to enhance
the natural beauty and to preserve native biological and cultural resources as
well as sensitive habitats."
August 26, 2003
Honorable Steve Padilla
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91912-1087
Dear Mayor Padilla,
The Building Industry Association has reviewed the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan and offers
the following comments.
Sec. 6.2.1 Acquisition of Greenbelt Open Space and Trails
Mandatory Exaction
Should include a comment that exactions will only be sought were an appropriate nexus between
the development proposed and the land to be acquired through the exaction is to be used.
6.2.3 Maintenance Funding
State law, except in very specific instances, prohibits the use of Developer Fees for maintenance
and operations. (Government Code §65913.8) this option should be deleted from the Master
Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to review an comment on the City's proposed Greenbelt Master
Plan
Sincerely,
Jerry Livingston
Staff Counsel
GREENBELT MASTER PLAN
(August 11, 2003)
TEXT EDITS
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
Policy 4.2 The City will pursue grant programs and opportunities with
inter-agency cooperation for park and trail development and
implementation.
Policy4.3 The City will encourage volunteer/community service
organizations to assist in the construction and maintenance
of trails.
Policy4.4 The City will collaborate with private organizations for
constructing, maintaining, and monitoring trails.
Goal 5.0: To establish a framework for the City to designate a staff
person or department(s) who will serve as the G:cc.-.bc!t
."~,,..".=GcrmanaRer responsible for open space and park
acquisition, obtaining funds, coordination, implementation,
and ongoing maintenance of the Greenbelt.
Policy5.1 The City will facilitate the design of parks and trails in
accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations
and with best practices available.
Policy5.2 The City will coordinate maintenance and monitoring
programs for the Greenbelt system.
Policy 5.3 The City will facilitate the installation of informational signs
and maps within each Greenbelt segment and along the trail
system to guide trail users.
Policy 5.4 The City will prepare an implementation plan that establishes
department and staff responsibilities for managing open
space property acquisition and inter-agency coordination, as
well as addresses funding for Greenbelt management and
maintenance.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
address post construction urban runoff pollution from development projects.
These requirements are important to the development of the staging areas when
there results in the creation of 5,000 square feet of impervious soil or with greater
than 15 parking spaces and potential exposed to urban runoff. Design of staging
areas, which are subject to SUSMP, will need to provide Best Management
Practices (BMP) that may include such measures to reduce imperviousness such
as providing runoff storage measures throughout the site landscape with the use
of detention, retention and runoff practices. These measures of may include
onsite retention or pavement techniques that allow runoff to remain on-site.
BMPs may also include construction of trails with permeable surfaces such as
decomposed granite surface or pervious concrete as recommended in this
document.
Additionally, the NPDES standards identity pollutants of concern that potentially
affect storm water runoff and the quality of groundwater that include animal
waste. Within the Greenbelt where equestrians are permitted, signs may be
posted that require waste pickup and proper disposal along with the availability of
free bags at staging areas and trash receptacles at suitable intervals along the
trails.
4.3 Greenbelt Management and Maintenance
The entire Greenbelt falls within five jurisdictions, the Cities of Chula Vista,
National City, and San Diego, and the County of San Diego and Port District
(Figure 10). Management and maintenance responsibility generally lies with the
property owner, which may be one of the jurisdictions, a resource agency, a
utility company or a homeowners association. In areas where a segment(s) is
within more than one jurisdiction, the greenbelt may be managed by several
agencies or the agencies may agree to jointly manage the open space.
Management and maintenance within the Greenbelt includes open space,
passive and active recreation facilities, and/or trails. Each requires a different
level of management and maintenance; however, there are some typical
ingredients to consider for any one or all of these components, as discussed in
this section.
4.3.'1 Greenbelt Management
A good management program is essential to ensure long-term success. After
planning and implementation, the success of any Greenbelt system is
determined by how well the Greenbelt is managed. Thic dcc'Jmont hc'.*:cvcr
this document does not identify a specific individual or department(s) that will
manaqe the ~n ......... :11 ~, ...... ~':,~1 tO ~'h ....... II ....... ~, f th
prc.~rcm. Greenbelt, it does however, recoqn ze that the City of Chula Vista will
be responsible for manaqement of that portion of the Greenbelt within its control.
38
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Further discussion with *~-'-
....... ;"* .......... + ....... 3ndother jurisdictions may be necessary to
assure coordination on manaqement and potential funding mechanisms for a
the Greenbelt.
The key tasks of Greenbelt ma-Ragemmana.qement are to:
· Maintain safety,
· Protect natural resources, and
· Provide high-quality user experiences.
As the Greenbelt system becomes more refined with a comprehensive trail
system and other active recreation facilities, the number of users and their
diversity increases, management and maintenance will become increasingly
important.
An effective management program may employ a variety of tools and may utilize
various tools at different times. For example, education and appropriate signage
advising users on how to use the Greenbelt have been successful in reducing
encroachments into sensitive areas and reducing user conflicts. Depending on
the location, purpose of the trail, and level of trail use, hours of operation and trail
use restrictions will be important to define.
Hours of operation
The Greenbelt system is primarily intended for use during the day. Signage
noting hours of operation restricts nighttime activity. Limiting the use during
nighttime hours reduces the impact on adjacent properties. Depending on the
segment, and use level, specific hours of operation should be established and
posted.
Trail Use Restriction
Although the majority of the trails within the Greenbelt system are designed for
and intended to be used by a variety of trails users (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists,
and equestrians) there may be instances within where certain types of users
might be restricted, either permanently or temporarily. It is anticipated that this
would occur when there are specific concerns related to protection of biological
resources; when the trail is undergoing maintenance or construction; when use of
the trail would be detrimental to the trail maintenance such as after a rain storm;
when there is a potential hazard such as crop spraying or harvesting; or during a
emergency situation. Trail signage that identifies the permitted use will be
installed at the beginning of each trail segment. A temporary trail closure sign
would be posted at each trail segment with an anticipated date for trail reopening.
The trails are designed to allow access through open space areas and for the
enjoyment of the public. Trail use will be limited to the designated trail by fencing
and/or signage.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
5.2.70tay Ranch Village Greenway Segment
Although not a part of the original Greenbelt as identified in the General Plan, the
Otay Ranch Village Greenway segment has been added to the Greenbelt Master
Plan as it is a major trail linkage identified within the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. This segment will connect from the Salt Creek trail through
urban ";"
..... ~..~ cndvilla.qes, the Eastern Urban r.,.,.,,.. ,,. +~... ~^/..~ ~- ........ ,, ,...~
*...,,,~,,,~ ..... -,w ,,/~,~.,~ ..... !7).Center, in or near Wolf Canyon to the Otay Valley (Figure
16).
Greenbelt Issues:
The Village Greenway presents opportunities for a multi-use trail that will provide
mobility for residents between several villages and provide connectivity between
recreation areas in the Eastern Urban Center and future park(s) along the
Greenway. Developing a trail link along Wolf Canyon to link the Salt Creek
Segment to the Otay River Valley will need to be sensitively planned to avoid
adverse environmental impacts while providing opportunities for public access.
Existin.q and Future Trail
An existing dirt utility access road for a variety of ranch operations is located
along Wolf Canyon connecting future La Media Road southwest to the Otay
River Valley, on the north and west side of Rock Mountain, offering an ideal
setting for a multi-use trail. With improvements consisting of decomposed
granite or other special material (concrete treated base), depending on
maintenance road minimum requirements, this existing access road wculdcould
serve as a multi-use pathway within the Wolf Canyon open space.
..... would extend under or over Main Street/Rock
The access road/pathway
Mountain Road and La Media Road, and through Village 7 of the Otay Ranch
within a planned open space corridor. Through Village 7 the trail will be
constructed of decomposed granite or concrete and will be ten feet in width. As
the trail extends under the SR-125 Tollway, the trail will be constructed of
concrete and traverse the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) within an open space
corridor. Through subsequent planning of the EUC, it may be warranted to
provide both concrete and decomposed granite trail segments to provide for
joggers as well as rollerbladers, strollers or other non-motorized recreational
activities with wheels. The Village Greenway as it passes through the Eastern
Urban Center will provide a major trail connection that not only enhances
mobility, but also provides an opportunity in the Eastern Urban Center for both
residents and employees of the EUC to recreate. The Village Greenway would
be designed to connect significant park and open space uses in the EUC and
provide both active and passive users opportunities to stop and enjoy the
experience through an enhanced open space paseo.
The Village Greenway will cross Eastlake Parkway on a pedestrian bridge at the
southwest corner of Village 11 and continue as a decomposed granite trail within
56
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
an open space buffer on the north side of Hunte Parkway, until it crosses Hunte
Parkway by pedestrian bridge to connect with the Greenbelt trail extending along
the westerly edge of Salt Creek.
Trail Issues
· Due to the natural terrain and native habitat along Wolf Canyon, there are
concerns that users would encroach into native habitat areas.
· Use of the access road as a trail would need to be negotiated with property
owners until the Wolf Canyon open space is conveyed to the Otay Ranch
Preserve.
· Implementation of the trail through the EUC may be required to be unique and
different, due to the urban nature of this planning area.
· The design of grade-separated crossings (underpass or overpass) of La
Media Road and Main Street/Rock Mountain Roads for the Village Greenway
will require further roadway alignment and SPA grading analyses to
determine the best type of crossings.
· A university site has been identified south of the Eastern Urban Center
although the specific design has not been determined. Trail routes and
connections should be considered in future planning of the university site.
· Connecting trail links to adjacent villages in Otay Ranch are encouraged;
however, environmental constraints in Wolf Canyon may limit the number and
location.
Greenbelt Recommendations
......... u ........ u .... The Villaqe Greenway trail proposed to extend
through Wolf Canyon is one of several potential alignments that will be fully
analyzed prior to the selection of a final trail aliqnment. This final trail
alignment should ensure connectivity to the Greenbelt Trail system in Otay
Valley.
· If a trail is located within Wolf Canyon, provide signs along the canyon for a
native trail and to advise users to stay on the path.
· Enlist an organization to function as trail user patrol that would voluntarily
police the trail.
· Pqaeelf a trail is located within Wolf Canyon, place a post and rail fence along
both sides of the utility road to restrict access off of the trail and discourage
off trail cycling.
57
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Provide a grade-separated trail crossing (underpass or overpass) at Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road to connect to the east/west Otay Valley
Greenbelt Trail.
· A future multi-use trail should be located to and within the University site and
connecting to the Eastern Urban Center to provide a trail for students and
employees. The design will be coordinated through the development process
of the university.
· Connecting trails from adjacent residential areas should be sensitively
designed to minimize environmental impacts.
5.2.8 Bayfront Segment
The~ayfront Segment extends from the Sweetwater Marsh, a National Wildlife
Preserve, and north to I-5, at the Sweetwater River.(Figure 18). The Bayfront
Segment is bordered by I-5 on the east and the San Diego Bay on the west.
Also located along this segment are existing industrial uses, the Chula Vista
Bayside Park and Marina, and the (former) Western Salt ponds.
Greenbelt Issues
Proposed development and redevelopment of the Bayfront may include mixed
uses such as residential (mid-bayfront only), retail, commercial, hotel uses and
other marine related uses. As this area redevelops, the City and other agencies
should coordinate any open space and trail corridors to ensure connectivity and
preservation of natural wildlife areas where appropriate.
Existing and Proposed Trail
The Bayfront includes a segment of the
Bayshore Bikeway, a regional bikeway
that is planned to provide a paved multi-
use pathway for cyclists and
pedestrians from the pathway along the
Embarcadero and Seaport Village in
San Diego to Coronado with a
connection across the Bay via the ferry.
The connection to the Bayfront, from
National City to the north and Imperial
Beach to the southwest has not been
constructed; however, construction has
begun on a twelve foot wide paved BayshoreBikewaytolmperial Beach
pathway with a bridge across the
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
· Corporate Sponsorship
· Special Events - Fund rides, time trails, etc.
· Franchise Fees - Food stands, bike lockers, bike rental/repair at staging
areas and/or parks
· Urban Corps of San Diego - This organization provides young adults job
training, education, and community service opportunities. The Urban
Corps' "Public Service Conservation Works Program" offers services for
trail construction and maintenance, erosion control, brush management,
revegetation and public landscaping.
· California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a state agency that engages
young persons in meaningful work, public service, and educational
activities providing services to communities and they have conducted trail
maintenance and construction.
· User Fees - Typically the City charges user fees paid for the use of
campgrounds, active playing fields, and other day use fees. A user fee for
trail usage would be difficult to collect and enforce unless each trail was
gated and fenced for its entirety. However, a volunteer collection
mechanism may be implemented whereby a user box is installed at
various trailheads. Fees are collected via the honor system.
~ Dcvc!cpcr Fccc
· Corporate Funding
· Fundraising events
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE GREENBELT MASTER PLAN (PCM-03-38)
FOR THE FORMULATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE CITY
WHEREAS, the project consists of a Greenbelt Master Plan for the implementation of a 28-mile
open space and trails system surrounding the City; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan is statutorily
exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a public hearing on May 15, 2003,
and took public testimony and provided staff with additional comments and continued the item to their
regular meeting of June 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a public hearing on June 19, 2003,
took additional public testimony and recommended that the City Council adopt the Greenbelt Master
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop that was advertised for May
28, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. at Joseph Casillas Elementary School, 1130 East J Street, at which time the
Planning Commission opened the workshop and took public testimony and provided staff with additional
comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing that was advertised for July 30,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue in the Public Services
Building, and took public testimony and recommended that the City Council adopt the Greenbelt Master
Plan; and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Greenbelt Master Plan was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on September 16, 2003, to receive the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Resoume Conservation Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Greenbelt
Master Plan, a copy of which will be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office, and
It is further resolved that staff is hereby directed to prepare a Greenbelt Implementation Plan that
identifies staffing responsibilities, implementation priorities, and addresses budget recommendations.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jim Sandoval Ann~/(9~City Attorney 65/
Acting Director of Planning and Building
J:Attomey\Reso\Greenbelt Master Plan
Prepared fo~.
~ the City o/ChulaV/sta
Prepared by:
Chopin Land Management, Inc.
FINAL DRAFT
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
August 11,2003
Acknowledgements
City of Chula Vista:
Duane E. Bazzel, Principal Planner
Dai Hoang, Planning Technician II
Frank J. Herrera-A, Associate Planner
Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect
John Krizan, Landscape Architect
Nancy Ross, Geographic Information System Specialist
Todd Schmit, Landscape Architect
Chapin Land Management, Inc:
Peggy Gentry, Project Manager
Kelly Ballard, Research
Liz Seam, Graphics
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need 4
1.1 Purpose of Plan 4
1.2 Need for Master Plan 6
1.3 Components of the Greenbelt 9
Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions 12
2.1 Historical Context 12
2.2 Local and Regional Setting 12
2.3 Relationship to Other Local and Regional Plans 13
Chapter 3 - Goals and Policies 16
Chapter 4 - Design Criteria and Standards 19
4.1 Trail Types 20
4.1.1 General Standards 21
4.1.2 Trail Surface 21
4.1.3 Multi-use Trail 21
4.1.4 Rural Trail 24
4.1.5 Special Trail Design Criteria 26
4.2 Greenbelt Design 28
4.2.1 Greenbelt Signs 28
4.2.2 Staging Areas 32
4.2.3 Site Furnishings 34
4.2.4 Accessibility Guidelines 35
4.2.5 Fencing 35
4.2.6 Arterial Crossings 37
4.2.7 Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation 37
Plan Requirements
4.3 Greenbelt Management and Maintenance 38
4.3.1 Greenbelt Management 38
4.3.2 Greenbelt Maintenance 42
4.3.3 User Conflicts 44
Chapter 5 - The Plan 46
5.1 Planning Approach and Methodology 46
5.2 Segment and Trail Descriptions 46
5.2.1 Lower Sweetwater Segment 46
5.2.2 Sweetwater Regional Park Segment 48
5.2.3 San Miguel Segment 50
5.2.4 Salt Creek Segment 52
5.2.5 Otay Lakes Segment 53
5.2.6 Otay Valley Regional Park, East and West Segments 54
5.2.7 Otay Ranch Village Greenway Segment 55
5.2.8 Bayfront Segment 58
5.3 Greenbelt Summary 59
5.4 Greenbelt Maps 62
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 6 - Implementation 63
6.1 Publicly & Privately Owned Open Space 63
6.1.1 Publicly Owned Open Space 63
6.1.2 Privately Owned Open Space 64
6.2 Acquisition, Development and Maintenance Funding 64
6.2.1 Acquisition of Greenbelt Open Space and Trails 64
6.2.2 Design and Construction Funding 66
6.2.3 Maintenance Funding 67
Chapter 7 - Consultation 69
Sources Consulted and Persons Interviewed 69
Greenbelt Maps 70
Tables
Table 1 - Trail Standards 25
Table 2 - Grade Separated Roadway Crossings 37
Table 3 - Estimate of Probably Costs 42
Table 4 - Recommended Maintenance Schedule 43
Table 5 - Trail Segment Characteristics 60
Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 5
Figure 2 - General Plan Greenbelt 6
Figure 3 - Multi-use Trail / Rural Trail 23
Figure 4 - Greenbelt Trail Sign 29
Figure 5 - Trail Head Kiosk Concept 30
Figure 6 - Trail Sign Post 31
Figure 7 - Staging Area without Equestrian Facilities 33
Figure 8 - Staging Area with Equestrian Facilities 34
Figure 9 - Post and Rail Fence 36
Figure 10 - Greenbelt Jurisdictions & Agencies 41
Figure 11 - Greenbelt Master Plan Map 72
Figure 12 - Lower Sweetwater Segment 73
Figure 13 - Sweetwater Regional Park Segment 74
Figure 14 -San Miguel Segment 75
Figure 15 - Otay Lakes/Salt Creek Segments 76
Figure 16 - Otay Valley Regional Park East & Otay Ranch Village Greenway
Segments 77
Figure 17 - Otay Valley Regional Park West Segment 78
Figure 18 - Bayfront Segment 79
Figure 19 - Maintenance Map 80
iii
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Introduction
The Greenbelt is described in the City's General Plan as the backbone of ~n
open space and park system that extends throughout the city. Comprised
of a series of open space segments, the Greenbelt system will be connected by a
multi-use trail extending through each segment. Essentially, the Greenbelt
creates an open space border around the City. This Greenbelt is comprised of a
variety of natural and park like elements; from the channelized Sweetwater River,
along golf courses and banks of the Otay Lakes, following the Otay River valley
to the Chula Vista Bayfront.
Each Greenbelt segment offers unique opportunities for passive and/or active
recreation that may be connected by a continuous trail system Recognizing these
opportunities within each segment will serve to enhance and preserve the
benefits and natural amenities of the greenbelt system. The intent of this Plan is
to identify opportunities and plan to develop parks and trails as funding becomes
available or through the development of master planned communities.
One of the key components of the Greenbelt is the multi-use trail that serves to
connect the parks and open space of each Greenbelt segment. Trails are
defined as paths used for walking, bicycling, horseback riding or other forms of
recreation or transportation. For the purposes of the Greenbelt, there are two
general types of trails: Multi-use Trails and Rural Trails. Multi-Use trails are
trails designed for a variety of users, such as bicyclists, equestrians, pedestrians,
joggers, and other non-motorized activities. The Multi-use Trail may also be
improved with a variety of trail surfaces. Rural Trails provide access to natural
open space areas, and are designed to minimize impacts to natural resource
areas, limit access to maintenance and emergency vehicles, and may limit the
types of users depending on permitted uses in these resource areas.
The trails identified in this Master Plan represent both existing and proposed
trails. The Master Plan is not intended to show precise alignments or locations of
trail improvements, although as a result of master planned community design
efforts, some trail locations have been identified. Precise locations for other trail
segments will be developed on a case by case basis following appropriate
review, through the master planned communities design efforts, or as part of a
capital improvement project.
In the City's General Plan, the Greenbelt is divided into segments that roughly
follow the boundaries of the City along the Sweetwater River, Salt Creek and
Otay Lakes, Otay River Valley, and the San Diego Bay. The Greenbelt is not
entirely located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. Portions of the
Greenbelt are located within the Cities of National City and San Diego, and the
County of San Diego and Port District. This document recognizes the need for
planning with the neighboring jurisdictions and the City will continue to work with
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
those agencies to cooperatively plan trail connections to ensure the Greenbelt's
continuity.
The process for developing this Master Plan included the following key steps:
· Identifying open space programs that comprise the greenbelt system;
· Evaluating the existing Greenbelt system, existing trails, proposed trails
within developing communities, and related open space and trail planning
documents;
· Summarizing background information on the open space and regional
parks of the Greenbelt, and existing trails and proposed trails;
· Establishing goals of the Master Plan with supporting policies;
· Developing a physical plan showing recommended multi-use trails within
the Greenbelt;
· Establishing design guidelines for the amenities within the Greenbelt and
for the multi-use trail system; and,
· Proposing an implementation program for the Greenbelt system.
This document serves as a planning tool to guide future planning decisions.
Specific actions and commitments can assure that in the future the entire
Greenbelt with interconnecting trails will be developed through commitments by
the City and the adjacent jurisdictions, pursuing funding mechanisms, and
through sensitive and flexible design criteria. The Greenbelt Master Plan is
divided into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Why the Greenbelt Master Plan has been prepared, the need for a
master plan, and who will use the Greenbelt trail system?
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Where are the existing Greenbelt segments, what trails have been
planned and where they are located?
Chapter 3: Goals and Policies
What goals and policies guide the development of the Greenbelt?
Chapter 4: Design Criteria and Standards
What types of trails will be constructed, are there additional
amenities that will be provided and what signs will be installed that
will provide recognition and guidance to trail users?
2
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 5 The Plan
Ultimately, where are the existing and future Greenbelt segments
and what trails will be located within each Greenbelt?
Chapter 6: Implementation
What actions need to occur to accomplish the goals of the plan?
Chapter 7: Consultation
Sources Consulted and Persons Interviewed
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
Chapter 1
Purpose and Need
The City of Chula Vista has grown rapidly achieving the status as the second
largest city in the San Diego region (See Figure 1). This rapidly growing, diverse
community has a population estimated at 200,000. Over time, the City's leaders
have recognized the value of open space and the importance of preserving the
natural environment, while also understanding that both open space and trails
are important to the quality of life of a diverse community. This document is a
Master Plan for the greenbelt system surrounding the City and the trails that are
an essential component of the greenbelt.
1.1 Purpose of Plan
The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (pp.1-42) discusses the
concept, describes the major components, and includes a diagram of the
physical layout of the Greenbelt. The General Plan states, "to assure a
coordination of planning for all components of the Chula Vista Greenbelt, an
overall master plan is recommended."
The Greenbelt Master Plan (referred to in this document as the Plan) provides
guidance and continuity for planning open space and constructing and
maintaining trails that encircle the City. The Plan's primary purpose is to provide
goals and policies, trail design standards, and implementation tools that guide
the creation of a Greenbelt System connected by a system of multi-use trails.
The Greenbelt system will create an identity for the City while unifying the west
and east. The multi-use trail system is an integral component of the Greenbelt
as it links each segment. Each of the Greenbelt segments offers unique
challenges to implementing the Plan. Consulting with State and Federal
guidelines regarding accessibility will be required prior to final trail design and
construction.
The Greenbelt Master Plan serves as a flexible, comprehensive, and long-range
planning document. It is a guide for identifying significant open space areas
within the Greenbelt and potential multi-use trails and is a tool for planning and
developing the entire Greenbelt system.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
DIEGO
CHULA Vl~
GREENBELT
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
5
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Figure 2
General Plan Greenbelt
1.2 Need for a Greenbelt Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista's Parks Master Plan states that providing well planned
leisure opportunities is one of the greatest challenges in the 21st century.
Surveys conducted by the City to determine public interest and commitment in
parks facilities was conducted in 1995 and 1996 and updated in 2000 (Chula
Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan). The survey resulted in the recognition
that 75% of the residents use City parks and that the key programs desired are
outdoor court facilities, playing fields, and biking and jogging paths.
Protection of linear corridors and open space networks is vital to providing
access to scenic areas, parks, and other public or non-public recreation.
Connecting these open space corridors for public access requires preserving
corridors for trails, coordination with property owners for trail development, and
active public support for trails.
The Greenbelt itself provides visual and environmental benefits. Incorporating a
trail throughout the Greenbelt will continue to ensure the feeling of open space,
protection of habitat, and providing for public access to the Greenbelt. Trails
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
provide a relatively inexpensive form of recreation for the general public as well
as prove to be an asset to the community and increase property values. Other
benefits are more individualized for the user. Trail users realize improved health,
increased fitness, convenient access to the outdoors, and a diversified selection
of recreational opportunities.
Connecting each Greenbelt segment will result in achieving one of the most
desired recreation amenities for communities. The 1993 California Outdoor
Recreation Plan states that 88% of the public participated in walking, 55% in
hiking, 31% in jogging or running, 46% in biking on paved surfaces, 15% in
mountain bicycling and 15% in horseback riding. Urban and suburban
development continues to diminish available open space; frequently severing trail
corridors used for trail purposes, but never formally designated as public trails.
However, the demand for non-motorized trails is increasing. The 1991 Harris Poll
cited studies that showed 54% of Americans would cycle if they had safe,
separate designated paths on which to ride and 59% said they would walk more
if there were pathways separated from motor vehicles (The National Bicycling
and Walking Study, pp 30.)
Supporting this need for trails are the results of a telephone survey for the City of
Chula Vista conducted in 1995 and 1996 to assess the community's recreation
needs and preferences. The results issued by Research Network, Ltd., indicated
that 7-8% of those who responded wanted more biking and jogging paths.
Users of trails are classified as either recreationists or commuters. Recreationists
are those users who use the trail for exercise, enjoyment, or sport. Commuters
are generally defined as bicyclists or pedestrians who walk or bike to school,
places of employment or services. It is anticipated that both recreationists and
commuters will use the trail system based on the accessibility of trail segments to
residential areas and to destination points, such as employment centers,
services, schools, and recreation areas. Since the trail system will connect
urbanized areas to open space areas, there will be a variety of trail users
depending on the location and trail surface.
Bus and/or rail service are readily available and accessible within most parts of
the City connecting to Tijuana to the south and the Santa Fe Depot in downtown
San Diego. At the Santa Fe Depot, trolley service is available to other points in
San Diego County; the Coaster provides service along the coast from Oceanside
to San Diego, and Amtrak links San Diego to destinations far north. The Coaster
and Amtrak together offer over 98 passenger trains daily with service along the
San Diego coast and beyond. Residents of Chula Vista may elect to use the
Greenbelt trail system from adjacent residential neighborhoods to bike or walk
along the trail to connect to buses or the trolley.
Individuals frequently state that they would ride their bikes to commute to work if
there were adequate safe facilities away from roadways with high vehicular traffic
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
that connect to their home. (San Diego Bicycle Attitude Survey, 1995). Both
pedestrians and bicyclists who walk/bike to the trolley or to bus stops are
expected to increases when there is a trail system that encounters less cross
traffic and connects to employment centers, bus stops, and train service. The
Sweetwater segment of the Greenbelt trail and the Bayshore Bikeway along the
Bayfront are both identified as regional bikeways in SANDAG's Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) that will provide connections to bus and rail service.
One of the key goals of the RTP is to integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities
into the existing multi-modal transportation network and a primary objective of the
RTP is to increase, at a minimum of 30 miles each year, the miles of bikeways
and another is to increase walking by 150% as a mode of regional commuting
trips.
Educational benefits of greenbelts include firsthand experiences highlighting the
importance of the natural environment and developing an appreciation of nature.
At staging areas, trail kiosks can enhance the experience of the trail users by
offering educational experiences.
Some of the economic benefits resulting from recreational uses include
expenditures for goods and services, park and trail construction and
maintenance jobs, increased tourism (food, lodging and fuel), and increased real
estate values. A survey on the relative increase in property values on homes in
close proximity to a greenbelt trail system identified that 23% to 30% of
respondents felt that a greenbelt significantly increased the value of their homes
(Sonoma State University 1992).
An indirect economic benefit involves the increase in the quality of life in the
community, improving property values near the trails, and increasing air quality
by reducing the number of vehicles.
A 1994 survey of house-buying preferences, by American Lives, Inc., found that
74 percent of homebuyers said the presence of corridors for walking and biking is
very or extremely important in their choice of location. This answer was fourth,
behind quiet, Iow traffic area at 93 percent, designed with cul-de-sac streets,
circles and courts at 77 percent and lots of natural, open space at 77 percent.
In 1995, Parkwood Research Associates conducted a survey for Rodale Press in
which respondents were asked what their current primary means of travel was,
and "all things being equal, and if good facilities for each existed, which of these
means would you prefer the most"? Persons bicycling and walking rose from 5
percent to 13 percent, while the percentage of people driving alone fell from 76
percent to 56 percent. (Source: Pathways for People, Rodale Press)
Public access areas may be constructed within natural terrain may limit
encroachment into the natural environment. Nature cannot be fully appreciated
until one is allowed to interact with it and understand it. With appropriate
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 1 I, 2003
signage, these trails offer an awareness of the environment and protect varied
wildlife species, their habitat, nesting cover, and breeding grounds.
Greenbelts incorporating multi-use trails allow the general public and people with
special needs and abilities to access outdoor environments and participate in
outdoor activities. Off-road trails improve access to and through areas that
otherwise would be difficult or impossible to view and enjoy. A significant portion
of the trail system will be designed to accommodate various groups of people,
including the very young, eldedy, and disabled.
1.3 Components of the Greenbelt
For planning purposes, the Greenbelt is divided into eight segments. Seven of
these segments are consistent with the segments of the Greenbelt described in
the General Plan except that a more descriptive name has been given to each
segment (See Figure 11). An additional corridor, the Otay Ranch Village
Greenway, a component of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, has
been added as a component of the Greenbelt since it provides an opportunity to
develop a trail corridor connecting from Salt Creek, through the heart of the Otay
Ranch and Wolf Canyon, to the Otay Valley Regional Park near Rock Mountain.
A more detailed description of each of the segments is included in Chapter 5,
The Plan. The segments include:
1. Lower Sweetwater (Figure 12)
2. Sweetwater Regional Park (Figure 13)
3. San Miguel (Figure 14)
4. Otay Lakes (Figure 15)
5. Salt Creek Corridor (Figure 15)
6. Otay Ranch Village Greenway (Figure 16)
7. Otay Valley Regional Park, East and West (Figure 16 & 17)
8. The Bayfront (Figure 18)
The Bayfront borders the San Diego Bay
and parallels Interstate 5 from the Otay
River to the Sweetwater River. It is
characterized by its access to the Bay,
marinas, and the regional Bayshore
Bikeway. The Bayfront hosts several small
parks.
Two segments, the Otay Valley Regional
Park, East and West, follow the Otay River
from the County Park at the southern edge
of Lower Otay Lake and westerly to Bayfront
Interstate 5. The regional park comprises
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
8,700 acres of a multi-jurisdictional open space that is planned for natural
preserve areas, active and passive recreation, and equestrian, hiking, and biking
trails. The valley contains a county park situated at the eastern end, "Knott's
Soak City" a water slide park, Coors Amphitheatre, and the San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge (South San Diego Bay Unit) at the western end.
Otay Lakes (Upper and Lower Otay Lakes)
lie east of Salt Creek and are located at the
far eastern boundary of the City. The
Olympic Training Center overlooks Lower
Otay Lake.
The Salt Creek corridor begins at the Auld
Golf Course, progresses south through the
Rolling Hills Ranch area and follows Salt
Creek, passing by the Olympic Training
Center to the east and ending at the Otay Otay Lakes
River Valley.
San Miguel includes the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Otay-Sweetwater
Unit), the newly developing residential development of San Miguel Ranch and the
Auld Golf Course at the base of the San Miguel and Mother Miguel Mountains.
Sweetwater Regional Park includes the County's Summit Park on the west edge
of the Sweetwater Reservoir then extends
from Summit Park west through the Bonita
Golf Course and the Chula Vista Golf
Course to Interstate 805. It comprises 570
acres of which 178 acres are located within
the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. It
features existing hiking, biking and
equestrian trails, an equestrian staging
area, Rohr Park (currently the City's largest
community park), bordering the Chula Vista
Golf Course and Summit Park at the
eastern end of the Bonita Golf Course Sweetwater Regional Park
Lower Sweetwater extends along the Sweetwater River flood channel from
Interstate 805 west to Interstate 5. Along this segment, the flood channel
generally separates National City and Chula Vista.
Otay Ranch Village Greenway travels through portions of Villages 7 and 11,
and the Eastern Urban Center connecting Salt Creek, Wolf Canyon and the Otay
Valley, as depicted on the adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan. This
segment begins within urban areas on the east, and then continues through the
]0
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Wolf Canyon natural drainage corridor beginning at planned La Media Road and
continuing west then south to the Otay Valley Regional Park at Rock Mountain.
]!
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 2
Existing Conditions
2.1 Historical Context
The historical beginnings of Chula Vista are of interest when planning the
Greenbelt System since much of the early development, from prehistoric to the
early development of California, occurred along the water features that surround
the City and which constitute significant portions of the Greenbelt. Over 283
cultural resource sites were located in the Otay River Valley alone which
indicates that the early settlers inhabited the river valleys. One of the early
developments in Chula Vista occurred with the salt production of the Western
Salt Company in early 1871, under the name of La Punta, along the San Diego
Bay.
Recognizing the opportunities of Chula Vista, the Kimball brothers formed the
San Diego Land and Town Company in 1888. Colonel William Dickinson who
managed the S.D. Land and Town Company was well known in the early
development of Chula Vista and is considered its earliest town planner. Lower
Otay Dam was completed in 1897 and served the South Bay communities until
1916 when it was destroyed by flood. The City of San Diego rebuilt the dam in
1919 providing water to the newly developing agricultural communities west of
the Otay Lakes and creating the Greenbelt eastern border of Chula Vista.
At the beginning of World War II, due to Chula Vista's location along the San
Diego Bay, Rohr Aircraft Company settled in Chula Vista. With that, industrial
development grew and the City saw an influx of new residents.
2.2 Local and Regional Setting
The City of Chula Vista is located south of downtown San Diego and National
City, north to northeast of Imperial Beach and north of portions of the City of San
Diego and the Baja, Mexico border. Bordering the City to the north is the
unincorporated community of Bonita. Much of the area to the north, east and
south of the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes is located within the unincorporated
County, portions that are designated as open space as part of the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (see page 13 for a summary of the MSCP
program).
Chula Vista is growing rapidly with a population of approximately 200,000. By
the year 2020, the population is expected to reach 270,739. The community is
diverse both in economy and ethnicity. Supporting a higher than average
]2
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
proportion of population less than 15 years of age, the demand for parks, trails,
and outdoor activities continues to grow.
2.3 Relationship to Other Local and Regional Plans
City of Chula Vista -- General Plan
The City's General Plan recognizes that there are opportunities to create a
greenbelt system surrounding the City. The Land Use Element of the General
Plan defines the Greenbelt as a circumferential greenbelt utilize(lng) existing
developed and undeveloped open space and potential new open space linkages
to create a continuous 28-mile open space and park system around the city (See
pp 1-42 of GP).
The General Plan identifies the Greenbelt segments as the following (See Figure
2, page 10 of GP):
· Bayfront Park to Otay River
· Otay River Valley to Otay Lake Regional Park
· Otay Lake Regional Park to Mother Miguel Mountain and
Sweetwater Reservoir
· Sweetwater Reservoir to 1-805
· 1-805 to Bayfront Park
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City recently adopted a Parks Master Plan that guides the City's park
planning efforts for the developed area of the City, as well as the newly
developing areas in the eastern portion of the City. The Parks Master Plan
document corresponds to the planning efforts of the Greenbelt Master Plan for
the interconnecting subregional trails within Salt Creek Canyon, Wolf Canyon,
and the Otay River Valley.
Chula Vista Master Planned Communities ('GDP)
A greenbelt system including connecting trails are part of the newly developing
master planned community areas known as Eastlake, San Miguel Ranch, Otay
Ranch, and Rolling Hills Ranch. These master plans, guided by adopted policies
contained within General Development Plans, have designated areas of
preserved open space and trails. Many of the trail segments have been
constructed or will be constructed during the construction of the communities.
The Eastlake III General Development Plan, containing the Vistas and Woods
planning areas, identifies two major off-street pedestrian trails: the Eastlake
Community Trail and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail. The Eastlake Community
Trail (Thematic Corridor) extends from Eastlake Hills through the developed
portion of the Eastlake Planned Community to Eastlake Trails within Salt Creek
and will be continued across Eastlake Vistas to overlook Otay Lakes. A
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
pedestrian trail through Salt Creek Canyon will connect to the Greenbelt Trail
System.
San Miguel Ranch includes 2,065 acres of an open space preserve which is a
key segment of the Greenbelt System. The Greenbelt will be connected by trails
from within San Miguel Ranch. Trails within San Miguel Ranch include
equestrian, walking and biking trails and will provide access to regional trails and
Greenbelt trails.
The Otay Ranch is a master planned community which includes an open space
area comprising of approximately 11,000 acres to be set-aside as mitigation for
impacts to sensitive resources resulting from the Otay Ranch development. The
dominant feature linking the three Otay Ranch parcels is the Otay River system,
including a system of canyons and drainage courses and Otay Lakes.
County of San Diego
The County of San Diego borders the City of Chula Vista from approximately
Interstate 805 east to the Sweetwater Reservoir, east of the Otay Lake
Reservoir, and along the eastern portions of the Otay River. Therefore, planning
trails along the Greenbelt in these areas must take into consideration trail
connections in the County areas. The County is in the process of developing a
Trails Master Plan that is scheduled for public review and adoption in 2002/2003.
Additionally, the County completed a study of bicycle trail alignments along the
eastern side of the Sweetwater River. Utilizing grant funds, they completed a
preliminary design study for the portion of Sweetwater River from Plaza Bonita, in
the unincorporated community of Bonita, to the Chula Vista Golf Course. The
County is continuing to pursue other grants for trail improvements along the
Sweetwater River along the Bonita Golf Course to Summit Park.
Other Local and Re.qional Plannin.q Efforts
A number of planning efforts have been underway for each of the segments at
some level. In order to understand those efforts and the opportunities or
constraints that these documents may pose, a short summary of each is
presented below.
Sweetwater Bike Path
An Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis for the Sweetwater
Bike Path, prepared by Recon (February 14, 2001) analyzes alignment
alternatives for a bike path within the Sweetwater Regional Park (identified in the
report as Areas 13 and 17).
]4
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
The key goal of the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan is to link major open
space areas within the southern area of San Diego County and South San Diego
Bay with lower Otay Lake. The concept plan provides policy direction for the
jurisdictions for coordinated land acquisition and development for the Regional
Park.
The Regional Park extends from the southeastern edge of the salt ponds at the
mouth of the river, through the Otay River Valley, to the land surrounding both
Lower and Upper Otay Lakes. Trails should be located on both sides of the river
wherever possible, with crossings where appropriate. Trail corridors should
provide connections to other regional trails, including the Bayshore Bikeway to
the west, the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt trails which will provide a connection
to Sweetwater Regional Park, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
holdings to the east.
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan for the City of
Chula Vista was approved by the City Council in May 2003. This
comprehensive document is a long-term habitat conservation plan which
implements Chula Vista's portion of a 172,000-acre Subregional Plan for the
South San Diego County, from Del Mar to the Mexico border. The MSCP
addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss and species
endangerment, and creates a plan to conserve habitat that supports a variety of
endangered and threatened species, as well as other sensitive species, while
providing for future development of both public and private lands within the South
County.
Port District/Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
Both the San Diego Port District and the City of Chula Vista have begun the
preparation of the Bayfront Master Plan that will address the arrangement of land
uses on approximately 300-acres west of Interstate 5 freeway and roughly
between G Street and Palomar Street. It is the City's intent to coordinate with the
Port District to include elements within the Plan that implement the City of Chula
Vista Greenbelt concept. As the Bayfront Master Plan is not expected to be
completed for about two years, any parks, trails or other facilities identified in this
Greenbelt Master Plan are considered conceptual at this time.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 3
Goals and Policies
Goals and policies provide direction for the overall program of the Greenbelt
Master Plan. The following goals and policies respond to the intent of the Master
Plan as defined in the General Plan and specific issues for implementation.
Goals are very broad statements of purpose. These are identified below in
bold type.
Policies are specific statements guiding action and implying clear
commitment. These are identified below in normal type.
Goal 1.0: To establish a comprehensive and coordinated greenbelt
system that visually reinforces the natural character of the
community and integrates unique historic and cultural
resources, open space areas, creeks, and trails.
Policy 1.1: The City will coordinate and cooperate with the San Diego
Port District, City of San Diego, County of San Diego,
Resource Agencies, Wildlife Refuge, and other public
agencies, as well as private interests, to provide open space
easements and connecting trail easements linking Chula
Vista's Greenbelt.
Goal2.0: To provide connected open space areas surrounding Chula
Vista to enhance the natural beauty and to preserve native
biological and cultural resources as well as sensitive habitats.
Policy2.1: The City will strive to ensure the protection of the natural
habitat from encroachment of trail users through education,
fencing, signing and design.
Policy 2.2: The City will coordinate implementation of the Greenbelt trail
with the Preserve Owner Manager (POM) of the Otay Ranch
Preserve.
Policy 2.3: The City will coordinate the implementation of the Greenbelt
Master Plan with management plans for the Otay River
Valley.
Policy 2.4 The City recognizes the natural value of the open space
through the MSCP preserves and will plan for trails that do
not diminish the value of the pristine environment.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
Policy 2.5 The City will locate trails in areas that avoid or minimize
conflicts with natural resources.
Policy2.6 All proposed trails shall adhere to guidelines contained
within the City's adopted MSCP as well as stipulations
contained within other mitigation agreements.
Policy 2.7 Impervious trails should be avoided in watershed and flood
plain areas where potential contamination of resources could
occur.
Goal 3.0: To establish a greenbelt that ensures public access within the
greenbelt through an active and passive recreation park
system with trails connecting each segment.
Policy 3.1 The City will actively pursue open space programs and and
develop trail links connecting to parks and regional trails.
Policy 3.2 The City will design trails that will accommodate a wide
range and number of users anticipated.
Policy 3.3 The City will develop a greenbelt system that offers a variety
of active and passive recreation experiences.
Policy 3.4 The City will develop trails, wherever possible, which provide
for accessibility for all, including those with disabilities.
Policy 3.5 The City will locate staging areas, parking areas, and other
amenities in areas that enhance the greenbelt system.
Policy 3.6 The City will utilize existing fire roads, access roads and/or
utility easements for the trail system when possible.
Policy 3.7 The City will limit the use of multi-use trails to non-motorized
uses except for motorized wheelchairs, and utility,
maintenance, and emergency vehicles.
Goal 4.0: To provide a Greenbelt system that receives the necessary
resources for open space acquisition, park and trail
development, maintenance, and to establish volunteer
programs.
Policy 4.1 The City will identify and pursue potential grant programs for
trail improvements and open space acquisition.
]7
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Policy 4.2 The City will pursue grant programs and opportunities with
inter-agency cooperation for park and trail development and
implementation.
Policy4.3 The City will encourage volunteer/community service
organizations to assist in the construction and maintenance
of trails.
Policy4.4 The City will collaborate with private organizations for
constructing, maintaining, and monitoring trails.
Goal 5.0: To establish a framework for the City to designate a staff
person or department(s) who will serve as the manager
responsible for open space and park acquisition, obtaining
funds, coordination, implementation, and ongoing
maintenance of the Greenbelt.
Policy5.1 The City will facilitate the design of parks and trails in
accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations
and with best practices available.
Policy5.2 The City will coordinate maintenance and monitoring
programs for the Greenbelt system.
Policy 5.3 The City will facilitate the installation of informational signs
and maps within each Greenbelt segment and along the trail
system to guide trail users.
Policy 5.4 The City will prepare an implementation plan that establishes
department and staff responsibilities for managing open
space property acquisition and inter-agency coordination, as
well as addresses funding for Greenbelt management and
maintenance.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 4
Greenbelt Design Criteria and Standards
The Greenbelt currently boasts a number of active and passive recreation
facilities stemming from:
Regional Parks,
· Community Parks,
· Neighborhood Parks,
· Special Purpose Parks,
· Commercial Parks and Recreation,
· and Multi-use Trails.
These facilities currently exist and as the Otay Valley Regional Park is
implemented, more active and passive recreation parks will be developed. The
City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan defines each park type as follows:
Regional Parks - large open space and recreational facilities provided, whether
partially or wholly, by the County of San Diego. Included within the Greenbelt are
the Sweetwater and Otay Valley Regional Parks. Activities and programs include
sports fields, picnicking, camping, hiking, and wildlife refuges.
Community Parks - comprising 15 or more acres, community parks serve more
than one neighborhood offering sport fields, recreation centers, picnicking, and
playgrounds. Rohr Park, located within the Sweetwater Segment, is a
community park and two community parks are being developed within the San
Miguel, Otay Lakes, and Salt Creek Segments.
Neighborhood Parks - intended to serve local residents and are within walking
distance of ¼ - % mile. Neighborhood parks range in size from 5 to 15 acres,
frequently adjacent to schools, and picnicking, playing fields, and playgrounds.
Neighborhood parks are principally located within each community and are not
typically planned for within the Greenbelt system.
Special Purpose Parks - are parks that offer specialized facilities or themes.
Located within the Greenbelt are the following: Chula Vista Nature Center within
the Bayfront Segment, Summit Park, an equestrian park within Sweetwater
Regional Park (County), and the Olymp, ic Training Center within the Otay Lakes
Segment.
Commercial Parks and Recreation - consists of a variety of active recreation
focusing on special activities or events. Within the Greenbelt there are several
golf courses, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course and the Bonita Golf Course
both within the Sweetwater segment, the Auld Golf Course within the San Miguel
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
segment, the Coors Amphitheater and Knotts Soak City Water Park, both within
the Otay River Valley Regional Park segment, and the Marina View Park with the
Bayfront segment.
Multi-use Trails - provide for a variety of uses from equestrians to biking and
hiking. Trails have been and are currently being constructed by several
developers of residential communities including Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel
Ranch, Otay Ranch, and Eastlake Trails.
Active and passive parks as described above already define the Greenbelt and it
is because of these parks that the majority of the Greenbelt exists. Expanding on
the existing parks and creating additional parks, primarily within the Otay Valley
Regional Park where there are opportunities for expansion, will further enhance
the greenbelt.
Multi-use trails have been randomly developed, both formally and informally. It is
the intent of this Master Plan to recognize where trails currently exist and to
identify where the trail system may be expanded to enhance the trail system and
connect the Greenbelt segments.
This chapter describes the Greenbelt amenities, trail design, sign standards and
provides guidance for managing the Greenbelt. The reader should refer to the
City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan for further discussion on park programs
and park design within the City.
4.1 Trail Types
The City's Landscape Manual, dated November 1994, sets specific standards for
trail construction within the City. The intent of the following trail standards is to
augment the standards in the Landscape Manual.
The design guidelines identified in this chapter set forth minimum standards for
the two general types of trails specified below. Variation to the minimum
standards will be based on consideration of the number and types of trail users
and environmental constraints. These factors should guide the width of the trail
and the location of the trail to reduce impacts on resources and topography.
For the purposes of the Greenbelt, there are two general types of trails defined:
Multi-use Trail and the Rural Trail. The Multi-use Trail is a trail for bicyclists,
equestrians (where identified), pedestrians, joggers, and other non-motorized
activities. The Rural Trail provides access to natural open space areas that may
be off limits to vehicles. These trails may serve pedestrians, bicyclists and
equestrians depending on permitted uses in the resource areas.
20
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
4.1.1 General Standards
By design, the City's trail system encourages use by a variety of different types of
users. In cases where the trail is adjacent to, or located along an existing or
proposed park, the park design should consider the trail access, trail parking, and
trail signage during the park design. Active recreation is recommended to be
located at a minimum of twenty feet away from the trail.
Continuity and consistency in trail design is necessary to ensure that the user's
expectations are satisfied and will result in the trail being used frequently. A
discontinuous trail or one that changes in trail width or trail composition results in
complaints by users.
Trails should intersect all crossings at 90° angles, if possible. Motorcycle or
vehicular access shall be restricted with signage or additional design or detailing.
No curbs or vertical features within five feet of the edge of the trail should be
constructed along trails that provide for equestrian use, except where a fence is
required for a downhill slope. A minimum of 14'0" overhead clearance shall be
provided and maintained for both built and natural features adjacent to the trail.
Trail design or construction techniques may vary in order to respond to specific
site constraints as determined appropriate by City staff.
4.1.2 Trail Surface
The trail surface may be asphalt, concrete, decomposed granite, a soil-stabilized
surface, or native soil. The advantages of an asphalt or concrete surface are that
the trail can accommodate the widest range of users and is frequently used in a
more urbanized setting. The surface choice will be dependent on the trail
connection and the anticipated trail usage. In more rural areas or where the trail
connects to a decomposed granite trail, the trail should offer a continuous
surface treatment.
A soil-stabilized trail is one constructed of a non-petroleum binder combined with
aggregate to produce a compacted pavement surface that retains the
characteristics of aggregate but is noted for its comparatively cool summer
surface temperature and natural appearance. The soil-stabilized product is
applied as a cold treatment and may be constructed at remote locations. This
product also avoids the air quality concerns of the construction of hot mix asphalt
product. Users of trails constructed of this type of surface may include joggers,
bikers, equestrians, wheelchair users, and strollers. The surface is not
compatible for roller bladders or skaters.
4.2.1 Multi-Use Trail
A multi-use trail is simply defined as any trail that is used by more than one user
group or for more than one trail activity. Multi-use trails are often called "shared
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
use" or "mutual use" or "diversified use" trails. Multi-use trails accommodate the
largest number of user types on a limited land base and development of multi-
use trails should be given preference over trails with specific users restricted.
Multi-use trails are an efficient, economical, and increasingly common way to
provide broad trail opportunities.
Equestrians, mountain cyclists, and hikers typically share unpaved multi-use
pathways and bicyclists, walkers, joggers, persons with disabilities, rollerblades,
strollers, and other non-motorized activities share paved multi-use pathways.
Even a single-track pedestrian-only trail will be used by hikers, backpackers, trail-
runners, bird watchers, etc., so that in the broadest sense all trails are multi-use
trails.
A multi-use trail constructed of concrete or asphalt would extend a minimum
width of 10'0" with two feet natural shoulders. This hard surfaced pathway
consists of 4" of concrete/asphalt over 2" of base and would be ADA accessible.
In some instances, there may be opportunities to provide a hard surface trail with
a reduced width of five to eight feet with a parallel four to five foot natural trail for
equestrians. When the multi-use trail is split, a post and rail fence would
separate the paved pathway from the natural path. A post and rail fence along
side of the trail would be installed where a downslope condition exists greater
than 5' bordering the trail.
A multi-use trail of decomposed granite (DG) or native soil shall have a minimum
width of 10'0" and a depth of 6" of compacted decomposed granite or compacted
native soil contained within 6" wide concrete mow curbs along both sides of the
trail. 4" plastic recycled headers may be used to contain the trail as determined
by the City of Chula Vista. A Concrete Treated Base (CTB) or a similar liquid soil
solidifier may be used to solidify the native base. These types of trails utilize the
existing decomposed granite and do not change the color of the soil. It has been
used for parking lots and service roads to provide stability with the existing soil.
These trails are cheaper to construct but require more frequent maintenance.
Users may include equestrians, mountain bicyclists, joggers and walkers. Due to
the difficulty of rolling on decomposed granite or natural dirt trails, both persons
with disabilities or with strollers avoid these trails.
A 5' separation shall be required when a multi-use trail parallels or borders a
roadway. It is anticipated that pedestrians, joggers, people in wheelchairs, and
bicyclists would use this trail. A multi-use trail along a roadway does not replace
a bicycle lane installed or proposed or required to be installed within the
roadway.
22
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Multi-Usa Trail
Rural Trail
Figure 3
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
4.1.4 Rural Trail
A Rural Trail would be constructed at width of 10 ft. compacted native soil and
contained within redwood header strips or some similar material. The rural trail
would be also designed for a variety of users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists,
and equestrians. However, since it would be constructed in rural areas and may
be subject to steeper slopes, it may not accommodate all types of user abilities or
type of users. In such areas it may also be designed to a reduced width due to
environmental concerns (see Section 4.1.5, Special Trail Design Criteria).
A post and rail fence alongside of the trail shall be installed when a slope
condition higher than 5 ft. exists within 5 ft. to either side of the trail. These trails
would be located in natural resource areas and where available would utilize
existing maintenance or fire access roads. Rural trails may be located above a
creek bed, on a steep slope or along a dirt utility access road.
24
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Table 1
Trail Standards
Design Component Multi-use Trail Rural Trail
Standard Width* 10' 10'
Varying width of 4'-5' in Core
Preserve areas or habitat areas
Horizontal Clearance 14' 14'
Vertical Clearance 10' (14' where trail use permits 10' (14' where trail use permits
equestrian) equestrian)
Cross Slope I - 4% optimum Depends on terrain and
6% maximum in approved environmental constraints
locations****
Vertical Grades*** 0-5% ..... 5-20% maximum distance over
500 feet
10-15% maximum for distance
limited to 250 feet
15-20% maximum for short
distances less than 100 feet.
Standard Shoulder Width 2' of native or decomposed No shoulder required
granite adjacent to concrete or
asphalt path
or
6' wide concrete strip or 4' plastic
recycled headers adjacent to
decomposed granite path
Headers 6" concrete headers Redwood headers
Surface Treatment Decomposed Granite Native Soil
Concrete (Decomposed Granite or Soil-
Asphalt stabilized treatment in areas
Soil-stabilized treatment subject to soil erosion)
(As specified for each trail Trail tread to be cleared of rocks
segment) over 1' in diameter, debris, and
roots.
Post and Rail Fence
Fencing** Post and Rail (wire fence, as appropdata, may
(Fencing to be located outside of (See Fence Exhibit 9) be used in areas of native habitat)
shoulder)
*Width may be reduced for short sections where available width is constrained due to environmental or other
constraints upon approval of the Director of Planning and Building Director.
** Fencing to be installed on down slope side or separating a paved trail from a natural trail or when a multi-
use trail with equestrian use permitted borders a roadway,
*** Switchbacks may be considered in steep slopes
.... Designated wheel chair access reutes shall not exceed 2%,
..... Wheel chair routes will have landings every 30 inches of vertical rise.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
4.1.5 Special Trail Design Criteria
Depending on where trails are located and the expected type of users, there may
be special design criteria required. Short segments of the Greenbelt trail system
may traverse exceptionally steep terrain, be located within sensitive habitat areas
or co-locate on utility maintenance roads. In these special situations, typical
standards for trail construction may not apply. Criteria for trails to minimize the
effect of erosion, reduce the impacts of human or equestrian impacts to sensitive
animals, or provide adequate stability to allow for the use of maintenance
vehicles are addressed below.
Trail Tread Desiqn
The trail will consider the type of use and the unique circumstance where the trail
is proposed to be located. Trail design shall consider erosion and diversionary
devices to reduce erosion through the use if water bars and berms. Slopes shall
be compacted to prevent erosion.
Natural Resource Areas
The Greenbelt travels through urbanized settings to natural, undisturbed
resource areas. The hillsides are covered with native upland habitat, coastal
sage scrub and the valleys boast oak woodland and riparian vegetation.
Together these natural communities provide important and diverse wildlife
habitat. The MSCP Preserve lands, as described in Chapter 2, are dedicated
conservation lands that will also serve to connect large areas of open space
through a series of wildlife corridors. Trails through these areas will be designed
carefully to avoid adverse environmental impacts and will be subject to
environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Construction of trails mandates that the natural environment be preserved to the
greatest extent possible and that a minimal amount of grading occurs. Clearing
of vegetation for trails should be minimized and trails should be located where
impacts to these natural communities are limited. All disturbed terrain should be
replanted with native vegetation.
Minimizing environmental impacts is a high priority for resource and recreation
managers. Natural resources such as wildlife, vegetation, water, and air quality
and historic and cultural resources are vulnerable to impacts caused by
inappropriate trail usage or overuse of a trail. Resource impacts such as soil
erosion, damaged vegetation, polluted water supplies, litter, and vandalism can
result in dissatisfaction with trail usage and possible closure of trails to various
types of user groups. There have been a number of studies conducted to
determine which user groups or the numbers of users that causes the most
impact to natural resources. Impacts are generally activity specific. Some
activities create impacts more quickly or to a greater degree than others.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Impacts even from the same activity can vary according to such factors as mode
of transportation, characteristics of users, size of group, and behavior.
Along a creek, the top of the bank is the preferred location for the trail in order to
minimize erosion and bank stabilization problems. Although trails along steep
slopes should be avoided, when a trail connection is needed or to optimize the
trail network, a trail may be located along a slope using a bench cut to minimize
erosion. Cut slopes above the trail should be limited to a 2:1 slope and all
disturbed slopes would be replanted with native vegetation.
The following trail design guidelines shall apply within sensitive habitat areas and
are consistent with the City's draft Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan (Section 7.5.3 Public Access, Trails and Recreation):
1) Locate public access, trails, view overlooks, and staging areas in the least
sensitive areas of the Preserve. Locate trails along the edges of urban
land uses adjacent to the Preserve, or the seam between land uses (e.g.,
agriculture/habitat), and follow existing dirt roads as much as possible
(except where occupied by Quino checkerspot butterflies) rather than
entering habitat or wildlife movement areas. Avoid locating trails between
two different habitat types (ecotones) due to the typically heightened
resource sensitivity in those locations.
2) In general, avoid paving trails in wildlife areas unless management and
monitoring evidence shows otherwise. Cleady demarcate and monitor
trails for degradation and off-trail access and use. Provide trail
repair/maintenance as needed. Undertake measures to counter the effects
of trail erosion including the use of stone or wood cross-joints, edge
plantings of native grasses, and mulching of the trail.
3) Minimize trail widths to reduce impacts to critical resources. To the
maximum extent practicable, do not locate new trails wider than four feet
in core Preserve areas or wildlife corridors. Cora areas and wildlife
corridors, where new trails may be limited to four feet, will be defined in
area-specific management directives (plans). Where trails are planned in
concert with sewer or water utility easements, the trail width should
consider the easement requirements for the utility. Trails should not be
encouraged within SDG&E easements. Provide trail fences or other
barriers at strategic locations when protection of sensitive resources is
required.
4) Limit the extent and location of equestrian trails to the less sensitive areas
of the Preserve. Locate staging areas for equestrian uses at a sufficient
distance (e.g., 300-500 feet) from areas within riparian and coastal sage
scrub habitats to ensure that the biological values of the Preserve are not
impaired.
27
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
5) Limit the access to finger canyons through subdivision design, fencing or
other appropriate barriers, and signage.
6) Provide sufficient signage to cleady identify public access to the Preserve.
Barriers such as vegetation, rocks/boulders or fencing may be necessary
to protect highly sensitive areas. Use appropriate type of barrier based on
location, setting and use. For example, use chain link or cattle wire to
direct wildlife movement, and natural rocks/boulders or post and rail fence
to direct public access away from sensitive areas. Lands acquired through
mitigation may preclude public access in order to satisfy mitigation
requirements.
4.2 Greenbelt Design
Within the Greenbelt, the residents enjoy golfing, playing fields and playgrounds,
a water park, trails, equestrian staging areas, natural open space, and trails.
Other parks and trails have been and are currently being constructed by several
residential developments including Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Otay
Ranch, and Eastlake Trails. The purpose of the Greenbelt Design section of this
chapter is to provide design criteria for proposed Greenbelt amenities.
4.2.1 Greenbelt Signs
Visitors to the Greenbelt will be greeted by a consistent, unique logo that
identifies the Greenbelt and will guide users along the Greenbelt. The logo
should be located at each trailhead or entrance, staging area and along the trail.
Signs for entranceways, staging areas, directional signs, regulatory signs and
trail markers are important to project safety and inform users on the rules of the
road. Trail signs will inform visitors of the location of the trail, where it goes, the
type of activity permitted, and enforcement standards. Trail signs are divided into
the following: Greenbelt Trail Signs, Trail Kiosk Signs, Trail Sign Posts, and
Staging Area signs. All signs shall be painted with graffiti resistant paint.
Information about trail usage displayed on the Trail Kiosk signs shall be in both
English and Spanish. Greenbelt sign construction and installation responsibilities
will be addressed in the implementation plan, to be prepared subsequent to this
master plan.
28
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Greenbelt Trail Si.qns
Trail signs will be located at trail access points such as at street crossings and at
staging areas. The 4' x 4' x 2" wood trail signs consist of the Greenbelt logo and
City logo constructed on an attached to a 6" x 6" post, 6.0' high.
Figure 4
Greenbelt Trail Sign
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Greenbelt Kiosks
A kiosk is a large sign panel that informs the user about the trail. A kiosk is
located at active trailheads and staging areas. Each kiosk includes the Greenbelt
logo, a trail map, regulation for use of the trails and Greenbelt, community
events, and other information. All kiosks will be designed to meet visual and
physical ADA access requirements. Kiosks may be designed to include the
acknowledgement of sponsorships by local agencies, organizations and/or
corporations.
+.
Trail Head Kiosk Concept
Figure 5
3O
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Trail Si.qn Post
Trail sign posts shall be located along the trail and installed at every half mile,
identifying the trail distance. Affixed on each signpost are permitted and
prohibited uses, distance, and the identifiable Greenbelt logo. The posts will be
constructed of 6" x 6" treated wood posts set in concrete 42" above grade.
Reduced Greenbett
L~go with I r,~et of
Permitted U~ and -
Trail Sign Post Concept
Not to Scale
Figure ~
31
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
4.2.2 Staging Areas
Staging areas offer a convenience to the trail
user by providing parking for vehicles,
bicycles and, where noted, tie-ups for horses
and other facilities. Facilities for equestrians,
such as parking for horse trailers, should be
provided where the trail links to trails
designated for equestrian use. Other
amenities may include restrooms, a drinking
fountain, a public telephone, picnic tables and
benches, trash containers, water trough and
hitching post for horses, mounting stand forEquestrian Staging Area at Bonita Road
equestrians, and a self-latching gated
paddock.
Staging areas should be located at all major
entrances to trails and at key connection
points to other regional rural trails. The
number of parking spaces should be
determined by the projected demand. The
precise number and location or type of future
staging or educational areas will be
determined as opportunities and funding
becomes available. There are three types of
staging areas discussed in this plan: staging Paddocks at Summit Park
areas using existing parking lots for parks,
libraries and schools or other public parking
lots (Staging Area Type I), standard staging
areas (Staging Area Type II), and staging
areas with equestrian facilities (Staging Area
Type III) as described and illustrated below:
Sta.qinq Area Type I- Public Parking
A public parking staging area includes public
parking lots for local parks, schools or other
public parking. A trailhead sign connecting to
a public parking area will identify the
entrance to the trail. Staging Area at Sweetwater Regional
Park
Staging Area Type II- General Staqin.q Area
A General Staging Area will be constructed for trail access where appropriate.
Additional amenities may be available such as bicycle parking, trash containers,
picnic tables, drinking fountains, restreoms with pit toilets or flush toilets, or
portable self-contained toilets, benches, air units for pumping bicycle tires, and a
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Greenbelt Kiosk with a trail map. A trailhead sign will be erected at the entrance
of the trail and the entrance to the staging area.
Sta.qing Area Type III-An Equestrian Sta.qin.q Area
Staging Area Type III provides equestrian parking for horse trailers, vehicle
parking, and bicycle parking and trash containers. Additional amenities for
equestrians should include a horse corral with a self-closing gate, hitching posts,
mounting benches and water. Greenbelt kiosk signs may include trail map and
notices of upcoming events. Additional amenities may be provided such as a
drinking fountain, restrooms with either pit toilets or flush toilets, or portable self-
contained toilets, and picnic tables. The Greenbelt currently contains three
equestrian staging areas located along Sweetwater River: at Plaza Bonita, at
Sweetwater Park, and at Summit Park. A trailhead sign will be erected at the
entrance to the trail and at the entrance to the staging area.
Typical Staging Area Concept
Without Equestrian Facilities
Figure 7
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Dr nk~ Foun ait~ ~ '. ,' t~
Typical Staging Area Concept
With Equestrian F~ilities
Figure 8
4.2.3 Site Furnishings
In addition to the trail, other
amenities add to the experience of
the trail user. At trail entrances, a
wider area should be set aside to
provide a park-like setting at the
entrance, which would add to the
enjoyment of the Greenbelt. Site
furnishings may include benches,
picnic tables, trash containers,
drinking fountain, bicycle racks, a
shade structure, lighting and/or
landscaping. Site furnishings will
be made of durable material and Bench and Kiosk at Sweetwater Regional Park
be vandal resistanL
34
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
4.2.4 Accessibility Guidelines
The Greenbelt facilities will be developed for many types of users and trails will
be designed across various types of terrain and sensitive to the environment.
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act presents opportunities to
balance accessibility with sensitivity to the environment.
Federal guidelines prepared to assist in the design of recreation facilities for
accessibility were completed in 1999 with the release of the "Regulatory
Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas,
Final Report" (Accessibility Guidelines). Factors that influence the ability to
provide fully accessible facilities such as soil, surrounding vegetation, hydrology,
terrain, and surface characteristics, are fundamental to designing for accessibility
for the outdoor area.
A continuous path of travel is the single most important park feature to a person
with a physical disability. Additionally, four other design components are
essential to being a fully accessible park or trail. These design components
include:
1) Access to the park or trail, including parking areas and the path of
arrival used to get from parking areas,
2) Access and egress points to the park and along the trail,
3) Support facilities and desirable amenities, including the placement of
restrooms, drinking fountains, telephones, etc., with respect to the park
programs and trail and any access paths leading to these support
elements;
4) Access to accurate information regarding the Greenbelt, how to get to
the park or trail and potential hazards of a project, plus location and
height of on-site interpretive signage programs (Federal Highway
^dministration, National Bicycle and Walking Study).
4.2.5 Fencing
Post and rail fencing will be used where a fence is
required, unless approved by the Director of Planning
and Building. Fencing is recommended along the
Greenbelt trails to separate the trail from a road
and/or development, to guide the trail along steep
slopes and canyons, and to restrict access into core
Preserve areas or native habitat. The use of post
and rail fencing in natural resource areas allows the
movement of wildlife through the fence. Other types
of fencing may be used when determined by the
Director of Planning and Building.
Rural trail along
Sweetwater Road
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Fencing should be installed along trails in the following conditions:
· When the trail accommodates equestrians and is adjacent to a
roadway,
· When there is a need to separate user groups in areas where high
usage is anticipated or planned for, or
· When it is necessary to prevent trespassing on resource lands, private
property, or agricultural areas.
· When there is a down slope condition (per City specifications).
· To separate a multi-use trail from a paved pedestrian sidewalk.
· To provide an equestrian paddock at Staging Areas.
Fencing should follow the natural grades along the trail. The City's standard for
post and rail fencing include the following and is reflected in the graphic below:
Fence sections are 8'0" on center and 4'0" in height with a 2'0" subgrade footing.
The posts shall be a minimum of 6" diameter and the rails shall be a minimum of
3". All lumber is to be CCA Pressure treated. The subgrade at footings is to be
at 90% compaction. Footings shall be concrete, each with at least 80 pounds of
dry Portland cement. Footings will not be visible upon completion of trail
construction. Concrete footings shall be 470-C-2000 Class B concrete. In all
instances, there will be an 18" clear space at the bottom of the fencing to allow
for movement of wildlife. The Iodgepole pine fencing will be treated with wood
preservative.
Post and Rail Fence
Figure 9
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Off-road Vehicle Barriers
Off-road Vehicle Barriers shall be constructed where breaks in fences occur that
would allow vehicle access onto trails. ORV barriers shall be at least eight feet
and eight inches in width and attached to ends of fence posts near to roads.
4.2.6 Arterial Crossings
Where the trail will cress a major roadway carrying traffic volumes in excess
25,000 ADTs (average daily trips) a grade-separated overcressing may be
considered. Overcrossings are typically less expensive than tunneling under a
roadway, but require as much as 400 to 500 feet of approach structure on each
end due to the maximum 5% gradient as specified by ADA. The following table
identifies key criteria for overcressings:
Table 2
Grade Separated Roadway Crossings
Traffic volume thresholds: 25,000 ADT or greater
Recommended minimum trailwidth 8 feet (undercrossings should provide
tapered sides with wider clearances at top)
Recommended minimum overhead 10 feet (14 feet for equestrian use)
clearance
Estimated structure costs per linear feet $600 - 800
Maximum gradient per ADA 5%
Ancillary features Li~lhtin~h call phones, benches
This master plan identifies overcrossings of EastLake Parkway at Hunte Parkway
and of Hunte Parkway east of EastLake Parkway. Undercrossings of the trail
system are identified through Wolf Canyon at Main Street, La Media Road and at
SR125. Other undercressings are proposed at Otay Lakes Road near the Otay
Reservoirs and at several roadway crossings through the Otay Valley and the
Sweetwater Valley.
4.2.7 Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Requirements
As an implementation measure of the State of California's Clean Water Act, the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board on February 21, 2001 adopted
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System standards (Order No. 2001-01,
NPDES No. CAS0108758) referred to as "Municipal Permit". The Municipal
Permit requires the implementation of a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management
Program (URMP). The objectives of the Jurisdictional URMP that are to
effectively prohibit non-storm water runoff into storm drain systems. The Model
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was developed to
37
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
address post construction urban runoff pollution from development projects.
These requirements are important to the development of the staging areas when
there results in the creation of 5,000 square feet of impervious soil or with greater
than 15 parking spaces and potential exposed to urban runoff. Design of staging
areas, which are subject to SUSMP, will need to provide Best Management
Practices (BMP) that may include such measures to reduce imperviousness such
as providing runoff storage measures throughout the site landscape with the use
of detention, retention and runoff practices. These measures of may include
onsite retention or pavement techniques that allow runoff to remain on-site.
BMPs may also include construction of trails with permeable sudaces such as
decomposed granite surface or pervious concrete as recommended in this
document.
Additionally, the NPDES standards identify pollutants of concern that potentially
affect storm water runoff and the quality of groundwater that include animal
waste. Within the Greenbelt where equestrians are permitted, signs may be
posted that require waste pickup and proper disposal along with the availability of
free bags at staging areas and trash receptacles at suitable intervals along the
trails.
4.3 Greenbelt Management and Maintenance
The entire Greenbelt falls within five jurisdictions, the Cities of Chula Vista,
National City, and San Diego, and the County of San Diego and Port District
(Figure 10). Management and maintenance responsibility generally lies with the
property owner, which may be one of the jurisdictions, a resource agency, a
utility company or a homeowners association. In areas where a segment(s) is
within more than one jurisdiction, the greenbelt may be managed by several
agencies or the agencies may agree to jointly manage the open space.
Management and maintenance within the Greenbelt includes open space,
passive and active recreation facilities, and/or trails. Each requires a different
level of management and maintenance; however, there are some typical
ingredients to consider for any one or all of these components, as discussed in
this section.
4.3.1 Greenbelt Management
A good management program is essential to ensure long-term success. After
planning and implementation, the success of any Greenbelt system is
determined by how well the Greenbelt is managed. While this document does
not identify a specific individual or department(s) that will manage the Greenbelt,
it does however, recognize that the City of Chula Vista will be responsible for
management of that portion of the Greenbelt within its control. Further
discussion with other jurisdictions may be necessary to assure coordination on
management and potential funding mechanisms for the Greenbelt.
38
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
The key tasks of Greenbelt management are to:
· Maintain safety,
· Protect natural resources, and
· Provide high-quality user experiences.
As the Greenbelt system becomes more refined with a comprehensive trail
system and other active recreation facilities, the number of users and their
diversity increases, management and maintenance will become increasingly
important.
An effective management program may employ a variety of tools and may utilize
various tools at different times. For example, education and appropriate signage
advising users on how to use the Greenbelt have been successful in reducing
encroachments into sensitive areas and reducing user conflicts. Depending on
the location, purpose of the trail, and level of trail use, hours of operation and trail
use restrictions will be important to define.
Hours of operation
The Greenbelt system is primarily intended for use during the day. Signage
noting hours of operation restricts nighttime activity. Limiting the use during
nighttime hours reduces the impact on adjacent properties. Depending on the
segment, and use level, specific hours of operation should be established and
posted.
Trail Use Restriction
Although the majority of the trails within the Greenbelt system are designed for
and intended to be used by a variety of trails users (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists,
and equestrians) there may be instances within where certain types of users
might be restricted, either permanently or temporarily. It is anticipated that this
would occur when there are specific concerns related to protection of biological
resources; when the trail is undergoing maintenance or construction; when use of
the trail would be detrimental to the trail maintenance such as after a rain storm;
when there is a potential hazard such as crop spraying or harvesting; or during a
emergency situation. Trail signage that identifies the permitted use will be
installed at the beginning of each trail segment. A temporary trail closure sign
would be posted at each trail segment with an anticipated date for trail reopening.
The trails are designed to allow access through open space areas and for the
enjoyment of the public. Trail use will be limited to the designated trail by fencing
and/or signage.
Open Space Manaqement
In addition to passive and active recreation and trails, the Greenbelt includes
large areas of natural resource lands. Much of this land will be protected through
the City's Multiple Species Conservation Plan, the Otay Ranch Resource
39
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Management Plan, the Sweetwater Marsh and San Diego National Wildlife
Refuges, and the Otay Valley and Sweetwater Regional Parks. Because of the
scope and size of the Greenbelt, specific implementation, management, and
ownership of these resoume lands will vary. Within the Greenbelt, management
is currently implemented by the public agencies mentioned above and the federal
resource agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Division of Fish
and Game) in the case of the Wildlife Refuges. Figure 10 depicts jurisdictional
and agency areas of influence.
As mentioned in the MSCP, management will include a program for short-term
management of resoumes, primarily prior to dedication to the public. Long-term
management would include:
· Preserve Maintenance
o Removal of trash, trimmings, debris and other solid waste
o Maintenance of trails and fences
o Implementation of security programs to enforce security programs
and curtail activities that may degrade resources
· Preserve Management
o Implementation of programs to maintain and/or improve, operate
and manage Preserve habitat values through removal and control
of exotic plant species, treatment of disease or injury, and/or habitat
restoration.
o Remediation necessary due to changed circumstances.
· Long-term Biological Monitoring
When considering the implementation of the Greenbelt Plan, the precise
management program that is used should be defined in the planning process and
focused on the three key goals mentioned above: maintaining safety, protecting
natural resources, and providing high quality user experiences.
40
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Trail Costs
The following table may serve as a guide for approximate costs for trail
construction.
Table 3
Estimate of Probable Costs
Trail Approximate Cost Per Mile
Path
· Rehabilitate or upgrade existing path $50,000
· Construct Soil Stabilized Path on base. $52,000
Includes signing.
· Construct Soil Stabilized Path on base. $96,000
Includes signing with removal of existing
railroad tracks.
· Construct asphalt/concrete path on $150,000
existing level embankment, or right of
way, includes signing, striping
· Construct asphalt/concrete path on $194,000
existing level embankment, or right of
way, includes signing, striping with
removal of existing railroad tracks.
Support Facilities:
· Signal Loop Detectors $2,500/intersection
· Undercrossing $150,000 - 350,000
· Signing, striping $5,000
· Signing, striping, signals $65,000
· Irrigated Landscaping $350,000 - 600,000 mile
· Non-irrigated Landscaping $150,000 - 300,000 mile
· Bridge (8' wide) $60 - 100 square foot
· Fencing $20 linear foot
· Railroad Crossing $125,000
· Emer~lencyCellular Phone (installed) $3,500
Cost estimates were based on 2002 dollam and actual cost experience in vadous California communities.
These costs are estimates only; based on specific conditions costs will vary and more detailed estimates
should be developed after preliminary engineering.
4.3.2 Greenbelt Maintenance
Preventive maintenance reduces hazards and future repair costs. Annual trail
maintenance costs are generally estimated at 5% of infrastructure replacement
costs. For example, if a bridge costs $100,000 to construct, $5,000 should be
budgeted for its maintenance each year. (Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, a
Guide to Best Practices, January 31,2001 ).
Routine maintenance will include provisions for:
· Removal of debris, dead or decaying vegetation, broken branches in the
trail, clearing trail of encroaching brush or grasses, removing rock slides,
etc. Collecting and removing trash and litter. Routinely checking and
repairing vandalism and/or graffiti,
42
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Maintenance of trail tread such as filling of ruts and entrenchments;
reshaping trail bed; repairing trail surface and washouts; installing rip rap
(rock placed to retain cut and fill slopes); dragging and rolling trails
constructed of native dirt monthly constructing retaining walls or cribbing
to support trail tread, repairing damaged redwood headers, etc.
· Replacing decomposed granite on DG trails where it has eroded or
deteriorated. Erosion control and drainage, replacing or installing
necessary drainage structures such as drainage dips, water bars, or
culverts; realigning sections of trail to deter erosion or avoid boggy/marshy
areas, etc.
· Repairing Greenbelt signs and furniture. Repair of trail and/or trailhead
structures. This includes replacing deteriorated, damaged, or vandalized
parts of structures such as sections of bridges, boardwalks, information
kiosks, fencing, and railings; painting; removing graffiti, etc
Maintenance logs are essential to ensuring that the trail remains an asset to the
community and does not become a hazard or a liability. A consistent
maintenance program should include a mechanism to identify, record, and
respond to maintenance programs and to keep written records of remediation
efforts. The following table provides a general schedule for routine maintenance.
Table 4
Recommended Maintenance Schedule
Item Frequency
Sign replacement and repair 1-3 years
Pavement marking replacement 1-3 years
Tree, shrub, trimming/fertilization 5 months - 1 year
Pavement sealing 5 - 15 years
Clean drainage system 1 year
Pavement sweeping Monthly - annually as needed
Shoulder and grass mowing As needed
Trash disposal As needed along trail, several times
weekly at staging areas.
Lighting replacementJrepair 1 year
Graffiti removal Weekly - monthly as needed
Maintain furniture (bike racks, tables) 1 year
Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair Weekly - monthly as needed
Pruning 1 - 4 years
Bridge/tunnel inspection 1 year
Remove fallen trees As needed
Week control Monthly - as needed
Maintain emergency phones, CCTV 1 year
Maintain irrigation lines/replace sprinklers 1 year
Irri~ate/water plants Weekly - monthi)/as needed
*These are general timeframes. Actual frequency will vary depending on weather, usage, and site
conditions.
43
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
4.3.3 User Conflicts
The vast majority of users of public open space are satisfied with their
experience and few have complaints. However, conflicts among users do occur
and if not addressed, may have serious consequences. As the number of users
grow at a particular facility and the diversity of the activities expand, the potential
for conflict grows.
For instance, with the advent of mountain bicycling, the use of unpaved multi-use
pathways has sometimes resulted in conflicts with equestrians and hikers.
Rollerblading and skateboarding activities have resulted in user conflicts on
paved pathways with pedestrians, persons with strollers, and cyclists when there
is a high demand for the trail.
User conflict is defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior."
This is based on an individual's interpretation or perception of appropriate
behavior that may be contrary to their individual trail objectives. Design in
accordance with "Best Practices" and on-going maintenance can reduce user
conflicts. Although there may be many factors that contribute to user conflict, the
manager of the Greenbelt is responsible to resolve conflicts that hinder the
success of the Greenbelt system and may decrease safety.
Trail User Conflict
The potential number of incidents of user conflicts may be reduced by monitoring
or limiting bicycle speeds, conducting routine surveys, and educating users on
safety and courtesy. User conflicts that threaten user safety may include:
· Collision and near misses of users and/or their bicycles or horses.
· Reckless and irresponsible behavior.
· Poor user preparation or judgment.
User conflict is frequently witnessed in areas where there are a high number of
users. Generally in areas more remote or when there is predominantly one type
of user, there are fewer reported conflicts. However, designing a trail that can
accommodate a broad range of users in areas where a large number of users
are expected can alleviate or reduce concerns. While research of 37 trails
throughout the nation (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 1998) revealed that while the
estimated usage of the 37 rail trails was approximately 9.2 million users annually,
there was only one major accident. Ongoing trail monitoring allows a watchful
eye on possible conflicts and continuous trail maintenance will also reduce user
dissatisfaction or potential accidents.
In response to a survey conducted by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, trail
managers identified the following techniques utilized to resolve user conflicts:
44
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Signage
· Education
· Meeting with usergroups
· Expanding facilities
· Police or ranger patrols
· Enforcement of regulations
· Brochures and articles in local newspapers
· Imposing speed limits
· Volunteer patrols
· Partial closing
· Bicycle bell give-aways.
Establishing a uniform and acceptable "passing alert" phrase such as "passing
on the left" reduces numerous potential safety conflicts. In areas where trail use
is the heaviest such as near trailheads, it is advisable to provide separate paths
for different types of users or to provide a wider pathway. For instances, where
trail usage is very heavy around Rohr Park, bicyclists are cautioned to notify trail
users before they pass.
Good management may employ any or all of the above mechanisms, or others
that will be applicable to the particular situation. The right choice depends on
local factors and the individual situation as well as recognition of the conflict
before it degenerates beyond reasonably simple solutions. An integrated
program of design, marketing, education, regulation, enforcement and
maintenance are all needed to ensure a successful, long-term Greenbelt
system. Developing partnerships with trail groups that conduct trail maintenance
and provide a "watchful eye" while participating in trail activities can assist a trail
manager with limited staff.
45
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
Chapter 5
The Plan
5.1 Planning Approach and Methodology
The Greenbelt is characterized by its diversity. Each segment varies with
regards to the open space and park type, user type, and environment, from an
urbanized to a natural, rural setting. The intent of the Greenbelt is to offer a
variety of experiences for its visitors within a relatively short distance from the
surrounding community. This chapter is divided into a narrative describing each
segment, followed by Table 5 summarizing the segments and approximate costs
of construction for the multi-use trail within that segment, and by a map of the
entire Greenbelt system (Figure 11). At the end of this document are maps
delineating each segment of the Greenbelt (Figures 12 through 18).
The descriptions include the nature of the Greenbelt open space, existing trails,
proposed trails (trails that are planned as part of this document or as part of an
adopted Specific Plan), future trails and the issues that remain for completing trail
gaps within the Greenbelt.
5.2 Greenbelt Segment Descriptions
5.2.1 Lower Sweetwater Segment
Lower Sweetwater Segment consists of the channelized portion of the
Sweetwater River with an improved pathway on the north side and an
unimproved path on the southside. Beginning at Interstate 5, the channelized
portion of the Sweetwater River borders the northern edge of the City, and then
continues from I-5 east along the channelized river to Plaza Bonita Mall, then
south to the equestrian staging area at Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road
(Figure 12). The Sweetwater River channel traverses through the Cities of
National City and Chula Vista, the County of San Diego, and is bordered by the
City of San Diego.
Greenbelt Issues:
Although desirable, restoring the river to its natural state would require extensive
coordination with both state and federal agencies and great expense.
Improvements to the trail along the south side of the river would need to be
coordinated with the appropriate agency, as would joint grant applications for trail
development
There is no direct connection from the south/west side of the river to the
north/east side near Plaza Bonita Mall. A trail, now overgrown, near Bonita Road
46
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master PLan
Final Draft August 11,2003
would provide a connection to the trails and the staging area at Bonita Road and
Plaza Bonita Road.
Existing and Future Trail
Within the Lower Sweetwater Segment, two existing trails extend from Interstate
5 to Interstate 805, one on the north and one on the south bank of the
Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. Both trails traverse the Cities of National
City and Chula Vista boundaries and also serve as maintenance roads for the
channel.
The north side trail is twelve feet wide and paved, and extends from the
Bayshore Bikeway, west of Interstate 5, to a concrete walk at the Plaza Bonita
Mall east of Interstate 805. Cyclists, walkers and joggers actively use this multi-
use trail. Users park at the Plaza Bonita Mall or along Plaza Bonita Road near
the eastern entrance to the trail to access the trail and unload/load bicycles for
trail riding.
The south side trail is twelve feet wide and unimproved. This trail extends from
the San Diego Trolley tracks, just east of Interstate 5, to and under Interstate
805. The trail ends at this point. One connection between the north side and
south side trails and to Plaza Bonita Road occurs across the flood channel, over
the riprap. The other connection occurs across Sweetwater River at Edgemere
Avenue (extension of N. Second Avenue in Chula Vista).
From the Plaza Bonita Road staging area on the north side of the river the only
access would be along Plaza Bonita Road; however, this roadway is not striped
or posted for bicycle access.
Trail Issues
· The path along the north side of the river offers a paved multi-use pathway to
the staging area at Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road. Although desired,
construction of a multi-use paved pathway connecting the trail from Plaza
Bonita Mall to the intersection of Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road would
impact riparian habitat by widening the trail along Plaza Bonita Road.
· The unimproved trail along the south side of the river is overgrown from the 1-
805 overcrossing to just north of Plaza Bonita Road. The south side trail is
primarily an equestrian trail and use of that trail and the equestrian staging
area would be increased if the connection to the trail was improved and
maintained.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· Coordinate with the City of National City to provide bicycle lane improvements
along Plaza Bonita Road from the north side of Sweetwater River at Plaza
Bonita to Bonita Road.
47
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Coordinate with the City of National City to encourage development of a park-
like staging area at the proposed retail center at 1-805 and Plaza Bonita.
· Investigate improvements along the east and west sides of Sweetwater River
from 1-805 to the under-crossing at the equestrian staging area at Plaza
Bonita Road and Bonita Road.
· If funding priorities permit, consider the potential of restoring the Sweetwater
Flood Control Channel to a natural condition and closely coordinate with
affected agencies and jurisdictions as appropriate on the matter.
5.2.2 Sweetwater Regional Park Segment
Sweetwater Regional Park Segment begins at the equestrian staging area at
Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road and proceeds east along Bonita Road past
the private equestrian facilities, Bonita Driving
Range, Rohr Park, Chula Vista Golf Course,
and the Bonita Golf Course ending at Summit
Park (Figure 13). Rohr Park is a City
Community Park providing active playing
fields, playground, picnicking, and a multi-use
pathway along the perimeter. Summit Park, a
County park, offers an equestrian staging
area, rest rooms, picnicking and natural dirt
trails for equestrians, mountain bicyclists and
hikers. Trail alon.q Sweetwater Road
Greenbelt Issues
Expanding the facilities at the staging area at Plaza Bonita Road to include
restrooms and a playground would increase its usage. Connections to each of
the park facilities along the Greenbelt would greatly enhance the Greenbelt. An
informal trail, primarily used by equestrians, traverses from the Staging Area at
Plaza Bonita Road. The County has plans to develop a multi-use trail from the
Staging Area to Rohr Park and from Rohr Park to Summit Park.
Existing and Future Trail
From the existing equestrian staging area at the
northeast corner of Plaza Bonita Road and
Bonita Road, the existing unimproved
equestrian trail leads to the bridge under-
crossing at Willow Street. From here, a multi-
use trail, including equestrian use, follows along
the north and south side of the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course. On the south side, the
multi-use trail proceeds through the golf course
48 Under-crossing at Willow
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
parking lot continuing to Central Avenue. On the north side, the multi-use trail
extends along the edge of the Municipal Golf Course at Willow Street and
Sweetwater Road then along Sweetwater Road and crosses several driveways
along Rohr Park. A portion of the north trail west of Rohr Park extends through
the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. Rohr Park serves as a staging area
for cyclists and pedestrians, and provides restrooms, picnicking, playgrounds,
parking and open fields for play.
The multi-use trail with equestrian path continues to Central Avenue and along
Central Avenue with a chainlink fence separating the trail and the road while a
four-foot paved path extends closer towards the edge of the golf course. The
paved pedestrian path ends at Bonita Road. The equestrian trails continue from
Central Avenue along both Bonita Road and Sweetwater Road to the Bonita
Road bridge. The trails continue along the Bonita Golf Course on both north and
south sides of the golf course connecting to Summit Park with an under-crossing
at the Bonita Road crossing. There is a small staging area with no parking on
the north side at Sweetwater Road.
Trail Issues
· The multi-use trail must cross at Central Avenue and users may interact with
vehicles. An under-crossing at Central Avenue does not appear feasible due
to the elevation of the road above the river; however, an equestrian light at
the intersection would improve the trail crossing.
· The trail past the Bonita Golf Course would be reconstructed during the
construction of State Route 125, a proposed freeway that would be aligned
around Summit Park and the north to connect to State Route 54.
· The City of Chula Vista currently maintains the north side trail along
Sweetwater Road, within the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego;
however, no formal maintenance agreement is currently in place between the
two jurisdictions. Adequate budgeted improvements to this segment may be
constrained without a formal agreement.
Greenbelt Recommendations
Explore funding opportunities to improve the multi-use path along Rohr Park,
both north and south sides.
· Coordinate with the County to review design plans for trail improvements
between Plaza Bonita Road and Willow Street, and between Central Avenue
and Summit Park along the Sweetwater River.
· Coordinate and review design plans with Caltrans for the realignment and
reconstruction of the trail under SR 125.
· Improve the trail around Rohr Park to a multi-use trail with 10 ft. paved trail
49
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Ptan
Final Draft August 11,2003
and a 5 ft. native dirt to enhance the use for pedestrians, wheelchairs, and
strollers while maintaining equestrian use.
· Coordinate with the County to establish formal agreements for future
maintenance and improvements of the multi-purpose trail along Sweetwater
Road, within the County's jurisdiction.
5.2.3 San Miguel Segment
The San Miguel Segment connects Summit
Park, Sweetwater Reservoir, portions of the
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, and San
Miguel Ranch, a planned residential
community, to the developing planned
communities of Roiling Hills Ranch and
Eastlake along the eastern portion of Chula
Vista (Figure 14). Portions of this segment
are located in the County of San Diego.
Trails have been designed in San Miguel
Ranch to connect through Rolling Hills Ranch East of Summit Park
to trails east along the Upper Otay Reservoir
and south through the Salt Creek open space corridor.
Greenbelt Issues
Without a doubt, the views from Summit Park eastward are awesome. Informal
trails in this area are used by equestrians and mountain bicyclists for rides along
pristine natural terrain, connecting to Sweetwater Reservoir, San Miguel
Mountains, and Summit Park. Defining these trails for future public access will
require coordination with the County of San Diego.
Existin.q and Future Trail
Just before Summit Park, the equestrian trail separates into two trails. A native
trail continues in a northeastern direction to Sweetwater Reservoir. The other trail
continues to Summit Park. The trail wraps around the north side of Summit Park
and then splits with one trail progressing south to San Miguel Road and the other
trail progressing southeast. The trail that continues to San Miguel Road would
cross the road and connect to the east side of Proctor Valley Road. Proctor
Valley Road may be widened in the future and the trail should be accommodated
during the road design.
A multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians is proposed along the east side of
Proctor Valley Road. The trail would consist of a stabilized decomposed granite
surface for mountain cyclists, and hikers. The trail would connect from San
Miguel Road and extend along Proctor Valley Road until it reaches Mt. Miguel
Road. After crossing to the east side of Mt. Miguel Road, the trail becomes
5O
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
concrete south to east/west Proctor Valley Road, then turns east on the north
side of Proctor Valley Road and travels east on a ten-foot wide concrete
meandering trail to Hunte Parkway. The Greenbelt trail then crosses to the east
side of Hunte Parkway to connect with the north/south trail that crosses Proctor
Valley Road.
Where the Greenbelt trail intersects at Mt. Miguel Road, however, a spur of the
trail also extends northerly, along the east side of Mt. Miguel Road, until it
connects with the Community Park in San Miguel Ranch, where from here the
trail extends through the community park running east behind single family
homes to a hilltop in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Opportunities for
other trail connections from this point may present themselves but would require
cooperation among several agencies for this to occur. Additionally, a 10 ft. wide
decomposed granite trail will be constructed along the north side of Mt. Miguel
Road connecting Proctor Valley Road through the San Miguel Ranch community,
crossing the SR125 toll way by bridge, to where Proctor Valley Road intersects
with Mt. Miguel Road to the south. This segment of trail will not accommodate
equestrians due to the SR125 crossing.
Trail Issues
· Currently, there are no known trail easements south of San Miguel Road
along Proctor Valley Road to the San Miguel Ranch master planned
community across existing single-family residential properties.
· The trail along San Miguel Road (in front of Summit Park) may be jeopardized
by future road improvements.
· Construction of the trail along the east side of Proctor Valley Road may be
difficult as a result of available roadway right-of-way constrained by adjacent
open space recently acquired by the State of California for conservation
purposes.
· Connecting a trail from the San Miguel Ranch trail spur to the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge and the Sweetwater Reservoir may be desirable but
would require cooperation of several agencies.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· Coordinate with the property owners south of San Miguel Road to secure trail
easements to connect to the trail along the east side of Proctor Valley Road.
· Coordinate and review trail design plans along Proctor Valley Road to ensure
connectivity of trail and consistency with trail guidelines.
· Incorporate a 10 ft. wide decomposed granite trail along the eastside of
Proctor Valley Road as part of future improvements of Proctor Valley Road.
5!
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Coordinate with the County of San Diego and promote the inclusion of the
trail along San Miguel Road in future improvement plans.
· Coordinate with the County of San Diego on efforts to connect the trail from
Summit Park to Proctor Valley Road.
5.2.4 Salt Creek Segment
The Salt Creek Segment includes the Salt Creek open space corridor from
Rolling Hills Ranch south along the Eastlake and Otay Ranch communities to the
Otay Valley and the Otay Valley Regional Park East (Figure 15). Three
Community Parks are being developed as part of the planned communities of
San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch and Eastlake Community. The Greenbelt
trail will be located within the Salt Creek open space corridor through Rolling Hills
Ranch and Eastlake along the eastedy edge of Salt Creek. South of Olympic
Parkway, where highly sensitive natural habitat in Salt Creek will be protected,
the trail will be located along the westerly edge of Salt Creek.
Greenbelt Issues
Urbanization of this area has allowed the development of much of the trail
system along Salt Creek for bicyclists, walkers and joggers. However, in order to
accommodate this future population, roadways constructed have reduced trail
opportunities for equestrians and possible connections to open space areas
without roadway interface. To enhance the experience of the visitor along the
trail system and to provide for disabled access, construction of overcressings or
undercrossings of major roadways are desirable.
Existin.q and Future Trail
A multi-use decomposed granite trail would be constructed from Proctor Valley
Road at the Community Park in Rolling Hills Ranch, along the east side of Salt
Creek. At Proctor Valley Road, the Greenbelt trail would cross and proceed
easterly along the edge of Eastlake Woods development and then south along
the edge of the Upper Otay Reservoir.
Currently, there are existing separate paved and dirt trails on the east side of
Hunte Parkway south of Proctor Valley Road. Both trails end prior to Otay Lakes
Road. An extension of the trail is planned as a multi-use trail constructed of a
stabilized decomposed granite surface along the Eastlake Woods and Eastlake
Vistas communities from Proctor Valley Road with an at-grade crossing at the
Community Park, south of Otay Lakes Road. At the southern edge of Eastlake
Vistas and Eastlake Trails, the trail would travel west to the intersection at Hunte
Parkway, then cross Olympic Parkway and continue south along the east side of
Hunte Parkway where the Otay Ranch Village Greenway will connect south of
Village 11. The trail would then continue along the west side of Salt Creek on the
university site and connect to the Otay Valley Regional Park East trails. The
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
multi-use trail along Salt Creek would accommodate bicyclists, walkers, joggers
and wheelchairs.
From the northeast corner of Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway a trail spur
will extend northward through the Salt Creek open space corridor. This
decomposed granite trail will end near the Otay Water District property and Auld
Goff (golf) Course to the north.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· A signal at Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway is planned to
accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. It is recommended that the signal be
installed when the trail is completed.
· A signal at Otay Lakes Road and Woods Drive is planned to accommodate
pedestrians and cyclists. It is recommended that the signal be installed when
the trail is completed.
· Future consideration of trail overcrossings should occur if funding becomes
available.
5,2,50tay Lakes Segment
The Otay Lakes Segment includes both the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs,
bordering the eastern reaches of Chula Vista (Figure 15). This segment offers
views of the reservoirs and the natural mountain terrain. The Olympic Training
Center and a County of San Diego park are located at the southern end of Lower
Otay Lakes. Fishing and boating are permitted on the lake. Many cyclists bike
along Wueste Road, bordering the Otay Lakes.
Greenbelt Issues
Lake access for the public is currently limited due to the sensitivity of existing
biological habitat around the lake and the lack of access paths. Access to the
lake could be further enhanced by developing controlled hiking and equestrian
trails along the lake, adding picnic areas, and providing parking.
Existin.q and Future Trail
Bicyclists currently travel along Wueste Road overlooking the Otay Lakes. A
planned multi-use trail elevated as a graded bench between Eastlake Vistas
development and Wueste Road is to be constructed of a stabilized decomposed
granite pathway and will connect with a planned neighborhood park in the Vistas
development overlooking the Lower Otay Reservoir. A paved trail currently
exists along the portion adjacent to the Olympic Training Center from the
southern portion of the lower Otay Reservoir to the County Park. Part of the
planned trail system for Eastlake Woods includes trails that will follow the west
side of the Upper Otay Reservoir, passing around the Otay Ranch House and
continuing to Otay Lakes Road.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
The draft County Trail System Assessment, May 3, 2001, identifies an equestrian
trail along the edge of the Otay Reservoirs connecting to the County Park. The
County Otay Lake Park offers picnicking and restrooms. An equestrian staging
area at the park would be ideal to provide additional access to the Otay Valley
Regional Park.
Trail Issues
· Bicyclists will continue to travel along Wueste Road despite the provision of
other Greenbelt trails and the narrow width of the road.
· Developing the proposed equestrian trail along the Otay Lakes will require
coordination and approval by the City of San Diego Water Department.
· There is currently no grade separated trail connection between Upper and
Lower Otay Lakes.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· Install a signalized crossing at Otay Lakes Road.
· Encourage the County to construct an equestrian staging area at the County
Park at the southern end of Lower Otay Lakes.
· Coordinate with the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego to permit
equestrian trails along the Otay Lakes.
· If an equestrian trail is successfully established around the Otay Lakes design
and construct a trail connection under Otay Lakes Road when this segment of
roadway is reconstructed and widened in the future.
· If Wueste Road is closed in the future to vehicle traffic between Otay Lakes
Road and Olympic Parkway (except for maintenance and emergencies),
consider the potential for converting this segment as an additional multi-use
trail link for use by bicyclists, rollerblades, and other non-motorists.
5.2.60tay Valley Regional Park, East and West Segments
Otay Valley Regional Park is a planning effort by the Cities of Chula Vista and
San Diego and the County of San Diego (Figure 16 and 17). The key goal of the
adopted Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan is to link major open
space areas within the southern area of San Diego County and South San Diego
Bay with lower Otay Lake. This component currently supports two commercial
recreational facilities: Coors Amphitheater and Knotts Soak City Water Park.
Additional park facilities and programs are currently being planned.
54
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Greenbelt Issues
A Master Plan is currently being prepared for the east and west segments of the
Otay Valley Regional Park, separate from the Greenbelt Master Plan. This Plan
upon adoption will provide implementation policies and standards for these
segments of the Greenbelt. Other future plans include developing active parks
and continuing strategies for acquisition of parkland. Located along the Otay
River Valley are the Coors Amphitheater and the Knott's Soak City water park.
Much of the land within this area is privately owned. The OVRP Concept Plan
provides policy direction for the jurisdictions for coordinated land acquisition and
development for the Regional Park. There is a Policy Committee (PC) consisting
of one elected council or board member from each participating jurisdiction who
provide direction to the 30-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), make
decisions about planning and acquisition for the park, and provide
recommendations relating to OVRP to their respective jurisdictions.
Existing and Future Trail
Planned multi-use trails, including equestrian trails, would extend south from Salt
Creek, on the east side of Village 11, connecting with the Otay Lakes Trail just
south of Village 11. The trail will follow south to Heritage Road. At least one trail
will extend westerly, on a maintenance road for the Salt Creek Sewer, through
the Otay Valley on the north side of the river. A trail will extend along the south
edge of the existing Auto Park and the proposed Auto Park Expansion. The trail
will then cross under 1-805.
Trail Issues
· Potential trails along SDG&E easements will need to be coordinated with the
utility company.
· Identify location of trail crossings at three major roads between 1-805 and I-5.
· The connection to the Bayfront through the commercial area and the wildlife
preserve will need to be resolved.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· Support adoption of the Trails Master Plan for the east and west segments of
the Otay Valley Regional Park.
· Assist in the coordination efforts to develop the trail along the river
considering undercrossings at 1-805 freeway, Beyer Road, Beyer Boulevard,
the trolley line, and I-5 freeway.
· Assist in the coordination efforts to locate a trail along the National Wildlife
Refuge to connect to the Bayshore Bikeway.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
5.2.70tay Ranch Village Greenway Segment
Although not a part of the original Greenbelt as identified in the General Plan, the
Otay Ranch Village Greenway segment has been added to the Greenbelt Master
Plan as it is a major trail linkage identified within the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. This segment will connect from the Salt Creek trail through
urban villages, the Eastern Urban Center, in or near Wolf Canyon to the Otay
Valley (Figure 16).
Greenbelt Issues:
The Village Greenway presents opportunities for a multi-use trail that will provide
mobility for residents between several villages and provide connectivity between
recreation areas in the Eastern Urban Center and future park(s) along the
Greenway. Developing a trail link along Wolf Canyon to link the Salt Creek
Segment to the Otay River Valley will need to be sensitively planned to avoid
adverse environmental impacts while providing opportunities for public access.
Existin.q and Futura Trail
An existing dirt utility access road for a variety of ranch operations is located
along Wolf Canyon connecting future La Media Road southwest to the Otay
River Valley, on the north and west side of Rock Mountain, offering an ideal
setting for a multi-use trail. With improvements consisting of decomposed
granite or other special material (concrete treated base), depending on
maintenance road minimum requirements, this existing access road could serve
as a multi-use pathway within the Wolf Canyon open space.
The access road/pathway would extend under or over Main Street/Rock
Mountain Road and La Media Road, and through Village 7 of the Otay Ranch
within a planned open space corridor. Through Village 7 the trail will be
constructed of decomposed granite or concrete and will be ten feet in width. As
the trail extends under the SR-125 Tollway, the trail will be constructed of
concrete and traverse the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) within an open space
corridor. Through subsequent planning of the EUC, it may be warranted to
provide both concrete and decomposed granite trail segments to provide for
joggers as well as rollerbladers, strollers or other non-motorized recreational
activities with wheels. The Village Greenway as it passes through the Eastern
Urban Center will provide a major trail connection that not only enhances
mobility, but also provides an opportunity in the Eastern Urban Center for both
residents and employees of the EUC to recreate. The Village Greenway would
be designed to connect significant park and open space uses in the EUC and
provide both active and passive users opportunities to stop and enjoy the
experience through an enhanced open space paseo.
The Village Greenway will cross Eastlake Parkway on a pedestrian bridge at the
southwest corner of Village 11 and continue as a decomposed granite trail within
an open space buffer on the north side of Hunte Parkway, until it crosses Hunte
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
Parkway by pedestrian bridge to connect with the Greenbelt trail extending along
the westerly edge of Salt Creek.
Trail Issues
· Due to the natural terrain and native habitat along Wolf Canyon, there are
concerns that users would encroach into native habitat areas.
· Use of the access road as a trail would need to be negotiated with property
owners until the Wolf Canyon open space is conveyed to the Otay Ranch
Preserve.
· Implementation of the trail through the EUC may be required to be unique and
different, due to the urban nature of this planning area.
· The design of grade-separated crossings (underpass or overpass) of La
Media Road and Main Street/Rock Mountain Roads for the Village Greenway
will require further roadway alignment and SPA grading analyses to
determine the best type of crossings.
· A university site has been identified south of the Eastern Urban Center
although the specific design has not been determined. Trail routes and
connections should be considered in future planning of the university site.
· Connecting trail links to adjacent villages in Otay Ranch are encouraged;
however, environmental constraints in Wolf Canyon may limit the number and
location.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· The Village Greenway trail proposed to extend through Wolf Canyon is one of
several potential alignments that will be fully analyzed prior to the selection of
a final trail alignment. This final trail alignment should ensure connectivity to
the Greenbelt Trail system in Otay Valley.
· If a trail is located within Wolf Canyon, provide signs along the canyon for a
native trail and to advise users to stay on the path.
· Enlist an organization to function as trail user patrol that would voluntarily
police the trail.
· If a trail is located within Wolf Canyon, place a post and rail fence along both
sides of the utility road to restrict access off of the trail and discourage off trail
cycling.
· Provide a grade-separated trail crossing (underpass or overpass) at Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road to connect to the east/west Otay Valley
Greenbelt Trail.
57
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· A future multi-use trail should be located to and within the University site and
connecting to the Eastern Urban Center to provide a trail for students and
employees. The design will be coordinated through the development process
of the university.
· Connecting trails from adjacent residential areas should be sensitively
designed to minimize environmental impacts.
5.2.8 Bayfront Segment
The Bayfront Segment extends from the Sweetwater Marsh, a National Wildlife
Preserve, and north to I-5, at the Sweetwater River (Figure 18). The Bayfront
Segment is bordered by I-5 on the east and the San Diego Bay on the west.
Also located along this segment are existing industrial uses, the Chula Vista
Bayside Park and Marina, and the (former) Western Salt ponds.
Greenbelt Issues
Proposed development and redevelopment of the Bayfront may include mixed
uses such as residential (mid-bayfront only), retail, commercial, hotel uses and
other marine related uses. As this area redevelops, the City and other agencies
should coordinate any open space and trail corridors to ensure connectivity and
preservation of natural wildlife areas where appropriate.
Existin.q and Proposed Trail
The Bayfront includes a segment of the
Bayshore Bikeway, a regional bikeway
that is planned to provide a paved multi-
use pathway for cyclists and
pedestrians from the pathway along the
Embarcadero and Seaport Village in
San Diego to Coronado with a
connection across the Bay via the ferry.
The connection to the Bayfront, from
National City to the north and Imperial
Beach to the southwest has not been
constructed; however, construction has
begun on a twelve foot wide paved BayshoreBikewaytolmperial Beach
pathway with a bridge across the
Sweetwater River Flood Channel, extending to E Street at Bay Boulevard. The
bridge will connect to an east / west regional bicycle trail on the north side of the
Sweetwater River.
A second multi-use trail may follow along the bayside of the Bayfront area.
Conceptually, a twelve foot wide paved multi-use path may extend through the
Mid-Bayfront property and through the Port District lands to the south connecting
58
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
existing and proposed open space/parks, then connecting back with the
Bayshore Bikeway along Bay Boulevard at J Street. Bayside Park could serve as
a staging area with amenities ranging from playgrounds, sand volleyball,
picnicking, and restrooms.
Trail Issues
· There is currently limited space for a multi-use trail behind the commercial
services bordering the Marina Parkway.
· Determine use of abandoned railroad tracks for trail or secure alternate route
along bayfront.
· Determine specific routing of trail with property owners for segments within
San Diego Gas and Electric Facility and the Western Salt Works processing
plant.
Greenbelt Recommendations
· Coordinate with property owners to plan and develop a trail system along the
entire Bayfront by integrating trails within all future development plans.
· Coordinate with CALTRANS, SANDAG and the Port District to integrate the
construction of the Bayshore Bikeway into future plans for trails along the
Bayfront.
· Coordinate efforts with San Diego Gas and Electric and Western Salt Works
to locate the trail along the edge of their facilities.
5.3 Greenbelt Summary
Most of the Greenbelt is already preserved as natural open space or as an active
public or commercial park facility. The ongoing effort to develop parks within the
Otay River Valley Regional Park planning effort will offer the community and
region additional open space and park facilities. Trails through these open space
areas and parks are already installed and operational. Others may have missing
links or have substandard widths or surface. A listing of each segment follows on
Table 5. Each of the segments has been further divided into sub-segments.
Estimated costs for each sub-segment based on length and the type of trail
surface is also noted on the table to provide a basis of the cost to construct or
refurbish. Also included in Table 5 are sub-segment lengths, anticipated user
types, trail surface, and maintenance responsibility. The Otay Valley Regional
Park East and West Segments will be further modified through adoption of the
OVRP Trails Master Plan under separate cover. Additionally, parks, open space
and trails will be modified through adoption of development plans for the Mid-
Bayfront and the Port District/Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan properties.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
5.4 Greenbelt Maps
Figure 11 represents the entire Greenbelt open space and trails. The following
seven maps (Figure 12-18) individually illustrate each of the segments of the
Greenbelt. Each map is intended to show the recommended open space
corridor through each segment and the existing or proposed trail alignment
through the open space. Each segment map overlaps in order to orient the
reader to the open space corridor and to show where the open space corridor
connects to provide a continuous greenbelt and to identify trail connections.
Existing staging areas are shown on the map. There are no additional staging
areas shown; however, as development (including parks) within and adjacent to
the Greenbelt occurs and opportunities for future staging areas present
themselves, the city should consider their construction consistent with standards
contained herein. It is anticipated with the completion of the Otay Valley
Regional Park there will be staging areas developed to accommodate the park
and trail usage.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 6
Implementation
The purpose of this chapter is to identify possible strategies for implementation of
the Plan. Principally, additional open space within the Greenbelt could be
obtained through: acquisition of privately owned land for open space, dedication
of land for open space through the MSCP, or dedication of land as part of the
approval process of a development proposal, such as a Specific Plan,
Subdivision Map or other discretionary permit.
Much of the Greenbelt open space is currently preserved through public
ownership, open space dedication, or due to environmental constraints that limit
future development, such as flood plain, steep slopes, or sensitive biological
habitat. Some parcels along the Otay Valley Regional Park focused planning
area are currently in private ownership and open space connectivity through
these areas will be evaluated in confirmation with future development.
Other than trail construction by a developer through the specific plan or
subdivision process, construction of additional trails outside of these areas would
generally occur as part of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) through publicly
owned-land or through dedication of trails from privately-held land. All trail
construction proposals will be subject to environmental review consistent with
CEQA.
The City may utilize any one of these tools or a mixture of tools for acquisition
and/or implementation of the Greenbelt system. The ultimate mix of
implementation tools will involve City staff~ property owners, developers, elected
officials and others. There are a number of mechanisms that may be used for
acquisition, construction, and on-going maintenance based on whether the open
space is publicly or privately owned. These mechanisms are further discussed in
this chapter.
6.1 Public and Privately Owned Open Space
6.1.1 Publicly-owned Open Space
Publicly owned land includes lands owned by water and sewer districts, school
districts, and other semi-public agencies, as well as those lands owned by
individual cities and counties, the Port District, resource agencies such as the
California Department of Fish and Game, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wildlife Refuge and other federally-owned land, such as
Bureau of Land Management and the Cleveland National Forest.
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
6.1.2 Private.owned Open Space
Privately owned land within the Greenbelt includes such uses as the Bonita Golf
Course, Auld Golf Course, private recreation centers such as the water park in
the Otay River Valley (Knott's Soak City), and individual residences,
homeowners associations, industrial and commercial uses. Some privately
owned land might be owned by an individual land conservancy for the protection
of natural resources. The City may require, as a condition of approval, of a
private developer to preserve open space and/or reserve areas for future trails or
construct trails within the development. Depending on the agreement with the
City, the open space and/or trails may be maintained by a homeowners
association or by the City.
6.2 Acquisition, Development and Maintenance Funding
Greenways and trails offer a variety of benefits to the community, including
economic development, health opportunities, open space preservation,
transportation links, recreation, cultural preservation, education, natural resource
conservation, as well as others. Funding programs are offered for a variety of
benefits and the trail manager or park manager should be creative in his
approach to pursuing funding programs. Implementation of the Greenbelt
requires funding for acquisition, development (construction, signage, staging
areas, etc), and ongoing management and maintenance. Funding programs
frequently only fund for a specific benefit or a specific category. Various funding
programs are described below.
6.2.1 Acquisition of Greenbelt Open Space and Trails
State and Federal Grant Fundin.q for Open Space
The City may pursue acquisition of these open space areas containing sensitive
habitat and/or species using a variety of methods including for habitat
conservation through state and federal funding programs, such as Coastal
Conservancy grants, Habitat Conservation Fund, etc. In most instances, open
space acquired through grant programs or bonds can only be used for habitat
conservation; however, trails can be considered to be compatible uses within
these areas. Significant acreage within the Otay Valley Regional Park has been
acquired through state funding sources. The majority of the City's MSCP opens
space will be conserved through existing public lands through dedication of open
space as part of the land development process. However, a small component of
the MSCP opens space will be comprised of private landholdings which would be
set aside of portion of the most sensitive lands in exchange for development
along the less sensitive areas remaining.
64
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Impact Fees
The City requires impact fees for the acquisition and development of public parks
through the Park Dedication Ordinance (PDO), where "turn-key" parks are not
developed as part of large master planned residential developments; however,
land acquired through this funding source is typically targeted to serve local
public park needs and seldom natural and passive open space. Trails would be
considered consistent with the range of active park uses targeted for local
parkland acquired through this funding source. While PDO funds are commonly
used to fund local parkland acquisition, funding for trail construction could be set-
aside in an account established for that purpose.
Donations and Dedications
Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit - Land and conservation easements
may be dedicated for open space, parkland, wildlife corridors and cultural
resources in exchange for tax credit equal to 55% of fair market value. The State
Wildlife Conservation Board administers the program.
Williamson Act Contracts
Land for open space or trail use may be set aside for a period of time (30 years)
in exchange for a reduction in property tax. Generally Williamson Act contracts
have been primarily used for agricultural use but they may be used to retain open
space in its natural state for the period of the contract.
Voluntary Dedication
An individual property owner may desire to dedicate open space for preservation
or a portion of their property for a trail. The City may elect to construct and
maintain the trail upon acceptance of an irrevocable offer of dedication.
Mandatory Exaction
When there is a crucial link to connect trail segments or a trail is identified on an
adopted trails map or master plan, a mandatory exaction may be required in
conjunction with a request for a discretionary development permit from the public
agency. An example might be a requirement to dedicate land for the
construction of a trail as a condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a
proposed major recreation land use. In lieu of land dedication, in some
circumstances an easement can be recorded to the City to ensure public access
for trail purposes
Income tax deductions
A federal income tax deduction may be allowed when a property owner conveys
land as a gift to a public agency or a non-profit organization for public purposes
such as a trail or open space.
65
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
6.2.2 Design and Construction Funding
Grant Funds and Reimbursement Fund Proqrams
Identifying where opportunities exist for trails is as much a challenge as is
determining how to implement a trails plan once it is adopted. In the past, grant
funds have been limited to trail design and construction. Responding to
recreational and open space needs of a growing population and expanding
communities, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (TEA)
was reauthorized in 1998 as TEA-21. TEA-21 or the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century authorizes funds for transportation programs over a 6-year
period from 1998-2003. Programs include funds directed at improvements for
Transportation Enhancements (TE), Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian
Walkways, Recreational Trails, and Conservation Lands.
In San Diego, the regional allotted funds of ISTEA and TEA-21 funds have been
primarily allocated to regional trail projects that benefit a wide geographic area.
One of these regional projects is the Bayshore Bikeway, a paved Class I bicycle
path (a designated path separated from the roadway) that, when completed, will
extend from downtown San Diego south along the Bayfront in Chula Vista then
west to Imperial Beach winding around the South Bay to Coronado. San Diego
Association of Government (SANDAG) is the lead agency for developing a trail
with Tea funds along a levee within the salt flats connecting along the Bay
connecting to Imperial Beach and Bayshore Bikeway in Coronado. This project
will link to the trail along the Bayfront and connection to the Bayshore Bikeway.
Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2000 (Proposition 12) provides $10 million for non-motorized trail projects
of which all but $1.7 million are programmed. Possible expenditures include
hikers, biking, and other means of non-motorized means of transportation and
recreation. The program favors projects that fund the construction of high-priority
trail segments using matching or in-kind contributions, innovative partnerships or
solutions.
Other programs that may be utilized for developing the Greenbelt and its trails
system include:
· California Recreation Trails Program
· Habitat Conservation Fund
· Land and Water Conservation Fund
· Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (part of the TEA
program)
· Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (technical
assistance)
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
· California Greenways Creative Grants Program.
· AB 2766 Air Pollution Control District Funds
· National Recreation TrailsAct,
· California 2000 Bond Act,
· Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program
· Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program
· Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (program geared toward promoting
healthy communities)
Applications for specific grants require an analysis of whether the type of grant
request meets the grant program guidelines. Many of the grant programs are
tailored specifically for acquisition, design, construction, or maintenance or a
combination of these. Air Pollution Control funds are principally targeted for
programs that reduce vehicle trips and therefore fund for alternative
transportation projects and bicycle facilities which meet the state or federal
standards for multi-use paths. Whereas, the Recreation Trails grant focuses on
trail usage for pleasure and allow more flexibility in the design. The
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program, administered by the
California Resources Agency, is a mitigation tool for transportation projects. The
program may be applicable for mitigation of the road widening of Proctor Valley
Road or the construction of SR 125.
6.2.3 Maintenance Funding
Parks, trails and open space within the Greenbelt that are owned by a
homeowners association (HOA) will be maintained by the HOA. Trails through
Eastlake Trails, Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch will be maintained by
individual HOAs. Maintenance of the trails through public open space areas will
be the responsibility of the City or the agency that owns the land, unless a
maintenance agreement assures this differently (See Figure 19). The City shall
coordinate with individual HOAs to ensure that Greenbelt trails remain connected
and that basic maintenance responsibilities continue to occur.
Greenbelt maintenance is essential to ensure that the system remains an asset
to the community. There are few grant programs that offer grant funds for
maintenance. Generally, maintenance costs are allocated through the General
Fund and when there is a reduced General Fund budget, maintenance of parks
and trails may suffer. Maintenance, specifically for the trail system, can be
accomplished through a variety of sources in addition to maintenance provided
by the public agency. Volunteer programs can provide maintenance of the trails.
In order to manage a volunteer program or revenues generated for maintenance,
a trail manager is necessary. The following possible sources may be used for
generating maintenance revenues or used for trail maintenance:
· Advertising - outdoor shelters, benches
67
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
· Corporate Sponsorship
· Special Events - Fund rides, time trails, etc.
· Franchise Fees - Food stands, bike lockers, bike rental/repair at staging
areas and/or parks
· Urban Corps of San Diego - This organization provides young adults job
training, education, and community service opportunities. The Urban
Corps' "Public Service Conservation Works Program" offers services for
trail construction and maintenance, erosion control, brush management,
revegetation and public landscaping.
· California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a state agency that engages
young persons in meaningful work, public service, and educational
activities providing services to communities and they have conducted trail
maintenance and construction.
· User Fees - Typically the City charges user fees paid for the use of
campgrounds, active playing fields, and other day use fees. A user fee for
trail usage would be difficult to collect and enforce unless each trail was
gated and fenced for its entirety. However, a volunteer collection
mechanism may be implemented whereby a user box is installed at
various trailheads. Fees are collected via the honor system.
· Corporate Funding
· Fundraising events
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Chapter 7
Consultation
In preparing the Greenbelt Master Plan a variety of sources of information
contributed to its content. The following is a listing of documents and individuals
that were consulted in the preparation of the Plan.
1. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, "Regulatory
Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed
Areas, Final Report", September 30, 1999.
2. California, State of, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and
Recreation, California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993, April 1994.
3. Breokfield Shea Otay, LLC, "Otay Ranch SPA, Village Eleven SPA Land
Use Districts", March 30, 2001.
4. Chula Vista, City of, Chula Vista General Plan, Land Use Element, July
11, 1989, Reprinted September 5, 1995.
5. Chula Vista, City of, Landscape Manual1 November 1994.
6. Chula Vista, City of, Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan, August 2000.
7. Cinti Land Planning, "Eastlake III Specific Planning Area," February 20,
2001.
8. Dudek & Associates, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report1 Salt
Creek Interceptor Sewer and Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer1 Volume I - EIR,
prepared for the City of Chula Vista, February 2001.
9. Hofmockel, Mary, City of Chula Vista, May 21, 2000.
10. Federal Highway Administration and the National Recreational Trails
Advisory Committee, "Conflicts on Multi-Use Trails: Synthesis of the
Literature and State of the Practice".
11. MNA Consulting, Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Pm.qram (MSP) Subarea Plan, prepared for the City of Chula Vista,
September 11,2000.
12. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan,
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11, 2003
September 11,2000.
13. Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan, revised draft July 18, 1997.
14. Payne, Gall, California Bicycle Coalition, Planning and Conservation
League Foundation, "Guide to Bicycle Projects and Program Funding in
California", February 2002
15. Recon, Number 3434E, Environmental Opportunities and Constraints
Analysis for the Sweetwater Bike Path, February 14, 2001
16. San Diego, City of and Merkel and Associates, Draft Western Otay Valley
Reqional Park Natural Resource Manaqement Plan, April 2001
17. Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC, "San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan", October
19, 1999.
18. "The Impact of the Brush Creek Trail on Property Values and Crime",
Sonoma State University, 1992.
19. "Who's at Fault: Trail Liability 101", National Trails Symposium, Laura A.
Reimche, Staff Counsel, California Department of Parks and Recreation,
September 23, 2000.
20. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National
Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 7, "Transportation Potential
and Other Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities", January
1992.
21. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Final
Report National Bicycling and Walking Study, Transportation Choices for a
Changing America".
22. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Conflicts on
Multiple-Use Trails, Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice,
August 1994.
23. Dean Ziegler, Bonita Horseman, July 9, 2001
24. San Diego Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan,
2000.
25. San Diego, City of, "San Diego Bicycle Attitude Survey", 1995.
70
City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan
Final Draft August 11,2003
Greenbelt Maps
7]
delN stuatu6as )laa~O ties / sa~eq/{etO
Ueld Jatse~ #aquaaJ~D- e~s!^ elnqO jo/q!O
~,~ ~,~'~ ~o dePl ~,uetuBes ~,uoJjAeg
Ueld Jalseffi llequeeJiD- m,S!A elnqO jo ~!0
The Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee supports the Chula Vista
Green Belt concept. The Otay Valley Regional Park, a major identity within the Green Belt,
contains 16 recreational nodes totaling about 680 acres, providing playing fields, picnic areas,
hiking, biking and equestrian trails.
For planning and development purposes, the park has been divided into three parts.
The Western OVRP, San Diego Bay east to Heritage Road. Eastern OVRP, Heritage Road to
the west end of Lower Otay Reservoir, and the third part contains both Lower and Upper
Olay Reservoirs, and the Air Sports Field.
The Western Otay Valley Regional Park, Bay to Heritage Road, currently has four
commemial recreational activities. A golf practice range and a go-cart track are located on the
west side of Hollister Street, the 20,000-seat Coors Amphitheater, and. Knot's Soak City
Water Park.
The Eastern Otay Valley Regional Park, contains San Diego County's Otay Lakes Park,
a picnic area and fishing pier with rental boats, the United States Olympic Training Center's
Canoe, Kayak and Rowing facility, and the San Diego Air Sports Fiel&
Six major projects are currently being pursued, the Otay River Valley Clean-up Project,
Finney Elementary School Overlook, a Otay Valley Sports Complex, a Trails Master Plan and
a Otay River Valley Watershed Management Plan.
The Clean-up Project during 46 work periods (126 workdays) has expended over
12,084 labor hours in removing 1,080 tons of trash, requiring over 230 trips to the landfill.
The Finney Elementary School Overlook will provide space for two outdoor
classrooms and a public overlook facility.
The Park Trails Master Plan Project proposes multi-purpose and single use trails that
provides hikers, bicyclists and equesthans, connections to other public facilities, such as parks,
open space, Bay Shore Bikeway, Green Belt trail systems and other points of interest.
The 35 acre Otay Valley Sports Complex will contain a skateboard park, soccer and
baseball fields, swimming pool and recreation center.
The Otay River Valley Watershed Management Plan's, primary task will be to identify
and prevent storm water run off pollution entering the Otay River and then San Diego Bay.
To date, some 48 storm water mn-off entry points into the Otay River have been identified.
The Otay Valley Regional Park Web Site (www.ovrp.org), created and maintained by a
commercial company, contains copy of the Concept Plan, numerous aerial photographs of the
valley, status of each project's development and links to similar parks, trails and historic sites.
John Willett, Chair,
Otay Valley Regional Park, Citizens Advisory Committee
Page 1,1tern o~ ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: To consider an amendment to the Fee Recovery District £or
Otay Valley Road, related to Assessment District No. 90-2, to modify the
method for determining the fees collected.
Resolution Amending the Fee Recovery District for Otay
Valley Road, related to Assessment District No. 90-2, to modify the method
for determining the fees collected.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering ff3~/
Director of Community'Development
REVIEWED BY: C~ty Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
In 1993, the City Council established aFee Recovery District for Otay Valley Road to collect fees
from properties that benefited from the improvements financed by Assessment District No. 90-2.
The Fee Recovery District is a financing mechanism to address the potential inequity in assessments
should a property develop to more impactive land uses, such as commercial, than the land uses used
to determine the assessments in Assessment District No. 90-2. The fees collected may be used to
offset the costs to those properties participating in the Assessment District and for minor
administrative costs.
Tonight's action is to take and consider public testimony and consider a modification to the Fee
Recovery District to reduce the fee amount to account for the declining benefit period of the
Assessment District.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
Conduct the public hearing and take testimony regarding the amendment to the Fee
Recovery District.
· Approve the resolution amending the Fee Recovery District to modify the method for
determining the fees collected.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On June 23, 1992, Council approved the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 to finance the
improvement of Otay Valley Road east ofi-805 (now known as Main Street). In Conjunction with
the assessment district, staff recommended and Council approved the concept of a fee recovery
district to recover money from property owners who develop their property to a greater degree in the
future than outlined by the assessment district. In November 1993, pursuant to Municipal Code
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
15.54, Council approved the establishment of the Fee Recovery District for Otay Valley Road (Fee
Recovery District).
Assessment District No. 90-2 was established to provide the revenue combined with City
contributions, to construct Otay Valley Road and generally included the industrial properties within
the area. The owners within the assessment district are being charged an assessment for the road
construction based on a fair share of estimated traffic generation, fixed at the time of the assessment
district formation. At that time, all properties were zoned industrial and the traffic generation rates
for each property were the same per acre (200 trips/industrial acre) for the developed,
underdeveloped and undeveloped properties.
If a property subsequently developed to a higher use than outlined by the assessment district (i.e.
commercial instead of industrial), application of the same assessment on the higher intensity land use
might not be equitable. This is because commercial uses typically generate more traffic and higher
use of the road than industrial uses. As the assessment district contained substantial acreage that had
not yet developed (approximately 150 developable acres) at the time the district was established, the
potential for land use change was high. To address this potential inequity, a Fee Recovery District
was established to enable the City to charge additional fees to ensure that those property owners
developing their property commercially, and then generating greater traffic, pay their fair share of the
improvements. The Fee Recovery District was established such that owners of property that do not
develop or do not develop to a higher use than industrial~ would.not be obligated to pay any fees
associated with the Fee Recovery District.
The fee established by the Fee Recovery District was set at $95/vehicle trip, or $19,000 per industrial
acre to be collected for the duration of the Assessment District bonds (September 20172). For
industrial land uses consistent with the Assessment District, the fee was generally satisfied via
participation in the assessment district. Ho~vever, for any properties that received a more intense
land use, such as Automobile - Sales (Dealer and Repair at 300 trips/acre), additional fees would be
collected based on the number of trips exceeding 200 trips/acre. For example a 1-acre Automobile -
Sales site would pay a fee of $9,500 ($95/trip x [300 trips - 200 trips]) into the Fee Recovery
District. The fee does not take into account the time at which the land use changes.
Fees collected via the Fee Recovery District are to be used to reduce the annual assessment district
installment of property owners in the assessment district and pay limited City administration costs
for the Fee Recovery District.
The Amendment
Staff recommends refining the method of calculating the fees to account for the timing of the land
use change. Staff recommends that the fees collected via the Fee Recovery District be pro rated
based on the years remaining on the bond issue to the entire life of the bonds (24 years). For
1 Certain properties within the Fee Recovery District were not assessed in the assessment district because the
properties were considered undevelopable. Should those properties develop in the future, the properties would be
subject to a fee at the industrial or other applicable rate. Other properties were not assessed for the full acreage
because large portions of the property were considered undevelopable. These properties also would be subject to a
fee from the Fee Recovery District.
2 Assessment District No. 90-2 bonds were refinanced in 2001 and the final installment is due in 2017
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
described above, the fee would be $5,540 ([14/24] x $9,500), instead of $9,500. As a second
example, consider an industrial site that had not paid an assessment based on the land being not
developable at the time of the assessment district formation due to environmental constraints. If
this site subsequently developed 1 industrial acre with a building permit issued in November 2004,
the fee due to the Fee Recovery District would be $10,290 ([13/24] x 1 acre x 200 trips/ac x
$95/trip) instead of $19,000 under the current method. Staff believes it to be more equitable to
base the fee on the timing of the increased use.
As stated above, the fees may be used to reduce the annual assessment district installments (~f
property owners in the assessment district. Approval of the amendment means lower fees would
be collected from those property owners obtaining increased uses. Lower fees would also result
in less money available to reduce the annual installments of those owners within Assessment
District No. 90-2. Fees of $70,000 collected represents approximately 1% of the total original
assessments ($7.1 million) and for this amount, a parcel with an original assessment of $30,000
would save approximately $300.
To implement this change, staff recommends an amendment to Resolution No. 17311, Section 7(c)
to include a pro ration of the fee based on the years remaining on the bonds issued for Assessment
District No. 90-2. Pursuant to the Resolution No. 17311, Council may adjust the amount of the fee
as necessl~"ry based upon sound engineering, financing and planning information.
Notice
The property owners within the Fee Recovery District have been notified via mail of tonight's public
hearing. In addition, staff held an informational meeting for property owners on the proposal on
August 20, 2003. Seven property owners and/or interested parties attended the meeting. There was
no strong opposition to the modification and it appeared to staff that there is support for modifying
the Fee Recovery District fees that in turn encourages development within the area.
CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15273 (a) (4) of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA does not apply to the
establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other
charges by public agencies for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to
maintain service within existing service areas. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at
this time.
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no direct fiscal impact to the City. The cost of the amendment
and administration of the fee is covered by the fees collected by the OVR Fee Recovery District, not
to exceed $25,000 including Fee Recovery District formation costs. To date, approximately $72,000
in fees was deposited in the Fee Recovery District fund and used to call assessment district bonds.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - OVR Fee Recovery District Boundary Map
J:\Engineer\AGENDA\Otay Valley Rd FRD.doc 9/2/03
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDiNG THE FEE RECOVERY DISTRICT FOR OTAY VALLEY ROAD,
RELATED TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2, TO MODIFY THE METHOD
FOR DETERMINING THE FEES COLLECTED
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1993, Council approved Resolution 17311
establishing a Fee Recovery District for Otay Valley Road (now known as Main Street);
and
WHEREAS, the Fee Recovery District was established in conjunction with
Assessment District No. 90-2, formed for the financing of the Otay Valley Road
improvement and widening; and
WHEREAS, Council approved the Fee Recovery District Fee in order to aid in a
more even distribution of the cost of the Otay Valley Road improvement and widening
based on future land uses that may develop to a higher traffic generating intensity than
industrial or other changes in land use; and
*'WHEREAS, fees collected via the Fee Recovery District shall be used to reduce
the costs to property owners participating in Assessment District No. 90-2 and to pay
minor formation and administrative costs associated with the Fee Recovery District; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 17311, and therefore collection of the Fee Recovery
District fee, is in force and effect for the duration of the bond issues for Assessment
District No. 90-2; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 17311 provided that Council may modify the Fee
Recovery District fee based upon sound engineering, financing and planning information;
and
WHEREAS, it is now recommended that a modification be made to the
calculation of the Fee Recovery District fee based on the years remaining on the bond
issue to the number of years bonds were issued determined at the time a land use change
is approved; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering recommends the modification as an
equitable application of the Fee Recovery District fee; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has
determined that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15273(a)(4) of the
CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring,
restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies for the
Resolution No.
Page 2
purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within
existing service areas. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
find, resolve, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. That the public hearing at which this resolution was adopted was duly
noticed and held in the manner required by law.
SECTION 2. That the owners of property affected or benefited by collection of the Fee
Recovery District fee were given the opportunity to give testimony and be heard prior to
approval of this Resolution.
SECTION 3.. Section 7(a) of Resolution 17311 is hereby by amended in its entirety to
read as follows: (added language is highlighted in bold)
(a) 1. A thoroughfare fee in the amounts set forth in subsection (c) is hereby
established to pay for the Otay Valley Road Improvements and facilities
within the Boundary of the Fee Recovery District ("District"). The fee
shall be paid before the later of the following to occur: (i) approval of
any final map; o~ (ii) issuance of a Building Permit within the District; or
(iii) discretionary approval for a change o~' use for a building from an
industrial use to any other use.
2. The fees shall be deposited into a District Fund, which is hereby
created, and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this
resolution.
3. The District Fund shall be reviewed annually each March 1st . If at
least $20,000 is in the fund, including interest accrued by the District
Fund, the City shall cause the fees to be applied pursuant to
subsection (d) during the subsequent fiscal year. For amounts less
than $20,000, the Director of Engineering may apply or defer
application of the fees at his or her discretion in order to minimize
costs of administering the District Fund. Any fund amounts not
applied shall remain in the District Fund. Upon dissolution of the
fund, any remaining balance shall be applied in accordance with
subsection (d).
SECTION 4. Section 7(c) of Resolution 17311 is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
(c) 1. The fee for each development shall be $19,000/industrial acre ($95/trip
x 200 trips/acre) or $95/trip as estimated and determined by the Director
of Engineering C/fy Engineer with reference to industry accepted traffic
generation rates (except that, without regard to industry accepted traffic
Resolution No.
Page 3
generation rates, the traffic generation rate for all industrial land uses
shall, for the purposes of imposing this fee, be assumed to be 200 traffic
trips per acre) and applied pursuant to the Modified Engineer's Report
dated November 1, 1993.
2. The fee may be satisfied to the extent of the parcel's participation in
Assessment District No. 90-2, under the authority of Section 66484(f), as
determined by the Director of Engineering r,;~,,,~.,v ~-~.,~,c~: .... under rules
and regulations she/he may promulgate for the determination of same.
Those properties within the District that which develop to a more intense
use than outlined by Assessment District No. 90-2 shall pay this fee
pursuant to paragraph 3 below.
3. In order to account for the time benefit factor of the land use
change, the amount of the District fee not satisfied by participation in
Assessment District No. 90-2 pursuant to paragraph 2 above, shall be
multiplied by the Multiplier Factor outlined on Attachment 1 based
upon the date of. building permit issuance (or at the time of
discretionary approval if no building permit is anticipated to be
issued, as determined by the Director of Engineering).
4. The City Council shall annually revieW the amount of the fee. The
City Council may adjust the amount of the fee as necessary to reflect
changes in the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the type,
size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in
land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound
engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the
above fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 5. The second Section 7 (Effective Date) of Resolution 17311 is hereby re-
numbered as Section 7.5.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 65962, this resolution shall become
effective sixty (60) days afler its approval.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Cliff Swanson ~
Director of Engineering C~ Atto~ey
Resolution No.
Page 4
JSattorney\reso\fee recovery district resolution
Resolution No.
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Date of building permit issuance Multiplier Years remaining
Factor on bond issues
September 1993 through effective date of 1.00 NA
resolution amending Resolution 17311
Effective date of resolution amending 0.58 14
Resolution 17311 through August 2004
September 2004 through August 2005 0.54 13
September 2005 through August 2006 0.50 12
September 2006 through August 2007 0.46 11
September 2007 through August 2008 0.42 10
September 2008 through August 2009 0.38 9
September 2009 through August 2010 0.33 8
September 2010 through August 2011 0.29 7
September 2011 through August 2012 0.25 6
September 2012 through August 2013 0.21 5
September 2013 through August 2014 0.17 4
September 2014 through August 2015 0.13 3
S~pternber 2015 through August 2016 0.08 2
September 2016 through August 2017 0.04 1
September 2017 and beyond 0.00 0
Note: The table is based on years remaining on the bond issues to total bond issue years
(24 years).
Hyspan Precision Products, lnc Voice: (619) 421-1355
1685 Brandywine Avenue Fax: (619) 421-1702
Chula Vista, Califomia 91911-6020 www.hyspan.com
September 6, 2003
Patricia Beard
Senior Community Development Specialist -~ '
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue ' "'--
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Otay Valley Road Fee Recovery District
Dear Ms. Beard:
As the owner of 1685 Brandywine Avenue, and President of business located at this address, I
wish to express our opposition to the proposed amendment of Fee Recovery District.
When these improvements were made, they were far in excess of the needs of those of us who
are industrial users. The clear beneficiaries of the improvements are the commercial users, and
future commercial users. I understand the importance of sales tax to the City, but the continued
subsidizing of automobile dealers at the expense of other constituencies is unnecessary and
unfair.
Very truly yours,
HysPan Precision Products, Inc.
Donald R. Heye
President
Memo
To: Donna Noms, Assistant City Clerk
From: Arme L H~rfison, Constituent Services Manager
Da~e: 9/8/2003
Re: Acceptance of Joe David Casillas as the 2003 Chula Vista Veteran Of The Year
Mayor Stephen C. pad;ll, is requesting to phce under Mayor's comments to accept the
recommendation of Mr..Joe David Casillas as the 2003 Veteran Of The Year for Chula Vista.
The Chula Vista Veteran Advisory Commission recommended Mr. Casillas.
Please place this on the City Council agenda, of September 16 2003 for ratification. If you have
any questions, please contact me at x5812. Thank you for your asmtance.
Anne L Harrison
Constituent Services Manager
Memo
To: Lorraine Bennett, Deputy City Clerk
From: Anne L~ H~r~uon, Constituent Services Manager
Date 9/8/2003
Rex Appointment to the Mobile Home Rent Review Commission
Councilwoman Mazy Salas (Seat 4) has nominated the following applicant to the Mobil~qrt.ome
Rent Review Commission;
Ms. Rosa Robles (replaces Mr. Shipe)
Please place this on the City Council agenda, of September 16 2003 for ratification. If you
any questions, please contact me at x5812. Thank you for your as~tance.
Anne L. Harrison
Constituent Services Manager
INFORMATION ITEM
September 2, 2003
File: HX-001
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager ~/~
FROM: Clifford L. Swanson, Director of Engineering~
SUBJECT: Transportation Development Impact Fee and 'Traffic Signal Participation
Fee Increases By 1.36% October 1, 2003
The Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) adopted by Council, calls for the fee
to be adjusted every October for inflation (Ordinance 2802, Section 3.54.010C). This
adjustment is based on a 20-City Average Construction Cost Index1. The index between
July 2002 and July 2003 increased 1.36%. Table 1 below provides the current and new
TDIF rates:
Table 1
Development T~pe Current Fee Fee Effective 10/01/2003
Low Density Residential (per EDU) $8,180 $8,291
Medium Density Residential (per EDU) $6,544 $6,633
High Density Residential (per EDU) $4,908 $4,975
Senior Housing (per EDU) $3,272 $2,496
General Commercial (per Acre) $171,780 $174,111
High Rise Commercial (per Acre) $278,120 $281,894 I
Industrial (per Acre) $65,440 $66,328 .~..
Golf Course (per Course) $572,600 $580,370
Medical Center (per Acre) $531,700 $538,915
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-385, the Traffic Signal Participation Fee adopted by
Council also calls for a fee adjustment based on the above-mentioned construction cost
index. Therefore, the 1.36% increase is applied as follows:
Current Fee Fee Effective 10/01/03
$23.72 per vehicle trip $24.04 per vehicle trip
The major developers have been notified that the fee will increase October 1, 2003.
J:~Engineer\LANDDEV~DIF's\TDIF Yearly Increase~Info Item August 2003.doc
~ Engineering News Record 20-City Average Construction Cost Index: July 2002=6605, July 2003=6695
Features wysiwyg://16/http://www.enr.com/fe...Eco/costlndexes/constlndexHist.asp
,nstruction Cost Index History
Construction Cost Index History (1908-2003)
HOW ENR BUILDS THE INDEX: 200 hours of common labor at the 20-c
common labor rates, plus 25 cwt of standard structural steel shapes at t
prior to 1996 and the fabricated 20-city price from 1996, plus 1.128 tons
cement at the 20-city price, plus 1,088 board-ff of 2 x 4 lumber at the 20-
~-'
1980 3132 3134 3159 3143 3139 3198 3260 3304 3319 3327 3355
1981 3372 3373 3384 3450 3471 3496 3548 3616 3657 3660 3697
1982 3704 3728 3721 3731 3734 3815 3899 3899 3902 3901 3917
1963 3960 4001 4006 4001 4003 4073 4108 4132 4142 4127 4133
1984 4109 4113 4118 4132 4142 4161 4166 4169 4176 4161 4158
1985 4145 4153 4151 4150 4171 4201 4220 4230 4229 4228 4231
1986 4218 4230 4231 4242 4275 4303 4332 4334 4335 4344 4342
1987 4354 4352 4359 4363 4369 4387 4404 4443 4456 4459 4453
1988 4470 4473 4484 4489 4493 4525 4532 4542 4535 4555 4567
1989 4580 4573 4574 4577 4578 4599 4608 4618 4658 4658 4668
1990 4680 4685 4691 4693 4707 4732 4734 4752 4774 4771 4787
1991 4777 4773 4772 4766 4801 4818 4854 4892 4891 4892 4896
1992 4888 4884 4927 4946 4965 4973 4992 5032 5042 5052 5058
1993 5071 5070 5106 5167 5262 5260 5252 5230 5255 5264 5278
1994 5336 5371 5381 5405 5405 5408 5409 5424 5437 5437 5439
1995 5443 5444 5435 5432 5433 5432 5484 5506 5491 5511 5519
1996 5523 5532 5537 5550 5572 5597 5617 5652 5683 5719 5740
1997 5765 5769 5759 5799 5837 5860 5863 5854 5851 5848 5838
1998 5852 5874 5875 5883 5881 5895 5921 5929 5963 5986 5995
1999 6000 5992 5986 6008 6006 6039 6076 6091 6128 6134 6127
2000 6130 6160 6202 6201 6233 6238 6225 6233 6224 6259 6266
2001 6281 6272 6279 6286 6288 6318 6404 6389 6391 6397 6410
2002 6462 6462 6502 6480 6512 6532['~6592 6589 6579 6578
2003 6581 6640 6627 6635 6642 6694~"~-~6733 6741
Base:1913=100
8/27/03 1:07 PM
CI1Y OF
CHULA VISTA
September 9, 2003
TO: Department Heads
FROM: George Krempl, Assistant City Manager'L~~;l''z
SUBJECT: Request from Deputy Mayor Rindone
At the August 26, 2003 Council meeting, under Item #4 (accepting bids and awarding
contract for street light installation along Bonita Road...), Deputy Mayor Rindone
requested that future staff reports on bids include not only the list of potential
contractors, but also the cities they are from.
This information is being provided to you to incorporate into any future reports to
Council involving bids.
cc: Mayor and Council
John Coggins
General Franchise Terms
~1' )ranchise Renewal Fee _
~(~t Franchise Fee Increase
~./. 3) Under-wounding of Power Lines:
per, and/or comply with, proposed City Zoning and Permitting Regulations.
· Distribution Lines: Continuation of the Rule 20 (a) Under-grounding
~..~'~ 4~ Pro.am. Estimated Cost - $39 M.
o Surcharge to Chula Vista Residents
5. Public Good Fee Charges:
To the maximum extent allowed by law, the program shall provide for the
expenditure of public goods fees collected from Chula Vista ratepayers on
qualified energy programs or projects of "direct benefit" to the City.
6. Special Monies:
SDG&E shall notify the City of the availability of funding for special energy
prograrhs and assist the City in the application of said funds.
7. Program Administrator:
SDG&E shall support the City as Program Administrator for cost-effective energy
efficiency and conservation programs established through the PUC.
icfWitchyard
the South Bay Power Plant is redeveloped or removed, SDG&E shall
oncurrently cause the relocation of the adjacent switchyard.
9. Substations:
SDG&E shall fund a City program to beautify up to 7 substations identified by the
City.
10. Park Applications of Utility Kights of way:
SDG&E shall allow the use of transmission line areas for public trail use, and
shall donate up to $375,000.
11. Enterprise Zones:
SDG&E shall work with the City to expand the existing enterprise zones and
develop new enterprise zones that offer energy benefits to targeted businesses.
Energ~ Procurement:
~ ~)SDG&E shall work with the City to develop/implement an energy procurement
program for the City - acting on its own behalf, as a community choice
aggregator, energy service provider or Municipal Utility.
13. In-lieu Payment Options:
· Energy efficient City facilities
· Park Development
· Location ora Material Supply Center, and/or SDG&E facilities, in Chula
Vista
· Matching funds for Economic Development
Provide Interconnection infrastructure to the City upon request
· Conduit for fiber optic cable for use by the City
~(~
:--..~~
~~---~
-~~~
-',.~
.---
"
AUG 2 7 2D03 j,
-
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
VETERANS ADVISORY COMMISSION
'------
C': ,ii;'::l.
,
...------..........
To Whom It May Concern:
Subject: Recommendation oftbe Veteran oftbe Year for tbe city ofChula Vista
It is witb great honor and privilege that tbe Chula Vista Veterans Advisory Commission
has unanimously recommended Mr. Joe David Casillas as tbe Veteran oftbe Year fortbe
city of Chula Vista.
Mr. Casillas is a veteran oftbe WWII era (1945-1948), and has been most active in
volunteering for several organizations for tbe city ofChula Vista, including tbe Planning
Commission and tbe Housing Advisory Commission. In addition, Mr. Casillas was on tbe
Sweetwater High School Oversight Committee, tbe Salvation Army Board of directors
and numerous otber commissions and boards.
Of specific volunteer activities, Mr. Casillas was tbe single individual most responsible
for tbe Sunbow community naming 54 streets after Chula Vista residents who died for
tbeir country in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. These streets now honor tbose who
sacrificed tbeir lives so tbat we who are living today can enjoy tbe &eedoms tbat we
have. Mr. Casillas personally spearheaded tbe effort in 1990 while a member oftbe
Planning Commission and worked closely witb tbe Sunbow developers, as well as witb
tbe American Legion and tbe Veterans of Foreign Wars. His efforts resulted in tbe
approved subdivision map naming tbese streets. On December 7, 2000, tbe official street
naming dedication took place.
As a postscript, . last year tbe City Council approved tbe naming of tbe park adjacent to
this Sunbow community as Veterans Park. Groundbreaking for that 10 acre park is
scheduled for next year.
Accompanying paperwork is enclosed.
Thank you
0/&
Robert D. White
Chairman
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
@ rns: C""~"<TI~r R~rycl~d Paµt'f
171+ ~ J..
T
Petition to Increase Chuta Vista Police Covera!!e of Rollin!! Hills Ranch
We, the residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, do hereby petition the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, California, to increase police patrols and police availability in our area. It has come to
our attention that there are currently only h!!! beats for the residents east of I-80S. This is very
inadequate protection and coverage for the residents of Rolling Hills Ranch. We continue to
experience very serious vandalism problems, including but not limited to: 1) theft; 2) trespassing; 3)
deliberate defecation in our private pools; 4) smearing of feces in our pool areas; 5) damage and
destruction to property, including pool/patio furniture; 6) destruction of trees, plants and irrigation
systems; 7) drug and alcohol abuse in our private pool areas, particularly after pool closing hours; 8)
possible gang-related tagging and graffiti; all in and around Rolling Hills Ranch. The replacement
costs related to the above-mentioned vandalism and illegal activities have been enormous (easily
estimated in the thousands of dollars) for the residents of the Rolling Hills Ranch Community
Association (HOA).
Consequently, though these criminal acts have been repeatedly witnessed by residents and the Police
have been called, with the slow Police response time, the criminals have heen able to leave the premises
without any serious consequence. And, they continue to return on a regular, if not nightly, basis.
There have been repeated complaints from residents that the response time by the Police Department
has been very slow.
We need helD now! We call on the Mayor and City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California,
to rectify this situation immediately by implementing adequate patrols and police availability in our
area.
(Name)
(Name)
Page I of 9-
Continuation of signature page(s) to "Petition to Increase Chula Vista Police Coveralle of Rollinll Hills Ranch"
(Name)
(Name)
Page 2 of !l
U -,J .
The- /JOJteY5tvta.Mj~~
f'rD1Vt w"bs'[k-: ¡µww.-tw"^c·~OYVcI(hxl
- ¿
.1õII"..T WIn., 'f1M& ..... , _ 11:. - "
Rollill ;J Hill!; Ranch
"/1il:.!õIl.JI'IIJ ~l'\i In.' '.I\I.tlh;';- f r';f"tI~'II ..·ïU .~, "''',"';fI'~
L... .. . ....-111
..,.Ita/I'~ 1ÕIIaIII~ .
GuLtt..MhMH I .......'
. .
..... ""...ØM"'" .IfI1l...,.1II ¡..I :14 auoSI
HOA &......
thl WtIIIit MIII....,tftI
C:IIOIIIIIIW
Till Ct1~ el (;~.... Yilll
Cl..... \ft. "- ~..."'
'.I'¥ I)..., IAlNnll' ",""'"
=.__ EI.....IIIII~ .GllouI
..~ CIIM CQIIIIW
CWIIIItIIIII.... 1.IIHIuIII1N....
."..., I/"'~I\ HiIIII·'_
lea;:; ,.,._.
... --,
All
", L"'.
1~"""'..i"\"1
.1n.t.aP......
"'lIIM/IINo J.; a4 JeW
Iomllilllllltl. new. Illhe M/'III, ICI" IIØ\'IO bI tI IIIIM. 10. ,,.... forgive ml " 1111' 011
....,.... IIIIe III 01\11 from June.
TIlt ..,.. 01111 Iw;m CIuD' QQI1IIrI\jft· TN maeI 01III'I1lIOI'I OII'IIplllnI II !till 01...... nan_let
I/IHIIIfIIIln, 01 "',=.~ '1G,IIi'" IfIIr hOwrI. 1rI1IIItI.... j liliiii. filii ,.... ..
IGI, I II1Ò .....¡,g ÞII\IylOf 0", 01.... ..... ......... for IfIIr .... '*' .. I. I
GIll tie C/IuII V.... PoI,l» Depetlrnlnl (CVPD) at .1~1S'1tId IdviII f111111Nt"" hIVIlle4
in ilia WIIatI Commlrlder'. oIf ce thlllUlnDrlael 111m.... 1M him Ctl/ÞlIIICI makearru'
A/IIIMI'lrHI .dal.I1" it 10 form . Nl gl'lbomaocI WIWI....... TIlt.... ... .....Ion to
.. it on .. WIll PIQI. ..... aoneldlr thll 0IIIi0n _It" _ "ICIIIWIIUIIIW 010..... In.
... wi" _ rMIIlt fn th. _01I0Il of'" ~
1'0' vtter... o...Mt.... 1_lÌIIIlwtm ~ .,. ......... "'... \IfIUOUI. TIlt IWIm CII.IÞI
"*' tar III fMiGIñ!Ilo 11M. In 1fIIct. .-" .. ~ NoII_ pooIellld ....... tie .,..... II 110
'0I11IIaIt lGIIvilltt. IhI CVPD thOllIá Þt CIIIIId. '01 blhlrØllillulllIII ~~""Io I
Yl1n8 tfíe , cotllcli~. power No 0lIl .....10 , M"~ ~'III r__.... onw to IIí twilled.
hcM.wr. thelwtm CIuÞI ÞeIoI'lQ 10 "ou. and ~ 1ItOIIId.. .......... d 1hIm. Urcn u,,.11
iIIhI* can M. 'lIgUillId þ~ y~. I" IIII\y, WI' non ..... 111111111......... IUIIndIng
.... "* tile *1I1I.-III.thI... for 'II 10 UIIInO If ~ follD\lllCllhI ruIII I~ wou
lie ....10 "'oy ... INIItIII .. ~ _ .ti plld 10 lie ~. ..... 01 .- 1iena~1iWeI1IIuII
mil'" III rnoIYed It ~ _ ...,aCOllplellll..,.,,1ar ~ "'I htoanlllltr ..~ !hi"'" .QUI
1'011 ,,__... II Ie ~pI,þ., IClD. If 1tIe" do. IIwI M Ije __.. oIrI1'OII1rI_Inf the
... 1iI1.. to ÞthI¥e. 'TtI1' " no! .n Uvocao" tor ~iIII'I. .. 110 ~ front.lln II ÞI¡
1'''11"-'1. but ,... In .dtIUe 10 hllp 1V1fYOI1I....~ ~ IN.....
AnaIhIr --inO. Þut reoccurrll'G Ihing III.. CCII'ItlttUllIO III..... _1OuIIr~ II lilt '1100II VI'
hill! c..... .... ah Pel'"" In 1M IODI11h11 Ia 1riIIu.u.D1I WwvIor. 'nIII will 010II_ pc
fOr I/IIV:: emèIwnìa fII_ Of oaOlld ~ -...1110 III oam'IIII'\I.....· Tltllll _ of In. "
IIII.P!U l1li I IN«' QOUId _mil IÞIouIcI "'" _ _ IIIIa _pili, ,em,,,,"" \NIl "'it ,.
'IN "'**WI"f' pool, 10 gel _ mwolllflform,liDI'I .. wau _n .1IOut 1M per"" '1'1. ....IM poIIc
F.. ltong wdl'l !hi grtIIIItllhll IOpI uþ ~ In till .... . ~ dI."*'I \I'IIng NPfII
.. the FIIcoI'I VIüIy him Club aamlOM loOk . NIM l*IOII, tlllOIIIl 011 111111 ~. .no
drW ...... 01'1 11'11 cona.. 111111 \0 the...._ IIId fII.. pool. TlilIlIIOI onlY 1I\II.aam1ti1
bull' 11l1li11 .. . FIlII ClIIII4Þ _ weh 0IM0uII1'. \hi '-1ItIY" lie OIltICIlmm.r::tíatlly if you
.111.... .. lallIkinO pIKe.
1'0"\.,1011 .........110 I <).""". s.e.~" ¡: $\4111'''' Will "otlt\l'lJ! ¡.","'.t\ \'I>!·,l\Jtt....lI~"!!""It...,...11 WNtIItt II -- "'""
"..0'....' . ¡¡uoo.:IQOt. ,_¡>qejo '1,"_4 'Ieollð/llW MIMIC1:. h\1\.C.!IIIIò." 1IIv...... ~ lInM GtM', AlII. "1fIMCI
.... ... ,.....¡o....... R.....'...IhI\H.. Me/llllfT... L__
.... Malo" ~...
hllp ',w...vo. 111,,1.¡w.¡1: n"II';lIi.blnlin~laPiIae dbl/llj tItPW.~i"h... id" 17Am.wo id"5AI14!~1 ¡d..I4tac\i~In·r. II,
PCD.1f- ~ ~ q
September 2, 2003
( Càpr)
(W)o a,;H~J\
~ Eì</,il~ìh)
r
-
"0("
McMillin Development, Inc. (Certified Mail I RRR)
Attn: Scott McMillin
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
. Re: ROLLING HILLS RANCH - - NEGLIGENCE
Dear Mr. McMillin:
This letter, from the homeowners of Rolling Hills Ranch that have signed below, shall serve as a
fonnal written notice to McMillin Development, Inc. (herein "McMillin") and The Walters
Management Company (herein "TWMC"), that the following liability issues currently exist, and have
existed for up to 5 years, within the boundaries of R01ling Hills Ranch (herein "RHR"), including the
common areas of Rolling Hills Ranch. The attached Residents' e-mails, memoranda, TWMC's
website updates, and board meeting minutes provide substantiation for the following claims.
Developer McMillin Development, Inc. currently is the controlling member of the Board of Directors
for tbe Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association. Through negligent direction and negligent
management, Developer McMillin, the Board of Directors and Walters Management Company, have
failed to effectively control the affairs of the association, failed to maintain the "Community-Wide
Standard" by allowing the following liabilities to continue to exist:
1. Liability; Health and Safety: Continued defecation by adults and children in pools, spas and
wading pools. Pursuant to infonnation provided by TWMC and tbe pool cleaner, it has been
determined that some defecation incidences are deliberate acts of vandalism. This poses a serious
health risk, particular1y E. coli and Viral Hepatitis. As of the date of this letter, proper signage
does not exist in any oftbe three pool areas listing TWMC's 24-hour emergency phone number so
that proper action can be taken to close the pool or spa to reduce the liability of serious injury,
illness or death. At the August 30, 2003 meeting (see last paragraph of this letter), a request was
made by the homeowners in attendance, that proper signage be posted immediately. Additionally,
there have also been many instances of feces being smeared on restroom walls in and around pool
areas. See Exhibit "A" attached - TWMC's June and July updates at (www.twmc.com/rhr).
TWMC has also been notified by residents tbat the pool light timers are incorrectly set and that
swimmers are in the dark one hour before closing on Friday and Saturday nights when the pool is
open untilll:OO p.m. In addition to TWMC having these crimes and health hazards listed on their
website, these items have been discussed at past board meetings. We have been appalled that these
liabilities have been allowed to continue unchecked for a very long period of time (up to five years
at Falcon Valley) and that the Board of Directors and TWMC have not aggressively sought to
remedy these liabilities in the manner that the other surrounding HOAs have done.
2. Liabilitv: Tresnassing in our 0001 areas: TWMC and McMillin have been notified that young
adults and teenagers have been jumping the fences after the pool closing time and trespassing into
our fenced pool areas. There have been frequent incidences of vandalism at all three pools,
including but not limited to, theft of furniture, umbre1las, stainless steel barbecue, throwing pool
furniture in pool, destruction of plants, trees, clocks, sundial, windows, wrought iron finials, pool
furniture, graffiti on tables, walls, feces smearing, etc. See Exhibit "A" attached. Per TWMC,
f~" ~l/t
'.
\
"McMillin Development, Inc.
Attn: Scott McMillin
September 2, 2003
Page 2
"hundreds of dollars of replacement plants have been installed." "The Association has lost several
thousands of dollars of sprinklers." As reflected on the TWMC's June and July Association
updates (Ex. "A"), this continued vandalism has been quite costly to our Association. Quentin
Yates had also mentioned at a past board meeting that a bronze-like statue of a woman had been
unbolted and stolen 1T0m the Montecito pool area and that it was quite costly ($1,000+).
3. Liabilitv: Vandalism: Additionally, vandals have repeatedly destroyed our landscaping irrigation
systems, landscaping, graffiti sprayed on utility boxes and Association walls, as well as kicking
down the fence next to the senior apartments. See Exhibit "A"
Consequently, the below-listed homeowners are very dissatisfied with the perfonnance of The Walters
Management Company. There has been a repeated failure to timely and properly provide appropriate
recommendations to the Board of Directors to effectively address and solve these issues. See Exhibit
"E."
Approximately one year ago, a questionnaire was sent to homeowners asking if we would be willing to
increase HOA dues to implement security. TWMC and the Board stated that the small amount of
homeowners that did respond, the majority responded "no." It is imperative that we point out that the
questionnaire did not list any of the health, safety, vandalism and liabiHty problems on the
questionnaire, and it was believed by many residents that a budget already existed to implement
security measures, so why ask to raise our HOA fees? As a matter of fact, pursuant to the August 2000
"Important Notice" attached, a guard service was provided for 3 months and was paid out of the excess
operating funds. That was three years a,go, so it was reasonable to assume that additional money had
been A",,"til1g.Î.D OUI "excess~ account and could cover these security costs. Plus, there are many
discrepancies in tbe responses from Quentin Yates to residents' e-mails asking if there are funds
available to remedy some of the security problems. Solutions have been proposed many times by
residents. See Exhibit "E."
We have been the only HOA in the area that does not have security patrols, pool monitors and a
Resident J.D. program even though TWMC has implemented tbose security measures at Otay Ranch
and Eastlake. Per Dave Gatzke and Quentin Yates (TWMC), we currently have a "surplus" account in
excess of $150,000.00(-/+). That figure does not include our "reserve" account. Quentin Yates of
TWMC has responded in a July 4, 2003 e-mail to Jetta Russell, "Actually, there is no budget for guard
services." "The current budget that RHR is using is dictated by the Department of Real Estate, (DRE),
not the Board or Walters Management. I am not sure who intonned you of the "extra" money, but it
would appear as though they were in error." See Exhibit "c." Yet, one month later on August 13,
2003, Mr. Yates responds to Brenda Norton as follows, "As you know, there is a Surveillance line item
in the current budget, but it is not a huge one. It may be able to handle a two a night patrol." See
Exhibit "D." Per Mr. Yates, the current budgeted amount was 667.00 That substantiates our claim
that monies have been available, but has not been applied to security remedies. This issue was added
to the August 13,2003 board agenda by a homeowner so security patrols could be hired. Additionally,
at the August 13th board meeting, the Board suddenly had $1,500.00 available to be applied to security
patrols, of which $891.00 was approved and 3 patrols were implemented within 48 hours. There was
also a budget of $2,500.00 allocated for fencirlg a Jd other items (i.e. additional lighting, etc.).
P~7'1> '1
:
·McMillin Development, Inc.
Attn: Scott McMillin
September 2, 2003
Page 3
It is evident that these issues could have been addressed and our liability limited quite some time
ago. Within two weeks of the August 13th board meeting, the following acts of vandalism have
occurred, which confirms that additional security measures need to be implemented immediately:
., Defecation. A deliberate defecation by an adult male in our Falcon Valley swimming
pool. The pool was closed 5 days and had to be drained.
., Smearinl!: offeces. Feces were smeared on the walls at the Monteeito pool.
., Pool furniture thrown into Dool. Once again the pool furniture was thrown into the
Montecito pool. Pool furniture has been repeatedly destroyed and thrown into the pool.
This has occurred for the past five years at Falcon Valley! Our pool areas have been
repeatedly vandalized, as well as the sprinklers, plants and trees around Rolling Hills
Ranch.
., Gmffiti and Tal!¢ng: All three pools. More and more (possibly gang-related) graffiti
and tagging in our pool areas and around Rolling Hills Ranch!
In a good faith effort to address and solve these severe liability issues, three homeowners met on
August 30, 2003 with Quentin Yates of TWMC, Constance Clover of McMillin Development,
and Dave Gatzke of McMillin Development and also a Board Member. A list of what was
considered "essential remedies" was presented at the meeting (See Exhibit "B"). Pursuant to the
DRE Public Report, "It is vitally important to the owners of the indi\lÙ1uaJ subdivision interests
1hat the tut.."ition from subdivider to resident-owner control be accomplished in an orderly
manner and in a spirit of cooperation." This statement is in addition to the duties and
responsibilities of Developer McMillin to uphold and maintain the highest standard possible with
regard to every aspect of this community while under its control. It is our intent that these issues
be addressed and resolved at the September 10, 2003 board meeting and that there be no further
delays in resolving these problems. McMillin Development needs to come forth and actively
resolve the issues of continued negligence and ongoing liabilities.
Sincerely,
Æ?
~~J~ (:?)~- ~\ --~ -
cc Donald R Faye, 2727 Hoover A'e, National CitÝ, CA 9~'(via cert~ I RRR) « .t,f"
Quentin Vates. Mgr. The Walters Management Co . 2300 BŒwell. Chula VIsta. CA 91914 (Via frs. ad)
ffÝj¡,'¿d %,~~~:tt~.lU ~k-~ â0tJJ1f.7~-~~
Homeowners ofR01ling ~Is Ran~
f)~·l( Œ-~
p~ <6'ob q
THE
'MLTERS
MAWŒMENTffitÐ\J.\IY
SIf'ViJtB Ccmmtml~ NJoc{,,#cw SilK' J9'J3
September 4, 2003
;tt has n.u{-- bet/I\.
~~,.u n.d #01- 1i.e $e
o.r~ reS',ckwf7'
Dear Chief Emerson:
This letter is written on behalf of the Roiling Hills Ranch Community
Association Board of Directors and is to voice concern over certain events that I
have occurred at the Rolling Hills Ranch SwIm Clubs.
Recently, the Swim Clubs have been experiencing serious problems with
trespassing, . underage consumption of alcohol, possible drug use, loud and
boisterous behavior and vandalism by Rolling Hills Ranch residents and others.
This letter will serve to grant the Chula Vista Police Department full access
to the Swim Clubs located at 640 Falcon Valley Drive, 2640 Montecito Road and
700 North Valley View Drive, any future Swim Clubs and all other Common Area
In the Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association. Further, it is to grant
permission to enforce the law, detain suspects and make arrests and any other
actions required for law enforcement. These Swim Clubs are currently locked,
but we have installed Knox Boxes, which will contain a proximity device for your
entry.
The Board of Directors looks forward working with the Chuta Vista Police
Department in ensuring that the ROiling Hilts Ranch Community Association is a
safe environment for all residents. Should you have any questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me or address them in writing, to the Rolling Hills
Ranch Community Association Board of Directors in care of The Walters
Management Company.
ChiefEmerson,CVPD
City of Chula Vista
2764" Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
Sincerely.
Qu ntin C. Yates. PC
Regional Manager
Rolling HUls Ranch Community Assn.
QCYllrv
. ..-. - ..·..CC:·-Boartf-ot.Oirectola
R~j¡i( n.1 Office
27349 Jefferson Avenue· Suite 208
Tc:mccul.. CA 92590-5628
(90<) 296-1588· FAX: (909) 296-1590
ç(> 'porate Office
%6S Ch~e Drive' $";", 300
San Diego, CA 92123.1364
(858) 495..()9()() ó FAX: (858) 495.0909
www.twmc.com
Regiona' Office
2300 Boswell Road' Suite 209
Chul. Vista. CA 91914-3534
(619) 656-3220, FAX: (619) 656-6617
Pa-~q 1;~.