HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1994/04/26
III declare binder penalty of perJury that I am
emplo,:ed by the City of Chula Vista in the
OHice or ':~he ~-,ity Cler~{ and tha.t I posted
this AgenJuli~o;i,.'e on the Bulletin Board at
Tuesday, April 26, 1994 the Pubi:c . rv' es Building and",at City Hall on Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED, l/:JJ.:1 SiGNED ~/~~~ Public Services Building
RelZUlar Meetin~ of the Citv of C ula Vista Citv Council
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _' Moore _. Rindone _, and
Mayor Nader _.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19, 1994
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclaiming the week of April 24 throngh April 3D, 1994 as "PROFESSIONAL
SECRETARIES WEEK." The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Nader to Alicia
Gonzales, Administrative Office Assistant II of the Community Development Department.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amemfments to the Brown Act. The City Councü must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to ndjoum the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
jinal actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be avai/oble in the City Clerk's Ofjice.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(None)
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been ndvertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. 1/you wish to
speak to any item, please Jill out the "Request to Speak Form n available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommeµdation.) Comments are limited to jive minutes per
inòividual.
5. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 AND
DISTRICT NUMBERS 1 AND 10 - Three property owners within the
reference open space districts have requested that their property, as proposed to
be modified by adjustment plats 92-6 and 93-9, be assessed by only one open
space district. On 4/5/94, Council declared the intention to adjust the boundary
between Open Space Maintenance District 20 and Districts I and 10 and set the
public hearings for 4/19/94 and 4/26/94 at 6:00 p.m. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17464 ORDERING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CITY OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 20 AND DISTRICT NUMBERS 1
AND 10 TO BE ADJUSTED TO FOLLOW THE LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENTS AS SET FORTH IN ADJUSTMENT PLATS 92-6 AND
93-9, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE PLATS
- --.-..- _.~._____._. ___ ._^.~._.. __ "_~ _____ _m _ .._ _____________.·...m.n____._._" .~._---_._---
Agemda -2- April 26, 1994
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the generol public to address the City Councü on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City
Councilfrom taking action on any issues not incluiled 011 the posted agenda.) 1fyou wish to address the Councü
011 such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Commullications Form" avai/oble
in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name
and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered inòividually by the Councü
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
.fill out a "Request to Speak" form avai/oble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to jive minutes.
6. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES AND COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS FOR SERVICES - On 4/5/94, Council
accepted the staff report and recommendations regarding the preliminary
technical and financial evaluations of the five proposals for solid waste services
received in February 1994. Three proposals were recommended for further
evaluation and comparison to a projected cost to the City for remaining in the
County system. At Council's direction, a more detailed examination of the
proposal was also to include expanded information on alternative disposal sites,
as well as an update on the viability of the primary site listed in all three
proposals (Campo landfill). The report forwards a technical memorandum from
the consultant describing the results of an economic analysis of the County
system costs and how they compare to the updated information on the three
proposals. Staff recommends Council accept the report and provide input to
staff for further refinement of data in order to generate recommendations in a
fmal report to be received at the 5/10/94 Council Meeting. (Deputy City
Manager Krempl)
7. RESOLUTION 17465 APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND ACCEPTING CONTRACT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF PARALLEL SEWER IN INDUSTRIAL
BOULEVARD FROM NORTH OF PALOMAR STREET TO SOUTH OF
ANITA STREET - On 6/8/93, Council awarded a contract in the amount of
$248,000 (including contingencies) to JSA Engineering, Inc. for the installation
of the parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to
south of Anita Street. The work is now complete. Changes to the contract
work resulted in a net overrun of the project by approximately $31,000. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's
vole required.
-.-- - - - .--. ,--....---..-.-.. __ _ ___.._._..~__u~ ._______~___~.__.__~~..__..
Agemda -3- April 26, 1994
8. RESOLUTION 17466 APPROPRIATING $12,200 TO SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF TIlE
COMMUNITY PRIDE FAIR, AND EVALUATING TIlE CITY'S
COMMUNITY FESTIVALS - On 4/27/93, Council directed staff to complete
an evaluation of the 1993 Cultural Arts Festival/Community Pride Fair and
Fourth of July Fireworks event to determine the feasibility of combining the two
events in the future. On 1/4/94, Council directed staff to develop a
recommendation for the necessary staffmg and resources to conduct an
International Friendship Festival. The report briefly evaluates the 1992 and
1993 Cultural Arts Festivals, and the 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks event,
discusses similar events that are conducted by other cities in San Diego County,
and analyzes the impacts of combining events. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/Sth's vote required.
9. REPORT EAST OTAY MESA SPECIFIC PLAN - The County of San Diego is
currently processing a Specific Plan for East Otay Mesa. The City has
previously raised concerns regarding traffic, transportation facility fmancing and
phasing, jobsihousing balance, and biology. The County Board of Supervisors
is scheduled to take action on the matter on 5/4/94. Staff recommends that
Council review and enforce a final set of comments to be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors on the matter. (Director of Planning)
10. REPORT PEDESTRIAN ROUTES BETWEEN THE NEW LffiRARY IN SOUTH
CHULA VISTA AND SURROUNDING SCHOOLS - On 4/19/94, Council
requested that the staff report on pedestrian routes between the new library in
south Chula Vista and surrounding schools be agendized for discussion.
Questions were also raised about the cost of installing a sidewalk on Fourth
Avenue from the Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. Staff has
prepared a report for the CIP budget process and that information has also been
included as part of the report. Staff recommends Council accept the report.
(Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to jive minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
II. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
b. Follow-up report regarding Olympic Training Center funding.
12. MAYOR'S REPORT(s)
--- _._._~-~,-,----_.- ___ _____..__0_. _._._._....__"._.... .__.____._.
Agemda -4- April 26, 1994
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moore
a. Ratification of appointments to the Economic Development Commission:
John Munch (Financial Background) - Ex-Officio Member - Continued from the meeting of
4/19/94; and Don Read - Voting Member.
Councilmember Horton
b. Beautification Awards Banquet: Request that each Councilmember invite members of the business
community to attend.
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of final action taken, and a4joumment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of jinal action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Ofjice.
14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· American Bonding vs. the City of Chula Vista
· Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista
· Hummell vs. the City of Chula Vista
15. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
- ------....--- --".----.". ---..- ~._-_.
April 21, 1994
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manag~
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of il 26, 1994
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 1994. There are no Written Communications on this
agenda.
JDG:mab
--..... _.._..~_...._-----..._-_.._--- ---,..--.--.......-.-..---.-.---.- .--.-----.---.-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 1./
Item
Meeting Date 4/26/94
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - Proclaiming the Week of April 24-30, 1994 as
PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Tim Nader (4/5ths Vote: Yes___ Noxx )
The proclamation declaring the week of April 24 through April 30, 1994 as
PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK will be presented by Mayor Nader to
Alicia Gonzales, Administrative Office Assistant II of the Chula vista
Community Development Department.
,
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) J/:;
--_.__..........~,~-_._.__...----+._----_..~_._-'------...--------
PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF APRIL 24 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1994 AS
PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, secretaries provide the City of Chula Vista with invaluable services and
significantly contribute to and assist in various departmental functions of our city
government; and
WHEREAS, secretaries constitute a vital role in maintaining a strong local
government and business community by accepting duties and responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the week of April 24 through April 30, 1994 has been designated
"Professional Secretaries Week" by Professional Secretaries International, its originator
and sponsor; and
WHEREAS, professional secretaries are indispensable members of the
management team and are to be commended for their dedication and contributions:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby proclaim the week of April 24 through April 30, 1994 as "PROFESSIONAL
SECRETARIES WEEK" in the City of Chula Vista, California and ask that management
everywhere join in recognizing these exemplary professionals in their employment
especially on Wednesday, April 27, 1994 - "PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES DAY".
?V
o/~;2..
- ~-"-'..~'-------'---_."--'--"---'-'-'--~-_._--."----_._-~----_..
,i"" >K :' . ,', ..,e,-,' ,/' i'
'\-:" _:'__"~~".',' II ';;..'=.,.,--_-----,7. ~/ Ii
r .".'.....;.'..:'._._ : ,I t'·-·······-,..·..··· '/' .'-'
,..,-~,-.,9'-'>./ '+..b
it!! p/O!J¡íJ%ta, Gdi.Jómtå
COMMENDING THE SILVER DOLLAR SALOON
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on February 6, ,1994, David Fitchorn became the victim of a brutal
attack resulting in severe head injuries; and
WHEREAS, on Saturday, February 19, 1994 the Silver Dollar Saloon at 341 Third
Avenue in Chula Vista, conducted a fundraiser from 3:00 p.m.-11:oo p.m. consisting of
a,steel darts tournament, an electronic dart tournament and a raffle; and
WHEREAS, this event drew the attention of over 400 concerned individuals
contributing a total of $3,300 for the David Fitchorn Medical Fund:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista. California,
do hereby COMMEND THE SILVER DOLLAR SALOON, its staff and patrons for their
unselfish efforts and dedication in coordinating this event for the benefit of a fellow person
who was an innocent victim of a violent crime.
"
'0
:f)aw{t£is 2~.¡fI á'Y ~ JsptvL .I93L
JC /l.-4~
Ultf/or 5" tne Cty 1" (¡¡ufa o/ista.-
'h ~/
--- -.----.--..'-.- _._---_._---------_._~-------
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
. U~~
Meeting Date / 4 % ~
ITEM TITLE: a) Public hearing to consider testimony on the adjustment of boundaries ".
between City Open Space District 20 and District Nos. 1 and 10
b) Resolution /7'111" Ordering the boundary between City Open
Space Maintenance District No. 20 and Districts Nos. 1 and 10 to be
adjusted to follow the lot line adjustments as set forth in Adjustment Plats
92-6 and 93-9, contingent upon approval of the plats
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
Director of Parks and Recreation
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ff;-{IÞ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
Three property owners within the above referenced open space districts have requested that their
property, as proposed to be modified by adjustment plats 92-6 and 93-9, be assessed by only one open
space district. On April 5, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution 17448 declaring the intention
to adjust the boundary between City Open Space Maintenance District 20 and Districts 1 and 10 and
set the public hearings for April 19 and 26, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for the public
hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Open and close the first public hearing on April 19, 1994 regarding the boundary
adjustment between City Open Space Maintenance District No. 20 and District Nos. 1
and 10;
2) Open and close the second public hearing on April 26, 1994; and
3) Approve the resolution after the second public hearing.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Back~round
When property boundaries are adjusted between existing lots, portions of each lot are transferred in
ownership. Property owners are in the process of completing such an adjustment which contain parcels
within open space districts. In these circumstances, the properties adjusting boundaries have an open
space district boundary between them. When the land swap takes place, the resultant properties will
;Þ7 5'/
~..___.'____.__M'·______·___··_'·___·______U_~_'__ .~..._.__._~__._._
5'
Page 2, It~ ~
Meeting Date 4 4 ¥~~
''1
end up in two districts. In order to prevent this from happening, adjustment of the open space boundary
also needs to occur.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Council to conduct these types of changes in
Section 22605 of the Streets and Highways Code. There are two boundary adjustments to be addressed
by these proceedings and these are outlined below.
Adiustment 1
Rancho del Rey is processing a lot line adjustment with an adjacent property owner in conjunction with
the development of SPA 3, south of East H Street.
Due to a minor lot line adjustment (Adjustment Plat 92-6), one parcel will overlap two districts (OSD-l
and OSD-20). The attached sketch (Attachment A-I) shows the area located north of Telegraph Canyon
Road and east of Paseo Ladera. The owners involved with the adjustment, Rancho del Rey Partnership
and Mr. & Mrs. Drumheller, have requested that they be assessed by only one Open Space Maintenance
District (Drumheller's within OSD-lO and Rancho del Rey within OSD-20). The land exchange
between the two parties will not result in any change in open space or EDU's for either district. This
means that there is no fiscal impact to the property owners or to either district by the annexation and
detachment process.
Adiustment 2
A church (currently within OSD-l) at the south east comer of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero
consolidated its existing lot and four neighboring lots (currently within OSD-20) into one parcel in order
to provide adequate parking for their project (see Attachment A-2). Staff recommends adjusting OSD-l
and OSD-20's boundary such that the resulting church parcel will only be in its current district, OSD-l.
The owner of the church property, The First United Methodist Church has requested, and staff
recommends that they be assessed by only one open space maintenance district, OSD-l. Staff also
recommends adjusting OSD-l's boundary to exclude the balance of Rancho del Rey's Phase 2, Unit 12
development as it is a part of OSD 20. Additionally, the .27 acres of open space dedicated in
conjunction with Rancho Del Rey along East H Street will be maintained by OSD-20 in FY 95/96
(estimated). The water meters and irrigation have been installed to allow OSD-20 to maintain this area.
The detachment of the four lots from OSD 20 reduces the EDU's in OSD-20 by 3 EDU's out of 6,400
EDU's resulting in minimal impacts to OSD-20, less than $0.05 per EDU. The church's assessment
increased last fiscal year in proportion to the increased acreage therefore these proceedings will have
no effect on the property. The detachment of the remaining 23 parcels (vacant land) in Phase 2, Unit
12 from OSD-l does not fiscally impact OSD-l. Originally this parcel was part of a proposed school
site and consequently was never assessed in OSD-l. These parcels are presently assessed in OSD-20.
The statutory requirement to notice is limited to those properties subject to annexation and/or
detachment. Consequently, staff recommends approval of this detachment without notifying all residents
of OSD-l or OSD-20.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 allows the resolutions, report, notices of hearing, and right
of majority protest to be waived with the written consent of all owners within the territory to be annexed
or detached. These waivers have been included in Attachment B. Staff recommends that the City take
specific action to detach and annex the properties to the appropriate districts to clarify the special
assessment obligation.
~ 5",)..
· -,.#
Meeting Date 4
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact resulting from these proceedings since the par! ~/, '/
question are currently assessed by only one district.
Attachment A: Boundary AdjuBtments é
A-l Plat of OSD-IO and OSD-20 (Drumhell? /
A-2 Plat of OSD-l and OSD-20 (Church) ,
B: Requests for ,detachmentslannexatiollJl
B-1 OSD-IO eller)
B-2 OSD-20 del Rey)
B-3 OSD-l Church
I'~
~C;
0'"
~
TAlFa. No.: OS-OOI WPC F:_lalaiDoetllaCDdalbauDdldj
;M" .5-Y /3 - 'I
_.~.,~, ___, n._._____ ." . ..._.~_.____.. _ >_______.._.,_ ,_~____._.____.__
.
THIS PAGE BLANK
.
/4Í 5~i
RESOLUTION NO. I?'¿ If
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CITY
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 20 AND
DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 10 TO BE ADJUSTED TO
FOLLOW THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AS SET FORTH
IN ADJUSTMENT PLATS 92-6 AND 93-9, CONTINGENT
UPON APPROVAL OF THE PLATS
WHEREAS, three property owners within open space
districts have requested that their property, as proposed to be
modified by adjustment plats 92-6 and 93-9, be assessed by only one
open space district; and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 1994, the City Council adopted
Resolution 17448 declaring the intention to adjust the boundary
between City Open Space Maintenance District 20 and Districts 1 and
10 and set the public hearings for April 19 and 26, 1994 at 6: 00
p.m. as the date and time for the public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City take specific
action to detach and annex the properties to the appropriate
district to clarify the special assessment obligation conducted
public hearings on said dates; and,
WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
authorizes Council to make such adjustments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby order the boundary between City
Open Space Maintenance District No. 20 and Districts Nos. 1 and 10
to be adjusted to follow the lot line adjustments as set forth in
Adjustment Plats 92-6 and 93-9, contingent upon approva of the
plats. /Î
Presented by ;!: aJ ~byr
~Bruce M. Boogaar ~
John Lippitt, Director of ity
Public Works Attorney
C:\rs\boundadj
.s: ~ / 3' --0
.-"._~ ---_.._-,..._~._----,--------~
ACT\OH 1
-
PASf9 - £NT~~DA.- -- -
-
-
g
- ~--
~ 66.58' --
-- - \
-.- --
-
ORÚMlitLl..£ \
\) \\~ \
Ra.~o c\e\ Re.'j »
Vø('(.e.\ A:) \
() \ ,~ \
£''s",\~ ~-1.o ~\(Ð"$.Y M
r \
rt\')~ Os.I> -1.0/10 Eoù.....au.'J \\
~ \
\
-
DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDMY ADJUS"IMEN'n ----\
1YPE OF DIS11UCT 48.94 , \
AIlEA ADroSTIoŒNT AFFECŒD ItEASON FOR ADroSTIoŒNT . \ \
nr~ L...... 051).10 Bcuadary odj_.... 92-6 ~ . Jot liDo.....
_ also.... -.lay _ 051).10 ... 051).20. 11UI
, D . ~ " ....-y to pt.:c 051>-10', boaDI*y œ ..
pIII IO!tyliDo.
A_ 051).20 -.ryol\i --....92-6~.JotIiDo.....
_ obo .... ~ _ 051).\0 ... 051).20. 11UI
~- is...., ID'" 050..20', bouDdaIy .. die
_liDo.
~ n· . 051).20 ~oI\i ...._....92-6~.1ot1iDo.....
_ also tbe -.lay _ 051).\0 ODd 051).20. 11UI
_... II __ .. p¡- 051).20', -.lay ......
_liDo.
. ~ 051).20 . 1IoaDdary~""92-6~'1ot1iDo"'"
_ also.... bouDdary _ 051).\0 ODd 051).20. 11UI
aøearåOD is....., ID pI8c::c OSD-l0'. bøuDdIry aD. ..
_rtyliDo.
DRAWN BY: TITLE:
J.P.P 5~ */ :x:r
DATE: A-"1ï A<.I·W\'E '" T A-I
4/08/84
---.-.. --- _._-_....~, ~ . "-...---
_'_."___..n_. +_..._...~
. AC.T\ON '2.
.
\ /"
;'
/
\ ;'
\ /
/,/ s't·
...
/'"
~
. 0 . ,
.
'0
. .
,
. . - .
"
, O~1>-1.0
. . o'o~.\.lr
. .. . - '; . ..
. . o.
~. .
DESCIUFI10N OF BOUNDAllY ADJUS'IMENTS
E"i!>""f\~ O~·'2Þ 1YPE OF DJS11UC1'
~OI.\"I) M. 't ADJUSTMENT AFFEC'IED REASON FOR ADJUS1MENT
n..-.....-.. OSD-1 S1IbdiWiœ Mop 12695 is amadIy wiIbiD OSD-I .... OSD-
20. this cIcIocbmad II , .,. to 01;"''-- 1110 Ø\'IdappiD&
district boundories.
f"-t-'"--- OSD-20 The cImIdo Iiœ . 915 ..... RaadIero II canadIy wiIbiD
OSD-I .... OSD-20. this cIot-Jun.... ill , 710 .
eÜØ1iDlll: 1110 Ø\'IdappiD& district boaDdIri...
DRAWN BY: TITLE:
J.P.P ;)4" ,Ç- Y ATTAC.~M~NI A·l
DATE:
2/21/14
l-!em 5"
RECORDING REQUFSTED BY:
City of Chula Vista
.
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM SPECIAL TAXES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Chula Vista on behalf of Assessment District No.
87-1 of the City of Chula Vista, that the obligation to pay the special tax set forth in and secured
by that certain "Notice of Special Tax Lien" recorded in the official records of the San Diego
County Recorder's Office on , 19_, as Document No.
, does not apply to that certain property described in attached Exhibit "A- by reason of
that certain lot line adjustment identified as City of Chula Vista Adjustment Plat No. 92-6, filed
in the Office of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista and that such property remains
exempt from such special tax obligation.
Assessor's Parcel:
Owner(s) of Record: .
Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Dated:
Clifford L. Swanson
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Chula Vista
,.
WI'C N:\HOIŒII!NGINI!I!RIII7O.M
~9
.'.----.-,- -.------. - ,---,---.-.- .~~_._-~--,_.
- -. -
EXHIBIT A
(To be attached when in final form)
,
.........
.-
'.
.
February 2, 1994
City of Chula Vista"
276 Fourth Avenue
. Chula vista, CA '1'10
:~i:R D~~T~i~~~D ~~O~E~~N~:prO~A~~.~;~~~~u~~~Z:ii~N N~~ ~~::
Me do hereby waive our Rights of Majority protest, ~he Resolutions,
Report anð Notices of Hearing that are typically a part ~f
annexation anð detachment proceeðings for open apace aaintenance
districts as outlineð in Section 22605 of ~he California streets
~~.. -
oh D. eller
. oßA/A Ø~/~~~~
Lucille M. Drumhe ler
.
,~ 5-'9
. A~~ 'B-\
~ -_.._-~,,----'-_._----_. ---
- ._.----~-- --.,.---
-
.
i '..~: :':"J~.":" .
: sm IOOVIÐ AVf.. _ .. """:'f. ...,-;'. I.
I .): t ..'" -_ ...,.. '..
. ".e. leA 'ell. ._.... ., ~.... ,·.;:,tJ'" .
1IA110NAL cln rN.;'t......':"',... .": w-
i CA nail un ~/f(S1J ~1¡ fiB -I¡ Jl/¡ U: 04 )
i (619) .12·4111 ,
I
February 2, 1994
~
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~~VI~: ~F ~~~AR~ ~~~~~DI~~S i~~ C~ANGES OF ~~~:~~~TI~~
; š~ T 0 A APPLICA.BLE TO
~ 3U ENT PLAT NO. 92-6 .
We do hereby waive our Rights of Majority Protest, the
i . Resolutions, Report and NoUce of Hearing that are
i typically a part of annexation and detachment proceedings
for open space maintenance districts as outlined in Section
, 2605 of the California streets and Highways Code.
.
RANCHO DEL REY 7NVESTORS, L. P. ,
I a California limited partnership
By: McMillin project Service, Inc.
a California corporation, as
Attorney in Fact under Durable
~ ~er of Attorney
By. .~ "f?I.1.LJ1Jf)A.,
. :::le#u
: . ~ -''V./:
Title: . . ..
,
, Ijb
! ;
,
!
1
I
i
I
I
!
)
;
I
,
I :JKf'l/ß
~ B-2
.
- ..-
. _....~
.' - ,
\: ~ ...::....'
-c
- - ..-
. February 17, 1994
:
.
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
REQUEST FOR DETACHMENT AND WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS NO. 20. RANCHO
DEL REY. FOR LOTS 1.2,26. AND B MAP 12695 APN 642.()11·30
We request that you initiate proceedinp to detach the above referred properties from Open
Space District No. 20 and do hereby waive our rights or majority protest, the resolutions.
Repon and Notice or Hearings that Me typically part or detachment proceedings for open .pace
maintenance districts.
BY: First United Methodist Church or Chula Vista,
a California Corporation
BY: (!j:nj~ ht. ìI~
TITLE: o.{/UI.mj)~
;
.. . .
. .
.
. ~\f\"ØI(\ ß - .3
.,;??1 .YI/ ..
.
C'""F -=-_.ø'
° ,..----
. . o. . --'--"-- ___n_ _
<t." ---' ,. .... - -.--"----...-.--
April 5, 1994
Pa,e 9
MS (RindonelFox) to accept the report and direct staff to brin¡ bac:k an analysis of the three nnalists on April
26th.
J., RESOLUTION 17446 APPROPRIATING $3,7:10 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
, FTHE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT SEVERAL PROJECTS PROPOSED BVTHE CULTURAL ARTS
01 "COMMISSION. The Cultural Arts Commission i. ince....ted in PUl'IUin, a Dumber of projecta that will enhance
t~ the Commissioo'a ability ,to provide a variety of services for the community. Funding for the projects i. oot
~ . included in the Commission's Fiscal Vear 1993/94 bud,et. Staff recommeøda approval of the reaolution. (Director
of Parks and Recreatioo) 4/5th's vote required.
~ RESOLUTION 17446 OFFERED BV COUNCn.MEMBER MOORE. ;'din¡ of the text was waived, passed
9:; and approved Ullllllimously.
q
17.A. RESOLUTION 17447 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1994/95 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITV OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRlCT NUMBER
10, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE
7, 1994 AT 4:00 P.M. AND JUNE 14, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS . On 1/25/94, Council directed the City Eo,ineer to prepare and file reports of IIIOSSmeots for
MainteDanco District Number 10. The reports have been prepared and the reaolutioDlapprove them and sets the
dates for public bearin,s to consider the spreadin¡ of USOISIDO/Its. Staff recommeoda Ipproval of the reaolutioDl.
(Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17448 DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ADJUSf THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 20 AND DISTRlCTS 1 AND 10 AND SETTING
APRIL 19 AND APRIL 26, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
- - - Councilmemher Fox left the dias at 5:52 p.m. and retumed AI 6:00 p.m. - - -
MS (MoorelRindone) to direct staff, In the next six to ei¡ht months, to mlew how the City derives the foes
In ail open space districts and brin¡ forward recommendations to brin¡ down cosls, and how open spice was
accepted, and pro's and con's of their recommendations.
Councilmemher Moore stated the costs continued to 'lOW and it was easy to continue to increase the fees. The City
had a policy regarding full cost recovery and that was DOt currently bein, done as it would also raise the costs and
he felt that should also be looked at. The Council should not be put in a position of acceptin, open space districts
that would come back and haunt them in the future. The policy of how the Council accepted open space should
also be reviewed.
VOTE ON MOnON: approved 4-0-0·1 with Fox ahstaltùn¡.
RESOLUI'ION 17447 AND 17448 OFFERED BY COUNCn.MEMBER MOORE. readin& of the text was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-0·1 with Fox abstalnln¡,
18. RESOLUTION 17449 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1994/95 S~AD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRlCTS 1·9, 11, 14,
15,17,18,20,23,24,26, EASI'LAKE, BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTRE, DECLARING THE
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 7, 1994 AT 4:00 P,M. AND
JUNE 14, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS· On 1125/94,
Council directed the City Engineer to prepare and fil, reports of ISIOSSlDOIIts for all wstin, City Opec Space
MainteDanco Districts. The reports have been prepared and the reaolutiOll approves them and sets the dates for
~
~YI,2
.
Minutes
AprilS. 1994 C~f}'.f
Pa¡e 10 tJ;fj D· f;-~' r< _".J
.}'~~
. ,t.\1oZf-~"
public bearings to consider !be spreading of usossmeots. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17449 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, readilll of the text was waived.
Couacilmember HOrtoD questioned ways to briDe down mainteaance costs.
JO/III Valeazuela, Director of Parks &. Recreation, responded that lllaff tried to do that with bid clU8leriDg. Staff
could look at differeot plant materials and watering lCbedules in trying to bring the costa down. Water and utiliti..
bad ¡one up and it was anticipated those COllI would be up 24" in FY IP9S.
Couaci1member Rindone lllated lllaff recommended at 3" decrease in District 20 but the,. was actually a true
increase of $90. He felt the reco.....-~.ioo mould be changed u tho recommendation would only u_rbate tho
increue in the Ñture.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated it was duo to llie bigh .-rYes in that district. He a¡reed that the
foe mould be kept the _ u tho current year rather than a 3" decreuo.
MSUC (RindonelFox) the assessment for Open Space District No. 20 to remain the same as IT 1993/94
therefore abatilll Jaraer increases in the future.
Couacilmember Rindooe referred to the Landscaping and Lighting Acl wbich lllated an increase was Dol allowed
if a protest from the majority of landowners existed. He felt the majority of those in Assessment District No.4
would Dot be supportive. He questiooed what the legal implications would be and what the City'. optioDl were.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Eo¡ioeer, responded that if the protest took p- it could
require thai tho open space district fiDaocing Dol go through and could change the entire fiDaocing Itructure. The
City would have to star1 fiDaocing the increued cosla througb IOme other fund, i.e. tho General Fund.
Couaci1member Rindone questioned bow the City would properly maintain the open space districts and meet the
commlllÙty Deeds. He felt thai iasue Deeded to be addreued. In III cuea excepl for Districla Nos. 1,23, and 26
the true costa were in excess of what was being paid. His COOcelD was Dot 10 mucb for the coming year. but that
the foot would have to go up and they mould Dot jump, but go up incrementally.
Mr. Morri. atated lllaff would do a follow-up report to Couacil.
Couacilmember Moore lllated the report mould include I Dumber of aItemltiVOl. i.e. mould the open space be
eonve~ to another use and if that was logal. He was not pleased with a two year .pread of usossmeola u be did
Dot feel it ¡avo I true picture, it mould be a minimum of three years.
Mayor Nader atated be was eoncemecl with the notices that would be mailed for the public bearings. In past years
property owners bad received notices and were under tbe usumptioo that Council had already accepted the propoaed
fees. Tho pUlpOse of the ootice was to IOlicit public input and be suggested that the notice be submitted to Council
u an information item before they were mailed. Council could theo review it to make sure that it wu clear that
DO decisioD bad been made by Couocil re¡ardin¡ the fOOl and that the public bearin¡ was for the pU1p01e of
IOliciting public input.
,
Mr. Lippitt stated there bad already been one meetin¡ beld with everyono in the districts invited. Staff was prepued
to mail out additional DOti_ in levera! daYI for I meeting to be beld on April 30th. Staff would reviow the fiprea
with thOle in atteIIdanco It that time and IDDOUOCO the dates for the public bearin¡s. Notices bad to be mailed forty-
five day. in advance of the meeting.
Mlyor Nader questioned if there would be a problem in dellying tho public bearin¡s for one wee1c to allow time
for Council to reviow the notice.
;Þfr. ýlJ
. .
--...---".-....-- .'.-.--.--- --....--"--.-. . .--..-
,V,.1ßUl~
April S, 1994
nt)~ Page II
~ C"""l~
. '. ~
O~.t';~ Mr. Lippitt reaponded staff would get the wording 10 Council by next week for review.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17449: approved unanimously.
* * * Council met In dosed session at 6:18 p.m. and reconnned at 6:50 p.m. * * *
19. REPORT APPOINTMENT OF TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE POLlCY
SUBCOMMITrEE FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT -The Council and the SID Diego County Board of
Supervisors agreed 10 coøtiDue joint iIIput ill the future pJlDllÚlg of Otay Ranch by coøvOllÚlg a IUbcommittee
composed of two members from each body. The purpoae of the aubcommittee ia 10 provide ODgoillg policy direction
to staff on the implementation of the Otay Ranch Project. Staff ncollllllClDds Council 8CCO It the report. (Otay
Ranch Project)
MSUC (Rindone/Moore) to nominate Councilmanbel' Honon and Fox to the PollC)' SubœmmJttee for the
Otay Ranch Project.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 9. The minules will reflect the published ageode order.
OTHER BUSINESS
20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTls) . None
21. MAYOR'S REPORT(S}
21a. Enforcement of bousing discrimination violations. Mayor Nader It&ted the City bad ~ved altudy which
showed there was aubstantial discrimination in bousing 10 AfriCID Americans and families with children. He bad
asked the City Attorney iIIformally to get some iIIformation on optioDl available from Federal and State laws for
enforcement by the City. The City should not be expected 10 incur the expenses for the job the State and Federal
governments were not doing correctly. The City Attorney auggested Council direct staff 10 aggressively report
IUSpected discrimination to the Department of Fair Housing and Employment. He bad also referred the item 10 the
Human Relations Commission 10 nview the issue and bring forth ncollllllClDdetioDl.
MS (NaderlFox) 1) direct staff that anytime there was a "Iolation due to suspetted discrimination regardina
housing that It be referred to the Department of Fair Employment and Houslnaj and 2) refer to the City
Attorney for loronnation on what options the City had to undertake local enforament with cost recovery
from the wrona doers.
Councilmember Moore It&ted be bad a problem with the word 'suspicion' as it was too broad. Tberefore, be could
not aupport the motion. He could aupport the motion if it were 10 be kept iII-bouse.
Councilmember HortOD It&ted there wen existillg mechanisms in place. Befon that type of iDformation was pused
OD it should be made certain that it was valid. She did Dot feel it was a City reaponsibility. hJy cilÏzell bad the
right 10 turn izì that informatiOD 10 a regulatory agency.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (NaderlFox) to refer the Item to stalT to report back on what the problems
were, proœclures, and nmedies with the referra110 the City Attorney for loronoation on what options the
City had to undertake local enforament with cost reco"ery from the wrona doers.
. .. -.... ..~yl'l
INDWELLER Resource Recovery Park Questionnaire
Please review the project summary and explanation of uses before you complete this questionnaire.
Name:
Street Address:
City, Sate & Zip Code:
Phone Numbers: Homel ( ) INork#: ( )
Did you know that approximately 80% of the waste going to landfills is recoverable?
These recoverable materials are resources that can be recycled and reused.
1. Would you like to use this recycling and reuse tacillty? Yes No
Why or Why not?
2. What areas of this project would you be interested In using?
_Reuse Collection _Eco-Market Plaza
_Repair & Resale _Eco-Offlces
_Public Recycling _Composting
_Commercial Recycling _Nature Park
Suggestions of other uses:
3. Would you be willing to source-separate your recyclables? Yes No
If no, then why not?
4. Do you see this project as encouraging public participation in recycling? Yes No
Why or Why not?
5. Do you see this tacillty as an altemative to siting new landfills? Yes No
Why or Why not?
6. Do you think you would use this tacillty It It were built in Chula Vista? Yes No
Why or Why not?
7. Would you like to see a resource recovery tacillty like this in your neighborhood? Yes No
Where?
8. Do you see this facility as an option to waste collection or curb-side recycling? Yes No
Why or Why not?
9. If you already have curb-side recycling, would you like the opportunity to bring
your recyclables to a facility where you would be paid for your recyclables? Yes No
Why or Why not?
Please retum this questionnaire to the INDWELLER booth today. THANK YOU I MA/LF ad 93
va - . -,J
(j ~~
--_......+~_.._._....._,...,-_.._~._._-_.,._-_..._.,------..---.
A
L ,,'""t·}
. '''?I~ (...J<'
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
AD HOC COMMI'l"rEE -- APRIL 26, 1994
For three years, the Board of Port Commissioners, through its
CIP ad hoc Committee, has worked diligently to develop and refine
a Capital Improvement Program for the District. The Board wanted
this program to reflect both the needs of the District and projects
responsive to the needs of its member cities and the region that
were consistent with the Port's tideland trust responsibilities.
Through a consultative process, which included member cities, the
Port Tenants Association, and the Environmental Health Coalition
among others, the CIP ad hoc Committee has developed a ten year CIP
Program, which the Committee believes meets the Board's goals.
To support its CIP efforts, the Board has retained bond
counsel, and a financial advisor. Bond Counsel presented its
initial review of legal constraints that affect the Port's debt
financing options in July 1993. The financial advisor has analyzed
the Port's fiscal capacity for debt financing for non-airport and
airport projects. This CIP Committee report addresses only non-
airport proiects and financinq options. Airport projects, and
their financing, must be treated separately.
In developing the proposed program, the committee, staff and
financial advisor had to address the following issues:
1
,..
V~~~~ --3
~~ ..--.- _ ___.___._...___,_,.~______.~.,________._____,"_.,_____.mm
~ Contrary to widespread belief, the Port's non-airport
revenues and expenses have been in balance in recent
years; there has not been significant growth in annual
net cash gain since 1988; this situation is not expected
to change in the foreseeable future.
~ Very few projects in the ClP, whether proposed by member
cities or to meet Port operating requirements, will
generate significant new revenues to the Port.
~ Because of the above two factors, the Port's capacity to
debt finance non-airport capital projects without new
revenues authorized by the voters is very limited; the
financial advisor estimates that capacity to be $30-37
million during the next ten years. While this capacity
is very limited, and debt financing will not
significantly increase the resources to fund ClP
projects, it can be used to accelerate development of
certain ClP projects.
~ The Port's initial five-year ClP, adopted in 1992 and
updated in 1993, did not take into account the Port's
fiscal limitations, nor was it realistic in terms of the
Port's capacity to actually construct the listed projects
within a five-year period.
2
U~C~ . i
- -- _..-.- _.,-_.,--",,-,_._-..--~.~.------.~---------
-
· Even with a ClP extended to 10 years and with revised
proj ect cost estimates and deletions of some projects, as
proposed by the Conunittee, the total ClP cost of $208
million substantially exceeds the Port's estimate of
funds available.
· The primary continuing revenue source available to fund
non-airport ClP projects during the next 10 years will be
the Port's interest earnings on its reserves. The
financial advisor estimates that revenue stream to yield
an average of $7 million annually, under current Port
investment policy and conservative projections of
interest rates.
· The Port has not changed its current investment policy,
adopted when the San Diego Convention Center construction
program required highest liquidity rather than highest
yield, since the center was completed.
· The Port has no formal written policy regarding the
extent or use of reserve funds; such a policy is
important in today's tight financial times, and will be
critical in the event that the Port participates in any
debt financing.
3
O~~ ~
~~
.---. _ _________.___..m_." ,_"._.._.."".______.__, __~.__~~__..___._..~_____
-
. The proposed expansion of the San Diego Convention
Center, estimated at $140 million, is the largest single
project considered by the CIP Committee. Even with the
50/50 cost sharing arrangement proposed by the City of
San Diego, that project remains by far the largest
project. The Port's historical support for the center is
evident; the Committee continues to believe that
expansion of the center is in the interests of the City
of San Diego and the entire region.
The Committee has attempted to balance the many regional
needs, such as the convention center expansion, differences in
priories among member cities and its own operating requirements in
preparing these recommendations:
l. Adoption of the attached Ten Year Capital Improvements Program
including the following conditions:
a) If recommendation *6 of this report is adopted, the
monies requested for the Convention Center expansion
(approximately $70 million) would be removed from the CIP
list of projects and the total CIP requirements adjusted
accordingly.
b) The Board recognizes the importance of the approximately
$62 million dollars of CIP projects to be completed in
the southbay cities by directing staff to encumber
annually, and set-aside as restrictive reserves an amount
4
ôJ~ - ¿
- -_.._.._-~-_. _._.....~-.-----_. .-.---------
equal to $9 million dollars. This encumbrance shall be
made each year for a period of seven years and shall be
encumbered at the same time each year as the District
makes the payment for the convention Center expansion as
provided for in paragraph 16 of this report.
c) The Board recognizes that National City, Chula Vista,
Imperial Beach and Coronado may, at sometime in the
future, make changes to requested projects now included
on the CIP list of projects. Accordingly, each of those
member cities may request future changes to its CIP
projects without jeopardizing the funds already allocated
for those projects. Any future projects will be limited
to the funding schedule and amounts currently set forth
in the CIP program.
2. Direct staff to formulate revisions to the Port's investment
policy, with the advisory input of persons with expertise and
experience in both public agency, foundation, and business
investment policies.
3. Adopt a reserve policy which establishes and maintains as a
minimum, a reserve equal to six month's non-airport operating
and maintenance expense requirements, which eliminates the
existing contingency Reserve account and which, in the opinion
of the Port's financial advisor, will not adversely affect the
5
V~~ -7
- .-.-...- _.__..._---_.._~._--_._-_.__.".,---_.._..._-~.--- -.- --..-
-
,
Port's credit rating in any debt financing it may participate
in.
4. Direct staff to prepare for CIP Cormnittee review and
recormnendation to the Board, a reserve utilization strategy
which will enable the Port to increase funds available to
support CIP requirements without jeopardizing the Port's
financial integrity.
5. Pending Board review and action on recormnendations 2, 3 and 4,
which the Cormnittee believes will increase revenues available
for the Capital Improvements Program, adopt a policy to cormnit
$12 million annually in 1994 dollars for the CIP ($7 million
from interest earnings, $5 million from annual call gains), as
included in the financial advisor's March 1994 report. This
amount will be reviewed annually as part of the annual CIP
.
update process.
6. From this $12 million, approve in principle an annual
contribution of $4.5 million to assist the City of San Diego
in the expansion of the convention center. Under no
circumstances will the total contribution of the Port exceed
$4.5 annually. This contribution will pay a portion of the
debt service on bonds or certificates issued to finance the
expansion, and will continue for 20 years or for the life of
the bonds, whichever is less. At current interest rates, this
6
uJ~ -y
-- --.-----"--.......-----......---.-...,.-..,.-.-.....--.----_._,-- .~,--~--_.-
-
.
contribution will support $43-47 million in bonds. While less
than the $6.25 million requested by Mayor Golding in her
letter dated April 21, the cormnittee believes that this
recormnendation combined with contribution of the site with an
estimated value of $39,500,000, will enable that project to
move forward without jeopardizing other ClP projects or the
Port's financial integrity. This recormnendation includes
direction to the Convention Center ad hoc Cormnittee, staff,
bond counsel and financial advisor, to work with the City of
San Diego to propose a mechanism for planning, financing and
construction of the expansion project.
7. Direct the ClP Cormnittee to work with staff, bond counsel, and
financial advisor to examine ways that debt financing may be
used to accelerate ClP implementation, and to report back to
the Board within 60 days.
7
Û~~,--7
__u__. --.--... _ __...____~_____.m.._.__._.____.~~_~___.~~_
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ¿
Item
Meeting Date 4/26/94
TITLE: REPORT Update on Solid Waste Issues and
Comparative Analysis of proposals for Services
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Krempl~ ~-
Principal Management Assistant Snyde
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No-1L)
At the 4/5/94 meeting, the City Council accepted the staff report
and recommendations regarding the preliminary technical and
financial evaluations of the five proposals for solid waste
services received in February 1994. Three proposals were
recommended for further evaluation and comparison to a projected
cost to the City for remaining in the County system.
At Council's direction, this more detailed examination of the
proposals was also to include expanded information on alternative
disposal sites, as well as an update on the viability of the
primary site listed in all three proposals (Campo Landfill). This
report forwards a technical memorandum (Attachment A) from the
consultant describing the results of an economic analysis of the
County system costs and how they compare to the updated information
on the three proposals.
The consultant will make a presentation on this information and
staff will provide a verbal report on any new information regarding
the proposals resulting from interviews with the three proposers
being held on 4/26/94.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide input to staff for
further refinement of data in order to generate recommendations in
a final report to be received at the 5/10/94 Council meeting.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Technical Memorandum presents a detailed description
and calculations of the economic and comparative analyses. It is
especially noted that the first three pages of the attachment
provide a summary of the critical assumptions and initial findings
to assist in focussing discussion. Costs have been projected on a
net present value (NPV) basis over five and la-year periods for
comparison purposes.
Key assumptions of the County analysis over a la-year period are
described:
¿7
_.__..___,___.~_,___,__.__ - ._.._....__.__ __..._.___~, ,________n_______
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/26/94
0 All cities with the exception of EI Cajon and San Diego are
assumed to participate in the County system.
0 Waste quantities will remain constant, as assumed in the
County's two-year projections and in the 1992 study by Ernst
& Young.
0 Capital needs will be funded on a "pay-as-you-go" basis
rather than through debt-financing.
0 The San Marcos Landfill will remain an active site through
its currently permitted life (6 more years).
0 The line item components of the two year (FY 1994-95 and
1995-96) budget for operating and maintenance costs, as well
as the capital program needs, recently reviewed and accepted .
by the Interim Commission, are reasonable costs.
These assumptions are highlighted for discussion because, for
analysis purposes it was necessary to decide a great many
assumptions, and a change in assumptions will impact findings and
results. As noted in the summary of the report, preliminary
findings of the analysis show that the options offered by the
proposals for services outside the County system (over a five year
period) may provide the City with a cost advantage of about 7 to 20
percent of the cost of staying with the County system.
This Technical Memorandum describes a comparison of system costs,
since the findings were derived by building comparative costs for
system services that the City now receives from the County, such as
"Clean Green" services, a household hazardous waste program,
appropriate solid waste permitting and enforcement services, etc.
For cost comparison purposes, they also reflect a cost associated
with some responsibility for the ongoing management of inactive
sites in the County system although it is unclear whether there is
any such responsibility and what its magnitude might be.
The City's plan to meet the State's AB939 goals for waste reduction
and diversion are factored into the analysis in the assumptions
used for the Chula Vista wastestream. The proposals were required
to provide sufficient capacity at the transfer station site to
expand to a materials recovery facility (MRF) by 1998 if the City
decides that additional service is necessary to meet mandates.
Although there are no costs associated with a MRF included in the
proposals, there is also no corresponding cost for a South Bay MRF,
i.e. the PIA project at the Donovan State Prison, included in the
County system capital project plan. For evaluation and cost
comparison purposes, there is no relative value assigned to the MRF
issue.
¿".2
_ __,_,~._""_._._.,__.._m__~.._'_ .______. _ _,._..,,______..__._ .~.,_u."._._
Page 3, Item fp
Meeting Date 4/26/94
The City is only discussing three proposals but the Council's
interest in ensuring viable disposal options resulted in a further
request to the three proposers to present disposal sites that would
be alternatives to the Campo Landfill, should that permitting
process not be concluded. During this recent clarification period,
one proposer (Sexton) submitted two additional alternative sites,
El Sobrante and Simi Valley.
Laidlaw submitted two additional sites without cost data, so this
issue will be discussed further during the interview. Mid-American
has not submitted any alternative site. Including the Chiquita
Canyon alternative site originally submitted by Laidlaw, the
findings in this report now look at the comparative costs of six
options for a combination of transfer station, hauling services and
disposal capacity.
The Next Step
As noted in the concluding paragraphs of the attached report, the
costs of options for leaving the County system are less than the
costs of remaining in the system. Because of these preliminary
conclusions, discussion needs to be directed to the assumptions
used to develop the projected costs and the uncertainties or risks
associated with each option.
Uncertainties which may affect the County system costs are:
0 Number of cities remaining in the County system, which
drives the total tonnage to be delivered to the system and its
future capital project needs.
0 Reasonableness of both the annual operating and capital
project budgets.
0 Restructuring of County system services, Le. to drop
programs or services and provide only disposal capacity.
0 Changing the financing of the system through issuance of
bonds.
0 Ultimate disposition of the NCRRA operating agreement.
From the perspective of the City's options outside of the County
system, uncertainties which could impact those costs include:
0 Successful negotiations with one (or more) of the
proposers.
0 The siting, permitting and development of a transfer
station.
(, -J
.- ---.,'.' _..___._u_
Page 4, Item ¡,
Meeting Date 4/26/94
0 Completion and start-up of the Campo Landfill and external
factors impacting alternative disposal sites, such as
environmental, agency controls or legislative restrictions on
waste importation.
Input from the City Council about these significant issues,
assumptions and uncertainties will provide the framework for
further refining the data and providing a set of recommendations
for action in the final report scheduled for the meeting of
5/10/94. This feedback will be important to ensuring that Council
has the best and most desirable information and recommendations
available in the final report in order to address the complex
question regarding future solid waste services for Chula Vista
residents and businesses.
In conclusion, the final report to be received by Council at the
5/10/94 meeting will factor in aspects of the Council's discussion
on the issues highlighted in this report. It will also
specifically address more detailed information regarding
qualitative aspects of the proposals under consideration, as well
as the Council's recent direction to report on the advantages,
disadvantages and relative cost of City ownership of the transfer
station.
To bring this entire issue "full circle" , staff is planning on ,
bringing the Interim Solid Waste Commission's proposed JPA
agreement to Council for consideration at the 5/24/94 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact as a result of
the recommended action to accept this report. As indicated,
preliminary analysis indicates cost savings in the City's options
of 7 to 20 percent (NPV over a five year analysis) as compared to
remaining in the current County system. The translation of
projected savings to the ratepayer will be addressed in the final
report.
~-~
__,.__.,'_ .. '.. 0' _....,....._..____...___._._~_.__._._.__.___..,_.__..__'"
~;::~ Attachment A
::&=~ ~=~ Brown, Vence
:::r¿~ ~-=~ & Associates
Energy and
Waste Management
Engineers
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 120 MonlgomeryStreet
Suite 1000
San Francisco CA94104
TO: George Kremp1, Stephanie Snyder
415/434-0900
FROM: Tracy swanbo~~ 415/956·6220 FAX
DATE: April 21, 1994
RE: Summary of BV A's Economic Analysis of the County System and Proposals
for Solid Waste Services
SUMMARY
On February 15, 1994, the City of Chu1a Vista (City) received five proposals in response to its
Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Services (RFP) issued December 14, 1993. Brown,
Vence, & Associates (BV A) was retained by the City to conduct an evaluation of the proposals
and compare the cost proposals to the City's option of continuing participation in the County's
system. The evaluation of proposals was conducted in March and the preliminary results of the
evaluation were presented to City Council on April 5, 1994. The results indicated that three
proposals warranted further consideration: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.; Mid-American Waste
System, Inc.; and Sexton/Chu1a Vista Sanitary Services.
An economic analysis of the City's costs to participate in the County's system or rely on the
options identified through the proposal process was conducted in April 1994. The cost of
participating in the County's system relied on the most recent available information provided by
the San Diego Region Interim Solid Waste Commission (Commission) for the annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs and capital improvement requirements. (Note: BV A did not
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
~rf
~-~-~-~.~_..__.---_.~---_.._---_.__._-----~._--~-- ---...-----.--.. .~_.-
provide any due diligence of the reasonableness ofthe Commission's cost estimates.) The City's
cost to participate in the County's system was compared with the transfer, haul, and disposal
options presented in the proposals. However, the County system costs and cost proposals could
not be compared directly as the options in the proposals do not include all the programs and
obligations that would be included in the County system. To make a meaningful comparison,
additional costs were added to the cost proposals to cover services not included in the proposals,
obligations Chula Vista may continue to share with the County even if the City is not a
participant in the County system, and increased costs that Chula Vista may incur in arranging
for its own solid waste services.
The analysis of the County system costs relied on several key assumptions:
· All cities with the exception of EI Cajon and San Diego will participate in the
County system.
· Waste quantities will remain constant.
· A pay-as-you-go funding approach will be implemented rather than a debt financing
approach.
· Successful annual renewal of San Marcos Landfill's Conditional Use Permit.
· Annual O&M budgets and the capital improvement program requirements presented
by the Commission are reasonable.
The economic analysis projected the costs of the various options over a 10-year period. Based
on the preliminary findings of the economic analysis, the options offered in the proposals may
provide the City with a cost advantage of 7 to 20 percent of the cost of participating in the
County system (based on the net present value of the annual costs for services over a 5-year
period). A summary of the analysis is provided in Table 1. It is important to recognize that
these savings were calculated based on the best available information and several assumptions
regarding the County system and options. For example, the analysis assumes that all cities (with
the exception of El Cajon and San Diego) will continue participating in the system over the 10-
year period. If several cities leave the system, the County system costs per ton may vary
considerably.
P,\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH () 121194 H12 pm 2 ¿..~
________~_________.____,____.____~_.._._m._'__.._ _ ._._,.._,__________._.. "..__u__.__._.. -....--..--.--
- 0 CO o V ...... 0 C")
iilE II! Lt) (0 Lt) C') 0 C\I
I'- ~ cö ci (f) .,..: cö ....:
* -g ~ In ~ ~ I'- I'- 0>
o .~ o 000
0> I-(/)
~
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ (') (') (') ~ ~ (')
oð'" Ó Ó Ó o 0 Ó
"'c: ,.. ...... T"" T"" ,.. T""
"C ~.~ 000000
~ o,,g
~ 12.0
~ 11.0
.e
e:_ (:j RJ ~ 8 ffi ¡¡
r=. æiil
~ ::ª cö oi (") ,...: ui ci
~~~~~~
Q) '"
1;) '!ñ .-
8 ¡¡;c
~að
I-
I~~ "* "* "* "* "* "*
g 0> '" 0> '¢ 0
- e: ~ ~ ~
¡¡; " I
"C ~8
0 <~
'e: 1;)~
Q)
11. 80
æ
I~ N ;3 '" In ~ N co
~ co ...... II) co C') O'J
I In ...... co ..... It) ...... co
<II 0 ..: t8fi~!B~
ëii ~ õ8 ~
co co ..... ,... 0 co
:>. >- ..: Ñ~"':Ñ~-.:i
~¡g~ 11.'"
z" ~ ~~~~~:;;
c:
(]) « "' ~ (')
-oE
.Q.- E
~E:J "* "* "* "* "* "*
OU'J Q)
r::: g>~ ¡ij co '" 0 I'- (')
0 ~ ~ ~ I
.B - e:
¡¡; "
"C ~8
0 <~
'e: 1;) ð
Q)
11. 8
æ
~ '" N g ~ ~ ~ ::: ;:
I 1;) co
In õ8 0> Lt) ,... C\I C\I 0
>iiI ¡:f ~gê~~~
11. " 1'-.
Ze: ~ ãZ1igi~
~ zt '¢
0>
I
¡¡; ~
.î
"
Q)~ :E ~ 'e: c: c: ~ c: ~ I
" Q) ~
'c:~ ¡!! § ~ ~ ~ '6 ~ '6 N
Q) e ~ 8 Q)Jj3Q)1¡¡ ~
(/)11. I(/)(/) ..J
(/) "C
~ :E ~ ~
iiI ~ ~ j!! ~ '"
'" Q) o i6'>- 8. 8. ¡¡; 8.1ã'" Z
8.... u (/)~~.õ~>è- w
"'(/) ZÕ~ 0:Ë:E !!!
Õ ~ Z U U ~ U _ U ~
0
::J W (/) t\i
« 0 (')
0 º= u ~
.¡¡; u ~
e: ~ ,... ~ C\I C") ~ Lt) (0 ......
Q) ~ «
" ~
(/) 11. ~ ¿,?
L1.
._.~.-._------ ---.- .- __.~.._..__ __ ___n_"_.'.,,·_ ___.____.._.__.._,____..____~.~_._.________
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 1993, the City issued an RFP for solid waste services. The RFP sought
proposals from qualified contractors to provide a transfer station, materials recovery facility
(MRF), transfer hauling, and landfill disposal services for approximately 175,000 tons per year
of solid waste. On February IS, 1994, the City received five responses to the RFP. BV A was
retained by the City to develop a detailed evaluation methodology and perform an evaluation of
the proposals as well as compare the cost proposals with the City's options of participating in
the County system.
On AprilS, 1994, BV A presented the results of its preliminary evaluation of the proposals which
indicated that three proposals warranted further consideration:
· Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (Laidlaw)
· Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (Mid-American)
· Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services (Sexton).
Since the AprilS City Council meeting, the three proposers above provided additional
clarification of their proposals and have been invited to interviews scheduled for April 26 with
City staff and BV A. In addition, the next phase of the evaluation process was initiated. This
phase focused on examining the City's costs of participating in the County system or relying on
one of the options offered in the proposals. This technical memorandum provides an update of
the clarification information obtained from proposers and summarizes the methodology and
results ofBV A's economic analysis. The technical memorandum is organized into four sections:
summary, background, clarification of proposals, overview of the economic analysis, and results
of the economic analysis.
CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSALS
Since the AprilS City Council meeting, letters requesting additional information and clarification
of proposal items were sent to the three proposers. The proposers provided responses to the
requested information. Of particular significance, Mid-American indicated that the Authority
to Construct Permit for the Campo Landfill has been issued. Sexton and Laidlaw indicated that
the option of rail hauling to the Campo Landfill is not feasible because the rail route required
travel through Mexico and the Mexican government has denied such hauling. Sexton offered
two additional disposal options to the City: EI Sobrante (Riverside County) and SIMI Valley
(Ventura County) landfùls. The costs associated with these new options have been included in
this economic analysis. Laidlaw's indicated the potential use of the EI Sobrante and Suburban
Disposal (Yuma, Arizona) landfills. Laidlaw's proposal to use EI Sobrante or the Suburban
Disposal landfills was not accompanied with disposal cost information; therefore, these options
were not addressed in this economic analysis.
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH 04/21/94 7:02 pm 4 ¿-y
_._~~--------_._- . ----.------ -_.-- ----~.__.._._- ...,....----.--....-.-.-- ....-.-
The three proposers have been invited for interviews to obtain further understanding of their
proposals and commitment to the project. The interviews will be held on April 26. City staff
and BV A staff will lead the interviews. An update of any clarification or new insight gained
through the interview process will be provided verbally to the City Council on April 26 and will
be reflected in the final report on the evaluation process.
OVERVIEW OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Methodology
The economic analysis focused on two components: the cost of participating in the County
system and the cost of options outside the County system. The cost of participating in the
County system (County costs) would cover the services Chula Vista currently receives through
the County, including costs required for inactive and active landfills, expansion of active
landfills, development of new landfills, clean green waste program, household hazardous
materials services, as well as other activities. The County costs were evaluated based on the
most recent information available from the Commission.
The cost of options outside of the County system considered the options presented in the
Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. These options focus on developing a transfer
station in or near Chula Vista and hauling waste to disposal sites outside the County system.
The primary disposal site identified in the proposals was the Campo Landfill with alternative
disposal sites including Chiquita, El Sobrante, atay, and SIMI Valley landfills. Since the
proposals identified only transfer, hauling, and disposal costs and not the full range of services
the County currently offers, other costs for programs and potential obligations that the County
system currently covers were added to the proposers' tipping fees. The adjustment for the
programs and obligations were estimated based on review of the Commission information. In
addition, costs were added to the cost proposals to account for internal administration and
program support that the City would need to provide to oversee the transfer, haul, and disposal
contract and to provide recycling education and market development support services that will
replace the programs currently provided by the County.
The costs for the County system and the options presented in each proposal were projected over
a 10-year period from Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/1995 to FY 200312004. The 100year projection
was used to calculate the net present value (NPV) of the annual costs to provide a fair
comparison of the total cost for services under different scenarios.
The economic analysis relied on several assumptions, which are described below. The results
of the analysis are presented in the following section.
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH 04121/94 7:02 pm 5 ¿''7
-------~--"_.~,._._._...~"----~-~ '---'--- .."-~-"'-- - -------_..~..._._-------_._-----~---,._-
Costs of Participating in the County System
The County system costs include two types of costs: annual O&M costs and capital
improvements. As indicated above, these costs were projected based on best-available
information recently prepared by the Commission. BVA relied directly on the Commission's
information related to and estimates of the cost requirements. BY A did not perform any review
or make an assessment of the costs to determine if the Commission information was sound and
reasonable.
The annual O&M requirements included annual costs such as labor, active landfill closure
reserve, active landfill operations, green waste program operations, inactive landfill expenses,
NCRRA service payment for operations and maintenance and debt service, County and
Department of Public Works overhead, and many other budget items. The annual O&M
information for the County system for FY 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 was estimated by the
Commission's Audit and Budget Subcommittee and presented as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Program for FY 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 Budget Scenarios (Draft March 31, 1994). The
budget information was provided in current dollar values. BV A adjusted the FY 1995/1996
budget to account for inflation assuming an inflation rate of 4 percent.
Since the available budget information covered only two of the 10 years required for this
economic analysis, BV A estimated the budget for FY 1996/1997 through 2003/2004. This
budget estimate assumed that the annual O&M budget provided by the Commission for FY
1995/1996 would remain the same with an annual adjustment to account for inflation. For the
purposes of this analysis, an inflation rate of 4 percent per year was assumed. County staff were
contacted and provided specific input that a few of the annual O&M budget line items would not
be required over the 10-year period; adjustments were made to reflect their input.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) requirements were examined by the Commission and
presented in the Solid Waste Capital Improvement Program FY 1994/1995 to FY 2002/2003,
Draft Report, March 30, 1994. The CIP addresses capital requirements for active landfills,
inactive sites, and new facilities. The report focused on three strategies for accomplishing the
same capital improvements but under different project schedules. Strategy 1 focuses on
providing essential projects only and postponement of some required system improvements and
new landfill projects. Strategy 2 includes essential projects plus the required system
improvements. Strategy 3 includes the essential projects plus the required system improvements
with an accelerated schedule for inactive site closures. All strategies were formulated assuming
a pay-as-you-go funding approach. The overall capital requirements and timing of the
requirements for the three strategies do not affect the overall cost per ton significantly because
CIP costs make up a relatively small portion of the total annual County costs. For the purposes
of this economic analysis, the CIP requirements associated with Strategy I were used to project
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH 04/21/94 7:02 pm 6 ¿ -/0
-" _.__.,-----~~.. ------..-..-... .,~---,- -------.. .. _._- -'---'-"--"---~- .._-~._--_._--,_..._--.--~-_.._-~---_.
the County costs. The capital costs identified in the Solid Waste Capital Improvement Program
report were presented in current dollar values. As with the annual O&M costs, the capital costs
in this analysis were escalated at 4 percent annually to account to inflation.
A cost-per-ton estimate for mixed waste was calculated to generate sufficient funds to cover the
total annual County costs. The cost per ton necessary to cover the annual O&M costs was
calculated by totaling the annual O&M costs less the cost for the green waste operation (because
separate tipping fees are collected for clean green waste to cover the costs associated with the
green waste operation) less other revenue (collected by the County through permitting fees,
grants, etc. and used to offset the annual O&M budget for solid waste activities) divided by the
projected annual tonnage of mixed waste in the County system. The cost per ton for the CIP
requirements was estimated by dividing the annual CIP requirements by the projected annual
tonnage of mixed waste in the County system. The total estimated cost per ton for mixed waste
under the County system was calculated as the sum of the cost per ton for annual O&M costs
and cost per ton for CIP requirements. A cost per ton was projected for each FY in the lo-year
analysis.
The economic analysis for the County system costs is provided in Attachment 1. The annual
O&M costs and CIP costs are identified for the lO-year period and the projected cost per ton
for mixed waste is calculated for each year.
The nature of the County system required that several assumptions be made in order to develop
a cost projection for the County system. The basic assumptions made in this analysis are:
· All jurisdictions will participate in the County system with the exception of the
cities of San Diego and El Cajon.
· Waste quantities will remain constant at 1,336,500 tons annually from FY
1995/1996 onward with mixed waste and clean green waste amounting to 1,236,500
tons and 100,000 tons, respectively.
· A pay-as-you-go funding approach will be implemented rather than debt financing.
· Successful annual renewal of the San Marcos Landfill's Conditional Use Permit.
· Strategy 1 of the CIP will be followed as outlined in the Solid Waste Capital
Improvement Program FY 1994/1995 to FY 2002/2003, Draft Report, March 30,
1994.
F:\SW\93032.0l\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH ~121/94 7:f1l pm 7 ~-//
. ~.___...._ __ __~ ._ ___.~"_~m___·_·_ _._._+-_._~.._---_.._._.- _m _~"___ ___'__''-_++ +' '~-"--~--'--'-'-+"'-""-~'--
· The CIP contingency for funding of the San Marcos LandfIll Tier II and III
acquisitions was not provided.
· The County will continue to provide the same scope of services that it provides
currently.
· Costs for a MRF or other future diversion programs that may be required to assist
Chula Vista in meeting AB 939 goals are not included in the analysis.
· The clean green waste program costs are covered by the revenue collected from
clean green waste tipping fees. The clean green waste program costs have been
estimated but are not included in the calculation of the County cost per ton
projections.
· Annual O&M costs will remain constant (subject to inflation) from FY 1996/1997
onward.
· FY spans July 1 through June 31.
Cost of Options Outside the County System
The assessment of the costs associated with leaving the County system include two components.
The primary component is the proposed cost per ton (tipping fee) at the transfer station, which
would cover transfer, haul, and disposal services. The second component is costs associated
with programs the County currently provides that will need to be continued (through the County
or other party) and obligations that the City may have to the County system even if it leaves the
system.
The economic analysis relied on the tipping fees for the transfer, haul, and disposal services
obtained from the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals for solid waste services. The
proposers used different assumptions to develop the capital costs for the transfer station property,
duration of the acceptance testing period, and the amortized capital costs. As a result, it is not
reasonable to compare the cost proposals without making adjustments to provide an equal basis
for comparison. Therefore, BV A prepared a cost analysis that made adjustments to the cost
proposals so the proposals can be reasonably compared. BV A subtracted the land costs as
estimated by the proposers from the transfer station capital cost estimates and added a uniform
allowance for land to each tipping fee. In addition, BV A adjusted the acceptance testing costs
to include costs that will cover a two-week start-up and acceptance testing périod. Lastly, BV A
calculated the amortized capital using a standard methodology. Based on these adjustments,
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH <»121194 7:02 pm 8 ~"'I.2
~-------"~----.---~---.-.-.-.-_.~.- "--.-~.-.----....,.,--.-"--....-----------
BV A calculated tipping fees for each proposed option. The tipping fees are provided in
Attachment 2.
The three proposals offer several options to the City, depending on the selection of the disposal
site. To analyze these options, six scenarios were examined. Three scenarios focused on each
proposer's cost estimate to use Campo Landfill as the disposal site. One scenario addressed
Laidlaw's proposal to truck waste to the Chiquita Landfill. The remaining two scenarios
analyzed Sexton's proposal to dispose waste at the EI Sobrante Landfill or SIMI Valley landfill.
Tipping fees were escalated at 4 percent per year to account for inflation. The annual costs for
the transfer, haul, and disposal were calculated by multiplying the tipping fees by the solid waste
disposal projections. The disposal projections were obtained from the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) adopted by Chula Vista on December 15, 1992 in response to AB
939. For the purposes of this economic analysis, BV A used the disposal projections that assume
AB 939 diversion rates will be achieved.
Program and obligation costs were estimated to account for additional items included in the
County system costs that are not covered by the proposers' tipping fees. These costs included
both annual O&M costs as well as CIP requirements. The estimate for the program and
obligation costs was performed by reviewing each budget item in the County annual O&M
budget and the CIP to determine if Chula Vista needed to provide for the programs through City
staff, arrangements with the County, or an outside contractor, or if Chula Vista needed to
continue to provide funds for any continued obligations to the County system. In particular,
programs that the County provides that need to be included in the costs for leaving the County
system include:
· Clean green waste program
· Household hazardous materials program
· Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) services for active landfill sites used by the City
· Tire hauling and disposal services
· Public education services (e.g., I Love a Clean San Diego County)
· Scalehouse staff and billing services.
Costs to cover the clean green waste program and the household hazardous materials program
were estimated for the City based on tonnage and population, respectively. The costs for the
LEA services and tire hauling and disposal services were assumed to be covered in the tipping
fees presented by the proposers. Public education services that the County system provides are
assumed to be handled by existing staff and additional costs have been included to cover the
salary and benefits for a solid waste coordinator to manage all aspects of the City's expanded
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH 04121194 7:02 pm 9 ¿ -1;1
____~_____,.__._...._______~__~_.____.M____.__·__·___·..__ .---..----
responsibilities. For the purposes of this economic analysis, annual O&M costs have been
estimated to cover salaries and benefits for a scalehouse staff (two positions) and start-up costs
for the billing services as the tipping fees in the proposals did not include the costs for these
services (because the City reserved the right to operate the scalehouse).
It is not clear what the City's obligations, if any, may be for the inactive landfill sites because
no information is currently available on the quantities of municipal solid waste that Chula Vista
may have landfilled. For the purposes of this study, Chula Vista's potential share of the annual
O&M costs and CIP requirements associated with inactive landfills sites (as identified by the
Commission reports and County staff) were estimated based on the City's population compared
to the County system population (exclusive of San Diego).
The annual costs for programs and obligations were calculated based on the combined total of
the annual O&M and CIP requirements. A cost per ton for these programs and obligations was
calculated by dividing the annual costs by the projected waste disposal quantities for the City.
The economic analysis for the costs of the programs and obligations is provided in Attachment
1. The annual O&M costs and CIP costs are identified for the 10-year period and the cost per
ton for mixed waste is calculated for each year. These projections include an annual adjustment
for inflation at 4 percent per year.
The total annual costs for leaving the County system were calculated for the six scenarios by
adding the annual costs for the transfer, haul, and disposal and the program and obligations
costs. In addition, a cost per ton for mixed waste was estimated by adding the tipping fee and
the cost per ton for program and obligations. The economic analysis assumed that the transfer
station would not be available until the start of FY 1996/1997. During FY 1994/1995 and FY
1995/1996, the City would continue to deliver its waste to the County system while the transfer
station was being permitted and constructed. The analysis assumed that the City would pay the
County's projected cost per ton during this transition period. The detailed economic analysis
of the total annual costs and tipping fees is provided in Attachment 1.
In performing the economic analysis for the costs associated with leaving the County system,
a number of assumptions were required. The key assumptions are listed below:
. The tipping fees for the transfer, haul, and disposal services will remain constant
subject only to increases associated with inflation.
. Tipping fees include tire hauling and disposal services and LEA costs for active
disposal sites.
F:\SW\93032.0l\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH 04nll94 7:02 pm 10 ¿ ./0/
-- _.,._,...._.._._~______,____ .____......_.m_.. .______~_"..______._.______..__~.____________
· The transfer station, hauling, and disposal services will be available July 1 of FY
1996/1997.
· During FY 1994/1995 and FY 1995/1996, the City will deliver waste to the Otay
Landfill at the same cost per ton as other jurisdictions.
· Potential obligations associated with inactive disposal facilities in the County system
were allocated based on population.
· The City will have no obligation to the NCRRA facility, active disposal sites, or new
facility development once the City leaves the County system.
· Waste stream projections were based on the SRRE estimate assuming projected AB
939 diversion rates will be accomplished. Clean green waste quantities will start at
11,000 tons per year in FY 1994/1995 (based on Laidlaw's estimates) and escalate at
the same rate as the population increases.
· Self-haul waste generated in Chula Vista will be delivered to the transfer station.
· Collection costs for delivering waste to the transfer station are assumed to be the same
as the collection costs associated with delivering materials to the Otay Landfill.
· Costs for a MRF or other future diversion programs that may be required to assist
Chula Vista in meeting AB 939 goals are not included in the analysis.
· The clean green waste program costs are covered by the revenue collected from clean
green waste tipping fees. The clean green waste program costs were estimated but
are not included in the calculation of the program and obligations cost per ton
projections.
· Annual O&M costs will remain constant from FY 1996/1997 onward.
· City population projections are based on information obtained from the Chula Vista
Planning Department. Chula Vista is currently 9.9 percent of the County system
population (exclusive of San Diego) and will continue to make up 9.9 percent of the
County population over the lO-year period.
· FY spans July 1 through June 31.
RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The results of the economic analysis were evaluated by comparing the NPV of the County
system costs and the six scenarios offered through the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton
proposals. The cost difference associated with each scenario was calculated in terms of a
percentage of the cost of the participating in the County system. A positive cost difference
indicated that the scenario costs, on a NPV basis, were less than the County system costs. A
F:\SW\93æ2.01\CORRF.S\ECONANAL.TCH 04/21/94 7:02 pm 11 ¿~/5'
--_._-,-,~ . __ _____ n __~_._..._.__._.____._ .____,..~_...__..._ -- ---- -~._-- _._._..._._-.-.._--~_._._--- .'.---.
negative cost difference indicated the scenario costs were more expensive than the County
system costs. The NPV was calculated assuming a discount rate of 0.07.
A summary of the scenarios considered in this economic analysis show the NPV of the annual
costs for services over a five-year period (FY 1994/1995 to FY 1998/1999), the NPV for a 10-
year period (FY 1994/1995 to FY 200312004), and the cost difference between the costs for
participating in the County system. In addition, the projected cost per ton for mixed waste is
identified for each scenario for the first year of the transfer station operations (FY 1996/1997).
This summary is provided in Table 1. The five-year and lO-year projections relied on a two
year O&M budget projection prepared for the County system. The five-year projection is a
more reasonable analysis to consider as the projection of the annual O&M and CIP requirements
over a 10-year period is subject to more uncertainties as the actual needs of the system evolve.
A review of our analysis suggests that there are potential cost savings up to 20 percent on a NPV
basis (for a 5-year period) if the City leaves the County system. However, a closer look at our
analysis shows that the assumptions used for both the County and the out-of-County analysis are
subject to clearly identified uncertainties that are outlined below:
Uncertainties that may affect the County system costs are:
· Number of cities that continue participating in the County system
· Waste quantities delivered to the County system
· Reasonableness of the projected County annual O&M budget
· Soundness of the projected requirements for the CIP
· Debt financing rather than pay-as-you-go financing for CIP
· Ultimate disposition of the NCRRA operating agreement
Uncertainties that may affect the costs associated with leaving the County system are:
· Successful negotiations with one of the proposers
· Siting, permitting, and development of the transfer station
· Ultimate disposition of the Campo Landfill and external factors impacting
alternative disposal sites such as environmental or legislative restrictions on waste
importation.
These uncertainties present risks to the City regardless of whether the City chooses to stay in
or leave the County system. For example, the cost per ton to the City if it stays in the County
system is highly dependent on the participation level of the cities and the tonnage delivered to
the County. Likewise we have no knowledge of the potential volume of waste committed to the
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\BCONANAL.TCH 04121/94 7:02 pm 12 ¿-/~
~~._,.. -------_._-~_.- ...--..- ------_._._----_...~._~.---_._._-_._. --.-..---,,- ......_---- -.--.---....--------, ..-..---
Campo Landfill. Since the volume of waste delivered to a newly developed landfill will affect
the tipping fee, it is possible that tipping fees will be higher than presently proposed for the
Campo Landfill.
The County system does not present a performance risk to the City since the county solid waste
management system is well established.
In leaving the County system, Chula Vista will be faced not only with cost-related risks but also
with new responsibilities and new steps in the solid waste management process. The City's
existing system allows for waste to be directly hauled to a disposal site (Otay LandfIll). Leaving
the County system will require the delivery of waste to a transfer station and hauling waste to
the disposal site. Furthermore, the City will be relying on the performance of the transfer
station and landfill, both of which would be new facilities without a proven history of successful
operations. Negotiations have not been initiated with any proposers. The negotiations could
lead to other risks relating to costs and performance that are not foreseeable at this time.
Based on the limitation of our analysis and the fact that the cost advantages to the City for
leaving the County System may not be sufficient to clearly warrant the risk of leaving the
County system, the City must fully understand the risks involved and decide which path provides
the most comfortable risk posture for Chula Vista.
F:\SW\93032.01\CORRES\ECONANAL.TCH ~121/94 7:02 pm 13 ¿ -/7 /6 -/8
--~-",-_.-._-----,_._._.__.__.,._..,--_._-_.__..--._---"----_.__._-,...,"..~-
I-
~
:IE
:E:
~
'<
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~i~!I~I!~å~&8~ã~¡i~~~!!..~~~~! ~ S~!
~~ ~$~~;$¡¡~~~;; ~ ~~; ..¡¡~ ~ .. ~
.. 1oJ..
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~¡~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~!~~i~~§~§å~ã~al!~ii~äã~¡~~~$G! § i!ã
-- ~~~~.~~~~*;; ~ ;
.. .. ..
~ ~~~ 8~~~&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
Ë ~~~ ~~~~~~~~f~~~~~æ~~~~~~;~~S2~~!~lE3~lE3~~S$~~:;¡ \8§lE3
· _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ -t\i - ·~..~~..a~..~ ·..a;¡~a *.r¿ -~tIt..~ tit fit 5. tì
-- S~£t£t;~rl~~~;; ~ ;
.. ....
~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~¡~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~a§a~~~
ìt ~~~ ~~~~~~~~2æ~~S~~ij!~~~~~~ª\8¡:¡~~~~lE3~~8~~~:S!~ ~ ~i~
· _ _ . -Ñ - - . - . - . -~..~~......~...~ ·...a~..a ...t¡ti -1ito'Þ...... tit U a ~
-- ~~£tw;~~~~£t;; ~ ;
.. ....
~~~ i~~~~ã~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!iJ~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~\8~~~$§~!:/ ~i~
· . . . . . _ . . . . - " .1i.~~......~...~ -...i:~i. ...~Q -~......... tit £t * ~
~- ~~~;;~~~:~;; ~ ...
.. ..
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~i~!iãã!~!~i~~i!~i!~ã~~!~~~~~~ i 5~~
-- ~~;;;~~~~~;;; a ;;;
.. ..
'" ~~~ ~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~a~~~
",_", ~[I!8 lE3~~~m~~~g~i~!~~!2o!l!~N~~æ!~~~si~~~i~~~~~~ & m~~~
_ ~N_ ~~==.~==_o 0 ~~ _~._.~_~ N=~_ ø --- ~- ~~
U'J 0 p-": eo"Lñ.,,:~..,.:.ÑtririÑ.,,:...... w·.........ri..... ....... .,.: ........ ...... ...
,.... >-(J .............................. ... ...... I
- ëa...... ...
~ ~ ~ §.u. ~.a:~~~.U~~18.U~~U~;.~~UI1JU.~~.;:.~~UU~.~.~~.~a~.an~.
..c: ·!1E ~ ~!lj8 ~[I!g¡~~S!!~,,:t!!1i!!~~8s:~~~Ni!!:gN::¡m~¡:¡:1ii01;;¡;~~!H¡~Ii!~~!¡! ~ ¡¡:t~
~ en _~.... .c't'..:.",_"":.US""':.~~Ø!.a .~a~~;a~;;;~C\!.;t;:¡~t; ;~f.¥~~;;; U; t¥ t;~f.¥
., 0<: ~ ....- a~;;;;;~~~~;'" ti ;;;
« 0 c: ......
~8 §§§ ~~~~~§§~§;~§~~§~~~~§§~~§~~§~¡~§~§~~~~~~a§a§§;
Ë ~~~ ~8~g~g~g~~~g~~~;~1~~g§~~g~~i~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~
· " _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - -5m:.~~~...i.w....ti. -.....£ì¡¡... -. - .. .:......... ... ~ ... f¥
-- ~~~~~~~:~~ ~ ;;;
....
~ §§§ ~§§~§§§~§~§§~§~~~§§§§§~§~m§~~§~§§§~~§~~a§a§~~
~ ggg ~~~~g~~~g~g~g~~~~g~g~~g~æ~g~~~sgg~gg~~~ g ~~~
~ ~~- ~q~~~~~~~~~a~~~~;a~ø~~øa~;~~;~~~~"';;"'; ~ a;;
-- ~~;ø;~~~~; ~ ;;;
.. ..
i
'" 8-
æ ~ i
> ~ -
~.z HI i
!.! ..~ 11 Ii U ! ~.. ;¡
~ I !~ i~~~1 Æ! ~~ I J ¡ i
~ i ~i e'I~9 õ ~j ~~~ ~ ~! ~
~& ~~ ~ ~ õl~Z ~i·~ .:E:!~¡t ~ l~· ~.~~! n .. 1 I: ~
~I ~t ilt 1;11 1."'ijllõll!~_æ1~llii! 111 I ! ¡Ii J~ i
~ L h~ !H IH·q~nUi lI.dhHll1 j:d U' '~I f i;~n ~z ~
~ii~~~ ~§J¡I~ii~~šš8~11~~IJ~~i~llijltll'~~ ~ [Š¡'IIS- c
~tli~~j¡lfill!!!fllli~~jj~~J~¡I¡i!~jj!JÑ~fi~I~~~I~~ I- ~
< O<_N~.~~~~œO-N~.~=~~œO-N~.~=~~œO-N~.~=~œœO-N~.~~O I
~ ~œ __________NNNNNN~NNN~~~~~~~~~~..~....~ r
¿-/7
__________~._.______ _~_u____"_~_~_______·__·,· _ __..____ ."....._._______... --------... -----~----~-----
I-
ijj
'"
:I:
ª
~~š~~~~~ <
Uã~
c;
~
~
~
...
(I 0>
.~ (;) (::
(I 0 '"
,... >.u I
-7iI
¡¡¡ ~ ~ ~
Eo (I) !
rË~ ~
<¡¡E-
O ::>
WO
U
C!
~
"
. -
'" -
i~ j
-:.. § & E
il I j i~ 5 f
~i i ~ ~~",j ~
$ . e 12'" ~ ~ <!J "ìi'i ~
!~ . ~ ~~~J ~ !I- ,
~I "~""'.Eo~ ""'I!!! -
:J IJ ö Z "Iñ to- I- . ø N
~ ~ 11 '" i· ": ~ h.. ~ g ijj ¡g î~ !2
j~.' ~Æ'" "~~'~.. 0 jZ ~
~ E~i!jtl¡I~~~~¡1 .. ~ ~ð~ .
w ~~~~í!~2!O~lõìi'i> ~ (I 22 ijj
I 11~;!12i3~il!~~II~i I eel- I
ß i!~~~f~· ~ìi'i~ss~~ji;" " ii~ I
~ ~~o~~~~~¡~~l ~~~!z~ ~ OO~
m -N~.~~~~OW-NMO<-NMO 0 0
Z I-~ 1-0 I- t- 0 ~
¿ -.2. ¿:;
_ ~____'____.___.___~..,__ ____"_____,,___._____._."._m__..____ .________._._.~,___..______~__..____
~
..
i!'i
'"
'"
!;/
~
~ ~~ß~
~ ~:Ii~~
E
.9J
'"
>-
<n
;?;-
c:
"
o
(,)
'"
~
~
OS
",-
.- '"
..... ~>
'E15~
m"" M
E~6 I
-5 'E:!::
~o"O
<C §.~
" "
wcr
!!!
'"
E
'"
..
C>
o
..
0..
ìñ
c: !"
2 ,g ~ !O !O !O!O!O !O!O!O!O!O!O !O
.~ ~a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H ~ ~ ~
~ 8~ !o!ooolooo!oellleooloo!!oo!!O!OOOO!OCOOOOOO!OO
o _z_zzz~zzz_z_»>_zz>zz__zz__z_zzzz_zzzzzzzz_zz
i
~
I j !" ! i
~ ~ ~I 1 ,I "~ .! ~ :Ii
! I ~. ~SS~~ ~e il J ~ l
~ i ~ ~i~~~ ~f i~t ~ ~ ~ ¿
~ j ~ 11 U '7f H 111 11 ~ i~ di H f I I ~ ~
~J !II !tl litt 1'~"1¡1!1I1I1!j ællllil IIi i I Iii J~ I
~ ~ '~ffi h~ Ih·~·~·~nIU".!! Uh~hhjhH· '~i .; chH ~z ~
~ijl~~ ~~ji!liij~888~11~~I~~~i~~I~~I~lrf~~ i [!¡III~- f
~t!~~~jI1f!~~~~~iiii~~~jjj~f~jliflij¡~Jl~fl~if~j~~~ ~
~ 2a-NM.~~~~œ~~~~~~~~~~~Ñ~~~~æ~reæ~~~~~~~~~~~;~~:~~ ¡
~
¿ -.2./
"~."_."__'__.__.. ._.."._~._.._ __m_._...__. _m__ ____ _~_._._.._..._____.._______~._. _______
~
I-
i!i
::E
J:
~
<
E
.S!
'"
,.,
en
~
c:
ð
u
'"
~
.S!
'"
",-
.- '"
__ ~5
-m'"
iii':¡:'S .
EoB ,
..c .-_
o E'-
£ o'C
« §.~
0"
WC1'
I!!
'"
~
8'
-
0..
(¡¡
§ !~ ~~~ ~~~ ~
"" 08 ~
'" iL H~ ~H ~
.21 8~ ~ ~~~ H"
:is HHHH ~~~
0
~ '" 8-
o ffi ~§ - '"
::E c ~ I ~ ~
c ii\..8 f! .
!~ ~~ ~ ~i I ~ 8
1ft 0 Q) ) _ ED:
8 w'!¡ I! 0 0 !
h ·1 0 a:~ ~~ § j ~.§ ~ l 1/;
e~ ~ c ~Ž .§-I"II> I I ~ ~ ,
r .eæió.!!~!r~Z 'I;:~" 1< ¿
e ,fß . .., 0 t: 0 8
~', , ,¡¡ ¡g Ii '" 4' ~ ¡¡ j ! ~ ~ g if if I ,
N
~18 !~ ~~·~jl. a:~- i~~) ~ I !:!
I ~~ ~~~ w§ O~~~~~IŠ ~~ .§ ii\ ~ ~Õ ~
;;i
II> j~~!I~~'f!~§ §~~i~~.~~ i!i ~ ~ ~ ~IO ¡¡:
I- õ !.c. > ~ =a: j '" 0."2... ii\ a. 0 a:
i!i ~~~II~il~i ~~S . ~.§§.§~~ ~ ~ ~ II~ i!i
ii\ tl~! j.~~ o31-~ :!I!>a: iJ ~ ~~~ ~
c;
~ i'~~~~~H ~08dj Ua.\ij· ~~i~] õ H~ I
~ r.~~~~~!~>JI~~I~a:;I~]O~j ~ 0 !!~
~ J:Æo~Z::Eæ::E-~<- "I- ~ Iz ~ 001-
_N~.~Ø~=~ gfu_NM~Z_N 5~-N~ b ~
z ~~ ~a:: ~o ~o ~ 0 '"
¿ -.l,l
~- ___n.' ,'_ -~-------~,-
-
i ~ :<!~ II ~~~~ ~"~i ~~~~ ~"~~ ~~~~ ~~~i \;
w
0 igi~ il~~ ig~t ~I~~ &git Igi~ "
> S 15" .. :E:
¡; celie tit ¡;tltC'J I: c: i \/
~ ¡ 8¡8¡8li8::8li8
~ ~
~ ~- S!~ ¡;¡ ~I~~ ~I~i ~~!§ ~!i~ ~~~5 ~Š~~
irf 0 ~.¡~ 1.li ~~~í ~ ~~ i~~i ilis
I;: i ..
¡i 8 ¡ 8 ¡ 8 1 8 ~ 8 ¡i 8 i
~
11 ~ ~~ i!! æ"~~ æ"s~ ~"i!!~ ~.~~ i!!'~~ ~"~~
- - 0 '1' .~. '1' .~. .~~ '~i
o Ii h .. ~.å~ I~i~ I.~~ ~~. ~~! ~~ ~
I;: 1 8181 81 8~ 8¡i 8i
~
- ~ ~ ~- ¡¡ ~"~~ ~"~~ S"~i S"~~ ¡;¡"æ~ i"S;
~ t .. 5!i~ ~!&~ ~!Si ì!~i ~!5~ 5!~~
I~ ..
I;: 0
¡ 8¡ 8¡ 8¡ 8~ 81i 8.
~
~ ~ II! I lš¡;¡O 8š~~ ~š~~ g"~~ i'm~ I"m~
.. .. IË~; ~Ëit §Ë5~ ¡I~i II~~ sll~
> g å~ ..
~ - IC: IC: ¡; c. IC: IC:
¡¡ 8 ¡ 8 ¡ 8 Ii 8 g 8 Ii 8 i
~
I ~ II:: i ð~S~ ~~~~ ~~~§ ~š~~ ~"~~ ~"~;
'0 oj
I~ Ig~~ igit ~gl~ i¡ª~ ii~; ~iil
> :g .. c·~ c ¡; 0 tit .~
~ - 0 8 ¡ 8 ¡ 8 Ii 8 ~ 8 Ii 8 i
.. ..
~ ~ In ~ ~~~8 ~~~~ æ~~~ 2~~~ M~~I ~~~~
~ ... 8: .¡ iig~ ~i~g iiii ¡ili §il~ li~i
œ 0 ..
I;: :: .¡;
.: 8¡ 8¡i 8¡i 8:: 8¡ 81
.. ..
i i_ :i!~ ¡:; s"~§ ¡;¡šm~ æ"2~ ~š~- ~'~I 1"8.
...:at 0 ii5~ ~¡§~ !ili ¡¡¡; Siit ii5~
· I;: ! I~ ..
·
0 0 8 ¡ 8 Ii 8 Ii 8:: 8 ¡ 8 i
"Ii .. ..
·
. .. I ! ~~ ¡;¡ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
_ ~ I! !~ 0 18!~ i8!~ ~8!~ ~8!~ i8!~ i8!~
- . it .. 0
~ ~ z I;: ~ I
f~ 11 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ i -
o .
. ~ i ~ ~~ Ii! o~o~ i!!~o~ ~~o~ _~o~ _~o~ I!~o~
Jj 8 ~IC:~ .IC:~ ~IC:~ ~c~ ~IC:~ c-
h Iii 18i~ ï8i~ i8i~ ~8i~ i8i~ i8.~
.. > 1
· ~ - 0 C'J C'J ('1 ('1
· ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 1
~
~ ~ ¡¡ ~ 0 I 18 1
~
J œ ¡¡ ~
~ " it ~ ~
~~ ~ ¡¡
I i ~ ~ ~ æ i i
~
~ i ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
it1 ¡¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~
z ~ ~ i
I í Ii ~ i ~ a
0
>;
· ·
0 E
~ ä
~ E I I I I I I
· ~
0 ~ 8. 8. 8.
~ I ~ .a1.a1.a1.a14iI4ij
·
B u 'tI..2" 'tI 'tI "CI 'tI
i · ~¡i ~¡i ~¡i ~¡i ~¡i ~¡.
.. 0
· i
·
· ",. '"Pt '"Pt '"Pt ''""t '"Pt ''""t
· " . :¡¡ 1_[" .!!.[" 1_[" .!!.[" 1_[" .!!.[~
~ .. 8 0 ~¡§~ ~¡]~ ~¡§l ~¡§l ~8§l ~i~l
t 8.. ~ ;!
F · C ß¡; C tIC: C tIC: C tIC: c~ïc C ~c I
.. ,...~ 8 ~ø~~ ~œ~~ ~œ~~ ~ø~~ ~ø~~ ~Æ~~ ¿
~ ¡:¡¡ ~ I
.¡ ~. I ~ . ~ . . Ñ
~-g s; ,... . i i J
::\ g! . 88 3 3 i
Æ¡t " 8 " "
::> ~ ~ j ,¡
¡¡ ,. J :¡
I 0: ::> 8. 8. 8. J!! .
fi! ~ § g! - 11 z
8.l! " ~ E E E ¡¡. w
." >:; ~ l - I! I! I! ¡¡ 0 ;¡; !!I
õ " i
II: w ~ 15 ¡¡; ¡;;
::> !;¡ 8 Z
0 " ..
~ w " w ~
,... ~ - ~ N 0 . 0 0
. ~
0 I
" .. ~ u:
~ --2:J / b -:el
._...___ _.___..·.__._,_.u_~,_,.·_ p'-"-- -- ..... ..-.-.-. ....-.-....-. -- ... .~_.__.--_.-
N
!z
~
:I:
U
~
<
I~j &!~~~~ afH~§~~~ C> ~ ~
C>
_ . C> ~ ! @!
~ã~~~ "'a~
~~ 88_ ... ~
.,. ~~ ~ I:i
...... ...
Iii- ß !!!i!_!~ §;~~~~~ g ~ § ,
11 .g~ Ii gi~gg¡; ~ ~ ....
co.><o ~~!il8 . ~
~~a -òlõli - - -fi
12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... ... ... ~
:2 1
S; :::¡¡ N
i
II j-ª~ ~¡J~_: aa~~~~~ g .... ~
'"
"C ~(I) ~ ~
8! ~ ¡; "l~""~ ~~gi ~
.~ E ðê ¡q æ'"
g¡ ~~ Ii fig gg '"
co"- ~ ~
.>< ...
(I)'" u
m-ã. 8 2
~ ~¡§- ~
Iii· "C j 8.~ §'¡J~_: aa~~~~~ C> ~ §
eO Iii "CIi(l) C>
¡~~ :5 ¡; - - .N ~ I ~
~i~~¡; """a ~
°e t:3t:3 ...
~~ Ii fig fifi æ
~l ~
Iii 12 ði
.... I
~ a.
<
I
I '" ¡;¡
:§. c:: º
~
:i' 8 ~
- i I
e e B ~
I §¡ I §~¡ì
:::.
~ ~ w
8!~u:::¡¡¡; ~ B~U~¡; ~~~ ~ 8 !!}.
~ ~~èj 8~oèjj~ 0
!B - ¡¡; ¡; Iii g> ~ ]I '¡; ¡; Iii '" "''0 g> ¡; I
'ã. :>
.ª:>:>-.- -:>:>]I'!õ's; c. c::
¡~c::c::sc. ",c.c::c:: c.c.~ m ¡:: ci
~u~~~¡§- æ~~~~¡§-¡§-:I: ~
~ ~ . ]I ! t'.15'
~ :I: 0 ~ u:
. .._'~.--'-------~---.----~.-----~---..---..--.--
N
!ž
~
J:
~
~
i~- ~g~2;~~ ~2~ -~ ggsgg 2 2:~2 g ~-
~~ ~ M~_~. ~~~ ~. 0 ~ ~_._. . ~
0~~ ò tò ~¡ ~ ~ ~æ ! ~ ~å~ ~ i ~
2::t f!t ~5!_ !q:g ~. - "':. 0 tn.!:!. CD
~~;:¡ M ¡¡ M M M ;:¡ ;:¡ ~
s
~i~ ¡:¡g~§~~~ ~I~ ~~ gg~gg § §!~ª ~ ~
~~B ò tò~~¡ ~ ~ ~æ ! g gå~ ~ !
~~ f!t ~~-~:g ~ ~ "':. 0 ~ ~
~W;:¡ M Ii M M M fi fi
s
~i ¡:¡g~§~_~~ ~I~ ~~ gg~gg § §!~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~ ò tò_~¡ ~ ~ ~æ ; ri riå~ ~ ! ~ s
m0~U f!t ~~~~:g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡
~S ~ ~ ø ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r- ... ... 0- ......... ... ...
i I
i~i §§'§§¡!i!~2 ~iI~ ~ði §§~rn§!~' ~@:¡t!:!! ~ ~ !
æ m~~~ ~8~ÒS~~ g g~:g g~!~~ ~ ~å~ ~ ~ CD ~
.~! ~~~~ ;:r;_;:¡~~-¡¡¡.;:¡ Ii Ii S ...-ì!0 .;:¡ ~ C> ~ .e
~~ 81~ ~~ M ;:¡ M M M M fi ~ N
00> :g 8 I
=m~ ::t N
S; ., 0.. 0>
~~~ ~~~ §§§'§¡~~~ ~iI~ ~~ gg~gg ~ ~~~~:!! ~ j
i~æ ~~~ ~~~~ ~g ~ ~ ~~ ! ~ ~åa ~ ~ ~
E ¡¡¡ ~ G E _~~ - .m ~ ~ - 0 .. ~
~~8 ~~ ~~~M Ii ~ ~ ~ :g :g i
!~.i ~ ~ ~
II; 8. ~ ~
~e 5
~~ ~~~ §§§'§~mm~ ~iI~ ~~ gg~gg ~ ~~~t! ~ ~ ~ ~
3õ~ ~~8ò~~g ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~å~ ~ § ~ ~
sa ~N-5!-CDm ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ CD U
~Z ~fi~~ g fi fi ~ fi fi ~
~ ~ ~
~ ¡¡¡
'"
,i ~
i 0> 11", ~ ~ ~
8. .1: 8..s;; .e <
e 1i g) "is' ~.!.
Q, - i5. .!I! co C\I
æo> !'! o>~ Ë Ii ~
iii Í£! ::tii£ I iE ~ § f ;i
8. ~ ~8 ~~ ~ ~~8 I~ ! ~ ~ ~
g,!i~iil !~ §I iiil §II! i ; i ~
~~8æ~i~ui ~j~ ~~ æ~8~~Ui ~ ~~~i ~ 8 B g
i!: - _N"t:f 0 " col!! ~ N"t:f 0 col!!oI!!1â '" ~ i
""$~ ~ $ æ'" æ "$~ ~ æ"''''~ ~ ~
:i~~ff;è è~; ~í ~I~f~è è ~ííi 1 ! ¡ ~
IU <i i < ~~ ~u ~i i ~~~J: lEE ..
~ J: 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
¿ ,..2. "
- ----..---------...-".----+..------------->----------.--_.~------~-
·, '
:! 0.1/26/9-1 13;00 'B202 225 0235 REP. Hl~~1.t.þ( DC
,:¡ ~v",_ "','"
.1
':1
.,;¡
i
. CRS Congressional Research Service' The Libruy of Congress · Washington, D.C. 20540-7000
Translation. Spanish
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON BOUNDAR:IES AND WATE:RS BETWEEN
MEXICO ~D THE UNITED STATES
MEXICAN SECTION
SECRETARIAT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS
Ciudac1 Juarez, Chih, March 25, 1994
Dr. Marendra Guneji
U.S. Commissioner
International Commission on Borders and Waters
The Commons, Building C, Suite 310
4171 North ...
El Paso, Texas
Dear Commlgsioner:
I refer to the project for setting up of 8 municipal garbage dump in the zone of the Indian
Reservation of Campo, California, U.S. near the international dividing line opposite the town
ot Jardlnes del Rincon, municipality of Tecate, Baja California, with respect to which an
exchange of information has taken place on the Commission In keeping with the spirit of
cooperation that exists in tbis internatlonnl body for the exchange or technical data related to
various aspects related to the border.
.; On the matter, I wish to state to you the already reiterated position of the Goverrunent
of Mexico, in the sense that any project of storage of hazardous wastes that is planned tor
placement along the border zone with my country is unacceptable to Mexico.
The Mexican rejection of this possibility is fully justified not just by the terInS of Art, 2
of the peace agreement through which our governments agreed" ...to adopt the appropriate
, measures for preventing, reducing and eliminating sources of contamination in their respective
, :1 territory that affect the border zone" ofthe other country, but also because the chosen location
;¡ goes against the proper right ofthe Mexican communities not to be affected in their health nor
'I in their natural resources,
I.
: 'I 1. . The project is located directly on an aquifer crossing the border.
~ 2. . A number or communities on both sides of the border depend on the wells froIn that
, aquifer in order to meet their water eupply needa, eo that the aquifer should be protected
; as a question of the highest priority, in order to ensure the future sustainable
" " development of the region.
: ~.
",'(
i'.¡ / /d.?
.~"! h
:;:~ ;.'.
'"I
"",' ,
-->Ô._.:.:.
... -_...,._.~_.._-- ---_.~.,----_._--
01/....
~. Î
"
',' H
.-, I
; CRS ·2
i S. . Should contamination of that aquifer occur, a public health risk would be generated for
,i! the border communities supplied from it.
,
",1' 4. . The aquifer is located on a zone of tonalite rock that is highl)' to lightly t'ractured or
.'
'6;,~: -¡.!
:. ,. .~ altered. DUB to these conditione, the now velocities in the subsoil are variable but
'I relatively high. It is believed that the underground flow between the altered zone and the
J¡
Ii fractured area is interconnected by hydraulically,
"-
'j 5. . Due to the characteristics of the subsoil, in the event of a Cault [can also mean
,-
;~ CaB ute/defect] and escape that could lead to the flow of leachesl1ixivials toward the subsoil,
,.-.) which will be able to move vel)' rapidly through fractures and faults toward the aquiCer,
,
/1 .
~ j
5. - The fractured environment in which the project is located presents technical difficulties
for monitoring the project operation and for timely detection in CMe an escape occurs that
could contaminate the underlying aquifer. .
. 7. . The programs proposed by the company in order to carry out the monitoring have been
,
",...; questioned, it being noted that since the underground flow ja unpredictable, the wells
-:'.'1 monitored will not intercept all the subterranean water that flows through the fractures
ij
, under the site, so that the contaminants that escape could move toward the aquifer
!'¡
without being detected by the monitoring programs.
. ~^'1¡
.~'~ 8, . At the same time, once filtered into the subterranean water, the contemination could not
:1
.: ~ be e1iminated since an aquifer with an extensive system at faulte and fractures creates
, ~ , unpredictable flow routes for the transportation of contaminants, The lack of
-Ii predictability, for the purposes ofcleaIling of the contamination, precludes any guarantee
H
. that an escape of contaminants that hu penetrated the subsoil can be eliminated before
. :1 or even after entering the aquifer.
,I
I
I I take this opportunity to send you my best wishes.
;'
\"
H Sincerely,
;1
'I
~ (Signed) J. Arturo Herrera Soli a
~_Î
j Mexican Commissioner
'0/
- ¡i
:i Translated by
'J
, I.
.. Deanna Hammond
:¡
, CBS. Language Service,
I April 26, 1994
,
:1
'I
~,
~
f~;~
~':"4i
-1;;1)
)'f~"{
.ì!:~\·.;U
)1,';j ¿ -~ý
i
.'!i ,
,i
:J
".,..~.,:
"
C:O!,~IS'ON ¡NTEr.~:r\'C ONAL Dr:. LlMITEs Y AQUA:> t'--:'~>'
Ir' ",. " r.
.f ~t, _ '.,~. ...::i:~
!::¡'··!TRF. MEXICO V LOS ESTACOS UNICOS
I" '....... --~. II
!!(CCfCN MEKICANA '\ 1}
~., ,..:¡
'¡~ \ .', ". ,
"', n· "~" ..
'··_".'-~I·.
:.ma I L1\,tI CO~7:/I)' "'~~ .;¡JP
.'. \1",'),. '
J::Þ: IJ\.1!!/:J404
:ECAtTAIIIA ~:iudacl J;\~,~'1:!3, Chih. ~5 d. marzo d~ 1~94.
III.
~.L^:i:;I~'r. EXTUIOftrs
,.
n%'o Nal'cndt'Q \;', ;,:lJn¡;,ji
Com11ionado Q~C~acunidnnap
Oomil:Lòh In;:CIrn:::~iCJa1 CI(I ¡."l:.ii:nn \' ,'.,alan
Th.e Commons, 1: .~:.... ~.~:..nÇ'T Q n·.,~:.¡;,~; 31ð
4:L?1 North MI,'II~¡,.
El fiB SO, T(')~ar: "·r··I:'O~~14:1~
E.tÜnado ~ro, , C.::~~ :;ln~¡ltdð~
Ii.go 'r'c::o:'·c~ci£l. ::1 ., r~~/ecto :10 :.I':I'CAlacic;, de 1111
depQII.itc Çí~ ·':m:'duoø r,',',U't.::.c.::.pales '1n .~~ ~ on:l d~ . .
.:...
nlurovloi6n !:~ê!i,-. do ClI.mopo, A"'ifc-I'¡~ :ÐtlldOI¡ t'niàOtll, ~,r:
'.1... .....,
la~ prox1mid~~CD ~~ l~ 11~aa 4iVlsoriu i;~tornaOiol1al frGnte
Al ÞobladoJßr~:~ac del J:!~"cón, !1un:'ci"~o do -¡eca~t, FJQ;H
california, ::c;~"octo (\1'11 OUal. r:1I tOl1i"o :'U(jftr \.~ 11
intercalllÞio è;(:\ ~nfOl·!:It\c.ion en ~1 teno cle 1£1 1'\ ' '.
\.omlzlC'~
conforM!;!! a1 I.":::\:i,~itu de c=~pGrllcion caw eKiste Ol'l E\ate
Orqan 111110 rh~e ;"¡'Qoienal pla·~ 01 ~ rltercnrnbio dQ dato~
técn1cos relatlv~n c d;v~r~Mr. ~.~.~toc r·O:':lOiOIHI/ile..!!I ~V'I .
. co:
frontlll"Ð.
YOÞt'CI el n¡:¡rt.icuiar, I.,M'80 r,'.&/,:.:. feÐt~r a. '.Jctlld 1<;\ ya
relt.ra~a posiC¡cn del Qobiorno da NóKlao, Gn el .entid~ ~ø
qu. eUUqlliÐr proyooto de Confi nllmianto dG d(!uchos
'111;ro.os quo ~a pret.nds ubi car en l~ zona frontcrizð. COn
~i 'Iii, l"lult~ inaelPtable p~~a N'xioo.
E1 :'OOh¡UH" 1II1)lican:l .:¡ "'Rta po!:ibU J,da.d, 5e. ve
ampliàl11lnte :: H~':..i Ucaâo rlO 5610 r>or lOB téromincc del
artioulo 2 del ConvêniQ åQ Jö Pa~ mediante el c~al nUODtros
GQb~nnoll aOClråaron ".. _àopta r he rnelHclu oprcpiaciu para
þr,vonir1 radUQ1~ y oliminar fuonte. da oontamincción en IU
territor 0 rospClctivo qUI aroctln 2.:5 zona frontarha" del
otra j¡111, sino I)or~ue 1& '4"'1Q~~!~n i~ n171111'1, ",t,,.nt'1I .... "',.,nt',.a
al... . Ito alrlol10 0 ..II, com\l odo. 1!I1)(::.c",n.. de no !lel'
af,atada. In.lu sDlu~ n£ en DU' r.cu:t'SOR naturales.
l.~ Ii prooyécto ele ccníina1!l1onto lie UbicQ directa1nente
'oÞre Un acultoro tranfttron~.ri~o.
~.. Diverllns ,:,:or.1un1c1aåes 1\ 02l\bo. J. Ados äe 1a rronta~n
dlpenden d" Joe POZoBda d~oho aculferopara øat1sfaoor
IUI t"Gqulr l!l\Clntoø d. abutecimhntÞ de agua, lIor 10
cual -1 acui.faro clobê IC~ Þrotl;ido como cuastión de l~
mi. alto ~~ioridad, para a.lqur4r oJ futuro desarrollo
.Ultentablß n~ l~ r.q~~n.
.
~ -~/ . , .
. ......" ..,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . "...".. ."".." .................., .................. ... ... ,,,......
I
. ............."... " .""" .. ", ..... '.. . ..... -.-"
CO:,::-:IU!'! 1~ITf.!ìNAc:cr:/;L DE 1.IMlTE5 ',' AQUAS
¿:.¡':RF' r,·'EXICO ',' :.05 ESTAOOS UNIDOS
~ŒCCIO~~ 1.'EXICANA
'·Ul···· '."'," 00'"·/'''
... " ~ ....IoJ.¡,l 4111 {, ... ~...
;;:~1~: :::J~"I~ 13" 0 11
H~nr~M1IA
(JI.
.::InN~S U~~ßI2~!~.Z'Dnðl'CI tl. ::1In::.:1:i. . . ., ...,::~. 1\:. !dlno ¡lû B~J.
'3,. De rGgi.¡¡¡tr~~:Bc. oor.tat',::.r.:lclon d:, (,\1c1-.0 "Cll~ fnt'o roo
c¡en.rarla \111 ~·lQ.C' 'O' '¡'1 ::1.1 UC\ !")',n,liclI r>IU' ,¡/liD
=omunldadG~ ì~'n~lr1zaG 0U~ sa ÐbaQte~Qn dal rn1smQ,
I
I
I
,. ~ El Acuifero ,¡\stá loca11::a.dc !lcbrCl \1:'\11 >,on& r¡t'! 1:'''1:'11 I
tOl'lIsli tiCD ~\I," 1.'10 enC!UDnt,t'(t ct. It) t2l!\',ente II 1 ic¡tU'&\111On'C.(
fracturada ~ çlccrada. Do~ido ~ ..~aB condic!cn&., lnc I'
velClcid.adu c1':\ !:"lujo en ~l Dubs\.Ielc son <'arillbhs pu'o
ulUivlme71tc . .lltQS. !;a con8iderr. ~¡uC\ flJ. . ~lu,o I
øubtlrrtneo gn~re 1ft Zonl\~ltQra~a y ~! ire. fr~9~~r~~O \
S8 enCluœn~r~ ~n~oreenectðdo hidraul"camante.
· '
!
5.. por las cara(~'t:~t'1stic:as d:!l subsu.lo, en .: IWénto d" ¡
unþ. talla C ,';!Jqas Clue puC!iora dQ r J.1.1\1c.r 1\1 flu, ~ ctc I
1~xiviado8 ha~la .1 .ubDu~le, d~chon lixiviadoe podrAn
!!love!'./:! tIIUY :.å~it¡atllGnto I/, t~·a·lêll cia frActUJ'IIÞ y fill ~nc
hacia 01 acu'1¡'C"(,).
Ii I ~ il mldic fr;¡/:turld.o 11\1'1 \J.I. ¡¡'.Ie I:;;:! \ll:>i::a e) ct'nvac\;.ö
pl"...nto. dHir....¡,tacles -::.o:cnic!!s þnrn lI\onito¡:'.Ú t'!1.
· funcicnamion~o dol ~~oyecto Y ~.tCQtar Q~ortunnrn.ntß ~M
oalc da quo sa r~q~otrø una fU~6 q~. þudieTD centnmin~r
.¡ Icuifero ~uby~o.nte,
7, _ 1.0& p;,o;ra'll\1i pt'opue.tos I:H'a" l.. 8r,o,Pl"UZl \:)Flra real:i7.Al' ",1
I!',cnitoroo, rum ~icic cUOÐtionDQOQ, eI.'1'1iI11.l'1dO qUA rJ",hirl" i
. a 10 impredeoiblo Clel flu~,o Ðubt.l!\rr::nC!!o, l~. ~O"'OFl da
!!IQnitòno no l~~Glrc.ptarin tor)/) 1\1 n"u~ ¡;'.\bterrånoll quo
tluya per las f~~eturas ~o1= 01 ¡it1c, gor 10 que ¡os
contamj.nantc~ Clue se tlJguen ~odria \ ¡noverU hacia al
ac~ít.ro .in zor det.c~aóom PQr :~~ porQramae de
· .
monltorae,
I;. . AI:!. mi.mo ,\I'liì ve" t H\',r~\d!l .:I: !lC'¡ua l:\1ot",-t'l'IrUIÐ., 1n
Clontaminacian r'lO "ØCClt'ir. r,rJl' ali:Ü!'\uc!a YII qUI! un
aouifero CO'l'l un o~!t.en.p ::.i::t,o:':\r:I ào f¡¡U¡¡s: Y fr'ùcturac
orea ruta. di i1~,o ilTl~ro~ecir.1QB p~r~ ~l tranGporta
~Q CO'l'ltDmin~nt~~. L. fQlta dQ prQdicti~Slidðd. ~~rn
&rJO .
. ,. .
·
COMISIOI\¡ INTERNACIONA\.. DE. I.IMITl!S Y AGUAS . -- .
ENTRE. MEXICO Y LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
stC¡;\ON /lE)I,\C4NA
NVH. t.A'£ co.,a/u
, ur.~Rl4~11I Z:I(1'I x..n/U04
ACIO' U txTUIOAEB
. fir. "....n"&-& u. tlunaj1 . . . . . . . . . It! 50 lIIa2:IO ~:.a 2-0!!./..
pzoopc!lai teA tl" 1 i1Tlp." de ) a cont:.a'r\~ nllOl òn. prccluye
lSu.alClliie~~ r¡IU~IU\t:l.a iiI C¡UO UM fll( 1' de CIIII'lt.à\'\\J.I'Ul.t'ltlU Clue
na 'P.netrat1o a1 5ubeuelQ puec!1I IIr eli~in.ðll ante. 0
,,~n de"p\IIÍICI till Intra%' e1 Qcu1flro,
"TI'~nv.r:hn ',.1 C'lflOt't\lnicir.¡¡\ PI'II.";' r,¡'jtl"t:'ar. I!\ \.H~tad 1a
sequridað d$ m¡ ~:entD Qon5i~.ración.
~ T , :! T ~ t! ~ It ~ C
\ .s&::.=~'-
...,,/.....- ..~ I à'
I \\:;.~w.\,IWJJ,.. .
.7. A ,:utO''ifÉ1\~J,I ,i.\.tc
(':0 .!tU~mmr Mr.X!.~~I·:O
\ '
" I
\. \ !
\ \
\ '
\ I
,
"---'
/ç/3/ '
:ox.i1ûêìlY I
APRIL 17, 1994.! C
SECTION
Trash company"
forgives, gives "
to politicians L~
.y Robert Ruth'
[Ji.V"'td, SJ.,I! 11<7><>1<1' · Trouble h.. do¡a¡ed the Canal
'''ndtè5ter O')Inpal1)' I 3D ..
Ex~cuUves 01 Mid-Americ~n -
W:1RLa Hyslotnö apfJttr9ntJy don'l .' .
I II ·1 I " d I~ I~ ern )ltJ'-'!l.:.::"i illIll Utèl1' (:(J ~ultanL"'I"'Cl&
'II' tt''\K gt:'JR W ten Ulcy oMMU! v.'. 1/-
IJUIiUc.oJ.¡U1~ ~IUvt~ nil..! !llJ,a)r1'1eYIIi, n:::col'dC'l at. ÛI'Ô
In S<!plemill!!" 1989. tOOn-CJev.- ~'"...klb, CoUl1ty lI"",,¡ of Elecw".
I. I M G V"" 1 .how.
,\h' ayor corge . ,omoVlC I M t f tI I led
nlaUt! UI~ C'AUu.d WillchU1lct' oompa~ . OB U 'Ie. money ~ (ana
ny's 80.acre landfill in Fairlield dunn ( ~ June .21 fund.,:,JISCt ~hen
CouIILy II eJllnpaign ...... Voinovich, I.¡o¡>""", . wa.. aty .counal prl!$ident
then rWlI1ill ( fur ¡¡ovemor, criticized and =killg r,-e;e1...'Üon:
Mid.Ammic:m fOl" accepting thou- A ~ IniIhon unb.1 contr.rl;be.
I<1O, g of lons of oul.-oc..w.e u'SSh tween CoIwnbus an~ Mid.~
ellCh year. WM ao.pen.ded earhel" UIIO monlli
NevcrtJ'el..... Binc-e WOO, Mid-. after Coun~nan .M.!). J:oltman and
American exec11tiVes ha\'\! contrihut. oUiem <¡UæIioned IL. legality.
ed at. least $.14,000 1.0 Voinovich, Laza~1'S said me will abstain..
""-"0,,1. at Ule SccI'etNy or State's rrom voUng on conlzaclB beLween
omce !\how. 'rhe Nngle Iarg<ot con. tJ>e city. and ~id.Americ:Jn beeause
uiootion w,'" $26 000 dolloìed April of quCl'ltions r-.dsed ahout the dona..
ñ. 1\~la, hy ÇIu~tDpher. L. WhiLe. tions. ."1 don't want Ule issue. befó",
Mid-^!ncrican'o p",.¡uent and chief COWl';!! 1.0 be. clouded by , ,. ","pen-
exa.~ItJVe olToœr. . does, !!he Mid. ... ,
"I like hi.. idcolo/O',· White Mid. Over Ule past Ulrce yean;, 1118
"We'y" Ii" good (OveJ"OmenL He'. a .COInpany'!\ poUoc,,¡ acIJon commiUee
Hcpublican and I'm a Re¡x¡blican. has contributed $34,901 1.0. boLh
"I U,ink u'e ¡(Uvemor. _ cor- DernoéraIs and Republbn.. in Ohio.
"eeL. Ohio shouldn'L be solving \,omJ""W eml~oyees donate lo·the
(w,,"I.<,) l'",blcm., of oUlcr sull.eo<." .p A~ and money jg Ulen funneW I.u
In rueL nine ",ontlu; an.cr VoIoo- "",d.1c>Lœ in ilia n3m. of the wn'p.-
vich's JU~U speech, Mid.AIÌ1erican ny, !'Piller than indlviùuaJs. .
stopl>ed accepüng ouW..ble \.I""h In addiüon, u'c PAC oonll;bu~
at. Its Faili1P.kl (',()lU1ty landfill. ed $¡¡6,OOO in 1991 and 1992 to·'.the
Mid-Arne"""" h.. heen R"ncr. Republican National ConlllliUee. ..
ous U) oU",. .k.."tc<1 ocrociaJs os well. StaI.c Sen. lien Espy, D-CoJum-
Columbus (~~y Council mem bel' bus, has booo the Iæ¡¡œt. Ohio I'eo;pi-
CiJ1(ly t..v..u'\U'I la."il ~. l't:\.tiVt:Ù äL
I",,,,L $29,000 f..",,, Mid·Amori""" Plea.. ... TRASH Pao. 2C ---.----.--,
... _ __. .... _nn ._ ... .".. . __,_u·"
TRASH frorn 1C
ont or Mld-Amolialn PAC lIIuney, ¡¡clJ.jn)( $IO,IW in C1uveland MD.,vtr-Mike-Whiw-rw.,¡y"n,I;OOO-"'"1
\!JD2; In I!J!)Z, the PAC ai"" donoted$7,GOO 1.0 Ul. Ohio yea from the PAC, and IJle Ohio fiOUSQ l\c¡Jublbn :
IX1",Ocmtic Port..o; $1,H34 I.u U.S. &on. John Glenn, a cauCUS 'ecdved $1,600 in l!nr¿ and 19'J3. :
Democrat.; $1,000 to LL Guv. Mike DeWine, Glenn's 1992
1ù.,1Ublican o J JonellL; and $1,000 1.0 U.S. llel>. .John Il Dispatch starr reporter Ste..e Stephens conlIibutea to
Kw;irJ,. R,. W..teJ'viltc. this stol)'.
I _
o ~JJ-
.-<---.--------..-- --.-
, S,!"day, April/7, 1994 .. .n.~"""".
Trash company with un bid
contract mired . trouble
In
¡;."", ...1 ...JI a ".'dl!\'~""""","ng company last )'@aI".
. LalV.~u~ and Qlhcr Iq,'ul pfubkmJ are Wb'Ù! ock_led~ in a 'eh,,¡ary .tatcmenl
"~ Md other t'OIIdition. rœuJlOO in all'" w.. "'L
part of /he trush-hauling busille.~~, the 'jfIU 01 $22.9 million, the sW.emcnt said,
Cana \#,¡çhC5ter company says, Unt Wbite" otoWMnt pI'Odi<WI UIAt u,¡, y....'.
6111111tW piÂlIl'O will ¡m )l'm.
Mid.Americar1'. b'Oubl", with Columbus enJpu.>d
11)'-- tJùa rnnrItI> wh... City C."n.,;l.,." M,O. Portnllll d""""·
."..¡ tIW. . 6....montl> unbid MIItI'IW!! witJ1 tIIo """J!ðIIY
Diywdt ."IT R<p<o1u tD ""yc:J. :m J'OI'<'OIIt of tJ1c ';~" IrMh w.. ,\òt. A¡>P¡"""'¡
(',ontrov....y hM ~ MkJ·run(:rkllll w..le Ay.· by cooncü. The oontract has bccJ\ ....p""'k:ù.
1<:.... ""co tJ\. ('..anal wtnd'~r ttMh d¡"pooaJ ""''' >allY PROBLEMS I!LSEWIIERE
_ f",ndPlI ..... II,". " ,.",,10 "JII'
TM "'"'("II1.v, I""ked In " dt.¡¡ule wi¡¡' Cnlumhu. Tho wmpany baR bsttIe<i FRiñ",]d Count,Y for yœrs
I!I't!r" $:I mill.... un bid ",nt>Mt. ..... fOlt!lllo<l h. J""""", ovur Mid-Amoricon'. ~ 1mvt611 """" A....,.¡.. Ohio,
IVS6 b,' CllI'i:oloplœr L. While ..d IJonold F. MoortI1tèd The OUllllt,y hllll oc..>re<i tro Mt11f'U1Y of ""!,<,lItcdly
Jr. """"y.ti!l j ÒOO 1oJ' than rogulwol1Q allow, of '.""'PUrIl!
A 6,yW'.o101 ..""wl """,Ii'R 1Iof.... U.S. ¡¡¡sm.l mo... tr..h lh.n .lIowod And of olho, ¡",oJlh ""Ii
.fudR" Jomæ L, Cmllmn ""l....l~ Whi!., ""d MM.....hMII anvin'mmRnW viobatinTIR.
of ohwitinR A rn..i~ pnrtoor to IIC<!U!IIulnl.o IIÙst1. up MId.A......... in th. I !1ij(). "'... aIæ moiüciood fOl'
""pital fOl' Mid.AlII""""". "",,"ptinJ! ....I (;"RAt ~ oj it.. A".."da londflll, Tho
, 'fhP ",it., r.1e<1 by Phillip M. \úù..wll nf DukJi.. t!Umrmny dÛlennfi"UM Ü\ð ~i~y in r"i.d-1000.
oont.... IIn u... April HI)![. .... of I:lllekoyo W",,1e ('"",!I'd A fod..mI pM j"pY in l!tI,vtön 1ol1l1cl\M an inY..,
of Mory.vUlú, Oh.., In I.nìdlow Woot.e System. uf Oh!u. ti¡¢.inn in J"ne 1110O into olJ..'gOti.>'''' ùf ""nill") ..,~-
K3Uc.~ f'>W1<1ed 11"01,,,)'(\ W..'1W in 1076 and hinN! tnJIIt. YÎnL.Ii.M by Mid ^n\e1i<N, 01\<1 oU.,.' u·..h J"µ...'
Mnnrohno<1 ~"d While. Lm WW1Ul1f\ IIr ¡¡'e boMh hlU,ling a1 ~1ft1'IMÍI"_~ P.(':rvin« the Ct'I'luI',b\lo'; ~'M.
in<lwtry, in Àplil :uxJ July of 1\184- C~)I't\pänY nlT..d~ ,ynWYI :\n:Y' wt'M~Wng. ~"w)(1-
Within " yaar, ¡¡'O .uit. :illoJ!l'R, While :uxJ Moon!· ing tJw aUl!¡.:HUOM n!fIwtP.d from a m¡"1Jn~'U'Kt;ng of A
hP:ui hod fo,,'Cd KJ.beiilo ..rt or i.h. "ompany'. montIg('. no-.."m¡",1.e aweemenl .i¡¡nod wh.n L,,;d law bonght
II1<!n~ olld ooJd Bl1I1ke.ye Wa.,Is: rnr . ",,,fit, of lip to Bwkt!jIO WUfItc!. No one hnn œcn ('I~ in t.he CfI::\(I.
$750,000, ¡¡", ""it "yJ . Th. mrnpany aJoo i. embroiled in . billl'r <lÍ> Jule
Whíl.e L1mtenrln that, ~ and Mool'P.hMll _11....1 0 Involving n 400·QC 'C ~ite it ""',.. un .. Indlan """""'3Ûon
L'Umbi...1 p",ilt or only $170,000, White and M",...hosd n= s.", Diogo. Neighboring ranchers cunL.nJ ¡¡,.
on~'eÙ in "ulCk ",",,~'L"¡iun, froud, fOI-gcry and I'IIeJæ- underground W"oIWr lhsI fL-.:dO lhe!r 'NOll. will I.. polluW
~riW: in taking cM:r fI! il,)mpany. tJ1p IUlit. aJ1e~. if Mi<I.Ameri<'.., It. all"wl:ù 10 "I",n " landfill nn the .i¡.,.
hiUo, ~h.'Ün}':U1 ahd chicl' CXa.."ULiVH OffiŒE or Micl- non"" 'wln¡", leader of a citizen.. ¡¡roup protmjug
Americoh, ...'<Iffed at Kab""lo'Q aJICfi:tions. the landfill, said, "'I'hlt. .. arid L'UW1try. You dnn'l rooì
YC<\l~ or luis_,mOÐt hy abenlo h."1d put Buek· 3I'OIII1d with wster."
"y" on the brink of bonknl¡1U:Y in 1II!I4, White l'aid, "It Mid.An"""'" '""" is on.........1 in a \ew1I diEll"¡"
W1IA . dillaAW"," Whitc ...1. "Wo !uod unpaid I....... bod< with In,koonville, FIa., uvor "1""""11 "løndiill ¡¡,......
tax..::! and no \\'OrkP.fR' rompen.Wion," In addition. Solon, Ohio, )'('Oiden{$. """,otJy hauo
HIGH-PERfORMANCE CaMPiin' ~ piMa tI:> c~pnnd . Mid·Amcri<!an dwn¡1 !nlo land
0\0II\ê<I by 1M C~"",I MoU'<>1''''''' .y.,",..,.
Gmw!h ""'" spœta<\~... fn.. 19H7 Ihmu¡¡h the end And Mayor Th."... V, J3an¡o" IIf Gary, Ind., in
of 1992, """"""in ¡ In "","ria 011 me wiLh ¡¡'e ILK l~m.hP.r ordered a twu-roonl11 halt. lo the clumpinp; of
Ser.1u;ÜC8 and ExchähJ.,'1:! Corrunhwnn. (1uwf-<!tate trolSh at Mid·ru""J"ie¡¡¡¡'. Gory landml aflor
. Rev..""" increased 20 tJm.. - U, $\(~;.9 million ill oomplaintß about operolÛuns at Lhe oile.
H"r¿, compared willi $8,2 11I1111u(1 in H1II7. PmirtR in-
CI"CJI>;eÙ r;¡; û...... tn $18.7 million in 1992, tho reþ<Jl1.' allY. luO CIAl, TIIOUILZ TO IE IXJ'IiÇT¡D
MÎlI.AnNII""'" nllw "(V'I'IIIM . $1& onilliðn 1'OO '<li~
plant at it. h.'d(~'al"'l"iI "t 1006 W. Walnut St., (:on: MKi-A.merican'!\ 1002 annua.l report W;U~ in\lœtol'S
Wir (~hetiler, and ~nlR h'tlSh for 40,000 midenlia1 CUR- lhiIt ~ .nbin¡tlomon.. and oppnoilioo ft'Om œmmUl1Í-
tom~t'g in l'ehtrW Ohtu. t.y 111''''1'' ~,wi¡¡' the t""'h-d..,.....",¡ tcrtitory.
It own. I..dml" and 1""¡'.h""Ii"~ œmpor.... in "AI< a ".<nlt or \lie .,ten..iYIJ ¡¡wornmcnt ,,~'U!"û<,n
nlh~r m~.". Mðtl'Ò~lIta1 IIJ'CUI~ Îllclul ill ( Cluvl'b,andl . " th. CnmlllllY JJ8IiorIk':iI y m:¡y horol1)A p,¡¡hjc<I. I"
AUIIll!a, PittRhul'Jth. Philadelphi., and tJ", Chica¡¡u-('.ary. \'ar1uua judidaJ and a.ri mini,.tmtivp. p1~e<1 ¡ngsl" tbc
Ind" ""'... It....i ÌR aIJAonp,tj:.\ to 0pe.nlond11Jls ..... s.;. report .,¡y..
IJiog<>, Cl1lif.. and Juokwn,,¡¡", In. WiIliIUTl ,I Rl'llwn. Mid.A"""'""n', .hi.f """n,,,1.
: White ""d otl,er Mid-American .......,ti""" hove >aid L";ÛÓ!Im of the cmnpany ÌR unfair. "I f tJ1.y wcre in
'øJLKMJ in Ow! mmr-'UtY ¡I\ ""N\ciaJ ~uc""~ REO ~JI"f'~ the bw:in"" of ...JIi!l j ohil<il"('i¡'. olnthillg, U1Cy \YOl~,j¡,'L
indicst& Tho Ia1.oot ~ """"" Whi~ h, 1992 w.. p..1 haY<! W1Y IIf ¡¡'in publi(;ty," HI'(IW11 ..0.1.
~7út,714. De.... 1'. Uhw'll, Miff· An","",,', CXó<UUvo The cmnf""y'. IW,004).'"1''II>'C·foot """yeUng plonl
'.roo >I'I¥IidAnt, _""y ".d I",,,.,,",r, modo $(MlI,7f.4 In CIIllIII W..obootor. which bogon nponllinnA in M...m
. in 1m. \Iu¡ "'I'ut 11111<l nhe__ Mnm'(1l1ood i. no longor J!~ 3, and ~ .imilv S10 mUlion fæility h. 0'0 CIo."",lnnd
with the ooml1MY, Rnhueb of Oakwood, pI""'o Mid·AlI",.'iooI1 ie. alt.wnl.tin¡¡
11<_, lhø "'pi(! ¡¡rowth J",eléd oIT..... yt!W'. to bo1\MthQ QnVÌl'OnlllèJ\l While HUid. .
: Mid,Az1UII'Ú!IIn "".>riM .......UN of SIGD,G nillJ¡"", a " .... splOl mol'<! ôn I'OðyelÜII: hI Fl'anklin C,,,,,,ly
'~I"t.iv@-ty low 2'IJêrt..unl inl'1"QQS.A nvøt' 1U1)2. A 90n. t.hAn .nyhody, in<'udi.g tI,o autbority," White ,.oJd,
Konomy. inf:!7'(\U@d gt)Vl.rnrncmL rcKWalionn onrl ntiIT ....f"''l'inR It> tho Solid Wn.'1W A\ltllörity of C..nlnf Ohio.
cmnl1AliIJlln r"m,1 the ""m,..IOY (0 re¡Ù'\IOUU'O upoto- which uponil.. Lho city', truh_hu''!IÍ'1>: \OIII." pi"\!.
. ?-33 I
' nOYitable that the mlatakel WO\lIQ De 0'.' wwa.y ."'__.... "--r--,,-
.^"....Ii ThAI'O. ar. nn dlacemlble motives money an.d Ita managere are baek on the
I
I
....... ....-.......- !~,.':.. ¿ :,,~~,,:··"';!:.I... ,,~"~~~;;:,;..¡".~ ~;~:';:", ..,,; '~'--. ---
1;\ .:~tŒ~Iº~b,u~)Illsþátrh ,.\.: J
., Friday" ··,.~\ï.,:>::··:1
. : :; .; d:''-:'''~; -Ii': ':~: "1
:ÑL4Y 22, 1992: - '.!
~:. ~:_~_.-. ~:::~.:~:·,·~~~~~.4';:);~:~:~:,~ci~·.¿.;~'3( ,~_jJ.;:.~
~ MID-AMERICAN FINISHES NOTE PLACEMENT "
I -, - ",,-_=_,8_< ,,,_ "" 'j
I cómpleted the private placement of $85 million in
I . unBecured senior notes. The, debt is in two series,
I , ohè:for $40 million at 8.70 percent due in 1999, and
-. . ~.,. "j '" ·..,.oñe for $4S'1nillion:at 9.08 perœnt, due in 2002."1 ,
J:_~.!1,~i",:~::.~,.'I-'~.~) _,,,!,,,- ;).'10' ....
:._'.....~."""!',...~..,..., ._~', '. "r'~ - --..l'!tt!!t":tt
1 1~;;'Qf1~~:\. ~~: !_...·...;f·1i,·,_~~l'Jo:·~1 w~'~.~-j¡3.~~'~;1
<," ':""...., .,¡,o.j....).J)-J1< ""'-;,,,,,,,-1;-., ·",~.J.h~". ;v,',.:- d('," ,-' ·····~"'\1.'''.,v~......,.... '":' ,,:"<__,_,..:..~ ~--_._-
I ' ..~ wIle Q[olum~,u~ÆI$p~tr!Ç'?~? i", ETHICS IN QÙESTION
:. . " Questions' are arising over the. ethics
. . Mondayi¥~;¡';:~·:..+~'~,J , ' . of landfill: companies making deals
:jûNé1'7Ì992':¥S~,~:::i: ;;.;.;J , .' with commwúties in which tilcy ,,¡ant'
: "h,':' .~ ,.,. ...." '..::" <, ~n.~'" :',:.~"r:r"¡ ~.~~'!:;,~~:i "";'; to start or expand a landfill / 58 . .
....~"'.~..~..1>~~f~~~ '$':'['" ; .', ,.;.J{.~",)-\j
'~:':f!;';:i.~~~j:";¿'jt"·J',~~:~:::Jk'~,,j~J¡' ·;'1:.,:::')j (ùi:,' '" . .~-.-.". "',' ,.. ,1;.,....,. '.
. "1. n':':-¡·r:.."t·"";t·h':..ib~.j~~:-:r ¡.. j'ë.'7:~.~ -òI~~'~ r<-¡".~ ' . ".,...·"···..·~'-F_~. YT" \ ...¡ ',"'0> '-~'."
f Offici4J;::~~X~:¡ \li$:',yQt~~~~~orth '$30, OOO~,,'··:·:~;~
, I' j ," I '. _' "~ ....,. . . ~ . , ' ,
By Scott Powers,"' , ..' .'\ " 'ì't· .<, age' was considered, Beckner voted, offer was' made. No. one e.'pl"CSSly,
Dopatell ElHiroIlII"'lI Rrparter '.",.'.. ,~.t .1~:¡>,.-yes,' even though he 'previously h,,'¡ disputed Beckner's version.
;" .:: ,··:,tr' :':,:"" '~".; been~ opposed to the package. He If Beckner's version is right, thc:
, 'Did Mid-American :WasteSys-..' said he voted yes so the county could· deai may have slumbled onto new
,tems offer Vrnton County $30,000, get the other $30,000.':'" ,,' .' legnl ground in Ohio - rewnrding.,
'just tIJ secure County Commissioner n;:' Beckner said so last 'Augùst in" a ' individual votes with gifts to; an:
,Jrunes Becluler's vote? "~:' <:.,:~,. :. :t; letter he sent to William C. Martin, a agency- say represcntatives of·
Beckner says the· Canal 'Wm:, Jackson County Common Pleas both the Ohio attorney general's
'chester-based company' did, and, judge who' protested the plan. At, offit'C and tile Ohio Et11ics Commis-;
says th"t is why he joined the other, tempting to defend himself agninst . sion.
. t\\"o Vmton county commissionel's to ,. . Martin's' criticism, Beckner 'wrote, Viuton County, officials· said·
unanimously approve a "community: :'My vote 'made this agreement no Prosecutor Greg Gosling opposcd.
benefits package": offered:;by,. ~d-J more binding, only more financially the deal, but repeated calls to him,
. Ammican. "", ,',.;.:",. rewarding for 'the county."·; '. from The Dispatch went unan·;
The company is seeking, Ohio' ":' Beckner repe¡\ted the'. assertion b"Wered.'· , . . ,"
Environmental Protection Agency in..an interview' with Tlui Dú,palch . Melissa A. Warheit, executive
aPPl'Ovai for a conlroversial,landfill ',last'.week,'saying, "I couldn't see" director of the Ohio Ethics Commis:,
in Vinton County. . \ .., '" ...,,, penalizing the county $30,000 based sion, said, "We don't have any pl1.'<:e-
~. The ben~ts package offered to . 'on my personal feeJings." ,. dent on this kind of issue." .
,the county: rn exchange fon·locaL,s',> Mid.American·,'officials and' oth-'F ' .. R ,Jay Roberts, vice president
cooperation,: Beckner>:said,ywould, :: kr\Vmton " County "officiais 'conœcted', of Mid-American's hmdfill opera'
have p,l'Ovided$80,OOO cas~' ,to·th~;/ bt'The''Dispatch, would not confumi tions: said he doubts the company
county s board 'of corr!,ms~lOners.., whether ,the', $80,000 offer. .was' con- ,: offm-ed more money for mOl'C votes,
. fWld if tile package was ~~usly . tingenton unanimous support.. Some.. but said he was not involved in ail of.. ,,'.
.. accepted, b~tonly $50,00o.,if¡t'W<IS...J!SÌd':'they:doubt.it, but added that" the negotiations. "In no way do ~~.
, acœpted by a 2;-1 vote~,,,~~~ : theY'.couJdiriot. remember;: how .the . attempt to buy votes," he said.' , "
'i On May 6,I991:cWhen'the,pack';"~' ',"',. .":",,,',~,¡:'I". ,,'. . ,'.' .' ,
,,~, .'"-''1:''' ,·:,.,..1;i.';~/:I~~\~y;:\,ç;r.4.'!~ [.- .. ..
~-JY
~------_..-
"- H_~
lfJlt'(folnmbIl501511;'f(1I Page 5 B
'landfill companies' deals
raise . ethical questions
~
By Scott Power. And some people are wondeling. ticipating Mahoning County agen-
DìspillCh EII\'Ùrmm£III'RcfX»1er whether the deals (CallL'(\ "host com- cies agreed not to HSUPPOlt, encoLU'-
munity benefits packages") provide age or pm1icipate in" 'my challenge
Vìnton County commissioners landfùl L'Ompanies an opp0l1unity to of Browning-Ferlis' long·tcl"rn Jand-
were faced lnst yem' \\;th a simple capit:ùize on a local. govemment's fill plan, which is awaiting a decl,ion
de,ù: If they wOlùd be opeo-minded needs. - particulm'ly in fmancially by the Ohio EPA.
to\\"m'd a company that wanted to st.mpped communities such as Vin- The Vinton deal included no
build a kmdml there, the company ton County - for a chance to silence . such "shut.-up" clause, and at lem;t
would sweet.en tile de,ù \I;th cash, officl'ù focal opposition em·ly. o~e commissioner, Beckert, main-
]<\11(1 :md promises of futw'e mvenue. Agnes Mm1in of Jacbon, Ohio, Uúns he opposes the landUII's pro-
All that Mid-Americm Waste an opponent of the Vinum. County posed site. Nonetheless, Mm1in ~c-
Systems, a CanalWmchester com- landml proposal, calls it "buying out cused ti1e y'm~n deal and ?,thers like
pany, asked in retwl1 was a pledge local govemment coopemtion," It of bemg anti-democratIc.
from the county' commissioners that But Mike Pat.ton, a \;Ce pl'esi-· . "To me, this is buying inDuence.
lhey wOlùd provide a "po....;: ive WOl'k~ dent with Mid-AmClica calls it a bUYing our government, wh(~n we
ing }'clationship,tI ' don't have the same access," i>.1~utin
Fol' (ha~ Mid-Ame.i an pl'om- . said. "I'm not just singling out :-"lid-
i:-;<1 to ~i\'c the con1lni",i, ~CI" fund "This is buying influence, Amelican. The other~.; do it, a,~ well, I
$,;0,000 lllllllcdmlcly a",! lollow U",t buying our govel71men( !inel it cOI1'Upl"
\"\1th grnnt,s to the board of health, a J' J Palton Raid landlïll rJf)(~rat rJl':;
,te",lv annual l'evenue stI'Cam of at when we don t have {¡1e arc jURt trying hardcr to be po~jU\,~
least' .$95,000, donations of excc," same access. . . . I find Íl co1110l'atc citizens in the communi·
I:md ,md lll'Omises on how U,e Jam fiU . " ties in which they opel'ate, Oth"l'
would operate and what kiíul of tI'!ISh C017Up!.. . . busincR.."ies make donations to UH'ir
it would take. Agnes Maltm commuruties, m1d !andmls pl'ohahly
. In southeast Olno, tJle pl'Oposed opposes landfill deals need to do more, he said,
Vinwn Jandfill is eontI'Ovel'Sial be- If you propose a landfill. he said.
cause it would be located dU'eetJy good citi7.enship gestw'e. "it.'s a nat.W'al outgrowth that )'ou'l'e
abo\'c the m-ea's only large (hinking- Ohio and fedel<ù law caU it leg-ill. hated and. despised by the people
watcl' aqtùfm', But MelL<;sa A. Wm'heil, eXl'CU- around you. 'That's .not a good \vay to
But Mitl'Amedca's request for a tive dh'ectol' of the Ohio Ethics Com- do busine,s, .., Wc pl'efe,' to be
1C11nil will be decided hy the Ohio mission, says it is a gray, untested sUl'rounded by f,·iends. Ha\;ng a
Envil'onmental Protection Agency m'Ca of govel11ment ethics. common economic· intercst ahraYR
- nut the Vinton County com mis- And the Ohio ¡';PA, which ulti- helps." ,
sioners, mately decides all landfùl pel1nits, Ohio EPA's Vaughn Laughlin.
Thus, the commissioners 1'eSS- says it is none of its business, who, unti1 recently, was chirf of the
oned, Mid-A1ne.;can's desu'C fO!' 10- The landfill industry says it is solid wac;te section, said the Hg'ency
cal u(;oopcration" was prncticul1y becoming an increasingly common eneotU"Sges landfill' 01",,,,t01" and 10-
worthks~, nnd the <.'ompany's offcl'"d practice, . eal officials to work \I;th each other,
were \'i1tual gifts for the L'Gunty. So,' And word is getting around, so but does not necess,-u'i!y sllgge:-;t t11:lt
last May tJ¡ey'voted to accept t.he local gove¡l1ment officials m'e insist.- they stIike any deals. .
cash and other benefits. ing on mOJ'e and bigger host. eommu- Still, LaugWin noted the lod
"It wa.c; p~ùd out of thc goo<1nc~... nity benefits packages' from the dca]s usually involve at I(~ast a few
of their \}(':n1s," ~ùd Vinton Count.y landfill companies. environmental issues, and thal tan
ConHHisôiuner DellJelt Pe,,·y. "But The d",ùs c,m be initiated by clem' up key lli'pute, herore the)' I,,,t
the Vinton County commissioners either side. Sometimes they m'e up- to the Ohio EP A. Both the Vinton
have. not :.t any tune voted on the: fmnt om".,;, as in Vinton County, and Mahoning deals, for example,
hmclhll Sltmg, nor do we mlVe any and sometimes they come .,s a result limit . the Imldtills' how"" of operation
intention to," . of lawsuit settlements. and the routes to be taken by trucks.·
"'.\~1at they got in l'etW", really, In Mahoning Count.y, a lawsuit Opposition to a landfdl - or the
in terms of anything tangible, is against. Bl'owning-Fel1'Ìs IndustI;es lack of it - can ulfluence the Olno
nothing," Commissioner James over a landml. plan ''esult.ed in a EPA when it is .'e\;e\\;ng a landfùl
I Bedmer. . ¡:kage last year that \\'Ould provide pe¡mi~ Laughlin sajd,
Not. e\'eryone thinks so. oeJ.l goVel11ments there \\lith several But if the 0 hio E P A founcl that
The de,ù iIlusboated a tempting million dollm'S in cash and public a J,,",ù deal stifles local OI'IXJ,ition,
but potentially awkward position works projects, and· pôtentially sev- that. WOlùd not necessmilv be a con-
that 1l101'C and more local offici,Ùg m-e eml ,nillion· dollal'S mOI'e in serviL'C cem to t.he agency, LaÙghlin said,
finding themselves in: deciding gual'antees. "The ~ehruanl we na\'c hc '(~ i;.;
whether their cOlmty OJ' townslnp .01' The beneficial;es even included the pel1nit," Laughlin· ~ai(1. "\Ve're
city ur soiid w;lSte disb;ct. should an anti-landfùl citizens group,· caUed going to make sure that permit t J ./
arccpt gifts and scrvice promises Don't Use My Proj1el1y, which got meets all the em'ironmental re~'1Ùa. / 3
from companips that wHnt to open 01' $GO,060 in t.he deal. . tiun, Thi¡..; !oc;ù agreement L;.; ~f)illg to
explll1f111\I1dfLIJ~; In exchange. tne ¡'O'OUP and pm'- be completely out,ich, that."
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 4/26/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I 7l/ 6 f Appropriating funds and accepting contract
for the installation of parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north
of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works r
REVIEWED BY: City Manager Jb 41 ~ (4/5ths Vote: YesLNo-->
On June 8, 1993, City Council by Resolution No. 17136 awarded a contract in the amount of
$248,000 (including contingencies) to JSA Engineering, Inc. for the installation of the parallel
sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street. The work
is now complete.
Prior to the start of work, it was discovered that a water line was in direct conflict with the
proposed sewer line which required the plans to be modified. A new alignment was designed
for the sewer main. At that time, the Contractor requested additional compensation for
differences in the new alignment from the alignment which was originally bid. The Contractor
was directed to start work and that any actual differences from the original alignment would
be handled on a time and materials basis in accordance with the contract specifications. The
redesign of the sewer line along with prolonged negotiations with the contractor resulted in
staff costs which exceeded the original budgeted amounts. The net effect of all of the above
result in the entire project cost exceeding the appropriated funds by approximately $31,000.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution approving the following:
1. Appropriate $31,403.21 from the fund balance of 222-Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve
Fund to the Parallel Sewer Industrial BoulevardlPalomar to Anita Street Project Account
SW -202 to cover staff costs.
2. Accept the contract work completed by JSA Engineering for the parallel sewer in
Industrial Boulevard from Palomar to Anita Street.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
At the preconstruction conference, prior to the start of work, it was discovered that an existing
water line was in direct conflict. The existing water line occupied the same location as the
proposed sewer line. The original water line information supplied to the City was in error, but
was not verified by City staff prior to the design of the sewer facility. Upon verification of
the correct location of the water facilities, the Engineering Design Section relocated and
redesigned the trunk sewer down Industrial Blvd. This redesign called for an additional
manhole. Upon receipt of the newly designed sewer line plans, the contractor, JSA
Engineering requested additional compensation from the City for changes in the plan totalling
$46,641.10. JSA's claim for additional compensation was due to the change in the availability
7"'/
"~",... .._...__."._--_._-~.-------_._~,_._-~-_.._._-,_.-
Page 2, Item-.L
Meeting Date 4/26/94
of work space, the traffic control handling, and overall loss of productivity. This cost did not
include any material changes, such as additional manholes, extended length of the sewer pipe
or additional asphalt concrete. JSA's claims for additional compensation were denied and he
was directed to proceed with the work and that any changes from the original bid would be
handled on a time and materials basis provided the contractor could demonstrate a substantial
change from the original bid design. Extra costs, due to the change, amounted to $4,850.64
and is covered by contract Change Order NO.2.
During the excavation for new sewer line in the intersection of Anita Street and Industrial
Blvd. a large portion of the trench collapsed, which was unable to be shored due to crossing
utilities. This collapse endangered an 8" water main, which was running parallel to the new
sewer line, and the contractor was directed to fill the collapsed area with slurry (which is a mix
of cement and sand) to insure that the water main would not be damaged. This necessitated
an additional relocation of 300 feet of the sewer line to provide additional separation between
the sewer and water line. It should be noted that there are two separate waterlines in Industrial
Blvd. One labeled as an SW, which was originally a salt water line, which is now a potable
water line and an additional 8" water line both of which are owned by Sweetwater Authority.
This additional shift in the sewer line also accounted for one additional manhole for the total
of two additional manholes for the entire project. The contractor was due additional
compensation for this work because work was halted due to the waterline which was not shown
on the original bid plans. Compensation associated with the trench cave-in at the intersection
of Anita and Industrial Blvd. was paid for through Change Order No. I in the amount of
$8,838.51. The relocation of 300 feet of the sewerline also resulted in an increase in the
quantities of asphalt pavement. This was caused by widening the trench area from that of the
original alignment. The pavement had been previously ground off along the new alignment
as well as the addition of a small sliver area in between (see attached plan drawing No. 93-36).
It is estimated that additional pavement for this section amounted to approximately 170 tons
of asphalt concrete material.
An additional 200 tons of asphalt material is accounted for in the increased width of the trench
from that shown on the plans. The plans show a trench width of 32" wide for installation of
a IS" sewerline. Due to the depth of the main and the shoring requirements, the minimum
trench width which is constructable is 48" wide. This increased trench width accounted for
approximately 209 tons of additional asphalt material from that of the original bid. Total
asphalt concrete used on the project was 829 tons. From a sewer design standpoint we attempt
to dig as narrow a trench as possible for cost and trench strength reasons. Because of the
debth of the trench, the contractor couldn't get shoring that would fit in the narrow trench.
Staff agreed that a 4 foot trench was necessary and the contractor paid for the extra earthwork,
but staff agreed to pay for the extra asphalt. The original bid amount of asphalt concrete was
for 450 tons.
The total overrun of the existing contract due to the above mentioned items is approximately
$17,000. Overruns in staff costs and relocation costs for water facilities resulted in the entire
project cost exceeding the appropriated funds by $31,403.21.
7...,;.
- - -_.----~,-_.._,......_--_. ...._-----_._._-----~------
Page 3, Item 7
Meeting Date 4/26/94
During the FY 90-91 ClP process, $38,200 was allocated for City staff design and construction
costs. At the time of award, an additional $15,000 was allocated for construction costs and
engineering inspection staff time. Due to the amount of additional time required to rectify the
problems encountered, staff costs totaled $85,205.35. The financial statement contains a
breakdown of all costs associated with the project including construction costs, staff costs,
water relocation expenses, and soil testing. The total deficit due to the above mentioned
factors is $31,403.21.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
I. Appropriated Funds (SW-202) $331,386.41
II. Contract Amount as Awarded including contingencies $248,000.00
III. Actual Expenditures
A. Construction Costs
1. Original Contract plus change order costs $265,214.15
2. Water Relocation Expense (Sweetwater $3,545.50
Authority)
3. Soil Testing (Law/Crandall) $8,824.62
B. Staff Costs *$85,205.35
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $362,789.62
IV. Total Funds Required $31,403.21
"'includes 2.59 full cost recovery factor
FISCAL IMPACT: Additional funds are available in the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve
Funds #222. Upon acceptance, only routine maintenance will be required.
DCD/AR-034 WPC F:\HOMElENGINEER\AGENDA \paraJ2.sew
7.-;>
___.._..____. .. ._____.,._,.._..._._w_·...,_._·_·~___~·_·..·_··___ .
RESOLUTION NO. /7lf/,f
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND ACCEPTING
CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PARALLEL
SEWER IN INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD FROM NORTH OF
PALOMAR STREET TO SOUTH OF ANITA STREET
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1993, city Council by Resolution No.
17136 awarded a contract in the amount of $248,000 (including
contingencies) to JSA Engineering, Inc. for the installation of the
parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street
to south of Anita Street and the work is now complete; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the start of work, it was discovered
that a water line was in direct conflict with the proposed sewer
line which required the plans to be modified; and,
WHEREAS, at that time, the Contractor requested
additional compensation for differences in the new alignment from
the alignment which was originally bid; and,
WHEREAS, the Contractor was directed to start work and
that any actual differences from the original alignment would be
handled on a time and materials basis in accordance with the
contract specifications; and,
WHEREAS, this change in the contract along with exceeding
the asphalt pavement bid item quantity resulted in an overrun of
the construction contract of approximately $17,000; and,
WHEREAS, in addition, at the time of award, estimates for
staff costs were low and no funds were allocated for soil testing
and water relocation expenses; and,
WHEREAS, the net effect of all of the above result in the
entire project cost exceeding the appropriated funds by approxi-
mately $31,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $31,403.21 from the
fund balance of 222-Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to the
Parallel Sewer Industrial Boulevard/Palomar to Anita Street Project
Account SW-202.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council of the City
of Chula vista does hereby accept the contr ct wor completed by
JSA Engineering for the parallel sewer in I u tria ulevard from
Palomar to Anita Street.
Presented by it
&.
John P. Lippitt, Director of d, City
Public Works
C:\rs\paral1el.sew 7-1
_____.._+_ -.-__._..._ p. .".____._.,.__...h_'. _ __+___.~__..·___·.w.·__,·__·_____
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ¡/
Item
Meeting Date 4/26/94
/?,/¿¡'
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Appropriating $12,200 to support the expansion of the
Community Pride Fair, and evaluating the City's Community Festivals
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreatio~
REVIEWED BY: City Managerg (4/Stbs Vote: Yes ..x.. No-->
On April 27, 1993, the City Council directed staff to complete an evaluation of the 1993 Cultural Arts
Festival/Community Pride Fair and Fourth of July Fireworks event, to determine the feasibility of
combining the two events in the future. On January 4, 1994, Council directed staff to develop a
recommendation for the necessary staffing and resources to conduct an International Friendship Festival.
This report evaluates the 1992 and 1993 Cultural Arts Festivals, and the 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks
event, discusses similar events that are conducted by other cities in San Diego County, and analyzes the
impacts of combining both.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. direct staff to conduct the Cultural Arts Festival entitled "Festival of the Sun" and Community
Pride Fair as separate events in 1994, and expand the Fourth of July Event by adding a
Community Pride theme; and
2. appropriate $12,200, in FY 93/94 to support the expansion of the Fourth of July/Community
Pride Fair; and
3. support integrating both events (Cultural Arts Festival and Community Pride Fair) with the
Fourth of July Fireworks event for future years.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On August 10, 1993, the Cultural Arts
Commission voted to recommend that the Cultural Arts Festival and the Community Pride Fair continue
to be conducted separately. Similarly, on August 19, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the two events be conducted separately.
On January 17, 1994, the International Friendship Commission stated they were not interested in planning
and implementing a large special event. However, they supported the concept of incorporating some of
the components of an International Friendship Festival into either the Community Pride Fair or the
Cultural Arts Festival.
DISCUSSION: On January 25, 1993, during their goal setting session, the City Council requested that
staff explore the possibility of combining the Community Pride Fair with the Fourth of July celebration
(or another City-wide celebration). City staff returned with a report to Council on April 27, 1993,
recommending that the 1993 Community Pride Fair be conducted separately from the 1993 Fireworks
event, since planning and date selection had already been completed for the 1993 Community
Pride/Cultural Arts Fair. Council approved the recommendation, but requested staff to evaluate both
events, and return to Council with a report making a recommendation for combining the events in future
years. In somewhat related action, during their meeting on January 4, 1994, Council directed staff to
wp\festival.1l3[April 21, 1994] ~'I
_....._._.__^_."_____.,_.~.._..._._______"__.~.._...._..~__..__._._.____.M._"^
Item y
Meeting Date 4/12/94
develop a recommendation for the necessary staffing and resources to conduct an International Friendship
Festival. The following information is some background on the history of festivals conducted by this
Department, an evaluation of the 1993 Fourth of July celebration, and a summary of the City of El
Cajon's International Friendship Festival.
Historv
1992 Cultural Arts Festival: In response to a growing community interest in the Arts, the Cultural Arts
Commission and City staff organized and implemented the first Cultural Arts Festival in May of 1992.
The central theme of the event was a celebration of the City's cultural diversity. The focal event of the
Festival was a special event conducted along Third Avenue, between "E" and "G" streets. The street
event included three stages featuring musical entertainment, and dance demonstrations by a wide variety
of ethnic groups, along with art displays, arts and crafts vendors, and vendors featuring various ethnic
foods. A children's activity area provided arts-related activities for youngsters. The overall attendance
at Arts Festival was estimated between 5,000 and 6.000. Funding for the Festival came from a number
of sources, including $4,000 from the City. The Cultural Arts Commission assisted the Department in
securing a number of donations from organizations wishing to support the Festival. Approximately
$11,000 was received in donations and in-kind services beyond the $4,000, which Council approved to
fund the event. Based upon community and Commission input and the level of public attendance, it
appeared as though this was a successful event.
1993 Cultural Arts Festival - A Celebration of Community Pride: In light of the success of the 1992
Cultural Arts Festival, the Department, in cooperation with the Cultural Arts Commission decided that
another festival should be held in 1993. However, this particular festival incorporated a Community
Pride Fair concept. The Cultural Arts Commission voted not to become involved in the day-to-day
planning and implementation of the 1993 Festival. This action was attributed to the immense amount of
time the Cultural Arts Commissioners devoted in making the 1992 Festival a success.
The 1993 Festival was broadened and slightly modified from the previous year. For example, the event
site was concentrated in the immediate area of Memorial Park. In addition, there were events at both
indoor and outdoor venues, utilizing Parkway Gym, Parkway Community Center, and the Women's Club,
as well as Memorial Bowl and the surrounding park. Three activity stages were programmed throughout
the day, featuring musical entertainment, dance demonstrations, and other activities and performances.
The number of art displays was increased by approximately 50 %, and several artisans demonstrated their
respective trades on site.
The success of the 1993 event was demonstrated by the level of interest, involvement, and diversity of
the participants. For example, the number of community groups, both non-profit and for profit, greatly
increased at the 1993 Festival. Several City departments also provided informational booths at the event.
Attendance at the event was estimated between 7,000 - 8,000. Further, the Festival attracted and
involved a diverse ethnic mix of participants and spectators. The 1993 event was supported by funds
from the Community Pride Fair ($4,000), donations from the private sector and in-kind services
amounting to approximately $5,000.
1993 Fourth of July Fireworks: The 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks event was a great success.
Participation rates were estimated between 15,000-20,000 people. Spectators began arriving at 5:30 AM
and "claiming" picnic spaces. Parking lots in all bayfront parks were filled to capacity by 10:30 AM,
as was available on-street parking throughout the area. The Rohr Industries parking lots which served
as overflow parking were half filled by mid-afternoon and to capacity by show time. All available picnic
wp\fcstival.1l3[April 21,1994] 2 8"'';;''
.._._~.,_..- - ------.--.---. ...... _.._._-------~.._--_.._..._._"...,----~.._-------
Item <¡'
Meeting Date 4/12/94
and grass areas were being utilized by 2:00 PM. The heaviest impact of vehicles and pedestrians started
at approximately 6:00 PM, and continued until 9:00 PM. Traffic Was extremely congested immediately
following the eVent, as some 4,000 vehicles exited the area. To ease the congestion, the Transit Division
shuttled approximately 4,000 spectators into and out of the area.
International Friendship Festival in EI Cajon: The City of EI Cajon has conducted an International
Friendship Festival for the past three years. The event was financed by the City of EI Cajon at a cost
of approximately $20,000. In addition, EI Cajon provides a full-time staff administrator to coordinate
and overSee the project, which is two full days in length. This is an interdepartmental event involving
all City Departments taking an active role in the organization and implementation of the program. The
Festival's goals include the involvement of a vast diversity of ethnic groups. At last year's Festival, there
were booths displaying arts, crafts and food. Additional funding is provided each year by private donors.
Although there are some similarities between Chula Vista's events and EI Cajon's event, each event is
unique. Staff has also presented the Community Pride Fair concept to the International Friendship
Commission. The International Friendship Commission believes that an attempt to duplicate EI Cajon's
event in Chula Vista is somewhat redundant and would detract from both events, in that the EI Cajon
event is regional in nature. Staff envisions that a Chula Vista event with an international flavor has
potential to command county-wide attention, if it is designed with certain unique qualities rather than
being a duplicate of EI Cajon's event. To this end, certain components of EI Cajon's International
Friendship Festival should be integrated into the City's Fourth of July Festivities and Community Pride
Fair.
Pros of CombinilU! the Commnnitv Pride Fair with the Fonrth of Julv
The advantages of combining the Community Pride Fair and the July Fourth celebration include the fact
that a very large crowd would be attracted to the event site to participate in one or both of the activities.
A Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair event would provide organized activities for fireworks spectators
who normally spend the day entertaining themselves. The addition of organized and scheduled activities
would also draw a larger crowd into the area earlier in the day, possibly easing the impact of the influx
of a large number of people shortly before the fireworks show begins. Another distinct advantage of
combining events would be the reduction in administrative and logistical planning for the event. The
planning and organizational effort involved in producing successful large scale events is substantial, and
the combination of events would decrease the time involved with this process significantly. City supplies
and services could also be combined (traffic control equipment, no-parking signs, portable toilets, etc.)
thus reducing the cost of utilizing these items for two separate events. Publicity for the events would also
be consolidated, and the City would be able to take greater advantage of radio and print media
sponsorship.
Cons of Combininl! the Commnnitv Pride Fair with the Fonrth of Julv
A primary concern of combining the events on July Fourth is the availability and willingness of groups
and individuals to participate in the Community Pride Fair on the July fourth holiday. Groups from the
Elementary school district, high school district, and Southwestern College are typically not active during
the summer months. These groupS have played key roles in the success of the Cultural Arts Festival in
the Spring. For example, the School of Creative and Performing Arts from Chula Vista High School
conducted a highly successful Children's Activities area for the past two years at the Festival. Staff
polled a number of the participants from last year's Cultural Arts Festival regarding their willingness to
wp\fesûval.1l3[April 21, 1994] 3 8" ;I
..._._,._^__"..______.__..~..u. _.'m~__._" ..___.___..__________
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/12/94
participate in an event conducted on July Fourth. Of the groups polled (35), approximately 60%
indicated that they would not be willing or able to participate in an event conducted on July Fourth.
The Police Department has also expressed concerns regarding a combined event. The Police Department
is heavily impacted during the Fourth of July, due to a high law enforcement profile necessary throughout
the day and evening. The Police Department's resources are further strained due to the Fourth of July
holiday being a City Hard Holiday, which entails additional overtime expenses for regular duty officers
(This concern applies to Parks and Recreation and Public Works staff as well). Finally, the additional
programmatic components of a Community Pride Fair would require additional funding and staff
resources.
Staff Recommendation
For this year, staff is proposing two separate events: a Cultural Arts Festival - "Festival of the Sun",
conducted on May 21, 1994, and a Community Pride Fair on July 4, 1994.
The Festival of the Sun would be a multi-faceted, one day, outdoor celebration featuring the art, culture,
and folklore of the ancient Mayan, Aztec, and Inca Mesoamerican civilizations. Individual events would
feature arts and crafts vendors, cooking demonstrations, performing arts presentations, and visual arts
exhibitions. The City, in collaboration with multiple agencies, including the performing arts schools of
Kellogg Elementary and Chula Vista High school, would provide diverse opportunities to celebrate this
culture. Children's activities would be centrally located into a special area that would feature hands-on
workshops, games, and a children's performing arts stage. Multi-cultural entertainment would be
provided throughout the event.
The Community Pride Fair would be conducted in conjunction with the Fourth of July event. It is
envisioned that family-oriented activities would be conducted between 1:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the
bayfront area. These activities would include two separate entertainment stages featuring dance
demonstrations and musical performances by a wide variety of groups, food and beverage concessions,
games, contests, and races, and other related outdoor activities. Local service groups, clubs, and
businesses would be encouraged to participate in the event, along with professional concessionaires and
entertainers.
In light of the intense resources expended for the Cultural Arts Festival and the resource needs for a
Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair concept, both programs should be combined. In other words, the
Cultural Arts Festival would no longer be held, effective FY 94/95, and all staff and support resources
would be devoted to enhancing the Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair. The Fourth of July Fair would
then serve as the event to celebrate Community Pride and the City's rich cultural diversity.
The $4,000 allocated by the City for FY 93-94 would be used to partially offset the costs of the Festival
of the Sun on May 21, 1994. Additional funding would be provided by private donations solicited by
the Cultural Arts Commission.
$4,000 in the proposed FY 94/95 budget would be used for the Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair in
July, along with the additional $12,200 requested in this report. A breakdown of the additional funds
requested is attached (Attachment D). $10,000 of this allocation will be used to provide paid
entertainment, as the availability of unpaid entertainment is limited on this holiday. The limitations
include minimal access to middle and high school performing groups, performing groups participating
in competing events (Del Mar) and unwillingness of non-profits and service groups to participate on the
wp\fesûvaU13[April 21, 1994} 4 8"~
-"-.. -- -- -----~----_._.----- "....__.._--~--._"_..._._----_..-
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/12/94
holiday. Staff will strive to enlist community support for this event but feel that professional
performances must be obtained to ensure the quality of the event.
Staff will be approaching the San Diego Unified Port District for partial funding of the event. The
proposal will include the cost of all musical entertainment for the event ($8,000). Port District funding,
however, is not guaranteed at this point, and the budget for the musical entertainment is included in the
request for allocation.
FISCAL IMPACT: $27,570 was allocated for the 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks event. Actual
expenditures incurred for the 1993 event was $28,666, which is broken down as follows: Fireworks
$16,500; Barge $1,925; Barricades $491; Portable Toilets $1,159; Shuttle Service $1,350; Police $6,180;
Park Maintenance $600; and Recreation staff and supervision $150. It is anticipated that a similar amount
would be required to duplicate last year's event. Staff is requesting an allocation of $12,200 from the
unappropriated balance of the General Fund to supplement the activities for the 1994 Fourth of July
Community Pride Fair. This is in addition to the $4,000 proposed to be budgeted for the 1994
Community Pride Fair.
Attachments: A - Cultural Arts Commission Minutes ~93
B - Parks and Recreation Commission' - August 19, 1993
~ C - International Friendship Co~ inutes - January 17, 1994
D - Projected Budget
wp\festival.J13[April 21, 1994] 5 '1" Þ
--------~-_..__._,--,-_.,-_._-,,-..._._-----'-'_.._--~--.-----'...------
RESOLUTION NO. I? ¥ ¿ I-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $12,200 TO SUPPORT
THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY PRIDE FAIR, AND
EVALUATING THE CITY'S COMMUNITY FESTIVALS
WHEREAS, on April 27, 1993, the City Council directed
staff to complete an evaluation of the 1993 Cultural Arts
Festival/Community Pride Fair and Fourth of July Fireworks event,
to determine the feasibility of combining the two events in the
future; and,
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1994, Council directed staff to
develop a recommendation for the necessary staffing and resources
to conduct an International Friendship Festival; and,
WHEREAS, after evaluating the options for the Cultural
Arts Festival and the 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks, staff
recommends that Council:
1. Direct staff to conduct the Cultural Arts Festival
and community Pride Fair as separate events in
1994, and expand the Fourth of July Event by adding
a Community Pride theme;
2. Support integrating both events (Cultural Arts
Festival and Community Pride Fair) with the Fourth
of July Fireworks event for future years; and
3. Apropriate $12,200 to support the expansion of the
Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $12,200 from the
unappropriated balance of the General Fund into Account 405-4050-
RTFA19 to support the expansion of the community Pride Fair and
evaluating the city's Community Festivals.
Presented by
Jess valenzuela, Director of Bruce M.
Parks and Recreation Attorney
c: \ rs\cultarts. 1
<i',¿.Jg-9
___" - n_..__ _ __' 0"'__0'" ___'...."__"'_ ,---_. -----.----~-----,..-,-,------.-'-- --,----------..-
Attacnmenl; "
.
. CUltural Arts Commission 3 Auqust 10, 1993
-
t Meetings Minutes )\
citizens,' not to exceed $2,000 and Ms. Ables acting as the
Commission liaison.
\
c. NALLA Conference Summary - This item will be continued.
5. NEW BUSINESS
.. Report on Community Pride Fair
city council directed staff to investigate ways to incorporate
the community pride Fair with the Fourth of July activities.
staff evaluated both events and will be preparing 8 report
that will be forwarded to council.
. MSUC [Dumlao\Torres] 7-0 (Ms. Luna left the .eeting,
McAllister absent) recommended the Community Pride Fair and
Fourth of July festivities be conducted ¡¡¡s two separate
events, and not be combined into a single event.
6. SUB-COHMIT'l'EE REPORTS
8. The administrative quidelines for ~he Gayle McCandliss Art
. Awards were reviewed by the Commission. The Arts Awards will )
be presented annually at the Annual Beautification Awards --
Banquet in the Spring of each year.
An invitation to participate will be extended to .embers of I
schools or organizations - as a group or individually - to
submit nominations for consideration. A perpetual fund has
been established tÐ recognize and provide JIIonetary support who
JIIake substantial contributions to the arts in the City of
Chula vista.
, The original Ad-Hoc committee will be disband and there will
be a panel to make the se~ections. The panel will consist of
8 commission member, one McCandliss family .ember and three
community .embers.
. .
b. Save our Sculpture Project
Mario Lara and David Richardson, Urban Corps of San Diego,
introduced Save outdoor sculpture (SOS) Project. The Project
is a national volunteer effort that is being sponsored through
the National Museum of American Art (Smithsonian Institute)
and the National Institute for the conservation of cultural
property.
. SOs is a joint project designed to establish a thorough base
of information focusing attention on preserving outdoor )
sculptures. Brochures and fact sheets were distributed to the.
¡-'1 .
--~ -
_"'..,____._.n.__"__
._.m'_ -.~..~._..-"-"""",-,,,--'....:.. "- ._--"-- .- ,,'",'.'"'-" '-'-'-~-"'~-""--"-~'-- _..,,-,,_.-_...-....-._>--.....--._.~.~
_'._m_.__._____~___··_·~·~_____··__ _.._~...___.._
t\I,.I,.CI\..IIIIIt:1I1,. g
I Ii
ArTllc I"Ì lIAft'l í &
pARKS AND RECREATION OOMMISSION PAGE 5
AUGUST 19, 1993
Commissioner Hall was elected by consensus.
Co Community Pride Festival/4th of July
Deputy Director Shy outlined the situation giving the pros and cons of holding the events
·together and separately.
Motion to support stafrs recommendation to operate the Community Pride Fair and the 4th
of July Fueworks events as two separate and unique events.
MSUC SANDOV AL-FERNANDEZ/CARPENTER 7-0
d. Bond Act (CÞJ..PAW)
Chair Helton explained the focus of CÞJ..P A W94, the California Parks and Wildlife Initiative
and asked anyone who is interested in working for signature to take acûon on it.
Commissioner Willett stated that members of the Otay Vallcy Regional Park Citizens
Advisory Committee are currently working toward obtaining signatures.
Director Valenzuela explained to the Commission what CÞJ..P A W means in terms of positive
financial impact to the City of Chula Vista. Potentially $28.
(
Moûon to approve CÞJ..P A W in concepL
MSUC ALVEYIPALMA 7-0
7. OOMMUNICATIONS
a. Written r"........nondence
NONE --
b. Commissioner's Comments
HALL _ would like to place "park rangers" on the agenda for discussion in September.
.
WIU.E'IT. feels that Deputy Director Shy and Director Valenzuela have a good feeling for
what is going on in the community.
SANDOVAL. Mentioned beariDg about a Junior High with a park that is plaDDed for the
future and wondered why the Cornmiosion bad DOt been given a presentaûon on this projecL
The Dircetor stated that this project is in the distant future and will be brought to the
Commission when the time is closer.
(
~;r
.
----," -.---...'--.--
- - -- ---- ---------~-,~--- '--'-
.. - ---
;1 "
l\ï'íACHi'o(Eê \;[ L
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION
CITY OF CHUU. VISTA, CALIFORNIA
January 24, 1994 4:10 P.M,
MEMBERS PRESENT: . Chairperson Taboada, Vice-Chairperson
Ramirez, Members Alvarez, Baker, Carman,
Thomas, McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: 'DeLaMata, excused and Knodt, unexcused
MINUTES: Correction to the minutes of November 22, 1993 are
under REPORTS, C. Tereaa Thomaa - Terry and Doria wrote
two checks to the IFC from the Chula Viata/Irapuato
Sister Citiea Account, one for 1200.00 from the
Southern California Siater City Aaaociation and one for
1763.47 from the US/Mexico Sister City Aaaociation.
Theae were for conferences we participated in.
MSC (Carman/Baker) To accept the minutea aa corrected.
Vote: Yes: Alvarez, Baker, Carman, McDonald,
Ramirez, Taboada, Thomaa
Absent: DeLaMata, Knodt
Due to aeveral luesta preaent the order of thealenda was -. )
chanled.
Roy potter lave a preaentation about a city in Albania that he
has been involved with and is interested in atartinl a link or
aiater city prolram with them.
John Gates . Felicia Shaw from the Parka and Rec Department were
in attendance in reference to the City Council Referral,
International Friendship Festival. The International Friendahip
Festival has been referred to the Parka and Recreation Department
as the lead department. John and Felicia preaented what they are
puttinl to,ether with the Cultural Arta Commiaaion and .aid maybe
we could all work tOlether on the Featival of the Sun.
The IFC Membera then told John. Felicia how thia all caae about.
It waa never the idea of the 1FC to have an International
Friendahip Featival, it waa at the request of the City Council
Membera that one waa looked into. The IFC doea not feel they
have the .an power, time or aoney to put on an International
Friendahip Featival. The 1FC feela that the 120,000 would be
better apent if liven to the Cultural Arta for a featival and let
them hire aomeone to plan it and be in charle. The tFC alao
~eels the City of Chula Viata needa ita own identity rather then
duplicatinl what another city ia doin,.
)
'l'h.. cult.ural Arta Commiaaion aee.a to have a lood plan and
pro,ram in the worka and the IFC would like to aee them 10
forward with their plana.
'8"" '!
Attachment D
PROJECTED BUDGET
COMMUNITY PRIDE FAIR
STAFF SERVICES
Parks Division Staff
Delivery, set-up, tear down and removal of stages, tables, chairs $451
Trash control/restroom maintenance $253
Recreation Division Staff
Recreational Leaders to conduct activities $915
Planning and event supervision $1,014
Police
Crowd and traffic control $1 ,200
Public Works
Electrician $232
SUPPLIES & OTHER SERVICES
Shuttle Bus Service in Bayfront area $175
Generator Rental $700
Sound System Rental/Sound Technicians $600
Recreational Supplies $250
Canopy Rental $200
Miscellaneous $50
Portable Toilets $160
ENTERTAINMENT
Four (4) Musical Groups ($3,000/2,500/1,500/1,000) $8,000
Professional Entertainers (musicians, mimes, jugglers) $2,000
TOTAL $16,200
~'II?
---- ....--------...-----.--.----..---------
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/26/94
ITEM TITLE: Report: East atay Mesa Specific Plan
SUBMITTED BY: D"""" of PI'M'", p~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager -JG¡ b¿J -¿ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.1O
Council Referral No. 2876
an March 15, 1994, staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the proposed East
atay Mesa Specific Plan and related EIR. Council directed staff to request that County staff
provide documentation as to the circulation analysis, the public facility phasing and financing.
transportation phasing, and habitat preservation components of the proposed Specific Plan. Staff
was directed to analyze the infonnation and return either with recommendations as to specific
changes Council could ask the County to make to accommodate their concerns, or to support the
County's project. In addition, Council authorized staff to forward correspondence to the County
Planning Commission indicating that the City has some unresolved concerns and would be
conducting a further analysis and that the City may be making a request of the Board of
Supervisors to make changes to the Plan while not requesting that the Commission delay
consideration of the project. This report serves as a follow-up to the status of this project, and
includes the draft letter for your review.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report and authorize staff to:
1) Consult with County executive staff regarding issues transmitted previously to the County
of San Diego Planning Commission, and
2) Transmit the attached letter to the County Board of Supervisors which requests that the
Board postpone final action on the East atay Mesa Specific Plan to enable the City and
County to address concerns with the analysis contained in the Final EIR as well as
policies contained or lacking in the East atay Mesa Specific Plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION:
The East atay Mesa Specific Plan is a 3,300-acre mixed use industrial park located in the
County of San Diego, immediately north of the US/Mexican border and east of and adjacent to
the City of San Diego' s industrial subdistrict. The discretionary actions for the project include
General Plan and Subregional Plan Amendments, rezone, creation of a Sanitation District,
adoption of Site Planning and Design Guidelines, Specific Plan adoption and Certification of the
Final EIR.
9-/
..__.._.._._..._ ... ~.__."_..._.__". ........_ ..~_._____.._ ..____._..__n_.____
Page 2, Item '7
Meeting Date 4/26/94
On March 8, 1994, the City Council authorized staff to transmit a letter to the County of San
Diego Planning Commission requesting a continuance of the public hearing for the certification
of the Final EIR and discretionary permits for the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan until the City
could respond further on concerns that it had regarding the Final EIR and Specific Plan
documents.
On March 15, 1994, Council reviewed concerns identified by staff with the proposed East Otay
Mesa Specific Plan and EIR, and directed staff to request that the County staff provide
documentation as to the circulation analysis, the public facility phasing and financing,
jobs/housing balance, and habitat preservation components of the proposed Specific Plan.
Council also authorized staff to communicate to the County Planning Commission, prior to its
meeting, that the City had some unresolved concerns and would be conducting a further analysis
and may be making a request of the Board of Supervisors to make changes to the Plan but not
requesting that the Planning Commission delay consideration of the project (see attached letter).
Staff presented correspondence to the County Planning Commission on March 18, 1994, and has
conducted meetings with County staff to clarify, and where possible, resolve issues with off-site
traffic analysis, phasing and financing of transportation facilities, habitat preserve and
jobs/housing balance. The following is the status of staff discussions between the County and
City regarding outstanding issues:
Circulation Analvsis
City staff identified the fact that the EIR for the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan did not analyze
potential circulation impacts to areas outside the Specific Plan boundaries (e.g., Otay Valley
Road/Heritage Road, future river crossings, street network within Otay Ranch, etc.).
Subsequent meetings with the County's transportation planner resulted in the assurance that
additional traffic analysis would be conducted and mitigation identified for any off-site impacts
to areas north of the Otay River. It was expected that the analysis would be completed by April
15, 1994, and that the City would receive this information. As of the preparation of this report
this information has not been received.
Public Facilitv Phasin!! and Financin!!
City staff identified that the Specific Plan fails to provide assurances that financing for the
construction of regional circulation facilities necessary for the development of the East Otay
Mesa will be provided. City staff indicated that the approach contained in the East Otay Mesa
Specific Plan, which consists of applying conditions to Tentative Subdivision Map approvals
requiring each developer to prepare individual traffic studies prior to Final Map recordation, and
requiring each to commit to any regional facility financing program, when and if developed, was
not an acceptable approach, since this would not give developers a clear indication of what type
of fees they may be faced with post approval. City staff indicated that a facility phasing and
financing program should be required prior to approval of any Tentative Subdivision Maps, or
that the Specific Plan clearly indicate that each project will be required to commit to such a
program. The Specific Plan should clearly identify what the regional facility phasing and
fmancing program would consist of.
,.;¡
-...--- -------- ._~-_._--_.._--_.--._-
Page 3, Item --i--
Meeting Date 4/26/94
County staff responded that they were satisfied that adequate regional facility assurances exist
if all Tentative Subdivision Maps are conditioned. They also indicated that additional wording
would be placed in the Specific Plan to require all "discretionary pennits" in addition to
Tentative Maps be similarly conditioned.
The Otay Subregional Plan, which provides guidance for preparation of the East Otay Mesa
Specific Plan, currently contains policies which outline the contents for a regional facility
phasing and financing plan. These policies are proposed to be deleted as a concurrent action
with the Specific Plan adoption.
Biologv Impacts
City staff indicated that the Specific Plan does not provide assurances that an uninterrupted
habitat preserve will result. The County has proposed additional language to be placed in the
Specific Plan which provides a better commitment to regional habitat preserve programs. Given
the status of the regional programs, and the revised language proposed by County staff, the City
of Chula Vista staff feel that this adequately covers the initial concerns.
Jobs/Housing Balance
County staff has indicated that a high percentage of jobs created by proposed development on
Otay Mesa will served by future housing proposed on the Otay Ranch. City staff feel that
development on the Otay Mesa and the Otay Ranch should be monitored to ensure that adequate
housing stock is available to meet the future needs of the subregion, and to mitigate traffic
impacts that would result from a jobs/housing imbalance.
In view of the discussions that have occurred with County staff, the outstanding need to review
supplemental transportation data, and the short time frame to accomplish this before the
scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on May 4, 1994, staff is recommending that the City
Council authorize continued executive staff discussions between the City and County (a meeting
between the City Manager and the County's CAO has been set up in advance of the May 4th
Board meeting) and authorize the forwarding of a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them
to postpone final action on the Specific Plan until outstanding issues have been resolved.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachments: I) March 15, 1994 letter to County Planning Commission
2) Draft letter to County Board of Supervisors
(f: \home\planning\duane\eom-cc3 . all)
9-3/1-'1
'_m._..__ ." _ ___....___.._____..·_''_,_._·'._m...._...'.··,_.__·._
, ~~f?-
-~-:
~~- -
~~~~
cm OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
March 15, 1994
County of San Diego
Planning Commission
Deparnnent of Planning and Land Use
5201 Ruffm Road, Suite B
San Diego, Ca. 92123-1666
Subject: East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and Final EIR (GPA-94-02; Log No. 93-19-6)
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
The purpose of this letter is to outline concerns of the City of Chula Vista with regard to the
final draft East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR). We thank you for continuing your public hearing on this matter for one week to allow
us the opportunity to revise and comment on the fmal draft Plan and FEIR.
On March 15, 1994, the Chula Vista City Council reviewed a ~ from City staff regarding
the proposed Specific Plan and FEIR, and discussed this matter with City staff and County staff.
Following this discussion, the City Council voted unanimously to forward the comments
contained in this letter to your Commission. It should be noted that we are not requesting that
the planning Commission delay action at this time, but are requesting that you take these
comments into account in your own review and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on
this matter.
In addition, the City Council is requesting that County staff provide a detailed written response
u to how the concerns raised in this letter are satisfactorily addressed in the Specific Plan and
FEIR. Finally, the City Council has requested City staff to return to City Council with a further
analysis of these issues, following receipt of the written response from County staff, and further
discussions between staffs of the two jurisdictions. It is our intent that prior to final action by
the Board of Supervisors on this plan, we would provide the Board with specific
recommendations for changes to the Plan to address any issues that are not resolved at that time.
9f
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5031
-"."-
_____ __m__..~_.____.···_ ~__~~_~_
County Planning Commission -2- March 15, 1994
COMMENTS
In January, 1994, the City ofChula Vista reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Specific Plan for
the above referenced project and submitted substantial comments regarding both documents on
issues including CEQA inconsistencies and potential impacts to traDSportation, land use, biology
and mitigation monitoring, which, in our opinion, were not adequately addressed in either
document. The City has recently received the responses to comments made on the DEIR and
on March 7. 1994, received a copy of the staff report and revised copy of the Specific Plan.
However, based on our review of the adequacy of the DEIR responses received and the revised
Specific Plan, the City of Chula Vista remains unsatisfied with the level of analysis in the FEIR
for this project, the lack of sufficient documentation to support these responses, and the lack of
adequate implementation policies contained in the Specific Plan.
In our opinion, the FEIR and the Specific Plan fail to provide adequate implementation and
mitigation measures to demonstrate the feasibility of the Plan's goals and policies, or those of
the Otay Subregional Plan. The failure of the FEIR to define these mandatory implementation
components, and the Specific Plan to implement them, serves as the basis for our determination
that the documents do not meet the "minimum requirements" of CEQA. This issue is central
to each of the following impacts discussed in more detail herein below. These are: 1) The lack
of adequate analysis and recommended mitigation measures for off-site circulation impacts, 2)
the lack of an adequate traDSportation phasing plan and financing plan for circulation facilities
serving East Otay Mesa, 3) the lack of adequate regional mitigation policies which will provide
for the management and protection of sensitive resources, and 4) inadequate analysis relating to
jobs/housing balance issues.
Our specific concerns with the issues noted are summarized in the following sections. Included
in this discussion are specific recommendations that address both the concerns of the City and
the mitigation of project impacts that the Commission may want to consider before taking final
action on the project.
Circulation Analvsis
The Response to Comments on the DEIR, received by the City, indicates that a Congestion
Management Program (CMP)-1evel traffic analysis was not conducted for the project because
the traffic study and route selection work was completed prior to this requirement being enacted.
However, it is stated that the County Public Facility Element analysis for traffic impacts is
equivalent, and that project-specific traffic studies will be conducted on large projects prior to
approval of a Final Map.
The omission of an "enhanced CEQA review" analysis in the project traffic study causes serious
concern to the City of Chula Vista because, in our opinion, no assurances can be given through
the approval of project-specific traffic studies that a wor1dng, regional-serving circulation system
9-~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
...~-"._.~--_._--~--- -------------- ---
County Planning Commission -3- March IS, 1994
will be in place commensurate with need. Furthermore, this project represents the planned
development of 3,300 acres of mixed use (industrial, commercial, etc.) and the FEIR and traffic
smdy does not provide the evidence that an equivalent analysis was conducted to ensure the
proper analysis and mitigation of project as well as cumulative impacts to the regional circulation
system, including direct impacts to roadway segments and intersecûons within the future
development of Otay Ranch and the City of Chula Vista to the north. EU"'l'les of intersecûons
that would be impacted are Otay Valley Road and I-80S, Otay Lakes Road and Otay Valley
Road, and East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road.
Public Facility Phasing and Financinl!
1. On-site Facilities - The draft Circulation Element of the Specific Plan does not provide
an adequate implementation and mitigation program (action plan) consistent with the
Circulation Guidelines contained in the Otay Subregional Plan (see Guidelines a, b, and
c). From a regulatory standpoint, the Specific Plan's implementation "strategy" fails to
provide assurance for the construction of facilities and mitigation of project impacts.
Instead, the Specific Plan lists a number of development and fmancing strategies and
assumptions to provide the necessary service capacity and circulation links to allow
development of East Otay Mesa.
In order to ensure the provision of local transportation facilities commensurate with need,
we believe, at minimum, the Specific Plan should (1) implement all of the circulation
guidelines contained in the Otay Subregional Plan, and provide Specific Plan-level public
facility phasing and fmancing programs supported by· implementing ordinances and
regulatory provisions, and (2) identify secured and equitable financing agreements
necessary for Phase I and Phase n construction, operation and maintenance costs,
including the costs to mitigate on-site impacts to the existing and planned circulation
system (as called for in the Otay Subregional Plan Guidelines).
2. Off-site Facilities - The implementation strategies for the Transportation Phasing Plan
(TPP) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), as currently proposed by policies
contained in the Specific Plan (see Specific Plan policies F-1 to F-4), do not provide any
assurance that the timely provision of "fair share" funding for off-site, subregional and
regional-serving transportation system improvements will be provided by local sources.
There is too much reliance upon State, Federal and other agencies to provide these
improvements.
The fonnation of interagency agreements to provide a "fair share" means of financing
the construction of timely regional facility improvements necessary to support
development on the East Otay Mesa should be assured through Specific Plan policies.
Interagency agreements could include the identification of established financing
mechanisms and development thresholds that outline the timing and phasing of major
9-7
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
W" ___" __._.__._.._ _______________. _.._.._.,__.._...______._.,____~.____.__.__._ ,_"._._____...__.m._"___.
County Planning Commission -4- March 15, 1994
public facilities of mutual interest, and a monitoring program, funded and carried out as
a part of a required implementation program (see Specific Plan policies C-14 to C-16).
The City of Cbula Vista believes that until an adopted transportation phasing and financing
program (both for on-site and off-site circulation facilities) is implemented to serve the East Otay
Mesa area, it is inappropriate to approve the Specific Plan based on an assumed circulation
system without some mechani"", to ensure the timely provision of infrastJucture. The Specific
Plan, realistically, will be the last opportunity to address regional circuJation facilities since it
is very difficult to establish these necessary programs at the adoption stage of individual tentative
subdivision maps. The burden of establishing such subregional and regional programs cannot
be expected to be bome by individual developers during the processing of their individual
projects given the timetables and the fact that commitments and entitlements will have been
finalized .
Biolol!V InlDacts
The Specific Plan fails to provide an implementation program for the regional management and
mitigation of sensitive biological resources. The FEIR describes a process that provides for
project-specific evaluations at the site plan level and mitigation to occur within areas having an
Resource Area designation. In our opinion, this practice places the burden of responsibility on
the individual pruperty owner at a point too late in the process to plan for and prevent sensitive
habitat loss in the subregional planning area. At a minimum, there should be policies which
commit the Specific Plan to regional planning efforts, such as the NCCP and/or the MSCP
programs.
In addition, a mitigation monitoring program needs to be provided and outlined as a specific
implementation program requirement in the Specific Plan. This program should provide at
minimum the requirement for local agency participation.
J.And Use
The City of Cbula Vista has long been concerned over the amount and intensity of land devoted
to industtial use on the Otay Mesa, both in the City of San Diego and in the unincorporated area
of the County. It appears that the intent of the Specific Plan is to acquire or exact those areas
zoned for residential land uses to provide for permanent open space, and to mitigate impacts to
biologically sensitive resource areas plalUll".d for industrial and commercial development.
Tbcrefore, it is our opinion that since residential development is likely not to occur within the
Specific Plan and that housing to øcc:ommodate planned industrial and commercial areas is
virtually non-existent within the Plan, that the FEIR analysis regarding jobs/housing balance is
severely flawed in that it assumes that residential development on the Otay Ranch and on the
western portion of the Otay Mesa (within the City of San Diego) is adequate to accommodate
jobs on the Mesa.
1-1'
-- --- ----- .._-_.--~-,-_.. CITY OF CHULA VISTA
--'-."-"--' ~--~-_.._--_._--- -----..-.. - - ~-- ------------ - -- ---.,-------..
_.---,----p - ---
County Planning Commission -5- March 15, 1994
The FEIR analysis simply infers that since there is residential development ·pJAnnP.d elsewhere,
there is no need for further evaluation of jobslhousing balance issues with regard to this project.
Before this assumption can be made, there needs to be an analysis of the number of dwelling
units and expected housing types matched to job types and sa1ary levels, in order to evaluate the
ttaffic impacts, vehicle trip lengths, and associated air pollution impacts caused by these large
employment centers. It is recommended that the Land Use section be expanded to include a
cumulative land use impact analysis of all existing and future growth in the South Bay region,
in order to evaluate this issue.
Conclusion
The City of Chula Vista appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR for
the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan project and matters relating to the plAnning and development
of Otay Mesa. We would be happy to continue to meet with your staff to discuss these matters
in greater detail and look forward to your response and consideration on the above matters.
Sincerely,
l1J~
John D. Gass .
City Manager
cc: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Pam Slater, Chair, Board of Supervisors
Brian Bilbray, Board of Supervisors
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning
(f:~. '.' ¡,.\eøaH::IIty.hr)
9-1
-------------..----..-.- -.-. . .~_.~--.._-_.._.-._...._-_._--~--.._------~ "'TV OF CHULA VISTA
..__.--_.------~-- ._~-------
mϮ~U
,
April 26, 1994
County of San Diego
Board of Supervisors
Room 306, County Administration Center
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject: East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and Final EIR (GPA-94-02; Log No. 93-19-6)
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board:
The purpose of this letter is to outline concerns of the City of Chula Vista with regard to the
final draft East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), and request that the Board of Supervisors postpone fmal action on the project to enable
the City and County to address concerns with the analysis contained in the FEIR as well as
policies contained or lacking in the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan. As with the cooperative
effort enjoyed between the City and County on processing of the Otay Ranch project, the City
Council would like to continue this mutual effort in resolving issues related to the East Otay
Mesa Specific Plan.
On March 18, 1994, the Chula Vista City Council forwarded a letter to your Planning
Commission outlining concerns that the City has with the proposed Specific Plan and FEIR.
Meetings have occurred between County and City staffs in an effort to clarify issues and, where
possible, reach solutions to a few outstanding significant concerns. On Aprl119, 1994, the City
Council reviewed a report from City staff regarding the proposed Specific Plan and FEIR and
voted unanimously to forward this request for postponement of fmal action and the comments
contained in this letter to the Board.
COMMENTS
In January, 1994, the City ofChula Vista reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Specific Plan for
the above referenced project and submitted substantial comments regarding both documents on
issues including CEQA inconsistencies and potential impacts to transportation, land use, biology
and mitigation monitoring, which, in our opinion, were not adequately addressed in either
document. The City received the responses to comments made on the DEIR However, based
on our review of the adequacy of the DEIR responses received and the revised Specific Plan,
9-/1')
--_.._~._._---._,-- . -- - _._..._~--_._,--,,--_...- _._--_._,.._,."-~--~--_..,-~._~----
Board of Supervisors -2- April 26, 1994
the City of Chula Vista remains unsatisfied with the level of analysis in the FEIR for this
project, the lack of sufficient documentation to support these responses, and the lack of adequate
implementation policies contained in the Specific Plan.
In our opinion, the FEIR and the Specific Plan fail to provide adequate implementation and
mitigation measures to demonstrate the feasibility of the Plan's goals and policies, or those of
the current Otay Subregional Plan. The areas of concern that the City wishes to address are:
1) The lack of adequate analysis and recommended mitigation measures for off-site circulation
impacts, 2) The lack of an adequate transportation phasing plan and financing plan for
circulation facilities serving East atay Mesa, 3) The lack of adequate mitigation policies which
will provide for the management and protection of an uninterrupted habitat preserve, and 4)
The lack of policies which will monitor development of housing stock in the subregion and
mitigate traffic impacts that would result from a jobs/housing imbalance.
Our specific concerns with the issues noted are summarized in the following sections. Included
in this discussion are specific recommendations that address both the concerns of the City and
the mitigation of project impacts that the Commission may want to consider before taking final
action on the project.
Circulation Analvsis
City staff has been meeting with County staff in an effort to examine and identify potential off-
site circulation impacts north of the atay River which the FEIR has not identified. As of the
date of this correspondence the City of Chula Vista has not received this information and
therefore is still concerned about the potential of off-site circulation impacts to intersections and
roadway segments within the atay Ranch and other areas within the City.
Public Facilitv Phasing and Financing
The implementation strategies for the Transportation Phasing Plan (TPP) and Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP), as currently proposed by policies contained in the Specific Plan (see
Specific Plan policies F-l to F-4), do not provide any assurance that the timely provision of "fair
share" funding for off-site, subregional and regional-serving transportation system improvements
will be provided by local sources. There is too much reliance upon State, Federal and other
agencies to provide these improvements.
The formation of interagency agreements to provide a "fair share" means of financing the
construction of timely regional facility improvements necessary to support development on the
East atay Mesa should be assured through Specific Plan policies. Interagency agreements could
include the identification of established financing mechanisms and development thresholds that
outline the timing and phasing of major public facilities of mutual interest, and a monitoring
9-11
___'OM__ .._._...._.,.".. , , ...·.u.··,_ ---- . -- --.- - .---- --'-~--'-
Board of Supervisors -3- April 26, 1994
program, funded and carried out as a part of a required implementation program (see Specific
Plan policies C-14 to C-16).
As an element of the proposed General Plan Amendment for this project, specific policies
presently contained in the Otay Subregional Plan are proposed for deletion (See Policies n-2,
m-l,3,4 & 7). The City requests that these policies not be removed but rather be adhered to
and that policies be place in the Specific Plan which outline a commitment to phasing and
funding strategies for the provision of regional infrastructure.
The City of Chula Vista believes that until an adopted transportation phasing and financing
program (both for on-site and off-site circulation facilities) is implemented to serve the East Otay
Mesa area, it is inappropriate to approve the Specific Plan based on an assumed circulation
system without some mechanism to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure. The Specific
Plan, realistically, will be the last opportunity to address regional circulation facilities since it
is very difficult to establish these necessary programs at the adoption stage of individual tentative
subdivision maps. The burden of establishing such subregional and regional programs cannot
be expected to be borne by individual developers during the processing of their individual
projects given the timetables and the fact that commitments and entitlements will have been
finalized.
Biolol!v ImDacts
The Specific Plan fails to provide an implementation program for the regional management and
mitigation of sensitive biological resources. The FEIR describes a process that provides for
project-specific evaluations at the site plan level and mitigation to occur within areas having an
Resource Area designation. In our opinion, this practice places the burden of responsibility on
the individual property owner at a point too late in the process to plan for and prevent sensitive
habitat loss in the subregional planning area.
JobslHousinl!
In view of the large amount of job-producing development planned for the East Otay Mesa
Specific Plan, the City feels that development on the Mesa, as wel1 as on Otay Ranch, should
be monitored to ensure that adequate housing stock is available to meet the future needs of the
subregion and to mitigate traffic impacts that would result from a jobs/housing imbalance.
Conclusion
The City of Chula Vista appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR for
the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan project and matters relating to the planning and development
of Otay Mesa. We respectful1y request that the Board postpone final action on the Specific Plan
9, /-2-
~- ---------------- --------- ,.---,""-
Board of Supervisors -4- April 26, 1994
to enable executive staff to further discuss potential solutions to the above significant issues and
look forward to your response and consideration on the above matters.
Sincerely,
John D. Goss
City Manager
cc: City Council
Lauren Wassennan, Director of Planning (County)
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning (City)
(f: \home\planning\duane\eom-bd .ltr)
9,/;1
--"---"-- .__..OH' - - --_.-----~-~--- -..-..-------. ---.--..---"---.-- . --',.- ..-- -'.---..---.----.--.-----...---.---.------
fff/'1 c¡
;
April 22, 1994
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager (j
FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning;:j1t
. SUBJECT: Postponement of Council Agenda Item # 9 - East Otay Mesa Specific Plan
Staff would request that Council postpone consideration of the above referenced item for one
week. The County Board of Supervisors has postponed its hearing on this matter to the meeting
of May 11, and staff intends to continue to work with County staff to attempt to resolve the
issues raised in our report prior to returning to Council.
(F6\eotay.cm)
9-/->
-_.__.._--_._,,-_.._-_..__.__._..."""~._.,,'-------_._--
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ()
Meeting Date 4/26/94
ITEM TITLE: Report on Pedestrian Routes between the New Library in South Chula
Vista and Surrounding Schools
/
SUBMITTED BY: DITo<lm of ""lili, wm~! If
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ~ fi (4/5 Vote: Yes_No X)
At the April 19 City Council meeting the Council requested that the staff informational
memorandum on pedestrian routes between the new library in south Chula Vista and surrounding
schools be agendized for discussion. That report is included as the first part of this agenda item.
Questions were also raised about the cost of installing sidewalk on Fourth A venue from the
Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. Staff has prepared a report for the CIP budget
process and that information has also been included as the second part of this report.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Librarv Pedestrian Routes
The Engineering Division has conducted a survey of the subject routes in response to questions
and concerns raised by the City Council at its meeting of April 13, 1993. The survey analyzed
the routes for continuity of sidewalks along one side of the respective streets. During the April
13 meeting, the City Council asked that missing sidewalk improvements from elementary schools
to the new library in South Chula Vista be identified and proposed for inclusion in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). At the time, the Engineering Division had already proposed three
projects that were included in the FY 93-94 CIP. These three projects will complete the
installation of missing sidewalk improvements on Third Avenue between Orange Avenue and
Main Street, Fourth Avenue between the Library site and Anita Street, and Orange Avenue
between Fourth and Third Avenues:
lð'l
- ,. .. -".~,~.__.__.... . .-."-.--~--- -.-...--
Page 2, Item / tJ
Meeting Date 4/26/94
Project Cost Estimate
Third Avenue between Orange Avenue and Main Street $120,000
Fourth Avenue between the Library site and Anita Street 38,000
Orange Avenue between Fourth and Third Avenues 500,000
Cost estimate reflects full street widening costs and not just sidewalk costs.
The total estimated cost for these three projects as shown in the CIP is $658,000.
With the completion of these three projects, all routes leading to the Library from surrounding
schools within a 1.5 mile radius circle will have continuous sidewalks on at least one side of the
street except for: 1. Fourth Avenue, between the Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue
and 2. Palomar Street, from Fourth Avenue to a point approximately 450 feet west of Fourth
Avenue. Project 1, Fourth Avenue, is in the FY 93-94 program for design only ($67,665
approved as Part of FY 93-94 CIP) and is being proposed for widening and sidewalk
construction along the east side only in the FY 94/95 CIP. This item is further discussed below.
Project 2, Palomar Street, is proposed for design and construction as a CIP project in FY 95-96,
and will complete the installation of sidewalk improvements along both sides of the street at an
estimated cost of $43,500 (estimate attached).
Attached as Exhibit 'A' is a listing of the subject routes along with a description of existing
improvements along each side of the respective streets. A plat is also enclosed showing the
location of said routes. We have also submitted our FY 94-95 Sidewalk Safety Program to
SANDAG for funding with TDA funds. Installation of sidewalk improvements along the north
side of Orange Avenue between Quintard Street and Third Avenue, opposite the Library, was
the only project included in that program. Assuming funding is obtained, that project will be
included in the FY 94-95 eIP budget. The estimated cost of this project is $135,000. At this
time, it is unknown what level of TDA funding this project will receive. An additional funding
source (possibly Gas Tax or TPF) will be needed to finance the construction of improvements
that are not eligible for TDA funding. The SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled to
approve the FY 94-95 TDA program in June.
Fourth Avenue - Chula Vista Adult School to Orange Avenue
The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 93-94 included an appropriation of
$67,665 in TRANS NET Funds for the purpose of preparing design plans for a project to fully
widen the segment of Fourth Avenue (STM-302). The project as proposed would have involved
widening and installation of A.e. pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway improvements
on both sides of the street at a total cost of $1,825,000.
Because of fiscal constraints, staff is proposing to reduce the scope of the project to include only
curb, gutter as appropriate, sidewalk, limited pavement work, installation of masonry retaining
walls, minor drainage work, traffic signal modifications, installation of two street lights and
I ¿; -- .,;l.
. - ,._._-~~-,--- ......---..-.-..... ._..'-,._,..-,_._--_..~-_._.-.-
Page 3, Item ItJ
Meeting Date 4/26/94
other surface improvements on the east side only. The total estimated cost for implementing the
reduced scope of work is $360,000. Approximately $292,000 is being recommended for
inclusion in the FY 94/95 CIP.
In order to complete the project without incurring the cost of RIW acquisition, staff is
recommending that, as was done for the northerly phase, the property owners be approached for
gratis dedication. If they are willing to dedicate right-of-way, the City would construct the
concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. For those property owners who will not dedicate the
required right of way gratis, staff proposes an alternate section consisting of an asphalt berm and
asphalt sidewalk within the existing right-of-way.
The utility undergrounding district for this phase, which will also include undergrounding of the
utilities between "L" and south of Moss Street, will be done in conjunction with this project.
Inclusion of the undergrounding work could delay the actual completion of this project because
SDG&E has cut back the funding of that program and may not have sufficient funds to provide
timely fInance of additional districts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fIscal impact with this report. The total estimated cost of the five projects needed
to provide continuous pedestrian facilities between area schools and the South Chula Vista
Library is $1,061,000. Of this amount approximately $726,000 has already been appropriated.
The remaining $335,000 is recommended for future budgets.
SMN:sb:dv:rb
F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\SIDEW ALK.CLS
KY-l00
I~'J
..,,-..,..._-~~ ---.._-_._--~ ,"",-",-_._--~-,."'-------.--. ~,_._.__.-
EXHIBIT A
PEDES1R1AN ROUTES TO TIlE NEW LIBRARY
srrn FROM SCHOOLS mAT FAlL WITHIN 1.5
MILE RADIUS CIRCLE
( School Pedestrian Route Direction Improvements
casUe Park bJementary
Emcnon Street to Hilltop Drive East PCC curb, gutter &:. sidewalk on both sides
Hilltop Drive to Palomar Street South PCC curb, gutter It sidewaJk OD both sides
Palomar Street to Third Avenu. West PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k on both sides
Third AWDUC to Orange Avenue South PCC curb, gutter It sidewaJk on both Iides
Orange AVCDue to the Dew b'brary West Sidewalk on the 80Uthcdy aide of the .treet
to the new library site.
(CIP project ST-lSl)
CasU. Park Junior High
Quintard Street to Third Avenue West Sidewalk on the northerly tide of the .treet
Third Awauc to Orange Avenue South PCC curb, gutter It sidewaJk on both sides
Orange Aveoue to the new bbrBJy West Sidewalk. on the IODtherly side of the.trcet
to the new hbrary ai.te.
(CIP project ST-lSl)
CasU. Park High School
East Reinstra Street to Hilltop Drive West PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k on both sides
Hilltop Drive to Orange Avenue Sooth PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k on both sides
Orange Avenue to Connoley Avenue West PCC curb, gutter &: aidewalk on both aides
Orange Ave., Connoley Ave. to Second Ave. West Sidewalk on the Southerly side of the street
Orange Awnue, Second Ave. to Third Ave. West PCC c:b It g, AC sidewa1k on IOUtherly sid.
of the .treet
Orange Avenue, Third Ave. to the b'brary West Sidewalk on the southerly aide of the street
to the new library site. (CIP project ST-lSl)
Lama VmI. Elementary
Loma Lane to Orange Avenue South PCC curb, gutter It sidewaJk on both sides
Orange Avenue to Connoley Avenue West POC curb, gutter &. llidewalk on both aides
Orange Ave., Connoley Ave. to Scc:ond Ave. West Sidewalk on the lOuthedy IÍdc of the street
( Orange Avenue, Second Ave. to Third Ave. West PCC c:b It g., AC sidewa1k on IOUtherly sid.
of the street
Orange A....u.. Third Ave. to the h"brary West Sidewalk on the IOUtherly aide of the street
to the new h"brary site. (CIP project ST-lSl)
Otay Elementary
Albany Street to Orange Avenu. North PCC curb, gutter It sidewalk on both sides
Orang.A....u.. Albany Street to Second Ave. West Sidewalk on the southerly aide of the street
Orange Aveaue, Scc:ondAve. to Third Ave. West PCC cb &; g., AC aidewalk on IOUther:ty aide
of the street
Orange Avenue, Third Ave. to the h"bn.ry West Sidewo1I: on th.sontherly sid. of the Itreet
to the new b"bn.ry site.
(CIP project ST-1Sl)
Montgomery Elementary
Fourth Avenue to the new borary site North Sidewo1I: Saf.ty CIP Project
Chula Vista High School, Rice Elem.,
Chula Vista Adult It Lauderbach EIem.
Fourth A....... "1.." SL oM Kittiwske Street South PCC curb, gutter AIidewalk OÐ both aides
Fourth A....... Kittiwske SL oM Orang. Ave. South PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k is needed on
both sides on th. Itreet. (CIP Project
STM·3(2)
Hatboraide Elementary
Nlples Street to Broadway East PCC curb, gutter a IidewaJi: on both sides
Broadway to Palomar Street Sooth PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k on both sides
(CIP Project ST-143)
Palomar Street to Orange A...... East PCC curb, gutter It sidewa1k on both sides
Orange Aveaue to Fourth Avenue East Sidewalk on IOUth lide of the street.
Two porœ1s have AC sidewslk.
r Palomar High School Palomar StreeL between Fourth A...... md I East PCC curb, gutter a IidewaIk is needed on
( point Ipprosimately 45O'....t of Fourth A...... both lides on the street.
.
/¡J..1
~",-'----"-"'---'-'-----'" -.---------.......----.--.-.
. . . .
· t~
·
·
·
·
" ~
·
O~O~(')"<: ~ 0 "
.. ·
;a"";a-J=tjt'I1(') z
" ;a CJ:r: ~
~t'I1Zt'I1"<: t'I10 ·
. "
c:::~~~~~~ "
5J~5J~t:a-~
t'I1 t'I1('»_
~(')~(')-Jz-J
s""s-Jen t'I1
- - ;a
t'I10t'I10 0
ot5ot5 c::: I:
"I1~"I1~ ;;i ·
~
5J::j-J::j "I1 ·
·
t'I1:r:êi:r: ~ "
en_~_ ~ )fA,W' n.
""~""~ ,-
~"<: ;a"<: en
t'I1"gJ;a (') ~ ('),
""0-J0 :r: ~~
<: <: 0
t'I1 t'I1 0 Or"
~ ~ t""'
t'I1 t'I1 "" ';:\:07
~ ~ ¿
0 'Ø.
~ ~ t""' ;.),
- 7
0 0 1:1'
Z Z ~
-J -J ~
:r: :r:
t'I1 t'I1
~ t'I1
¡;J >
~
-J -J
"YO VONI1 'f'NN
~o
."
"-.
- enZ ~
t'I1
::j~ V\
t'I1t""' 1>
63 "Z
§f ~ .-
t) "'
0 Ç\
c. 0
1
.. "Z
~ ~,
· .. .. t) AI
" ,- I: -
0 ! r -<'1
~ "
~ C.
'.010 <: œ
"
..
.
"
...
.
I:
~
..
D-t
t ~
')A'
~
1;P;~ ~ J;¡-~ ¡lb.
April 20, 1994
To: Honorable Mayor and city Council
"
From: John GosS, City Manage~
subject: Olympic Training Center Financing
At its April 19, 1994 meeting, Council endorsed, in concept, a
motion which authorized staff to negotiate with Port District staff
regarding the sale òf city-owned property and the use of those
proceeds for construction at the Olympic Training Center (OTC). In
taking this action, the City Council also directed staff to return
with a report which addresses the following:
1. the current statuS of the Olympic Training Center's
request for GAP financing for completion of construction
of Phase I, and
2. options available for the use of the proceeds
(approximately $1 million) from the sale of the
city-owned property (the ShangriLa site) related to the
completion of Phase I construction and/or other specific
projects related to the OTC.
In response to this referral, staff contacted Mr. David Armstrong,
Executive vice President of the San Diego National Sports Training
Foundation, regarding this matter (please see attached memo).
Specifically, Mr. Armstrong has indicated that the Foundation has
conducted extensive negotiations with the united States Olympic
Committee (USOC) regarding GAP financing. The USOC Executive
Committee has approved this loan in principle and referred the
matter to the Budget Committee for detailed analysis. Further, the
Budget Committee has recommended and refined a loan package which
appears to be very satisfactory to the Foundation. This matter
will be reviewed again in New York by the officers of the USOC on
April 28, 1994.
Regarding the options available for the use of the $1 million, the
original agreement with Dr. Penner was to use these proceeds to
build a gymnasium as part of an effort to keep volleyball USA
headquartered in San Diego. After further discussions, Dr.
Penner's revised his position and recommended that the proceeds be
offered as an unrestricted gift for the completion of the Phase I
core facilities. City staff has contacted Dr. Penner and confirmed
this position with him.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein, please contact me.
cc: Dr. Penner
David Armstrong
C"WPSI'SWMlSHANGRlIAMEM
//17-/ /J/b-¿
.·..._'._'__M..___~ n._ ...".....__._____.._ .___..______
......'" .... -,............" ............................ ,...-. , -. -~ ~, , - ... ." .....-. .....-..-..- --...-., - - - - - . -..
r-tBU~~., -
. FAXOOVER
......... ..
J&b~~ .
. SHEEI'
_'ti........I25
Itml4ØS
I DATE: . 4-"lð ~q~ II PAGES: ..'(P j .
.. 1nt7K .. .
TQ FROM: .
COMPANY: a~ ô (!/udt:i U' ... ::r.:tIoul.!l::'
COMPANY: Foaa
..... FAXI: -- .... .- .._.d PAXI:'~ -~'I')2II.aH-···dC. .:~ . ..
::':- 1'- "'V"''''',- T·· J..,.. ,~;-..,'- '17 . I~-' "."1. : ',: '.", ~ "":....1) 7'R' '., ~ ':' '-" "1 ' , ) I. ,. 't 1
'11UBJECl': II UROEm DYES ONO I
COMMEKl'l: . .
?lea~ ~ Þ dtffln fjo.fJ'y ~~~-
"Thc1nkr.
. .
-
...
.
.
...
If III plpSW1nnatl'l!lœiwd. pI_CIII (619) 291-802. .
Db m rn", ",.""'" ....þllw... tflllf 1trtII~".""" at Rlclt 1111.......,..,.. CMI/JJI. ~
ItIII ",n'*td.. ØH/I4mIIøL 1/,.. MWI ~ till, ..._~" III _.".. ""'" .. I. _. II..,
""'-.""'" IIw qlMl_...,. at.. fII 1M.......... _.. fJ.6. p....,,s,,,w. nut""
..
\¡) ..
.'
. ,." C1c1a11WI4.... CIp,Ie...... c..
/ /b /.)...
-- -- ------,-_-.~,-~~--------~..,~.._~-- -- --,--,--_.._~.,~-
W¡"111 WI""',., y", ...................., ....... r ....- -.... ...-. . ... .-..-. .....-- .,...-..-..- --.---..
ARCa ~~
TRAINING
CENTER
.....1ooIIt1oy...
SAN DIEGO NA110NAL
SPOIn51RA1NtNG FOUNDATION MEMORANDUM
1650 HoIoI cr.c».... _ 125
~ CA 92108 .
61t _ .
619/291""
_.... DATE: April 20,1994 DICI'ATRnBUTNOTRBAD
==--
~~ tt= TO: Sid Morris
-,l':'~-
.., L r.---
~'o~ FROM: . David M. Armatrong
D.... Ibid
_L~
~o..... RB: ARCO TraiDing Center
:rw~~""
-
~~~ - .
_. wtknt.~., .._ .. . .,._.'.._ ,_ __ . '.'_' '. ........ ~_ . ....'... _-..<.. ~.._.."._ ~_h ~ .u -
=r.;:o.... j )':""Ç"' T1! ~a/olan1;'I! -<>1!1' AHscuaaion at the'atr'~un!ill1DeetiJ!g-¡lItnlght, th1s memo;wID ¡ ; It 7
=_.110 try to snmmame and clarify the following items:
........... --
~iï-1:::' 1) Request 10 the Oty to provide gap financing for the ARCO
~~ Training Center project; III1d
......L_
=è.":...MD 2) Proposed gift to the ARCO Training Center from the Oty of
::-'~~ Chula Vista derived from the ~ds from the sale of the
::;'=-_, Shangri-la property to the San Diego Unified Port District.
-..-
~Š=!OO. L Gap Fbumdnl
.....11. _
........"""""'/011>
W.ldZololo . As discussed initia1ly with Lyman Ctristophcr and George KrempI, we were
:::::"'':':'11'1'''9921 exploring a number of other options to obtain gap financing to comp1cte the
=.:::..... Core Facilities at the ARCO Training CcDter (for yOIl1" information, at1ached
_...._ please find a copy of my letter to George Krempl elated March 21. 199~ which
"=~, substantJatC& this). SpecJficaDy, we have conducted extensive negotiations with
~'>tŠd~:: """ - the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to provide such financing. It ia
~........ my OpÌIlÍ011 at this stage that the USOC will, in fact. provide this support. As I
dictate this letter, the Executive Committee of the USOC has approved the Joan
In principle and referred the matter for specific and detailed analyIis to its
Budget Çnmmittee. The Budget Committee· has, in fact, recommended and
refined a loan package which would appear to be most satisfactory to us. The
officen of the USOC will be preaented with this IpecifiC package In New York
011 Thunday, Aprn 28 and are lD:}'eCted to accept the package as propDIed.
F.fna1ly, the Executive Committee will be convened telephonically prior to May
1 to proviclc final approval of this packa¡e. ÅJ. this time. we would expect a
confirmation of this flnancin¡ package by May. 1. In an likelihood, the
Foundation will accept the package &Illuming it Is what had been dC&Cribcd to us.
@
I
"" 0IIc1aI Unr.! StaII& ~ '&ainil\ CtnIIr
I //}J:J '
----..._._--'"-_._,~ --, .--~_._--,---."_._----_._--_. ---....--
Sid Morris . Memo
April 20, 1994
Paae Two
As diacuased with George, and previously 4man, this package would be
. preferable to the gap financing package which you have 10 generously offered in
that it would be less cxpenaive IIDd less cumbersome. The proposed sift
IIIIIII1IIIins, of c:curse, that the prOC~~5 were received will, in fact, be used to pay
bact partially the principal on the loan from the USoc. AuumIng the
'm ¡Ir~lhood that the USOC 101lD package doesn't come through, the proposed
gift would Ukewlse be used to reduce the principal on the loan package
previously discussed with the City of ChuIa VII1B.
n. Gift
.. ... '.- The "deal" struck-with Dr.·Robert Penner resulted from a number-ef mee~-' ....~. ..
.- .-:- è'")''''''''' T.I mler'the'lilSt tluèe-wée"kâ. 1>\1fOf thc{c"mectí:ò¡p-trii5k-jiface after Dr. piriiië in.,
initial discussions and inquiries which considered mstrictlng funds for use in
buildin¡ a gymnasium as part of an effort to keep VoUeyball USA headquartered
in San Diego.
For a number Of rei"'''''''' and Dr. Ponner is beat capable of articu]ating on his
own, Dr. Penner felt that the ¡1ft &bould be structured as an unrestricted sift for
use in completing the "Core Facilitics", lpecifica1ly the Housing Complex and the
Athlete's Center. To acknowledge the generosity of the Port, we discussed a
number of "naming rights" opportunities. The outline of this undentan<ling is in
part set forth in my letter to Dr. PellJ10r dated AprIl 4, 1994, a copy of which is
attached, The specific aelection of the DamiDg rights were changed from the
Athletc's Center Complex to the Boathouse Complex after discussions be!wtCD
our staff and your staff prior to the Port Commission's meeting of April 12. The
specific II!IIDing lights include œmJng tbe Boathouse Complex on the donor
recognition monument in bonor of the Port District. Additionally, tho donor wan
of the Visitor's Center would also provide permanent recognition for the Pert
District's IUpport and generosity.
Certainly, if you &bould ha~ any questions or if I can be of further help, please
feel free to contact me. I am here to seIVe. Thanks in advance for your help.
cc: .John Goøs
George Klempl
Dr. Robert Penner
. " ..
j j6~ i
~-_._._.'--'--'-"--'-~-'---'-'-'-'- -----
;;:jt:NI tnò1\erOX leleCOpler 11,,1'1 I 110-'1,,1-0110 I ~''''~i J ""1'\1,,/"'" 11'\t'\, .lUI1i.iI ....¡;,I.I¡;,n.~ <01\1<01<01""1"-'" or
ARCa ~~
TRAINING
CENTER
........ ...
SAN DIEGO NATIONAL
SPORTS TIAINING FCUNDA110N
iir ftoIoI ardo ........,25
~.CA 92101
,. 1'~0S395
-- March 21, 1994
---
_D.MoCoI,_
c.,=...._
- ....-
_L ~ Mr. 0.0X1. KrUlpl
"'L~
.....
_0. D"oò Deputy C ty Hangex
D.Jor~ City of Chula vieta
_L
daIio-. 276 fourth Avenue
1J::r.G.1CWn
U.N.... Chula Via,ta, CA 91910
'IT_
- Deu o.ox9. C
....0; _
....~ -c..o,w " ' ' ,"
'lØ.w...... ...., _.~ . -.,-,'. .'., .-~ ,.,., '._' ...1{ ,.,".,. . ""..' '-.;,." .-...~. '....~-,~.... ..~_.. ...-
......L-·."T T~ I At. th.".,utl'e~j-"J¡· ~ld."J.ike-nto,r~ek. '1::ki..~opportUDit~~ r; it \.
::.~-."'" ' thank you and. your .tat! 011 the work and effort ~ ve
......;...", put into our requeet for the City to provide V&¡I f 'ine¡
.....J...... for the DCO '1'rail11ng Cente:r project.
.........-
~~~ .
_Up"," Per oux eliecueeion, we ue currently exploring a number of
=:.~ other optione to obtain the MIlle and ehould receive
=þ'c.~,MD decisions by the lliddle of April. Aocoxdlngly, 1n the
..._~ intere.t of timB and efficiency, :r r.el that: it wculd be
=:.::... beet to p08tpone the diecuedon of oux xequaet with the
_.._ Council for 30 ctay. at whioh tiae our J'ounciation' e
=:::::"'" finanoial e1tuation will be lIO%e oleax. '
_H._ .
"",," -.... Once agail1, I thank you for l:ur efforte aDd I hope thi.·
-.-
-- do..n't impoe. uødu. barcleh p upon !'OU ancIl.our .Qff.
_w._I1....,1I2I Certainly, if you .hould have any flUe.Uone, ..1 fx.e 'to
-.. OOl1t"ct me.
1IIoW'I._
....1Iao-.
-~. With beet reqardø, ,
Woo_ ~Arm8tronv
......~ r ...
JooohA._.
.~,
......&..tA.4.111.A.
Bxecutive vice Predelent
DNA/ca'
(I( r Joe Sctmeiclex
@ .
M oIGcIoIl.WIooI -0Ir-P0 TroInIng c...
,/"
/Ib ~3
. ...._·..._._..____m._.__.....____.__..._.^___._..___ ___...__"_~,,._
, .
I
...1MIt..... April", 1~
LDIEGO NAIJONAL
_INO~
n CIoåo..... ..... 121
. £v. 1lobert Penner, M.D., FAC.s.
61.
-- Cftn)mllSloner
==:"'=.. San Diego UnUIecI lort DI8CrIc:t
~~WIoo P.O. BcD: 488
~ WIoo_
~---- San Dieao, CaDfiotDIa 92112
I:¡~,...r_
-~~
¡:¡~ Dear Dr. PeÐner,
_0._
_L"""'...
-- Aa JOU know, our Foundation Is In the 8oa1.tqe. of Ita capital
-
_.=~.._ . campalsntobul1da~~t~O~plcTralniDSc:e~~.~ ..
,,",w.n:,^-c· T-!--' ".. oVista,..t.sIfI;tød1eOlymplcMovemenHn-theUnitedStaœ..- -'''~ ~
.......J....... ' . ., ,I r /.
.....w._,.... ConstNcdon II weB underway on a l,o.acœ lite ovef'\tv\ldna tbe
~~... Olaf RelJenoir, IUd we ate just'3 mlliIon away from acbIeriDg out
=:-- '62,' miWon pi.
L .....,
_...c..o
_1....... Aa we dlllCl'''" In our meedn¡ of Aptil!, the Center wI11 Dot oo1y
-~-
-,......
_c-.... Ie~·" . tremendous 1O\Uœ of pride Cor the rqIan, but wIIllle~
-..--
III_CO as an ImpoX1ant new tourism attrlCtiOI1 for San Diego. VIsItors will
--
c.lt_ be able to meet and obletge Olympic hopelWl tplnl"8ln 10
_L_ Olympic .portlS: archery, canoetb1û, qdInø, acid boc-Ia-y,
-,.-
1.........-. ... rowIn& øoccer, '7ßCbronI2ed swlmml"l, tenniS, traCk and BeId,
-...-
~&_>ID and water polo, When DOt In uae by eBte national teams and
_1_
-- ~lopmeDta1 athlete. In each of tbeee spOrts, the fiIdlIde. wI1l be
_W,_I.,I",tt1
_w available ID the JOUth of the commun1ty appnøfma~1y 40 pcn:cnt
-"'- oftbe 1Ime.
---
-.....
....- The U,S. Olympic CoIÍunIuee bas IDdIcateclltS intention to provide
"'....~~ .~
........ ,
-- the poundadOll wtth a ftn.nrins pacbge that willI) 8d'V8Dœ funds
...... ...LL' .
apinst mu1d-yeu pJedaee which are ftOt yet payable, and 2)
proWSe the remdnder of the fundI needed 10 build the e5leDtial
componeDtI ofhouldna IUd dlnl. fiu:I11de. which would enable
the USOC·to commence OpemdODS.
The USOC bas aøæed that It wID. In a11l1tellJvvvt" pmtIde such
8nandag If. contribution of '1 miWoa flam the San D1e(p .
UnI8ec1 lort Dlad:l.1Ct thsouSh the OtyofCbula VIIta were, In fact,
made In ænun £or .,....1"8 dgbla to the AthIcœ HouIIna COmp.1ex
and other RJated donor æcopIdoD.
(ij
"" 0IIcIaI1WIod... 0I)0ftp1c --. ~
. . .". .
//b~;;
.. ."..._--,._~,,_._-,-,-_.__.~ ~-----_.._-,...._~--_. --.----.--..
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 i 4-20-84 ¡3:45PM iARCO TRAININ~ CENTER~ 5e5501Zi/J e
; , - -
.
Aa:o!dJnø1y, IUCh a contribution would enable the usoe 10
open the Center 10 athletes and the øeneral pubIc on 01' around
January 1, 199'.
In the eYeDt that, for wba~r reason, interim 0,........ were DOt
secuœd tbrouøh the USoe. this letter will confirm that the
foundation win secure an a1œmadw source of ßnandng 10 euab~
the Center to open durin¡ the same time frame.
'PIe lead~ishIp of the San Diego UnIfled Port DIatrIcc In tbIa mattet
win not oa1y help complete fundlnø of the Cenla', but will CD8Uœ
that tbll æniarkable project becomes operadonal by -;ear'. end for
,,- _ . the bcneßt of our nation', QJymplc þope~, and ~~tl1 ~~. ......
F . ',"XO"Ç;' T^!~~":;'" commun1ty{and....~'OIH!l·.,_ves.1VOI'bandpla}'alnSaa.'jc':·· ~
DleJO.
. 1f)'OU would like any additional hûormatlon, plelllle don't hellcate
10 contaCt me.
Slnœrely,
~~
David M. ArmICron¡
B:lecume Vice President
.
.., Ilb~ ?
..
--~~- -- ----- ------~
From the Office of the City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
Memorandum
Date: April 25, 1994 ~
From: Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
To: John Lippitt
cc: Sid Morris
John Goss
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
For Distribution at Council Meeting
Re: Sewer Connection Fee Waiver
Issue Presented:
You desire to waive the sewer capacity charge to a vetinarian business, in the approximate
amount of $5,500. The vetinarian is relocating to a building within the same shopping center
complex owned by a common owner. The vetinarian is moving because a fire, which started
adjacent to the vet, burned down the building in which the vet is located. Hence, the move is
involuntary and is proximal to the original location.
You Query:
1. Is it legal to waive the charge? .
2. Can it be done administratively?
State of the Law:
The Sewer Capacity Charge is imposed by Section 13.14.090, which provides:
The owner or person making application for a permit to develop or modify use of any
residential, commercial, industrial or other property which is projected by the Director
to increase the volume of flow in the City sewer system by at least one-half of one
equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a Sewer Capacity Charge. All revenue derived
d: \policy\waiver1. wp v Page I
April 25, 1994 Memo re Waiver of Sewer Capacity Charge
/3/J / I
~.._...__._..._._---,.,._~...__._._---_._-_._.~-,-,-----
from such fees shall be deposited in the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. The amount
of such charge shall be the Required Fee(s). (Ord. 2547 §6, 1993; Ord. 2506 §1 (part),
1992; Ord. 2466 §7 (part), 1991; Ord. 2107 §1 (part), 1985).
The reference to "Required Fee(s)" is to the Master Fee Schedule adopted by resolution. In the
authority under which the Master Fee Schedule, Section 3.45.010 et al., there exists a "waiver
of fee" policy, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"C. The fees set forth in the master fee schedule may be waived by the Waiving
Authority, as defined hereinbelow in Subsection D, in accordance with the
following procedures:
1. Any person requesting an abatement of a fee herein charged shall request
said abatement in writing, addressed to the Waiving Authority, and shall
set forth herein, witli specificity, the reasons for requesting said abatement
of all or any portion of the fees.
2. The Waiving Authority shall conduct a public hearing, notice of which is
not required to be published. Notice of said public hearing shall be given
to the applicant and to any party or parties requesting notice of same,!'
3. Prior to abating all or any portion of a fee established in the master fee
schedule, the Waiving Authority shall find a peculiar economic hardship
or other injustice would result to the applicant which outweighs, when
balanced against, the need of the City revenue and the need for a uniform
method of recovering same from those against whom it is imposed.
D. Waiving Authority, as the term is used herein, shall mean the City Manager, or
his designee, if the amount of such waiver is less than or equal to the greater of
(1) $2,500 or (2) 25% of the fee imposed by the master fee schedule. If the
amount of the waiver is greater than the greater of $2,500 or 25 % of the original
fee imposed by the master fee schedule, the Waiving Authority, as used herein,
shall mean the City Council.
E. If the Waiving Authority in a particular fee waiver matter is the City Manager,
or his designee, the decision of the City Manager, or his designee, may be
appealed to the City Council by any person, including, but not limited to, the
1. Hence, as long as Dr. Gonzalez, and the owner of the building, is notified, the public
hearing can proceed as an "off agenda" item if there is the "necessity" basis, with four votes.
d: \policy\waiverl. wp Page 2
April 25, 1994 Memo re Waiver of Sewer Capacity Charge
/3/J ---,2
_ .___,,_.__··._.__~.__,..____m___'_________..·_·___
members of the City Council. If the Waiving Authority is not the City Council,
then the Waiving Authority shall provide notice of his decision to waive the fee
set forth in the master fee schedule by distributing a copy of said notice of
decision to each member of the City Council and to the City Clerk. Said notice
of decision shall be deemed a public record. "
Waivability Conclusions:
1. The charge is waiveable.
2. The Council is the Waiving Authority.
3. A public hearing can be held "off agenda" as a "necessity" item with four votes
on April 26, as long as notice is given to the business and property owner.
Standards and Considerations for Waivine: the Chare:e.
1. Precedential Impact on Site Specific Theory.
It is the underlying and unstated premise of our sewer capacity fee structure that the
payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge does not create "portable rights" in the sewer system
such that a payor of the charge at one site'has the right to discharge into the sewer system at a
different connection location. The rights are "connection specific" such that the payment entitles
the payor only to contribute sewage to the system only through a specific connection for which
he pays. They are not portable, or even "parcel specific".
Adoption of a "portable rights" system would have significant revenue impacts! Could
he move the rights if he wants to set up business across town? Could he sell his unused capacity
rights to a user at a different location? What would be the administrative burden of accounting
for portable sewer capacity rights?
Remember, we are "ramping up" our fee structure in order to pay for needed sewer
improvements in the near future. What impact on revenue projections would we have if a single
users excess capacity could be sold to a new user at a different location?
2. Economic Hardship Considerations.
Note, the standard written into our "waiver policy" requires a finding that a ". . . peculiar
economic hardship or other injustice would result to the applicant which outweighs, when
balanced against, the need of the City revenue and the need for a uniform method of recovering
same from those against whom it is imposed."
What is the economic hardship? Isn't the vetinarian's or the building owner's insurance
d:\policy\waiverl. wp Page 3
April 25, 1994 Memo re Waiver of Sewer Capacity Charge
) 5./-} -3
.~_.._-_.-._--_.._.~_.,---,_._~-------".,----_..._-_.-..----..----
policy able to pick up the sewer capacity charges for the move? Could whatever economic
hardship be mitigated by a deferral as opposed to a waiver?
3. Common Property Ownership.
Since both sites are held by a common owner, the option to reduce the entitlements at
the "burned out" office is available to us. Otherwise, if we waived the charge at the new
location, we could have an increased impact on the sewer system of having more sewage at the
new location which we didn't charge for, and under the "connection specific" theory, the right
of the new tenant at the burned out office reestablishing the old level of sewage for which we
would also not collect.
Policy Articulation Conclusion:
If the Council, as the Waiving Authority, chooses to waive the Sewer Capacity Charge
to the vetinarian, we should limit the applicability of such policy decision to the circumstances
in which we can make the following findings:
1. There has been an involuntary relocation of the Sewer Capacity Charge payee.
2. There is a corresponding reduction in "capacity rights" at the old location by consent
of the old entitlee.
3. There is no third party already responsible, such as an insurance company, to cover
the costs of the "charge".
4. A deferral of the fee is not a more appropriate way to balance the economic hardships
against the need of the City to collect the revenue.
Please advise if I can be of any further assistance.
d:\policy\waiver1.wp Page 4
April 25, 1994 Memo re Waiver of Sewer Capacity Charge
/:119 - 'I
- - -----..-. '" ---'-'-~'- --- - --~_..._..,----"._--_._-_.- -- -,.--...-.--...--- ..'.-...- ......--..... -""-'--'- .----"---- -_.--------_._._-~_...__._---~
The City Council authorizes the waiver, pursuant to Section
3.45 of the Municipal Code, of t,he Sewer Capacity Charge and
approves the city Manager's waiver of the Traffic Signal Fee, in
the following amounts for the remodeling construction of an
existing facility to permit a vetenarian use, at 1172-C Third
Avenue:
Sewer capacity Charge: $5,039.40
Traffic Signal Fee: $1,690.00
on the finding by the City Manager that the following facts exist:
1- There has been an involuntary relocation of the Sewer
Capacity Charge payee, such as in the case of a fire,
earthquake or other Act of God.
2. There is a corresponding reduction in "capacity rights" at
the old location by consent of the old entitlee.
3. No recovery has been received, or is likely to be
received, from any third party, such as an insurance company,
which compensates the applicant for all or any portion of the
"charge" .
4. A deferral of the fee is not a more appropriate way to
balance the economic hardships of the applicant against the
need of the City to collect the revenue (as in the case of a
cash shortage due to betterment).
Except as herein provided, this decision shall not constitute a
precedent for other waiver decisions.
/31-Î -5
--"-_.~ "-------- ~--_.__.--