HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/06/23
Tuesday, June 23, 1992
6:00 p.m.
)'1 declare under penalty of perjury that I
em~loyod by the City of Chura Vista' th am
OffIce .O~;,~': City C:erk and that I po;ted e.
thIs Af;e"""iNot1ce em the Bul'et'ln B d
the P br~ S' .. oar at
D"TE~, ,- r;j' 9:z.~~Gi~~~~ilDaG\CitY Ha.Qon
...i ,'>1_ I)c?"'/~~--"
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Regular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROIl. CALL:
Councilmembers Grasser Horton _' Malcolm -' Moore -' Rindone -' and
Mayor Nader _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI-IE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 26, 1992, June 2, 1992 (City Council), June 2, 1992 (Joint
Council/RDA), June 9, 1992, and June 16, 1992
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TI-IE DAY: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 19)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calerufar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councibnember, a member of the public or City stnff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please Jill out a .Request to
Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the stnff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission Recommendations. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.
ORDINANCE 2518
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.29 OF TI-IE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
CHANGING TI-IE NAME OF TI-IE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO
COMMISSION (second reading and adoption) - When Council approved the
recognition of the Charter Review Committee as a long term standing
committee, the ordinance inadvertently continued the prior name of the
committee, rather than making it an appointive board or commission as
authorized by Section 600 of the City Charter. The ordinance corrects that
oversight and makes the committee a commission. Staff recommends
Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
7.
ORDINANCE 2517
AMENDING SECTION 2.56 OF TI-IE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PURCHASES OF SUPPUES, SERVICES, AND EQillPMENT (second reading:
and adoption) - On 7/23/91, Council requested a report on the City's use
of consultants and service contracts. The report was discussed by Council
on 10/18/91 at which time a Council subcommittee was established to
address the issue of consultants and service agreements. The
Agenda
-2-
June 23, 1992
subcommittee has met with staff and is proposing the approval of revisions
to the Municipal Code. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Budget Manager)
8. ORDINANCE 2519 ElITENDING, AS AN lNfERlM AND URGENCY MEASURE, A
MORATORIUM ON TIlE APPUCATION FOR OR ISSUANCE OF ANY LAND
USE PERMITS, INCLUDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FOR AN
ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TEN MONTI-IS AND F1FrEEN DAYS EXCEPT
UPON CONSENT OF COUNOL, FOR USE OF LAND AS A HAZARDOUS
WASTE FAOUTY (ursrencv measure) - Staff is in the process of preparing
a General Plan Amendment and implementing ordinances which would
allow the City to establish planning and siting criteria and processing
requirements for hazardous waste facilities. On 5/12/92, the Council
adopted an ordinance establishing a 45 day moratorium on processing of
land use permits for hazardous waste facilities. The purpose of the
moratorium was to avoid the risk of having an applicant claim a right to
a conditional use permitl or claim a right to process a conditional use
permit under current standards, until the City has properly adopted its
planning, processing, and siting criteria. Staff recommends Council adopt
the ordinance as an urgency measure. (Director of Planning)
9. ORDINANCE 2520 ADDING SECTION 19.14.270 TO TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNlOPAL CODE
ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR TIlE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES (first readinlir) - The City currently
enforces variances and conditional use permits through its implied powers
to modify and revoke permits or as an express condition of the permit
itself. The ordinance codifies existing procedures and criteria used to
enforce variances and CUP's. Staff recommends Council place ordinance
on first reading. (City Attorney)
10. RESOLUTION 16665 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHALTIC
CONCRETE - On 6/12/92, bids were opened for furnishing the City's
requirements for asphaltic concrete for street maintenance. The material
will be picked up at the vendors plant. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Finance)
11. RESOLUTION 16667 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHALTIC
EMULSIONS - On 6/12/92, bids were opened for furnishing the City's
requirement for RS-2 asphaltic emulsions with latex for the chip sealing
program. The vendor will deliver and spread material at worksite. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
12. RESOLUTION 16668 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SCREENINGS
(STONE CHIPS) - On 6/12/92, bids were opened for furnishing the City's
requirement for screenings (stone chips) for the chip sealing program. The
vendor will deliver to the City yard. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Finance)
Agenda
-3-
June 23, 1992
13. RESOLUTION 16669 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WIlli TIlE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICf FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION MAINTENANCE AT
TIlE "J" STREET MARINA BAYSIDE PARK AND ADJACENT LANDSCAPE
MEDIANS - Resolution No. 16481 authorized the 15th amendment to an
agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and
comfort station maintenance at "J" Street Marina, Bayside Park, and the
landscape medians on Tidelands during fiscal year 1991/92. The
resolution would approve the 16th amendment to the agreement for FY
1992/93. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks
and Recreation)
14. RESOLUTION 16670 AUTI-lORlZlNG CONDITIONAL TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF VARIOUS
STREETS IN TIlE EASTLAKE AND EASTLAKE GREENS COMMUNITIES ON
SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1992 FOR A 10K RUN AND FOUR MILE WALK - The
San Diego National Sports Training Foundation is requesting permission
to conduct a 10K run and four mile walk on Saturday, July 11, 1992 from
7:30-9:30 a.m. in the EastLake and EastLake Greens communities. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution subject to staff conditions.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
15.A. RESOLUTION 16671 APPROVING A REQUEST BY G.T.R.N., LTD., A CAUFORNIA UMITED
PARTNERSI-llP FOR REDUcnON OF PARK ACQillSITION AND
DEVELOPMENf FEES ON TIIElR HOUSING PROJECf AT 95 MADISON
AVENUE - On 6/19/90, Council approved a density bonus of three units for
95 Madison Avenue providing for a total of sixteen apartment units. At the
same time, Council approved a Housing Cooperation Agreement with
G.T.R.N., Ltd. to make three units affordable to lower-income households.
On 3/11/92, G.T.R.N. applied for a condominium subdivision map. Staff
waived requirements for a tentative map but placed 8 conditions on
approval of the final map. The developer has requested that the City
reduce the PAD fees associated with the subdivision map. Staff has
negotiated an Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement to allow the
developer to sell rather than rent the three affordable units. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community
Development)
B. RESOLUTION 16672 APPROVING AN AMENDED HOUSING COOPERATION AGREEMENTWITI-I
G_T.R.N., LTD., A CAUFORNIA IJMITED PARTNERSI-llP TO SEIJ. TI-IREE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 95 MADISON AVENUE TO LOW-INCOME
HOMEBUYERS
16.A. RESOLUTION 16673 APPROVING TIlE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR TIlE FISCAL YEAR 1992193
SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CIlY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICfS 1-10, 14, 15, 17, 18,20, EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICf
NUMBER ONE, BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTRE, DECLARING TIlE
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECf ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY
21, 1992 AT 6:00 P.M. AS TIlE DATE AND TIME FOR TIlE PUBIJC
HEARING - On 4/21/92, Council adopted resolutions directing the City
Engineer to prepare and file reports of assessments for all existing City
Open Space Maintenance Districts. The reports have been prepared and
Agenda
-4-
June 23, 1992
the resolutions approve them and sets the date for public hearings to
consider the spreading of assessments. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLlTIlON 16674 APPROVING TIlli ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TIlli FISCAL YEAR 199:l/93
SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR OlY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
DlSTRICf NUMBER 11, DECLARING TIlli INTENTION TO LEVY AND
COLLECf ASSESSMENTS AND SEmNG JULY 21, 1992 AT 6:00 P.M. AS
TIlli DATE AND TIME FOR TIlli PUBUC HEARING
17. RESOLlTIlON 16675 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACf FOR 'THE WIDENING OF
BROADWAY BETWEEN "F" STREET AND "I" STREET" - On 6/3/92, bids
were received for the "widening of Broadway between "F" Street and "I"
Street". Twelve bids were received from seven separate contractors each
of which had the option to submit bids on Alternate A, Alternate B, or
both. The lowest bid, a non-prevailing wage bid, was submitted by
Southland Paving, Inc. Staff recommends: 1) approval of the resolution;
2) authorize staff to pay Southland Paving, Inc. an additional $25,000 as
an additive item for delaying construction of the surface improvements
until 1/4/93; and 3) authorize the City Engineer to permit Southland
Paving, Inc., to perform the sewer and storm drain work prior to 11/15/92
and after 1/3/93. (Director of Public Works)
18. RESOLlTIlON 16676 AUTHORIZING TIlli EXEClTIlON OF AN UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
DlSTRICf EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH TIlli SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC (SDG&E) COMPANY FOR TIlli PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A
TRANSFORMER AND UNDERGROUNDING lTIlUTIES IN CONJUNCTION
WITH TIlli WIDENING OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD - The easement is to be
located in the northeast comer of the City-owned property currently
occupied by the City Animal Shelter. Although the current use of the City's
property is temporary, the transformer needs to be installed in order to
service future developments as well. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
19. RESOLlTIlON 16677 AUTHORIZING TIlli EXEClTIlON OF CHAPTER EIGHr AGREEMENT
NUMBER 6915 WITH TIlli SAN DIEGO COUNlY TREASURER-TAX
COLLECfOR FOR TIlli PURPOSES OF PURCHASING TAX DEFAULTED
PROPERlY NECESSARY FOR TIlli WIDENING OF OTAYVALLEYROAD -In
order to complete construction of Phase I improvements for the Otay Valley
Road Street Widening Project, the City needs to purchase parcel no. 644-
040-027 (assessment parcel no. 13) from the County of San Diego
Treasurer-Tax Collector. The property is tax-defaulted land and is available
for purchase at $250.00 which is 50% of the appraised value determined
by the County Assessor in 1991. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-5-
June 23, 1992
PUBUC HEARlNGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or poSled as public hearings as required by UJw_ [fyou wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the 'Request 10 Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complele the green form 10 speak in favor of the slaff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the slaff recommendation.) Comments are limited 10 five minutes per individual
20. PUBUC HEARlNG CONSIDERATION OF CAlJFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S JUNE 11,
1992 ACTION ON LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NUMBER
10; AND CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NUMBER 60 FOR TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-STORY, 125,000
SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE CORPORATE OFFlCE BUIlDING AT 850
LAGOON DRIVE - The Council approved Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 10 (LCPA #10) to allow an increase in FAR. and building
height on the site which would allow the construction of the office
building. The LCP Amendment was submitted to the California Coastal
Commission and on 6/11/92, the Commission approved the Amendment
with suggested modifications. The Commission's action on the LCP
Amendment is being presented to Council for adoption. In addition, a
Coastal Development Permit for the construction of the proposed office
building is presented to Council for consideration. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development)
A. RESOLUTION 16678 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 60 FOR TIlE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 125,000 SQUARE FOOT, SIX STORY
ADMINISTRATIVE/CORPORATE OFFlCE BUIlDING AT 850 LAGOON
DRIVE
B. RESOLUTION 16679 ADOPTION OF TIlE CAlJFORNIA COASTAL COMMlSSION'S ACTION ON
CITY OF CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NUMBER TEN
21. PUBUC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 61 FOR
TIlE USE OF 340-368 BAY BOULEVARD AS A CONSTRUCTION STAGING
AREA _ On 4/21192, the Redevelopment Agency approved an exclusive
negotiating agreement with Rohr Inc. for the disposition and development
of Agency-owned propetty at 340-368 Bay Boulevard. While the Agency
and Rohr are negotiating, Starboard Development has requested to use the
properties as a staging area for construction of Rohrs Building at 850
Lagoon Drive. A leasing instrument will need to be approved by the RDA
prior to use of the site. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and
Addendum thereto and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adequately addresses environmental issues. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
RESOLUTION 16680 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 61 FOR TIIE USE
OF 340-368 BAY BOULEVARD AS A CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA
Agenda
22.
PUBUC HEARING
-6-
June 23, 1992
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 62 FOR
1HE DEMOUTION OF A 9,900 SQUARE FOOT INDUSfRlAL BUIlDING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TO "G" STREET -
Rohr Inc. proposes to demolish a 9,900 sq. ft. building and construct a 25
ft. wide temporary access road to "G" Street. The project will provide
improved interior vehicle circulation adjacent to building one on 850
Lagoon Drive and to disburse off-site egress via "G" Street. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development)
RESOLUTION 16681 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 62 FOR
DEMOUTION OF APPROXIMATELY 9,900 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSfRlAL
SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TO "G"
STREET
23.
PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 59 FOR
1HE CONSTRUCTION OF 1WO STORAGE SHEDS AND A COVERED WORK
AREA AT 1HE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC (SDG&E) SOUTIIBAY
POWER PLANT - SDG&E has requested that the public hearing for Coastal
Development Permit No. 59 be continued to the 7/21/92 meeting. Since
the project's coastal development permit application submittal has not been
completed, staff recommends that the Council continue the public heating
until all of the required information has been submitted and a complete
permit review has been conducted. Staff recommends continuing the
public hearing to the meeting of 7/21/92. (Director of Community
Development)
RESOLUTION 16682 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 59 FOR 1HE
CONSTRUCTION OF 1WO STORAGE SHEDS AND A COVERED WORK
AREA AT 1HE SDG&E SOUTI-I BAY POWER PLANT
24.
PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF ESTABUSI-ITNG UTIU1YDlSTRICTNUMBER 122 ON
FOURTI-l AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100
FEET SOUTI-I OF STATE I-ITGHWAY 54 - On 4/28/92, Council ordered a
public hearing to be held on 6/23/92, to determine whether the public
health, safety, or general welfare require the formation of an Underground
Utility District on Fourth Avenue between "E" Street and a point
approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 16683 ESTABUSI-ITNG UNDERGROUND UTIU1Y DISTRICT NUMBER 122 ON
FOURTI-l AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100
FEET SOUTI-I OF STATE I-ITGHWAY 54 AND AUTI-IORlZING 1HE
EXPENDITURE OF ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSIONS
25.
PUBUC HEARING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2 (OTAY VAU.EY ROAD) - On
4/21/92, Council adopted the Resolution of Intention to construct and
finance certain public improvements to Otay Valley Road, east of 1.805,
pursuant to the Municipal Improvements Act of 1913. The public heating
Agenda
.7.
June 23, 1992
on the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) was
set for 5/26/92. The associated resolutions make changes and
modifications to the Engineer's Report, overrule protests, confirm the
assessments, make CEQA findings, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and
approve utility and underwriter agreements. Staff recommends approval
of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the
6/16/92 meeting.
A. RESOLUTION 16639 APPROVING AGREEMENIS FOR EXECUTION IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NUMBER 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
B. RESOLUTION 16641 ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
ENGINEER'S "REPORT" IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2 (OTAY
VALLEY ROAD)
C. RESOLUTION 16642 OVERRUllNG AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY
ROAD)
D. RESOLUTION 16643 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE, TOGETHER Willi APPURTENANCES, APPROVING THE
ENGINEER'S "REPORT", MAKING CEQA FINDINGS, AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN REGARDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
26. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEcnON 12.20 OF
THE MUNlOPAL CODE AND MASTER FEE SCHEDill.E REGARDING
IMPOSING A FEE FOR CONSTRucnON PERMITS ISSUED TO UTILITY
COMPANIES - Historically, the City has not charged a fee to utility
companies for permits to do work within the City's rights-of-way. It is the
intent of the City to impose a flat fee for each minor permit and full cost
recovety for larger jobs. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on first
reading. (Director of Public Works)
AMENDING SEcnON 12.20 OF THE MUNlOPAL CODE REGARDING
IMPOSING A FEE FOR CONSTRucnON PERMITS ISSUED TO UTILITY
COMPANIES (first readinsd
ORDINANCE 2521
ORALCO~CATIONS
This is an opportuniJy for the general public to address the CiIy Council on any subject matter within the ClJIUIcil's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the CiIy Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the ClJIUIcil on such a
subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the CiIy Clerk prinr 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.
Agenda
-8-
June 23, 1992
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 individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to SpeaK form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. PublU:
cornnu:nts are limited to five minutes_
27. RESOLlJI10N 16684 AUTI-IORIZlNG TI-IE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACf FOR A
FIREWORKS DISPLAY AND ENTERING INTO INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENTS WIlli ROHR INDUSTRIES AND TI-IE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICf - Planning is being finalized for the annual Fourth of July
fireworks display to be held in the Chula Vista Bayfront. The event has
been highly successful during the past years and is expected to draw an
even larger crowd this summer. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
28. RESOLlJI10N 16685 AUTI-IORIZlNG TI-IE TEMPORARY INSTALLATION OF A "NO LEFT TURN"
SIGN FOR EASTBOUND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND APACHE DRNE
DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD - Staff has received several requests
from the Charter Point Homeowners Association to prohibit left turns from
eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road to northbound Apache Drive during the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to eliminate the shortcutting by
Southwestern College students. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
29.A RESOLlJI10N 16686 AUTI-IORIZlNG TI-IE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING BOND
INDENTURE AND OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICf
NUMBER 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD-PHASE II) - These are the
closing resolutions for the Telegraph Canyon Road-Phase II assessment
district proceedings. They approve certain bond-related documents and
award the bond sale to the lowest bidder. Staff recommends approval of
the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLlJI10N 16687 MAKING AWARD FOR SALE OF BONDS AND PROVIDING FOR TI-IE
ESTABUSHMENf OF A REDEMPTION FUND FORASSES5MENfDISTRICf
NUMBER 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD-PHASE 10
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 Commutees.
None submitted.
ITEMS PUlLED FROM TI-IE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss uems which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda
items pulkd at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by CounciJmembers. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
Agenda
-9-
June 23, 1992
OTHER BUSINESS
30. C1TI MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
31. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
32. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 30, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista will be held immediately
following the City Council Meeting.
D~ Aft~
CXTY COONCXL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TI~.
)''\o~ ITEM ~
,,~p' MEETING DATE. ~
.\) ~ /d1..3ICJ~
Ordinanpe; f:1'1t~ending Chapter 2.29 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code Changing the Name of the Charter
~ew Committee to Commission
SUBMI~D .ll:i. City Attorne
-'
\ 4/5thB Vot.. Yes_No X
,'~;
When Council approved the recognition of the Charter Review Committee as a long
term standing committee with substantial responsibilities by approving Ordinance
No. 2400 in 1990, the ordinance inadvertently continued the prior name of the
Committee, rather than making it an appointive board or commission as authorized
by Section 600 of the City Charter. This ordinance corrects that oversight and
makes the Committee a Commission.
RECOMMENDATION. Place ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMllISSION ACTION. The Charter Review Committee requested staff to bring
forward an ordinance to Council to bring its name in conformity with Section 600
of the Charter.
DISCUSSION.
On November 6, 1990, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2400 recognizing the
Charter Review Committee and establishing it as a regular standing advisory
committee to the City Council, giving it duties consistent with its historic role
as the ad hoc Charter Review Committee. council had originally referred to the
Charter Review Committee the possibility of recognizing the Committee by an
amendment to the Charter, or by creating it by ordinance. When it was determined
to adopt an ordinance and place it in the Municipal Code, pursuant to the
authority in Charter Section 600, no one noticed that the Committee retained its
former name instead of becoming a board or commission. This ordinance will
correct that oversight by amending all references in existing Chapter 2.29 from
"committee" to "commission".
FISCAL IMPACT. None
C:'crcl2.2P __..
~-I
nus PAGB BLANK
.
~-~
O.
~." ,,)
l' e:.'
fl~~ y.fJ~ ~ \"
$ jV
fU""
~~"
\
~}
"
'-'
ORDINANCE NO. ,.;z5/ if'
....
'lV'
J'
,
'-,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.29 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO COMMISSION
I(~,;.,. "
':(/ .
/1. ~I..)
,'I,..
"''11..'._
v,c
I;O/lt
SECTION I: The Chula vista Municipal Code is hereby
amended by amending the title of Chapter 2.29 from the "Charter
Review committee" to the "Charter Review Commission".
SECTION II: Sections 2.29.010 through 2.29.060 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code are hereby amended by changing all
references to "Committee" to "Commission" so that it reads as
follows:
sections:
2.29.010
2.29.020
2.29.030
2.29.040
2.29.050
2.29.060
Chapter 2.29
CJlARTER REVIEW GGIDII'1''1'EE COMMISSION
Creation.
Purpose and Intent.
Functions and Duties.
Membership.
Term of Office.
operation of Gemmi~~ee commission.
2.29.010 creation.
There is hereby created a Charter Review Cemmi~~ee commission.
2.29.020 purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose and intent of the city Council in
establishing the Charter Review cemmi~~ee Commission to create an
advisory, body which would serve as a resource to advise and make
recommendations to the City Council and the city Manager on issues
affecting the provisions of the Charter of the City of Chula vista.
The eemmi~~ee commission will work to identify language to amend to
City Charter to clarify or improve the workings of the City
government.
The purpose of the eemmi~~ee commission is to review the
organizational framework of city government and recommend changes
sufficiently in advance of elections to allow thoughtful city
council review and determination of whether to place the matter on
the ballot.
1
(,,/
2.29.030 Functions and Duties.
The function and duties of the Charter Review Selllllli t'eee
Commission shall be as follows:
A. Constitute a forum for City-wide discussions, research and
analysis of matters relating to current or proposed provisions
of the City Charter, and amendment thereto.
B. H P coordinate citizen and staff
pot tial Charter changes.
C.
te specific language for proposed
submit d to the City Council in a
placemen on the ballot at an electio
Charter c anges can be submitted to t
ses and reports to the C'
mmendations.
arter changes to be
rm appropriate for
wherein the proposed
electorate.
D.
in connection
E.
Prepare and s
against propose
mit proposed bal
Charter changes.
t arguments
in favor or
2.29.040 Membership.
A. Number of Members.
The eemmit'eee co mis
Members, and two (2) Sta
(7) Voting
B. Designation of Members.
1. Voting Members.
The seven (7) Voti
City Council from
accordance with th
the Charter, whom
shall, throughou
and elector stat
Memb s shall be appointed by the
e quali ied electors of the City in
provision of Section 600, et seg. of
hall be re dents of the City and who
their term, aintain their residency
s.
shall be the City
their designated
equired to be a
all have no vote
2.
Staff Ex-offic
Members.
.
The two (2) S aff Ex-officio Membe
Manager and he City Attorney, 0
representati s, who shall not be
qualified el ctor of the City, and who
("Staff Ex- fficio Member").
Classes of Members.
2.29.050
A.
Term
2
&rLj
1. post-Initial Terms.
Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection A, the
term of office of all members, and all classes of
members, of said eSJIlBlittee commission shall be for a
nominal period of four (4) years, and shall terminate on
June 30th of the fourth year of their term, unless they
shall otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified
or incompetent to hold Office.
2. Initial Terms of voting Members.
Notwithstanding subsection A.l., the Initial Terms of
Voting Members shall commence upon appointment and shall
conclude, for one (I) Voting Member on June 30, 1991; for
two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1992;. for two (2)
voting Members on June 30, 1993; and for two (2) voting
Members on June 30, 1994, unless they shall otherwise
sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to
hold Office.
a. Appointment to Initial Terms by Lot.
Appointment of the initial voting Members as to the
Initial Terms shall be determined by lot.
3. Staff Ex-officio Members.
The term of the Staff Ex-officio Members shall be
indefinite, and they shall serve at the pleasure of the
council.
4. Holdover Office.
Notwithstanding the end of any Member's Initial Term or
post-initial Term as herein provided, a Member, other
than the Staff Ex-officio Members, shall be permitted to
continue to exercise the privileges of his or her former
Office for not more than two (2) months after the end of
the term until the Office to which the Member was
appointed is filled by reappointment or by the
appointment of a qualified successor.
5. Vacancies.
Notwithstanding the term of Office to which a Member is
appointed, said Office shall be deemed vacant upon any of
the following events ("Event of Vacancy"):
a. The death or disability of said Member that renders
said Member incapable of performing the duties of
his Office.
3
(,,,5
b. The member's conviction of a felony or crime
involving moral turpitude.
c. The member's absence from three (3), regular,
consecutive meetings of the eemmi~~ee commission,
unless excused by majority vote of the eemmi~~ee
commission expressed in its official minutes.
d. he member has submitted a resignation which
resignation has been accepted by the City Council.
e. The membership has been terminated by three
affirmative votes of the city Council.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Vacancy as hereinabove
listed, the City Council shall so declare the Office to
be vacant, and shall expeditiously take such steps as are
necessary to fill said vacancy.
B. Number of Terms.
1. Voting Members.
a.
Two Term Limit. No Voting Member
appointed to more than two (2) terms
herein provided ("Two Term Limit").
shall
except
be
as
b. Unexpired Term Exception. Notwithstanding the Two
Term Limit, a person appointed to the eelllllli ~~ee
commission as a Voting Member to fill the unexpired
term of an Office of a Voting Member which has
become vacant ("Unexpired Term") which has less
than two (2) years remaining on said Unexpired
Term, may be appointed to two (2) terms in addition
to their Unexpired Term. A Voting Member who
currently occupies an Office may not be
re-appointed to fill the Unexpired Term of another
Office which has become vacant.
c. Initial Term Exception. Notwithstanding the Two
Term Limit, a person appointed to an Initial Term
of two (2) or less years may be appointed at the
natural expiration of their Initial Term to two (2)
terms in addition to their Initial Term. A Voting
Member who occupies an Office under an Initial Term
may not be appointed to fill the Unexpired Term of
another Office which has become vacant.
d. Any Voting Member may be re-appointed to serve on
the eemmi~~ee commission after two (2) successive
years of not serving on the eemmi~~ee commission in
4
~-(,
any Office or Membership capacity--voting or Staff
Ex-officio.
2.29.060 Operation of ee..i~~ea Commission.
A. Time of Meetings.
1. First Pre-election ("Organizational Meeting") . Among such
other meetings as the eemmi~~ee commission may desire to
have, the eemmi~tee commission shall meet not later than
on the first Wednesday of the seventh month preceding the
next regularly scheduled municipal election
("organizational Meeting"), and thereupon shall do the
following:
a. Select a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson from
among its voting Members to serve for a period of
one (1) year.
b. Assign such duties to its members as it determines
may be necessary..
c.
Deliberate upon
deliberation and
commission.
agenda issues for further
discussion by the eemmi~~ee
2. Other Meetings. The eemmi~~ee commission shall meet at
such other times as it shall establish by majority vote,
or at such time as the Chairperson thereof may call, or
at such times as a majority of the members thereof may
call a meeting.
B. Place of Meetings.
Unless the eemmi~tee commission shall otherwise establish
another regular place for its meetings and advise the City
Clerk accordingly, the eemmi~tee commission shall meet in the
Council Conference Room in the Administrative Building at the
City Hall Complex located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
or at such other place as may be posted upon the door of said
Conference Room at least thirty (30) minutes in advance of the
Meeting.
C. Conduct of Meetings.
The meetings of the eemmi~tee commission, and notice thereof,
shall be governed by the same rules and regulations by which
the city council is bound in the conduct of public meetings.
5
~"'7
D. Quorum.
Four Voting Members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
E. Resolutions.
The affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership
shal~ be requi!e~ for the passage of any resolution of the
eemm1~~ee comm1SS10n.
F. Reports and Recommendations.
All reports and recommendations shall be made in writing.
G. staff Support.
All officers and department heads shall cooperate with and
render reasonable assistance to the eemmi~~ee commission. The
City Manager may make available staff and clerical support to
the eemmi~~ee commission to fulfill its functions and duties,
provided such staff and clerical support is available.
H. Rules and Regulations.
The eemmi~~ee commission may make such rules and regulations
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter."
SECTION III: This ordinance will take effect and be in
full force on the irtieth day from and after its adoption.
C;\en:I2.29 .....
6
~ .. 8"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
~l
ITEM TITLE:
r\'O~
-j')x
v~
or~i:~nce .25/1 Amending section 2.56 of the
~~ri1cipal Code relating to purchases of supplies,
/v~ervices and equipment.
'\>"
d~' Resolution llc.lo S"1 Adopting proposed
S~v policy on consultant and other services.
SUBMITTED BY: Budget Manage~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes___ No-l-)
REVIEWED BY: city Manage~
At the July 23, 1991 City council meeting, Council requested a
report on the City'S use of consultants and service contracts.
This report was discussed by city council on October 18, 1991-
During council discussion, it was determined that a city Council
subcommittee be established to address the issue of consultants and
service contractors more in depth. The Council subcommittee
included Councilmembers Leonard Moore and Shirley Grasser Horton.
The subcommittee met with staff and proposed the approval of
revisions to the Municipal Code, the establishment of a new Council
policy, and some modifications in city procedures for determining
the need for consultants, consultant monitoring and hiring
practices.
Meating' Data
JU~~~r~
council
At the April 7, 1992 City Council meeting an Agenda Statement was
presented to amend the Municipal Code relating to purchases of
supplies, services and equipment, as well as a proposed Council
Policy on "Consultants and other Services". The Council raised
several issues which they referred back to the Consultant
subcommittee for review and comment. The Committee reviewed these
issues and is presenting a revised Council Policy, and recommending
that some of the issues be referred to staff for further study or
implementation.
Specific issues addressed within the proposed documents are the use
of a cost comparison worksheet to compare costs of proposed
consultant or service contractor to City staff, establishing pre-
qualification lists for frequently used services, expanding
advertising, encouraging a 10% retention or reserve' of total
contract amounts to be completed until the final work has been
accepted, and regular notification to the Council when the total
fiscal year's payments to one service provider exceed $50,000.
l ~ I
-H --t-
It_
It
Meeting Date
June 9. 1992
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution and place the
ordinance on first reading and refer the following issues to staff:
1. One-year evaluation of policy
2. Preparation of annual list of service providers
3. Expanding use of in-service training
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The City of Chula Vista has historically used contracts for
services when existing City staff did not have the special
expertise or equipment required to complete a particular service,
was subject to time constraints, needed to meet peaks and valleys
of workload or it was determined to be more cost effective to hire
a service contractor than to use existing City staff. Generally,
the need for outside service contractors is determined during the
budget review process. Departments submit their budgets requesting
funding within professional or contractual service accounts. The
budget review of any department request focuses on justification
provided by the department which clearly demonstrates the need for
the requested service. Should a department request replacement of
a traditionally contracted service with a request for a City staff
position, the cost benefit of this change is thoroughly analyzed
during that department's budget review, and findings are presented
and reviewed by the Budget Manager, Assistant/Deputy City Managers
and the City Manager prior to bringing that request forward to
Council. Since we must be concerned about the cost effectiveness
of providing any city service, those services which will be needed
on a very limited basis or one-time only services related to a
single project are typically not recommended to be replaced with
permanent City staff.
citv Council Consultant Subcommittee
When the City Council Consultant Subcommittee was established, the
first meetings were used primarily to review existing City
procedures in the use of consultants and service providers, review
other cities' procedures and determine the type of product to be
developed.
The procedures for obtaining services and supplies are governed by
Chapter 2.56 of the Municipal Code titled Purchasing System. The
Subcommittee reviewed this section of the Municipal Code and is
recommending several changes (Attachment A).
2
~
[-?-
It_
\ I
Keeting Date
June 9. 1992
Municipal Code proposed chanqes
The current Municipal Code includes an exemption from the
competitive bidding process for selection of architectural,.
engineering, environment, land surveying, construction project
management, and other professional consultant services.
Recommended to amend this code is an additional statement that the
use of competitive bidding for services will be invoked when it is
in the interest of good government.
The primary changes recommended are:
1. Cost comparison analysis.
All contracts for services exceeding $5,000 which are
anticipated by any Department Head shall first be analyzed in
terms of cost effectiveness of having the proposed service
completed by in-house staff versus the cost of the outside
services. The department shall be responsible for completing
a cost comparison worksheet (Attachment B) which shall be
evaluated by the Budget Manager and/or Revenue Manager. The
cost comparison worksheet will walk a department step by step
through the tasks to be performed, the duration and frequency
of a project, evaluating in-house employees' abilities to
perform the task, evaluating possibility of some combination
of contract services and city staff, specialized training and
expertise required, and source of funding for the project.
The actual cost comparison takes into account the city's full
cost recovery rate to assess the true impact of hiring
additional city staff. This is compared to the service
contract cost which may require adjustments to find true cost
if the contractor will be requiring substantial city staff
support or work from on-site locations.
2. ci ty advertisement, pre-qualif ication and letters of
interest
All requests for services estimated to be in excess of $10,000
shall be advertised through respective professional societies
and publications in newspapers of the appropriate circulation.
The purchasing Division shall be responsible for maintaining
lists of interested firms along with their statements of
qualifications for services. The city Manager will annually
determine which services are to be of such frequency during
anyone fiscal year that it would be appropriate to establish
a pre-qualification list at the beginning of the fiscal year
3
\\-3-
[~~
Item
\ \
Xeeting Date June 9. 1992
from which all future uses of that service would be drawn
throughout the fiscal year. The concept of pre-qualification
lists for services which will be used frequently during any
fiscal year could provide savings in City staff time spent
advertising, evaluating and obtaining appropriate contractors.
3. Selection Committees
An additional change recommended for the Municipal Code is the
content of the selection committees required for all service
contracts over $10,000. For contracts between $10,000 and
$25,000, a Department Head or designee and one or more staff
members are currently required to perform the duties of the
selection committee. The committee makeup is recommended to
be changed to two staff members serving along with the
Department Head or designee as the selection committee. In
cases where the contract is in excess of $25,000, the City
Manager currently shall appoint a 3-5 member selection
committee. The proposal is to change the selection committee
to three or more qualified persons in order to allow for
seating the most appropriate members on the selection
committee whether they are employees or outside members. The
selection committees are also being recommended to have the
option to augment any list with an additional recruitment for
service providers if they feel that the list provided them is
not appropriate or too few potential service providers have
applied.
Council Policy
To augment the proposed changes to the Municipal Code, a council
policy (Attachment C) is also recommended to be established to cite
specific Council concerns and how staff will address these
concerns. The general philosophy of this proposed policy is that
periodic high citizen demand for services and heavy workloads do
not necessarily justify increasing permanent staff to meet those
periodic demands. The policy emphasizes that forethought, planning
and good judgement be used in determining the optimum staffing
levels with the appropriate cost effective complement of outside
consultants of other service providers. Key concerns include the
following:
1. Cost comparison evaluations.
2. Implementation of pre-qualification lists.
3. Expanding advertising.
4. A 10% retention on those contracts in excess of $10,000.
4
~
l-q
Item
\)
Meeting Date
June 9. 1992
5. city Council will be notified at any point during a
fiscal year when a contract is recommended for approval,
regardless of cost which will result in a total fiscal
year's payments exceeding $50,000 to anyone service
provider.
Local/Minoritv/Women Business EnterDrise
The Council Subcommittee questioned the City's current practices
regarding preferences or advantages to prospective contractors who
operate in Chula vista or are minority or women-owned businesses.
The city does not provide any preference to minority or women-owned
businesses except when required by a project being funded by the
Federal Government. Use of Federal Aid to Urban (FAU) or other
government funds must be done in accordance with Federal guidelines
mostly for requiring a percentage of subcontractors to be minority
or women-owned firms.
When calculating the total cost of a bid, if. the vendor is within
Chula Vista we do look at the return to be gained by the
elimination of the 1% local sales tax, although no real preference
is given to the local firms.
The City Attorney's office has reviewed the issue extensively and
has concluded that it would be extremely difficult to legally
implement such a policy (Attachment D). Those local agencies, City
of San Diego and county of San Diego, which do have minority and
women business enterprise programs have done so under Federal
consent decrees to rectify past discrimination claims.
In order for Chula vista to implement such a policy, we would first
be required to perform a complicated study to prove past
discriminations against minority and women owned businesses, or, to
demonstrate financial hardships faced by local businesses as a
result of being located in the city or region. The process of
publicly claiming that we had discriminated in the past could
unnecessarily expose the city to potential lawsuits.
April 7, 1992 Council Review
There were eight (8) questions raised by Council regarding the
proposed ordinance and council policy on use of consultants at the
April 7, 1992 council meeting. Each of these issues was addressed
by the Council consultant sub-committee and recommendations
formulated. The recommendations fall generally into three (3)
5
-\\ - 'S~
"{-t;
Item
\\
Meeting Date
June 9. 1992
categories: proposed amendments to Council Policy; referrals to
staff; and other issues.
council policv ProDosed Amendments
1. Hiring of former employees as consultants
Staff recommended implementing a new policy which would limit
the compensation of former employees for the first year after
termination to be compensated at a maximum hourly rate equal
to their salary and benefits at time of termination. Any
proposed exceptions to this policy would need approved by
Council. The proposed Council policy has been amended to
incorporate these provisions.
2. Revise notification limit
The proposed Council policy originally recommended that
Council be notified when any contract recommended for approval
will result in the total fiscal year's payments to exceed
$100,000 to one service provider. Council had suggested that
this amount may be too high, and after review by the sub-
committee it was recommended to be revised to $50,000. The
proposed Council policy incorporates this change.
3. Local preference
The issue of local preference was addressed in the April 7,
1992 report on consultants. An opinion by the City Attorney's
office was noted and attached which questioned the legality of
local preference policies. As a response to the Council's
questioning of local preference the subcommittee has
recommended to add the following language to the Council
Policy: "In soliciting bids or proposals, staff should be
cognizant of locating and encouraging potential bidders who
have the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista
economy."
Referrals to Staff
4. One Year Evaluation
One year after implementation of this policy it is recommended
that the effectiveness of the policy be evaluated with a
report presented to Council on the outcome. The subcommittee
concurs with this recommendation and in addition would like at
least one member of the current subcommittee included in the
evaluation process.
6
~
'l-Cp
Item
\\
Meeting Date
June 9. 1992
5. Annual list of Service Providers
On an annual basis, during the budget review process, staff
should present a listing of the service provider used, fees
paid, rates and types of projects worked on. This listing
should include those service providers who have been paid more
than $25,000 total during the fiscal year.
6. Expanding use of in-service training of current staff
Concern was raised that within the city we were not proactive
in ensuring that specialized skills, training and expertise
are not lost when an employee terminates. The city has
historically emphasized all aspects of training with
employees. Included has been encouraging cross training and
management development. Staff supports continuing this effort
and expanding it to include:
1. Completion of a proactive inventory of specialized
knowledge skills and abilities within the City to
determine areas of specialized need.
2. Those retiring or scheduled to leave.
3. Develop training plans for those who aspire to higher
positions.
4. Assist managers in establishing programs to train
subordinates to be able to replace them upon termination.
Provide an information item to council to update them on the
progress of this program.
other Issues
7. Existing council Policy on Local Preference
During the review of this item, Council referred to a policy
on local preference which they believed to have been adopted
in the fall of 1991. Staff has researched this issue and has
determined that there is currently no policy on local
preference. However, on November 19, 1991 the City Attorney
presented a report which discussed the possibility raised by
Council of implementing a local preference policy for outside
legal assistance. The report (Attachment E) was accepted by
Council and did not recommend the implementation of a formal
policy.
8. Council oversight
During Council's review of this item it was suggested that the
consultant evaluation process. include additional Council
oversight by having councilmembers sit on selection committees
7
-ft--+.,
7-7
It8111 \ \
Keeting Date June 9. 1992
and/or review selection committees work. This issue was
reviewed by the Council subcommittee and was not recommended.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
The Council Subcommittee was concerned that City staff had clear
directions regarding all aspects on contracting for services. Upon
approval of the proposed Municipal Code changes and the new Council
POlicy, staff will begin the preparation of a "how-to" manual to
guide staff through the required procedures for determining the
need for contractual assistance, approval process and processing
requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no direct cost associated with the action.
B,I(AIU)\CONSULT.AU
8
~
"<t
l' t>>~1>
~,,,~ t~,J "
r S ~\ 0
5vt'
11'1&
f"o
~ ftJ a.'"
rl'l
,,,q 1"
All ORDXNAllCE
SECTXON 2.56
SERVXCES AHD
OF THE CXTY
RELATXNG TO
EQUXPMENT
St
'-CO",
'~'D
lYre ,
'-'''"10;,.
IVQ
/I'vD
/lDOp
liQ
OF CHULA VXSTA AMENDXNG 1'\1
PURCHASES OF SUPPLXES,
ORDINAllCE NO. 2517
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION X: Section 2.56.010 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read:
Sec. 2.56.010
Established-purpose.
Pursuant to. Section 1110 of the Charter, there is
established a centralized purchasing system for city
departments, offices and agencies, in order to establish
procedures for the purchase of services. supplies and
equipment, to secure for the city services. supplies and
equipment at the lowest possible cost commensurate with
quality needed, to exercise positive financial control
over purchases, to clearly define authority for the
purchasing function, and to assure the quality of
purchases.
SECTXON XX: section 2.56.020 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read:
Sec. 2.56.020 purchasing agent-Appointment-powers,
duties and authority.
The director of finance shall appoint, in accordance with
Section 507 and subject to the civil service provisions
of the Charter, and the prior approval of the city
manager, a purchasing agent who shall be in the
unclassified service as provided in Section 500 of the
ci ty charter, and such deputies as may be necessary. The
purchasing agent shall be the head of the purchasing
division of the finance department and conduct a
centralized purchasing system and shall have the power,
and it shall be his duty, to purchase or contract for all
supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services
needed by any and all departments of the city in the
manner provided for herein. The purchasing agent shall
have the authority to:
A. Negotiate, purchase and obtain supplies,
contractual services and equipment used by the city
in accordance with city and state law and such
1
7-1
rules and regulations as are prescribed by the
director of finance subject to the review of the
city manager or by the city council;
B. Act to procure for the city the needed quality
supplies, services and equipment at least expe
to the city; u ' a ' e
furniture and eauioment.
c. Discourage uniform bidding and endeavor to btain
as full and open competition as possible on all
purchases and sales;
D. Prepare and recommend to the director 0 finance
rules and regulations governing pu chase of
supplies, services and equipment for t e city and
amendments thereto as necessary;
E. Keep informed of current development in the field
of purchasing, prices, market cond' ions and new
products, and secure for the city e benefits of
research done in the field of purc asing by other
governmental jurisdictions, nat'onal technical
societies, trade associations aving national
recognition, and by private businesses and
organizations;
F. Prescribe and maintain such fo s as are reasonably
necessary for the operation of the purchasing
system and other rules and re ulations;
G.
Prepare and adopt a
nomenclature for city depar
standard purchasing
ents and suppliers;
H. Prepare, adopt and maint in a vendors' catalog
file. Said catalog shal be filed according to
materials and shall c ntain descriptions of
vendors' commodities, pr' es and discounts;
1.
of buying "in bulk" so as
f discounts, and establish
ventory management in size
Exploit the possibiliti
to take full advantage
written policies for
of purchases;
J. Recommend the tran fer of surplus or unused
supplies and equip ent between departments as
needed and the sale of all supplies and equipment
which cannot be us d by any department or which
have become unsu able for city use and the
scrapping or surv ing of unsalable surplus items;
K. Exercise propriety review over all purchases and
2
~
('10
Consultant or Other Services
fJ'gY.)- wi e..ctM.c,,"l ~~/Sl)~
COUNCIL POLICY ~.,.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
lor2
SUBJECT:
ADOPTIW BY:
DATED:
Backpmnd
The City may from time to time require the services of an outside consultant or other service
provider to provide a cost-effective supplement to existing City staff and/or obtain expertise not
available within city staff. The general philosophy is that periodic high citizen demand and
heavy workloads do not necessarily justify increasing permanent staff to meet periodic demand.
Council and City Management should use forethought, planning, and good judgement to
determine the optimum staffmg level with the appropriate, cost-effective complement of outside
consultants or other service providers.
Puwose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a standard approach to determining the need for
consultants and other service providers and to ensure that when a need is determined that the
best service provider is selected at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame. This
policy shall be followed in implementing the contracting procedures in Municipal Code sections
2.56.170 and 2.56.220 et seq.
Policy
The City Manager shall follow the policy of careful consideration and structured review prior to
initiating any contract for consulting or other services. The Council is primarily concerned with
six aspects of the consultant/service hiring, use and monitoring. First, that a cost comparison be
completed for each request to use outside services to compare the cost of the contract services to
the equivalent cost for in house staff. Second, that pre-qualification lists be established for those
services which are likely to be used frequently during any given fiscal year. Third, that the
process of advertising and outreach for consultants/service providers be expanded to generate the
highest number of qualified respondents and to locate and encourage potential bidders who bave
the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista economy. Fourth, that in all cases possible a 10%
retention be included in contracts for services which will be retained by the City until final
acceptance of the services. Fifth, that the Council receive regular notification from the City
Manager on contracts 'ch, if approved, would place the total payments to that service
provider in excess 0 25 durin the most recent twelve month . od. Sixth, and fmally,
t the bourl com sati rate or ormer mployees hi n contractual asls
su uent to terminatio e Ci!Y..shall be limited :.Jhe first y to a maximum rate
eq to salary and benefit at the time of termination.. After e
of the first ear's maxim rate must be brought before City Coun
~ro~
J I '1-2
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2of2
Consultant or Other Services
ADOPTED BY:
T DATED:
Implementin~ Procedures
The City Manager will implement an administrative procedure covering the following areas:
1. Cost Comparison Evaluations
During the annual budget review process each Department's continuing and proposed use
of outside services to accomplish required work shall be evaluated based on a standard
cost comparison formula when the contract services are expected to exceed $5,000 during
the fiscal year. The resulting calculations shall be reviewed by the City Manager or
his/her designee prior to beginning the contracting process.
2. Pre-Qualification Lists
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Manager shall determine the need and
frequency for outside services which cannot be met by City staff. Those services which
will be required on a more regular basis shall be recommended to be filled by creating a
list of qualified providers at the beginning of the year from which to fill city wide fiscal
year needs.
3. Expanded Advertising and Outreach
Department Heads, in conjunction with Purchasing, shall access all appropriate forms of
media when advertising for consultant or other services with an anticipated cost in excess
of $10,000, in order to obtain the highest number of qualified respondents. In soliciting
bids or proposals, staff should be cognizant of locating and encouraging potential bidders
who have the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista economy.
4. Contract Retention of 10%
Department Heads and/or Purchasing Agent shall attempt to negotiate a 10% retention
clause to be included in all consultant and other service contracts with an anticipated cost
in excess of $10,000. The 10% of the contract amount will be retained by the City until
final acceptance of the services.
5. Council Notification
The City Manager shall notify City Council when any contract recommended for
approval, regardless of cost,will result in total fiscal year payments exceeding $50,000 to
one service provider.
6. Former Employees - Consultant Compensation Limit
During the first year after termination with the City, any employee who is hired back on
a contract basis shall be compensated at a maximum level equal to the salary and benefits
level at time of termination.
7-3
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
Consultant or Other Services
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
Implementinl!: Procedures
The City Manager will implement an administrative procedure coverin
1. Cost Comparison Evaluations
During the annual budget review process each Departme s continuing and proposed use
of outside services to accomplish required work shall evaluated based on a standard
cost comparison formula when the contract services expected to exceed $5,000 during
the fiscal year. The resulting calculations shall be iewed by the City Manager or
his/her designee prior to beginning the contractin rocess.
2. Pre-Qualification Lists
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Ci anager shall determine the need and
frequency for outside services which canno met by City staff. Those services which
will be required on a more regular basis all be recommended to be filled by creating a
list of qualified providers at the beginni of the year from which to fill city wide fiscal
year needs.
3. Expanded Advertising and Outr
Department Heads, in conjunction ith Purchasing, shall access all appropriate forms of
media when advertising for cons tant or other services with an anticipated cost in excess
of $10,000, in order to obtain e highest number of qualified respondents. In soliciting
bids or proposals, staff shoul cognizant of locating and encouraging potential bidders
who have the potential to sti ulate the local Chula Vista economy.
4. Contract Retention of %
Department Heads and/ Purchasing Agent shall attempt to negotiate a 10% rcrtention
clause to be included' all consultant and other service' contracts with an anticipated cost
in excess of $10,000. The 10% of the contract amount will be retained by the City until
final acceptance of e services.
5. Council Notifi tion
The City Manag shall notify City Council when any contract recommended for
approval, regar ess of cost, will result in total fiscal year payments exceeding $50,000 to
one service pr ider.
6. Former E ployees - Consultant Compensation Limit
During the Irst year after termination with he City, any employee who is hired back on a
contract is shall be compensated at a maximum level equal to the salary and benefits
level at time of termination.
-t+-tt"
l .--30
6. Former Employees - Consultant Compensation Limit (Continued)
-~.
former City emplovee at an hourly rate in excess of the employee's salary and benefit
rate at time of termination should be brought before Cl coulicirfOr approval. Included
in e Agen Statement should be the compensation recommenaecr,-as-well~aS the rate of
compensation of this former employee attJie pCimfolsepaiatfon frclIiiCiij-employment
Included in the report should be disCussion of changes In statuS of tills employee smcc
tenn1IIation. This ma include addlOOnahrainin r uca on recelV ,changes in e
labor and economic market and any administrative overh or unus cos w ~
be included In the proposed wages.
'7-1
January 27, 1992
John Goss, city Manager
Dawn Herring, Budget Officer
t ""OJ
~IRich RUdolf, Assistant City Attorney
.city Contract Preferences for Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises
Dawn Herring has requested an update on my January 31, 1989
memorandum to you relating to a preference for loc~l business
enterprises (LBEs), which would also address the current state of
the law with regard to women business enterprises (liBEs) and
minority business enterprises (MBEs).
DATE:
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CONCLtJSION
Our analysis of the case law leads to the conclusion that it is
possible to enact an ordinance which will provide public contract
bid preferences for MBEs, liBEs and LBEs, and pass constitutional
muster. However, the Privileges and Immunities and Equal
Protection Clause hurdles are formidable, and require a substantial
administrative record providing facts justifying the conclusion
Chula Vista has historically discriminated, and the preference
program is narrowly tailored to remedy that historic
discrimination.
DISCtJSSION
. The 1989 memorandum primarily concerned itself with the decision of
the Federal Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Associated General
Contractors of California. Ino. v. city and County of San Francisco
(1987) 813 F.2d 922, petition dismissed, 110 S.ct. 296 (1989). In
that case, the Court upheld San Francisco's 1984 ordinance favoring
WBEs and LBEs, and invalidated the provisions favoring MBEs, and
ruled that all bidding preferences with regard to contracts in
excess of $50,000 were in violation of the San Francisco City
Charter provision requiring all such contracts to be given to the
"lowest reliable and responsible bidder".
Since my memorandum, the united States Supreme Court considered a
similar minority set-aside plan in citv of Richmond v. J.A. Croson
COJD'Danv, 488 U.S. 469 (1989). Although the supreme Court confirmed
that municipal! ties could employ race-conscious remedies to redress
discrimination in certain circumstances, the Court struck down the
racial set-aside plan adopted by the city of Richmond, Virginia, in
that case. Following the Ninth Circuit decision in Associated
General Contractors of California, sU'Dra, (AGCC I), and the croson
decision from the United States Supreme Court, San Francisco
amended its ordinance and Charter. The Charter change authorized
the Board of supervisors to increase or decrease the competitive
bidding threshold, and an ordinance enacted pursuant to that
'-5
John Goss
January 27, 1992
Page 2
Charter authority increased the bid threshold ordinance to
$10,000,000. Contracts below that level would be subject to the
new bid preference system adopted by a 1989 ordinance. LaEs, WBEs
and HBEs have a five percent bid preference, rather than the set-
asides mandated the 1984 ordinance. In Associated General
Con~rao~ors of California. Ync. v. Coali~ion for Economic Eauitv
and Citv and County of San Francisco (1991) F.2d , g1 Daily
Journal DAR 15128, the Federal Ninth CircuIt' Courtof Appeals
affirmed the Federal District Court's denial of a preliminary
injunction against the enforcement of San Francisco's ordinance,
concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs did not
challenge the WBE and LaE portions of the 1989 ordinance.
Generally, these cases involve challenges under the Federal
Constitution relating to the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and
Immunities Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. In White v.
Massachusetts Council of Construction Emnl~verB, 460 U.S. 204 103
Supreme Court 1042 (1983), the United States Supreme Court upheld
an executive order of the Mayor of Boston requiring that at least
50' of all jobs on construction projects funded in whole or in part
by City funds .be filled by bona fide City residents. The court
concluded that the administrative regulation did not run afoul of
the Federal Commerce Clause because Boston was acting as a "market
participant", rather than as a "market regulator". However, that
case did not consider application of the Federal Privileges and
Immunities Clause. The following year in United Buildina and
Construction Trades v. Mavor of Camden 465 U.S. 205, 104 S.ct. 1020
(1984), the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional in
violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a City ordinance
establishing a good faith goal of 40' local residents for
developers and contractors where ever there was City money to be
expended.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause .analysis is a two-step
inquiry. First, the court. must decide whether the ordinance
burdens a privilege and immunity protected by the clause
prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state residents. The
local hire provision of the Camden ordinance was of the prohibited
type because it hindered the formation, purpose or development of
a single union of the United States. The fact that Camden was
merely setting conditions on its" expenditures for goods and
services in the market place, did not preclude the possibility that
those same conditions. (valid under the Commerce Clause) violate the
Privileges and Immunities Clause.
1";'
John Goss
January 27, 1992
Page 3
The second prong of the test is whether there was a substantial
reason for the difference in treatment resulting in discrimination
against citizens of other states. Non-residents must be shown to
constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the ordinance was
aimed. As is the case currently in many California cities, the
City of Camden contended that its ordinance was neoessary to
counteract grave economic and sooial ills suoh as. spiraling
unemployment, sharp deoline in population, dramatic reduction in
businesses looated within the City, erosion of property values, and
depletion of the city's tax base. Although the court prefaced its
conclusion with the comment that states (including cities) should
have considerable leeway in analyzing looal evils and prescribing
appropriate oures, the court remanded the case to the New Jersey
Supreme Court for further prooeedings, since there was an
insufficient basis in the record to analyze whether the alleged
reasons in fact existed and whether the degree of discrimination
bore a close relationship to them.
As reported in my 1989 memorandum, in AGCC I the Ninth Circuit
found that the reasons asserted for discrimination in favor of
local business enterprises did exist and that the 5' preference for
such looal businesses was reasonable. We emphasized in our 1989
memorandum that it was theoretically possible to establish an LBE
bid preference, but it might prove to be very diffioult to attain
in praotice.
Our emphasis is eohoed in the 1991 Ninth Circuit decision involving
the 1989 San Franoisoo ordinanoe. From an Equal Protection point
of view, the court's analysis of the HBE provisions of the San
Franoisoo ordinanoe would be equally applicable to a WBE program.
First, the level of judicial review for such a program would be the
highest possible, that of "strict scrutiny". This means that any
city ordinance applying a race or sex conscious remedy without a
race-or sex-based injury, must serve a compelling state interest
and must be narrowly tailored to further that ~nterest.
According to the majority in the Croson case, a city has a
compelling interest in redressing both discrimination committed by
the municipality itself and discrimination committed by private
parties within the municipality'S legislative juriSdiction, as long
as the municipality in some way perpetuated the discrimination to
be remedied by the program. Mere infusion of tax dollars into a
discriminatory industry, may be sufficient governmental involvement
to satisfy that prong of the test. However, mere recitation by the
city of a remedial basis for its racial or sexual classifications
was entitled to little or no weight by the courts. In the absence
of a faotual record and findings by the City, allegations that
"
.
,..1
John Goss
January 27, 1~92
Page 4
discrimination existed in the industry will be treated as
'conclusory and have little probative value. Similarly, the city
cannot justify its ordinance based on Congress's finding of
discrimination in a particular industry. The Croson majority
required that states and local agencies use their own fact finding
processes to establish the presence of discrimination.in their own
bailiwicks.
,Looking at the San Francisco 1989 ordinance, the Ninth Circuit
found that the record disclosed that the board made detailed
findings of prior discrimination in construction and building
within the city's borders. The city held more than 10 public
hearings and obtained numerous written submissions from the public
and used those as a basis to find that city departments continued
to discriminate against MBEs and WPEs a,nd continued to operate
under the "old boy network" in awarding contracts, resulting in
disadvantage to the MBEs and WBEs.' The city's findings were
substantially based upon a study commissioned by the city and
'prepared by BPA Economics Inc. The study indicated large
disparities between the award of city contracts to available non-
minority businesses and to MBEs. The study found that the
available MBEs received far fewer city contracts in proportion to
their numbers than their available non-minority counterparts. The
study found that disparities between the number of available Asian,
Black, and Hispanic owned locally based firms and the number of
contracts awarded to such firms was statistically significant and
supported an inference of discrimination. The city'S findings were
also based on numerous individual accounts of discrimination.
The Ninth Circuit found that it was unlikely the plaintiff would
prevail on the merits at trial, and accordingly denied a
preliminary injunction against enforcement of the city'S ordinance.
In so concluding, the court noted that the 1989 ordinance only
applied to resident MBEs, not non-resident MBEs; and the record
indicated that San Francisco was likely to demonstrate a strong
basis in evidence supporting its decision, in contrast to the
sparse foundation for Richmond's findings of discrimination~ The
court stated the public entity didn't have to convince the court of
its liability for prior unlawful discrimination in order to justify
a race conscious remedy, but only a firm basis for concluding that
affirmative action is warranted.
.
Finally, the court concluded that the 1989 San Francisco ordinance
was "narrowly tailored". The court stated that the program was
instituted either after, or in conjunction with, race neutral means
of increasing minority business participation in public
contracting; it avoided the use of rigid numerical quotas, and it
.
7-8
."
John Goss
January 27, 1992
Page 5
was limited in its effective scope to the city and county's
boundaries. The ordinance contained no goals, quotas or set-
asides, but a more modest system of bid preferences. The
preference only applied to minority groups found to have previously
received a lower percentage of specific types of contracts than
their availability to perform such work would otherwise suggest,
and were limited to companies who were economically disadvantaged,
thereby preventing the preferences being used to obtain windfalls.
Accordingly, although the Federal constitutional limitations will
allow public contract bid preferences for MBEs, WBEs and LBEs, they
provide significant hurdles which can only be passed on the basis
of a substantial administrative record including facts justifying
the conclusion that the city has discriminated historically and
that the program is narrowly tailored to rectify that historic
discrimination.
Additionally, the city is providing some affirmative action for
some disadvantaged business enterprises where the city expends
federal or state money whose expenditure is conditioned upon
compliance with such affirmative action programs (e.g., Caltrans
DBE program for state and/or federal supported highway projects,
CDGB block grant expenditures for construction and certain housing
programs.) Although most of the provisions of the Public Contract
Code relating to the letting of contracts for public works are not
applicable to charter cities (Public Contracts Code 520160, 52061;
Pile Drivers' Local Union No. 2375 v. Citv of Santa Monica (1984)
198 Cal.Rptr. 731), there are portions of the Public Contract Code
applicable to Redevelopment Agencies which authorize or require
opportunities for training and employment for lower income
residents of project areas with regard to any redevelopment project
contract in excess of $5, 000 involving grading or construction
(PUblic Contracts Code 520688.2 and 520688.3)t
C:\LIIIocoI NWioc
7..,/
nns PAGE BlANK
.
lJ-.,ar
" ~'r
. ,. (;~
make such recommendations
finance as shall seem in
appropriate.
to the director of
his discretion to be
SECTION III: section 2.56.060 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Seo. 2.56.060 Purohase order required-Encumbrance of
funds.
Except in cases of emergency, or if excepted by the
admiRis~rati7e effieer citv manaaer under a duly adopted
administrative regulation and through the use of
prescribed forms, all purchases shall be made by purchase
order issued by the purchasing agent after authorization
of the finance officer, certifying:
A.
That there
department
appropriate
obligations
is to the
concerned a
balance in
to defray the
credit of each using
sufficient unencumbered
excess of all unpaid
amount of such order;
B. That such order is provided for in the budget of
the using department or has been approved by the
city council by resolution;
c. That in the case of the purchase of capital
equipment and assets or services, if not provided
for in the budget, that the same have been first
approved by the city council by resolution.
SECTION IV: section 2.56.120 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.56.120 Formal contract and
procedure-compilation of bids
recommendations.
bid
and
FOllowing the opening of bids, the purchasing agent shall
compile all of the bids and submit them to the
alii'lliRie'l;rati...e eff ieer ci tv manaaer, together with a
recommendation as to which bid he considers best, taking
into consideration the recommendation of the department
head involved, the amount of money bid, compliance with
specifications and responsibility of bidder. In
determining the responsibility of the bidder, the
purchasing agent will be guided by, but not limited to,
a consideration of the following factors:
A. The experience of the city in dealing with the low
3
~
""1-l/
bidder;
B. The experience of other governmental agencies known
to the purchasing agent in their previous
transaction with the low bidder;
c. Knowledge of the quality and fitness of the product
offered by the low bidder, substantiated by reports
of using departments within the city or other
governmental agencies;
D. options to renew contracts for continuing purchases
at the same bid price, in those circumstances where
price increases are expected or have been
experienced in the past.
The aalllil'\istl.'ath"e effieel.' citv manaaer shall forward the
compilation of bids and his recommendation with respect
to an award to the city council; provided however, that
the purchasing agent may reject any or all bids or the
bid for anyone or more commodities or contractual
services included in the proposed contract if he
determines that the public interest will be served
thereby.
SECTION V: Section 2.56.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.56.170 Open market
required when.
procedure-Bidding
not
A. Purchases of supplies, services and equipment of an
estimated value in the amount of twenty-five
thousand dollars or less may be made by the
purchasing agent in the open market without
observing the formal bidding procedure prescribed
in Sections 2.56.070 through 2.56.160. For such
contracts in excess of sixteen thousand, but for
twenty-five thousand dollars or less, the
purchasing agent shall obtain the city Manager's
approval. However, informal bidding shall be
required, and whenever practicable, be based on at
least three bids and shall be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder submitting in all respects the
best bid. The purchasing agent shall keep a record
of all open market orders and the bids submitted in
competition thereon, and such records shall also be
open to public inspection.
B. Exceptions: In any of the following instances, the
purchasing agent may dispense with the requirements
of informal bidding:
4
-\.-' "A '{-
'II .
c-["J-
1.
When the estimated
involved is less
hundred dollars;
amount for the commodity
than two thousand five
2. When the commodity can be obtained from only
one vendor;
3. When the commodity being purchased is required
to match or be compatible with other
furnishings, materials or equipment presently
on hand and the purchase is made from the
manufacturer or supplier who supplied such
other furnishings, materials or equipment and
the total amount of the purchase does not
exceed three thousand dollars;
4. When for ~refessieftal eeftsal~iftg services for
$10,000 or less, the contract shall be awarded
on the basis of demonstrated competence and
~refessieftal qualifications at fair and
reasonable fees.
5. When a particular type or make of commodity,
furnishing, type of material, or equipment has
been standardized by the city by order of the
aamiftis~ra~ive effieer city manaaer or by the
city council after receipt and award of bid.
SECTION VI: Section 2.56.180. of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 2.56.180 Emergency purchases-By purchasing agent
permitted when.
In case of an emergency which requires immediate purchase
of supplies, materials, equipment or contractual
services, the aamiftis~ra~ive effieer city manaaer may
authorize the purchasing agent to secure in the open
market at the lowest obtainable price any supplies,
materials, equipment or contractual services, regardless
of the amount of the expenditure; provided however, that
a full explanation of the circumstances of such emergency
shall be entered in the minutes of the council and shall
be open to public inspection.
SECTION VII: section 2.56.210 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.56.210 Requisitions
required.
The requisitions for all purchases must be subscribed to
for
purchases-Approval
5
~
(-10
by the purchasing agent and the admiftistrative sffieer
denartment head, SF t.heir Eh:ll~i 81:l'El\srleeEl aep\:1:t.iea sr
represefttatiyes, afta ~ by the finance officer, as
provided in Section 2.56.060 or their dulv authorized
desianee or reoresentatives. Ipre~iaed, Be~e~er, 'East. ift
~ftese instaReea waara t.ke est.imat.eEi ame~Rt. 18781788 is
lese ~BaR fi~e RQRElred sellars, 'Efte admiRiet.rat.i7e
effieer Reed -Ret. sasserise t.e 'Eke re~aisit.ieRs, aRd t.ke
aEimlRietrat.17e preeedare may pre~ide fer 'Ehe eliminatieR
af ~kis re~iremeftt. The duty of the finance officer
shall be to affirm the availability of funds as provided
in section 2.56.060. Provided further, in the absence of
or inability of the purchasing agent to act, his duly
authorized aep~ty desianee shall perform the duties of
the purchasing agent under this section.
SECTION VIIIs section 2.56.220 of the Chu1a Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fo11owss
Sec. 2.56.220 Exception-Selection of architectural,
engineering, environmental, land
surveying and construction project
management professional servicesL--6B4
ether professional consultant services
and other services.
A. Exemption.
~ Pursuant to Chula Vista City Charter Section
1011, and as required by Government Code
sections 4525, et. seq. with regard to
architectural, engineering, environmental,
land surveying and construction project
management professional services, all
prafessieftal eefts~ltift~ services provided to
the Ci ty by contract are exempt from the
competitive bidding requirements of Sections
2.56.070 afta 2.56.179 herein.
~ Notwithstandina the above stated exemotion
from the comoetitive biddina reauirement. the
ourchasina aaent mav reauire comoetitive
biddina when the services reauired are more of
a technical nature or involve little
orofessional iudament and the ourchasina aaent
determines that reauirina bids would be in the
oublic interest.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the
following terms have the following meanings:
1. "Architectural, engineering, environmental,
6
~
l"/~
and land surveying services" includes those
professional services of an architectural,
engineering, environmental, or land surveying
nature as well as incidental services that
members of these professions and those in
their employ may logically or justifiably
perform.
2. "Construction project management" means those
services provided by a licensed architect,
registered engineer, or licensed general
contractor which meet the requirements of
Government Code Section 4529.5 for management
and supervision of work performed on state
construction projects.
3. "Environmental services" means those services
performed in connection with project
development and permit processing in order to
comply with federal and state environmental
laws.
C. General Procedures. Anv decartment head desirina
to enter into a contract for outside services whose
estimated cost exceeds $5.000 shall first analvze
the cost effectiveness of havina the crocosed
service comcleted in-house versus the cost for
outside services. All contracts for prefessieftal
eeftsal'eiftljf services shall be negotiated on the
basis of demonstrated competence and prefessieftal
qualifications for the services required, and at
fair and reasonable fees. Contracts for
prefessieftal services for $10,000 or less shall ~
be awarded by the Purchasing Agent pursuant to
Section 2.56.170 B.4. If the estimated cost of
such services are in excess of $10,000 but for
$16,000 dollars or less, the contract shall ~ be
awarded by the Purchasing Agent, after compliance
with the procedure therefor specified hereafter.
If for in excess of $16,000 but for $25,000 dollars
or less, the contract shall ~ be awarded by the
Purchasing Agent, after compliance with the
procedure therefor set forth hereafter, and with
the approval of the City Manager. If the estimated
cost of such services exceeds $25,000 dollars, it
shall be awarded by the City council, after
compliance with the procedures specified therefer
hereafter. Contracts for environmental services,
regardless of amount, shall be negotiated by the
Environmental Review Coordinator in accordance with
the procedures in sections 2.56.220-240 and
sections 6.5.2 and 6.6 of the Environmental Review
7
~
t~ IS
Procedures, and awarded by the city Manager or
designee.
SECTION IX: Section 2.56.330 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.56.230 Exception- outside Services Oeaslllt8ate
Selection Process.
A. Registration and Notice.
1. Public announcement of all projects of an
estimated cost in excess of S10.000 requiring
architectural, engineering, environmental,
land surveying, construction project
management, or other pFefeBBieftal eeftBultiftg
services shall be made by the City through
notice to the respective professional
societies and by publication in a newspaper of
gefteFal aoorooriate circulation. The notice
shall invite service oroviders eeftBultafttB to
submit letters of interest for specific
projects. In analvzina work reauired for the
comina vear. deoartment heads shall be
reauired to cateaorize services in terms of
tvoe and size of oroiect so as to maximize
ootential oarticioation bv small business
enterorises.
2. In addition, said notice shall encourage
eeftBultiftg firms service oroviders to submit
statements of qualifications and performance
data annually for registration and reference
purposes.
3. statements of qualification and letters of
interest shall be kept on file in the
purchasina Division and periodically updated.
~ Annuallv the Citv Manaaer shall review tvoes
of services reauired in the followina fiscal
vear and determine for which tvoes of services
ore-aualification lists would be aoorooriate.
B. Selection Committee.
1. For projects where prefeBBieftal eeftsult!ftg
fees for services are estimated to be in
excess of $10,000 but less than $25,000, the
responsible department head or designee and
eRe two or more staff members shall perform
8
~
(~/(P
the duties of the Selection Committee. If
fees are estimated to be $25,000 or more, the
City Manager shall appoint a Selection
Committee of three or more aualified Dersons
five memeer Eelee~ieR Oemmittee.
2. When a proposed project is initiated, the
Selection Committee shall review all. fiFllls
service Droviders currently registered and on
file with the City to determine those fiFllls
service Droviders best qualified for the
services desired. Selection.Committees shall
also have the oDtion to auament the list with
an additional recruitment for service
Droviders. if there is no aDDlicable list. or
no or too few Dotential service Droviders.
However. if a Dre-aualification list was
DreDared in accordance with A. 4 . above. the
deDartment head shall attemDt to neaotiate a
contract with the service Drovider ranked No.
1 on the Dre-aualification list.
3. The Selection Committee shall choose a minimum
of three interested firms for personal
interviews to discuss anticipated concepts and
the relative utility of alternative methods of
approach for furnishing the required services.
The Selection Committee shall evaluate and
rank the firms based upon criteria established
in advance by. the city. includina. but not
limited to. the cost comDarison between
service Drovider and citv staff. A list
containing the ranking information will be
sent to the responsible department head.
4. The responsible department head shall
negotiate a contract with the firm ranked No.
1 by the Selection Committee at a price
determined to be fair and reasonable to the
city. The agreement shall define the
conditions of the contract scope, work plan
and schedule, costs, fee, method of payment,
duration, insurance, and indemnification.
5. If the department head is unable to negotiate
a satisfactory contract with the first ranked
firm, negotiations shall be formally
terminated.
6. The department head shall then undertake
negotiations with the second ranked firm.
This process shall continue until a
9
~
1.-11
satisfactory contract is negotiated.
7. If the list of qualified firms is exhausted
without a contract being negotiated, the
Selection Committee shall choose additional
firms and the process shall continue until a
satisfactory contract is negotiated.
8. Small businesses, as defined by the State
Director of General Services, shall be
extended maximum participation in the process.
C. Award of Contract.
1.
All awards for eefts~l~ift~ contracts
pursuant to this peliey section shall
accordance with Section 2.56.220.
neaotiated
be made in
SECTION X: Section 2.56.250 of the Chu1a Vista Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec.2.56.250 Supplies, materials and equipment no
.longer used-Disposition procedure.
A. General Procedures. All using departments shall
submit to the purchasing agent at such times and in
such form as he shall prescribe, reports showing
stocks of all supplies, materials and equipment
which are no longer used or which have become
obsolete, worn out or scrapped. The purchasing
agent may transfer such stock to another or other
departments, which have need for and can use it.
The purchasing agent, with the approval of the
aEl.llIiftis~ra~i','e effieer citv manaaer, shall also
have the power to sell all supplies, materials and
equipment which have been unsuitable for pUblic
use, or to exchange for, or trade in the same on
new supplies, materials and equipment. Any such
sale, exchange or trade-in shall be made to the
highest responsible bidder, in accordance with the
applicable procedures established in sections
2.56.070 through 2.56.160 or Section 2.56.170
hereof; provided further, that the purchasing agent
may transfer such supplies, materials and equipment
when the estimated amount involved is less than
five thousand dollars to approved civic or social
organizations with the approval of the city
council, upon the recommendation of the
aEl.llIiftis~ra~ive effieer citv manaaer in those cases
where it is deemed by the city council that such a
10
~
l-/<(
disposition of property would best serve public
interests. In the case of scrap or survey items
having no estimated or appraised value and which
have not been desired by any ciyic or social
organization, the purchasing agent may dispose of
such items in any manner he deems appropriate,
keeping full records of such disposition. It is
further provided that such surplus personalty which
comes within the provisions of sections 2.56.070
through 2.56.160 or Section 2.56.170 may be
disposed of by the purchasing agent by negotiation
after bidding requirements have been followed and
such surplus material has not been sold.
B. Special Procedures for Disposition of Library
Materials. The city librarian shall submit to the
purchasing agent in such form as he shall
prescribe, reports showing used, damaged or
unneeded library materials and indicating
disposi tion thereof. The librarian may, at his
discretion, donate such materials to the Friends of
the Chula vista Public Library for such book sales
as they may desire, or he may offer such materials
to any bona fide charitable or nonprofit
institutional organizations serving primarily the
interests of the city. If at any time the
librarian chooses to dispose of such materials
other than as provided herein, he shall follow the
general procedures set forth hereinabove.
SECTION XI:
full force and effect
adoption.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in
on the thirtieth day from and after its
Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
dr
ney
Presented by
c: lot\putdluiDc
11
~
(-/4.
\
\
\
/
,
,
i
I
-/
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\:/
/\ .
/
;
!
/
,
,
/
/
{ " l..O
I'~ f;L
\ ~ .
.
t'd..l,.CI..IIlIlt:IIL I)
Cost Comparison Worksheets
. contract Consultants and Services vs. In-House staff
The following forms are to be used for comparisons of the cost of hiring
~onsultants or contracting for services to the cost of using in-house
~taff. Please answer the fOllowing questions and complete the attached
Cost Comparison Worksheet. If you have any questions regarding these
forms, please contact the Revenue Manager. .
GENERAL:
1. Describe the task(s) to be performed.
2. What is the expected duration of the project/service (number of
weeks, months, etc.)?
3. How frequently does the City need to do this project/service (times
)er month or year, times per development, etc.)?
4A. Are there any in-house employees who could perform the task? What
classification of employee(s)?
4B. If there are such employees, why wouldn't they be utilized in this
situation?
..23 - );J-
-t-t-4 1- lot
4C. If such employees would not be used due to workload, what work would
be displaced if the task were to be performed in-house?
40. If workload is a factor, could staff of lower classification be
hired to handle extra work so that staff of higher classification could
concentrate their time on the task? Explain.
5. Would the project take more or less time for in-house staff versus a
contractor (e. g. consul tant has pre-prepared boilerplate materials,
software, etc.)?
6A. Are there any qualitative reasons to choose either a contractor or
in-house staff (e.g. expertise, knowledge of City operations, special
liability issues)? Explain.
6B. Is the project or service separable into parts, some of which could
be performed by in-house staff? What would be the benefits/drawbacks of
dividing the task?
7. Is there any special training that would be required for the service
to be provided by in-house staff? What would be the cost implication of
this training?
~ 1~/}J-
MI "0
- " -,
-r ---/.:2-
SA. Are' there any special capital items or lIlaterials required or
additional expenses that would be incurred for the city to perform this
task? Explain.
/
'.
SB. If the city were to perform this task, what impacts would this 'have
on the life expectancy/capacity of city equipment? Would upgrades,
additional annual lIlaintenance, or new purchases be required? Explain.
9. How would this task be funded? What fees or reimbursements might
offset these expenditures? Answer for both contract and in-house
performance.
,.'
CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT:
10. Base Contract Cost:
11. MethOd and terms of payment.
..
'12. If the term of the agreement would be for more than one year, what
provisions apply to COLA or CPI increases?
~;J kt:'
" J I.
/ /-'( -
/""23
13. Applicable rates (including travel, word processing, hourly or daily
charges, clerical support, meeting attendance, sales tax, etc.),
estimated units per rate, and resultant costs (e.g. five trips from LA @
$50/trip c $250.)
TYPE OF CHARGE
RATE
ESTIMATED UNITS
TOTAL COST
14. Performance guarantees (e.g. withholding of payment for
unsatisfactory work, termination of contract, etc.)
15. Is consultant/contractor:
Licensed to do business in the city?
Subject to FPPC conflict of interest designation?
If so, in which disclosure category should they be
required to file? (Circle one)
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Investments (A, C-2) and sources of income
(D,E, F,H-1,H-2,H-3).
Interests in real ~ronertv (B,C-1). (You need
only disclose real property which is located in
. whole or in part within or not more than two
miles outside the boundaries of the city or
within two miles of any land owned or used by
the city).
Investments (A, C-2) interests in real nrone~v
(B,C-1) and sources of income (D,E,F,H-1,H-2,H-
3) subject to the regulatory, permit, or
licensing authority of the department. (You
need only disclose investments in business
entities and sources of income which do
business in the City of Chula Vista, plans to
do business in the City, or has done business
in the City wi thin the past two years. In
.).3r /V ~
. /I'(L "7 ~'l~
J
,
category 4:
Category 5:
Category 6:
category 7:
addition to other activities, a business entity
is doing business within the City if it owns
real property within the City).
Investments (A,C-2) in business entities and
sources of income (D,E,F,H-l,H-2,H-3) which
engage in land development, construction, or
the acquisition Dr sale o~ real property.
Investments (A,C-2) in business entities and
sources of income (D,E,F,H-l,H-2,H-3') of the
type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the city of Chula Vista
(Redevelopment Agency) to provide services,
supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment.
Investments (A,C-2) in business entities and
sources of income (D,E,F,H-l,H-2,H-3) of the
type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the designated employee's
department to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery, or equipment.
Business t:lositions (G). (You need only
disclose positions of director, officer,
partner, trustee, employee, or any position of
management in organizations or enterprises
operated for prOfit).
\6. Additional Comments:
,
.
lote: If a draft agreement is available, please attach a copy.
~.
~ L".zs
City of Chula Vista
Contractor vs. In-House Cost Comparison Worksheet
CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR COST
BASE RATES
Base Contract Cost
Hourly Rate
Estimated Actual Hours
Additional Rates
(Aggregate Cost)
Total Base Cost
FCR BASED COSTS.
Contract Monitoring/
Support Costs
SUBTOTAL
. (Base + Support Costs)
OTHER
Supplies, Furniture,
and Equipment
Business License Tax
Other Applicable Tax
CPI, COLA, Annual Cost
IN-HOUSE COST
BASE RATES
Full-Time Equivalent
Employee Hourly Wage
Estimated Actual Hours
Total Base Cost
.FCR BASED COSTS
Division FCR Factor
(w/citywide Overhead)
SUBTOTAL
(Base x FCR Factor)
OTHER
Supplies, Furniture,
and Equipment
.
Other Applicable Tax
MOU or Annual Cost
--
-
-----------------~------
-
TOTAL COST
-
.
.
. For monitoring and support costs, see a~tached worksheet.
';;1- i8"
~ (...)..Ip
-----
Consultant or Contractor Nenitering/Apport Wwkshret
clerical Support /Supplles (Circle one)
A Independent crosultant; no use of office space. clerical support, er applies
R Limited ass of clerical rapport, Office space and supptles
C On -site consultant with Office space, clerical rapport, and suppties
Nonitort:g/Supervislon/Technicel Assistance (Circle One)
A Consultant provides end prod Only; little ints late monitoring
R select department staff involved in periodic meetings with consultant to discuss progress,
goals, and objectives of project On an ongoing or frequent bas's
C Deportment head and staff Involved in periodic meetings with consultant to discuss progress,
Deals, and objectives of prolect On On ongoing or frequent basis
Request for aualifieatlam/preposets - Preparation
Employee â–ºrepin In@ RFQ/RFP Rourly Rate
Full Cwt Recovery Rate Time Required total Cwt
peritori ng/Supervision/Tecinieal Assistance Personsel (Non clerical)
1 Employee Rourly Rue
1 Describe Interaction Wtamaltant
Full cwt Recovery Rate Time Required total Cwt
2
Employee Nourly Rate
Describe Interaction Wtamulunt
full Cost Recovery Rote Time Required Total Cost
3 Employee Nearly Rue
Describe Interaction w/Conmultant
Full Cost Recovery Rate time Required Total Cost
Rote: unto" the answer to either
Question 1 or ouestlon 2 is 4",
use Full Cwt Recovery factor
wiTnif Citywide overhead.
CONSULTANT/SERVICES COST COMP~SONS
FULL COST RECOVERY FACTORS
Without With
Citywide OVerhead Citywide OVerhead
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
f
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL
CITY A'l'TORNEY
CITY CLERK
ADMIN/COUNCIL
PAPE
INFO SYSTEMS
WORD PROCESSING
PUBLIC INFORMATION
PERSONNEL
COMM. DEVELOPMENT
EeON. DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE
PLANNING
NONDEPARTMNTAL
POLICE
ANIMAL CONTROL
FIRE PREVENTION
FIRE SUPPRESION
BLOG ;.. PERMITS
BLOG - CODE
BLOG - COMM.
ENG-DESIGN
ENG-ADV PLAN/SEWER
ENG-LAND DEV.
ENG-CONSTR INSPECT
ENG-GIS
ENG-TRAFFIC
ENG-SIGNAL/LIGHT
PW-TRAFFIC
PW-STREETS
PW-TREES
PW-SEWER/LIFT ST
PIR ADMIN.
PIR PARKS
PIR RECREATION
LIBRARY
C , R
PARKING METERS
TRANSIT
BCT
3.50
3.59
210
212
213
214
215
245
260
261
400
600
720
1000
1100
1230
1240
1300
1300
1300
1420
1421
1422
1423
1425
1430
1431
.1432
1,440
1450
1460
1511
1520
1522
1600
1470
2300
2350
4150
3..55399
2.44485
1.55399
3..55399
1.55399
3..55399
1.55399
4.12258
1.55399
2.98938
4.24303
1.55399
2.55820
1..55399
2.39830
2.16078
2.60062
1.91811
2.62380
2.25595
1.96726
2.36991
2.40099
2.12614
2.32419
3.08192
2.49728
2.37151
2.31329
2.02686
2.41687
2.16519
1.89205
2.53840
2.45876
2.23218
2.3.3214
1.55399
1.7B9n
1.55399
1.93887
2.82973
3..93887
1.93887
1.93887
3..93887
1.93887
4.50746
1.93887
3.37426
4.62791
1.93887
2.94308
1.93887
2.92998
2.69245
3.13229
2.44978
3.00868
2.64083
2.35214
2.75479
2.78587
2.51102
2.70906
3.46679
2.88216
2.75639
2.69816
2.41174
2.80175
2.55007
2.27693
2.92328
2.84364
2.61706
2.51702
1.93887
2.17485
1.93887
~ :;J -r.2.f:1
?/ I~
-. I . (/).J
Attachment E
, \ .
!:\;'. '.
:J" 'I.;
J' /
'.
"
j I
.
-
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
u.. '1
.eetiA; Datel 11/19/91
ITEM ~1:r1.E1
Report - Local Le;al Preference Policy anoS Attorney-Client
C"~ljct Waiver
City AttorneYI~
'/5tlo. Vote. Ye._No..,L.
Referral No. 2480
atlBKlnED BY I
BACKGROUND:
At the ReoSevelopment A;ency meetin; of October 1, 1991, the City Attorney wa.
oSirecteoS to coneioSer a policy for givin; preference to local (i.e. San Die;o
County) attorney. in recruiting out.ioSe le;al a..i.tance, incluoSin; therein,
way. to evaluate and, if appropriate, waive Attorney-Client conflict of intere.t
.ituation. that potential le;al aoSvi.or. may have between provioSin; eervice to
the City and providin; .ervicee to private exietin; or pre-exietin;, third party
client..
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: None applicable
RE:COMMLNOATION ':
It i. thi. office'. recommendation that all .uch attorney-client conflict. be
evaluated on a caee by caee baeie by the City Attorney becau.e the ri.k. of
injury to the City from bia.eoS legal advieor. could vary tremendoualy with the
circumltancee.
DISCUSSION:
The City Attorney in evaluating the retention of out.ide le;al a..ietance, for
bu.ine.1 and other reaeone,already give. due conlideration to the retention of
local le;al talent in providin; eupplemental la;al auietance to the City
Attorney'. office and .t.ff. The City Attorney'. office ha. eome concern that
the reduction of euch a practice to a written policy may run into the .ame le;al
ob.tacle. a. a local hirin; pref.rence policy. Alide from .uch con.ideration.,
however, . written policy would provide nothin; further than what i. alreaoSy
bein; accompli.hed by the City Attorney'. office in makin; oSeci.ion. to retain
local out.ioSe le;al a..i.tance.
In makin; a deci.ion to waive an attorney'. conflict, the City Attorney take.
into con.ioSeration the nature, ecope anoS compen.ation between the attorney anoS
hie or her the private eector client anoS the nature anoS ecope of eervice. and the
compenuUon that will be paid to the attorney by the City or A;ency.
Furthermore, we give conaideration to the extent anoS de;ree of in-houee knowleoS;e
which can be u.ed to .upervi.e.the aoSvice of the out.ide lawyer. At the a&me
time, we balance the potential for conflict with the co.t efficiency attainable
by the City in the employment of auch loc.al firma anoS the local economic
.timulation local hou.in; provioSe..
Rather than reoSucin; .uch item. to . written policy atatement, the City Attorney
will remain cognizant of all the.e variou. i..ue. each time that he make. a
-tr4s
1-37
re~ommendation to the City Coun~il re9ardin9 the employment of an out. ide law
firm.
Therefore, rather than redu~in9 .u~h pra~ti~e to a written policy .tatement, 1
would like to provide a..uran~e. by thia a;enda atatement, that the City
Attorney'. offi~e ia remain in; ~o;nizant of the benefit. that can be realized by
retainin9 lo~al le;al talent where available.
J'tS~AL IMPACTI H/A
CMI__
~
o)../,
I' --
("'3&
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 6/23/92
SUBMITTED BY:
ORDINANCE :2S /q of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista extending, as an interim and urgency measure, a moratorium on the
application for or issuance of any land use permits, including conditional
use permits, for an additional period of 10 months and 15 days except
upon consent of Council, for use of land as a hazardous waste facility
Director of Pl~~~g ;f).(
City Attorney \l)'#Y
City Manager') (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_)
i:
,
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The staff is in the process of preparing a General Plan Amendment and implementing ordinances
which would allow the City to establish planning and siting criteria and processing requirements
for hazardous waste facilities. On May 12, 1992, the City Council adopted an ordinance
establishing a 45 day moratorium on processing of land use permits for hazardous waste
facilities. The purpose of the moratorium was to avoid the risk of having an applicant claim a
right to a conditional use permit, or claim a right to process a conditional use permit under
current standards, until the City has properly adopted its planning, processing, and siting
criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council extend the interim urgency ordinance on the application
for and issuance of any zoning and related permits necessary for hazardous waste facilities for
an additional 10 months and 15 days. (If at least four voting Council members are not present,
it is recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of June 30.)
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As noted above, staff is currently preparing a General Plan Amendment which will implement
the San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and provide for standards and
guidelines relating to hazardous waste management which implement and supplement the County
Plan. Staff from the Planning Department, City Attorney's office, and City Manager's office
have met on a regular basis to provide input into the preparation of this document, as well as
devising the appropriate regulatory framework for implementing the proposed policies contained
in the General Plan Amendment. The proposed General Plan Amendment is scheduled to be
heard by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1992, and by the City Council on June 30, 1992.
"6 - I
Page 2, Item 8-
Meeting Date 6/23/92
However, implementing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, relating to processing guidelines
for hazardous waste facility conditional use permits and other aspects of Chula Vista's hazardous
waste management strategy, will not be completed and ready for Council action prior the
expiration of the current 45-day moratorium, due to the need to properly draft and review
implementing Zoning Ordinance amendments, the need to process appropriate environmental
documentation for such amendments, and provide public review for such implementation
measures.
Therefore, staff recommends that the previously enacted urgency ordinance be extended for a
period of 10 months and 15 days to allow for completion of implementing amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance relating to hazardous waste facilities. The ordinance prohibits the filing for
or issuance of permits during the moratorium period except with permission of the City Council,
and imposes the mandatory condition on the filing of application that the applicant agree to
comply, retroactively, with our City's Hazardous Waste Management Plan, both in terms of
policy or procedure. If, as is likely, the implementing Zoning Ordinance amendments are
completed prior to the scheduled expiration date, this urgency ordinance would be rescinded at
that time.
It should also be noted that the recommended action requires a four-fifths vote. If at least four
voting Council members are not present at the meeting of June 23, staff recommends that this
item be continued to the meeting of June 30.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(hazwaste.Al13)
'6 -2-
ORDINANCE NO.J.. 5 JCj
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA EXTENDING, AS AN INTERIM AND
URGENCY MEASURE, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE
OF ANY LAND USE PERMITS, FOR A PERIOD OF 10
MONTHS AND 15 DAYS EXCEPT UPON CONSENT OF
COUNCIL, FOR USE OF LAND AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the city Council adopted Ordinance No. 2513 on May
12, 1992, as an urgency measure, establishing an interim forty-five
day moratorium on the application for and issuance of any land use
permit for facilities handling hazardous wastes in the City of
Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the forty-five day moratorium established in
Ordinance No. 2513 will expire on June 26, 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the moratorium was to provide the City
with time to evaluate the County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan
and to develop its own requirements and siting criteria necessary
for operating or expanding hazardous waste facilities as mandated
by the Tanner Act, Health & Safety Code S 25135.7. These siting
requirements and siting criteria are important in maintaining and
protecting the health and safety of the City's residents; and,
WHEREAS, Staff from the Planning Department, City Attorney's
Office, and City Manager's Office have met and conferred on a
regular basis to develop a local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
and appropriate regulatory scheme for implementation; and,
WHEREAS, City staff will have completed their review and
development of a local Hazardous Waste Management Plan to be
incorporated into the city's General Plan within the forty-five
(45) days prescribed by Ordinance No. 2513 and within the 180 days
prescribed by the Tanner Act or July 6, 1992; and,
WHEREAS, despite the best efforts of City staff, the city will
not complete the regulatory scheme and implementing ordinance prior
to Ordinance No. 2513's June 26, 1992 deadline because of the
complexity of the Tanner Act, the size of the County's Hazardous
Waste Plan, the need to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and to provide for public review; and,
WHEREAS, a moratorium extension is necessary to maintain the
public safety, health and welfare because of the continuing risk a
hazardous waste operator may claim an entitlement to a permit under
existing regulations, without the application of requirements and
siting criteria under the City's prospective Hazardous Waste
Management Plan,
~-3
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The moratorium established pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2513 is hereby extended and shall remain in effect
for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days after the
adoption of this Ordinance, unless otherwise shortened or extended
by ordinance.
SECTION 2. The City Planning Commission and city staff are
hereby directed to continue their preparation of a City Hazardous
Waste Management Plan establishing planning and processing
requirements and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities for
the city of Chula vista.
SECTION 3. The city staff is hereby directed to prepare,
on behalf of the City Council, a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption
of this ordinance, and to file such report in the office of the
city Clerk ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the first
extension established by this ordinance.
SECTION 4. A current and immediate threat exists to the
public health, safety and welfare because without a local Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, the City may be deprived of authority to
site, plan and establish processing requirements for hazardous
waste facilities, including critical distances from residential
communities. The approval of any future permits without such a plan
could result in the hazardous placement and/or the imposition of
inadequate conditions affecting a hazardous waste facility, thereby
threatening the public safety, health and welfare. Further facts
establiShing urgency are set forth in the recitals of this
ordinance.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and
adoption of this ordinance by a vote of at least four-fifths of the
City Council of the city of Chula vista pursuant to Charter S 311
(d); shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original
ordinances of the city; shall make a minute of the passage and
adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City
Council at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall,
within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof,
cause the same to be published in the Chula vista Star, a newspaper
of general circulation, published and circulated in the city and
which is hereby designated for that purpose.
Approved as
~I
Bruce M. Booga
City Attorney
I
)
form 7'
Submitted by:
Robert Leiter
Planning Director
'6-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item q
Meeting Date (p J ),3/ q L
ITEM TITLE:
~5~D
An Ordinance of the city of Chula vista adding
Section 19.14.270 to the Municipal Code of the city
of Chula vista adopting procedures for the
enforcement of Conditional Use Permits and
variances.
SUBMITTED BY: Office of city Attorney n.Cl
REVIEWED BY: Bruce Boogaard, city Attorney ~~
Agenda classification: (x) Consent
( ) Action Item
( ) Public Hearing
( ) Other:
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (x) No
The city currently enforces variances and condition use permits
("CUP's") through its implied powers to modify and revoke permits
or as an express condition of the permit itself. The proposed
ordinance codifies existing procedures and criteria used to enforce
variances and CUP's. Interested parties are given notice and
hearing for evaluating such permits in accordance with due process
requirements of the Constitution. Final appeal is available to the
City Council. Codification is important in maintaining consistent
enforcement of the City's zoning laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council adopt the Ordinance to establish an
express procedure for enforcing CUP's and variances.
DISCUSSION:
Attached please find a copy of a proposed ordinance providing
procedures for evaluating conditional use permits (CUP's) and
variances. Currently, no written procedure exists for considering
violations of either. This proposed ordinance codifies existing
procedure.
Under the proposed ordinance, the planning director
investigates evidence to determine whether probable cause exists
that a CUP or variance involves the following: 1) the permit was
obtained by fraud; 2) the permit has not been used as specified in
section 19.14.260 i.e. within one year; 3) the entitled land use
q-J
has been abandoned; 4) the conditions of a permit have been
violated; 5) the permit is being exercised in excess of the use
right granted; 6) the permit is being exercised in a manner
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
The planning director issues a recommendation to the body
which issued the CUP or variance ("Permitting Authority"). The
Permitting Authority gives notice and holds a hearing subject to
certain due process requirements. The Permitting Authority issues
a written decision and may decide to do any of the following: 1)
maintain the existing permit; 2) modify or delete any provision or
condition; 3) establish any new condition or provision; 4) revoke
the permit; 5) establish a fine to be paid in lieu of revocation as
long as the violation is corrected.
An interested party or the planning director may appeal the
decision within ten days to the next highest issuing authority.
Final appeal may be made to the city council.
Codification of the City's procedures is important in
maintaining consistent enforcement of the City's zoning laws.
FISCAL IMPACT:
An uncertain savings in staff and council and future
litigation costs time may be experienced by codifying existing
procedures and standards for enforcement of CUP's and variances.
q-2..
If the planning director has probable cause to believe that any of
the foregoing has occurred or is substantially likely to occur,
he/she shall issue a recommendation as to what action should be
taken. The recommendation shall be submitted to the individual or
body which issued the conditional use permit or variance
(hereinafter referred to as "Permitting Authority").
B. The Permitting Authority shall hold a public hearing to
consider the planning director's recommendation regarding the
conditional use permit or variance.
C. Notice of any public hearing to consider violations of
variances and conditional use permits shall be given consistent
with the procedures set forth in Section 19.12.070. The notice
shall contain the following information:
1. The date, time, and place of the public hearing;
2. The identity of the Permitting Authority;
3.
A general explanation of the matter to be
including the nature of the planning
recommendation;
considered
director's
4. A general description, either in text or by diagram, of
the location of the property.
D. Procedures for Public Hearing: The following procedures
shall be followed for public hearings provided for in this section:
1. Recommendation and Reports: The planning director's
recommendation and any accompanying staff reports, if
any, shall be made available to the public prior to
commencement of the public hearing provided for herein.
2. Recordation: The public hearing may, at the written
request of an interested party, be recorded by either a
recording device or stenographer.
3. Testimony: Any witness offering evidence or testimony
may be placed under oath and subject to cross-examination
at the request of the Permitting Authority or any party
interested in the matter which is the subject of the
hearing.
4. Relevancy: Evidence or testimony must be relevant or
material to the fact or facts at issue. Any relevant
evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence
upon which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in
the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the
existence of any common law or statutory rule which would
otherwise make improper the admission of such evidence in
2
q-if
civil actions. All irrelevant and unduly repetitious
evidence may be excluded.
5. Hearsay: Hearsay evidence shall be admissible, but the
fact that evidence is hearsay may affect the weight given
to the evidence in reaching any a determination of any
question of fact. Hearsay evidence may be used for the
purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence,
but may not be sufficient by itself to support a decision
unless it would be admissible over objection in civil
actions.
6. Privileges: The rules regarding privileges shall be
effective to the extent they are raised and otherwise
required by law to be recognized at the hearing.
7. Procedural Compliance: The hearing need not be conducted
under rules relating to evidence. Failure of the
Permitting Authority to strictly enforce rules of
evidence and reject certain matters which may be
irrelevant or immaterial shall not be sufficient to
constitute reversible error on the part of the permitting
Authority if basic procedural due process is granted to
all affected parties and a fair hearing has been
conducted. Errors which do not affect substantial rights
will be disregarded and no presumption of prejudicial
error is raised by the failure to strictly adhere to
procedural requirement
E. The Permitting Authority, after public hearing, shall
make a finding or findings whether any or all of the factors
articulated in subsection (A) apply to a conditional use permit or
variance.
F. Based on its findings, the Permit Authority may do any
one or a combination of the following:
1. Maintain the existing variance or conditional use
permit without modification;
2. Modify or delete any provision or condition of the
variance or conditional use permit;
3. Establish any new condition or provision;
4. Revoke the variance or conditional use permit;
5. Establish any fine or charge which may be paid in
lieu of revocation, modification, or imposition of
a condition as long as any violation is corrected.
G. written Decision: The permitting Authority must issue a
3
9.S
written decision explaining the factual basis for its decision.
Notice of the Permitting Authority's written decision and action
shall be mailed to the affected party and any interested party
requesting such notice consistent with section 19.12.070. Said
notice shall be filed with the city clerk.
H. Right of Appeal: within ten (10) days after the notice
of the written decision is filed, unless the date is waived by the
appellate body upon a showing of good cause, any interested party
who participated in the public hearing or the planning director may
appeal the written decision to the appropriate appellate body as
follows:
1. If the Permitting Authority is the zoning administrator,
appeal shall be filed with planning commission;
2. If the Permitting Authority is the planning commission
appeal shall be filed with the city council;
3. If the Permitting Authority is the city council no
further appeal is available.
The appeal shall include a statement of the reasons supporting the
appeal, including a demonstration that any issues being raised were
raised during the public hearing.
1. After an appeal is filed and accepted, the appellate body
shall hold a public hearing consistent with the provisions set
forth in this section. The appellate body may, in its discretion,
consider additional evidence not presented at the public hearing.
J. The appellate body may reverse, uphold, or modify in any
manner a written decision or take any action consistent with this
section, after public hearing, upon a written appellate decision.
Notice of the written appellate decision shall be mailed to the
affected party and any interested party requesting such notice
consistent with section 19.12.070. Said notice shall be filed with
the city clerk.
L. Appeal to city Council: If the appellate body is not the
city council, an appeal may be filed by any interested party who
participated in the appeal or by the planning director may request
an appeal to the city council within ten (10) days after the notice
of the written appellate decision is filed, unless waived by the
city council upon a showing of good cause. The appeal shall include
a statement of the reasons supporting the appeal, including a
demonstration that any issues being raised were raised during the
public hearing.
The appeal shall include a statement of the reasons supporting
the appeal, including a demonstration that any issues being raised
were raised during the public hearing.
4
9.-10
M. Any written decision regarding an appeal shall be final
on the eleventh (11th) day after its filing, unless an appeal is
timely filed, if such an appeal is available to an issuing body or
a waiver is obtained. All written decisions issued by the city
council shall become final when notice of such written decision is
filed.
N. After the written decision becomes final, it shall be
filed with the director of planning, director of building and
housing, and a copy may be filed with the County Recorder of San
Diego County. Uses and structures must be brought into compliance
with the final decision or otherwise brought into compliance with
the underlying zone. Where a variance or conditional use permit is
revoked, it shall become void.
SECTION II: Th'
force on the thirt' t
ordinance shall take effect and be in full
day from and after its adoption.
m by
5
'1.1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Resolution flolofe.5 Accepting bids and awarding contract
for asphaltic concrete
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance .~;e
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~
v
ITEM TITLE:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
Bids were received and opened at 11:00 a.m. on June 12, 1992 in the Office of
the Purchas i ng Agent for furni shi ng asphaltic concrete to the Ci ty for use
during the period July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. Bids were requested
for a six-month period due to fluctuating material costs.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the bids and award the contract to Sim
J. Harris Co.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Bids were requested for the following:
ITEM
1
2
3
MATERIAL
ESTIMATED
USAGE
Type III-F-AR-4000 asphaltic concrete (sheet asphalt)
Type II I -D-AR-4000 asphaltic concrete (3/8" max. aggregate)
Type III-D-SC-800 asphaltic concrete (cold mix)
1,580 Tons
3,000 Tons
420 Tons
Four vendors were mailed bid proposal forms with the following bids received:
PRICE PER TON TOTAL BID BASED
BIDDER ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ON EST. USAGE
Sim J. Harris Co. 23.50 19.00 24.00 $104,210
San Diego
Calif. Commercial Asphalt 25.00 20.00 22.50 108,950
San Diego
Lakeside Asphalt 22.99 21. 49 21. 69 109,904
Lakeside
Industri al Asphalt 25.50 20.50 23.50 111 ,660
San Diego
/D - {
Page 2, Item /0
Meeting Date 6/23/92
As in previous years, the bid specifications called for pick up of the
materi a 1 at the vendor's plant. Thi sway, the job site coul d be prepared
while trucks were on route to pick up hot material and application made on
their return.
The bid of Sim J. Harris meets specifications and is acceptable to the
Director of Public Works. The FY 91-92 unit prices were as follows:
ITEM 1
25.00
ITEM 2
20.00
ITEM 3
22.50
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are provided for in the Gas Tax Fund.
WPC 0313U
II) -2.
RESOLUTION NO. !told.",,!;;
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
The City council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, bids were received and opened at 11:00 a.m. on the 12th day
of June, 1992, in the Office of the Purchasing Agent of the City of Chula Vista
for furnishing asphaltic concrete to the City for use during the period July 1,
1992 through December 31, 1992 as follows:
ITEM
MATERIAL
ESTIMATED
USAGE
1
Type III-F-AR-4000 asphaltic concrete (sheet asphalt)
Tons
Type III-D-AR-4000 asphaltic concrete (3/8" max. aggregate)
Tons
Type III-D-SC-800 asphaltic concrete (cold mix)
Tons
1,580
2
3,000
3
420
WHEREAS, the following four bids were received:
PRICE PER TON TOTAL BID BASED
BIDDER ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ON EST. USAGE
Sim J. Harris Co. ,
San Diego 23.50 19.00 24.00 104,210.
Calif. Commercial Asphalt,
San Diego 25.00 20.00 22.50 108,950.
Lakeside Asphalt,
Lakeside 22.99 21. 49 21. 69 109,904.
Industrial Asphalt 25.50 20.50 23.50 111,660.
San Diego
WHEREAS, the bid specifications called for pick up of the material at
the vendor's plant so that the job site could be prepared while trucks were on
route to pick up hot material and application made on their return; and
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that said contract be awarded to the
low bidder, Sim J. Harris, who has assured the City that he is a licensed
contractor in the state of California and can produce an acceptable performance
bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept said four bids, and does hereby award the contract
for said asphaltic concrete to Sim J. Harris to be completed in accordance with
the specifications as approved by the Director of Public Works of the City of
Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent of the City of Chula
Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for
and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
1
/0-3
Presented by
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
C:\n~le
2
1&1 - if
I
I
I
^'~,o ,
[Bruce M. Boogaard, Ci~
I
I
i
ttorney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item \. \.
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I\"Lo\o~ Accepting bids and awarding contract
for asphaltic emulsions
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
[/
Bids were received and opened at 10:00 a.m. on June 12, 1992, in the Office of
the Purchasing Agent for furnishing RS-2 asphaltic emulsions with latex to the
City for the period July 1, 1992 through September 30, 1992. The emulsion is
required to be delivered to the work site and spread by the vendor.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the bids and award the contract to Sim
J. Harris Company.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Three vendors were mailed bid proposal forms. The following bids were
received:
ADDITIONAL
PRICE CHARGE PER TON COST PER HOUR IF
BIDDER PER TON FOR SHORT LOADS SPREAD TIME OVER 7 HRS
Sim J. Harris Co. $164.00 -0- $80.00
San Diego
Western Emulsion $245.00 $25.00 $85.00
Escondido
The material will be used for the street chip seal ing program which will be
completed by the end of September. The estimated usage is 300 tons with a
total cost of $53,013 including sales tax.
The bid of Sim J. Harris Company is low, meets specifications and it is the
recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the contract be awarded to
this company.
FY 91-92 unit price was $174.00 per ton, no additional charge per ton for
short load and $80 hourly spread time over 6 hours.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are provided for in the Gas Tax Fund.
JE:fp
WPC 0311U
~\ - I
RESOLUTION NO. Af.&>b 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS
The city Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the following two bids were received and opened
at 10:00 a.m. on the 12th day of June, 1992, in the Office of the
purchasing Agent of the city of Chula vista for furnishing RS-2
asphaltic emulsions with latex to the city for the period July 1
through September 30, 1992:
BIDDER
PRICE
PER TON
ADDITIONAL
CHARGE PER TON COST IHOUR IF SPREAD
FOR SHORT LOADS TIME OVER 7 HRS.
sim J. Harris Co.
San Diego
$164.00
-0- $80.00
Western Emulsion
Escondido
$245.00
$25.00 $85.00
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that said contract be
awarded to Sim J. Harris Co. who has assured the city that he is a
licensed vendor in the State of California and can produce an
acceptable performance bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby accept said two bids, and does hereby
award the contract for said asphaltic emulsions to sim J. Harris Co.
to be completed in accordance with the specifications as approved by
the Director of Public Works of the city of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent of the City
of Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said contract for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
1
to forI:'
;7:]"
Bruce M. Boogarxd
I
City Attorney
Presented by
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
c:\n\ashemulsioo
11-2..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /2-
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Resolution 1101p1o~ Accepting bids and awarding contract
for screenings (stone chips)
Director of Finance ~
City Managei1'
L
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Bids were received and opened at 3:00 p.m. on June 12, 1992, in the Office of
the Purchasing Agent for furnishing screenings (stone chips) to the City for
the period July 1 through December 31, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the bids and award the contract to Sim
J. Harris Company.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Four vendors were mailed bid proposal forms with three submitting the
following bids:
BIDDER
PRICE PER TON
$14.45
17.28
19.45
TOTAL BID BASED
ON EST. USAGE
$57,800
69,120
77,800
Sim J. Harris Co. - San Diego
David Martin Supplies - Lakeside
Asphalt, Inc. - El Cajon
The bid of Sim J. Harris Company meets specifications and it is the
recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the contract be awarded to
thi s company. The est imated usage is 4,000 tons and deli very wi 11 be to the
City Yard. The FY 91-92 price per ton was $17.75.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are provided for in the Gas Tax Fund.
WPC 0312U
\"t. - \
RESOLUTION NO.1 (Plolo~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS
CONTRACT FOR SCREENINGS (STONE
OF THE CITY OF
AND AWARDING
CHIPS)
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the following two bids were received and opened
at 3:00 p.m. on the 12th day of June, 1992, in the Office of the
purchasing Agent of the City of Chula vista for furnishing
screenings (stone chips) to the City for the period July 1 through
December 31, 1992 with an estimated usage of 4,000 tons delivered
to the city yard:
BIDDER
PRICE PER TON
TOTAL BID BASED
ON EST. USAGE
sim J. Harris Co., San Diego
David Martin Supplies, Lakeside
Asphalt, Inc., El Cajon
$14.45
$17.28
$19.45
$57,800
$69,120
$77,800
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that said contract be
awarded to Sim J. Harris Co. who has assured the City that he is a
licensed vendor in the State of California and can produce an
acceptable performance bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept said three bids, and
does hereby award the contract for said screenings (stone chips) to
Sim J. Harris Co. to be completed in accordance with the
specifications as approved by the Director of Public Works of the
city of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the purchasing Agent of the
city of Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
execute said contract for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
~Pt: ;h tio
Bruce M. Boogaard
Presented by
rm by
('
i
~
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
i ty Attorney
C: \rs\screenings
/2 - 2.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item ""t2-.1.3
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Resolution Il..lo("~ Approving an agreement between the City
of Chul a Vi sta and the San Di ego Unifi ed Port Di stri ct for
grounds and comfort stat i on maintenance at the "J" Street
Marina Bayside Park and adjaCe~.a. ndscape medians
Director of Parks and Recreati~
City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution No. 16481 authorized the 15th amendment to an agreement with the
San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and comfort station maintenance at
"J" Street Mari na, Bays i de Park, and the 1 andscape medi ans on Tide lands duri ng
fiscal year 1991-92. The agreement attached will be the 16th amendment to the
original agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the 16th amendment to the agreement
and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The "J" Street Marina and Bayside Park FY 1991-92 agreement of $275,010 was
approved and adopted by Council on January 28, 1992. The new agreement for FY
1992-93 was reviewed by Port District manager who will recommend approval to
the Port District Commission.
The agreement for 1992-93 provides the same level of maintenance with an
administrative overhead charge of $91,580. The overhead amount is included in
the maintenance agreement for $306,766.
The a9reement requires the Port District to reimburse the City the approved
budget amount on a quarterly basis beginning on July 1, 1992.
Attached is a copy of the budget approved by Council on June 16, 1992, and the
agreement to cover the 12-month period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT: The revenues from thi s agreement will reimburse the City's
operating and administrative expeditures budgeted in the 1992-93 fiscal year.
WPC 1743R
\~ ' I
RESOLUTION NO. [to0 enq
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICT FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION
MAINTENANCE AT THE "J" STREET MARINA BAYSIDE
PARK AND ADJACENT LANDSCAPE MEDIANS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 16481 authorized the 15th
Amendment to an Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District
for grounds and comfort station maintenance at "J" Street Marina,
Bayside, and the landscape medians on Tidelands during fiscal year
1991-92; and
WHEREAS, the new agreement for FY 1992-93 was reviewed by
the Port District Manager who will recommend approval to the Port
District Commission for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the agreement for 1992-93 provides the same
level of maintenance with an administrative overhead charge of
$91,580.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the sixteenth Amendment
to an Agreement between the city of Chula vista and the San Diego
Unified Port District for grounds and comfort station maintenance
at the "J" Street Marina, Bayside Park and adjacent medians in San
Diego Unified Port District Property, a copy of which is on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mayor of the City of Chula
vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed 0 execute said
Agreement for an on behalf of the City of Chula V's a.
Presented by
Ap 0 t
~ruc, M. Boogaa" , City
Attorney
rm by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
C:\rs\16th Amend Port District
\3 -.2
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICT FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION
MAINTENANCE AT THE "J" STREET MARINA, BAYS IDE
PARK AND ADJACENT MEDIANS IN SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICT PROPERTY
THIS AMENDED AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day
of , 1992, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY", and THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter
called "DISTRICT";
l'llIN.E..s..s..E.I!:!:
WHEREAS, the San Diego Unifi ed Port Di stri ct and the Ci ty of Chula
Vi sta executed an agreement for maintenance of Port Di stri ct property at the
"J" Street Marina on September 28, 1977, and
WHEREAS, said agreement provided for the extension and amendment of
the agreement when mutually consented to by the parties, and
WHEREAS, both parties mutually agree to extend said agreement and to
expand the maintenance area.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between
the parties as follows:
1. MAINTENANCE TO BE PROVIDED
See attached Exhibit A.
2. AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED.
See attached Exhibit B.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO DUTIES.
It is understood and agreed that the cost for maintenance as set
forth in Paragraph 1 of this agreement does not cover materials, or labor, or
repai rs of the structures, buil di ng or 1 andscapi ng as a result of major
vandalism or destruction from any cause whatsoever. Such repairs or
replacements shall be considered to be over and above ordinary maintenance and
wi 11 be performed by Ci ty forces only after approval by the Di strict and
actual costs for material and labor involved in such repairs will be billed to
the District. Major vandalism shall be defined as anyone-time cost
(including material and labor) amounting to more than $500.00.
1 ~ -:3
4. CONSIDERATION
In consideration for the City's maintenance of the area defined in
attached Exhibit B for fiscal year 1992-93, the District shall pay to the City
$306,766. Payment to be made quarterly on July 1 and October 1, 1992 and
January 1 and April 1, 1993.
5. TERM AND TERMINATION
The term of this amendment shall be for the fiscal year from July 1,
1992 to and including June 30, 1993, provided, however, either party may
terminate this agreement at any time by giving the other party notice in
writing sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. It is further
provided that said agreement may be renewed each fi sca 1 year subject to the
same sixty (60) day termination provision and subject to mutual agreement
between the parties as to the annual consideration to be paid by District for
said services for said fiscal year. In the event that employee salaries have
not been established for the fiscal year, the parties agree that the
consideration shall be adjusted retroactively from July 1 to the time salaries
are establ ished. Said retroactive adjustment shall be effective upon written
notice by the Director of Parks and Recreation to the Port District.
6. HOLD HARMLESS
Di stri ct agrees to indemnify and hol d harml ess the Ci ty of Chula
Vista against and from any and all damages to property or injuries to or death
of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the City, and shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and
employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of
any ki nd or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or
arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the
District or any of its officers, agents, or employees.
City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the San Diego Unified Port
Di stri ct agai nst and from any and all damages to property or i njuri es to or
death of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the District,
and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers,
agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or
proceedings of any kind or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way
resulting from or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or
omissions of the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees.
7. INSURANCE
A. District shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement
maintain comprehensive general 1 iabil ity and property damage insurance
covering all operations hereunder of District, its agents and employees
including but not limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limits. Evidence of such
coverage, in the form of a letter indicating self-insurance shall be submitted
to the City Clerk at 276 Fourth Avenue.
-2-
\3 - ~
Said Policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice
to the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista of cancellation or material
change.
City shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement maintain
comprehens i ve general 1 i abil ity and property damage insurance coveri ng all
operations hereunder of City, its agents and employees including but not
limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in
the form of a Certificate of Insurance and Policy Endorsement which names the
District as Additional Insured, shall be submitted to the San Diego Unified
Port District, P. O. Box 488, San Diego, CA 92112.
Said Policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice
to the San Diego Unified Port District of cancellation or material change.
B. City shall also carry Worker's Compensation insurance in
the statutory amount and Employer's Liability coverage in the amount of
$500,000; evidence of which is to be furnished to District in the form of
Certificate of Insurance.
8. ATTORNEYS FEES
In the event of any dispute between the parties, the prevailing
party shall recover its attorney fees, and any costs and expenses incurred by
reason of such dispute.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to
be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
By: Assistant Port Director
ATTEST
City Clerk
Approved as to form by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Joseph D. Patello, Port Attorney
WPC 17 44R
-3-
\~-5'
EXHIBIT 'A'
MAINTENANCE PROVIDED FOR "J" STREET MARINA, BAYS IDE PARK,
LANDSCAPE MEDIANS
I. Employee Service 1991-92 1992-93
5101 Salaries & Wages 104,420 117,006
5103 Overtime 1,930 2,020
5105 Hourly wages 10,240 11 , 240
5131 Sick Leave Pay-in-Lieu 170
5141 Retirement Contribution 15,170 15,170
5142 Employee Benefit Plan 17 , 270 17,270
5143 Medicare Contribution - City 1,770 790
5144 Worker's Compensation 120
5145 PARS Contribution - City 420
151,090 164,036
II. Supplies & Services
5252 Telephone 250 250
5253 Trash Collection 7,020 6,780
5268 Service to Maintain-Other Equipment 390 390
5269 Equipment Maintenance-City Forces 11,400 11,760
5281 Laundry & Cleaning Services 660 660
5298 Other Contractual Services 5,280 5,280
5302 Janitorial Supplies 2,410 2,410
5304 Wearing Apparel 360 360
5341 Small Tool s 210 210
5351 Landscape Supplies 7,940 7,940
5362 Materials to Maintain Buil di ngs,
Streets & Grounds 6,270 6,270
5398 Other Equipment -
-
42,190 42,310
III. Capital Equipment
5568 Other Equipment lLJl1Q.
TOTAL 8,840
IV. Administrative Overhead
(.7827 x 117,006)
81,730
91,580
GRAND TOTAL
275,010
306,766
WPC 1745R
\ ~~b
EXHIBIT liB"
. ~ ~;O . .
F STREEl
- _. .
.HADED AREAS INDICATE,
" "'::_ AI~TEN"ANCE A~EA~
'San'
Diego
Bay
;
. ,-
.. -.. .'!:.
\
~.
~
-I
-
C
"0 " m
- I
"C r-
m. . >
= :z
c
WAY (/)
c
.'
.--. .~- . .
.
..
.
~r
.
..
c.
~. -
0)
'.
n
,1\
u
. . It ~
'H STREE
U~
.."
':0
m
.' m
..' :E
>
<
"
...; .
. ......
, ~to
~
-<
to
o
c:
r-
o' , "m
.... <
',' ):-
. ,":0
" C
. '.
STREET
MARINA
VIEW'.
PARK
\
DRAWN BY TITLE
MF.S S.D. UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
DATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
1/15/92
\ '?:.-7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Ite. /3
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 5/26/92
Public Hearing: Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
a) Resolution 1~'3' Approving agreements for execution in
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) and
authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreements
b) Resolution I~''I'' Approving transfer of funds to
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c) Resolution I~'I/ / Ordering certain changes and
modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment District
No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
d) Resol ut ion Ii-&. 'I ~ Overrul i ng and denyi ng protests and
making certain findings in Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road)
e) Resolution I"/'I/;! Confirming the assessment, ordering the
improvements made, together wi th appurtenances, approvi ng the
Engineer's "Report", making CEQA findings, and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan regarding Assessment Di strict No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road) ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
Director of Community De elopment
REVIEWED BY: City Manager:.j(l ~!>l ,~11 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..L.)
U ---::
On April 21, 1992, Council adopted the Resolution of Intention to construct
and finance certain public improvements to Otay Valley Road, east of I-80S,
pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and set the public hearing
on the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)' for May
26, 1992 for the purpose of hearing public testimony. The associated
resolutions make changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report, overrule
protests, confirm the assessments, make CEQA findings and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, approve utility
and underwriter agreements, and transfer funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee has reviewed and di scussed progress on the road on a regular basis
since early 1990. Previous actions have included review and recommendation on
the median configuration plan and a recommendation for interim stop signs at
I-80S and Otay Valley Road. The Committee also hosted property owner meetings
to discuss the assessment district on July 11, 1991. The minutes from the
July 11, 1991, January 13, 1992, February 24, 1992 and May 11, 1992 meetings
(the last meetings including a discussion of the roadway) are attached as
exhibits A, B, C, and c-o.
13-/
Page 2, Itell
Meeting Date
1:3
5/26/92
The Project Area Committee has taken no official action on this project. It
has, however, generally supported the roadway project but questions the
spread, the cost and the financial impact to local businesses.
The Resource Conservat i on Commi ss i on revi ewed the Draft EIR on October 23,
1989, and recommended that the Planning Commission find the Draft EIR
adequate. The minutes are attached as exhibit C-l.
The Planning Commission reviewed and conducted a publ ic hearing on the Draft
ErR on November 8, 1989, and continued the publ ic hearing to January 24,
1990. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and certified on
September 25, 1991 that the Final EIR had been prepared in compliance with the
CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula
Vista. Planning Commission minutes from November 8, 1989, January 24, 1990
and January 25, 1991 are included as exhibits D, E and E-l.
DISCUSSION:
The Redevelopment agency and staff have been working on improving Otay Valley
Road between I-80S and Nirvana for several years. In March of 1988, the
Agency retained the firm of Leedshill-Herkenhoff to prepare the plans for a
six lane Major Street. In May 15, 1990, the Redevelopment Agency hired a team
of consultants to form a construction type assessment district, if feasible,
for the improvement of Otay Valley road east of I-80S. In July of 1991, the
City approved Resolution 16274 approving preliminary proceedings for the Otay
Va 11 ey Road Assessment Di strict and request i ng the County of San Di ego gi ve
Consent and Juri sd i ct i on to i nc 1 ude a port i on of the Otay Ranch Property
currently used as a quarry. Consent was granted on May 17, 1992 by the County
Board of Supervisors.
On April 21, 1992, Council set May 26, 1992 as the date to conduct the public
hearing. The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 requires that a public hearing
be conducted to hear public testimony prior to forming an assessment district
to finance public improvements through the sale of bonds. All owners of
property within the proposed assessment district have been mailed a notice of
the publ i c heari ng and the amount of the proposed assessment to thei r land.
After conducting the public hearing and considering any testimony presented,
the Council may choose to proceed with the format i on of the di stri ct by
adopting the resolution. If the owners of more than 50% of the land area
within the proposed district protest the formation of the district, the
Council may form the district by a 4/5ths vote, otherwise a 3/5ths vote is
adequate if there is less than a majority protest. Included in today's
hearing is consideration of the 1931 Act Debt Limit Report (See Engineer's
Report, page 27.) which addresses value to 1 ien requirements. In all cases
the assessment meet the 2:1 ratio in compliance with the Act.
The proposed assessment district improvement of Otay Valley Road will be
accomplished in two phases. Phase I consists of widening the existing two and
three lanes to six lanes with a landscaped median (part of the way), curb,
gutter and sidewalk on both sides, sidewalk trees, underground utilities,
supplemental water main, and traffic signals from I-80S to Nirvana Avenue.
Phase II consists of widening the existing two lanes to four lanes with a
median barrier and graded shoulders, from Nirvana Avenue to the City/County
J:J.. .)..
Page 3, !tell J 3
Meeting Date 5/26/92
,boundary. Because of the substantial amount of exi st i ng development on the
north side in Phase I, and the steep slopes on the north side in Phase II, it
is necessary to move the centerline of the street approximately 30 feet to the
south of its existing location to accommodate the six lane improvements.
Utilitv Underoroundino Aoreements
The undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, from approximately 600
feet west of I -805 to Ni rvana Avenue, is proposed to be part ia lly funded by
the City, through its allocation of SDG&E undergrounding funds (20A district
funds), and part i ally by the assessment di stri ct. The SDG&E funds of about
$320,000 cover the portion of undergrounding from approximately 1-805 to
Oleander. SDG&E funds cover this area because the City set up a "20A"
District for this segment. A "20A" district allows the city to utilize their
allocation of funds from SDG&E to underground utilities. The remainder of the
undergrounding project is not within the "20A" District and will cost the
assessment district approximately $642,526. This is referred to as a "208"
district whereby the property owners pay for the undergrounding costs. One of
the agreements (Agreement 1) included in this agenda item is with SDG&E and
pertains to the portion of the undergrounding project to be funded by the
assessment district.
However, the City is working on extending the "20A" district from Oleander to
Nirvana which, if accomplished, will save the assessment district about
$642,000 because the $642,000 would then come from the City's allocation of
SDG&E "20A" funds. If the "20A" district is extended, the City would not
expend $642,000 of assessment district funds on undergrounding which could
then be used to call bonds, thereby reduci ng the annua 1 assessment
installment. If the "20A" district is not extended, it has no effect on the
assessment district as proposed. Agreements on the "20A" District for the
segment from Oleander to Nirvana would be presented to Council at a later date.
The existing overhead telephone lines will be undergrounded with the electric
lines in the district. There is an agreement (Agreement 1) pertaining to the
telephone facilities included with this agenda item.
The supplemental water main included in the project is to provide additional
fire flow capacity in conformance with City requirements for industrial
areas. The estimated construction cost of the water main is $126,795. One of
the agreements (Agreement 3) included in this agenda item is with the Otay
Water Di stri ct and pertai ns to the construct ion and acceptance of the water
facil it ies.
Proiect Costs
The total estimated project cost is as follows:
CONSTRUCTION COST
Phase I
Phase II
$6,857,138
2.934.121
$9,791,259
Total Construction Cost
/:;1.. 3
Page 4, Itl!ll 13
Meeting Date 5/26/92
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Design Engineering
Const. Project Mgmt.
R/W Appra i sa 1
Legal Services (R/W)
Animal Shelter Reloc.
Otay Water District inspection
City Adm. Cost
Plan Check Cost
Inspection & Matl. Testing
Traffic Design
Wetland Mitigation Cost
A.D. Project Mgmt.
Financial Consultant
Assessment Engineering
Printing, Advertising, Posting
Bond Printing, Servicing, Reg.
Bond Counsel
SUBTOTAL INCIDENTALS
TOTAL CONST. & INCID. COSTS
LESS CITY CONTRIBUTION
LESS IMPROVEMENT CREDITS
TOTAL C & I ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
$ 834,917
50,000
55,000
30,546
200,000
80,000
55,000
280,000
350,000
7,500
534,860
25,500
67,000
90,500
3,200
12,500
36.758
$ 2,713,281
$12,504,540
$(3,435,467)
$ (163,099)
$ 8,905,974
Capitalized Interest
Bond Discount
Bond Reserve Fund
$ 147,456
312,187
1. 040.624
$ 1,500,267
TOTAL BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
TOTAL ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
$10,406,242
Council authorized a call for construction bids on March 3, 1992 and the bids
have already been received for the Phase I portion. Construction could begin
in July, if the assessment district is formed. It is anticipated that the
Ci ty will award the contract on June 23rd for Phase I. It is necessary to
award this contract during this fiscal year to obtain the SB300 funds of
approximately $1.1 million. Otherwise, less SB 300 funds may be available in
future fiscal years. During this cycle, the State is reimbursing the City
approximately 30% of the construction cost and it is anticipated that future
fiscal years will be closer to 10%. It is anticipated that the Phase II
construction could begin in early 1993. It should be noted that during Phase
II, Otay Valley Road will be widened to six lanes by the Otay Ranch
development when that project begins developing in the vicinity.
1.3~'I
Page 5, Itell /3
Meeting Date 5/26/92
Six lane Construction
Current traffic volumes on Otay Valley Road (Phase I) warrant the construction
of four lanes at this time, however, the projected ultimate traffic volumes
require a six lane facility, which is also consistent with the Circulation
Element of the adopted General Plan. It is recolllllended that the six lane
facility be constructed at this time for the following reasons:
1. If only four lanes are constructed now, the construction of the
remaining two lanes would be very disruptive to the area at the time
of their construction. The noise, dust, and inconvenience of
traffic delays and impaired access for a significant construction
period would be difficult to tolerate by property owners and
businesses.
2. The cost is substant i ally lower to construct the full six 1 ane
facility at one time. Initially, with six lanes of improvements to
construct, there is more space to accommodate and reroute the
existing traffic than if only four lanes were to be built. In the
future, the widening of four lanes to six lanes would have to be
accomplished with very little working space and substantially higher
traffic volumes. This would not only result in the circumstances
described above, but would add greatly to the cost.
3. The right-of-way and grading for the 6-lane facil ity is needed to
allow development on the south side and the only savings to
construct 4 lanes would be for two lanes of pavement which is
approximately $400,000.
The land within the assessment district boundaries is that which receives the
most direct and special benefit from the proposed improvements. Otay Valley
Road is a regional facility and, as such, carries traffic which does not begin
and or end withi n the proposed assessment di stri ct. In recogni t i on of thi s
fact, it is recommended that the City contribute the fyJ.J. cost of two of the
six lanes in Phase I to the proposed assessment district.
Assessment District Boundaries
In meetings with property owners, it has been suggested that the boundaries be
expanded to include some portion of Otay Mesa to the south. This is not
recommended since the City of San Diego has allocated over $10 million in its
Otay Mesa Public Facilities Financing Plan for the future construction of Otay
Valley Rd./Heritage Rd. from Otay Mesa Road north to the Otay River. It has
a 1 so been suggested that the Otay Ranch 1 and east of Otay Vall ey Road be
included. This also is not recolllllended since the Otay Ranch project will be
required to widen Phase II to six lanes, as noted previously, and to extend
Otay Valley Road east to SR-125. The value of these improvements, which would
be utilized by vehicles from this assessment district, more than offsets the
benefits received from this project.
/J-s"
Page 6. Itell
Meeting Date
13
5/26/92
Additionally, areas beyond the assessment district boundaries such as Otay
Ranch and Otay Mesa will be constructing facilities to service their
deve 1 opments. The cost of these fac il it i es wi 11 be borne by those
developers. Those within this assessment district will not share in those
costs just as those developments are not participating in the cost of this
road widening project.
MethodoloQv of Assessment ADDlication
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 requires that the costs of the district
be "spread" to the land within the district based on the benefits received
from the improvements. Since it is major street improvements that are being
constructed, a measure of the benefit to be received by the land within the
district is vehicle trip generation per acre of land. Since all of the land
withi n the di stri ct, except the County 1 andfi 11 and the Nel son-Sloan quarry,
is zoned for industrial use, the vehicle trip generation per acre is the same
throughout the district. In accordance with the SANDAG Guide of Vehicular
Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, a rate of 200 trips per
acre was used as the bas i s for the cost spread. The County landfi 11 and the
Nelson-Sloan are unique in that the land area is not utilized for buildings,
but as a resource whi ch is used. In both cases, actual traffi c counts were
utilized in determining their benefit. Therefore, the resulting
proportionality of the assessments is, with two exceptions, the actual parcel
area.
The County-owned landfill parcel, because it is publicly owned land, as a
public agency, cannot be assessed through the district, however, City staff
will be negotiating with the County for their participation in the cost of the
improvements. In the interim, it is recommended that the City contribute the
anticipated County share of $365,000 to the district.
Portions of many of the parcels in the district are impaired by wetland areas
or open space. The area of these impairments have been subtracted from each
parcel because these areas are, in essence, undevelopable and cannot generate
traffic.
In addition, at various locations along Otay Valley Road, property owners have
constructed street improvements as a condition of development. While in most
cases the improvements will have to be replaced to accommodate the new
improvements, it would not be equitable to charge these property owners twice
for improvements they installed in good faith. Therefore, the value of the
existing improvements, whether they will be replaced or not, is being
subtracted from the assessments of the parcel s for which they were
constructed, and being spread to all land within the district. It should be
noted that in order to be equitable to all land in the district, these credits
are based on the bid prices received for identical work on the improvement of
Otay Valley Road, and not the cost paid by the property owner at the time the
improvements were constructed. A formal presentation on this will be
presented Tuesday night.
/3""
Page 7, Itell
Meeting Date
J3
5/26/92
The assessments to the land in the district are approximately $0.61 per sq.
ft. or about $26,600 per acre of assessable area, before the appl ication of
improvement credits. If the district became a part of a larger assessment
distri ct, staff anticipates costs woul d increase, not decrease. In
comparison, other areas in the eastern part of the City are paying assessments
or fees of approximately $1.40 per sq. ft. or over $60,000 per acre for
construction of similar major streets.
The Rio Otay Industrial Park subdivision (Darling-Delaware) is being assessed
on the same basis as other land within the district. However, an
environmental concern has not been resolved and no development is allowed at
present time until there is an evaluation of the environmental concern. It is
therefore proposed that bonds not be issued until such time as building
permits can be issued.
While the City would have the ability to issue and sell the bonds at any time
in order to reimburse its cash advance, an agreement is currently being
negotiated with the owner, Darling-Delaware, relative to the timing of the
environmental concerns and the issuance and sale of the bonds. No building
permits will be issued for this subdivision until the City reaches an
agreement with Darling-Delaware.
If the assessment district is formed, the property owners will have 30
calendar days, beginning the day after the public hearing, in which they may
pay all, or any portion of their assessment in cash. Any portion of the
assessment paid during this period is not subject to the bond issuance costs
listed above, and thus an approximate 14.5% discount is applied. All property
owners will be mailed a Notice of Assessment for their land explaining the
amount assessed, and the amount to pay if they wish to discharge their
assessment in full. After the 30 day cash payment period is over, 1915 Act
bonds will be sold and issued in the amount of the total unpaid assessments.
The cash payments and the bond proceeds will be utilized to pay the
construction and incidental expenses.
As in all areas where there is a substantial amount of undeveloped land, there
is the possibility that some land, not currently judged to be developable,
will be developed. Or, that land being assessed as industrial use as a part
of these proceedings, will be developed, or redeveloped in a use which will
generate more vehicle trips per acre than the 200 trips per acre util ized in
this district. In order to insure equity to the assessment district, if it is
formed, the establi shment of a Fee Recovery Di strict wi 11 be brought before
the Council within 30 days of the formation of this assessment district. That
Fee Recovery Di stri ct wi 11 prOVide for the coll ect i on of a fee for each
vehicle trip generated above the 200 trips per acre used in this district or
for parcels that were not assessed.
At the close of the public testimony portion of today's hearing, staff will
report to the Council the amount of protests, both written and oral, measured
by land area in the district. If the protests amount to less than a simple
majority of the land area, the Council may form the di stri ct and 1 evy the
assessments by a simple majority vote. However, if the protest represents
more than a Simple majority of the land area, the district can only be formed
by 4/Sths vote of the Council.
13.7
Page 8, Itl!ll J:J
Meeting Date 5/26/92
Financinq
The fi nanci ng of the proposed assessments is to be accompl i shed through the
issuance of 1915 Act bonds. It is recommended that the sale of the bonds be
negotiated with the firm of Stone & Youngberg, the largest underwriter of this
type of bond in California. A negotiated sale as opposed to a public sale is
being recommended because of the ever changing complexities involved, and it
allows the City to negotiate with one bond bidder. Otherwise difficulties are
encountered in communicating complexities with dozens of potential bond
bidders in the required formal noticing procedures. The first step in this
process is to enter into an agreement (Agreement 4) with an underwriter. The
financial advisor, bond counsel, and the Director of Finance recommend a
negotiated sale for this district.
Final EIR and Associated Resolution
At it's April 21, 1992 meeting, Council considered the Final Environmental
Impact Report and Addendum thereto for the Otay Valley Road Widening Project,
and certified its compliance with the CEQA law and guidelines (Resolution No.
16599). As stated in that resolution and in the Addendum to the FEIR,
implementation of the project would occur through establishment of an
assessment district which would provide the means to finance construction of
the project. Council action on the CEQA Findings of Fact, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations was deferred
until actual project approval, in this case, approval of the assessment
district.
In making Findings of Fact, the Council binds the City and any other
responsible party to implement the mitigation measures therein, or, in other
words, conditions the project approval with implementation of these measures.
Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that the City and other
responsible parties comply with, and implement the feasible mitigation
measures. The Statement of Overriding Considerations asserts that the public
benefits of the roadway would outweigh any significant and/or cumulative
impacts (all of which were deemed to be less than significant). Approval of
these documents is required by CEQA when approving the proposed roadway
project (assessment district). The final CEQA document to be filed upon
project approval is the Notice of Determination. With that, the CEQA
requirements for this project are fulfilled.
Adoption of the resolutions listed above will generally accomplish the
following:
1. The RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS provides for the execution of
agreements with Otay Water District (Agreement 3), San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. (Agreement 1), and Pacific Bell (Agreement 2) relative to
the installation of certain facil ities by the City, and the subsequent
acceptance of those facil ities by the respective util ity. The fourth
agreement is an underwrit i ng agreement (Agreement 4) with the fi rm of
Stone & Youngberg.
13 - r
Page 9,!tell r3
Meeting Date 5/26/92
2. The RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS authorizes the transfer of
funds from Sewer Fund 222 to this project, 996-9960-STI23. The transfer
is a loan to the district to be reimbursed by SB 300 funds upon
completion of construction.
3. The RESOLUTION ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT approves any changes and modifications made to the
Engineer's Report since its preliminary approval on April 21, 1992. The
changes since the preliminary approval consist of adjustments in the
existing improvement credits, adjustments to the City contributions, and
other minor modifications.
4. The RESOLUTION OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS overrules and denies the
protests of the owners of less than 1/2 the area to be assessed and makes
certain affirmative findings with respect to the boundaries of the
district, and the method and apportionment of the assessable costs.
5. The RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT confirms the assessments to the
land in the district, approves the final Engineer's Report, as amended,
makes certain CEQA findings, and adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Also, on April 21, 1992 when the Council adopted the Resolution of Intention,
a question was raised as to the amount of noise reduction accomplished by the
noise wall to be installed as a part of the project. Further investigation
shows that traffic noise emanating from Otay Valley Road will be reduced by 8
to 10 decibels with the installation of the wall. However, noise originating
on I-80S will not be decreased by the wall.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project
(Phases I & II) is $13,841,700. It is proposed that the City and RDA
contribute $3,435,467 of this total, leaving $10,406,242 to be assessed to the
district. The contribution will come from the following sources:
RDA 996 9960 ST-123
RDA TF 220
TSF TF 220
SEWER FUND 222
SDG&E 20A
$I ,765,167<1>
89,300
100,000
1,161,000(2)
320.000<3>
$3,435,467
(1) SOMe funds may be recovered if the County participates.
(2) This is a loan to the district to be rehtbur..d by 5B 300
funds upon co.pletfon of construction.
(3) estilnated cost of SDG&E work equals esth..ted allocation of
20A funds availabLe for project from SDG&E.
13-1
Page 10, Itell I :J
Meeting Date 5/26/92
In addition to the above contributions, the City will loan $651,000 from fund
996-9960-STl23 (RDA) to cover the Series B bonds. The Series B bonds are to
cover the Rio Ohy Subdivision. These bonds will be issued when the site is
cleared of the environmental concerns. This money will be recovered if these
bonds are issued.
DDS/AY-081
WPC 6003E
Ij..- It)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itl!ll /3
Meeting Date 5/26/92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
a) Resolution I~~" Approving agreements for execution in
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) and
authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreements
b) Resolution 1"'1" Approving transfer of funds to
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c) Resolution I~~I/ / Ordering certain changes and
modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment District
No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
d) Resolution 14.&.'1.2. Overruling and denying protests and
making certain findings in Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Va 11 ey Road)
e) Resolution 1"'~'I:r Confirming the assessment, ordering the
improvements made, together with appurtenances, approving the
Engineer's "Report", making CEQA findings, and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan regarding Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road) ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
Director of Community De e10pment
REVIEWED BY: City ManageY:,.j(1 ~}\ ~11 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No....I..J
U..r::
On April 21, 1992, Council adopted the Resolution of Intention to construct
and finance certain public improvements to Otay Valley Road, east of 1-805,
pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and Silt the public hearing
on the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) for May
26, 1992 for the purpose of hearing public testimony. The associated
resolutions make changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report, overrule
protests, confirm the assessments, make CEQA findings and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, approve utility
and underwriter agreements, and transfer funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee has reviewed and discussed progress on the road on a regular basis
since early 1990. Previous actions have included review and recommendation on
the median configuration plan and a recommendation for interim stop signs at
1-805 and Otay Valley Road. The Committee also hosted property owner meetings
to discuss the assessment di strict on July 11, 1991. The minutes from the
July II, 1991, January 13, 1992, February 24, 1992 and May II, 1992 meetings
(the last meetings including a discussion of the roadway) are attached as
exhibits A, B, C, and CoO.
13-/
Pige 2, Itell /3
Meeting Dite 5/26/92
The Project Area Committee has taken no official iction on this project. It
has, however, generally supported the roadway project but questions the
spread, the cost and the financial impact to local businesses.
The Resource Conservation COIIIIIission reviewed the Draft EIR on October 23,
19a9, and recommended that the Planning Commission find the Draft EIR
adequate. The minutes are attached as exhibit C-l.
The Planning Commission reviewed and conducted a public hearing on the Draft
EIR on November a, 19a9, and continued the public hearing to Jinuary 24,
1990. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and certified on
September 25, 1991 that the Final EIR had been prepared in compliance with the
CEQA GUidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula
Vista. Planning Commission minutes from November a, 1989, January 24, 1990
and January 25, 1991 are included as exhibits D, [ and [-1.
DISCUSSION:
The Redevelopment agency and staff have been working on improving Otay Valley
Road between I-80S and Nirvana for several years. In March of 1988, the
Agency reta i ned the fi rm of leedsh i ll-Herkenhoff to prepare the plans for a
six lane Major Street. In May 15, 1990, the Redevelopment Agency hired a team
of consultants to form a construction type assessment district, if feasible,
for the improvement of Otay Valley road east of I-80S. In July of 1991, the
City approved Resolution 16274 approving preliminary proceedings for the Otay
Valley Road Assessment District and requesting the County of San Diego give
Consent and Jurisdiction to include a portion of the Otay Ranch Property
currently used as a quarry. Consent was granted on May 17, 1992 by the County
Board of Supervisors.
On April 21, 1992, Council set May 26, 1992 as the date to conduct the public
hearing. The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 requires that a public hearing
be conducted to hear public testimony prior to forming an assessment district
to finance public improvements through the sale of bonds. All owners of
property within the proposed assessment district have been mailed a notice of
the public hearing and the amount of the proposed assessment to their land.
After conducting the publ ic hearing and considering any testimony presented,
the Council may choose to proceed with the formation of the district by
adopting the resolution. If the owners of more than 5~ of the land area
within the proposed district protest the formation of the district, the
Council may form the district by a 4/5ths vote, otherwise a 3/5ths vote is
adequate if there is less than a majority protest. Included in today's
hearing is consideration of the 1931 Act Debt limit Report (See Engineer's
Report, page 27.) which iddresses value to lien requirements. In all cases
the assessment meet the 2:1 ratio in compliance with the Act.
The proposed assessment district improvement of Otay Valley ROid will be
accomplished in two phases. Phase I consists of widening the existing two and
three lanes to six lanes with a landscaped median (part of the way), curb,
gutter and sidewal k on both sides, sidewal k trees, underground util ities,
supplemental water main, and traffic signals from I-80S to Nirvana Avenue.
Phase II consists of widening the existing two lanes to four lanes with a
median barrier and graded shoulders, from Nirvana Avenue to the City/County
/3".).
Pige 3, It. Jj
Meeting Dite 5/26/92
boundary. Because of the substantial amount of existing development on the
north side in Phase I, and the steep slopes on the north side in Phase II, it
is necessary to move the centerline of the street approximately 30 feet to the
south of its existing location to accommodate the six lane improvements.
Utilitv Underaroundina Aareements
The undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, from approximately 600
feet west of 1-805 to Nirvana Avenue, is proposed to be partially funded by
the City, through its allocation of SDG&E undergrounding funds (20A district
funds), and partially by the assessment district. The SDG&E funds of about
$320,000. cover the portion of undergrounding from approximately 1-805 to
Oleander. SDG&E funds cover this area because the City set up i "20A"
District for this segment. A "20A" district illows the city to utilize their
illocation of funds from SDG&E to underground utilities. The remainder of the
undergrounding project is not within the "20A" District and will cost the
iSsessment district approximately $642,526. This is referred to as i "20B"
district whereby the property owners pay for the undergrounding costs. One of
the agreements (Agreement 1) included in this agenda item is with SDG&E and
pertains to the portion of the undergrounding project to be funded by the
assessment district.
However, the City is working on extending the "20A" district from Oleander to
Nirvana which, if accomplished, will save the assessment district about
$642,000 because the $642,000 would then come from the City's allocation of
SDG&E "20A" funds. If the "20A" district is extended, the City would not
expend $642,000 of assessment district funds on undergrounding which could
then be used to call bonds, thereby reducing the annual iSsessment
installment. If the "20A" district is not extended, it has no effect on the
assessment district as proposed. Agreements on the "20A" District for the
segment from Oleander to Nirvana would be presented to Council at a later date.
The existing overhead telephone lines will be undergrounded with the electric
lines in the district. There is an agreement (Agreement 1) pertaining to the 27 c/
telephone facilities included with this agenda item.
The. supplemental water main included in the project is to provide additional
fire flow capacity in conformance with City requirements for industrial
areas. The estimated construction cost of the water main is $126,795. One of
the agreements (Agreement 3) included in this agenda item is with the Otay
Water District and pertains to the construction and acceptance of the water
facilities.
Proiect Costs
The total estimated project cost is as follows:
CONSTRUCTION COST
Phase II
$6,857,138
2.934.121
$9,791,259
PhiSe I
Total Construction Cost
1:1'" :J
Pige 4, Itell 13
Meeting Dite 5/26/92
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Design Engineering
Const. Project Mgmt.
R/W Appriinl
Legal Services (R/W)
Animal Shelter Reloc.
Otay Water District inspection
City Adm. Cost
Plan Check Cost
Inspection & Mat1. Testing
Traffic Design
Wetland Mitigation Cost
A.D. Project Mgmt.
Financial Consultant
Assessment Engineering
Printing, Advertising, Posting
Bond Printing, Servicing, Reg.
Bond Counsel
SUBTOTAL INCIDENTALS
TOTAL CONST. & INCID. COSTS
LESS CITY CONTRIBUTION
LESS IMPROVEMENT CREDITS
TOTAL C & I ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
Capitalized Interest
Bond Discount
Bond Reserve Fund
$ 834,917
50,000
55,000
30,546
200,000
80,000
55,000
280,000
350,000
7,500
534,860
25,500
67,000
90,500
3,200
12,500
36.758
$ 2,713,281
$12,504,540
$(3,435,467)
$ (163,099)
$ 8,905,974
TOTAL BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
TOTAL ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
$ 147,456
312,187
1. 040.624
$ 1,500,267
$10,406,242
Council authorized a call for construction bids on March 3, 1992 and the bids
. have already been received for the Phase I portion. Construction could begin
in July, if the assessment district is formed. It is anticipated that the
City will award the contract on June 23rd for Phase J. It is necessary to
award this contract during this fiscal year to obtain the SB300 funds of
approximately $1.1 million. Otherwise, less SB 300 funds may be available in
future fiscal years. During this cycle, the State is reimbursing the City
ipproximately 30% of the construction cost ind it is anticipated that future
fiscal years will be closer to 10%. It is anticipated that the Phase II
construction could begin in early 1993. It should be noted that during Phase
II, Otay Valley Road will be widened to six lanes by the Otay Ranch
development when that project begins developing in the vicinity.
1.3-'1
Pige 5, Itell /3
Meeting D~te 5/26/92
Six lane Construction
Current traffic volumes on atay Valley Road (Phase I) warrant the construction
of four lanes ~t this time, however, the projected ultimate traffic volumes
require ~ six l~ne facility, which is ~lso consistent with the Circulation
Element of the adopted General Plan. It is recommended th~t the six l~ne
facility be constructed at this time for the following reasons:
1. If only four lanes are constructed now, the construction of the
remaining two lanes would be very disruptive to the area at the time
of their construction. The noise, dust, and inconvenience of
traffic delays and impaired access for a significant construction
period would be difficult to tolerate by property owners and
businesses.
2. The cost is substantially lower to construct the full six lane
facility at one time. Initially, with six lanes of improvements to
construct, there is more space to accommodate and reroute the
existing traffic than if only four lanes were to be built. In the
future, the widening of four lanes to six lanes would have to be
accomplished with very little working space and substantially higher
traffic volumes. This would not only result in the circumstances
described above, but would add greatly to the cost.
3. The right-of-way and grading for the 6-lane faci1 ity is needed to
allow development on the south side and the only savings to
construct 4 1 anes wou1 d be for two lanes of pavement which is
approximately $400,000.
The land within the assessment district boundaries is that which receives the
most direct and special benefit from the proposed improvements. atay Valley
Road is a regional facility and, as such, carries traffic which does not begin
and or end within the proposed assessment district. In recognition of this
fact, it is recommended that the City contribute the full cost of two of the
six lanes in Phase I to the proposed assessment district.
Assessment District Boundaries
In meetings with property owners, it has been suggested that the boundaries be
expanded to include some portion of atay Mesa to the south. This is not
recommended since the City of San Diego has allocated over $10 million in its
atay Mesa Public Facilities Financing Plan for the future construction of atay
Valley Rd./Heritage Rd. from atay Mesa Road north to the atay River. It has
also been suggested that the atay Ranch land east of atay Valley Road be
included. This also is not recommended since the atay Ranch project will be
required to widen Phase II to six lanes, as noted previously, ~nd to extend
atay Valley Road east to SR-125. The value of these improvements, which would
be util ized by vehicles from this assessment district, more than offsets the
benefits received from this project.
1.3",5'
Pige 6, Ite. .f~
Meeting Oite 5/26/92
Additionally, areas beyond the assessment district boundaries such as Otay
Ranch and Otay Mesa will be constructing facilities to service their
developments. The cost of these facilities will be borne by those
developers. Those within this assessment district will not share in those
costs just as those developments are not participating in the cost of this
road widening project.
Methodo10av of Assessment ADD1ication
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 requires that the costs of the district
be "spread" to the land within the district based on the benefits received
from the improvements. Since it is major street improvements that are being
constructed, a measure of the benefit to be received by the land within the
district is vehicle trip generation per acre of land. Since all of the land
withi n the district, except the County landfi 11 and the Ne1 son-Sloan quarry,
is zoned for industrial use, the vehicle trip generation per acre is the same
throughout the district. In accordance with the SANOAG Guide of Vehicular
Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, a rate of 200 trips per
acre was used as the basis for the cost spread. The County landfill and the
Nelson-Sloan are unique in that the land area is not utilized for buildings,
but as a resource which is used. In both cases, actual traffic counts were
utilized in determining their benefit. Therefore, the resulting
proportionality of the assessments is, with two exceptions, the ictua1 parcel
area.
The County-owned landfill parcel, because it is publicly owned land, as a
public agency, cannot be assessed through the district, however, City staff
will be negotiating with the County. for their participation in the cost of the
improvements. In the interim, it is recommended that the City contribute the
anticipated County share of $365,000 to the district.
Portions of many of the parcels in the district are impaired by wetland areas
or open space. The area of these impairments have been subtracted from each
parcel because these areas are, in essence, undevelopable and cannot generate
traffic.
In addition, at various locations along atay Valley Road, property owners have
constructed street improvements as a condition of development. While in most
cases the improvements will have to be replaced to accommodate the new
improvements, it would not be equitable to charge these property owners twice
for improvements they installed in good faith. Therefore, the Vi1ue of the
existing improvements, whether they will be replaced or not, is being
subtracted from the issessments of the parcels for which they were
constructed, and being spread to all land within the district. It should be
noted that in order to be equitable to all land in the district, these credits
are based on the bid prices received for identical work on the improvement of
atay Valley Road, and not the cost paid by the property owner at the time the
improvements were constructed. A formal presentation on this will be
presented Tuesday night.
/.:J"'~
Page 7, Itel .I~
Meeting Date 5/26/92
The ISsessments to the land in the district are approximately $0.61 per sq.
ft. or about $26,600 per acre of assessable area, before the application of
improvement credits. If the district became a part of a larger ISsessment
district, staff anticipates costs would increase, not decrease. In
comparison, other areas in the eastern part of the City are paying assessments
or fees of approximately $1.40 per sq. ft. or over $60,000 per acre for
construction of similar major streets.
The Rio Otay Industrial Park subdivision (Darling-Delaware) is being assessed
on the same blSis IS other 1 and within the district. However, an
environmental concern has not been resolved and no development is allowed at
present time until there is an evaluation of the environmental concern. It is
therefore proposed that bonds not be issued until such time as building
permits can be issued.
While the City would have the ability to issue and sell the bonds at any time
in order to reimburse its cash advance, an agreement is currently being
negotiated with the owner, Darling-Delaware, relative to the timing of the
environmental concerns and the issuance and sale of the bonds. No building
permits will be issued for this subdivision until the City reaches an
agreement with Darling-Delaware. .
If the assessment district is formed, the property owners will have 30
calendar days, beginning the day after the public hearing, in which they may
pay all, or any portion of their assessment in cash. Any portion of the
assessment paid during this period is not subject to the bond issuance costs
listed above, and thus an approximate 14.5% discount is applied. All property
owners will be mailed a Notice of Assessment for their land explaining the
amount assessed, and the amount to pay if they wish to discharge their
assessment in full. After the 30 day cash payment period is over, 1915 Act
bonds will be sold and issued in the amount of the total unpaid ISsessments.
The cash payments and the bond proceeds will be utilized to pay the
construction and incidental expenses.
As in all areas where there is a substantial amount of undeveloped land, there
is the possibil ity that some land, not currently judged to be developable,
will be developed. Or, that land being assessed as industrial use as a part
of these proceedings, will be developed, or redeveloped in a use which will
generate more vehicle trips per acre than the 200 trips per acre utilized in
this district. In order to insure equity to the assessment district, if it is
formed, the establishment of a Fee Recovery District will be brought before
the Council within 30 days of the formation of this assessment district. That
Fee Recovery District will provide for the collection of a fee for each
vehicle trip generated above the 200 trips per acre used in this district or
for parcels that were not assessed.
At the close of the publiC testimony portion of today's hearing, staff will
report to the Council the amount of protests, both written and oral, measured
by land area in the district. If the protests amount to less than a simple
majority of the land area, the Council may form the district and levy the
assessments by a simple majority vote. However, if the protest represents
more than a simple majority of the land area, the district can only be formed
by 4/Sths vote of the Council.
13"7
Page 8, Itel J~
Meeting Date 5/26/92
Financina
The financing of the proposed assessments is to be accomplished through the
issuance of 1915 Act bonds. It is recommended that the sale of the bonds be
negotiated with the firm of Stone & Youngberg, the largest underwriter of this
type of bond in California. A negotiated sale as opposed to a public sale is
being recommended because of the ever changing complexities involved, and it
allows the City to negotiate with one bond bidder. Otherwise difficulties are
encountered in communicating complexities with dozens of potential bond
bidders in the required formal noticing procedures. The first step in this
process ~s to enter into an agreement (Agreement 4) with an underwriter. The
financial advisor, bond counsel, and the Director of Finance recommend a
negotiated sale for this district.
Final EIR and Associated Resolution
At it's April 21, 1992 meeting, Council considered the Final Environmental
Impact Report and Addendum thereto for the Otay Valley Road Widening Project,
and certified its compliance with the CEQA law and guidelines (Resolution No.
16599). As stated in that resolution and in the Addendum to the FEIR,
implementation of the project would occur through establishment of an
assessment district which would provide the means to finance construction of
the project. Council action on the CEQA Findings of Fact, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations was deferred
until actual project approval, in this case, approval of the assessment
distri ct.
In making Findings of Fact, the Council binds the City and any other
responsible party to implement the mitigation measures therein, or, in other
words, conditions the project approval with implementation of these measures.
Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that the City and other
responsible parties comply with, and implement the feasible mitigation
measures. The Statement of Overriding Considerations asserts that the public
benefits of the roadway would outweigh any significant and/or cumulative
impacts (all of which were deemed to be less than significant). Approval of
these documents is required by CEQA when approving the proposed roadway
project (assessment district). The final CEQA document to be filed upon
project approval is the Notice of Determination. With that, the CEQA
requirements for this project are fulfilled.
Adoption of the resolutions listed above will generally accomplish the
following:
1. The RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS provides for the execution of
agreements with Otay Water District (Agreement 3), San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. (Agreement I), and Pacific Bell (Agreement 2) relative to
the installation of certain facilities by the City, and the subsequent
acceptance of those facilities by the respective utility. The fourth
agreement is an underwriting agreement (Agreement 4) with the firm of
Stone & Youngberg.
13-'Y
Page 9, Itell I ~
Meeting D~te 5/26/92
2. The RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS ~uthorizes the tr~nsfer of
funds from Sewer Fund 222 to this project, 996-9960-STI23. The transfer
is a loan to the district to be reimbursed by S8 300 funds upon
completion of construction.
3. The RESOLUTION ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT ~pproves any changes and modifications ..ade to the
Engineer's Report since its preliminary approval on April 21, 1992. The
changes since the preliminary approval consist of adjustments in the
existing improvement credits, adjustments to the City contributions, and
other minor modifications.
4. The RESOLUTION OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS overrules and denies the
protests of the owners of less than 1/2 the area to be assessed ~nd makes
certain affirmative findings with respect to the boundaries of the
district, and the method and apportionment of the assessable costs.
5. The RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT confirms the assessments to the
land in the district, approves the final Engineer's Report, as amended,
makes certain CEQA findings, and adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Also, on April 21, 1992 when the Council adopted the Resolution of Intention,
a question was raised as to the amount of noise reduction accomplished by the
noise wall to be installed as a part of the project. Further investigation
.shows that traffic noise emanating from Otay Valley Road will be reduced by 8
to 10 decibels with the installation of the wall. However, noise originating
on 1-805 will not be decreased by the wall.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project
(Phases I & II) is $13,841,700. It is proposed that the City and RDA
contribute $3,435,467 of this total, leaving $10,406,242 to be assessed to the
district. The contribution will come from the following sources:
RDA 996 9960 ST-123
RDA TF 220
TSF TF 220
SEWER FUND 222
SDG&E 20A
$1,765,167(1)
89,300
100,000
1,161,000(2)
320.000<3>
$3,435,467
(I) S... funds ..y be recovered If the County participates.
(2) Thfa fa e loen to the dfatrlct to be rell.bursed by SI 300
fundi upon cOIIpletton of conatructlon.
(3) htl..ted cost of SOGIE lIork equels eatl..ted ellocetlon of
20A funds evelleble for project fr.. SOGIE.
13"1
Page 10, It. J :J
Meeting Date 5/26/92
In addition to the above contributions, the City will loan $651,000 from fund
996-9960-STl23 (RDA) to cover the Series B bonds. The Series B bonds are to
cover the Rio Otay Subdivision. These bonds will be issued when the site is
cleared of the environmental concerns. This money will be recovered if these
bonds are issued.
DDS/AY-081
WPC 6003E
J 3' It)
.
RESOLUTION NO. I ~ I, j 9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR EXECUTION IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN SAID AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has, pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, by adoption of its
Resolution of Intention, declared its intention to order the
installation of certain wo"rks of improvement, together with
appurtenances, in a special assessment district known and designated
u ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"), and,
WHEREAS, there has now been received, in proper form, an
Underwriting Agreement for the purchase and sale of said bonds to
issue under said proceedings, and said underwriting agreement
received is, in the opinion of this legislative body, considered to
be the underwriting agreement that would best serve the interests of
owners of land included within the Assessment District and should be
accepted, and, ,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10110 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, it is required that prior to the
time that any works of improvement are ordered pursuant to said
proceedings, the legislative body may, by contract, provide that
certain works shall be performed by other public agencies or
regulated public utilities who will have the legal title to the
facilities, and further that said. improvements shall thereafter
constitute a part of their system, and,
WHEREAS, it is further provided that any such agreement shall
be made prior to the adoption of the Resolution Ordering Work under
the assessment proceedings, and,
WHEREAS, at this time, contracts have been reviewed and
submitted pursuant to the authorization of Section 10110 of said
Streets and Highways Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the underwriting agreement received from STONE
& YOUNGBERG for the purchase of improvement bonds representing
unpaid assessments in said Assessment District is hereby accepted
and approved for execution on behalf of the city. Said acceptance
is subject to all the terms and conditions as set forth in the
underwriting agreement.
1'3/1.-1
SECTION 3. That the agreements, herewith submitted, relating
to the installation of certain improvement facilities that will be
under the ownership, management and control of other public agencies
or regulated public utilities, are hereby submitted and herewith
approved. The following listed agreement. are hereby authorized for
execution on behalf of the City. Said Agreements relate to facili-
tie. to be owned by the following listed public agencie. or
regulated public utilitie..
A. MAY WATER DISTRICT
B. SAN DIEGO GAS " ELECTRIC
C. PACIFIC BELL
SECTION 4. That illlnediately upon execution, conformed copies
of said Agreements shall be transmitted to the offices of the under-
writer and respective public agency or utility company, together
with a copy of this Resolution.
pre.ented by
n
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaar
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote.
by the City Council of the City
day of
AYES. Councilmember..
NOES. Councilmembers.
ABSENT. Councilmember..
ABSTAIN. Councilmembers.
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
1:J/9;"J,
RESOLUTION NO. I"" 'It')
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY
ROAD)
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992,
Resolution of Intention to construct and
improvements to Otay Valley Road, east of
Municipal Improvement of 1913; and
WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of the otay Valley Road
project (Phase I & II) is $13,841,700; and
Council adopted the
finance certain public
1-805, pursuant to the
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the city and Redevelopment
Agency contribute $3,435,467; and
WHEREAS, the City shall be reimbursed by SB 300 funds
upon completion of construction; and _
WHEREAS, the City needs to loan $1,161,000 to the
district prior to project completion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the transfer of
$1,161,000 from Sewer Fund 222 to Account 996-9960-ST123 for
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road), which amount shall
be reimbursed by SB 300 funds upon completion of construction.
Presented by
c~ty
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:lnlov Iimd xrc<
138-/
THIS PAGB BLANK
.
.
13B'~
.
'.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. It, ~ '1/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S
"REPORT" IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously adopted its Resolution of Intention
pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of
1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, for the installation of certain works of
improvement in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and
WHEREAS, based upon the presentation and recommendations of
staff and available documentation, it now appears that the changes
and modifications as set forth in the amended assessment roll, as
presented herein, should be approved and ordered to be done.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That aU changes and modifications as set
the final assessment roll and Engineer' B "Report" as
submitted are hereby ordered and authorized to be made.
particulars, reference is made to said "Report" as herein
a copy of which will remain on file with the transcript
proceedings and open for public inspection.
forth in
herewith
For aU
approved,
of these
SECTION 3. That the Engineer's "Report", the Assessment Roll,
and all related documentation, as so ".litH fied, are for the best
interests of the property owners within~ha Assessment District, and
said assessment, as modified, is in accordance with the benefits
received, and the "Report", as herein modified and amended, shall
stand as the "Report" for all subsequent proceedin relating to
this Assessment District.
Presented by
Approved as to
~~
Bruce M. Boog
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
13C-)
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, city Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the city of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
13C-~
RESOLUTION NO. /~~ ~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FIND-
INGS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has, by Resolution, declared its intention to order the
installation of certain public works of improvement, pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913",
being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the Stat. of
California, in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, certain owners of property liable to be assessed for
improvements have filed written protests or objections and delivered
the same to the City Clerk not later than the hour set for hearing
such objections; and
WHEREAS, at the time set for said Public Hearing, all protests
and objections were duly heard and considered, and all matters as to
the method and formula of the assessment spread and the determina-
tion as to whether or not the property did receive a benefit and
whether the assessments were apportioned in accordance to benefit
were heard and considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the public hearing on the Assessment District
is hereby closed.
SECTION 3. That all protests and objections of every kind and
nature be, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied, and it is
further determined that said protests and objections are made by the
owners of less than one-half (1/2) of the area of property to be
assessed for said improvements within said Assessment District.
SECTION 4. That is hereby further determined that all proper-
ties within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a
local and direct benefit from the works of improvement as proposed
for said Assessment District, and it is hereby further determined
and declared that all assessable costs and expenses have been appor-
tioned and spread over the properties within the boundaries of the
Assessment District in direct proportion to the benefits received
thereby.
SECTION 5. That the Engineer'S method of spread and apportion-
ment of all costs is hereby approved and adopted as being a correct
and proper apportionment and distribution of all assessable costs
for these works of improvement.
13])-/
Presented by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
':L ~,o~
Bruce K. Boogaard
city Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of ,
AYES: CouncilmemberB:
NOES: CouncilmemberB:
ABSENT: CouncilmemberB:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BB.
Tim Nader, Kayor
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula ViBta,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ReBolution No.
waB duly paBBed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
held on the day of , 1992.
Executed thiB _____ day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
/3V-~
05-22-92 11:2Y AM FROM B D H
IUIlClLlI'nOll' 110.
I~' $1'..3'
JUlIOLU'UOlI 01 '1'11II C:t'n' ooncn. 01 HI amr 01 CBlItA VII'1'A
ClO1(fIIllllI" '.\'11II un..KIIft', 'ClltIIllUn '.\'11II IIIPIlOVlIKIIIl'I' !laD',
'.rOlJli'.rHIIJl IlI'1'S UPUJln.MCIII, .,nOV%.lJ '1'11II IIRCJ%IIDR"
"DtOll:", MI\K%'G QQl nJIIlIRlJl, lIB ADOP'1'%ltQ A IUftJIIlllr
or OYDRIIl%KlJ COft.%DIM'1'IOR. Ul) . Hn'%CIl\'1'IOlI IfOftlTOalllG
PLM NQMDDlG ...,181K1ll'1' D%ftUC'1' 110. '0.2 (om1' vaLLft
1lOAIl)
.BIIl:lA', th. Cln COU.CIL of th. c:tn or CIIULJ\ VU'1'A,
ClALUOJllUA, has pnv10ualy adOpted lU ...olutLon of InUD'1oD Uld
1I\1Uat.d proce.dl11g1 for th. .I.Illltallatiat of cert.al11 _110 __
of 1IllPI'OT_llt, together wLth .PP\1rt~nlllCl8 .nd .ppurtenant: VDZ'k,
lftall141ftV 10qul.lt1on wbaftI ........_....1.'., iJI a .peeLal ......-1l
411tl'10t. pIlI'8Il.= to the t.n. and ~J.aion. of the "Illlnlolpal
ZmpI'O"ltIlI.Dt Actt of 1tU", beLag Dhl.lon 12 of the 1t.ne1:. Uld
B19""'ay. Cod. of tb. n.,. of Callfonlla, .a.l.d epaclal .....~
41atJ:1at 1cn0Wll .D4 de.1gnate4 a. ......1JlIIII'1' D:tI'1'II:tC': 110. '0-2 (0'l'Alr
VlIUoIl/ 1l0AD) (h'l'Iinaf'.1' I'If."" to _ the "&8H._t: D1atd~"),
and,
tIII:IR:IAI. pul'lIl.llt to tII. pJ:OY1.l_ of ..1d "Hun1c:lpal %mp~
..nt ACt of 1113" IIIld .ut 7.5 of Clivl.lon 4 of the IM:I'Iet. and
.lvh"ay. COd.. the "peaial A...._t. Ll.aIltatlon and .ajorLty
PJ:01:..t act of It31", a oOllll:lina<< "Jl~n" (bel'.J.naft..: l'.t":I'.4 to
a. th. "Il.port" I , a. .l1tlloI'11.d, baa been FO"f'ldl4. pra.lnta<<,
con.ldarld anll appl:OVld by till. 1e;ll1aU". Ilody, and,
WIlIiOA8, .aiel "Bepcl't", .. pr.llmh'.rlly ~d, conta1Ded
all the matt.u and 11:_ aaUeel for. by la. and a. pu&'IIIant to t:be
pI'C,,1.10n. of t:he "Ku.n1clpal :t~O'_llt Act of 1'13" &Dll 8.ctiat
2961 of .dd Street. and B1Vlnrq. ~ of th. n.t. of Californi.,
1nclud111g the follow1Dg'
1. plan. IIId .pecif1o&t1.onl of tile propoHd impl'o_t.,
2. ..timlte of oon,
3. D1a91'1ID of aa..._ft' Dl.'d,ot:,
.. An ....._nt aaool'dl.q to _lIIfl'.,
I. A ...=lplllon of th. _Ice of impzo. 01:.,
6. V.11I.tion 1nf_ticA, 1IId,
"IiU"', all prote". Oft MIll bIal'd anll oon.ill.red, and .
full h.uing baa bien V1V1ll, all 1n ,he _.~ FO"f'ld.d br la., and,
WS:lRD',. no'lc.. of .ald h.a1'109 ..1'1 duly IIId l'egulu1y
poated, IIIIll.d and pWlu.b14 in tb. t.!.ln, fom and IIIIDII..: nqu1nd
by 1.. and .. ."U.na.d by aU1clav1te 011 fll. .1th tb. '~an.ol'1pt Of
tha.. PJ:'OC1Idi.rIp, an4,
WIIlIJlIiAIJ, t!ll own.I" of _balf (l/ZI of tb. EM ......a<< for
tha co., of tha PI'O'lIOt lllll not fil. Vl'1tten prot.llte ag.iut t!ll
.ald pl'Clpo..d Lmpro._t. and aClllllelUOtl wiler. IPPl'ClPl'lat., and
thll le;l.latlva body dld, after pl'ClV1411l9 a fl1ll lIeulav. ovenul.
and d.ny aU prot..U and objactiat., and,
IJE~/
P02
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROY B D H
lIHIRIM. tile leo1elaU.. bod7 U ..1rou. at till. '1M of
pI:OVldlno a CIlX11::d1lutlon t:o par a ponion of tbe aOR. and .-pe-
of 1:JIe vo~k and ~ClC.aIUno" and.
........ thU 1e91.1atl.. l:Iody 1e _ .athfled with tbe a......
_nt and aU mat.ten COQ1:a1Jled ill tbe "~rv" \." .. _ updated Uld
.uI:llIl1ttAdI and.
WlIItIAI. tbie 1.01daU.. ~y 414. by tb. adop1;lon of
Re.olutloll Mo. 161199 ("oeRlfy1D; Reaolln:lon",. GenUr tllat t.M
fJ.nal Imr~d rmp.ct: bpOn. a. eeUMd tbeftin ("DU"'. ....
pc.paced 1n acaodana. witb t.n nquu-nu of ,he C&l1f0l:ft1a
InvhoNMDt..l O\Oa11t.y Ac1:, ani! t.be gu14el1ne. lavfuU,. PRlN10Hed
~eund.CI and,
tIIl.IUIA., tb. ceait.l. .nd celOlutiona of tll8 CLtr _11
cont.ain." ion Ch. c.nUr1oO ".ol..tlOA _ in....zopoC&ted bu.iIl a. if
Nt fonll ill flln hue.t.
1IOIf. '1'IIINU'CIRII. BlI :tor UIOLVBDa
........t.oLI
'.CT:tON 1. 'nI.t t.1I8 aboft a:eoiot.da ue .U _ and ooca:eDt.
PPDl'IITI
IICTION 2. 'rII8t..U proten. and cm'eat.J.on. of ....CJ' Iliad Uld
n.ture be. and the ._ beceby .re, _led and deDied. and 1t. io.
fuct.II.r utltl:lll1ned that ..i.d prot..R' and o1lject.lon. aN ..de by t..
awn.n Of le.. than one-balf of tbe UM of Fopu'ty to be ......ed
'011 ..ld ~nU wltllill n!.d a...._t D~1~.
1IRJ':t'l'1 JlICInID
IICT:tON 3. ~at It. b beN!lr det._lne" t:hat aU propenlH
wltll1n t.be bel_clad.. of tII. A...._nt. 1l1Rdat no.1.. . 100&1 and
dh.ct. bendlt .~ t.b. _rb 0' 1-r.l>.1 lilt .. FOpGaed fOil ..14
A.....IIl.nt D1et.det., and l' b her.lly funll.c .eten1llM and
d.c1.&cR tbat aU ......el. eo.t.. and .-pen... ba_ bean eppo~
UaAl4 u.cl apread ov.r t:II8 propenl.. wlth1n 1:JIe bolIndad.. of ,he
"...._nt Ilbt.dot ill d1lleo1: FOpGnlon t:o tile benefl'. _lved
tll.NIlr.
waLlO' Ilft'IIDST AIm COIWIn.L"CII
BlICTION 4. 'rIIat t.he pa!l11o lnt_.t. and con'Nll1ence nquln
'II. propo.Ad ~_t. t.o he -.de. ...d ,h.refon 1t 1. heNllr
ocd.red that tile wocle to 1:1II done and illprov 1.. to be ..ee.
t.ogetber wlth appun.nance. and appurtenant WOJ:Ic ln __1aa. there-
witll, lnclu4.l.ftg aequldtion WMN tIPP~pdate. 1n M14 ....._Ilt
Dhtlllft, .. 'R foRh ln t:II8 Rnc:11lt10n of :tntant.lon ~iounr
adopted u.cl .. eft forth 11l the "1e5lOlIt" pre..nted and _lUcR.
&lid a. _ eubIIlltted.
1;3&-;2.
P03
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROM B 0 H
_1_'. .b~'l.
lac'no" S. "lIat the -"port" of the 8ngLIl..I:, a. 110"
lNbIIIi,tted, upSat.d and .-nded .. app,opdate, ~ berebr app~
anCl .ald "..1lQrt" .hall .t.Dd .. the "".poR" for aU flltun
~J.ng. for thJA ....._t ;lLatdot.
COJIrIMM'IOIf or UO"1IIIn'
I.OTION 6. '!b.at the ......_t.. .. now fl1.CI In tb.
1Ilg1.II..I:" "a.pon", and ~.. fOI: tile ~te, together .11:11
appurt.ll.no.. .Dd appulL"t.D.nt: wol:k ln oonneotlon th.lL"ev1th,
:Lnoludl.llg accau1.1t1oll vllu. .Pi4.......ift., u. he4111>y ClOIlflftl&d.
~ ....._nl. oontaiD.eI 1.11 1:be fl.lla1 _I.lleu'.
"J\epoR" U. b.rebr 1....1.eI anll .pp.:~.e4 .. foll_.
A. ft. fl.lla1 ....._lIt. to npz_t i:ba ooate
and &Jlpellll.. to fl.llanoa tll. pullUo _U of lap.o:~.IIf.l1t, .. .utllo-
r1&ael for th... proaeeclJ.ag..
I. 'S'he &IIIlllal .....-m: to p.r foe .dlD1Il1ltC'atbl
co.tI in an -.:NDt Dot to _~ 1:ba lII&X1aNm _11.1 ....._t ..
Rt: fORh 1.11 .ud ....port".
fta aonfl2:all4 tllll',.l adlIll.llJ..uatJ..,. _._t -I'
be aoll_ad In 1:11. _ Il&MII: lUld 1.11 tba ._ lIlatl11~lIt. a. 1:ba
ClOllf1~eI ....._t. fOI: tM fao111tl..., eel -I' be -zlllled .,11:11
1:110.. ........lIte fal: DOll_loft .. COIl'tlll1&11t.
COIfTRIBtlTIOlf
.
.ICTIOR 7. '1'h.t tll. .popd.UOll of tlla _J... .. .et: farth
.. . oontdllutloD 111 tblI .ag~'. "Ileport" .. haJ:aJ.n FI.&fttlll
nl.UD9 to tlll.l "....._t DJ.auLat le huellr appr_ll and autho.
1:11:84. 1&l.d COIlulllutlon La autllorbad p1lJ:lUallt to hotlou 10205 of
tll. "K\anlal.pal ~O."'.lIt IICt of 1913". bel.llg DlYLalon 12 of the
~.It. anel Slghwar. CocIa of the ftat. of c:all.fornla.
"'111IIIDl'l' Vl\LVATIOR
nCTIOIf 8. '1'h.t 1:111. levl.1.tl.,. bodr benIly fl.ll41 and 4&t.--
mlD.. th.t th. total _lit of the prlnal.pa1 ._ of .11 IIIlpllld
&peal.l "__lit. prOIlO.ecI to be l....J.ecI, .. _11 .. allY out Rand-
inll .paeL.l ....._t.. 401. not __eI l/a tlla total tn. ~l_ of
tll. pua.l. FOpo"d to be __.ct IUlder thai. PI:'OCl 91.119" and
t:bla flnctlll11 .ball be I1nll and _lu.h..
orhJ.. 119111.tl". body fulL"th.:r flnd. that th.
Fo:l.ct 11 f...1bl. &lid tbat till land. to be ......." "Ul be abl.
to 0&"1' th. burden of the PJ:OIlOeecI ..__t, &lid J.t: b ~b)'
furth.Z' dat.J:lllLDed, if and a. applicabl., that till UmltatlOll. of
tlla _nt. of ....._t. FOV1C14 foZ' 11\ DLvL.lon 4 Of thtI .tnat.
13E.3
P04
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROM B D H
and 8J.9'"'.)'II Cod. of ~h. .llaU of aa1l.fomla ... dJ.uevuMd ~h
.,J.~h 1L'..p.et. t.o t.h. Ua!.~..UOft OIl ~ AII__t Dbtdot .iI ..
whole, ad .. to tba UaJ.ta.1cm oa J.IldbUual epeo1f1c: ....._t.,
.. .pp:u.oul..
"COJ:DA~%OX or .....1Ulft'
OCUOlf t. Tbat tha Cit)' Clerk ~.11 fcm:hwlth ..11....- to tbe
'upeZ'1nt.ndeat of Ib:weta tile .u.s .....~, ~ .,J.th tile
cu'&9lr_ .ttached t!lel:ato and IIIlUSe . put t!lel:eof, .. eoAfu-d, wlth
h.r carUtLo.U o. 8II0b ClOJlf1zmatlon aUaolle4 &lid tile daU tIlenof,
and th.t .ald luper1nt.ndant of IR_. .hall than ~l.t.ly
r.oord .dd d1.qz_ ad ........t in hi. Off1c:a iD . w11:abl. Iioolt
to be kept: for tll.t ~.a and .tt.oll t.llareto 111. cartlne.ta of
th. data of .ueh ncord1D9'
COOJlTr aCOllJ)D RCl':10II
DC'r10ll 10. VpOll oonUn.Un of 1:ha ..__IIU ad _ri.-
Uon of tba ....._t zoU &lid tiapllla, . oanifled oopr of tbe
....._nt d1&9I'_ .hall be '-''''~lr 'l1ed 111 l:ba o'Uo. 0' th.
Clounty Jtacori.lL'. 1lIIIlH1at.ly tllu...n.lL', . llopy of th. aotlc. of
....._nt .halt .. nco&'dad iD 1:ha Offlce o' tile County aacolL'd.Z' 11'1
the 1Il.1I1la&, ad '0&'11 .. .at forth ~ law &lid 1Ip&C1f1c:ally lect10n
3U. o' th. ItZ'.at. and 8J.gbwa,.. Clod. of tile It.t. of CalUoZ'1I1..
_IUD ~!CII
HC'lIOII 11. !!lat upolI AClOrdatJ.OIl of tile tiap_ and ......-
..nt, . notio. ahaU be ..l1l1C1 to ..eh _ of raal propert7 wlthln
the .........nt D18tr1ot .t Ill. laet !mown addn.., .. .1.14 addn..
.ppear. oa ~ 1aat aqua111ed 'tu ZOuI. of the Coulltr, ..14 lIot1o&
to .at forth . .t.t_ftt _t.IIII"9 . "1911&t1on 0' t.be poperty
........, .. _11 .. th. _t of t.bII .inal oonf1nled ....._ftt,
.nd fllrth.1:' J.ndleat1n9 that IIond. .,111 M laauad pllftUant to t.he
"blplw_ , Int Iod Act of 1111".
nBLIClArtDlf
UCUOlII 12. ~t lIotlce .hall a1.o be 91- br pul>l1c:atlO1l 1n
th. _.19I1&ted leval _.papel', ..ld IlOtlc. aatUll9 forth the ~
of 1:h. fiDal a...._lIt and iDd1c.t1D9 that ..ld ....._nt i. _
du. and p&)'ule, and 'lI&'tb.&, in.u'o.t1ll9 that 1f Mid .._!lA.at 1&
lIot p.ld wlthln t.h. .llowed t.blrt)' (30) d.,. oub oollaotlon period,
bond. .hall be l"DlICI .. .1I~l.ad ~ 1ew.
KO pul>lloatlon'.ball be ~lnd lf .11 (100') of
the ......ad pnlpan)' _&'. baWl t1llll1y l11ad . pnlp&&'ly _acn_
valW1&' of the ea.1l ool1actl0n period.
unallllJl'1' ....,. -'tOR
IICTIOK 13. "he county &Dd11:or 1. hal:'aby allt~bed and
dlr.cted, 111 &CCO&'claao. wlth tile povialoo. o' lecti_ 1612 o' 1:ha
/3E-i
P05
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROM B 0 H
l"ftIft. aDd JU.v......y. Code of \he et."o of crallfon", b) ontH 1nl:o
hb .....-.= &'011 Oft wIU.ab p&'~y i:u.. ,,111 ~ In _. .0,
oppol1t. MClII 1.ot 01: pucel of 111114 atf.o\e4, b . epIl:le IIUUcS
.publ1o 1DIo60._t .....-t. 01: bJ' other ""tablo de."",.UOft,
th. no..t .nd .0......1 lnal:a13aent. of hOb ......-m: coming d...
dlU.".l.Dg th. .n.uUg n,o'l year _._.4 by th. ....._t 1:011 and
1:1101: ..ld mlUy i:_ eIlall be IIl8de ..011 year durbg 1:he Ute of tbe
bond. tor th. pl"CG..dlR'Il' fOil tho abcy.-rotorollCed ....._nt
I)h1:l"1C1t. '1'lIh .u\hoz:01Atlcn 1a conUnll&l untl1 .11 .....-=
ob119.t1ou II... beaD d1sc:hUfd and t.be bolide ~ed.
.. lID alt:a=ata, and wllal1 det.clblROd to be 1Il t.be
bo.t ill\OAlt. fOil 1l01llSllO~1 of \he ....._1It Dbtdct:, 1:l11li
lagla1.i:l". Ilcdy -1" Ill' ".01uI:1oII, d..1gft.". aft ofnoia1 o\her
theft i:ho OOuftl:y '1'.. 001100\0&' ud/O&' o\har -veni:, i:c ccl~ and
.Ibtain ~. of i:he 001100\1011 of i:u .....-a., 1IIcllud.I.A9 .
pIIocadure otll.r l:bul \ho ncl"lD01 pIIOpOnlo' i:u 001100\1011 >>l"OOOdUl:'O.
ACI'l'IO. 14. XII aceoduce wltlh i:M FCYlol_ of hCIl:1OR '''1
of tb. It noli. Ud B1911ny. Coda, if any lot or lIU'ool o:l! land
.fteoto4 by any ....._nt 1. D01: aapu'Uly ......04 011 tlh. Mx
roll .0 th.t the 1nat.llment of the ....._t i:c be ClOll00\o4 can
b. ccnYln1ant11' enter.1S "baZ:O.on, i:1I.n th. AucUi:or .h.ll .nt.r on t.be
&'011 . duGdpUon of the lot or pucel .ffOCl:04, ,,1i:1I \he _ of
tba own.II., it lalcwn, at otheRl.. t.be CVI1011. _y be d"Gr1bed ..
.unknown _11.- , and e..tend t.be propell 1R.t.l~ oppotI1ee t.be
.-.
U8lISSHDT nRIrXc::a'rxoa S'rA'1'IDIft'
8lIC'rXOII 15. 'rho coun")' Au4!toll .ball, within 90 day. aftOll any
.peci.l .....~ lnlt.1~ 1Ieo_, delinqu.nt, rondell .nd .1IbaI1i:
a detail.d E'OpOrt .bowlng t.be _lIl:. of tllo in.t.ll-'<., lDtoftlft,
ponalUo. and pel"e.ntage. .0 oo1100\Od, fOil the lPI:'OOo4lng i:_ ud
In.taU.ont ct..to, anct. :I!_ wII.t FOPIl"ty oo1100\od, ancI. :l!ul"tt.r
idontUy '111' p&'Op"tl.. vIILclb. u. d.l1nquollt and _he _i: ud
1.1\IjIth of t1me fOil eald ct..11nqu.=1, uct. furthell .ot: tOl"i:II . et.~
IDlftt of pello.nt..... lIot:almod fer \he apenM' of aak.l.Dg lUoll ooU_
tlon.. 'Ihl. nqu..\ 10 .peclnoa1J.1' aact. ~o the .1Itbor1HUon of
'octlon 8683 ot ~II. '~~on. ucI. Bi9bwaJo COda of i:ho ftaU of
Callfoml..
USAIIIDlI'1' I)XftJlIC'r ruml.
8llC'rXOIf 16. 'l'bat: tI. beUura~ 10 hHwby &ut:b=1ao4 .t t1l1.
t~, U D01: lIW"iOllaly dGn., to .ltallU.h t:ho fo11OW11\9 fllll4. ..
1I_1I1l")" fen: 1:be paJlllOll1: of ooet. IIld upenH. and .dIl11l1ltuts.on
of \he PI:OOHdll1p fen: \hl. &8..._t Dloi:l"1otl
A. ~ J'WIDI All IICII1eo ~l..d fna
CI..h coll.ct:lon, l'~ooaa4o f_ \he all. of IlondII and appl1oabl.
ccnt:rlbuUon. .lUIll I:MI I'laoad 1lIl:o the __nt 1'Wld.
/3E,>
P06
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROY B D H
.. UIDW rmm. All _WI .. ".1pa1:8d ~
...18' ln the paJMOl.' of ..li1lq1&_w. .ball IN plRed A.m:o the
lle_ hIld.
C. Jlll)IHP'1'%ClIf rmm. All _hi.. n001YOd b.... the
par-n' of ......-1:. .llaU IN ,10C10d 1a t,U Jledr oIL1oD rwad.
For pa"Lc;nal.r. .. to tho ada1111.tr.tlon oneS
bandl.1nv of th. 1'\rIlde, the epec:1ttc t.ru &lid ooa4l.t1_ lI!l&l1 be
..t fortll ln ,he aoad Ind.II'1iI:O and o,.......d ttu:ou.,h the ".0111t1oD
Aul:lloddn., tll. %._ of aoncsa.
II. CClIIPi.U1fCl WI'lII CIQl
nCTIClII 17. .. to the .....-' Dletr1clt, the Clty ClaIIlIlIll
11.. r.vi.weel anel cOII.ld.".d RIll 110. 19-01, tll. anvu-ntal
~. of the project: i:ho2:lt.l.lI 1dODt1f.l.o4, the propo.o4 a1U9at1an
....ur.. oOIlt.aln.d th.!:.1n and t.b. oudUat.. lind1nve at."aot.4
h.nto a. Illhlblt ".". 'l'bi. lOfi.lati.. 1I011y h.. fOlllUl, IiI1' the
adoption of th. cntUyLa, a..olutln tbat ftn 110. 8.-01 ...
~.paa:od 1n aocordan w1th the nqu1~t. of Cl&QJ. &lid gu1dol1au
lawtll11y p_lgal:ed tII.n1IIIdu.
ClOA 1'%Il1lIIfGI AIfD ''1'A'BaM' 01' OYlUIlUDIIfCl coa'mDA~%OIt
UCTIClII 18. A. AdoPl:ion of l'i~1Ilo.. 'l'bo City Council dooa
h.reby .ppr:ove, acc.pt a. It. ClWD, 11lC0l:p0r:a1:o a. I.f aol: fonll .l.n
full her.ln, and ..lee each and _yon. of tllo candidate findlR9l1
atl:&cllod lI.r.to a. Ixhlbit "A".
e. c.rt.ln Mlt10.tlon ....ur.. '.a.lI11. aDd
Adoot8d. M lIOn fu11lr 1dontU1od. aDd oat forth 11\ hh.l.b.l.t "A"
attach.d hento, th1. 1091ll1atl_ bod1' IuIraby f1~, pIl~ to
Publ10 ".OU&'OOll COde ...Uon 21081 and lOet1an 111091 of the ~
0\11401111.., that the altl,.t10D ..anra. "'.crlbod 1a the nut are
fo..lblo and, Upoll adopttcll 01 tII1. ...olu"loII, .,111 baUIl. lIiadLII9
a1'OD. the C1tr and aIllo' otbor napoulb1e perl:1...
C. %llf.a.ibl11ty of A1tornat1.,... All eat fertll 1a
bhlb1t "A" attuhod h.nto, tilt. lO9l..tative body horalill' find. tbat
1.1: I.. uDnov...a&'!o' to dotNll1lle the" &Ill of th. propo.o4 proj.et
.1\:_l:1vo. aol: forth I.D the nm van fea.1b1lr and ~.taa'l.alllr
1....11 or .vold the potentially el.gn1UO&ll~ edvor.. an...1a:o_t&1
i.p.ct. oLne. .11 pot.ntially .1gnUivut advou. .n...16o_t&1
ialpact. ...r. .11m1aato4 or 1I11:1;.to4 below a 1tIve1 of d;1l1t1oanca
by virtu. ef tba .l.tivatl.OD _ann. ~ltll iInPOlad. Motwlthetand.
Lnll th. fongoiDll, 'Ilia 1.lIl.ola1:1.... bodlr did rovl... the .1t.n.U.....
tv th. I'l:Oj.ot, 11lvllJdLng the Mo Pro,oc:t A11:ornaU...., and njoote
..I.d .1t.rll.tL... for tba reaoon. eat forth 11\ 1X1l1b1.~ "a" attaahad
b.rato.
D. Ado~loD or JI1t1aaUon &lid KOnl~r1fto ProorUl.
.. r.quired by Pabltc Mooura.. CI:lde lection 21081.6, thia 1&91.01a-
t.iv. 1o0dlr h.reby adopt. th. N1U,aUn IIonitorl.nv &lid ....rtll19
J3E~~
P07
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROM B D H
.rovr..... I ~.r09r_W) 1nco~at:.., in kll1b!.~ "a" actaall.., _0.
Tbt. bg1elaUft ))ody herBy t~ tbe P~_ L. d..l~ t:o _
tlult, dUII:LA; Pl:Oject; 1alpl_ntaUon, tbe C.Lty a. appUaUlt, aDd any
other n.pon.1bl.ll putL.., !llpl_nt tbe 'l:Oject; (.. d.U,.., b tbll
c.rU,tylav ...01ut10n) aampoa.at. .114 ~ly w!.t:Il tll. f...Lbl.
Il1t1;at1on _RI:'H 14entLU.., J.A kllUI.L1: ",." IIWRlI.
.. .t.~.a.u~ of oy.~rld1Do COft.ld.~a~loft.
ODn.o....ry. aft.r t.b. adopt.10ft Of all f.a.1bl. "1t1.9aU,on
....ur.., ...rtaln .LvnUlcant or pol:nt.1ally .lp1f1C&IIt ad_
.nvUonllent.al .ffect. vIlleb IIIi;ht: otberwl.. be 0.1IaR by tbe Project:
..111 be ..ltL,.t.., bel_ a 1...1 of .1;n1Uoano.. 'fIutnfoJ:e, t.h1.
1.lIlelaU". body b.r.b:r fiAlS. tll.t. Lt La _..ary eo hn.,
pIlnllant: t.o leClt10n 11013 of tM ClIQI' GIILdeUae., a .ta~nt of
o"errLdin; _lcleraUoa. u.MUybll ~ Qe01UeI ._1e1, _lal,
and other oonaLlSentlon. tJlat ranlSer lUIaVClL4al>1. .Lga1fleaat ad_lI:_
.n"Lrolllllental ."eot. acceptabl.. ItOt.w1th.t:aD41ng t.1l. fOAllOlng,
t.bb C.Ltr CO\IJIoU doe. adopt tM It.t~ elf OrerdlSl.ng CoD.LIS.ra-
tlon. contab.1S I.n kllLble ~a. bweto.
1I0'UCJl or DI'1'IIlMIlIA'1'IOlI
IBC'1'IOll U. !l'be CLe:r 1lan.'1SJ:, Oil: hb 4D1;na, 1& hereby
dlrt1Clted, afew pa..ag. &lid a4opt1on Of tb1a ".0111UOII, eo d.UVW
a !loti... of DRwm1nat1011 .. to tile PR'eot, togetlwr wLth a oopr of
t.tue ".01ut1o.., It. BKhLblt ad all re.01utl_ .....d tor tile City
Councll 1n _....eotlon witll tbL. PEo,...t, wlt:1l t:Ile COUnt:r Clerk of
t.h. coun~y of .aA 01.;0 and, In aooo_ with Pu!l110 ..._..
Coda leot:ion 21112, eo caU.. eAch not10. to be po.ted in tbe County
Clltrk'. ofUc.. '1'Ile Clt.y Kanavar .ball aCCClllpll..h aU of 10_ aboft
notic. r.~lr_.nu wUh1A fl". (5) wcrlttnv days fOllow1ft9 tbe
pa..all. and adoptlon bar.of.
DCOlUl or ~gIIIOI
8lIC'lIOlI 20. 'file Clt:r Clerk .Mll aertUy t.o the punp and
adoption of thb a..olut:Loa, .ball a.,... U. ._ to be Rund in
~h. book of 0r19Lftal re.01ll~1on. of eh. C1ty, .hall __ a aWnlu of
~he pa..age and adoption 101>_1 b the record. Of the puua4Ln;.
of tbb 1.gblativ. ))ody I.n t:Il. lUmIt.. of the _109 at whlal> the
._ La p...'" and 1Idopted.
'r..en~.d tor
Approved .. to fClZll by
John .. Llppitt
Publ1c WOrks Direct:cr
Bruo. K. 10000aard
C1t:y attOrft.l"
J J. E- 7
POB
05-22-92 11:29 AM FROM B D H
l'Allml, ut'IOYID, u4 ~. by the O!by ClolIDGLl of bbe CU:r
of Chill. VL.ba, Ct.11fol:1l1., W. uy of ,
1"2. 1>1' bbe foll_Lag .o1:a.
ual. OlNDcl1mc1bu..
110&', OlNDcl~.,
U...-r, OlNDcl~.a
U8'U.a ClowIcltm.DlMna
!L1l Xde&'. 1Ia)'N'
ATTBI'1'.
lavady A. Allthal~. Clty Clerk
1'1'1.'1'1 01' Cl\LIPOUtA )
COllNTlI' or lID DIIIGO ) ...
cln 0' ClIIULA VI''1'A )
r. lavedr A. Alltlleleb. CLby Clerk of bhe Clty of Chill. V1R..
Callfol'n1.. 110 "el'.loy nR1fy bhat 'lie fon90LIl; ".olll~ Ro.
".. IIlIlr ~...., .PI-,..~.., &JIll ..... by bbe O!q. CoulloU
lIalll on tha day of , 19\12.
h__bed. thb _ liar of
. 1"2.
level'll' A. AIItbelet. CLty Clal'll
13E-~
P09
BEFORE TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EXHIBIT
A
RE: PROPOSED OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. PESCRIPTION OF PROJECI'
Otay Valley Road is proposed by the City to be widened from Interstate Highway 805
(I-805) to the eastern City boundary. This portion of Olay Valley Road is approximately
8,800 feet in length and crosses lands within the City of Chula Vista's Olay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area. Olay Valley Road is presently two lanes for most of its
length, and increases in width to three and four lanes west of Brandywine Avenue and
Oleander Avenue, respectively. The proposed project is to widen Olay valley Road to
a six-lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-way. The roadway will have a design
speed of 55 miles per hour. Project elements include a 16-foot landscaped median, six
12-foot driving lanes, two 8-foot emergency parking lanes, and 12 feet behind each
shoulder curb for sidewalks, landscaping and utilities. The proposed widening is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Olay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan.
The proposed widening will occur in two phases. Olay Valley Road widening from 1-805
to Nirvana Avenue will occur during Phase I, and is anticipated to begin in 1992. Phase
II will include the remainder of the road east of Nirvana, and is anticipated to be
constructed within five years of Phase I completion. Financing for the proposed project
will be funded by the formation of an Assessment District. Thus, approval of the
Assessment District is the financial method to implement the proposed project.
II. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on this project shall consist of the following:
1. The Draft and Final EIR for the project;
2.
All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the environmental consultant and the City, that are not privileged under the Public
Records Act or any other relevant statutes;
.....
-'"1,
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the proposed project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
-1-
I:JE"9
.f/j
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
limited to, the following:
a. Chula Vista General Plan - 2010
b. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
c. Chula Vista Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
d. Chula Vista Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implemen-
tation P1anIDesign Manual Addendum
e. Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy
f. Otay River Valley Redevelopment Area Sensitive Biological Resources
and Wetlands Delineation (1981).
m. TERMINOLOGYmIE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental
effect identified in an ElR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that
"[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
iY2il1 or substantially h:nm the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
ElR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency
or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion
is that [s ]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternative identified in the final ElR.
....
'1,
As regards the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define
the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely
"substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be
gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources code section
21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate"
rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating"
with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent
with Public Resources Code section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy
disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there
are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen"
such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-sipificant
lml. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure
or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce
effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15019 requires
only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] m:
-2-
/3E-IP
substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify
. whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of
insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final Em.
N. LEGAL EFFECr OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final Em are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista (City) hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely
informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the project.
V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by the Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. The program is designed to ensure that, during project
implementation, the City and other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation
measures. That program is described in the document entitled, Otay Valley Road
Widening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VI. POTENTIAllY SIGNIFICANT EFFECrS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final Em identified a number of potentially significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the Otay Valley Road widening would cause, all of which could be
avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. These impacts are restated
below, followed by page numbers in the Final Em where the impacts are discussed.
A. Geologic and soils impacts could occur from development of the roadway on the
unstable river wash, stream sediments and clay loams found in the area (FEIR,
p. 3-7).
B.
The project will result in the loss of 1.2 acres of Diegan Sage Scrub, 2.6 acres
of TamarisklMulefat Scrubland, 0.2 acre of Willow Riparian Woodland, and 0.2
acre of Freshwater Marsh. Construction activities would impact 1.1 acres of
Tamarisk/Mulefat Scrubland and 0.2 acre Diegan Sage Scrub (FEIR, p. 3-26 to
3-27).
....
"
C. The road widening would conflict with the existing administration, workroom and
parking facilities of the City of Chula Vista Animal Shelter (FEIR, p. 3-38).
-3-
/3E''''11
D. The proposed project will accommodate traffic volumes that are expected to occur
along the widened roadway due to long term development and population growth
in the region. Congestion at roadway intersections is expected, including
Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue, Nirvana Avenue, Maxwell Road, and at
both the northbound and southbound on-ramps to I-80S (FEIR, p. 3-48 to 3-53).
. E. Traffic congestion and hazards could result at the intersection of Olay Valley
Road and the Nelson & Sloan Rock Plant until the full widening of Olay Valley
Road occurs and the intersection with Paseo Ranchero is constructed (FEIR
p. 3-52 to 3-53).
F. Paleontological resources may occur in the project area and could be impacted by
roadway development (FEIR, p.3-64).
G. Increases in noise levels from increased traffic along the roadway are projected
to exceed City guidelines for noise exposure (FEIR, p. 3-79 to 3-80).
The sub-sections below restate the above-identified impacts and set forth the mitigation
measures adopted to avoid the impacts.
A. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potentially Significant Effect: Geologic and soils impacts could occur from
development of the roadway on the unstable river wash, stream sediments and
clay loams found in the area (FEIR, p. 3-7).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-8 to 3-9).
1. Unstable geology/soils materials will be removed or stabilized before
roadway construction begins. Surficia1layers of organic soils, debris andpsoft or loose deposits will be stripped from areas where fill will be placed.
....
2.
Compressive soils will be removed and replaced with properly compacted
fill. Expansive soils will be buried deep in fills and not within the
roadway section;
--1,
3. All slopes will be constructed at a minimum slope of 2.0 horizontal feet
to 1.0 vertical feet. Temporary chain link debris fences, with meshes of
1 to 1-1/2 inch square, will be installed with a geofabric material along
the bottom 18-24 inches of the fence to control silting in sensitive wetland
areas which could result from sediments in runoff.
-4-
13E.'l~
B.' BIOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: The project will result in the loss of 1.2 acres of
Diegan Sage Scrub, 2.6 acres of TamariskIMulefat Scrubland, 0.2 acre of Willow
Riparian Woodland, and 0.2 acre of Freshwater Marsh. Construction activities
would impact 1.1 acres of TamarisklMulefat Scrubland and 0.2 acre Diegan Sage
Scrub (FElR, p. 3-26 to 3-27).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FElR, p. 3-28).
1. Losses of wetland habitats will include TamariskIMulefat Scrubland,
Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh totalling 3.0 acres,
and will be mitigated by the creation of new wetland areas within the river
valley. Any such mitigation will include extensive revegetation with
willow woodland and the use of San Diego marsh-elder to maximize value
to wildlife and mitigate for the loss to this sensitive plant species.
Mitigation will be at a 2: 1 acreage replacement ratio for wetlands lost.
2. The roadsides adjacent to native vegetation communities east of Nirvana
Avenue will be designed in a manner that would preclude the potential for
vehicle access or illegal dumping into the river bottom or onto the slopes.
Incorporation of guard rails or fences would be appropriate. Use of
thorny vegetation may also be used in conjunction with temporary fences.
3. The roadway slopes will be revegetated with native plant materials
indigenous to the area or which complement the existing native
communities, such as sage scrub or sycamore woodland species.
4.
Where construction activities are to occur in or adjacent to native
vegetational communities, work will be restricted to the delineated project
footprint by the placement of temporary construction fences or flagging
along both sides of the street. This measure is incorporated in the project
description.
.....
-',
S. If work site brushing occurs between April 1 and September IS, the
project site will be carefully examined by a qualified biologist prior to
clearing. Should the site be found to support nesting birds including Least
Bell's Vireo, Willow Flycatcher, or Yellow-breasted Chat, work within
300 feet of the nest site will be delayed until nesting has been completed.
-S-
lY C'-J:J
6. Following construction, the 20-foot wide construction corridor will be
recontoured to natural or lower levels and revegetated with native
vegetation favoring Willow and Mulefat. Riparian Scrub with minor
elements of Diegan Sage Scrub. .
These measures are consistent with the requirements and conditions of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for this project, which are hereby
incorporated by reference, and attached as Attachment . A . .
C. LAND USE
Potentially Significant Effect: The road widening would conflict with the existing
administration, workroom and parking facilities of the City of Chula Vista Animal
Shelter (FEIR, p. 3-38).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-39).
1. Impacts to the City's Animal Shelter will be mitigated through the
redesign of the site and relocation of parking, workroom and
administration facilities to the southern part of the property.
D. TRAFFIC
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed project will accommodate increased
volumes which are expected to occur along the widened roadway due to long term
development and population growth in the region. Congestion at roadway
intersections is expected, including Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue,
Nirvana Avenue, Maxwell Road, and at both the northbound and. southbound
on-ramps to I-80S (FEIR, p. 3-48 to 3-53).
.....
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
-'''41
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings(FEIR, p. 3-53 to 3-54).
1. Signals will be installed as the City Engineer determines is appropriate in
order to meet the City's Traffic Threshold Standard.
-6-
13&' 1'1
2. Maxwell Road will be restriped to provide a southbound left turn-lane at
its intersection with Otay Valley Road.
3. As required in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, traffic conditions will
be monitored by the City's Traffic Engineer to implement improvements
at the appropriate time.
Potentially Significant Effect: Traffic congestion and hazards could result at the
intersection of Otay Valley Road and the Nelson & Sloan Rock Plant until the full
widening of Otay Valley Road occurs and the intersection with Pasco Ranchero
is constructed (FEIR p. 3-52 to 3-53).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-54).
1. As an interim measure, roadway improvements at this intersection shall
be completed as part of Phase I.
E. PALEONTOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: Paleontological resources may occur in the project
area and could be impacted by roadway development (FEIR, p.3-64).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these ~dings (FEIR, p. 3-65).
1.
A qualified paleontologist will be at the pre-grade meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
....
"
2.
A paleontology monitor will be on site at all times during the cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments through and immediately adjacent to the
Mission Valley formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the
event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontological
monitor will be allowed to temporarily direct, divert or halt grading to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. Any fossil remains
collected will be cataloged and deposited (with landowner's permission)
at the San Diego Natural History Museum.
-7-
/3&"-/5
F. NOISE
Potentially Significant Effect: Increases in noise levels from increased traffic
along the roadway (stated to occur with or without the project) are projected to
exceed City guidelines for noise exposure (FEIR, p. 3-79 to 3-80):
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-81).
1. A perimeter masonry wall, six feet high, will be installed at the back lot
line of some residences backing up to Otay Valley Road. The wall will
be at the top of the slope, to utilize slope height to increase the line of
sight break between traffic and rear yard receiver locations. (It should be
noted that a large percentage of the noise at the west end of the project
area comes from 1-805.)
G. CUMULATIVE EFFECfS
The Cumulative Impacts analysis was based on the list of proposed and planned
projects in the area, shown on Table 2.4-1 in the FEIR, and also on the
Cumulative Impacts analysis contained in the General Plan Update FEIR (since
the project is shown in the General Plan). In summary, cumulative impacts
would occur in the issue areas of flooding downstream, biological resources,
agricultural lands, traffic circulation, and noise. With the exception of
agricultural lands, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts have been
mitigated to a level below significance either through project mitigation measures,
or through adherence to standard City engineering and building requirements.
Regarding agricultural lands, the FEIR states that the project area is not primarily
agriculturally oriented, with prevailing uses being residential and light industrial,
and that loss of this acreage (3.9 acres) to the roadway does not create a project
significant impact.
VII.
INFEAsmILITY. OF ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN TIlE PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
..,.
-,1,
The selection of project alternatives was based on CEQA's requirement of analysis of the No
Project Alternative, the General Plan description of roadway location, and a site constraints
analysis performed for this project (Otay River Valley Redevelopment Area Sensitive Biological
Resources and Wetlands Delineation [Michael Brandman Associates, 1987]). Three different
alternative alignments were evaluated subsequent to completion of this study before the proposed
alignment was chosen.
-8-
):JE- /"
The proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts if all recommended mitigation
measures are implemented. Because the project's impacts have been mitigated below a level of
significance an analysis of the alternatives is not technically required. However, the
decisionmakers, after reviewing the EIR and in approving the project specifically reject the No
Project Alternative and the other alternatives for the following reasons:
.
No Proiect Alternative
The No Project Alternative consists of no action taken by the City of Chula Vista to construct
or implement the proposed project or either of the project alternatives. This alternative would
discourage future infill industrial growth along Otay Valley Road and inhibit economic growth
in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. This is contrary to the goals of the Chula VISta
Redevelopment Agency as set forth in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. The plan
specifically calls for the correction of problems relative to circulation, infrastructure, and public
utility inadequacies. The No Action Alternative would also be inconsistent with the City of
Chula Vista's Draft General Plan Circulation Element roadway designation for Otay Valley
Road, which calls for a six lane prime arterial and major street standards for Otay Valley Road.
In addition, if this alternative is selected, the lack of capacity and low level of service on Otay
Valley Road could constrain future developments north, south, and east of the project. Future
development proposals that would contribute traffic to Otay Valley Road, or require the
extension of utility services along the roadway, would be affected most.
Locational Alternative 1
Locational Alternative 1 is the same as the project with the exception that the six lane roadway
would be reduced to a four lane roadway east of Nirvana. The right-of-way would thus be
decreased from 128 feet to either 100 feet or 84 feet (depending on design). The environmental
consequences of constructing Locational Alternative 1 would be identical or very similar to the
proposed project with respect to geology and soils, landform, land use, agriculture, aesthetics,
cultural and paleontological resources, and park, recreation and open space. The differences in
environmental impacts between Locational Alternative 1 and the proposed project are primarily
to biological resources and to traffic conditions.
-.~
Bioloe:y
This alternative reduces the right-of-way from 128 feet to 100 feet east of Nirvana
Avenue while retaining the same general road alignment as the proposed project.
Impacts of this alternative would generally parallel those of the proposed project with
only a slight reduction in magnitude. Loss of wetlands would total approximately 1.23
acres with proportionally fewer San Diego Marsh-Elder impacted.
Loss of habitat for riparian bird species would still be considered significant. Reducing
the right-of-way to 84 feet would lower the wetland impacts to 0.60 acre, still resulting
in significant adverse wetlands impacts. Under-either the proposed project or the reduced
widths of the Locational Alternative 1, wetland impacts and impacts to the sensitive San
Diego Marsh-Elder are considered significant but mitigable through creation of replace-
ment wetland habitats including the heavy utilization of marsh elder in the plantings.
....
-9-
1:1&"-/7
Traffic
The City's reCommended maximum traffic volume for a four lane major street is 30,000
VPD. The General Plan forecast volume at build-out is 26,000 VPD east of Nrrvana
Avenue, thus the alternative of a four lane classification would seemingly be adequate.
Such a classification would require an amendment of the General Plan Circulation
Element. However, the roadway was not designed to be four lanes in this location
because of traffic circulation considerations. This segment of roadway is located between
Pasco Ranchero, which is planned as a six lane facility, and the rest of Otay Valley Road
to the west, which also requires six lanes. The volumes of traffic entering the Otay
Valley RoadIPaseo Ranchero intersection are projected to be 76,000 ADT. Thus, the six
lane width along this segment of Otay Valley Road is necessary in order to provide
sufficient capacity entering and exiting the intersection. Also, a short four lane segment
of road between six lane roads on either side could create congestion and hazardous
conditions.
Locational Alternative 2
The environmental consequences of constructing Locational Alternative 2 would be the same as
the proposed project and Locational Alternative I with respect to land use, agriculture, and
parks, recreation and open space. Environmental impact differences between Locational
Alternative 2 and the proposed project are identified for traffic conditions, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, and landform and aesthetics, as well as traffic. Impacts
. to transportation are the same for Locational Alternative 2 as described above for Locational
Alternative I. Overall, impacts on the remaining natural, cultural, and scenic resources would
be greater from Locational Alternative 2 than from the proposed project.
Biolo~y
Under this alternative all direct adverse impacts to the wetland habitats would be
eliminated. Due to the extensive slope cutting required, however, an extensive loss of
quality Diegan Sage Scrub habitat and a wide array of sensitive plans and animals
occurring on these hillsides would be severely impacted by this proposed alternative.
The biological impacts of this loss would be significant.
....
~
The only known large population of Greene's Ground Cherry would be lost. Such a loss
is considered unmitigable. Also eliminated would be the dense stands of Coast Cholla
and the Fishhook Cactus population. The latter occurs in densities seldom seen in San
Diego County; moreover, the average size of specimens far SUIpllSSCS other known
substantial populations. Also heavily impacted would be the State-listed endangered Otay
Tarwee population, along with significant colonies of Coast Barrel Cactus and
Cleveland's Golden Stars.
One pair of California Gnatcatchers would probably be lost from the slopes under this
alternative. The Orange-throated Whiptail population would also be impacted. The
Diegan Sage Scrub slopes which would be impacted are considered excellent gnatcatcher
habitat.
-10-
I;lE-/!'
Cultural Resources
LocationaI Alternative 2 would impact all of the cultural resource sites that will be
affected by the proposed project, and would additionally impact another potentially
significant site. Thus, LocationaI Alternative 2 is less preferred for cultural resources
than the proposed project.
Geoloe:y and Soils
LocationaI Alternative 2 would require cutting into the steep hillsides located in the
northeastern section of the project area. Soil conditions in this area consist of terrace
escarpments and are' considered to be unstable due to the presence of cobble strata.
Consequently, greater maximum slope ratios could be required (e.g., 4:1) thereby
increasing even further the amount of land disturbed. In addition, retaining walls, with
a maximum height of 20 feet, would most likely be required as mitigation. In summary,
LocationaI Alternative 2 is less preferred than the proposed project with respect to
geotechnical and soils constraints.
Landform! Aesthetics
Locational Alternative 2 would also result in significant landform impacts. This
Alternative would result in major landform alteration due to the amount of cutting that
would be required to achieve 2: 1 or 4: 1 slope ratios. Cut slopes would be required north
of the roadway for approximately one-half mile in the northeastern part of the project
area. Maximum height of cut slopes would be approximately 65 feet. Landform
modifications in this area would have significantly adverse impacts on landscape
aesthetics since this Alternative would result in strong visual contrasts with the current
natural hillsides and vegetation cover. Consequently, LocationaI Alternative 2 is less
preferable than the proposed project with respect to landform and aesthetics.
-fA
-."
-11-
/3E"/1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council in approving the
Assessment District which implements the roadway which is the subject of the FEIR, having
considered the information contained in the FEIR, and having reviewed the public testimony and
record, makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings
and the action of the City Council approving the Assessment District.
All of the identified potentially significant project impacts have been mitigated to a 1evelless
than significant, as set forth in the Findings. The project also contributes to cumulative impacts.
However, as set forth on page 8, these impacts were deemed to be less than significant. The
City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the roadway project would outweigh
any significant and/or cumulative impacts. The City Council has reviewed and considered all
of the alternatives described in the Final EIR. The project selected by the Council was chosen
for two major reasons:
. It is consistent with the General Plan.
. It accommodates projected buildout traffic.
The alternatives were rejected by the Council:
. No Proiect Alternative - because of inconsistency with the General Plan, lack of
roadway capacity for projected traffic volumes, and low level of service that
would result.
. Locational Alternative No.1 - because of inconsistency with the General Plan,
lack of roadway capacity necessary to handle future volumes of traffic utilizing
the Otay Valley RoadIPaseo Ranchero intersection, poor traffic design, and
because this alternative does not reduce any impacts to a level below significant.
. Locational Alternative No.2 - because of equal or greater environmental impacts
associated with this slightly different alignment.
The decisionmakers find that the following factors support the approval" of the Assessment
District which implements the project, and therefore, sets forth and adopts the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations:
....
-0,\
1.
2.
The roadway project is consistent with, and thus will fulfill attainment of the General
Plan designation as six lane prime arterial and major street, and the Redevelopment Plan
goal which" calls for the "development of a more efficient and effective circulation
corridor free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interfaces."
As set forth in the findings, mitigation measures have been inCOIpOrated into the Project
or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the Findings, which reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
-12-
1.3E -':<'0
3. Approval of the Assessment District which implements the Project will result in the
following benefits:
· Restoration of approximately 6 acres of wetland within the Otay River floodway
(twice the impacted amount).
· Construction of needed roadway improvements commensurate with General Plan
requirements to serve existing and anticipated development in the area.
· Construction job opportunities in an economy which is currently suffering from
such opportunities.
· Construction of the roadway will permit, support, and help promote the further
industrial development of the Otay Valley area which includes over 200 acres of
undeveloped land zoned for light industrial land use. This will provide numerous
job opportunities in construction, business, and industry.
· Construction of the roadway will improve the public safety and aesthetics in the
area. The current facility is inadequate to support current and anticipated
volumes of traffic, and for most of its length does not include curb, gutters, or
sidewalks, has poor road surface conditions, and is visually cluttered with
overhead utility lines.
....
....
-13-
J;1E'.l/
'OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROmer
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Monitorin~ Promun Description and PuqlOse
Public Resources Code i 21081.6 requires a lead or responsible agency that approves a project
where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects,
to adopt a -reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or
. avoid significant environmental effects. -
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Otay Valley Road Widening Project. A Draft
and Final EIR was prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts
and, where appropriate, recommended measures to reduce substantially or avoid the impacts.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program is required to ensure that the adopted measures 8IC
implemented. The City of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)
after considering the Final EIR.
Roles and Resoonsibilities
. The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through both phases of the project, including
final design, pre-grading, construction and operation. The City of Chula Vista has the primary
enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental
Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide final approval for the'completion of the implementation
of measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be
responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of measures. The MCC will
interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction
Supervisor, and the Biological Monitor, all who have some responsibility for the implementation
of measures.
Miti~ation Monitorine Procedures
The MMP consists of Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures, filing requirements, and
reporting and compliance verification. These procedures 8IC outlined below.
..
",\
Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures: Table 1 identifies the procedures of the MMP. For
each mitigation measure, it states the monitoring activity, the timing of implementation of the
measure, and who is responsible for verifying that the measure has been implemented and for
final approval.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Files: Files shall be established to document and retain the
records of the MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department.
Reporting and Compliance Verification: The City's Mitigation Monitoring Report Forms 8IC
designed to record the monitoring activity in a consistent manner with appropriate approvals.
-14-
/JE-.2~
The forms will be completed and signed by the individuals responsible for the monitoring and
approval of the measures. These forms will be placed in the MMP files.
Prol!T'3.m Qperations
The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each
mitigation measure:
1. The City of Chula Vista, Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC), shall designate a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator, who will be responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the mitigation measures.
2. The ERC shall provide to the MCC, the Mitigation Monitoring Report Forms; a copy
of Table 1; and other pertinent information.
3. The MCC shall coordinate the implementation of the mitigation measures and shall
complete a Form for each activity, and forward the report to the ERC for final approval.
4. All completed forms shall then be placed in the MMP files.
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the
refmement or addition of mitigation measures. The ERC, with advise from staff, is responsible
for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are
refmed, the ERC would complete a Mitigation Monitoring Report Form documenting the
change, and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about
refmed requirements.
(C:\WPSI \OVROAD\F1NDINOS.TXT)
....
.~
-IS-
/;JE "'~3
-I.
11
h
tt
ii
t~
If
t.a SU1IJP€
Jt IIJ1!;:f~
.. .', I i ~';h~lf
a 8 'f s i f"O 1 I'll ,
I I,ifl "jt1-jl1i!
n n Jf r -hln
lfi ~ 1.1 I ~ IJ' : ~,I
~ 8 .}{I I 1~81
;1 JIJ111 ;l'lljJ.~lt
~ I g' II H J 'l ~. ,r 111'
j.a ,~J[ l1t(lif[1
~1Jh ~f:fln ,I
]'llJ ~~ OJ~~I !1!-:I~"II, .
II' }.. ;tl:1i ii." I
]11 if tJ!!lr It!lllil~
~J~t l~i ~~~li~ fll' t~:j
lh~ hI lJJ{ll n~H~ffl
11~~ if ~I iJ ]!If.a1ll!
I lilt l~I'i iilij~ ~~!~I~'ll
JllJ I ~ :]1111 I Jljl~fiti
13E~.,1.i
61]
I-t
jp
UI
~JJl
-
I
,.
f ~ l II'
'I f .:1 b
'1 J , 'f
J] It 1 Itl t
tt ' ~
" ,] ,] Jf~
~J ~t ~t
~' ~, ~, ~'
~ll ~ ~t~ J!i
! .. '1' I !~l~ f-J
I a !Il t't j!~t~1 Jill
iE ~JJ f.j' '.2]
~ ~~r il 2R~J
II ~Ijl t.lj~ 'fSj~jj ~lJ'I.j N
i U slh ~lH 'Itj!j li~sll 1
.~ ~Ijl ~fl~ I~~J JljJj~
~; · .11 Hf~ }Ii. 1m;}, ,
g~ fl)~ tit.. 111., 2J~i~~~
li ~ III lf~:~l ~j 1 h f 2jJ}
~Iil! fIlIi JiJli! ~iiiijj'
Il11J lj I it Hj if'!';
:IJIIJ~~J, !Il~ ~I~~' 1~]~~,
;I.j 'f 'IJI~ i]Jiil
I~~ l lit I~ II ~ il~
!IIIII r;i :i:J~ Ifi~fJ
. in j I i r i 1 . . Ii I jtl !
j ~~iJif ~lff IfJI~ !~If~~
IJE~.l>
;
J j.... ~- :w: ~~.; ';' -~,., . ~ ~,
..
"
I
It
~of
h
:!.
m ~ m
,I .fo'l,l
i t i
11 Ii 11
ii U i!
;ll 1
-to; 0!1
;II.{" 8
Jl '8 I
iE fit fl
~ :1,1 :lJ
~ II fl:~~t l
a II oil u II I
~2 llHi 0
~! ~olo olol~ J
~ 1,1~'81111
~rtth ~;I
ill
ollh
hi
1 HI j
. lil'8 ~
I m! I
I hd !
Hi
Jol ~
'i~ll
~l!f or.
~lh 8
!lli tJlljt
J I'll i
1! 1 1"
i!~i It !
'if~l{ J641
Jl~.' ,1101
~lu I :iU
U O_J 1,1 toj
Ii Jiii 61
11 J~!11 ~~
J: 6u1f 11
ht I~!itf i-
)11,1 0 16 ~ :11
J 1 Jol~P 1-
j Iii i IlJjj ti
13E,-.J..(,
...
I
'I'
8 8 11
,I ,I
fl 11 h
.. a
h )J 'h
11 11 it
88 88
II 8--
~I
n
8.1 I I'll If
,II .s
1J h:l :1
II I tt'I~1
.,
~ 8'S I li.
~nh{ I
Ii
Ir ~,18 )
i B! 'J .111.
In .
~I PIQ k
I
JIsl I
~z 1'1 I
J 1 Un ,I
:>'! .~ I ,.
~!: Ib
Scj lr :iz
i
t zl .1'1
8 ,I. ~t.U rll
~~ I~ ,!l
u ~.s
i ,IJ 8 Hjl'l{ttl
'f
11 it fIlth
11
.llir ~..
if . ~I ~..~ HI'
8a- hi ]"I lljjjti l
l~
(11 tl t.,I I J.
jt-
I d II '{il",1t
a-J
. l~ :1"& 1 f' ';11 II"
- 11 '-p In
i zj :. J Jf.II~hlJ
13E-.). ?
JI
~
i
{I
JI!
~t
JI
~
i
11
t
JI!
!:It
. :I
.J
,.
f
I I ~f
is! J
Ii ~1
j II HI
II .lld
~z ,J'll
~o u ~
g!:J J
I 11,i~
~;lh
~tl~
~f~l lif l~!fl III 11
!fU 111 jjlI1 Hi Jlj
1ftl r11 1~!1! fl~' III
. H,J'I I I lhfJl 1-11.1 ill
. 11iH IIJ i1i41 I Jig 'fl..
("'11 JI I~~JIJ .'lfJ il
,t~~~{ t till ]~jl! J 11 I:{'(
I eJl}. ~ ~11J ~.11J8 !jtl ~
/3E"'~2'
1
}
I
'fIt
1:1
.J ri
~ j
~J.!
al
VI
!
'I'
#
II
u
i ~I
~~
~~
~e
o~
lP'J
l!l~11
l!j~'"
s r 5!
h"l~l ~
"ij,lll
I :li1-I
. uH:3
I !ml
~
>,
I
~ -=7
(i I.JE-;lr
'"
k
,.
ATTACHMENT "A"
RFr:I="II/cn MAR 6 1992
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRiCt. COAPS OF ENGINEEFlS
March 5, 1992
'lE~l1 :'J
ATTf"'TIO"OI
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Chula Vista
c/o Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Attn: Keith Merkel
P.O. Box 985
National City, California 91951-0985
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your request dated January 9, 1992 to
amend Permit No. 90-147-EW which authorized you to widen Otay
Valley Road from Interstate 805 to the eastern boundary of the
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California.
Under the provisions of 33 Code of Federal Regulation
325.6(d), the start date is to remain the same and the completion
date is extended from January 13, 1992 to January 13, 1993.
The terms and conditions of Permit No. 90-147-EW, except as
changed herein, remain in full force and effect.
Please note that a copy of this letter is being forwarded to
those agencies on the enclosed list.
Sincerely,
:/~~
~ John Winn
Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
~
'~
/.3E- .30
Copies Forwarded:
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Clyde Morris,
Wetlands and Dredged Material Section (W-7-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
u.S. Fish and wildlife Service
ATTN: Nancy Gilbert,
24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, California 92656
California Department of Fish and Game
ATTN: Environmental Services Supervisor,
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
....
'~
I:JE-.J I
MAR 31 '92 11:4BAM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAl.
P.V8
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
..oa .....onu DIITfl'CT. CO"'" 01' ~HGI"'EEA'
l:~
""
RD'l..'D
ATl'INTIOtlOt
March 21, 1990
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Chula Vista
c/o Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Attention: Keith Merkel
P.O. Box 985
National Cfty, CA 92050
File 10. 90-147-RH
Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your application and/or letter dated February 12, 1990
for Department of the Army authorization to widen Otay Valley Road from
Interstate 805 to the eastern boundary of the City of Chula Vista. This will
result in impacts to 4.1 acres of existing wetlands in the Otay River on the
eastern edge of Chula Vista, San Diego Co.
Regula~ions for our permit program, publiShed in the Federal Register.
include Part 330 - Nationwide Permits (see the enclosure). The Corps of
Engineers has determined that your proposed activity is covered under the
nationwide permit for diSCharges of drldged or fill material into non-tidal
rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments. including adjacent wetlands,
that are located above the headwaters. which would cause the loss or
substantial adverse modification of between one and 10 acres of such waters.
and where the Division Envlneer determines that an individual permit is not
required. (Section 330.5 (a)(26)(i)).
....
."
As long as you comply wi th conditions on the attached sheet and the.
nationwide permit conditions (Seetion 330.5 (b)l. an individual permit 15 not
required. This Nationwide Permit verification is valid until the nationwide
permit is modified. reissued. or revoked. All nationwide permits are
scheduled to be modified. reissued or revoked prior to January 13. 1992. It
is incumbent upon the permittee to remain informed of any changes to
Nationwide Pennits. We will 'ssue a public notice announcing the changes when
they occur. Furthermore. if you commence or are under contract to commence
this ectivitl before the date the Nationwide Permit is modified or revoked,
you will have twelve months from the date of the modIfication or revocation to
complete the actiVity under the present terms and conditions of this
nationwide permit.
This letter does not convey any property rights. either in rea' estate or
materi.', or any exclusive priVileges. Also, it does not authorize any injury
to property'or invasion of rights Dr any infringement of Federal, State. or
local laws or regulations. nor does it obviate the requirement to obtain State
or local assent required by law for the activity.
. I;1E.,.32-
MAR 31 '92 11:49AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
.r
P.3/B
,.
.2.
11 you have any questions please eall Liz Varnhlgln. Regulatory Branch, at
(213) 894-5606 any workday. Please refer to the file. number 90~147.RH in any
future correspondences. .
q;~D~
F.:.vt .
Richard Harlacher
Chief. Southern Section
'. ".
'.
Enclosure
.,
-Ii
-O'i,
13E <J:J
MAR 31 '9Z 11:49AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.4rB
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PERMIT NUMBER 90-1~7-RK
1. The permittee shall implement in fllll all portions of the otay
Valley Road Widening Restoration Plan (pacific Southvest Biological
Services, dated February 8, 1990).
2. The permittee shall conduct focused and repeated survey. for
least Bell's vireos prior to cammencement of any construction work
during the periOd 1 April through 15 September IInd that 1111
construotion aotivities shall be kept at a minimum distanoe of 300
teet rrom IIny active nests and lit no time will the noise levels
trOb construotion be al10ved to exceed 60 dB(A) at any nest site.
3. The permittee shall submit annual reports in December,
documentinq results of the monitorinq and the prescribed remedial
maintenanoe to be preformed to the corps of Engineers, 0.5. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and
Game for reviev, oamment, and general information. A minimum of
80 percent suocessful establishment ot the planted riparian
vegetation shall be attained by the end or the first 12 month
periOd. 1"ollev1n9 that, the plantings shall be allowed to ljJrov to
create a dense canopy, and thinned as needed to ~intain dense,
healthy qrowth a~ outlined in the Milestones and Corrective
Maintenance section of the applicant's Restoration Plan. All this
shall be reflected in the final monitoring progress report. If
this success is not achieved, then the monitoring and maintenanoe
period will be extended further, after reviev and recOblllendations
are submitted to the applioant throug'h the corps frOlll the resouroe
ag'encies.
.c. The permittee shall provide to the Corps, FWS, CD1"G, and EPA
copies of the executed easements over the. mitigation site upon
submittal of the initial monitoring report as required by the
lIIitiqation pll!n.
5. The mitigation site vi11 be excavated and planted concurrent
or preceding the construction of roadway sections which will i~act
existing wetlands.
-"
6. The permittee shall implement protective devioes to
substantially preclude public vehicle access to the river.bottam
and roadside dumping into the wetlands of the Otay River from otay
Valley Road.
7. Roadway slopes and riqht-or-ways shUI be replanted usinq
appropriate native veqetation inoludinq Aqe sorub and riparian
ecotone elements liS specified in the project landscape plana.
8. Prior to commencement of construction, a set of bonds shall be
pos1:ed by the permittee with the Corps in order to ensure the
complete implementetion ot all required mitigation. These bonds
will ~e in the amount ot $484,000. Portions Of the bonds ~y Pe
released incrementallY ~y the Corps and at the disoretion of the
Corps rOlleving initial implementation, as described in the
mit1gation plan document.
\
....
);sE Jf
MAR 31 '9~ 11:50AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOlOGICAL
P.5/8
FACT SDE~
1. Copy or Pr.-Di.char~e .oti~io.tion
US ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT--SPLCo-R
P.O. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES, CA 90053-2325
DISTlUCT
CONTACT:
R...t Gl 11 a. E' d L. \ 2..
fiar1ae1!er \JA;C'i~WJi'
.~.*.****......**.....*****........***.*.**********************~*
********************************
OAT!: UCBI:VED JlT ElISTllI:CT: Pebruary 23, 1990
B%PX1lA'l'XON OATH (received date + 20 days): March 15, 1990
DATE COHKBN'r8 DUE: March 10, 1990
**********************************************************.**.***
*****.**.*.*********************
AGJ!3lCY:
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service
Xn accordance with revised regUlations published at 33 CFR
330.7 on 13 November 1986, the following information regarding I!I.
proposed discharge under the nationwide permit at 33 CFR
330.5(a)(26) is forwarded to you. xt you have any views as to
whether an individual permit should be required for the proposed
work you should forward those views to the District Bnqineer.
If a response is not received from you by March 12, 1990 the
permittee may be advised to commence work under the existing
nationwide permit.
PLEASE REFER '1'0 CASE NtlHBER PDN gO-147-Jl,H IN YOUR RESPONSE.
**********-*****************************************************.
*****.*.************************
""
"GEKT mum I
City of Chula vieta
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Robin Putnam
(619) 691-5120
Paoific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
ATTENTIONs I<eith W. Herkel
P.o. Box 985
National city, CA 92050
(619)477-5333
Ali'PL%c:MI'l' mum:
-Ii
PRfDSCJfG.PF
J,JE....:if'
MAR 31 '92 11:51AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.6/B
WATERWAY 1lAME:
otay River
LOCATION: Eastern edge at: the city of Chula vista adjacent to
county at: san Diego. The project extends from Interstate
805 east to the City boundary along the current alignment
Of otay Valley Road north of the Otay River.
county:
USGS Quadrangle:
Section:
Township:
Range:
San Diego
7.5' Imperial Beach, CA
24
18 South
1. West
~ROJEC'l' DESCRJ:PTJ:OH:
The City of Chula Vista ill proposing to widen otay valley Road
from Interstate 805 to the oalltern city boundary. The roadway lies
within the otay River Val1.ey adjacent to urbanized and agricultural
lands on the western extrC!llle and steep native sage scrub slopes to
the north and uplands as well as wet1.and of various ljIUality to the
1I0Uth on the ealitern end of the roadway. The road widening would
extend for a di8tance of approximately 8800 feet and the road would
be widened to a 6 lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-
way. The roadway would generally expand the width of the existing
otay valley Road and associated slopes by approximately 80 feet.
aDEA OF WATHRS (inoluding wetlands) SVBJBC'l' TO LOSS AND/OR
SvaB~ANTXAL ~RSB MODXFJ:CATJ:ON AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED WOaK:
The propoBed project would result in the loss of 2.6 acres of
tamariBk/mulefat BhrublancJ. characterized by a predominance of
Tamarix chinenaia and 8accbariB Balicifolia. Scattered clusters
Of willows (Salix laaiole~is and s. aooddinaii) and an abundance
of San Diego marsh elder (IVIl hllyesiana) and desert fragrance
(HVllIenoclea monoavra) are also indicative of this habitat. A total
cf 0.2 acres of willow riparian woodland characterized by
individually mappable clusters of willows (Salix app.) would also
be impacted along with 0.2 acres Of freshwater marsh represented
by southwestern spiny rush (Juncus l!lcutus), SOft-flag cattail
(~ha latifoHa) and scattered stands of california bulrush
(scirDUS ealifornicus). In addition to tbese losses, the project
would lead to short-term construction impacts to within a 20 foot
wide corridor at the J:lasGl of the roadway slope. This area totals
1.1 acres of tamarisk/mulefat sbrUbland.
....
-.1,
~DITJ:ODL DlPONmTJ:OIf:
'1'0 compensate for project impacts, 1:he applicant has proposed
a mitiqation plan Whioh would oreate 5.8 acres of new wetlands
within a single block of land located in a filled portion of the
otay River. This program would inolude the removal of fLll
material, reeontourinq and reveqetation of 1:he site and protection
"al$CRG.PF
I;JE'Jf,
MAR 31 '92 11:52AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.7/B
ot the site through restrictions under a California conservation
Easement for the protection of biological resources. J:n addition,
the project applicant is proposing to restore through recontourinq
and revegetation, the wetlands impacted due to ~hort-term
construction activities. Roadway slopes will be replanted with
appropriate native vegetation. '1'h15 detailed plan is attached for
review and cOllUllent.
The otay River valley in the proximity of the proposed project
area supports nesting Least Bell'S Vireos. The location of these
birds and "is discussed in the attached biological survey and
analysis conducted for the project. The nearest nest location is
approxblately 300 feet from the proposed riqht-of-way. '1'he project
applicant has provided noise data indicating that the noise levels
at the nest sites wiCh would be generated under the proposed
project will be below the 60-80 dB (A) impact thresholds cited
utilized in the Comprehensive species Management plan devG10ped for
the vireo (Recon 1988). 'rhe noise models utilized for the project
predict that the 60 dB(A) lower threshold will be attained at a
distance of approximately 100 feet from the nesting habitat under
future traffic predictions for the year 2006 (attached document).
Further, the applicant has incorporated constraints in construction
such that the. projeot area will be reviewed by a qualified
biologist prior to conducting grading activities and all
construction work will be kept a minimum of 300 feet from any'
active nests during the nesting period of 1 April throu,;,h 15
September. Should specific const;ruction activities requJ.re a
greater set-pack than 300 feet to maint;ain a noise level below 60
dB(A) 8t any nest site, these will be incorporat;ed into the
construction constraints.
""'\
'l'he applicant has proposed the following conditions to the issuance
of a Nationwide Permit pursuant to 33 eFR 330.5(a)(26):
1. That the permittee shall implement in full all portions of the
otay valley Road widening Restoration Plan (Pacific Southwest
Biological services, dated February 8, 1990).
2. ~hat the permittee shall conduct a focUBted survey for least
Bell's vireos prior to cOllUllencement of any construction work during
the period 1 April through 15 September and that all construction
activities shall be kept at a minimum distance of 300 feet from any
active nests and at no timCl will the noiae levels from construction
be allowed to exceed 60 dB(A) at any nest .ite.
3. That the permittee shall provide to the Corps, FWS, CDFG, and
EPA copies of the executed easements over the mitigation site upon
submittal of the initial monitoring report as required by the
mitigation plan.
-lA
PREDSCI\G."
l;lc-J,/
1
.
MAR 31 '92 11:52AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.8/8
4. That the mitigation site will be excavated and pl.anted
concurrent or preceding the construction of roadway sections which
will impact existing wetlands.
5. That the permittee impleaent proteotive devices to
substantially preClude public vehicle access to the river bottom
and roadside dumping into the wetlands of the otay River from Otay
Val.ley Road. .
6. That roadway slopes and right-of-vIl.Ys be replanted using
appropriate native vegetation including sage ~crub and riparian
ecotone .l~ents as specified in the project landscape plans.
2. Resourao AgeDcy cOlDlllent.ss only the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service COl\U1\ented on the PDN. They said that they had reviewed the
mitigation plan and do not agree that the plan offsets all project
induced adverse environmental impacts. They requested the
opportunity to help ensure that project-related impacts to the
wetlands are avoided, minimized, and/or compensated for through
review of an individual permit application.
3. Basis :tor Not. RelilUirinq an :Endividua1 Permit: Comments
concerning the proposed project were requested from the California
Department of Fish and Game, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. The District Regulatory
Branch believes that, based on the information provided, the
proposed activity would not ,have more than a minimal adverse
environmental effect on the aquatic environment either separately
or cumulatively. A telephone conversation with FiSh and Wildlife
Service staff revealed that their specifio outstanding concerns
were with potential secondary project tmpacts to sensitive upland
areas and the need for a buffer zone around the construction
corridor. The applicant had previously explored ways in which to
resolve these issues, and states that there is no practicable
solution. With regard to impacts to the wetlands, the Corps
blllieves that these have been addressed satisfactorily. Therefore,
in accordance with the regulations (33 CFR 330.7(d)) the proposed
work may be authorized by nationwide permit. If no response is
received by Karcb 15. 1"0, the District Regulatory Branch will
assume that Division concurs with our reCclDlllendation and wi-!:l
proceed accordingly. .
f. RecommoD4e4 Speoial ClOn4itioaal Sa_ as above.
''\
vftfte. ~e~ Ii-! 'fYhl1t,.'
/Ic:mv/
CHARLES M. HOLT
Chief, Regulatory Branch
....
"
PmlSCMC.Pf
/ 3E... 3Y
Exhibit
A.
B.
C.
C.O
C.1
D.
E.
E.1
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
(DDS/Exh ibi t)
OTAY VALLEY ROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
schedule:
Resolutions
Agreements
2/24/92 meeting - project Area
1/13/92 meeting - Project Area
7/11/92 meeting - Project Area
5/11/92 meeting - project Area
10/23/89 meeting Resource
Minutes of
Minutes of
Minutes of
Minutes of
Minutes of
commission
Minutes of 9/25/91 meeting - Planning
Minutes of 11/8/89 meeting - planning
Minutes of 1/24/90 meeting - planning
council Agenda statement of 4/21/92,
Reduced copy of amended boundary map
Protest letters
Order of procedure
Notice of property owners
List of property owners notified
Engineer's report
Environmental Findings of fact
'~" /7
committee
committee
committee
committee
conservation
commission
commission
Commission
7/23/91
%If
STONE &YOUNGBERG
IvIE....SERS PAD~IC S-'-OC~ E)(C'"'t,"G~
4350 La Jolla Vlliaae Drive
SUite 840 -
San Diego, Caldornla 92122
UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT
Telephone (619) 4520504
FacSimile (619) 452.6131
May 20,1992
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Lyman Christopher
Director of Finance
Re: Underwriter's Agreement for
Gty of Chula Vista
Assessment District Bonds (AD. No. 90-2)
Members of the City Council:
This letter will serve as an agreement between the City of Chula Vista (the
"City") and Stone & Youngberg (the "Underwriter") to serve as Underwriter to the
City until the I?arties enter into an actual Purchase Contract regarding the negotiated
sale of securitIes to be issued by the City pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of
1915.
You have informed us that the City intends to issue a series of Bonds to provide
funds for financing various public improvements within Assessment District No. 90-2
(Otay Valley Road) and for this purpose requires the services of the Underwriter to
assist in structuring the financing and to enter into a Purchase Contract for the
securities which is acceptable to the City.
As Underwriter, we will use our best efforts to bring the Bonds to market at
competitive interest rates practicable under the market conditions existing at the time
of their sale. The Underwriter agrees to undertake the below listed services and
functions:
A Structurinf the Financin&
1. The Underwriter will work with the City to create the most feasible and
efficient structure for financing the necessary improvements given the
provision of the required public facilities.
S.At..; FRA~JC!SCO (l"S! 981-'31A . LOS ANGELES (S"'S', 789.2663
City of Chula Vista
Re: Underwritin~ A~eement
May 20, 1992
Page 2
2. The Underwriter will work with the City's bond counsel and other
professionals in recommending specific terms and conditions affecting the
Bonds.
3. The Underwriter will prepare an Official Statement on behalf of the City
(preliminary and final versions, respectively) for sale of the Bonds in
accordance with the standards of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange
Commission and other applicable securities laws. Although it will be the
responsibility of the Underwriter to prepare the Official Statement, the City
agrees to participate in its preparation by providin~ pertinent information to
be included therein and agrees to review the OffiCIal Statement for accuracy
relating to matters concerning the Bonds, the Improvement District and the
City. Matters regarding the District which will be reviewed by the City for
accuracy will include current property ownership, property tax delinquency
information, permitted land uses and zoning, enVIronmental reviews and
conditions including descriptions and assessments of known toxic soils and/or
contaminated ground water within or immediately adjacent to the District.
The execution and delivery of the Official Statement will be duly authorized
by the City for use in marketing the Bonds.
R Marketinl: the Bonds
1. At the designated time for sale of the Bonds, if market conditions so permit,
the Underwriter will submit an offer to the City to purchase the Bonds subject
to pertinent resolutions, the Official Statement, and all other necessary
documents, approvals, and proceedings governing such Bonds havin~ been
determined by Bond Counsel, the City and the Underwriter to be satIsfactory
in all resp'ects for financing purposes. It is intended that once purchased, the
Bonds WIll be re-offered to the public on the basis of an immediate public
offering. The Underwriter may form a group of investment banking firms for
the purpose of underwriting and selling the Bonds.
2. The Underwriter and the City acknowledge that there are certain
characteristics of the Improvement District which may result in a level of risk
to bondowners which may, in the judgment of the Underwriter, restrict the
suitability of the securities to a limited set of investors. These characteristics
include evidence of contaminated soils and/or water located on certain
parcels within the District, parcels encumbered by loans from financial
mstitutions currently under supervision of the Resolution Trust Corporation
or other federal regulatory agencies, and parcels located within or
immediately adjacent to waterways or wetlands which may restrict
development of certain assessed properties. The Underwriter reserves the
right to restrict the offering of the Bonds to a limited set of investors who, in
the judgment of the Underwriter, have the investment experience and
financial capacity necessary to make the Bonds suitable investments within
the meaning of applicable securities regulations. The Underwriter shall
consult with the CIty, its financial advisor and Bond Counsel prior to making
such determination.
City of Chula Vista
Re: Underwritin~ A~eement
May 20, 1992
Page 3
3.
In order to facilitate the offering and subsequent trading of Bonds to a
limited set of sophisticated investors, the Underwriter may request Bond
denominations in multiples greater than $5,000 and/or suitability certificates
to be signed by investors.
At least one day prior to the submission of any formal offer to the City for the
purchase of the Bonds, the Underwriter will indicate to the City the mterest
rate or rates, the purchase price from the City, and the public offering price of
the Bonds that the Underwriter then estimates will be mcluded in such offer.
If, after negotiations in good faith, the City and the Underwriter fail to agree
on the terms of sale of the Bonds, and upon written notice to the
Underwriter, the City may then offer the Bonds for sale to others without any
further obligation to the Underwriter.
C. General Provisions Relating to the City and the Underwriter
1.
The City agrees to make available to the Underwriter without cost, sufficient
copies of any applicable reports, agreements, contracts, resolutions and other
relevant documents pertaining to the improvement project, environmental
reports and assessments, the City or the Bonds as reasonably may be required
from time to time for the prompt and efficient performance by the
Underwriter of its obligations hereunder.
The Underwriter will pay its own out-of-pocket and other expenses, including
the cost of Underwriter's Counsel, Blue Sky and Investment Memorandum,
assignment of CUSIPs and any advertising expenses in connection with the
public offering of the Bonds.
The City will pay from the proceeds of the Bonds all of its costs and expenses
customarily paid therefrom, including the cost of printing the Bonds and the
Official Statements, and any other documents, the fees and expenses of its
legal counsel, Bond Counsel, accountants, architects, engineers, and of any
other experts or consultants retained by the City in connection with the
financing.
It is expressly understood and agreed and the City hereby recognizes that in
performing its activities the Underwriter is acting solely on its own behalf and
that any offer to {>urchase the Bonds will be made with an intention to resell
the Bonds. Nothm~ herein shall be construed to make the Underwriter an
employee or finanCIal, fiscal or other advisor of the City, or to establish any
fiduciary relationship between the City and the Underwriter. It is understood
and agreed that the City shall not be required to compensate the Underwriter
for services provided to the City under this agreement if the Bonds are not
sold to the Underwriter.
2.
3.
4.
City of Chula Vista
Re: Underwritin~ A~eement
May 20,1992
Page 4
5.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Underwriter will have no
liability to the City or any other party in the event that having exercised its
best efforts, the Underwriter determines that it is unable to submit an offer to
purchase the Bonds.
This agreement shall extend to the date of sale of the last series of Bonds as
contemplated herein, unless earlier terminated by the City for cause set forth
in a written notice.
6.
7.
Nothing herein shall prevent Stone & Youngberg from acting as underwriter
to the City of Chula Vista or the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency on
other financings.
Upon termination of this agreement, the City will be under no further
obligation to the Underwriter hereunder.
It is expressly understood and agreed that Stone & Youngberg will be
represented by L. William Huck and Ramiro Albarran as the principal
investment bankers to the City of Chula Vista.
8.
9.
Upon your acceptance set forth below, this letter will constitute an agreement
between the City and the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service
to the City of Chula Vista.
Very truly yours,
STONE & YOUNGBERG
L. William Huck
Partner
Accepted this _ day of
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Title:
,1992.
LWH:am
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR
INSTALLATION OF WATER
PIPELINES AND FACILITIES
This Agreement, made and entered into this L :ay of If?,! /1992, by and
between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
called "City") and OTAY WATER DISTRICT (hereinafter called "District").
RECITALS
A. City is currently involved in the planning and construction activities to widen
Otay Valley Road southerly of its current location in the segment between 1-805 Freeway
and the Easterly City limits. Phase I of the project goes from 1-805 Freeway to just east
of Nirvana Avenue. Phase II goes from just east of Nirvana Avenue to the Easterly City
limits. The project may be financed by formation of an Improvement District.
B. City is planning to install a new 12-inch asbestos cement water transmission
line between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue to provide for fire flows and service to the
area.
C. District operates and maintains an existing pressure reducing vault, which
is shown as an existing vault on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
1
D. City is planning to install roadway improvement over the pressure reducing
vault thereby requiring its relocation. To accommodate the City, the District is willing to
have the vault relocated.
E. Both City and District are authorized to let bids and award contracts to install
water lines and this agreement is entered into as a joint powers agreement pursuant to
Government Code ~ 6500 et. seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set
forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The parties to this agreement agree that the above recitals are true
and correct.
2. Contingency. The parties envision that the work called for by this agreement
will be performed in conjunction with the letting of a Public Works Contract by City as part
of a potential Otay Valley Road Improvement District. Whether or not said District is
approved, unless said Public Works Contract is awarded, neither party has any
responsibilities under this agreement. If the Public Works Contract is awarded
performance of this agreement is anticipated to occur in accordance with the following
Schedule:
2
A. City award of Public Works Contract on or before June 30, 1992.
B. Vault and Pipeline Designs to District for approval on or before May
30, 1992.
C. Beginning of Construction July 13, 1992.
D. District Board Acceptance on or before December 31,1993.
3. Relocation of Existing Pressure Reducina Vault.
a) City shall relocate the existing pressure reducing vault to an area
within the District's easement as set forth in the document recorded, October 30, 1972
in the Official Records of San Diego County Recorder as document No. 289817. (Copy
Attached, marked Exhibit B).
b) The City shall provide the engineering design work and "as-built"
drawing work for the relocation of the pressure reducing vault. The design and contract
documents for the new vault, including plans, specifications and cost estimates, shall be
reviewed and approved by the District prior to advertising for bids by the City.
3
c) The City shall construct or have constructed by their contractor or
agents the relocated pressure reducing vault as part of the City's construction of Otay
Valley Road in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for the pressure
reducing vault. The existing vault will be removed.
d) All work to be performed under 3c) above shall be subject to District
inspection and approval.
e) All costs incurred for engineering design and for construction under
3b) and 3c) shall be borne by the City.
f) All costs incurred for District review, inspection and testing work
under 3b) and 3c) above shall be borne by the City. While District estimates that cost of
such services to be furnished by District shall amount to $40.000, it is agreed by City that
District shall be paid actual costs incurred by District, whether such are lower or higher
than the estimate.
4
4. Design and Construction of New 12-inch Water Pioeline in Otay Vallev Road
a) City desires that a new 12-inch ACP water pipeline be designed and
constructed within the Otay Valley Road right-of-way shown as on Exhibit A. City desires
to have this pipeline installed in conjunction with the City's project for improvement of
Otay Valley Road.
b) City has made separate arrangements with Leedshill-Herkenhoff Inc.
to provide the engineering design work for the 12-inch pipeline in Otay Valley Road. The
pipeline will be designed for location within the Otay Valley Road right-of-way. District will
review and approve design plans and contract documents for the pipeline prior to
advertising for bids by City.
c) City shall construct or have constructed by their contractor or agents
the 12-inch water pipeline and appurtenances in Otay Valley Road in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications provided by Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. The installation
of the pipeline shall be made in conjunction with City's project for improvement of Otay
Valley Road.
d) All work to be performed under 4c) above shall be subject to District
inspection and approval.
5
e) All costs incurred for engineering design under 4b) above and all
costs for construction of the pipeline under 4c) above shall be borne by the City.
f) All costs incurred for District review, inspection, and testing work
under 4b) and 4c) above, shall be borne by the City. While District estimates that cost
of such services to be furnished by District shall amount to $ 40.000, it is agreed by City
that District shall be paid actual costs incurred by District, whether such are lower or
higher than the estimate.
5. District Inspection. City shall have all work performed pursuant to
paragraphs 2 and 3 in conformity with the approved plans and specifications therefor.
The work shall be performed in a good and workperson-like manner to the satisfaction
of District's Director of Engineering. District shall inspect and test all of the pipelines and
facilities being constructed pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 during all stages of
construction. City shall notify District a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours prior to the
commencement of construction.
6
6. Payments. City shall make payments to District for inspection and
testing work to be performed by District under paragraph 3d) and 4d). Payment shall be
made within thirty days after receipt of invoice received from District for work performed
by District prior to submittal of the invoice. Upon request, District shall provide copies of
inspection records and time sheets to City.
7. Changes of Work. Conditions now unforeseen may require modifications
of plans and specifications heretofore approved by District for the work in paragraphs 3
and 4. No change in such work shall become effective until approved in writing by the
District Engineer. Costs for changes in work under paragraph 3 and 4 shall be the
responsibility of City, except for any modifications to the new vault which are considered
an upgrade which shall be borne by District.
8. Construction Drawings. Upon completion of the work under paragraphs 3
and 4, the City shall have its contractor and/or other design engineering firm retained for
these purposes, deliver to District one complete set of mylars together with two prints of
the plans for the work showing thereon "as-built" conditions. Delivery of such shall be an
additional prerequisite for final acceptance of the work by District.
7
9. ResDonsibilitv for Work. Until such time as all of the water facilities under
paragraphs 3 and 4 have been completed and accepted by District, City and/or its
contractor shall be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and damage to such items,
except for damage resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the District, or the
intentional misconduct of District elected officials, officers, agents and employees.
10. District AcceDtance of Work.
a) The acceptance of the work under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be made
by the District Board of Directors. Such acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by
District of any defects in the work. Bid documents shall require City's contractor to be
responsible for any defects ascertained by District during the one year guarantee period
following District's acceptance of the work.
b) Upon acceptance by the District, all items of work under paragraphs
3 and 4 shall become the property of the District and thereafter the items shall be owned,
operated and maintained by the District.
11. Guarantee of Work. City shall require its contractor to guarantee all work
covered under paragraphs 3 and 4 for a period of one year from acceptance of the work
by District and the contractor shall repair or replace, at no cost to District or
8
City, all work that may prove defective in workmanship and/or materials within said
one-year period. The ccmtractor's guarantee shall provide that in the event of contractor's
failure to make reasonable progress to comply with the provisions of the guarantee within
ten (10) days after written notice by District, copy of written notice to be provided to City
by District, the District may have the defects repaired and made good and the contractor
shall pay the full cost thereof on demand; provided, however, in the event of an
emergency, District may make the repairs without notice and the contractor shall be liable
for all expenses incurred. The contractor's guarantee shall also provide that the
contractor shall pay the costs of such repairs to District, upon demand. Prior to final
acceptance of work for items in paragraphs 3 and 4, the contractor shall post a guarantee
bond with the City for the one year guarantee. The contractor shall not be held liable for
actions of the District and its employees which may result in the damage of the pipeline
by their negligent operation of the system.
12. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a) Modification. This Agreement may not be altered in whole or in part
except by a modification, in writing, executed by all the parties to this Agreement.
9
b) Entire Aareement. This Agreement, together with all the exhibits
attached to this Agreement, contains all representations and the entire understanding
between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Any prior
correspondence, memoranda, or agreements, whether or not such correspondence,
memoranda, or agreements are in conflict with this Agreement, are intended to be
replaced in total by this Agreement and its exhibits.
c) Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties and their respective purchasers, successors, heirs, and assigns.
d) Applicable Law. This Agreement and any disputes relating to this
Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of California.
e) Unenforceable Provisions. The terms, conditions, and covenants of
this Agreement shall be construed whenever possible as consistent with all applicable
laws and regulations. To the extent that any provision of this Agreement, as so
interpreted, is held to violate any applicable law or regulations, the remaining provisions
shall nevertheless be carried into full force and effect and remain enforceable.
10
1) Reoresentation of Caoacity to Contract. Each party to this Agreement
represents and warrants that it has the authority to execute this Agreement.
g) No Waiver. The failure of either party to enforce any term, covenant,
or condition of this Agreement on the date it is to be performed shall not be construed
as a waiver of that party's right to enforce this or any other, term, covenant, or condition
of this Agreement at any later date or as a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of
this Agreement.
h) Notices. All letters, statements, or notices required pursuant to this
Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt when personally served or when sent
certified mail, return receipt requested to the following addresses:
To: "City"
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: City Engineer
11
To: "District"
Otay Water District
10595 Jamacha Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 92078
Attn: General Manager
i) Time of Essence. The parties agree that time is of the essence
as to all matters specified in this Agreement.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mayor
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BY~?if-
eneral Manager .
BY:
/
/
I <:/ ~'_
DATE:
DATE:
'-
(C\JTPIPE.AGR)
Rev. 3/12/92
12
..'
.
IE:
~ .
i ~\ ~Ha
rr OlAY
LJl
10
.~
I'
;~i
Itl O.iAY
IIS+oo
l(
I
~..i
I~
1,1
12"AC:P
OiAY
l(
)(
STA. 17't!7 .!' R.
~ REMOVE EXI'STING PRESSURE
r" R~~L)CING \l4UL. T a RECONNECT
u 12/1/:,P
Tt
lACK OF WAL.K
o ..J
i'c ..J
dt~ti Ig
OJL5~ NIRVANA
~A~
IIt0.40
KEY MAP
NO SCAL.E
IE:
i~
..J
o
Jl
"ACP
YAl..L.EY \. C I ROAD
""'-SEE DETAIL.
BEL.OW
.PLAN
NO SCAL.E
YfL.L.EY
~OO
ROAD
,
l(
\L~'
. I
e"
~
I
~ETAIL
NO SCAl..E
""\
I~
i
J L
.
ITA.171'!7
INSTALL NEW PRY VAUL. T
EXHIBIT "A"
~"'19512 10:e7 Ff<OM CTAY ~II€EI<ING TO Of..LA VISTA Et(j P.02
. 14.'"
. "0 ~ClIy 2~ ~
I.
. ~~~~1 ~ND. 'aRS.,O
w.o. No ftR~ IlOO ...!NT No.
own 4 '1
i' "~_I '111 ...,
...., .. AoI,"- ...... T.. ...
eTAT MIIIUC"A~ 0' 'Il.t:.A'" II~ 2S9~17
Ho~ b12
WATP MnICT IlICOltDED RtDUU T or
IIG, ISISTltrci
- .... . I 'M ...... D;r 30 8 s, I" '1,
, OF.
. ...... VeIIor.
"'1t1Al. tHOllOS
'Mttl. "'Ill D!E (,1. ...,.i;" 1" .tAl ;,.
I CiIlII. ft017 Ia.n~t... r..L~
IC..~ IECO~n~ 0 FEE
~
1
~
_ .. .... C7TA'" MUNICI'Al. "'''TP Dr.mtl~.
...... ., _! ~ ..... fA .;.., 10 ...
...tlOtd to<... _ ~ _..........--'
....... """"". togo1ho........ -'r--
.. ,..., linn for ..........,." ...... _.__AMl_
........ _ ..,.., ., .... -""' wt'" tho ""'" fA
'"" ..... ., ........ _ill _ _ .. rI .... If wr
.. s...,. .t Con,.",... ervI ... ....icYIorIJ ~,
tn;. ...~It, ...., 1._:. .~~,I... . ....
.1111___ ......., ......' .... "" IIIIIfttd
. """"'" ..,.,ba:.-.. __..", __ ....
.'.
... _ ... .... c:..,.,l\' .1 ..., 0<-
Ifol~_lt;
,
.
I
'j
.
'"" _..... told '0 "'"
..... 11__ ...tlr.~Ic'1r ___ II .........
In tho c:-.ty III ..., Clooto. ..... '" Co'"
.
-
Tho .lIuterly 10.00 fftt of the ~
s.ct1o~ 19 Township 1. So~th "~91 1
.ecordi~9 tel the United $wtu llcy
$i~ OligO, ~tlte 0' ~11fern",
. . .
I.
t 1/4 of the llo1'th." t 1/4 of
.t, Sin ....lIIrdlnc IUI Ilerldhn
nt Su~:,~ :1" tilt County of
~ I.:':,.
- ...,.:.;.;""
.
.EXHIBIT- Bft
~
r
.
~09-19S2 1e:e8
.
FRO'1 DTAY 1oJO-Et-(; I tEl< I NG
;.1..,
TO ou.~ VI5TI=I ENG
F.e:!
.
..
'"
....Iw' _--w _ th.1~
Ifttt . 1M I"'Kf"Iid or ~ .......ad. .", ......,.,
~I")', CI'IIPl, . ..... erllilf""l'lt .., ~4Ia..:..
.. fll""\1I . III ....... ..., dif't ... ....~I~... .. ..,
.,. ttw ..... ..,...., _.... 'v.f......
......., _ ..... .....1 erwf. ...,..wa .. PI'.
. .... ....!I tM~ ~ ...,. ""',
or...... ~I. _.....H ~__
'- --. '- 01 ""' ...... " .., _.
"
eo- _ _... """.. -'''_
_fto,..... _:..... 01_ _ to......_.
. "",",'_M" ..r".-NI~" iII'\'" ~ .~.A"
... """."-,. .,-. .....w ..... .... ..
.. _..... 01_ _....___-
_fer" ..... ... ,_" .. WI
........"., "'i'_'." .I\lor\.. ~..."
~., .,... _. t.h.y wln_
01 .0, wII..., ";11 C_ __ II> . ....."" ...
.,,'U" .""'" of IDid riV" 01 WI\'
WITNESS Iw.... .... ~(.l __ ....
(9l"t:., 1'~
____.0_..--'-"
.,. .... ........ "", ....... ....., It 41'-''-
'- ... _... _ tal. -mo. '"
_" ..It " ....ocI en, _or .....
-. _ G_ot _ oM ..... to
-'. .. .. ..... ...... ...-, ....-
of tilt ... ...., _.
,.......,..... J_.IlIll,..._.. - ';v.'
of ...,. ,..,.1.... fft4 .... 1..._-6. ...-
101 """ "'_on "'i'~ .,-,_,._
'\
I
,'.,. .J
-. '.'
. ..,:
......., "..,
........
_0'.
-
It4" Of _...
.........
I
.. .. :i: .. .
.....--.....,..,
-' i .
.
'"
I
.. a. ,,~ ..... _, .. ____ ..... ...
.......-. ... ." --.. ~ ..
.:~J ...... ....
--- . .. .... -.... ... .., .,.
-.......
.
., .....JCI.
_...,
f_
.
_,'-A... ........J
.1 ",I'l\ .. Null
19" .... ..... "on...
......"..4 .f ",-,. ~
...... 10-21-72
..... .111
J
"
_. ........,..... c--......
-EXHIBIT - aa
.
'tfV< 00 1992 lei: Be FRI:J'1 OTAY ~ltERlt.:;
. .
TO
ou..~ VISTA EN:> P.04
, .
.
- -~..... . --. ",' ..'-' . ...,- - ........--... ..
- ": t I
I . . \
L_____ _~~_\
r 0 . \"
. \
. -----------\
- ------------- -1 .' \
:\
------'----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
~-- - - - -... - -
~
~~ ~
~ z~~
i U~~
t:f;~
ll: '" ;;:~
~~ .~ ".'
,.... } 1;';'
.. <: ".
r::::.... L:; l.il ~
l~' "c'o~
\,../ ---
. J l
___ .J.. .'_
.-, ,\., . r p- -
\ ~,
\ \:j.)
\
I
j
__.i
.~
~
&II
\l!
<i
w
.
o
N
-------- -:,
, .
_n_. " . .. '.' .... _.....
o.
r-
.
m
-..
\.)
. t....1 :;;.-
V) 2:. I
~o:::
~ tJ)
~ro
- --.
o tl)r
,r
l\1
~),>
L'L: .>-
ti) t\1
. f":"
--------."....., ----
,,!-.
~
· -.. (1)
. 't'L1 !Q
U) r-.
-EXHIBIT-e"
'.
.. _\
.,.:......\.... t
(, .....
~: . "." :
. I :' . , .
':.J..,/. " : ...> 1
~"O
'. I
....~/
C!
-,
L
.c..
<r
.~
,n
\,;.1
{;.
--
I
i'
-
, .
\
(: J
OJ
,f'\
\!;
'"
UJ.
,1'\
\.I'
"
(:
<
.
.'
.
I.
I
SDG/'
, f San Diego Gas & Electric
Submitted to Applicant By:
Debi A. Wilhelm
AGREEMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD
WIru UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, by and between
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, hereinafter called
"Utility," and , hereinafter
called "Applicants."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Applicants are the owners, lessees, or others having a
legal interest in those certain premises known as Otay Valley Rd. 20A
Conversion located at Otay Valley Rd. east of Oleander Ave. to Nirvana Ave.;
and
WHEREAS, Applicants desire that existing overhead facilities be
replaced with underground facilities, and in consideration of the desirability
and value which said underground facilities will add and contribute to the
above premises;
as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between Utility and Applicants
1. Subject to the conditions hereinafter provided, Utility, upon obtaining
satisfactory easements for any required rights of way, shall remove its
existing overhead electric power facilities serving Applicants and shall
replace these facilities with underground facilities, in accordance with
its Rule 20.B for Replacement of Overhead with Underground Facilities as
filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.
2. All work performed by the Utility and Applicants pursuant to this
Agreement shall be in conformity with the General Conditions and the
Specifications attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
Utility shall furnish underground electric service to the premises shown
on Specifications and, upon completion of the work specified herein,
Utility shall not furnish overhead electric service to any of such
premises.
3. This Agreement shall become effective only upon compliance with all of
the following conditions:
a. All Applicants shall execute this Agreement and shall perform all
of the conditions herein contained.
b. All Applicants shall execute a companion agreement with each
company, municipality, or agency that is a joint user with Utility
of poles, or maintains other poles, within the area from which
Utility's pole will be removed pursuant to Section 1, for
providing communication service, traffic signals, police or fire
alarm boxes, or street or safety lighting supplied by overhead
wiring. Such agreement or agreements will provide for such
service to be discontinued or converted and maintained through
underground circuits or other appropriate and lawful means, so
-1-
106-2759H
4/28/83
that all of said poles can be removed from the area within a
reasonable time after Utility has removed its poles.
c. Applicants will, at their expense and in conformity with the
Contract Documents as defined in the General Conditions, furnish
and install the material, and facilities and perform the work
indicated below by a check mark. The material, facilities and
work listed below which are not indicated with a check mark shall
be furnished, installed and performed by Utility at Applicants'
expense.
~ Excavation, backfill and compaction
~ Conduits
~ Concrete substructures
d. Utility shall notify Applicants, in writing, of final acceptance
of the work specified herein. Applicants hereby grant to Utility
all facilities installed by Applicants pursuant to this Agreement,
said grant to be effective upon receipt of Utility's written final
acceptance.
e. Each Applicants shall, at his expense, promptly provide any
necessary changes to the existing facilities on his property so as
to receive underground electric service at the points specified on
the specifications. The Applicants' work shall be in accord with
Utility's Rule on Service Connections filed with the California
Public Utilities Commission effective as of the date of this
Agreement, and in accord with the Contract Documents. Underground
electric service will not be supplied until all affected premises
are equipped to receive electric service in accordance with said
plan and specifications.
4. Receipt is acknowledged from Applicant(s) of 5512,526.00, which is an
amount equal to the estimated cost of Utility's conversion work computed
in accordance with its Filed Rule on Replacement of Overhead with
Underground Facilities. Said amount includes any engineering fee or
fees that may have been paid to Utility in contemplation of the work
provided for in Section 2. After completion of all work by Utility,
Utility will determine the actual cost of work. Should this amount be
less than the estimated cost stated above, Utility will refund the
difference to Applicant(s). No such refund shall be made in regard to
amounts less than $25.00.
5. In the event any additions, rearrangements, or changes to the electric
wiring are required or performed on Applicants' several premises, other
than the work pursuant to Section 3.e. above, Applicants shall cause
said additions, rearrangements, and changes to be made at their expense.
6. All wires, cables, conductors, conduits, ducts, connectors and
appurtenances installed by Utility, or its agents, on the premises of
Applicants, or elsewhere, and all facilities granted to Utility by
Applicants, shall become and remain the property of Utility notwith-
standing any payment made under this Agreement. Such facilities will be
maintained and operated by Utility in accordance with its Rules for the
Sale of Electric Enerav on file with the Cal.ifornia Public Utilities
Commission.
7.
a.
Utility shall be under no obligation to perform and complete the
work undertaken by its pursuant to this Agreement until
Applicants' obligations incurred pursuant to Paragraphs 3.b. and
3.e. of this Agreement shall have been fulfilled.
-2-
106-2759H
4/28/83
b. If the Specifications attached hereto require the installation of
new street lighting standards, Utility shall be under no
obligation to remove and cease operating its overhead electric
facilities nor to furnish underground electric service to any of
the premises shown on the Specifications until said street
lighting standards have been installed and energized.
c. Utility at its 801e election, may undertaken to perform the work
to be performed by it prior to the occurrence of the conditions
specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section. The
commencement of any such work by Utility under the provisions of
this subsection shall not constitute a waiver of any of the
requirements imposed upon any Applicants under subsections (a) or
(b) of this Section, or under any other provisions of this
Agreement.
d. If any Applicants shall, within one year of the date of this
Agreement, fail or refuse to comply with any of the conditions
hereof or to perform all work required under the contracts
executed pursuant to Paragraph 3.b of this Agreement, Utility
shall have the right to make such changes and to impose such
further conditions upon the Applicants as maybe necessary to
protect its rights under any existing agreement for any increase
in its costs of installation, and to provide in any other manner
for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement
consistent with applicable rules, laws, ordinances and its
contractual obligations hereunder.
8. If within 60 days after the effective date of the Contract Documents the
Applicants has not started to perform the work required by the Contract
Documents, the Contract Documents shall terminate and become void. In
that event, Utility shall return the above cash advance and all of
Utility's obligations under the Contract Documents shall cease.
9. Once Applicant has started to perform the work required by the Contract
Documents, Applicants agrees to exercise reasonable diligence in
pursuing such work to completion within one year after the effective
date of the Contract Documents. If such work has not been completed
within one year after the effective date of the Contract Documents,
Utility shall have the right, upon giving written notice to Applicants,
to cancel and terminate the Contract Documents. If Utility elects to
cancel and terminate the Contract Documents, Utility shall return to
Applicants an amount equal to the above cash advance, minus Utility's
costs. Utility's costs is defined as the actual cost (including but not
limited to labor, materials and overhead) incurred by Utility prior to
such cancellation and termination in connection with work done in
furtherance of Applicants' project, plus the actual cost of removing any
of the Utility installed facilities which Utility desires to salvage,
minus the salvage value of such facilities. Upon exercise of its right
to cancel and terminate and upon payment to Applicants, all of Utility's
obligations under the Contract Documents shall cease.
10. This Agreement shall at all times be subject to such changes or
modifications by the California Public Utility Commission as said
Commission may, from time to time, direct in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
11. All terms and situations heretofore made and agreed to by the parties in
relation to said electric line r~placement are set
forth in this Agreement and no representation of any agent or employees
shall be binding upon Utility except as expressed herein. Appendix "A"
attached hereto is solely for use by Utility and nothing contained
-3-
106-2759H
4/28/83
therein shall in any way alter or vary any term, condition or
stipulation contained in this Agreement.
12. If Applicant is a corporation, partnership, joint venture or a group of
individuals, the subscriber hereto represents that he has the authority
to bind said corporation, partners, joint venture or individuals as the
case may be. Each Applicant signing this Agreement agrees that he shall
be jointly and severally liable under the terms of this Agreement with
every other Applicant signing the Agreement.
13. All of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall insure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs,
administrators, executors, personal representatives, trustees,
successors and assigns.
14. The Contract Documents shall become effective only upon the date signed
by the authorized representative of Utility.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have individually executed,
or have caused this Agreement to be executed for and on behalf of each, by and
through their responsible agents, partners, or duly authorized corporate
officers, as the case may be.
APPL1CANTS:
By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,
a corporation
Approved:
Title:
By:
Authorized Signature Utility
Date:
Date:
(Mailing Address)
-4-
l06-2759H
4/28/83
\
. " '" ,. :I: !:::~\
0 ~w
'" "'...,
: w '" '-' r w '" " '-0 '
0 ,. " "'''
- 0 0 0 T'\:f./'
'" < <r. '" ,
-< ~ ~ ,. ,. '" -< ,. -< -< c "'c -< 0 '"
,. ~ ;J: :0: on 0 :z 0 -< 0 -< "'-< ~ -'"
X z", -< C' 0 -< -< (') -< -< 0- on '" ::0:
".., C " .., " r " r cr C 0
>; r~ " z z % r r % "'-
-< ,. -< -< ,. -< .., :0.., % '" w..,
,. -< -< " " -< '"" -< '""-< ,. w w
"" ('), % '" " "1 ~ 0 <r. " - '" 0 0
r, ,. .., c: c " in en <r. .., on on -< ..., ,
"'-< :z '" ~ -< -< -< ..., 0
'" '% -< < .., % .., 0'" 0
-<.., on ,. CO ,. .., .., en ,. on on w
w ,.z " -< r 0 0 .., .., .., "'..,
..., z.., " CO .., "'-
" r r '" ,. ,. % " % "%
" "'-< " " ,. ,. r-,. "
0 " -< 0 " " .., " .., ,..., ..,
.. " ,. -< .., r- r- .., 0 .., "'" ,.
..,,. :z 0 en 0 "'0 -<
0 " .., :I: " (') ..,
:z :1:, r- 0 ,. ,. " " 0- <
or '" % % 0 0 0 <z ,.
" - - r % '" -< -< en .., en rr,(,!;. r-
,. ,-" .., .., .., ".., r-
" ,. :z " '" "',. '"
:z '" '" .., r r 0 .., 0 ..,r -<
.., .., 0 .., 0 .., ,.r
,. '" CO % % CO CO.., "
r .., '" .., .., '" 0 0
0 '" r '" 0 '" .., ,
" '" '" '" ,. ,. CO .., r " "
0 r on 0 0 ,. 0 0
en ,. '" en U' w < .., en :z
-< g on .., ,. :I: '" -< <
on r 0 r- r 0 0 ..,
'" .., '" '" 0 '"
r % en % '" 0 .., ..,
~ ,. en -< <
;; % z .., C ~
'" "' 0 r 0 r- '" %
" < '" 0 CO
'" '" " % .., % '"' '" .., "
'" '" '" '" ,. '" 0
0 '" 0 " "''''
):, < ,. '" ,. '" c c,.
,. " 0 " r-%
: 0 0 CO '"
.., % z 1\.'::
::; U1 " on 0
-< r .., CO'"
"' on CO '" .., "
-< .., '" CO ,. ",C
:f '" " "
,. % r- -< C;~
" " r- c"
, % 0 Z'./'
r '"" Z -< <
r"
- ;, " .., ~ "'Z
U' trC
:z '.' '"
'" C'""
'" Z,--
0- '"
, , "
;:: -<
,.'"
"-' ,-
, ""
5: r
~
X
,.
c- U' v- U" 'f> V' V' V- en V'
'" : 0- '" ..., '"
0- ..., ..., w 'D
'" w '" '" '" w U' ..., '"
..., ~ U' U' ..., '" ..., U' ,.
w ~ ..., 0 g r w U'
C C '-" w '" '" '" 0- r '"'
en V- en V' V- V' V> V'
'" ~ '" '" '"
r : '" U' ,
'D 'D 'D w w U' ..., , .
..., ..., ..., V' w '" V' ,
'D '" '" '" ..., '" : , ..,
" " '" V' , ,.
X
V' U' V- <f' en U"> V' V' V' V'
"
,.
"
..,
~" '" '" '" '" %
'" '" U" ..., '" '-" 0
t\J ","' '" '" 0 0- U"
OJ '" w w '" 0- U" " S
N !..:- 0- 0- '" U" ~ -!
C = 0\ w 'D "" '" '" '" ,.
r
- This Page Blank -
PACIFIC....BELL
,....
t ~ t '- ,. " .:: '_ _.~. .
PLEASE CALL
November 22, 1991
619-266-4642
FOR INSPECTION
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Attention: Mr. Shale Hanson
This is to confirm the arrangements made between City of
("Applicant") and Pacific Bell ("Pacific") for providing telephone
your project Otay Valley Road Improvement, by means of underground
Chula Vista
service to
facilities.
The applicant hereby agrees to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide positions in trench and will place
substructures for Pacific's use as specified in the attached drawings
2 - 5 of 5 of Pacific's job number D3(17)1525Q.
The cover over telephone facilities must be in accordance with the
specifications on Pacific's attached drawings. Minimum cover in all
cases should not be less than 24" below finish grade unless otherwise
specified on drawings.
2.
The applicant shall
accordance with the
jurisdiction over the
excavate, backfill and compact the
specifications of the City or County
project.
trench
that
in
has
3. The applicant shall notify Pacific at 619-266-4642, at least fifteen
(15) working days in advance of starting trenching so Pacific may
coordinate the placing of its facilities with other operations. The
applicant further agrees that trenching will begin on or before
June 01, 1992, and will be completed on or before September 01, 1992.
If the applicant cannot complete trenching within said time period,
Pacific may at its sole option terminate this contract and bill the
applicant for all engineering costs incurred by Pacific. Pacific
shall incur no liability as a result of such termination.
4. In order to prevent damage to Pacific's facilities, the applicant
shall provide supervision over and coordination between the various
contractors working within the project until said facilities are ready
for service and tested by Pacific.
It is recommended, in
Pacific's facilities,
deferred until sewer
installation.
order
that
and
to reduce the possibility of damage to
the placement of these facilities be
water utilities have completed their
5. Provide conduit (1" Schedule 40 Standard - equipped with line) as th_
underground supporting structure and trench for service connection
facilities within the interior boundaries of all lots, from property
line to the riser protection conduit at the foundation, at no cost to
Pacific. Conduits must be placed and sized as shown on Attachment A.
6. Prior to the commencement of any work to be performed hereunder, or at
a mutually agreed time thereafter, the applicant shall grant Pacific
all necessary easements for Pacific's communication facilities in the
specified locations and in a form satisfactory to Pacific.
7a. The applicant agree to submit a final bill to Pacific no later than
fortyfive (45) days following acceptance of the work as outlined
herein. Notwithstanding the above, if Pacific does not receive a bill
from the applicant within (90) days of said acceptance, Pacific will
consider the amount settled and all conditions of this contract
fulfilled and Pacific shall not be liable to the applicant for the
payment referred to in paragraph 7b below. Billing should specify the
location of the trenching work by street address or other reasonable
identification and should refer to Pacific's job number D3(17)1525Q.
All bills should be mailed to:
Pacific Bell - Joint Trench
San Diego Construction
3750 Home Avenue, Room 105
San Diego, CA 92105
Attention: Peggy Taylor
7b.
Said bill
Pacific's
file with
amount to
estimated
shall be based on the cost of Pacific's conduit and/or
share of trench as specified by the applicable tarriff on
the California Public Utilities Commission. The estimated
be reimbursed by Pacific is based upon the following
footages and established schedule of rates.
160 feet of H-All Transiting Trench for
Telco's sole use @ $2.05 per foot =
$
542.40
1738 feet of Shared Trench =
1,246.86
5394 feet of 4" Transiting conduit with
3/8" pull line placed
@ $ 1.16 per foot =
6,257.04
2 15'x6'x9' Transiting Manholes
@ $ 3198.00 each =
6,396.00
$ 14,442.30
For the total sum of:
8. In the event Pacific is required by the applicant to
make slgnificant changes in the drawings referred to in
paragraph 1 above, the applicant shall pay Pacific for
any additional engineering costs resulting therefrom at
Pacific's current loaded labor rate.
9. Applicant shall perform all the work specified
hereunder and any amendments hereto in a good and
skillful manner and the work shall be free from faulty
or defective workmanship. All material furnished by
applicant shall be free from defects. Applicant shall
immediately, upon notification from Pacific, remedy,
repair or replace without cost to Pacific and to the
satisfaction of Pacific's representative, and to the
satisfaction of governmental official having
JuriSdiction, all defects, damages or imperfections,
including, but not limited to caving, sinking or
settling which may appear in the work within a period
of two (2) years after the date of final completion and
acceptance of the work by Pacific. Pacific shall
exerC1se reasonable diligence to discover and report to
applicants, as work progresses, all unsatisfactory
materIal and workmanship furnished by applicant. In
emergencies or due to applicant's inability, refusal or
neglect to do so, Pacific shall have the right to
correct such defects and applicant shall reimburse
PaCIfic for. the costs ther.eof within ten (10) days
after rece1pt of a bill therefor. Neither acceptance
of the work by Pacific nor payments to applicant
hereunder shall relieve applicant pf these obligations.
All equIpment and tools furnIshed by applicant shall be
1n good and serVIceable condition and shall be capable
of performing the work in an efficient manner.
10. If trench is closed without inspection by Pacific,
potholing may be required at Pacific's discretion to
verify that all specifications have been met. All
potholing will be done at applicant's expense.
11.
When the applicant
the underground
reImbursement is
ownership thereof,
the applicant, will
has placed to Pacific's satisfaction
supporting structures for which
specified in paragraph 7 above,
including the materials supplied by
be vested in Pacific.
12. Be advised that working telephone service cannot be
prov1ded for approximately thirty (301 days after the
work is completed. This would Include final grading,
condu1t with pull lines, and enclosures placed as specified.
13. The applicant shall indemnify Pacific and save it
harmless from all loss or liability of any character
whatsoever, including damage to Pacific's facilities,
arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection
with the work performed by the applicant hereunder, its
contractors, employees, agents or permittees.
14. Applicant shall, until acceptance of the work by
Pacific, maintain in full force and effect the
following insurance with insurance carriers authorized
to do business in California.
(a) For. work in Cal ifornia, Worker's Compensation
insurance In compliance with all Worker's
Compensation Laws of the State of California, or
In lieu thereof, to have become a qualified self-
lnsur.er. of Wor.ker.'s Compensation benefits.
(bl Products and Completed Operations Insurance.
\c) Comprehensive LIability Insurance, including
automobile whIch shall protect applicant from any
claims for bodily injury to or death of any
persons, and for damage to or destruction of any
property which may arise from work performed
hereunder, and which does not exclude explosion,
collapse, or underground property damage hazards.
Said ComprehensIve Liability Insurance shall also
provIde contractual liability coverage with
respect to liability assumed by applicant
hereunder. Furthermore, said Comprehensive
Liability Insurance shall protect applicant
agaInst any liability which applicant may incur
(a) on account of bodily injuries to or the death
of one person and consequential damages arising
therefrom, to the extent of not less than $500,000
and on account of bodily injuries to or the death
of mor.e than one such person and consequential
damages arising therefrom as a result of anyone
occurrence, to the extent of not less than
$100,000: (b) on account of damage to any
property, other than Pacific's property occupied
or used by or in the care, custody or control of
applicant, to the extent of not less than $250,000
for each accident $500,000 aggregate; or in lieu
of (a) and (b); (c). a combined single limit on
account of both bodily injuries and property
damage of not l~~s than $1,000,000. Such insurance
shall include Pacific as Additional Insured; be
primary insur.nce to the full limits of liability
herein before stated and should Pacific have other
valId insurance, Pacific insurance shall be excess
insurance only; and include a severability of
Interest clause worded substantially as follows:
"The insctr'anc:e affor'ded appl ies sepa....ately to
eac:h insu....ed against whom c:laim is made 0....
suit is brought. but the inc:lusion he....eunde....
of more than one insu....ed shall not ope....ate to
inc:....ease the limits of the insu....anc:e
c:ar....ier's liability. The inc:lusion of any
person 0.... o....ganization as an insu....ed shall
not affec:t any ....ight that suc:h pe....son 0....
o....ganization would have as a c:laimant if not
so inc:lctded".
15. Applic:ant he....eby dec:la....es and ag....ees that applic:ant is
engaged in an independent business and will pe....fo....m its
obligations he....eunde.... as an independent c:ont....ac:t of and
not as the agent. employee 0.... se....vant of Pac:ific:; that
applic:ant has and he....eby retains the right to exe....c:ise
full c:ont....ol of and supervision ove.... the applic:ant's
perfo....manc:e of applic:ant's obligations he....eunde.... and
full c:ont....ol over the employment. di....ec:tion.
c:ompensations and disc:harge of all employees assisting
in the performanc:e of suc:h obligations; that applic:ant
will be solely responsible fo.... all matters ....elating to
payment of suc:h employees inc:luding c:omplianc:e with
sOC:lal sec:urity, withholding and all other regulations
governing suc:h matters; and that applic:ant will be
responsible fo.... applic:ant's own ac:ts and those of
appllc:ant's subordinates, employees, agents and
subc:ontrac:to....s du....ing the pe....fo....manc:e of applic:ant's
obligations unde.... this c:ontrac:t. In the pe....fo....manc:e of
the work hereunder, applic:ant shall not employ any
pe....son who is a full-time or part-time employee of PaC:lflC:.
16. The attachment entitled "Exhibit-Exec.utive Orders and
Associated Regulations" is hereby made a part hereof.
As used in the Exhibit, "Contractors" shall mean the
applicant. Those orders and regulations applicable as
indicated in the attachmen~ are incorporated by
reference herein.
APPROVED DATED
R.M. Williams
Manager
San Diego CanstIuction
Enclosures
AGREED:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
NAME. TITLE. AND DATE (PLEASE PRINT)
_'A"Fle.ELL.
"NEVADA.I~
_T_'--
GA 1501 1718.
EXHIBIT A - EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS
~cTfic BefI ,nd NevlldI 8~1. .s common camen of ~nications ..,...;ces,
te in work .s contractors fOf Vltioul depenments .nd egenciII of the United
..$ GoYel'nment. Also, certain faeiames may be cCtf'\l'tTVCted I)Ureullnt 10 ....,.Ily
....sted construction programs. BeQuae of the fOl'8going. WOft. undlr this eontnllct
mly be lubtKl 10 the provtsions of certain Executive Orders, f8dera1 &awl .nd
auoc:ilted regulations. To the .xt.nt thlt such Executive 0fQera, ......1 IIWI Ind
nsoc:ilted reguLltton, ,ppfV to the wort under this conUKt, .nd only to that P1~t.
ContractOf ~rees to comply with the proviItons of ,lIauch Eueutive 0rderJ;, ~I
laws and usoct.ated regulll1ionl. IS nOON in fon;:e or.. may be amended in the futu,.,
mcludlng, but not limited to 1M following:
1. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROVISIONS
In accordance with e.ecUti.... Order 11246, dated Sept.mber 24, 1M5, and.1
C.F.R 560-1.4, Ihe part,.. Incorporate hef'ein by this rete~ the ~ul.tIOl'lS ,nd
contract clauses reqUIred by thole proviatonl to be mlae I part ~ nonuempl
conttlC1$ and subContracts.
2. CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATEO FACILITIES
In accordlnc. with ExeculiYII QrcSer "2-'6, dated September 2C, 1965, and 4'
C.F.R.I60-' ,8, Contractor certihes In_l it does not and will not maintain Of provtde
for its employees any faclhties segregated on 1he basis of ...c., color, religion, NX,
or na~lOnll ortgin a1 Iny d its estatllishments, and thaI it does not and will not permit
its emptoyees 10 perform their services at any toeltlon, under rtI control, where
SUCh segregated laclhhes are mamtalnttd. The term "faCilities" u used herein
means wMlng rooms, work I'e.s. reslaurants Ind other .Iting Ir.as, time clocks,
restrooms. w.sh rooms. locker rooms .nd other storage or dfM,Slng lreas, paril;ing
lots, drinkIng fount.ins, recre.tlon or entertainment .reas, trlinlportalion. .nd
hoUSIng facilitIeS provided for employees, provided thaI Mparlit. or sing~u..r
tOilet Ind necessary changmg lacLlllle5 Shall be provlc>>d to auure pnvacy between
1M sexes Contractor will obtain Similar certifications from proposed subcontractors
pflor to the award of any nonexempl subContract.
3. CERTIFICATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM
ContractOf certlfl8s that II has deve~ and .. malntainmg an Affirmatr.. Action
Plan as reqUired by'" C.F,R,t60-'CO
.. CERTIFICATION OF FILING
Contractor cenll,es that It '11'111 Me annually. on or before the 3,st day of Mlrch.
complete and .ccurale reports on Standard Form 100 (EED-l) or suCh forms as
may be promulgated In its place as required by '" CF,R t60-1.7.
5. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR OISABL.EO VETERANS AND YETERANS OF
THE VIETNAM ERA
''''I accordance With ExecutIve Order 11701, daled January 2C, 1973, and 41
, t60-2502O. the part..s Incorporate herein by thiS reference the regulations
..;onlract clauses requIred by those provlStons to be made a pan of Government
contracts and subcontracts
6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS
In accordance With Executive Order 11758. daled January lS. 197". and 41
C.F.R i60-7"',2O. Ihe panles ,"corporate hereIn by lhis reference the regulations
and conlract clauses requIred by those prOVISIOns 10 be made a pan 01 Government
contracts and subconlraC1S.
7. UTILIZATION OF SMAll BUSINESS CONCERNS AND SMALL DISADVAN.
TAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS
48 C.F,R., Ch 1, "970414) and 19,708(1) reQuire that the follOWing clause is
included
Utsl'ZlltlOft of Small Business ConC8rm and Sm.1I DiUdvanr.QfJd BUSiMSS
Concerns (June. 1985)
(I) It IS the policy of the United SI~t.S thE small business concerns and small
bUSIness concerns owned and controlled by socially anet economically disadvan-
laged IndUlldUlls shill have Ihe maXimum practicable opponunity to participate in
performIng contracts Ie! by any Federal agency, inCluding contracts.net aubcon-
t...cts for subsystems, assemblieS. components, and related Mrv~es tor major
systems, It is fun.l'1er the policy of the United States tl'1lt rta prime contractors
I'Stablish proc:edures to ensure lhe timely payment of amounts due putluantl0 tl'le
terms of their subcontr.cts with small business concerns and small bUSIness
concerns owned and controlled by SOCially and economiCalty disadvantaged inch.
vlduals
(b) The Contractor hereby .grees to cany Ou1 this pohcy in the awarding of
subcontractS to the fuliest extent conSIstent with effle..nt contract perform.nce.
The ContractOr further Igrees to cooperate in any studies Of aul"'l'eYl u may be
conducted by the United States Small BUStneS5 AdministrlitiOn or the 8Wlrding
agency of 1M United Stites as may be neceuary to det.rmine the extent d the
Contrlct,;", compll.nce with this CIIUM.
(e)M used in this contract, the term "1Ima1l busineu concem" shall rMln ·
.",all business as oerlned pursuant to MdiOn 3 of the SmatI BUSinna Act and
rMvan1 regula110ns promulgated pursUlnt therato. The term "small bulinns
concern owned and controtled by socially anet economically diUdvantaQed indMd-
UAiI" shalt me.n a smlll business concern-
(1) WhICh is at teut 51 percent owned by one or more soc~ny ancl econom..
catty disaDvantlged inCfMduIII; or. in U.. cue of any pubhCty CJl#Ij'ned business. at
....."'4 51 percentum of the stock of whICh it CJl#Ij'ned by one Of mora socially and
omic:dy disadYantagees IndMduals; and
(2) WhoM management and dilly buaineu operationl .,. controUed by one or
men 01 aucn Jndrvtduats.
Tho eor._ s""" presume lI\IIl ooc;.Jty and _1Iy diNdvO"'ogod
IndMduata mc:luOe Blac:tc AmerICana, HJSPInic Amertcanl, N.t..... Amenelns.
~~Pacmc: Amene.ns. AlLan-Indian AmeriCanS Ind elher mine"hes, or any oIher
lftCIivtdual tounclto be dIsadvantaged by the Administration purauam to Mebon I(a)
(JI the Sm" BUliness Act.
(d) Contractorw acting in good faith mey rwty on wnn.n reprallntattOnS try tMir
IIUbcontractofW regarding the., stilus u .ither a ameli buainess concarn or a small
buaineu ,concern owned and control~ by eocially and economgly diaadvan-
taged indMdUAII.
5",." Bus;".ss .nd Stull o;udvarug.d Busi,.. Subc:onrraC1ing Pt.n
eomrlc:tor, unlel& it ill small businna c:onc:em. u defined in HcttOn 3 of the
Small Busi_ Act. __ III odopl and comply With a lmall buslne.. and small
diNctYantaged txaineu subcOntracting plan, whid'llhall be included in and made
a part of this contraCt. The part.. ;r-".......1. hefein by thil reference the
regulahOftl and contract c1auan NQuirecl by ... C.F.R.. Ch. 1,1'9704(4) and
18. 7OB(blto ba mads a part 01 _me'" cont.- and subCOntracts.
I. WOMEH-OWNE:! SMAU. .u5INESSES
AI ~ &n 48 C.F.R.. Ch. 1, '18.102. the following clause is induded in
IDIidtatiOM Md c:ontraCtI ......, the contract amount is .xpected to be over the
.mall purchase threshOkS. un'" (a) the contract is to be performed entirely outsIde
the Unitad StltlS, its poaeUiOM. Puerto Rtco, and the Trust Temtory of the Pacihc
lIlands. or (b). personalurvic:el comrlct is c:ontempWted'
(I) "WOme~ smlll buSinnMs:' U used In thrs clause. means buslnn,,"
that are at "at 51 percent CJl#Ij'ned by women wno are United StillS clllz.n~ and
whO also controt and operate the buSiness.
"Control:' .. ...-d in this dauN meana exerciSIng the pow'8r to ma.. pohcy
decisions.
"Operate," U used in the clause, meana being activety involved in the day-to-dlly
management of the bUSIness.
(b) h is 1h1 pobcy of the Unrted Sta1es that wornen-ownect sm.n businesses shaU
haw the maximum practicabte opportunity to partlcipale in performing contracts
_nlad by any Federal agency.
(c) The ContractOf 8grHS 10 use . best efforts to give women-owned small
bUlinesses the mplmum prac:t~ opportunity to partICIpate In lhe subcontracts
it awards to lhe fullest extenl consislent with the etficienl performlnce of its
con1r.ct
I. LAIIOR SURPWS AREA CONCERNS
As prescribed in .e C.F.R.. CI'l. 1.12O.302{I)(b), the follCJl#lj'ing clauses are
included'
(a) Applicability This clause iSIPPlicat>>e if tt'Us contract .xeeects the approptlate
small purchase IImrtation in Pan. 13 of the Federal Acqulsllton RegulatIon.
(b) Policy. It is the pohcy of the Govemmentto lWard contracts to conc.rns thaI
agree to perform subStantLally in labor surplus arel$ (LSA's) when this can be oone
consiStent with the efficient performlnce of the contract and at prices no hlgMr
thin Ire obtainable .lsewhere, The Contractor agrees to use Its best .fforts to
place subConlracts in accord.nc. wilh thiS policy,
(c) Order of Preference. In complying with paragraph (b) above an~ wilh
paragraph (c) of the cl.use of this contract entitled UtlllzatLon of Small BUSIness
Concerns and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, Ihe Contractor shall
observe the following order of preference in awarding subCon1racts: (1) small
buSIneSS concerns thlt ara LSA concerns. (2) ather small bUSiness concerns. and
(3) other LSA concerns.
(d) Definitions. "Labor surplus are.." IS used in thiS clause. means I geographi-
cal area identlheC! by the Depanment of Labor in accordance WIth 20 C.FR.!6S4.
Subpan A, as In area of concentrated unemployment or underemployment or an
area of labOr surplus.
"Labor surplus lrel concern." as used In this clause, means I concern that
together with its first-tier subConlractors will perform SUbStantIally In labOr surpluS
areas. Performance is substantially in labOr surplus artls it the COSll Incurred
under the conlr.ct on account ot manufacturing, produC1lOn, or pertormance of
appropnate servtces in labOr surplus areas .xceecl SO percenl ollhe contract pflce
Ubor Surplus Area Subcontracting Program
(a) See the UtlliZahon of Labor Surp4us Ar.. Conc>>ms clauM of thIS contract tor
applICable definltionl.
(b) The Contractor agrees to establiSh and conduct a progr.m to encourage labor
surplus arel (lSA) conc.rns to compete for subcontractS WIthIn their caplblhlles
when the subcontracts are consislem with the .fficient performlnce of the contract
at priCeS no higher than obtainable elSewhere. The Contractor shaH -
(1) o.llgnate a liaisOn officer who will (i) maintain hatson With authorized
representatives of the GCJlo'8rnment on LSA mltters, (il) aupervtH comphance With
the UtihzaltOn 01 Labor SurplUS Area Concerns clause. Ind (III) administer the
Conn1ldof'slabor surplUS lrea subCOnt...cting progr.m;
(2) Pl"OW'ide edeqUlte and timely conaideration of the potenUhhes d lSA
concerns in aU mu..or-buy deciltons;
(3) EMlUra that LSA ........... Ila... an equitable OIlPMunrty to compo", lot
lubCOntrac:ts. pan~u*'Y by arranging lC)i,icgationl. time for the pr.parahon at
afters. QUAntitieS. spec:if'lCItionJ. ancI delivery schlduln 10 as to tacihtate the
partICipatiOn oC LSA concerns;
'C) Include the UtiliZation of Labor SUfJJIu& ANa Concerns cl.UU in subcon.
tracts that otter subStantIal LSA lubcontractlng opportunlhes. and
(5) Malnt.in recordS ShOwing (i) the procedure' adOPted Ind (II) the Contrac-
tor'. performance, to compty with this Ctlu". The recorOS Will be kePt Ivallable for
NYiew by the Gcwernment until the exptration of 1 ,.ar Iher It'le ....rd of thiS
contract, or for such longer perIOd as may be reQuired by any other clause of 11''11$
contract Of by appIicaDW .... Of regulations.
(c) The Contractor further Agrees to inMn in any related lubContract that mly
exceed SSOO,OOO and that contllnl the Utilizauon of Labor Surplu$ "rea Concern.
clause. terms Ihat c:ontorm lubltantllUy to the Languaqe or IhlS clluse. Including
this paragrlPh (c), and 10 notify the Contracting Office' of the names 01 subContrac>
to...
GENERAL PtCI'ICATION'S
DrIIlaPU IMAll:
VERIFY THE LOCATION OF TELEPHONE COM'ANY sua.
nlllUCTURES eUORI EXCAVATION, ,.aoo.cu..,n
at ~ILI FOR ALL TRINCHING 4HO '''OVID! CI:lHOUIT ...
TMClII PORTIONS OF TME TRENCH, 10TH COMMON .....0 1t.P4AATt.
41 .-.oFMD IV 1'Wl TlLlI'MCINE COW'ANV INGINEU.
II UPEJifSIIU FOR 1ME n.ACIM!NT OF COtllOUfT ACCORDING TO
TtLEPHaNf CO/IIIN#T PECIFfCA,TONS AND UNOE" THllNPtCTlON
OF. nLDWONl CDIIP,:,NY TRUCH INSP'ECTOfll. COPIES Of VECIf..
CATtONS MI .VAlLAlU FROM ~NGINtU ~ fIIEOUEST,
'AClFIC TlLlPMONl WILL OCI:\.IN THI TOP fIOSlTlON IN ALL
TfIIlNCMU. UNDER NO ClfllCUMSTA.NCES WIL.L OTMU U1'IUTIU IE
ALLQlIrEO AlavI THI TELIE,"OHE COM'ANY POSITION.
TMl.RE WILL II NO OtANGIIN DESIGNWITMOUTTMl COfCU"..ENCf
Of THI TlLDHONl COMI'4HY TRENCH I"SI"lCTO" AND lNGINUk.
COH1ACT'ACI'tCTlUPHONf TRENCH eDOfIICI"ATOIII n,..~
I TWO wEllCS '"10111 TO CONSTRUCTION TO 1ST.......ISH
~~ucnON MEETING DATE..
~:
,. ALL TRENCH. IACICFILL .....TE'''... ICLASS It .....0 COt.'''AC'T1ON
TO lIE IN N:a::UlOAHCf 'WITM YUNIClPAUCOUNTY ,,"fCIFICA.
11llNL
2. MINtMUIf 1Ur.00.L CLE.'U.NCE TO IE 12 INCHES F"OU "'U
'RfllCH OCCUl"ANTS UCE" C..... T.V.. 'EIII CJ',U.c.. GENER"'L
OADlfll12L .
1. ........ COVlfll TO IE AS SPECIfiED IN TRENCH Dn~L
~:
,. CQfCDUrT .....Tl"IAL TO It TY"E l'TS IN fOIll r AND", 77 fOIU":
2. ...... TMAT ALL DUeTS ARE CLEA" AND ~ "froL yp~.
lNI PULL LINES A"E IN 'LACE,
1. IINDS, IWIIII'S 0" GRADE CHANGES HAViNG... flADll Of 10
nn 0,," U.IS 0" A GIIIADE CHANGE Of )0 'EIllCENT 01.1 DE.
PUR OR MORt MlJST II EHC.A.SED USING SE'AUTlOHS IN
ACCDIIU)AICl WITH ULL SYSTEM SPECifiCATIONS - MATEfII'Af.
'" lACK. 'II. AGGREGATE TY~ I CUUNT.
., IADt 1ECT1DN TO II UMITED TO TWO 10 DEG"U FACTO""
MNDI NflJ NO "'''E THAN TWO 10 DEG"EE SWU,", OF NOT
LED 'TMAN " FEn RADIUS AND EXCEnlONS MUST IE III.
rMJVlD I'l' TJlfNCH INIP'ECTOIll.
IN.-ECTlON:
1. rAC:IFtC TELEPHONE SH"'LL '''OVIDt srECIFICATONS AND IN-
rEC110N FO,," CDNST"UCTION,
1. CCIOIIOINATl WO"K WITH 'AClfIC TELE.....OHE'S TRENCH INPEc.
TOIII AND D'''ECT ALL CONST"UCTIO.... "E.....TED OUI:STIQHS TO
1'141 nf.lf"ttONf. COM'ANY T"INCH IN$lI'ECTO,," H.
TfIIfJICH TO IE tfGIII'ECTED AND ACCEn"ED .., Ttf.ClJ ....10" TO
IACUIf.L
'~ -
.IOINT - TRlr.eH OET AIL
.
.
..
'''INCH DETAIL nLCO ONLY
'I
MOUND LlNf
.-
T
1r_
.L
e /0 UG'''''
\ r iT'1I-
\ 'Ii \:.I .....,
V Q ....
, \/,;/-
... - t:\
....- \!J &AI
0=
(!)~
(!)
Jrt.a. ,r,,,.@
-L -L
r_ ....
DEVELOPER TO,
!LOI'EIII TO:
. .."..... "INIMUM COVU 0' :IoI-....uc DCMUN. ..
ON ,,"IVAlI 'RClf'IIfT'Y
. MAINTAIN MINIMUM 1T FROM AU. TIlENCM ClCI::U"M'II
IX~ CAT.Y."(Ill; CALIFORNIA NlLJC UT1UTT CiDII-
IiI&ISION GlNI""'- OADIR 121
. ALL TltfNCH aACKFlf.L MAnRIAl. TO" CLAIS..... NiID
ClOMPACTtON TO IE IN aceo-.oaNC:1 wrnt .....1CIftAL/
c::DI.In'Y ~CIFN:AT1ONS.
. TRINCH TO IE 1.....CTtD AND ACCfmD IV TELD'MONE
OI::JJWNIV TRENCH lHSP'Ierg" ""'0,," 1'0 aACC"u.. CALl.
T
1r_
1.
r lAND lASE
.,..... ..IN...... COVER OF H" IN PUlLIC DDM4IN, Ir
HlVAn '1IIDPl1tTY
. DIfiCH IlAClC.FlLf. .....Tt"I..... TO .t ClASS ,- AND
.AC11DN TO II IN ACCOflD4NCE WITH MlJNlCIPW
JNn' .-caFJC4TIDNS
"'lD II ....uTID Me ACCUTID IY TELEPMONE
...., TRINCN ....CTOII ""10fI. Tg IACXFlu.. CALL.
IIN TMI LDCATlON OF TlLUMONE r::tJitI1A1l'f SU..
UC'NIIU IEFOR( EXCAVATION 11....=..ID
. VI'''''' THE L.CtCAT1OH OF TlLEf'MONE CO/IIIANY ....
1nIUC'N"U IEFORE [XCAYATJON 11..-..z2"1.D
PACIFIC BEU STANDARD UNDERGROUND SERVING ARRANGEIlENT
FOR RESIDENTIAl. BUILDINGS
(I TO 4 UVING UNITS)
BNIIOOW OR EQUIVALENT
... 1-.... 1,-....
- -
- -
-..
I "1/
:)1
;/ ' ~
.- ~
,","
" I
:i
I ,
'} _' _' ._h I-~ ' ~ '.. '. :'. :~i 1 ':.~ :.~'.. ;., ',~~,:.:,:. --:1,
.; " .' :;-. '.:, .. .~ ~".-.
'::'1:. "'"1 1..') ( c.-
-
-'
1$00_
"-
_0-..
I' ilCl'lIIIII'wW'/lI.D.)
NOfOS,
,- . Tho ToIop/lono ConclIIiIll-. Tho _ ... .. Tho _ ConclIIiI
(DoIIlOd eo... .. Docu _, SoMc>o _ It "_I, Tho ~
..,Tho __ CIoonol ConclIIiI SoMc>o _ It Of _ __ 10
.... Few w.._
2. Tho~__'''2__'''''ThoTolop/lono_
CIOonoI 10 Tho __~ ModNn:NwJ_ 10 Tho G_ -.m
Mull .. ~"4f, C:eIIlOII.
-#
. .. - . ~ . I .. . .. .. , A I
kJ I I
I,i I
;1 ! I i I I
I
c-~~_~_~_~__'
! Ii I 'I i II
;j ..
;" ~
lJ,;
r 1 ~ ~
i.j
d-.
. .
f 5-
:" !
~
,.
,Sit
"
,lj': i:.
. ~
~~ 0",
t'''" :10.
.~ ,. z:
~' .::::.:: ...
C;;I (", co ~
'I ~
1
~
i~ ~
~: o~
; i::: ~:.;
a ;~ ~~
" H ~~
o If ...~
.." ~ ~
: :....>i
:... S..
~ ~ ~ ,,~
... ~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~
B
w ,
" <
['-;" n
2 g ~
@;. ~
, 0
,
, ,
,
, ,
,
, ,
, ~
" l
~ , "
,. , ,
" -
,
" , 1. ,
. ~
, ,
';1 .
~ .'
e c
, ~ ';' , ,
,,<= < .::;
c ~
" , .
,
: , ~ , ~
, ,
~ C .
-
. , ~ ~
, . - .
- .
,,'l'.,.
.~ ,::,;; 5'
<:_ --,oJ
@
" ,
; , ~
,
, ,
, ~
3 i ^ ~
~ " ,
, i
E , v
~ ~, c
~ ~ -
"
, 0
-3'.,-
. ~~
~'C:,~
'.1",:",::
12'
.
;l ,
t ~~ , , ,
<, ;:iQ"; h~ ~, ,
<1,i ..:.:02 ....ci:.:J 0, c
6J '" "
,
,
o
'"
C
--c
_c
00 . ~
00
---
__."::J__
Oo'i-
02
0:
----,
I'~;-
s
..
,0
"
"
,1:"
,
"
o
c
~J 5
:1: 0; ~ :;
~='-~~ ~
,~~~c'~ ~.~
_CJ I
;0 I ~
~~ !
i
I
,
rSi
, i
~ ""'J 3]';
I
I
, -I
,,~;d
'1
,
~___~R 3--=---
,
I
L
I
I
I
_.-.!
::::::>.'1:;-;:'
~-'---'
- 0-
! '
.o;---i
-.-
,,=-rl-
_.-1
j.:....:;
,;}
~,..,.;
~';
m\-~-
1
_____-1
;we,'"
;-,f-
,"
':;.: ~
c. .
:< ,,; ~
---.
,
:",.0
, "
:i'-I
~I
I
I
~!
Ii
II
I
"
"
~-
~"""-
~l i
"
;t3' ...
" ~ V I I~~.;
'-,':: u:: .
==*/~'.O!I-'
~ ~,,<I,F
~ G 0.1 p
I ~ ,"
,..
I I
~
,
,
:i:u
.,
,
'V
"",,,,,.;
.:....~ 0~"~
0-' -'l~ ,'y SJ
--&c;- ~ <.I
.~---J -"~ :
, D
~
~ C
,
>
'/1
~
~
"
>
""
.l
I
gl '"
II ii' .. 0"
J .. '
i I :J.
o
"
,
,
<
.-
,I
il
~
, '
a -L
c
,~ ------T'"'1
i
I
I
I
I
..
<;l'u..._...."J~
;'\r-
,-
~-
I
I
-
~
~
,0
,
,
~ i
G '?~
~-C,1
. o;.--;J--j
0::. 01 2
-;;.v.--'
... ~~ ':--
, <"->'-.
~ .'1
G ,-.,,"':;""
~~ '..,.~
t: ~~
~~"J
"5
,
c
c
co, ,
2 0 3
; 0 , "
co ^
I ,
C .
~ (i'C c..
~ ~10
(e;
I,
ri) 8,
~' J~
~ :;'
\~) .
e
,- 20 .
'-:!J C ,
,
,
c
, ~
e 3 ,
e 8> 'ft
G c~
~ .,
" "
,
0 .'
. 0 .,c
G d~
G I ,
~ , 6
-e . .
'6 ,-
.:<':
, <~
.
t ~ ti ~
l!I 1X,,!a:
~ :11 i!.... cl_
.; ~ ~~~i~
~ ~ ;,;- i '"
"'';( I
..J,. Ii
~ ~ ~ ':
t-'-.,. ;:.
o
~
"
,"
=!
:~
J
, \ Jf
... ~!~
c .,-
i li:l-
~ Ii I
[",-'"
I
I
I
\
I
~ I
~ I
, ,
~ !
~ I
:11
~. I
i
I
Ii
H
':
I:
;:
"
j!
i" '"J
i: \<J
~I 'I
qd
! . I .
, .
.~
il ~
- .~~! ~
. i. j, ' I j
, !...,' t
, l~!~ 'I I
e 11 ~e . f 91
: .nl ' flii
: ~i ei . f ~ It
u" l!i~ '
in; l~ j
~!h .
.
t :t;,:.
. ~.j"'.j
":~",,,;,SiJ
drijoJilg
G
~
"I
i
.
e~
,i
@~
.~
~~
~ ~~
d~
~ ~~
i ~:
.~
'0
il
~~
"
..
~.
, .
k'. t ~
...~~ c
..~"a ;:
~!I'~~ ~ I
~~l /
~ ~./~"'::;'
~,O;;\l7
, :~1l &/
! / / /
l~/f
i/
.fA / i/
i ffj
7
iII€>@
a~
~---;-,<
~
J,
.
J
,>
i~
, ~ ~~
." "
" ~ cj ~i I- "
j D ~ . ',~
~~~~d!.: "
" ~ S 1"1 .
. it I .'
~ 1,1
.~:
t
;,
.
: 1 ~
3 ~8i.
~ ~@@ a.
e ,~
@ ~!
r------.
!
.
i
.
.,,1~
"'1-
<Ill:....
UaU
w
~~e;
<"'z
w-A-
.,,"'....
Q"....
.aO
-A...
...
I HI
'. :
~ ~ ~~
... '
~ =: S$ l(l
I , jD~~ i ~
o ~ l/ . ~~ R ,
~~~g~~E;o
.~ ill H ·
~ I :~:
il" '
" .~
; I: ~i I j f
. l! S~ I
. I' -. J I
e ~::~ B J
. ,i. "Ill'
.. =r: ~.lil ; .
. ~ ' . r
; ,e. f 1
~ B!!! ,
_hU,lii
w
~
.~ @
S~ ~
a d
~e b
~ ;:~ i
~ ~~: ~
t~~~ ~
~11 c~~ .
~~~ ~
~Oo ~
<:;~ i ~
iSJ-.C ~
.t"
,.~
- "
"
~
\;
"
@
/
/
I ..
f' ""~
~~~~
~a ~.:,
~. .
P"'f:
:i,:,:;i;n
<Ja:~";8
0;
,
;,
e .
o"~
':~~~
<lit ~,j
..
~ l'
t~ .?
4" jj
o
~
~ir8~
Q:-:~I
dtijJ
..
~
~_ a.
~;~~t
<la:..J.:.8
e
~
1='
\;
~
.
~
,
j
,
jl
f/,f f II
ill
I r
#
I
.
I .
i
I ~
@ ;, ~
o ~@ <.
F @~ <t~
G! d
I~
@,il
12 C> ~~
I @ ~~
t
~ I~
@,.
eo .~
\ ~ 6l.~
@,il.
p ~ .i
e ~~
@ J ~
o~OCCtN
.....@~$!
@ tH
\ ~
G! ' O.
~@' ~
~ ~@~ ~ .
\9 d
~ ~~
~ 0 .~
(j) 0 ~l
I ~, I~
@ , .
C>@@~~
~ \.)(,)~. @ ,.
Q d p ~.~
@ d ~
.
@ .1 ~ ~
I ~ .
f! @ ~~ -
. . ~
Q .~ @ ..
e l8~O@l <t.
@ 0~O@ c':
.l
@ j ~ @ .1 ~
p @@~o@.
~ @@~o@ ~l . .
~ ~ ~~
, "~ @ ~~
~z
::llO
<(..l-
UOU
.....
W~Q.
~..V1
.......z
~-
-'
c..,QI(
.)0
........
, ;.:
IT; i
i s i :
.. I' ..
.
.~ ~
. !~ "
. ~. ~,
o s... ...,.
. l~ !g
. I'
II f:e
; :r II
. !,.' ef
~ ii !i
U U ig
~~d
II t
Bel
IIll
, j r
f -1
" .
13 j
~
~"'t
,!,"\<..~
<lli~".n
@ c
~G-~~
~S4..1
<'0: ~ ~
@
#
~"'~~.
<ro.tg..<t
~.t ~u~
"'.~~
~~~,
'so"
~a ~~
~.~i1
~~r:lt
ali .,j~
Q
~
F.t$:
!~SS
.oJi ~.:.
e
~
I
\;
<iHll@@@ 'i'i
@@00 ii!:
,>
9
~{ <;;-~ Ii ~
!; t:: Ct;- ,"f.~__ 1 ........ I
-.l"'~.~~ . .~~/ I
;,fl.:Ja '"~'O.~ ,j-: II--/--:'
,d~ ~@1 "_ / I' I
~ ' //I/j
I '
~ /
~'!j
/ if-'>~
/1/
/ I;f;. ~I Ii
I 1# I / 5
If!! &/ /
/ I u '
3j~8.<-' I / ;' /
... "~-..j I / ';, e .1 ~
_"j / @ I /: @ ~
Ot,--..-,. __(.1 (-.1 .. <r""
",I.~_..~ ., .~.0 .1::1 --
.'-.... 1:1 ~~
~@/ I
!/( 7 /
j/
~,,'?'O, I ej,' il /
Ii 'I ! I . /
$;/-;'! ;"/
l 0/ /
~_,~ / t
~Lo..",.~ / (,JJ
I? ~ 5 ~
I ~ " .... CJ
l,} ,~~
~'~! ~ ~~
~ ~~d -,~~
~ ~~ f ~ ;~
2 ,.. .:J
.o~ _0<
~@j~~ - uv
... I- @t::"
~ < ~ 5 o;~
~~i o,~~
~ 8 0 <
1>122 Q...o
~cl-@.. ;8
Ifig~ ":;~
N
'---'
!! k (j
~ ~ 1 ~ ..
Q<1~1oJ 0
'. -Q 4. h -.j
~ Q <:l \J ~ ...,
':::J \- ~ "l 0:.; lJ ~
~q~~~~~
.... ~ "l '<J <l IQ
~ Li "" '" \- :t.
~ ~,<.l1.lJ \l, ~
"""''l.~'
~G
0'06'.,,~ -
1]
I
i Ii
~ iO
,
-='j
"\"lOci
,~ I
---r--- .~., I
.; I
~I I
,J '
Ii' !g
ii r
I . I
"
"
!
I
"'
0:: ;-'
" ~
Ow
w ~ ,
L.:':'
. C
: ~(
g:
II
Ii
"I '
7
! -I~ [
. -11-
ct..b
uow
i i w",Q.
I. I In..Vl
ct."z
W:r-
-I
a.' ell:
..so
~u.
-
,
"
<
>
, .
>
~ 3'
,J.
.
I' ~
; :. a",
e@@@€l :tt;
"" ",~@,c.
IC!.J !~
~
!
~
g@
~ tV
.
Q~ !oI
I ~~
"
J
~
.
@ ,1 ~
~ @ ,,~
@ ~l
en
I? 0 ~~
@ d~
>
I ~ :
@ ~ ?:;
@@0 <I'" Z
~ (;)(Ilt ;i ;
G)o
,- ~
il ·
. .
. '" I
. 1-1-
: ;! ~~
. 1:-.
e f::2
~ :r U
: I' 0'
I: ....-
~ c! !!
!~ -g
.. :-
~, -,
._---';
, '
P t ~
<lit)
"
~
:J....~~
~::.:! =::
9li':'li~
. _ t~
~~~~
ect.i.j
i;
'<l~
Q ~
'" ,
,
"
,
.
;;;
,,~
<0'
N~
!~
~.>-t
.--J oo~ ~
1 ;~
~~j~
II r
J! I
fll i
'il
f.-I
- .
l5 i
00
- ,
, ,
~ ~
~
,0
o '
, . ,
. c
.,
~ ~ ~
.
> ,
, ,0
~ 3 ~
, \..
~ ~
~ <: I(J
< 1 ~
I-- ~ ~
(J <:l <J
':::i ~ ~
\ .., ~
~~~
_0"
.,'
.-"
..3
i~ .
~-~-~
~::.i1
."
il.!!
00
~~~
.'
1oI:t-
~ .~.
~ ~g:
g .~e
..,1 ~ ~ ~
sin'
-.
;'lo>~
,"
:i~~
~~~
k ~ h k
4.".... ""
~'l,j~ '<Ii
. k ~ to-
.... - -
~ <::I '-'llll ...
<t. '-1:.:!")-3
. ~ .
~
o
. '"
\:: .-\oJ
, ,..
":l. -,.......
~ \-. r~
></ ~~ ":(
IIJ <l<:t ~
~ lll'
~ _~~t ~
: ;-;i~~
":I ~ ~
. "
i: ,\oJ
q "
~ -,...,'<.!
;0: ..."l~
>< ....~ ~
\I,J 2~~
.' [I
I i I ! ! II j I i I i II/' r~ ~~
. I i I . " III ''".~
, I I I, : l3 i ,.:~" .,
, 0 I"!I r: {:5 ,.. 1.0.
J ... ~ ,. ~ 0
~~._~5ntLu
ID .., IJ 0 ....{l~ e ..
" " ;:,J " If ~ i::; &l 1
~ ~ ~ g~: ~
~ 0 :5... ~
ll'f
Iii
&1
1
I
J
~I.l J
~i !--' ~ o~ ~ -~-
""'-r. 9j I ---8' y~ ~
5-:--- I ''''l.I:.--f I
r i Jf '~~:;;~
~~JI~.l- I ~
! li~l ~
I 7 i I
-M~'
:1
."
.
>-
w
_ ..J
..J
'"
>
,
~ b~
.: a.
Ii 0 ~~
@ ij
1 I
~ -0-'
~\ n
II . i 'I
,i I I 11
p I
~~"-1
I.
.
I ,I.
I . \
-~, 1':~J:'~,
--.t I _ ,~-;-' I ';J
'0'.'" ~.t I i ~
....,..,,:1' i ~:-I ,@l
01 '-""'~ I l g
;11 I I"
; . I
iI
3
"
I~
",pB
, 0 ,~
"0 .-
e ~~ ~
~
@I I ~
~ " B
- 8 ~ ~
::t "''':"
. ,,~
.
.
,b ~
....:L .
~ s-\':; ~;
,
L.,
OMO ",
"
bl
,
~ . \'l
F 0 ~ III
@
~ .
- ^
~
.'
<
(.\1
:zlz
.....0:0
..../:-
~~ti
....
...."'a.
VI",VI
<C[..sz
....~-
....
a.Ja:
.,,0
"'....
d
- This Page Blank -
MI1'UTES
Gtay Valley Road Project Area Committee
February 24, 1992
, ';J-- ~{
J4 ~, !41~'}
l ~L, \J
PROPOSED DEVELOPMHH OF TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AT 1881 NIRVANA AVE1'UE
2.
Associate Planner Fn.nk Herrera-A reported that the City has received a proposal to develop two industrial
buildings at 1879-1881 Nirvana Avenue. The buildings total 30,363 sq. ft. There will be 40 parking
spaces developed in conjunction with the project.
Mr. Herrera-A reported that the project bas ample landscaping, adequate parking, and ample screening.
The project has a good site plan and is responsive to specific site considerations including a slope. The
project is also in compliance with the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan /Design Manual Addendum.
The project has been approved by the Design Review Committee. Staff recommends that the Project Area
Committee adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-92-03, make the requisite findings in the staff
report, and recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the project. In addition, Mr. Herrera-A
indicated that it was recommended that the project will be limited to the accommodation of
warehousing/distrihution and light industrial land uses and related offices.
Member Palumbo indicated that the site plan looked very good, but that the parking looked minimal. Mr.
Herrera-A responded that the parking is in compliance with City requirements. The project required 38
parking spaces and 40 are being provided. Member Olguin questioned whether there was still public
parking on Nirvana Avenue. Member Palumbo responded that the public is allowed to park on Nirvana
betv.'een 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. However, on-street parking on Nirvana is supposed to be temporary.
Mr. Fred Borst, property owner in the area, questioned whether staff has had discussions with the proposed
developer concerning his participation in the Otay Valley Road Assessment District. Member Palumbo
indicated that there was language in the Owner Participation Agreement referring to participation of
developers in assessment districts.
Chairman Casillas questioned sewer capacity in Otay Valley Road and whether the proposed project could
be serviced. Staff indicated that the Engineering Department reviews the plans and would have indicated
if there were a potential service problem.
MSUC (Hall/Palumbo) to:
[I] Adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-92-03.
(2] Find that the proposed land use and tov.'Dscape plan are consistent with the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan /Design Manual Addendum; and recommend their
approval hy the Redevelopment Agency.
[3] Refer the subject projects to the City Landscape Architect for urban design assessment.
[4] Advise the Redevelopment Agency that the above findings are predicated. in part, upon the
applicant's assertion that the proposed project will be limited to the accommodation of
warehousing/distribution and light industrial uses and related nffices; and recommend that the
owner participation agreement with the applicant incorporate this land use limitation.
3. UPDATE REPORT (continued)
Mr. Kassman discussed the status of the assessment district. It was indicated that the resolution of intention
to issue the bonds is anticipated to go before the City Council early in Marcb. Also in March, the County
Board of Supervisors are expected to hear a request for consent and jurisdiction which would give the City
the authority to assess Nelson Sloan for their share of assessment district costs. Mr. Kassman also
E XfllBrr A
MINUTES
Otay Valley Road Project AT"" Committee
February 24, 1992
.
indicated that the County of San Diego bas indicated its intention to contribute to the assessment district,
althougb the exact amount bas not been indicated as yet. The public b~g on the assessment district
should occur in early April. The City is going out to bid shortly on the project so that the exact cost will
be known at the time of the public bearing. It was also indicated that several efforts have been undertaken
to reduce the assessment district costs. These include the application for grant funds for required wetland
mitigation tota1\ing approximately $500,000; the use of City utility undergrounding funds tota1\ing
approximately $480,000; and the possible Use of SB300 and City Gas Tax Funds to further reduce
assessments.
Mr. Borst indicated that be would like to congratulate City staff on their aggressiveness in seeking funds
for mitigation activities to further reduce the assessments to property owners. Member Palumbo questioned
whether there was any effort to make payments lower in the earlier years to assist owners of vacant or
undeveloped properties. Staff indicated that was being looked into. Mr. Borst continued that he would
like to make a recommendation that staff consider that any benefits derived for owners of vacant land be
reserved for properties within the Redevelopment Project area. Member Ha1\ cautioned that it would be
better to check the laws first.
4. AUTO PARK
Staff reported on the status of the proposed auto park. It was indicated that a test well was installed two
weeks ago. However, because of a hard rock layer, the drill bit broke and the dri1\ing team had to
abandon the well. The drillers went back last Friday and were successful in digging a well to about 33
feet. Geologists will go back to the site sometime this week to take water samples. The results will be
reported to the Committee at tbe next meeting. Mr. Borst indicated that he recently dug a well down
approximately 1,000 feet to obtain water whicb is usable for landscaping and construction purposes.
Member Palumbo indicated that he went down approximately 200 feet to establish a well for water for
irrigation purposes.
Member Hall indicated that, since the auto park was being discussed, it was clear that no one has asked
for a conditional use permit for the auto park as yet. He further indicated that he would like to see tbe
following included as conditions in any CUP which was being considered by the Committee:
a. That the auto park will not be allowed to operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. That Mr. Sbinohara, O"'11er of tbe auto park parcel, will only be responsible for present water
conditions and not for any contamination which is the result of the auto park usage.
Mr. Hall continued that these conditions should go with the auto park conditional use permit. He suggested
that Item #2 be tabled until the results of testing were clear.
Member Casillas indicated that he was not comfortable with limiting the hours of the auto park. Mr. Ha1\
responded that wi1\ be one of the major concerns of residents in the area.
Member Palumbo questioned whether it was appropriate to consider these items at this time.
Staff indicated that an application for a conditi~na1 use permit had not been received yet; and, pursuant to
the groundwater testing, it was known at this time for sure whether the auto park wonld move forward.
It would be more appropriate to undertake these items at the time the conditional use permit is considered
by the Committee, which wi1\ include notification to the developers and the public of the time and place
of the meeting so that they will have an opportunity to respond and comment to the suggestions.
E'/HIB/7 A-
Minutes
Otay Valley Road PAC
- 5 -
January 13, 1992
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
a. Chairman Casillas asked about the meeting with property owners concerning the
assessment district formation for the Otay Valley Road Widening project. Mr. Kassman
responded that the meeting took place on January 9, 1992 at City Hall. Approximately
25 owners were present at the meeting. The property owners are not against the road
improvement project per se. However, they feel the road is too wide to service the
project area and the cost is too high for some of the property owners to bear. Mr.
Kassman indicated that although the road project is scheduled to be six lanes from 1-805
to Nirvana A venue, the traffic generation analysis in the area indicates that a four lane
facility will sufice. The City has agreed to put in approximately $1.2 million in order
to pay for the two additional lanes. The assessment comes out to approximately 73 cents
per square foot of usable property within the assessment district boundary. It may be
possible to lower this figure somewhat by favorable bids and lower interest rates which
are anticipated because of the slowdown in the economy. It may also be possible
consider a deferment or lower payments in the early years in order to make it more
feasible for all the property owners to afford the district. A number of alternatives are
currently being looked into by staff. It is anticipated that the assessment district be
brought to City Council in a public hearing sometime in March. It is also anticipated
that a number of property owners will protest the formation of the district.
Member Palumbo added that the assessment will be a heavy burden on property owners,
especially if the property is raw, undeveloped land.
Member McMahon questioned whether any cost savings due to lower bids will be passed .
on to the owners who will be paying for the assessments. Mr. Kassman indicated that
it should be.
Fred Borst urged staff to reduce the cost of mitigation which is mandated by the State
and Federal government is it is possible. The costs are too high. Mr. Borst also urged
that staff exercise diligence in getting large property owners to the south and east to
contribute to the district when their property is developed. This could be applied as a
credit to the assessment district.
Chairman Casillas indicated that the City has contacted the County and some other
property owners and urged that staff continue to pursue this.
6. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
E'XHI/3/T :f3
Minutes
Otay Valley Road PAC
- 6 -
January 13, 1992
a. Member McMahon questioned when the project would go to bid and, in particular,
whether it would be before or after the public hearing. The cost of the project should
be known at the time of the public hearing if possible. Mr. McMahon urged that staff
consider going out to bid on the project as soon as possible. Mr. Kassman indicated that
he did not know exactly when the project was going out to bid but he would try and have
an answer for the committee at the next meeting.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
a. Mr. Kassman indicated that he checked into the possibility of getting business cards for
committee members pursuant to Chairman Casillas' request. He indicated that he was
advised that there was a policy of the City that boards/commissions with budgets for
these items could move ahead to get business cards printed; however, no provisions were
made for the project area committees. It will be necessary to get additional information
in order to determine whether business cards can be provided or not. Staff will continue
to look into this matter.
b. Illegal Grading
Mr. Kassman indicated that staff investigated grading activIties on the B. F.
MaxwelVHazard property off Maxwell Road. It appears that illegal grading activities
have been taking place there. The Engineering Department has been notified.
c. BKK Permit Application
In a response to a question asked previously from Member Hall, the State has not made
a determination concerning the permit requested by Appropriate Technologies for
expansion of their facilities on the Otay Landfill.
ADJOURNMENT at 10:30 a.m. to the next regular meeting of January 27, in Conference
Rooms 2 & 3 at 9:00 a.m.
IrK
Fred Kassman, Recording Secretary
(A:I01-la.MINJ
EXHIBIT B
~
.'
.'-'
r
Minutes of A Special Meeting
of the Ola)' Valley Road Project Area
July II, 1991
Public Services Building
Present:
Members McMabon, Palumbo, Olguin
Staff:
Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist; John Lippitt, Director of Public
Works; Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director; William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer;
Shale Hanson, Associate Engineer; Donna Snider, Associate Civil Engineer; Tom Meade,
Consultant; Charles Fournier and Debbie Furdunsky, Willdan and Associates
Propertv Owners Meetin2 for the Proposed Otav Vallev Road Assessment District
Vice Chair Palumbo opened the meeting and introduced John McMabon and Chris Olguin from the Otay Valley
Road Project Area Committee. Vice Chair Palumbo also introduced Robin Putnam.
Ms. Putnam introduced City staff and Torn Meade, special consultant for the formation of the proposed assessment
district for the improvement of OLay Valley Road.
Mr. Meade described the proposed road Improvement project. Mr. Meade handed out information to the property
O\'\''Ders present which included construction cost estimates and detailed breakout of those costs. The project is still
prelmunar)' and not ready for bidding on Phase 1 as yet. Phase 2 plans are still preliminary.
The project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be from Interstate 805 to Nirvana Avenue.
ha.<.;c 2 will be from Nirvana A venue ea.'.;t around the curve to tbe Otay Rio subdivision. Phase 1 will be a six-lane
.acdl'Y. Phase 2 will be a four-lane faci"t} but will ultimately be expanded to six lanes as the Otay Rancb develops.
The developer of the Otay ilio subdIVision has already constructed improvements fronting his property.
....
if-',
1\1r. Don Heye. a property ov.ner in the area, questioned the raised median which is proposed along Otay Valley
Road. Mr. Sbale Hanson indicated that tbere will be a raised median from Brandywine Avenue east to Nirvana
Avenue. Mr. Heye further questioned wbether the cost of the complete median from 1-805 was included in the cost
estimates. Mr. Hanson responded tbat plans were drawn for the raised median but he did not believe that the costs
for inclusion of the median between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue were included in the cost estimates presented
to the property owners.
Another property owner questioned the traffic signals at 1-805. Mr. Hanson indicated that traffic signals were a
separate Community Improvement Program (CIP) projects. A portion of the cost is cbarged to the Otay Valley
Road project.
Mr. Meade, getting back to the handout, indicated that page 2 showed a total construction cost of $7,752,000 plus
a contingency of $1,342,000. An incidental amount of approximately $5,000,000 brings the total up to
$14,147,000. The Redevelopment Agency will contribute $1,210,000 to the project.
Mr. heye questioned why the currently projected cost estimate was twice the original estimated amount of
$6,000,000. Mr. Meade responded that the project is now extended beyond Nirvana Avenue. Ms. Putnam added
that it is correct that the original cost estimates were appr"ximately $6,000,000. The current estimate is higher
because the original estimate did not include the cost of the assessment district, mitigation costs, and incidental
costs.
. Meade reviewed the incidental costs list which included appraisals, cost of re-<:onfiguring the Animal Shelter,
au.vertising and inspection costs, mitigation costs, and bond issuance costs including the reserve fund. The reserve
fund, whicb is approximately 10 percent of the bond amount, comes back to tbose property owners assessed. In
-j-
eXHI/3/r C
.
.
addilion, the res.erve funds are invested and can earn interest. \\11at is left in the re..':;erve acc.ount is used to make
the final bond payments.
Mr. Meade describe<! the benefit area. The project is part of the Transportation General Plan for the City of Chula
Visla including the area east of 1-805. This area includes a transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) to cover
road costs. Olay Valley Road will eventually connect to Slale Road 125. The area benefit describe<! hy Willdan
and Associates includes the County Land Fill. The County cannot be .'5<'..ed by the City without their permission.
Discussions are underway with the County to elicit their participation. Nelson-Sloan is also outside of the area but
can be assessed with authorization from the County. Negotiations with Nelson-Sloan bave also been initiated. The
participation of Nelson-Sloan and the County will lower the overall assessments to individual property owners, but
Dot a whole lot.
Mr. Meade indicated that all land in the redevelopment project area had uniform wning-for light industrial uses.
It is assumed that they would all have the same traffic generation as well in pUlling together the assessment spread.
It was also considered that properties fronting on Olay Valley Road would not have access to Otay Valley Road and
therefore did not receive special benefits from being adjacent to the roadway. It was proposed that all property in
the project area would be assessed equally, on a uniform per acre basis. This equates to $0.73 per square foot,
$31,872 per acre. Yearly payments per acre would equal $3,187, or $266 per acre per month.
Mr. Heye questioned how the proposed Auto Park was going to be treated. He wanted to know if it should be
assessed at a higher rate. Mr. Meade informed that tbe Auto Park was an allowed use within the industrial area
with a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Putnam added that the Auto Park is being assessed by an Environmental Impact
Report which will identify any specific mitigation measures required to be carried out by the developers.
Mr. Heye indicated that that kind of land use pay. a higher rent or return to the owner and should prohably be
a.'.;sessed at a higher rate.
Mr. Jack Leibeau, representing Olay Rio Business Park, questioned whether the City had an existing traffic count
which included trip generation from the County Land Fill and Nelson-Sloan. Mr. Meade responded that that
information was available and could be provided upon request.
Mr. Leibeau continued that it was implied that the assessment allocation is the one and only proper allocation. Mr.
Meade responded that it is standard procedure to test different methodologies to see whicb would provide the fairest
assessment spreads to all property owners.
Mr. Leibeau further Slated that it is implied that the proposed allocation is the one and only proper allocation. What
was the first allocation methodology proposed by the consultants?
Mr. Meade responded thai a standard procedure is to test different methodologies to see which one most favorably
treats all the properties in the area. Mr. Leibeau wanted to know what alternative was presented first to the City.
Mr. Meade Slated that the first alternative presented to the City included a combination of frontage and area
assessments. Mr. Leibeau further questioned whether the consultants considered direct access roads to Olay Valley
Road. Mr. Meade responded that most of the developable land is on the south side of Otay Valley Road. Access
to those parcels in the future will not be provided directly off of Otay Valley Road. Tbe development of the
properties will require an access road. That was a fallacy of the originally proposed assessment spread to the City.
Mr. Meade indicated that development impact fees in the Eastern Territories are generally running between $60,000
and $70,000 per acre. The Olay Valley Road Assessment District is considerably less expensive than comparable
assessment districts in similar areas in the City. Property owners are being assessed $0.73 per square foot.
However, not all the properties in the area are being assessed on tolal square footage since some of the land is
unusable. This includes land considered to be wetlands and land with very steep topography that cannot be
developed. The proposed Olay Rio Business Park (Omar Rendering property) may be developed in the future and
is being assessed.
-2-
EYflIBI1 C
c
.-;
i
Mr. Scott Stephenson representing Girrard Financial Corporation, a property ov.ner in a project area, questioned
what the proce<lure is and when property owners could pay the money. Another property owner asked why the
assessment district had to go out 25 years. Could it be less?
Mr. Meade answered that the consultants would be happy to discuss the term of the assessment district with the
individual property owners. It is normal for the bonds to go out 25 years but it is possible that they could go out
fewer years but that would make the payments higher.
Mr. Don Palumbo questioned whether there would be a discount if property owners paid in cash up front. Mr.
Meade responded that before we talk about the schedule for payments we should talk more about the assessments.
There are options with respect to payments which will be made after the public hearing is held. There is a 30 day
period in which cash payments can be made. If property owners pay in cash, then capital interest costs, discount
and reserve fees do not have to be paid since it will not be necessary to bond for the amount paid in cash. This
will result in a 20 percent discount to property owners paying in cash. There is also the option to payoff the
assessment during the 25 year period. However, there is a 3 percent prepayment penalty. Bonds can only be paid
off only on two days each year which will result in some interest charges.
Associate Engineer Shale Hanson questioned whether interest charges would be tax deductible for property owners.
Mr. Meade stated that the bonds which are issued for the assessment district are tax free bonds and they are
generally deductible. However, individual business owners should check with their accoWllants to make sure.
Mr. Meade continued that the City will go to the County of San Diego for a consent and jurisdiction proceedings.
This is a three month proce<lure. The City is beginning this proce<lure at this time and it should be completed about
October I, 1991. At that time the City would start the assessment district proceedmgs by submitting a resolution
of intention and boundary I113p to the City Council. On or about December I, 1991 there would be a public hearing
on the formation of the a"5essment district. We would hopefully establish the asse..<;sment district shortly thereafter
and let the construction contract which could be bid concurrent with holding the public hearing in order to save
time. If bids come m lower than staff estimates, individual assessments would be lowered. Construction could
begin in late January or February 1992. Otay Valley Road will not be torn up during the Christmas season.
Phase I could begin in late January or February 1992. Phase 2 would follow approximately six months later.
Mr. Palumbo asked how long the construction time would be. Mr. Hanson responded that it would probably take,
in tolal, approximately one year. Mr. Meade added that tbe contractor would be required maintain access to
properties at all tImes. Mr. Palumbo questioned whether access would be paved or dirt. Mr. Hanson responded
that detours are generally paved, but private access mayor may not be paved.
A property O\l.ner in the audience questioned whether the one year construction period was for Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Mr. Meade answered that Phase I did not involve too much earth moving. Phase 2 involves more earth moving.
The lime of construction for both phases is about the same. During the period of construction there will not be total
blockage of Otay Valley Road.
A property owner in the audience questioned when the first payment by the property owners would be required.
Mr. Meade indicated that payments are assessed on the yearly tax bills which come out in the fall and are due early
the following year. The first payment for the assessment district would appear on the December 1992 tax bill.
Mr. Palumbo questioned what portion of the traffic light costs at Interstate 805 were included in the assessment
district. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that the traffic signal cost is divided in thirds. One-
third to the City, one-third to CalTrans, and one-third to the assessment district. At this lime the City is funding
the enlire cost. The signal is under design and will be built before or during the road construction. Mr. Don Heye
added that the property owners paid traffic signal fees to the City when they developed their properties. Mr.
Liebeau questioned why people to the west of 1-805 are not paying for the signal also.
Mr. Leonard Teyssier, representing Atomic Investments, owners of property in the project area, questioned whether
property owners would receive credit for improvements which they put in. Mr. Meade stated that credits would
-3-
E'XHIBlrc.
.
be going to the gas station and other properties that are putting in curb, gutter, and other improvements. f...1r. Jerry
Fournier of Willdan and Associates added that there have been credited costs for curb, gutters, and sidewalks where
they have been put in. Darling Delaware put in some improvements. Credits for the improvements were spread
over all the lots within their subdivision site. Credit will also be given to the Pacific Bell site for added width of
the road, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Mr. Stephenson qUe!;tioned whether property owners who are going to put improvements in will get credit as well.
Mr. Meade responded that they would.
Mr. Palumbo indicated that early in the presentation, it was stated that all lots would be assessed on the same basis.
Now it is indicated that some lots will be receiving disccunts. Mr. Meade responded that that was to ensure that
tbe property owners who put in the improvements do Dot have to pay for the same improvements twice.
Mr. Palumbo further questioned the ahility of the City to assess Nelson-Sloan. Mr. Meade responded that the
Redevelopment Agency entered into negotiations with Nelson-Sloan to try and get an up front payment. The City
wiII go to the County to obtain the ability to assess the company.
Mr. Palumbo questioned who will maintain atay Valley Road. Mr. Lippitt responded that the City would be
responsible for ongoing maintenance.
Mr. Palumbo stated that Nelson-Sloan is the heaviest user and should pay a substantial part of the costs.
A property o\IIDer in the audience questioned whether curb, gutters, and sidewalks will be required for the entire
length of Otay Valley Road. Mr. Meade answered that they would be required in Phase I on both sides to meet
City standards.
Another property owner questioned where and when traffic lights would be installed. Mr. Meade responded that
a traffic light would be installed Nirvana Avenue and atay Valley Road, and at 1-805 and atay Valley Road. A
traffic light would not be provided at Brandywine Avenue while Phase I was being constructed. However,
development of the Auto Park in that location would necessitate the installation of a traffic light. This is currently
being studied as part of the EIR. Underground lines will be provided at this time for the future installation of traffic
lights at other locations.
A property owner from the audience stated that the landscape median running down the middle of atay Valley Road
to be provided in Phase I will limit access to properties on either side of atay Valley Road to righi-hand turn in
and right-hand turn out only. Mr. Meade responded that tbe City's position is that little or no direct access to the
properties abutting ata)' Valley Road would be provided.
A property owner questioned whetber the assessment district can be protested. Mr. Meade responded that the
property owners can protest the assessment district. However, some of the property owners who have recently
developed in the area have signed agreements with the City waiving their right to protest the formation of an
assessment district. They can, however, still protest the amount of the assessment.
A property owner questioned what the total acreage being assessed was. Mr. Meade answered that the benefit area
included approximately 390 acres.
Mr. Joseph Sedevie of Seda Products, a property owner in the area, questioned whether the road would be cleaned
up. He cited the problems with dumping of garbage and debris in the area. Mr. Meade responded that that will
have to be addressed as part of the assessment district and follow up maintenance of the facility. Generally
speaking, the amount of dumping should be reduced as the area develops.
Mr. Heye questioned the length of the road and the cost per lineal foot, indicating that. it sounded exceptionally high.
Mr. Hanson responded that Phase I is approximately 1-112 miles in length.
-4-
6X H IBIT c..
.
~,
There being no further questIOns, Mr. Meade ende<! his presentation indicating thaI furtller infonnalion on the
sche<!uling of the fonnation of the assessment district would be provide<! to property Ov.ners as SOOn as it Wa.'
available.
ORAL COMMEI\TS: There Were none.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT; None.
MEMBERS' COMMEI\TS: None.
STAFF COMMEI\TS: None.
ADJOURNMEI\T al 4:00 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Julv 22. 1991 at 9:00 a.m. in
Conference Rooms 2 and 3, Public Services Building.
;;;; J:
--..,
IC:\\\1'5 J \KASSMAf\.'\J..1EETING .MIN J
-5-
EXN /8/7C
.
,
'-
'I
.
MINUTE S OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
~
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, October 23, 1989
Conference Room 1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:
Chairman Fox. Staff member Robin
Hall, Ray and Chidester. Absent:
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by
Putnam called roll. Present: Commissioners
Staff member Doug Reid, Commissioner Stevens.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSP (Chidester/Hall) to approve the minutes of
September II, 1989 with the following addition: that Joe Kloberdanz would return
to further update the commission.
1. NEW BUSINESS:
A. John Paulino was not present for introduction as a new member.
B. Review of EIR-89-l, Otay Valley Road widening, was reported by Commissioner
Chidester. Cost of the widening is $4 million for Phase I; $2 million for
Phase II. It was MSP (Chidester/Ray) to recommend RCC certify the ErR as
provided, which appears to meet the minimum CEQA requirements.
.-
,
C.
Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of October 25, 1989
were not reviewed as there were no comments by Staff.
D. Review of report to City Council regarding off-road vehicles and illegal
dumping in open space, specifically the property owned by the elementary
school district on Paseo Ranchero. It was suggested that the City enforce
its previous ordinance on the books of mandatory billing of all residents by
the Sanitation Department. It was MSP (Hall/Chidester) that the specific
problem of the dumping and clean-up be the responsibility of the school
district as owners of the land.
E. Annual report on recreational activities was moved to future agenda.
2. OLD BUSINESS:
Thursday, Nov. 16th, 6:30 p.m. is Commissioner's banquet to be held at the
San Diego Country Club.
Councilman Len Moore, present at meeting, reported they are still inter-
viewing members for addition to the RCC.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
(
'7
VJaVMV~
Barbara Taylor
~J
EXH/BrT C-j
~~- h-p.:I rf
C?j2f~ ~ i ~ /)~ 1'1~
MINUTES OF THE OTAY V ALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE I ..
Monday, May 11, 1992
9:00 a.m.
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Public Services Building
Members Present:
Chairman Casillas, Members Hall, McMahon, and Palumbo
Members Absent:
Member Olguin
Staff Present:
Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator; Frank Herrera-A, Associate Planner
Also Present:
Fred Borst, Property Owner
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None submitted.
2. REPORT: PROPOSAL BY KEN SMITH FOR TEMPORARY TRUCK PARKING AT 1881
NlRV ANA AVENUE
Associate Planner Herrera-A indicated that an application had been received from Ken Smith, Architect for the
developer of 1881 Nirvana Avenue to stage the development plans recently approved by the Committee and the
Redevelopment Agency which included two industrial buildings at 1881 Nirvana Avenue. Instead of building the
two buildings at this time, one building would be completed and the other building site would be used for temporary
truck parking. The second building cannot be completed at this time due to economic reasons. Mr. Herrera-A
indicated that he recommended that the developer's adhere to the procedures manual conceruing screeuing and
landscaping of the site. The owners have agreed to all provisions. They will need a special land use perruit which
will come before the Project Area Committee for recommendation.
Member Palumbo questioned how much truck traffic there would be. Mr. Herrera-A indicated that the site will
be used for overflow parking. The special perruit will be good for about 18 months at which time the special perruit
will be reconsidered. Mr. Herrera-A indicated that the general use of the site is for warehouse/distribution.
MSC [Hall/McMahon] to accept the stafT report. The motion passed. [4-0-1]
Member Palumbo indicated that it was necessary to re-emphasize that truck parking is not allowed on Nirvana
Avenue. ears can park during the day but not overuighl. The signage on Nirvana Avenue is a little confusing.
There should be red curbs painted near the driveways where there is no parking at anytime.
Member Casillas indicated that when the Committee makes that type recommendation they should put the City
Council on notice. When this information goes on to the Safety Commission, the City Council should be notified.
This information often goes unnoticed by the Council.
MSC [Hall/Palumbo] to forward request to the Safety Commission to red curb the areas near driveways on
Nirvana Avenue and Energy Way. The motion passed. [4-0-1]
3. STATUS REPORT ON THE CIllJLA VISTA AUTO PARK AND OTAY VALLEY ROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Redevelopment Coordinator Fred Kassman gave an update on the Otay Valley Road Assessment District informing
the Committee that there would be a meeting of property owners on May 13 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers and a public hearing on May 26 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. The Council would have a resolution
before them at the time of the public hearing to approve the Assessment District. The assessment amount to
properties on Otay Valley Road is currently estimated at $0.61 per square foot useable land.
Discussion followed conceruing the affordability of the Assessment District for some of the small business owners
in the Project Area. Chairman Casillas questioned whether there was some form of City assistance for local
businessmen. Mr. Kassman indicated that there were no programs which would directly apply. However, the
Redevelopment Agency did have the authority to apply its funds to assist local businessmen. In fact, the
Redevelopment Agency has already committed to put in a total of $1.2 million to subsidize the Assessment District
E Xh.-b.--f (;0
Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee
October 14, 1991
Minutes
Page 2
and bas also put up an additional $ J. 6 million to guarantee the payment of assessments from certain landowners
inside and outside the Project Area.
Chairman Casillas questioned whether the City bas addressed the economic interests in the Project Area. Some of
the small businessmen will be hurt by the assessments. He asked if the City had looked into this. Mr. Kassman
indicated that the City bas not directly looked into this. However, that is part of the purpose of the public hearings
for the formation of the Assessment District.
Member McMahon indicated that he thought the proposed Auto Park would be a "big white elephant." The car
business is terrible at this time.
Mr. Fred Borst, property owner in the area, indicated that there is substantial evidence that if Chula Vista is not
able to relocate its auto dealers into an auto park within the City, the dealers would leave the City within three to
five years.
Mr. Kassman gave an update on the Chula Vista Auto Park, indicating that most of the deal points with the auto
dealers had been resolved. There are still several issues concerning the Shinohara property which remain to be
resolved. These are centered around the responsibility and costs for grading of the Shinohara site. The Auto Park
is dependent upon the Assessment District going forward. If the Assessment District does not go forward, the auto
dealers would have to widen Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue at their own expense. This would
most likely make the Auto Park economically infeasible.
4. Oral Comments None.
S. Chainnan's Report
Chairman Casillas indicated that he met with the Mayor and representatives from other Boards and Commissions
to discuss how the different groups could interface better. There was a question as to whether some of the
Commissions are necessary. The response was that citizen participation is necessary. The Boards and Commissions
and various Committees can only be changed by City Council action.
Chairman Casillas brought up the issue of business cards. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee still does
not have them. Other Boards and Commissions do have them. This item should be put in the budget for next year.
If it is done for any of the Boards and Commissions, it should be done for all of them.
6. Members Comments
Member Hall questioned whether Committee members would receive recommendation of what the roll should be
for the Project Area Committees from the Economic Development Commission's Subcommittee. It was indicated
that this information, in specific terms, was not available at this time. Mr. Herrera-A indicated that there was not
much specific information in the EDC Subcommittee report. He indicated that the Montgomery Planning Committee
also questioned what the specific propoaals would be and how they were arrived at.
7. Staff Comments
Mr. Kassman indicated that the meeting with the property owners for the Otay Valley Road Assessment District
on Wednesday, May 13, would be at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Kassman also indicated that the City is taking action to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for Appropriate
Technologies for the operation of their facility in the Otay Landfill. The City would like to see the site moved
further away from residential areas. There are at least two other sites in the area which are being explored for this
purpose--one is on Energy Way and the other includes the annexation of a portion of the County Landfill to the east
of the current City boundary.
['tHI6I, C.O
Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee
October 14, 1991
Minutes
Page 3
Chairman Casillas indicated that residents do not want to see these type of plants in their neighborhoods, but
sometimes the City goes overboard in trying to restrict them.
Member Hall stated that Appropriate Technologies facility in Chula Vista was the only one of its kind operating in
the state. He questioned why this has to be in Chula Vista. The other localities and counties are successful in
keeping them out.
Member Palumbo indicated that these facilities have to be put some place, but they have to be established in a
fashion that sets out appropriate land use controls and the regulations have to be upheld so that development does
not occur to close to them and then force them to be relocated.
Adjournment at 10:25 a.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 25, 1992, at 9:00 a.m.
Fred Kassman, Recorder
[C,IWPS IIOVROADIMINUTESI05-11-92.MIN]
Exl-,ib,'f
c_o
PC Minutes
-3-
September 25, 1991
ITEM 1:
CONSIDERA nON OF FINAL EIR-89-1, OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT
Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the City was proposing to widen
Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to the eastern City boundary. She noted the construction would
be in two phases with Phase 2 anticipated to be constructed within five years of Phase 1
completion. There had been no new impacts identified which had not been addressed in the
Draft EIR.
Commissioner Decker, referring to Table 1-1, Air Quality, asked if the construction would be
halted during Santa Ana wind conditions. Ms. Putnam said the area would be watered down
more when the wind conditions exist. The main concern was the residences that exist in the
project area that are actually to the north. Commissioner Decker was concerned that when the
Santa Ana conditions exist during the construction period, any amount of watering would quickly
dry. Ms. Putnam noted it could be effectively addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
before it went before Council. Commissioner Decker concurred.
Commissioner Martin, also referring to Table 1-1, Biology and Direct Impact, questioned the
2: 1 acreage replacement ratio for wetlands lost. Ms. Putnam explained that the 3 acres of
wetland which would be lost would be replaced with a 6-acre wetland creation project.
MSUC (Casillas/Martin) 4-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent; Commissioner Fuller had not
yet arrived) to certify that Final EIR-89-1 has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista.
CXHI.51T P
PC ~1I NUTES
-3-
November 8, 1989
additional wetlands within the 20' construction zone. The mitigation for
those impacts would be the temporary construction of a construction fence
as well as some net meshing at the bottom of the fence to control any kind
of erosion and runoff into the wetlands. After completion of the roadway,
they are proposing planting native vegetation along the roadway to provide
a transition from the wetlands to the roadway and also to create a
barrier, possibly using a thorny vegetation or a temporary guard fence, to
minimize future encroachment into the wetlands. The area is also the
nesting area for various sensitive endangered species, including the Least
Bell's Vireo. No ongoing conf1 icts with those species were identified
duri ng the studi es, but for miti ga ti on duri ng cons tructi on, if
constructi on takes p1 ace between April 1 and September 15, a bi 01 ogi st
will survey and ascertain whether there are any current nesting pairs in
the area within 300'.
3. Land Use - The only direct physical confl ict is with the Animal Shelter
and basically the parking lot, work area, and administration building are
bei ng redes i gned to the southern part of the property to all evi ate thi s
confl i c t.
4. Noise - At the western end of the roadway where the residences are
currently north of the road, the current noise levels are in excess of 64
decibels and, with this project, the City standard of 65 would be
exceeded. A noise wall at the top of the hill is included in the
mitigation for the project.
fls. Keller then turned the presentation over to Herman Basmajiun of the
transportation traffic engineering consulting firm of Basmajiun Darnell, Inc.,
to summarize the traffic issue.
He stated that the traffic considerations for Otay Valley Road are based on
the City's General Plan Scenario IV traffic estimates and the roadway, as
proposed, is commensurate with the Circulation Element and the General Plan of
the City. After taking a detailed look at all the intersections along Otay
Valley Road, they have developed the appropriate lane confisurations at each
of the major intersections. Traffic signalization needs have also been
addressed and have been identified in the traffic study. The time of
intersection signalization will be dependent upon the bund-up of traffic and
would be implemented at such time as the City Traffic Engineer deems
necessary. The widening of the road itself will accommodate the land uses in
the area adjacent to the roadway as well as playing the regional role that the
facility is intended to serve.
rhairman Tugenberg said it was probably premature for the Planning Comnission
to ask any questions since they hadn't had the opportunity of reading the
Draft EIR; however, they could open and close the public hearing, assuming the
item will be continued.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
t:XII / 13 IT E.
PC MINUTES
-4-
November 8, 1989
Mr. Fred Borst, 172 Landale Lane, El Cajon 92019, stated he felt it was
entirely inappropriate for this matter to be before the Commission at this
time. He indicated his surprise that the Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee members were not present, since they specifically work in this
project area and have been working with staff. He said the Otay Valley
Project Area Committee is frustrated by the cost of this project. It was
reported at the last Committee meeting that this project is anticipated to
cost some $6 million. There is a projected assessment district that is going
to be formed and that has not been thoroughly analyzed. He and the Project
Area Committee are very concerned about the cost and who is to absorb it. t1r.
Bors tis one of the property O\~ners, and a s i gnifi cant amount of thei r
property faces along Otay Valley Road and surrounds the Animal Shelter.
Referring to pages 3-38 and 3-39 of the report, Mr. Borst pointed out that
their property is referred to as the \4alker-Scott property which is not
impacted. He disagreed \~ith that conclusion and stated that 52 acres of
industrially zoned land is so severely impacted that much of the property will
not be able to be developed as a result of this proposed widening. There are
somewhere bet\~een 300 and 400 acres of usable land in the industrial project
area; and it is inconceivable to him that a six-lane road with medians can be
justified. He believes there are significant property owners to the east and
up on Otay t1esa who will benefit significantly from this and it certainly
should be looked at and a full report should be made as to how they are going
to benefit. The matter should be reviewed from a regional standpoint.
He stated that the property owners take very serious issue with the access
that is shown into thei r property. In fact, all along the entire frontage of
their property there is only one full signal ized intersection to the east of
their property at Maxwell Road. The other intersection that is planned enters
into the Oma r Renderi ng property. There a re other tra ffi c issues concerni ng
the closeness of the area between Nirvana and Maxwell Road. He believes this
matter should be thoroughly reviewed by the Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee.
Chairman Tugenberg told t1r. Borst the public hearing \~ould not be closed; it
would be continued and he suggested that 11r. Borst and his group might attend
the Planning Commission meeting when this item would be heard again.
~o one else wishing to speak, Chairman Tugenberg asked staff for the
appropri ate date to "hi ch the matter woul d be conti nued.
After di scuss i on between sta ff and Cha i rman Tugenberg, it was deci ded the
hearing "ou1d be held the second Wednesday in December (December 13).
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to continue the public hearing to the second Wednesday in
December.
GXlflBrrE.
~
.~
"",
---
~.
~
,~:
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
DRAFT ENVIRDtJt1ENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-l, OTAY
VALLEY ROAD WIDENING (continued from 10-11-89)
Principal Community Developl'lent Specialist Robin Putnam asked that this item
be trailed because of the late arrival of the consultant making the
presentation.
Commissioner Cannon stated that since he had just gotten the EIR, he couldn't
put any input into a draft ErR not having reviewed it. Commissioner Carson
agreed that they had all just received it except for Commissioner Tugenberg.
Ms. Putnam replied that they had just been informed prior to the meeting;
however, they would like to open the public hearing and take comments from the
peopl e present foll owi ng the consultant 's presentati on, and then continue it
further so the Commi ssi oners woul d have an opportunity to read the
Environmental Impact Report.
Ms. Putnam stated that the consultant had now arrived and proceeded with her
presentation. She explained that currently Otay Valley Road is a four-lane
road with turn pockets from 1-805 east to Oleander. From Oleander to
Brandywine, the road becomes a three-lane roadway with two lanes in the
westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction. From 11axwell
east of the City limits, it becomes a two-lane country road that was built by
San Diego County. The proposed project entail s widening Otay Valley Road to
the south to provide a six-lane roadway with a 128' right-of-way. Ms. Putnan
used the overhead projector to show the proposed cross section. The typical
cross section for Otay Valley Road includes a 16' wide median, six 12' drivinq
lanes, tl-IO 8' emergency parking lanes, and 12' behind each shoulder curb for
sidewalks, landscaping, and utilities. The proposed cross section is
consistent with the specifications in the recently updated General Plan
Circulation Element. She then introduced Christine Keller from Keller
Environnental.
Ms. Keller stated that the Draft Environmental Statement basically identified
impacts that were mitigatable for the geology and soil s, biology, land use,
traffic. and nois~ issues. She then sum~arized the results of the studies for
those issues as follows:
1. Geology and Soils - the removal of unstable geologic and soil materials
will be mitigated through the basic design of the roadway. There will be
about 27,000 cubic yards of cut and 190,000 cubic yards of fill requirerl
for the project. The slopes will be 2:1 maximum with 4:1 in the western
area.
2. Biology - the project will remove approximately 3 acres of wetlands. The
mitigation for this impact will be the creation of a new wetlands within
the river, and currently the wetlands mitigation plan is underway as well
as the 404 permit. Other types of biological issues which could be
potentially significant but can be mitigated have to do with the
constructi on acti vi ti es and di sturbances of natural vegetati on and
n.1I/13 lIE
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 1/24/90
2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-1, OTAY VALLEY
ROAD WIDENING (Continued from 12-13-89)
Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam provided a review of the project
showing Otay Valley Road as it presently exists. She stated that the proposed
project entailed widening Otay Valley Road to the south to provide a six-lane
roadway wi th 128' ri ght-of-way. She used the overhead projector to show the
typical cross section which included a 16' wide median, six 12' driving lanes,
two 8' emergency parking lanes, 12' behind each curb for sidewalks,
landscaping, and utilities. The project also included the undergrounding of
all overhead utilities (electrical, cable t.v., and telephone). Ms. Putnam
said that the purpose of this hearing was to take testimony on the adequacy of
the Draft EIR. She then introduced Christine Keller from Keller Environmental
to make a Presentation.
Commi ss i oner Tugenberg asked if there was goi ng to be a benefi t di stri ct for
the construction of the road.
Ms. Putnam answered that the City was almost ready to issue a Request for
Proposal to hire an assessment engineer for the purpose of forming an
assessment district in anticipation that part of the financing would come from
a Redevelopment Agency CIP and the balance of the funding would come from the
property owners based on what the assessment engineer felt they could afford.
{;;X/-IIB/7 E
c'
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-3-
Janua ry 24, 1990
Chris Keller of Keller Environmental briefly reviewed the findings of the EIR
contained in Table 1-1 of the Executive Summary. She said there were no
significant unmitigable impacts identified for the project. Adequate
mitigation measures were determined for any environmental impacts found.
Ms. Keller said the issues for which impacts did require mitigation included
geology and soi 1 s, drai nage and surface water, bi 01 ogy, 1 and use, traffi c,
archeology and paleontology, air quality, and noise.
a) Geology and Soils, and Drainage and Surface Water - Soil impacts relate to
the removal of unstable river-wash soils and compressible soils and the
replacement with properly compacted soils. Approximately 27,000 cubic
yards of cut would be required and 190 cubic yards of fill. Regarding
drainage and water surface, the runoff and the slopes for the roadway in
the eastern end which infringe upon the 100-year floodplain would be taken
care of as part of the engineering design.
b) Biology - Would result in the long-term loss of approximately 3 acres of
wetland. A wetlands mitigation plan was being prepared for a 2:1
repl acement; 6 acres of wetl ands woul d be repl aced and enhanced for the
project. There were also some short-term construction-related impacts: a
20-ft. construction area, and after construction was completed, the native
vegetati on areas and wetl and areas woul d be restored to thei r ori gi nal
condition. There was also a need to create a buffer between the
people-access and the biol ogi cal resources which coul d be miti gated by
installing a temporary fence in conjunction with some thorny vegetation.
c) Land Use - Impacts to the Animal Shelter were being mitigated through the
redesign of the parking lot, administration area, and the work room to the
southern end of the property.
d) Traffic - The project in itself would not create new traffic; however, at
build-out signals would be required at Oleander, Brandywine, Maxwell, and
Nirvana, as the traffic volumes require it.
e) Archeology and Paleontology - Three archeological sites were identified
which do not contain any research value, and no additional mitigation is
necessary. The area contains formations where paleontological resources
may be present. Keller Environmental recommended a paleontologist be
present initially at the beginning of the construction of the project to
meet with the contractors and be called on site should they run into any
evidence of paleontological remains.
f) Air Quality - Relates to the construction impacts and contain fairly
standard construction methods such as watering down the construction areas
and limiting the construction 'time period to after 7 a.m. and before 4 p.m.
g) Noise - Residences are located very close, to the road at the western end
of the project. The noise levels are presently very close to the City's
threshold of 65 decibels and with the road afterwards, it would be
exceeded. They recommended that a perimeter noise wall be constructed at
the base of those houses.
EXHIBIT E I
?LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-4-
January 24, 1990
Ms. Keller then turned the presentation back to Robin Putnam. Ms. Putnam
stated that there had been a meeting with CalTrans to discuss their comments.
She said they a9reed with CalTrans that the project did not involve
improvements under the bridge, and that the City would be initiating
discussions with CalTrans for the design of the roadway under the bridge.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Donald R. Heye, 1685 Brandywine Avenue, C.V. 92011, Chairman of the Otay
Valley Road Project Area Committee, informed the Commissioners that the
COl11T1ittee had met and were unanimously recommending approval of the EIR, and
were anxious to have the project initiated.
In response to Chairman Tugenberg's query, Mr. Heye said that the impact of
Otay Mesa was hard to determine; there was a lot of traffic, but several new
businesses had moved into the area, as well as an increase in the rock/cement
activity. He said there was a very critical condition at the intersection of
Otay Valley Road and 1-805, and signalization was included in the project.
Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Avenue, #42, Chula Vista 92011, said she was troubled
by the traffic study contained in the technical appendices for the EIR. She
sai d the report was based on a 1987 traffi c count. There was a JHK traffi c
study received by the Plannin9 COl11T1ission and City Council in November 1989,
which was not the basis for the assessment of this impact report. Ms. Palmer
said that the H.G. Fenton project, which was continued, represents an
aggregate of nearly 500 truck trips daily along Main from the area between 1-5
and 1-805 and would further negatively impact the Montgomery Section of Main.
She said they would store their trucks in Montgomery to repair the road to the
Eastern Territories. The traffic thresholds were not addressed in the Growth
Management Oversight Report to the Council because the JHK traffic study was
not compl eted, and the threshol ds as stated had not been tested. She asked
that the Commission seriously look at the impact of this project on Montgomery
and the portion of Main that goes through Montgomery in view of the H.G.
Fenton project and the updated data from the JHK.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Carson asked Ms. Putnam when the Final EIR and project
consi derati on woul d be schedul ed for heari ng. Ms. Putnam repl i ed that the
hearing on the final EIR and project approval would most likely be in April or
May 1990.
Chairman Tugenberg stated that a vote was not required on this item.
... ~n. nl."
DIlD! Tr
~xf/IBIT E! r
~
. -
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itelll ~I A-"[)
Meeting Date 4/21/92
ITEM TITLE: a} Resolution )bSqq of the City Council of the City of
Chul a Vi sta cert i fyi ng the Fi nal Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report
and addendum thereto on the Otay Valley Road Widening Project
(EIR 89-01), SCH #89083004
b} Resolution 1101..0 e of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista adopting map showing amended boundaries of
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c} Resolution \bbol of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista declaring intention to order the installation of
certa i n improvements in a proposed assessment di stri ct;
declaring the work to be of more than local or ordinary
benefi t; descri bi ng the di stri ct to be assessed to pay the
costs and expenses thereof; and providing for the issuance of
bonds for Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
d) Resolution l~bO'2.. of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista passing on the "report" of the Engineer, giving
pre 1 i mi nary approval, and sett i ng a time and pl ace for the
public hearing in Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley
Road) ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ /)K
Director of Community Development.
REVIEWED BY:
City ManagerFf
v
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
Council Referral #1897
Today's actions will certify the Final EIR and also represent an initial step
in the assessment di stri ct proceedi ngs for the proposed improvement of Otay
Valley Road from 1-805 to the easterly City boundary. One of the actions is
to set the public hearing on the assessment district for May 26, 1992 at which
time public testimony will be taken on the proposed assessment district.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee has reviewed and discussed progress on the road on a regular basis
since early 1990. Previous actions have included review and recommendation on
the median configuration plan and a recommendation for interim stop signs at
I-80S and Otay Valley Road. The Committee also hosted property owners
meetings to discuss the assessment district on July 11, 1991. The minutes
from the July 11, 1991, January 13, 1992 and February 24, 1992 meetings (the
last meetings including a discussion of the roadway) are attached as exhibits
A, Band C.
~[-I
EXH/B'1 F
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/21/92
The Resource Conservat i on Commi ss i on revi ewed the Draft E IR on October 23,
1989, and recommended that the Planning Commission find the Draft EIR
adequate. The minutes are attached as exhibit C-l.
The Planning Commission reviewed and conducted a publ ic hearing on the Draft
EIR on November 8, 1989, and continued the publ ic hearing to January 24,
1990. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and certified on
September 25, 1991 that the Final EIR had been prepared in compliance with the
CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula
Vista. Planning Commission minutes from November 8, 1989, January 24, 1990
and January 25, 1991 are included as exhibits D, E and E-1.
DISCUSSION:
The Otay Valley Road widening project final environmental impact report was
completed in August, 1991 following public review of the document and
preparat i on of responses to comments. The Pl anning Commi ss ion subsequently
cert ifi ed that the FEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA requi rements.
The FEIR identified potentially significant impacts, all of which could be
avoided or reduced to a level below significant impacts with the
implementation of mitigation measures. There was a change in the Project
Description, which is the subject of the addendum, which clarified that the
implementing mechanism of the project is an Assessment District. This minor
change does not change the impact analysis or conclusions of the FEIR.
The proposed assessment district improvement of Otay Valley Road will -be
accomplished in two phases. Phase I consists of widening the existing two
lanes to six lanes with a median and curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides
from 1-805 to Nirvana Avenue. Phase II consists of widening the existing two
lanes to four lanes, with a median barrier and graded shoulders, from Nirvana
Avenue to the City/County boundary. The proposed improvements for Phases I
and II are in conformance wi th the Ci rcul at ion El ement of the City's adopted
General Plan.
The total estimated cost of the project is $13,841,700, including all
incidental and bond related expenses. Of this amount, it is recommended that
the City contribute $3,435,467 to fund, at a minimum, the cost of two of the
six 1 anes in the Phase I portion of the project. The funds woul d come from
the scheduled Otay Valley Road capital improvement project, the Traffic Signal
Fund, and a state grant of S8 300 funds and SDG&E 20A a 11 ocat i on. The grant
is a reimbursement grant, which would require that the City advance the funds
at this time and be reimbursed when construction has been completed. The City
contribution would reduce the amount to be assessed to the district to
S10,406,242, which translates to approximately SO.61 per square foot or
approximate ly $26,500 per acre of parcel area. In compari son, other areas in
the eastern part of the City are paying assessments or fees of approximately
Sl.40 per square foot for construction of similar, major roadways.
~I -:l
EXHIt317 F
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/21/92
The area proposed to be assessed for the Otay Valley Road improvements is
shown on the attached amended Boundary Map (exhibit G). Council on July 23,
1991 by Resolution 16275 approved the original Boundary Map. Staff recommends
that an amended Boundary Map be approved which in effect removes parcels which
would have had a SO assessment from the district boundaries. Certain parcels
were to have a SO assessment due to development constraints.
One of the parcels within the district, owned by United Enterprises, Inc. and
occupied by the Nelson-Sloan Company rock quarry, is located outside the city
1 imi ts. For thi s reason, and because a port i on of the road improvements at
the easterly end of the project is also outside the city limits, it was
requested that the County Board of Supervisors grant consent and jurisdiction
to the City to assess the land and construct the external portion of the
road. Consent and jurisdiction was granted by the County on March 17, 1992.
On March 3, 1992, the Council adopted a resolution call ing for construction
bids on the Phase I portion of the improvements. Those bids were opened on
April B, 1992 and the Preliminary Engineer's Report incorporates the low
bidder's bid. The notice of the public hearing, which will be mailed to all
owners of property in the proposed di stri ct wi thi n the next two weeks, will
include their proposed assessments based on the current estimated cost of
Phases I & II. It is anticipated that Phase II will be bid and start
construction approximately eight months after the start of construction of
Phase I.
The Engineer's Report was prepared by Willdan Associates, the assessment
engineer, and outlines the spread methodology used to determine each parcel's
assessment. Willdan Associates based the spread on an average daily traffic
(ADT) basis using 200 trips/acre for industrial land. All the land within the
di stri ct boundari es is based on the 200 ADT except for the County landfi 11
parcel and the Nelson-Sloan parcel. These are based on actual counts because
neither of these properties fit the industrial classification. The County
parcel will not be assessed through the district, however, City staff will be
entering negotiations with the County to request a cash contribution to the
district.
Additionally, several properties have been identified as having impediments to
development because of wetland, floodway and steep slope constraints. As a
result, several of these properties have been removed from the district
boundaries and other properties are proposed to be assessed on a "reduced"
acreage basis.
Approval of the resolutions will generally accomplish the following:
1. The RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR is the action whereby the City
Council certifies that the FEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA
requirements.
2. The RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED BOUNDARY MAP is the formal action
approving amended boundaries of the Assessment District.
~\-3
FXH/BITF
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/21/92
3. The RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION is the jurisdictional resolution under
the "1913 Act" proceedings, declaring to finance improvements through the
issuance of bonds and dec lari ng that the improvements are a benefi t to
the properties in the district. This resolution also directs that the
Assessment Engi neer, Wi 11 dan Assoc i ates, prepare a report on the plans,
specifications, cost estimate, assessment spread of the assessable costs
and a description of the improvements. Further, it provides for the
issuance of bonds on the project.
4. The RESOLUTION PASSING ON THE "REPORT" AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING is
the prel imi nary approval of the Eng i neer' s "Report" as requ ired in the
previous resolution and sets May 26, 1992 at 6:00 o'clock p.m. for the
public hearing.
All owners of property within the proposed assessment district were notified
of two meetings held last July and January. Staff informed the owners at that
time that the estimated assessment would be $.73 per square foot compared to
the $.61 per square foot being proposed tonight. This reduction is due mostly
to the bids for Phase I coming in below the estimated cost of construction and
the addition of a contribution of SB 300 funds.
All owners of property within the assessment district, and all interested
parties, were notified of tonight's meeting. These people will also be mailed
a notice of the public hearing and will be given an opportunity at that
hearing to address the Council relative to the proposed district.
On April 28, 1992, staff will recommend placing a new ordinance on its first
reading. The intent of the ordinance will be to enable the City to establish
a fee recovery district for improvements constructed in conjunction with an
assessment district. Staff is proposing this in response to concerns of
several property owners, wi th i n the proposed Assessment Oi stri ct No. 90- 2,
that future development or approvals would create a greater benefit than that
reflected in their assessment. By establishing a fee recovery district,
properties would be required to pay additional fees if these properties
receive a greater benefit or develop to a greater extent than an industrial
1 and use. For example, if the auto park is approved or the wetland areas
develop, fees would be collected in conjunction with the approval process and
used to reduce the annual installment of all those in the assessment
district. This is accomplished by calling bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project
(Phases I & II) is $13,841,700. It is proposed that the City and ROA
contribute $3,435,467 of this total, leaving $10,406,242 to be assessed to the
district. The contribution will come from the following sources:
~I ,4
fY,!f.(f3r! r
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/21/92
RDA 996 9960 ST-123
RDA TF 220
TSF TF 220
SEWER FUND 222
SDG&E 20A
$1,765,167(1)
89,300
100,000
1,161,000<2>
320.000<3>
$3,435,467
(1) s~ funds .Iy be recovered if the County plrticipates.
(2) This is . lOin to the district to be reiMbursed by 58 300
funds upon completion of construction.
(3) Eat;meted cost of SOG&E ..ark equals esthlated allocation of
20A funds available for project from SDG&E.
In addition to the above contributions, the City will loan $761,273 from fund
996 9960 ST123 (RDA) to cover the Series B bonds. The Series B bonds are to
cover the Rio Otay Subdivision. An environmental concern has not been
reso 1 ved and no development is allowed at present time unt il there is an
evaluation of the environmental issue. It is proposed that there be a
separate bond issue of approximately $761,000 for the Rio Otay Subdivision.
These bonds would be issued when the site is cleared of the environmental
concerns. This money may be recovered if these bonds are issued.
Exhibit schedule:
A) Minutes of 2-24-92 meeting - Project Area Committee
B) Minutes of 1-13-92 meeting - Project Area Committee
C) Minutes of 7-11-92 meeting - Project Area Committee
C-1) Minutes of 10-23-89 meeting - Resource Conservation Commission
D) Minutes of 9-25-91 meeting - Planning Commission
E) Minutes of 11-8-89 meeting - Planning Commission
E-1) Minutes of 1-24-90 meeting - Planning Commission
F) Council Agenda Statement of 7-23-91
G) Reduced copy of amended boundary map
H) Board of supervisors resolution dated 3-17-92
I) Order of procedure
J) Notice to property owners
K) list of property owners notified
l) Resolutions (4)
M) Preliminary Engineer's Report
N) Environmental Impact Report
DDS/AY081
WPC 5920E
~l- ;-
EXI//8/T F
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemRl- t
Meeting Date 7/23/91
ITEM TITLE: a)
Resolution I.~C?'" Making
District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley
appointments
Road)
in
Assessment
b) Resolution 1~1.75 Adopting a map showing the proposed
boundaries of Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c) Resolution /1.1..71, Approving a proposed resolution of
intention and requesting consent and jurisdiction for
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public works~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager jl:\ ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_Nol)
\)/;
Preparations are being made to bring the Otay Valley Road assessment district
to the Council in the near future for a publ i c heari ng. A port i on of the
proposed improvements and a parcel of land proposed to be assessed are outside
the City's boundary. As a preliminary step in the proceedings it is necessary
to request consent and jurisdiction from the County of San Diego to construct
the portion of the road and to assess the land outside the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In May of 1990, the City and the developer of the Otay Rio Business Park
entered into agreements to attempt to finance the publ ic improvement of Otay
Va 11 ey Road from I -805 to the eastern City 1 imits us i ng 1913 Act Assessment
district proceedings. The City is currently preparing plans and
spec i fi cat ions for the wi deni ng and improvement of Otay Vall ey Road between
I-80S and the Otay Rio Business Park. The final 1000 feet (approx.)
approaching the Otay Rio Business Park is outside the boundary of the City.
The $15.0 million improvement project will be accomplished in two phases.
Phase I will widen the existing two-lane road to six lanes with a median, curb
and gutter, and sidewal ks between I-80S and Nirvana Avenue. Phase II will
widen the existing two-lane road to four lanes with a median barrier and
graded shoulders from Nirvana Avenue to the northerly boundary of the Otay Rio
Business Park where the street has already been widened to three lanes. The
final 800 feet will transition from four lanes to three lanes. All of Phase
II, except the transition area, will be widened to six lanes with a median
when development of the Otay Ranch in the vicinity begins in the future.
A preliminary area of benefit has been determined for the assessment district
and it includes the parcel of land occupied by the Nelson-Sloan quarry
operation. This parcel is located outside the boundary of the City.
/i--I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7/23/91
Under assessment district statutes, the City is required to request and
receive consent and jurisdiction from the County in order to construct
improvements outside its boundaries and to assess the cost of those
improvements to the district. It is also necessary to request and receive
consent and jurisdiction to assess land outside its boundary. Prior to
requesting consent and jurisdiction from the County, it is necessary for the
City to approve the resolution adopting the boundary map which constitutes the
formal action establishing the proposed boundaries and also approve a
resolution approving the proposed resolution of intention and requesting
consent. Upon receipt of consent and jurisdiction the City may begin the
formal assessment district proceedings.
As a part of the assessment di stri ct proceedi ngs, as wi th all assessment
districts, it is necessary to make certain appointments for the record. The
appointments are as follows:
1. Director of Public Works appointed as the
Superintendent of Streets.
2. The Office of the Superintendent of Streets be the
place of recordation of the assessment roll and
diagram.
3. The Star News des i gnated as the newspaper for all
publications.
4. Municipal Finance Administration appointed as the
Project Manager.
5. Wi 11 dan Associ ates appoi nted as the Assessment
Engineer.
6. Brown, Harper, Burns & Hentschke appoi nted as Bond
Counsel.
7. Kadie-Jensen, Johnson & Bodnar appointed as Financial
Consultant.
8. Establishing a special Improvement Fund.
All consultants appointed have been previously hired by the City Council by
Resolution 15627 approved May 22, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The County does not charge the City for processing
the consent and jurisdiction request.
DDS/mad:AY081
WPC 5694E
/2 -.z.
. I
~" t
I s!! ~ I
ai'
I .,1 I
<II
Z I
~r'
I ~!I I
~ . I
. ~
" Ii>
~-z- "
I ~ I
.
IE
I I
I I
I @ I
I @ I
@
C\1 @ (!J
I I @ I
0
I m @ I
LL.. ::!!:
I OE->-~ ~ ., I
'" ~"~
1-0 to ~
VlUz,,=O > I 0 ~r.
.. '" Z ;.
I ::> ..J <! ~ :% 4 IS~
W"""""O<l: -' I
-O:::UUQ :> Z .
0 ~ . w !i_
co Q z . ",Q,.~
0::: ... c:: "' ~ , c"_
[ <(E-~O>- c ~ ~ ~ ~r".
z -' ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~"8
w .. ~
OUJ~WW " .. u ~ 0 ~~~
'" -'
W " 4 ~ ~ "co
Z""""">~:::J ...J is ~ 4 i~'
I =:> Q :s tii <I: D! >~" I
I = t
o ::>.> Ju
I mE-15S>- @ @ @ I
W<I: I H~~
OZ5o~ @ @ I
I W Q @ (!: ~ I
O~>-z
I- <I: @ 0
Z;:;Eu'" 0'
J @ I
WUJ ... I,
~ 0 @
I <(UJ g > I~ ~~ I I
,~ @ @ "'~l:~ "~
@ e I~ . .t
UJ r~O I i I~ Ii
I I"~ g I~
UJ @ ~ts! I. I;. I~ I
@ e I~ I"
O~i~ l!l d It
~ 0 I~ It . I~
I @ I~"i I t 0 ;~~
10 0 .. I~ I
~;'I!i' ~ ~ ~t
e bi~ ' I~ l!l, ~: n I~
I IE ~; t >
'l!l~d 0 It:! c I
zElr~ t I~g
L " 0 , ~
I .~ > ~ l!l_ I
~s~~: >i~
" ~
-. -.SOl ,""
;~cc- ~~ I~t '"
I .~~. i 'l!l~ ... I
.-.. =~I Q
!i~~ j f,~
~~e~ I .j .z_ ..
I Of ~ee w I
w~~ I ~ :::
!,,~"" v-
I .J
- - - - E-Xh~I37T6
I
. -~_.",.-
L___
1------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
~-z- !
=
&
N
I
o
0')
L....-
OE- ~
V)U~g
L.....J_z~
_I'"VS...JCl
o::::..........u;5<1:
<1:E- -L.. ~
O\f2~o
:z:_~w>-
=:>,-....,>>-w
- <{-..!
o <{ >- -..!
CO 5 Vl <I:
E-:I:o>
,-.... Uc.:>
L-...JZ w>-
L.....J L.. - <I:
o~OOI-
:z:~~~o
L.....J ~ U Vl
"2 \f2 L..
<1: \f2 0
~
\f2
\f2
<::r:
$
!::
~:l ... '"
8~ 0 ~
< '" $
~j w ~
... 0:<
o <-
$
\' ' ....-..... ..
\ .. ~
9 I
" '
I
I
l
..
,..---'
$
"$
..
5
"
..
,
r
!o"
~.~
!'~\O.
'"
I~~
..-
~j~
:l!l~
i~J
s!o
;i ~I~
i r~r
I
~"i I
<It .
g,I' I
~!I I
zll
9<,1
-I I
ill
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
~ I
!o!
Vi I
_ _ _ _ _ _.!3JH /5/T G-
"
t: ~
.. > ...
~ ~ m
" ! i
0 i ~
% t; .. z
...
W ~
'" ~ ...
w tJ '"
-' ~ ...
" 4 '"
~ '"
4
I
I @
I
,
h
....",
, -
. r
f!
/lta;;- ~) /'/'7';&
c1~ CLuJ-,
A, '/,,1/ . 199Z /'lAY -7 ~ ():,?4
I ~ncU ~ ~ladu Z{) tw ~ ~~~
~. 9C' - 2. (Cir //~ ~Clc[)
J- 7fao-v t~ ~cU. ~ OJ t2KJ ~
~ hu ~ #- ..57- 6~<j. /J/- /~ ~ tiV ~~ ~
;t.3'0 9J6.tlO. J f0:c6~. ~ ~ ~ ~fJ~
vav d-~WdL/ &.,; ~dJ~~ ~ ~
tiu ~dJ ~ ~~ ~~'t~.
. /I1:t' I~ -i.u -ALtiud.J ~c6 ~~ ~ ~.Jh~j
~ J ~ ~lLnmJ- ~~.Lc6 ~ncU ~it
~. 'd.4C~c&;fL;.
J ,.;t~~ ~ ---aM..) ~ ,4..ucJJ
'-mor~~0.v ~~ ~ ~.~ ~
~~~ ~ancV ~ ~~'7Pa-~-?J
~a&-uu~~'a~, . "
t7)~ Uv~t-./U"-ac6 ~ ~ab~itD
~ ~ ~n~ tIu ~ a ~C->~~
di-ff~. ..--.t&.-LV ~ D-tp.:.u C<<~ ~ ~~
tI!v()~-Uv ~ ~ ~ ' ~-tk
aucu~~~~~1~~
.~ ~ -ttd- J-f & ~?ff 'nd ~---u-ca.h
~~ ~kU. .
,A;tuuly_,
~ ?;t.q~)
"'~:E:'''E::
liT '" o~ CH!.i:..t. ViS II.
=:N'.:""::E;:,'~;r, OEF'T
~c: 400!aJ k~ ~ r:~
Grn tt
O)oN....~6.. WOY.f-
u.I....;f..l._..eM'C'f1IU, .I"',
..o,.1lIl1 ~",.""KLO
..O.C'" fi.....,c:N
..Ic:.....,,(f..-...IE'W't Wt\o._ON
..IAwh. ,.{O'NeiJC
_Aif_tCoi,,':-CH"'-
",0.1:"- ill IOA2...0N
~.~ '~D" "fAL
.~~ I _ C1_~
',1 ~ a...
- -C
;: ~
- ,. 2?
EY SCIo4WARTZ, QARF'IEL.O " RICE
we R L. to... ~.O'I.'IONAl. CO.POIU-lI0N
.. ....."...'.......1,. tNC;..IJ01N
. .TTOtliNEVS AT LAW
".0 ,.UUJT \NTI:"STATC ..~z..
.01 ..... .,,"KIt'!'
........ OlEOO. C...L..I..O"'....'..... ..'01-4..5
TELE.....ONE: le.8' a3l8-0e1B
TI::~"~"" ,.,.. .s......
~
"1~1l "0
March 31, 1992
-
Honorable Mayor and city council
city ot Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Re: otay Valley Road Assessment Oistrict No. 9
Honorable Mayor and Council:
We represent Charles siroonian and Charles Pratty who are
owners ot property within the City ot Chula vista, which property
is included within the proposed otay Valley Road Assessment
District No. 90-2. our clients are among a number of pr~perty
owners within the proposed district who have made objectlons to
the City of Chula Vista with regard to the assessment
proceedings.
We understand that the City council will on April 21, 1992
have before it the Resolution of Intention initiating the
proceedings for the establishment of the Road Assessment
District. We intend to be present at that city Council meeting
and to explain in more detail our clients' reasons for opposing
these proceedings.
.
A point of concern regarding the process has arisen to which
we wish to draw the City council's attention. Last week, the
City statt, pursuant to published notice, conducted a pre-bid
conference for contractors interested in bidding on construction
of the improvements which the City would make and which would be
tunded by assessments arising out of these proceedings. We
understand that the bid submittal and opening is set for April 8,
1992, nearly two weeks before the council is scheduled to
consider whether it even will initiate the proceedings.
While we can find no prohibition against this process, we do
believe it curious that city staft seems to be proceeding as if
the statutory requirements for establishing the assessment
district and laying the assessments have already been met. Quite
u
..;
\
Hon. Mayor and city
city of Chula vista
March 31, 1992
page 2
council
i has et been taken to initiate
the contrary. No formaliactr~~ repo~t has been prepared and
;~~roi~~~~8~~n~~~nc~~.en~on::otests have yet been valued. No
public hearing has been "set as required by law.
It is difficult to comprehend how the bidders can submit
reasonable bids when the final details have yet to be approved by
the city council. unfortunately, this state of affairs only
creates the impression that, regardless of the legal arguments
already raised and those yet to be raised and regardless of the
significant protest already on file from property owners in the
proposed "area of benefit," the ultimate approval of the
proceedings and establishment of the assessment district are a
foregone conclusion.
We respectfully urge the city council to delay any actions
which would implement the assessment proceedings, until their
approval, pursuant to due process, has been formally decided
upon. We look forward to addressing the City Council on April 21
or suc~ date as the City staff presents the resolution of
intentlon to the Council.
very truly yours,
.
FIELD , RICE
w.Js::la
cc: . Charles pratty
Mr. Joe Botkin
City Manager, city of Chula Vista
d:\'lroon~f.~~y~;~~rney, City of Chula Vista
V\
-.
, I'.AR 24 P2 :31 . ,- -;_~D DJ !l r,rri)
CITY 0;;:,,/ ,; ;A , ',' : '" Z 3 ','! I &1 q;~ t4t,
ClTyCL,,"" "OE /1. _ ,i b ",-", :,' ,,'7".J ~'/' 6"
~~~'__.::.;.?~ /ntUJ..I't /9'9/
I ~~~ '~~;:/LL,
f;fJ;:! ,f,~~~&f7
~.-.O~/~:b AJ~
~::t::Lu / . 7_'~<-.a;'_~A4../
~~.tl.6 . /~ '
.tI~~~-;;:q. ~.
~l::!!~jl;;:fr;;;;; ~;:;
irk .' :i:l4~?~
{!1h><;t ~.:t,t.,. L. L-: -: -:.r'..J.
O(.;.fM.tt~ ~--:J~"'uL ft.<-;
,iat-Rp,/ ~J_~./:y-oIr
tl r&,~-'":'I;,vpb~,P-J
(Li.f,.uif:vu- fl,ue--:t a.Jffi ~
'ttv:X-~7~'~~~~
7{'''1. ~ ~ :b~:tI,k~
~ -:lid- 4(L;;a:t ~ ..t~7ZAi:b r.J::tr~
7~ J~;itt~<-.~ Cv~
7~4'P.l'/)1a;J.~~~~ .
- . . if ~-<-
~/l1 AL, ~ ~
Lf!?~'I) wmTTEr-" COA'iMUNIC'
~~1)~t.!
~~. 7~''-
. .J. ~ t... (': .
, \.. { . \. ~, " . ,
-.~ '-'
RECE:VED
~- - - -
i
,........ ~f"""t. ..-.
.
( . .
, .
.
....... ---..." -
~~)jk1~1r~~~~
~ 71.2 "I ~
ti~tLun~ ~'/~
~~~~.~4U ~ I
~~~-~~~/~
-t% -<.-<A~ ~A ~ ~.dId.;.:O!e..-Ld-
~~~~~~~~
~~~aLf~~~;J~;r-lt~~ufe:U !
~;c.Oc~-L-J'.!ltH~-n+I~ ;
/n~ ~-~d~~~~'
~~~/j~~~~$"3~,
I
.J
~ Md~~(?A
--- - --~- -
r+
PHONE 18181234.7988
L.ICENSE 168.863
olftic InveSI'-.en..s. Inc.
FOUNDED' 956
320084-2 HIGHLAND AVENUE
NATIONAL CITY. CALIFORNIA 92050
July 23, 1991
JUl 2 6
->.. ,
Willdan Associates, Englneers and Planners
ATTN: Hr. Jerome Fournler, Supervisor, Special Dlstrlct Servlces
6363 Greenwlch Drlve, SUlte 250
San Dlego, CA 92122-3939
Phone, (619) 457-1199 FAX: 1619i 452-6680
Clty of Chula Vlsta
Dlrector of PubllC Works
ATTN, Shale L. Hanson, Assoclate EngIneer
P . O. Box 1087
Chula VIsta, Ca 92012
Clty ot Chula Vlsta Redevelopment Agency
ATTN, lis. Robln Putnam
279 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vlsta, Ca 92010
-.~
REF, Premlses 4~0 Otay Valley Road; Clty ot Chula VIsta proposed
Assessment Dlstrlct 90-2 Otay Valley Road, and Wllld.n ASSOCiates
July 15, 19~1 letter to Atomlc, regardlng credlt ln the amount of
$27,394.00, proposed for Parcel 5.
Ladles & Gentlemen:
Thank you for the advance notIce of the meeting July II, 1991, and for the
Wllldan letter. Please adJust your records to sho~1 our address tor nn!lCeS
as the letterhead address, as at least one prlor notIce was lnadvertently
sent to our old "B" Street address (13 years old), and that notice was not
received here.
RegardIng the proposed assessment, orally identifIed at the meeting, To
the extent the DIstrIct proposes to Include Atomic as a paying and/or fully
pay'ng partIcIpating party relatlve to 490 Otay Valley Road, He object on
vanous grounds,
Fust, we dedIcated extra WIdth and fully improved the frontage of the
subject property In 1~72 at the tIme the property and the R/W Improvements
Here Installed In full compliance \11th all governmental requirements. Tr,e
dollar sum ~t our investment In the cost of tile iml~rovem~nts and the '/~lue
of the land dedIcated for roadway WIdenIng, If calculated on the baSI' of
Amount of One Per PerIod, compounded at a perIodIc prevaIlIng Interest
rate, from tne date of InstallatIon to present date, would a'ccumulate to
an amount that would be greater than our fair share of the presently
proposed assessment.
\
I'
~/
C"">C"">
=i~
-< ,..
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vipta, CA 92010
,'...
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT ;~.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
~
::0
~ rT1
<:; (")
(Tl
a;
<
- ,T1
\Q ':)
(j
V1
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
O~AG[R CORPORATIO~
and is further
No. c...,-P,1-28
acres.
Dated:
identified as county Tax Assessor's Parcel
; and consists of approximately .67
j'"
- . .
'1/
, 1991
..-
-c'." - ,~ '.
Owner
::"'),"..- C /", 7/
/ /f",)c..,? . /t/'..f/.- ?Lc' 7'
Owner/ /
Mailing Address:
789 E:1ergv \,'av
Chula Vista CA 91911
, ,
-,'...
"
11
,
"".
'\
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
R~'~ .~
,/
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
"9: ;(\/ 2 ~
., .r ;
," ..)
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
C:T'.
CIT(
,
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
,/ - --
;'''''\ .r1 ,;, -" I f~J" 1-' - -, ? 17 1,-> 'I _ ,- -;..- ,':.
' ~ \ I __ / 1 I " ~ -t .'-..' l / I ' '- i I ...
and is further identified as
No. "D'j --,' I -, 'i" <;L,', i; and
acres. I
County Tax Assessor's Parcel
. ,~ .;
consists of approx1mately _~, '\
~
Dated:
,/ ( ,~--,
. , '
, 1991
---.
j
:----: ,','- =-:-,
. - - ~/
OwneI:"
;t, Lr
Owner
Mailing Address:
- -., _.' /~ :::':"',
- , '
/. (-, (
,
,-:?
I ..' ____,
l /. II I I /.....
l '-
(/Ii;
/'f .
(.{ (/ .-, ','
l... /
/~ /
/., <,. ')
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
L'~-=- ;---
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
'91
..~" 2')
;";,; ~ L..
..., ."-1
.~ .)
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
CI-;-'r
elil
.4
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
- -
,'.',,'.....'= ....
, . '
, ,
.-- ,')
~.,.-.. '\
,
. .'
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. ." d l .; - - ; and consists of approximately . ~
acres.
Dated:
/\.Ji~'J
1991
.,. ...,
.; ."r-.J.,.- '-
. ,
ij, _'
.,
Owner
r
" I I ~
c _
Owner
Mailing Address:
/' .
I ~ ~. \
\!
,. I ~ l
c... /~ '. '_ ~ I I
.,
/' ,~
..-
-/ / I
us i'
~'2
:-;
c:: "1 .'
N "",
N
:'?
.
;1;
"
~ ~! :"
.~ :'
VI .,-
IV
, I
+1
, \
I
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
-.- ~ ~
.. -
'.'
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
"91
,,--, 26
"'..,
o( ~.
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
CiT: --
CI~,( - -
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
/
V
My (our) property is known as J7
loTS Id-- ~J I'?- ()? Or/iy 1;J{)(1);-~14L-- j/If/!Y.. .
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. t:.Cr'i-I"~-:)" -0 I ; and consi:sts of approximately I()
acres.~ 4 <t - /'61-0 ^
Dated:
/ /-/Cf
, 1991
7/
r
Mailing Address:
I:; ?q"O EA'<;;T 1/'1~;-~L. "iVy
$AN'rIY.(" E. Sl"'l<.tllJ6-S CiCi0 'Ii:'
11
. ,
"".
, .
I
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA .-- ~.-- :- .. ..
275 Fourth Avenue . ,._.J..... . -
Chula Vista, CA 92010
;&: "-.' 26 . j .::.~
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA i,_"'
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJE~1
CiT':
~~-
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District,
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
South Bay Auto WreekiOlg
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No, t., Y.4 - I ~ I - 15 ; and cons i;sts of approximately ~. S
acres.
Dated: 11- ,~-
, 1991
~__") ~ \l ..vJ1
Owner
C:/),o.\. ~~~~. ~
Ower
Mailing Address:
SOUTH BAY AUTO WRECKERS
III !M!P1Q\' WI<<
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
J...!.
i i
,
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
r;:--:' _ _\_t..~~'.
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
"9',
:J,' 27 -',;'.5 7
.....'
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
w-
en .~-: .
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
'19j ENE 1< fJ Y {jj/J Y
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. (,-4'1-111 ,(}I ; and consi:sts of approximately !,3Q
acres.
Dated:
fJ C i/
,;JI
1991
'-" Cjc= J C/J ~';; ,5
Owner
Owner
Mailing Address:
/2??- 51# .s-l.
IHPt./:7IJL 13~f1(lJl/ C4
q;q 32
!Q
<;e
~ ~.
..,
"
N
... l".
..- t"
~
. .
-:"', ~-
'''; (' ~
cQ
v:>
....
,..
~
THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
TO
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
-,,- r.-_ '
,.-- ....
e;-,- \
CIT:
'f)' E-3
- - ,- ..
L
and is
No.
acres.
County Tax Assessor's Parcel
consists of approximately
My (our) property is known as
,
rj
,
- ~
, 1991
-'-
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
,:,', /'. /~
I /
further i6entifi~d as
-r:: -, /.t ; and
.. )
Dated:
"/ -' -
. I j
Owner
_/ _,'I'.
.; oj:' ::_
~-"\
/
---
./
I,
Owner . ,
, /. /',r. ;/
.. -.I
Ma~l~ng Address:
,
I/o
,0
. .
: /.c.'<!
/
/'
,I /~ :;
I
'/
',' ('.
"
~~
.,.,
".
r-,
.
.::-
'; J
I"
::0
"'"
'>:>
:; ~
-
J:-
1\
.....
, '
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
-,- ,-,-
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
'9' ': 26
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT; Ci
CITI
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
Lot 23 Otay Industrial Park
and is further
No. 644-181-03
acres.
Dated:
identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
; and consists of approximately 1,48
:\ovember 21
, 1991 )
<--;,{~:>..C-.#/3",~'L-.
Walter H. Barber, Jr.
Owner
Owner
Mailing Address:
8163 Commercial Street
La Mesa, Ca 91942-2928
,,' .'"y
n
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA rJ\\ 'D 26 ~:2"_
R~:C'~-;.iJ~!
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJE<tf7: '~.
GITi '-'..
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
W:JJ~rbOlrp-r? ~~kn~'( IifoWS-rf,ltL- fl1f!J<'
and ~ furt~er identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel/~ ,11
No. ~ f;Ei.{)v...J ; and consists of approximately --t.ll.:-'-t
acres. .
Dated:
4- fI/4- / Bz - ()'3
(;/4-1 8') - {O
&#- 182-tl
10#--- (~;)-- J~
!Ja{~~~
5,IQ ~e-
S. ~ AtRe
4. z,{ 4tf.B
B.1c.J- 4~
18 . 4-1
"~J / } /r.. (
Owner -:r:/"' aI),-.A~
KAJ.L \J)..' hi rc.~~
Owner
l- )/3
I~ CA qu()9
r,
November 13, 1991
Dear Property Owner:
Enclosed, please find a form that can be used to register an
official protest to the assessment for improvements to otay
Valley Road as proposed by the City of Chula Vista. If you are
opposed to the assessment district, the nature of the
improvements proposed or the assessments themselves, complete
this form and return to the City Clerk ASAP. Should you fail to
formally oppose this proposal you may lose your rights to a
hearing in a court.
TO REGISTER OPPOSITION:
1. Complete the enclosed form. 1990-91 Tax Rolls show
J TRacing. Inc.
as owner of Assessor's Parcel(s):
6-1-1- 0-10- 23 (1.80 Acres)
2. Return the completed form to the City Clerk (proof of
delivery is suggested).
3. Notify Joe Botkin at 283-7388 or send a copy of the protest
form to 2827 Adams Ave., San Diego, CA 92116, for record
keeping purposes. This request is optional and not
required by law.
~J
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
P":';'"'",.:: i . ~--,
\
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
.9~ [~r-6
'r .r 1
-
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
('-'
,.
~\IT"
I" ,
.....i
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
-'5 l>:'" V '\\"'-< N C-\.,.\.,~ \>_\r~
! ' \
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. I. "1 L; '\ , ., -:, ; and consists of approximately I, ~
acres.
Dated:
\\ . 1.. 1- '1 \
~9n ! (
",,-, I
;~I
o
,
,
~./
Mailing
~, . ~ L" -,. \.' J ,\ I '( ~ ..i
I
..j,'J....L,. "_~(" \,1>,. '1 i ill
.....
., 0
~ JL N
E::
.'
CD
I
'--'
Lw
<::.>
'. ~ 1
.~;
~
1 ,
\
--'""\
\,
TO
THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
CHULA VISTA
--......~
;-~ t'".:_ - ,.
,- "
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
'':11 CE= 12 ;:, n
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
Cj~ .
CI-:-(:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
Southwest Onyx & ~arble Co.
and is further
No. 644-181-27
acres.
Dated:
identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
. and consists of approximately .67
~~tcL
1
, 1991
,J .<.t" 0 .'l-'''"X' q /J;"rc'i'iLi: ("0.
Owner
r:t;-L. 'j /I~l;; 1"W"t',T
ner./ -
Mailing Address:
787 Energy h1ay
,
, .
Chula Vista CA 91911-61U9
,..,
,"."\
"
(.0)
~
:",1.'
o
<.oJ
J!
\ I
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue ::);:-('-:-.,,~-,
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA' ~~ 19
, .' 6
i ~ '.
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PR~~~~'
CITY. 'n'
.:......
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
{ j .-;? <..' i-- /
; 6.~lttl
and is
No.
acres.
f~rt~er identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
;<1.:/.1 <(,./ :~1 ; and consists of approximately I ~ ~
Dated:
.... .
~. .
, 1991
.,
f '
of~;f~ ~
" I ,! ,
( I'"~ /,.../
.I('~,.-v,- ,.c-
,(
Owner
Mailing Address:
~ J. - . .
. 1, ......
-:\ "
r.\ _.-.,)
s\ .'
C?J'L 1. \,~ . '
.;..
,."'.-::' '"
~/
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
'7.P ~ 4+- f1.,
E/'v'.: ("'r-y VJl.-?'
/ I
County Tax Assessor's Parce~
consi~ts of approximately / ~f'
and is/further identified as
No. r.,;'-IL/-/J/- L 2. ; and
acres.
Dated:
/1-2u
, 1991
-'1/ // / 7 ~ ." /'
/ ~ .<:, -, / / /c--.-C '--'
.t>wner
; J ./ ;r
d.lk~ (~/,~~~ c..'ur
Owner .
Mailing Address:
z(: ., r- .
./ A ~r,r<~c._/'~'J
/ /
ri /.. ( /, /' '/-"" c//c"/.
,/ "'i -,;J/ ~, ,/
/
,
)\\
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) o[ I~al property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
- ,
/
~
,
,/
(
..'......
and is
No. 'j-
acres.
further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
, ' ; and consists of approximately
.' 6
Dated: Novem~'r
, 1991
Ov;ner
OT.~,....O'"
Mailing Address:
,
.:. _-7-1
:-''1
)
J 1:, r-.) /. .~
- . ').
.t!
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
ThA u~dQrsigned is (are) the cwncr{s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated:
the extent of the Assessment District: and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
().. /] 'fi J L1 ,1 - I ,', _, '"> --:-.' I'<.. ~ ~ "I ,I" / ,',
/ / -; I Ii' 1 Fr,-/v /~ /C"" ".: '--', '-, ,-, '7 ,
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. (,i.''..',I;';' ~' ':" ~,' : and consists of approximately 1-1'"
acres.
" 4-(1":->
I. I
Dated: November
, 1991
/ ' y,..~~. .....,:. 7
I Owner
,I, ,
."'Y /!r:ct
Owner
'r::: ... n
4 '--1.~ (4.-< ~Y
," ~I /"" I
7: "<:c,,__ -/1:2 c~
Mailing Address:
.2 :>-.L,I 3 S P, /V /-oN SIC L /11 c)
.5 ~ N J\ lEe; c, r /? '7.2. J c; I
y
, ,
\
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
L
The und~rsigned is (are) the owner(s) of r~al pLuperty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
~OLc?G- l' "IIf'I/M W)!2,;GC/JL"/U~
.
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. bLl~-/~}...-o1 ; and consists of approximately /6
acres. O?-
Da ted: ~y ......U.Lt::L
P~G
q
, 1991 ______
~~ ~ 1,/
Owner
Owner
Mailing Address:
)'37~O c. ::LPI"E/l..,"IIItC.
~ w'i' ~ ,.c~ qO~ J 0
{
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real propeyty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and ,the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
7 7 7 ('".,.. '.J.
I / 1-
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. ?4-lt- I? i 2. 3 (c; and consists of approximately '?-
acres.
Dated: November 3 C , 1991
v'1 t~~/1
';A
/~ --.r}y~
,
:/
Owner
')
I,
I J .~, .".
I. . \
/--:1.- rv"-'-"--~
,J
Owner
Mailing Address:
I 0 :s~' c 2. 4- d P-
) ~ . , ::>
7 v:J (\.1:'1 C A
-1/9 ') ....
d
~"
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) nf real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated:
the extent of the Assessment District: and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
and is
No.
acres.
My (our) property is known as .~
5/~ rch// V~(t:~ ff (~;/(':; l<;j(t"
further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
: and consists of approximately
Dated: November t!
Owner
Mailing Address:
f)J-5"' ~ tJIlUIl1 p~
@Ihjl~ I~~ C/}
I qlq/I-~()S-'J
I
4!
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real propp.rty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
C & B STEEL , INC.
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. 6441810900 ; and consists of approximately 1.53
acres.
.f
, 1- '...
_-)L
1991
Dated: November
.'
, ..
,
) r' / !..
I.
Owner
I....
Owner
Mailing Address:
( ., , I
., ..-' 1--.
, , - , '-
;1 !i " , ,", (
..' ! ..-, - ,
J1
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) vf real p~operty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
and is
No.
acres.
7'11 [;I/fk+');I 11////
further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
AI,.J ; and consists of approximately /. J r
,
Dated: November
:;:;/ JI,
-
1991
,Jcr;~ ct /ii/:tf:'/a
f'A,/e-:..
O,mer
O,;ner
Mailing Address:
1'1. P 7 5(11 C::;~c",,7
IiVJ~ ~n;7,(. I-l cH( ,If
9/'7 f-<
!I
-'
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
TIle unu~r.s19.(J,t:Hl ib (al:t::!) the Ownel. (s) u[ xt;al fJ:r..Ol:-'~L ty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
O,AGER CORPORATIO\
and is further
No. 644-181-28
acres.
identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
; and consists of approximately .67
Dated: ~~~ 12/3 , 1991
..(-" .'"
Owner
ow?:::/L!~~
Mailing Address:
789 Energy !{ay
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
\ 1
I
...;.->
I'
. ,
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
Tl-le "U.nd~rsigr!ed is (are) the owner (s) of rE..~l proparty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
~~y your) property is kno:; as
C, ;: Iwt' / ,-4 h /[ ./{' /~I
and is ~urther identified as County Tax
No. P"f4~c,~f,./".,f-,.(.(~and consists of
acres.
Assessor's Parcel
approximately I
Dated: November /0 , 1991
~ ~'7 r
O~,.1ner
'.\.... ,I-~ J
Owner
Mailing Address:
~ ;i/!.. ~zr t~/911
.::
, \
'"
~
,
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The und<<l"signe:d is (are) t.he oWliel'(b) of real propeLty
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
'"
-
/. '. .
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. -, ; . ; and consists of approximately
acres.
Dated: November
, 1991
------
I "' - /'
I
Owner
Owner
Mailing Address:
~Z/ , ,
(' , _. u
.'
i. (, . (, "
,,- r' i' H ' H- I
" ,
'.
.i::..
\
1\
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
~CT
c.( ~~
/ A-/)v SI~/4 C ~A'<:/<,
{)7?-1 Y
(
and is furth~r identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. c,I.fY-/Y/- OJ ; and consists of approximately /, '-is>-
acres.
Dated:
LJ C:C_
November
7'
, 1991
I ~ ::~./Y' /3..~
Ol-mer
Owner
Mailing Address:
k/b J C--U.'Y~G:?;?0~( .)1:
/-4- /";res /9, C4
'1(J YL-
.0.
\ \
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (art") the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
ISor? /}//ri/I'9/V.L? ,tjlle
Cl.tt/":; /J;r~
C!/?,
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. 0 '/t./-lt/-C,S'-l1o ; and consists of approximately c2. S'R
acres.
Dated: November ~~ , 1991
~~/~~
Owner 4 j' _;:! ,
7!1~ J. ,~. ;)~
,
Owner
Mailing Address: . ~
173'75' ~rchtJ ;fd//?4. b'CJX IS-bY
.
S/sfer-s, /!Jr-e'/>-<J/V 977S9
.
?fi~Ne. $CJS"- $"~? -StJ-<6
, [
fo
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2.
Address:
-. - - --:""< !-::' ~
."1 -
Tax Parcel #
Owner
1.
1888 Nirvana Ave.
Chu1a Vista, CA
2.
Lot 23, Otay Indus-
trial Park
3.
4. 891 Energy Way
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
5. 789 Energy Way
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
6. 791 Energy Way
Chu1a Vista, CA
7. 1880 Nirvana Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
8. 515 Otay Valley Rd.
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
9. 777 Energy \'1ay
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
10. -------------
11.
1851 Nirvana, #25
Otay Industrial Park
12.
4501 Otay Valley Rd.
Chu1a Vista, CA 91911
13.
783 A &B Energy Way
Chu1a Vista, CA91911
644-18J.-08
644-181-03
644-050-08
and
644 050-09
unk.
644-181-28
unk
644-181-09
unk
644 181 23 00
644-182-01
and
644-182-02
644-181-01
624-060-9,
27, 38
644-181-22
EXHIBIT "A"
Albert & Madelin Currie,
Trustees
Walter H. Barber
Katsumi Takashima
Jay E. Justus
(Calumet Auto wrecking)
Robert & Mary Gunthorp
Joe & Gloria Caves
John J. McMahon
(C & B Steel, Inc.)
Rita Gregory
(JT Racing, Inc.)
Arthur & Una Hynum
Ecology Auto Wrecking
James & Gloria Ballard
Vincent Davies
Nicholas Martin
jJ
. .
MARSH AND GRAVES
f.:\ ':"_
-. ..
'-
- ....,
ATTO~NEYS AT L.AW
E:::;.'>"'::O':: E "'&>'''''0._ ..;'"
S''''E: SA'" ._G 2"3..g
"''''E'''' ==6t 5'9
505 ""'ORT.... MOL..L.'SON SUITE: 201
_. TE:~~~"'O"-E: 4...2.......2-
,,-~ e.il'.....2-......2::
"...._,,~ ,,_ ::"'''-d:S
~--'--~ <;-,-". "_G 22-"''''
EL CAJON. CAL'FORNIA 92021-6159
December 13, 1991
CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
Re: OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
Assessment District 90-2.
Dear Madam:
Enclosed please find 13 signed PROTESTS directed
to you for filing in the above matter as listed on the
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Thank you for your consideration.
veZ),; truly ~ours, ~,~,
@f/~ I;.({a ift9
EDW. E. MARSH, JR.
EM:rs
Enc1s.
~\
~: - '!J. .,..,
..... .-. ~
"."'<-C_
"
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
7'/3.LNU6y Wff'l - C)j(.u~ t/<5TI+
~ I
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. ~'TSI-/f/-/'-oo ; and consists of approximately /
acres.
Dated: Noverneer //:;, 1991
J)€c&>1~
~)~~~
owne~ Ov ~
Owner 7/
--
Mailing Address:
/ t.<// {'OL-T~(iXie ?L-~
"CSCL/N.7)/DO C~ 9..:<ooZ~
-
B
~~
.... 'tI'
,.
,
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property i~ known as
and is
No.
acres.
further identified as County Tax
644 050-02 ; and consists of
644-050-06
644-050-07
Assessor's Parcel
approximately 19
Dated: December 12, 1991
~J~
wner 'J~ A2ast~~ .
H.G. Fenton Material Company
Owner
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 64
San Diego, CA 92112
\'
.....\
" )
..,
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the ex~pnt of ~~~ ~,se~~ment ~i3trict; and the propGsed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our)
4~..,~
property is known as
~4:";"_ /'-,e4c7!',...t2.c-.
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. ~t,/f'-e:>~e>-2,-eu~; and consists of approximately s: /
acres.
~~ c.,-4<.
Dated: llsvemger /.7, 1991
,!)
,~
Owner
a~"'A R ~if.
Owner
Mailing Address:
/~.h'" 1'I7/,,,...~,ev,~ (7-- L
d~ P;.JJ,;" a. 9/,//
/ '
~\
~'.
..
>
.,
f"
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The ur.dersigned is (are) the owr.er(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment Distriot.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessmpnt mlrsuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
;'-fD 9 ~/ ;r.7~ f5l"C-?dy'-ol...:.... A.x-.
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Parc~l _
No. ~ ; and consists of approximately ~~+)
acre
~.o
· 19914rJ~
Owner
Dated: November
f'c9~05 i>- '"11- "I
?o'1~oSi'-.4f/- 0,0
fo1- oSF n'/I_ ~I
~o'7- CJ'1s -1'-:2<>
~"l"- 0'7;i\ - s!- ()7
JDe;- CJ9's- /~ - 30
8'''l9- lJ'9< -S,j - 0
/,..-- '- '1"- 04'0 ~ Ys- ~
~ '11(- 04'0- +'9'-;, _~)
Owner
Mailing Address: d~ :;'<i~ ~tw
'-13 SO it::_ Jc:t!c.. t/. /1';fL ,Y. p.. .;1.10
.:50- J;I~90. V, 9:2.1;l.;1.
oJ
....,...~.,._,_.._-----'~-_...,-,.__.._-"-~
i\
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE: OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
R...""-."-....
c. L- t. ! " c: 'J
~1
IE 26
..'j' .~ -/
.."", 'j
Address
Tax Parcel #
L.ll T
I'T'"" . --
644-181-16-0b' ' ., Do'nna and Earl Towne
Owner
1. 793 Energy Way
Chula Vista, cA
2. ----------
644-050-02
644-050-06
644-050-07
H. G. Fenton Material
Company
3. Hyspan precision
Products, Inc.
644-040-28
Donald R. Haye
4. 1669 & 1675
Brandywine Ave.
Chula V~sta, CA
809-058-41-61
809-058-41-60
809-058-41-51
809-045-16-20
899-092-58-09
899-045-16-30
899-092-58-00
644-04P-45-00
644-040-44-00
Richard H. Simms (?) </
\
EXHIBIT "A"
t\
t:O........otO c ........s.....Jot
s~....,.!: II..... ...0 Z7,3"'''
............. w c......ves
S~....,.!: ...... ..0 ZZ7e"
Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
f-(""rk -"> Z9~ 5753
13 ~ 2 <> cc','z...
.... r'~' \ .....r, -., S, _
MARSH AN D GRAVES
....TTOIltNE;YS AT L....W RE CE !l/EO
505 NO"T~ MO,-,-150N. SUITE 201
...."'e... COOl!: el~
TICL.IC.....o...e_z__z,o,
EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021-6159
,....." le'VI _z-_zo
Decanber 23, 1991 "91 DEe 26
c'- " 7
!;,,, ';
CiTY (r- ".,_-":'
C~:j! '_-
.~ I
Re: OTAY VALLEY ROAD WTnSNING pOOJBCT:
Assessment District 90-2
Dear Madam:
Enclosed please find 4 signed PROTESTS directed to
you for filing in the above matter as listed on the Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Thank you for your consideration.
EM:rs
Encls.
Very truly yours,
.~!~~
rc -
~ z
,
0 .
n, ;
n '1 "
~..) " I ,
...,
""'0
:s:: '.
f:.,) .
, ,.
C.Il ;
t
wn.wAN ASSOCIATES
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
- 2 -
JULY 23, 1991
Second, we have already installed the improvements prescribed and should
not now be required to duplicate the work at our cost.
Third, to the extent we have already dedicated, we should be ;iven a credit
for that land value as compared to others who did not then so dedicate.
The value of the credit should be the ;reater of the accumulated value, or
full current market value. c- .
....., -
"
Fourth, the credit offered in the July 15, 1991 Willdan letter for existin; .
improvements is inadequate, as the credit should be the full current cost.
of replacement value, for bond purposes, the same as is now calculated for
replacement improvements components in the current assessment district
calculations. There should be no depreciation taken to our detriment
a;ainst our existing improvements as the maintenance of those improvements
bein; dedicated remains the responsibility of the City.
Please advise if our objection, in order to be effective, need be entered
in any other form or notice or as a formal claim prior to any certain date,
as we do not wish to be barred by any ordinances requiring notice prior
Action or otherwise.
Please be advised we want to receive timely advance notice of any
additional Hearings including any Hearings or Public Heetings relative to
any adoption of any plans, budget programs or otherwise.
CCI Charles Deem, GRAY,
/
LET,Cg
& FRYE
file,assessdist.90-2
~
~~
P'HONE (118) 23'.71&e
UCEN.E 1811-IIa3
.
onalc
In"es'llftonl's. Inc.
I'OVNtlEtl 111118
July 23, 1991
3200 84-2 HIGHI-ANC AVENUE
NATIONAL. CITY. CAL.IFORNIA i20!50
Willdan Associates, Engineers and Planners
ATTN. Mr. Jerome Fournier, Supervisor, Special District Services
6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122-3939
Phone. (619) 457-1199 FAX. (619) 452-6680
City of Chula Villta
Director of Public Worka
ATTN. Shale L. Hanaon, Associate Engineer
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, Ca 92012 .
City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
ATTN. Ms. Robin Putnam
279 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
REF. Premises 490 Otay Valley Road, City of Chula Vista proposed
Assessment District 90-2 Otay Valley Road, and Willdan Associates
July 15, 1991 letter to Atomic, regarding credit in the amount of
$27,394.00, proposed for Parcel 5.
Ladies & Gentlemen.
Thank you for the advance notice of the meeting July 11, 1991, and for the
Willdan letter. Please adjust your records to show our address for notices
as the letterhead address, as at least one prior notice was inadvertently
sent to our old "B" Street address (13 years old), and that notice was not
received here.
Regarding the proposed assessment, orally identified at the meeting; To
the extent the District proposes to include Atomic as a paying andlor fully
paying participating party relative to 490 Otay Valley Road, we object on
various groundS.
first, we dedicated extra width and fully improved the frontage of the
subject property in 1972 at the time the property and the RIW improvements~
were installed in full compliance with all governmental requirements. The
dollar sum of our investment in the cost of the improvements and the value
of the land dedicated for roadway widening, if calculated on the basis of
Amount of One Per Period, compounded A~' p_rlodic prevailing interest
rate, from the date of installatIOn to present date, would accumulate to
an amount that would be greater than our fair share of the presently
proposed assessment.
,I
--.',
PHONE (6191234-7966
LICENSE 169-983
.
O_IC
Inv....._en...s.lnc.
FOUNDED 1956
January 13, 1992
3200 84-2 HIGHLAND AVENUE
NATIONAL CITY. CALIFORNIA 82eSe
91950
City of Chula Vista
Attn: City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91912
':it)
=;~
,,",
N
~lj
Ref: Premises 490 Otay Valley Road, City of Chula Vista.
..~
z
..".
Dear Sir:
Mr. Jerry Johnson of the City of Chula Vista requested we sent a letter in
reference to the address of notice for the referenced subject property. I
have enclosed a copy of a letter sent July 23, 1991 requesting a change of
address for notices. Please change your records accordingly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
ATOMIC I~\IESTMENTS, INC.
.\,/ ' (1
...::y 'uJ..Lj yu.uA r
Leonard E. Teyssier, President
I~aq
Encl.
file:clerk.cv
"
"
.....',
'If '^
- .t !...',
r:j
.:
.'1;.
u'- {>. _
. tl ..'.....:,
..
'-',
~
As previously mentioned, Concerned owners do not necessarily
oppose improvements to otay Valley Road. Nor are Concerned
owners naive enough to expect infrastructure improvements to be
made without costs to users. While the above notes do not
represent a comprehensive listing nor evaluation of all owners'
concerns, it is hoped that the underlying message relaying
Concerned owners' sincere belief that Assessment District 90-2 as
proposed in the Juiy 25, 1991, Financing and Feasibility Plan is
unfair and seriously flawed. Concerned owners stand willing to
furnish additional information and opinions if Chula Vista should
so desire and stand willing to participate in a re-evaluation of
financing methods, level of improvements and costs distribution
options.
~
.
--...-:.^.....-...
:z.
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT/BENEFIT AREA
Concerned owners can barely believe that Chula Vista
proposes to assess only properties within city limits to
accomplish a major road project that clearly bene tits areas ot
the City ot San Diego, the County of San Diego as well as
international traffic. That the Financing and Feasibility Plan
fails to insist on fair share contributions trom Otay Mesa and
Baldwin properties to the east, for instance, is shocking and
untenable. Tratfic studies contained in the Environmental Impact
Report and the Financing and Feasibility Plan clearly indicate
current and projected traffic generation outside the identitied
"benefit area". Additionally residential and commercial
properties taking access from Otay Valley Road via Oleander and
Brandywine are, likewise, left to await a brad new prime arterial
with signal controlled intersections without the responsibility
to contribute dollar one. Few (it anyone) would question the
need to improve Otay Valley Road, however, Concerned owners do
not believe the current proposal addresses the need tor costs to
be proportional to benefit and costs to be proportionally shared
by all beneficiaries. Concerned Owners suggest issues of the
extent ot an assessment district and the definition of a benefit
area be comprehensively re-evaluated.
3. ASSESSMENT SPREAD ISSUES.
A. Acreages. Concerned owners would like to hear the City
of Chula Vista regarding the apparent exclusion from assessment
of slopes and other unusable acreages in certain areas but,
apparently, not in others. For instance, certain parcels are
assessed on "Net Saleable Acres" as determined by appraisers
while other showing identical "gross" and "net" acreages are
determined by "the City of Chula Vista".
B. Trip Generation. Multipliers used in Table 4 of
Section 2.4 (Spread Methodology) of the Financing and Feasibility
Plan produce results at odds with traffic surveys (see Figure II
of Traffic Analysis for Otay Valley Road Phase II). For
instance, the 95.16 gross acre Otay Industrial Park, which is a
closed system, appears to generate approximately 3700 daily
trips, a figure less than half that of the product of 95.16 acres
X 80 trips per acre per day. ot particular concern is a
discrepancy between the traffic reported tor the County Landfill
by Department of Public Works (1100 daily trips, total) and the
tratfic survey indicating 4,600 daily trips on Maxwell Road.
Concerned Owners believe a detailed origin and destination study
may assist in the fair spreading of assessment.
C. Credits for Existing Improvements. Concerned owners
would like to hear the city ot Chula Vista regarding the proposed
credits listed in Table 5 at page 23 of the Financing and
Feasibility Plan. Simple arithmetic sows 2899 teet ot travel
lane with curb and gutter and 1200 teet of sidewalk to have cost
$241,222 or something less than $85 per lineal foot. Concerned
owners do not find that figure realistic, especially when
compared to a cost of $14,146,350 tor improvements to 10,700 teet
ot Otay Valley Road.
~
-..
~::-:,
.--
..:. ~
-~ -
~-_.
-
"- '-0_ fl::-~_
'.
,C
\ '
,-
"
, ,
\
Some owners of real property ("Concerned Owners") in Otay
Valley have serious concerns and reservations regarding proposed
Assessment District 90-2 which contemplates improvements to Otay
Valley Road. What follows is not intended to be a rigorous
examination of the details of A.D. 90-2 nor a comprehensive
report of the Concerned OWners' questions objections, rather,
some brief notes addressing certain highlight issues:
1. RECOMMENDED FINANCING METHOD - FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
Concerned Owners are not persuaded that an assessment
district should be formed to accomplish the identified
improvements. Concerned OWners believe that the improvements
contemplated are designed to accomplish regional circulation
goals, to relieve projected regional traffic problems and would
provide direct benefit to a much larger area than identified in
the Financing and Feasibility Plan of July 25, 1991.
Accordingly,Concerned Owners believe a "regional" solution is
indicated rather than the imposition of costs on what amounts to
a neighborhood within the larger region. Section 1.1 (Background
and Purpose) of the Financing and Feasibility Plan identifies (at
page 1) the purpose of the project being, among other things, to
"provide a better level of service to current development, ENSURE
ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR THE PROJECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND
PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT LINK BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE
OTAY MESA AND TIJUANA METROPOLITAN AREAS" (emphasis ours).
Traffic analyses have noted with surprise the large number of
Mexico licensed vehicles already using Otay Valley Road,
apparently as a link between Chula Vista and the Otay Border
Crossing. Also noteworthy are SANDAG population growth forecasts
for census tracts 13305 and 10007 which are, themselves, the
motive for improving otay Valley Road to prime arterial standard.
The extraordinary growth forecast for these tracts is projected
to take place in areas outside of the defined "benefit area" of
the Financing and Feasibility Plan.
Concerned Owners believe a need for a prime arterial in Otay
Valley can ONLY be demonstrated on a regional basis and that an
assessment district may not be the best financing method to solve
regional problems. Perhaps gasoline tax revenues or revenues
generated from the recent sales tax override could be brought to
bear or some other financing method proposed that would spread
the costs of improvements fairly throughout the region affected.
Section 1.3 (Methods of Financing) of the Financing and
Feasibility Plan appears to have been written more as a
justification of the conclusion that an assessment district
finanCing is most appropriate rather than as an objective and
comprehensive analysis of All financing method options and,
therefore, Concerned Owners suggest the options and associated
issues be revisited.
-W
-
,~
OTAY VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK
NET GROSS
PARCEL AREA (ACRES) AREA ( ACRES) VARIANCE
Parcel 1 1. 357 1.620 0.263
Parcel 2 0.761 0.973 0.212
Parcel 3 1. 219 1. 559 0.340
Parcel 4 3.762 5.598 1. 836
Parcel 5 1.079 1.603 0.524
Parcel 6 0.848 1. 207 0.359
TOTAL ACRES 9.026 12.560 3.534
'I
~
\.
~GfOOp
2635
CImino tiel Rio Swtll
Sui,.2fJ2
S,II 0;'#0
e,r
921.
61929li"~
FAX 619 296.1695
January 16, 1992
,
.'
,:'1'
Ms. Donna Snider
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Public Works Department
Assessment Districts
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
. (-
"S
RE: OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Dear Donna:
I talked with you briefly at the end of the recent public hearing for the Otay Valley Road
Assessment District. I raised in that discussion, as well as for public comment, the issue
of assessment based upon gross versus net acreage of parcels particularly where the
percentage of gross to net is significant.
Our parcel is the Otay Valley Industrial Park on Design Court, parcels 1-6 (parcel 7 was
sold to a user). Attached is an analysis of the net versus gross acreage by parcel for the
proj ect.
I feel strongly that the assessment should be based upon the net acreage rather than the
gross. The gross acreage was not used for any landscape requirements nor building
coverage. Would you please advise me whether the proposed assessment will be based
upon the net or gross acreage.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
~
P. Michael McDonald
Chairman
PMM:clt
Enclosure
cc:
Fred Kassman,
Community Development
Jj
, \
RECEIVED
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
"92 JAN 21 P4 :',3
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
~y t- r'" .
CII .;~ _'C.' - . .
CITY CL.tY"
.::. ,;-0...
. -
>-- 1 ~,L
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
--U'l.L'-rt,'-<'t ih'-i'!;I..f ~ >n,," rtS/#7 D ~u.......;f .3/:nt/t
, 't .
and is further identified as County Tax Assessor's Par~~~~
No. "",#-/SI-C'"-I-C'() ; and consists of approximately ~
acres.
Dated: ~ Ie,
. ,;1~~ /').5"-")
/'19.J..
9,,/~c?, ~if-.
Owner /.1
:GLu~ J ;;;." JL-~L;/
O~er /'
Mailing Address:
S7c~
t~-r/
&.
~./;u- Dtf.
919.?'Z-
&.~,:t;..
1 r
.J'
l .
MARSH AN D GRAVES
ATTORNEYS AT I......W
AYo~1
"'....'-.... w GI'I....vE:5
.~"'...r; .... ...0 zz"'e9
fL CAJON, CALifORNIA 92021-6159
RC("';;" "';;;.0
'4I'IILAJ.J:;OCl: !I:W.
TEI.t:.....C....E: _2-_2"
I'"A)( (e'iiI: ......i/-......ZO
f:OW"''''O t: ""...."'5...,-''''
$.......11: ..'" ""c 2"3"'\:J
50S NORT... MOI..I,..ISON. SUITE 201
January 17, 1992
"92 JAN 21
P" ")
-; 'J
CITy(:,:~~
CITv," =-,' "
;- '..t. ~ - ',- - :--r-
Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT:
Assessment District 90-2
Dear Madam:
Enclosed please find a signed PROTEST directed to you
for filing the the above referenced matter as follows:
Nirvana Ave., Lot 3; Parcel No. 644-181-04-00; Owners:
John E. Scott and Elicia M. Scott.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
~.~f~
EM:rs
r-' 5)
<E'
:=3
t-
,..
;;!:
N
N
'. .-,
-
.'
:'';' C'
.. .,,-
:1 '\0:'
" '
-' -'
i
. I l~ ,
~. '.,
.-:!I;.I....i.- ','
. ! I ',,'; :.:
.~ .'U......;
sr ..."
r-> ,.
,I
-"
t.. '-( c~ ~
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
RECEIVED
'92 JAN 14 mo :43
CITY OF C ".i_~ " .', i :..
CITY CL~~ii,'-: C~~::t
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (.;l.-~) th~~~ ~eal property
located within the above-described Asse~:~~ District.
I ~object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310. .
My (our) property is known as
t; ss-s- Om/, t/41!.ev M.. 9/~LL. OIL JkulC€. .J'mi7~#
and is further ~entified as County Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. 6;"l{-~6()-2d-' ; and consists of approximately . 5"8
acres. "'-~,,~
Dated:~r Ii,
19~~ ~
Own" ~~
Owner ~ ttd., ~
Mailing Address:~
~~ &~3
r
6'/
0'
~ "'"" +)-
/S,-"" S
.~ v,r. /
. J' J.'
C,~,~,<.~. q'~
......"1 '~''''''''''-''''''4 ~
$....\...'.. ':-., Q/
;....;- .......'! -~1--.
I. ~..........
...: /..
#
~-
--
-
f\/
A YC'g!
ROBERT W. BRADY
R~C.E;\.'ED
'92 FEB - 3QQ :34
January 29, 1992
CI~V ~- -,.. .
II Ur ... _.'"
CITY"; - ~',
. .........-
. - .
".)1;:"
.- - ---
'~ ....
., -
Clerk of the City of Chula Vista
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
- ,
-~
/-
. ../ / ' '"
RE: Assessment District 90-2
SUBJECT: 505 Otay Valley Road
Parcel No. 644-040-24
Gentlemen:
This protest is specific to the subject parcel. This parcel is the
western most parcel in the proposed assessment district and should
be excluded from the referenced district. It, and the portion
of Otay Valley Road, which is the subject of the Assessment District,
has already been improved where it abutts the subject site. This
was done at the owner/developer's expense and was required to
obtain a building permit.
It would be grossly unjust to say the least, to again charge
a portion of the costs for improvement adjacent to or servicing
other property owners when we have already paid our share.
The proposed assessment district
sidewalk work, etc. will begin.
line of the subject site.
should begin where the roadway and
Aligned with the east property
This property should not be included for the convience of the
planning process simply because it is zoned industrial when every
other aspect or consideration would, if reviewed, verify it's
exclusion.
We are prepared to fight for exclusion and realignment of the
ndary of the proposed Assessment District.
,
Managing Partner
c.'"'::.'
r..1
,-;;;
::
~ . '
~. a': ,__
1360 SOUTH MAGNOLIA AVE . EL CA.lON. CALIFORN~ 9\1020-, )
.c::....'l:') 1;
-::':), .(;'
~ :,~.~.._!r'_
-H
Rr::crIVED
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
'92 FE8 -5 ~lQ:1 3
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
CllY ('::'
Cln C'~:.-:
-.
,- I l~
rc
,,'-
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersig~~d ;~ (?rp) t~e ~w~er(s) of real property
located within the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated:
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
S~ S" EN~f:t4 Y WAY
and i!j f}l!jther identified as County Tax
No. .~...18z.. It!'" ; and consists of
acres.
Da ted: !~~~
Assessor'r, Parcel
approximately
ac. ,
1991
~-. )--/
(~7'--c-- .( .'
c'-~ -",ce-' ~
.
Owner
Owner
Mailing Address:
'K1 v.I."'" :t:I/)I
~ '&JISJlD . c:::..4. 4f2./e>,
.
J-\
I \
\
John Lippitt
January 31, 1992
Page 2
already been made by Otay Rio Business Park. Either Vance Mitchell
from Great American or I will be in touch with you in the ne~t few
days to discuss this matter further.
I look forward to speaking with you concerning this matter and
to working with the City of Chula Vista. Please contact me if you
have any questions or feel free to contact Vance Mitchell at Great
American (619-231-3459).
trUlY;JJ~
Gary Waldron
GAW/kd
cc: Vance Mitchell
F. Jack Liebau, Esq.
Sherwood Chillingworth
Tom Meade
~.
\ '
--: _I. ..... :. >
~ ~,I
ec (!fi I :T <-
A y o~ )
~ " .
~, -
M STEVE"": ^SNR.SE>,,;
.),.......1:..-E~ J GO:'DBERC
CARY ^ \l',"':'8RO~
JOHS F !..mBER;
BER'.A,R.::) \)';' M."""'>";
JASET L CALLlSTER
AATHn. t-.; BUCK
MMl...'ORJE C RUBIS
RL'BES T~SCO
LORI e. KJV..MER
SHERR'!' 5 BRAGG
UR,S \' KEt.:ILlA}o.;
^TT2R~Ei"S AT LAIl-
. :"f. ... ~
- -' .... ....
/::;, \ - '~'.
-,< FEB "" D"OO~Qfi!!.. -
~6 \l.W,.....ASH..STRtE7
EiJt,~o
St\s DIECO. CALIf~~,4 Q2IC':' 3.4~
(619) 233-82SY
TELECQPIER. (619) 233-6636
A~DERSE~. GOLDBERG 8 WALDRO~
610 ....:[\X'POR; CP,TER DRiVE
SL:7[ 700
MIl.:'PCRT BEACH. CALlFOR.....L... 92662
(714) 760.0204
TELECOPI[R (714) 760-2507
OF COU1-:5EL
JOHS s. aLSOs
January 31, 1992
John Lippitt
City of Chula vista
Director of Public Works
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
...,.-. - -~-
l\_\_:....\oo:~
91910 \ '1-: f.
l c"""'( '. C' I ~ ~
otav 'Rio Business Park Assessment Districit ;;;::..i.:. ')
County Tax Parcels 645-021-01 to -43 '--
,', -" r
Re:
=
Dear Mr. Lippitt:
Great Amer ican Federal Savings Association (in conservatorship
with the Resolution Trust Corporation) is a beneficiary under two
deeds of trust secured by the above-referenced real property. It
is our understanding that an effort has been made to create an
assessment district concerning the offsite improvements contiguous
to this property. As Great American has a signiflcant financial
interest in this property, it is greatly concerned about the
progress and effect that this assessment district may have. For
that reason, Great American has asked me to write to inquire as to
the procedure for it to be included on the notification list for
any further hearings or proceedings involving Assessment District
90-2.
Great American would also like to join in the protest which it
understands has been registered concerning this property in that
~ne assessment agains~ it is being calculated on the same basis as
the assessment of all other affected parcels despite the fact that
a substantial part of the improvements which are the subject of
this assessment were independently financed by otay Rio Business
Park. I believe that procedures exist for such benefits to the
assessment district to be taken into effect and any assessment
against this property to be adjusted accordingly.
I wanted to bring to your attention at the earliest possible
time Great American's continuing interest in this assessment
district; its desire to be notified and have an opportunity to
participate in any discussions or proceedings concerning this
property; and its interest that any assessment district that is
formed properly recognize the financial contributions that have
~
CT":-I&,.. "TC' r\\....~
fi Y08'1
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
RECEIVED
'92 FtB -c. ~9:'5'
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
CITY Or (Y;_.',.'. (i ~
CITY Cl~?~",crCt.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to Callfornia Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
;:r;:>". q S'
I'
,~
.t- .j ,--' I~!....::
,1i7 c
/~
;~C ;- 1'".-' /: ~_t
10;' !
I.-~ <; r
and is
No.
.
acres.
further identified as county Tax Assessor's Parcel
. . _' and consists of approximately ! <:;
(,)....<--
, ~';; -c
y :: ;;-., -; A(
r . '; ,. ,'. ~ I:~
fv::,Jr.. _ (~ 7'- - ~ - -
Dated:
J-
1992
;../
! d. ,,-7-.;
C.L~
("
"
fJa~/J II. a G-'2.-1'1~.L
(Jwn~r
:oJ ...<-......,_'- '/).,\. '-- ,r....,'r/..._-..'-_t,/~/L
O.,mer
~ ~! ..:;: " c.L r"
" '-- _ ~ _ I ': V"' I ',{ ../
r.... \' v L _, :,j' \ (f.
1 I i'l /q
/ '/ /'
" . '1 " Y;(v)_/
J.-....-c.~.,~~ /-
Mailing Address:
-5" c, Be" j'iP
o
0(],~ . Nu
, ,
I'
'. II,
../_ ~J
I
&
")!'i7~
.-
. -
;:~. ~
us
'-'"
.....,
......
,.,.,
=
I
....
tJj
o
(/l
;.: c.1:J
"'I""l .,., p-
,~ ,) ("'I
T.: ,r. ITi
i (.~ <
_', r , , ~
, \-.. t-
,',
j"T'l ~'-,
t1 (r~
-i ...
....
~
-ti"
MARSH AND GRAVES
R-=-r"r"'ED
..."'It... cooe e'Q
ATTO~NEYS AT LAW
cow II: ~A"'5~ ~.
."""C ..... ,,"0 2'3"8
R.L~'" IN ~"'...vCS
5T",""': ..... ,,"0 227$1i
~o~ ~Ol'll"'" ~O......,SO'" S\,.!'''E 20
Avo 2/
~It,-!:....o"c ....1......2~
El CAJON CALI'ORN'A 92C2'-6'9~ FEE-S
February 3, 1992
:'~i ":r'.l_ e Q .....2......2C
",__J', J
,,,, . \ ,~
\..rl . .....
CljV -'
II' \.I
,
~
Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: OTAY VALLEY ROAD \'iIDE!\I~G PROJECT:
Assessment District 90-2
Dear Madam:
Enclosed please find a signed PROTEST directed
to you for filinj the above-re~erenced matter as follows:
Address:
895 Energy Way
Chu1a Vista, CA
Owner
Parcel No.
Eustulio J. (?)
644 182-15
__ ~ f. E:2.
, r
- 1..--
Thank you for your consideration.
Very trul~;yours,
d/tft/ ~ ~/a u4
EDW. E. MARSH, JR.
EM:r
Jl
: I
m
(J")
,-'
."
rn
""
I
O"l
..
.
I'
, ,
I,
-0
3:
'-
',; \" ,
;~ . '.
, '
I... _
~,., ".
1J (,'l
-l -00
,-
N
c.n
N
I, , - ~ I
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RECEIVED
'92 FIB 20 AlO :27
PROTEST TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT;
CITy OF C;';JL~ ViSTA
CITY CL-:)'" '---"
t,.r. .) u~ r ,c....
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2
The undersigned is (are) the owner (s) of real property
located wihtin the above-described Assessment District.
I (we) object to the proposed improvements contemplated;
the extent of the Assessment District; and the proposed
assessment pursuant to California Street and Highway Code
Section 10310.
My (our) property is known as
Consolidated Freightways, 875 Enerqy Way
and is further identified as county Tax Assessor's Parcel
No. 644-182-17-00 ; and consists of approximately 2--.2
acres.
Dated:
2-14-
, 1992
~~hCWO"
Owner
Mailing Address:
875 Energy Way, Chula Vista,ca
91910
.; -
G-- -c..:"
~
.--
~
'-.J
'-.
<
'-..
(
'-,--j
~.
>-
I
l
1
Hon. Board of Supervisors
March 17, 1992
Page 3
improvements, we do not perceive this particular
proceeding to be simply a local matter of the City of
which your Board should act upon without full review.
assessment
Chula Vista
We thank your Board for its ser ious consideration of our
clients' concerns in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
WILLI
-~
:;;..-----..-
;-- -------
,/
J. SCHWARTZ, JR.
WJS:mam
cc: Each member, Board of S~pervisors
Chief Administratlve Officer
Co~nty Counsel
Mr. Charles Pratty
Mr. Joe Boti: i n
.~
r I
r1
, ,
Hon. Board of Supervisors
March 17, 1992
Page 2
~~'major thrust of such objections must be presented to the city of
- Chula V~sta as a part of the statutory scheme of the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913, we believe that the County Board of
Supervisors has sufficient interest in the proceedings that it
should make serious inquiry into the proposal and the process
before it adopts the proposed resolution consenting to full
jurisdiction over the proceedings in the unincorporated area by the
City.
In particular, we believe that your Board should inquire into
the following matters:
(1) The precise status of the Draft EIR prepared for the
proposed proceed inas. We are. aware that a Draft EIR has been
, prepared for these proceedings, and that it has been approved by
~/the City Planning Commission. However, the draft is dated "August
, 1991" subsequent to the July 23, 1991 action by the City Council
~ asking the Board to consent to the proceedings. It is not clear to
~ us that a final EIR has even been considered by the City Council as
"- of this date, despite the letter before you stating that the City
~, Council has certified the Final EIR. We have been unable to
. located any evidence of such a certification. Further, it would
seem to us that a question is raised as to the propriety of such a
certification if it has occurred because the full proceedings have
yet to be comnenced formally by the City.
3=:
( ...
"i-_
(2) The reasons why the assessment proceedinas focus only on
one small portion of the unincorporated area. which is not
contiauous to the City. The letter to your Board notes that future
development along Otay Lakes Road outside the City boundary will
not occur for some time into the future. Nevertheless, given the
regional nature of the road, we believe that your Board should
fully analyze the proposal and determine whether the proposal
properly excludes such a large portion of the unincorporated
territory under these circumstances.
(3) Prior to authorizina the proceedinas in the unincorporated
area. the Board should investiaate the proposed assessments to be
laid aaainst each property owner to insure that they are fair and
reasonable. Because of the regional impacts of the proposed
H
\
..-\.-...
'"J
'"",
<-.
~
"-
'-
~
4
'-
$/g
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
'" P"D~"E...!>...t" ,..c..uo,,,,c. .. .."'O,.[$S,O...... COl:lpOIll..~,O..
:::('"......0 A ....0.....[...
.... . ........ ..J 5C.........ATZ -,'"
....C,..... .. c....=...[..o
<>:::B["''' C ""ce
-'[....'..E'" ",.tESE w'...SO"
.........[5 p 0 ..E'l..
.....TAIC'... "ENT
..lOSE..... ,. 50...0,,",ON
Sus....... ....Cl: MUI,.L
...TTOR.....E...S AT LAW
(\ ~
,,,--- I
IISO F"IRST IN'TERSTATE PLAZA
40r .'e"' STREET
S...N OI['GO. C......III"Oj:lNI. "2101-.245
TEL.E:Pl-lONE: 1619) Z39-0SI!S
..-, .~-
-"I"'~iljt"L
"'"
C/
TItL.I[,....1l Ithel 23e-e8a"
l"l.r "'0
.... ".O"l~~o- co...o...no..
March 17, 1992
Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
335 County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Re:
Otay Valley Road Assessment District No. 90-2
Ref:
3/17/92. Item # 18
Honorable Board:
es Siroonian and Charles pratty who are
within the Cit of Chula Vista, which property
he propose ay a ad Assessment
90-2. Our clients are among a number of property
the proposed district who have made objections to the
Vista with regard to the assessment proceedings.
Because a portion of the land and a portion of the
improvements proposed are outside the City of Chula vista and
within the unincorporated area of the County, the letter before
your Board today from the Chief Administrative Officer recommends
that you (1) concur with the City's findings that an ErR has been
prepared in compliance with CEQA and (2) adopt a resolution
"granting consent and jurisdiction" to the City, pursuant to
Streets & Highways Code Section 10103 to commence the assessment
proceedings.
Our clients are not opposed to the assessment ~roceedings per
se; however they do believe that the area of benef~t and the area
to be assessed too , g~ven the regional nature of otay
al ey Road and the regional benefit which will accrue through the
proposed improvements. Accordingly, they believe that the proposed
assessment will impose a disproportionate burden on them and other
owners within the proposed district. While we recognize that the
II
j J
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
- 2 -
JULY 23, 1991
Second,
not nOH
we have already installed the improvements prescribed
be required to duplicate the work at our cost.
,
and
should
Third, to the extent we have already dedicated, we should be given a credit
for that land value as compared to others who did not then so dedicate.
The value of the credlt should be the greater of the accumulated value, or
full current market value.
Fourth, the credit offered in the July 15, 1991 Willdan letter for existing
lmprovements is lnadequate, as the credlt should be the full current ~ost
of replacement value, for bond purposes, the same as lS now calculated for
replacement lmprovements components In the current assessment dlstrlct
calculatlons. There should be no depreclatlon taken to our detrlment
agalnst our eXlstlng lmprovements as the malntenance of those lmprovements
belng dedlcated remalns the responslbllity of the Clty.
Please
1n any
as we
Actlon
advlse if our Ob]ectlon, in order to be effective, need be entered
other form or notlce or as a formal clalm prlor to any certaln date,
do not wlsh to be barred by any ordlnances requlring notlce prlor
or othennse.
f-'leas~ L:e advlsed 'de Hant to recelve tImely advance notlce of
addltlo~~l Hearlngs lncludlng any Hearlngs or PubllC Heetlngs relatlve
any adoptlon of any plans, budget programs or otherwlse.
Sincerely, /
/
ATOIIIC )NVE;sTHtNTy :I~~/
. //&. / ;~/
~ / / ,,//
,,/.'-1,~0 d/' ~;YSSler, PreSldent
/// I
/ //
any
to
LET:cg
cc: Charles Deem, GRAY, C~S
/
/
/
& FRYE
tlle:assessdlst.90-2
1\
I'
, ,
\ .
- This Page Blank -
OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK
2423 Camino del Rio So. #212
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 574-0697 FAX (619) 299-2110
May 18, 1992
21
.'
L '
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Otay Valley Road Assessment District 90-2
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
As a former civil Engineer employee of the Traffic
Department of CalTrans, I find your conclusions as to the benefit
assigned to the 700 =/- acres in the proposed Otay Valley Road
Assessment District deficient.
until you have done an origination and destination traffic
count on the existing Otay Valley Road you cannot assign a
benefit ratio to the property. Therefore, if you proceed with
this Assessment District before a proper traffic study has been
done we will immediate file a lawsuit and attempt to obtain a
restraining order to force the City of Chula Vista to do this
correctly.
Sincerely,
cc: Ross Keagy, Esq.
Asaro & Keagy
3170 Fourth Ave.
San Diego, CA 92101
Bill Bramley, Esq.
Sullivan, Delafield, McDonald
& Middendorf
1200 Third Ave., #1405
San Diego, CA 92101
..
421 9078
JT RAe I NGX>-;
'92 0:- 20 16:31
001
.
-
May 20, 1992
David Malcolm
Councilman
Dear Mr. Malcolm,
As you know, the City of Chula Vista is contemplating widen-
ing Otay Valley Road from its Current two lanes to six lanes. We
do not agree that these additional lanes are required. During
the preliminary meeting last week with property owners and city
engineers/planners we discussed the analysis which determined the
need for increased lanes and found that the need was based on hy-
pothetical future growth assumptions and statistical average
usage per acre theories. We are here all day long on this street
and we observe actual usage and do not rely on theoretical as-
sumptions. I'm Sure that the City of Chula Vista is conCerned
about the efficient use of it's available funds just as we are at
JT.
We also feel that the proposed funding of the project does
not consider the previous mandatory street improvements that JT
has made. In 1984, as a condition of our development, Our
property was given a deferral to the street improvements based On
a future Assessment District. In 1988, the City of Chula Vista
ordered us to complete the street improvements even though the
Assessment Qistrict had not been formed. We again requested that
we be permitted to defer this unplanned expenditure and wait for
the Assessment District. We were denied and instructed to
proceed immediately with these expenditures on the basis that JT
would be exempted from the future Assessment District. We are now
being told that JT ~ ~ assessed according to the arbitrary
calculation prOCess based on acreage. This.assessment will not
provide JT with the full credit for our previous and unplanned
expenditures as we were promised by the City of Chula Vista.
If there is any light tnat you can shed on this project and
the hardship it will cause to JT, I would appreciate hearing from
you.
1
515 Otay Valley Road. ChuIa VI8Ia. CA 92011 (818) 421-2880 Fax No. (819) 421-8078
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
PAGE TWO
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
MAY 26, 1992
MAYOR:
ASK EACH SPEAKER TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND THEIR
PROPERTY.
First, ask to hear from anyone who wishes to speak
against the improvement, the Assessment Oistr iet, or the
method of spread.
Then, ask to hear from anyone who wishes to speak in
favor of the proceedings.
STAFF:
Report on final percentage of protests (% of area)
received.
CITY COUNCIL:
Discussion.
MAYOR:
Declare Public Hearing CLOSED.
IF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WISHES TO PROCEED:
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS:
Orders appropriate changes and modif ieat ions to the
proceedings and Engineer's "Report".
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS:
action denying any and all protests and making
findings regarding the benefit distribution
assessments.
Formal
certain
of the
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS: Formally accepts
the various Agreements and authori~es execution on behalf
of the City.
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS: Formal action
ordering the improvements, confirming the assessments and
approving the final Engineer's "Report", environmental
certification and clearance.
. . .
I
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC HEARING
FOR CONSIDERATION:
MAYOR:
CITY CLERK:
STAFF:
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
MAY 26, 1992
HEARING REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 1913".
Announce that this is the time and place fixed for
public hearing on protests or objections to
Resolution of Intention, Engineer's "Report.. and
other matters relating to ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD).
the
the
all
90-2
Announce that notice of the Public Hearing has been given
in the manner and form as required by law and that a
certificate of Compliance is on file certifying that
notice was given in the following ways:
Posting all public streets within the District
Mailing notice to property owners within the District
Filing proposed boundary map in Office of County
Recorder
Publication of Notice of improvement
publication of Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals
Explain purpose for Public Hearing.
Describe extent of works of improvement and boundaries
of Assessment District.
Present and summarize "Report".
Explain method and formula of assessment spread.
Review construction bids received.
Report on number of protests (' of area) received and
announce that copies have been delivered to each
member of the legislative body.
END OF STAFF REPORT - OPEN POR PUBLIC DISCUSSION
1"
~Jr~
:: d:~ -:
..........,~~
---
""~~~
ClW OF
CHULA VISTA
DEPARiMENT OF PUBLIC V.'ORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISiON
April 29, 1992
Dear Property Owner:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
Enclosed herein find legally required Notice for the formation of
a special assessment district for the installation of certain
public improvements in your area and for which you will be assessed
to pay your proportionate share of the costs and expenses of said
improvements.
Please note that the legal Notice herein sets the time and place
for the public hearing, to be the 26th day of May, 1992, at the
hour of 6:00 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of the
legislative body, being the Council Chambers, City Hall, Chula
vista, California. Also, note that the enclosed Notice sets forth
the estimated amount of your assessment, and please be advised
that, at this time, said assessment is only an estimate. You
should be aware that bids for construction of Phase I were received
on April 8, 1992 and that bids for Phase 2 will be received at a
later date. Modifications could be made to the assessment based on
the bidding results. The modifications would reduce assessments
only and not increase them.
The staff will be available on the following day at the following
address for consultation and meetings with all interested property
owners:
DATE:
PLACE:
May 13, 1992
3:00-4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, PSB
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
We hope to see you at these meetings. If for some reason you are
unable to attend, please call the undersigned for any information
at 691-5266.
\ ~,-~c. S\~ 2-,____
DONNA SNIDER
CIVIL ENGINEER
DDS:DV
(DOS/ AD90- 2 . NOT)
~--:;: ~:::-_ A'JE~0E CH0~A \iISTA CALIFORNIA 92J';: ,6'9, 691-502~
E.x/'1" b " + J
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND REPORT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of tLc CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
did, on the 21st day of April, 1992, adopt its Resolution of Intention, receive and
file a "Report" of the Engineer, and authorize a time and place for a public hearing
to form a special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").
The combined "Report", as authorized by Streets and Highways Code Section 2961, has
been prepared and approved, consisting of the plans, specifications, maps, descrip-
tions and estimate of the cost, and diagram and assessment, and property valuations,
and for all particulars as to these proceedings and any individual assessments,
reference is made to said combined "Report" as preliminarily approved, as well as to
the previously mentioned Resolution of Intention.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed works of improvement to be financed under these proceedings for this
Assessment District are described as street improvements, including demolition,
grading, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, traffic signals, storm
drains, landscaping, water main, utility work and traff ic str iping, together with
appurtenances and appurtenant work, including acquisition of rights-of-way and
easements, if necessary, to serve and benefit properties located within the
boundaries of the Assessment District.
BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
All properties that benefit from the works of improvement shall be assessed to pay a
proportionate share of the costs and expenses of the improvements, together with
acquisition expenses. A map of the Assessment District identified as "A!1.l!\DED
BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)" has been approved by
the legislative body, and for all particulars as to the boundaries, reference is
made to said map on file with the transcript of these proceedings.
COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
~hat the cost of the facilities to be assessed to the property within the boundaries
of the Assessment District is estimated to be:
$10,406,242.00
The above figure includes all costs of the improvements, together with incidentals,
contingencies and financing costs.
J
PROCEEDINGS AND BONDS
Said proceedings for this Assessment District shall be had and taken pursuant to the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" (Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California). Bonds shall be issued to represent unpaid assessments in
accordance with the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915" (Division 10 of said Code).
Following the confirmation of the assessments, a period of thirty (30) days will be
allowed to make payment of assessments in cash, and the unpaid balance will then
become payable in annual installments, with bonds issued to represent the unpaid
balance. The actual interest rate for the bonds shall be determined upon the sale
of said bonds.
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1992, AT THE HOUR OF 6:00
O'CLOCK P.M. OF SAID DAY, IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY,
BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL. IS THE TIME AND PLACE FIXED TO CONSIDER AND
FINALLY DETEFY.INE WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRE THE IMPROVE-
MENTS, AND TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE OWNERS OF A MAJORITY OF THE AREA OF
THE PROPERTY IN THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HAVE PROTESTED AGAINST SAID IMPROVE-
MENTS. OR Arc;y PORTION THEREOF; AND TO CONSIDER AND FINALLY ACT ON THE ENGINEER'S
"REPORT"; AND TO HEAR ALL PROTESTS RELATING TO SAID PROPOSED PROCEEDINGS, OR THE
GRADES AT WHICH THE WORK SHALL BE DONE, OR THE EXTENT OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. OR
AS TO !'.APS AND DESCRIPTIONS. OR THE ESTIMATE OF THE COST AND EXPENSES THEREOF. OR
THE PROPOSED DIAGRAM OR ASSESSMENT; AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED MAY FILE A
,mITTEN PROTEST AT OR BEFORE THE TIME SET FOR HEARING REFERRED TO HEREIN.
PROCEEDINGS INQUIRIES
For all information relating to these proceedings, the hearing procedure, and any
and all matters as set forth and contained in any documents, Resolutions or Certifi-
cates, attention is directed to the person designated below:
JOHN LIPPITT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
P. O. BOX 10B7
CHULA VISTA, CA 92012
TELEPHONE: (619) 691-5021
DATED: ~ d.-11 I . 1992.
CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~
THIS IS NOT A BILL. AT THIS TIME ALL FIGURES AND ASSESSMENTS ARE BASED ON ESTIMATES.
YOU SHOULD CHECK THE IDENTITY OF YOUR PROPERTY AND THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT TO BE
CHARGED TO YOUR PARTICULAR PARCEL OF PROPERTY FOR THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AS SET
FORTH orc; THE ATTACHMENT HERETO.
J
Special Assessment Mailings
Assessment District 90-2 Otay Valley Road
CIty of Chula Vista
Assessment
Num be.
6
APN & Address
Preliminary
Assessment
257,102.00
644-040-01
Cushman. Helen N.
2901 5th Ave.
San Diego, CA 92103
~
, /"
~
~/
,~y
~ '"
~'\
,
\..-
\
(\
'-/-)
/'
.//
J
~
624..Q60..09
ams A. Vinctnl & Margaret S.
f01 Otay VallI')' Road
~ul, 'a. C1 92011
624-D60-27
<<vlu A. Vln""nt & Margam S.
,01 Dtay VallO)' Road
~ula Vista. C1 92011
lell 011 Co.
/0 Western Tu Region
O. BoJC 4848
IaMlm. C1 92803
624-060-28
624.060-38
2viu A. Vin""nl & Margaret S.
;01 O/ay VallI')' Road
\ula Visla. C1 92011
624-060-45
lelfte Bell (Corp; (L/F;
olllie 1nveslments Inc.
!S 'Jj" 5Ir..1 Room 1944
'n Ditgo. C1 92101
uhrnan. Helen N.
1()1 51h AV\!,
n Ditgo. CA 92103
ry of Chula Visla
'64th Avenue
IU/a Visra. CA 92010
lnohara. Jimmie & Judi
05 Otay VallI!) Road
IUIa Visla. CA 92011
<i S Malerials, lnc
'0 Nelson & Slolln
O. Box 488
IUla Vista. C1 91912
~rrD,I opuriu I Inc.
O. Box 229000
n Diego. CA 92192
'IJUlOME'J62J1.1.ADD
644-040-01
644.040- 11
640-040-13
640-040-14
644-040-16
1 1 644~0-23
CJregory. John R. & RI/a A.
!!2 Greenwood Place
Boni/a. CA 91902
12 644~0-24
B & B Panners
]]60 South Magnolia A"""u.
El Cqjon. CA 92020
13 644~0-27
Oray Industrial Park
8402-C N. Magnolia AV\!.
SameI'. C1 92071
14 644-040-28
H~, Donald R, TR
C/O Hyspall Preclsloll ProduC!S
1685 Brmwywille A vt'.
Chula Vis/a. CA 91911
15 644-040-44
Brand)w!ne Indus/rial Center, Lid.
4350 La Jolla Village D,'i...,. 1/120
San Diego. CA 92122
16 644-040-45
Brand)'wi"e Indusfl'fal Cemer. l.ld.
4350 La Jolla Village Drivt. 1/120
San Diego. CIl 92122
17 644.040-36
New Englalld Mutua/l.ife Insurance Co.
C/O JM Proper1its
2236 Ru/htlford Rd. 11101
Cal'lsbad, CA 92008
18 644-040.]7
New Ellg/alld Mutual
Life IlISurallee Ce.
2236 Rutherford Rd. #101
Carlsbad. CA 92008
19
CITy of Chula Vista
276 4th Avtllut
Chula Vista. CA 92010
644-040-38
21 644-040-46
Girard Financial Corp.
4320 La Jolla Village Dr.. Ste. 200
San Diego. CA 92122
20 644-040-40
Bom R.voctlble 7Mu/ OJ-G40-40
Jaglnco LP. Faslr.
172 lAndau lAne
E/ Cajon. ct 92021
22 644-040-47
Girard Flnandal Corp.
4320 z." Jolla Village Drive Suite #200
San Diego. C1 92122
23 644.()4()..48
Girard Financial Corp.
4320 La Jolla VllUtg,Drivt. Sle. 200
San Dugo. ct 92122
25 644-041~1
Darling-Delaware Co. IlIe,
251 0 'Colin" Ridge Blvd. 1/300
Irving, TX 75038
26 644-041~2
Darling-De/tno.'are Co. Inc.
251 0 'Conner Ridge Blvd. #300
Irving. TX 75038
27 644-041~3
Darling-Delaware Co. Inc.
251 0 'Conner Ridge Blvd. 1/300
Irving. TX 75038
28 644-041-04
Darling-D.laware Co, Inc.
251 0 'Connn' Ridge Blvd. 1/300
1rvillg. TX 75038
29 644-041-05
Da/'li"g-D,laware Co. 111c.
251 0 'Conner Ridge Blvd. 1/300
Irving. TX 75038
30 644-041-06
Darling-Delaware Ca. Inc.
8737 King (}eorg, Dr., Sle. 200
Dallas. TX 7S23S
31 644-041~7
Darling-D,laware Co. Inc.
8737 King (}eorge Dr., SIt. 200
Dallas. TX 75235
E. xJub;i K..
..uS':',
~..\
-"-""
....~.:'"
644.041.08
rllng-Delawart Co, Tne.
I 0 'Conner Ridge Blwi. 1/300
ing, TX 75038
644-041-09
rling-Delaware Co, Tne.
I 0 'Conner Ridge Blwi. 1/300
ing, TX 75038
644-041.10
rling-Delaware Co, 1ne.
I 0 'Conner Ridge Blvd. 1/300
ing, TX 75038
644-041.11
rUng-Delaware Co, Tile.
I o 'Colmer RIdge Blwi. 1/300
ing, TX 75038
644.04].] 2
'rling-Delaware Co, lilt.
I 0 'Collner RIdge BlId. 1/300
tng, TX 75038
644.04].]3
'rllng-Delaware Co, Inc.
I 0 'Conner Ridg. Blwi. 1/300
Illg, TX 75038
644.041.]4
:rling-D.lawaI" Co, bIt.
1 0 'Conn.r RIdge Blwi. #300
'Ing, TX 75038
644.04].] 7
"ling-De/aware Co, Tllc.
] 0 'Conner Ridge Blwi. 1/300
'lng, TX 75038
644-041-l8
"ling-Delaware Co, 1I1e.
1 0 'Conn.r Rldg. Blwi. 1/300
,'Ing, TX 75038
644.04].]9
lrllng-Delawart Co, Inc.
] 0 'Conner Ridge Blwi. 1/300
.jng. TX 75038
IIlEROME: ..'6:Jl.l.AJ)D
:-~'-9~
i : : to 7
~f:__:,A,\ S~\
47 644.181~1
Ballard James $. & Gloria L.
2543 Sail AllSelma SI.
Sail Diego, CA 92]09
48
Tower SrrUClUIYS Tne
1869 Nirwma A".
Chula Vista, CA 92011
644.18],<12
49
Barber, Wal/er H., JI.
8163 Commercial Sr.
La Mesa, CA 92041
644.181.03
50 644.181-04
Flynn, Thomas J, & Wallda
6621 E Pacific CoaST H~) 1/] 70
Lang Beach, 01 90803
51 644.181.07
CiT)' of Cnula Visla
276 .,n A\',
Cnula Vis/a. CA 92010
52 644.181.08
Cun-ie. Albm L. TR,
Cu",'ie, Madeline F. TR
p, O. Box 725
Moumaill Celli'/" CA 9236]
53 644.181.09
McMahon, JOhn J. & Ve/'Onica W.
]880 Nirvana A\'e.
Chula ViSTa, CA 91911
54 644.181.10
Peninsula Vegeroble E.tch'tIlge 1ne
P. O. Bax 1628
Chula ViSTa, CA 91912
55 644-18J.J1
Fiumam Sal>'OIo/', TR
796 Energ)' Way
Chula Vlsm, CA 91911
56 644.18].]5
Kaul Douglas & Karh,,;'n
8]] EntTi)' Wa}
Chula VISIO, CA 9] 911
~:E3:"'::"'V
OF ~~~~~ vI5-~ ;; 7
57
Towne, Earl & Don""
]84] Col/rldge Place
Escondida, CA 92029
644.181.16
58 644.18].18
California Mezal Forming, Tne.
P.O. B<>>: 1JOS]
San Diego, CA 92170
59 644.181.19
Vasque;:, JUff M. 4< Dora
190 Eas/ 'J'S/.
Chula VIS/a, CA 91910
60
Mew, Agusrjne B. cI
De Brt ceno, Bea/rll L.
]50 Dia:, Rd.
Sail Ysidro, CA 92173
tU4.]8J.20
r
644.181-21
ves, Jose J,
87 51h 51.
~erial Beach, CA. 91932
644.181.22
ITlm, Nicholas & Oanh,
nsuyker, Garrel & Yolanda
~ Enerp Way
"Ia ~~sla, CA 91911
644.181.23
n"rn, Anh"r R. & Uno L.
19 E 24rh $1.
Ilonal Clry, CA 91950
644.]8].24
flvec, Josef <I Bonnl,
~2 Bon/lo V~,'d~ Drive
"ila, CA 9]902
644.181-25
/iv.c, Josef & Bom,;.
52 Bonila Vel'de Drlv.
!lfla, CA 9]902
644-181-26
hert",.d/Palumbo
:J Gold Coasl Enslneedng
J. Box ]] 09
,,/10. CA 91908
644-181-27
/lh"'.sl Ollp & Marbl. Co (CO/P)
7 EII"'g: Wa>,
"Ia Vwa, CA 91911
644.181.28
nrhrop, Roben L. & Mary E.
1 Em'rgy Way
"la Vlsla, CA 91911
644-181.29
'per, Da\':.i M. & Noro P.
~ Hoo,-"r A....'t.
rloll<11 Ciry, CA 91950
644.] 8] -30
nple ....arles R. , Jr.
, E. V;"aj'
,,10 V,sla, CA 91911
JEROME"62$i-iADD
71 644.181.33
SUlherlandlPolumbo
CIO Gold Coasl Ellgill,,,'illg
P.O, Box ]]09
Bonlla, CA 91908
72 644.182-01
Slroonian, Charles B.,
Malldel, Lillda L., II al
13780 E. Imperial HighlVa)'
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
73 644.182.02
Si,'Oolllall. Charl.s B.,
Malldel Llllda L., .1 al
13780 E. lrnpcl'lal High,'a)'
Sallla Fe SprlllgS, CA 90670
74
Olay Industrial Park
1311 La Palma SI.. '3
San Diego, CA 92]09
644.182.03
75
City of Chula Vlsla
276 4th A....
Chula Vls'a. CA 92010
644.182.06
76 644-18UJ7
McCormack, James H. & June
] 981 Tr""
P. O. Box 598
Spdng Valley. CA 9]976
77 644.182.1)8
McCormack. Jall/es H, & lulle
1981 I)'USI
P. O. Box 598
Sp"'ng Vall,>', CA 91976
78 644-182.09
McCorn,atk. James H. & JUlie
1981 TrUSI
P. O. Box 598
Sp,'lng Valley, CA 9]976
79
Olay 1nd"slrlal Park
1311 La Palma Sr. '3
San Dleso, CA 92109
644-182-10
80
Olay IndusIl'ial Park
]3]] La Palma Sr. '3
Stlll Diego, CA 92109
644.]82.]]
81
Otay Indusrrial Park
13 II La PaJnw St. 1/3
Sail DI,go, CA 92109
644.182.]2
82 644-1/SZ-14
JUJIUJ, Jay E. & B,th J.
13276 Norcroft Road
San Di,go, CA 92IJO
83 644-182.15
Jillllll~Z, Euslullo <I Irene
860 Ullion 51.
San Dlt'go, CA 9210]
84 644.182-16
Chu/a Vista Sanllory Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 26105
Fon W,,"h, TX 76II6
85 644-182.17
COllSolldated F,.,ighrways
Corp. of Delaware
P. O. Box 3301
Porriand, OR 97208
86 644.23().1I
Sail Di~go Gas & Eiecrric Co.
1',0. Box 1831
Stln Diego, CA 92112
87 644-2]0-12
Stlll Diego Gas <;{ Eler;trle Co.
P. O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 921I2
~ 644-2]().]J
San Diego Gas & Elmrie Co.
P.O. Box 183]
San Dlefo, CA 921I2
- I
89 644-2J()'14
San DI,go Gas <I EJ.aric Co.
P. O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92] 12
90 644.230-15
Sail D1~go Gas <;{ El<<rric Co
P.O. Box ]83]
Sail DI,go, CA. 92I12
K
.1.......- \ ........,1 ...........
, 644.2]0-16
San Diego Gas & EleClrie Co
1'.0. B~ 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
92 644.230-17
San Diego Gas & Elewie Co
1'.0, BO% 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
93 644-2]0-18
San Diego Gas & EleClrie Co
P.O, Box 1831
Sail Diego. CA 92112
94 644-230-J 9
Sail Diego Gas .t Elecrrie Co
1'. D. Box 1831
San Diego. CA 92112
95 644-2]0-20
01(1)' Va lit). Industrial Panners
2635 Camino del Rio Sourh 1/]09
San Diego. CA 92108
'6 644-230.21
'la:>' VaIlt;' Il1dl6Strial Parrnus
2635 Camino del Rio South /1309
SOli Diego, CA 92108
~7 644-230-22
'Jlay Vallt), Induslrial Panners
2635 Camino del Rio Soulh /1309
San D.ego, CA 92108
'8 644.230-23
"0)' Val/t)' Industrial Panners
3635 Camino Ihl Rio Sourh /1309
'all Diego. CA 92108
~ 644.230-24
')rO)' Valley InduslrlalPm1ners
1635 CamillO del Rio Sou,h 1/309
'an Dltgo, CA 92108
'00 644-230-25
'>tay VaIlt;', Indus Mal Pannm
~635 Camino del Rio Soulh /1309
;011 Diego, CA 92108
SNf:1IOME .J6ZJ}-} ,,tDD
. w" ... '" . I.........
n...._o'O.",\ ""-.;\ ............. ....., "'" ....i ........ ~.... _ '''' ..
101 644-230-26
Bruner, Enrique & Moreelo
E1pl1/'Ul. Ellrlque & Moria
751 Desigll COUl'l
Chula Visla, CA 91911
102 645-021-01
Dtay Rio Business Park
C/O The Chillillgworrh Co/po
149 Pcuadena Aw., Sre. E
Soulh Pasadella, CA 91030
103 645.021.02
Otay Rio Business Park
C/O The Chilllngworrh Corp,
149 Pcuadella A""" Sre. E
Soulh PaJadella, CA 91030
104 645.02l..()3
Dray Rio Business Pm'k
C/O The Chllllngworrh Corp,
149 Pasadena Ave" 511, E
Sourh p{lJadeno. CA 91030
10S 645.021-04
Oray Rio Busilless Park
C/O The ChiIlillgwol'/h Cmp,
149 Pr.so'ldella Al'e, , Sr.. E
Sourh POSOdfll(1, CA 91030
l06 645-02HJj
Olay Rio Business Park
C/O The Chllling,,"orlh Corp.
149 Pasadena Ave., Sit. E
Soulh Pasadena, CA 910]0
107 645-021-06
010) Rio Business Pm'k
C/O The Chl!llllgworrh Corp,
/49 p{lJadella Al'e.. Sle, E
Sourh Posadella, CA 91030
108 645-02HJ7
Owy 'RIo Busilless Park
C/O The Chillillgworrh Corp,
149 Pasadella ,041"" Sit. E
Sourh Pasadena, CA 91030
109 645-021-D8
O/a:>' Rio Busllless Park
C/O The Chilllnglv"rrh CO/p.
149 Posad.lla A 1"" Sw E
Soulh P{lJo'ldflln, CA 91030
110 645-021"()9
010:)' 'Rio Bus/I/tors Pm'k
C/O The Chillingworrh Corp,
149 Pasadena Ave.. Sre, E
Soulh Pasadel/a, CA 91030
111 64S~2].10
Olay RID BtUlnus Park
c/o The Chlllingwonh Corp,
149 Pasad.na A..", Ste, E
South Pcuadlna, CA 910]0
112 645.021.11
Olay 'Rio Busln,sJ Park
C/O Th. ChJ/Jingworth Corp,
149 Pasadena A..,., SI., E
Soulh Pasad.na. CA 91030
I 13 645~22"()1
Oray Rio BtUlness Park
C/O 11" Chlll/ngll/Orth Corp,
149 Pasadena Aw" Sle, E
Soulh Pasadena. CA 91030
114 64's"()22"()2
Otay Rio Busin.ss Park
C/O The Chllllngworth Corp.
149 Pasadena Aw.. SI.. E
Soulh Pasadena. CA 91030
11 S 64's.022-0]
Oray Rio Business Park
C/O The Chillingworth Corp,
U~ 'lUa4tlla A..", Sre, E
Sourh Pasadella, CA 910JO
11 (j 645'()22-()4
Olay Rio Business Park
C/O Tht Chlllingwonh Corp,
149 Pcuadena Aw" SI., E
Sowh Pasadlna, CA 91030
117 64,S..()22-05
OUTY Rio Business Park
CiO The Chlllll/gworth Corp,
149 PasatUna A W" Sit, E
Soulh PasadentJ, CA 9]030
118 645'()22-06
Oury Rio Business Park
C/O Th. Chillingworth Corp.
149 Pasadena Ave., Sr., E
South PasadentJ, CA 91030
119 645'()22-07
OIO.v Rio Busil/us Park
C/O The Cht/lIl/gworth Corp.
/49 Pasadena Ave,. Sit, E
Sourh PaJadena, CA 91030
120 645'()21-],
01U>' Rio Business Park
C/O Th, Chill/ngll/Orlh Corp,
149 Pasad.na Ave.. Sle, E
So"th Pasadena, CA 91030
k
./ 645.021.Z0
'/0)' Rio Business Park
'/0 Th. Chillingwonh Corp.
f9 P"od.na Ave., 51.. E
.u/ ad.na, CA 91030
ZZ 645..()21.Z1
'10\' Rio BusinlSs Park
/0 111. Chillingwonh Co/'p.
'9 Pasad.na A YO'., SI.. E
,ulh Pasad.na, CA 91030
/3 645.021.ZZ
10)' Rio Busin.ss Park
/0 Th. Chllllng""onh Carp.
19 Pasadena A WI., S/e. E
,ulh Pasad.na, CA 91030
14 64S..()Zl.Zl
10)' Rio BusilleJS Park
/0 Th. Chilllllgwonh Carp,
19 Pasadena Ave., 51.. E
Iurn Pasad.na. CA 91030
rs 64S.0Z1.24
'0) Rio Bus;n""s Park
'0 The Chlllingwanh Corp.
'9 Pasad.na Ave. . Sre. E
'urh Pasad.na, CA 91030
'15 645"()21 -25
ay Rio Busln.ss Park
'0 The Chilllngwor1h Corp.
'9 Pasad.na Av... Sr.. E
,urh Pasad.na, CA 91030
'7 645-021.26
0)' Rio Busin.ss Park
'0 The Chillill8M.orlh Co/'p.
9 Pasad.na Av., 5/1. E
urh Pasad.na, CA 9J030
8 645.021.27
a)' Rio Bus/n... Park
'0 The Chill/nglwmh Corp,
9 PaslUUna Ave., Sr.. E
urh Pasadena, CA 91030
9 645..()21.28
ay Rio BusilllSS Park
o Th. C/!illingwnh Corp.
9 Pasad.na AYO'., Sre. E
urh Pasadena, CA 9J030
o
645.021.Z9
12)' . ~usintss Park
o lr.. Chillingworrh Corp.
9 Pasad.na Ale.. Sr.. E
urh Pasadena. CA 91030
"JEROME.J62JI.J.ADD
111 645.021-30
Dray Rio BusilltSS Pm'k
c/o The Chllllngworlh Corp,
149 Pasad.na AYO'., 51.. E
Saulh Pasadella, CA 91030
H2 645-021-31
Olay Rio Busill'" Pal'k
C/O The Chillingworlh Corp.
149 Pasad.na Aw., Ste. E
Soulh PasadtlM, CA 9JOlO
H3 645-021.32
Dray Rio Business Pnrk
c/o Th. Chillingl,'orrh CCllp.
149 Pasadena A VI., Sr.. E
Sourh Pasadella, CA 9J030
H4 645..()21.33
Dray Rio Busln.ss Park
C/O The Chllllngwo/'Ih Corp.
149 Pasad.na A Ie.. Sre. E
Sourh Pasad.lla, CA 91030
135 64S.0Z1.34
Ora~ Rio Busin.ss PO/'k
C/O The Chi/lingwoI'lh Corp.
149 Pasad."a AI"., Sle, E
Sourh Pasadona. CA 9J030
Hf5 645-021.35
Olay Rio Buslll'ss Park
C/O Th. Chillillgwor,n COlp.
149 Pasad.na Ave., Sle. E
Sourh Pasadena, CA 91030
137 645.021.lf5
O/oy Ria Busi".ss PO/'k
C/O Th. Chiliillgl>'a/'rn CO/!,.
149 Pasad."a AI"., Sit. F.
Soulh Pasadella, CA 91030
138 645.021.37
Olay Rio BusilltJS Park
C/O Tht Chillingworrh COlp.
149 Pasadella Ale., Sre. E
Sourh PasMtlla, CA 91030
139 645-021-38
Olay Rio Bus/lltn Park
C/O The Chlllillgwonn Corp.
149 Pasadolla ,oj VI., Sit. E
Souln Pasadella. CA 9 J 030
140 645-021.39
Oray Rio Busill"s Park
C/O Th. Chi//;llgwO/1h Corp.
149 Pasad.lla A"... Sir. E
Sourh Posadolla, CA 91030
-~._.
141 645-021-40
Dray Rio Busincu Park
C/O 1ht Chllllngwonh Corp.
149 Pasadelltt Aw., SI.. E
Soulh Pasad.lla, C'A 91030
142 645-021.41
Olay Rio Busln&r.f P"rk
C/O Th. Chllllng....,rt/! Corp.
149 PasaiUna AI'lr., Sit. E
Sourh Pasadena, CA 91030
143 645.(J21-42
O/a)' Rio BuslnuJ Park
C/O Th. Chlllillgworrh Corp.
149PMwnaAYO'., Sre. E
So",h Pasadtlll1, CA 91030
144 645"()21-43
Dray R/o Buslnm Park
C/O 7h. Chi/llngwonh Corp.
149 Pasadtna AWl., Sr.. E
Sou/n Pasadena, CA 91030
145 645-021.44
010)' Rio Bus/nen Park
C/O Th. Chilllngworth Corp.
149 Pasadtlla AVI., Sre. E
Soulh Pasadena, CA 91030
146 645-021-45
Oray Rio Business Park
C/O 1he Chillingworrh Corp.
149 Pa.uuJella AYO'., SI., E
Sourh Pasadtna, CA 91030
147 645.(J2UJ8
Ola)' Rio BuJin'Js Park
C/O Th. ChilUllg>l'Orrh Corp.
149 Pasad.na A WI., Sre. E
Sourh Pasad.na, CA 91030
149 645.020..()8 & 11
010)' Rio Business P"rk 11
C/O The Chilllngwonh Corp.
149 Pasadtlll1 Aw., SI.. E
Sourh Pasadtna, CA 91030
149 645.(J2G-12
Olay /llo Business P"rk
C/O '/hi Chilllngwm1h Carp.
149 Pasad.na A YO'., Sr.. E
Sourh Pasadl1lO, CA 91030
.
150 644.()6(>.()6
VII/I.d Enltrpr/stJ, LId.
1007 Fifth A.....nu., S"I" 1200
Sail Di.go, CA 92101
K
........." .;I"''' I,; ...::.,;;'"
,
,j 644.01 ()..{) 7
'ounry oj San Diego
/0 Property DeparTment
?2 'C. Strur
'" Diego, CA 92101
51 644-010-06
'If)' of San Diego
;'neral Se",lces, Real Properry Division
201 RujJin Road
an Diego, CA 92125
51 644-020-05
1,>' of San Diego
'/0 Pr'o~rry Department
02 .C' Sn-etl
all Diego. CA 92101
51 644-02()..{)4
:ounry of San Dltgo
;'Ileral Se",fces. Real Propmy Divisioll
201 RujJill Road
an Diego. CA 92123
4 644-040-49
urherlana/Palumbo
'/0 Gold Co<ur Ellgilltfrillg
',0, Box ]]09
10n/ra, CA 91908
fr, Carl Xadle
~lt;-J,SSE.N. JOHNSON & BOD/>i,IR
'801 Missioll Center COU'T. Sulu 460
'an Diego. WI 921~
fr, Thom"" 0, Meade
fUNlaP.;L Fl,"IA/'il;, ADl>Il,WSTRAT10S
'tJOl Mlssioll Celller Cou"'. Sui,. 460
:an Diego. CA 92108
,fr, F, MacKen:.ie Brown
~ROWN, HARPER. BURNS. & HEJ..7Sl;JiKI
'2770 High Bluff Dr;",. Suire 240
ia1l Diego. C4 92/j0
"'Ir. Jerome Fowrnier
OViu.DAN ASSOl;IATZS
5J6J Greenwich Dri"'. Suite 250
S<ln Diego. CA 921Z2.3959
Wor'lt) Schwam. Ga7jield & Ri'"
~rrn.' Mr, WllIam J, Sch..."n;:
1150 F/w Interstate Plaza
101 B Strut
S<lll Diego. CA 92101.4245
!S5 JEJl0/04I;>J62J}.} ,A~D
, ~ , -~, ' ,,,,',,,~
.\ ....w'""... ....-... w...'"'''' "'-
..... .....' \ f..... \
hWfl Rochmes
916 Gumay AVe,
Ch.ln Visla, CA 919lJ
Atomic Investments. Inc,
noo B4-2 Highland Aw,
Natiollal Clf)!. CA 91950
Atlll,' uonard Teyssler
Mr, Joe BOlki1l
2827 Adams Ave,
San Diego. CA 92lJ6
Earl & Donna TOWIk!
1841 Colrrlde PIau
Escondido. CA 92029
Mr, Mi~ McDonald
2636 Camilla Del Rio South 1/202
San Diego. CA 92108
CURRlE
17375 Jordan Road
P,O, Box 1568
S/stltrs. OR 97759
Mr, Joh1l Scorr
1616 Prtcisioll Pm'k Lnlle
Son Ysidro, CA 92173
Jay Justis
891 Energy Way
Chula Vista. CA 91911
COllSolidmed heIgh/ways
875 ElltrEY Wny
Ch.ln ViS/a, CA 91910
JT Raclllg
515 Otay Valley Road
Chula Vista. CA 91911
AIIII.' RUa Gregory
Alldersoll, Goldb.,'g & Waldron
610 SewPO" Cellter Drive, 1/700
NirlVpo., Beach, c''l 92660
Alln: Mr, Ga.)' A, Waldron
Fentoll HO Mattrlal
P,O, Box 64
San Diego, C4 92J12
MI', Jiminez
757 W. by
Sail Diego, CA 92101
Katsuml Takashima
366 Surrey Dr,
BOIl;Ia, CA 91902
Shell Oil Co,
511 N. Brookhurst
Anaheim, CA 92803
At"'.' DiSTrict Mnnnger
Marsh & Omv,"
505 N, Mo/liMII /I 201
EI Caj~ll, CA 9~021
John &: Elicia SCalf
5705 SU/lIleyview Dr,
Bonita. CA 91902
1<'
.....
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RE: PROPOSED OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Otay Valley Road is proposed by the City to be widened from Interstate Highway 805
(I-805) to the eastern City boundary. This portion of Otay Valley Road is approximately
8,800 feet in length and crosses lands within the City of Chula Vista's Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area. Otay Valley Road is presently two lanes for most of its
length, and increases in width to three and four lanes west of Brandywine Avenue and
Oleander Avenue, respectively. The proposed project is to widen Otay valley Road to
a six-lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-way. The roadway will have a design
speed of 55 miles per hour. Project elements include a 16-foot landscaped median, six
12-foot driving lanes, two 8-foot emergency parking lanes, and 12 feet behind each
shoulder curb for sidewalks, landscaping and utilities. The proposed widening is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan.
The proposed widening will occur in two phases. Otay Valley Road widening from 1-805
to Nirvana Avenue will occur during Phase I, and is anticipated to begin in 1992. Phase
11 will include the remainder of the road east of Nirvana, and is anticipated to be
constructed within five years of Phase I completion. Financing for the proposed project
will be funded by the formation of an Assessment District. Thus, approval of the
Assessment District is the financial method to implement the proposed project.
11. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on this project shall consist of the following:
1. The Draft and Final EIR for the project;
2.
All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the environmental consultant and the City, that are not privileged under the Public
Records Act or any other relevant statutes;
,
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the proposed project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
-1-
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
limited to, the following:
a. Chu1a Vista General Plan - 2010
b. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
c. Chula Vista Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
d. Chula Vista Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implemen-
tation Plan/Design Manual Addendum
e. Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy
f. Otay River Valley Redevelopment Area Sensitive Biological Resources
and Wetlands Delineation (1987).
III. TERMlNOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental
effect identified in an ElR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that
"[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency
or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion
is that [s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternative identified in the final ElR.
-Ii
As regards the first of the three potential fmdings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define
the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely
"substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be
gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources code section
21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate"
rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating"
with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent
with Public Resources Code section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy
disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there
are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen"
such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-sil!:nificant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure
or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce
effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15019 requires
only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] QI
-2-
substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify
whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of
insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
IV. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista (City) hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely
informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the project.
V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by the Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. The program is designed to ensure that, during project
implementation, the City and other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation
measures. That program is described in the document entitled, Otay Valley Road
Widening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VI. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified a number of potentially significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the Otay Valley Road widening would cause, all of which could be
avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. These impacts are restated
below, followed by page numbers in the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed.
A. Geologic and soils impacts could occur from development of the roadway on the
unstable river wash, stream sediments and clay loams found in the area (FEIR,
p. 3-7).
B.
The project will result in the loss of 1.2 acres of Diegan Sage Scrub, 2.6 acres
of Tamarlsk/Mulefat Scrubland, 0.2 acre of Willow Riparian Woodland, and 0.2
acre of Freshwater Marsh. Construction activities would impact 1.1 acres of
Tamarlsk/Mulefat Scrubland and 0.2 acre Diegan Sage Scrub (FEIR, p. 3-26 to
3-27).
-Ii
-.",
C. The road widening would conflict with the existing administration, workroom and
parking facilities of the City of Chula Vista Animal Shelter (FEIR, p. 3-38).
-3-
D. The proposed project will accommodate traffic volumes that are expected to occur
along the widened roadway due to long term development and population growth
in the region. Congestion at roadway intersections is expected, including
Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue, Nirvana Avenue, Maxwell Road, and at
both the northbound and southbound on-ramps to 1-805 (FEIR, p. 3-48 to 3-53).
E. Traffic congestion and hazards could result at the intersection of Otay Valley
Road and the Nelson & Sloan Rock Plant until the full widening of Otay Valley
Road occurs and the intersection with Paseo Ranchero is constructed (FEIR
p. 3-52 to 3-53).
F. Paleontological resources may occur in the project area and could be impacted by
roadway development (FEIR, p.3-64).
G. Increases in noise levels from increased traffic along the roadway are projected
to exceed City guidelines for noise exposure (FEIR, p. 3-79 to 3-80).
The sub-sections below restate the above-identified impacts and set forth the mitigation
measures adopted to avoid the impacts.
A. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potentially Significant Effect: Geologic and soils impacts could occur from
development of the roadway on the unstable river wash, stream sediments and
clay loams found in the area (FEIR, p. 3-7).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-8 to 3-9).
1. Unstable geology/soils materials will be removed or stabilized before
roadway construction begins. Surficial layers of organic soils, debris and
soft or loose deposits will be stripped from areas where fill will be placed.
.",
2.
Compressive soils will be removed and replaced with properly compacted
fill. Expansive soils will be buried deep in fills and not within the
roadway section.
3. All slopes will be constructed at a minimum slope of 2.0 horizontal feet
to 1.0 vertical feet. Temporary chain link debris fences, with meshes of
I to 1-1/2 inch square, will be installed with a geofabric material along
the bottom 18-24 inches of the fence to control silting in sensitive wetland
areas which could result from sediments in runoff.
-4-
B. BIOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: The project will result in the loss of 1.2 acres of
Diegan Sage Scrub, 2.6 acres of TamarisklMulefat Scrubland, 0.2 acre of Willow
Riparian Woodland, and 0.2 acre of Freshwater Marsh. Construction activities
would impact 1.1 acres of TamarisklMulefat Scrubland and 0.2 acre Diegan Sage
Scrub (FEIR, p. 3-26 to 3-27).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these fmdings (FEIR, p. 3-28).
1. Losses of wetland habitats will include TamarisklMulefat Scrubland,
Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh totalling 3.0 acres,
and will be mitigated by the creation of new wetland areas within the river
valley. Any such mitigation will include extensive revegetation with
willow woodland and the use of San Diego marsh-elder to maximize value
to wildlife and mitigate for the loss to this sensitive plant species.
Mitigation will be at a 2: 1 acreage replacement ratio for wetlands lost.
2. The roadsides adjacent to native vegetation communities east of Nirvana
Avenue will be designed in a manner that would preclude the potential for
vehicle access or illegal dumping into the river bottom or onto the slopes.
Incorporation of guard rails or fences would be appropriate. Use of
thorny vegetation may also be used in conjunction with temporary fences.
3. The roadway slopes will be revegetated with native plant materials
indigenous to the area or which complement the existing native
communities, such as sage scrub or sycamore woodland species.
4.
Where construction activities are to occur in or adjacent to native
vegetational communities, work will be restricted to the delineated project
footprint by the placement of temporary construction fences or flagging
along both sides of the street. This measure is incorporated in the project
description.
6. Following construction, the 20-foot wide construction corridor will be
recontoured to natural or lower levels and revegetated with native
vegetation favoring Willow and Mulefat Riparian Scrub with minor
elements of Diegan Sage Scrub.
These measures are consistent with the requirements and conditions of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for this project, which are hereby
incorporated by reference, and attached as Attachment "A".
C. LAND USE
Potentially Significant Effect: The road widening would conflict with the existing
administration, workroom and parking facilities of the City of Chula Vista Animal
Shelter (FEIR, p. 3-38).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-39).
1. Impacts to the City's Animal Shelter will be mitigated through the
redesign of the site and relocation of parking, workroom and
administration facilities to the southern part of the property.
D. TRAFFIC
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed project will accommodate increased
volumes which are expected to occur along the widened roadway due to long term
development and population growth in the region. Congestion at roadway
intersections is expected, including Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue,
Nirvana Avenue, Maxwell Road, and at both the northbound and southbound
on-ramps to 1-805 (FEIR, p. 3-48 to 3-53).
4i
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-53 to 3-54).
1. Signals will be installed as the City Engineer determines is appropriate in
order to meet the City's Traffic Threshold Standard.
-6-
2. Maxwell Road will be restriped to provide a southbound left turn-lane at
its intersection with Olay Valley Road.
3. As required in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, traffic conditions will
be monitored by the City's Traffic Engineer to implement improvements
at the appropriate time.
Potentially Significant Effect: Traffic congestion and hazards could result at the
intersection of Olay Valley Road and the Nelson & Sloan Rock Plant until the full
widening of Olay Valley Road occurs and the intersection with Paseo Ranchero
is constructed (FElR p. 3-52 to 3-53).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final ElR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these [mdings (FEIR, p. 3-54).
1. As an interim measure, roadway improvements at this intersection shall
be completed as part of Phase I.
E. PALEONTOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: Paleontological resources may occur in the project
area and could be impacted by roadway development (FElR, p.3-64).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final ElR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-65).
1.
A qualified paleontologist will be at the pre-grade meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
-Ii
. ~,
2.
A paleontology monitor will be on site at all times during the cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments through and immediately adjacent to the
Mission Valley formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the
event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontological
monitor will be allowed to temporarily direct, divert or halt grading to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. Any fossil remains
collected will be cataloged and deposited (with landowner's permission)
at the San Diego Natural History Museum.
-7-
F. NOISE
Potentially Significant Effect: Increases in noise levels from increased traffic
along the roadway (stated to occur with or without the project) are projected to
exceed City guidelines for noise exposure (FEIR, p. 3-79 to 3-80).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been
made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3-81).
1. A perimeter masonry wall, six feet high, will be installed at the back lot
line of some residences backing up to Otay Valley Road. The wall will
be at the top of the slope, to utilize slope height to increase the line of
sight break between traffic and rear yard receiver locations. (It should be
noted that a large percentage of the noise at the west end of the project
area comes from 1-805.)
G. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The Cumulative Impacts analysis was based on the list of proposed and planned
projects in the area, shown on Table 2.4-1 in the FEIR, and also on the
Cumulative Impacts analysis contained in the General Plan Update FEIR (since
the project is shown in the General Plan). In summary, cumulative impacts
would occur in the issue areas of flooding downstream, biological resources,
agricultural lands, traffic circulation, and noise. With the exception of
agricultural lands, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts have been
mitigated to a level below significance either through project mitigation measures,
or through adherence to standard City engineering and building requirements.
Regarding agricultural lands, the FEIR states that the project area is not primarily
agriculturally oriented, with prevailing uses being residential and light industrial,
and that loss of this acreage (3.9 acres) to the roadway does not create a project
significant impact.
VII.
INFEASffiILITY OF ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
.4
._~,
The selection of project alternatives was based on CEQA's requirement of analysis of the No
Project Alternative, the General Plan description of roadway location, and a site constraints
analysis performed for this project (Otay River Valley Redevelopment Area Sensitive Biological
Resources and Wetlands Delineation [Michael Brandman Associates, 1987]). Three different
alternative alignments were evaluated subsequent to completion of this study before the proposed
alignment was chosen.
-8-
The proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts if all recommended mitigation
measures are implemented. Because the project's impacts have been mitigated below a level of
significance an analysis of the alternatives is not technically required. However, the
decisionmakers, after reviewing the EIR and in approving the project specifically reject the No
Project Alternative and the other alternatives for the following reasons:
No Proiect Alternative
The No Project Alternative consists of no action taken by the City of Chula Vista to construct
or implement the proposed project or either of the project alternatives. This alternative would
discourage future infill industrial growth along Otay Valley Road and inhibit economic growth
in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. This is contrary to the goals of the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency as set forth in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. The plan
specifically calls for the correction of problems relative to circulation, infrastructure, and public
utility inadequacies. The No Action Alternative would also be inconsistent with the City of
Chula Vista's Draft General Plan Circulation Element roadway designation for Otay Valley
Road, which calls for a six lane prime arterial and major street standards for Otay Valley Road.
In addition, if this alternative is selected, the lack of capacity and low level of service on Otay
Valley Road could constrain future developments north, south, and east of the project. Future
development proposals that would contribute traffic to Otay Valley Road, or require the
extension of utility services along the roadway, would be affected most.
Locational Alternative 1
Locational Alternative 1 is the same as the project with the exception that the six lane roadway
would be reduced to a four lane roadway east of Nirvana. The right-of-way would thus be
decreased from 128 feet to either 100 feet or 84 feet (depending on design). The environmental
consequences of constructing Locational Alternative 1 would be identical or very similar to the
proposed project with respect to geology and soils, landform, land use, agriculture, aesthetics,
cultural and paleontological resources, and park, recreation and open space. The differences in
environmental impacts between Locational Alternative 1 and the proposed project are primarily
to biological resources and to traffic conditions.
Biology
.~
This alternative reduces the right-of-way from 128 feet to 100 feet east of Nirvana
Avenue while retaining the same general road alignment as the proposed project.
Impacts of this alternative would generally parallel those of the proposed project with
only a slight reduction in magnitude. Loss of wetlands would total approximately 1.23
acres with proportionally fewer San Diego Marsh-Elder impacted.
Loss of habitat for riparian bird species would still be considered significant. Reducing
the right-of-way to 84 feet would lower the wetland impacts to 0.60 acre, still resulting
in significant adverse wetlands impacts. Under either the proposed project or the reduced
widths of the Locational Alternative 1, wetland impacts and impacts to the sensitive San
Diego Marsh-Elder are considered significant but mitigable through creation of replace-
ment wetland habitats including the heavy utilization of marsh elder in the plantings.
-9-
4il
Traffic
The City's recommended maximum traffic volume for a four lane major street is 30,000
VPD. The General Plan forecast volume at build-out is 26,000 VPD east of Nirvana
Avenue, thus the alternative of a four lane classification would seemingly be adequate.
Such a classification would require an amendment of the General Plan Circulation
Element. However, the roadway was not designed to be four lanes in this location
because of traffic circulation considerations. This segment of roadway is located between
Paseo Ranchero, which is planned as a six lane facility, and the rest of Otay Valley Road
to the west, which also requires six lanes. The volumes of traffic entering the Otay
Valley RoadlPaseo Ranchero intersection are projected to be 76,000 ADT. Thus, the six
lane width along this segment of Otay Valley Road is necessary in order to provide
sufficient capacity entering and exiting the intersection. Also, a short four lane segment
of road between six lane roads on either side could create congestion and hazardous
conditions.
Locational Alternative 2
The environmental consequences of constructing Locational Alternative 2 would be the same as
the proposed project and Locational Alternative 1 with respect to land use, agriculture, and
parks, recreation and open space. Environmental impact differences between Locational
Alternative 2 and the proposed project are identified for traffic conditions, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, and landform and aesthetics, as well as traffic. Impacts
to transportation are the same for Locational Alternative 2 as described above for Locational
Alternative 1. Overall, impacts on the remaining natural, cultural, and scenic resources would
be greater from Locational Alternative 2 than from the proposed project.
Biology
Under this alternative all direct adverse impacts to the wetland habitats would be
eliminated. Due to the extensive slope cutting required, however, an extensive loss of
quality Diegan Sage Scrub habitat and a wide array of sensitive plans and animals
occurring on these hillsides would be severely impacted by this proposed alternative.
The biological impacts of this loss would be significant.
I,
The only known large population of Greene's Ground Cherry would be lost. Such a loss
is considered unmitigable. Also eliminated would be the dense stands of Coast Cholla
and the Fishhook Cactus population. The latter occurs in densities seldom seen in San
Diego County; moreover, the average size of specimens far surpasses other known
substantial populations. Also heavily impacted would be the State-listed endangered Otay
Tarwee population, along with significant colonies of Coast Barrel Cactus and
Cleveland's Golden Stars.
One pair of California Gnatcatchers would probably be lost from the slopes under this
alternative. The Orange-throated Whiptail population would also be impacted. The
Diegan Sage Scrub slopes which would be impacted are considered excellent gnatcatcher
habitat.
-10-
Cultural Resources
Locational Alternative 2 would impact all of the cultural resource sites that will be
affected by the proposed project, and would additionally impact another potentially
significant site. Thus, Locational Alternative 2 is less preferred for cultural resources
than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Locational Alternative 2 would require cutting into the steep hillsides located in the
northeastern section of the project area. Soil conditions in this area consist of terrace
escarpments and are' considered to be unstable due to the presence of cobble strata.
Consequently, greater maximum slope ratios could be required (e.g., 4:1) thereby
increasing even further the amount of land disturbed. In addition, retaining walls, with
a maximum height of 20 feet, would most likely be required as mitigation. In summary,
Locational Alternative 2 is less preferred than the proposed project with respect to
geotechnical and soils constraints.
Landform! Aesthetics
Locational Alternative 2 would also result in significant landform impacts. This
Alternative would result in major landform alteration due to the amount of cutting that
would be required to achieve 2: I or 4: I slope ratios. Cut slopes would be required north
of the roadway for approximately one-half mile in the northeastern part of the project
area. Maximum height of cut slopes would be approximately 65 feet. Landform
modifications in this area would have significantly adverse impacts on landscape
aesthetics since this Alternative would result in strong visual contrasts with the current
natural hillsides and vegetation cover. Consequently, Locational Alternative 2 is less
preferable than the proposed project with respect to landform and aesthetics.
...f!
'j,
-11-
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Chu1a Vista City Council in approving the
Assessment District which implements the roadway which is the subject of the FEIR, having
considered the information contained in the FEIR, and having reviewed the public testimony and
record, makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings
and the action of the City Council approving the Assessment District.
All of the identified potentially significant project impacts have been mitigated to a level less
than significant, as set forth in the Findings. The project also contributes to cumulative impacts.
However, as set forth on page 8, these impacts were deemed to be less than significant. The
City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the roadway project would outweigh
any significant andlor cumulative impacts. The City Council has reviewed and considered all
of the alternatives described in the Final EIR. The project selected by the Council was chosen
for two major reasons:
. It is consistent with the General Plan.
. It accommodates projected buildout traffic.
The alternatives were rejected by the Council:
. No Project Alternative -- because of inconsistency with the General Plan, lack of
roadway capacity for projected traffic volumes, and low level of service that
would result.
. Locational Alternative No.1 -- because of inconsistency with the General Plan,
lack of roadway capacity necessary to handle future volumes of traffic utilizing
the Otay Valley Road/Paseo Ranchero intersection, poor traffic design, and
because this alternative does not reduce any impacts to a level below significant.
. Locational Alternative No.2 -- because of equal or greater environmental impacts
associated with this slight! y different alignment.
The decision makers find that the following factors support the approval. of the Assessment
District which implements the project, and therefore, sets forth and adopts the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations:
.~
1. The roadway project is consistent with, and thus will fulfill attainment of the General
Plan designation as six lane prime arterial and major street, and the Redevelopment Plan
goal which calls for the "development of a more efficient and effective circulation
corridor free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interfaces. "
2. As set forth in the [mdings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project
or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the Findings, which reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
-12-
3. Approval of the Assessment District which implements the Project will result in the
following benefits:
. Restoration of approximately 6 acres of wetland within the Otay River flood way
(twice the impacted amount).
. Construction of needed roadway improvements commensurate with General Plan
requirements to serve existing and anticipated development in the area.
. Construction job opportunities in an economy which is currently suffering from
such opportunities.
. Construction of the roadway will permit, support, and help promote the further
industrial development of the Otay Valley area which includes over 200 acres of
undeveloped land zoned for light industrial land use. This will provide numerous
job opportunities in construction, business, and industry.
. Construction of the roadway will improve the public safety and aesthetics in the
area. The current facility is inadequate to support current and anticipated
volumes of traffic, and for most of its length does not include curb, gutters, or
sidewalks, has poor road surface conditions, and is visually cluttered with
overhead utility lines.
-4
"'"i',
-13-
'OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
MffiGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Monitoring Program Description and PUqJOse
Public Resources Code ~ 21081.6 requires a lead or responsible agency that approves a project
where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects,
to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or
avoid significant environmental effects. "
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Otay Valley Road Widening Project. A Draft
and Final EIR was prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts
and, where appropriate, recommended measures to reduce substantially or avoid the impacts.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program is required to ensure that the adopted measures are
implemented. The City of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)
after considering the Final EIR.
Roles and Resoonsibilities
The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through both phases of the project, including
final design, pre-grading, construction and operation. The City of Chula Vista has the primary
enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental
Review Coordinator (ERe) will provide final approval for the completion of the implementation
of measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be
responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of measures. The MCC will
interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction
Supervisor, and the Biological Monitor, all who have some responsibility for the implementation
of measures.
Mitie:ation Monitorine: Procedures
The MMP consists of Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures, f1ling requirements, and
reporting and compliance verification. These procedures are outlined below.
.....
Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures: Table 1 identifies the procedures of the MMP. For
each mitigation measure, it states the monitoring activity, the timing of implementation of the
measure, and who is responsible for verifying that the measure has been implemented and for
[mal approval.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Files: Files shall be established to document and retain the
records of the MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department.
Reporting and Compliance Verification: The City's Mitigation Monitoring Report Forms are
designed to record the monitoring activity in a consistent manner with appropriate approvals.
-14-
The forms will be completed and signed by the individuals responsible for the monitoring and
approval of the measures. These forms will be placed in the MMP files.
Program Operations
The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each
mitigation measure:
1. The City of Chula Vista, Environmental Review Coordinator (ERe), shall designate a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator, who will be responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the mitigation measures.
2. The ERC shall provide to the MCC, the Mitigation Monitoring Report Forms; a copy
of Table 1; and other pertinent information.
3. The MCC shall coordinate the implementation of the mitigation measures and shall
complete a Form for each activity, and forward the report to the ERC for final approval.
4. All completed forms shall then be placed in the MMP files.
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the
refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The ERC, with advise from staff, is responsible
for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are
refined, the ERC would complete a Mitigation Monitoring Report Form documenting the
change, and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about
refmed requirements.
[C:IWP5110VROAD\FINDINGS.TXT]
.~
.'.;,
-15-
",
ATTACHMENT "A"
RFr:f:f\rr:-n MAR
6 1992
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES QISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
March 5, 1992
qEPl' ;U
A,TfNIIONOI
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Chula Vista
c/o Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Attn: Keith Merkel
P.O. Box 985
'National city, California 91951-0985
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your request dated January 9, 1992 to
amend Permit No. 90-147-EW which authorized you to widen otay
Valley Road from Interstate 805 to the eastern boundary of the
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California.
Under the provisions of ]] Code of Federal Regulation
]25.6(d), the start date is to remain the same and the completion
date is extended from January 1], 1992 to January 1], 199].
The terms and conditions of Permit No. 90-147-EW, except as
changed herein, remain in full force and effect.
Please note that a copy of this letter is being forwarded to
those agencies on the enclosed list.
Sincerely,
~
John Winn
Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
.../A
Copies Forwarded:
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Clyde Morris,
Wetlands and Dredged Material Section (W-7-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
u.S. Fish and wildlife Service
ATTN: Nancy Gilbert,
24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, California 92656
California Department of Fish and Game
ATTN: Environmental Services Supervisor,
330 Golden Shore, suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
-Ii
.~,
MAR 31 '92 11;48AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.2/B
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Loa ANQnn QIHf'.lCr. CQP\'5 Of f.NGINetRG
~,:~
~ ~
REP(.'tTO
ATnNTIONO'
March 21, 1990
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Chula Vista
c/o Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Attention: Keith Merkel
P.O. Box 985
National City. CA 92050
File No. 9o-147-RH
Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your application and/or letter dated February 12, 1990
for Department of the Army authorization to widen Otay Valley Road from
Interstate 805 to the eastern boundary of the City of Chula Vista. This will
result in impacts to 4.1 acres of existing wetlands in the Otay River on the
eastern edge of Chula Vista. San Diego Co.
Regula~ions for our permit program, PUbliShed in the Federal Register,
include Part 330 - Nationwide Permits (see the enclosure). The Corps of
Engineers has determined that your proposed activity is covered under the
nationwide permit for diSCharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal
rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands,
that are located above the headwaters, Which would cause the loss or
substantial adverse modification of between one and 10 acres of such waters.
and where the Division Engineer determines that an individual permit is not
required. (Section 330.5 (a)(26)(i)).
"\,
As long as you comply with conditions on the attached sheet and the
nationwide permit conditions (Section 330.5 (b)l. an indiVidual permit is not
required. This Nationwide Permit verification is valid until the nationwide
permit is modified. reissued. or revoked. All nationwide permits are
scheduled to be modified. reissued or revoked prior to January 13, 1992. It
is incumbent upon the permittee to remain informed of any changes to
Nationwide Permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when
they occur. Furthermore. if you commence or are under contract to commence
this activity before the date the Nationwide Permit is modified or revoked.
you will have twelve months from the date of the modIfication or revocation to
complete the actiVity under the present terms and conditions of this
nationwide permit.
This letter does not convey any property rights, either 1n real estate or
material. or any exclusive privileges. Also. it does not authorize any injury
to property'or invasion of rights or any infringement of Federal. State, or
lDca1 laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the requirement to obtain State
or local assent required by law for the activity.
'-l,l
11RR 31 '92 11: 49RI1 PRCIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
,-
P.3,S
.2.
If you have any questions please call Liz VarnhagQn. Regulatory Branch, at
(213) 894-5606 any workday. Please refer to the file number 90-147-R~ in any
future correspondences.
~~D~
F.J>qz .
Richard Harlacher
Chief, Southern Section
Enclosure
-.4i
MRR 31 '92 11:49RM PRCIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICRL
P.4;'8
S~ECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PERMIT NOHBER 90-147-RH
1. The permittee shall implement in full all portions of the otay
valley Road Widening Restoration Flan (pacific Southwest Biological
services, dated February 8, 1990).
2. The permittee shall conduct focUSed and repeated surveys for
least Bell's vireos prior to commencement of any construction work
during the period 1 April through 15 September and that all
construction activities shall be kept at a minimum distance of 300
feet from any active nests and at no time will the noise levels
fro~ construction be allowed to exceed 60 dB(Al at any nest site.
3. The permittee shall submit annual reports in December,
documenting results of the monitoring and the prescribed remedial
maintenance to be preformed to the Corps of Engineers, u.s. Fish
and Wildlife SeTVice, and the California Department of Fish and
Game for review, comment, and general information. A minimum of
80 percent suooessrul establishment of the planted riparian
vegetation shall be attained by the end of the first 12 month
period. Following that, the plantings shall bs allowsd to grow to
create a dense canopy, and thinned as needed to maintain dense,
healthy growth as outlined in the Milestones and Corrective
Maintenance section of the applicant's Restoration Plan. All this
shall be reflected in the final monitoring progress report. If
this success is not achieved, then the monitoring and maintenance
period will he extended further, after review and recommendations
are submitted to the applioant through the Corps from the resource
agencies.
4. The permittee shall provide to the Corps, FWS, CDFG, and EPA
copies of the executed easements over the mitigation site upon
submittal of the initial monitoring report as required by the
mitigation plan.
5. The mitigation site will he excavated and planted concurrent
or preceding the construction of roadway sections which will impact
existing wetlands.
-./!
6. The permittee shall implement protective devices to
substantially preclude public vehicle access to the river bottom
and roadside dumping into the wetlandS of the otay River fro~ otay
valley Road.
7. Roadway slopes and rigll.t-of-ways shall be replanted using
appropriate native vegetation including sage scrub and riparian
eCotone elements as specified in the project landscape plans.
e. Prior to commencement of construction, 11 set of bonds shall be
posted by the permittee with the Corps in order to ensure the
complete implementation of all required mitigation. These bonds
will be in the amount of $484,000. Portions of the bonds may be
released incrementally by the Corps and at the discretion of the
Corps following initial implementation, as described in the
miti9ati~n plan document.
MAR 31 '92 11:5BAM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.5/8
FACT SHEET
1. Oopy of Pre-Discharqe Notifioation
US ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT--SPLCO-R
DISTRICT
CONTACT:
R-t Q li a E' d ~\~
iiarlacher 'lR.f:'iW6i.;
P.O. BOX 27;1.1
LOS ANGELES, Cl\. 90053-2325
***********.*****...********.*..*******************************~*
*******************************.
DAT~ RECEIVED DY DISTRICT: February 23, 1990
BXPlaATXON DATB (received date + 20 days): March 15, 1990
DATE coHKBmS DUE: March 10, 1990
*******************~~***********.***.***.********.*****.*********
********************************
AGJlllllCY:
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service
In accordance with revised regulations pUblished at 33 CFR
330.7 on l3 November 1986, the following information regarding a
proposed discharge under the nationwide permit at 33 CFR
330.5(a) (26) is forwarded to you. If you have lmy views as to
whether an individual permit should be required for the proposed
work you sbould forward those views to the District ~ngineer.
If a response is not received from you by March 12, 1990 the
permittee may be advised to commence work under the existing
nationwide permit.
PLEASE REFER TO CASE NUMBER PDN 90-147-RH IN YOUR RESPONSE.
********~******..*.*...*****..********.**********...*************
********************************
AlIPL:tCANT N1\NE:
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Robin Putnam
(619)691-5120
.~
. ~,
AGENT NAME:
paoific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
ATTENTIONl Keith W. Merkel
P.O. Box 985
National city, Cl\. 92050
(619)477-5333
PREDSCJlG.PF
11AR 31 '92 11:51AM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.6/B
WATERWAY N2\HE:
otay River
LOCATION: Eastern edge at the city of Chula vista adjacent to
county of san Diego. The project extends from Interstate
805 east to the city boundary along the current alignment
o~ otay Valley Road north of the Otay River.
county:
USGS Quadrangle:
Section:
Township:
Range:
San Diego
7.5' Imperial Beach, CA
24
18 south
1 West
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Chula Vista is proposing to widen otay valley Road
from Interstate 805 t.o the eastern city boundary. The roadway lies
within the otay River valley adjacent to urbanized and agricultural
lands on the western extreme and steep native sage scrub slopes to
the north and uplands as well as wetland of various quality to the
south on the eastern end of the roadway. The road widening would
extend for a distance of approximately 8800 feet and the road would
be widened to a 6 lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-
way. The roadway would generally expand the width of the existing
otay valley Road and associated slopes by approximately 80 feet.
AREA OF WATBRS (ineludlng wetlandS) SUBJECT TO LOSS AND/OR
SUBa~ANTXAL ADVERSE MODIFICATION AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED WORR:
The proposed project would result in the loss of 2.6 acres of
tamariakjmulefat ahrubland characterized by a predominance of
Tamarix chinenais and Baccharis salicifolla. Scattered clusters
of willows (Salix lasiolepis and s. qooddinqii) and an abundance
of San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana) and desert fragrance
(Hvmenoclea lUonoqyra) are also indicative of this habitat. A total
of 0.2 acres of willow riparian woodland characterized by
individually mappable clusters of willows (Salix spp.) would also
be impacted along with 0.2 acres of freshwater marsh represented
by southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus), soft-flag cattail
(Tvnha ] atifolia) and scattered stands of California bulrush
(Seirous califOrnicu~). In addition to these losses, the project
would lead to short-term construction impacts to within a 20 root
wide corridor at the base or the roadway slope. This area totals
1.1 acres of tamarisk/mulefat shrubland.
....
~DXTXONAL INFORHATXCN:
To compensate for project impacts, the applicant has proposed
a mitigation plan whioh would oreate 5.S acres of new wetlands
within a single block of land located in a filled portion of the
Otay River. This progra111 would include the removal of fill
material, recontouring and revegetation of the site and protection
P~EOS"HG.Pf
11RR 31 "32 11: S2RM PRCIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICRL
P.7/B
of the site through restrictions under a california Conservation
Easement for the protection of biological resources. In addition,
the project applicant is proposing to restore through recontouring
and revegetation, the wetlands impacted due to short-term
construction activities. Roadway slopes will be replanted with
appropriate native vegetation. This detailed plan is attached for
review and comment.
The otay River valley in the proximity of the proposed project
area supports nesting Least Bell's Vireos. The location of these
birds and 1s discussed in the attached biological survey and
analysis conducted for the project. The nearest nest location is
appro)(imately 300 feet from the proposed right-of-way. The project
applicant has provided noise data indicating that the noise levels
at the nest sites whioh would be generated under the proposed
project will be below the 60-80 dB (A) impact thresholds oited
utilized in the Comprehensive species Management Plan developed for
the vireo (Recon 198B). The noise models utilized for the project
predict that the 60 dB(A) lower threshold will be attained at a
distance of approximately 100 feet from the nesting habitat under
future traffic predictions for the year 2006 (attaChed document) .
Further, the applicant has incorporated constraints in construction
such that the projeot area will be reviewed by a qualified
biologist prior to conduoting grading activities and all
construction work will be kept a minimum of 300 feet from any
active nests during the nesting period of 1 April through 15
September. Should specific construction activities require a
greater set-back tnan 300 feet to maintain a noise level below 60
dB(A) at any nest site, these wi11 be incorporated into the
construction constraints4
The applicant has proposed the following conditions to the issuance
of a Nationwide Permit pursuant to 33 eFR 330.5(a)(26):
~. That the permittee shall implement in full
Otay valley Road Widening Restoration P~an
BiOlogical services, dated February B, 1990).
all portions of the
(pacific Southwest
.~
2. That the permittee shall conduct a focusted survey for least
Bell's vireos prior to commencement of any construction work during
the period l. April through 15 september and that all construction
aotivities shall be kept at a m1nimwn distance of 300 feet from any
active nests and at no time will the noise levels from construction
be allowed to exceed 60 dB(A) at any nest site.
3. That the permittee shall provide to the Corps, FWS, CDFG, and
EPA copies of the executed easements over the mitigation site upon
submittal of the initial monitoring report as required by the
mitigation plan.
PREDSC"G.PI
MAR 31 "l2 11: 52AM PACIFIC SOUT,iWEST BIOLOGICAL
P.B/B
4 _ That the mitigation site will be excavated and planted
concurrent or preceding the construction of roadway sections which
will impact existing wetlands.
5. That the permittee implement protective devices to
substantially preclude public vehicle access to the river bottom
and roadside dumping into the wetlands of the otay River from Otay
Valley Road. '
6. That roadway slopes and right-of-ways be replanted using
appropriate native vegetation inclUding sage :>crub and riparian
ecotone elements as specified in the project landscape plans.
2. Resource Agency comments~ Only the O.S. Fish and wildlife
Servioe commented on the PDN. They said that they had reviewed the
mitigation plan and do not agree that the plan offsets all project
induced adverse environmental impacts. They requested the
opportunity to halp ensure that project-related impacts to the
wetlands are avoided, mi.nimized, andlor compensated for through
review of an individual permit application.
:3 . Baois for ll'ot: Requiring an Individual Permit: comments
concerning the proposed project were requested from the California
Department of FiSh and Game, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. The District Regulatory
Br<lnch believes that, based on the information provided, the
proposed activity would not .have lllore than a minimal adverse
environmental effect on the aquatic environment either separately
or cumulativelY. A telephone conversation with Fish and wildlife
service staff revealed that their specific outstanding concerns
were with potential secondary project illlpacts to sensitive upland
areas and the need for a bUffer zone around the construction
corridor. The applicant had previously explored ways in which to
resolve these issues, and states that there is no practicable
solution. With regard to impacts to the wetlands, the Corps
believes that these have been addressed satisfactorily. Therefore,
in accordance with the regulations (33 CFR 330.7(d)) the proposed
work may be authorized by nationwide permit. If no response is
received by Karch 15, 1990, the District Regulatory Branch will
assume tha.t Division concurs with our recoDllllendation and wi;:;:'l
proceed accordingly.
4. Recommonded ~peoial conditions! Same as above.
.....
vJ;1:.e- (..11~~~ ,i1 ~hll't,'
II CMJ:l/ /
CHARLES M. HOLT
Chief, Regulatory Branch
PR~PSCHG.Pf
~/3
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
OONALO R. WORLEY.
WILLIAM ..J. SCHWARTZ, .JR
TIMOTHY K. GARFIELO
ROBEF'tT C. RICE
CHARLES V. BERWANGER
JENNIFER TREESE WILSON
JAMES P. O'NEIL
PATRICIA KENT
..JOSEPH A. SOl-OMaN
SUSAN BAOE HULL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1150 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA
401 "s" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-4245
. TELEF'H'QNE: {OI9J 239-9815
~
TELEFAX: (619) 239-e854
FILE NO.
'" "~"'ESSIO~ CORPORATION
May 26, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Honorable Mayor and City Council
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: otay Valley Road Assessment District No. 90-2
May 26, 1992 Hearing
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members:
As you are aware, we represent Charles Siroonian and Charles
pratty who are owners of property in the City of Chula vista. Their
property 1S included within the proposed otay Valley Road
Assessment District No. 90-2, and they have filed objections with
the City opposing these assessment proceedings, which are being
conducted pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (1913
Act) (S 10000 et seq., streets & Highways Code).
By its actions of April 21, 1992, the city Council, over our
objections, certified the EIR for this road improvement project,
and it initiated these assessment proceedings, preliminarily
approved the engineer's report and set the matter for hearing on
May 26, 1992. We continue our opposition to the assessment
proceedings for the reasons set out below.
We question the legality of imposing an assessment district
under the 1913 Act for the purpose of enhancing traffic
circulation. These improvements should more properly be funded by
the city through mechanisms other than an assessment proceeding,
because the improvements are calculated to provide a general
benefit to the city and the general public, rather than a special
benefit to the properties proposed for assessment.
Even if we accept for purposes of argument that a 1913 Act
proceeding would be legally acceptable for a portion of these types
of improvements on the theory that some special benefit would be
realized, we remain seriously concerned about the city's non-
compliance with the 1913 Act mandate. Specifically, the concern is
that the road improvements proposed to be funded by this assessment
Hon. Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 2
.
proceeding far exceed the level of improvements needed to provide
my clients with any special traffic circulation benefits. Any
colorable compliance with the 1913 Act authority would require the
City either to reduce significantly the scope of the improvements
to equate with any benefit being bestowed upon the area assessed,
or, in the alternative, to expand the area of benefit to include
developing and future growth areas which will add to the
circulation impacts and benefit from the improvements. The scope
of the improvements and the studies prepared by the City certainly
reflect the anticipation by the City that those developing and
future growth areas will benefit substantially from the assessments
to be imposed on the limited area of benefit now described.
LEVEL OF PROTEST
Before discussing the legal points in more detail, we must
urge the city Council to consider seriously the level of protest by
property owners in the alleged area of benefit. These protests are
filed under the authority of sections 10301 through 10312 of the
streets and Highways Code.
The intensity of concern evidenced by the level of protest
must give the City Council reason for pause and reason for
investigation of why so many owners are protesting these
proceedings from which they are supposed to receive a benefit. It
must be apparent to all that the underlying reason for this level
of protest is the property owners' inherent sense that the proposal
is unfair to them because it would assess them for a level of
improvement that far exceeds any special benefit to them. It is
clear that the proposal is geared to position the City to
accommodate the developing and future growth areas to the east,
which at this point are not included within the areas to be
assessed.
We urge your Council to heed the concerns raised by the strong
protest of property owners and find that this unfair imposition
must not be visited upon them when the benefit is City- and even
region-wide.
1913 ACT AUTHORITY
The 1913 Act authorizes the imposition of special assessments
on property to pay for public improvements and it conditions that
authority on the rule that the levy on each property may only be in
proportion to the benefits recei ved by each property. The
California Supreme Court in citv of Baldwin Park v. Stoskus (1972)
Hon. Mayor and city council
City of Cnula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 3
8 Cal.3d 563, 105 Cal.Rptr. 325, a case involving an assessment
proceeding for construction of a public street and storm drain,
explained the assessment district authority as follows:
" . . . [TJhe justification for the imposition of a
special assessment is that the property to be assessed
will receive a special benefit over and above that
received by the general public. [Citations omitted. ] Of
course, the amount of each individual assessment is not
necessarily measured by the precise amount of 'benefit'
flowing to the property owner affected. The assessment
is usually based upon the cost of the improvement, spread
among the benefited property owners upon some equitable,
nondiscriminatory basis. [Citations omitted.] The
absence of an exact relationship between the assessment
levied and the benefit received will not, however,
invalidate the assessment, at least in the absence of
fraud, mistake or gross injustice. [citations omitted.]"
(8 Cal.3d at 568-569 [105 Cal.Rptr. 328].)
The rule was further explained in Harrison v. Board of
Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 118 Cal.Rptr. 828, a case
involving a storm sewer special assessment and a case which has
pertinent parallels of proposed assessment and legal reasoning to
those in this situation. There the court stated:
"It is also clear that only a 'special benefit' to
the property assessed will justify an assessment, not
merely 'general benefit I inuring to the public as a
whole. [Citations omitted.] When the special benefit
exists, the formula on which the assessments are made
must be based on the benefit received. [Citation
omitted. ]
"The trial court based its holding that the
assessments were void on its conclusion that there was no
substantial evidence of a special benefit to the
protesting property owners and, further, that the formula
upon which the assessments were based was an invalid
method as a matter of law. The findings are related in
that the validity of the formula will of necessity depend
upon just what the special benefit is. To be specific,
plaintiffs argue that when the public improvement to be
built is a drainage project, uphill property may not be
assessed at allor, at least, at a lower rate than the
lower land. The several cases cited in support of this
argument, however, all involve cases where the benefit
was the prevention of flooding on the assessed land.
Hon. Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 4.
(See, e.g., Honegger v. Reclamation Dist. No. 1619,
supra, 190 Cal.App.2d 684, 692, 12 Cal.Rptr. 76; Myles
Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage Dist. (1915) 239 U.S. 478,
482-483, 36 S.ct. 204, 60 L.Ed. 392.) When this is the
special benefit, it seems obvious that higher land might
not be flooded at allor, at least, to a lesser degree
than low land. However, if the water from all the
properties drained into public property, such as a
street, and the pooled water caused odors, mosquitos or
a health problem of some nature, all property owners
might well be benefited equally regardless of the
elevation of their land.
"In analyzing the propriety of the court's decision,
it is necessary first to identify the benefit which the
public improvement will render; next, to determine if the
property owners will receive a benefit different from
that of the general public; and, finally, to ascertain if
the formula on which the assessments are made is based on
the benefit received.
"The benefit to be derived from the drainage system
in the case at hand is the prevention of street flooding
which occurs during the rainy season in certain spots of
the area. There was no testimony of floodings on the
private properties themselves and much testimony from
people who claimed there was no excess water problem at
all in their immediate vicinity even in the streets.
"The theory on which the benefit was presented at
the administrative hearings was that the general area
would benefit by relief of the traffic problems and that
those who contribute to the problem should contribute to
the solution. It is concluded in agreement with the
trial court that this is not a showing of a special
benefit to the assessed property. The facilitation of
traffic is of general benefit to the community and, thus,
if repair and maintenance expenses alone are involved,
these are not charged to abutting property owners.
[Citation omitted.] The fact that the traffic problems
are seen as caused, not by the rain, but by the property
from which the rainwaters drain, is not a basis for
levying a special assessment according to the special
benefit rule. It is possible, of course, that property
abutting a street with a flooding problem would receive
a special benefit from draining, for example, in
facilitation of ingress and egress from the property or
parking. Appellants point to no evidence of such special
Hon. Mayor and city Council
city of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 5
benefits, and if they exist, they would hardly warrant
assessment of all properties in the area regardless of
whether they were benefited.
"'It is possible that it will suffice if, from the
nature of the work, the property can be presumed to have
received an especial benefit.' [Citation omitted.] It
is this type of presumption upon which respondents relied
in assuming that the property values of all land would
rise because of the drainage of the area. This assumes
two things--first, the property values will go up and,
second, that increase in property values is the type of
benefit which alone will warrant special assessments. If
increase in property value alone would amount to a
'special benefit,' then payment of ordinary road
maintenance and repair could be upheld on that basis,
reasoning that increase in value can be assumed for
property which abuts a well-maintained road. This is too
tenuous a connection, particularly in the absence of any
cost-benefit analysis or evidence. Even more tenuous is
the assumption that all property will increase in value
regardless of its location in the assessment district.
For example, the question arises whether property on high
ground several blocks from any streets which flood in the
rainy season will enjoy an increase in market value
because the distant street was drained. Obviously, a
point will be reached where no increase may be assumed.
Defendants, therefore, could not prevail on an increase
of market value theory with no evidence upon which the
connection between benefit and assessment can be posited.
The trial court was correct in holding that there was no
substantial evidence of a special benefit.
"As this court has concluded that there was no
special benef it shown to plaintiffs I property , it is
unnecessary to consider whether the trial court was also
correct in its conclusion that the City used an invalid
method of spreading the assessment."
FACTS
The assessment proceeding here concerns the improvement of
otay Valley Road to a width of six travel lanes with median, curbs,
sidewalks, etc., all as described in the project documents and the
Preliminary Engineer's Report. From the beginning, the project has
been identified as a regional facility, planned and designed in
accordance with the right of way requirement designated in the
Hon. Mayor and City Council
city of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 6
city's General Plan, for ultimate build-out capacity, as evidenced
by the following documentation:
1. otay Valley Road Financing and Feasibility Plan, July 25,
1991:
section 1.1 identif ies the purpose of the proj ect is to
"provide a better level of service to current development,
ensure adequate capacity for the projected future development
and provide an important link between the City of Chula vista
and the otay Mesa and Tijuana Metropolitan areas."
2. Final Environmental Impact Report, otay Valley Road
Widening Project Chula Vista, dated August 1991:
Comment 3, page 6, paragraph 5; comments by Herman Basmaciyan
of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., Traffic Engineers:
" . . the traffic considerations for otay Valley Road
are based on the City's General Plan scenario IV traffic
estimates and the roadway, as proposed, is commensurate
with the Circulation Element and the General Plan of the
city.
*
*
*
"The widening of the road itself will accommodate land
uses in the area adjacent to the roadway as well as
playing the regional role that the facility is intended
to serve."
3. Council Agenda Statement, Item 31 A-D, dated April 21,
1992, Exhibit B (Minutes, otay Valley Road Project Action Committee
of January 13, 1992):
"The property owners are not against the road
improvements per se. However, they feel the road is too
wide to service the project area and the cost is too high
for some of the property owners to bear. Mr. Kassman
indicated that although the road project is scheduled to
be six lanes from I-80S to Nirvana Avenue, the traffic
generation analysis in the area indicates that a four
lane facility will suffice. The City has agreed to put
in approximately $1.2 million in order to pay for the two
additional lanes."
The improvements proposed are based on forecast volumes at
build-out of the General Plan, and the traffic studies were based
Hon. Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 7
on these same forecast volumes. Yet, the assessment proceeding has
focused the burden of the improvement costs on only a portion of
the area that is said to benefit by these improvements. Further,
the Preliminary Engineer's Report (page 37) states that "the
widening will improve the existing level of service on [otay Valley
Road], will increase traffic flow between connecting areas and
provide a safer corridor of travel." It is clear that the
improvements provide a general benefit and not a special benefit to
the properties assessed.
Also submitted to you is the May 22, 1992 report of Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, Engineers which has analyzed pertinent project
documents and raised a number of concerns about the discrepancies
between traffic counts, road size, and the variance between the
overall project cost and the portion which the City is proposing to
pay for the additional fifth and sixth lanes. That report
concludes that the roadway proposed will provide direct benefit to
an "area much larger than the benefit area identified" for
assessment.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In looking to the legal test and comparing it to the facts, we
must assert that the City's proposal violates the 1913 Act's
requirement that the assessment imposed is equal to the special
benefit to be received and, moreover, violates the Act because no
special benefit is realized at all.
1. General. Not Special. Benefit.
Following the Harrison test and analysis, we first look to
what the "benefit" really is that will result from the public
improvement. Basically, the only "benefit" that will result from
the road widening is improved traffic circulation. Harrison tells
us that relief of traffic problems and the facilitation of traffic
circulation is a qeneral benefit to the community, not a special
benefit. While there possibly is special benefit that could be
realized to some property in terms of facilitation of ingress or
egress to a particular property, such is not the case with our
clients.
Further, the benefit that may be derived from the potential
increase in property values from the road widening was said by
Harrison to be "too tenuous a connection."
Hon. Mayor and city council
City of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 8
So what, then, is the special benefit to the owners proposed
to be assessed? The city has failed to identify this special
benefit in terms which will stand the test of the 1913 Act. The
City's theory of special benefit is tenuous, at best, when one
looks to the scope of improvements for traffic circulation, the
regional traffic circulation facilitation, which by its very nature
is a general benefit which should be borne by the city as a whole--
not by the property owners who happen to be "in harm's way."
2. Benefit Not Equal To Assessment.
Even if there was some factual basis for the argument that a
special benefit could result from the improvements, the assessments
imposed on these individuals far exceeds any special benefit which
may result to any given property owner for all of the reasons
stated above. While some courts have said that an exact
relationship is not necessary, that does not in any way justify the
broad divergence here between the assessment and the benefit.
3. Other Points of Concern.
As other points of concern, we assert the following:
1. The method and formula of assessment spread in the
Preliminary Engineer's Report is inadequate. properties are
identified by Assessors Parcel Number and an assessment is assigned
based mostly on formula ADT figures and in a few instances on
actual traffic counts. No computation is shown as to how the
assessment for each parcel was achieved as is required by Streets
and Highways Code section 10204.
2. A focused traffic study is needed to determine actual
traffic improvement needs (if any) of properties within the
proposed benefit area. No specific ADT count for the Assessment
District is presently available, and to date traffic studies have
been based on forecast volumes of ultimate General Plan buildout.
until this is done, the alleged benefit (if any) to any property
owner within the proposed district cannot be fairly or accurately
determined.
3. The assessment proceeding is flawed by each and every
issue raised in the Linscott, Law & Greenspan report of May 22,
1992, a copy of which is attached to this letter.
Hon. Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
May 26, 1992
Page 9
CONCLUSION
Based on all of the above and all documents in the city's file
for this proceeding and the oral testimony presented at the
hearings in this matter, we urge that the City Council take no
further action on this assessment proceeding, but rather terminate
it at this time and reevaluate the basis for the proceeding, the
scope of the public improvement proposed and the level of
assessments proposed for confirmation.
The proceeding has not been well-received by those who will
bear the burden of the assessment, and we believe this is with good
reason. The Council must heed and consider seriously these
concerns before it takes any additional action.
Respectfully submitted,
WJS:mam
Enclosure
d:\siroon.ian\mayor3.ltr
cc: Mr. Charles Pratty
Mr. Charles Siroonian
Mr. Joe Botkin
City Manager, City of Chula vista
City Attorney, City of Chula vista
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
/"\ i F ^.
, , I f"
~ )jlt.l1':.).t.~'l-;:i,:Y L/hl;lt1v. )(.'1..-.
, \, ,I:
W~~IAM'J~' SCHWARTZ, JR. v
, i
.j
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. PARKING
8989 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE, SUITE 135, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108
TELEPHONE: (619) 299-3090 . FAX: (619) 299-7041
.
PHILIP M. LINSCOTT, P.E.
JACK M. GREENSPAN, P.E.
WILUAM A. LAW, P.E.
PAUL W. WILKINSON, P.E.
LEON D. WARD, P.E.
DONALD W. 8ARKER, P.E.
May 22, 1992
Mr. William J. Schwartz, Jr.
Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice
1150 First Interstate Plaza
401 "B" Street
San Diego, CA 92101-4245
-7
'.
,
~
~
Subject:
Otay Valley Road Assessment District #90-2
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
.:,
,;
Linscott, Law & Greenspan has reviewed the following documents concerning the proposed
Otay Valley Road Assessment District #90-2:
;;;
. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Otay Valley Road widening.
. The Preliminary Engineer's Report (PER) for Assessment District No. 90-2, April,
1992.
. The Financing & Feasibility Plan (F&FP) for Otay Valley Road Phases I and II and
Public Improvements Associated with Otay Rio Business Park, July 25, 1991.
It should be noted that the scope of work and budgets for preparing these documents was
not known.
The following questions and comments arose during our review:
1) There is a discrepancy between the various documents concerning the trip generation
rate used for the Industrial Park uses. The F&FP (page 22) uses 80 daily trips/acre,
the PER (page 38) uses 200 daily trips/acre and Appendix F of the F&FP uses 120
daily trips/acre to calculate the trip generation of the Otay Rio Business Park.
-,
2) We would question the traffic data for the Otay Landfill contained in Table 4 of the
F&FP. According to vehicle counts taken at the Landfill between January 1, 1991
and June 30, 1991, there was not one weekday when less than 150 trucks accessed
the landfill and over 90% of the weekdays had over 200 trucks. The daily volume of
80 trip ends in Table 4 appears very low.
OTHER OFFICES: COSTA MESA TELEPHONE: (714)641-1587. FAX: (714) 641-0139
PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2626 . FAX: (818) 792-0941
AN LG2WB COMPANY
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice
May 22, 1992
page 2
3) A comprehensive study should be completed to determine the traffic generation and
corresponding facility requirements for the assessment district only. It is agreed that
a six-lane roadway is necessary to accommodate the projected regional buildout
traffic volumes, but it is possible that a four-lane roadway is sufficient to
accommodate the assessment district traffic. The six-lane roadway will relieve
projected regional traffic problems and will provide direct benefit to an area much
larger than the benefit area identified in the F&FP.
4) The PER states that the City of Chula Vista will contnbute to the financing of the
widening of Otay Valley Road but does not state an amount. The F&FP states that
the City will contnbute $1,211,971. It does not state how this very specific amount
was determined. The meeting minutes from the January 13, 1992 Otay Valley Road
Project Area Committee stated that, "traffic generation analysis in the area indicates
that a four lane facility will suffice" and, "the City has agreed to put in approximately
$1.2 million in order to pay for the two additional lanes." Therefore, it appears that
the assessment district is paying $10,406,242 for its two additional lanes and the City
is paying $1,211,971 for its two additional lanes.
5) Page 11 of the PER indicates a cost item for a traffic signal at I-80S. Was it taken
into account that the I-805/0tay Valley Road traffic signals are scheduled to be
installed by December, 1992 and that negotiations are on-going to have Caltrans pay
one-half of the signal cost (Mike Donnelly, City of Chula Vista)?
6) The following comments relate to the cost estimate for Phase I of the Otay Valley
Road widening project contained in the PER, pages 8 thru 12.
a)
::
,
~ b)
c)
Upon cursory review of the cost estimate, we assume only one traffic signal is a part
of this project (item 66 calls for only one controller). It appears that items 66 thru
87 are specific items for this signal installation. With respect to the individual cost
items, we have the following questions:
Items 69 and 85 appear to be the same thing. We do not understand why the
costs are different nor do we understand why there are 10 type 29-5-70 signal
standards under item 85. We think this number should be 1 instead of 10.
Items 88 thru 91 appear to be for a signal interconnect or lighting; the estimate
should specify this.
Item 87 appears to be too high in quantity (24). A typical signal installation
usually requires only one of these (and sometimes two). Any signal interconnect
typically uses #5 pullboxes (PB).
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice
May 22, 1992
page 3
,.
d) On page 11 (second from bottom), we do not know what the $289,300 is for.
Is there more than one signal here? If the answer is no, then this price appears
to be high. If the answer is yes, then why were there no individual costs
supplied for the other locations?
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
LINSCOIT, LAW & GREENSPAN
t!:~PE
Senior Transportation Engineer
JPKlJAB/pbs
3-920502
~~/Y2
c:I-~/.J
--;;(s /E7~n. /S //?C7b/ f6-t/cc-'R/l//~
~ .0/~/, d/;:;fr g4-~ /!=ES5"A<"'6-"'/
~3///d d 7t7- 2,
A/&- ~~# ~ //P~~~ d Yf?S-
.c-/V~~~/ tZ/~ G1~ us~/ (J,f'. '9-20//
EV6-'7r..) /7--/ /' Y5 fJ0~;<'C-/v/ f.5:.-C
#&/-"',,/"''-''7 d&T ffi/ 5'7YO'J ~
tfP~y~~ ,NY ,or: .."-7~y)L:/ ~~~S;
,4,</1' ~J.v: /o~ ~S / M/ .A//lKF
~ s-;<-Iad'i7/V Vc7~S/
V E /he-O / '/ ~ tpA/Cc-n- Or d--~~/~
--To 6-"""f // j~ ,k //, ,/457 tL~
/1-5' A ~- ./;'s4f~~'7' /fA/d .
RECye-l/Vfl bC/S/W6-6~ iu6. K~{~
/lJ?;:>/20 v<<Y, fio", 0& 177 d~J. u~/
--j'o t $J ~ -PM I}-s / * !2-F(/ /{l~
ttS-fl 4- 'S /I- A-do d:5PJ1 ~~ /I-/f/ c/
Rec'(c/";7 05;-4-, a/,(rdt cU,.r /f/~a/~
jP,12ojc41y ft, S.MJ~ :is F(t'S{,7 ffA/J
/14<1r '1/(7/' A ~ I/c'.-~S /' . /
/' ~ :7 / 'It/ t'6f2-'t ~
g,// }..i:/t2,!;A/.!:./ r;3/2
Et/S-/u I't/ --';//#/>t/E Z-
?RO~~f /aJA/6"?e
fh/3
G~ADlf,lG &_SHOVEL WORK
CVI~CRETE CONSTRUCTION
ST~lEET IMPROVEMENTS
AIR COMPRESSOR WORK
OR FOR RENT
BULLDOZER WORK
ALL TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
riECE~VE.D OFFICE & YARD
".c 1 to
W4.LTr:~ tie 134.1:2131:1:2 &: S{)~l,,~~1W~~; ;~~T 81.3~"O;::~~~,~~
ENGINEER1NG CONTRACTORS ~n~ors' Lie. "397848 """
L'MES..C'L1FORN1'~ 919~:J\t.1816 AM rt'x 466-2037
5-21-92
Honorable Mayor and city council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula vista, Ca 91910
Re: Otay Valley Road Assessment District No. 90-2
.
Gentlemen:
As the owner of lot #23 of the Otay Industrial Park, I am putting
you on notice that I am protesting the assessment. levied on my
property. for the improvement to Otay Valley Road. for the follow-
ing reason:
I, personally. feel. and most of my neighbors will concur. that
the project as designed is fiscally irresponsible for the difficult
economic times that we are all suffering through.
I believe that most of us agree that Otay Valley Road needs to be
improved, however. not at this magnitude at the present time. I
feel that the assessment as proposed is a far greater burden.on
the backs of the few property owners, than is necessary
This assessment should be spread further.as property owners with
future projects. to the East of the otay Recycling Park will reap
a great benefit from our burden.
I. personally. feel that the County of San Diego should participate
in this project, in a more substantial way than what they are. as
a majority of the traffic presentlY on otay Valley Road is generated
by the County's dump, which access lies Westerly of our property.
AS a person familiar with road.construction projects and improvement
districts, having performed many 1911, 1913. 1915 Act Alley. sewer
and street improvement projects in the past years, whatever happened
to the process of a neighborhood of property owners banding together.
to form an improvement district under one of these various Acts. and
then approaching the governmental body involved. rather than the
governmental body forming the district,and then ramming it down the
throats of the adjacent property owners. after the fact.
Also, whatever happened to Gas Tax Revenues. that were used to
construct or improve major arterial streets. such as Otay Valley
Road?
- 1 -
GRADING & SHOVEL WORK
CO"JCRETE CONSTRUCTION
STneeT'MPROVeMeNTS W4.LTI:I:? Ii. 134.~131:~ & Sf)~. I~C.
AIR COMPRESSOR WORK
OR FOR RENT ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS
BULLDOZER WORK
ALL TVPES OF CONSTRUCTION LA MESA, CALIFORNIA!Iml(~ 9 1 942 - 2928
OFFICE & YARD
8163 Commercil1 $1.
Phone 466.3192
Contraclors' Lie. 1f397848 "A"
FAX 466-2037
These arbitrary, irresponsible, and imperious acts by government
employees, regulators, and politicians are the very reason that
the economy of California has been destroyed, and business and
industry are leaving in mass panic from this State.
Sincerely,
/ / ~";,(3~
~~ H. Barber, Jr. ~
cc: Donna Sider
Civil Engineer
- 2 -
Q-{ c I ~
"'---- -
,i
May 21, 1992
Mayor Tim Nader
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA
26
._.,~-,_.-,j
Dear Mayor,
As you know, the City of Chula Vista is contemplating widen-
ing Otay Valley Road from its current two lanes to six lanes. We
do not agree that tllese addi-cional lanes are req'Jired. DULing
the preliminary meeting last week with property owners and city
engineers/planners we discussed the analysis which determined the
need for increased lanes and found that the need was based on hy-
pothetical future growth assumptions and statistical average
usage per acre theories. We are here all day long on this street
and we observe actual usage and do not rely on theoretical as-
sumptions. I'm sure that the City of Chula Vista is concerned
about the efficient use of it's available funds just as we are at
JT.
We also feel that the proposed funding of the project does
not consider the previous mandatory street improvements that JT
has made. In 1984, as a condition of our development, our
property was given a deferral to the street improvements based on
a future Assessment District. In 1988, the City of Chula Vista
ordered us to complete the street improvements even though the
Assessment District had not been formed. We again requested that
we be permitted to defer this unplanned expenditure and wait for
the Assessment District. We were denied and instructed to
proceed immediately with these expenditures on the basis that JT
would be exempted from the future Assessment District. We are now
being told that JT will be assessed according to the arbitrary
calculation process based on acreage. This assessment will not
provide JT with the full credit for our previous and unplanned
expenditures as we were promised by the City of Chula Vista.
If there is any light that you can shed on this project and
the hardship it will cause to JT, I would appreciate hearing from
you.
sincere
515 Olay Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA 92011 (619) 421-2660 Fax No. (619) 421-9078
\ fc r.-ol~i-r;' r;,'r;--~'::-l
,! ! -~< ' ~,' ~ II \ r i J? \ ;
:. '~'-":-u_,"",--__C_ U :. n !.
, -----..---j ,'I Ii
-/ ),
?6 !Iii;
,~Ii
I ;
,; -., I
I
-..~........._. .J
May 21 1992
273 Cedar st
Chula Vista
CA.91910
Dear Mayor Nader.
I wish to register a strong protest against Chula Vista's
proposed construction of a major highway along Otay Lakes Road
~nd assess the property owners of the assessed district for
said construction.
Otay Lakes Road could stand improvement but scaled to fit the
needs of those who well be forced to foot the bill.
I urge you strongly to consider this problem seriously.
In this time of recession many businesses cannot bear the
burden the proposed improvement will involve.
I own the property at 777 Energy Way.
Yours truly.
Arthur Hynum
South Bay Auto Wreckers Inc.
811 ENERGY WAY
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 421-5565
- ,
,
iiFr;'-1j
.-C'-...~'..'; !.s.~. .
-'----...~~
if
"
? h {~. ,
I~ i
-_I f
,.J
Dear Mayor Nader and members of City Council:
We have been in business in the city of Chula Vista
for over 40 years. During this time. we have shared good
times and bad times. During this economic derpression
that we are currently in, we have suffered tax increases
(state, federal, and local). insurance increases, and
many other costs of'doing business increases.
Now we must have another assesment levyed for a
road that we don't need. An assesment of $135,000 for
my share of a 6 lane road is not only an expence that
would force us to close our doors, but also put an
additional 12 employees on unemployment.
We are going through a period where many businesses
are leaving So. California to do business in an area where
the costs are more realistic. Indeed one of Chula Vista's
largest employers (Rohr Industries) is slowly dying and
moving to another area.
I would respectively request that you review your
standing on the unfair assessment. And to look for a more
equitable way of securing funds for this project. Perhaps
a scaling of this extravagant road should be in order.
Respectively yours.
=->__") l::c.. Q..
Doug Kaul
Owner of South
Bay Auto Wreckers
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASES I & II
(CONSTRUCTION)
City of Chula Vista
May 26, 1992
Revised: June 16, 1992
2nd Revision: June 23, 1992
Prepared by:
Willdan Associates
IN:36231.X:js
6363 Greenwich Drive. San Diego, CA 92122-3939. (619) 457-1199
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader
Mayor
City Council Members
David L. Malcolm
Jerry R. Rindone
City Staff
John P. Lippitt
Cliff Swanson
Chris Salomone
Leonard M. Moore
Shirley Grasser-Horton
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Director of Community Development
Professional Services
Willdan Associates
Municipal Finance Administration
Brown, Diven, & Hentschke
Kadie-Jensen, Johnson & Bodnar
Assessment Engineer
Project Management
Bond Counsel
Financial Consultant
..... \7 \')
Final approval by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
\ .-'
day of -\ G\-..\C ,1992.
L-
Final approval and confirmation by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
Z-'" f2 (') day of \ \J ,,-If, 1992.
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
~
A
Order of Procedure and Schedule of Events
I
B
General Information ........................
2
C
Resolution of Intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
D Engineer's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Part I
Plans and Specifications ............................. 14
Part II
Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Part III
Assessment Roll .................................. 26
(a) Submittal................................... 26
(b) Assessments Per APN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
(c) Certificates.................................. 42
(d) Method and Formula of Assessment Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Part IV
Assessment Diagram ............................... 53
Part V
Description of Work ............................... 56
Part VI
Right-of-Way Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Part VII
Changes and Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Appendix A ........................................ 63
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
SECTION A
ORDER OF PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Event
Date
1.
Adopt Boundary Map
July 23, 1991
2. Adopt Amended Boundary Map ..................... April 21, 1992
3. Resolution of Intention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 21, 1992
4. Approval of Final Engineer's Report .................. April 21, 1992
5. Public Hearing - Confirmation of Assessments
Start of 30-day Cash Collection Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 26, 1992
6. Award of Construction Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 23, 1992
7. Sell Bonds .................................. July 14, 1992
8. Start Construction, Phase I ........................ July 20, 1992
9. Start Construction, Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1, 1993
10. Complete Construction, Phase I ..................... April 1, 1993
11. Complete Construction, Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 1, 1993
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
Assessmelll District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widellillg
1
SECTION B
GENERAL INFORMATION
Assessment District No. 90-2 is proposed for the purpose of constructing certain public
improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation, and Majority Protest Act of 1931. The general administration
of this District will be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista and all official actions will
be made by the City Council.
The City Council first adopts a resolution indicating their intention to form a special
Assessment District and calling for a Final Engineer's Report.
In the Final Engineer's Report, the cost of the construction of these improvements and
incidentals is assessed and spread proportionally over every parcel of land within the
District that has benefitted from the improvement. The method of the assessment spread
is in proportion to the level of benefit received.
Following the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and the Final Engineer's Report, the
owners are notified by mail of their estimated assessments and the date of the public
hearing, where the assessments will be confirmed.
Prior to the public hearing, bids are opened from qualified contractors for the construction
of public improvements. After the bids have been carefully analyzed by the Director of
Public Works, a recommendation is usually made to the City Council for award to the
lowest responsible bidder.
After the assessments are confirmed at the public hearing, a final assessment notice is
mailed to each property owner indicating the confirmed assessment based upon the final
construction cost for which bids were received. The property owner then has thirty (30)
days in which to pay all or any portion of this assessment without interest or penalty. Each
property owner has the option of paying their assessment in cash, or by paying in
installments through the issuance of assessment bonds. If the property owner elects not to
pay the assessment within the 30 day cash collection period, assessment bonds, in the
amount of the unpaid assessment, will be sold to cover the cost of the project and shall be
repaid by the participating properties during the life of the bonds.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting the office of the Public Works
Director, John P. Lippitt.
Filial Engineer's Rep011
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
2
SECTION C
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
(Original on file in office of the City Clerk)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
O/ay Valley Road Widening
3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DECLARING
THE WORK TO BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT;
DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COSTS
AND EXPENSES THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
BONDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS.
SECTION 1. The public interest and convenience require, and it
is the int.ntion of this body, pursu..nt to the provision.. of
Divi..ion 12 of the Streets ..nd Highw..ys Cod. of the St..te of
C..liforni.. (th. "Municip..l Improvement Act 1913"), to order the
in..t..ll..tion of c.rt..in public improvements, together with ..ppurte-
n..nces and appurtenant work, in a speci..l assessment district known
..nd d.sign..ted ..s ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
(herein..fter referred to ..s the "Ass.ssment District").
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. Th. fin..ncing of c.rt..in public improvem.nts
d.scrib.d ..s str..t improvements, including demolition, gr..ding,
p..ving, curb, gutter, sid.w..lk, str.et lighting, tr..ffic sign..ls,
storm dr..ins, l..ndsc..ping, w..ter m..in, undergrounding of utiliti.s
..nd tr..ffic striping, tog.ther with ..ppurten..nc.. ..nd ..ppurten..nt
work, including ..cqui..ition of right..-of-w.y and ....m.nts, a.
necessary, in OTAY VALLEY ROAD and int.rs.cting streets, to serve
.nd ben.fit propertie.. located within the boundarie.. of the Assess-
ment District.
B. Said streets, rights-of-way and easements shall
be shown upon the plans herein referred to and to be filed with
these proceedings.
c. All of ..aid work and improvem.nts are to be
installed at the pl..ces ..nd in the particul..r locations, of the
form., sizes, dimensions and materials, and at the lines, grades and
elevations as shown and delineated upon the plans, profiles and
specifications to be made therefor, ..s hereinafter provided.
D. The description of the improvem.nt. and the
t.rmini of the work contained in thi.. Resolution are general in
natur.. All items of work do not necessarily extend for the full
length of the description thereof. Th. plans and profil.s of the
work as contained in the Engineer's "Report" sh..ll be controlling as
to the correct ..nd det..iled description thereof.
E. Whenever ..ny public w..y is her. in r.ferred to
.... running betw.en two public w..ys, or from or to ..ny public w"y,
the inters.ction.. of the public w..ys referred to are included to the
extent th..t work shall be shown on the plans to be done therein.
F. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many
cases said work and improvement will bring the finished work to a
grade different from that formerly existing, and that to said
extent, said grades are hereby changed and said work will be done to
said changed grades.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
SECTION 2. That said improvements and work are of direct
benefit to the properties and land within the Assessment District,
and this legislative body hereby makes the expenses of said work and
improvement chargeable upon a district, which said Assessment
District is hereby declared to be the Assessment District benefited
by said work and improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses thereof, including incidental expenses and costs and
which is described as follows.
All that certain territory in the District included
within the exterior boundary lines shown on the plat exhibiting the
property affected or benefited by or to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses of said work and improvements in the Assessment
District, said map titled and identified as "AMENDED BOUNDARIES OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAr VALLEr ROAD)", and which map was
heretofore approved and which said map or diagram is on file with
the transcript of these proceedings, EXCEPTING therefrom the area
shown within and delineated upon said map or plat hereinabove
referred to, the area of all public streets, public avenues, public
lanes,~~ public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys,
and all easements and rights-of-way therein contained belonging to
the public. For all particulars as to the boundaries of the Assess-
ment District, reference is hereby made to said boundary map hereto-
fore previously approved and on file.
REPORT OF ENGINEER
SECTION 3. That this proposed improvement is hereby referred
to WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, who is hereby directed to make and file a
combined report as authorized by Section 2961 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, said report to be in
writing and contain the following.
improvements;
A. Plans and specifications of the proposed
B. An estimate of the cost of the proposed works
of improvement, including the cost of the incidental expenses in
connection therewith,
C. A diagram showing the Assessment District above
referred to, which shall also show the boundaries and dimensions of
the respective subdivisions of land within said Assessment District,
as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of
Intention, each of which subdivisions shall be given a separate
number upon said Diagram;
D. A proposed assessment of the total amount of
the assessable costs and expenses of the proposed improvement upon
the several divisions of land in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such subdivisions, respectively, from
said improvement. Said assessment shall refer to such subdivisions
upon said diagram by the respective numbers. thereof;
be
installed
E.
under
The description of the works of improvement to
these proceedings, and acquisition, where
necessary.
P. The total amount, as near as may be determined,
of the. principal sum of any unpaid special assessments previously
levied or pending, other than those contemplated in these
proceedings.
G. The true value of the parcels of land and
improvements which are proposed to be assessed. Said true value may
be estimated as the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the
last equalized assessment roll of the County.
When any portion or percentage of the coat and
expenses of the improvements is to be paid from sources. other than
assessments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be
deducted from the total estimated costs and expenses of said. work
and improvements, and said assessment shall include only the
remainder of the estimated costs and expenses. Said assessment
shall refer to said subdivisions by their respective numbers as
assigned pursuant to SUbsection D. of this Section.
~
SECTION 4. Notice is hereby given that bonds to represent the
unpaid assessments,. and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed
the current legal maximUl1l rate of 12' per annum, will be issued
hereunder in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act .of
1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways. Code of the
State of California, which bonds shall mature a maximum of and not
to exceed TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the second day of September
next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. The provisions
of Part 11.1 of said Act, providing an alternative procedure for the
adVance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall apply.
The principal amount of the bonds maturing each
year shall be other than an amount equal to an even annual propor-
tion of the aggregate principal of the bonds, and the amount of
principal maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable
in that year, will. be generally an aggregate amount that is equal
each year, except for the first year's adjustment.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, specifically Section
10603, the Treasurer is hereby designated as the officer to collect
and receive the assessments during the cash collection period. Said
bond a further shall be serviced by the Treasurer or designated
Paying Agent.
Refundinq
Any bonds issued pursuant to these proceeding.s and
Division (a) may be refunded, (b) the interest rate on said bonds
shall not exceed the maximum interest rate as authorized for these
proceedings, and the number of years to maturity shall not exceed
the maximum number as authorized for these bonds unless a public
hearing is expressly held as authorized pursuant to said Division
11.5, and (c) any adjustments in assessments resulting from any
refundings will be done on a pro-rata basis.
Any authorized refunding shall be pursuant to the
above conditions, and pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of
Division 11. 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, commencing with Section 9500, and all further conditions
shall be set forth in the Bond Indenture to be approved prior to any
issuance of bonds.
"MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913"
SECTION 5. That except as herein otherwise provided for the
issuance of bonds,. all of said improvements shall be made and
ordered pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913", being Division 12 of the. Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California..
SURPLUS FUNDS
SECTION 6. That if any excess shall be realized from the
assessment, it shall be used, in such amounts as the legislative
body may determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one
or more of the following purposes I
amount of any
Thousand Dollars
the Improvement
.A. Transfer to the general fund; provided that the
such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One
($1,000.00) or five percent (5\) of the total from
Fund;
B. As a credit upon the assessment and any supple-
mental assessment;
C. For the maintenance of the improvement; or
D. To call bonds.
SPECIAL FUND
SECTION 7. The legislative body hereby establishes a special
improvement fund identified and designated by the name of this
Assessment District, and into said Fund monies may be transferred at
any time to expedite the making of the improvements herein autho-
rized, and any such advancement of funds is a loan and shall be
repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of bonds as authorized by
law.
PRIVATE CONTRACT
SECTION B. Notice is hereby given that the public
will not be served by allowing the property owners to
contract for the installation of the improvements, and
authorized by law, no notice of award of contract
published.
interest
take the
that, as
shall be
GRADES
SECTION 9. That notice ie hereby given that the grade to which
the work shall be done is to be shown on the plans and profiles
therefor, which grade may vary from the existing grades. The work
herein contemplated shall be done to the grades as indicated on the
plans and specifications, to which reference is made for a descrip-
tion of the grade at which the work is to be done. Any objections
or protests to the proposed grade shall be made at the public
hearing to be conducted under these proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS INQUIRIES
SECTION 10. For any and all information relating to these
proceedings, including information relating to protest procedure,
your attention is directed to the person designated below.
JO~LIPPITT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
P. O. BOX 1087
CHULA VISTA, CA 92012
TELEPHONE. (619) 691-5021
PUBLIC PROPERTY
SECTION 11. All public property in the use and performance of
a public function shall be omitted from assessment in these proceed-
ings unless expressly provided and listed herein.
NO CITY LIABILITY
SECTION 12. This legislative body hereby further declares not
to obligate itself to advance available funds from the Treasury to
cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund.
This determination is made pursuant to the authority of Section
8769(b) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
and said determination shall further be set forth in the text of the
bonds issued pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915".
DIVISION 4 PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 13. It is the intention of this legislative body to
fully comply with the proceedings and provisions of the "Special
A88essment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of
1931", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, and specifically the alternate provisions
thereof, being Part 7.5. A combined Report, as authoriz.ed by
Section 2961, will be on file with the transcript of these proceed_
ings and open for public inspection.
WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SECTION 14. It is hereby further determined to be in the best
public interest and convenience and more economical to do certain
work on private property to eliminate any disparity in level or siz.e
between the improvements and the private property. The actual cost
of such work is to be added to the assessment on the lot on which
the work is done, and no work of this nature is to be performed
until the written consent of the property owner is first obtained.
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT
, SECTION 15. It is hereby declared that this legislative body
proposes to levy an annual assessment pursuant to Section 10204 of
the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said
annual assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not other-
wise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection
of assessments or from the administration or registration of any
associated bonds and reserve of other related funds.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
AYES' Councilmembers,
NOES, Councilmembers,
ABSENT. Councilmembers.
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers.
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ee.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vieta,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Reeolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Wulening
11
SECTION D
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation
and Majority Protest Act of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12
Section 10204 of said code, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention No. 16601,
adopted by the City Council of the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"), in connection with the proceedings for
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), I, John P. Lippitt submit herewith
the Report for the Assessment District, consisting of seven (7) parts as follows:
PART I
Plans and specifications for the proposed improvements are filed herewith and made a part
hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the Director of Public
Works.
PART II
The estimated cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses
in connection therewith, is set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
PART III
This part shall consist of the following:
A. A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed
improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the assessment district, in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions, from said
improvements, is set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made a part
hereof.
B. The total amount, as near as may be determined, of the total principal sum of all
unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied
Final Engineer's Report
Assessme1l1 District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
12
under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than that contemplated
for the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under
the Special Assessmeru InvesTigaTion, LimiTa/ion and Majority PrOTeST Act of 1931
against the total area proposed to be assessed.
C. The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and
improvements which are proposed to be assessed.
PART IV
A Diagram showing the assessment district and the boundaries of the subdivision of land
within said assessment district, as the same existed at the time of the passage of
the Resolution of Intention is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
PART V
Description of the work for the improvements is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
Description of all rights-of-way, easements and lands to be acquired, if necessary, is set
forth on the lists thereof and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PART VI
The Assessment Engineer's Certificate stating that the right-of-way associated with the
improvements to be acquired by the City will be transferred to the City by easement or
other means.
PART VII
Changes & Modifications, if any, ordered by the City Council at the public hearing are set
forth .
Thi~'R~p~rt d~i~ ~his .... \>iday ofb, LIL, 1992.
John P. Lippitt, lrector of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
This Final Report dated this.;c..' Jlday of \ i. tvL, 1992.
/)
. ,
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
13
PART I
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed are referenced herein and
incorporated as if attached and a part of this report. Said plans and specifications shall be
on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works and consist of
Drawing Numbers 92-193 for Phase I of the project. Phase II plans are not available at
the time of the public hearing.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dlay Valley Road Widening
14
Part II
ESTIMATE OF COST
Preliminarv Confirmed
A. Construction Cost
Phase I $ 6,897,138 $ 6,694,039
Phase II 2,934,121 2,822,280
Subtotal 9,831,259 9,516,319
B. Incidentals (less Reserve Fund) 4,173,548 3,062,149
Total Construction and Incidentals 14,004,807 12,578,468
C. Less Contributions (3,435,467) (4,497,693)
D. Less Credits (163,099) (910,185)
TOTAL TO ASSESSMENT $ 10,406,242 $ 7,170,590
E. Reserve Fund (City funded) 0 796,732
TOTAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST $ 7,967,322
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
15
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PUASE I, 1-805 TO NIRVANA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
I Mobilization I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
2 Traffic Control I LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing Imp- I LS 238,000.00 238,000.00
rovements
4 Alluvial Removal 138,000 CY 2.00 276,000.00
5 Excavation & Grading 90,000 CY 5.00 450,000.00
6 AC Paving 23,000 Tons 25.00 575,000.00
7 6" AC Berm 340 LF 5.00 1,700.00
8 Aggregate Base 27,600 Tons 8.00 220,800.00
9 Subbase 33,150 Tons 4.00 132,600.00
10 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk & Slab Work 49,500 SF 2.00 99,000.00
11 Type A Pedestrian Ramp 8 Ea. 160.00 1,280.00
12 Type B Pedestrian Ramp 6 Ea. 160.00 960.00
13 6" PCC DfW 3,100 SF 2.50 7,750.00
14 6" X-Gutter & Segments 2,450 SF 3.00 7,350.00
15 6" Type "G" Curb & Gutter 8,850 LF 6.00 53,100.00
16 6" PCC Type B-1 Curb 9,845 LF 5.00 49,225.00
17 6" PCC Type B-2 Curb 41 LF 15.00 615.00
18 4" PCC Exposed Concrete Slab Work 31,525 SF 3.00 94,575.00
19 Decorative Interlocking 400 SF 17.00 6,800.00
20 12" PCC Curb Bebind SfW 200 LF 15.00 3,000.00
21 Saw cutting 650 LF 1.00 650.00
22 18" RCP Pipe 386 LF 40.00 15,440.00
23 30" RCP Pipe 124 LF 45.00 5,580.00
24 42" RCP Pipe 160 LF 65.00 10,400.00
25 48" RCP Pipe 425 LF 80.00 34,000.00
26 Pipe Plug I Ea. 385.00 385.00
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessme1Jt District 9()..2
Dray Valley Road Widening
16
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE I, I-80S TO NIRVANA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
27 Type "B-2" C I L=7' 2 Ea. 2,200.00 4,400.00
28 Type "B-2" C I L=9' I Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
29 Type "B-1" C I L=II' I Ea. 2,600.00 2,600.00
30 Type "B" C I I Ea. 2,000.00 2.000.00
31 Canst. Lower Section Type B- I Inlet I Ea. 1,800.00 1,800.00
32 Canst. Lower Section Type B-2 Inlet I Ea. 1,800.00 1,800.00
33 Type "A-S" Co. I Ea. 1,700.00 1,700.00
34 Canst. Top of A-4 Co. 4 Ea. 1,500.00 6,000.00
35 Catch Basin Plug I Ea. 750.00 750.00
36 Pipe Collar 2 Ea. 1,100.00 2,200.00
37 Headwall ST A 33 =06.5:1: I LS 5,500.00 5,500.00
38 Type A Dbl. Headwall ST A I LS 7,300.00 7,300.00
74+0.27f
39 Conc. Energy Dissipator ST A I LS 12,800.00 12,800.00
65+01.0:1:
40 Conc. Energy Dissipator ST A I LS 3,450.00 3,450.00
62+65.0:1:
41 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator I LS 1,500.00 1,500.00
STA 35+06:1:
42 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator I LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 71 +82:1:
43 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator I LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 74+09:1:
44 Shoring I LS 1.00 1.00
45 6' High Chain Link Fencing 6,000 LF 10.00 60,000.00
46 Relocate of Ex. Chain Link Fencing 785 LF 10.00 7,850.00
& Gate
47 Masonry Sound Wall 6,700 SF 10.00 67,000.00
48 Redwood Gate 11 Ea. 420.00 4,620.00
49 Modified Redwood Gate I Ea. 410.00 410.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
17
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE I, I-80S TO NIRVANA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
50 Silt Stop 1,881 LF 7.00 13,167.00
51 Adjust AC Manhole 21 Ea. 410.00 8,610.00
52 12" ACP Water Main 2,205 LF 23.00 50,715.00
53 12" X 12" Wet Tap 2 Ea. 2,700.00 5,400.00
54 12" X 12" Tap Saddle I Ea. 4,700.00 4,700.00
55 12" RSGV II Ea. 1,200.00 13,200.00
56 18" X 12" Spool 10 Ea. 660.00 6,600.00
57 Thrust Block 6 Ea. 270.00 1,620.00
58 12" X 12" x 12" Tee I Ea. 1,700.00 1,700.00
59 Blind Flange 12" I Ea. 310.00 310.00
60 I" AVRV Off 12" Main 2 Ea. 1,450.00 2,900.00
61 12" X 12" Cross 2 Ea. 1,550.00 3,100.00
62 12" 90 Deg. Bend 1 Ea. 510.00 510.00
63 Relocate EX 2" BO 2 Ea. 1,220.00 2,440.00
64 Abandon PRV Vault I LS 5,100.00 5,100.00
65 Install New PRV Vault I LS 28,500.00 28,500.00
66 Furnish and Install Controller I Ea. 5,000.00 5,000.00
67 Furnish and Install Meter Pedestal 1 Ea. 2,850.00 2,850.00
68 Type A- I Signal Standard 2 Ea. 410.00 820.00
69 Type 29-5-70 Signal I Ea. 4,300,00 4,300.00
70 Type 26-5-70 Signal I Ea. 3,700.00 3,700.00
7I Type 19-3-70 Signal I Ea. 3,300.00 3,300.00
72 #5 PB 9 Ea. 110.00 990,00
73 3-Lens Vehicle Indicators w112" 12 Ea. 410.00 4,920,00
74 Ped Indication 4 Ea. 460.00 1,840.00
75 Wire Intersection I LS 3,600,00 3,600.00
76 Furnish and Install 650 LF Conduit 650 LF 13.00 8,450.00
Final Engineer's Repol1
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
18
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PUASE 1,1-805 TO NIRV~"'A
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
77 250 Watt Safety Light 3 Ea. 360.00 1,080.00
78 Type "D" Detector 6 Ea. 310.00 1,860.00
79 Type "B" Detector Loop 28 Ea. 260.00 7,280.00
80 Illuminated Street Name Sign 3 Ea. 460.00 1,380.00
81 Water Tight Telephone Terminal 1 Ea. 1,300.00 1,300.00
82 R 73-5 and R96 Signs I LS 300.00 300.00
83 27' Street Light w/250 watt 20 Ea. 1,225.00 24,500.00
84 Relocate Ex. Street Light 1 Ea. 610.00 610.00
85 Type 29-5-70 Signal ST A 10 Ea. 3,650.00 36,500.00
86 Type 24-4-70 Signal ST A 1 Ea. 3.050.00 3,050.00
87 #6PB 24 Ea. 140.00 3,360.00
88 #5PB 28 Ea. 110.00 3,080.00
89 #3'h PB 43 Ea. 75.00 3,225.00
90 Sched 80 PVC Co 6,000 LF 2.50 15,000.00
91 Sched 40 PVC Co 7,500 LF 3.00 22,500.00
92 Install Conductor 1 LS 12,500.00 12,500.00
93 SDG&E-20b 1 LS 130,00.00 130,000.00
94 PAC Bell I LS 47,000.00 47,000.00
95 Connection of Ex. Water 17 Ea. 410.00 6,970.00
96 Survey Monuments 2 Ea. 300.00 600.00
97 Construction Survey 1 LS 57,000.00 57,000.00
98 Adjustment of Utility Covers I LS 6,800.00 6,800.00
99 Erosion Control 1 LS 30,000.00 30,000.00
100 Planting I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
101 Maintenance 12 mont 1,500.00 18,000.00
h
102 Irrigation System 1 LS 220,000.00 220,000.00
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Dlay Valley Road Widellillg
19
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE I, I-80S TO NIRVA:\A
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
103 Protection & Rest of Ex. Improve- I LS 31.000.00 31,000.00
ments
104 Improvements at East End of Projects 1 LS 80.000.00 80,000.00
105 Sewer Lateral at Animal Shelter I LS 6,100.00 6,100.00
106 Sewer Pump Station I LS 12,200.00 12,200.00
107 Relocation of Animal Shelter I LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
108 Improvement Cost of Wetland Mitiga- 1 LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
tion
109 Settlement Monuments I LS 3,600.00 3,600.00
IIO Striping and Signage I LS 41,000.00 41,000.00
III Import 30,000 CY 1.50 45,000.00
II2 4 Inch Backdrains 1,000 LF 7.50 7,500.00
II3 Geofahric for Fill & Alluvium Areas 1,000 SY 2.00 2,000.00
Suhtotal Bid 4,319,428.00
20B Payment 512,226.00
20A Cost 320,000.00
Traffic Signal at I-80S 289,300.00
Anima1 Shelter (#107) to Incidentals (200,000.00)
Wetland Mitigation (#108) to Inciden- (180,000.00)
tals
Subtotal 5,060,954.00
Contingency @ 10 % 513,165.40
Right-of-Way (with 20% contingency) 1,119,920.00
Total Pbase I 6,694,039.40
Fino] Engineer's Report
Assessmell1 District 90-2
Omy Valley Road Widening
20
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIRVANA TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantities Type Unit Total
I Mobilization 1.00 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
2 Traffic Control 1.00 LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing 1.00 LS 60,000.00 60,000.00
Improvements
4 Alluvium Removal 67,132.00 CY 2.00 134,264.00
5 Excavation & Grading 9,675.00 CY 1.30 12,577.50
6 Import and Compaction 41,336.00 CY 7.50 310,020.00
7 AC Paving (6" Thick) 5,183.00 Tons 47.00 243,601.00
8 Aggregate Base (8" Thick) 6,680.00 Tons 16.20 108,216.00
9 Aggregate Subbase (10" Thick) 8,350.00 Tons 10.90 91,015.00
10 Monolithic Curb, Guller & Side- 2,490.00 LF 15.00 37,350.00
walk
11 Type "B-1" Inlet 2.00 Ea. 3,500.00 7,000.00
12 Type "B-2" Inlet 1.00 Ea. 4,000.00 4,000.00
13 Type "B-2" Inlet Modified 1.00 Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
14 Headwall (Type "A", Single) 6.00 Ea. 3,600.00 21,600.00
15 Headwall (Type "A", Double) 2.00 Ea. 5,000.00 10,000.00
16 Energy Dissipator 5.00 Ea. 5,500.00 27,500.00
17 48" RCP Pipe 468.00 LF 100.00 46,800.00
18 30" RCP Pipe 181.00 LF 65.00 11,765.00
19 24" RCP Pipe 274.00 LF 55.00 15,070.00
20 18" RCP Pipe 121.00 LF 35.00 4,235.00
21 Shoring 1.00 LS 2,500.00 2,500.00
22 16" Water Main (CL. 200, ACP) 1,123.00 LF 85.00 95,455.00
23 Gate Valve (16") 2.00 Ea. 6,150.00 12,300.00
24 Blind Flange (16") 1.00 Ea. 750.00 750.00
25 Thrust Block 1.00 Ea. 270.00 270.00
26 Connection to Ex. 16" WL 1.00 Ea. 700.00 700.00
27 Construction Survey 1.00 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
28 Erosion Control 1.00 LS 22,000.00 22,000.00
29 Landscaping 1.33 Acre 163,350.00 217,255.50
30 One Year Landscaping Mainte- 1.00 LS 12,000.00 12,000.00
nance
31 Irrigation System 1.00 LS 100,000.00 100,000.00
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widellillg
21
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIRVANA TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantities Type Unit Total
32 Wetland Mitigation 1.00 LS 150,000.00 150,000.00
33 Drainage Ditch 218 FT 1.00 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00
34 Pavement Striping 7,000.00 LF 0.35 2,450.00
35 Raised Pavement Marker 210.00 Ea. 4.00 840.00
36 Pavement Legend 200.00 SF 4.00 800.00
37 Signs 1.00 LS 2,700.00 2,700.00
38 Land Cost RfW 1.00 LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
2.203,434.00
Curve Section of Road 275,000
Subtotal 2,478,434
Contingency @ 14% 343,846
Right of Way with 20% Contin- Included
gency Above
TOTAL PHASE II 2,822,280
Final Engineer's Repon
A.rsessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
22
TABLE 3
OTAY VALLEY ROAD INCIDENTAL EXI'ENSES - PHASES I & II
Preliminary Confinned
Design Engineering 834,917 834,917
Construction Project Management 50,000 50,000
ROW Appraisals 55,000 55,000
Legal Services 30,546 30,546
Animal Shelter 200,000 200,000
Otay Water District Inspection 40,000 80,000
City Administration Fee 55,000 55,000
Plan Check 280,000 280,000
Inspection & Materials Testing 350,000 350,000
Traffic Design 7,500 7,500
Mitigation Costs 534,860 534,860
Project Management 25,500 25,500
Financial Consultant 67,000 67,000
Assessment Engineering 90,500 90,500
Printing, Advertising, Posting 3,200 3,200
Bond Printing, Servicing, & Reg. 12,500 12,500
Bond Counsel 36,758 33,709
Subtotal 2,673,281 2,710,232
Capitalized Interest 147.456 112.897
Reserve (10%) (City funded) 1,040,624 796,732
Discount (3 %) 312,187 239,020
TOTALS 4,173,548 3,858,881
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
23
Table 4
Contributions and Credits
Preliminary Confirmed
SB 300 Fund (1,161,000) (1,161,000)
Traffic Signal TF220 (189,300) (189,300)
SDG&E 20A Fund (existing) (320,000) (320,000)
SDG&E 20A Fund (proposed) (0) (642,226)
City Cash Contribution (1,765,167) (1,765,167)
Cash Advance for Future Transportation DIF (420,000)
Total Contributions (3,435,467) (4,497,693)
uss Credits for Existing Improvements & Slopes (163,099) (910,185)
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS & CREDITS (3,598,566) (5,407,878)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
24
PART II (Continued)
CALCULATION OF BOND DISCOUNT AND RESERVE FUNIl
Preliminary Confirmed
A. Construction Cost $ 9,831,259 9,516,319
B. Incidental Subtotal without Bond Discount, Reserve 2,673,281 2,710,232
Fund and Capitalized Interest
C. Less Cash Contributions & Credits (3,598,566) (5,407,878)
D. Subtotal 8,905,974 6,818,673
E. Capitalized Interest 147.456 112,897
F. Bond Discount (3 %) 312,187 239,020
G. Reserve Fund (10%) (City funded) 1,040,624 796,732
H. Total Discount, Reserve Fund & Capitalized Interest 1,500,267 1,148,649
I. TOTAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,406,242 7,967,322
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
25
Part III
Assessment Roll
PART III (a)
SUBMITTAL
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913, DIVISION 12 OF THE
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code
and Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, LimiTation, and Majority Protest ACT
of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
adopt Resolution of Intention No. 16601 for the construction of certain public improve-
ments, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith in a
special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OT A Y VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
(Hereinafter referred to as the" Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, said Resolution of Intention, as required by law, did direct the appointed
Director of Public Works to make and file a report consisting of the following:
1. Plans and specifications;
2. Estimated cost of improvements;
3. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement
levied upon the parcels and lots of land within the boundaries of the assessment
district;
4. Assessment diagram showing the assessment district and the subdivisions of
land contained herein;
5. A description of the public improvements to be constructed;
6. An Assessment Engineer's Certificate designating certain right-of-way
associated with the project will be transferred to the City by easement or other
means.
For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as adopted by the City
Council.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
26
Now THEREFORE, I, John P. Lippitt, as appointed Director of Public Works, and pursuant
to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, do herein submit the following:
I. I, pursuant to the provisions of law and the Resolution of Intention, have assessed the
costs and expenses of the works of improvement to be performed in the Assessment
District upon the parcels of land in the Assessment District benefitted thereby in
direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said
parcels. For particulars of the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the
Assessment Diagram.
2. As required by law, a Diagram is herein included, showing the Assessment District
as well as the boundaries of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within
said district as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of
Intention, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been
given a separate number upon said Diagram and in said Assessment Roll.
3. The subdivisions and parcels of land and the numbers therein as shown on the
respective Assessments Diagram as included herein correspond with the numbers as
appearing on the Assessment Roll as contained herein.
4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that bonds will be issued in accordance with Division 10
of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Bond
Act of 1915"), to represent all unpaid assessments, and the last installment of said
bonds shall mature a maximum of TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the 2nd day of
September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. Said bonds shall bear
interest at a rate not to exceed the current legal maximum rate of 12% per annum.
5. By virtue of the authority contained in said MunicipallmprovemenJ Act of 1913, and
by further direction and order of the City Council, I hereby make the fOllowing
assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the works of improvement for the
Assessment District based on the costs and expenses set forth as follows:
,
Construction Costs
Incidental Costs & Expenses
Contributions & Credits
Amount to Assessment District
Preliminary
$ 9,831,529
4,173,548
(3.598.566)
$ 10,406,242
Confirmed
9,516,319
3,858,881
(5.407.878)
7,967,322
For particulars as to the individual assessments and their descriptions, reference is
made to the Assessment Roll attached hereto.
6. In addition to or as a part of the assessment lien levied against each parcel of land
within the Assessment District, each parcel of land shall also be subject to an annual
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellt District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
27
assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed which
result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administra-
tion or registration of any bonds and/or reserve or other related funds. The
maximum amount of such annual assessment upon each such parcel of land shall not
exceed 5% of the amount of the annual assessment installment.
7. All costs and expenses of the works of improvement have been assessed to all parcels
of land within the Assessment District in a manner which is more clearly defined in
the "Method and Formula of Assessment Spread", which is a part of this Assessment
Roll.
The final report dated:
1-
- I . 1992 By:
ohn P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
, 1992 By: !
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
The preliminary report dated: J\ \
(
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90.2
Olay Valley Road Widellillg
28
PART III (B)
ASSESSMENTS PER APN
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
29
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
1 624-060-09 0 0
2 624-060-27 150,995 115,496
3 624-060-28 6,864 3,252
4 624-060-38 105,962 81,049
5 624-060-45 110,803 49,683
6 644-040-01 257,102 141,234
7 644-040-11 26,490 20,262
8 644-040-13 521 ,862 399,169
9 644-040-14 0 0
10 644-040-16 455,371 348,310
11 644-040-23 39,133 21,942
12 644-040-24 77,470 16,420
13 644-040-27 0 0
14 644-040-28 123,434 92,135
15 644-040-44 148,876 106,687
16 644-040-45 167.155 123,500
17 644-040-36 143.819 89,519
18 644-040-37 99,147 70,100
19 644-040-38 0 0
20 644-040-40 529,809 405,247
21 644-040-46 24,901 19,047
22 644-040-47 23,047 17,628
23 644-040-48 38,676 29.147
24 644-040-49 132,982 101.717
25 644-041-01 47,076 30,474
26 644-041-02 24,419 15,807
27 644-041-03 39,524 25,585
28 644-041-04 0 0
29 644-041-05 60,167 33,720
30 644-041-06 47,580 25,137
31 644-041-07 47,328 23,014
32 644-041-08 54,880 20,062
33 644-041-09 45,314 29,333
34 644-041-10 26,433 17,111
35 644-041-11 22,657 14,666
36 644-041-12 24,419 15,807
37 644-041-13 60,167 35,027
38 644-041-14 47,831 30,963
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
30
Assessment
Number
39
40
41
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
APN
Preliminary
Assessment
Confirmed
Assessment
644-041-17
644-041-18
644-041-19
644-181-01
644-181-02
644-181-03
644-181-04
644-181-07
644-181-08
644-181-09
644-181-10
644-181-11
644-181-15
644-181-16
644-181-18
644-181-19
644-181-20
644-181-21
644-181-22
644-181-23
644-181-24
644-181-25
644-181-26
644-181-27
644-181-28
644-181-29
644-181-30
644-181-33
644-182-01
644-182-02
644-182-03
644-182-06
644-182-07
644-182-08
644-182-09
644-182-10
644-182-11
644-182-12
59,915
54,377
99,187
34,864
35,644
38,506
58,279
o
61,922
39,807
109,794
43,189
135,031
37,986
35,124
43,449
33,823
36,164
38,506
50,734
11,708
11,968
23,156
17,432
17,432
47,352
15,611
27,318
133,990
135,551
135,031
o
169,374
134,511
171,716
137,893
110,314
97,306
30,073
35,200
58,108
25,063
24,099
23,107
35,797
o
41,683
28,616
70,870
31,048
82,261
26,872
25,250
28,621
24,315
25,998
27,681
36,472
8,417
8,604
16,646
12,531
12,531
32,734
11,222
19,639
96,323
97,445
78,123
o
121,760
96,697
123,443
71,032
79,303
69,951
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widellillg
31
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
82 644-182-14 28,099 20,200
83 644-182-15 23,936 17,207
84 644-182-16 120,721 84,171
85 644-182-17 72,589 52,183
86 644-230-11 31,222 22,171
87 644-230-12 28,576 20,690
88 644-230-13 31,751 22,989
89 644-230-14 31 ,486 22,798
90 644-230-15 77,790 53,057
91 644-230-16 129,385 46,637
92 644-230-17 128,327 50,662
93 644-230-18 80,700 37,305
94 644-230-19 120,918 52,050
95 644-230-20 42,864 29,511
96 644-230-21 25,665 17,276
97 644-230-22 41,276 28,144
98 644-230-23 148,171 93,127
99 644-230-24 42,335 23,465
100 644-230-25 32,016 18,825
101 644-230-26 42,599 26,270
102 645-021-01 32,742 25,044
103 645-021-02 74,253 56,795
104 645-021-03 120,690 92,315
105 645-021-04 22,914 17,527
106 645-021-05 21 ,855 16,716
107 645-021-06 23,126 17,689
108 645-021-07 24,610 18,824
109 645-021-08 30,014 22,957
110 645-021-09 32,000 24,477
111 645-021-10 25,934 19,837
112 645-021-11 24,716 18,905
113 645-022-01 57,378 32,998
114 645-022-02 55,180 37,197
115 645-022-03 53,060 39,714
116 645-022-04 54,199 37,754
117 645-022-05 58,120 40,317
118 645-022-06 44,769 31,412
119 645-022-07 36,875 27,334
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
32
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
120 645-021-19 21 ,404 16,372
121 645-021-20 19,603 14,994
122 645-021-21 22,358 17,101
123 645-021-22 28,875 22,086
124 645-021-23 25,086 17,882
125 645-021-24 21,881 16,737
126 645-021-25 21,881 16,737
127 645-021-26 20,901 15,987
128 645-021-27 20,954 16,028
129 645-021-28 27,206 20,809
130 645-021-29 21,484 1 6,433
131 645-021-30 20,212 15,460
132 645-021-31 20,000 14,427
133 645-021-32 107,604 82,306
134 645-021-33 31,312 23,950
135 645-021-34 28,371 21 ,701
136 645-021-35 26,093 19,958
137 645-021-36 30,305 23,180
138 645-021-37 27,020 20,668
139 645-021-38 26,490 20,262
140 645-021-39 25,828 19,756
141 645-021-40 26,093 19,958
142 645-021-41 28,080 21,478
143 645-021-42 20,821 15,926
144 645-021-43 20,106 15,379
145 645-021-44 0 0
146 645-021-45 0 0
147 645-022-08 0 0
149 645-020-08 0 0
149 645-020-11 1,310,138 1,002,119
149 645-020-12 0 0
150 644-060-06 157,618 120,561
10,406,242 7,170,590
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Wulellillg
33
i c:
E '"
~ E
i: ~
8~
~'E
.. G>
.5 E
~j
"0--
"ij.!! as
C.~E
5c%~
~
<
- G>
.!! ::I
o-
f- ..
",>
-
-
iijG>c;r
-::I~
~~B
G> li
20.
f--
o
)--
0_
G>~
::IS
- c:
~ G>
E
~
~
i!l:::-
~ iij :;
OS> c:
~ ~
(5
~ ~
~ u
Cl<
III
.... - CD
o '" .0
~ ~ E
~c.~
OlONO)t"')vNC)O
~~C!;m~~~
lliri,....-a; -om
,.... CO<o;tvC\lOl
- '"
ONoe
_... "I
"''''...
as ....- fi5
"'''1_
'"
U')I'OOlQO
M COO..... 0
....c.oU')U')....
NtDMC>>O
mONCO,..."
- -
,...,...co",...., v"" U')O
~~~;!t:~g~
u-)a;"':m .OlflV;
O..........C\I0M.....N
... -
0.......
"''''-
.... 0
c?1llc?
"'''I'''
....0'"
ID"''''
Ill'"
cir-:r-:
ID......
~~~M~~R~~~g~~,....~~~og
mN,....coN~U')o).....,....OM.....~COO,.....Mo)
~m~~g~;~g~~~N~g~~~
C")NC")COC\!......~,...."tNLl) ,...COO>COfD
~::8g8[o~~:;~~~
.....O)\l)U')U')vMC\!t"')C")It).....
cia6"':N"': .,..:N..;CS,....ui
CO.....OCO(")(")MNU')C")c.oc.o
CO............-U')N.....N C?NN
cD
~~~~re~~~~mo~c.o~oU')~og~Nggg~c.og~~~8
COU')NC'OU')O.....o)MU')8C'O~C'O~~Ll)C'Oo)C\IcooooO)~U')C'O,........t"')
~~g~dc?g~gc?~~~~c?~~cD~cD~~~~~~1~cD~~
-~~~~~N~N~~~ ~~~~~ ~~N.C")~~~v~~~~
":coJ ri N . .,:...:.,.:.,.:.,.: ri .
-
000000000
-"''''21110....~2ID'''01ll-828'''...IDO....'''1ll
~~m~U') ~vo~~ ~~o5o~~~~~re~
ui";ui~"': Na)Ncj,..: ,..:.,.:a6~a6,..:CS,..:uiuiocj
~N~~m ~~~g~ ~~Nt"')SI~~NM~.~
N .,.:.,.:...:..: N .
lljllllll"'ogo
q~"1.8l.t:'''!.
vI;;~~~~
............J.....
b
z
~~ffim~f::g
doid~Lrioi";
....C?ONv,...Q)
CDOOvCl')CX)"lf
ui..ci~dci';
-
C\I""""""O)C)O)Q)
OCOO)U')O)MCC!CC!
Lti"";O"";oo:iN
vU')CD,.."
0000
I I I I
gggg
I I I I
vvvv
~~($($
E
~ -NMVU')CD""'COO)~~~~V~CD~~~~N~~~~~~reregM
~..
~
<
OU');1;NMNONO
mO)~~ee~
ouiuio"':ui"":
~ ~;:~NVl
-MOO
...."'....
"'-...
""en":
Ill"'....
...
...IDIll"'....O
C')""'U')_v
vCO_CO..-
ria5"':c?en
NvCDvO)
- - -
0)..-,.." tON tOcn ''It" 0
~gcgrcg;:~;~
a)"';Ma5N"':V~a)
NNNMMvNM
III _
",...ct"'OO
~8l."<~t:'
NCClCO<OU')
"'- -
'" ..J
b
z
Oc.oOOc.o-0!:!222CDCDOOOO
8 lllfd \ll~~~~
~ ~~ ~s:id;;;g
0)1:\1 c.oCS~_N
ri "":roJ"":MroJ
''It"OcnONONN_
NO_COCDOCOc.oC?
"";O"':"";MOoo:iLOcD
"'--
"'....'"
0"''''
, , ,
000
IDIDID
000
, , ,
.........
"'''''''
IDIDID
COU')"-"-MVCDMV""'CO~U')C.D""'COOC.D""'Q)O)_NM
MVO"--~-NNNNVVMMM~vvvvooo
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
000000000000000000000..-..-.-
~~gggggggggggggggggggggg
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~VVVVV~VVVVV~V"lt"vvvvvvvvv
ID~($($~~~($($($~~($($($~($($~~~($($($
1:: ... ..
e.!lH
<>::t~
..~ "t :s:
... -
".:1 .,.
"Q"
.5 .... e
eo:::Cr:::
r.ii ~ ~
-~:::
" tJ:!::
;;: ~ 6-
o
-.t
....
al c
E '"
~ E
'E ~
8~
~c
.. CD
.s E
~ ~
l~
:21Uc
nJ .- tP
o.lllE
:3c%ij
::l
<
! ~
0-
I->!
!::!
-
rag:N'
"'-~
1-" .. -
> 3
CD li
2n.
1--
o
)0::-
CD~
:>!l
rag
> ~
~
0.
.5
ICD~
:>C
01."
> C
~ g
~ !
~ u
Cl<
on
~'- - is
O"'D
ij ~ E
::In.~
<
N(f')....l.O,....,...MMOCO(")(T),....,....O
l.OM.......C'OON<'o,....OOtOCJO(T)
OM...... c.o CO om OC\l....... 00..... r--..
o 0) r.: ..; ui ui 0 0 ui cO ui >t;f- ri ui
C\lC\l...............MMMMU")C\lC\lNM
g~~,....~toM~~~~~~R!O
U)C"')"lttSv_COC')M.....CD~l.t)C\I
"';"';cDN";o,..:a;";ai""';uia:iaj
U")vNNNl.O"ltLl)\l)(T)MMC")U")
Ml.OOCO....C\I0..... "'CO..... N,.... v co....
ffiw~~~~~~M~ffi~;g~~
~a:io~N~..,;w..;uir.:cDa:ia:icDN
vN,....MCONNNNNNM ......-
~~~~M~~~~~~~~~ffi~
mco,........om...."ltco....l.t),....,....m....v
~o)a)Muir.:uiriricDa:io~~M,..:
l.OMOvC")C")M"It'(")MML()........N_
- -
~~~~~~~~m~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~
I.OCDc.ov(")C")(T)(T),....,....MNOc.o C\I(T)l,O,........OM........C")m....,....(T)M,....
a:i..;a:ir.:r.:a:ia:icDuir.:~..;ui..; ria)riOa)MNO)cDa:ia:icD~~cDri
O~vNMC")l.OMOLl)MMv.... Mv....COM"ltMOOmC\lOU")l.t)....>t;f
MN..............MNMMl.t)............C\1 N....v....M........................ .....
~N~~tO~~~~~{O~e~o
N~Nc:o(b,....cnCOLl)l.t)CDU')_(")
r.:a;":";"';cD"':ri":uiNcSooi
.....OC>>Ll),....,....M,............l.OCDmC\l
c.oU")NNNc.ol.t)<DCD~NNNv
0'0'000'000
re~~~~~~~l.t)~~U")~~e~
Ll)o)Nl.t)N_c.oN~""'~~~~0~
r.Do)"':~aig~(l$NuSr-:NMMN"':
~~~~~NNNN~~N~~~~
000l!l:g00180:!!....&l~0
">on "':g....~"'M
MN cDo)NNeOr.D
., .........,"'.......
lI)_~""
-
""0)a)_~0
O~N""~
~..,.co..,._
"':cONr.DrD
..,. ~.....~
00.,
"'....
....'"
~~
....-
........~"'...$"'~...."'~...<li180-~g~...._:g.,"'...."''''........~....
~~O~:N~_~~~~M,... 8~N~~~~re~g~o~~:~
rDa;;a)o)a;;": ..ncD .00)0": ,.:f.ti~a;;..n".OM-ct..nr-:Ma5rD.f.ti
COMM_N_~_~N,...m~~ -O)-~,...lI),...NN~lI)NOOmN
NN___~NMNlI)N ..,. N ~NM NNNNN_____
~~~g~~g~~~~~~~g~~~mO)~~~~~~~~~m~
N~~cidN~NNM~~~NciN~~~~~ ___ dddd
., '" 0 - ....'" ... ""COQ)_NM~""COO> 0 - '" ~., '" 0_ ....'" ... '" ~....
0 0 - '7 - - - ---0000000 - - '7 - - - ........ .... .... .... '" "''''
I 0 , , I I I , I , I I , I I I 0 0 I I 0 I I I I 0 0 0 I
- - - ;;: ;;;;;? 0; a; a; 0; 0; 0; - - 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ., ., ., .,., ., .,
0 - '7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I 0 , , , I I I 0 0 , I I I I , I I , I I I I , , I I I I I
""""""""""...v.'lt ... ...v...vv..,... ... 'Ilt'llt....
<Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii ... <Ii<li<li~<Ii<li<li<li<li<li<li<li ~ <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii
~ ~
c
'" '" '" ~ "' ~ .... ., '" 0 ;;: .... ., "'0 u; '" '" ~ "' ~ .... ., '" 0 u; N '" <Ii "' <P ....
E '" '" '" '" '" '" "'~ ... ~ ~ "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' ~ <P <P <P <P <P
m ..
::l
<
1:: '" ..
" '" .:;
&~ :::
1>::1::~
." .l:~
.. -
" .~.,.
"Q"
.5 _ Q
..-I>::
t:i ~ ~
"-
- t:;-
t$ \J ~
~~S
Ci
.,.,
<"l
i c
E CD
~ E
'E ~
8~
~c
.. CD
Ii
,,--
_ .. c
.. - CD
o.&lE
5.%~
~
"ii ~
~~
~
-
5!B
0-
I-~'a;
Gl e
~:.
~15
)'0:::-
Gl~
~!!l
'iii i
> ~
~
0.
.5
jGl~
a::..
~~
..
-'
5
~ !
(;~
.~~ -a ~
e E
..
~~:i
....'l:tNm(")U')C")O
MMNMN"ItN
l/),....C\lCDM"It....
NN",,:o;!.D"':a:i
...-(").........0')0).....
NN..-a)O..........O
~~u;c;~tgg
,.:,.:.,;,.:..;.,;.,;
....'It.....NC")MC'?
- --
~~~~o~~o
.....,........NII)~.....
rio:ilLit:cDom
""~'"lt~~c;Ii~
(D.....(QC:ONC'?~O
:g~~~8:;N
,...: t..: '..: ~ c? ~- <IS
oo,...,cn.......... ,...
N NItO to
tQOCDcnNNO
It) ~::N~
o err,..:.,.:.n
0) NC>>C")
It)
O.....MNM.....O..........M.....omc:o,...,.....NU')O.....(Q~.....
c.omvMo~oo.....c:o.....mC:OC')l/)MC'OOl/).....,...~N
.....C'OvOMmNN...............(Qm.....OC'OC'OMOl/)N..........
....:..Dri....:o)mO,..:~NNoNNri..DO,..:No),..:a;)ri
NmN..........wN.....Wl/)C\lNNNl/)"Itl/)C")U')C\l.....NC')
-
~~~~~~m~N~~~~~gU')~g~~~~~
MU').....C:OMMOC').....II)NII)....."It.....~M.....C')C:O(QN.....
m~;~g~re~g~~re~~~roregg~~;~
.............................. ....................
~c:o"ltNNN.....C')C:OC:OM(Q~C')(QC:Ol/)C')l/)VMC')N
M2~~!~~~~:~~~~N~;~~~~~~
~,..:.,.:~,..:~~oMc?,..:NmeOcDNcD~~m,..:oN
v~~~~~2cng~~~~~;mm~~~~~~
.....(QC:O~MMNC:OU')(QII).....C:O.....Nl/)cn.....O.....(QC:OV
~w~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~m~m~
g~~~~g~gg~~~g~~i~gg~~;g
COCDCO(DII)"'ItN-(Q\l)C?MC")C")COr.tr.tCOt\!.VN....~
....
O~N~OO~gO~~ooooooooo~~g~
~e~ ~m~ ;~www~~wwww~~~v
~~~ .00 ~~~~~~0~~~~~mN~
_mN _........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~I-~I-I-I-~ .
666060006 -
zzzzzzzzz
~N~~N~~008-~~~g~.~00CCCCCCC~NNM
~~co~~~~ MO~~~~~o~~wwwwwwwww~~~~
- . . - - - - - - . - - . . . . -1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- - . . .
g~~~;~~ ~~~8~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N Nmm_ MMv___N_~~~~~~~~~~~vNMv
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- .
000000000
zzzzzzzzz
~~g~\l)N~g\l)~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g
ci~d ~~~d~~~~~ri~ci.N~~~~N~~M~ d~~
co Rl 0 M (; N M~ ~co ~ 0 - N . ~ '" ~ _N M . ~ '" ~ co ~ 0 N N M
N M M 0 00 00 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N N N
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
co co co co N N NN NN N N N N N N N N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co co coco coco co co co co co co co co MM M M M M M M M M M M M
- - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - NN N N N N N N N N N N N
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
... . V........ V vv '''It oct.... . ........................ .................... . .... V oct '''It....
~~~ . ~~~~;g;g;g;g;g . ;g;g;g;g;g;g ;g;g;g;g;g . ;g;g;g;g;g
'" '" '"
c
CD co ~ 0 ;:: N M . ~ '" ... co ~ 0 co N M :; ~ '" ... co ~ 0 ;;; N M . ~ '" ~ co
E '" '" ~ ... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... co co co co co co co co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ..
~
t: N""
~8d
<l::ll~
a'-l"E ~
\:; .~.,.
~ ~ e
"- ~ Q
co::tr:::
.:i ~ ~
-Ei==
~ tU ~
ii: ~ 1i'
cS
\0
<'"l
i c:
E '"
~ E
'E ~
8~
,.,-
~ c:
i ~
ct~
,,--
on;.! i
C.&lE
5c%~
~
<
5 ~
~ti
N>
-
~
-"'Iii'
~3-
I-~a;
'" !!
2l1.
1--
o
j--
o~
",-
:>!l
"Iii
> ~
~
c.
.5
"i~E
j~~
(5
~ ~
~ "
tll<
.I"
o a; m
I~~
~c.~
~~ov~~~wmv~~~~ro~VV~NVNV_~N~~~~m
~~~g~M~~~~~~~g~e~~M;~~~~~~~~~~~
ri~~~wN~~~~N~m~N~m~o~~w.~N~WW~00
N-NN~m----NN__MMMMVMN___N_____N
~~~~~g~~re~~g~~~~gm~m~~a=~~--o~~
MO~~Nwm~_woom~M_o__~=vw~mOm~mmN
NNNN~dN~ri~dN~~~~ri~~~~~mN=~~~Oci~
VMVM~~NNNNMMNN~~~~~VMN_NNNNNNNN
~8re~N~~~~~m~~~-m~N~V~m~~~~~~m~~
~Mmm~mv~~~Mo~o~m~~w~OM~vMommwmM
~~~~~~N0ri~o~~Nw.rimo~~~~m~~w~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~grerereM~~~_~~_~~~~~
vm~_-WW--~=Mvo__mX~~_~VOM~VV~~~
~m~~~~m~~a~a~~re~~MN~~~~~~_~~~m~
MN~~M~.M~~.ON~.M~~~~=.=~==le.MMMMO
~~~~m~~M~ N~~~~~~~N~mNOMO MMNNm
VMvM~~NNN MMNNW~~~WVMNNNM NNNNN
~w-oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
~~M
N~N
cDoicD
rn~gj
1ll~x~m~!N!~~M~~~~g~m~~0~~M8~~mgjM
N~~o~~~g~~~~~~~MN~~~m~~~~~~~~Ng
o~grio~~~~~~~cDmNo~~~~ririM~NN~~ooM
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~gre~regN~~2~~~~~~~~
~~~~g~~~~~~N~~~~8~~~~=~~8~~~~~g
~~~N~cicioo~~ociNNNNN~~ocici~ciocicio~
~~~~N
NNNOO
I I I I I
gggC\jC\j
NNNOO
I I I I I
~~~l/)~
~~~1b~
g;g
, ,
C\jC\j
00
, ,
~~
~~
~~
~~~~~2~o~g~~~~~~N~~~~re~re
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
NNNNNNN~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNN
000000000000000000000000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)l/)
1b~1b~~~~~~~~1b~~~~~1b~~~~~~
c
'" m 0 ;; N M ;g 8 ~ ~ ~ m 0 :: N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ., m 0 C;; N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
E m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ - N N '" '" N N N N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..
~
1: '" "<>
., "'.;:
~~ :::
<>::1:l~
.,,'1:: ~
.. l;
ten
.:;: .... Q
Clo:::O::
.:i l! ~
_ i:;-
~ t! ~
~~
g
r-
....
ie
E '"
~ E
~j
~e
.. '"
-= E
I)
'0--
_ .. c:
.. - '"
e. &l E
5c%~
ill
<
g !:
~ii
",>
-
~
s ~
0-
....~a;
'" ~
,,~
~
o
)0;:-
"'~
" m
~i
Q.
.5
'O"'~
m'" ,,::::.
'iii'O
> c:
~ g
~ ~
~ 0
(!l<
om ~
OGiZ
~ ~ E
~o.;E
c
..
E
~..
ill
<
("') 0,.... <<>0 Y-(OO
M(.OC'\lOLOOU')CO
vvvMO),....m.....
uilli";NM",":ai'M",.
.....y-.....0)C\j
CON<.Oa:>
c.Dl.Ol.()U')
CDN,....m
aomm
'" '"
~NS<:~C\l.....C?LOOOCOM
VNO(Oc:;~~g~~~~
"':oo"':":ajtDo"':tD~u5
NNNOMNNMNNNN
~
v~~~~~
a;OO)OM(Q
..; .;.,; on": 0
_oor-..U)\t)
...............Lt).........
""" Ol
...."'....
vOlM
.....- LO ui
'" ~ ~
0,-\00
"''''0
o co .....~
aioe
"'''''''
,....c.o,....,"Ct..........~VNO
:~~c:;8:ot:;;~
ai' "riaia)mo ..,..:
M(ClLl)C")C')(")Lt).....0
.-..............-.---.....
g
p...CD-LO-M(")N"'ltCDNMCOCOM
~af::;:lQ~ma;S~~m~:;g
~"USC?O"; ricOMcDcDtDcOg"rJ";
.........U)MO,...,C\lO,...,,....,.... N_
NN'""':.MMNMMNNN NN
~
OOOO~O(D
- '"
.,;
'"
N
&
oooococ:o
M ~
_ (0
0"":
~'"
"l.~
00
~~:gO
ctS..:a;
Ol(OM
NCC!.-
"'MOl
~8Pl
":N";
Ol"'....
"'....'"
ri
0000000000000000000000
o~~
~~~
~gg
~ ~ ~
;:::~::ga;!i?J~8Q;~NO
cn""'vM_v<.OCOMON_
u5";oiaSai' NcDct5aiaiocD
CDCD'"ltMU')"'ItMMMv.....O
11).......................................___
a;:e~
cicici
U)CO,....CJ)..,.N
o"'":~C').....<::!
oti ci
reg
, ,
NN
00
, ,
"''''
i!i!
;;;Pl~;l;~~
I I I I I I
NNNNNN
000000
I I I I I I
LOLOLOLt)l.()\t)
~~i!i!i!i!
~c:;P.i~~
~ ~ ~
~~g:~
...-dd
~:eN~~
doddd
00
~(!;;~
oct-.....U')
"airio;
~~~~
N
COC")U)LI)
NO)l/')M
cOc?a:ioi
~~ '"
~ ~
~~~~;~~;~~~~;:~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
NNNNNNNNN~~~~g
00000000000000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1J')1J')1J')1.l)1.l)1.l)1.l)l.l)l.l)l.l)l.l)lJ')l.l)v
~i!i!~i!i!i!i!i!i!~i!~i!
~~~~~~v~~:~~~~~~~
.-.-.-.- .- .--- ---
o
Ol
'"
.,;
....
,.:
1:: '" ::.0
,,<,- .::
&'" :::
0>::t;{J
.."lI .i:~
... -
~iS"g
.5 ..... Q
c.o:::Ct:
.:i " ~
- ~::
~ '" ~
i.i:~
-.;s
C
'"
...
'"
<D
o
v
.,;
o
M
o
'"
ri
~
.,;
v
(0
o
o
,.:
(0
(0
N
'"
c;;
Ol
~
Ol
....
Ol
:i
M
.,;
'"
g
'"
c:
"
..,
"i
1i
'&.
::::l
g
Ol
~
00
<"l
:ll
....
.,;
Ol
M
,.:
v
,,;
~
'"
0'8
~8
'" ci
E "
~5
ill ..
<..
i1l:
.!:! E
.. '"
"CIl
a",-
w '"
~ e.
Ole.
~2
o ..
O~
0If-
'" ..
05
c: e.
.. '"
CIla:
"0 '"
>- .~
c ~
CD =' c-
o 0 e.
:;U<
o ~~
C/)::.~
This page left intentionally blank.
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessme1Jt District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
39
This page left intentionally blank.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
40
This page left intentionally blank.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
41
PART III (C)
CERTIFICATES
I, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was filed in my office on the ;-'-\ !~ day of
, ~
\ " ~t- 1992.
.,
cg~ (/ (2,71. aJ
City lerk
City of Chula Vista
State of California
T, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was approved and confirmed by the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on the 7Y\day of\ 1\ kit:' 1992.
(-&1(11 (/ CLifld
City C erk
City of Chula Vista
State of California
T, John P. Lippitt, as Director of Public Works of said City, do hereby certify that the
foregoing assessments, together with the diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my
officeonthe -,:,'-\-\ dayof .\,j~~C 1992.
I ~~--
irector of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dtay Valley Road Widening
42
PART III (D)
METHOD AND FORMULA OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
1. Introduction
The law requires and the statutes provide that assessments, as levied pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, must be based on the benefit
that the properties receive from the works of improvement. The statute does not
specify the method or formula that should be used in any special assessment district
proceedings. This responsibility rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is retained
for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts in determining the correct
apportionment of the assessment obligation. For these proceedings, the City has
retained the services of WiIldan Associates.
The Assessment Engineer makes his recommendation at the public hearing on the
Assessment District, and the final authority and action rests with the City Council
after hearing all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. Upon the
conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council must take the final action in
determining whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion
to the benefits received.
2. General Benefit versus Special Benefit
The first task of the Assessment Engineer is to distinguish between the General
Benefit associated with the project and the local Special Benefit that would accrue to
the properties within the District. In order to accomplish this, the Assessment
Engineer needs to examine the nature of the public improvements. In addition, an
analysis of the future probable land use of the properties within the district must be
made. Otay Valley Road is a six lane median divided thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. The final EIR for the proposed project
indicates that there is a need for four lanes of roadway to provide an acceptable level
of service to the area within the boundary of the District at buildout. Therefore the
four lanes provide the local special benefit to the area within the District. The
additional two lanes are needed to accommodate regional traffic and through trips that
pass through the area. These additional two lanes constitute the General Benefit
portion of the project and are paid through a contribution by the City to the District.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
O/ay Valley Road Widening
43
3. Direct and Special Benefit
atay Valley Road is a six lane median divided regional thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. As indicated previously, there is a
need for four lanes of roadway to serve the area within the boundary of the District
at authorized buildout and maintain an acceptable level of service. The direct, local
Special Benefit derived by the properties within the District for these four lanes of
improvement are as follows:
1. Provides sufficient roadway capacity to maintain an acceptable level of service
at the authorized buildout;
2. Provides traffic safety through medians and signalized intersections; and
3. Enhances the value of the properties within the boundary of the District.
Each property within the District is being assessed for its proportionate share of the
four lanes needed to carry traffic from the development to the freeway or from the
development to other areas of the City. By limiting the costs to only that portion of
the street that benefits the properties within the boundaries of the district, results in
the district paying only its share of the street improvements. Figure 1 shows parcels
that will receive direct and special benefit from the atay Valley Road widening.
These parcels include all the industrial property with access onto atay Valley Road,
the atay County Landfill, the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel, and the atay Rio
Business Park.
The atay County Landfill and the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel are included in the
benefit area because they presently generate heavy truck traffic on atay Valley Road
and will receive direct benefit from the improvements. In addition, the design for
the future curve at the eastern boundary of the district includes specific features that
will accommodate truck traffic to and from the mining parcel. An eastbound left turn
pocket will provide trucks with safe access from the west, a westbound acceleration
lane on the right will allow exiting trucks to safely enter the flow of traffic, and a
right turn pocket will provide access for entering northbound trucks. The assessment
for the atay County Landfill is calculated as if it is a participating property and will
be contributed to the district in cash. The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel will be
assessed and appear within the assessment district boundaries.
The atay Rio Business Park is included in the assessment district because it also
receives direct and special benefit from the improvements. 771e Traffic Analysis for
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
44
Oray Valley Road Phase /II shows that Phase I and II improvements are required
in conjunction with the development of the two units in the business park.
4. Method of Spread
The widening of Otay Valley Road will benefit both developed and undeveloped
parcels within the district boundary. All of the property within the district boundary
has been authorized the same land use (industrial) and generates the same amount of
vehicle trips per gross acre. For that reason, the assessments within the contiguous
boundary of the district are based on gross acres. Actual traffic counts were obtained
from the Otay County Landfill parcel and the Nelson & Sloan Mining parcel. A
factor of 200 vehicle trips per day/per acre was used to calculate trips for each of the
industrial parcels and compared with vehicle trip counts for the landfill and mining
parcels in order to determine these parcels' proportionate share of the cost.
Traffic counts for the Otay LandfiIl were obtained from the County Garbage and
Trash Disposal Division, Department of Public Works, County of San Diego. Traffic
counts for the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel were taken from The Traffic AfUllysis
for Oray Valley Road Phase /I. The heavy trucks that were included in these traffic
counts were multiplied by a rate of 1.7 to account for the additional wear they cause
to the road.
Certain properties within the Otay Valley Road benefit area render themselves, either
wholly or in part, difficult to develop due to their location within a f100dway or
floodplain, or lying within an area of probable wetland designation as defined by
agencies other than the City of Chula Vista. Other undeveloped properties render
themselves difficult to develop due to severe slopes within the entire parcel area as
defined by the City of Chula Vista slope ordinance. Where these problems to
development occur, parcels have been eliminated from the district entirely or portions
of the property have been eliminated from the calculation of area for assessment
purposes. Where a part of the parcel is not used in the calculation of that full
parcel's assessment, that portion of the parcel not used in the calculation will not
receive an assessment upon the split of the parcel during reapportionment.
1 WilIdan Associates. Traffic Analysis for Otay Valley Road Phase II, November 7, 1990.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
45
o
Z
......
Z
~
Q
......
~<(
Q~
;d<(
~O::E-<
8>-<~
~~~
....:lz
....:l~
<(P=l
>
>-<
<(
E-<
o
!SIr
..II'
~,
g,1
~d
<I'
zl ~
~,l
~il
~l
!:
~
~
~
~
~
>
~
~
~
~
..
gj
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
REVISED CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Assessment
Number
APN
Revised
Improvement
Credits
3
5
11
12
14
17
18
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
624-060-28
624-060-45
644-040-23
644-040-24
644-040-28
644-040-36
644-040-37
644-041-01
644-041-02
644-041-03
644-041-05
644-041-06
644-041-07
644-041-08
644-041-09
644-041-10
644-041-11
644-041-12
644-041-13
644-041-14
644-041-17
644-041-18
644-041-19
644-181-01
644-181-02
644-181-03
644-181-04
644-181-08
644-181-09
644-181-10
644-181-11
644-181-15
644-181-16
644-181-18
644-181-19
644-181-20
644-181-21
644-181-22
644-181-23
(8,500)
(49,603)
(14,530)
(56,930)
(5,530)
(16,662)
(11,558)
(7,417)
(3,847)
(6,227)
(9,479)
(7,496)
(7,457)
(8,646)
(7,139)
(4,165)
(3.570)
(3.847)
(9,479)
(7,536)
(9.440)
(8.567)
(15,627)
(2.089)
(2,136)
(2,307)
(3,492)
(3,710)
(2,385)
(6,578)
(2.588)
(8,090)
(2,276)
(2,104)
(2,603)
(2,027)
(2,167)
(2,307)
(3,040)
Finnl Engineer's Report
Asses.smellT District 90-2
Orn)' Vnlle)' Road Widening
47
REVISED CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Assessment
Number
APN
Revised
Improvement
Credits
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
644-181-24
644-181-25
644-181-26
644-181-27
644-181-28
644-181-29
644-181-30
644-181-33
644-182-01
644-182-02
644-182-03
644-182-07
644-182-08
644-182-09
644-182-10
644-182-11
644-182-12
644-182-14
644-182-15
644-182-16
644-182-17
644-230-11
644-230-12
644-230-13
644-230-14
644-230-15
644-230-16
644-230-17
644-230-18
644-230-19
644-230-20
644-230-21
644-230-22
644-230-23
644-230-24
644-230-25
644-230-26
(701)
(717)
(1,387)
(1,044)
(1,044)
(2,837)
(935)
(1,637)
(8,028)
(8,122)
(8,090)
(10,148)
(8,059)
(10,288)
(8,262}
(6,610)
(5,830)
(1,684)
(1,434)
(7,233)
(4,349)
(1,303)
(1,193)
(1,325)
(1,314)
(3,247)
(5,401)
(5,357)
(3,369)
(5,048)
(1,789)
(1,071)
(1,723)
(6,185)
(1 ,767)
(1,337)
(1,778)
TOTALS
(474,803)
Final Engineer's Repol1
Assessm(~JJ1 District 9()..2
Oray Valley Road Widening
48
This page left intentionally blank.
Filial Engineer's Report
Anessme11l District 90-2
Ola)' Valley Road Widening
49
g:Cj
I--<Z
~ I--< en
UE--E--
~enZ
~~~
C"lo~;:;s
t:ilE--~~
~eno>
O~fi.o
...... I--< ~
t:I..E--E--P-.
~I--<;:;S
~Ol--<
P-.~
o~
~U
P-.
~Go
~ 1)\ ,0
of Sl'> v",';~
,,'i ---::
~~ o"y------~
CO
Z
<<:..:l
Oeil
..:lU
CJ)P::
"<l~
Zo
Oz
00_
..:lZ
ril-
z::E
11:)11
~!l
g,=
~d
<II
~l!
~II
~
00
E-
Z
r.l
::E
r.l
>
E- 0
- <>:
Q 0..
r.l ::E
<>: -
U r.l
r.l "
> <<:
- E-
r.l Z
~ 0
<>: <>:
...
~ "
rn :5
r.l E-
- rn
E- _
<>: ox
r.l r.l
0.. <>:
o 0
g: ...
~
5. Existing Improvement Credits
Special consideration will be given to those existing subdivisions that have already
installed frontage improvements on atay Valley Road as part of their conditions of
development approval. Existing improvements, which include curb, gutter, sidewalk,
lighting and a travel lane will be considered part of the road widening project. Their
cost will be estimated based on the bid amounts for those items and included in the
dollar amount to be spread. Then, the cost will be credited back to those subdivi-
sions that installed them. This method establishes equity among parcels that have
already paid for frontage improvements and those that have not. Table 1 and Figure
2 show what credits will be given to the existing subdivisions. Please refer to the
Assessment Diagram for the location of parcel numbers.
6. Special Financing Considerations
Darlinl!-Delaware Property
The Darling-Delaware property, former site of the Omar Rendering Plant, was to be
developed into the Rio atay Industrial Park until the discovery of hazardous waste
halted further development. The subdivision is made up of 17 parcels (parcel #'s 25
through 41) and is currently partially improved with graded pads and an improved
access road. A Class I Hazardous Containment Structure is located on parcel #28.
Reference is made to, "Report Review and Assessment of Available Environmental
Documents Related to the amar Rendering Site, 4826 atay Valley Road, Chula Vista
California," June 5, 1990, Ninyo and Moore; also letter report dated March 19, 1991
to City of Chula Vista, Attention: Ms. Robin Putnam, by TorStan, Inc. City staff
has decided to consider all parcels in the subdivision to be developable, with the
exception of parcel #28, for the purposes of Assessment District 90-2.
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel
The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel is a 136 acre lot outside the city limits of Chula
Vista in San Diego County. It is currently owned by United Enterprises LTD and
leased to Nelson & Sloan for sand and gravel mining purposes. The parcel receives
direct benefit from the road improvements. Due to its location outside the City,
including it in the assessment district boundary is required the Consent and Jurisdic-
tion from the County of San Diego, which has been obtained.
Otay County Landfill
The Otay County Landfill is owned by San Diego County. Like the mining parcel,
it receives direct benefit from the widening of Otay Valley Road. However, County
land is not legally assessable, and inclusion in the assessment district is therefore not
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
51
feasible. It is recommended that the proportionate share of the assessments
attributable to the landfill, less bond discount, reserve and capitalized interest, be paid
in the form of a cash contribution to the assessment district. A cash contribution has
been calculated and factored into the assessment district offsetting assessments to
property owner.
7. Incidentals
The cost of incidentals has been spread proportionately over the various improve-
ments in the direct proportion that the improvement bears to the total cost of
improvements.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for Assessment District No. 90-2 are
spread in direct accordance with the local, special benefits that the land within the district
boundary r eives from the works of improvements.
z.
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
52
PART IV
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
Reduced copy. Full size copies are on file in the
offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public
Works.
Said Assessment Diagram is filed herewith and made a
part hereof.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
53
~-z-
C\1
I
o
m
l...L...
OE--<
2U
<(~
0:::0:::
C)E--<
<(if]
Cl~
Q
I-
ZE--<
~Z
UJ~
tJ::E
UJif]
c:l.if]
~
if]
if]
<r::
<(
Z
>-""
1-0
Z"-
:;:)::;
0<(
uu
-"-
<(0
I-
VlW
>1-
<(
<(I-
-lVl
:;:) -
:1:0
Ua
w
Cl
"-
o
>-Z
1-<(
UVl
Cl
<(
o
0:::
>-
W
-1
-1
<(
>
>-
<(
t-
O
"-
o
~
<
U
o
o
~
~
o
X
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
,. '"
"'
0: >- '" 0
.. '" "
" " Z
" "
Z 0 z ~
;> Z ~ ~
0 " W
'" 0 z 3'
0 '" W
.... " ,
Z '" ~ "' "'
.... 0: "' "' W
" W <L
<:J .... '" "' 0
.... '" " "' ~
...J Q <L " "'
~ W
~
"
U
"'
@ 0
~
~
0
Z
...-,
~
00"" :!:
~i i
<:H ~
-. i
~!I
0'
<-I
xl!
~! I
:.1,
~
<!l
~ '"
wZ
~ ~,,~
0 X ~ I
w I ;'l<"~~~
" I g~~~ I
I I
~ I dbl~o I
0 I b~ ~ I
~ I~ Ww
X I~if~ 1<<
<. IX Iw ~"
ON 1<< Vl;;z::V: 10
z~ O~ l~ /;~
"'~ l~~ ~~-8
~ I :~:5 <::I. Iw lU ~~<
N~ 10 ffi l~ WC(Z
~ IW~ g: Iz 00 I~~
~I I<LI I~
.II~ z<< ig ~~~
I~U <0
>U OW::;
~ I I~~ 11o~ UU IU ~~~
UI << ,>-
ul II~~ ~~
~I I~f I" ~~~
10U UX I~
l'~ It!~a ~g I~ 1Il~~
1<::1(.) 10 ~o<
" tl"'~
>- l<Lg 0"
~~ ,,-I ~ . ~~g
010
U I >- ~(/)1.0... ~:~
~ I '< 10::0
~ I o ~O:: <Z
I 1~3:~ ~~~
u~
"" Ig~~ ~i~
~~ ;z:a::~
Vl- -ct: 50>-
0" ~ l~~ .. ma;;~
w. "' ~ ~
0 o Ii'z
<<< o ",0
o~ ~ I!::!a X <u
u~ c:: leo
WI
<<U
o
~~1Il
~ 5~~
Ux
% ~ \5~a5
Owe ...J:::I!
~Z:I:::lI-~a'<.i
~1-<~ClO:UO
t::rZf:'5CJ:: 10-<%
UVl~~~ :~O~
""'~....ow 12lol:;
~:5~;:;;w~~~
lo. -'W1.o...;;~
O\5I1l~O ~:5~
511l;t:3tle../....c;j
~g~~E~;;~~
8~~~~~8!f~
CtL~<;;<W~D
_~~V1 --'OZ<(
~ .~N~5~!5w
I< (7)0 ""Q.I-
O:;zg"'W1.o..._i1l~
)-ll::<~~Ow <
mel/) jo;.-Ut;je
0::; . 1~~i3w<
~~~ :a::~ffi~~
~\s13 :~;;~"'~2
'" I.... I-,C
~~i3 1~15 .~.....5
~~.... I~I-~\:i~<
!zVlQ.....o;:~~w~s
~<~o>--~ 1~13!z
~t;;;~(5~ j~t:\~
~5VlO~*1 Iw<~
Vl<< 1~E5 12::1::4'
-<SCII ICllo. UCII
~o~ i~~ l~~~
<
~
o
.
~
"
I
U
I~
10
..
1<
I~
I~
Iu
I~
I
,>-
1=
,U
I.
I~
'ei
lu
l>-
IS
I~
10
..
,<
I~
I~
Iu
l~
I
,>-
I~
I"
l~
IU
I~
,U
1>-
I~
10
~
o
>-
~
o
l'
~.
.~
<<~
w.
~
U
~l
01
~I
~I
~~
~~
uO
~l
~l
8~
i1i=
'"
...
o
....
'"
e:
U;
~-z- ~
~
~
o
'"
C\1
I
o
O":l
'-'-
o E---- ~
U >- n::
-=:: >-0
.....0:: Z'"
<(~6::JO
0:::: ~ u <t <(
<...:l E---- u 0
<( rr,:i~ 0::
_ \.J...! In
O~>~r:J
........ <t-.J
I- :) tii <(-.J
z: :::>
wE----Io>
LZ~8>-
(/) ~ 0 0 ;:::
(/)~>-ZO
W~t:::<t
(/) uln
(/) CfJ ...
<( CfJ 0
~
CfJ
CfJ
-<r:
>-
..
Zj
"'-
0"
u"
~j
..
o
t:
r..'"
01:5
<'"
"''""'
",<
<u
0..
tIl
\'~..
\ ~ I
'" '
/
I
I
I
I
LJ
l
..
.........
I
I
I
I
I
--'
gj ~ r ~
~li ~
u~ ~ ...
oi'
iI<.1
<il
",i ·
<"I
~XI
~i,
~
"$
z
o
~
"
z
,
~
8e~
.~~
~~!=
:;!:2:;i
,~U
~~~
"'~~
<..,,::!
5~g
:il:XW
.~i5
~~~
.~~
~~\5
~z~
8'z
.. 1Il~i5
" ~U
~ ~~~
..
>-
.. <r
-< r w
" <r '"
Z <l ~
'" '" ~
0 Z Z
Cl .. ~ >-
'"
Z .. '" z
W u w
" ~ -' ~
w ~
W U ~
...J '" <r w
Q <l ~
<L ~
<l
I
I @
I
N
..
0
N
..
"
'"
'"
'"
PART V
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
Accomplishments of all other related work required to effect above improvements.
Descriotion of Work
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
atay Valley Road Phase I
Widen atay Valley Road to a 6-lane major street within a l28-foot right-
of-way between the intersections with I-80S and Nirvana Ave. (approxi-
mately 5,700 linear feet).
Project to include: l6-foot wide landscaped median, four 12-foot travel
lanes and associated street sections, two 14-foot travel lanes and
associated street sections, and two 6-foot emergency parking/bike lanes.
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, street lights, and dry utilities.
atay Valley Road Phase II
Widen atay Valley Road to a 4-lane facility beginning at Nirvana A venue
and continuing east approximately 5,000 feet, then south a distance of
approximately 500 feet.
Project to include: two l2-foot lanes in each direction, a five foot
emergency parking lane on the north side, and a 4-foot temporary
median.
A north-south curve design will include an eastbound left turn pocket and
a westbound right turn pocket.
Fillal Ellgilleer's Report
Assessme1J1 District 90-2
Glay Valley Road Widellillg
56
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, and street lights.
Project to include the purchase of right-of-way and wetland mitigation.
Final Engineer's Rep011
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
57
PART VI
RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The undersigned, RICHARD K. JACOBS, hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following
is all true and correct.
At all times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and now is the authorized representative of Willdan
Associates, the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA.
That there have now been instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Municipal/mprovemelll Act of
/913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for the construction and
construction of certain public improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-3
(hereinafter referred to as the" Assessment District").
THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
(check one)
o
a.
That all easements, rights-of-way, or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City.
181
b.
That all easements, rights-of-way or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto,
showing maps of rights-of-way and easements not yet obtained at this time.
A ENT ENGIN
CITY OF CHULA VI
STATE OF CALlFOR
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
58
-,)+
.
z ~
~-
~~.
~ 5
z
133HS
335
3NI1
H:>l'r'~
.,
.. II I~:
::U; I;
~ I.:
\ .1" (I
- I I" !
'. Ii
'I' 1':1'
II jl I
..l .I,i II
.,~ PV
I: rs,
,
1'-- fi--'='~;;;'=----r--;----~I----- 1
- I
._'-OOll 1
.
I
i"
~
"
~
~i
."
. !II!
I "
. II!
"
,1
11'"
!t
:' II ~
i Ii
, ,
i "\
!i, ~I
,II
+
+
!
~I
., I
"
wi I
\j
I
I
1\ ~ II
\ I~i
\ "
'::1i
il-
!~
II"
J
II
,
:~
..
~1
.
.-
j!
,
.,
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
.,
,
I
"
.,
"
,
,
,
.. "-
"'~ \
:: \
,
F:J \
:m ,
+\
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
:: /
.{
'-
'-'
-
~_.
!
~ 0
~ ~
o 0
u.
Vl ~
.
0: .
we
" ~
~ .
~ ..(
loR._"".
r.D,.,.1I.l,.s"IIC_.UOI
+
""
"'"
"<
"%
...~~
,;10 8
II .. .
11;1 1
" ~l
111";" J..~_.
~'
j" ..
j I~ ~ .
Uii "\
.
1.a..UC.
+
""'0
..>
"'"
"<
"t,
'"
0:
'"
:I:
o
Z
:c
Vl
~
o
~
----..-
__........6...
-- ....-.
,;
Ii ii....... 10
c:i I!!~ 1
.... ZVl 0
~. ~:l ~.
;::,~..!. ..
9;:; ;c :
~';::j- ii~ :i
~ u-c: ~
l.o. ~e:. <
c
J
/
I
"'"
"<
~-o
u?
~
o
~
"'"
"<
~-o
't-
--
'--.
\
\
~
-L
,
+
x
::>
t;j t1:
vi ~..,
~ DD ~
~~~~
~ Vl.
Z <:
LlJ :E 2i
U o.
~ ~..(
<.
.... ._-
!'.IU"_
~
"'-
_'1+
!
v
~
u?
~
.,...
.-.
-L
,
'-'
~
"$.
+
"'"
""
~ <l>
<l> ~
.,...
!
.
-,,+
\
1
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
:;0
: If"\.
I .
, ~
I 1
<
~
as
~
)(
UJ
.
.
.
~ i
~ I
L
. i
. .
Ii .
.
I
!
;
L
I
I. I
~
I<
t I
. .
!fll!
n"
ell
~:Il
,Ilj
~ i
t
.
I
B
~
i u
c
~
r e
~
. ~
~I M
U ~
~
~~ ~
~I$
,5
..
~e II!
.
~
'$
~
!
,
-.....,J+
<
~ ::'"
Q
ill
~
e
~
~
I
,
_IJ.+
<
~
<
Q
~
~
il
+
!
""""J+
Z 1331-15 335
I
..
~-
r
5
,
~.
~;
~1
"-
"
!i
,
E
,
+
+
-L
,
.
!
..
..
.~
.l..~#
.'
,
~I'
;;:
i i~
'r
Oc>
'SoYo..J"'" __J':I'1
I,
T"
-i "
,1
j"
.J
'.
l
.
I
;
-1f. 1&,;jr.iO.I"t.iC>_
"'<5-
.
.
i
c>
,
!
(..,,--I)
-,
,t....
.
i.
,
,
+
,
,
,
+
,
.'
,
+
,
"
"
+
,
,
,
t
,
,
,
.
~
,
>-
z
<
a.
:>
o
u
.
!
.
,
;1
.
!
.
z
"
.
ill
<
"
.
i
.,
:\ .
~ ';
"
-'=
<0
5:0
~9
<:
:>=
z:;;
0'
>-<
z
'"
"-
.
~~
3;;...
"0%
~ I ~~~
1 b~~
~U"
.'
tal ~1
'i '
i;\ \
\~~ ~..~~
"C \'"
,- ,
\\1 "I...L
.. \: .: I I;
: \~\\~\. ~. \ i:
(''''1Il ~ . ~ ,::\. ..:\
..0.:......,: ..
..r_ """"-
.11._.
(_..,,"'-.....,.,) \
'-'""'v\
.
'II"'~
A
<3
:i
!~
0'
j'
~
;.(0.-
...M.
>-
z
<
a.
:>z
0<
u3
-' '" N
< 0
s: ~~
w <9
.... ~
< z.
:> 0=
",'
is -'~
~ ~<
z
"'0
"-z
<3<
:i
-""'J..l..
,
....',..
<
:>
I :;:
; '"
<
'"
<
....
=
o
~
=
9
o
=
9
.
.
=
z
"
~
"
=>
'"
....
<
'"
~,-
,.-
,
T
o
, 02-
0~ '(
"0
11.IU~ool
110.1"_.
c~
y
>-
z
<
a.
:>
o
u~
-'9
<0
-=
0:0
~:
<=
:>z
z~
0<
....
z
'"
"-
.is
? d
:i
"'-J;.
.is
?
"'0
"i-~
o
~-
I
;
,
_,)-L
,
I
;
_'Il
,
~-
I."l""'''
1_'11..._1...._10)
l
"i-~
o
,
T
.
!
,
j
.
Oc>
0~
....\.'i'>
61 .~)S :iNn ;l..'QI3..1SV)
.
!
,
.'
.
i
.
.
.
.
· i
f t!
:
~
.
.
3NI1 H:)l"'l"4
.
I
.
<l:
?-
m
~
x
w
;
.
i i
i I
~ ~
5 g
,
.
L
!
I}
.~
"
I,
i
.
I
~
.
U
U
r.
.'
~b
.;
h
! I
iij 1
~H
"
. I
",I
".
"I
l
!
~
~
e
<
~
M
~
~
~
II!
PART VII
CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
The following changes and modifications, if any, were ordered by the City
Council at the public hearing on the Assessment District, and those changes are
generally set forth as follows:
1. Assessments to parcels are to be modified as a result of the
City of Chula Vista funding the legally required Reserve
Fund.
2. The City of Chula vista intends to establish an underground
utility district pursuant to Rule 20A of the California Public
Utility Commission from the intersection of Otay Valley
Road and Oleander, east to the intersection of Otay Valley
road and Nirvana. Assessments to parcels are to be modified
based on the intended formation of this district.
3. Assessments are to be adjusted on certain properties with
slopes or other portions of a parcel which may limit develop-
ment on a property.
4. Properties which have installed improvements to Otay Valley
Road shall have further credits applied for those improve-
ments.
5. Cash advances shall be applied as a contribution for future
transportation development impact fees.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment Distrid 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
62
Appendix A
IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT LETTER FROM
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
63
~u?-
~~~
""""~
.........~-"'to..-
- - --
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
APR-rmz
April 2, 1992
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich
San Diego, CA 92122
WllLDAN ASsoc. SAN DIEGO
Subject: Properties in t.l]e Proposed Otay Valley Road Assessment District with Impediments
to Development
Dear Jerome:
As you are aware, there are a number of properties which fall within the boundaries of the
proposed assessment district for the widening of Otay Valley Road which have severe physical
and/or financial impediments to development. This will impact the relevancy of including them
in the district. These properties are generally divided in three categories: (I) properties located
within the Otay River Floodway and Floodplain; (2) wetland properties south of Otay Valley
Road; and (3) properties with extreme grades and environmentally sensitive vegetation on the
north side of Otay Valley Road, east of Nirvana A venue. These properties are further identified
in the attached map. The development impediments are described below.
F100dwav and Floodplain ProDerties
To encroach in the floodway, studies and calculations would need to be provided to indicate that
the encroachment and associated mitigation measures meet both City and federal (FEMA)
requirements.
Wetland Pronerties
A significant portion of properties lying south of Otay Valley Road, west of Nirvana Avenue,
fall within designated wetlands associated with the Otay River. Much of the properties directly
south of Otay Valley Road include these wetlands.
Development of these properties would, minimally, require the following:
. Environmental assessment by City staff;
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 2
. Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive and/or endangered species of plants
and animals, impacts to wetlands and other environmental resources;
. Coordination with other state and federal regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and achievement of at least the following:
(1) Section 404 Permit through the Army Corps of Engineers including the
identification of appropriate mitigation for the loss of wetlands due to the
proposed development,
(2) Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game, and
(3) Possible channelization of the Otay River which, in itself, would
destroy wetland habitat.
Even with the requirements above, property developed int he floodway may be subject to
flooding, limitation on development by the presence of protected species of animals and
vegetation already identified in this area, and the cost of purchasing and restoring wetlands to
replace those lost to development. It should be noted that there is value in the wetland
properties for sale as mitigation property for offsite development such as the Otay Valley Road
Widening project.
Prooerties With Extreme Slooes
Two properties are identified on the north side of Otay Valley Road, east of Nirvana, which are
characterized by steep slopes and endangered vegetation. Impediments to development for these
properties would include:
. Environmental assessment by City staff;
. Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive and/or endangered species of
vegetation (previously identified on this site);
. City slope ordinance limits of no more than a 2: 1 slope for development; and
. Limit on ability to directly access Otay Valley Road due to City development policy to
limit access and physical constraint due to steep slopes.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mr. Jerome Fournier
WilIdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 3
The environmental constraints, lack of access, and presence of protected vegetation will make
these properties extremely difficult and expensive to develop. Access to these properties from
the north is also limited due to the topography which would limit the amount of property which
could be used for development.
If you require any additional information concerning developability of these properties, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
SinCerel~! .
~/~
Fred Kassman
Redevelopment Coordinator
FK/bb
[C:IWPS 1IOVROADILE'ITERSIWILLDAN2.L TR]
CC: Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator, Community Development
William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Donna Snider, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director, Planning Department
Tom Meade, Consultant
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~ ~ ft.-
::....- ~
--'~-
.......-.:;o...~~
- - ~~
OlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
April 10, 1992
File # AY-081
RECEIVeD
wi1ldan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive #250
San Diego, CA 92122-3939
APR I 5 I99'l
WDJ,.DAN AS$OC. SAN DIEGO
OTAY VALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
CONSTRAINTS
DEVELOPMENT
This letter is in response to your questions regarding floodway
constraints as outlined in the letter dated April 2, 1992 from
Fred Kassman of Community Development.
Floodway encroachments, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited
unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments will
not result in any increase in flood levels during a base flood
discharge. This generally requires detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations which may include HEC-2 runs. Floodway
fringe encroachments are permitted if the pad elevation or finished
floor elevation is at least l' above the base flood elevation and
hazardous velocities are not produced as a result of the
encroachment. These requirements are separate from environmental
constraints of other state and federal regulatory agencies such as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish
and Game, and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service.
In order to remain within the
FEMA requires that the City
floodway encroachments.
National Flood Insurance Program,
follow these FEMA guidelines on
Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter
please contact Donna Snider at 691-5266.
/Y~~k4
WILLIAM A. ULLRICH
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
DDS:nm
(DDS2\OTV90-2.LTR)
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5021
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.90-2
OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD, PHASES I & II
(CONSTRUCTION)
City of Chula Vista
May 24, 1992
Prepared by:
Willdan Associates
L
IN:36241:th
6363 Greenwich Drive. San Diego, CA 92122-3939. (619) 457-1199
FINAL ENGINEER'S REpORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader
Mayor
City Council Members
David L. Malcolm
Jerry R. Rindone
City Staff
John P. Lippitt
Cliff Swanson
Chris Salomone
Leonard M. Moore
Shirley Grasser-Horton
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Director of Community Development
Professional Services
Willdan Associates
Municipal Finance Administration
Brown, Diven, & Hentschke
Kadie-Jensen, Johnson & Bodnar
Assessment Engineer
Project Management
Bond Counsel
Financial Consultant
Final approval by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
day of , 1992.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
Final approval and confirmation by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
day of , 1992.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A
Order of Procedure and Schedule of Events
~
I
Section
B General Information ................................... 2
C Resolution of Intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
D Engineer's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Part I
Plans and Specifications ............................. 14
Part II
Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Part III
Assessment Roll .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
(a) Submittal................................... 26
(b) Assessments Per APN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
(c) Certificates.................................. 42
(d) Method and Formula of Assessment Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . " 43
Part IV
Assessment Diagram ............................... 53
Part V
Description of Work ............................... 56
Part VI
Right-of-Way Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Part VII
Changes and Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Appendix A .............:.......................... 63
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
SECTION A
ORDER OF PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Event
~
1.
Adopt Boundary Map
July 23, ]99]
2. Adopt Amended Boundary Map ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apri] 2], 1992
3. Reso]ution of Intention . . . . . . . . . .
. . . April 21, 1992
4. Approval of Final Engineer's Report .
. . . April 21, 1992
5.
Public Hearing - Confirmation of Assessments
Start of 30-day Cash Collection Period .
May 26, 1992
6.
Award of Construction Contract
June 23, 1992
7. Sell Bonds . . . . . . . . . .
July 14, 1992
8. Start Construction, Phase]
July 20, 1992
9. Start Construction, Phase 11 . .
. . January I, 1993
10. Complete Construction, Phase 1
. . . . .. Apri] 1, 1993
II. Complete Construction, Phase 11
. . . . . . . July I, 1993
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
]
SECTION B
GENERAL INFORMATION
Assessment District No. 90-2 is proposed for the purpose of constructing certain public
improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation, and Majority Protest Act of 1931. The general administration
of this District will be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista and all official actions will
be made by the City Council.
The City Council first adopts a resolution indicating their intention to form a special
Assessment District and calling for a Final Engineer's Report.
In the Final Engineer's Report, the cost of the construction of these improvements and
incidentals is assessed and spread proportionally over every parcel of land within the
District that has benefitted from the improvement. The method of the assessment spread
is in proportion to the level of benefit received.
Following the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and the Final Engineer's Report, the
owners are notified by mail of their estimated assessments and the date of the public
hearing, where the assessments will be confirmed.
Prior to the public hearing, bids are opened from qualified contractors for the construction
of public improvements. After the bids have been carefully analyzed by the Director of
Public Works, a recommendation is usually made to the City Council for award to the
lowest responsible bidder.
After the assessments are confirmed at the public hearing, a final assessment notice is
mailed to each property owner indicating the confirmed assessment based upon the final
construction cost for which bids were received. The property owner then has thirty (30)
days in which to pay all or any portion of this assessment without interest or penalty, Each
property owner has the option of paying their assessment in cash, or by paying in
installments through the issuance of assessment bonds. If the property owner elects not to
pay the assessment within the 30 day cash collection period, assessment bonds, in the
amount of the unpaid assessment, will be sold to cover the cost of the project and shall be
repaid by the participating properties during the life of the bonds.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting the office of the Public Works
Director, John P. Lippitt.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessme1Jf District 9()..2
Otay Valley Road Widening
2
SECTION C
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
(Original on file in office of the City Clerk)
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Gray Valley Road Widening
3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICTI DECLARING
THE WORK TO BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT I
DESCRIBING TME DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY TME COSTS
AND EXPENSES TMEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR TME ISSUANCE OF
BONDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
TIm CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
MEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS,
SECTION 1. The public intere.t and convenience require, and it
i. the intention of this body, pur.uant to the provi.ion. of
Divi.ion 12 of the Street. and Highway. Code of the State of
California (the "Municipal Improvement Act 1913"), to order the
in.tallation of certain public improv.ment., tog.ther with appurte-
nance. and appurt.nant work, in a .pecial a.....m.nt di.trict known
and de.ignat.d as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
(hereinaft.r referr.d to a. the "A..e..ment Di.trict").
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. The financing of certain public improvement.
de.cribed a. .treet improv.m.nt., including demolition, grading,
paving, curb, gutter, .idewalk, .treet lighting, traffic .ignal.,
.torm drain., land.caping, wat.r main, undergrounding of utilities
and traffic .tripinq, together with appurtenance. and appurtenant
work, including acqui.ition of right.-of-way and ea.ement., a.
nec...ary, in OTAY VALLEY ROAD and inter.ecting .tr.et., to .erve
and benefit properties locat.d within the boundar i.. of the A..e..-
ment Di.trict.
B. Said .treet., riqht.-of-way and ea.ement. .hall
be .hown upon the plan. herein r.ferred to and to be filed with
the.e proce.dinq..
C. All of .aid work and improvelll8nt. are to be
in.tall.d at the plac.. and in the particular location., of the
form., .iz.., dimen.ion. and mat.rial., and at the lin.., grad.. and
elevation. a. .hown and delineated upon the plan., profile. and
.pecification. to be mad. th.refor, a. h.reinafter provided.
D. The de.cription of the improvement. and the
termini of the work contained in this Re.olution are gen.ral in
nature. All item. of work do not n.ce..arily .xtend for the full
length of the de.cription thereof. The plan. and profile. of the
work a. contained in the Enqineer'. "Report" .hall be controlling a.
to the correct and detailed de.cription thereof.
E. Whenever any public way i. herein ref.rred to
a. runninq between two public way., or from or to any public way,
the int.r..ction. of the public way. r.f.rred to are includ.d to the
.xtent that work .hall be .hown on the plan. to be done therein.
F. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many
c.... Baid work and improvement will bring the finished work to a
qrade different from that formerly existing, and that to said
extent, said grades are hereby changed and said work will be done to
said changed grades.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
SECTION 2. That said improvements and work are of direct
benefit to the properties and land within the Assessment District,
and this legislative body hereby makes the expenses of said work and
improvement chargeable upon a district, which said Assessment
District is hereby declared to be the Assessment District benefited
by said work and improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses thereOf, including incidental expenses and costs and
which is described as follows.
All that certain territory in the District included
within the exterior boundary lines shown on the plat exhibiting the
property affected or benefited by or to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses of said work and improvements in the Assessment
District, said map titled and identified as "AMENDED BOUNDARIES OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)", and which map was
heretOfore approved and which said map or diagram is on file with
the transcript of these proceedings, EXCEPTING therefrom the area
shown within and delineated upon said map or plat hereinabove
referred to, the area Of all public streets, public avenues, public
lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys,
and all easements and rights-of-way therein contained belonging to
the public. For all particulars as to the boundaries of the Assess-
ment District, reference is hereby made to said boundary map hereto-
fore previously approved and on file.
REPORT OF ENGINEER
SECTION 3. That this proposed improvement is hereby referred
to WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, who is hereby directed to make and file a
combined report as authorized by Section 2961 of the Streets and
Highways Code Of the State of California, said report to be in
writing and contain the following:
improvements,
A. Plans and Specifications of the proposed
B. An estimate of the cost of the proposed works
of improvement, including the cost Of the incidental expenses in
connection therewith,
C. A diagram showing the Assessment District above
referred to, which shall also show the boundaries and dimensions Of
the respective subdivisions of land within said Assessment District,
as the same existed at the time of the passage Of the Resolution Of
Intention, each Of which subdivisions shall be given a separate
number upon said Diagram;
D. A proposed as.e.sment of the total amount of
the assessable costs and expenses of the proposed improvement upon
the several divisions of land in proportion to the estimated
ben.fits to be received by such subdivision., respectively, from
said improvement. Said assessment shall r.fer to such subdivisions
upon .aid diagram by the respective numberethereof;
b. installed
nec....ry.
E.
under
The description of the works of improvement to
these proceedings, and acquisition, where
F. The total amount, as near aa may be determined,
of the principal sum of any unpaid special assessments previously
levied or pending, other than those contemplated in these
proceedings.
G. The true value of the parcels of land and
improvements which are propo.ed to be as.e.sed. Said true value may
be estimated as the full ca.h value of the parcels as shown upon the
la.t equalized assessment roll of the County.
When any portion or percentage of the cost and
expen.es of the improvement. is to be paid from .ource. other than
a.....ments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be
deducted from the total e.timated costs and expen.es of .aid work
and improvements, and said assessment shall include only the
r.mainder of the estimated costs and expenses. Said assessment
.hall refer to .aid sUbdivi.ions by their respective numbers as
a.signed pursuant to Subsection D. of this Section.
BONDS
-
SECTION 4. Notice is hereby given that bonds to represent the
unpaid assessments, and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed
the current legal maximum rate of 12\ per annum, will be i..ued
hereunder in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of
1915", being Division 10 of the Street. and Highways. Code of the
State of California, which bonds shall mature a maximum of and not
to exceed TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the .econd day of September
next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. The provisions
of Part 11.1 of said Act, providing an alternative procedure for the
advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall apply.
The principal amount of the bends maturing each
year .hall be other than an amount equal to an even annual propor-
tion of the aggregate principal of the bonds, and the amount of
principal maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable
in that year, will be generally an aggregate amount that is equal
each year, except for the first year's adjustment.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and
Highway. Code of the State of California, specifically Section
10603, the Treasurer is hereby designated as the officer to collect
and receive the assessments during the cash collection period. Said
bonds further shall be serviced by the Treasurer or designated
Paying Agent.
Refunding
Any bonds issued pursuant to these proceedings and
Division (a) may be refunded, (b) the interest rate on said bonds
shall not exceed the maximum interest rate as authorized for these
proceedings, and the number of years to maturity shall not exceed
the maximum number as authorized for these bonds unless a public
hearing is expressly held as authorized pursuant to said Division
11. 5, and (c) any adjustments in assessments resulting from any
refundings will be done on a pro-rata basis.
Any authorized refunding shall be pursuant to the
above conditions, and pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of
Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, commencing with Section 9500, and all further conditions
shall be set forth in the Bond Indenture to be approved prior to any
issuance of bonds.
"MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913"
SECTION 5. That except as herein otherwise provided for the
issuance of bonds, all of said improvements shall be made and
ordered pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
SURPLUS FUNDS
SECTION 6. That if any excess shall be realized from the
assessment, it shall be used, in such amounts as the legislative
body may determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one
or more of the following purposes.
A. Transfer to the general fund; provided that the
amount of any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or five percent (5') of the total from
the Improvement Fund;
B. As a credit upon the asssssment and any supple-
mental assessment;
C. For the maintenance of the improvement; or
D. To call bonds.
SPECIAL FUND
SECTION 7. The legislative body hereby establishes a special
improvement fund identified and designated by the name of this
Assessment District, and into said Fund monies may be transferred at
any time to expedite the making of the improvements herein autho-
rized, and any such advancement of funds is a loan and shall be"
repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of bonds as authorized by
law.
PRIVATE CONTRACT
SECTION 8. Notice is hereby given that the public
will not be served by allowing the property owners to
contract for the installation of the improvements, and
authorized by law, no notice of award of contract
published.
interest
take the
that, as
shall be
GRADES
SECTION 9. That notice is hereby given that the grade to which
the work shall be done is to be shown on the plans and prOfiles
ther.for, which grade may vary from the existing grades. The work
h.r.in contemplat.d shall be done to the grades as indicat.d on the
plans and specifications, to which reference is made for a descrip-
tion of the grade at which the work is to be done. Any objections
or protests to the proposed grade shall be made at the public
hearing to be conducted under these proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS INQUIRIES
SECTION 10. For any and all information relating to these
proceedings, including information relating to protest procedure,
your attention i. directed to the person designated below.
JOHN LIPPITT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
P. O. BOX 10B7
CHULA VISTA, CA 92012
TELEPHONE. (619) 691-5021
PUBLIC PROPERTY
SECTION 11. All public property in the use and performance of
a public function shall b. omitted from asses.ment in these proceed-
ings unless expressly provided and listed herein.
NO CITY LIABILITY
SECTION 12. This legislative body hereby further declares not
to obligate itself to advance available funds from the Treasury to
cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund.
This determination is made pursuant to the authority of Section
B769(b) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
and said determination shall further be set forth in the text of the
bonds issued pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915".
DIVISION 4 PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 13. It is the intention of this legislative body to
fully comply with the proceedings and provisions of the "Special
A.....m.nt Inv.stigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of
1931", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, and specifically the alternate provisions
thereof, being Part 7.5. A combined Report, as authorized by
Section 2961, will be on file with the transcript of theee proceed-
ings and open for public inspection.
WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SECTION 14. It ie hereby further determined to be in the best
public interest and convenience and more economical to do certain
work on private property to eliminate any disparity in level or size
between the improvements and the private property. The actual cost
of such work is to be added to the assessment on the lot on which
the work ie done, and no work of this nature is to be performed
until the written consent of the property owner is first obtained.
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT
SECTION 15. It is h.reby declar.d that this legislative body
proposes to levy an annual assessment pursuant to Section 10204 of
the Streete and Highways Code of the State of California, said
annual assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not other-
wise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection
of a.....ment. or from the admini.tration or regi.tration of any
associated bond. and re.erve of other related funds.
Presented by
Approved ae to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
AYES: Councilmembere:
NOES: Councilmember.:
ABSENT. Councilmember..
ABSTAIN: Councilmember.:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BB.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vieta,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this _____ day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
SECTION D
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation
and Majority Protest Act of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12
Section 10204 of said code, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention No. 16601,
adopted by the City Council of the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"), in connection with the proceedings for
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), I, John P. Lippitt submit herewith
the Report for the Assessment District, consisting of seven (7) parts as follows:
PART I
Plans and specifications for the proposed improvements are filed herewith and made a part
hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the Director of Public
Works.
PART II
The estimated cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses
in connection therewith, is set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
PART III
This part shall consist of the following:
A. A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed
improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the assessment district, in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions, from said
improvements, is set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made a part
hereof.
B. The total amount, as near as may be determined, of the total principal sum of all
unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied
Fillal Engineer's Report
Assessmem District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
12
under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than that contemplated
for the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under
the Special Assessmenr Investigation, Urniration and Majority Protest Act of 1931
against the total area proposed to be assessed.
C. The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and
improvements which are proposed to be assessed.
PART IV
A Diagram showing the assessment district and the boundaries of the subdivision of land
within said assessment district, as the same existed at the time of the passage of
the Resolution of Intention is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
PART V
Description of the work for the improvements is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
Description of all rights-of-way, easements and lands to be acquired, if necessary, is set
forth on the lists thereof and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PART VI
The Assessment Engineer's Certificate stating that the right-of-way associated with the
improvements to be acquired by the City will be transferred to the City by easement or
other means.
PART VII
Changes & Modifications, if any, ordered by the City Council at the public hearing are set
forth.
This Final Report dated this _ day of
, 1992.
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
City of Chu]a Vista
This Final Report dated this _ day of
, ]992.
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
Assessme1Jf District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widellillg
13
PART I
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed are referenced herein and
incorporated as if attached and a part of this report. Said plans and specifications shall be
on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works and consist of
Drawing Numbers 92-193 for Phase I of the project. Phase II plans are not available at
the time of the public hearing.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Ola)' Valley Road Widening
14
Part II
ESTIMATE OF COST
Preliminarv Confirmed
A. Construction Cost
Phase I $ 6,897,138 $ 6,857,138
Phase II 2,934,121 2,934,121
Subtotal 9,831,259 9,791,259
B. Incidentals 4,173,548 4,213,548
Total Construction and Incidentals 14,004,807 14,004,807
C. Less Contributions (3,435,467) (3,435,467)
D. Less Credits (163,099) (163,099)
TOTAL TO ASSESSMENT $ 10,406,242 $ 10,406,242
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
15
OTAY VALLEY ROAIl, PUASE 1,1-805 TO NIRVANA
Unit Price Per
No Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
I Mobilization I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
2 Traffic Control 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing lmpro- I LS 238,000.00 238,000.00
vements
4 Alluvial Removal 138,000 CY 2.00 276,000.00
5 Excavation & Grading 90,000 CY 5.00 450,000.00
6 AC Paving 23,000 Tons 25.00 575,000.00
7 6" AC Berm 340 LF 5.00 1,700.00
8 Aggregate Base 27,600 Tons 8.00 220,800.00
9 Subbase 33,150 Tons 4.00 132,600.00
10 4" P.c.c. Sidewalk & Slab Work 49,500 SF 2.00 99,000.00
11 Type A Pedestrian Ramp 8 Ea. 160.00 1,280.00
12 Type 8 Pedestrian Ramp 6 Ea. 160.00 960.00
13 6" PCC D/W 3,100 SF 2.50 7,750.00
14 6" X-Gutter & Segments 2,450 SF 3.00 7,350.00
IS 6" Type "G" Curb & Gutter 8,850 LF 6.00 53,100.00
16 6" PCC Type B-1 Curb 9,845 LF 5.00 49,225.00
17 6" PCC Type 8-2 Curb 41 LF ]5.00 615.00
18 4" PCC Exposed Concrete Slab Work 31,525 SF 3.00 94,575.00
19 Decorative Interlocking 400 SF 17.00 6,800.00
20 12" PCC Curb 8ehind S/W 200 LF 15.00 3,000.00
21 Saw cutting 650 LF 1.00 650.00
22 18" RCP Pipe 386 LF 40.00 15,440.00
23 30" RCP Pipe 124 LF 45.00 5,580.00
24 42" RCP Pipe 160 LF 65.00 10,400.00
25 48" RCP Pipe 425 LF 80.00 34,000.00
26 Pipe Plug I Ea. 385.00 385.00
27 Type "8-2" C I L=7' 2 Ea. 2,200.00 4,400.00
28 Type "8-2" C I L=9' I Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
29 Type "B-I" C I L=II' I Ea. 2,600.00 2,600.00
30 Type "B" C I I Ea. 2,000.00 2,000.00
31 Const. Lower Section Type 8-1 Inlet I Ea. 1,800.00 1,800.00
32 Const. Lower Section Type B-2 Inlet I Ea. 1.800.00 1,800.00
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widellillg
]6
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1,1-805 TO NIRYAi':A
Unit Price Per
No Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
33 Type" A-5" Co. ] Ea. ],700.00 ],700.00
34 Const. Top of A-4 Co. 4 Ea. ],500.00 6,000.00
35 Catch Basin Plug I Ea. 750.00 750.00
36 Pipe Collar 2 Ea. ],100.00 2,200.00
37 Headwall STA 33=06.5:i I LS 5,500.00 5,500.00
38 Type A Db!. Headwall STA 74+0.27t I LS 7,300.00 7,300.00
39 Cone. Energy Dissipator ST A I LS ]2,800.00 12,800.00
65 +OI.Ot
40 Cone. Energy Dissipator ST A 1 LS 3,450.00 3,450.00
62+65.0+
41 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipatclr 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500.00
STA 35 +06 +
42 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator I LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 71 +82t
43 Type I Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipatclr I LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 74+09t
44 Shoring 1 LS 1.00 1.00
45 6' High Chain Link Fencing 6,000 LF 10.00 60,000.00
46 Relocate of Ex. Chain Link Fencing & 785 LF 10.00 7,850.00
Gate
47 Masonry Sound Wall 6,700 SF 10.00 67,000.00
48 Redwood Gate II Ea. 420.00 4,620.00
49 Modified Redwood Gate 1 Ea. 410.00 410.00
50 Silt Stop 1,881 LF 7.00 13,167.00
51 Adjust AC Manhole 21 Ea. 410.00 8,610.00
52 12" ACP Water Main 2,205 LF 23.00 50,715.00
53 12" X 12" Wet Tap 2 Ea. 2,700.00 5,400.00
54 12" X 12" Tap Saddle 1 Ea. 4,700.00 4,700.00
55 12" RSGV II Ea. 1,200.00 13,200.00
56 18" X 12" Spool 10 Ea. 660.00 6,600.00
57 Thrust Block 6 Ea. 270.00 1,620.00
58 12" X 12" x 12" Tee I Ea. I. 700.00 1,700.00
59 Blind Flange 12" 1 Ea. 310.00 310.00
60 I" A VRV Off 12" Main 2 Ea. 1,450.00 2,900.00
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
17
OTAY VALLEY ROAn, PlIASE 1,1.805 TO NIRVA"'A
Unit Price Per
No Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
.
61 12" X 12" Cross 2 Ea. 1,550.00 3,100.00
62 12" 90 Deg. Bend 1 Ea. 510.00 510.00
63 Relocate EX 2" BO 2 Ea. 1,220.00 2,440.00
64 Abandon PRV Vault I LS 5,100.00 5,100.00
65 Install New PRV Vault ] LS 28,500.00 28,500.00
66 Furnish and Install Controller ] Ea. 5,000.00 5,000.00
67 Furnish and Install Meter Pedestal ] Ea. 2,850.00 2,850.00
68 Type A.] Signal Standard 2 Ea. 410.00 820.00
69 Type 29-5.70 Signal I Ea. 4,300.00 4,300.00
70 Type 26.5.70 Signal I Ea. 3,700.00 3,700.00
71 Type 19.3.70 Signal I Ea. 3,300.00 3,300.00
72 #5 PB 9 Ea. 110.00 990.00
73 3.Lens Yehicle Indicators w/12" 12 Ea. 410.00 4.920.00
74 Ped Indication 4 Ea. 460.00 ],840.00
75 Wire Intersection I LS 3,600.00 3,600.00
76 Furnish and Install 650 LF Conduit 650 LF ]3.00 8,450.00
77 250 Walt Safety Light 3 Ea. 360.00 ],080.00
78 Type "D" Detector 6 Ea. 3]0.00 ],860.00
79 Type "B" Detector Loop 28 Ea. 260.00 7 ,280.00
80 Illuminated Street Name Sign 3 Ea. 460.00 1,380.00
81 Water Tight Telephone Terminal I Ea. 1,300.00 1,300.00
82 R73-5 and R96 Signs ] LS 300.00 300.00
83 27' Street Light w/250 watt 20 Ea. 1,225.00 24,500.00
84 Relocate Ex. Street Light I Ea. 610.00 610.00
85 Type 29.5.70 Signal ST A 10 Ea. 3,650.00 36,500.00
86 Type 24-4-70 Signal ST A I Ea. 3,050.00 3,050.00
87 #6 PB 24 Ea. 140.00 3,360.00
88 #5 PB 28 Ea. 110.00 3,080.00
89 #3'h PB 43 Ea. 75.00 3,225.00
90 Sched 80 PYC Co 6,000 LF 2.50 15,000.00
91 Sched 40 PYC Co 7,500 LF 3.00 22,500.00
92 Install Conductor I LS 12,500.00 ]2,500.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
18
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PIIASE I, .-805 TO NIRVANA
Unil Price Per
No Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
93 SDG&E-20b I LS 130,00.00 130,000.00
94 PAC Bell 1 LS 47,000.00 47,000.00
95 Connection of Ex. Water 17 Ea. 410.00 6,970.00
96 Survey Monuments 2 Ea. 300.00 600.00
97 Construction Survey I LS 57,000.00 57,000.00
98 Adjustment of Utility Covers I LS 6,800.00 6,800.00
99 Erosion Control I LS 30,000.00 30,000.00
100 Planting I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
101 Maintenance 12 mont 1,500.00 18,000.00
h
102 Irrigation System 1 LS 220,000.00 220,000.00
103 Protection & Rest of Ex. Improvements 1 LS 31,000.00 31,000.00
104 Improvements at East End of Projects I LS 80,000.00 80,000.00
105 Sewer Lateral at Animal Shelter I LS 6,100.00 6,100.00
106 Sewer Pump Station I LS 12,200.00 12,200.00
107 Relocation of Anim,,1 Shelter I LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
108 Improvement Cost of Wetland Mitiga- I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
tion
109 Settlement Monuments I LS 3,600.00 3,600.00
110 Striping and Signage I LS 41,000.00 41,000.00
III Import 30,000 CY 1.50 45,000.00
112 4 Inch Backdrains 1,000 LF 7.50 7,500.00
113 Geofahric for FiJI & AJluvium Areas 1,000 SY 2.00 2,000.00
Suhtotal Bid 4,319,428.00
20B Payment 512,226.00
20A Cost 320,000.00
Traffic Signal at 1-805 289,300.00
Animal Shelter (#107) to Incidentals (200,000.00)
Wetland Mitigation (#108) to Inciden- (180,000.00)
tals
Suhtotal 5,060,954.00
Contingency @ 10% 513,165.40
Final Engineer's Report
Assessme1ll District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
19
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1,1-805 TO NIRVANA
Unit Price Per
No Bid Item Quantily Type Unit Total
Righl-of-Way (with 20 % contingency) 1,1l9,920.oo
Credits on Existing Improvements 163,099.00
Total Phase I 6,857,138.40
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
20
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIRVA1':A TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantities Type Unit Total
I Mobilization 1.00 LS 20.000.00 20,000.00
2 Traffic Control 1.00 LS 200.000.00 200,000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing 1.00 LS 60,000.00 60,000.00
Improvements
4 Alluvium Removal 67,132.00 CY 2.00 134,264.00
5 Excavation & Grading 9,675.00 CY 1.30 12,577.50
6 Import and Compaction 41,336.00 CY 7.50 310,020.00
7 AC Paving (6" Thick) 5,183.00 Tons 47.00 243,601.00
8 Aggregate Base (8" Thick) 6,680.00 Tons 16.20 108,216.00
9 Aggregate Subbase (10" Thick) 8.350.00 Tons 10.90 I 91,015.00
10 Monolithic Curb, Gutter & Side- 2,490.00 LF 15.00 37,350.00
walk
II Type "B- I" Inlet 2.00 Ea. 3,500.00 7 ,000.00
12 Type "B-2" Inlet 1.00 Ea. 4.000.00 4,000.00
13 Type "B-2" Inlet Modified 1.00 Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
14 Headwall (Type" A", Single) 6.00 Ea. 3,600.00 21,600.00
15 Headwall (Type "A", Double) 2.00 Ea. 5,000.00 10,000.00
16 Energy Dis~ipator 5.00 Ea. 5,500.00 27,500.00
17 48" RCP Pipe 468.00 LF 100.00 46,800.00
18 30" RCP Pipe 181.00 LF 65.00 11,765.00
19 24" RCP Pipe 274.00 LF 55.00 15,070.00
20 18" RCP Pipe 121.00 LF 35.00 4,235.00
21 Shoring 1.00 LS 2,500.00 2,500.00
22 16" Water Main (CL. 200. ACP) 1,123.00 LF 85.00 95,455.00
23 Gate Valve (16") 2.00 Ea. 6,150.00 12,300.00
24 Blind Flange (16") 1.00 Ea. 750.00 750.00
25 Thrust Block 1.00 Ea. 270.00 270.00
26 Connc:ction to Ex. 16" WL 1.00 Ea. 700.00 700.00
27 Construction Survey 1.00 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
28 Erosion Control 1.00 LS 22,000.00 22,000.00
29 Landscaping 1.33 Acre 163,350.00 217,255.50
30 One Year Landscaping Mainte- 1.00 LS 12,000.00 12,000.00
nance
31 Irrigation System 1.00 LS 100,000.00 100,000.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
21
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIHI'A:'\A TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantities Type Unit Total
32 Wetland Mitigation 1.00 LS 150,000.00 150,000.00
33 Drainage Ditch 218 FT 1.00 LS 1.000.00 1,000.00
34 Pavement Striping 7,000.00 LF 0.35 2,450.00
35 Raised Pavement Marker 210.00 Ea. 4.00 840.00
36 Pavement Legend 200.00 SF 4.00 800.00
37 Signs 1.00 LS 2,700.00 2,700.00
38 Land Cost R/W 1.00 LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
2,203,434.00
Curve Section of Road 275,000
Suhtotal 2,478,434
Contingency @ 20 % 455,687
Right of Way with 20% Contin- Include<!
gency Above
TOTAL PHASE II 2,934,121
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
AssessmefJI District 90-2
Glay Valley Road Widelling
22
TABLE 3
OTAY VALLEY ROAD It\CIllE~TAL EXI'E~SES - PHASES 1 & II
Preliminary Confirmed
Design Engineering 834,917 834,917
Construction Project Management 50,000 50,000
ROW Appraisals 55,000 55,000
Legal Services 30,546 30,546
Animal Shelter 200,000 200,000
Ctay Water District Inspection 40,000 80,000
City Administration Fee 55,000 55,000
Plan Check 280,000 280,000
Inspection & Matdrials Testing 350,000 350,000
Traffic Design 7,500 7,500
Mitigation Costs 534,860 534,860
Project Management 25,500 25,500
Financial Consultant 67,000 67,000
Assessment Engineering 90,500 90,500
Printing, Advertising, Posting 3,200 3,200
Bond Printing, Servicing, & Reg. 12,500 12,500
Bond Counsel 36,758 36,758
Capitalized Interest 147,456 147,456
Suhtotal 2,820,737 2,860,737
Reserve (10 % ) ] ,040,624 1,040,624
Discount (3 % ) 312,187 312,]87
TOTALS 4,173,548 4,213,548
Final Engineer's Report
As.\'l>ssmem District 9tJ..2
Owy Valley Road Widening
23
Table 4
Contributions and Credits
Preliminary Confinned
SB 300 Fund (1,161,000) (1,161,000)
Traffic Signal TF220 (189,300) (189,300)
SDG&E 20A Fund (320,000) (320,000)
City Cash Contribution (1,765,167) (1,765,167)
Total Contributions (3,435,467) (3,435,467)
Less Credits for Existing Improvements (163,099) (163,099)
TOTAL CONTlUIlUTIONS & CREIlITS (3,598,566) (3,598,566)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District .90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
24
PART II (Continued)
CALCULATIOl"\ OF BOND DISCOUNT A!'\I> RESERVE FUND
Final Continued
A. Construction Cost $ 9.831,259 9,791,259
B. Incidental Subtotal without Bond Discount and Reserve 2,820,737 2,860,737
Fund
C. Less Cash Contributions (3,598,566) (3,598,566)
D. Subtotal 9,053,430 9,053,430
E.
Bond Discount (3 %) 312,187 312,187
F. Reserve Fund (10 %) 1,040,624 1,040,624
G. Total Discount and Reserve Fund 1,352,811 1,352,811
H. TOTAL TO ASSESS.\IE"T $ 10,406,242 10,406,242
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Dla)' Valley Road Widening
25
Part III
Assessment Roll
PART III (a)
SUBMITTAL
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913, DIVISION 12 OF THE
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code
and Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigatioll. Limitation. and Majority Protest Act
of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
adopt Resolution of Intention No. 16601 for the construction of certain public improve-
ments, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith in a
special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, said Resolution of Intention, as required by law, did direct the appointed
Director of Public Works to make and file a report consisting of the following:
1. Plans and specifications;
2. Estimated cost of improvements;
3. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement
levied upon the parcels and lots of land within the boundaries of the assessment
district;
4. Assessment diagram showing the assessment district and the subdivisions of
land contained herein;
5. A description of the public improvements to be constructed;
6. An Assessment Engineer's Certificate designating certain right-of-way
associated with the project will be transferred to the City by easement or other
means.
For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as adopted by the City
Council.
Fillal Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Olny Valley Road Widening
26
Now THEREFORE, I, John P. Lippitt, as appointed Director of Public Works, and pursuant
to the Municipal /mprovemem Act of /9/3, do herein submit the following:
I. I, pursuant to the provisions of law and the Resolution of Intention, have assessed the
costs and expenses of the works of improvement to be performed in the Assessment
District upon the parcels of land in the Assessment District benefitted thereby in
direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said
parcels. For particulars of the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the
Assessment Diagram.
2. As required by law, a Diagram is herein included, showing the Assessment District
as well as the boundaries of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within
said district as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of
Intention, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been
given a separate number upon said Diagram and in said Assessment Roll.
3. The subdivisions and parcels of land and the numbers therein as shown on the
respective Assessments Diagram as included herein correspond with the numbers as
appearing on the Assessment Roll as contained herein.
4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that bonds will be issued in accordance with Division lO
of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Bond
Act of 1915"), to represent all unpaid assessments, and the last installment of said
bonds shall mature a maximum of TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the 2nd day of
September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. Said bonds shall bear
interest at a rate not to exceed the current legal maximum rate of 12 % per annum.
5. By virtue of the authority contained in said Municipal /mprovcmcm Act of 19/3, and
by further direction and order of the City Council, I hereby make the following
assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the works of improvement for the
Assessment District based on the costs and expenses set forth as follows:
Preliminarv Confirmed
Construction Costs $ 9,831,529 9,791,259
Incidental Costs & Expenses 4,173,548 4,213,548
Contributions & Credits (3,598,566) (3,598,566)
Amount to Assessment $ 10,406,242 10,406,242
For particulars as to the individual assessments and their descriptions, reference is
made to the Assessment Roll attached hereto.
6. In addition to or as a part of the assessment lien levied against each parcel of land
within the Assessment District, each parcel of land shall also be subject to an annual
Finol Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
OlilY Valley Road Widening
27
assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed which
result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administra-
tion or registration of any bonds and/or reserve or other related funds. The
maximum amount of such annual assessment upon each such parcel of land shall not
exceed 5 % of the amount of the annual assessment installment.
7. All costs and expenses of the works of improvement have been assessed to all parcels
of land within the Assessment District in a manner which is more clearly defined in
the "Method and Formula of Assessment Spread", which is a part of this Assessment
Ro]l.
The preliminary report dated:
, ]992 By:
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
The final report dated:
, 1992 By:
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
28
PART III (8)
ASSESSMENTS PER APN
29
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Glay Valley Road Widening
Olay Valley Road Wideninj: - Phase I & II
Preliminar)' Contirmed
Assm't # APN Assessment Assessment
I 624-060-09 0 0
2 624-060-27 150,995 150,995
3 624-060-28 6,864 6,864
4 624-060-38 105,962 105,962
5 624-060-45 110,803 110,803
6 644-040-0 I 257,102 257,102
7 644-040-11 26,490 26,490
8 644-040-13 521,862 521,862
9 644-040-14 0 0
10 644-040-16 455,371 455,371
II 644-040-23 39,133 39,133
12 644-040-24 77 ,470 77 ,470
13 644-040-27 0 0
14 644-040-28 123,434 123,434
15 644-040-44 148,876 148,876
16 644-040-45 167,155 167,155
17 644-040-36 143,819 143,819
18 644-040-37 99,147 99,147
19 644-040-38 0 0
20 644-040-40 529,809 529,809
21 644-040-46 24,901 24,901
22 644-040-47 23,047 23,047
23 644-040-48 38,676 38,676
24 644-040-49 132,982 132,982
25 644-041-0 I 47,076 47,076
26 644-041-02 24,419 24,419
27 644-041-03 39,524 39,524
28 644-041-04 0 0
29 644-041-05 60,167 60,167
30 644-041-06 47,580 47,580
31 644-041-07 47,328 47,328
32 644-041-08 54,880 54,880
33 644-041-09 45,314 45,314
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
OInY Valley Road Widening
30
Otay Valley Road Widening - Phase I & II
Preliminary Continued
Assm't # APN Assessment Assessment
34 644-041-10 26,433 26,433
35 644-041-11 22,657 22,657
36 644-041-12 24,419 24,419
37 644-041-13 60,167 60,167
38 644-041-14 47,831 47,831
39 644-041-17 59,915 59,915
40 644-041-18 54,377 54,377
41 644-041-19 99,187 99,187
47 644-181-01 34,864 34,864
48 644-181-02 35,644 35,644
49 644-181-03 38,506 38,506
50 644-181-04 58,279 58,279
51 644-181-07 0 0
52 644-181-08 61,922 61,922
53 644-181-09 39,807 39,807
54 644-181-10 109,794 109,794
55 644-181-11 43,189 43,189
56 644-181-15 135,031 135,031
57 644-181-16 37,986 37,986
58 644-181-18 35,124 35,124
59 644-181-19 43,449 43,449
60 644-181-20 33,823 33,823
61 644-181-21 36,164 36,164
62 644-181-22 38,506 38,506
63 644-181-23 50,734 50,734
64 644-181-24 11,708 11,708
65 644-181-25 11,968 11,968
66 644-181-26 23,156 23,156
67 644-181-27 17,432 17,432
68 644-181-28 17,432 17,432
69 644-181-29 - 47,352 47,352
70 644-181-30 15,611 15,611
71 644-181-33 27,318 27,318
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmem District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
31
Omy Valley Road Widenin~ - Phase 1 & II
Preliminary Confirmed
Assm'l # APN Assessment Assessment
72 644-182-01 133,990 133,990
73 644-182-02 135,551 135,551
74 644-182-03 135,031 135,031
75 644-182-06 0 0
76 644-182-07 169,374 169,374
77 644-182-08 134,511 134,511
78 644-182-09 171,716 171,716
79 644-182-10 137,893 137,893
80 644-182-11 110,314 110,314
81 644-182-12 97,306 97,306
82 644-182-14 28,099 28,099
83 644-182-15 23,936 23,936
84 644-182-16 120,721 120,721
85 644-182-17 72,589 72,589
86 644-230-11 31,222 31,222
87 644-230-12 28,576 28,576
88 644-230-13 31,751 31,751
89 644-230-14 31,486 31,486
90 644-230-15 77,790 77,790
91 644-230-16 129,385 129,385
92 644-230-17 128,327 128,327
93 644-230-18 80,700 80,700
94 644-230-19 120,918 120,918
95 644-230-20 42,864 42,864
96 644-230-21 25,665 25,665
97 644-230-22 41,276 41,276
98 644-230-23 148,171 148,171
99 644-230-24 42,335 42,335
100 644-230-25 32,016 32,016
101 644-230-26 42,599 42,599
102 645-021-01 32,742 32,742
103 645-021-02 74,253 74,253
104 645-021-03 120,690 120,690
Final Engineer's Report
Assessrnenl District 90-2
0/(/.1' Valley Road Widening
32
Otay Valley Road Widening - Phase 1 & II
Preliminary Confirmed
Assm'tll APN Assessment Assessment
105 645-021-04 22,914 22,914
106 645-021-05 21,855 21,855
107 645-021-06 23,126 23,126
108 645-021-07 24,610 24,610
109 645-021-08 30,014 30,014
110 645-021-09 32,000 32,000
III 645-021-10 25,934 25,934
112 645-021-11 24,716 24,716
113 645-022-01 57,378 57,378
114 645-022-02 55,180 55,180
115 645-022-03 53,060 53,060
116 645-022-04 54,199 54,199
117 645-022-05 58,120 58,120
118 645-022-06 44,769 44,769
119 645-022-07 36,875 36,875
120 645-021-19 21,404 21,404
121 645-021-20 19,603 19,603
122 645-021-21 22,358 22,358
113 645-021-22 28,875 28,875
124 645-021-23 25,086 25,086
125 645-021-24 21,881 21,881
126 645-021-25 21,881 21,881
127 645-021-26 20,901 20,901
128 645-021-27 20,954 20,954
129 645-021-28 27,206 27,206
130 645-021-29 21,484 21,484
131 645-021-30 20,212 20,212
132 645-021-31 20,000 20,000
133 645-021-32 107,604 107,604
134 645-021-33 31,312 31,312
135 645-021-34 28,371 28,371
136 645-021-35 26,093 26,093
137 645-02.1-36 30,305 30,305
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmelll District 9Op2
0/(/.1' Valley Road Widening
33
Otay Valley Road Widening - Phase 1 & II
Preliminary Confirmed
Assm't # APN Assessment Assessment
138 645-021-37 27,020 27,020
139 645-021-38 26,490 26,490
140 645-021-39 25,828 25,828
141 645-021-40 26,093 26,093
142 645-021-41 28,080 28,080
143 645-021-42 20,821 20,821
144 645-021-43 20,106 20,106
145 645-021-44 0 0
146 645-021-45 0 0
147 645-022-08 0 0
149 645-020-08
149 645-020-11 1,310,138 1,310,138
149 645-020-12
150 644-060-06 157,618 157,618
10,406,242 10,406,242
Fillal Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
34
'ii ~ 0
d
U
n 0
.55
U
.,,~i
1" 5
~q
-"'<
'3 ~
e .
....
","
~N
''0;
. ~
.. .
~..
2~
... .
-"
'ii ~ e
~.. ~ ~
- .
~. e
~.. ..
.!!
"2Q1";,
~ = il
~." .
WI;;;::
< .
..
." -
. ~ .
i = ~
~..
<
~ ~
e b
r..l<
i
5 .
~~
~
o
;;
<i:
o
'"
00
,,:
~
<3
<of
'"
~
.;
~
'"
o
~
6
~
...
'"
>C
~
a-
a-
o
::;
~
a-
a-
o
::;
a-
a-
'"
<i:
~
~
00
a-
~
'"
~
...
a-
a-
<i
'"
~
~
00
,..:
a-
~
...
a-
.-
~,
o
~
...
'"
>C
'"
...
>C
00
<i
...
ll:
<i
:!:
8'
'"
~
~
'"
.;
o
...
...
a-
>C
'"
~
~.
>C
~
'"
~
00
~
o
00
~,
6
~
...
'"
>C
~
'"
>C
a-
.,.;
o
'"
>C
a-
.,.;
S
~
00
,..:
.-
~
'"
'<:
~,
~,
.-
~
00
~
<i
a-
a-
a-
<i:
~
a-
a-
~
00
~
6
:8
..
'"
>C
...
8
00
S
~
o
00
o
...
>C
'"
o
~l
00
00
'"
~,
o
...
'<:
Cl
Ul
...
'"
::;
t5
z
Cl
Ul
...
'"
::;
t5
z
'"
~!
~,
~,
...
6
:8
..
~l
>C
~
'"
S
~
N
~,
o
,..:
~
'"
~
-
~,
.-
~!
-,
~
CO
~
:J
~,
c
o
o
"':
~,
~
~
.-
o
o
.,.
c
..
.,.
'"
'"
o
a-
...
<i
~,
c
~
<i
'"
c
~
~,
-
.,.
o
.,.
~
00
~,
c
c
~
-
-
6
.,.
c
..
...
>C
~
'"
>C
00,
'"
~,
'"
'"
00,
;:;
~
00
00
o
0"-
.,.
'<:
~,
.-
":
o
o
.!
~
>C
8
'"
~
'"
.-
-0
.-
.,.
..
~
~
'T
c
..;
.,.
'"
00
o
c
00
00
8
'"
.-
..,
Co
c
00
...
.,.,
.,.
..
~
S
.,.
6
.,.
c
..
.,.
'"
o
~
M
.,.;
..,
...
~
"1
..,
...
...
.,.
o
~
-0
.!
00
00
..,
~
~
.,.
.;
c
00
00
'"
-0
.-
o
.;
:!:
~
'"
6
.,.
c
..;
.,.
'"
c
~
~
0"-
~
~
~
'"
~
o
8
.;
o
..
o
:8
'"
00
..,
'"
00
":
>C
..
o
c
~
o
'"
~
o
00
~
..
6
.,.
o
..
...
'"
c
.-
...
,..:
~
o
~
...
,..:
~
~
..
..,
o
~,
.,.
..,
'<:
r.
00
o
'<:
~
.!
~
..
~
..,
,..:
o
o
..
'"
~
.,.
~
~
.,.
.,.
'"
..
c
o
00
.-
..
'"
..
~
.;
c
c
o
c
~
~'
'T
c
..;
.,.
'"
:;
.,.
~
":
~
..
.,.
~
...
,.;
..
~
.,.
~
,..:
00
~
.,.
o
""
.,.
.-
..,
..,
00
'"
.;
00
'<:
.-
.,.
":
~,
..,
o
..
00
.,.
00
:1
'T
c
..;
.,.
'"
.,.
'"
~
00
'"
.,.
'"
.-
00
'"
...
~.
~,
00
-0
~,
00
::r.
""
~
'C
c
8
>i
'"
~;
:0
":
o
..
"':
..
'"
..,
.,.
,
;
.;
.,.
'"
..,
..,
..,
,..:
:::
~
~.
,..:
>C
~
.,
CO
..
'"
o
..,
.,.
CO
.,.
..
":
g
g
""
8
.;
~
..,
~
'"
..
.,.
6
6
..;
.,.
'"
'"
:!:
00
,.;
.,.
:!:
00
,.;
:'!:
M
o
'C
...
00
00
..,
00
..,
.-
'C
'"
00
":
:!:
,.;
'"
~,
0,
00
C
""
00
..,
'"
-,
6
.,.
c
..;
.,.
'"
.-
.-
...
'"
o
~
...
'"
o
o
~
'"
~,
'"
:0
-0
"1
00
.,.
":
~
'"
..
.;
00
..
~
,..:
'"
~
o
.;
.-
~
6
<3
..
.,.
'"
00
o
o
o
00
o
c
'"
":
o
c
8
o
00
~
6
.,.
c
..
.,.
>C
:!:
~
00
0"-
'"
...
~
00
'"
..
~
~
...
'"
00
00
-0
'"
00
..
-0
.-
~
~
c
..,
...
>C
,..:
..,
~,
.;
..
":
:s
c
.,.
6
.,.
c
..
.,.
'"
o
..
c
o
.;
..
~
<3
~
i?
~
~
<3
~
a-
.,.;
8
~
,..:
o
'"
"':
~
~,
~
..
..
o
o
..
"':
~
~.
~
..
'"
.,.
a-
o
~
00
o
'"
.,.
6
<3
..;
.,.
>C
~
,.
o
...
9
:j:
>C
;:;
..
'"
1::: ~.~
&~L
O::t{J
,,,,'5 ~
~iS~
0_ "'" C
,,<::<t:
:: " '"
l<l E '"
1;~==S
:: ..,;:;:
ii;~
g
'"
'"
.,,~i
l'~ a
;!i!J
]~
~;;
..c;.
"2 ~ ~
~ i a
~>:
< 0
~ ~
h
'-'<
~
"S'i:
n~
~Q..
i
a .
~ 0
~z
~
iI-
! e
'" ~
g ~
<oJ <
t'i
.~ a
U
;; ~
~.;
"';.
~N
"'-':
. ~
;. .
~..
2~
.... 0
-:3
e
~
.
2
...
.!!
~
00
..
~
~
00
..
~
8
~
N
~
~
.;
00
~
o
~.
~
00
~
00
"":
~
..
o
9
::;
00
<:l
'"
~
~
N
:l
'"
..
~
N
:l
8
~
,.:
~
~.
~
~
....
'"
o
~
~,
....
'"
'"
'"
~
~
..
o
;;
:i
00
..
'"
00
....
o
,..:
....
~
o
,..:
....
....
00
.....
~
'"
....
~
~
0'
00
..
o
N
N
00
,.:
..
N
....
..
<$
..
o
..
..
00
~
'"
00
:;;:
...
N
00
..
...
N
~
'"
~
,..:
::l
:l'
00
...
....
N
o
::;
..
oi
0'
....
00
o
N
9
;;
..
..
00
00
N
..
N
~.
'"
~
....
N
~
'"
~
~,
00
N
0'
N
N
o
~
~,
-<i
..
..
o
00
'"
..
,..:
o
0'
....
~.
~
9
..
o
..
..
00
....
'"
o
o
..
~
-<i
~.
N
..
00
~
o
o
-,
~.
<i
0'
'"
'"
-<i
~
9
..
..
'"
..
N
....
:!:
'"
00
....
00
'"
'"
~
~
"!
..
~
~
~.
o
0-:
'"
....
00
o
....
....
"":
'"
~
'"
~
0'
~.
9
..
o
..
..
'"
'"
N
o
..
~,
,.:
..
o
..
~,
,..:
..
..
00
~.
,.:
'"
N
~.
~
~.
~
~.
o
'"
'"
0'
o
~,
N
'"
..
00
9
;;
..
..
"
o
~
~
N
~
,.:
..
~
'"
~
,..:
..
0'
~,
"
00
N
~
o
-,
0'
~
~.
o
~.
..
00
..
..
0'
..
..
9
..
o
..
..
"
~
o
~
..
-<i
~.
o
..
..
-<i
~,
~
0'
00
oi
o
~
~.
..,
0'
,.:
"
o
N
....
'"
..
..
0'
..
0'
oo
9
..
o
..
..,
'"
0'
~
:!
~.
~,
..,
:!
~
.;
..,
00
N
oo
-<i
~.
N
N
~.
'"
g
~.
o
0'
~.
~
oi
~
N
o
oo
'"
9
..
o
..
..
"
~
~
~
~
..
.0
N
~
~
..
.0
N
~
..
'"
oi
..,
....
'"
N
,.:
'"
0'
o
oo
~
'"
'"
~
~
s
;;
of
..
'"
..
~
....
~.
00
0;
N
....
~
'"
N
N
~
..
,.:
N
"
0'
..
..
~.
N
o
~.
....
0:
o
'"
o
;;
..
..,
00
~,
~
'"
..
..;
0'
'"
..
...
0'
~
0'
~,
,.:
~
"
..,
'"
..;
....
N
o
..,
..
"":
oo
0'
....
'"
c
0'
9
..,
..,
"
00
~
....
00
ci
00
....
:!:
ci
00
~
~.
~
oi
~
~
'"
c;
"
....
"
o
~.
"
0'
,.:
~
'"
..,
0'
-.
;;
of
..
'"
....
-.
~
oo
,.:
..
~
..
,.:
..
~
..
00
oo
"
co
"
"
'"
,.:
-.
~.
o
~
~
~,
~.
0'
o
'"
..,
:3
of
..,
'"
..
~
~.
00
'"
~.
~.
~
'"
~,
....
~
~
.,;
~
~
~
....
...
~
....
'"
o
..
~.
~.
~
oo
~
0;
....
.,-
-
..
o
..
....
"
00
~
....
....
~
...
~.
....
....
~
...
~
00
":
~,
o
-.
0'
oo
~,
"
o
0'
N
o
<i
oo
N
:!:
N
oo
.,-
9
....
....
'"
o
..
....
~
'"
'"
....
~
'"
'"
00
..
....
,..:
~,
~,
N
....
~,
~.
o
~.
0'
0-:
N
~.
..,
'"
~
'"
..,
o
..
....
00
:;;:
..
'"
~
...
~
....
00
~
...
M
..
~
"!
~
....
'"
00
0'
00
N
o
..
o
'"
o
....
N
....
~
9
..
..
..,
'"
....
..,
....
....
00
.;
M
t: '" ""
~~ .~
Q:;t~
~..., "t::: ~
... ~
~~~
.5 ~ 0
",,::eo::
.:i " c-
E_
- ~-
I;:: ~ ~
tl:~s
<S
8
~
..
M
i.
~
~
8
~
..
M
....
....
N
...
M
~
q
~,
..
....
..,
~,
~
'"
N
s
o
'"
N
00
'"
00
~
~
8
~,
0'
\0
M
..
~,
~
,,:
'"
..
'"
M
o
..
....
~
~
..
N
9
;;;
9
~
..
..
'"
..
..
00
~
....
00
..
"Iii
~ e
g ~
u<
t>j
.; J
~
..
...~i
"il.'~ e
.U
~<Il~
-:3
"Ii'8~
p~
~ .. e
." > ..
!
"Ii _~_ ...
~ -~
"'>
..( ~
~
..; ~ .
n~
~..
.. ~
li .
.....
-$->
~N
.a"
~ ;
~..
2~
... .
H
,,<
i
e .
~~
~
a.
~
'"'
.;
~
a.
~
'"'
.;
~
..
'C
'C
'i.
'"'
~
'"'
M
aC
'"'
..
o
'C
'C
~.
M
..
..
N
....
9
~
,;-
..
'C
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
8
.,;
~
'i'
~
,;-
..
'C
;;;
'"'
N
a..
;;;
~
a..
:0
..
~
'"!
M
M
N
~
N
~
.,;
~
~
~
a.
.,;
N
~
8
,..:
'"'
'"
..,
'"'
oo
'i'
~
,
..
..
~
'"'
~
~
o
~
aC
M
~
o
~
aC
'"
~
~
a.
aC
:!:
a.
aC
'"
o.
o
v,
O.
a.
~
o
~
~
.,;
a.
M
v,
-
~
oo
::I
~
M
~
..
a.
~
g
..
a.
~
g
'"'
o
'<<
M
:;;:
..
o
'"'
,..:
o.
~
oo
'"'
....
~
co
o
M
O.
-.i
a.
'"'
'"'
-.i
o
~
,;-
..
~
..
v,
a.
oo
...;
..
a.
~
M
..
..
~
~
o
~
~
..
v,
'C
M
'"'
o
o.
0;
a.
~
'"
a.
~
.;
'C
0'
'"
'<<
;;;;
-+
..
'C
v,
v,
M
O.
~
M
M
o
v;
M
~
aC
M
M
a.
o.
0'
.;
~
'"
M
'"
a.
.;
'"'
~
o
v,
V
~
M
~
v,
v,
oo
-+
..
'C
~
~
'C
oo
a.
,..:
M
'C
oo
a.
,..:
M
~
1'3.
M
..
a.
oo
'"
oo
0'
..
oo
M
.,;
..
~
..
-.i
v,
'"
..
'"
oo
-+
..
'C
~
v,
..
'"'
v,
M
..
'"'
v,
M
:!:
M
0;
M
~
'"'
'"
..
'C
0'
o
oo
o
'C
C
~
'"'
v,
..,
oo
oo
-+
..
'"
~
v,
a.
..
".
~
..
a.
..
...
~
..
~
,;
o
'C
~
0'
.;
0'
~
o
~
,..:
..
oo
a.
O!
~
'"'
o.
~
'"
~
oo
-+
..
'C
a.
v,
~
o.
oo
...;
M
~
'"'
OO.
M
M
oo
~
8
v,
v,
-,
0'
o.
a.
oo
..
.;
v,
~
a.
-i
o.
o.
o
M
~
oo
-+
..
'"
o
'C
..
'"
.,;
M
..
<C
.,;
'"
a.
..,
oo
a.
0'
oo
~
'"
'"
oo
o.
oo
0;
~
o.
o
~
.,.:
<C
0'
a.
..,
~.
oo
-+
..
<C
;;;
:g
v,
.;
~
:g
v,
~
'"
oo
M
a.
.;
o.
v.
~
oo
,..:
v.
0'
..
..
'"
a.
0'
~
,..:
v
0'
oo
..
'"'
~.
oo
..
~
'C
'"'
<C
..
~
~
.,;
v,
..
~
~
.,;
v,
~
~
:g
v,
~.
-,
0'
0'
~
oo
oo
~,
-,
"
-,
0'
v,
a.
~
~.
oo
-+
..
'C
M
'C
oo
o
":
-
-
~
o
~.
~
a.
":
~,
'C
oo
~.
2
o
0'
..
O!
oo
o
~.
..
c
..
~,
oo
-+
..
'C
..
<C
oo
<C
'"
~
<C
a..
<C
..
'"
v,
a.
>;
2
o
0'
..
'"'
~
'C
..
o
~.
0.'
oo
-+
..
'C
v,
'C
<C
~,
...;
'"'
'"
v.
M
'"'
v.
o
M
.,;
S
'C
0;
~
0'
o
M
O!
~.
'"'
'"'
<C
..
"':
;;:
a.
oo
C
'C
~,
oo
-+
..
'C
<C
<C
'"'
~
..
,..:
'"'
'"
..
,..:
~
~
~
...;
..
'C
~.
~.
,..:
oo
oo
o.
v.
.,;
o.
~,
~
.,;
0'
~
<C
C
~
~,
oo
-+
..
<C
~
'C
'"'
~
..
,..:
'"'
M
..
,..:
~
~
~.
~
..
<C
~,
~,
,..:
oo
v,
'"'
v,
C
a.
v.
'"'
~.
.,;
a.
~
~
.,;
oo
~.
oo
..
..
'"
oo
<C
'"'
V.
M
,..:
..
'"'
v,
M
,..:
..
a.
~
~
.;
M
~
~
..
,..:
~
o.
o
'"'
..
>;
v,
a.
'"'
'"'
oo
a.
~,
oo
-+
..
'C
a.
'"
~
~
'"
M
,..:
'"'
=
~
'"
,..:
....
'<<
~
~
~
~
~;
..
:!:
'"'
,..:
M
<C
~
"':
;;:
oo
'"'
..
-.i
~
'"'
'C
a.
M
.;
O.
a.
;1
,..:
a.
v,
..
~
oo
0;
~
v.
o.
o
.,;
..
o.
o
~
.,;
v,
co
o
":'
~
M
":'
oo
-+
..
'"
,;-
..
~
o
~
;::
1::'" ""
Q ~.5
~ e\ :::
OCt;{J
..'" 'S :i
~iS~
0_ ... c
"""OC
.::J 11 ~
-~:::::
~ ~ ~
.5 ~:::;
to.;.:;eS
o
r--
<'l
......i
lU
::>"'~
'"
il'l;
~ ~
U
'll~"s!
l! -= <;
"'':::-:
<.....'E
p
<.:>~
w
..~ 13 .
~ ~ l
w"
<
i
a .
i~
~
il~
d
g I
u<
.iJi
~
..
] ~
e =
....'ll
=s:"
~N
="
'll ~
" .
~..
c.
.... e
-ll
e
~
.
e
...
.!!
8:
,.;
:l
~
,.;
:::
<5
~
..;
M
M
'"
8
,.;
....
'"
'"
;::;
;;;
'"
'"
'"
..
"'
~
~
o
M
00
~
'"
'"
....
~
"l
~
M
~
~
.;
:::
'"
'"
..
0;
..
M
M
..
00
0;
00
'"
N'
o
Nt
~,
..
'"
....
..;
..
"'
"!
~
$
NO
00
..
..
'"
~
8
.;
:l
8
.;
:::
~
.:
M
M
"'
'"
'"
oi
....
'"
o
g
"'.
M
M
~
.,;
M
o
,""
00
,
..
..
'"
..
....
o
o
o
o
o
o
8
o
~
NO
00
..
..
'"
~
....
..
....
M
.:
~
;!
M
.:
'"
..
'"
'"
~
NO
..
....
N'
....
o
~,
00
"'
"'
....
<i
S
M
'"
....
M
~,
'"
....
'?
NO
00
..
..
'"
'"
....
-
-
~,
...
M
=
~
...
M
00
o
00
'"
M
M
::;
'"
~,
....
oo
0'
o
-:
0:
8
0;
M
!::
~,
00
C
N'
00
..
..
oo
....
....
'"
.....
....
'"
.....
;:::
..
..
"!
M
..
00
00
..
0'
oo
00
o
N'
'"
..
NO
....
.:
....
..
o
'"
oo
g:
,""
00
..
..
oo
00
....
M
"'
00
'"
M
M
"'
00
'"
M
N'
o
M
<i
..
M
;3
oo
N;
~
oo
o
....
oo
~,
~
o
..,
~,
c
,""
00
..
..
oo
"'
....
..
M
2
:':
M
o
NO
;3
'"
....
0'
M
00
q
..
~.
~,
o
x
..
..
oo
~
..
oo
x
..
N!
..
,""
x
..
..
oo
o
00
:B
M
'"
"'
:B
M
,..:
"'
NO
....
M
...
..
N'
M
..
....
X
x
..
....
"'
00
o
..
..
M
X
""
....
..
....
M
N'
,""
x
..
..
oo
;;;
"'
~
00
N'
"'
~
00
NO
~,
~
~,
c
0'
o
<-:
0'
8
00
o
..
8
~
~,
'"
N'
00
q
..
,""
x
..
..
oo
NO
00
oo
M
"'
,.;
'"
'"
M
"'
,.;
'"
"'
oo
o
'"
x
~
~
o
x
o
....
q
~
NO
'"
o
~.
,""
x
..
..
oo
M
00
NO
....
o
NO
NO
....
o
NO
00
....
-:
~
o
~
~.
~,
-,
'>i
:c
....
'"
00
"'
O!
..
0'
..,
....
'"
..
'"
..
oo
,""
x
..
..
oo
..
00
'"
00
~,
N'
....
"'
00
~,
N;
....
00
..
..
~
....
N'
'"
~
x,
oo
..
~.
oo
....
..
'"
....
~
'"
..
'"
~.
M
'"
'"
<-:
NO
....
NO
X
..
..
'"
~,
x
N'
0'
N!
M
NO
O.
"'.
M
M
~.
o
'"
oo
~
..;
-,
-,
Cl
UJ
....
'"
:;
....
o
z
Cl
UJ
....
'"
:;
t::
Z
x
'"
NO
..
..
oo
oo
00
oo
~
00
NO
'"
....
"l
00
NO
oo
"'
00
c:~
'"
<-:
;
~,
Cl
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
....
o
z
x
q
N'
6
~
NO
..
..
'"
....
00
~,
<-:
M
~,
<-:
M
..
00
00
a:
oo
00
oo
<-:
'"
M
M
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
o
NO
M
'"
NO
..
..
oo
00
00
oo
00
".
M
'"
00
".
M
"'
'"
..
oi
oo
....
M
"'
<i
M
~
Cl
'"
....
'"
:;
....
o
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
~
:':
6
M
NO
..
..
oo
~
x
o
"'
....
,..:
....
o
"'
....
.....
....
::;
N'
<i
..
N'
M
..
NO
M
X
Cl
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
....
o
z
..
'"
0;
~,
6
~
N'
..
..
'"
c
'"
~.
00
~
.:
'"
~
00
M
.:
NO
00
....
NO
0;
"'
oo
~.
~.
~,
..;
00
..,
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
"'
00
..
::;
6
M
NO
..
..
oo
0:
....
NO
M
oi
'"
1: r-. ~
&~ '.,
o,:.~ :'"~~
."' ..
.. 1:;
~.- ~
.5 ': e
00"0,:
~~~
-~-
~ \) ~
fi:~E'
C
1i!
o
00
....
NO
M
oi
~
1i!
0;
00
~
oo.
oo
00
'"
"'
00
.....
M
..
"'
N'
N!
M
....
..,
....
....
~,
M
'"
00
Cl
UJ
....
'"
:;
!3
z
Q
'"
in
:;
!3
z
00
<"l
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
5
z
Q
UJ
....
'"
:;
b
z
~,
'"
..
~,
q
~
....
6
M
NO
..
..
'"
00
6
~
NO
..
..
'"
N'
"'
M
"'
'il'2 ~ ... ~ '" - ~, '" '" 00 ~ 0 ... ~, <0 "" ... 8 ... '" ~ 0 0
'" '" ... !::: ~ <5 '" ... ~, '" ~, 00 <5 ~ ... ~ 8
@ a '" ~ '" ~l ~ ~, ... ~. '" '" '" - <0 '" ... ~
g N .; .; ~, N ~, N .; 0 ~, ..; .; 0 N .; .; ,.: .; ,.;
U ... 00 ... :! ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ 00 ~. 00 ~. ~ ~ ~. ~. ~, ~, ~
q ~ :z ~ '" ~ '" '" 00 ~ 0 ... ~, '" S ... ~ ... '" ~ 0 8
;: ~ ... ~ <> '" ... ~, '" ~, 00 ~ ... ~
U ~ 00. ~ ~ ... 00 '" '" "" '" 0 ~ ... ~
~ N .; .; N N N ~, .; 0 ~; ;::; ..; .; 0 N ~ .; ,.: .; ,.;
... ... ... :! ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ 00 ~. ~. ~ ~ ... 00 ~, ~ ~
""]'2
'il: a
= ~]
;,">
~ :; ~ '" 00 00 8 ~ ;; ~ ~ '" - ~ '" ... ... ~, ;;: ;: ~
~ ... 00 ... '" 00 ~, '" ~, '" '" '" <5. '" ~ '"
~ '" ~ ~ ~ ... ~, '1 00 "'. ~ '" ... <-: ~, ~, ~ ~, 0 '" ~ ~,
= 'i .: ,.: 0 N '" - ... ... .c; .; ~, '" ~, - 0 - ~ ~; g .; ~
... ~ 00 :l 00 '" 00 ... 00 ... '" ... 00 - o. ~ <0 ... ~ ~ '" ~
:S' '" ... 00 ... 0' - 0' - ~ '" - - - - - - - - ~ 00 00
0 ... ~ ~ ... ... '" ~, ;;; - '" '" - - ... ~ ~ ... 0 - ;; '"
~, ~ '" ~ 00 '" ~, ... ~ - '" ~ ~ '" ~ '" ... ~ 00
~N "'. '" '" '" ~, q ~, '" 00 '" '" '" ~, - :: q - Ol ...
=- ~ 00 .. - ~, ~ o. ~, '" ~, '" .., ~, 0: ~, 0' 0: .; ~ ,,; ,.:
.. ~ '" ~ ... .., ~ ~, .., ~, .., '" ~ .., ~ .., <0 '" .., ... '" ~ '"
> ~ 00. ... 00 .., ~, .., ~ .., ~ ... Ol 0' 0' 0' 0' ~ ~ 0' ~, '" ~, ~,
= - - -
~..
2~
... 0
Cl '" 0 0 0 ... '" - 0 " 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-~ "' ... 00 '" 0' ... .., ~
t; 00 ~ '" ": 00 ... 0'
j ~ '2 ,.: '^ 0' - -0 ,,; .c
= :; ~ ... ~ ... ... ~
~ ~ ~ ~, .... ~. ~ ~
~ S
0 . -
.. e
> .. z
.!!
~ ~, o. ~ ~, ... '" ... '" ... f< 0' f< '7 -. ~ ... ~ ... ~ 0
'" .., ... ~ '" ~ ... ~. 0 '" ... ... ~, '" '" '"
~ '" ~ ... 0' '" ;c q ':: ": ~ '" ": <-: ... 00 ... ... ~ ~ 00
li ~ ,.: 0' ,,; 0 oc 0 ~ '" - ~ - 0, 0: ~ .c ,,; 0' 0 ,,;
'il Cl ... '" 0 .., 00 ~ ... ?i ~ 0' - 0' o. ~, '" ~ 0' 0 '" ...
~ "' ... 00 ~ ": .., ~ ~, - ~ '" - - - - - - - ~ 0' 00
... -
~...;; '"
-"! >~ :;
0
S
z
... ... ... '" 0 0 - ... 0 '" ... ~ ... ~ :l ~ ~ ... ~ 8
~ ~ ~ '" '" ~, '" '" O! '" 0' ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ '" Ol '" '" - 0
.; - 0 - ~, - - - - 0' ... 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 00 0' 0;
<.:> ~
~ '" 0 ;::; 00 ~ .., ~ '" - 0' ~ s; ~, 9 ~ ~ ~ - - 0' ~
'. 6 00 0' ~, 0' 00 ~, '" '" '" '" - - 9 0 9
~ ~ = " " " " " " " - - - - - - - - - 00 ", 00
~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 q 00 8 0' q 8 q 00 ~. 00 00 00 9
~ z 00 ... 00 0' 00 ~. 00 '" '" 0 0 '" '" '" '"
.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ~, ~, ~, .;, .; ~, .; ~, .;, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~,
... ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... .., .., .., .., ... .., ... .., ... ... :z
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" <0 '" '" '" '" <0 '" '" '" '"
'2
! l ... ~ '" ... ~ '" 8 0' ~ 2: ~, ;g ... ~ ~ "" - 00 :l :! ~,
! '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 "" "" "" "" "" -
- - - - - - -
1:: ~ ~
&~ '"
l>::t;{i
....." ~
... -
ljiS~
.5 ... '>
00::Q::;
l:i ~ ~
ta~~
.5 ...,;s:
~~S
C5
0\
<'\
ii i '" 0 '" ~ 3 8 ~ ~. ~ ;0 - ;:; ~ 8 ~ N g 3 N ;:: ~ ~
~ N '0 .... ~, .... x x ~. x ;;; 3, 0
~ a .... ~ ~, '" ~ x 0 '" '" '" '" N '" ~ ~, ~ ~
.. E .. ,,; i v5 '" N oi or: ;;; <0 <0 '" <0 <0 .-: - oi '0 0
~ ~, ~ N N N N N N C' N N C' N :2 ~ N N ~
~~
q !1: 0 '" ~ 3 ~ ~ ~, '0 ;0 ;0 <5 .. 8 .. N @ 3 ~ ;:: ~ ~
~ ~ .... 0 ~, .... ~ ~, ~ 3 0
,; J ~ .., '" ~ ~ 0, '" ~, '" '" N .., N '0 .., ~ ~
i .. ,.; i v5 ;;; ~ cr oi ~, ;;; 0 0 '" 0 0 .-: - oi v5 0
~ .,., ~ N N N N N N N N N N S ~ N N ~
..
",,,;2
1'. a
= ~ J
"''''
1! N .,., .. '0 '" c' ~. N .... .... .... '" N ~ .. X '0 ~ '0 N .... '0
~ .,., 0 ~ 8 x ~ ~ - '0 ~ ~ '" x '" 0 ~ ~ ~ N .. ~
'0 '0 ~ .... ~ ~ 0 '" '" '" '" ~ ~ x ~ ~ '" .. "',
0 ;; 0: 8' 0: .-: .. .. '" .. .. .c '0 - - or: .. ~ .c ~. '" '"
... ~ ;:l ~ 0 ~, ~ - - ~ S 0 .... :;; ~, ~ '0
'" > N ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~, - -
3 3 .... - .... ~ 0 ~ .. .. ~ .... ~ ~. .... ~ ;:: ~. ;:: ~ ~ N
0 ~ .... :;' .... N :; .... .... '" ~ x c' ~ - .. '"
.N ~ c! ~, .... '" '" x '" "' '" .... ~ co .... ~ c! '" '"
=.. 0: ,.; .. oi '" oi 6 ,,; ..; ~ -. -. :; '" ~ -. <0 .. 8 x ..;
;; ~ .... N .... '" N 0 -. ~ -. -. c' c, c' - ~. -. .... N
> ~ ~ '0 .. ~ N C' C, ~ c' C, N N C' C, C' N C' - ~, -. c' ~
... -
c~
... 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
1 ~ ii
0 ~
.
. .
< ~ e
..
.!!
~, '" .. .. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~, .... .... '" '" -. 0 - - ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ .... ~. .... c, ~, 0 '" '" "'. c, C C: ~ c' .... '" 0 c x
.... ~, '" c. c! c' - ~ .... ": N 2 '" 0 '" .... ~ "' -
ii '1 v5 .,; ~ ~ ~ ::1 .-: c' cr or: ~. <0 ~ ~, ;!S ;g .c ~ '" '" '"
. 00 0 ~ ~ - - ~. ~ - - - ~ - ~ '0 ~ ~ ~,
E . N ~ N - - - - - - - - - - - ~. - - -
;; .:!
~ >
< ~
0
~ ~ ~ '" '" - ~ ~ 3 ~. ~ ~ '" '" ~ - '0 '0 8 x .... '" :!
~ ~ '" "' x .... x '" ~ x .... .... x ": .... - co '"
0 N N - - c <0 0 - <0 0 <0 <0 <0 - <0 0 <0 ~ - - 0 -
. <
'-'
~ 9 ~ 8 .... '" ?=;I - c' ~ ~ ~. '0 .... X '" 0 - c, ~ ~ ~. '0
'. 0 0 - ~, ~, c! ~, ~, ~' c! ~' ~, "';' 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C
~ ] .; N '" '" ", - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;::;
N N N c, N N C' ~ c' 9 c' N 9 q $ c, N C' C' C, N
.z 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i' 0 'i' 'i' 'i' c 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i' 'i'
~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~, ~. .; ~, ~. ~. ~. ~. .;. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~, ~, ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 ~ ~ ~ '0 ~ '0 ~ .c ~ .c '0 .c '0 '0 '0 '0 '0
i
a .; '0 C: ~ ~ 0 - N ~ ~ ~, '0 .... X '" - N ~ ~ ~, '0 ....
~ Z c' c' N c, c' c' N c' c' c, ~, ~ :; ~ :; :; :; :;
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
1: '" '"
e.~q
001::'"
~'" Of; ~
~iS~
'_ ... <::l
",,,Q:;
.:i ~ ~
~ :;;:::::
,,~
~~~
CS
o
....
Assessment
No.
Assessor's
Parcel
No.
Gross
Acres
As,e. sed
Value
of Land'
Ass sed
Value of
Improvements'
True Value
of Parce12
'A Total
Value
I Unpaid
special
Assessment
Preliminary
Assessment
Confirmed
Assessment
138
645 -021 -37
1.02
142,480
0
306,074
153,037
27,020
27,020
139
645 - 021 -38
1.00
139,629
0
276,628
138,314
26,490
26,490
140
645 -021 -39
0.98
136,877
0
276,062
138,031
25,828
25,828
141
645 -021-40
0.99
138,303
0
278,893
139,447
26,093
26,093
142
645- 021 -41
1.06
148.081
0
300.128
150,064
28,080
28,080
143
645 - 021 -42
0.79
110.299
0
221548
111.274
20,821
20,821
144
645 - 021 -43
0.76
106.121
0
214.903
107,452
20,106
20,106
145
645 - 021 -44
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
146
645 - 021 -45
0.89
0
0
0
0
0
147
645- 022 -08
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
149
645 - 020 -09
113.93
2.968.164
0
3.722.093
1,861,047
0
0
149
645 - 020 -11
9.55
283.791
0
279.329
139.665
1,310,138
1,310,138
149
645 - 020 --12
19.2R
401.402
0
597.208
298.604
0
0
150
644 -160 -06
179.62
959,579
0
0
157,618
157.619
47.390.795
26.363.979
91667.006
46.333,503
0
10.406.242
10.406.242
Source:
County of San Diego, 1991 Equalized Assessment Roll
Appraisal Report; The Kibbey /Samppala Group, October 9, 1990; Updated June 20, 1991.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
41
PART III (C)
CERTIFICATES
I, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was filed in my office on the day of
1992.
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
State of California
I, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was approved and confirmed by the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on the _ day of 1992.
City Clerk
City of Cllula Vista
State of California
I, John P. Lippitt, as Director of Public Works of said City, do hereby certify that the
foregoing assessments, together with the diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my
office on the day of 1992.
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Finnl Engineer's Report
Assessrnetll District 90-2
Oray Valley Raad Widening
42
PART III (D)
METHOD AND FORMULA OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
The law requires and the statutes provide that assessments, as levied pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Improvemenr Acr <it' 1913, must be based on the benefit that the
properties receive from the works of improvement. The statute does not specify the method
or formula that should be used in any special assessment district proceedings. This
responsibility rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is retained for the purpose of
making an analysis of the facts in determining the correct apportionment of the assessment
obligation. For these proceedings, the City has retained the services of Willdan Associates.
The Assessment Engineer makes his recommendation at the public hearing on the
Assessment District, and the final authority and action rests with the City Council after
hearing all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. Upon the conclusion
of the public hearing, the City Council must take the final action in determining whether
or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion to the benefits received.
First, it is necessary to identify the benefit that the public improvements will render to the
properties within the boundaries of the assessment district. The overall benefit derived by
the properties within the proposed boundary of the assessment district is the construction
of the public improvements.
The widening of Otay Valley Road will benefit those properties in the immediate vicinity
that take access from Otay Valley Road or an immediate connecting access road. The
widening will improve the existing level of service on the street, increase traffic flow
capacity between connecting areas and provide a safer corridor of travel. Figure I shows
parcels that will benefit from the Otay Valley Road widening. These parcels include all
the industrial property with access onto Otay Valley Road, the Otay County Landfill, the
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel, and the Otay Rio Business Park.
The Otay County Landfill and the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel are included in the
benefit area because they presently generate heavy truck traffic on Otay Valley Road and
will receive direct benefit from the improvements. In addition, the design for the future
curve at the eastern boundary of the district includes specific features that will accommo-
date truck traffic to and from the mining parcel. An eastbound left turn pocket will provide
trucks with safe access from the west, a westbound acceleration lane on the right will allow
exiting trucks to safely enter the flow of traffic, and a right turn pocket will provide access
for entering northbound trucks. The assessment for the Otay County Landfill is calculated
as if it is a participating property and will be contributed to the district in cash. The
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel will be assessed and appear within the assessment district
boundaries.
Final Engineer's Report
AssessmelJt District 9()..2
Owy Valley Road Widening
43
The Otay Rio Business Park is included in the assessment district because it also receives
direct benefit from the improvements. The Traffic Analysis for Olay Valley Road Phase
It shows that Phase I and II improvements are required in conjunction with the
development of the two units in the business park.
The widening of Otay Valley Road will benefit both developed and undeveloped parcels
within the district boundary. All of the property within the district boundary will be
utilizing the same land use and generating the same amount of vehicle trips per gross acre.
For that reason, the assessments within the district boundary are based on gross acres.
Actual traffic counts were obtained from the Otay County Landfill parcel and the Nelson
& Sloan Mining parcel. A factor of 200 vehicle trips per day/per acre was determined to
best reflect the type of industrial land use that is expected in the redevelopment area and
the Otay Rio Business Park. Vehicle trips were calculated for each of the industrial parcels
and compared with vehicle trip counts for the landfill and mining parcels in order to
determine these parcels' proportionate share of the cost.
Traffic counts for the Otay Landfill were obtained from the County Garbage and Trash
Disposal Division, Department of Public Works, County of San Diego. Traffic counts for
the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel were taken from The Trqffic Analysis for Olay Valley
Road Phase II. The heavy trucks that were included in these traffic counts were multiplied
by a rate of I. 7 to account for the additional wear they cause to the road.
Certain properties within the Otay Valley Road benefit area render themselves, either
wholly or in part, difficult to develop due to their location within a floodway or floodplain,
or lying within an area of probable wetland designation as defined by agencies other than
the City of Chula Vista. Other properties render themselves difficult to develop due to
severe slopes within the entire parcel area as defined by the City of Chula Vista slope
ordinance. Where these problems to development occur, parcels have been eliminated from
the district entirely or portions of the property have been eliminated from the calculation
of area for assessment purposes. Where a part of the parcel is not used in the calculation
of that full parcel's assessment, that portion of the parcel not used in the calculation will
not receive an assessment upon the split of the parcel during reapportionment.
1 Willdan Associates, Traffic Analysis for Deay Valley Road Phase n, November 7, 1990.
-- - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- --
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road WuJening
44
o
z
......
z
~
Q
......
~<r;
Q~
-'<r;P=:
~O-<
sP=:E-<
g>-~
'"-~~
.....:IZ
.....:I~
-<0:1
>
>-
<r;
E-<
o
~!"
~ I
~
~ll
<'I!
z I
~!l
~II
~
~
~
~
z
~
'"
~
>
~
!;l
'"
~
<
'"
~
~
~
'"
~
~
o
~
~
Special consideration will be given to those existing subdivisions that have already installed
frontage improvements on Gtay Valley Road as part of their conditions of development
approval. Existing improvements, which include curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting and a
travel lane will be considered part of the road widening project. Their cost will be
estimated based on the bid amounts for those items and included in the dollar amount to
be spread. Then, the cost will be credited back to those subdivisions that installed them.
This method establishes equity among parcels that have already paid for frontage improve-
ments and those that have not. Table I and Figure 2 show what credits will be given to
the existing subdivisions. Please refer to the Assessment Diagram for the location of parcel
numbers.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
46
TAIlLE I
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDE!\llI:G - I'IIASE I & II, CREDIT FOR EXISTH,G IMPROVEMENTS
1\'urth :\urth !\orth South
Assmt Gross Fruutal!:t' C/G Sidt'\\'.llk Strt't't Froutagt' Streetlight Total
No. AI'N Acres (L,F,) Credit Credit Credit Cr...wt Cr...wt Crl.'dit
3 624-060-28 0.58 170 0 0 0 (8,500) 0 (8,500)
5 624-060-45 5.22 380 0 0 0 (19,000) 0 (19,000)
6 644-040-0 I 9.73 13 (78) (26) (546) 0 0 (650)
11 644-040-23 1.80 171 (1,026) (342) (7,182) 0 0 (8,550)
12 644-040-24 3.62 344 (2,064) (688) (14,448) 0 (1,225) (18,425)
14 644-040-28 4.82 569 (510) (170) (3,570) 0 0 (4,250)
17 644-040-36 5.81 0 (1,081) 0 (7,564) 0 (1,447) (10,091)
18 644-040-37 4.03 305 (749) (610) (5,246) 0 (1,003) (7,609)
25 644-041-01 1.87 275 (308) 0 (2,153) 0 0 (2,461)
26 644-041-02 0.97 0 (160) () (1.117) 0 0 (1,277)
27 644-041-03 1.57 0 (25M) 0 (1.808) 0 0 (2,066)
29 644-041-05 2.39 0 (393) 0 (2,752) 0 0 <3,145)
30 644-04 1-06 1.89 0 (311) 0 (2,176) 0 0 (2,487)
31 644-041-07 1.88 0 (309) U (2.165) 0 0 (2,474)
32 644-041-08 2.IN 0 (3.\9) 0 (2.510) U 0 (2,869)
33 644-041-09 1.80 0 (2%) () ('.073) () 0 (2,369)
34 644-041-10 1.05 U (173) () (1.20Y) 0 0 (1,382)
35 644-041-11 0.90 () (148) () (1.036) 0 0 (1,184)
36 644-041-12 0.97 0 (160) () (1.117) 0 0 (1,277)
37 644-041-13 2.39 () (3YJ) () (2.75')) 0 0 (3,145)
38 644-041-14 1.90 276 (313) 0 (2.188) 0 0 (2,501)
39 644-041-17 2.38 0 (3Y2) 0 (2.741) 0 0 (3,132)
40 644-041-18 2.16 325 (355) U (2.487) 0 0 (2,843)
41 644-041-19 3.94 278 (648) 0 (4.537) 0 0 (5,185)
47 644-181-01 1.34 0 (77) 0 (539) 0 (17) (634)
48 644-181-02 1.37 0 <7") 0 (551) U (18) (648)
49 644-181-03 1.48 0 (HS) 0 (596) 0 (19) (700)
50 644-181-04 2."4 0 (I2\}) 0 (90") 0 (29) (1,059)
52 644-181-08 2.38 0 (137) () (958) 0 (31) (1,125)
53 644-181-09 1.53 0 (88) U (616) 0 (20) (724)
54 644-181-10 4.22 0 (243) U (1.699) 0 (54) (1,996)
55 644-181-11 1.66 0 (95) U (668) 0 (21) (785)
56 644~181-15 5.19 0 (298) 0 (2.URY) U (67) (2,454)
57 644-181-16 1.46 U (84) 0 (5lHI) U (19) (690)
58 644-181-18 1.35 0 (78) () (543) 0 (17) (638)
59 644-181-19 1.67 0 (96) 0 (672) 0 (21) (790)
60 644-18] -20 1.30 0 (7.':.,) 0 (523) 0 (17) (615)
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Dla)' Valley Road Widening
47
TAHLE I
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIIlEr\I:-iG -I'IIASE 1 & 11. CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMI'ROVEMEr\TS
l'\orth l'\orth North South
Assmt Gross Froutage CIG Sidt'walk Street Froutage Streetlight Total
No. APN Acres (L.F.) Crodit Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit
61 644-181-21 1.39 0 (80) 0 (560) 0 (18) (657)
62 644-181-22 1.48 0 (85) 0 (596) 0 (19) (700)
63 644-181-23 1.95 0 (112) 0 (785) 0 (25) (922)
64 644-181-24 0.45 0 (26) 0 (181) 0 (6) (213)
65 644-181-25 0.46 0 (26) 0 (185) 0 (6) (218)
66 644-181-26 0.89 0 (51) 0 (358) 0 (II) (421)
67 644-181-27 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
68 644-181-28 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
69 644-181-29 1.82 0 (105) 0 (733) 0 (23) (861)
70 644-181-30 0.60 0 (35) 0 (242) 0 (8) (284)
71 644-181-33 1.05 0 (60) 0 (423) 0 (14) (497)
72 644-182-01 5.15 0 (296) 0 (2.073) 0 (66) (2,435)
73 644-UQ.02 5.21 0 (300) U (2.097) 0 (67) (2.464)
74 644-182-03 5.19 0 (2YX) 0 (2.0KY) 0 (67) (2,454)
76 644-182-07 6..\1 0 (374) 0 (2.620) 0 (84) (3,079)
77 644-182-08 5.17 0 (2lJ7) 0 (2.081) 0 (67) (2,445)
78 644-182-09 6.60 0 (380) 0 (2.657) 0 (85) (3,121)
79 644-182-10 5.30 0 (305) 0 (2.133) 0 (68) (2.506)
80 644-18:2-11 4.24 0 (244) 0 (1.707) 0 (55) (2,005)
81 644-182-12 3.74 0 (215) 0 (1.505) 0 (48) (1,769)
82 644-182-14 1.08 0 (62) 0 (435) 0 (14) (511)
83 644-182-15 0.91 0 (53) 0 (370) 0 (12) (435)
84 644-1l:l2-16 4.64 0 (267) 0 (1.868) 0 (60) (2.194)
85 644-182-17 2.79 0 (160) 0 (1.123) 0 (36) (1,319)
86 644-230.1 I 1.18 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
87 644-230-12 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 (34) (34)
88 644-230-13 1.20 0 () 0 0 0 (38) (38)
89 644-230-14 1.19 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
90 644-230-15 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 (92) (92)
91 644-230.16 4.89 0 0 0 0 0 (153) (153)
92 644-230-17 4.8.'i 0 0 (I 0 0 (152) (152)
93 644-230-1 K 3.0.'i 0 0 (I 0 0 (96) (96)
94 644-230.] ') 4.57 0 0 0 0 0 (143) (143)
95 644-230-20 1.62 0 0 0 0 0 (51) (51)
96 644-230-21 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 (30) (30)
97 644-230-22 1.56 0 0 0 0 0 (49) (49)
98 644-230.23 5.60 0 0 0 0 0 (175) (175)
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessrnem District 90-2
Olny Vnlley Rond Widening
48
TAIlLI-: 1
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WII>EJ'I\ING -PHASE I & II. CREDIT FOR EXISTl!l\G 1!\1I'ROVEMENTS
I"\orth :\iJrth J\orth South
Asswt Gross Frout:l~e C/G Sidt'walk Strt't't Frontage S'reetlight ToWl
No. APN Acres (L.F.) Crt'dit Crt'dit Crodit Crodit creW, creW!
99 644.2JO~24 1.60 0 0 () 0 0 (50) (50)
100 644-230-25 1.21 0 0 () 0 0 (38) (38)
101 644-230-26 1.61 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (50)
Fillal Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Ola)' Valley Road Widening
49
~Cj
-z
~-(/)
UE--E--
~(/)z
~:;;~
~O~:E
~E--~~
5(/)0>-
O~i:t..O
,..... - ~
1i.E--E--0...
~-:E
~o_
o...~
o~
~u
0...
z
<....:I
ow
....:IU
CIlP::
oll~
Zc:l
Oz
00_
....:Iz
w-
z::E
x,OO
~ ~\ ,0
0<( s~ "",,~
",'i ~
cou~ o<',-------=-
.
~I'
~ I
< .
81'
~.I
Jl
~'I
ii,
~
'"
Eo-
Z
w
:E
w
>
Eo- 0
- p::
Q ""
W :E
p:: -
u W
W "
> <
- Eo-
W Z
[;l 0
p:: p::
r..
~ "
'" 25
W Eo-
- '"
Eo- _
p:: 'X
W W
"" p::
o 0
g: r..
~
Soecial Financinl! Considerations
Darling-Delaware Property
The Darling-Delaware property, fonner site of the Omar Rendering Plant, was to be
developed into the Rio Otay Industrial Park until the discovery of hazardous waste halted
further development. The subdivision is made up of 17 parcels (parcel #'s 25 through 4])
and is currently partially improved with graded pads and an improved access road. A Class
I Hazardous Containment Structure is located on parcel #28. Reference is made to,
"Report Review and Assessment of Available Environmental Documents Related to the
Omar Rendering Site, 4826 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista California," June 5, ]990,
Ninyo and Moore; also letter report dated March ]9, ]991 to City of Chula Vista,
Attention: Ms. Robin Putnam, by TorStan, Inc. City staff has decided to consider all
parcels in the subdivision to be developable, with the exception of parcel #28, for the
purposes of Assessment District 90-2.
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel
The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel is a 136 acre lot outside the city limits of Chu]a Vista
in San Diego County. It is currently owned by United Enterprises LTD and leased to
Nelson & Sloan for sand and gravel mining purposes. The parcel receives direct benefit
from the road improvements. Due to its location outside the City, including it in the
assessment district boundary is required the Consent and Jurisdiction from the County of
San Diego, which has been obtained.
Otay County Landfill
The Otay County Landfill is owned by San Diego County. Like the mining parce], it
receives direct benefit from the widening of Otay Valley Road. However, County land is
not legally assessable, and inclusion in the assessment district is therefore not feasible. It
is recommended that the proportionate share of the assessments attributable to the landfill,
less bond discount, reserve and capitalized interest, be paid in the form of a cash
contribution to the assessment district. A cash contribution has been calculated and factored
into the assessment district offsetting assessments to property owner.
City of Chula Vista Contribution to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area
The City of Chula Vista has budgeted a contribution to be used to help finance the
widening of Otay Valley Road. This contribution results in the reduction of assessments
to all parcels within the assessment district.
Final Engineer's Rep0l1
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
51
Incidentals
The cost of incidentals has been spread proportionately over the various improvements in
the direct proportion that the improvement bears to the total cost of improvements.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for Assessment District No. 90-2 are
spread in direct accordance with the benefits that the land within the district boundary
receives from the works of improvements.
Dated: ~ e~;, fl.; L
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
s, RCE 18191
tion Date: 6-30-93
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dla)' Valley Road Widellillg
52
PART IV
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
Reduced copy. Full size copies are on file in the
offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public
Works.
Said Assessment Diagram is tiled herewith and made a
part hereof.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
53
l...L... <l: ~
0 E---< z > ..
, w.
>- '" 0 .....i!:~
U I- 0 w z "
~ Z LL ~ , ~~~~ ,
,
:J Cl " , glllwu ,
<{ - ....J 0 , ...JWU.... ,
~ 0 <l: <( , , .u~Eo ,
z , ,
n::: u u 0 <. " 0<0...... ,
ON ,Z I~W:C: I
C) E---< (k: ZO 1t5~ I "'
<i LL ~~ ,~ '. Ww
0 Z ,Z~ ,~ '" n
<{ I- ~ 1~5 I-~~O '0 .'
[f) >- W " <::I" It:: ,. 5~
if) ,-< ,0
- . 1~5 ~.... 15 ,u
W W ~ . ," 1;tVl-i
0 - > I- ~ 100D ",0 IZ w ,.
--.J , ~ 11< ~o " ~!;:z
~ <l: I," z.
--.J ~ i i I: <0 " ~~
<l: I- ~ ,wo >u ,z ~~"
@ @ i~(: 1100 w" ,~
I- ....J if) <( ~ IIZt . ,0 ow::::;
:J 10G ~> ,u ~~~
:z: > ~~ I~~z " I~
I wz ~."
E---< 0 @ > I~~es zo ,~ .~o
L.....J u ~~ 10..,30 ZO ,.
<.:l >- .u ,~ V1l:t:W
~ Z w @ w , ~ 19~ > g~3
LL <( u , m
@ @ E , >-[0",- .w~
0 0 t- .~ .
(/) @ 0 , ~ 1::50 .~o
~ 0 w~ .0
(/) z @ @ I::':~~ o w
>- ;!~ 1880 a':i!i5
L.....J ~ I- <l: Z< lal......:5 >"z
U if) @ -, ~~;:;\
o~ z.U
(/) w5 ~_ w ~j~
[f) LL 0 ~ I~~
..
(/) 0 0" C I~Z 00>
UO ' w:r+-
<{ [f) @ @ W" ~ 1t;i5 w ~z
@ .u 'w 0
G:: Iou ~ i!~8
~ 0
0
[f) @ @ w ~:S!Q
~ 0,"
[f) @ e Uz'
e . 5 ~ 13~a5 ~
<r:: @ .... \i< )--,2 ~
Oil-::E::i<iS<j: ,~ 5
~oz<woa::l-o 5 ,~
ui:lio5~ II--~:I: ,~ ,~
04(lIl IZxV'l " 0 "
e ~~.....cw l'iwo '< " I.
I" u
~~~i!w~~~ ,0 " ,~
>< <r t5 .....w i!wt--...J 10 0 ,~
'" w ~Vl2:S ~a:~ > iG
<: > '" 5V1;~~e<e...J '" , l~
Q <r " 0 ,0 0
z ~ ~ z ~gz:2E<~ztj ,> w '>
" 0 z ~ '" ~ I~
0 z ~ 8~w<o:;;o~~ 10
'" ~ ~ ~ >-D..~Qw5.....zo.. l~ " ,u
0 z w ,.
0 '" S~~~i!:5::::~o 0 ,~
z ... w " '" ~N ,~
'-' " , --, w<~N~5~5~ Id eJ~ ,~
w .. ~ ~ ~ ,u
'" w ~ w i!zeg::8 !Qg,t;; ,> d-. '>
... u w "
W '" <r ~ <L )-Cl::<~oi5 lIlZ '0 , IS
0 ~ ,
...J E ~ '" -' aleVl 1:5 ~l-< ,
<L ~ ~ 0::::; utzwc> 0 ,
w< . IW(J""w< " ,
5U~ 10:: fS~o ~ ,
W ~~13 1~~t:;V1~ ,
w ~ ,
~ III < I~ a:.....w~ I
~ <~i5 I 13 .j!;...J<(
U lr;<..... I..... N ,...a: ~:s
@ ~ zt;~ 15zg:~~~ ~~
0 'i~0\:S~~~~~~
~ "0
~V1~~~~ lElil~ I' , N
~
0 bl5~o:Sz IOll\:S , ..
V1<< I~ii: Iw<l:j z , 0
z <S!!l Itj~ I~vbl - ,
~Gi!' I~~ j:!O~~ ~!Q
=" ...
""
"'
"'
==
V>
~-z-
~
~
o
~
~
z
@
@
@
@
@
<ID
C\1
I
o
m
<!l
;;
~U ~
u"-;
~ll
~.I
~I!
:l~1
~,
"Ii
~
~-z- ~
~
s
z
C\1
I
o
m
l...L-
o E---- ~
U >- ""
~ ~O
_ Z LL
<:( ,-v 6 :J 0
0::: - u <( <(
C) c......... u 0
c---' . LL 0::::
<:(if];'!.o
o_>~UJ>-
,,-..., ~w
_ <(-..l
I- j tii <(-..l
:z: ::;)
l...L.J E---- :r: c:i >
UC?
~ZLLUJ>-
tn~OCi~
tn::;s>-zo
l...L.J !::<(
tn u(/)
tnif]
<:(if]
~
if]
if]
<C
\'~'
\ ~ I
en '
/
l
..~
z
o
:3
"
z
,
....-
I I
I I
I I
I I
!:: I
,.. -1
.. ",,"' LJ
z:j
:0_ oi;i
0'-
UO <'"
,..j ",--'
;'i 0:<
0 <-
'"'
0..
'"
,..
0:
.. ~
0 oc
z ~
:0 "
0 z
0 '" ~
"
z .. '"
w u
" ~ -'
w
W u
-' en oc
is ~
0-
I
I
I
LL
o
..
"
g'i'" I ~
~il ~
<~ z
~,I <
<II
~-!
911
~;
'~I
~
~
~~~
~~~
':l!~\;:
z::l;c!
.~u
~~15
"'~~
c-",,;!
~.~
5~d
~~g
o'z
z~'
""j!;'"
S~15
~z~
o'Z
.. lD~6
~ ~u
~ ;g~~
oc
w
'"
~
"
z
~
z
w
~
~
~
w
~
~
~
@
N
'-
o
N
..
"
'"
'"
en
PART V
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
Accomplishments of all other related work required to effect above improvements.
Descriotion of Work
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
Dtay Valley Road Phase I
Widen Dtay Valley Road to a 6-lane major street within a I 28-foot right-
of-way between the intersections with 1-805 and Nirvana Ave. (approxi-
mately 5,700 linear feet).
Project to include: 16-foot wide landscaped median, four 12-foot travel
lanes and associated street sections, two 14-foot travel lanes and
associated street sections, and two 6-foot emergency parking/bike lanes.
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, street lights, and dry utilities.
Dtay Valley Road Phase II
Widen Dtay Valley Road to a 4-1ane facility beginning at Nirvana Avenue
and continuing east approximately 5.000 feet, then south a distance of
approximately 500 feet.
Project to include: two 12-foot lanes in each direction, a five foot
emergency parking lane on the north side, and a 4-foot temporary
median.
A north-south curve design will include an eastbound left turn pocket and
a westbound right turn pocket.
Filial Engineer's Report
A.\'sessmeJ/1 District 90-2
0/0)' Valley Road Widening
56
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, and street lights.
Project to include the purchase of right-of-way and wetland mitigation.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Ollly Valley Road Widening
57
PART VI
RIGHT-OF-W A Y CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The undersigned, RICHARD K. JACOBS, hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following
is all true and correct.
At all times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, anu now is the authorized representative of Willdan
Associates, the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA.
That there have now been instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Munidpal/mprovemelJt Act of
1913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Cooe of the State of California for the construction and
construction of certain puhlic improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-3
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Distri(.;'t").
THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
(dle<:k one)
o
a.
That all easements, rights-of-way, or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City.
18I
b.
That all easements, rights-of-way or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto,
showing maps of rights-of-way and easements not yet obtained at this time.
Final Engineer's Report
AssessmeJlt District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
58
.a~ i
w .
II'; i
"
.II
Hi
,,"
~il
~~
,
-'Ji
"'
,
.'
II
,
,,,
"'
II
!!~
/i
;j' I.: ,I
!I 1: w
i! I' .":! I
-j,iV
1'- t--~'~;;'=----r--;----~I----- i
- I
..'"., ..--. )
z
!
l~
iil',
~~..!...
~
..-. ~!
~ J..a..uo.
j"
~
Ljl
I
q
+
."
!lli
; II
,
:+
,
,
, s
,
+
II
"
1.11;
il"!
"j'
, '
~ : I
llH
I I
III!
Ii! ~I
;1. II
!
~I
", /
.i
;. /
\.j
I
I
\ q
\ ~i
\ "
':]1
11-
!~
II"
J
II
-
.....-.
.,
,
,
.: I
,: /
t: I
6: /
;11
..t
/ -.
~_.
,
~
~- :::
~. ..
~ ~l
5
*
i
133H$
+
""... _...-l .._.
-......-1......,
-
\
\
\
-L'
'I
... c
... ~
o c
U .
If> 9
.
0: .
w m
'" Z
-' "
~ '"
..
0:
..
r
o
z
I
If>
U
Ii ;!;.......
ci :d~
~ z~
~~ ~1
~~ If):::!
I N ~...
~;:, iEltI
U
l1:. U~
~ i!~
~
~
-
335
3NI1
H:)lY~
!
Jon......"
l'O",rJ.'''"..sWl''_'S>>o
~
.a
?
~
~
'n
~.>
.a
?
"t~
(-
o
c-
.G
?
\."
\S)
15-
o
0-
.a
?
'1
.-.
~
,
T
+
x
:::>
... If> m
W W ~
vi ~ =
W C ~
50 c
~ ~3i 9
~ In ~
Z .. m
L..J ~:z;
U o.
~ ~..
.(
....-.
1'-.
""""J+
~
(-
!
,
o
,-"
,0
u~
~
y
-L
,
~
'0:.
+
.a
~
%,
\S)
"?
y
I
-...+
,
.
I
1
,
I
,
,
,
;,
,
!ldf;\
,~
.
i
. I
I ~
r :
. ~
'. ~
ii ;:
!~ ~
~.! ~
~!
h
. ;
I I
<
t:
~
x
UJ
.
.
i i
i ~
. i
5 ~
I
;
l.
I
!
I}
~
I<
~ I
fJ: S
~'I '
l'!~.jl
H
- III
'-j ,
,'. I
ti
!
I
I
i
Ii!
!
~
i
j,
%
'II
~
, I
i.l : ~
~r ~ I:.
Iltl.: ;: I!; thi
jill, OJ L~';:
., " ~
hil,-"Il
\1;- i I ill
':-i s' "l-
I
~!
!
+_'1
!
!
!
!
""""".J-
" /".';:
!:'~ ~ t
, 1111: co I
. a: .~~ I
1'" ~iIi < I
.. 10 ...
",I <i
.-
.'~
.~II-L____
I} .._~
,
Ii'"
.,lii
"..,
CI.PJ
l.'V.
O.
<5-
133HS
,,'::
tit.
~:~ i
.
"
. ; ~
! ;. ~ I
; i i i (:
./;
-./.
~ ;1
6'
"
+
"',..,
y
s.-
~
~'"
f-
f-
o
U
Vl
'"
W
'"
-'
<(
'"
i
I
~
33S
3NJ1
1-4:>1\1'"
,~
.....v,..
,v
!
-__I
1:,
~\>
'~'b
"
"
!
I
r
2 ~
~a c
.. .
IS 5
~. .
!~ n
;G U
. .
I
oCt
,
x
UJ
i
.
. t
e ~
i .
~ ~
Ii .
It
I:
I'
1
1.
I.
I.
i!
. 'j
- I
l.
"
~
'I
1: .
~Fl ~
I'l'l
no;
M'
;.J!'!
'-j .
.:.~ ~
L'
!i
II
II
II
Q
~
~
u
.
ii:
~
E
IIi
~
-.-
!
_...J+
~
..
c
III
~
~
z
"
!
_'1,+
~
..
c
+
!
.........1+
Z 133"15 335
I
.
=.
E;
~l
+
,
!
5'~
~!
+
E
. +
.
!
...~......
.
~ l'5~JiOk.-_
:.{.z.. '. III ~
, .
,
02- iJ2t~'fi
.:
.
f'
2'
,
i
.
l
,
i
~.-nr'J
,H'Ift'.
s,.ft
I,
$: '~r-; --~
:; li U ~.. 'Ii'"-
~ ~/.~ ti "+
..I ~ +
, '
; il : j
:. 1;! ~
I ~I 'i '-s..
',I · -~ ~
'1 ~ I ~
I
:\ ! ~\ ~ ~~
- .. I o;;~
;1 !! ~~3
_:~ . ~:;;~
I b~<I(
~uw
"
\ t\ J,
i ;1\ I,
0, '
0\, ;
", ,
\J 1~1i\i~
1~- \
,'. .. +
.:~~\~~'~ ~ i~
. -.io~~~ ',\ :
. ~~~~\. ~\
. ~\-
>-
z
<
Cl.
'"
o
u
.
i
..J.
<0
it: 0
~9
..q
"'.
z:Z;
0'
.....
Z
!oJ
"-
0;
:i
.
....-
,-,
.......... ~
",no.
"',""l
(-,......_........)
'---1
'.
..,~ ....
"'i..' ...~-'
y~,
"
i~
"
j'
.J
'"
~,
/
.~.
I
i-iiw.)~.iUoo'
,
,
I
.i>
'? ~
:I:
9~
>-
z
<
Cl.
",Z
0<
ug
..J V1w
< 0
it: ~~
l.&J <9
.... .
< z.
'" o.
z V'lz
o dn;
~ z<
!oJ 0
"-z
0;<
:i
o
.. ~
0" '(
~,,,
( . ........~)
'.IOl,f_~
o
'"
\-
>-
Z
<
Cl.
'"
o
u
~
..JO
<I,
-<
0<0
!oJ'
....:
<.
"'z
zn;
o.
....
Z
!oJ
"-
.i>
?
90
<
'"
I ~
<
'"
<
....
.
o
..
.
9
o
<
9
.
.
.
oou.".+
~
::;)
V1
....
<
'"
z
"
..
.',..
~.-
,,-
-;-
"'i-""
o
~~
I
.
-..+
"1::
'Z,,,
+
0",
I
..........+
0"
~0
..O(._~
(_,......._....._00
~-
61 o::l3S JNn A1l:l3.1S'f'J
3NI1 H:>l'V't"l
.
~
.
.~
.
!
,
,
,
;
,
i
. ~
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
i
i
.
.
o
. ,
..
,.
f
I
I I
oCt
I-
!@
X
W
i
.
i i
i I
. ~
fi 5
,
L
!
J 1
I.
l~
~ i~
.
i
.
i
~
~!
!ij I
~~:
ffiIl
"il
".
tl
,
~I
U
H
".
:.
'.
<
<.
i.
I
..
w
e
i
.
.
i
~
Ii!
PART VII
CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
The following changes and modifications, if any, were ordered by the City
Council at the public hearing on the Assessment District, and those changes are
generally set forth as follows:
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Glay Valley Road Widellillg
62
Appendix A
IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT LETTER FROM
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
63
~~~
~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
APR - il!Ji
April 2, 1992
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich
San Diego, CA 92122
WlLLDAN ASsoc. SAN DIEGO
Subject: Properties in the Proposed Otay Valley Road ~_ssessment District with Impediments
to Development
Dear Jerome:
As you are aware, there are a number of properties which fall within the boundaries of the
proposed assessment district for the widening of Otay Valley Road which have severe physical
and/or financial impediments to development. This will impact the relevancy of including them
in the district. These properties are generally divided in three categories: (I) properties located
within the Otay River Floodway and Floodplain; (2) wetland properties south of Otay Valley
Road; and (3) properties with extreme grades and environmentally sensitive vegetation on the
north side ofOtay Valley Road, east of Nirvana Avenue. These properties are further identified
in the attached map. The development impediments are described below.
F100dwav and Floodplain Properties
To encroach in the floodway, studies and calculations would need to be provided to indicate that
the encroachment and associated mitigation measures meet both City and federal (FEMA)
requirements.
Wetland ProDerties
A significant portion of properties lying south of Otay Valley Road, west of Nirvana Avenue,
fall within designated wetlands associated with the Otay River. Much of the properties directly
south of Otay Valley Road include these wetlands.
Development of these properties would, minimally, require the following:
. Environmental assessment by City staff;
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 2
· Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive andlor endangered species of plants
and animals, impacts to wetlands and other environmental resources;
. Coordination with other state and federal regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and achievement of at least the following:
(1) Section 404 Permit through the Army Corps of Engineers including the
identification of appropriate mitigation for the loss of wetlands due to the
proposed development,
(2) Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game, and
(3) Possible channelization of the atay River which, in itself, would
destroy wetland habitat.
Even with the requirements above, property developed int he floodway may be subject to
flooding, limitation on development by the presence of protected species of animals and
vegetation already identified in this area, and the cost of purchasing and restoring wetlands to
replace those lost to development. It should be noted that there is value in the wetland
properties for sale as mitigation property for offsite development such as the atay Valley Road
Widening project.
Prouerties With Extreme SloDes
Two properties are identified on the north side of atay Valley Roacl, east of Nirvana, which are
characterized by steep slopes and endangered vegetation. Impediments to development for these
properties would include:
· Environmental assessment by City staff;
· Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive andlor endangered species of
vegetation (previously identified on this site);
· City slope ordinance limits of no more than a 2: I slope for development; and
. Limit on ability to directly access atay Valley Road due to City development policy to
limit access and physical constraint due to steep slopes.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 3
The environmental constraints, lack of access, and presence of protected vegetation will make
these properties extremely difficult and expensive to develop. Access to these properties from
the north is also limited due to the topography which would limit the amount of property which
could be used for development.
If you require any additional information concerning developability of these properties, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, /
~vv/~
Fred Kassman
Redevelopment Coordinator
FK!bb
[C:IWP5110VROADlLElTERSI W1LLDAN2.L TR]
CC: Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator, Community Development
William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Donna Snider, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director, Planning Department
Tom Meade, Consultant
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~~~
~
~~~~
~- --
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
April 10, 1992
File # AY-081
RECEIVeD
willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive #250
San Diego, CA 92122-3939
APR , 5 1992
'NIIJ,DAN ASSQC. SAN DIEGO
OTAY VALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
CONSTRAINTS
DEVELOPMENT
This letter is in response to your questions regarding floodway
constraints as outlined in the letter dated April 2, 1992 from
Fred Kassman of Community Development.
Floodway encroachments, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited
unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments will
not result in any increase in flood levels during a base flood
discharge. This generally requires detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations which may include HEC-2 runs. Floodway
fringe encroachments are permitted if the pad elevation or finished
floor elevation is at least I' above the base flood elevation and
hazardous velocities are not produced as a result of the
encroachment. These requirements are separate from environmental
constraints of other state and federal regulatory agencies such as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish
and Game, and the U.s. Fish and wildlife Service.
In order to remain within the
FEMA requires that the City
floodway encroachments.
National Flood Insurance Program,
follow these FEMA guidelines on
Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter
please contact Donna Snider at 691-5266.
/y~~;4
WILLIAM A. ULLRICH
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
DDS:nm
(DDS2\OTV90-2.LTR)
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5021
OOUNCIL AGENDA STAlEMENT
Item I ~
Meeting Date 06fl3f:!2
SUBMITIED BY:
Resolution I b\c, I D authorizing conditional temporary closure of various
streets in the EastLake and EastLake Greens communities on Saturday, July
11, 1992, for a 10K run and 4 mile walk
Director of Parks and Recreati4
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manageyr
(415ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
The San Diego National Sports Training Foundation (sponsor) is requesting permission to conduct
a 10K run and 4 mile walk on Saturday, July 11, 1992, from 7:30 AM. - 9:30 AM., in the EastLake
and EastLake Greens communities.
REOOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution, subject to staff conditions.
BOARD/COMMISSION REOOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The San Diego National Sports Training Foundation is requesting permission to
conduct a lOK race and a 4 mile walk in the EastLake area on Saturday, July 11, 1992. Both events
would start at the Eastlake Information Center at the corner of Otay Lakes Road and Eastlake
Parkway, and would follow the routes indicated on the attached area plats (Attachments "A" and "B").
Both events would have finish lines at Augusta Park in the EastLake Greens community. The
sponsor is. expecting approximately 800 participants at the event, and the sponsor is using a
professional race consultant to assist them with planning and organizing the event.
The sponsor is not anticipating any lengthy street closures during the event, although Otay Lakes
Road, Eastlake Parkway and the streets in the business center area (Fenton, Lane, Boswell and
Miller will be closed temporarily to traffic during the start of the lOK run. These closures should not
exceed 10 minutes in length. Runners will be dispersed by the time they reach EastLake Parkway,
north of the business center area, and no further street closures will be required. The sponsor,
working in conjunction with the Police Department, will monitor and control traffic at all street
intersections along the course of the run. Participants in the walking event will be instructed to
follow all normal safety precautions when crossing streets.
Both events will require participants to cross Otay Lakes Road at the intersection of EastLake
Parkway. The sponsor will have appropriate safety measures in place at this intersection, based on
input from the Police Department and Traffic Engineering. The traffic signal at this intersection will
be set to blinking red in all directions during the event, and traffic alert signs will be posted at
appropriate intervals east and west of the intersection, cautioning motorists of the need to stop.
Temporary "Stop" signs will be placed at the intersection, and flagmen (Police officers) will monitor
and control traffic through the intersection.
The Transit Department has expressed some concerns regarding the event. The day of the event is
the first day of service on a re-structured route (Route 709) serving the EastLake Area. The route
I~ -I
-
-@
/
/'
/
.:~
, "
/"
~/d'"
, \
~ .,
~' /- \,
" .' ,
---- ,
'/' .
/
/
'.
....,....
<~.j
\
_1;--
::/.
-J
4
3
III
~
-
So
~
I-
<C
..J
a.
<C
LLJ
a:
<C
.
0:
i=
.
oC
2
N
OJ
OJ
0-
I
."
I
I/)
>.
1I3
c:
~
III
...
Q
.
...
"
o
~
/
/
/
/
-~~
, "
, /'..
~/ \\
\~/'/ )\
, /~
/ /
/
\
\
~
&(iJ
\J
.. ,""~
\. '
'.
2
':)
C'
~
o
-
I-
<C
..J
C.
<C
w
a:
<C
CD
:;:
i=
c
::E
N
0)
0)
...
I
.
I
I/)
>.
III
r::
~
Ie
..
o
.
...
Ie
o
utilizes Otay Lakes Road, Lane Avenue, Fenton Street, and Eastlake Parkway. All of these streets
will be impacted by the race, and the first route trip of the day will be affected by the temporary
street closures. The streets will be reopened by the time the second route of the day enters the area.
The delays in the first route should be relatively minimal, and should not have a serious impact on
transit service.
The sponsor has agreed to provide insurance, portable toilets, appropriate trash containers and trash
control, necessary traffic control equipment, and required Police services at their own expense.
EastLake is a major sponsor of the event, and residents in the area have been notified about the
event on two occasions through association newsletters. In addition, the sponsor is planning to notify
homeowners with a flyer regarding the event. The Eastlake Homeowner's Association and the
Eastlake Business Owner's Association have been notified of the event proposal as well, and have
been informed of the fact that the proposal will be reviewed at the City Council meeting on June 23,
1992.
If approval is granted for this event, it is recommended that the sponsor be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The sponsor shall submit proof of insurance in the form of a certificate of insurance and
policy endorsement for $1 million, naming the City as additional insured. The Risk Manager's
office has reviewed this condition and concurs.
2. The sponsor shall execute the standard hold harmless agreement.
3. The sponsor shall provide all necessary supplies and services including portable toilets, trash
receptacles, crowd and traffic control, traffic control equipment, signage, and required Police
services at their own expense.
4. The sponsor shall arrange for required traffic warning signs on Otay Lakes Road as specified
by the Traffic Engineer, and the sponsor shall utilize Chula Vista Police Officers to control
the intersection, at their own expense.
FISCAL IMPACT: None: The event sponsor shall pay for all City services required at the event.
"B"-
Route of 4 mile Walk) ~ I r Sf! LlIJ Nt/)
Route of lOK run ,., () n
Attachments
"A" ~
[elllte101t}
2
14. ~ 2.. / /4 ~ '1
RESOLUTION NO. l~b7D
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING CONDITIONAL TEMPORARY
CLOSURE OF VARIOUS STREETS IN THE EASTLAKE AND
EASTLAKE GREENS COMMUNITIES ON SATURDAY, JULY
11, 1992, FOR A 10K RUN AND 4 MILE WALK
WHEREAS, the San Diego National Sports Training
Foundation is requesting permission to conduct a 10K run and 4 mile
walk on Saturday, July 11, 1992, from 7:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m., in the
EastLake and EastLake Greens communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize conditional temporary
closure of various streets in the EastLake and EastLake Greens
Communities on Saturday, July 11, 1992, for a 10K run and 4 mile
walk subject to the following conditions:
1. The sponsor shall submit proof of insurance in the
form of a certificate of insurance and policy
endorsement for $1 million, naming the City as
additional insured. The Risk Manager's office has
reviewed this condition and concurs.
2. The sponsor shall execute the standard hold
harmless agreement.
3. The sponsor shall provide all necessary supplies
and services including portable toilets, trash
receptacles, crowd and traffic control, traffic
control equipment, signage, and required Police
services at their own expense.
4.
The sponsor shall arrange for required traffic
warning signs on Otay Lakes Road as specified by
the Traffic Engineer, and the sponsor shall utilize
Chula vista Police Officers to control the
intersection, at their own expense.
]
A;rd I~S :0; form br,
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
C:\rs\10K run EL
11./ - S
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item 15
Meeting Date 06/23/92
RESOLUTION (~b'1l Approving a request by G.T.R.N., Ltd., a
California Limited Partnership, for reduction of Park Acquisition and
Development fees on their housing project at 95 Madison Avenue
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION Ib"''';t. Approving an Amended Housing Cooperation
Agreement with G.T.R.N, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership to sell
three condominium units at 95 Madison Avenue to low-income
homebuyers
Community Devel!J~4 Director (~ .
Planning Director ;.. (l
Parks and Recreati n Directlllt<-
.. 'REVIEWED BY: City Managery)
(I
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
On June 19, 1990, the City Council approved a density bonus of three units for 95 Madison
Ave. providing for a total of 16 apartment units. At the same time, the Council approved a
Housing Cooperation Agreement with G.T.R.N., Ltd. to make three units affordable to
lower-income households.
On March 11, 1992, G.T.R.N. applied for a condominium subdivision map. Staff waived
requirements for a tentative map but placed eight conditions on approval of the final map. Two
of these conditions are the payment of PAD fees and amendment of the Housing Cooperation
Agreement. The developer has requested that the City reduce the PAD fees associated with the
subdivision map from $60,960 to $26,000. Staff has negotiated an Amended Housing
Cooperation Agreement to allow the developer to sell rather than rent the three affordable units.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: (a) adopt the resolution approving the request
for reduction of Park Acquisition and Development Fees by G.T.R.N., Ltd., a California
Limited Partnership on their 16 unit condominium project at 95 Madison Avenue, and (b) adopt
the resolution approving an Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement with G.T.R.N, Ltd., a
California Limited Partnership for three affordable condominium units at 95 Madison Ave.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
On June 19, 1990, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and in response to an
application by G.T.R.N., Ltd., a California Limited Partnership (the developer), the City
Council granted a three unit (25 percent) density bonus and approved a Housing Cooperation
lS -1
Page 2, Item / S-
Meeting Date 06/23/92
Agreement to make three units affordable to lower-income households for a period of 10 years
(Resolution No. 15689). The density bonus entitles the developer to construct a total of 16
dwelling units at 95 Madison Ave. The Housing Cooperation Agreement was recorded in the
official records of San Diego County, California by the County Recorder on August 2, 1990.
In January 1991 the developer contacted the City Planning Department to ask about changing
the apartment project into a condominium project. Staff advised the developer that the proposed
condominium project would be inconsistent with the General Plan as updated in 1989. The
developer pulled building permits on February 15, 1991 and began construction on the apartment
proj ect.
In October 1991 the developer re-contacted the Planning Department regarding the condominium
map; staff did further research and discovered that the project had begun processing in
December 1988 under the former General Plan. By virtue of the vesting of the project, staff
determined that a condominium subdivision could be processed.
In January 1992 the developer requested a tentative map wavier, which was granted by staff.
Two conditions staff placed on approval of the final map were payment of the PAD fees in the
amount of $60,960 and negotiation of an Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement with the
Community Development Department.
Park ACQuisition and DeveloDment (PAm Fees
On February 19, 1992, the developer made a written request to reduce the PAD fees associated
with the subdivision map from $60,960 to $26,000. The $26,000 fee is based upon the PAD
fee structure in effect prior to June 22, 1991. Had staff processed the developer's original
request for the condominium subdivision in January 1991, the PAD fee structure in effect at that
time would most likely have applied to his subdivision. As staff later determined that the
developer could process a subdivision map, after the PAD fee structure had been increased, staff
recommends approval of the developer's request. (Although Municipal Code Section 17.10
provides that the Council may waive PAD fees to stimulate low and moderate income housing,
staff recommends against a reduction based on this provision. The Council has already approved
a density bonus (pursuant to Government Code Section 65915) to this project; another incentive
is not warranted unless the developer is willing to provide a longer term of affordability).
Amended Housin~ CooDeration Al!reement
As the developer now desires to sell three condominium units rather than rent three apartment
units to lower income households, staff has negotiated an Amended Housing Cooperation
Agreement ("Agreement") with the developer. When executed by both parties and recorded by
the County Recorder, this Agreement shall replace the original Housing Cooperation Agreement
entered into on June 19, 1990.
The Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement provides that:
\s-- 2
Page 3, Item }~--
Meeting Date 06/23/92
1. A total of three units will be sold to homebuyers earning no more than 80 percent of median
income. Of the three units, at least one will be a three-bedroom unit. The selling price of the
affordable units shall not exceed $105,000 for a two-bedroom unit and $115,000 for a three
bedroom-unit.
2. The monthly housing payment, which include principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and
homeowners association fee shall not exceed 33 percent of the monthly income of the
low-income homebuyer.
3. In order to make the three units affordable to low-income households, the developer agrees
to pay up to $5,000 of the non-recurring closing costs. For households earning between 75
percent and 80 percent of median income the developer will also provide a subsidy of up to
$6,000 in order to lower the monthly housing payment to the 33 percent level. The methods
by which the developer will do this is one of the following:
a) provide downpayment assistance of up to 5 percent of the sales price;
b) reduce the sales price of the unit; or
c) "write-down" the interest rate for a period of 10 years.
4. A deed restriction (to be recorded in first position) will require that, for ten years after the
initial sale, subsequent purchasers of the affordable units also be low-income homebuyers.
The developer anticipates that low-income homebuyers will apply for a Mortgage Credit
Certificate from the City, which enables the low-income homebuyer to take 20 percent of the
interest paid annually as an income tax credit. In addition, the homebuyer may apply for a
Community Homebuyer Program loan from a private lender. This type loan allows a 5 percent
downpayment, 33/38 percent debt ratio, and no reserve requirements.
Staff has analyzed pro-formas based on a potential low-income homebuyer using the MCC
program and obtaining a Community Homebuyer program loan. Given the restricted sales prices
and the current interest rate, the three bedroom units will be affordable to households earning
75 percent of median income. The two bedroom units will only be affordable to households
earning 80 percent of median income if the developer contributes an additional 5 percent
downpayment to the buyer's 5 percent downpayment.
Other requirements in the Agreement are:
1. Developer shall provide a notice to the buyer regarding resale restrictions; this notice
must be approved by the Community Development Director.
2. Developer shall provide a marketing plan which targets low-income Chula Vista residents
and employees who work in Chula Vista.
\~~3
Page 4, Item ) 5
Meeting Date 06/23/92
3. If units do not sell within one year, developer agrees to rent out the unsold affordable
units at 30 percent of 60 percent of median income to families earning no more than 60
percent of median income.
4. The affordable units shall contain same amenities as all the other units.
FISCAL IMPACT: If approved by the Council, reduction of the PAD fees to $26,000 will
decrease PAD revenues by $34,960.
[C,\ WP51 \COUNCIL\113S\95MADlS0.!13]
\s-i
RESOLUTION NO. 11-'-"11
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REQUEST BY G.T.R.N., LTD.,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR REDUCTION OF
PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES ON THEIR
HOUSING PROJECT AT 95 MADISON AVENUE
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby resolve
as follows:
WHEREAS, G.T.R.N., Ltd. ("Developer") has made a written
request to reduce the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees
on their housing project at 95 Madison Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer originally inquired about processing
a condominium subdivision map in January 1991 and then inquired
again in October 1991, at which time staff determined that the
developer could process said map; and,
WHEREAS, in June of 1991, the city Council increased the PAD
fee structure, thereby increasing the PAD which applied to
developer's housing project from $26,000 to $60,960.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City
city of Chula vista approves the reduction of
associated with the condominium subdivision at 95
from $60,960 to $26,000.
Council of the
the PAD fees
Madison Avenue
pre~ b
Chris Salomone
Community Development
.
Bruce M. Boog a d
city Attorney:
Director
ISJ\ - I
RESOLUTION NO. /l&>lcl'L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDED HOUSING
COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH G.T.R.N., LTD., A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO SELL THREE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 95 MADISON AVENUE TO LOW
INCOME HOMEBUYERS
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby resolve
as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65915, the City
Council granted a 3 unit (25 percent) density bonus to G.T.R.N.,
Ltd. (property Owner) for their housing project at 95 Madison
Avenue on June 19, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the city Council approved a Housing Cooperation
Agreement between the city and Property Owner and said Agreement
was recorded in the official records of San Diego county,
California by the County Recorder on August 2, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, on March 11, 1991, the property Owner submitted an
application to the city for a condominium subdivision map for 95
Madison Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the city has required the Property Owner to enter
into an Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement as one condition
for the approval of said subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, the community Development Director has negotiated
an Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement ("Agreement") with the
property Owner to sell rather than rent three units to low-
income households.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of the
city of Chula vista approves the Amended Housing cooperation
Agreement with G.T.R.N., Ltd., a copy of which is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes the yor to execute
said Agreement on behalf of the city.
prmb~
Chris Salomone
community Development Director
Bruce M. Boog ar
city Attorney
\SB-,/,se-t
Recording Requested By
and When Recorded Return to:
The City Clerk of the
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention:
[Space above for Recorder's use only]
Assessor Parcel Nos.
No transfer tax is due as this is a
conveyance to a public agency of
less than a fee interest for which no
cash consideration has been paid or
received.
AMENDED HOUSING COOPERATION AGREEMENT
TO PROVIDE LOW-INCOME HOUSING
This AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOW INCOME HOUSING ("Agreement") is made
this of June 1992, for the purpose of reference only, by and between THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, California, a municipal corporation ("City") and G.T.R.N., Ltd., a
California Limited Partnership ("Property Owner"), with reference to the facts set forth below.
RECITALS
1.1 Property Owner. Property Owner is the legal owner of the fee title to the real
property described as Lot 4, Block 4 of Marlborough Heights in the City of Chula Vista,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1336 filed in the
Office of the Recorder of San Diego County, May 25, 1911 ("Property"). Said Property is
sometimes referred to in this Agreement as "95 Madison Ave.".
1.2 Density Bonns. Government Code Section 65915 provides that when a housing
developer agrees to construct at least 20 percent of the units. in a project for lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, a local
government shall grant a density bonus of 25 percent.
Page 1 of 10
\S-e,-3
1.3 Grant of Density Bonus. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and in response
to Property Owner's application in conjunction with a 16 unit apartment construction project
wherein the Property Owner proposed to build 3 of the 16 units as lower income units and
rent said 3 units to lower income households, the City Council of the City ("City Council")
granted a 3 unit (25 percent) density bonus by Resolution No. 15689 on June 19, 1990. Said
density bonus entitles Property Owner to construct a total of 16 apartment dwelling units
("16 Units") at 95 Madison Ave. conditioned upon the Property Owner entering into an
agreement with the City to rent three units (20 percent of the units, excluding the density
bonus) to lower income households.
1.4 Original Housing Cooperation Agreement. As part of the grant of the aforementioned
density bonus, City Council required a Housing Cooperation Agreement ("Original
Agreement") between the City and Property Owner and authorized the City Manager to
execute said agreement by Resolution No. 15689. Said agreement was recorded against the
Property in the official records of San Diego County, California by the County Recorder on
August 2, 1990. The Original Agreement requires the Property to rent three of the units to
households earning 60 percent or less of the HUD area median income and to maintain
affordable rents for a period of ten years.
1.5 Subdivision Map. In March 11, 1992, Property Owner submitted an application to the
City for a condominium subdivision map for 95 Madison Ave, effectively proposing to
convert the previously approved apartment project into an condominimum project. As one of
several conditions for approval of the final parcel map, the City has required the Property
Owner to enter into a new housing cooperation agreement which addresses the affordable
housing requirements.
1.6 Amended Housing Cooperation Agreement. As the Property Owner now desires to
sell 3 condominium units rather than rent 3 apartment units to lower income households, the
Community Development Director has negotiated this Amended Housing Cooperation
Agreement ("Agreement") with the Property Owner. When executed by both parties and
recorded by the County Recorder, this Agreement shall replace the Original Housing
Cooperation Agreement entered into on June 19, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as set forth below.
1. Deimitions
1.1 Low Income Housing Unit. The term "Low Income Housing Units" shall mean a
residential structure designed for sale to a Low Income Purchaser, and constructed
pursuant to said design.
1.2 Low Income Purchaser. The term "Low Income Purchaser" shall mean an actual
Page 2 of 10
\se.-Lj
or prospective purchaser of a residential unit located at 95 Madison Avenue, which is
one or more members of a household whose gross annual income does not exceed 80
percent of the San Diego Area Median Income as determined by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (May 1992), based upon household size. For the
purpose of determining the San Diego Median Income for Low Income Purchasers the
following HUD household sizes shall be applied:
HUD actual maximum
Household size # of persons Income
2 persons 1 - 2 $26,450
4 persons 3-4 $33,050
6 persons 5-6 $38,350
1.3 Subsequent Low Income Purchaser. The term "Subsequent Low Income
Purchaser" shall mean an actual or prospective purchaser of a residential unit located at
95 Madison A venue, which the City determines in writing and in advance of the
transfer to said actual or propective purchaser, is one or more members of a household
whose gross annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the San Diego Area Median
Income as determined from time to time by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, based upon household size. For the purpose of determining the San
Diego Median Income for Subsequent Low Income Purchasers the following HUD
household sizes shall be applied: 1 or 2 persons is a two person household; 3 or 4
persons is a four person household; 5 or 6 persons is a six person household.
2. Termination of the Original Agreement.
Upon recordation of this Agreement, the Original Agreement, entered into by the parties on
June 19, 1990 and recorded on August 2, 1990, shall be terminated. The City shall execute
document(s) requested by a title company to release the Original Agreement.
3. Provision of Low-Income Units
3.1 The Property Owner agrees to use good faith and best efforts to market and sell
three (3) of the 16 Units as Low-Income Housing Units to Low-Income Purchasers
within one year of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
3.2 Sales Price for Low Income Housing Units. The sales price for a Low Income
Housing Unit shall not exceed $105,000 for a two-bedroom unit and shall not exceed
$115,000 for a three-bedroom unit.
3.3 Qualifying Purchasers as Low-Income Purchasers. In order to qualify a purchaser
as a Low-Income Purchaser, the Property Owner shall make a good faith effort to verify
Page 3 of 10
\S8,5
that the gross annual income of each Low-Income Purchaser is at or below the income
limits previously defmed in this agreement. In addition, the Low-Income Purchaser
shall sign an affidavit that the gross annual income of all household members does not
exceed said income limits and that the Low-Income Purchaser will take occupancy of
the Low-Income Housing Unit within 30 days of the close of escrow and will be the
primary occupant of the Low-Income Housing Unit.
3.4 Designation of Low Income Housing Units. Any three of the sixteen units at 95
Madison Avenue may be designated as Low Income Housing Units, except that at least
one of the units shall be three-bedrooms. Unless the Property Owner has previously
designated three of the units as Low Income Housing Units, at least 1 or which, and
perhaps more, is a three bedroom units as Low Income Housing Units, than at such
point that the number of remaining unsold two-bedrooms units is equal to the number of
unsold two-bedroom Low Income Housing Units required by this Agreement, then the
remaining two two-bedrooms units shall automatically be designated as Low-Income
Housing Units; and, in the event that the number of remaining unsold three-bedrooms
units is equal to the number of unsold three-bedroom Low Income Housing Units
required by this Agreement, then the remaining three-bedroom units shall automatically
be designated as Low-Income Housing Units. The Low Income Housing Units shall be
constructed and otherwise improved to the same material quality standards as all 16
units.
3.5 Deed Restrictions for Low Income Housing Units. For each Low Income
Housing Unit herein required, the City shall have the right to impress, prior to the
initial sale of any of the 16 Units, such covenants, conditions and restrictions against
title ("Deed Restrictions") to such units as City deems appropriate and necessary to
implement and preserve the Low Income Housing Units, but at a minimum shall require
that, for a period of 10 years from the date of sale to the first Low Income Purchaser
("Restrictive Period") (1) that the Low Income Housing Unit is occupied primarily by
the owner of the Units ("Owner-occupancy Condition"); (2) that upon sale or other
transfer, the Low Income Housing Unit is transferred only to Subsequent Purchasers
Restrictions shall be in a priority position to a purchase money lender's security
interests; however, upon a good faith demonstration by the Property Owner to the City
of need for subordination in order to secure financing, the City shall agree to
subordinate the Deed Restrictions to the lien of a purchase money deed of trust provided
the form of such subordination meets with the City's reasonable satisfaction, not
unreasonably withheld, and provides the City with the right to receive notice of, and the
right to cure, any defaults and to be subrogated to the rights of the lender upon such
cure.
3.6 Duty to Provide Notice Regarding Deed Restrictions, Property Owner Subsidy, and
Fair Housing Laws. The Property Owner shall, at the first available opportunity to
advise a prospective purchaser of the availability of sale of Low Income Units to advise
the prospective purchaser that said units are encumbered with the Deed Restrictions, and
Page 4 of 10
\<5 6...1e
it that regard, shall provide each prospective purchaser interested in a Low Income Unit
with a written notice ("Notice"), acceptable to the City, in its reasonable discretion,
stating in non-legal, simple language the following: (1) an explanation of the terms of
the deed restrictions; (2) information regarding the subsidy which the Property Owner
will make available to certain Low-Income Purchasers; (3) information regarding the
federal fair housing laws, including the phone number of the Fair Housing Council of
San Diego.
4. Reporting Requirements
Commencing on on the first day of the month following the month in which the units are
released for sale, and continuing of the first day of each month thereafter until all of the 16
units are sold (Le., in closed escrows), the Property Owner shall deliver to the City a
monthly report ("Monthly Report") which includes the information set forth below:
4.1 Actual Purchasers. With respect to each Low-Income Purchaser who enters into
a purchase contract with Property Owner, the Monthly Report shall include (a) a copy
of each purchase contract entered into with such Low-Income Purchaser and (b) a copy
of information which Property Owner relied upon in determining that purchaser
qualifies as a Low-Income Purchaser; (c) a work sheet showing the estimated monthly
housing payment ("Housing Payment"), including principal interest, taxes, mortgage
insurance, homeowners association fee, and any other assessments, of the Low-Income
Purchaser for the Low-Income Housing Unit.
4.2 Non-Purchasers. With respect to each person who applies as a Low-Income
Purchaser but did not qualify as a Low-Income Purchaser, the report shall include the
following information: Household's name, address, telephone number, size of
household, gross annual income, ethnicity, date of application, and reasons for not
purchasing a unit.
4.3 Authorization for Release. Each Monthly Report which is delivered to the City
shall contain an acknowledgement by each household applying as a Low-Income
Purchaser that (a) the information in the Monthly Report is required by the City, (b) the
household authorizes the release of the information in the Monthly Report to the City,
(c) the information in the Monthly Report is for use only by the City in accordance with
the sale of the Low-Income Housing Units at 95 Madison Avenue, and (d) such
information may not be disclosed to any person or entity other than representatives of
the City.
S. Duty to Provide a Marketing Plan and Duty to Market Low Income Housing Units
to Low-Income Purchasers
Property Owner shall provide a plan ("Marketing Plan") acceptable to City, in its reasonable
discretion, for pro-actively marketing the Low-Income Housing Units to Low Income
Page 5 of 10
\"5 G,~1
Purchasers. Said marketing plan shall target residents of Chula Vista or employees of Chula
Vista businesses. Property Owner shall use good faith and reasonable best efforts to market
the Low-Income Housing Units to Low Income Purchasers.
6. Admini~rative Costs
Property Owner agrees to pay, prior to the release of the 16 Units for sale, City $1,500 for
the reasonable administrative costs incurred by City in connection with the administration of
this Agreement.
7. Duty to Provide Subsidies to Low-Income Purchasers
7.1 Non-recurring closing costs Subsidy. Property Owner agrees to pay into escrow,
for the benefit of a Low Income Purchaser who has contracted to purchase a Low
Income Housing Unit, an amount not to exceed $5,000 in non-recurring closing costs,
which would otherwise, in the normal course of business, be the obligation of the
Purchaser, associated with the sale of a Low-Income Housing Unit, including but not
limited to appraisal fee, credit report, escrow fee, document preparation fee, processing
fee, title insurance, recording fees, tax service fees, funding fee, and loan origination
fee. Pre-paid interest, private mortgage insurance, tax impounds, and hazard insurance
are not to be included in non-recurring closing costs.
7.2 Purchase Subsidies. Property Owner agrees to provide a subsidy not to exceed
$6,000 to Low-Income Housing Purchasers who closes escrow for the sale of a Low
Income Housing Unit in a specific amount hereinbelow specified with the intention that
the amount shall be necessary to permit said purchaser to qualify for a loan ("Subsidized
Purchaser"). In order to implement this duty, the Property Owner shall, for each actual
or prospective Subsidized Purchaser, make a reasonable estimate of the said Purchaser's
monthly housing payment, including principal, interest, taxes, private mortgage
insurance, homeowner's association fee, and any other assessments ("Housing
Payment"). The Property Owner shall provide a subsidy ("Subsidy") to the Subsidized
Purchaser in an amount which will lower the Housing Payment to the level at which
said Housing Payment does not exceed 33 % of the gross monthly income of the
Subsidized Purchaser. The Subsidy shall be made in one of the following ways: (1)
down payment assistance; (2) reduction in sales prices of Low-Income Housing Unit;
(3) "write-down" the interest rate for a period of 10 years (4) or in such other manner
as meets with the approval of the City.
8. Failure to Market and Sell Low-Income Housing Units to Low-Income Purchasers
In the event that the Property Owner fails to market and sell any or all of the Low-Income
Housing Units to Low-Income Purchasers within one year of the Certificate of Occupancy
("One-Year Mark"), then the Property Owner agrees to re-enter, without delay, into the
Original Housing Cooperation Agreement entered into on June 19, 1990 ("Original
Page 6 of 10
\C;6~ 8'
Agreement") as to the unsold Low Income Housing Units, which shall obligate the Property
Onwer, among others, to rent the remaining unsold Low-Income Housing Units at affordable
rents to Low-Income Households for a period of ten years.
9. General Provisions
9.1 Maintenance of Records. Property Owner shall use reasonable efforts to keep
and maintain complete records of information that it receives in connection with the
application by individuals/households to become Low Income Purchasers and all
information received from lenders regarding the qualification of such
individuals/households.
9.2 Audit by City. City shall have the right during normal business hours and
following reasonable prior written notice, to inspect the records maintained by Property
Owner in connection with the fulfillment of Property Owner's obligations under this
Agreement, subject to any privacy rights afforded to any such purchasers.
9.3 Reliance by Property Owner. Property Owner shall be entitled to reasonably rely
on information furnished to it and to lenders by Low Income Purchasers. Nothing in
this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed to require Property Owner to perform
any extraordinary investigation or verification regarding such information, provided that
Property Owner and the lenders involved in financing the sale of Low Income Units
employ usual and customary means of information verification.
9.4 Notices. Unless otherwise provided herein, control and administration of this
Agreement shall be vested in the Director of Community Development of City as to
City's interest herein. Any communications relative to the terms or conditions or any
changes thereto or any notice or notices provided for by this Agreement or by law to be
given or served upon either party hereunder may be given or served by personal
delivery or by certified or registered mail, deposited in the United States mail, postage
prepaid and return receipt requested, or by Federal Express or other similar overnight
delivery service and addressed to the party for whom intended, as follows:
To City at:
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attn: Director of Community Development
and to Property Owner at:
G.T.R.N. Limited
Page 7 of 10
[<5 B -4
P.O. Box 8410
54 Woodlawn Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91912
Any party hereto may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a
different address which shall be substituted for the one above specified. Unless
otherwise specifically provided for herein, all notices, payments, demands or other
communications given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been
duly given and received (i) upon personal delivery, or (ii) as of the third business day
after mailing by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed as set forth above, or (iii) the immediately succeeding
business day after deposit with Federal Express or other equivalent overnight delivery
system.
9.5 Gender; Number. The use herein of (i) the neuter gender includes the masculine
and the feminine and (ii) singular number includes the plural, whenever the context so
requires.
9.6 Modification. No modification, waiver, amendment, discharge or change of this
Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the party against
which the enforcement of such modification, waiver, amendment, discharge or change is
or may be sought.
9.7 Attorneys' Fees. In the event either party shall institute any action in connection
with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other
party all of its costs of action, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees.
9.8 Binding on Successors. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure
to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their successors and
assigns.
9.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties relating to the transactions contemplated hereby and all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, negotiations and
statements, oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged into this Agreement.
9.10 Burdens of Covenants Run with the Land. The parties agree that the burden of
the covenants herein contained touches and concerns the Property, and that it is the
intent of the parties that such covenants shall be binding upon, and run with, the land.
The property which is benefitted by such covenants shall be the property owned by City
within City limits which is located adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the Property.
Accordingly, the burden of such covenants shall be binding upon and oblige the
successors in interest to the Property regardless of express assumption thereof by future
owners, at least until the covenants are performed or released according to the
Page 8 of 10
\58-ID
provisions hereof.
9.11 Remedies. Without limitation, City is authorized to exercise all remedies,
including all discretionary and ministerial governmental powers, in order to obtain
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Property Owner shall also be entitled to
exercise all available remedies in order to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
9.12 Protection of Lenders. A breach by Property Owner of any of its covenants
under this Agreement shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or
first deed of trust made in good faith, without knowledge of the breach and for value by
any lender of funds for the construction or improvement of the Property.
9.13 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the
laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be deemed made and entered into
in San Diego County.
9.14 Severability. In the event that any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section,
article or other portion of this Agreement shall become illegal, null or void or against
public policy, for any reason, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to
be illegal null or void or against public policy, the remaining portions of this Agreement
shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in force and effect to the fullest extent
permissible by law.
9.15 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which,
when taken together, shall constitute fully executed originals.
Page 9 of 10
\sa -II
WHEREUPON THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY INDICATE THEIR
CONSENT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY SETTING THEIR
SIGNATURE HEREINBELOW, AND BY DOING SO, REPRESENT THAT
THEY WERE AUTHORIZED BY THEIR PRINCIPAL TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR PRINCIPAL
Dated:
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a Municipal Corporation
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authe1et,
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dated:
G.T.R.N., LTD.
a California Limited
Partnership
Glen Thomas, Partner
John Mannos, Partner
Page 10 of 10
Ie; e,-I2-
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest III the contract, i:e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
&.~ 'i7n/>?X1S
~X/d /?7AAA'X~-.l7~7 O(~?/P6.cZ;Ev6i:v/>?~7 ("~/'E'/?
72=:'.L bA"V .-c 7::::D
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
J.3A/A./ r7/1AXZ: ~
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ./ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~?'r'A/ btJ .Yr./.x1.<Ji? r
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No L' If yes, state which
Councilmember( s):
Person is dermed as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
estate, tTUst, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision,
o(Nr oOlT,yEo.tlzer group or combination acting as a unit.". .. / /" / /
Attach additional pages as necessary) __ ~? d~~
Date: }~r /g /f!y/ ~~.. ~~/
o Signature of coritractor/applicant
~" . ..
C;:-. .' ~ c.Jel"C-<Z.. /
me of contractor/app lcant
tRcviscd: 1l/30j90]
fe\ WP51 \COUNClL\DISCLOSETXTj
/0/
~
/
/6'16 -/3
Meeting Date 6-23-92
Resol ution \106\.3 Approving the Engineer's reports for
the FY 1992-93 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance Districts 1-10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, EastLake
Maintenance District No.1, Bay Boulevard and Town Centre,
declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments and
setting July 21, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for
the public hearing.
Resolution \ I.:,lo"ll{ Approving the Engineer's report for the
FY 1992-93 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance District No. 11, declaring the intention to levy
and collect assessments and setting July 21, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
as the date and time for t~e/publiC hearing.
Director of Public Works~ (~
Director of Parks and Recreatio~~
. ()
Clty Manager{1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No~)
On April 21, 1992, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 16588 and 16589
directing the City Engineer to prepare and file reports of assessments for all
existing City Open Space Maintenance Districts. These reports have been
prepared and the above resolution approves them and sets the date for publ ic
hearings to consider the spreading of assessments.
ITEM TITLE: a)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ,~
b)
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions and direct the City
Clerk to publish the Resolutions of Intention pursuant to Government Code 6061.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California
Streets and Highways Code, also known as "Land scapi ng and Li ght i ng Act of
1972," the City Engineer has prepared and filed the annual reports for all
existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in the City.
These reports were prepared by the City Engineer or under his direction and
are presented to Council for approval in order to proceed with the Publ ic
Hearings set for July 21, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972. The reports cover the following districts.
1. Open Space District Nos. 1 through 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18
2. Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
3. EastLake Maintenance District No. 1
4. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre 1 Landscaping Districts
J ~-(
Page 2, Item Li.
Meeting Date 6-23-92
The Parks and Recreation Department conducted an informal meeting for all
property owners within each district in April and the Public Works Department
conducted informal meetings on June 13, 15, and 20. At the meetings, staff
expl ained the proposed budget and annual assessment. A summary of the June
13, 15, and 20 meetings will be provided in the Council Report associated with
the public hearing on July 21, 1992.
The proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1992-93 are as follows:
TABLE 1
FY 91-92 FY 92-93 % Increase
OSD Assessment/EDU As ses sment/EDU or Decrease
1 $ 54.88 $ 42.56 -20%
2 35.90 28.92 -20%
3 357.66 331.1 0 (2) -7%
4 213.80 183.64(2) -14%
5 260.74 226.58(2) -13%
6 136.44 128.00(2) -6%
7 98.36 72.12(2) -26%
8 456.02 408.00(2) -10%
9 96.72 93.62(2) -3%
10 131.48 83.46(2) -36%
11 86.18 75.18 -12%
14 369.38 323.20(2) -12%
15 229.20 220.54(2) -3%
17 154.58 146.36 (3) -5%
18 285.94 282.48 -1%
20 140.58 246.28 +75%
EastLake Maint. Di st. 7.52 6.76 -10%
Bay Blvd. 1189. 00 (1 ) 1031.60(1) -13%
Town Centre 41. 98(1) 40.94(1) -2%
(1) Per benefit unit
(2) As proposed, reserve exceeds 50%
(3) Reserve is at 10%
Open Space Districts 1-11 , 14, 15, 17, 18, Bay Blvd, and Town Centre's
assessments are decreasing from last year. Thi s is due to one or both of the
following:
1. Budgets were decreased.
2. There were unanticipated savings experienced during May and June of
1991 which were difficult to estimate because of the water
allocation programs. The actual fund balances were higher than the
estimated fund balances used to determine the FY 91/92
assessments. These savi ngs are now refl ected in FY 92/93
assessments.
//."..;2..
Page 3, Item lr...
Meeting Date 6-23-92
Part of the savings from the June 1991 period are being held in reserve in
addition to the 50% operating budget reserve. This is allowed pursuant to
Ordinance 2468 adopted on July 9, 1991, which allows the City, to assess up to
100% of the budget. The reason that a portion of the savings are being used
to increase the reserve are as follows: 1) allow the accumul at i on of funds
for special, periodic maintenance items that happen less frequently than
annually; 2) allow more uniform assessments in new districts where both open
space to be ma i nta i ned and new homes come on over several years whi ch woul d
otherwise cause the assessments to vary greatly until the entire district is
built out; and 3) to stabilize assessments from year to year due to variations
in actual expenditures and revenue received. It is not staff's intention to
accumulate larger reserves in this later case, but to minimize additional
amounts necessary to smooth out peaks and valleys in the budgeting and
assessment process.
Open Space District No. 10 assessment for FY 92/93 is substantially lower than
FY 91/92 assessment. This is mostly due to assessing the property owners for
the new maintenance associated with the Ladera Villas Subdivision and the
turnover not occurri ng at the time ant i ci pated. These savi ngs are refl ected
in the proposed assessment.
Open Space District No. 11 includes a proposed annexation of Lynndale Hills
located northerly of the Terra Nova subdivision. A condition of development
of Lynndale Hills required dedication of open space within their subdivision
and annexation into an open space district to provide for maintenance of the
area. The developer has requested annexation and waived his right to a public
hearing.
The area to be annexed consists of 14 single family dwellings and 5 areas of
natura 1, uni rrigated vegetat i on. Of thi s, 1. 04 acres wi 11 be di sturbed by
grading and will require temporary irrigation for re-vegetation.
The proposed FY 92/93 assessment for District 11 does not reflect the
suppl ementa 1 costs associ ated with the annexation of Lynnda 1 e Hi 11 s. Staff
does not anticipate turnover of the improvements until FY 93/94.
All property owners of Open Space District No. 11 were notified of the
proposed annexation of land and improvements and will also be notified of the
public hearing. As a result of annexation of Lynndale Hills into the
District, staff anticipates an increase in cost to the district of
approximately $15 per single family dwelling in the first few years. After
that, maintenance costs will decrease as the vegetation becomes establ ished.
Staff anticipates that the long-term increase due to this annexation to be $5
per single family dwelling. It was required that the developer request
annexation into Open Space District 11 as outlined in the conditions of
approva 1 for the tent at i ve map. The other a lternat i ve woul d be to form a
separate district but this would increase overall costs due to administration
of separate contracts, budgets, etc. These costs would then be shared by only
14 single family homes at an estimated cost of $350 per year per home.
1~-3
Page 4, Item I Ie,
Meeting Date 6-23-92
EastLake Maintenance District No. l's annual assessment is proposed to be
$6.68 per single family dwell ing. Supplemental maintenance improvement costs
associ ated wi th the turnover of the Otay Lakes Road medi an are partially
offset by the addition of the Greens units. Additional units will be added
from the Greens next year as final maps are recorded. The maintenance of this
median extends from approximately EastLake Parkway to Rutgers Road.
Open Space District No. 20, Rancho del Rey is the only district with a
proposed increase in assessments. The increase is due to the following:
1. The 91/92 assessments were low due to savings which occurred during
FY 1990-91. These savings were used to lower the FY 1991/92
assessments. The savings were due to turnover of open space
occurring later in the fiscal year than anticipated and from actual
contract costs being lower than originally estimated.
2. Additional costs are being spread to the district because of
turnover of approximately 52 acres of open space in SPA I, Phase 5.
The assessments for this district have been as follows:
FY 90/91
FY 91/92
FY 92/93
$296.42
$140.58
$246.28
The public hearing will
requ i res that not ice be
hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City recovers their costs from the Open Space District
Assessments.
be not iced pursuant to Government Code 6061 whi ch
publ ished at least once 10 days before the publ ic
DDS:OSOOl
WPC 6020E
11e.- '/
RESOLUTION NO. )~blL3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS
FOR THE FY 1992-93 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-10,
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO.1, BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTRE,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 21, 1992 AT 6:00
P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the city; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearing set for July 21, 1992 in
accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The
reports cover the following districts:
1. Open Space District Nos. 1 through 10, 14, 15, 17 and 18
2. Rancho del Rey open Space District No. 20
3. EastLake Maintenance District No.1
4. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping Districts
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted an
informal meeting for all property owners within each district in
April at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department conducted informal
meetings on June 13, 15 and 20 at which time staff explained the
proposed assessments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1992-93
are as follows:
FY 91-92 FY 92-93 %Increase
OSD Assessment/EDU Assessment/EDU IDecrease
1 $ 54.88 $ 42.56 -20%
2 35.90 28.92 -20%
3 357.66 331.10 (2) -7%
4 213.80 183.64 (2) -14%
5 260.74 226.58 (2) -13%
1
) loA-I
6 136.44 128.00 (2) -6%
7 98.36 72.12 -26%
8 456.02 408.00 (2) -10%
9 96.72 93.62 (2) -3%
10 131.48 83.46 -36%
14 369.38 323.20 (2) -12%
15 229.20 220.54 (2) -3%
17 154.58 146.36 (3) -5%
18 285.94 282.48 -1%
20 140.58 (2) 246.28 +75%
EastLake Maint. Dist. 7.52 6.76 -10%
Bay Blvd. 1189.00 (1) 1,031.60 (1) -13%
Town Centre 41.98 (1) 40.94 -2%
(1) Per benefit unit
(2) As proposed, reserve exceeds 50%
(3) Reserve is at 10%
WHEREAS, included in the assessments for Rancho del Rey
Open Space District No. 20, are annualized costs which amount to
$80,267, and $160,534 from previous years which are amortized over
30 or less years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer's reports
for the FY 1992-93 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance Districts 1-10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, EastLake
Maintenance District No.1, Bay Boulevard and Town Centre, declare
its intention to levy and collect assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
set July 21, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City of
Chula vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California as the date
and time for the public hearings on said assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessments pursuant to Government Code
Section 6061.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
oveJ t
Presented by
, city Attorney
C:\rs\OS Assment spread
2
1104,-2
RESOLUTION NO. 1L.L..1t
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR THE FY 1992-93 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 11,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 21, 1992 AT 6:00
P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the City; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearing set for July 21, in
accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The
report covers Open Space District No. 11; and
WHEREAS, Open Space District No. 11 includes a proposed
annexation of Lynndale Hills located northerly of the Terra Nova
SUbdivision, which consists of 14 single family dwellings and 5
areas of natural, unirrigated vegetation; and
WHEREAS, all property owners
11 were notified of the proposed
improvements; and
of Open Space District No.
annexation of land and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department conducted informal
meetings on June 13, 15 and 20 at which time staff explained the
proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1992-93
is as follows:
OSD
FY 91-92
Assessment/EDU
FY 92-93
Assessment/EDU
%Increase
I De=ease
11
86.18
75.18
-12%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer'S report
for the FY 1992-93 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance Districts 11, declare its intention to levy and collect
assessments.
11o~ .../
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set July 21, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City of
Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista, California as the date
and time for the public hearings on said assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessment pursuant to Government Code
section 6061.
, City Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\osl1 assment spread
1~6;:2...
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item rl
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution /l..b1<.:) Accepting bids and awarding COntract
for "The Widening of Broadway between F Street and I Street in
the City of Chu1a Vista, ~~:/
Director of Public Works ~
City Managerc
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 1992, in Conference Room 1 in the Pub1 ic Services
Building, the Director of Pub1 ic Works received sealed bids for the "The
Widening of Broadway between F Street and I Street in the City of Chu1a Vista,
CA" .
Twe1 ve bi ds were recei ved from seven separate contractors each of whi ch had
the option to submit bids on Alternate A, Alternate B, or both: Alternate A
is based on a premise that contractors would not pay their laborers prevailing
wages and Alternate B is based on a premise that they would pay their laborers
prevailing wage scale. The lowest bid, a non-prevailing wage bid was
submitted by Southland Paving, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Accept bids and award contract to Southland Paving, Inc., a Ca1 ifornia
Corporation in the amount of $1,542,943.15 for Alternate A.
2. Authorize the staff to pay Southland Paving, Inc. an additional $25,000
as an additive item for delaying construction of the surface improvements
unt il January 4, 1993, as recommended by staff and by the Broadway F - I
Implementation Committee.
3. Authorize the City Engineer to permit Southland Paving, Inc., a
Ca1 ifornia Corporation, to perform the sewer and storm drain work prior
to November 15, 1992 and after January 3, 1993. Adjustment of worki ng
days necessary to perform the sewer and storm drain work outside the
normal contract period and working days required for the total project to
be negotiated between the City Engineer and the contractor.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Broadway F to I Implementation
Committee met on June 8, 1992, to discuss the bids received for the
construction of the improvements on Broadway. This Committee is made up of
area business people and staff. Consensus of the Committee was that the work
by the contractor should be delayed until January 4, 1993. The added cost of
$25,000 seemed minimal as compared to the possible disruption to their
businesses and loss of business during the holiday season. Staff concurs with
the recommendation of the Committee for several reasons: 1) San Diego Gas &
\t- )
Page Z, Item 11
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Electric Co. has informed us that they will be installing a new gas main on
Broadway to replace the old existing gas main and their work is not expected
to be completed until the early part of September 1992, 2) Sweetwater
Authority will be re-doing a number of their services along Broadway from F to
I Streets. The completion of their work prior to the contractor starting the
project will hcil itate the construction of the work, and 3) Right-of-way is
required from five parcels along the east side of Broadway. Although this
right-of-way does not affect the construction along the west side of the
street, it would provide additional time for completing the right-of-way
acquisition prior to any work on the east side of the street.
Staff suggested to the Committee that we pursue the possibility of installing
the storm drain and sewer systems in Broadway prior to November 15th of this
year. The Committee agrees that if the contractor could perform this work, it
would be beneficial in regards to alleviating the major street flooding along
Broadway duri ng the wi nter season. The Commi ttee is also recept i ve to the
contractor starting either on the east side or west side of the street,
presuming that construction starts after January 4, 1993. The specifications
at this time require the contractor to start on the west side of Broadway at
"I" Street and work northerly to "F" Street.
DISCUSSION:
DescriDtion of Work
A general description of the work to be done is as follows: traffic control,
removal and disposal of existing improvements, relocation of existing
facilities, excavation and compaction, asphalt concrete pavement, processed
miscellaneous base, cement treated base, curb and gutter, curb, cross-gutter,
s idewa 1 k, PCC alley, pedestri an ramps, dri veways, concrete curb at rear of
sidewalk, manholes, walls, sewer mains, adjustment of manholes and gate
valves, various drainage inlets and structures, shoring, reinforced concrete
pipe, street lighting, traffic signals, pavement striping and signing, street
survey monuments, traffic interconnect, sewer laterals, construction
surveying, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and the
construct i on of all appurtenant and other work as may be necessary to render
the above improvements complete and workable.
Bid Results
Under the request for bids, the contractor had the option of bidding on
Alternate A or Alternate B or both. Alternate A provides that the contractor
shall not be required by the bid specifications to pay the prevail ing wage
(non-preva il i ng wage rates) to persons employed by them for the work under
this contract. Alternate B requires the contractor to pay the General
Prevailing Wage Rates.
\1- ~
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 6/23192
The following is a summary of the twelve bids received from the nine
contractors ranked in order of lowest price first.
1. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido
2. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido
3. Granite Construction Co. - San Diego
4. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P. - San Diego
5. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P. - San Diego
6. R. E. Hazard Contracting Co. - San Diego
7. l. R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc. - San Diego
8. T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc. - San Diego
9. T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc. - San Diego
10. L. R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc. - San Diego
11. Erreca' s Inc. - Spri ng Valley
12. Erreca's Inc. - Spring Valley
Alt. A:
Alt. B:
Alt. B:
Alt. A:
Alt. B:
Alt. B:
Alt. A:
Alt. A:
Alt. B:
Alt. B:
Alt. A:
Alt. B:
$1 ,542, 943 .15
$1,595,125.29
$1,699,984.80
$1,732,874.40
$1,808,353.90
$1 ,833, 738.15
$1,916,219.82
$1,946,875.26
$2,006,884.06
$2,016,122.37
$2,038,975.10
$2,038,975.10
The low bid by Southland Paving, Inc., a California Corporation, for Alternate
A is below the Engineer's estimate of $2,193,237.70 by $650,294.55, or 29.6%.
We have reviewed the low bid and recommend awarding the contract to Southland
Paving, Inc., a California Corporation, for Alternate A.
Southland Paving, Inc. is an excellent contractor and they completed the
improvement of Fifth Avenue from "L" to Naples Street in December 1991 at a
construction cost of $1,078,119. The work they performed was excellent.
Staff received excellent bids for the proposed work, well below that
anticipated. The continued slump in the construction industry has definitely
resulted in lower bid prices for work being constructed.
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement. ~O~ S~AJV~4r~
Prevailina Waae Issue
Payment of prevail ing wage is a complex legal issue. In order to maximize
flexibil ity and to comply fully with the law, the City requested two sets of
bids. One without payment of the prevailing wage and one with. After
extensive research, the City Attorney has determined that the City is not
required to pay the prevail ing wage on this project. The project was bid in
accordance with Section 2.58.060 of the Municipal Code. The City Attorney has
reviewed the low bids and recommends that the contract be awarded for
Alternate A utilizing non-prevailing wage rates.
Disadvantaaed Business Enterorise Goal
The bi d documents for thi s project requi re the contractor to have
Di sadvantaged Bus i ness Enterpri ses perform 15% of the work or show a good
faith effort by the contractor to sol icititsuch participation. Southland
Paving, Inc. has met this goal. Attached as Exhibit B is a memo from David
Harris, Community Development Specialist, regarding his review of Southland
Paving's effort to meet the DBE participation requirements for the Broadway
!II()! .sUI1JNEiJ
\\.~
Page 4, Item \~
Meeting Date 6/23/92
widening project between F and I Streets. His conclusion is that Southland
Paving, Inc. did not meet the 15% DBE goal, but has made a good faith effort
to solicit DBE participation and therefore, has complied with CalTrans DBE
policy.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Funds Reouired for Construction
A. Contract amount
B Additive item for delay of work until 1/4/93
C. Contingencies
D. Relocation of water facilities (approx.)
Total Funds for Construction
$1 , 542,943.15
25,000.00
77,056.85
325.000.00
$1,970,000.00
Funds Available for Construction
A. Broadway, F to I Street Reconstruction Accounts
$2,964,935.79
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding used for thi s project came from the TransNet Funding
Program financed by Proposition A 1-1/2 cent sales tax. Upon completion of
the project, it will require routine City maintenance.
The project on Broadway between F and I Streets is in cycle II of the
State/local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) and the City must award
the contract by June 30, 1992, in order to qualify for reimbursement under the
SLTPP. The reimbursement matching ratio is 30.02%. The reimbursement is
1 imited to only construction items plus 10% for contingencies. This adds up
to approximately $625,000.00 [(542,943.15 + 25,000 + 325,000) x 0.3002 x 1.1]
for which the City may be reimbursed.
SLH:AX-069
WPC 6025E
\l ~~ '1".,5
June 17, 1992
TO:
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer
VIA:
Chris
CS.
Salomone, Community Development Director .
FROM:
David Harris, Community Development Specialist
SUBJECT:
Broadway Widening contract
I have reviewed the DBE information submitted by Southland
Paving, the apparent low bidder. They listed the following
certified and qualified DBE subcontractors and suppliers:
Select Electric
Plank Survey
Asphalt Applications
$173,650
10,850
30,087
The total amount of DBE participation is $214,587 or 13.9%.
As Southland Paving did not achieve the DBE goal of 15%, I
evaluated their good faith effort which included:
1) Advertisement in the Daily Construction Reporter and the
Dodge Construction News with sufficient notice for bidders.
2) Work made available to DBEs in the following areas:
landscaping, electrical, surveying, supplies, concrete, and
striping.
Although Southland Paving did not send out written notices
nor keep a log of telephone calls, it appears that they made
a good faith effort to solicit DBE participation based on
actual DBE bids received. In addition to the three listed
DBE subcontractors and suppliers, Southland Paving received
6 bids from other DBE firms. These 6 DBE bids which were
not used for valid reasons.
Based on this evaluation, I have determined that Southland
Paving did not meet the DBE goal but did make a good faith
effort to meet the goal. Therefore, Southland Paving has complied
with the Caltrans DBE policy.
\1~5
THE C/'n' OF CHULA. HSTA PARIT DISCLOSURE STA1'EMENT
,ent of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
. will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
J bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
0ClJ'DIUIND PAVlKi, IlC.
!fany person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more' than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
JUNE TAvmNIER, l'l'lffilDl'Nl'
RI.J,:iU<. TAV~, ~
Rl(]lARD FLH::K, VICE ~W~l'
!f any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
N/A
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No XX If yes, please indicate person(s):
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
ana OOl'A, ~ ~
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $ I ,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No XX If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
", isdefincc.I as: ItAlIY indiddual.jirm, co-pnrmersllip, joint \'cntllre, association, sacinl c1ub.jrmernnl organizmion, c01pomfioll,
1111St, rrceire" s)'lJdic(l(c, this and an)' other COWl!)', cit)' Gild cOllnn)~ city, nU/lJicipa/iry, district or other polificnl suodil'/sivlI,
OIlIer grOllp or combinarion aCTing as n llnil.'
JUNE 2, 1992
KC-/f'tA-
Signature of contractor/applicant
RICIIARD FLH::K, VICE l'l'lffiIllfNl'
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
IRl'\ l...~.d II _'11 '1IIJ
.. AltJch additional pages as ncc""~TY)
\ OISCLOSLTXT]
\l~l
!HM2RAH!U!.M
June 9, 1992
File: AX-069-G
FROM:
John Goss, City Manager
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
~
TO:
SUBJECT: Resolution - Accepting bids and awarding contract for "The Widening
of Broadway between F Street and I Street in the Ci ty of Chul a
Vista, CA"
Funds Reauired for Construction
A. Contract amount
B Additive item for delay of work until 1/4/93
C. Contingencies
D. Relocation of water facilities (approx.)
Total Funds for Construction
$1 , 542 , 943 . 15
25,000.00
77,056.85
325.000.00
$1,970,000.00
Funds Available for Construction
A. Account No. 603-6030-STI04 -
Broadway, F to I Street Reconstruction
$1,971,710.11
B. Account No. 604-6040-STI04 -
Broadway, F to I Street Reconstruction
Total Funds Available for Construction
$ 993.225.68
$2,964,935.79
The funding for this project is to come from Account No. 603-6030-STl04.
Funding amounts in these two accounts will change in the CIP for fiscal year
1992-93. However, adequate funds are still available.
WPC 6026E
\1-(P"'1.8
l\.ob15
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR "THE WIDENING OF BROADWAY BETWEEN
F STREET AND I STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CA."
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 1992, in Conference Room
1 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received the sealed bids for the widening of Broadway between F
Street and I Street in the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the following twelve bids were received from
seven separate contractors each of which had the option to submit
bids on Alternate A, Alternate B, or both with Alternate A based on
a premise that contractors would not pay their laborers prevailing
wages and Alternate B based on a premises that they would pay their
laborers prevailing wage scale:
Alt. A: $1,542,943.15
Alt. B: $1,595,125.29
Alt. B: $1,699,984.80
Alt. A: $1,732,874.40
Alt. B: $1,808,353.90
Alt. B: $1,833,738.15
Alt. A: $1,916,219.82
Alt. A: $1,946,875.26
Alt. B: $2,006,884.06
Alt. B: $2,016.122.37
Alt. A: $2,038,975.10
Alt. B: $2,038,975.10
Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondida
Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondidio
Granite Construction Co. - San Diego
Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P.-San Diego
superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P.-San Diego
R. E. Hazard Contracting Co. - San Diego
L. R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc.-San Diego
T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc. - San Diego
T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc. - San Diego
L. R. Hubbard Construction Co.,Inc.- San Diego
Erreca's Inc. - Spring Valley
Erreca's Inc. - Spring Valley
1-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
WHEREAS, the low bid by Southland Paving, Inc., for
Alternate A is below the Engineer's estimate by 29.6% and staff has
reviewed the low bids and recommends awarding the contract to
Southland paving, Inc. for Alternate A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept said twelve bids and
awards the contract for the widening of Broadway between F Street
and I Street in the City of Chula vista to Southland Paving, Inc.
for Alternate A in the amount of $1,542,943.15 to be completed in
accordance with the specifications approved by the Director of
Public Works.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to pay
Southland paving, Inc. an additional $25,000 as an additive item
1
\,\J ~
for delaying construction of the surface improvements until January
4, 1993, as recommended by staff and by the Broadway F-I
Implementation Committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Engineer is
authorized to permit Southland Paving, Inc., a California
corporation, to perform the sewer and storm drain work prior to
November 15, 1992 and after January 3, 1993 with adjustment of
working days necessary to perform the sewer and storm drain work
outside the normal contract period and working days required for
the total project to be negotiated between the City Engineer and
the contractor.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\Broadway widening bid
2
n-ID
~ aLa:'I
. "~-..". "'.~).--'.,
...~ . ",:. - '- ."
r":-;'--'Ji'k"" -!'
'.~t:~\'~/.i"~~~~:'
'1,' ... .' ....."......
/Jt;":' :.:. :';:"'Fi;',.' ,_.;:.,\~-""'.'<.';
. "':"C:;;,,"';' ~":'
Consultant or Other Services
COUNCIL
CITY OF ~UCy
VlSl'A
PoLlcy
NUMnEa
~"':!-c'n,"t.
n...."r1t.
SUBJECT:
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
Imolementine Procedures
The City Manager will implement an administrative procedure covering the following areas:
1. Cost Comparison Evaluations
During the annual budget review process each Department's continuing and proposed use
of outside services to accomplish required work shall be evaluated based on a standard
cost comparison formula when the contract services are expected to exceed $5,000 during
the fiscal year. The resulting calculations shall be reviewed by the City Manager or
his/her designee prior to beginning the contracting process.
2. Pre-Qualification Lists
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Manager shall determine the need and
frequency for outside services which cannot be met by City staff. Those services which
will be required on a more regular basis shall be recommended to be filled by creating a
list of qualified providers at the beginning of the year from which to fill city wide fiscal
year needs.
3. Expanded Advertising and Outreach
Department Heads, in conjunction with Purchasing, shall access all appropriate forms of
media when advertising for consultant or other services with an anticipated cost in excess
of $10,000, in order to obtain the highest number of qualified respondents. In soliciting
bids or proposals, staff should be cognizant of locating and encouraging potential bidders
."who have the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista economy.
4. Contract Retention of 10%
Department Heads andlor Purchasing Agent shall attempt to negotiate a 10% retention
clause to be included in all consultant and other service contracts with an anticipated cost
in excess of $10,000. The 10% of the contract amount will be retained by the City until
final acceptance of the services.
S. Council Notification ~61lI~
The City Manager shall notify City Council when any contract recommended for
approval, regardless of cost, will result in total payments eXceedingA$2S,OOO to one
service provider during the most recent twelve month period.
6. Former Employees - Consultant Compensation Limit
During the first year after termination with the City, any employee who is hired back on
a contract basis shall be compensated at a maximum hourly rate equal to the saIary and
benefits level at time of termination. After the first ear all uests to contract witItL
J 7 '1;.
r~ l7
lra"d "J:I101
SOUTHLAND PAVING. INC.
General engineering Contractor
361 No" Hale Avenue, Escondldo, California 92029
(6191 747-6895 . FAX '(619) 747-1008
Uoenao No. 45"1'
June 22. 1992
Mr. Bruce Bogard
City Attorney
CITY OF CHULA ViSTA
276 Hourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
U: WIDENING Oil' BROADWAY BETWEEN "P" STREET AND "I" STREET
CONTRACT
Dear Mr. Bogard:
If this contract is awarded pursuant to Southland's ~ar~ A bid,
"Non-~revailing wage", and it is sUbsequently determined that the
project is subject to Frevailing wage requirements. the City will
increase the contract price to compensate Southland tor the
additional wages required to be paid. both retroactive and
prospective. to comply with prevailing wage laws. However, this
increase to the contract price will be limited to the difference
between Southland's bid price for Part A. .Non-~revailing Wage".
and ~art B. "Prevailing wageft.
Sincerely,
tb'7L:C".
R.ichard Fleek
Vice President
RP/lsh
ee: file
....rod
17/)4
lra"d
t>819SZt?
01
!1NI()l:lcI CIHl:flHlflOS WO&! ~ oral 2661-22-N11t
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I'?
Meeting Date 06-23-92
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION {to!..'"?!" AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION DISTRICT EASEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF INSTALLING A
TRANSFORMER AND UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE WIDENING OF OTA Y V ALLEY ROAD
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C S .
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager 9
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
In the event that Assessment District No. 90-2 is approved for the purpose of widening Otay
Valley Road, the City will need to grant an easement to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company
for the purpose of installing a transformer that will be used to supply service to the adjacent
properties when they are developed. In addition, this action is to be done in conjunction with
the utility undergrounding for the entire road widening project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution and execute the easement agreement contingent upon approval of the
assessment district.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The easement, a 10' x 12' squared configuration, is to be located in the northeast comer of the
City-owned property currently occupied by the City Animal Shelter immediately adjacent to the
Walker-Scott property. Although the current use of the City's property is temporary, the
transformer needs to be installed in order to service future developments as well. It is cost
effective for this work to be completed in conjunction with the road widening and utility
undergrounding project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The utility undergrounding costs are to be paid from Assessment District No. 90-2.
Installation of the transformer will be an SDG&E expense.
\~- I
RESOLUTION 1f.:,G,.1/p
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
DISTRICT EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF INSTALLING A
TRANSFORMER AND UNDERGROUNDING UTILmES IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE WIDENING OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista intends to deliberate upon, and as the
circumstances may justify, approve the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 for the
purposes widening Otay Valley Road and undergrounding the utilities;
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista needs to grant an easement to the San Diego
Gas and Electric Company to provide a transformer that is necessary to supply service to the
existing property and the adjacent properties as they become developed;
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Gas and Electric
Company has identified and plotted the appropriate place for the transformer as identified on
Exhibit B of the easement agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby authorize the execution of an Underground Conversion District
Easement Agreement with the San Diego Gas and Electric Company for the purposes of
installing a transformer to supply service to the area in conjunction with the Otay Valley Road
Street Widening and Utility Undergrounding Project.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
as to form byl
Presented by:
~
f~ [
r'
,
~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
\~ - 2..
,.
~.
<S;. ..... g
" r"ll'i
0'"
o
'"
>- I
~ ;:!:
~ I
OJ 00
...;5
~ ,-,'"
~
z>-
F~ I ;:;:
..... ~~ , .;
0
- w~ '"
OJ w
- .
:r: It)
~
J 10
X '"
I <Xl
W .,
I z
~I
!/
I
I
I
0
w
'"
0
a. ~
0 :e
n:
a. vi
.:
III
"-
~
0:
"
Z
!;i
~
11
~
"5
J
1<1
"<!
"
A
ell
.
~
~
,,'-"
, 8-1-:
~j <s>:
- \.'V
'"c'\
"0
;("
~
-
~
"'z
z .
::J~'"
lii~~
~uilll
(avli5"T.5;R.:-sON
.
o
..y.
\.'V
-13
~~
~'"
a."!
o
M !ll:~~OO S
I .r~'!ll:~
I
,19
, "0-
/ y-
I
I
,
.oz '--
,
-f
;0 I
. I >-
~l;;'-l. ~~
;<-ori I' "'F
: CD I ""~gt-
z -: I 8~~i:'i
~~! ~~~~
:3"'/
1
+
I
N
<Xl '"
~ ~
'"
I
.
o.
-0
"'"
"0;
f:::'"
Z
-'
o
q
'"
'"
'"
H
'"
1-0
ffi-< '"
0
N~~ ::?
;"
0
ul I I
u"'~ <l
~~~
a.lil
IB'IS
'9S1
, .ICQOZ 3 .Qr,I~OO N
,
,
'------------
(O't'~) 3 .000.sr.ro N
&.
O.
<5-
l~-3 1'8-"
<i! -
~~z~
~ili~!
u ...
;:;:
.;
o
'"
,.
:"
i
<Xl
Z
i5
(fl
5
"-
>- 0
<(
~
"- I-
o t:J
I
Vl
l-
I
:s ~
:J 0
::J: <(
U ~ ~
IJ.. >- -
o ~ g
~:;>-
<(
U >- ~
~
o ~
<(
o
cj
C ~
It)
rn ~
Ol '"
.!dool3
~.~ .
Ol.'
U1 c:~
Ole
~~~ i
._ ~o~ ~Q
I.....Jeo.....
Ol 01
Ol "'....
.~ D~ 'I
0'lC7l- e
c.Stno;'
w~1fe3
~'a.a:: -<
Ceo
~LLJ.5
l~~
_uu
o '"
I
~ a
.~ N
0::
li3
II::
a
U
-<
'"
m
f:!
0 ~Vl
It)
I ~w
. -~
-
-.JZL J",
UN
5 ll.d
~ I
1Il o~
~~
0
Recording Requested by
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
When Recorded
Mail to: SDG&E, P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
ATTN: Office Services, Room 611
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Transfer Tax None
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
EASEMENT
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, (Grantor), grants to SAN DIEGO GAS
& ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation (Grantee), an easement and right of way in, upon, over, under and across
the lands hereinafter described, to erect, construct, change the size of, improve, reconstruct, relocate, repair,
maintain and use facilities consisting of:
1. Underground facilities and appurtenances for the transmission and distribution of electricity.
2. Communication facilities, and appurtenances.
The above facilities will be installed at such locations and elevations upon, along, over and under
the hereinafter described easement as Grantee may now or hereafter deem convenient or necessary. Grantee also
has the right of ingress and egress, to, from and along this easement in, upon, over and across the hereinafter
described lands. Grantee further has the right, but not the duty to clear and keep this easement clear from
explosives, buildings, structures and materials.
The property in which this easement and right of way is hereby granted Is situated in the County
of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: The Northerly 233.71 feet of the Easterly 208.71 feet
of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, S.B.M.,
according to the United States Government Survey approved September 11, 1879.
The easement in the aforesaid lands shall be 10.00 feet in width, the Northerly line thereof lying
adjacent to and contigious with the following described reference line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19 according to Record of Survey No. 10127, filed
July 3, 1985, in the office of the County Recorder of said County of San Diego; thence Southerly along the
Easterly line thereof South 00'21'38" West, 97.58 feet to a point on a non-tangent 1936.00 foot curve concave
Southerly; a radial line to said point bears North 09'48'43" East, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING of the reference line herein described; thence Westerly along the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 00'21'19", a distance of 12.00 feet.
Grantor shall not erect, place or construct, nor permit to be erected, placed or constructed, any
building or other structure, plant any tree, drill or dig any well, within this easement.
Grantor shall not increase or decrease the ground surface elevations within this easement after
installation of Grantee's facilities, without prior written consent of Grantee, which consent shall not unreasonably
be withheld.
-1-
8HJ251-S
Rev. 1
\~-5
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to assign any or all of the rights granted in this
easement in whole or in part to other companies providing utility or communication facilities/services.
Grantee shall have the right but not the duty, to trim or remove trees and brush along or
adjacent to this easement and remove roots from within this easement whenever Grantee deems it necessary.
Said right shall not relieve Grantor of the duty as owner to trim or remove trees and brush to prevent danger or
hazard to property or persons.
CONDUITS CARRY HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS, therefore Grantor shall not
make or allow any excavation or fill to be made within this easement WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING SAN DIEGO
GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY BY CALLING 696-2000, and OBTAINING PERMISSION.
This easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of successors, heirs, executors,
administrators, permittees, licensees, agents or assigns of Grantor and Grantee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor executed this instrument this
day of
,19_
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Drawn
Date
Project No.
Const. No.
A.P. No.
Svendsen
May 6, 1991
902296-021
2307711
624-040-11
BY:
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
COUNTY OF
)
)ss.
On
, before me,
(notary's name)
(title of officer or notary,)
personally appeared
personally known to me
-proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument. (seal)
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
1%- !o
81-o251-S
Rev. 1
-2-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item (1
Meeting Date 06-23-92
RESOLUTION Ilol:,Tl AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
CHAPTER 8 AGREEMENT NO. 6915 WITH THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PURCHASING TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR
THE WIDENING OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C 7.
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
/1
City Manager'ti
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
In order to widen Otay Valley Road, the City will need to purchase one (1) small triangular-
shaped parcel of property from the County of San Diego Treasurer-Tax Collector that lies on
the south edge of Otay Valley Road between the Walker-Scott and Fenton parcels. This
purchase needs to take place regardless of the outcome of the Otay Valley Road Assessment
District. The property lies within the existing right-of-way and will need to be acquired at some
time in the future when the road is improved to four lanes or six lanes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution and execute Agreement No. 6915
BOARDS/COMl\fiSSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The parcel, No. 644-040-027, (Assessment parcel no. 13) is available for purchase at $250.00
which is 50% of the August 1991 appraised fair market value as determined by the County
Assessor. Included with the report, is a copy of the assessment district boundary map with the
parcel clearly identified. Upon receipt of the funds and executed agreement, the matter will be
scheduled for approval by the County Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The property acquisition costs are to be paid from Assessment District No. 90-2
\4- I
RESOLUTION [61011
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF CHAPTER 8 AGREEMENT NO. 6915 WITH THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PURCHASING TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE
WIDENING OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista intends to deliberate upon, and as the
circumstances may justify, approve the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 for the
purposes of widening Otay Valley Road;
WHEREAS, there exists one (1) small parcel of tax-defaulted lands owned by the
County of San Diego Treasurer-Tax Collector which lies within the proposed right-of-way of
Otay Valley Road identified as parcel no. 644-040-027 and assessment parcel no. 13;
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego intends to sell the parcel for a sum of
Two-Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) to the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of constructing
the proposed improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the execution of Chapter 8 Agreement No. 6915 with the
County of San Diego Treasurer-Tax Collector for the purposes of acquiring parcel no. 644-040-
027 from the County of San Diego.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Lrkl
r-
(
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
/
11- 1.,
~
~
I
J
I
j
I
I
E-< >-<
z ~
~ <(
~ q
if) Z
<rJ if) ';:J
~ 0
~ f2 !Il
g <( C\J
......, I
Ii, q 0
~ m
if) E-<
o 0
0... >-<
o ~
~ E-<
0... ~
q
"':
;;:1
. ~; ;
gi i
@ (/)0(;
",. ,
I <: r
" r'
...... z i I
<is
@ c .
-'"I
, -'s
@ @ , ?;! i
ww @ I ~.
@ @
<Y
,
,
@ I
,
I
- - - _ ---1
~,~
I ,..,8,
I ..... 0
t~
I s ~
~" >-
I ~ cr:
80 <t
I 0
~~ z
I ::>
: Eo< 0
CD
t-
o
I ~
I (I)
G I 15
I @ @ !2:
w
I @ :::;:
I iB
I w
@ iB
<t
0
e w
@ (I)
@ 0
a..
e e 0
cr:
@ a..
e I
I
I
I
l'1-3
'\
,
Chapter 8 Agreement 6915
Parcell 644-040-2700
NO. COUNTY CONTRACT NO.
ON MOTION of Supervisor , seconded by Supervisor
, the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, there is presented to the Board a letter from the Tax
Collector, Board of Supervisors Document No. , transmitting and
recommending that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute and
the Clerk to attest to a proposal Agreement No. 6915 , between the
County of San Diego and The Citv of Chula Vista , approved by the State
Controller of the State of California, for the purchase by The City of Chula
Vista of certain tax defaulted lands situated within the County of
San Diego, as listed in Exhibit "A" attached to and made a part of said
proposed Agreement. Said property has become subject to the Tax Collector's
Power to Sell by Notice of Power of Sell recorded in San Diego County.
IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED that said proposed Agreement be and it is
hereby approved; and that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is
authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the
County of San Diego.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
Diego, State of California, this day of
by the following vote:
'-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(tf~..~-
\'1-~
Chapter 8 Agreement 6915
Parcell 644-040-2700
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY
This agreement is made on the
day of
,19_,
by and between the Board of Supervisors of
San Dieqo
County, State of California, and The Citv of Chula Vista ("PURCHASER"),
pursuant to the provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8, of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
The real property situated within said county, hereinafter set forth and
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, is tax-
defaulted and is subject to the power of sale by the Tax Collector of said
county for the non-payment of taxes, pursuant to provisions of law:
It is mutually agreed as follows:
1. that as provided by section 3800 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, the cost of giving notice of this Agreement shall be
paid by the PURCHASER, and
2. that the PURCHASER agrees to pay the sum of $ 250.00 for
the real property described in Exhibit "A" within 10
days after the date this Agreement becomes effective. Upon
payment of said sum to the Tax Collector, the Tax Collector
shall execute and deliver a deed conveying title to said
property to PURCHASER.
If all or any portion of any individual parcel listed in Exhibit "A" is redeemed prior to the
effective date of this agreement, this agreement shall also become null and void and the
right of redemption restored upon the PURCHASER' 5 failure to comply with the terlllll and
conditions of this agreement. Time is of the essence.
3791, 3791.3 3793 R&T Code
TDL 8-13 (1/90)
lq -5
Chapter 8 Agreement 6915
Parcell 644-040-2700
The undersigned hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement
and are duly authorized to sign for said agencies.
ATTEST:
The City of Chula Vista
(Purchaser)
By
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Thomas J. Pastuszka
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
San Dieqo
County
By
(Deputy)
By
(Chairman)
(SEAL)
/-IrJ.~..::.---
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3775 of the
the governing body of the city of Chula Vista
selling price as provide in this agreement.
Revenue and Taxation Code
hereby agrees to the
ATTEST:
CITY OF
Deputy
By
Mayor
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
This agreement
Supervisors and
County relating
was submitted to me before execution by the Board
I have compared the same with the records of San Dieqo
to the real property described therein.
of
PAUL BOLAND
San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3775 and 3795 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, the Controller agrees to the selling price hereinbefore set
forth and approves the foregoing agreement this day of
, 19
Gray Davis
State Controller
By
NOTE: EXHIBIT "A" MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM
l'1 -{o
I~
" "'u
, M~
0
~ ";:;
:0 ~
:0 x
~
X f-
w ~
c
~
..
"
C
..
~ >
....
~'"
~
0"
.c
<t: L"
..
!Z ~'S
g 0
~ L .
..'"
~ gL
<t:
U U"
..
~ ..a.
..~
~.c
w ..U
>- on
<t: ...0
>-
on ~r
w
i= ....~
Oa.
~ c
0 O~
'" ..c
w ~ 0
~ N"~
~ .~ ~
0 L"~
'" 0>
>- .c"~
z ..0
0 .......
U 0
W ~
'" ~~
f- 0
0 l:;;
>-
0 >
=< ",e
~ a.
0 ..
'" .c
w ~
>- 0
0 ~
z ~
"" c
on ~
~ "
0 ~
~ "
>- a.
z
=>
0
U ~
W ..
'" ..
>- ~
0
~
0 1
'"
w
'"
=>
on
""
w
'"
>- ci
0 z
z c
"" 0
'" :;:;
0 "
>- "0
>- ~
0
=> ..
"" '"
,.,
'" '"
0
on ~,.,
on
W 0.0
on ~
on
"" "~~
w t ~
'" .. ~
>- a..c
" u
0 onL
f- "
.... a.
0
~ ~
L 'l!
~ ~
0
'" 0
....
,=.0
~
......
o~
~
c.~
o~
:G>.
U~
.. L
L ..
"_ a.
00
L
La.
..
~..
c.c
=> >-
l'i-1
o
e-
N
I
o
~
o
'M I
j..--<:j'
-,.....<:j'
0",
'"
w
>
~
~ +'
U) ~'"
~"~ m:a
-!)!:::J~ !
4-1~:2 .J
en ~
O~'tj ..~
.c"" '"
+,e-~~~
~ . i" W
o 0'"
:8D~
,,~+' ~ -
";;,,"~~ii
...-l1.OG.ll.1.l::l
~:5 iC,Il.
...-l<:j'::lftl
;;! ~,Il g,~
M
ro
"-
N
ro
'"
o
'"
'"
c
o
" c
~ 0
" ""
lU"O"'" I'l
U'l C U lU
" " ~
~ ,
c
."
. ~
o
~
" ~
o ~
~ ~"
~ l-I I-< ....
.... lU 0 ra
c C Z 1Il
C "
.... 0 III .....
CI U .c 0
" ~
ro" "
" ~ c
...., c::....
.. l-I 0 ....
ro "~
lC :J ra l-I
o "0
c "~
~ .c u c::
o .oJ c; lU
c:: I-< III U
~ 0 ~
z ~ ~
o ~
ro" ,
.... .c:: 0-. 0
~~ ~
.
"
~
,
C
+l..-l.o.J
" e "
" "
~ c- ~
o
Nro
N
. ~
"
"
"
0\...... N +l
III I'l r-- III
"" "
,,~W
~
. , .
.c "0 0 1J
+l l: U'l l:
, 0 0
o U III U
U'l III U III
ro c ro
"
~N
~
~ 0
~
o
. ~
~ ~
" ~
~ro
"
"
ro
" ~
" N
" "
> ~N
~ " "
c " "
" c
~~;:~
" .
+l III .c w
> ~
m l-I l-I III
, 0 "
lo- U Z c;
o 0
. " "
t:JI :J U III
C:'.-l l: 1Il
..-l1J III
c: III .c '^
l: l-I +l '^
."
~ ~ .
III 0 >. III
.0 0 ..-1 ....
~ " ,
" "C
.c o.c....
.... '^ .... e
N "
o ~ 0 N
~ _ z
~
"
~
"
"-
~ ~ .
.o.J 1:'" 1Il
1J C:...
..-1 ..-l U III 0
ra 0 ra III +l
1Il o.l-I +l
~ , ~
lo- III OIl c: III
o :J ... .... III
" e ~
" ~ "
c: UNo-.
.... III l: N
~ ~ "
+l.c:: I'l N
~ ~"
~" "
"C "
III m t1I (J\"'"
.... c: III III
l.Ilo-...-1"O III
m .... c: 3:
w c_
c:: ....,..... Q)
IV 0 0\ "0
.c:: ... oil ~ c:
.... .... .0 .... 0
" ,"
o III lo- 0 Oll
+l U'l 0 U'l 1Il
'"
~
'"
0..
~
.-<
'"
"M
H
+'
~
.
.
~~
~ .
, "
0" ~
~~ ~
~ ,
OIl l-I c: 0
...., .c:; 0 0 U'l
c: ...., z :: CD
o c "
o.....;.c:: oil U)
III OI.o.J U'l .~ ";;; U)
::l C ..... ..... ..c III G.l
... .... 0 0 1Il 3: Ul
.... c: c; Ul
0Il'~~~~""~
..c O\.o.J +l I- III
...., III '-< I-< O\+J
.0 III m ~ c Ul
o ..... :l ::l 0-. m I'tl
...., 0 0" 0"..... Cl:H
'0
"
H
'"
'"
+'
o
~
" "
" >
c "
" 0 ,
~~~
~
~ ~
c ro
o .
~ w
.
"
"
~ 2
~
~ .
c
"
.
Gl l: >-..c:
> III ...... ....,
Gl '-< Z '-<
>;:l IV 0
... U ..... ...... ....,
'0.
u"o ra oil
.... Gl III c:
Q} ra I:..c:....
:J 1Il ,...;........
....; ........
,,~ 0
III C >- 2:
" 0 ~
~ " .
.... III IU U
o ~ c
o >-...., Q)
........... :J.l:
" 0 ~
o IU 1Il J::.
,^+l "CI oil....,
N 1Il Gl .::r ... C :J
Gl ..c ...:! Ill.... 0
..... ~...., II) .... U'l
~
~
C ro
o .
" w
~
" "
.
~ ~ .
~ ro
" "
. ""
~ . c
~ ro 0
, ~
o ~ "
~ 0
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item !2.D
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
(1) TO CONSIDER CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION'S JUNE 11,
1992, ACTION ON LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 10; AND,
(2) TO CONSIDER COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 60 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-
STORY, 125,000 SQ. FT.
ADMINISTRA TIVE CORPORATE
OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON
DRIVE.
&. RESOLUTION Ibb'l'f ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION'S JUNE 11, 1992 ACTION ON CITY
OF CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO.10.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A RESOLUTION 1"'6"~ ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 60 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-
STORY, 125,000 SQ. FT. ADMINISTRATIVE/CORPORATE
OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON DRIVE.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 9
f/
[s-
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No _XJ
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1992, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista approved Owner
Participation Agreement OP/BF 4 with Rohr Inc. for the construction of a six-story, 125,000
sq. ft. administrative/ corporate office building and a three-story parking garage expansion at 850
Lagoon Drive and the development of landscaped parking within the adjacent SDG&E easement.
In addition, on that date, the City Council approved Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 10
(LCPA #10) to allow an increase in F.A.R. and building height on the site which would allow
the construction of the office building. The LCP amendment was submitted to the California
Coastal Commission and on June 11, 1992, the Commission approved the Amendment with
suggested modifications. The Commission's action on the LCP Amendment is being presented
to the Council for adoption. If the Council adopts the Commission's action, the Council's
resolution will be forwarded to the Commission's July meeting and the Amendment will be
confirmed.
~o-/
Page 2, Item tD
Meeting Date Ie>/a."!
In addition, a Coastal Development Permit for the construction of the proposed office building
is presented to Council for consideration.
The Council adopted mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and Addendum thereto as amended
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project at their meeting of April
7, 1992, therefore no additional action on that document is required on the part of the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and adopt a
resolution adopting the California Coastal Commission's June 11, 1992, action approving
certification of LCP Amendment No. 10 with modifications listed on Exhibit A; and, adopt
resolution issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 60 for the construction of a six-story
125,000 sq. ft. administrative/corporate office building at 850 Lagoon Drive.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
LCP Amendment No. 10
The main issues concerning the Coastal Commission regarding the LCP Amendment involved
the lack of specificity in the land use plan to address the visual impacts of intensified
development and potential traffic impacts that could impede coastal access opportunities. The
suggested modifications (see modification #1 and #2 on Exhibit A of attached resolution) for the
land use plan were drafted to ensure that the detailed design statndards proposed for the
requested intensification of development were incorporated into the land use plan. The
modifications affecting both the land use and specific plans (see modification #3 and #4 on
Exhibit A of attached resolution) were recommended to implement the City's and Rohr's
declaration that employment levels and operations at the Rohr facility were not being expanded,
but, rather re-configured to facilitate better working conditions and arrangements.
Coastal DeveloJlment
The project site consists of approximately 15.25 acres (11.5 acres owned by Rohr + 3.74 acres
within the SDG&E easement) located on the south side of Lagoon Drive about 400 feet west of
Bay Boulevard. Currently, on the project site, Rohr is constructing a 245,000 sq. ft. office
building, two parking structures and landscaped parking within the adjacent SDG&E easement.
This proposal includes the construction of a six-story, 125,000 sq. ft. administrative/corporate
office building. The result of both projects will be a total of 370,000 sq. ft. of space and 1311
parking spaces. (Site plan attached.)
Site Plan and Architecture
;2.D -2..
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date ~
The new building follows the architectural design of the building currently under construction.
The same color, materials, and architectural articulation of forms are incorporated into the
design. The west side of the building design radius, ribbon windows and plaza design between
structures reinforces Building No.1, creating an interrelationship between buildings and an
overall design statement. The roof line for Building No. 2 is a conceptualization of an airplane
wing, symbolic for Rohr.
On-site vehicle parking for both buildings will entail two parking structures and some surface
parking to accommodate handicap spaces. The north garage (adjacent to Lagoon Drive) will be
subterranean with the top level of parking at four feet above grade and will accommodate 219
spaces. The south garage will provide 624 spaces with subterranean and above-ground levels
and 219 spaces will be on-site surfaces spaces. The adjacent SDG&E easement will be
landscaped and will provide 340 vehicle spaces. Throughout the project, a total of 1311 vehicle
parking spaces will be provided which exceeds the required number of spaces necessary to
accommodate the proposed buildings.
About 262 of the required vehicle parking spaces will be located within the SDG&E easement
which Rohr has leased with options for at least 15 years. To ensure that the applicant will
continue to provide the number of vehicle spaces required by ordinance, Rohr has entered into
a parking agreement with the City.
The parking agreement guarantees to the City that Rohr will provide the required number of
vehicle spaces on-site and adjacent to the site on the SDG&E easement. The agreement states
that if the SDG&E easement for any reason is no longer available to Rohr for parking, then
Rohr will provide an alternate site satisfactory to the City for the 262 spaces. If, for any reason,
no site is satisfactory to the City, then Rohr has agreed to reduce the active use of a maximum
of 78,600 sq. ft. of floor area in the professional buildings to negate the need for the 262 spaces.
Building No.2, will be six-stories in height (94') and will accommodate approximately 125,000
sq. ft. of administrative/corporate floor space. Both the height and the resulting on-site .74
F.A.R. are within the regulations specified in Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 10
adopted by the California Coastal Commission on June 11, 1992.
The land use designation for the project site is Industrial: Business Park. The proposed
industrial related office use is allowed within the that land use designation.
Coastal Develooment Findin~s
State and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed, and the proposed project has been
found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter
3 of the public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to construct a 125,000 sq. ft.
administrative/corporate office building at 850 Lagoon Drive subject to conditions listed in
;20.3
1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARIY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest In the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
RotH!.... I:.N c... .
.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
NoT A-I'PL\<:.AB.LE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
NcrT" l\-PPt-\<..A \?'LG
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
3lt- No X If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter:
fW-T q,Et..L~ - Rott.<l.. , :nJ<:...
TAN &iL.L - <;~~"b6JT. CoRP.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual,finn, co-pal1nershipJoint venture, association, social c/ub,jraterna/organizarion,corporation,
estate, trost, receiver,syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, distriClor other poUticalsubdivision,
?r any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Date:
~ :l"I, \qq~
:NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Signature
Nd"r 'TO oo/l... \<.No...LE:!lG.:~.
~~INc.....
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
:C,I WP51 ICQUNCILIDlSCLOSE.TXT)
(Revised: 11130190]
2D-5
Page 4, Item ).b
Meeting Date ~ /43
Attachment II, Conditions of Approval and Attachment III, Exhibit C of BF/OP No.4 (on file
in the County Recorder's Office as document number 92-0279842, copy attached), is found to
be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program:
A. The project will provide the number of on-site and adjacent vehicle parking spaces
(through an agreement with the City of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is a minimum of one-third of
a mile from the Bay's shoreline and public coastal park land. With adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's substantial distance from the
bay's shoreline, no adverse impact on public access to the coast line is expected to occur.
B. The project site is located adjacent to the F/G Street Marsh. However, Building 1 being
constructed on the western portion of the project site will provide a barrier between the
wetlands and Building 2 to be located on the eastern portion of the site. In accordance
with Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18, mitigation measures will be implemented
to ensure that the building and associated activities will not adversely effect the adjacent
wetland habitat.
C. Ingress/egress via G Street will direct a large portion of on-site traffic to Bay Boulevard
and away from Lagoon Drive. Also public improvements to be incorporated into the
project will provide an incremental increase toward improved access to coastal resources.
D. The project site is designated for Industrial Business Park land uses.
Administrative/corporate offices related to the industrial land use adjacent to the south
are in conformance with the certified LCP land use element.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council action as recommended will not have a direct fiscal impact, however, the action will
move the proposed project forward toward construction and the fiscal impacts addressed in the
April 7, 1992, report.
;2D~tf /1.0--5
(')
0 z
z <
..J 2
a: n.
I w 2
0 !:: I
a: (J)
..... .-..
S
( .)
i~ ~ ~
g ~ ~ ~
!L ~ t:
i
c
!
.
"
'"
~
I. 1
II ~ '
- -:. JLl
.
.
I
.
.
I
t=__
2o-b
Site Plan
ATTACHMENT I
C\J
~~
.
I
.-
-
~.-
-l
11-
a:
.0...
<(
.
.
--~--
EXHIBIT DC" of BF/OP #4
Document #92-0279842
ATTACHMENT II
Exhibit "C~
Conditions of Approval
1. Unless otherwise specified below, the following conditions must be satisfied by the
DEVELOPER prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 6-story building
contemplated by the proposed development, and shall be deemed satisfied upon the issuance
of such building permit:
A. The DEVELOPER shall sign and record a parking agreement between the CITY OF
CHULA VISTA and the DEVELOPER, which agreement shall (i) supersede and replace,
effective upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the improvements
contemplated by the proposed development, that certain Agreement Between the City of
Chula Vista and Rohr Industries, Inc. re Potential Use Restriction on Office Space, as
required by BF/OP No.3, (ii) provide for one (I) parking space per each three hundred
(300) square feet of gross floor area of office space existing on the Property in
accordance with the requirements of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and (iii) be on such
other terms and conditions as are reasonably satisfactory to the CITY OF CHULA
VISTA and the DEVELOPER.
B. The DEVELOPER shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code and other state and local laws.
C. The DEVELOPER shall supplement the development proposal to include a pedestrian
access between the easterly plaza area of the proposed 6-story office building and the
central portion of the SDG&E parking facility.
D. The DEVELOPER shall supplement the development proposal to include
landscaped focal areas at the terminus of the proposed driveways accessing the SDG&E
parking facility via the westerly Rohr office complex parcel.
E. The DEVELOPER shall supplement the development proposal to include specifi~ size
information for all new plant material which is proposed to be installed along "G" Street,
which information shall be submitted to the Landscape Architect for the CITY OF
CHULA VISTA for final review and approval.
F. The DEVELOPER shall supplement the development proposal to include a fully
dimensioned and detailed landscaping planting and irrigation plan for the SDG&E parking
facility, which plan shall be submitted to the Landscape Architect for the CITY OF
CHULA VISTA for final review and approval.
G. The DEVELOPER shall supplement the development proposal to include a plan for a
12-foot-wide landscaped median within the proposed "G" Street entrance, or other
enhanced landscape plan for such entrance as may be reasonably satisfactory to the CITY
OF CHULA VISTA and the DEVELOPER. The final landscape plan for such proposed
entrance between Bay Boulevard and the south access to Rohr's II.5-acre parcel shall be
SD134\WPSO\STAR\ROHR\CONO.OFAPP
)..D-r
implemented in connection with the proposed project no later than January 31, 1994,
unless otherwise agreed by the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER.
H. Unless otherwise agreed by the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER, the
DEVELOPER shall submit to the Landscape Architect for the CITY OF CHULA VISTA
a comprehensive landscaping master plan and schedule for the implementation thereof at
the time that a master plan for the DEVELOPER's entire Chula Vista campus is
submitted to the AGENCY for its review.
I. An amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program to allow an increase in
F.A.R. to .75 and to increase building height limitation to 95 ft. on the project site shall
be approved by the City of Chula Vista and the California Coastal Commission prior to
issuance of a building permit for the proposed Building 2.
J. The DEVELOPER shall incorporate into the proposed project and addendum
thereto the following mitigation measures set forth in Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
IS-92-18, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated therewith: ~J
I. Earth
A. In the event construction dewatering is required prior to foundation excavation as
a result of the interception of water levels with construction areas, temporary
construction dewatering shall be implemented in accordance with the 1990 report
recommendations of Woodward Clyde Consultants, and in compliance with the
directives of the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding discharge of
temporary dewatering wastes. .
2. Air
A. The proposed project shall participate in the DEVELOPER's Transportation
Control Measure Program, which includes:
. ridesharing, and van pool incentives;
. alternate transportation; and
. work scheduling for off-peak hours.
B. When the City adopts its own emission reduction program (subsequent to and
consistent with the SANDAG/APCD Plan adoption), Rohr must implement any
additional relevant legal requirements.
C. The DEVELOPER shall comply with any appropriate dust control measures
required by APCD (e.g., maintaining adequate soil moisture and removal of soil
spillage), and any appropriate limits on the hours of construction (e.g., allowing
construction between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and prohibitions on construction truck
queuing.
SD134\UPSD\STAR\ROHR\COND.OFAPP
2
7-.0 -?
(-~
3. Water
A. The DEVELOPER shall comply with all applicable legal requirements of
Sweetwater Authority and the City of Chula Vista re: water consumption.
.4. Plant. Animal Life
A. The proposed project shall continue to participate in a predator
managementprogram for the Chula Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators
as well as wild animal predators. In the event that this program is not established
prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, the DEVELOPER shall
coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") to determine
the extent of participation and the necessary timeframe for predator management. The
USFWS recommends contracting with the Department of Agriculture Animal Damage
Control program to provide the necessary predator management services.
00-
B. Any fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscapillg areas of
the proposed project shall be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and shall be
approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
C. All landscape chemical applications used in connection with the proposed project
shall be accomplished by a person who is a state-certified applicator.
D. No open garbage containers located outside shall be permitted,and all dumpsters
shall be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and
scavengers to the project area. All garbage shall be hauled away as often as
reasonably possible.
E. The 94-foot building contemplated by the proposed project shall utilize non-
reflective glass on the west side and bold architectural lines which are readily
observable by birds. The glass which was approved for the building contemplated by
that certain BF/OP No.3 Owner Participation Agreement between the AGENCY and
the DEVELOPER shall be used on the building contemplated by the proposed
development.
F. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest shall be included on
the western side of the 94-foot building contemplated by the proposed project. Any
ledges facing the west shall not exceed two inches in width or shall be sufficiently
sloped to avoid such perching. Additionally, any roof crests which are exposed to the
wetlands shall be covered with an anti-perch material, such as "Nixalite."
Additionally, the north roof edge of Rohr Building 61 will be covered with an anti-
perch material, such as "Nixalite". The DEVELOPER commits to use its best efforts
to correct any additional problem areas which may be caused by a heavy incidence of
perching observed on the proposed improvements or in landscaping materials.
SD134\~PSO\STAR\ROHR\COND.OFAPP
3 .2f>-1
G. All outside lighting in connection with the proposed project shall be directed away
from marsh areas or reflecting faces (windows) of the western side of the building
contemplated by the proposed development. All lights shall be limited to the
minimum required for security on the western side of the proposed building.
.~~)
~,
5. Noise
A. A biological monitor shall survey the marsh area subject to potential construction
noise; depending on the resources present and their location, the monitor may impose
time limitations on construction if construction occurs during the nesting season.
B. Any building to be constructed as a part of the proposed project that has noise.
generating uses shall be designed to meet applicable state and local noise staridards.
C. The 5th and 6th floors of the 94-foot building contemplated by the proposed
project shall be designed to meet applicable CITY OF CHULA VISTA requirement
for interior noise levels, which is a maximum of 45 decibels.
6. Light and Glare
A. As stated above, outside lighting shall be directed away from marsh areas, and
said lights shall be limited to the minimum required for security.
7. Land Use
A. The LCP amendment proposed in connection with the projeCt shall have been
approved.
8. Natural Resources
A. Energy efficient building design is required by law. The DEVELOPER shall
include energy efficient lighting and appliances in the building contemplated in this
project where practically feasible.
9. Risk of Upset
A. If hazardous materials are used in connection with the proposed project, permits
from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be obtained. Such permits, if
necessary, shall be required prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for each
building where such materials would be used.
SD134\WPSO\STAR\ROHR\COND.OFAPP
4
2/)-;b
10. Public Services
A. The DEVELOPER shall comply with the Fire Department's fire
prevention/protection requirements. The DEVELOPER shall coordinate with the Fire
Department to determine and implement the exact requirements for each building or
area.
B. All proposed areas shall be required to meet the requirements for fire flow and
fire hydrants in accordance with Appendix IlIA and IIIB of the Uniform Fire Code.
Any fire apparatus roads in excess of 150 ft. that dead end shall have a turn around
for fire apparatus.
C. The DEVELOPER shall pay the state-mandated school impact fees.
S0134\~P50\STAR\ROHR\COND_OFAPP
5 2/J _ / /
Attachment III
Coastal Development Permit No. 60
Rohr Building No.2
850 Lagoon Drive
June 23, 1992
Conditions of Approval
1. Demolition/removal of existing structures as shown on the attached building removal/vacation
plan shall be completed within one year of occupancy of Building No.2.
2. Issuance of this Coastal Development Permit No. 60 is contingent on the California Coastal
Commission's confirmation of the City of Chula Vista's adoption of the Commission's June II,
1992 action on LCP Amendment No. 10.
3. Conditions listed in Exhibit C of BF/OP 4 filed in the County Recorder's office as document
92-0279842.
.2/)-/2-
u,"u.r.
B
. -
. :;
. 0
.
j
!
I
~
o
..,
o
z
;;!
~
~
l
"-Ef}
r ......1
I a; r
L __J
S
m
m
(\j
J
M !
m i
f(;Jr
I a; fe
'----~
I
~~
~3
~
. frii:!
" ~e 0
::E" 3
, 8~
,
, '" '"
, 80 ~
, ~~
I ::E
, ,.~
I ~..
,
'r
I
vmro8~oooOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ID
wW~mN ~~NNNNNNNvNN~mvNNN N
~v~~~~mNN~~~~~~V~~VVID~~M ro
<~;M;mm~~ ; ;~~ ~ ~
::l mN..... .... m
00
Ulli
O)m,....mo)o)MIO,....roo)NMv~&I)ONM<D~O 61 \
. .....N,....~,....roo)vVVV<D<D<DIDID,....~~,....,....ro~~
gd mmrorororommmmromrororo~!
...J Z fl~ 0.
W .
E
-<:
~~
-Z
;>1:2
j~
:0::;:
:I:
U
)"-/3
/
z
I
~
I
Z
<l:
...J
o..>i
z~
O~
-0
1-"
<l:w
U~
"<l:u.
U>~
~ ~;;
w
_...J "
a: <l: w
I >10
o Ou.
a: 2 ~
w~
a:::>
'"
w
aO:
z"
-'"
0"
...J-
J
m
I
o
",0
IW
V1>
-0
6:;
"w
",0:
"
RESOLUTION \1.1.'8
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 60 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-STORY, 125,000 SQ. FT.
ADMINISTRATIVE/CORPORATE OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON
DRIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been
certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, on June 11, 1992 approved
certification of the City of Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 10 with
modifications; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has adopted the
California Coastal Commission's action on Local Coastal Program Amendment NO. 10; and,
WHEREAS, the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program includes Coastal
Development procedures determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance
of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority of
the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on June 23, 1992,
in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed and
considered the information contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and Addendum
thereto as amended and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving
authority," has reviewed the Rohr Inc. proposal for the construction of a 125,000 sq. ft.
administrative/ corporate office building at 850 Lagoon Drive.
Chula Vista:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that state and regional
interpretive guidelines have been reviewed and the proposed project has been found to be in
?-DA -I
conformance with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the Public
Resources Code. Further, based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to construct
a 125,000 sq. ft. office building, subject to conditions set forth in Conditions of Approval and
Exhibit C of BF/OP No.4 (on file in the County Recorder's office as document number 92-
0279842), is found to be consistent with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program:
A. The project will provide the number of on-site and adjacent vehicle parking spaces
(through an agreement with the City of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is a minimum of one-third of
a mile from the Bay's shoreline and public coastal park land. With adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's substantial distance from the
bay's shoreline, no adverse impact on public access to the coast line is expected to occur.
B. The project site is located adjacent to the F/G Street Marsh. However, Building I being
constructed on the western portion of the project site will provide a barrier between the
wetlands and Building 2 to be located on the eastern portion of the site. In accordance
with Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18, mitigation measures will be implemented
to ensure that the building and associated activities will not adversely effect the adjacent
wetland habitat.
C. Ingress/egress via G Street will direct a large portion of on-site traffic to Bay Boulevard
and away from Lagoon Drive. Also public improvements to be incorporated into the
project will provide an incremental increase toward improved access to coastal resources.
D. The project site is designated for Industrial Business Park land uses.
Administrative/corporate offices related to the industrial land use adjacent to the south
are in conformance with the certified LCP land use element.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No. 60.
r~
Presented by:
Chris Salomone,
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard,
City Attorney
J..DA-2
RESOLUTION "'79
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S JUNE
11,1992 ACTION ON CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 10
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1992 the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista conducted a public hearing to consider Amendment No. 10 to the certified Local Coastal
Program and Bayfront Specific Plan and approve the proposed LCP Amendment No. 10; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista considered the
information in the mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and addendum thereto as amended
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista duly noticed and
conducted a public hearing on April 7, 1992, approved LCP Amendment No. 10, and submitted
LCP Amendment No. 10 to the California Coastal Commission for consideration; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 1992, the California Coastal Commission approved
certification of LCP Amendment No. 10 subject to modifications; and,
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista duly
noticed and conducted a public hearing to consider the California Coastal Commission June 11,
1992 action on LCP Amendment No. 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby adopts the California Coastal Commission's action on June 11, 1992 to
certify LCP Amendment No. 10 subject to modifications listed in Exhibit A herein attached.
Presented by:
A
~L ~~,~/
Chris Salomone,
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
/.D2. -/
EXHIBIT A
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
MODIFICATIONS TO LCP AMENDMENT NO. 10
Land Use Plan Amendment
1) Special Condition NO.4 of Figure 5 (Recommended Building Heights) on Page III-lO
shall be revised to read as follows:
Special Condition No.4 - See Section 1. Height Limits of "Development Intensity" (p.
III-8)
2) The fourth full paragraph proposed under "Development Intensity" - Height Limits on
Page III-8 shall be revised to read as follows:
Business Park. A single building up to 95 feet in height is permitted, subject to special
review and development standards, to create a landmark building as part of the Rohr
corporate facility. The standards shall include increased building setbacks. a
comprehensive landsc&ping ulan and pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections
to adiacent uses as described in Apoendix D of the Specified Plan.
3) Footnote #7 of Table 2 (p. III-lla) shall be revised to read as follows:
F.A.R. of 0.75 permitted subject to special conditions - see Special Condition #4 (Sec.
19.85.01) and Appendix D of the Bayfront Specific Plan, orovided that corresoonding
demolitionlremoval of existing structures elsewhere on the Rohr campus commensurate
with the allowed bonus will occur in a timely fashion and associated traffic impacts will
be mitigated to a Level of Service "D" or better at the Bay Boulevard/E Street/Interstate
5 interchange.
Specific Plan Amendment
4) Appendix D (2) of the Specific Plan shall be revised to read as follows:
2. Building F.A.R.:
A maximum F .A.R. of 0.75 (including SDG&E landscaped parking area bonus) on the
subiect site is allowed with one (1) new building on such site permitted to exceed the 44
foot height limit, provided that (i) a reduction on the Rohr campus south of the subject
;'b~--2.
site is effected through the demolition or removal of such existing structures selected by
Rohr totalling 125.000 sq. ft. (which total is commensurate with the additional allowed
F.A.R. on the subiect site. (ii) such demolition or removal is completed within one (I)
year of occupancy of the bui1din~. (iii) the footprint of such new building does not
exceed five (5) percent of site area (excludinl! the area encomDassed within that portion
of the SDG&E right-of-way adiacent to the subiect site) and (iv) the setbacks on the
subiect site specified above are met.
2,DIf3-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;Z I
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 61 FOR THE USE OF 340 - 368 BA Y BOULEVARD AS
A CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA
RESOLUTIOJb~ OISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 61 FOR THE USE OF 340 - 368 BAY BOULEVARD AS A
CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA
SUBMITTED BY:
IS.
Community Development Director v-
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage??'
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No_XJ
BACKGROUND:
On April 21, 1992, the Redevelopment Agency approved an exclusive negotiating agreement
with Rohr Inc. for the disposition and development of Agency-owned property at 340 -368 Bay
Boulevard. While the Agency and Rohr are negotiating (the agreement is for approximately one
year) Starboard Development has requested to use the properties as a staging area for the
construction of Rohr's Building No.2 at 850 Lagoon Drive.
A leasing instrument will need to be approved by the Redevelopment Agency prior to use of the
site. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-l8 and Addendum thereto and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program adequately addresses environmental issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and adopt a
resolution issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 61 for the use of 340 - 368 Bay Boulevard
as a construction staging area.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Rohr Inc. anticipates that construction on Building No.2 proposed to be located at 850 Lagoon
Drive will start soon. In preparation, Rohr has requested that the Redevelopment Agency allow
their construction crew to use the Agency-owned Bay Boulevard properties for construction
staging. Agency staff is reviewing the proposal and will be forwarding a lease agreement to the
Agency for consideration soon.
'7-1-1
Construction of Building No.1 and the two parking structures located at 850 Bay Boulevard are
currently underway. Building No.1, the north parking structure, and two-thirds of the SDG&E
landscaped parking is planned to be completed by September 1992. The above-ground portion
of the south parking structure will not be completed until early 1993. Since almost the entire
site will be developed and utilized or under construction there will be limited space for
construction trailers and equipment storage. Rohr has prepared a plan to use the Bay Boulevard
properties and the central portion of the SDG&E right-of-way for the necessary construction
staging.(See Attachment I, Staging Site.)
The Agency's properties are currently vacant of development, however, three of the parcels have
contaminated soil and test wells on them. The Agency's hazardous waste consultant reviewed
Rohr's plan and has agreed that parcels 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard are usable sites. Elevated
lead levels have been discovered on 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard and additional studies are
pending, therefore, those two parcels cannot be used for storage, however, levels of lead are
safe for vehicle access purposes. Because of the soils and test well distribution on parcel 340
Bay Boulevard, it is recommended that it not be used for storage or access.
Findings
State and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed, and the proposed project has been
found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter
3 of the Public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to use 340 - 368 Bay Boulevard for a
construction staging area, subject to conditions listed in Attachment II, is found to be consistent
with the certified Local Coastal Program:
A. The Agency-owned properties, 340-368 Bay Boulevard have been extensively tested for soil
contaminates. Parcels 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard have been found to be clean of toxins and
may be used for the proposed construction staging. Parcels 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard have
low levels of leads which are safe for vehicle access purposes only. Parcel 340 Bay Boulevard
has isolated contaminates and test wells located on it making the site unusable.
B. The project proposal is short-term in nature and will not create any long-term traffic impacts
which could adversely affect vicinity intersections.
C. The proposed project site is located on Bay Boulevard, more than one-half mile from San
Diego Bay and coastal recreational activities. Since the project is a temporary construction use
of the land located a significant distance from the bay and coastal recreational activities, access
to those resources will not be impacted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
When a leasing agreement is negotiated for the use of the Agency-owned property, terms of the
agreement including financial benefits will be presented to the Agency for approval.
2/- 2-/ "I-I.(
THE crrr OF CHUL.A VISTA PARTY DISaoSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Root!... ) INc.....
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
NoT A-PPL~~A&LE-
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
NaT A-P/lt-H..A \l,LE
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
Jir No X If yes, please indicate person(s):
S. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter:
AR.T q"aL~ - Ro~ I ::tN<:..
:I:AN <Xi LL - <;~~ "t61T. CoR.{> .
}. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more thail $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
'erson is defined as: "Any individunJ,jinn, co-pannershipjoint venture,assodation, socia/ club,fraterna/organization,corporation,
"State, trust, receiver,syndica/e, this and any other county, dty and country, city, munidpality, district or olher poliliea/subdivision,
'T any other group or combination acting as a unit. .
)ate:
~ ~J \qq~
NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Signature
NoT "TO <>oj>..,. \<.NowI..E:!>G.:E:.
c,1 WP51 ICOUNClLIDlSCLOSE.TXTI
~ :- I.N~,
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
(Revised: 11130190]
2J~3
Ci~/r;
~! 1:1:,
I' ! !;;"
Q II i I'if!
~ ~ ft!.
~ ~L~~l!
VI :.:~l"d~
... ~~g.
: ~... !!' ~ti'l
... i!'
i:i '
~ " .. " "
i:]
~
~
~
I'
, I.
j~ Ii
. ,
ihi
l.I\ ..III
~ !li.
Iltl
Ii' fl'l
; ,II
8 '1,1
~ l!i!!
il I! I'!
'" .11
laJ ~ I
l;;( !ii!,..
.. ..
I
l" ~>>
~ V i!~
~l n~
4'1 Jh
"1/,
,"
ATTACHMENT I
1-....
fill>.
fIlo
:t:
"'....
If I ,~
~ i d ii I~~ l!!i'.:,;m~ ~ l~ ~;;
, I il ~ 1 ~~ I; ~ ~ ~~!t
:~ !i!H i !! iii Iii! . ':: ~ ~~ Ii ~i!ij
II III 1 1 ", ",' . Ii ~ ,,'" r'!i:a .
~ :!!I,!:.I.:., I'i , I!!! 11;1 .!~j i! I'~';!~I~~~~I
Q I I I III illl - _:~ ol!1 ::1 ,,,c 1m
j III II I .. - ~ :: - -.;
III qi I ,i il:::!!!!! ~I;,:,j, ~ ~'-i:iiU .~
~ I:LI~:h' Q , ,: II'" III!;, . "".' p.!:! ~.. 1(.'1;' ~
" I' '&'11 '" .'!I',1 ~ .: ,~.:J r" ",'~!!il!1li!l
L :'::'~" h Illlidn ~ ,..~ I ,". .. .g
f[j~1 ))'11'1
i::ij I \ \l I
~r
i \:\ea:
:i;lJh
_~rll;1
',.
<t
W
0:
<t
e!)
x~
we!)
...J~
0.(1)
:E
0>-
00:
w<t
00:
-0
lLo.
, OlL:E
I w
.t-
o
~w
.t:
0:(1)
J:lL
OlL
0:0
.
;
'<
'<.
,
'"
Q,
~
II ;.. --f
~i\ ,0 --- ,I )
II!I II 'r- ') ;7' . - - 'r,t-Il'~~, ,~,~,..
f- ~'! I 1 ."
: LL.., , _ ,,,: ' L I
- ~ (1_ ,~ 't'
JIIj'~li ---=-"~., -';::~:~=~~.=:-'---'---.,:::, .,
~Tflr.~i
2/-1./
~illl
L 'I! I
' I
I,
I fll
. '1111 ~...
~.
a I
.~:;!~
I b ..,
~
,
ATTACHMENT II
Coastal Development Permit No. 61
340 - 368 Bay Boulevard
June 23, 1992
Conditions of Ap.proval
1. If other than Rohr or Rohr's agent will be the User of Record, then a letter of permission
from Rohr Inc. will be required for use of the property to the extent that Rohr has a right
to the property.
2. Use of the property for storage or construction related activities be limited to 364 and
368 Bay boulevard. Motorized vehicles may drive over 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard,
however, existing wells and soil piles may not be disturbed. No soils may be relocated
or removed from the site without the direct permission of the Redevelopment Agency or
City of Chula Vista.
3. A copy of the current on-site contamination study results shall serve as the established
baseline contamination level for the properties. Starboard Development shall be
responsible for any and all levels of new contaminants resulting from Starboard's use of
the properties.
4. Access at any time to the properties shall be provided to the City of Chula Vista and
consultants authorized by the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista may have
occasion to require the relocation or removal of on-site stored items or equipment and
reserves the right to require such relocation or removal.
5. A leasing instrument for use of the site must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency
before this Coastal Development Permit No. 61 shall be considered valid.
6. On-site grading-type activities shall be limited to drainage configuration (shown on
Attachment I, map of staging area) at west side of 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard and the
railroad crossing at the west end of 350 Bay Boulevard.
cdpmt6l
Zl ~5 / ;J.J. b
RESOLUTION (tb~~{)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ISSUING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 61 FOR THE USE OF 340 - 368 BAY
BOULEVARD AS A CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been
certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program includes Coastal
Development procedures determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance
of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority of
the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on June 23, 1992,
in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed and
considered the information contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and Addendum
thereto as amended and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving
authority," has reviewed the Rohr Inc. proposal for the use of 340-368 Bay Boulevard as a
construction staging area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista:
The City of Chula Vista finds that the state and regional interpretive guidelines
have been reviewed, and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with the
public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to use 340 - 368 Bay
Boulevard for a construction staging area, subject to the Conditions of Approval, is found to be
consistent with the certified Loca1 Coastal Program:
A. The Agency-owned properties, 340-368 Bay Boulevard have
been extensively tested for soil contaminates. Parcels 364 and 368
Bay Boulevard have been found to be clean of toxins and may be
used for the proposed construction staging. Parcels 350 and 360
Bay Boulevard have low levels of leads which are safe for vehicle
access purposes only. Parcel 340 Bay Boulevard has isolated
contaminates and test wells located on it making the site unusable.
7..1-7
B. The project proposal is short-term in nature and will not create
any long-term traffic impacts which could adversely affect vicinity
intersections.
C. The proposed project site is located on Bay Boulevard, more
than one-half mile from San Diego Bay and coastal recreational
activities. Since the project is a temporary construction use of the
land located a significant distance from the bay and coastal
recreational activities access to those resources will not be
impacted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No.6!.
CG
~r
Presented by:
Chris Salomone,
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
2I...~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ,2.2-
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 62 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A 9,900 SQ. FT.
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TO G STREET
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION llol..~ 1 : ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 62 FOR THE DEMOLmON OF A 9,900 SQ. FT.
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TO G STREET
Community Development Director c0 .
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager g
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
Rohr Inc. proposes to demolish a 9,900 sq. ft. industrial warehouse building and to construct
a 25 ft. wide access road on a parcel located south of the 850 Lagoon Drive site (see Attachment
I, Site Plan). The access road will be temporary to provide improved interior vehicle circulation
for Rohr's Building I located at 850 Lagoon Drive and to provide a second ingress/egress point
from the site via G Street.
Environmental impact of the proposed project was reviewed in mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-92-18 and Addendum thereto and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting which was adopted
by the Council on April 7, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, take testimony, and adopt a resolution issuing
Coastal Development Permit No. 62 for the demolition of a 9,900 sq. ft. industrial building and
the construction of a temporary access road to G Street.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Rohr's proposal involves a 3.5 acre parcel of land located south and adjacent to 850 Lagoon
Drive. It is currently developed with two warehouse buildings and a co-generation electrical
facility as well as paved and concrete areas.
Rohr's plan is to demolish one of the warehouses (Building #77) and to construct a temporary
22-/
road to connect the western portion of 850 Lagoon Drive to G Street. The road will provide
a second ingress and egress to Building No. 1 currently under construction on 850 Lagoon
Drive. (A permanent roadway will be designed when future plans for the south parcel are fully
developed.) In addition, an existing at-grade, corrugated metal drainage pipe located in G
Street, at the southerly extent of the access road, will be replaced with an undergrounded drain
pipe designed to City standard. This segment of drain pipe is an incremental improvement of
an existing drainage system and by placing the pipe underground will allow at-grade vehicle
access to the new roadway. Minor grading will be required to construct the road.
Findings:
State and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed, and the proposed project has been
found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter
3 of the Public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to demolish a 9,900 sq. ft. industrial
warehouse and construct a temporary access road and reconstruct a drainage pipe, subject to
conditions listed in Attachment II, is found to be consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program:
A. The temporary access road will provide an alternative ingress/egress to Building No. 1 at
850 Lagoon Drive which will relieve potential traffic counts on Lagoon Drive and may reduce
traffic trips within the Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive intersection.
B. Demolition of Building No. 77 is in compliance with the removal/vacation plan for the
construction of Building No.2 at 850 Lagoon Drive.
C. The replacement of a portion of a substandard storm drain pipe will provide an incremental
improvement to the vicinity storm drainage system. No increase in storm drain runoff is
anticipated as a result of the road construction since nearly all of the site is currently paved or
developed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The warehouse building proposed to be demolished has an estimated valuation of approximately
$400,000. Demolition of the building will reduce tax income to the City and tax increment
income to the Redevelopment Agency. The decrease is anticipated to be slight, however, (less
than $4,000/year based on I %) since the building precedes establishment of the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project.
22--2 J J."'~
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISa1JSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Ro@_ D-lc.....
.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
t-loT A-I'PL\<:...AB.LE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
Na\ A-\>t>I:_I.C..A I!.LG
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
lit- No X If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter:
AR-T ~Et..L~ - &>~ 1 XtJe..
'IAN &-iLL - <;1'IINlof\-itD1l6JT. CoR-I'.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual,firm, co-partnershipJoint venture,assodaJion, sodal club,fraJemalorganization,corporaJion,
estale, trust, receiver,syndicate, this and any other county, dty and country, dty, municipality, district or other political subdivision,
or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ..
Date:
~ ~ \qq~
J
~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Signature
N<sr .,.0 "l>~ ~wl..E:!l~E;.
~ ~ I.N<:::.....
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
;C,I WP51 ICOUNCILIDlSCLOSE.TXT)
(Revised: 11130190]
'}.2 - 3
ATTACHMENT I
-~
Attachment IT
Coastal Development Permit #62
South Parcel Demolition/Access Road
June 23, 1992
Conditions of Approval
I. Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building and Housing Department for
the demolition of Building #77.
2. Applicant shall comply with Engineering Department requirements concerning grading-type
activities and storm drain construction.
').2 ~ 5' / h" - 6
RESOLUTION 11oit>~1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 62 FOR THE DEMOLffiON OF A 9,900 SQ. FT.
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TO G STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been
certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program includes Coastal
Development procedures determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance
of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority of
the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on June 23, 1992,
in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-92-18 and
Addendum thereto as amended and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving
authority," has reviewed the Rohr Inc. proposal for the demolition of a 9,900 sq. ft. industrial
building and construction of a temporary access road to G Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista:
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that state and regional interpretive guidelines
have been reviewed, and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with the
public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, the Rohr Inc. proposal to demolish a 9,900 sq. ft. industrial
warehouse and construct a temporary access road and reconstruct a drainage pipe, subject to
Conditions of Approval, is found to be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program:
A. The temporary access road will provide an alternative
ingress/egress to Building No. 1 at 850 Lagoon Drive which will
relieve potential traffic counts on Lagoon Drive and may reduce
traffic trips within the Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive intersection.
B. Demolition of Building No. 77 is in compliance with the
7-2.- 7
removal/vacation plan for the construction of Building No. 2 at
850 Lagoon Drive.
C. The replacement of a portion of a substandard storm drain pipe
will provide an incremental improvement to the vicinity storm
drainage system. No increase in storm drain runoff is anticipated
as a result of the road construction since nearly all of the site is
currently paved or developed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No. 62.
Presented by:
~~~
Chris Salomone,
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
cdpmt62
2'1..-J>
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
\~ J'.-,c-cJ-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA for the purpose of considering coastal development
oermit Nos. 59. 60. 61 and 62 and Coastal Commission action on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 10.
The projects are located in the coastal wne and are described as follows:
Coastal Development Permit No. 59
construction of two storage sheds and a
prefabrication/welding work area at the SDG&E South
Bay Power Plant.
Coastal Development Permit No. 60
construction of a 125,000 sq. ft., six story
administrative/corporate office building at 850 Lagoon
Drive.
Coastal Development Permit No. 61
operation of a construction staging area on
approximately 3.65 acres of Redevelopment Agency
owned property at 340-368 Bay Boulevard.
Coastal Development Permit No. 62
demolition of approximately 9,900 sq. ft. of industrial
space and construction of a temporary, 24 ft. wide
access roadway between G Street and 850 Lagoon Drive.
Local Coastal Program Amendment 10
consideration of California Coastal Commission action
on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 10.
A copy of the Coastal Development Permit applications are on file for inspection in the office of the
Community Development Department.
An Initial Study, IS-92-18, of possible significant environmental impacts was conducted by the Environmental
Review Coordinator for Coastal Development Permits Nos. 60,61,62 and Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. 10. A finding of no significant environmental impact has been recommended to the City Council and is
on file, along with the Initial Study, in the office of the Planning Department.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the Community Development Department
office no later than 5:00 p.m. one (I) day prior to the hearing date. If you wish to challenge the City's action
on this Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at or prior to the public hearing.
Within ten (10) days following the Coastal Commission's receipt of the City Council's action on the above
coastal development permits, said action may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission by a qualified
appellate. If the City is not notified within the prescribed time element of a pending appeal, the City Council
action will be deemed final and a Coastal Development Permit issued.
Said public hearing will be held by the City Council on June 23. 1992. The hearing will be at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: 6/05/92
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item :l3
Meeting Date 06/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING:
TO CONSIDER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 59
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORAGE SHEDS AND
A COVERED WORK AREA AT THE SDG&E SOUTHBAY
POWER PLANT
RESOLUTION l~lD i":L ISSUING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 59 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF TWO STORAGE SHEDS AND A COVERED WORK AREA
AT THE SDG&E SOUTHBAY POWER PLANT
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director( _7 .
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager t:J
v.
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
San Diego Gas and Electric Company has requested that the public hearing for Coastal
Development Permit No. 59 be continued to the July 21, 1992 City Council meeting. Since the
project's coastal development permit application submittal has not been completed, staff
recommends that the Council continue the public hearing until all of the required information
has been submitted and a complete permit review has been conducted.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of July 21,
1992. --
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: No impact on City funding will occur as a result of staffs recommendation
to continue the public hearing.
1a ~I
File No.
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIST
( I." 1- _
.c I cJ"::.j'l ,c_
(JhQJl,
\
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DATE
SUBJECT l~L, r.>c,s~9.
I
'_ Ce,,.,!, ~l,"-,
\-J '-".~ f .1-"
6"'-'-*'
\~_t.,,~+ fr.
( ;~L
LOCATION
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX~; BY HAND _; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS--f() /0... (':H-~.( L~__~." NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
-58.
'ntj
~L
- '\
f:............ \ "::'4 )
(
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2l.f
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Consideration of establishing Underground
Utility District No. 122 on Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a
point approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54
Resolution 1101,'1;.2 Establ ishing Underground Util ity
District No. 122 on Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a point
approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54 and
authorizing the expenditure of allocation funds to subsidize
single family residential service lateral conversions
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager&? (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
On April 28, 1992, by Resolution No. 16605, the City Council ordered a public
hearing to be held on June 23, 1992, to determine whether the public health,
safety, or general welfare require the formation of an Underground Util ity
District on Fourth Avenue between "E" Street and a point approximately 100
feet south of State Highway 54.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the formation of the conversion district.
2. Adopt a resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of
$11,400 of allocation funds to subsidize eight single family residential
service lateral conversions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Util ity Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of
SDG&E, Pacific Bell, Cox Cable TV, Chula Vista Cable and the City staff agreed
to propose to Council the formation of a di stri ct to convert the overhead
hcil ities along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a point approximately 100
feet south of State Highway 54. This project is on the Council's approved
priority list and is in accordance with the adopted Underground Utility
Program.
The proposed utility undergrounding district along Fourth Avenue is about
3,800 feet long running from "E" Street to a point approximately 100 feet
south of State Highway 54 (please see Exhibit "A"). The estimated cost for
undergrounding the utilities is $2.4 million. South of the proposed district,
undergrounding of overhead util ities has been completed. The Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) count on Fourth Avenue ranges from 23,400 between Highway 54 and
"C" Street to 17,600 between "C" Street and "E" Street.
2~-/
Page 2, Item ~V
Meeting Date~
Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section
of Fourth Avenue because:
1. Fourth Avenue is a major entrance into the City of Chula Vista. The
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the
creation of an aesthetically pleasing access into the City from the north.
2. Fourth Avenue is classified to be a six-lane major street between Highway
54 and "C" Street and a four-lane major street between "c" Street and "E"
Street.
3. The City will use SDG&E allocation funds based on Rule 20-A Distribution
Formula to fund this project.
4. Undergroundi ng has been compl eted on Fourth Avenue south of "E" Street
thus making the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded
section.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council
to set a publ ic hearing to determine whether the publ ic health, safety and
general welfare requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities
within designated areas of the City and to give persons the opportunity to
speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to
underground utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the
utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing
wooden utility poles within the district and to require property owners to
convert their service connections to underground at their expense. The
conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and
conduit installation from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista
City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a mechanism that reduces the
property owner's cost for the conversi on from the di stri but i on 1 i nes to the
residence. The mechanism is based on the following provisions:
1. Funding is limited to single family residential properties.
Funding is limited to
suppl ies/installs such as
point of connection.
3. Fundi ng shall not exceed the est imated cost of trenchi ng and conduit
installation for up.to 100 feet of the private service lateral.
facilities which customer traditionally
trenching and conduit from property 1 ine to
2.
There are eight properties located within the proposed district eligible for
this subsidy. The property owners are responsible to provide the underground
service and the util ity companies will reimburse the owner an amount (set by
Council) which only covers a portion of the owner's total cost.
The reimbursable amounts to the property owners will be paid by the util ity
companies through the City after the project is completed. We have determined
that the eight property owners should be subsidized as follows:
2'1,2..
Parcel No.
565-280-05-00
565-280-06-00
565-280-08-00
565-280-09-00
566-020-04-00
566-020-06-00
565-140-08-00
565-140-30-00
Page 3, Item ;tV
Meeting Date~
Site Address Owner
Length of Subsidy
Trench 1ft.) Amount IS)
156 4th Ave.
160 4th Ave.
168 4th Ave.
172 4th Ave.
75 4th Ave.
87 4th Ave.
82 4th Ave.
84 4th Ave.
Ruth B. Rouse
Mario & Nancy Estolano
Martha L. Dean
Leona M. A. Cranford
Lee C. & Ruth S. Noderer
Ethel Martin
Hector & Maria A. Zuniga
Ralph D. & Jo A. R. Williams
40'
40'
35'
35'
50'
45'
35'
100'
Total
$I, 200
1,200
1,050
1,050
1,500
1,350
1,050
3.000
$11,400
The Director of Publ ic Works, subsequent to the formation of the district,
will submit to the Council a resolution setting the date for the property
owners to be ready to recei ve underground facil it i es and the date for the
removal of all poles in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code. A submission of the resolution to the City Council will occur after the
utility companies have agreed on a schedule for the project.
All property owners within the district have been notified of tonight's
hearing.
A transparency is available showing the proposed boundary of the district.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to underground util ities along Fourth Avenue from
"E" Street to a point approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54 is
estimated to be $2.4 million. SDG&E's allocated funds (rule 20-A) will cover
the estimated costs of the project. A $11,400 subsidy for eight single family
property owners within this district is included in this amount.
WPC 6031E
SMN:File No. AY-087
;2l/:,3
~
.
.
I: 3DVd 33S I
(i) ~.
..u..c..
,
-0 ," r..
'.MAC.. S-., ~
0----tl,f~t. :11
o ):" ==1:~' i
. CD -':: l;'",;~ .. (I.'
"'0
..
'"'
'r
..":..:.
,
I
""'..
. .
. I
.....,...::;.
.....oI'I,..QI~ GlEe
~~~s~ ::~~'-'!.
8-
f i @)
.!t
"" <ll> .
, -.
OIl OIl
a
111,111'"
..
..".- ,
@ .
.
l..a" =
5
'S I
.
. t
I .!
t;
. :,OO~
~33l:lIs :a~""'-- - - -7' -I
~"!c"' r ~ :: q
'.
..
~5
..
..11,;; .....
~l '"
.
...... ..
r.i\ -
r ~IC:
r-- --: -' -
6i3
~'~!~ ~~"1!1:0~'0~:
"_.,,. h!l I~.II""
.,...,..;, ~~1 t!"'tr.... ~~
- ll~' . I....
,.9 ;: i I "(~~'l ''0
il ,.","11 -= ~
/''' /.' ...JI\~ . ..~...;
"ow'i/'''''' i ',)_ -~if' .
:;>
~
":
.~ tf
(;)~ jji.
-. ~,...
i~
(;)
:: ...~
:/I.t
.,
~.-
Em
I
- .
@.-c5 _
, 'A
-.
--
=~!:
6i)
'.0
-:-
c _ow C
....
.
I
) .. I
-.
f
..
.
..
$
,
.
.L33l:l.l.S
I .. I
~ E)
I .
. j
"=ji.... ' .1/
: l"/4.J 7
,~ i=-] ..!'
sY .0' ,i~ ' Ii
<l",
...:J! ".,.,..
~~.'P
...
" -~- .
. u ,
. .. "q
5 0= @
r!!QSEC
.
.1.)6
.
., :JIJ
'.
17: "
9"; ...
. lJ8'- @. ".
:'.J
- .sr. JBI J '"1GRMR q
.
os=
'M
f, 8 -
,.>=...!.@)
: ...
r . 0- 0
,.
.
...:.
o
.
".
Ii
ll"::
--It. -- ~
is. J.-
J-C l>.... 4
.
,;S-.
OQIO"
@)
-.
J"O 1'1. ,..
J....i!.i_
,.@
It--.-,--
I
~" i
,. i
o
o
,
@
.
E>
"
E>
-:-- ~ -
: 0
t ~.
@j.... .. r@)
W :;0'
:) :
Z :
W :
>~ ::-,S<::
<. ..;....hod-
,51 .
.
~ . /17 ai
a: 5
:t I.' .
o .
LL In 5
...... .
~ .';'zs
(171): S
. t.~ '
'.,01
. ';~ Ir
..... .... ~
'00
I
I
. I
.- Il
w
". ~
,~.
,,..l IS
'.' w
,so: 'I:T:.:!~::' io .. ..
· Q I !;oo::~ @lei
. ~ . .~li$ ! I ~ I;: ,
...n... .
,3. ,os l700tl
I (
!, aD
,: I.
""''S:)
i...
@l
..
@
.,
.
2J/- - L.f
,-,
J'O ....,~
,:. . @>1.Ui)' l!>'l '.
:il1O-
'-;7 ~ l<li> I~" ~
"" .,
,,,, ~ Ci!>__ I~O
· PORIS
.,..r @ <D I.oj
,
I..' tt <!) 1-0
",'/J /iSJ..0 17~ !
._,
E> .~.
1-' .~IC 6.. l'~l
,-- @ @)...~
:.... u ~'-.' :.~:.
...,.,.'-n
rf ,~ ~!~)
..-,.,.'.,
I u. ~.<' ')..,
.'~ .'. ..... ....,.- ~.
:,..,. ;, ","
If
.
.,
.
~. .
....
U
-
II:
....
fI)
-
Q
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'"
...
0
~ C\1
w C\1
Cl
C .....
II.
.
0
Z
I "'"
E-i 10
0 >-
- -<
~ ~
E-i :=
00 t:l
- ....
0 :=
l';o;:l
~~ Eo<
Z::J -<
Eo<
-Z f1.h
O~ ~<C
Z> Z~
::J< <
I-
0 Eo<-
~tI: l';o;:lr:D
l';o;:l-
~E-i =:1:
~~ tx
~::J w
00 .l';o;:l
Z~
::J z
l';o;:l
~ l';o;:l
~
E-i Eo<
- l';o;:l
~ Il:l
-
E-i
::J
>=
II:
<
Q
Z
:)
o
III
- C\I
.., as
::; ...
'"
.. -
>t ...
III C\I
a o.
IIIl
:;
Q Q
-,
I
I
I
i
I
, -4?
L- .-J@ -
L-.J - .
= -
t
..
..
..
.
11
I,
~Qr
~@" I
14~~~. I
I I
I
.Sl:l
.A
)
~
ep5AC.
I
I
I
1_
B3~l.S
IZ.. ,n
18
'PARK j
jlV/
IS
'.'
n
-u-~L~
I
,,,u
.--
~
~ ~ JIJ.,.,
""8
,,- o!.OOl.
....... .
.p
~o
;;J.............i......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
: 1I~
=~~ 10
= ?
.
=
5
.
::
.
..
.
~ 3DVd 33S
('II
e ..., Ol
::E ....
... .....
. -
u ..
>- ....
. - IQ ('II
_..,.~.-. ".', IIlI:
"" 7,0..1"-_'" ._1 ... ! ..
(I) Illl
8 - ..
Q Q ~
trS AVMHOIH 3~V~S
~
Li'
....... 1U1....H'.V......
t1'S - , ".;...,. . . .. ..
@ PAIIi! So : A
... ....
tI.lUC. e,\
it. '
37. j:
1
.'#
"
,
7I'H"n", ,
~
POR. 20Al
@
w
~
@l
5.30AC.
as
f'l~
.
@)
,
. ".~
. @)
.,. :
.
.-
,.
). ".-~
)'J.f-~
'"
'"
IL
0 ~
'" ~
w .-4
C!l
-< ,
II. 0
Z
I "'"
E-4 lQ
0 ><
- <
~ a:
E-t =
00 c;:,
- .....
~ =
r"l
0 ~ Eo<
<
Z :::> Eo<
- Z fll.
~ ~ Qc(
Z > z'
:::> < <
0 Eo< I-
~ = roil-
roillD
0 E-t Il:\-
. ~ ~ Eo<J:
. fllX
. ~ :::>
.
. w
. ~
. 0
. "roil
. Z
. ~
.
.
. :::> Z
.
.
. roil
.
. r"l
. ~
. a:
.
.
. E-t
. Eo<
.
. - roil
.
. ~ l%l
.
.
. -
. E-4
.
.
. :::>
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1/p(pt3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO.
122 ON FOURTH AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT
APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 54
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALLOCATION FUNDS
TO SUBSIDIZE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
LATERAL CONVERSIONS
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 16605, a public hearing was
called for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 23rd day of June, 1992, in the
Council Chambers of the City of Chula vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in
said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety or
welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar or associated service within that certain area of the city
more particularly described as follows:
All that property lying along Fourth Avenue from "E"
Street to a point approximately 100 feet south of State
Highway 54 and enclosed within the boundary as shown on
the plat attached hereto as Attachment "A" of subject
Underground Utility District. f'/,A r ~Or' ~"lJt.lE()
and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all
affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment
roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for
the time required by law, and
WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held,
and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be
heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista hereby finds and determines that the public
health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated structures, and the underground installation
of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated services, the above-described area is hereby
declared an Underground utility District, and is designated as such
in the city of Chula vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",
and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the
boundaries of said District.
1
2/f - 1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall, by
subsequent resolution, fix the date on which affected property
owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does
hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated service within said Underground Utility
District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons ownIng
real property within said Underground Utility District of the
adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of
said adoption. Said City Clerk shall further notify said property
owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such
property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or
other similar or associated service, they, or such occupant shall,
by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary
facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service
from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new
location, sUbject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs
of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public
utilities commission of the state of California as of the date of
adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by
mailing a copy of this resolution to affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected
utility companies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds
that the Underground Utility District herein created is in the
general public interest for the following reasons:
1. Fourth Avenue is a major entrance into the City of
Chula vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead
utilities will contribute to the creation of an
aesthetically pleasing access into the City from the
north.
2. Fourth Avenue is classified to be a six-lane major
street between Highway 54 and "C" Street and a four-lane
major street between "c" Street and "E" Street.
3. The City will use SDG&E allocation funds based on
Rule 20-A Distribution Formula to fund this project.
4. Undergrounding has been completed on Fourth Avenue
south of "E" Street, thus making the proposed district an
extension of an undergrounded section.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the expenditure of $11,400 of
allocation funds to subsidize 8 single-family residential service
lateral conversions is hereby authorized.
2
2J/,~
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\underg
7.11- 1
AfL" f
Bruce M. Boogaard, C ty
Attorney
3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
?;)
.
Meeting Date 6-23-92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road)
a) Resol ut i on lit, 6~'l Approvi ng agreements for execut i on in
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) and
authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement
b) Resolution 1101.\.11 Ordering certain changes and
modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment District
No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c) Resolution I~,",\\" Overruling and denying protests and
making certain findings in Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road)
d)
Reso 1 ut i on ,\0 Io~ Confi rmi ng the assessment, orderi ng the
improvements made, together with appurtenances, approving the
Engineer's Report, making CEQA findings, and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan regarding Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay
Valley Road)
Director of Publ ic Works NI 0.
Director of Community Development~.
City Manage~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No~)
~ Council Referral 2616
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On April 21, 1992, Council adopted the Reso 1 ut i on of Intent i on to construct
and finance certain publ ic improvements to Otay Valley Road, east of I-80S,
pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and set the public hearing
on the formation of Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) for May
26, 1992 for the purpose of hearing public testimony. The associated
resolutions make changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report, overrule
protests, confirm the assessments, make CEQA findings and adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, and approve utility and underwriter agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve credits for slopes per Exhibit AA. These credits may be reduced
if the assessment per square foot is lowered.
2. Approve increased credit for improvements installed by fronting property
per Exhibit BB.
3. Approve future transportation DIF for the Otay Ranch area to be charged
$420,000 for two 1 anes (2.5 cents/square foot). Funds to be borrowed
from Sewer Fund and reimbursed by Transportation DIF at a later date.
:2.[;-1
Page 2, Item ~!l
Meeting Date 6-23-92
4. Do not reduce the width of the road or the improvement.
5. Agree to contri bute any County contri but i on or funds from future cost
recovery district or savings in project cost to help reduce annual
assessment payments.
6. Adopt the resolutions a through d confirming the assessment.
7. Return June 30, 1992, with resolution necessary to finalize the
assessments, borrow necessary funds from Sewer Fund, award contract, and
bond sale.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The
are unchanged since staff's last report.
agenda statement.)
Board/Commissions' recommendation
(Pl ease see the attached 5/26/92
DISCUSSION:
At the meeting of May 26, 1992, Council continued this publ ic hearing for
three weeks and directed staff to respond to four basic issues: 1) the need
for six lanes versus four lanes and potential savings if two lanes and medians
were deleted; 2) the discounting of slope areas on private property; 3) an
analysis of the credits to property owners for street improvements previously
constructed; 4) and the invest i gat i on of a 30-month interest reserve. The
following responses are offered regarding those issues:
THE NEED FOR SIX LANES VERSUS FOUR LANES
The projected build-out traffic volumes contained in the final EIR fully
warrant the construction of a six lane major street between 1-805 and Nirvana
Avenue, as proposed. The build-out traffic vol ume generated by the land
within the assessment district alone, even based on the low range of volume
for i ndustri all and far exceeds the need for a 4 1 ane road. The Ci ty is
contributing the cost of the two additional traffic lanes required by the
traffic generated outside the assessment district.
Council requested that staff determi ne the cost reduct ions rel at i ve to two
separate construction opt ions. The fi rst option is to replace the proposed
raised medians and landscaping with pavement and painted medians. This would
reduce the overall cost by approximately $104,000 or about one-half cent
($0.005) per sq. ft. of assessed area. The second option is to grade full
width, but only construct four lanes, leaving a wide dirt median area for the
future construction of two traffic lanes and the raised median. This would
reduce the overall cost approximately $374,000 or a little more than two cents
($0.02) per sq. ft. of assessed area (see Exhibit FF). It should be noted
that the design, plan checking, and other incidental expenses associated with
the improvements to be deleted under these options have already been completed
and thus cannot be included in the cost savings. Additionally, design of an
interim facility generally requires that the ultimate facility be designed.
2S~ :L
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 6-23-92
The question was also raised of reduction to right-of-way width to a four lane
major street and the cost advantages. There would be considerable short range
savings due to the fact that less right-of-way would have to be purchased and
less grading and alluvium removal. A rough estimate is that right-of-way,
grading, alluvium, and pavement construction would save $1.2 million.
However, thi s opt ion woul d be detrimental to the area from along range
standpoint. When the road is ultimately widened to handle projected traffic,
24 to 30 feet of additional right-of-way will have to be purchased at a much
higher cost, with much disruption to the property on the south and loss of
developed property. The median island, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the
south side would be in the wrong location, and the cross slope of the pavement
on the south side of the roadway would probably cause all the pavement on the
south side to be reconstructed. If the roadway width is to be narrowed, it
should be by the two options discussed above. However, due to: 1) the
relatively minimal cost savings, 2) the fact that the City/Agency is
contri but i ng 1 arge sums of publ i c funds to th i s project, and 3) the 1 ater
disruption to area and traffic to rebuilt middle area, staff recommends that
the roadway width be constructed to a full six travel lanes.
DISCOUNTING OF SLOPE AREAS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
During the May 26th hearing, there was public testimony requesting assessment
discounts for slopes over 25% in grade because such areas "are unusable". At
the time, the Assessment Engi neer stated that hi s recommendat i on was that
slopes not be discounted because in many instances, slopes were within setback
areas and or were utilized for portions of the 20% of parcel area landscaping
requirement. He further stated that in the case of undeveloped land, there was
no way to determi ne how much of the 1 and woul d be lost to slopes or street
dedications, and that no discounts had been given to undeveloped land.
In response to Council's request, the slope issue has been reviewed and the
credits calculated for each parcel are attached as Exhibit AA.
The financial impact to the City of approving this option would be $435,382
for the 19.99 acres determined to be in slopes. In determining these areas,
staff counted as credit those slopes greater than 25% (4:1 or steeper) that
were not within the setbacks and which were not used to fulfill the on-site
landscaping requirement of 20%.
CREDITS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED
Foll owi ng publ i c testimony quest i oni ng the magnitude of publ i c improvement
credits, the Assessment Engineer has indicated to staff that while there is no
statutory requirement to credit property owners with the value of improvements
previously' constructed, credits had been computed for surface improvements
utilizing the bid prices submitted, by the low bidder for the Otay Valley Road
improvements. The total amount of the improvement credit was $163,099. A
revi ew of the improvement credi ts has been conducted, and staff is
recommending that the total credit amount be increased to $474,803. This
includes such improvements as storm drain extensions, utility pole relocations
:Z5~3
Page 4, Item ,(~
Meeting Date 6-23-92
and an allowance for design and inspection costs. The adoption of this option
would require an additional $311,704 in City contribution. Exhibit BB
illustrates the impact on each parcel.
Staff would recommend against giving special credits to individual properties
based on what that property owner paid for several reasons:
1. Our costs were based on publ icly bid and controlled costs. We cannot
verify that the property owner went through the bidding process to
receive the lowest costs. To be fair to all owners along the road, we
should give consistent credit for similar improvements.
2. It wasn't our intent i on to pay all costs for previ ous work, but it was
also not our intention to double charge for work we had earlier
required. Therefore, we were crediting properties that had installed
improvements earlier the amount the District would have to pay to install
those improvements.
3. We have increased considerably, $474,803 vs. $163,099, the amount of
credits to properties in the District to include all reasonable costs
associated including: engineering design and inspection 10%, utility
pole relocation, curb inlets, and some related storm drain work.
In addition to the above existing improvement credits, J.T. Racing (A.N. 11)
has requested credit of $41,644 versus the City's estimate of $14,530. Rita
Gregory of J.T. Racing has provided the City substantial documentation for
actual costs and City Council may want to credit the property a total of
$37,180 which excludes costs pertaining to the following:
1. Top Soil
2. Curb Outlets (2)
3. Mason
$ 123.65
4,140.00
200.00
Staff is not recommending this option for J.T. Racing for reasons discussed
above. But if Council chooses to reimburse J.T. Racing based on their cost
figures, then the costs for items 1 and 3 should not be credited because it's
not clear how these pertain to the project and staff recommends that the curb
outlet costs not be el igible because curb outlets are util ized for providing
site drainage.
Staff has also reviewed the credit summary provided by Leonard Teyssier
(A.N. 5). Mr. Teyssier has submitted a request for credit of $318,000. His
analysis includes CPI adjustments on present "bond", not bid, costs. No
actual cost documentation was provided. He includes items for right-of-way
and use of his improvements at approximately $80,000 each. Staff recommends
that the Willdan analysis or the City's analysis be used instead. Staff does
not support CPI adjustments because he has had use of the improvements for
years. Staff also does not support crediting right-of-way because this is
typically a development exaction.
Z5'-t/
Page 5, Item 25
Meeting Date 6-23-92
B & B Partners (A.N. 12) has also submitted a request for credit of $83,600
based on "bond", not bid, prices. Staff does not support this. Staff
recommends that if addi t i ona 1 credit be gi ven, that it be consi stent with
Willdan's analysis or the City's more detailed analysis of credits for
existing improvements.
Mr. Cushman (A.N. 6) requested credit for Shinohara Lane, a cul-de-sac
dedication, slopes in excess of 25% and area lost to the Sensitive Impact
Area. Staff has i ncl uded the 0.18 acre reduct i on for the cul-de- sac in the
Willdan Associates' Report dated June 16, 1992. Staff has also included 2.40
acres of credit for the Sensitive Impact Area under the slope credit summary.
This is the area within the Sensitive Impact Area that is not used for parking
as shown on the development site plan on file with the Planning Department.
Staff does not support further reduction for slopes of approximately 25%
el sewhere on the site because the approved site pl an indicates that the site
is very developable. Staff also does not support credit for construction of
Shinohara Lane as this was a condition of development to provide adequate
access to his property. This is consistent with how the other properties are
being analyzed.
If the council adopts the two options 1 isted above, the total "City"
contribution to the assessment District would be $4,823,627. The resulting
assessments per acre would remain the same although the assessments for
individual properties receiving the credits would be reduced.
30-MONTH RESERVE
Council directed staff to respond to a request by a property owner
representative that there be a delay in payments for a period of 30 months.
There is a statutory limit of 24 months on the time period for which payments
may be capital i zed. Based on an interest rate of 8.5% for 24 months, an
additional $1,561,027 would have to be assessed to the district, and the City
would be required to contribute $173,448 in bond reserve fund. The cost of
$1,561,027 to provide 24 months of capi ta 1 i zed interest woul d increase the
assessments approximately $0.09 per sq. ft. or $3,932 per acre. Due to the
impact on assessments, delaying payments is not recommended.
MAY 26TH CHANGES
Al so, at the meeting of May 26, 1992, staff recommended two changes to the
Engi neer' s Report. It was recommended that the reserve be loaned from the
City and that a "20A" district be formed for the undergrounding from Oleander
to Nirvana Avenues. These changes are incorporated into Final Engineer's
Report dated June 16, 1992. As a result of processing a "20A" district, it is
recommended that the agreements with SDG&E and Pacific Bell be approved but
not executed pending formation of the 20A district. Also, due to the
continuance of the publ ic hearing, the underwriter agreement is no longer
needed.
zs~~
Page 6, Item ~!5
Meeting Date 6-23-92
CORRECTIONS
An important correct i on is necessary to a statement made in the May 26th
Agenda Statement. At the time of the May 26th hearing, the bond reserve fund
was to be funded through assessments to the district. Based on this, the
statement was made that if property owners paid all or any portion of their
assessment during the 30-day cash payment period following the public hearing,
the payment would be reduced by approximately 14.5%. This was due to the fact
that bond issuance costs, i ncl udi ng the 10% bond reserve fund costs, are not
charged to cash payments. At the hearing, the Council approved the Manager's
recommend at i on that the Ci ty contri bute the bond reserve fund of 10% to the
assessment district. Therefore, cash payments will be reduced by 4.5% instead
of 14.5% because the City is funding the 10% reserve fund and not the
assessment district.
ADDITIONAL OPTION
The City is negotiating with Baldwin Company for participation in the
district. This is in addition to the City contribution covering the Baldwin
and "other" local traffic share. Any additional contribution could be used to
lower the annual assessment i nsta 11ment. It is est imated that thi s woul d be
$420,000. The funds for thi s coul d be advanced from the Sewer Fund and be
reimbursed by the transportation DIF for the Otay Ranch area. If this is
approved by Council, the slope credits, as attached, would need to be revised
to reflect the lowered cost per square foot.
FUTURE ACTIONS AFFECTING COSTS
The following would tend to reduce the costs to the property owners within the
district:
1. The City is in the process of preparing a Cost Recovery District for this
area. Money recovered from parcels whi ch develop to a greater extent,
i. e., the Auto Park, wi 11 be used to call bonds. Thi s woul d lower the
annual assessment installment.
2. The City is negotiating with the County of San Diego for participation in
the di stri ct through a cash contri but i on. Proceeds from thei r
negotiations could be used to call bonds and lower the annual assessment
i nsta 11 ment.
Project cost savi ngs may occur especi ally in the cont i ngency amount and any
such savings will be used to call bonds and will lower the annual assessment
installment. These cost savings will not lower the assessment but would lower
annua 1 payments whi ch in effect woul d lower assessments several cents per
square foot.
ASSESSMENT METHOD - AREA SPREAD (VEHICLE TRIPS) VS. FRONT FOOTAGE
The method of spread, as recommended by the Assessment Engineer, distributing
the benefit to the properties within the boundaries of the district is based
on the usage of the roadway or the number of vehicle trips put on the roadway
ts-~
Page 7, Item :25
Meeting Date 6-23-92
by each property. Si nce the 1 and use withi n the cont i guous boundary of the
district is the same, and hence generates or, has the right to develop such
that it does generate the same number of vehicle trips per acre, the spread
essentially becomes a spread by area. Otay Valley Road is a six-lane, median
divided thoroughfare with limited direct private access and controlled access
via publ ic streets and signal ized intersections. The main purpose of the
roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood to neighborhood, or neighborhood
to freeway. As indicated previously in this report, the final ErR indicates
the need for four 1 anes of roadway to serve the area withi n the boundary of
the district at buildout and maintain a level of service "C". The two
additional lanes provide general benefit to other areas of the City and those
lanes are being paid through contributions by the City. Therefore, each
property within the district is being assessed for its proportionate share of
the four lanes needed to carry traffic from the development to the freeway, or
from the development to other areas of the City. Limiting those costs to only
that portion of the street that benefits those properties within the
boundaries of the district results in the district paying for only its share
of the street improvements. The local, speCial benefit is essentially as
follows:
Provides roadway capacity to maintain an acceptable level of service at
bu il dout;
Provides traffic safety through medians and signalized intersections; and
Enhances the value of the properties within the boundary of the district.
The quest i on of assessi ng front i ng pro pert i es a greater amount due to thei r
exposure to the roadway was analyzed by the Assessment Engineer. Normally, a
front footage spread is recommended if one of the following two conditions is
present in an assessment district:
Direct private access is provided from the roadway to the fronting
properties; or
The fronting properties are a commercial land use which would benefit
from exposure to the highway.
However, in the case of Otay Valley Road, the following conditions exist:
With the exception of three of the propert i es that front the roadway,
there is limited direct private access from the roadway. Most of the
access from the roadway is controlled access via public streets.
The existing land use is industrial. Due to the controlled public access
the industrial properties adjacent to Otay Valley Road actually front on
local streets and not on the major roadway.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Assessment Engineer that there may be some
incidental benefit to these properties that front the roadway, but no local,
special benefit and that the recommended spread method is equitable.
7.S - '7
Page 8, Item 25
Meeting Date 6-23-92
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project
(Phases I & II) is $13,456,467. It is proposed that the City and RDA
contribute $4,077,693 of this total, leaving $8,526,158 to be assessed to the
district. The contribution will come from the following sources:
RDA 996 9960 ST-123,
123A, DVOOl
RDA TF 220
TSF TF 220, TF 208
SEWER FUND 222
SDG&E 20A
SDG&E 20A Oleander
to Nirvana
$1,765,167(1)(4)
89,300
100,000<4)
1,161,000<2>
320,000(3)
642,226(3)
$4,077 , 693
(1)
(2)
(3)
Some funds may be recovered if the County participates.
This is 8 loan to the district to be reimbursed by S8 300
funds upon completion of construction.
Estimated cost of SDG&E work equals estimated allocation of
20A funds available tor project from SDG&E.
Amounts include money already encumbered for the project.
(4)
In addition to the above contributions, the City will advance $603,000 from
fund 996-9960-STI23 (RDA) to cover the Series B bonds. The Series B bonds are
to cover the Ri 0 Dtay Subdi vi s ion. These bonds will be issued when the site
is cleared of the environmental concerns. This money will be recovered if
these bonds are issued. The City wi 11 also advance a maximum of $852,616 to
the district from the General Fund for the reserve fund.
Assessment No. 7 is the animal shelter property (City property).
recommends that this be paid off during the cash collection period at
of $21,500. This will come from Fund 996-9960-STI23 (RDA).
Staff
a cost
The slope credit option, if approved, requires that the City contribute
$435,382 to the di stri ct. The revi sed improvement cost opt i on, if approved,
requires that the City contribute $311,704 to the district. Total impact of
thse two options is $747,086. This money is available from Fund
996-9960-STI23. The transfer for the reserve fund would also be affected such
that 1 ess money woul d be needed because 1 ess woul d be bonded. The reserve
shall be provided at 10% of the amount to bond.
Action on the expenditure or transfer of funds will be presented at the June
30, 1992 meeting because a 4/5ths vote is required.
DDS:AY-081
WPC 6024E
GXHIJ3 Irs ~() r .s~A JJJJ ~IJ
25-f
I~I ~~~~'V~::~:~ L~D ~?v~Y~G~~~!N~N:
June 3, 1992
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: Donna Snyder
Re: Cushman's Otay Valley
Industrial Park
Dear Ms. Snyder:
In accordance with our recent telephone conversation, I would like to summarize
the pertinent data to be utilized for the proposed assessment district on the
Cushman's Otay Valley Industrial Park. The Cushman property is shown on the
County Assessor's Parcel Maps as parcel 644-040-01.
The pertinent areas of the Cushman property are as follows:
1. Gross Area = 9.73 Acres less 0.18 Acres
(recent dedication for Shinohara Lane Cul-de-Sac)
-
9.55 Acres
2. Sensitive Impact Area per the Otay Valley Plan
on northerly and westerly 200'
=
5.23 Acres
3. Area greater than 25% slope on area not within
Sensitive Impact Area
-
0.51 Acres
4. Net Area (1 less 2 less 3) -
9.55 Acres - 5.23 Acres - 0.51 Acres
=
3.81 Acres
The pertinent credits to be applied against the proposed assessment are
as follows:
A. $57.500 plus interest per the Cushman agreement dated October 28, 1986
with the City of Chula Vista per Resolution No. 12781 for the off site
construction of Shinohara Lane, attached as Exhibit "A".
NOr 5(!ANN E()
B. $47,500 per the attached estimate to complete the cul-de-sac on Shinohara
Lane, attached as Exhibit "B".
lIor S(!A~~la
.25-9
p~, ~~~'V~::~:~ L~D ~::Y~G~lp~!N~:
Ms. Donna Snyder
June 3, 1992
Page 2
In our opinion, the history of the Cushman property is important to understand
our request for the credits to be applied against any assessment. The property
was originally zoned residential with access to Timber Street at the northwest
corner and to Otay Valley Road via a panhandle at the southeast corner. The
property was subsequently rezoned to industrial by the City of Chula Vista
and Sensitive Impact Zones placed along the westerly and northerly property lines
adjacent to the existing residential areas.
Maps were then filed on the properties to the south and east for the adjacent
industrial parks that claimed ownership of the panhandle area. Therefore, during
the processing of the maps, Chula Vista required the developer to provide access
to the Cushman property via the new Shinohara Lane. The Cushmans agreed to ultimately
pay for a portion of Shinohara Lane, Resolution No. 12781, since they were informed I
that they would have had to pay similar costs to improve Otay Valley Road. In I
addition, it was agreed that the cul-de-sac for Shinohara Lane would have to I
be constructed on the Cushman property to terminate the public street. Therefore, I
the construction of the first phase of Shinohara Lane is shown on City of Chula I
Vista Dwg. No. 86-483 thru 481, and the Shinohara Lane cul-de-sac is shown on
City of Chula Vista W.O. No. PC 825.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you this information. If you have
any questions or need any clarifications, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM A. STEEN & ASSOCIATES
~~~~)
WAS:ss
William A. Steen
cc: Lawrence M. Cushman
Enclosure
116219-101
d5 -10
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
DATE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
JUNE 16, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING
FOR CONSIDERATION:
HEARING REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 1913".
MAYOR:
Announce that this is the time and place fixed for the
public hearing on protests or objections to the Resolu-
tion of Intention, Engineer's "Report" and all other
matters relating to ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY
VALLEY ROAD).
CITY CLERK:
Announce that notice of the Public Hearing has been given
in the manner and form as required by law and that a
Certificate of Compliance is on file certifying that
notice was given in the following ways:
Posting all public streets within the District
Mailing notice to property owners within the District
Filing proposed boundary map in Office of County
Recorder
Publication of Notice of improvement
Publication of Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals
STAFF:
Explain purpose for Public Hearing.
Describe extent of works of improvement and boundaries
of Assessment District.
Present and sununarize "Report".
Explain method and formula of assessment spread.
Review construction bids received.
Report on number of protests (% of area) received and
announce that copies have been delivered to each
member of the legislative body.
END OF STAFF REPORT - OPEN FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION
7-:: - ~
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
PAGE TWO
DATE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
JUNE 16, 1992
MAYOR:
ASK EACH SPEAKER TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROPERTY.
First, ask to hear from anyone who wishes to speak against the
improvement, the Assessment District, or the method of spread.
Then, ask to hear from anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the
proceedings.
STAFF:
Report on final percentage of protests (% of area) received.
CITY COUNCIL:
Discussion.
MAYOR:
Declare Public Hearing CLOSED.
IF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WISHES TO PROCEED:
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS:
priate changes and modifications to the proceedings
"Report" .
Orders appro-
and Eng loeer ' s
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS: Formal action
denying any and all protests and making certain findings regarding
the benefit distribution of the assessments.
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS: Formally accepts the various
Agreements and authorizes execution on behalf of the City.
CITY COUNCIL:
Adopt RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS: Formal action ordering the
improvements, confirming the assessments and approving the final
Engineer's "Report", environmental certification and clearance.
. . .
').5 - / b
PART III (D)
METHOD AND FORMULA OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
1. Introduction
The law requires and the statutes provide that assessments, as levied pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, must be based on the benefit
that the properties receive from the works of improvement. The statute does not
specify the method or formula that should be used in any special assessment district
proceedings. This responsibility rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is retained
for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts in determining the correct
apportionment of the assessment obligation. For these proceedings, the City has
retained the services of Willdan Associates.
The Assessment Engineer makes his recommendation at the public hearing on the
Assessment District, and the final authority and action rests with the City Council
after hearing all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. Upon the
conclusion of the public hearing, the City 'Council must take the final action in
determining whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion
to the benefits received.
2. General Benefit versus Special Benefit
The first task of the Assessment Engineer is to distinguish between the General
Benefit associated with the project and the local Special Benefit that would accrue to
the properties within the District. In order to accomplish this, the Assessment
Engineer needs to examine the nature of the public improvements. In addition, an
analysis of the future probable land use of the properties within the district must be
made. Otay Valley Road is a six lane median divided thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. The final ErR for the proposed project
indicates that there is a need for four lanes of roadway to provide an acceptable level
of service to the area within the boundary of the District at buildout. Therefore the
four lanes provide the local special benefit to the area within the District. The
additional two lanes are needed to accommodate regional traffic and through trips that
pass through the area. These additional two lanes constitute the General Benefit
portion of the project and are paid through a contribution by the City to the District.
43
Final Engineer's Report
AssessmeJJt District 90-2
Dlay Valley )load Wide,llillg
K /
"i'{<. C' i '----.T' l(
~'.:i lrIL~\
!
.~' ~./
....,.t-, ,/
( ""',7
.
j
3. Direct and Special Benefit
atay Valley Road is a six lane median divided regional thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. As indicated previously, there is a
need for four lanes of roadway to serve the area within the boundary of the District
at authorized buildout and maintain an acceptable level of service. The direct, local
Special Benefit derived by the properties within the District for these four lanes of
improvement are as follows:
I. Provides sufficient roadway capacity to maintain an acceptable level of service
at the authorized buildout; .
2. Provides traffic safety through medians and signalized intersections; and
3. Enhances the value of the properties within the boundary of the District.
Each property within the District is being assessed for its proportionate share of the
four lanes needed to carry traffic from the development to the freeway or from the
development to other areas of the City. By limiting the costs to only that portion of
the street that benefits the properties within the boundaries of the district, results in
the district paying only its share of the street improvements. Figure I shows parcels
that will receive direct and special benefit from the atay Valley Road widening.
These parcels include all the industrial property with access onto atay Valley Road,
the atay County Landfill, the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel, and the atay Rio
Business Park.
The atay County Landfill and the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel are included in the
benefit area because they presently generate heavy truck traffic on atay Valley Road
and will receive direct benefit from the improvements. In addition, the design for
the future curve at the eastern boundary of the district includes specific features that
will accommodate truck traffic to and from the mining parcel. An eastbound left turn
pocket will provide trucks with safe access from the west, a westbound acceleration
. lane on the right will allow exiting trucks to safely enter the flow of traffic, and a
right turn pocket will provide access for entering northbound trucks. The assessment
for the atay County Landfill is calculated as if it is a participating property and will
be contributed to the distriCt in cash. The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel will be
assessed and appear within the assessment district boundaries.
The atay Rio Business Park is included in the assessment district because it also
receives direct and special benefit from the improvements. 171e Traffic Analysis for
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
44
_J. ~..-
Oray Valley Road Phase III shows that Phase I and II improvements are required
in conjunction with the development of the two units in the business park.
4. Method of Spread
The widening of Otay Valley Road will benefit both developed and undeveloped
parcels within the district boundary. All of the property within the district boundary
has been authorized the same land use (industrial) and generates the same amount of
vehicle trips per gross acre. For that reason, the assessments within the contiguous
boundary of the district are based on gross acres. Actual traffic counts were obtained
from the Otay County Landfill parcel and the Nelson & Sloan Mining parcel. A
factor of 200 vehicle trips per day/per acre was used to calculate trips for each of the
industrial parcels and compared with vehicle trip counts for the landfill and mining
parcels in order to determine these parcels' proportionate share of the cost.
. Traffic counts for the Otay Landfill were obtained from the County Garbage and
Trash Disposal Division, Department of Public Works, County of San Diego. Traffic
counts for the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel were taken from The Traffic Analysis
for Oray Valley Road Phase II. The heavy trucks that were included in these traffic
counts were multiplied by a rate of 1.7 to account for the additional wear they cause
to the road.
Certain properties within the Otay Valley Road benefit area render themselves, either
wholly or in part, difficult to develop due to their location within a flood way or
floodplain, or lying within an area of probable wetland designation as defined by
agencies other than the City of Chula Vista. Other undeveloped properties render
themselves difficult to develop due to severe slopes within the entire parcel area as
defined by the City of Chula Vista slope ordinance. Where these problems to
development occur, parcels have been eliminated from the district entirely or portions
of the property have been eliminated from the calculation of area for assessment
purposes. Where a part of the parcel is not used in the calculation of that full
parcel's assessment, that portion of the parcel not used in the calculation will not
receive an assessment upon the split of the parcel during reapportionment.
I Willdan Associates, Traffic Analysis for Olay Valky Road Phase II, November 7, 1990.
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessmenr DisTrict 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
45
c; /~
/
u
Z
.....,
Z
(:iJ
~
.....,
~-<
~(:iJ
....-<P=:
~O-<
SP=:E-<
g~ii:
~(:iJ(:iJ
.....:lZ
.....:l(:iJ
-<~
>
~
-<
E-<
o
\
\
CO\l"~~ Of S~" UW_c;O
']
d
J,
/ '.L'>~
~il
~,
glr
~:I
<I'
:d~
~Il
3"1
.L
~
..
0:
~
z
~
~
~
>
~
i;S
~
..
<
x
..
13
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
TABLE I
OTAY YALLEY ROAD WIDENING -PHASE I & 11_ CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
North North North South
Assmt Gross f'ronlage C/G Sidewalk Street Frolltage Streetlight Total
No. APN Acr-es (L.F_) Credit Credit Credil Credit Credit Credit
3 624-060-28 0.58 170 0 0 0 (8,500) 0 (8,500)
5 624-060~45 5.22 380 0 0 0 (19,000) 0 (19,000)
II 644-040-23 1.80 171 (1,104) (368) (7,728) 0 0 (9,200)
12 644-040-24 3.62 344 (2,064) (688) (14,448) 0 (1,225) (18,425)
14 644-040-28 4.82 569 (510) (170) (3,570) 0 0 (4,250)
17 644-040-36 5.81 0 (1,081) 0 (7,564) 0 (1,447) (10,091)
18 644-040-37 4.03 305 (749) (610) (5,246) 0 (1,003) (7,609)
25 644-041-01 1.87 275 (308) 0 (2,153) 0 0 (2,461)
26 644-041-02 0.97 0 (160) 0 (1,117) 0 0 (1,277)
27 644-041-03 1.57 0 (258) 0 (1,808) 0 0 (2,066)
29 644-041-05 2.39 0 (393) 0 (2,752) 0 0 (3,145)
30 644-041-06 1.89 0 (311) 0 (2,176) 0 0 (2,487)
31 644-041-07 1.88 0 (309) 0 (2,165) 0 0 (2,474)
32 644-041-08 2.18 0 (359) 0 (2,510) 0 0 (2,869)
33 644-041-09 1.80 0 (296) 0 (2,073) 0 0 (2,369)
34 644-04] -1 0 1.05 0 (173) 0 (1.209) 0 0 (1,382)
35 644-041-1 ] 0.90 0 (148) 0 (1,036) 0 0 (1,184)
36 644-041-12 0.97 0 (160) 0 (1,117) 0 0 (1,277)
37 644-041-13 2.39 0 (393) 0 (2,752) 0 0 (3,145)
38 644-041-14 1.90 276 (313) 0 (2,188) 0 0 (2,501)
39 644-041-17 2.38 0 (392) 0 (2,741) 0 0 (3,132)
40 644-041-18 2.16 325 (355) 0 (2,487) 0 0 (2,843)
41 644-041-19 3.94 278 (648) 0 (4,537) 0 0 (5,185)
47 644-181-01 1.34 0 (77) 0 (539) 0 (17) (634)
48 644-181-02 1.37 0 (79) 0 (551) 0 (18) (648)
49 644-181-03 1.48 0 (85) 0 (596) 0 (19) (700)
50 644-181-04 2.24 0 (129) 0 (902) 0 (29) (1,059)
52 644-181-08 2.38 0 (137) 0 (958) 0 (31) (1,125)
53 644-181-09 1.53 0 (88) 0 (616) 0 (20) (724)
54 644-181-10 4.22 0 (243) 0 (1,699) 0 (54) (1,996)
55 644-181-11 1.66 0 (95) 0 (668) 0 (21) (785)
56 644'181-15 5.19 0 (298) 0 (2,089) 0 (67) (2,454)
57 644-181-16 1.46 0 (84) 0 (588) 0 (19) (690)
58 644-18]-18 1.35 0 (78) 0 (543) 0 (17) (638)
59 644-]8]-19 1.67 0 (96) 0 (672) 0 (21) (790)
60 644-181.20 1.30 0 (75) 0 (523) 0 (17) (615)
61 644-181-21 1.39 0 (80) 0 (560) 0 (18) (657)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Gray Valley Raad Widening
47
'1 I_~-
c-/~
, '-"
}
/
,
TABLE I
OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD WIDENING - PHASE I & 11, CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
North North North South
Assmt Gross Frontage C/G Sidewalk Street Froutage Streetlight Total
No. AI>N Acres (L.F.) Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit
62 644-181.22 1.48 0 (85) 0 (596) 0 (19) (700)
63 644-181-23 1.95 0 (112) 0 (785) 0 (25) (922)
64 644-181-24 0.45 0 (26) 0 (181) 0 (6) (213)
65 644-181-25 0.46 0 (26) 0 (185) 0 (6) (218)
66 644-181-26 0.89 0 (51) 0 (358) 0 . (II) (421)
67 644-181.27 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
,68 644-181-28 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
69 644-181-29 1.82 0 (105) 0 (733) 0 (23) (861)
70 644-181-30 0.60 0 (35) 0 (242) 0 (8) (284)
71 644-181-33 1.05 0 (60) 0 (423) 0 (14) (497)
72 644-182-01 5.15 0 (296) 0 (2,073) 0 (66) (2,435)
73 644-182-02 5.21 0 (300) 0 (2,097) 0 (67) (2,464)
74 644-182.03 5.19 0 (298) 0 (2,089) 0 (67) (2,454)
76 644-182-07 6.51 0 (374) 0 (2,620) 0 (84) (3,079)
77 644-182-08 5.17 0 (297) 0 (2,081) 0 (67) (2,445)
78 644-182-09 6.60 0 (380) 0 (2,657) 0 (85) (3,121)
79 644-182-10 5.30 0 (305) 0 (2,133) 0 (68) (2,506)
80 644-182-11 4.24 0 (244) 0 (1,707) 0 (55) (2,005)
81 644-182-12 3.74 0 (215) 0 (1,505) 0 (48) (1,769)
82 644-182-14 1.08 0 (62) 0 (435) 0 (14) (511)
83 644-182-15 0.92 0 (53) 0 (370) 0 (12) (435)
84 644-182-16 4.64 0 (267) 0 (1,868) 0 (60) (2,194)
85 644-182-17 2.79 0 (160) 0 (1,123) 0 (36) (1,319)
86 644-230-11 1.18 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
87 644.230.12 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 (34) (34)
88 644-230-13 1.20 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (38)
89 644-230-14 1.19 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
90 644-230-15 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 (92) (92)
91 644-230-16 4.89 0 0 0 0 0 (153) (153)
92 644-230-17 4.85 0 0 0 0 0 (152) (152)
93 644-230-18 3.05 0 0 0 0 0 (96) (96)
94 644.230-19 4.57 0 0 0 0 0 (143) (143)
95 644-230-20 1.62 0 0 0 0 0 (51) (51)
96 644-230-21 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 (30) (30)
97 644-230-22 1.56 0 0 0 0 0 (49) (49)
98 644-230-23 5.60 0 0 0 0 0 (175) (175)
99 644-230-24 1.60 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (50)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellf District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
48
(-.//
,,(
1'-'
'I"
TABLE I
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WlDENlr>G - PHASE I & H, CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
North North North Soulh
Assmt Gross Frontage CIG Sidewalk Street Frontage Streetlight Total
No. APN Acres (L.F,) Credit Credif Credit Credit Credit Credit
100 644-230-25 1.21 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (38)
101 644-230-26 1.61 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (50)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
D/ay Valley Road Widening
49
1 ,c- ) '--1
,:X ~ _
~
>-0
-z
~- w
UE-<E-<
~WZ
o::~~
C<lo~~
~E-<o::~
5wo>-
o ~~o
>-< - 0::
~ E-< E-< 0..,
o::-~
~o_
o..,~
00::
o::u
0..,
Z
-<....l
O~
....lU
wpo:
<<J;;:
Zo
02
w~
>--'lZ
~~
Z;;;
r,OO
~ ~\ ,0
~Sl'> ",~
OI' \/1-L
'\'/. --0
U~ ov:<____----r::.:-
CO
.
"1 l-~
,~-_.,'
) (~
~.~ '-
wi!
~1I
:h:
~d
<II
~!!
~il
~'
'"
Eo-
2
I'l
::s
I'l
>
Eo- 0
~ Ol:
Cl a..
I'l ::s
Ol: ~
C> I'l
I'l 0
> -<
- Eo-
I'l Z
f;l 0
po: Ol:
t>,
g "
'" 1::
I'l Eo-
- '"
Eo- _
Ol: X
I'l I'l
a.. Ol:
o 0
g: t>,
~
5. Existing Improvement Credits
Special consideration will be given to those existing subdivisions that have already
installed frontage improvements on Otay Valley Road as part of their conditions of
development approval. Existing improvements, which include curb, gutter, sidewalk,
lighting and a travel lane will be considered part of the road widening project. Their
cost will be estimated based on the bid amounts for those items and included in the
dollar amount to be spread. Then, the cost will be credited back to those subdivi-
sions that installed them. This method establishes equity among parcels that have
already paid for frontage improvements and those that have not. Table I and Figure
2 show what credits will be given to the existing subdivisions. Please refer to the
Assessment Diagram for the location of parcel numbers.
6. Special Financing Considerations
Darling-Delaware Property
The Darling-Delaware property, former site of the Omar Rendering Plant, was to be
developed into the Rio Otay Industrial Park until tlie discovery of hazardous waste
halted further development. The subdivision is made up,ofl7 parcels (parcel #'s 25
through 41) and is currently partially improved with graded pads and an improved
access road. A Class I Hazardous Containment Structure is located on parcel #28.
Reference is made to, "Report Review and Assessment of Available Environmental
Documents Related to the Omar Rendering Site, 4826 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista
California," June 5, 1990, Ninyo and Moore; also letter report dated March 19, 1991
to City of Chula Vista, Attention: Ms. Robin Putnam, by TorStan, Inc. City staff
has decided to consider all parcels in the subdivision to be developable, with the
exception of parcel #28, for the purposes of Assessment District 90-2.
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel
The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel is a 136 acre lot outside the city limits of Chula
Vista in San Diego County. It is currently owned by United Enterprises LTD and
leased to Nelson & Sloan for sand and gravel mining purposes. The parcel receives
direct benefit from the road improvements. Due to its location outside the City,
including it in the assessment district boundary is required the Consent and Jurisdic-
tion from the,County of San Diego, which has been obtained.
Otay County Landfill
The Otay County Landfill is owned by San Diego County. Like the mining parcel,
it receives direct benefit from the widening of Otay Valley Road. However, County
land is not legally assessable, and inclusion in the assessment district is therefore not
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
51
r-
'1 J
~
feasible. It is recommended that the proportionate share of the assessments
attributable to the landfill, less bond discount, reserve and capitalized interest, be paid
in the form of a cash contribution to the assessment district. A cash contribution has
been calculated and factored into the assessment district offsetting assessments to
property owner.
7. Incidentals
The cost of incidentals has been spread proportionately over the various improve-
ments in the direct proportion that the improvement bears to the total cost of
improvements.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for Assessment District No. 90-2 are
spread in direct accordance with the local, special benefits that the land within the district
boundary r eives from the works of improvements.
Dated:
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dlay Valley Road Widening
52
/
, ,
~ -J
,c~>'"'--
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DONALD R. WORLEY.
WILLIAM .J. SCHWARTZ, .JR
TIMOTHY K. GARF\ELD
ROBERT C, RICE
CHARLES V, BERWANGER
JENNIFER TREESE WIL.SON
..JAMES P. O'NEIL
PATRICIA KENT
.JOSEPH A. SOLOMON
SUSAN BADE HULL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1150 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA
401 "s" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-4245
TELEPHONE: (619) 239-0615
TELEFAX: (Big} 239-6854
'", P"DFESSIONA~ CORPORATION
June 23, 1992
FILE NO.
HAND DELIVERED
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: otav Vallev Road Assessment District No. 90-2
Continuance of June 16, 1992 Hearing.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
On behalf of our clients, Charles Siroonian and Charles
Pratty, owners of proposed Assessment District Parcels 72 and 73,
we ask for a continuance of this item on the following grounds:
1. The Agenda statement and exhibits were not made available
until yesterday afternoon.
2. The Engineer I s Report incorporates changes that, we
believe, require further scrutiny.
3. The grave importance of applying hundreds of thousands of
dollars in assessments to these properties warrants a
thorough public analysis of the processes and methods
used in forming the District and determining the
assessments.
4. This item further warrants the consideration of a full
City council and this item should be continued until all
Council members are in attendance.
Despite staff's efforts, we believe serious flaws still remain
in the methodology of assessment. We continue to hold the position
that the area of benefit extends beyond the currently defined
boundaries of Assessment District 90-2.
The Agenda statement for this hearing indicates on page 7 that
the final EIR determined the need for a four-lane roadway to serve
the areas within the District boundary at buildout, and that the
proposed two additional lanes will provide a general benefit to
other areas of the City. Indeed, the Agenda statement indicates on
~ r-- ') /7
d-:) / coL./
Hon. Mayor and City Council
City of Chula vista
June 23, 1992
Page 2
page 6 that the City is currently negotiating with the Baldwin
Company, for participation in the District. By law, the city must
include the Baldwin company within the District boundaries because
the Baldwin company (its otay Ranch Development) is recognized as
receiving a direct and special benefit from the Otay Valley Road
improvements. Further, the Baldwin Company must be assessed
pursuant to the same methodology used for the other property owners
within the District. It may not be subject to only a mere
"contribution", as is suggested in the Agenda statement.
To burden the property owners within the narrowly defined
District with the full cost of design, plan checking, right-of-way
and other incidental expenses associated with a 6-lane facility and
to allow the city to fund only an incremental portion of those
improvements, i.e., two travel lanes, is grossly unfair and more
importantly, it is contrary to the 1913 Act. Surely such design,
right-of-way, and miscellaneous expenditures render a general
benefit to areas outside the District. It is inconceivable that
Engineering believes that the city's contribution of $4,077,693 is
in any way a pro-rata share of the general benefits received from
the 6-lane roadway improvements proposed for otay Valley Road.
We question the Final Engineer's Report (June 16, 1992) in
that we still do not understand how special benefit to the District
was determined when all studies were based on the General Plan
buildout of a far greater area.
We also question why the Method of Spread utilizes two
separate methodologies; Le. actual traffic counts for certain
properties versus assumed traffic counts for others. Our traffic
engineer pointed out to your Council at the May 26th hearing that
these actual traffic counts were inaccurate, which leads us to
believe that the assessments are now skewed. We also wonder how
the Assessment Engineer found that certain properties derived an
"incidental" benefit by fronting otay valley Road, but that this
"incidental" benefit did not constitute a "special" benefit.
The change in lien to value ratios concerns us. The Final
Engineer I s Report states that a 1: 2 lien to value ratio is
acceptable. This ratio appears contrary to that discussed in the
otay Valley Road and Otay River Business Park Financing and
Feasibility Plan (pg. 6). In that plan, it is stated that the
City'S lien to value ratio standard is 1:3. Why is the City
allowing such an onerous and burdensome lien to value ratio on this
particular District contrary to its stated standards for a project
with such questionable special benefit?
f
tI c: ,,/ ;L!
c~ ~/ .,.- I
Hon. Mayor and City Council
city of Chula vista
June 23, 1992
Page 3
We also ask how the Final Engineer's Report can be approved
when it states on page 14 that Phase II plans are not available at
the time of public hearing. The Final Engineer's Report appears to
be an incomplete document.
Finally, we question the feasibility of the project as a whole
in light of the City's reliance on contributions by the County
which is known to be undergoing serious financial constraints.
For each of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that
this item must be continued to a time sufficient to allow
thoughtful and thorough consideration of this proposal by all
members of your City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE
, JR.
~
WILLI
WJS:sk:mam
cc: Mr. Charles Pratty
Mr. Charles Siroonian
Mr. Joe Botkin
City Manager, city of Chula vista
City Attorney, City of Chula vista
~/
/'
) ~;
.r--/
<', /
!- J" --
(/1
N
~
.t.\ .
....
0 "" '"
0 8 0
is OJ
t/) c::.....
~~ t/)
"'" ~
c;J 0 ~:oi!
..... .
N !Z ~
.... 0 N!Z
!;; ..... ""'0 l:Q
~t/) E-<..... .....
t/) c::
. 00 . ~
'" 3~ 00
N N.....
.... ...:J"" N""
E-< 0 ..;..; """'"
t/) t/) 0 E-<;::J ...:J
Z ('") ~~ ~
0 ~ ~E-<
..... ..... l:Q ..... .....
~ 0 t/) 0 0
l:Q 0 0 0 0 .8
..... 0 0 0 0
~ . . .
r- 0 w 0 ('")
w 0 N g O'l
8 .... 0 N W
. .
'" .... N O'l r-
i:: w w w OJ r-
r- .... O'l .... 0
.....
0 .... .... ....
... *"
t/) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
z .
..... 0 0 0
:;;: 0 0 0
0 0 0
t/) . .
.... .... 0
E-< 0 r- 0
t/) .... ('") N
8 ....
...
t/).
~ t/)""
..... ~S
~~ "'" >
..;....
t/) t/)
0 "" "'"
"'" 5 !;;w
t/)3:
..... 8z
;::Jt5 t/)
N!Z "" \ t/)
",,;5 ..; ...:J""
""..... ~~ :;;:
~~ ~~ t/)
""l:Q c::
~ "" is " is
0
! s/ J (p
c---'-...-'
"
..
:r
.
-
.
u>
..
-
..
...
'"
u
..
~
-
'"
z:
'"
u
..
'"
'"
'"
..
...
....
....
'"
:-
..
'"
-
'"
, ,
.
....
~...~
'2
~.
-'"
zc..
_::<n
2--1
~i:::
'" ...
U'l::':':
~::U
"''''
'"
.. _u>
...:z_
:t.I :.,1-
- "..
=- .....1.l.I
w.;::>>I: I
.:r:; U I
'" ,
.. ,
" ,
- ,
I
,
I
,
.
,
,
%'
..,
""
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
...-
..-
c..
~...
"''''
U
..'"
. ...
"oo
~~
~.
#
..
\
...
!!
...
'"
...
...
...
:;;
ccc
-- -- ----- - --- -----------------
O~NOOOOO~OO~~.~OOOO~O~--OO-~_O.7~-.~~~~O~.~:~_
o~ no m~~_~ M ~~~ ~'Oy~~Q~~~~.~~~_-.,
~N n~ N_n_~ ~ ~~_ ~~~r~'~~~:.o~~~~o=~
.. .- ...... .. .. .. .. -.. .... ..................................
ON nm _~~='7 _N. _O~_.N:~~c~~n~_.~~=
M~ _n _____ ___ ___N__________,__
-- ---- - - -
-
0...- _ ""l..c_
_""~~'G'N
~~~::;~~
::: = :..=~ ~
O~~~~~~~O~~~O~~ci~~o~;~=~~";ore~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~:o~~~~~~
~~~~~~r~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~r~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~.~~~
..~~~_~ ~oo ON~~O nom_>m~N mmm~~_=>~~~.~=>-, o:~~~o-
N CI:I CC 0 r~ C.J ..... ~') -0 10 N ,.., _ CI:I ,-, N ... ,.., 10 f''] ... ,.., .. '-') t"l C' fO) N ... ... II#' .') G' C' .::l .J. :.. '') .. .~. " .:0 .') - '')
_ N.."" ---- ~ -
ON~n~~=~O=~"O~N~~=on_~~~~~oo=-r~:OM~~~_~~o~~n~o~_~~~~
~"~~O~N n=~ =4N~~ ~=~~~~== ~:~z;~-.~~~~o~~~o~~_ _~o~~~
____~~N ~~~ ~N_MN ~~~M~~N~ r~o:~='or~<~~~___~r. ~,>:~^-~
....... . ... ... .....0... .....-....... ................... ......
~~~~~_~ ~~- ~~~=~ ~o=-~~~~ ~=~MN=~~=~.,=~,~~~ ^O'r'O~
N =~~NN ~NN ~_~~~ t'N_nor'_N nr~Nr~n___r'M~M~-~r~NM ~r'~~~:~
_ _ ~ n -- ~ -
OOOOONOCOOO
1'0
N
N
"'
ooo~~nooooo~ooooO~~~.OOOOOONO
=~~ ~ N~r~~ N_
~~~ . ~~~~ ~ ~
~~_ ~~~n n CD
- -
=o.r'1I:f'~o-'O".oo-o
0> ~-~ ~:t- :, .r. -"'
o ...,r.o .:D 0 '2) 'II"
. .... . . .
.0 _...0 :-.. CD ""
-
oogo~o
.., ..
CD ..
..
0000'00
" t.,
.....
. .
....
-"'
OOOON~OOOOOO~~~O~"O~~~~O,~~O"><'~~O~~~O_o
M..o~ _.N ~~~'II"~"O''II''~.~~~:~~~O> _X~~~~
~ ~~ .mN ",,~~~-_~='II"~1I:f'n..oo-"~'II" ,M~~ON
..... ...................... ......
~ ~ :: ,... ,..,.0 "0-" ~_m ~ .,. r": ,.., ~ " 0- ::= ;: :'.. N ~-~... p\ N .c :~ G:I N
i
o-"==~__M.,...on~~=""~'O~=O"O,...=O-_Nn.,.~-O~=~O-N~.,.,...G:lo-_N".,.'=~O-~"O
ONNn""O____NNNN""""nnn"""".""""ooooooooo--------oooooeo----
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I . I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I . I " I
oooooooooooooooooooooooo----~------------------.----
-O"O"O"O"O'll"'II"'II"~""~~~.'II"~.,."".,..,.'II".,.""""'II"'II".,..,.""""""""'II".,.'II"~'II"'II".""""=========:=
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000-----------
I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I t I I I I I I . I I I I t I , I , ; 1 I I I I
~.~""~""~~""""""~.""~.~~.,.."".,.""..'II".,.""~~.,..,.~"""".""~.""""~~.~~'II"~""~~'II"~
NNNNN~'II"""'II"'II""".~""....""."".."".'II"""....""""~""""."".~...~T""..'II"""T""
~.-O'O~~"O'O~"O'O~4'O~"O~~"O"O"O."O"O.~"O"O'O~~"O.~."O"O"O.."O~..~~c.~"O~"O
_N~~~~~m~O~Nn""~-o,...m~O-N~""~-o'=~o~~n~~~'=~o-~=~o-~~~~~~
~~____~~__NNNNNNNNNNn"Mnn~Mn~M'II"."".""~~~~~~~~
.;
u
..;,; II U
--"
~ rn '" """...a ~ ..s
... .... ~
~. ~ ~...~ ..
. ~ ., . ., _ ..J . ~
~= =- c i~.s .................. .::::
f~ ~~ ;.. u~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. a~ c
~~ ~= ~~: __= ~a~~ -----------------~ ~ .~; ~
.. 4- 4.~-~ ~ ::...a 4;~~~ oooooooooocoooc;o~~~~.~~~!~.
~. ~ e-.-;;.,-~" :~,:,::-:;.~~C.U.H.:ljUIUUUUUUUUUUUL.H.JUUU"- :~-:: ...~ a.'; ~
cc cOZ....-...... __~:s- _.........,...&1.................11. ."'::.......... ."".0
.... .u >.~_<< _ .:s:s..>..4..:s..........................................~~.. ~> ~-e ~
~~8~;~~~~~~~E;!!~~~~~~~~!j!!!!j!j!!!!!!!!~~~:~i~!1~:
. ..... .J:%c3;~ e~t ~: ~ =;;~ ~.:.5.5~.!:.::!:L~:!:~::::::~:::.:; :;;~5~~ ..~; =
ccocu;.~=~a.::~&..';;~=l.I.l.I.~~crcrcr.oo,o,crPO'~OOO'O'O'c:"00 ...p)~ .i-;.jW
t~_:=:Oi~~~m- .::~:0.!l~~~.55~~!!~!~!!!S!.~~~...t~O!~~; ~
~___~~~c "'0' ~.cc ~_...~__________________.~_>...'...._E
>>..>~~~_.......4~....~...~.....~.................................................-,..=-..c=~:s5
::~:~au~z~~~o!~~1!u:;~;j:::::::~:~~~~~~~~l~:~u8~;~~~
>
~
'"
...
..
'"
f
" r<
d--'
jr;
d- /
..
~
-
..
'"
'"
'-'
..
!l!
'"
E
"
U
..
C
C
'"
..
...
....
....
C
,.
..
C
~
. C
,
,
....
~...~
'~
lij,
-II>
SC..
"'::..
Z_~
...,,-
E"'''
cr. ....
v.::.:z::
...~'-'
..-
",,.
C
..~..
IoO.lZ-
.....-
_E"
,."''''
w.;:>.:z::
"'cu
'"
..
~
.
"
...
...
!l!
...
'"
...
..
..
:;;
----------------- --------------------------
~~No=m~~~~~._=N=~O~.~N~_M~~~r~~~~N~~o~~m~~.~_ooo~oo~~
~N__~_~~~r~N=~.~~= ~_~~O~~~~NO~=~N~~OO~._~O~O
...~~-..~~~N~_~~n. o~_=~o-~~o'_r~N.N...NM._~.M
.. .. .. .. .. .._ - - - - .. - .. .. .0" ._..._........ _ .. .. .. .0 .. .. .. .. eo .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
_.___N h _n~. ~~~~.._ ~n____.N~.OMNMo=n.
------ ---~ ---~--- -------e~~~---~~--
..o=~nNn___.~_r~N.ONo__~~oo~~r"=-~__~>.._=_.=ON~'~__.
~~_N..~O~~:~==~nN .O=~~_N_O.~~O~.~N~N.o.r'_~N~'.~'rJ~=
~n~.n~n=~NN~~~~O. ~N.~M~O~~..._=~Mn~.N_~==~O~O~.=>ON.
.. .. eo.. .... .. .0.'" .. .. .. .. .. ..._ ........_._ eo.. e..... .. .. .. .. .. ..._.. .. .. .. .. ._.. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ..
=n~~--~~m~~~Nr~~_o mOONO~M~~~~~~~,~~~~~~_M_~~~~_~m~~~~
t~~NNM~ ___~_N~== ~=~=~~N-~~NNNN~~2~~MN~~MN~N~~---N:~
o~=m~~~~~~~==__~_OM~~~Nm~_Qo-m_~~mN=M~~~N~_~ON~~~__~
_~~_~~O=O~~_M~Q~~ ~m__~~~_~~~n(~_~~~~(~m~~~O'NM~~~'~~~=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C:~
~_~~~~~~=nM~N__~~~ _~n~~~_=_~nN~~~~=_~_=o-no=~->=~~O~
NnNNNn ___n_NOOm Mor~~=~N_~~NNNN~~n~~n_MONNNN~~___NN
-- --- -
...-
..-
c:..
"''''
..'"
U
o~ooooooo
~
N
0000':)
00:--.0
C
"
.
~
,,.,
00-00
cr
..
.
'"
~
OO..C)OOOO~O-OOO
0_ -,~
~ ~ ..
'" N
N
o~~n~_~~r~~~~~ooo
~~fI".(.~ONOIliS".r.=r......
N (:> r-~ ... ..~. .r. ,., ~ _ ... l"") It">
..... . . ..... .........
M,....r-.._r.___..,........
.... N r') _
..n,....,....,....o-~,....~..~~,....mNco=O_=NOOIliS"~n~nn~..,...._,....o_=~_n.,..,....,....=ooooocoo
2~~~g~R~~~~~~~~~t :~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~g~~~~~H~
. .. . . . . .. .. .. ...... ..................... _... .. .. ... . .- . .- . .. O'. . .. ..
NNNNNM ___N -=== ~=~~-o~--,......--~-M.,..~M.,..----o---
:z
~
=O_O_Nn..n-O,....=~O"_N"_o,....=O_O-N..n_O,...._NM..n_O,....=~O_N"...,.._o-N~...,.._o~~
__NNNNNNNNNNMnOOOOOOO----____________NNNNNNNOOOOOO?O
I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I l I I
___...__________r-~NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO________
============================nnnnnn"~nMnnnM~nNNNNNN~:~
____________________________NNNt~NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOQOQO
I I I I I I I I I I I I . . I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , t I I . I
..~...~~...~~~.IIiS"~~~........~..~..........W....~~~...W~~~.,..~~~~
WW..W..WW........~~.~..~....~....~W...~...~.W.~~.......~....W......~T~~
~~~._o..~.~_o~4_o~~~~.~~..~.~~..~..C).~.~~.._o~_o_o._o...C)~~~..C)~~
~~~;~~:~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~g;~~;~:~=~~=~~:~:~:~go~~~~~~~~
----------
~'"
, ...,
E'"
..E
C2
- ~
e ~ ..____
~ 0 ;;;ttt
~ ~w e 000000000;;;;;;
... . O~. ~:~ .> U~UUUUUUU;;;;;;4
D4 .~ U;~ ~~~ ;~_~~~~~~~UU~~~~~~_
~~ ~4~! ~E~~ .. ~~~ ~~~=~:t~~~~~~______~~~~~~~~~
~:. ~~g8 ~~i~ .m~4~~~t~tt:t~iii~~i~ii~r:~t~::::1::::
~ ~.O' ..mmjE~.~j:t~~::::~:mO~~W;W::WWWW~~~~~~..__~~~..
; -Em. ........... .__ .....,..,.. .......... ~:;~=':J~ _"''''1II111'''''.
~14 .~ ~ ~E_':J~~_~...-__ -=~..........~~~~~~.~...~~~.
,....._ ~~_III. ._..... ...... .=.~ c======C:Cc.cc:c=c:
,._c:~O~.....~A~_.~~_............~_w..~ ....._.._______~___...____
f:E=:..~1~~~~&>;~UU;~~~~~;~~~..l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t=~~~~~~;
l.~ "" ........~~~ .~~. ...c .......111... .W.... .......... =.m.s..:r....a..=.<<.
I"C ..=~Z.i ....;-;:~CIIui~!i:u'ti~~.g.g:~ ._.~:g,g.g.g.gg.g.g.g===::==wOOO:lClCClO
t~....i . ~U-iO'" ..._...._c:.....CCC .....:>-........................ .--....-----
10. .C "'CI.~ ~~.~li:i-O......-...f1.. ___........____....~~~:>:>:>..Ql:QI:::r.OII:GtQ;Q::Gt
1=~.t=I~~~~=t~~oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~OCII~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1~_...>~c:~~..~=A....~4~UU~....~.iC=ccc:CCCc:C........~.....c.~~
1~..~...~.~~o=...=__~~~~y~..~=...._O........~1......~....~...~~....~__
IU:>EUE:~~~0C~~0~~QUEEEQQQ~~UU~~~~~~m0~QQOQQO~c=Q=cc==
I
i
['
,.)?
~
.....
~~~
3~~
_<n
'"'C..
~:'"
z
"'-'1:_
E"''''
lJ, ,.:
~=~
"'-
v_s
<
v-
~
-
'"
..
~
...
!!
i
S
c
<
"'
"-
,.
'"
-:
<:
:>
,.
c
~
,=
'" ~
.. ;;;
C! ...
u; '"
..
.. % '"
'" ~
" E ;;;
;: ~ ...
'" '"
'" e '"'
'"
i:
-
.
"
'-
'"
;0
.
..
'"
'"
...
-
c:
OOCQ~_t~m__oooo~COO
t> 0.... 0 ,") .-~, '" 0
I: Oct r-._ cc. =: t"l
. '- . . .- .
~::: ,.').,.,~ -
oooo~oooooooooooooocoooo
'"
o_m~~Nt>~N~~'''l~~'~''''''_~~O~OM.,.~-<~mM-~~~OOOO~O~
~~'~N~~~~CNr~e~~~~.~~t>~t~....""~~O~M~r~r~m.,.~t>N~ '" M
1~~r~_r~~~=:r~~_.~....~~t>_r~~~~~~"'t"l~t>~"'N~O-~ ~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
~_e'~~~""~O....~cc.t"lO................N....~<~~M-~~---M....~ '" ~
r~t~N~e~e"",,)M___r~N____N___mNNNNNNNNN__ .... N
o _
-
O_=M~_~~_m~'''lt>t>~........_~~O~t>M'''~-~~~M-~~~OOOO~Ot>
~:;~~~~~~t~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~:~~~ ~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. ..
~_occr~o'~'''lt>....<cc.~t>................r~....~n=~M-'''N---M....~ .... t>
(~NNM.,.e"'~'''lN___N_____N___=NNNN~C~N~N-- ~ N
o -
-
QQQOo-_!":ct__OO
0- 0.... 0 ,";!":.....
cre:e,,_:r;=
e"": ,.;'; ,:
-
00,,"0
o
.,
.
-
OOOQOO_COOOOCOOOOOOOOOQQOO
lO'
oeccceOOOOOOOOOOOOQOQOOOOOOQOQ~OQOQOQOOOQO
f
c
~2=o~S~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffl~~;~~:~~~=~~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
___NNNNNNN___________________________NOOQO
NNNNNN~~(~(~NNNNNN~~~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~
QQOOCOOOOOOCQOOOQOOOOQQOOOOOOOOOOQQOOOOOOQ
I I I I I t I I , I I I I 11', I I I I , , I I I I I I , I I I , I , I I I , I , r
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~C~C..~~~.~~~CCC..~C~~..~C.~.C~.W.WC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~C~~~~
2=~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gM~~~~~~~~~;~~;~:;t~:~
------------------------------------------
~'"
;.3:
"':IE
c"
i
,
,
,
I ~--
I ----
:~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~
t~~~~~~~~;~~;;;;~;=~;;;;;;=;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;~
i,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
t ~ ~ . r . r ~ r . ~ . r ~ . . r . . . . . r r r r r . r . r r r r r r _ r r r r - ~
~ :r:::r:r::::::::::::tt:r:t:tttttttrt:ttttt~
~ Ice c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c .
~:;;;;;;;;;~~;;;;~;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~
~:iiil:iilili~l:iiiii:::iliii:::il:liliii:i:
! lcccoocococcccoccoococcooccoooooooc.oooooo~
f,-----------------------------------------
:~~~~~~~~<<~<<~<<~~<<<<~<<<<"<<<<<<<<<<<<~<<<<<<<<~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<l
,~>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>~>>>>>>>>>>>>~>~>>>>>>>>.~
I . ~ c ~ c c c ~ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c . c c c c c c c c . -
IccoccccccccoccocccccoccccccccccccocccccccS
.
,
,
,
,
~l i
,-,';'
-<
-, l'
/ )
c-.,.......
..,
..
o.
"
....
"
..
or_
, -
..,
"
or_
..
N
"
o
0<
"
"
"
'"
'"
"
'"
"
..
I
,
''''
'0
''''
, .
, ..
'"
, ..
,
'"
i
~
c
~
RESOLUTION NO. /1,.. G ~lj
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR EXECUTION IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has, pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, by adoption of its
Resolution of Intention, declared its intention to order the
installation of certain works of improvement, together with
appurtenances, in a special assessment district known and designated
as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10110 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, it is required that prior to the
time that any works of improvement are ordered pursuant to said
proceedings, the legislative body may, by contract, provide that
certain works shall be performed by other public agencies or
regulated public utilities who will have the legal title to the
facilities, and further that said improvements shall thereafter
constitute a part of their system; and,
WHEREAS,
be made prior
the assessment
it is further provided
to the adoption of the
proceedings; and,
that any such agreement shall
Resolution Ordering Work under
WHEREAS, at this time, contracts
submitted pursuant to the authorization
streets and Highways Code.
have been reviewed and
of Section 10110 of said
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the agreements, herewith submitted, relating
to the installation of certain improvement facilities that will be
under the ownership, management and control of other public agencies
or regulated public utilities, are hereby submitted and herewith
approved. The following listed agreements are hereby authorized for
execution on behalf of the city. Said Agreements relate to facili-
ties to be owned by the following listed public agencies or
regulated public utilities:
A. OTAY WATER DISTRICT
B. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
C. PACIFIC BELL
SECTION 3. That immediately upon execution, conformed copies
of said Agreements shall be transmitted to the offices of the under-
writer and respective public agency or utility company, together
with a copy of this Resolution.
I-5A -I
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly
California,
was
held on the
A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
7-t;; A -7-
RESOLUTION NO. ) Ie (,,<f I
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER.S
"REPORT" IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously adopted its Resolution of Intention
pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of
1913", being Division 12 of the streets and Highways Code of the
state of California, for the installation of certain works of
improvement in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and
WHEREAS, based upon the presentation and recommendations of
staff and available documentation, it now appears that the changes
and modifications as set forth in the amended assessment roll, as
presented herein, should be approved and ordered to be done.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That all changes and modifications as set
the final assessment roll and Engineer's "Report" as
submitted are hereby ordered and authorized to be made.
particulars, reference is made to said "Report" as herein
a copy of which will remain on file with the transcript
proceedings and open for public inspection.
forth in
herewith
For all
approved,
of these
SECTION 3. That the Engineer. s "Report.., the Assessment Roll,
and all related documentation, as so modified, are for the best
interests of the property owners within the Assessment District, and
said assessment, as modified, is in accordance with the benefits
received, and the "Report", as herein modified and amended, shall
stand as the "Report" for all subsequent proceedings relating to
this Assessment District.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
7-5/6 - (
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the city of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2Ji8-L
RESOLUTION NO. I lob 4:L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FIND-
INGS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has, by Resolution, declared its intention to order the
installation of certain public works of improvement, pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913",
being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, certain owners of property liable to be assessed for
improvements have filed written protests or objections and delivered
the same to the City Clerk not later than the hour set for hearing
such objections; and
WHEREAS, at the time set for said Public Hearing, all protests
and objections were duly heard and considered, and all matters as to
the method and formula of the assessment spread and the determina-
tion as to whether or not the property did receive a benefit and
whether the assessments were apportioned in accordance to benefit
were heard and considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the public hearing on the Assessment District
is hereby closed.
SECTION 3. That all protests and objections of every kind and
nature be, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied, and it is
further determined that said protests and objections are made by the
owners of less than one-half (1/2) of the area of property to be
assessed for said improvements within said Assessment District.
SECTION 4. That is hereby further determined that all proper-
ties within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a
local and direct benefit from the works of improvement as proposed
for said Assessment District, and it is hereby further determined
and declared that all assessable costs and expenses have been appor-
tioned and spread over the properties within the boundaries of the
Assessment District in direct proportion to the benefits received
thereby.
SECTION 5. That the Engineer'S method of spread and apportion-
ment of all costs is hereby approved and adopted as being a correct
and proper apportionment and distribution of all assessable costs
for these works of improvement.
'}5~-(
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
Cal i fornia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
}.sc..-2...
RESOLUTION NO. 110 ""'43
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE,
TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
"REPORT", MAKING CEQA FINDINGS, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
PLAN REGARDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY
ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously adopted its Resolution of Intention and
initiated proceedings for the installation of certain public works
of improvement, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work,
including acquisition where appropriate, in a special assessment
district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment
district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY
VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District");
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of said "Municipal Improve-
ment Act of 1913" and Part 7.5 of Division 4 of the Streets and
Highways Code, the "Special Assessment, Limitation and Majority
Protest Act of 1931", a combined "Report" (hereinafter referred to
as the "Report"), as authorized, has been provided, presented,
considered and approved by this legislative body; and,
WHEREAS, said "Report", as preliminarily approved, contained
all the matters and items called for by law and as pursuant to the
provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" and Section
2961 of said Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
including the following:
1. Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements;
2. Estimate of cost;
3. Diagram of Assessment District;
4. An assessment according to benefits;
5. A description of the works of improvement;
6. Valuation information; and,
WHEREAS, all protests have been heard and considered, and a
full hearing has been given, all in the manner provided by law; and,
WHEREAS, not ices 0 f said hear ing were du ly and regularly
posted, mailed and published in the time, form and manner required
by law and as evidenced by affidavits on file with the transcript of
these proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the owners of one-half (1/2) of the area assessed for
the cost of the project did not file written protests against the
said proposed improvements and acquisition where appropriate, and
this legislative body did, after providing a full hearing, overrule
and deny all protests and objections; and,
;Z5D - (
WHEREAS, the legislative body is desirous at this time of
providing a contribution to pay a portion of the costs and expenses
of the work and proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body is now satisfied with the assess-
ment and all matters contained in the "Report" as now updated and
submitted; and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body did, by the adoption of
Resolution No. 16599 ("Certifying Resolution"), certify that the
final Environmental Impact Report, as defined therein ("FEIR"), was
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, and the guidelines lawfully promulgated
thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the recitals and resolutions of the City Council
contained in the Certifying Resolution are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full hereat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
RECITALS
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
PROTESTS
SECTION 2. That all protests and objections of every kind and
nature be, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied, and it is
further determined that said protests and objections are made by the
owners of less than one-half of the area of property to be assessed
for said improvements within said Assessment District.
BENEFITS RECEIVED
SECTION 3. That it is hereby determined that all properties
within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a local and
direct benefit from the works of improvement as proposed for said
Assessment District, and it is hereby further determined and
declared that all assessable costs and expenses have been appor-
tioned and spread over the properties within the boundaries of the
Assessment District in direct proportion to the benefits received
thereby.
PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE
SECTION 4. That the public interest and convenience require
the proposed improvements to be made, and therefore it is hereby
ordered that the work to be done and improvements to be made,
together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection there-
with, including acquisition where appropriate, ~n said Assessment
District, as set forth in the Resolution of Intention previously
adopted and as set forth in the "Report" presented and considered,
and as now submitted.
7-50-2-
ENGINEER'S "REPORT"
SECTION 5.
submitted, updated
and said "Report"
proceedings for this
That the "Report" of the Engineer, as now
and amended as appropriate, is hereby approved
shall stand as the "Report" for all future
Assessment District.
CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENT
SECTION 6. That the assessments, as now filed in the
Engineer's "Report", and diagram for the improvements, together with
appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith,
including acquisition where appropriate, are hereby confirmed.
The assessments contained in the final Engineer's
"Report" are hereby levied and approved as follows:
A. The final assessments to represent the costs
and expenses to finance the public works of improvement, as autho-
rized for these proceedings.
B. The annual assessment to pay for administrative
costs in an amount not to exceed the maximum annual assessment as
set forth in said "Report".
The confirmed annual administrative assessment may
be collected in the same manner and in the same installments as the
confirmed assessments for the facilities, and may be combined with
those assessments for collection as convenient.
CONTRIBUTION
SECTION 7. That the appropriation of the monies as set forth
as a contribution in the Engineer's "Report" as herein presented
relating to this Assessment District is hereby approved and autho-
rized. Said contribution is authorized pursuant to Section 10205 of
the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the state of California.
ASSESSMENT VALUATION
SECTION 8. That this legislative body hereby finds and deter-
mines that the total amount of the principal sum of all unpaid
special assessments proposed to be levied, as well as any outstand-
ing special assessments, does not exceed 1/2 the total true value of
the parcels proposed to be assessed under these proceedings, and
this finding shall be final and conclusive.
This legislative body further finds that the
project is feasible and that the lands to be assessed will be able
to carry the burden of the proposed assessment, and it is hereby
further determined, if and as applicable, that the limitations of
the amounts of assessments provided for in Division 4 of the Streets
:2'iD -3
and Highways Code of the state of California be disregarded both
with respect to the limitation on the Assessment District as a
whole, and as to the limitation on individual specific assessments,
as applicable.
RECORDATION OF ASSESSMENT
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall forthwith deliver to the
Super intendent of Streets the said assessment, together with the
diagram attached thereto and made a part thereof, as confirmed, with
her certificate of such confirmation attached and the date thereof;
and that said Superintendent of Streets shall then immediately
record said diagram and assessment in his Office in a suitable book
to be kept for that purpose and attach thereto his certificate of
the date of such recording.
COUNTY RECORDER NOTICE
SECTION 10. Upon confirmation of the assessments and recorda-
tion of the assessment roll and diagram, a certified copy of the
assessment diagram shall be immediately filed in the Office of the
County Recorder. Immediately thereafter, a copy of the notice of
assessment shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder in
the manner and form as set forth by law and specifically Section
3114 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
MAILED NOTICE
SECTION 11. That upon recordation of the diagram and assess-
ment, a notice shall be mailed to each owner of real property within
the Assessment District at his last known address, as said address
appears on the last equalized tax rolls of the County, said notice
to set forth a statement containing a designation of the property
assessed, as well as the amount of the final confirmed assessment,
and further indicating that bonds will be issued pursuant to the
"Improvement Bond Act of 1915".
PUBLICATION
SECTION 12. That notice shall also be given by publication in
the designated legal newspaper, said notice setting forth the amount
of the final assessment and indicating that said assessment is now
due and payable, and further indicating that if said assessment is
not paid within the allowed thirty (30) day cash collection period,
bonds shall be issued as authorized by law.
No publication shall be required if all (100%) of
the assessed property owners have timely filed a properly executed
waiver of the cash collection period.
ASSESSMENT COLLECTION
SECTION 13. The County Auditor is hereby authorized and
directed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8682 of the
2:;0-1
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, to enter into
his assessment roll on which property taxes will next become due,
opposite each lot or parcel of land affected, in a space marked
"public improvement assessment" or by other suitable designation,
the next and several installments of such assessment coming due
during the ensuing fiscal year covered by the assessment roll and
that said entry then shall be made each year during the life of the
bonds for the proceedings for the above-referenced Assessment
District. This authorization is continual until all assessment
obligations have been discharged and the bonds terminated.
As an alternate, and when determined to be in the
best interests for bondholders of the Assessment District, this
legislative body may, by Resolution, designate an official other
than the County Tax Collector and/or other agent, to collect and
maintain records of the collection of the assessments, including a
procedure other than the normal property tax collection procedure.
SECTION 14. In accordance with the provisions of section 8685
of the streets and Highways Code, if any lot or parcel of land
affected by any assessment is not separately assessed on the tax
roll so that the installment of the assessment to be collected can
be conveniently entered thereon, then the Auditor shall enter on the
roll a description of the lot or parcel affected, with the name of
the owners, if known, but otherwise the owners may be described as
"unknown owners", and extend the proper installment opposite the
same.
ASSESSMENT VERIFICATION STATEMENT
SECTION 15. The County Auditor shall, within 90 days after any
special assessment installment becomes delinquent, render and submit
a detailed report showing the amounts of the installments, interest,
penalties and percentages so collected, for the preceding term and
installment date, and from what property collected, and further
identify any properties which are delinquent and the amount and
length of time for said delinquency, and further set forth a state-
ment of percentages retained for the expenses of making such collec-
tions. This request is specifically made to the authorization of
Section 8683 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUNDS
SECTION 16. That the Treasurer is hereby authorized at this
time, if not previously done, to establish the following funds as
necessary for the payment of costs and expenses and administration
of the proceedings for this Assessment District:
A. IMPROVEMENT FUND: All monies received from
cash collection, proceeds from the sale of bonds and applicable
contributions shall be placed into the Improvement Fund.
250-5
assist
Reserve
B. RESERVE FUND: All monies as designated to
in the payment of delinquencies shall be placed into the
Fund.
C. REDEMPTION FUND: All monies received from the
payment of assessments shall be placed in the Redemption Fund.
For particulars as to the administration and
handling of the Funds, the specific terms and conditions shall be
set forth in the Bond Indenture and approved through the Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds.
EIR COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
SECTION 17. As to the Assessment District, the City Council
has reviewed and considered FEIR No. 89-01, the environmental
impacts of the project therein identified, the proposed mitigation
measures contained therein and the candidate findings attached
hereto as Exhibit "A". This legislative body has found, by the
adoption of the Certifying Resolution that FEIR No. 89-01 was
prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and guidelines
lawfully promulgated thereunder.
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
SECTION 18. A. Adoption of Findin~. The City Council does
hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in
full herein, and make each and everyone of the candidate findings
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and
Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in Exhibit "AU
attached hereto, this legislative body hereby finds, pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines, that the mitigation measures described in the FEIR are
feasible and, upon adoption of this Resolution, will become binding
upon the City and any other responsible parties.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives. As set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto, this legislative body hereby finds that
it is unnecessary to determine that any of the proposed project
alternatives set forth in the FEIR can feasibly and substantially
lessen or avoid the potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts since all potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts were eliminated or mitigated below a level of significance
by virtue of the mitigation measures herewith imposed. Notwithstand-
ing the foregoing, this legislative body did review the alternatives
to the Project, including the No Project Alternative, and rejects
said alternatives for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
AS required
tive body
D. Adoption of Mitiqation and Monitorinq Program.
by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, this 1egis1a-
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
2S () -/p
Program ("Program") incorporated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
This legislative body hereby finds the Program is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the City as applicant, and any
other responsible parties, implement the Project (as defined in the
Certifying Resolution) components and comply with the feasible
mitigation measures identified in Exhibit "A" hereto.
E. statement of Overriding Considerations
Unnecessary. After the adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, certain significant or potentially significant adverse
environmental effects which might otherwise be caused by the Project
will be mitigated below a level of significance. Therefore, this
legislative body hereby finds that it is unnecessary to issue,
pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of
overriding considerations identifying the specific economic, social,
and other considerations that render unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
this city Council does adopt the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions contained in Exhibit "A" hereto.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
SECTION 19. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby
directed, after passage and adoption of this Resolution, to deliver
a Notice of Determination as to the Project, together with a copy of
this Resolution, its Exhibit and all resolutions passed by the City
council in connection with this Project, with the County Clerk of
the County of San Diego and, in accordance with Public Resources
Code Section 21152, to cause such notice to be posted in the County
Clerk's office. The City Manager shall accomplish all of the above
notice requirements within five (5) working days following the
passage and adoption hereof.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 20. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered in
the book of original resolutions of the City; shall make a minute of
the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings
of this legislative body in the minutes of the meeting at which the
same is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Z5"D -7
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the city Council of the city
day of
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this _____ day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
75D -~
FINAL ENGINEER'S REpORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASES I & II
(CONSTRUCTION)
City of Chula Vista
May 26, 1992
Revised: June 16, 1992
Prepared by:
Willdan Associates
IN:36231.X:js
6363 Greenwich Drive · San Diego, CA 92122-3939. (619) 457-1199
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader
Mayor
City Council Members
David L. Malcolm
Jerry R. Rindone
City Staff
John P. Lippitt
Cliff Swanson
Chris Salomone
Leonard M. Moore
Shirley Grasser-Horton
,
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Director of Community Development
Professional Services
Willdan Associates
Municipal Finance Administration
Brown, Diven, & Hentschke
Kadie-Jensen, Johnson & Bodnar
Assessment Engineer
Project Management
Bond Counsel
Financial Consultant
Final approval by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
day of , 1992.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
Final approval and confirmation by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
day of , 1992.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
A
Order of Procedure and Schedule of Events
1
B General Information ................................... 2
C Resolution of Intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
D Engineer's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Part I
Plans and Specifications ............................. 14
Part II
Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Part III
Assessment Roll .................................. 26
(a) Submittal................................... 26
(b) Assessments Per APN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
(c) Certificates.................................. 42
(d) Method and Formula of Assessment Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Part IV
Assessment Diagram ............................... 53
Part V
Description of Work ............................... 56
Part VI
Right-of-Way Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Part VII
Changes and Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Appendix A ........................................ 63
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessmelll District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widellillg
SECTION A
ORDER OF PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Event
Date
1.
Adopt Boundary Map
July 23, 1991
2. Adopt Amended Boundary Map ..................... April 21, 1992
3. Resolution of Intention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 21, 1992
4. Approval of Final Engineer's Report .................. April 21, 1992
5. Public Hearing - Confirmation of Assessments
Start of 30-day Cash Collection Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 26, 1992
6. Award of Construction Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. June 23, 1992
7. Sell Bonds .................................. July 14, 1992
8. Start Construction, Phase I ........................ July 20, 1992
9. Start Construction, Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1, 1993
10. Complete Construction, Phase I ..................... April 1, 1993
11. Complete Construction, Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July I, 1993
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
1
SECTION B
GENERAL INFORMATION
Assessment District No. 90-2 is proposed for the purpose of constructing certain public
improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 19I3 and the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation, and Majority Protest Act of 1931. The general administration
of this District will be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista and all official actions will
be made by the City Council.
The City Council first adopts a resolution indicating their intention to form a special
Assessment District and calling for a Final Engineer's Report.
In the Final Engineer's Report, the cost of the construction of these improvements and
incidentals is assessed and spread proportionally over every parcel of land within the
District that has benefitted from the improvement. The method of the assessment spread
is in proportion to the level of benefit received.
Following the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and the Final Engineer's Report, the
owners are notified by mail of their estimated assessments and the date of the public
hearing, where the assessments will be confirmed.
Prior to the public hearing, bids are opened from qualified contractors for the construction
of public improvements. After the bids have been carefully analyzed by the Director of
Public Works, a recommendation is usually made to the City Council for award to the
lowest responsible bidder.
After the assessments are confirmed at the public hearing, a final assessment notice is
mailed to each property owner indicating the confirmed assessment based upon the final
construction cost for which bids were received. The property owner then has thirty (30)
days in which to pay all or any portion of this assessment without interest or penalty. Each
property owner has the option of paying their assessment in cash, or by paying in
installments through the issuance of assessment bonds. If the property owner elects not to
pay the assessment within the 30 day cash collection period, assessment bonds, in the
amount of the unpaid assessment, will be sold to cover the cost of the project and shall be
repaid by the participating properties during the life of the bonds.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting the office of the Public Works
Director, John P. Lippitt.
Fillal Engineer's Rep011
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
2
SECTION C
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
(Original on file in office of the City Clerk)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION or CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DECLARING
THE WORK TO BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT;
DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COSTS
AND EXPENSES THEREor; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE or
BONDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
THE CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY or CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
MEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The public interest and convenience require, and it
is the intention of this bOdy, pursuant to the provisions of
Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California (the "Municipal Improvement Act 1913"), to order the
installation of certain public improvements, together with appurte-
nances and appurtenant work, in a special assessment district known
and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. The financing of certain public improvements
described as street improvements, including demolition, grading,
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, traffic signals,
storm drains, landscaping, water main, undergrounding of utilities
and traffic striping, together with appurtenances and appurtenant
work, including acquisition of rights-of-way and easements, as
necessary, in OTAY VALLEY ROAD and intersecting streets, to serve
and benefit properties located within the boundaries of the Assess-
ment District.
B. Said streets, rights-of-way and easements shall
be shown upon the plans herein referred to and to be filed with
these proceedings.
C. All of said work and improvements are to be
installed at the places and in the particular locations, of the
forms, sizes, dimensions and materials, and at the lines, grades and
elevations as shown and delineated upon the plans, profiles and
specifications to be made therefor, as hereinafter provided.
D. The description of the improvemsnts and the
termini of the work contained in this Resolution are general in
nature. All items of work do not necessarily extend for the full
length of the description thertlof. The plans and profiles of the
work as contained in the Engineer's "Report" shall be controlling as
to the correct and detailed description thereof.
E. Whenever any public way is herein referred to
as running between two public ways, or from or to any public way,
the intersections of the public ways referred to are included to the
extent that work shall be shown on the plans to be done therein.
F. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many
cases said work and improvement will bring the finished work to a
grade different from that formerly existing, and that to said
extent, said grades are hereby changed and said work will be done to
said changed grades.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
SECTION 2. That said improvements and work are of direct
benefit to the properties and land within the Assessment District,
and this legislative body hereby makes the expenses of said work and
improvement chargeable upon a district, which said Assessment
District is hereby declared to be the Assessment District benefited
by said work and improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses thereof, including incidental expenses and costs and
which is described as follows.
All that certain territory in the District included
within the exterior boundary lines shown on the plat exhibiting the
property affected or benefited by or to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses of said work and improvements in the Assessment
District, said map titled and identified as "AMENDED BOUNDARIES OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)", and which map was
heretofore approved and which said map or diagram is on file with
the transcript of these proceedings, EXCEPTING therefrom the area
shown within and delineated upon said map or plat hereinabove
referred to, the area of all public streets, public avenues, public
lanes,~~ public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys,
and all easements and rights-of-way therein contained belonging to
the public.. For all particulars as to the boundaries of the Assess-
ment District, reference is hereby made to said boundary map hereto-
fore previously approved and on file.
REPORT OF ENGINEER
SECTION 3. That this proposed improvement is hereby referred
to WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, who is hereby directed to make and file a
combined report as authorized by Section 2961 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, said report to be in
writing and contain the following.
improvements I
A. Plans and specifications of the proposed
B. An estimate of the cost of the proposed works
of improvement, including the cost of the incidental expenses in
connection therewith/
c. A diagram showing the Assessment District above
referred to, which shall also show the boundaries and dimensions of
the respective subdivisions of land within said Assessment District,
as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of
Intention, each of which subdivisions shall be given a separate
number upon said Diagram/
D. A proposed assessment of the total amount of
the assessable coats and expenses of the proposed improvement upon
the several divisions of land in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such subdivisions, respectively, from
said improvement. Said assessment shall refer to such subdivisions
upon said diagram by the respective numbers thereof;
E. The description of the works of improvement to
be installed under these proceedings, and acquisition, where
necessary.
F. The total amount, as near as may be determined,
of the principal sum of any unpaid special assessments previously
levied or pending, other than those contemplated in these
proceedings.
G. The true value of the parcels of land and
improvements which are proposed to be assessed. Said true value may
be estimated as the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the
last equalized assessment roll of the county.
When any portion or percentage of the cost and
expenses of the improvements is to be paid from "ources other than
as"e"sments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be
deducted from the total e"timated costs and expenses of said. work
and improvements, and said assessment shall include only the
remainder of the estimated costs and expenses. Said assessment
"hall refer to said subdivisions by their re"pective nwnbers as
assigned pursuant to Subsection D. of this Section.
~
SECTION 4. Notice is hereby given that bonds to represent the
unpaid assessments, and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed
the current legal maximum rate of 12' per annum, will be issued
hereunder in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of
1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways. Code of the
State of California, which bonds shall mature a maximum of and not
to exceed TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the second day of September
next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. The provisions
of Part 11.1 of said Act, providing an alternative procedure for the
advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall apply.
The principal amount of the bonds maturing each
year shall be other than an amount equal to an even annual propor-
tion of the aggregate principal of the bonds, and the amount of
principal maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable
in that year, will be generally an aggregate amount that is equal
each year, except for the first year's adjustment.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, specifically Section
10603, the Treasurer is hereby designated as the officer to collect
and receive the assessments during the cash collection period. Said
bonds further shall be serviced by the Treasurer or designated
Paying Agent.
Refunding
Any bonds issued pursuant to these proceeding.s and
Division (a) may be refunded, (b) the interest rate on said bonds
shall not exceed the maximum interest rate as authorized for these
proceedings, and the number of years to maturity shall not exceed
the maximum number as authorized for these bonds unless a public
hearing is expressly held as authorized pursuant to said Division
11. 5, and (c) any adjustments in assessments resulting from any
refundings will be done on a pro-rata basis.
Any authorized refunding shall be pursuant to the
above conditions, and pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of
Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, commencing with Section 9500, and all further conditions
shall be set forth in the Bond Indenture to be approved prior to any
issuance of bonds.
"MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913"
SECTION 5. That except as herein otherwise provided for the
issuance of bonds, all of said improvements shall be made and
ordered pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913", being Division 12 of the. Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
SURPLUS FUNDS
SECTION 6. That if any excess shall be realized from the
assessment, it shall be used, in such amounts as the legislative
body may determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one
or more of the following purposes:
amount of any
Thousand Dollars
the Improvement
A. Transfer to the general fund; provided that the
such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One
($1,000.00) or five percent (5\) of the total from
Fund;
B. As a credit upon the assessment and any supple-
mental assessment;
C. For the maintenance of the improvement; or
D. To call bonds.
SPECIAL FUND
SECTION 7. The legislative body hereby establishes a special
improvement fund identified and designated by the name of this
A.sessment District, and into said Fund monies may be transferred at
any time to expedite the making of the improvements herein autho-
rized, and any such advancement of funds is a loan and shall be
repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of bonds as authorized by
law.
PRIVATE CONTRACT
SECTION 8. Notice is hereby given that the public
will not be served by allowing the property owners to
contract for the installation of the improvements, and
authorized by law, no notice of award of contract
published.
interest
take the
that, as
shall be
GRADES
SECTION 9. That notice is hereby givsn that the grade to which
the work shall be done is to be shown on the plans and profiles
therefor, which grade may vary from the existing grades. The work
herein contemplated shall be done to the grades as indicated on the
plans and specifications, to which refsrence is made for a descrip-
tion of the grade at which the work is to be done. Any objections
or protests to the proposed grade shall be made at the public
hearing to be conducted under these proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS INQUIRIES
SECTION 10. For any and all information relating to these
proceedings, including information relating to protest procedure,
your attention is directed to the person designated below.
JOHN LIPPITT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
P. O. BOX 1087
CHULA VISTA, CA 92012
TELEPHONE, (619) 691-5021
PUBLIC PROPERTY
SECTION 11. All public property in the use and performance of
a public function shall be omitted from assessment in these proceed-
ings unless expressly provided and listed herein.
NO CITY LIABILITY
SECTION 12. This legislative body hereby further declares not
to obligate itself to advance available funds from the Treasury to
cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund.
This determination is made pursuant to the authority of Section
8769(b) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
and said determination shall further be set forth in the text of the
bonds issued pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915".
DIVISION 4 PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 13. It is the intention of this legislative body to
fully comply with the proceedings and provisions of the "Special
Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of
1931", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
state of California, and specifically the alternate provisions
thereof, being Part 7.5. A combined Report, as authorized by
Section 2961, will be on file with the transcript of these proceed-
ings and open for public inspection.
WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SECTION 14. It is hereby further determined to be in the best
public interest and convenience and more economical to do certain
work on private property to eliminate any disparity in level or size
between the improvements and the private property. The actual cost
of such work is to be added to the assessment on the lot on which
the work is done, and no work of this nature is to be performed
until the written consent of the property owner is first obtained.
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT
. SECTION 15. It is hereby declared that this legislative body
proposes to levy an annual assessment pursuant to Section 10204 of
the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said
annual assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not other-
wise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection
of assessments or from the administration or registration of any
a8sociated bonds and reserve of other related funds.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, thi8
1992, by the following vote:
by the City Council of the City
day of ,
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT. councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council held on the day of , 1992.
Executed this _____ day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)
11
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
SECTION D
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation
and Majority Protest Act of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12
Section 10204 of said code, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention No. 16601,
adopted by the City Council of the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"), in connection with the proceedings for
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), I, John P. Lippitt submit herewith
the Report for the Assessment District, consisting of seven (7) parts as follows:
PART I
Plans and specifications for the proposed improvements are filed herewith and made a part
hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the Director of Public
Works.
PART II
The estimated cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses
in connection therewith, is set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
PART III
This part shall consist of the following:
A. A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed
improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the assessment district, in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions, from said
improvements, is set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made a part
hereof.
B. The total amount, as near as. may be determined, of the total principal sum of all
unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied
Final Engineer's Report
Assessme1Jt District 90~2
Olay Valley Road Widellillg
12
under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than that contemplated
for the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under
the Special Assessmenl Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931
against the total area proposed to be assessed.
C. The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and
improvements which are proposed to be assessed.
PART IV
A Diagram showing the assessment district and the boundaries of the subdivision of land
within said assessment district, as the same existed at the time of the passage of
the Resolution of Intention is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
PART V
Description of the work for the improvements is filed herewith and made a part hereof.
Description of all rights,of-way, easements and lands to be acquired, if necessary, is set
forth on the lists thereof and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PART VI
The Assessment Engineer's Certificate stating that the right,of,way associated with the
improvements to be acquired by the City will be transferred to the City by easement or
other means.
PART vn
Changes & Modifications, if any, ordered by the City Council at the public hearing are set
forth .
This Final Report dated this _ day of
, 1992.
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
This Final Report dated this _ day of
, 1992.
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
13
PART I
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed are referenced herein and
incorporated as if attached and a part of this report. Said plans and specifications shall be
on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works and consist of
Drawing Numbers 92-193 for Phase I of the project. Phase II plans are not available at
the time of the public hearing.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
14
Part II
ESTIMATE OF COST
Preliminarv Confirmed
A. Construction Cost
Phase I $ 6,897,138 $ 6,857,138
Phase II 2,934,121 2,822,280
Subtotal 9,831,259 9,679,418
B. Incidentals (less Reserve Fund) 4,173,548 3,087,532
Total Construction and Incidentals 14,004,807 12,766,950
C. Less Contributions (3,435,467) (4,077,693)
D. Less Credits (163,099) (163,099)
TOTAL TO ASSESSMENT $ 10,406,242 $ 8,526,158
E. Reserve Fund (City funded) 0 852,616
TOTAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST $ 9,378,774
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widellillg
15
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1,1-805 TO NIRVA:"A
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
1 Mobilization I LS 180.000.00 180.000.00
2 Traffic Control I LS 20.000.00 20,000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing Imp- I LS 238.000.00 238,000.00
rovements
4 Alluvial Removal 138,000 CY 2.00 276,000.00
5 Excavation & Grading 90,000 CY 5.00 450,000.00
6 AC Paving 23,000 Tons 25.00 575,000.00
7 6" AC Berm 340 LF 5.00 1,700.00
8 Aggregate Base 27,600 Tons 8.00 220,800.00
9 Subbase 33,150 Tons 4.00 132,600.00
10 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk & Slab Work 49,500 SF 2.00 99,000.00
11 Type A Pedestrian Ramp 8 Ea. 160.00 1,280.00
12 Type B Pedestrian Ramp 6 Ea. 160.00 960.00
13 6" PCC DIW 3,100 SF 2.50 7,750.00
14 6" X-Gutter & Segments 2,450 SF 3.00 7,350.00
15 6" Type "G" Curb & Gutter 8,850 LF 6.00 53,100.00
16 6" PCC Type B-1 Curb 9,845 LF 5.00 49,225.00
17 6" PCC Type B-2 Curb 41 LF 15.00 615.00
18 4" PCC Exposed Concrete Slab Work 31,525 SF 3.00 94,575.00
19 Decorative Interlocking 400 SF 17.00 6,800.00
20 12" PCC Curb Behind SIW 200 LF 15.00 3,000.00
21 Saw cutting 650 LF 1.00 650.00
22 18" RCP Pipe 386 LF 40.00 15,440.00
23 30" RCP Pipe 124 LF 45.00 5,580.00
24 42" RCP Pipe 160 LF 65.00 10,400.00
25 48" RCP Pipe 425 LF 80.00 34,000.00
26 Pipe Plug I Ea. 385.00 385.00
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otoy Valley Road Widellillg
16
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE I, I-80S TO NIRVA."A
Unit Price Per
No, Bid Item Quantity Type Unit ToW
27 Type "B-2" C I L=7' 2 Ea. 2,200.00 4,400.00
28 Type "B-2" C I L=9' 1 Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
29 Type "B-1" C 1 L=ll' 1 Ea. 2,600.00 2,600.00
30 Type "B" C I 1 Ea. 2,000.00 2,000.00
31 Consl. Lower Section Type B- I Inlet I Ea. 1,800.00 1,800.00
32 Const. Lower Section Type B-2 Inlet 1 Ea. 1,800.00 1,800.00
33 Type "A-5" Co. 1 Ea. 1,700.00 1,700.00
34 Consl. Top of A-4 CO. 4 Ea. 1,500.00 6,000.00
35 Catch Basin Plug 1 Ea. 750.00 750.00
36 Pipe Collar 2 Ea. 1,100.00 2,200.00
37 Headwall STA 33=06.5:f: 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500.00
38 Type A Db!. Headwall ST A 1 LS 7,300.00 7,300.00
74+0.27 :f:
39 Cone. Energy Dissipator ST A 1 LS 12,800.00 12,800.00
65+01.0:f:
40 Cone. Energy Dissipator ST A 1 LS 3,450.00 3,450.00
62+65.0:f:
41 Type 1 Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500.00
STA 35+06:f:
42 Type 1 Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator 1 LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 71+82:f:
43 Type 1 Rip-Rap wi Ener Dissipator 1 LS 4,250.00 4,250.00
STA 74+09:f:
44 Shoring 1 LS 1.00 1.00
45 6' High Chain Link Fencing 6,000 LF 10.00 60,000.00
46 Relocate of Ex. Chain Link Fencing 785 LF 10.00 7,850.00
& Gate
47 Masonry Sound Wall 6,700 SF 10.00 67,000.00
48 Redwood Gate 11 Ea. 420.00 4,620.00
49 Modified Redwood Gate 1 Ea. 410.00 410.00
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessme1Jt District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
17
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1,1-805 TO NIRVASA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
50 Silt Stop 1,881 LF 7.00 13,167.00
51 Adjust AC Manhole 21 Ea. 410.00 8,610.00
52 12" ACP Water Main 2,205 LF 23.00 50,715.00
53 12" X 12" Wet Tap 2 Ea. 2,700.00 5,400.00
54 12" X 12" Tap Saddle I Ea. 4,700.00 4,700.00
55 12" RSGV II Ea. 1,200.00 13,200.00
56 18" X 12" Spool 10 Ea. 660.00 6,600.00
57 Thrust Block 6 Ea. 270.00 1,620.00
58 12" X 12" x 12" Tee I Ea. 1,700.00 1,700.00
59 Blind Flange 12" I Ea. 310.00 310.00
60 I" A VRV Off 12" Main 2 Ea. 1,450.00 2,900.00
61 12" X 12" Cross 2 Ea. 1,550.00 3,100.00
62 12" 90 Deg. Bend I Ea. 510.00 510.00
63 Relocate EX 2" BO 2 Ea. 1,220.00 2,440.00
64 Abandon PRV Vault I LS 5,100.00 5,100.00
65 Install New PRV Vault I LS 28,500.00 28,500.00
66 Furnish and Install Controller I Ea. 5,000.00 5,000.00
67 Furnish and Install Meter Pedestal I Ea. 2,850.00 2,850.00
68 Type A-I Signal Standard 2 Ea. 410.00 820.00
69 Type 29-5-70 Signal I Ea. 4,300.00 4,300.00
70 Type 26-5-70 Signal I Ea. 3,700.00 3,700.00
71 Type 19-3-70 Signal I Ea. 3,300.00 3,300.00
72 #5 PB 9 Ea. 110.00 990.00
73 3-Lens Vehicle Indicators w/12" 12 Ea. 410.00 4,920.00
74 Ped Indication 4 Ea. 460.00 1,840.00
75 Wire Intersection I LS 3,600.00 3,600.00
76 Furnish and Install 650 LF Conduit 650 LF 13.00 8,450.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
18
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE I, I-80S TO NIRVASA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
77 250 Watt Safety Light 3 Ea. 360.00 1.080.00
78 Type "D" Detector 6 Ea. 310.00 1,860.00
79 Type "B" Detector Loop 28 Ea. 260.00 7,280.00
80 Illuminated Street Name Sign 3 Ea. 460.00 1,380.00
81 Water Tight Telephone Terminal I Ea. 1,300.00 1,300.00
82 R73-5 and R96 Signs I LS 300.00 300.00
83 27' Street Light w/250 watt 20 Ea. 1,225.00 24,500.00
84 Relocate Ex. Street Light I Ea. 610.00 610.00
85 Type 29-5-70 Signal ST A 10 Ea. 3,650.00 36,500.00
86 Type 24-4-70 Signal ST A I Ea. 3,050.00 3,050.00
87 #6 I'B 24 Ea. 140.00 3,360.00
88 #5 I'B 28 Ea. 110.00 3,080.00
89 #3 'Il PB 43 Ea. 75.00 3,225.00
90 Sched 80 I'VC Co 6,000 LF 2.50 15,000.00
91 Sched 40 I'VC Co 7,500 LF 3.00 22,500.00
92 Install Conductor I LS 12,500.00 12,500.00
93 SDG&E-20b I LS 130,00.00 130,000.00
94 PAC Bell I LS 47,000.00 47,000.00
95 Connection of Ex. Water 17 Ea. 410.00 6,970.00
96 Survey Monuments 2 Ea. 300.00 600.00
97 Construction Survey I LS 57,000.00 57,000.00
98 Adjustment of Utility Covers 1 LS 6,800.00 6,800.00
99 Erosion Control I LS 30,000.00 30,000.00
100 Planting I LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
101 Maintenance 12 mont 1,500.00 18,000.00
h
102 Irrigation System I LS 220,000.00 220,000.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
19
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1,1-805 TO NIRYASA
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantity Type Unit Total
103 Protection & Rest of Ex. Improve- 1 LS 31,000,00 31,000.00
ments
104 Improvements at East End of Projects I LS 80,000.00 80,000.00
105 Sewer Lateral at Animal Shelter 1 LS 6,100.00 6,100.00
106 Sewer Pump Station I LS 12,200.00 12,200.00
107 Relocation of Animal Shelter I LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
108 Improvement Cost of Wetland Mitiga- 1 LS 180,000.00 180,000.00
tion
109 Settlement Monuments 1 LS 3,600.00 3,600.00
110 Striping and Signage 1 LS 41,000.00 41,000.00
111 Import 30,000 CY 1.50 45,000.00
112 4 Inch Backdrains 1,000 LF 7.50 7,500.00
113 Goofabric for Fill & Alluvium Areas 1.000 SY 2.00 2,000.00
Subtotal Bid 4,319,428.00
20B Payment 512,226.00
20A Cost 320,000.00
Traffic Signal at I-80S 289,300.00
Animal Shelter (#107) to Incidentals (200,000.00)
Wetland Mitigation (#108) to Inciden- (180,000.00)
tals
Subtotal 5,060,954.00
Contingency @ 10% 513,165.40
Right-of-Way (with 20% contingency) 1,119,920.00
Credits on Existing Improvements 163,099.00
Total Pbase I 6,857,138.40
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
20
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIRVANA TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quanlities Type Unit Total
1 Mobilization 1.00 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
2 Traffic Control 1.00 LS 200,000.00 200.000.00
3 Removal & Disposal of Existing 1.00 LS 60,000.00 60,000.00
Improvements
4 Alluvium Removal 67,132.00 CY 2.00 134,264.00
5 Excavation & Grading 9,675.00 CY 1.30 12,577.50
6 Import and Compaction 41,336.00 CY 7.50 310,020.00
7 AC Paving (6" Thick) 5,183.00 Tons 47.00 243,601.00
8 Aggregate Base (8" Thick) 6,680.00 Tons 16.20 108,216.00
9 Aggregate Subbase (10" Thick) 8,350.00 Tons 10.90 91,015.00
10 Monolithic Curb, Gutter & Side- 2,490.00 LF 15.00 37,350.00
walk
11 Type "B-1" Inlet 2.00 Ea. 3,500.00 7,000.00
12 Type "B-2" Inlet 1.00 Ea. 4,000.00 4,000.00
13 Type "B-2" Inlet Modified 1.00 Ea. 2,400.00 2,400.00
14 Headwall (Type" A", Single) 6.00 Ea. 3,600.00 21,600.00
15 Headwall (Type" A", Double) 2.00 Ea. 5,000.00 10,000.00
16 Energy Dissipator 5.00 Ea. 5,500.00 27,500.00
17 48" RCP Pipe 468.00 LF 100.00 46,800.00
18 30" RCP Pipe 181.00 LF 65.00 11,765.00
19 24" RCP Pipe 274.00 LF 55.00 15,070.00
20 18" RCP Pipe 121.00 LF 35.00 4,235.00
21 Shoring 1.00 LS 2,500.00 2,500.00
22 16" Water Main (CL. 200, ACP) 1,123.00 LF 85.00 95,455.00
23 Gate Valve (16") 2.00 Ea. 6,150.00 12,300.00
24 Blind Flange (16") 1.00 Ea. 750.00 750.00
25 Thrust Block 1.00 Ea. 270.00 270.00
26 Connection to Ex. 16" WL 1.00 Ea. 700.00 700.00
27 Construction Survey 1.00 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
28 Erosion Control 1.00 LS 22,000.00 22,000.00
29 Landscaping 1.33 Acre 163,350.00 217,255.50
30 One Year Landscaping Mainte- 1.00 LS 12,000.00 12,000.00
nance
31 Irrigation System 1.00 LS 100,000.00 100,000.00
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
21
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE II, NIRVANA TO EAST PROJECT LIMIT
Unit Price Per
No. Bid Item Quantities Type Unit Total
32 Wetland Mitigation 1.00 LS 150,000.00 150,000.00
33 Drainage Ditch 218 FT 1.00 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00
34 Pavement Striping 7,000.00 LF 0.35 2,450.00
35 Raised Pavement Marker 210.00 Ea. 4.00 840.00
36 Pavement Legend 200.00 SF 4.00 800.00
37 Signs 1.00 LS 2,700.00 2,700.00
38 Land Cost Rrw 1.00 LS 200,000.00 200,000.00
2,203,434.00
Curve Section of Road 275,000
Subtotal 2,478,434
Contingency @ 14% 343,846
Right of Way with 20% Contin- Included
gency Above
TOTAL PHASE II 2,822,280
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
22
TABLE 3
OTAY VALLEY ROAD INCIDENTAL EXPENSES - PHASES I & n
Preliminary Confirmed
Design Engineering 834,917 834,917
Construction Project Management 50,000 50,000
ROW Appraisals 55,000 55,000
Legal Services 30,546 30,546
Animal Shelter 200,000 200,000
Otay Water District Inspection 40,000 80,000
City Administration Fee 55,000 55,000
Plan Check 280,000 280,000
Inspection & Materials Testing 350,000 350,000
Traffic Design 7,500 7,500
Mitigation Costs 534,860 534,860
Project Management 25,500 25,500
Financial Consultant 67,000 67,000
Assessment Engineering 90,500 90,500
Printing, Advertising, Posting 3,200 3,200
Bond Printing, Servicing, & Reg. 12,500 12,500
Bond Counsel 36,758 34,408
Subtotal 2,673,281 2,710,931
Capitalized Interest 147.456 120,816
Reserve (10%) (City funded) 1,040,624 852,616
Discount (3 %) 312,187 255,785
TOTALS 4,173,548 3,940,148
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
23
Table 4
Contributions and Credits
Preliminary Confirmed
SB 300 Fund (1,161,000) (1,161,000)
Traffic Signal TF220 (189,300) (189,300)
SDG&E 20A Fund (existing) (320,000) (320,000)
SDG&E 20A Fund (proposed) (0) (642,226)
City Cash Contribution (1,765,167) (1,765,167)
Tolal Contributions (3,435,467) (4,077,693)
Less Credits for Existing Improvements (163,099) (163,099)
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS & CREDITS (3,598,566) (4,240,792)
Final Engineer's Reporr
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Raad Widening
24
PART II (Continued)
CALCULATION OF BOND DISCOUNT AND RESERVE FuND
Preliminary Confirmed
A. Construction Cost $ 9,831,259 9,679,418
B. Incidental Subtotal without Bond Discount, Reserve 2,673,281 2,710,931
Fund and Capitalized Interest
C. Less Cash Contributions & Credits (3,598,566) (4,240,792)
D. Subtotal 8,905,974 8,149,557
E, Capitalized Interest 147,456 120,816
F. Bond Discount (3 %) 312,187 255,785
G. Reserve Fund (10%) (City funded) 1,040,624 852,616
H. Total Discount, Reserve Fund & Capitalized Interest 1,500,267 1,229,217
I. TOTAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,406,242 9,378,774
Final Engineer's Report
Assessrnelll District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
25
Part III
Assessment Roll
PART III (a)
SUB MITT AL
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913, DIVISION 12 OF THE
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code
and Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation, and Majority Protest Act
of 1931, being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
adopt Resolution of Intention No. 16601 for the construction of certain public improve-
ments, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith in a
special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-2
OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD PHASES I & II
(Hereinafter referred to as the" Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, said Resolution of Intention, as required by law, did direct the appointed
Director of Public Works to make and file a report consisting of the following:
1. Plans and specifications;
2. Estimated cost of improvements;
3. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement
levied upon the parcels and lots of land within the boundaries of the assessment
district;
4. Assessment diagram showing the assessment district and the subdivisions of
land contained herein;
5. A description of the public improvements to be constructed;
6. An Assessment Engineer's Certificate designating certain right-of-way
associated with the project will be transferred to the City by easement or other
means.
For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as adopted by the City
Council.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
26
Now THEREFORE, I, John P. Lippitt, as appointed Director of Public Works, and pursuant
to the Municipal /mprovemenJ Act of /9/3, do herein submit the following:
1. I, pursuant to the provisions of law and the Resolution of Intention, have assessed the
costs and expenses of the works of improvement to be performed in the Assessment
District upon the parcels of land in the Assessment District benefitted thereby in
direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said
parcels. For particulars of the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the
Assessment Diagram.
2. As required by law, a Diagram is herein included, showing the Assessment District
as well as the boundaries of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within
said district as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of
Intention, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been
given a separate number upon said Diagram and in said Assessment Roll.
3. The subdivisions and parcels of land and the numbers therein as shown on the
respective Assessments Diagram as included herein correspond with the numbers as
appearing on the Assessment Roll as contained herein.
4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that bonds will be issued in accordance with Division 10
of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Bond
Act of 1915"), to represent all unpaid assessments, and the last installment of said
bonds shall mature a maximum of TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS from the 2nd day of
September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. Said bonds shall bear
interest at a rate not to exceed the current legal maximum rate of 12 % per annum.
5. By virtue of the authority contained in said Municipal /mprovemenl Act of 1913, and
by further direction and order of the City Council, I hereby make the following
assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the works of improvement for the
Assessment District based on the costs and expenses set forth as follows:
Construction Costs
Incidental Costs & Expenses
Contributions & Credits
Amount to Assessment District
Preliminary
$ 9,831,529
4,173,548
0.598.566)
$ 10,406,242
Confirmed
9,679,418
3,940,148
(4.240.792)
9,378,774
For particulars as to the individual assessments and their descriptions, reference is
made to the Assessment Roll attached hereto.
6. In addition to or as a part of the assessment lien levied against each parcel of land
within the Assessment District, each parcel of land shall also be subject to an annual
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmem District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
27
assessment to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed which
result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administra-
tion or registration of any bonds and/or reserve or other related funds. The
maximum amount of such annual assessment upon each such parcel of land shall not
exceed 5% of the amount of the annual assessment installment.
7. All costs and expenses of the works of improvement have been assessed to all parcels
of land within the Assessment District in a manner which is more clearly defined in
the "Method and Formula of Assessment Spread", which is a part of this Assessment
Roll.
The preliminary report dated:
,1992 By:
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
The final report dated:
,1992 By:
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
28
PART III (B)
ASSESSMENTS PER APN
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
OIOY Valley Road Widening
29
Olay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
1 624-060-09 0 0
2 624-060-27 150,995 124,192
3 624-060-28 6,864 4,137
4 624-060-38 105,962 87,153
5 624-060-45 110,803 87,762
6 644-040-01 257,102 208,077
7 644-040-11 26,490 21,788
8 644-040-13 521,862 429,226
9 644-040-14 0 0
10 644-040-16 455,371 374,538
11 644-040-23 39,133 30,019
12 644-040-24 77,470 60,448
13 644-040-27 0 0
14 644-040-28 123,434 100,769
15 644-040-44 148,876 122,449
16 644-040-45 167,155 137,483
17 644-040-36 143,819 116,498
18 644-040-37 99,147 80,197
19 644-040-38 0 0
20 644-040-40 529,809 435,763
21 644-040-46 24,901 20,481
22 644-040-47 23,047 18,956
23 644-040-48 38,676 31,811
24 644-040-49 132,982 109,376
25 644-041-01 47,076 38,283
26 644-041-02 24,419 19,858
27 644-041-03 39,524 32,141
28 644-041-04 0 0
29 644-041-05 60,167 48,928
30 644-041-06 47,580 38,692
31 644-041-07 47,328 38,487
32 644-041-08 54,880 44,629
33 644-041-09 45,314 36,850
34 644-041-10 26,433 21,496
35 644-041-11 22,657 18,425
36 644-041-12 24,419 19,858
37 644-041-13 60,167 48,928
38 644-041-14 47,831 38,897
39 644-041-17 59,915 48,724
40 644-041-18 54,377 44,220
Filial Ellgilleer's Repon
Assessmellt District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widellillg
30
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
41 644-041-19 99,187 80,660
47 644-181-01 34,864 28,562
48 644-181-02 35,644 29,202
49 644-181-03 38,506 31,547
50 644-181-04 58,279 47,746
51 644-181-07 0 0
52 644-181-08 61,922 50,730
53 644-181-09 39,807 32,612
54 644-181-10 109,794 89,950
55 644-181-11 43,189 35,383
56 644-181-15 135,031 110,626
57 644-181-16 37,986 31,120
58 644-181-18 35,124 28,776
59 644-181-19 43,449 35,596
60 644-181-20 33,823 27,710
61 644-181-21 36,164 29,628
62 644-181-22 38,506 31,547
63 644-181-23 50,734 41,565
64 644-181-24 11,708 9,592
65 644-181-25 11,968 9,805
66 644-181-26 23,156 18,971
67 644-181-27 17,432 14,281
68 644-181-28 17 ,432 14,281
69 644-181-29 47,352 38,794
70 644-181-30 15,611 12,789
71 644-181-33 27,318 22,381
72 644-182-01 133,990 109,773
73 644-182-02 135,551 111,052
74 644-182-03 135,031 110,626
75 644-182-06 0 0
76 644-182-07 169,374 138,762
77 644-182-08 134,511 110,200
78 644-182-09 171,716 140,681
79 644-182-10 137,893 112,971
80 644-182-11 110,314 90,377
81 644-182-12 97,306 79,719
82 644-182-14 28,099 23,020
83 644-182-15 23,936 19,610
84 644-182-16 120,721 98,903
85 644-182-17 72,589 59,469
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmellt District 9().2
Olay Valley Road Widening
31
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
86 644-230-11 31,222 25,673
87 644-230-12 28,576 23,497
88 644-230-13 31,751 26,108
89 644-230-14 31,486 25,891
90 644-230-15 77,790 63,965
91 644-230-16 129,385 106,391
92 644-230-17 128,327 105,521
93 644-230-18 80,700 66,358
94 644-230-19 120,918 99,429
95 644-230-20 42,864 35,246
96 644-230-21 25,665 21,104
97 644-230-22 41,276 33,941
98 644-230-23 148,171 121,838
99 644-230-24 42,335 34,811
100 644-230-25 32,016 26,326
101 644-230-26 42,599 35,028
102 645-021-01 32,742 26,930
103 645-021-02 74,253 61,072
104 645-021-03 120,690 99,267
105 645-021-04 22,914 18,847
106 645-021-05 21,855 17,975
107 645-021-06 23,126 19,021
108 645-021-07 24,610 20,241
109 645-021-08 30,014 24,686
110 645-021-09 32,000 26,320
111 645-021-10 25,934 21,331
112 645-021-11 24,716 20,328
113 645-022-01 57,378 47,193
114 645-022-02 55,180 45,385
115 645-022-03 53,060 43,642
116 645-022-04 54,199 44,579
117 645-022-05 58,120 47,803
118 645-022-06 44,769 36,822
119 645-022-07 36,875 30,329
120 645-021-19 21,404 17,605
121 645-021-20 19,603 16,123
122 645-021-21 22,358 18,389
123 645-021-22 28,875 23,749
124 645-021-23 25,086 20,633
125 645-021-24 21,881 17,997
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 9()..2
Gltry Valley Road Widening
32
Otay Valley Road Widening-Phases I & II
Assessment Preliminary Confirmed
Number APN Assessment Assessment
126 645-021-25 21,881 17,997
127 645-021-26 20,901 17,191
128 645-021-27 20,954 17,234
129 645-021-28 27,206 22,376
130 645-021-29 21,484 17,670
131 645-021-30 20,212 16,624
132 645-021-31 20,000 16,450
133 645-021-32 107,604 88,503
134 645-021-33 31,312 25,754
135 645-021-34 28,371 23,335
136 645-021-35 26,093 21,461
137 645-021-36 30,305 24,926
138 645-021-37 27,020 22,224
139 645-021-38 26,490 21 ,788
140 645-021-39 25,828 21,243
141 645-021-40 26,093 21,461
142 645-021-41 28,080 23,095
143 645-021-42 20,821 17,125
144 645-021-43 20,106 16,537
145 645-021-44 0 0
146 645-021-45 0 0
147 645-022-08 0 0
149 645-020-08 0 0
149 645-020-11 1,310,138 1,077,575
149 645-020-12 0 0
150 644-060-06 157,618 129,639
10,406,242 8,526,158
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
33
al c:
E '"
~ E
'E ~
<3 ::!
<
~c
.. '"
.5 E
,g ~
d:~
.,,--
._ I'Cl c:
l"lI .- Q)
c. 11l E
5c%~
~
.. '"
- "
o-
f- ..
",>
-
~
~~g
0-
I-~Cii
'" ~
" ..
~c.
is
al'O
I~
~>
al !!l
~~~
<
~ e
~ ...
~<
.Vl
o Q) Q;
i~~
~o..i
c
'"
E
~..
::!
<
ONI'C'?
""., '"
~ "It- r-.:
'" '"
~
Nf'-..COtDOCOO'lCOOClOlMCO
tOf'--OJN M V <.Ovcom
r---Of'-...N I.t)OV f'-."<tv.v
r-.:a5 en ~c5o oC'Jr-.u5
COONN """(")(0 ONM_
N 'It CO') ......
0"'''
'" CD
'" '"
ow
'"
~
"''''
CDO
'" '"
~o
<:> -
~ -
NONe
O"'CD
v~
ri~N
'" '"
OCl')C').....vr---ococo
c;re::~~~rn~~
a)a)N"O__-o;o
~~~~~v~~
OCO,......-CO
NO>C'?<DN
CX)iJ)NCDl.l)
a)cO~U)O
-t::..,.;e~
~
-
~
Vl
C
'"
~
c.
.E
"'v
!81
NeD
'"
v:zo
fB"w
. . f-
"'CD(/)
C;; ::;j
b
z
~
-
~
lll:g:g
0"''''
~r-.:a5
"''''
-
is
Mf'-..CO
"'v",
cicici
;::~go~~~
M.....v vCX)......
uo)a;,..: ricO"':
r.nM,.... NVc.o
"It ...........-
VOf'OO-CO
OlM"'......
"0'"
u5i,~N
~NU')
MOU')WCOOV
Mv....."'COWiJ)
O..-C')(")l.l)O<.O
!ig.,;o!i.;!)[
U;NFJ~:;;~~
N ri N -
<:> <:>
"'0
"'w
"?f-
"'(/)
"'-
..J
f-
a
z
'" 0
'"
'"
vi
'"
~
ClNMOV
ClN,....C!~
Muiai
~
~~re~~o;:~:!
I I I I I I I I I
000000000
~~~~::g(;~gcg
I I I I I I I I I
vvv'Ctvvvvv
~~~~~Cbtb;b(g
CD 0
'"
o
.;
'"
oc.o_a
"''''
"'CD
cDM
"'~
"''''
ri
"'''0
-..
"'~
rien
... '"
~
f'-..U')MC?
vC\lNO'>
[") co 0,....
"':t.ONu-)
coU')tDQ)
,....comO)
<.OVOI/)
Ll)O)U')V
(")(,Qt.Cq
';';C"i",z
,,-'"
tq,t-.:.ot
~ --
11).....0<.0
COOCDCO
Ll)tJ)OlN
....: cD - cD
,,~ "
"'" "
- - M
~
"0
'"
~
o
'"
M.-lO tOMco....aCON"""
l.OCOLO r-..COl.O'I:t NO'lCO
r-..v.mc:q,MNco C')~v
LJiocO oicOmN cOcoa:)
MC\I....MOM M "ltMC")
..
Ol......,...<DNc.oO)vO,....oco
~~gro~~;~ ~~~
cnvriairJ,..:..;a; 0"':"':
NNNMM'd'NM c,o"\t"\t
'"
~O
0'"
"''''
.;
'"
CD
M.....OOO
-.t.....ooo
.....0)Ll)Ll)Ll)
ai..n"":N"":
CX) OCOM
CX)...............Ll)
.,;
~05i!0
~go8
"":..n..n..n
M,....r.o",
C\lNM~
""''''
CD"'CD
.."''''
~,...: N
"'''''''
"'~'"
vl.OON
~~~ffi
N";";ai
r.o"'''\to
"\tC\l..,....
;~ffi~
MMLl).....
";ai"":u5
Ll)Mu;:lC,O
"'''''''
"'''''''
0"'0
"~'"
cti..nN
""''''
CD"''''
000000000000
8~
C;~~
~~g~~c;;o;ag~
Md-.iLl'ic6ui-.id~
~
~Ng88~
C,OCOOOOI.O
,...: ~..n..n..n"":
Ll)M.....I.O"'''\t
Ll)NNMON
N .
"ltCOO"'O)Ll)
..,.0)(") ('-..<0 ''It
vCO Ll)..,. NO)
ai"":u5ctic5ai
NO C\l..... Ll) V
,....C\1 MNC\I
"\t"'I.OC\I'" "''''0) 0) 0') CO
O')CX)~O~O)~CJ)M~~
dd ui d ~N
C,OM"\t"'CX)"\tU')CO"COO<O
.....C\I"''''C\I<o:r''\tMC")M<o:rv
I I I I I I I I I I I I
000000000000
~~~~~~~~gggg
I I I I I I I I I I I I
vv"lt............v"lt"lt
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"COO) "'M"lt
"ltV<O:rOOOO
I I I I I I I
~~~'lt':';;;
0000000
I I I I I I I
v'lt'vvvv"lt
~~~;2;~~~
"'CD"
000
, , ,
~!!
, , ,
......
~~~
....."'MVLl)C'O"CX)o,)O.....~M"ItLl)C'O~COO)~N~~~~~~reregM
1O:g"'gl!j0
"..:80'"
ttS..jcDm"":
,,"',,<00')
..... O')C")O)
N
lB5i!5i!18~O
c.ooCS......
~02.,;g
c.o8(l;.....'"
"":N"":riN
,....,OOCDCQO
~~8:gPl
Nc)N'ai"":
Ll)NMOCD
o>cq"l<.q.....~
't N .SO
e. ~ ::
l:l::t{J
......"i: ~
... -
~~~
.5 _ Q
tlo:::~
ti'i l! t'
- ~::::
S:':! !U~
~~S
<'3
-q-
<"l
iJE
'"
.~ E
C ~
8~
,.,-
~ c:
.. '"
.E E
~ ~
~~
-0--
._ C"tl c:
.. - '"
C.lilE
c: c. !(l
~CIlol
ill
<
fa ~
~~
~
g~~
0-
l-~'ii
'" !!
" ..
~D..
5
-.
io~
",-
!(l "co
Oliie:
!(l> '"
< ~
c.
.5
i!E
i~-g
ill ~
<
~ !
~ u
Cl<
.co ~
o'ii C)
i~~
iIlD..~
<
E
'"
E
~..
ill
<
cnOfJ)llllX)CO,...<o:tOONC\I,...
NU')C1)NLnNCJ)C\IC\1(O(,OO'V
~co'V~vcoC)c:o,..."!.c.oLl)NUl
v c.D.....cOoia5a5a5-voc:Om......
vC'?N '-vMvvCONNM
0...
CO~
COM
..;~
"'...
M,....O)f'o,.
MU').....(O
v<D~.....
cDN"ltO
NNNCD
c;~~~tb
COC>>~.....CO
":0;..0;";
VI.t)IJ')O')C")
M"'o>
~~~
a5..;a;;
0"''''
MN~
MM
~N
"'M
,..:,..:
NM
~ ~
MC'?..... U)v'\:t
~~~~~~~
cOa5cDl/)"': a..;
M<OMOll)C")C"')
MNMC?tt).........
U")C\I""W(OLl)COMN
~~~~(1;R~S;~
,....O),..:~...;ctS,..:M
......00)11),...,....("),.........
COU')NNNU)l/)<D(o
C\I,....,....o,....o
,.....(C)v.....C\1
U')<Dl/).....C")
";",0>>0";
..-<D(OC>>N
-r:C\lNN"lt
00000000000
~~!!l:e~llllil;1;~l<l:g;1;~
fJ)MO.....vC\lIJ).....O,....U)C")C")
oSa5mmcO"':":uicD .00>0..-
CX)C?M-N.....lJ)_CO"'I"'-C>>COC?
NN-.........MNMNU')C\1 V
is
~~~g
N ci
"""0}00:::l
o)M~C")
ON N
"'...
~O>
NM
v,..., CO V
"l"l":N
N
CO(l')O.....
00........-
I I I I
~~~~
I I I I
vvvv
~tb(1)C1)
NM"It",....
............... ..-
I I I I
......
00
I ,
......
~~
~ ~, 0 ~
I I I
;;:;':..0;;0
0000....._
I I I I I I
vvv"d'vv
tb<b~C1)~~
NM
MM
<.oOONO(,,)
V M....l/)CO
,... r--..c'oC>>M
,.... ciNm~
V U')C")Q)M
...'"
...0
"''''
1lia5
MM
<>>0<\1" v 0')
,... Nomco
C\I (7)CO,...._
a5 "":mmc?
L{) f.OMO"'#'
~
~~~~ore~~~~,...a;
to .....,....1.1') ......w IIlllll.O CO en N
o a:iui,...m..........cncna5..;
...-MNMC\lNMv .....
M~
qm.
~~
~
vmMvCOvCOCOCOC\l
C\IvC\lCDOMOCDlJ)M
vCO....lJ)............m_v
LOMMWaSO"":"":M"":
MvMMC")L/')_.....C\I_
lJ)lJ)vCOCO.....COCOMCOI.OCO
-CI)................CI)M......CI)vO......
.....OC?.....-MCI).....,....CI)M,....
c)c?Nc)uSaiaScD . ~cDM
MvMOOO'>C\I0U:;U:;.....v
C?___ __ _
::g~o
0>'"
MN
CO
~
O~~~~SCfio
O)ONC\lCDM
rDa)NNaicD
N"'COO>N...
lJ).....ct......
.....mco..........o
ococ\lvco
CO..;-COv.....
"':aiNcDai
V .....-U')
~~
N"!.
ri...
NN
NN
NCI)MN
ON.....~
MMON
LO"':riai
<.clJ)NO
NN_.....
CO~...
N~O
"'O>N
cD";"':
'" 0> N
...NCO
COCl)C>.....(0 1.OC\IlJ)L/')(O.....o<.c
vC\lCOC\lML/')CO.....lJ)COO).....1.O
ll)N.....tDC\lM.....COMI.OCOtDl.O
...:cOcD~aiNrD,..:NriMN,..:
CD.....COtD..........O'>l./').....OOMCO
MCDNNNN.....NN_.....N
"'0
'"
~
og~~SM8
Ol.l)C\I.....lJ)vCD
,..:cD~cOLO~O
NCD;;;re{:;l.O~
C\ICDO'>CO
N<.'!.....~
-o:i ui
a; a;
~ ~
, I
......
~~
l.O,....omcol.l)
~~~~~"?
a; a;
~ ~
, I
......
~~
gj~~
I I I
co;;a;
~ ~
I I ,
.........
;g~~
~cgO(b~~;:!
qU) NmCD.....
lJ)~ MC>>MO
~N ~:!;~
8COM
M"l
ON
Mv"",cocna
00000.....
I I I I I I
a;co<<;<<;a;
............... .....
I I I I I
VVV'VV
~~~;g;g
00<0
MN
N'"
ano
N~
N~
N"'N
~~~
ai.....US
OO>N
~ ~ ~
"''''
......
00
"'...
co'"
dd
'"
N
I
<<;a;a;
~ ~
I , I
~......
~(g(g
"'...
NN
I ,
~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~mg~~~~~~~
t: N"~
&~ ~
rz:'O~
.",,";:: ~
"~..,,
~ - ~
"ao ~ ~
~ ~ ~
_i:;-
t= t3~
~~6'
o
.,.,
<'l
alE
E Q)
~ E
~ ~
8~
~E
.. Q)
.5 E
~ ~
~~
:9"ii'C
tlI .- CD
C.lilE
5c%~
~
.. '"
- "
0-
I- ..
",>
;::
g!g
0-
1-~C6
l!
'" ..
"Q.
~
o
)'0;::-
",-
" III
~I
c.
.5
)!'lS
'""
> c
.:3
15
~ ~
~ u
Cl<
.1Il
jo B Z
~ E
.. "
Q.Z
;;; ..,. '" ;;; '" '" <D 0 N 0 ;;; ~ .... '" 0 0 '" '" '" .... a) ~ '" ~ ~ a) '" <D ... ~ a)
'" a) .... '" '" <D 0 .... .... ;:: N 0 <D .... '" 0 C>> <D C>> N on N ... 0 ... '"
N .... .... '" .... q <D .... '" <D C>> '" 0 <D C>> ... <D ... ~ "'!. '" '" on '" ... "!. C>> "'!.
..; .; N N .; 0 .; 0 0 N 0 .; ri .; .; .; on ri <D on ri <J5 on <J5 .; '" N ri
- '" - N 0 - - '" ~ ... :: C>> .... N ~ C>> on N N N N <D 0 0 <D C>> '" '" N
- - ~ ~ ~
C\IN..-COO........O
~~(oMm:2g
r-:r-:Lri"':ritOLO
..-v....NC")MC')
- --
ccmCO.q-....NU')O
""MM_ON_
""""""NlJ)v_
McOu-i"':uSOa)
v~v~~~~
<Q""(J)CONMcno
~!;i:~~8~~
"':":":~c?oa:i
co~Q)~lD~&;
ono
'"
on
o
'"
(J)CDNNO
mv_o
M"'lt'NC\I
a:i"': ~ an
NQ)M
on
v....C,OMv<J)C')(O..-mN<D..-<OO
.............cn....omMNCOC\l"'LOCOO')
M\ll"'COMMOmf'oo,.1.t')NU')r--vl'-
g~":~es;re~g~c;re~c;r::
.-...........- ....
::2~g~;1;~~;:::
MMr--,.O)COU)C\I.....
ai~OciNui....~a5
NNCONvNvv
............. ......
"ltCOvNNC\I....mCOCOM<OvO)CDCOl.t)O)U')vMcnN
~~~g~~~~~~~m~~N~~~~~~~~
lO"': ~cD,..:~u-)oriri,..:No)coUSNu5 ~cDai"':c:iN
NMMv,...vocnO,...<oU')c.oc.o....mCOMvNMN(T)
vMvMNN_ MN................v<Oc.ov<OC\I....C\Ir--.
r--C'OCOVMMNCOU')C'OU')....C:O,...NLOC')r--.Or--.c.oCOV
~~~g~~~~~me~~~~~~~~~~m~
O~NN~a:i~o~w~.~mUSN.ririria:i~~~
LOf'-.(J)C')U')CO....coOV QMMMCO""(J)C')U'),...vC:O
coCDcoCDLOVN....CDU') MMMCO~~CO~VNV~
o 0') C\I 00
"'ON
...._<D
uS"':"';
_"'N
0""00
a) "'0
",a)a)
";00
~..,...,.
,...~coooooooo
;;~WWWWWWWWW
g~~~~~~~t2~~
Nt")...J...J...J...J...J...J...J..J...J
. bbbbbbbbb
zzzzzzzzz
~
0)000
,....NOlN
NCO(Ooer
,..: 0; N ..
.....CO,....;o
It)t'')lt)'''':,
(ONNt")
.....(Ooer,....
It)OlCO,....
o;"':No;
OoerOlO
oerNt")~
~~gq~N~8~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g
d d ~~~d~~~~~M d~N N~~M~ d ~
~8::~~~g~~~ccccccccc
t")O,....lt)~COCOOt")O)~WWWW~WWW
"':N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~M~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-
000000000
ZZZZZZZZZ
c,c,....COOlO.....N'lflt)
0000.........................
I I I I I I I I I
NNNC\lNNNNN
CO CO COCOCOC:OCOCOc:o
.............................................
I I I I I I I I I
~~'If~<od"<od"<od"<od"<od"
~c:b($c:b(g(g(2;;b(2;
c,c""'.....N
- -
I I I I
NNOO
COCO(")M
~ NN
I I I I
<od"<od"<od"'If
~~~~
M<od"lt)c,c,....c:o
- ~ ~
I I I I I I
000000
(,,)MC'?(")t")t")
NNNNNN
I I I I I I
<od".....
~~~~~~
l!.l"'~l!.l~~ii!lO
It)~COOlt),....C\1
olliNO "~M
OlO'.lCO.oeroerM
C\I C\l0)0).....
rereg~o~a
I I I I I I I
a;;oa;a;~~~
~~~l~~~
oer.<od"....
~~;1;;1;;1;;1;;1;
0)0 NM
.....NNNC\I
I I I I I
00000
(")t")(")t")M
NNNNN
I I I I I
...<od"<od"
~~~~;1;
E
'" a) C>> 0 ;;:: N '" ... on <D .... a) '" 0 ;;; N '" ... '" <D .... a) '" 0 N '" ... on <D .... a)
E <D <D .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) C>> '" C>> '" '" C>> C>> C>> C>>
~ ..
~
1:: '" "0
,,'" .:;
;}<5\ 5
<>:t'"
......."i:: ~
.... 1;
~cn
.:: '" c
co:::tt::
..:i ~ G'
- fi:::::
" " "
::: ~::;
ii: ~ E-
o
-
\0
<'"l
ic:
E "
_ E
'E ~
8~
~c:
.. "
c: E
:~ ~
~~
:2ni'C
.. -"
C.&!E
5c%~
~
.. "
- ::>
o-
f- ..
",>
-
~
~~B
~~Ci5
" !!
2~
f-6
i'O
j~
i ~
~~~
<
~ e
- "
Cl<
'"
.0 a; 15
~~~
~CL:i
......lOCOO
Wpj~~
~. cD ~ <D
MNMN
~:D~~N;
qC\lCOO')ON
.....o;05"':aio
1.00)...... ......N
~lOC1)NC'?O"ltU')~O
MOm~~P6a;~......(D
~PI~~ri~~N~ci
~
"'8
U;COl
~;:::
"'~
"'~
"''''
'" '"
,..:...;
"'...
"'~
C\i~~~;;2?~
COC).q-r--Lt)Il)M
cD"';Nuiri .0
~<t~~~~~
"'0
"''''
"''''
~tD
"''''
M~~~~~g
C"!M ~t.OI,/')C:O
-O"':ll)riv."':
NNvvvvv
NO)lt)(")O')O')(")I'''''......vlO
NC\lONCOvMmcnm(")1""-
COMI.O...-Mf'--.lOOlOl NM
tDO"".c.Dcorici,....-,..... "':"':N
MM.................NC\I N
~o
~O
00
ON
"''''
.....lOCOOOmO
M......r--CO(DmC\l
0'),....(")......0............
V;"';"':lriri";a5
NNI.t)ll)U')Il)U')
"''''
'" ...
...'"
"';uS
~'"
~8
~- '"
N~
"'''''''
"'...'"
"''''0
N05~
"'''''''
a; a;
~~
NN
oti!)~
"'''''''
00"':
"'''''''
...........LJ')......
om~~
r:~~g
..................C')
o;lJ')C\lIl)V
co~tSg~
";rio;oo;
O)Q)CX).....C"')
C\IC\1NMN
"'''''''
"'''''''
0"''''
,..:...; ...,.-
"'~o
~ ~
"''''
"'~
~'"
0;";
~ '"
~ ~
......
"''''
0'"
";cD
"'~
~ ~
,....mNC?
(")C')Q)O')
C)c.ttClC'1.
cD............ll)
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
vCJ)IJ')....."...lOlO..................CX)C")v
~m~~<bg;:a;m~a~s~
c?Nana)c?m..;rir-:MON''''':
"'~It)~"''''~'''~''''''~'''
"It(')v('),....C'!.NNNNMMN
~
~
~
-
'"
c:
"
E
~
5.
.5
,....<0.....0
...~'"
N...... N..
cDo)c.o
......'"
It) '" '"
Ra;a;~~~~M~~R~~~~~~~
.....N""~~~~~~~~~~~~C'1.~~
..;c?ai,....m COvCOOlCOCOCOMMMMO
lO......COlO""N,....OlNOMOlOMMNNO')
NI.Oll)U')U')l.OvMNNNMNNNNNN
000000000000000000000000000
~~~o~a~~:gI:;
I I I I I I I I I I
gggNNNNC\lNN
NNC\lOOOOOOO
I I I I I I I I I I
"d'~~l.l)l.l)l.l)t/)t/)l.l)t/)
;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i~
~
~
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~
Nm~Om"d'''d'~''d'~~m~~=MN_~~mONN
dajdc?drD~.n ao;"':ajuiO;NOo;uiU'i..nc?c?c?"':
"d'NM~mMN_NNl.l)WMNOm~~oMm_o_
~Ml.l)_M~________MNNNMN____
""~mmM
mmO>NO
""""'(\1'(\1'=
..n..nooc?
--.-_~
----.-
"'It)
It) 0
~'"
NN
It)'"
~ ~
~~~~g~~a~~~N~~~~g~m~~~~~~~~g~~~
N~cicicici_ ciciNNNNN cicici ciciccici
~~O;:o~
I I I I I I
NNNN~~
000000
I I I I I I
lI)l.l) l.l)\I) \I) \I)
;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i
M"d'U')(O.....m
00000....
I I I I I I
~~~~~N
000000
I I I I I I
\l)l.l)U')U')U')U')
~~~~;g~
~N~~~~~~re
I I I I I I I I I
NNNNNNNNN
000000000
I I I I I I I I I
U')\I)U')U')ll)t/)t/)t/)t/)
;!i~~;!i;!i;!i;!i;!i~
6
E
'" '" 0 (; '" '" ~ "' '" ... '" '" 0 - '" '" ~ '" '" ... <Xl '" <> N '" '" ~ "' '" ... '" '"
E '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..
<
1: '" "0
C "'.:;
&<5\ ::
Q:::'C~
.'" .;:~
... -
~ .",""
.5 Q g
Oo~~
tij :: ~
_ "':l:::::
" ~ ~
~~6'
o
r-
<'l
al c:
E a>
~ E
'E ~
8~
C:-c
.. Cll
.E E
~ ~
~~
.,,--
_ .. c:
C"CI'- m
C.li!E
:5c%~
ill
<
1! ~
~ra
N>
,
~
g~g
0-
1-;:(5
Cll !!
2~
....0
10:::-
Cll';;
"i:
~~~
5.
.5
"i!E
~~~
~ j
o
~ ~
~ "
Cl<
-~~ a; a;
!!.o
.. E
~Q.~
c
a>
E
~..
ill
<
~~~8j!;~~~~
(!)(,O'<tLOt--Mv.mN
"':f.!icDOOU->M V~N
...............CONNNNN
~~g~C\I;:::~~
~ ~... 0 to ~ C") 0 M
odr-.:=.a5uici
N C\I C\I 0 ~.. C\/ N CO)
~
"'M~
"'""'"
"'. C'!. "It.
C\INC\i
OOCO
N"'N
o""co
"':uiui
""" N
U')1J)f'OOOO
"'NM
q "'
Mr-:c.D
N ~
",0'"
"" M
"' '"
,..: a)
"" N
q
MO
"''''
00
woo
N N
(,000000
NO
'"
00
N '"
"''''
M
~'"
0":
- "'
'1-
vCOfDCOtONI"'-Wf""-V_r....vVNO
a;O~~~~~.~~~g:~~'!J
~c5cDar),..:-(1)-C")coaScno .,..:
.....OO.....C,Ol.t')M(DLl)C")C?MLl).....O
...............l.l)............_..............................
t--tO.....LO_M(")NVCONMCO
NC'?..........r--.vm....."'('I,f(l)Q')C\I
CDO..........CDC\I~o)OC'OOCO_
O)rDMO~c?coMcDcDuit:OO
C\I__lI)MOl"'-N 01"'-" """0
C\INC\I",":MMC\lC?MNC\lC\lM
~
OOVt--LOO
0",,'"
"'0'"
as . a)
cnWM
"'<XC
COM
",,0
"''''
r;.i";
"'~
"''''
"'M'"
0"''''
"'OM
"':C'\io)
"''''''"
"'''"'''
..;
0000000000000000000000
O~
lS~
c?uS
~O
~ ~
N;::::;~8:;g
ocnl"'-VC')....V
cD cD-i,,;cD,,;oJ
OW(OvMl.l)v
U')......._..........
....lDC'OCDCO,....mvN
CO,.........O"":~cn.....~
ocid~ ci
~gMP!~~~~t;
I I I I I I I I I
NNNNNNNNN
000000000
I I I I I I I I I
U')1J')1/)1.t)l/)U')U')\.t)U')
1b1b1b1b1b1b1b1b1b
cnl"'-M_m
C\I1'Ococn
(oCOMOC\l
muSa5a5ci
MMM"t'..-
................ ....
CCOQ)tOc>>CD
~C')mC!r-..,....
do do
"''''0
MM""
, , ,
NNN
000
, , ,
"'"'"'
1b1b;?;
~O
N
~
cD
o
~
00
~1b
"':~
_cD
0'"
""'"
oJ
-CO
"'''"
"""'
Me)
re~
N~~
cicici
COMl.t)l.t)
C\IO)l.t)C")
cOMeDai
-~ '"
~ ~
NMvU')
VVVVV
I I 1 I I
N
o
,
"'
""
'"
lXlNc:o_te:
0...-0...-0
I I I I I
NOOOO
NNNNtD
00000
I I I I I
1./)1./)1./) Ltl V
(g~(g~~
NNNN
0000
I I I I
1./)11)11)1./)
;?;;?;;?;;?;
~M~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~g
_ ...-...- .-...- - .- -
'"
"'
cD
'"
"'
cD
'5 ~.~
&R]
0:; 'C 'W
~..... .S ~
~iS~
.5 '" C
",,-Q:;
.::i ~ ~
_t;::::
~ ~ ~
t;:'"'
'<: 6-
o
'"
""
'"
cD
o
""
o
~
o
M
o
"'
..;
M
M
cD
""
'"
o
o
..:
'"
co
oJ
'"
;;;
'"
~
'"
""
'"
..;
'"
M
cD
'"
o
'"
Cll
c:
"
-.
al
;;;
."
C.
::>
<5
'"
'"
~
00
<"l
'"
'"
""
o
'"
M
..:
...
.,;
Ii;
0.0
a: 0
c8
Cll ci:
E "
::l 0
Cll<;
ill ..
<..
al~
.~ E
~~
lff~
~ c.
0'] .9-
"'::.:
'":.a>
o.c:
0>....
a>
is 0
c: c.
.. a>
CIla:
o ..
>- .~
c ~
CD ;::, 0.
" 0 c.
:sue::(
o ~~
U,):::.~
This page left intentionally blank.
Fillnl Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
39
This page left intentionally blank.
40
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
This page left intentionally blank.
41
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widening
PART III (C)
CERTIFICA TES
I, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was filed in my office on the day of
1992.
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
State of California
I, Beverly A. Authelet, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessment,
together with the diagram attached thereto, was approved and confirmed by the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on the _ day of 1992.
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
State of California
I, John P. Lippitt, as Director of Public Works of said City, do hereby certify that the
foregoing assessments, together with the diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my
office on the day of 1992.
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Dray Valley Road Widening
42
PART III (D)
METHOD AND FORMULA OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
1. Introduction
The law requires and the statutes provide that assessments, as levied pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipallmprovemenr Act of 1913, must be based on the benefit
that the properties receive from the works of improvement. The statute does not
specify the method or formula that should be used in any special assessment district
proceedings. This responsibility rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is retained
for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts in determining the correct
apportionment of the assessment obligation. For these proceedings, the City has
retained the services of Willdan Associates.
The Assessment Engineer makes his recommendation at the public hearing on the
Assessment District, and the final authority and action rests with the City Council
after hearing all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. Upon the
conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council must take the final action in
determining whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion
to the benefits received.
2. General Benefit versus Special Benefit
The first task of the Assessment Engineer is to distinguish between the General
Benefit associated with the project and the local Special Benefit that would accrue to
the properties within the District. In order to accomplish this, the Assessment
Engineer needs to examine the nature of the public improvements. In addition, an
analysis of the future probable land use of the properties within the district must be
made. Otay Valley Road is a six lane median divided thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. The final EIR for the proposed project
indicates that there is a need for four lanes of roadway to provide an acceptable level
of service to the area within the boundary of the District at buildout. Therefore the
four lanes provide the local special benefit to the area within the District. The
additional two lanes are needed to accommodate regional traffic and through trips that
pass through the area. These additional two lanes constitute the General Benefit
portion of the project and are paid through a contribution by the City to the District.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widelling
43
3. Direct and Special Benefit
Otay Valley Road is a six lane median divided regional thoroughfare with limited
direct private access and controlled access via internal public streets and signalized
intersections. The main purpose of the roadway is to move traffic from neighborhood
to neighborhood or neighborhood to freeway. As indicated previously, there is a
need for four lanes of roadway to serve the area within the boundary of the District
at authorized buildout and maintain an acceptable level of service. The direct, local
Special Benefit derived by the properties within the District for these four lanes of
improvement are as follows:
I. Provides sufficient roadway capacity to maintain an acceptable level of service
at the authorized buildout;
2. Provides traffic safety through medians and signalized intersections; and
3. Enhances the value of the properties within the boundary of the District.
Each property within the District is being assessed for its proportionate share of the
four lanes needed to carry traffic from the development to the freeway or from the
development to other areas of the City. By limiting the costs to only that portion of
the street that benefits the properties within the boundaries of the district, results in
the district paying only its share of the street improvements. Figure I shows parcels
that will receive direct and special benefit from the Otay Valley Road widening.
These parcels include all the industrial property with access onto Otay Valley Road,
the Otay County Landfill, the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel, and the Otay Rio
Business Park.
The Otay County Landfill and the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel are included in the
benefit area because they presently generate heavy truck traffic on Otay Valley Road
and will receive direct benefit from the improvements. In addition, the design for
the future curve at the eastern boundary of the district includes specific features that
will accommodate truck traffic to and from the mining parcel. An eastbound left turn
pocket will provide trucks with safe access from the west, a westbound acceleration
lane on the right will allow exiting trucks to safely enter the flow of traffic, and a
right turn pocket will provide access for entering northbound trucks. The assessment
for the Ctay County Landfill is calculated as if it is a participating property and will
be contributed to the district in cash. The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel will be
assessed and appear within the assessment district boundaries.
The Ctay Rio Business Park is included in the assessment district because it also
receives direct and special benefit from the improvements. 771e Traffic Analysis for
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
O/ay Valley Road Widening
44
Dray Valley Road Phase III shows that Phase I and II improvements are required
in conjunction with the development of the two units in the business park.
4. Method of Spread
The widening of Otay Valley Road will benefit both developed and undeveloped
parcels within the district boundary. All of the property within the district boundary
has been authorized the same land use (industrial) and generates the same amount of
vehicle trips per gross acre. For that reason, the assessments within the contiguous
boundary of the district are based on gross acres. Actual traffic counts were obtained
from the Otay County Landfill parcel and the Nelson & Sloan Mining parcel. A
factor of 200 vehicle trips per day/per acre was used to calculate trips for each of the
industrial parcels and compared with vehicle trip counts for the landfill and mining
parcels in order to determine these parcels' proportionate share of the cost.
Traffic counts for the Otay Landfill were obtained from the County Garbage and
Trash Disposal Division, Department of Public Works, County of San Diego. Traffic
counts for the Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel were taken from 17le Traffic Analysis
for Dray Valley Road Phase II. The heavy trucks that were included in these traffic
counts were multiplied by a rate of 1.7 to account for the additional wear they cause
to the road.
Certain properties within the Otay Valley Road benefit area render themselves, either
wholly or in part, difficult to develop due to their location within a floodway or
floodplain, or lying within an area of probable wetland designation as defined by
agencies other than the City of Chula Vista. Other undeveloped properties render
themselves difficult to develop due to severe slopes within the entire parcel area as
defined by the City of Chula Vista slope ordinance. Where these problems to
development occur, parcels have been eliminated from the district entirely or portions
of the property have been eliminated from the calculation of area for assessment
purposes. Where a part of the parcel is not used in the calculation of that full
parcel's assessment, that portion of the parcel not used in the calculation will not
receive an assessment upon the split of the parcel during reapportionment.
I Willdan A8sociah:s. Traffic Analysis for Olay Valley Road Phase n, Nowmber 7, 1990.
Filial Ellgilleer's Report
Assessme1Jl District 90-2
Dlay Valley Road Widellillg
45
u
Z
'"""'
Z
~
Q
'"""'
~-<
Q@
:d-<
~O::E-<
g>-<~
""~~
....:lZ
....:l~
-<(J:I
>
>-<
-<
E-<
o
gj : ~
..II'
~,
~II
~d
<II
z I ~
~~ :
~ll
~l
...
0:
'"
i:i
"
'"
>
'"
u
'"
'"
~
'"
...
f3
"
'"
'"
~
o
'"
~
~
TABLE 1
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING - PHASE I & II. CREDIT FOR EXISTI:'\G IMPROVEMENTS
North North Nortb Soutb
Assmt Gross Froutage C/G Sidewalk Street Froutage Streetlight Total
No. APN Acres (L.F.) Credit Credit C.-.<Iit Credit Credit C.-.<Iit
3 624-060-28 0.58 170 0 0 0 (8,5OD) 0 (8.5OD)
5 624-060-45 5.22 380 0 0 0 (19.000) 0 (19,000)
11 644-040-23 1.80 171 (1,104) (368) (7.728) 0 0 (9,2OD)
12 644-040-24 3.62 344 (2,064) (688) (14.448) 0 (1,225) (18,425)
14 644-040-28 4.82 569 (510) (170) (3,570) 0 0 (4,250)
17 644-040-36 5.81 0 (1,081) 0 (7,564) 0 (1,447) (10,091)
18 644-040-37 4.03 305 (749) (610) (5,246) 0 (I,OD3) (7,609)
25 644-041-01 1.87 275 (308) 0 (2,153) 0 0 (2,461)
26 644-041-02 0.97 0 (160) 0 (1,117) 0 0 (1,277)
27 644-041-03 1.57 0 (258) 0 (1,808) 0 0 (2,066)
29 644-041-05 2.39 0 (393) 0 (2,752) 0 0 (3,145)
30 644-041-06 1.89 0 (311) 0 (2,176) 0 0 (2,487)
31 644-041-07 1.88 0 (309) 0 (2,165) 0 0 (2,474)
32 644-041-08 2.18 0 (359) 0 (2,510) 0 0 (2,869)
33 644-041-09 1.80 0 (296) 0 (2,073) 0 0 (2,369)
34 644-041-10 1.05 0 (173) 0 (1,209) 0 0 (1,382)
35 644-041-11 0.90 0 (148) 0 (1,036) 0 0 (1,184)
36 644-041-12 0.97 0 (160) 0 (1,117) 0 0 (1,277)
37 644-041-13 2.39 0 (393) 0 (2,752) 0 0 (3,145)
38 644-041-14 1.90 276 (313) 0 (2,188) 0 0 (2,501)
39 644-041-17 2.38 0 (392) 0 (2,741) 0 0 (3,132)
40 644-041-18 2,16 325 (355) 0 (2,487) 0 0 (2,843)
41 644-041-19 3.94 278 (648) 0 (4,537) 0 0 (5,185)
47 644-181-01 1.34 0 (77) 0 (539) 0 (17) (634)
48 644-181-02 1.37 0 (79) 0 (551) 0 (18) (648)
49 644-181-03 1.48 0 (85) 0 (596) 0 (19) (7OD)
50 644-181-04 2.24 0 (129) 0 (902) 0 (29) (1,059)
52 644-181-08 2.38 0 (137) 0 (958) 0 (31) (1,125)
53 644-181-09 1.53 0 (88) 0 (616) 0 (20) (724)
54 644-181-10 4.22 0 (243) 0 (1,699) 0 (54) (1,996)
55 644-181-11 1.66 0 (95) 0 (668) 0 (21) (785)
56 644-181-15 5.19 0 (298) 0 (2,089) 0 (67) (2,454)
57 644-181-16 1.46 0 (84) 0 (588) 0 (19) (690)
58 644-181-18 1.35 0 (78) 0 (543) 0 (17) (638)
59 644-181-19 1.67 0 (96) 0 (672) 0 (21) (790)
60 644.181.20 1.30 0 (75) 0 (523) 0 (17) (615)
61 644-181-21 1.39 0 (80) 0 (560) 0 (18) (657)
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90~2
O/ay Valley Road Widening
47
TABLE 1
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING _ PHASE I & II, CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
North Nortb North South
Assmt Gross Frontage CIG Sidewalk Street Frootage StreetIight Total
No. APN Acres (L.F.) Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit
62 644-1 R 1-22 1.48 0 (85) 0 (596) 0 (19) (700)
63 644-181-23 1.95 0 (112) 0 (785) 0 (25) (922)
64 644-181-24 0.45 0 (26) 0 (181) 0 (6) (213)
65 644-181-25 0.46 0 (26) 0 (185) 0 (6) (218)
66 644-181-26 0.89 0 (51) 0 (358) 0 (II) (421)
67 644-181-27 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
68 644-181-28 0.67 0 (39) 0 (270) 0 (9) (317)
69 644-181-29 1.82 0 (105) 0 (733) 0 (23) (861)
70 644-181-30 0.60 0 (35) 0 (242) 0 (8) (284)
71 644-181-33 1.05 0 (60) 0 (423) 0 (14) (497)
72 644-182-01 5.15 0 (296) 0 (2,073) 0 (66) (2,435)
73 644-182-02 5.21 0 (300) 0 (2,097) 0 (67) (2,464)
74 644-182-03 5.19 0 (298) 0 (2,089) 0 (67) (2,454)
76 644-182-07 6.51 0 (374) 0 (2,620) 0 (84) (3,079)
77 644-182-08 5.17 0 (297) 0 (2,081) 0 (67) (2,445)
78 644-182-09 6.60 0 (380) 0 (2,657) 0 (85) (3,121)
79 644-182-10 5.30 0 (305) 0 (2,133) 0 (68) (2,506)
80 644-182-11 4.24 0 (244) 0 (1,707) 0 (55) (2,005)
81 644-182-12 3.74 0 (215) 0 (1,505) 0 (48) (1,769)
82 644-182-14 1.08 0 (62) 0 (435) 0 (14) (511)
83 644-182-15 0.92 0 (53) 0 (370) 0 (12) (435)
84 644-182-16 4.64 0 (267) 0 (1,868) 0 (60) (2,194)
85 644-182-17 2.79 0 (160) 0 (1,123) 0 (36) (1,319)
86 644-230-11 !.I 8 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
87 644-230-12 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 (34) (34)
88 644-230-13 1.20 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (38)
89 644.230-14 1.19 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (37)
90 644-230-15 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 (92) (92)
91 644-230-16 4.89 0 0 0 0 0 (153) (153)
92 644-230-17 4.85 0 0 0 0 0 (152) (152)
93 644-230-18 3.05 0 0 0 0 0 (96) (96)
94 644-230-19 4.57 0 0 0 0 0 (143) (143)
95 644-230-20 1.62 0 0 0 0 0 (51) (51)
96 644-230-21 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 (30) (30)
97 644-230-22 1.56 0 0 0 0 0 (49) (49)
98 644-230-23 5.60 0 0 0 0 0 (175) (175)
99 644-230-24 1.60 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (50)
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Otay Valley Rand Widening
48
TABLE I
OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING - PIIASE I & II. CREDIT FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
North North North Soulh
Assmt Gross Frontage C/G Sidewalk Street Frontage Streetlight Total
No. APN Acres (L.F.) Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit
100 644-230-25 1.21 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (38)
101 644-230-26 1.61 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (50)
Filial ElIgilleer's Report
Assessmelll District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widellillg
49
~
>0
-z
~- w
OE-<E-<
~wz
~~~
C"lo~~
i:ilE-<~~
Swo>
CJ ~~o
...... - ~
~ E-< E-< P-.
~-~
~Q-
P-.~
o~
~O
P-.
Z
-<:....:i
OUl
....:ie.:>
ClJi>:
o;j~
Z"
Oz
CIJ~
....:iZ
Ul~
z::E
<(,GO
~ \)\ .0
",,;1'> ,-,,'~
i 0< "
CO\J~" o'^'~
tIllf
~!I
2,:
~d
<jl
~,l
~il
~
~
Z
r.:l
::;
r.:l
>
E-< 0
~ 0::
Q ""
r.:l ::;
0:: ~
Q r.:l
r.:l 0
> -<
~ E-<
r.:l Z
[;l 0
0:: 0::
l>.
~ 0
13 ~
- '"
E-< _
0:: X
r.:l r.:l
"" 0::
o 0
r::: l>.
~
5. Existing Improvement Credits
Special consideration will be given to those existing subdivisions that have already
installed frontage improvements on Otay Valley Road as part of their conditions of
development approval. Existing improvements, which include curb, gutter, sidewalk,
lighting and a travel lane will be considered part of the road widening project. Their
cost will be estimated based on the bid amounts for those items and included in the
dollar amount to be spread. Then, the cost will be credited back to those subdivi-
sions that installed them. This method establishes equity among parcels that have
already paid for frontage improvements and those that have not. Table 1 and Figure
2 show what credits will be given to the existing subdivisions. Please refer to the
Assessment Diagram for the location of parcel numbers.
6. Special Financing Considerations
Darling-Delaware Property
The Darling-Delaware property, former site of the Omar Rendering Plant, was to be
developed into the Rio Otay Industrial Park until the discovery of hazardous waste
halted further development. The subdivision is made up of 17 parcels (parcel #'s 25
through 41) and is currently partially improved with graded pads and an improved
access road. A Class I Hazardous Containment Structure is located on parcel #28.
Reference is made to, "Report Review and Assessment of Available Environmental
Documents Related to the Omar Rendering Site, 4826 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista
California," June 5, 1990, Ninyo and Moore; also letter report dated March 19, 1991
to City of Chula Vista, Attention: Ms. Robin Putnam, by TorStan, Inc. City staff
has decided to consider all parcels in the subdivision to be developable, with the
exception of parcel #28, for the purposes of Assessment District 90-2.
Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel
The Nelson & Sloan Mining Parcel is a 136 acre lot outside the city limits of Chula
Vista in San Diego County. It is currently owned by United Enterprises LTD and
leased to Nelson & Sloan for sand and gravel mining purposes. The parcel receives
direct benefit from the road improvements. Due to its location outside the City,
including it in the assessment district boundary is required the Consent and Jurisdic-
tion from the County of San Diego, which has been obtained.
Otay County Landfill
The Otay County Landfill is owned by San Diego County. Like the mining parcel,
it receives direct benefit from the widening of Otay Valley Road. However, County
land is not legally assessable, and inclusion in the assessment district is therefore not
Filial Engineer's Report
Assessme1lt District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
51
feasible. It is recommended that the proportionate share of the assessments
attributable to the landfill, less bond discount, reserve and capitalized interest, be paid
in the form of a cash contribution to the assessment district. A cash contribution has
been calculated and factored into the assessment district offsetting assessments to
property owner.
7. Incidentals
The cost of incidentals has been spread proportionately over the various improve-
ments in the direct proportion that the improvement bears to the total cost of
improvements.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for Assessment District No. 90-2 are
spread in direct accordance with the local, special benefits that the land within the district
boundary r eives from the works of improvements.
2.
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Rood Widening
52
PART IV
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
Reduced copy. Full size copies are on file in the
offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public
Works.
Said Assessment Diagram is filed herewith and made a
part hereof.
Final Engineer's Repon
Assessmellt District 90-2
Otay Valley Road Widening
53
~-z- ~
u
-
c
~
~
c
.
.
@
@
@
C\l
I
0
O':l
l...L... <(
0 E- z
>- n:::
U I- 0
L z "-
<( .......... => .-J 0
~ 0 <( <(
0::: u u 0
C) E- o..... 0::::
<( <(0
en I- >-
- V1
Cl .......... :> w W
I- .....J
Q <(
<( I- .....J
I-- .-J Vl <(
:z => >
E- I 0
W u c.:> >-
L Z "- w <(
U1 0 Cl I-
U1 ~ >- Z 0
w ::E t: <(
u V1 @ @
U1 if] .....
U1 0
<( if] @ @ @
~
if] @> @
if] . e
e .
-<C @
>- co
'" > w
... m
" <r " 0
Z " ~ z
::> 0 z "
0 z ~
'" ~ >- ~
0 0 Z w
.. m w '"
Z u ~ " '- --,
l.J "' w ~ ~
" ~ w
.. V w Q.
l.J '" <r ~ 0
...J Q " ~ ~
Q. " ~
I ~ w
~
"
v
@ ~
0
~
~
0
z
<!l
'i!!
<ID
~
~
o
~
~
~
c
~.
aN
.~
~~
z
~
~
~
~
-
~,
~,
~,
~I
~~
>
~~
~l
~l
~-
~~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,~
,z
I~~
,z_
1~5
,z
ler<
,~~
,~~
,~'
1_0
~~
,~c
l~~
,.v
~;:!:
c.
~~
a
0<
o~
o~
~,
00
o
~::SVl
~ 15....3:
Uz~
~ ~ ~lt:'5i5
l,o. lol< ...J:::l!
Oij;:I~~5<i
~!EZ::wOll:00
GVlO!.:)!! h-cJ:
l>lo8~1Il :5~~
j;~5....~ I~"':l
l-....J~z lol:3;;-,
O:SVl~~i!~ll::~
olll~E~i5<e...J
5th~~E<~zb'
8~...<ot;c~~
>-o..~QI.oJ5'....zo..
5i5~~i!~::5~D
w .~ .~~;'[5;:S
j!::!:: ~cu 0......
>-~~~~~!!!i7l~
1I11:'tn j(3)-'rj....<
c~ IU....zwO
5j~ I~O~~:
~~$ 1~~bVl~
VI < I~f-ll:~"'::i
<~i5 I ~ .....-'<
!il<..... I~ NL.......$
....t;z 1(51-0105<
is .!i'lo.Cl::'~~",,::Ei5
~~~~~~ i~~~
~5t;!~~~ i~~~
Vl<<< It:lii: Iwo(~
:~~ I~~ Ii!D~
<ui!: 1~i7l I~~~
@
..
~%
~~~
z ~
:.:'i~~
8~wu
.d~~\:s
O.c(~W
lL..w'<
lo~:n
,~
l-~;;;d'
<;:( It::
:;:~ [S
~ ,~
- I IVi
",
[lo\:s
IIZj:::
I~ffi~
1<:l!l5
Io..?,u
,i5~
~ to;!:
>-IcVlL....
~ 1::50
I~@~
lal~~
Izll::U
~- ~
~ I~:
o I~~
~ i~~
lo.. Iou
,~
,.
,.
'<
I~
,~
"
,0
:~
,>
,~
p
ill
,~
,~
,0
I>
I~
'0
<ID
o
~
~o
zO
<0
>0
~~
o
~>
~~
~z
~a
<0
~
-
5
~
~
,
o
~
o
>
~
o
*
~
c
.,;
fSg:
~-
0,
~,
ul
,
*1
,
~I
~~
~~
~o
fE i
z ,
- ,
a
~-
~~
~
l3:n :':
~'!.
<'" ~
t3~1
~~ I
00',
<"I
~~ !
~'I
~l
~l
,
,
,
,
,
1
I
'0
,~
'0
,~
10
,~
,0
,>
,~
,z
,~
18
I~
I~
,~
>
m
w~
~~
~~
~~ .
~~~
3~
i~~
olo.l:J
zo<
w~o
~~~
<_a
~~~
tjV'l;!
~~Vl.
c..~8
o ~
~~i5
~z
~e;~
~~~
60>
8 lDil5~
~ ~~8
,~
,~
,~
1<
,~
,~
:0
I~
"
1=
,v
i~
''01
10
I>
IS
N
...
o
...
'"
~
en
~-z- ~
~
~
Q
Z
(' , .--..... ,
\ ~ I
'" I
/
"@
z
o
:J
'"
z
I
l
,
..........
,
N
~
o
m
I...L-
O~ ~
U >- 0:::
::::::2: 1-0
;--..;zu...
<:(~6:::;Cl
0:::: ......... U <( <(
C)~ Uo
<:(iflj~O::::
- {/)
O~>~C;:j
;--..; <(---.J
I- :Hi---.J <(
:z: ::>
wE;i3g>
::::::2:~u...W>-
U1~OCi~
U1~>-zo
W~t::<(
U1 u{/)
U1 ifl u...
<:( ifl 0
~
ifl
ifl
~
I I
I I
I I
I I
t: I
,. -.l
... ,,-'" U
z:l
,,- 01:3
0"
uO <'"
?<j "'-'
... ~:S
0 u
0..
tJ:l
,..
!:i ~
0 ~
z ~
" 0
0 z
0 " =>
0
z t; '"
W
to 0: ~
w
W ... u
-' '" z
Q ~
<L
I
I
I
~5 f ~
~~l ~
G"-t
oj.
~"'8
..1
~I
z"
<i5~
ol'
~~I
'~I
~
~
8~~
el~~
:~~
o"u
~~~
"'~~
<.""~
~25<11
~Eg
~t:ic
@~~
<F~
~~~
@Zl:
~.Z
.. ~~5
" ~u
~ ?l~~
~
w
'"
~
=>
Z
f-
Z
w
~
V>
V>
W
V>
V>
'"
@
N
o.
o
N
...
'"
'"
'"
'"
PART V
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
Accomplishments of all other related work required to effect above improvements.
Description of Work
The following items of work are proposed to be funded by Assessment District 90-2.
Otay Valley Road Phase I
Widen Otay Valley Road to a 6-lane major street within a 128-foot right-
of-way between the intersections with 1-805 and Nirvana Ave. (approxi-
mately 5,700 linear feet).
Project to include: 16-foot wide landscaped median, four 12-foot travel
lanes and associated street sections, two 14-foot travel lanes and
associated street sections, and two 6-foot emergency parking/bike lanes.
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, street lights, and dry utilities.
Otay Valley Road Phase II
Widen Otay Valley Road to a 4-lane facility beginning at Nirvana Avenue
and continuing east approximately 5,000 feet, then south a distance of
approximately 500 feet.
Project to include: two 12-foot lanes in each direction, a five foot
emergency parking lane on the north side, and a 4-foot temporary
median.
A north-south curve design will include an eastbound left turn pocket and
a westbound right turn pocket.
Filial Engineer's Repon
Assessmelll District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Widellillg
56
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage facilities, water mains, and street lights.
Project to include the purchase of right-of-way and wetland mitigation.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
57
PART VI
RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The undersigned, RICHARD K. JACOBS, hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following
is all true and correct.
At all times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and now is the authorized representative of Willdan
Associates, the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA.
That there have now been instituted proceedings under the provisions of the MU1Iicipal/mprovemem Act of
/913, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for the construction and
construction of certain public improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 90-3
(hereinafter referred to as the' Assessment District').
THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTtFIES AS FOLLOWS:
(check one)
o
a.
That all easements, rights-of-way, or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City.
IllI
b.
That all easements, rights-of-way or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works of
improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are in the
possession of the City, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 'A' attached hereto,
showing maps of rights-of.way and easements not yet obtained at this time.
A ENT ENGIN
CITY OF CHULA VI
STATE OF CALIFOR
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Olay Valley Road Wide1li1lg
58
;,":0 .
II .. .
II : I i
"
I r;w
n l;j
~ii "\
.
_,J+
~~..!...
,.,_. ~!
J.<l._"
+
+
!
.
; ~
'- ~-
~r
B 5
z
..L33HS
335
3NIl
H:)l'(~
.,
..II [!\
:;I~I' II
I.:
-,
1:1" II
"II I!: i
, I' -
~ i I' I':! I
II jl I
,'1' I,: II
'! ; 'V:')
..., il-i
I' . j::
,
I'-~ f:--'-=-'~;;;'=----:--;----~-----
II \ I ....OWI' ~ :1 -
"
I
j"
~
q
q
."
'Iii
"
II
"
I.il;
Wi
~'II:
. II..
i Ii
. ~
i "I
~I
-~
i!
,
"
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
"
,
I
.,
"
"
,
,
,
d "-
--'r \
,: \
Fisi \
'm \
..L\
, I
.,
,
,
,
,
,
~ \ /
.f
/-
'-'
.
c!
. .
'.
-.
!~
II- ,..=..
"Il
II '
~ 0
~ ~
o 0
u.
"' 9
.
0: .
"' c
" i
~ "
~ ..(
..L
,
..
0:
..
J:
o
Z
:;:
"'
+
---~..-
.__...-l...._
-
oj
Ii ~'O'
o ~tl'J
~ z~
~... ....~
;;:.t:::..i!1
1'N ;~
~~ ~lI;I
u
~ uc
::- ~!>
~
c
J
/
I
--
!
~
I
~ .ro,....., .
Z"'''''..'''lSW~''__
0"
...
'<
~
~I
" I
",
;. I
\j
J
I
\ q
\ I~i
\ "
'::11
11-
Y'o
.)0
...
'<
~
,,,
t
<>-
...
'<
\..,;
Ul
~
o
0-
...
'<
\..,;
't-
'-.
\
~
;
i
+
+
.x
::>
~ "' c
"' "' ~
vi ~~
LoJ C t;"
5 0 0
~:i~ 9
I- VI ~
~ ~ ~
u 0 ~
z :r..(
5 ~
<.
.....-.
r
, .........
_'J+
~
IS-
!
'\
"<l>
<l>
~
Y'
..L
,
~
"-$.
+
... ;
'" i
%, <l>
~
~
I
_,J+
....-.
.
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
:IG
I I~'i
I 'I,
I .
. I
I ;
o
r :
il :
" 0
~~ ~
~~
'. ~
;1
;~
, ;
{ 1
.
<
l-
DS
~
><
UJ
;
.
· i
e I
i ,
~ i
5 .
,
.
I,
l~
I.
I
L J
~
I.
,
~ I
1ft 1
n1i!
~'"
..
~ ,IJ
-I'
". I
tl
H!
.....-. t ,
..........-- f
<l:
~ ~g! ! l-
e ; :~ m
~ ~. , :E
u' . i-,J __'1
~ " , X
a -, I .'1:'
! ! .\l W
; I~
, 1
.
. .
l;; i
,. 0
: I.. e
, ili i I
i ~
! :.; : '.c- .
.' %-
t ",I.. ~ 5
! . .'~ \.\) .
.,1' -CU
I.
I~
I'
1
} .
@
; 'S, I
. "
'" "
!
....\)0 , I
~ L
y-
.1 , -'- ~
i! f- ,
f- a
0 ~
u ~
V> a H
~
0: :
'"
~ " Z
..J
< "
;: "
I
!
.
-",,)--;- -'-
II
0", f: .
~1 ~
"", ~1
.,
rl")
'-j'
~'. 1
P
,
, ,
".-..,
YO
\0 ;,-
'~I
"
~.
a
~
. i g
!fll,,_; . .
..1;, . ~
1"" I
...~~ : e
. 0
.- ! ~
,~ ~I
a~LL_h_ .
I" 0
II .._"" ~~ !/
, o. ~
I o. i~ ~
I!! -S- ~'e
'I i;
,
I!I ~a
! , ! 'II
ro'
.'
-, .l.33HS 33S 3Nl1 H::llV~ ! I
, ,
! I 1
.
. :;.1 . <(
i
c ~8
'<j! ~. E; l-
I r ~l as
ft :I:
X
< W
'" .
0
! r . i
'" .
<
.....,J+ -....J+ " 9 .
0
< . i
, >- 9 .
-+ :E . ~ 1
.
. i
,. =>
i I~ '" . i
>- 0:
" < '" ~
" . .
.
0 .
0...';".,....
....,.. ~.-
~ lit .
~ .,.- .
c 'i j-iOwii'-UI.iUOO !
,
w ., .
~
~ ,*:U.liij~iO.. . ,
il . . 1
u ~-6- ., , i . .
, .
w . · i
z
:0 h
Oc> ~""" z I
< !
0 I
-' I
-' "'. I
< 0 .
5: 0';
z. ,~
'" <9
c> ....
< .
t z.
. , '" o'
! ~' ~2i ~ OJ
! z 'j
. 0 "'~
. 1 >- z~ "1-""
z
_'J.+ € w 0
... z .s> ~i:
,c. j € <:i <
.. .s> ~
~i j :i . ,\}
v~ '(
../ ~,<>
''-' f
v> . i
~,~I) I J.Il:.h" III .
.al'lII" J.OU..... . ! I
snR .~
! r iij I
~ .
~ ~ .' . '1
c i
+ fl + -..+ ~:
U - Ii'
. " ~~ '-I'
. 'I
>- ! fl ' .
. ;8 i!
z ; ~
< "-6- .,
Cl. , . >-
z Z
'" ;1 ~ ...
. < -.
0 . ! ~ ,<> Cl. i.
u i ~ '"
-'. " ~ ~ 0
<0 :\ ~ . u ~ "1-""
5::0 ; ~~ -,9
~9 ; , 15~.... <0 .s>
, . .oz -. 0
t <. .' >." (<0 !
. .~ : "-> "''' ,
+ + "'. -~~ .....
z'; . 'o~< <. ,
.' .U"
, o~ ..''- V "'. .
! ....~ zr.; ! w
z ll\ t o. g
'"
... .... .
z t
<:i ; \' '"
0, t ...
:i ,i> , ~
;0\ ' <:i j
:.~ \ ? :i I i
\~ ~~~ ""-1-- ;
Oc> S 0
! .- \ ~ ,i> ! v~ .
, ? ~.s>
. I";, - I .,..",
_'J+ 'lf~ -.~..\ +: _,)....L
,
'.. .~' ~ i-
:~~~..~~.t\ ~>;
~ ~ 1;:" . 1
(.....l -, ~..::\....\ -
Z 133HS 335 .....~,.. . ".. ~'~... 3NI1 H:)i'li'"
~- II!
J.>t.""'_ " '~3S :iNn).. "W3.lS't'J
.........:.. 1_'In_J..........1Ol
PART VII
CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
The following changes and modifications, if any, were ordered by the City
Council at the public hearing on the Assessment District, and those changes are
generally set forth as follows:
I. Assessments to parcels are to be modified as a result of the
City of Chula Vista funding the legally required Reserve
Fund.
2. The City of Chula vista intends to establish an underground
utility district pursuant to Rule 20A of the California Public
Utility Commission from the intersection of Otay Valley
Road and Oleander, east to the intersection of Otay Valley
road and Nirvana. Assessments to parcels are to be modified
based on the intended formation of this district.
Final Engineer's Report
Assessmeflt District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
62
Appendix A
IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT LETTER FROM
CITY OF OlliLA VISTA
Final Engineer's Report
Assessment District 90-2
Oray Valley Road Widening
63
~~f~
~~-~
...........:;::~~
- - -~
ON OF
CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
APR - 7 9ll
April 2, 1992
; Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich
San Diego, CA 92122
WlLLDAN ASsoc. SAN DIEGO
Subject: Properties in the Proposed Otay Valley Road Assessment District with Impediments
to Development
Dear Jerome:
As you are aware, there are a number of properties which fall within the boundaries of the
proposed assessment district for the widening of Otay Valley Road which have severe physical
andlor financial impediments to development. This will impact the relevancy of including them
in the district. These properties are generally divided in three categories: (I) properties located
within the Otay River Floodway and Floodplain; (2) wetland properties south of Otay Valley
Road; and (3) properties with extreme grades and environmentally sensitive vegetation on the
north side of Otay Valley Road, east of Nirvana Avenue. These properties are further identified
in the attached map. The development impediments are described below.
Floodwav and Floodolain Prooerties
To encroach in the floodway, studies and calculations would need to be provided to indicate that
the encroachment and associated mitigation measures meet both City and federal (FEMA)
requirements.
Wetland Prooerties
A significant portion of properties lying south of Otay Valley Road, west of Nirvana Avenue,
fall within designated wetlands associated with the Otay River. Much of the properties directly
south of Otay Valley Road include these wetlands.
Development of these properties would, minimally, require the following:
. Environmental assessment by City staff;
276 FOURTH AVEiCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
Mr. Jerome Fournier
WilIdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 2
. Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive and/or endangered species of plants
and animals, impacts to wetlands and other environmental resources;
. Coordination with other state and federal regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and achievement of at least the following:
(1) Section 404 Permit through the Army Corps of Engineers including the
identification of appropriate mitigation for the loss of wetlands due to the
proposed development,
(2) Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game, and
(3) Possible channelization of the Otay River which, in itself, would
destroy wetland habitat.
Even with the requirements above, property developed int he floodway may be subject to
flooding, limitation on development by the presence of protected species of animals and
vegetation already identified in this area, and the cost of purchasing and restoring wetlands to
replace those lost to development. It should be noted that there is value in the wetland
properties for sale as mitigation property for offsite development such as the Otay Valley Road
Widening project.
ProDerties With Extreme SloDes
Two nrooerties are identified on the north side of Otav Vallev Roan. east of Nirvana. which are
... ... .. .' ,
characterized by steep slopes and endangered vegetation. Impediments to development for these
properties would include:
. Environmental assessment by City staff;
. Preparation of an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report, to identify sensitive and/or endangered species of
vegetation (previously identified 'on this site);
. City slope ordinance limits of no more than a 2: 1 slope for development; and
. Limit on ability to directly access Otay Valley Road due to City development policy to
limit access and physical constraint due to steep slopes.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mr. Jerome Fournier
Willdan Associates
April 2, 1992
Page 3
The environmental constraints, lack of access, and presence of protected vegetation will make
these properties extremely difficult and expensive to develop. Access to these properties from
the north is also limited due to the topography which would limit the amount of property which
could be used for development.
If you require any additional information concerning developability of these properties, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
SinCerel~! .
AulL
Fred Kassman
Redevelopment Coordinator
FKlbb
[C:\WP51 \OVROAD\LETJ'ERSIWJLLDAN2.LTR]
CC: Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator, Community Development
William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Donna Snider, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director, Planning Department
Tom Meade, Consultant
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~(f?-
~
.......~~~
- - --
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
April 10, 1992
File # AY-08l
RECEiVED
willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive #250
San Diego, CA 92122-3939
APR I 5 1992
WIIJ,DAN AS5OC. SAN DIEGO
OTAY VALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
CONSTRAIN1-'S
DEVELOPMENT
This letter is in response to your questions regarding floodway
constraints as outlined in the letter dated April 2, 1992 from
Fred Kassman of Community Development.
Floodway encroachments, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited
unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments will
not result in any increase in flood levels during a base flood
discharge. This generally requires detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations which may include HEC-2 runs. Floodway
fringe encroachments are permitted if the pad elevation or finished
floor elevation is at least I' above the base flood elevation and
hazardous velocities are not produced as a result of the
encroachment. These requirements are separate from environmental
constraints of other state and federal regulatory agencies such as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish
and Game, and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service.
In order to remain within the
FEMA requires that the City
floodway encroachments.
National Flood Insurance Program,
follow these FEMA guidelines on
Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter
please contact Donna Snider at 691-5266.
/y~ ?UZ/~
WILLIAM A. ULLRICH
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
DDS:nm
(DDS2\OTV90-2.LTR)
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/1619) 69LS021
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ')...t,
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE:
Public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 12.20 of the
Municipal Code and Master Fee Schedule regarding imposing a fee for
construction permits issued to utility companies
Ordinance?. S;l.1 amending Section 12.20 of the Municipal Code
I
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works (y'
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (ft (4/5 Vote: Yes_No-X..}
Historically, the City has not Charg{{ a fee to utility companies for permits to do work within
the City's rights-of-way. The results are that minimum inspection time is allotted by our
inspection crews to watching over the work being done. It is the intent of the City to impose
a flat fee for each minor permit and full cost recovery for larger jobs. In order to do this,
Council must hold a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold the subject public hearing, adopt ordinance and
place ordinance on its first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
There are currently six utility companies that are franchised with the City and one (Jones
Intercab1e) which is not franchised. Unlike any other company or individual, the utility
companies have never been required to pay a fee to cover the cost of City staff's time spent
administering and inspecting their permitted work in our streets. Instead, these costs have been
absorbed by the General Fund. Also, inspection of work done by the utility companies has not
been at as high a level as other inspection services.
Currently the department is inspecting utility permit work on a "time-available" basis. Due to
the department's current work load, there is inadequate inspection given to some utility permit
work. This work includes lateral cuts in the City's streets and without proper inspection of these
types of jobs, substandard repairs can result. With inspections being performed before and
during construction, problems may be better avoided. By charging a fee for the permits, the
cost of the inspections can be offset.
21 ,1
DRAFT OF
PROPOSED CHANGES TO
CHAPTER 12.20 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING UTILITY PERMITS
12.20.010
Permit required - Application - Issuance prerequisites - Performance
bond - Exemptions
Every person, other than subdividers authorized pursuant to subdivision
improvement agreements constructing public improvements and/or installinl!. adiusting
or reJlairing public utility facilities in the public right-of-way, shall present an application
for a public works construction permit to the director of public works. Upon receipt of
proper fees, bonds, policy of insurance, plans and such other pertinent documents as
required by the director of public works, said director may issue a public works
construction permit to perform specified work in the public right-of-way. The specified
work shall be undertaken by a utility company properly franchised by the city or a
properly qualified contractor, licensed under the laws of the state; provided however, that
in the case of encroachments being constructed in the public rights-of-way which do not
affect public improvements either requiring the construction, reconstruction or relocation
thereof, may be performed by the property owner as provided in Chapter 12.28 of this
code. The application shall be filed on forms pr8'/iEied apJlroved by the director of
public works and shall contain assurances or stipulations that the applicant is a franchised
utility company or such a licensed contractor and that he will construct all work or
improvements in a good and workmanlike manner and in strict conformity to the
provisions of this title and the standards and specifications adopted by the city as
presently existing or as same may be amended. Said application for...
12.20.100
Permit-Fees required-ExemptIons-Refunds
A.
All construction of public works improvements within the public rights-of-way
shall be authorized through the issuance of public works construction permits or
utility construction permits issued by the director of public works to qualified
contractors or to public utility organizations under franchise from the city council,
excepting that work performed by llttblie lItilHj' ergRRizatieBs lIBder fffillehise
frem the eHy eOllftcil Md imprevemeHts ift3lftlled under subdivision improvement
agreements, or city public works contracts.
B.
The permit fees required by this section shall be collected prior to issuance of a
public works or utility company construction permit.
C.
The state, or any of its political subdivisions, or any governmental agency shall
file applications for permits and shall be issued permits as required by this
chapter; provided however, that no fees shall be required for private plan review.
-;2.t.-3
Code changes (cont'd)
D. Permit fees for public works construction permits shall be the Required Fee(s).
E. Permit fees for utility construction oermits shall be the Required Fee(s).
E F. In the event a public works construction permit fee refund...
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
REGARDING UTILITY PERMIT FEES
Construction Permits
A $65 administrative fee shall be collected with each application for a permit to construct public
improvements. provided however. that no such fee is required for the ap.plication for a utility
construction oermit. Plan reiview and Inspection fees shall be collected as appropriate.
Utility Construction Pennits
A. The fee for a utility construction permit for a iob for which the cost of reolacement of
the surface improvements (includinl! the top three (3) feet of any trench or other
excavation) within the City right-of-way. is estimated to be less than ten thousand dollars
($10.000) shall be $125.
B. The fee for a utility construction permit for a job for which the cost of replacement of
the surface improvements (including the top three (3) feet of any trench or other
excavation) within the City ril!ht-of-way. is estimated to be ten thousand dollars
($10.000) or more. shall be a cash deoosit in an amount sufficient to cover the City's full
cost of administering the permit and inspection of the work. including overhead.
:Lie,.. ~
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 6/23/92
The budget for FY 92-93 includes one additional Public Works Inspector II position, to be
partially paid for by monies collected from the utility companies for permit work. This will
increase the level of utility construction inspection to the same level as provided on other
construction projects. The approval of this position is contingent upon the establishment of fees
for the utility construction permits.
It is proposed that the City charge $125 for each utility construction permit for minor projects.
This figure was derived by determining that the time spent on processing the permit and
inspecting a typical utility job totals approximately two hours. The charge for major projects
is proposed to be a deposit to cover actual costs, including overhead.
Of the nine cities in the County which staff contacted, seven (San Diego, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Encinitas, La Mesa, poway and Santee) charge a permit fee to the utility companies. The fees
range from $15 to $341.50 per permit. Staff believes that $125 per permit is in line with actual
costs in Chula Vista. We intend to monitor our time spent on each of the utility companies' jobs
over the next year and possibly adjust the fees accordingly.
It is staff's recommendation that Council adopt this ordinance and place it on its first reading.
It is intended that the second reading of this ordinance take place at the Council meeting of
June 30th.
A draft of the amended ordinance is attached for Council's reference. All utility companies have
been notified by mail of this public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: By averaging the number of utility construction permits over the last 2'h
years (654), an estimated amount of $81,800 would be added to the General Fund.
JWH
PU-OOl
2b-J..-! J.'.~
12.20.100
permi t - Fees required - Exemptions -
Refunds
A. All construction of public works improvements
within the public rights-of-way shall be authorized
through the issuance of public works construction
permits or utilitv construction permits issued by
the director of public works to aualified
contractors or to public utilitv oraanizations
under franchise from the citv council, excepting
that work performed BY pUBlic utility er~aRi~atiens
unaer franchise frem the city eeuncil ana
imprevementa inGtallea under subdivision
improvement agreements, or city public works
contracts.
B. The permit fees required by this section shall be
collected prior to issuance of a public works or
utilitv construction permit.
C. The state, or any of its political subdivisions, or
any governmental agency shall file applications for
permits and shall be issued permits as required by
this chapter; provided however, that no fees shall
be required for private plan review.
D. Permit fees for public works construction permits
shall be the Required Fee(s).
E. Permit fees for utilitv construction permits shall
be the Reauired Feels) or deposit.
B ~ In the event a public works construction permit fee
refund is requested by the permittee, and the
director of public works has determined that it is
in the public interest to allow the permittee to
abandon the work, the director of public works
shall cancel the permit and refund the unused
portion of the fee.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
2
2&. -ip
I
"--.- .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
CITY COUNCIL of Chula vista, California, for the purpose of
considering an amendment to Ordinance No. 1240 and Ordinance No.
1205. In accordance with city policy a public hearing is to be
held to consider the matter. Details are available in the
Department of Public Works, Engineering Division.
Staff is recommending that the ordinances be amended to include
charging a fee to utility companies franchised by the city to use
the city's rights-of-way to install their facilities. If you wish
to challenge the City'S action on this matter in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the city Council at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
June 23, 1992, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: June 3, 1992
ENGINEERING DIVISION FILE NO. KY-009
~ declare under penalty of perJury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in th9
Office of the City Clerk and the,t I posted
this Aten'io/r,o,;ce [,n the Bulletin Board at
the Public e'er ~c~s Buikin,; and at City Hal~CE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATED, .' ,/r SIGNED ~ /'7"C'IlULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY
THE CITY COUNCIL for the purpose of considering:
" ,"
':::..-J 'j I'
. FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO 122 - FOURTH
AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH
OF STATE HIGHWAY 54
. ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR CITY-FRANCHISED UTILITY COMPANIES TO
USE CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR INSTALLATION OF FACILITIES
amendment to Ordinance Nos 1205 and 1240
If you wish to challenge the city's action in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on
Tuesday, June 23, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear. For further information contact
Engineering 691-5021.
DATED: June 10, 1992
Beverly A. Authelet, CMC
city Clerk
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7-7
Meeting Date 06f13!<n.
ITEM TIlLE: Resolution /~~ 8 If Approving a Contract for Fireworks Display for July 4, 1992,
and Entering into Indemnification Agreements between the City of Chula Vista and
Robr Industries and the San Diego Unified Port District.
SUBMlllbU BY: Director of Parks and Recreatio~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
The Department is in the process of finalizing plans for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be
held on the Chula Vista Bayfront. The event has been highly successful during the past several years, and
is expected to draw a similar number of spectators. The planning process for the fireworks event for 1992
is unusual due to two circumstances; reduced traffic access and the accommodation of spectators at the
Bayfront. This report will outline the necessary measures staff has taken to minimize the impact of these
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution to execute a contract with San Diego Fireworks,
Inc. (Attachment A) for the 1992 fireworks display and to enter into Indemnification Agreements with Rohr
Industries (Attachment B), and with the San Diego Unified Port District (Attachment C) for use of their
parking facilities, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreements.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION OF TIlE ISSUES AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR MITIGATION:
The Fourth of July Fireworks display will be held on the Bayfront on Saturday, July 4, 1992. The show is
scheduled to begin promptly at 9:00 P.M., and will last approximately 20-25 minutes. Due to the unexpected
delays in the opening of "F' Street, west of Bay Boulevard (Lagoon Drive) associated with the construction
of Rohr Industries' new facilities, some adjustments have been made in the plans to accommodate spectator
parking and traffic.
The Police Department, Traffic Engineering, and the Transit Division are coordinating plans to help relieve
the anticipated traffic congestion that will take place in the area. Traffic control will be handled by the
Police Department. A centralized command post will be established at the comer of "J" Street and Marina
Parkway so that Police, Fire, and other personnel involved with the event will know where contact can be
made in the event of any unforseen problems or emergencies.
The advertising for the event, utilizing transit bus ads, paid advertising, multi-media notification and
newspaper and radio announcements, has been structured to provide the public with information regarding
the limited accessibility due to the closure of "F' Street.
lfirewort)
1
2"1-/
Item 21
Meeting Date 06f23/92
Parking in the immediate show area will be available in lots at the "J" Street Marina, at Bayside Park and in
the large paved Rohr employee lot on Marina Parkway. This parking is relatively minimal in relation to the
number of spectators that have gathered in the area in the past, and the free shuttle bus service is being
heavily promoted again this year. The Department has requested permission from Rohr Industries to also
use their east employee parking lot. Staff anticipates that this permission will be granted. Once the
designated parking lots have filled to capacity, the area will be closed to vehicular traffic.
The City shuttle bus service to and from the event will be expanded, and additional busses will be used to
move spectators in and out of the area. As in years past, free shuttle bus service will be provided from the
Bayfront Trolley station, the "H" Street Trolley Station, and the Palomar Trolley Station, beginning at
approximately 6:30 P.M.. All pick-up points for the shuttle service will be from regular City Transit bus stops.
Also, a single shuttle bus will operate during the entire afternoon from the "H" St. Trolley Station, providing
transportation into the fireworks area for spectators arriving earlier in the day who do not wish to park in
the immediate area where traffic congestion will occur following the show.
Prior to the event, shuttle buses will have priority use of Bay Boulevard between "H" St. and "J" Street to
ensure that bus service is not interrupted by traffic congestion. Following the event, as in years past, Marina
Parkway between Sandpiper and Bay Boulevard will be designated one way, with all traffic flowing south.
The normal north-bound lanes will be used exclusively for shuttle bus service, and for police and fire vehicles.
These lanes will be closely barricaded and patrolled. Bay Boulevard between "J" and "H" Street will also be
restricted to shuttle buses and emergency vehicles. This additional parking area and shuttle service should
relieve some of the anticipated congestion in the area both before and after the event. In addition, pending
Rohr Industries approval, shuttle bus service will be provided from the Rohr Industries employee parking
lot just west of Bay Boulevard at "H" St., to the fireworks area. A diagram of the event area showing parking
lots is attached as Attachment "D".
The event area will also be impacted this year due to the continuing renovation project at Marina View Park.
The 4.5 acre park, which has accommodated a fairly large number of spectators in past years, will be closed.
The contractor will be installing a six foot chain link fence around the entire park area that is being affected
by the renovation, and "No Trespassing" signs will be posted along the entire perimeter. The contractor will
be providing a limited number of employees at the site to help ensure that spectators do not enter the area.
Any damage to the park during the fireworks event could delay the opening of the park later in the summer,
which could potentially impact the Pops concert that is scheduled at Marina View Park on August 23, 1992.
Spectators who have normally gathered in Marina View Park to view the fireworks display will be required
to find other viewing areas. There are no designated viewing areas, and plenty of space is available in other
areas along the Bayfront.
Following the event, all vehicular traffic will exit the area utilizing the south-bound lanes of Marina Parkway.
Should on-going negotiations with the Rohr Industries construction contractor provide single lane service on
the "F' Street extension (Lagoon Drive) for the event, some traffic will also be directed out of the area along
that route. Event planning is continuing with the assumption that this option will not be available, although
contingency plans are also being prepared should the temporary "F' Street opening become a reality.
[firework)
2
?. 7 <2-
Item 1..(
Meeting Date 06!2:Vn
San Diego Fireworks, Inc. has been selected to do the display. San Diego Fireworks has provided the City
with impressive shows for the Fourth of July event, as well as the Symphony Pops concert finale, for the past
five years. The company has done hundreds of displays within the county, and has a solid performance record
both locally and nationwide since 1946. The fireworks will be launched from a barge anchored in the Bay,
similar to the arrangement during last year's show. San Diego Fireworks has made arrangements with KKLQ
FM -106 radio to provide a musical simulcast during the fireworks display. The station will be providing free
pre-event publicity, and is donating several thousand dollars in additional fireworks for the City's display.
Since the event will be taking place on Port District property, the San Diego Unified'Port District has been
contacted concerning the event. The City is being asked to provide the Port with a Certificate of Insurance
naming the Port District as additional insured. In addition, the Port's Activity Permit contains an
Indemnification Agreement. Rohr Industries has also requested that the City provide them with a Certificate
of Insurance and an Indemnification Agreement. The City's Risk Manager has been informed about this
requirement, and recommends compliance. It should be noted that the Port District Activity Permit gives
the Port Authority right to a 24-hour cancellation notice to the City which, if exercised, would terminate the
fireworks display, and could result in the loss of the contract fees. Such a cancellation is highly unlikely,
although a serious emergency in the area could result in such a cancellation.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Staff is comfortable that the mitigation measures discussed above will
ensure an enjoyable event. However, because of the issues of traffic and public safety and the on-going fiscal
constraints of the City budget, Council may wish to cancel this year's event. If the Council chooses not the
enter into a contract with San Diego Fireworks, there are no financial penalties. If a contract is signed and
unforeseen events occur, the City has until 9:00 AM. on July 4 to cancel, with a 10% financial penalty.
In light of potential budget reductions, the City is in the process of requesting the Port District to fund this
event. A copy of a letter submitted to the Port District regarding this matter is attached as Attachment "E".
If the Port is willing to place this request on their agenda during the week of June 22, staff will advise
Council of the results of this request for funds.
A total of $27,510 has been budgeted for this event. A breakdown of the specific event budget is attached
as Attachment "P'.
FISCAL IMPACT: $27,510 has been budgeted in the non-departmental account (100-1470-5362) for this
year's Fireworks display. It is anticipated that this amount will be sufficient to cover the expenditures
incurred. The City bears the total cost of this event. There are no funds contributed from outside sources.
However, if staff is successful in securing Port funding for this event, there will be (contingent on the funding
level) less of a fiscal impact to the City.
Attachments:
"A" - Contract with San Diego Fireworks, Inc.
"B" - Indemnification Agreement with Rohr Industries
"C" - Indemnification Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District
"D" - Diagram of Event;;::ea
"E" - Port District Letter
"F" - Budget Detail
I/tJr SCAli';;/)
[firework]
3
':2.-(-3
RESOLUTION NO. lloloG-4
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS
DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1992 AND ENTERING INTO
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND ROHR INDUSTRIES AND THE SAN
DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AGREEMENTS
The City council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation staff is finalizing plans
for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be held on the
Chula Vista Bayfront; and
WHEREAS, the planning process for the fireworks event for
1992 is unusual due to two circumstances: reduced traffic access
and the accommodation of spectators at the Bayfront; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council adopt the
resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with San
Diego Fireworks and to enter into an indemnification agreement with
Rohr Industries and with the San Diego Unified Port District for
the use of their parking facilities, .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve and authorize the Mayor
to execute an Agreement between with San Diego Fireworks, Inc. and
the City of Chula vista for a the annual Fourth of July Fireworks
display to be held on the Chula vista Bayfront on Saturday, July 4,
1992, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves and
authorizes the Mayor to execute an indemnification agreement with
Rohr Industries for the use of their parking facilities, and a
Tideland Activity Permit from the San Diego Unified Port District,
copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Presented by
App ved
to fOry
I
\
~
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
a rd, City Attorney
C:\rs\fICeworks
27-~
ATTACHMENT A
FIREWORKS DISPLAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 16th day of June,
1992, by and between the City of Chula Vista, a California
Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and San
Diego Fireworks, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter
called "Contractor", is made with reference to the following
facts:
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, city desires to provide a fireworks display
for its residents on July 4, 1992, and Contractor desires to
furnish the fireworks display to said city;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO
AS FOLLOWS:
1. SCOPE OF WORK.
Contractor agrees to furnish to City, on July 4,
1992, in the San Diego Bay, on a barge off the Chula Vista
Marina in accordance with the terms and conditions herein-
after set forth, one (1) Fireworks Display as set forth in
Program "A", attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated
herein and made a part hereof as though set forth in full,
including the services of one (1) licensed pyrotechnician to
take charge of and fire the Display with sufficient helpers.
1.1 City's Duty to Provide Suitable site.
City shall furnish and provide at their own expense a
suitable site and location. Suitability of any proposed
site is to be determined solely by Contractor. If City
proposes a site on water, City shall furnish and provide, at
their own expense, suitable floats or scows, including
provisions for towing and handling of same. The operations
of Contractor are considered complete with the crew and
equipment of Contractor depart the site.
2. Cancellation by Contractor. In the event Contractor
reasonably determines the weather conditions unfavorable on
the date set for the display, City shall pay Contractor ten
percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee and
costs incurred by Contractor for technician fees, custom set
piece and logo design, permit and insurance.
J. Cancellation by city. Should City decide to cancel the
display, notice shall be given to Contractor no later than
july492.wp
June 12, 1992
1992 July 4th Display Contract
Page 1
-
27,S
nine o'clock A.M. on the day of the display. city shall pay
Contractor ten percent (10%) of the contract pr1ce as a
restocking fee and all costs incurred by Contractor
including, but not limited to, technician fees, custom set
piece and logo design, permit and insurance.
4. Postponement. In the event of cancellation by Contrac-
tor as provided in Paragraph 2 herein, or cancellation by
City as provided in paragraph 3 herein, city shall not be
liable and responsible to pay Contractor ten percent (10%)
of the contract price as a restocking fee and all costs
incurred by Contractor provided the parties agree to another
date for the display prior to 9:00 A.M. on the day of the
display. city shall be liable only for the expenses
incurred by Contractor due to the postponement if the
parties have agreed upon a postponement date, or the City
has tendered a reasonable postponement date.
5. ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR WEATHER RUINING EXHIBITS.
City agrees to assume the risk of damage to the Exhibit
by weather or other causes beyond the control of Contractor,
which may affect or damage such portion of the exhibits as
must be placed in position and exposed a necessary time
before the scheduled commencement of the Display. By
assuming said risk, City agrees to pay for Contractor's cost
of said destroyed or ruined exhibits, unless the city is
otherwise obligated to pay the Contractor the compensation
required by this agreement.
6. DISPLAY PROTECTION.
City shall provide adequate pOlice or security service
to prevent the public from entering the areas designated
solely by the Contractor for the firing of the display and
fallout. Any vehicles or personal property within these
areas shall be removed at the expense of City. Any damage
to personal property and injuries or death to persons
remaining within these areas shall be the sole
responsibility and liability of City. City shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless Contractor against such claims as
provided in paragraph eight (8) herein. City shall also be
responsible and liable for any damage or theft of equipment
or materials of Contractor caused by the pUblic.
7. INSURANCE.
Contractor, shall, throughout the duration of this
Agreement, maintain the following insurance coverage:
july492.wp
June 12, 1992
1992 July 4th Display Contract
Page 2
2~~
7.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance including
Business automobile liability insurance in the amount
of $1,000,000, combined single limit, which names the
City of Chula Vista as additional insured and is
primary to any insurance policy carried by the City.
7.2 Errors and omissions insurance in the amount of
$250,000.
7.3. statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and
Employer's Liability Insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.
All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a
Best's Rating of "A", Class "V", or better or shall meet
with the approval of the city's Risk Manager.
Contractor will provide, prior to commencement of the
services required under this Agreement, certificates of
insurance for the coverage required in this section, and,
for Commercial General Liability Insurance, a policy
endorsement for the city as additional insured; a policy
endorsement stating the Contractor's insurance is primary
and a policy endorsement stating that the limits of
insurance apply separately to each project away from
premises owned or rented by the Contractor. Certificates of
insurance must also state that each policy may not be
canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to
the City.
The provisions of this section are intended to be of
benefit only to the City, and not for the advantage or
benefit of any third party. The City shall have the sole
right to insist upon or waive their performance without
liability to any third party.
8. HOLD HARMLESS.
8.1 City's Indemnity. City shall indemnify, defend
and hold Contractor harmless and the property of Contractor
from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, suits,
injuries and liabilities arising from the death or injury to
any person or from damage to or destruction of any property,
which arises out of, or is caused by an act, omission,
negligence or misconduct on the part of City or any of
City's elected officials. officers, agents, servants,
employees, contractors, guests, invitees or licensees. The
provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim or
july492.wp
June 12, 1992
1992 JUly 4th Display Contract
Page 3
?- 7-;
liability ar~s~ng by reason of the sole negligence, gross
negligence or willful misconduct of city.
8.2. contractor's Indemnity. Contractor shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless Citv CeRtraeter and the
property of citvceRtracter from and against any and all
claims, losses, damages, suits, injuries and liabilities
arising from the death or injury to any person or from
damage to or destruction of any property, which arises out
of or is caused by an act, omission, negligence or
misconduct on the part of Contractor or any of Contractor's
officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, guests,
invitees or licensees. The provisions of this section shall
not apply to any claim or liability arising by reason of the
sole negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of
City.
9. COMPENSATION.
City agrees to pay Contractor the sum of sixteen
Thousand Five Hundred ($16,500.00) Dollars according to the
following terms and conditions, due and payable as follows:
Fifty (50%) percent deposit upon execution of this agree-
ment, and the balance due ten (10) days after date of
Display, plus one (1%) percent service charge on accounts
over thirty (30) days past due.
10. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS.
This contract shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California. Should any legal action be brought to
enforce or interpret the terms or provisions of this
agreement, any court of competent jurisdiction located in
the County of San Diego, California shall be proper venue
for an action. If any legal action is brought to enforce or
interpret the terms or provisions of this agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which they
may be entitled.
11. PARTIES INDEPENDENCE.
It is further agreed that nothing in this Agreement
shall be construed as forming a partnership, the Parties
hereto being severally responsible for their own separate
debts and obligations, and neither Party shall be held
responsible for any agreements not stipulated in this
Agreement.
july492.wp
June 12, 1992
1992 July 4th Display Contract
Page 4
27-7
12. NOTICE TO PARTIES.
Any Notice to Parties required under this Agreement to
be given to either party may be given by deposition in the
united States mail, postage prepaid, first class, a notice
addressed to the following:
City:
City of Chula Vista
Attn: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Contractor:
San Diego Fireworks, Inc.
P.O. Box 203186
San Diego, CA 92120
13. SUCCESSORS.
The terms, conditions and payments of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the Parties themselves and on their
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
All terms of this Agreement are in writing and may only
be modified by written Agreement of the Parties hereto.
Both Parties acknowledge they have received a copy of said
written Agreement and agree to be bound by said terms of
written agreement only.
july492.wp
June 12, 1992
1992 July 4th Display Contract
Page 5
~~q
Attachment B
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENf
The City of Chula Vista agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Rohr Industries
form any liability arising form its use of property (Employee Parking Lots)
leased by Rohr Industries, in order to allow for the July 4, 1992, fireworks
display.
The City of Chula Vista also agrees to defend Rohr Industries in any litigation
arising from this activity.
DATE
Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
"27, /D
Attachment C
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
TIDELAND ACTIVITY PERMIT
PERMITTEE:
City of Chula Vista
USE OR ACTIVITY:
Fourth of July Fireworks Display
LOCATION FOR WHICH PERMIT ISSUED: Chul a Vi sta Bayfront between "F" & "J" Street
EFFECTIVE DATES:
July 4, 1992
SECURITY DEPOSIT:$
NA
THIS PERMIT FOR TIDELAND USE IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Permittee shall
and regulations of
entities.
comply with all applicable laws, rules
the District and other governmental
2. Permittee shall keep the property and all equipment used
in connection with this permit in a clean, safe and sanitary
manner and in good repair at all times. Allor any portion of
the security deposit shall be available unconditionally to the
District for the purpose of cleaning or repairing damages to
the property upon termination of this permit.
3. This permit may be cancelled by either party by the
giving of twenty-four (24) hours notice in writing to the
other party. Such cancellation shall be without liability of
any nature.
4. This permit shall not be transferred or assigned.
5. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
District, its officers and employees against all causes of
action, for judicial relief of any kind, for damage to
property of any kind whatsoever, and to whomever belonging,
including Permittee, or injury to or death of any person or
persons, including employees of Permittee, resulting directly
or indirectly from activities in connection with the issuance
and performance of this permit or arising from the use of the
property, facilities or services of District, its officers or
employees.
Z7~/J
6. Permittee shall maintain comprehensive public liability
(covering operations, products and completed operations) and
blanket contractual coverage insurance throughout the term of
this permit. The policies shall, as a minimum, provide the
following forms of coverage: $1 m; 11 ion comb; ned 5; ngl e 1 ;mit
(A) Personal Injury and Bodily Injury:
One Person $
One Occurrence $
(B) Property Damage $
Certificates of such insurance, in a form satisfactory to the
District, shall be filed with District's Community Relations
Department. Insurance certificates filed pursuant to this
permit shall contain a non-cancellation-without-notice clause
and shall provide that copies of cancellation notices shall be
sent to the District.
7. The rights and privileges extended by this permit are
non-exclusive.
8. Permittee shall not engage in any activity on property of
the District other than the activity for which this permit is
expressly issued.
9. Permittee shall be subject to and comply with any special
conditions attached hereto.
10. Permittee shall comply with all requirements and
directives of the Port Director of District.
11. In the event of failure of Permittee to comply with any
provision of this permit, this permit may, at the discretion
of the Port Director, be terminated immediately.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
Approved:
Permittee hereby accepts this permit and agrees to comply with all
the terms and conditions thereof.
Permittee's signature
Address:
Telephone:
7-7- /2
CHECKLIST FOR THE USE OF TIDELAND PROPERTY
Date request received in
CGA Dept.:
Please complete each item below.
1. Sponsoring individual or group:
City of Chula Vista
2. Address and telephone number of contact person:
Brian Cox, Recreation Supervisor II
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
691-5140
3. What type of event is planned?
Fireworks Display
4. Where exactly on the bayfront?
Spectators on the bayfront between "F" and "J" Street.
Fireworks barge anchored in bay directly west of "J" St. Marina
5. Day and date of event:
Saturday, July 4, 1992
6.
Time period: Start
8:00 AM
Finish 9:00 PM
Fireworks show at 9:00 PM
7. Will traffic be affected?
Yes. Chula Vista Police Department will be controlling traffic in the
area throughout the day and evening.
8. How many persons involved or expected to attend?
10,000 to 15,000
9. If large group, what security arrangements have been made?
CVPD will be on site at all times
10. If commercial or catered event, do you have liability insurance coverage?
NA
Please return this checklist by (within ten 10 working days) or
your request for an event on Port tidelands will be canceled.
7/90
27-13
/
,
)
, .
"
...
g: Q . I \0
,~ff' \ QCJ
~ ~ (1Jl]\
~ :: :
,,' '.. . i
a !
l'I i
.....
'~
-< ";\".:;:0'::. i
. .':t.: ",",: ::..:. .
...... .
,," ..-
r--
a
, 0 Qi
,.0 r.::l\'
. CC:~J
\ 0 0 ~"
rl
'!l,
0-
~! ,,"'., 0
I\> ~ :
Oc'il; ri
I ,
~
o
'---
'.
27-ILf
NOt:>
"Tit
F Strnt
, D
if]
I"
'/' U
..
i
!
!
-,
Attachm~nt 0
J#H\\ i
J ,Willi
Solreel I
~
o
~
.
~
~
i"
.
I ~ .":
,
I
J
51..., .
n-l
~~~
~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Attachment E
.'
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 18, 1992
Board of Port Commissioners
San Diego Unified Port District
3165 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Members of the Board:
The City of Chu1a Vista is requesting that the Port Commission, at its June 23,
1992 meeting, consider providing $27,500 in funding for the July 4th fireworks
event scheduled on the Chu1a Vista Bayfront next month.
As you are aware, the state is considering major financial cuts that are likely
to affect city budgets throughout the state, and Chu1a Vista is anticipating the
potential for a major funding loss. The City of Chu1a Vista has funded the
annual fireworks display from its community promotions budget, with $27,510 being
the amount budgeted for the July 1992 event. Although this event is popular with
South Bay residents, and draws participation of over 15,000 spectators annually,
the City may need to consider canceling the event due to budget constraints in
Fiscal Year 1992-93.
The City has funded this popular event for a number of years without Port
Oistrict financial support, but we have coordinated with Port staff on the
logistics for the event, including the Port's Activity Permit with
indemnification for the Port and appropriate insurance naming the Port District
as additional insured. The recreational and promotional aspects of the event
should justify Port District financial support.
We realize this request is late in terms of the Port District's budget cycle, but
we would request that the Port Commission consider funding this event at your
June 23, 1992 meeting. We need to decide whether to proceed with the event and
the necessary contracts by that week.
One potential method of obtaining part of the requested Port District funding
relates to remaining funds from the contract between the City of Chu1a Vsita and
the Port District for sailing and promotional activities conducted by Sail San
Diego, Inc., the organization that conducted the challenge for the Little
America's Cup. Of the $50,000 appropriated by the Port District for that
contract, $15,893.15 has not been spent for contract purposes, and City staff
recently closed out the related City contract with Sail San Diego. The Port's
contract with the City should therefore now either be closed out or amended.
Depending on the Port's preference, that contract could be amended to include the
July 4, 1992 fireworks event, or the contract could be closed out and the City
would return the $15,893.15 to the Port which would reduce the net additional
funding being requested of the Port.
2. 7 ~ 15
276 FOURTH AVENUElCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5031
Your immediate consideration and response will be greatly appreciated. If you
or Port staff desire further information, please contact me at 691-5031 or Jess
Valenzuela, Parks and Recreation Director at 691-5071.
Sincerely,
(.----:./-/1 ~
. /' /v... &>';ij/""'Z
/ John D. Goss
/ City Manager
cc: Donald Nay, Port Director
Dan Wilkins, Deputy Port Director/Public Affairs
Mayor and City Council
kFlREWKS
27~/0
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTACHMENT F
1992 FIREWORKS BUDGET DETAIL
Firewords Contract (San Diego Fireworks, Inc.)
Rental of Barge and Tug Boat Service
Rental of Barricades
Rental of Portable Toilets
Additional Trash Receptables
Shuttle Bus Service (Chula Vista Transit)
Police Reserves
Parks & Recreation Staff
Miscellaneous Expenses
$16,500
1,725
340
1,150
300
795
6,200
400
100
TOTAL
$27.510
).7-/7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2-f'
Meeting Date 6/23/92
ITEM TITLE: Resol ut i on [lob 'if S Authori zi ng the temporary i nsta 11 at ion
of a "NO lEFT TURN" sign for eastbound Tel egraph Canyon Road
and Apache Drive during the construction period
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY:
City Manag~
(4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
Staff recei ved verbal requests and a 1 etter dated April 16, 1992 from the
Board of Directors of the Charter Point Homeowners Association requesting the
installation of a "no-left turn between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M." sign on
eastbound of Telegraph Canyon Road at the intersection with Apache Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept staff's report and install a
temporary sign which will prohibit eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road to
northbound Apache Dri ve 1 eft turns to all veh i cl es, except buses, duri ng the
weekday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. until Phase III construction of the
Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay lakes Road project is completed later this year.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their March
12, 1992 meeting, voted 6-0-1 (Padilla absent) to instruct staff to meet with
the Charter Point Homeowners Association Board of Directors at the earl iest
possible convenience to discuss traffic issues and report back to the
Commission of its progress.
The Safety Commission, at their May 14, 1992 meeting, voted 6-1, with Pitts
against, to accept staff's report and 1) deny the request for a "NO lEFT TURN
FROM 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m." sign on Telegraph Canyon Road; 2) have staff
continue to work with the contractor and the construction inspection section
to reduce the impact of through traffic on Apache Drive during the Phase III
detour phase; and 3) to direct staff to research the possibility of modifying
the contract to extend the medi an on Tel egraph Canyon Road through Apache
Drive to prohibit left turn access and report back at the next meeting.
The Safety Commission, at their May 14, 1992 meeting, voted 6-1, with
Chidester against, to place a temporary barrier at the intersection of Apache
Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road now, remove it during the three day re-route
period, and replace it after the re-route period.
The Safety Commi ss ion, at thei r June 11, 1992 meet i ng, voted 7 -0 to accept
staff's recommendation to deny the installation of a raised median on
Te 1 egraph Canyon Road across Apache Dri ve unt il such time when the
construction on Telegraph Canyon Road is completed and a traffic study of the
area shows that a significant impact of vehicles shortcutting through Apache
Drive affecting the safety of area residents can only be mitigated by the
installation of a raised median.
2i-1
Page 2, Item ;L~
Meeting Date 6/23/92
DISCUSSION:
Staff has been worki ng with the Charter Poi nt Homeowners Associ at i on to try
and reduce the number of vehicles using Apache Drive as short cut to
Southwestern College. Apparently according to area residents this problem has
been steadily worsening over the past 8 years.
Apache Drive is a curvilinear Class III residential collector with a
curb-to-curb width of 40 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 miles per hour
with the 85th percentile speed of 30 miles per hour. Traffic counts completed
by staff show an average daily traffic count (ADT) of approximately 3,500
vehicles per day. Design ADT for similar streets is 7,500 vehicles per day.
On-street parking is allowed. The accident rate is at 1.065 accidents per
million vehicle miles, which is 40% of the statewide average of 2.67 accidents
per million vehicle miles for similar roadways in the State of California.
During the Safety Commission meetings, the Safety commission brought up
several concerns. The first issue is the concern raised by the Charter Point
Homeowners Associ at i on that the prob1 em wi th veh i c1 es shortcutt i ng through
Apache Drive has been an existing problem which has only recently been made
worse with the construction in the area. The second issue is the potential
risk for residents exiting Apache Drive attempting to turn left to go
eastbound on Telegraph Canyon Road.
At the request of the Safety Commission on March 12, 1992, two city staff
members, one from the Construction Inspection Division and one from the
Traffic Engineering Division attended a Charter Point Homeowners Association
meet i ng on April 8, 1992 to di scuss the Phase II I construct i on detour plans
for the Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay lakes Road widening project. A copy of the
plans was also made available for review. Residents were requesting that
something be done to reduce the number of vehicles on Apache Drive, especially
during the morning peak period. Vehicles speed eastbound on Apache Drive then
line up side by side to make dual left turns onto Otay lakes Road.
One alternative which was mentioned by residents was to have a left turn
prohi bi t i on on eastbound Tel egraph Canyon Road at Apache Dri ve duri ng the
morning rush hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. This would eliminate the number
of vehicles which are short cutting through the Charter Point Subdivision on
their way to Southwestern College to avoid the construction zone and all-way
stop at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay lakes Road. A
license plate survey which was done recently shows that approximately 75% (104
out of 137 vehicles) of the traffic eastbound on Apache Drive during the one
hour period of 7:15-8:15 a.m. is using the street as a shortcut.
Staff has evaluated the request for the no left turn sign and has raised
several issues which may affect the effectiveness of this sign. First of all,
once the construction is completed later this year, the need for the shortcut
route will be negated. Staff has actually driven on Apache Drive during the
peak period and found that it takes longer to reach the intersection of Apache
Dri ve and Otay lakes Road than us i ng the intersect i on of Otay lakes Road and
Telegraph Canyon Road. This is due in part to the all-way stop at Otay lakes
M~?.
Page 3, Item ~8'
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Road and Tel egraph Canyon Road ass i gns the ri ght-of-way to the motori sts.
Motori sts on Apache Dri ve must wa i t for a gap in traffi c to merge onto Otay
lakes Road. The temporary detour is necessary since the intersection of Otay
lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road will be temporarily closed to grade and
add fill material to raise the entire intersection and roadway to its ultimate
elevation. If the no left turn sign were to be installed, there is no way to
guarantee police enforcement of the left turn prohibition during these hours.
lastly, once the construction is completed, there will not be the incentive to
shortcut through Apache Dri ve since the intersection of Otay lakes Road and
Telegraph Canyon Road will be signal ized and have dual left turn lanes to
accommodate the heavy left turn demand common on school days.
Over the past eight years, this area has had an inadequate roadway. Telegraph
Canyon Road and its extension to Otay lakes Road had been a narrow, rural two
lane road. Otay lakes Road between Telegraph Canyon Road and Apache Drive is
also substandard, even though it can carry a little more traffic. When
completed, Telegraph Canyon Road will provide for six lanes with a raised
median and Otay lakes Road will be widened to four lanes. Staff feels that
when the improvements are completed and the signal is installed, the problem
will be abated. Students will not continue to short cut after signal is
installed since it will be a shorter trip through the signal than it would be
to take Apache Drive. Staff also feels that a final solution would be to
construct a permanent raised median on Telegraph Canyon Road prohibiting
access to Apache Dri ve. Traffi c volumes wi 11 grow on Telegraph Canyon Road
because of Eastlake, the Olympic Training Center, and Otay Ranch. Estimates
on Telegraph Canyon Road are expected to grow to 40,000-50,000 and the
north/south traffic on Otay lakes Road is expected to grow to 30,000 per day.
North/south Otay lakes Road will eventually have to be widened to six lanes
and it will continue south into the Otay Ranch development. Since the volumes
of traffic at this intersection will increase as development occurs to the
east and south, an opt i on for cons i derat i on woul d be the construct i on of a
raised median prohibiting left turn access onto Apache Drive from Telegraph
Canyon Road. U-turns will be allowed at the intersection of Otay lakes Road
and Telegraph Canyon Road.
Staff has no objection to a temporary left turn prohibition or barricade
during the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road. Enforcement of these
prohi bit ions is key to its success. The Safety Commi ss i on expressed concern
about the potential safety problems that might arise at the intersection after
Telegraph Canyon Road construction is completed. Specifically, the Safety
Commission believes that southbound Apache Drive motorists turning left to go
eastbound on Telegraph Canyon Road will have difficulty completing their
maneuver on this high volume (20,950 ADT), high speed (50 MPH), six lane prime
arterial designed to handle up to 50,000 vehicles per day. There will be a
median on Telegraph Canyon Road between intersections and there will be break
at Apache Drive on Telegraph Canyon Road. Attempting left turns from Apache
Drive to Telegraph Canyon Road (east) will be difficult. It would be
benefi ci alto the res i dents if they supported a permanent closure of the
Apache Drive/Telegraph Canyon Road intersection. At this time, the Homeowners
Association is not supporting this proposal.
~~3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
').f
6/23/92
It was also suggested that the intersection of Tel egraph Canyon Road and
Apache Drive could be modified to prevent left turns out of Apache Drive by
extendi ng the medi an through the intersect i on s imil ar to the des i gn that
exists nearby at the Otay Lakes Mobilehome Park (see attached plat). Staff
has no objections to this alternative. This alternative could be implemented
at an estimated cost of approximately $25,000-$30,000. Since there are FAU
funds being used for the Phase III construction project, these funds cannot be
used outside the limits of this project. The intersection of Telegraph Canyon
Road and Apache Drive is not within these construction 1 imits, therefore,
other sources of funds need to be identified. Staff is currently working on a
credit from Eastlake to reimburse the City some funds which were not used, for
the Telegraph Canyon Road median just east of Apache Drive.
This median which was not constructed with the work done west of Apache Drive
represents approximately $20,00 of the $50,000 estimated for the missing and
proposed medians.
Any left turn prohibitions or medians added at the intersection of Telegraph
Canyon Road and Apache Drive will also affect the 54 single family unit
Woodcrest Southwestern subdivision. This subdivision is located west of the
Charter Point subdivision off of Apache Drive.
In summary, the Safety Commission recommends:
1. A part-time A.M. peak hour left turn prohibition as requested by the
Homeowners Association be denied.
2. A full-time left-turn prohibition either by barricades and/or signs be
implemented immediately and that this prohibition be made permanent.
3. Requests staff to evaluate the impact of traffic shortcutting on Apache
Drive after the improvements are completed if the City Council determines
that a turn prohibition not be initiated now. In this event, the safety
Commission wants staff to evaluate the impact after the Phase III
construction is completed and traffic patterns have stabilized before
making any final decision as to whether the median is needed or not.
The temporary construction detour will not affect all traffic on Telegraph
Canyon Road. The east/westbound through traffic will not be re-routed through
Apache Drive, but traffic will be routed to the south on a temporary roadway.
Traffic from eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road wanting to go north on Otay Lakes
Road will be re-routed on to Apache Drive as well as southbound traffic from
Otay Lakes Road to westbound Telegraph Canyon Road. The Homeowners
Association was satisfied with this arrangement as long as the duration of
this detour is less than 5 working days.
In the meantime, staff can add some lane striping on eastbound Apache Drive at
Otay Lakes Road intersection to have an exclusive right turn lane and a shared
through and left turn lane added. This will discourage the illegal dual left
turn maneuvers which are attempted during peak periods of the day.
All residents of the Charter Point and Woodcrest Southwestern Subdivisions as
well as the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater Union High School Districts
have been notified of tonight's meeting.
?-i-~1
Page 5, Item ;t~
Meeting Date 6/23/92
FISCAL IMPACT: Sign $75
Striping $250
Median Extension $20,000-$30,000 estimate
WPC 6033E
FR/File No.:CY-029
Attachments: {Area Plats
letter dated April 13, 1992
Safety Commission Minutes (excerpt)
tlDr ,Jtl6D
st~
dated 3-12-92/4-9-92/
5-14-92/6-11-92
'2.fr.S-
RESOLUTION NO. 11..01.0 ~s
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY
INSTALLATION OF A "NO LEFT TURN" SIGN FOR
EASTBOUND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND APACHE
DRIVE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
WHEREAS, Engineering staff received verbal requests and
a letter dated April 16, 1992 from the Board of Directors of the
Charter Point Homeowners Association requesting the installation of
a "no-left turn between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m." sign on eastbound
Telegraph canyon Road at the intersection with Apache Drive; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the installation of a temporary
sign which will prohibit eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road to
northbound Apache Drive left turns to all vehicles, except buses,
during the weekday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. until Phase III
construction of the Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road project
is completed later this year; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission, at its March 12, 1992
meeting, voted 6-0-1 (Padilla absent) to instruct staff to meet
with the Charter Point Homeowners Association Board of Directors to
discuss traffic issues and at its June 11, 1992 meeting, voted 7-0
to accept staff's recommendation to deny the installation of a
raised median on Telegraph canyon Road across Apache Drive until
such time when the construction on Telegraph Canyon Road is
completed and a traffic study of the area shown that a significant
impact of vehicles shortcutting through Apache Drive affecting the
safety of area residents can only be mitigated by the installation
of a raised median.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the temporary
installation of a "NO LEFT TURN" sign for eastbound Telegraph
Canyon Road and Apache Drive during the construction period.
Presented by APp,ved aoto}o= by {
~ ~~ ~ ~.
Bruce M. Boogaa, , City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\no left TC Rd
2f-~
. '*'$, ~ .
..
..., 0
~ \ ...... .
. ,..."...U.'l
\.---' , .
, .
, c .s
-. ..
55
., II..
I....
~~,
UUs
C ..
II
MILL' . T.
IItTM TM T.
E "H" ST
__!.!!..j,O.Jij
\~~
'.... ..\~l
'_-I
)
f;/TE
DRAWN 8"1
TIT L E
JB
AREA
PLAT
DATE
1/1/91
J-~ -I
. ,
"
/ I,
, II
"
, ~
I,....)t
'I
'I
J'
~
,'"
I
I,
'I
Il
I -.il;O"'"
ii~ . \t,
~ ,:,
~I ,~\ ,
~ '-I ,
'I ...~ I
'I I
I I
IL--__<~f'"
I _ _ _ _.._ ___
,r
'.,
r,.
"'- ..
c:J ~ c:JQ~
W c:J. cPo
; 00 0 0
'6 c:J
~ C)CJ
Q 00 0
c::.t
~
~
~
:>
~ GO
Ii
:;:;
'0 i=
.
o
a:
c
~
C
III
()
~
~
III
..
Gl
CI)
;!
~-8"
~
..J
0..
<(
UJ
a:
<(
...
C
III
C
o
III
:E
~
~
c
~
o
...
>.
II)
c
~
III
..
Q
(II
01
....
r
~
(II
ii
...
.
Q
w
>
0::
o
W
I
o
<(
Q..
<(
Ul
0::
~
U
~
L..[;}=t-
W b. :JO
~~ .
o
-'
-'
~
CD
C>
~
\
r i
I
2~"9
.~ >-... -~-_.".._.~- ~.- ..._~ ,
~m;!;~
~ x x
~ <Xl'
...~
j:!!
~
o
5
Ul
.
<Xl
w
z
<(
-'
w
~
iD
.
o
0:::
Z
o
>-
z
<(
o
I
Cl..
<(
0:::
'-'
W
-.J
W
I--
b@ -'
F ~H~
N 'Ell'"
_ a::
z
o
1=
Vi
z
<(
~
b
CD
CD
~
1=
zU
w
w-'
~b
1-0::
o
W
0::
en
o
Z
<C
..J
en
-
z
<C
-
C
LLJ
::E
e"
Z
-
~
en
-
><
LLJ
iD
:;:;
j::
c
:I
N
Ol
Ol
...
I
....
I
I/'l
>.
III
c
~
III
..
C
ii
....
III
C
I I
I I .
. ~ @~~ ~
0
CO <t
x .....
.
0 ~ I I
CO
,.--- --
~
'0
o
,..,
lll:
W a:
oJ c(
- 0-
III w
o :E
:E 0
:I:
~
'o@ ...J
F ~3~
N ~I'"
~ a::
.
co
,.., ~~~.Z ~ CCI
X "'~V>"'''' ~
a li:l5~ 2
~ It: Q:;
....
Z
UJ
;:l;
~
<(
Cl.
u.
0
~ UJ
c.:>
a: 0
UJ
"'-
"
W
tn
<i
a:.
\
I I
I I
t!!
~
....
I I
I I
I I
...
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
-
""I;"'"
2~-ID
-~[E -!!1.~
~_x _ _.... _x: ~
'" ~ a::.", -i
N N
----- - ,--
co
o
<(
a
0::::
(f)
W
~
<(
--1
>-
<(
f-
a
en
o
Z~
<~
..J~
Cl)l!i
_lll:
a:
Z~
,"" ~
......0
-:I:
Ow
LUg
':E ~
w
O~
...I
Z~
-'""
t-O
CI)'<
-
><
LU
ii
;;
j::
.
O@ ...J
.... ~ ~3~
z ~ I'"
UJ _ a::
;:l;
~ c:-.
<( . C7)
Cl. C C7)
15 ...
:IE I
.
w I
c.:> ~
0 It)
UJ a:: >.
) III
c
~ ii
. ..
.. .
0 0
.
~
U v.s,JJlt.-, 4(,;:-~
/
:>.E:E V:=.:.
~!; 'f c=- t:HULt. V:!~lt.
~"~'r..,,_~ '......
.1U-'~"t.:~ R.'Nr: fJEPT
Property Management Associates 193Z APR I S AM lO: 32
3936 Hortensia Street
San Diego, CA 92110
"
-
296-7980
member
av-o""""""
~"'''''
"'..,
April 13, 1992
Mr. John Lippert
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
707 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Charter Point Homeowners Association;
Traffic of Apache Drive
Dear Mr. Lippert:
This letter is written on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Charter Point Homeowners Association.
The residents of Charter Point are extremely concerned about the
volumn of vehicular traffic along Apache Drive. The major concern
is centered around the Southwestern College student traffic between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Students appear to be late
for class and travel at high rates of speed along Apache Drive as
a short cut to the college. The Board of Directors has reviewed
this situation and believe that this hazardous situation could be
eliminated by the installation of a "No Left Turn Between 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m." sign at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road
going east and Apache Drive.
The Board requests your consideration of the installation
sign. It would provide the necessary limited restrictions
turns being made off Telegraph Canyon Road to Apache
thereby, alleviating a dangerous situation that mainly
during this limited period of time.
of this
on left
Drive,
occurs
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~r:~A.f
~
Denton E. Honodel
Community Association Manager
DEH:hs:PW
'-
;2& -)J
./
Safety Comml..ion Minutes
March 12, 1992
Page 2
in the alley. It i. not a thoroughfare for vehicular traffic. Ms. Navarro said when the unsafe wall is
corrected and an illegal car repair business is eliminated, the vehicular traffic should be reduced. It
would be very inconvenient for residents who park in the alley to have to enter from only one direction.
Ms. Navarro said if this alley were made one way, more traffic would be created because vehicles
would have to go around the block to enter and exit.
Co-Chair Thomas said he didn't see a need to make the alley one way, but to leave it as it is. He felt
it would be more prudent to correct the current problems of the unsafe wall and illegal parking.
Commissioner Matacia asked what could be done about the car repair business operating at 210 Del
Mar Avenue.
Frank Rivere reported that this has been referred to Code Enforcement in the Building and Housing
Department.
MSC (Thomas/Chidester) to approve staff'. racommendation to post the alley "No Parking in Alley"
as per Ordinance' 0.52.' 60; and refer the land-yse issues and the unsafe wall to the Building and
Housing Department for corrective action. Approved 6-0-' with Commissioner Padilla absent.
7. REPORT on Traffic Concem. at Charter Point Subdivision
Commissioner. viewed slides of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Apache Drive. Vehicles enter
\pache Drive from Telegraph Canyon Road and exit on Otay Lakes Road, making left hand turns to
0/0 to Southwestern College. The problem occurs when traffic speeds on Apache Drive and two
vehicle. line up .ide by side to make dual left turns onto Otay Lakes Road.
Mr. Rivera reported there is major construction going on at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and
Telegraph Canyon Road. Traffic Engineering is working with the Police Department and the
Construction Inspectors to help alleviate problems in the area.
Vicki Madrid, 1538 C Apache Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910. president of the Charter Point
Homeowners Association stated there is a serious traffic problem for 15 or 20 minutes each morning
as students take a short..cut through Apache Drive, making illegal left turns to Otay Lakes Road and
sometimes blocking Otay Lakes Road. Apache Drive is curved which creates a visibility problem for
children trying to cross the street to get to their bus stop. Ms. Madrid disagreed with the staff report
that stated the construction on Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road created the problem.
The increase in enrollment at Southwestern College, she felt, is the main cause of the problem. She
said the completed construction of Otay Lakes Road will greatly resolve the problem. Ms. Madrid
spoke with the contractor of the problem and was told it will take 1 1/2 to 2 years to complete the
entire project. The community would like to see a sign installed at the entrance to Apache Drive from
Telegraph Canyon Road saying "No left hand turns between 7:30 - 9:30 a.m." The homeowners
believe this would help reduce the problem.
Hal Rosenberg said the problem is the construction activity which will be performed in two stages.
The first stage has just been begun and an all-way stop has been placed at Telegraph Canyon and Otay
Lakes Roads. The stop sign is forcing east-west traffic to stop at all times and yield to traffic turning
left to Southwestern College, which causes traffic to back up. The delay in traffic is causing motorists
.0 look for short cuts. one being Apache Drive. The second stage of the construction project will
equire the closure of the Otay Lakes Road-Telegraph Canyon Road intersection which will occur in
June of the this year and continue for approximately three months. Traffic will need to be detoured
U"\.-:--""'","'~" A II
I; ....... _ _ .. "'-'\ i1.
)..!is-/2
N'" !'1~"!lIIl"","~' es
. ~~'j . I ~ . '...... _': ).J -'3.
iilllll"-....... '.
Safety Commission Minutes
March" 3, 1992
Page 3
~'--'
to Apache Drive, Rutgers Avenue, or a combination of both streets. Mr. Rosenberg hopes the traffic
from Southwestern College will utilize alternate routes such as East H Street. He would like to work
with the Homeowners Association and present ideas to make the best of the situation.
The Commissioners viewed a video tape by Ms. Madrid on the traffic problems.
Commissioner Matacia asked about the possibility of using a flag control person at the intersection
now. He hat witnessed this intersection and its severity.
Mr. Rosenberg said staff is working out the details to provide flag control. He would like to work with
the Homeowners Association to develop a plan of relief for the neighborhood and said a plan would
be developed within a week or two.
Chair Braden asked Ms. Madrid if staff would be dealing with only her or with more of the
homeowne...
Ms. Madrid said that there is a Board of Directors and a special meeting could be arranged to discuss
these problems.
MSC (BradenlThomasl to Instruct staff to meet with the Charter Point Homeowners Association Board
of Directors at the earliest possible convenience to discuss traffic issues and report back to the
Commission of its progress. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissionar Padilla absent.
Mr. Rosenberg said it is staff's intent to proceed in getting a flag control person as soon as possible
for the intersection. It could be a person from the contractor, enforcement, or under contract. Staff
will then look at the situation and see if this measure has helped the traffic on Apache. If necessary,
staff will look at prohibiting left hand turns to Apache from Telegraph Canyon Road.
8. Oral Communications None.
OTHER BUSINESS
STAFF REPORTS:
9. 1991-92 CIP Status Reoort Distributed for Commissioners information.
10. Chula Vista Polica Deoartment Traffic Summary for October - December 1991 Distributed for
Commissioners information.
11 . Automobile Association of American - 1992 Padestrian Protection Proaram Distributed for
Commissioners information.
12. Hazardous Material Information
Co-Chair Thomas asked about the job description of the Safety Commission which referred to
hazardous waste, which the Commission has never been involved in. He asked Mr. Rivera if he had
any additional information regarding this.
tJ. ,,"~~F-[!q"~" ..
~...~;oi C"'1I'ilalW~....
").8-/3
,.,,, I'!r"~~ IF'!c'~~
.. " ~.. ~ \.0 itJ b u~
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, April 9, 1992
7:02 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Braden, Commissioners Thomas, Koester, Chidester, Matacia,
Padilla, and Pitts
Also Present:
. Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic
Engineer; Sgt. Tom Schaefer, Police Department; Shirley Buxton,
Recording Secretary
2. P1edae af Allealance/Silent Praver
3.
Oaenina Statement
Read by Chair Braden.
4. Aooroval of Minutes
MSUC (KoesterlThomas) to approve the Safety Commission Minutes of March 12, 1992 as presented.
MEETING AGENDA
5. Affirmina Trial Traffic Reaulation - All-way stop at the Intersection of lakeshore Drive and'
Eastlake Drive.
MSUC (Tham8S/Pitts) to approve Affirming Trial Traffic Regulation - All-way stop at the Intersection
of lakeshore Drive and Eastlake Drive.
6. Afflrmina Trial Traffic Reoulation - Parking Prohibited at all times on a portion of Paseo Del Rey.
MSUC (Thomas/Pitts) to approve Affirming Trial Traffic Regulation. Parking Prohibited at all times on
a portion of Pano Del Rey.
7. Verbal Reoort - Status of Apache Drive in Charter Point Subdivision.
Frank Rivera reported that he and Dennis Davies from Engineering Construction Inspection met with
the Charter Point Homeowners Association and discussed the traffic control plans that will be
implemented in the area due to the Phase III construction of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon
Road. The Homeowners Association had concerns about the amount of traffic that is currently going
through Apache Drive in the morning. Students on the way to Southwestern College shortcut through
Charter Point. Staff counted approximately 137 cars during a one hour period from 7:00-8:00 a.m.
and, of that, 104 were students going to Southwestern College. Traffic does not become a problem
again until 5:00-6:00 p.m. when the same situation occurs. The Homeowners Association wanted a
left turn prohibition from 7:00-9:00 a.m. from Telegraph Canyon Road to Apache Drive. Mr. Rivera
said that placing a sign is not a problem, however, enforcement of the no left turn would be the key
to its success. The Chula Vista Police Department cannot guarantee how often they can enforce the
left turn prohibition. Staff suggested waiting until the construction is completed, and the intersection
of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay lakes Road is signalized. This signal should reduce the incentive
for students to shortcut through Apache Drive.
Mr. Rivera proposed to the residents the possibility of installing a median on Telegraph Canyon Road
that would prohibit left turn access to Apache Drive and another median on Otay Lakes Road also
prohibiting left hand turns to Apache Drive. This would provide no advantage to people trying to
28~/tf
UNO""'}" ..""" t\ "
I ~~i3 .. ~ ~r ~ t:i .'I'T:;" tj
K:i ~~i.:~:..~
['fA 11!,1>. ~,I:l 1'''7'''L-
a':J'B ~ ~"C.~ J ·
Safety Commission Minutea
April 9, 1992
Page 2
'UNOFFlcnAl MIN~'.5Tr.
',,-,'
shortcut through the subdivision. The only people using Apache Drive would be the residents. Some
of the residents were in favor of this recommendation, but others said it would be too much of an
inconvenience to make U-turns at Otay lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Rivera assured
the Commission that closing the medians was not in any current plans. He also reviewed the
construction detour plans with the Homeowners Association. There was a misunderstanding that
traffic would be re-routed through Apache Drive for three to four months. Traffic will actually only be
re-routed for three days maximum. It is a one day job, but staff will allow three days to complete the
process of raising the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road. The detour will
not affect all traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road. The east/westbound through traffic will not be re-
routed through Apache Drive, but traffic will be routed to the south on a temporary roadway. Traffic
from eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road wanting to go north on Otay Lakes Road will be re-routed on
to Apache Drive as well as southbound traffic from Otay Lakes Road to westbound Telegraph Canyon
Road. The Homeowners Association was satisfied with this arrangement.
The Homeowners Association still desires the left turn prohibition from Telegraph Canyon Road to
Apache Drive and the president of Homeowners Association said he will submit a letter to request the
no-left turn sign be installed.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if additional traffic enforcement will be provided when traffic is re-routed for
those few days.
Sgt. Schaefer said the ar.. will be monitored.
ial Rosenberg explained that there will be a median on Telegraph Canyon Road between intersections
and there will be break at Apache Drive on Telegraph Canyon Road. There will a problem when the
road and development in the eastern territories is completed. The traffic volume will grow to 40,000-
50,000 vehicles per day (currently approximately 20.000 cars per day). Attempting left turns from
Apache Drive to Telegraph Canyon Road (east) will be difficult. It would be beneficial to the residents
if they supported a permanent closure of the Apache DrivefTelegraph Canyon Road intersection. At
this time, the Homeowners Association is not supporting this proposal.
Frank Rivera reported that the signal at Otay Lakes RoadfTelegraph Canyon Road is scheduled to be
installed later this year, possibly between October and December. The all-way stop will remain in
effect until the signal is functional.
Hal Rosenberg said he doesn't view the problem on Apache Drive as a safety issue. It is not a typical
residential street since it doesn't have driveways or much on street parking demand. Even though the
shortcutting by students is an inconvenience, it is not extremely hazardous and it can be endured.
Mr. Rosenberg recommended that the Commission take no action at this time.
Chair Braden asked about accident history in the area.
Frank Rivera said there was one reported accident at the all-way stop two days after the sign was
installed and that no injuries were reported. At Apache Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road, there were
only two reported accidents.
Commissioner Padilla asked about enforcement history of Apache Drive.
';)gt. Schaefer said Apache Drive was surveyed at 25 mph. Even though the road is windy, 25 mph
is a safe speed. He felt the reason that there were not many accidens at Apache Drive and Otay Lakes
Road is because of the slow speeds and congestion involved. Motorists can see when a car is trying
to merge. The Police Department has issued over 100 citations for speed on Apache Drive since the
problem was brought to their attention. He said it was mostly an inconvenience problem for the
residents.
'"28' ~ I~
UNOFFICiA.l IJ.IN!.fST'
Safety Commission Minutes
April 9, 1992
Page 3
Commissioner Matacia asked to keep this item on the agenda for an update next month.
Commissioner Pitts asked for the re-routing dates.
Frank Rivera said the closure of the intersection will most likely occur in August 1992. during the
college's summer session when there are less students.
8. REPORT. Bonita Road/l-805
Frank Rivera reported that at the March meeting, Co-Chair Thomas asked staff to check on the
intersection of westbound Bonita Road to northbound 1-805. Motorists were not stopping for right-of-
way traffic. On April 7. 1992 a .Right Turn On Red After Stop. sign was installed.
Co-Chair Thomas said this area was not a priority item, but he was just concerned about accidents.
Sgt. Schaefer said that an officer monitored the area to enforce the sign and the officer did not see
any violations.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carole E. Walker. 224 - A Rancho Drive. Chula Vista, CA 91911
Ms. Walker expressed her concern about the truck traffic and speeds on Main Street. She said that
trucks are beginning to use the 7-' 1 store on the corner of Main Street and Melrose Avenue as a truck
stop. Other trucks are parking on Main Street during peak traffic hours and causing sight obstructions.
Children cross Main Street to get to their school bus and more condominiums are being built in the
area. She reported that the speeds along Main Street are increasing. Ms. Walker would like to see
the prohibition of truck parking on Main Street and the speed limit reduced.
Staff will report back at the May meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
10. 1991-92 CIP Status ReDort - Distributed for Commissioner information.
1 , . Chula Vista Police DeDartment Traffic Summarv for Februarv .lila1 - Distributed for
Commissioner information.
12. Memorandum on Bicvcle Rodeo - Distributed for Commissioner information.
13. San Dieoo UnionfTribune Article on Street Liahtina - Distributed for Commissioner information.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. Cammilllaner Comments
Commissioner Chidester reported that he received a call from the local representative of the American
Association of Retire Persons (AARPl. Mr, John Greene. Mr. Greene told Commissioner Chidester that
there is a safety program for senior citizen drivers in the area and. that he would like to come to the
2..f,,/b
Safety Commission Minutes
May 14, 1992
Page 2
- Arcc . ~ ." p ~. Po ~U...:,.".. ,
~ _, - _ ~ r. .:. (',-'" l: '......~..j (;. N.l, } ,\~~ 1". ~ ;
UI~Oiri' ii~~~"''''' ~'lOi" 'Il," I r..:.__
Chair Braden asked staff if they had researched the problem of trucks parking for an extended period
of time.
Frank Rivera said that currently there is not a restriction for overnight parking. The 72"hour rule is in
effect for this area. If a vehicle has not moved within 72 hours after being marked by the Police
Department, it can towed away.
Hal Rosenberg said that it is difficult to establish a no-parking zone without a safety justification. Staff
is not authorized to establish no parking zones for cosmetic or convenience reasons. He told the
Commission that staff could prepare a report on this issue for the next meeting and invite Ms. Palmer
back and address her concerns at that time.
MSUC (Braden/Koester) to continue this item to the June meeting.
7. REPORT - Status of Apache Drive in Charter Point Subdivision
Frank Rivera summarized for the Commission the issues covered at the March and April 1992
meetings. Staff's recommendation was to deny the request for the "NO LEFT TURN FROM 7:00 a.m. -
9:00 a.m." sign and to have staff continue to work with the contractor and the construction inspection
section to reduce the impact of through traffic on Apache Drive during the Phase III detour phase.
Staff also recommended changes to the striping on Apache Drive at its intersection with Otay Lakes
Road allowing for two turn lanes, one to the right or straight ahead and one to the left only. This
would make illegal turns easier to enforce.
Vicki Madrid, 1538 C Apache Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910, President of the Charter Point
Homeowners Association (HOAL indicated that staff has been very cooperative with the HOA and
answered all of their questions. Ms. Madrid felt that a misunderstanding had occurred. She felt that
the students shortcutting through Charter Point was not a result of the construction, but has been a
re-occurring problem for many years. The HOA's concern is the quantity and spped of traffic during
the 7-8:00 a.m. hour which conflicts with the same time elementary school children are crossing
Apache Drive to get to their bus stop. Ms. Madrid said that changing the striping on Apache Drive
would not be any easier to enforce than a no-left turn sign at Apache Drive and Telegraph Canyon
Road. She felt that installing a no-left turn sign would be an inexpensive way to try and correct the
problem. She acknowledged that it may not be easy to enforce, but she said if honest people alone
would obey the sign, it would be great help. Ms. Madrid requested the Safety Commission to install
a permanent "NO LEFT TURN FROM 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m." sign. Students shortcut through Apache
Drive all day long, but the residents are most concerned with this time frame. Because of the road
winding, some new landscape that creates a possible sight hazard, and the speed of the cars traveling
through Apache Drive, a dangerous situation is occurring where someone could get hurt.
Chair Braden asked how old the Charter Point Development was.
Ms. Madrid said the development was approximately eight years old and the problem has existed since
then. The problem grew this year because the increase in enrollment at Southwestern College.
Chair Braden asked if what the HOA was proposing would inconvenience their own residents trying
to get home.
Ms. Madrid said they only want the left-turn prohibition in the morning, not all day. The residents
would not want to see any sort of barricade installed. The homeowners were surveyed and a majority
felt the left-turn prohibition from 7-9 a.m. was the best solution.
2~-/7
UNOFFaCIAl M8NUT~:;'
Safety Commission Minutes
May 14, 1992
Page 3
Chair Braden asked why the Association permitted landscaping that caused sight hazards for drivers.
Ms. Madrid said that at the HOA's most recent board meeting, the Board approved changing the
current landscaping.
Laura Crivello, 1565 A Apache Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910, is a Board member of the Charter Point
Homeowners Association and has witnessed a safety hazard in this area. She has seen children
holding hands running across Apache Drive. It is also an inconvenience to residents who are trying
to leave their homes during this time. All residents live on side streets off of Apache Drive and cannot
access Apache Drive because of the traffic.
Mike Fulton, 1560 C Apache Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910, is a Board member of the Charter Point
Homeowners Association. Mr. Fulton said the letter he received from staff addressed the re-
construction issue. He does not feel this is a re-construction issue. He felt that when the intersection
is completed and light installed, it will make the problem worse. A red stop light for eastbound
Telegraph Canyon Road will back up traffic. This will cause students to short cut through Charter
Point rather than wait for the light to change. Mr. Fulton's main concern was not with quantity, but
the speed of vehicles going through this area. He said vehicles have been clocked over 60 mph in a
25 mph zone. Mr. Fulton said enforcement is in the area, but it has not worked as a deterrent. Mr.
Fulton's concern is the coordination of the raising of the intersection and the beginning of the fall
semester at Southwestern College. He does not want to see a barricade and realizes that through
traffic cannot be stopped, the residents just want to discourage shortcutting.
Commissioner Padilla said that the speakers were concerned mostly with the morning rush, but the
previous minutes reflected that there was also a problem in the evening hours. He asked what the
experience of the evening hours had been.
Mr. Fulton said he hasn't seen as much of a problem in the evening as in the morning. If another
solution was available, the HOA was ready to listen. One of the HOA's biggest concerns was for the
safety of the children. Mr. Fulton also brought up the point that when the detour phasing is taking
place, the school bus loads children and must flash red lights and he said this process could take up
to ten minutes. If the lights are flashing, no cars can pass the bus and this will cause a standstill in
traffic.
Hal Rosenberg said that for the past eight years, this area had an inadequate roadway. Telegraph
Canyon Road and its extension to Otay lakes Road had been a narrow, country two lane road. Otay
lakes Road between Telegraph Canyon Road and Apache Drive is also substandard, even though it can
carry a little more traffic. When completed, Telegraph Canyon Road will provide for six lanes with a
raised median and Otay lakes Road will be widened to four lanes. Mr. Rosenberg felt that when the
improvements are completed and the signal is installed, the problem will be abated. He did not feel
that students will continue to short cut after the light is installed since it will be a shorter trip through
the signal than it would be to take Apache Drive. Mr. Rosenberg said he felt a final solution would be
to construct a permanent raised median on Telegraph Canyon Road prohibiting access to Apache Drive.
That would be staff's position. He recommended the Commission table the matter until the project
is completed and give staff the opportunity to re-evaluate the situation. Mr. Rosenberg said traffic
volumes will grow on Telegraph Canyon Road because of Eastlake, the Olympic Training Center, and
Otay Ranch. Estimates on Telegraph Canyon Road are expected to grow to 40,000-50,000 and the
north/south traffic on Otay lakes Road is expected to grow to 30,000 per day. Otay lakes Road will
eventually have to be widened to six lanes and it will continue south into the Otay Ranch development.
Since this intersection will be extremely busy, the Charter Point neighborhood should protect
themselves with the construction of a raised median prohibiting left turn access onto Apache Drive
from Telegraph Canyon Road.
Chair Braden asked about the current plans for the median.
').<i - / Y
Safety Commission Minutes
May 14,1992
Page 4
UL'I()'- .l!"'l"';;<Il~ ,., ~ "',1' U~f, r"fr~ "
..~ . ,. ")' JiI. _ ; - ',"_, _' ... ,
_ '~~)f'&-~'~~.:r'~~.:::' h>OJ'o;.~.... ~'G..' ~ ..w..r.'.
Mr. Rosenberg said that the current plans call for a break in the median to allow access to Apache
Drive. He thought it would have merit to incorporate a change in the construction plans to allow for
a full median, and said it is still a possibility.
Chair Braden said it would be more costly to make the change later rather than now.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked for the history of having any signs that prohibit certain actions during certain
hours and asked if it worked.
Frank Rivera said there are signs in the City limiting parking during certain hours of the day. He said
the signs are only good if there is an officer to enforce them. However, it is no problem to install a
sign.
Hal Rosenberg and Sgt. Schaefer both agreed with Mr. Rivera that a part-time sign is not effective
unless a police officer is there to enforce it.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if during the three day re-route period the police department would be
present to help with traffic.
Sgt. Schaefer said that the traffic control plan approved by the Traffic Engineer should provide for a
flag person, but the Police Department will not perform traffic control. Sgt. Schaefer also referred to
Mr. Fulton's comments regarding the loading of the school bus. He said he has never seen the bus
flash its lights and stop traffic for a ten minute period. Normally the children are already on the south
curb line waiting for the bus.
Commissioner Matacia said he understood the residents to say there is a safety problem from vehicles
turning left onto Apache from Telegraph Canyon Road, and therefore should do something about the
vehicles turning left. He said the only way to solve the situation is to stop the left turns onto Apache
Drive.
Commissioner Pitts asked how many lanes will be available to vehicles turning left onto Otay Lakes
Road from Telegraph Canyon Road after the street improvements are completed.
Hal Rosenberg said there will be two left turn lanes onto Otay Lakes Road. He also pointed out there
would be one left turn lane at Apache Drive. With Telegraph Canyon Road expanding to six lanes
shortly, residents of Charter Point trying to turn left onto Telegraph Canyon Road will have to cross
three lanes of traffic and merge with the eastbound traffic, and this will be a difficult maneuver. He
said he did not feel that there should be residential streets emptying out onto six lane roadways
without the benefit of a signal. There isn't enough resident traffic to justify a signal at Apache Drive.
Commissioner Pitts asked for the capacity of the turn lanes on to Otay Lakes Road.
Mr. Rosenberg said the turn pocket is 250' long with two lanes turning left which equalled the ability
of serving 600 cars turning left per hour.
Frank Rivera reminded the Commission that with the signals, the green light is given longer to serve
the higher volume of traffic.
Commissioner Matacia asked if staff had discussed a permanent barrier on Telegraph Canyon Road
with the residents.
Frank Rivera said this had been discussed with the HOA and it was an idea that not many people had
considered. Some thought it was a good idea, but most thought the traffic was only a problem for
approximately two hours and not all day and therefore, the median was not looked at favorably.
'}S.!CJ
Safety Commission Minutes
UNOFFiCIAL l~lE~UT~~ May 1\~:;~
Commissioner Matacia asked if the residents understood about the expansion of Telegraph Canyon
Road.
Mr. Rivera said that the residents would rather wait until the expansion is problem, and then look at
installing a left turn barrier. Since the traffic volumes are not a problem 24 hours a day, they are not
receptive to a median.
Commissioner Matacia asked if staff was receptive to a median.
Frank Rivera said that speaking from a safety standpoint, a median is a good option since a signalized
U-turn is being provided at Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road.
Commissioner Padilla asked if there was an anticipated date for the intersection closure.
Mr. Rivera said that the contractor is currently ahead of schedule. The detour is being planned for the
first week of August in order to avoid coinciding with Southwestern College's fall semester.
Commissioner Padilla said he had a problem with approving staff's recommendation as written, since
it did not provide for anything to help the residents now.
Commissioner Chidester said the residents will have to bear the situation through the construction.
He said that the Commission could approve staff's recommendation and continue police patrol and
recommend when the construction is completed, put a median to prohibit left turns.
Several Commissioners stated that it would be less expensive to do changes now and look at
modifying the current contract to provide for a median at Apache Drive.
Mr. Rosenberg said that he would have to determine if there is enough money in the contract to allow
for a change order. He said it is possible to implement, but he would check with the department head
about appropriating additional monies and that the change would have to go to Council for approval.
Mr. Rosenberg reminded the Commission that it is staff's recommendation to wait until the
construction is complete before making any final decisions.
MSC (Braden/Thomasl to accept staff's report and 1) deny the request for a "NO LEFT TURN FROM
7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m." sign on Telegraph Canyon Road; 2) have staff continue to work with the
contractor and the construction inspection section to reduce the impact of through traffic on Apache
Drive during the Phase III detour phase; and 3) to direct staff to research the possibility of modifying
the contract to extend the median on Telegraph Canyon Road through Apache Drive to prohibit left
turn access and report back at the next meeting.
Commissioner Matacia said if staff felt it was important to have the permanent median and the hold
up was the contract, he wanted to know why a barricade couldn't be installed while staff is
researching the possibility of extending the median.
Commissioner Pitts said that the residents want a no left turn only during 7:00-9:00 a.m. and if a
median is installed, it will not give residents any left turn access.
Hal Rosenberg clarified the issues at hand. The first issue was to install a part-time no-left turn sign.
The Safety Commission could vote and deny that request as staff recommends. A second action
would be to direct staff to look at current plans and get a cost estimate of installing a permanent
median across Apache Drive. The Commission could also dirllct staff to install a temporary barricade
which would be removed during the detour phase until a permanent median is constructed. Staff could
also be directed to work with the HOA and attempt to describe the alternatives available.
"J-fr,. '). 0
Safety Commission Minutes
May 14,1992
Page 6
ul!l,..""'l""r--.......o r J:: ~,r~'-J,.~"""'rr'!
li''''i.. Jl",L-.... "v,... I;," ,-. ..,. ,- .'
t:''''.,&1~"t 1... ..:..-..,t...T-"u~ ......_-"'-_ """~ L-.
VOTE ON MOTION: Motion approved 6-1 with Commissioner Pitts voting no.
MSC (Matacial to place a permanent barrier at the intersection of Apache Drive and Telegraph Canyon
Road now.
Motion dies for lack of second.
Commissioner Matacia said that he did not see a reason to wait thirty days if there was a safety
problem while contractual ideas were being researched.
Hal Rosenberg said that was not staff's recommendation in the Agenda Statement to install a
barricade, but it was the prerogative of the Commission to make the motion. This option was not
published to affected citizens.
MSC (Thomas/Pitts) to place a temporary barrier at the intersection of Apache Drive and Telegraph
Canyon Road now, remove it during the three day re-route period. and replace it after the re-route
period. Approved 6-1 with Commissioner Chidester voting no.
Mr. Fulton returned to the microphone to say that at the HOA meeting that was attended by City staff,
the issue of prohibiting left turns to Apache Drive from Telegraph Canyon Road was raised, and that
not one homeowner agreed with this option. Mr. Fulton said a vast majority of the homeowners did
not want to see the intersection closed. Mr. Fulton asked what would happen when a serious accident
occurred at Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Roads and the intersection needed to be closed. This
has happened several times before and the police department re-routes traffic onto Apache Drive. If
a median is placed, this cannot occur.
8. REPORT - Request for Stop Signs at East Naples Street and Foxboro Avenue
Staff received a request from the Foxhills Homeowners Association President to install an all-way stop
at the intersection of East Naples Street and Foxboro A venue to help facilitate the school crossing and
increase the available sight distance. Mr. Rivera reviewed the accident history of the intersection.
Staff's recommendation is that the Safety Commission deny the request for an all-way stop at the
intersection of East Naples Street and Foxboro Avenue and that staff: 1) extend the red curb along the
south curb line west of this intersection by 50' and 2) continue to work with the Chula Vista
Elementary School District to keep the landscaping trimmed at the southwest corner of this
intersection.
Chair Braden read a letter into the record by Ms. Marianne Gibson who opposed staff's
recommendation.
Mr. Lee Elsworth, 564 Nantucket Drive, Chura Vista CA 91911, representing the Foxhills Homeowners
Association thanked staff for the study they performed and said the recommendation for the extended
red curb was a good improvement. He explained that the crest on East Naples Street caused a sight
hazard for residents trying to exit Foxboro A venue and with cars parked on the roadway, it is difficult
to see. Mr. Elsworth understood that stop signs were not designed for speed control, but cars speed
and the number of vehicles have increased since the development of Sunbow. He felt a stop sign
would prevent a serious accident and make the intersection safer.
MSUC (Thomas/Pitts) to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request for an all-way stop at the
intersection of East Naples Street and Foxboro Avenue and that staff: 11 extend the red curb along the
south curb line west of this intersection by 50' and 21 continue to work with the Chula Vista
Elementary School District to keep the landscaping trimmed at the southwest corner of this
intersection.
;Lf... P-I
UNOFFBCIAL k1iNUTES
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, June 11, 1992
7:05 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Braden, Vice Chair Thomas, Commissioners Koester, Chidester,
Matacia, Padilla, and Pitts
,Also Present:
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic
Engineer; Sgt. Tom Schaefer, Police Department; Shirley Buxton,
Recording Secretary
2. Pledge of Allegiance/Silent Praver
3.
Ooening Statement
Read by Chair Braden.
4. Aooroval of Minutes
MSUC (Koester/Padilla) to approve the Safety Commission Minutes of May 14, 1992 as presented.
5. Soecial Orders of the Dav - Nominations and elections for Chair & Vice Chair for FY 1992-93
MSC (Koester/Chidester) to nominate Vice Chair Thomas as Chair for 1992-93. Approved 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Thomas abstaining.
MSC (Thomas/Chidester) to nominate Commissioner Padilla as Vice Chair for 1992-93. Approved 6-0-
0-1 with Commissioner Padilla abstaining.
MEETING AGENDA
6. REPORT - Traffic Concerns for Main Street in the vicinity of Melrose Avenue
Staff briefed the Commission on this item which was continued from May 14, 1992 and amended their
recommendation to include the prohibition of parking on the north side of Main Street fronting the
Woodland Park subdivision. Frank Rivera reported that tractor trailer trucks are being parked for
extended period of times on Main Street. Staff is prepared to install "No Parking" signs.
MSUC (Braden/Koester) the accept staff's recommendation and recommend to the City Council to
approve a resolution: 1) lowering the speed limit on Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Otay
Valley Road and Otay Valley Road from Main Street to 1-805 southbound ramps from 45 mph to 40
mph, and 2) to prohibit parking along the north curb line on Main Street fronting the Woodland Park
Subdivision.
7. REPORT - Status of Apache Drive in Charter Point Subdivision
Frank Rivera reported to the Commission the costs of installing a raised median which would prohibit
left turns from Telegraph Canyon Road to Apache Drive. The cost would be approximately $20,000-
,#.-,2 2
Safety Commission Minutes
June 11, 1992
Page 2
UNOFFICIAL MINUTE~
25,000. The residents of the Charter Point subdivision would like a left-turn prohibition from 7:00 am _
9:00 am to help reduce shortcutting to Southwestern College. Staff looked at having a median
installed with the current construction and it does not appear to be a problem. The residents are
strongly opposed to left-turn prohibitions 24 hours a day. If a study is performed at a later time and
a raised median is deemed needed, there may be problems with the funding and it could be delayed
two or three years. This matter will be going before the City Council.
Commissioner Matacia asked if the Commission and staff were overlooking the left turn from Apache
Drive to eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road. He felt that this was a more severe issue than the left
turns from Telegraph Canyon Road to Apache Drive. He asked why staff was changing their position.
Hal Rosenberg said that staff was not changing their position, but that the Commission should wait
until the project is completed and assess the total impact of the new intersection. The report being
prepared for Council will include all alternatives for this area. The actions of the Safety Commission
will be included in the report. Mr. Rosenberg concurs with the problem of turning left on to eastbound
Telegraph Canyon Road from Apache Drive. One alternative solution would be to allow left turns into
Apache Drive, but not left turns out of Apache Drive.
Vice Chair Thomas asked why the funding would take two or three years and if there is a contingency
fund for change orders on this project.
Frank Rivera said that since this project is underway, it would be easy to execute a change order and
do the construction. If later it is deemed necessary to install a median, then new funds would need
to be appropriated. The construction projects for the next few years have already been budgeted and
are currently being designed. Mr. Rivera said he believed contingency funds were available.
Chair Braden reiterated that it would be easier to do a change order now and said the addition of a
median would need to occur anyway.
Commissioner Matacia said if the recommendation was to prohibit left turns during certain hours, it
did not cost any more to put up a sign to prohibit left turns all day.
Hal Rosenberg said that staff is not recommending the part-time left turn prohibition.
Frank Rivera told Commissioner Matacia that it is the homeowners who are requesting the part time
left turn prohibition.
Mr. Rosenberg reminded the Commission that at the May meeting they voted to install a temporary
barrier at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Apache Drive, remove it during the re-route
period, and then replace the median. He said staff had a responsibility to take their recommendation
to the City Council and also offer any other options.
Commissioner Padilla asked for a clarification on staff's position on the permanently installed raised
median.
Mr. Rivera said the Homeowners Association requested the part-time left turn prohibition which would
be difficult to enforce. The raised median adds cost to the project and is not needed at this time.
Once the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road is completed, it will have the
necessary capacity to handle the traffic to Southwestern College, thus reducing the need or desire for
motorists to shortcut through Apache Drive.
Mr. Rosenberg said that tonight's report was in response to the Commission's request to have staff
research the possibility of installing a permanent median. He said that staff is not recommending that
a median be installed at this time. Staff is not opposed to a median, but said that City management
')%2
~I~ 1I"",,,"'''''~t'''''P ," "
.. '<L' i'L,!'''''' "'" ~ " ~.' r,'
~ *':.~:: I ='~ l.~ .,:,.,r:\ "~'3
" "" ~~~lJ.TF. :",.,
".Pi. _ . t.._
\::1'0 ,r~ _"',,,.~
Safety Commission Minutes
June 11, 1992
Page 3
felt that due to the strong opposition from the residents, it would be best at this time to take a "wait
and see" position,
Commissioner Matacia recalled that the residents said shortcutting has always been a problem and a
safety issue because of the volume of cars. He said that if the Commission did not address the safety
issue, then they were not doing their task.
Hal Rosenberg said that the perceived problem may not exist once the construction work is completed.
He asked the Commission to wait and give staff a chance to assess whether the students continue to
shortcut through the area. He felt the improvements would solve the problem.
Chair Braden asked how wide the median would be if installed.
Hal Rosenberg said it would be 24' wide and explained the dimensions necessary for a center land-
scaped median.
Commissioner Matacia said that he did not see any reason to change their voting on the temporary
median and asked if staff was going to recommend this to Council.
Mr. Rosenberg said he would forward the Safety Commission recommendation to the City Council.
MSUC IPadillalThomasl That the Safety Commission accepts staff's recommendation to deny the
installation of a raised median on Telegraph Canyon Road across Apache Drive until such time when
the construction on Telegraph Canyon Road is completed and a traffic study of the area shows that
a significant impact of vehicles shortcutting through Apache Drive affecting the safety of area residents
can only be mitigated by the installation of a raised median.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gloria Attaway, 252 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista. CA 91910 addressed concerns of parents whose
children use the area of Second Avenue from E Street to Sweetwater Road. Second Avenue is a major
thoroughfare, and it is not only neighborhood traffic. There are no signal lights, cross walks, or stop
signs between E and Sweetwater Road. She said the Chula Vista Police Department has done a good
job enforcing the area, but it is not enough to deter all motorists. There are approximately 15
kindergarten and first graders who wait on Second A venue for the Rosebank school bus between D
and C Avenues. There are 20-25 elementary school children who walk the area to Rosebank. There
have been three accidents in the last six months, one resulting in a death, one an injury to an
elementary school boy, and one resulting in property damage. She felt stop signs on Second Avenue
at both C and D Streets will provide the necessary traffic control measure for this "family populated
area."
Donald Stell, 210 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910 repeated Ms. Attaway's recommendation
for the stop signs on Second Avenue on C and D Streets. He asked that a study be performed and
for this item to be placed on next agenda of the Safety Commission. Not only are there children in this
area, but elderly people walk along Second Avenue. He said it is not safe to cross Second Avenue,
unless pedestrians go up to E Street and cross at the light. Children cross Second A venue to play with
friends and it is unsafe for these children to cross. Mr. Stell stated he does not allow his children to
cross Second Avenue. He pointed out that every letter street in Chula Vista that intersects with a
numeric street has a traffic control device.
Vice Chair Thomas asked Frank Rivera if he recalled this issue coming up before the Commission
approximately one year ago.
>>-,~t./
Safety Commission Minutes
June 11, 1992
Page 4
UNOFF~CI.b1l ti\lJNUTrJ,"
Frank Rivera recalled that at that time, the Safety Commission tabled this item until SR-54 was
completed. He informed Mr. Stell and Ms. Attaway that this item will be on the agenda for July 9,
1992.
STAFF REPORTS
9. 1991-92 CIP Status ReDort - Distributed for Commissioner information.
10. Chula Vista Police DeDartment Traffic Summary for ADril1992 - Distributed for Commissioner
information.
11. Status ReDort on Shell Oil Car Wash at Bonita Glen Drive - Distributed for Commissioner
information.
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Roberts Rules of Order
Frank Rivera distributed three Roberts Rules of Order booklets that he had purchased. There are six
more on order. The books were distributed to the new Chair Bob Thomas and Vice Chair Steve Padilla
and Ollie Braden.
13. Commissioner Comments None.
14. Commission Works hOD
Staff distributed another draft report in response to Council Referrals 1267 and 2557 regarding the
Role of the Safety Commission.
Vice Chair Thomas said that since he did not see any real difference in recommendations, he was ready
to recommend Option 1 which would require a charter amendment to make the Safety Commission
a decision making group.
MSC (Thomas/Pitts) to accept Option 1 and prepare a report to the City Council. Approved 6-1 with
Commissioner Chidester voting no.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC IKoester/Matacial to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
SB:SAFETYIOEl1192.MIN
081892
;2f.. ;;.:;-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;;ttJ
b)
Meeting Date 6/23/92
Resolution )1.1c~ Authorizing issuance of bonds,
approving bond indenture and official statement for Assessment
District No. 91-1 (Telegraph Canyon Road-Phase II)
Resolution 1I.Plctl Making award for sale of bonds and
providing for the establishment of a redemption fund for
Assessment District No. 91-1 (Telegraph Canyon Road-Phase II)
Director of Public Works~
Director of Finance;l-r
City Manageryr/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-!-)
(/
ITEM TITlE: a)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
These are the closing resolutions for the Telegraph Canyon Road-Phase II
assessment di stri ct proceedi ngs. They approve certa i n bond-rel ated documents
and award the bond sale to the lowest bidder.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On May 12, 1992, at the publ ic hearing, Council confirmed the assessments,
authorized the issuance of 1915 Act bonds, and authorized the advertising for
bid on the bond issue.
The total amount assessed to the district, which includes residential land,
the golf course in the "Greens" development and the Olympic Training Center,
was $7,005,771.60. The assessments on the golf course were paid in full
during the cash payment period, which reduces the amount of bonds to be issued
to $6,839,465.29. A typical assessment for the single family homes is $3,656
which consi sts of the Transportat i on 01 F amount of $3,060 and bond issuance
costs.
Sealed proposals will be received on June 23, 1992 at 11:00 a.m. in the
offi ces of Charl es P. Young/Jeffri es Banknote Company in Los Angel es. The
Director of Finance will have received the bids, and will give a verbal report
at the time of the Council meeting.
Tonight's action will complete the legislative proceedings for the Telegraph
Canyon Road-Phase II Assessment District. Through the approval of these
resolutions, the following will generally be accomplished:
1. The RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND APPROVING THE BOND
INDENTURE AND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT approves the bond indenture,
which sets forth the conditions and covenants of the bond issue, and the
prel iminary official statement, which is the disclosure document about
;Lq-I
Page 2, Item~'f
Meeting Date 6/23/92
the assessment district and bonds, in substantially final form. After
the successful bidder has been determined, the bond indenture must be
executed on behalf of the Council by the Director of Finance.
2. The RESOLUTION MAKING AWARD FOR SALE OF BONDS awards the bond sale to the
low bidder, in terms of interest cost, at this morning's bid opening and
provides for the establishment of the bond redemption fund to which
property owner payments will be deposited, and from which payments to the
bondholders will be made for the 25-year term of the bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT: All bond issuance costs will be paid by the assessment
district. The 1% origination change of $70,057 may be transferred to the
General Fund pursuant to Resolution 15897.
DDS: AY075
WPC 6027E
;21-2.
oJ
.J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itell-K
ITEM TITlE:
Meeting Date 5/12/92
Public Hearing: Assessment District No. 91-1 (Telegraph
Canyon Road - Phase II)
a) Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista confirming the assessment, ordering the
improvements made, together wi th appurtenances, and approvi ng
the Engineer's "Report" in Assessment District No. 91-1
(Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II)
SUBMITTED BY:
b) Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista authorizing certain assessment district bonds to
be sold at public sale and directing a call for sealed bids
for Assessment District No. 91-1 (Telegraph Canyon Rd. _ Ph.
II) d' )
Director of Public Work~A ~
City Manager ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-1-)
'-
REVIEWED BY:
On April 7, 1992, Council adopted the Resol ut i on of Intent i on to order the
acquisition and financing of Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II pursuant to the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and set a public hearing for May 12, 1992
for the purpose of hearing public testimony. The associated resolutions
i nc1 ude confi rmi ng the assessment orderi ng the improvements, approvi ng the
Engineer's Report", authorizing the sale of bonds and directing a call for
sealed bids.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 requires that a public hearing be
conducted to hear testimony prior to forming an assessment district to finance
public improvements through the sale of bonds. On April 7, 1991 Council set
May 12 as the date to conduct that hearing. All owners of property within the
proposed Assessment District, which contains reSidential land uses, golf
course parcels and the Olympic Training Center site have been mailed a notice
of the public hearing and the proposed assessment to their land.
After conducting the public heari ng and cons i deri ng any test imony presented,
the Council may choose to proceed with the district by approving the
Resolution Confirming Assessments and approving the Resolution Authorizing
Bond Sale. These actions, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913,
allows the financing of infrastructure improvements through sale of Assessment
District bonds with payments collected with property taxes.
:2'9-3
""""
J
Page 2, Iteaa \.L\
Meeting Date 5/12/92
This district is an acquisition assessment district wherein the developer is
constructing Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II, between 2,250 feet west of the
future Paseo Ranchero Road and 600 feet east of Apache Drive, and the City
will acquire it upon completion with funds derived from the sale of bonds.
The estimated cost of the improvements is assessed to land within the district
and paid off by the property owners over a 25-year period. New homeowners
will have the option of paying off the assessment and including the cost with
their mortgage. However, since this would raise the amount of the down
payment and would be paid at a higher interest rate for a longer period of
time, this option is rarely, if ever, exercised.
Telegraph Canyon Road is a component of the circulation element street system
for the Eastern Territories and as such, is included in the Eastern
Territories Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. It is
proposed that the DIF amount, currently S3,060 per equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU), be utilized as the method of spreading the cost of Telegraph Canyon
Road - Phase II to the land within the assessment district boundaries. With
the bond issuance expenses added to the DIF amount, the assessment is S3656
per EDU.
The public improvements proposed to be financed through this acquisition
proceeding are nearly complete and include improvements to provide the full
six lanes of Telegraph Canyon Road and the adjacent drainage within the
project limits. The est imated total transportat i on and channel 01 F eli gi bl e
project cost is approximately S12,054,586, of which, the EastLake Development
Co. has requested that S5,863,572.62 in street costs be assessed to land
within the EastLake development. Payment from bond proceeds will be made to
the EastLake Development Co. after the improvements are completed. The
remaining S5,255,193 in street 'costs will be utilized by the EastLake
Development co. as a credit against DIF charges for future development.
EastLake has utilized about S2.47 million of this credit to date. Most of the
S935,820 in eligible channel credit has already been used.
The total amount proposed
district is S7.0 million.
as shown in the following:
CONSTRUCTION
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Project Management
Assessment Engineering
Design, Surveying & Staking
Construction Management
Bond Counsel
Financial Consultant
Landscape Design
Construction Bond
Plan Check & Inspection
Public Agency Project Management
Right-of-Way Acquisition
to be assessed to the parcel s in the assessment
This includes construction and incidental expenses
S9,413,310.I8
$ 18,235.00
53,880.00
847,752.40
10,583.82
37,514.43
59,395.00
74,605.40
113,260.00
195,145.05
20,000.00
873,849.52
;2..c( -- 'I
~.
\.J
J
Page 3, It..~
Meeting Date 5/12/92
Special Studies Engr.
Soils Engineering
Printing, Advertising, Posting Notices
Bond Printing, Servicing & Registration
Street DIF Proj. Adm.
~ DIF Program support
SUBTOTAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
TOTAL CONST. & INCID. EXPENSES
LESS CHANNEL & DEY. CONTRIBUTION
TOTAL CONST. & INCID. ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
120,216.40
IB6,493.31
3,000.00
10,000.00
1,353.00
218.014.98
$2,B43,298.31
$12,256,608.49
$ 6,191,011.44
$ 6,065,597.05
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
Capitalized Interest (2 mo. , 8.5%)
Bond Discount (2%)
Bond Reserve Fund (10%)
SUBTOTAL ISSUANCE COSTS
TOTAL ASSESSED TO DISTRICT
$ 99,481.96
140,115.43
700.577 .16
$940,174.55
$7,005,771.60
The amount proposed to be assessed to the di stri ct is apprOXimately $85,630
less than was proposed at the time that the resolution of intention was
adopted in early April. This is due to minor adjustments being made in the
bond issuance costs.
In addition to the assessments proposed to be levied as a part of this
proceeding, the land in this district was previously assessed as a part of the
EastLake Greens - Phase I Assessment District No. 90-3. The combined
assessments range from $5,176 to $5,977 for s i ngl e family detached dwell ing
units and $4,550 for single family attached dwelling units. Based on the
current appraisal of land value and the projected sales prices of the future
dwelling units, the Council Policy requirements of minimum land
value-to-assessment ratio of 3:1 and maximum annual debt service for all
bonded debt of 2% of sales price, have been met (see attached Exhibit A).
There are two resolutions on today's agenda which, if adopted, accomplish the
fOlloWing:
I. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS. This resolution approves the
Final Engineer's Report, confirms and levies the assessments contained
therein, and approves the mechan i sm by wh i ch the improvements may be
acquired when they are completed.
2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS TO BE SOLD AT
PUBLIC SALE. This resolution authorizes the Financial Consultant to
advertise for competitive sealed bids in the sale of the bonds to be
issued as a part of thi s proceedi ngs. As part of thi s reso 1 ut i on, the
City agrees to foreclose upon properties which are delinquent in paying
the assessment installment pursuant to the terms of the Bond Indenture.
2f1- 5"
;.j
...J
Page 4, It~
Meeting Date 5/12/92
fISCAL IMPACT: ,The EastLake Development Company has deposited the one
percent assessment district initiation charge of $70,057.72 with the City.
All assessment district costs, including staff costs, have been advanced by
EastLake Development Company and will be reimbursed through the issuance of
1915 Act bonds.
WPC 5979E
DDS: AY075
,.
,,'
! '" .:
. \
"
..,
:29-/P
RESOLUTION NO. {!.do 'i(1.o
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE
OF BONDS, APPROVING BOND INDENTURE AND PRELI-
MINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD,
PHASE II)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, is conducting proceedings for the installation of
certain public improvements in a special assessment district
pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement
Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California, said special assessment district known and
designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD,
PHASE II) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District");
and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body has previously declared in its
Resolution of Intention to issue bonds to finance said improvements,
said bonds to issue pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of said Code; and,
WHEREAS, at this time this legislative body is desirous to set
forth all formal terms and conditions relating to the authorization,
issuance and administration of said bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has been presented, considered and ready for
approval a bond indenture setting forth formal terms and conditions
relating to the issuance and sale of bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has also been presented for consideration by
this legislative body a Preliminary Official Statement containing
information including but not limited to the Assessment District and
the type of bonds, including terms and conditions thereof; and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body hereby further determines that
the unpaid assessments shall be specifically in the amount as shown
and set forth in the Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assessments as
certified by and on file with the Treasurer, and for particulars as
to the amount of said unpaid assessments, said Certificate and list
shall control and govern.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
BOND AUTHORIZATION
SECTION 2. That this legislative body does authorize the
issuance of limited obligation improvement bonds in an aggregate
'}..!l A - I
principal amount not to exceed 56,839,465.29 pursuant to the terms
and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division
10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the state of California, and
also pursuant to the specific terms and conditions as set forth in
the BOND INDENTURE presented herein.
BOND INDENTURE
SECTION 3. That the BOND INDENTURE is approved substantially
in the form presented herein, subject to modifications as necessary
and as approved by the Finance Director. Final approval of the BOND
INDENTURE shall be conclusively evidenced by the signature of the
Finance Director. A copy of said BOND INDENTURE shall be kept on
file with the transcript of these proceedings and open for public
inspection.
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
SECTION 4. That the PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT is approved
substantially in the form presented, subject to modifications as
necessary and as approved by the City Manager r and execution and
distribution of the Preliminary Official statement and the corres-
ponding final Official Statement is hereby authorized. The City
Manager is further authorized to execute and delivery any
certificate regarding the finality of the Preliminary Official
Statement as may be necessary or appropr iate for purposes of
complying with Section 240.15C2-12 in Chapter II of Title 17 of the
Code of Federal Rgulations ("Rule 15C2-12"). A copy of the
Preliminary Official Statement and final Official Statement shall be
kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings and remain
open for public inspection.
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 5. That the Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assess-
ments, as certified by the Treasurer, shall remain on file in that
office and be open for public inspection for all particulars as it
relates to the amount of unpaid assessments to secure bonds for this
Assessment District.
SUPERIOR COURT FORECLOSURE
SECTION 6. This legislative body does further specifically
covenant for the benefit of the bondholders to commence and prose-
cute to completion foreclosure actions regarding delinquent install-
ments of the assessments in the manner, within the time limits and
pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth in the Bond Inden-
ture as submitted and approved through the adoption of this
Resolution.
OTHER ACTS
SECTION 7. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and
agents of the City with respect to the sale and issuance of the
-;2.q fJ.-2
bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the Finance
Director and any and all other officers of the City are hereby autho-
rized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City,
to do any and all things and take any and all actions relating to
the execution and delivery of any and all certificates, requisi-
tions, agreements and other documents, which the Finance Director
may deem necessasry or advisable in order to consummate the lawful
issuance and delivery of the bonds in accordance with this
resolution.
A
Presented by
as to
by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
the City
day of
Council of the City
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
J-cu\-1-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly
California,
was
held on the
A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
day of , 1992.
Executed this _____ day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
'2-'1 'A -1
BOND INDENTURE
This Bond Indenture (the "Indenture") dated as of June 23, 1992, is created, entered
into and approved by the City of Chula vista (the "Issuer") to establish the terms
and conditions pertaining to the issuance of bonds in a special assessment district
known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE
II) (the "Assessment District").
SECTION 1.
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3.
SECTION 4.
SECTION 5.
SECTION 6.
Issuance, Designation and Amount. Pursuant to the provisions of the
"Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, as amended (the "Act"), the
Issuer does hereby authorize and direct the issuance and sale of bonds
in one or more series and at one or more times to represent unpaid
assessments on private property within the Assessment District and
designated by series as the City of Chula Vista, Assessment District No.
91-1 (Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase II) Limited ObI igat ion Improvement
Bonds" (the "Bonds").
Unpaid Assessments. The Issuer shall determine the assessments which
are unpaid and the aggregate amount thereof as authorized by section
8621 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and
shall issue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount equal to the deter-
mined amount of unpaid assessments.
Term of Bonds. The Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed
the current legal maximum rate of 12% per annum, and shall be issued in
the manner provided in the Act. The last installment of the Bonds
shall mature a maximum of and not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from
the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from
their date. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the Act, providing an
al ternati ve procedure for the advance payment of assessments and the
calling of Bonds shall apply. The Bonds shall be subject to refunding
pursuant to Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California.
Registered Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable only as fully registered
Bonds in the denomination of $5,000, or any integral multiple thereof,
except for one bond maturing in the first year of maturity, which shall
include the amount by which the total issue exceeds the maximum
integral multiple of $5,000 contained therein.
Date of Bonds. All of said Bonds shall be dated and interest shall
accrue from that date.
Maturity and Denomination. The Bonds shall be issued in serial and
term form with annual maturities on September 2nd of every year
succeeding twelve (12) months after their date, until the whole is paid.
The pr inc ipal amount payable each year, taking into consideration
mandatory sinking fund redemptions, shall result in approximately equal
annual debt service during the term of the issue considering the
interest rate and principal amount payable in the respective years, as
set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and in Section 9 hereto.
7- 0, A -s
1
SECTION 7.
SECTION 8.
SECTION 9.
Interest. Interest is payable each March 2 and September 2 (each being
an interest payment date), commencing the appropriate March 2, 1993.
Each Bond shall be of a single maturity and shall bear interest at the
rate as set forth in the accepted bid proposal for said Bonds from the
interest payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenti-
cated and registered, (i) unless said Bond is authenticated and regis-
tered as of an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear
interest from said interest payment date, (ii) unless said Bond is
authenticated and registered prior to the first interest payment date,
in which case it shall bear interest from its date, or (iii) unless
interest is in default on said Bond on such date, in which case it
shall bear interest from the last date on which interest was paid in
full or from its dated date if no interest has been paid, until payment
of its principal sum has been discharged. Interest shall be calculated
on the basis of a 360 day year composed of twelve 30-day months.
Interest on said Bonds shall be paid by check mailed (or, in the case
of any owner of not less than $1,000,000 principal amount of the Bonds
who so requests in writing prior to the close of business on the
fifteenth day preceding each interest payment date, by wire transfer to
a bank in the United States of America) to the registered owner thereof
on each interest payment date at his or her address as it appears on
the books of registration, or at such address as may have been filed
with the Paying Agent for that purpose, as of the 15th day immediately
preceding said interest payment date, whether or not such day is a
business day.
Place of Payment. The principal on the Bonds shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States of America upon surrender of the Bond
at the office of Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association
in San Francisco, California, the designated registrar, transfer agent
and paying agent of the Issuer ("Paying Agent"), or such other
registrar, transfer agent or paying agent as may be designated by
subsequent Resolution of the Issuer.
Redemption.
as follows:
The first series of Bonds shall be subject to redemption
A. Optional. The Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption and
payment in advance of maturity, in whole or in part, on the 2nd day
of March or September in any year, from the prepayment of assess-
ments or from the proceeds of refunding at a redemption price equal
to the principal amount redeemed, together with a premium equal to
three percent (3%) of the principal amount redeemed, plus accrued
interest to the date of redemption.
If less than all outstanding Bonds are called for optional redemp-
tion, the Issuer not less than 45 days prior to the redemption date
shall select Bonds for redemption in such a way that the ratio of
outstanding Bonds to issued Bonds shall be approximately the same
in each annual maturity insofar as possible. Within each annual
maturity Bonds shall be selected for redemption by lot.
2 'lA-(P
2
B. Mandatory Sinking Fund. The Bonds maturing on September 2, 2017
(the "Term Bonds") are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
by lot at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof,
plus accrued interest to the redemption date, without premium, in
part on September 2, 2009 and on each September 2 in the years and
for the amounts listed below:
Date
(September 2)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017 (maturity)
Amount
$ 315,000.00
340,000.00
365,000.00
395,000.00
430,000.00
465,000.00
500,000.00
545,000.00
590,000.00
In the event of any optional, partial redemption of the Term Bonds,
the amounts in the foregoing schedule shall be reduced pro-rata
among redemption dates in order to maintain substantially level
Annual Debt Services (as herein defined).
C. Partial Redemption. If less than all of the outstanding Bonds are
to be redeemed, the portion of any Bond of a denomination of more
than $5,000 to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of
$5,000 or an integral multiple thereof, and, in selecting portions
of such Bonds for redemption, the Paying Agent shall treat each
such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denomina-
tions which is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such
Bond to be redeemed in part by $5,000. Upon surrender of any Bond
to be redeemed in part only, the Paying Agent shall authenticate
and deliver to the owner, at the expense of the Issuer, a new Bond
or Bonds of authorized denominations equal in aggregate principal
amount to the unredeemed portion of the Bond surrendered, with the
same interest rate and the same maturity date. Such partial redemp-
tion shall be valid upon payment of the amount required to be paid
to such owner, and the Issuer and the Paying Agent shall be
released and discharged thereupon from all liability to the extent
of such payment.
D. Notice. Notice of redemption of Bonds shall be provided at least
30 days in advance of the redemption date by registered or certi-
fied mail or by personal service to the respective registered
owners thereof at their addresses as they appear on the registra-
tion books of the Registrar. Neither the failure of any registered
owner to receive redemption notice nor any defect in such notice so
given shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the
redemption of such Bonds. The Issuer shall provide instructions to
the Paying Agent to effect sinking fund redemptions at least 45
days prior to each redemption date.
2~ A.-1
3
SECTION 10. [Reserved).
SECTION 11. Exchanqe of Registered Bonds. Fully registered Bonds may be exchanged
at the office of the Paying Agent in San Francisco, California, for a
like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same interest rate and
maturity, subject to the payment of taxes and governmental charges, if
any, upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon such transfer
and exchange, a new registered Bond or Bonds of any authorized denomina-
tion or denominations of the same maturity for the same aggregate
principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor.
SECTION 12. Books of Registration. There shall be kept by the Paying Agent suffi-
cient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds and, upon
presentation for such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such
reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or
cause to be registered or transferred, on said register, Bonds as
hereinbefore provided.
SECTION 13. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed manually or in facsi-
mile by the Treasurer and by the City Clerk, and the corporate seal may
be imprinted manually or in facsimile on the Bonds. The Bonds shall
then be delivered to the Paying Agent for authentication and registra-
tion. In case an officer who shall have signed or attested to any of
the Bonds by facsimile or otherwise shall cease to be such off icer
before the authentication, delivery and issuance of the Bonds, such
Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued, and upon
such authentication, delivery and issue, shall be as binding as though
those who signed and attested the same had remained in office.
SECTION 14. Authentication. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a certifi-
cate of authentication substantially in the form below, manually
executed by the Paying Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Indenture, and such certifi-
cate of the transfer agent and registrar shall be conclusive evidence
that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated
and delivered hereunder, and are entitled to the benefits of this
Indenture.
FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION AND REGISTRATION
This bond has been authenticated and registered.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND
SAVINGS ASSOCIATION
as Transfer Agent, Registrar and
Paying Agent
Date:
By:
:2... ct A -~
4
SECTION 15. Negotiability, Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The transfer of any
Bond may be registered only upon such books of registration upon
surrender thereof to the Paying Agent, together with an assignment duly
executed by the owner or his attorney or legal representative, in satis-
factory form. Upon any such registration of transfer, a new Bond or
Bonds shall be authenticated and delivered in exchange for such Bond,
in the name of the transferee, of any denomination or denominations
authorized by this Indenture, and in an aggregate principal amount
equal to the principal amount of such Bond so surrendered. In all
cases in which Bonds shall be exchanged or transferred, the Paying
Agent shall authenticate at the earliest practical time, Bonds in accor-
dance with the provisions of this Indenture. All Bonds surrendered in
such exchange or registration of transfer shall forthwith be cancelled.
The Paying Agent may make a charge for every such exchange or registra-
tion of transfer of Bonds sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or
other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such
exchange or registration of transfer. No transfer of fully registered
Bonds shall be required to be made between the fifteenth (15th) day
next preceding each interest payment date, nor during the fifteen (15)
days preceding the selection of any Bonds for redemption prior to the
maturity thereof, nor with respect to any Bond which has been selected
for redemption prior to the maturity thereof.
SECTION 16. Ownership of Bonds. The person in whose name any Bond shall be
registered shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof
for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal and
redemption premium, if any, of any such Bond, and the interest on any
such Bond, shall be made only to or upon the order of the registered
owner thereof or his legal representative. All such payments shall be
valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such
Bond, including the redemption premium, if any, and interest thereon,
to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
SECTION 17. Mutilated, Destroyed, Stolen or Lost Bonds. In case any Bond secured
hereby shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the
Issuer shall cause to be executed and authenticated a new Bond of like
date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon the cancella-
tion of such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for such
Bond mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the owner's paying the
reasonable expenses and charges in connection therewith, and, in the
case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, his filing with the Paying
Agent and Issuer of evidence satisfactory to them that such Bond was
destroyed, stolen or lost, and of his ownership thereof, and furnishing
the Paying Agent and Issuer with indemnity satisfactory to them.
SECTION 18. Cancellation of Bonds. All Bonds paid or redeemed, either at or before
maturity, shall be cancelled upon the payment or redemption of such
Bonds, and delivered to the Issuer. Upon written direction from the
Issuer, Bonds may be destroyed by the Paying Agent, as allowed by law.
A certificate of destruction shall be provided to the Issuer. The
Issuer agrees to reimburse the Paying Agent's costs incurred with the
microf ilming or other required permanent recording, if any, related
thereto.
7.. ~l\9r
5
SECTION 19. Creation of Funds. The Treasurer of the Issuer is hereby authorized
and directed to establish and maintain the following funds for purposes
of making payment for the costs and expenses for the works of improve-
ment and payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. The funds to
be created are designated, and the terms and conditions of the funds
are, as follows.
IMPROVEMENT FUND. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds, after
deposit of required amounts in the Reserve Fund and Redemption Fund,
shall be placed in the Fund hereby created, pursuant to Sections 10602
and 10424 of the California Streets and Highways Code, as amended,
which shall be called the "Improvement Fund", and the monies in said
Fund shall be used only for the purposes authorized in said assessment
proceedings, and specifically to pay for the costs and expenses of the
acquisition of the authorized public capital improvements, together
with all incidental expenses. Any surplus in the Improvement Fund
after completion of the improvements shall remain in the Improvement
Fund for a period of not less than two (2) years from the receipt of
Bond proceeds as provided in Section 10427.1 of the California Streets
and Highways Code, and thereafter shall be utilized or distributed as
determined by the Issuer and authorized by the Act.
REDEMPTION FUND. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to
keep a Redemption Fund designated by the name of the proceedings, into
which he shall place accrued interest, if any, on the Bonds from the
date of the Bonds to the date of delivery to the initial purchaser
thereof, all sums received for the collection of the assessments and
the interest thereon, together with all penalties, if applicable.
Principal of and interest on said Bonds shall be paid to the registered
owner out of the Redemption Fund so created (pursuant to Section 8671
of the California Streets and Highways Code). Accrued interest paid by
the purchaser of the Bonds, if. any, shall be deposited in the Redemp-
tion Fund. In all respects not recited herein, the collection of
assessment installments and the Redemption Fund shall be governed by
the provisions of the Act. Under no circumstances shall the Bonds or
interest thereon be paid out of any other fund except as provided by
law.
RESERVE FUND. Pursuant to Part 16 of the Act, there shall be created a
special reserve fund for the Bonds to be designated by the name of the
Assessment District and specified as the special "Reserve Fund". An
amount equal to the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited in the
Reserve Fund out of the Bond proceeds.
Monies in the Reserve Fund shall be applied as follows.
A. Amounts in said Reserve Fund shall be transferred to the Redemption
Fund for the Bonds if, as result of delinquencies in the payment of
assessments, there are insufficient monies in said Redemption Fund
to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. Amounts so
transferred shall be repaid to the Reserve Fund from proceeds from
the redemption or foreclosure of property with respect to which an
assessment is unpaid and from payments of the delinquent
assessments.
2q~ -ID
6
B. The "Reserve Requirement" shall be an amount equal to the lesser of
(i) the Maximum Annual Debt Service on the Bonds, (ii) 125% of the
average annual debt service on the Bonds, or (iii) the lesser of
10% of the principal amount of the Bonds outstanding or 10% of the
original principal amount less any original issue discount or plus
any original issue premium. Annual Debt Service on the Bonds for
each year ending September 2nd shall equal the sum of (a) the
interest falling due on the outstanding Bonds in such 12 month
period, assuming that the outstanding Bonds are retired as
scheduled, and (b) the prine ipal amount of outstanding Bonds
falling due during such 12 month period. "Average Annual Debt
Service" shall mean the average Annual Debt Service during the term
of the Bonds. "Maximum Annual Debt Service" shall mean, as
computed from time to time, the largest Annual Debt Service during
the period from the date of such computation through the final
maturity of any outstanding Bonds.
c. Interest earned on the permitted investment of monies on deposit in
the Reserve Fund shall remain in the Reserve Fund to the extent
required to maintain the Reserve Fund. On July 15 of each fiscal
year the amount on deposit in the Reserve Fund in excess of the
Reserve Requirement may, in the sole discretion of the Issuer, be
transferred from the Reserve Fund to the Redemption Fund and
credited to the unpaid assessment installments payable during such
fiscal year. The Auditor's record, prepared pursuant to Section
8682 of the streets and Highways Code, shall reflect the credits
against each of the unpaid assessments in the manner provided in
streets and Highways Code Section 10427.1 in amounts equal to each
parcel's proportionate share of such transfer.
Notwithstanding the above, interest earnings on monies on deposit
in the Reserve Fund in exce.ss of the "yield" on the Bonds, as that
term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"),
shall be subject to transfer and rebate to the United States
pursuant to the terms and provisions contained in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
D. Whenever monies in the Reserve Fund are sufficient to retire all of
the Bonds outstanding, plus accrued interest thereon, such money
shall be transferred to the Redemption Fund for the Bonds and
collection of a corresponding amount of the remaining unpaid assess-
ments shall cease.
E. In the event assessments are paid in cash in advance of their final
maturity date, the Issuer shall credit the prepaid assessment with
a proportionate share of the Reserve Fund and transfer an amount
equal to such credit to the Redemption Fund to be utilized for the
advance retirement of Bonds.
SECTION 20. Issuer Liability. It is hereby determined and declared that the Issuer
does not obligate itself to advance any funds from its Treasury to cure
any deficiency or delinquency which may occur in the Redemption Fund by
failure of property owners to pay annual special assessments, or
otherwise.
?-Cfl\ -II
7
SECTION 21. Covenant for Superior Court Foreclosure. In the event of delinquency
in the payment of any installments of unpaid assessments, the Issuer
hereby covenants for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds that it
will review assessment records of the County not later than May 15 of
each year to determine the amount of the assessments collected in the
current fiscal year. The Issuer shall commence foreclosure action( 6)
on all parcels for which the payment of assessment installments are
delinquent in the Superior Court of the State of California (Part 14,
Division 10, "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", Streets and Highways Code)
no later than 150 days thereafter and diligently prosecute and pursue
such foreclosure proceedings to judgment and sale. Initiation of such
foreclosure actions may be deferred whenever, and as long as, the
Reserve Fund remains at the Reserve Requirement, or, in the case of
delinquent unpaid assessments on developed property only, in an amount
equal to at least 70% of the Reserve Requirement.
SECTION 22. Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exempt Status. The Issuer covenants that it
will not make any use of the proceeds of the Bonds issued hereunder
which would cause the Bonds to become "arbitrage bonds" subject to
Federal income taxation pursuant to the provisions of Section 148(a) of
the Code, or to become "Federally-guaranteed obligations" pursuant to
the provisions of section 149 (b) of the Code, or to become "private
activity bonds" pursuant to the provisions of Section 141(a) of the
Code. To that end, the Issuer will comply with all applicable require-
ments of the Code and all regulations of the United States Department
of Treasury issued thereunder to the extent such requirements are, at
the time, applicable and in effect. Additionally, the Issuer agrees to
implement and follow each and every recommendation provided by bond
counsel and deemed to be necessary to be undertaken by the Issuer to
ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code in order
to preserve the exemption of interest on the Bonds from Federal income
taxation.
SECTION 23. Covenants Regarding Arbitrage. The Issuer shall not take nor permit or
suffer to be taken any action with respect to the gross proceeds of the
Bonds as such term is defined under the Code which, if such action had
been reasonably expected to have been taken, or had been deliberately
and intentionally taken, on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would
have caused the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of
Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
The Issuer shall calculate Excess Earnings in accordance with the
Rebate Instructions attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated
herein by this reference, and shall pay Excess Earnings to the United
states of America in accordance with the Rebate Instructions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Rebate Instructions may be modified,
in whole or in part, without the consent of the owners of the Bonds,
upon receipt by the Issuer of an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect
that such modification shall not adversely affect the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds then outstanding.
1q ~ -1;2..
8
SECTION 24. Order to Print and Authenticate Bonds. The Treasurer is hereby
instructed to cause Bonds, as set forth above, to be typed or printed,
and to proceed to cause said Bonds to be authenticated and delivered to
an authorized representative of the purchaser, upon payment of the
purchase price as set forth in the accepted proposal for the sale of
Bonds.
SECTION 25. Arbitrage Certificate. On the basis of the facts, estimates and circum-
stances now in existence and in existence on the date of issue of the
Bonds, as determined by the Treasurer, said Treasurer is hereby autho-
rized to certify that it is not expected that the proceeds of the issue
will be used in a manner that would cause such obligations to be arbi-
trage Bonds. Such certification shall be delivered to the purchaser
together with the Bonds.
SECTION 26. Amendments or Supplements. The Issuer may, by adoption of a resolution
from time to time, and at any time, without notice to or consent of any
of the Bonctowners, approve an amendment or supplemental indenture
hereto for any of the following purposes:
(a) to cure any ambiguity, to correct or supplement any provision here-
in which may be inconsistent with any other provision herein, or
to make any other provision with respect to matters or questions
arising under this Indenture or in any supplemental indenture,
provided that such action shall not materially adversely effect
the interests of the Bondholders;
(b)
to add to the covenants and agreements of and
the restr ictions upon the Issuer contained
other covenants, agreements, limitations and
observed by the Issuer which are not contrary
with this Indenture as theretofore in effect;
the limitations and
in this Indenture,
restrictions to be
to or inconsistent
(c) to modify, alter, amend or supplement this Indenture in any other
respect which is not materially adverse to the interests of the
Bondowners; or
(d) to maintain the tax exempt status of the interest payable on the
Bonds.
Exclusive of the supplemental indentures hereto provided for in the
first paragraph of this Section 26, the Owners of not less than 60% in
aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding shall have the
right to consent to and approve the adoption by the Issuer of such
supplemental indentures as shall be deemed necessary or desirable by
the Issuer for the purpose of waiving, modifying, altering, amending,
adding to or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provi-
sions contained in this Indenture; provided, however, that nothing
herein shall permit, or be construed as permitting, (a) an extension of
the maturity date of the principal of, or the payment date of interest
on, any Bond, (b) a reduction in the principal amount of, or redemption
29A -13
9
premium on, any Bond or the rate of interest thereon, (0) a preference
or priority of any Bond or Bonds over any other Bond or Bonds, or (d) a
reduction in the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds the Owners of
which are required to consent to such resolution or order, without the
consent of the OWners of all Bonds then outstanding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer has executed this Bond Indenture effective the date
first written hereinabove.
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
i-q A -) y 10
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1
(TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE II)
EXHIBIT "A"
MATURITY SCHEDULE
YEAR
PRINCIPAL MATURING
INTEREST RATE
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
$
119,465.29
225,000.00
120,000.00
125,000.00
135,000.00
145,000.00
155,000.00
165,000.00
175,000.00
185,000.00
200,000.00
215,000.00
230,000.00
250,000.00
270,000.00
290,000.00
2017 (Term Bond)
3,945,000.00
I- ~A-JS; 11
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1
(TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE II)
EXHIBIT "B"
ARBITRAGE REBATE INSTRUCTIONS
This document sets forth instructions regarding the investment and disposition of
monies deposited in various funds and accounts established in connection with the
issuance by the City of Chula Vista ("Issuer") of its Assessment District No. 91-1
(Telegraph Canyon Road, phase II) Limited obligation Improvement Bonds in aggregate
principal amount of $ ("Bonds").
The purpose of these instructions is to provide the
necessary to ensure that the investment of the monies in
described herein will comply with the arbitrage requirements
Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued thereunder.
Issuer with information
the functs and accounts
imposed by the Internal
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of these instructions, the following terms shall have the meanings set
forth below:
Bond Year.
the date of
Issuer.
The term "Bond Year" means each 12 month period (or shorter period from
issuance) that ends at the close of business on a date selected by the
Code. The term "Cadell means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Delivery Date. The term "Delivery Date" means
, 1992.
Excess Investment Earnings.
equal to the sum of:
The term "Excess Investment Earnings" means an amount
(1) The excess of
(a) The aggregate amount earned from the Delivery Date of the Bonds on all
Nonpurpose Investments in which Gross proceeds of the Bonds are invested,
over
(b) The amount that would have been earned if the Yield on such Nonpurpose
Investments had been equal to the Yield on the Bonds,
plus
(2) Any income attributable to the excess described in paragraph (1).
In determining Excess Investment Earnings, (i) any gain or loss on the disposition
of a Nonpurpose Investment shall be taken into account and (ii) any amount earned on
a bona fide debt service fund shall not be taken into account.
Capitalized terms herein that are not defined herein shall have the meaning set
forth in the Bond Indenture.
;).C,A - lip
12
Gross Proceeds. The term "Gross Proceeds" means the following:
(1) Original proceeds, i.e., the amount received by the Issuer as a result of the
sale of the Bonds and any amounts actually or constructively received from
investing the amount received from the sale of the Bonds;
(2) Amounts, other than original proceeds, in the Reserve Fund and in any other
fund established as a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund;
(3 )
Amounts,
are used
other than
to pay debt
as specified above,
service with respect
that are reasonably expected to be or
to the Bonds; and,
(4) Amounts received as a result of investing amounts described above.
Investment Property. The term "Investment Property" means any security, obligation,
annuity contract or investment-type property in which Gross Proceeds are invested,
excluding, however, the following:
(a) United states Treasury - State and Local Government Series, Demand Deposit
securities; and
(b) tax-exempt obligations.
For purposes of these Instructions, the term "tax-exempt obligations" shall include
only obligations the interest on which is (i) excludable from gross income for
federal income tax purposes and (ii) not treated as an item of tax preference under
Section 57(a)(5) of the Code. The term "tax-exempt obligationn shall, however, also
include stock in a "qualified regulated investment company," which is a corporation
that (i) is a regulated investment company within the meaning of Section 851(a) of
the Code and meets the requirements of Section 852 (a) of the Code for the taxable
year; (ii) has only one class of stock authorized and outstanding; (iii) invests all
of its assets in tax-exempt obligations (as defined above) to the extent practic-
able; and (iv) has at least 98% of its gross income derived from interest on, or
gain from the sale or other disposition of, tax-exempt obligations, or the weighted
average value of its assets is represented by investments in tax-exempt obligations.
Nonpurpose Investment. The term "Nonpurpose Investment.. means any Investment
Property which is acquired with the Gross Proceeds of the Bonds and is not acquired
in order to carry out the governmental purpose of the Bonds.
Purchase Price. The term "Purchase Price", for the purpose of computation of the
Yield of the Bonds, has the same meaning as the term "Issue Price" in Sections
1273(b) and 1274 of the Code, and, in general, means the initial offering price to
the public (not including bond houses and brokers, or similar persons or organiza-
tions acting in the capacity of underwriters or wholesalers) at which price a
substantial amount of each maturity (at least 10 percent) of the Bonds was sold.
The term "Purchase Price", for the purpose of computation of Yield of Nonpurpose
Investments means the fair market value of the Nonpurpose Investment on the date of
use of Gross Proceeds of the Bonds for acquisition thereof, or if later, on the date
that Investment Property constituting a Nonpurpose Investment becomes a Nonpurpose
Investment of the Bonds.
2Cf A-11
13
Regulations. The term "Regulations" means temporary and permanent Regulations
promulgated under Section 148 of the Code.
Yield. The term "Yield" means that discount rate which, when used in computing the
present value of all payments of principal and interest (or other payments in the
case of Nonpurpose Investments which require payments in a form not characterized as
principal and interest) on a Nonpurpose Investment or on the Bonds produces an
amount equal to the Purchase Price of such Nonpurpose Investment or the Bonds, all
computed as prescribed in applicable Regulations. The yield on Nonpurpose
Investments must be computed by the use of the same frequency interval of
compounding interest as is used with respect to the Bonds.
REBATE REQUIREMENT
Calculation of Excess Investment Earnings. No later than the last day of the fifth
Bond Year, each succeeding fifth Bond Year and on the date the last Bond is
discharged, the Issuer shall calculate or cause to be calculated the Excess
Investment Earnings. This calculation shall be made or caused to be made by the
Issuer in accordance with the following rules:
(1) For purposes of calculating the Yield on any investment as required under these
Instructions, the purchase price of the investment will be the fair market
price of the investment on an established market. This means that the Issuer
will not pay a premium and will not accept a lower interest rate than is
usually paid to adjust the Yield on an investment.
(2) The market price of certificates of deposit issued by a commercial bank may be
regarded as being at a fair market price if they are determined by reference to
the bona fide bid price quoted by a dealer who maintains an active secondary
market in such certificates, or, if no secondary market exists, by satisfying
subparagraph (3) below relating to investment agreements.
(3) Investments pursuant to an investment agreement may be regarded as being made
at a fair market price if (i) at least three (3) bids are received on the
investment contract from persons without an interest in the Bonds; (ii) the
winning bidder provides a certificate that, based on its reasonable expecta-
tions on the date the investment agreement is entered into, investments will
not be purchased or sole at a price other than their fair market value; (iii)
the yield on the investment agreement is at least equal to the yield offered
under the highest bid received from a non-interested party; and (iv) the yield
on the investment agreement is at least equal to the yield offered on similar
contracts.
(4) For other investments traded on an established market, the fair market price
shall be the mean between the bid and offered prices for such obligations on
the date of purchase or, if subsequent thereto, the date the investment becomes
a Nonpurpose Investment.
(5) Where amounts must be restricted to a certain Yield and investments cannot be
purchased on an established market or a bona f ide fair market price cannot be
established at a Yield that does not exceed the maximum permissible Yield, the
?-C1f\ ~l~
14
Issuer may acquire or hold tax-exempt securities, currency or United States
Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness, Notes and Certificates - State and Local
Government Series ("SLGs") that Yield no more than the maximum permissible
Yield. SLGs are available at the Federal Reserve Bank.
Payment to United States. The Issuer shall payor cause to be paid an amount equal
to Excess Investment Earnings (after application of any available credits) to the
United states of America in installments with the first payment to be made not later
than thirty (30) days after the end of the fifth Bond Year, and with subsequent
payments to be made not later than five (5) years after the preceding payment was
due. The Issuer shall assure that each such installment is in an amount equal to at
least ninety percent (90%) of the Excess Investment Earnings with respect to the
Bonds as of the close of the computation period. Not later than sixty (60) days
after the retirement of the Bonds, the Issuer shall payor cause to be paid to the
United States one hundred percent (100%) of the theretofore unpaid Excess Investment
Earnings of the Bonds. The Issuer shall remit payments to the United States at the
address prescribed by the Regulations as the same may be from time to time in effect
with such reports and statements as may be prescribed by such Regulations. The
Issuer shall assure that such payments are made to the United States on a timely
basis from any funds lawfully available therefor.
Further Obliqation of Issuer. The Issuer shall assure that Excess Investment
Earnings are not paid or disbursed except as provided in these instruct ions. To
that end, the Issuer shall assure that investment transactions are on an arms-length
basis. In the event that Nonpurpose Investments consist of certificates of deposit
or investment contracts, investment in such NonPurpose Investments shall be made in
accordance with the procedures described in applicable Regulations as from time time
in effect.
REBATE EXCEPTIONS. Absent an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, the
exception of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code will be considered satisfied only if
either the Six-Month Exception (set forth in subparagraph (1) below) or the Two-Year
Exception (set forth in subparagraph (2) below) is satisfied. If either of such
requirements is satisfied, the Rebate Requirement will be treated as having been
satisfied.
(1) Six-Month Exception. The Six-Month Exception will be treated as having been
satisfied if all Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are expended for the governmental
purposes of the Bonds no later than the day that is six (6) months after the
date of delivery of the Bonds, and if all amounts, if any, determined to be
required to be paid to the United States Treasury in compliance with the Rebate
Regulations are paid to the United States Treasury. Gross Proceeds which are
held in the Reserve Fund and Gross Proceeds which arise after such six (6)
months and which were not reasonably anticipated as of the date of delivery of
the Bonds shall not be considered Gross Proceeds for purposes of this subpara-
graph (1).
')BA-I~
15
(2) Two-Year Exception. The Two-Year Exception will be treated as having been
satisfied in the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (ii) below are satisfied.
(i) At least 75 percent of the available construction proceeds of the Bonds
are used for construction expenditures (including reconstruction and
rehabilitation) with respect to property that is owned by a governmental
unit or an organization described in section 50l(c) (3) of the Code and
exempt from federal income tax under Section 501 (a) of the Code.
(ii) At least 10 percent of the available construction proceeds of the Bonds
have been expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the
six (6) month period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds,
at least 45 percent of the available construction proceeds have been
expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the one (1)
year period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds, at least
75 percent of the available construction proceeds of the Bonds have been
expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the lS-month
period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds, and all of the
available construction proceeds of the Bonds have been expended for the
governmental purposes of the Bonds within the two (2) year period beginn-
ing on the date of the delivery of the Bonds. For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term "available construction proceeds" means the amount
equal to the issue price (within the meaning of Sections 1273 and 1274 of
the Code) of the Bonds, increased by earnings on the issue price, earn-
ings on amounts, if any, on deposit in the Reserve Fund not funded from
the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, and earnings on all of the fore-
going earnings, and reduced by the amount of the issue price on deposit
in the Reserve Fund and the issuance costs financed by the Bonds. The
term "available construction proceeds" shall not include amounts earned
on the Reserve Fund after the earlier of the close of the two (2) year
period described above in this subparagraph (ii) or the date the construc-
tion is substantially completed. The term "available construction
proceeds" shall not include payments on any obligation acquired to carry
out the governmental purposes of the Bonds and shall not include earnings
on such payments.
For purposes of subparagraph (ii) of this subparagraph (2) all of the available
construction proceeds shall be treated as expended for the governmental
purposes of the Bonds within two (2) years from the date of the delivery of the
Bonds if all of such proceeds are expended for the governmental purposes of the
Bonds within three (3) years from the date of the delivery of the Bonds and
such amounts would have been expended for such purposes within two (2) years
from the date of the delivery of the Bonds but for a reasonable retainage
C~, to ensure compliance with the terms of a construction contract) that
does not exceed five (5) percent of the available construction proceeds of the
Bonds.
(3) Multi-Purpose Issue Treatment. Solely for purposes of determining whether the
Bonds are described in subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (2) above, the Issuer
may treat the Bonds as two separate issues. Only one of such two separate
issues may be treated as satisfying the requirements of subparagraph (2) above.
')., ~ A -1-0
16
EXPECTATIONS AND ELECTIONS. The Issuer expects that the proceeds of the sale of the
Bonds deposited in the Improvement Fund will be fully expended for construction
expenditures within the meaning of Section 148(f) (4) (C) (iv) (I) of the Code. The
Issuer does, therefore, expect to satisfy the spending requirements of Section
148(f) (4) (C)(ii) of the Code. Accordingly, the Issuer hereby elects to apply the
two-year expenditure exception of Section 148(f)(4)(C)(ii) of the Code to the Bonds
and elects under section 148(f) (4) (C) (vi) (IV) that the Reserve Fund shall not be
considered "available construction proceeds", and further elects to have the penalty
provision of Section 148(p)(4)(C)(vii) apply.
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. With respect to all Nonpurpose Investments acquired in a
fund or account established and held by the Issuer, the Issuer shall record or cause
to be recorded the following information: (i) purchase date, (ii) purchase price,
(iii) information establishing that the purchase price is the fair market value as
of such date (~, the published quoted bid by a dealer in such an investment on
the date of purchase), (iv) any accrued interest paid, (v) face amount, (vi) coupon
rate, (vii) periodicity of interest payments, (viii) disposition price, (ix) any
accrued interest received, and (x) disposition date. To the extent any investment
becomes a Nonpurpose Investment by becoming Gross Proceeds after it was originally
purchased, it shall be treated as if it were acquired at its fair market value at
the time it becomes a Nonpurpose Investment. The Issuer shall keep and retain for a
period of six (6) years following the retirement of the Bonds, records of all
determinations made pursuant to these Instructions.
AMENDMENT. In order to comply with the covenants in the Bond Indenture regarding
compliance with the requirements of the Code and the continued exclusion from gross
income for purposes of federal income taxation of interest paid on the Bonds, the
procedures described in these Instructions may be modified as necessary, without the
consent of Bond owners, and based on the opinion of nationally recognized bond
counsel acceptable to the Issuer, to comply with regulations, rulings, legislation
or judicial decisions as may be applicable to the Bonds. Neither the Issuer nor any
of its members, agents, officers or employees shall be liable for any action taken
or for its failure to take any action in connection with these Instructions. The
Issuer may rely conClusively on the advice of its Bond Counsel with respect to the
requirements of these Instructions.
Dated:
, 1992
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
'lf1 A. - ~
17
RESOLUTION NO. /!clc%l
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING AWARD FOR SALE
OF BONDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1
(TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE II)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has heretofore instituted and conducted proceedings
under the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of
1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, for the installation of certain public works of
improvement, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work, in a
special assessment district known anddesignated as ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE II) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, in the Resolution of Intention it
declared that bonds should issue under the
"Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10
Highways Code of the State of California; and,
was determined
provisions of
of the Streets
and
the
and
WHEREAS, there has now been received, in proper form, a sealed
bid (hereinafter the "proposal") for the purchase of said bonds to
issue under said proceedings, which is considered to best serve the
interests of owners of land included within the Assessment District
and should be accepted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That this legislative body hereby rejects all of
said proposals for the sale of bonds except that herein mentioned,
and does hereby make an award and accept the proposal for the
purchase of the improvement bonds from the responsible bidder,
to-wit:
at the interest rate and terms as set forth in the proposal of said
bidder as on file with the transcript of these proceedings and open
for public inspection.
SECTION 3. That said sale is subject to all the terms and
conditions as set forth in the Resolution of Issuance, in the Bond
Indenture in its final form, and in the accepted proposal.
Presented by
Approved
;1
Bruce M. Boogaa
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
29E-1
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED
of Chula Vista, California, this
1992, by the following vote:
by the City council of the City
day of
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly
California,
was
held on the
A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolut.ion No.
duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
day of , 1992.
Executed this
day of
, 1992.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2- 'f 8 - 2....
~V?-
:-~~
,....~-- -
-- -- --~--
~...;;:::~~
May 28, 1992
File # AY-087
C1lY OF
CHULA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC HEARING ON FORMATIO~~~E~~~6~~~YD UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 122 _
FOURTH AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF
STATE HIGHWAY 54 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Our records indicate that you may have an interest in the attached
agenda item that will appear before the City Council on June 23, 1992.
The Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m.
The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies
to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden
utility poles within the district and to require property owners to
convert their service connections to underground at their expense except
for properties that qualify for reimbursement as outlined in the
provisions listed below. The service conversion work involves
trenching, backfill and conduit installation from property line to point
of connection. Chula vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a
mechanism that reduces the property owner's cost for the service
conversion from the distribution lines to the residence. The mechanism
is based on the following provisions:
1. Funding is limited to single family residential properties only.
2. Funding is limited to items which the customer traditionally
supplies/installs such as trenching and conduit from property line
to point of connection.
3. Funding shall not exceed the estimated cost of trenching and
conduit installation for up to 100 feet of the private service
lateral.
The City will reimburse property owners who qualify under said
provisions, at a rate of $30.00 per linear foot of trenching.
The City Council meets in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue in
the Public Services Building which is located at the northwest corner of
Fourth Avenue and "F" Street.
A plat of the subject district is enclosed for your information.
Should you have any questions regarding the subject item please contact
Mario J. Ingrasci, Assistant Engineer II, at 691-5021.
~) ,
SAMIR
CIVIL
l--3-
,... N~~ )
M. NUHAILY
ENGINEER
MI:nm
Enclosure
(Ml1\HEARING.LTR)
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5021
! t:1 ;I
i
N OJ
.. ~
I\) III
..... 0<
- .. .
.... 3:
..... ~
CO <-
I\)
~
~
..
.
.
.
.
c:: .
.
.
.
1-3 .
.
.
- .
t"" .
t:l:l .
.
trJ - .
.
>-3 1-3 .
.
~ .
'"< .
.
.
trJ .
.
trJ .
c:: .
z .
.
.
~ Z .
.
. .
t."'.l 0 .
t:=' .
.
. c:: .
m t:j .
.
XC'IJ .
~ ~ .
>-3 .
:I:=:d 1-3 0
-trJ =
OJtrJ ~
->-3 0
~ :>
> c::
z <: z
-t::I t:j
)> Z t:='
~C'IJ -
>-3 c:: Z
>
>-3 t:j 0
trJ
::tl t:='
.... -
0 en
::tl 1-3
~ ~
> -
..c; (")
CI1 1-3
~ I
Z
0
.
"
...... >
~ Q
m
~ -
0
"
II>
.1
-.1
:: :; ~ :.... ~
....... ~..;: =: .' J I ~ .
r" it~~ '0. ~
"W
.:'.:.'--~ "
-:'''<3
H 0"
0'"
. .. ~.
'.t..\ ~:fa '_I
j .~"
,-.
/0':'1 (J)""S' ((.1.
0..1 (i')~- t..,
toOl G @ ~"I
""""- .
.. 0'" {..} @) I~I
',"~I ...!.
e ~I'J I.'.,
'. Z~! _~
.
"...'.,.
.
@ ..'
.~
6'
../
=1
." el
1
.,
,
,"
. .wo
. KYO
~ ,
@),
.
@
.
@
.
Brl
:;-;,rljj -, .','
E9
;/
r
) I
. t IJOO;I......~ 'E' STREET
'." ",!; ill,;. 1....-.. - r
; ":1.: 01.' . ~"'= ~
",:"'1 i :--'.. I
I@@~, ~.
~ t It Of -- i" L, -:", .1011 . "'0
.. ....w... .... ~..._ '-.: ~/'" m ~
/0'" '6 J' I i ~__...= _
" ':: ~ ":.'7; ~ - ~6'
i ..:~' e Q5 t i _~l..el
"':il =
: I ... : u...
5 '-(fL') ala "CE
cr":" ...c.t-f'
: ,.,~ ..,ii @
: (9 'TI
I:' 0
:' ,., c
5 ~
: I.". -I
:. :
: 1.' ~.
....-...,,":- ~)o
25'-: ~~
: m
: Z
.j C
m
"
~
'I -It
11 ,~,
~-'.
~';f
CD
.r ""'te
I :
--
CD :
-- -.:..
--
@
" ...
(!) (!) (!)
.
.. .
,- .~,
. .
.
...s:r
.
'>"J
-- - ~I.-
-"
~I
.
."
w
.
':'
CD
@)
- @
'W
~J
iso',
.J'~ ,.
( ':
.
/Ii .'08'1
" I 5t.t
Df': /I
.
.
'fl-
w
:>3'50;;1
~ 5<::::> SL
" - .
,
.f-'
-.~
d 1 : .
""'.j,~I:",
u. -. ".. /,J
J' w,
.
~ .
=
~.~
t r.,;l;.,
f\' ,
.,
r
....I.Q,
o
I . I
.
.
.
.
w
.-
,
w
....:
1" --
';!~I(j)
.! t I u).., '. f : ...... <1,.0.,..
--. _....._ J
~~.' .i II. ' I ~ - /'. r. '- /
$ ...~ " I I '::<< ~ ~'..<
... : I @ ''''f~ - ...
- "'-r oi.l
."I~\&' 'v. ~
,~.~ >,'. ~"-~ .....
Id~1 --. (i"~ ~r:- e
'.~ ~ a.'it'" ~ ~J) crJ
/rr' . '" _
. : ---a ...
'lff 0":))$0
:'
ill
(i
!
~ ,-~ ~
5:"@
.........
.
.
')11 ,;.0.
_ i. ...
:.
..
..
..
.'
::
..
L~ :: J ,....t
I . ,~. _ _ .........."',,~D: ~IREE_L
100': "
6
~6
.
I w
-
~
. .
:
.
. "'f~
.
W
W
. -...",
: a ;: t
s "
"" ""
,- ,-
, '"' Ql
-e'
e . t
: ...wt.~l.;~;
:Ilia ~ ...
t :
. "
. """
;;
.
.
I
I
J ,..,
11\" -@'"
J ,.
OIl
;
. .. CD
'I' G....:.J',1;.... ..
"I ., G:>
"~::'i\=--- -
I : ~ L 0
t 1~r'7Jn- - -,
., 7" ".,
- i-I 0i
,
I SEE PAGE 2
-15
''''''t.,
CD
..
.,.,a,
@
.
.
d
2 " (;:7
ti i ;; SEE PAGE 1 .
IIlI !!' Ii
.. .
. . " .
I\) 1Il .
.
... t< .
.
.. .. .
.
-.j 3: .
. .
... e : ,,". .
.
(Q ... . .
- . . o~ ~\- . ~I
I\) . /1
-. . .
. ." .
@ : .
\ .
5l" .
.
.
... . .
., .
. .,. . .
"'r.~r.;l'" .
..~ .
......~.............~ -
o~ r .... ,
'"
.
.
. "
c:: . .
.
.
.
~ .
.
.
1-4 .
.
t:r::I t"" .
.
t;o:l 1-4 . "J ~,,,
.
~ ~ . r'
. ",7.Sti1.. 7'
.
~ ~ .
.
.
t;o:l . -1
.
t;o:l . I~
.
2: c:: . (S'!-
.
.
~ Z . l.r
.
. .
0 .
t;o:l t:::I . bSv
.
m . c:: .
tz:j .
XCIJ . r~
.
~ ~ .
J:~ .
-~ ~ 0 @)
tlJt;o:l == ~ o~ ! I
_t;o:l
-l~ 0 a,.
> > c:: i I
.2: <: z SO ....."..1."'(;) i ':l.,,~tI;
)>t::l tz:j ''''o~.~ I ~
t:::I @
-CIJ Z 1-4 ~ I
~ c:: z ,., ---' '-
n'"
> e ~
~ tz:j 0 ,~ . ''''\'dAI@
BRISBANE ...
t;o:l ~fI' - 'If.l.S,^ 'If
::r:: t:::I 1'102 ' tlOcl ( . 0.1' IJ.
;' 'lE
... 1-4 l Ji } I
0 00 .....,,,,J~ I I
::r:: ~ · il ':Jtll'l . Q~r-D ~ I '3'If~'''1
~ ~ 'II'.!!!! to. I @:;--
r : '5 l ""d @
> 1-4 ~~;,;,;~.;..~~. ""'" t::J ...._,---
-< C ..
~ I I ,
Q1 ,
I
. I I
E5 I
Z '~
0 '~'.._c . a
." .... ..
. .
>- t
Gl
~ m
~ II>
~ 0 STATE HIGHWAY 54
"II
II>
RESOLUTION NO. 16605
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
PUBLIC NECESSITY , HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE
FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ALONG
FOURTH AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY
100 FEET SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 54
The City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
.
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.32 of the Chu1a Vista Municipal Code establishes a
procedure for the creation of underground utility districts and requires as the
initial step in such procedure the holding of a public hearing to ascertain
whether public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of
po 1 es, overhead wi res and associ ated overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, comm~ication, or
similar or associated service in any such district; and,
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1992, an Underground Util ity Advisory Committee (UUAC)
meet i ng was held in the Pub 1 i c Servi ces Buil di ng to consi der the proposed
boundary of an underground utility district along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street
to a point approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54; and,
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that such an underground utility district,
hereinafter called "District", be formed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista as follows:
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held in the Council
Chambers of the City of Chula Vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City on
Tuesday, the 23rd day of June, 1992, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., to
ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires
the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures
and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying
electric, communication, or similar associated service in the District
hereinabove described. At such hearing, all persons interested shall be
given an opportunity to be heard. Said hearing may be continued from time
to time as may be determined by the City Council.
2. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned of the time and
place of such hearing by mailing a copy of this resolution to such
property owners and utilities concerned at least fifteen (15) days prior
to the date thereof.
Resolution No. 16605
Page 2
3. The area proposed to be included in the District is as shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
(Jd f ~-~
JO~ P. LiPPltt~
Di ctor of Public Works
~11~~1
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 16605
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 28th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
YES: Counei 1 members: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore,
Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Counei 1 members: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Rindone
----/} /~
",--r- ..7 /,$-4",-,,-/
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
,
/
......... ~_~ - I I ' ~" -. "..
"I '., ~ . / I " / . 1 ,~. /~ (
',- \. I ......-1,. I . ~ -\. _ ~, . , -,
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16605 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 28th day of April, 1992.
Executed this 28th day of April, 1992.
l
K XXXXKXKXKXXXXAXAKXKAXAXXKXKX K XXXXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, J
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXAXAXXXxXAXAXXXX;X AXXXXXXXxXAXXXAXXXXXXXXXxXXXl'
x XAXXXXXXXXXXXXXAXXXAXAXXXXXI^X XXAXIXXXIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXl'
x XXXXXXXXXAXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIXXX; "
Xx~t~fftll{flflflflflt~lt~IXxl~lftltfftll{ltllll0llt1
,--- XXXXXXXXXAXAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
(' , ~~~~~l~l~l~l~~~lll~l*l~~~l~l~x
( c. \. ,XXXIXXXXXXXXXAXXXXXxXA)!XXX)!XXX
01, ;4 XXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
c .; ( XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
O .. 'rJl
. I. ' ,.'.
C . : ( 5623232200
CKANE N~LLI~ STkEtTER LTD
01: ;, C/O SUNbElT !i,vtSTM~IIIT HO..DING
. : ( P 0 r LX 10
()~, \,;0:. D~l"AY bEACH ~L 33447
~
563 d03600
PHIlLIP~ bRUCE h TR/PHIlLIPS L
A UR" 1\ TR
611<: ~ANOkFIElD OkIvE
HU"ITII,GTOk tlEACh CA 026'1B
5 b51400 700
L~E ELIZAbETH
745 3kD AVE
CHU..A VISTA CA ~1~10
5051403000
~ILlIA~S RALPn u/JO A R
5'" 'tTH ;;.Vt
ChULA VISTA CA ~1910
5b5,a022CO
CuM~"IA ~AMI..Y TkUST O~-15-91
4d:5 CObALT Ok
LA ~,ESA CA ~2U41
-
.,- c _.__
(' t' . '.It.
,~. " , . .; '- ~
o ' . . :-: .
Ct, .1"
O' ~).'
ct' ,l.I::'
ca' ..~
r', ..
'-I'" _ '- '-- __ '- ~ "'.-' ~_' '-" --' -oJ --'
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIXX)!XXX) ~
lllll~lllll~~ll*l~l~l*~~~~l~l~
xxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
56327006uO
CHuLA-LIkDA ASSOCIATES
C/O I\INNtY SHOE CORP 150b3
P 0 ~OX i6b3
hAkRIStlU~G PA 17105
5632703700
PHILLIPS B~UCE M Tk/PHJLlIPS l
AU RA K
bl12 MANORFIELU DRIVE
HUNTINGT~N BEACH CA ~264b
5651'100800
~HITE DENNIS E/KAThLtEN A
21 VISTA W..Y
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
56514031uO
PETIC/AS~OCIATES
1055 TORKEY PINES kD #200
..A JOLLA CA 92037
56522023uO
bELL lIVING TRuST 10-1~-bB
3755 CkESTA 80NITA Ok
bONI T A Ci. 9190i
-,-:- ~-~"~.~ .J:.J.....:r I _.r::r~r:rTr:.-.
....,,,,:.;.;j).))) )ClO
.' \;. ~ ,; , . () 0
~ ~ .; )) -, . ()
.'~.; , ) . () .
.',' 1.,0
,....J ....../ .j _-' ~ .J J -' J_. (;)
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.(' {
C I; (
O.
C I.
0'
C I'
~.
0' ·
.. \_/
I
LABL 00256 EN('-42-03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxXXXXXXX
UNOER(,RD UTILITY LIST ~12~; 'U XXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXXX xx xx XXXX XX xx XXXX XXXI. XX X, X XX XXXX xx xx XXXX xX XX XXxX XXXX XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X mH0HRfHHl'f'HlfllH:iU< XxS:0UUll'f-lNHUf,NHHIHI,
:':)
X xx X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX ~
~-N-~'l-'l-~~~~~'l-~'l-~~~'l-~~~~~U.l-~H')'
X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX)
X XX X X XX XX xx xx xx XX xx XX XX XX XX XX)
X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX)
51023231300
BOR(,ERDING INVESTMENT CO
C/O SUNBELT I t\V HOLOI t'-<GS
22D CON GR ES S FA RK DR R215
DELRAY BEACH FL 33445
.,
5 63 2 700 700
~ AL L M J.N I R VI I N
C/O wIN PROPERTIES INC
115 E 57TH ST STE 1240
NEW YGPK f'<Y 10022
XX XXXI. XX XX XXxX xX XX XXXI. XXXXX XX)
*~~~~~~~~~*~~~f~l-~~~*~~~~~l-~~)
XXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXxXxXXXxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5623232100
CRM,E ,.ELLIE STReETER LTD
C/O SUNSEL T INVESTI~Ef'<T HOLlJINC
P U ,,0 X 10
DELRJ.Y BEALH h, 33447
5632703400
GUSTAFSON ~O"ERT E
2679 V IA V lEJAS
ALPINE CA ~1901
5651200300
C I TV 0 ~ C H UL J. V 1ST A
ctu LITY MANA('E:R
2710 FOuRTH AVE
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
56514029UO
~EST~OGD LERLY F/GAIL A
4435 CARLIN PL
LA l";tSJ. LA 9),941
56522021uO
SOUTHEASTE RN CALIF LRNI J. ASSN (
F SEVENTH DAY AOVEr.TlSTS
P 0 BO X eo 50
RIvERSIDE LA 92515
\ (I. 'fT_-,---~-J..:r ...r...,.- J..;r...T J~...r -T-T JJ ....r..
. . ::: . ., , , ,_' ~ ~ ~ J ..J ..J ..J _) _) _) ...J .' ) 8 I)
; .. ".: ,: .~,-;.J ) .J).J) .Cle
(.I.'" ~~. .J) )) "8G
: ) .. : '. ~~ ~, ',;' ) . () .
..: ~,'~O
'- '- -- '-- '-.- .....~ '-" '-" ~ "-" --' ~ - --'" ~ ~ ~ .-' . Q
- .
( C . ~ ,(
Ot,(:1 .
1 L. 1:(
01; { j
C . c "(
01; ('1 ·
l. . C '(
OLto, I .
563270380C
ADLER MANUE L/ GEURUDE B TRS
538 HILLTOP DR
C HJ L A V 1ST ACt. 91 91 0
5651402800
HANDLER DAV ID Tk
5785 GE l CE RR 0 BL VD
St." DIEGO CA 92120
-
5652201000
SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCl
ATlON OF SEVEt\TH DAY ADVENTIS1
POBOX 8050
RIVERSIDE Ct. 92515
5652800700
MUNTES SAMUEL M/GLOkIA
8 8UNIT" kD
ChULA VISTA CA 9191u
fCC,'"
0(, :(
l'. i ( 565.:801601
0<<; ~ (~ROCK At-;N FAMILY TRuST 10-26-8
C C: (' 6<;530 DILLON ..0 00
0(; :( OESER T HOT SPRI t\GS CA 9t240
I l". : (
O~'!.:.: (5652801605
~ ShE kl',AN KAT hLEEN
178 4TH AVE #,
CHU~A VISTA CA 91910
/
-
~.~c
c t; (
0, (
C t, C (
0' (
ct.: (
<>>. (
C'-L<"
5652801b09
GIL JANIS L
178 4TH AVE #9
ChULA VISTA CA 9191U
5652801613
YOUMAt\S DAV 10 T
176 4TH AVE #d
ChULA VISTA CA 9191u
5t.528Ult.17
IVANOVIC MI..Ku/SYLVIA A
178 4TH AVE #J.7
ChULA VISTA CA 91910
5b60101,00
PARI<. vISTA APTS
2 525 (A~IINO DoL R 10 S
SAN OIE~O CA 92106
5bbU200100
VILETA ~ILLIAM/SHAFER
III
722 CAPISTRANU PL
SAN OIE~O CA <;2~09
GEOkGE ~
,6528008 uO
DEAN MARTHA L
Ib6 4Th AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
J
,
5b52801b\)2
UIEGU vIULA
176 4TH I.vt n2
CHuLA VISTA CA 91910
(#
~
5b52801bUb
PARKER JUSEPH C/ALICIA
17b 4TH AVE nb
LHULA VISTA LA 91910
.
.
5b52601b~0
SNYDER OuNALD 6/DONNA
916 MISSION AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
.
.
5b52801b14
hAkVEY AL ICE M
712 N 91ST PLl #41j
UMAHA NE b6114
.
.
56526016~8
I<.ROWEL Lt.U..A J
176 4TH AVE nIb
CHULA VISTA LA 9~910
.
.
56bOl048uO .
bRANT kEvOCABLE FAMILY TRUST I
0-26-88
11070 LAMINITO VISTA PACIFICA
SAN OIEGU CA 92131
.
5bb02002UO
VILETA WILLl"M
722 CAPISTRANO PL #6
SAN OIEGu CA 9.:1U9
.
.
I
~
5652800500
R OU S E R UT H B
156 4 TH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5652800600
tS TOLAND MAR IO/NANCY
160 4Th AVt
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,
-~
( c. T ( . 5652800900
0(. " eRA NF OR 0 LE O~ A M A
I c. i ( 172 4 TH AVE
01;, '. C HU L A V IS TA CA 91910
, .
c. : {
OL~ :1
c. ,- ( 5652801603
c ()~. ~ I . S AF LA R MA BE L
178 4 TH AVE ~ 3
.- C HU L A V IS TA CA 91910
.
, 5652801607
\;;,.. SAA VEDR A JO EL E/RCSIE A
8414 bL 0 S SO 1", LN
L EMU N GROVE CA 91945
l
5652801611
HARGA S STEVE PIMA R I E L
178 4 TH AVE ~11
C He! L A VISTA CA 91'110
5652801400
ORKIN INC
L/O ARCO PS~T TAx DEPT/~05397-
P U bOX 2405
LOS ANGELES CA 90051
5652801604
THOMPSUN NLRMAN L/GWtNS-THUMP!
ON SUSANNA
1615 MARL AVe
LHULA VISTA CA 91911
5652801608
GDI",El INtS
176 4TH AVf:. .8
CHULA VISTA LA 9.910
5652801612
GEwEHR FAMILY TRUST 06-28-82
1028 N STAl>ECOACH LN
FALLBRuOK LA 92028
5052801615
BERGENGREN ORISSA J
178 4TH AVE ~15
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5652801616
HEI",RY RICHARD (,/CONSUELO
2294 IMO(,EI,E AVE
SAN GIEGu CA 92154
/
~.
~
5652801619
CAMPBELL RI CHARD H II
178 4TH AVE ~19
C HU L A V 1ST A C A 91910
5660101000
PAkK VISTA APTS
2525 CAMINL GEL RIG S
SAN UIEGO LA 92108
-
r .,-. C
C t~ ( (
0, (
C t, ( (
0' (
C t' ( (
ca' (
0,"<"(,
I)
.
5060104900
ORSA BARBARA HICKEY
CIO EklCA ORSA
21 4TH AVE
C HU L A V 1ST A C A 91 91 0
5660100200
TRuST SERVICES OF AMtRICA INC
TR
P U bOX Ale31
SAN UIEGO LA 92112
~
~
5b6U2UObOU
r,..R T IN ~ThEL
87 4TH AV't
ChULA VISTA CA ~191u
( C.. "
01, t
C.; (:
0(:, ;(
C.; (:
0(; :t
( ( .; ( 5661601900
()~, ~ (~~~L~~~tN6U~~s~iA~~~lt.A ~,
~ C hU L A V I S 1 A C A 91 91 U
5660202:l0U
SOUIH BAY U~ITE~ ~ENTLCOSTAL C
HURLH It.C
POBOX 390"44
SAN DIEGO CA 92i49
5t6i900400
ERR"CA CHI.
Zil:..
SI.
I!LOUI SE F
'12103
5,,61901<;03
RICL LORN.. ~ ._'
149 4TH AVE_21
(hULA VISTA CA 9191u
5061001907
5EKKEMA JAth__".."
1"9 41H AV~"'il7
CHULA vl~1A (A 91'11u
5,,61001911
EATMON L HUoERTJMILOR~D W
145 .. TH A VE ~,.l.l ~'
ChULA VISTA~CA 91910
-
'" .~. C 4
C. t; (
a. ( l
ct. (5"61001915
a' ( (nLI-ER LEkOY.,A"'THIRLJ
C t' (D PAl< TNER~rp
-, .. dO 41 HA'v E ~ S IE ..1 ~
C>> (I C hU L A V 1ST A C A 9191 U
Q '" '_ l.
fAMILY L 1
:.6602017()0
fOGERTY fREDERICK C
076 SILV"R"ATE AVE
SAt. OI~GU LA 9LI06
56616003uO
CLIN~ LU"TlS 0
109 4TH AVE
CHULA VI~TA LA 91910
:.6bl0020UO
uONZAL~Z JuAN CJAVELINA M
296 LAMINO VISTA REAL
LHULA VISTA CA 91910
5661901600
LEACH BURTON C EST Of
UU TUPP.lR..'l""ETII T
"I.l.C1OO'A" ST ~A
SANTA LRuZ CA 95U60
:.6619019U4
JONES ALlC~,.4
149 4Tli AVe R2U
CHul.-<'I"VISTA LA 91910
:.6019019u8
TARASUCK A L
14'14T ,Lillo
LHUL ISTA LA 91910
:'661901912
PR~SSON JOhN EJERNESTINE
14:' 4TH AVE Rll
C hUL A -'I I S'T A C A 91910
:'661901916
FINNERTY FR~~S R
139 4I~7
CHUL~ VISTA LA 91910
I
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~, 5060200400
... NODERER LEE e IR UT h S TRS
75 4Th AV E
-- e HUL A V IS TA eA 9191G
{ .
( c. ,
r
0(, ~ ;
c. i ( . 5060201600
0(; C' F 0:; E R TY F RE DE RI eK e
678 SILVERGATE AVE
c. . .. SAN o IE GO eA 9210 b
.
o (; ~: .
( . ,: (
,QI....~ 506160160C
- . SOMERSET PARTr.ERS LTD
P 0 B LX 5262
C hUL A V IS TA eA 91912
'-
/
-
r .'~. r
c t; (
0, (
Ct. (
0' (
C t'; (
~. (
G.t.C(
5661900200
CHJLA V IS -TNERS
C/O Q U~ eOM~EkCIAL GRuUP
110 MA INS T ~ 1 00
V JCOl;VER .;A 98660
5661901901
MARTlr.EZ CLOTILDE C
149 4TH AVE #23
ChULA VISTA CA 91910
5661901905
F AR N S wO R T
149 4 T VE
ChUL ISTA
~.
DALE IV DOROThY
# 19
CA 91910
.
5661901909 .
DAVIS BERENICJ"M
149 4 T~ ~V1f15
ChJLA,/'J.A CA 91910
.
Q
56619W1913 '"
W hIT E "'E A A Y S
1394T AVE #10
ChULA VISTA eA 91910
'"
...
56b0200500 _
~ILSuN DAVID R/DIA~~ G
CIO COLD"ELL BANKEk I%T
b29 31<lJ AVE nH
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
56b0202200
SOUTH bAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL (
HUkCH INC
P U bOX 39U444
SAN lJIEGU LA 9<:149
5661b01700
SO~,EkSET PARTNtRS LTD
P U "OX 52b2
CHULA vISTA CA 91912
56b1900300
ERkECA CHA~Ll&-~/LuUISt F
22 15 J U A~---s-r
SA~GO CA 92103
566190 1902
GONZALEZ eARKEN M
1452 SAN CA1(LOS PL
ESeGNDI.OO LA 92026
5661901906
TR OY M Ai< Y
149 4Th
CrlULA
.lts
CA 91910
"
5661901910 _
kO SE MAE G
2350 6TI:VAVE #4J
SA~ OIEtU CA 92101
5661 "0 19 14
1'00 L Y NE AU X
139 4Th
CH U L A
(.
5661901917
FAST LlVII>G nUST 07-10-%
485 E ..5--T1i-EET
CHYK~VISTA CA 91910
.
c~
'- ct 5661901921
S A I L E R SCAT Hf R I r.E L
( rc ~ ( 139 4J{~E #2
C HU L .. 1ST A C A 91 91 0
0(, (;1 .
( C i (
0(; (I
( C . '( . 5661901925
,
0(; (-, DIAl DO LO RE S L
1309 kJDGEVIEW WA Y
" . : '( 8 O'IJ I T A CA 91902
OLt. ( .
5661901929
SP~INGSTED DAVID ~/SUNT(JK
152 GLOVER AVE #0
CHULAV IS TA CA 91910
5661901933 .
FLEMING RENEE
1 58 G 1-0 V F Ii. A V E # A
CHUL~ VISTA CA 91910
5661001937
LLOYD GE~ALDINE J
157 4 TH AVE # A
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5661901941
SANTOS MRGARET
161 4 TH AVE' # C
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
- ..
.'r
c t~ ( (
.
0, (
C t, ( (
0' (
C t' ( ( ·
(a' (\....
Co. '" '_ '- '- '-' ....:.
566 1901 94 5
OSTRAI\OER WILUAM E/~IARTHA S
4325 VI ST..Jv'tOROI\ADO OR
C HU~"S T A C A 91 91 0
~
5661901918
PI AlloNI P uTn 1:
139 4T~,~' #5
CHULA 7~' A LA 91910
5661'101922 ..-
SA ,,"C hE L~O "A ~
46b4 VIL PL
bol;I TA "1902
5661'101926
CARDENAS EUGENE
924 ~VANS AVE
CH U L A V 1ST A LA 91911
5661'101930 ~
DE FIi.ATES ~~AEL T II
152 GLOV~R'A,E #L
CHULA/II,!"TA LA 91910
5661"01934 _
ST ANFoRD ~.ufll, J/lLAIRE
15 8 G L Ollt'R A V E # c
CHULA 'VISTA LA 91910
56bl'101938
DAY EUGENE P/JACIoUELYN
157 4Th AVl .8
LHuLA VISTA LA 91910
5661 '101942
CD UH,E LL 1'1..R Y L
161 4T~ AV~ ;;0
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
5661'101946 ~"
PFRIM1'1ER JUHN JR/MILDRED I
162 GLQ,IIER AH #A
CH~VISTA LA 9~910
__ '-' '-' ......." ..J ......, ......, "<...J ....J .....) ....J .:, -J .J
J ~.
J~~
----;."'"
5,,61901919 ,
M( CLtN~DON f~A N
1~9 4TH A #4
CHULA TA CA 91910
( C. T { 566 1901 92 3
0(, ;i nOMA', DOR J
C ('.' ( 3020 /",E W GROVE Ok
~ , " SAN DOC A 'i 2 ~ 10
o c. ,;f
(; . :l
Oc; ';:t
i,. r ( 5061901927
",. I "c E AT UN MAR Y J 0
, ~-~ 151 4TH AVE #C
--- CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,
-
.' .'. C
c t; ( (
0, (
Ct. ( (
0' (
C t' ( (
ca' (
U"Cl
5661901931
G kE t Nt
1 52 VE k A V t R B
CH LA VISTA C~ 91910
5661901935
/",( LAUGHL IJ\I GAYLE R
1:'8 GLO.otrk AVe #C
C HU,W.'V j S T A C A 91910
5061901939
BELLEMAt\S AUDI(O
1(;1 4TH AVE #A
(HULA VISTA CA 9191u
5661901943
PAREDtS MANUEL G/~AKCIA CARME~
C
C/O BI.NK OF M,E....-!CA/A1T:Eb PAR
450 B STRH"F'
SAN u~ CA 92101
"
5661901920
FIt'NtRTY F
13'1 .. T t
CHUL ISTA
I
HN/CYNTHIA
143 An #25
(HULA VISTA (A 91910
5661901928
AOlLY QUoLAN E/ELIIAdETH 0
151 ..TH i.vt #0
(HULA VISTA CA 91910
56619019~2
..ICE OOLi.JIt~SM
1 5 2 w....tV't'li. A V E
(H~ VISTA CA
#A
91910
56619019:'6
tLAM CHAKU,lff"u
15 8 ~I,..WM:K A V E # 0
CH~ VISTA CA 91910
56619019"0
BAkRERA I.RTURO/MAOELINE
161 ..TH ",VE ~B
LHuLA VISTA CA 91910
5661901944
RUt\OLE BUNNI E R
'174 r-.A..hJN AVE
LHUk<\lISTA LA 91911
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
\/21192
OCCDPART
3
OCCDml
30 I. 4TH AVE.
CHDLA VISTA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPART
66 4 IH AVE. 12
CHDLA VISTA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPANT
66 4 IH AVE. 1\
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPART
66 4 ra AVE. 18
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDml
\6 4 IH AVE. 1103
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPAII
56 4 ra AVE. 1106
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPAII
\6 4 IS AVE. 1109
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
OCCDPART
\6 4 IS AVE. 1112
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPAIIS
Paqe 1
2
CHDL
OCCDPART
40 R. 4TH AVE.
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPAII
4
OCCDml
\0 4 IH AVE.
CHDLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCDml
66 4 ra AVE. 11
CHDLA VISTA, CA. 91911
\
\
OCCDPART
66 4 ra AVE. 13
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDml
66 4 IH AVE. 14
CSDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
5
OCCDPANI
66 4 IS AVE. 16
CSDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPART
66 4 IS AVE. 11
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
5
OCCDPANI
\6 4 IH AVE. 1101
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPANT
\6 4 IS AVE. 1102
CSDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
5
OCCDPANI
56 4 ra AVE. 1104
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPANI
56 4 IH AVE. 110\
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
5
\
OCCDPART
56 4 IH AVE. 1101
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPAII
\6 4 IH AVE. 1108
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
\
OCCDPANI
\6 4 IH AVE. 1110
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDml
\6 4 IH AVE. Illl
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
\
\
OCCDPAII
56 4 ra AVE. 1113
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCDPANT
\6 4 IH AVE. 1114
CHDLA VISIA, CA. 91911
5
5
OCCOPANT
56 . TH AVE. 1115
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
56 . TH AVE, 1201
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
56 . TH AVE. 1202
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 1203
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 120.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1205
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
5
OCCOPAII
56 . TH AVE. 1206
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 1207
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1208
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
OCCOPAJT
56 . TH AVE. 1209
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
UCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE, 1210
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1211
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 1212
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAJT
56 . TH AVE. 1213
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 121.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
OCCOPANT
56 . TH AVE. 1215
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
56 I TH AVE. 1301
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 I TH AVE, 1302
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
OCCOPART
56 I TH AVE. 1303
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1301
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 1305
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 I TH AVE. 1306
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
56 . TH AVE. 1307
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAJT
56 I TH AVE. 1308
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
5
OCCUPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1309
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAn
56 . TH AVE. 1310
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAn
56 I TH AVE. 1311
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
5
5
OCCOPART
56 I TH AVE. 1312
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAn
56 I TH AVE. 1313
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OcmAn
56 . TH AVE. 131.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
5
6
6
OCCOPAn
56 I TH AVE. 1315
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
70 . TH AVE, 11
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPAn
70 . TH AVE. 12
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
6
8
OCCOPAn
70 I TH AVE. 13
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPARI
82 I Ta AVE,
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPANT
81 I TH AVE,
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
9
10
10
OCCUPANT
88 I TH AVE,
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPANT
115 'D' AVE. 11
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPAn
115 'D' AVE, 12
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
10
10
10
OCCOPART
115 'D' AVE,'3
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
US 'D' AVE, II
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPART
115 'D' AVI, '11
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
10
10
10
DcmART
115 'D' AVE. 115
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPART
115 'D' AVE. '16
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPANT
115 'D' AVE, '17
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
10
10
10
OCCOPART
115 'D' AVE, '27
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPANT
115 'D' AVE. '28
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
115 'D' AVI, '29
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
10
10
11
OCCOPANT
115 'D' AVE, 130
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPANT
115 'D' AVE, I
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPANT
116 I TH AVE,
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
12
12
13
OCCOPANT
128 I TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
126 I TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
138 I TH AVE. 17
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
13
13
13
OCCOPAn
138 I TH AVE, '8
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPART
138 I TH AVE, '9
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPART
138 I TH AVE. '10
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
13
13
13
OCCOPART
13H I TH AVI, '11
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPART
138 I TH AVE, 112
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPART
131 I TH AVI, '1
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
13
13
13
OCCOPANT
131 I TH AVE. 12
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCUPART
131 I TH AVI, 13
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPART
131 I TH AVI. '1
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
13
13
11
OCCOPANT
131 I TH AVE, '5
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPART
131 I TH AVI, '6
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
OCCOPANT
118 I TH AVI, '1
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
14
14
Ii
OCCOPANT
118 4 TH AVE. 12
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
148 4 TH AVE. 13
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
118 4THAVE.H
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
14
14
14
OCCUPAHI
148 4 TH AVE. 15
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
148 4 TH AVE. 16
CHOLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAHI
148 4 TH AVE. 17
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
15
16
17
OCCUPANT
116 4 TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
160 4 TH AVE.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
164 4 TB AVE. IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
17
18
19
OCCOPANT
164 4 TH AVE. IB
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
168 4 TH AVE.
CBOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
172 4 TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
20
21
22
OCCUPANT
178 4 TH AVE.-1
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
178 4 TB AVE.-2
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
178 4 TH AVE.-3
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
23
14
21
OCCOPANT
178 4 TH AVE.-4
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPARI
178 4 TB AVE.-5
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
178 4 TH AVE.-6
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
26
27
28
OCCUPART
178 4 TH AVE.-7
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
178 4 TH AVE.-8
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
178 4 TH AVE.-9
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
29
30
31
OCCUPANT
178 4 TB AVE.-10
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
178 4 TB AVE.-II
CBOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
178 4 TB AVE.-12
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
J2
33
H
OCCOPART
178 4 TB AVE.-13
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
178 4 TB AVE.-14
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
178 4 TB AVE.-II
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
31
36
37
OCCOPANT
178 4 TB AVE.-16
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
178 4 TB AVE.-17
CBOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
178 4 TH AVE.-18
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
38
39
40
OCCOP ART
178 4 TB AVE.-19
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
407 'E' ST.
CBOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
751. mAVE.
CBULA VISTA, CA. 91911
11
42
43
occopm
71 J. 4TH m.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
occopm
45 J. m AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
occopm
35J. mm.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
..
15
H
occopm
151. mm.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
5 I. 4TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
II m AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
47
41
41
occopm
11 4TH AVE. IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
11 IIH AVE. la
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
occupm
11 ITH AVE. IC
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
41
11
11
occopm
11 ITH AVE. ID
CaULA VISTA, CA. !1911
ocCOPm
11 m AVE. IE
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
occopm
11 4TH AVE. IF
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
47
47
47
OCCOPANT
11 UK m. IG
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
11 m AVE. IH
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
occopm
17 m AVE. II
. CHOLA VISIA, CA. !1911
47
47
47
OCCUPANT
11 UK AVE. IJ
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPARI
11 4TH AVE. II
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
11 4TH AVE. It
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
18
18
48
occopm
21 mm.IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPANT
21 4TH AVE. la
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
ocCOPm
21 4TH AVE. IC
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
48
48
48
occopm
21 4TH AVE. ID
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCOPART
21 m AVE. IE
caOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
occupm
21 4TH AVE. IF
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
48
48
48
occomT
21 4TH AVE. IG
CHOLA VISIA, CA. 91911
occupm
21 4TH AVE. IH
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAI!
21 4TH AVE. II
CHULA VISTA, CA. !I!II
48
48
48
occopm
21 ITH AVE. IJ
CHOLA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCUPART
21 4TH AVE. II
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
occumT
21 4TH AVE. IL
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
18
18
18
occomT
21 ITH AVE. 1M
CHOLA VISIA, CA. 91911
occopm
21 4TH AVE. n
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
21 ITH AVE. 10
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
48 48 48
OCCUPARI OCCOPARI OCCUPARI
21 4TH m. IP 21 4TH AVE. 10 21 4TH AVE. IE
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
48 48 48
OCCUPAKT OCCOPARI OCCUPARI
21 mm.ls 21 4TH AVE. IT 21 4TH AVE. IU
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
48 48 48
OCCUPARI OCCUPART OCCUPANT
21 4TH AVE. IV 21 4TH AVE. IN 21 m AVE. 11
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
48 48 49
OCCUPANT OCCUPARI OCCUPART
21 mm. IY 21 4TH AVE. IX 31 m AVE. 11
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
49 49 49
OCCUPANT OCCUPARI UCCUPARI
31 4THm.12 31 4TH AVE. 13 31 4TH AVH. 14
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
49 49 49
OCCUPANT OCCUPART OCCOPARI
31 4TH AVE. 15 31 mm.I6 31 m AVE. 17
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
49 49 49
OCCOPARI OCCOPART OCCOPANT
31 m AVE. 18 31 mm.19 31 4TH AVE. 110
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911 CEULA VISTA, CA. 91911
49 49 49
OCCUPARI OCCUPART OCCUPANT
31 4TH AVE. 111 31 4TH AVE. 112 31 4TH AVE. 113
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
49 50 50
occumT OCCOPART OCCUPANT
31 4TH AVE. 114 (9 4TH AVE. IA (9 4TH AVE. IB
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
50 50 50
OCCUPAKT OCCUPARI OCCUPANT
49 4TH AVE. IC 19 m AVE. ID 49 mm.1E
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
50 50 50
OCCUPARI OCCUPART OCCOPARI
49 4TH AVE. IF 19 4TH AVE. IG 49 4TH AVE. IH
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
50 50 50
OCCUPAKI OCCUPART OCCUPANT
19 4TH AVE. II 19 4TH AVE. IJ 15 4TH AVE. IA
CHULA VIStA, CA. !I!II CHULA VIStA, CA. !I!II CHULA ViStA, CA. !I!II
50 50 50
OCCuPAKT OCCOPARI OCCOPARI
15 4TH AVE. fa 15 m AVE. IC 15 4TH AVE. ID
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
50 50 50
OCCUPAIT OCCOPANT OCCUPAIT
15 4TH AVE. IE 15 4TH AVE. IF 15 4TH AVE. IG
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
50 50 50
OCCUPAIT OCCUPARI OCCUPAIT
15 m AVE. IH 15 4TH AVE. II 15 4tH AVE. 13
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
50 50 51
OCCUPAKI OCCOPARI OCCUPAIT
15 4TH AVE. n 15 4TH AVE. IL 57 m AVE.
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
51 52 52
OCCUPAIT OCCUPARI OCCOPART
55 m AVE. 59 m AVE. 11 59 m AVE. 12
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
52 52 52
OCCUPANT OCCUPART OCCUPANT
59 m AVE. 13 59 m AVE. II 59 m AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
53 53 53
OCCUPAIT OCCUPART OCCUPANT
67 m AVE. 11 67 m AVE. 12 67 m AVE. 13
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
53 53 53
OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIl OCCUPAIT
67 m AVE. II 67 m AVE. 15 67 m AVE. 16
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
53 53 51
OCCUPAII OCCUPABl OCCUPABl
67 m AVE. 17 67 m AVE. 18 75 m AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
55 55 55
OCCUPAIT OCCUPARI OCCUPAIl
81 m AVE. 11 81 m AVE. 12 81 m AVE. 13
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
55 55 55
OCmAn OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIT
81 m AVE. 14 81 m AVE. 15 81 m AVE. 16
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
55 56 57
OCCUPAn OCCUPANT OCCum!
81 m AVE. 17 87 m AVE. 395 'D' ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
51 58 59
OCCUPAn OCCUPAn OCCUP An
381 'D' ST. 103 m AVE. 105 4TH AVE. IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
59 59 59
OCCUPABT OCCUPABT OCCUPAIT
105 4TH AYE. IB ID5 m AVE. IC 105 m AVE. ID
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
60 61 61
OCCUPABT UCCUPAIT OCCUPARI
ID9 4TH AYE. 111 m AVE. IA 111 4TH AVE. IB
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 i1
OCCUPABT OCCUPABT OCCUPAn
111 4TH AVE. IC 111 4TH AVE. ID 117 m AVE. IE
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
i1 i1 61
OCCUPAn OCCUPABT OCCUPABT
111 4TH AVE. IF 111 m AVE. 10 111 4TH AVE. IH
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPART OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIT
119 4TH AVE. IA 119 4TH AVE. IB 119 4TH AVE. IC
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 i1 61
OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIT
119 4TH AVE. ID 121 4TH AVE. IA 121 4TH AVE. IB
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPAn OCCUPABT OCCUPAIT
121 4TH AYE. IC 121 4TH AVE. ID 123 4TH AVE. IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 i1 61
OCCUPART OCCUPAIT OCCUPAIT
123 4TH AVE. IB 123 4TH AVE. IC 123 m AVE. ID
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCmANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAKT
123 m AVE. IE 123 m AVE. IF 123 m AVE. IG
CaULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CaULA VISTA, CA. 91911 CaULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCOPAn OCCOPANT OCCOPART
123 m AVE, IH 123 m AVE, II 125 1IH AVE, IA
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPANT OCCUPAn OCCUPAKT
125 m AVE, IB 125 m AVE. IC 125 m AVE, 10
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCUmT OCCUPAn OCCUPANT
125 m AVE, IE 127 m AVE, IA 127 m AVE, IB
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPANT OCCOPANT OCCUPANT
127 m AVE. IC 127 4TH AVE, 10 127 m AVE, IE
CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPART OCCUPART OCCUPANT
127 4TH AVE. IF 127 m AVE. IG 127 4TH AVE. 18
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHOLA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCOPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPART
129 4TH AVE. IA 129 m AVE, IB 129 m AVH, IC
CaULA VISTA, CA, 91911 caULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCOPAKT OCCOPANT OCCUPAKT
129 m AVE. 10 131 m AVE, IA 131 m AVE. IH
CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 caULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPANT OCCUPAKT OCCUPAKT
131 m AVE, IC 131 m AVE, 10 131 m AVE, IE
CaULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911
61 61 61
OCCUPANT OCCUPAKT OCCUPANT
131 m AVE, IF 131 m AVE. IG 131 m AVE, 18
caULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61 61 61
OCCOPANT OCCOPANT OCCUPANT
115- 4TH AVE. IA 115- 4TH AVE, IB 115- 4TH AVE, IC
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911 CaULA VISTA, CA, 91911 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
61
61
62
OCCUPANT
115- 4TH AVE. 10
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
115- 4TH AVE. II
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPARl
135 4TH AVE. IA
CHOLA VISIA, CA. 91911
62
62
62
OCCUPAR!
135 4TH AVI. IH
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OcmAR!
13\ 4TH m. IC
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAR!
13\ 4TH AVI. 10
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
63
64
6\
OCCUPARl
1\1 4TH AVI.-A
CHULA VISIA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
1\1 4TH AVE.-B
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPARl
1\1 4TH AVI.-C
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
66
67
68
OcmARl
1\1 m m.-o
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
1\7 4THm.-A
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPARl
1\7 4TH AVE.-B
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
69
70
71
OCCUPANT
161 4TH AVE.-A
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
161 4TH AVI.-B
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPARl
161 4TH AVI.-C
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
72
73
74
OCCUPANT
161 4TH m.-o
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
171 m m.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCOPAIl
179 4TH m.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
74
74
74
OCCUPAlT
179 1/2 4TH AVE.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAIl
181 4TH m.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPANT
181 1/2 4TH AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
7\
7\
7\
OCCOPAIl
185 mm.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPAIl
18\ 1/2 4TH AVI.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
OCCUPARl
1B7 4TH m.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
7\
76
OCCUPAIl
187 1/2 4TH AVI.
CHOLA VISTA, CA. 91911
O.CCOPAIl
m 'I' ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91911
June 22, 1992
TO:
Councilman Jerry Rindone
FROM:
SUBJECT:
John D. Goss, City Manager
Response to Questions regarding the June 23, 1992 Agenda
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item 7 - Consultant Service Contracts
1. The new Council Policy will provide hiring of former employees as
consultants with a reporting to the Council of the aggregate salaries of
consultants on a twelve month basis. Please cite the specific language
where this is contained in Ordinance 2517.
The Council Agenda Statement provided to you at the June 9, 1992 meeting included
three separate approaches to implementing policy and administrative procedures
to monitor consultant use within the City. Municipal Code Section 2.56 relating
to purchases of suppl ies, services and equipment was amended to include the
requ irement for comp let ion of cost compari son ana lys i s for a 11 con-tracts
exceeding $5,000, the enhancement of City advertising, use of pre-qualification
lists and modification in the requirements for selection committees. Those
issues are consistent with the types of pol icy issues that are typically included
in our Municipal Code. The new Council policy is designed to provide more
specific policy direction and a more detailed listing of Council direction than
the Municipal Code.
This question actually covers two issues which are provided in the Council
Policy, however not included in the ordinance. The first issue is No.5 of the
Policy, on Page 2, stating that "The City Manager shall notify City Council when
any contract recommended for approval, regardless of cost, will result in total
payments exceeding $25,000 to one service provider during the most recent twelve
month period." Item No.6 of that same Policy includes the discussion of hiring
former employees as consultants. This section of the policy was amended during
the June 9 Council discussions and the revised version is attached.
2. Please cite specific language in Ordinance 2517 which provides the listing
of consultants' annual aggregate salaries.
This request is more of an administrative nature and, as recommended, it was
referred to staff. This referral is tied in with the budget process and, as has
been done for several years, staff will provide during budget review a listing
of consultants and other contractors. As directed by Council on June 9, the
list will include service providers paid more than $10,000 during the fiscal
year.
3. The Council concurred that training of subordinates to be able to replace
employees upon termination or retirement would be an established policy.
Where can we find this contained in a written established policy?
The training of subordinates is also an administrative issue, which was referred
to staff on June g. The Personnel Department is responsible for all training and
has been developing training plans for all employees in order to prepare them to
replace superiors upon their termination or retirement. Personnel will respond
to the Council referral and continue to provide Council with updates on the
implementation of their administrative procedures.
Item 8 - Moratorium on Permits for Hazardous Waste Facilities
1. This item will require a 4/5ths vote. Do we have any choice other than to
continue this item until next week?
An action to extend the existing moratorium on processing of hazardous waste
facilities does require a 4/5ths vote, and action taken by a simple majority
would not be effective in extending the moratorium. A preferred option would be
to schedule a special meeting of the Council to extend the moratorium prior to
the end of the existing 45-day period (i.e., Friday, June 26). If this is not
feasible, the next option, which is recommended by staff, is to continue this
item to the next regular Council meeting, on June 30. Based on a review of case
law on this subject, the City Attorney feels that the litigation risks of rights
being secured by an applicant in the short gap period that will otherwise occur
if this approach is taken are manageable.
Item 10 - Bid for Asphaltic Concrete
1. Are we allowed to accept the lowest bidder on each item or must we accept
the aggregate total lowest bid of these building materials.
The three types of asphaltic concrete referred to in the agenda statement have
traditionally (for 20 years) been bid together. The main reason is for ease and
efficiency for City trucks to pick up the material at one site rather than
multiple sites.
The vendors formulate their bids with the understanding that the contract will
be awarded to the lowest aggregate bid. The items can be bid separately;
however, the individual prices are likely to be higher than if they are included
as an aggregate bid.
Item 15A - Request for Reduction of PAD Fees by G.T.R.N.
1. How do we insure the three units were truly purchased by low income buyers
and were not just shills or decoys of the seller? Please explain.
The Amended Hous ing Cooperat ion Agreement spec if ies that the Property Owner
provide the City with a monthly report. This report must include a copy of the
information which the Property Owner relied upon in determining that the
purchasers qualified as Low-Income Purchasers. The Agreement also states the
Property Owner and the lenders involved in financing the sale of the Low-Income
Units employ usual and customary means of information verification. Also, the
Low-Income Purchasers must sign an affidavit that they meet the income guidel ines
for Low-Income Purchasers.
Staff will review this information as it is submitted by the Property Owner.
Staff will also be in contact with the Property Owner's marketing agent (Wall
Street Financial) and lender (Western Financial) on a periodic basis to monitor
their verification procedures. Finally, staff anticipates that the Low-Income
Purchasers will apply to the City for Mortgage Credit Certificates; this will
provide another opportunity to verify income levels.
Staff believes the language in the Agreement, along with monitoring of the
verification procedures, is sufficient to prevent fraudulent buyers from
acquiring the Low-Income Units.
Item 17 - Widening of Broadway - "F" to "I" Streets
1. When this item came before the City Council we had discussed the need not
to perform the construction during the Christmas season. Why would we
provide an additional $25,000 as an incentive since we knew ahead of time
that the construction period requested would not be permitted prior to the
Christmas season? Should this not have been included in the building
specs? .
This issue was addressed in the Specs. We included two alternatives, that would
give the Council the option of not doing work during the Christmas Season. (See
attached exh i bits). The City has the opt ion of either a llowing no work unt i 1 Jan
4, 1993 or stopping work between Nov. 15 and Jan. 4. The first option is $25,000
while the second option is $15,000. We recommend the first option because we
learned after the specs went out that the merchants only wanted one util ity
company in the street at time. SDG&E won't be through unt il Sept. 2, then
Sweetwater will be doing some work. Because we would be so close to Nov. 15 by
the time Sweetwater is through, it was staff's recommendation to award additive
item A.
2. What accounted for engineers' estimates for this contract to be nearly 30%
greater than the lowest bid?
Of the seven companies, we were 29.6% above the lowest bidder and 7% above the
high bidder. Staff uses past bid documents and unit prices to periodically
update construction information on which to base our Engineer's estimates. The
ideal is to hit the mid range of prices. Staff would rather be above the actual
price than below.
3. When Southland Paving completed the improvements on 5th from L to Naples
Street, was this contract at the prevailing wage or the non-prevailing
wage? Please explain.
Prevailing wage. In the past we only used the non-prevailing wages option if the
project was funded by local funds, General Fund or Assessment Districts. Since
then the City Attorney has been involved in modifying our policy to include more
projects.
Item 19 - Widening of Otay Valley Road
1. What would the approximate cost be for the property acquisition of parcel
644-040-0277
The subject parcel is approximately 800 square feet. Because it is a sliver
parcel it is difficult to get an exact dimension of the property. Based upon
appraisal methodology and evaluations used for estimating the value of right-of-
way acquisitions for the widening of Otay Valley Road, the following values were
employed:
I
Agricultural Lands - $25,000/acre
Wetlands - $20,000/acre
Industrial Property - $5.50/square foot.
The subject property appears to be on the edge of the wetlands and would most
likely be appraised at Wetland or Agricultural value. At Wetland value, the
property would be worth approximately $367.00. Appraised at the Agricultural
value, the property would be worth approximately $459.00. Since this property
could not be developed for industrial use, the Industrial valuation factor would
be inappropriate.
Item 24 - Public Hearing on Underground Utility District 122
1. When this item came before the City Council last time, I abstained due to
the proximity of my private residence to the proposed underground utility
district. Should I not abstain on this item again?
The City Attorney has advised that the decision must have a reasonably
foreseeable financial effect of $10,000 or more on the fair market value of real
property owned by a Councilperson. Because the portion of 4th Ave. parallel and
adjacent to your block is already undergrounded, and because the lines on 4th Ave
north of E St. aren't visible to properties on Guava, it is believed that a
determination could be made that your property's value would not be impacted by
more than $10,000 by the establishment of this district.
2. If I do abstain, there will only be two voting members eligible and will
create a lack of a quorum. Please advise.
You are correct, if you abstain the Council should continue the hearing to June
30, 1992. Because there may be many property owners from the District there,
Council may wish to vote on continuance at the early part of the meeting.
Item 27 - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. When was the last time the fireworks has gone out to bid?
The fireworks project has never formally gone out for bid. Municipal Code
Section 2.56.170 requirs formal bids only for contracts that exceed $25,000. The
proposed contract with San Diego Fireworks is for approximately $16,500. Since
the shows were started in 1984, an RFP process has been used to select the
vendor. In 1985, an RFP was sent out to several vendors, and San Diego Fireworks
was selected as the company with the most to offer at a specific dollar amount.
In 1986, an RFP process was again used, and Pyro Spectacular was selected as the
company to provide the show. The 1986 show was an enhanced display (due to the
City's 75th Anniversary), and was launched from a barge for the first time. The
show was not the same quality as it had been the year before, and in 1987, San
Diego Fireworks was again selected through an RFP process. 'Since that time, San
Diego Fireworks has been used for all displays. The City has been satisfied with
the fireworks displays, and San Diego Fireworks has provided several thousand
dollars of additional explosives for our shows through an agreement they maintain
with a local radio sponsor.
It is staff's intent for future fireworks displays to use an informal bid
process, as allowed by the Municipal Code, before awarding the contract.
JDG:mab
cc: Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
Consultant or Other Services
lor 2
ADOPTED BY:
T DATED:
Background
The City may from time to time require the services of an outside consultant or other service
provider to provide a cost-effective supplement to existing City staff and/or obtain expertise not
available within city staff. The general philosophy is that periodic high citizen demand and
heavy workloads do not necessarily justify increasing permanent staff to meet periodic demand.
Council and City Management should use forethought, planning, and good judgement to
determine the optimum staffing level with the appropriate, cost-effective complement of outside
consultants or other service providers.
PUfJ>Ose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a standard approach to determining the need for
consultants and other service providers and to ensure that when a need is determined that the
best service provider is selected at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame. This
policy shall be followed in implementing the contracting procedures in Municipal Code sections
2.56.170 and 2.56.220 et seq.
Policy
The City Manager shall follow the policy of careful consideration and structured review prior to
initiating any contract for consulting or other services. The Council is primarily concerned with
six aspects of the consultant/service hiring, use and monitoring. First, that a cost comparison be
completed for each request to use outside services to compare the cost of the contract services to
the equivalent cost for in house staff. Second, that pre-qualification lists be established for those
services which are likely to be used frequently during any given fiscal year. Third, that the
process of advertising and outreach for consultants/service providers be expanded to generate the
highest number of qualified respondents and to locate and encourage potential bidders who have
the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista economy. Fourth, that in all cases possible a 10%
retention be included in contracts for services which will be retained by the City until final
acceptance of the services. Fifth, that the Council receive regular notification from the City
Manager on contracts which, if approved, would place the total payments to that service
provider in excess of $25,000 during the most recent twelve month period. Sixth, and finally,
that the hourly compensation rate for former City employees hired on a contractual basis
subsequent to termination with the City shall be limited for the first year to a maximum rate
equal to salary and benefits at the time of termination. After the first year, all requests in excess
of the first year's maximum rate must be brought before City Council for approval.
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2 of 3
Consultant or Other Services
ADOPTED BY:
I DATED:
Implementinl! Procedures
The City Manager will implement an administrative procedure covering the following areas:
1. Cost Comparison Evaluations
During the annual budget review process each Department's continuing and proposed use
of outside services to accomplish required work shall be evaluated based on a standard
cost comparison formula when the contract services are expected to exceed $5,000 during
the fiscal year. The resulting calculations shall be reviewed by the City Manager or
his/her designee prior to beginning the contracting process.
2. Pre-Qualification Lists
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Manager shall determine the need and
frequency for outside services which cannot be met by City staff. Those services which
will be required on a more regular basis shall be recommended to be filled by creating a
list of qualified providers at the beginning of the year from which to fill city wide fiscal
year needs.
3. Expanded Advertising and Outreach
Department Heads, in conjunction with Purchasing, shall access all appropriate forms of
media when advertising for consultant or other services with an anticipated cost in excess
of $10,000, in order to obtain the highest number of qualified respondents. In soliciting
"bids or proposals, staff should be cognizant of locating and encouraging potential bidders
who have the potential to stimulate the local Chula Vista economy.
4. Contract Retention of 10%
Department Heads and/or Purchasing Agent shall attempt to negotiate a 10% retention
clause to be included in all consultant and other service contracts with an anticipated cost
in excess of $10,000. The 10% of the contract amount will be retained by the City until
final acceptance of the services.
5. Council Notification
The City Manager shall notify City Council when any contract recommended for
approval, regardless of cost, will result in total payments exceeding $25,000 to one
service provider during the most recent twelve month period.
6. Former Employees - Consultant Compensation Limit
During the first year after termination with the City, any employee who is hired back on
a contract basis shall be compensated at a maximum hourly rate equal to the salary and
benefits level at time of termination. After the first year, all requests to contract with a
6. Former Employees - Consultant Compensation Limit (Continued)
former City employee at an hourly rate in excess of the employee's salary and benefit
rate at time of termination should be brought before City Council for approval. Included
in the Agenda Statement should be the compensation recommended, as well as the rate of
compensation of this former employee at the point of separation from City employment.
Included in the report should be discussion of changes in status of this employee since
termination. This may include additional training or education received, changes in the
labor and economic market and any administrative overhead or unusual cost which may
be included in the proposed wages.
. QUANTITIES
ITEMS WITH UNIT PRICE
WRITTEN IN WORDS
PRICE IN TOTAL
FIGURES
_\":',-
,,",>~l"r'"
'~ :; .~LTERNATE "A" ADDITIVE ITEMS:
....: I. LUMP SUM
2. LUMP SUM
Additional Cost to Delay
Start of Construction to
January 4. 1993
LUMP SUM
$ 2.J.;oPlJ $ Z,s)ppi)
L.S.
Additional Cost to Cease All
Construction Between November 15.
1992 and January 4, 1993
LUMP SUM
$ 1.5>7 ()OO $ 1~-;IlIJP
L.S.
111$ (, lie.! ,'" by Sfr:.!/-
Co f '1 CJ f /,7 /r) fm;,';
Vista, California. The purpose of this conference is to review the requirements and to
receive questions regarding the bid documents. All utility owners that are involved will
be represented. Utility relocation schedules and any other pertinent items to the work
will be discussed.
2-32 ALTERNATE BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
The City will be bidding two bid alternatives. Alternate A provides that the Contractors
are not required by the bid specifications to pay prevailing wage (NOT "Prevailing
Wage Rates") to persons employed by them for work under this contract in
accordance with Section 2.58.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regulating
payment of prevailing wages for contracts let by the City. Alternate B requires the
Contractor to pay the "General Prevailing Wage Rates". The Contractor may bid on
Alternate A, Alternate B, or both Alternates A and B. The City has the right to award
tHe contract to the lowest responsible bidder-for the alternative selected by the City.
The City reserves the exclusive right to select Alternative A or B. Should the City
exercise its discretion in selecting Alternate B, this in no manner waives or abrogates
the City's rights to pay nonprevailing wages for future projects.
Each alternative bid shall stand independent of the other bid and a defect in one
Alternative bid shall not affect the validity of the other Alternate bid. The City reserves
the right to waive any and all defects in the bids or to reject any or all bids on the
basis of any defects.
Wage rates for Alternate B shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 1773
of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City of Chula Vista has ascertained
the general prevailing wage scales applicable to the work to be done. The prevailing
wage scales are those determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of
California and are available in the Office of the City Engineer. The Contractor who is
awarded the contract and who intends to use a craft or classification not shown on the
general prevailing wage determinations, may be required to pay the wage rate of the
craft of classification most closely related to it as shown in the general determinations
effective at the time of the call for bids.
The contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for the Base Bid of the
alternative chosen by the City.
The construction is taking place in a commercial area. Merchants in the area have
expressed a desire that the start of construction be delayed until January 4, 1993 or
ceased during the holiday season from November 15, 1992 until January 4, 1993.
Two additive items are listed on the bid proposal to address these concerns. The
bidder is required to bid on both of these items. The City may, at its discretion,
choose to delay the start of construction or cease construction as outlined in the
proposal. The Contractor's unit price bid for each additive bid item includes all extra
costs associated with constructing the project if it is delayed, such as increased
material cost, increased wage rates, increased rental rates, etc.
52