HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/10/15
Tuesday, October 15, 1996
6:00 p.m.
"I declare I:Inder penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Cler~ and that I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the Public Services Bu;~din~ ~ at City Hall on
DATEDdO"I/-tiJ~ SIGNED . ~~ "
Rel!Ular Meetinl! of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _, and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 1, 1996
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Joseph Noble - Civil Service Commission (Commission appointment).
b. Terry Thomas, President of the International Friendship Commission, wiIl give an update on the
forthcoming visit of the Japanese delegation from our sister city, Odawara, Japan.
c. Special presentation to the Mayor and Council by Superintendent Ed Brand, Sweetwater Union
High School District, on the Advanced Curriculum through Technology Grant project.
d. I Love A Clean San Diego is an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and one of the Leading
Environmental Public Education and Advocacy groups in Southern California. They have selected
the City of Chula Vista as Environmental Government Partner of the Year. Michelle Moreno,
Executive Director of I Love A Clean San Diego, will present the award to the Mayor and
Council.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be -available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 10)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation,' complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
Agenda
-2-
October 15, 1996
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the Deputy City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in
Closed Session on 10/8/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. RESOLUTION 18456 AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA VOLUNTARY TIME OFF
(VTO) POLICY - In adopting the budget, Council approved several changes to
the VTO Policy that will serve as a benefit to employees. Those changes are:
increasing the allowable VTO per pay period to ten hours for those employees
who work eight hour days; allow VTO to be taken in one-half hour rather than
one hour increments; overtime and VTO will be allowed in the same pay period,
however, not in the same week. These changes will not affect Mid-Management
and Executive employees who must still take VTO in full day increments. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Human Resources)
7. RESOLUTION 18457 (1) APPROVING CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN THIRD
A VENUE AND CHURCH A VENUE ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS
BETWEEN 2:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. FOR FARMERS' MARKET
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; (2) WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
FOR PARTICIPATING VENDORS; AND (3) APPROPRIATING $2,500
FOR ADVERTISING - On 10/3/95, the City approved the closure of Center
Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue to accommodate a Farmers'
Market on Thursday afternoon from March 1995 to October 1995. The Market
is now so popular with the residents, the sponsoring organization, Chula Vista
Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the City would like to extend it to
be year-round. To implement the extension, the street closure and business
license waiver must be authorized and the DBA has requested fmancial
assistance for advertising. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) 4/5th's vote required.
8. RESOLUTION 18458 ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY
ENGINEER ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR
PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS - On 7/25/96, pursuant to the
Improvement Act of 1911, Council awarded a contract in the amount of $53,108
(including contingencies) for the alley improvements from "J" Street to Kearney
Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue to Fox Construction Company.
The work is now completed and improvements have been accepted by the City
Manager. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
9. RESOLUTION 18459 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO RESTATEMENT OF
THE AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND KEMPTON FOR ADVOCACY
AND PLANNING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND THE EASTERN CHULA VISTA
STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $178,000 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND - On 8/8/95,
Council approved an agreement with Smith and Kempton to implement steps in
Agenda
-3-
October 15, 1996
the East Chula Vista Strategic Plan. A first amendment to that agreement was
approved on 1/23/96. A significant amount of progress has been made towards
completing the tasks contained in the agreement and first amendment. The date
of completion contained in the first amendment extended the contract to 1/23/97.
Not all of the work is complete and, therefore, a second amendment to the
contract needs to be approved to complete the tasks. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
10. RESOLUTION 18460 APPROVING COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS - There are two road projects
in the Bonita area that the County of San Diego is processing which have small
portions in the City. The projects are: (1) Chip Seal of Sweetwater Road; and
(2) Construction of a third west bound lane at Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita
Road. The County has requested City financial participation for the portions of
work within City limits. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "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 staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
11.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2690
12.
PUBLIC HEARING
ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH BALDWIN BUILDERS - The purpose of this item is
to present a development agreement with Baldwin Builders. On 6/25/96, the
Planning Commission and Council considered a series of development
agreements with Village Properties, United Enterprises, Greg Smith, and the
Foundation. (The Foundation agreement was subsequently split into three
separate agreements.) The remaining party who is a property owner of a
portion of the Otay Ranch property is Baldwin Builders, which is the trustee for
the bankruptcy. Staff recommends Council place the Ordinance on first reading.
(Deputy City Manager) Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96.
ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A AND
BALDWIN BUILDERS (first reading)
REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR
COX COMMUNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT AND CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER, AS
SUBMITTED BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY VIA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION (FCC) FORMS 1235,1240
AND 1205 - In May 1996, Cox Communications instituted a $3.79 increase in
Agenda
-4-
October 15, 1996
its Cable Programming Services tier. This charge is subject to FCC regulation,
thus any complaints must be filed with the FCC. At the same time, Cox
proposed to raise its Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier,
which is subject to City regulation. Both of these changes were based on costs
to upgrade Cox's infrastructure. Further cost-based increases in Maximum
Permitted Rates were requested in July, along with decreases in the rates for
associated equipment/installations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Principal Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of
10/1196
RESOLUTION 18447 DISAPPROVING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM
PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER; DIRECTING
ST AFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC ON BEHALF OF
LOCAL SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING UPGRADE-RELATED
INCREASES IN THE CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER RATES;
APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED RATE DECREASES FOR
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND APPROVING PROPOSED COST-
BASED INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR
THE BASIC SERVICE TIER
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staffrecommendations 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.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
13.
REPORT
STATUS OF PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE I-80S/TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE - In February 1996, staff initiated design
efforts aimed at implementing the final phase of planned improvements at the 1-
Agenda
-5-
October 15, 1996
80S/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange. This project is the top pnonty
interchange improvement among those currently programmed in the Eastern
Area Development Impact Fee Program. The primary objective of the project
is to improve the flow of traffic along eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road
through the interchange, thereby complementing previous improvements made
for westbound travel. Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct
staff to proceed with environmental studies. (Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Discussion of City Attorney process. Continued from the meeting 10/8/96.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council member Rindone
a. Request for assignment of Department Oversight within the City Manager's Office as of 10/1/96.
Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96.
b. Research request on Internet E-mail.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council meeting on October 22, 1996
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.
*****
Agenda
-6-
October 15, 1996
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Metro sewer issues.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
October 9, 1996
MEMO TO: Carla Griffin, City Clerk's office
~';J
Patricia salvaCiOKMaYOr/council office
FROM:
SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - OCTOBER 15, 1996
Terry Thomas, President of the International Friendship Commission, will give an update
on the forthcoming visit of the Japanese delegation from our sister city Odawara, Japan.
4 b - I
~~~
iiiaiiii
~~~~
----
CllY Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
From:
October 9, 1996
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Glen R. Googins, Deputy City Attorney~
To:
Re:
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 10/8/96
The city Council met in Closed Session to discuss
issues and Public Employment Release.
Metro Sewer
The Deputy City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his
knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session of
October 8, 1996, there were no actions that are required to be
reported under the Brown Act.
GRG:lgk
C:\lt\clossess.no
~~/
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
llY f'<>sIWwner Aeo,dod P"",
~/~a~/'
October 9, 1996
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council 1(\\
John D. Goss, City Manage~ ~ ~Il\
City Council Meeting of October 15, 1996
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, October 15, 1996. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter from the Deputy City Attorney reporting that there were no reportable
actions taken by the City Council in Closed Session on October 8, 1996.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM 6
MEETING DATE 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION 1'3tI~Amending the City of Chula Vista Voluntary
Time Off (VTO) Policy.
SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN R~~URCES t,G
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGE~ ~ ~\ (4/5th Vote: Yes_ NoXI
In adopting the budget, Council approved several changes to the Voluntary Time Off
Policy that will serve as a benefit to employees. Those changes are:
. Increasing the allowable VTO per pay period to 10 hours for those employees who
work 8 hour days.
. Allow VTO to be taken in % hour rather than 1 hour increments.
. Overtime and VTO will be allowed in the same pay period; however, not in the
same week.
These changes will not affect Mid-Management and Executive employees who must
still take VTO in full day increments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution amending the Voluntary Time Off Policy to provide for
10 hours of VTO per pay period in a minimum of % hour increments; and allow
overtime and VTO in the same pay period, though not in the same week.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Prior to finalization of the budget, several City employees presented suggestions for
revising and, in their opinion, improving the existing Voluntary Time Off Policy. Those
aforementioned suggestions will allow employees more flexibility in the utilization of
Voluntary Time Off to facilitate child care; enable employees to have more flexibility
scheduling in courses and seminars; allow some employees the ability to reduce their
1
Co - I
workday by % hour in order to meet a myriad of needs; and provides that necessary
overtime not be restricted by VTO in the same pay period.
Voluntary Time Off Policy adopted by Council 5/25/93 has been successful in that it's
allowed employees some flexibility in designing their work week while providing some
cost-savings to departments.
It has presented few administrative complications and in those departments where it
is utilized, it has been successful. This staff opinion that these additional changes will
have no negative impact on departments and will allow employees flexibility that
could make a significant difference meeting their needs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
While the proposed changes may have some positive fiscal impact for the City, until
employees actually take advantage of the these policy changes, it is impossible to
determine the amount of savings to be recognized. While that savings resulting from
these changes may not be significant, the policy overall has provided not only the
positive fiscal impact, but has been a factor in raising employee morale.
2
to- 2
RESOLUTION NO.~&
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) POLICY
WHEREAS, in adopting the budget, Council approved the
following changes to the Voluntary Time Off POlicy that will serve
as a benefit to employees:
· Increasing the allowable VTO per pay period to 10
hours for those employees who work 8 hour days.
· Allow VTO to be taken in 1/2 hour rather than 1
hour increments.
· Overtime and VTO will be allowed in the same pay
period; however, not in the same week.
WHEREAS, this change will not affect Mid-Management and
Executive employees who must still take VTO in full day increments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
ci ty of Chula Vista does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista
Voluntary Time Off (VTO) Policy as shown on Exhibit "A".
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Candy Emerson, Director of
Human Resources
C:\rs\policy.vto
(p-3-
I COUNCIL POLICY I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: Revising the vro POLICY (Volunteer Time POLICY EFFECTIVE
Off Policy) NUMBER DATE PAGE
10/15/96 1 of 1
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 18456 I DATED:
Employees in permanent and permanent part-time positions may elect to take up to the equivalent of 1 work day off
per pay period without pay for personal reasons, subject to staffing needs, * and with the prior approval of their
Department Head. FLSA - Covered employees may take VTO in increments of Ih hour, and FLSA - Exempt
employees (Executives and Middle Managers) must take VTO in full day increments.
Credit toward sick leave, vacation and retirement will not be affected.
VTO shall apply toward time in service for step advancement, completion of probation and seniority for purposes of
layoff.
VTO shall not apply toward accumulated hours for overtime.
VTO shall be granted without requiring employees to first use accumulated vacation, sick leave and compensatory
time off.
The City retains the right to revoke or modify this policy and any VTO granted hereunder at anytime.
* 10 hours per pay period; 9 hours for a 9 hour regular workday and 10 hours for a 10 hour workday, Fire
Suppression personnel may take up to 24 hours in a 24 day duty cycle.
&-Lf
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
Item~
Meeting Date 10-15-96
Resolution I Zt.fc; 7 (1) Approving Closure Of Center Street Between Third
Avenue And Church Avenue On Thursday Afternoons Between 2:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. For Farmers' Market Subject To Conditions, (2) Waiving
Business License Fees For Participating Vendors; And, (3) Appropriating
$2,500 for Advertising
Community Development Director ( _~ '
City ManagO~ ~~ (4/5ths Voto: VosX- No_J
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On October 3, 1995, the City of Chula Vista approved the closure of Center Street between Third
Avenue and Church Avenue to accommodate a Farmers' Market on Thursday afternoons from
March 1995 to October 1995. The Market is so popular with the residents, the sponsoring
organization (Chula Vista Downtown Business Association) and the City would like to extend it
to be year-round. To implement the extension, the street closure and business license waiver must
be authorized and the DBA has requested financial assistance for advertising.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution:
1. Approving the closure of Center Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue on
Thursday afternoons for a fourteen month period from November 1996 through December
1997 between 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. for the Farmers' Market subject to conditions,
2. Waiving the business license fees for the vendors participating in the Farmers' Market; and,
3. Appropriating $2,500 to the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association for Advertising.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
In 1995, when the Market was recommended to be relocated to Center Street, the Town Centre
Project Area Committee and the Safety Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended
approval.
DISCUSSION:
Last year, when the DBA made the decision to relocate the Market from Third Avenue, the
decision also was made to close the Market during the winter months (November through
February) because of the problem and cost of lighting the area after dark and the reduced revenue
generation during the winter. Because many Market customers and participating farmers have
1, \
Page 2, Item f1
Meeting Date 10-15-96
requested that the Market continue through the winter, the DBA has reevaluated the decision to
close this winter.
There are three significant obstacles that the DBA has identified: lighting, security, and advertising
costs. The DBA President, Dave Rossi, met with SDG&E and found that two lights can be
mounted on existing poles adjacent to Center, Street. The cost for electricity and installation will
be about $500. The Association will pay for this cost.
The DBA will need assistance with security and advertising. It will be dusk to dark after 5:00 p.m.
during the winter. The Market ends at 6:00 p.m. and clean-up usually ends between 6:30 and
7:00 p.m. Since the event is an open market, many of the customers are seniors, and customers
will park their vehicles off the main avenue, security is a concern. The DBA is requesting that the
police increase their patrol of the area after dark while the market operates and that a Senior Patrol
team be assigned to the vicinity between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
The DBA established the Market as a promotional event to bring people to the Downtown and
expose them to the stores, restaurants and services available. It has been successful in that
respect. The Farmers' Market is not a direct money-making operation for the Association. And,
as indicated earlier, it was closed during the winter last year to reduce annual average costs.
To make the Market work, the DBA has renegotiated their current contract with their Market
manager in order to reduce operational costs during the lower revenue winter months. The
Association has relinquished their percentage of proceeds from the Market sales between
November and March and the Market manager has relinquished his guaranteed salary and will be
paid based on commission only. Since the farmers will participate only if a reasonable amount of
sales are reached weekly, the success of the market will largely depend on adequate
advertisement of the event.
The DBA estimates that an advertising budget of $3,000 could provide adequate media coverage
for November through February. Advertising will include ads in the Star News and Union Tribune
and printing for flyers. The DBA has indicated that the Association's budget cannot absorb the
full advertising cost. The DBA can contribute $500 toward advertising and is requesting that the
City assist by contributing the balance of $2,500.
The DBA plans to operate the Market within the Center Street right-of-way as it is currently
operating subject to conditions in Exhibit A of the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The DBA will assume all costs for the operation of the Market and evening lighting and a portion
of the advertising expense. If the City agrees to contribute toward advertisement of the Market,
the direct cost to the City will be $2,500. City funds are available in the Council's Contingency
Account No. 100-0730-5399 or by appropriation of funds from the General Fund Reserve.
Revenue from the parking meters located along the portion of Center Street proposed for closure
will be lost. Those revenues include income from (8) 1-hour meters and (10) 10-hour meters for
about 4 hours per week; however, those revenues will most likely be transferred to the public
1-2-
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 10-15-96
parking lot located in the back of the Third Avenue businesses in the vicinity of the market and
will most likely be increased as a result of the market which will off-set the loss.
The lost parking revenue is estimated to be $13.60 per week and the increased parking lot revenue
is estimated to be $10.50.
Estimated Lost Revenue
Street Parking
10 spaces x $.10 x 4 hrs. = $ 4.00
8 spaces x $.30 x 4 hrs. = $ 9.60
$1 3.60
Estimated Increased Revenue
Adjacent Parking Lot
351 spaces x $.10 x 4 hrs. = $10.50
The market accommodates about 14 vendors. Annual business license fees per vendors is
$52.50. If the City waives the business license fees for those vendors participating in the market,
a maximum of $735 in revenue will not be remitted for the year. However, it is anticipated that
the market will stimulate a increase in sales within the Downtown which should in turn result in
a net increase in area sales tax to the City. It is expected that the increase in sales tax will off-set
any loss in business license revenue.
(PS) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\ 1 0-15-96\fmktext.113 [October 9, 1996 (12:02pm)]
IThe adjacent public parking lot at Church and Center Street has 71 metered spaces at $.10 an hour. The lot is
normally half full. Based on the current Farmer's Market parking patterns, it is anticipated that the Church and Center
parking lot will be full during the Market hours. That means it can be expected that during the Market an additional 35
spaces will be occupied at $.lO/hr. for 3 hrs. (3 p.m. to 6 p.m. while the meters are in operation).
1-3-
RESOLUTION NO. Ji.!:12t1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN
THIRD AVENUE AND CHURCH AVENUE ON THURSDAY
AFTERNOONS BETWEEN 2:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. FOR FARMERS'
MARKET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE
FEES FOR PARTICIPATING VENDORS; AND, APPROPRIATING
$2,500 FOR ADVERTISING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista established a Business
Improvement Area on November 16, 1971 which created the Downtown Business Association;
and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has requested to close Center
Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue on Thursdays between 2:00 pm and 7 pm in
order to conduct a certified Farmers' Market special event; and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has requested a waiver of the
Business License Fee for the vendors taking part in the Farmers' Market special event; and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has requested $2,500 for
advertising the Farmers' Market during the months of November and December 1996 and January
and February 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Farmers' Market special event will further the
Redevelopment effort within the Town Centre I Project Area; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby find, order, determine and resolves: as follows:
1. That Center Street shall be closed to vehicular traffic between Third Avenue and
Church Avenue on Thursday afternoons between 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm for a Farmers' Market
special event between November 1, 1996 and December 31, 1997, subject to sooner revocation
in the sole discretion of the Council, subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A as though
fully contained herein; and,
2. The City's Business License Fee for the vendors participating in the Farmers' Market
is hereby waived; and,
3. Two-thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500) from the City Council Contingency
Account 100-0730-5399 to the Downtown Business Association is hereby appropriated for
Farmers' Market advertising.
Presented by
Nt.. ~~
~mone
Community Development Director
Approved as to form
'l~L.\
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 . The subject street closure shall be permitted for fourteen months from November 1, 1996
to December 31, 1997 unless sooner revoked (in the sole discretion of the City Council) to
accommodate the Downtown Farmers' Market. At the end of that time, the Farmers' Market shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director and findings shall be reported to the City
Council. The City Council, at that time, may consider an extension of the street closure for the
continuation of the special event for the next year.
2. All vendors or activities to take place within the closed street right-of-way, other than those
approved herein shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to their
participation in the Farmers' Market.
Approved Vendors and Activities
a) Certified Farmers' Market 1
b) Arts and Crafts hand made by the seller
c) Promotional activities that enhance the Market but do not detract from the Downtown
business environment or create significant noise, congestion, or safety hazards
d) Downtown Business Association (DBA) merchants and businesses in good standing
may sell or demonstrate merchandise and services that are currently sold within their
Downtown premises.
3. The DBA shall provide, set-up and remove all signs, barricades, temporary traffic control
devices related to the Farmers' Market and street closure in a timely manner (set-up completed
no later than 3:30 p.m. and removal completed no later than 7:00 pm). All traffic control devices,
signs, and barricades shall be placed in accordance with the sign placement plan approved by the
City Traffic Engineer shall conform to the State of California traffic control requirements.
4. The DBA will be responsible for the coordination and implementation of all activities and
regulations related to the street closure and Farmers' Market and the appropriate City Chula Vista
departments and staff and any applicable County, State, or Federal requirements.
5. The DBA shall provide evidence of comprehensive general liability insurance with per
occurrence coverage (a) in minimum coverage amounts approved by the City, (b) issued by an
insurance company approved by the City, and (c) with a policy endorsement satisfactory to the
City, naming the City of Chula Vista as additional insured.
6. The DBA shall execute an agreement to hold the City harmless from any liability from the
activities within the street right-of-way and resulting from the Farmers' Market special event.
1 A certified Farmers' Market is a location approved by the County Agricultural Commissioner, where certified
farmers offer for sale only those items they grow themselves. Only the immediate family and salaried employees of a
certified producer may act for and sell the products of that producer. Items include fresh and dried fruits and herbs,
vegetables, nuts, honey, eggs house plants and cut flowers, jerky, fresh fish, olives and baked goods.
'l,S
7. The DBA shall be responsible for implementing the following Storm Drain Pollution Prevention
Program for the Downtown Farmers' Market:
a) Debris and/or other pollutants shall not be swept or otherwise made/allowed to go into
storm drain inlets or facilities at any time.
b) The street right-of-way shall be thoroughly swept and all solid debris shall be placed in
containers following the close of the Farmers' Market.
c) The street and sidewalks may be washed with water to prevent health hazards.
d) This plan may be revised as necessary to prevent, control, or eliminate the discharge
of pollutants to the storm drain system resulting from the outdoor activities of the
downtown Farmers' Market.
8. This permit shall be subject to such additional conditions and modifications as may be
deemed necessary or appropriate by the City in order to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
[m: \hom e \com md ev\resos \ farm m kt. res]
'l,LP
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item--L
Meeting Date 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution 1645<<taccepting filing of Engineer's Report by the City Engineer
on the cost of construction and setting November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. as
the date and time for a public hearing on an assessment district for alley
improvements east of Second Avenue.
Director of Public Works rrt/'
City Manager~ ~ @I
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On July 25, 1995, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the
City Council by Resolution No. 17979 awarded a contract in the amount of $53,108 (including
contingencies) for the alley improvements on the alley east of Second Avenue from J Street to
Kearney Street to Fox Construction Company. The work is now completed and improvements have
been accepted by the City Manager. A resolution must now be approved to accept filing of the
Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing on the assessments.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution:
1) Accepting filing of Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of
construction of the alley improvements on the alley east of Second Avenue from J
Street to Kearney Street.
2) Setting November 12, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for public hearing on
the proposed assessments for the alley improvements on the alley east of Second
Avenue from J Street to Kearney Street.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On November 23, 1993 the City Council accepted a petition signed by the majority of the affected
property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of the
alley improvements just to the east of Second Avenue and located between J Street and Kearney
Street.
On May 16, 1995 Council held a public hearing and approved the formation of Assessment District
93-01.
r~ I
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
On July 25, 1995 Council awarded the contract for the alley improvements to Fox Construction. Fox
Construction Company completed the construction of alley improvements on October 30, 1995. A
final inspection was made, all work was found to be completed in accordance with the contract plans
and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements have been
accepted by the City Manager.
Staff has now received, and the City has paid, all the contractual invoices for this project and
completed the accounting of the expenditures. If the assessments are approved by Council, the City
will be reimbursed $52,172 of the construction cost by the various property owners over a 10-year
period. A public hearing is proposed to be set for November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to take testimony
on the assessments after which the actual assessments may be levied on the various parcels. Funds
for this project were included in the FY95/96 budget for project STL-220.
The improvements were financed by the City and AD 93-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block
Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with
Council Policy Number 505-01. The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies
to impose assessments on benefitting properties to fund the construction of public improvements.
The property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-off period
following confirmation of assessments. If the assessments are not paid during that time or are
deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period of ten (10)
years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. Property owners may pay the balance of their assessments
at any time during the ten year repayment period without penalty.
In response to property owner's concerns, the City Council approved Resolution # 17980 (attached),
establishing the criteria to qualify for deferral of the payment of their assessments to lessen the
financial impact and other financing options. Qualifying property owners who request deferred
payment and meet the criteria established by Council Resolution 17980 must enter into a deferral
agreement with the City. Staff will review deferral applications between the period of November
13 through December 12, 1996. Should any property owner within the district meet one of the
criteria provided in Resolution 17980, a deferral agreement will be prepared and brought before City
Council for approval.
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Improvement Act of 1911 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California any deferral of assessments shall be approved by a Council
Resolution.
7-2
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Accepting the Engineers Report and setting a date for public hearing on the assessments is the first
step in finalizing this project and setting the assessments. Other future actions by the City are
outlined below:
NOTICING & FUTURE ACTIONS
ACTION
DATE
1.
Council Meeting (tonight's agenda)
a). Accept filing of Engineer's Report
b). Set Public Hearing on Engineer's report
10/15/96
2.
Notice of Public Hearing to Property Owners mailed out
10/17/96
3.
Council Meeting
a). Public Hearing on Engineer's Report
b). Adopt Resolution Confirming Engineer's Report
c). Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien
11/12/96
4. File Assessment Diagram 11/12/96
a). City Clerk
b). County Recorder
5. Deferral period for qualifying property owners begins 11/13/96
6. Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period 11/14/96
7. End deferral period for qualifying property owners 12/12/96
8. End 30 day Pre-payment period 12/13/96
9. Council Meeting (for property owners qualifying for deferrals, if any) 01/07/97
a). Adopt Resolution approving deferral agreements
10. Due Date of First Billing 04130/97
All property owners within this assessment district of 17 parcels have been sent a copy of this report
and have been mailed copies of tonight's report to City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The following is a breakdown of all costs associated with the project
f-J
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Table I - Costs for Alley
Budgeted Contract Actual Funded
Amount Award Cost By
Construction $65,500 $53,108 $51,099 Assessment
District
* Miscellaneous $6,500 $5,392 $1,073 Assessment
(10% contingency) District
PROPERTY OWNERS' SHARE OF PROJECT $52,172 Assessment
COSTS District
* * Staff $24,000 $24,000 $15,212 General Fund
Project Total $96,000 $82,500 $67,384 AD & GF
CIP # 600-6001-STL-220
* Cost includes postage, advertising, blueprinting etc.
** Staff costs (A Y-091) includes engineering design and inspection costs. The property
owners share of the improvements excludes the contribution by the City for staff costs as
authorized by Council Policy #505-01.
The City's General Fund has financed the up front cost of constructing the improvements by
appropriating $72,000 under CIP Project #STL-220 and budgeting another $24,000 in in-kind staff
contribution. Through the assessment district formation process, the City will be reimbursed the
$52,172 construction costs encumbered with 7% interest per annum over a period of ten (10) years
through AD 93-01. City staff cost including engineering design, inspection and district formation
was approved as a $24,000 in kind contribution. Only $15,212 of the original amount was spent
which will be absorbed by the City in accordance with Council Policy #505-01. Although $96,000
was budgeted for this project, the final cost was only $67,384 (70%) of the fund total ($52,172 +
$15,212). This was accomplished due to the excellent construction bids received and reduced staff
time needed to complete this project. The construction costs savings of$19,834 (27.5%) ($72,006-
$52,172) in unused appropriated funds for this project will be returned to the General Fund.
In addition to the cost summarized above, the City will maintain the concrete alley improvements.
Attachments:
A. Engineer's Report '
B. Map for AD 93-01 . ~L
C. Resolut~on 179802 f ~ i
D. ResolutIon 17979 ~ ~(
E. Resolution 1789,1:../
F. CIP Detail STL-220
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \AD93-O I.BOB
~-4
October 3, 1996
File No. 0725-1O-AD93-01
AGENCY: City of Chula Vista
PROJECT: 1911 Block Act - Alley Improvements from "J" Street to Kearney Street between
Elm Avenue and Second Avenue
TO: City Council, City of Chula Vista
SUBJECT: ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911" AND SPECIFICALLY
SECTION 5882
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, State of California, had initiated proceedings
pursuant to the provisions of Division 14, Part 2, Chapter 1 of the "Improvement Act of 1911",
and Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.07 to pave an alley from J and Kearney Streets and
between Elm and Second Avenue. At the Council meeting of July 25, 1995, by Resolution
17919, a contract was awarded in the amount of $53, 108.00 to the Fox Construction Company.
Said alley improvements have now been completed and the proposed assessments are stated
herein.
CHRONOLOGY:
November 23, 1993, Resolution 17316 accepted petition signed by majority of affected
property owners to form special assessment district.
March 28, 1995, Resolution 17849 approved boundary map for proposed boundaries of
AD 93-01.
March 28, 1995, Resolution 17850 ordering installation of improvements.
May 9 & 16, 1995, Public Hearings, Resolution 17894, on Resolution of Intention to
form special assessment district.
May 25, 1995, Resolution 17980 approved deferral of payments, established criteria for
deferrals and delegating authority to defer.
June 14, 1995, received eight bids for improvements.
July 25, 1995, Resolution 17979 accepting bids and awarding contract to Fox
Construction Co.
October 24, 1995, construction started.
November 10, 1995, construction completed.
December 6, 1995, Notice of Completion recorded.
February 7, 1996, City Manager accepted improvements.
-1-
f~s
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Total Contract Cost
Incidental Expenses
Staff Cost
Construction Total
$51,099.00
$ 1,073.00(1)
$15,212.00(2)
$67,384.00
(1) Postage, advertising and blueprinting costs.
(2) Staff cost (AY-091) from point of inception to 9/12/96 ($9,507.46 x 1.6).
Total cost of project is $67,384.00.
Costs assigned to AD 93-01 is $52,172.00 (Contract cost + Incidental expenses).
ASSESSMENTS
Assessments = Total construction cost ($)/total frontage (ft) x frontage on alley (ft)
No. APN Name Frontage Estimated Proposed
(ft) Assessment(l) Assessment
1 573- 351-03 Marrufo 115.00 $6,999.00 $5,071.30
2 573-351-04 Hirtzel 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
3 573- 351-05 Huggins 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
4 573-351-06 Miller 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
5 573-351-07 Monge 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
6 573-351-08 Gilman 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
7 573-351-09 Iwashita 60.00 $3,652.00 $2,645.88
8 573-351-11 Vega 116.54 $7,093.00 $5,139.22
9 573-351-13 Marrufo 100.00 $6,086.00 $4,409.80
10 573-351-16 Unger 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
11 573-351-17 Murphy 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
12 573-351-18 Hall 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
13 573-351-19 Norton 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
14 573-351-20 Artische 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
15 573-351-21 Janiec 50.00 $3,043.00 $2,204.90
16 573-351-22 King 100.00 $6,086.00 $4,409.80
17 573-351-23 Ochoa 91.55 $5,572.00 $4,037.20
TOTALS 1,183.09 $72,006.00 $52,172.00
TABLE 1 - PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR AD 93-01
(1) Per City Council Report dated 3/28/95.
-2-
(~(P
The proposed assessments are lower than those originally projected in March 1995 because of
the lower bid received for the construction of improvements.
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTIONS
On the same date that the public hearing is held to review assessments, then pursuant to the 1911
Block Act, the assessments will be confirmed by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will finance the construction of improvements ($52,172) and will be reimbursed by the
property owners over a period of ten (10) years. City staff cost including engineering design,
inspection and district formation ($15,212) will be absorbed by the City.
(m: \home\engineer\agenda \ad930 1 er. bob)
-3-
~-~
~.
r.1
U
:.(
-~. .
~i ~
- .
;, i ·
~'. :
~f;1 _
~, -
.:
~
.;;,
t
~
'Ii
~.'l.
"
~1 , I
..') 1..., canrr till, ftZ YmIIIf ., ~ PIOPOID ~
'~., or m &II~ -T"T DJmUt'T em " CIN Ya'U. ClOwn' or 1lJl1IIDO.
IrAft or CWP'OUIA. 'AS A;P'IIOt"D 1'1 !XI em CDVNCI. or _ an
., CIM.l ftJU Io' " IICUI.AI IIDTDIO 1IlIDOr. ~ .. ........ 8a
., . ._. 81 DIGWnOJI II'D
~
r;
:i
.. .,
,-.
It
'"
II:
~~ 1IID1____mr__.cm.-.a___
.; r or . ....
I . 1m .... 11I"I II 4IIUIA tIIIA
~T'" -- lilT or I\'.oft .. Ii ,An
~ .:i:i..Ln.='~Z:.~'" tIm__
"
...
,."
."
f;
fll
-"
.r .
I
!II
t_l I
.j
~
...,'
m! f..
~. ~
~ Cf)
..
,;;t
~
'I 4 ')
.
ASSESSMENT DIST'RICT 93-01
, .
1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
· .CITY OF CHUU VISTA. COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF c.wFORNlA
..- ,,,..-
IlII L_
.
,
ELM
. A VENUE
.
-t
------
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NAP. ~i~l ~ i.! I.! i! I! I!
! ..~ I; i; I; Ie Ii ~~.t~~;. r~.t~A;.1
....... ;1! I a ! !
~~:j.e-+,,'..oL":"~ -. '. ~ ;~.~. ..r~~ ~ I... '. ..' ., -:,"7." .
UM":";":~".II~' M."';'''''IIi'U",,'' ..' .; " . ...-"":"""'t:-. ..... " . ...'"~, v . ......
, .1 - - -,
~ 1...,.:t_~5'_D.1I II . , ......1-."'_'''.'
II' .r n. ,a DtUlJar n.
- ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~
I ~i mi Ii mi Ii Ii I
ii! it I i. I I
NAP.
NAP.
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
t
,
SECOND
A VENUE
,
j.ECJ:ND
.....v
. ==:r" I-r
JOUlIlP& .,.
tII'r ... 11I"I _ 8IU ..
:~J..l~.~~a!:!:ii. .... ~~-
.' ~
N~P. Not A Part
,
~ " 1/-,
;. '.
E...
~
~
Cf)
>-.
~
~
- -
,
. ...
, .
. _. ~ II&JI " .. tIlaIft' IF __ ~.
~ft or ~U~-eII. ... .. IIWIZD
~_..
IDVIm . .... _
m&-IOAD'3-01
..0. NO. AYOI S
I.!
1- {
.llL-
-......".,.--"-=._-"~ .--...-.
0 i
0 ..
~
01
...
~
i i
01
~
~
01
01
...
~
CIl i a
c
1 !
'61 s:
c ...
ILl ~
...~
i!-3
~i
in.!! l! a a
f!.:a g ...
~lc :g
01
01
..J ...
~ Ii: ~
~ ILl
C "
:e :) c( a 0 0 ~ 0 0 8 0 ~
c"z 8
ILll-oC
c:( J:ffi:E :g 0 0 0 0
c:(a: U:Et; III .- ;; ;; ;;
..." en I- 01
eno 01
~a:1Ll ...
-a: oC-' ~
>n. I::~O
:5 en ZILla:
_c~
::;)...
:r:Z 01- 0 0 ~ ~ 8 0 8 8 0
(,)w .. 8 ~
L&.:E Zz
QILl gj ~ gj cD N <t If:
o~ Ol ...
..I!<a: .. .. ..
~o ~a:g~
_a: O~U~
(,)n. 1-0:)
:E a: a:
~J:
..J ~I-
c:(
t:
n. a 0 ~ ~ 8 8 8 ~ ~
c:( I- 0
(,) U..I gj r-: gj g N <t g
>- lLloC co ~
CD -'1- ;; ;;
c 00
~
.. 11:1-
CD ~
:w:: .
0
-
;, ~ ~
. ~ ~
" ..
-.. ~ ~
i>
i .. Cl
z
e:i (3
o ~~ Z
N_1I ~
N b ii:
~ >- C
~ CD .~
00CU 01 Z
c ii 0
~ .c il !3
i 5 .c in
~ IS: :e "E I
III 5 ILl
5 ~ 'S :;'i! U
en ~ 0- ~ a:
IIJ ~ c !! :)
!< la ~ ~
~ ~ 01 III ~ U
Q. .iii
r: :E GI GI 8 GI " 0
~ It 0 Cl a z
z z 52
.: :) ILl U ~
0,,:= z 0-
I- ~
Z~:E en c( ~
e:1::0 0 ~ Z
UI-U U ....: - - ::> ii: Cl U
~",'-,~~~~,;t:",~~":~,~:-.~l.~~,~,;;~:.f~"~::::~"~-"
,....,._-Il'\..r~':'.'"",.,>".",.d.
~
g cIi
o QI
U ;:,
'Oi
c~
.2.s::.
o~
2 ;:,
1ll&
c
8-g
Cd
~. E
c_
ow
=c
-=$
~J
L-AbPlNE I I AVE I Iii
I~' 1~-1J"l
.. . . ., >
. I , " W
.- . , " Z
~ a:
CI)~:
~
tEElB.: : '
. "
, : : ' . : : : -:
: EON'"
~
rnJJlJJ
:-
'0
C
Cd
Ul
'ai
QI
B5
~
E
m
~
'0
C
Cd
~
c
$
~
.D
Cl
c
'6
c
QI
x
QI
~
iii
QI
.s::.
-
'O,gli~~1!
CW~.s::.U-
g c Ul U QI .m
Cd $ 1'Cl'O.s::.>
E~CCI-~
o ~ .2 I'Cl ui QI
-~t)lIliC:
... 2 QI C ~
Sll1ii~~O
c",c160~
~ti58Q.i~
! ~-g 1ii Q. E
ClEI'Cl8.EQ.
.s: m 6,.s::. Q. Q)
-~'iil'~ Q);
iOQl~;>-
Uu-'O-c-o.o
'ai-
I'Cl QI 0 QI >-1ii
co ... III 1ii ."= QI
... tiS 1ii 'iii == ...
~L05~~
... ~ U U C .-
. E = 8..s::.
o 1'Cl.l!! _
Z E >-.s::. Xl 'i
c-I'ClQ...
o Cl Q.:c: QI "2
S'~~~.si!!
~ 8.~si1lil
Q) >-.s::. C5 = E
a: .!! ::: 'li 'i 'm
aJiii,!(\I ...
~'O;~~1l
a.CQ) (\10
Q..2 -g i CD -
CdOQ)-~'O
==2E~'O.2
~1!!5ii~-
88ld~U;
Q) ... C C C
~.s::. :t:: .2 .2 QI
U:I'Cl<<;t)Cl
SStiSE21!
Ul-aj01ii-
$.g;:'-CE
.....C-O
.!! .!!.! Q) .g U E
.E~~'~~-8
01:'0"01- .
QlQ)c- t\
t:Eoi"':N"~
gjldE~~.~
c~~gj>-Q)~
~CDC31QgQ)
CD-CdIll~CDE
u.mQ)CD~>1Il
;;:::U;:'QI-'01Il
=X,c.s::..!'QCdQ)
~1Il~;:~=la
",)Cd<(I'Cl>~1'Cl
.s:
Cl
c
'>
8.
..,
III
z
C(
..J
- -- 2
_ _ _L _ _
, ,
,
~
ab
Ol
it
.s:
c
.12
t)
2
1ii
c
o
U
'0
c
CD
~
..;.
Ol
it
.s:
I:
Cl
"Xi
o
iii
E
'2
~
ii
CD
=
W
I
'"
'~~''a
I
z
o
J:::
<
~
~
f
l.()
~ t
1
~
,
\
,
,
;;
i
l
i
2
t/I ~
~
RESOLUTION NO. 17980
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE DEFERRAL OF THE PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA TO QUALIFY
FOR DEFERRAL. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE
DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-
01
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements for the construction of alley
improvements from J Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue are
being financed through the formation of Assessment District No. 93-01 (AD 93-01) pursuant
to the 1911 Block Act; and
WHEREAS. the Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies
to impose assessments on benefited property to fund the construction of public
improvements; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on May 25. 1995. Council directed staff to
bring to Council a resolution allowing the property owners to defer the payment of their
assessments; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have the option of paying the total assessment
during the 30-day pay-off period following the confirmation of assessments, planned for the
end of 1995; and
WHEREAS, if the assessment is not paid at that time, the City shall collect the
. unpaid balance in semiannual installments in conjunction with the collection of City taxes and
in accordance with the Resolution of Intention. the balance shall be paid over a period of ten
(10) years at an interest of 7 % per annum; and
WHEREAS, in response to property owners concerns, Council directed staff to
identify additional alternatives that may allow the deferral of the payment of the assessments
and lessen the financial impact of the proposed assessments; and
WHEREAS, according to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the "Improvement Act
of 1911" of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California any deferral of
assessments shall be approved by a Council Resolution; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the following alternatives be approved by
Council:
. Semi-annual payments (interest only) and payment of the principal at the end
of a 1 O-year term or at the time the property is transferred, whichever occurs
first. At the end of the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis,
a time extension to fulfill the payment obligations.
r-Cf
Resolution No. 17980
Page 2
. One payment (principal and accumulated interest) at the_ eod of a 1 O-year term
or at the time the property is transferred, whichever occurs first. At the end of
the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis, a time extension to
fulfill the payment obligations.
WHEREAS, staff also recommends that Council require that property owners
sh.all meet one of the following Criteria ("Criteria") to qualify for deferral:
1. Have an income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income standards as
contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council. (For example, a senior citizen,
retired, and unable to pay the assessment.)
WHEREAS. qualifying property owners that elect a deferred payment plan shall
enter into a deferral agreement with the City upon confirmation of assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve the Criteria for granting a deferral of the payment of assessments, and
authorizing the Mayor or City Manager in his/her discretion. to sign the deferral agreements
for Assessment District No. 93-01 upon application and proof of satisfaction of the required
Criteria.
Presented by
Bruce M. Boogaar.
City Attorney
V/~
hn P. Lip itt
!6irector of Public Works
i ~l D
~---._-
Resolution No. 17980
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 25th day of July, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NA YES:
Councilmembers:
None
'~
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
ATTEST:
. /; 1 (I /"';
'_____/ / : Iii . 1~
K)Jj'1.'{~: (~. I If t 7-1 Pel
Beverly IA. 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. 17980 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 25th day of July,
1995.
Executed this 25th day of July, 1995.
~~C) a-dt,
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
cg- I'
'::':-12 recc- "'.L'i
...
...
- p'
B
~.i c,
~
....
::'~,,) 1.
F
l"O"...1.<l
,/
'C r:...r-- 1
~~~~},- .~...
.. ~
)
}
)
r
RESOLUTION NO. 17979
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
"CONSTRUCTION OF ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS FROM J STREET
TO KEARNEY STREET BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND SECOND
AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (STL-
220)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 14, 1995, in Conference Room 3 in the Public
Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the following eight bids for
"Construction of Alley Improvements from J Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue
and Second Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-220)":
Contractor Bid Amount
1- Fox Construction - San Diego $53,108.00
2. Marquez Constructors, Inc. - Spring Valley 59,430.50
3. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego 66,915.50
4. Carolyn E. Scheidle - Contractor - La Mesa 69,436.00
5. Frank & Son Paving, Inc. - Chula Vista 72,512.05
6. Interwest Pacific, LTD. - San Diego 73,127.60
7. Hammer Construction Company - Chula Vista 73,414.80
8. ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista 77,365.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Fox Construction - San Diego is below the Engineer's
Estimate of $77,150 by $24,042 or 31.2% and staff has reviewed the low bidder:s
qualifications and references to do the work and found them to be satisfactory and
recommends that the contract be awarded to Fox Construction; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work
involved in this project and has determined the project is a Class I exemption under Section
15301 from California Environmental Quality Act requirements; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is general funds and
contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons
employed by them for the work under this contract; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women business owned requirements were
necessary as part of the bid documents, however, disadvantaged businesses were encouraged
to bid through the sending of the Notice of Contractors to various minority trade publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council concurs in the determination that this project
is categorically exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality
Act, and directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to file, or ratifies the filing of, a notice
of exemption for this project.
.~
1~ /1-
Resolution No. '7979
Page 2
....
Section 2. That the City Council does hereby accept the bid of Fox
Construction as responsive.
)
Section 3. The City Council awards the contract for "The Construction of Alley
_ Improvements from J Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue in
th~ City of Chula Vista" to Fox Construction in the amount of $53,' 08.00, the lowest
responsible bidder which submitted a responsive bid to the approved specifications. The
contract, known as Document No. C095-122, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 4. The Mayor of the City of Chula Vista i hereby authorized and
directed to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of ula Vista.
pp vet t rm :J
Presented by
J f n P. Lippitt
lrector of Public Works
}
1-.1~
...._ ",,,,___.__ ,"._. ~...._" _' ,....:,~~~,.___,_._ '__dO."~"~
,
Resolution' No. 17979
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California. this 25th day of July, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NAYES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABST AIN:
Councilmembers:
None
,d;v/dv : JrztiJVJ
Shirlee Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
/1
\'--.. ..~: ././"! / . -~-' ~(.. /
r....,~~.'...4..ll..... '/. (r(;,,-,J..~-.....:t
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. 17979 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 25th day of July,
1995.
Executed this 25th day of July, 1995.
.1) . c2-- ·
~,.J () I~af
Beverly/A. Authelet, City Clerk
1- I Lf
RESOLUTION NO. 17894
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF CHUlA
VISTA MAKING FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911"
REGARDING THE FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-
01
NOW I THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinas:
The City Council does hereby find as follows:
A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has instituted
proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911 being Division 7 of the Streets and Highway
Code of the State of California for the construction of certain authorized
improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
Assessment District No. 93-01.
B. Notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law and
specifically Article II, Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and Highway
Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
C. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence heard
relating to the work of improvement as proposed for the Assessment
District, and the legislative body is desirous at this time to proceed.
SECTION 2. That all protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied.
SECTION 3. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the
construction of the works and improvement in said Assessment District if said
construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to
the property owner (by 5/27/95) to so cause the work to be done.
SECTION 4. That the works of improvement shall be done and carried through and financed
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911",
and for all particulars a!; to these proceedings, reference is made to the
Resolution ordering the ins.:~lIation of the public improvements and instructing
the Superintendent of Streets to give notice.
(
~-(~
Resolution No. 17894
Page 2
SECTION 5. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each assessment remaining
unpaid following the expiration of a 30 day cash collection period. Said balance
shall be payable over a period of 10 years at an interest rate of 7% per annum.
The City shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment on the district
properties semi-annually in conjunction with collection of City taxes, excepting
those properties for which a payment deferral has been approved. The
collection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance with the
payment schedule stipulated in their deferral agreement.
Presented by
Ap o~ d as to f r
~~
~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
)
;"..;,-~.... '
)
1-ILP
~
't
-"---'-'-,--- --....... ... .".~
Resolution No. 17894
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote:
YES:
Councilmembers:
Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NOES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17894 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by
the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 16th day of
May, 1995.
Executed this 16th day of May, 1995.
"
Vicki C. Soderquist, DeptJty City Clerk
'" ; .
~
I
(
g-II?
RESOLUTION No.l~(/5?'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S
REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 AT
6:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR ALLEY
IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF SECOND AVENUE
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1995, pursuant to the Improvement
Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the City Council by
Resolution No. 17979 awarded a contract in the amount of $53,108
(including contingencies) for the alley improvements on the alley
east of Second Avenue from J Street to Kearney Street to Fox
Construction Company; and
WHEREAS, the work is now completed and improvements have
been accepted by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, a resolution must now be approved to accept
filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to
set the public hearing on the assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept the filing of Engineer's
Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction of the
alley improvements on the alley east of Second Avenue from J Street
to Kearney Street.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for public
hearing on the proposed assessments for the alley improvements on
the alley east of Second Avenue from J Street to Kearney Street.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\AD9301
~-J9
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the second amendment to and restatement
of the agreement with Smith & Kempton for advocacy and planning
services in connection with transportation facilities and the Eastern Chula
Vista Strategic Plan and appropriating $178,000 from the Transportation
Development Impact Fee Fund
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager\.Xi ~ ....", (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No~
On August 8,1995 Council approved an agreement with Smith & Kempton to implement steps in
the East Chula Vista Strategic Plan. A first amendment to that agreement was approved on
January 23,1996. A significant amount of progress has been made towards completing the tasks
contained in the agreement and first amendment. The date of completion contained in the first
amendment extended the contract to January 23,1997. Not all of the work is complete and,
therefore, a second amendment to the contract needs to be approved to complete the tasks begun
by the August 8,1995 agreement. Completion of this work is essential for implementation of the
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and has been supported by the major
developers.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving the second amendment
to and restatement of the agreement with Smith & Kempton, authorize the Mayor to execute said
agreement, and appropriating funds for the contract.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
When Council held the public hearing on the proposed update for the Transportation Development
Impact Fee program (TransDIF) in November, 1993, several of the property owners
recommended that the City set up a "Developers Advisory Committee" to work closely with staff
on administration of the TransDIF and to provide more input. They also recommended that the
City retain a consultant with expertise in identifying and obtaining supplemental sources of
funding for transportation facilities. As a result, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
such a consultant and the contract was awarded to D. J. Smith in May of 1994. Attached is a
copy of the agenda statement and resolution from that meeting as Exhibits A and B. The scope
of work under that contract, which is now completed, included four tasks. Those tasks were:
1) Existing plan/program review to allow consultant to fully understand Chula Vista's
transportation expectations and needs.
2) Develop a strategy (Strategic Plan) for providing the required major street improvements
for the eastern area of Chula Vista. The strategic plan defined the network of required
Gf-l
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
transportation improvements; cost estimates for all projects; an implementation schedule
reflecting construction needs, phasing requirements and available funding; and identifying
potential additional funding for the required improvements.
3) Undertaking an advocacy effort to identify and secure alternative sources of funding for
transportation improvements.
4) Ongoing involvement in transportation issues in the South Bay, including toll road
progress and issues, Otay Mesa and NAFTA issues as they relate to Chula Vista, and
other transportation developments in the South Bay as they relate to Chula Vista.
As indicated, the Strategic Plan, which identifies short and long term tasks to assure completion
of the needed transportation facilities, is complete. The Strategic Plan included a separate Action
Plan which summarized implementation efforts needed to be undertaken. City staff and the
Developers Advisory Committee worked closely with the consultant on the strategic plan and
action plan and identified three specific tasks which the Committee believed were the highest
priority and should be undertaken in fiscal year 95/96. Those tasks were:
1. Pursue a Federal Demonstration Project for Orange Avenue;
2. Provide comprehensive program management for expedited implementation of the 1-805
Interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, Orange Avenue and Palomar Street; and
3. Assure that SR-125 retains sales tax (Transnet) funding and pursue other state/federal
funding options.
Council approved an agreement with Smith & Kempton on August 8, 1995 and an amendment to
that agreement on January 23,1996 to work towards completion of those tasks. Knowing that the
process through CalTrans to implement the 1-805 interchanges would probably take longer than
one year to complete, the agreement contained a provision that allowed for additional services past
the original 12 month period by mutual agreement for another 12 month period.
During the last year, Smith & Kempton prepared a demonstration grant package for $2.5 million
in funding for Orange Avenue. In addition, meetings with the staff from the offices of
Congressmen Filner and Bilbray generated a joint request for including Orange Avenue as a
demonstration project in the National Highway System (NHS) legislation. Congress subsequently
decided that no demonstration projects would be included in either the NHS or annual
transportation appropriations legislation. This item will be pursued as appropriate in the future
if there appears to be any possibility of such a demonstration project.
Significant progress was made in project development activities for interchange improvements
planned at 1-805 at Telegraph Canyon Road, Palomar Street, and Orange Avenue. Smith &
Kempton prepared a Request for Proposals, reviewed consultant submittals, organized the
consultant interview process, and assisted in the selection of the Rick Engineering team to perform
engineering and environmental services. Twelve monthly meetings have been held with CalTrans
to date resulting in the completion of:
q-2-
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
1. An overall work strategy.
2. A Travel Forecast Report for Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue interchanges.
3. Draft geometric plans for the Telegraph Canyon Road interchange.
4. Conceptual geometric plans for the Orange Avenue interchange.
5. Alternative interchange concepts for the Palomar interchange.
6. A draft Traffic Operations Report for the Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue
interchanges.
Project advocacy efforts for the SR-125 toll road were extensive over the past year. Smith &
Kempton managed advocacy efforts that resulted in SANDAG successfully obtaining $155 million
in new revenue for NAFTA related projects in the South County area. The $132 million in
funding for SR-125 Sweetwater segment was a critical element in the financial feasibility of the
SR-125 toll road. Key efforts included briefing California Transportation Commission (CTC)
members (Senators Peace and Kelley, Assembly Member Alpert) and staff. Presentations before
the CTC both in Sacramento and in Los Angeles (San Diego elected officials and business
representatives) was organized and coordinated testimony was prepared.
To complete the process begun by last years contract, approval of a second amendment is
necessary to extend the time to allow for the completion of the work for the 1-805 interchanges
and to adjust the compensation to reflect the scope of work. Staff did not request new proposals
based upon competitive bidding for this work because Smith & Kempton have been the project
managers since the work began on the 1-805 interchanges. As a result, staff believes that Smith
and Kempton are uniquely qualified to offer the services required. In addition, these services are
being offered at reasonable rates. To change project managers at this point in the process would
be impractical and inefficient. The same can be said for project advocacy since Smith and
Kempton have already established relationships on behalf of the City for SR-125 and Orange
A venue funding with high level staff members of Caltrans, California Transportation Commission,
SANDAG and have had several meetings with legislators. They were also instrumental in
achieving SR-125 as a statewide significant project, therefore, assuring funding for the San Miguel
Connector and not depending as much on a Transnet funding base that doesn't have enough money
to complete all the regional projects. Staff doesn't believe it advisable to change consultants in
the middle of the process and accordingly, the resolution approving this amendment contains a
statement that the consultant selection process has been waived on this basis.
The contract provides for up to 18 months work on the 1-805 interchange projects and a minimum
of 12 months advocacy assistance with the ability to extend work beyond the 12 months if funds
are available. The amendment will be retroactive to August 1, 1996 with the termination date at
such time as approval has been obtained from CalTrans or February 1, 1997, whichever occurs
first. All obligatory provisions of the contract remain the same. All changes are contained in
Exhibit" A" of the agreement.
This contract contains two major components toward the goal of obtaining supplemental funding
for transportation projects and for assuring construction of the critical freeway interchange
projects needed to provide the necessary circulation system capacity.
0- ~
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Task 1. Program Management for 1-805 Interchanges $90.000.
This task is to provide the necessary services to manage the project development activities
associated with interchange improvements planned on I-80S at Telegraph Canyon Road, Palomar
Street, and Orange Avenue. These projects are the Developers Advisory Committee's highest
priority in order to provide the necessary highway capacity to permit continued growth.
Since these locations are under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, their procedures need to be followed
in order to construct the necessary improvements. These procedures require the preparation of
a Project Study Report (PSR) and a Project Report (PR). These documents, which can be
combined under CalTrans' regulations, includes an environmental document and other information
which allows these projects to move into the final design stage.
Smith & Kempton will provide/monitor/advocate the following under the proposed agreement:
1. Provide Program Management Services to complete Project Development Documents for
the 1-805 Interchanges;
2. Pursue State or Federal Funding for Orange Avenue; and
3. Address Implementation Issues relative to the SR-125 toll road.
Under Item 1 above, Smith & Kempton will oversee the preparation of combined Project Study
Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) documents for the I-805/0range Avenue project. The PSR/PR
document includes an environmental document (i.e., typically a mitigated negative declaration,
unless significant environmental impacts are involved), allowing these better-defined projects to
move directly into the final design stage upon completion.
For the I-805/Palomar Street interchange, Smith & Kempton will oversee preparation of both an
Access Approval Report (AAR) and a Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange. The AAR
is designed to provide an up-front review of the interchange concept by FHW A and CalTrans,
prior to the initiation of a PSR. Much of the work prepared for the AAR will be directly
translated into the PSR. Should an acceptable interchange configuration not be approved by
FHW A in the AAR, Smith & Kempton will terminate activities on Milestone 2 - the preparation
of a Project Study Report.
The preparation of a AAR and PSR will allow for the selection of a preferred interchange
configuration at a more conceptual level prior to initiation of the more detailed technical studies
that are required at the Project Report stage. Smith & Kempton will take the lead in the following
activities related to the preparation of encroachment permit, PSR/PR and PSR documents:
1. Development of Implementation Team and Developer Advisory Committee meeting
schedules;
2. Preparation of agenda statements;
3. Oversight of consultant work products and schedules;
4. Coordination between City, Consultants, and CalTrans; and
5. Troubleshooting problems and/or project constraints.
q-~
Page 5, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
The work is to be paid as a fixed fee based on a montWy basis.
Task 2. PrQject Advocacy ($68,000)
Part A: Pursue State or Federal Fundin~ for Oran~e Avenue
The objective of this advocacy effort is to pursue $2.55 - 5.1 million in funding for construction
of Olympic Parkway (Orange Avenue) between the Olympic Training Center (OTC) and Hunte
Parkway.
The Smith & Kempton team will monitor and respond to regional, state, and federal funding
opportunities that may be present in the next year. These include:
1. Federal demonstration grant through ISTEA reauthorization;
2. Mid-cycle STIP programming focused on "on-the-shelf" projects; and
3. 1998 STIP programming.
SB 1505 (Kopp) addressing STIP reform failed this year. That Bill would have allowed this
project to compete for two new funding categories: the "regional choice" and the "economic
development" programs. The regional choice program, would have encompassed 80% of the
available transportation funding provided by the State, and would have been available for virtually
all project categories. As the title suggests, regional choice projects would have been selected by
SANDAG. As the bill was structured, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) would
have had discretion over 10 percent of the regional choice program (e.g., 8% of the total funding
available), but could have only identified replacement projects that are located on the National
Highway System. The economic development program, which would have encompassed 5 % of
the available transportation funds, would have been administered by the Secretary of Business,
Transportation & Housing. Eligible projects would have been those that would foster economic
development.
There is a very good chance that there will be a mid-year RTIP and the opportunity would then
be available to seek funding. Also, SB 1505, or a bill similar to it, could be introduced in January
of 1997.
Part B: Address Implementation Issues Relative to SR-125 Toll Road
The Smith & Kempton team will take the lead in providing a comprehensive approach to
implementation issues of concern to the City of Chula Vista and the Developer Advisory
Committee relative to the SR-125 toll road. The following issues regarding the implementation
of the SR 125 project are among those that will be addressed:
q~5
Page 6, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
1. How phasing or segmenting affect the adjacent street system, phasing of local
development, etc.;
2. The level of tolls and toll "credits" for local residents;
3. Whether and how congestion pricing will be applied;
4. How, when, and under what terms and conditions the right-of-way will be conveyed by
local developers; and
5. The details of specific interchange design issues.
The Smith & Kempton team will work with City staff, the Developer Advisory Committee, and
CTV to document outstanding implementation issues, provide recommendations on their
resolution, and carry out those recommendations where appropriate. With respect to
troubleshooting activities, Smith & Kempton will attend regular meetings to monitor the status of
the project and provide assistance as needed. The Smith & Kempton team will also work with
CTV to support their efforts for obtaining a credit guarantee through either federal, state,
regional, or local funding mechanisms.
Coordination Process
Two standard meeting dates each month are established as part of this contract. The suggested
dates and meeting purposes are summarized below.
· 2nd Friday of each Month:
1. Monthly Project Development Team meetings for all three 1-805 interchanges
(10:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 2:30 pm)
2. Lunch Briefings as necessary
· 4th Friday of each Month:
1. Monthly Progress Meeting
2. Meetings on Funding Advocacy Issues
3. Follow-up focused troubleshooting meetings on 1-805 interchanges
4. Attendance at SANDAG Board meetings as necessary
FISCAL IMPACT: The contract is proposed for 18 months for the 1-805 management program
and one year for the SR-125 advocacy with provisions to extend beyond one year if funds are
available. Smith and Kempton have been paid $268,788.29 for their first two years of service.
When the TransDIF was updated in November, 1993, it included an increase in the
"administration" component from 4% to 5% to provide sufficient funds for the consultant. The
additional 1 % component is proposed to remain in effect for as long as necessary to provide this
type of consultant.
From January 1, 1994 when the additional 1 % fee went into effect, the City has collected
approximately $26,540 representing 1/5 of the administrative portion of the TransDIF fees
q-tp
Page 7, Item 3-
Meeting Date 10/15/96
collected (1 % of 5 % ). However, the collection of the total administrative fee is sufficient to
provide the funds necessary to finance this agreement. The additional 1 % would need to stay in
effect as long as the expenditures remain higher than the actual collections. The total of the
TransDIF is approximately $85 million and the 1 % total would be $850,000. Thus, over the life
of the DIF the full amount is available to offset these expenditures.
The total recommended contract is $158,000.00. The $158,000 is broken down as follows:
$90,000 for 1-805 program management, which includes $75,000 for labor costs and $15,000 for
expenses. The SR-125 advocacy services are as follows: $68,000 with $63,000 for labor costs
and $5,000 for expenses. There is an additional $20,000 that is being requested to be
appropriated as a contingency to cover unexpected work. The contract allows for the SR-125
advocacy to be extended beyond one year at $4,500 per month if funds are available. The
$20,000 contingency may be needed for additional advocacy work or unanticipated work related
to the 1-805 projects. Therefore the contract plus contingency amounts to the $178,000
appropriation being requested. There are sufficient funds available in the Transportation
Development Impact Fee fund. These funds should be appropriated to fund 621-6212-5201.
As the consultant is successful in obtaining additional funding beyond that already available to the
City, the cost of both the TransDIF and Interim SR-125 Facility DIF will be decreased by an
unknown amount.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Agenda Statement 5/17/94
Exhibit B - Resolution 17484
Exhibit C -Agenda Statement 8/8/95
Exhibit D -Resolution 17995
Exhibit E - Agenda Statement 1/23/96
Exhibit F - Resolution 18189
y~
/~
HX-037
M:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAIDlFSTRTS.W AU
q-~
" .
l
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
,Jb.ItJ q
Item-.:t:I.
Meeting Date 5/K194
Resolution 1?'1? ? Approving an agreement with D. J.'lmith
Associates for ad .'oclcy and planning serVices in connecr.on with the
Transportation Development impact Fee and appropriating $90.000 nom
the Transportation Development Fee Fund
Directo~ of Public Works I
. EXHIBIT A
SUBMlI lED BY:
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5tbs Vote: Yes..x...No->
This item involves retaining a consultant with expertise in funding of transportation facilities.
The consultant, working with staff and the property owners, would develop a program for
funding transportation facilities from sources other than developer fees, and would then
aggressively seek such funding.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving an agreement with
D. J. Smith Associates, authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement, and appropriating funds
for the contract.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
When Council held the public hearing on the proposed update for the Transportation
Development Impact Fee Program in November 1993, several of the property owners
recommended that the City retain a consultant With expertise in identifying and obtaining
supplemental sources of funding for transportation facilities.
As a result of this suggestion, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for such a consultant.
The initial time period for submittal of proposals was approximately one month, ending
January 31, 1994, It which time the City received two proposals. At this time. staff became.
aware of two fums that received information regarding the proposal through third parties. fairly
late in the proposal period. Since the fums seemed highly qualified and the City wanted to
get the best possible selection of potential consultants, the proposal period was extended to
February 25. During this period, the two fums submitted propoSals bringing the total to four
fums. The four fums, and the original dollar cost of their proposal. are IS follows:
D. 1. Smith Associates
De Leon, Cather &. Company
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Linda Morshed Associates
S9O.ooo
S7S.000
S21,780
S168.oo0
q -ct
. Page 2, Item ~ 11
Meeting Date~
.' /1
All four proposing teams were interviewed by a committee consisting of City staff (Public
Works Director John Lippitt, City Engineer Cliff Swanson, and Senior Civil Engineer Steve
Thomas) and the property owners (Baldwin, Eastlake, McMill~ and Sunbow). The
fundamental criteria that the committee used to evaluate proposals involved evaluation of the
proposers previous experience at obtaining funds for ,?ublic works projects, d~onstrated
understanding of the City's transportation needs and the proposal to assist the City in dealing
with other agencies and the ~ll road project. The committee determined that the rums of D.
J. Smith Associat~ and Morshed and Associates were considered highly qualified and
requested clarification of the proposals. The other two rums were judged to be not qualified,
and were eliminated from further consideration. The basis of the determin&tion was a
consensus that the proposers did not have a team with "advocacy" type experience. The
subject proposers would identify and process applications for funding from existing, well
established sources, a task that staff believes it can perform. The goal of this program is to
identify or create new sources of funding. The nature of the clarification was to allow the
proposing fums to eliminate or refme aspects of the proposals that staff considered unnecessary
or to eliminate components that City staff could provide (engineering services for example).
This clarification would also hopefully eliminate the disparity in price, and allow the fums to
be judged in an equitable fashion on a similar proposal. As a result of the clarification process,
Morshed reduced their proposal cost to $60,000 compensation plus $16,000 for expenses for
a total contract value of $76,000. It should be noted here that the expenses are estimates rather
than fum expeditures. Actual expenses should not exceed estimated expenses.
c_
Following the clarification, the committee recommended that D. J. Smith be awarded the
contract, despite the fact that Morshed's cost proposal was lower. Considerations cited in the
selection process included:
1. Local exnerience. D. 1. Smith Associates has been actively involved in transportation
issues locally and at the State level. They have worked on the Proposition 108 ("The
Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1990") and Proposition 111 ("The Traffic
Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990") campaigns for the governor,
and have worked with SANDAG and local elected officials in developing and refming
the County's sales tax transportation program. DJ. Smith and Andy Sch1aef1i both have
strong working relationships with SANDAG Executive Staff and many of the area
legislators.
2. Local FamiliaritvlLocal Presence. A big component of the D. J. Smith Team is their
sub consultant, Urban Systems Associates (USA). USA has been involved in .
transportation planning in the San Diego region since 1979, and their principal Andy
Sch1aefli has been involved for over 30 years. They have been involved in planning
for Rancho del Rey, Eastlake and Otay Ranch with the City of Chula VISta. The
Morshed rum originally proposed Boyle Engineering u the local presence~ however,
this component was eliminated in the "clarification process," when it was determined
by staff and Ms. Morshed that City staff could provide most civil engin~g services
for the project. .
q-q.
3.
Page 3, Item.t:i:!!' C}
Meeting Date 5{l8"/94
,-1..
Track record. Both fums demonstrated excellent track records. Agencies that have
retained either fum spoke highly of their abilities.
(
Taking all of the above into consideration, the consensus of the committee was that the two
teams demonstrated strong ~abilities at both State and Federa1levels. The committee highly
valued the local connections and experience of the D.1. Smith team and recommended that the
City retain that fum, even though they were not the low bidders. The consensus point of view
was that a fum with Mr. Smith's experience should be able to obtain such substantial sums that
the price difference betWeen the two fmalists is dwarfed.
The scope of work for the proposed contract contains three major components towards the goal
of obtaining supplemental funding for transportation projects. One additional componenet
(Task 4) allows the consultant to assist the City in overseeing transportation developments with
other agencies and the toll road program. .
Task 1. PlanIPro2ram Review
This task involves review of existing documentation programs and all related planning area
data, including traffic projections and development projections to allow consultant to fully
understand Chula Vista's transportation expectations and needs.
Task 2. Strate2ic Plan
This task is to develop a strategy for providing the required improvements for the Eastern
territories of Chula Vista. As a part of this effort. consultant will identify planned projects in
terms of scope, cost and schedule. This document will define a practical, phased approach to
project implementation that will be coupled with an achievable fmancing plan. The strategic
plan will be developed under two separate scenarios, one utilizing the existence of the proposed
toll road (SR-125), and one excluding the toll road.
The strategic plan will defme the network of required transportation improvements the Eastern
Territories and will include scope descriptions for all projects at a sufficient level of detail to-
reasonably assess costs. The fmal document will also include cost estimltes and an
implementation schedule which will reflect constnlction needs, phasing requirements and
available funding (or potential available funding). This task will also involve working with
other agencies to identify potential additional funding for required improvements. It is
recognized that a goal of this task is to maximize the availability and timing of any and all
lOurCe5 of funding for transportation facilities
1ask 3. Advocacv Effort
This task involves an ongoing effort to identify and secure alternative soUrces of funding for..
transportation improvements for the Eastern Territories, with the focus being coordinated with
the development of the Strategic Plan, and funding opportunities identified in development of
the pl~. . The level of activity associated with this task will vary in intensity from month to
month, but this work will proceed on a constant basis in parallel with the other tasks.
C\ - 10
(-
, Pale 4, Item~ Cj
MeetiDI Date 5/J.6794
n
Task 4. Monitorinl!
This task involves ongoing involvement in transportation issues in the South Bay, including
Toll road progress and issues, Otay Mesa and NAF:T A issues as they relate to C~ula Vista, and
transportation developments in the South Bay as they relate to Chula VISta. As a part of this :
activity, consultant will attend meetinr;s with City Staff and property OWl1erB (In a m;JnthIy
basis, or as requested by the City, not to exceed twelve meetings during the duration of this
one year contract. This task will also involve general assistance on issues related to project
management and process resolution.
The fee compensation proposal involves compensation at $78,000 for a one year contract.
Additional travel expenses are estimated to be approximately $12,000 for the year, including
trips from Sacramento to Chula Vista and to Washington, D.C. Such expenses will be
reimbursed as they occur. The total cost for the contract is $90,000.
As stated above, the purpose of retaining the consultant is to obtain funding for transportation
related projects, from sources not readily available to the City. At this point, it is impossible
even speculate as to the amount of funding that the consultant may develop, but based on
discussions with staff from other agencies, all of the agencies are very pleased with the results,
and continue to retain the consultants. Staff believes, as do the property owners, that the ~st
of this contract is money well invested.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The contract is initially for a period of one year, with extension options.
If the rust year produces satisfactory results, staff may recommend that the contract be renewed
on a yearly basis for a maximum of three years. At the hearing in November (on the TOIF
update), staff proposed that the "administration" component of the TOIF be increased by 1%
(from 4% to S%) to provide sufficient funds for such a consultant. The additional 1%
component is proposed to remain in effect for as long as it is necessary to provide for this type
of consultant.
The CIP did not include funds for this service, however, there are sufficient funds available
in the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund. These funds should be appropriated to
account 621-6212. As the consultant is successful in completing the scope of work, additional
funding beyond that already available to the City for Transportation DIF and SR-12S projects
will be made available. This will lower the cost of both the TOIF and SR-12S DIF fees by
an unknown amount.
CST:HX.cD1
WPC lL~\AClENDA\DJSMrIH
g - ( I
-
-
'--'
.
e)(hi'bi+ B
.'
RESOLUTION NO.1 7484
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH D. J. SMITH
ASSOCIATES FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE AND APPRO~RIATING .90,000 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND '
WHEREAS, when Council held the public hearing on the proposed update for the
Transporation Development Impact Fee Program in November 1993, several of the property
owners recommended that the City retain a consultant with axpertise in identifying and
obtaining supplemental sources of funding for transportation facilitie.s; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of this suggestion, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)
for such a consultant; and,
WHEREAS, four firms submitted proposals as follows:
BSI Consultants, Inc.
. 90,000
75,000
21,780
D. J. Smith Associates
De Leon, Cather & Company
Linda Morshed Associates
168,000
WHEREAS, all four proposing teams were interviewed by a committee consisting of
City staff (Public Works Director John Lippitt, City Engineer Cliff Swanson, and Senior Civil
Engineer Steve Thomas) and the property owners (Baldwin, EastLake, McMillin and Sunbow);
and,
WHEREAS, the committee determined that the firms of D. J. Smith Associates and
Morshed and Associates were highly qualified and requested clarification of the proposals;
and,
WHEREAS, the nature of the clarification was to allow the proposing firms to eliminate
or refine aspects of the proposals that staff considered unnecessary or to eliminate
components that City staff could provide (engineering services for example); and,
WHEREAS, ta king local experience, local familiarity nocal presence and track record into
consideration, the consensus of the Committee recommended that the contract be negotiated
with O. J. Smith Associates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve an agreement with D. J. Smith Associates for advocacy and planning
services on connection with the Transportation Development Impact Fee, known as document
Cf-I2-
ftesolLfLion No. 17484
. Page 2
l.
III. ,~
\.....J i
.1
number C094-o65, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT fURTHER RESOL VEO that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said document for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT fURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of .90,000 is hereby appropriated from the
Transportation Development fee fund into Account 621-6212:- 5..2c: ,
ohn P. Lippitt ."
irector of Public Works
Approved as to for
I
~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
JJ
Presented by
.!
..
q-l~
.
\. ,
w,__
(
Resolution No.1 7484
.' Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 17th day of May, 1994, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: fox, Honon, Moore, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Rindone
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
...J~~~
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
r-
'. \ \" \ -4
,\.'C '- ~'-~'......\:. 1/ \J....,\
Vicki C. Soderquist, ty City Clerk
STATE.OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17484 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by
the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17th day of
May, 1994.
Executed this 17th day of May, 1994.
C1-/4
- This Page Blank-
I
\.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
~ \\ /)
eXH(BIT." C
Item-.J:t q
Meeting Date 8/8/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution \' qq 5' Approving an agreement with Smith & Kempton for
advocacy and planning serviCes in connection with transportation facilities
and the Eastern Chula Vista Strategic Plan and appropriating $81,000
from the Transportation Development Impact F~ Fund .
Director of Public wor~
City Manager (4!5ths Vote: Yes..x..No-->
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEVVED BY:
On May 17, 1994, the City Council approved an agreement with D.J. Smith and Associates for
advocacy and planning services in connection with the Transportation Development Impact Fee
program. The advocacy and planning services were contracted for as a result of the
recommendation of the major property owners w~o are responsible for the fee as they build in
eastern Chula Vista. As a result of that contract, the consultant, who has changed the name of
the fIrm to Smith & Kempton, prepared an East Chula Vista Strategic Plan which set out a
strategy for completing the transportation improvements in the eastern area of the City. The
developers have requested that an agreement be entered into to provide the necessary consulting
services to undertake some of the next steps identified in the strategic plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving an agreement with
Smith & Kempton, authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement, and appropriating funds for
the contract.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
When Council held the public hearing on the proposed update for the Transportation
Development Impact Fee program (TransDIF) in November, 1993, several of the property
owners recommended that the City set up a "Developers Advisory Committee" to work closely
with staff on administration of the TransDIF and to provide more input. They also
recommended that the City retain a consultant with expertise in identifying and obmining
supplemental sources of funding for transportation facilities. As a result, staff issued a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for such a consultant and the contract was awarded to D. J. Smith in May
of 1994. Attached is a copy of the agenda statement and resC?lution from that meeting as
Exhibits A and B. The scope of work under that contract, which is now completed, included
four tasks. Those tasks were:
1) existing plan/program review to allow consultant to fully understand Chula .Vista's
transportation expectations and needs.
2) develop a strategy (Strategic Plan) for providing the required improvements for the
eastern territories of Chula Vista. The strategic plan defmed the network of required
transportation improvements; cost estimates for all projects; an implementation schedule
Cf-Is
Page 2, Item t\- C)
Mee~ Date 8/8/95
reflecting construction needs, phasing requirements and available funding; and identifying
potential additional-funding for the required improvements.
l_
3) undertaking an advocacy effort to identify and secure alternative sources of funding for
transportation improvements.
-.J 4) ongoing involvement in transportation issues - in the South Bay, including toll road
progress and issues, Otay Mesa and NAFTA issues as they relate to Chula Vista, and
other transportation developments in the South Bay as they relate to Chula Vista.
In recognition that some of the tasks to be undertaken and strategic plan alternatives which
would be developed, would require a multi-year program, the contract with D. J. Smith provided
that by mutual agreement the contract may be modified to provide for additional services
extending past the initial 12 month period.
As indicated, the Strategic Plan, which identifies short and long term tasks to assure completion
of the needed transportation facilities, is complete. The Strategic Plan included a separate
Action Plan which summarized implementation efforts needed to be undertaken. City staff and
the Developers Advisory Committee worked closely with the consultant on the strategic plan and
action plan and identified three specific tasks which the Committee believed were the highest
priority and should be undertaken in fIScal year 95/96. Those tasks are:
1) Pursue a Federal Demonstration Project for Orange Avenue,
2) Provide comprehensive program management for expedited implementation of the I-80S
Interchanges, and
3) Assure that SR-125 retains sales tax (fransnet) funding and pursue other state/federal
funding options. .
Staff and the Developers Advisory Committee discussed the work to be done and whether or not
it could be done by existing City staff. Both tasks 1 and 3 require extensive political contacts
and knowledge of the Federal process for obtaining funds for demonstration projects. Staff does
not have that type of knowledge, although certain technical information, which is needed for the
submittal, can and will be supplied by staff. Staff also looked into the possibility of using our
existing legislative advocates, Advocation Inc., for these efforts. In discussions with them they
concurred with the developers that the frrm of Smith & Kempton had more experience in
transportation related areas necessary for these tasks. Further, the developers wanted someone
with this specific transportation experience who could work on developing the whole
transportation program as Smith & Kempton is capable of doing. Advocation, Inc. indicated a
willingness to assist with contacts as needed.
On task 3, the Developers Advisory Committee indicated that, due to the importance of these
items to their continued development in the eastern area of the City, this process should be
expedited. With the amount of work to be done to manage the RFP process for Engineering
services to complete the interchange studies and process the studies through CalTrans, staff
could not complete the effort within the time frames requested by the developers. In addition,
the amount of time and effort to process the studies through CalTrans and to obtain design
C{-I (p-
l
Page 3, Item.::ll ~
Meeting Date 8/8/95
exceptions from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) added to the need for someone
other than staff to manage the process.
Staff also looked at the desirability to go through a separate RFP process to select the project
manager. This process would have taken considerable time and the Developers Advisory
Ccmmittee felt that such a delay would be unacceptable: especially when Smith & Kempton
--.J developed the action plan, were familiar with the City's needs, had extensive experience in this
area, had been selected through the RFP process and the original contract anticipated such an
extension.
Last, staff looked at the possibility of requiring the developers to contract directly for this work
without going through the City. As indicated above, when the Transportation DIF was revised
in November, 1993, the developers made certain requests based on meetings they held among
themselves under the auspices of the Construction Industry Federation. Those meetings did not
produce a single acceptable solution to the issues. They did, however, serve to clarify the
unresolved issues and to produce three suggestions which were incorporated into the TransDIF
update. One of these was that the City retain a consultant with expertise in identifying
alternative funding sources and fmding ways to expedite funding. Because they were unable to
work out a mutually acceptable method of performing these tasks without going through the
City, the developers proposed that the consultant be paid from the TransDIF support funds.
They concurred in the increase to the Admini!lltrative fee as the only acceptable method of
equitably spreading the costs.
Based on that decision, City staff, with the support and assistance of the property owners
steering committee, negotiated a scope of work and contract with Smith & Kempton. D. J.
Smith & Associates recently changed the name of the fIrm to Smith & Kempton. Other than the
name change, there is no other change in the fIrm in so far as it affects the work with the City
of Chula Vista. City staff and the developers are dealing with the same three people as when
the fIrm was D. J. Smith & Associates. City staff and the property owners believe that it is
appropriate to extend this contract because the previous work was satisfactory and the fum has
extensive knowledge of the action plan and the work needed. In addition, the same reasons the
fIrm was initially selected are still true.
The scope of work for the proposed contract contains three major components toward the goal
of obtaining supplemental funding for transportation projects and for assuring construction of
the critical freeway interchange projects needed to provided the necessary circulation system
capacity. One additional component, which is spread over the three tasks, is a specifIed
coordination process to insure the tasks are carried out in a timely manner.
Task 1. Federal Demonstration PrOlect for Oranee Avenue
The ultimate purpose of this task is to obtain Federal funding to construct Orange Avenue in
order to lower the cost of completing the needed TransDIF streets and, consequently, lower the._
TransDIF fee. This task involves the consultant taking the lead in pursuing the inclusion of the
Orange Avenue project from the TransDIF as a demonstration project in the National Highway
System (NHS) legislation being considered in Washington D. C. The identifIcation of this project
in the NHS legislation will not result in a direct allocation of funds for the project. It will,
however, put the project "in line" for consideration in subsequent, annual appropriations
legislation at such time as Congress decides to fund demonstration projects.
t1- I '1
Page 4, Item if:.- C}
Meeting Date 8/8/95
Even though it is not anticipated that any Federal funds could be allocated to this project this
fIScal year, there is a considerable amount of work needed to initiate the process and get it
before our Legislators to get their support. This task anticipates only the fIrst years work in
attempting to obtain this funding and would need to be extended in subsequent years depending
on support or lack of support from our Federal Legislators. These steps include meetings with
Congre~siona1 representatives, preparation of a project description and map, complete a project
-J description package for submission to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
tracking of possible bills, coordinating testimony and preparation of presentation materials.
Long range activities, which would occur beyond the passage of the NHS bill and the actions
of the Appropraitions Committee through 1996. The budget for this task is $18,000 and is to
be paid as a fIxed fee on a monthly basis.
(
'...... -
Task 2. Pr02ram Mana2ement for 1-805 Intercban~es.
This task is to provide the necessary services to manage the initial project development activities
associated with interchange improvements planned on 1-805 at Telegraph Canyon Road, Palomar
Street, and Orange Avenue. These projects are the Developers Advisory Committee's highest
priority in order to provide the necesary highway capacity to permit continued growth.
Since these locations are under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, their procedures need to be followed
in order to construct the necessary improvements. These procedures require the preparation of
a Project Study Report (PSR) and a Project Report (PR). These documents, which can be
combined under CalTrans' regulations, includes an environmental document and other
information which allows these projects to move into the fInal design stage. The CIP budget
includes project TF147, 1-805 Project Study Report. This project was put in the CIP budget to
provide mapping and trip forecasting to CalTrans to prepare a project study report for the
ultimate improvements at several interchanges on 1-805. Much of the mapping work has been
completed and provided to CalTrans. However, subsequently, the Governor has mandated cuts
to CalTrans' staffmg and, as a result, they have informed us that, if we are still interested in the
projects, we need to complete the required reports as a City project.
The Developers Advisory Committee believes that these may be some of the most critical
remaining links in the circulation system and that the Caltrans PSRlPR procedure is critical.
However, because of past diffIculties in working with CalTrans on items like this and the City's
own resources, staff does not believe we can efficiently undertake these efforts without
assistance. Therefore, this task was proposed by staff and the Committee to have Smith &
Kempton act as an extension of, and assist, staff. Under this item they will assist in the
pr~paration of the RFP's, selection of a Consulting Engineering fInn, preparation of draft agenda
st,::.tements, and coordination between the City, consultants and CalTrans. Included in this item
is the need to obtain design exceptions to pennit a half diamond interchange (on and off ramps
to the north only) at Palomar Street which CalTrans is opposing.
The consultant is particularly suited to this task. Mr. Will Kempton, partner, was formerly
Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority responsible for putting together
a public-private partnership involving CalTrans and consulting engineers to accelerate delivery
of project work on several highways under CalTrans' jurisdiction funded with a bond issue
approved by S,anta Clara County voters. He has also been employed in high level positions with
CalTrans headquarters.
t1-l<6
Page 5, Item tt- ~
Mee~ Date 8/8/95
The budget proposal for this task is $109,600 and includes 13 sub-tasks. These sub tasks, which
are either done directly by the team or are managed/facilitated by them, are:
a. Refme Project development approach
b. Draft traffic report
c. Preparation of RFQIRFP
d. Final traffic report
e. Selection of consultants
f. Technical studies for PSRlPR
g. Draft PSRlPR
h. Palomar Interchange - draft conceptual approval report (CAR)
i. Draft environmental document for PSRlRPs
j. Palomar interchange - fmal CAR
k. Palomar interchange - draft PSR
1. Final PSRlPRs
m. Draft fesign exceptions - Palomar interchange
("
The work is to be paid as a fixed fee based on a monthly basis.
Task 3. SR-125 Project Advocacy
This task is for the consultants to monitor pending state and federal legislation for any funding
opportunities that may arise through new legislation and to be available to facilitate advocacy
efforts being taken by the developer advisory committee related to the implementation of SR-125
from SR-94 to the Otay Mesa Border Crossing. The developer advisory committee efforts are
occurring separately from the consultants work program and involves a wide variety of entities
to support obtaining local funding. The Smith & Kempton team will be available to facilitate
these advocacy efforts when coordination is needed with state level agencies and/or elected
officials.
The budget proposal for this task is $26,400 and is to be paid as a fixed fee on a monthly basis.
The total projected cost of the contract is $154,000 broken down as described above plus an
additional $12,000 for travel expenses. The 95/96 budget for the TransDIF anticipated
extending this contract and included $85,000. However, this amount was included in the budget
request before the Strategic Plan was completed and the developers had an ability to review the
work accomplished. Subsequently they have completed that review, discussed their proposed
priorities with City staff and the consultant. After the tasks were identified and the contract
negotiated the amount now totals $166,000. Therefore, an additional $81,000 is required to fund
the proposed agreement.
One of the purposes of this contract is to begin the process of obtaining funding for
transportation related projects from sources not readily available to the City. At this point it is
impossible even to speculate as to the amount of funding that the conSultant may develop.
However, staff and the developers believe that this contract is money well invested toward
completion of critical links in the system and in efforts to position the City to receive additional
outside funding.
Because the work tasks are fluid and, with the exception of only a few subtasks within Task 2,
have no defmitive endproduct, it is structured as a phased (by each of the three tasks) fixed fee
&1-1 q
\~
Page 6, Item tt ~
M~ting Date 8/8/95
contract payable in twelve equal monthly installments. This is similar to the retainer type pay
arrangements with Advocation. Inc. for similar type services.
As a result of the twelve equal monthly payments.. if the consultants workload in the early part
of the contract period is less than 1I12th in each month of the total work to be done. they could
be paid a disproportionately high share; of the total payment relative to work completed. If the
-..J consultant were then to default on the contract. we would have paid more proportionately in
dollars than we received in services. In order to minimize this risk the contract contains
language that requires the consultant to fue a monthly statement of services performed which
will be reviewed by staff and the Developers Advisory Committee. If there are concerns over
the lack of performance upon review of these statements. the contract contains provisions to
terminate the agreement with a thirty day notice.
FISCAL IMPACT: The contract is proposed to extend for one year. with an extension option
for one a(lditional year in line with the original contract. Smith and Kempton have been paid
$82.788.29 for their first year services.
When the TransDIF was updated in November. 1993. it included an increase in the
"administration" component from 4% to 5 % to provide sufficient funds for the consultant. The
additional 1 % component is proposed to remain in effect for as long as necessary to provide this
type of consultant.
The 1995/96 budget included $85.000 for this item. The total recommended contract is
$166.000 requiring an additional $81.000. There are sufficient funds available in the
Transportation Development Impact Fee fund. These funds should be appropriated to fund 621.
From January 1. 1994 when the additional 1 % fee went into effect. the City has collected
approximately $15.040 representing 115 of the administrative portion of the TransDIF fees
collected (1 % of 5%). However. the collection of the total administrative fee is sufficient to
provide the funds necessary to fmance this agreement. The additional 1 % would need to stay
in effect as long as the expenditures remain higher than the actual collections. The total of the
TransDIF is approximately $85 million and the 1 % total would be $850.000. Thus. over the
life of the DIF the full amount is available to offset these expenditures.
As the consultant is successful in obtaining additional funding beyond that already available to
the City. the cost of both the TransDIF and Interim SR-125 Facility DIF will be decreased by
an unknown amount.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Agenda Statement S/I7/94
Exhibit B - Resolution 17484
Exhibit C - Draft Action Plan elated March 23. 1995
BX~7
lIl:\bamc\qiDecr\a8eada \dj1lDlfb.cb.
Cl- 20
........;;:..::.~ '~........~...I,.- ~~~-. ~'" .~.:..".
'If"'~'
"...-....--...............-----..- -.. ~.~.-
.
\, jJ'.
txt-\rBfT D
RESOLUTION NO. 17995
H X., 037
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH SMITH & KEMPTON
FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN CONNECTION
WITH TRANSPORTATION' FACILITIES AND THE. EASTERN
CHULA VISTA STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPROPRIATING
$81,000 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE FUND
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994, the City Council approved an agreement with
D.J. Smith and Associates for advocacy and planning services in connection with the
Transportation Development Impact Fee program; and
WHEREAS, the advocacy and planning services were contracted for as a result
of the recommendation of the major property owners who are responsibl~ for the fee as they
build in eastern Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, as a result of that contract, the consultant, who has changed the
name of the firm to Smith & Kempton, prepared an East Chula Vista Strategic Plan which set
out a strategy for completing the transportation improvements in the eastern area of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the developers have requested that an agreement be entered into
to provide the necessary consulting services to undertake some of the next steps identified
in the strategic plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
doe~ hereby approve an agreement with Smith & Kempton for advocacy and planning services
in connection with transportation facilities and the Eastern Chula Vista Strategic Plan. A copy
of the Agreement is on file in the office of the City Clerk known as Document No. C095-128.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $81 ,000 is hereby appropriated from the
Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund and trans rred to Acc t 621-6212.
n P. Lippitt
ector of Public Works
~
Presented by
-- ;;-------
q-2-'
;...l<.".........,~.;,~-,.,
""""-~....~~---
Resolution No. 17995
Page 2
.
.
- '~"'''''.'''__ihIIIoIii''I,Ift~\...
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 8th day of August, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla,'Rindone, Horton
NA YES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Council members: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
-dI~~
Shi y Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SSe
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. 17995 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 8th day of August,
1995.
Executed this 8th day of August, 1995.
g- 2 L-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
\\_ / J
.b-x H I BIT t::
ITEM TITLE:
IteEn ,4:r C)
Meeting Date 1/23/96
Resolution I g /89 Approving first amended agreement with Smith and
Kempton for transportation consulting services and appropriating an
additional $20,000 from the T~portation Development Impact Fee fund
Director of Public of wor~
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes-X- No->
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On August 8, 1995 the City entered into an agreement with Smith and Kempton to provide
transportation consulting services in the form of program management and advocacy services. The
advocacy services portion did not include a substantial effort related to State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) which is proposed to include funds for SR-125. It has become.
apparent to staff that, due to competition for STIP funding, there is a need for the City to be more
proactive in assuring funding and clearances for the SR-125 facility, since it is vital to the orderly
development of the overall Chula Vista Transportation system. The proposed amendment to the
contract will allow Smith and Kempton to assist the City in this regard.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution appropriating funds and approving
the amendment to the agreement with Smith and Kempton
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS: N/A
DISCUSSION:
On August 8, 1995 the City entered into an agreement with Smith and Kempton to provide
transportation consulting services. The major components of that contract involved Smith and
Kempton's effort on behalf of the City:
1. To pursue funding of a Federal Demonstration Project for Construction of Orange
Avenue.
2. Provide comprehensive program management for planning and implementation of
three I-80S Interchanges.
3. Assure that SR-125 retains sales tax (fransnet) funding and pursue other federal/state
funding options.
Item 3 of the effort did not anticipate a substantial effort on other sources of funding, however
recent events have changed the environment for funding. Staff is now aware of the opportunity to
secure substantial funding for the SR-125 facility in the State Transportation Improvement Plan
(STIP). Staff has concluded that SR-125 is an essential facility in the orderly growth and
development of Chula Vista. Studies and reports analyzing the City transportation system estimate
that the City will have no remaining transportation capacity beyond approximately 2007.
C1- 2~
Page 2, Item ffr CJ
Meeting Date 1/23/96
The State Transportation Improvement Prov:ram (STIP)
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) updates the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) every two years. The 1996 STIP process began in the summer of 1995, with
requests by the CTC for updated programming information from Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies (RTP A) throughout the State and Caltrans. The STIP process is an iterative one which
began in September of 1995, allowing several opportunities for adjustment b.~ed on reaction from
CTC staff. The process will be completed in March of 1996 with the adoption of a new STIP.
The STIP process has traditionally been an opportunity for RTPA's and Caltrans to amend projects
that are already in the program and add new projects. A projected shortfall in the State Highway
Account has resulted in the need for the eTe to reduce the 1996 STIP by 10 to 20 percent. Not
only will this require that no new projects be added in the 1996 STIP, but the eTC has directed the
RTPA's to prioritize t.;e remaining projects identified in their 1994 STIP and anticipate that project
deletions would occur for projects in the bottom 10 to 25 percent by dollar value. This will allow
the eTe to delete an estimated $500-770 million of projects state-wide from the 1994 STIP.
Despite these extraordinary circumstances, Caltrans has proposed the addition of $276 million in
new NAFT A-related projects in the 1996 STIP. Caltrans has identified these potential additions to
the 1996 STIP as "new projects with Statewide significance". This includes $125 million for SR-
125 and $17 ~illion for Otay Mesa Road in San Diego County. If the SR-125 toll road project is
canceled, it is likely that the $125 Million would be redirected to fund SR-905. Should the CTe
decide to include these new NAPT A-related projects in the 1996 STIP, it would require the deletion
or delay of an equivalent value of currently programmed projects. Most of the projects that would
be deleted or delayed to allow for the new NAFT A-related projects are located in Los Angeles and
Orange County.
The proposal by Caltrans to fund $276 million in NAFTA-related projects was discussed in depth
~t a Border Transportation Summit in Otay Mesa on December 8, 1995. Summit participants
included federal, state, and local elected officials impacted by the border infrastructure crisis. Mayor
Horton testified at this summit. While the Summit participants supported the proposal to provide
$276 million in new STIP funds for the NAFTA-related projects, concern was raised over why
Caltrans did not propose to program any funds to SR-905 in the 1996 sm. Based on CaltranS'
response that the segment ofSR-125 proposed for ftmding (e.g., north of the toll road project to SR-
94) had a much higher level of project readiness than SR-905 which makes it a stronger candidate
for funding, the participants agreed unanimously to support the sm recommendations. CaltranS
is continuing to work with advocates for SR-905, however, to respond to their desires to provide
some initial funding in the 1996 STIP for the project.
Based on feedback received by CTG staff on the proposal to add these NAFT A-related projects to
the sm, it is anticipated that there will be significant opposition at upcoming CTC hearings. This
includes two hearings in January and one hearing m March at which the CTC will take testimony
on the 1996 STIP.
q - ?-tf
Page 3, Item ffJ ~
Meeting Date 1/23/96
The Contract Work Profram
The work program proposed to be added to the existing Smith and Kempton contract outlines a
focused advocacy effort designed to support the provision of new funding for NAFT A-related
projects in the 1996 STIP. The effort involves: .
1. Develop a strategy for both the public hearings and subsequent meetings with CTC
Staff and individual commissioners, to in.clude presentations at the CTC hearings.
2. Coordinate the actual presentations, including development of coordinated testimony
to establish the overall need for this NAFT A funding
3. Provide ongoing advocacy by monitoring the STIP process with CTC staff and
evaluating the impact of San Diego region testimony and other influencing factors
In the development of CTC staff recommendations.
4. Attend the March, 1996 adoption hearings to monitor potential last minute events.
or changes.
The proposed additional budget for this effort is $20,000. Should the effort be successful, Chula
Vista could realize the benefit of $125 Million in needed transportation facility. Council must
appropriate the funds. There are sufficient funds in the Transportation Development Impact Fee
Account to fund this project. Staffhas met with the major property owners, and they concur with
the need for this effort, and that it is an appropriate expenditure from the TransDIF.
The current Smith and Kempton contract is for $ 166,000. This amendment will raise the value of
the contract to $ 186,000. Smith and Kempton had a previous contract with the City to develop a
strategic plan for transportation facilities. This contract, valued at $90,000 was completed in
approximately June, 1995.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost of the program is an additional $20,000 over the original contract
price. The source of funds is the TransDIF. The TransDIF account has sufficient funds available
to finance this amendment. The funds should be appropriated to account number 621-6212-5201.
This is the account used to pay the existing contract with Smith and Kempton. Staff costs associated
with administration of the contract will be minim~].
F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\SM_K_AGR.CST
File: 0730-9S HX"()37
0'~ '2~
- This Page Blank -
.
\'.j/
ExHIDtT F
RESOLUTION NO. 18189
0~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING FIRST AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH SMITH
& KEMPTON FOR TRANSPO"RTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
AND APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $20,000 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND.
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1995, the City entered into an agreement with Smith and
Kempton to provide transportation consulting services in the form of program management
and advocacy services; and
WHEREAS, the advocacy services portion did not include a substantial effort related
to State Transportation Improvement Program (STIPl which is proposed to include funds for
SR-125; and
WHEREAS, it has become apparent to staff that, due to competition for STIP funding,
there is a need for the City to be more proactive in assuring funding and clearances for the
5-125 facility, since it is vital to the orderly development of the overall Chula Vista
Transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to be contract will allow Smith and Kempton to
assist the City in this regard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve the First Amended Agreement with Smith & Kempton for transportation
consulting services, a copy of the Amendment is on file in the office of the City Clerk as
Document No. C096-009.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $20,000 is hereby appropriated from the
Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund and transferred to Account 621-6212-5201.
Presented by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~!~
J~n P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
q - 2(p
It
.
Resolution 18189
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 23rd day of January, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Alevy, Moot, Rindone, Horton
NA YES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Padilla
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
ATTEST:
!:::f. ~h~k
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No.1 8189 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of January,
1996.
Executed this 23rd day of January, 1996.
()~
. Authelet, City Clerk
q - 2'1
SECOND AMENDMENT
AND RESTATEMENT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
SMITH & KEMPTON
FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated O~/ ~ /$?9'0 for the purposes of
reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise
specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit
A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3,
and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business
form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone
numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to
the following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, on May 17, 1994, Consultant entered into a one year contract with City dated
May 17, 1994 in response to a Request for Proposals to provide Transportation Consulting
Services, and
Whereas, the initial contract was in response to a Request for Proposals for such a
consultant; and
Whereas, Consultant has worked with City and a developers committee to formulate a
transportation strategic plan; and
Whereas, The work under the initial contract is now completed and developers and City
wish to proceed with the next phase of the contemplated work; and
Whereas, That phase of work was begun under the agreements approved by Resolution
17995 on 8/8/95 and amended by Resolution 18189 On January 23,1996; and
Whereas, The work approved by Resolutions 17995 and 18189 has not all been complete
due to the length of time it has taken to process the work and the scope of work required by
CalTrans; and
Whereas, Consultant has a unique knowledge and understanding of the work remaining
to be accomplished; and
Whereas, The work needs to be complete in order to implement the Transportation
Development Impact Fee Program; and
Whereas, Additional SR-125 advocacy efforts are desired after obtaining STIP Funds for
SR-125 Sweetwater Portion; and
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic\ 1864.96
Page 1
(>J, J~ t;'~Y
~'6 1-
Whereas, developers and City have reviewed proposal from Consultant for continuation
of the work; and
Whereas, City staff has determined the proposal to be responsible and has negotiated an
agreement based on the proposal; and
Whereas, it would be disruptive and inefficient to follow the consultant selection process
to obtain another consultant to perform the tasks called for in this Second Amendment; and
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City
within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement;
OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS PAGES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph
7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this
agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and
Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined
Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this
Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City
and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic \ 1864.96
~ (C?_ j'
Page 2
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional
Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by
Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in
the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise
agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
2. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services
or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
A. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the
following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies
of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better,
or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage
in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City
and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant
in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless
Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
B. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance
demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least
thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic \ 1864.96
Page 3
~
,5)- / U
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance
Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall
be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
3. Security for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the
City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager
or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance
Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City
an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to
the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms
of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent
to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark
in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then
Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with
Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
4. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the
Defmed Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic\ 1864.96
Page 4
~ C;'~//
the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and
records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to
provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with
the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after
authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's
performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth
in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a
"checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set
forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses
as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety
of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper,
and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C)
to be charged upon making such payment.
5 . Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent
them in the routine administration of this agreement.
6. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof.
7 . Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance.
The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of
the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the
consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic\ 1864.96
Page 5
~
5: -/2-
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by
the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to
the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the
effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless
it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
8. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant
is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest
and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and
represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by
the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest
for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
M: Ihomelengineerl Trafficl 1864.96
Page 6
,~
5 ---I \
-~~
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter
of the Defmed Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of
any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"),
other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant
promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this
Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest
within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City .
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for
any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City .
9. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant,
or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work
covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole
willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include
any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents,
or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not.
Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such
suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants'
indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
Consultant.
10. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants,
agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof
at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials
prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and
Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic\ 1864.96
Page 7
~ 7~/1
completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of
Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by
Consultant's breach.
11. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to
City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions,
Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein
is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
12. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and
unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided
in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such
termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
13. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment
or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of
the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants
identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants" .
14. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures,
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and
exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under
this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the
United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have
unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public
Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such re-
ports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement.
15. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic \ 1864.96
~
, ~
7.'--/~~
Page 8
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are,
for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be
an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees
are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation
benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal
income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible
for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
16. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless
a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as
same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this
reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the
implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
17. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim,
including costs and attorney's fees.
18. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defmed Services, Consultant shall include,
or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar
amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document.
19. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act
as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals
is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or
salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are
licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
M:\home\engineer\Traffic\l864.96 Page 9
~ 9~/t
20. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall
be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
A. Entire Agreement-Supersedes Previous Agreements
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified,
waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which
enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. This agreement supersedes the
original contract approved by Resolution 17995 and the First Amendment approved by Resolution
18189.
B. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it
has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and
that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
c. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable,
the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
M:\home\engineer\Traffic\1864.96 Page 10
~ 5'//7
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO SECOND AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
SMITH & KEMPTON
FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating
that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms:
Dated:
,19_
City of Chula Vista
By:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Ann Moore, Interim City Attorney
Dated:
,19_
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A
( ) Exhibit B
M: \home\engineer\ Traffic\ 1864.96
~
5' --- //;(
Page 11
EXHIBIT A
TO SECOND AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
SMITH & KEMPTON
1. Effective Date of Agreement: August 1,1996
2. City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
() Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
( )
Other:
form]
, a [insert business
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant: Smith & Kempton
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
(X) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560
Sacramento, CA 95814
Voice Phone (916) 446-5508
Fax Phone (916) 446-1499
() - ~ c;)~ Ie.)
~}-I ( I /
M: \HOME\ENGINEER \ TRAFFIC\1865B. 96
7. General Duties:
Consultant will take the lead role in pursuing State and federal funds for the Orange
A venue project. Consultant will also take a lead role in managing the initial project
development activities associated with interchange improvements planned on I-80S at
Telegraph Canyon Road, Palomar Street, and Orange A venue. Consultant will further
address implimentation issues for the SR-125 facility.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
a. Detailed Scope of Work:
Task 1 1-805 Program Management
Smith & Kempton will take a lead role in managing the completion of the following
project development activities associated with interchange improvements planned
on 1-805 at Telegraph Canyon Road, Palomar Street, and Orange Avenue.
· Telegraph Canyon Road: Encroachment permit or PSR/PR documents
Orange Avenue: PSR/PR documents
· Palomar Street: PSR documents
Preliminary studies conducted by the Rick Engineering team on the Telegraph
Canyon Road interchange at 1-805 have indicated that an encroachment permit
process is appropriate, allowing for the accelerated completion of this process.
Smith & Kempton will manage the work to be completed by Rick Engineering either
through completion of the encroachment permit process or through completion of
the PSR/PR document as appropriate.
Smith & Kempton will oversee the preparation of combined Project Study
Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) documents for the I-80S/Orange Avenue project.
The PSR/PR document includes an environmental document (Le., typically a
mitigated negative declaration, unless significant environmental impacts are
involved), allowing these better-defined projects to move directly into the final
design stage upon completion.
For the I-80S/Palomar Street interchange, Smith & Kempton will oversee
preparation of both an Access Approval Report (MR) and a Project Study Report
(PSR) for this interchange. Smith & Kempton will oversee the preparation of an
MR, which is designed to provide an up-front review of the interchange concept by
FHWA and Caltrans, prior to the initiation of a PSR. Much of the work prepared for
the MR will be directly translated in the PSR.
Should an acceptable interchange configuration not be approved by FHWA in the
MR, Smith & Kempton will terminate activities on Milestone 2 - the preperation of
a Project Study Report.
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\ TRAFFIC\1865B.96
SMITH & KEMPTON
Page 2
~ 9~:-2-v
The preparation of a AAR and PSR will allow for the selection of a preferred
interchange configuration at a more conceptual level prior to initiation of the more
detailed technical studies that are required at the Project Report stage. Smith &
Kempton will take the lead in the following activities related to the preparation of
encroachment permit, PSR/PR and PSR documents.
· Development of Implementation Team and Developer Advisory Committee
meeting schedules,
Preparation of agenda statements,
Oversight of consultant work products and schedules,
· Coordination between City, Consultants, and Caltrans, and
Troubleshooting problems and/or project constraints.
Task 2 Advocacy Services
Part A Pursue State or Federal Funding for Oranoe Avenue
The objective of this advocacy effort is to pursue $2.55-5.1 million in funding for
construction of Olympic Parkway (Orange Avenue) between the Olympic Training
Center (OTC) and Hunte Parkway.
The Smith & Kempton team will monitor and respond to regional, state, and federal
funding opportunities that may be present in the next year. These include:
. Federal demonstration grant through ISTEA reauthorization
· Mid-cycle STIP programming focused on "on-the-shelf' projects
· 1998 STIP programming
Should SB 1505 (Kopp) addressing STIP reform pass, this project could compete
for two new funding categories: the "regional choice" and the "economic
development" programs. The regional choice program, which would encompass
80% of the available transportation funding provided by the state, would be
available for virtually all project categories. As the title suggests, regional choice
projects would be selected by SANDAG. As the bill is currently structured, the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) would have discretion over 10 percent
of the regional choice program (e.g., 8% of the total funding available), but could
only identify replacement projects that are located on the National Highway System.
The economic development program, which would encompass 5% of the available
transportation funds, would be administered by the Secretary of Business,
Transportation & Housing. Eligible projects are those that would foster economic
development.
Part B: Address Implementation Issues Relative to SR-125 Toll Road
The Smith & Kempton team will take the lead in providing a comprehensive
approach to implementation issues of concern to the City of Chula Vista and the
Developer Advisory Committee relative to the SR-125 toll road. The following
issues regarding the implementation of the SR 125 project are among those that will
be addressed:
~
9 ----2- /
I ~
M: \HOME\ENGINEER \ TRAFFIC\ 1865B. 96
· How phasing or segmenting affect the adjacent street system, phasing of local
development, etc.,
. The level of tolls and toll"credits" for local residents,
· Whether and how congestion pricing will be applied,
· How, when, and under what terms and conditions the right-of-way will be
conveyed by local developers, and
. The details of specific interchange design issues.
The Smith & Kempton team will work with City staff, the Developer Advisory
Committee, and CTV to document outstanding implementation issues, provide
recommendations on their resolution, and carry out those recommendations where
appropriate. With respect to troubleshooting activities, Smith & Kempton will attend
regular meetings to monitor the status of the project and provide assistance as
needed. The Smith & Kempton team will also work with CTV to support their efforts
for obtaining a credit guarantee through either federal, state, regional, or local
funding mechanisms.
Coordination Process
Two standard meeting dates each month are established as part of this contract.
The suggested dates and meeting purposes are summarized below.
· 2nd Friday of each Month:
1. Monthly Project Development Team meetings for all three 1-805
interchanges (10:30 AM, 1 :00 PM, 2:30 PM)
2. Lunch Briefings as necessary
· 4th Friday of each Month:
1. Monthly Progress Meeting
2. Meetings on Funding Advocacy Issues
3. Follow-up focused troubleshooting meetings on 1-805 interchanges
4. Attendance at SANDAG Board meetings as necessary
The Smith & Kempton team will coordinate a montWy progress meeting on the
fourth Friday of each month as feasible and/or conference call with City staff and
the Developer Advisory Committee. The team believes that two monthly meeting
dates will be required, at a minimum, to adequately move forward the project
development process for the 1-805 interchange projects. More frequent meetings
may be required, once consultants are selected, in the early stages of the process.
This will be accomplished as needed by setting meetings on the Thursday
preceding the above meeting dates. These regular meetings will be augmented by
special meetings in between for necessary trouble shooting and project advocacy.
M: \HOME\ENGINEER \ TRAFFIC\1865B. 96
SMITH & KEMPTON
Page 4
~
q ~~ /)
I ~
.1/
This coordination process is not considered a separate task, but shall be considered
part of the two tasks included herein.
The Smith & Kempton team will file a monthly statement of services performed
outlining progress on each of the above tasks. Said statement shall be reviewed by
staff and Developer Advisory Committee to determine whether satisfactory
progress has been made on each task. A determination of unsatisfactory progress
may be grounds for termination of this contract under paragraph 10, Termination
of Agreement for Convenience of City, of the agreement.
b. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
() Same as Effective Date of Agreement
(X) Other: August 1,1996
c. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: N/A
d. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
By no later than February 1, 1998
9. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
() Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
() Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: N/A
11. Compensation:
a.
(Not Applicable)
Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
.~
Page 5
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\ TRAFFIC\1865B .96
L) -:2- -;
, /'"
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay
a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth
below:
Single Fixed Fee Amount:
, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable
Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
b.
(X)
Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defmed Services by Consultant as are
separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services,
in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not
commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase,
unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Budget for
activities by work task as indicated below:.
Task
Fee for Said Phase
1. Program management
Interchanges
for
1-805
$60,000 - Payable in 12 equal monthly
installments of $5,000 per months for first
12 month. Then $15,000 Payable in 6 equal
monthly installments of $2,500 per month for
subsequent six months unless project is
completed sooner.
2. SR-125 Project Advocacy
$36,000 - Payable in 6 equal monthly
installments of $6,000 for six months then
$27,000 payable in 6 equal payments of
$4,500 for a subsequent 6 months. Project
maybe extended beyond one year at the
$4,500 monthly rate if funds are available.
~ 9-:2Y'
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFlC\1865B.96 SMITH & KEMPTON
Milestone or Event or Deliverable
Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
TASK 1 (1-805 Program Management)
Completion of the Telegraph Canyon Road
encroachment permit or PSR/PR documents,
the Orange A venue PSR/PR document and $60,000
the Palomar interchange Access Approval
Report
After completion of the Telegraph $15,000
Canyon/Orange Avenue at 1-805 projects
complete the Palomar interchange
PSR/PRdocuments
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
( ) None, the compensation includes all costs.
() Reports, not to exceed $ : Not Applicable (N/ A)
() Copies, not to exceed $ :N/ A
() Travel, not to exceed $ :See Below
() Printing, not to exceed $ :N/A
() Postage, not to exceed $ :N/ A
() Delivery, not to exceed $ : N / A
() Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $ .N/A
(X) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
Transportation/Lodging to and from Sacramento will be compensated on an
actual cost basis for Meals, Lodging and transportation costs.
Transportation/lodging costs not to exceed $20,000.
Cost or Rate
Total contract amount not to exceed $158,000. In addition to the contract
amount, an additional $20,000 may be paid to Consultant for unexpected work
if authorized in writing by the City Engineer.
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Clifford Swanson, City Engineer
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5021
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\ TRAFFIC\ 1865B. 96
SMITH & KEMPTON
~ 7'~)5
Consultant: Will Kempton
Smith & Kempton
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560
Sacramento, CA 95814
14. Liquidated Damages Rate: Not Applicable
( ) $
( ) Other:
per day.
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
() FPPC Filer
() Category No.1. Investments and sources of income.
() Category No.2. Interests in real property.
() Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
() Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or
sale of real property.
() Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services,
supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
() Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
() List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of
Project Property, if any: None
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\ TRAFFIC\ 1865B. 96
SMITH & KEMPTON f,
Page 8
~ .9-2~
16.
(Not Applicable)
Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
Urban Systems Associates
18. Bill Processing:
a. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
( X) Monthly
() Quarterly
() Other: Weekly
b. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
( X) First of the Month
() 15th Day of each Month
() End of the Month
() Other: End of week
c. City's Account Number:
19. Security for Performance ( Not Applicable)
() Performance Bond, $
() Letter of Credit, $
() Other Security:
Type:
Amount: $
() Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the
contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the
City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention
Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention
Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
() Retention Percentage: %
() Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
() Completion of All Consultant Services
() Other:
END EXHIBIT" A"
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\ TRAFFIC\ 1865B. 96
SMITH & KEMPTON
n _ j J r::1.---' 9- ) /
~l / .7--/
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AND RESTATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SMITH &
KEMPTON FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND
THE EASTERN CHULA VISTA STRATEGIC PLAN AND
APPROPRIATING $178,000 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1995, the City Council approved an
agreement with Smith and Kempton to implement steps in the East
Chula vista Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, a significant amount of progress has been made
towards completing the tasks contained in that agreement; and
WHEREAS, not all of the work is complete and therefore an
amendment needs to be approved to complete the tasks begun by the
August 8, 1995 agreement; and
WHEREAS, completion of this work is essential for
implementation of the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
and has been supported by the major developers; and
WHEREAS, the firm of Smith & Kempton have been the
project managers for that 1-805 interchange projects and provided
advocacy services for the City since August of 1995; and
WHEREAS, it would be impractical and disruptive to the
process and inefficient to rebid the scope of work contemplated by
the subject Agreement due to the unique qualificiations of Smith &
Kempton; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has performed well as project
managers and advocates, are highly capable to perform the duties
required of this contract and offer their services at reasonable
rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Second Amendment and
Restatement of the Agreement wi th smi th & Kempton for
transportation consulting services, a copy of the Agreement is on
file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.____.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the recitals
above, and in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.56.070, the
formal Consultant Selection Process is hereby waived for this
contract.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $178,000 is hereby
appropriated from the Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund
621 into Fund 621-6212-5201.
~ 9'-27
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula
vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
C:\rs\Smith&.Kem
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
(), ,J..eX 5!/ 2- ~
_~-I /
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10
Meeting Date 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution ~pproving Cooperative Projects with the County of
San Diego and Appropiating Funds
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public WorkS~_1
REVIEWED BY: City ManageUl:\ 'o~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes-X-No-.J
There are two road projects in the Bonita area that the County of San Diego is processing which
have small portions in the City of Chula Vista. The projects are: 1. chip seal of Sweetwater Road
and 2. construction of a third west bound lane at Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Rd.. The County
has requested City financial participation for the portions of work within city limits.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council Approve the Resolution approving City participation in
the two road projects and expending $5,000 from the unexpended portion of Project STL-230,
Pavement Overlay Program, and appropiating $25,000 from the Traffic Signal Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Chip Seal Project
The County of San Diego Public Works Department is chip sealing several streets in the Bonita
area. Sweetwater Road has been chip sealed between Willow Street and SR-54 except for a small
portion in Chula Vista jurisdiction adjacent to the Optimist House and field. This 1200 ft. section
could be chip sealed by a change order with the County contractor for a price of approximately
$5,000. The County is willing to process the change order if the City is willing to pay. City staff
could not prepare the necessary plans and specification documents, advertize for bids, award a
contract and have the work done for $5,000 (including construction cost and inspection costs).
The costs amounts to approximately $0.10 per square Ft. Also a project this small will result in
higher bid prices.
Bonita Rd. at Plaza Bonita Blvd.
Chula Vista recently completed widening Bonita Rd.. between Plaza Bonita Rd.. and 1-805 in
order to provide for 3 travel lanes on the north side. However, just east of the intersection, there
are only two travel lanes in the westbound direction. This project will add an additional lane for
It) - (
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 10/15/96
the westbound direction, therefore resulting In 3 lanes lining up with the additional lane
constructed by Chula Vista.
The additional lane will be approximately 300 ft. long. Part of the project is within the
jurisdiction of Chula Vista. The work involved in Chula Vista involves relocating a traffic signal
pole and rebuilding the curb return. The county has requested that we pay for the costs of the
work within Chula Vista. It is proposed that we pay actual cost not to exceed $25,000. Staff
believes that the extra lane will be beneficial to Chula Vista residents using this intersection
because it will allow three lanes to go through the intersection instead of two lanes currently.
This project will improve the capacity of the traffic carrying capacity of the intersection.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to the City for these two projects will be approximately $30,000. There will be virtually
no additional maintenance costs in the future for the Bonita Rd.. project, the pavement life of the
Sweetwater chip seal will be extended therefore lowering future maintenance costs. There will
also be considerable savings to the City by including these projects in the County work program.
Attachment: Map - Chip Seal Widening Project
M: \HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \countagr .jpl.
J6 -:<
iii ~ a ~JG~L' ,c,;(\f;o, ~
~~. ~ ~~'R V 6 ~~;.
~ :,J.). ~ ~ I
~~~~\)V ~ i>J ) ~ :::
:0...-:. ......~".>-:. ~
'<( ...... .... :: ~,
- -r1C!J1\7 ~-,~ W O~~::.B~,&A ~;y \ ~
I~ CJ) W7\' ~~ ~ '" r ~ &~
~ ~ ll. a~->- ~,.~~ ~m; 1\ ~ ,,~~~ ~
M' \ ~ l - 0::" \ CI'<'" ", ~ >~Q':,
~~ ~ J: :~~P1.~1~'; ll~ ~ 'tL
~~ "" 0 ll.~w '\' 1; r A
~~~ ~Y' 9.\"'~ ~~
~ :1 _ ~ ~ "~~ ~~~~
-t...:. v ~ \ ~.1.!k'\ ~
-, ,,\ ~ ~ 1 u...~
eH , ~ '& ~~
>~~ ';A' ~ '\~}' ~\
~ .'Y/::') ~1 ~ ~ P x.-~\. L.Y"""~ -< ~u
<~~t'1 ~~~ v~ i?h- l~::;--- a- ~"i'it
~~~L~"" r; ~y A~'V~ ~ "" ___ ~
-rl ~ \~~--U' .-.
.l~'- \~~ ~~ It
~"~ ~~ ~
VJ~m~ ~:rrg C) h ~
~i~q~ ~ ~L -- ~~
~~ :P\WX~ a~y ~~~L-J
_u 1- I.'... "~ ~~~ 0:: '~L'S @)i If
,~ \~J~'~~~ g~1I0~ a. 0., \
~ J~\-r~ k 11==1
~~:l ~
~ 1-- ~ ~- '- ~.~~\: ~ ~t
\V€, ~~rI~ ~
~'-L\\ 1 ~t--~ \. ~rJ ~
lill:1~I~ ~ ~ ~'C ~ "r;.L' 1~ ~
· I ~~\~,~~ ~ ~l"L~~
~ rn~\fr\~~ 'I, i:.n l~
~~ ~ .-- ~ ~~~ ~ L.-rl ~ ~
z~ ID~ ~-w; ~~\~
16 - 3
RESOLUTION NO.~{)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING COOPERATIVE PROJECTS
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego is processing two road
projects in the Bonita area which have small portions in the City
of Chula Vista:
1. Chip Seal of Sweetwater Road and
2. Construction of a third west bound lane at Plaza
Bonita Road and Bonita Rd.
WHEREAS, the County has requested City financial
participation for the portions of work within City Limits; and
WHEREAS, the cost to the City for these two projects will
be approximately $30,000, however, there will be virtually no
additional maintenance costs in the future to Bonita Road and the
pavement life of the Sweetwater Chip Seal will be extended thereby
lowering future maintenance costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Cooperative Projects
with the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
expend $5,000 from the unexpended portion of Project STL-230,
Pavement Overlay Program and appropriates $25,000 from the Traffic
Signal Fund.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\coop.sd
(0-1
-# /1
COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMO
DATE:
October 15, 1996
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City COU:l\..~embers .
John Goss, City Manager SJ. \j).'k~' ~. \)_ .--/
Jerry J. Jamriska, Special Plannin't Projects Manager, tay Ranch
VIA:
FROM:
RE:
Responses to Councilman Rindone's Questions
The City Council was scheduled to consider a Development Agreement for Baldwin
Builders on October 1, 1996. At that hearing, a 9-page report was presented in
response to several questions Councilman Rindone raised pertaining to the St. Claire
Subdivision and the proposed Tentative Map for Otay Ranch. Due to the length of the
report, Council continued the Development Agreement and comments on the responses
until October 15, 1996.
Since the continuance, staff has taken the opportunity to expand the responses and
reformatted the memo by attaching the current set of conditions being proposed for the
Otay Ranch Tentative Map instead of referring to them in the body of the response.
1. "Please provide specific new proposals that would be added at the Tentative
Map stage that will strengthen map conditions, added security and additional
guarantees. ·
General Response:
The proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Map have been bolstered since
the Planning Commission approval on August 14, 1996. The conditions have been
elaborated upon in an attempt to provide further assurances to the City that necessary
public infrastructure associated with the Otay Ranch project will be properly
constructed in a timely fashion. Following is an overview of the additional conditions
that have been added or the existing conditions that have been modified in order to
address the City's concerns. In addition, the Proposed Conditions of Approval are
attached to this informational memo for your early review.
The attatched Tentative Map conditions represent just one in a series of regulations
imposed upon Otay Ranch properties as such properties go through the entitlement
process. Relative to SPA One, it is important to review the controls imposed on the SPA
One and PFFP processes. It is also worth explaining how the Development Agreement
compliments and supplements conditions and safeguards imposed through the more
traditional discretionary approvals.
ccinfo-12.doc
))-(
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 2
SPA PlaIVPFFP:
The Otay Ranch GDP was an unusually specific General Plan level document. The Otay
Ranch GDP is much more precise than any other eastern territory GDP. The GDP and
related Resource Management Plan, Facility Implementation Plan, Village Phasing Plan
and the Environmental Impact Reports impose numerous precise development standards
and requirements for the Otay Ranch properties than other master-planned
communities. As a consequence, the SPA One Plan and other related documents are
also more precise.
Because of the fmancial difficulties evidenced by the applicant early in the processing of
SPA One, staff became even more aware of the need to precisely delineate the
applicant's performance requirements and to draft SPA conditions and the PFFP to best
protect the City's interest. This concern was heightened even further when West Coast
Land Fund initiated foreclosure proceedings last December. Staff requested an
additional continuance on the Tentative Map to revise and prepare additional
conditions.
As a consequence of these issues and concerns, the SPA One is unusually precise as
evident by imposition of 146 Tentative Map Conditions of approval. Of greater
consequence is the detail and requirements contained in the SPA One PFFP. The PFFP
contains very precise trigger points for all public infrastructure improvements. For
example, the PFFP precisely defines the location, timing and funding for local parks to
ensure their timely completion. Another example is a very specific delineation of which
road segments must be completed by development phase. This analysis depicts three
phasing scenarios which ensure that the City's interests are served, regardless of
project phasing through Village One, Village Five, or through both villages. Performance
of the road construction is tied to a specific number of dwelling units granting the City
the authority to withhold further entitlements if timely performance does not occur.
Similar trigger points are established for schools, requiring the applicant to provide
school sites at or before specific unit counts. Funding of the schools is assured through
the establishment of a Mello Roos district before approval of the initial final map in
SPA One, to the satisfaction of the school districts. Similar trigger points are
established for drainage, sewer and water facilities. At all times, the City retains the
authority to stop entitlement approvals if timely performance of the PFFP trigger points
are not adhered to.
It is important to note that all regulatory language in the PFFP is repeated in the SPA
Conditions of Approval which have been executed by the applicant and recorded against
the land. This action notifies all potential purchasers of the property of the trigger point
requirements.
Specific Responses:
The first paragraph on Page One of the Proposed TM Conditions has been modified in
order to give first priority to the City over any other lien holders in cases where the
applicant is required to provide easements to the City for any purpose. This would
serve to put the City in a "first place position" in the event that additional foreclosures
ccinfo-12.doc
)/-:2-
/ '
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 3
occur. The condition also requires that any land granted in fee to the City shall be free
and clear of any and all encumbrances.
Condition #3 (page 2) is a general condition which gives the City the authority to
withhold building permits, revoke or modify any existing approvals, deny or further
condition any additional requests should the applicant fail to perform the conditions of
approval. This condition is not new and has been in place prior to approval by the
Planning Commission.
Conditions #7 and #23 (pages 2 and 5, respectively) link the Tentative Map
requirements to the Development Agreement for Village Development and require that
SR-125 right of way be granted when requested by the City.
Condition #28 (pages 5 and 6) requires the applicant to enter into an agreement with
the City prior to approval of the first "A" Map to perform certain obligations such as
but not limited to funding transit stops, fair share of the pedestrian bridges and not
protesting any future regional assessments for the transit stops. Since the agreement
will be in place prior to the "A" Map (i.e., prior to subdivision of buildable lots) the City
will have the assurance that the "master developer" will pay their fair share of these
improvements which are more regional in nature and applicable to the overall Tentative
Map.
Conditions #101 and #102 (pages 21 and 22) require the developer to enter into
agreements with the City prior to approval of each "B" Map in which they agree that
the City may withhold building permits if threshold standards are exceeded or if
improvements noted in the PFFP are not completed. By requiring the agreement at
the "B" Map, all current and future developers of Otay Ranch will have to agree to this
concept.
Conditions #75, 80 and 81 deal with the prOVISIOn and design of neighborhood and
community parks. Conditions #80 and #81 require the developer to pay PAD fees for
both Neighborhood and Community Parks which will ensure that funds are in place for
acquisition and development of the identified parks. This is slightly modified from the
Planning Commission approval, which did not require PAD fees for the Neighborhood
Parks. Condition #75 requires the developer to enter into a three party agreement with
the City and the design consultant and to deposit monies into an account to fund the
cost of the consultant. This will ensure that monies are always available to guarantee
a smooth flow of work through the construction document phase.
Condition #92 is a new condition which requires the developer to place a cash deposit
with the City in order to guarantee the maintenance of open space landscape and
irrigation improvements, prior to their acceptance by the City. The amount of the
deposit would be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space area
for a period of six months. This condition assures that funds will be immediately
available should the developer be in a position where they cannot perform the needed
maintenance.
ccinfo-12.doc
) //~S
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 4
Conditions #103 and #104 deal with affordable housing and require dedication of three
acres of land for affordable housing at the super block map stage (((A" Map) rather
than at a later time with the ((Bn Map. The housing agreement will also be required to
be completed with the ((An Map. These conditions ensure that the land will be set aside
early in the process prior to any buildable lots being approved.
Condition #108 is a new condition and requires the developer to provide, prior to the
approval of the first "B" Map, security satisfactory to the City to guarantee the
construction of certain roadway and pedestrian facilities. In addition, prior to the
approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall submit and obtain
approval by the City of an improvement phasing schedule which will identify the
timing of construction of all facilities noted in condition #108. The improvement
phasing schedule may also include the timing of payment of fees.
Condition #116 is a condition which requires the developer to submit an ((A" Map and
to dedicate all backbone facilities at this stage. The backbone facilities for this
tentative map are outlined specifically in the table associated with Condition #108.
This condition also guarantees that the noted facilities will be dedicated at the ((B" Map
stage should for any reason an ((A" Map not be completed.
2. KHow would these new Tentative Map conditions prevent or eliminRte a repeat
of the St. Claire construction issues? Please be specific.JI1
General Responses:
Development Agreement
Through traditional discretionary approvals (General Plan, SPA Plan and Tentative
Map), requirements are imposed as a condition of project approval which relate to the
impact caused by the development. As discussed above, staff has carefully crafted
appropriate Tentative Map Conditions of Approval to ensure the timely provisions of the
facilities to serve each increment of development. However, the City is prohibited from
imposing project conditions which do not reasonably relate to the project approval.
Thus, the City cannot impose a condition on a project which would require the provision
of an improvement that goes beyond the impact caused by the individual project (this is
often referred to as the nexus issue).
The nexus issue has not been a major concern where the City has been confident that a
master developer will be able to buildout a project. However, where the stability of the
master developer is in question or where the City has reason to believe that the project
might be sold to a series of smaller home builders, the nexus issue becomes a major
consideration. The fear is that the City may be legally unable to require an individual
home builder, whose project reaches an established trigger point to satisfy the condition
because the required improvement goes beyond the impact caused by the individual
project. There is a particular problem with respect to backbone facilities.
Staff has been pursuing a two-pronged strategy to anticipate and resolve this nexus and
backbone facilitity provision issues. The strategy requires: 1) the use of the
Development Agreement to avoid the nexus problem; and 2) require the timely posting
ccinfo-12.doc
//-'1
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 5
of adequate security to ensure the funding of backbone facilities which serve more than
one smaller project areas.
The Development Agreement is being utilized to overcome future nexus issues. A
property owner, through the Development Agreement, can bind himself and his
successors-in-interest to provide improvements or satisfy conditions that go beyond the
"nexus" impacts of the individual project. Relative to the SPA One project, staff has
negotiated, with the applicant, to include three key provisions in the Development
Agreement.
The first prOVlSIOn included an express statement by the applicant in the
Development Agreement that the applicant is specifically responsible to provide
the backbone infrastructure within the SPA One area as defined in the PFFP.
This agreement is specific to the applicant and cannot be satisfied until actual
performance occurs or until the requirement is expressively released by the City
of Ch ula Vista.
The second provision included in the Development Agreement is a requirement
that the applicant provide for the posting of timely and adequate security to the
satisfaction of the City, to ensure completion of the backbone facilities.
The third component of the Development Agreement requires that the applicant
secure an agreement from the lien holders which expressly states that the
provisions of the Development Agreement bind the lien holders should a lien
holder assume title to the property through foreclosure or other means of
transfer. This ensures that the Development Agreement's obligations to provide
for backbone infrastructure will be performed regardless of the fate of the
applicant and regardless of any future claims that there is no nexus between the
condition and the proposed development.
Tentative Map:
As discussed above, staff is concerned that the City have adequate assurances that
backbone facilities will be provided in a timely manner should property be foreclosed
upon, the applicant sell the property, in part or in whole, or the property owner be
unable to perform.
The development conditions have been drafted to address the nexus issue and to
contractually bind the lien holder in the event of foreclosure, as discussed above.
Staff is proposing that Tentative Map conditions expressly identify backbone facilities
which could be in jeopardy should the property owner encounter the problems discussed
above. Relative to the SPA One project, the backbone facilities to be required prior to
"B" Map approval are required in Condition #108.
To ensure that there is adequate and timely security for the backbone facilities, staff is
recommending that Tentative Map conditions be included which require the posting of
necessary backbone security as a requirement of the appropriate fmal map. Under this
ccinfo-12.doc
---
//j ~__S
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 6
system, a final map cannot be approved and legally buildable lots cannot be created
until the City has adequate security for the backbone facilities.
Landscape Maintenance Problem:
In some instances, bonding is an inadequate remedy because of the time necessary to
access the bonds. St. Claire is a perfect example. In that instance, timely and adequate
bonds were provided for the landscaping, but the bonds have been of little value once
Baldwin Builders stopped construction and maintenance. As a consequence, staff is
recommending that future Tentative Maps be conditioned to require cash deposits for
certain landscape and improvement requirements. With this condition, should the
developer stop work, the City can readily and quickly access the cash deposits to
continue the necessary maintenance and avoid the St. Claire problem.
Assessment District Problem:
The Development Agreement is being utilized to help avoid a similar problem
experienced in San Marco's Paloma project. In Paloma, the applicant failed to make
timely payment to the County Facility Assessment District. The proposed Development
Agreement language requires the applicant to comply with the terms of assessment
district or other fmancing mechanisms. Failure to comply with assessment district terms
would place the applicant in breach of the Development Agreement enabling the City to
withhold additional entitlements and eliminating the City's obligation to comply with
the Development Agreement.
The following table is added to assist Council in comparing the requirements of the City
of Chula Vista with the City of San Marcos as it relates to the policies and standards of
development:
San Marcos Chula Vista Otay Ranch
Utilized Mello- Roos CFD to CV does not utilize Mello- Consistent with City policy
finance parks, schools and a Roos CFD for any public CFD for elementary school
fire station facilities. Only the School has been formed.
District utilizes CFDs.
Assessment District to fund To date, the developer has
infrastructure may be not requested the formation
formed at the request of of an Assessment District.
developer and must be City is under no obligation
approved by City Council. to authorize formation of
Typically formed prior to district.
any occupancy and used for
backbone streets, sewer and
water facilities.
Subdivision improvement Consistent with City policy
bonds required for all public
improvements. Developer
ccinfo-12.doc
J/~t/
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 7
has three years to complete
all improvements and if
not, the bonds can be called
ID.
CFD and property taxes Council policy that Consistent with City policy
exceed 2% of assessed value combined property taxes
of homes and Assessment District
fees may not exceed 2% of
original assessed value of
home at time of sale.
Baldwin became delinquent No CFDs except for schools. Consistent with City policy
in payment of their fair
share of the CFD
Specific Responses:
The conditions noted in question #1 above ensure that backbone facilities will be
dedicated with the "A" Map or the super block map. The "A" Map does not confer any
tangible development rights to the applicant. It simply subdivides the larger tentative
map into smaller areas which could readily be sold to guest or merchant builders.
Sometimes it is also known as a financial parcel map.
While the conditions of approval and existing City policy adequately protect the City
with regard to provision of public facilities, the question of the timely completion of
homes is still an issue. Typically, bonds are not posted to ensure completion of single
family homes. There is little the City can do to guarantee that any builder will finish
each and every home they have started constructing. However, staff has added to the
Development Agreement (Section 7.11), a requirement that should construction stop the
City, at its sole discretion may take whatever steps it deems necessary to cure the
nuisance or hazard at Developer's sole cost and expense. Staff has also added condition
#92 to the Tentative Map whereby the City can use a cash deposit to maintain
6. awhy has the Otay Ranch Project Team not done a ~globa1 analysis# of the Otay
Ranch Project that was drafted on the premise of a project under the control of a
single property owner? Is this true?>>
The term. "global analysis" is a term. that is not generally used in City and Regional
Planning circles. A more appropriate planning term. would be "General Plan" analysis.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) is part of the City of Chula Vista's
General Plan. As such, the GDP is a legal and binding guide to the future development
of the City and environs. The GDP, while prepared and paid for under one company,
always contemplated multiple ownership and multiple developers.
For example, the Resource Management Plan (RMP) was prepared specifically
recognizing existing and potential multiple ownerships of land. Council may recall that
the RMP had a series of maps (15 +/-) delineating conveyance of resource land, over
time, to the Preserve Owner;M:anager (paM). These maps recognized multiple
ccinfo-12.doc
//- 7
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 8
ownerships and was designed to prove that the Conveyance Plan could work with
different property owners. The calculation of the amount of land to be conveyed (1.188
acre&ldevelopable acre) is applicable whether there is one or one hundred property
owners. However, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors deleted reference to
those maps at the time of adoption.
When the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) was approved by the City
Council in October of 1993, the entire 23,000-acre property was under the unified
"planning control" of The Baldwin Company given to them through a variety of entities.
Many of these entities had, and still have, ownership control (i.e., SNMB, VE, G.
Smith), but the planning control for the Ranch was still vested with the Baldwin
Company. Village Development, et.al. are still the majority property owners.
The Otay Ranch Project Team has always tracked changes in ownership and their
effects on the property and plan. The Otay Ranch ownership changes have been
reported to the Planning Commission and City Council on various occasions. Our
analysis at that time, as well as today, indicates that the Otay Ranch GDP and all its
supporting documentation, reports and environmental findings would not hinder the
successful implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP with a multiplicity of property
owners.
The Otay Ranch GDP is implemented through a series of SPA Plans. Therefore,
development of the Ranch is not dependent on the single ownership of the entire 23,000
acres. The processing of individual Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans and Tentative
Maps are the place where multiple owners have a voice in the proceedings and designs.
Each SPA could be under a different ownership and the City Council will still have the
power to achieve the successful implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP. This control
will be met under the requirements of Section 19.48.020 B of the PC-Planned
Community zone which requires that all land within the PC zone be held in one
ownership or under unified control, and Section 19.48.070 C of the City Code which
requires all development to be in substantial conformity with the adopted GDP.
Just as the General Plan for the City contains multiple property owners, the GDP will
be implemented with multiple property owners. This was planned from the very
beginning. In addition, every property owner, whether owning property today or
tomorrow, has the legal right to apply for a change in the City's General Plan, GDP,
SPA, Tentative or Final maps. This right to apply, does not in itself, change the basic
principle in which the GDP was designed. Only the City Council can change this basic
principle--not a change in property ownership or a change in a property line.
The Baldwin Company has always planned on selling portions of the Ranch prior to
development, so multiple ownerships were always anticipated in the future development
of the Otay Ranch. Village Development is still advocating that concept since the filing
of Chapter 11 proceedings.
The Otay Ranch GDP plans the development of the Ranch in a series of villages. These
villages are tied together by common themes and standards in the GDP Overall Design
ccinfo-12.doc
)J-F(.
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1996
Page 9
Plan, Facilities Implementation Plans, Village Phasing Plan and the Service Revenue
Plan. The SPA plans will further refme these themes and standards in the required
Village Design Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). The PFFP and all the
Development Agreements approved by Council requires. that the public facilities be
provided in order to maintain threshold standards regardless of ownership. As the
Ranch develops either with multiple developers in SPA One or multiple owners of the
Otay Ranch, the timely provision of public facilities is will always be required.
While a formal paper on "The Global Analysis of the impact of multiple property owners
on the Otay Ranch Project" has not been prepared, it has always been evident that
multiple ownership of land is and was a possibility. This potential is and has been
reflected in the GDP, Annexation Application, SPA One documents, Tentative Map and
its conditions, and the Development Agreement. There is no need. for a "Global
Analysis" and no amendments are necessary to any of the adopted documents of the
City.
While not part of the series of questions, the following is presented to Council for their
information:
7. Financial Status of Village Development (as of October 8, 1996)
At this point in time, Village Development is one month delinquent. On September 25,
1996, $35,997.42 was due and payable. Village Development representatives anticipates
the September payment will be paid on or before October 15, 1996. .
Attachment: Conditions of Approval
ccinfo-12.doc
//-7'
ATTACHMENT 2
TENTA TIVE MAP - OTA Y RANCH VILLAGES 1 & AND PHASE lA OF VILLAGE
FIVE CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a). the conditions and Code requirements set
forth below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of
Planning, Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer; (b). unless otherwise specified, "dedicate"
means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the
applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure
that the City has a first priority interest in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where
fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all
encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City.
The tentative map and all conditions herein are predicated on a previously approved Development
Agreement. Prior to approval of each final map (including an "A" Map) all property owners shall
formally consent to the applicability of the Development Agreement.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GEl\r:ERAL/PRELIMINARY
1. Comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails
Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, Spa One Affordable
Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, unless specifically modified by the
appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to
minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager,
however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or. all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant" .
3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they
are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke
or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further
condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute
and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. The applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions
being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by
the City.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
j/-/C}
Attachment 2 - Viii & IA
Page 1
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or "all entitlements and approvals issued
by the city in connection with the Project.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA conditions of approval.
6. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent
with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance # 2679 by the City Council on July 16,
1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
8. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, adopted by
Resolution # 18416 by the City Council on October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
ENVIRONMENTAL
9. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall implement all applicable
mitigation measures identified in EIR. 95-01, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (Exhibit
*) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit *).
10. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City Council
on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City.
11. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant. shall comply with the
appropriate in lieu fee program to be adopted by the City Council.
12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department
of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
DESIGN
13. The secondary access in the southern portion of Neighborhood R-30 shall be surfaced
with "grass-crete", "turf-block" or some other comparable material unless otherwise approved by
the Planning Director and Fire Chief Bollards shall be provided instead of the locking gate noted
on the map. The bollards shall be located closer to the terminus of the cul-de-sac (parker
Mountain Road), rather than adjacent to Santa Rosa Drive.
14. Any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with the Village Design Plan and
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final
map.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019/96
//~//
Attachment 2 -Viii & IA
Page 2
15. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to
soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one I-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and
appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and
vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final map.
16. A comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height and location shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of any final map. Materials and
color used shall be compatible and all walls located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public
or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or
wrought iron material.
A revised acoustical analysis indicating if view fencing, such as a combination of masonry and
wrought iron, is allowable at the ends of cul-de-sacs backing up to Telegraph Canyon Road, East
Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan
indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided
at the ends of the following streets: Parker Mountain Road, Geyserville Street, Jamestown Drive,
Moss Landing Avenue, Porterville Ct., San Dimas Ct., Hanford Ct., Rocklin Ct., Colton Ct.,
Rincon Point, Santa Inez Ave., Traver Ct., Vernon Ct., Lindsay St., Applegate St. and Dunsmuir
Ct. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is
not required.
Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed 8.5 feet in height. The applicant
shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all
"combination walls" which include retaining and free standing walls. Said detail shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the approval of t.he first final map. The
maximum height of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding
walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between free standing
and retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet.
17. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view
fencing, such as three feet of wrought iron on top of a three foot masonry wall, subject to
approval by the Fire Marshal and the Planning Director.
18. Should the applicant propose an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
to reduce density within the Village Cores at some time in the future, the provision of additional
alley product shall be analyzed and considered concurrently with said amendment.
19. The Design Review Committee shall review and approve the elevations of all homes
backing and siding onto Telegraph Canyon Road in Neighborhood R-5.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
) / -- / ,J-
Attachment 2 - Viii & I A
Page 3
20. A minimum of thirty percent of all 55 x 105 feet lots in each final map shall be provided
with Hollywood driveways. The applicant agrees to process an amendment to the Planned
Community District Regulations for SPA One to reflect said requirement.
STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBliC IMPROVEMENTS
21. Dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision
boundary. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to guarantee the COnstruction of all street
improvements required by the PFFP for that particular phase prior to the approval of the first final "B"
Map within that designated phase.
22. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the
construction and construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets deemed necessary
to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to,
asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water
utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants.
Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the Tentative Map. All other design
criteria shall comply with the current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design
Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein.
Exhibit A indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations and the
approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining
the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One.
Should the City Engineer deem that the construction of sidewalks along the offsite portions of East
Orange Avenue and East Palomar Street west of Pas eo Ranchero is not necessary to provide service to
the subject subdivision, their construction may be delayed.
The developer shall dedicate on the appropriate final "B" Map, the right-of-way to extend Carmel
Avenue, Santa Lucia Road, Santa Flora Drive, Gold Run Road, Applegate Street, Livingston
Avenue and Grayson Court to the easterly subdivision boundary of Village One. The City
Engineer and the Planning Director may waive this requirement if it is demonstrated that a street
does not need to be extended to provide access to the adjacent property.
Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide a cul-de-sac at the
end of all proposed street stubs along the subdivision boundary. The City Engineer may approve
the installation of a temporary turnaround at the end of those streets that might be extended in the
future to provide access to the adjacent property.
23. In accordance with the pre-Annexation Development Agreementthe developer shall grant to
the City fee title to the right-of-way for SR 125. Said right-of-way shall be contained in a lot granted
to the City for open space, transportation and other public purposes. The right-of-way shall be granted
at such time as requested by the City.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
II-I)
---
Attachment 2 - ViII & IA
Page 4
24. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the
installation of the related street improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring at the following intersections:
a. East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero
b. East Palomar Street and La Media Road
c. East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue
d. East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero
e. East Orange Avenue and La Media Road
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street improvements,
and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer.
25. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher
classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans.
26. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the
CalTrans Highway Design Manual. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply
with the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual.
27. Plant trees within all street parkways which have been selected from the revised list of
appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors
of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods
per the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director and a deep watering irrigation system for the
trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. The
improvement plans, including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways shall be approved by
the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer.
28. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final "A" Map, where the
developer agrees to the following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities when directed by the Director of
Public Works. The improvement plans for said stops shall be prepared in accordance
with the transit stop details described in the Village Design Plans and approved by the
Directors of Planning and Public Works.
b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance
the Light Rail Transit.
c. Fund its fair share of the cost of construction of the two pedestrian bridges connecting
Villages One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six as determined by the City
Engineer based on the proportionate benefit received from the improvements. The
developer shall also identify the financing mechanism to be used to fund said cost.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
//~Jtf
Anachment 2 - ViII & IA
Page S
29. Grant in fee to the City the right-of-way for the Light Rail Transit as indicated on the approved
Tentative Map. Said right-of-way shall be contained in lots granted to the City for open space,
transportation, and other public purposes. Said lots shall not extend across street intersections unless
approved by the City Engineer. Include said lots in an open space district.
30. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to construct the pedestrian bridge
connecting Village One to Village Five in accordance with improvement plans approved by the City
prior to approval of the final map that requires construction of La Media Road betWeen East Palomar
Street and East Orange Avenue. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of said bridge
and may seek, with the concurrence of the City, repayment from other benefiting property owners
through a reimbursement district.
31. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are
in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those
standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City
ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after
construction has commenced.
32. Prior to approval of any finaI map that requires the construction of Santa Madera Avenue
between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive ("Temporary Roadway"), in order to access
the final map property, the developer shall accomplish the following:
a. Obtain all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory agencies required
to construct the "Temporary Roadway".
b. Obtain a construction permit from the City approving the necessary modifications to
the existing improvements in Telegraph Canyon Road including the provision of a fully
activated traffic signal as directed by the City Engineer.
c. Create and implement a financing plan where the developer agrees to:
1. Perform the following:
a. Restore the median improvements and remove the traffic signal as
directed by the City Engineer to provide only right-in/right-out access
at said intersection. This work shall be performed at such time as La
Media Road between Telegraph Canyon Road and East Palomar Street
is opened for public use.
b. Remove to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the remammg
"Temporary Roadway" improvements required to close said
intersection , at such time as a permanent road connecting Filmore
Street in Village One to East Orange Avenue is opened for public use.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
-----
) /-- /~
Attachment 2 - ViII & IA
Page 6
2. Restore the Telegraph Canyon Road improvements and regrade the area to be
consistent with the streetscape of Telegraph Canyon Road and the drainage
channel as directed by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation.
3. Install signs as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the "Temporary
Roadway" will be closed once the pennanent road connecting Filmore Street in
Village One to East Orange Avenue is opened for public use.
4. Provide a Notice in any residential disclosure document that the "Temporary
Roadway" will be closed once the pennanent road connecting Filmore Street in
Village One to East Orange Avenue is opened for public use.
5. Provide bonds in the amount determined by the City Engineer to guarantee the
following:
a. Restoration of the median improvements and removal of the traffic
signal required to provide only right-Wright-out access at said
intersection. Said bonds shall be provided prior to approval of the final
map requiring the construction of La Media Road between Telegraph
Canyon Road and East Palomar Street.
b. Removal of the remaining temporary improvements required to close
said intersection and restoration of the area as directed by the City
Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. Said bonds shall be
posted prior to approval of the final map for Village One Core or any
unit thereof
6. Provide for all costs associated with the vacation of the "Temporary Roadway"
33. As part of the improvement plans associated with the first final ''B'' Map which triggers the
construction of Paseo Ranchero, La Media or Santa Paula Drive provide the necessary modifications
to the applicable existing traffic signals including interconnect wiring at the following intersections:
a. Telegraph Canyon Road at St. Claire Drive
b. Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road
c. Telegraph Canyon Road at Paseo Ranchero
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street
improvements and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by
the City Engineer.
34. Include the right of way for the proposed "Temporary Roadway" (Santa Madera Avenue
between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive) in a separate lot. In the appropriate final
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019196
J///t
Attachment 2 - Viii & IA
Page 7
"B" Map, as determined by the City Engineer, grant said lot in fee to the City for open space,
transportation, and other public uses.
35. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to construct, prior to the approval of
any final "B" Map for Neighborhoods R-15, 16, 17, 18, 19, CPF-l, 2, 3, C-l or 2 or any unit thereof;
the construction of a permanent public road connecting Filmore Street in Village One to East Orange
Avenue as depicted on the Tentative Map. This road shall have a right-of-way width of 40 feet and be
designed and constructed to City standards for residential streets except that it shall nave a width (curb
to curb) of 26 feet and sidewalk only on one side.
36. Provide (1) twenty feet setback on driveways from property line to garage and (2) sectional
roll-up type garage doors at all properties fronting on streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or less in
length except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or approved by the City
Engineer and the Planning Director.
37. Not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street.
This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned
facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to
the following:
I. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within
the public right-of-way.
2. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service.
3. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area.
The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and asSIgnS of the
developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations
where private facilities traverse public streets.
38. Grant on the final "B" Map containing the paseo between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9 a 60-
'wide easement for street right-of-way and other public purposes. The paseo improvements shall be
constructed within said easement. Prior to approval of the same final map the developer shall
accomplish the following:
a. Guarantee the COnstruction of the paseo improvements (if public) as directed by the
Director of Planning, Director of Parks and Recreation, and City Engineer.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
J/- ) 7
A1tachment 2 - ViiI & I A
Page 8
b. Enter into an ~greement with the City where the developer agrees to construct street
improvements for vehicular access within the 60-foot easement in accordance with
improvement plans approved by the City Engineer if vehicular access is needed in the
future.
39. Include in separate lots the right-of-way required to accommodate the future grade separation
at the intersections of (1) Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road, and (2) East Orange Avenue and
Paseo Ranchero. These lots shall be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, transportation, and
other public purposes on the appropriate final ''B'' Map, as detennined by the City Engineer.
40. Residential Street Condition A as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the
preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, excluding the alley product,
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
41. The applicant shall submit a conceptual design for the bridge connections between Village
One and Village Five which indicates materials, height, location, etc. Said design plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the final "B" Map that
requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue.
42. Requested General Waivers 1, 2 and 3 and Specific Waiver 3, as indicated on the cover
sheet of the tentative map, are hereby approved. Specific Waivers 1 and 2 are approved subject
to th~ condition that one-way circulation be provided at the north-south streets adjacent to parks
P-4 and P-5, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
43. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer and the Planning
Director of a final conceptual design of the proposed traffic circles prior to approval of the first
final "B" Map. The developer shall submit striping, signage and landscape plans for all traffic
circles indicated on the tentative map. In the event the traffic circles are-not approved, some type
of alternative enhanced landscaping and/or entry statement at those intersections, acceptable to
the City Engineer and the Planning Director, shall be identified prior to approval of the first final
"B" Map.
44. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide sewer stubs
extending to the easterly subdivision boundary of Village One at the following locations: (1) all
the street stubs proposed along said boundary, and (2) at those locations where right-of-way
dedication is required to extend Carmel Avenue, Santa Lucia Road, Santa Flora Drive, Gold Run
Road, Applegate Street, Livingston Avenue and Grayson Court to said subdivision boundary.
45. Prior to approval of the first final "B" Map the developer shall submit and obtain the
approval of the City Engineer of a design study of the connection of the sewerline shown on the
tentative map as ending at the northerly end of Gold Run Road to an approved public sewer
system.
46. Right-of-way for the light rail transit line shall provide for spiral curves as required by
MTDB and approved by the City Engineer.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
)///6
Attachment 2 -ViII & 1 A
Page 9
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
47. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, between the property lines of the
proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading
adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer shall not approve
the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback.
The developer shall submit notarized letters of permission to grade for all off-sit~ grading.
48. Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
49. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(N"PDES) and the Clean Water Program.
50. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved by the City Engineer to reduce
the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less than the present lOa-year
frequency runoff
51. Provide "as built" improvement and storm drain plans in DXF file format to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
52. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 15 feet minimum drainage and access easement for
stormdrain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All
other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
53. Prior to approval of (1) the first final "B" Map or grading permit.for land draining into the
Poggi Canyon or (2) the first final "B" Map or grading permit which requires COnstruction of Santa
Madera between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive ("Temporary Roadway"), the
developer shall:
a. Guarantee the construction of the applicable drainage facility, as follows:
1. Runoff detentionldesiIting basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon; or
2. Runoff detention Basin in Telegraph Canyon Channel
The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the
environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work.
b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operations
manual and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said
program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and
Recreation, and the applicable environmental agencies.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: I 0/9/96
//--/51
Attachment 2 - ViII & I A
hgc 10
c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and the applicable environmental
agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and \VlIdlife) wherein the parties agree to implement the
maintenance program.
d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following:
1. Provide for the maintenance of the proposed detention basin in Telegraph
Canyon and the proposed naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi
Canyon until such time as maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City
or an open space district.
2. Provide for the removal of siltation in the Telegraph and Poggi Canyon
Channels (including detention basins) until all upstream grading within the
development is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately
established as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
3. Provide for the removal of any siltation in the Telegraph and Poggi Canyon
Channels (including detention basins) attributable to the development for a
minimum period offive years after maintenance of the facility is assumed by the
City or an open space district.
54. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map or grading
pennit for land draining into the existing Telegraph Canyon Channel, where the developer agrees to
perform the following activities within the portion of said existing channel extending from Paseo
Ladera to the eastern subdivision boundary:
a. Provide for the removal of siltation until all upstream grading. within the development is
completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established as determined by
the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. Provide for the removal of any siltation attributable to the development for a minimum
period of five years after maintenance of the channel is assumed by the City or an open
space district.
55. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or running through City Open
Space are not routed through private property and vice versa.
56. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easements as required by the City
Engineer to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Improved access as
determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to public drainage structures located in the rear yard
of any residential lot.
57. Provide a protective fencing system around (1) the proposed detention basins at Telegraph
Canyon and Poggi Canyon, and (2) inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as directed by the City
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
/ /./;Lv
Attachment 2 - Viii & lA
. Page 11
Engineer. The final design and types of construction materials shall be subject to approval of the
Director of Planning and the City Engineer.
58. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public
facilities as private.
59. Provide a 6 inch thick concrete access road to the bottom of the proposed detention basins.
This access shall have a minimum width of 12 feet, a maximum slope of 8%, and a heavy broom finish
on the ramp as directed by the City Engineer.
60. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
revising the current National Flood Insurance Program maps of the Telegraph Canyon Channel to
reflect the effect of the proposed drainage improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to
acceptance by the City of the proposed detention facility.
61. Provide graded maintenance access roads along both sides of the proposed onsite and off site
portions of the Poggi Canyon Channel. The width of said roads shall be 12 feet unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location of the access roads shall be as
determined by the City Engineer.
62. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the approval of the Director of Public
Works to any amendment necessary to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the approved
Tentative Map.
63. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of (1) the
existing maintenance access roads along the Telegraph Canyon Channel, and (2) the proposed
maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are propo~ to be incorporated into
the Regional Trail System. The fence shall be erected only at those locations where its installation will
not interfere with the normal channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be
allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation
64. Prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning, and Director of Parks
and Recreation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan and landscape!IITigation plans as part of
the grading plans
65. Landform grading, similar to what has been proposed along Telegraph Canyon Road and
consistent with City policy, shall be implemented adjacent to all off-site major roads.
66. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which are to be maintained by open
space districts shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
67. Prior to the approval of the grading plans proposing the grading of the area that would
accommodate the future grade separated intersections at East Orange AvenuelPaseo Ranchero
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
//---;1-/
Attachment 2 - ViII & IA
Page 12
and Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, the developer shall submit a design study,
acceptable to the City Engineer, of the grading required for said grade separated intersections.
68. The grading plans for the intersection at East Orange Avenue/Paseo Ranchero shall
include a partial grading of the area that would accommodate the eastbound on-ramp and off-
ramp and the westbound on-ramp of the future grade separated intersection. The elevations and
extent of the required grading shall be determined by the City Engineer to~ (1) allow in the future
the construction of any additional grading necessary for the ultimate intersection configuration,
and (2) construct the Poggi Canyon Channel at its ultimate location.
69. Prior to approval of the grading and/or improvement plans proposing the construction of
the culvert under La Media Road at the crossing with the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the
developer shall submit a study acceptable to the City Engineer demonstrating that the proposed
culvert will be capable of handling the design flow in the event said culvert needs to be extended
in the future in conjunction with the grading for a grade separated intersection at Telegraph
Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road.
SE\VER
70. Provide an improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer
manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the
City Engineer.
71. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for
sewerlines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. AIl other
easements shall meet City standards for required width.
PARKS/OPEN SP A CEIWILD LIFE PRESERVATION
General
72. The SPA one project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
(PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres ofIocal
parks and related improvements per 1, 000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community
parks and neighborhood parks. Pedestrian parks are an integral component of the plan and shall
receive partial park credit as defined below. A minimum of two thirds ( 2 acres/I, 000 residents)
of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and
pedestrian parks within SPA One. The remaining requirement (1 acre/1,000 resi4ents) shall be
satisfied through the payment of fees.
73. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed by the
Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall
be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
74. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the
Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and
policies.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
//-;1-;2-
Attachment 2 - ViI 1 & 1 A
Page 13
75. The applicant shall enter into a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with the City
of Chula Vista and design consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood and
community parks in accordance with the Master Plan whereby the Parks and Recreation Director
selects the design consultant(s), to be funded by the applicant. The cost for the consuItant(s) shall
be established and said amount deposited into an account prior to any work being initiated by the
consultant. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, master planning, design
development phase, construction document phase and construction supervision phase for the park
sites. The construction docu-ments shall reflect the then current requirements of the City's
Code/Landscape Manual requirements.
76. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the exient the combined park credit for
neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, the town square park and the community park exceeds the
3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to
satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs.
77. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement schedule in
coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial
reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park
construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees
shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing
and administering this reimbursement program.
78. Grant in fee all designated public park lands at such time as is necessary to implement the
requirements of the PLDO and the PFFP.
79. Pedestrian Parks (also known as mini-parks): Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as
identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's
General Fund. Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park
credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation pursuant to the City wide small
park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council.
80. Neighborhood Parks:
a. In addition to those PAD fees required by Condition #81, the Applicant shall pay PAD
fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units. In the
City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be required for units in excess of the first 500 dwelling units,
or in the alternative:
b. Prior to the approval of the first final map which creates residential lots (UB" Map), the
applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement where the applicant agrees to construct the
first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Director of Parks and
Recreation, no later than issuance of the building permit for the SOOth dwelling unit. The
agreement shall also provide the following:
1. The level of amenities required in the first phase of construction of the first
neighborhood park shall be determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019196
)J -:;2- 3
Anac1unent 2 - ViiI & IA
Page 14
with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said
level of amenities shall be equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park improvements as
described in the PLDO ordinance and the Park Master Plan as approved by the Director of Parks
and Recreation. The applicant shall complete construction of the first phase of the first
neighborhood park within six (6) months of commencing construction of said park.
2. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1 1 50th dwelling unit, the
Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the level of amenities required for the second
phase of construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in lieu
of the second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location.
3. At no time following completion of construction of the first phase of the first
neighborhood park shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2
acres/I,OOO residents. Applicant shall agree that the City may withhold the issuance of building
permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed
neighborhood park shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and accepted by
the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior
to the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede
any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements.
4. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, proportionate to what
has been constructed, should they deliver a turn-key park which has been constructed in
accordance with the Parks Master Plan.
c. The applicant shall grant to the City, at the "A" Map stage, an irrevocable offer of
dedication for all neighborhood parks shown on the Tentative Map.
81. Community Parks:
a. Prior to approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant shall pay PAD fees for the
Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1, 000 residents, until such time as a turn-
key facility has been accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Said turn-key facility is
subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below.
b. The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall be located in
Village 2 as identified in the GDP.
c. The Applicant shall identify the relocation, if any, of the Village 2 Otay Ranch
Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1, 150th dwelling unit. Said
relocation may require an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
d. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/I,OOO residents) shall be
satisfied through the payment of P AD fees, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first
phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling
unit. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: I 0/9/96
/1 ~ J- i
Attachmen12 - ViiI & IAiPage I S
graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to
the Fire Department.
e. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community
Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,OOOth dwelling unit. Second phase
improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan.
f The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the Director of Parks and
Recreation for maintenance prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit.
g. If the Director of Parks and Recreation determines that it is not feasible for the
Applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements of the community park prior
to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit, then the Director of Parks and Recreation
shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park
facility, east of the I-80S Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in
the GDP.
h. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period of 9-12 months in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department policy.
i. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement ofP AD fees, proportionate to what has been
constructed, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community
park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Community Park
Master Plan.
82. Trails/Open Space:
a. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing and/or propqsed trails in neighboring
development projects, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. The two connector trails from Neighborhoods R-24 and R-25 in Village Five to
Telegraph Canyon Road shall be combined into one trail in Open Space Lot 37 and shall connect
to the regional trail in one location.
c. The maximum gradient for connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades of up to 12%
for short runs of 50 feet may be permitted subject to the approval by the Parks and Recreation
Director.
d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shall be 10 feet in
width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on either side.
e. Landscape and irrigation plans for the transit right-of-way shall be reviewed and
approved by the Parks and Recreation Director in conjunction with the landscape plans for East
Palomar Street.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
J/~;2~
Anacluncnt 2 - ViII & I A
Page 16
83. Community Gardens:
a. Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden
Committee and their responsibilities.
b. Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest open space water meter to the site(s) in
order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens.
c. Community Garden sites shall be consistent with those identified on the tentative map.
d. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance
District, Homeowner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the Director of
Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer.
e. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
84. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall:
a. Submit and obtain approval of the SPA One Open Space Master Plan from the
Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon
the approved Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include but are not limited to elements such
as final recreational trail alignments and fencing and phasing.
b. Request the formation of an Open Space District pursuant to the 1972 Landscaping
and Lighting Act for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch. This district formation
shall be submitted to Council for consideration prior to appr.oval of the first final map.
Maintenance of the open space improvements shall be accomplished by the developer
for a minimum period of one year or until such time as accepted into the open space
district by the Director of Parks and Recreation. If Council does not approve the open
space district formation, some other financing mechanism shall be identified and
submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval of the first final map.
c. Submit a list of all OT A Y RANCH SPA One facilities and other items to be maintained
by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and
facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to be maintained by a
Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity and cost per year for the
perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists shall include but are not
limited to the following facilities and improvements:
1. AIl facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls,
fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage
structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019/96
II/' J?
Attachment 2 - ViII & I A
Page 17
the number of acres of turf, inigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid in the
estimation of a maintenance budget thereof
2. Medians and parJ..'Ways along East Orange Avenue (onsite and off site), Paseo
Ranchero, La Media Road, East Palomar Street (onsite and off site) and all
other street parkways proposed for maintenance by the open space district or
Homeowners' Association.
3. The proposed detention basin in Te]egraph Canyon and the fair share of the
maintenance of the existing naturalized Te]egraph Canyon Channel east of
Paseo Ladera as determined by the City Engineer based on the proportional
benefit received from the improvements. This includes but is not limited to the
cost of maintenance and all costs to comply with the Department of Fish and
Game and Corps of Engineers permit requirements.
4. The proposed detention basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon. This
includes but is not limited to the cost of maintenance and all cost to comply
with the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit
requirements.
5. Community Gardens
6. Pedestrian Bridges.
7. The proportional share of the maintenance of the median and parkways along
that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road adjoining the development as
determined by the City Engineer.
8. All proposed facilities and improvements (excepting street improvements)
within the 60-foot wide easement to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way
at the following locations: (1) between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9, and (2) at
the proposed connection to EastLake Parkway (between the two Otay Water
District Parcels.
d. Submit an initial deposit of $15,000 to begin the process of fonnation of the open
space district. All costs of formation and other costs associated with the processing of
the open space relating to this project shall be borne by the developer.
e. Provide all the necessary infonnation and materials (e.g., exhibits, diagrams, etc.) as
determined by the City Engineer to prepare the engineer's report for the proposed open
space district.
85. Include in the CC&Rs, if applicable, the obligation of the Homeowners' Association to
maintain all the facilities and improvements within the open space lots rejected by the City prior to the
approval of the final map containing said Jots.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: I 0/9/96
//--2)
Attachment 2 - ViiI & I A
Page 18
86. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the length
of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning of slope,
said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation.
87. Ensure that all buyers ofIots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open
space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are aware that the
walls are on City property and that they shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto City
property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot.
88. Agree to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the
maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the
subject subdivision.
89-. Grant in fee to the City on the appropriate final map, all open space lots shown on the tentative
map and execute and record a deed for each of the lots to be maintained by the City through the open
space district. Provide on the final map a certificate, pursuant to section 66477.2(a) of the Subdivision
Map Act, rejecting those open space lots to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
90. Provide documentation, prior to the approval of the first final ''B'' Map, to the Director of
Planning and the City Engineer that an annexable Mello-Roos District, or other financing mechanism
approved by the Sweetwater High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District has
been established to provide for construction of schools.
91. Fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Program, which
shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee, and approved by the
City Council prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The developer shall receive 1 00% credits
towards future PFDIF fees for funding this update. Provide a deposit of $20,000 to begin this process.
All cost of revising the PFDIF shall be borne by the developer.
92. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L & I)
improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the
developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L & I
improvements, prior to City acceptance of said improvements, in the event the improvements are not
maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and
Recreation. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the
open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as determined by the City Engineer. Any
unused portion of said deposit could be incorporated into the open space district's reserve at such time
as the maintenance of the open space lot is assumed by the open space district.
'VATER
93. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the
assessmentslbonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid
or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s).
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10l9/96
!/~;L7
A11.aclunent 2 - Vii 1 & 1 A
Page 19
94. Present verification to the City Engineer in the fonn of a letter from Otay Water District that
the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long tenn water storage facilities.
EASEMENTS
95. Grant to the City a JO' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage
of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
96. Indicate on the appropriate "B" Map a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners'
Association for private stonn drain and private sewer facilities within open space lots as directed by the
City Engineer.
97. Obtain, prior to approval of any final B" Map, ail off-site right-of-way necessary for the
installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall also provide
easements for ail on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any
other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision.
98. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-
of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or
easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.)
After said notification, the developer shall:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the
Conditions of Approval of the tentative map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements.
Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals
complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as detennined
by the City Attorney.
d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way,
easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final
map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect ina.med in said
acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the
appropriate Final Map.
99. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any
final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the
City Engineer.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019/96
)/--;L7
Anacluncnt 2 - ViII & I A
Page 20
100. Grant to City on the appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and
side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations of
these easements shall be as required by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer to
provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls.
AGREE:MENTSIFINANCl.t\L
101. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final "B" Map,
where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of
the following occur:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance.
3. The applicant does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program.
b. That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development
identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the
required facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program,
have not been completed.
c. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees,
from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including. approval by its Planning
Commission, City Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to
this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or
proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
d. Hold the City harmIess from any liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted
equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot on public
streets within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable
television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of
the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances
and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same
may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City ofChuIa VISta.
CC1022CKDOC
Printed: 10/9/96
/1 ~_j [;
Attachment 2 - ViiI & IA
Page 21
f Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' Association
(BOA) provisions prohibiting the BOA from dedicating or conveying for public streets, land
used for private streets without approval of 100% ofall the BOA members.
102. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B" Map,
where the developer agrees to the follov.~ng:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by
SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction of correctional facilities.
103. Prior to approval of the first final "A" Map, the applicant shall grant in fee three (3) acres
of buildable land acceptable to the City of Chula Vista within Village One of SPA One of the Otay
Ranch in order to satisfy the affordable housing implementation measure contained in the
approved Otay Ranch GDP (ref GDP; Section B.2, Pg. 242) and the terms of an existing
agreement adopted by Resolution #17737. In addition, said existing agreement, dated December
1, 1994, shall be amended to pennit the land dedication within Village One.
104. Prior to approval of the first "A" Map, or as otherwise detennined by the Director of
Planning, within SPA One and consistent with the City's Housing Element, Ranch-Wide and SPA
One Affordable Housing Plans, the applicant shall enter into and execute with the City an
Affordable Housing Agreement ("SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement") containing, but not
limited to, the following provisions: (a.) The obligation to provide the total number of low and
moderate income units required under the City's Affordable Housing Program, based on the
number of dwelling units contained within the Master Tentative Map for. SPA One; (b.) Identify
the overall number of dwelling units within the Master Tentative Map for which the applicant can
receive final map approval prior to the applicant selecting and guaranteeing, to the City's
satisfaction, final affordable housing site(s); (c.) The number of dwelling units within the master
tentative map area which can receive building pennit authorizations prior to the applicant
obtaining building pennits for a specified number of the required low income units; and (d.) A
description of what information must be provided in subsequent Project Level Affordable Housing
Agreements. Upon its approval by the City, the terms and conditions of the SPA One Affordable
Housing Agreement shall become conditions of this resolution, and is hereby incorporated herein
by this reference.
105. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first "B" Map, their proportional share,
as detennined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of a collaborative study analyzing local
park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway.
106. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final
"B" Map, where the applicant agrees to ensure that all insurance companies are pennitted equal
opportunity to go out to bid to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's Insurance Program (CHIP).
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1 0/9/96
J/-~3 /
Attachment 2 - ViI 1 & 1 A
Page 22
107. LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
108. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall submit and obtain
approval by the City of an "Improvement Phasing Schedule" which will identify the timing of
construction of all backbone facilities noted in the following table. The Implementation Phasing
Schedule shall be consistent with the PFFP.
ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN PHASING FACILITY
SCHEDULE
* Acquisition/Dedication of off site right of way East Palomar Street between Paseo Ranchero
* Construction of full street improvements and La Media Rd. and between La Media Rd.
and East Orange Ave.
* Acquisition/Dedication of the off site portions Paseos in Villages One and Five including the
of open space lots containing the paseos paseo between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9
*Construction of full paseo improvements
*Payment of Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage For areas covered by: backbone streets and all
DIF common areas which include, but are not
limited to: parks, schools, paseos and open
space lots
* Construction of pedestrian bridges Pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to
Village Five, Village One to Village Two and
Villa.ge Five to Villa.ge Six
*Removal of temporary improvements "Temporary Roadway" (Santa Madera Avenue
*Restoration of the area to original conditions between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan
Hill Drive
*Construction offull street improvements Permanent public road connecting Filmore St.
to East Oran.ge Ave. .
*Construction offull improvements Transit stop facilities in Villages One and Five
* Acquisition/Dedication of off site drainage Poggi Canyon Channel (onsite and off site ) and
easement detention basin
*Construction and maintenance (prior to City
acceptance)
*Construction and maintenance (prior to City Telegraph Canyon Channel detention basin
acceptance)
* Acquisition/Dedication of offsite sewer Poggi Canyon Sewer Interceptor (onsite and
easement off site )
* Upgrading of the existing Poggi Canyon
Interceptor required to accommodate C. V. T.
96-04 flows
*Construction of the improvements required to
connect C. V. T 96-04 to the existing Poggi
Canyon sewer improvements (near 1-805)
*Installation of interconnect wiring Traffic signals along Telegraph Canyon Rd. at
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
11- ~?
')
,.;r--
Anaclunent 2 - Viii & 1 A
Page 23
the intersections with St. Claire Dr., Otay
Lakes Rd. and Paseo Ranchero
*Construction of full landscaping and irrigation Open space lots
improvements
* Construction of full trail improvements Re.gional trail system
Security satisfactory to the City shall be provided for the above backbone facilities when their
construction is triggered as identified in the approved Improvement Phasing Schedule.
In addition to the foregoing, security satisfactory to the City shall be provided to guarantee the
construction of the following First Phase Backbone Facilities:
1.) One-half of the improvements in East Palomar Street between Paseo Ranchero and La
Media including the two full traffic circles in Village One prior to approval of the first "B" Map
for Village One.
2.) The remaining improvements in East Palomar Street within Village One at the time
the trigger point is reached in the PFFP for the corresponding "B" Map.
3.) Full improvements in East Palomar Street between La Media and East Orange Avenue
in Village Five at the time the trigger point is reached in the PFFP for the corresponding "B"
Map.
4.) Fair share of full improvements for the pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to
Village Five and fair share of one half of the improvements for the pedestrian bridges connecting
Village One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six, prior to the approval of the first final
"B" Map. .
The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% times a construction
cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the
City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the
City or 200% times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement
plans have not been submitted for City review.
SCHOOLS
109. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the applicant shall prepare and submit an
application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan replacing the Village
Seven High School location with a site in either the area west of Paseo Ranchero in Village One
or the northern portion of Village Two The applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement
prior to approval of the first final map in which applicant agrees to the following: The City shall
not issue building permits for more than 1,400 units within SPA One until the City has acted on
the proposed plan amendment unless the District consents to the further issuance of such permits.
The Applicant shall deliver to the School District a graded. high school site including utilities
provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
)/-_J ;5
Attachment 2 - ViI I & IA
Page 24
the 2,650th building permit (504 students) or upon written request by the District not prior to
1,800 permits. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This
schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs.
110. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site
including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District,
located within Village One, prior to issuance of the SOOth residential building permit (150
students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This
schedule is subject to modification by the School district as based on District facility needs.
Ill. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site
including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District,
located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit (750
students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This
schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs.
112. The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site
including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District,
located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential building permit
(1,350 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department.
This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs.
l\USCELLANEOUS
113. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) provisions
assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. The
City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the
teImS and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. The
CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or
conveyance for public purposes of land used for private streets will require prior written approval, in a
fOIm approved by the City Attorney, of 100% of all the Homeowners' Association members.
114. Submit copies of Final Maps and improvement plans in a digital fOImat such as (DXF) graphic
file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map
based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the infoImation in accordance with the
City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks prior to the approval of
each Final Map.
115. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (1983).
116. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall submit and obtain the approval
of the City of a master final map ("A" Map) over the entire tentative map area showing "super
block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof.
Said "A" map shall also show the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to
serve the "super block" lots. All "super" block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public
street. Said "A" map shall not be considered the first map as indicated in other conditions of
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019/96
/1- 3 {
Anaclunent 2 - ViI 1 & 1 A
Page 2S
approval unless said map contains single family lots or a subdivision of the multiple family lots
shown on the tentative map. A lot line adjustment, if utilized in accordance with City standards
and procedures, shall not be considered the first "A" Map.
The subsequent development of a multiple family lot which does not require the filing of a "B"
Map shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable conditions of
approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction of non-backbone
streets adjacent to multiple family lots will not need to be bonded for with tne final "A" Map
which created such lot. However, such improvements will be required to be constructed under
the Municipal Code provisions requiring construction of street improvements under the design
review and building permit issuance processes.
In the event of a filing of a final map which requires oversizing (in accordance with the restrictions
of state law and City ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said
final map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the
necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties.
If for any reason an "A" Map is not done, the developer shall, prior to the first final map ("B"
Map), dedicate right of way for all backbone facilities related to but not limited to Conditions #
21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 53, 54, 84, 91, 102, 107, 108 and 119 and bond for those
facilities in order to guarantee their construction. If any of these facilities are off site
improvements, the developer shall comply with Conditions # 96 and 97 and may request that the
City form a reimbursement district to reimburse such costs beyond its fair share.
117. Signage shall be provided at Bouquet Canyon Drive and the pedestrian paseo in Village
Five and at Stanislaus Drive and the pedestrian paseo in Village One which alerts motorists to a
pedestrian mid-block crossing. A signage plan indicating the location and content of said signs
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final
"B" Map, as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
118. The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village One and
Village Five Core Areas, prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-
family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village Cores.
119. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the
CYMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall complete the
following: (1.) Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the
community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand
for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall
commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be
completed during the second quarter of the followlng fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere
to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2.) Prepare a five year
development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary
applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
~
) / - ---?/~
Attachment 2 - ViiI & IA
Page 26
facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary
facilities.
120. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to
coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector
and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency
with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a
well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use
planning and architecture.
121. The applicant shall submit copies of any proposed C. C. and R's for review and approval by the
Director of Planning and the City Engineer prior to approval of each final "B" Map.
122. Fully accessible handicap access shall be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs:
Artesia Street, Glendora Court, Calistoga Avenue, Monte Sereno Avenue, Antioch Avenue, Coalinga
Court, Westmoreland Street, Cordelia Street, Iowa Hill Court, Live Oak Street, Marion Court, Lodi
Court, Larkspur Court, Santa Lucia Road, Parker Mountain Road, Sheep Ranch, Meeks Bay Drive,
Harrills Mill Avenue and V o1cano Creek Road.
Access via stairs shall be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs: Stanislaus Drive, Amador
Street, W oodsford Court, Lockeport Court, Clovis Court, Millbrae Court, Mayfield Court, Cache
Creek Road, Jedediah Road, Kingsburg Avenue and Lassen Peak Street
123. The CPF-2 site located within Village One, shall be considered a floating designation and shall
be located in Neighborhood R-15. Project design for this site will be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Director of Planning concurrently with the Precise Plan for this area.
124. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map but
prior to recordation of the applicable final ''B'' Map, they may do so by obtaining the required
approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance
with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee
that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work
performed by the developer prior to approval of the applicable "B" Map shall be at developer's own
risk. Prior to permit issuance, the developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals
(i.e., final ''B'' Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to
work done under such early permit. The developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to
the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable
final "B" Map does not record.
PHASING
125. If the applicant modifies the SPA One approved phasing plan, the applicant shall submit to the
City a revised phasing for review and approval prior to approval of the first final ''B'' Map. The PFFP
shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
/l~_] b
Attachment 2 - Viii & I A
Page 27
126. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the developer
shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided
with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as
necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments.
The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
127. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and
tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet
threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan
based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of
the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the
assumptions contained in the PFFP (i.e., the development ofEastLake III). Neither the PFFP nor any
other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or
limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance
with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated
forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One
development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In
addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and
Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement
construction, in compliance with City ordinances, should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
Concurrent with the approval of the first final map approved after the approval of the PFFP for the
EastLake ill GDP Area, the applicant shall update, at the applicant's expense and subject to a
Reimbursement Agreement, the SPA 1 PFFP and agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing
of construction of public facilities including without limitation, the nature, siZing, extent and timing for
the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all subsequent
SP A One entitlements, including tentative and final maps.
CODE REQUIRKMENTS
128. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the
Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the
City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
129. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
130. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
/ ! -~] ')
A1tachmcnt 2 -ViiI & lA
Page 28
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to_sewer connection fees.
d. Interim SR-125 impact fee
e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIP.
f Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIP as may be adopted by the City in the future.
g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIP.
h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 Undergrounding.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
13 1. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act.
The developer shall be responsible for providing all required' testing and documentation to demonstrate
said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
132. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant
to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit disclosure
form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval.
133. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 ifpump stations for sewer purposes are proposed.
134. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within
open spaces.
135. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual.
136. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
(Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes
but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation
(19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100).
The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth
Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions necessary to
ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior to construction of
State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a proposed development as a
prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to
comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance.
137. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as
defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall clearly
indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 1019/96
11~3'~
Anaclunent 2 - Viii & I A
Page 29
138. The applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from the appropriate resource
agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent 10(a) permit applicable to the
property.
139. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations.
GATED AREAS
The following conditions will be included in the final Resolution only if the City Council
specifically approves the provision of gates in the Tentative Map.
140. Any gates proposed on the tentative tract map are not considered to be approved unless
and until specifically approved by the City Council.
141. Parks located within gated areas shall not receive park credit.
142. Include all private streets in separate lots. Provide on the appropriate final "B" Map a
certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private street lots.
143. Designate all streets within gated communities as private. Design of said streets shall meet the
City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Private street cross
sections shall conform to those shown on the Tentative Map.
144. Provide at all private streets with controlled access, the following fe'!tures:
a. Gates as approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. Gates shall be
located to provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without
interrupting traffic on public streets.
b. A turn around at the location of the gate. The size and location of said turn around
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
c. A border between public street and private street delineated through the use of
distinctive pavements.
d. Provisions shall be made for emergency vehicle access as directed by the Police Chief
and Fire Marshall, including but not limited to proposals for staffing, "opticon" or
keypad system
e. A dedicated parking space for the gate attendant.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
) / ---] /
Anachment 2 - Viii & IA
Page 30
145. Include the right-of-way for any private portion of the "Temporary Roadway" (Santa Madera
Avenue between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive) in a separate lot. In the appropriate
final "B" Map, grant said lot in fee to the City for open space and other public uses and include
language in the City's Clerk Statement rejecting said lot and noting that Section 66477.2(a) of the
Subdivision Map Act provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future
acceptance by the City. The City Clerk's Statement shall also indicate that the Council action rejecting
the lot will be rescinded and the open space lot accepted at such time as a public road connecting
Filmore Street in Village One to East Orange Avenue is opened for public use.
146. The gating of all subdivided areas approved for gates shall not impact the necessary
interlinkage of public roads and pedestrian access as determined to be required by the Director of
Planning and Director of Public works.
147. The gating of subdivided areas shall be prohibited when such gating limits or prohibits public
vehicular access to any area not previously authorized to be gated.
CCI022CN.DOC
Printed: 10/9/96
J!'~ L/~-
Attachment 2 - ViII & I A
Page 31
#;;
COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMO
DATE:
October 10, 1996
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
VIA:
John Goss, City Manager
FROM:
Gerald J. J
Otay Ranch
ecial Planning Projects Manager,
RE:
Village Development a. .a. Baldwin Builders Bankruptcy Hearings
At the September 24, 1996 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to provide a
report concerning the status of the bankruptcy action involving Otay Ranch Properties.
The following is a response to the request:
1. Baldwin Builders Bankruptcy
Baldwin Builders flled for Chapter 11 Reorganization in July 1995. Baldwin Builders
owns approximately 2,000 acres within Otay Ranch (Village l1/Salt Creek area and
Otay Mesa). This property is not located within the SPA One or fIrst Tentative Map
area of Otay Ranch. Upon bankruptcy, Baldwin Builders was owned and managed by
Jim and AI Baldwin. In May of 1996, the Bankruptcy Trustee took over management of
Baldwin Builders. Since then, neither the Baldwin brothers nor Village Development
have had any authority, responsibility or ability to make any decisions for Baldwin
Builders projects or property. The Bankruptcy Trustee (David Gould) and court
appointed Baldwin Builder Manager (Jim Johnson) have had management control and
responsibility. On September 30, 1996, the Bankruptcy Court approved a request by
Baldwin Builders (David Gould and Jim Johnson) to proceed with construction of homes
within the St. Claire Project.
a. Baldwin Buildere,IVillage Development - Inter Company Agreement
For the past 23 years, The Baldwin Company has been broadly organized
into two separate entities: Village Development and Baldwin Builders.
Village Development (including afflliated organizations of The Otay Ranch,
L.P. and Tiger Development Two, both owners of portions of Otay Ranch)
has served as the entitlement arm of The Baldwin Company. That is,
Village Development acquired, pla1llled and received entitlements for raw
lands. Baldwin Builders served as the home building arm of The Baldwin
Company, acquiring property from Village Development, building and
selling homes. The relationship between Village Development and Baldwin
Builders was memorialized in an Inter Company Agreement which
ceinfo-13.doc
) /~ t/ J
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 10, 1996
Page 2
granted Baldwin Builders certain rights of first refusal to acquire Village
Development property.
Village Development was never included in the Baldwin Builders
bankruptcy and, as such, is not in anyway under the jurisdiction of the
Bankruptcy Court.
As part of the Baldwin Builders bankruptcy, however, last February, the
Bankruptcy Court approved an agreement between Baldwin Builders and
Village Development clarifying the relationship between the two entities.
The purpose of the agreement was to clarify the rights, liabilities and
obligations of each entity. In exchange for a transfer of Village
Development assets to Baldwin Builders, Baldwin Builders released and
indemnified Village Development from all liabilities and actions.
Subsequently, Baldwin Builders alleged that the provisions contained in
the Inter Company Agreement granting Baldwin Builders the right to
acquire property from Village Development were unaffected by the
February court approved release. Village Development argued that the
February court approved release voided the Inter Company Agreement.
The dispute caused Baldwin Builders to seek a relief from the Bankruptcy
Court prohibiting Village Development from selling Village Development
properties to a third party. The court denied this request, issuing instead
a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction that simply
affirmed the existence of the Inter Company Agreement and set the
matter for a full hearing in March 1997. Until and unless the order is
modified at the later hearing, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that:
(1) Baldwin Builders has a first right of refusal to purchase Village
Development land, but only in accordance with the following terms:
Village Development must notify Baldwin Builders of any third party
agreements to purchase Village Development land and, within 10 days of
the notification, Baldwin Builders must respond to the notification and
either elect not to purchase the property or to purchase the property on
the same terms offered by the third party purchaser; and
(2) Baldwin Builders has an option to purchase Village Development
land at a fair market value even if Village Development has not received
an offer to purchase from a third party, but the option must be exercised
on an all cash basis.
2. Tiger Development Two Bankruptcy
Tiger Development Two is a limited partnership affiliated with Village
Development and owned by Jim and AI Baldwin. West Coast Land Fund held a
promissory note from Tiger Development Two securing approximately 1,061 acres
ccinfo-13.doc
Jj/1L
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 10, 1996
Page 3
of land within Otay Ranch. In February 1996, Tiger Development Two was
placed in involuntary bankruptcy. The bankruptcy action stayed any West Coast
Land Fund foreclosure of the property. In July 1996, the Bankruptcy Court ruled
that West Coast Land Fund could proceed with the foreclosure action and, in
August 1996, West Coast Land Fund did foreclose on the property and took title
to the land.
Last month, Tiger Development Two filed a notice with the Bankruptcy Court
seeking dismissal of the bankruptcy action since Tiger Development Two's only
asset, the 1,061 acres of Otay Ranch property, had been foreclosed upon. A
hearing on the motion is set for October 21, 1996.
3. Bank of America Notice of Foreclosure
On September 16, 1996, Bank of America and The Otay Ranch, L.P. successfully
restructured the debt owed to Bank of America and executed a "forbearance
agreement" which avoided a foreclosure sale. The Otay Ranch, L.P. is an affiliate
of Village Development and is owned and managed by Jim and AI Baldwin. The
Otay Ranch, L.P. owns most of SPA One. The forbearance agreement contains
certain conditions with which the borrower (The Otay Ranch, L.P., et. al.) must
comply or the foreclosure process could proceed. Bank of America would not
disclose the content of those conditions. My understanding of the agreement is
that The Otay Ranch, L.P. is obligated to make periodic payments. On
September 23, 1996, the City was once again notified that Bank of America
would be conducting a foreclosure sale on October 9, 1996. Representatives of
The Otay Ranch, L.P. indicated this notice is procedurally necessary in order for
Bank of America to avoid jeopardizing any of its rights, but that all conditions of
the forbearance agreement have been met and no foreclosure sale will take place
on October 9, 1996.
4. Financial Status of Village Development (as of October 10, 1996)
At this point in time, Village Development is one month delinquent. On
September 25, 1996 $35,997.42 was due and payable. Village Development
representatives anticipates the September payment will be paid on or before
October 15, 1996.
ccinfo-13.rloc
J /- is
~.
RESOLUTION NO. I %;.J,/?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA 1) DISAPPROVING UPGRADE-RELATED
INCREASES IN MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE
BASIC SERVICE TIER; 2) DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE
A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC ON BEHALF OF LOCAL
SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING UPGRADE-RELATED
INCREASES IN THE CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE
TIER RATES 3) APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED
RATE DECREASES FOR ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND
4) APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED INCREASES IN
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC
SERVICE TIER
WHEREAS, in May 1996, Cox Communications instituted a
$3.79 increase in its Cable Programming Services (CPS or "expanded
service") tier which charge is subject to FCC regulation, thus any
complaints must be filed with the FCC; and
WHEREAS, at the same time, Cox proposed to raise its
Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier, which is
subject to City regulation; and
WHEREAS, both of these changes were based on costs to
upgrade Cox's infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, further cost-based increases in Maximum
Permitted Rates were requested in July, along with decreases in the
rates for associated equipment/installations (e.g. charge per
installation; rental of decoder boxes, remote controls); and
WHEREAS, a study by Public Knowledge, Inc. of Cox's
methodology in spreading its upgrade costs called into question
both the Basic and CPS share of the upgrade; and
WHEREAS, said study also found the cost-based increases
to be appropriately justified; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, staff is presenting a
recommendation to deny and/or protest the questionable upgrade-
related rates, approve the equipment rate decreases and approve the
cost-based service charge increases; and
WHEREAS, on those portions of the rate requests with
which the City disagrees, the FCC is the final arbiter and should
Cox wish to institute such rate increases above the City's
objections, they would be required to file an appeal with the FCC
in conjunction with any rate increase; and
1
/c2 -)tJ
WHEREAS, if the FCC finds in the City's favor, any
overcharges would be subject to refund by Cox.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby 1) disapprove upgrade-related
increases in maximum permitted rates for the basic service tier; 2)
direct staff to file a complaint with the FCC on behalf of local
subscribers regarding upgrade-related increases in the cable
programming service tier rates 3) approve proposed cost-based rate
decreases for associated equipment; and 4) approve proposed cost-
based increases in the maximum permitted rates for the basic
service tier.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ v J)}l ~ ~ fJr~~ r--
~ Moore, ?cting c~
Attorney
Gerald Young, Principal
Management Assist
C:\rs\cable.inc
2
/;2 -'IJ
~
K.Jj-C!'(-1~ J...."'tO
I.~."'" I~-.r--- "'-....~
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGEe
ATTACHMENT #1
3510 SUNRIDGE DR. S.
SALEM. OR 97302
(503) 581-0878
PAX (503) 581-2026
28~ N.R. STAN'roN
POll1UND, OR 9'n12
(503) 1H7-7Z73
PAX (SO" 287-7~23
AquBt 27. 1996
Mr. Gcnld Young
City of(hda Vista
276 Pourth Avenue
CImla Vista. CA. 91910
Mr. Bob Hain
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beac:h Blvd.
Imperial Beach. CA 91932
Ms. Leslie Dcac and Mr. Park Moma
City ofNaticmal City
1243 National City Blvd.
Nationa1 City, CA919S0
DearMr. Young. Mr. Ham, Ms. Deese md Mr. Morria:
I have nMewed the F~cral ConnnllnicaU0n5 Commission (FCC) Fonn 1140, (dated June
24, 1996) and Form 1235 (correctecJ FonD dated May 1. 1996) submitted to the Cities of
Chula VISta, Imperia1Beaeh. UlClNational City (ianchising authorities) by Cox
~micatiODS (Cox). The purpose oftbe Porm 1240 is to set ...,nmllm permitted rGa
for buic ICI'Yice and cable proaatll.1N1\S .-vic:a (CPS) for a projected period (m this
case, the period between October 1,1996 aDd Septembcr30, 1997). The purpollC ofthc
Form 1235 is to adjust rateI for cable oetwork upgrades - Cox Meb to apply the Form
123510 add an "upgrade" inclemeDt to the maximnn permitted rates determiDecl on ita
Form 1240. The Cox fi1inp were identical for these three franchising authorities. The
fi'1l1'r.hiaing authorities directly rcpJato buic service rat.; the FCC regt1late- CPS rates,
but UDder certain conditiODJ ftanddsina authori1ica may triger an FCC ~cw of the CPS
rate by fiJ.iq a proper complaint.
1 ~ the Cox Form 1240 for compliance with the pce JUl. chet:bld the
~lJ1tiODl, and uses_ the reuoaablta88I of ~ key data. Under the PCC roles
Cox may adjust its ftI-mnmu pcrmittecl rata to account tor inflation, cbaqeI in cxterDI1
00'" (fix' aunple, program acquiIitinn COllI). ud dwmeI additiODl or deletioII5. 1
fouDd no matcriaJ problema in tho Form 1240. UDder the Fonn 1240 I)'Item, the
6mcbiq authorities wID have an oppartuDity . ywr jiom now to compare actual 00"
I
I
CONSUL'17NG AND lNl'O/lMATICJIV SlIRVIC:.:m' FOR ruBlJC IrtANItGZMENT J!XCJ!LlF.NCF.
t
. .'
- . .
.. ,.. .
~... . .
/ J -- )1-.-1
Ie- ..
Fl.6-27-1996 14=49
PI.lJ:Lll; ~ ~l~
.L~rr~ r.~
..
to certain COltS that Cox projc:ctod in this filiDg and to make adjustmema accordiDaly in
the prospective maximum ,..mued buic teMce l8tel for the sublcqucmt period.
Wbile 1 found the miximl11ll permitted basic IllVicc rate of$9.74 detaminod on the Form
1240 acceptable, 1 ctiHgroe with the iDcremeata that Cox seeks to add to this rate and to
the CPS rate based 011 the Form 1235 filiog for cable notWOJ'k upsndea. Cox reportI that
it upgraded its cable system lIMns theM &antft~ authorities: previOUlly tho syateID
had 450 MHz capldty. and ROW Cox nportl750 MHz, with SSO MHz 8Ctivated. 11ua
there wu a reported increue of 100 MHz in activated capacity.
I do DOt believe that Cox properly lUoc;ated the QOItI oftbe upgrade ill cIetermiDina rate
acIjustmenta tbr nguJated ..mccs OIl the Form IDS. ReauJJted terViCCl iDdude the baic
.mce tier. which is dircc;t1y regulated by the i1Dchieing authorities. aDd the cable
propmmins aeMces tier (CPS), which is replatcd by the FCC. buonS that the Cox
aUocations were DOt proper iDclude the ft111owin8:
. The FCC mica dearly provide that IUbscriben .hould DOt pay for plant dUIt is not uaed
and UJdb1 (see. for instaDce, Second kcport and Order. Ysnt Order OIl
Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed RulemaIdn& FCC 95-S02, released
Jamwy 26, 1996.136). 111 this ~ 66.67 peroent of the upgrade (200 MHz of the
300 MHz upgrade) knot c:urrently used aDd uadW. Yet Cox C'Xdudecl only 20
percent oCtile upgrade cost u not uMd and UHfW. The Cox ntionale is that an
upgrade to only SSO MHz would aI1eJecUy have cost about 80 perQCftt u much (Cox
estimate) as the actual upgrade to 7S0 MHz. Thus Cox haa applied morglnaJ cost
concepts to a aUocation (the c;onteDtion that the rnargiDal COlt oftbe Jut 200 MHz of
capacity addition i,l... than the COSt oftbe first 100 MHz aftbe upgrade). HO'MNeI',
the FCC rules .pedSca11:y require afiJly dlstribJIlfUI cost aDocation lMtbodology (see
Report and Order and FurtherNoti~ ofPropoecd llulemaking, FCC 94-39, nieuod
March 30, 1994~ 1 226 fE). Undertbil approach, each UDit of added capacity should
be treated as ifit costa the same as the other units of added ~ OM-third of the
ooat abould be allocated to the &nt 100 MHz (which is uaed and usdW). and two-
thirds of the colt to the lut 200 MHz (which il DOt uled ancI useful). UaJeu the fbIIy
distnDuted aUooat1on approach is applied, the rates paid by sublOrt"bcn to Rgl,I.qd
aavices inc;luded in the 100 MHz activated portion oftbe upgrade will include a
disproportionately tarae sbare of colt compaml to those who ultimately uae IOI'Vices
(likely to primarily be unregu1atecl) provided in the remaining 200 MHz once it is
activated; tballs, there wiD be CfOIIlUblidics.
. Once it had cxduded 20 perccat oCtile up.- coil tor the 200 MHz not currendy
1Ctivat.ed, Cox allocated the remaiDina cost baled on the total c:hannel count by HrYice
tier (buio, CPS. and aU other) der the upgrade. Cox repoI1I74 activated ~1umftcls
aftertbeuparade. irPu4ina 18 buio. 41 CPS, aDd 15 Kother." So. toreamp1e, about
24.3 pert:eDl (18 divided by 74) of tile residua! upgrade COlt that Cox reported. uaed
IIDd usefW was 1ll00llted to the basic tier. Yet Cox did not Idd IDX buio ~HlvJ. in
the upsrade - there wen 18 buic cbamao1a both Wore _ after. Upande coati may
2
. ."..
'" '.
/~/A-(1-
Fl.G-27-1996 14150
fUEL I C IQOd EOOf'
1~("(~ P. EI4
be passed thrOUgh to IUb.mben only iflbc operator derDoa8tnItel that the capital
investmOl1t aetuaDy beMfi18 IUbICrlben to reau1ated .mcea (Report 8nd Order aDd
Purtber Notice orPropoAd ~1ri--8, FCC 94-39. released March 30t 1994, 1
287). In tbiI cue, there is DO demonJU8tecl benefit to baic ..-vioo IUblClibers Iince
the channel allocation for the baaie tier wu not cbanpcI by the uppde. n.cnf'oro.
DOne of the upgrade COIllbould be anoc.tM to basic. Further, the allocation between
CPS aod other set'\lieel sboukl be baled oo1he c:Iwmel additiODl directly uaociated
with the upgrade, DOt tho. on tbe l)'Ilem cmn1l (Cox IIready I8CCMn throuah itJ
beochmark rates far the cbanDela availIble before tho upgrade).
. Cox did not indicate IDX projceted rneaue for the amMtecl eapacity iavolwd in the
upgrade. The form iDltnactioas ca11 for the apcntor 10 report projeQocI adwrtiIiD&
commiuiDn, aud leased accea revemes. IIDDDI others. Cox's cIwlIlel ~up
iDcIioatea that two of tile IddecI ~ are home shopping, aad OM is 1eued access;
othera undoubtedlY carry advertisiDs in8ertions for which Cox will be~. If'
report~ projected revenue would be aa ofiset to upgrado costIlhOWD on the Porm
123 S. The Cox projection of DO added revenue is limply implausible based on the
indicated dlannel MlditioPS.
. On previous FCC Form 12101 Cox baa reported dwmeI additions OIl the CPS tier and
increased its maxiDJm permitted rates for the CPS tier under the FCC's "RJ)S"
method for treating addccJ chanDels. Cox bacl used its tUn S 1.20 -cap" (plus
programming COltS) tor the added channels before filing this Form 123S. All but one
of the channels that Cox added UDder the "c;aps" method ~ made available by the
additional 100 MHz that Cox ICti'wted in the upgrade fiom 450 MHz to SSO MHz
(one channel was added before the upgrade). By now claiming the upgrade ClOst that
in part re1Ues to the as ~ usociated with the "cap" me additions Cox would
be recovering twice for the lidded ers aip8dty, once in the "cap" addition aDd apin
in the upgrade coat aDocated to the CPS tier. nus result could not have reuonabIy
been the FCC", intent. and Ihould be clarified by III FCC review otthis concern.
As a conJeqUel'lC8 of these QOIICCllI, I reoommcnd the following ldions for the
ftanchiaiDg authorities.
. Approve a $9.74 mp;rmnn permitted rateforbuic service <_dueling franchise fees).
but deny Cox any addition to tbiJ maximum permitted basic service rate hued OIl the
Form 123S.
. Submit a Form 329 GOmplaint to the PCC reprcJinS the CPS tier. 11Iis cornp1alnt must
C)01DO a hncbi..IIUthority, but requiRs that at least twO 1a1b8criber1 have
complained to the fnncbiIina authority within certain time hm- after the operator
has chanpd. as rata (_ attachJnrIIl); Cox reported I CPS rate iDcreue in May.
1996. Tbc PCC IhouId thin resolve the proper allocation ofupp1lde coJtl to the CPS
tier.
3
:
.------ '.- ..- ..----
),}---/l/3
R..C-27-1 ~ lqi ~
r~A\.o N"Il---"'--....""\.A-
Pleue contaCt Ole at S03-281-7273 if you have uy questions.
SiDcerely.
rAC.~
Jay C. Smith
President. Public ICnowIedae. Inc.
4
TDTA.. P.05
J;l-A~J
ATTACHMENT #2 ~~
March 22, 1996
5' 59 Federal Boulevard
San Diego, California 92105,5485
1619\ 263-9251
Mr Jim Thomwn
Assistant City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Re: Non-Upgraded Customers
Dear Mr. Thomson:
In late February 1996, the Federal Communications Commission approved FCC Form 1235, This
new form allows cable companies to recover costs associated with significant cable system
upgrades which benefit customers of regulated cable services, Cox Communications San Diego's
completed FCC Form 1235 is enclosed for your review
Customers who currently receive only our "Limited Basic" service will not be impacted
whatsoever by this filing Their monthly basic cable rate of $7.30 per month will remain
unchanged,
Although the FCC Form 1235 permits significant increases in both the Basic and CPS levels of
service, it is Cox's goal to achieve a uniform rate; in other words, Cox will simply charge
customers in your city the same as those of all other surrounding cities who have similar levels of
service, The rate for the Cable Programming Services tier will increase by $3,79, This rate
change is due to the recovery of our investment in the recent cable system upgrade, For upgraded
customers with a combined level of Basic plus CPS, that total monthly rate will be $26,99, as it is
in surrounding cities
Enclosed please tind one copy of FCC Form 1235 that is being filed thirty (30) days prior to the
aforementioned increase in the rate Cox charges for Cable Programming Services, Also enclosed
is a copy of the notice sent to our subscribers describing these changes,
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me,
Sincerely,
ons
ce and Administration
Enclosure: FCC Form 1235, Customer Notice
//
-1- );;} A>:-)
March 22, 1996
Cox Communications
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego, California 92105.5486
(61912flljlZ51
Non-Upgraaea customers
RE: YOUR UPCOMING CABLE UPGRADE & MONTHLY PRICES
cox
Dear Customer:
COMMUNICATIONS
In a recent bill, you received information about new channels and prices related to
Cox's cable TV system upgrade. Please disregard that notice as the pricing information
was incorrect. The following information will apply to your cable service once the
additional upgraded channels are activated in your area.
The new revised price for Cox Classic service will be $26.99 per month. This
adjustment will not be reflected on your bill, however, until you receive the new
channels. A list of the new channels appears below. The cost for Cox Limited
Basic will remain at the current low price of $7.30 per month. This adjustment will
bring your billing to an equal level with that of all other upgraded households.
We recognize concerns regarding price adjustments. Please be assured that this price
is consistent with the Cox Classic price currently paid by Cox customers throughout San
Diego County who receive the many new programs and services made possible
through the upgrade.
Thank you for your continued business. Cox Communications is working hard to
provide our customers with superior service. If our cable service is not meeting your
expectations, please call us at 262.1122. Our representatives are available 24-hours-
a-day, every day. We can help you!
Sincerely,
William K. Geppert
Vice PresidenUGeneral Manager
NEW CHANNELS
Ch. 62 Encore.
Ch. 63 Travel Channel
Ch.64 Gems (Spanish Language)
Ch. 65 MTV Latino (Spanish Language)
Ch. 66 Home Shopping Network
Ch. 67 ValueVision
Ch. 68 fX
Ch. 69 Mind Exten. University
Ch. 70 Outdoor Life
Ch. 71 Continuous Hits 3**
Ch. 72 ESPN2*
Ch. 73 The History Channel*
Ch. 74 Turner Classic Movies*
Ch. 75 Leased Access
Ch. 76 Continuous Hits 4**
· Available in a package for an additional charge of $3,15 per month plus equipment ** Pay-Per-View Service
-.;2-
!~ - t~
I
/f,~
t;
March 22, 1996
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego. California 92105.5486
(619i 263.9251
Mr. Jim Thomson
Assistant City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9]910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Re: Upgraded Customers
Dear Mr. Thomson:
In late February 1996, the Federal Communications Commission approved FCC Form 1235. This
new form allows cable companies to recover costs associated with significant cable system
upgrades which benefit customers of regulated cable services Cox Communications San Diego's
completed FCC Form 1235 is enclosed for your review
Customers who currently receive only our "Limited Basic" service will not be impacted
whatsoever by this filing. Their monthly basic cable rate of $7.30 per month will remain
unchanged.
Although the FCC Form 1235 permits significant increases in both the Basic and CPS levels of
service, it is Cox's goal to achieve a uniform rate; in other words, Cox will simply charge
customers in your city the same as those of all other surrounding cities who have similar levels of
service The rate for the Cable Programming Services tier will increase by $2.55. This rate
change is due to the recovery of qur investment in the recent cable system upgrade. For upgraded
customers with a combined level of Basic plus CPS, that total monthly rate will be $26.99, as it is
in surrounding cities.
Enclosed please find one copy of FCC Form 1235 that is being filed thirty (30) days prior to the
aforementioned increase in the rate Cox charges for Cable Programming Services. Also enclosed
is a copy of the notice sent to our subscribers describing these changes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
William J. FitzSl m ns
Director of Finan
Enclosure: FCC Form 1235, Customer Notice
-3-
jd. PI':
March 22, 1996
Cox Communications
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego, California 92105.5486
Upgraded t~~?6rners
RE: YOUR RECENT CABLE UPGRADE & MONTHLY PRICES
cox
Dear Customer:
COMMUNICATIONS
As you know, the price you pay for Cox Classic service was adjusted when the addi-
tional upgraded channels were activated in your area. This price was based upon then
current federal rate regulations governing cable TV system upgrades,
But because of local circumstances governing cable TV in your area, even the new,
higher price was artifically low for the services you are receiving New federal telcom-
munications rules recognize this inequity and, in fairness to all of our customers, we
are adjusting your price accordingly.
We recognize concerns regarding price adjustments. Please be assured that this price
is consistent with the Cox Classic price currently paid by other Cox customers through-
out San Diego County who are receiving our upgraded service, This adjustment will
bring your billing to an equal level with that of all other upgraded households,
The new revised price for Cox Classic service will be $26.99 per month. This
adjustment will be reflected on your next bill received after April 22nd. The cost
for Cox Limited Basic will remain at the current low price of $7.30 per month.
Thank you for your continued business, Cox Communications is working hard to
provide our customers with superior service. If our cable service is not meeting your
expectations, please call us at 262-1122. Our representatives are available 24-hours-
a-day, every day. We can help you!
Sincerely,
William K. Geppert
Vice PresidentlGeneral Manager
-if -
I ~
J\
.\
,....
'-.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing
For Cable Network Upgrades
Community Unit or System Operating Name I~ommunity Unit 10 - CUID(s) IDate of Filing
COX Communications San Diego CA0329 3/15/96
Name of Cable Operator
Cox Communications San Diego
Mailing Address
5159 Federal Blvd.
City I~tate l~iP Code
San Diego California 92105-5486
Ownership of Franchise or System (Place an .X. to the left or the appropriate answer.):
X C.Corp Subchapter 5
Partnership Sole Proprietor Other
Person to contact regarding this form:
William Fitzsimmons
Telephone I~ax Number
(619) 266-5410 (619) 266-5540
Local Franchising Authority
City ofChula Vista
Mailing Address
276 Fourth AHnue
City I~tate lZiP Code
Chula Vista California 919]0
This form is being filed for: (Check One)
X
Pre. Approval
OR
Final Approval
Note: If Final Approval filing, attach all Pre-Approval filings, if any, relating to the upgrade.
Scope of Filing: (Check One)
x
Pre - Approval
OR
System Level
Note: Cable System is defined in Section 602(7) of the Communications Act.
-5-
Page lor8
t" tA,
rcc Form 1~35
Fe bruary 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing
For Cable Network Upgrades
Part 1. Qualification for Upgrade Rate Adjustment
A. Significance of Upgrade Qualification
1. Does the upgrade meet the minimum technical specifications described in the Instructions for Part 1
Qualification for Upgrade Rate Adjustment, Line 1?
x
Yes
No
2. If "No" was answered in question 1, attach a brief description of how subscribers to Basic and Cable
Programming Service Tiers will benefit form the capital improvements.
3. Complete the following items to determine the cost of the capital improvement as a percentage of rate
base (Investment in cable property, plant and equipment for the area over which the improvement will be
used):
A.
B.
C.
The net upgrade rate base
Total rate base after upgrade
Percentage of upgrade to total rate base
$
$
27,298
41,754
65.38%
B. Used & Useful Qualification
If this form has been completed for a pre-approval, please skip to line 3.
1. . Has the upgrade been completed?
Yes
No
2. If question 1 was answered "yes" enter the date the upgrade was completed and began providing
service to subscribers of regulated services:
3. If the Phased-in Approach is elected, attach a description of the subsections involved and the projected
dates on which the upgrade will be completed and providing service to subscribers of rate regulated
services within those subsections.
Imperial Beach
Santee
Chula Vista
National City
Nov-95
Feb-96
May-96
May-96
-&,-
Page 2 01'1\
l~- p.
I -.
FCC Form 123~
February 1996
.:.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filling
For Cable Network Upgrades
Part II. Upgrade Revenue Requirement Computation
1-
2.
Net Upgrade Rate Base (Worksheet A. Line 4e)
Return on Investment
a. Rate of Return Percentage
b. Computed Return on Upgrade Rate Base (Line 1 x Line 2a)
Allowance for Income Taxes
a. Federal Income Tax Rate
b. State Income Tax Rate
c. Computed Return on Upgrade Rate Base (Line 2b)
d. Interest expense related to upgrade (Worksheet A. Line ge)
e. Distributions (Non-C Corp. Filers Only)
f. Contributions (Non-C Corp. Filers Onlyl
g. Return Amount subject to income tax
h. Income Tax Allowance
Projected Net Impact of Upgrade on Operating
Expenses (Worksheet A, Line 8e)
Net Revenue and Income Adjustments
Related to Upgrade (Worksheet A. Line 12e)
Total Upgrade Revenue Requirement (Line 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)
3_
4_
5..
6
(a)
(b)
(e)
BST
CPSTs
6~'.}~ .2~~;
~'il....
."": ~.
35.00%
9.30%
':{" - .~[ '.
597,601
248,336
1,361,201
565,655
~~~:; ~;;!;,J.J-;-
.~~:::-;.,' ~~c~ ~~_~ .~:'- ~
349,264 795,546 .&S..s~-r~:.- :~t~,. ~~~
.- - --.-.,.
1<".' r_::~.: 257.371 586,233
--z.:'" -- ,-- ....--- -
--.......--.. -- ...
459.9i3
1.047,717
....-'n.
'.or.::~,..~rJ.;
. . .-....:. 1.- .....~ ~. T_ i
"-.~~---'...'.--._,' '., ~~~..-,--~-~.,
- f~j\~'
o
1.314.945
o
2.995.152
~,,' ":.";~'..,.;
~~~i--"?~:'.~:-:i.. ~1A-~~~-::~~--.-.: ~.~t"~,~~"
Part Ill. Allocation of Upgrade Revenue ReqUirement to Basic and Cable Programming Service Tiers
1. Upgrade Revenue Requirements' (Part II. Line 6)
2. Number of Subscribers
3. Annual Revenue ReqUirement Per Sub (Line 1/ Line 2)
4. Monthly Network Upgrade Add-on (Line 3 I 12)
5. Selected method of subscriber recovery: (Check One)
(a) lb) (c)
BST CPST.1 CPST . 2 Total
1.314.945 2.995.152 4.310.0Q6
63.229 61.920
207965 48.3i13 6916 i9
1.7330 4.0309 5.7640
. Provide description for allocation of CPST Revenue Requirement to CPS Tiers:
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
WILlfUL FALSE STATEMENTS MAKE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE ANDIOR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S. CODE TITLE 18. SECTION 1001 l. A'I\ID/OR FORFEITURE (US CODE. TITLE 47. SECTION 503).
I cenify that the statements made in this form are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. and are make in good faith.
Name and Title of Person Completing this Form: Sign tute;'
Ii
Telephone Num
Willillm Fitzsimmons, Director of Finance & Administration
Date:
3/15/96
- '7 '-'
11..-
{r\ '
t- /~. /
/ '
FCC Form 1235
F~bruar:- 1996
Pag~ 3 of S
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMS 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Name of Operator: Cox Communications San Diego
CUID (s): CA0329 Worksheet A Cost Assignments and Allocations (part 1)
Date of Filing: 3/15/96 ($ OOO's)
Directly Assigned Cost Elements
Balance (b)
Line Number and Description (a) BST CPST - 1 CPST - 2 All Other
.
1. Plant and Equipment 26,076 5,215
2. Allowance for Funds Used During Construction 1,222 244
3. Other Adjustments 0 0
4. NET UPGRADE RATE BASE (Sum Lines 1 - 3) 27,298 0 0 0 5,460
PROJECTED:
5. Change in Plant Related Operating Expenses 71 0
6. Change in Plant Related Support Expenses 0 0
7. Upgrade Related Depreciation Expense 2,275 . 455
B. PROJECTED NET IMPACT OF UPGRADE ON
OPERATING EXPENSES (Sum Lines 5 - 7) 2.346 0 0 0 455
9. INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO UPGRADE 1,276 255
PROJECTED:
10. Other Cable Revenue 0
11. Other Adjustments 0
12. NET REVENUE AND INCOME ADJUSTMENTS
RELATED TO UPGRADE (Sum Lines 10 - 11) 0 0 0 0 0
-1-
Pag~ 4 of 8
1"-- p, !,
FCC Form 1235
Fe bruary 1996 '-.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington. D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Name of Operator: Cox Communications San Diego
CUID (s): CA0329 Worksheet A Cost Assignments end Allocations (part 2)
Date of Filing: 3/1 5/96 ($ OOO's)
Allocated Cost Elements Allocation
(c) Key
Line Number and Description eST CPST - 1 CPST - 2 All Other (d)
1. Plant and Equipment 5,074 11 ,558 4,228 1
2. Allowance for Funds Used During Construction 238 542 198 1
3. Other Adjustments 0 0 0
4. NET UPGRADE RATE BASE (Sum lines 1 .3) 5,312 12,100 0 4,427
PROJECTED:
5. Change in Plant Related Operating Expenses 17 39 14 1
6. Change in Plant Related Support Expenses 0 0 0
7. Upgrade Related Depreciation Expense 443 1,008 369 1
8. PROJECTED NET IMPACT OF UPGRADE ON
OPERATING EXPENSES (Sum Lines 5 - 7) 460 1,048 0 383
9. INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO UPGRADE 248 566 207 1
PROJECTED:
10. Other Cable Revenue
11. Other Adjustments
12. NET REVENUE AND INCOME ADJUSTMENTS
RELATED TO UPGRADE (Sum Lines 10 .11) 0 0 0 0
-9-,
Page 5 of 8
lA-r\'\~'
FCC Fom) 1235
FebruaT) 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington. D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbr~viated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Name of Operator: Cox Communications San Diego
CUID (s): CA0329 Worksheet A Cost Assignments and Allocations
Date of Filing: 3/15/96 ($ 000'8)
Total Cost Elements
(e)
Line Number and Description eST CPST - 1 CPST - 2 All Other
1. Plant and Equipment 5,074 11,558 0 9,444
2. Allowance for Funds Used During Construction 238 542 0 443
3. Other Adjustments
4. NET UPGRADE RATE BASE (Sum Lines 1 - 3) 5,3]2 12,100 0 9,886
PROJECTED:
5. Change in Plant Related Operating Expenses 17 39 0 14
6. Change in Plant Related Support Expenses 0 0 0 0
7. Upgrade Related Depreciation Expense 443 ],008 0 824
8. PROJECTED NET IMPACT OF UPGRADE ON
OPERATING EXPENSES (Sum Lines 5 - 71 460 ],048 0 838
9. INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO UPGRADE 248 566 0 462
PROJECTED:
10. Other Cable Revenue 0 0 0 0
11. Other Adjustments 0 0 0 0
12. NET REVENUE AND INCOME ADJUSTMENTS
RELATED TO UPGRADE (Sum Lines 10 -11) 0 0 0 0
(part 3)
-/0-
Page 6 of 8
l~- h/
FCC Form 1235
February 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMS 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Worksheet B: Allocation Key
Name of Operator: Cox Communications San Diego Page I of I
Franchise CUID: CA0329
Organizational Level:
Date of Filing: 3/15/96
Allocation Allocation Methodology Description
Key (a) (b)
1 Channels Post-Rebuild Channels Percentages
Basic 18 24.32%
CPS 41 55.41%
NCPS-alacarte 4 5.41%
-
NCPS-Premium 11 14.86%
74 100.00%
I
,
I
-11--
Page 70r8
)~
/'
I~
M' \>
I
FCC Form 1235
February 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington. D.C. 20554
Approved by OMS 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing For Cable Network Upgrades
Worksheet C: Supplemental Data
Name of Operator: Cox Communications San Diego Page: of
Franchise CUID: CA0329 I Date of Filing: I 3/15/96
Org Level: I Date of Report: I
For each of the following property and equipment categories state the gross depreciable balance resulting from the upgrade
along with the average depreciation life which comprise the property and equipment balance reported in Worksheet A.
Cost of Method of
Description Upgrade Years Depreciation
1. Headend -
2. Transmission Facilities and Equipment
3. Distribution facilities (Trunk, drops, etc.)
4. Circuit Equipment (amplifiers, power boosters, etc.)
5. Maintenance Facilities (garages, warehouses, etc.)
6. Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
7. Buildings (office)
B. Office Furniture and Equipment
9. Total Upgrade Rate Base
If you wish to disaggregate any of the above because they are not readily combined or if you wish to add others
not shown, report such below:
Cost of Method of
Line Number Description Upgrade Years Depreciation
10. (Specify) Aerial Distribution 6,028,399 12 Straight-Line
11. (Specify) Underground Distribution 8,440,771 12 Straight-Line
12. (Specify) System Design & Engineering 727,686 12 Straight-Line
13. (Specify) Aerial Fiber Distribution 1,605,978 12 Straight-Line
14. (Specify) Underground Fiber Distribution 6,786,574 12 Straight-Line
15. (Specify) Optical Electronics 2,486,104 12 Straight-Line
"" ) -;;L -
Page 8 of 8
J;;<- {\,\lP
FCC Form 1235
February 1996
/'
Assumptions
i I I I I I I i I
, I
Assumptions used in Worksheet A i I , I I I
i
I I I , I I
I I
Column (a) - Total Assigned Costs I I I i I
I I
Line 2 - Allowance for Funds Used Under Construction I
IAssumes that total rebuild costs of$26,075,512 is spent evenly over a
10 month period (June 95 through April 96). i I
IActual Calculation: i I I
i
I I IS26,075,512 x 11.25% /12 months x 5 months = SI,222,000.
I I I I I I I
Line 5 - Plant related Operating Expenses 1 I
iEstimated annual net increase in power costs of $71,148.1
I I I I I I I
: Line 7 - Upgrade related depreciation expenses. I : I
I
! iAIl upgrade costs are depreciated on a 12 year straight-line basis. i I i
I i I f ! I I I
:
: Line 9 - Interest Expense : !
I ;Assumes a capital structure of 55% debt a 8.5% cost if debt. This is consistent with the FCC's
assumption in determining the allowed 11.25% rate ofretum on rate base.
I I
; I
Column (b) - Directly Assigned Costs Elements .
!
Other i
;
Although the rebuild will increase plant capacity from 450mhz to 750 MHz, only 550
MHz will be activated immediately, the additional 200 MHz capacity I
will be reserved for future use. The incremental cost of this additional capacity
(approximately 20% of the total cost) has been directly assigned to the OTHER i
category . :
.//3-
)~
0' (I
Page:
May 1,1996
Mr. Jim Thomson
Assistant City Manager
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: FCC Form 1235 - Correction
Dear Mr. Thomson:
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego, California 921055485
16191263-9251
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Enclosed please find a correction to page 3 of8 for the recently filed FCC Form 1235,
The change is to Part III, line 5 where we inadvertently omitted checking off the method
of subscriber recovery we elect. '
If there is anything else that I can do for you, please let me know.
Sincerely,
(tI~ff<3-tr4'J~/;r~
William J. Fitzsimmons
Director of Finance
-/ LJ-
I /) ~\
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0688
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filling
For Cable Network Upgrades
Part II. Upgrade Revenue Requirement Computation
, . Net Upgrade Rate Base (Worksheet A. Line 4e)
2. Return on Investment
e. Rate of Return Percentage
b. Computed Return on Upgrade Rate Base (Line 1 x Line 2e)
3. Allowance for Income Taxes
e. Federal Income Tax Rate
b. State Income Tax Rate
c. Computed Return on Upgrade Rate Base (Line 2b)
d. Interest expense related to upgrade (Worksheet A, Line ge)
e. Distributions (Non-C Corp. Filers Only)
f. Contributions (Non-C Corp. Filers Only)
g. Return Amount subject to income tax
n. Income Tax Allowance
4. Projected Net Impact of Upgrade on Operating
Expenses (Worksheet A. Line 8e)
5. Net Revenue and Income Adjustments
Related to Upgrade (Worksheet A, Line 12e)
6. Total Upgrade Revenue Requirement (Line 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)
(8)
(b)
(e)
eST
CPSTs
eST
CPSTs
459.973
1,047,717
o
1,314,945
o
2,995,152
~~., ""1O~. t ----' ~>:._....:..../~~~~;.
Part III. Allocation of Upgrade Revenue Requirement to Basic and Cable Programming Service Tiers
,. Upgrade Revenue Requirements. (Part II, Line 6)
2. Number of Subscribers
3. Annual Revenue Requirement Per Sub (Line 1/ Line 2)
4_ Monthly Network Upgrade Add.on (Line 3 / 12)
5. Selected method of subscriber recovery:
(e) (b) (c)
BST CPST - 1 CPST - 2 Total
1,314,945 2,995,152 4,310,096
63,229 61,920
20.7965 48.3713 69.1679
1.7330 4.0309 57640
x
x
. Provide description for allocation of CPST Revenue Requirement to CPS Tiers:
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MAKE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S. CODE TITLE 18. SECTION 1001). AND/OR FORFEITURE (US CODE. TITLE 47. SECTION 503).
1 certify that the statements made in this form are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are make in good faith.
Name and Title of Person Completing this Form: Signat
William Fitzsimmons. Director of Finance & Administration
Date:
3/15/96
c ~~~-
-/5'-
Page 3 of8
\S1
. ,
FCC Form 1235
Februar) 1996
'\/
):; -.~
~~~
~~
~~~~
----
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May 16, 1996
Mr. William 1. Fitzsimmons
Director of Finance
Cox Communications
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105-5486
RE: Extension of Review Period for Cox Communication's FCC Form 1235
Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons:
On March 25, 1996, the City of Chula Vista received your March 22 letter transmitting your FCC
Form 1235, which is dated March 15, 1996. As you know, Cox had inadvertently omitted checking
off the method of subscriber recovery that Cox was electing on item 5 of part III on page 3 of the
FCC Form 1235. Based partially on this incomplete aspect of Cox's Form 1235 and partially on a
discussion I had with another representative of Cox, I was under the misunderstanding that Cox was
not intending to increase the rate for the Basic Service Tier or the maximum permitted rate for the
Basic Service Tier. At that time, I thought that Cox intended to allocate all of the subscriber recovery
shown on the Form 1235 to the Cable Programming Service Tier. In subsequently discussing this
issue with you later in April, I learned for the first time that Cox was actually intending to increase
the maximum permitted rate for the Basic Service Tier, so I asked you to send me a corrected version
of page 3 of the FCC Form 1235. On May 6, 1996, the City ofChula Vista received your letter dated
May 1 transmitting the corrected page 3 which does indicate on part III, Item #5 that the selected
method of subscriber recovery selected by Cox involves both the Basic Tier and the Cable
Programming Service Tier. I therefore consider May 6, 1996 to be the date that Chula Vista officially
received the Form 1235 that indicated Cox intended to increase its maximum permitted rate for the
Basic Tier.
This letter is to advise you that as provided for in Section 76.933 of the FCC Rules, the City ofChula
Vista is extending the review period by an additional ninety days (i.e. through September 3, 1996)
in order to obtain additional information and perform a thorough review of the Form 1235.
Please contact me at 691-5031 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in clarifying
this issue.
~eIY'
Jim ThT!--
Deputy City Manager
JT:dt
-/~~
MIHOMEIADMIN\J1\FORM 1235 COX
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5031 . FAX (619) 585-5612
.>:~ PQQ~~p~
I :J - f~ -)1
ATTACHMENT #3
JUL
8 t~.......,..,
1:J:~r)
July 2, 1996
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego. California 92105-5486
1619) 263-9251
Mr. Jim Thomson
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Re: Annual Notice of Rate Adjustment
Dear Mr. Thomson:
Enclosed please find FCC Forms 1205 and 1240 in connection with Cox Communications
San Diego's annual rate notification for its Basic Cable Services and regulated equipment
tiers, effective October I, 1996. With this FCC form 1240 filing, in conjunction with form
1235 filed on March 22, 1996, Cox will increase the maximum permitted rate (MPR) on
Basic from $9.47 to $11.47. The $2.00 MPR increase is due to past and projected expenses
related to $.35 in inflation, $.12 in external costs, $1.20 in channel moves, and $.33 in true-
up adjustments.
Also effective October 1, 1996, Cox will increase the maximum permitted (MPR) rate on the
Cable Programming Services (CPS) tier from $21.17 to $21.21. The $.04 MPR increase is
due to $.48 in inflation, $.41 in channel additions, $.33 in external costs, ($1.24) in channel
moves, and $.06 in true-up adjustments.
At this time. Cox Communications does not plan to increase the rates currently charged to
our customers for Basic and/or CPS levels of service. The enclosed form 1240 rate filing
involves only the setting of MPRs.
However, please note that based upon the enclosed Form 1205, we will adjust our equipment
rates charged to our customers to the new MPR, effective October 1, 1996. The new hourly
service charge will be $31.03. The new monthly decoder rate will be $2.51; converters will
be $1.40; and remotes will be $.28. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Enclosure: FCC Forms 1205, 1240
'-/7-
, t, \
1:;- {\ ·
COX COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGE IN REGULATED RATES
FCC FORM 1240 (AND ASSOCIATED FCC FORM 1210 AND 1235)
BASIC
CPS
Form 1210-Upgraded (Filed 11/15/95)
$
7.74 $ 17.14
Form 1235 (Filed 3/22/96)
1.73
4.03
Current MPR as of 4/22/96
9.47
21.17
Form 1240 (Filed 7/3/96)
9.74
17.18
Fonn 1235 (Filed 3/22/96)
1.73
4.03
New MPR as of 10/1/96
11.47
21.21
Change in MPR
2.00
0.04
- IS-
TOTAL
$ 24.88
5.76
30.64
26.92
5.76
32.68
2.04
);;- f\>
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
FORM 1205
DETERMINING REGULATED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
"EQUIPMENT FORM"
CAOJ19
nIlor
COX CABLE SAN DIEGO
31 InS
nIlor
ress 0
5159 FEDERAL BLVD.
Ity
SAN DIEGO
I eo penon comp elIDS IS rm:
William Fiasim..OIII, Director of Fiaance " A .
eep nenum r
......
619-:166-5410
ran Ismg
o~'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
109
ran ISIng u o~.
ress 0
176 FOURTH AVENUE
It}"
CHULA VISTA
ate 0 onn lO :'IllSSlon
07/01/96
ax urn r
619-:166-5540
1. This form i. Mini filed: (Enter an ..... in the approprdirbelt)
Din conjunction "ith FCC Form 1200, FCC FORO 1220, ",fCC form 1225.
Attach the eompleted FCC Fonn 1200. FCC form 1220. arfCC Form 1225 10 the front olthis Ionn
OR
[~}n order 10 fulfill FCC rules requiri,,!! an annualliling ofllois form
Enter the date on which you last filed this fonn I 02128/95 I(mmlddlyy)
Note: This should be the date on which the rates lastjustificd, by using either FCC Fonn 393 or the prior filing of this fonn, were in effect
2. Enter the date on which you dosed your books for ttw fisaI )"aT reOected in this form:
Note: This will indicate the end of the 12~onth fiscal yczb which you are filing this fann.
3. Indiute the corporate statuI of your able sy__ fF..nkr _ ":J:ff in the correa hO:l1
~c-corpol1llion
Subchapter S c;:orporation
Partnership
Sole Proprietorship
Other [Please explain belO\\)
Pagel
-It:;-
Excel 4.0 Win, Version 2.0
12131/95
I <mmlddlyy)
11 ?)
./
) ~ _ f\CF
Approved by: OMB 3060-ll592
Expires: 4130/97
FCC Fonn 1205
May 1994
FoderaI Communic:ations Commission
WaoIlialU>n. D.C. 211Sst
"' .
A Equipment and Plant Vehick-s Tools (Specify beiow)
B Gross Book Value SI.202.519.00 S405.942.00 S151.l6500
C Accwnu1arcd DqJrceiation S264.148.00 $102.971.00 SI05.955.00
D Defcrml T...... (S30.569.00) SJ3.Jn.00 S3.409.00
E Net Book Value (B-{C+DlJ S'J6I.240.00
F Rate of Return
G ClIlnJation ofGf'Ols.flp Role
GI FccIcr.illncomc Ta."( Rate
G2 _ Iocomc T.., Role
GJ Net TotlIlnc:om. T.., Ralc ((GI+G2HGI ,G2)]
G4 Adjustment to Reflect Intcrnl Deductibility
G-l. A.ctuaJ Inlefnt Amount
G-lb ToQ! Net Assets
G4. IIasc: Return on Investment Amoun, (G4b , FJ
G4d bucn:st Dcduaib;li,v Foetor (G4oIG-l<:1
as Eft'ccti.. Tax Role (GJ, (1-GOd)IIC-COrps skip to G71
G6 Adjustments for Non-C Corporations
G6a Base R.cIwn on Investment Amount {G4cl
G6b Distributions
G6< CcoItribulioas (may no' ..- G6b)
G6d Returns Subjcc:t to In..... TaxlG6a-G6b+G6c1
G6< Returns Pcra:ntage Subjm to Income T.., IG6dlG6al
G7 Gross-Up RaI<: IC-Corps: III 1,(;5) Other III HG5 , G6<))1
H Gn>uo:d-Up Role or Rcwrn (F , G71
Return on Invcsunent Gtoned-Up forT....(E, H] S149,1I5.1747 $16.131.7115 16.471.4905 $0.00 $000
c.m:nt Provision for Dcpt1:Cialion S264.14800 sauuoo S7.56100
K AmwaI Capital Costs (I+JI 5414.il331747 SI07.319.7115 "114.0394905 $0.00 "SO 00
L GRAND TOTAL Isum or Liac K ,,"',;es' SS35,393.OB37
Bolo 1.
Specify: Odoc.r I.
Specify: Odoc.r 2.
A AmwaI Op. Exflcn.... for S.C. Install. ODd Moin!. of Equ;p.
Supplies
$666.220.00
S7,.s85.931.00
B GRAND TOTAL (sum or Liac A ent,;esl
S9,6J1,l59.00
Bo12.
Specify 0IIIcr 1. 000Isidc labor. AlIlO Opclw. NaG __ -..........M'... Support Cost.
Specify: Odoc.r 2.
-;2 0-
Pale 2
~ 4.0 Wm, Version 2.0
D< )Y
I
)v;.-
ApptovccI by: OMB 3060-0592
Expi...: 4130197
$0.00
FCC Form 1205
May 1994
Federal Communic:atioos Commission
Waobiagtoo, D.C. 20SS4
ApprcMd ~, OMS 306O-OS92
E.""i...: 41301'17
SCHEDULE C, CAPITAL COSTS OF LEASED CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT
A Equipment Remo1e I Rcmoc~ 2 Remote ) Convener 1 Converter 2 ConvC'RCr ) Other Equip.
B TocaI Mainl<llancclServicc Hours (Attlch E.'1'lanation) 13,348 4,720 37,S2S
C Total M ofUniu in Sctvicc 24S,323 SQ,938 273,716
0 Gross Book Value 1,9S8,376 3,923,S02 3S,714,361
A<<umuJaud Dq...cciation 1,118,487 2,974,937 23,126,212
Dekm:d Ta.... S9,413 122,449 711,977
G Net Book Value (D-(E..F}}
H Grossed-Up IWo: of Return IF...... Schcd. A, Lin. HI
Return on In....,.... Grossed-Up for T..., IG. HI SI09,~1.9S7 $0.00 $0.00 SI27,287.4m suu.m $0.00 $0.00
Cum::n1 ~ion for Orcpreci;won 299,136 SlI,318 ',239,436
K Annual Capilal Com (I .. J) S4Oll,~;9S7 $0.00 $0.00 SlOll.60.S $7,068,231 $0.00 $0.00
L GRAND TOTAL lsum of Line K entries) sa.1as.c1.79U
80s J.
SCHEDULE D: A VER~GE HOURS PER INST ALLA TION
A. A"".... Houn peT Unwircd Home InsWlation (_ an cqJIanation) I.
B A""noge Houn per ......Wircd Home InsWlation (_ an explanation) O.S
C. AveaRC Houl'$ per Additioul Connection Installation at TUIIC of Initial Insa.lLation (anxh an explanation) 0.6S
0 A""rage Houn per AdclitiOClai Conneclion InsWlation R<qairia8 Sq>uolo InsWlation (olIacl1 an explanation) 0.7S
E. OOer InslaIlation (by hem T~l'C').
Item I. (Specify)
Average Hoors 'PCT installation (:attach an expbnaUon) 0.6S
lIem 2. (Specif,,)
Average Houn peT Installation (attach an explanation) 0.2S
II.... 3 (Specif>")
Average Houn per Installation (attach an explanation) 0.7S
..... ;;2 / '-'
/
P~el
Ex=14.0 Won, Version 2.0
);).- f\
;
FCC Fonn 120'
May 1994
Federal Communicalioos Commiuion
W............ D.C. 20554
WORKSHEET FOR C...LCUL...TING PERMITTED EQUIPMENT ...ND INST...LLATION CHARGES
STEP A. Hourly Service Ch_rce
I. TOl3i CapiloJl Costs of Installation and MoiDlenance (Schedul. .... ~, 11 S535.393.0S17
2 TOl3i Annual Operating E.._ lOr 1nslaIlation and Mai.........ISchcdul. B. 80. 21 $9,638.359.00
3. TOl3i CapiloJl Costs and Operalial ElqJcascs lOr 1nslaI1atioa and Main....... (Line I + Line 21. SIO,173,7S2
. Customer Equipment and Installation Pen:cntage (mach an explanation), I
S. "-uoJ c......... Equipment Mai......... and 1nslaI1atioa Costs, E..audia. Costs of La.d Equipcacnt (Line 3 , Line 41 SIO,I73,752
6. T-' Ubor Haws lOr Maiatcaanee and 1nslaIlation of C.-am.. Equipment and Setvi... (aaach ~on) 327,S27
7. Hourly Setvio: ClwlI. (tISC) (Line SILine 6) S3 1.0339
MEntOD OF BILLII'iG FOR INST...LLATIONS (pl....n ..... in the .ppropria.. box)
Iamllatioas billed by the: hour _ on 1he HSC cal_ in Line 7.
X _lati... billed as. -.danl cIw;e.
STEP a lnatau.tioa Ch.rc.
8. u.iinrm HSC..... all installations (From Saop A, Iiae 7)
OR
Average Cbarge for Installation T\i
ala
.a. Un.i.m:I Home lnstaJlation
.1. HSC ILine 71
aI. A'W3Ic Houn per Unwired Home lutaJt.tion (Scbcdulc 0, Line A)
03. ChatJe per Un..;n:d Ham.1aml1atioa 1.1 ,all
b. ~red Hoene InstaJlation
bl. HSC (Lin. 71
b2. ......... Hours per P.-.;n:d Hame InslaIlalion (Sdocdule D, Lin. B)
b3. Ciuuw< per P..-win:d Ham. InsWIation (b J , b2)
c. Additioaal Coancction InscalWiOll ou: Tunc of lnitiallastallation
.1. HSC ILine 71
02. ......... Hours per AdditioGal c-ion 1.....1ation.. Tlnle of Inil Iamll. IScbcdul. D, Line CJ
cJ. Chaop: per Additional Coaacaion _lation.. T_ of Initial .......Ialion lei x .21
d. Additional Connection Iamllatioa Rcquiria Scpar-= IaataIlotion
dl. HSC [Lioe 71
42. "'vg. Haws per Additional Coaacaion Installation Roq. Scp. .......1. IS_I. D, Line DJ
d3. 0..... per Additional Coaacaion laatallation ~ri.g Scpar.ue Installation Id 1 x d2)
e. OdI., I.....lali... (.... specified in Sdledul. D, Line El:
.1. HSC [Line 71
c2. ...ve.... Hour> per 1nslaI1ation of I.... I [Sc:bedulc D. Lioe E. Item II
.3. ChatJe per Installation oft.... I (el xc21
... HSC ILine 71
c5...._ Hour> per 1nslaIIalion of Item 21Schcdulc D, Line E."em 21
06. o....cper 1nslaIJotion of Item 2 [c4 xeS]
e7. HSC [Line 71
d.......... Hour> per 1nslaIlation of Item 3 IScbcdulc D. Line E.ltem 31
09. o....c per 1nslaIlalion of Item 3 le7 x 081
-c2~-
..... 4
ExccI4.0 Will, Vmioa 2.0
I~ -
" "
(\. ;/ f
Aw<oved by: OMB )06O-llS92
Expires: 4/30197
FCC Form 120S
May 1994
fcdcra.l Communica:tiOftS Commission
WashinBtOO, D.C. 20"4
STEP C. CharJa or ju.Hd Remota . . .
(Calculate scpantt'ty for each sipificandy different type) Rcmok I Remote 2 Remote 3
10. Total Main~cclScrvicc Hours (Com:spoDding column from ~uJe C. Line 81 13348. o. O.
II. HSC IUne 71 SJl.ill39 531.0339 SJ 1.0339
12. TDIaI MainlCllan<Cls"",iee Coo [Line 10. Un. III S414,14~H614 SO.OO ' ,. SCcOO
13. Annual CapiuJ Costs rColTCSpOndiAg column from Schedule C. Line KJ s.<ot._.1>S7 50.00 SO.GO
... TolaI Cost .fRemote [Line 12 + Line 13) $822.83'.:5253 SO.OO $0.00
U. Number .fUnits in Servi.. [Com:spondin. ODlumn from Scbedule C, Line C] .. ,24'323. O. O.
16. U.it Cost [Line 14IUne 1'1 SJ.3S41 SO 00 SO.ilO
17. Rao: per M""th (Line 161(12)) 50.279' 50.00 $0.00
(STEP D. Ch..... for ...1<11 Con..rter Bo... a . .
(C.lcul.te .......tely for eoeb oipir.....tly diff....... type) c...verter I Converter 2 c...verter 3
18. TolaI Main.....a:/S<lVi.. Hours [Correspondi.. ODIumn from Sehedul. C. Line B) 4720. . 37'25. O.
19 HSC (Line 7) , S31.0H9 SJ 1.0339 J;3L0339
20 TDIaI MainlCllan<ClSe",iee CDSl riine 18. 191 SI46,4&O.0331 SI.I64,547.2976 $0.00
21. Annual Cal>ital Costs [ColftSllCl"Clin. ODIumn from Schedul. C, Un. K] 570&,605 $7,061,231 $O:llO
22. TolaI Cost ofC""verter IUne 20+ Une 211 SI.S'.ill6 S&.2'32,779 SMO
23 Number of Units in Service (ConaDODdine. column from Scheduje C. Line CJ '0938. 273716. O.
24. Unit CDSl IUnelllLine 231 516.716& SJO.ll77& 50.00
2' Role per Month lUll< 24/(12)) 51.39&9 $2.'06' 50.00
STEP E. Cha.... for Other Leated Equip.....t
26. TolaI MainlCll&DOelScrviee Hours (Com:spondin. ODIumn from Schedul. C, Lin. BI 0
27. HSC ILine 71 SJI.0339
2&. TDIaI MainlcDana:iS<JVi.. Coo [Line 26 . Un. 271 SO.oo
29. Annual Cal>ital Cnsts ICorresponding ODIumn from Schedul. C, Un. KJ 50.00
30. TolaI CDSl.f Equipment JLine 28+Line 29) SO.OO
31. Number of Units in Service (Com:spondinl. column from Schedule C. Line C) 0
32. Unit Cost [Line 301Lin. 31] 50.00
33. Rao: per 101_ [Une 321( 12)) 50.00
METHOD OF BILLING FOR CHANCING SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT (pl_.n "," in the .ppropri.te bo'l
X OJ, Nominal Chars. (En"" the nominal dwi. in Line 34)
.. a UniConn Hourly Service Charie
as an Average CharJc (EntcTthe AVCI1IIC Hours (or Changing Service liers in Line 36b)
STEP f. o.af'ICS (or Chaollhl ~rvi('e Taers or Equipment
J4. Nominal C . for Chon ing s"",iee lim
If YOU use an csa1aIing scale of c:haracs.. place an -:'(" in the box at the right.
OR
3'. UniConn Hourly SelVice CiwB.
OR
36 Average C c for Changing Service Tien
36a. HSC [Lin. 71
36b. Avcl3le Hours to Change Servic:c lien
36c. Average ChatJe (or ChanginS Service Ttcrs (Line 36:1. x Line 36bl
-;;l..3-
Paa. ,
~ ..1
) :; - -~\; ,
E.ee14.0 W'IA, V...ion 2.0
Approved by: OMB 3_92
Expi...: 4130197
FCC Fonn 120~
May 1994
fcdenJ Communications Commission
WashiqIon, D.C. 205S4
~ by: OM8 3~592
&pi...: 4130197
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING TOTAL EQUIPMENT AND 'INSTALLATION COSTS
I. TOlOI ~ Costs of Installation and Main_ (SdIodule A, 80, II $535.;93.0137
2. Totol A-..l Operating E.'qlCftSC, fo, Installation ond ............. (Sc:hodule 8, 8.. 21 59.6J1,359.00
3. Totol_ Capilal Costs oflnstallalion and Maio_(Line I + Line 21 510,173,752
~. ClISlOmCr fAluipmentllld InslaIlation Pen:enlllge (all:I<h .""llIlation). I.
5. Annual c-omcr Equipment Maintenance _d InstalIaI:ioa Costs. Exdudintr Costs or Leued Equipment 510.173,752
[Une3.Une~1
6. TOlOI ~ Costs ofLcucd C_e' Equipment (SdIodule C, 80, 31 .. SI.115,4J2
7 Annual C"""",or Equipment and lnslallation Costs ILisIe S + Line 61 511.3S9,114
I. Pcn:enlOB. Allocalion to FllUlcMc Area (see ~l I.
9. Alloc:ar.c:d AmluaI fAluipment and Installation Cost [Une 7 . Une II 511.l'9.114
10. Monthly EquipmCllt ond Installation Cost (Line 9/ (12)1 51.529,931.99
II NumbcrofBasic Subsc:ribcn in F~chisc:: _,617
12. _Iy Equq>mcnl and InslaIlalion Cost per Subscriber (Lisle 10 / Line III 5U783
13 JnfWioa Adjustment Faccor [See InstnIctionsl I.
I~. Adjusted Monthly EquipmClltlnd Inslallalion Cost per _be, (Line 12, Lioe 131 $3.2783
-C:<'I-
..... 6
Ex<el4.0 Wlll, Vasion 2.0
);2- fA
FCC Fono 120S
May 1994
federal Communicaioas Commission
Wlliliagton, D. C. 20554
SUMMARY SCHEDULE
Current EquiptMnt and Inmllation Ralu IPormiucd I Actual
I. ClwJcs for Cabl. Service Iastallabons
.. Hourly R-. [S,"" A. Line '1 .....1
b. A..... _Iolion ChonIes:
I. __ of UnwilOd Homes [Sle1l B. Line 903] ..... S3J;03
2.1astaI_ ofPrewilOd Homes IS,"" B. Line 9b3] ... $1,,'2
l. lastallaion of Addilioaal C-Uons.. Tim. of Initiallastallalion IS,"" B. Line 9031 ... l2Q11
~.1nsIal1ali0ll of AddilioGol ConDeetiOllS Requiring Separale _IIScp B. Line 9d3] $23.21
j Other InsIallalions (lpOCifv) [Scp B. Lines 903, ~, ge9]
.. no.11
b $1.16
. $23.21
, M....dd~' Charce for Lease ..f_ COIIlrOIs IS,"" C, Lin. 1" eol....... .-01
_ COII1JOI T~". I: $D.21
_ COII1JOl T~". 2: $0.00
_ COIIlrOI Type: 3: SO.DO
l. Maaddy CIwJ. for Lease ofCOO.....r 80... [Slep 0, Line 2', columns"'l
COIl'WCncr Box T~"DC I: $1.40
Cae~r Box T~'PC 2: l2.SI
c....n..!Iax T~". 3: $O.DO
4 _I~' Charce for Lease of Other Equipment IS,"" E. Lin. 33)
Other Equi_t (Soecit'yl SO 00 I
s. a...... for a.-.io. Tiers (u_) IS,"" F. Line 34. 3S 0' 360) $2.00 I
. LABOR COST Al'iD POLICY CHANCES
a..tic:Me your answer 10 the followiBa duee qucstiofts by placiaa an .x. ia cbc ~riatc bo:,<
1. Have ,vu indudcd che labor COlIU auoc:iafcd with subscriber cable drops in your charges for initial inslallatian'?
WYES
DNO
ffi~ eapitali=l1hc w.o, c:osu......ialed ..;m subscribe, cobl. drops'
DNO
). If)'OU IIavc filed dUs form bcfon::.1I:IYC you chanacd any policy. e.g.. case aocoanting or cost allocation that causes an incn:asc in the costs
iadudal in the -........on of cqaipaoc:al and iostaIlalions ebat1les7
DYES (You...........na lUll ~on)
WNO
CERTlnCA TlON ST ATEMEl'o'T
wnLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON TIllS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.s. CODE mu: la. SEmON 1001), AND/OR FORfEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 41, SEmON S03).
I catify dm dac: lQ&anents __ in this farm are INe and conea to the best of my knowledge Md belief. and an:
_ of!be CabI. Opc:_, Siena.".
c.. C....-iuti.... S-
o..
Title
- 025-
'"
~14.0 Win, Venion 2.0
) ;z. - f\-
Appn>vod by: OMS 3~92
Expi...: 4130197
V:
FCC Farm 12M
May 1994
-'1,...-
, .
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
FILING DATE FOR TIllS FORM
FCC FORM 1240
UPDA TING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR REGULA TED CABLE SERVICES
(
)
Cable Operator:
Name 0 Cable Operator
Cox Communications
Mailing Address of Cable perator
5159 Federal Blvd.
City
San Di 0
State
Ca
ZIP ode
92105
YES NO
Ix
YES NO
Ix
1. Does this filing involve a single franchise authority and a single community unit?
If yes, complete the franchise authority information belowl
and enter the associated CUID number here:
2. Does this filing involve a single franchise authority but multiple community units?
If yes, enter the associated CUIDs below and complete the franchise authority information at the bottom ofthis page:
I
3. Does this filing involve multiple franchise authorities?
If yes, attach a separate sheet for each franchise authority and include the following franchise authority information with
its associated CUID(s):
Franchise Authority Information:
Name of Local Franchising Authority
See Attached: National City, Chula Vista, Imoerial Beach, Santee
MaIling Address ot Local Franchising Authority
City State IZIP Code
Telephone number Fax Number
4. For what purpose is this Form 1240 being filed? Please put an "X" in the appropriate box.
a. Original Form 1240 for Basic Tier
b. Amended Form 1240 for Basic Tier
c. Original Form 1240 for CPS Tier
d. Amended Form 1240 for CPS Tier
x
X
TO
1 % 1/96 I 09/30/97 (mm/yy)
TO
10/01/95 I 06/30/96 (mm/yy)
YES NO
X
5. Indicate the one year time period for which you are setting rates (the Projected Period).
6. Indicate the time period for which you are performing a true-up.
7. Status of Previous Filing of FCC Form 1240 (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Is this the first FCC Form 1240 filed in any jurisdiction?
b. Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the FCC?
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
YES
X
(mm/ddlyy)
NO
X
(mm/ddlyy)
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
c. Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the Franchising Authority? ~
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
Page I
- 016-
/r
I;;. - ~\ .
a. Is this form being filed in response to an FCC Form 329 complaint? I
If yes, enter the date of the complaint: I
11. Selection of "Going Forward" Channel Addition Methodology (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
DCheck here if you are using the original rules [MARKUP METHOD].
IK]Check here if you are using the new, alternative rules [CAPS METHOD].
If using the CAPS METHOD, have you elected to revise recovery for
channels added during the period May 15, 1994 to Dec 31, 1994?
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
8. Status of Previous Filing of FCC Form 1210 (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Has an FCC Form 1210 been previously filed with the FCC? I
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
b. Has an FCC Form 1210 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? I
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
9. Status of FCC Form 1200 Filing (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the FCC?
I
If yes, enter the date filed: I
b. Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? I
If yes, enter the date filed: I
10. Cable Programming Services Complaint Status (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
YES
X
11/15/95
YES
X
11/15/95
YES
X
07115/94
YES
X
07/15/94
YES
YES
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
NO
(mmlddlyy)
NO
(mmlddlyy)
NO
(mmlddlyy)
NO
(mmlddlyy)
NO
X
(mmlddlyy)
NO
X
12. Headend Upgrade Methodology
*NOTE: Operators must certify to the Commission their eligibility to use this upgrade methodology and attach an equipment list and depreciation schedule.
Part I: Preliminary Information
Module A: Maximum Permitted Rate From Previous Filing
a b c
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3
A 1 Current Maximum Permitted Rate I $7.74 I $17.14 I I
DCheck here if you are a qualifying small system using the streamlined headend upgrade methodology.
d
Tier 4
e
TierS
MdlBSb
'b
h'
I
0 ue : u SCrl ers iD
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
BI Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 1 32,630 31,808
B2 Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 2
B3 Estimated Average Subscribership For Projected Period 63,058 61,500
Module C: Inflation Information
Line Line Description
CI Inflation Factor For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 1]
C2 Inflation Factor For True-Up Period 2 [Wks I]
C3 Current FCC Inflation Factor
- cQ 7--
Page 2
)~ -
I
h\
f\/'/
1.0218
1.0216
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Federal Communiations Commission
Washington, DC 20SS4
Approved by OMS 3060-0685
0 ue 0 a cu a mg e ase ate
0
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
01 Current Headend Upgrade Segment
02 Current External Costs Segment $0.4427 $5.6771
OJ Current Caps Method Segment $0.0000 $1.5000
04 Current Markup Method Segment $0.0000 $0.0000
05 Current Channel MovementlDeletion Segment $0.0000 $0.0000
06 Current True-Up Segment
D7 Current Inflation Segment
08 Base Rate [AI-0]-D2-D3-D4-D5-D6-07] $7.2973 $9.9629
MdlDCI If
th B
R
Part II: True-Up Period
Module E: Timin Information
Line Line Description
EI How long is the True-Up Period? ("I" for "Less than or equal to ]2 months" or first time filers, "2" for "Greater than 12 month
If" I", answer E2 and E3. If "2", answer E4 and ES
E2 Number of Months in the True-Up Period
E3 Number of Months between the Filing date of this Form 1240 and the end of the last Projected Period
E4 Number of Months in the second part of the True-Up Period Eligible for Interest
E5 Number of Months in the second part of the True-Up Period Ineligible for Interest
9
3
0 ue 0 aXlmum erml e ae or rue- Ip erlo
0
a b c d e
Line Une Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
Fl Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period I [Wks 2] $1.5 000
F2 Markup Method Segment For True-Up Period] [Wks 3]
F3 Chan Mvmnt Oeletn Segment For True-Up Period I [Wks' 4/5] $0.1344 ($0.1379)
F4 True-Up Period I Rate Eligible For Inflation [D8+F I +F2+F3] $7.4317 $11.325
F5 Inflation Segment for True-Up Period] [(F4*CI)-F4] $0.162 $0.2469
F6 Headend Upgrade Segment For True-Up Period I [Wks 6]
F7 External Costs Segment For True-Up Period I [Wks 7] $0.4664 $5.6962
F8 True-Up Segment For True-Up Period I
F9 Max Perm Rate for True-Up Period I [F4+F5+F6+F7+F8] $8.060] $17.268]
MdlFM
p
Ott d RtF T
U p 0 dl
0 ue 0 aXlmum erml e ae or rue- Ip erIo
0
a b c d e
Line Ulle Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
GI Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 2]
G2 Markup Method Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 3]
G3 Chan Mvmnt Oeletn Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks' 4 5]
G4 TU Period 2 Rate Eligible For Inflation [D8+F5+G]+G2+G3]
G5 Inflation Segment for True-Up Period 2 [(G4*C2)-G4]
G6 Headend Upgrade Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 6]
G7 External Costs Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 7]
G8 True-Up Segment For True-Up Period 2
G9 Max Perm Rate for True-Up Period 2 [G4+G5+G6+G7+G8]
M diG M
p
Ott d RtF T
U p 0 d2
-c:2.8'-
Page 3
).
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
);2- f\
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
MdlHT
U Ad"
C I I
0 ue . rue- Jp I.lustment a cu atlOn
"
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic TierZ Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
Adjustment For True-Up Period 1
HI Revenue From Period I $2,143,791.00 $4,90 1,853.825
H2 Revenue From Max Permitted Rate for Period I $2,367,020.896 $4,943,309.6339
H3 True-Up Period I Adjustment [H2-HI] $223,229.896 $41,455.8089
H4 Interest on Period I Adjustment $15,960.7196 $2,964.0499
Adjustment For True-Up Period 2
H5 Revenue From Period 2 Eligible for Interest
H6 Revenue From Max Perm Rate for Period 2 Eligible For Interest
H7 Period 2 Adjustment Eligible For Interest [H6-H5]
H8 Interest on Period 2 Adjustment (See instructions for formula)
H9 Revenue From Period 2 Ineligible for Interest
HIO Revenue From Max Perm Rate for Period 2 Ineligible for Interes
HII Period 2 Adjustment Ineligible For Interest [HIO-H9]
Total True-Up Adjustment
HI2 Previous Remaining True-Up Adjustment $0.0000 $0.0000
HI3 Total True-Up Adjustment [H3+H4+H7+H8+HI I+HI2] $239,190.6156 $44,419.8588
HI4 Amount of True-Up Being Claimed This Projected Rate Period $239,190.6156 $44,419.8588
HI5 Remaining True-Up Adjustment [HI3-HI4] ($0.0000) ($0.0000)
Part III: Projected Period
Module I: New Maximum Permitted Rate
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
II Caps Method Segment For Projected Period [Wks 2] $1.9073
12 Markup Method Segment For Projected Period [Wks 3]
13 Chan Mvmnt Deletn Segment For Projected Period [Wks 4/5] $1.2096 ($1.2409)
14 Proj. Period Rate Eligible For Inflation [D8+F5+G5+11 +12+13] $8.6689 $10.8762
15 Inflation Segment for Projected Period [(14*C3)-14] $0.1872 $0.2349
16 Headend Upgrade Segment For Projected Period [Wks 6]
17 External Costs Segment For Projected Period [Wks 7] $0.563 $6.0106
18 True-Up Segment For Projected Period $0.3161 $0.0602
19 Max Permitted Rate for Projected Period [14+15+16+17+18] $9.7353 $17.182
Operator Selected Rate For Projected Period .
110
Note: The maximum permitted rate figures do not take into account any refund liability you may have. lfyou have previously been ordered by the Commission or your
localfranchising authority to make refunds, you are not relieved of your obligation to make such refunds even if the permitted rate is higher than the contested rate or
your current rate.
Certification Statement
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S..CODE TITLE 18, SECTIO~ 10~1), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTIO.N 503).
Telephone number
619 266-5410
Fax Number
619 266-5540
Page 4
:;z f' -
-rl'
);J. ~ ~ / ~J
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Worksheet 1 - True-Up Period Inflation
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
Question I. How long is True-Up Period I, in months?
Question 2. How long is True-Up Period 2, in months?
Page 1
Line Period FCC InOation Factor
101 Month 1 2.22%
102 Month 2 2.22%
103 Month 3 2.22%
104 Month 4 2.16%
105 Month 5 2.16%
106 Month 6 2.16%
107 Month 7 2.16%
108 Month 8 2.16%
109 Month 9 2.16%
110 Month 10
111 Month 11
112 Month 12
113 tver~e \lJf1atiPr Factor for 1.0218
rue- p eno
114 Month 13
115 Month 14
116 Month 15
117 Month 16
118 Month 17
119 Month 18
120 Month 19
121 Month 20
122 Month 21
123 Month 22
124 Month 23
125 Month 24
126 ~ver~e \Jlf1atiP~ Factor for
rue- p eno
- 30 --
IrJ - (A-);
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
9
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 2 - Caps Method
True-Up Period, Tier 2
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
Basic Tier 2
X
True-Up Projected
Period Period
X
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Line
Previous
Regulated
Channels
Current
Regulated
Channels
Operators
Cap For
Channels
Added
Total Caps
Adjustment
Operator's Total License
License Fee
Cap For Reserve Used Fee Reserve
License Fees Used
Total
Operators
Cap Used
Net
Change
Period
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
Previous
Month
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4 60
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month II
Month 12
A vera e Period I Ca
61
SO.30 SI.20 SI.50
SO.30 SI.20 S 1.50
SO.30 S 1.20 S 1.50
SO.30 SI.20 S 1.50
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SO.30 SI.20 S 1.50
SO.30 $1.20 S 1.50
$0.30 $ 1.20 $ 1.50
$0.30 $ 1.20 S 1.50
$0.30 $ 1.20 51.50
SO.30 51.20 S 1.50
S1.5000
215 Month 13
216 Month 14
217 Month 15
218 Month 16
219 Month 17
220 Month 18
221 Month 19
222 Month 20
223 Month 21
224 Month 22
225 Month 23
226 Month 24
227 Avera e Period 2 Ca
-31 -
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Page 2
"
):J.- f~
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 2 - Caps Method
Projected Period, Tier 2
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
True-Up Projected
Period Period
X
Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
X
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Previous Current Operators Operator's Total License Total
Line Period Regulated Regulated Net Cap For Cap For License Fee Fee Reserve Operators Total Caps
Channels Channels Change Channels License Fees Reserve Used Used Cap Used Adjustment
Added
201 Previous 50.30 51.20 51.50
Month
202 Month I 50.30 51.20 51.50
203 Month 2 50.30 51.20 51.50
204 Month 3 50.30 51.20 51.50
205 Month 4 61 61 0 $0.20 $0.34 50.64 51.40 $2.04
206 Month 5 50.64 51.40 52.04
207 Month 6 50.64 51.40 52.04
208 Month 7 50.64 51.40 52.04
209 Month 8 50.64 51.40 52.04
210 Month 9 50.64 51.40 52.04
211 Month 10 50.64 51.40 $2.04
212 Month II 50.64 51.40 $2.04
213 Month 12 50.64 51.40 52.04
214 A vera e Period 1 Ca 51.9073
-3;;;z-
J~-
1
i\J~"
r' 1..'
FCC Fonn 1240
January 1996
Page 2
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 4 - Residual
True-Up Period
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
True-Up Period Projected Period
x
Line
Line Descri tion
a
Basic
Period One
b
Tier 2
c
Tier 3
d
Tier 4
e
TierS
401 Average Permitted Charge 57.3000 517.1233
402 Average External Costs 50.4664 55.6962
403 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94 51.5000
for Channels Added Usin!! CaDS Method
404 Average Tier Residual [401-402-403] 56.8336 59.9271
405 Average Channels per Regulated Tier 19.0000 41. 6666
406 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier 0.0000 9.6666
407 Average Remaining Channels [405-406] 19.0000 32.0000
408 Average Period I Per Channel Residual [404/407] 50.3597 50.3102
Period Two
409 Average Permitted Charge
410 Average External Costs
411 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94
for Channels Added Usin~ Caps Method
412 Average Tier Residual [409-410-411]
413 Average Channels per Regulated Tier
414 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier
415 Average Remaining Channels [413-414]
416 Average Period 2 Per Channel Residual [412/415]
Page I
- 33-
vi
J~ - ~p !
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 4 - Residual
Projected Period
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
True-Up Period Projected Period
X
Line
Line Descri tion
8
Basic
Period One
b
Tier 2
c
Tier 3
d
Tier 4
e
TierS
401 Average Permitted Charge 57.7400 517.1400
402 Average External Costs 50.5630 56.0106
403 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94 51.9073
for Channels Added Using Caos Method
404 Average Tier Residual [401-402-403] 57.1770 59.2220
405 Average Channels per Regulated Tier 23.0000 38.0000
406 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier 0.0000 8.0000
407 Average Remaining Channels [405-406] 23.0000 30.0000
408 Average Period 1 Per Channel Residual [404/407] 50.3120 50.3074
Page 2
- 3'1-
);2.-
[\.
)). ~
,
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (put an .X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-u~ Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I B~iC I Tier 2 I Tier 3 I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
True-Up Period, Basic Tier
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
Projected Period
Tier 4
Tier 5
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
9
2
3
4
Line
Residual of Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Adjustment (Column 2 -
Column I)
Cumulative Net Per-
Channel Cost Adjustment
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
51.2096
Previous Period
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9 51.2096
Month 10
Month II
Month 12
Avera e Period I Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
51.2096
50.1344
515 Month I3
516 Month 14
517 Month 15
518 Month 16
519 Month 17
520 Month 18
521 Month 19
522 Month 20
523 Month 21
524 Month 22
525 Month 23
526 Month 24
527 Avera e Period 2 Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
- 3s--
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Page I
x
)" - ~'.'
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-u~ Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I Basic I Ti; 2 I Tier3 I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
True-Up Period, Tier 2
For instructions, see Appendix A oflnstructions For FCC Form 1240
Projected Period
Tier 4
Tier 5
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
9
2
3
4
Line
Residual of Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Adjustment (Column 2 -
Column I)
Cumulative Net Per-
Channel Cost Adjustment
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
(S1.2409)
Previous Period
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9 $1.2409
Month 10
Month II
Month 12
Avera e Period 1 Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
50.0000
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
50.0000
SO.OOOO
50.0000
(51.2409)
(SO. 1379)
515 Month 13
516 Month 14
517 Month 15
518 Month 16
519 Month 17
520 Month 18
521 Month 19
522 Month 20
523 Month 21
524 Month 22
525 Month 23
526 Month 24
527 Avera e Period 2 Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
Page 2
-36-
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
,\
Ja'~'
Question I. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-Up Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I S;iC I Tier 2 I Tier 3 I
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
Projected Period, Basic Tier
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
Projected Period
X
Tier 4
Tier 5
12
o
2
3
4
Line
Residual of Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Adjustment [Column 2 -
Column ])
Cumulative Net Per-Channe
Cost Adjustment
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
5].2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
51.2096
Previous Period
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month JO
Month II
Month 12
Avera e Period] Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
50.0000
SO.OOOO
50.0000
Page I
-37-
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
) ~ - ~.:'.
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-Up Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I Basic I Ti: 2 I Tier 3 I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
Projected Period, Tier 2
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
Projected Period
X
Tier 4
Tier 5
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
o
2
3
4
Line
Residual of Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Adjustment (Column 2 -
Column IJ
Cumulative Net Per-Channel
Cost Adjustment
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
($ 1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
(SI.2409)
(SI.2409)
(51.2409)
(S 1.2409)
(51.2409)
(51.2409)
(S 1.2409)
(S 1.2409)
(51.2409
($ 1.2409
Previous Period
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month II
Month I2
Avera e Period 1 Channel Movement and Deletion Ad'ustment
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
50.0000
SO.OOOO
50.0000
50.0000
SO.OOOO
50.0000
50.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
SO.OOOO
-3g-
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Page 2
I'() - p,,-,
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
True-Up Period
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period
Projected Period
Question I. For which time period are you filling out this worksheet? [put an "X" in the appropriate box.]
X
Question 2. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 3. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
9
Line
Line Description
Basic
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
TierS
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior to
701 5/15/94 or After 5115/94 Using Markup Method For $119,573.00 $1,499,951.00
Period
702 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period
703 Copyright Fees For Period
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5% Markup $119,573.00 51,499,951.00
705 Marked Up External Costs 5128,540.9750 51,612,447.3250
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period 58,434.53 $18,200.79
707 Franchise Related Costs For Period
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period
709 Total External Costs For Period 5136,975.5050 51,630,648.1150
710 Monthly, Per-Subscriber External Costs For Period I 50.4664 55.6962
Period 2
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior to
7I1 5/15/94 or After 5/15/94 Using Markup Method For
Period
712 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period
713 Copyright Fees For Period
714 External Costs Eligible For 7.5% Markup
715 Marked Up External Costs
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
716 Cable Specific Taxes For Period
717 Franchise Related Costs For Period
718 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period
719 Total External Costs For Period
720 Monthly, Per-Subscriber External Costs For Period 2
- 69-'
Page 1
J
)~- ~\ \
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
Projected Period
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period
Projected Period
Question I. For which time period are you filling out this worksheet? [Put an "X" in the appropriate box.]
X
12
o
Question 2. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 3. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Line
Line Description
Basic
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior to
701 5/15/94 or After 5/15/94 Using Markup Method For $385,839.00 $4,103,797.00
Period
702 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period
703 Copyright Fees For Period
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5% Markup $385,839.00 54,103,797.00
705 Marked Up External Costs $414,776.9250 $4,411,581.7750
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period $11,246.04 $24,267.72
707 Franchise Related Costs For Period
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period
709 Total External Costs For Period $426,022.9650 54,435,849.4950
710 Monthly, Per-Subscriber External Costs For Period 1 50.5630 56.0106
-~o-
I ~-
I
i\/lH
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
Page 2
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
.Worksheet 8 - True-Up Rate Charged
For instructions, see Appendix A oflnstructions For FCC Form 1240
Question I. How long is the True-Up Period I, in months?
Question 2. How long is the True-Up Period 2, in months?
9
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
801 Month I $7.3000 $15.3900
802 Month 2 $7.3000 $15.3900
803 Month 3 $7.3000 $15.3900
804 Month 4 $7.3000 $17.1400
805 Month 5 $7.3000 $17.1400
806 Month 6 $7.3000 $17.1400
807 Month 7 $7.3000 $17.1400
808 Month 8 $7.3000 $19.6900
809 Month 9 $7.3000 $19.6900
810 Month IO
811 Month II
812 Month 12
813 Period I Average Rate $7.3000 $17.1233
814 Month 13
815 Month 14
816 Month 15
817 Month 16
818 Month 17
819 Month 18
820 Month 19
821 Month 20
822 Month 21
823 Month 22
824 Month 23
825 Month 24
826 Period 2 Average Rate
Page 1
-ijl-
FCC Form 1240
January 1996
){l- ,~
j
COX COMMUNICATIONS
Franchise Authority Information:
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID( s)
City of National City CA0419
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
1243 National City Blvd.
City State I~IP Code
National City Ca 91950
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 691-5044 (619) 336-4376
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID(s)
City of Chula Vista CA0329
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
276 Fourth Avenue
City State I~IP Code
Chula Vista Ca 91910
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 691-5044 (619) 691-5171
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID( s)
City of Imperial Beach CA0421
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
825 Imperial Beach
City State I~IP Code
Imperial Beach Ca 91932
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 423-8300 (619) 429-9770
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID(s)
City of Santee CA0337
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
10601 Magnolia Avenue
City State I~IP Code
Santee Ca 92071
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 258-4100 (619) 562-0649
--'1::2..-
1:1-
r
f\
~ -
95 Oet
Nov
Dee
96 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
96 Oet
Nov
Dee
97 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
COX COMMUNICA nONS
PROGRAMMING EXPENSE BY MONTH
Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Santee
BASIC CPS
Subs Rate Cost Subs Rate Cost
32,630 0.3979 12,983 31,808 5.2498 166,986
32,630 0.3979 12,983 31,808 5.2498 166,986
32,630 0.3979 12,983 31,808 5.2498 166,986
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 0.4118 13,437 31,808 5.2345 166,499
32,630 119,573 31,808 1,499,951
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 0.5099 32,153 61,500 5.5607 341,983
63,058 385,839 61,500 4,103,797
-2;3-
)-;._ ~ol)
{{
. Basic
Pnmium & PPV in bold
Available foradd charge
Chn
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4~
45
46
47
~8
49
50
51
52
S3
5~
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6~
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
7S
76
78
99
COX COMMUNICATION SOUTH
CHANNEL LINE UP BY DATE
Start True-up End True-up Start Projected End Projected
10/1/95 t/I/96 6130/96 101t/96 10/1/97
USA USA USA USA USA
ESPN ESPN ESPN ESPN ESPN
. KCOX . KCOX . KCOX . KCOX . KCOX
. KTLA' . KTLA . KTLA . KTLA . KTLA
. XETV . XETV . XETV . XETV · XETV
. KNSD . KNSD . KNSD . KNSD · KNSD
. KFMB . KFMB . KFMB . KFMB . KFMB
. KUSI . KUSI . KUSI . KUSI . KUSI
. KGTV . KGTV . KGTV . KGTV · KGTV
. KPBS . KPBS . KPBS . KPBS · KPBS
. XEWT . XEWT . XEWT . XEWT . XEWT
. KCOP . KCOP . KCOP . KCOP . KCOP
. KTTY . KTTY . KTTY . KTTY 'KTTY
Showlime Showtime . SNEAK . SNEAK · SNEAK
HBO HBO . KBNT . KBNT . KBNT
Cinemax Cinemax . COUNTY GOVT . COUNTY GOVT . COUNTY GOVT
. C-SPAN 2 . C-SPAN 2 . C-SPAN 2 . C-SPAN 2 . C-SPAN 2
Family Family Family Family Family
. XHAS . XHAS . XHAS . XHAS . XHAS
. C-SPAN . C-SPAN . C-SPAN . C-SPAN . C-SPAN
Viewers Choice Viewers Choice . WEATHER . WEATHER . WEATHER
. ITVIMEU . ITV/MEU . ITVIMEU . ITVIMEU . ITVIMEU
. CaliflGo\1 Acces . CaliflGovt Acces . CaliflGovt Acces . CaliflGovt Acces . CalifJGovt Acces
. QVC . QVC . QVC . QVC . QVC
. WGN . WGN . WGN . WGN . WGN
. TBS . TBS . TBS . TBS . TBS
Lifetime Lifelime Lifetime Lifetime Lifelime
NASAlPRI:-1E NASAlPRlME NASAlPRlME NASAlPRIME NASAlPRlME
MTV MTV MTV MTV MTV
CNN CNN CNN CNN CNN
Headline News Headline News Headline News Headline News Headline News
AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC
TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT
Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery
Leaming Learning Learning Leaming Learning
KBNT KBNT PREVI EW PREVIEW PREVI EW
Prime Deponi"a Prime Deponiv. Prime Deporti"a Prime Deponiva Prime Deporti"a
International International International International International
BET BET BET BET BET
A&E A&E A&E A&E A&E
Bravo Bravo Bravo Bravo Bravo
CNBC CNBC CNBC CNBC CNBC
Weather Weather SCI.FI SCI.FI SCI-FI
TNN TNN TN~ INN TNN
VHI VHI VHI VHI VHI
Nickelodeon Nickelodeon Nickelodeon Nickelodeon Nickelodeon
Comedy Comedy Comedy Comedy Comedy
E E E E E
Cartoon Cartoon Cartoon Canoon Cartoon
Faith & Values Faith & Values Faith & Values Faith & Values Faith & Values
Disney Disney Disney Disney Disney
Pre vue Prevue Showtime Showtime Showtime
Sci-Fi Sci-Fi IIBO IIBO IIBO
Sneak Sneak Cinemax Cinemax Cinemax
Court Court Viewers Choice Viewers Choice Viewers Choice
IIot Choice HOI Choice lIot Choice Hol Choice HOI Choice
Showlime2 Showlime2 Showtime2 Showtime2 Showlime2
HB02 IIB02 HB02 IIB02 IIB02
Cimemax2 Cimcmax2 Cimemax2 Cimemax2 Cimemax2
CMT CMT CMT CMT CMT
Encore Encore Encore Encore Eocore
Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel
Gems Gems Gems Gems Gems
MTV Lalino MTV Latino Court Court Court
HSN HSN HSN HSN HSN
Value Vision Value Vision Value Vision Value Vision Value Vision
FX FX FX FX FX
MEU MEU MEU MEU MEU
Outdoor Life OUldoor Life Outdoor Life Outdoor Life Ouldoor Life
Conlinuous HilS J Continuous Hits J Continuous Hils 3 Continuous Hils 3 Continuous Hits 3
ESPN2 ESPN2 ESPN2 ESPN2 ESPN2
History History Hislory History Hislory
TCM TCM TCM TCM TCM
Leassed Access Leassed Access Leassed Access Leassed Access
Continuous Hits 4 Continuous Hits 4 Conlinuous Hits 4 Conlinuous lIits 4 Conlinuous Hits 4
SEGA SEGA SEGA
Continuous Hils Conlinuous Hils Continuous Hits Continuous Hils Continuous lIits
Channel Count
Basic 19 19 23 23 23
CPS 41 42 38 38 ~.- \~l 38 -lfLj -
Other 15 15 16 )~ - 16 16
Total 75 76 77 77 77
a
ATTACHMENT #4
SEP 5 [qc,~
August 30, 1996
Cox Communications
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego. California 92105-5486
16191263-9251
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Mr. Goss:
RE: NEW PROGRAMMING AND CHANNEL CHANGES
Cox Communications strives to give our customers as many programming options as possible. That's
why, effective September 30, 1996, Cox Communications will be offering new choices to our customers,
including:
"SAN DIEGO'S 15"/CoI Channel 15
For the first time in San Diego history, cable and broadcast news operations will combine efforts to offer
local news 24-hours a day on Cox Channel 15. "San Diego's IS" will offer repeated broadcasts of
KGTV/Channell0's news programming and will simulcast coverage of breaking news. Beginning
September 30, 1996, San Diegans will have the convenience of getting greater access to in-depth local news
by watching Cox Channel 15.
MSNBC/COI Channel 39
Cox is also proud to announce the launch ofMSNBC on Cox Channel 39. MSNBC combines Microsoft's
legendary computer software expertise with NBC's worldwide news operation to feature up-to-the-minute
news from around the globe using three media technologies: broadcast, cable television and the Internet.
MSNBC will begin airing on Cox Channel 39 on September 30, 1996.
The History ChanneUESPN2
Cox Communications strives to constantly bring more value to our customers. In the past, Cox subscribers
were charged a premium for The History Channel and ESPN2, but as of September 30, 1996, this award-
winning programming will be included in the programming line-up for Expanded-Basic Tier customers at
no extra charge. The History Channel will feature educational documentaries, mini-series and movies on
Cox Channel 73 and ESPN2 will be aired on Cox Channel 38.
In order to provide these new programming opportunities to our customers, changes in the channel line-up
will be occurring. Details on those changes are included in the enclosed notice which will be sent to all of
our customers.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 266-5203.
-~5-
);1.- p_~-l
:-
, .../
COX
COMMUNICATIONS
MS~BC AND SAN DIEGO'S NEWS
Commg September 30th 1996 . CHANNEL 15 COME TO :--
new services. San Dieg~'s N ,Cox Commumcations is proud 10 ( 0.\
channel 15. featuring local n:ws ~ Channel 15, an exclusive local ~:noun~e the add i Ii on "I ,,,,,
ws rom KGTV-IO, 24 hours a da . ws cannel, will debut 0"
In addition, MSNBC w'll y,
o ' , 1 come to Co C
r~amzat1on to embrace three m' x oI?munications on channel
bnngs you up-to-the-minute ne edlafj technologIes - broadcast, cable and t~9I' As the only lle\\'
ws rom around the globe. e nternet - MS', BC
Also, ESPN2 and The H'
September 30th, makin lstory ~hannel will move to our Co
channel 38. Finally, du; ::~m avarlable 10 all Cox Expanded cu~o;::randed level .of service 01
WIll switch channel Posilion~ntractual agreements, KTLA-S and KT;v.ESPN2 wtll be found on
, -14 (soon to he KSV'B)
(over)
YOUR CONNECTION TO THE FUTUR
. -.
c
On September 29th, Faith & Values channel 51 ceases showing strictly
praise and worship programming and becomes a new channel called
Odyssey. As a result of this change, and the addition of new channels.
Odyssey will not be carried effective September 30th.
In addition, ContinuouS Hits 1 will no longer be carried on our lineup, and
ContinuouS Hits 3 will now share time on channel 99. ContinuoUS Hit, ,
will run from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M..
As part of this change, the International Channel will move to channel 71,
and Prime Deportiva will move to channel 72.
Finally, Sneak Prevue will move to channel 51, offering Pay-Per -Vi cOX
previews and programming information.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 262-1122
.' r...
\':
'.
-.Jjf:, --
;<',
\
/ ~- A-
~~~
~
~~~~
ell\' Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENT #5
September ] ], 1996
Mary Tietz
Government Relations Manager
Cox Communications
RE: Fonn 1235, 1240 and 1205 Rate Requests, Draft 329 Complaint; Public Hearing
This letter is to inform you that in regard to the various rate filings received from your company,
the Chula Vista City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 1. The meeting \\ri]] be held at the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
beginning at 4:00 p.m.
Attached to this letter is a draft FCC Form 329 Complaint. It is staffs understanding that an
advance copy of the Public Knowledge report included in this complaint was also provided to Mr.
William Fitzsimmons and Jack Jacobs on August 27. Based on any initial reading of that report
or of the draft herein provided, we look forward to receiving Cox's comments within the next
30 days as provided by FCC regulations. After that date, if a complaint still appears justified,
it would be filed with the FCC in conjunction with any written comments submitted to the City
by Cox.
In reviewing the forms submitted, the City's consultant found the 1240 to be satisfactorily
completed. The 1205 filing, as it did not present rate increases for Chula Vista customers, was
not subject to their review. The primary concerns to be raised by staff at the public hearing will
be 1) the appropriateness of the spread of upgrade costs via the 1235 to Basic and CPS tiers and
2) the justification for filing an FCC Form 329 complaint on the upgrade-based CPS rates.
As this can be both a technical and bureaucratic process, I look forward to working with you to
clarify any of the issues in question to present the most balanced and informative report possible
for our Council's consideration. In addition to any written comments you may have, I am fully
available to discuss these matters with you by phone at 585-5649. I can also be reached via fax
at 585-5612.
Sincere}y,
~~#:~:!2::
Gerald Y
Principa M gement Assistant
Attachments:
Draft Fonn 329 Complaint
Public Knowledge report, August 27, ]996
Public Hearing Notice for October I, 1996
cc: City Council
William Fitzsimmons" Cox Communications, Director of Finance
Jack Jacobs, Cox Communications, Financial Analyst
-If 7--
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5031 . FAX (619) 585.5612
I "c--\
~ - (1.- 4 '
.,~ ,.~...,..
!
(beAFT)
Federal Communications Commission
Approved by OMB 3060.0549
FCC FORM 329
CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICES RATE COMPLAINT FORM
PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETING THIS FORM
All of the requested information must be provided to enable us to consider the
complaint. Incomplete filings cannot be processed and will be returned.
Franchise Authority Name:
Street Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
City Chula Vista State
Phone Number:
(619) 691-5031
Cable System Name: Cox Communications
Street Address: 5159 Federal Blvd.
CA
Zip Code 91910
City
Phone Number:
San Diego
State CA
Zip Code 92105-5486
FCC community unit identifier number for cable system.
C A 0 3 2 9
Subscriber complaints regarding a rate increase
to the cable programming services tier(s) were
received by the local franchise authority
within 90 days of the effective date of the increase.
(If no, the complaint cannot be filed.)
YES
NO
Specify in detail the cable programming services tier being complained about:
CPST-1
The complaints referred to Indicate the following Increase(s):
Current rate: J 19.69
Effective date of Increase:
Prior rate: J 15. 90
5/01/96 (month, day, year)
Were any channels added to or dropped from
the cable programming services tier
concurrent with the Increase In the rate?
YES
NO
Indicate the number of channels added: 0
o
Indicate the number of channels dropped:
--.Ire -
FCC FORM 329
) ~ _ (17 r
April 1H6
Federal Communications Commission
Approved by OMS 3060.0549
CERTIFICATIONS:
By signing this form the local franchise authority certifies to the FCC that, to
the best of its knowledge and belief, the following Is true and correct:
1) The local franchise authority has received subscriber complaints in accordance
with the Commission's rules regarding a rate increase to the cable programming
services tier(s) provided by the cable system within 90 days of the date of the
increase first appearing on the subscriber's cable bill.
2) Consistent with the requirements of this form, the cable system was provided a
draft copy of this form by certified mail and given a minimum of 30 days from that
date to give the local franchise authority a rate justification on the appropriate FCC
Form or, alternatively, 8 certification that it is not subject to rate regulation.
3) Consistent with the requirements of this form, this information provided by the
cable system is attached to and made a part of this filing by the local franchise
authority. If no such attachments are filed with this form, the franchise authority
certifies that the cable system operator failed to file the appropriate information ~ith
the local franchise authority within the specified time period, and requests that the
FCC act upon the information as submitted.
4) In the event additional information relevant to the filing of this FCC Form 329 is
obtained by the local franchise authority prior to the Commission taking final action
thereon, the local franchise authority will immediately notify the Commission of such
additional information and provide the same to the Commission.
5) The local franchise authority has filed this complaint with the Commission
within 180 days of the date the rate increase became effective.
Name
Signature
Date
FCC NOTICE TO INDMDUAlS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
The solicitation of personal infonnation in this fonn is authorized by the Communications Ad of 1834. as amended. The
Commission wm u.. the information provided in this fonn to detennine the reasonablen... of a cable company's ratel. In
..aching that detennin.tion. or for law enforcement purposes. . NY become MClaury to provide peraoftll ilfofmltion
contained In this form to .nother govemment agency. AIIlnformltion provided In this fonn will be available for public Inspection,
subject to local requirements. Individuals are not required to respond to collections of InfolTnltion that do not corain a valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Public reporting for this collection" estimlted to average 45 minutes per tiling, Including the time for ~O illtNctions.
...rching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the d.ta needed. and completing the collection of Information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimlte or any other IIpect of this collection of ilfofmltion. ilcluding suggestions for reducing
the burden, eo the Federal Communic:ltions Commission. ReCOrdl "anagement Branch. Washington. DC 20554. Do!!2! send
completed forms to this address
THE FORGOING NOnCE IS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 11174. P.L. 83-57&, DECEMBER 31. 1874, U.S.C.
552.(e)(3). AND THE PAPERWORK P~UCTION ACT OF 19i15. P.L. 104-13. MAY 22, 1895.47 U.S.C. 3507.
-ijr;-
"FCC FORM 32~
...' /';
):J. - A/oJ
April 1 t96
,...
OCT Ell '96 02:45PM COX EXEC STI=ft rRX 619/266-5555
P.2/2
51!lB FtdetJI80181n1
s.n Diego, ClI~ 8Z1lJ5.648S
1&191283-9251
Attachment #6
October 1, 1996
cox
COMMUNIUT"'"
Mr. Gcral4 Young
PImpal MaDagemenr ADal)m
<:sty ofClmJa Vuta
276 Fomth AVCDUC
Omla VISta, CA 91910
.;.. ......:
RE: ApDda Item lUCox Co1lllll1lJJieadODS~:~CC POI'IDJ 1235, l1AO aad 1205
Dear Mr. Young:
Cox Commnnicatiom appreciates your willingness to recommend a two-week continuauoe
of Aseoda Item 12. We will be submittir'8 written ""',....P.1.t!l pc:rtaioiDg to the "r'a draft
FCC Form 329 complaiDt within the preacribed 3<kIayreview period as provided by FCC
regulations. You can anticipate receiviDg those written comments no later than Oc;tobcr
10. 1996.
In a&tiWn, Cox Commnmcations will not be cDngjng equipment and Dt$tion Iatcs on
.
October t 1996 as WBS comrmmicated to the city in our FCC Form 1205 filiJg dated June
28. 1996. In accordance with FCC regulations. we wiD. notify the city 3o...days in advance
ofmy regulated rate chanSes included in the FCC Forms 1205, 1235 and 1240.
H you have any questions of require additional iofolJDlltioD, please don't hesitate to call
me at 266-5410.
.' ,j
'! .if"
WILLIAM FITZSIMM:ONS
Director ofFinaDu and AdmiDistration
Cox Communications
"'"f
~. I:'
;: f:
i., , r
{2- l\ i)Y
OCT 1121'96 04: 23PM COX EXEC STRF"F FAX 619/266-5555
P.2
li1. FtcHIIIlluIMtd
ll8n DiIg:J. r.Am1a 1Z1l!i-64llll
18181 ZSH261
A TT ACt-/ /l1@JT 7
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
October IOJ 1996
Mr. Gerald Young
Prineipal Management Analyst
City of ChuIa VJBta
276 Fourth Avenue
Cb.u1a Vista' CA 91910'"
r ~i:'" ~ 2--:-.~".~~~:r:~
"T;-' '.'1/2':,1';-
BE: Cox CommuBicatioDI' FCC Form 1235/Draft 329 Complaint
Dear Mr. Young:
,
In response to the draft FCC Form 329 Complaint submitted by the City to Cox
CotnnmnicatioDS on September 11, 1996, we are submitting the enclosed letter to Mr. Jay
Smith of Public Knowledge and a revised FCC Form 1235.
We wm look fmward to diacussing this matter further at the Chula VISta City CoUIlf;il on
October IS, 1996.
If you have any questions of require additional information, please don't hesitate to call
me at 266-5410.
Sincerely, ,
U/P~~ .
WIL~J. lMMONS
Director of F' and Administration
Cox Coft11'n11nications
,/
"
) :2- .; 1\ .
. ,/ ~j'"
OCT 10'96 04: 23PM COX EXEC STRFF FRX 619/266-5555
P.3
5158 flderalloulmrd
Sill DIIIlD. CIIfomIlIllCJl5.5Ull
(&19) 2lI3-t2S1
cox
COMMUNICATIINS
October 10. 1996
VIA FAC~ AND-->,r--
ITR~T CLASS ~nl
._.,~
,
c%/2'~,:;-
Mr. lay Smtih , /I.
PrNtdem:
Public KDowledgcJ IDe.
5510 Swuidge Dr. S.
Salem. Oregon V1302
h: C~Co~n~d~Sm~8m
. FCC Form J235 and Parm 1240 !We filiD&s
Deal Mr. Smith:
We ba~ rcvicwccl ,.our August 27. 1996. JeIW to the Cilias of Cbula Vista, Im.pcria1
Boach, I.1Kl NaIiDnal Clf;)' regardiDI Cox Cnmmnmcatioas SID DicIO'1 C"Cox's"') PCC 'orm
123' and Form 1240 rate fWDgl for rboso communities. This letter discusses levcal of the
issues addressed in your lotmr which we ~ieve c~irtel die FecIera1 Co~mum"tiomI
Commiufonls (1ba "CommissioD'ltJ) Nics sad policies rcgardiq Porm 1235 ratl: mings u
they pel'tlil1 to your analysis IlDd our rcceat discussions.
You Sl1Qest In your leUer that Cox may not adjust rates for add.cIcl cable prop"'''''''.
MrVice (..CP~~) tier cll.rmeJa UDdor &be R"psll method and also file a :Fonn 123S co mtloct
network upgrade COltS. Lc1ter at 3. However, the Commiuioll bas stated specifically thae
the Form 1235. Network Upgrade memo401ogy dtJU penml operatOr. to KCOWC for the QOII[S
/2/ A ----s(p
OCT 1121'96 1214: 23PM COX EXEC STAFF Fl=lX 619/2.6-5555
i
P.4
Mr. Jay Smith
October 10, 1996
Pap 2
,
of IUlmaDtll1 uetwork UPFades above aDd beyODd any arijua1menb made puIIUaDt to tho
~rklpric:e cap appro-:h.lI ,
In the O'mmt-IioD'. report IZKI ardor adoptiQg bUotim cost of service mIaI,,1' die
Commi.lioA ad0pre4 an abbreviatld COlt of service Ibowq for .)'staID uWiOlk \IPIfI'CIeI.
'l'bIIl Comml..w,; ot lhIt tiulllllld dIIt. ~ !be _ IppI'<IOI:h:
. . . operator[a] would be permiuecl to set. rate buecl on two elemeaD. Tba
tinl element is die be~1un.~ IUI, U~ve.med by the Rate Order 111III ,.
price cop. Tbt *<md elemODt will be. capiTal improvemem acId-cm. 7k
'. of ,.- tWQ 11_111' willyi'I!J,th JIItlZimIIm Gllowtlble 7r1I, thtlr _./at 1M
ch/l,,~;tD ,"b.r~". ",c~/:V
lnurlm 0Nt Older, 9 FCC Red at 4676 (~Iddad). The (;nmftti.siOD rairenred tblI
policy in its, order adoptiDg fiAI1 ;0$1 of ~ ruJII: *'!be recoverable aJDOtmt of IUOh
capital ~Iovementl may be added to a sy.teal'. beDchmarlr rate, (J,J fldjWtM by tIN pnu
cap, to aaier- a mqm,WD. permiu.cl rare. "11: ThuI, it. eIe&r r.bat tbo CollUlfMioD
~ for operaton to reeover eItemI1 costs, Wlatiollt aDd soms-forward Qha,,"e\
addltiODl uDder the price cap., lid addidODll 'fsradc coati UDder a cost-baIId approach.'
.' t '
liThe rust benchmark approadI wu adopced in 19". S" R6p0rl tmd Onl" aII1l
FunMr NfJl;" oJ 1'I'Op(J8ed RuleIftGldn8. 8 peer Red 5631 (1993). Tbe Cmn""ttioD revt,ed
ita hI!ncIImIrlc8 and adopted its quanat)' prke ~ap methodology (11011I wiQl PCC Form
1210) in its S.COlId OrtUr on kctmIitHTtIIItm,'OJI7th bporttG1r4 Ortis', IUIIl FUih. NtJtI~ 'of
Pl'OJIfJ'ed RlMmakinf, 9 pee Red 4119 (1994Y~ The anm1I1 ,price cap methodology, for UII
with FCC FOl1D 1240, was adople4 by tbe COIIUDlIIioll in its Thirttath Ortkr 011
Rseon.ritUTGlioR. 11 FCC Red 388 (1995). 4'
11 .Rel'Ofl fJ1Id O'*'.w Frm/It, M .. .... of PnJpoIItJ ~, 9 FCC Rc:cl 4527
(19M) C.lntllrim COlt OnltIr"). . ... ,
3./ 5<<0114 bpon tMId 0,.,.. FIr. 0r4u tmlUCOMidlllTltUm. euul PwtIMr NOlI" qf
~~. 11 FCC Red 2a2O. Z21(1!lll6) ('FIMJ CoIl 0nIer') (.....
!I The Co1ftnl1..ioD~s viJioD.Of tbJI tw9 PI'OIlI rate HttlDg med1odo1olY wu fInt
voiced In ill wit of.me. IIOlko of~ ~:
w. also ~Ueit C4'~ 011 W~tb.ar wel.. ,"'blilb an abbreviated COIt-of-lItViCe
IhowlDa for .ipificant pmapectiw cap' expendiluRl used to improve tbe quality 0
(.oadmJ,",. ..
t::'. II
/ '} ~A/ -- d .
,+
OCT 113 ~96 B4:24PM COX EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
P.5
Mr. Jay Smith
October 10, 1996
Pqo3
I
I
I
You alao IUglest iD your leUer that autiacriber beDetits arc tied dimctlylDd so1e1y to
tbe Id4ttion of ~lDDet. to a system. You conclude, dJenfore, tbat:
. . .' there Is DO demonstrated beDafit to bask service SUbscribers since the rJlA1InA1
~ltioD for Iha baaic tier \WI DOt chaDgecI by die upgrade. 1'IJadn. DODD of 1110
uPSrade aolts sbould be alkatlld to basic. Furtbar, the allocation botwten as aDd
other services should. be buecl on the cluamtel addidoDs directly assocJatcd. with me
upgrade. . . .
=-at~:S~~dIIl:~:=~=;:'~aId
and FtnGI ~,:0TdeT. I~;~, ~ _~~:901t of scrvice ruJl!Ih.l-i~ proeeetU"11 cloeI
the CommillllOD ~unciate sUch a polley. lDdeeci, if ID operatOr were mquiNd to IdcI
c".'I'DU!1s 81 a coodition of impl~ I rare inaeasc UDder tbe F011D 123s med1odolol)'. it
Ia rouoDlble,fO ..Iumc such a policy would have been stated clearly by the ComealniaD:1t
Pive faetors determine the pelmiuibillf1 of network upgrade COJCS, amDIII Cbem is
tbat the operator must demoDstrafa tbat lAIbscriben will beDefit "tbrougb. improvemears ill tbe
teplared service subject to the rare mc.re.. "f/ "ImprovememsH e.ocompass several
variables, DOl just the addition of M"11IH!la. Por example, Cox is uppadiDg kI syscem to a
tiber-rich lIFe network, which is mOte e.xpemive but mbsllDtia11y more reliable tIw1 the
!I (. . .cODtinued)
service or to provicleaclclidODalIen'1ces. Under this abbreviated showiDl, opemon
setldtlJ to n1so ra_ to recover the COits of a plloDed upsrade would .Ib.mit only the
costs of tile uppade. . . . /TIM C08ts of 1M up,rtIIIe WOIlId tMn be tIIJdMl to 1M I"fa
p,rmUt,d UIIdI, tlat benchmtJJt and JJrlc~ t:Ilp tlJ1P1'OtlCh to Cbe extmlt COllI could not
he recovered UDder tbat ~.
ImPlcmMltAr;on of Sec:ticms of The ~le Television CoDIumer Protection add Competttiou
MI of 1992 0:- Rate RDplati~ N<<iCc'uj Propolld RlII,mtIIcing, MM Db. No. 93-215.
pee gs-3$3 (rei. Jul. U;. 1m) , 7S ,(emphasis. added).
~ It is also rolevant tbat the. Conuniqion', 20 ceat p~ tap metlJodology wu
ba8ecI on historicalllUlVOY data fIOm 1986 to 1991. Duriag that period. VCIY few cable
operators were. CODIuuctiDg fiber pJaDt, aDd tberefore the cap could not IDcoEpOratC ~
ttsubstantfal,. upgrade co... Si;(rh OtWr DnRecOn.Jid'rafton. Ffft1t R'PDrt and ONle" and
SewnlIJ NOltce oj Proptm4 RUl~, 10 FCC.Red 1226, 1300 (lW4).
41 I"terlm Colt OnUr, 0 FC:C 'RGd .1 "7~.
! '7 - A. # t)
(>,."L- ,~-
OCT 10 ' 96 04: 25PM COX EXEC STRFF FAX 619/266-5555
P.6
Mr. lay Smith
October 10, 1996
Pap 4
pnMoUlly-usecl pn:domilWUly coaxJa1 plam. The fiber CODfiguration that Cox is deploym,
is rtmlucJ.:ar, and dms . flilme of ODIIl00p will DOt reIUlt in loss of se1'Vice to 1Ubtcrlben.
~ tba attIdlec:l charta delDODSuate, tho ilaelSe in fiber plaut iD. the system has impro't'at
Iyatem reliability subltaDtially. :Fiber also prcwides bitter stpal quality to mcxe lUbaeriben
over 1arpr. ~ite arcas.wlthout .ipal degradation (clue, for example, to IUCCeIIive
DeCIIIU'y ampliflcador1). The attached Declaration from Stephen D. Gautereax, Vice
President of Tc:c:1mica] DevtlopmoDt. atteIII to both system reliability aad sipIl quality
iDdicatiDI that tba ay.rem's cmicr to noise ('IClNU) rado improved from ~ C/N to 48 C/N
when dte 750 MHz fiber uppade wu implemeutcd. 'Ibe lntriDIic value of I pIdicu.1ar IIddccI
chaDnel may lC1UaUy. be less tbID the value to s~ribers of such improveme.atl in aylfaD
rc1iabUity a,nd ~ipI1 quality., d',,"'"
:,.1 . '-'r::"':- --: .r:-c. f~f :,,~'.,'" (~I"~(-;:,"
BeClQij' subacrlbetltD any COX lerVlceS - iDc1udiDg pleviously available scrvic:eI -
derive substaDtial beDefirs from CoX'.lystmn upgrade, costs Ibould be al1o;ated baed on
rota! cbaJpv!1&, DOt just added dwmoll. Thus, your com:luIi011 that tbo allocadoD of COllI
llIIlOftI b8sic,' CPS, aDd "other" RmAllhoulc1 be bucd OD chNmels dinctly 1I1lnr.1.1II(f widl
tile UParade, is iDconai-tont with tbe Commission's poal.
On a related. bsue, you stale mat Cox's allOCltlon of costs is improper 'because Cox
sccb to recover the ~ of certain pJam that is DOt .used ad usefUl.. You derermiDed tbat
bK1018 Cox i& 0Dl)' 4lusma" , the capIGi~ of the tlnt 100 MHz of tbc 300 acIcIkiOJlal MHz of
capadty by which tbe .ystan bas bleD b1cIeased (i. ,., fIom 450 MHz capad1J before the
upande to 750 MHz after tbe upgrade), Cox may only claim !bat 33 S of tba uparad$ 111lIed
aDd usofu1 BOd I11UJI e.xclude.67.. Thorefore, you CODCbIde that Cox's exclusion of only r
about 20" of the upgrade COSt is improper.V .
Youjuatily your position by... that the Commission'. ru1ts provide that lI&each
unit of acklcd capacity ahou1d bo ll'eated IS if. it costs the same u the other UDlU of added
ca~. .. .. Lcuer at 2. Thus:
. . . unless the tully distributed alloeadOD approach is appHeel, the rates plld
by sublCriber8 10 tegulatld ~s included. in die 100 MHz activated portion
of the upgrade wiD InClude a cllaproporUonate1y tarp tbare of eost compamcl
to those who ultiq,Atcly 1HC aervat (likely to primarily be umegulared)
III.....
11 While Cox'. iDitJal filiq excluded about 201 of the costs, it baa IIIleDdod 1m
flUna to excludo 27~ of d1eIe CO&u.c:ox complltcd itI27~ allocation based on the
llIoca1'8Cl COst to CODlttUcta ,SO MHztysteQl. Because Cox is. in tact, comuuctlDa a 7'0
MHz sysrem, tbc, lDc1uded pordon of_ capaQt)' <-.t which il used ~ U8efu1) I. SSG
divided by 750 t;J<< ?:i "'.
~01
/,J- - It /S
I ,.
OCT 10'96 04: 25PM COX EXEC STAFF FFlX 61~/266-5555
P.?
Mr. Jay Smitb
Oc:rober 10, 19M
PapS
provided ill tile ~2bli. 200 MHz once it is ICtivared: that is. theIe wlJl be
ClOSI IUbli4iaI.
We believe tbat yoa have mi&iQterpreted ~ rlVftmiuioll's replatiODl reaarcIiDa th8
allocatlon of upgrade COlts. As a prelimiM'ry matter, Cox allOt merely ~.. . 4SO
MHz I)'Item to 1SO MHz capacity; it iI.replGcinl iu precJomialDtly coaxial pJaat with ...
of-cbe-art fiber optic plat. This tiot 1DIderliea Cox's COlt aU~ 1IUIthodoloJy. ad Ie
entirely cODSistent with the ~mm;IIloD'. rules. As dileulled above. the adcIad value of
uparadiJJa plant iI DOt merely in the added ~Amlel capacity. While it might appear that tbt
only .ffect of tho UPlfade 911 to i..raIaase Cox', system capacity. pedlaps tile groatest valUe
of the upJl'~e is in ru quaJjW aud mliabWIY.of Cox'. aervlce dellv;ry lY~rem. Iven rhouJh
buic IUb~ril)e,n sciU ~ye.the c~,_:taivecl prior to the uparme, the plant over
which thole sUvicea are cleJiven:d II ot lipjClCa11d)' botter quality. In fact, it II often till
ease tbac mbscn"bers value tile quality ad re1iabilliy of Able service tI:IID die .,.ldQD of .
M.IWIA1. COX has reVised its Form 1235 co take into cODSidcn.tion your po.idols tbaC DOl all
plant Is .uaedanc! usofu1" by reviaiDt ital1location based all Cox'. used IDd UII.fu1 pordOD
(up to S50 MHz) of the 750 MHz baDdwickIl. Tbus. a ~ of tbc uppa4ed pJam (In
Cox's reviaecS ~se, 73"> it .uled aDd 1IIItbl."
PiDaUy, your latter iDdieatel dIat Cox's Porm 1235 does I10t reflect the effect of
advertising sales I'IvtII.Ie. Cox's ilmeJneDtal advertisJDg reveuue aasociated With POnD 1235
c.baJmellddltiolll toCa1a approximatDly $130,000 ."""llIy. The _~bed miaed P0l1ll1235
Rflo;ta adjusanctl buccl on. t.hia eptmlltM aclvertiliDl l'evcmue II well as Ihc Cox's
~UIUD_ to the UICd and useful aUoCadcm from 80S to on". CIIaDgiDg the UJed ad
uaefW allocation reduce. the add-cm poltions of Cox'. basic ra1e ftom 51.73 to 11.59 and die
CPS tier rate trom $4.03 CO 53.6995. ~QumiDg for tbe ad revenue further reduceI rile add-
on pordoD to tl1e CPS rare from 53.6995 10 $3.S1S.
We hOpe dIat tbis letter addI:ases yourcoacems reaardiDI Cox'. Form 123511lte
filiD.g. Should yo\& have IIl)'quea1icmB."p1aue contaCt me.
and AdmiIaIaIradoD
~1......
oc: Ch1 of C1mla Vilfa
1
)'1_ H'
,...L- I
OCT 10 ' 96 04: 26PM CQA..~~....~Tf(f. ~~ S1-~f..~9i?=2???Syetem Rttlability P. 8
Fiber Mlle.
i
!
8OCIO
1000 7225
8000
1000
4000 I......,..,., Miles I
8000
2000
100D
0
'OIl 1990 1., ,. 1898 ,* ,. ,...
"'NO'" ......
1.....~1
88.'"
99..17'ft1
fHUIS09'e
.,""
a.14IM
1t,~
1989
'890
1891
10_
1M3
'114
,.
1996
l (
'I - A -Jl .
/,~
OCT 10 ' 96 04: 28PM COX EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
1
P.9
Q~M'.~l1~ OF S~ GAtrI"RlmA.UX
1. My name it S~ GauteteIUX IIUl I'am Vice-Presidom TechaUcal J)ev~ of Cox
CommUDlcdons San Dieao r'Cox'-
2. I hav.~-ciBht years oflold IDCl maaagement ~e at __ San Dieao S)'ItoD1
(qSystem") m4 fbr the last fourIema)'C11'8 have been mspomib1e for all Sntem
enameeriDJ. coastruotioD, IUd uppac1e activides.
3. I have read the forcsoinJ ltUortO Mr. Jay Smith dated Oetober 10, 1996" ucl declare the
followias:
4. I ba.vCt.oveueerl the upgrade ofCox~..SystoDl1iom a 450 MIU systaID to a 750 MHz
.~,~ OlD Itteatto the boldtstbafliive ~tecl:&an the UPII'Ide.
s. !be ~pI4e IUbatantially mcr.aed the Jeliability ottbo Cox SyBem.
1. When tbe cable plant wu uplf8decl to 450 MHz in 1990 to 1 90J, . &or opdo
nctwork'wu CODStNcted whiGh decreasecl the number of amplificn in cue.
from over 30 to 16. TIaue ueuwae c:oDItnIGted ~l12i!\. Dine flber optic
NCeivm with eaoh DOCIe seMclDs apptOXimately 12,000 homes. 0. of the
nugor lOurcel of outIpI in. cable network Is ampUfter fail~. With the mma18
.ofamp1t8ers reduced iDhIlf,customeD are ablI to receive a higher cJoplO.of
reliability.
b. .DuriDa 1995 and 1996. thiI.ame plant WII upareded to 7S0 MHz. ADotber level
ofrolia'biliiy wu aobievId durins this upgrade. The Dum_ otfi'bcr optic nodes
was iD.creuccl from nine to 143 nodes. The IWD1bcr of 8I1lplifim in caa4e
clecreu.cl to six ampliAen. The averap Dumber ofhomea served from. node
was Nduce4 to ~ 100 homes per node.
c. Any timo the Il\ID1b. of amplifiers in cascades is JeCluced, the 1II0le reliabl. the
network. AdditioD&11y, abet optic IlriDgs" were installed duriq t1w 750 MH%
upgrade. 1'hcIe J'iDaI wen iDltalled tal euble cbo IyIteD1 to continue ~ operate in
the ewnt of I fiber taImre. With the fUrther reductioD in amplifier GIft.. Illd
the iDIt:aIl.tlcm offiblJ' riD&I. the cahle network has become atate-of-tbe-ert.
d. Whenever a cable Outlp occmrs in our network. detailed lop aze kept indiG&tiq
the locadon ofth.e outIge. the time the ouUIp occuzzed, the time it wu beds the
1eAJ1:b gf1he outage, mcItbo Dumber of CUIIOlllOl' hours a:fIrcted. UaIq those
lop in the major zip co4es otthe 450 MHz to 7.50 MHz uppade _as a
refeIlDCI, the customer ou1ap hoW'll have docreuecI dramatically. Dur1D.s. 17
mODth time .Deriocl :&om J_~ lQ9S thro1Wt Ma:v of 1 fH. the cu.&en:IW o'*F
):2 ~- fl (p)---
OCT 10 ' 96 04: 28PM COX EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
P.10
J.~?:': .
.2-
o.
houra per month in thoIIlNIS wa 14,909 ~ ho\ll8 of outages (Ill)'
outIFI caused by \IPIfIClt activi~ cbiD.a this time paiod ha .. RIDOVIKi
from these total.). Ak tho 750 MHz uppede wu aomplete&l the total customer
ou. houra wumduccd to 700 hours per IIlOIlfb (1.1IiDg the time period. from
1... 1996 to Sept<<mbor 14.1996). 'lbiI clramatic decrease in WIIDmer 0'"
baUD 1\Bther illustrates tblenbI"-d reliability oftba cable plat after
aompIedOl1 of the 7S0 MHz uppde.
Tho lifo cxpec:tanoy aftbe cable netwoJt has been uteDded by four or five ,..
by tbllnDn.tion of all new fiber. opto elec:troDicl, IDlplifierl. ad aaooiatod
cquipmG.
..;l.l.i.&.o.. ,\','J.:.;" ''''III''
6. ThouJJBl'lCll SI.lbICaD.tlally iDcrtUed86MCe quality in tU Cox System.
The roclucticm. of IIQPliiler Clade. im:reued. quality ofreceptiolL .AJsytiDw a
cabJe telmsioD sipa1 is lIIJpli1ied the quality of the IiaDal d_pdc.. Recluciq
the c1iatage and the IIUDlber of amPlifieD that lipl. travel increIICI dw qUllity
ofrecepdolL
\
Tbese sipals om be ~ by canier to no1Be rCCIN'j ratios. 11lose zad08
were 45 C/N during the 450 ~ upgrade ad improved to 48 CIN duriDs the
750 MHzuppde. t,.~ .:'
Durb1a tbo 7S0MHz UPsredOtl1e, deliF of tho c:able p'11D1 Jueludecl ~.il\l tile
sigtllll8ve11 at the clirec1i0lll1 tips (the point 011 the street whm'a the hcNIe ckop .
attac1w to the Cable cIiatri~ODP1ant) to allow tba lIec.essary sipal for IICOD.d
outletl in the homes. Seconc1azyoudeta needed 10 be ooDsicJerecl dudDa: tho
design of the 150 MHz plat. ,.
I affirm that fIctIltated herem. co tr\Je aud correct to the belt of ft1Y kDow1edae.
iDfonaation wi belief.
~g .
. _c " ...
~-..-~~ /
Title: Vice-PJwsident. .:
Tedmica1 Development
Cox CommUDicatioDS Sm DiclO
7.
..
b.
c.
/cl -r'[p)
oc;:-- ~-?96-:-iJ';29PMCOX EXEC STRFF FRX 619/266-5555
Com Unit or Vstem perating NalM
Cox CO_unlcatloD. SaD Diego
Name of Ca . perator
Cox CODUDunkation. San Diego
Img
519 Peden! Blvd.
City
San Diego
Ownerthlp of
Partnership
-'F\II/II ",I\il'
Ld ~ ":'~'1
for: ICheck One)
x
Abbreviated C08t of Service FlHng
For Cable Network Upgra.s
S1ate
Call1oruia
to the left or the appropriate answet.):
Subchapter S
Sole Proprietor
. :~:C
F.....'
',.( .
Pre - Approval
:OR
Note: "PIn.1 A v.1 filing; attagh all Pre-Approval filings, If any, rel~g to the upgrade.
, ,~
ng: (Check One)
x
Note: cable System i. defined in Section 802(7) of the Communications Act.
Pre - Approval
OR
Page 1 of8
( .(i
/.2 -!+/If''
Approved byP _ 11)060.0688
pCode
92105-5416
Other
FInal Approvel
SVttem Level
FCC Poma 1235
FGbruary 1996
6"T"~JWUW~"!'~~ EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
~_..3&....~. _t"J,;
.4pproved byez-'ANO-06II'
Abbreviated Cost of ServIce ,.lIing
Por CIIb1e Network Upgrade.
Part 1. Qudfloltlon for Upgrade ftllte Adjustment
A. lignlflC8nce of Upgrade OualJflcll'tlon
1. Does the upgrade meet the minimum teohnlcal specifications described In the Instruction. for Part 1
Qualification for Upgrade Rate Adjustment, Line 1"?
x
Ve.
No
2.
If UNo. was answered In question 1, attach a brief d~SC" rlption of how subscribers to Bale and Cable
Programming Service Tier. will benefit form the caplt I Improvements.
,I: _",;. ...~d., :~'.1l~,.~<., .,a._''lf.'~,;'' -. ."~
3.
ro' ,1 r/'I~J'-
I
Complete the following Items to determine the coat of the capital improvement as a percentage of rate
ba. (Investment In cable property, pllnt and eqUIPmr,nt for the area over which the Improvement will be
uHd) : I
A.
B.
C.
',;;-:(
The net upgrade rate base
Total rate base after upgrade
Percentage of upgrade to total rate base
.
.
27~"
41. 54
GUS"
B.
Used" U.eful Qu,llficatlon '
If this form has be.n completed fOr a pre-approval, PI~ase skip to line 3.
1.
Hu the upgrade been completed?
VH No.
If quntlon 1 .... .ns.....d .y... ente, the - the t, grade was completed and began providing
service to subscribers of regulated services: ' >, . "
If the Phased-In Approach II elected, attach a description of the subsections invol"ed end the projected
dartes on which the upgrade will be completed and. providing .ervlce to subscribers of rat. regulated
services within those subsections.
2.
3.
Imperial Belch
Santee
ChulaVlIta
NationalCUy
Nov-"
Feb-M
==
I
,
I
\
PlIO 2 0'"
1c1-A/
,./
>,
(p .
PCCPorm 1235
J~l:m1uy 1996
&_.I~"'IIW1~U~~I"C3X EXEC STl=lFF Fl=lX 619/266-5555
QQ:.JJL.~. ~~
Appmed bye:.!.2s060-0688
Abbreviated COM of Servioe filUng
For C.ble Network Upgrades
evenue Requirement Computetlon
(a)
(b)
(0)
BST
CPST.
8ST
cps-r.
1.
2.
Net Upgrldl R<<Ce BI.I (Worksheet A, Un. 4el
Retum on Investment
a. "11:8 at RetUrn Percentege
b. Computed F1e1um on UPGrldl Rate Ba.. IUne 1 x Une 2a}
Allowance for Income Taxes
e. Federal Income Tax Rate
b. Stat. Income Tax Rato
c. Computed Return on Upgrade Rate Base (Lin. 2b)
d. Intere8t Ixpense related to upgrade (Workatleet A. Line eel
e. Distributions INon-C Corp, Flier. Onlyl
f. Contribution. (Non-C C;orp. PUer. Only).....
g. Return Amount:~~b)~~ to Incomet,l(
h. Income Tax Allowance
Projected Net Impact of Upgrade on Operating
Expens.. (Worklheet A, Une 8el
Nit Revenue and Incom. AdJuBlmenta
Related to Upgrldc. (Worksheet A, Line 12~.1
Total Upgrade Pltvenul Requirement (Line 2+3+4+81
3.
,;i<.""",,"
Ii';'
4.
15.
6.
.2
1. Upgrade Revenue Requirements · (Part II, Line 81
2. Number of Subscribe,.
3. AnnUli Revenue Requirement Per Sub (Un. 11 Un. 21
4. Monthly Network Upgrade Add-on (Une 3 /12)
5. Selected method of ~ub8oribllr recovery: (Cheok Onll, ':! I '
, .. jill
· Provide cleaorlption for allool'tion of CPST Revenue Requirement to CP8:Tiers:
11 '':'
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
.:1
;:iq d';
3I1S196
Pase 3 ofB
Pee Porm 1235
FcbNI!'Y 1996
/"7_1{
. ~ 11.'--
/'
i
~--l ~lA'.~4! ~~t1L.~m< EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
~.JllllI'~II. c;~. m:l34
Approved by~~Oo06"
Abbreviated CDtt of S.rvlce Filing far Clbla Network Upgrade.
.rator: Cos olb.untc.tiou San DIe
CA0329
5IH
Worksheet A C08t Assignrnen1:ll MCI AlJooatlone (part 1 )
($ OOO'e)
Line Numbe, .nd Descr! tlon
Balance
(a)
Directly Assigned Cost Elements
(b)
BS CPST . 1 CPST .
er
26.07G
1.222
o
27.291
o
o
II. '\.~ ..1 ,<I " ':' I"
5. - ~ ( 7r.:f~ 71
6. . 0
7. 2.27S
e.
2,346 0 0 0 607
9. INTERIST EXPENSE RELATED TO UPGRADE 1.276 340
10. (130
" .
12.
0 (130) 0 0
FCC Form 123$
P.4ot8 Pabmty 1996
/<:J- ~ A'~/Y 1
Qr:Ll'(!~:11! ~~~~'X EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
~clbye6.~.e.
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Name of Operator: Cox Commauteadons Sau DteRo
c-UIO (s): CA032' Worksheet A Colt Anlgnmentl and Allocationa (partZl
Date of Filing: 3I1SIH ($ 000'8)
Allocated Cost Element' Allocation
(a) Key
Une Number and Description eST CPST - 1 CPST - 2 All Other (d)
,
1. Plant and Equipment 4,651 10,S9S 3.876 1
2. Allowance for Fund' Used During Conltruction 218 497 112 ~ I,
13. Other Adjustments 0 0 0
4. TEl' UPGRADE RAT! BASE CS-um Un.. 1 - 3) 4,869 11,091 0 4.058
PROJECTED:
5. Change In Plan:" '',''''-ted Operattn'd" Expent.'f'" ;'1-..',; :,j-'"../ 17 39 14 1
8:' Change In Plant :.Aelated Support'Expensei '.... ' . 0 0 0
7. Upgrade Related Depreciation Expense 406 924 338 1
8. PROJECTID NET IMPACT OF UPGRADI ON
OPERATING EXPENSES (Sum Lines 5 - 71 '" 423 964 0 353
9. INTER.IT EXPENSE RELATED TO UPGRADe 228 519 190 1
PROJECTED:
10. Other Cable "evenue j
11. Other Adjuatmentt .
12. NIT REVENUE AND INCOME ADJUSTMeNTS
RELATED TO UPGRADE (Sum LInes 10 -11) 0 0 0 0
/ '} - A '- (fi
<~
FCC Form 1235
February 1996
Paso 5 orB
CiT1j::~[':l1!~ EXEC STAFF FAX 619/266-5555
Approved by~,.~..o"'
Abbreviated Coat of aervlce Filing for Cable Network Upgt;ldn
Name of OEMIr.tor: Cox ConamualcatloDI San DIep
CUID (if: CA032' WOrklheM A eo. Assignments and AIIooa1I
Date of Filing: 3/15196 (. 000'1)
Total Colt Elements
(e)
Line Number and Description BST CPST . 1 CPST - 2 All Other
"""",
1. Plant and EQuipment 4,651 10.595 0 10.830
2. Allowance for FundI Used During Construction 218 497 0 S08
3. Other AdJu8tmtnts
14. NET U .-.._E RATIIASE (Sum Un.. 1 - 3) 4,869 lUJJl 0 11.337
PROJECTED;
6. Chanae in Plant,B ,fated Operatin'd"Expen.U." M'", .!6k><i 17 39 0 14
8. Change In Plant'A Hated Support.Excenlei'" 'ir., ' :,,:: 0 0 0 0
7. UDClrade "ellted I epreclatlon Expense 406 !)24 0 94'
8. PROJECTED NET IMPACT OP UPGRADI ON
OPERATING EXPINSES (Sum Un.. 5 -7). .: , 423 964 0 9$9
9. INTIRlaT EXPEN.... RILATED TO UPGMDE 228 519 0 530
PROJECTED:
10. Orher Cable "evenue " 0 (30) 0 0
11. -Other Adjustments " , , 0 0 0 0
112. REVENUE AND INCOMI ADJUSTMINTS
RELATED TO UPGRADE (Sum Lines 10 -1') 0 (130) 0 0
ona (part I)
FCC POtID 1235
Page 6 of8 Febnllry 1996
(''),
j,-l-A/ !
~~~~~::~~PM~~OX EXEC STRFF FAX 619/266-5555
Name of Operator:
Franchise CUID;
Organiz.tional Level:
Date of Filing:
AIooMlon
Ke (a)
1
Upgrades
Cox CommunlcatioDI Sa. D1el0
CA03%9
3/15196
Page
1
,Allocation Methodology D..crlption
\ (b)
Channel.
Basio
,,' .,~IiON>-' , ,~,; ( .,'",;4:.;:.
eps" . ,. ~
.' :~=(:: NCPS~/~:: ,I
NCPS..Pmnium
Post--R.ebuUd CIwmeJs
18
41
4
11
74
p. 7 on
-
1/( ()
/;2-f{/.
Apprcmd by~JOCio.o681
of
f,
PeroentapI
24.32%
SS.41%
5.41%
14.86%
100.0096
Fa: PonD 1235
Pobnw'y 1996 ".
.o.~~'!I'.Mtd'J'r~FtI.~ox EXEC STl=lFF Fl=lX 619/266-5555
~.J....t.~ U. .~..
Approved by e:..lE!J060.06..
Abbreviated Coat of a.rvice Filing Far Cable Network Upgrades
Worksheel C: Supplemental DIIte
5JM
For Noh of the following property and equipment oategorie. state the gross depreciable balance resulting from the upgrade
",
along with the averaae depreciation lif. which Clomprls. the property and equipment balence reported in Worksheet A.
Cost of Method of
.,. " """ ".., ~.lli.< .1ilI..........,.. "",\>.'; (...1 ~',. ,.,'
DeacrlDtlon :i'PHl ii'/'f "-', ,..-(- f-!), ',1.': /:'(jF
1~: :~I;:r " \ ",;"" Uparade Year. DeDreel.tion
1. Headend
2. Tran.mllllon Flcllltl.. and Equipment
3. DI.tribution facilities (Trunk, drop., etc.)
4. Circuit YClulDment (amplifiers, power booster., etc.)
5. g-.lnt.nance Facilities (garages, warehou'88, etc.)
8. M.lntenanoe Vehicles and Equipment -,
7. uildlnas (offloe) .'
8. ffice Fumiture.nd Equipment ....
9. otal Upgrade Rate. Bas.
If you wish to dia.lIl1reglllte any of the .bow becauI, they Ire not readily combined or It yOU wish to add others
not .hown, report auch belOWI
Cost of
Method of..
Years
12
12
12
12
12
12
S1t
hplofl
FCC Porm 1235
FebruaIy 1996
/~ - It '/ {
OCT HI ' 96 04: 33PM COX EXEC SHFF Fro< 619/266-5555
Amunptioos
AlnmptJOIIIi UHCIID WorlWulet A
COIUDUl (a) - Total Anlptd COI..
Line 2 - Allowance for Funds Used Under Construotion
Allumea that total rebuild Clom ofS2C5.075.512 i. spenleveoly cmr a
10 month period (June 95 tbrouah Aprll96).
Actual Calou1ation :
126.0'75,512 x 11.2S~ 112 motdbJ x 5 mcmths - $1,222,000.
LiDo 5 . P1aat 1'Olatcci Opcratfn& Bxpen.CI
ildma1Id annual net mcrellle III power COSh of $71,148.
LiDo 7 . uparaclt related dcprociatiol\ txpeJII88.
All uPlf8de oosta fI1'e depreciated OD a 12 year straight-line balla.
Lillo , . Interest ExpcnIc .
A~C!. a cepifa1 ~ of S5l)f~'6t aJ.~~~ if abc. 'Ihi. iI oouisteat with the FCC.
,*\imPtion in ~ the .uowoa J J;25%~ ofrcCUrD on ra1Ie bu..
Column (b) . Directly Alllped Colts BlemeDlI
Other
Although the rebuild wlU inc::rcase plant capedty ft'om 4S0mbz to 7S0 MHz, 0Dl)' SSO
~ wUl be actlvated immed.iam1y" t1\e additioDal200 MHz capacity
will'" reserwd for fiJtute uae. ThO .lncnmantal COlt ofthil adcUt10nal capacity
(aPProXimately 20% of tho total coat) baa been directly assianed to the OTHBR
cate.,.". ....
.\;: '...<.l
Pqol
);2 - ~
.rj ]
1(;1-
P.19
Item #12
Meeting Date 10/' 5/96
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #18447 -- Cox Communications:
In the Cox Communications public hearing tonight, staff will be recommending two amendments
to the resolution. The first of these will clarify the intent of the resolution. The second is in
response to Cox's request for additional time to discuss alternative rate structures with staff. The
form of this second item allows for any alternative agreement to be brought back to Council on
October 22, but if no agreement can be reached, it authorizes the actions contained in the initial
resolution.
Staff recommends the following text be added to Resolution #18447:
1) "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the intent of these actions is to authorize Cox
Communications to institute Maximum Permitted Rates for Basic cable at $9.74 per month,
to approve Maximum Permitted Rates for regulated equipment and installation costs as
detailed in Form 1205 as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and to file
a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Cox
Communications' CPS-tier Maximum Permitted Rates to the extent that they exceed $17.18
per month."
2) "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council hereby authorizes staff to continue to
discuss the subject rate requests with Cox Communications, with any complaints to the
FCC tabled until the conclusion of those discussions, but in no case tabled beyond October
23. If alternative terms can be structured to the satisfaction of both parties, they shall be
brought back to Council on October 22 for final consideration."
Staff recommends approval of the resolution as amended.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~/ :/ /-'11
- ~~/ ff/-<~,'/
Gerald y 9l-n1gJ./'Pt1ncipal
Management Assistant
c/-~- ~ .
~~~.
At!orney_ // \ \
--------.- \
/ / 1111), .-
./' u. .1/
r:::r- / I t I'
ITEM #12 --- OVERHEADS
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED RATES: DETAIL
BASIC CABLE CPS (EXPANDED TOT AL:BASIC+CPS
SERVICE) (COX CLASSIC)
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL -- MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES
MPR as of 1/1/96 $7.74 $17.14 $24.88
Upgrade-related $1. 73 $4.03 $5.76
MPR increase
request (Form 1235)
Cost-related MPR $2.00 $0.04 $2.04
increase request
(Form 1240)
TOTAL MPR $11.47 $21.21 $32.68
Requested:
I REVISED PROPOSAL -- MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES I
MPR as of 1/1/96 $7.74 $17.14 $24.88
Upgrade-related $1.59 $3.52 $5.11
MPR increase
request (Form 1235)
Cost-related MPR $2.00 $0.04 $2.04
increase request
(Form 1240)
TOTAL MPR $11.33 $20.70 $32.03
Requested:
ACTUAL RATES CHARGED
As of 1/1/96 $7.30 $15.90 $23.20
Increase 5/1/96 $0 $3.79 $3.79
Total $7.30 $19.69 $26.99
;; -fA 10
l
r/)
5
I-'l
~
r/)
o
e:
~
~
P4
f:-I
I-'l
P4
~
~
N
0\
\0
N
~
~
~z
<0
~~
OOE-'
>~
~oo
~O
U~
~
o
Uz
~o
~~
OOE-'
~~
>00
~~
~
o
U
~z
zO
""""~
~c
~oo
O~
~
~
~
t=
~
~
~~
::g~
;:J6
~oo
~~
(\)0
.Du
B~
(\) ';>-.
00..0
-S"'O
c:: (\)
(\) c::
U .....
~ g
p..(\)
+-'~
g"'O
X
~
N
0\
\0
N
~
N
0\
\0
N
~
(\)
ul~
(\) (\)
~ I-<
I-< g
S .....
;:j-g
8~
'x"'"
ro ~
8tl
u 0
.t;i U
rn 00
.;S t::
u~
x.2
o U
o .S
~
~
t-
o C"-.
U C"-.
~ t
';>-. 0\
..0 \0
"'0 N
(\) ~
c::
's
I-<
(\)
+-'
(\)
"'0
(\)
..0
o
f:-I
~
o
o
00
rn
.....
(\)
@
ro
,.d
(\) U ..J
"'Ooo;.t.4
e t:: 0..
00 'p ~
g..~
~ (\)
o 0
(\) +-'
00"'0
ro (\)
~~
(\)..0
U .....
I-< I-<
(\) ~
0.. ro
...... ~
...... 0
l.(') N
~ ~
~
\0 00
t- \0
l.(') N
~ ~
~
(\)
rn
ro
(\)
I-<
U
t::
.....
"'0
(\)
"d
-
(\)
I-<
I
(\)
"'0
ro
Eh
p..
;::>
"'0
(\)
~
.~ 1n
(\) (\)
o..g.
g~
.S2
~~
~'-"
.....
ro (\)
+-'"d
~~
r--. (\)
C"-' 0\ rn
C"-. 0\ ro
+ \0 ~
N N U
0\ ~ (\)
\0 '-" "'0
~ 8
E
.~
ro
S
00
~
~
~
z
~
;:J
U
::g
o
~
~
E-'
00
~
;:J
CI
~
~
~
::g
~
o
~
u
z
~
~
~
~
~
~
r--- *
~ 0\ .q-
o 0\ 0
N 1..0 l.(')
rrl N ~
~ ~
'-"
r--.
t-
o
o
~
'-"
r---
00 0\ 0\
\0 0\ \0
N \0 l.(')
rrl N ~
~ ~
'-"
.s
~
"'0
~
'~
(\)
0..
S
S
'x
ro
~
j;L- A
U
.....
rn
rn
ro
.....
o
x
o
U
rn
rn
(\)
~
r--. (\)
C"-. 0\ rn
C"-. 0\ ro
+ \0 ~
N N U
0\ ~ (\)
\0 '-" "'0
~ 8
~
S
.....
X
ro
6
00
~
~
~
z
~
;:J
U
~
o
~
~
r--.
l.(') 0\ \0
0\ ~ 0\
00 1..0 ......
N N ~
€A €A
'-"
~
t-
o
o
€A
'-"
~
l.(') 0\ 1..0
0\ 0\ 0\
00 1..0 -
N N ~
€A e
-
~
~
~
~
~
E-'
-
'(i)
rn
ro
(\)
I-<
U
(\)
B
-
(\)
rn
ro
(\)
I-<
U
t::
I-'l
......
ro
.....
~
(\)
+-'
o
P-c
00
X
o
U
~
o
~
u
z
~
~
~
~
~
~
(\)
~
+-'
(\)
00
a
f:-I
U
.....
en
en
ro
......
U
X
o
U
rn
rn
(\)
~
c:: c::
o Q)
(\)
.q-.D
o V)
. ro
N,.d
€A+-,
~ rn
rn V
.sg.
~ ~
"'0-
v""-;
~l.(')
.....~
8 v
t-B
o..~
S 0
;:j0\
8~
'xe
ro rn
~ ~
ooro
C ~
..... U
1n c
'x .....
(\)"'0
(\)
t::"d
o~
"'0 ~
(\) (\)
rn"'O
ro ro
.D I-<
bI)
,~ g-
OO .....
~ ~
- 0
€A 'p
~~
(\)"'0
~ ro
~ .8
gN
..... rrl
............
,;2 ~
c"'O
(\) t::
-0 ro~
p..rn
(\)
Cd ~
-0 ~
+-' U
.q- .8
~"'OA
l.(')(\)-
fA~';>-.
(\)..... ro
..c:~~
+-';!..
~o ~ 8
U t::
rn.....
~ ;::j rn
brn"'O
Ot::(\)
(\) bI)
Z rn I-<
g~
* U U
~
(\)
rn
ro
(\)
I-<
U
V
B
-
(\)
rn
ro
(\)
I-<
U
.s
.0
~
:J
, ATTAEIIMCNT #B-fm 18/22
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item t 2-
Meeting Date 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE:
A. Public Hearing Regarding existing and proposed rates and charges
for Cox Communications' Basic Service Tier and associated equipment and Cable
Programming Services Tier, as submitted by Cox Communications to the City via
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205.
B. Resolution I (ti41
1) Disapproving upgrade-related increases in Maximum Permitted Rates for
the Basic Service Tier;
2) Directing staff to file a complaint with the FCC on behalf of local
subscribers regarding upgrade-related increases in the Cable Programming
Service Tier rates;
3) Approving proposed cost-based rate decreases for associated equipment;and
4) Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates
for the Basic Service Tier.
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management ~. stant Young <Z
I )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~t; /? '(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X)
In May 1996, Cox Communications institute Va $3.79 increase in its Cable Programming Services
(CPS or "expanded service") tier. This charge is subject to FCC regulation, thus any complaints
must be filed with the FCC. At the same time, Cox proposed to raise its Maximum Permitted
Rates for the Basic Service Tier, which is subject to City regulation. Both of these changes were
based on costs to upgrade Cox's infrastructure. Further cost-based increases in Maximum
Permitted Rates were requested in July, along with decreases in the rates for associated
equipment/installations (e.g. charge per installation; rental of decoder boxes, remote controls).
A study by Public Knowledge, Inc. of Cox's methodology in spreading its upgrade costs called
into question both the Basic and CPS share of the upgrade. That same study found the cost-based
increases to be appropriately justified. Accordingly, staff is presenting a recommendation to deny
and/or protest the questionable upgrade-related rates, approve the equipment rate decreases and
approve the cost-based service charge increases. On those portions of the rate requests with
which the City disagrees, the FCC is the final arbiter. Should Cox wish to institute such rate
increases above the City's objections, they would be required to file an appeal with the FCC in
conjunction with any rate increase. If the FCC finds in the City's favor, any overcharges would
be subject to refund by Cox.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing; and
2. Adopt the resolution: 1) Disapproving upgrade-related increases in Maximum Permitted
Rates for the Basic Service Tier; 2) Directing staff to file a complaint with the FCC on
behalf of local subscribers regarding upgrade-related increases in the Cable Programming
Service Tier rates; 3) Approving proposed cost-based rate decreases for associated
1L.--A- 'If"
Item \ ~ , Page 2
Meeting Date 10/15/96
equipment; and 4) Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted
Rates for the Basic Service Tier.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/ A
BACKGROUND
Rate Structures and Subscribership
Cable service rates are structured and regulated as follows:
Table 1: Tiers of Service
SERVICE TIER EXAMPLES REGULATION
Basic Cable Broadcast networks, Local Franchising
Government Access, WGN, Authorities (Cities)
C-SPAN, TBS
Cable Programming Service CNN, ESPN, A&E, Bravo, Federal Communications
MTV, Disney, Nickelodeon Commission
Premium Channels, Pay- HBO, Showtime, Viewers Unregulated
per-view and other "a la Choice, ESPN-2 (see
carte" services discussion below), Turner
Classic Movies
The 1992 Cable Act provided local cable television franchising authorities with limited ability
to regulate Basic Cable and certain associated equipment rates. Limitations on Basic Cable rates
are intended to protect residents who want just bare-bones television service from paying higher
prices due to technological or other barriers to effective competition. Under the terms of the
1992 Cable Act and City Council action, Chula Vista's limited rate regulation authority became
effective September 1, 1993.
Rates for expanded tiers, which include such channels as CNN, ESPN and MTV, are now known
as "Cable Programming Services" and are regulated by the FCC upon the filing of complaints
by subscribers, submitted through a local franchising authority. Rates for premium and pay-per-
view channels, such as Cinemax or HBO, are not regulated by any agency under the Cable Act
of 1992. With the lesser rate regulation applied to CPS and premium services like HBO and
Showtime, cable companies can theoretically make up for the regulated nature of Basic Cable by
effectively marketing the optional programming.
In Chula Vista, Cox currently has 823 customers receiving Basic Cable only, with 33,484
receiving Basic + Expanded (marketed as 'Cox Classic') service. Thus, of Cox's 34,713
residential customers, only 2.4% receive Basic Cable only. (These totals do not include 1,229
l'2f A I
Item l1-- , Page 3
Meeting Date 10/15/96
commercial customers such as restaurants and bars, which typically subscribe to expanded
service).
Ongoing Cable Rate Deregulation
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law in February. It has since been
followed by a number of proposed, interim and final regulations which are the tip of the iceberg
in terms of how this landmark law will be interpreted and implemented in the coming years.
In terms of cable rate regulation, this law continues to allow for local regulation of Basic Cable
rates until such a time as effective competition is reached. Cable Programming Service regulation
by the FCC also continues, but with a sunset date of March 31, 1999. It is assumed that by that
date, and probably much sooner, there will be a host of new competitors providing similar
services. These services may be delivered by telephone companies, via fiber optics, via satellite,
or through "open video systems" which are pass-through companies facilitating customers striking
their own deals with entertainment retailers. Regardless of what form this "effective competition"
takes, the mere presence of an alternative with sufficient capacity and market share would be
considered by the 1996 Act to be evidence that local (Basic Cable) and federal (CPS) rate
regulation is no longer necessary.
Locally, Chula Vista Cable is judged to have effective competition based on the market share
held by Cox. Federal law thus allows Chula Vista Cable free rein to set their own rates on the
assumption that if they priced themselves too high, customers could switch to Cox. However,
since Chula Vista Cable has a much smaller customer base and area of service, it does not serve
to give Cox "effective competition" and thus Cox's rates are still regulated.
DISCUSSION
Maximum Permitted Rates
When filing for rate increases with the local franchise authority or FCC, cable companies can
request designation of a Maximum Permitted Rate (MPR). In practice, Cox has not charged for
cable service at the full MPR. Their MPRs as of 1/1/96, the changes that have been proposed
in them, and the actual rates currently assessed are as shown in Table 2.
As of 1/1/96, Cox was charging $1.68 less than their Maximum Permitted Rate ($24.88 - $23.20).
When they began charging their upgrade-related increased rates in May, they were charging $2.11
more than their previous MPR, but $3.65 less than their requested increase in the MPR.
Although some rate increase would be expected following an MPR increase, it is difficult to
predict what cable rates will be in the aftermath of these various rate filings. Based on past
experience and considerations of what the market will bear, it is unlikely that Cox will seek to
increase the actual rates to the full MPR.
r '- ~ If ~ ;it
Item I ~. , Page 4
Meeting Date 10/15/96
BASIC CABLE CPS (EXPANDED TOTAL:BASIC+CPS
SERVICE) (COX CLASSIC)
MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES
MPR as of 1/1/96 $7.74 $17.14 $24.88
Upgrade-related $1.73 $4.03 $5.76
MPR increase
request (Form 1235)
Cost-related MPR $2.00 $0.04 $2.04
increase request
(Form 1240)
TOTAL MPR $11.47 $21.21 $32.68
Requested:
I ACTUAL RATES I
Rates Charged as of $7.30 $15.90 $23.20
1/1/96
Rates Charged as of $7.30 $19.69 $26.99
5/1/96 (Current
rates)
Actual Increase to $0 $3.79 $3.79
date:
Table 2: Maximum Permitted Rates (MPR) vs. Actual Rates
Upgrade-Based Rate Proposal (1235 Filing)
Under FCC rules, cable companies may file for rate increases for either: 1) costs related to
service or infrastructure upgrades or 2) increased costs of doing business.
Earlier this year, Cox filed a rate increase request related to upgrades to their transmission
facilities from 450 megahertz (MHz) to 750 MHz. From this upgrade, a 100 MHz increase (from
450 to 500) was activated in the form of new channels and services. It is this "used and useful"
portion of the upgrade that Cox proposed assessing to the Basic and CPS service tiers.
The rate proposal was for an increase in the Maximum Permitted Rates for Basic Cable of $1. 73
per month and for Expanded (or CPS) rates of $4.03 per month. The actual rates for Basic cable
. (/
{2- p: - ·
Item l t-- , Page 5
Meeting Date 10/15/96
remain unchanged at $7.30 per month. CPS charges were increased in May from $15.90 to
$19.69 (an increase of $3.79 of the total $4.03 of the requested MPR).
In cooperation with San Diego, Poway, National City, La Mesa and Imperial Beach, Chula Vista
once again contracted with Public Knowledge, Inc. to perform a detailed review of Cox's rate
proposals (at a cost of $200 per form per city -- $400 for Chula Vista for the 1235 and 1240
review). That review found the cost-spread to be flawed (see Attachment #1). In essence, the
upgrade has been used primarily to provide new premium services, while the costs have been
assessed primarily to non-premium services. Based primarily on this review and also on customer
complaints received by the City, 1 staff recommends filing a formal complaint with the FCC.
As a postscript, subsequent to Public Knowledge's discussions with Cox and sending them a copy
of the attached report, Cox has since notified the City (See attachment # 4) that it intends to
realign their channel line-up effective September 30 to place ESPN-2 and the History Channel
(added for an additional charge after the upgrade) on the CPS-tier. They also plan to add two
new channels to the Basic Tier. These changes may serve to mitigate the overcharge, but based
on the months the overcharge has been in effect, staff would still recommend proceeding with
the FCC complaint.
Cost-based Rate Proposal (1240 Filing)
The subsequent proposal received in July contained two requests: 1) an additional inflation and
operating cost-based increase in maximum permitted monthly rates, and 2) a decrease in
equipment and installation rates (see discussion of Form 1205 below).
The cost-based proposal would increase the Maximum Permitted Rates for Basic Cable by $2.00,
and increase the maximum permitted CPS rates by $0.04. This is a combination of projected
inflation costs (as per FCC procedures), "true-up" for variation in previous inflationary estimates,
and adjustments for changes in the channel line-up. True-up adjustments do not typically enable
full after-the-fact cost recovery. Thus, cable companies have an incentive to project their
inflationary costs ahead of time. An increase in the MPRs based on projected inflation allows
companies to raise their rates as additional costs are incurred and minimize any cost-recovery loss
through the true-up process. Public Knowledge's report found the methodology followed in
Cox's cost-based MPR increase proposal to be appropriate.
J Typically, when customers have complaints about their cable rates, they complain to their
cable companies rather than to the franchising authority (city). This may be due to a lack of
understanding of who oversees a franchise and to federal moves toward deregulation. However,
current FCC regulations require at least two customer complaints be received by a city before a
complaint may be filed with the FCC. Chula Vista's proposed FCC complaint follows complaints
by two city employees who are also Chula Vista customers of Cox Communications.
('2--d..
I .
Item \ 7- , Page 6
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Although Cox has stated that there is no plan to increase the actual rates at this time, they would
have the discretion to charge their MPRs at any time. If the City were to object to an MPR
increase and Cox were to increase their rates in spite of that action, the matter would be adjudged
by the FCC, with refunds ordered if appropriate.
Equipment and Installation Cost-Based Rate Proposal (1205 Filing)
The following chart shows the proposed changes in equipment and installation charges. Due to
the fact that the Chu1a Vista, National City and Imperial Beach rates in each case were proposed
to decrease from the current rates, staff from these three cities concurred in not requesting a
detailed evaluation of this proposal by Public Knowledge.
In the cities of La Mesa and Poway, Cox had originally proposed increasing the equipment and
installation charges to bring them up to the level charged elsewhere in the county. That proposed
increase has since been postponed. If it were to be revisited, the detailed review to be undertaken
by those agencies would serve as a valuable benchmark for the south bay cities to use in
evaluating their own equipment and installation rates. (NOTE: These rates were last analyzed
in 1994 and found by Public Knowledge to be justified).
It is staff s recommendation that these lower rates be approved.
Table 3: Equipment Rates (1205 Filing)
Current Proposed Change
Installation (unwired) 43.00 31.03 -$11.97
Installation (pre-wired) 22.00 15.52 -$6.48
Add'l Outlet (@ installation) 30.00 20.17 -$9.83
Add'l outlet (after install.) 30.00 23.28 -$6.72
Upgrade/Downgrade 10.50 2.00 -$8.50
Decoder rental/month 2.94 2.51 -$0.43
Converter rental/mo. 1.51 1.40 -$0.11
Remote rental/mo. .35 .28 -$0.07
, '2 -f{
Item t ~ , Page 7
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Feedback received from Cox
As of this writing, Cox has taken the position that all rate filings represented appropriate cost
distributions to the various service tiers. They have been provided copies of the draft FCC
complaint and the Public Knowledge report, and their formal response is attached (See
Attachment #7).
Cox has reported that they are not planning to make any changes in their equipment/installation
or cost-based monthly service charges until some future date. These changes would be subject
to 30-days prior notice to the City. However, since they would be changing those rates according
to the FCC forms already submitted to the City, it would be appropriate to act on those filings
now. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution as presented.
Actions under consideration: Other Cities
The Cities of Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Poway and San Diego
cooperated in the hiring of Public Knowledge to review the cost-based filing. Public Knowledge
confirmed, as discussed above, that the cost-based increases were appropriately justified.
Assuming Cox pursues these increases as originally planned, those cities anticipate action to
approve those cost-based MPR increases in the near future.
The upgrade-based rate increases applied only to Chula Vista, National City and Imperial Beach,
with the same apparent overcharge in each case. At this time, National City and Imperial Beach
have yet to take a position on filing an FCC complaint on the CPS increase or rejecting the Basic
cable MPR increase.
Recommended Action
The various FCC forms involve complex formulas to determine allowable rate increases. The
FCC suggests that cities should proceed to make rate determinations in good faith, and have
indicated that they will defer to the franchising authority's decision if it is supported by a
reasonable basis. Based on the review by Public Knowledge, it appears that the formulas for a
cost-based increase were applied correctly, but those for an upgrade-based increase were not.
Staff has concluded that the City has made a good faith effort to properly interpret the FCC
regulations and that it is appropriate to take action at this point. Staff recommends proceeding
with the various recommendations embodied in the resolution. Subject to written confirmation
from Cox that they are deferring action on their cost-based equipment and MPR filings, staff
would recommend deferring action on parts 3 and 4 of the resolution.
If Cox disagrees with the City's action, it may appeal the decision directly to the FCC. To date,
staff has received no formal or informal response from Cox on the draft FCC complaint. If Cox
has any further input regarding the FCC Complaint, it will be attached to the complaint prior to
mailing per FCC regulations.
/
,'--/\ - ,
Item I.~, Page 8
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Notice Provisions/Schedule for Review
Notice of this public hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation for two
weeks, with additional notice of the hearing and the draft FCC complaint provided to Cox. The
published notice specified that the hearing concerned 1) changes to the MPRs, not the actual rates
charged, 2) decreases in the equipment and installation rates, and 3) consideration of a complaint
to the FCC regarding a previous rate increase that is subject to FCC, not City regulation. Since
the rates Cox is seeking to increase are Maximum Permitted Rates only, the notice clarified that
the effective date of any rate increases is unknown and subject to Cox's discretion (with no
further filing required) once the MPRs are approved.
According to FCC noticing provisions, Cox is to be afforded a 30 day review period prior to a
CPS-tier complaint being filed with the FCC. That review period has now been in effect for
approximately 19 days (draft complaint mailed on September 11). Unofficially, Cox also
received an advance copy of the Public Knowledge report on August 27. It is staff's opinion that
this should be sufficient time for Cox to provide reasonable input for the City's purposes in filing
the CPS-tier complaint. If in the next ten days Cox provides some further response to the City's
draft complaint to the FCC, staff will attach this response to the official complaint, per FCC
requirements.
The timing of this report is meant to accommodate the FCC's process for filing a complaint about
Cable Programming Service rates. It is also meant to coincide with Cox's planned October 1
cost-based increase in the Maximum Permitted Rates for Basic and CPS cable services.
According to FCC rules, a complaint on CPS rates would need to be filed within 180 days of a
rate increase, while first allowing for Cox to review the draft complaint for a period of 30 days.
With the increased rates effective May 1, the 180 day deadline would occur on October 28. To
facilitate Cox's 30 day review, they were sent a copy of the draft FCC complaint by certified
mail on September 11. If Council concurs with staff's recommendation to file the FCC
complaint, that complaint would only be filed following the conclusion of the 30 day notice
period and any further response from Cox.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The impact on customers' cable bills from these actions will depend upon final rulings by the
FCC and on Cox's rate setting decisions within their Maximum Permitted Rates. It is not
incumbent upon the City as franchising authority to determine what the precise charge per service
tier should be, but rather to rule on the appropriateness of the charges as proposed. The FCC is
not likely to rule against Cox's entire upgrade-based increase, but they may mitigate that increase
as it applies to Basic and CPS service tiers. If appropriate, they may also order refunds.
Since the actual Basic Cable rates have not been changed (only the MPRs were raised), no
refunds would be due following any rulings on the Basic increase denial. If Cox were to raise
r'2--A
Item !t----, Page 9
Meeting Date 10/15/96
fees in conjunction with filing an appeal of the City's action on Basic rates, such refunds might
be required.
Regarding CPS rates, Cox increased these by $3.79 in May. If the FCC decides in the City's
favor, customers may be due a refund of as much as $3.79 for each month the higher rates were
in effect. As indicated above, a ruling against the entire increase is unlikely. In addition, with
the Form 1240 cost-based increases in the MPRs already filed (at $2.00 and $0.04 for Basic and
CPS, respectively), Cox would likely be able to structure their future charges to absorb any
mandated refunds. The range of possible Maximum Permitted Rates once any upgrade-based
appeals have been decided would be between $26.92 (representing 100% FCC disapproval of the
upgrade-based filing, which, as discussed above, is unlikely) and $32.68 (representing full
approval).
Generally, for each dollar of monthly fee increases or decreases, the annual cost/savings to Chula
Vista's 34,300 Cox customers is $411,000.
It should also be noted that since some customers in multi-family residences received discounted
bulk-rates on their cable service which were not subject to the May rate increases, these rates
would, in turn, not be subject to refunds.
In terms of City revenues, since the franchise fee paid by Cox is 3%, franchise revenue might
be reduced or increased slightly via the recommended action and subsequent FCC rulings. Staff
has not given any consideration to the potential impact of rate regulation on these fees in
conducting the rate regulation function.
Attachments:
1. Report from Public Knowledge, August 27, 1996
2. Cox Communications, Form 1235 Upgrade-based rate increase request
3. Cox Communications, Forms 1215 and 1240 Cost-based equipment rate decrease request and Cost-based service
rate increase request
4. Letter from Cox Communications, August 30, 1996
5. Draft Complaint to Federal Communications Commission (Form 329, protesting upgrade-based rate increases)
6. Letter from Cox Communications, October 1, 1996
7. Letter from Cox Communications, October 9, 1996
M:\HOME\ADMIN\CABLE\COXl13.tl5
/~1
(7.--A--\ I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 10/15/96
ITEM TITLE: Report on Status of Planned Improvements to the I-80S/Telegraph Canyon Road
Interchange.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage'\1:\ ~&J\
In February of 1996, staff initiated design ;ftbhs aimed at implementing the final phase of planned
improvements at the I-80S/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange. This project is the top priority
interchange improvement among those currently programmed in the Eastern Area Development Impact
Fee Program. The primary objective of this project is to improve the flow of traffic along eastbound
Telegraph Canyon Road through the interchange, thereby complementing previous improvements made
for westbound travel. Initial work efforts conducted in concert with Caltrans' staff have focused on
defining the capacity and safety problems that need to be addressed and identifying improvement
options to address each of those problems. A community meeting was held on August 22, 1996, at the
Elks Lodge on Telegraph Canyon Road to obtain input from residents in the area. The next stage in
the process is to prepare environmental studies and identify a preferred alternative. Construction of the
preferred alternative, expected to cost approximately $1 million, is programmed for the 1996/97 fiscal
year. Staff has prepared this report to update council on that progress.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept staffs report regarding the status of planned
improvements to the I-80S/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange and direct staff to proceed with
environmental studies.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this project is to improve the flow of traffic along eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road
through the interchange at 1-805. The project is needed because of a combination of capacity problems
and safety concerns that exist at the intersection. These problems, shown on Exhibit A, are described
as follows:
A. There is only one through lane for eastbound traffic at the interchange.
B. Eastbound traffic in the inside through lane is trapped into the left turn pocket.
C. The proximity of the traffic signals along Telegraph Canyon Road at Halecrest Drive and
the northbound ramps results in inefficient operations and reduced service levels.
D. Vehicles turning left into Halecrest Drive queue up into the intersection of Telegraph
Canyon Road and the northbound ramps because of the limited stacking distance.
E. Vehicles turning right from the northbound off-ramp attempting to access the left turn
I ~--,
I~
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 10/15/96
pocket to Halecrest Drive often create a safety hazard by cutting across eastbound through
traffic.
It should be noted that, although Telegraph Canyon Road is a City street, this segment is within the
limits of Caltrans' freeway and the City can only do the improvements which are approved by Caltrans.
Caltrans can require the City to do additional work which they deem necessary as part of any permit
they may issue to perform work within their area. One additional problem shown on the Exhibit 'A'
which is not on Telegraph Canyon Road itself, but is a problem in Caltrans' view is the lack of stacking
capacity on the northbound off ramp.
A series of improvement options was developed to address each of the above capacity problems and
safety concerns. These options are based on a review of design opportunities and constraints as well
as their effect on projected traffic conditions along the Telegraph Canyon Road corridor. Any
combination of the following improvement options could be included in the preferred project alternative.
1. Widen eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road to provide a second eastbound through lane at the
interchange.
2. Reconfigure eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road to eliminate the trap lane.
3. Add a raised median on the south side of the Halecrest left turn median to prohibit access
from the northbound off-ramp.
4. Signalize the existing access to the adjacent shopping center located midway between
Halecrest and Crest.
5. Close the median at Halecrest and prohibit all left turn movements at this intersection,
maintaining the traffic signal to provide gaps for vehicles turning right from Halecrest onto
westbound Telegraph Canyon Road.
6. Widen the northbound off-ramp to provide two right turn lanes onto Telegraph Canyon
Road.
The project purpose and need, as well as the above improvement options were presented at the
community meeting held on August 22, 1996. Input was provided by over 40 residents in the area. The
comments can be generally summarized as follows.
A. There was substantial opposition to the closure of the median at Halecrest. Residents want
to maintain the left turn access into Halecrest.
B. Residents asked if alternative measures could be considered, including constructing ramps
at J Street, realigning the northbound off-ramp to connect to Halecrest, closing driveways to the
shopping center and gas stations on Halecrest, removal of the southbound loop off-ramp, and
signal timing modifications.
C. Several residents complained about current problems of speeding cars and nOIse on
( ?J- 2--
Page 3, Item t?r
Meeting Date 10/15/96
Halecrest and other neighborhood streets.
D. Several residents and businesses were concerned that prohibiting left turns into Halecrest
would create a significant problem for emergency vehicle and truck access. Truck access to the
shopping center and gas stations was identified as a particularly difficult problem which could
affect an even larger area due to required rerouting of large semi trucks making deliveries to
the center and service stations. Those trucks would have to be completely rerouted because u-
turns could not be made by those vehicles.
Based on input received at the community meeting, two additional improvement options were developed
and are in addition to items 1-6 above:
7. Prohibit left turn movements out of Halecrest onto Telegraph Canyon Road (note: this is an
alternative to option #5 described above).
8. Improve the shopping center driveway at the new signalized access to facilitate increased
traffic flows in and out of the center.
Based on the above improvement options two possible alternatives were subsequently developed by
staff. Alternative 1 (Exhibit B) is the original proposal based on Caltrans' initial input and includes
improvement options 1-4, 6, 8 and full median closure at Halecrest (option 5). After reviewing the
concerns brought out at the public meeting, particularly those of the local businesses requiring large
semi-truck access, staff no longer recommends this alternative.
Alternative 2 (Exhibit C) includes improvement options 1-4, 6 and 8 as described above, but only a
prohibition of left turns out of Halecrest onto eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road by constructing a
partial median with turn pocket which allows eastbound left turning movements onto Halecrest (option
7). Staff believes that this alternative appears to address the majority of the resident's and business'
concerns and is recommending this as the preferred alternative. Caltrans, which initially required the
closure of Halecrest (alternative 1) must approve this change to the proposed work. Staff has presented
this alternative to Caltrans' staff for their input and they have given their preliminary approval of this
alternative. Environmental studies to be conducted will address potential impacts to air quality, noise,
traffic, visual, hazardous materials, etc. Exhibit D shows the proposed signalization work at the
shopping center entrance with the possible driveway widening to facilitate traffic flow.
The next steps for the process are summarized as follows:
1. Complete environmental studies.
2. Conduct community meeting/public hearing.
3. City Council approval of preferred project.
4. Prepare final design plans.
Staff noticed all owners and residents a minimum of 1000 feet from the project for the August 22,1996
public forum. On the east side ofl-80S north of Telegraph Canyon Road, the notices were sent beyond
the 1000 foot mark to include all homes south of "J" Street and west of Crest and Lori Lane. That
notice was sent to nearly 1000 property owners and/or residents. Notice of tonight's Council
1~.~
Page 4, Item I '}
Meeting Date 10/15/96
consideration of this report was sent to that same list.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The funding for this overall project is split into three different accounts depending on the phase of work.
The three phases of work are: 1) Project Management, 2) Project engineering and design, and 3)
construction.
For the first phase of the work the City, working with the development community, has hired the firm
of Smith and Kempton to act as project managers and liaison with Caltrans for this and two other
freeway interchange projects as well as transportation advocacy. This phase of the project is funded
in the operating budget under account 621-6212 from Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF).
The total funding to date for Smith and Kempton's current contract for the project management and
advocacy, which includes this interchange, is $186,000. That amount also includes project management
work on two other interchange projects (Orange Avenue and Palomar Street) and advocacy towards
obtaining funding for SR-12S and Orange Avenue. An amendment to the contract approved by Council
in August, 1995 is necessary to oversee completion of the work on the Telegraph Canyon/I-80S
interchange as well as the other interchanges and is a companion item on this agenda. The proposed
amendment provides an additional $178,000 in funding for completing the project management activities
on these three interchanges and continued transportation advocacy.
The engineering work to complete the Project Reports (PR) and Project Study Reports (PSR) on these
three interchanges, as required by Caltrans, and the subsequent contract plan and specification
preparation for the Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue interchanges, is being done by Rick
Engineering. This part of the project was funded from TDIF funds in the CIP budget as project No.
STM327 (I-80S Project Study Report(s)/Project Report). The total amount budgeted for all of this phase
of the work, including study work at the other two interchanges, is $SSO,OOO.
In addition, the CIP budget includes project STM-304 (I-80S/Telegraph Canyon Road Interchange
Improvements Phase II) to fund the construction of these improvements. That project, which totals
$1,700,000 in TDIF funds, includes $8S0,000 through the current fiscal year. The remaining funding
is proposed to be included in the FY 1997/98 CIP budget. Other CIP projects are proposed to complete
the construction of the other two interchanges.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Existing Conditions
Exhibit B - Improvement Alternative 1
Exhibit C - Improvement Alternative 2
Exhibit D - Shopping Center Entrance Improvements
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \805TCR.CLS
File 0730-95-HX037
0735-10-STM327
f?J--4
.[".~:.'.'.'."
If
,;. . . .Ii! :..c.:.:::::: .........,:.::..~,:~}f.
:WF:~',;;J,~ ilL i.. ." .C'
:: : ',: )/~'.'.}::"'"
I.L /. '<iL ~'.........,. ',:~ 'f,:."...,';.':,'" .., .::::::::...... .' .'
. .,:...,... ....:....
...,} ;': , . ,"0 ...::.:... .-' ..,.:-:::;;.,.
~.' ":. ",;,"""':"~;::'LfiJ;~~'~::.:.""""""""""
.;:[\ ,:.:.\.:.......-.....;:~......::.;._.., .--:-:::,...,.. \J.o.o.\}~~:...
. ,';:',;> l\O~1.~~'!!:.."
!;:~:. ...... 'a........."'."..,..... ..' :.~..;....
...:...::.::.:.... .
"'i" :
.... "'-'" '" ...... ...;~;~.::.:,,;:.:;;.::.:::~.f;::::::~:>~/.;,~X;;~t:.r'
:';. -'" "'-'" "'-'" ......... a J.S3~:J3'~H
........
...." .:.~)
% ?: .:;):"
~ '" ~ ;{"~,i;i~~! .....
~z a::~ . . .;:
a:- (JUJ :: .':::.
"""" uJ(,) ~u ':' ;.! ..::-,!N!
t-:z:t -<~':<~iE ; iii:'
t..: V):c-:. :::: !if!
- .....f{.~f:-~~:.:
.~. . ....: :: ;"fi;
::.;.;.:::F:.:r.... .., .::::;. . ..
'? ".1J:;ft,;'U, i
',If! /''''''../ /:~~!f: ' "
I;;"::;::~;~~~;~:\11'j"t";"
~;:~~~~i'~~'''~:'i;!!it~,{.ir: ......
... ..';C'. ",," <:~f::' ,,:;>,;:!.~;.;......,..::,\,:~
-- .,..,<.......... .".,
~~, :~/::'~::"i.i~. f;i,J,:"J'> ...
" .......(..'... .... ....
,-#'" ......... ::;:.::0:' .'
.... " " " " ",
......
......
.......
l :~.~.:..
.....
.....:..:::.:.::::.,5....
'. .:x:;.~
....
.,';,;. -.:"-'~'-
.::.:}....:....
.,:}:..:,.,.
.......,.:..
.:::,~,#
.' : :,:.,.,.:::::.::".:,",.<.<.\....
.'
:~{;;..' .'
:.:):'<':
..'
.t..
.,..
.... ~. .'
0'"
...'
.....
..'.........
:~:<:t:~::.
......
......
~~ . o'
....
.......
......
,.'
,...:::/:=.::..:/\......
. ....
j"- ....
..'
......
.' ..'
........
'.,:'.:.
.'
.'
.'
.'
.'
..#'.,
./:'"
..(\,..".
.....: - .;,
.:::..:(....
',.;
.' ..'
. ..'
.'
.'
.'
.' .'
.'
.' ..'
........ ..'
.........
.'
.'
.'
.....
..'
::......
........ ..'
.... .'
......
.' .'.'
. .;:~:.::J..
. ".:::l~~~~\
,'. .'
:....
......J...
..'
.;"
. .' ..... ,......tiot6
.... .~ Q .
. .....::.........:\ ~"\ . .'
.~.~:....'. "i,~S .' . .......
::.:..:' r \~~. ..... .."':::'"
. . ......:;;.
)~i</ ..:,.
.....r
.....
.' ~.
.'
..'
....
.' .....:::..
...........
.'
............!:.
".:":-~- ,I
.:.::',"
G...... ,.:.....
......-,. ....:..,.,.... ,."
. . ..' .,~.:
Z .....:>::::.....::: ...... ...r \;\ .;
'. .' ...... ....ri,~, 'I . .:
--.:~"::::' ........... \i\" , uJ
.... ','.:. ..' ". .,' ..' : t ,~; ..\:..t..):.::,\..:::~~:: ~ g
CI) '.: ....\:.,~.~r.... :: i ..' 0 (,) ~
a ...--:;:::.. . ..... "o.:.:~.:~~.::~~ff~~., !:'~~~W.,.' ~\\~ ~~\i
:\~~. '\. \ . .."
..' ~\.~t\.':':
:,1:\ ';,
, ,
.-.... .-.. ~~
: '.
... ..
--
,
,
'\ "'.
......;\ .\......
'. '. ......
,..'
..'
..'
.' ....
::::.... '.:: :g:':::'~:: :..::::~--::: :'.
::.~::.~.~
....,:..
.:.'
...:::::;:::....
." ...::::::..::.::.::.:.:::::!::,::.
..::...
,......,A.............
'.
J)
d
,~
......:t.:..
~
~
.....".....w
-I
::....::.:~~..~
.:......:..,vt'.
.'......... '.
..;..::.>..... ...<::~~:>,\
::......::~(:.:::~;.>\ .,....\.:
.'
:((if /:::~<....
. ........ .... ........ ........ " '. ' ... : .
...."::::...:..::::::::.;~~.~:,... /~~;>'
.:;:, :', .,:: "'<::~~:.;;.:.::~.'<:~:\ .' g-. .. .'
.... \. \\ /~/ /.~~:>'
\.;, '''\\ :~ .': "'..'
\\ \!< /J~}<
: : :: :.'
.'.1 ..:.::......l,....::...:./
.(/ '.'
.?;:~:::-< ..'::.(;?<:,..,.~/{:
.....:~..~~..i:~.;.)..::>' ..... ,:.'
-........
. ......... ..:...:;;:/;,;,~,:-::..:~~~:...
.... ":~;;<:::c~'~';:f:
.;., -
::.<, "
./<~
.;~" ::"
. '.' ~
....:<>!
......:...
". .
'. .
". ~'.
.,'
...; ,,:'
'.... :.J ~ ~
.' ...:~.<::<.,
......:. .
~l:D
... 0'1
(S\
r--.
_0
cn~
- .
::x:~
~*
....:;:;.
::
..~:
~:c:
~~
e~
Oc
c)..
~~
~
~
~
~
~
.;1
;'d
','J:
,,///1
";.~"f/ /y'
.'
..
,.:.:.......
....
.,
;<. "
..'.......
..,.;........ :....
.__~^"H.~'~;t~~:t~;.iA:
'.w.,..". ,,:' .~... .....31VH
:..:..:.:..;:::::.:::......'.' _.:' : .t.:::::!'~::..:. ....i. .....
; :::.~" : '....
: :':.:.
:,'
-. : :.::.:.
~,:~,!;"...r .' ....
~ .~.:.....
....:%:
r.:,' ;;
- :
;1 :
~ i
:;:;h~j4:f~
I' Ii.
:. :
! \
" 'I!\~';
......
,1 ~ ,,'~'"
i: I~~:: .:~:::;:::,
'Tft !' .'
,::;:;:51:;':'"
.......:.:./ .~/;:.
/:.{"(tV
,'i/,/",,'i"""'"
.:.::~,,:~.:":':"" "
.,.-,:..::,:.:}::"
::....
: ~.
{,t!
it'i...
:; ~
,.' "
. .' ~
r \<><...,.
, '. .'.. :':':':.'.:'::':<., -/:
.,. ..." ....
.......::...............
..' ...?: .' .-.;':;'
....i;.';::.,',.. ..~:;~:\'::.:::~:;'.:;:.::,....."
.....
......
.........~~.
....
.....
....:...:~..
:.:::::..:......
. .....
......:
5
-
C)l-"
~o
_\1.1
~~
0\1.1
_l-"
:Ji:~
-
~\1.1
~':4.~
~o
0--
Ul2~
'B:i\l.1
o-UlC)
~os
o-l-"o
..'
.... ".-;.
...... .~~........-:;:::,
..!:"
..'
.-:.('
,U'i..'......I
ff r
"I ~!r;' .....~
l' \':'~ .
,J ......
uL:/' .>
,._..,..).?:.!~":.'. ,"""t~\!'
.. / ./ .~",., '"
~ ..:::::::::~?'"''' !!' :'/;.,~
_' ",,,,,.." .,...'" o'I : t J.':"
l...- '~....'O..\.')o..~,.,. ... >- . . .
r- " .. '" I=:; >::: :>. .
c( ...' <(..' ., '
'Z',/':;~/ ,1 /
c.r. ..::....,:.!" .:' /<( ..' I .'. ..,
~;........ .::./L......;..:::\tt,.~' ;~,.,~I.. ..'
c..
..'
.t.'
...::>,....
.~. .....'.
.......
:::-;:.~::'.
....'.
.....
.,."
........
....".:......-.
..'
..'
....
..........
..............
....
,..:.:..
....,:..:, .)....;.t:.~~,..:..
.. .,..:.........
.::.~....':):~:.:. ....
....
..'
..'
,.'
....
.......:.:.:.?:....
,,' ....,......,::r:.
..:. .......
.(.~~'iFj~.
./ ..,.... ~C:J~ \>-., .......
.../:.....~~<:q .' . ..' ./.<...:::;;;:
.;;..::?:-:>;.". ..' ..' .:::.;"
........-.::5 ,0'
.... ......:.:~:..
.... ,,'
.......
......
.....
......
..'
........
.,,'
,.'
....
" ....
..' ::::..:::.,.......
':}.)~\
,1:-'"
........
", .
....:.:..
.....
..'
.....
. .....~
,\~.:.: .'
.,' .......
..'
.,'
. ....~
......
..... .... .
..,.....,.. ....-::-........ ./
"...-:,.. :...:..~....{>....
... .....,~. ./
We.... ,., ..' //
....
*^ ,.'
V., ".,'
0" ..,-j':.../
Q. ...::::/:" ..':
o
c.r.
Q.
;;:f' }...
..'
......
..'
....:..
.--
..,
.\t
,I:
:::;.\.....
....
,.'
......
:::::;::::..".....
......:::::::::::::....... .
.....-- ~-$:' .~
....,......::;i..'. \, ""T"
...J : .
'<i~'\
.....<:i:.:\
,':'~>"
. .~.
.... '",-'lr.
\\:~:\,
... .\\
\ ?ytp
.,:...'
,:<>:?:::...
..'
,.'
J" ......
...
....
......
..-
..'
....
....
..' .-
.~;j?~' ....
..' .....-;;:.';;'
"..... ..'
................
......
..;,:
'!....
..'
;
o
\--
....
C
ttttt'
-
:s:.'D.
xu.
lJ.lv
....
.,'
..'
,,'
,/
/.:
.':
, .
/(/
~
l-
I-
4
(
,
,',:
" '"
..."....
.,..<:'. :r. .
.' /\!
....::::::~{:.....: .
.'
'.', .>.
....:'\>:;::.
. ',.. <i' ;
.. "'" .....:";." "';;:':1: :~,~::c./tt'
......
.....
...... :~-~:.'" . .... "
; :,:.:.
: :.:.:.
..:/:. "':'~':."",: ,:..' :,'. .~: ,E.:" ..... ...:.:.::".:>.....:.~~.:. ... ::
; " ~~ 'if.:
uH-~
~4'
r...H~ V1
o_u-t-
..' u1...Joo
V1W -
O%:o...J
o..%:_u-
040a
~~~o
.:;::'::;:::>
." ......:><..:........$.,.:'.
./ :::...... . ir~t'
I .......:::>.... ~.5J:'"
.. .:>...:: i~Q:-.s.:.'
-~O~~".
_....
..H......
.........
. ,,~",
.,."
':.,:3'"
;~:t.
q{
r
t.
i
~~.......H......
,....--......;...:.~....
c
z
~
w
'- .)::...........
r- ..'
...l <.
......
,.."" .,'
,"",., .......
Q.....:... .'
W::''<.''''''
(I).
O .,.,
........ ....
Q..~....
o
a:.
Q.
..'
.....::.:::'.~
: : !...~:.:'.::
. ...:..('!(::::
W
N:.::;~.::" :........ ..... ",...
,;t \':::'~~.~.'.'.':'.".~' ,.J./ .
.,..;/:./:'~
,'.,'
~.<..::::::/
.:::::.,
.....
.
,1 ~ .
. .' :r:'~:J~'::~~<<
.;it
a
-
ot-
ZO
_u1
ZV1
~~
-\-'
~z
-
~u1
4(t-
~4Z
ZO
0--
u1~t-
V1_V1
0...Ju1
o..u10
~Oa
o.t-o
...
N
-
ii.
..to-
0.' .......
.::./. ::r;;~(.'..
..'
....:..:,
)..:.:....
'.':f>':"
..:.;...~..:.~; ~.1~'\~.\;
:: ::
o
~!j ~. :'~~
-:;:.'" .f I: ~:'T; 1 .J.:
.; Z[~ :....<.........
..., <.., -I I..
:,(><?i;.i';..;; :::.
............, .t:)........ ,"',' I: ..'
t.::;;t~l~: b;:\,:
..'
'::';~:.\
.'
,,' .,'
..' .... ..'
,.' ..' ... ....,.....
..........:.::.;:.:,::;..::::...:.
......::::;::.i:::.. ....
...... ..' ............
..:;:.:.... \ ......... ~
:..... ~ '00
.........:..:.(.. ~ ~-(......
..:::...:...~.,.~~~S.. . ....,.....
'I.' "~ . ....;::'
. '\.. j ,," ,......
, -. " ,,' .::~, ~'.
.::.:)('.>.....
.... "
,:/;";;~>
.;:~.:~<:~:;:>
.....:.;.f::
:.~~Y:'
C1l
".:;.'
. .:.:....:.:.....:.:.:..\~::. ~ .'
" ,:.:;:-.:;:.::.... "
\-
o
rt)
-
CI:l
-
:t:.
X
\.IJ
..:..<.':..:):.:,:::::.:...
,,:::::'-
.
t-
~
VI
.......
.... ...,.....
,- "'....
.. ..... .' ....:::<:::;>
.......j:,~.;;:?::;:.::::.::.::
..' .::.::.:::. :.:.::':..
:~;f>;'"
':~.~:~J'"
....#..
..'
..'
..'
......
't.' .......
..'
..'
.....
'0-' ......
.....
......
........
..'
..'
:::/:.:~.
.' .
...............
..'
..'
......
..'
.....
..............
............
..'
..'
......
..'
....
,~;:.::::. .... ....
:.:' ..........::....;;:~;:
...".,...' ~.."""
..'
..'
..,.......
......
..,
....
.....
.....
......
:'3:~;~\
.............
..'
......
..........~::......
...... .... ", :'~:':
..'
........ ,,'
......!,...
" ..:.~':'
.It'
.,'
,:
. ...:.,....;:;:>-:
,tj!
.:~. Ii
/b~t
:!! ;: ..';
'.' lf~/:
/? ;.:
J./ //
..~;;..::::.;~...:./:~::::(..
.' ..,......,...;.>.:,:::~;f:}
.... ..,
::>:::;( \ ? '1
";""'-
..'
......
..'
..'
..'
..'
..'
..'
..'
:......).:>:....
......
..'
..'
..'
..'
..'
':;.'1" ):...........:
,.' :.~::(..,~..\
,. :
.--
..,.
..'
..'
,
.~" .,'
...)~;~t......
......
.,'
....\\\
,"
,.'
......
......
.....}:..,~:..-",:;~,
:::::::::"~4"'~"
':;:;~~;.~ "
.....'
.. '
, ..'
.;.-
. .
~
~
Po
'<
t
c.
l
/"
........
/<:~
. ./?f
....:::~I.
" '.
..,."
."".:}:>::.':'
.,'
CI.)
Q'--
'q:~
~~
~~
00
)..,0:
:e~
'q:......
(.)
....,
~~ :-.. .::
Q. ~ '. ",:.'
'q: e,
",. ......:. :'.,.
c; CI) :/:;:
lI.I (.) /:'. .
...., ..........,
'" l.&- '~.:"
'-- 1.&.,
IlIl:tI
~~
)
. ~..
~/f /'''-
~(J''''>
./.s'...,....
::t.u" '. .
"': . ~v~ ". "~
...... 1f/',L' ......
. '. '7,~ '\'
.... .<.:~:;:,',
: . .,' ..:........:~t.".".'...
:.. '0 ~ !.:: :.:, :';.
.......-'
//'
..0 "....
0..'
~---- ....
/.':: ~
I.AJ .. .'
,:. -J
...~:~~.............:....::...
, ,'::""::"'\"""'::'>";/
,....... ....... ~,.o~'~t>-~
::~"::::~Oi~~~~~~"':""";'"'f":Q!" "
~
::S,,::-..:'
Q '.
IJ."
It:.""
lit
......"
.:'
.. .
-
..,
",
. '.
.....
.....
'.
: ..-..~ ~;. ..:.~:....... ....
! .'. ","'. ~/f / '''. ....
./ .,..< ........... ....~Q ..s.....
'. "'. ;/~f"
". ...... 0.1
.......l.~:~
. /." ~ .... '.:
',." ,
.,'.
::.' ~/
~/"./
:~. . ,~.
,p:
<::/'
, ::
i
jYo Ii
. ;J
:v....
.':--::
.. "I
: .....
, .
'.'
',j"
.'
/'
.ll
,;-
,iff' ,;>"
.'
./
:.~l'
,//
: .,;.,
.....;/
: ....
....i
\.~:;<:...
", "
:,'
.,.....
"".,:,.;:
;-.' "
,:-,:;:
.,,"
'(f.,I',;;'
\.... /
'.r
: ',~
:..\
\\
.....
\\
\\,
\\
"
:....
; .'~
=,-,
".r
~.
~,:
:,.//'
.,'"
.~~.?
/~.::'" /
",/ .
:',r :'
;' .:': :~.
:..... :
:',.,-' /
...:"./'./
.' ...~ ,',
,'.o; :
::~ :
.. .....;::..
...i~>:
..... .
<, l . ",'
~/ .,...',....//" ,.,.....'~"..'.,...,l.:....:.'~.. " , .' " .'.' ;' ,.......', . . ..~..' ./
<. "'::::.:,,) ,,,:',.' . "<"c
i r,,, ": ", '., :,::f:,~/:1,;~>' . '
. ',.) (t. '
" ..'. ,,:,~, " / ;:;-" .,/
. ~~ '. ;..:,:,<,...,.".;.:,:/
'. ,': " .' .i,'~_ ". _l;j.'~,.CD./.... -
".:,.::-/' /://: ro.... "'"
"'<"<f:":
:':~"'.
. .
,'.
:;::.
/y
::~/~
i':
:::",
~
:..(/')
.....,..
.Y'
'.to- .
:: ;;-
, .J
.....
.~ l;: 'i...~~~.' .,'\
,'......
'~'"
:'.:.....
:;:
.~:. .~ :' r:
:, . /:>.\:
iy;;~f
, : ,//;:",\,', ,',,\" ,'.......f.,. ....' '.
.J I {..r
,i/'\:
, "A "'f' " '" ", ." :>..
.'ft.,\ '~m.m ....... ...,., ~~
, i, ";' '" . ",:..., ,':,;;;;::: :;;;::i:::;:::, ,'::;;::' ",,," ,/, wi",' , , c::; (;)
it~~:::,;'::',~",:, _ _ ::-",::,:,,",::::;;:,::,,:.:,~' .... e:;:
.' ......, ........ ,.NoRtHaOUND Off,ftAt.4I'.:",;'/ .:: '.' ~2l
~~
....~~
.~fS
Czj9:.
....................D~
~~
......'...
:.~,~:::;~.::;:{~. .
'. .
liP;,
...,:$, .::
...~ <;
, ,:<,
;,,~,{'.~)' ..
',.:- .!.~~/.:..
--:/
...::::..:.... .
1 ',.:./
.../(:X(~.
........7J.:~~?.
,.....'...,
,....1."........... ............
.~;}.........""................:.. .......,.,.t:80S
\ N1€.~S ,,~"".'i.~
~(~
-.-
~-..~
~~~~
~ I~
CIlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
COlTNCIL INFORMATIONAL MRMORANDlTM
October 9, 1996
TO
The Honorable Mayor and City coun: 6~~
Jobo D. Goss, City Manager .JL'1 U _~ 1\
Request for Information on Departmental Oversight within the City
Manager's Office
FROM
SUBJECT
At the October 1, 1996 Council meeting, Councilmember Rindone requested information on
current departmental oversight assignments within the City Manager's Office. Following is
the current departmental assignments for the Assistant City Manager and the Deputy City
Manager along with an attached listing of current project assignments.
These lists are provided for your information.
DEPARTMENTAL ASSIGNMENTS
Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager
Police Parks & Recreation
Fire Library
Planning Personnel
Public Works Risk Management
Engineering Nature Center
Building and Housing Finance
Community Development Environmental Resource Manager
Transit Management & Information Systems
Agenda Resource Conservation Coordinator
Legislative Program Public Information Office
M:\HOME\ADMIN\SID\ASSIGN .MEM
/(P Cl-(
ASSIGNMENTS OF PROJECTS IN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
City ManaQ:er
Oversight of all projects
Bayfront negotiations
Otay Ranch jurisdiction
ACM Morris
Maior Projects:
Sharp/Columbia HCA contract negotiations
SDG&E Corporation Yard negotiations
Computer Aided Dispatch/800 MHZ
Sewer:
Clean Water Program - general
Negotiations with City of San Diego/AFFORD
re: new metro sewer contract
Ombudsman
Legislative Activities:
Sacramento lobbyist
Legislative Program overview
RFP for advocate
MSCP
University Site
Fire Station 4
Hartson's ambulance service
Contract extension
RFP for service provider
Cardrooms
Review of license violations by Chula Vista
Bay Club Limited
Disaster Preparedness
General Administration .
City Council liaison/staff support
City CounciV Agency agendas
Agenda meetings
Review and sign off
Day-to-day city operations
Oversight of assigned departments
Delivery of technical services (DOTS)- coordination of
meetings
Personnel Issues
DisciplinarylPersonnel actions
Labor negotiations
Economic Development
City Corporation Yard sale
BECA/Westem Regional Bioprocessing Center
Hi- Tech/Bio- Tech
IDEC
Water Park
Auto Park - Phase II
fG
tL - (;L
Land Use
San Miguel Ranch
Sunbow
General
Corporation Yard negotiations (altern
SDG&E site)
Otay Ranch: St. Claire
Interagency Liaison
Interagency Water. Task Force
SDG&E
School Districts
Pacific Bell
DCM Krempl
CIP/Budget
Capital Improvement Project
Major Projects:
Solid waste issues/transfer station
Public info., contract admin., Chamber Visito
Center
Otay Valley Regional Park
Otay Ranch Annexation
Otay Ranch Development Agreements
Otay Ranch Tentative Map
Environmental
Environmental Resource Manager
Air quality programs - telecenter, alternative
fuel vehicles
CO2 reduction and greenfleets program
Telecommuting
Fuel cell buses
Recycling programs
Administration General
Oversight of assigned departments
Council agenda review - support
Discipline/Personnel issues
Transportation
Transportation development phasing ordinanc
Daley Rock Quarry follow-up
MIS/Library
Technology/Smart Communities coordination
M:\HOME\ADMIN\ASSIGN.MGR - October 9, 1996
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
SEP 2 6
September 24, 1996
TO:
Councilman Jerry R. Rindone / A~
John D. Goss, City ManagerJU. ~ ~'l
Louie' . Director of Management and Information service#
olleen M. Kelly, Admims r. nalyst II~
Research Request on Internet E-mail
VIA:
FROM:
The purpose of this memo is to respond to your request for additional information on
a recent E-mail article dealing with alleged conditions at the Otay landfill. Staff has
reviewed the Internet e-mail entitled "Chula Vista agrees to smelly deal", which was
retrieved from the Internet on September 17, 1996. The item was posted on a server
entitled "Electriciti", owned and operated by a locally based Internet Service Provider.
The author of the article, who uses the title "sdissues", is a client of this company. A
company spokesperson declined to reveal the identity of this client, but did offer that
individual's direct e-mail addresswhichis..sdissues@sdissues.com...
The City Attorney's office was asked if libel and slander laws were applicable to Internet
communication and received an affirmative response from Mr. David ShoHs who is
serving the City on a contract basis. Mr. Sholis noted that in order for something to be
considered libelous or slanderous, it must be a statement of fact and not simply an
expression of opinion. Careful examination of the article would be required by the City
Attorney staff to determine whether there are grounds for legal action.
> Should you wish to pursue this course of action, a formal Council referral would be in
~ ------ - - -
attachment:
E-mail message of 9/17/96
cc:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Councilmember John Moot
Councilmember Scott Alevy
Councilmember Steve Padilla
llo b- I
PoIution in Chula VISta
http://www.electriciti.com/-sdissueslcv1.html
Chula Vista agrees to smeJly deal
Casey Stengel would have known how to describe just how fouled up the county's trash system is. It was
Stengel, as manager of the hapless 1961 Mets basebaH team, who looked down his bench and wondered,
"Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game?"
Given all the recent self-induced calamities in the countis trash system, that is a question many in San
Diego are beginning to ask about the County Board of Supervisors -- the group in charge of fixing what
many are describing as the most ill-managed trash system in America.
Consider some of the latest misadventures at the county -- and yes, despite the headlines about the trash
crisis, there are still plenty of strange dealings that have not made their way into your local daily or
business paper.
The Otay Landfill, for example, just took taxpayers for a $10 million bath. This fiasco began in the early
'90s, when the federal government seized the assets of Great American Savings, one of San Diego's
largest Savings and Loan.
Among the assets was a 600-acre piece ofland next to the Otay LandfiH. In 1993, the feds sold the land
to an outfit managed by PacWest Group for $10.5 million. Soon after, an environmental report prepared
for PacWest found the land was contaminated with poisonous landfiH gas, methane and polluted water
from the adjacent county-operated Otay Landfill.
"Hazardous substances have been identified on the subject property," said a report marked
CONFIDENTIAL, obtained from the FDIC and prepared for PacWest by Robert Johnson of San
Diego-based GEOCON Environmental Consultants. "The environmental concerns associated with iandfiH
gas include the explosive nature of methane. Landfill gas also typically contains hazardous substances and
gas that are transported by landfiH gas. "
In other words, if the methane from the landfill doesn't blow you up, the "benzene, methyl chloride,
hydrogen sulfide, and other gases" will poison you. The report goes on to describe pollutants in the
water, and says clean-up would cost anywhere from $10 million to $15 million.
That's when the PacWest asked for -- and received with interest -- its money back. Earlier this summer,
the land went back on the market, and sold for $251,000, said government spokesman Steve Katsanos. A
loss to the taxpayers of more than $10 million, Katsanos said.
Not only did the taxpayers get soaked, the County of San Diego has gone back for more. As part of an
annexation agreement for the 20,OOO-acre Otay Ranch project, the County of San Diegodemanded that
the City of Chula Vista de-annex the Otay landfill from the city's jurisdiction and environmental control.
However, with a few ... unusual caveats.
The agreement calls for Chula Vista to allow the county to run the Otay landfill "without limitation,
restriction, or interference." And, the pact says, Chula Vista must ignore any "dust; noise; vibrations; and
any or all chemicals or particles suspended (permanently or temporarily) in the air and wind including but
not limited to methane gas; odors; fumes; fuel particles; excrement from seagulls; and the free and
unobstructed passage of below the surface ofleachate and other pollutants -- now and in the future."
Exactly what PacWest found when it bought the property next door. The nasty stuff that is still there.
10f3
f (0 h- 2-
09/17/96 08:26:47
----..---- -,.~---.....
Ppllution in Chula Vista
http://www.electriciti.com/-sdissueslcv1.htmf
If, in the future, the City of Chula Vista decides that there are environmental problems at the Otay landfill
that are too big to ignore -- as has occurred at the San Marcos, Ramona, and many other landfills in
California -- and ifit tries to seek remedies for these problems, then the pact states that Chula Vista "shall
pay for all of the County's costs associated with the (landfill) closure."
That's a ticket worth tens ofmilIions of dollars. "This is not just a recipe for environmental disaster, its a
reward for not enforcing the law" said Rick Hinkle, who brought these documents to the attention of the
Chula Vista City Council via e-mail. "But they still haven't replied, he says. To other constituents, Chula
Vista Mayor Shirley Horton denied that the city is giving up any environmental protections at the landfill.
She also assured her constituents that, under the County's control, the landfill will be safe, and clean, and
economical.
"That's a joke," said Hinkel . "For the last month the County has been in court with the City of San
Marcos, and they have said over and over again that San Marcos is unreasonable because they actually
expect the county to live up to its word and run a safe landfill. They say in court that running a clean
landfill all the time is impossible. That's what they told the state regulators, too, by the way, who didn't
listen and fined the County more than $100,000 for polluting a stream near the San Marcos landfill. Well,
that isn't what they are saying in Chula Vista. They are saying they can run a clean dump. And I'm a little
surprised people down there are not listening to what happens outside ofChula Vista. If the county's
record is any indicator, they'll hear about it sooner or later."
The problems in Chula Vista are just the tip of trash problems throughout the County. To solve this crisis,
instigated by the failure of a $130 million recycling plant in San Marcos, County Supervisors set up a
Solid Waste Authority (SW A) to t~ke over the system. But recent correspondence between the SW A and
the County reveal that rather than working together to solve the problem, the two sides are just steps
away from declaring war on each other.
"Information has reached my desk this afternoon that the Authority's efforts to obtain a rating for its
bond issue have been seriously and perhaps irreparably injured by someone inside the County," wrote
SW A lawyer Betty Burnett in an August 30 letter to County Counsel lohn Sansone.
That someone she identifies as William Kelly of the County Auditor's office. Burnett says that Kelly told
a bond rating service that the SW A will have to use the proceeds from its first revenue bond to repay the
county tens of millions of dollars the county has recently invested in subsidizing the trash system. (Earlier
this year, County Supervisors underwrote over $100 million in a buyout of the recycling plant in San
Marcos. The County now wants to be repaid.)
The bond rating people didn't want to hear that. Kelly's statements that the SW A had major debts, even
before it officially took over the landfill system, were "irresponsible and unethical in my opinion, and
apparently a deliberate act of sabotage designed to irreparably injure the Authority's credibility and ability
to access the bond market," according to the letter.
Those sound like fightin' words. And if these differences are not resolved, several county supervisors
have said publicly that the County of San Diego will have to follow the example of Orange County and
declare bankruptcy.
And oae more fly in the ointment: Some legal experts fear that the federal government may presp-nt the
County -- or the Solid Waste Authority -- with a bill for the $10 million it just lost at the Otay Landfill. A
fact so far undisclosed on the County and SW A bond disclosure statements.
20f3
lrob - ~
09/17/96 08:27:01
p,oDution in Chula VISta
http://www.electriciti.com/-sdissueslcv1.htmJ
Perhaps the City Council of Chula Vista wi11lend a hand. Again. Because, apparently alone among major
cities in this county, this City Council is convinced that despite reams of evidence to the contrary, the San
Diego County Board of Supervisors do, indeed, know how to play this game.
Back to [San Diego Issues Home Page]
[e-mail us your thoughts)
~
30f3
t l, b- 4
09/17/96 08:27:02