HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/10/19
Tuesday, October 19, 1993
6:00 p.m.
""\ t!.eclare uni:'er penalty of perJury t"hat , em
emplo"ed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Onice of ti"'e City Clerk and that I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the Public S rv' es Building and at City Hall on
DATED~ )() Ii., SlGNEDh~~-.!r'
REVISED - NEW RESO ERS e-. / . l..hambers
Pub lcServices Building
Re~lar Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore _, Rindone _, and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
October 5, 1993 and October 12, 1993. The following minutes
from the Joint Meetings of the City Council and the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors: September 13, 1993, July 30, 1992,
September 24, 1992, September 30, 1992, November 4, 1992, and
November 24, 1992.
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
4. SPEOAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Brene Patrick - Economic Development Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 thru 10)
The staJJrecommendations 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 RRequest to
Speak FormR 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.
5. WRlTfEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting Council repeal prior approval of the Gotham Street extension - Robert L.
McCauley, 1987 Bucknell Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that the
request be considered concurrent with Agenda Item 14.
6.
ORDINANCE 2572
AMENDING SECTION 2.66.270 OF TIlE MUNIOPAL CODE RELATING TO
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION AUTI-IORITY TO ALTER PARK
CLOSING HOURS (second reading and adoption) - The recommendations
come as a result of citizen concerns about public safety at Rancho del Rey
and Independence Parks. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance
on second reading and adoption. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
7.
ORDINANCE 2573
AMENDING TIlE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABlJSHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF TIlE MUNIOPAL CODE REZONING 9.7 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN PARK WAY, RGR STREET, FIFTH AVENUE, AND BROADWAY
(second readinR' and adoption) - The purpose of the ongoing consistency
study is to resolve general plan/zoning inconsistencies within central Chula
Vista. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading
and adoption. (Director of Planning)
Agenda
-2-
October 19, 1993
8. RESOLUTION 17274 RATIFYING AGREEMENf WIlli TIlE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO AND
ACCEPTING FUNDS FOR TIlE DESIGNATION OF CHULA VISTA HARBOR
AS TIlE SOUTI-IERN HOME PORT OF TIlE TALL SHIP CAIJFORNIAN - The
City's agreement with the Nautical Heritage Society to designate Chula
Vista Harbor as the Southern Home Port of the tall ship Californian
requires that the City make a $26,598 grant in Fiscal Year 1993/94 to the
ship's organization. In consideration of the value of the ship as a shared
community asset, the County has allocated $5,600 in its Community
Enhancement Fund to support the service. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Administration)
9. RESOLUTION 17275 ENDORSING TIlE CITY'S APPUCATION TO TIlE CAIJFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION (CEC) IN RESPONSE TO TIlE CECS PROGRAM
OPPORTUNITY NOTICE FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS MEDIUM-Dl.JIYVEHICLE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM-
The State Energy Commission has developed a demonstration program for
compressed natural gas medium duty vehicles. Staff is recommending that
the City apply for participation in the program. The Energy Commission
requires a resolution from the Council endorsing the applicant's proposal.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration)
10. RESOLUTION 17276 APPROVING AGREEMENf WIlli TIlE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO FOR TIlE
CONSTRUCTION OF ABRIDGE OVER TIlE OTAYRIVER ON OTAYVAlLEY
ROAD AND AUTIIORIZING TIlE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF
TIlE CITY - The City is currently involved in the planning and construction
activities to widen OtayValley Road in the segment between I-80S freeway
and the easterly City limits southerly to Otay Rio subdivision. A portion of
Otay Valley Road crossing Otay River was washed out in January 1993.
The agreement outlines the City's and County's responsibility in
constructing a bridge. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC 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 fdl 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 staffrecommendalion; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
11.
PUBUC HEARING
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABIUTY STRATEGY (CHAS) - The
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions applying
for funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
submit a CHAS. The CHAS is a planning document which identifies the
city's housing needs and outlines a strategy to meet these needs. Staff
recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Community
Development) Continued from the meeting of 10/12/93.
REPORT
DESCRIBING TIlE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABIUTY
STRATEGY
Agenda
-3-
October 19, 1993
ORALCO~CATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general publU: to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (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 RRequest to Speak Under Oral Communications FormR 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 staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a RRequest to SpeaP form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
12.A. ORDINANCE 2574 AMENDING SECTIONS 5.54.010, 5.54.030, AND 5.54.050 OF TIlE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 5.54.055, RELATING
TO TAXICAB REGULATION AND UCENSING (first readinsd - In the interest
of improving the comprehensiveness of inspection services and freeing up
department staff time, staff initially investigated the merits of entering into
an agreement with Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) to
regulate taxicabs. In lieu of that agreement, staff is now proposing to
make certain minor amendments to the Municipal Code regarding
regulation of taxicabs and to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to
approve a list of vendors qualified to perform inspection services. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading, approve the
resolution, direct staff to issue an RFQ for inspection services, and direct
staff to bring back a report on regulation of other paratransit vehicles, such
as jitneys and non-emergency ambulances. (Police Chief)
B. RESOLunON 17277 AMENDING RESOLUTION 10078 WHICH SETS MAXIMUM TAXICAB
FARES IN TIlE CI1Y
l3.A. RESOLUTION 17278 AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 16960
APPROVING TIlE TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR TRACT 93-03,
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES - On 1/19/93, Council approved the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon
Estates. The first three final maps for said tentative map are now before
Council for approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-4-
October 19, 1993
B. RESOLUTION 17279 APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT REQmRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN
UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 16960
APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON
ESTATES, AND AUTHORIZING TIIE MAYOR TO EXEClITE SAME
C. RESOLUTION 17280 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 1 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF TIIE PUBUC
TIIE PUBUC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON
BEHALF OF TIIE CIlY TIIE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
AND TIIE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDMSION, AND APPROVING SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TIIE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQmRED BY
SAID SUBDMSION, AND AU1HORIZING TIIE MAYOR TO EXEClITE SAID
AGREEMENT
D. RESOLUTION 17281 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 2 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF TIIE PUBUC
TIIE PUBUC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON
BEHALF OF TIIE CIlY TIIE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
AND TIIE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDMSION, AND APPROVING SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TIIE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQmRED BY
SAID SUBDMSION, AND AUTHORIZING TIIE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
E. RESOLUTION 17282 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 3 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF TIIE PUBUC
TIIE PUBUC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON
BEHALF OF TIIE CIlY TIIE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDMSION, AND APPROVING SUBDMSION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENTS REQmRED BY SAID SUBDMSION, AND AUTHORIZING
TIIE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
F. RESOLUTION 17283 APPROVING TIIE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT NUMBER 31 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES)
14. REPORT RECONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING GOTHAM STREET TO SERVE TIIE
TELEGRAPH CANYON EXTENSION - As recently reported to Council,
residents of the Gotham Street area have raised serious objections to the
extension of Gotham Street to serve the Telegraph Canyon Estates
Subdivision. They feel that the extension will increase traffic and reduce
safety in their neighborhood. On 10/5/93, staff and a representative of the
Baldwin Company, developers of Telegraph Canyon Estates, met with 45
residents from the Gotham Street area to discuss their concerns. At that
meeting, a petition containing approximately 200 signatures was
submitted. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of
Planning)
Agenda
-5-
October 19, 1993
15.
REPORT
UPDATE ON SOUD WASTE ISSUES AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
PROCESS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
OPTIONS - At the 9/21/93 meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with
an RFP for the procurement of solid waste management and disposal
options by determining and recommending appropriate consultant services
and identifying funding sources. Staff had reported on six informal letter
proposals from qualified consultant firms. Staff has conducted interviews
with all six firms and proceeded with an evaluation and selection process
which has resulted in the recommendations contained in the report,
including a revised scope of services for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
instead of an RFP. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution Band
direct staff to: a) continue to monitor results of the North County JPA
proposals and any interest by neighboring cities to join in a subsequent
process to establish alternatives; and b) return by 12/21/93 with results
of the RFQ process and recommendations for continued development of
alternatives. (Administration)
A. RESOLUTION 17284-A AUTHORIZING TIIE CI1Y MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONSULTANT
SERVICES CONTRACf NOT TO EXCEED $17,000 FOR TIIE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) WITH BROWN,
VENCE & ASSOCIATES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS TI-IEREFOR - 4/5th's
vote required.
or
B. RESOLUTION 17284-B AUTHORIZING TIIE CI1Y MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONSULTANT
SERVICES CONTRACf NOT TO EXCEED $4,800 FOR TIIE DEVELOPMENT
OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) WITH ECONOMICS AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS TI-IEREFOR - 4/5th's vote required.
ITEMS PULLED FROM TIIE 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 CounciImembers. Public
comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
OTIIER BUSINESS
16. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
17. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Agenda
-6-
October 19, 1993
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA),
International Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 10/12/93.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. Schaefer.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Igou vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. County
of San Diego regarding tipping fee surcharge.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Southbay Community Services
vs. City of Chula Vista.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Meeting of the City Council on
Wednesday, October 20, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, thence to the Cal Bio Summit
1993 Conference on Friday, October 22, 1993 at 7:40 a.m. at the Hotel del Coronado, and thence to the
Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
October 15, 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss r City Manager ~/
City Council Meeting of O~ber 19, 1993
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, October 19, 1993. Comments regarding the Written
Communications are as follows: I
Sa. This is a letter from Robert McCauley requesting Council repeal of prior
approval of the Gotham Street extension. THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF ITEM NO.
14 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE
CONSIDERED CONCURRENT WITH AGENDA ITEM 14.
JDG:mab
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~ 6
Meeting Date 10/19/93
rrEM TITLE: Presentation: to Celebrate Arts and Humanities Month a presentation will
be made on "METROPOLIS"
SUBMITIED BY: Cultural Arts Commission ~
Bill Virchis, theater director for Southwestern College, and members of the cast of the upcoming
theatrical extravaganza, "METROPOLIS", will present a five minute performance/showcase. The
opening night performance of METROPOLIS will be co-sponsored by the City of Chula Vista Parks
and Recreation Department and Southwestern College.
wp\cuttart
J/h-/
1HIS PAGE BlANK
tfb-':L
.. _.._._00__'_' ...._.. .___ .~_-L..._-,----,,,,,,_,,,,,,-,-,,,,,--,"----_'"
ROBERT L. MCCAULEY
1981 BUCKNELL STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA Q1913
Oct.obezo e. 1993
Tbe Hono~.ble Tim .a~er
2,e 6~h .A.veJl.u.
Chula Vi.tar CA ;lg10
I).ar *"ori
A- a re.i4ent of College a_tat.. 1~ was r.cen~l" brou8ht to my
attention tbat the City Counoil had approved an Ordinance (25~T)
and Be.olution (le~e8) which 411"eotly impact. my q~ality of life.
of whioh 1 ... not apprai..d, to wit ~he open1n, of Goth.. Street
~o connect with Otay ~.k.' Boad.
At a ...tin. con4uct.4 TueGday. October 5. 19Q3 at 7.00 PM at tb.
eV 0ivic Center the Clty Planning D.pa~tment. in re.pon.e ~o
outra,.d e1tiEen complaint., e~pl.in.d that they had notified
effected ~..1d.nt. as required. Thie i. not true. The notice. I
peceived re..rding the propoSed proSect &ftd announcement of public
hear in. date. aade BO MESTIOR of the potential to open up Gotham
Stzo.et. The map. that W8re provided in the notice. elearl"
depicted Gotham St. &8 not connecting to the new p~oj.at. TbeG.
..ps bave _ince be.n revi.ed without public he.riftS. ..111ft. on
~hls residents. .uah a8 ~.elf. ~1d not come forward to .xp~e..
their concerne durin. publlc he.rings. .ince none wel"e then known.
I belie.e thi- violat.. the .pirit ana intent cf the Ralph M. Br~Wft
Act (eA GOVT Cod. - Seo e4eaO), 1n that the true impact of the
proposal wa. not made public until aiter action wa. taken. and the
action ... not .cheduled fOI" an open heapin,. but ratber masked in
a. .taft report.
S1nce the city public notio.. were flawed and Council approval waa
ba.ed on this. it 18 reque.te4 that the approval to punch through
Ootham Street be held in abeyanoe until .uoh t1.. a. the
r..id.nee., oity and developer can come to an equitable resolve.
T~ep.for. it i. requested that at the next cit~ council m..tlng
(October 12. 19Q3) an a.enda item be prepared for action to:
1. aep.al the exi.tin. approval of Gotham Street .~t.n.ion.
2. Dl.eQt ataff tc meet in good fa1\h witb all pa~ti... and
develQP a uutuallp asr..able reeoDmendation for pr..entation to the
City Oounail within one mon\h.
$. Direct .taff to provide adequate publie notice of the purpo.e
and intent of the meetins- tc all effected resident..
Very re.pectfully
~~. Mlte(\AA~
ROBBRT L. lICeAUt.iY""-~ ~ ~ .,.. /
WRITTEN COMMUN"'CA TIONS
)\.,
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~
~/~;? Meeting Dat~~/~~;7
~. Report: Review of closure hours and curfew at Rancho del Rey/Independence
Park and curfew at City parks ~\\O~
8 . Ordi nance: Q 5? ~~mend' n~~tl~~ 2.66.270 to change park hours to
prohibit activities' ic parks during certain hours, and authorizing
emergency po~~~o. . ector of P;u)ks and Recreation to change park hours.
Di rector cg~Ppar~ and Recreati o~,
Chief of Police ~~\V'/ ~
Ci ty ManagerJ~ b~ ~'J (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No -L)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
This report examines the feasibility of modifying park hours in select parks that present
public safety problems and increased enforcement at certain City parks. These recommendations
come as a result of citizen concerns about public safety at Rancho del Rey and Independence
Parks.
DISCUSSION: On March 30, 1993, the Council received an oral complaint from Mr. Tony Ciotti
regardi ng apparent crime acti vity at Independence Park and Rancho del Rey Park. Thi s
complaint stems from a shooting incident that occurred on Santa Cruz Court adjacent to Rancho
del Rey Park (south). Mr. Ciotti also mentioned there was a lot of alcohol consumption and
that the youth in the neighborhood are fearful to use the park because of the "bad element"
within the park. Subsequently, Council directed the Parks and Recreation Department and the
Police Department to examine the impact of an extension of the curfew and/or different closure
hours at Independence Park and other City parks where the frequency of criminal activity is
relatively high after dark, to continue enforcement of all open container and loitering laws,
and post the appropriate City and Park rules.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1) adopt the proposed park hour ordinance which will
close Rancho del Rey Park 1 ~ hours earlier in Summer and 3 ~ hours earlier in Winter, and
give emergency authority to the Director of Parks and Recreation to close parks until the next
City Council meeting, and 2) require posting of revised park hours.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: At its meeting of August 19, 1993, the Parks and
Recreati on Commi ssi on voted unanimously to support Opti on #3, "close Rancho del Rey and
Independence Parks from 9:00 pm to 7:00 am during the months of April through October and
between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am during the months of November through March."
They further voted unanimously to support the recommendation for the Director of Parks and
Recreation to be given the authority to institute an emergency park hours ordinance when he
deems necessary.
Past Actions bv Council
The Council has historically dealt with park problems by establishing new park rules on a
case-by-case (park-by-park) basis. This practice was established in order to strike a balance
between correcting problems at specific parks, while not penalizing law abiding park users
with unnecessary rules at other parks. For example, park hours at Hilltop Park were changed
to coincide 'with early evening hours to eliminate loitering and other documented problems in
the park. Action was taken at the "J" Street Marina to curb rowdy behavior by installing a
gate to limit access to the area in the late evenings.
Staff Analvsis of Problems at Independence/Rancho del Rev Parks
Independence Park and Rancho del Rey Park (north and south) are best characterized by a system
of park nodes, with multiple entrances (See attachment).
7Tf1;;-r
&~I
.........
Page 2, Item i/
Meeting Date 10/12/93
In order to determine the level of criminal activity occurring in and around these two parks,
staff used statistics generated by the Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit (CAU). The CAU
reviewed call for service (CFS) and documented crime incident (DCI) data for the six months
beginning July I, 1992 and concluding December 31, 1992. Staff further differentiated this
data by: CFS and DCI which occurred specifically within the parks; and, CFS and DCI which
occurred at addresses on the streets and cul-de-sacs in the parks' immediate periphery. Such
differentiation ensured that any criminal activity potentially linked to the parks was
introduced into the analysis. In the remainder of this report both CFS and DCI will be
referred to as incidents.
During the period for which the analysis was conducted, there were 205 incidents reported at
the parks and in their peripheral areas. In comparing the two parks, one property crime
incident was reported. A total of 204 incidents were reported in the peripheral areas
adjacent to the parks: 7 (3.4%) classified as crimes. against persons, 68 (33.3%) classified
as crimes against property and the remaining 129 (63.3%) were classified as miscellaneous
crimes. Staff spoke to Mr. Ciotti concerning the crime statistics of the two parks. Mr.
Ciotti disputes the data and believes that the unreported or undetected incidents outweigh the
reported and documented crime in the area. He contends that there are drug deals occurring
within the park and the privately-owned open space that abuts the park. In addition, he
expressed the following concerns: open space area being a hideout for undocumented
immigrants; thefts and vandalism that have occurred in homes adjacent to the park and open
space area, and illegal use of the open space/park area by motorcyclists.
Mr. Ciotti believes the best approach to dealing with these problems is by instituting an
early park closure time. The existing ordinance calls for all parks (with the exception of
Hilltop Park, Rohr Park and the Boat Launch and Marina Area) to close at 10:30 pm and reopen
at 6:00 am. In the case of Hilltop Park, the park closure hours a~e 9:00 pm to 7:00 am during
the months of April through October and during the months of November through March, the park
is closed from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am. It was Council's intent to have the change in Hilltop
Park's closing hours track with the change from standard to daylight savings time. Although
the ordinance restricts public access to the Park areas, (picnic tables, open turf areas,
etc.) it still allows public access through the designated sidewalks in the park. The park
closure hours at Rohr Park are 10:30 pm to 7:00 am and boat launch and marina area 10:00 pm
and 6:00 am, respectively. These parks hours were changed due to undesirable activities
occurring during the late night hours.
OPTIONS
The following three options are presented for Council consideration. Option #3 is recommended
as the most effective option for resolving neighborhood concerns regarding Rancho del
Rey/Independence Park.
Option #1 - Status Quo. This option would retain the present ordinance as it is written;
there would be no change in Park hours at Rancho del Rey Park or Independence Park. Staff
be 1 i eves thi s option woul d not provi de Pol i ce Offi cers the authority to di rect people to
vacate the park during the hours when some of these undesirable activities occur.
Option #2 - Establish a Dawn to Dusk Curfew. Mr. Ciotti had suggested that the park close at
sunset and reopen at sunrise. This proposed law may be difficult to interpret and enforce and
staff believes time certain language would clearly communicate to the public and enforcement
officers when the park closes.
Option #3 - (RECOMMENDED OPTION) Close Rancho del Rev and Independence Parks from 9:00 pm to
7:00 am durinq the months of April throuqh October and between the hours from 7:00 pm and 7:00
am durinq the months of November throuqh March. This ordinance could be modeled after Hilltop
Park's Ordi nance, whereby park users woul d still have the opportunity to stroll down the
sidewalk while the park is closed. The basic premise behind this ordinance would be to
[prlclose]
, } I A /~
0-'d-
-,
-.
-.
Page 3. Item~
Meeting Date 10 1 93 .
provide the Police Department the authority to eliminate suspicious activities at an earlier
time. Further, it would also allow the law abiding citizens the freedom to jog or walk
through this beautiful park setting after hours.
Staff also recommends that the revised park hours, be posted at major entr~nces to Ranch del
Rey and Independence Parks. Staff will evaluate this approach over a six-month period and
report back to the Commission and Council with a status report.
Letters were sent to residents whose homes are in the area of the park informing them of the
proposed changes in park hours, and of the date and time of the Council meeting at which this
item woul d be consi dered. A copy of the Council Agenda Statement was attached to the
notification along with a phone number of a staff contact. Residents had the option of either
writing or calling the Department with any concerns about the park ordinance change. The
Department has received one letter in support of the change.
Other Parks With HiQh Frequencies of Crime and Vandalism
In an effort to determine isolated parks where the frequency of criminal activity is
relatively high after dark, staff utilized the same statistical data provided by the Police
Department. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Department referenced the records of parks
that sustain an inordinate amount of vandalism, and evaluated park areas that are difficult
to surveil without patrolling on foot. The following information identifies the crime
incident profile of these parks.
..
Inci dents Inci dents Reports
Park Park Address Periphery Written
Hilltop Park 224 41 3
Memorial 162 304 7
Lorna Verde 93 42 13
Lauderbach 71 95 9
Eucalyptus 65 143 5
Rohr 54 20 0
Palomar 33 32 3
Discovery 8 0 11
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY 1. 1992-DECEMBER 31. 1992
In order to deal with problems occurring in other City parks considered isolated, unsafe after
dark, or experiencing excessive vandalism, an action plan has been developed. The Parks and
Recreation Department has already inventoried all park rule signs and will commence posting
park hours at all park areas immediately. The action plan will also include:
1. Work closely with Police Department to eliminate problems at various parks and develop
possible solutions to minimize park disturbances.
2. Evaluate the installation of gates at problem parks to curtail access to the parking
lot after curfew hours and return to Council during the budget process for funding
consideration.
3. Request police patrol to enforce park closure hours ordinance and other park rules
violations.
Finally, the Department proposes granting authority to the Director of Parks and Recreation
to designate new park hours for a period of thirty days if the public health, safety or
[prlclose]
..~
&-,3
Page 4. Item ()
Meeting Date 10/12/93
welfare of the community is threatened by undesirable activities occurring in the park. The
proposal would allow the Police Department to take action to immediately abate the problem.
During the interim period. the situation can be evaluated and a report can be prepare for
Council consideration to determine what course of action is needed to resolve the problem.
FISCAL IMPACT: Signage cost for revised park hours at Rancho del Rey/lndependence Parks will
be absorbed within the existing operating budget. The installation of gates at parks will
cost approximately $750 each. The Department will evaluate the needs before determining the
number of gates required. and will return to Council during the FY1994/95 budget process for
funding consideration.
-
--,
-,
[prlclose]
(~
0/1
ORDINANCE NO. ~ 51~
~\\O~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA~~~
AMENDING SECTION 2.66.270 OE~~~ VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELAT!~~~ECTOR OF PARKS
AND RECREATION AUTH~Y TO ALTER PARK CLOSING
HOURS
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: Section 2.66.270 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows: .
Activities Prohibited During certain
Nighttime Hours-Exceptions.
All city parks, with the exception of Rohr Park,
Hilltop Park, and Rancho del Rev/Independence Park are
closed between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Rohr Park is closed between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.; Hilltop Park and Rancho del Rev/Independence
Park are 4s closed during the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00
a. m. during the months of April through October, and
during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during the
months of November through March. All activities except
walking or proceeding along designated sidewalks or
pathways through the parks during closing hours are
prohibi ted. The Director of Parks and Recreation is
authorized to alter the park closinq hours stated above
when the Director determines it is necessarv for the
public health. safety or welfare. Such chanqe in hours
shall be effective when signs indicating the chanqe are
posted. and remain in effect until the next citv Council
meetinq or for thirty (30) days. whichever first occurs.
The Director shall prepare and submit a report to city
Council reqardinq the reason for the chanqe and
recommendinq appropriate Councilor administrative
action. which report shall be considered bv Council at
its next meetinq.
Sec. 2.66.270
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adop ion.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Ai: ~l\ ~O O::Q
~ruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney I
Presented by
(Ord\Park.Hn)
b-II
~~
~~"f~
~ ~ ICJ- Ie:/. ~ 93
.-
~"
-
~---2..-~"-b
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
?
Item I~ Ip/
Meeting Date~ ;//0 J .
PUBUC HEARING: GPA-94-01/PCZ-94-A City-initiated proposal to
amend the General Plan and rezone certain territory, generally bounded
by Park Way, "G" Street, Fifth Avenue, and Broadway, to resolve
General Plan/zoning inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista
community .
f} n}J e ·
u-r.~ t\~ ')
A,
Resolution 17 ;.13 Approving. GP A-94-01: a City-initiated proposal
amending the General Plan, for the area generally bounded by Park Way,
"G" Street, Fifth Avenue, and Broadway, to resolve General Plan/zoning
inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista community
, O?\\O~
Ordinance A -S "3 Amending the zoning map or _s ~tilblished by
Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Munic~cfe. rezoning 9.7 acres
located between Park Way, "G" St~p.}fthAvenue, and Broadway
5f..CVP~
Director of Planning Jf!"t
City Manage~ , ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...xJ
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
This item involves a proposed amendment to the General Plan and rezoning of Subareas B-4F
and B-4G of the Central Chula Vista General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study. The two subareas
are generally bounded by Park Way to the north, "G" Street to the south, Fifth Avenue to the
east, and Broadway to the west. The eastern half of Park Way generally serves as the boundary
between Subarea B-4F to the north and Subarea B-4G to the south (See Exhibit A & B). The
study area includes approximately 16.6 acres and 52 lots.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-93-32, of potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed rezoning and General
Plan Amendments. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no
significant environmental impacts as per the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-32.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration,
find that the proposed rezonings and General Plan amendments will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-32 for the
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study.
~1--'?/!
Page 2, Item I ~
Meeting Date 10-12-93
-
2. That the Council adopt the Resolution and Ordinance amending the Chula Vista General
Plan Subarea B-4 F, from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and
amending the General Plan and rezoning Subarea B-4G, from Medium Density
Residential and R-3 to Medium High Density Residential and R-3-P-22.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 25, 1993. On August
25, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval as stated herein, by a vote of 5-1-1
(Commissioner Tarantino against) (Commissioner Fuller excused). A total of three property
owners spoke against the reclassification. Commissioner Tarantino expressed concerns regarding
the status of the School Mitigation Study. On September 20, 1993, the Resource Conservation
Commission considered the Negative Declaration and voted (5-1) to send the" Negative
Declaration back to the Planning Department, requesting that the school facilities issue be further
clarified. Planning Department staff will return to the RCC to provide clarification of the school
issue and request a final recommendation from RCC on this matter on October II, and will
report the results to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
........~
Council's direction to consider Subareas B-4F and B-4G of the "General Plan/Zoning and Action
Plan for Central Chula Vista" came as a result of a property owner's request to resolve the
General Plan/zoning inconsistency on property which he resides. The purpose of the ongoing
consistency study is to resolve general plan/zoning inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista
community which resulted from approval of the General Plan Update on July 11, 1989. During
this process, this particular area's General Plan Land Use designation was redesignated from
High Density Residential (18-27 du/ac.) to Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac.); however,
the underlying zone for this area remained R-3 (Multi-Family Residential 32 du's/acre).
Area B-4 was placed in a special study category, because of the complexity of the land use
issues, given the existing patterns of land use; residential density, zoning, traffic circulation and
school issues. It was anticipated that special study areas may require a combination of general
plan amendments and rezoning to promote their orderly development and conservation, as well
as the need to address school facilities.
As a result of the above concerns, the City delayed action on the remaining Special Study Areas
to work with both school districts to develop a mutually agreeable work program for a
City /Schools Impact Mitigation Study. Since that time, the staffs have held a series of meetings
and discussions as directed, and SourcePoint (the non-profit research organization of the San
Diego Association of Governments) has prepared the fmal study proposal and scope-of-services
which was approved by the City Council on September 14, 1993. Staff does not plan to return
with General Plan and rezoning proposals for the remaining areas until the School Mitigation
Study is completed.
-
--~
-; ~ d--
Page 3, Item / d...
Meeting Date 10-12-93
Field surveys of both subareas were conducted to inventory the existing land uses. Existing
zoning, lot sizes, residential densities and adjacent land uses were also tabulated and mapped to
assist in the analysis. In addition, staff further evaluated the development potential of each lot
and subarea in terms of the number of additional dwelling units permitted and the number of
non-conforming uses which may result from each alternative. Staffs analysis was then
presented to the property owners at a public forum held on May 13, 1993. At the forum, many
of the property owners expressed a desire to retain the existing R-3 zoning.
General Plan Policies
The Chula Vista General Plan contains several goals, objectives, and policies relating to the
appropriate character of Subareas B-4F and B-4G.
The Housing and Community Character Goal of the Land Use Element calls for a "full
diversity of housing types, while maintaining an orientation to single-family living."
Objective No. 12, Housing Community Character, states that the City shall
"provide for the development of multi-family housing in appropriate areas."
Objective No. 15 states that the City "shall preserve and reinforce existing
residential neighborhoods throughout the city. "
Objective No. 17 states that the City shall "replan portions of the Central Chula
Vista area to lower densities where higher densities are found to be incompatible
with single-family neighborhoods."
The General Plan chapter entitled "Central Chula Vista Area Plan" contains additional goals and
objectives relating to Subareas B-4F and B-4G. Goal 2 calls for "a variety of types and densities
of housing in ways which will preserve and enhance existing Neighborhoods." The Central
Chula Vista Area Plan also contains policy on the redesignation of single-family neighborhoods,
which states that no areas designated for single-family residential development shall be
redesignated to higher density residential use except where:
1) there is a city-wide need;
2) there are no significant impacts
3) at least one-half of the boundary of the area proposed for redesignation is
bordered by higher density residential or non-residential uses; and
4) that a series of design standards for such development are met.
/~ -.J
)/3
Page 4, Item I ~
Meeting Date 10-12-93
-
Analysis
Subarea B-4F
(Exhibit A)
This subarea consists of six lots located along Park Way and Fifth A venue which are
developed at or above the allowable density of the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential 32
du's/acre) zoning and High Density Residential designation of the General Plan. The
largest parcel contains approximately 2.4 acres ~d is developed with 129 dwelling units,
a density of 53 units per acre. The average density of this subarea is 43.4 du's/acre.
The character of this subarea is high density residential.
Conclusion
Based on our analysis, staff concludes that the existing General Plan designation of
Medium Density Residential (6 -11 . du/ ac) should be changed to High Density Residential
(18-27 du/ac) and that the existing R-3 (Multiple Family Residential 32 du's/acre) zoning
should be retained for Subarea B-4F (see Exhibit A). The rationale for these conclusions
are as follows:
a. The designation of this area for multi-family residential use conforms with
Objective 12 of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element (Page 1-7) which
calls for "development of multi-family housing in appropriate areas convenient
to public services, facilities, and circulation." While the subarea is not directly
adjacent to a four-lane street or transit lines, it is within one-quarter mile of
Broadway to the west. It is also within one-quarter mile of commercial uses
along Broadway, and within one-quarter mile of the Chula Vista Center at
Broadway and "H" Street.
~'.
b. The entire subarea is developed exclusively with multiple-family housing, and the
objective of the Chula Vista General Plan which calls for the preservation of
single-family neighborhoods does not apply.
c. The existing R-3 Zoning and the proposed change to High Density Residential
General Plan designation are appropriate for this subarea because it is built out
at densities permitted under the R-3 Zone and the existing Medium Density
Residential designation is inconsistent with the density of the existing
development.
-
~
-7/4
Page 5, Item Id
Meeting Date 10-12-93
Subarea B-4G
(Exhibit B)
This subarea consists of 9.7 acres of land divided into 46 lots. Twenty three of these lots
are developed with single-family dwellings, while the remaining 23 lots contain a total
of 145 dwelling units ranging from two-family residences to multiple family. There are
two large apartment complexes totaling 44 units with the remainder within small
. apartment complexes of three to 10 units. The clustered pattern of single-family
properties lends itself to lot consolidation and ~he development of additional units.
Conclusion
Based on our analysis, staff concludes that the existing General Plan Designation of
Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ ac) should be changed to Medium-High Density
Residential (11-18 du's/acre) and the existing R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zoning
(32 du's/ac) should be changed to R-3-P-22 (Multiple Family Residential Zoning, 22
du's/acre) for Subarea B-4G (see Exhibit B). The rationale for this conclusion is as
follows:
a. The designation of this area for multi-family residential uses conforms with
Objective 12 of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element (Page 1-7) which
calls for "development of multiple-family housing in appropriate areas convenient
to public services, facilities, and circulation." While the subarea, similar to
Subarea B4-F, is not directly adjacent to a 4-lane street or transit lines, it is
within one-quarter mile of Broadway to the west. It is also within one-quarter
mile of commercial uses along Broadway, and within one-quarter mile of the
Chula Vista Center at Broadway and "H" Street.
b. The subarea is a mixed density neighborhood developed with single-family
detached housing and apartments which has resulted in a varied texture. For the
most part, multiple-family projects have been built on small lots. The
recommended R-3-P-22 zoning recognizes the pattern of small lots and the
existing small scale of multiple-family development.
c. The proposed R-3-P-22 zoning and Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac)
General Plan designation is more appropriate than the existing R-3 Zoning and
Medium Residential designation because the subarea's overall character is no
longer considered single family due to the amount of multiple-family development
and given its potential for additional development through lot consolidation. It is
also adjacent to existing high density developments to the north.
-~
c-7 r
" .)
Page 6, Item Ia.-...
Meeting Date 10-12-93
---.
d. Since density in the R-3 zone is variable, based upon lot size and the dwelling
unit sizes within a proposed project, the maximum buildout under the R-3 zoning
is obtainable only if existing single-family lots in the area are consolidated and
if smaller studio and one-bedroom apartment units are constructed. The
difference between the present R-3 and the proposed R-3-P-22 on the smaller
7,000 square foot lots would be an additional dwelling unit.
School Issue
As noted earlier, the City received correspondence from the Chula Vista Elementary School
District (see letter, dated August 11, 1993) requesting that the City delay action on this matter
until the School Mitigation Study is completed. In addition, Planning Commissioner Tarantino
voted against the proposed action, based on the fact that the work program for the School
Mitigation Study had not yet been approved. Since the Planning Commission hearing, Council
has approved the work program. Therefore, staff feels it is appropriate to move forward on
these particular General Plan and zoning actions at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
.-
f: \home\planning\B4-MFHML
-.
~-~
-7 / Ie
t,..-
EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESGINA TIONS AND ZONING
EXISTING PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN
EXISTING
ZONING
PROPOSED
ZONING
SUBAREA
B-4-F
MEDIUM DENSITY HIGH DENSIIT
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
R-3
NO CHANGE
SUBAREA
B-4-G
MEDIUM DENSIIT MEDIUM-HIGH
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
R-3
R-3-P-22
....-...,
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL =
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
=
3 D.U. PER GROSS ACRE
3 - 6 D.U. PER GROSS ACRE
= 6 - 11 D.U. PER GROSS ACRE
= 11 - 18 D.U. PER GROSS ACRE
= 18 - 27 D.U. PER GROSS ACRE
TABLE - I CASB NUMBBR: GPA-94-01 .sU~
PCZ-94-A
SCALB: NONB -.-
~ .......--
EXISTING AND PROPOSED "'" ~
DATB: 10 -4 - 93 -
CnYOF
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS & ZONING DRAWN BY: C. FBRNANDBZ CHUlA VISTA
'.PIANNING
NORm CHBCKBD BY: F. HBRRBRA-A DEPARTMENT
~,
- )~7
/LJ W l
I
I "F' SfREET
I I
1
I
I.
I
I.
r---1
I 1 I I I 1 I , I ~
I I I I 1 I I I I Z
I I 1 1 I I ,---- UJ
1 1 I I ~
I I I I
---
----- :c
- --- t:
~ - ---- u:
CENTER STREET
--- -- \
~- ---
~-- --
.-- I--- ....-...
~ MADRONA STREET
~ ""'--'"
~ \ --r--r-.
< I 1 I I I ----
~ I I I I I I ~
- r ..J I I I I
CQ
.._--~ : : I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I SUB~ B-4F =j-
I----~ I I -
I ! ! I -
I I I I
WAY
UJ
PARK
- ---
r
I
I I
I
"GIl STREET
I
'.1
C9 . EXHIBIT-A
GENERAL PLAN / ZONING CONSISTENCY
STUDY: SPECIAL STUDY AREA 8-4
NORm PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY: Subarea B-4F
CASI ROMllIR: GPA-U-01 ~V~
PCZ-U -A
SCALI: 1- . 200' -.-
DATB: 10-4-t3 .~~~~
em Of
DRAWN BY: C. PIRRAJlDIZ OtUA VISTA
PLANNING
CHIC'KID BY: P. KIRRIRA-A DEPARTMENT
- I;J-~ ~ -; /0
--- --
--------
'.
NORm
~
~
<:
~
1:0
--- --
----
LlLLlJ
J MADRONA STREET
~ j------
I I I I I
I I I I I
- r J I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I : ! ! I
PARK WAY
-
~ ---
'"""~ ---- .
CENTER STREET
-- - - -
~
~
-----~ ~
. Z
tJJ
. >
C(
- :c
'. t'--- ~
.~ l tL
I I I
SUBAREA B-4G
I
I
I
I
"G" STREET
r--
~ ---
VISTA SQUARE
ELEMENTARY
----------
EXHIBIT - B .
GENERAL PLAN / ZONING CONSISTENCY
STUDY: SPECIAL STUDY AREA 8-4
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY: Subarea B-4G
.~
C? rJ
CAsa RUMBaRI QPA-U-Ol .sM?-
PCZ-U-A
SCALa I i- . 200' -.-
~~
DATal 10-"-U OTY Of
DUWN BYI C. paRJQNDaz OiUA VISTA
_ PlANNING
CHBCltBD BYI P. IIBRRaU-A DEPARTMENT
.........
LEGEND
M-DR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(6-11 du/ac)
. H-DR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(18-27 du/ac)
COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL RETAIL
PUBLIC & QUASI PUBLIC
UlJ-LJ
MADRONA SfREET
I
.
.
.
:: CoT
: CoR
- -- - .
:: P-Q-P
r
'-IJ
::l
Z
'-IJ
~
:c
t:
G:
~
~
Q
~
cc:
=
. ---------
SUBAREA
B-4F
C-T
..
i1.~.i
SUBAREA B-4G
M-DR
.(
.............. "G" SfREET ............................
VISTA SQUARE
ELEMENTARY
.......~ VANCE SfREET
.
.
.
.
.
.
siJ
:;)
Z
~
E
~
(I)
P-Q-P
EXHIBIT - C CASS JlrmOlS R , GPA-'''-Ol ~~~
(!) PCZ-U-A
GENERAL PLAN / ZONING CONSISTENCY scu.s: 1- . 200' -.-
.~
STUDY: DATS: 10-"-93 " 01Y Of
SUBAREAS B-4F & B-4G: Du.n BY, C. PSRHA.NtlSZ OIUA VISTA
PlANNING
NORllI SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS CHBCltBD BY, P. HSRRBU-A DEPARTMENT
~ 7//0
1-.
R-l SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE: Permits single family dwellings, accessory uses,
and cenain conditional uses.
R-2 O~Tf: AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE: Permits single family dwellings,
duplexes, and attached single family dwellings. Accessory uses and conditional uses similar to
R-l lone.
R-3 APARTMENT RESIDE~'TIAL ZONE: Permits multiple dwellings, townhouses and
duplexes, and accessory uses. Single family homes and other designated uses permitted with
a conditional use permit. 32 units per acre maximum density.
R-3-P-22 APARTME~'T RESIDE~'TIAL ZONE WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
DISTRICT, 22 UNITS PER ACRE: Allows uses permitted in the R-3 lone. New
development subject to Precise Plan applications, including Design Review. 22 units per acre
maximum density.
i-.
CO ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE: Permits offices for
professions, administrative, fmanciaI institutions, prescription pharmacies, and other offices of
the same character. Accessory uses such as services and sales for occupants and patrons are
permitted, as well as designated conditional uses.
CT THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
DISTRICT: Allows uses for centers for retail commercial, entenainment, automotive, and
other appropriate highway-related activities. New development subject to Precise Plan
applications, including Design Review.
COP ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE WITH PRECISE PLAN
MODIFYING DISTRICT: Allows uses permitted in the CO zone. New development subject
to Precise Plan applications, including Design Review.
~
NORTII
TABLE - II
ZONING DESCRIPTIONS
CASB IfmeBR,
SCALB:
DATB:
DRAWN BY'
c:HBCKBD BY'
GPA-'4-01
PCZ-U-A
Non
10-4-'3
C. PBRNANDBZ
P. HIRRBRA-A
~~~
=r-:
~"" -
.- mY Of
CHUlA VISTA
. PlANNING
DEPARTMENT
-~/(
CENTER STREET
I
~
r
R-2
~
~
~
~
CO
--------
SUBAREA B-4F
..
C-T T1---j ] . ( ,
SUBAREA B-4G
L .
R-3 l
.
VISTA SQUARE
ELEMENTARY
C-O-P
UJ
::J
Z
~
E ----
~
(,I)
VANCE STREET
EXHIBIT - D CASI IrtIMBIR: OPA-U-Ol ~~~
(!) PCZ-U -A
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY SCALI : 1- . 200' -.-
~
STUDY: DATB: 10-4-U .. mY OF
SUBAREAS B-4F & B-4G: DRAWN BY I C. PIRHANDIZ atUA VISTA
PlANNING
NORm SURROUNDING ZONING CHICltID BY: P. HBRRIRA-A DEPARTMENT
.~l//d-
~
~
~
::
Q
~
c.::
CQ
MADRONA STREET
-- j
t'tf
1
~f'
UJ
;:)
Z
~
~
~
u::
~~f"
Hf
......................
Hf M~ ~F ~f; Mf : (
.
.
.
.
.
~...............-
.
.
.
I
Mf
c..o
VISTA SQUARE
ELEMENTARY
VANCE STREET
w
::l
Z
~
~
:i
v:l
EXHIBIT - E CASB NtJMBBR: GPA-U-01 .s- ~ ft..
(9 PCZ-U-A
SUBAREA B-4G: EXISTING LAND USES SCALB: 1- . 200' :i'f-:
PATB: 10-4-113 ~
. CJ'TY or
PRAWN BY: C. FBRNANDBZ CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING
NORm CHBCltBD BY: F. HBRRBRA-A DEPARTMENT
~~7/<3
-.
nnsPAGEBLANK
-
-
~.11f
ORDINANCE NO.~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA A~~~HE
ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION ~lt1O- OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONIN>i{)~v. ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN PARKWAY, "G" STREET?~, AND BROADWAY
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezoning was flIed with the Planning
Department by the City of Chula Vista on July 23, 1~93; and,
WHEREAS, said application requested that the 9.7 acres located between Park
Way, "G" Street, Fifth Avenue, and Broadway, known as Subarea B-4G (see Exhibit A) to be
rezoned from R-3 Multiple Family Residential (32 du's/acre) to R-3P22 Multiple Family
Residential (22 du's/acre with precise plan); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 1993
and voted 5 to 1 recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to rezone said property
to R-3P22 (Multiple Family Residential); and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
rezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as was advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. October 12, 1993 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was hereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there
would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-93-32.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
find, determine, and ordain as follows:
AGENDA PACKET
SCANNED
AT FIRST ORDINANCE
READING ON:
/0 - /:J.. - 9.3
7-1
SECTION I:
SECTION II:
SECTION III:
SECTION IV:
SECTION V:
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
F: \bome\p1anning \ord-94-1
Environmen. .
The City
enVlfonmen
93-32.
-
ouncil finds that the project would have no significant
impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
Findings.
The City C uncil finds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista eneral Plan as amended concurrently with this action and
that the pubJil necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice sup rt the rezoning to'R-3P22.
Conditions of e P Modifier.
All existing non onforming uses created as result of this action shall be
allowed to be r onstructed in the event of destruction of greater than
sixty percent of the property's improvement subject to review and
approval by the P ning Commission.
The City Chula VI ta shall enforce any appropriate legal mechanism
sponsored by the hula Vista Elementary School District and the
Sweetwater Union Hi School District, as may be approved by the City,
to mitigate impacts to hool facilities.
Rezoning.
-"
Section 19.18.010 of the ula Vista Municipal Code (being the zoning
map) is hereby amended t rezone the Property to R-3P22 "Multiple-
Family Residential" as show on Exhibit A attached hereto.
This Ordinance shall take effect d be in full force on the thirtieth day
from and after its adoption.
J
b
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
-
~
/)//10
J
~ - -- - .
--
.--- r----
W MADRONA STREET
'\ r --- --___
, I I I
I I I I I
- r.J I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I : ! ! I
PARK WAY
~
~
<
~
1:0
~---
1----
"G" STREET
r--
VANCE STREET
""--/
UJ
:J
Z
~
~
r:i:
--~
: . ~----
~
CAB. 1nlXB.Il,
ACIl.AG.,
SCAL.:
DRAWN BY:
CH.CX.D BY:
111 = 200'
T.,
8-18-93
C. FERNANDEZ
F. HERRERA-A
NORTH
C9
<E3-P-~
I : I
- ---
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
BY 11iE CllY COUNCIL ON
crt'\' CLERK
-..
VISTA SQUARE
ELEMENTARY
~
;:)
z
~
E
~
CI)
EXHIBIT - A
ZONING MAP
~ 7//7
DATE
(
-
~l~
--;
~~
~
nns PAGE BlANK
...........,
~.
-M.Ir:7J/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
ITEM
MEETING DATE
~~Jt
Resolution 1 Ratifying agreement with
the County of San Diego and accepting funds
for the designation of Chula vista Harbor as
the Southern Home Port of the tall ship
Californian
Public Information coordinat~
Deputy City Manag~~~remPI
City Manage~ ~~ Vote: Yes ___ No -X-)
~
10/19/93
SUBMITTED BY:
VIA:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City's agreement with the Nautical Heritage Society to
designate Chula vista Harbor as the Southern Home Port of the tall
ship Californian requires that the City make a $26,598 grant in FY
93-94 to the ship's organization. In consideration of the value of
the ship as a shared community asset, the County has allocated
$5,600 in its Community Enhancement Fund to support this service.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the
attached agreement and accept the $5,600 from the County.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
The attached agreement identifies the City of Chula vista as a
contractor charged with continuing to work toward maintaining Chula
vista Harbor as the Southern Home Port of the tall ship
Californian. For such service, the County agrees to pay the sum of
$5,600. Last year, the County paid $7,000 to help support the
Californian' s visits to Chula vista Harbor. While this year's
allocation is less, the City is pleased to have received this
funding considering the County's budget constraints. The County
received grant requests totalling $4 million and allocated $1.3
million, which did not fully fund the total amount of any
application.
r-l
FISCAL IMPACT:
The payment of $5,600 from the County will go toward reimbursing
the General Fund for the $26,598 grant awarded for the tall ship
Californian. This allocation includes the base amount of $26,000
plus the CPI for the previous 12 months as stipulated in the City's
three-year contract with the Nautical Heritage Society. The City's
approved FY 93-94 non-departmental budget included $26,885 to cover
this commitment with a notation that County Community Enhancement
funds had been requested. The remaining $20,998 will be reimbursed
by the Redevelopment Agency, leaving no net impact on the General
Fund.
8"'.2...
AGIlEEJEIIT IIET\EEII TIE auITY OF SAIl DIEGO
.u CllT OF ClUA VISTA - TAll SHIP
The CCUlty. under euthorlty of Gov. code 26100 n ~l Icele CCUlty
Ordlnanc... dealr.. to eng.ge Contractor In connection with the
pr~tion .u edYerti.l~ of CCUlty r..ourc.. In order to Touria_. trade. .u
c~rce in the cCUlty;
WHEREAS. Contractor pos...... cert.ln .kill.. experience. edUc.tlon ltI'd/or
cClllpetenc:y to perfo,.. the specl.l servlc.. or event Identified below. n
CCUlty deslr.. to ~lItI Contractor for auc:h specl.l .ervlc.. or ....ent; n
AIIllTlIt AIIJ aJITROlLD
Flnfl~ Organization 10250
Contract .:
Acc:olnt :
Teak Option Activity
~ for fWllIa .u _t.:
WHEREAS. the 80IIrd of ~rvl.or. on Seotentler 28. 1993 .lloc.ted
$5.600 to the Contractor for .ervlc.. u Indlc.ted herein for the
period Julv 1. 1993 to June 30. 1994 by Board Action
M.O. _
IICIIERT 1IOOlCER. Ed.D.
Auditor & Controller
By:
The CCUlty of San Diego hereby ...tara an .gr..."t with Contractor CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA - TALL SHIP.
SCODe of Servfc... The Contractor will pr~t. n provide. scope of ..rvlc.. descrfbed .. the followl~ tourf.t/culturel r.l.ted
actlvfti..: Malnt.ln Chule VI.t. H.rbor u the Southern H~ Port of the C.lffornlan.
Te,.. of Agreetllel'lt. The t.,.. of thl. Agr..."t shall be for the period Indfcated above.
Method of Pa_t. Quart.rly pII)'I*It. of equal ~t.. which shall be clle on or before the l..t day of .ach CJASrt.r. will be II8de
.ut~tically cOllllBflCI~ wfth the CCUlty'. recefpt of . .Igned.copy of thl. Agr__t on or before 2 ....k. prior to the lut day of
the CJASrter. In the event . .Igned copy of thl. Agreement I. not received on or before 2 week. prior to the lut day of the CJASrter.
the flr.t pII)'I*It will be -.de On or before the l..t day of the next CJASrt.r. Duri~ the contract ye.r, but fn no event l.ter then
two ~tha beyond the cOntract ye.r. the Contractor ....t ~It doc~t.tion to the CCUlty'. repr..ent.tfve settl~ forth actual
.xpendltur.. ... In .upport of the .cope of ..rvlce.. ,."., pII)'IIlenta IllIde to cClntractor which .xceed the tot.l actual expendltur..
for the cllntract ye.r _t be r.flnfad to the Cqunty. Reldlur..."t for .xpens.. Incurred In edYenc:e of the CJASrterly pa)'l*lt .chedul.
will be Mde upon ~ia.lon of an Involc. by the Contractor to the CCUlty'. repre.ent.tive .ettl~ forth the actual .xpendltur...
The MCUlt of auc:h r.llllbur._t sh.ll be deducted fr~ the aucceedi~ CJASrterly pIIv-nt..
In the ev.-.t that I... then.ll servlc.. .re perfonned In . proper .u ti..ly IIIInner, the Contractor sh.ll be obtlgeted to info,..
the CCUlty'. repr..ent.tive of .uch. .u sh.ll only be pIIld for the r...onable co.t. of those .ervlc.. perfonned duri~ the pa)'l*lt
period .. dete,..lned by the CCUlty'. repr..ent.tlve. However. the Contractor .u the CCUlty'. repr..ent.tlve MY .gr.. In wrlti~
to extend the period of thl. Agr.-nt for not ~re then thr.. (3) IIIOIlth. to .llow the l:ontractor additional tl.. to prefo,.. the
.ervic.. required by this Agr..."t. The tot.l pII)'IIlent. Mde to Contractor for .ervlc.. perfonned during the tot.l period of this
Agr..."t. includi~ any .xt_iOn. sh.ll not exceed the IIIIOIIIt .lloc.ted to Contractor .. indic.ted in this Agreement. In the .vent
Contractor rec.lves pa)'l*lt fr~ the CCUlty for. .ervic. which I. l.ter dis.llowed by the CCUlty upon review of the Contractor'.
docuIlentation of actual expenditur... the Contr.ctor sh.ll prllq)tly r.fund the disallowed IIIIOIIIt to the CCUlty on request, or at It.
option. the CCUlty offset the MCUlt dinllowed fr~ any pa)'lllent due or to become due to contractor under this A"r..."t or any other
A,,~. In the ev.-.t this Agr..."t I. tel'lllineted by CCUlty pur.uant to paragraph. 2 or 3 under the t.,... .u condltl_ on the
rever.e .Ide of thl. Agr.-nt. the County sh.ll not be required to Eke any further payment. to the Contractor u of the .ffectlve
date of te,..lnetlon, Irr..pectlve of the MCUlt of .ervlces or expendltur.. _de by the Contractor through the te,..lnetlon dat..
COIl'Ill!l'lSatlon. The CCUlty .gr... to pay to the Contractor the sua of $5.600, for the period Indicated lIbove, .u Contractor agr...
that nid _ shall be full CCIIIpenS8tlon for all .ervlc.. In perfo,..i~ thl. a"rHlllent for nid period.
Achinlstrator of Agreement. The Auditor and Controll.r sh.ll be the CCUlty'. representative for the purpose of .a.ini.terl~ thla
A"rHlllent.
!l.2!iEL. Arrf notic. or notices required or pe,..itted to be given pursuant to thl. A"rHlllent _y be personally .erved on the other
party by the party "Ivlng auc:h notice. or MY be served by certified Mil, post.ge prepaid. return racelpt requested. to the followl~
addr.....:
CCUlty:
CCUlty of San D I ego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego. CA 92101
Contractor:
Mr. Geor". Kempl. Deputy City ManegeI'
City of Chul. VI.ta
276 Fourth Ave.
Chul. VI.t.. CA 91910
J heve reed the ave and the T.,... and Condltl_ ..t forth on the beck of this A"rHlllent and J accept the alloc.tlon n ."1'''
thereto:
contract(~ """'"
6t:: IltllQ (ll-}J-U
CCUlty of San Diego
Title
Date
Cl.rk of the Board of Supervisor. or Authorized Repre.ent.tlve
D.te
8" .3
j
TEIIICS AID CDIIITI(II$ OF CDIUIITT EIIIWICEIIEIIT SERVICES AGREEICEIIT
1. Audita I~t!ii'aeof Reco~. At erry titne $Iring nonnal business hours a .s often .. th. COU\tr ..y c:tee. necess'ry, th.
Contr.ctor s . ,v'lla . to th. CCUlty for .x8l8ination .11 of ita records with r.spect to.l ..tt.rs cov.red l:!Y this
Agr_t and will pel'llit the CCUlty to .udit, .xantine and Nk. .xc.rpt. or tr.nscrlpts frOll .uch records and ..k. audIt. of
.11 invoices, Nt.ri.l., payrolls, records of per.onnel and oth.r data r.l.ting to .11 ..tt.r. cov.red by this Agr_t. Unles.
oth.rwi.. specified by the CCUlty, s.ld records should be .lII8de .vall.bl. for .xantinatlon within San Diego COU\ty. Contrector
sh.ll ..int.in .uch racords in an .cc...ibl. loc.tion and condition for. period of not les. than four. ye.r. following receipt
of final peytnent lrldar this Agr.-.nt ""I... CCUlty .grees In writing to an ..rll.r di.po.ition. Th. St.t. of C.ltfornl. or ...,
Feder. I .ganc:v h.ving an int.rest in the subJact of this .gr.lllllflt sh.ll h.v. the s_ righta conf.rred upon COU\ty by thl.
Agr_t.
2. T,rwlnatlon of AlI..-t ~or Cause. Upon br..ch of this Agreement, CCUlty sh.ll h.ve the right to t.l'Illnat. this Agr_t by
gIvIng wrItten notlc. to ontr.ctor of .uch t.rwinatlon and specifying the .ffectiv. date th.reof, .t l...t flv. C5) days beJor.
the .ffactiv. data of .uch t.l'Ilinatlon. A. of the .ffactiv. data of t.l'Ilination, the CCUlty sh.ll not be required to ..k. ...,
furth.r peytnents to Contractor lrldar this Agr_t, irrespectlv. of the _t of ..rvlces or .xpendltures IIIde by Contrector
through the t.l'Illnatlon dat..
3. TRi~tion fOf" Convenience of C~ty CCUlty..y t.l'Ilinatl this Agraetnent .t erry ti_ by lIiving written notic. to Contrector
o .uc t.l'Illnatlon and spec I fy ng the .ff.ctiv. date thereof .t l...t thirty (30) days before the .ffectiv. data of such
t.l'Ilination. As of the .ffectiv. date of t.l'Ilination, the CCUlty sh.ll not be required to Nka erry furth.r peytnents to Contrector
lrldar this Agraetnent, Irrespective of the _t of ..rvic.. or .xpenditurlS IIIda by Contr.ctor through the t.rwlnation date.
4. T~I~tlon fOf" c_ience of contrectOf". Contr.ctor..y tel'llinat. this Agreement .t erry ti_ by giving written notlc. to Col.!Ity
o .uc tersllnatlon and specifying the .ffectiv. data th.r.of .t le.st sixty (60) days before the .ffectiv. date of such
t.l'Ilinatlon. In that avent, it i. .xpr...ly .greed and trder.tood th.t Contr.ctor .t the Option of CCUlty sh.ll for. .Inl_
period of thirty (30) days .ft.r giving .uch notic. provide .s reque.ted by the scbinlstr.tor of this Agrellllnt, ...I.tance and
advlc. to Contr.ctor'. .uccessor to f.cllltat. the period of transition caused by .uch t.l'Illnationf provided th.t .uch .inl_
period of ...i.tanc. and advlc. by Contr.ctor to Contractor's .uccessor sh.ll not .xtend beyona the .ffactlve date of the
t.l'Illnatlon.
'.
5. ~ CCUlty..y frOll tI_ to ti_ require chang.. In the .cope of the ..rvlces of Contr.ctor to be perforaed hereunder.
SuCliCI\anges, including erry incre.s. or deCr.... In the _t of Contractor'. c~.tlon which .re .utUllly .greed upon by
and between CCUlty and Contractor, sh.ll be .ffactlv. when Incorpor.ted In written -a.nt. to. thl. Agr_t th.r.ln.
6. As.i~l~ty. Th. Contr.ctor sh.ll not ...ign ..., Inter.st In thl. Agraetnent, and sh.ll not transf.r ..., Interest In the .-
(whet.r .s.lgntnent ornov.tion), without the prior written consent of the Co""ty th.r.to(. provided, hOlllvlrC th.t cl.i.. for
~y $Ie or to bac:0lllI $Ie to Contr.ctor frOll CCUlty under this Agr_t ..y be ...Ionact w thout .uch approv.. Notic. of ...,
.uch ...Igntnent er transf.r sh.ll be furnished prllq)tly to CCUlty.
Int~t of cont~. Contractor covenenta th.t Contr.ctor presently h.. no Int.rest, Including, but not 1I.lted to, oth.r
proJacta or Inde t contr.cts, and sh.ll not .cquir. any such int.r..t, direct or Indirect, which would conflict In erry_r
or degree with t . perfol'Nnc:. of ..rvl c.s requl red to be performed under th I. Agreement. Contr.ctor furth.r covenenta that In
the perforaanc:. of thl. Agr_t no per.on h.ving erry .uch Inter..t sh.ll be ~loyed or r.t.lned by contrKtor under thl.
Agr_t. .
II. Ptbllcation R$ll'"oclJc:~'I!!' a Use ofllfteri.l. No Nt.ri.l proclJc:ed, In ....01. or In part, under this Contract shall be ujact
to copyrIght In the Ited St.tes or In any oth.r CCUltry. Th. CCUlty sh.ll h.v. ""r.stricted authority to pbllsh, dIICIOS.(
dl.trlbut. and otherwise us., In whole or In part, erry reports, data or other ..terl.ls prepared under thl. contract. Al
reporta. data and other ..teri.l. prepared under this Contr.ct .h.ll be the property of the COU\ty upon c~letlon of this
Contract. .
7.
9.
~,.ur~ a Hold "rP.\~ ~. Contractor .grees to ..int.in .uch lnauranc. .. will fully protect both contrector and
CUlty rOIl any or. c .lIllS r any workmen'. Cllq)anS.tion act or ...,loy.r'. Itablllty I..... and frOll ..., and .ll clai.. of
wh.t.oever kind or nature for the dantag. to property or for personal injury. Including de.th. IIIde by ...,- whOMoevar llhlch
..y .rl.. frOll oper.tlona c.rrled on lrldar this Agreement, .lther by Contractor. erry subcontr.ctor or by ...,one directly or
Indirectly englllled or ~loyed by .ither of thtllll. Contr.ctor sh.ll .xoner.t.. Indeal'lify and hold h'l'Illes. COU\ty f~ and
againat. and sh.ll ...~ full responalblllty for JlIytnent of. all feder.l. Stlt. and loc.l tax.. o.r contributions IqlOMd or
required under ~loytnent Insuranc., .ocl.l .ecurlty and IncOllll tax 1..../ with r.spect to Contractor and.contractor'. ...loyeee
ang.9ed In perforaanc:. of thl. Agr_t. CCUlty, and Its .gent. ana eqlloyees .h.ll not be or be h.ld liable for ...,
liabilities. penalties, or fllrf.lturlS or for any dantag. to the goods. properties or effect. 0'/ Contractor, or of rIf other
per.ona what.oev.r. nor for persO!\lIl InJury to or death of th.... whether caused by or resulting frOll"" negllgr.tt let or OIllsslon
of Contractor. Th. provlsiona of thl. par.graph do not r.llev. the CCUlty of CCUlty'. liability for ~ges to contractor ~
by negligent acts or OIIis.iqns.. Contr.ctor further .grees to indeart fy and hold hal'llles. COU\ty and COU\ty'. agent. and
~loyee. ag.lnst and frOll any and .11 of the for.golng llabllltle.. .nd any and .11 cost. or expens.. Incurred by COU\ty on
.ccOU\t 0# any cl.i", therefor.. Contr.ctor .gree. to assune the foregoing oblig.tlona and lIabllltl.., by which ContrKtor sh.ll
Indemlfy and hold COU\ty h....l... frOll .ll cl.i.. .rising by r..son of the work done or by rea.on of ..., act or OIlI..lon of
Contractor.
I. ...."'l~rectOf". It I. .greed th.t CCUlty is Int.rested only in the result. obt.lned and th.t Contractor shall perf-
a. an I ent contractor with .01. control of the II8nI1er and 11I_ of perfonoing the .ervices required trder thl. Agr.-.t.
Contractor sh.ll cllq)lat. thl. Agreement .ccording to Contr.ctor'. own ...ans and tnethods of work which shall be In the excluslv.
ch.rge and control of Contrf!ctor and shall not be subject to control or supervision by CCUlty .xcept .. to the r.sult. of the
work. Contractor I.. for all puQ .ri.lng out of this .greement. an independent contr.ctor and neither ContractOf" nor
Contractor'. eqlloyees sh.ll be . an ~loyae of CCUlty. It I. expressly trder.tood and .greed th.t Contractor and
Contractor'. ~loy..s sh.ll In no .vent be entitled to any benefits to which CCUlty IIl'{lI0y... .1'. antltled\ Including, but not
lI",lted to, ov.rtl.... any r.tlrement benefit.. worluaen'. cllq)lflSatlon benefit.. and Injury l..ve or other ..ve beneftta.
E~l ClIIDOrtl.!li~. Contractor will not dlscri.inat. .gainst any eqlloyee, or .g.inst any applicant for such ~lov-nt because
o .ge, race. co or, religion, physic.l handicap. ancestry. .ex or national origin. Thi. provl.lon sh.ll Include, but not be
lI.ited to, the following: ~loyllllnt. upgradIng. demotion. or transf.r; recrulttnent or recruitMnt adv.rtl.lng; layoff or
tel'llinatlon; r.te. of pey or oth.r foras of c~.tlon; ana ..lection for tr.inlng, including apprenticeship.
~ffi....tlve A~on. Contr.ctor. Contractor'. subcontractors and .uppller.. If any. sh.ll Cllq)ly with the Affll'llStlve Action
rogr.. for V r. .. s.t forth In Articl. IIlk (ccomenc:ing .t t 84) of the San Diego COU\ty Achlnl.tr.tiv. Code, whlelt PrOllr8l8
I. Incorpor.ted her.in by r.ferenc.. ""less the Contractor. Contractor'. .ubcontractor. or .upplier. .r. .x8q)ted f~ ..Id
progr8l8. The Affil'llStlve Action Pr.ogr8l8 for Vendor. .. ..t forth in Article IlIk of the San Diego CCUlty AdIoinlstr.tlve code
and the rule. and regul.tlons iq>lementlng ..id progr.. ...et forth in Board of Supervisor. Re.olutlon No. 123 dated Janary 25,
1977 and Exhibit A thereto are on fll. in the Office of the Cl.rk of th. Board of Supervisor. of the COU\ty oJ San Diego, Col.!Ity
Adalnl.tr.tion Cent.r, San Diego, Callforni. 92101. Copi.. of .uch provl.ion of the San OillllO COU\ty Ad.lnl.tr.tlve Code will
be furnl.hed upon request.
...........1 'iffO~' It I. .xpres.ly under.tood and .greed th.t Contractor sh.ll _.g. or require the .ervlc.. of no other
per.on or . I'll. contr.ctor or otherwls.. to provide or .ssl.t in providing such .ervlces without the .xpres. written consent
of CCUltyC provl . how.v.r. that this provision sh.ll not apply to .ecretarl.l, cleric.l, routine tneehanical and .1.lI.r
incidlnta services needed by Contr.ctor to .ssi.t In the performance of this Agreement. Contractor sh.ll not hlr. Col.!Ity'.
eq>loyeas to perfo... ..., POf"tion of the work or .ervlces provided for h.reln including .ecretari.l. clerical and .1.H.r
Incldlnt.l servic.. e"capt upon the written approv.l of CCUlty.
Governl.. L.... Thi. agr_t sh.ll be conatrued and int.rpr.ted according to the l_ of the St.te of Callfoml..
Contrector'. Emlcwees and ECSJI..ent. Contractor .grees th.t Contr.ctor h.. .ecured or will secure at Contractor'. own upensa
.ll persons eqlloy.e. and equlpaentrequired to perfol'll the ..rvice. required under this Agreement and that all .uch servlc"
will be perJonned by Contractor. or under Contractor'. .upervision. by per.ona authorized by l.w to perfol'll.uc:h ..rvices. If
erry .rrangement I. Ilede whereby eqlloyee. of CCUlty are used by Contractor and ar. .ubJect to Contractor'. .upervlslon and
control they.h.ll while engage in .uch work be considered for .ll purpo.e., .. eq>loyees. .ervant.. or .gents of the contractor
and not' of CCUlty Irrespective of party peying them. Contr.ctor shell exoner.t.. Indetll'll fy, .nd hold ha...less County fr.. and
.gainst ..., and a\l 10... dantag. or .xpense, by reason of any .ct of OOlisslon of any eqlloyee. .ervant or agent of Contractor.
Including those If erry originally eq>loyed by CCUlty and utilized by Contr.ctor. and Contractor .grees to dafend. .t
Contractor'. own .xpens.: any .uit or .uit. th.t MY be brought .gainst CCUlty by re.son of any .uch act or ..is.lon.. Col.!Ity
sh.ll not be responslbl. no.r be held llabl. for erry dantag. to person or property consequent upon the use. ",i.use, or faIlure of
any equipaent used by Contr.ctor or erry of Contrector'. eqlloyees, .ven though .uch equipaent be furnished, rented. or loaned
to Contractor by County. The .cceptance or use of .ny .uch equipaent by C'!"tractor'. III'f'loye.. .hall be construed to - that
Contr.ctor .ccepts full responsibility for and agrees to .xonerate, indeartlfy and save hanoless County frOll ~ ~ina:" -;v ~
.11 cl.l_ for. erry dantage whetsoev.r resul tlng frOOl the us.. misuse. or failure of such equlpaenit. ~.r~ucl. t g~I.lt':: toe
eq>loyee or property of Contr.ctor, other contractor.. CCUlty. or of oth.r persona. Equipaent nc, no ,
..t.rl.l., tool. or other thing..
~lete AlI.........t. It I. expres.ly under.tood and agreed that this Agreement consfititutesi~~_=..:~e::rfl:-~w::"rv~:':::~:
CCUlty and In no event shall contractor be entitled to any c~atlon. bene Jts. re .~
than IS h.r.in expressly provided. 8'''' -,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
RESOLUTION NO.
~
-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RATIFYING AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND ACCEPTING FUNDS FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF CHULA VISTA HARBOR AS THE
SOUTHERN HOME PORT OF THE TALL SHIP
CALIFORNIAN
WHEREAS, the City's agreement with the Nautical Heritage
Society to designate Chula vista Harbor as the Southern Home Port
of the tall ship CALIFORNIAN requires that the City make a $26,598
grant in FY 1993-94 to the ship's organization; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the value of the ship as a
shared community asset, the County has allocated $5,600 in its
Community Enhancement fund to support this service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby ratify the agreement with the
County of San Diego relating to the designation of Chula vista
Harbor as the Southern Home Port of the tall ship CALIFORNIAN, a
copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and
authorizes the Mayor to sign same on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista.
Presented by
ity
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
F: lhome\attomey\SDCntyCa
~~5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
9
Meeting date 10/19/93
Reviewed by:
Il~lS
Resolution -/7.t? I endorsing the City's application to the
California Energy Commission (CEC) in response to the CEC's Program
Opportunity Notice for participation in its Compressed Natural Gas
Medium-Duty Vehicle Demonstration Program.
Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resource Manage~:rS
John Lippitt, Public Works Direct~1b- it-
City ManagerJCj ~ ~ (4/5ths Vole: Yes_ NoiJ
Item Title:
Submitted by:
The State of California has appropriated $600,000 to the California Enl(rgy Commission
through Senate Bill 1211 and Senate Bill 2211 for the demonstration of compressed natural
gas as a transportation fuel. The commission is seeking medium-duty fleet operations to
participate in the demonstration of medium duty Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs). A typical
medium-duty vehicle for the City includes survey vans, park maintenance and public works
maintenance utility truck. Other medium duty vehicles include shuttle vans, airport and hotel
shuttle buses and step van-type trucks. The City plans to apply for funding through the
participation of this program. The medium duty demonstration program requires submission
of a resolution by the governing body of the agency, endorsing the applicant's proposal.
RECOMMEND A TION
Adopt resolution endorsing the City's application for participation in the California Energy
Commission's medium-duty vehicle demonstration program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS: N/ A
DISCUSSION
In 1993, the City endorsed the purchase of 2 alternative fuel vehicles and two gasoline
powered vehicles. The City has also received a grant to purchase two electric parking
enforcement vehicles. At the time of purchase, dedicated NGV were not available from
manufacturers and there was no medium duty program available to defray conversion costs.
However, CEC staff had indicated that a medium-duty program was on the horizon, and City
staff indicated to Council that when the program became available, staff would return to
Council with a recommendation to convert the gasoline powered vehicles to CNG. The CEC
program has encouraged the development of NGV vehicles directly from the manufacturer.
9-'/
There is a wide range of options for potential fleet use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
technology in medium-duty vehicles in cooperation with the CEC's program, as compared to
last year, when very few medium-duty vehicles were available. The type of CNG systems
include conversion of existing gasoline or diesel engine to CNG or bi-fuel use, conversion of
a diesel engine to an 80/20 percent CNG/diesel power arrangement, replacement of either a
gasoline or diesel engine with a compressed natural gas dedicated engine, or the purchase of a
new, dedicated compressed natural gas vehicle.
According to the CEC, the use of natural gas vehicles will reduce our dependence on
imported petroleum and help California meet federal and state clean air standards. As a
consumer of petroleum products, California is the second largest in the world, exceeded only
by the United States as a whole. Regarding air quality, the California Air Resources Board
has estimated that a CNG powered vehicle contributes 60% less to the formation of
photochemical smog than a gasoline powered vehicle.
SCORING CRITERIA
The CEC will judge applicants by the following criteria:
1. Ability to insure proper maintenance of the vehicles.
2. Resources committed to the program.
3. Adequacy of fueling facilities.
4. Demonstration Plan.
5. Potential to expand the use of natural gas vehicles.
6. Air Quality Status.
VEHICLES PROPOSED FOR PROGRAM
Recommended for Convel~ion: vehicles purchased during FY 92-93:
1. 1 Cab and Chassis with survey body
To be used for second engineering survey crew
2. 1 Cab and chassis with utility service body
To be used by Park Maintenance
Vehicles budgeted for purchase dUling FY 93-94:
1. 1 medium-duty utility truck with hoist
To be used by the Sewer pump maintenance crew
2. 1 cargo van with lift
To be used by Library.
PARTICIPA TION
Those agencies selected to participate in the Demonstration Program will enter into
contractual agreements with the Commission to participate in a three-year demonstration
program consisting of closely monitored operation and comprehensive data gathering with
9"~
regard to the various effects associated with advanced CNG technology. Such data will
include: driver acceptance, engine durability, reliability, emissions, operational safety,
performance efficiency, costs and other related technical issues. A CNG fueling station
already exists in Chula Vista, and arrangements for refueling have been made with SDG&E
and the School District.
FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.
If the City becomes a participant in the demonstration program, costs for engine conversion
or replacement, all material costs including fuel tanks and lines will be reimbursed by the
Commission. Any vehicles purchased will be vehicles that are part of the City's replacement
schedule for 1993-94.
Labor and installation costs for retrofits will be paid for by the program participants, which is
estimated to be $1800.00 per vehicle. In the case of new vehicle purchases, participants will
be reimbursed the difference in cost between a new NGV and a conventionally fueled vehicle.
If the City is invited to participate in the program, exact costs for the installation and labor
will be determined. At that time, staff will return to Council with a recommendation to
allocate funds from the the unappropriated balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund. .
Costs for normal operation and maintenance will be born by the participants. According to
the program, participants may be required to make the vehicles available for, and transport
them to an appropriate emissions testing laboratory. In this case, the CEC will be responsible
for emission testing.
If the City is invited to join the medium duty vehicle program, staff will return to Council for
the appropriate appropriation.
9-3/9-'1
RESOLUTION NO.
1/9..15
I ?~ 71
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ENDORSING THE CITY'S APPLICATION
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) IN
RESPONSE TO THE CEC'S PROGRAM OPPORTUNITY
NOTICE FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, funds have been made available to the State of
California as a result of negotiated settlements and court
judgments based on petroleum company overcharges during the period
from September 1973 to January 1981; and
WHEREAS, $600,000 of these funds have been appropriated
to the California Energy Commission through Senate Bill 1211
($500,000: Chapter 67, Statutes of 1992) and Senate Bill 2211
($100,000: Chapter 1661, Statutes of 1990) for the demonstration of
compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista Public Works Department
has indicated a willingness to participate in the California Energy
Commission's Compressed Natural Gas Medium Duty Vehicle
Demonstration Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the City of Chula
vista Public Works Operations Building to apply for participation
in the aforementioned demonstration program under the terms and
conditions to be set forth in subsequent contractual agreements
between the Commission and the city of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City
of Chula vista is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the
name of the City of Chula vista Public Works Operations Building
all the necessary documents to implement and carry out the purposes
of this resolution.
Barbara Bamberger, Environmental
Resource Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
F: \homelattomey\cng
9,.>'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-.!.!
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
SUBMITTED BY:
Il:l7lt?
Resolution: -!":l.?..2 Approving agreement between the County of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista for the construction of a bridge
over the Otay River on Otay Valley Road and authorizing the Mayor to
execute on behalf of the City.
Director of Public WorkS#
City ManagerJf. ~ ~
1.:\ 0 ./" (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-L)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The City is currently involved in the planning and construction activities to widen Otay Valley
Road in the segment between 1-805 freeway and the easterly City limits southerly to Otay Rio
subdivision. Phase 1 of the project goes from 1-805 freeway to approximately 1200 feet east of
Nirvana Avenue. Phase 2 goes from 1200 feet east of Nirvana Avenue to the easterly City
limits southerly to Otay Rio subdivision. A portion of Otay Valley Road crossing Otay River
was washed out in January 1993. This agreement outlines the City's and County's responsibility
in constructing a bridge.
Construction for Phase 1 of the project has been awarded to Granite Construction Company and
the contract has been executed by the City and construction is anticipated to start in November
of this year. Design work for Phase 2 is nearly completed and is awaiting the final design of
the bridge over Otay River on Otay Valley Road. The construction of the bridge was budgeted
in the CIP as phase 3 of the Otay Valley Road project, but will be constructed as an integral part
of phase 2.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the agreement between the County of San
Diego and the City of Chula Vista for the construction of a bridge over the Otay River on Otay
Valley Road and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista desire to cooperate and jointly participate
in the design and construction of a bridge over Otay River on Otay Valley Road that is partially
within the County and partially within the City. The Otay Valley Road is an important
transportation link for both the County and the City. A portion of this link was washed out
during the rains of January 1993 where the road crosses Otay River. The County has obtained
It) ""/
Page---L- Item / ()
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to fund the design and
construction of the bridge to replace the drainage facilities that were washed out. FEMA has
agreed to fund the construction" of a 28 foot wide by 80 foot long bridge across the Otay River.
Under FEMA regulations the project to be constructed can only include the minimal work to
replace the washed out facilities. FEMA's regulations further prohibit a local agency from
adding their own funds to a FEMA project and constructing a project that "betters" what was
in place before the storm damage. Staff spent considerable time working at both the local and
regional levels to get FEMA to change this policy to one that would allow an more cost effective
overall approach. All our efforts were unsuccessful.
The City, however, is desirous of widening this bridge to accommodate three travel lanes plus
bicycle paths as part of our phase 3 project. Since we cannot add our funding to the County's
project, which would be the most cost effective approach, we must wait for the completion of
the County's construction and inspection by FEMA before widening the bridge. In order to
minimize the loss due to this type of phased construction, close coordination on the part of the
City and County staffs is required. The County also desires to get the bridge replaced as soon
as possible in order to open the road. Because environmental constraints would have required
an inordinate amount of time to do an EIR and get the necessary permits from Federal and State
agency's, the County determined that they needed to construct the road in the exact location of
the washout. Construction in that location would not require the same level of State and Federal
permits and could be completed sooner. However, that construction would necessitate our
removing their bridge and constructing a completely new, wider bridge. Therefore, City and
County staffs worked together to utilize the environmental work the City has done to allow the
County to construct the bridge in the location desired by the City under the City's permits.
Since the City is required to do the same, or higher level, of environmental mitigation as part
of our project, City staff agreed to be responsible for the mitigation work for the County's
project. The proposed bridge is the most cost effective method of restoration of service and
expansion to provide needed additional capacity. In order to assure the road would never wash
out again, a considerably larger bridge, at a cost beyond the City's funding ability, would need
to be built. Part of the information taken into consideration in this decision was that the ultimate
alignment of this section of the road will probably change when the Otay Ranch develops in the
adjacent areas. A permanent bridge built in this location could possibly be abandoned at that
time. Work is being included in the construction plans that would protect the bridge and make
restoration of service possible within a quicker time frame.
In consideration of these concerns, this agreement calls for the City and County to agree that
the bridge construction and replacement shall consist of:
/ d -' ,)..
Page~ Item I ()
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
1. Addressing and obtaining all mitigation and relevant permits including habitat
enhancement required by the appropriate resource agencies for the bridge
construction.
2. County construction of a bridge (Phase 1) 28 feet wide by 80 feet long supported
by FEMA funds.
3. City widening as part of our phase 2 Otay Valley Road project the County's
constructed bridge. The City's widening is to be from 28 feet wide to 52 feet
wide (12 feet each side).
Specifically it is mutually agreed by both the City and the County to the following:
L. County Responsibility
With the use of FEMA funds and upon issuance of a Fish and Game Permit, the County
will be responsible for Phase 1 of the project which will consist of constructing an 80
foot long by 28 foot wide bridge beginning with the north abutment at station 103+ 10.
The bridge approach road will conform to County standards for that portion in the
County and to City standards for that portion in the City. County's contractor will be
responsible for Phase 1 of the bridge construction. The City and County must approve
each others plans which assures consistency in the final bridge.
2. City's Responsibility
The City will act as the lead agency and be responsible for Phase 2 widening of the
project which will consist of constructing a bridge widening from 28 feet to 52 feet and
80 feet long. The bridge approach will conform to City standards for the that portion
in the City and to County standards for that portion in the County. The City will also
be responsible for financial support, addressing and obtaining all mitigation and relevant
permits including habitat enhancement required by appropriate resource agencies for the
bridge construction. The City's contractor will be responsible for construction of Phase
2 bridge widening in conformance with the requirements identified by the resources
agencies. The City's responsibility is to construct Phase 2 improvements is conditioned
upon prior completion by the County of the Phase 1 improvements.
3. Both the City and County provide for indemnification of each others officers and
employees associated with work with this agreement.
Jf)' J
Page~ Item II)
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
4. The agreement shall terminate upon completion of the project and payment of all amounts
due under the terms of the agreement.
5. The parties agree to name each other as additionally insured on all insurance policies
obtained within respect to Phase 1 or Phase 2 improvements.
Attached is a complete copy of the agreement.
FEMA's regulations, which require the County to construct the first phase of the bridge to a
limited capacity and the City to follow up with a separate contract to widen the bridge, are not
conducive to the most cost effective approach for local agencies that wish to add funding to
construct a more useful project. In these days of fiscal belt tightening this type of regulation
requires local agencies to waste funds in doing, or redoing certain work that could be done more
effectively as one contract. Therefore, it is also recommended that the Mayor be instructed to
send a letter to the President, Vice President, our local congressmen, and U. S. Senators advising
them that these policies are causing local agencies to spend more money than a policy calling
for a coordinated approach would require.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City costs associated with this agreement are being funded with
budgeted project Otay Valley Road, Phase III (STM-319) funds which were appropriated in the
1993-94 budget. Attached is a copy of the page of the CIP budget outlining this project. The
City will be paying all environmental impact mitigation costs as part of the City's project. The
County will bear all costs for the construction of their project, except for environmental
mitigation measures, from their FEMA grant.
//)~'f /IIJ-b
~
~
%
o "
ip.p
()o~
.9 dl
\,
I
.
\-
,
-\--
t
1-
{'
~~-!
\J
\
'2
o g
d.~
9
)o-Q
5i
: ~
~ "
-,
/~-/f~-fJ
.J
~
c
::E
e
ell:
~o
00
>11:
~~
f~
O::E
LL.w
0>
~~
O~
!
.J
e
t:
~
e
o
f
II:
fj
~t
.~u
S~!
~i::J
~A.::1
.. Ii:
w w
5 ~
o"z
wic
R:E~
""li:fd
cca
E~a:
~OA.
ii
J
-I
1 0
&-c
=-.!
C/t =: I;
....>i
C?!_
j! .
(I) ~
~
a:
c
z
=s
A.
~
": ~
iw:E
A.""J
u~~
~i
",,~a:a:
c-a:c
I-a:::::lw
OA.U>
I-O::::l
a: a:
lj:
c
I
,.:.
I
....
t:
;
....
t:
I
tit
I
....
t:
:I
0I-
I
....
t:
!
I
....
t:
8088.8.8.
o ai N 0 ~
N -- Cb N 9"'"
.... ....
I-
U""
wc
ab
a: I-
A.
8 0 888
g ~ ~ g
....
c:
~ oj
'2 g
lii c: .l/l
a: -B .E
~:;1 8.s
!elc:'ii
~ I ~ I ~ S'
~
W
I-
8 -' _ _ ~ :>
a a
a a
.
a
a
a
~
~
Q
~
w
U
a:
::::l
o
(I)
i tu
~ ~
c z
Z ~
it I-
8 ~
g ~
; ;;
-
8
gl.
~
a
a
a
i!:
i
c
~
rl
~
[
1;-
,
'9
1:
DI
C
"C
C
CII
-i
i
"iI
C
CD
E .
en
e ~
'>'0'
c ...
CDQ.
cg'
21.-
.: ;
0:2
.~
~~
CD 0
ElI:
CD>.
e~
Q.C11
E>
.- >.
iCII
liO
-CD
!.J::
"C-
io
>.=
CII-
~:
CII CII
o.J::
~~~
c-
.2i
- ..
-'5
tsg-
:: ..
C .la
~
~
~
Cl
z
(3
z
c
z
it
.5
c
CD
E
j
CD
~
"C
E
,g
.s.!
~
-=
DI
e
'0 .
CII Ul
! .~
u1::
e CD
.- Q.
CD e
liQ.
"8 .5
E~
E CII
D;
o CII
im
e CD
CD::E
:21;-
:0
DCD
O.J::
- -
Ul Ul
i~
CD-
e ;
~Ul
o I'll
lI:ai
>.CD
.!!.:(
~~
1;-'e
OD..
>.
.. CD
c-
o I'll
->
j1;-
=5
ii CD
::J.J::
-'-
'&
c:,
m
-
~
e
.Q
1)
2
Ui
e
8
"C
e
I'll
e
.21
Ul
CD
o
Iii
E
.i:
:i
I
I
10'8'"
53
!
wi
:f
'"
~
1
iii
I
..
~
RESOLUTION NO.
i7~70
/7"- ?~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VI STA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE OVER
THE OTAY RIVER ON OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City is currently involved in
and construction acti vi ties to widen Otay Valley
segment between 1-805 freeway and the easterly
southerly to Otay Rio subdivision; and
the planning
Road in the
City limits
WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the project goes from 1-805 freeway
to approximately 1200 feet east of Nirvana Avenue and Phase 2 goes
from 1200 feet east of Nirvana Avenue to the easterly City limits
southerly to Otay Rio subdivision; and
WHEREAS, a portion of Otay Valley Road crossing Otay
River was washed out in January 1993; and
WHEREAS, this agreement outlines the City'S and County's
responsibility in constructing a bridge; and
WHEREAS, construction for Phase 1 of the project has been
awarded to Granite Construction Company and the contract has been
executed by the City and construction is anticipated to start in
November of this year. Design work for Phase 2 is nearly completed
and is awaiting the final design of the bridge over Otay River on
otay Valley Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between
the County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista for the
construction of a bridge over the Otay River on Otay Valley Road,
a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
P: \home\attomey\olllybrid
of the City of
o execute said
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
Chula vista is hereby authorized and
Agreement on behalf of the City of Chu
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
, city
II!) ..., /10 -II
i :.~ ~_
..... : '! f. - ,} ~ -:.-: ~ "
_, '. , '.: ~...... ._'r 1" 1 -_ '" .....
::. to.'- -~<<~':: -;. : ~= : ~~ ;-:~
(619) 694-2212
FAX (619) 268~1
LOCA liON CODE SSO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
~ W"" srI:) " t OU f-,,). f."
· ':L-' Ll j. rebll:l:.iT'" .QNGINEER
t.entf COUNTY AIRPORTS
Z) COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
QInuttt~ nf ~att
5555 OVERLAND AVE. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1295
October 1, 1993
tiL,
<---It:.
(..#I,j
i
.......
Mr. Cliff Swanson
Deputy Director/City Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Chula vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
t-:::;>
r")
-
... .;
; ~ I;. .:
,.; ~,~.':i 1.:
.:'. ; rT;
::p
-
..~.~ .~
'1...
II"..
Dear Mr. Swanson:
Fy
U1
W
c
I"~ ":,.
.,:; f ::'
...; ,~~
t.
subject: Revised Agreement Between the county of San Diego and
the city of Chula Vista for the Construction of a
Bridge over the otay River on otay valley Road
We have reviewed and incorporated the City of Chula Vista's
proposed amendments to the above subject agreement which is
submitted to you for further action. The revised agreement has
been reviewed and approved by our County Counsel.
Any additional amendments to the agreement will need to be
discussed and agreed to by our County Counsel (Bill Smith at 531-
4895).
Please inform us as to the date that the agreement will be heard
by your City Council. Upon approval by your city council, we will
forward the approved agreement to the Board of Supervisors for
their approval.
If you have any questions, please contact Bill Hoeben at 495-
5287.
Very truly yours,
~
r ROGER F. WALSH
-70 r Acting Director
RFW: WAH: res
Attachment
cc: Lari Sheehan (A6)
Bill smith (A12)
Bill Hoeben (0340)
J~'//
ft ....:_.._... __ ___1.-'" ____
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A BRIDGE OVER THE OTAY RIVER ON OTAY VALLEY ROAD
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (COUNTY) and the CITY OF CHULA
VISTA (CITY) desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the
design and construction of a bridge over the Otay River on Otay
Valley Road that is partially within the COUNTY and partially
within the CITY; and
WHEREAS, the drainage culverts on Otay Valley Road over the
Otay River were washed out by the rains of January 1993; and
WHEREAS, Otay Valley Road is an important transportation link
for both the COUNTY and the CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has obtained approval from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support the design and
construction of a bridge to replace the drainage facilities washed
out by the January 1993 rains; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY have determined to construct
a bridge over the Otay River on Otay Valley Road; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY agree that the bridge construction
and replacement shall consist of:
1. Addressing and obtaining all mitigation and relevant
permits including habitat enhancement required by the appropriate
resource agencies for the bridge construction.
2. COUNTY construction of a bridge (Phase I), 28 feet wide
by 80 feet long, supported by Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) funds. Said bridge having its north abutment at station
103+10.
3. CITY constructing a widening (Phase II), to the COUNTY
constructed bridge. The CITY widening is to be from 28 feet wide
to 52 feet wide (12 feet each side). Said widening to be located
such that the north abutment begins at station 103+10.
WHEREAS, the bridge over the Otay River on Otay Valley Road
hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT", will benefit residents of the
COUNTY and CITY; and
/~'/J-
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY are each empowered to enter into such
public works project; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY are authorized by Government Code
sections 6500 et. seq., to enter into a joint powers agreement to
exercise powers jointly held; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to specify herein the terms
and conditions by which the design and construction of said PROJECT
shall be accomplished and financed.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed to by and between the
COUNTY and CITY as follows:
1. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES. wi th the use of FEMA funds, and
upon issuance of the Fish and Game permit, the COUNTY will be
responsible for Phase I of the PROJECT which will consist of
constructing a bridge 80 feet long by 28 feet wide beginning with
the north abutment at station 103+10. The bridge approach road
will conform to County Standards for that portion in the COUNTY and
city Standards for that portion in the CITY. The COUNTY contractor
will be responsible for construction of the Phase I bridge
construction in conformance with the requirements identified by the
resource agencies. COUNTY agrees to use its reasonable best
efforts to obtain the FEMA funds necessary to complete the Phase I
improvements.
2. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES. The CITY will act as lead agency
and be responsible for the Phase II widening of the PROJECT which
will consist of constructing a bridge widening from 28 feet to 52
feet, 80 feet long, with the north abutment beginning at station
103+10. The CITY will ensure the width of the bridge will have a
52 foot width. The bridge approach road will conform to City
Standards for that portion in the CITY and County Standards for
that portion in the COUNTY. The CITY will also be responsible for
financial support, addressing, and obtaining all mitigation and
relevant permits including habitat enhancement required by the
appropriate resource agencies for the bridge construction. The
CITY contractor will be responsible for construction of the Phase
II bridge widening in conformance with the requirements identified
by the resource agencies. CITY's responsibilities to construct
Phase II improvements is conditioned upon the prior completion by
the COUNTY of the Phase I improvements.
3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE. Both the COUNTY and
CITY shall review the design work on the bridge and seek each
agency's acceptance of the construction work within their
jurisdiction.
4 (a). INDEMNIFICATION BY THE COUNTY. COUNTY shall
indemnify, defend and save CITY and CITY's agents, officers and
employees harmless from and against any and all active and passive
liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and/or causes of action
arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life or
IP-'/;1
damage to property, violation of any federal, state or municipal
law or ordinance, or other cause in connection with any activities
under this Agreement of COUNTY, COUNTY's employees or agents, or on
account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen
difficulties, accidents, occurrences, or other causes, and from and
against all costs, counsel fees, expenses incurred in obtaining
expert testimony and the attendance of witnesses, expenses and
liabilities incurred in and about any such claim, the investigation
thereof, or the defense of any action or proceeding brought
thereon, and from and against orders, judgments, or decrees which
may be entered therein.
4 (b). INDEMNIFICATION BY THE CITY. CITY shall indemnify,
defend and save COUNTY and COUNTY's agents, officers and employees
harmless from and against any and all active and passive liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and/or causes of action arising
out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life or damage
to property, violation of any federal, state or municipal law or
ordinance, or other cause in connection with any activities under
this Agreement of CITY, CITY's employees or agents, or on account
of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen
difficulties, accidents, occurrences, or other causes, and from and
against all costs, counsel fees, expenses incurred in obtaining
expert testimony and the attendance of witnesses, expenses and
liabilities incurred in and about any such claim, the investigation
thereof, or the defense of any action or proceeding brought
thereon, and from and against orders, judgments, or decrees which
may be entered therein.
4 (c). These indemnity prov1s10ns are not limited in any
way by the extent of any policy of insurance currently in force and
held by either party.
5. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or otherwise
changed unless by an amendment in writing and executed by the
parties.
6. This Agreement shall terminate after completion of the
PROJECT and paYment of all amounts due under the terms of this
Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each parties indemnity
obligations hereunder shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
7. The parties agree to name each other as additional
insureds on all insurance policies obtained with respect to the
Phase I and Phase II improvements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the County
of San Diego pursuant to action taken by the Board of supervisors
and the City of Chula vista pursuant to action taken by its city
Council.
/(J,Jr
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Mayor of the city of
Chula vista
ATTEST
Clerk
DATE:
CLAVISTA
rev: 9/30/93
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BY:
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
County Counsel
/~ -,)5'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I J
Meeting Date 10/19/93
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Concerning the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy
REPORT
Describing the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy
SUBMITTED BY:
Community Development Director
C5.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager r
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
BACKGROUND: The National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions
applying for funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to submit a
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). The CHAS is a planning document
which identifies the City's housing needs and outlines a strategy to meet these needs.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the public hearing and take public
comment regarding the City's Draft Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Advisory Committee has
reviewed the Draft CHAS and staff has incorporated comments. This committee will be
reviewing the draft CHAS prior to returning the CHAS to the City Council for final adoption.
A member of the committee will be present at the public hearing on October 12th.
DISCUSSION:
The National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions applying for funding
assistance under most programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to submit a CHAS for HUD approval. The full CHAS is submitted to
HUD every five years, but the CHAS is updated annually with a One Year Action Plan.
The CHAS is a comprehensive planning document that identifies the City's overall needs for
affordable and supportive housing and outlines a strategy to address these needs. The National
Affordable Housing Act requires the City's CHAS contain elements which describe the City's
housing needs and market conditions, sets out a five year strategy which establishes priorities
for meeting these needs, identifies resources anticipated to be available for the development of
housing, and establishes an investment plan that outlines the planned uses of resources.
The Act also requires citizen input in the process and mandates a thirty day public comment
period as well as a public hearing before City Council. When the public comment period ends
on November, 12 1993, the summary of citizen comments will be prepared. At this point, staff
intends to bring the CHAS and all citizen comments to the Housing Advisory Committee for
11-- /
Page 2, Item /)
Meeting Date 10/19/93
further review and than back to City Council for adoption prior to submission to HUD. The
HUD deadline is December 30, 1993, however, staff anticipates submitting the CHAS almost
one month early.
The City's Draft CHAS identifies the following housing priorities:
1. Preserve Palomar Apartments and Oxford Terrace Apartments because they are "at-risk"
of converting to market rate rentals;
2. Administer the City's housing rehabilitation program entitled the Community Housing
Improvement Program (CHIP);
3. Implement the City's Affordable Housing Program;
4. Assist low, moderate, and middle income residents to purchase a home;
5. Support non-profit corporations to develop affordable housing;
6. Assist mobilehome park residents who are faced with rent increases and park closures;
7. Work with the San Diego County Housing Authority to provide public housing in Chula
Vista and to transition such responsibility to Chula Vista's own Housing Authority;
8. Utilize CDBG funds for supportive services for residents with special needs;
9. Develop a transitional housing shelter.
City Council adopted a CHAS document back in 1991. However, due to the arrival of the new
1990 Census Data, HUD is now requiring that all jurisdictions review their City's housing needs
and strategies with this new information. This new CHAS document will be a planning
document for 1994 through 1999. It might also be mentioned that the CHAS' goals and
priorities run parallel with the City's Housing Element included in the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
[C:\WP51 \COUNCIL\113S\CHAS-93.RA4]
[BEN :\CHASDlSK\CHAS-93.RA4]
1/')..
. ~ .,~~_...------_.......""~"""'""--"..__...- ..",.~.",.~..~-,",-"~."..,.__.~--,,~,..............~~-...-................~_--....""",-,-,,-~-,""""_."^"-"~"~'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
'11.. "
Resolution I~" '" ~ Amending
sets maximum taxicab fares.
Item I 2-
Meeting Date 10/19/93
Resolution 10078 which
Ordinance 2S,"-' Amending sections 5.54.010,
5.54.030, and 5.54.050 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code and adding a new section 5.54.055, relating to
taxicab regulation and licensing.
SUBMITTED BY: cP01'tlyiCMeanChagieer~Z~~:~
REVIEWED BY: ~-O~\ (4/sths Vote Yes__No-K-1
The Police Department is currently responsible for licensing,
regulation and inspection of taxicabs operating in Chula vista.
In the interest of improving the comprehensiveness of inspection
services and freeing up department staff time, staff initially
investigated the merits of entering into an agreement with MTDB to
regulate Chula vista taxicabs. In lieu of that agreement, staff is
now proposing to make certain minor amendments to the Municipal
Code regarding regulation of taxicabs and to issue an RFQ to
approve a list of vendors qualified to perform inspection services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution amending Resolution 10078.
2. Introduce the ordinance for first reading amending sections
5.54.010, 5.54.030, and 5.54.050 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code and adding a new Section 5.54.055, relating to taxicab
regulation and licensing.
3. Direct staff to issue an RFQ for inspection services.
4. Direct staff to bring back a report on regulation of other
paratransit vehicles, such as jitneys and non-emergency
ambulances.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
BACKGROUND:
Chu1a vista has 23 licensed taxicab companies with a total of 136
cabs. The largest three (3) companies control 75% of the local
market. Fifteen of the remaining 20 companies are single-cab
independent operators.
A license to operate in Chula vista grants a company the right to
provide door-to-door service within the city and transportation
\2.-\
Page 2, Item ,~
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
from Chula vista to sites outside the city (e.g. to downtown San
Diego, Lindbergh Field, border crossings) .
Taxicabs are licensed and regulated by Police Department personnel.
This regulation includes an annual safety inspection of each cab by
a Patrol Officer and clerical time spent on scheduling of
inspections, background checks, paperwork, etc.' Additional staff
time is spent by front counter customer service staff to
fingerprint cab owners and issue business licenses. Al though
taxicab companies are subject to an annual business license tax,
there is currently no specific fee to recover inspection costs.
In 1989, MTDB contacted Chula vista to notify the city that it had
been authorized by the Public utilities commission to perform taxi
inspections. Since that time, MTDB has entered into regulatory
contracts with the cities of San Diego, National City, Imperial
Beach, Lemon Grove, EI Cajon, Santee and Poway.
An agreement with MTDB was recently considered in Coronado, but it
was not recommended by staff due to concerns about giving up local
control of taxicab regulation. Although Coronado does not have an
inspection program at this time, the Coronado City Attorney's
office is currently studying an ordinance revision that would
require that cab drivers obtain and present an MTDB safety
inspection certificate. (The Chula vista staff recommendation for
an RFQ would be similar to this tentative Coronado course of
action, but it would also allow inspections to be performed at
places other than MTDB.)
In 1992, Chula vista staff approached MTDB about providing taxicab
regulation services here. Following review of the proposed MTDB
agreement and its potential effects on local taxi operations, staff
is recommending an alternate arranqement which would approve a list
of qualified vendors to which non-MTDB permit holders could take
their taxicabs for inspection. This arrangement would meet the
city's goals for improving service and reducing staff costs but do
so at a lower overall cost to the taxi companies than would the
MTDB agreement.
All 23 taxicab companies have been notified of the meeting date for
this item and of the recommendation contained in this staff report.
, For inspection of all of the city's cabs, this process
takes in excess of 100 staff hours annually (approx. $1,550).
\2..-2
Page 3, Item I~
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
DISCUSSION:
After reviewing several options for taxicab regulation, staff
recommends issuing a Request for Qualifications and approving a
list of garages to which taxicab companies could take their
vehicles for inspection. However, since this recommendation is
built around MTDB's proposal and since that proposal has been the
subject of previous written communications to the Council
(concerning a permit moratorium request from MTDBi see attached),
both the staff recommendation and the MTDB proposal are discussed
in detail.
Differences in Requlations
Both Chula vista and MTDB regulations deal with applications,
insurance requirements, driver ID cards, and background checks for
previous violations in a similar fashion. The major differences
between Chula vista and MTDB ordinances and operations are as
follows:
* Cost to cab companies is higher under MTDB than under the
status quo or staff recommended RFQ option in Chula vista (see
following discussion on Costs: Permit Fees).
* MTDB mechanics examine cabs for mechanical problems as well as
readily-observable safety items. Chula vista currently
assigns a Patrol Officer from the Traffic Division to make
visual safety inspections only. (See attached checklists)
* MTDB conducts two scheduled inspections per vehicle per year.
The Chula vista Municipal Code only requires one inspection
per year.
* Random field inspections are conducted by MTDB inspectors
(MTDB estimate: two per vehicle per year). They may order a
vehicle out of service if it does not meet requirements of the
California Vehicle Code. The Police Department does not
conduct random inspections, but some random inspections could
be added into an RFQ for a slight additional cost per vehicle.
* Complaints by the public are handled by the General Manager of
MTDB via an investigative unit, and if there is a dispute of
the unit's findings, through an administrative appeal process.
Currently, any complaints in Chula vista would be handled by
the CVPD Traffic Division. Although there is no formal
appeals process, department decisions are appealable to the
City Council. (To date, the city has received few complaints
or appeal requests.)
12.-~
Page 4, Item t "2-
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
* MTDB requires that each driver complete a course in personal
driver safety (i.e. in case of hold-ups) and a refresher
course every two years. Chula vista has no such requirement.
Neither the city nor MTDB teaches or assesses driving skills.
* There is currently no difference in MTDB and Chula vista
taxicab insurance requirements (see Aug. 10 Council action)
Regardless of whether an RFQ or the MTDB agreement is chosen for
inspection services, certain sections of the Municipal Code should
be amended. The accompanying ordinance makes the changes necessary
for implementation of the staff recommendation. If Council decides
to adopt the MTDB agreement in lieu of the staff recommendation,
staff would come back with a revised ordinance to implement that
action.
COSTS TO TAXI COMPANIES
Permit Fees
status QUo:
in the city
Currently, Chula vista inspects all taxicabs operating
but does not charge any fees for these inspections.
MTDB: The basic costs to a taxi company under MTDB's proposal
would be $2,000 for a vehicle permit application, $200 for each
additional permitted vehicle, and an annual fee of $400 per
vehicle2. If a company wanted to expand from Chula vista to
another city or vice versa, MTDB would assess a $35 expansion fee
for each additional city. All of these fees would be retained by
MTDB, with no portion of the revenues remitted to the city.
The majority of taxicabs in Chula vista (113 cabs, or 83%) are
already licensed by MTDB so that they can operate in several
cities. The remaining 23 non-MTDB cabs would remain licensed here
under MTDB regulation, but would have the option to expand -- where
license limitations allow -- into other MTDB cities. Existing
Chula vista companies would not initially be subj ect to MTDB' s
permit fees, because their current vehicles would be "grand-
fathered" into MTDB's system. They would be required to pay the
$400 annual fees. New taxicabs not currently in possession of
either a Chula vista or MTDB license would be liable for the $2,000
permit fee.
2 MTDB fees are adjusted annually based on current year budget
and any previous year's deficit or surplus. Because these rate
structures are somewhat complex, several examples are provided in
the attachments, along with a copy of the fee schedule.
12.-""
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
,2.
since the permit fees apply to the cabs and not the companies, any
company wishing to add more cabs in the future (as opposed to
adding new cities to existing cab licenses) would have to pay the
$2,000 and applicable $200 permit fees for the new cabs. This
would apply to new companies and those currently licensed in Chula
vista. If at the time these companies obtain the new licenses they
were to have been operating under Chula Vista or MTDB for less than
two years, they would be subject to an MTDB initial regulatory fee
of $400 per vehicle (in addition to the $400 annual fee).
staff recommendation: staff estimates that through an RFQ which
would provide a list of approved vendors, a thorough annual
mechanical/safety inspection meeting MTDB's stringent inspection
criteria could be contracted and administered by the city for a
cost of roughly $55 per vehicle.3
Business License Taxes
Although business license charges are taxes and bear no direct
relationship to fees for inspection services, they do represent
part of the overall cost to taxi companies. Several of the cities
contracting with MTDB charge an annual business license tax. Area
tax rates are as follows:
3 Based on preliminary bids from three local contractors. As
detailed above, this would not provide the same level of service as
the MTDB agreement would (but it would be a significant improvement
over the way inspections are currently performed).
\2...-5
Page 6, Item ' "2..
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
Jurisdiction Tax MTDB Regulated?
Chula Vista $150 per company No
$25 per vehicle
Carlsbad $25 per vehicle No
Coronado $112 cer vehicle No
El Cajon $50 per vehicle for Yes
first 10 veh.
$1 for add'l veh.
$20 per driver (or
$40 if leased
from outside the
city)
Imperial Beach $160 per company Yes
National City $65 cer vehicle Yes
Oceanside $100 per company No
$60 per vehicle
$50 per driver
$500 franchise fee
every 5 yrs.
poway $0 Yes
San Diego (City) $125 per company Yes
$12 zoning fee
San Diego County $204 per company No
(unincorporated) $50 per vehicle (or
$32 per vehicle
if inspected
elsewhere)
Santee $25 per driver Yes
TABLE 1: Business License Taxes
Chula vista's tax rate
in annual revenues.
unchanged, regardless
inspections.
on taxicabs brings in approximately $6,850
These rates are recommended to continue
of the method or providers of taxi
TAXI MORATORIA/RESTRICTIONS
Moratorium Request in Chula vista
In amending the city's taxi permitting procedures, it is possible
that some potential new operators will find it worth their while to
apply for taxicab permits prior to any new fees becoming effective.
In recognition of this, MTDB requested that the city establish a
moratorium on new permits until the issue of their proposed
\ 2..-(.
Page 7, Item l~
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
agreement is decided (written communications, Aug. 3, 1993; see
attached) .
In the months that this issue has been studied and discussed with
local taxicab companies, only seven new permit applications have
been submitted (which brings the city to its current totals).
Based on this experience, it is unlikely that Chula vista will see
a significant rush for new permits in the coming weeks, therefore,
a moratorium should not be necessary. Chula vista and MTDB staff
concur in this determination and the MTDB moratorium request has
been withdrawn.
FEEDBACK/IMPACTS
Industrv Feedback
Ten taxicab company owners, representing 119 taxicabs attended a
meeting on the proposed MTDB agreement on January 21, 1993, at the
Chula Vista Police Department.
The larger companies, which comprise 80% of the taxicabs in Chula
vista and are already licensed by MTDB, were united in their
support for MTDB regulation. cited as advantages for MTDB:
* One inspection location
* Standardized regulations
* Working with just one agency.
The remaining representatives, who opposed the agreement, were
concerned about:
* Fees charged by MTDB
* Additional regulations
* Permi t caps/Restrictions on access to the San Diego
market without MTDB approval. (San Diego, National City
and Coronado have permit caps in effect. Permits are
generally available by transfer only)
The cities contracting with MTDB report that they have not
experienced any problems with MTDB regulation.
Effect on city Operations
Although the staff recommendation would provide for inspections to
be done by contractors, certain functions would still need to be
performed by the city, namely:
* Verifying that an inspection has been performed/passed
\ "l.-l
Page 8, Item I~
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
* Making copies of driver licensing and insurance records
* Background checks (new companies/owners only)
* Fingerprinting (new companies/owners only; fingerprinting
fees are included in the Master Fee Schedule)
* Issuance of the business license and permit sticker
By having contractors perform inspections and the scheduling of
those inspections, the bulk of the Police and clerical staff time
spent on taxicab regulation would be eliminated.
Under the MTDB proposal, MTDB would perform the first three of the
above tasks in addition to their inspection services. The marginal
savings as compared to the staff recommended RFQ would be
negligible.
Effect on Cab Companies
Neither the RFQ recommendation nor the MTDB agreement would have a
significant effect on existing Chula vista taxicab companies.
Although MTDB's $2,000 permit fee would apply to companies
requesting new vehicle permits, it would not be charged for
vehicles already licensed in Chula vista. The main difference
between the two options is the annual inspection cost:
approximately $55 per vehicle under the RFQ, $400 under MTDB
regulation.
Applicants for new cab permits -- either new companies or existing
companies adding vehicles -- would pay no additional permit fee
under the RFQ option. Under the MTDB agreement they would be
required to pay a $2,000 vehicle permit fee (and $200 for any
additional vehicles permitted at the same time). Although premium
taxi permit prices are customary in the industry, the MTDB fees may
be a disincentive to small or independent cab companies interested
in serving Chula vista customers. They may also prove to be a
disincentive to expansion by smaller existing companies that wish
to add cabs in the future.
For companies wishing to expand the area covered by their cabs to
additional cities (where allowed by permit caps), MTDB regulation
would provide greater flexibility. An existing Chula vista cab
company would only have to pay a $35 fee to add another city to its
service area. Likewise, a company now permitted in San Diego,
National City or Imperial Beach would only need to pay the $35 fee
to add Chula vista to its route.4 Under the RFQ option, a Chula
4 Applicants would also pay the appropriate city's business
license tax.
'2..-~
Page 9, Item I '2.
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
vista company would have to pay the $2,000 MTDB vehicle permit fee
in order to expand to any MTDB cities.
Effect on Fares
Depending on the method of regulation chosen and the cost of that
regulation to the cab companies, there may be some trickle-down
effect on taxicab rates of fare.
According to Resolution 10078, which was enacted by the Council in
1980, the maximum allowable taxicab rates of fare are:
$1.50 for the" flag drop," or initial fare upon passenger
pickup, whatever fraction of a mile that may be
$1.50 for each additional mile
$10 per hour waiting time
These maximum rates have not been updated for inflation since 1980
and have not been enforced. The current averages are approximately
$1.65 for each additional mile and $12.65 per hour waiting time.
Some companies exceed the city's maximum rates by as much as $.50
per mile and $5 per hour.
Staff recommendation: If the RFQ recommendation is adopted, this
resolution should be amended to set new maximum fares which are
more reflective of current market rates. As presently worded, the
resolution being offered tonight would enact new maximum fares, not
to exceed:
$1. 60 for the "flag drop"
$2.00 for each additional mile
$15 per hour waiting time
This action would set Chula vista's maximum fares at a fixed level,
equal to the current averages plus 20%. This would accommodate
those companies which have thus far been allowed to charge more
than the 1980 maximum fares and would mirror the current maximum
fares enforced by MTDB.
Since most taxicab companies are already paying MTDB license fees
and working within MTDB's $2.00/mile maximum fare structure, the
adoption of $2.00 maximum fares and of the recommended inspection
fees in Chula vista should have little impact on the industry and,
thus, little effect on the cost of a taxi ride.
Any future increases in these maximum rates would require
additional City Council action.
\ 2.-Gl
,- _._~.............._~...._,-_..,,-_....-,.._~._~",-,-,--"--"....;.,_......,-~~".--.~~._"...._,.........' "
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date:
17.-
10/19/93
KTDB option: If Council decides to adopt the MTDB agreement in
lieu of the staff recommendation, MTDB's maximum fares (and any
future amendments on their part) would be in force and this
resolution should then be repealed. As with the above staff
recommended option, this would have little effect on the cost of a
taxi ride.
Cost/Benefit Summary
The following chart lays out the direct and indirect costs of the
RFQ option, the proposed MTDB agreement and the current method of
performing inspections in-house.
TABLE 2: Policy Alternatives
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION Status Quo Proposed MTDB Agreement
RFQ for Inspection Services In-House Inspections
Direct N/A. Traffic Division time (100+ N/A
Cost to Contractors would pass along hours annually) spent on
City cost directly to cab companies. taxi regulation. None of
this time is being
reimbursed.
Indirect Traffic Division time (100+ N/A Traffic Division time
Cost to hours) would be available for (100+ hours) would be
City other purposes. Additional available for other
time spent on RFQ/service purposes.
administration could be
recovered through contractor
inspection fees.
Level of Would meet MTDB inspection Inspections are visual Would incl. field
Service standards and provide multiple evaluations only. Does not inspections, driver safety
options for inspection sites. incl. field inspections, training, appeal
Would not incl. field driver safety training, procedures and 2 scheduled
inspections, driver safety appeal procedures or more annual inspections.
training, appeal procedures, or than 1 annual inspection.
more than 1 annual inspection.
Costl Larger/MTDB companies would Large companies: no impact. No signif. impact on
Effect save cost of duplicate Smaller companies would not larger companies. Smaller
on Taxi inspections. Smaller companies have option to expand to companies would be "grand-
Industry would have to start paying other cities, w/out paying fathered" into MTDB &
inspection fees. Would not $2,000 MTDB permit fees. would have option to
have option to expand to other CV inspections: No charge. expand to other MTDB
MTDB cities w/out paying $2,000 cities w/out paying the
permit fee. CV inspections: $2,000 permit fees.
approx. $55/veh./yr. MTDB inspections:
$400tveh./yr.
l1..-\O
.. . ~~~~~-,.~~~_..,~~...............--.------~~--~_.,"~,."""",,-<-~,..--,."~~~.,---,.~I.' "',,, -
Page 11, Item 1'-
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
Basis for staff Recommendation
Although the proposed MTDB agreement offers certain identified
advantages, it is staff's opinion that the city's goals of
improving service and reducing staff costs can be met at a lower
cost to cab companies through an RFQ process to select a list of
approved inspection locations.
Basically, this arrangement would be structured as follows:
* The city would solicit vendors qualified to provide inspection
services
* Inspections would be required to meet the standards currently
in effect with MTDB
* Taxi companies would be allowed to take their vehicles to the
approved vendor of their choice and would pay inspection fees
directly to that vendor
* Remaining city costs for administration of the program would
be collected by the vendors and remitted to the city on a full
cost recovery basis
* Contractual arrangement with certified vendors would include
reasonable contract monitoring measures (e.g spot inspections)
to ensure quality control and protection from fraud.
This recommendation would not provide the same level of service as
would be provided under the MTDB agreement. Specifically, it would
not include: unscheduled field inspections, driver safety training,
formal complaint/appeal procedures, or more than one scheduled
inspection per year. Responding to some of the concerns expressed
by the taxi companies, however, it would:
* Allow current MTDB members to continue having their vehicles
inspected by MTDB and eliminate duplicate inspections by Chula
vista (The RFQ staff recommendation would consider MTDB
inspections as meeting city inspection requirements.)
* Provide non-MTDB companies with several available inspection
locations
* Allow non-MTDB companies to continue operating in Chula vista
without paying MTDB's higher annual fees
* Leave Chula vista without a permit cap or moratorium, thus not
establishing a barrier or disincentive to smaller companies
operating in Chula vista
\2.-'1
. " "_.".,_.~,_".....~m~_.,~_~",,~~~.;."""""~"'-'-"''''~_'''''"~~._.'"",.,._-'".,.<.".,"""'-''-.'"',......''''',..,...,-,~,,-"''"'"""~..,.,.,.~'~...,~.~~...."...~"..~-~.......-.....,-,,-~_.~~~~.'.
Page 12, Item , 2-
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
The increased scrutiny of more in-depth annual inspections under
the RFQ option will provide better safety and security for the
public. Given the fact that Chula vista has not experienced
significant problems with taxi operations, however, staff does not
feel that the two-to-four inspections per vehicle per year which
would be performed under MTDB justifies the additional costs of
such regulation.
Although this recommendation would mean non-MTDB companies would
remain outside MTDB's permitting umbrella and would thus be liable
for the $2,000 permit fee if they choose to join later, staff feels
this alternative provides the greatest benefit to the city and the
least negative impact to current and future cab operators.
Municipal Code Amendments
The changes being recommended in the Municipal Code will clarify
some areas that are currently ambiguous and add language to help
implement the staff recommendation. specifically, these changes
will:
* Remove language which prohibits non-owners from operating
cabs. Other existing language in the code already allows
for cabs to be leased to drivers.
* Add a definition for "flag drop"
* Add minimum criteria for taxi inspections to mirror the
minimum criteria in effect with MTDB.
Other paratransit Vehicles
Although not discussed in this report, staff recommends adopting
new language to govern the operation of other forms of paratransit
such as jitneys and non-emergency medical transport vehicles. The
form of this regulation mayor may not dovetail with the decision
on taxi regulation, and it has thus been postponed pending
resolution of tonight's agenda item. Council should direct staff
to return with this report in the next several weeks.
\1.-\"2-
.. ~. ~_~"~_~__,_,_"""-"~......"_~..,,,..,w..._,,,,",~--_-.<_".,,,,.~~.,~',,",,".~,,",",'~',">, ....,-
" ""_~~"_"_~,-"-~__,,",,,~,__,,_,__,,,"_~,=,,,--"''''.M'''"'''~ ,_
Page 13, Item 17-
Meeting Date: 10/19/93
FISCAL IMPACT:
The staff recommendation will have no direct cost to the city, but
it will free up approximately 100 hours per year of public safety
and clerical staff time currently spent on regulation and
inspection activities.
Attachments 1.
#,{j2.
. 3.
.-LtJ 4.
~~ 5.
~O
A:TXDWJY.III
MTDB paratransit Regulatory Fees - 1993
(includes taxicabs)
Sample costs based on MTDB Fees & RFQ
Chula vista Taxi Inspection Form
MTDB Taxi Inspection Form
Moratorium Request (Written communications,
Aug. 3, 1993)
\'2..-13>
_.............--......_M.....""........._'-'"'-__'__~.~.''''_~,.~'~''.~--
SENT BY:MTDB 9th FLOOR
9-13-93 1:38PM
A t--t/A c.-k Mt A r
4P1
MTDB
t\1<..tICfJUI:I.-U1 Tr.u ~Il D.-,v.-,I, {lIlI':'Ilt IiC';Il(!
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
san DleQo. CA 92101.7490
(818) 231-1488
FAX (810) 234-3407
PARATRANSIT REGULATORYFEES-1993
1. Annual Fee "r Vehicle
1.1 PIua acl'l Jitney I'DUt8 In excess of five per company
1.2 Late payment
1.S lnltlll regullllory f..:
1.$.1 If proprietor or executive offIoer h.. les, than 2 Y"1'8 18 MTOBIOlty permit holder
1.3.2 If more1han 2 yeare experience
1.4 Non-emergency medical vehicle
Z. Permit Application
2.1 Plus eaeh permit In exC888 or one
2.2 Plus Jitney routes in exeelS& of one per vehicle
2.3 PIuB additional charge if appUcent Is a corporation
3. ParatnlnaJt Drlvv Identmeatlon carel
3.1 Temporary driver I.D. card
3.2 Replace Ioat card
3.3 Changw8dd company
.. 400
.,S
1 K of bal8nce
.200% of item 1 '
100% of Item ,. ~. prorated
50% of Item 1 .
$2.000
$200
S 1S0
$400
S 60
. 10
$ 10
S 10
4. Operatlona' RequMte
4.1 Tranafer c1eart.nce $ 20Cl
4.2 Additional Jltnev route for existing parmlt S 160
4.3 Jitney routa change $ 75
4.4 Jitney zone request. if instllIled S 75
4.5 Taxi atlr1d requMl. If Installed $ 76
4.8 flcIitigu. name change; $ 50
.1'Iua(1(lr~ $ 10
" 4.7 Color scheme and radio Mrvlce change; $ SWboth
. Plw pM .,.hit:Ie S 10
4.8 Requ..t for more than eo day. out of ..Niea . $ 35
. Mo,. thin .. per y..-:
4.8 Addr... change $ 10
4.10 Rata at ttn filing per"company; $ 36
. Plus pM 'ieIIIt* $ 10
4.1' Rllptacementvehlcle $ 75
4.12 Add COIpOr8tian gffi;er. each S 100
4.13Add1tian, deletion, or change of atgck holder. uch S 500
MemIler~:
CltyCll Chill VlIta.CltyCll C--. CllyotElCejoll.ca,OIIIft1l*1..8udl. Cltyd l8...... City oIlAmanli_. CltyOlNaIlClnal c~ C~otPowar. CllrclS8n.,...o. CIly of
......CouM'OIISMl:l.. s-.otCdlornl.
MelrclpoIWl1l'lnlll o.v.Iopmentlloald Ie CoordInator 01 lIIe MeIIOpoIileI\ T..- s,-m _II ~ AYItlorltylor [@)P.rahntilAcMli~
......ry~ ~ s.n O.'naneltCoIpQldCln, (i) "'" DleglJTIuIIty.lna.1II1lI ((J SII'I DitllO" .nzonaEutem R111war COIl108/lY
\"2.-1'1
SENT BY:MTDB 9th FLOOR
9-13-93 ,: 41 PM
MTDB 9th FLOOR"
425 6184;# 1
5. Additions' Eligible Strvlw Area
6. V,hlole """'lpeGtlona
6.1 A8 a reault of fai6ng schedulcld inspection, medallion removed
8.3 Reschedule Inspection appointment with 1"11 than 24-hour notice
6.4 NO.8how for inspection appointment
6.5 Supplemental scheduled Inspection
7. In8UranCIII (payable by permit holder)
7.1 Insurance certific<<le. each, more than one per year per company
7.2 Initial ,evlew of Pr0p05ed lr\Suranee company
7.3 Initial &ubmktal of insurance agent errors and omiHions covaraga
7.4 Initial review 01 self-insurance, per ..If.lnsurance certificate
7.s Re\'lew of proposed Insurance policy
7.8 Review of renewal of 8)llsting insurance policy
7.7 Assigned risk submittal. each
7.8 R,!,viewof risk retentIOn group
$35
Aft: ~ r
$95
$25
$ 50
$36
S 26'
$100
'25
'100
$ 50 plus actual ooet per hour
$ 25 plus actual cost per hour
$25
$ 1 00 plus actual cost pet hOUr
P.VMENT
The 1993 annual vehlde f.. ia due for uoh permit held as of January 1, , 993. Irrespective of whether the pIilrmlt ia later transferred.
abandoned, or revoked.
For pcilnnl1e Issued after JanullrY. thelnltlall'8gulatory fee is payable In fun whliln the permit Is iULled.
Other fen are due when request II made.
CONTACT
MTDB
Pariltranait Regulatory Admlnl8tra1ion
1256 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 02101.7490
(819) 567-4518
a.l."li'
N!C1N18.1LL
\2-\5
ATTACHMENT 2:
Item
Mtg Date
10/19/93
SAMPLE COSTS WI MTDB REGULATION
Existing
Chula Vista Companies New Companies
Af~ckN'\~i\t
tFd.-
SAMPLE COSTS WI
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
(Inspection RFQ)
One Cab
$400 Iveh.lyr
555 Iveh. inspection
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
TOTALS: First Year
Slbsequent Yrs
5575
5575
Three Cabs
$400 Iveh.lyr
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
TOTALS: First Year
Slbsequent Yrs
51,425
51,425
COMPANIES ADDING CABS.
52,000 permit
$400 Iveh. initial reg.
$400 Iveh.lyr
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
52,975
5575
52,000 permit
5200 ea. add'l permit
$400 Iveh. initial reg.
$400 Iveh.lyr
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
55,025
51,425
Under MTDB Regulation, if
in business w/city or MTDB:
More than 2 years Less than 2 years
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
5230
5230
555 Iveh. inspection
5150 business license
525 Iveh.
5390
5390
Under CV
Inspection RFQ
One More Cab
52,000 permit
$400 Iveh.lyr
555 Iveh. inspection
+ bus. license
525 Iveh.
TOTALS: First Year
Slbsequent Yrs
52,425
$425
Three More Cabs
52,000 permit
5200 ea. add'l permit
$400 /veh./yr
+ bus. license
525 Iveh.
TOTALS: First Year
Slbsequent Yrs
53,675
51,275
52,000 permit
$400 Iveh. initial reg.
$400 Iveh .Iyr
+ bus. license
$25 Iveh.
52,825
$425
52,000 permit
5200 ea. add'l permit
$400 Iveh. initial reg.
$400 Iveh .lYr
+ bus. license
525 Iveh.
$4,875
51,275
+ bus. Ii cense
525 Iveh.
sso
sso
555 Iveh. inspection
+ bus. license
525 Iveh.
5240
5240
. Fees to add new cabs would be required of both new companies and existing Chula Vista cOl'll'8nies "grand-
fathered" into MTDB licensing program. These fees would not apply to existing cOl'll'8nies adding cabs
to their permits (535 per city).
\ ;2.- ,~
4-f'fA-c-L...IVl~Jrf
:t;I:::5
TAXI INSPECTION
COMPANY NAME
COMPANY ADDRESS
(Number)
VEHICLE:
YEAR MAKE
VEHICLE 1. D. t
DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE:
COLOR OF ROOF BODY
DESCRIPTION OF INSIGNIA
PHONE
(Street)
(City)
(State)
(Zip)
BODY STYLE
LICENSE t
TAXI i_
FENDERS
DESCRIPTION OF OVERHEAD LIGHT
SEATING CAPICITY
SEAT BELTS AVAILABLE FOR EACH PASSENGER
VEHICLE INVENTORY
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
TIRE CONDITION
HEAD LIGHTS
TAIL LIGHTS
BRAKE LIGHTS
TURN INDICATORS
PARKING BRAKES
STEERING MECHANISM
CVC SEC~ 27908(a) : SIGN REQUIRED NO SMALLER THAN 4" X 6"
OVERALL CONDITION OF VEHICLE
SERIAL t
DATE INSP.
TAXIMETER: MAKE
FARES USED
AUTHORIZED BY
LOCATION FARES POSTED
APPROVED
INSPECTED BY
DISAPPROVED
DATE
1'1.- \J
SENT BY:MTDB 9th FLOOR
i 9-13-93 i 1:39PM;
MTDB 9th FLOOR"
~
PARA TRANSIT REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION A-r*~c:..lvA~ f\+
VEHICLE INSPECTION NOTICE dF +
Wha-Permlt Holder
YlI11ow-Vehlcle RIe
I'lnk.-Vehlole IOllpGotor
GokHJlllee Oopy
425 6184i# 2
Date:
To:
Your vehlGle. mec:tallon #
at 1601 Newton Ave" s.n DIego.
This Is the EICt1.lallnepection report we will flll.oU1. When you, or your. representative. arrive at the InBpeotlon site. you must give the fOllowing
itams te the Inspector befOre we will begin to Inspect your IIthlcl..
1. This form signed and dated by the permit holcler.
2. The current whicle registratIon.
Allow 30 to eo minutes per Inspectlon.
If you have any questiona concerning what will pass. refer tel "Paratranslt VehicllJ Imlpectlon Guidelines". This Information Is aVaIlable In our office.
PLEASE READ REVERSE SID. 01' THIS "ORM FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON
Company name
. has been echeduled for Inspection on
It
Permit Holder
Date
PAAATRANSIT VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT - (FOR MTDI USE ONLY)
, .... I" :-M' ~! " " . .. ~. 'f .:,' :. 1<::. " .....: .:' . ~~" ,:; ,:, .', " I. "II' '!.
. .~.~. :.ol'..:.-.:i.."'.' '.' ~ ~ .. Time' ~ M' . ,""'" '.. ~.~. . .. "~ No" ',.- ..... . '. ,. ,\.
~, :~ ~ 'CtI~mn S8~~ ~. ,L:. ~. ,',~ ~~ P: " ~~ :;' l ~ ~ .~:,:: .... :.~, :~.: " ' ~,. . " ,41. '~: 'tv.:" . ~.;..' rf ., .~~ .~. ::~ jW ,
,,___ Raplaee_ V!ilhfcle ...~, \tooi"'iM.ke' '. .., . :.>: ~. . . 'fl' ,t ~ c;~"'lnlt ..j!-~ '.. ' ~. . .'. ~: -'.. .
~, 'i '~==~~.~~j,du~ . ~ ~~~. ;.> ~~;l~ ::. .:'. .' .' .~: .~ ~ . .: .,~;& ":: ~ ".~.lQ~I~:.7' .,,~:; :{ ~ <. < ,So :,' .;,. .~>. .~. ':'.
'~.0Qd9. OomDlilllc, Aehrral (_htd) . .., .'. .... ~ ~. ~. .... '!l, "t.. . ":"~; ~. . .. . ~' f< '. ;:. ',: '.;. '.' . :
:':')j1~urn1DS8~"", . ...".' "LicenH'II$# .; .'. ~. '(t:.. ""~:Ii." ~ .'.' ..... ." ,...'" ',~. ,..:
" ,. ~. iP.ei-Yeh1cte .:~. '.:j !:~. ....,:, H" :)~. :. . ':. );. 'i " 1~ '~:.';: .,~! ;, .~. ...... , ::;,: t~l; .\. : .'. '~,.. .' -. " .~. . . " .,~. ". " ..
.,: " ... ~ ',. ',: . B!XWNP" ., ., ., .... .". ." l\: .f,; :-Slaf!.:s"nilu '.:
,:~... ,.:. '!",", '. A ~' '. "';," ',' ,. -t, ,r..:' ,.!: i ';:; '., . ::~l\.'~ '". ':-J r;
BRAKESlnFlES PA$$ R~N FAIL ENGINE COMPARTMENT PASS
-1.1 Available PeclaI Q [J [J -4.1 Fuel LIne 0
.1.2 Brake System l.&lIks, etc. C (J (J "4.2 011 Leaks C
-1.3 Emergency Brake (J 0 CI --4.3 Water Leaks, HoseJRadlator, etc. IJ
-1.4 Tire 'Tl'ead Wear/Other C [J (J .04.4 Belts CJ
EXTERIOR -04.5 HoocI Latch. 0
"'2.1 Headlights (hi;h & low beam) (J (J C --4.8 operatiOn/Engine C
-2.2 Signal Lighb; (both) lJ (J (J 4.7 aattery Connections. CabJ98, etc. [J
"2.3 Taillights (both) C CJ 0 4.8 Uncontalnecl Combustbles (J
.2.4 Brake Ught! (both) 0 0 (J FLUID LEVELS
"2.5 Top Lights (both) 0 (J (J .-5.1 Power Steering .
"2.6 Mirrors (all 3) C (J 0 -.5.2 Automatic Transmission
'.2.7 Windshields 0 0 I:l ".5.3 En~ir'l8 Oil
..2.S Body ConditionIDents, etc, Cl IJ C CHASSI$JSUSP&NSION
..2.9 Posted Rates of Fare' (J (J r:J ..61 St I G and M .
..2.10 Driver Safety System [J Q 1:1 . eer ng ear ountlrlJ
2.11 Reverse Lights (beth) 1:1 (J I;;J ..e.2 SU!lpeneJon System
2.12 Fuel Cap IJ 0 Q ."5.3 Exhaust System
2.13 Paint Faded. Chipped, Pe41led 0 (J ~ D~FlS OperatelSecurell.oc:k
2.14 Emergency Flashers C (J CJ 7.2 HandrallslArmr88t8
2.15 Markings [J 0 IJ 7.3 Wlndow/Ol'Wllration
2.16 Hub Cap$ IJ (J Q ......
2.17 Cleanliness lJ (J Q TRUNK
INTERIOR 8.1 Spate Tire aOO EqulpmentlRDad Service 0
-3,1 Horn (J [J (J e.a CleanlinoeelCondltlon [J
-3.2 Windshield Wipers (J IJ (J 8.3 Securely Latctled 0
-3.3 SeatslSeatbelts 0 IJ [J ALL PAlU.TRANSIT VEHICLES (EXCEPT TAXIS)
-3.4 Meter Seals/Operation 0 IJ a "9.1 . Fire extinguisher Q
.-3.5 DefrosttrlHtater Operation Q 0 Q -g.2 Reflectors 0
-3.8 Radie fWsponselScanner (J l:I 0 9.3 First Aid Kit 0
3.7 Dash GaugeslOdometer Q [J C "10.0 Other
3.8 Cleanliness 0 0 [J
3.9 Condition (J Q Q
3.1 0 Alllnt8l'Ior LJghts (J 0 0
1:1
Q
Cl
o
o
(J
(J
tJ
I:)
FAIL
(J
(J
CJ
o
(J
(J
(J
o
o
CJ
o
o
IJ
o
Q
C
Q
[J
(J
(J
o
CJ
o
o
1:1
(J
(J
(J
Q
1:1
C
(J
(J
Q
(J
(J
(J
c
c:omrn.,l1t1I;
In &iwvk;e 1:1 Out of SotvlCillJ N;ext FlecommendllCllnopeollon
. CMr1I8IIrrlc/l .. ~ 011I(( s.M:>s .
----_..-_._~-------------------------~----------------------------_.-_------~--------------------~..-_.------_.---------------.---------.-------
Signed:
,.-
5193
Metropolitan "D'anllt Development Bcard
Paratranelt RegUlatory AdmInistration
125ei Ilf1)erlal Avenue. Suite '000, San 01800, CA 92'01-7490 (619) 557-4518
I 2.-1 %
-
- MTDB ~
Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
A-rrtAc.k~U\ -r
..5
June 23, 1993
G-L 1, T 370
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista," CA 91910-2631
Dear John:
This letter is to request that the City of Chula Vista enact a moratorium,
effective as soon as possible, to temporarily cease issuance of taxicab
permits. We ask that the moratorium remain in effect until the City decides,
whether to enter into an agreement with MTDB for MTDB to license taxicabs an~
other for-hire vehicles in the City of Chula Vista. It is my understanding
that a draft agreement is currently under consideration by your staff.
My request comes at this time as a result of observations and comments by a
"peer review panel" that reviewed MTDB's taxicab licensing last week. In
review of our goal for regionwide taxi permits, the panel members felt that a
moratorium would support the regional permit system.
If you have any questions, or if we can assist you or your staff, please feel
free to give me a call.
~~
Thomas F. Larwin
General Manager
TFL:dag
L-GOSS.TFL
cc: Barbara Lupro
Member Agencies: . ..
City of Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of EI CaJon, City of Imperial Beach, City of La Mesa, City of Lemon Grove, City of National City, City of Poway, City of San Diego, City of
Santee, County of San Diego, State of California
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authority for ~ Paratransit Administration
Subsidiary Corporations: ~ San Diego Transit Corporation, [j] San Diego Trolley, Inc. and [I] San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
\2.-\Q .
The City of San Diego
MANAGER'S
REPORT
DATE ISSUED:
October 6, 1993
REPORT NO.: 93-289
ATTENTION
.
.
Transportation and Land Use Committee, Agenda of
October 13, 1993
SUBJECT
.
.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
Agreement for Regulation of Taxicab and other For-
Hire Passenger Vehicles
REFERENCE
City Manager's Report No. 88-323 and 87-438
SUMMARY
Should the City amend its agreement with MTDB to
provide for regulation of taxicabs and other for-
hire passenger vehicles?
Manager's Recommendation - Amend the existing agreement to
provide for an additional five (5) year period of operation,
from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1999.
Issue
Other Recommendations - None
Fiscal Impact - None with this action. Currently, state law
requires that taxicab and other for~hire vehicle operators pay
fees to MTDB to offset 100% of MTDB's administrative costs.
BACKGROUND
Prior to July, 1988, the City regulated the operation of taxicabs
and other for-hire passenger vehicles. Effective July 1, 1988 the
City and MTDB entered into an agreement to provide for a transition
of full responsibility to MTDB. In December, 1988, the agreement
was amended to authorize MTDB to regulate taxicab and other for-
hire vehicles for a five-year period from January 1, 1989 through
December 31, 1993. In transferring this regulatory function to
MTDB, the City eliminated staff and sections of the municipal code
related to taxicab and other for-hire vehicles.
MTDB is authorized under section 120266, Chapter 2, Division 11 of
the-California Public utilities Code (PUC) to enter into contracts
to regulate transportation services within a city in its area of
jurisdiction. The City of San Diego is within MTDB's jurisdiction
which was created in 1976 under the California PUC.
/;2---21
...
DISCUSSION
After considerable study, the City requested that MTDB assume the
responsibility for taxicab and other for-hire vehicle regulation
primarily because it was felt that MTDB, as a specialized agency
with transportation planning and operational expertise, was in a
unique position to evaluate and coordinat c a number of
transportation alternatives. It was also felt .at the technical
resources available to MTDB along with its reg~:nal, multi-modal
approach to public transit enabled it to determ1ne the supply and
mix of transit permits within its service ar~a based on more
comprehensive data. (See City Manager's Reports: o. 88-323 and 87-
438 for additional background information)
After MTDB assumed this regulatory responsiblity, the following
improvements have taken place:
· A certified.vehicle inspection facility is in use
· Criteria to assure safety of vehicles has been
established
· Operational Improvements at Lindbergh Field, including
uniform fares, have taken place
· A Personal Safety Training and Emergency Signal Program
are requirements
· A Regulatory Investigator to deal with passenger
complaints is provided
· An aministrative process to adjudicate complaints is in
operation
· Field Code Compliance Inspectors are provided
· Public marketing efforts have been implemented
Since MTDB is still in the best position to provide a regional
approach to regulation of taxicab and other for-hire vehicles, and
our experience under the current agreement has been positive, it is
fel t that it is in the Ci ty' s best interest to continue its
agreement with MTDB.
since the current agreement with MTDB expires on December 31, 1993,
City Council action is needed to either extend the agreement or the
City will need to take back the regulatory function or find another
alternative.
REPLY TO CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
1. A certified vehicle inspection facility is in use.
COMMENT: Taxis were inspected under the city and could and would be put OUT OF
SER VICE for safety violations at the yearly inspection or in the field (see Paratransit
Vehicle Inspection dated 6/19/SYJ for my own cab).
81
MTDB enlarged the scope of that inspection as can be seen on the MTDB inspection report
dated 9/17/92. No cost benefit analysis was every conducted using empiricial evidence
to show that enlargement of that scope was necessary or beneficial as those costs are
passed through to the public in higher fares.
2. Criteria to assure safety of vehicles has been established.
COMMENT: That criteria existed before as can be seen by the inspection forms. My
own city attorney's office drafted those criteria, not MTDB. Those were in the San Diego
Municipal Code prior to transfer to MTDB.
3. Operational improvements at Lindbergh Field including uniform fares, have taken place.
COMMENT: We in the industry gave up competitive fares at the airport in order to work
there, as certain members of the Port were threatening to franchise it if we didn't go
along. The move itself was illegal and could have been challenged in court had we wanted
to cut off our nose to spite our face.
As far as operational improvements, they were made by the Port of San Diego. That
is another jurisdiction.
4. A personal safety training and emergency signal program are requirements.
COMMENT: No cost benefit analysis. No empiricial evidence presented to show usefulness.
Considered useless by experienced drivers.
5. A regulatory Investigator to deal with passenger complaints is provided.
COMMENT: A clerk did it under the city. A clerk did it under MTDB. Three years into
MTDB, the General Manager paid for one night course in interviewing techniques.
6. An administrative process to adjudicate complaints is in operation.
COMMENT: That legislative drafting was done by my city attorney's office and was
in the San Diego Municipal Code. I have previous code plus line in/line out version. MTDB
has no legal support services. (see report)
7. Field compliance inspectors are provided.
COMMENT: Code compliance has insufficient power to carry out Ordinance in purpose
and intent (see report, chapter 5).
8. Public marketing efforts have been implemented.
COMMENT: Where? As a member of the Taxi Liaison Committee, I've seen an elementary
school report on mass transit where they tell the kids what a taxi is. So,... maybe they'll
take a cab when they grow up and tip the cabbie nice.
/"--'-'
c:J c:7 ..-L--
I
.~
.~o
.
.
PARATRANSIT VEHICLE INSPECTION
DATE:
~/;1/ ff
COMPANY NAME:
:;;1 M \c-r
7J'tx I
,
MED# ti'7c BODY# t(7c
Taxi ID Vehicle exterior I
Business License Paint
I Vehicle Registration Lettering I
Meter seal Phone numbers !
Spare .tire - Wipers I
Rates of fare Horn
Vehicle interior Headlights ,
i
Seat belts . Parking/turn signals ,
I
Rearview mirrors (UR) Brake lights !
I Doors operable Backup lights I
I Windows operable Taillights !
Seats Emergency Brake !
I Dome light Tires I
I Rate stickers on doors Triangles I
I
1 Business info-sticker Fire extinguisher
, I Defroster First Aid Kit
i Map Book Other !
COMMENTS:
RETURN DATE:
PAss.A ,I:
FAil
PO-966 LO
I
-, -;
/ d <:;--_)
~,
PARATRANSI' lEGULATORY ADMINISTRATION
VE~.!lCLE INSPECTION NOTICE
WIlII-"ermn HOlOer
Yellow-Vehide File
Pink-Vehide Inspector
GoIO-Offic:e Copy
"
Q.ate: 8/11/92
Company name
To: DAVIS, DA({LENE . ~ ~
VOl' ,"cle, medalllo' . T 470 , has been scheduled fo"nspect~ ?l~~ /92 . .-J
at 1 ~ _. Newton Ave., San Diego. ,
This is the actual inspection report we will fill out. When you, or your representative, arrive at the inspection site, you must give the following
items to the Inspector before we will begin to inspect your vehicle.
1. This form signed and dated by the permit holder.
2. The current vehicle registration.
Allow 30 to 60 minutes per inspection. .
If you have any questions concerning what will pass, refer to "Paratransit Vehicle Inspection Guidelines"., rrs information. is available in our
office. i
PLEASE READ REVERSE SI05.9f THI? "RM FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
/d!d~~l/~- ir;/ d'f;it~~
1. ' . '....... - ~" , ..".-', .-,.. . . Permit Holder- ,- .~,.--
.... .-, .. ..
9:00 a.lII.
. 9/;7/91, . -..' .
'\ .--.,..,..... .',. '"/ 'Date '9"', ~
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - (FOR MTDB USE ONLY)
TYPE
- Permit Issuance
d Replacement Vehicle
r Scheduled
...-- Supplemental Schedule
- Code Compliance Referral (attached)
- Return to Service
- Spare Vehicle
- Other
EX. .IOR PASS
1.0 Hub Caps 0
1,1 Headlights (high and low beam) []
1.2 Signal Lights (both) (]
1.3 Taillights (both) 0
1.4 Brake Lights (both) 0
1.5 Reverse Lights (both) 0
1.6 Top Lights (both) 0
1.7 Fuel Cap ~
1.8 Windows (all)-Cracks
'.9 'Mirrors (all 3) , .:....;.. ..
'.10 Body Condition-Dents (etc.)
1.11 Paint.Faded, Chipped. Peeled
1.12 Posted Rates of Fare
. 1.13 Emergency Flashers
TRUNK
2.0 Securely Latched
2.1 Spare lire & Equipment
2.2 Cleanliness
DOORS
3.0 Operate-Secure
3.1 Hand Rails
3.2 Window-Operation
INTERIOR
4.0 Cleanliness
4.1 "")10
PARATRANSIT VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
'\ O~.,\
Jf$lIt~
l._/ 7 (' -:;
FAIL
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D 4.9 Clutch Pedal.Operation
0.' "
. "'0:"; 1EN~INE:-COMFlART~EI'(r;
o 5.0' Hood Latch i '
o 5.1 Uncontained Combustibles
o 5.2 Fuel Leaks
o 5.3 Oil Leaks
5.4 Water Leaks. HoseJRadiator, etc,
5.5 Belts
5.6 Battery Connections-Cables. etc.
~
~
~
~
o
lime
Year/Make
Mileage
Licence Plate #
Body No.
INTERIOR (cont.)
4.2 Wipers
4.3 All Interior Lights
4.4 Dash Gauges/Odometer
4.5 Defroster/Heater-Operation
4.6 Seats/Seatbelts Secure
4.7 Emergency Brake-Holds
4.8 Meter Seals/Operation
D
o
D
FLUID LEVEL.S
6.0 Power Steering
6.1 Automatic Transmission
6.2 Engine Oil
6.3 Clutch Fluid
BRAKES
7.0 Available Pedal
7.1 Brake System.Leaks. etc.
PASS FAIL
D 0
DiD
o D
D 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
Date
Staff Signature
CHASSIS/SU ENSION
8.0 lire Treao-Wear/Other
8.1 Exhaust System
Mounting-Condition
8.2 Steering Gear and
Mounting-Condition
FAIL
o
D
o
ALL PARATRANSrr VEHICLES EXCE
TAXIS
9.0 Fire Extinguisher
..... "- ~1 :':'R9flectors. .;..,..;...:..t~.::.~,.-
o 9.2 First Aid Kit
o
o
D
D
o Other:
o
o
.:0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments:
o 0
0)0
o 0
o 0
0'0
01 0 Signed:
I
Metropolitan Transit Development 'Board
Paratransit Regulatory Administration
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000, San Diego, CA 9210'-7490 (619) 231-7648
9190
. _.._-{~ ~c) L(-----.---.-.
TAXI REPORT
by
Darlene D. Davis
----
( ,) -- .?-S
FOREWORD
The purpose of this report is to highlight errors made by the MTDB in regulating
taxis and paratransit vehicles for the City of San Diego.
MTDB is ill-equipped to handle the tasks common to a municipality. Their code
enforcement is limited, lack sworn office status and so cannot handle misdemeanors. As
such, there is no deterrent to serious code violation.
. MTDB's quasi-judicial function cannot be handled cheaply in-house. Expensive
outside counsel has to be retained. This has led to attempts of political pressure from
certain members of the industry upon MTDB to charge cabdrivers for costs, if an appeal
is lost. If eventually successful, this would end due process except for the most
financially well situated. This is not a condition in which most cabdrivers exist.
San Diego made the mistake of abandoning us to MTDB, and it can only be
remedied by bringing us back.
. 'I ') .-,
\ ,;r -,7 (jL
TABLE OF CONTENT
Why are we at MTDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Who put us here? ......................................... 2
Violation of City Charter ....... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Regulation ............................................. 4
Code Compliance Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Jurisdictional Errors ....................................... 6
MTDB v. Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 7
Denial Due Process I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Denial Due Process II ...................................... 9
Inappropriate Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Enhancement Provision .................................... 11
Ordinance Changes/Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Hearing Costs .......................................... 13
Conclusion ............................................ 14
Recommendation ........................................ 15
d -;;)- I
WHY ARE WE AT MTDB?
The following transcription is from a March 8, 1990 MID Board meeting on taxi
rates of fares.
- 1 -
! d -~ '0
city of San Diego, I think offered this to MTDB is authority.
Why MTDB took it was in order to be in a position to regulate '
public transit in
the broadest possible sense
over this
particular area. The Chairman possibly has a different version
of that, but I don't think that the counsel was doing it because
this body would be forced to make those decision, but rather this
body might be in a better position to make those decision with
respect to other things that were to be decided.
Somehow the
consideration of this issue seems to be going in the opposite
direction from that spirit as I understood it.
CHAIRMAN: Well there are a lot of issues involved in being pu~
over to MTDB and offered is perhaps one way of putting it, pushed
is a better way of putting it.
I don't think that MTDB desired
this honor at the time, at least I don't recall that I did.
There was a problem that the city had which was a substantial
money losing operation, the fees were not covering anything like
the cost of regulation, and they did not want to raise the fees
because it would have been politically hot for them, so it was
passed to MTDB which was given the authority to do it only if it
covered the costs from fees and that took the heat off of
everybody because it was the State Legislature that made that
requirement. I am going to express myself on this issue somewhat.
I must tell you that I would be delighted to have this passed
back to the city, it would be a real pleasure to me.
I don't
think any of these meetings have been the kind of thing that any
of us have enjoyed.
However, I think, I don't personally think
that it is the right response to this issue to either consider
LJ c
1 ,J
r() -c-) q
WHO PUT US HERE?
Yeas:
W olfsheimer
Roberts
McCarty
McColl
Pratt
Struiksma
Henderson
Mayor O'Connor
Nays:
Filner
The pertinent document is enclosed.
- 2 -
(J "'-"',
':J ~-~(j
;1./ -'
,-
'.
COpy
.~~
MTDB Doc. No. 00-89-502
Amendment No.1
T 370
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF PARATRANSIT REGULATIONS
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City
of San Diego, a municipal corporation and chartered city, herein called "City,"
and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, a public agency,
herein called "MTDB," for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1993.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, MTDB is authorized under Section 120266, Chapter 2, Division 11
of the California Public Utilities Code to enter into contracts to regulate
transportation services within a city in its area of jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego is within MTDB's jurisdiction created
January 1, 1976 under Section 120050, et seq., Chapter 2, Division 11 of the
California Public Utilities Code; and
WHEREAS, the City regulates paratransit vehicles in accordance with
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter VII, Article 5, the Paratransit Code, and
Council Policy 500-2; and
"~'C;'JMEN7 No.~272517
DEe 2
~ OF THE CITY CLERK
;IEGO, CALiFORNIA
l:;J .~ ,~ I
WHEREAS, the City desires that MTOa regulate such vehicles and services
pursuant to PUC Section 120266; and
WHEREAS, the City and MTOB entered into an Agreement For The Administration
Of Paratransit Regulations to provide for an orderly transition for MTDB to
adopt regulations and fee schedules, hire staff, provide office space and equip-
ment. and otherwise assume full responsibility for this function effective
January 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, The City and MTOa desire to now enter into a First Amendment to
authorize MTOB to regulate Paratransit services for a five-year period;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the City and MTOB agree as
followS:
1. MTOa will administer and enforce its Paratransit Ordinance, policies
and regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1989, and as thereafter from time
to time amended by MTOa," and thereby regulate such paratransit vehicles and
transportation services rendered wholly within the City's corporate limits
during the period ending Oecember 31, 1993 pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Section 120266.
....
-.
MTCB will collect and administer all such regulatory fees, fines and
forf~itures as now or hereafter provided by the MTCa Paratransit Ordinance,
poli;~es and regulations.
;. .. ,-2;_ ~<<2--.
<.7 '-"/
3. MTDB will assume all rights, responsibilities and duties of the City
effective January 1, 1989, with regard to all then pending permits, applications,
hearings and other such paratransit matters.
4. The City Manager and the MTDB General Manager may supplement this
First Amendment to Agreement by executing a Memorandum of Understanding relative
to administrative and operating procedures of paratransit regulation, and to
provide for reimbursable staff and legal support services.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, this First Amendment to Agreement is executed by the
City acting by and through
No. R- 272517
this /~-I:Jt. day of De(rJJ:J,M~r
its City Manager pursuant to Council Resolution
, and by MTDB acting through its General Manager; dated
1988.
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
_~f V~L .~
Cl anager I
~~.<Y~
Thomas F. Larwin
General Manager
We hereby approve the form and legality of the foregoing Amendment to Agreement.
~~J
Jack Limber
General Counsel
Date:
Date:
JPL:lst
msl, 11/23/88
-3-
'7
/ d- -~3
If 27251';
(R-89-1088)
RESOLUTION NUMBER R- 272517
ADOPTED ON ~
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, that
the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to
execute, for and on behalf of said City, a first amendment to the
agreement with SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
to regulate paratransit services for a five-year period, under
the terms and conditions set forth in the First Amendment to
Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.
RR-272517
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to transfer all pending administrative matters, permit
applications, appeals, etc., to San Diego Metropolitan Transit
Development Board pursuant to such agreement.
APPROVED: John W. Witt, City Attorney
BY~iH~~ . 2
eputy City Attorney
,
RH:mrh
11/23/88
Or.Dept:Fin.Mgmt.
R-89-1088
Form=r.auagr
-PAGE 1 OF 1-
!eoLr3<C-/
.
Passed and adopted by the Council of The City of San Diego on
by the following vote:
YEAS :
Wolfsheimer, Rcbert.s 1 McColl, Pratt, S truiksma, Henderson,
McCarty, Mayor 0 'Connor.
/
NAYS: Filner .
NOT PRESENT: None.
AUTHENTICATED BY:
MAUREEN O'CONNOR
Mayor of The City of San Diego, California
CEARLES G. ABDELNOUR
City Clerk of The City of San Diego, California
(SEAL)
By:
RHONDA R. EAmES
, Deputy
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy' of RESOLUTION NO. R- 272517 , passed
and adopted by_~he Council of The City of San Diego, California
DEe 121986
on
CHARLES G. ABDELNOUR
City Clerk of The City of San. Diego, California
(SEAL)
By:
;f~~ ~
,,/'
&..~
'.
, Deputy
,IJ I' "'~'
. d --:7)
VIOLATION OF CITY CHARTER
... and as therefore from time to time amended by MTDB ...
MTDB Doc. No. 00-89-502
(See Chapter 2, Page 2)
Therefore, it is clear that a majority of the City Council believes that the charter
is something to circumvent when it fails to coincide with its agenda ...
There is something inherently wrong with one branch of government giving
another branch something that doesn't belong to it in the first place.
Ron Roberts
San Diego Union-Tribune
October 6, 1993
- 3 -
(. .'j ~3 (y
c7 ,
11
12.
13
14
15
16
. -
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 27
"" ...28
'.--.-.
.
.
In the City of San Diego all -_ municipal- legislative
power is vested in the San Diego City Council. SanDiego
City Charter. Article III Section 22.
,/
This Section reads as follows:
SEC. 11. LEGISLATIVE POWER.
All legislative powers of the City shall
be vested, subject to the terms of this
Charter and of the Constitution of the
State of California, in the Council, ex-
cept such legislative powers as are
reserved to the people by the Charter
and the Constitution of the State.
""f
..
Furthermore, the legislative power cannot be delegated
;:.- .
away to another agency_ Charter of.the City of San Diego
I
. .
Article III Section 11.1.
. ,-
; ~ .... ~
;...-
This Section reads as follows:
SEC. 11.1
DELEGABLE.
LEGISLATIVE POWER -- NON-
8
)'d ~/
1
2
S
4
5 .,
6
7
8
9
10
.. ..
11
12
l.
IS .
14
. .
15
16
17
18
19
--. - --20 . ..--
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.The same Drohibition aaains~ ~~leaati~n
of the leaislative Dowe~ w i is'-
Dosed on the State Leaislat~;; b; i;-
ticle XI. Section Ila of t~ ;o~~~~~~-
tion of the State of Calif r i~ Do f
aDDlv,to the Citv c~uncil~: ;h: ;i~; ~~_H
San D~eao. so that ~ts me r h n
Qeleaate leaislative D~w;r or respon-
sibility which they were elected to ex-
ercise in the adoption of any ordinance
or resolution which raises or spends
public monies, including but not limited
to the City's annual budge ordinance or
any part thereof, and the' annual or-
dinance setting compensation Ior City'
employees, or anv ordinance or resolu-:,
'tion settina 'Oublic Dolicy ._. .p .
The City Council shall annually adopt an
ordinance establishing, .,$alaries for all'
City employees. The CIty Council shall
adopt this ordinance no later than May
30 of each year after considering all
relevant evidence including but not
limited to the needs of services, the
ability of the citizens to pay for those
services,- local economic conditions and
other relevant factors as the Council
deems appropriate. The City Council
shall give priority in the funding of
municipal services to the need of the
citizens for police protection in con-
sidering adoption of this salary or-
dinance and the annual budget ordinance. .
The prohibition imposed by this section
against unlawful delegation of the
. --"legislative responsibility to set com-
pensation for city employees shall ex-
tend to any scheme or formula which
seeks to fix the compensation of City of ,-
San Diego employees at the-level of com-
pensation paid to employees of any other~
public agency whose governing board is-
not elected by and not accountable to
the people of the City of San Diego.
This prohibition shall also extend to
any scheme or formula which seeks to
fix, establish, or adjust the compensa-
tion of City of San Diego employees at
the level of the largest cities in
California or the State of California.
. 9
/ ;)--3S::
~.- -- ..".
.. . . ".:;;;." -.:....-
/-
I
,
.
. .
.11
. r.~
~
. .
.' ..
. !
.
. ~.
3
"
5
6
7
- -,... 8
.'
'.', .,..- ..~_.
:7:~~2L,::.:::.-;::., 9
-' -.~,"--..;:"'.- -
- .~ - . . ~.- . -....-. . -,"
'.~~..:'_.::?;.~~ ."....
:. ';''::-~'''''-''". .:': "10
,0.
11
12
13
14
~. ..': '.
". ~_~; ~ 0:.-:: : _ .,.
~-. . .
',.-<:::..... .
'--'c' .1-'--
:.~~~~~:"
........--
. -. - ~ .
-.. -:.>
::....::-~...:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.' 22
23
24
25
26
27
. 0 .,: 28
- --- _..... -
1
2
The underlined parts is the applicable part of this
authority.
While the California Legislature has' authorized' the
H MTDB to enter into contracts with any city in its jurisdic-'
tion to ~icense and regulate by ordinance ,transportation'
services in Public Utilities Code Section 120266" it has not
eviscerated. any Charter prohibitions on the delegation of
'~":~ legislative. authority. - ...: -. ", ",: '-
" Generally, state statutes are limited in their reach to
general law cities and inapplicable to Charter cities. The 0
power of Charter cities over exclusively municipal affairs
is all embracing, restricted to and limited on~y by the
City's Charter. Simmons v. Citv of Los Anaeles(1..976). 63..,......-'-. _"
Cal. App.3d 455.
(
A Charter adopted by a city concerning municipal
"affairs" is the supreme law, paramount to any law enacted
by the legislature in regard thereto. Cramer v. Citv of San _
Dieao (1958) 164 Cal. App.3d 168.
In this case the City Charter controls and the Charter
.
prohibits delegation of legislative authority. If there was
no Charter. prohibition' the' Public Utilities Code 'would
authorize such delegation of police power regulation.
10
-; C'
.:) l
REGULATION
PARATRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
The Paratransit Administration handles activities associated with administration,
issuance or transfer of paratransit permits, identification cards and associated requests and
records.
Any competent clerk could handle the above tasks. It is in the regulation of
Administrative Hearings where problems have arisen because of the absence of fully
staffed legal support services. The fact that no one in the department has any taxi
experience at the operational level has been problematic, too.
BEFORE MTDB
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Police Licensing
Paratransit Administration
S.D. City Council/Subcommittees
AFI'ER MTDB
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Trolley Code Compliance
Paratransit Administration
MTD Board of Directors
GAINS
1. More comprehensive taxi vehicle inspection.
WSSES
1. Loss of efficiencies and economics of -scale of City Attorney's office with fully
staffed legal support services, necessitating expensive outside counsel.
2. Loss of oversight/expertise of council sub-committees, i.e., Transportation and
Land Use.
3. Loss of oversight by the City Attorney's office of the Paratransit Administration.
4. Loss of full police power authority of sworn officers causing the drop of serious
violations from misdemeanor status with its corresponding lack of deterrent value.
- 4 -
! L? - YD
CODE OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS
The MTD Board can vest their inspectors with certain duties, however, they lack
the powers necessary to carry out the provisions of the ordinance in its purpose and
intent.
Those necessary powers include peace officer status, and that enabling legislation
can come only from the State.
Certain serious violations which should be misdemeanor on the first offense can
no longer be. The public is less well served and is put at greater risk as a result.
- 5 -
I) c(/
A~~. A, A! !~, u-u ~, !U/!~/~~
;.
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 15
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance IS Relating to
the Enforcement Authorities of the Fare Inspectors and the
Fare Inspection Supervisor
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
TITLE
The title of Ordinance #5 is amended to read as follows: RAn. Ordinance
Relating to the Enforcement Authorities of Fare Inspector/Code Compliance
Officers and the Fare Inspection Supervisor.-
SECTION 2:
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Section 5.1 of Ordinance #5 is amended by the addition of paragraph F to
read as follows:
F. The Board is authorized to contract with cities and the County to
license or regulate by ordinance any transportation services within such
cities or the unincorporated area (Section 120266) and has done so by adoption
of Ordinance Ill, the enforcement of which will be done by Fare Inspector/
Code Compliance Officers and the Fare Inspection Supervisor as Paratransit
Inspectors.
SECTION 3:
ENFORCEMENT
Section 5.1 of Ordinance #5 is amended to read as follows:
Section 5.3
Duties and Authorizations
Fare Inspector/Code Compliance Officers and the Fare Inspection
Supervisor employed by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board
are hereby vested with the duty to enforce MTDB Ordinances #2, #3 and #11, the
Rules and Regulations of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board
adopted May 18, 1981 and on file with the C1Jrk of the Board as Document #164,
Public Utilities Code SectiDns 120450, 120~SO.5, 120451, and 120452, and Penal
Code Sections 148, 369g, 640, 640(a) and 647(c), and in accordance with Penal
Code Section 836.5 are authorized to arrest a person without. a warrant when-
ever the Inspector or Supervisor has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed an infraction or misdemeanor in the
Inspector's or Supervisor's presence which is a violation of the statutes and
ordinances which the Inspector or Supervisor has the duty to enforce.
',-
A-I
I ;}. /7 L----
.,.
Approved as to form:
-
-
c...
-
"'-
/~~
General Counsel
San Diego Metropolitan
Transit Development Board
Adopted: October 13th t 1988
JL:bw
ORDINANCE
9/9/88
-3-
A-3
~ MTDB L5H
Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
Paratransit Administration
1255lmperi~Avenue. Surte1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-7648
FAX (619) 234-3407
PARATRANSIT FINES AND BAIL SCHEDULE
Ordinance No. 11
Section
Ist/2nd/3rd Offense
Item
1.2
Misdemeanor, 500/-/-
1.5 a,b
1.8 b
1.8 d
1.8 e(I-12)
1.8 f(I-14)
1.8 h
1.8 j
1.8 k
1.8 0
1.8 s
1.8 u
1.8 v
1.9 a
No vehicle operating permit (owner and
driver)
Failure to request approval from MTDB to
transfer permit (owner)
Failure to notify MTDB w/in 48 hrs. of
change of business address/phone (owner)
Failure to have vehicle inspected as
instructed
Unsafe vehicle (owner and driver)***
Unsuitable vehicle (owner and driver)***
Failure to immediately notify MTDB when a
spare vehicle is in use (owner)
Contact card not displayed (driver)
No map (driver)
Map not current (driver)
Driver did not offer passenger receipt
(driver)
More passengers than manufacturer rating
(driver)
Not wearing name tag (driver)
Improper driver dress/appearance (driver)
Lapse of insurance coverage (owner)
500*/-/-
25/50/100
25/50/100
50/100/250 plus 3 day
suspension
25/50/100
250/500/Revocation
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
25/50/100
Misdemeanor
50**/Revocation/-
· Plus ineligibility for future application for a five year period.
** Fine plus 15~ assigned risk cost per day and suspension equal to days lapsed.
.*.Also see "General Manager's Penalty Guidelines for Violations of Paratransit Vehicle Regulations."
Memoer Agen:;es:
Ci!v cr Chula Vista. C,tv cf ':orQr"acc. C,ty of E; Calon. City of Imoenal Beacn. C;ty of La Mesa. C;tyof Lemon GrQ\ie. City of Nat:onal ellv. C,~y of Ds'''\av. ':,:y of San Dle~c, c.:'~ ::.
Sa~tee, County of San' Olegc State of California
MetroDclitan TranSI! Deveiocment Soard IS Coorcmator of the MetroDolltan TranSit System and IS Regulatory Authority for .. Para transit ,';cmlnls:ratIGn
SUDslciary C:0rcoratlons ~ San DieGO TranSI~ Corooranon. ,Q. San Diego Trolley. Inc. and II San Dleco & Ar:~ona ::3stern Raliwav C0mpany
... .. jd Al1 . .
PARATRANSIT FINES AND BAIL SCHEDULE
Ordinance No. 11 (cont/d)
Section
Ist/2nd/3rd Offense
Item
1.9
1.9
1.10 c
1.10 c
1.10 d
1.10 d
1.12 g
1.12 a
1.12 b
1.12 a,b
1. 13 c and
1.14 d
2.2 e
2.2 h
2.4 b
2.4 c
2.4
Proof of insurance not timely (owner)
Inadequate proof of insurance (owner)
No trip sheet (owner)
Incomplete trip sheet (owner)
Late filing of annual statement (owner)
Failure to file annual statement (owner)
Incorrect company name on driver 1.0.
card (owner and driver)
No taxicab driver 1.0. card (owner and
driver)
No paratransit driver 1.0. card
(owner and driver)
Driver 1.0. not displayed (driver)
Three valid complaints resulting in
adverse action (owner and driver)
Meter not engaged (driver)
Overcharge of filed rate (owner or
driver)
Long hauling (driver)
Refuse to transport (owner or driver)
Discourage passenger (owner or driver)
25/50/100 plus suspension
equal to number of days
late
Warning/2S/S0, or
suspension if material
error or omission
25/50/100
Warning/SO/lOa
Less than 10 days-
Admonish/2S/Revocation
10-30 days late-2S/S0/
Revocation. More than
30 days late-SO/IOO/
Revocation
Revocation
25/50/100
100/Misdemeanor/-
100/Misdemeanor/-
25/50/100
100/250/3 day suspension
100/2S0/Misdemeanor
100/2S0/Revocation
100/2S0/Revocation
Misdemeanor,
2S0/S00/Revocation
100/Misdemeanor,
2S0/Revocation
-2-
/,<1 -/-j~
PARATRANSIT FINES AND BAIL SCHEDULE
Ordinance No. 11 (cont/d)
.,.,.-
Section
2.4 f,g
2.4 h
2.4 k
2.4 k
6.2 a
6.2 c
6.2 c
6.2 c
Other
All
All
Item
Ist/2nd/3rd Offense
Driver solicited passengers (driver)
Driver more than 12' from vehicle
(driver)
No trip sheet (driver)
Incomplete trip sheet (driver)
Operating unauthorized route (driver)
(owner)
Operating without route sign (driver)
(owner)
Operating with unapproved route sign
(owner and driver)
Operating with wrong route sign (owner
and driver)
Items. not listed
Accumulated various items
Repeated or various driver items
50/100/250
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
250/500/-
Warning/250/500
25/50/100
Warning/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
Warning/25/50
Penalty will be evaluated
on case-by-case basis.
Owner will be penalized for
pattern(s) of driver
violations.
~9.~
Thomas F. larwin
General Manager
TFL:rl b
T -PARA. IC
April 25, 1990
-3- -
) :;J- (/0
Metropolitan Transit Development Board _ e ~
P aratransit Administration
~ ::~C; Impenal Avenue. Suite 1000
'go. CA 92101.7490
!1.7648
, 9) 234.3407
PARATRANSIT FINES AND BAIL SCHEDULE
Ordinance No. 11
sec.~I~ri.:T",',"::,L'''''''''''':''':';'':-:''',f$E::;:::.::::I:::::::::IU',::::::::'Z2fjEU:~':"':~:':Ii[:iI';":::0::E:'''::::;:G:t:':'"-'','.''..-'",,,u'''''_'I~q!~l~liCQ.!f!'~~~<
1.2 No vehicle operating permit (owner and
driver)
1.5 a,b Failure to request approval from HTOB
to transfer permit (owner)
1.8 c Failure to notify HTOB w/in 48 hrs. of
change of business address/phone (owner)
1.8 d Failure to have vehicle inspected as
instructed
1.8 f(1-12) Unsafe vehicle (owner and driver)***
1.8 h(1-14) Unsuitable vehicle (owner and
driver)***
r Failure to ilmlediate1y notify HTOB
when a spare vehicle is in use (owner)
1.8 1,0 Contact card not displayed (driver)
1.8 m No map (driver)
Hap not current (driver)
1.8 q Driver did not offer passenger
receipt (driver)
1.8 u Hore passengers than manufacturer
rating (driver)
1.8 w Not wearing name tag (driver)
1.8 x Improper driver dress/appearance
(driver)
1.9 a Lapse of insurance coverage (owner)
500*/-/-
500*/-/-
25/50/100
25/50/100
50/100/250 plus 3 day
suspension
25/50/100
2S0/S00/Revocation
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/S0
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
25/50/100
50**/Revocat1on/-
.Ptua fnellgfbfl Ity fo,. future 8R)lfcatton fOt' a It". yea,. pertod.
. ~plua 1501 assigned ,.i.t c~t pe,. day rd auspenaion equal to days l~.
... -Gene,.al Manage,.,. Penalty Gutdellnes fo,. Violation. of Pa,.at,.enait Vehicle legulattonl.-
.--'- iDer "genetes:
, 01 Cllula V.sta. Cily CIl CoronaclO. CI" 01 EI Calon. City ollllllMnal Buell. City CIl UI ...... Ctyot L.mon G~. C..., ot Na_ CitY. C/ly'0I P_ey. Cty CIl s.n 0tecJ0. C.ty CIl
...,t... County 01 San Cloe9O. Sial. ot Caldornoa
. Metropolitan TranSit o.velOClment Boara I. Cooralllalo; 01 the Metropolitan TranSIt System ana IS RacJutatory Authonty lot ~ ParauanSlt Ac:l""ftlStratlOf'l
SubSidiary Coflloraloons: ~ San Diego TranSIt CorporatJOfl. (i) San Doago Trotley. Inc. ana 00 San Diego & ArIzona EUlern Railwey Company
),;;. ~/!
'RATRANSIT FINES AND BAil SCHEr 'E
Ordinance No. II (cont'd)
$.~!l~#'.'.;::"',":Z'::':":'~::::::::immili::;::I::':::;::':::.:f":;:::l:::t;1ilil;i;mlli!'i:::j:~::;'i::':'i:::;:::jJiili:I:;:::::;rJ::.;jii;m!'::":;:':i:"::.ili::~:;::LI!!l~llrJll.lt.i!1:!i:t~ltl;;:i;;[.:;:;:j;;':'::
i.9(b)
1.9(b)
1.10 d
1.10 d
1.10 e
1.10 e
1.12 a
.12 b
1.12 a,b
1.12 g
1.13 c and
1.14 d
2.2 e
2.2 h
2.4 b
2.4 c,d
2.4 c,d
Proof of insurance not timely (owner)
Inadequate proof of insurance (owner)
No trip sheet (owner)
Incomplete trip sheet (owner)
late filing of annual statement (owner)
Failure to file annual statement
(owner)
No taxicab driver 1.0. card (owner and
driver)
No paratransit driver 1.0. card
(owner and driver)
Driver 1.0. not displayed (driver)
Incorrect company name on driver
1.0. card (owner and driver)
Three valid complaints resulting in
adverse action (owner and driver)
Meter not engaged (driver)
Overcharge of filed rate (owner or
driver)
long hauling (driver)
Refuse to transport (owner or driver)
Discourage passenger (owner or driver)
25/50/100 plus suspension
equal to number of days
late
Warning/2S/50, or
suspension if material
error or omission
25/50/100
Warning/SO/IOO
less than 10 days-
Admonish/2S/Revocation
10-30 days 1ate-2S/50/
Revocation. More than
30 days 1ate-50/100/
Revocation
Revocation
100/250/-
100/250/ -
25/50/100
25/50/100
100/250/3 day suspension
100/250/-
100/2S0/Revocation
100/2S0/Revocation
2S0/S00/Revocation
100/2S0/Revocation
~.twlf~l~fiI~j~i~~:" ~w. ::~~~i:"~~':::.'"
-2-
(;2'L(8
P ';TRAHSIT FINES AND BAIL SCHEDUL
Ordinance No. 11 (cont'd)
I~!J:R~.:.:.::::.:;::~:.;::.i.."":::.~;"I:::Ii:m0ill0;0:i::::.'.::::.::)i10:~tIIt!!::::::2:f:;:;j,,::::::':''-.iJ:'::.;:1:EI"Ji:1:nj:Ii:;:::::":::;:;E:I!~Z~Z~r~:.:.:.Qfr~~!~lIt;:E01tlliilitt;::::::";::rili.'.
2.4 j,k
2.4 m
Driver solicited passengers (driver)
Driver more than 12' from vehicle
(driver)
No trip sheet (driver)
Incomplete trip sheet (driver)
Operating unauthorized route (driver)
(owner)
Operating without route sign (driver)
(owner)
2.4 P
2.4 P
6.2 a
6.2 c
6.2 c
Operating with unapproved route sign
(owner and driver)
Operating with wrong route sign
(owner and driver)
Items not listed
6.2 c
Other
All
Accumulated various items
All
Repeated or various driver items
50/100/250
25/50/100
25/50/100
Warn i ng/25/50
250/500/-
Warning/250/500
25/50/100
Warning/50/100
25/50/100
Warning/25/50
Warning/25/50
Penalty will be evaluated
on case-by-case basis.
Owner will be penalized for
pattern(s) of driver
violations.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
~~.~
Thomas F. larwin
General Manager
Date: ~' / 'I,
TFL:kw
T-PARA.IC
1/28/91
-3-
It;; 71
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
A~NEY AT LAW
~~ JlOUImI AVENUE . sunl!~. SAN DIEGO. CAIJIlOIINIA 92101
(619) 238-731<4
The Honorable H. Ronald Domnitz. Judge
Presiding Judge, San Diego Municipal Court
202 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
August 31. 1993
The Honorable John Witt
City Attorney, City of San Diego
202 .. C" Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Judge Domnitz and Mr. Witt:
This letter. written at this request of several taxi operators, penains to the current San Diego
Municipal Court bail schedule as it applies to violations of Ordinance 11 of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB) (taxi violations). I have attached a copy of the applicable bail schedule
.;:.:~ctions. Some of these MTDB Sections are classified as misdemeanors (e.g. 1.12(a),(b),(g)) and
Jme have fines up to $500.00 (e.g. 1.2, 1.S(a),(b)).
These classifications and fines are not consistent with the enabling legislation making MTDB
violations crimes. In 1989 in the San Diego Municipal Court Case of People v Ouinn cases
Z817116, Z134412, Z836259 the issue ofMTDB's authority to classify crimes was questioned. In
those cases I challenged MTDB's classification of violations of Ordinance 11 as crimes citing
authority of Giliert v. Stockton Port District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 384, and Peo.ple ex reI Vonnie!' v.
Conn~ of EI Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 40. (Under the California Constitution only cities, counties,
and the state legislature can classify crimes). Judge Knoepp ruled that the legislature had specified
that violations were crimes through California Public Utilities Code Section Section 12041, this
section reads as follows:
Violations of any ordinance, rule, or regulation enacted by the board prohibiting
unauthorized operation or manipulation of transit facilities owned or controlled by the
board, or prohibiting unauthorized tampering or interference with, or loitering in or
about, transit facilities owned or controlled by the board, is an infraction punishable
by the fine not exceeding fifty dollars ($50), except first conviction under this section.
is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) .or
by imprisonment not exceeding six months. or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(California Public Utilities Code Section 120451.)
- Continued -
. 5-&/'
Judge Domnitz/Mr. Witt Letter - Page 2
I have enclosed Judge Knoepp's statement of decisions. Thus the MTDB Ordinances are
infractions punishable by a fine of fifty dollars for the first offense. This proposition is not
consistent with current bail schedule practices, which were called recently to my attention. As I
represent a wide spectrum of paratransit providers. cab company owners and jimey services, all of
whom are regulated by MTDB Ordinance 11, I can attest to this fact that this matter concerns
approximately two-hundred plus owners in the City of San Diego. On behalf of those operators and
indirectly on behalf of hundreds more regulated by MTDB. as drivers, I respectfully request that the
bail and fine schedule be modified to be consistent with the requirements of Quinn and the El
Dorado case. .
Sincerely.
John B. Barriage
.....1837
I.)/[)'/
i {'~7- ~_ ;
JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS
The Port has its own set of administrative rules and regulations for violations and
hearings.
MTDB politicized our agency by encouraging and accepting third party complaints
from airport personnel. This practice continued for 7 or 8 months before it was stopped.
Not only was it a violation of jurisdiction, but those monies came out of our
budget.
In SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT v. HERBERT E. THOMPSON we
see how an airport matter handled at the airport should look. The other airport matters
used as examples ended up at MTDB.
In MTDB v. DAVIS no jurisdictional issue was raised at the beginning as both
counsel and appellant never believed the case would rise to the level it did. Therefore,
no opportunity for a ruling on that issue was set.
In MTDa v. MOHAMMAD KHILIL IREIGNA T appellant had an unusually
competent Hearing Officer who dismissed for jurisdiction.
In MTDB v. KHALIFEH the appellant was not as fortunate.
- 6 -
! .;J- ,52--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
".'~'-' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WILLIAM H. HITT, ESQ.
HITT << PINKERTON
555 W. BEECH, STE. 400
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 234-6628
RE~~~~9
GROUND TRANSPORTATION
P.ltIU"t; ~o.~~..c:"tT
Hearing Officer
BEFORE THE SAN DIEGO UNITED PORT DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of
Herbert E. Thompson
PERMIT #053, SUSPENSION
Award of Hearing Officer
Appellant
PROCEDURAL DOE PROCESS
1 .
A
hearing
the
above
duly
noticed.
No,
I
objection was made on the proceeding at the hearing, either!
. I
procedural or substantive. The Port District was represented by
matter
was
on
and through John McGuire.
The Appellant was present in person
and represented by Attorney John Barriage.
All witnesses
were,
I
I
sworn before giving testimony.
FACTS
2. The material facts were essentially undisputed in this case.
Appellant was at the head of the taxi line. A passenger got into
his cab.
Appellant then made a comment in the direction of TEDI
about a Harbor Island fare, and drove off with a,
Saucedo
passenger. Within 15 minutes, he returned to the head of the
1
!~l C''/
,(."1 ,_)...:)
,/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
,.<'-' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
. ;~'-:::.\
...... i'r--.
"e::l"'
'-' "
....
- 2 J
l')~
0~1
WILLIAM B. BITT, ESQ.
BITT & PINKERTON
555 W. BEECH STREET, STE. 4th FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 234-6628
RECEIVE:LJ
AUS 1 5 J99J
PAAATAANS'T
A OM/N/STAATION
Hearing Officer
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In the Matter of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Award of Hearing Officer
DARLENE DAVIS
TAXI PERMIT,
Appellant
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
A hearing on the above matter was duly noticed. No
objection was made at the initial proceeding at the hearing,
either procedural or substantive to start the hearing. Present
were Appellant, with her attorney, ~ohn B. Barriage, Kevin D.
Bush Attorney for the Metropolitan Transit Development Board,
(hereinafter MTDB) and Kevin A. Park, Butz, Lucas, Dunn &
Enright, Attorney for the San Diego Unified Port District
(hereinafter Port District).
Several motions were made on
preliminary matters and duly ruled upon. All witnesses were
sworn before giving testimony.
FACTS
Evidence showed that Appellant, after making it known to a
1
I -Sc(
/
VIRGINIA L. WEBER
COUNSELOR AT LAW
victoria Square
222 Ash Street
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 231-1991
Hearing Officer
nECEIVED
MAR 2 6 1992
PARATRANSIT
'''~ISTj:UTI''''
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In the Matter of
Appellant
)
)
)
)
)
)
Decision of Hearing Officer
Mohammed Khilil Ireiqat
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
A hearing was held 2-10-92 before this hearing officer.
Anthony Leone appeared for the MTDB and Mr. Ireiqat appeared with
his attorney John B. Barriage.
The hearing was duly noticed and there were 2 procedural
',-,-
objections made by Mr. Barriage.
KOTION TO DISHISS RE: TrKELrNESS
The basis for this motion is MTDB Administrative Regulation
89-1 Section 4.1(C). This section sta~es that the hearing shall
be set "...not less that five (5) calendar days, but as soon as
reasonably possible from the date of receipt of the notice of
appeal..."
The Penalty Notice was sent to the Appellant on 5-22-91
indicating that there would be a $100.00 penalty for violating
CJ-~) S
r~.
MTDB Ordinance NO.11, section 2.4(c) and (d) for discouraging a
prospective fare. Mr. Ireiqat was not required to pay this
penalty until after the hearing on this incident. He was not
penalized by the lapse of time. Therefore, I deny the motion to
dismiss.
MOTION TO DISMISS RE: JURISDICTION
The appellant argues that the MTDB has ,no jurisdiction at
the airport, where this alleged incident took place. The MTDB
argues that it does have jurisdiction. It bases this on
.
California Public Utilities Code section 120266 and Section 60 of
the 1962 Port Act and other minor authorities.
Public Utilities Code Section 120266 gives the MTDB the
authority to license and regulate only "...within the city's
corporate limits or within the unincorporated area." This
section does not give the MTDB the authority to regulate or
license on Port District property.
section 60 of the San Diego Port District Act provides that
if the Port District has not made any regulations on a topic,
, .
then the regulations of the city adjacent to the district shall
apply. The Appellant cites tile San Diego Unified Port District
Code section 5.92 (f) and (g) which set forth rules regarding
taxicabs and the duty to transport passengers. The law of the
Port District will preempt the MTDB regulations according to the
Port District Act which is embodied in California Harbors and
Navigation Code.
;
IJ-::1f;
.-1-
-------
Therefore, the MTDB has no jurisdiction on Port District
property as the MTDB's authority is preempted by the Port
District Act.
COHCLUSIOIi
This matter is dismissed on the basis that the MTDB had no
authority to issue a penalty notice for an incident that occurred
on Port District property.
Dated:
3-d.-(P-1 ~
(j~
VIRGINIA L. WEBER
HEARING OFFICER
-3-
/S2--5J
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Appellant
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION OF HEARING
OFFICER
In the Matter of
BASEM OPEH KHALIFEH
This matter came on for hearing on March 24, 1992 at 11:00
a.m. in Suite 1000 at 1255 Imperial Ave., San Diego, California,
the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, hereinafter referred
to as MTDB, appearing by and through KEVIN D. BUSH, appellant
appearing by and through JOHN B. BARRIAGE and in person.
The parties offered testimony and introduced documentary
evidence and prior to submission appellant raised the issue of
MTDB jurisdiction at the Airport. The hearing officer allowed the
submission of briefs on the issue and briefs having been submitted
the hearing officer requested further written argument and further
argument having been submitted, the hearing officer makes the
following findings and decision.
The facts of this case present a number of issues. Can a
report of violation of Port District Ordinances testified to by a
Port District Traffic Enforcement Officer be the basis for MTDB
issuing a Penalty Notice for a violation of sections of MTDB
Ordinance No.ll. There is no question that a Port District TEO can
enforce Port District Ordinances. However, can MTDB enforce its
I c) sf-
~.
--
/' .
/
."- ..
sanctions on a ~river based upon activities occurred outside its
physical boundaries, which if had occurred wi thin its physical
boundaries would have resulted in imposition of sanctions. The MTDB
penalty notice sets forth three alleged violations.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 2.4(c,d) OF ORDINANCE NO. 11
Can MTDBbase a violation of its ordinances on a violation of
Port District Ordnance where the alleged violation is of a similar
ordinance?
Here the facts indicate that TEO Roqhelle was enforcing a Port
District Ordinance and did not know the MTDB ordinances that might
apply.
Based upon review of the briefs presented, I find that the
MTDB does not have jurisdiction to enforce its ordinance upon Port
District property. However, I find that appellant's activities
would be a violation if they had occurred within MTDB's physical
boundaries.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1.8(T) ORDINANCE NO. 11
The second question was appellants acts a failure to comply
with a lawful order. This presents two issues, was TEO Rochelle
peace officer and were his instructions to appellant a lawful
order.
After review of Port District ordinances, it does not make
sense to interpret them in a manner that a passenger who has
hired a cab cannot have the cab go to the curb to pick up others
in his group and their luggage. The instruction of TED Rochelle
was a lawful order.
The second issue was TED Rochelle a peace officer for the
') ,- c-'-1-'
c..y /"
purposes of section 1.S(t). Peace officer is defined if the Penal
code and a TEO is not included. It is interesting to note that Port
District ordinance 5.92(1) refers to orders of the Harbor
Police. TEO Rochelle was not at the time of the incident a peace
officer.
Thus, there was no violation of the section.
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
Were appellants actions inappropriate behavior? Based upon
the testimony of TEO Rochelle and his report, appellant's behavior
while dealing with TEO Rochelle was inappropriate.
SANCTIONS FOR ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION IF OCCURRED
WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES OF MTDB
In controlling its licenses may MTDB impose sanctions for
activities which if they had occurred within its physical
boundaries would be a violation of MTDB ordinances. After review of
the argument of counsel and the cases cited, I find that MTDB does
have such authority in controlling its licensees.
CONCLUSION
The appellant's activities would have been a violation of
Section 2.4(c,d) of MTDB Ordinance No. 11 if they had occurred
within the physical boundaries of MTDB and imposition of a sanction
was proper. However, I believe there was an honest misunderstanding
of the requirements of the ordinance and the sanction imposed is
reduced to S100.00.
The violation of Section 1.S(t) of MTDB Ordinance No. 11 is
not sustained as the lawful order was not issued by a person in the
capacity set forth in the section.
/c)-- 0'()
.-.--
......--.
Appellant's behavior during the incident was inappropriate
and the warning contained in the Penalty Notice dated January 2,
1992 is sustained.
Dated: /JIl;:;} 1(3//((9 Z
-
1,,,,,-.
''1 (
/ --.! -- (~.
/c~- \.f.'
MTDB ~
Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
- 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
May 22, 1991
T 370
Mr. Fred Edward Thomas
4183 1/2 Hamilton Street
San Diego, CA 92104
Subject: PENALTY NOTICE
You are hereby notified of the following violation and the penalty for failure
to cOlllply with the requirements of KTDB Ordinance No. 11 as specified below.
Backqround
On May 8, 1991, we received a report from Lindbergh Field Airport staff
concerning an incident on May 7, 1991, while you were driving Yellow Cab #778.
Airport Traffic Enforcement Officer (TEO) Vickers reported that you told two
elderly passengers, "I have no choice," and grabbed their luggage when they
tried to hire your taxicab to take them to the Point Lorna Inn; and grabbed it
again when the man took it out of the trunk. TEO Vickers reported the
passengers stated they did not want to take your taxicab because of your
remarks and actions, and she ordered you off the line.
On May 21, 1991, during an interview with the MTDB Code Compliance Inspectors,
you acknowledged the incident. You stated that you might have discouraged the
passengers but you did not refuse to transport them.
Offense
Discouraging passengers; MTDB Ordinance No. 11 Section 2.4 (c,d)
Penalty
$100.00 fine, due June 4, 1991, by check or money order payable to MTDB.
If you do not agree with this decision, you lIIay appeal in writing within
ten days fro. the date of this notice. In accordance with KTDB Ordinance
No. 11 Section 1.16(a), the appeal must state the specific reasons you believe
Member Agencies: .' . r
City of Chula Vista. City of Coronado. City of EI Cajon. City of Imperial Beach. C,ty of La Mesa. 91ty of Lemon Grove. City of National City. C,ty of Po way. City of San Diego. ,-"ty of
Santee. County of San Diego. State of California
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory AuthOrity for .' Paratranslt Administration
Subsidiary Corporations: -= San Diego Transit Corporation. ... San Diego Trolley. Inc. and T San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
\lI1 '" /d -~) 2-.-
Mr. Fred Edward Thomas
Penalty Notice
May 22, 1991
Page Two
our actions are not proper. Should you choose to file an appeal, it must be
addressed and delivered to the address on this letterhead, attention:
Barbara Lupro.
l/J - ,-
~~
Barbara Lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
BLL :~jm
PN-THOMA.HKK
Enclosure: MTDB Ordinance No. 11 Section 2.4 (c,d)
cc: J. Snyder, Sheriff's License Division
G. Reas, Airport Ground Transportation Office
Tony Palmeri, Yellow Cab Company
Yellow Cab Company File
Compl ai nt Fil e
Driver File
/".:;J -- (',3
I '- '{-..
MTDB ~
. Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
- 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
July 30, 1991
T 370
Mr. Fred Thomas
7645 Pacific Avenue, #32
lemon Grove, CA 91945
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Subject: PENALTY NOTICE DATED MAY 22, 1991
This is a follow-up to your meeting with Anthony leone and Harry Kaneakua of
my staff on July 25, 1991, and your representative, Darlene Davis, to discuss
your appeal dated May 31, 1991. During the July 25 meeting, we learned that
additional pertinent information was not provided during the investigation.
If this additional information had been provided to us during your interview
with MTDB Code Compliance Inspectors on May 21, 1991, we would have been able
to determine at that time that you had not violated Ordinance No. 11. In view
of the additional facts, we hereby withdraw the subject penalty notice.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you should have any
questions, please call Anthony leone at 557-4569.
Sincerely,
~~
Barbara lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
Bll:t kw
l-THOM.ACl
cc: J. Snyder, Sheriff's licensing Division
G. Reas, Airport Ground Transportation Office, UPD
Settl ement Fil e
Driver File
Member Agencies:
City of Chula Vista. City of Coronaoo. City of E! Cajon. City of Imperial Beach. City of La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. City of National City. City of Poway. City of San Diego. City of
Santee. County of San Diego. State of California
Metropolitan Transit Deveiopment Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Trans]t System and ]S Regulatory Authority for '.. Paratrans]t Admlnlstrat]on
SubSidiary Corporations: -=- San Diego Transit Corporallon. ~ San Die~o Trolley, Inc. and I San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
~ ." l)- Cc 1 -
MTDB V. CONSTITlITION
Had some of us not acted quickly, the Code of Conduct would be codified by now
creating havoc for operators and the Peer Review Panel recommendations (convened in
secret) would be on their way toward implementation.
Fully staffed legal support services are absolutely necessary to prevent errors such
as the enclosed. Some of us believe legislation already passed by the MTDB would be
found to be defective if taken to court but cannot do so because we lack the financial
means.
Many of us also believe that different regulatory fees for individuals in the same
class (as per memorandum dated 12/5/92 at 1.3.1 in chapter 9) are illegal for the reasons
stated in the ARCILLA letter enumerated at 3 in the same chapter.
A municipal city attorney's office would not allow these things to see the light of
day.
- 7 -
i d ~..-0S.
-
_ 1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (519) 234-3407
MEMORANDUM
T 370
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 19, 1991
Taxicab Liaison Committee
Barbara Lupro ./~ ~
PROPOSED TAXI DRIVER CODE OF CONDUCT
We would appreciate your review of and comments on the proposed guidelines for
a Taxi Driver Code of Conduct as follows.
.
Drivers and operators of paratransit vehicles shall conduct themselves in a
courteous and professional business manner at all times when the vehicle is
avail able to transport or engaged in transporting, and in accordance with the
following guidelines:
o Drivers shall:
"
transport passengers promptly, efficiently, and carefully.
assist passengers by loading luggage and packages of reasonable
size, weight, and number, into the cab, and unload same onto the
curb, unless directed by the passenger to not handle.
not use vulgar, profane, provoking, or otherwise offensive
language, gestures, or demeanor.
o
not argue with passengers or prospective passengers.
not smoke at any time a passenger is in the vehicle.
not suggest or direct a prospective passenger to another taxicab
or to alternate transportation services.
No driver shall refuse or neglect to transport any orderly person
willing and able to pay the lawful fare, in accordance with MTDB
Ordinance No. 11, Section 2.4c, d. This requirement applies in all
cases except:
when the driver can show, at the time, that the vehicle is already
hired by another.
Memoer AQenc:es
City ot Cr.ui~ v's~a Cit~. ~oi C~"~~ac:. :':ty ~f E' Calon. City of Irn~f",a: BeaCh. CIty 0' La Mesa. CI!Y o~ Le~o" Grove. City of National City. City of Coway C1iy c! San Diego. CI1.,.::;~
Santee Count, 01 San Olegc Slate Of California .
Metro;lo,:tan TranSit Deve!o;)mem Soard IS Coordinator Of the Metropolitan TranSit System anols Regulatory AuthOflly for. Paratranslt Admmlstrat;on
Subs;Ola!'v C:orooratla"~ ~ San Dl~=o ,rans;! Coroori !Ion. ~ Sar'l: C11eoo Irol1e\. :nc a"c: -.:..-. San Diego & Ar,z::maEaster" Raliwav Comoany
-' ~'
/j- -L( ~
\
,-
\
when the requested destination is outside of the area for which
the vehicle permit is issued.
if passengers are intoxicated, disorderly, or who may reasonably
be expected to cause the vehicle to become damaged, stained, or
foul-smell ing.
if the driver can show good reason to fear for his personal
safety.
if payment will be made by means other than cash, provided the
taxicab has an MTCB-approved sign, clear and visible to
prospective passengers, stating .cash only,. or stating what is
not acceptable.
if the vehicle has an MTCB-approved sign, clear and visible to
prospective passengers, stating .no smoking,. and the passenger
insists on smoking.
if the passenger cannot provide the driver with the address or
cross streets of the destination; however, the driver is expected
to know the location of major attractions.
if the luggage will obviously not fit into the vehicle cargo
compartment.
if the passenger is accompanied by ari animal, other than a guide
dog, that the passenger refuses to place in a kennel-type
container.
'-
,"
Please call me at 231-1466, or write to me at the address on this letterhead
by September 29, 1991 with your comments. We will incorporate your comments
and provide you with a final draft by October 2, 1991.
Thank you.
Bll:ss
M-TXCOCE.Bll
cc: Tom larwin
Tony Leone
Irma Carrillo
Can Portuguez
Ernie Hance
Harry Kaneakua
John Scott
/
.-,
-2-
1 :2- (c {(7
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
ATTOF=lNEY AT LAW
6" fOUR1li AVENUE. SUn"E'. SA.~ DIEGO. CAlJPOItNlA 92101
(619) 238-7314
September 29, 1991
Ms. Barbra Lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
MillE 1255 L"rperial Avenue Sui. te 1000
San Diego, Ca. 92101
This letter contains my carrnents about the proposed Taxi
Driver Code of Conduct. Attached is a copy of the proposed code with
my numbering attached for quick reference.
Section I. 1. (transport passengers prarptly, efficiently, and
carefully. ) This is a highly subj ecti ve standard, one that will vary
with individuals and subject taxi operators to a degree of
caprisiousness by those interpreting the code. These standards being
loose are inherently ambiguous. Generally. a law that is ambiguous
will not be upheld if it gives inadequate notice as to what conduct is
prohibited. In the case of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1966)
384 U.S. 305 the Supreme Cou.""t invalidated gc.Y'leral vagrancy laws by
declaring them vague. because the standards did not describe with sane
particularity 'the conduct prescribed. and that the regulated' had no
notice of what conduct was prohibited. The California Constitution, as
intrepreted through California Courts has also found this to be the
case in several situations. The legal test is whether "men of carrron
intelllgence and understanding must guess as to its meaning and differ
as to its application," if so it viola,',es the first essential of due
process. People V. Gates (1974) 41 Cal App 3d. 590. 595. The language
used does not give specific conduct but vague conclusions.
Section I. 2. (assisting passengers) This does not seem to purport
to v-rr-,at Cab Drivers do. They are drivers not baggage handlers. If
they want to provide this service that should be their prerogative. and
that. is presumably what t.ips are about. getting more than the ordinanry
service.
Section I. 3. (vulgar [,. profa..""le provoking or otherwise
offensive language, gestures. or demeanor). This has three
constitutional defects. First i.t infringes upon speech conduct in
violatior. of the first a'TICndmer1t. Tr.is type of bowdlerizing was found
unconstitutional in Cohen V. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 19.
(.....;earing "fuck the draft" on the back of a jacket in the Los Angeles
County Courthouse), in that decision the court rejected the notion
that ';::he States as guardians of public' morali ty may properly remove
offensive INOrds from the vocabulary. Tne court did give some support
to an e.xception in the case where there is a captive audience. Perhaps
if the section was li~~ted to while carrying passengers it may pass
IT'...lSter, and it probably would not be successful unless the words
were found to be "fighi:;ing words."
S8Cond, the langauge also suffers from being overbroad. In the case
of Plurrmer v. City of Columbus (1973) 414 U.S. 2 (per curium) the
com:iction of a t:aXi driver ......no abused a female passenger with a series
/e--.-J 1/ 7
~~ .
~ --
Lupro cerements page 2
of absolutely vulgar, suggestive aild abhorent sexually -oriented
statements was reversed because the ordinance prohibiting "menacing,
insulting. slanderous , or profane language" was overbroad. Unless it
can be shown that sane irrminent lawless conduct is present the Supreme
Court decisions have n:>t favored such language. See Eaton v. City of
Tulsa (1974) 415 U.S. 697 (per curiun) reversing conviction of cantE!'ll)t
of court in wi tne~s I use of the expression "chickenshi tIt since there
was n:> shGJing that the expletive was directed to the judge or posed
a threat to the administration of justice.
Third, this suffers fran vagueness as discussed above, and because
it irrpacts upon protected speech corrluct the ordinance rrust set forth
definite, objective guidelines and standards. Precision of regulation
rrust be the touchstone. City of Irrperial Beach V. Escott (1981) 115 Cal
App 3d 134.
Furthernore the corrli tioning of the holding of a licenSe upon
restrictions irrposed by a licensing agency cannot deprive a person of
their constitutional rights Carmi.tte to Defend Reproductive Rights v.
Myers $1981) 29 Cal. 3d 252, 258.
1. 4. (arguing with passengers) This has the same exact defect as
above, specifically it is overbroad.
I. 6. (suggesting or directing to another cab or al ternati ve
transportation services) This suffers fran the sane defects "as
mentioned for 1.2. The providing of this information is clearly
protected speech. The information that w::>Uld improperly be prescribed
is of a great utility to prospective passengers, there is nothing wrong
about providing information to prospective passengers regarding
alternative transportation. A passenger may prefer mass transit or
less expensive paratransi t. There is rruch of value that ~uld be
restricted. Thus it reaches within its ambit socially useful
cc:mnunication, clearly falling in the overbreath category.
MIDB already has an adequate rerredy, the prohibition against "actively
discouraging a fare".
I have nothing to ccmnent on Section II.
It is unclear fran the proposal whether the Code is to be precatory,
regulatory only, or criminalized. Please let me know how this is to
be handled. Because of these defects the code w::>Uld be subject to
strong attack, however, I do not believe that this is necessary and I
suggest that the objectionable portions be deleted.
Please send me the final draft.
----------
I d--&:/f'
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
ATTOFlNEY AT LAW
6S5 IQJI1lf AVI!NUE . sum 5, SAN DU!GO, CAUPORNIA 92101
(619) 238-7314
LEGAL MEMORANDUM RE: Recommendation of the "Peer Review Panel" to
MTDB to be presented to the MTDB Executive Committee 9/2/93.
INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum is based on a brief review and analysis of selected items from the
Agenda for Executive Committee Discussion. The items selected were selected by me
for analysis based on relative importance. I suggest that public hearings be requested and
that further review be made as these suggestions by the "Peer Review Panel" are
broads weeping without much detail.
AREAS OF ANALYSIS
This memorandum, due to time restraints, reviews only three areas: First, licensing
organizations instead of individuals, citation authority to the Taxi Vehicle Inspector and
simplification of Ordinance 11.
A. PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL LICENSING
The Review Panel's recommendation that MTDB license organizations rather than
vehicle owners presents considerable legal problems both to the taxi operators and to
MTDB. There are four problem areas as of yet foreseen if such a proposal was accepted.
They are as follows.
1. EFFECTIVELY END CABS BEING OPERATED BY
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS LEASE DRIVERS
It should be noted initially that an economic benefit is derived by taxi customers
who do not have to have reflected in their fares such operational expenses as
unemployment insurance and workers compensation. This is because most drivers in San
Diego are independent contractors operating on leases.
1
I c;2 - 0:J l'
,.~. ,.,... ,._..,_,_."_..~_""""."_",_,"_~"~,,_~,~,~,&',".,,...,,, .._""_.....w>>,......__________.
These operational costs have not been required of taxi owners, either individual
owners or fleet owners, because they have fit within the law of independent contractors
under both State and Federal taxation law. However, a 1991 court case Santa Cruz
Transportation. Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d
1363 has made the ability of cab companies to operate under independent contractor
leases more problematic. It used to be that the Employment Development Department
(EDD) generally treated drivers who paid a daily-fixed fee to lease a taxi-cab as
independent contractors. However, this administrative determination was overturned in
Santa Cruz, where the court applied the "indica of control" analysis. In that case a fixed
payment lease was insufficient for a determination that there was an independent
contractor status. One factor highly influencing the court was a contract provision,
allowing for termination, requiring drivers to maintain good public relations. The court
went on to discuss other indicia of control which EDD adequately summarized in its April
27, 1993 letter to taxi and related industries; those factors as listed by EDD's letter are
as follows:
KEY FACTORS INDICATING CONTROL IN SANTA CRUZ
TRANSPORTATION INC
1. The terms of the lease allowed the company to terminate .the
drivers.
2. The drivers could be terminated under the lease agreement if they
did not maintain good relations with the public.
3. The lease designated the time period when the shift began and
ended.
4. The drivers were required to schedule their meal breaks with the
dispatcher.
5. The drivers were prohibited from using the taxicab for personal
use.
6. The drivers were required to accept charge slips from certain
customers.
7. The drivers were required to conform to a dress code.
8. The drivers were required by the company to account for the
fares they received by a daily trip sheet and there was no
evidence that the city required the drivers to maintain trip sheets.
9. The drivers depended on the company's dispatcher for their
livelihood.
10. The work did not require the expertise of a skilled professional.
11. The drivers did not advertise their services.
12. The taxicab company operates a fleet of cabs for public carriage.
13. The lessee's work is part of the regular business of the taxicab
company.
2
i/;J- 7D
-
14. The taxicab company owned the taxicab.
15. The taxicab company owned the municipal taxicab license.
16. The customers called the taxicab company for taxicab services.
17. The taxicab company arranged for the perfonnance of the
services.
18. The taxicab company's name was on the taxicab.
Although various exceptions and unique contexts exist for the approximate existing
250 taxi owners in the city, arguably existing under current conditions are the following
factors; as explicated by EDD: NOS. 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18.
Right now important factors which strongly suggest control, perhaps even
controlling under Santa Cruz Transportation Inc. do not exist. These factors are 2, 5,
7, 14, 15.
If organizations are to become licensed instead of vehicle owners, they will be used
as a regulatory tool. As noted in the Recommendation to the Agenda For Executive
Committee Discussion, September 2, 1993, page 3, paragraph 3, "In addition, the
concept of organizational pennits include the requirement that the umbrella organizations,
Le., associations of owners enforce driver re~ulations.
Driver regulation enforcement can only mean under Ordinance 11 such items as
"inappropriate conduct" on valid complaints and the MTDB dress code requirements
found at Ordinance 11, Section 1.8 (x), (1), (2), (3). This idea of organizations enforcing
driver regulations clearly triggers factors 2 and 7 (control over driver relations with the
public and dress code).
Three factors looked critical to the court in Santa Cruz Transportation Inc., (e.g.
the control over the driver relations, dress code, and the maintenance of driver logs). If
the organizational enforcement occurs there will be complete indicia of control and lease
operators for state tax purposes will be treated as employees requiring unemployment
insurance and workers comp for all taxi drivers. This will have a substantial impact on
taxi owners and existing associations as well as upon the consumers using taxis.
1. MTDB COULD BE IN VIOLA nON OF AND BE LIABLE FOR
ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW
The proposal to limit taxi permits to organizations instead of individual vehicle
owners is an obvious restraint of access into the taxi industry and constitutes a restraint
of trade. The obvious implication is that such a restraint is violative of the Shennan
Antitrust Act of 1890 (15 V.S.C. ~1). The Shennan Act strictly prohibits the combining
or conspiring to monopolize any part of trade or commerce. MTDB, if it limited
3
Iv1 7/
licensing to organizations, will be establishing a taxi oligarchy, in which market access
will be severely limited. MTDB will parcel taxi licenses to organizations and
organizations will control who drives those vehicles, thus tightly controlling the market.
This clearly is a restraint of trade.
The principle question, however, is, whether such a restraint is actionable under
the Sherman Act. Under the "State Action" doctrine developed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Parker v. Brown (1943) 317 U.S. 341, actions by the states which
restrain trade are immune from Sherman liability. However, the "State Action"
immunity does not extend to municipalities or other local subdivisions in their acts of
restraining trade unless the State, through State legislation, grants sufficient authority
which articulates clearly, expressively and affirmatively a State policy permitting anti-
competitive conduct. Community Communications Co. v. Boulder (1982) 455 U.S. 40,
McCallum v. City of Athens (11th Cir. 1992) 976 F.2d 649, 643.
Some cases have found immunity such as Camarillo v. Spadys Disposal Service
(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 1627, Hoover v. Ronwin (1984) 466 U.S. 558, Haille v. Eav
Claire (1985) 471 U.S. 34, Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference v. United States
(1985) 471 U.S. 48.
In some cases the immunity was denied, Canton v. Detroit Edison Co. (1976) 428
U.S. 579, Lafayette v. Louisiana Power and Lil:ht Co. (1978) 435 U.S. 389 and in
Community Communications Co. v. Boulder (1982) 455 U.S. 40 (City Ordinance
regulating cable television not entitled to State action immunity).
In this case the State enabling authority for MTDB's power to regulate paratransit
is found at Public Utilities Code Section 120266. This Section merely states that MTDB
by Ordinance may "license or regulate by Ordinance any transportation services." This
authorization to license and regulate is far from sufficient authority, which articulates
clearly, expressively and affirmatively a State policy permitting anti-competitive conduct.
It would seem clearly that MTDB could be subjecting itself if Sherman Act liability and
certainly Sherman Act litigation.
3. ORGANIZATIONAL PREFERENCE MAY VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE
The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment compels recognition that
persons similarly situated with respect to an economic activity must be equally subject to
penalties, burdens, and privileges. The proposal to license organizations instead of
individuals is the making of a distinction, a distinction treating "persons" differently, in
this case making a determination that one type of "person", an organization is more
qualified than an individual to own taxi permits. Clearly, distinctions will have to be
4
! ,,;2 -1--;2-
made discriminating against certain types of persons. The legal question is whether the
courts will reach and determine the question whether the classification drawn in the-
statute are "reasonable in light of its purpose." McLau~h1in v. Florida (1964) 378 U.S.
184, 1991.
Depending on the type of activity regulated the analysis of a law under equal
protection challenge varies. Usually in cases not touching upon suspect classification
(e.g. race, religion, political persuasion) the scrutiny used by a court is "reasonableness. "
If it touches upon a fundamental interest, it is "strict scrutiny." Marston v. Lewis (1973)
410 U.S. 679.
California courts have been applying a .strk1 standard of review to classifications
affecting the right to pursue a lawful occupation. Sailer Inn v. Kirby (1971) 5 C3d 1,
17 (ABC regulation prohibiting women bartenders - analysis focused on protected
interests such as ~ender and right to an occupation.). If the right to own and operate a
taxi is framed by the court as a right to a lawful occupation the analysis of the
classification wiH be strict scrutiny.
The strict scrutiny standard has clearly excluded "administrative convenience" as
grounds for classifications. Bobb v. Municipal Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 860.
MTDB clearly gives administrative convenience as the Peer Review Panel's principal
reason for their proposal (e.g. substantial amount of staff time to communicate with
owners, page 3, paragraph 3).
This classification imposes a substantial barrier on the right of a person to enter
the taxi business. It should therefore be subject to equal protection challenge.
4. ORGANIZA nON ENFORCEMENT OF DRIVER REGULATIONS
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
The rationale behind a regulatory concept of organizational control, the industry
regulating itself, has some antecedents dating from the regulatory forms developed during
the depression era. However, those regulatory schemes, some of which still exist most
obviously in agriculture, have pertained to quasi-governmental regulation of production.
This proposal, however, aims at controlling and policing driver conduct. This is
unprecedented and with good reason. There is an inherent conflict of interest between
drivers and associations. To place a party whose interests conflict with another in the
enforcement business is a violation of due process.. Constitutional law requires that
enforcement action against a licensee be undertaken through a quasi-judicial action
Suckow v. Alderson (1920) 182 Cal. 247, 249. Due process requires that the process be
procedurally fair, Pinkster v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (1974) 12 Cal.3d
541. A party with a conflict of interest can hardly be considered a fair party. While
5
1/). l <7
)
there are no specifics as to how the organizations will enforce driver regulations, it takes
very little foresight to see the power the associations will lord over drivers, and the
potential for abuse. The fact that MTDB is considering this solution demonstrates one
poignant fact. MTDB is poorly equipped to regulate taxis in the City of San Diego.
MTDB has a skeleton crew of code enforcement. MTDB is unable to cheaply handle in-
house its quasi-judicial process as it has insufficient legal counsel requiring it to hire
expensive outside counsel. Contrasted to before MTDB's taxi role, when taxis were
subject to regulation by the police department, there was considerably more ability to
enforce the code and the taxi regulators had use of and benefit of economies of scale of
the City Attorney's office. Thus MTDB's inadequacies have been the reason it has
sought a new enforcement tool, organizations.
The problem, however, is that these organizations have a direct economic interest
that does tend to conflict with lease drivers and employees. To put these organizations
in the position of enforcement agents is untenable for the concept of a disinterested
regulator.
CONCLUDING NOTE ON ORGANIZATION
Aside from the brief legal criticism of the general idea of organizational licensing
and control should be opposed on policy grounds. This idea is premised on the
assumption that "larger is better." This notion may have some economic relevance in an
industrial context but not necessarily in a service context. Do we lose something vital
when we turn over privileges and licenses to organizations, public or private, operated
by bureaucrats? This is an important policy question that should be asked and answered.
B. TAXI VEmCLE INSPECTOR CITATION
The proposal authorizing the issuance of citations by the Taxicab Vehicle Inspector
may well be counterproductive. The relations of the current vehicle inspector and the
licensees seems to be good and working well. The question arises will this change if the
inspector can issue citations.
Furthermore, will the potential of citations discourage an open and honest
inspection process? Will the licensees cover up problems to avoid criminal prosecution?
Public safety purposes should be to encourage a free exchange between the inspector and
licensees, so that problems will be discovered, not concealed.
6
)J 7/1
C. SIMPLIFICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 11
The suggestion that Ordinance 11 be simplified is difficult to respond to without
more detail of how it is to be done. The use of techno-babble like 44user friendly" is not
helpful, either. The fact that Ordinance 11 is viewed in part as confusing by the Peer
Review Panel reflects the reality that Ordinance 11 has to a large extent been created by
staff since MTDB took over regulation January 1, 1989 without sufficient training in legal
draftsmanship. Drafting legislation is an art, one which the City Attorney is proficient
at. Unfortunately, MTDB does not have sufficient in-house counsel, like a municipality,
to draft regulations. If an overhaul of Ordinance 11 is to be made adequate legal drafting
should be required.
U/B40
7
_J - 7)----
DENIAL DUE PROCESS I
On March 16, 1992, MTDB directed Port personnel to put approximately 40
airport taxis out of service for an alleged violation of MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Section
1.8(d).
While they set reinspection appointments for later that afternoon, the order itself
was illegal. Someone at MTDB didn't know how to read an ordinance.
MTDB Ordinance 11, Section 1.8(d) refers to the INITIAL inspection when
putting together a taxi (when you could still do so before the moratorium) and yearly
ANNUAL inspection thereafter.
Taxis can only be put OUT OF SERVICE for those reasons delineated In
Ordinance 11, Section 1.8(f).
Our reinspection was of the nature which put us under Ordinance 11, Section
1.8(g) which is not an out-of-service violation.
MTDB compoun~ed their grievous first error by denying appeal rights to an
operator on the above in violation of our ordinance at,
Section 1.16 - Ri~ht of Administrative Appeal from Denial. Suspension or
Revocation of Permit or Drivers Identification Card or Related Adverse
Action.
It is important to state here that although this alleged violation was more on the
order of an equipment violation, this operator knows that MTDB routinely sends out
"warning" notices based on passenger complaints.
Whether any of those complaints have been appealed and disallowed by MTDB is
speculative. However, I suspect the latter after observing their behavior.
More convincing is MTDB's own internal documents. On the Thomas letter found
in Chapter 6, the appeal rights are clearly stated at the bottom of the letter.
On this letter there are no appeal rights noticed in the letter, and it is clear that
MTDB never intended any from the beginning.
- 8 -
/j-7b
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
March 20, 1992 T 370
Ms. Darlene Davis
Sunset Cab
2912 Ingelow Street, No. 4
San Diego, CA 92106
Subject: PENALTY NOTICE
You are hereby notified of the following violation and the penalty for failure
to comply with the requirements of KTDB Ordinance No. 11 as specified below.
BackQround
On March 16, 1992 at 10:30 a.m., Sunset Cab No. 470 was operating at the
airport without obtaining the airport rates of fare inspection. The notice
sent on February 11, 1992 (attached), instructed you to have an inspection by
MTDB, by March 12, 1992.
Offense
Failure to have vehicle inspected as instructed; MTDB Ordinance No. 11,
Section 1.8(d).
Penalty
Warning. Further violations of this nature will result in a fine.
~~
Barbara lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
Bll: CEB: 1 m
PN-SNSET.CEB
Enclosure: Airport Rate Notice dated February 11, 1992
MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Section 1.8
Paratransit Field Report Dated March 16, 1992
cc: Company File
Complaint/Violation File
Member Agencies'
City of Chula Vista. e,l" of Corcnac.J. C.ty of E! Cajon. City of Imoertal Beach. C,ty of La Mesa. City OT Leo:;on Grove. :,;y of :\lanonal Cuy. C,lV of PJwav. City of San wle~o. C,ty of
Santee. County of San Diego. "tale 01 California
Metropolitan TranSit Develcprroent Saara IS Coorolnator of tne Meuopoiltan Transit System ana !s Regulatory AuthCClIV for . Paralransa AcmlnlStrat;on
Subs,ciary Corporations: = San Diego Transit Corporation. ~ San Diego Trolley, Inc. anc ~ San C'e90,3, "'"zona !Oa5ter~ Ratiwa'v Corr.cany
~ ~ ..'!1
/-) -} .,
" c / /
I
11'iJ.
1 jJ!'"
~ .. ..k!
;,; ~ i i.. i
lu(;()~d
~
::J
,~.
-
() CD
c:
o
.c:
Z CL.
:>
. .
~
S
.....
~
"'
v
t)
~~
1:::
8-
Q)
a:
"
'ii
.G:
-
"ii
c
l!
-
l!
as
Q.
c: '"
,2 E
e Q)
1ii ...
's, -
Ui ~ .e-
,. ~ ~ ~ !
oS > -0 :c ,!
~~~~...,
..
Q)
.c
...
o
III
Cl
.J:J t!!
IV ~
() 8
E is
.g "'
Iii
Gi Ct.l
~ Ol III ~
Ol ,_5 '5 CD
.9o~ o II:
Q. '5 ai :2 II: III
IV ~ "0 == ...
~I II:I ~I (/), 01 ~I
c
!
....
:a
c
~
e
III
E
t:
IV
Q.
E c:
o 0 Iii
() ... 'w III
III'" oc:...(/)
c: III 'C III 0 ... Ct.l
's,= e III g.'c III Ct.l
c:~liix~IIIGil!!
w ~ CL. W (/) C """ 0
1 I , I I -I --=1 1
Ct.l
Cl
c:
~
...
IV
~
III
13 M
:c .!
~ 0
I I
j
.S:!
ti5 c:
,g
Ct.lCt.l o Iii
~>~ :E"i
~ l!! :g ~
~ .g ~ ~ 11
g ! ~ ~
.= i.;j a:l <
I I I I
III e
M 0
.f n
i 1! f) ~
""" '0 lIS i& !
--=:oa: Ct.l
B iiig ~ S2_~
a: c: :2'-
e ,-); of rill -<; x
lilt: i:.. iW
::) .'~. i!,! l!!
01 .51 01 WI iI:1 iLl
c:
Ol
en
.
'S
o
a:
I
I/)
E I/)
.Q) E
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
,I I,
I/)
CD ~ ~
Q. IV g
I/) I/) ~ ~ a
~~~~~-5 ~~
::J ::J (/) :c :c iii Cl ai III
Iii III III I/) I/) ~ I/) ~ a:l ~
c: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 iii ~ iii IV
1 ai, ai, ~I ~I 81 ~1 r15, ~I ~I
---.--.--- -7~i ~.r.:;- "
v /()
~
'S
r~
~::
I
tC
~
M
III
.c:
0, ("
'i"
~
c:
o
13
III
(/)
....
....
~
c:
as
c: Ui
~ 1:
o III
i ~
~>o 0
- 0
~oS
~IV
~i
E ~
~.s~
~~
~ (z)
'S Cii
o 2
"0 _
III .....
~~
'E -..
o\::!
li '.-
Ql<::
~~
.c:
.~==-
~ 0
.c: ti
~ ~
~I ~
..
o
-
u
!.
"
.5
m
C
!i
c
.
.&:.
-
'i
"
III
::
.
c
!.
.
c
.2
-
:s
"0
.
o
-
U
III
:g
::)
.
.!!
t
~
~
~
co
-.:t'
<0
t;-
....
C')
C\I
a;-
"0 ....
Iii ~~
0-0
maiO)
c=~
..!! .
Ec....
Q. E ~
O"OC\I
.cO)
~ ~<
COO
=1iic5
! '3 ~
l! 2' i5
Fa::c:
c _ IV
!Ie(/)
- c .
'Ol!~
Q.- c:
0l!Q)
-=.>
:lQ.~
"c:
!.
.s
II)
II)
C\I
....
~
-
c:
III
E
-
c
'0
Q.
Q.
.
C
.
..
o
-
~
n
"0
~ ~
c
~
O'
III
.&:.
-
~
<0
....
.
..
~
.
o
c:
IV
::
"0
C
.
III
U
~
III
~ in
'9 e
_ III
S ~
"0 0
l! 0
.
'E
o
.!
...
.
i
o
c
c:
o
U
8. in
~ e
! ~
~ ~
!i
II)
=
Q.
'B c
i ! ~
Cii .!.
'5 . en
Q) CD Q. .E
E iii (;
.s 0 c
"i ::
M 0
'n; "0
Q. Q)
l!! 13
III :c
.Q Q)
in >
~ III c:
E .&:. 0
- 13
~ ~ = III
:c ti G) g.
~ ~ ~ .s
I I/) (; cb
.s Z II:
i
=
Iii
u..
I
I/)
~
I
~~
SOUPO AIRPOIr.', VEHICLE INSPEC110N SH~ET. 00262
.:?.P6?.,: .' IT7cJ l~ ... 1"4{:;'.z, ;
. .DRwr'. N.Dc (finr..-ac. LuI,) ." - ." t .~:2 :-~'-"-~).>:,..-.~-" -....
c~~f4J-~y jt7~iff));//~.pttV!?~7:;;l~Y'n,~:':~<.
.TuilSlwUlc c-p.ny l..ocaI.ion .
511;(/Se::r /"/1 r ~P25 /f/. P'~ltf!J02 t)::
Vcbic1c l.icm& P\aIC Mcdallion Body No.
'. -.//K ~3276' ~. (-/?l)-:~:-::;.~X~:70.
'~;..arspNa.$S-i:~ '. ,-' . c. . t'~~
,,:~~. - ;..#.... . - ~~~'~'
~~~-, "":.~.... _c- . ~WtU' ~_.;:....~....
~.,ct.'~.~ -"~~lfiYli" "~::-.' ~..~~_~ ;;C':'tf'.......
~:~~.:.:ri~~;;~~~ O:::.~....{~~:~.:...t(~~..~.~~:.;~':.
f~2r. .~ ~ J'~ ~:~J:~ ~:~'?. -~~.:~t;.g= ~~.
.'::--"U&aa-bnkc''''''.............ll)Csau-...: ~~. i~t)W"""'I'
~ : 5 0 Head li&"'lI [J SaIl bells 17 0 WIpCR
60 Mc= seal !2 [J S~ 11 ~
./
/"
/
/
."34 0 TrMncJcs
. WARNING VIOLATIONS (sUD In scmce)
. .,.: ,2A [J ~. ..f29 DRaw
2S 0 Lcucrinc - . 30 0 Rate on door
: ". 26 0 Map baolt 31 D SP.IIC lire
_' ._.n 0 Painl n OVcllidcrcCill
"21 0 Phone _bee 33 D~
. iroon'.. vEma.ES FOR- H1UO~Y-';~::(~~,.;--",:, :
. .35 0 F_e&L. '-:0' .36 'OFanLai4kit
:_.~.S......-.;:=-~;, -& .;.. '"'.:.!::~._...~~.:;.~;~~. : . -
.'19 Q CDL
: .20 0 Ddrosia-
. . 21 D Dcaac lie-
21 CJ I!&Iaiar
_.2] o Ham
~
.'. .
. .. COMMENTS (do nul~)
/
!
\
i
~ -~......,..-
/,)- )]
Section 1.8 - Eauioment and Ooeratina Reaulations
(a) No medallion shall be issued for a vehicle unless the vehicle
conforms with all the applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) The privilege of engaging in the business of operating a para-
transit vehicle in a City granted in the permit is personal to the permit
holder, who must be the owner of the paratransit vehicle. The rights,
requirements and responsibilities which attach to the permit remain with the
holder at all times the paratransit vehicle is operated under the authority of
the permit. These rights, requirements and responsibilities, which include,
but are not limited to, the requirements of this Ordinance, will remain
unaffected by any agreement or contractual arrangement between the permit
holder and those persons who operate paratransit vehicles, irrespective of the
form or characterization of the agreement under which the driver operates the
paratransit vehicle.
(c) The permit holder shall maintain a business address, a mailing
address where he or she can accept mail directed to his or her company, and a
business te1eph~ne in working order which must be answered during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, and during all hours of operation. The
permit holder shall, in the case of any change in his or her business address,
mailing address, or business telephone, notify the General Manager in writing
of such change within forty-eight (48) hours of the effective date of this
change.
(d) Before a paratransit vehicle is placed in service and at least
annually thereafter, .the paratransit vehicle shall be delivered to a place
designated by the General Manager for inspection. Paratransit Inspectors
shall inspect the paratransit vehicle and its equipment to ascertain whether
the vehicle complies with the provisions of this Ordinance. Failure to
produce the vehicle for inspection shall be cause for suspension or revocation
of the permit for such vehicle.
(e) Any Paratransit Inspector or peace officer, after displaying
proper identification, may make reasonable and periodic inspections of any
paratransit vehicle operating under a paratransit permit for the purpose of
determining whether the vehicle is in compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
(
(f) Any paratransit vehicle which fails to meet the requirements of
the California Vehicle Code or this sectio~ after inspection shall be immedi-
ately ordered out-of-service by a Paratransit Inspector if it is unsafe for
service. Ordering a vehicle out-of-service does not constitute a suspension
or revocation of the permit. A vehicle is deemed unsafe for service when any
of the following conditions exists:
(I) Tires fail to meet the requirements of the California
Vehicle Code;
(2) Headlights, taillights or signal lights are inoperable
during hours of darkness (sunset to sunrise);
(3) Windshield wipers are inoperable during rain conditions;
(4) . Meter is not working or the seal is broken;
-8-
( <_) - 15"0
(5) Brakes, brake lights or brake system are inoperable or
otherwise fail to meet the requirements of the California Vehicle Code;
(6) Excessive play in steering wheel exceeding three (3) inches;
(7) Windshield glass contains cracks or chips that interfere
with driver's vision;
(8) Any door latch is inoperable from either the interior or
exterior of the vehicle;
(9) Any seat is not securely fastened to the floor;
(10) Seat belts, when required, fail to meet requirements of the
California Vehicle Code;
(11) Either side or rearview mirrors are missing or defective;
and
(12) Any other condition which reasonably and rationally pertains
to the operating safety of the vehicle or to passenger or pedestrian safety.
(g) If the vehicle is not unsafe but is unsuitable or otherwise in
violation of this Ordinance, the operator or permit holder, as appropriate,
shall be issued a notice to correct said violation within seventy-two (72)
hours.
(1) Failure to correct such violation within the seventy-two
(72) hours shall then be cause to order the vehicle out-of-service. When a
vehicle is ordered out-of-service, the medallion shall be immediately removed.
(2) Before the vehicle may again be placed in service, the
violation shall be corrected and the vehicle shall be inspected by a Para-
transit Inspector.
(3) The medallion shall be reaffixed when the Paratransit
Inspector finds that the vehicle meets prescribed standards.
(h) The interior and exterior of the paratransit vehicle shall be
maintained in a safe and efficient operating condition, and meet California
Vehicle Code requirements and the requirements of this Ordinance at all times
when in operation. The following minimum vehicle standards must be maintained
to comply with this section:
(1) Wheels. Hubcaps or wheel covers shall be on all wheels for
which hubcaps or wheel covers are standard equipment.
(2) Body Condition. There shall be no tears or rust holes in
the vehicle body and no loose pieces hanging from the vehicle body. Fenders,
bumpers and light trim shall be securely fixed to the vehicle. No extensive
unrepaired body damage shall be allowed. The vehicle shall be equipped with
front and rear bumpers. The exterior of the vehicle shall be maintained in a
reasonably clean condition so as not to obscure the approved color scheme
and/or vehicle markings.
-9-
I c~ r;-/
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
ATTO~EY AT L.AW
M~ JlOUR1lI AVJ!NlJE. surrE S. So\N DIEGO. CAUFORNIA 92101
(619) 238-'314
March 25, 1992
Ms. Barbara Lupro
Metropoli tan Transi t Develo~t Board
Paratransit Regulatory Office
1255 Irrperial Avenue Suite 1000
San Diego, Ca. 92101-7490
RE: APPEAL OF PENALlY OOTICE TO DARlENE DAVIS
DATED March 20, 1992 (Copy Attached)
Dear Ms. Lupro:
I represent Appellant Darlene Davis and hereby subnit this appeal of the
penalty notice dated 3-20-92 which accused Ms. Davis for filure to have a
vehicle inspected. All for alleged violations of MIDB Ordinance 11 Sections
1.8 (d) this appeal is filed pursuant to Section 1.16(a) of Ordinance 11.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. Appellant denies generally and specifically that any violations
occurred and demands that MIDB meet its burden to prove the truth of the
allegations.
2. There is insufficient basis for MIDB to rrake a finding that a violation
occurred .
3. That there was no violation of the particular code section.
4. The regulatory fee exceeds personnel and administrative costs
as per MIDB Administrative Regulation AA 89-1.
5. Appellant demands that MIDB prove that an effective Penalty Schedule was in
effect on the date of the alleged violation and that notice was sent
to appellant.
6. That MIDB has no jurisdiction at the airport..
7. Appellant reserves the right to raise other issues as may be discovered
while reviewing discovery in this matter.
9. Denies that appellant violated any MIDB code section.
l...;l.. _C 'J
Ie C; L--u.
Lupro letter page 2 March 25, 1992
Appellant respectfully requests that the following discovery be provided:
1. kry and all rePOrts, citations, field notes or prepared reports relating to
the alleged violations. And any and all wri tten carplaints, reports, or
correspondence prepared by or on behalf of any witness.
2. A copy of the administrative penal ties if any extant at the tirre of the
violation. Please include in this docunentation any docunentation relating to
public notice or comment.
3. Listing of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses.
4. ApPellant reserves any and all issues that may be discovered upon
review of discovery or other docunents in this matter.
Therefore, Appellant respectfully requests that the allegation be dismissed or
in the. al ternati ve that the required hearing be granted.
B. Barriage
orney For Appellant
cc. Darlene Davis
i
~,-- /
I.
~, '-'
II -- Sr-< ---'\.
(0- L.' -../
'.~' '-.~'
"';;~,.~~~
-
1255 Imperial Avenue. SUite 10CG
San Dieao. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 23~-3407
March 30, 1992
T 370
Mr. John B. Barriage
Attorney-at-Law
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Barrfage:
Subject:
APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF DARLENE DAVIS DATED MARCH 25, 1992
This is to acknowledge the appeal filed on behalf of Ms. Darlene Davis. Since
our notice of March 20, 1992 imposed no penalty, there can be no appeal.
However, to prevent any misunderstanding, the enclosed revised Warning Notice
is sent as a replacement for the questioned Penalty Notice.
Sincerely,
6v~~
Barbara Lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
BLL: CEa1(m
L-BARRIA.CEB
Enclosure: Warning Notice
cc: Company File
Complaint/Violation File
Member Aoencles:
City of Chul~ Vista. Cuv of Coronaoo. CIt~ of EI CaJon. City of Imperial Beach. C.tyof La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. Cuy of Nat,onal Cay. C.ty of Powa', Clly of San Diego. C"y cl
Santee. County of San Diego. Stale of California .
Metropolitan TranSit Development Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and IS Regulatory Autnonty for '.... Para:rans:t AomlnlStrat,on
Subsldlarv Corooratlons: -. San Dleoo Transit Corooratlon. . ...... San Diego Trolley, Inc. an.d 'if" San Dleoo & AnzonaEastern Ra.lway Company
. IE' - . 'F ~-
~ /c+,- [(1 -
r . ..1 ;,.". /TITS
,.,
-
1255 Impenal Avenue. Suite 1000
San Dleao. CA 92101-7490
(619)231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
March 30, 1992
T 370
Ms. Darlene Davis
Sunset Cab
c/o John B. Barriage
Attorney-at-Law
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject:
REVISED WARNING NOTICE
You are hereby notified of the following violation of HTDB Ordinance No. 11 as
specified below.
Backqround
On March 16, 1992, at 10:30 a.m., Sunset Cab No. 470 was operating at the
airport without obtaining the airport rates of fare inspection. The notice to
you on February 11, 1992, instructed you to have an inspection by MTDB by
March 12, 1992.
Offense
Failure to have vehicle inspected as instructed; MTDB Ordinance No. 11,
Section 1.8(d).
Action
Warning. Further violations of this nature will result in a fine.
~~
Barbara Lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
rr(
BlL: CEB: 1 m
L-SNSET.CEB
cc: Company File
Complaint/Violation File
Memcer AoenCles:
Cltyol ChUI~ Vista. City of Coronaoo. City ot EI Calon. City ollmpenal Beach. City of La Mesa. Cltyo! Lemon Grove. City 01 Na::onal City. City ot Poway. C.ty ot San DIego. City ot
Santee. County 01 San D.ego. State 01 Cahlorn.a
Metropolitan Transit Development Board IS Coordinator of the MetrOPOlitan TranSit System and IS Regulatory Autnonty tor :.' Paratranslt Administration
Sucsldlary Corporations: .... San Diego TranSit Corporation. ... San Dleoo Trolley. Inc. and -. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
~ ,." - .
/ d ,- ~S-_.
~~1IIIa ='..*)
A~NEY AT L-AW
~~ PQlJIml AVENUE . sum~. SAN DIEGO. CA1JPC)RN1A 9210\
(619) 2~.731-4
March 31, 1992
Barbara Lupro
Paratransi t Regulatory Mninistrator
1255 Inperial Averue SUi. te 1000
San Diego, Ca. 92101-7490
RE: oar lene Davis Warning Letter
Dear Ms. Lupro:
In respcnse to your letter to me dated March 30, 1992 relating to the
warning letter to Ms. Davis. Your c::haracterizatien of the notice as a
warning does not mean that it has no adverse inpact en Ms. Davis.
Clearly it goes to the driver file, the carplaint and violatien file
and yalr revised "warning letter" indicates that "further violations
will result in a fine." 'Ihus your letter irrplies that this unproved
and unadjlXiicated allegatien will serve as the basis of a fine for a
subsequent violaticn. we ccntest that a violaticn occurred at all.
Unless this allegaticn is adjlXiicated MIDB cannot use it for a
subseqUent violaticn. Unless the allegaticn in the warning letter' is
considered wi thdratlllO by MIDB as the basis for the detennination of a
penalty on a subseqUent alleged violaticn we are still entitled to a
hearing. Please be advised that unless we hear fran you cn this matter
we consider it withdrawn. If it is not considered withdrawn please let
us krn,.;. Please be advised that p..IrSUaI1t to MIDB AcXninistrati ve
Regulaticn AR 89-1 this matter is required to be set as SOCX'l as
possible. My client does not waive her right to have this matter
adjlXiicated as SOCX'l as possible.
Barriage
/c)~2(9
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 100G
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
April 8, 1992
T 370
Mr. John B. Barriage
Attorney-at-Law
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92101
.
Dear Mr. Barriage:
Subject: DARLENE DAVIS' WARNING LETTER
In reply to your letter of March 31, 1992, enclosed is Ordinance No. 11,
Section 1.16(a), which establishes the criteria for allowing an appeal.
Ms. Davis' warning does not meet this criteria, therefore, no appeal may be
fil ed.
Sincerely,
f ct IJ~
Ed Bl an;- ;I
Paratransit Technician
CEB: 1 m
L-BARRI2.CEB
Enclosure: MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Section 1.16
cc: Sunset Taxi Company File
Memoer Agencies:
City of Chula Vista. City o! Coronado. City 01 EI Calon. City of Imperial Beach. City of La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. City of Nat:onal City. City of Poway. City of San Diego. City of
Santee. County of San Diego. Statepf California
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and IS Regulatory AuthOrtty for :..', Paratranslt Aomtnlstrauon
Subslolary Corporations: -.;;;:-; San Diego Transit Corporation. ~'San Dleoo Trolley. Inc. and -., San Diego & ArtZonaEastern Railway Company
,q . '.!t. - , II!
!~'lj?"
{'" ,
I
-
+ '_~~ ......,~..-.....t~_~ __'_ .-...;0 ,.. .-.~_.~,.;;;.::.:;;.---
I~\ -
"'~~ ~,--~' ~,
tt -- .-\_-~.,
.. _. .... w
ATTO=lNEY AT L.AW
~~ JlC)UImi AVI!NUE . surtE OJ, SAN DIEGO. CA1JP()RNlA 9210\
(619) 238-7314
Apr-il 10, 1992
Mr. Ed Blatz, Paratr-ansi t Technician
Metrq:x>litan transit Devel~'Clit Board
125 1nperial Avenue SUite 100
San Di~, Ca. 92101
RE: Oar lene Davis ''Waming Lett.er"."
Dear' Mr. Blanz:
'Iharlkya.1 for- your letter' dated April 8, 1992. I am well aware of the
MIDB Code. But rx:>twi. thstarXllng the paucity of code guideli:re my client
is entitled to due process tJrYjer- the United States arxl California
ecnsti'tuticn. If MIDB has detenn::i.ned that there is a violaticn, arxi
this violaticn nay be used for- detenninaticn of future penalties Ms.
Davis is entitled to a heaI'ing to disprove the allegations.
'n1erefore, we remain steadfast that Ms. Davis is entitled to a heaI'ing
en this matt.er". Therefore, if ycu do gr-ant our request for- a heaI'ing
to disprove the charges MIDB will have waived its allegaticn. that a
violatien oc::::curred for pJI'POses of penalizing future allegations of
violations. Thi.s is rx:> trifling matter-, becal1~ MIDB is naki.ng a
detenninatien that a violaticn was made we ciesereVe an opportunity to
challenge this allegaticn. we would rather- not try this matter- arxi all
that is required is for- MIDB to withdraw the charge. Your refu,sal
to gr-ant a heaI'ing is an inplied withdrawal of the charge.
!<;t - ref>
,...- ....~... :~. . .
1255 Impenal Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-340i
April 21, 1992
T 370
Mr. John Barriage
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Barriage:
We received your April 10, 1992 letter concerning Ms. Darlene Davis' appeal.
We do not agree that Ms. Davis is entitled to a hearing.
Sincerely,
"",--
,"--
(/bt3/~ _/
Ed B1 an7
Paratransit Technician
CEB:imc
L-BARRIA.CEB
cc: Sunset Company File
Member Agencies:
City 01 Chula Vista. City of Coronaco. C'l.\' cl El Cajon. City of Imperial Beach. City of La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. City of Natlcnal City. City of Poway. City of San Diego. Cltyof
Santee. County of San DIego. State of CalifornIa
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordlhatcr 01 the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authority for ~ Paratranslt Acmlhlstratlon
Subsidiary Corporations: ,~. San Diego Transit Corporation, '~San Diego Trolley, Inc. and Ii0 San Diego & ArizonaEastern Railway Company
, .-; , IIJE I \..!U
- ~(~~_~/_ m
DENIAL DUE PROCESS n
Regulatory fees and assorted other fees are set yearly and can be appealed by any
permit holder. I did it myself one year on a Taxi Stand Request fee and was successful.
This operator had to have a hearing to determine if she could have a hearing.
When finally a Hearing Officer determined that she could, she had to drop the appeal
because the expense to arrive simply at that point had become prohibitive.
- 9 -
(.;J- q'V
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
6SS POUImI AVINJE . SUITE S. SAN DIECiO. CAIJIIOItNIA 92101
(619) 238-"14
December 30. 1992
Ms. Barbara Lupro
Metropoli t.an Transi t Developnent Board
Paratransi t Regulatory Office
1255 Irrperial Avenue Suite 1000
San Di~). Ca. 92101-7490
RE: APPEAL OF Proposed Regulatory Fees
By Martha Arcilla
DA'IED December 15, 1992 (Copy Attached)
Dear Ms. Lupro:
I represent Appellant Martha Arcilla and hereby subnit this appeal of the
Proposed Regulatory Fees dated 12-15-92 which seeks to irrpose new, additional
and greater penalties.
This appeal is filed pursuant to Sections 1.5 (d) 2 and 1.]6 (a) of Ordinance
11.
The grounds of appeal are as foll(~s:
1. That. the fees exceed t.he reasonable costs for personnel and administrat.ive
overhead.
2. That the cast recovery scheme i.s confiscatory in that the rates proposed
leave no reasonable rate of return for operators.
3. That the cost recovery scheme violates the equal prot-.ection clauses and
due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the United States
Consti tution and the fifth amendrrent as incorporat-.ed through the fourteenth.
And the coordinate sections of the California Consti I:ution at Article I
Sections 7.15. and 19.
4. That State law was. violat.ed in thai". no hearings were held on r.he proposed
rates. violating the Cal ifornia Open Meeting Law.
Appellant reserves the right to raise other issues as may be discovered in the
discovery p~~ess.
Appellant:" respectfully requests the followi.ng rhscovery:
1. The proposed Paratransi t budget. for the Fiscal year in which the new
penalties are to apply.
2. All docunents reflecting the projections. analysis. basis. rrethodology. and
conclusions used in determining the proposed penalties.
l~;:?- Cj I
Lupro appeal letter 12-30-92
3. All documents reflecting previous costs of MI'DB Paratransi t costs since
1989.
4. A SPeCific breakdown on nunber of MTDB Paratransit~ errployees and salaries.
Lupre Appeal letter 12-30-92 (Arcilla)
Appellant reserves. the right to arrend this request as other pertinent
d1.scovery may be yet thought of. This request is pursuant to Administrative
Regulation 89-1.
Sincerely,
'-
IJ6
cc. Marha Arcilla
/ (7 -- 7 2
~ ~
'255lmpenal Avenue. SUite '000
San D.eoO. CA 92101-7490
f6191231-1466 MEMORANDUM
FAX (619) 234-30407 1 370
DATE:
10:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 15, 1992
Paratransit Vehicle Owners and pa~t Orivers
Thomas F. Larw~~' '
PARATRANSIT REGULATORY FEES
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 1993
FEE AMOUNTS
1.
Annual Fee Per Vehicle
S 400'
1.1
Plus each jitney route in excess
of five per company
s
15
-
...~
1.2
Late payment
10% of
balance
1.3 Initial regulatory fee:
1.3.1
If proprietor or executive
officer has less than 2 years
as MTDB/City permit holder
1.3.2
If more than 2 years experience
200% of
item 1
100% of
item 1, prorated
52,000
S 200
S 150
S 400
2. Permit Appl ication
2.1 Plus each penmit in excess of one
2.2 Plus jitney routes in excess of
one per vehicle
2.3 Plus additional charge if applicant
is a corporation
'Increase; was 5385 in 1992
Io\emDer "genC1eS:
Cavol Cnuaa VISa. Cavol Coronaoo. Cav of EI CalOn. CIlY OlttnDe"ala.acn, Cny 01 U Mesa. Cny 01 L.emon Grove. Cny 01 "'a"onal CIl". Cny of ",_ay. Cnv o! San 00e90. CIlY o~
_" lOa...... County 01 lOan Ooepo. S"'.Ol Call1omoa .
::j;~ _ .....rDPOInan 'Transit De...lOPment 8oa", IS Coorolnator ot tne Metrooofllan 'Transit System anO IS RegUlatory AutnOrlty tor i_: Paratransll ACm,nlStrallOn
__'~:-~ ~ -Cort>>ora\lDnS: :--~ San Doepo 'Transit Coroorallon. ;7i:: San Olepo'Trolley. Int:. and .-. San O..po I> ArlZo~as.ern Railway Comoany
_ -, ..-.,:;:,...."'-..- '. ."
.. - ~.:..
1;2 -q_3
,.
,
3.3 Change/add company
s SO
S 10
S 10
S 10
3.
Paratransit Driver Identification Card
3.1 lemporary driver 1.0. card
3.2 Replace lost card
4. Operational Requests
4.1 lransfer clearance
- Plus per vehicle
.S 200
S ISO
S 75
S 75
$ 7S
$ SO
S 10
$ SO/both
$_ 10
4.2 Additional jitney route for existing permit
4.3 Jitney route change
4.4 Jitney zone request, if installed
4.S laxi stand request, if installed
4.6 Fictitious name change;
4.7 Color scheme and radio service change;
- Plus per vehicle
4.8 Request for more than 60 days out of service
S 3S
More than one per year:
4.9 Address change
S
10
4.10 Rate of fare filing per company;
S 3S
4.12 Add corporation officer, each
S 10
$ 75
$ 100
- Plus per vehicle
4.11 Replacement vehicle
4.13 Addition, deletion, or change of
stock holder, each
S 500
S.
Additional Eligible Service Area
S 35
6. Vehicle Reinspections
6.1 As a result of failing scheduled inspection,
medallion removed
S 35-
-2.
-
---
..~'!
.c.~
~
e;lL!-
~
/~
2
6.2
As a result ot failing scheduled inspection
s
S 25
6.3 Reschedule inspection appointment with
less than 24-hour notice
6.4 No-show for inspection appointment
S 50
S 353
6.5 Supplemental scheduled inspection
7 . Insurance {payable by permi t holder}
i.B Review of risk retention group
S 25
S 100
S 25
S 100
S 50 plus actual
cost per hour
S 25 plus actual
cost per hour
S 25
S 100 plus actual
cost per hour
7.1 Insurance certificate, each,
more than one per year per company
7.2 Initial review of proposed insurance company
7.3 Initial submittal of insurance agent
errors and omissions coverage
7.4 Initial review of self-insurance, per
self-insurance certificate
7.5 Review of proposed insurance policy
7.6 Review of renewal of existing
insurance policy
7.7 Assigned risk submittal, each
PAYMENT
The 1993 annual vehicle fee is due fDr each permit held as of January 1, 1993,
irrespective of whether the permit is later transferred, abandoned, or revoked.
For current permits, half of the annual vehicle fee will be payable on March 1,
1993, the other half will be payable on May 3, 1993. Late payments are subject to
monetary penalties, and nonpayment will result in suspension or revocation of the
permit.s.
For permits issued after January, the initial regulatory fee is payable in full when
the permit is issued.
Other fees are due when request is made.
ZOeletec; was S10 in 1992
3New
-3-
I .) -- CJ <..---
! c (..J
-~-
----
~,
BAS I S FOR .FEES
These fees have been calculated to recover the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board's (MTDB) expenses for the administration and enforcement of paratransit permit
requirements, and for the processing of permit applications.
REFERENCE
California PUC Section 120266
MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Sections 1.3(b}, 1.4(b), 1.S(d} and 1.12(k}
MTDB Policy 35, Section 6
NOTE
The changes to this fee schedule may be appealed. Appeals must be in writing and
received by MTDB no later than December 30, 1992. Appeals will be reviewed in
accordance with MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Sections 1.3(b), 1.4(b}, 1.5(d}, and 1.12(k}.
CONTACT
MTDB
Paratransit Regulatory Administration
Attention: Barbara Lupro
_ 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
-.
~...,.
BLL:bw/ky
REGFEES.BLL
12/14/92
-4-.
/::'/ 9 b
MTDB ~
Metropolitan Transit Development Board .....,
-''255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
Jan Diego. CA 92101.7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234.3407
January 11, 1993
~~C~\~~O
T 370
\ ~ \~~~
~~\\
Mr. John Barriage, Attorney
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Barriage:
Subject:
APPEAL OF PROPOSED REGULATORY FEES BY MARTHA ARCILLA
Your appeal dated December 30, 1992, has been reviewed by the General Manager
and is hereby denied. The legal and fiscal bases for the fee schedule have
been confirmed, and we find no substantive basis to grant the appeal.
For your reference, I am enclosing a copy of the FY1992 MTDB budget and of the
audit. In the event you would like additional information concerning the
basis for the fee schedule, please feel free to call me at 231-1466. I would
be happy to set up a time for you and I to meet in order to review and discuss
any related information.
s~~
Barbara Lupro
Paratransit Regulatory Administrator
BLL:jj
L-BARRIAGE.BLL
Enclosures: December 30, 1992
FY1992 MTDB Budget
FY1992 MTDB Audit
cc: TFL
\.1emoer AgenCIes'
C,ty at Chula Vista. C,t., at Coronaco. C,ty of EI Cajon. C,ty of Imper:al Seacn. C,ty of La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. C,tv at National City. C.ty at Pawav. C.:y af San Diego. C,ty at
Santee. County of San Diego. State ot California .
Metropolitan Transit Develooment Board 's Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory AuthOrity for ~ Paratranslt Admlrlistratlon
Suosldlary Corporations: -.:> San Diego Transit Corporation, Co San Diego Trolley. Inc. and -.- San Diego & Arizona Eastem Railway Ccmpany
~ w. TI7
!.:-) J.'
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
A~NEY AT \..AW
MS POllK1lt AV1!NUE~ SlJrTE S. SAN DIEGO. CAlJJlORNIA 92101
(619) 238-73'-4
Jan..tarY 16, 1993
Ms. Barbara Lupro
Paratransi t Regulatory Pdninistrator
MIDB
1255 Inperial AvenJe, SUite 1000
San Diego, Ca. 92101-7490
HE: Appeal of Prcposed Regulatory Fees By Martha Arcilla
Dear Ms. Lupro.
I have received ycur letter dated JanJary 11, 1993 respon:1ing
to the Arcilla ~ letter dated Decellber 30, 1992. Ycur respcnse
is unacceptable.
Urrler the provisiCl1S of Ordinance 11 arrl MIDB Pdninistrative Regulati<Xl
89-1 ~llant is enti tied to a hearing en this matter. Urrler the
MIDB Ordinance it is the obligati<Xl of the General Manager to set
a hearing. Furthernore, there is I'X> autl'x>rity for ycu, preslrnably
acting as the delegate of the General Manager, or the General Manager
to make sumary decisi<X1S <Xl aJ:Peals. As will be explicated below
the law requires that this ~al letter be acted upc:n. You have ~
arxi ally ~ optien: set this matter for a hearing. Failure to do so
will result in cur filing suit against the Para transit Regulatory
Pdninistrator arrl the General Manager persalally arrl against the
agerr::y. If litigatien is required we will seek cost arrl attorney fees.
For the autl'x>ri ty that a hearing nust be set please review ordinance 11
Sectien 1.5. Sectien 5(d) (2) states that arry perscn objecting to a
particular fee or charge may file for an appeal for review with the
General Manager who shall thereafter pl"CX::eSS it in accol"'dan=e with
Sectien 1.17 (stnlld read Secti.en 1.16). Sectien 1.16 as ycu know
relates to Procedure Upon Pdnini.strati ve Appeal. 'Ihis provisi<Xl
requires that "when an ~ is filed, the General Manager shall
review the appeal, arx:l based en the addi ticnal infonnatien provided
therein, may revise his fi.rxtings arrl penalty; in accol"'dan=e with
the additicnal infonnatien provided; or cause the appeal to be
assigned to a Hearing Officer..." Ord~.J.b(ar~ Thus under this
provisien the Manager has two opti<X1S: first, to revise his fi.rxtings;
seccn:i, to set the matter for appeal. 1bere is I'X> provisien for a
surmary denial of an appeal as you have. dale. It is a well
established max:i.m of statutory CCXlStructien that where a stautue
expressly provides for ~ thing it excludes what has not been
expressed.
, :) ~.. C:' C
I c.- !rV
1-16-93 I..upro letter (Arcilla)
Pdni.n:i.strati ve Regulaticn as-I also requires a hearing.
.AR as-I 9 4.1 expressly provides that the Appellant may file arx>tice of
aweal of the establistxrent of regulatory fees and gives the
respa1Sibility to the General Manager to appoint a hearing officer.
Also see .ARaS-l at ~ 1,2. It is the prov:i.rce of the Hearing Officer to
detennine if the regulatory fees exceeds costs. 'Iherefore, Mrs.
Arcilla reaffims her appeal as to the regulatory fees as they apply to
her. Appellant also reaffirms herein our discovery request as
explicated in the 12-30-92 ~l letter.
Please respon:i wi thin ten days of the receipt of this letter.
-
/J 99
, MmB L5!H
Metropolitan Transit Development Board' ~
1255 Imoeriaf Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
February 3, 1993
Mr. Roy L. Mondike
4951 Clairemont Square, Suite 264
San Diego, CA 92117
Dear Mr. Mondike:
\~
~~~ ~ ~ 370
\'1~.:O
~~C~
Per your telephone conversation with Ms. Irma Carrillo, this confirms the
following:
Hearina of Ms. Martha Arcilla. d.b.a. Martha's Bus Line
Date:
February 11, 1993
9:00 a.m.
James R. Mills Building (Bay View Conference Room)
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, California
This hearing is to determine whether there is a basis for a hearing of
Ms. Arcilla's appeal. Please note the basis for the fees is summarized on the
fee notice dated December 12, 1992.
Time:
Place:
Mr. John Barriage is representing Ms. Arcilla, and we previously provided him
copies of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board's budget and audit.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at
557-4580.
Sincerely,
fr1,~
Paratransit Technician
CEB:ceb:jy/N-MONDIK.CEB
Enclosures: A. MTDB Ordinance No. 11
B. California Public Utilities Code Section 120266
C. December 14, 1992 Fee Notice
D. Administrative Regulation 89~1
E. FY 1992 MTDB Budget
F. FY 1992 MTDB Audit
cc: (JOhn Bardig~"1w/Encl osures A-D)
Martha's ~Line Company File
Hearing File
Memoer Agencies: -
City of Chula Vista. City of Coronado. City of EI Calon. City of Imoerlal BeaCh. Cltv of La Mesa. Cltv of Lemon Grove. City of National City, City ot Powav. C,tv of San Diego, City of
Santee. County of San Diego. State Of California
Metropolitan Transit Develooment Board is Coordinator of the MetropOlitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authonty for : _; Paratranslt Adm'nlstrallon
SubSidiary Corporations: :..; San Diego Transit CorporatIOn. l.. i San DiegJ Tr.olley. Inc. and l.tJ San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Comoany
- - /,;2 -70A
MTDB L1fiB
Metropolitan Transit Q,evelopment Board ~
....
255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
February 3, 1993
E.O Tt.~ ~ 'iI
~~\~_ T 370
\..\!- -
--
~
John B. Barriage
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, Ca 92101
Dear Mr. Barriage:
This correspondence is to notify you of the hearing date concerning your
client's appeal of the 1993 Paratransit Vehicle Regulatory Fee. This hearing
is to determine whether there is a basis for a hearing of Ms. Arcilla's
appeal.
HearinQ of Ms. Martha Arcilla. d.b.a. Martha's Bus line
Date:
February 11, 1993
Time:
9 a.m.
Place:
James R. Mills Building
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
Bay View Library
San Diego, California
Attorney Roy l. Mondike has accepted the appointment as Hearing Officer.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at
557-4580.
Sincerely,
Ef!f7
Paratransit Technician
CEB:ceb:paw
N-BARAG2.CEB
cc: Martha's Bus line Company File
Heari ng Fil e
Roy l. Mondi ke
Member -\gencies . /~--! L}/
CIty of C~Uia Vtsta. City of Corcnacc. C.ty of E! Cajen. City of Imperlal Beach. CIty of La Mesa. City at Lemon Grove. City of National City, C;ty of Poway. Cltv at San Diego. City ot
Santee, ':ount'l 01 San Diego, State of California
Metrooolllan TranSit Deve!c:ment Soard IS Coordinator of the Metrooolltan TranSit System ana is Regulatory AuthOrity tor . ~. ParatranSlt ,~.amlnlstratlcn
Subsldiarv Coroorar:ons' -= San Diego Trans.t COrDOratlon, '''''" San Dleao TrOlley, Inc. ana a San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway CO/'Tloany
, . .~ - ~
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
We've visited this case before in Chapter 6 under Jurisdictional Errors where the
Hearing Officer chose not to dismiss.
MTDB did not proceed with its Code of Conduct because it would never have
passed muster with the Board as it was constitutionally defective. An end run around that
problem for them was solved by the internal use of "inappropriate behavior" on a case
by case basis without bringing it to the attention of the Taxi Liaison Committee or the
MTD Board of Directors for critical review.
"Inappropriate behavior" suffers from the same defects as mentioned for the Code
of Conduct. It doesn't describe with any specificity the behavior which is prohibited so
violates the first principle of due process.
To the degree that they are successful in finding a Hearing Officer who will go
along with this, they are successful in adding another violation to a driver or permit
holder's record.
- 10 -
!'cJ -,- (V 2-
.~ .
~ tlMTDB . I,'" . . L5n
Metropolitan Transit Development Board . :.' :.' . '.' ~ .
-
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
January 2, 1992
T 370
Mr. Basem Odeh Khalifeh
4641 Kensington Drive
San Diego, CA 92116
Subject: PENALTY NOTICE
You are hereby notified of the following violation(s) and the penalty for
failure to comply with the requirements of KTDB Ordinance No. 11 as specified
be low.
~
.-
Backaround
We received a complaint against you, the driver of G.A. Cab #786, regarding an
incident that occurred on December 29, 1991 at the Lindbergh Field Airport.
Traffic Enforcement Officer (TED) Rochelle reported to us that you:
o refused to transport a passenger from the Lindbergh Field Airport
to an address in downtown San Diego;
o again refused to transport the same passenger after the TED told
you it was okay to pick up passengers and luggage at the curbside;
o you argued with him in a loud and boisterous tone of voice.
On December 31, 1991, during an interview with MTDB Code Compliance
inspector Kaneakua, you acknowledged the incident and described it as follows:
o you admitted to refusing the fare because it was your
understanding that only handicapped passengers could be picked up
at the curb;
o you were argumentative at the time because you were trying to
explain to TED Rochelle why you did not want to transport the
passenger.
It is a standard operational procedure and common practice for TEDs to direct
taxicab drivers to pick up at the curb when, for example, passengers have a
great deal of luggage.
j'j .' ')
Member Agencies: [ ,:7 - / C~
Clly 01 Cnu,a Vista City ot Coronado. City 01 EI CaJon. CIty otlmpena' Bl:acn. C,ty ot La Mcs<1. t.,y 01 Lemon Grove. CIII 01 N""ona' City. City 01 Poway City of San Otego. City of
Santee. County of San Diego Slale 01 California
Metropolitan Trans.l Development Board IS Coordinator of tne Metropolitan T"ln~11 System and IS Regulatory Authonty for . M: P"r<Jlransll Aamllllstmtton
SubSidiary Corporations: I ~ San Dle')o TranSIt CorporatIon, i" I San Diego TrOlley. Inc. and Jt. Siln Oll'!<jO X. AnlOna E<Jslern Railway Company
Mr. Basem Odeh Khalifeh
January 2, 1992
Page 2
Offense
1. Refusal to transport; Ordinance No. 11, Section 2.4(c,d).
2. Failure to comply with a lawful order; Ordinance No. 11, Section I.8(t).
3. Inappropriate behavior.
Penalty
1. $250.00 fine due ten working days from the date of this notice, by check
or money order payable to MTDS.
2&3. Admonishment: This is a strong warning to you that this type of
behavior will not be tolerated. If we receive an additional valid
complaint of similar behavior in the future, your taxicab driver's
identification card will be suspended or revoked.
If you do not agree with this decision, you may appeal in writing within
ten days from the date of this notice. In accordance with MTDB Ordi"nance
No. 11, Section 1.16(a), the appeal must state the specific reasons you
believe our actions are not proper. Should you choose to file an appeal, it
must be addressed and delivered to the address on this letterhead,
attention: Barbara Lupro.
~~
Barbara Lupro
Para~it Regulatory Administrator
BLL:~m
L-KHALIF .HKK
Enclosure: MTDB Ordinance No. 11, Section 1.8(t) 2.4(c,d)
cc: J. Snyder, Sheriff's Licensing Division
G. Abboud, G. A. Cab Company
G.A. Company File
Compl ai nt Fil e
Dri ver Fil e
)d~-([) </
(1) Radio must be turned on, and audible to driver, at all times
the taxicab is in service.
(e) The radio dispatch capability described in paragraph (d) of this
section must be provided so as to conform to the regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission pertaining to Land Transportation Radio Services.
Failure to conform to those regulations will additionally constitute a failure
to meet the requirements of this section.
(1) The current valid FCC license shall be on file with HTOB.
(2) Taxicab permit holder shall provide current proof the radio
has passed inspection by an MTOB-approved inspector.
(3) Taxicab radios shall have the capability to receive or
transmit only on frequencies specified in the FCC license of
the radio service sub!cribed to by the permit holder.
(f) Radio scanners are not allowed in taxicabs.
(Section 2.3 a.ended 6/27/91; effective 7/27/91)
Section 2.4 - Ooeratina Reaulations
(a) Operating regulations shall be promulgated and adopted from time
to time by resolution of the Board. These resolutions will have the force of
law and will be publiShed and processed as though set forth in this Ordinance.
(b) Any driver employed to transport passengers to a definite point
._shall take the most direct route pOSSible that will carry the passenger to his
destination safely and expeditiously.
(c) It shall be unlawful for the driver or operator of any taxicab to
refuse a prospective fare or to take any action to actively discourage a
prospective fare on the basis of race, creed, color, age, sex, national
origin, handicap, or for any other reason, unless it shall be readily apparent
that the prospective fare is a hazard to the driver or operator.
(d) It shall be unlawful to refuse or discourage a prospective fare
based upon trip length within the Cities.. ,.. ...
,
(e) Ho driver of any taxicab 'shaii stop, park, or otherwise leave
standing a taxicab on the same side of the street in any block in which
two (2) taxicabs are already stopped, parked, or otherwise standing.
(f) No driver shall stop, park or otherwise leave standing a taxicab
within one-hundred (100) feet of any other taxicab.
(g) No driver shall stop, park, or otherwise leave standing a taxicab
within fifteen (15) feet of any fire plug except as modified in Section 2.5 of
this Ordinance. .
(h) A driver may not display an .Out-of-Service. sign while the driver
is in the taxicab or the taxicab is located in a taxi stand. This subsection
shall not prohibit a driver of an out-of-service taxicab from displaying an
-26- .
/ d--/ D.)'
.~ILOt+J , .~
(3) The name of the owner of the vehicle; and
(4) A small photograph of the driver.
(p) Each paratransi~ vehicle shall be equipped with a rearview mirror
affixed to the right side of the vehicle, as an addition to those rearview
mirrors otherwise required by the California Vehicle Code.
(q) The driver shall offer each passenger a receipt upon payment of
the fare. The receipt shall accurately show the date, the starting and ending
locations for the trip, the amount of the fare, the company name, the name and
signature of the driver; and the name, address, and phone number of the
Board's Paratransit office.
(r) All disputes to fare shall be determined by the peace officer or
Paratransit Inspector most readily available where the dispute is had. It
shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with such
determination by the peace officer or Paratransit Inspector.
(s) It is unlawful for any person to refuse to pay the lawful fare of
a paratransit vehicle after employing or hiring the same.
(t) The driver of any paratransit vehicle shall promptly obey all
lawful orders or instructions of any peace officer, fire fighter or Para-
transit Inspector.
(u) No driver of any paratransit vehicle shall transport any greater
number of persons, including the driver, than the manufacturer's rated seating
capacity for the vehicle.
(v) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit business for a
paratransit vehicle by making a contract or agreement with any owner of any
hotel, apartment house, motel, inn, rental units, restaurant, or bar, or with
the agent or employees of such owner, by which the owner, agent or employee
receives any type of payment or commission for recommending or directing any
passenger to a specific paratransit vehicle or company. It shall be unlawful
for any permit holder, association, or driver to have or make a contract or
agreement with any owner of any hotel, apartment house, motel, inn, rental
units, restaurant, or bar, or with the agents or employees of such owner, by
which the permit holder, association or driver receives any type of payment or.
commission for recommending or directing any passenger to an establishment
operated by a specific owner.
(w) The driver of a paratransit vehicle shall wear, in a manner
clearly visible on their person, an identification card approved by the
General Manager.
(x) The Board specifically finds that the dress, grooming and conduct
of paratransit drivers affects the public health and safety, particularly as
-12-
)c9- ~ (0 cP
.~..
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Appellant
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION OF HEARING
OFFICER
In the Matter of
BASEM OPEH KHALIFEH
This matter came on for hearing on March 24, 1992 at 11:00
a.m. in Suite 1000 at 1255 Imperial Ave., San Diego, California,
the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, hereinafter referred
to as MTDB, appearing by and through KEVIN D. BUSH, appe~lant
appearing by and through JOHN B. BARRIAGE and in person.
The parties offered testimony and introduced documentary
evidence and prior to submission appellant raised the issue of
MTDB jurisdiction at the Airport. The hearing officer allowed the
submission of briefs on the issue and briefs having been submitted
the hearing officer requested further written argument and further
argument having been submitted, the hearing officer makes the
following findings and decision.
The facts of this case present a number of issues. Can a
report of violation of Port District Ordinances testified to by a
Port District Traffic Enforcement Officer be the basis for MTDB
issuing a Penalty Notice for a violation of sections of MTDB
Ordinance No.11. There is no question that a Port District TEO can
enforce Port District Ordinances. However, can MTDB enforce its
( ) ~ /C) J
C7 ( (
~
- ..
/-
/"
/"
sanctions on a driver based upon activities occurred outside its
physical boundaries, which if had occurred wi thin its physical
boundaries would have resulted in imposition of sanctions. The MTDB
penalty notice sets forth three alleged violations.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 2.4(c,d) OF ORDINANCE NO. 11
Can MTDB base a violation of its ordinances on a violation of
Port District Ordnance where the alleged violation is of a similar
ordinance?
Here the facts indicate that TEO Rochelle was enforcing a Port
District Ordinance and did not know the MTDB ordinances that might
apply.
Based upon review of the briefs presented, I find that the
MTDB does not have jurisdiction to enforce its ordinance upon Port
District property. However, I find that appellant's acti vi ties
would be a violation if they had occurred within MTDB's physical
boundaries.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1.S(T) ORDINANCE NO. 11
The second question was appellants acts a failure to comply
with a lawful order. This presents two issues, was TEO Rochelle
peace officer and were his instructions to appellant a lawful
order.
After review of Port District ordinances, it does not make
sense to interpret them in a manner that a passenger who has
hired a cab cannot have the cab go to the curb to pick up others
in his group and their luggage. The instruction of TEO Rochelle
was a lawful order.
The second issue was TEO Rochelle a peace officer for the
/0" '-IL) 8
purposes of section 1.8(t). Peace officer is defined if the Penal
code and a TEO is not included. It is interesting to note that Port
District ordinance 5.92(1) refers to orders of the Harbor
Police. TEO Rochelle was not at the time of the incident a peace
officer.
Thus, there was no violation of the section.
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
Were appellants actions inappropriate behavior? Based upon
the testimony of TEO Rochelle and his report, appellant's behavior
while dealing with TEO Rochelle was inappropriate.
SANCTIONS FOR ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION IF OCCURRED
WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES OF MTDB
In controlling its licenses may MTDB impose sanctions for
activities which if they had occurred within its physical
boundaries would be a violation of MTDB ordinances. After review of
the argument of counsel and the cases cited, I find that MTDB does
have such authority in controlling its licensees.
CONCLUSION
The appellant's activities would have been a violation of
Section 2.4(c,d) of MTDB Ordinance No. 11 if they had occurred
within the physical boundaries of MTDB and imposition of a sanction
was proper. However, I believe there was an honest misunderstanding
of the requirements of the ordinance and the sanction imposed is
reduced to $100.00.
The violation of Section 1.8(t) of MTDB Ordinance No. 11 is
not sustained as the lawful order was not issued by a person in the
capacity set forth in the section.
/'-~ --I () r
~-
.- ...-.;....
-
Appellant's behavior during the incident was inappropriate
and the warning contained in the Penalty Notice dated January 2,
1992 is sustained.
Dated: mId /;3/lc?9 Z
f~ -/10
JOHN B. BARRIAGE
ATTO~NEY AT ~W
--'*'~
6SS FOllR1lI AVPMJE. SUl1'! S, SAN DIEGO, CAUPOfCNIA 92101
(619) 238-7314
May 31, 1992
Mr. Basem Odeh Khalifeh
4641 Kenningston Drive
San Diego, Ca. 92116
RE: MIDB Case Decision
Dear Mr. Khalifeh:
I have attached a copy of the r.earing officers' decision in this
matter. As you can see the hea~ing officer concluded against us on
this case. His decision I thil1k is bizarre in that he concludes that
although MIDB does not have the authority to e.'1f0rce i~ .rules at the
airport it can punish inappropriate behavior conducted outside MIDB
jurisdiction. As you ca"1 also see ~.e hearing officer imposed a
penalt'.1 of $100.00 whic.l-). is at least a substantial. reduction fran the
original penalty of $250.00.
I would like to take this matter one step further, in ~at I would like
to appeal this decision in court, on what is called a writ. The filing
fee I believe is $165.00, ar-n I believe that a group of people can be
put t09'ether to help finance this case. This is' all contingent upon
you deceiding to permit this appeal. Please let me know as soon as
possible what you would like to do. "
On friday I telephoned Mr. Leone at MIDB. He ..snd that he usually
waits about 15 days for the penalty to be turned in. If you need more
time to pay the fine please .contact Mr. Leone. If yeu have any
q'...lestions please feel free to call.
(/~
/'\
s~~~.~//
. ,/1 -'.) I
{-- I
; \,,/~,g_____T -::: \\ .:!---
Jbhn eJr~age
J
/
/
/
-----
....................
~--
/:J - //(
ENHANCEMENT PROVISIONS
The enhancement provisions of Ordinance 11, Section 1.14(d)(e)(t) provide for
cumulative effects of violations on an operator's record leading to suspension or
revocation.
That in itself seems reasonable till one remembers operators experiences from third
party complaints from other jurisdictions (Chapter 6), appeal denials from penalty
"warnings" (Chapter 8) and the use of non-legal terminology which cannot be defended
against as we saw in the previous chapter.
It took me personally many years to figure out that government was inefficient by
design because it was designed first to be fair. In the awarding of contracts and such and
the handling of personnel. Inefficiencies will naturally follow if you want our form of
government.
Due process is expensive, and MTDB is under pressure to watch the budget. Due
process suffers.
- 11 -
Id ~/!2
/ :<--,
(6) The driver has been convicted of assault, battery, resisting
arrest, any felony involving force and violence, or any crime reasonably and
rationally related to the ability or integrity of the driver to operate a
paratransit vehicle or transport passengers; or
(7) The driver has ever been convicted of a crime that requires
registration under the California Penal Code as a sex offender.
(b) For purposes of Subsections (a) (1) through (a) (6) of this
section, a plea of nolo contendre, or a forfeiture of bail shall be considered
a conviction if it occurred within the five (5) years immediately preceding
the date of application for a permit or identification card.
(c) Notwithstanding a driver's possession of a valid taxicab driver
identification card, the General Manager may deny, suspend, revoke or refuse
to renew the driver's privilege to operate a paratransit vehicle in the City
if the driver falls within the provisions of this section. The General
Manager shall send a notice of prohibition to operate a taxicab to any holder
of a Sheriff's driver identification card who is ineligible under Subsec-
tion (a) to operate a paratransit vehicle within the City limits. The notice
of prohibition shall be appealable in accordance with Section 1.16.
(d) The driver shall be notified each time a complaint against him or
her has been filed by a member of the public. The General Manager shall cause
each complaint to be investigated. Upon the investigation and determination
of three (3) valid complaints within twelve (12) months, the driver shall be
issued a notice of proposed adverse action and shall appear for an informal
hearing before the General Manager. Failure to so appear shall constitute a
waiver of the hearing. Following such hearing or waiver thereof, the General
Manager shall issue the adverse action, if justified.
(e) Following the issuance of a notice of adverse action, receipt by
the General Manager of one (1) additional complaint arising within
twelve (12) months subsequent to the date of issuance of the adverse action
that is determined to be valid shall cause the driver's identification card to
be revoked or suspended, as appropriate.
(f) Upon a finding by the General Manager that a driver falls within
the provisions of this section, the driver shall be notified that his or her
driver's identification card has been revoked or suspended and the manner in
which such action may be appealed. In lieu of revocation or suspension, the
General Manager may impose a fine, or a fine and a period of suspension.
Section 1.15 - Surrender of Medallion
(a) When a permit has been suspended or revoked, the operation of any
paratransit vehicle authorized by such permit shall cease, and its medallion
surrendered immediately to the General Manager.
Section 1.16 - RiQht of Administrative Aooeal from Denial. Susoension or
Revocation of Permit or Driver's Identification Card or Related Adverse Action
(a) The permit holder or driver shall be notified that he or she may
file with the General Manager a written administrative appeal ten (10) days
after delivery of the notice of revocation or suspension, or the denial of a
-21-
I;J -/13
..
..
for providing the identity of potential witnesses, would appear
to mitigate w~atever penalty otherwise would be applicable tOI
I
Appellant as a result of this violation.
AWARD
Because of the foregoing issues, and facts, the award is:
1. Appellant is found to be in violation of MTDB Ordinance
11, Section 2.4(c):
2. This violation shall be deemed not to be a prior
affect at any time in the future for Appellant:
ofl
in!
I
\
I
I
I
I
violation for the enhancement of any penalty for any violation
the MTDB rules and regulations schedules now in affect, or
3. This Hearing Officer retains personal jurisdiction over
Appellant's current taxi permit or/any other permit that
Appellant may receive from the MTDB for a period of three years.
Dated:
~/~h I
~~
Hearing Officer
E:\Arb\"TDBDAVl.Arb
6
(-~-1(1
ORDINANCE CHANGESIERRORS
In preparation for handing regulation over to MTDB, my city attorney's office
cleaned up ordinance language which was duly amended by the Council on July 11, 1988.
The name was changed to Ordinance 11 when given to MTDB. The text was the
same and only two minor amendments, dealing with jitneys, were made in the next year
and a half. Pages 26-28 are from that text, covering Section 2.4 - Operatine Reeulations.
Many ordinance changes were made in July of '90 including several under the
above described section. Pages 26A and 27 A are examples from the text after the
changes.
The only problem is they didn't tell anybody about the changes. Neither the
industry, the Police or the courts. I discovered this when I got a minor ticket for being
away from my cab at Amtrak.
I went all the way to the General Counsel level to try to get it fixed (not my ticket,
the mess in the Ordinance). The Police "cheat sheets" were fixed but over 3 years later
the court's Criminal Fine and Bail Schedule and Ordinance 11 have not been fixed.
MTDB had changed the ordinance incorrectly on July 26, 1990. They inserted a
new item for (d), broke up the old (d) into three parts completely throwing everything
in our numbering system out of order.
The Police "cheat sheets," from which tickets are written, was corrected. All the
bogus violations hitting operators' records are still out there. The Court's Criminal Fine
and Bail Schedules continue to show misdemeanors incorrectly when they should read
infractions, and Ordinance 11 continues to show sections as misdemeanors when they are
infractions as the court has already ruled on that. (See Chapter 5, Barriage letter datedaAugust 31, 1993.)
- 12 -
Ie;) -- !/~
/.
_/
4
( 0- 8 8 -1 U REV. 2 )
ORDINANCE
NUMBER 0- 1711~)
ADOPTED ON J U L 111988
(NEW SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VII, ARTICLE 5,
DIVISIONS 1 AND 6, OF THE SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL
CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 75.0101, 75.0102,
75.0104, 75.0105, 75.0108, 75.0111, 75.0112,
75.0113, 75.0114, 75.0116, 75.0117, 75.0120
AND 75.0603 RELATING TO PARATRANSIT CODE.
HE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as
follows:
Section 1. That Chapter VII, Article 5, Divisions 1 and 6,
of the San Diego Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended
by amending Sections 75.0101, 75.01~2, 75.0104, 75.0105, 75.0108,
75 . 0111, 75. 0112, 75 c 0113, 75. 0114, 75.0116, 75.0117, 75. 0"120 and
75.0603 to read as follows:
SEC. 75.0101 DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, wherever used
in this Chapter, shall be construed as defined in
this section, unless from the context a different
meaning is intended, or unless a different meaning
is specif~cally defined and more particularly
directed to the use of such words or pnrases.
(a) through (n) No Change.
I
(0) "Medallion" shall mean the numbered plate
or decal issued by the City to the permit holder
which is displayed on a paratrans~t vehicle to
indicate the authorized use or uses ot that
vehicle.
-PAGE 1 Or' -l~-
Ie) --Iii)
..."--.
Section 2.3 - Equipment and Specifications
(a) No vehicle shall be granted a permit unless it conforms with all the
provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) No taxicab shall be operated until the taximeter thereon has been
inspected, tested, approved and sealed by the State of California, Department
of Weights and Measures, and thereafter so maintained in a manner satisfactory
to the representative of the General Manager.
(c) Each taxicab shall bear on the outside a medallion issued by and in
the place prescribed by the General Manager, and also be equipped with a
device which shall plainly indicate to a person outside the taxicab whether
the taximeter is in operation or is not in operation.
(d) All taxicabs must conform to a color scheme approved by the General
Manager, and the General Manager may refuse a permit to any person whose color
scheme, trade name and/or insignia imitates that of any permittee in such man-
ner as to deceive the public.
(e) Each taxicab shall be assigned a body number by the permit holder.
The trade name and body number shall. be painted or permanently affixed in let-
ters and numerals no less than four (4) inches high on both sides and the rear
of the taxi cab.
(f) All taxicabs shall be equipped and operated so that they may be dis-
patched by two-way radio communication in response to a telephone or other
request for service by a prospective passenger. This requirement may not be
met by use of a mobile radio telephone service.
(g) The radio dispatch capability described in paragraph (f) of this
section must be provided so as to conform to the regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission pertaining to Land Transportation Radio Services.
Failure to conform to those regulations will additionally constitute a failure
to meet the requirements of this section.
Section 2.4 - Operating Regulations
(a) Operating regulations shall be promulgated and adopted from time to
time by resolution of the Board. These resolutions will have the force of law
and will be published and processed as though set forth in this Ordinance.
(b) Any driver employed to transport passengers to a definite point
shall take the most direct route possible that will carry the passenger to his
destination safely and expeditiously.
(c) It shall. be unlawful for the driver or operator of any taxicab to
refuse a prospective fare or to take any action to actively discourage a
prospective fare, on the basis of race, creed, color, age, sex, national ori-
gin, handicap, or for any other reason, unless it shall be readily apparent
that the prospective fare is a hazard to the driver or operator.
-26-
!r; i "7
'-.. j
'C/ ,f
,;.-
(d) No driver of any taxicab shall stop. park. or otherwise leave
standing his ta~icab on the same side.of the street in any block in which two
taxicabs are already stopped. parked. or otherwise standing. or within one
. hundred (IOO) feet of any other taxicab. or within fifteen (IS) feet of any
fire plug except as modified in Section 2.5 of this Ordinance. This subsec-
tion shall not prohibit a driver of an out-of-service taxicab from displaying
an "Out-of-Service" sign. provided the driver is parked in a lawful parking
spot and the driver is not in the vehicle. However. a driver may not display
an "Out-of-Service" sign while the driver is in the taxicab or the taxicab is
located in a taxi stand.
(e) A taxicab driver may solicit employment by driving through any
public street or place without stops. other than those due to obstruction of
traffic. and at such speed as not to interfere with or impede traffic.
(f) It shall be unlawful. however. for the driver to seek employment by
driving slowly in the vicinity of an entertainment center or transportation
center or any other location of public gathering. in such a manner as to
interfere with public access to or departure from that center or location. or
so as to interfere with or impede traffic.
(g) It shall also be unlawful for a taxicab driver. having parked and
left his or her taxicab. to solicit patronage among pedestrians on the side-
walk. or at any entertainment center. transportation center. or other location
of public gathering. except to the extent allowed in paragraph (i). No person
shall solicit passengers for a taxicab other than the driver thereof; pro-
vided. however. the General Manager may authorize a dispatcher to solicit
passengers and assist in loading passengers at such times and places as in his
or her discretion, public service and traffic conditions require.
(h) It shall be unlawful for the driver or operator of any taxicab to
remain standing in any established taxicab stand or passenger loading zone.
unless the driver or operator remains within twelve (I2) feet of his or her
taxicab. except when the driver or operator is actually engaged in assisting
passengers to load or unload.
(i) Only paying passengers and persons specifically authorized by the
General Manager may occupy a taxicab that is already occupied by a paying pas-
senger. No driver. once a paying passenger has occupied his taxicab. shall
permit any other paying passenger to occupy or ride in the taxicab unless the
passenger first employing the taxicab consents to the acceptance of the addi-
tional passenger. and consents to the operation of the taxicab on a shared
ride basis. The driver shall then charge each passenger a zone fare as estab-
lished by the Board. No driver. once a paying passenger has occupied his
taxicab. shall permit any other nonpaying passenger to occupy or ride in the
taxicab.
(j) It shall be unlawful to respond to ~ call for service dispatched to
another operator.
(k) The taxicab driver shall maintain a daily trip log. The trip log
will accurately show the date. time. starting and ending locations. and fare
'- ~
-21-
I~ -(Il)
for each trip provided. The driver shall furnish a copy of the daily trip log
to the permit holder at regular intervals or upon request of the permit
holder.
/'~-
(1) All operating regulations set forth in Section 1.8 apply.
Section 2.5 - Stands
. (a) The Board may, by resolution, locate and designatp taxicab stands
for one or more taxicabs, which stands when so established shall be appro-
priately designated "Taxis Only." The operating regulations of Section 2.4
shall apply to such stands and to taxicab stands established by the San Diego
Unified Port District in areas under its jurisdiction within the City.
(b) Each taxicab stand established hereunder shall be in operation
twenty~four (24) hours of every day, unless otherwise specified by the General
Manager.
(c) Any individual, partnership, association, or other organization may
petition MTDB requesting that a new taxicab stand be established, or that the
location of an existing taxicab stand be changed to another location. A non-
refundable filing fee to be determined by the General Manager must be paid at
the time the petition is submitted.
SECTION 3.0 - VEHICLES FOR HIRE
Section 3.1 - Rates of Fare
(a) Within thirty (30) calendar days following the issuance of a permit
by the General Manager, each permit holder shall file a document with the
General Manager reflecting the rates of fare being charged by said permit
holder for vehicles-for-hire service. Thereafter, each permit holder shall
within thirty (30) days following the first day of each calendar year file a
document with the General Manager reflecting the rates of fare being charged
by said permit holder for vehicles-for-hire services.
(b) If a permit holder desires to change the rates of fare being charged
for vehicles-for-hire services during any calendar year, he shall first file a
document with the General Manager indicating said changes and no change shall
be effective until fourteen (14) days following the filing of said change.
(c) No permit holder shall charge any rate of fare for vehicles-for-hire
services unless said rates are on file with the General Manager as aforesaid
and duly displayed.
(d) The rates of fare shall be established by a prearranged contract on
a per mile or per hour basis.
"
-28-
/d-I/f
letters and numerals no less than four (4) inches high on both sides and the
rear of the taxicab.
(d) All taxicabs shall be equipped and operated so that they may be
dispatched by two-way radio communication in response to a telephone or other
request for service by a prospective passenger. This requirement may not be
met by use of a mobile radio telephone service.
(e) The radio dispatch capability described in paragraph (d) of this
section must be provided so as to conform to the regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission pertaining to land Transportation Radio Services.
Failure to conform to those regulations will additionally constitute a failure
to meet the requirements of this section.
Section 2.4 - OoeratinQ ReQulations
(a) Operating regulations shall be promulgated and adopted from time
to time by resolution of the Board. These resolutions will have the force of
law and will be published and processed as though set forth in this Ordinance.
(b) Any driver employed to transport passengers to a definite point
shall take the most direct route possible that will carry the passenger to his
destination safely and expeditiously.
(c) It shall be unlawful for the driver or operator of any taxicab to
refuse a prospective fare or to take any action to actively discourage a
prospective fare on the basis of race, creed, color, age, sex, national
origin, handicapF or for any other reason, unless it shall be readily apparent
that the prospective fare is a hazard to the driver or operator.
(d) It shall be unlawful to refuse or discourage a prospective fare
based upon trip length within the Cities.
(e) No driver of any taxicab shall stop, park, or otherwise leave
standing a taxicab on the same side of the street in any block in which
two (2) taxicabs are already stopped, parked, or otherwise standing.
(f) No driver shall stop, park or otherwise leave standing a taxicab
within one-hundred (100) feet of any other taxicab.
(g) No driver shall stop, park, or otherwise leave standing a taxicab
within fifteen (15) feet of any fire plug except as modified in Section 2.5 of
this Ordinance.
(h) A driver may not display an "Out-of-Service" sign while the driver
is in the taxicab or the taxicab is located in a taxi stand. This subsection
shall not prohibit a driver of an out-of-service taxicab from displaying an
"Out-of-Service" sign, provided the vehicle is parked in a lawful parking spot
and the driver is not in the vehicle.
(i)' A taxicab driver may seek passengers by driving through any public
street or place without stops, other than those due to obstruction of traffic,
and at such speed as not to interfere with or impede traffic.
-26-
A-26
/;1 - /to
/"'.'."-
(j) It shall be unlawful, however, for the driver to seek passengers
by stopping at or driving slowly in the vicinity of an entertainment center or
transportation center or any other location of public gathering, in such a
manner as to interfere with public access to or departure from that center or
location, or so as to interfere with or impede traffic.
(k) It shall also be unlawful for a taxicab driver, having parked and
left his or her taxicab, to solicit patronage among pedestrians on the
sidewalk, or at any entertainment center, transportation center, or other
location of public gathering.
(1) No person shall solicit passengers for a taxicab other than the
driver thereof; however, the General Manager may authorize a dispatcher to
solicit passengers and assist in loading passengers at such times and places
as, in his or her discretion, public service and traffic conditions require.
(m) It shall be unlawful for the driver or operator of any taxicab to
remain standing in any established taxicab stand or passenger loading zone,
unless the driver or operator remains within twelve (12) feet of his or her
taxicab, except when the driver or operator is actually engaged in assisting
passengers to load or unload.
(n) Only paying passengers and persons specifically authorized by the
General Manager may occupy a taxicab that is already occupied by a paying
passenger. No driver, once a paying passenger has occupied his taxicab, shall
permit any other nonpaying passenger to occupy or ride in the tax~cab.
,- (0) It shall be unlawful to respond to a call for service dispatched
to another operator.
(p) The taxicab driver shall maintain a daily trip log which shall be
available for inspection upon request of any peace officer or Paratransit
Inspector. The trip log will accurately show the driver's name, taxicab
number, date, time, beginning odometer reading, starting and ending locations,
and fare for each trip provided. The driver shall furnish a copy of the daily
trip log to the permit holder at regular intervals or upon request of the
permit holder.
(q) All operating regulations set forth in Section 1.8 apply.
Section 2.5 - Stands
(a) The Board may, by resolution, locate and designate taxicab stands
for one or more taxicabs, which stands when so established shall be appropri-
ately designated "Taxis Only." The operating regulations of this Ordinance
shall apply to such stands and to taxicab stands established by the San Diego
Unified Port District in areas under its jurisdiction within the City.
(b) Each taxicab stand established hereunder shall be in operation
twenty-four (24) hours of every day, unless otherwise specified by the General
Manager. .
(c) Any individual, partnership, association, or other organization
may petition MTDB requesting that a new taxicab stand be established, or that
-27-
A-27
!c;;2-/c:) /
HEARING COSTS
For almost two years now, MTDB has attempted to switch the burden of hearing
costs from the industry as a whole to the individual. When successful, it will be the end
of due process for cabdrivers who won't be able to afford it.
The best discussion of costs I've seen is in MTDB v. ESLAMBOLCHI et.al,
where appellant's attorney argued against costs and was successful.
MTDB continued to ask for costs in other hearings. The matter of the law in this
regard depends now upon which Hearing Officer you get because MTDB, having gone
through them, has found one which will award costs (TEMKO).
- 13 -
(d -( ;;2+
\... .
MTDB . ~
Metropolitan Transit Development Board .....,.
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
TAXICAB LIAISON COMMITTEE (TLC)
AGENDA
Wednesday, OecMber 11, 1991
2:00 p...
Execl.ltive Co_ittee Roo.
T 370
2:01 p.m.
1.
Proposed 1992 Paratransit Regulatory Fee Schedule
Presentation of proposed fees as developed by TLC
subcommittee and MTDB staff. (Draft to be furnished
at meeting.)
3:00 p.m. 2.
,~~
3:10 p.m. 3.
Vehicle Inspections
Present concept of "preferred" schedule for vehicles
that pass their first inspection.
Appeal Hearing Expenses
Discussion of amending regulations to provide for
recovery of hearing costs.
3:30 p.m.
4.
Penalty for Failure to File for Transfer
Proposal to revise penalty schedules for violation of
Ordinance No. 11, Section 1.5.
4:00 p.m.
5.
Adjournment
Next TLC meeting will be Thursday, January 23, 1992,
at 2:00 p.m.
BLL: 1m
A-TLC.BLL
Member AgenCies:
City of Chula Vista. City of Coronaoo. City of EI Calon. City of Imoerlal Beaen Clly of La Mesa. City of Lemon Grove. City of Nalional City. City of Poway. City of San D.ego. City of
Santee. County of San Diego. State of California
Metropolitan TranSit Development Board IS Coordinator of the Metropolitan TranSit System and IS Regulatory AuthOrity tor .. ParatranSlt Aom,n,strat,on
Subsidiary Corporations _ San Diego TranSit Corcoratlon. ;; San D.ego Trolley. Inc. anc 'iI' San D.ego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
Id -ld-3
~,'J~::~";V;~;: ""~~~~;t:," :,:':' ,.~,:,-;... . . -: ,'.'-"',:~ :~'::-:"~>:';" ' , ,";"'.: ~'~'"~".,, ' '::::". '," ", ~
"",'r' Ivr,' .>>1M:.,".....~;..,.,. ".'i" ;- .~. ~ .... I - : ~
~." '" ...""-fiJ"'^<r 10' -. f' , ':~;. .,.. . ,.', . -, ~
. ,..:..'Metroj)olitahTranslttleVe prrieh Board '."..;,....:.: " .... .' ",;',.:. .'.', . ,;;', .... " ~
.'::;~\."i.:-f;\'J.",:~,,::,~,"';""'\~I,::~"l,~'. ~'''''_ __, ..'- --;. "" ...~, : ~ .. . 'r.
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Dieoo. CA 92101.7490
- ;19) 231-1466
~x (619) 234-3407
MEETING NOTICE
T 370
TAXICAB LIAISON COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY IS, 1993
2:00 p.m.
at
MTDB
1255 IMPERIAL AVENUE, SUITE 1000
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ROOM
Items for discussion will include:
1. Meeting notes of November 19, 1993 - receive comments on notes
distributed December 19, 1992
2. Vehicle Inspection Guidelines - review of final draft of revisions
3. Hearing Costs - review and comments concerning subcommittee proposal to
reduce expenses, i.e., appellant to pay MTDB's expenses if appellant
loses the appeal
4. Annual Statement Period - staff will recommend ordinance change to allow
12 month submittal period
5. Role of Associations - presentation of concept to simplify regulations
and reduce expenses, suggested by subcommittee
6. Policy No. 35 Revision - announcement of revision to allow General
Manager to modify regionwide rate ceiling (reference MTD Board agenda
item dated January 2S, 1993, attached)
7. Next meeting will be August 19, 1993; no May meeting.
BLL:lm J _
MN-FEBIS.B~Y
Distribution: TLC Members
Paratransit Staff
.-'~ember Agencies:
ity 01 Chuta Vista. City 01 Coronado. City 01 EI Calon. City 01 Imperoal Beach, City 01 La Mesa. City 01 Lemon Grove. City 01 National City. City 01 Poway, City 01 San Diego. City 01
ciantee. County 01 San Diego. Stale 01 Calilornia
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator 01 the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authority lor ~ Paratransit Administration
Subsidiary Corporations: ~ San Diego Transit Corporation, fi.] San Diego Trolley, Inc, and (I) San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
((~ -l:;2L(
~
13
,::.-14
15
1
John B. Barriage (SBN 120462)
Attorney at Law
655 Fourth Avenue, Suite 5
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 238-7314
2
3
4 Attorney for Appellants
MOHAMMED ESLAMBOLCHI, et al
5
6
7
8
9
10
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11 IN THE MATTER OF,
12 MOHAMMED ESLAMBOLCHI
et, ale
APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS
AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE
Hearing Officer: Virginia Weber
16 I
17 INTRODUCTION
18 In MTDB's Reply Brief the agency raises for the first time two
19 matters.
The first being the decision by Betty Evans Boone a
20 hearing officer in a similar case to this one. (See section VII ant
21 page 7 of MTDB's reply brief). The Second, is MTDB's request that
22 appellants be required to reimburse MTDB "for the costs associated
23 with this hearing." (Section VIII, page 9 of MTDB's Rep~ brief).
24
Appellants
object to these references. MTDB has failed to
25 raise these issues previous to the reply brief. Appellants have no
_17 notice that they would be raised. Bearing these objections in mind
26 opportunity to litigate these issues fully, nor have they any
28 1
(;t -/ d ~----
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,14
appellants respectfully request that the objections be sustained
and the references struck from the record.
II. BOONE DECISION IMPROPER FOR CONSIDERATION
Not only has MTDB failed to appraise appellants that they
would use the Boone decision, they failed to provide a copy of it
to appellants with their reply brief.
It is highly disingenuous for MTDB to seek to use other
separate cases when they had and refused the opportuni ty to
consolidate all of these same type of cases.
Second, inclusion of this decision is improper under MTDB
rules. Administrative Regulation AR 89-1 at Section 4.4 requires
that "all reports and material upon which the General Manager
relied shall be mailed to Appellant... prior to the hearing." As
MTDB is relying on this report it is improper.
As appellants are completely unaware of the rationale as well
as the issues discussed in the Boone decision, since MTDB's counsel
failed to enclose a copy of the decision, appellants are unprepared
to discuss the factual applications of this case to the Boone
decision under the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel,
law of the case, or stare decisis.
Nor has MTDB cited any authority or discussed any facts to
demonstrate why and how the Boone decision fits or is applicable
under any of those doctrines.
Therefore, the Boone decision should not be included.
III. NO AUTHORITY FOR COSTS
MTDB has failed to appraise appellants in either in its
penalty letter or in its original "Hearing Brief" dated November
23, 1992 that it would seek costs of the hearing. If such power
2
:..-
_.J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...,
...."
/d- -/:L0
1 exists, and appellants know of no such authority authorizing it,
2 MTDB has by failing to warn of seeking it, or praying for it in
3 it's Notice of Penalty or Hearing Brief have waived costs.
4 Secondly and perhaps more significantly there is no authority
5 for the awarding of costs. MTDB Ordinance II Section 1.16 regarding
6 Procedure upon Administrative Appeal does not authorize the
7 awarding of costs to any party, prevailing or otherwise. Similarly
8 Administrative Regulation AR 89-1 at Section 4.7 .e. lists the
9 authority of the hearing officer and there is no provision for the
10 award of costs. Section 4.7.e reads as follows:
11
12
13
At the conclusion of the hearing the Hearing Officer may
at his/her discretion:
( 1 ) Uphold the General Manager's denial, suspension or
revocation;
( 2 ) Order a lesser penalty;
( 3 ) Overturn the General Manger's denial, suspension or
revocation; and
14
...5
16
17
(4) Find the regulatory fees(s) exceeds personnel and
administrative costs, and direct the General Manger
to modify or implement fee(s).
18
19
20
21
22
23
There is simply no authority for awarding these costs.
The rule as to awarding of costs is similar as in Civil Cases.
In civil court cases, witness fees, filing fees, and other costs
are allowable against an opposing party only if expressly
authorized by statute. The same rule would apply to administrative
24
proceedings. Wilson v Board of Retirement (1959) 176 CA2d 320,
322.1
25
26
-..,
1 If such authority
appellants are aware of none,
would be an unconsti tutional
rights.
existed awarding costs, which
appellants would contend that it
barrier to required due process
..d
3
~3 -Id 7
~~,
14
>,<'.~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"'7
_~.J
1
IV. UNFAIR SURPRISES-WAIVER
2 Obviously appellants have neither been appraised of nor
3 allowed to brief these issues. Therefore, MTDB's sandbagging these
4 issues constitutes unfair surprise and prejudices appellants.
5 Therefore, since the agency did provide fair notice of these
6 matters giving appellants sufficient opportunity reflect on
7 research, and argue these issues the responding agency should be
8 deemed to have waived such issues.
9
V. CONCLUSIONS
10 Based on the foregoing appellants respectfully object to the
11 matter complained about and' request that such references be
12 stricken and not considered by the Hearing Officer.
13
..:J
16 DATE: January 4, 1993
n B. Barriage
17 orney for Appellants
18
4
Id-(~ f;
1
/~
I)
-
3
4
5
6
-
,
8
9
10
11
12
~o;)
..oJ
14
15
16
..-
J..i
18
"TO
...-
20
21
22
:!3
24
'1-
~
I)"
_0
,,-
-,
28
A1'1'ORr-EY NAME AND ADDRESS
rcl..EPHONE
JOHN B. BARRIAGE (SBN 120462)
655 Fourth Avenue Suite 5
San Diego, Ca. 92101
(619) 238-7314
ATTORNEY FOR HEARIN:i/DATE/TIMS/DEPT
Case No. MTDB CASE
In The Matter of
Eslambolchi
DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF BY MAIL
I I JOHN B. BARRIAGE declare: That I am at the tiIre of service
of these papers herein described, over the age of eighteen (18)
years, and not a party to the actitn; and I am enployed in the
County of San Diego, California, within which county the subject
mailing occurred. My business address is 655 Fourth Avenue Suite 6
San Diego, Ca. 92101
I served the following docurents:
APPELLANT's OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE
oK ~~~~n, JAN - 4 1qq~
By placJ.ng a Copy thereof J.n a separate envelope for the
addressees named hereaft~r I addressed belOfJ by first class Unted States
Postage prepaid in the United States Mail located at 654 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, California
KEVIN D, BUSH
Jennings, Engstrand, & Henrikson
501 W. Broadway, Ste 1400
San Diego, Ca. 92101
John DeNora, Atty
124 BeechStreet
San Diego, Ca. 92101
I Tne."1 Placed the envelope with sufficient u.S. Postage prepaid in the
Uni tee States mail on ~T.'''' .~ 'A N - 4 .mna
I declare under penal-.:;y _0-;: perjury of the lc1~ of the State of California
tr.at the foregoing is true and correct. ExecutecL~::;" JAN - ~ 1993
in San Diego California
JOl"J1 E. Bar!"':l.age
,I
)~;J -/L1
MTDB ~
Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
.;;- 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
. 380 Diego. CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
April 14, 1993
T 370
Ms. Darlene Davis
Sunset Taxi Company
2912 Ingelow Street, #4
San Diego, CA 92106
Dear Ms. Davis:
Subject: INSURANCE HEARING
This correspondence is to notify you that an administrative hearing of your
appeal from our Penalty Notice dated August 5, 1992 is scheduled as follows:
Hearina of Insurance Penaltv ADDeals
Date:
April 28, 1993
9:00 a.m.
James R. Mills Building
1255 Imperial Avenue, Tenth Floor
Board Room
San Diego, California
Enclosed are the documents which we relied upon to reach our decision
concerning the penalty. There are approximately 50 other appellants for this
hearing. Please note MTDB is requesting that the hearing officer order the
appellants to pay for the cost of the hearing as has occurred in previous
hearings.
Pl ace:
Time:
If you wish to withdraw your appeal, please notify me, in writing, no later
than April 26, 1993.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at
(619) 557-4580.
Sincerely,
CEB:ceb:jy - H-INSURA.CEB
Attachments: Hearing Documents
cc: Sunset Taxi Company File
Member Agencies:
City 01 Chula Vista. City 01 Coronado. City 01 EI Calon. City 01 Impenal Beach. City 01 La Mesa. City ot Lemon Grove. City ot Naloonal City. City 01 Poway. City 01 San Diego. City 01
Santee. County 01 San Diego. Slate 01 Calilorma
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator olthe Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authority for ~ Para transit Administration
Subsidiary Corporations: ~ San Diego Transit Corporation. II! San Diego Trolley. Inc. and (jJ San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company
/ 2-1 \:)u
CONCLUSION
MTDB's mistakes are not isolated events but a pattern. They did not occur just
at the beginning but continue up to the present. They include illegal acts and denial of
due process to the regulated. They do not know, nor could they therefore practice, the
meaning inherent in The Rule of Law.
My city does not understand that it suffers consequences when we do because the
image of our city we are passing on to our passengers is the one formed daily by an
agency that is inept, incompetent and consciously ignoring the law.
Regulation consists of the separate parts bound together as a whole. That means
the administrative, enforcement and legislative parts working together and the binding
agent, the common and shared legal support services of the City Attorney's office.
The unnatural separation which exists now has resulted in the problems listed in
this report. They can only be solved by putting the parts back together again. This would
require my city, of course, to finally live up to its responsibilities.
- 14 -
I d- -/ '-.-q/
RECOMMENDATION
Bring us home.
1. Transfer administration, enforcement and policy back to the city.
2. Approve an interim 6 month contract with MTDB while transfer changes
are being made.
3. Offer all presently employed Paratransit personnel, except the administrator,
a position with the City.
4. Adjust salaries to comparable City positions.
s. Open up the position of Paratransit Administrator to a nationwide search
with a strong emphasis on operational experience and/or knowledge at comparable City
salaries.
L6/D 1
- 15 -
I d -/--:l~
ORDINANCE NO.
:l.57r
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5.54.010,
5.54.030 AND 5.54.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION
5.54.055, RELATING TO TAXICAB REGULATION AND
LICENSING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: section 5.54.010 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.010 purpose-Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate taxicab operators
in the city to best serve the public interest and to permit a
sufficient degree of flexibility in operation so as to allow an
increased number of vehicles to be operated under the direction and
supervision of a certified operator during peak demand hours. Any
vehicles operating and picking up passengers within the city shall
have paid the license tax and administrative fee provided in the
master fee schedule and meet all requirements for the operation as
set forth in this chapter.
It is the intent of the city to prohibit the transfer of a
certificate by an approved operator. It shall be required that any
such operator surrender his certificate to the city if he should
cease to do business within the city. It ia further the intent of
the city council th~t ~ll taxic~ba oper~ting within the city ahall
be owned by the certified operator. (Ord. 2003 ~2 (part), 1982).
SECTION II: Section 5.54.030 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise expressly
stated, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section:
A. "certified operator" means a person authorized by the Police
Chief to operate a taxicab or taxicabs in the city and who has
been issued a certificate for the operation of such vehicles.
B. "Driver" means every person in charge of, or operating, any
passenger-carrying or motor-propelled vehicle, either as
agent, employee, or otherwise, of owner, as owner, or under
the direction of the owner.
I~/I- /
C. "Person" means any individual, partnership, association,
corporation or other organization owning, operating or
proposing to operate any taxicab or taxicabs within the city.
D. "street" means any place commonly used for the purpose of
public travel.
E. "Taxicab" means every automobile or motor-propelled vehicle of
a distinctive color or colors, andjor of public appearance
such as in common usage in this country for taxicabs, (e.g.,
vehicles such as pickup trucks and dune buggies would not
normally be used for taxicab purposes), and jor operated at
rates per mile, or for wait-time, or for both, and equipped
with a taximeter, used for the transportation of passengers
for hire over the public streets of the city, and not over a
defined route, and irrespective of whether the operations
extend beyond the boundary lines of the city, and such vehicle
is routed under the direction of such passenger or passengers,
or of such persons hiring the same.
G. "Taximeter" means and includes any mechanical or electronic
instrument, appliance, device or machine by which the charge
for hire of a passenger-carrying vehicle is mechanically or
electronicallY calculated for distance traveled and time
consumed, and upon such instrument, appliance, device or
machine such charge is indicated by figures.
~ "Flaq drop" means the startinq of the taximeter at the time
that the taxi is hired. Flag drop may also be understood to
mean the initial charqe assessed at the time the taxicab is
hired.
(Ord. 2408 ~1 (part), 1990; Ord. 2003 ~2 (part), 1982).
SECTION III: section 5.54.050 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.050 certificate-Application-Investigation required.
Before any application is acted upon, the Police Chief shall
cause an investigation to be made of:
A. The number, kind and type of equipment and the color scheme to
be used. All vehicles, if they are more than two years of
age, must have on deposit with the city a certification
showing that an annual inspection has been made by an
acceptable government agency or an inspection station licensed
under Section 9887.1 of the Business and Professions Code of
the state. Failure to satisfy said inspection requirements
may result in the suspension of the certificate for said
vehicle until necessary corrections have been made. Said
inspection shall be renewed on an annual basis on the
anniversary date of said two-year age limit. All vehicles
1.2.~ ,;1..
shall be owned by the holder of the certificate. All ~Jchiclco
Dhall bc cquippcd ~,rith a light on top clcarly idcntifying thc
vchiclcD aD taxicabD.
B. Applicant shall agree that he shall be the owner of said
vehicles and shall maintain said vehicles in a clean and
sanitary condition at all times. If any of said vehicles are
leased to operators by the holder of the certificate, the
holder of the certificate shall immediately provide the Police
Chief with a copy of said lease; or names of lessees holding
leases in a form previously submitted and on file; provided,
however, that such lease arrangement shall not relieve the
certificate holder of any responsibilities and obligations for
the safe maintenance and cleanliness of the vehicle which has
been leased.
(Ord. 2408 ~1 (part), 1990; Ord. 2003 ~2 (part), 1982).
SECTION IV: A new section 5.54.055 is added to the
Chula vista Municipal Code to read as follows:
5.54.055 Inspection criteria,
Specific criteria for taxicabs to pass inspection shall be
determined and published in policy form by the Chief of Police or
desiqnee. Minimum vehicle standards which must be maintained to
comply with this section shall include. but not be limited to. the
followinq:
ill Tires. Tires shall meet the requirements of
the California Vehicle Code; Hubcaps or wheel covers
shall be on all wheels for which hubcaps or wheel covers
are standard equipment.
~ Taximeter. Taximeter shall have been
inspected. tested. approved and sealed by an authorized
representative of the State of California. and thereafter
so maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Chief of
Police or desiqnee. Taximeter shall be workinq with the
inspection seal in its oriqinal. unbroken state;
i2l Brakes. Brakes. brake liqhts or brake system
shall be operable and otherwise meet the requirements of
the California Vehicle Code; Both the parking and
hydraulic or other brake system must be operable.
L!l Mirrors. Side and rear-view mirrors shall not
be missinq or defective;
l2l. Interior /Exterior. The interior and exterior of the
vehicle shall be maintained in a safe and efficient operatinq
condition. and meet California Vehicle Code requirements and
J~/J' :J
the reauirements of this Ordinance at all times when in
operation.
l..2.l Interior. The interior of each vehicle and the
trunk or luaaaae area shall be maintained in a reasonably
clean condition. free of foreian matter. offensive odors
and litter. The seats shall be kept reasonably clean and
without larae wear spots. The door handles and doors
shall be intact and clean. The trunk or luaaaae area
shall be kept empty except for spare tire. and personal
container for the driver not exceedina one (1) cubic foot
in volume and emergency equipment. to allow maximum space
for passenaer luaaaae and belonainas.
ill Body Condition. There shall be no tears or
rust holes in the vehicle body and no loose pieces
hanaina from the vehicle body. Fenders. bumpers and
light trim shall be securely fixed to the vehicle. No
extensive unrepaired body damaae shall be allowed. The
vehicle shall be eauipped with front and rear bumpers.
The exterior of the vehicle shall be maintained in a
reasonabl y clean condition so as not to obscure the
approved color scheme and/or vehicle markinas.
~ Paint. The vehicle shall be painted and marked in
accordance with section 5.54.260 of this Municipal Code.
121 Liahts. Headliahts shall be operable on both
hiah and low beam. Tailliahts. parking liahts. sianal
liahts. and interior liahts shall all be operable.
i1Ql Wipers. Each vehicle shall be eauipped with
adeauate windshield wipers maintained in aood operatina
condition.
1..lll steering. Excessive play in the steerina
mechanism shall not exceed three (3) inches free play in
turnina the steerina wheel from side to side.
J...1.ll Enaine. The enaine compartment shall be
reasonably clean and free of uncontained combustible
materials.
..Llll Mufflers. Mufflers shall be in aood operating
condition.
1...l.il Windows. The windshield shall be without
cracks or chips that could interfere with the driver's
vision. All other windows shall be intact and able to be
opened and closed as intended by the manufacturer. The
windows and windshield shall be maintained in a
reasonably clean condition so as not to obstruct
visibility.
/.2/J''f
~ Door Latches.
operable from both the
vehicle.
All door latches shall be
interior and exterior of the
L1Ql Suspension. The vehicle's suspension svstem
shall be maintained so that there are no saqs because of
weak or broken sprinqs or excessive motion when the
vehicle is in operation because of weak or defective
shock absorbers.
il2l Seats. All seats shall be securely fastened.
Seat belts. when required by the California Vehicle Code.
shall be installed. The upholstery shall be free of
qrease. holes. rips. torn seams and burns.
~ Each taxicab shall be equipped with a device which
shall plainly indicate to a person outside the taxicab whether
the taximeter is in operation or is not in operation.
~ Each taxicab shall be assiqned a body number by the
permit holder. The trade name and body number shall be
painted or permanently affixed in letters and numerals no less
than four (4) inches high on both sides and the rear of the
taxicab.
~ All taxicabs shall be equipped and operated so that
they may be dispatched by two-way radio communication in
response to a telephone or other request for service by a
prospective passenqer. This requirement may not be met by use
of a mobile radio telephone service.
~ All vehicles shall be equipped with a liqht on top
clearly identifyinq the vehicles as taxicabs.
l2.ll No other aspect of the vehicle's condition
shall exist which reasonably and rationallY pertains to
the operatinq safety of the vehicle or to passenqer or
pedestrian safety.
Any vehicle which fails to meet the requirements of the California
Vehicle Code. this section or other inspection criteria as
delineated in policy form by the Chief of Police. shall be
immediatelY ordered out-of-service by the inspectinq individual or
aqency. Said aqency shall immediatelY inform the Chief of Police
or desiqnee of any such actions.
Orderinq a vehicle out-of-service does not constitute a suspension
or revocation of the permit. Permits for vehicles which have been
ordered out-of-service may be transferred to other taxicabs owned
by the same company which did not carry a valid permit for the City
of Chula vista.
Resumption of in-service status shall be continqent upon remedY of
any deficiencies or violations noted in the failed inspection. For
/.2/1-.5'
all vehicles so reinstate to in-service status. the inspectinq
individual or aqency shall immediatelY inform the Chief of Police
or desiqnee of any such actions.
SECTION V: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
y
Rick Emerson, Chief of Police
) -2 /I ... "
~~'-n /~/7
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
October 19, 1993
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and Ci~tC ncil
John Goss, Ci ty Manager~~ ,i V
. .. ).).
R1Ck Emerson, Chlef of POllC_~
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney'
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Agenda Item #12: Taxicab Regulation; Ordinance Revisions
Attached is a revised copy of Ordinance 2574, pertaining to taxicab
regulation. The changes made from your original copy, which have
been highlighted, are as follows:
*
Further clarifying
arrangements
acceptable
ownership/leasing
* Making more explicit reference to section 5.54.055 for
inspection criteria
* Eliminating the requirement that reinspect ions be carried
out on the anniversary date of the previous inspection
* Changing certain "vehicle" references to "taxicab"
references
None of these amendments has a significantly effect on overall taxi
regulation or industry operations.
);2/l -7
ORDINANCE NO.
c)57L/
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5.54.010,
5.54.030 AND 5.54.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION
5.54.055, RELATING TO TAXICAB REGULATION AND
LICENSING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: section 5.54.010 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.010 Purpose-Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate taxicab operators
in the city to best serve the public interest and to permit a
sufficient degree of flexibility in operation so as to allow an
increased number of vehicles to be operated under the direction and
supervision of a certified operator during peak demand hours. Any
vehicles operating and picking up passengers within the city shall
rd;Fs:€ have paid the license tax and administrative fee provided in
tKe~master fee schedule and meet all requirements for the operation
as set forth in this chapter.
It is the intent of the city to prohibit the transfer of a
certificate by an approved operator. It shall be required that any
such operator surrender his certificate to the city if he should
cease to do business within the city. It io further the intent of
the city council that all taxicabo operating \:ithin the city ohall
be mmed by the certified operator. (Ord. 2003 52 (part), 1982).
SECTION II: section 5.54.030 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise expressly
stated, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section:
A. "certified operator" means a person authorized by the Police
Chief to operate a taxicab or taxicabs in the city and who has
been issued a certificate for the operation of such vehicles.
B. "Driver" means every person in charge of, or operating, any
passenger-carrying or motor-propelled vehicle, either as
agent, employee, or otherwise, of owner, as owner, or under
the direction of the owner.
I~ A-2
C. "Person" means any individual, partnership, association,
corporation or other organization owning, operating or
proposing to operate any taxicab or taxicabs within the city.
D. "street" means any place commonly used for the purpose of
public travel.
E. "Taxicab" means every automobile or motor-propelled vehicle of
a distinctive color or colors, and/or of public appearance
such as in common usage in this country for taxicabs, (e.g.,
vehicles such as pickup trucks and dune buggies would not
normally be used for taxicab purposes), and lor operated at
rates per mile, or for wait-time, or for both, and equipped
with a taximeter, used for the transportation of passengers
for hire over the public streets of the city, and not over a
defined route, and irrespective of whether the operations
extend beyond the boundary lines of the city, and such vehicle
is routed under the direction of such passenger or passengers,
or of such persons hiring the same.
G. "Taximeter" means and includes any mechanical or electronic
instrument, appliance, device or machine by which the charge
for hire of a passenger-carrying vehicle is mechanically or
electronically calculated for distance traveled and time
consumed, and upon such instrument, appliance, device or
machine such charge is indicated by figures.
lL.. "Flaq drop" means the starting of the taximeter at the time
that the taxi is hired. Flaq drop may also be understood to
mean the initial charqe assessed at the time the taxicab is
hired.
(Ord. 2408 ~1 (part), 1990; Ord. 2003 ~2 (part), 1982).
SECTION III: Section 5.54.050 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
5.54.050 certificate-Application-Investigation required.
Before any application is acted upon, the Police Chief shall
cause an investigation to be made of:
A. The number, kind and type of equipment and the color scheme to
be used. All vehicles, if they are more than two years of
_~~~~~.~1\~!1~
iiC"cepb:ible"go\iefiirii"erit""age"ii"cy""of""ari""Tii'spe"ction s ta t ion licensed
under Section 9887.1 of the Business and Professions Code of
i~~ I ~;:t:o ~~~"~~~~~:~~'~:::::::~N!:~!~€;:~~~~:~~~:~:r:~:~~g~~~;:~~~~~:~::~~~~~~!:~~
the suspension of the certificate for said vehicle until
necessary corrections have been made. Said inspection shall
1;2 -ft- -0{
B.
_i. =
vchiclco ~o t~xic~bo.
'~!:ffi,!!~!':i::::%'q,.t~ifi:'~Nlli!11Iill;'::~:i;.~~~~.!~~!~~~'~a~~~~:~f:\;a ~~
veh ic 1 es in a c leai1..a:iia.....iia:riTEa:r................ cond it i on at a 11 times.
lessees holding leases in a form previously submitted and on
f i 1 e; prov ide9:LHl1:C?y.r~y~r:-IH~h~'t:.H.~.':l.c::l1:H.~.~.~~.~HH~:r;r:-.~.f.lg~.111.~!:l:t:'H.~ha 11 not
~~:mi~~rfi~!!!:!~=i~'~~~~~~!'~i!:ei~~
(Ord. 2408 ~1 (part), 1990; Ord. 2003 ~2 (part), 1982).
SECTION IV: A new section 5.54.055 is added to the
Chula vista Municipal Code to read as follows:
5.54.055 Inspection criteria,
Specific criteria for taxicabs to pass inspection shall be
determined and published in policy form bv the Chief of Police or
designee. Minimum Wi&1i'lMfffie/:))'iMix&6aB standards which must be
maintained to comply wH::h..:'tftfsr::'s:ed€IO"n shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
(A) Tires. Tires shall meet the requirements of
the California Vehicle Code; Hubcaps or wheel covers
shall be on all wheels for which hubcaps or wheel covers
are standard equipment.
(B) Taximeter. Taximeter shall have been
inspected, tested, approved and sealed by an authorized
representati ve of the State of California, and thereafter
so maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Chief of
Police or designee. Taximeter shall be working with the
inspection seal in its original, unbroken state;
(C) Brakes. Brakes, brake lights or brake system
shall be operable and otherwise meet the requirements of
{ <-;1 Pr- - (D
the California Vehicle Code; Both the parking and
hydraulic or other brake system must be operable.
(D) Mirrors. Side and rear-view mirrors shall not
be missing or defective;
.:.:.:.:.::...:.:.:..::::.:{:~l::..:.E~!::~Eior jExterior. The interior and exterior of the
r,,::~q:t::g+*=:::::::S.il\J.SiR shall be maintained in a safe and efficient
6p.eratlrig.........C'6ridi tion, and meet California Vehicle Code
requirements and the requirements of this Ordinance at all
times when in operation.
(F) Interior. The interior of each y~lj~:~:~:i::?€axiliaB
and the trunk or luggage area shall be m~rfht'1f:fhea..:.:Th.:..a
reasonably clean condition, free of foreign matter,
offensive odors and litter. The seats shall be kept
reasonably clean and without large wear spots. The door
handles and doors shall be intact and clean. The trunk
or luggage area shall be kept empty except for spare
tire, and personal container for the driver not exceeding
one (1) cubic foot in volume and emergency equipment, to
allow maximum space for passenger luggage and belongings.
(G) Body Condition. There shall be no tears or
~~:~e:ohl::gi~~ i:~m "!~lil!!;i~:~;i;*Q~ld1o~~~ nFoen~~~:~
l::>.\:ll:llp.~.~.~.....<:1!14.....~.~.ght trim shaTY........he........se.C'iii.ely fixed to the
!iif;~ii;l~!~~~~~:~f~f:J~~i"~i
(H) Paint. The yglj~:ii;i.:*:~:::::::eaXm6itb. shall be painted and
marked in accordance wfth:'SEr6'tTofi"<5~54'. 2 60 of this Municipal
Code.
(I) Lights. Headlights shall be operable on both
high and low beam. Taillights, parking lights, signal
lights, and interior lights shall all be operable.
equiP~~1 w~~he~~~qua~~Chwini!I.~:!:f:!:::::::!:~~~~~:~~ain~~~;~d ~~
good operating condition.
(K) Steering. Excessive play in the steering
mechanism shall not exceed three (3) inches free play in
turning the steering wheel from side to side.
(L) Engine. The engine compartment shall be
reasonably clean arid free of uncontained combustible
materials.
1;;J A -1/
(M) Mufflers. Mufflers shall be in good operating
condition.
(N) Windows. The windshield shall be without
cracks or chips that could interfere with the driver's
V1Slon. All other windows shall be intact and able to be
opened and closed as intended by the manufacturer. The
windows and windshield shall be maintained in a
reasonably clean condition so as not to obstruct
visibility.
(0) Door Latches.
~iii~~~i~liw~7~;~oth the
(P) Suspension. The Mgfi:~:g~:g::::::::I~!~n~:g~l?' s suspension
system shall be maintained..........s.Q"........lliat..........'€her.e are no sags
because of weak or broken springs or excessive motion
~~e~e~~~J~~,~;~R~:g~~~~~~~biesrsi.n operation because of weak
All door latches shall be
interior and exterior of the
(Q) Seats. All seats shall be securely fastened.
Seat belts, when required by the California Vehicle Code,
shall be installed. The upholstery shall be free of
grease, holes, rips, torn seams and burns.
(R) Each taxicab shall be equipped with a device which
shall plainly indicate to a person outside the taxicab whether
the taximeter is in operation or is not in operation.
(S) Each taxicab shall be assigned a body number by the
p.;G.!;m.:~t:.:::::::::h9..~:~g~:::::::::Q~:mt~:t:;~~?;!::::::Q~~:m~n~gf=. The trade name and body
iiuriihe.F...shalI...bepiifrifed..6"i.....p.EiFiriiiil'Emt I y af fixed in letters and
numerals no less than four (4) inches h~gh on both sides and
the rear of the taxicab.
(T) All taxicabs shall be equipped and operated so that
they may be dispatched by two-way radio communication in
response to a telephone or other request for service by a
prospecti ve passenger. This requirement may not be met by use
of a mobile radio telephone service.
(U) All r~t~ff:t:~:m:~:::;:;:#~!i:;r.~~l?s s.h.a.:.1..1...}?E?....E?q~.~.Pp~d with a light
on top c I ear I iTderitI'fyThg....the M~R:*:g:f:~:::::::.~;.i:w.;g;.Rs as tax icabs .
..' ..............;;..........1;........................................................
~~~~~fr~n tr'.11\\l~fi~:;:is!;::~~~zcr.~~
or to passenger or pedestrian safety..............................................
Any M~ff:t~:mg::::::::f.ili~~~;(j~~ which fails to meet the requirements of the
Califdfrifa"VehfClEi'Code, this section or other inspection criteria
as delineated in policy form by the Chief of Police, shall be
immediately ordered out-of-service by the inspecting individual or
A -I 2--
agency. Said agency shall immediately inform the Chief of Police
or designee of any such actions.
~~:~.~.~~io~ ~~U::f'i,!!~~!,:m o~U~~~f -;:;;:t~~ dO::rmni~~ c~~:ti~!~i'~:;'
ililMii'i2;i'es which have been ordered out-of-service may be trans'feFf'eid
E'O'..........o€h'er taxicabs owned by the same iimmi:nW:i:iiirq~1i\~::~:~:li)~~::m:m:9P~#~@~#
which did not carry a valid permit for ...the....CTty....6'f...ChUrii...Vrs.bi~........
Resumption of in-service status shall be contingent upon remedy of
any deficiencies or violations noted in the failed inspection. For
all ;...1f:m:Ji.:@::~:i?:;::iii::i:tj~i9~)QS so reinstateS! to in-service status, the
inspe.C'E'Iri'g......TridTvraual or agency shall immediately inform the Chief
of Police or designee of any such actions.
SECTION V: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ukJRfi
Rick Emerson, Chief
of Police
Bruce M. Boo
ty Attorney
)0
A: \TXORD. 3
(4 /{3
RESOLUTION NO.
l1;)11
17.2.?:J -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION 10078 WHICH
SET MAXIMUM TAXICAB FARES IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA
WHEREAS, Resolution 10078, adopted in 1980, fixed
maximum taxicab fares in the City of Chula vista as follows:
The taxicab rates of fare shall not exceed one
dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) for the flag drop
and one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) for each
driven mile and waiting time shall be set at Ten
Dollars ($10.00) per hour.; and
WHEREAS, these rates have not been updated to account for
inflation since 1980, and
WHEREAS, several taxicab companies have been allowed to
exceed these maximum fares, and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
regulates maximum taxicab fares for the cities of San Diego,
National City, Imperial Beach, El Cajon, Lemon Grove, poway and
Santee, these rates currently being:
$1.60 per "flag drop" or passenger pickup
$2.00 per additional mile
$15.00 per hour waiting time
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has determined that the City
of Chula vista should, recognizing the obvious inflationary factors
and the interest of uniformity, adopt a similar rate schedule,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista, pursuant to section 5.54.030 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code, does hereby amend Resolution 10078 to set
maximum rates of fare for the transportation by taxicab of any
passenger or passengers, such travel originating within the city
limits of the city of Chula Vista, as follows:
$1.60 per "flag drop" or passenger pickup
$2.00 per additional mile
$15.00 per hour waiting time
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said maximum rates
fixed herein shall be effective from and after the adopt'o
resolution.
I:J. 8-/
fare
this
Presented by
Rick Emerson, Chief of Police
c: IRSltaxirate
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item (3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
REVIEWED BY:
Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 93-
03, Telegraph Canyon Estates
Director of Public work~ ~
C; ty Manager J.& ~ .-?
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
The City Attorney's office is continuing to review this agenda
item. Prior to the Council meeting this item may be changed or
pulled depending upon the status of the supplemental agreements and
the changes.
/~-)
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
1'3
Item _
Meeting Date 10/19/93
Resolution \7 27 3Amending Certain Conditions of Resolution No. 16960
Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 93-03,
Telegraph Canyon Estates.
Resolution 1127 Cj Approving Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agreement Requiring Developer to Comply with Certain Unfulfilled
Conditions of Resolution No. 16960 Approving a Tentative Subdivision
Map for Telegraph Canyon Estates, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
Same.
Resolution 1/2'-30 Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon
Estates Neighborhood 1 Unit 1.
Resolution 11215:i Approving Final Map and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates
Neighborhood 2 Unit 1.
Resolution) 12 ~ 2- Approving Final Map and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates
Neighborhood 3 Unit 1.
Resolution 112f6j Initiating Proceedings for Formation of Open Space
District No. 31 (OSD-31), Telegraph Canyon Estates and Ordering the
Engineer to Prepare and File a Report.
Director of Public Works~
Director of Planning
Director of commu~n. ty D velopment
City Manager !f. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
-...Jtf -
On January 19, 1993, by Resolution 16960, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision
Map for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. The first three final maps for said
tentative map are now before Council for approval.
l~#t
Page 2, ItemJ..3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the northerly side of Otay Lakes Road and adjacent to the
western side of the proposed alignment for State Route 125. It consists of 112.4 acres which
are proposed to be subdivided into 344 residential lots and open space lots. The first three units
of the development before Council for approval consist of a total of 103 numbered single family
residential lots and a total of five (5) lettered lots for open space and other public purposes
totalling approximately 55 acres.
Property owners in the Southwestern College Estates area have expressed concerns over the
opening of Gotham Street at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Estates development as
shown on the approved tentative map for this project. The final maps being considered for
approval are only the first three (3) of multiple final maps to be filed for this development and
do not include the Gotham Street area. This area is part of a future final map. Consequently,
approval of the final maps currently before Council will not affect any future decisions based
on review of this issue. A separate item is on the agenda to more fully explain the neighbors'
concerns and to schedule a public hearing to address the Gotham Street issue.
The first final map for each of Neighborhoods 1-3 of Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph
Canyon Estates have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and found to be in
substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Approval of the final maps constitutes
acceptance on behalf of the public for St. Clair Drive, La Salle Place, and portions of Versailles
Road, Martinique Drive, Marquis Court, Marquette Road, Genevieve Avenue and St. Germain
Road; acceptance on behalf of the City five (5) open space lots (Neigh. 1 Unit 1 - Lots A-C and
Neigh. 2 Unit 1 - Lots A and B) in fee, tree planting and maintenance easements and a 10'
general utility easement within the open space lots, all as shown on the final map.
The developer has executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for each map and a
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SSIA), provided bonds to guarantee
construction of the required public improvements (CV drawings 93-121 A&B through 93-232),
paid all applicable fees, and has provided a bond to guarantee the monumentation for said
subdivision.
Condition 9 requires the developer to install a traffic signal on Otay Lakes Road at the project
entry. Since the signal is not warranted at this time, Staff recommends the first sentence of
Condition 9 be revised as follows to conform with the development Phasing Plan:
/3 ~ 1..//3 ~ 'f
.,.= ,."',....,"'...-"'............~.....~_"_.~..",......._~"""''''''''.#~~....--..._<~~_~'ae~~'._._"___
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 10/19/93
ITEM TITLE: A. ResolutionL.MZtAmending Certain Conditions of Resolution No.
16960 Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista
Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates.
tJ, Resolution /7d.7~ Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement Requiring Developer to Comply with
Certain Unfulfilled Conditions of Resolution No. 16960 Approving
a Tentative Subdivision Map for Telegraph Canyon Estates, and
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Same.
C!-. Resolution /7;)710 Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph
Canyon Estates Neighborhood 1 Unit 1.
D I Resolution / 1~77 Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph
Canyon Estates Neighborhood 2 Unit 1.
);:;;.. Resolution !7:J.7r Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph
Canyon Estates Neighborhood 3 Unit 1.
\:-. Resolution /7~ 71 Initiating Proceedings for Formation of Open
Space District No. 31 (OSD-31), Telegraph Canyon Estates and
Ordering the Engineer to Prepare and File a Report.
Director of Public Works /J ~
Director of Planning R~
Director of CommunitY.....rrxelopment
City Manage~ '()~!/5thS Vote:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes_NoX)
On January 19, 1993, by Resolution 16960, the City Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. The first
three final maps for said tentative map are now before Council for approval.
1~~3
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the northerly side of Otay Lakes Road and adjacent
to the western side of the proposed alignment for State Route 125. It consists of
112.4 acres which are proposed to be subdivided into 344 residential lots and open
space lots. The first three units of the development before Council for approval
consist of a total of 103 numbered single family residential lots and a total of five (5)
lettered lots for open space and other public purposes totalling approximately 55
acres.
Property owners in the Southwestern College Estates area have expressed concerns
over the opening of Gotham Street at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon
Estates development as shown on the approved tentative map for this project. The
final maps being considered for approval are only the first three (3) of multiple final
maps to be filed for this development and do not include the Gotham Street area.
This area is part of a future final map. Consequently, approval of the final maps
currently before Council will not affect any future decisions based on review of this
issue. A separate item is on the agenda to more fully explain the neighbors' concerns
and to schedule a public hearing to address the Gotham Street issue.
The first final map for each of Neighborhoods 1-3 of Chula Vista Tract 93-03,
Telegraph Canyon Estates have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
found to be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Approval
of the final maps constitutes acceptance on behalf of the public for St. Clair Drive, La
Salle Place, and portions of Versailles Road, Martinique Drive, Marquis Court,
Marquette Road, Genevieve Avenue and St. Germain Road; acceptance on behalf of
the City five (5) open space lots (Neigh. 1 Unit 1 - Lots A-C and Neigh. 2 Unit 1 - Lots
A and B) in fee, tree planting and maintenance easements and a 10' general utility
easement within the open space lots, all as shown on the final map.
The developer has executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for each map and
a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SSIA), provided bonds to
guarantee construction of the required public improvements (CV drawings 93-121
A&B through 93-232), paid all applicable fees, and has provided a bond to guarantee
the monumentation for said subdivision.
I ~ -1 .
Condition 9 requires the developer to install a traffic signal on Otay Lakes Road at the
project entry. Since the signal is not warranted at this time, Staff recommends the
first sentence of Condition 9 be revised as follows to conform with the development
Phasing Plan:
"Install a fully activated traffic signal on Otay Lakes Road at the project
entry prior to the time a final map is recorded after the approval by the
City of the First Three Final Maps applicable to the Property."
Condition 27 required the developer to enter into an agreement with the Otay Water
District to commit to use of reclaimed water at the earliest possible date. Otay Water
District does not wish to enter into said agreement because of the uncertainty of the
availability of reclaimed water. In order to retain the requirement for the developer to
use reclaimed water for irrigation of open space areas, Staff recommends the
following revision to the first sentence of Condition 27:
"Enter into an agreement with the City to commit to use of reclaimed
water, if available and economically feasible, at the earliest possible
date. "
Condition 62 of the tentative map approval required the developer to enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement in conformance with the Telegraph Canyon Estates
General Development and SPA Plan prior to approval of any final map for the project.
However, negotiations have not been completed on the Affordable Housing
Agreement. Condition No.6 of the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan
provide for the City to accept, at its option, a minimum of three buildable acres
outside the development in lieu of the developer providing affordable housing units
within the development. This provision was a result of the single-family nature of the
proposed development, which would make it extremely difficult and expensive to
provide such units. Late in the negotiation process, issues arose concerning the
security the City would receive to guarantee delivery of the off-site land dedication,
which the developer tentatively intends to provide in the Otay Ranch Project. At this
point, the City is awaiting a response from the developer regarding the security
provisions the City Attorney and the Community Development Director are
recommending be included in the Affordable Housing Agreement. The City Attorney
and the Community Development Director feel confident that these issues will be
resolved within the next 30 days and wish to avoid holding up the subject final maps.
Therefore, given that the subject maps approves only 103 of the development's 344
projected units, leaving 241 units left to secure the developer's participation in the
Affordable Housing Agreement, it is recommended that Condition 62 of the Tentative
Map Approval be amended as follows:
"Execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City in a form
satisfactory to the City providing for 34.4 affordable housing units on
~
J3'~
the area of the Tentative Map covered by the Later Final Maps, and in
accordance with Condition No.6 of the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP
and SPA Plan (Resolution No. 16768) prior to the recordation of any
Later Final Maps for the project."
Condition 68 required the developer to cause zoning of an off-site parcel(s) to be used
exclusively for a Community Purpose Facility(ies) site prior to recordation of the First
Final Map for the development. The Developer has requested modification to
Condition 68 since the location of this site will be determined in accordance with the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) which is currently under review by
Council. To allow time for the finalization of said document, Staff recommends that
Condition 68 be revised as follows:
"Enter into an agreement with the City prior to the recordation of a Later
Final Map providing that Developer will cause, consent to, permit, apply
for, and not oppose the planning or replanning and zoning or rezoning of
an off-site parcel(s) as a Community Purpose Facilities site. Said off-site
parcel(s) shall be satisfactory to the City and of the same approximate
size as that which may have been required on-site, and must be owned
by the Developer, be within the jurisdiction of the City and otherwise be
within the vicinity of the project and subject to the satisfaction and
approval of the Director of Planning, or submit a Revised SPA Plan and
Tentative Map which provides for said site within the subdivision."
Provisions have been included in the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agreement to satisfy conditions 27, 62 and 68.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that timing modification of the
above tentative map conditions of approval is exempt from the environmental review
process under Section (b)(3) "General Rule" of CEQA.
Other conditions of approval which will be satisfied through approval of the SSIA are:
1. Condition 3 which requires the developer to implement mitigation
measures not satisfied by the project design with said implementation to
be monitored in conformance with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The
SSIA contractually binds the developer to meet the mitigation measures
and to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
2. Condition 4 which required the developer to a) comply with, remain in
compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of
the Telegraph Canyon Plans prior to approval of any Final Map or b)
enter into an agreement with the City assuring that, after approval of all
Final Maps, Developer shall continue to comply with, remain in
compliance with and implement the term, conditions and provisions of
/3-10
said Plans.
3. Condition 14 which required the developer to install transit amenities on
Otay lakes Road at the project entry and to provide a $5,000 cash
deposit to fund construction of the amenities when required. The
developer has submitted the required deposit and a provision has been
included in the SSIA to contractually require the developer to install the
amenities when required by the City.
4. Condition 30 which required the developer to authorize the City to
withhold building permits for any unit(s) in the subject subdivision if
Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached or if Traffic volumes,
levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the adopted City
threshold standards;
5. Condition 31 which required the developer to comply with the
requirements of the revised Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing
Plan and Transportation Development Impact Fee Program or as said
documents may be revised based on the conclusions of the H.N.T.B.
State Route 125 financing study;
6. Condition 32 which required the developer to not protest formation of
a maintenance district for the maintenance of medians and scenic
corridors along streets within and adjacent to the property and to not
protest the formation of and inclusion of the property in an assessment
district for the maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel.
7. Condition 33 which required the developer to not protest the formation
of and inclusion of the property in a community facility district to finance
construction of SR-125.
8. Condition 35 which required the developer to hold the City harmless for
any claim or action against the City with regard to the approval of this
subdivision;
9. Condition 36 which required the developer to permit all cable television
companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to
place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot or unit
within the Project;
10. Condition 50 which required the developer to submit to the City annual
building permit reports. The first of such reports shall be submitted
commencing as of February 1, 1994. Subsequent reports shall be
delivered on an annual basis until the last building permit in the Project
has been issued.
/~ '"7
In compliance with Condition 19, the developer has requested that the City form an
open space district to maintain the open space areas within the subdivision. Staff has
received the necessary deposits and documentation to initiate proceedings for Open
Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates.
The boundary of the proposed open space district is the subdivision boundary of
Telegraph Canyon Estates (CVT 93-03). The proposed district will fund continual
maintenance of both passive and active use areas within City open space lots, public
right-of-way or easements granted to the City. Improvements to be maintained by the
district include but are not limited to: irrigated and non-irrigated open space areas, a
mini park with a tot lot and a half basketball court, two tennis courts, recreational
trail, an entry monument, parking lot, soundwalls, and other improvements necessary
to operate and maintain the above stated facilities. Adoption of the proposed
resolution authorizes Staff to initiate proceedings to form the district including
preparation of the engineer's report; however, it does not constitute acceptance or
approval of the proposed district. The Engineer's Report and approval of the district
will be presented to Council at a later date.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of grading and
improvement plans, final map and formation of the open space district will be
reimbursed from developer deposits.
File: EY-380/EY-381/EY-382
F :\HOM E\ENGINEER\LAND D EV\teefm .Ime
101993
I 3. -i
>""'~~'''_,''H._,.~,_---"-,~..,.....~,"_~~,,.."_''''''~''-''_~~____'''__-
MEMORANDUM
October 18, 1993
File No.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public works~
SUBJECT: Revised Agenda Statement for 10/19/93
Attached is a revised agenda statement for Item 13 for the October
19, 1993 meeting. All changes to the statement previously
distributed are shown as either strikeout (deletions) or underlined
(additions). Also attached is revised resolution #17278.
cc: City Manager
/ J ---c;
,~-,--,,,""~--",~'''';''''--''<-~,"-~_.~--'----'''~''''''-''''''''''-------'---'~--^--,..-
Page 3, Item L3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
"Install a fully activated traffic signal on atay Lakes Road at the project entry
prior to the time a the fourth final map is recorded after the apprO'/al by the City
of the First Three Final Maps applicable to the Property."
Condition 27 required the developer to enter into an agreement with the atay Water District to
commit to use of reclaimed water at the earliest possible date. atay Water District does not
wish to enter into said agreement because of the uncertainty of the availability of reclaimed
water. In order to retain the requirement for the developer to use reclaimed water for irrigation
of open space areas, Staff recommends the following revision to the first sentence of Condition
27:
"Enter into an agreement with the City to commit to use of reclaimed water, if
available and economically feasible, at the earliest possible date. "
The developer is required by Condition 61 to record an open space easement on 0.9 acres of
wetlands. The easement document has been prepared and executed by the developer. however.
the associated subordination agreement will not be completed. Staff expects the agreement to
be finalized within 15 days and therefore recommends that Condition 61 be revised as follows:
"Enter into an agreement to dedicate and record. in first priority position. a
minimum 0.9 acres of wetlands associated with a larger wetlands area on the atay
Ranch property in a location approved by the Director of Planning prior to
approval of the fourth final map of Telegraph Canyon Estates. "
Condition 62 of the tentative map approval required the developer to enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement in conformance with the Telegraph Canyon Estates General Development
and SPA Plan prior to approval of any final map for the project. However, negotiations have
not been completed on the Affordable Housing Agreement. Condition No.6 of the Telegraph
Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan provide for the City to accept, at its option, a minimum of
three buildable acres outside the development in lieu of the developer providing affordable
housing units within the development. This provision was a result of the single-family nature
of the proposed development, which would make it extremely difficult and expensive to provide
such units. Late in the negotiation process, issues arose concerning the security the City would
receive to guarantee delivery of the off-site land dedication, which the developer tentatively
intends to provide in the atay Ranch Project. At this point, the City is awaiting a response
from the developer regarding the security provisions the City Attorney and the Community
Development Director are recommending be included in the Affordable Housing Agreement.
The City Attorney and the Community Development Director feel confident that these issues will
be resolved within the next 30 days and wish to avoid holding up the subject final maps.
Therefore, given that the subject maps approves only 103 of the development's 344 projected
\35
Page 4, Item L 3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
units, leaving 241 units left to secure the developer's participation in the Affordable Housing
Agreement, it is recommended that Condition 62 of the Tentative Map Approval be amended
as follows:
"Execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City in a form satisfactory
to the City providing for 34.4 affordable housing units on the area of the
Tentative Map covered by the Later Final Maps, and in accordance with
Condition No.6 of the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan (Resolution
No. 16768) prior to the recordation of any Later Final Maps for the project."
Condition 68 required the Developer to cause zoning of an off-site parcel(s) to be used
exclusively for a Community Purpose Facility(ies) site prior to recordation of the First Final
Map for the development. The Developer has requested modification to Condition 68 since the
location of this site will be determined in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP) which is currently under review by Council. To allow time for the finalization of
said document, Staff recommends that Condition 68 be revised as follows:
"Enter into an agreement with the City prior to the recordation of a Later Final
Map providing that Developer will cause, consent to, permit, apply for, and not
oppose the planning or replanning and zoning or rezoning of an off-site parcel(s)
as a Community Purpose Facilities site. Said off-site parcel(s) shall be
satisfactory to the City and of the same approximate size as that which may have
been required on-site, and must be owned by the Developer, be within the
jurisdiction of the City and otherwise be within the vicinity of the project and
subject to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning, or submit a
Revised SPA Plan and Tentative Map which provides for said site within the
subdivision. "
Provisions have been included in the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement to
satisfy conditions 27, 61, 62 and 68.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that timing modification of the above
tentative map conditions of approval is exempt from the environmental review process under
Section (b)(3) "General Rule" of CEQA.
Other conditions of approval which will be satisfied through approval of the SSIA are:
1. Condition 3 which requires the Developer to implement mitigation measures not
satisfied by the project design with said implementation to be monitored in
conformance with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The SSIA contractually binds
the Developer to meet the mitigation measures and to comply with the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan.
)~)-~
, ,.,.,-~.,..._~~..".--,._~"".,..~~~..."~..~_.",~..,,,,-,,.,~.~~......,..........~----<.,..._-,"~'--_.----,..-
Page 5, Item ) 3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
2. Condition 4 which required the Developer to a) comply with, remain in
compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the
Telegraph Canyon Plans prior to approval of any Final Map or b) enter into an
agreement with the City assuring that, after approval of all Final Maps,
Developer shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with and
implement the term, conditions and provisions of said Plans.
3. Condition 14 which required the Developer to install transit amenities on Otay
Lakes Road at the project entry and to provide a $5,000 cash deposit to fund
construction of the amenities when required. The Developer has submitted the
required deposit and a provision has been included in the SSIA to contractually
require the Developer to install the amenities when required by the City.
4. Condition 30 which required the Developer to authorize the City to withhold
building permits for any unit(s) in the subject subdivision if Regional development
threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have
been reached or if Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the adopted City threshold standards;
5. Condition 31 which required the Developer to comply with the requirements of
the revised Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and Transportation
Development Impact Fee Program or as said documents may be revised based on
the conclusions of the H.N.T.B. State Route 125 financing study;
6. Condition 32 which required the Developer to not protest formation of a
maintenance district for the maintenance of medians and scenic corridors along
streets within and adjacent to the property and to not protest the formation of and
inclusion of the property in an assessment district for the maintenance of
Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel.
7. Condition 33 which required the Developer to not protest the formation of and
inclusion of the property in a community facility district to finance construction
of SR-125.
8. Condition 35 which required the Developer to hold the City harmless for any
claim or action against the City with regard to the approval of this subdivision;
9. Condition 36 which required the Developer to permit all cable television
companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to place
conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the
Project;
10. Condition 50 which required the Developer to submit to the City annual building
13 ---7
Page 6, Item) 3
Meeting Date 10/19/93
permit reports. The first of such reports shall be submitted commencing as of
February 1, 1994. Subsequent reports shall be delivered on an annual basis until
the last building permit in the Project has been issued.
11. Condition 71 which requires the Developer to pay development impact. signal
participation. sewer. and drainage fees in accordance with City Code and Council
Policy.
12. Condition 73 which requires the Developer to comply with energy conservation
ordinances and policies effective at the time construction of homes occurs.
In compliance with Condition 19, the Developer has requested that the City form an open space
district to maintain the open space areas within the subdivision. Staff has received the necessary
deposits and documentation to initiate proceedings for Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph
Canyon Estates.
The boundary of the proposed open space district is the subdivision boundary of Telegraph
Canyon Estates (CVT 93-03). The proposed district will fund continual maintenance of both
passive and active use areas within City open space lots, public right-of-way or easements
granted to the City. Improvements to be maintained by the district include but are not limited
to: irrigated and non-irrigated open space areas, a mini park with a tot lot and a half basketball
court, two tennis courts, recreational trail, an entry monument, parking lot, soundwalls, and
other improvements necessary to operate and maintain the above stated facilities. Adoption of
the proposed resolution authorizes Staff to initiate proceedings to form the district including
preparation of the engineer's report; however, it does not constitute acceptance or approval of
the proposed district. The Engineer's Report and approval of the district will be presented to
Council at a later date.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of grading and
improvement plans, final map and formation of the open space district will be reimbursed from
developer deposits.
File: EY-380/EY-3811EY-382
F:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\tcefm2.lmc
101993
\ "3 _.~
TEL NO'P19-691-51~~~ .491 P02
~ ~~ *13
'OCT-15-'33 FRI 08:25 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
city Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Cnula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer t~x is due as this is a
conveyanoe to a public aqency of
lese than a fee interest for which
no oash oonsideration has bean paid
or reoQived.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
Above
Developer
spaoe for Recorder's Use
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Telegraph canyon
(Conditions 3, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
3S, 36, SO, 60, 61, 62, 68, 71 and 73)
This S~pplemental Subdivision Improvement Aqreement
("Aqreement") is made this _ day of , 1993, by and
between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California (lIcitytl or "Granteetl
for recording purposes only) and Otay Vista Associates, a
California limited partnership ("Developer" or "Grantortl), with
reference to the faots set forth below, whioh recitals constitute
a part ot thi. Aqreementt
RECITALS
A. Thi5 Agreement concerns and affects certain real property
located in chula vista, California, more particularly described on
Exhibit "Au a.ttachea hereto and incorporated herein ("property").
The Property i. pArt of a project oommonly known as Telegraph
Canyon Estates ("project").
B. Developer is the owner of the Property.
C. Developer has applied tor and the City has approved a
Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Telegraph Canyon
13-4
10/5/93
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:25 ID:CUY OF CHUL8 Ulc::m TEL NO:619-691-5171
1:1491 P03
Estates, Chula vieta Tract 93-03 (tlTentative SubcUvision Map") tor
the sUbdivi.ion of the Property.
D. The city has adoptea Resolution No. 16960 ("Resolution")
pursuant to which it has approved the Tent~tive subdivision Map
subjeot to certain conditions as more particularly described in the
Resolution. the delllcriptiQn of the conditions in this recit~1
'taction of thi~ A9re~ment is intended only to summarize and
DaraDhrase such conditions in the ~esolut~on. and is not intepded
herein to modifY o~ expla~n them. and is not intended as a basis
for inte~pretiOQ them.
i.&.. Condition Nos. 3 and 60 of the Resolution requirt.,s
Developer to pe.rform certain mitigation measures to tif:
satisfaction of the Direotor of Pl~nnin9. and to caul_
imDlementatlon of mitiqation measur~s to be m~oitorAd v~a th:;
approved Miti9ation Mon~t6rina Proqr4~.
F. Condition No. 4 of the Resolution requires Developer to
either (a) comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement,
the terms, condi tions and provisions of the Telegraph canyon
Estates General Development Plan, Seotional Pl~nning Area Plan,
Master Plan of Reclaimed water, Water Conservation Plan, Air
Quality Improvement Plan and the PUblic Facilities Financing Plan
approved by the Chula vista City Counoil (collectively, the
IlTele9raph Canyon Plans") which are applicable to the Property
prior to approval of any final subdivision map ("Final Mapll), or
(b) enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with
suoh security (including recordation or covenants running with the
land) and implementation procedures as the ci ty may require,
assuring that, after approval of all Final Maps, Developer ahall
continue to oomply with, remain in complianoe with, and implement
such Telegraph Canyon Estates Plans.
~ Coudi tion NQ. 14 of the Resolution requir~s t:~ DQ~~;OP:f
to install transit amenities on both aides ~f Ot~ L es d
the pro1ect entry or appropriate alternative 10Qa~io~ ~s ~::o~~~
bv the City EnainAer. Transit ameniti~s include but a _ . '!;
limited to benches and/or'shAlters and ~re sub~ect~o ;ppr;val '~y
the City Enaineer. DAveloper was required to ~~~ ;~f~o ca~~
deposit. to the City Drior to the aP1?ro'(al of the firs _:.... _ MaD
fund transi~ amenities wh.n requ1~edt reC'~Dt of ~hich h;;
.o.cQurred.
lL.. Condi tion No. 27 of the Resolution. which w~~ SU::i~~e~~-
ly amended by Resolution No. . V required th . e
;"'" ~ ~ ~ .-r-"'-'L ...--.. __"
~/ Insert the number of the resolution adopted at the same
meeting as this entitled: RESOLU1'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA
2
10/5/93
13-10
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:26 ID:ClTY.OF CHULA UrQA TEL NO:619-691-5171
l:t491 P04
reoordin~ of the final maD. the Developer was to Ant:: i:~o ~~
aqreemant with City to oommit to \.lse of reclaimed ~a r t _
earliest po~sible data and to make all rec1aim.d wa~:~ ~~~ c~n;o~:
to the a-otll!cable ret1ulat.ions of Chula vista.. ---1- _1 W_ t_r
Dualitv Control Board and the State Department ~r He;lth.
I. [Condition No. 30]. City has adopted City-wiele qrowth
management trthreSholds", as established by City Resolution No.
13346 (IIThresholds"). These Thresholds establish performance and
"quality of life" standards for a variety of services and impacts
which must be in existence or satisfied by the Project as a
condition to the City permitting t.he Project to be built. In
addition to the Thresholds, and as a mechanism to insure compliance
therewith, the City has adopted the Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Ph~sin9 Plan ("Phasing Plan"). The Phasinq Plan
provides that oertain transportation facilities must be in
existence or provided by the Project as a condition to the City
permitting the Project to be built. The Thresholds and the Phasing
Plan establish standards and levels of service for various
identified public facilities and these standards and levels of
service are enforced throuqh the withholding of building permits
when the public facility or resource drops below a specified
threshold. Condition No. 30 requires Developer to agree to comply
wi th the Thresholds and' standards created by City Resolution
No. 13346 an~ the Phasinq Plan.
:r. Condition No. 31 of the Resolution requires Developer and
City to comply with the requirements of the Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan and Transportation Development Impact
Fee Program.
K. Condition No. 32 of the Resolution requires Developer and
City to enter into an agreement with the city wherein Developer
shall agree to not protest the formation of (i) a l'lu:lintenance
district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic
corridors along certain streets within and adjacent to the projeot;
ana (il) an assessment district for the maintenance of Telegraph
Canyon Flood Control Channel.
I". Condition No. 33 of the Resolution requires the Developer
and city to enter into an agreement wherein Developer agrees to not
protest the formation of and inClusion in a community Facility
District to finance construction of State Route 125.
M. Condition No. 34 of the Resolution requires the Developer
to enter into an agreement to indemnify and hola harmless the City
from any claims, actions or proceedings against the city to attach,
set aside, void or annul any approval by the City with regard to
the Telegraph Canyon Estate Subdivision.
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES.
:3
10/5/93
13-11
O~T-15.-'93 FRI 08:27 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
1=1491 P05 ._____
N. Condi tion No. 35 of the Resolution requires the Developer
to enter into an Agreement to hold the city harmle.. rrom any
liAbility for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage
result in; from the Project.
O. Condition No. 36 of the Resolution requires the Developer
to enter into an agreement with the City relating to the provision
of franchise cable television services AS more particularly set
forth in Condition No. 36.
P. Condition No. 50 of the Resolution requires the Developer
to submit to the City annual building permit reports, traffic cost
analysis and fisoal impact analysis on the terms set forth in said
Condition No. 50.
O. Cond~~ion No. 61 of the Reselution reqyires the DevelQPir
~o dedieat~ and record an open ~P~~I easement on a minimum ot .9
acres wetlands associated with a larger wetlands are~ gn the O~,v
Ranch propertv in a location approved by the Director of Pla~nin9.
B.a. Cendi tion No. 62 ot the Resolutiqn~ which was subseauent-
;~pr~~~~~e~t b: il~~~~u;:;n b;o t.oe cIty '~e~~grt~8~hethg;v~~~~~ ~~
,xeoute an affordable housing aareement in a term satistactory to
the City p~oviding fQr 34.4 affqrqable housinq qnits on the ~rea ot
the Tentative Ma9 cov.red by the Later Final Maps. and in
accordanoe with Co~dition No. 6 ot the Teleq{Bch Canyon Estates GDP
an4 SPA Plan (~esolution Woo 1676~ prior to the recordation of any
Later Final Map. for the pro1ect.
S. condition No. 68 of the Resolution. which was subseauen-;-
;~ a~e~~ b~ R:ol~~ :. rAl requires Developer to ;::s:
--e -.e-! - -t -- -------4:-- "areal te :Sa waea 8Kelusi-:ely --- - -
coJftl\\\lt\ity I'lIrpese F'ae11ities site, 8\lsjeet te sat!-sfaetieft 0.1
eertaift eeftaitiefts ae mSFe partiswlarly set fertk iR said
~/ Insert the number of the resolution adopted at the same
meeting as this entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES.
1/ Nanoy, this ia not exactly marked to show changes, but I
didn't want to invest the time to recrea~e it exactly. Please
refer to your original agreement to see changes.
~I Insert the number of the resolution adopted at the same
meeting as this entitled:' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF eHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPR CANYON ESTATES.
4
10/5/93
,~- ,~
OCT -15-' 93 FR I 08: 28 ID: C!TV OF <;'~U!-A l)! STA TEL NO: 519-691-5171
1:1491 P06
Resehl'tien. enter into an aqreement with the city 'Crior to the
recordation of a Later Final Map (is HTQefined in the amendinq
Resolu~ion) providin9 that Develope~ Will ~,use, consent t91
permit. apply for. aD~ Poot oppos~ ,th,.planning or r.planning an~
Z9ning or r~~90i09 Qr an Off-site parcel(s) as a community purpos~
;;~ilities site. said off-site parcells} shall be satisfactory to
the city and of the same approximate size OS tp,t YQlch mav have
been required on-5i te. and must be owned ~y t.he Developer I be
i1thin the iurisdiction of the city and otherwise be within the
Y1c1nity of the pro1,iot and sub1ect to the satisfaction and
approval ot the Oirector of Plannina. otherwise. Developer is to
,~bmit a Revised SPA Plan and Tentative Map whieh provides for said
si~. wi~hin the .ub4i~~'~OD.
'1'. There are certain other unperformed and unfulfilled
conditions o~ said Tentative Map, such as Condition Nos. 71 and 73.
u. City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and
conditions herein contained to approve the first three final maps
for which Developer has ap~lied commonly known as Nei9hborhog4 1,
unit 1; Neiahborhood 2, Unit Ii and Neiqhborhood 3, unit 1 ("First
Three P'in~l Matls" ~ the final sl:lbd.1...isieft mal' '8e lae reeerdea ~s being
in substAntial conformance with the Tentative subdivision Map~
the territory of such First Three Final Maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, in axohanqe for the mutual covenants, terms
and oonditions herein oontained, the parties agree as set forth
below.
1. Agr,.ment ~pliq.bl. to Sub..quant OWners.
1. 1 Agreement ,in4ing Onon Succe..ors. This Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors,
assigns and interests of the parties as to any or all of the
property until released by the mutual consent of the parties.
1.2 Aaraamant RUnS with the ~.na. The burden ot the
covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burd.en") is for thca benefit
of the land owned by the city adjacent to the Property. The Burc1en
touches and concerns the Property. It is the intent of the
parties, and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding
upon, ana run with, the owner$hip ot the land which it burdens.
The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title, as to an
individual lot or unit within the Project upon the sale of any lot
improved with a residence. If requested by Developer, city shall
exeout~ a quitolaim releasing the Burden of this Agreement from the
title to any suoh lots. If Developer assigns any portion ot the
Property subject to the Burden of this Agreement, Oeveloper shall
have the right to obtain a release ot any of Developer'S
Obligations under this Agreement provided Developer obtains the
prior written consent ot the City to any such release. city shall
not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long
5
10/5/93
/3 -/3
OCT -15- '93 FR I 08: 28 I ~ : C lTY OF _~HU_LA. IJ I STA _.. !..EL NO: 619-_691-517_1_____
1:*491 P07
aa the assignee demonstrate9, to the reasonable .a~i.faction of the
city, its Ability to perform its ob11gations under this Agreement
as it relates to the portion of the Project which is beinq acquired
by the assignee.
2. con4ition No.3 and 60 - Mitigation M8Jlures. DevelQper
shall. at their sole cost and exoense. implement all m~~iqatiQn
measures requi~id bv Resolution No. 16960. and in particula~,
seotion IX, B. and Section VII. Condition No. 60. to the
satisfaction of the city and shall implel!\~nt or cause to be
implemented. at their sole cost ,And expense, th~ Miti9ation an4
Monitoring P~qqram required by Resolution No. 16960: Section IX. 0,
3. col'utition No. t - C!olQP1ione8 With Plana. In satisfaction
of Condition No. 4 of the ReQolution, Developer hereby certifies
that Developer is currently in compliance with and aqrees to
(a) remain in compliance with, and implement, the terms; conditions
I:lnd provisions of the Telegraph Canyon Estates Plans prior to
approval of any Final Map, or (b) agrees to provide the City with
such security (including recordation ot cov~nants runnin9 with the
land) and implementation procedures as the City may require,
assuring thAt,' After approval of Final Maps, Developer shall
oontinue to comply with, remAin in compliance with, and implement
such Telegraph Canyon Plans. Developer shall havQ satisfied its
Obligations to oomply with the Telegraph ca~yon Plans so long as
Developer remains in Bubstantial compliance with the action plan
tor implementation of the Telegraph Canyon Plans set forth on
SChedule 3 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
~ COQdition NO, 14 -- ~ranBit Am_nitle.. DeveloDer shAtl
install suoh transit amenities on both sides of Otay La~es Roa~ at
the project entry or ~DDropriate alternative lQcation as approveq
by the city Et:lgineer. Transit omenities. as the term is used
here~n. shall include, but Bha~l not be ~~1ted ~o. benches and/or
shelters and a~e subject to approval by tha City Egoineer. City
acknowledges receipt trQm the Developer of 55.000 a~ a oash deposit
to secure Developer's Dromises 1n this re9ard.
~ Condition No. 27 -- aeclaimed Water U... Deveto'DAr
hereby aarees to ~nstal1 reClaimed water ciping in such locations
as City shall require, and at such times as city shall require sarna
durinq the construction of the infrastructure for the ~ropert~n
DevelQPtr further aarees that it and its successQrs in interest
shall use reclaimed w4ter at the earliest possible date same Ls
reasonably available at such Driee a~ city shall determine is
reasonable. which sqall at a minimum be understood to mean at 1ealt
the ~rio. of potablQ ~ater. CeveloDer shall otherwise be comply
with applioAble re94lations of Chula Vista. Re9~onal Watef Oual~
Control Board and the State Department of Health as to the purchase
and USA of recloimed water.
6
10/5/93
/3-/4f
. OCT -15- , 93 FR I 08: 29 I D :S..ill....Q~.CHULf:!...~L~Tfl. ._.. TE~J.l :. 51 9-5~,1-51 71
**491 P08
6. Condition No. 30 - Bui14ina Permits Not to Issue While
Thr..holds Dafiaient. In full satisfaction of Condition No. 30,
Developer agrees as follows:
6.1 Developer h.r.~y qrants to the City the right to
withhold building permits for.any dwelling units on the Property at
8uch time as anyone ot the following occur:
6.1.1 Traffic volumes, levels of service, public
utilities and/or services exoeed the standords for those adopted
City Threshold. standards identified on Schedule 1 attached hereto
and incorporated herein; or.
6.1.2 Req10nal development threshold
identified on East Chula vieta Transportation Phasing
Schedule 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
qll\e feregGin, _\/8 ee"ditiens shall herein ),e referrea
Il.(;la.uH tieP18 fo!!' wi taaelEi1nlJ af 8\1i14i1'\' Pe.-ftli ts. 115/
De~eleper ~Rall as e~titlea te prepese eka~!eB in t~e '1m1", ~Ra
:;i::;:~~~ af aevelepmeJ\t anti tBe eenstruMieR af imp2!'e""eRleftts
limits
Plan,
t8 as
7. condition No. 31 - ~omp11ane. with Eastern ahul. Vi8ta
TranSDortation Phasing plan and Tr.n.p~rtation D.valopm.~t Impaat
J'ee Proq-rltom. In ~ll satisfaotion or condition No. 31, Developer
agrees that it shall comply with the requirements of the revised
Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and Transportation
Development Impact Fee Program or as said documents may be revised
based on the oonclusions ot the H.N.T.B. State Route 125 financing
study.
8. condi~~n No. 32 - No Protest of Maintenanoe Oistr~ct or
A,..ssment Dlstrio~. In satisfaction of condition No. 32 of the
ReSOlution, Developer and' their heirs, assigns, trAnsferees, and
other successors-in-interest, hereby aqrees to not protest the
tormation ot a maintenance district for the maintenance of medians
and scenic corridors alonq streets within ana adjaoent to the
Property and to not protest the formation of and inolusion of the
Property in an assessment district for the maintenance of Telegraph
canyon Flood Control Channel. This agreement to not protest the
inclusion of these public improvements shall not be deemed a waiver
of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment which may be
imposed due to the addition of these new improvements and shall not
~/ Deleted because not used elsewhere in the document.
s/ Deleted beoause not oonsistent with the condition, and
m"aningless.
7
10/5/93
1.3 --/5
OCT -15-' 93 FR I 08: 30 ID: (IT'/ OF (HULA l) I STA TEI..1::!Q: 619-691-5171
1:*491 P09
interrere with the right ot any person to vote in a secret ballot
election.
9. Condition No. 33 - No Protest of ~ormation of communit3
1'9i~1~y Dil~rigi, In satisfaction of Con~ition No. 33 of the
Resolution, Developer hereby ~9rees to not protest the form~tion of
and inclusion of ~he Property in a community facility district to
finance construction of State Route 125. This agreement to not
protest the inclusion of these public improvements shall not be
deemed a waiver of the right 'too challenge ~he amount. of any
assessment which may ~e imposed due to the addition of these new
improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person
to vote 1n a secret ballot election.
10. ~2ndit1on No. ~5 - Qubdivlsion Hap Indemnity. In
satisfaction of Condition ,No.. 35 of the Resolution, the Developer
agrees that, on the condition that city shall promptly notify the
Developer of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the city fully cooperates in the defense, the
Developer shall defend, indemnify, ~na hela harmless the city, and
its agents, officers and employees, trom any claim, action or
proceeding aqainst the city, or its agents, officers or employees,
t.o attaok, set aside, void or annul any approval by the city,
including approvals by its Planning Commission, city Council, or
any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regara to
this Projeot.
11. P9ndition No. 3& .. Cable '1'elltxilion Easements. In
satisfaction of Condition No. 36 of the Resolution, the Developer
agrees to permit all cable television companies franchised by the
City of chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit to and
provide cable television service tor each lot or unit within the
Project. Developer further aqrees to grant, by license or
e~sement, ana for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the
city ot Chula VistA, conditional access to cable television conduit
within the properties situated within the Project only to those
cable television companies franchised by the city of Chula Vista
the condition of such ~rant being that (a) such access is
coordinated with Developer's construction schedule so that it does
not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not
require the trenches to be reopened to acoommodate the placement of
such conduits; and (b) any SUQh cable company 18 and remains in
compliance with, and promises to remain in complianoe with, the
terms and conditions of the tranchise and with all other rules,
regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
oper~tion ot cable television companies as same may have been, or
may from time to time be, issued by the City ot Chula Vista.
Developer hereby conveys' to the City of Chula vista the authority
to entoroe said covenant by such remedies as the city determines
appropriate, includinq revocation of said grant upon a
determination by the city of Chula Vista that they have violated
the conditions of the qrant.
8
10/5/93
13 -I'
. OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:31 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
1=1491 P10
12. ~~ndition No. 59 - Submission of Annual Dui14ina permit
and other ReD9rts. In satisfaction of Condit.ion No. 50, De.veloper,
and. their heirs, assigns, transferees and other succ8.lIors-in-
interest shall su~mit to the city Director of Planning annual
building permit reports. The first of such reports shall be
submitted commencing as of F~bruary 1, 1994. Subsequent reports
shall be delivered on an annual basis until the last building
permit in the Projectlha~~bQen issued. r
,~'.Q.o, ~ -
lh ffPd~~~on~o~ '1 - ~.~=Ii Ea8A~ ~:el~: ~r:~:
~~~~~~ .W"a"n"ll 'gi tv a~,;;~ . W~~ll';-ld::- app;-~~i -Ill s~m;::~otwi:hSt:~[\\1 Ilia
i~~ O~t:~ ~~n:of~~i~~; W~~h ;~: ~:lltative Map. until Developer has
dedica=~:; _h_ C .' 2lD_S___ __8 been recorded in first Driorit~
e~~~;ion. a~:i~i;i; ~f ~9 :c~es wetlands, as>>Qciated with a larae
_____nds are_ on t~he_~a__~n_h orooerty ~n a location approved by
the oi~~ctor of Plannina.
14. Condition No. 62 - ,ffor4able Housinq Aqr...ent.
oevelop~r ~~1:;~ ~h~~~ without ~~rmi8sion of the City Council. i~
will no a_ _ 0_ ___ aporoval of a fourth or late~ final map to
th~ f~~~:~!y.~~il City and DevQlQper have reaqhed an affordable
~::.:~ ~_.eeme.t~ln a ~orm satisfactory ~o the city providina fQr
~~~ ~~::~ab~e housin__ uni~s on the area of ~he Tentative Map
covered b: ~= fourth o~ lat9r final maps, and in accordance with
con~1tion_N_~_~~ of the Teleqraph Canvon Estates GDP and SPA Plan
~~::~;~:~or ~o. 16768).
la ~2 of the Resel\ition, as amended, refll:lires that prior
.6 a~~ra~al af a fiRal ~a~ ~y ~~eJ city eea~eil, aft arferaa~le
aeasiRg a~reement shall ,be reaehea be~~eeft the Be~eleper ana~he
Oity. Gity here>>y a,~eeo that} notwithsta"aift~ the ,r8~ie!ona set
forth above, the obli;atieft~er eHee~ti~, e~ek a!reement shall ee
satisfied as a eGndi~ieft te the reeeraa_ie~ ef the fourth final
eaediv!e!eft map fer ~ae rre;ee\.U
15. ggn41tlon No. 68 - loninq for a community Purpose
~aOilitieB site. Oi'tY~lUi-O&ve-lopell aekn8wlea,e that Coftdit.ion No.
_9 af ~he Reselatien re,~ires De~eleper \e ea~ee Beftift! at eff .i~e
~arael (e) "68 1ge \leef! euelasi-;ely tep..-.a Community rurpose Faeili~!~~
site(a) ,Pier ~a tRe rees]!Idation sf ~he first Final !tap fer .he
rrejeet. ge~eleper aRe city eR7iaieRee taat ~he site would be en
the otay~Ranah. How0ver~Joity, aoknowled9od-that tae stay RaReR
SePleJ!'al ee~.eleJ!lmePl~ PlaPl Rae Ple~ yet lseePl apprevea by the oity
Geuftoil at Ch\lla ~is'a aft' ee"se~efttly, ~e~eleper oannot easily
Ba~iafy sash e~liga~iePl prier ta ~hs reeer4a~iePl af ~he firs~ FiRal
Map for the rrejeat. Aeeordin;ly, oity a;rees that, in
satisfaotion of condition NO. 68, Developer shall, prior ~e the
reoordation ot the tiftal euedi.:ieieft map fer the rrojeot whioh
11 Having modified the original condition by the amQnding
resolution, ~he original language is no longer necessary.
g
10/5/93
/3- 17
. OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:31 ID:ClTY OF CHULR uISTR TEL t'-10:E19-691-517t
**491 P11
inelaaes ~he 299ta let iR ~h. p~ejeet, sause the eeft~~ ~~ a~ e!!~
;it; ';;.81 witail'l ~A. -:1eirdty of the ,reje~ <...~~et:~~ ~~ ~::r:
:: ~-~t..::.~ ':.~thiB tRllt ....tdB I'".j..t .......Bly kB~;;n~~. ~!~~
sit:-- .;;:j~ t: tft:..:::t:;::il.~""and ::;:::~y J~~l:...;:~~t ;!
pi;;~i~;""~r sasai t a I'evised srA rlafl ana. tSfltati va ma~ whiea
previ..a {SF said s1~ W!~~iR ~Ae sQBai~i.ie".
DevelppBr agrees that. if one or more carcels of property
:~i~~tactor: to-the citv and of the same approximate size as that
~ may h ve be~~ r~~ired on-site. owned bv ~he Developer within
th; 1u;i~di~ti~~ of the Citv aDd otherwise be within the vicinity
of the ProlJertv has hot been (re\ DlaDnjs3 ~nd (re) zoned as a
~~:~~~~iY ~u~po~e Facilities site at the ~ime Develoger aDD1ies for
___----- 0 __ fourih or other final map tor the Property. or if the
parties have not reached a satisfactory aareement for the plannin9
and zonina of such a parcel. City may withhold approval of 8ame
notwithstandin9 any other requirement] and Developer shall submit
:~.~~vised SPA Plan-and Tentative Map which provides tor said site
_r h!n the sUbdivision. city agrees that proximal areas of the
wI~tern parc~l or the Otay Ranch Projeot may provide such an oft
S__Q parcel if it meets the other r9guireroeDtg of annexation and
ownership by the Developer at the time of zonin9.
16. Complianoe With Unfulfilled Condi tionll. Developer agrees
to comply with all the conditions ot the Tentative subdivision Map
which remain unperformed or unfulfilled at the time of the filing
ot the Final Map, including the following conditions nos. 71 and 73
which read a. follows:
Condi~ion No. 71. Pay the following fees in
accordance with the City Code and Council
Policy;
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees prior to the issuance of any
building permit;
b. 9i9n&1 participation Fees;
c. All applicable sewer f..., includinq, bu~
not limited to, sewer connection fees; and
d. The Teleqraph Canyon Sewer Basin fee.
Condition No. 73. comply with Title 24 ana
any other enerqy conservation ordinances and
pOlicies in effect at the time construction
occurs on the property in conformance with the
Tentative subdivision Map.
17. ,atisfaction of conditionS. City agrees that the
execu~ion of this Aqreement constitutes tu~l aft. 8em,lete
10
10/6/;3
13,18
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:32 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
1:1491 P12
satisfaction of Daveloperis obligation ~~Conditions 3.-4, 1!.
~30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 50, 61. 62. 68, 71 and 73 of
~ Resolut~Q~ as it apPl~J~ to the territory of.tha First Three
Final Maps for Chula vista Tract 93-03.
18. Recordina. This. Agreement, or an abstract hereof
prepared by either or both parties, may be recorded at the option
of either party.
19. Misoellaneous.
19.1 ~otio... unless otherwise provided 1n this
Agreement or by law, any and all notices r.q~irea or permlttea by
this Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to either
party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served,
delivered, and received when personally delivered to the party to
whom it 1& directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business
days have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. mail, certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage
prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement. A
party may change suoh address for the purpose of this paragraph by
givinq written notice of such change to the other party. Facsimile
transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FQ~rth Avenue
Chula Vi.ta, CA 92010
Attn; Director of Public Works
Developer:
otay Vista Associates
c/o The Baldwin company
11975 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Attn: Project Manaqer of
Telegraph Canyon Project
A party may change such address tor the purpose of this paragraph
by givinq written notice of such change to the other party in the
manner provided in this paragraph. Facsimile transmission shall
conDt1tute personal delivery.
19.2 ~.~tions. Captions in this A9reement are inserted
for convenience of reference and do not define, describe or limit
the scope or intent of this Aqreement or any of its ~erms.
19. 3 Entire Agr.'Ul~nt. This Agreement contains the
entire agreement between the parties reqarding the subject matter
hereof. Any prior oral or written representations, aqreements,
underatandin9s, ana/or statements shall be of no force and effect.
11
10/5/93
13 -- , q
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:33 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTq TEL NO:519-591-5171
j:f491n P13
This Agreement is not intended to supersede OJ." amend any oth.r
Agreement ~etween the parties unless expressly noted.
19.4 .rap,ration at 19r.."ant. No inference, assumption
or presumption shall be arawn from the fact that A pArty or his
attorney prepared and/or drafted this Agreement. It shall be
conclusively presumed that both parties participated equally in the
preparation and/or drattinq this Aqreement.
19.5 Recitals: EXhibit,. Any recitals set forth above
are incorporated by reterence into this Agreement.
19.6 Attornevs' Fees. In the event of any dispute
arls1nq out of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any action
shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any
other costs, damages, or remedies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be execute the day and year first hereinabove Bet
forth.
By: City of Chula Vista
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, city Clerk
OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES, a
California limited partnership
By: Sky Vista, a California
corpcra~ion, General
Partner
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Booqaard, city Attorney
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
By:
Name:
Title:
H;\DMI\NT',PJR\107~?~. wr
12
10/5/9'3
t~ --2l>
OCT -15- , 93 FR I 08: 33 ID: C IT~_~__.~f:l~L~':l.r STA TEL.-!;:ill : 619-691-51 7J
l:t491 P14
~'I'I' -A.
~~~~
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS.SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALI'O~IA,
COUNT~ OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FoLLOWS:
THt SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF sECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
SAN BERNARDINO SASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE
OF CA~IFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY APPROVED
APRIL 17, 181:J.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED LINE:
BEGINNING AT THE- NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST-QUARTER OF SECTION
34, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE or CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES
GOVENMENT SURVEY APPROVED APRIL 17, 1883& THENCE SOUTHOO-47'Og" WEST
1071.74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALSO BEING A POINT OF A
NONTANGENT 2970.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWEstERLY, A RADtAL
LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 39049'36" EAST, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01- 47' 2111 A DISTANCE OF
92.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVElS! 5067.00 FOOT RADIUS CUlVE.
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF OlD
48'04" A DISTANCE OF 159.28 FEET, THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH
60047'16" WEST 976.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 5067.00 rOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF OS011'19" A DISTANCE OF 458.86 FEET.
TH!NC! TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 55-35' 57" WEST 549.31 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1933.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY,
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24824'
OS" A DISTANCE OF 82.3.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF
SAlt) SOUTHWEST QUARTER DISTANT NORTH 00.01'06" WEST 94.14 FEET FROM
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, ALSO BEING THE POINT
OF TERMINUS OF SAID DESCRI!EO LINE.
ALSO EXClPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF soUTHWESTERN COLLEGE ESTATES,
UNIT NO.9, ACCORDINC '1'0 '1'HE MAP THEREOF NO. 7742, FILED IN '!'HE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY: THENCE SOUTHERLY,
SEARING SOUTH 00.00'52" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MAP NO.
7742, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 34, Al DISTANCE OF 1'5.98
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNINC; THENCE SOUTHERLY BEARING SOUTH
00.00' 52" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MAP NO.. 7742 AND THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 284..02 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY BEARING NORTH 89-59' OS" EAST ALONG A PARALLEL LINE TO THE
EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY BEARING NORTH 00.00'52" WEST ALONG A PARALLEL LINE
TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7742 AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 282.74 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY BEARING
NORTH 89-"9'5"" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40D.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BECINNING. I ~ - 2./
OCT-15.='93 ~I 08:34 I~..:~ITY__OF_~HULA IIISTA TEL NO:619-691-_5j.71
1=1491 PiS
SCHEDULE "3"
Action Plan for Implementation of Telegraph Canyon Plans
Water Conservation Plan: Since the City water offsite policy is not yet in effect, the
recommendations as stated in the Water Conservation Plan, dated May 1992, as modified
November 18, 1992 will be implemented. Items such as ultra-low flush toilets, ultra-low
flow shower heads, faucet aerators, and a pressure reducing value will be provided. for
each household. Additionally, a water conservation guide will be provided to each new
homeowner at the time they enter into a contract for the purchase of a home within the
Telegraph Canyon Estates project. A major portion of the open space/scenic conidor
will be planted wi,th a non-irrigated hydroseed for water conservation purposes.
Additionally, the irrigation system has incorporated rain shut-off valves and the system
will be maintained in accordance with the water management plan submitted by Burton
and AssociatQs.
Air Quality Improvement Plan: Dust control by way of moisture addition to the soil
during the grading operation will be implemented. In addition to the onsite dust control
measures, an offsite dust control program to keep onsite dirt from being carried or
tracked onto travel roadways will also be implemented by scheduling daily street
sweeping and washing at construction access points on internal paved roadways.
Erosion control measures will be implemented in accordance with the Erosion Control
Plans contained in the rough grading plans. Offsite traffic: interference from construction
personnel commuting to the site and the movement of material on and off the site will
be minimized by restricting land closures to off-peak travel periods and scheduling truck
access such that 80% of the daily receipt of concrete and other building materials and
other truck arrival I departures occur between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm.
SCHEDULE 1'3"
/~ - ~2..
OCT-15-_'93.FRI 08:35 ID:CITY OF CHlILR IJISTR. TEL NO:519-591-5171
P'Jl'IITR1'I' -A. cantirmed
~ DII!Jallr:r.LOrl
1:1491 P15
-. .
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW.:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE ESTATES,
UNIT NO. g, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 7742, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH
00.00' 52" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE SAID MAP NO. 7742 AXD THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 450.00 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89.59'08" EAST ALONe THE SOUTH
LINE OF THAT LAND DEED TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT, A BODY POLITICO,
RECORDED APRIL 21, 1982 AS FILE NO. 82-112201 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET I THENCE
NORTH 00.00' 52" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID OTAY WATEft
DISTRICT LAND, A DISTANCt OF 282.74 FEET: THENCE SOU'I'H 89-49'54"
EAST, A. DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTHERLY, BEARING SOUTH
OO.OO'SZ" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 312.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8'-5"08"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 500.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE or SAID
s:eC1'ION 341 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST L%NE OF SECTION 34,
NORTH 00.00'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
2EGINNING.
~IMrr -..- 13... Z3
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:36 ID:CITY OF CHULA IJ!STA TEL NO:619-691-5171
~491 P17
SCHEDULE "1 "
Growth Manaq...nt Threshold.
City Council "sOlution No. 1334& approved alavaft public facil1t1..
and ..rv1c.. with related thre.hold .tandards and iapl..entatioft
...aur.., Which were li8ted in a policy .tatement dated Noveaber
17, 19S7 and have sub.equently been refined based on
reco_endations trom the Growth Management. OV8~.1qh1: comai..ion
(ONOe) .
Tha alavan ara:
Traffic
Police
Pire/EMS
School.
Libraries
P.r~. and Recreation
Wat.r
Sewer
Drain_v-
Air Qual.!ty
ri.cal
Durinq the development of the Growth Manag...nt Program two new
facilit.ie. were added ~o ~h. list of faoiliti.. to be analyzedl
civio Faoilities
corporation yard
Threshold atandal'da are u..d to identify when new or upqra4ed.
public tacilii:i.. are ne.ded to mitigate the impacta at new
ciavelopment. Development approvals will not be made unl...
compliance with th... atandard. can ~ mat. Th... threahold
.~anct.rd. have been prepared t.o quarant.a that pU})l!c faciliti.. or
intra.truc,ture improve.enta will keep pace with t.he d_anda of
;rowth .
SCHEDULE "1"
'3 ~ ).If
.
OCT-15-'93 FRI 08:36 ID:CITY OF CHULA ~!ISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
1:*491 P18 ---
SCHEDULE "2"
Transportation Phasing Plan Threshold Standards
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "e" or better at all intersections, with the exception that
LOS "0" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total
of two hours per day. No intersection shall operate at LOS liE" or "F" as
measured for the average weekday peak hour.
2. \Vest of Interstate of 805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet
Standard #1 above may continue to operate at tl-teir current (1987) LOS, but shall
not worsen.
Notes to Standards:
1. LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hour, excluding
seasonal and special circumstances.
2. The measurement of LOS shall be the leU (Intersection Capacity Utilization)
calculation utilizing the City published designs standards.
3. The measurement of LOS at intersections of City arterials and freeway ramps
shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed
developments have a significant impact at interchanges.
4. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated
deterioration of LOS below established standards.
SCHEDULE "2"
13 ' 2,.~
RESOLUTION NO. 17278
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03,
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES.
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1993, by Resolution 16960, the
City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map ("Tentative
Map") for Chula vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer of the Property desires to record
the first three of several final maps for the Property covering the
territory of the Tentative Map referred to as Neighborhood 1, unit
1; Neighborhood 2, unit 1; Neighborhood 3, unit 1 ("First Three
Final Maps") which consists of 103 residential lots of the total of
344 of the residential lots identified on the Tentative Map (Any
final maps for the Property other than the First Three Final Maps
shall herein be referred to as the "Later Final Maps"; and,
WHEREAS, certain conditions of the Tentative Map that
have not been met as of filing of the First Three Final Map may be
modified to require compliance at a later phase of development or
to make them feasible of achievement in a manner satisfactory to
the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City'S Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the modification of Resolution 16960 approving the
Tentati ve Map in the manner herein contemplated is exempt from
further environmental review under the authority of Section 15061
(b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed
changes could not result in any significant environment impact;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Chula vista
does hereby amend that portion of Subsection B of Section VII of
Resolution 16960 represented by the following condition numbers to
read as indicated adjacent thereto:
"
[Streets, Rights-of-Way and Improvements]
9. Install a fully activated traffic signal on Otay
Lakes Road at the project entry prior to the time
1
I ~A- \
the fourth final map is recorded applicable to the
Property. Install conduit, pull boxes, and wiring
to interconnect said traffic signal to traffic
signals along Telegraph Canyon Road. No traffic
Signal Fee credit will be given for said
installation [Engineering].
[Reclaimed Water]
27. Enter into an agreement with City to commit to use
of reclaimed water at the earliest possible date.
Make all reclaimed water use conform to the
applicable regulations of Chula Vista, Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the state
Department of Health. [Engineering, Planning]
[Miscellaneous]
61. Enter into an agreement to dedicate and record in
first priority position a minimum of 0.9 acres of
wetlands associated with a large wetlands area on
the otay Ranch property in a location approved by
the Director of Planning prior to approval of a
fourth final map to the Property.
62. Execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the
City in a form satisfactory to the City providing
for 34.4 affordable housing units on the area of
the Tentative Map covered by the Fifth Final Map,
and in accordance with Condition No. 6 of the
Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan
(Resolution No. 16768) prior to the recordation of
the Fifth Final Map for the project.
68. Enter into an agreement with the City prior to the
recordation of the fourth Final Map providing that
Developer will cause, consent to, permit, apply
for, and not oppose the planning or replanning and
zoning or rezoning of an off-site parcel(s) as a
Community Purpose Facilities site. Said off-site
parcel(s) shall be satisfactory to the City and of
the same approximate size as that which may have
been required on-site, and must be owned by the
Developer, be within the jurisdiction of the City
and otherwise be within the vicinity of the project
and subject to the satisfaction and approval of the
Director of Planning, or submit a Revised SPA Plan
and Tentative Map which provides for said site
within the subdivision."
2
( ~ A- 2.
SECTION 2. That no other terms and conditions of Resolution
No. 16960 are hereby amended, and same shall otherwise remain in
full force and effect as herein modified.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the modification of
Resolution 16960 approving the Tentative Map in the manner herein
provided is exempt from further environmental review under the
authority of section 15061 (b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA
Guidelines because the proposed changes could not result in any
significant environment impact.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the Developer approves
of and consents to such changes herein made to Resolution No.
16960.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
e: \TCE6268A.con
3
lId. 75
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03,
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES.
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1993, by Resolution 16960, the
City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map ("Tentative
Map") for Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer of the Property desires to record
the first three of several final maps for the Property covering the
territory of the Tentative Map referred to as Neighborhood 1, Unit
1; Neighborhood 2, Unit 1; Neighborhood 3, unit 1 ("First Three
Final Maps") which consists of 103 residential lots of the total of
344 of the residential lots identified on the Tentative Map (Any
final maps for the Property other than the First Three Final Maps
shall herein be referred to as the "Later Final Maps"; and,
WHEREAS, certain conditions of the Tentative Map that
have not been met as of filing of the First Three Final Map may be
modified to require compliance at a later phase of development or
to make them feasible of achievement in a manner satisfactory to
the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City'S Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the modification of Resolution 16960 approving the
Tentative Map in the manner herein contemplated is exempt from
further environmental review under the authority of section 15061
(b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed
changes could not result in any significant environment impact;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby amend that portion of Subsection B of section VII of
Resolution 16960 represented by the following condition numbers to
read as indicated adjacent thereto:
"
[Streets, Rights-of-Way and Improvements]
9. Install a fully activated traffic signal on Otay
Lakes Road at the project entry prior to the time a
final map is recorded after the approval bv the
city of the First Three Final Maps applicable to
1
/3A-1
the Property. Install conduit, pull boxes, and
wlrlng to interconnect said traffic signal to
traffic signals along Telegraph Canyon Road. No
traffic Signal Fee credit will be given for said
installation [Engineering].
[Reclaimed Water]
27. Enter into an agreement with ewe City to commit to
use of reclaimed water at the earliest possible
date. Make all reclaimed water use conform to the
applicable regulations of Chula Vista, Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the state
Department of Health. [Engineering, Planning]Y
[Miscellaneous]
62. Execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the
City in a form satisfactory to the city providing
for 34.4 affordable housinq units on the area of
the Tentative Map covered by the Later Final Maps,
and in accordance Conform~nce with Condition No. 6
of the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan
(Resolution No. 16768) prior to the recordation of
any Later Final Maps the fourth fin~l oubdivioion
~for the project.
68. Enter into an agreement with the City prior to the
recordation of a Later Final Map providinq that
Developer will ~cause, consent to, permit, apply
for, and not oppose the planninq or replanninq and
zoning or rezoninq of an off-site parcel(s) as a
Community Purpose Facilities site. Said off-site
parcells) shall be satisfactory to the city and of
the same approximate size as that which may have
been required on-site, and must be owned bv the
Developer, be within the iurisdiction of the City
and otherwise be within the vicinity of the project
to be uoed excluoively for ~a Community rurpooe
Facilitieo oite(o) and subject to the satisfaction
and approval of the Director of Planning, the final
oubdivioion m~p ,:hich includeo the 200th lot of the
project or submit a Revised SPA Plan and Tentative
Map which provides for said site within the
subdivision."
1. The Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement will be
amended to establish the requirement.
2
I~A.-~
SECTION 2. That no other terms and conditions of Resolution
No. 16960 are hereby amended, and same shall otherwise remain in
full force and effect as herein modified.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the modification of
Resolution 16960 approving the Tentative Map in the manner herein
provided is exempt from further environmental review under the
authority of section 15061 (b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA
Guidelines because the proposed changes could not result in any
significant environment impact.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the Developer approves
of and consents to such changes herein made to Reso :tion No.
16960.
as txor
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
e:\TCE6268.con
3
I~A-3
RESOLUTION NO. 'i2-/8
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03,
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES.
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1993, by Resolution 16960, the
City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map ("Tentative
Map") for Chula vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estate's
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer of the Property desires to record
the first three of several final maps for the Property covering the
territory of the Tentative Map referred to as Neighborhood 1, Unit
1; Neighborhood 2, Unit 1; Neighborhood 3, Unit 1 ("First Three
Final Maps") which consists of 103 residential lots of the total of
344 of the residential lots identified on the Tentative Map (Any
final maps for the Proper~y other than the First Three Final Maps
shall herein be referred to as the "Later Final Maps"; and,
WHEREAS, certain conditions of the Tentative Map that
have not been met as of filing of the First Three Final Map may be
modified to require compliance at a later phase of development or
to make them feasible of achievement in a manner satisfactory to
the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the modification of Resolution 16960 approving the
Tentati ve Map in the manner herein contemplated is exempt from
further environmental review under the authority of Section 15061
(b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed
changes could not result in any significant environment impact;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby amend that portion of Subsection B of Section VII of
Resolution 16960 represented by the following condition numbers to
read as indicated adjacent thereto:
"
[Streets, Rights-of-Way and Improvements]
9. Install a fully activated traffic signal on Otay
Lakes Road at the project entry prior to the time
the fourth final map is recorded ap~licable to the
Property. Install conduit, pull boxes, and wiring
1
~
~'
to interconnect said traffic signal
signals along Telegraph Canyon Road.
Signal Fee credi t will be given
installation [Engineering].
to traffic
No traffic
for said
[Reclaimed Water]
27. Enter into an agreement with GW9 citv to commit to
use of reclaimed water at the earliest possible
date. Make all reclaimed water use conform to the
applicable regulations of Chula Vista, Regional
Water QualIty Control Board and the State
Department of Health. [Engineering, Planning]Y
[Miscellaneous]
61. Enter into an aqreement to dedicate and record in
first oriority position a minimum of 0.9 acres of
wetlands associated with a larqe wetlands area on
the otay Ranch orooerty in a location aooroved by
the Director of Planning orior to aooroval of a
fourth final mao to the Prooerty.
62. Execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the
City in a form satiSfactory to the city oroviding
for 34.4 affordable housinq units on the area of
the Tentative Map covered by the Later Final Maos.
and in accordance Conformanoe with Condition No. 6
of the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan
(Resolution No. 16768) prior to the recordation of
any Later Final Maos the fourth final BUBsiviaion
map-for the project.
68. Enter into an agreement with the Citv orior to the
recordation of anv Later Final Mao orovidinq that
Developer will ~cause. consent to. oermit. apoly
for. and not oopose the olanninq or reolanninq and
zoning or rezoninq of an off-site parcel(sl as a
Community Purpose Facilities site. Said off-site
parcel(sl shall be satiSfactory to the City and of
the same aporoximate size as that which mav have
been reauired on-site. and must be owned by the
Developer. be within the ;urisdiction of the City
and otherwise be within the vicinity of the project
to BO uacd cKoluaivcly for ~a Community rurpoa€
Faoilitic13 aito(o) .sru;Lsubjectto the satisfaction
and approval of the Director of Planning, tho fiRal
oUbdivioion map \lhioh inoludcs the 200th lot af the
~,
-
1. The Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement will be __
amended to establish the requirement.
2
~
project or submit a Revised SPA Plan and Tentative
Map which provides for said site within the
subdivision."
SECTION 2. That no other terms and conditions of Resolution
No. 16960 are hereby amended, and same shall otherwise remain in
full force and effect as herein modified.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the modification of
Resolution 16960 approving the Tentative Map in the manner herein
provided is exempt from further environmental review under the
authority of section 150.61 (b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA
Guidelines because the proposed changes could not result in any
significant environment impact.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the Developer approves
of and consents to such changes herein made to Resolution No.
16960.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
e:\TCE6268A.con
3
-lal1-3
c
RESOLUTION NO.
. Jrlis'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVIS-
ION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER
TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS
OF RESOLUTION NO. 16960 APPROVING A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME.
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1993, by Resolution No. 16960,
the city Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula
vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates; and
WHEREAS, certain conditions for the recording of final
maps required by Resolution No. 16960 have not yet occurred at the
time of the adoption of this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer of the subdivision desires to have
three of several final maps recorded at this time ("First Three
Final Maps"); and,
WHEREAS, City is willing to allow the recording of the
First Three Final Maps at this time upon execution by the Developer
upon, among others, the execution of an agreement ("Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement") requiring Developer to perform
the unfulfilled conditions of approval at a later time; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to Perform Unfulfilled Conditions
of Tentative Subdivision Map approval, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed t execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City f Chula is
Presented by
d
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ity
e:\TCE.SSI
1
J1{J'!
'. OCT 19 '93 11:~ BFLDWIN CO, 619. (39 ~4Z00000000
'0,0, .
P,3
\:
.. ,0'
,"
~. .:".; ::;. :.1.'.
:,';"
.,
. ,
, .
. . .. . t.
..~..
'~14
"
"
, .
..' .0
.' .:
. .' .0
October 19; 1993
'0 ,',' ':
Mr: Bruce: Boopatd
. ;.;:-. : City Attomey . .:
, " City of Chula Vi,~
- _ 216 Fourth Avenue
'.. '
~ '.'" ,o,uJa Vista, CA 9,}910
. . ,. .
Tilt Baldwin Company
.C,Uji~munJhi/l in builcJinx JUX't' /V56
~~;,.
Supple~nt,) Subdlvi$ion Improvement A~reement }.~r 'Y'eleJraph Canycm E~tatetl
~r .8ru<:c:
" ,
".
During the COUnK' of review of your modifications to th::. Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agr<:<''n'lcnt, severa) cOllcorns arO!tC in n..'gil rds to the timing and substance contained within several of the
revisions; . '. '. . .... . . -"- .
. ' ", ':"~\ ~"', . ,-.~ .., .
I. The !\eCtiO" in th~ Ab'Tl'Ctnl'nt dC:lling with Condition No, 61, the Wetland Mitigation
'Easem~nt. ~I"tes thaI we,will not apply for the fOurth ilnd fmal map within the llubdivision boundaries
ullh.1 WI:, hav(,' ",'Corded In first priority position, a minimum of 0.9 acr~ wetland associated with the
larger w~thm!J!iI a~<'Ispn ihe Otay RaT}ct-. pTop<.'Tty. HOWCVN, lhis is in conflict with Page 3 of the Swf
. . Rt?port. rhe. Stilff r'ep<>rt requin.-s the condition to be complied with prior to approval of the fourth final
. ...;;:::..... .,'., ...map. w.: lit.-oo to :apply for our 4th map in approximately two months. J believe that Rob Cameron
.:.' . .~- .....-.. exp~I't...d th" difficulty in obtaining all 1M n.ec(.'S~ary ~ignan.T ~ for the Subordination Agreement which
:r '.. needs 10 accompany the easement that w~ have provided lhe City, We believe even a deadline reauinn2:
. .: .<:ompliance prioT to appruv"l of the fourth map is not realistif (would therefore request that we could
. .....- push th~ .t>blig~~l!)~ b~ck Jurthcr thiln the rt:<;Ordation of the fourth and final map.
" '. . . '.' .
We propo.sc'.lhnl tllill condition be rnoJifitdto rC/ld as fonow~: De-vele~ agrees ~t it ",iJJ net
a,ply fer a fettrih er lak,,'T finol mlll'te> the PrepeTt)', ~a Ole City 1M) hjt~el.ll'I'r&.al 81 i.~
I\ot.. ithstanding i1l1 EHl\er E9flfermaflt:e \. ilF. IN; Terllilti. e Ma" ...lil Dev~8,er Ra5 fleaieatea
'Prior to the recordation ot the seventh final map to the property, the Developer a~rees to dedicate
to Ihe City, and S4me hll~ been recorded in first prior t~ position, a minimum of 0.9 acre wetlands
a):;o<;il.1ted with the lurgc wetlands areil on the OlAy l.a:.ch property tn a location approved by the
Olnx:tor of Manning,
. I,'
. '. . (1: .' OWt!.ali;o have dlfficulttcs wlthCondition No. 62, the Affordable Housing Agreement. ThP
ori~inal condition hnd nllowcd for the provhiun of In!! hou'.:ng offsitE', your proposed language in thE'
Agr("~'lllcnt dOl'S nOI. Additionally, t~ ~t8tl.'rn('nlth31Ih(' Dcvdopt'r agrc<>s not to apply for the approval
of the fourth Unal map to the prop<.'ny h too soon A mOTe realistIC expectation would be a requirement
mandating compliance prior to d map tMI subdIVIdE's the 3f)9th lot WIthin the tentative map
boundaries, whJch .is 344 or total units It''Ss our nffordnble h,)using obligation of 34.4
'l'1le &ldw\1\ Compan'y'pro~~ that the nl'W condition she-uld read:
'\
.' ',' .1
. Develop..... agn.'CS'thllt without permiS!;ion of the City Council, it wiJI not record apply ier W
apprsval ef a ~"rih (If lat~ a final map coverin!!: the !09th lot within the Property to the ?feperty
until City ~nd DcvclojX'r have roached an aHol'da';-'e housing agreement in accordance with
CondiHon No, 6 of the TelC1!:Taph Canvon Estates qD~') and SF A plan. lit arn...ond<:.'Cl (RCl;o!ution No.
16769) ("Condition No, 6") in a form :;ati~faclory to lloe City providing for 34.4 affordable housing
units on thcoroa of the '('(,..'l"\tntivc Map covered byth,= i~lnth ." Later final Maps or a5 otherwise
.... ," ...1,".
,.
.;
, ..
.. . ~ ...:...
11975 E1 Camino Real, SuilC 200 · San ~go. CA 92130 · (619) 259-2900
-'7.-:> "fl
/J!-S--'
" ,
,f
, ,OCT 19 '93 11:40 ElFL.DWIN CO. 619 259 ~4~
: ~. "
P.4
, "
"
.
'0' .
I
'. ", " .
. ~ .
.", '-M.... BrUce 'Boogaard
. ...::' October 19, 1993
. ,~ . Page Two
-,
,'. 'I .. ~ . 00' .
, '
, ' ..
. ,',',
, -
, ,
. '
provided under Conditicln No, 6 aft" j", aeE!8NiIorIee wHh Cefwhi&1\ ~Je. 6 ef "" 'Fekgraph
eaRyell _tal\.'$ CDP 31'lQ SPA. Pl~f!S&ll:Ieot\ l>Jo. 167").
~ :
m. La'tly, we 'are conct'l'Tlcd with the tinting 'language dealing with Condition No, 68, the
, Zoning of a Community Purpv~ Facility S; It>, Two months is not enough time to annex Ota)' Ranch to
. "':: ,th~ <.:ity of Chula Vista, This can be confi~ with Gt"Orgc Kremple or Jerry lllmriska. The Baldwin
, ':'Company would therefore propose the following language:
"
,I "
''''''0
..: .-"
, "
" '
I ::
.' ....., ,.
".:. "'l.'
:. '
0' .."
I ':',
. },
;. 'i".
.;
Developer agrees that, if one or more parcels of pW;"ICrty $atisfactory to the City and of the same
approximate lri~ .$ that which may have been reqIJired Ol\-sito, owned by the Develo~ WIthin
the ~ict1on of the City And :other,wisE be witHn the vicinity of the Property has not ~
re<.plaNlCd and (re)z.oned as evidcncl..-d by the adoption of the CDP for the Otay Ranch and any
amendments theretQ as a Community Purpo~ f,\CiJities site at the time Developer d~~ires to
n:corQ . final map for the Property which indudes the 300th lot or if the parties have not reached
n sati.l;lactory agreement fOf the planning lInd z.,,'dng of such 0 parcel. City may withhold
ClpprovaJ of same notwithstanding any otner rcqui:.-rnent, and Developer &hall submit a revi~d
$1' A Plan and Tentative Map which provieJes (Of ~jd site within the subdivision. City agrees that
proxtmaJ areas of the Western Pared of the Otay Ranch Prop.:t may provide such an off-site
parcel, U it mt'Cts the other requirements of Ullnf.:xi!~ion and ownership by the Developer at the
time of z:.oning.
Broce. could you please call me at your earliest convenience sot hat ~ may discus& the propo5ed ctl4nges.
,,:, ::. Sineerely, ,
..... ' . "~:'L:/. ,.~:::;._-
,0. ~
. " \'
," ., . "rim O'Grady
Pruject Mana...
,', .
~:... ..' .... ,..
:',: ~:.
, .
'"
.~ .'.....:.;
. .t.
o lot .
'0' I',..
"
..' ,. .~.
. " 0'
. :~", ~: :',: ,...",
"'I,' ...
....
" .
. .'
'. '
,0, .
. . '..
,t, ':' ';.
'0' .
"
. ..--'
: .~ 'I'
. .. "::. . .......
...: ;/"-' : :
.. .. .
. .-.
I '
\
."
. .,
'. ..,:. ....
" ,
. ..., ..
.... ....
. . ...~'. ~
,.. ......
TOC/jc
I. .....
Gco~c KtcmpJ
.. 'Gte Smith
g ..
..
"
r3Yb-4
:7-15-'93 FRI 08:31 ID:CITY OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
;:1491 P10
\01
12. ~pn~ition No. 50 - Submission of Annual Bui14in~ >>.rmit
and other Il.Dor~s. In satisfaction of Condit.ion No. 50, Developer,
and their heirs, assigns, transferees and gther succ...or.-in-
intereat IIball .\l~m1t to the eity Director of Planning annual
building permit reports. The first of suoh reports shall be
submitted oommencing as of F.bruary 1, 1994. subsequent reports
shall be delivered on an annual basis unt1 st building
permit in the Proj eC.t F,ha....,been i -:: I n -~'
~"G..o,,, ,.f:er., ClVVtL0I t,) rfJJ~ ,J,\
ll..:.. 0 -. eo' 'W'
at a 1
2;S2P!lU::~:.!""" JaDe! C-'\.~ ,4IUilX _~~.~~ld a e
~~i~;~:~ ~g~~';,e. ~~I) B;~~ ~:ft~;~'t::~"'d;:P~~~ t~;~~l~ii~:~~
e~~i;ion . a:' .; imu~ ~f ~g ~c~el ~~~~;~d8. "BBQC:~lIte!:l w it" ~ ~~~:
the-_DdS are_ on th.!l _t.II__lLn_" " ___ v ~n a 10..~on D"~l;l)Vlld by
___ Oi{,ct.or of Plannina. ,~\\.M.. t~'\ ~\?t\ f,t\\ L~
14. Con4 I - · ~
evele wit. 'on 0 uncil ' 1'11.: ~t\,
will no~ J!I:l.Ll..~ ~L .....lji. __J'oval . 1a e iJ ~ (;
~h~~~~~:;~ipn;.i~ Cit~"~~~ ~}r;~:PQr have reaQhl~ ao aftprdlb~~ ~~
~:~ ~eme. t 1" P 9 S _,_8 _oterI( te t.lIl city prgvidina fpr ,)
n~l~Hrl~i~~~~~~it~c~~~::;~~'~~ ;
:::Ef~ff ~~i ::P".~Il::..;~~~_e~l~le'v~~~f~~ ~ 30
~~:i~ n;~~ h";:r .,.".... that, neWi~~t~ ;; Er~:: U~.)
~::'~n ~~;"':.,;"" ..... eb114jJat1Gft fer eKaeli'!iftl Sli.A alJre:~~a~; ~~
s tisf1 d as a ~endi\ieft ~e \ha reeeraa_i.ft at the teu~tn fiftal
eliesi.ieieft map fer _he Fre)ee\.U
15. gon41t1on No. GA - loninq for a communi~y ~~~~.
~.oi 11 Un Bi~.. ei~y ~ H.ii 9"",.1",8. aek...sw1eci,e that Qe~~1 ~~... ~~
;:"~ ~ ~"i;":~:~ rotuirea Dove18,er '0 ....ea .....1"" ~ ~~;~~~~
:!1 1 (_ v..-... 8Kel\isi\"sly tell a ~~~~~:! ~~~~s: ~e~.:;~;::
;::;Et p~~ ~a "8..~.c1ati..~ ~f t\he !~!.~~!1_".a1 '!:i ~~~ .::
;~: ; - 81 aFt8 S1ty 8"--1818"88 t~~ ~ ei~e .:;~ :: ::
~: ~y R~~~-r-HeweVe~,-g1~'aekReV1ed,~d~~~~~ ~he--~~ R~~:~
::::ii :;;:?:.~! :;.: Ilea "a" Y." Ioea.. el'~acl ~~~II~ ~f~?:
:::4;if;; _';b1~ e 8 "4 .e"e.tuan.1}", &.~la,.~ Danf\~ .~~~~
:::u~~r-~~~;-=-l;:"A'::'" ,del' tle .lIe reeer.alli~'" ~~~:. f1;~-Fi..~~
::~ ;;; ;;;_ ~f .. e ~ ti" Aeeordil'\;lY 1 City ~CJre~ :~l!:, ~:
:::~:~::~;:.. f. :c11de... Ha. 18, Dave1e,." ~1l;1l. ~~~: ..~ ~~~
e . '1"a1 8l:l),tli";j.si." 1\\a. fer -ene I'rejeet whish
1/ Having modified the original condition by the amandin9
resolution, the original lanquage 1s no longer necessary.
i
10/5/g3
/3 b-'_S-
,-15-'93 FRI 108:31 1D:(lTY OF (HULA UISTA TEL NO:619-691-5171
~491 Pil
~~:;\l::~~~. ~= l.s i.~ "'. P~.j..~L .~~~~A~~" ~r:t~ :;,. a: .:~~
:::. :a:::: :;;' - · \". Tls1fti~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~::::. :" ;:
=~-"';:\l::.~.~;'~.::t.:;;.~.. P~~!_.~.~:::: F::i~:
~::i::~ .E.!:; a~f:::i:ia~ -;;::t~E~:::::t~ . ~
p~;;!'.. fe_ sai' si.. wi.~iR' .he B\l;:r~i~ft. ~ ~ ~
peveloper 8.qre8s that. if one or more. arc 'fk.c ~
s actor to s m t.
d ot e
of ~ne ~.L~~ ~y F~- ut- re on ~
~;~~~~~~:r--f\!;~os. t.aeHi,;:i_S sit_ a~ t\lll time D"v"lol'"r apoli.. tor,,/',~.
o four h or _ther final map for the property. or it the
~~rU!!s ih,~ve n~t ;'pcbed a ea~ietact2ry aauement for tha olanninq ·
and zon'n of such a parcel. City may withhold approval of same
~~~!h;t;n~f~~ :py ~~h~ r,~~iremQnt. pnd De~elQper .hall submit
~~~I~sed SP 1 n a enta ive Map which orQvides tOr said pita
~t~~ t~.. ..~;di~isr~-;;: city aarells that prox~mal areas of tlls
:ii~c~~ ~:~;il ~r ~h; Ot~y Ranch projQ~t may providQ such an off
~;~: ;hr~.~ _fhit .....tA he Other r9g~1remtDt8 91' annexation aDd
r v t II 0 vQ1QPQr at thQ timQ of zonina.
16. com.plianoe Wi~h Unfulfilled Condi~ionll. Developer agrees
to comply with all the conditions ot the Tentative subdivision Map
which remain unperformed Dr unfulfilled at the time of the filin;
ot the Final Map, including the tollowing conditions nos. 71 and 73
which r.a~ .. follow.:
condition No. 71. Pay the following tee. in
accordance with the City Code and Council
Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees prior to the issuance of any
buildin9 permit; .
b. Signal participation Fees;
c. All applicable .ewer fe.., includinq, but
not limited to, sewer connection fees; and
d. The Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin fee.
Condition No. 73. Comply with Title 24 and
any other energy conservation or"inances and
pOlicies in effect at the time construction
occurs on the property in conformance with the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
17. ,atisfaotion of conditions. City a9rees that the
execution of this Aqreement constitutes f~ll aft. ...,1...
10
10/5/;3
/3(3/ {fJ
RESOLUTION NO.
I 7;),5 D
I- 7.2 7;"
~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 1 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF
THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON
SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP AND THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The'city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 1 UNIT 1, and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of a portion of Southwest Quarter of
section 34, Township 17 South, Range 1 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Chula vista,
County of San Diego, State of California according to Map
thereof No. 166, filed May 11, 1869 in the office of the
County Recorder of said County.
Area: 18.901 acres
Numbered Lots: 38
No. of Lots: 41
Lettered Lots: 3
I
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: portions of st.
Clair Drive, Martinique Drive, Versailles Road and Marquis Court,
and said streets are hereby declared to be public streets and
dedicated to the public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lots A, B, and C, are hereby
dedicated for Open Space, public utilities and other public uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the City of Chula vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for visibility and street tree planting and
maintenance, general utility easement within Open Space Lots A, B
1
J3C-j
and C, all as granted and shown on said map within said
subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that said
lots are dedicated for Open Space and other public uses, and that
those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for
the construction and maintenance of street tree planting, as
granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is
accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista as hereinabove
stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain subdi vision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1993, for
the completion of improvements in said sUbdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Presented by
C:\rs\TCNeighl
2
J~C' .)..
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance
to a public agency of less than a fee interest
for which no cash consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
SOBDZVZSZON ZMPROVEHENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 199__, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and OTAY VISTA
ASSOCIATES, L.P., 11995 El Camino Real, Suite 102, San Diego,
California 92130
hereinafter called "Subdivider";
WI.THESS~1:H.1.
WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of
the City of Chula vista for approval and recordation, a final
subdivisio~ map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES NEIGH13ORHOOD 1, UNIT 1
pursuant to the provisions. of the Subdivision Map Act of the State
of California, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and
recordation of subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally
approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must
have either installed and completed all of the public improvements
and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed
in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by
the Counc~l for pu~pose of recordi~g in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an al ternati ve thereto,
Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an
approved improvement security to insure the performance of said
work pursuant to the requirements,of Title 18 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at
Subdivider's own expense, all 'of the public improvements and/or
land development work required -in said subdivision within a
definite period of time prescribed by said council, and
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the
approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into
-1-
I.JC'3
this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install
and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all, the public
improvement work required by city in connection with the proposed
subdivision and will deliver to city improvement securities as
approved by the City Attorney, and
WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore
been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as
contained in Resolution No. 16960 , approved on the 19th day of
Januarv , 19....2.L("Tentative Map Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the
construction, installation and completion of said public improve-
ment work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as
shown on Drawings Nos. 93-221 A & B through 93-232 inclusive ,
on file in the office of the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public
improvements according to said plans and specifications has been
submitted and approved by the City in the amount of $877,320.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an
obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land,
agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements
of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause_to be
done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a
good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the
satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public
improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and
adjoining said subdivision ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish
the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in
accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have
heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and by
this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments
have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that
Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name
signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will
cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on
or before the third anniversary date of Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform
said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of
said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for
-2-
JJC-f
occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any
certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings
or structures in said sUbdivision, and such certificate shall not
be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the
completion of said public improvements or. the portion thereof
serving said building or structures approved by the city; provided,
however, that the improvement security shall not be required to
cover the provisions of this paragraph.
5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider
that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will
conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of
the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California
applicable to said work.
6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
City of Chula vista , simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement secur i ty from a suff icient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS
AND NO CENTS ($438,660.00)
which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this
contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"
and made a part hereof.
7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
City of Chula vista simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS
AND NO CENTS ($438,660.00)
to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the
installation of said public improvements, which security is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit liB" and made a part hereof and the
bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof.
8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,500.00)
(per private engineer's estimate)
to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not
completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said
improvement securities may be used by city for the completion of
the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with
such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option
of the City, as are approved by the City Council at the time of
engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of
completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by
-3-
",,-
/:JC-..5
City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all
costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof
not required for payment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or
its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the
improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any
difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work,
including design and administration of construction (including a
reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the
improvement security.
10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties
hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any
department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of
the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any
officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any
sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor,
except to the limits established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the Stat~
Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code.
11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that
any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection,
materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City
in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and
installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the
cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and
approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that
Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map,
with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. -
12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all
Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by city,
Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and
any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer
lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood
and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements
for a perioa of one year from date of final acceptance and correct
any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as
a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or
employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon
acc~ptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to city, by
appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed
pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance
shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth
hereinabove.
13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or
any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury
to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions
of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to
this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the
City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because
-4-
I::JC't,
.
of or.arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or
employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided,
however, that the approved improvement security shall not be
required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such
indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to
damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of
property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as
a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public
improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages
~esulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow,
modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or
the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the
construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of
plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not
constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such
damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer
or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said
approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall
become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall
remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the
acceptance by the City of the improvements.
14 . Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the
City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning
a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in section 66499.37 of the Government Code 9f the
state of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set
forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBDIVIDER: OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES, L.P.
By: Sky Vista, Inc., its general partner
Mayor of the City of Chula
vista
city Clerk
~9 ()~
BY: . othy J. O'~
Vice President
ATTEST
Approved as to form by
...
I.
,
I
City Attorney
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
-5-
/ ::JC- '1
}
}ss.
}
personally known to me ler I!lfe.ed
tn rn.. QR tRB 1183i3 ef i!l8ti3faGIOI') G.idc,~ae} to be the perso~whose nameJll' is~ subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~y executed the same in his/l:le, ill,..!. Ciuthorized capacity~,
and that by his~ signatur~ on the instrument the perso~or the entity upon behalf of which the
perso~cted, executed the instrument.
f~~-~---___A______---~
--.--- --J-OANCUoiio--~
....@..COMM.#1001288r-
~ ---,. . - NOTARY PUfiLlC . CALIFORNIA g:
..J" SAN DIEGO COUNTY _
J_ '_:"'_"1~'.~' elP!'t~. 1~.!.~7 (.
---..............---..........---..-----
(This area for official notarial seal)
/;lC- Y
. .
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
...
I qq~ 6~J5
AXTV'
~
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Improvement Security - Faithful Performance
Form: Bond
Amount: $438,660.00
Improvement Security - Material and Labor:
Form: Bond
Amount: $438,660.00
Improvement Security - Monuments:
Form: Bond
Amount: $6,500.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by
City Attorney
Improvement Completion Date:
Three (3) years from date of Council
approval of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement
C:Wc\aubdivis
-6-
I J C -'1
/7381
17:1. 77
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 2 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF
THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON
SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP AND THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 2 UNIT 1, and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of a portion of Southwest Quarter of
section 34, Township 17 South, Range 1 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Chula Vista,
County of San Diego, State of California according to Map
thereof No. 166, filed May 11, 1869 in the office of the
County Recorder of said County.
Area: 31.12 acres
Numbered Lots: 33
No. of Lots: 35
Lettered Lots: 2
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the puplic streets, to-wit: LaSAlle Place,
a portion of st. Clair Drive, and a portion of st. Germain Road,
and said streets are hereby declared to be public streets and
dedicated to the public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lots A and B, are hereby
dedicated for Open Space, public utilities and other public uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the city of Chula vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for visibility and street tree planting and
maintenance, general utility easement within Open Space Lots A, B
1
IJP-/
and C, all as granted and shown on said map within said
sUbdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the city of
Chula Vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that said
lots are dedicated for Open Space and other public uses, and that
those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for
the construction and maintenance of street tree planting, as
granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is
accepted on behalf of the ci ty of Chula vista as hereinabove
stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1993, for
the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Presented by
C:\rs\TCneigh2
2
J J p"';J..
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance
to a public agency of less than a fee interest
for which no cash consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 199__, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and OTAY VISTA
ASSOCIATES, L.P., 11995 El CAmino Real, Suite 102, San Diego, Ca.
92130
hereinafter called "Subdivider";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of
the city of Chula vista for approval and recordation, a final
subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as
TELEGRAPH CANYON EASTATES NEIGHBORHOOD 2, UNIT 1
pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State
of California, and in compliance w~th the provisions of Title 18 of
the Chula vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and
recordation of subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally
approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must
have either installed and completed all of the public improvements
and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed
in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by
the Council for purpose of recording in the Office of the County
Recorder . of San Diego County, or', as an al ternati ve thereto,
Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an
approved improvement security to insure the performance of said
work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, agreeing to instail and complete, free of liens at
Subdivider's own expense, all .of the public improvements and/or
land development work required in said subdivision within a
definite period of time prescribed by said Council, and
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the
approval and recordation of said map by the council, to enter into
-1-
/3l)- J
this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install
and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public
improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed
subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities as
approved by the City Attorney, and
WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore
been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as
contained in Resolution No. 16960 , approved on the 19th day of
January ,19~("Tentative Map Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the
construction, installation and completion of said public improve-
ment work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as
shown on Drawings Nos. 93-221 A & B through 93-232 inclusive
on file in the office of the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public
'improvements according to said plans and specifications has been
submitted and approved by the city in the amount of $392,420.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an
obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land,
agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements
of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause-to be
done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a
good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the
satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public
improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and
adjoining said subdivision ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish
the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in
accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have
heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and by
this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments
have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that
Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name
signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will
cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on
or before the third anniversary date of Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform
said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of
said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for
-2-
l:Jp-Lj
occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any
certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings
or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not
be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the
completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof
serving said building or structures approved by the City; provided,
however, that the improvement security shall not be required to
cover the provisions of this paragraph.
S. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider
that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will
conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of
the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California
applicable to said work.
6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
city of Chula Vista, simul taneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the city in the sum
of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS AND
NO CENTS ($196,210.00)
which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this
contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"
and made a part hereof.
7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
city of Chula Vista simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS AND
NO CENTS ($196,210.00)
to secure the paYment of material and labor in connection with the
installation of said public improvements, which security is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the
bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof.
8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
ci ty of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the city in the sum
of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,500.00)
(per private engineer's estimate)
to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not
completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said
improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of
the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with
such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option
of the city, as are approved by the city Council at the time of
engaging the work to be performed. Upon .certification of
completion by the city Engineer and acceptance of said work by
-3-
I:J])- .5"
city, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all
costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any.part thereof
not required for paYment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or
its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the
improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any
difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work,
including design and administration of construction (including a
reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the
improvement security.
10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties
hereto that in no case will the ci ty of Chula Vista, or any
department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of
the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any
officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the paYment of any
sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor,
except to the limi ts established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the state
Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code.
11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that
any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection,
materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City
in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and
installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the
cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and
approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by SUbdivider, and that
Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map,
with city a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost.
12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all
Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by City,
Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and
any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer
lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood
and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements
for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct
any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as
a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or
employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon
acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by
appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed
pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance
shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth
hereinabove.
13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or
any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury
to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions
of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to
this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the
City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because
-4-
1:1];>-"
. .
of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or
employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided,
however, that the approved improvement security shall not be
required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such
indem.nification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to
damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of
property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as
a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public
improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages
resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow,
modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or
the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the
construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of
plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not
constitute the assumption by city of any responsibility for such
damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer
or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said
approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall
become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall
remain in full force and effect for ten (lO) years following the
acceptance by the City of the improvements.
14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the city or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the
city, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning
a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the
state of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set
forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBDIVIDER: OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES, L.P.
By: Sky Vistal Inc., its general partner
Mayor of the City of Chula
vista
ATTEST
city Clerk
~z5.~
By: Ti thy J. O'Gra
vice President
Approved as to form by
City Attorney
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
-5-
/.:1])- ?
tQ ~9 Q~ t"'8 88.SiB 8f e8.tiMael61 J ~y;dG. .(8) to be the person~ whose nam$f is/aKl subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that heleAG/~I.l)y executed the same in his~ authorized capacity~
and that by his~r signaturelar on the instrument the person~ or the entity upon behalf of which the
perso~ acted. executed the instrument.
f~ozzo-1
o@.:COrAM.#1001288r-
0.", ' NOTARY PUBLIC 0 CALIFORNIA g:
-' .,0 SAN DIEGO COUNTY _
~-"~c~
(This area for official notarial seal) I .:J P- Y
WlTNESS my hand Bod offi'~
s;goatT -- d).
..
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A"
Improvement Security - Faithful Performance
Form:
Bond
Amount: $196,210.00
Exhibit "B"
Improvement security - Material and Labor:
Form:
Bond
Amount: $196,210.00
Exhibit "C"
Improvement Security - Monuments:
Form:
Bond
Amount: $6,500.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by
-~
I qq&J... aEST~
II-XIZ
City Attorney
Improvement Completion Date:
Three (3) years from date of Council
approval of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement
c: \ac\subdivia
-6-
/3])-'1
_.."-,~~."._.,-_.._..,._.....---_...-._..~.~._~-"-..---~-_....~_.._--~,---
l,d.-&
-17,J. 7~~~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 3 UNIT 1, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF
THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON
SAID MAP, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD 3 UNIT 1, and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of a portion of Southwest Quarter of
section 34, Township 17 South, Range 1 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Chula Vista,
County of San Diego, State of California according to Map
thereof No. 166, filed May 11, 1869 in the office of the
County Recorder of said County.
Area: 8.170 acres
Numbered Lots: 32
No. of Lots: 32
Lettered Lots: 0
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: portions of st.
Clair Drive, Marquette Road and Genevieve Avenue, and said streets
are hereby declared to be public streets and dedicated to the
public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for visibility and street tree planting and
maintenance, general utility easement within Open Space Lots A, B
and C, all as granted and shown on said map within said
subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
1
J 3 E, /
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated that those
certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for the
construction and maintenance of street tree planting, as granted
thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is accepted
on behalf of the City of Chula vista as hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1993, for
the completion of improvements in said sUbdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
1t
Presented by
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\TCneigh3
2
) ~ E~':<
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance
to a public agency of less than a fee interest
for which no cash consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 199__, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and OTAY VISTA
ASSOCIATES, L.P., 11995 El Camino Real, Suite 102, San Diego, Ca.
92130
hereinafter called "Subdivider";
WIT N E SSE T H 1.
WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of
the City of Chula vista for approval and recordation, a final
subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES, NEIGHBORHOOD"'3, UNIT 1
pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State
of California, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of
the Chula vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and
recordation of subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally
approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must
have either installed and completed all of the public improvements
and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed
in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by
the Council for purpose of recording in the Office of the County
Recorder 'of San Diego County, or", as an al ternati ve thereto,
Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an
approved improvement security to insure the performance of said
work pursuant to the requirements. of Title 18 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at
Subdivider's own expense, all .of the public improvements and/or
land development work required in said subdivision within a
definite period of time prescribed by said council, and
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the
approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into
-1-
I:1E--3
. .___k~."'____~~'''''-''''-'"'--'~'-'''''~~~-'''''-_.'-''''"'''''-'-'''''~..~."
this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install
and complete, at Subdivider's own expen~e, all the public
improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed
subdivision and will deliver to city improvement securities as
approved by the city Attorney, and
WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore
been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as
contained in Resolution No. 16960 , approved on the 19th day of
January , 19~("Tentative Map Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the
construction, installation and completion of said public improve-
ment work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as
shown on Drawings Nos. 93-221 A & B throuqh 93-232 inclusive ,
on file in the office of the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public
improvements according to said plans and specifications has been
submitted and approved by the city in the amount of $392,000.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an
obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land,
agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements
of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause~to be
done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a
good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the
satisfaction and approval of the city Engineer, all of the public
improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and
adjoining said subdivision ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish
the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in
accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have
heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and by
this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments
have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that
Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name
signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will
cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on
or before the third anniversary date of Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform
said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of
said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for
-2-
13E'r
. ~,~",>~,",_......,................_~~.,."--,.,_....,~"",_..,..~~."~._~-,,,,,,*-......_.<
....."_.__>_k.~._...._~._~...,_...._." _.,' . ,,__._._~,.~w.~.........._,~.-....~,_...."_~~~_
occupancy in said sUbdivision, prior to the issuance of any
certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings
or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not
be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the
completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof
serving said building or structures approved by the city; provided,
however, that the improvement security shall not be required to
cover the provisions of this paragraph.
5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider
that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will
conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of
the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California
applicable to said work.
6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
city of Chula vista , simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
($196,000.00)
which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this
contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"
and made a part hereof.
7. SUbdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
city of Chula vista simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in t~e sum
of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
($196,000.00)
to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the
installation of said public improvements, which security is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the
bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof.
8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the
city of Chula vista , simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient
surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
($5,500.00) (per private engineer's estimate)
to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not
completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said
improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of
the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with
such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option
of the city, as are approved by the City council at the time of
engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of
completion by the city Engineer and acceptance of said work by
-3-
1:J~~f
city, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all
costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof
not required for paYment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or
its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the
improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any
difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work,
including design and administration of construction (including a
reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the
improvement security.
10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties
hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any
department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of
the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any
officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the paYment of any
sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor,
except to the limits established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code.
11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that
any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection,
materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City
in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and
installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the
cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and
approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that
Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Fina~ Map,
with city a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost.
12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all
Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by City,
Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and
any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer
lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood
and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements
for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct
any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as
a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or
employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon
acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by
appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed
pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance
shall not constitute a waiver of defects by city as set forth
hereinabove.
13. It is understood and agreed that city, as indemnitee, or
any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury
to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions
of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to
this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the
City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, liability or loss.of any sort, because
-4-
I:?E-~
of or ar1s1ng out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or
employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided,
however, that the approved improvement security shall not be
required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such
indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to
damages to adj acent or downstream properties or the taking of
property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as
a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public
improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages
resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow,
modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or
the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the
construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of
plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not
constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such
damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer
or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said
approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall
become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall
remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the
acceptance by the city of the improvements.
14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the city or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the city or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the
City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning
a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in section 66499.37 of the Government Code ~f the
State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set
forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBDIVIDER: OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES, L.P.
By: Sky vista, Inc., its general partner
Mayor of the City of Chula
vista
ATTEST
city Clerk
-tf~9 D~
By; T' thy J. OlG
Vice Presiden
Approved as to form by
1 City Attorney
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
-5-
/:JF-7
On
to mil SR tl:le I:lasis sf t~t;ifa~9r:y eviElel'lec) to be the perso~ whose name(eT'is/afe subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~ executed the same in his/~r authorized capacity~
and that by his!hllr,ltl'1eir signature~n the instrument the perso~ or the entity upon behalf of which the
person~cted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official
'J
f~~--.-----~------~---l
_-JOAN cuoizo--
C; ...' . COMM. '1001288 ,
(I.) NOTARY POILIC . CAlFOhIA 0
~ IAN DIEGO COUNTY _
~----~!~~:.~'!7s
(This area for official notarial seal)
IJ E, 8'
>._~_,__~~",,~'~_""d__~_'~~_~'___'~~~_'~"""''''~.'___'''_~_._.........----...
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A"
Improvement Security - Faithful Performance
Form: Bond
Amount: $196 , 000 . 00
Exhibit "B"
Improvement Security - Material and Labor:
Form: Bond
Amount: $196,000.00
Exhibit "C"
Improvement Security - Monuments:
Form: Bond
Amount: $5,500.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by
/
lqq~ 5E~-r.J
A.N-
City Attorney
Improvement Completion Date:
Three (3) years from date of Council
approval of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement
C:\ac\aubdivia
-6-
I J E,?
RESOLUTION NO.
(1dB3
J?A?9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE INITIATION OF
PROCEEDINGS FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 31
(TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES)
WHEREAS, according to Article 1, Chapter 2, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", proceedings for the
formation of an assessment district must be initiated by
resolution; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1993 by Resolution 16960, the
City Council approved the tentative map for Chula vista Tract 93-
03, Telegraph Canyon Estates; and
WHEREAS, one of the conditions of approval of the
tentative map required that the open space lots created by the map
be maintained by the open space district; and
WHEREAS, the proposed designation for this district is
Open Space District No. 31.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby initiate proceedings for the
formation of Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates,
and order the City Engineer to prepare and file a report in
accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act for Open Space District No.1.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\OS31.ini
13F-/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 10/19/93
ITEM TITLE: Report: Reconsideration of extending Gotham Street to serve the
Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning All
REVIEWED BY: City Manager tJ.. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
I
"
As has been recently reported to Council, residents of the Gotham Street area have raised serious
objections to the extension of Gotham Street to serve the Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision.
They feel that this extension will increase traffic and reduce safety in their neighborhood. On
October 5, 1993, City staff and a representative of the Baldwin Company, developers of
Telegraph Canyon Estates, met with 45 residents from the Gotham Street area to discuss their
concerns. At that meeting, a petition containing approximately 200 signatures was also
submitted.
Although the tentative map for Telegraph Canyon Estates was approved last January, the
Baldwin Company has indicated a willingness to cooperate with the City in considering options
which would resolve neighborhood concerns. Accordingly, staff is seeking Council direction.
Any action to modify or close one or more of the street openings approved on the tentative map
would require a subsequent noticed public hearing. All of the residents who either attended the
October 5 meeting held by staff or who signed the attached petition have been notified of
Council's consideration of this report.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to schedule a public hearing on November
16 to consider closing one or both streets providing secondary access to Telegraph Canyon
Estates and/or measures to reduce speed on Gotham Street, with noticing to be provided to
property owners and residents within College Estates, EastLake Shores, and Otay Lodge Mobile
Home Park, as shown on the attached locator.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Telegraph Canyon Estates Project consists of 344 single-family lots on approximately 100
acres bounded by mobile homes and single-family dwellings to the west, single-family dwellings
to the north, proposed State Route 125 to the east, and Otay Ranch to the south. Primary access
is via a signalized intersection at Otay Lakes Road. Two additional secondary access points are
provided by Gotham Street from Southwestern College Estates to the west, and Creekwood Way
from EastLake Shores to the north.
1'1.. /
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/19/93
As Council may recall, at the time the SPA Plan was approved, and in response to resident
concerns, the Council had directed staff to study the issue of extending Gotham (as well as
Creekwood Way in EastLake) and return with a report when the tentative map was considered.
The report was considered with the tentative map and recommended that it was desirable to
extend both streets for reasons of general circulation and accessibility, but that the extensions
were not essential to accommodate traffic. There was no input from residents on this issue at
either the Planning Commission or City Council hearings on the tentative map and the project
was approved with the street extensions.
The residents acknowledge that they received notices on the project, but correctly state that the
notices were not specific with respect to the issue of extending Gotham Street. Many were
apparently under the impression that the decision had been made not to extend the street when
the SPA Plan was approved (see attached for minutes from all hearings on the SPA and map).
DISCUSSION:
Please refer to the attached report and accompanying memo from the City Traffic Engineer that
were considered at the public hearings on the tentative map. The report lists the reasons staff
believes it is desirable to extend both Gotham Street and Creekwood Way. The report also
states, however, that from an operational perspective, the traffic generated by the Telegraph
Canyon Estates project can be adequately accommodated without these links. Should it be
determined that one or both of these streets should be closed, the report recommends that
emergency vehicle access gates and pedestrian access be provided at both streets.
Providing access via Gotham Street and CreekwoodWay will reduce travel time, gas
consumption and air pollution, optimize emergency service response time and does not violate
the City's circulation standards for neighborhood streets. Therefore, City staff continues to view
the proposed circulation plan as being preferable to both existing and future residents of the area.
However, due to the concerns of the residents, the fact that Telegraph Canyon Estates can
function without secondary access, and Baldwin's willingness to cooperate, we recommend that
staff be directed to set a public hearing before Council to consider closing one or both secondary
access points to Telegraph Canyon Estates and measures to reduce speed on Gotham Street.
The Baldwin Company has indicated a willingness to finance any course of action deemed
appropriate by Council provided it minimizes costs and avoids major disruptions to the balance
of their project. In response to the concerns of some of the residents at the October 5 meeting,
the Baldwin Company is also investigating the feasibility of lowering and/or otherwise
ameliorating the height of some of the slopes along the westerly boundary of the project. Staff
will be prepared to report on this issue at the Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined.
(Gothamst.al13)
ILj..~
~ ~--- I
~ \\lL~},.~ ~~'~ . "..:./
~...,<<Trm~m ,,~rf / ~ y.J' 1~ ~'Q,.." .&.
~,~IJrtd~ ~ .I LY~ v ">.::'>...\ ~
J ~ '" ...... '.;I..... / A'" ,IT' v w..-
11 flU. ~ / / ~/I '"~t2 ~^'\.'V'l
,\ ," .( ~ cy' ......". Oo,;;>J \ I
/ "~ .d~'<:JYJ,r.~,;:-:-;~~~r\'ij!i.
~ T' --?l ''X~/i)~.~N!L#' '(7' -~-.J\' 1pft\Ll
rfE n Il/C~ A~I - r ~~~~ '-IT \,e
r~ t'{?r<""~'~/ ].. J L';'3; ,"II ' ~
>'~~r~ :()'. I '''JT.fg~':/:' \ _ ~ :-- 1IIl--..,
~ "'~" --4rcv ~d~'< jff /L~ ..' r I \~ . :'.... . -'-1~':'
~ ~ . - ?__". I . "
:. ..: '\1' ,
. . _ i : ·
. ,~.( . .. ~....:J ' os
f'.
",
..,
, ___.." .~ ~7: ' i ,.,,';;.1 nfll '
~' f' '...--:" '1J I ! -} . ~ '~~ !I"~": ,m: \J' ~ ~ ."
,':.};'y. ,\ . 0;::....:"1 ~ '.. ~
~ ~~ ."'\,TI, J: f; :" \,. " ..' ~~ T"
''''?;,~ ..,1> · ' .,
"- ""'___ ~...~ .. \ I -
.s y/5,{J ~.~ :"
'..J~' "I r~ IT' ._ I
, . ,""'..... '\. '-'" \ \ 1] - ,.
.~ ~ : . = w
'\ .), ,',..."-
~ ~ -. ...
. ~. .;)l.{' I
>~ t I~ I ~ ./
iii' '\ r~~'~ J.., i. 1;)1'" /~ ~....
. ,:: \~fl:'1 .. ./ .,." I'
~~\ l_EwJ. .j e~'"
" ./ ~i1et-l: .
l. ~ .,. <' ,
.
J
~i:'L
~
..
t)
,
.
: .1
,
,.
~
(~"""PIl GANYtN ~r"'~ -), ,
~ LOCATOR
'1;0 m
) uj.Jrt~ ~~"I"'~ ~IIX
__ .~____._.._..._ __._ ._~_!J/-::1
. -.....-.. _...~...., ---... ----. -
lU'" ,-,f
-1/ /'
1It~)7
''I'
~;;?~ !~j;j1'i'i\~\i\~:
"i l<;z!,::,w U:~<:~
~-r~5})~
~~~
-
~ '
~.,
>>~
~~~~
\~p
~:
~~~/
"
. ~ ~l el/lOtlelelS pesodoJd \
f':::: -------- ~ \
..~-(~) ~
~ ~'''''''S'i)'iijij:;~--=---:" " .
- - - - - ffill11Jlll'11l J ,,,:;;,,:. ~e'i7' R ('1 ~rIP"';"'::'::iii:,~
~ tlO rr 1.' UHm~ \~t:: \ .I III M \lU~:>-.
~/ T t-_~o, 1::1-... ""'\ '\ I. A---\ /' ~ [H~:~:.\
I- " 1 "0"5 t-- . I~;.........~ ~ _ ~:9:~:i:.'..
~ g,',.' I!~, &.UE*.... J- (1 I \ ~ - t- - l:::~~~\HiH:..
" ! ~",~.p, -- L I r-.-.J'g?j'~~ \};
Jo '''.~ - L I I I - -- -- T--.... ::::::. :.x ..'
! T' : '~,,]"... "'o,,~ ; - - -.::: ", T\ '")r:/U~:' ':~ {,\
~ ..," .".. - - = = '--- " :; N;,~-'~;';l!I~ '1:\
7,..,.....:f..... == b~ ..=~,' .:;l::~jm~~~liU::~'_
" ' . I, ::::.- - ~ --' :,:,., ,.' ..........
,\It r;2= =~ 1- \\\) ...~\ NGlm&.~W
ITEl~b= ~ - @ /:://~ '~1!11~11::;~~~
~ _~l j i~~ffi!1~ ~~lt=~ J fu/ /:/ y ~ f-:3mfl'\Hlili~r1H:. '\
. "~""': "''''''":- .>~~ / ..... -:l ' :,~,!:i!H:"
\.-i '. ~ ~ Ut- @ 1/://// Y .A =j :[@ml::: ~~~
l :.. 000- ",-.,- I J ~-./ , ~ r- ~ =:1 '[HHHH:[:~
l ~ ~():jlrt:= I - ~ ~_ ~E:;1,/'; \"""\ J1_11 flT\ ~]II!IIII!uJ\~II!:~~~V
~~l.iJ.. i ". r--V- ,II ~::::::::,,:::".:."
- " . __.""....;.:.;.;.:.:.:.:::..... :::::. . II.
, U '.'"Ii.: -.-. . .' " ..,,' . .,
i~ r \ LL/
.."., .' ~.. .Cffi'" -'}E3-r1 F8 g3j~~
~/ t :=' .-. .r
, \/ ..- - ..1
/. - -t-: - - J-=!.
~ (. I --~...- r .-It
~ g - .......-\ b
.:..'{. '7..tj 5 === ,,\---C\';A@J
~ q",' i.----- ~r-U
l ~c~~
o~,) '? fP
/~ ~o~
~ {y
-j<~./ n yq
/
r
.-.
~~
r
,),
I I
l
\lJJ
d
1\ ill
~
]~
4Vt
</
..
<'
'"
.(
. "---v
,\
---
/
~
it. tP '-,
I~"~ &J~ '/ y~
<S~~ I~~
I
/4 w L/ _:.- - ~o
-..,
~
/ ,,-
/1
"
"
II
\ \
, \ \
, ,'...-).,.-
\ -
I'
~
.'
c,"'-
Item
Meeting Date
15
10/19/93
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE:
REPORT Update on Solid Waste Issues and Request
for Proposals (RFP) Process for Alternative Waste
Management and Jt~~J Options
RESOLUTION (A) Authorizing the City
Manager to Negotiate a Consultant Services Contract
Not to Exceed $17,000 for the Development of a
Request for Proposals (RFP) with Brown, Vence &
Associates and Appropriating Funds Therefor
I~~l
RESOLUTION (B) I uthorizing the City Manager to
Negotia te a Consultant Services Contract Not to
Exceed $4,800 for the Development of a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) with EcoNomics and
Appropriating Funds Therefor
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Krempl
Principal Management Assistant Snyder
REVIEWED BY:
Ci ty Manage::>/
(4/5ths Vote: Yes~ No___)
v
At the 9/21/93 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed
wi th an RFP for the procurement of solid waste management and
disposal options by determining and recommending appropriate
consul tant services, and identifying funding sources. At that
meeting, staff had reported on six informal letter proposals from
the qualified consultant firms listed in Attachment A. Original
estimates for developing and issuing an RFP ranged from $16,300 to
$25,000 and the project would take about two months to complete.
Over the past few weeks, staff has conducted interviews with all
six firms and proceeded with an evaluation and selection process
which has resulted in the discussion and recommendations contained
in this report, including a revised scope of services for an RFQ to
be issued as evaluated before proceeding with an RFP.
However, should Council still choose to proceed immediately with
issuance of an RFP, this report also makes recommendations to
facilitate that decision. Included are recommendations for the
most appropriate consultant firm for either decision, as well as an
identified funding source.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve Resolution (B), authorizing an RFQ process through a
consul tant services contract to identify realistic options as
alternatives to the currently used County integrated waste
management system; and
15'''}
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/19/93
,5'
2) Direct staff to:
a) Continue to monitor results of the North County JPA
proposals and any interest by neighboring cities to join in a
subsequent process to establish alternatives;
b) Return by December 21/ 1993 with results of the RFQ
process and recommendations for continued development of
alternatives.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
All firms considered have had experience in solid waste facility
and system studies, as well as the issuance of RFPs and evaluation
of proposals for projects similar to this one. As previously
reported to Council/all were reasonably competitive in cost /
having originally estimated a complete RFP cost range of $16,300 to
$25/000 and an approximate schedule of two months from the start
date until release of the RFP. To determine which firm might best
meet the City's needs, a clearly-defined evaluation process was
applied to all prospective firms.
The Evaluation Process
The Selection Committee was comprised of Deputy City Manager Krempl
and Principal Management Assistants Enos and Snyder. All firms
were invited to make a brief presentation to the Committee and
follow-up questions (Attachment B) were asked. The following
rating criteria was used with all information received throughout
the process:
1 ) Ouali tv
sophisticated
Was it likely
results?
of the proposal- How well-defined and
was the plan for achieving the City's goals?
to produce practical, realistic but creative
2) Specialized professional and technical experience- What
could be learned from the outcomes of previous projects most
nearly similar to this one? Are there any potential conflicts
of interest?
3) Pro iect commi tment- Is there a clear understanding of
team members and their accessibility to City staff, as well as
the consultant's expectations of City staff? Will there be
any difficulty meeting the City's timeline?
4) Oral/written communication and presentation skills- How
well do all materials and discussions indicate both corporate
and personal abilities to translate technical data into
foundational information for decision-making?
I y,,2...
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
If'
10/19/93
5) Backqround Knowledqe- How familiar is the firm with the
complex solid waste issues driving the decision to seek
alternatives to the present system?
Once ratings had been made on the basis of the qualitative criteria
described above, cost data for each individual proposal was applied
and analyzed as to its effect on the expected product.
Consideration of Usinq a Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process
During the process, it was suggested by one firm that issuing an
RFQ/Statement of Interest before issuing an RFP was common in the
industry and had some distinct advantages for the City, such as:
o
This initial
proposals to
options.
request would encourage real,
creatively address the widest
feasible
range of
o The schedule for issuing an RFQ and receiving and
evaluating proposals is shortened considerably, resulting
in lower consultant costs for the first part of the
project.
o Should the City decide to continue on with an RFP, the
proposals received during this phase will allow for a
more accurate and meaningful scope of work and comparison
of final proposals received.
As indicated above, there are multiple advantages to performing an
RFQ as a first stage in the project. It would be especially
beneficial when there is a need to obtain as much information as
possible, as early as possible in the process. It would also be
prudent to use an RFQ if there is uncertainty about continuing the
process into the RFP stage.
It is important to point out, however, that if the project were to
be completed starting from the RFQ stage, the total cost and time
requirement would be slightly higher than if the entire project was
started with an RFP. For example, total cost for the entire
project from the RFQ is estimated to range from $35,000-$45,000.
Expected costs starting from the RFP stage could be $30,000-
$40,000. It was made clear to the respondent firms that the City
was not certain the latter stages of RFP proposal evaluation and
contract negotiation would be reached, and only "ballpark" cost
estimates were being requested at this time.
Because of the benefits this revised scope of work seemed to offer
the City, the Committee subsequently asked all firms to submit
comparable cost and schedule data for an RFQ.
15"J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
J>'
10/19/93
For purposes of comparison, these are the approximate ranges
received:
Process
Cost
Time
RFQ (through evaluation)
RFP (through issuance)
$5,000-$10,000
$15,000-$25,000
4-6 weeks
6-8 weeks
The Staff Recommendation
For the reasons discussed above, the staff recommendation is to
begin the search for viable alternatives to the County integrated
waste management system using an RFQ. All firms estimated that the
process could be completed within 4 to 6 weeks, depending on how
much time was allocated for responses. This process would allow
the information from two critical events occurring concurrently
with the RFQ process-- the North County JPA results and upcoming
decisions of the Interim Commission-- to be factored into the
Council's next decision on this subject.
The firm being recommended for the RFQ project is locally-based
EcoNomics (see Attachment C for proposal). This firm has suggested
an RFQ process which can be expected to solicit meaningful and
creative responses from the industry. The cost estimate of $4,800
includes interviews with the prospective vendors and allows a
response time of one month in order to maximize the potential
responses.
This cost is also less than the firms most highly rated by the
Committee because it shifts the cost of researching and defining
parameters to the next stage of the process (RFP), should the City
decide to proceed. The information received from the vendor
proposals and interviews would be valuable in more clearly defining
the RFP. Council could be deliberating on the results of the RFQ
process and deciding whether to proceed by mid-December 1993.
Should Council Choose to Pursue an RFP at This Time
Although the staff recommendation is not to proceed with an RFP at
this time, should Council wish to begin directly with an RFP, it is
recommended that a contract be negotiated with the San Francisco-
based firm of Brown, Vence and Associates for a cost not to exceed
$17,000. Of the firms most highly rated in the evaluation process,
this proposal (Attachment D) was the most cost-effective.
The proposal would include development and issuance of the RFP,
including a pre-proposal conference. The RFP could be issued by
early December 1993 and a reasonable response time would be 45 to
60 days. By mid-February, Council would need to decide upon
continuing the process through evaluation and negotiation.
/5-'1
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 10/19/93
15
What About NOT Issuinq Either an RFQ or RFP at This Time?
During this evaluation of consultant services, it was suggested by
the firm handling the North County JPA's RFP process (Gershman,
Brickner and Bratton), that the City consider not issuing either an
RFQ or an RFP at this time. Instead, the City could choose to
include its tonnage for consideration in the JPA's preferred
alternative. For an estimated $8,000, this firm would research the
City's background information and lead the Council through a
briefing and decision-making process.
Staff is not recommending this option but bringing it forward for
information. This option is more costly than the initial RFQ
process being recommended. In addition, focusing only on North
County respondents may preclude some potential respondents with a
particular interest in South Bay such as the City's current hauler.
It also may not adequately address the transfer station needs for
the South County, or not provide optimal results.
Role of Other Cities
The City of Imperial Beach is the only city contacted which may be
interested in joining this project, but the issue cannot be
considered by the City Council at least until 10/20/93. Staff
proposes that a decision by Imperial Beach to join the project
subsequent to Chula Vista City Council's action can be factored in
by the City Manager during the contract negotiation.
Chula Vista's portion of the services would not exceed $4,800 (or
$17,000 if the RFP process is chosen) and may be less. The City of
EI Cajon has asked that they be kept informed of the progress of
the project, and any further interest on the part of that city
could be reported when this issue returns to Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: The staff recommendation will cost $4,800 or
less. It is recommended that these funds be appropriated from the
Waste Management Trust Fund (Fund 270) to Account 100-0210-5201.
The Waste Management Trust Fund includes monies received in FY
1991-92 as part of a settlement with Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.,
to be used for the general purpose of long-term stabilization of
trash disposal rates.
/5'-.5"/15-1:,
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
September 21, 1993
FROM
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
;...-.. <
John D. Goss, City Manager~ I..
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager 19'~ L-A ~
Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistan~~
TO
VIA
SUBJECT
Summary of Informal Proposals for RFP Consultant
Services
Attached are six informal letter proposals from the eight
consultant firms discussed in the staff report. Two firms
declined, one because of a conflict of interest with the County of
San Diego as a client and the other because a solid waste
management experience base was not the firm's primary strength.
Of the six proposals, the range in costs presented is $16,300 to
$25,000 and the estimated time frame to issue the RFP is 45 days to
two months. Specific quotes are as follows:
SCS Engineers $24,500 (6-8 wks.)
Harding Lawson Associates $20,000-25,000 ( 2 mos. )
Camp Dresser & McKee $17,000 (45 days)
EcoNomics/CH2M HILL $19,560 (45 days)
Brown, Vence & Associates $16,300 (5-7 wks.)
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton $20,000 (2 mos.)
15"/
Attachment B
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE
AN RFP FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
1. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm
and its subconsul tants, considering the type of services
required and the complexity of the project.
o How is the firm qualified?
o Similar projects completed?
2. Proposed method to accomplish the work, including management
considerations.
o Clarify options beyond RFP quoted and inclusion/exclusion
of legal advice.
o How would meeting the State's AB9 3 9 requirements be
reflected in the RFP?
3. Strength of key personnel (both management and technical) and
commitment to the project.
o Identification and location of project manager and team
members.
o Discuss subconsultant personnel and the work they would
perform.
4. Past record of performance as well as control of costs,
quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cooperation,
responsiveness and other management considerations.
o Has the firm recently done work for the County of San
Diego or waste haulers who might submit proposals on this
project? If so, nature of the work?
o Ability to meet City's deadline to have RFP issued by
early December?
o Staff hourly rates?
o Expectations of City staff?
15"8"
Attachment c: RFQ Proposal
EcoNomics
Octob.eJ'9,1993
BY FACSIMILE
Stephanie Snyder
Principal Management ~
.... ~ty ofChuIa V~ .
. . 'I'~ i~'IJ';fi.:tf~ Avenue' . .
It": h't~~ . '.,' .... ..
:.f., ~ 'P' . ~,~~ Califonua 91910 .;,{:.~,,,-;:
. Ii '1'" . lJ...'. .
.~. ....* 1.';~ ' . .
':.J: ,': . RE: ~'~'~vised Scope of work
~. t'~ . J:~.... ,
....; '". : .'-.l~ t"""
~,'r'" ..-t...~:.;..rt<'
,~:.!~~ ~')&. Snyder:
I' I i)' ...'.f.... .
~ i~l:J I'. : . .
~~. wc;mid like to confinn OUT interest in revising our proposed scope of work to include
the p",paration and evaluation of an RFQ. The RFQ would be done as the ftrst part of .
two-step process that would culminate in issuing an RFP. We have provided below'.
discussion of how a successful RFQ could be produced 'as well as the revisions to our
proposed schedule and budget:
...it>
;'l.
RFQ ISSUES
We have given some thought to the effects that this change would have on both the process
, t;f...: ~d. schedule. The questions we asked oursel\tes are:
I.... . l ,. .
d.f( I . :'~ ~..'. How' well defined is the current project? .
. ~I; ~
::' !; ... As .the ramifications of changing landfills becomes cl~r. it will be more
: :.. . " r apparent that the City is teplacing an entire waste management sYSlCm -and is not
I.: r .. just getting an alternative disposal'site. This growing realization will lead [0 an
increased need to define ,the exact goals and requitementS of the overall RFP
process.
. Will the RFQ process provide the City with '8dditional information
that ean be used to sharpen the projeet definition?
The IUlswer 10 this question is not a simple yes or 00. In order to get a yes
answer. the RFQ mUSt a1low'sufficient response time for potential vendors to
familiarize themselves with the project and brainstonn creative responses. In
addition the RFQ will need to be SU'Ucwred in a manner that obtains a response
from the vendors that is beyond the standard industry statement of capabilities.
to ..;.
. ..
, I
~
8J2 Catntno DelMar. SlIird P.O, 13.IX lZ~'lI) Dt1Ma1. CA 910'" 1619H81-1980 FAX .IfR':;!Hi
:4
..
.
10
15;,1
OCT-09-'~3::)A1 It:H~ w:
II:L- I'IU'
~,.......
The City will ,also need to guard against vendors exerting too much direction in
shaping the futa! configuration of the alternative disposal servicos.
. How sbould tbe RFQ be structured so that the project is per~elved
b)' the industry as real and not a "f"lShiha expedition"?
The degree Qf vendQr response to lit RFQ is usually govorned by several
factors; how bigls me project7, how motivated arc the vendors to get'additional
business? what are the chances of the projeCt being implemented?, how clear
.. are the project parameterS? As one of the main reasons for issuing the RFQ is to
obtain meaningful and creadve responses trorn the vendors. the RFQ must be
~ devel~ped to convey a sense ~f certainty or implementation. We therefore have
mcluded an interview sta~ in the RFO. Although an interView.is not usuall)'
done in an RFQ process, the)' will Sip~ to. the industry' a seriousness of
purpose and also alloW the City to fully explore creative options foe alternative
disposal services. .
~;"'*'"."~' ..ii,,:.
. Does Issuing an RFQ broaden Of, restrict tbe number of vendors
that will rapond to the RFP'l
This question again argues for allowing 8. reasonable response time so that the
greatest number of vendors can be involved in the RFQ process. .
SCHEDULE
,.
Based on the answers to the above questions, we have added six weeks to our original
proposed schedule. ~ week 10 prepare the RFQ. Four weeks response time for \'endOt'$
to address the RFQ. One wcck to evaluate and int~rview qualified vendors. This would
increase the time to complete the RFQIRFP prOCe5$ from our original proposed 4S days to
90 days. . ;
We would be uncomfortable reducing the vendor response time to only two weeks unless
the primary purpose or'the RFQ is to provide additional drne for discussions with the
County. Even then, the danger exists that if negotiations with the County were
unsuccessful, the City would have potentially narrowed its field of vendors by eliminating .
them in a "sbon-fuse" RfQ process.
SCOPE AND 'BUDGET
The revised scope now includes three taSks. Task ]' includes the preparation of the RFO. an
evaluation of the respoJ'lscs, and interviews of selectCcl vendors. Task 2 establishes the
content of the aFP. It uses the inf.()tJl'Ultion and options identified in Task 1 plus the
guiding principals developed in meetings with CitY staff. Task 3 is the production of the
RFP. The final deliverable of Task 3 is. a camera ready RFP for issuance by the Cit)'. We
also have included cost estimates to assist the City in issuing and evaluating the RFP as-
well as negotiating a final contract .
ProJ-d-:M.k Pro.<:ovt.:ChuJa VIsta:L/Sa)oclCf' RFQ r'C.\Iowup 2
0cI>0Mr 9, 19S0
1.5-:'./ ()
As cuggested, we have removed legal assistanCC from the preparation of the RFP and have
. backed out the $3,000 cost of the legal advicQ. As the City has expressed a deep c;oIK;eIU
regarding its potential liabilities on disposal sites we have kept in me scope ot work a non-
attorney review of the status of the legal issues.
TASK 1
Prepare RFQ, Evaluate responses, Interview vendors
This. rut will prepare an RFQ. evaluate the responses. and interview vendors of special
interest. The SlepS to perform this taSk are:
a) Using background data, work with City staff to define three possible
formulations of alternative disposal options (ttansfcr only; uansfer w/MRF;
transfer w/full service AB939 diversion programs)
b) Using the concepts generated in (a) above. develop a clear RFQ that indicates
Ibe.need for cteati.ve tl:l.!nki.!ti.9I\ die p~.ofthe vendor
c) ContaCt potential vendors and alen them to issuance of RFQ and the City's
desire for creative responses
d) Evaluate vendor responses. id~ntlfy1ng those with potential f~ interviewing
e) Interview vendors for infonnation and approaches that could be incorporated
into the final RFP
l ".
,
Task J
Estimated Fee with tour interviews:
Estimated Fee without interviews:
$4,800
$2,400
TASK 2
Research and Define RFP Parameters
The goal of this task will be to define the following parameters for the RFP. All pertinent
information obtained in.the RFQ process will be incorporated into the perfonnance of this
'msk. '..
a) A set or guiding principals that clearly state the Gty's cxpc<:tations for the
projCCt (i.e. coSts, contract terms. City staffrequircmcnts. etc.).
b) The likelihood and ~esirability of participation by additional cities.
c) The size and type of wastestrCam that will be delivered for transport,
processing, and disposal.
d) The range of processing and'disposal options that will be considered (both in
the short-ccnn and over a longer period of time).
e) The amount and.type ofproccssing identified in Task 1
f) The loCation of potential disposal sites and the characteristics of each (i.e.
remaining site life,Status ofpennitS, outstanding legal suits, need for permit
modification to allow deposit of ChuIa Vista waste, etc.).
~ Pro:Co"t~ChuIa VIAa:IJSIIydtt' RFQ FaDCIWl1p S
Oc\o1Ia 9. t~
If-II
OCT~~''.:;I~ ~I It:l:,);J llH
It:;!.. 11'..1'
t"fU~ I ~
g) The reliability of different methods of dC?livery of solid waste to the disposal
site(s) (~.g. trucklrail haul). .
h) The necessity for any modificati,ons 10 existing franchise agreements in order to
commit the Oty's wastestream to the alternative disposal option(s).
i) The impact of.lbe procurement pl'OOeSS on the City's ability'to achieve the
AB939 mandates..
j) The magnitude of legal issues associated with the project including:
. New liabilities incurred in changing to a new disposal site
. On.going Habilities for waste IRviously disposed of in
Count)' "landfills (CBRCLA and closure cost issues)
· Legal issues if intcrswc COIlJDlC'l'CC is involved
. Legal requi.rem~.~ for Jandfip' owner/operatorS including
insurance. pcrfonnance guamntccs. performance bond,
~ous waste iss~ indelDnification etc.
Task 11
Estimated Fee:
$9,800
~ ,
TASK 3
Write RFP
We believe that ~e moSI cost-effective a~proach ~o this taSk would be 10:
"
a) Schedule one all-day meeting with Ihe ory Manager(s) to review the contents of
other, RFP's that EcoNomics has ,issued, and to decide key technical and policy
issues.
b) EcoNomiCS will take"the meeting results and create a draft RFP. Whenever
possible, we will u~existing language. proposal forms, specifications and
selecdon criteria from existing doc1.Jrnents. Where appropriate. we will
customize sections and creat~ new text specifically tailorCcl for the project The
draft will be diStributed to the City Managcr(s) for their CODlIl1ents. Written
comments will be reviewed and incorporated into the draft by EcoNomics.
c) A ha1f~y meeting will be h~ld with the CitY Manager(s) to resolve conflicting
, comments and other pOlicy issues.
\ l, ..
d) EcoNomics win incorporate the meeting results and remaining technical issues
into the draft and will finalize me RFP for issuance by the City.
Task 3
Estimated Fee:
$ 5,360
i
. I. ~
~;)A Pro:GovL:OIula Vilta:L/SlIydet RFQ FoIIowup 4
Octoller 9, 1951)
I>'I:J...
LJl., 1-t:r;I- . -;,,:> ~ I JoC. .:10 II).
IL-L. ......
The total project.fee is presonted with. and without. the inteJVicws we arc suggesting as a
pan of the RFQ process.
TOTAL PROJECT FEE (WIthout RFQ Interviews)
TOTAL PROJECT FEE (With R~ Interviews)
$17.560
$19.960
TASK 4
Assist ",lth Procurement Process (Optional)
'.
If desired by the City EcoNomics Will assist with the procurement p~ss. This includes:
ru. .
a) Preparation for. and attendance at a
questions from potential proposers.
b) Assisting the City in maintaining a Question and Answer LOg for all quesdons
from propOsers. f:We recommend that. proposers be required to submit all
questions in writing, and that the City reSpond in writing via the Q&A log.)
Talk 4
Estimated Fee:
c) Prepare addenda to the ~ if required.
TASK S
Ev~luation of Proposal, (Optional)
. .
Ifrequested by the City; EcoNomics will assist in evalu$g the proposals received. This
includes:
oa) Reading all proposals.
b) Analyzing technical qualifications of proposers.
c) Analyzing legal and financial qualificauons of proposers.
I : ~ \
d) Checldng reference.~. :
e) Evaluating and comparing proposed ~osts.
f) Evaluating proposed exceptions to the draft contract (if one is included in the
City's RFP).
:!
~ 1'to:Covt"-Q\u ViJlI:USnyder Rf'Q Jlol1owup 5
October 9. t95l3
1>,13
OCT-09-'93 SAT 18:36 lD:
TEL NO:
**053 P07
g) PR:paring questions to proposers to obtain additional information.
h) InterViews/discussions with short-listed proposers.
i) Reconunonding a proposer for selection by the City.
Task 5
Estimated Fee:
$ 10.000
TASK'
Contract NezotialloDS (Optional)
If requested by the City, EcoNomics and Hanson & Bridgett will assist in contraCt
negotiations with d1e Selected proposer. This will include:
... .I... ....~ .. OW!"
a) Briefing Oty staff on key issues. aty positions, and strategy.
b) Aucnding nc~~ mmings.
c) Drafting th~ final.contract fOr signature by the City and the sucCessful ~poser.
TasktS
Estimated Fee:
$ 10,000
We appreciate' the oPPonunity to iubmit~ revised proposal incorporating an RFQ into the
process. Given the curren,t status of the project's de,f1nition we agree that all RFQ, with a 4
week vendor TCsp.onse time, would develop and clanCy the project's goals. The process
will also provide a method to educate and inlonn all parties o,n the ramifications of
obtaining an altemativc disposal site. .
Best mgards. .
v:~Xr-
Vice President
f( :
l
l~
..
:~ .
,)
"'-1 *:M1r ~\'t..<JNIa V.U:LISnJc1lor If(} FoI1owup ,
c.
Oc\ober 9. 19l19
15'11
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
P002!007
~
~
Attachment D.
.~
~r
If'"
RFP Proposal
~
Irwn, Wnee
I AIIulllW
Septe~r20, 1993
FII!lIJY IllI1
Waslt~
l/1gIIIlCrS
Stephanie SnydCr
Principal Management Assistance
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
120 ~SRlCl
S\jIC fiIO
san FraldStO CA 94104
415f~
415/956-6220 FfIX
BV A -:ptOposal No.:
SUBJECT:
gs.93
RFP for Waste Management and
Disposal Services
Dear Ms. Soydel':
Thank you for contactin2 "BV A about the proj~t. We are pleased to present our
qualifications for selecting a vendor and assisting in negotiations for alternative waste
management and disposal serviceS for the City of Chula Vasta, and possibly six
sur.roundin& cities.
We have exteqsive ~ment eq)CriCllCC in Soutbcm CaIifomia, and have been
involved in waste management education, processing system evaluation, recycling
program. development, and waste transfer system planning in San Diego County. We
also have assisted in the development of joint powm authorities (JP As) and IIlCIIlOI8J1da
of understanding (MOUs) for cooperative, regional waste management.
I am very interesting in working with you on this project. Please feel. free to call me at
(415) 434-0900 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
BROWN.. VENCE &. ASSOCIATES
~~,-~~
Thomas D. Vence tP-c--
Vice P.ccsideot .
Pril\ldun
EnclosuteS
Illl:ycleCl
PiJIll'"
O;\IIKI\O'ImlCIIULAVJS.Lm' ~ 1:)1..
If,/.5"
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
P003/007
:RFP FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
lNTRODUCTION
BV A bas conducted many procurement projects for solid waste facin~ and servK:es throughout
California and 1he nation. These projects included the preparation of a numbec of m(UCSts for
proposals (RFPs), :review ofproposals and qualifications received, and development of selection
'xcommendations. This extenSive experience fully equips BV A with the teChnical expertise and
practical bow-bow 10 respond fullr to the City of Chula Vista?s needs to identify and select
solid waste system a1tematives 10 tlle current County system. Based on our varlDus procurement
proj~ we believe that the successful procurement process lies in the following approach:
......< "
~-?-~~'c".'..~
. Fully unde:n1anding the '.C1fY of Chula Vista's needs, concerns, and ROlid W8.4lte
management practices and system
. C1eady defining the alternative system IeqUirements from technical, institutional,
siting, economic, and c:ontraetua1 riJk viewpoints
. Developing an RPP Iba1 wi1l3Dlicil n:sponses in 11 clear and consl$1ent fonnat
7
. Jmplemmling III evaIjl8tiM process 1IJat uses a 1IOCll-<lcfineclllOl of c:ri_ an4 ~ o.)Jv ·
acoring procedure so that the proposals can be Wrly evaluated - :;
. Maintaining the City of Chula Vista's involvement throughout the process to guarantee
selection of a private sector proposal that best meets the needs of your community.
DRAFT WORK SCOPE
The following scope of work addresses the services we would provide in order to develop an
effective RFP for procuring a solid waste processing, transfer and disposal system as an
alternative to the current County solid waste system used by the City of Chula VISta.
l'ask 1 Review Background Information and Develop RFP Objectives
Under this task BV A will attend a project Jdck-otJ meetina with the City project manaaer to
identify key ueas of concern with tbe current solid waste system. understand the major
objccti:va ofth~ RFP ~I and ~fy available baCkground information and documents that
will help define the service and facility needs for the aty's alternative system.
o:~VIS.PkO GPIJOm l~JII
1
J5',J~
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
Po04l007
Based on our meeting with City staff and review of available documents and information, we
will provide dIaft -baCkg1'OUD.d. and "objectives"' sectiOns of the RFP thai addresses at a
minimum the following issues:
. Existing franchise IIe1'Vb and waste diversion programs
. Types and amounts of materiab in the ~ atrc:am
. llecovety!eCJ.uirements for the alternative system to meet AB 939 goals
. Transfer station and disposal facility siting constraints
;'. (' " r~ I"!
. Interface of the proposed. alternatives with current collection system
. Householcl hazardous waste handling, publk eduQation, &ncl other QOl'DpoaeaUs of the
desired system
. General Jequirements for project development, financing, constrUction, and operations
Task. 2 Develop Draft RFP
BVA will draft the RFP docUment, which will addIesS the required services and proposal
mluirements is sufficient detail to. assure the City receives appropriate responses from the
vendors. The document will clearly identify the City's objectives for the project and specify its
xequirementa tegarding ownership, financing, vendor risks and responsibilities, and other
parameters of the anticipated system. The RFP will identify proposal requirements as they relate
to 1he following areas:
. Technical
. Financial
. Contractual
. Environmental
. Qaalifications and experience
10 addition to the proposal requirements, BV A will include a section dC8Cribing the selection
process and the criteria for proposal evaluations.
Task 3 Pi....'_ RFP and Assist Durin& Proposal Phase
Ba8ed on the City"s review and commentl on the draft RFP, BV A will finalize the document for
issuance by the City.
(J;~\CHU1.AV1U'RO W/lM3 1:50.. 2
1.5" 17
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
P005!007
BV A will assist the City throughout the proposal phase of me project in a number of ways,
depending the City's needs. We (2[l develop a vendOr mailing liSt to assure the RFP is
distribu1ed to appropriate firms; assist or lead in conducting a proposer's conference; provide
technWal information in response to vendors' questioPs; and provide RFP addenda based on die
re&ults of the proposers" conference or questions which arise.
Task 4 EraJuate and Rank Proposals
Using the evaluation criteria developed in Task 2, BV A will review and prioritize die respomes
to the RFP. We will prepare cuy-to-read summaries of those proposers who meet the minimum
requirements of the RFP. Tho summaries will address each of the criteria. In conjunction with
the City, BV A wi)) develop a J3Dking and seoring system that will allow the City to objectively
review and score each response to the RFP. An overall numerical score will then be cIetennined
for each proposal using the scoringl,cif~ The proposals W111 then be ranked based on their
numerical sana.
, t
cJf!(tt'f
7
~
Basccl on the evaluation of lCSpOnses and the scoring and ranking process, the highest mnIdng
proposer will be recommended l.O begin negotiations. BV A will prepare a 1edmi~1
memol3lldum for' the City documenting the evaluation process and a discussion of the
DCOIJl1I1CI1deC1 vendor. BV A will also note wbedler lesser ranked proposers are also quaU:fted.
This list would be available to select the next qualified finn in the event that a successful
agreement cannot be reached with the highest ranked proposer.
Task S NegotiatiODS AssIstaace
BV A bas worked closely with a number of communities in the process of negotiating contracts
with service providers. We understand the critical issues that often slow negotiations and lead
to the neglect of'service efficiency and cost effectiveneSs. We are ex.peri.ence with these issues
and have proven solutions acceptable to both parties. BV A will provide on-going technical
contract negotiations servite on a per session basis.
"I1le level of effort necessary for contract negotiations is very specific to the contract and
proposer involved. It's not possible to accurately predict d.etailed negotiation costs at this time.
"
Ct.~93\alUlAVJ8.RO wmm 1~,.
3
I.>"/r'
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
P006/007
~.:.u 10 c:omplllle TasI<s I1brough 4 for less dum $25,000. AcIdlIi<mol rc.:. for To>k S ,~
will be delennined as the IIOOJ.le is defined. )J/'" Aj ~
Trk 1f9u.... .!:AlL p~,yv 0 \)
vr ,0
32J $3,S80 l ?,tt 0
70 (urfS' $7,284 ~ I ~
41''] $4,426 -
84 C;~
~\:
0;~tr't!l 4
SUbtOtal
i\ ''''''
ExpenseS
Total
S 1.240
$24,998 .
QUALIFICATIONS
We have guided many 9f our municipal and private clients through the complex process of
procuring waste management services and facilities. We help determine the best insti1Dtional
arrangements for program and facility development. and operation; the possibilities range from
imp1emenlaJion by an individual jurisdiction to various rcPona1 approachC3. We also ale
experienced at asSC$Sing the optimal mix of public and private sector involvement in the
development, financing, construction and operation of programs and facilities.
A few of our California procurement and other Southern California projects are listed below.
We can provide more detailed c:1escrlption of our experience, as well as references, on ~.
Project Client
Recovery and Disposal System Implementation; Rivcnide Counly
. Agua Manaa :MRP EDgineerlng and Procurement
. Double Butte MRF tingineering and Procurement
Recycling Technical AssisfA1\ce Program San nqo County
Curbside Recycling Implementation and Rate Study Riverside County
Interjurlsdictional Waste SUpply Agreements and Rivenide County
Flow Control
o:~\CHUlA.'YtI.PR.O CBI20m ~.. 4
15" /1
09-20-93 02:07PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16194256184
P007!007
Project Cleat
MRF Feasibility Study' City of Glendale
Tnnsfrr Station lJesi&n and Procurement City of Ontario
Mechanical Separation for Recycling San Diego County
Int.egra1ed Waste Management Workshop for San California Energy Commission
Diego County
Solid Waste-to--Energy Project Feasibility Study, San Bemantino County
Engineering, and Procurement
PERSONNEL A':.SC'C
BV A's staff of mOle than 30 incll1des licensed ~ecrs, economic analysts, CADD specialists,
and envlronmental p1am\et$ with hands-on ~encein cJeaigning, procuring, and operating
waste management programs and facilities. Introduced below ate a few of our senior staff
members.
'lbOIDM D. VeDaS, P.E., VICe ~ideDt. Mr. Vence has mOle Ihan 22 :ycara of waste
management experience reflecting a sound technical and opercl1ing background. as well as a solid
foundation in business and financial issues. His expcricnce includes waste management contraCt
review and negotiation, feasibility studies, projcet procurement and fimmcing, the transfer,
hauling, and proceasing of materials, and strategic planning for implementation. Mr. Venee has
provided project diredion for numerous solid waste projects, ranging from MRF and transfer
s1ation planning and engineering to integrated waste management pJa1'ning under AB 939 and
countywide materials processing system planning. Tbese projects include developing and
negotiating contracts to ensu~ waste stream supply and analyzing equipment mIuircmc:ots for
waste management progmns and facilities. He has lectured and is widely published in the fields
of energy and solid waste management. Mr. Ven<:e is a registered mecbaJ'nl engineering in
California and Pennsylvania, and has an M.B.A. and a B.S. in engineering, as well as a
certificate in hazardous waste management.
Steve Brekke-Brownell, SenIor PJmmer. Mr. ~Browne11 is a senior manager at BV A
and bas more tban is years Qf cxpcrlcnec in recycling program planning, implementation, and
operationS. He regularly manages in-house 1ealIlS and suboont;Iactors in performing BVA's
latger and more complex assignments. In addition to his program management experience, be
provides recycling planning, teebnica1 assistance. research, and analysis to a variety of clientS.
Mr. Brekke-Brownell haS a B.A. in phUosophy.
o;~YJ!U'IlO ~ 1:50..
5
1.5" .2. ()
/'
5~
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 1993
FROM
The Honorable Mayor and City co~u.\
John D. Goss, CitYManager...J~~ .)
~
Stephanie Snyder, Principal Man gement
Assistant5~
TO
VIA
.
.
SUBJECT
Notes on Interim Solid Waste Commission Meeting of
October 13, 1993
""^'..____....N~"'^~~..................................V..;v'....,....,.,.......",.......................~~.......................,..........
For your information, attached is an article from the Union-Tribune
describing some of the major discussions at last Wednesday's
Interim Commission meeting. Councilmember Fox represented the City
at that meeting and can provide his comments at the Council meeting
on 10/19/93 during discussion of Item #15, an update on solid waste
issues.
These are additional staff comments and observations about the
Interim Commission meeting which are of importance to Chula Vista
and did not appear in the article:
o While there was a great deal of discussion about the
payment of facility and mitigation fees and the impact on
the tip fee, there seemed to be little will to move the
issue to another vote of the Commission (reconsideration)
despite the efforts of the representatives from Chula
Vista and Santee.
o Councilmember Fox suggested four areas which could be
explored for savings or revenues to offset the impact of
keeping an appropriate funding level in the budget for
facility/mitigation fees. There was brief discussion on
the fund's inability to use facility reserves any
further. Regarding possible reductions in the NCRRA
contract, the Commission has appointed a subcommittee of
members and a meeting will be convened in the near future
by Supervisor Slater's office.
The possibility of savings in the landfill operating
contract with Herzog appears to be unlikely, in view of
the company's unwillingness to negotiate without a long-
term extension of the contract. After lengthy
discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend
to the Board that the contract go out to bid.
/5'-~ I
2
o Supervisor Slater clarified that the Board of
Supervisor's action on 10/5/93 acknowledged that, if the
Commission's official posi tion on the facili ty/mi tigation
budget cut were to be implemented, it would require
unanimous ratification on an amendment to the existing
Agreement by all City Councils.
(County staff has NOT been given direction by the Board
to draft an amendment consistent with the Commission's
action and send it to all cities requesting approval. It
is unclear, at this time, how or if this closure to the
issue might take place.)
o A Budget/Audit Subcommittee was appointed to review
implementation of the recommended budget cuts, provide
input to County staff in preparation of the FY 94-95
budget, and provide recommendations to stabilize the tip
fee and budget until the permanent governance issue is
decided.
Elected official representatives on the subcommittee are
from the County and the Cities of Lemon Grove, Del Mar
and Vista. Staff support will be from La Mesa and Lemon
Grove, and staff from the County and the City of San
Diego will be used as resources.
()/~L---
Thurlday,Oc,cwer 14,1998
1/~/tW -'7) I~
Landfill fe.e-
of $43 a ton
is declared
insufficient
Iy IMMET PIIRCI
Staff Writer' .
The county may be endangering the fu. .
ture of the regional trash system by keep-
inglandfill fees artificially low, members of
the Interim Solid Waste Commiasion were
warned yesterday.
"You are seeing the slow dismember-
ment of a regional system,. said Brian
Bilbray, chairman of the county Board of.
Supervisors. :
Supervisors last week alashed the $110' _'
million annuallOlid waste budget by nearly. '
$28 million to prevent the basic $43-per-.
ton dumping fee from increasing. The ac-:
tion came at' the urging of a majority of:
trash commiasionera. .
The cuts were needed to erne a project. :
ed $27 million shortfall in funding for capi-:
tal projects and various liabilities incurred .
by the Solid Waste .Diviaion. Yesterday.
Carlsbad Mayor Bud Lewis bluntly told hil
colleagues on the commiasion that~e $43
fee "will not work..
"If we think it will we're just fooling
ourselves,. he said. :
Imperial Beach City Councilwoman Mar. .
ti Goethe agreed. .:
"It's unreasonable, and I feel it'a artifi..
cia11y low,. she said. "We're deferring some :
very dangerous items, in my opinion" .
& an example. she cited the IUpervi-:
IOrs' decision to shave about $5 million I .
from the trash budget by delaying the in-: ,
ltallation of methane gas collection devices; .
at several closed landfills. The ayateml are :
a requirement of the .tate.
Failure to instaU them could reault In;
hefty fmel beginning in July, said Bill Wor.: -.
reU, the countY'1 lOUd \,V.lte ~hie~ . . ' ~
National City Councilman Kon Morri~
,said the $43 fee was never meant to be;
-permanent. It will remain in place only Wltil :
the conuniasion can come up with a long- I
range plan fQr governing the fiacaUy trou. :
bled IOlid-waste program, he atreaaed. :
County Supervisor Pam Slater. who:
chairs the trash commiasion, agreed. I
"The $43 is really a tourniquet,. Slater:
said at the ineeting's conclusion. "It was:
put in place to .top the bleeding, let us:
Wish the body" . .
Members of the commiasion have tailed :
for delaying lOUd-waste bond Illes until a:
permanent plan for running the trash pro-:
gram can be deviaed., According to Bilbray,!
. bond aale is needed now to fund capital:
Improvements. Each month that puaea I
without . bond lIle is COItina the truh;
aystem $1 million, be said. !
"Without regional cooperation, ladies ;
and gentlemen, the ratepayers are going to i
let hit and they're ,oing to get bit bard,.;
Bilbray predicted.
Some commiasionera complained that
county IUpervisors last week agreed to cut:
about $5 million from the trash budget tha~ I
would have gone to pay host and mitigation
fees to cities adversely affected by traat(.
facilities., . -:
Before those fees can be eliminated, tb&;
county and all cities that send repreaenta':: "-
tives to the commission must amend ..
participation agreement that guarantees ~
Iteady flow of trash to the garbage pro-
.
gram.
Slatel"reminded the group that the $43-:
per-ton fee would increase by about $1 for:.
every $1 million that was restored to the
budget. If the boat fees. are paid, the baaic.,
dumping fee will rise to about $48 per ton.:
she asid. . : .
Yesterday's meeting drew an audience-
of about 50 people to the County A~.
tration Center. Consisting of representa-~
tives from the county and 15 cities, the, '
commission was formed to draft a plan for,
loveming the Solid Waste Division that.
gives cities more authority. The city of San.
Olego runs its own garbage program. :
'. '. In other matters, the commission unaniJ
"...pously voted to recommend that the Board'
~ Supervisors hold an open bidding pro;,
c::eaa for propoaala to operate county 1anc:li
filla. ...'
'.
~
~
......;, ".-
...
................
..,'"
!~-2~3
Item No. 15A
Date
10/19/93
15. A.
l/dfj~ 11
RESOLUTION 17289- AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE A CONSULTANT SERVICES
CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $17,000 FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFP) WITH BROWN, VENCE &
ASSOCIATES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR - 4/sth's vote required.
If Council wants to adopt Resolution 17280, Item 15.A., they will
need to direct the City Attorney to bring the resolution back if it
is not available at the meeting.
15/1 - )
-,-' ._--~--~-",."-,--~-"""",-",,""~~--,--~.-..-.--.........,-~._---~,-,,_.-.....,,,".---""...~"'_..,...."-
J;t;~rz J-:;' /7.
RESOLUTION NO. 17284-A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE A CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT NOT
TO EXCEED $17,000 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) WITH BROWN, VENCE
& ASSOCIATES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, at the September 21, 1993 meeting, the City
Council directed staff to proceed with an RFP for the procurement
of solid waste management and disposal options by determining and
recommending appropriate consultant services, and identifying
funding sources; and
WHEREAS, at the time, staff had reported on six informal
letter proposals from qualified consultant firms; and
WHEREAS, over the past few weeks, staff has conducted
interviews with all six firms and proceeded with an evaluation and
selection process which has resulted in a revised scope of services
for an RFQ to be issued as evaluated before proceeding with an RFP;
and
WHEREAS, should Council choose to proceed immediately
with the issuance of an RFP, staff's recommendation is to retain
the most appropriate consultant to facilitate that decision, Brown,
Vence & Associates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the City Manager to
negotiate a consultant services contract not to exceed $17,000 for
the development of a request for proposals with Brown, Vence &
Associates for alternative waste management and disposal options.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $17,000 be
appropriated from the Waste Management Trust Fund (Fund 270) to
Account 100-0210-5201.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
1L1h.
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\brown
;5'/1 /c2-
RESOLUTION NO.
17~
-I 7.2. '51
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE A CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT NOT
TO EXCEED $4,800 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) WITH
ECONOMICS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, at the September 21, 1993 meeting, the City
Council directed staff to proceed with an RFP for the procurement
of solid waste management and disposal options by determining and
recommending appropriate consultant services, and identifying
funding sources; and
WHEREAS, at the time, staff had reported on six informal
letter proposals from qualified consultant firms; and
WHEREAS, over the past few weeks, staff has conducted
interviews with all six firms and proceeded with an evaluation and
selection process which has resulted in the recommendation for an
RFQ instead of an RFP; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends hiring the locally-based
EcoNomics which firm has suggested an RFQ process which can be
expected to solicit meaningful and creative responses from the
industry.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the City Manager to
negotiate a consultant services contract not to exceed $4,800 for
the development of a request for qualifications with EcoNomics for
alternative waste management and disposal options.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $4,800 be
appropriated from the Waste Management Trust Fund (Fund 270) to
Account 100-0210-5201.
C:\rs\economics
Presented by
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
1>8-'/
,~~-,....._.-..~_.._~._-"~'_....._.."~.,.,,_._.