HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1999/08/10
1'1 dllll.,. und... .,.nalty of p...lufy that t am
.mploYl<1 bY the City of Chula Vista in the
Offio. of tho City Clor,\ and that I posted
thl. A..ndI/Notlel on the Bulletin Board at
the Publ~ Irv. ell Bulldln~ 1l:;..:I~~ .e'l~~.':
Tuesday, August 10, 1999 TED ~ S~~ Council Chambers
6'00 p.m. Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Council Meeting)
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City
Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss
and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject ofa
closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session
to best protect the interests of the City The Council is required by law to return to open session,
issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the
typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point
in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken,
and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be
recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Fritsch v City ofChula Vista, District Case No. 98-CV-0972-E CGA.
. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)
Two cases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 428 "F" Street, Chula Vista, California 91910. Assessor's Parcel
Number 568-181-34, 35, 36, 37 (portion), 41 (portion).
Negotiating Parties: Security Trust Company and City ofChula Vista (Sid Morris).
Under Negotiations: Property Acquisition
"',
AGENDA dIScI.
el17/)l lI1'e
OffiC OYe(/ b ~I/del'
August 10, 1999 tl1i8 "t Of t' :v the /)el/lIlt 6:00 p.m.
t"e p eel/:/. lie Cit. City l' Of/)
C-4 vbl' e;"1\ j Cj Of C" el'//I.
CALL TO ORDER 1"~C~/C ~'i",o Or." VIt1 1.',.1'.1' tll
4 I' ICe8 ;';. t,,;~ t"131 ;8tll iI/lit' 'Ifttt
~I/i'i~ vIle. /)0 he
1 ROLL CALL. Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and ~IVtBrti tll/ 808t-ed
D t1 C. lI1'd t1t
't .I' It
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE- tII, 01/
3 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Oath of Office:
Economic Development Commission (Ex-Officio) - Linda Baughman;
Human Relations Commission - Michael Palomo;
International Friendship Commission - Arturo Herrera; and
Veterans Advisory Commission - A.Y. Casillas.
B. During the 1998/99 fiscal year, the Chula Vista Police Department received a
G.A.L.E. (Grant Assistance to local Law Enforcement) grant from the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Supervising Investigator, Cindy Kane, and
G.A.L.E. Investigator Butch Rager, from the Alcoholic Beverage Control, will
present a recognition award to the Chula Vista Police Department. Chief
Emerson will accept the award on behalf of the Police Department.
C. Port Commissioner David Malcolm will present an update on Port District
matters.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 4 through 9)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent
Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion. without discussion. unless
a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that the item be
removedfor discussion. lfyou wish to speak on one of these items, pleasefill out a
"Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after
Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that the City Council did not meet in Closed
Session on August 3, 1999
Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed.
..
Agenda
2
August 10, 1999
5 ORDINANCE 2793, AMENDING SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR LARGE F AMIL Y DAY CARE HOMES
(SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
The Planning and Building Department was requested by the Economic Development
Commission to re-evaluate the Large Family Day Care Homes ordinance in anticipation of
a critical surge in demand resulting from the Welfare Reform Legislation. The Needs
Assessment Committee ofthe San Diego County Child Care Planning Council has identified
the City as a "high needs community" in the South Bay area. The biggest need identified
was care for infants and after school care for school-age children.
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
(Director of Planning and Building)
6. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT GOLF COURSE REORGANIZATION AND DETACHING
TERRITORY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NUMBER 135
On April 13, 1999, Otay Water District obtained, as a prerequisite to annexation, Council
approval to prezone approximately 515 acres at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway to
A-8, Agricultural. Concurrently, Otay Water District obtained Council approval for a
Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with a golf course, driving range, and
associated facilities. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is "contingent
upon...annexation ofthe Project Site to the City"
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building)
7 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DATES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE READY
TO RECEIVE UNDERGROUND SERVICE AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF POLES
AND OVERHEAD FACILITIES WITHIN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
NUMBER 126, PHASE II, ALONG MAIN STREET FROM APPROXIMATELY 450
FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO THIRD AVENUE
On January 9,1996, Council held a public hearing and approved establishing Underground
Utility District Number 125, along Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Third Avenue.
This project was divided into two phases. Phase I extended from Industrial Boulevard and
ended approximately 450 feet east of Broadway Phase II extends from 450 feet east of
Broadway to Third Avenue. Phase I was recently completed and the Phase II conversion
work is currently underway In accordance with Section 15.32.150 of the Municipal Code,
Council shall by subsequent resolution set the date upon which affected property owners
must be ready to receive underground service and the date by which SDG&E shall remove
poles, overhead wires and associated structures.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution: setting October 4,1999, as the date
by which property owners within Phase II shall be ready to receive underground services;
and setting February 4, 2000 as the date by which all poles, overhead wires and associated
structures shall be removed. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
3
August 10, 1999
8. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THREE CONTRACTS FOR
"SEWER REHABILITATION - PHASE VIII AND IX PROJECTS IN THE CITY (SW-
215)", AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO NEGOTIATE
A CHANGE ORDER FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TO UTILIZE ANY REMAINING
FUNDS WITHIN THIS PROJECT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF ADDITIONAL
SEWER MAINS
On July 21, 1999, sealed bids were received. The work to be done includes excavation and
grading, asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, trench shoring, traffic control,
installation of 8 inch sewer mains, lining existing sewers using folded PVC liner pipe,
rehabilitation of existing manholes, constrnction of a new manhole, and other miscellaneous
work.
Staffrecommendation: Conncil adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
9 REPORT REGARDING REQUEST FROM THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
FOR A RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MULTIPLE SPECIES
CONSERVATION PROGRAM
On May 24, 1999, the San Diego County Grand Jury issued a report regarding
implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The City ofChula
Vista, as well as the Connty and other member agencies of the MSCP planning program,
were directed to respond to Grand Jury recommendations contained within the report within
90 days of its issuance by the Superior Court. A response has been prepared by Staff and
Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to sign correspondence transmitting the
Council's response to those recommendations.
Staff recommendation: Conncil authorize the Mayor to sign the draft letter and transmit it
to the Superior Court. (Director of Planning and Building)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as
required by law If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out a "Request to
Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
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 public. The
items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations
may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any
item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit
it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Agenda
4
August 10, 1999
10. ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 3.41 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
HOTELS AND MOTELS REQUIRING IDENTIFICATION FROM CUSTOMERS AS A
PREREQUISITE TO ROOM RENTAL AND LIMITING THE RENTAL PERIODS (FIRST
READING)
In order to assist police in reducing calls for service at local hotels/motels, staff is
recommending an addition to the existing ordinance to require a valid government
identification from prospective customers. Research shows that this proposal causes very
little inconvenience and significantly reduces potential problems and associated calls for
service.
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Chief of Police)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
II CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
A. Scheduling of meetings.
12. MAYOR'S REPORTS
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session, thence to an Adjourned Meeting ofthe City Council on
Wednesday, August 11,1999, at 5'00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room,
Administration Building, and thence to the Regular Meeting of August 17,
1999, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
*** An Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency
will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.***
August 5, 1999
FROM:
SUBJECT
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manage~r
City Council Meeting of August 3, 1999
TO'
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, August 10, 1999. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as
follows:
Sa. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that the City Council did not meet in
Closed Session on August 3, 1999.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS lETTER BE RECEIVED AND FilED.
DDR:mab
~V?-
~
~~~~
em OF
CHUlA VISfA
OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
August 4, 1999
From
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John M Kaheny, City Attorney SHft
Report Regarding Actions Taket in Closed
for the Meeting of 8/3/99
session
To:
Re:
The City Council of the City of Chula vista did not meet in Closed
session on 8/3/99
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed
Session on 8/3/99 to discuss:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: - Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956 8:
Property:
Assessor's Parcel Number 565-310-09; 565-
310-25 (approximately 6 35 acres located
at the northwest corner of I - 5 and E
Street)
Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and
City of San Diego
Price and terms for disposition
Negotiating Parties:
Under Negotiation:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: -
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956 9(b).
Contemplated use of eminent domain by the City of San Diego
(Metropolitan Waste Water Department or its affiliates) to acquire
Agency owned property.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: 19k
H,.lto"..\lu"a,n.\lt' ,o......no
tf-ft-
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691-5037' FAX (619) 409-5823
@PoIll.Con.ulMrRecycledP~r
Departanent: of pt...n.....g and Building
Subject:
Mayor Shirley Horton
~
J.D. Sandoval, AlCP, Assistant Planning Director
Second Reading of the Large Family Day Care or. ce, Agenda Item #5
To:
From:
Date:
- AuguStlO, 1999 -
We are requesting that this item be continued to the City Council meeting of August 24, 1999.
Pursuant to Council direction, staff is reviewing the issue of the ability to require a 1,200 square foot
outdoor play area as a condition of Large Family Day Care Approvals.
Although we have received some tentative information from the state we are coordinating with the
City Attorney's office in order to be able to provide a definite answer.
cc: David D. Rowlands Jr., City Manager
Robert Leiter, AlCP, Planning and Building Director
H:\home\planning\mo\cc continuance large family day care ordinance
/'
:;/0
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 8/10/99
~
ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
ordering the changes of organization for the Otay Water District Golf
Course Reorganization and detaching territory from County Service Area
No. 135.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ;l'€
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~t'V\V (4/5thsVote: Yes_No..L)
On April 13, 1999, Otay Water District (OWD) obtained, as a prerequisite to annexation, City
Council approval to prezone approximately 515 acres at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway to
A-8, Agricultural. Concurrently, OWD obtained City Council approval for a conditional use permit
(CUP) to develop the property with a golf course, driving range, and associated facilities. Approval
of the CUP is "contingent upon...annexation of the Project Site to the City of Chula Vista"
(Resolution No. 19426).
Otay Water District filed an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
for annexation of the project site from the unincorporated County of San Diego to the City of Chula
Vista, and detachment of the territory from County Service Area No. 135, on January 12,1999.
A Certificate of Filing was issued by LAFCO on June 23,1999 On July 12, 1999, LAFCO
unanimously approved the proposed territory reorganization and designated it the "Otay Water
District Golf Course Reorganization" They also designated the City of Chula Vista the conducting
authority, authorizing City Council to conduct proceedings in compliance with LAFCO Resolution
R099-3, without notice and hearing.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the prezoning, CUP, and annexation of this
project, and was adopted according to the provisions of CEQA by the City Council on April 13,
1999 (Resolution No. 19426). Thus, no further action is necessary
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution
ordering the changes of organization for the Otay Water District Golf Course Reorganization
and detaching territory from County Service Area No. 135
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The approximately 515-acre, rectangular-shaped parcel proposed for annexation is north of Proctor
Valley Road, between the bases of San Miguel and Mother Miguel mountains to the north, and
~ -J
Page 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/10/99
Rolling Hills Ranch subdivision to the south. Phases II and III of Rolling Hills Ranch are situated
east of the parcel, and the proposed San Miguel Ranch project is west (see Locator).
The site is divided into two major areas: 1) a 261-acre Habitat Management Area (HMA) along the
west, north and east property lines; and 2) a 254-acre "usable area" in the central portion of the
parcel.
On April 13 , 1999, the City Council approved a conditional use permit that authorizes development
of the "usable area" with a golf course, driving range, clubhouse, and maintenance and storage
facilities. That area currently contains nine recycled water storage ponds and two potable water
tanks, which will be integrated into the future golf course. The remaining 261 acres will be retained
as an open space Habitat Management Area (HMA), consistent with LAFCO's open space and
agricultural lands policy.
The annexation area is within Chula Vista's sphere of influence, and annexation to the city would
be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan, which designates the land use as open space.
Annexation is necessary so that city services can be provided once the golf course is constructed;
detachment from County Service Area No. 135 is necessary because Chula Vista is not a member
agency of the CSA, an 800-megahertz regional communications system. The reorganization area
is currently within Otay Water District and will receive water service from that agency. The territory
is not within an agency that provides fire protection or sewer services. These services will be
provided by Chula Vista following annexation.
Annexations and detachments are subject to LAFCO review and approval under the CorteselKnox
Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. If more than one annexation or detachment is
proposed in a single application, then the action is considered a reorganization.
On July 12, 1999, when LAFCO approved the Otay Water District Golf Course Reorganization, it
directed the City of Chula Vista, as conducting authority, to order the following actions:
1 Annexation of 514.57 acres to the City of Chula Vista.
2. Detachment of 514.57 acres from County Service Area No. 135 (San Diego Regional
Communications).
State law provides one year from the LAFCO approval date for cities to complete the reorganization
proceedings. In this case, the City must complete the reorganization by July 12, 2000
H \HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD2.ANX
b-..2...
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/10/99
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be an undetermined amount of property tax revenue generated by the operating lease
of the golf course. Pursuant to annexation laws, San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista
will share property tax revenue allocable to both entities in accordance with the Master Property
Tax Sharing Agreement. Under that agreement, the county retains 59% of this revenue and the
city retains 41 %. The ongoing cost to the city for providing basic municipal services to the
proposed golf course should be adequately covered by the city's share of the property tax.
The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the annexation application.
Attachments
A. Locator
B. LAFCO Resolution No. R099-3
H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\QWD2.ANX
rt:J
RESOLUTION NO._
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ORDERING THE CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT GOLF COURSE REORGANIZATION
AND DETACHING TERRITORY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA
NO 135
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999, the Otay Water District Golf Course Reorganization
was filed by landowner petition, Otay Water District, with the San Diego Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex 515 acres to the City ofChula Vista from the
unincorporated area of the county, and detach the same area from County Service Area (CSA)
No. 135, and
WHEREAS, a Certificate of Filing was issued by LAFCO on June 23,1999; and
WHEREAS, the 515 acres are located north of Proctor Valley Road, between the bases of
San Miguel and Mother Miguel Mountains to the north, and the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned
Community to the south, more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1999, the City Council prezoned the property A-8, Agricultural,
and approved a conditional use permit to establish an 18-hole golf course, driving range, and
associated facilities; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the annexation is to facilitate development of the golf course
project through the provisions of a full range of necessary municipal services by the City of
Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission held a noticed public hearing on July 12, 1999 and
approved the reorganization, designating the City ofChula Vista as the conducting authority, and
authorizing City Council to conduct proceedings for the reorganization without notice and
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the regular San Diego County assessment roll is used; and
WHEREAS, the reorganization area will not be subject to bonded indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Otay Water District,
as lead agency, for the prezoning, conditional use permit and annexation of this project, and was
adopted according to the provisions ofCEQA by the City Council on April 13, 1999 (Resolution
No. 19426); and
1
" -f
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission certified that it reviewed and considered the
information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Otay Water District and
adopted by the City Council on April 13, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted reorganization proceedings in accordance with
Government Code Sections 57000, et seq , and
WHEREAS, the Chu1a Vista City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August
10, 1999 in accordance with LAFCO Resolution R099-3 and Government Code Sections 57000,
et seq., and
WHEREAS, the reorganization area is uninhabited and the City has determined that a
majority landowner protest was not filed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1 That the City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
issued for this Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements ofthe
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures
of the City ofChula Vista.
2. That the City Council orders the following actions for the reorganization with the
modified boundaries described in Exhibit A.
A. Annexation of514.57 acres to the City ofChu1a Vista; and
B. Detachment of 514.57 acres from County Service Area No. 135 (San
Diego Regional Communications).
3 That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy ofthis resolution
ordering the reorganization with the Executive Officer of the LAFCO.
Presented by Approved as to form by
J~<~
City Attorney
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
2
tt,S
."!:-......,~J JoJl ....J..:I'U
~Ul ~~.~~ l1~U~ NO.UUL r.u(
. .
R099-3
OTA Y WATER DISTRICT GOLF COURSE REORGANIZATION ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 135
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTIONS 23 AND 26. TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH. RANGE 1 WEST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEOO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCOlIDlNO TO \JNlT2D STAlES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, LYING
WJTHIN'mE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDA1UES:
BEGINNING AT 'mE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID POINT BEING
ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 8514, RECORDED ON
MAY 29, 1980 IN THE OFFICE OF mE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEC'.o COUNTY. AS
FILENO. 80-174004;
I. THENCE NORm 02"24'36. EAST, 1975.94 FEET ALONG 'mE WESTEkLY LINE OF
SAID SECTION 23 TO THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF nm NOR1lIWSST QUARTER. OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23;
2. nmNCE SOUTH 19"01'13" EAST. 6S4.19 FEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO
THE I!ASTERL Y UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTEROFSAlDSECTlON 23;
3. THENCE NORTHG2"OO'OS" EAST.6S9.32 FEET ALONG SAID BASTERL Y UNE TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORllIWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23;
4. mENCE SOUTH 89"05'19" IiAST.649.S2 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 23;
5. THENCE NORlH 00"44'02" EAST, 2644.43 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO
THE NORTHERLY ONE OF SAID SECTION 23;
6. THENCE NORTH 89.4S'20. EAST, 1301.38 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOF.
7. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE. SOUTH 87.03'12" EAST.
1363.87 TO THE EASTERLY UNE OF lHE WEST UALF OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID
SECTION 23;
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 1 OF2
n
~-?
eXH telT A
_....'. ....._. v.... ...._w..., I'-......~..... .J~I 'O;f;l.::1V
~-
~u I ~~.."." U : J. J. NO. VIJi 1". Oli
.
8. THENCE soum 01009'31" WEST. 2622.27 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO AN
ANOLE POiNT THERBlN;
9. THENCE CONTINUING ALONO SAID EASTERLY LINE. SOUlHoo058'32" WEST.
2652.28 FEET TO nm.SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF
OF SAID SECTION n.BElNO ALSO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TIlE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF TIlE NORnmAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26. SAID TOWNSHIP AND
RANGE;
JO. THENCE SOUTH 00049'03* WBST. 1325.87 FEET ALONO THE EAS1'BJtLY LJNIl OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUART2R OP._THE NOltnmAST QUARTER TO mE SOU'J'HEAST
CORNER THElUlOF;
J 1. THENCE NORm "042'420 WEST, 4OOO.92FEBT ALONG THE SOlJ1lfERL Y LINE OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUARTSR OF THE NORnlEAST QUARTER.AND ALONQ THE
SOUTHERLY UNE OF THE NORm HALF OF 'llIE NOR'mWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26 TO THE WESttIU. Y LINE THEREOF;
12. THENCE NORTH OO~'lll" EAST. 1318.19 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
'~_"'LDW"",,,_,
CWIJ 1 L..I.......
hltl'121199
EXH.I81TA
PAOE2OF2
II'
6-)
, I
.
__r~WI
.~
_."
~,,,~.,
...
'"
loi
to:
~
It".~ ......,A. zj' ...J")I -....,::IV
JUl ~~)~~
""'~fII",o-t!!!'
/~IW._
""""cell
$; -- ."..,
,,,". 7
11;11 NO.VVL ~.UY
..
~ II
!Ii
,~ ..
.4.
:'1 ~
..
.
~
- --
- - --.
POR SEC. 23
~
~ T17S, RIW, SBBM.
...
l' ,.
~ ".~.
t"'f.~
~;r'
1)&9: 5-12.~9
8ca.t.Bt /" .::- Boo .
~ JrAGE: VO~NW
~:~
!mAn BYl
POR SEC. 26
NI"""'~;,,,, ~.M
1IU1>.I.IIG 1lnU10J1
au m:JteO ~& UO__f. Oft'ZCllI
OTAY WATER DlSTJUCT COLI" COURSa:
UORCAfllZA1'IOI'l
ANNEXATION TO CITY OFCHtILA YlST A
4HD DETAQlMEI'I1'FROM
COUNTY SQtvlCE ARIA NO. 135
11' j--Z
a
t
a
}
~
,
;
" ~
10 .
~;
, t
~
r
.... 'l'.
CO NTYOFS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~ omyWarerD~md PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 ANNEXATION
PROJECT Olay Water District Use Area Request Proposal to annex SlS,lIa'lIS to the ClIy of
ADDRESS: N10 Proctor Valley Rd near HWlte Pl<wy Chula VIsta lbr a fUture Golf Course.
SCALE: FILE N\JMBER: "-1 ATfAct\MEtli A
I NORTH No Scale ANX-99-01
h:\homelplanning\carlos\locatorslanx9901.cdr 9/25/98
.--. _...J.. J.,4,"VI "'u.vu"," ,-t"'".U4
Minute Item: 10
Ref. No.: R099-3
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORIIATION carT~ISSION
OF THE COUNTv OF SAN DIEGO
MAKING Da:t-..-.ATIONSAND APPROVING THE
-oTAY WATERDI6lk1\,;l GOLF COURSE MOk..ANlZATION"
(CITY OF CHULAYlSTA)
On motion of CommIllioner PocIelington. IIIcoudedby Comminioner Davis. the
following ntaDJution is adapted:
WHEREAs. . *,*1tioI. of appflcaL"waa 8UbI\6d to ttH& CammI8sIon for B
I8OIplnizaIion of ...ih.Iy incfudlnt enneJralblllo the CIty of ChuJe Vteta and delactiment
from County SerVice Afea No. 136 (San DIego Reglon&t CommunIca1lor$). which
I88Olutlon wasaklpl8d by" Boatdaf DhIc:Cora of the Clay WalerOllbict..RaaIution
No. 3786. d8IlId .lanu8ty6.1999.......to TIlleS. DivIIIon3. COIl..._ WIth Section
58000 of the OO.....wnent Code; end
WHEREAS. the IeIt1olYpIClpOurlfor ~ II .. de8cribed In the
appliCatIOn on....wiIh the Local Agtm!:yFotI,"""'COlJlhJt lIon. and
WHEREAS. the ExeculiYe Ofticer of the CommiIIIDl.... flied his "'POIt on uId
NIOlg8flizatlo.l. which report... recei....d end c:oMidered byll'le c.....d lion; tII1d
WHEREAS. all owners of land. h8Ye consent.! ill writing to the reorganization;
WHEREAS. pUJ8UaI1t 10 GowmmeIit Code~l 56838.. ElIecutive 0IlIcer of
IhiI con.LtIaeIon let. pWlIchearinoon the propmd NlOrgInizalkmfDr JWy 12.1989. and
pvenotice Gfthe.... timIIl. end placed I8kIhUlill~ in ~ with G!:n~1t
Cod$ Se~ 58834ancf. 58835:
NOW THEREFORE. BE fTRESOLVED. Ihal this Comnols8lon heJ~i finds.
~,andORiers" follows:
(1) The hearUJg W88 held on the dale_ ..... and duenolioe of 88id
hearing... given In the menner requlr8d by law.
(2) N. Ihat h..ring Ihe CQnv'Il')A allied fOr. NItInI. and coneId8red all
inten!l&ted parties ancf Al8d and considered.1he J8POIt of the Executive 0tIiCler.
(3) 'TheComnlllion C8ItiIIel:that I" nmewed Me:! considered the Womlllllo.1
contIilned in the _1Ile.d No9aWe 0edInIi0n ~.w by the Olay WIIfIlr DietriQL
It
~-/tJ
~TTA't\W\err B
v_.. .....03'..7 .Io""-V:1 tllU~UU':: ,....U:;,
(4) The Commit.ion .hereby 8pprOWt8 tile ~ ..film wiIh bouncI8riet ..
deIlctlbed In ExhIbIt A aftac:hed hereto for the ,u.o"".. for\h In the ExecuIive 0IlI0eI;
repoIt.
(5) The bound.... of the tenltory as described in ElchIbit A &Ie definite and
ceItIlin.
(6) Theboundaf* or thetenftQlY do .confonn to fin.. of ...essment and
~
(7) The distriClI is. ~ diItfIct.
(8) The ten1tory Includes 514.57 acrti88lld18 UI'lIMlItlIltJ.
(8) The 18rritoIYfIfOPOs.d far NaIp~ is her8by deIignated the"Otay
Water 0l8trlct GoIfCourle RtI~. (CtlyofChula V1U).
(10) Ttlecu..~\ I lion Mlab) julgmon the ClyofCtulla V.t... the 0CIIlducIng
authcriy - 8IIthOriZe81he CilJCounclIlDconductP'O"'dlngs lnWfl1plence wIlh this
f88CliUIion wfthout notlcl6 8Ild ~.
(11) The eo...\ IIIIM dIRtca the City of ChuIa ViIIB. as conducting aulborIty. to
order.h foIk:r.r.ring autiu...:
a) Annex8llon of514.578CM to \heClty ofChulaVlSta.
b) Detachlnent of 614.67 8CM hm CoII1ly Se" At8a No. 136 (San
Diego RegIonal Commulllca"'le).
(12) The E,xecuttve Offlcer Is IMmtby 8Ult1oI11_ct and~ to malIllIIItiIed
~ ofthls,reaoIutlon lis PIO'Iided in ~ 58853 of1he GcMI.mmBnt Code.
2
t-J1
t~
--~ ~.'~~ ~~~v~ AU.UV~ ~_ue
Passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation CommiaIIon of VIe County of s.n
Diego this 12th~ of July, 1999, by the folIcwlng vote:
AYES:
CommiaIonera DeYi8, Ham. NvuIl8l'd. PockIington. WInton.
and Woutton
.NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
None
Cormiiaalonera ChIlds, Jaeob, MathIa, end Vanderlaan
None
- - ---....- -- - -- -- ----- --- ------------ -- - -- ---- ----
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTV OF SAN DIEGO)
I, MICHAEL. o.arr. ExeculIve()lficer of1he 1.ocalA;enf:yFo'll.i8Iloro CommI8sion oHhe
County of s.n DIego, St* fI ~ IIfvmla, ~ oer!ifytMU hIM <:ori4lllf8d the ~'l!J
oopy wittI the origtn8IllesolutlOn acloplwdby Uldc..I.. _on at" AIgUIar meeIIngon
_ 12. 1999. whlch~. ftl8Otution 18 now onftle.1n rtIf oIlc8; and thatseme contaIn8
a full.INI,.and ~ tnanacript tt.eteflo.n 8ndof the whole th....of.
Wllna..myhencUh18 15th clay of July. 1_..
~.
M1CHAElD. on
Executive 0IfIwl
s.n DIego Local Agemf Founata.n CommIt.n
n1
? --/ c2.
...-. .........,..,.
.a..&. 'W;1 ""," .'VU. r .-vr
. ,
R099-3
(yfAY WATER DlSTJUCT GOLF COURSE REORGANIZATION ANNEXATJON TO TIm CITY
OF CHULA ViSTA AND DETACHMENT PkOM COUNtY SERVICE AREA NO. 135
ALL THAT PORTION OF SEC'IlONS 23 AND 26, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH. RANGE 1 WEST,
SAN BBRNARDlNOBASE ANDMERIDJAN, IN TIm COUNTY OF SAN DIEOO, STATE OF
CAUF'ORNlA, ACC01U>lNG TO UNl'l'BD STATES GOVERNMENTSUkVEY, LYING
WJ'mIN nm FOLLOWING DESCRlBED BOUNDARlES:
BEOINNlNG .AT lHE SOU1'HWBSt COJUolER. OF SAJD SBCllON 23, SAID POlNT BaNG
0)\1 THE WEST B01JNI>ARY OF RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 1514, RBCORDEI> ON
MAY 29,1980 lNTHEOFFICE OF 1HE COUNTY ItECORDER OF SAN DIEGOCQUNTY, AS
FILE NO. 10-174004;
1. THENCE NOR.TH 02"24'36" EAST, 1975.94PEET ALONG mE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID SECnON 231'0 lHE SOUTHEI.LY UNE OF1l1ENOR'tHWEST QUARTER. OF
THENOR'l'HWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SEC'I10N23;
2. 1lfBl'fCE.SOUTH 89.01'13" EAST, 654.19 FEm' ALONQSAID SOUlHERL YLlNE TO
THE EASTER.L Y LINE OF SAID NOlTHWEST QUARTER. OF THE NOJll'HWBST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTEROFSAlDSBCnON 23;
3. ntENCENOR.'ffi02"OO'OS. EAST, 659;32 PEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO tHE
SOU1HERL Y LlNEOF THE NOR.lHWEST QUARTER OFSAJP SECTJON 23;
4. mENCESOum.9.OS'19" EAST._649.S2 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LJNE TO
THE WESTSRL Y LINE OF1"HE EAST HALF OF TIm NORTHWEsT QUA.ltTER OFSAlD
SSCTION 23;
5. THENCE NOaTH 00"44'02' EAST. 264U3 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LlNE TO
THE NORnmRL Y 1JNE OF SAD> SEC110N 23;
6. 'IHENCENOR.11i J9."S'20"EI\ST. 1301.38 FEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO
THE NORTH QUAR:fER CORNER THEREOF;
7. THENCB CONT1NUJNG ALONG SAID NOllTHERLY LINE. SOOTH 17.03'12.' EAST.
1363.87 TO 1'HE F.AST'ERLYLJNB OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OfSAl[)
SECnON 23;
E.XHIBJT A
PAGElOF2
/ --/' ?
I' ~ ~
".... ,..."." 11 '11 NO .VVO:: 1'.08
8. 1HENCESOlml 01"09'37" WEST. 2622.27 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO AN
ANGLE POINT THEREIN;
9. THBNCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY UI'E. SOUTHOO"SS'n" WEST,
2652.28 FEET TO THE.SOU1'BBAST CORJER. OF TIlE WEST HALF OF THE EASTHALF
OF SAID SBC110N 23. BEING ALSOnmNORTHEAST a>1tNEa OF 1HE NORTHWEST
QUAIlTER OF mE NOIl'I'HEA'n' QUARtER OFSECnON 26, &AlI> TOWNSHIP AND
RANGE;
10. THENCE SOUTH 00..9'03" WEST, 132$.87 FEET ALONG nm EAS1DLY LINE OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF_mE NOIlmEAST QUARTER ro THE sotm4EAST
CORNER THEltEOF;
11. THE'.NCE. NORm 88-"2'42" 'WEST, 4000..92 FEET ALONG THE SOlTI'HElU. Y LINE OF
SAID NORTHWBST QUAR'JD OF THE NORnlEAST QUARTER AND ALONO THE
SOll"l1iBL Y iJNE OF THENOll1l!HALF OF lHE NOk1llWBST QUARTER OF SAID
SEC110N 26 TO THE WESTSU. V LINE THERBOF;
12.11tBNCE NORTH 00~'19" EAST, 1318.1"9 fEET ALONG &AlI> WESTERLY UN!! TO
THE POINT OF8E01NN1NG.
I~"'''~'''f( II
- . 't., __.
14"21119
EXHl8JT A
PAGE 2 012
n
t-/1
'J
.
.
.
__oW",
"
--~ -'...........
JU' ~L.~~ l!'ll No.UU2 P.09
.",. 0.'
-'t/HW.RI
,.}IiIf.t4
$i ""M
_.
j
...,.,.......
.....1IIrIo ~ ~
~
i
- -..-,,"", .,.
_."
-,~.,
...
.,
!!i
I(
~
- --
- ---
POR SEe. D
,~
,~ n7S,lUW,SBBM.
~
. g.
~ , ,./).
l~;'''
~-;r
1>a,.: 5-/2-'9
.caLII: "";::- Boo .
US aGS:YO'NW
12&=
DU.D 'BY:
7",
POR SEe. 16
""'~-,..- --
.....~ IInU10II
, .. h~ "",oaon ......a'. Oft'!C!II
OTAY w,,"'D&muCTCOU~
RIOItG:AIlIZA1'1OIIl
AI'INIXA11OI'fTOCJTY OFCIWJ.A YJSTA
AMD DETAaIMEHT FROM'
~$lRVICE AIltANO.135
H' j, "-6
..
..
~
t
a
~
~
LUCC: /<C.,3.!J
.uD: s~.s -9t::.
N. 1lO: /-6-1
:1.1
~"'P08::~-.'4z.
/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 8/10/99
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Establishing dates for property owners to be ready to
receive underground service and for the removal of poles and overhead
facilities within Underground Utility District No. 126, Phase II, along
Main Street from approxnm:tef 450' east of Broadway to Third Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes~o-X..)
On January 9, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing and approved Resolution No. 18177
establishing Underground Utility District No. 126, along Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard
to Third Avenue. This project was divided into two phases. Phase I extended from Industrial
Boulevard and ended approximately 450' east of Broadway. Phase II extends from 450' east of
Broadway to Third Avenue. Phase I was recently completed and the Phase II conversion work
is currently underway. In accordance with Section 15.32.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Resolution 18177 states that the City Council shall by subsequent resolution set the date upon
which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service and the date by
which SDG&E shall remove poles, overhead wires and associated structures. The conversion of
overhead utilities to underground within phase II is scheduled to be completed by February 4,
2000.
City Council Policy #585-01 allows the City to use utility undergrounding funds to reimburse all
affected properties for the cost of undergrounding of private service laterals.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution to:
1. Set October 4, 1999 as the date by which property owners within the second phase of
Underground Utility District No. 126, along Main Street from approximately 450' east of
Broadway to Third Avenue, shall be ready to receive underground services.
2. Set February 4, 2000 as the date by which all poles, overhead wires and associated
structures shall be removed within the second phase of Underground Utility District
No.126, along Main Street from approximately 450' east of Broadway to Third Avenue.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution No. 18177 establishing Underground
Utility District No. 126, along Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Third Avenue. Also, in
accordance with the City Code and said resolution, the City notified all property owners within
7-/
;
;
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
the district of the relevant provisions by mailing each owner and resident a copy of said resolution.
There were no inquires by the property owners regarding the notification.
During a meeting of the Utility Undergrounding Advisory Committee (UUAC) oil June 9, 1999,
the utility representatives informed Engineering staff that they can meet the following schedule
for Phase II of the subject underground conversion district:
Date for Customers to be ready to receive Underground Service October 4, 1999
Date for the completion of undergrounding work and the February 4, 2000
removal of overhead utilities, poles and associated structures
The Utility companies will not be doing any work during the entire month of December in
observance of the holiday season. This is the reason the "Completion of Pole Removal" date was
moved from December 17, 1999 to February 4,2000.
Upon approval of this resolution, notices of these dates will be sent to residents and owners of real
property within the second phase of the district. Exhibit" A" shows a listing of those property
owners and Exhibit "B" shows the boundary for Phase II of the project. The conversion work
by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and installation of conduit from the property
line to point of connection.
On December 15, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution 16934 amending City Council
Policy No. 585-1 expanding the use of SDG&E utility funds to reimburse all property owners for
their trench work. The new policy is applicable to all Districts formed in calendar year 1992 and
thereafter Each property owner required to dig a trench for lateral connection will be reimbursed
at a rate of $30 per foot of trenching (up to 100'). The City will reimburse each property owner
after receipt of said funds from SDG&E and completion of the building permit process.
A total of fifteen (15) properties who are required to construct a trench will be reimbursed.
Exhibit "CO gives an estimate of the reimbursement to each property owner.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private
property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be $607,000. SDG&E's
allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. The estimated subsidy
to property owners for their trench work is $31,500.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Notification Mailing list
Exhibit B - Phase II Project Boundary Map
Exhibit C - List of parcels and property owners qualifying for reimbursement
Copy of Resolution 18177
File No: 081O-20-AY-094
H:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAI<J9A-MPH2.RDJ
7-2
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING DATES FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS TO BE READY TO RECEIVE UNDERGROUND
SERVICE AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF POLES AND
OVERHEAD FACILITIES WITHIN UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT NO. 126, PHASE II, ALONG MAIN STREET
FROM APPROXIMATELY 450' EAST OF BROADWAY TO
THIRD AVENUE
WHEREAS, the city Council has heretofore by Resolution
No. 18177 established Underground utility District No. 126 along
Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Third Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this project was divided into two phases with
Phase I extending from Industrial Boulevard and ended approximately
450' east of Broadway and Phase II extending from 450' feet east of
Broadway to Third Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Phase I was recently completed and the Phase II
conversion work is currently underway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the
city of Chula vista that the following dates are hereby established
ordering the property owners to prepare properties for receipt of
underground utilities:
1. The property owners within Underground Utility
District No. 126, Phase II, shall be ready to receive
underground service on October 4, 1999.
2. Poles,
structures
Underground
February 4,
overhead wires and associated overhead
shall be removed from parcels within
utility District No. 126, Phase II, by
2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the city of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby directed to forward a certified
copy of this resolution to all affected utility companies and
property owners.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
n M. Kaheny, City
ttorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
H:\home\lorraine\rS\UUDPoles
7-:3
. .
EXHIBIT "A"
MAIN STREET, PHASE ll, UNDERGROUNDING MAll..ING LIST
6221121800
RSR PARTNERSHIP
C/O NORMAN RUBIN
3950 LA CRESTA DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92107
OCCUPANT
2820 MAIN STREET
CIUJLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2822 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6221121700
MACHADO, MANUEL P JR TRUST
4633 VILLAS PLACE
BONITA, CA 91902
OCCUPANT
2830 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6221122000
COOKE, ROBERT E. III & ERNESTINE J.
P OBOX9
BONITA, CA 91908
OCCUPANT
2856 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2864 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6231822200
JOHNSTON, D. & G FAMILY TRUST
POBOX 4300,
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91909
OCCUPANT
3080 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3082 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
7- '/ 1
6231921300
ELGUEZABAL, BENJAMIN H. & LORNA M.
687 MARCILLA WAY
ClIDLA VISTA,CA919110
OCCUPANT
3130 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3132 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3132-AMAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3134 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6231921200
ELGUEZABAL, BENJAMIN H. & LORNA M.
687 MARCILLA WAY
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
3136 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA,CA91911
6231921100
ARIZALA, EULOGIO & MARIA
3150 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3148 MAIN STREET
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6290101000
THRIFTY OIL CO.
C/O ATLANTIC RICHFIEW CO.
P & T TAX DEPT.
POBOX 512485
LOS ANGELES, CA 90051
OCCUPANT
1725 BROADWAY
ClIDLA VISTA, CA 91911
6290200100
ESPINOZA, PEDRO & AIXA
93 BISHOP STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2801 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
6290200200
BEAUCHAMP, ALTON TRUST
POBOX446
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91951
OCCUPANT
2817 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
6290200300
CAZARES, ALEJANDRO & MARIA L.
48 HILLTOP DRIVE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
2827 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
6290200400
CAZARES, ALEJANDRO & MARIA L.
48 HILLTOP DRIVE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
2835 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2837 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2839 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2843 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2843-A MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2843-D MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
7--52
6290200500
THOMPSON, ELDON L. & LOIS A.
4135 DllLONWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #1
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #2
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #3
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #4
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #5
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #6
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #7
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #8
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #9
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #10
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #11
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #12
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #13
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2847 MAIN STREET #14
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
6290201100
DOMINGUEZ FAMILY TRUST 03-21-91
C/O RADELOW GITTINS
438 CAMINO DEL RIO S #203
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #1
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #2
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #3
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #4
CHULA VISTA,CA91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #5
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #6
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #7
CHULA VISTA,CA91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #8
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #9
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #10
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
7'b
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #11
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #12
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #13
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #14
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #15
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #16
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #17
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #18
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #19
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #20
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #21
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #22
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #23
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #24
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
3
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #25
OlliLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #26
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #27
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #28
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #29
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #30
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #31
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #32
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
2887 MAIN STREET #33
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
6290300400
NELSON FAMILY TRUST
P o BOX 488
CHULA VISTA, CA 91912
OCCUPANT
1720 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
6290500800
K M ClillLA VISTA STORAGE L L C <LF> FROMMER
ROSA C TR&TALAMANTEZ DELlA H TR ET AL
C/O ALLIANCE FINANCIAL 1NV
3160 CAMINO DEL RIO SUITE #112
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
OCCUPANT
3089 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
7-74
6290604200
LASSMAN FAMILY TRUST 03-02-90
471 JACARANDA DRIVE,
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
3121 MAIN STREET
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3129 MAIN STREET
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
6290605800
CHULA VISTA AERIE NO 3142
FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES
3149 MAIN STREET
ClillLA VISTA, CA 91911
6290607200
ZOURA LATIF& lKHLASS
C/O BOBAR LIQUOR #1
3189 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
OCCUPANT
3151 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
H:1II0ME\ENGINEERIADVPLANlUUDISTlMAlNSTlMNPH2AD
-
~Ej~U~~~1 / ~
~
;;;J
z I ;
~
\l:) ~
N ,
!--- -,-----, - 'W
- d ~
- z .
~ - ,...
u ,....
I- i ~- Q;l ==
- ,... Eo-;
- 0 C/) CI:l
~ ...... 0
r- 0
- r Z Cl Eo-;
I I w <~
J jjj ~
0NSlIlI.!l ~~ -<
C/)
~- a::: 5:0 ~
=>
In <~
:!: ...;l~ -<
- w $~ 0
>- a::: u~ ~
~ a:::
; < J: ~
I 0 !:: . ~>- I,.,
-.../ o!:: ~_.'
;> ,....
r :J ~~ ,....
IWIllOII ~ 0 C/) ~
w
-- r-- In r- UO 00
- .--- r- a::: ~ ~
I--- 0 0
- !---- ;; - w
- a::: a... ~
- !---- I-- r- 0 ~
~ - C/) a::: '"
1- - - Eo-;
Ii- !---- I-- - I-- 0 a... ~
I I-- ~ r--- - ~
I--- I-- - ~
-I-- - 0
-I-- IUL 8
Cl:l
~ ~
r- v~ ~
:
V~~ 0\
0\
0\
.... ....
I J ~ .,;
~~ ....
. :;;.; S
~
l ~
~
V IW.t
~ / 0 0
7--g
1'-" e
:I:
~
'"
:ll
z
"
Z
m
m
~
~
-u
s;
~
c
c
~
>
z
i
"
'"
>
z
,.
2l
I
l1
g d
:Ii ~
~
m
z
Q
~
l'J
i
..
~ ~
"g ~
~ '" a
i?l ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ 8
8 g
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
> > >
z z z
!!1 !!1 !!1
!'J
ill
'"
>
z
'"
....
m m m
.... .... ....
m
....
'"
~
8 '"
~
'"
s:
l'J .. ..
'~ @ ~
~
"g s
~
'"
~
>
r
'"
~
'"
m
;;:
I!!
'"
~
~ e
~ ~
go ili
~ ~
'" i5
~
.es
:ll
~
'"
~
~
ii\
'"
!,1
~
~ '" z
rn ~~ ~
~ ~J: ~
l< ",c
"T1 m~ j!
)> ::::0< i:
~ ~~ ~
:il >'" :il
ffi ~~ ~
~ go"
....m
11:::
~ ~o
>^
~~
ii\
r-
;;
:I:
:il
!!l
f'
~8
;i
!!1r-
2"
~~
<~
(ij
ji
\l
~
~
~
~ ~ ~g
~ ~ ~f'
> ~ >r-
Z :!:>
,!!1 :. ~~
(") ~ ~:!!
E ~ ~~
s; 0 i5t5
< :I: m>
!!1 C '!Ie:
; s; ~z
(") < J-l;ii
~ ~ i~
~ (") am
~ > -'!j
~ ~8
c; \l
~
o
'" '"
~ ~
~ ~
:~ ~ ~
.! ~ ;
~
~
t.J I\) NI\Jt.Jt.)
Q) Ql ~O:)(lO~
~ ~ ti~~U1
i: i: i:i:i:3I:
):10 )> >>>>
Z Z zzzz
!!1 !!1 !!1!!1!!1!!1
'" '" '"
> > >
z z z
!!1 !!1 !!1
~
;j
o
" "
.. ~
!:l __
z
\/
m
'"
~
~
8
~ ~ ~
o !::t !:i
~ 8 8
Sl
o
'"
"
..
:1
..... (,0) ~
~ & ~
m '" '"
'" > >
~ z z
~ ~ ~
~
'"
>
z
!!1
....
m mmmm m m
(") -l -l-l-l-l -l -l m (")
(') 0000 0 (")
.... m ....
o
o
'"
'"
go08
..
o
i?l
'"
"
'W
iO
"
.~
o
w
w.....wc.>
...(,0)...........
~~~~
i:i:i:!I:
>)00>>
ZZZZ
!!1!!1!!1!!1
~!'J
"i?l
"''''
>>
zz
!!1!!1
'"
"
:~
..
.~
"
8
'"
:~
~
"
'8
o
mmmm
m....
....
""
....
U
"''''
>>
zz
!!1!!1
mm
........
00
o
o
o 0 0 ooo~ go SlS
~ e t1 ~ ~
~ .~ .~:g:g.~ -8 "8 :g :g
~ g
~ ~
~ ,\/
~
~ ~
:il :;;
ffi ::;
(ij
~ >
~
~ ~8 ~
2l \l~ ~
x !5ii\ ;=
,~ i5~ ~
2 ~" :E
S; i!!~ ,~
;. Oz ~
< (J)CIl Z
~ i ~
\l ~ $
~ z ~
~ a <0
I\J ~ ~
.0 --
o
>
f8
Ii
~
Q
J
'"
~
'"
m
;;:
~
~
~ ~ ~
m m ~
.cD .en i:
~ f' -u
'- ~ f!.
~ l< ~
~ ~ ~
go go
'" '"
?O ?O
;; ;;
r- r-
r- r-
& & "
:I: :I: 0
~ ~ ~
,!il ~ '!
o ~ ~
E ~ 5
~ < ~
~ ~ ~
\l \l
\l
~
~
o
~ ~
'" '"
o ~
?--c;
s ~ S ~~~~
~ !:~ ~
.~ ,g -~r8 "8
m
~
'"
C
rn
~
riI
~
go
>
ii
;:I $j m
:0 Ci
~ ! I
8 8 iii
~ ~
'" '"
~ z
:;: ~
~
z
>
'"
fD 1J"1JO
~ QQo(j
! ~~~
,'" ;;;iil-
.... &:!jo
2 "" '"
~ 'g ~
> in
< z Ei
~ ~ 8
\l ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ s:
'" --
o '"
~ >
z ill
'" ;=
,.... S;
~ .~
~ 2
~ ~
<
; ~
~ \l
~
~
o
~ z~
C n
! ~~
1: z"
> ~i:
~ \/!::
~ ~:il
~ \/ffi
~ oS
~~
'" !5~
!;(
:il
ffi
!!l
>
~
'"
..
--
'"
~
;=
S;
:E
,~
o
:I:
C
S;
<
~
\l
'"
iO
"
~
'"
J
'"
~
'"
m
;;:
I!!
'"
~
~ ~
'i ~
~ ~
m m
r- r-
"
- ~
go '"
~ ~
~ ~
ill '"
~ 1;
:I:
>
,8
'"
>
"1
~
:il
"
o
~
~
2
C
S;
<
~
o
>
'"
~
~ ~ @8
~ < S;Z
~;= O~
_0 :::tJi:
m>
~ j9 ~~
~ ~ ~~
\l ,~ ~
'" z
~ \l "
(Xl co ~
~ .0
" 0
>
'"
!:l
o
--
'"
"
!:l
~
!:l
--
8
"
el
o
'"
>
z
!!1
m
....
o
..
o
Rl
!:l
"
g
o
1;
z
"
..
"
o
'"
>
z
!!1
~
ill
!!I
Ii
m
m
....
o
c
::I
r-
..
r-....
n
:g!
~ d
8 -4~
'"
o
3:
;!;:
z
!!1
;:0
m
!!l
c:
z
o
m
i!l
o
c:
z
o
c:
~
~
:;!
o
~
;:0
o
.~
"ll
::c
lJj
m
~
'"
!l!
iil
ill
'"
~
m
'"
'"
:I:
'ii
~
!II
..
~
m
=
~
m
>!
..
!;
"
ill
..
RES:)__'-l:;r~ r~: ~:: ~ 77
RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA V!ST A
ESTABLISHING UN:>ERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 126 ALONG
MAIN STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD TO THIRD AVENUE
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALLOCATION FUNDS TO
SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 18141, a public hearing was called for 6:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, the 9th day of January, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the City of Chuta Vista
at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety or welfare
requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the
underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar.
or associated service within that certain area of the City more particularly described as
follows:
All that property lying along Main Street irom Industrial Boulevard to Third Avenue and
enclosed within the boundary as shown on the plat anached hereto as Exhibit A of
subject Underground Utility Distri:::.
and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the
manner and for the time required by law. and
WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held, and all persons interested
have been given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby finds and determines that the public health, safety and welfare requires the removal
of poles, overhead wires and associated structures, and the underground installation of wires
and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated services, the
above-described area is hereby declared an Underground Utility District, and is designated as
such in the City of Chula Vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein
by reference is a map delineating the boundaries of said District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall, by subsequent resolution, fix
the date on which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service,
and does hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric,
communication or similar associated service within said Underground Utility District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to notify all
affected utilities and all persons owning real property within said Underground Utility District
of the adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of said adoption. Said City
Clerk shall further notify said property owners of the necessity that, if they or any person
occupying such property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or other
similar or associated service, they, or such occu..ant shall, by the date fixed in a subsequenL..
? ~/tJ
Resolutlo:1 18177
::>age 2
resolution provide all necessary facility cnanges on the,r premises so as to receive such
service from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to the
applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California as of the date of adoption of this
resolution. Such notification shall be made by mailing a copy of this resolution to affected
property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utility
companies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the Underground
Utility District herein created is in the general public interest for the following reasons:
1. Main Street is a major east/west thoroughfare connecting 1-5 and 1-805 in the
southern portion of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will
contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street.
2. Main Street is in the General Plan's Circulation Element as a four-lane major
street.
3. Undergrounding has been completed on Main Street east of Third Avenue and
west of Industrial Boulevard. thus making the proposed district a link between two
undergrounded sections.
4. The proposed widening and construction of street improvements in Main Street
between Industrial Boulevard and Fourth Avenu.:. significantly increased the ranking of
the subject section in the City's adopted utility conversion program, thus making it a
priority project. The first phase of this project is in the City's CIP budget as Project
ST-961; Main Street - Industrial to Broadway to be constructed in FY 1997-98.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the use of
approximately 1.5 million dollars in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal,
undergrounding overhead facilities, and private property conversion reo bursements.
Presented by
d as to for
/~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
7-//
0 0
::> ;::,
-l ::>
m ~
Z
CD
.- -<
.-
-
0 ~
w
- L
CD
tl'I
~
3:
:>
Z
en
""'"
:tl
m
m
""'"
::l
o
c:
z
C
::>
;::,
-<
-
Z ~
g ;::,
en!2-o
""",CIl;::,
:c-lO
-;::'-0
:>00
,...-len
m
cgZC
,...0
<. c:
O"'-l
",,-
. en t:
-l
""'" -<
o c:
z
C
m
::::I
C)
~
o
c:
z
C
Z
C)
""'"
:I:
-
:tl
o
:>
<
m
Z
c=
m
3:
:::-
-0
ExhibIt A (page 1 of 2)
HOLLISTER STREET
CH o' Sa" Oi. e
en, 0' C,,"'. Via,.
MTDB RIGHT
~c
:D-
o'"
~-I
o:!il
",n
m-l
c.."
c>
-:D
"'n
-1m
:!ill'""
nz
-Ie::
C>~
Oc>
e::m
z:::l
0
>
:::l
-<
:~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n .
.
.
- .
.
.
""'l .
.
-
"'< -
.
-
.
-
C .
.
.
." -
-
-
n
:t
c::::
r-
:t:.
<:::
-
tf)
""'l
:t:.
Z'
\.-
NO sc.u.t
I ' ,
, I' .
i
I: I
JACOUA STREET 50'-
: 1 I i
I I : I. :
-
= @
E
=
=
@
..,
)> ~
<:
:c
m
-
- @
-
:c -
-
-
-
m -
-
: (ID
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ~
.
t
.
.
)
?~/2 J
ResolutIon 18177
Page 3
INDUSTRIAL BL YD.
U. U. 01$1. No. 119
OF WAY
....
-
~
~
.
02
-
-
.
100' :
.
-
.
.
~
.
.
~ I
l"'-"'"'!J
- -
- -
@
: '-~
;... ~~
0':
~ e :@)
:. :I
....
.
- .
z €IE
.
en .
.
-l .
.
.
= .
.
m .
m .
.
.
.
......11.
-
. 02=
;6
1 \ .r:...........
-S1'REET
.
~
l
..... O'O~
",O'lj
). 'lj J.--
m
X
Z
-
cg
:::j
-
:>
:
en
;:
CD
CD
...
....
o
-
N
Resolution 18177
Page 4
~ s.....\
C',
"3
N
U-Bu-V~
inNiA" OHIH~ ,,~.. ""-1
-
CD
CD
~
en
~..
=jz
>
e:
<:(
c
e:Z
w;:,
alO
::lEal
;:,....
Zu
..J-
we:
uti;
-----. ~ 5
~c
....w
0( U (I)
,'ll"" c:~
,,0"" ~ lE
~ c~
-
.
@i
:
.
~~
.
.
: 1S
: .
i
:-.15
:t=\
i\el
:
J.iillJ.S
I
I
I
inNliAY
1
j,
,
Ii
I,
-"
~i
J
,
~ -
: 'A'" IUP
..,
~
CO -,
-
:I: I
X ,
w ,
"
1"--
@ z
- (;)
@ <:(
:E
=:ti
:
i
:
.
.
!
7-/;1.
~
l-
t')
-
:::>
~
-'
- ~
-
-
- -
-
- ....
- to)
-
-
J -
-
- l.I..
-
-
I - c
0
0
0
0
, 0
1 0 ~
0
0
0 ....
0
0
0 -
0
- to)
-
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
@=
I - =
0
w
::l
Z
w
>
<t
C
a:
-
:t:
....
o
> ~
~
- c:l .
::!NC
....->
~.
0..J
oZCO
w
en~..J
0(.)<1:
~e-
o~a:
c:U)~
c..-CI)
O::l
c: C
~ Z
-
o
Z
is
Z
~
o
c:
o
c:
w
o
Z
~
c..
c:t
~
>
a:
c:t
o
Z
~
o
a:l
~
w
a:
~
CI)
z
C3:
:E
LO
.., Cl)
-
::E M
0
-
....
> ....
a:l
Z W
~
4: i-
a: c:t
0 0
Resolution 18177
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 9th day of January, 1996, by the following vote.
AYES.
Councilmembers:
Moot, Rindone, Horton
NA YES:
Council members:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Padilla
ABSTAIN:
Council members:
Alevy
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 18177 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 9th day of January,
1996,
Executed this 9th day of January, 1996.
7--/1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
~
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution Accepting bids and awarding three contracts for
"Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase VIII and IX Projects in the City of Chula
Vista, CA (SW-900, SW-2I 5)"; and authorizing the Director of Public Works
to negotiate a change order for Council approval to utilize the remaining
:::t::::l:::::sfor;Jhabilitation of additional sewer mains
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 1~D1'
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No~
At 2:00 p.m. on July 21,1999 in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director
of Public Works received sealed bids for "Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase VIII and IX in the City of
Chula Vista, CA (SW-900, SW-215)." The work to be done includes excavation and grading,
asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, trench shoring, traffic control, installation of8"
sewer mains, lining existing sewers using folded PVC liner pipe, rehabilitation of existing manholes,
construction of new manhole, and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding three contracts for "Sewer
Rehabilitation - Phase VIII and IX Projects in the City ofChula Vista, CA (SW-900, SW-215)":
1. Contract Bid Proposal 'A' - Fill Dirt, Inc. in the amount of$333,662;
2. Contract Bid Proposal 'B' - Jimenez Inc. in the amount of$15,000;
3. Contract Bid Proposal 'C' -lnsituform Technologies, Inc. in the amount of$11O,800;
And authorizing the Director of Public Works to negotiate a change order for Council approval to
utilize the remaining funds within this project for the rehabilitation of additional sewer mains.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In the Fiscal Years 1997-98 and 1998-99 Capital Improvement Programs, funds were included for
sewer rehabilitation work. Subsequently, staff identified sewer mains that had cracked, broken, or
collapsed pipe sections which need to be replaced, existing sewer manholes that needed to be lined
and replaced and the construction of new sewer manholes for maintenance purposes. In Fiscal Year
1997-98, the Phase VIII Sewer Rehabilitation Project was not advertised due to insufficient amount
of work. Therefore, in Fiscal Year 1998-99, the Phase VIII Project funds was combined with the
Phase IX Project funds.
The sewer rehabilitation was separated into three contracts for ease of administering the projects,
bidding purposes and enabling speciality contractors to bid the project(s) as prime contractors. This
?;,- /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
decision was reached with the intention that it would allow the City to receive the most competitive
bids as possible.
Sewer Main Rehabilitation
The project includes thirteen (13) locations in which the entire sewer main between two manholes
needed to be replaced or lined. In addition to the standard open trench method for replacing the
sewer (i.e. digging up the street and replacing the existing sewers), staff included in the bid
document the following in-site repair alternatives:
1) Installation of8" folded PVC pipe
The folded PVC pipe is heated with steam and inserted in the existing sewer main and pulled
through the sewer from manhole to manhole. The folded pipe is pressed against the inside wall of
the sewer main by an expansion device which is also heated by steam. Folded PVC pipe is
manufactured from identical material, and conforms to the same material as typical PVC pipe. This
repair alternative was utilized for Phases IV and VI for the lining several of the sewer mains. The
locations of these mains are: 1) 'D' Street east of Third Avenue (approximate length 631 linear feet);
2) Third Avenue south of 'D' Street (approximate length 293 linear feet); 3) 'D' Street west of
Second Avenue (approximate length 346 linear feet); and 4) Casselman Street east of Broadway
(approximate length 267 linear feet). Staff is satisfied with the results.
2) Installation of Cured In-Place Liner Pipe
This method utilizes the installation of an epoxy or polyester resin cured in-place liner pipe. This
is also inserted into the existing sewer and uses hot water under pressure to affix the liner against the
inner wall of the sewer main. The epoxy or resin within the liner cures and becomes molded to the
insides of the existing pipe. Part of the City's rehabilitation job for Phase VI utilized this method
for lining 220 linear feet between 'E' Street and Las Flores Drive and staff is satisfied with the
results.
3) Installation of 8" deformed HDPE Sewer Pipe
The V-liner pipe is similar in nature to the Nu Pipe listed above.
4) Installation of Spiral Wound PVC Sewer Pipe
This method utilizes a machine spiral wound PVC liner consisting of a continuous PVC profile strip.
The PVC profile strip is wound directly into the existing sewer or storm drain pipe from an existing
manhole without trench excavation.
Any of the four methods listed above or the standard open trench method was felt to be acceptable
by staff.
O'",.-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation
The project includes seventeen (17) sewer manholes that need to be re-lined in order to prevent
further corrosion due to hydrogen sulfide gases in the sewer main. Eight (8) new sewer manholes
need to be constructed in order to provide safe and proper maintenance to the sewer main. In
addition, several sewer manhole rings and covers and sewer laterals need replacement and repair.
Staff included in the bid document the following three (3) in-site repair alternatives believed to be
acceptable for sewer manhole rehabilitation:
1) Installation ofPVC liner
This methods involves pressure cleaning of all surfaces within the manhole, grouting of pipes, leaks
and channel bottoms prior to installation ofPVC liner to remove all sulfide attacked concrete. An
epoxy resin is applied to the clean inner surface of the manhole. The epoxy resin will ensure that
there is a solid bond between the existing manhole and the new liner system.
2) Spray on coating
This method involves spraying on a polyurethane coating to a prepared manhole surface. The
manhole is pressured cleaned to remove all sulfide attacked concrete to produce a sound base of hard
concrete. If there is infiltration, chemical grouting is applied to ensure a watertight manhole. The
polyurethane is then sprayed on to the prepared inner surface of the manhole to the required
thickness. The City's rehabilitation job for Phases IV and VI utilized this method for lining four
manholes. The product has been satisfactory to date.
3) Fiberglass Manhole
This method involves the installation of fiberglass manholes that are corrosion resistant to all sewer
and wastewater gases. The fiberglass manholes are one solid piece and will prevent ground water
infiltration. The locations that were chosen to use these manholes are highly corrosive and below
the ground watertable, since they are located in the 'J" Street Marina.
Contract Bid Proposal' A' consists of the following work: spot repairs of cracked 8-inch sewer
mains, sewer lateral re-connections, replacement and rehabilitation of deteriorated sewer manholes,
and replacement of sewer manholes covers. Contract Bid Proposal 'A' was received from the
following contractors:
Contractor
Bid Amount 'A'
1. Fill Dirt, Inc. - Escondido, CA $333,662.00
2. Jimenez Inc. - Chula Vista, CA $387,895.00
Contract Bid Proposal 'B' consists of the following work: construction of a sewer manhole and
replacement of 8-inch sewer mains. Contract Bid Proposal 'B' was received from the following
contractors:
'?''';s
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
Contractor Bid Amount 'B'
1. Jimenez Inc. - Chula Vista, CA $15,000.00
2. Fill Dirt, Inc. - Escondido, CA $25,335.00
Contract Bid Proposal 'c' consists of the following work: Rehabilitation of sewer mains without
replacing the damaged pipe or trenching the street from sewer manhole to manhole. The sewer
mains to be rehabilitated will utilize the method described above, Sewer Main Rehabilitation -
Installation of8-inch folded PVC pipe. Contract Bid Proposal 'c' was received from the following
contractors:
Contractor Bid Amount 'c'
1. Insituform Technologies, Inc. - Sante Fe Springs, CA $110,800.00
2. Sancon Engineering II, Inc. - Huntington Beach, CA $120,893.00
3 Preussag Pipe Rehabilitation, Inc. - Santa Ana, CA $126,326.25
4. Fill Dirt, Inc. - Escondido, CA $137,200.00
4. Jimenez Inc. - Chula Vista, CA $187,135.00
The bid from Fill Dirt, Inc. for Contract Bid Proposal 'A' is above the Engineer's estimate of
$323,540 by $10,122.00 or 3.1%. Fill Dirt, Inc., formerly known as Roberts Engineering, has
previously done sewer and storm drain work for the City. Their work has been satisfactory.
The bid from Jimenez Inc. for Contract Bid Proposal 'B' is below the Engineer's revised estimate
of$30,000 by $15,000 or 50%. Jimenez Inc. has previously performed work for the City and their
work has been satisfactory. Contract Bid Proposal 'B' was bid separately in order to determine the
exact cost for correcting a problem that was discovered by the City. The developer of the Bella
Navona Subdivision located on East' J' Street was responsible for the correcting the problem. The
developer estimated the correction work (realignment of a portion of the sewer main to remove an
angle that had been installed in the sewer main by a previous developer about 10 year ago and
construction of a new sewer manhole) to cost about $40,000. Resolution No. 19384 appropriated
this amount from the Sewerage Facilities Replacement Fund for the correction of the problem.
Based on similar types of projects recently constructed in the City, the cost estimate was revised to
$30,000. By including this work in the FY 98-99 Sewer Rehabilitation Program, it was staff's
opinion that it would yield lower bids instead of having the developer's contractor do the work.
The bid from Insituform Technologies, Inc. for Contract Bid Proposal 'c' is below the Engineer's
estimate of $232,400 by $121,600 or 52.3 %. Insituform Technologies, Inc. has previously
performed work for the City and their work has been satisfactory The cost estimate for Bid
Proposal 'c' was based on similar type of work that was previously done in the City utilizing the
~Y>7
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
trenchless technology ofInsituform. By allowing several types oftrenchless construction methods
to be utilized for the rehabilitation of sewer mains from sewer manhole to sewer manhole, the City
received favorable bids. All four processes described above for Sewer Main Rehabilitation, were
bid for this proposal. Other factors that may have attributed to the low bid versus the Engineer's
estimate, is that all the sewer mains to be rehabilitated in Bid Proposal 'C' were within the same
vicinity, allowing less setup time and the sewer mains did not lie in high volume traffic areas that
would have otherwise required extensive traffic control.
Because this project combines the funding from two sewer rehabilitation annual programs and we
obtained favorable bids, there will be about $200,000 in remaining funds left from previous year's
budgeted amounts. It is recommended that we use the balance of the Phases VIII and IX Projects
to rehabilitate additional sewer mains via a change order to the contract. The contract documents
allow the City to increase the amount of work to be done to rehabilitate additional sewer mains.
However, due to changes in the location, type and extent of the additional work shown on Exhibit
'A', we would like to negotiate change orders for each site with the three Contractors. Once we have
negotiated the best cost for this work, we shall return to Council for approval of the change order(s)
and authorization to proceed.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is Sewer Funds. No prevailing wage requirements were
necessary as part of the bid documents. No special minority or women owned business requirements
were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid
through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications.
Disclosure Statement
Attached are Exhibits B, C, and D showing each of the contractor's disclosure statement.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt
under Class 1, Section 15301 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations
of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures).
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amounts
1 Bid Proposal 'A' $333,662.00
2. Bid Proposal 'B' 15,000.00
3. Bid Proposal 'c' 110,800.00
B. Contingencies (approximately 10%) 45,000.00
C. Change Order Work 202,390.45
D. Staff Costs (construction, inspection, and design) 45,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $751,852.45
g-,- S--
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 8/10/99
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation - SW900 Sewer $511,244.26
Funds, Fiscal Year 1997-98
B. Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation - SW215 Sewer 240,508.19
Funds, Fiscal Year 1998-99
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $751,852.45
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funding used for this project will come from the Sewer Facilities Maintenance
Funds. Upon completion of the project, the sewer mains and manholes will require routine City
maintenance involving cleaning of the sewer on a periodic basis.
Exhibit A - Table of Additional Work
Exhibit B - Fill Dirt, Inc. Disclosure Statement
Exhibit C - Jimenez Inc. Disclosure Statement
Exhibit D - Insituform Technologies, Inc. Disclosure Statement
H:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAISW900SW2.BVH.WPD
File No: 0735-10-SW215-6
?[/tf,
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THREE
CONTRACTS FOR "SEWER REHABILITATION - PHASE
VIII AND IX PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CA. (SW-215)"; AND AUTHORIZING THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO NEGOTIATE A CHANGE
ORDER FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TO UTILIZE ANY
REMAINING FUNDS WITHIN THIS PROJECT FOR THE
REHABILITATION OF ADDITIONAL SEWER MAINS
WHEREAS, at 2 00 p.m. on July 21, 1999 in Conference Room
2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received the following sealed bids for "Sewer Rehabilitation -
Phase VIII and IX in the City of Chula vista, CA (SW-900, SW-215):
Contract Bid Proposal 'A' consists of the following work: spot
repa~rs of cracked 8-inch sewer mains, sewer lateral re-
connections, replacement and rehabilitation of deteriorated sewer
manholes, and replacement of sewer manholes covers. Contract Bid
proposal 'A' was received from the following contractors:
Contractor Bid Amount 'A'
1. Fill Dirt, Inc - Escondido, CA $333,662.00
2 Jimenez Inc. - Chula Vista, CA $387,895 00
Contract Bid Proposal 'B' consists of the following work:
construction of a sewer manhole and replacement of 8-inch sewer
mains. This project was bid separately in order to determine the
exact cost for correcting a problem that was completed by the
developer. Contract Bid Proposal 'B' was received from the
following contractors:
Contractor Bid Amount 'B'
1. Jimenez Inc - Chula vista, CA $15,000.00
2. Fill Dirt, Inc. - Escondido, CA $25,335.00
Contract Bid Proposal 'C' consists of the following work:
Rehabilitation of sewer mains without replacing the damaged pipe or
trenching the street from sewer manhole to manhole. The sewer
mains to be rehabilitated will utilize the method described above,
Sewer Main Rehabilitation -Installation of 8-inch folded PVC pipe.
Contract Bid proposal 'C' was received from the following
contractors:
1
~~?
Contractor Bid Amount 'c'
1. Insituform Technologies, Inc - $110,800.00
Santa Fe Springs, CA
2 Sancon Engineering II, Inc. - $120,893.00
Huntington Beach, CA
3. preussag pipe Rehabilitation, Inc. $126,326 25
- Santa Ana, CA
4. Fill Dirt, Inc. - Escondido, CA $137,200.00
4. Jimenez Inc. - Chula vista, CA $187,135.00
WHEREAS, the bid from Fill Dirt, Inc. for Contract Bid
Proposal 'A' is above the Engineer's estimate of $323,540 by
$10,122.00 or 3.1% and Fill Dirt, Inc., formerly known as Roberts
Engineering, has previously done sewer and storm drain work for the
city which has been satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, The bid from Jimenez Inc. for Contract Bid
Proposal 'B' is below the Engineer's estimate of $30,000 by $15,000
or 50% and Jimenez Inc. has previously performed work for the City
which has been satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, the bid from Insituform Technologies, Inc for
Contract Bid Proposal 'C' is below the Engineer's estimate of
$232,400 by $121,600 or 52.3 % and Insituform Technologies, Inc.
has previously performed work for the City which has been
satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, because this project combines funding from two
sewer rehabilitation annual programs and obtaining favorable bids,
there will be about $200,000 in remaining funds left from previous
year's budgeted amounts; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends using the balance of the Phases
VIII and IX Projects to rehabilitate additional sewer mains via a
change order to the contract because the contract allows the City
to increase the amount of work to be done to rehabilitate
additional sewer mains; and
WHEREAS, the additional sewer mains to be rehabilitated
are shown on Exhibit 'A' and at the conclusion of the work, staff
will report to council how the remaining monies were spent; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Sewer
Funds and no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of
the bid documents and no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, however,
2
8'>~
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class 1,
Section 15301 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public
Structures) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
accept bids and award three contracts for "Sewer Rehabilitation -
Phases VIII and IX Projects in the City of Chula vista, CA (SW-900-
215) as follows:
Contract Bid Proposal 'A' - Fill Dirt, Inc. in the amount
of $333,662.
Contract Bid Proposal 'B' - Jimenez Inc. in the amount of
$15,000.
Contract Bid Proposal 'c' - Insituform Technologies, Inc
in the amount of $110,800
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contracts on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works
is hereby authorized to negotiate a change order to utilize any
remaining funds within this project for the rehabilitation of
additional sewer mains shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Attorney
H:\home\attorney\reso\sewrehab.bid
3
o~9
en
..J
~
W
I-
5
w
enCl
:;i~
Oen
::t:0
1-0::
III
=
W
w Cl
..J ~
III
5 0
0
~ ll..
=
cC ::i
w
0:: l-
ll.
cC w
en 0
0 w
Z
::l ..J
ll.. 00
..J 1-3E
cC
Z :;i
0
o i= w
<C-
o 0 ::E..J
1-0 00
-cC o::::t:
!!!ll.. ll..Z
J:- :;i
)(0
w~
::J
w
0::
w
III
0
l-
I- Z
Z 0
w i=
::E ~
Cl
w 0
en ..J
0:: I-
~ Z
w
::E
en Cl
w
en
0::
~
en
j::
w
w
0::
Iii
c:i
Z
1-.
50
ll.Z
til til ~ til
'" '" ::J '"
::J ::J Q. ..:!
"I .... Q. C'. Q. ~ '<t ~
~ ~ ~ '" 0-
e ~
!e. :::. !e.
'" LO '<t '"
~ ~
'" '" LO LO '<t LO '" '" LO LO LO
tl tl III III tl tl tl '1 III ..., III
, , , , , , , , , ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LO ~ '" '" LO 0 0 '" '" 0'"
"I '" '" '" "I ~ '" '" LO ~'"
'" "I "I '" '" ~ "I '" "'~
LO LO ~....
.... '" cO .... '" ~ '" '" LO
~
'<t LO '" '" LO ~ '" ~ "I ~~
~ LO ~ LO '" '" '" '"
.... '" '" 0 '" '" '" "'0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'"
'" cC ~ '" ~ LO LO '<t '" ....'"
.... .... "I 0 ~ "I ~'<t
'" 0 '" '" '" .... 0 LO "'''I
~ .... ~ ~ '" '" ~ "I ~ ~LO
~
-
Ol
l!!
en
Ol <:: [u
::J 0 .e
<:: U
~ "I
Ol "I Ol
~ "I ::J
- "0 <::
0 S <:: ~
.5 .5 '" ~
::!: .... ~ '" '" >- ~
"I ~ ~ Ol
LO .... ~ "I "I i 1)
"I '" LO .e
"I "I en i! '" <:: "I
.e .e .e '<t Ol .e ~ '" (5
[u Ol '" E!
'" Ol .e .e ~ ~ 0
.... Ol ~ @) '" III "I
"I ::J :i i! ~ .... ai "I
<:: "E "I ~ .e ai
ai Ol Ol ai ai ai ai
::J ~ E ::J U 0 ::J
<:: I- <:: ::J ::J ::J ::J '" <::
Ol Ol Ol <:: <:: <:: <:: '" LO ~
~ <:: l ~ Ol Ol Ol Ol .>t: ....
B- ~ ~ ~ ~ '" Ol
Ol '" 0 l!! ~
cC 'C - - - "0 ~
<:: en 0 0 0 <:: en
"is. '" <:: <:: <:: <:: <:: ~
<( "I ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (5
"I --'
~ "I '" '<t LO '" .... '" '" o~
~~
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 00
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'''I
....
'"
'"
"I
Qj
'"
~
o
ll..
~
l-
S
'"
E
'x
E!
0-
0-
cC
f5"-; tJ
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownershi~ or fmancial interests, paymen\S, ~t:M~~ ~ '~'Ilbns, on
all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
Ust the names of all persons having a fmancial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
None
-
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
None
3. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
None
4 Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No U If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter
Victor N. Roberts
Date:
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No Elf yes, state which Council members(s):
· · · (NOTE: Attacbed additiOnal"': ;. !!!7~s.ry · · .. _
7/?1/9Q ~~~
Signature of Contractor/Applicant
Fill Dirt, Inc. DBA Roberts Engineering
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant Con t r act 0 r S
Victor N. Roberts, President
~ is defined OJ: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint ventUre, OJsociaJion, social club, jralemal organizarion, corporation,
estale, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision,
or any other group or combilUltion acting OJ a unit.
6.
21>/1
25
~x~,bit 't--I
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or fInancial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on
all matters whicb will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
_. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier
.:rt1JJI~ -JI WV'n'p;z",
2.
If any person. identifIed pursuant to {I) above is a corporation or parmership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the parmership.
SlWl.e.... J"1VV1@..,,;....'1...
3.
If any person. identifIed pursuant to (1) above is non-profIt organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profIt organization or as trustee or benefIciary or trustor of the trust.
/'
/
/'
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No':l.. If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter
.
JI'1JJI~~ j'ItV1P;1P"2-
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, ~thJ aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ NoA, If yes, state which Council members(s):
. · . (NOTE: Attached additional pages as necessary) · · ·
~~ \)~',
i rure of Contractorl APplican;::>
0lU) l-e:r J( WI U'll" L
Print or type name of Contractorl Applicant
Date:
&lHllI is defined as: "Any individual, jirm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternd organization, corporation,
atate, trust. receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision,
or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
<6/) t<.
25
'WI
Ex0ibd- 'D' (/ o-t'3)
TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
. are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on
J matters which will require discretiollllIY action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
(""/he following information must be disclosed:
(. I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
I e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
PLdrS\? ~ ~-(c;tj '9t(j/fl?
2. If any person- identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
~
3.
If any person- identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~
c
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with an~ member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No A If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this maner.
i1.~ S,.;-y ~ Sti~~
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in t1Je aggregate, contributed more than'$l,OOO to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No L If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date:
7 Juhrr
'-.,
PoNS/) tdJtn:r
. t or type name of Contractor! Applicant
Affaml is deJlned as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venlUn, sac/alion, sacloJ club, fraternal organizaJion, corporalion,
"'state, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and Q1l}' other county, city or count ,city municipality, district, or other political subdivision,
or Q1l}' other group or combinaJion acting as a unit.
"'.1".."
"'t.""''''~
~;...I~.:;,;..,:< .:.
;~>t\1';" '~.'\'
" ,;-.",.,
8'"" J J
25
~~'.'...':!Jl".;"
", ",-:>~:~r ~
. .
~;b,t- lp' [:;. of13)
Insituform@ Technologies, Inc.
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Insituform Technologies. Inc. Is a publicly owned company Incorporated In the state of Delaware
Officers of Insituform Technoloaies. Inc.
Name
Position
Anthony Hooper
Chairman, President & CEO
William A. Martin
Sr. Vice President & CFO
Robert L Kelley
V. P., General Counsel & Assistant Secretary
Carroll W. Slusher
Divisional Vice President
Lynn Osborn
Divisional Vice President
Alfonso Lopez
Regional Vice President
James A. Walters
Regional Vice President
John Heisler
Contracting & Attesting Officer
Richard Julio'
Contracting & Attesting Officer
and Responsible Managing
Employee (RME)
Tony Henrich
Contracting & Attesting Officer
Jennifer Allen
Contracting & Attesting Officer
Jay Boatwright
Contracting & Attesting Officer
~/i
,\;'j J.,!
/'
Sdn;6;t fOI
!GL.i'Ju.. J't"i lfJVO
[3 oP ~)
'R~CE/VED MAR 0 S 1999
r. UU,
RECEIVED MAY 1 7 1999
INSlTIlFORM TECHNOLOGIEs, INC.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBy CERTIFY that r am the duly elecll:d BIld qualified Alsistaot Secretary of
l':n~itufotTll Technologies, IDe., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation,? qualified as II (or=ign
corporation to cla busia~, iUnOnc oebell!, in the Sl:Iles of California, ANona, and Nl!'r.Ida, and
lInd I am the :keeper of the ~cord5 of the Corporatiau. .
r FURTHER CERTIFY thaI the foUowil!g 1:1 a !me and correct excerpt from th!l by-laws
of the Corporation adopted by the Board of Directors of the corporation al a meeting duly called
and held and at which a quorum was presenl:
'I'h<!! office" of the corporation shall be a chainnan of the board, a vice
chairman of lbe board, a pn:ident, one or more senior vice prnidencs,
aile or more me presidencs, a ~ecretary BIld a lr~r, each of whom
shall be eleell:d by the c!ireClO13. Such other officers lIl1<;l assilitant
officers"lS Illay be deemed lllIcessary may be elected by or appOinlcd by
the directors, In addition, the pre:sident may from time lO time appoin\
.such officers of aperatiIig divisions, and such contracting and alle~ting
officers, of the COrporadoll as be may deem proper, who sball have such
authoritY, subject to the control of the dlreclolS, as the pre:sidenl may
from time lO lime prncribe.
r FURTHER CERTIFY that the Presidenl of lbe Corporation bllO, pursuanl to the above
authoritY, appointed (i) Alfonso Lope; and lames A. Wallcl'$ as Regiollal Vico Presidents of tbc
Corporation, (li) canon W. Slusher as Vice President ~ NonhAmerica and LynIl Osborn as
Di~ional Vice PresideIlt of the Corporadon and ('iiI) 10hn Heisler, Tony Henrich, Rich lulio,
lennifer Allen lIlld Jay Boatwright have each been duly appointed by the President of the
Corporation a.s a ConlIllcting aIld Allesling Officer of the Corporation, and each of the foregoing
hllve been fully authorized by the PresidCIlt of lbe Corporatiou "to certify and attest the signature
of any Officer of !be Corporation and empowered 10 enter into and bind the COrporation to
perform pipeline rehabilitation activilie:s of the corporation lIlld all malten related thereto,
including the rnamll:lI8lICO of onD or IllOre offices IIIld facilities of the Corporation" and further
each have been granted by the ?resident of the Corporation "(aU authoritY to execute U1d deliver
documents all behalf of the CorporatioIl aIld to take such other action as is or may be nec&asary
and appropriate to carry out the project.!, activities 8Ild work of the Corporation."
o IN WITNEsS ~OF, r have herelll1to aff'=d my l\lIIIIIl as f'ssistant Secretacy, this
.::th dllyof 1lA,...1. . 1999
. .
. -~:-::-~---:-::-. - ~ .,.--- ...
Insituform Technologies, lnc.
......
JANET D. FRlTZSCHB
Notary Public - Notary Seal
STATE OF MISSOUlU
SL Louis CouIIey
I My Commission Expires: Aug. 6, 2002
CCTtCffloerssw3:299
~J..PJ~
'~t;9'
D---/~
-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .2
Meeting Date 8/10/99
ITEM TITLE: Report Regarding Request from the San Diego County Grand Jury for a
Response to Recommendations on the Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~9f' (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NolO
On May 24, 1999 the San Diego County Grand Jury issued a report regarding implementation of
the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) The City of Chula Vista, as well as the
County and other member agencies of the MSCP planning program, were directed to respond to
Grand Jury recommendations contained within the report within 90 days of its issuance by the
Superior Court. A response has been prepared by Staff and Council is being asked to authorize
the Mayor to sign correspondence transmitting the Council's response to those
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached draft letter and
transmit it to the Superior Court.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On May 24, 1999, the San Diego Grand Jury issued a report entitled "hnplementation of the Multiple
Species Conservation Program." The San Diego County Superior Court directed that the City of
Chu1a Vista, as well as the County, six other cities and the Otay Water District respond within 90-
days. The report examines the progress of implementation of the MSCP, makes several findings
related to the topic, and provides a series of recommendations that the Grand Jury believes would
- if implemented - add to the success of the MSCP program. The following are the "Conclusions"
and "Recommendations" of the Grand Jury report, "hnplementation of the Multiple Species
Conservation Program", May 24, 1999
Conclusions
The MSCP is a comprehensive, pro-active, regional plan. Local leaders often point
to it as an example of the San Diego region's concern for the environment and as a
solution to certain environmental problems. The reality is that the MSCP is a
program which is at a critical juncture. If it is to be successfully implemented, it
9-/
Page 2 , Item _
Meeting Date 8/10/98
needs financial support from jurisdictions within San Diego County, particularly
from those which encompass the key portions of the habitat preserve.
Recommendations
99-97: The City of San Diego should honor its commitment to the MSCP and provide
a reliable and adequate funding source for the program in the 1999-2000 budget
year and beyond. The money budgeted should be enough to cover the cost of
acquiring the necessary land, based on a 30-year program.
99-98: The City of Chula Vista should fund the MSCP, if it is adopted, with a
reliable and adequate funding source. The money budgeted should be enough to
cover the cost of acquiring the necessary land, based on a 30-year program.
99-99: The Cities of EI Cajon, La Mesa, and Santee should fund the MSCP if
necessary as the plan is implemented. At the present time, it is not expected that this
funding will be necessary
99-100: The Cities ofChula Vista and Santee should bring their respective subarea
plans forward to their respective City Councils in an expeditious manner
99-101: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors,
the City Councils ofChula Vista, Poway, and Santee, and the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District should continue to work with state and federal governments
to ensure the success of the MSCP
99-102: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego Board of Supervisors, the City
Councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon, La Mesa, Poway, and
Santee, and the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District should identifY an
existing organization or create a new organization to determine an equitable means
of funding the long-term management of MSCP lands. This means of funding should
not be reliant on the proposed local regional funding source. 1t should be funds from
each participating jurisdiction based on acreage, population, and lor other criteria
which the jurisdictions identifY. In addition to determining the funding for
management of the land, participating jurisdictions should identifY an existing
organization or create a new organization for the allocation of management funds.
99-103: The City of San Diego, as the lead agency for the MSCP, should provide the
leadership for recommendation number 99-102.
9~oZ
Page 3 , Item _
Meeting Date 8/10/98
The California Penal Code, Section 9339(c), requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has
reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court. Chula Vista has been requested specifically to respond to Recommendations
numbered 99-98; 99-100 and 99-101. Responses to each recommendation must indicate whether
the City agrees or disagrees, "wholly or partially" with the finding. Each response must also report
on whether the recommendation has been implemented. If it has not been implemented, the response
must indicate if the recommended action requires further analysis prior to implementation and
provide a summary and timeline for such analysis, or the response must provide explanation as to
why the action will not be implemented ''because it is not warranted or is not reasonable."
The City of Chula Vista has been working toward adoption of a Subarea Plan for the implementation
of the South County MSCP for the past several years. To date, the County of San Diego, the Cities
of San Diego and Poway and the Otay Water District have adopted their respective Subarea Plans
to the MSCP. However, primarily as a result of key policy issues linked to the siting of a future
university campus in Otay Ranch, the City of Chula Vista has not yet completed or adopted its
Subarea Plan. It is expected that the City's MSCP Subarea Plan will be completed and adopted by
the end of this year. A Council workshop is scheduled for August 19, 1999 to discuss the City's
MSCP Subarea Plan.
The following are draft responses to the Grand Jury request for Council consideration. These
responses have been included in the attached draft letter (see Attachment 2). Because Chula Vista
is noted in Recommendation No. 98-102, staff has also included a response to this item.
Recommendation 99-98: The City ofChula Vista shouldfund the MSCP, ifit is adopted, with
a reliable and adequate funding source. The money budgeted should be enough to cover the cost
of acquiring the necessary land, based on a 30-year program.
The City of Chula Vista agrees with the finding that each participating MSCP jurisdiction should
incorporate measures into their respective Subarea Plans to insure that the preserve designed for the
MSCP will be assembled and dedicated into open space. Chula Vista is currently completing its
MSCP Subarea Plan. Several tools will be examined to ensure that the goals for a Chula Vista
MSCP Preserve are accomplished, including subdivision requirements, habitat mitigation program(s)
and potential local, state and federal funding of preserve land acquisition. The first Council
Workshop to discuss this issue is scheduled for August 19, 1999.
Recommendation 99-100: The Cities of Chula Vista and Santee should bring their respective
subarea plans forward to their respective City Councils in an expeditious manner
Page 4 , Item _
Meeting Date 8/10/98
Subarea Plan that will meet federal and State guidelines. Council hearing(s) on the Subarea Plan are
anticipated to occur before the end of this calendar year.
Recommendation 99-101: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors, the City Councils of Chula Vista, Poway, and Santee, and the Board of Directors of the
Otay Water District should continue to work with state and federal governments to ensure the
success of the MSCP
Chula Vista agrees that each participating local agency should continue to work with state and
federal governments to ensure the success of the MSCP. Our City is currently working with the state
and federal Wildlife Agencies, and will continue to do so.
Recommendation 99-102: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego Board of Supervisors, the
City Councils ofChula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, La Mesa, Poway, and Santee, and the
Board of Directors of the Otay Water District should identifY an existing organization or create a
new organization to determine an equitable means of jimding the long-term management of MSCP
lands. This means of fUnding should not be reliant on the proposed local regional fUnding source.
It should be fUnds from each participatingjurisdiction based on acreage, population, and lor other
criteria which the jurisdictions identifY. In addition to determining the fUnding for management of
the land, participating jurisdictions should identifY an existing organization or create a new
organization for the allocation of management funds.
The City of Chula Vista agrees that long-term MSCP preserve management must be equitably
funded. The City is participating in regional discussions related to long-term management planning.
Staffhas prepared a draft letter responding to the Grand Jury's Report and is requesting that Council
authorize the Mayor to sign. Council will be conducting a workshop on the City's approach to the
MSCP on August 19, 1999 at which many of the issues identified in the Grand Jury Report will be
further discussed. It is expected that the City will adopt its MSCP Subarea Plan by December.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff costs associated with the response to the Grand Jury's report will be
General Fund supported. Funding associated with the City's MSCP planning and/or commitments
will be addressed directly through processing of that program.
Attachments
1. Draft Letter to Superior Court
2. Grand Jury Report
(h:lhomelplanninglduanelgrandjuryal13)
7~~
A TTAc HMEJ/T /
August 2, 1999
Grand Jury
County of San Diego
Attn: Peter J. Direnza, Foreman
330 West Broadway, Suite 477
San Diego, CA 92101-3830
Subject:
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 Report: "Implementation of the
Multiple Species Conservation Program"
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista I respectfully submit the following
responses to the recommendations contained in the Grand Jury Report "Implementation of the
Multiple Species Conservation Program" per direction of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
The following paragraphs and responses only address those recommendations of the Report in which
the City of Chula Vista were directed to respond.
Recommendation 99-98: The City of Chula Vista should fund the MSCP, if it is adopted, with
a reliable and adequate funding source. The money budgeted should be enough to cover the cost
of acquiring the necessary land, based on a 30-year program.
The City of Chula Vista agrees with the finding that each participating MSCP jurisdiction should
incorporate measures into their respective Subarea Plans to insure that the preserve designed for the
MSCP will be assembled and dedicated into open space. Chula Vista is currently completing its
MSCP Subarea Plan. Several tools will be examined to ensure that the goals for a Chula Vista
MSCP Preserve are accomplished, including subdivision requirements, habitat mitigation program(s)
and potential local, state and federal funding of preserve land acquisition. The first Council
Workshop to discuss this issue is scheduled for August 19, 1999
Recommendation 99-100: The Cities of Chula Vista and Santee should bring their respective
subarea plans forward to their respective City Councils in an expeditious manner
The City of Chula Vista agrees that the City Subarea Plan should be considered by the City Council
as soon as possible. City staff are working diligently with the Wildlife Agencies to complete a
Subarea Plan that will meet federal and State guidelines. Council hearing(s) on the Subarea Plan are
anticipated to occur before the end of this calendar year.
~ 9-- S
/
Recommendation 99-101: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors, the City Councils of Chula Vista, Poway, and Santee, and the Board of Directors of the
Otay Water District should continue to work with state and federal governments to ensure the
success of the MSCP.
Chula Vista agrees that each participating local agency should continue to work with state and
federal governments to ensure the success of the MSCP Our City is currently working with the state
and federal Wildlife Agencies, and will continue to do so.
Recommendation 99-102: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego Board of Supervisors, the
City Councils ofChula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, La Mesa, Poway, and Santee, and the
Board of Directors of the Otay Water District should identify an existing organization or create a
new organization to determine an equitable means of fUnding the long-term management of MSCP
lands. This means of fUnding should not be reliant on the proposed local regional fUnding source.
It should be fUnds from each participatingjurisdiction based on acreage, population, and lor other
criteria which the jurisdictions identify In addition to determining the fUnding for management of
the land, participating jurisdictions should identify an existing organization or create a new
organization for the allocation of management funds.
The City of Chula Vista agrees that long-term MSCP preserve management must be equitably
funded. The City is participating in regional discussions related to long-term management planning.
I hope that the above responses adequately address the concerns of the Grand Jury. If you have any
further inquiries please contact Mr. David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager, at (619) 691-5031.
Sincerely,
Shirley Horton
Mayor
cc: David D Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
John Kaheny, City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building
(h:\shared\mayor\grandjury99)
~ 9.r?
0~ ,
~ f ' .
t/,( &f
~ f" <<W
Grand Jury
A 1T A C-/i A1.G! Itrr Z.
[;r.lr,nMR--'-
i) L!> '!J }.: tl I!J~ ,.
;)/ MAy2.41999 _':
, .
.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
330 west Broadway, Suite 4n
San Diego, CA 92101-3830
(619)51~707
(619) 515-8696 FAX
-----
-.';.1 !~('it.. O~FII-;~S j
,-., II!":'!.\. '~C:. --1
Peter J. DIRenza, Foreman
May 24,1999
Confidential
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego City Council
City Administration Bldg. Tenth Floor
202 C Street
San Diego, Ca 92101
RE: San Dieeo County Grand Jurv 1998-1999 Report: "Implementation of the Multiple
Species Conservation Prol!l'am".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California ~933(c). This report was prepared pursuant to ~925 and ~925a of the Penal
Code.
In accordance with Penal Code ~933.05(f), a copy of this report is being provided to affected
agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court Please note that ~933.05(f) specifies that no officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shan disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be released on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
Sincerely,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1998-1999
PJD:ln
Enc.
REC{;',,,r-n
/
9-7
JUN 0 1
rL.f\I~I~'1';0
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
330 West Broadway. Suite 4n
San Diego. CA 92101-3830
(619) 515-8707
(619) 515-8696 FAX
Pliler J. OIRenza, Foreman
May 24, 1999
Confidential
City Council of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Aveoue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
City Council ofEl Cajon
200 East Maio Street
El Cajon, CA 92020
RE. San Diel!o Countv Grand Jurv 1998-1999 Reoort: "Imolementation of the MultiDle
SDecies Conservation Prol!I'am".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and commeots to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California g933( c). This report was prepared pursuant to g925 and g925a of the Peoal
Code.
In accordance with Peoal Code g933.05(f), a copy of this report is being provided to affected
ageocies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that g933.05(f) specifies that no officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be released on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
Sincerely,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1998-1999
P
For an
PJD:ln
Ene.
)f ~-~
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
330 West Broadway, Suite 477
San Diego, CA 92101-3830
(619)51~707
(619) 51~696 FAX
Peter J. DIRel1Zll, Fo......n
May 24,1999
Confidential
City Council of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
City Council of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
RE: San Diel!o Countv Grand Jurv 1998-1999 ReDort: "ImDlementation of the MultiDle
SDecies Conservation Prol!ram".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California ~933(c). This report was prepared pursuant to ~92S and ~92Sa of the Penal
Code.
In accordance with Penal Code ~933.0S(f), a copy of this report is being provided to affected
agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that ~933.0S(f) specifies that no officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be released on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
Sincerely,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1998-1999
PJD,Jn
Ene.
:6 f---9
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
330 West Broadway. Sulle 4n
San Diego. CA 92101-3830
(619) 515-8707
(619) 515-8696 FAX
Peter J. DIRe...., F""""""
May 24, 1999
Confidential
City Council of Po way
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Board of Directors, Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91977
RE: San Dielw County Grand Jurv 1998-1999 Renort: "Imnlementation of the Multinle
Snecies Conservation Prol!J'am".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California 9933( c). This report was prepared pursuant to 9925 and 9925a of the Penal
Code.
In accordance with Penal Code 9933.05(f), a copy of this report is being provided to affected
agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that 9933.05(f) specifies that no officer, agency,
department. or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be released on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
Sincerely,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1998-1999
PJD:ln
Ene.
~
CJ -It?
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
330 west Broadway, Suite 4n
San Diego, CA 92101.3830
(619) 515-8707
(619) 515-8696 FAX
Peter J. DIRenza, Foreman
May 24,1999
Confidential
City Council of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
City Council of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014-2604
RE: San Diel!O County Grand Jurv 1998-1999 ReDort: "Imnlementation of the MultiDle
SDecies Conservation Prol!'ram".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California g933( c). This report was prepared pursuant to g925 and g925a of the Penal
Code.
In accordance with Penal Code g933.05(f), a copy of this report is being provided to affected
agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court Please note that g933.05(f) specifies that no officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a pnblic agency shall disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be released on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
Sincerely,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1998-1999
.
PID:ln
Ene,
;r
9,-//
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MULTIPLE SPECIES
CONSERVATION PROGRAM
SvnoDsis
San Diego County contains more endangered and threatened species than any other county in the
nation. It is also home to the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), the most complex
single habitat conservation program in ~~!<!l and one that has been touted as a national model.
The MSCP is designed to preserve the habitat of 85 species of native plants and animals in a 900
square mile area of Southwestern San Diego County, roughly South of the San Dieguito River and
West of Du1zura. The MSCP protects sufficient habitat to prevent native species from becoming
endangered or extinct. At the same time, it allows development to occur in conformance with the
MSCP plan.
A similar Multiple Habitat Conservation Program which encompasses habitats in the North County
Cities of Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, and others is in the planning stages. If adopted, it will
complete the habitat conservation plan for San Diego County.
The Grand Jury, in this report, studies the implementation of the MSCP and reports on the progress
made to date. It finds that there are some obstacles to the success of the plan.
Historv
The MSCP was initiated in 1991, when the federal gove=ent expressed concern that the City of
San Diego's Clean Water Program would spur growth in the region and negatively affect the area's
biological resources. The purpose of the MSCP is to mitigate the effects of that growth by
establishing a wildlife preserve which would protect native species, enhance biological diversity,
and preserve the natural beauty of the San Diego area.
Over a period of several years, an MSCP working group composed of representatives from the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the County of San Diego (County), affected cities,
public facility providers, federal and state wildlife agencies, environmental and development
communities, and other interested parties developed the MSCP. The plan was based on public input
and on studies of the biology, land use, and land ownership in the area. It identified existing habitat
areas which were key to preserving specific native species. Wildlife corridors which would connect
the habitat areas were also identified. The corridors would allow the wildlife to flee from brush fires,
increase their populations, and hunt for food in connected areas. The MSCP proposes to preserve
the identified areas and corridors by preventing or limiting development on them. Passive
recreational uses, such as hiking, picnicking, and horseback riding would be allowed.
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26,1999)
1
% 9 --/2.
The MSCP is an wnbreJla plan. In order for it to be implemented, each individual jurisdiction must
adopt a subarea plan which is compliant with the wnbreJla plan. The adopted subarea plan is then
subject to an implementing agreement between the jurisdiction and the California Department of
Fish and Game and the United States Department ofFish and Wildlife. Once the wildlife agencies
certify the implementing agreement, the local jurisdiction is authorized to issue all development
permits. As part of the implementing agreement, the state and federal governments give their
permitting authority to the local jurisdiction. .
Under MSCP, the permitting process is simplified. Rather than complying with regulations from
many agencies, the developers comply ~t!1- !he regulations of a single, local jurisdiction. This
speeds up the permitting process. In Poway, for example, the average permitting time was reduced
from an average of 6-8 months prior to implementation ofMSCP to an average of 12 weeks under
the plan. In the City of San Diego (City), permitting time is expected to decrease by up to seven
years. Under MSCP, the permitting process is also more predictable than it was under the old rules;
once the MSCP is certified, the regulations regarding development do not change.
Investi2ation
The Grand Jury interviewed representatives of:
. SANDAG
. San Diego County
. the City of San Diego
. Poway
. the environmental community
. the business community.
The Grand Jury studied:
. Final Multiple Species Conservation Program MSCP Plan, August 1998
. Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation PlanlNatural Community Conservation Plan
. Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, Consultant's Working Draft, June 1998
. MSCP Implementing Agreements for the City of San Diego and Poway
. City of San Diego Manager's Reports
. MSCP Annual Reports from the City of San Diego and from Poway
The Grand Jury solicited and received written information about the implementation of the MSCP
from the foJlowingjurisdictions and public agencies:
. the County of San Diego
. the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon. Imperial Beach, La Mesa,
Lemon Grove, National City, San Diego, and Santee
. Helix Water District, Otay Water District, Padre Dam Water District, and the
Sweetwater Authority
. the San Diego Unified Port District.
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26,1999)
2
~
Cj-jJ
Grand Jurors attended a public hearing of the California Coastal Commission on January 14, 1999.
Articles from The San Diego Union-Tribune. The San Diego Reader, Environmental Times. and
Audobon magazine were reviewed.
Facts
1. The MSCP proposes to preserve 172,000 acres of habitat. Of these acres, the approved County
MSCP covers approximately 101,000 acres and the approved City of San Diego MSCP covers
approximately 52,000 acres. Together, th~sc;..cC?mprise nearly 90% of the habitat preserve.
2. In 1996, 43.8% of the MSCP land (85,190 acres) was owned by federal, state, and local
governments. The MSCP proposes that the public agencies which own this land will set it aside as
a habitat preserve according to MSCP guidelines.
3. In 1996, 56.2% of the MSCP land (109,130 acres) was owned by private landowners. Of these
privately owned acres, it is expected that the following will occur:
A. approximately 57% (62,204 acres) will be conserved during the development process
through local land use regulations or off-site mitigation. The exactions required in this process are
not greater than requirements which were in existence when the MSCP was put forth.
B. approximately 25% (27,300 acres) will be bought by the local, state, and federal
governments from willing sellers at market rate. This is estimated to cost between $262 and $360
million. Of this, half of the acreage, an estimated 13,500 acres, will be purchased by the state and
federal governments. The otherhalfwill be purchased by local jurisdictions at a cost of$131 - $180
million.
C. approximately 18%, (19,650 acres), although targeted for conservation, will potentially
be developed.
4. The management and monitoring of the MSCP land is required by the plan. The cost of the
management and monitoring is, in general, borne by the property owner. If the public owns the land,
the public pays to manage and monitor it.
5. At maximum development, in 30 years, the local jurisdictions will manage 106,210 acres. It is
estimated that this will cost $4.2 million per year in 1996 dollars.
6. Presently, in the City of San Diego, it costs $48/acre per year to manage the MSCP land, while
in the County, the cost is $37/acre per year. In other jurisdictions and special districts, the cost
averages.$38/acre per year. According to the City, the difference in cost is due to the higher intensity
of use ofMSCP land within the City.
7 The City of San Diego approved the subarea plan for its 52,000 acres of the MSCP in March of
1997 It has an implementing agreement with the appropriate state and federal agencies.
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26,1999)
3
~
9-;1
8. For short-term funding (the funding for the first three years of the MSCP), the City of San Diego
has used or plans to use money from the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Mitigation Fund for
acquisition of MSCP land. These are funds which are acquired when public projects which have
impacts on wildlife are assessed a fee to mitigate the impact. The funds are pooled with other money
collected from similar projects and used to buy land within the MSCP area. As of February 1999,
775 acres had been purchased by the City with CIP Mitigation Funds.
9. An annual $500,000 is expected to be generated by the City of San Diego's CIP Mitigation Fund,
a shortfall of $2.35 millionper year in short-term funding. Despite this, the City expects to meet its
goal of acquiring 2,400 acres by December 31, 1999. This includes acres acquired both through
purchase and through the developmerit process~-
10. In its implementing agreement, the City of San Diego agreed to have its long-term funding
"established" by three years from the March 1997 adoption date of the MSCP. It was expected that
this funding would take the form of a local regional funding source which is a tax to be approved by
two-thirds of the voters in a countywide election.
11. In order for the Board of Supervisors to submit the local regional funding source to the voters,
A. a "critical mass" of jurisdictions should adopt the MSCP. This should occur sometime
in 1999.
B. the North County's multiple habitat conservation program, similar to the MSCP, should
be approved and implemented by jurisdictions in the North County. It is currently in the planning
stage, expected to be completed in approximately one year.
C. the ballot measure must be submitted to the Registrar of Voters 88 days prior to the
election. The scheduled countywide elections are in March and November of even-numbered years.
D. The Board of Supervisors should believe that the measure has a good chance of getting
support of two-thirds of the voters. This means that the environmentalists, developers, and public
officials should support the measure.
Since the above criteria for putting the local regional funding source on the ballot are not yet
met, there are no definite plans to do so.
12. The City of San Diego is anticipating $500,000 per year in CIP Mitigation Funds for its long-
term funding needs. According to the City, this will be $2.05 million less than the annual
requirement for 20 years. The total cost to the City would thus be $2.55 million annually.
Recognizing the shortfall, the City is looking at tobacco settlement monies for funding.
13. If the long-term funding source is not established by March of2000, the City of San Diego's
implementing agreement identified the following three options:
A. the United States Fish and Wildlife Service can adjust the three-year requirement,
provided it finds that the City is making satisfactory progress toward a long-term funding source, or
B. the City can meet with federal and state officials and confer about what should be done,
or
C. the City can establish its own funding source adequate to meet its share of the MSCP.
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26, 1999)
4
/1'
9-/S-
At the same time, the City could continue to pursue the local regional funding source.
14. The County of San Diego adopted its subarea plan for the MSCP in October of 1997. It has an
implementing agreement with the appropriate state and federal agencies.
15. The County of San Diego has budgeted $1.7 million for the MSCP for the current fiscal year.
The five-year budget plan identifies $3 millio~ per year for acquisition and maintenance ofMSCP
land.
16. Poway adopted its subarea plan for the MSCP in August of 1995. It has an implementing
agreement with the appropriate state and federal agencies.
17 A majority of Poway's MSCP land is rural land which, according to the zoning ordinances in
Poway, can only be developed by maintaining large lot sizes. In most cases, developers can forgo
development on some portion of the land in compliance with the MSCP and develop the remainder.
Since the inception of the MSCP, approximately 90 percent of the developers have chosen to do this.
18. Poway has funded some land acquisition and management through its in-lieu fee program
whereby developers who wish to develop sensitive lands and cannot provide on-site or off-site
mitigation, may develop their land if they pay a fee.
19. Chula Vista, El Cajon, La Mesa, Santee, and the Otay Water District are in the process of
adopting subarea plans and acquiring implementing agreements.
A. Chula Vista's subarea plan is expected to be before the City Council in the summer of
1999. Like the City of San Diego, Chula Vista is relying on the local regional funding source for
financing the MSCP. Also in place is a community facilities district which has been established to
maintain the MSCP land associated with the Otay Ranch development.
B. El Cajon's subarea plan was expected to be before the City Council in Spring of 1999.
However, it is not yet ready for Council action. No public funding is identified since current and
future developers are expected to bear the implementation costs of the few small parcels which are
in the habitat conservation area
C. La Mesa has adopted a subarea plan. The implementing agreement is in the process of
being certified by the federal and state government agencies. No public funding is identified since
the private landowners are expected to set aside MSCP land during the development process and
manage the acreage.
D Santee's subarea plan has been drafted and public hearings have been held. However, the
final form of the plan is dependent on the shape of a large project which is currently going through
the development process in the city. It is unknown when this final plan will be formulated and there
is no definite time line for bringing it before the City Council. Ifresource agencies raise objections
to the MSCP plan, it will be delayed. No public funding is identified since the subarea plan proposes
acquisition of land through development dedications and mitigation requirements, not through
purchase of land by the city government.
E. The Otay Water District's subarea plan is nearly complete. It is expected to go before the
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26,1999)
5
~
C}-/?
Board of Directors for approval in the summer of 1999. Funds to maintain the MSCP are allocated
by the District at $20,000 per year.
20. Coronado's and Del Mar's MSCP subarea plans are part of the City of San Diego's MSCP
document There are no plans for implementing agreements at this time since neither city foresees
projects in the MSCP habitat area. In Del Mar, all habitat land identified by the MSCP is publicly
owned.
21. Imperial Beach, although it prepared a subarea plan, has chosen not to participate in the MSCP.
Two geographic areas were identified as important habitats in the draft subarea plan. One has now
been incorporated into the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge which is managed as a wildlife
refuge by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
22. Lemon Grove and National City will not participate in the MSCP. These cities have no
contiguous areas that would allow for species preservation. If future development proposals in these
cities require biological mitigation, they will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
23. Special districts including the Port of San Diego, Helix and Padre Dam Water Districts, and the
Sweetwater Authority have substantial land holdings in the MSCP area. They are not participating
in the MSCP, but rather are preparing their own habitat conservation plans.
Findinl!s
1. It is unrealistic for the City of San Diego or the City of Chula Vista to rely on the local regional
funding source. Given present circumstances, the measure will not be on the ballot before 2002.
2. If the projected County funding level of$3 million per year were to be continued for the 30 years,
there would be enough money to purchase the County's share of the MSCP land.
3. In Poway, the in-lieu fee account is expected to generate enough money to successfully acquire
and manage the MSCP land. In February 1999, there was approximately $90,000 in the account.
4. The fact that it costs the City of San Diego significantly more than it does other jurisdictions to
manage the MSCP lands leads to inequity in the costs of preserving the habitat, which is a regional
resource.
5 Of the entities which have not yet implemented the MSCP and which plan to do so, only Santee
and Chula Vista have jurisdiction over key portions of the habitat preserve.
6. In order for the MSCP to be effective, state and federal cooperation is necessary The County, the
City of San Diego, and Poway all report that to date, this cooperation has bc;en excellent. The federal
and state governments have set aside some lands for conservation, according to MSCP guidelines.
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26, 1999)
6
p" 9-17
They have also contributed to the MSCP by distributing grants to local government agencies and
private wildlife organizations for acquisition and management ofMSCP lands.
7. Federal and state grants for MSCP are available, generally on a matching fund basis. Thus, local
funding for MSCP becomes critical. Those jurisdictions which have money available can leverage
their money through matching grants.
8. The County, the City of San Diego, and Poway have appropriate administrative procedures within
their planning and building departments wbicR ensure that the issuance of development permits
complies with the MSCP.
9. The County, the City of San Diego, and Poway are using innovative and effective methods to
acquire land through the development process.
10. The County, the City of San Diego, and Poway have made significant progress in setting aside
publicly owned lands for MSCP. The City has set aside 12,759 acres, the County 5,956 acres, and
Poway 3,780 acres.
Conclusions
The MSCP is a comprehensive, pro-active, regional plan. Local leaders often point to it as an example
of the San Diego region's concern for the environment and as a solution to certain environmental
problems. The reality is that the MSCP is a program which is at a critical juncture. If it is to be
successfully implemented, it needs financial support from jurisdictions within San Diego County,
particularly from those which encompass the key portions of the habitat preserve.
Recommendations
99-97: The City of San Diego should honor its commitment to the MSCP and provide a reliable and
adequate funding source for the program in the 1999-2000 budget year and beyond. The
money budgeted should be enough to cover the cost of acquiring the necessary land, based
on a 30-year program.
99-98: The City ofChula Vista should fund the MSCP, ifit is adopted. with a reliable and adequate
funding source. The money budgeted should be enough to cover the cost of acquiring the
necessary land, based on a 30-year program.
99-99: The Cities ofEI Cajon, La Mesa, and Santee should fund the MSCP ifnecessary as the plan
is implemented. At the present time, it is not expected that this funding will be necessary
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26, 1999)
~ <j-/r
7
99-100: The Cities of Chula Vista and Santee should bring their respective subarea plans forward
to their respective City Councils in an expeditious manner.
99-101: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the City Councils
of Chula Vista, Poway, and Santee, and the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District
should continue to work with state and federal governments to ensure the success of the
MSCP.
99-102: The San Diego City Council, the San Diego Board of Supervisors, the City Councils of
Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar..ELCajon, La Mesa, Poway, and Santee, and the Board of
Directors of the Otay Water District should identify an existing organization or create a new
organization to determine an equitable means of funding the long-term management of
MSCP lands. This means of funding should not be reliant on the proposed local regional
funding source. It should be funds from each participating jurisdiction based on acreage,
population, and/or other criteria which the jurisdictions identify. In addition to determining
the funding for management of the land, participating jurisdictions should identify an
existing organization or create a new organization for the allocation of management funds.
99-103: The City of San Diego, as the lead agency for the MSCP, should provide the leadership for
recommendation number 99-102.
Reauirements and Instructions
The California Penal Code g933( c) requires any public agency which the grand jury has reviewed,
and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such
comment shall be no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits its report to the public agency.
Also, every ELECTED county officer or agency head for which the grandjury has responsibility shall
comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head, as well as any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises
or controls. Such comment shall be made within 60 days to the presidingjudge of the superior court
with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code g933.05(a),(b),(c) details, as follows, the manner in which such
comment(s) are to be made:
(a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one ofthe
following:
(I) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is
disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26, 1999)
8
f0
9/)(
of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for
the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the
agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the
governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame
shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grandjury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel
matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,
but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel
matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected
agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations
affecting his or her agency or department.
Comments to the presiding judge of the superior court in compliance with the Penal Code g933.05
is required from the:
City Council of San Diego:
Recommendations: 99-97,99-101,99-102,
99-103
City of Council of Chula Vista:
Recommendations: 99-98, 99-100, 99-101
City Council of El Cajon:
Recommendations: 99-99,99-102
City Council of La Mesa:
Recommendations: 99-99,99-102
City Council of Santee:
Recommendations: 99-99,99-100,99-102
San Diego County Board of Supervisors:
Recommendations: 99-101,99-102
City Council of Poway:
Recommendations: 99-101,99-102
Board of Directors, Otay Water District:
Recommendations: 99-101,99-102
City Council of Coronado:
Recommendation: 99-102
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26, 1999)
9
yIP
9-;ZC;
City Council of Del Mar:
Recommendation: 99-102
San Diego County Grand Jury 1998-1999 (May 26,1999)
j?( 9-~(
10
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / &
Meeting Date: 08/10/99
REVIEWED BY:
Ordinance Adding Chapter 3.41 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Relating to Hotels and Motels Requiring Identification from Customers
as a Prerequisite to Room Rental and Limiting the Rental Periods.
Chief of polic~ '!fIt
City Attorne~vml<
City Manager {9(- (l/
f~ Q~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No---X-)
In order to assist police in reducing calls for service at local hotels/motels, staff is
recommending an addition to the existing ordinance to require a valid government
identification from prospective customers. Research shows that this proposal causes very
little inconvenience and significantly reduces potential problems and associated calls for
service.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached ordinance adding Chapter 3.41
to the Chula Vista Municipal Code requiring transient occupants of motels and hotels to
present a valid government picture identification as a prerequisite to room rental and
limiting the frequency with which a room may be rented in a 24-hour period.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: In June of 1998, in response to calls for police service at motels
located within the City, Police Department staff examined crime data at motels. A review
of calls for service showed that some local hotels/motels could derive benefits from the
proposed ordinance change.
Identification Required
The Police Department, Chamber, ConVis, Code Enforcement and several motel operators
met on January 5, 1999, to discuss how to improve motel safety. Among other
suggestions, the group considered adopting an ordinance which requires all guests to fully
identify themselves with a valid picture ID, when renting a room. There was a consensus
to move ahead and develop a version for the City of Chula Vista.
Police experience generally demonstrates that persons planning or involved in criminal
activity will avoid identifying themselves. This suggests intuitively that requiring simple
identification will both reduce the presence of persons planning criminal activity and make
it much easier to identify suspects if criminal activity occurs.
/Gf--j
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date: 08/10/99
Un;lency
The City of San Diego and the City of EI Cajon are looking at implementing a similar
ordinance because of the crime reduction benefits. Those persons unwilling to identify
themselves as a prerequisite to room rental will likely gravitate to those cities without the
requirement, making Chula Vista hotels/motels vulnerable to increased criminal activity
This is an added incentive for passing this ordinance in a timely manner.
Community Outreach Efforts
During the week of May 10, 1999, staff from ConVis and the Chula Vista Police
Department hand delivered a letter and draft ordinance to each of the motel owners or
managers in the City. The letter provided them with notice of the proposed ordinance and
invited them and their staff to attend an informational meeting.
On May 13, 1999 an informational meeting on the proposed ordinance was held with motel
owners at the offices of the Chamber of Commerce. The meeting was attended by
personnel from 22 of the 28 motels in the City. The group made several recommendations
on changes to the draft ordinance, which were incorporated into the subsequent final draft.
These changes included removing the requirement that motel guests identify other users
of the rented room, and a simplification of the forms of valid identification required.
Police and ConVis staff redistributed a final draft of the ordinance personally to each motel.
The ordinance includes the requirement that motels maintain limited information on guests
for a period of 60 days. Motel owners have expressed that this requirement is not over
burdensome; they must keep the same information for tax purpose.
Notification
A draft of the proposed ordinance was hand delivered to each of the motels in Chula Vista
by Police and ConVis staff in May 1999. A letter inviting all managers and property owners
to a meeting was included with the draft. A review and discussion meeting was held on
May 13, 1999. The final draft was again hand delivered to each motel manager or property
owner the week of June 28. Motel owners have been informed that the ordinance would
be presented for action by Council on August 10, 1999. Motel owners had the opportunity
during this period to raise questions and concerns with City staff.
FISCAL IMPACT: The implementation of this ordinance should effectively lower police
calls for service to motels and allow for more effective use of City resources.
[J:\usrladminlscsla113slmotelord.doc]
/;;:f-~
ORDINANCE No.
An Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista
Adding Chapter 3.41 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Relating to Hotels and Motels Requiring Identification
from Customers as a Prerequisite to Room Rental
and Limiting the Rental
Period
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section I: That Chapter 3.41 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Chapter 3.41
REGISTRATION OF TRANSIENTS
AT HOTELS AND MOTELS
Sections
3.41.010
3.41 020
3.41 030
3.41 040
3 41 050
3.41 060
Pu rpose
Definitions
Regulations
Administration
Violations
Frequency of rental
Section 3.41.010 Puroose
The City Council finds and determines that it is important for the safety of visitors
to our community and to control vice, disturbance, and narcotics offenses to require
transient residents of hotels and motels to furnish identification at the time of registration
and for operators to have evidence of identification available for reasonable inspection by
a peace officer The City Council further finds that furnishing identification at the time of
registration does not impede hotel or motel business and is not overly invasive to patron
privacy
Section 3.41 020 Definitions
The terms "operator," "transient", and "hotel" are defined in Section 3.40020 of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3.41.030 Reaulations
A. Every transient shall furnish to an operator of a hotel satisfactory identification as
a part of the registration process for the hire of lodgings at that hotel by the
transient.
/tJ-Y
B Satisfactory identification for legal residents of the United States shall consist of
one of the following: a valid driver's license issued by the transient's state; a federal
or state government or military identification card; a passport; or any other form of
valid governmental identification on which the transient's photograph appears. For
persons legally residing outside of the United States, valid governmental
identification shall include an official passport, US Visa, INS Alien Registration Card
or INS Border Crossing Card.
C The operator of the hotel shall maintain a record of the following identification
produced by the transient. The record shall include the name of transient, current
address, ID number and state or country of issue and date of birth. Irrespective of
method of payment, the hotel operator shall comply with Section 3.41.030A.
An operator shall retain any records required under this subsection for sixty (60)
days after the date the transient vacates the lodging and shall destroy them after
that time.
D An operator shall notify any transient who fails or refuses to provide proper
identification or refuses to identify occupants to any operator that a room will not be
rented.
E. The duties imposed on an operator by this Chapter 3.41 shall not be interpreted or
applied so as to violate or cause the violation of the American's with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (PL 101-336).
Section 3 41 040 Administration
Operator may post a notice advising transients that a transient is liable for any room
charges or damage to the room during the term of hire, whether caused by the transient
or other authorized occupant, or both, until the room is vacated by the transient and all
authorized occupants and keys are returned to the operator The notice may also provide
that the transient may be held liable for charges or damage caused by an occupant who
was not identified by the transient but occupied the room with the transient's permission.
Section 3.41 050 FreQuencv of Rental
The operator shall not rent any room more than two (2) times during any twenty-four
(24) hour period, beginning at 12 noon and ending at 12 noon the following day
Section 3.41 060 Violations
A. It is unlawful for an operator of a hotel to fail to require a transient to provide photo
identification; to fail to retain the information required by Section 3.41 030B; or to
refuse to provide such information to a police officer conducting an investigation.
H:\SHAREDlCLERK\MOTEL.DOC
ItJ" 'I
Provided, however, that any duty required under Section 3.41 030C terminates on
and after the sixty-first (6151) day following the date the transient vacates the
lodging.
B. It is unlawful for any operator to rent the same room, or rent to the same transient,
more than two (2) times during any twenty-four (24) hour period, beginning at the
time of check-in.
Section II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the
thirteenth day after its second reading and adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Richard P Emerson
Chief of Police
H:\SHARED\CLERK\MOTEL.DOC
/j)/3