HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/05/23
Tuesday, May 23. 1995
6:00 p.m.
"I decla~ t1nd'lt!' penalty 01 perjury that I em
employed by the City of ChlJ:a Visla in the
Office of the City Clerk and t113f1 pooted
this AgenJa/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the PUbl~r~;S Building and at City Hall on
DATED.. ~;p. 1.>" SIGNED 6/~..-"""
Rerular Meetin2 of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot_. Padilla _, Rindone _. and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 11, 1995 (Special Meeting)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Glenn Goerke - Growth Management Oversight Commission.
b. Proclaiming the week of May 21 through May 27, 1995 as "National Public Works Week."
The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to John Lippitt, Director of Public Works.
c. Presentation by returning delegation from Sister City of Odawara, Japan.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 10)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken
from the Closed Session of 5/16/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
\
Agenda
-2-
May 23, 1995
6. RESOLUTION 17899 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE ACCOUNTING FIRM OF
MORELAND & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE AUDITING SERVICES
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1994/95, 1995/96, AND 1996/97, WITH THE
OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS - City Charter
requires an annual independent audit. Request for Proposals were sent to 27
audit firms. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
7. RESOLUTION 17900 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN & HENIGAR FOR
APPORTIONMENT SERVICES FOR EXISTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT - The proposed agreement is to retain the services of Berryman
& Henigar to perform the respreading of assessments on existing assessment
districts and prepare the" Armual Collection Report" for submittal to the County
for inclusion in the property tax bill. The agreement has provisions for yearly
renewals through 1999. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works and Director of Finance)
8. RESOLUTION 17901 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND APPROVING FORMS OF
BOND INDENTURE, SECURITY ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT,
PRELIMINARY OmCIAL STATEMENT , AND SECOND AMENDMENT
TO ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS - PHASE m - On
4/25/95, Council established Assessment District Number 94-1 and levied
assessments for the acquisition of certain infrastructure serving the south portion
of the EastLake Greens development pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
9. RESOLUTION 17902 APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF SEWER CAPACITY
FEE FOR A CAR WASH TO BE LOCATED AT 3048 BONITA ROAD-
The Agreement provides for the release of $13,986 of Sewer Capacity Fees
previously paid by the developer of the Bonita Car Wash back to him until the
car wash has been in operation for one year. The actual fee will be determined
at that time on the basis of 90 % of the average amount of water consumed on
site per day. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17903 APPROVING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DEBT FROM CHULA
VISTA AQUATIC ASSOCIATION - The Chula Vista Aquatic Association
(CV AA) is requesting a waiver of debt associated with their past use of
swimming pool facilities. The fees are for staff services (lifeguards) provided
during CV AA's use of pools for team practices and meets. CV AA is requesting
that the City waive the outstanding balance due (along with fees that have been
assessed for past-due billings), and allow them to continue use of the pools from
a debt-free starting point. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
\.
Agenda
-3-
May 23, 1995
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the labby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
II.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09: REQUEST TO EXTEND
APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR APPROXIMATELY
THREE YEARS (THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1999) AND TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF SAID SCHOOL FACILITIES INTO THE SECOND
STORY OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2400 FENTON STREET
WITHIN THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - COVENANT
CHRISTIAN SCHOOL - Covenant Christian School was approved by Council
to operate at 2400 Fenton Street within the EastLake Business Center for a 2.5
year period extending through June 1996. The School is requesting to extend
the permit for 3 years (to September 1999), and to expand the operations from
the first floor to include the entire building and to increase the maximum
enrollment from 208 to 260 children. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17904 DENYING A REQUESTED TIME EXTENSION BUT APPROVING A
REQUESTED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (PCC-94-09) TO COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO
OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2400 FENTON STREET WITHIN
THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
12.
ORDINANCE 2630
AMENDING SECTION 2.28.110 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF
ETIDCS (first readin,,) - The Board of Ethics is proposing a revision to the
current Code of Ethics which is presented for Council's review. The purpose
of the revision is to allow for an alternative appointment process should the
Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court Judicial District fail or
decline to make an appointment. It is recommended that Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (Board of Ethics)
~
Agenda
-4-
May 23, 1995
13.
REPORT
CITY REVIEW AND POSITION ON SB 1066 (CAMPBELL) -
DEVELOPMENT: FEES; SCHOOL FACILITIES - On 5/5/95, the Growtb
Management Oversigbt Commission (GMOC) reviewed tbe scbools thresbold
and beard reports from the Cbula Vista Elementary Scbool District and
Sweetwater Union Higb Scbool District. Botb districts expressed extreme
concern over pending SB 1066 whicb they indicated could bave drastic negative
consequences to local scbool planning, financing and construction efforts. The
GMOC urges tbat Council direct appropriate staff to immediately review tbe
legislation and consider forwarding a letter of opposition. (Tris Hubbard,
Cbainnan, Growtb Management Oversigbt Commission)
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elidt substantial discussions and deliberations by
the CouncU, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the CouncU
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
14. ORDINANCE 2631 ADDING SECTION 17.07.035 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO LANDSCAPING ACT PROVIDERS (first readiDlll - Due to cbanges in
State law in October 1993, if a majority of property owners protest an increase
in tbe assessment, that increase cannot go into effect, tbus bampering tbe City's
ability to bave sufficient funds on band to maintain tbe districts. To counter
having such variations in the assessments from year to year and to minimize the
threat of majority protest year to year whicb could automatically eliminate tbe
increase regardless of need, staff is proposing amendments to the ordinance to
allow tbe City to better stabilize tbe yearly assessments by allowing tbe amount
collected on tbe taxes to be different from tbe amount of tbe assessment. Staff
is also proposing to incorporate an inflation factor in tbe annual assessment to
cover minor cost increases, if needed, tbat could not be cballenged by a majority
protest. The public would still bave tbe rigbt to protest the assessment and
Council would still have lbe autbority to reduce assessments. Staff recommends
Council place tbe ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works)
15. RESOLUTION 17905 AMENDING CHAPTER VII, SECTION B, OF THE MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW FEES FOR VARIOUS AQUATIC
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES - During staff's budget review process, and
tbe preparation of potential budget reductions for fiscal year 1995/96, several
sources of additional revenue were identified. One is a proposed increase in
fees for several aquatic programs including daily admission fees, pass fees, and
class fees for various instructional swimming classes. The increases are being
proposed at this time because the registration process for summer swimming
classes will commence on 6/10/95 and any adjustments in fees would need to be
implemented before that date. Staff recommends approval of tbe resolution.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
~
Agenda
-5-
May 23, 1995
16. RESOLUTION 17906 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1995/96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT 1, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY
11, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS - Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, EastLake
Maintenance District Number 1 and Open Space Districts 1 and 10 have been
separated due to conflict of interest concerns. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. RESOLUTION 17907 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1995/96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO
LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995
AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULy 11, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND
TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Based upon the advice of the City
Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District Number 1 and Open Space Districts
1 and 10 have been separated due to contlict of interest concerns. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
18. RESOLUTION 17908 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1995/96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO
LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995
AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 11,1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND
TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Based upon the advice of the City
Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District Number 1 and Open Space Districts
I and 10 have been separated due to contlict of interest concerns. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
19.A. RESOLUTION 17909 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1995/96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-
9,11,14,15,17,18,20,23,24,26,31, BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN
CENTER, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ESTABLISH ZONE
9 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995
AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 11,1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND
TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - The City administers 23 open
space districts established over the last 25 years. The districts provide the
mechanism to finance the maintenance of common open space area associated
with and benefitting that particular development. As part of the process, a levy
of an annual assessment is necessary to enable the City to collect funds for the
proposed open space maintenance. The City Engineer has prepared and filed
reports on assessments for all existing open space districts. In a letter dated
10/17/94, Sweetwater Authority requested exemption from the yearly open space
assessment for a lot that they own in Open Space District 14. Staff recommends
Council approve the resolutions and deny Sweetwater Authority exemption.
(Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17910 APPROVING BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT 31
~
Agenda
-6-
May 23, 1995
20.
REPORT
REVIEW OF DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION
PROGRAM (MSCP) - The City of San Diego has released the draft MSCP for
public review. Staff has completed a preliminary review of tbe plan and has
also obtained input from property owners within the planning area. Staff
recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Planning)
21.
REPORT
UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to jive minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTISl
a. Scheduling of meetings.
23. MAYOR'S REPORTISl
a. Ratification of appointments:
Maria Fernanda Comas - Youth Commission; and
Frances S. Larson - International Friendship Commission.
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council member Rindone
a. Update on installation of traffic signal at Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ladera.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Worksession/Meeting on Tuesday, May 30,
1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, thence to a Special Worksession/Meeting
on Wednesday, May 31, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building, and thence
to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 6, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services
Building.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
A Special Joint Meeting of the Public Financing Authority/City Council will be held immediately following the
Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency.
\a,
Agenda
-7-
May 23, 1995
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City MalUlger or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the foUowing items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in cwsed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tennilUlted at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of JilYll action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of filUll action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
. Chaparral Greens vs. the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and Baldwin.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA
lawsuit.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
1,
~
~
\ ,
May 18, 1995
~ .
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City coun~,
John D. GosS, city Manager~ ~~
city Council Meeting of May 23, 1995
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city Council meeting of Tuesday, May 23, 1995. Comments regarding
the Written communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that there
were no observed reportable actions taken by the city Council
at the Closed Session on 5/16/95.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
4<L -
Chula Vista-Odawara Sister City Visitation - 1995
Report to the IFC by Commissioner Terry Thomas
The Delegation departed from San Diego Airport on April 29th and traveled
to Narita Airport from Los Angeles International Airport by ALA Nippon.
The delegation traveled directly to Odawara for a Five Day stay in our
sister city. We arrived in Odawara about 9:30 pm, although we had been
expected to arrive around 11 pm. The traffic flow from Tokyo was very
smooth and pleasant. We were greeted at the Asian Center by Mr. Nobu
Seto, our liaison with the Cultural Division of Odawara City and a group of
about 15 Odawara City Hall representatives and Odawara,International
Friendship Association members, as well as Mr. Tadasha Shiino, who was
chairperson of the five day visitation event. Mutual introductions were
made (Odawara group by Nobu and Chula Vista group by Terry). Mayor
Horton made a greeting statement and the delegation felt very welcomed.
The Members of the Delegation were
(1) Mayor Shirley Horton
(3) Roy Muraoka
(5) Fran Larson
(7) Colleen Selleck
(9) Henry Yada
(11) Michael Yada
(13) James Yada
(15) Patty Morris
(2) Terry Thomas
(4) Aiko Muraoka
(6) Karen Escobedo
(8) Carole Dupuis- Tessicini
(10) Itsuko Yada
(12) Sonny Yada
(14) Sandy Ojiri
(16) Melissa Morris (17) Tushi (Pat's mom)
Monday was spent on a tour of Hakone, a boat ride on the lake, and
a visit to the Natural History Museum, the Checkpoint, and other sites. We
then returned to the Asian Center for the evening Tea Ceremony and the
formal Welcome Reception.
The Tea Ceremony was charming with all the cultural aspects of the
ceremony displayed and experienced by the delegation, along with
representatives of the Soroptomist Club, the OIFA, and others. Our
presentations from the Mayor, Chula Vista City, IFC, CV Library etc. were
on display at the Welcome Ceremony (Note from Terry: After arrival and
before going to my room, I met privately with Shiino-San and Nobu Seto to
pass on certain items for the display and the manner of display. Included
was the Hands of Friendship Blanket and also the Sea Gull on Manzanita
Artpiece, etc. See Additional Detailed Report by Terry T. on these items,
their inscriptions, and to whom they were presented in the Odawara binder.
The Welcome Ceremony was elegant, warm, and very friendly.
Mayor Y oshiaki Ozawa welcomed us to Odawara and offered a toast to us
with the vintage Saki of very old stock. He then made a presentation to
Mayor Horton and the City of Chula Vista. Our Mayor Shirley Horton
made a wonderful speech in both English and Japanese. She also presented
the Mayor and People of Odawara with a special Handicraft Quilt Wall
Hanging. Past Chair of the city Council, Mr. Euryei Imai; Mr. Tadashi
Shiino, Chair of the Visitation Program, and Mr. Tomimasa Hirosawa,
President of the OIFA and the Odawara Chamber of Commerce and Industry
made short speeches. Commissioner Terry Thomas made a short speech
and presentations on behalf of the Chula Vista International Friendship
Commission and the Delegation. Mayor Ozawa went to each delegate to
present a special Certificate.
tic - )
4
/
Tuesday we had a visit to Odawara City, museums, saw a
demonstration of how the wood handicraft items for which Odawara is
famous were made. We were also hosted to a wonderful luncheon by the
Odawara Rotary Clubs who greeted us at the door to the restaurant with a
delegation of Odawara warriors in elegant regalia. Chieko Suzuki,
chairperson of the 1993 Visitation to Odawara was at the entrance to greet
us and her son Ted Suzuki was one of the hosts. Dr. Ogawa made a short
speech in English welcoming us (in our Visitation binder) and Mayor
Horton (Chula Vista pins), Roy and Aiko Muraoka (C.V. Chamber of
Commerce pins) , and Henry and Itsuko Yada (pens), Terry Thomas
(Rotary banners), Carole Tessicini (Coronado pins) and Fran Larson
(Olympic Center pins) made various presentations.
Tuesday evening theOdawara International Friendship Association
had a steaming and lively dinner party for us at a local restaurant banquet
room. Mr. Hiro Watanabe and Mrs. Yukie Hiroshi who had visited Chula
Vista were master and mistress of ceremonies. A great time was had by all.
Wednesday was hectic: We visited the Odwara Castle in the morning
and at 11 am were treated to Lunch by the three Lions Clubs of Odawara.
Terry who is President of the Southwest Lions Clubs made presentations
on behalf of both that Club as well as the Chula Vista Host Lions (Lion
Tina Dushanek, President). The four Lions presidents ended the lunch
with a simultaneous ROAR and then it was on to the Famous Hojo festival.
Mayor Shirley Horton, in a charming costume presented by the
Odawara hosts, made an opening speech along with several other Mayors
and dignitaries at the opening ceremony involving thousands of participants
in the Festival parade. We were very proud of her...She obviously
impressed our sister city sisters and brothers also. We then moved on to
the Grand Stand to watch the fantastic parade and incredible display of
thousands of years of history and culture.
In the evening we then made individual Home Visit to different
family hosts. The beautiful hospitality, friendship, sharing and mutual
respect and love was obvious during the home visit. Each person from our
delegation had a different, wonderful story to tell about their home visit
with their Odawara family and new friends.
Thursday was a free day. Mayor Horton, Fran Larson, and Terry
were invited by Akiko Ozawa, the Mayor's wife to be her guest for the day.
We visited a high in the sky temple, had a lunch at a local Italian
restaurant, and enjoyed our visit. Thursday evening was the Sayonara
Party at the Asian Center. Again, a very elegant and extremely exciting
affair. It was buffet. There was a great deal of mixing and moving about
by both the delegates and the several hundred people attending. Mayor's
uncle was present, as well as many city and School Officials, e.g.
President of the School Board, Chamber of Commerce and both Rotary and
Lions Service Club Presidents and officers, former exchange teachers,
students, host families, and old friends. We were having such a great time
socializing that many of the delegation did not want to take time out to
eat...it was so awesome! At the end, two long rows of people bid fare-
thee-well to each delegate and the Mayor gave them special vintage Saki!
Friday morning there was a huge entourage of people to bid us
farewell again, as we embarked on our bus trip to Kamikura & Tokyo tour
and the famous Imperial Hotel where we stayed for two more nights in
elegance...in rooms that ordinarily cost $400 per night. Some of the group
went on to Kyoto or other places. We all had many fond memories of our
Odawara friends and looked forward to their visit to Chula Vista in 1996.
~Vt..
~
,--t::~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
May 17, 1995
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City courI.1r
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorneyro~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 5/16/95
To:
Re:
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session, that there were
no actions taken in the Closed Session of 5/16/95 which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported.
BMB:lgk
C:\lt\c!o8ses8.no
s;,..,j /5~- 2
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
~
5/23/95
ITEM TITLE:
/7~9C;
Resolution Approving agreement with the accounting firm
of Moreland & Associates to provide auditing services and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
REVIEWED BY:
Director of Financ~ 1) A
City Manager Jq ~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
--
SUBMITTED BY:
Section 1017 of the Chula Vista Charter requires an annual independent audit of the
City. The current three-year agreement with Deloitte & Touche terminates with
completion of the June 30, 1994 audit report. A Request for Proposals to provide
auditing services for the City, Redevelopment Agency, and Bayfront Conservancy
Trust was sent to 27 auditing firms. Proposals were received and evaluated by a
Selection Committee appointed by the City Manager composed of the Director of
Finance, the Senior Accountant, and the Director of Finance for the City of La Mesa.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the agreement
with the accounting firm of Moreland & Associates for fiscal years 1994-95, 1995-
96, and 1996-97, with the option to extend for two additional years.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Twenty-seven audit firms were mailed a Request for Proposal to audit the financial
transactions of the City of Chula Vista, Redevelopment Agency, and Bayfront
Conservancy Trust (Attachment A). In addition, the firms were asked to bid on
reviewing the Transient Occupancy Tax returns of five to seven motels in the City.
However, it was subsequently decided to exclude the Transient Occupancy Tax work
from this contract at this time due to the questionable value of the information
received from this effort in past years.
t~/
~
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/23/95
~
Seven proposals were received and evaluated by the Selection Committee based on
the following criteria:
A. Prior experience of staff to be assigned.
B. Organization, size, and structure of the audit firm.
C. Qualifications of staff to be assigned to the City's audit.
D. Audit firm's understanding of the work to be performed and
comprehensiveness of audit work plan.
E. Price of the proposal.
The top three rated firms Moreland & Associates, Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, and
KPMG Peat Marwick, were then interviewed by the Selection Committee. Following
this process, the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the selection of
Moreland & Associates to the City Council.
Not only was Moreland & Associates rated the highest in the technical categories of
experience and understanding of the required work by all three Selection Committee
members, but they also submitted the lowest fee ($39,000) of the firms rated as
qualified. The second lowest cost proposal was submitted by Calderon, Jaham &
Osborn at $40,500.
Moreland & Associates is a regional accounting/auditing firm with offices in Newport
Beach and Carls bad employing thirty-five professionals dedicated almost exclusively
to local government clients. They currently audit forty-one California cities, thirty-one
redevelopment agencies, and many other governmental entities. Locally, their clients
have included Escondido, Poway, Solana Beach and San Marcos.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995, will be $39,000
(compared to $51,700 this year). Fees for the two succeeding fiscal years will be
adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 5% per year.
Of the total fees, $23,000 will be paid from the General Fund (compared to $24,000
this year), $6,500 from the Redevelopment Agency (compared to $9,100 this year),
$3,500 from the Bayfront Conservancy Trust (compared to $4,200 this year), $2,000
from the Housing Agency Fund (compared to $3,400 this year), and $4,000 from
Community Development Block Grant (compared to $11,000 this year).
t,..2.
,0
RESOLUTION NO. / 7~99
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE
ACCOUNTING FIRM OF MORELAND & ASSOCIATES TO
PROVIDE AUDITING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEARS
1994-95, 1995-96 AND 1996-97, WITH THE OPTION
TO EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS
WHEREAS, section 1017 of the Chula Vista Charter requires
an annual independent audit of the City; and
WHEREAS, the current three-year agreement with Deloitte
& Touche terminates with completion of the June 30, 1994 audit
report; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals to provide
services for the City, Redevelopment Agency, and
Conservancy Trust as sent to 27 auditing firms; and
auditing
Bayfront
WHEREAS, seven proposals were received and evaluated by
a Selection Committee appointed by the City Manager composed of the
Director of Finance, the Senior Accountant, and the Director of
Financing for the City of La Mesa; and
WHEREAS, Moreland & Associates rated the highest in the
technical categories of experience and understanding of the
required work by all three Selection Committee members, and they
submitted the lowest bid ($39,000) of the firms rated as qualified;
and
WHEREAS, this selection process complied with the
purchasing requirements set forth at section 2.56.220 through
2.56.240 of the Chula vista Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement with the
accounting firm of Moreland & Associates for fiscal years 1995-95,
1995-96 and 1996-97, with the option to extend for two additional
years, to provide auditing services, a copy of which is on file in
the office of the City Clerk as Document No. (to be completed
by the Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to ex ute said
Agreement on behalf of the city of Chula vis
Presented by
Bruce M.
Attorney
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
')
C:\rs\loreland
~'3 1&~4-
~
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Moreland & Associates
for Audit services
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated May 23, 1995 for the
purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last
executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on
Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("city"), whose business form is
set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on
the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business
form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of
business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A,
paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, section 1017 of the City Charter requires the city
Council to appoint an independent auditor to audit the annual
financial statements of the City; and,
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are
experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can
prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City
within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement;
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 1
6-5
'{)-
Obligatory provisions Pages
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant
do hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on
the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties";
and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General
Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services
described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according
to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph
8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in
Exhibit A, paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein,
time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties
and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and
Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services".
Failure to complete the Defined services by the times indicated
does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate
this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant,
from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by
the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, city and
Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose
of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation
associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set
forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional
consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional
Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the
scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform
same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the
"Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate
fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for
Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 2
b-~
\~
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement,
whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in
a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under
similar conditions and in similar locations.
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and
subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services
required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss
by the following insurance coverages, in the following categor-
ies, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by
Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or
better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business
Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each
project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which
names city and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is
primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry
("Primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City
and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public
("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and omissions coverage is
included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein
required, prior to the commencement of services required under
this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance
demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may
not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice
to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 3
t-1
~
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured
Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required
under Consultant's commercial General Liability Insurance Policy,
Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City
demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the
Risk Manager.
H. Securitv for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates
the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated
by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding
the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant
shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a
form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City
Attorney' which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the
term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates
the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated
by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding
the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant
shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit
callable by the city at their unfettered discretion by submitting
to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that
the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The
letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and
amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which
amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of
Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates
the need for Consultant to provide security other than a
Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark
in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph
entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the
1. The City Attorney's Office prefers that you obtain approval of
the surety or bank, the form of the security and the amount of the
security from the Risk Manager in the first instance and not the
City Attorney. The City Attorney's office would be available on
such risk issues as an alternate only if the Risk Manager is
unavailable and the matter can't wait.
2pty9.wp standard Form Two party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 4
~-~
~
City such other security therein listed in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City
and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
city shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose
of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule
therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to
achieve the objectives of this agreement. The city shall permit
access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant
throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City
agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set
forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further
understanding that delay in the provision of these materials
beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a
basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance
of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant
submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on
the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City
shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consult-
ant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship
indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement,
subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph
19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of
pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain
sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to
permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable
thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City'S
account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be
charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 5
~-I
~
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract
Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said
party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to
represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have
complied with all executory provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages
Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the
essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to
estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per-
formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a
reasonable amount to compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted
time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the
following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess
of the time specified for the completion of the respective work
assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City,
or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages
Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages
Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in
writing to the City'S Contract Administrator, or designee, prior
to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time,
when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work
and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work
unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the
progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as
an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for
the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the
City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in
such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 6
?-/O
(\
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the
City Attorney.
1
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in
any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to
know Consultant has a financial interest other than the
compensation promised by this Agreeme~t.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has
diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations
promulgated by the Fair Political Practices commission, and has
determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with
Consultant's duties under this agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during
the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant
learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result
in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political
Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
F. specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant,
nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's
employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any
interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property
which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in
any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries
of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 7
~-~
~
Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise
of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or
other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant
Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this
Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such
promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or
for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not
acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this
Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement, except with the written permission of city.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any
party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in
conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect-and hold
harmless the city, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability,
cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees)
arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or
employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the
execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for
those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful
conduct of the city, its officers, or employees. Consultant's
indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the city, its officers,
agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether
the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its
own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any
such suit or action brought against the City, its officers,
agents, or employees. consultants' indemnification of City shall.
not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
Consultant.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a
timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this
Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants,
agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to
Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 8
"-/.2.
~
thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents,
data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other
materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the
city, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work
satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up
to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the
amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused city by
Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the
Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance
of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City
greater than would have resulted if there were no such
negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse city
for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein
is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this
agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any
reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such
termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination.
In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other
materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the city,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is
terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant
shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for
any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other
materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant
hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or
compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth
herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and
Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and
shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City.
City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the
Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the
subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
12. OWnership, pUblication, Reproduction and Use of Material
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 9
&-/3
~
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms,
designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or
properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and
exclusive property of city. No such materials or properties
produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be
subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant
in the united states or in any other country without the express
written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority
to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions
of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use,
copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports,
studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties
produced under this Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
city is interested only in the results obtained and
Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole
control of the manner and means of perCorming the services
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to
reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any
of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for
all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and
shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them
shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are
entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement
benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other
leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or
federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax,
and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of
same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this
agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been
presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by
the city in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter
1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to
time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this
reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and
procedures used by the City in the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in
good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute
over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 10
~~/f
~
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in
litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense
of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document,
or participates in the preparation of a report or document in
performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or
cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement
of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and
subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or
document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by city, Consult-
ant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City
to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the
Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State
of California or some other state as a licensed real estate
broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that
neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate
brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted
to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All
notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served
or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of
business for each of the designated parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document
referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement
and understanding between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof
may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 11
~-/5'
'f';-
t{
instrument in writing executed by the party against which
enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and
represents to the other party that it has legal authority and
capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this
Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been
taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the state of California. Any action
arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, state
of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as
close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the city of Chula vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 12
h~/~
~
Signature Page
to
Agreement between city of Chula Vista and Moreland & Associates
for Audit Services.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this
Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood
same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms:
Dated:
,19_
city of Chula Vista
by:
shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
y Attorney
Dated:
Moreland & Associates
By:
[name of person, title]
By:
[name of person, title]
Exhibit List to Agreement
(x ) Exhibit A.
( ) Exhibit B:
2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
November 2, 1993 Page 13
t-/? !u-I~
').V(
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula vista
and
Moreland & Associates
1. Effective Date of Agreement: May 23, 1995
2. city-Related Entity:
(x) City of Chula vista, a municipal chartered corporation of
the State of California
() Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula Vista, a
political subdivision of the state of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula
vista, a
( )
other:
[insert business form]
a
3. Place of Business for city:
city of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant: Moreland & Associates
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
(x) partnership
( ) corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
Moreland & Associates
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 840
Newport Beach, California 92660
Voice Phone (714) 760-9788
Fax Phone (714) 640-2543
7. General Duties:
A. General Scope of Work
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 1
(p ~ /1
1
Consultan~ shall conduct an audit of the described
activities pursuant to Generally Accepted Auditing
standards for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1995,
1996, and 1997, and at the City's option, 1998 and 1999.
The audit examination should not include a detailed audit
of all of the transactions recorded in the accounts of
the City, unless otherwise herein specified, but will be
based upon tests of accounting records and other
supporting evidence for selected periods during the
fiscal year under review sufficient to enable the
contracting independent auditor to express an informed
written opinion on:
1. The financial position of the various funds of
the City.
2.
The propriety
followed.
of
accounting
principles
3. Compliance with applicable laws.
4. The financial accountability of officers and
employees.
organizations to be Audited
1. City of Chula Vista ( the "city")
2. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
vista
3. Chula Vista Bayfront Conservancy Trust ("BCT")
Additional Special Audits and Services
1. Financial and compliance audits required by
the Single Audit Act of 1984.
2.
Compilation Report for
Dorado Livermore
Finance Agency.
3. Preparation of the Annual State and Federal
Tax Return for the "BCT".
the Chula Vista - EI
Menlo Park Housing
Reports to be Issued
FOllowing the completion of the audit of the fiscal
year's financial statements, the auditor shall issue:
1.
A report on the fair presentation of the
financial statements in conformity with
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 2
t-;2t)
,
t
generally accepted accounting principles.
2. A report on the internal control structure
based on the auditors understanding of the
control structure and assessment of control
risk.
3. A report on compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.
4. A report on the internal control structure
used in administering Federal financial
assistance programs.
5.
A report on compliance
requirements applicable to
financial assistance programs.
with
major
specific
Federal
6. A report on compliance with specific
requirements applicable to nonmajor Federal
financial assistance programs.
7.
A report on
requirements for
Federal financial
compliance with gene~al
both major and nonmaJor
assistance programs.
8. A report on compliance with specific
requirements applicable to the state - Local
Transportation Partnership Program.
In the required reports on internal controls
the auditor shall communicate any reportable
conditions found during the audit. A
reportable condition shall be defined as a
significant deficiency in the design or
operation of the internal control structure
which could adversely affect the
organization's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data
consistent with the assertions of management
in the financial statements.
Reportable conditions that are also material
weaknesses shall be identified as such in the
report. Nonreportable conditions discovered by
the auditors shall be reported in a separate
letter to management which shall be referred
to in the reports on internal controls.
The reports on compliance shall include all
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 3
t~.2/
,.'\
~
instances of noncompliance.
Auditors shall be required to make an
immediate written report of all irregularities
and illegal acts or indications of illegal
acts of which they become aware to the city
council, city Manager, City Attorney and
Director of Finance.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
A. Budget
In accordance with provisions of the Charter of the city
of Chula Vista, it is the duty of the city Manager to
prepare and submit to the council the annual budget and
such reports as may be required by that body. The outside
auditor shall examine the final budget document as
approved by tpe City Council and compare the estimated
revenues and appropriations as shown in the budget
document with the entries recorded on the revenue ledger
and the appropriation ledger maintained by the Finance
department.
B. Funds
The auditor shall examine the City Charter, ordinances or
resolutions, and minutes of the city Council pertaining
to all funds of the City to determine the purpose of each
fund and the proper disposition of all funds revenues,
expenditures, and year-end balances. The auditor shall
examine the various fund transactions and balances in
each fund and prepare the appropriate financial
statements for the audit report.
C. Verification of Cash and Securities
1. Cash and Checks
The auditor shall count all cash and checks in the
Finance Department as of June 30. The auditor shall
subsequently be satisfied that all items counted
and verified are deposited in the City's depository
bank. Investment securities owned by the City and
held in safekeeping by the City's various banks and
financial institutions shall be verified as to
their existence as of June 30.
written confirmation shall be obtained from
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 4
h - ..2 'J-
~
all City depositories of balance on hand at
June 30.
2. Surprise Cash Counts
The auditor shall make, during the year, at least
two surprise cash counts of the funds in the
Finance Department in cooperation with staff
members.
3. Collateral Pledged for Funds on Deposit
The auditor shall examine the records of pledged
collateral and make such tests of depository bank
pooled collateral operations as may be necessary to
express an opinion as to the legal sufficiency of
the collateral to safeguard the city of Chula
vista's bank deposits.
4. Accounting Records
The auditor shall examine the City's internal
accounting and administrative controls to determine
that accounting procedures are adequate to
safeguard assets and provide reasonable assurance
of proper recording of financial transactions.
D. Assets
1. Cash and Investments
Treasury and investment operations are the
responsibility of the Finance Department. The
auditors shall verify the cash balances and the
existence of the investments. The investments
market value shall be reviewed and compared to book
value. The auditor shall review balances as of June
30 and investments earnings recorded during the
fiscal year. The footnote disclosure shall be in
compliance with GASa #3.
2. Fixed Assets
The auditor shall examine the procedures for
recording the acquisition of and the disposal of
property owned by the city. The auditor shall
compare the annual inventories of property with the
controls maintained by the Finance Department. The
auditor shall review the transactions involving
fixed assets to the extent necessary to assure that
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 5
~'-..23
'1-'4.
accountability for fixed assets is maintained.
E. Liabilities
1. Accounts Payable
The auditor shall make a sufficient examination of
accounts payable to enable them to determine that,
in general, they bear evidence of verification and
approval with supporting documents such as purchase
orders, vendor's invoices, receiving reports,
transportation bills, contracts and other documents
where necessary. The auditor shall also be
satisfied that the claims were charged against the
proper departmental appropriations and that funds
were available at the date the purchase was made.
2. Bonded Debt
The auditor shall examine the amount of bonded debt
of the city and the outstanding debt determined by
the auditor should be reconciled to the accounting
records of the city by fund and amount outstanding
on June 30.
3. Reserves for Uncompleted Purchase Orders and
Encumbrances
The auditor shall examine documents supporting
reserves for uncompleted purchase orders and
encumbrances to determine that such reserves are
adequate and properly recorded.
4. Other Liabilities and Deferred Credits
The auditor shall be satisfied as to the fairness
of the accounts representing other liabilities and
deferred credits.
F. Fund Balances
The auditor shall examine revenues and expenditures by
funds and analyze the changes in fund balances for the
financial statement of each fund in the audit report.
G. Single Audit Act
The independent auditor shall perform a financial and
compliance audit under the Single Audit Act of 1984. The
audit shall be made in accordance with the standards for
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 6
j,~)-{
"p
Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs,
Activities, and Functions, issued by the U.S. General
Accounting Office, and the provisions of the U.S. Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of
state and Local Governments.
Chula vista's cognizant agency is the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
SCHEDULE
A. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
B. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Deliverable No.1: city Financial Statements - Nov. 15
Deliverable No.2: RDA Financial Statements - Oct. 31
Deliverable No.3: single Audit Report - Nov. 30
Deliverable No.4: BCT Financial Statements - Nov. 30
C. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
9. Insurance Requirements:
(x) statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(x) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
( ), Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
() Errors and omissions insurance: None Required (included
in Commercial General Liability coverage).
(x) Errors and omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included
in commercial General Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
A. The city will prepare the following statements and
schedules for the auditor. Additional statements or
schedules may be prepared if mutually agreed upon in
advance.
General purpose Financial statements
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 7
/;-,25
..,,\
Cash and Investments
Cash with Fiscal
Age n tiT r u s tee
Transactions
Operating Transfersl
Residual Equity Transfers
GFAAG summary of
Transactions
GLTDAG Summary
Transactions
Budget Transfers
TOT Monthly Revenue by
Source
Accounts Receivable
Accounts Payable
Advances Receivable & Payable between Funds
Reconciliation of General Fund & RDA Fund Balances
PERS summary of Covered Payroll and Contributions
of
Interest Income detail
Arbitrage Calculations
Compensated Absences
Bank Reconciliation
Property Tax Schedule
Loans Receivable & Payable
&
single Audit
Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance (SFFA)
Redevelopment Agency
Balance Sheets
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
Loans Receivable & Payable
Advances Receivable & Payable between Funds
B. Work Area, Telephones, Photocopying and FAX Machines
The City will provide the
space, desks and chairs.
provided with access to a
machine and FAX machine.
auditor with reasonable work
The auditor will also be
telephone line, photocopying
Long Distance telephone andlor FAX communications will be
charged to the auditor
11. Compensation:
A. (x) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant
for the fiscal year 1994-95 audit as herein required, City shall
pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or
milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below:
single Fixed Fee Amount: $39,000, payable as follows:
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
page 8
t.-- .2v
~
Milestone or Event or Deliverable
city Financial statements
RDA Financial statements
single Audit Report
BCT Financial statement
Housing compilation Report
Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
$23,000
$ 6,500
$ 4,000
$ 3,500
$ 2,000
For each fiscal year thereafter, including any option years, the
compensation amount shall be increased by the lessor of the
increase in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban (Dec. to Dec.) or
5 percent.
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to standard Form Agreement
Page 9
/"":27
~~
Rate Schedulel
Category of Employee
of Consultant
Name
Hourly
Rate
Partner
$110
$ 90
$ 60
$ 55
$ 20
Manager
Senior Accountant
Clerical
Assistant Accountant
(
by 6% for services
, if delay in providing
) Hourly rates may increase
rendered after [month], 19
services is caused by city.
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant
in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay
Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(x) None, the compensation includes all costs.
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Cost or Rate
Reports, not to exceed $
Copies, not to exceed $
Travel, not to exceed $
Printing, not to exceed $
Postage, not to exceed $ :
Delivery, not to exceed $ :
Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $ .
Other Actual Identifiable Direct
, not to exceed $
, not to exceed $
.
.
.
.
.
.
Costs:
.
.
1. This section should be completed in all cases--if the main
compensation scheme is a "time and materials arrangement" or for
the purposes of requiring Additional Services.
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 10
jp-,2.Y
4f\
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Robert W. Powell, City Finance Director
Consultant: patricia Rives, Partner, Moreland & Associates
14. Liquidated Damages Rate:
( ) $ per day.
( ) Other:
15. statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting
Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code:
(x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
( ) Category No. lo Investments and sources of income.
( ) category No. 2. Interests in real property.
( ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real
property and sources of income subject to the
regulatory, permi t or licensing authority of the
department.
(
) Category No.
and sources
development,
sale of real
4. Investments in business entities
of income which engage in land
construction or the acquisition or
property.
( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type which, within the
past two years, have contracted with the City of
Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide
services, supplies, materials, machinery or
equipment.
( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type which, within the
past two years, have contracted with the designated
employee's department to provide services,
supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property
within 2 radial miles of project Property, if any:
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to standard Form Agreement
Page 11
/,~;z/
~
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
18. Bill processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following
period of time:
(x) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
( ) other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
(x) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C. city's Account Number: Various
19. Security for Performance
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:
Amount: $
(x) Retention. If this space is checked, then
notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary
requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant
sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their
option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or
"Retention Amount" until the City determines that the
Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
(x) Retention Percentage: 10%
( ) Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
(x) Completion of All Consultant Services
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 12
& -317
r
~"
2PTY9-A.wp
November 2, 1993
(
) Other:
Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement
Page 13
t-y/
/&-32,
Filipovitch & Blush
Certified Public Accountants
Attn: Stan Blush
Suite D-2
325 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-3196
Brownell & Duffey
Certified Public Accountants
Suite 314
2204 E1 Camino Real
Oceanside CA 92054
(619) 967-9933
McGladrey & Pullen
Suite 1150
3111 Camino del Rio No
San Diego, CA 92108
(619)280-3022
Thomas, Bigbie & Smith*
4201 Brockton Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, Ca. 92501
(909)682-4851
Fax (909)682-6569
Corbin & Werrtz
4370 la Jolla Village Dr Ste 600
San Diego, Ca 92122
(619) 546-4880
Fax (619)546-1405
R. Navarro & Associates, Inc.
2831 Camino del Rio So.
San Diego, Ca 92108
(619)298-8193
Fax 294-4579
Caporicci & Larson
Three Hutton Centre Drive Ste 630
Santa Ana, Ca 92707
(714)436-0927
(714)436-0716 Fax
Moss, Levy & Hartzheim*
9465 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 915
Beverly Hills, Ca 90212
(310)275-3883
(310)275-0143 Fax
Goodsell, Morris & Lofgren
9605 Scranton Rd, Ste 400
San Diego, Ca 92121
Attn: Roger S. Gordon
455-0802
455-D898Fax
Martinez, Armando & Co
365 Church Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-427-1981
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co*
8270 Aspen St
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729-4407
(909)466-4410
(909)466-4431 FAx
Strong & Veleker, CPA's
345 F ST
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
(619)427-6304
Leonard C. Sonnenberg, CPA
7490 Opportunity Road Sutie, 201
San Diego, Ca 92111
(619)571-3833
(800)464-4462(HOA)
(800)303-4329(FAX)
* Audit Firms that Responded
** Audit Firms Selected for
Interview
Attachment "A"
~ -3 J ) (;-3<+
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /79tfJe Approving an agreement with Berryman &
Henigar for apportionment services for existing assessment districts and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~r
Director of Finance r.f An"
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~~} (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The purpose of the proposed agreement is to retain the services of Berryman & Henigar to
perform the respreading of assessments on existing City's assessment districts and prepare the
"Annual Collection Report" to be submitted to the County for inclusion in the property tax bilL
The agreement is for a term of five years. This action will ensure that the City's fiduciary
responsibility to the bond holders is fulfilled by providing required apportionment and
collection services as delineated in the Streets and Highways Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving the agreement with
Berryman & Henigar and authorize the expenditure of funds from assessment district fees for
the payment of these services. .
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
During the last decade, the City has formed twelve (12) assessment districts under the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 to provide fmancing for the construction of public
infrastructure for new developments through the issuance of assessment district bonds (see
Attachment A). The repayment of the bonds is made from assessment installments collected
from the property owners in conjunction with their property taxes. During buildout, the
original assessments placed on the properties within the district need to be respread annually
to include new parcels and reflect any changes to existing parcels. In addition, an annual
assessment collection report shall be prepared and provided to the County for inclusion in the
property tax bill. During the last five years, the City retained the firm Willdan Associates to
perform these activities. The contract with Willdan expired in 1994; therefore, in accordance
with City policy, staff requested proposals from qualified firms to perform these activities.
Staff received five (5) proposals and determined that Berryman & Henigar is the most qualified
and cost effective of the five firms responding the invitation.
The bonds that were used to fmance the construction of improvements were issued pursuant
to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The repayment of these bonds is typically made from
assessment installments collected from the property owners with their property tax bill over a
period of twenty to twenty-five years. In addition to the principal and interest, the code allows
the collection of an "annual administrative fee" (currently $16/parcel maximum) from every
parcel within an assessment district to cover the cost of the administration of the district.
'/-/
~
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 5/23/95
In addition to the annual administrative fee, the developers deposit with the City an
"apportionment fee" (currently $40/parcel) before approval of a map creating new parcels or
any other approval changing the configuration of a parcel of land subject to an assessment.
Tonight's action authorizes the consultants to perform apportionment services for the City for
Tax Years 1995-1996 through 1999-2000 as delineated in Section 8730 of the Streets and
Highway Code. The Code states that when a parcel of land upon which there is an unpaid
assessment divides, the original assessment must be segregated and apportioned in accordance
with the benefits to the several pieces of the original lot. The consultant will do specific filings
with the County, prepare annual reports, assessment diagrams, annual collections tapes
spreadsheets and notify bond holders and underwriters of the apportionments. The annual
collection report shall be submitted to the County Auditor-Controller before August 10 of each
year for inclusion in the property tax bill.
Consultant Selection Process
Staff reviewed the methods of accomplishing the work, including performing the activities in-
house and using a consultant. As noted on Attachment B "Cost Comparison Worksheets -
Contract Consultants vs. In-house staff," the City does not have the staff, nor the expertise to
undertake these duties entirely. These activities are concentrated during the period of May to
July of every year. During this time, staff must also carry out the time-consuming activities
of preparing the annual collection report for the open space districts. It wouldn't be cost
effective to hire and train additional personnel to handle this peak in the workload. Having
a consultant performing these apportionment and collection activities will allow the City to
meet its covenants in a timely and efficient manner.
Public Works Engineering Division staff followed the City Municipal Code Section 2.56.23
in the Consultant selection process. As required, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared
and a notice was published in the Star News, San Diego Union, and the San Diego Daily
Transcript. Five firms responded to the invitation, requested the RFP documents and submitted
their proposals.
The RFP included a description of the scope of work and the time frames for completion.
Each firm was asked to provide: 1) a statement on their general familiarity with assessment
districts especially the Improvement Bond Act of 1915; 2) capacity, resources, and specialized
equipment or expertise to perform the work; 3) names and qualifications of all key personnel
to be used in the project, including any sub-consultants; 4) past record of performance and
references; 5) the location of the office where the work is to be performed; and 6) a cost
estimate.
The RFP also indicated that the City would rank the proposals based on the following criteria:
1. General familiarity with the assessment districts
2. Specialized experience and equipment
3. Past record or performance (Reference Evaluation)
4. Evaluation of personnel qualifications, including sub-consultants if so indicated
5. Capacity and resources to perform the work
6. Proximity of office to San Diego County
7-.,.2
~
Page 3, Item-L
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Cost was not considered in ranking the firms at this stage of the process where only the
qualifications were considered. The consultants were also give a copy of the City's standard
two-party agreement. The following firms responded to the RFP:
Consultant Location
NBS/Lowry San Diego
Berryman & Henigar San Diego
Willdan Associates San Diego
Municipal Financial Services (MFS) Temecula
David Taussig & Associates Newport Beach
The selection committee was appointed by the City Manager in accordance with the Municipal
Code Section 2.56 and consisted of the following members:
Susan Cole, Assistant Finance Director
Shauna Stokes, Principal Management Assistant
William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer
Donna Snider, Civil Engineer
Tom Adler, Engineering Technician
The committee members were provided with individual copies of the proposals and each
member was charged with rating the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria.
Based on the information provided in the proposals, the Committee selected the first three
firms listed above for the interview. Municipal Financial Services and David Taussig &
Associates were not selected because they did not have the necessary engineering background.
On April 25, 1995, the Committee interviewed the three firms. At the conclusion of the
interviews, the Committee ranked the consultant firms as follows:
I The estimated cost is based on the reapportiorunent of assessment for 180 new parcels and preparation of the
collection tape of 9,677 existing parcels. Additional services in the amount of $10,000 are also included.
Estimated Costl
Ranking Firm Tax Year 1995-96
1 Berryman & Henigar $17,350
2 NBS/Lowry $45,650
3 Willdan Associates $25,077
The fmal selection of Berryman & Henigar as the most qualified team for the job was based
on: 1) cost; 2) better knowledge of the City's assessment districts; 3) strongest project team;
and 4) excellent references.
7~3
~~
Page 4, Item-L
Meeting Date 5/23/95
The Agreement
The proposed agreement with Berryman & Henigar uses the City's standard two-party
agreement. Under this contract, they agree to perform the scope of work for a five year term
as outlined in Exhibit A of the Agreement. This section is extremely precise in order to insure
that all of the City requirements are included in the fee. The compensation schedule for
Berryman & Henigar is as follows:
. Apportionment Services - Consisting of the segregation of the original assessment and
apportioning the original assessment among new parcels. Consultant shall be paid $22
per parcel. These services will be paid from the "apportionment deposit" ($40/parcel)
placed by the developer before approval of a map creating new parcels or any other
approval changing the configuration of any existing parcel.
. Annual Collection Services - Consisting of the preparation and submittal of the tax roll
to the County. Consultant shall be paid $0.35 per parcel identified in the Annual
Collection Report. These services are being paid through the "annual administrative
fee" ($16/parcel maximum) charged against each parcel on their tax bill to provide for
the cost of administering the district.
. Additional Services - In addition to providing the previous defined services, the contract
authorizes the City Engineer to approve additional unforeseen services in an amount not
to exceed $10,000 per year. Staff considers it necessary to include this provision in the
agreement to be able to address unexpected work demands related with the
apportionment/collection of the assessments, without having to go through the process
of hiring a new consultant every year. For the current year, it is anticipated that the
City will request the preparation of updated spreadsheets reflecting the new assessment
information (assessment numbers, principal amount, etc.) of the Assessment Districts
Nos. 85-2, 86-1, 87-1, and 88-2 currently being refmanced. The apportionment and .
collection activities must be performed at the end of the fiscal year in a timely manner
to meet the County' strict deadlines. During this period, the City does not have the
staff to undertake any additional work.
These services shall be provided on a "time and material" basis at the rates set
forth in the "Schedule of Hourly Rates" in Attachment A of Exhibit A of the Agreement
in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per year. Staff considers that $10,000 per year is
a reasonable amount to set aside for unexpected services, though it seems high for 1995-
96 (estimated contract cost of $17,350) due to the exceptionally low building activity
during the previous year. The annual contract cost for Willdan and Associates during
the five years of their contract ranged between $25,000 and $65,000. The additional
services would be paid from the annual administrative fee.
The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and approved it as to form.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the 1995-96 cost for the services will be
approximately $17,350. As mentioned above, the cost of the services will be covered by the
7-1
~
Page 5, Item 7
Meeting Date 5/23/95
apportionment deposits and the annual administrative fee collected by the City. The cost of
the seIVices for future years will mainly depend on the number of new parcels in the districts.
Attachment A - City's Assessment Districts
Attachment B - Cost Comparison - Consultant vs. In-House
lDT:A Y-999
m:lhomelengincmagenda\bmynwl.1d1
7~5 /7-lt
~
RESOLUTION NO. /79tfJt7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH
BERRYMAN & HENIGAR FOR APPORTIONMENT SERVICES
FOR EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed agreement is to
retain the services of Berryman & Henigar to perform the
respreading of assessments on existing City's. assessment districts
and prepare the "Annual Collection Report" to be submitted to the
County for inclusion in the property tax bill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement has provisions for yearly renewals
through 1999 and will ensure that the city's fiduciary
responsibility to the bond holders is fulfilled by providing
required apportionment and collection services as delineated in the
Streets and Highways Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement with Berryman
& Henigar for apportionment services for existing assessment
districts, a copy of which is on file in the office of the city
Clerk as Document No. (to be completed by the City Clerk in
the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the expenditure of funds from
assessment district fees for the payment of Berryman & Henigar's
services is hereby authorized.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement for and
on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
od~ :'
~J
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
city
c: \RS\BERRYMAN
7- 7 /7-g
~
Parties and Recital Page(s)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Berryman & Henigar
for Assessment District Apportionment Services
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of reference only,
and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as
such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity
indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth
on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on
Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, the City has formed assessment districts to provide funding for
infrastructure under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; and,
Whereas, Section 8730 of said Act requires that when a parcel of land upon which
there is an unpaid assessment divides, the original assessment must be segregated and
apportioned in accordance with the benefits to the several parts of the original lot; and,
Whereas, the City is desirous of retaining a consultant to this end; and,
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in
a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant
to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement;
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 1
7-7
u...~
Obligatory Provisions Pages
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall
also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled " Scope of
Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the
time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are
identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of
the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in
the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services".
Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option
of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce
the Defmed Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing
so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating
a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services
(" Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of
services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis
at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a
separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall
be paid monthly as billed.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag.wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 2
7- / t1
~~
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined
Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions and in similar locations.
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by
the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified,
policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class
V" or better, or shall meet with the approvat of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's liability Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names
City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City
and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability
Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in. the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9,
unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of
Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 3
7-//
vb
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage
and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability
Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating
same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Security for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant
to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space
immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall
provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to
the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the
term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant
to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space
immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall
provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered
discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the
Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued
by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney
which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said
Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant
to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check
mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other
Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a
form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 4
/~/2
~\,.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply
with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress
of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and
guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its
office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In
addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth
on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of
these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the
justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall
compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and
conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation
relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the
requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate
Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable
thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon )Ylalcing such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit
A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to
represent them in the routine I/rlmini~tration of this agreement.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 5
7-/J
~
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per-
formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in
this Agreement sha1l result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in
excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or
Deliverable, the consultant sha1l pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum
of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages
Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused
by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Admini~trator, or designee,
prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based
upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of
work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph IS, as an "FPPC filer",
Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act
conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City
Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are
specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the
City Attorney.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 6
'7 ;' J t-/
~
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant sbal1 not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to
influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know
Consultant has a fmancial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants
and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of
Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the
Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best
of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's
duties under this agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic
interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as
prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of
interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's
immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates")
presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be
the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the
exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defmed Services,
("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph IS.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wan
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 7
7-15
\\D\-
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term
of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited
Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement,
or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the
Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the
execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from
the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees.
Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such
claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own
expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought
against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. COns\l1tant$' indemnification of City
shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
8. 'Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of
the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other
materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts
payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 8
7~/~
~~()
In the event that the City Admini!:trator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement bas resulted in
expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors,
omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City.
Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished
and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of
the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City
as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable
compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to
the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims
for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign
any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the
assignment of the portions of the Defmed Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to
the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
12.. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures,
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the
sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in
part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by
Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of
City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by
the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent,
in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or
properties produced under this Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the m~nnet and means of performing the services
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 9
7~J 7
~\
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives
are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be
deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to
which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits,
worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will
not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and
Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City
harmless with regard thereto.
14. Admini!ltrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City
unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by
the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are
incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures
used by the City in the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for
the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the
claim, including costs and attorney's fees.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall
include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers
and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the
report or document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority
to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 10
7-/~
~
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their
principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real
estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor
their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to
this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any
party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or
deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of
business for each of the designated parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may
be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by
the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that
it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this
Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to
enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be
brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California,
and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this
Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 11
7-/ I
41J,
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and [Name of Consultant]
for
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and
complete consent to its terms:
Dated:
,19_
City of Chula Vista
by:
Shirley Horton
Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Dated:
Berryman & Henigar
By:
Jeffrey M. Cooper
Senior Vice President
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A
() Exhibit B
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 12
/',2 (J
~ct-
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Berryman & Henigar
1. Effective Date of Agreement:
2. City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
() Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
() Other:
form]
, a [insert business
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant: Berryman & Henigar
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
11590 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92127
Voice Phone (619) 451-6100
Fax Phone (619) 451-2846
7. General Duties:
. 7/,2 /
Exhibit A 11193
Page 1
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
4~
The Consultant shall provide assessment district apportionment services as requested by the City
for the Tax Years commencing from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
The Consultant will be responsible for the following tasks:
1. Upon direction of the City, the Consultant shall apportion the liens amongst the newly
created parcels in the manner that would have been done had such a subdivision existed
at the time of the confirmation of the District and fIle the segregation with the County
Tax Auditor after the City reviews and authorizes such.
2. The consultant shall annnally prepare an amended assessment diagram for each
assessment district which required apportionment. One mylar copy shall be provided to
the City and one copy recorded with the County of San Diego for each amended
assessment diagram.
3. The consultant shall prepare the annnal collections tape for all assessment districts to be
submitted to the County Tax Auditor and provide four (4) printed copies to the City.
4. The Consultant shall update spreadsheets showing assessment number, APN, outstanding
principal, assessment installment, County and City fees, interest and new outstanding
principal for all parcels within assessment districts for annual submittal to the City in
computer digital fIles compatible with Lotus or Quattropro software and a printed hard
copy.
5. The consultant shall send to the original purchaser of the district bonds a notice of
apportionment and a copy of the revised assessment diagram in accordance with the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 after the City reviews and authorizes such.
6. The consultant shall notify the underwriters by registered mail prior to the County's
August deadline but after review of the information by the City.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Tax Year 1995-%
August 1, 1995, Electronic Tape and Maps to the County, hard
7--..2 .2
Exhibit A 11193
Page 2
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
If
copies and computer digital flIes of items 7 and 8 above to the City
Future Tax Years
August 1 of every year, Electronic Tape and maps to the County,
hard copies and computer digital files of items in 7 and 8 above to
the City.
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
Upon completion of all services
9. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
() Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
() Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
(X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
A. List of the assessment districts the City would like us to administer for FY
1995196 (indicate mapping, spreadsheet updating andlor electronic tape
preparation services)
B. Copy of the Final Engineers Report and Final Official Statement for each
assessment district
C. Listing of parcels that have paid off their assessments (partially or fully) since the
assessment districts were formed
D. List of the bonds that have been called for each assessment district since the
bonds were issued. The list should include the amount of bonds called and their
corresponding ftscal year for each assessment district
E. List of parcels requiring apportionment services for each assessment district for
FY 1995/96
F. Name and address of the underwriter or other original purchaser of the bonds for
each assessment district
G. A sample copy of the City approved notice to underwriters or other original
purchaser of bonds
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
Exhibit A 11/93
Page 3
7-r7)
~1
H. A hard copy of the refunding report and diagram for assessment district nos. 85-
2, 86-1, 87-1, 88-2 when completed. Also, a copy of the refunding database in
electrical format
I. A hard copy of last years database and diagrams for each assessment district.
Also, a copy of the databases and diagrams in electronic format for each
assessment district
J. An electronic listing of delinquency charges for each assessment district to be
assessed for FY 1995/96.
11. Compensation:
A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the DefIned Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay a single fIxed fee in the amounts and at the times or tnilestones or for the Deliverables
set forth below:
Single Fixed Fee Amount:
, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the DefIned Services by Consultant as
are separately identifIed below, City shall pay the fIxed fee associated with each phase of
Services, in the amounts and at the times or tnilestones or Deliverables set forth . Consultant
shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for
a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase
1.
2.
3.
Fee for Said Phase
$
$
$
C. () Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the DefIned Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay
Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
additional Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according
to the following terms and conditions:
7/;2. t/
Exhibit A 11/93
Page 4
~</
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
(1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant
will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for
$ including all Materials, and other "reimbursables"
("Maximum Compensation").
(2) () Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal
to (" Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled
to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and
approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing
additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
Rate Schedule
Category of Employee
of Consultant
Name
Hourly
Rate
() Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after
[month], 1995, if delay in providing services is caused by City.
(3) (X) Additional Services Upon Request
At any time during the term of this agreement the City Engineer may
request the Consultant to perform additional services. The Consultant
shall perform the same on a "time and material" basis at the rates set forth
in the "Schedule of Hourly Rates" of Attachment A of Exhibit A to this
agreement, in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per year.
(0). (X) Other, Piecemeal
Work shall be paid on a per parcel basis with all costs, materials and labor included in
said unit cost.
7~,l/
Exhibit A 11193
Page 5
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
1ft
Task
Fee for Said Task
1.
2.
3.
Mapping
Spreadsheet Updating
Electronic Tape Preparation
$21.00/Parcel
$1.00/Parcel
$O.35/Parcel
The mapping and spreadsheet updating fees apply only to new parcels. The tape
preparation fee applies to the total parcel count.
The fee for services performed after December 31, 1995 shall be increased by the same
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, San Diego all urban consumers index,
as of January 1st of each year.
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
( ) Reports, not to exceed $
( ) Copies, not to exceed $
( ) Travel, not to exceed $
( ) Printing, not to exceed $
( ) Postage, not to exceed $
( ) Delivery, not to exceed $
( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $
( ) Other Actual IdentifIable Direct Costs:
, not to exceed $
, not to exceed $
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Donna Snider, City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5266
Consultant: Joe Francisco, Berryman & Henigar
11590 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 100
7-.;L ("
Exhibit A 11/93
Page 6
lP
.
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
San Diego, CA 92127
(619) 451-6100
14. Liquidated Damages Rate:
( ) $_ per day.
(X) Other: None
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
() Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income.
() Category No.2. Interests in real property.
() Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale
of real property.
() Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City
of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
() Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
(X) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radia1 miles of
Project Property, if any:
Mark Webb
5323 Robinwood Road
Chula Vista, CA 91902
7~..2 7
Exhibit A ll/93
Page 7
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
lil
16. () Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
18. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
( ) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
(X) Other: At completion of work
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
( ) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
(X) Other: At completion of work
C. City's Account Number:
7- ;Lr
Exhibit A 11/93
Page 8
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
lei
19. Security for Performance
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:
Amount: $
() Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the
contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the
City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention
Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention
Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
( ) Retention Percentage: _ %
( ) Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
( ) Completion of All Consultant Services
( ) Other:
7~..2 7
Exhibit A 11/93
Page 9
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconA. wau
~~
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term
of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited
Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement,
or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the
Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the
execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from
the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees.
Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such
. claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own
expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought
against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City
shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
8. . Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished or unfmished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of
the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other
materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts
payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
M:\... \LANDDEV\APconag. wau
November 2, 1993
Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision)
Page 8
7~ ;If)
v~
ATTACHMENT A
BERRYMAN & HENIGAR
SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL:
CLASSIFICATION
Expcn Testimony
Senior Principal Consultant
Principal Consultant
Principal Engineer
Senior Associate
Associate
Senior Engineer
Engineer III
Engineer II
Engineer I
Senior Specialist
Specialist III
Specialist II
Specialist I
Planner II
Planner I
Senior Designer
Designer
Senior Draftsperson
Draftsperson
Engineering Assistant
Plan Checker IV
Plan Checker III
Plan Checker II
Plan Checker I
Technician VI
Technician V
Technician IV
Technician III
Technician II
EQUIPMENT:
TYPE
HOURLY
RATE
185.00
185.00
146.00
135.00
113.00
103.00
103.00
92.00
81.00
70.00
103.00
92.00
81.00
70.00
81.00
70.00
87.00
70.00
60.00
48.00
60.00
92.00
81.00
76.00
70.00
76.00
65.00
55.00
46.00
39.00
HOURLY
RATE
CLASSIFICATION
Technician I
Principal I JlMscape Architect
Senior I JlM.",pe Architect
Landscape Architect
Associate Landscape Architect
Assistant , JlMS"'pe Architect
Licensed Land Surveyor
Supervising Land Surveyor
2-Person Survey Crew
3-Person Survey Crew
Senior Survey Analyst
Survey Analyst
Senior Right-of-Way Agem
Right-of-Way Agent
Assistant Right-of-Way Agem
Senior Inspector
Inspector
Senior Comract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Nuclear Gauge &. Operator
Building Official
Senior Programmer
Programmer
Cadd Designer
Cadd Operator II
Cadd Operator I
Word Processor III
Word Processor II
Word Processor 1
Clerical
HOURLY
RATE
35.00
135.00
103.00
98.00
92.00
70.00
87.00
81.00
163.00
198.00
81.00
70.00
92.00
70.00
55.00
70.00
60.00
71.00
61.00
48.00
94.00
76.00
60.00
81.00
70.00
60.00
60.00
48.00
39.00
33.00
Dynaflect 125.00
Inroads CADD Design 24.00
Microstation CADD Drafting 12.00
Plotter 11.00
Out-of-pocket expenses (bluepriming. reproduction. and printing) will be invoiced at cost plus 15 %. A 15 %
fee for administration. coordination and handling will be added to subcontracted services. Mileage will be
invoiced at SQ.36/mi1e. This Scbedule of Hourly Rates is effective as of April 1. 1995. Rates will be adjusted
annually after that date based on the Consumer Price Indelf described in Exhibit A, Parragraph
!leD). 7~JI11-3G tb
ATTACHMENT A
Current Assessment Districts within the City of Chula Vista
Assessment Original
District Principal.
No. Name Parcels (MilS) Type
85.1 Las Flores 160 1.6 Construction
85-2 Eastlake 1 2,794 S7.5 Construction
86-1 Eastlake 1 (Residential) 1,818 5 Acquisition
87-1 East H Street 1,996 7 Acquisition
88-1 Olay Lakes Road, Phase 1 24 7.5 Acquisition
88-2 Otay Lakes Road, Rancho Del Rey 1,301 7.5 Acquisition
90-1 Salt Creek 1 278 5 Acquisition
90-2 Otay Valley Road 102 5.5 Construction
90-3 Eastlake Greens 888 21.5 Acquisition
91-1 Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase 2 4 6.5 Acquisition
92-2 Otay Valley Road Auto Park 3 2 Acquisition
94-1 Eastlake Greens 11 309 7.9 Acquisition
Total
9,677
84.5 Mil$
7-'3) /7-3Y
\tt
ATTACHMENT B
COST COMPARISON WORKSHEETS
CONTRACT CONSULTANTS VS. IN-HOUSE STAFF
The following forms are to be used for comparisons of the cost of hiring consultants to the cost
of using in-house staff. Please answer the following questions and complete the attached Cost
Comparison Worksheet. If you have any questions regarding these forms, please contact the
Revenue Manager.
GENERAL:
1. Describe the task(s) to be performed.
The scope of work of the contract consists of the following tasks:
A. Upon direction of the City, the Consultant shall apportion the liens amongst the newly
created parcels in the manner that would have been done had such a subdivision existed
at the time of the confirmation of the District and file the segregation with the County
Tax Auditor after the City reviews and authorizes such.
B. The consultant shall annually prepare an amended assessment diagram for each
assessment district which required apportionment. One mylar copy shall be provided
to the City and one copy recorded with the County of San Diego for each amended
assessment diagram.
C. The consultant shall prepare the annual collections tape for all assessment districts to
be submitted to the County Tax Auditor and provide four (4) printed copies to the City.
D. The Consultant shall update spreadsheets showing assessment number, APN,
outstanding principal, assessment installment, County and City fees, interest and new
outstanding principal for all parcels within assessment districts for annual submittal to
the City in computer digital files compatible with Lotus or Quattropro software and a
printed hard copy.
E. The consultant shall send to the original purchaser of the district bonds a notice of
apportionment and a copy of the revised assessment diagram in accordance with the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 after the City reviews and authorizes such.
F. The consultant shall notify the underwriters by registered mail prior to the County's
August deadline but after review of the information by the City.
2. What is the expected duration of the project/task (number of weeks, months, etc.)?
Approx. 3 months (May thru July) every year. The proposed contract has provisions for
yearly renewals through 1999.
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\portions.jef
7-3>
Page 1
tZ\
3. How frequently does the City need to do this project (times per month or year, times
per development, etc.)?
Once a year
4a. Are there any in-house employees who could perform the task? What classification of
employee(s) ?
Yes, the City has two Civil Engineers that could perform many of the tasks but not all.
Auto Cad (drafting) work can be performed by a Technician II.
4b. If there are such employees. why shouldn't they be utilized for this project?
Those employees have all the work they can handle during the May thru July time
frame preparing the annual open space reports and working on several other activities
(assessment district formation, administration, etc). One Civil Engineer is on loan to
the assessment section while land development is slow. Once land development work
increases one of the Civil Engineers will not be available to assist in the workload.
4c. If such employees would not be used due to workload, what work would be displaced
if the task were to be performed in-house?
The annual open space reports. These can not be displaced as they are required by law
to be performed each year. The process must be complete by August in order to
provide the tax collector with the required information on the open space districts.
4d. If workload is a factor, could staff of lower classification be hired to handle extra work
so that staff of higher classification could concentrate their time on the project?
Explain.
This work is concentrated during the period May-July (same as the preparation of
reports for open space districts). Staff does not consider cost- effective to hire and train
new personnel to handle the workload peak.
5. Would the project take more or less time for in-house staff versus a consultant (e.g..
consultant has pre-prepared boiler plate materials, software. etc.)?
City does not possess the expertise or staff to perform the entire range of activities
required for the job.
6. Are there any qualitative reasons to choose either a consultant or in-house staff (e.g..
special expertise, knowledge of City operations)? Explain.
Staff considers it necessary to retain a consultant to provide these services. Although
staff has performed as assessment engineers for two districts, those districts were
standard. In many situations, the reapportionment requires detailed knowledge of the
applicable laws. Staff has limited experience in some aspects of the work. Consultant
7-J~
Page 2
v'f>>
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\portions.jef
specialist in this type of work and has the personnel and resources to handle the job in
a more efficient and timely manner.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT:
7. Base Contract Cost:
The compensation schedule for the consultant is as follows:
Apportionment Services
Annual Collection Services
Additional Services
$22.00 per parcel
$ 0.3 5 per parcel
Annual amount not to exceed
$10,000
For tax year 1995-96 the contract estimated cost is $17,350. The proposed contract has
provisions for yearly renewals through 1999 and for adjustments to the consultants fee tied to
the San Diego Consumer Price Index. The cost of the services for future years will mainly
depend on the number of new parcels in the districts.
8. Applicable rates (including travel, word processing, hourly or daily charges, clerical
support, meeting attendance, sales tax, etc.), estimated units per rate, and resultant
costs (e.g., jive trips from LA @ $50/trip = $250).
The consultant's fees cover all work necessary to accomplish the job, as outlined in the
scope of work, regardless of the hours required.
9. Method and Terms of Payment.
Payment at work completion.
10. Performance guarantees (e.g., withholding of payment for unsatisfactory work,
termination of contract, etc.).
$250,000 in errors and omissions insurance.
11. 1s consultant licensed to do business in the City?
Yes.
Note: If a draft agreement is available, please attach a copy.
Agreement will be based upon the City's Standard Two-Party Agreement and on the
Scope of Work called for in the RFP (copy attached).
Page 3
~
WPC F:\home\engincer\agenda\portions.jef
7-31
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONSULTANT COST COMPARISON WORKSHEET
CONSULTANT COST IN-HOUSE COST
Base Contract Cost $17,350 Full-Time Equivalent N/A(I)
(1995-96) Employee Hourly Wage
Consultant Hourly Rate N/A Estimated Actual Hours
Estimated Actual Hours N/A Total Base Cost
Additional Rates N/A
(Aggregate Cost)
Total Base Cost $17,350
FCR BASED COSTS* FCR BASED COSTS
Contract Division
Monitoring/Support Costs FCR Factor
Subtotal Subtotal
(Base + Support Costs) (Base x FCR Factor)
OTHER OTHER
Supplies, Furniture, and Supplies, Furniture, and
Equipment Equipment
Business License Tax
Other Applicable Tax Other Applicable Tax
TOTAL COST $17,350 N/A
(1995-96) see note (I)
(1) Currently, the City does not have the expertise or staff to carry out the entire
range of activities required for this job.
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\portions.jef
7- ;; 15
Page 4 <\1)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item f["
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / ? 9 tJJ / Authorizing issuance of bonds and approving
forms of Bond Indenture, Security Enhancement Agreement, Preliminary
Official Statement and Second Amendment to Acquisition\Financing
Agreement for Assessment District No. 94-1 (Eastlake Greens IT)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ~ ~. .-A (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The Acquisition/Financing agreement for AsUssment District No. 94-1 was approved by Council
on May 10, 1994. Later, on April 25, 1995 by Resolution No. 17877 Council established
Assessment District No. 94-1 (see Exhibit A) and levied assessments for the acquisition of certain
infrastructure serving the south portion of the Eastlake Greens development pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913.
Tonight's action will continue the legislative proceedings for Assessment District No. 94-1 (AD 94-
1).
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Adopt the resolution authorizing issuance of bonds and approving forms of Bond
Indenture, Security Enhancement Agreement, Preliminary Official Statement and
Second Amendment to Acquisition\Financing Agreement for AD 94-1; and
2) Direct staff to bring to Council, prior to delivery of AD 94-1 bonds, a procedure to
ensure compliance with the Council Policy requiring that the aggregate of all County
taxes, Mello-Roos school taxes, and assessments installments does not exceed 2%
of the sale price of the residential units.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The public improvements to be financed through AD 94-1 include backbone public facilities such as
storm drain, sewer, water, reclaimed water, utilities, landscaping, grading, and street surface
improvements serving the whole Greens II. A complete list of the proposed improvements is
presented in Attachment A.
PrODOSed Assessments
The estimated total amount to be assessed through AD 94-1 is $7,834,491 of which $5,915,064 are
for grading and improvements, $937,109 for incidental costs (design, plan check, City staff and
consultants' cost) and $1,096,829 for bond issuance costs (reserve, underwriter discount, and
capitalized interest). The AD 94-1 confirmed assessment on the proposed residential units of the
Greens IT development range from $2,813 to $10,754 per unit (see Attachment B).
fS--/
<\\
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/23/95
~
The properties in the Greens II are subject to prior assessments placed by the existing Assessment
Districts No. 90-3 and 91-1. Assessment District No. 90-3 funded the construction of major
infrastructure serving the whole Eastlake Development (Greens, Trails, Woods, Vistas, Business
Center II and OTC). Assessment District No. 91-1 levied only TDIF assessments on the Eastlake
Greens South properties. Assessment District 94-1 would finance the construction of backbone
facilities providing full service to the Greens II area and the improvement of a portion Hunte
Parkway and East Orange Avenue (TDIF facilities). The overall assessments (all three districts)
range from $7,629 to $10,754. Attachment B shows the total assessments placed on the proposed
residential units of the Greens II.
The proposed total assessments are within all criteria set forth by Council policy as follows:
Lien Ratio.
City policy requires that the total lien placed on a property shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the
value of the property as determined by an independent appraiser retained by the City. This is referred
as a 3: I Lien Ratio. The analysis is based on the value of the property at bond sale; no subsequent
fluctuations in property values are taken into consideration.
An appraisal of the property has been ordered and is expected to be ready by June I, 1995. It is
anticipated that certain of the parcels in AD 94-1 will not meet this test based on appraised value.
As an alternative to meeting the test based on appraised value, the City has allowed in the past the
lien ratio test to be met by the developer posting letters of credit. The criteria for these letters of
credit is as follows:
I. They must be provided by a major bank acceptable to the City. Eastlake proposes to provide
any letter of credit with Bank of America as issuer.
2. The letters of credit must be issued without condition. In other words, a call from the City
to the bank demanding cash would be honored without any reason needing to be given to the
bank. If the City were incorrect in making the demand, it would be between Eastlake and the
City to settle at some later date. The cash would be in the hands of the City.
3. The letters of credit must be .. evergreen". Evergreen refers to a letter of credit issued for
example, for one year. On the eleventh month, the bank either commits to another twelve
month period or the City requires that the cash be paid over. In other words, the City either
is the holder of a letter of credit or receives cash from the bank.
4. The letters of credit must be in an amount sufficient to reduce the debt on property with a
lien ratio under 3: I so the 3: I test is met. As an example, assume an assessment of $10,000
and an appraised value of $24,000. A letter of credit of $2,000 would be required. If such
property becomes delinquent in tax and assessments payment or the letter of credit is not
renewed, the City would demand the payment of $2,000 and use the funds to reduce the debt
to $8,000, thereby meeting the 3: I test.
Prior to delivery of AD 94-1 bonds, all necessary letters of credit would be delivered to the City,
or else the bonds will not be delivered. As mentioned before, it is expected than an appraisal will
be finished on or about June I, 1995, so that Eastlake will have approximately three weeks to
arrange for the delivery. Eastlake is aware of this timing.
8".;2..
/l'-
Page 3, Item 1
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Maximum Tax.
City policy requires that the combination of regular County taxes, Mello-Roos school taxes, and
assessment insta1lments does not exceed 2 % of the market value of the residential units. This is
known as the 2 % Maximum Tax. The analysis considers all assessments/taxes in place at the time
of the house sale. It does not apply if additional school taxes or new assessments are put on the
property by other agencies after the sale of the house.
A total of 1,460 dwelling units are planned to be developed in the Greens II at a pace set by the
future housing market conditions. In order to ensure that the 2 % test is met, it is necessary to
provide a mechanism allowing staff to determine compliance with the 2 % criterion as the houses are
sold. Staff is currently discussing with Eastlake different alternatives for said mechanism and is
proposing to bring to Council a report identifying a procedure to ensure compliance with the 2 %
Maximum Tax criterion prior to delivery of the AD 94-1 bonds, scheduled for June 29, 1995.
Resolutions .
Through the adoption of the proposed resolution, the following will be accomplished:
Approval of the form of Bond Indenture, which establishes all formal terms and conditions
relating to the issuance of bonds and subsequent administration. After the successful bidder
has been determined, the Bond Indenture will be executed on behalf of the City by the
Director of Finance.
Authorization for the Financial Advisor to solicit sealed bids for the sale of the bonds, such
bids to be opened on June 20th and sale of bonds to be awarded by City Council on that
evening.
Approval of the form of Security Enhancement Agreement by and between the City and
Eastlake Development Company to require additional security in the event that the lien to
value ratio for any properties is below 3: 1. The agreement is to be approved in substantially
fmal form. The resolution authorizes the City Manager to approve changes deemed to be
in the best interest of the City.
Authorization for the preparation of a Preliminary Official Statement (POS) pertaining to the
issuance and sale of bOnds. The Financial Consultant is also authorized to distribute copies
of the POS to persons who may be interested in the purchase of the bonds. The final OffIcial
Statement will be approved on behalf of the City by the City Manager.
Approval of the form of a Second Amendment to the Acquisition\Financing Agreement
previously entered into between the City and Eastlake. Eastlake has requested the City that
a portion of the assessments levied on those parcels identified as Assessments Numbers
(ASSMT#) 3 and 143 be considered prepaid during the 30-day payoff period which expires
on May 29, 1995. The amount of such prepayment is $83,871.54 on ASSMT# 3 and
$140,945.96 on ASSMT# 143. In lieu of making such prepayments in cash, the proposed
amendment allows the developer to prepay such amounts by accepting an equal reduction in
the acquisition payments to which developer is entitled under the Acquisition\Financing
Agreement. This amendment is to be approved in substantially fmal form. The resolution
authorizes the City Manager to approve changes to the Amendment deemed to be in the best
interest of the City.
(J'3
<\?
Page 4, Item If"
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Future Actions.
Bid openings are scheduled for June 20, 1995 and the bond sale closing for June 29, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT: Eastlake Development Company will pay all costs associated with the
formation of the district and will be reimbursed once bonds have been sold. The City will receive
the benefit of full cost recovery for staff cost (estimated at $78,000) to be funded by the district.
In accordance with Section 15 of the Acquisition/Financing agreement for AD 94-1 Eastlake shall
pay to the City an origination charge of 1.5% of the confIrmed assessments ($117,517) or such other
percentage as may be established by Council and be in effect at the time of the public hearing for
AD 94-1. On April 25, 1995 and prior to the AD 94-1 hearing, Council opened a public hearing on
the amount of the origination charge (currently 1 % of the confIrmed assessment) to be collected from
developers for the use of public fmancing. In response to the request of Eastlake and the Baldwin
Company, Council decided to continue the hearing and postponed the adoption of the revised
origination charge to a future date. At the hearing, Eastlake submitted a letter in which they agree
to pay the amount of the origination charge which Council fma11y approves. It is anticipated that this
issue will be brought to Council before the AD 94-1 bond sale closing scheduled for June 29, 1995.
The amount of the origination charge to be paid to the City at the current 1 % rate is $78,345 and
at the 1.5% proposed for Eastlake in this Assessment District is $117,517.
Attachment:
A
B
Description of Improvements
Confinned Assessments
Exhibit A
District Diagram
WPC M:\home\engincer\agenda\report3.941
Ldt\A Y-092
o-i
<t\
RESOLUTION NO. /79"1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND APPROVING FORMS
OF BOND INDENTURE, SECURITY ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT,
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO
ACQUISITIONIFINANCING AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS - PHASE II)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, is
conducting proceedings for the acquisition of certain public improvements in a special assessment
district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being
Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said special assessment
district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS -
PHASE II) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body has previously declared in its Resolution of Intention to
issue bonds to finance the acquisition of said improvements, said bonds to issue pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the "improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of said Code;
and,
WHEREAS, at this time this legislative body is desirous to set forth terms and conditions
relating to the authorization, issuance and administration of said bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has been presented, considered and ready for approval the form of a
bond indenture setting forth terms and conditions relating to the issuance and sale of bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has been presented, considered and ready for approval the form of a
Security Enhancement Agreement (the "Security Enhancement Agreement")by and between the
City of Chula Vista (the "City") and EastLake Development Company ("EastLake") to provide
additional security for the bonds; and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body hereby determines that the bonds shall be sold at a public
wale in an aggregate principal amount equal to unpaid assassments of the Assessment District
in the amount as shown and set forth in a Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assessments as certified
by and to be on file with the Finance Director, and for partiCUlars as to the amount of said unpaid
assessments, said Certificate and list shall control and govem; and,
WHEREAS, there has been presented, considered and ready for approval the form a the
Second Amendment to Acquisition/Financing Agreement by and between the City and EastLake
(the "Second Amendment").
NOW, THEREFORE, IT is HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
g~f
<\~
Resolution No.
Page Two
BOND AUTHORIZATION
2. That this legislative body does authorize the issuance of limited obligation improvement
bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the aggregate principal amount
of the unpaid assessments pursuant to the terms and provisions of the 'Improvement
Bond Act of 1915', being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California, and also pursuant to the specific terms and conditions as set forth in the
Bond Indenture presented herein.
BOND INDENTURE
3. That the Bond Indenture Is approved substantially in the form presented herein. The
Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to
execute the Bond Indenture with such additions thereto or changes therein as may be
approved by the Finance Director, subject to the review of Bond Counsel, such
approval by the Finance Director to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and
delivery thereof. A copy of said Bond Indenture shall be kept on file with the transcript
of these proceedings and open for public inspection.
SEALED BIDS
4. That this legislative body does hereby call for sealed bids through a competitive sale
for bonds to be issued to represent unpaid assessments within the Assessment District,
and the designated Financial Consultant, KADIE-JENSEN, JOHNSON & BODNAR, is
hereby directed and authorized to proceed at this time to call for sealed bids and solicit
proposals for the sale of bonds to represent all unpaid assessments on privately owned
property within the boundaries of the Assessment District.
INTEREST RATE
5. That the interest rate on said bonds shall not exceed the current legal maximum
interest rate of 12% per annum.
SECURITY ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT
6. The form of Security Enhancement Agreement presented to this legislative body is
hereby approved in substantially the form submitted at this meeting and the City
Manager is directed to execute and deliver the Agreement, a copy of which is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk, in substantially the form presented to this meeting, with
such changes as the City Manager may approve, such approval to the conclusively
evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. A copy of the final form of such
agreement shall be kept on file In the office of the City Clerk and remain available for
public inspection.
'if--;':'
14
Resolution No.
Page Three
PREUMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
7. The City Manager and other officers of the City and their authorized representatives
are each hereby directed to prepare or cause to be prepared a preliminary official
statement (the .Preliminary Official Statement.) and a final official statement (the
.Official Statement") relating to the Bonds. The Financial Consultant is authorized to
distribute copies of the Preliminary Official Statement to persons who may be Interested
in the purchase of the Bonds. Prior to the distribution of the Preliminary Official
Statement, the City Manager of the City Is authorized to certify that the Preliminary
Official Statement Is deemed final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed, for and In the name of the City, to execute the Official Statement with such
revisions from the Preliminary Official Statement as are reasonable and customary to
describe accurately the Bonds and matters contained in the Bond Indenture. Such
approval shall be evidenced by the execution thereof.
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
8. That the Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assessments, as certified by the Finance
Director, shall remain on file In that office and be open for public inspection for all
particulars as it relates to the amount of unpaid assessments to secure bonds for this
Assessment District.
SUPERIOR COURT FORECLOSURE
9. This legislative body does further specifically covenant for the benefit of the
bondholders to commence and prosecute to completion foreclosure actions regarding
delinquent installments of the assessments in the manner, within the time limits and
pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth In the Bond Indenture as submitted
and approved through the adoption of this Resolution.
OTHER ACTS
10. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the City with respect to the
sale and issuance of the bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the
Finance Director and any and all other officers of the City are hereby authorized and
directed, for and In the name and on behalf of the City, to do any and all things and
take any and all actions relating to the execution and delivery of any and all certificates,
requisitions, agreements and other documents, which the Finance Director may deem
necessary or advisable In order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the
bonds in accordance with this resolution.
3'~?
,'\
Resolution No.
Page Four
SECOND AMENDMENT TO ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT
11. The form of the Second Amendment, herewith submitted, is hereby approved
substantially In the form submitted. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the final
form of such amendment on behalf of the City. The City Manager, subject to the review
of the City Attomey and Bond Counsel, Is authorized to approve changes in such
amendment deemed to be in the best Interests of the City, such changes to be
evidenced by the execution of such amendment A copy of the final form of such
amendment shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and remain available for
public inspection.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
:r,25'
~
Resolution No.
Page Five
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
Califomia, this day of , 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Council members:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
Shirley A. Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, Califomia, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista, Califomia at a regular meeting held on the day of
1995.
Executed this _ day of
,1995.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2'~I/t-ID
n~
SECOND AMENDMENT TO ACQUISmONIFINANCING AGREEMENT
TInS SECOND AMENDMENT TO ACQUISmON/FlNANCING AGREEMENT (the
"Second Amendment") is made and entered into this day of ,
1995 by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a charter city Org~ni7~ and validly
existing under the Constitution and the laws of the State of California (the "City") and
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ("Developer") to amend that certain
AcquisitionIFinancing Agreement dated as of May 10, 1994 by and between the City and the
Developer (the" Acquisition/Financing Agreement") as previously amended.
WHEREAS, the City has formed of a special assessment district under the terms and conditions
of the 1913 Act for the acquisition of certain public improvements, together with appurtenances
and appurtenant work within the jurisdiction limits of the City, such special assessment district
known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS IT); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer entered into the Agreement to establish the terms and
conditions pursuant to which the City would acquire the Improvements and issue limited
obligation improvement bonds to finance the acquisition of the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer desire to amend the Agreement to provide that the
Developer be permitted to prepay certain assessments by agreeing to accept a reduction in the
Purchase Price (as defined in the Agreement) equal to the amount of such prepayment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUAlLY AGREED between the respective parties as follows:
SECTION 1.
Recitals.
That the above rec~ta1s are true and correct.
SECTION 2.
Amendment to Al!reelIlent. Section 8(c) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to add the following additional paragraph at the end of such
section:
Developer has requested to partially prepay the assessments
levied on those parcels within the Assessment District and
identified as Assessment Nos. 3 and 143. The amount of
such prepayment is $83,781.54 and $140,945.96 for each
respective parcel (cumulatively, the "Aggregate
Prepayment"). In lieu of making such prepayment in cash,
Developer is prepaying such amounts by accepting a
corresponding and equal reduction in the payments to
which Developer is entitled hereinunder. Therefore, there
shall be deducted from the first payment request and each
subsequent payment request such amount which shall in
aggregate equal the Aggregate Prepayment.
~u
g'--J/
SECTION 3. Other Terms and Conditions of the AlITeel11ent. Except as expressly provided for
in this Second Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. Countel3'arts. This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
EXECUTED by and between the parties hereto on the day and year fIrst hereinabove written.
"CITY"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MAYOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
CITY CLERK.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
ORM:
ATTEST:
~
~
ATTORNEY
VI TA, BY
TITLE:
"DEVELOPER"
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
BY:
Ldt:rb
(M:\HOMBIBNGINEERILANDDIlV\AGREE2.UlT)
%~ ).2-
~\
=X1+,a,r ,q
SHEET 1 OF 5
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
(ACQUISITION)
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
EASTLAKE GREENS II
~
8
"--'''0-04
NOT TO ......
LEGEND
AN ASSI:SSIiIEMT WAS LEVIED In' THE CITY COUNCtL or THI: CITY OF
CHutA VISTA, STArt or CAUf'0IINfA. OM PARCELS or LAND SHOWN. ON
THIS ASKISWENT DIAGftAM 1lIAP. SAID ASSESIIIENT WAS LEYlED ON TH[
~ ~DLl WEltE IlECOiiiKo 'r:'n.[~-:Sr:"'IT~SU:N=DENT
OF THE CITY OF CHUU vtSTA ON 1HE_DAY or . 'IIS.
RUtJl(NCE II MADE TO THE: ASSESSMENT ROU. RECORDED IN THE 0fTIC[ OF
THE 5TRtt1' SUPERINTtNDDlT FOR THE DW:T MIOUNT Of EACH ASStSSIIENT
LEVIED AGAINST EACH PARC[L Of' lAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM.
....
(j)
143-020-H
CITY IIOUNDM'f
DISTJItCT IOUMDAIIY
PMCtL IOU"DMY
NOTAPARTCWTHE:DISTIIICf
ASStSSIIEHT NWKII
....
CfTY CLERIC. CITY OF CHULA VISTA
NOTEI
tH[ 8DUNDMY AND PMCtLS AI SHOWN HE.ON
ME AS SHOWN ON THE ASSESSOIII'S 'MC€L MAPS
OF THE COUNTY Of SAN DIEGO, STATE or CAlIfORNIA
FILED IN THE omcE OF 11fE CITY cu:JtK or THE CITY or CHUlA VISTA
THIS DAY OF . 11_
CIlT Q.tRK" CITY or CHULA YlSTA
IKCOROI:D IN THl 0ff1CE or THE S11II:ET SUPERINTENDENT Of THE CITY OF
CHULA vtSTA THIS _OF: . '"1
S1"R(ET SUPERINTENDENT. CITY Of CHULA vtsTA
riLED THIS _ OAY OF' . 1," AT _ O"CLOCIt _
IN lOOK _ PAGE _ or IMPS or ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS,
RECOIIDEfrS DOCUMOO NO, IN THE orFlCE or THE
COUNT'/' RECORDEIl OF' tHE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNiA.
COUNTY IIKORDDI or SAN DIEGO COUNTY
?'~ /3 /t-/<f
~"J..
1J.-I--.fA ,^~4J+- A
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART VI
DESCRIPTION OF WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT
The proposed works of improvement are generally described as follows:
1. Street improvements consisting of grading, base, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting
and landscaping within the following rights-of-way:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Unit 6 entrance (2,400 L.F., Phase
1).
b. South Greensview Drive - from Silverado Drive to Hunte Parkway (3,400 L.F., Phase
2).
c. South Greensview Drive - from Unit 6 entrance to Silverado Drive (1,920 L.F., Phase
3).
2. Utilities and underground improvements conslstmg of potable water facilities, storm drain
facilities, sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, electric facilities, telephone facilities, and
gas facilities as appropriate by applicable state and federal statutes within the following rights-of-
way:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Unit 6 entrance (2,400 L.F., Phase
1).
b. South Greensview Drive - from Silverado Drive to Hunte Parkway (3,400 L.F., Phase
2).
c. South Greensview Drive - from Unit 6 entrance to Silverado Drive (1,920 L.F., Phase
3).
3. DlF funded street improvements consisting of grading, storm drain, base, paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, medians, street lighting, landscaping and street monumentation within the following
rights-of-way:
a. Hunte Parkway - from Clubhouse Drive to South Greensview Drive (2,300 L.F., Phase
2).
b. Hunte Parkway - from South Greensview to Orange Avenue (1,270 L.F., Phase 2).
4. DIF funded street and underground improvements consisling of grading, and storm drain
improvements within the following rights-of-way:
a. Orange Avenue - from Hunte Parkway to the SDG&E easement (3,500 L.F., Phase 2).
b. Orange Avenue - from Hunte Parkway to the Olympic Training Center
(to be funded only in the event that the actual construction cost of all the
TDIF improvements is lower than estimated)
8'~;//~- /0
Page 35
q,
WPC M:\HOME\ENGINEER\1875.94
ASSESSMENT SPREAD
ADs 90-3.91-1 & 94-1
EASTLAKE GREENS /I PHASES 1, 2 & 3
LAND USE ASSMT/DU ASSMT/DU ASSMT/DU
PHASE 1 Tvoe # of Units AD 90-3 AD 91-1 AD 94-1
R25 SFA 78 $1,891.18 $2,924.86 $2,812.96
R20{CITY) SFD 96 $2,248.37 $3,656.07 $3,728.34
R20{COUNTY) SFD 13 $10,753.87
R15 SFD 64 $2,248.37 $3,656.07 $3,728.34
R3(N) SFD 51 $2,125.86 $3,656.07 $3,850.85
PHASE 2
R27 SFD 40 $2,072.36 $3,656.07 $3,904.34
R18 SFD 58 $2,072.36 $3,656.07 $3,904.34
R12 SFD 101 $2,248.37 $3,656.07 $3,728.34
R1 SFD 66 $2,072.36 $3,656.07 $3,904.34
R10(CITY) SFD 196 $2,248.37 $3,656.07 $3,728.34
R10{COUNTY) SFD 91 $10,753.85
R16 SFA 109 $1,744.51 $2,924.86 $3,126.50
R6 SFD 70 $2,132.71 $3,656.07 $3,844.00
R3(S) SFD 51 $2,125.86 $3,656.07 $3,850.85
PHASE 3
R4 SFD 130 $2,195.57 $3,656.07 $3,781.14
R21 SFA 91 $1,891.18 $2,924.86 $2,979.83
R23{COUNTY) SFA 20 $8,692.73
R23{CITY) SFA 135 $1,891.18 $2,924.86 $2,979.83
OTHER
R9 $0.00
Golf Course $107,470.00 $166,316.31
R26 $134,001.00 $430,685.05 $220,704.09
Church $20,408.00
TRAILS APN 643-030-04 $794,916.90
East'lv Remainder PM 17476 $795,394.62
TOTAL
1460 Dwelling Units
8-- /7 / f-/'j
ATTACHMENT B
TOTAL ASSMT
PER UNIT
$7,629.00
$9,632.78
$10,753.87
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$10,753.87
$7,795.87
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$9,632.78
$7,795.87
$8,692.73
$7,795.87
$0.00
$273,786.31
$785,390.14
$20,408.00
$794,916.90
$795,394.62
~~
8. PUBLIC HEARING FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE
GREENS II). On 5/10/94, Council approved the Acquisition/FinancinBa~...ment for A.....ment District Number
94-1. On 2/28/95, Council adopted lbe Resolution of Intention to order Ihe acquisition and financing of certain
infrastructure serving the EastLake Gr..ns II proporties pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. On
the same date, Council adopled Ihe rosolulion ~ivin~ preliminary approval 10 the Engin..r's Report for A.....ment
District Number 94-1 (EastLake Greens 11) and setting puhlic hoarin~s lor 4/4/95 and 4/18/95 for lbe purpose of
hoaring public testimony. The first public hoaring was held on 4/4/95. The second public hoaring was opened on
4/18/95 and continued to 4/25/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
Continued from the meetinll of 4118/95,
A. RESOLUTION 17874 APPROVING CONTRACTS FOR OWNERSHIP OF UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II)
B. RESOLUTION 17875 ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II)
C. RESOLUTION 17876 DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II)
D. RESOLUTION 17877 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES, AND APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II)
John LippiU, Director of Public Works, informod Council there was a revision placed on the diu. II rellected a
change in oWDership on some of lbe parcels from WeSlem Parcel 10 EastLake. II was easier to change before lbe
finalasaessments were confirmod than 10 L'" throullh the proceo;s after the hoaring. Staff recommended Council
direct the revisions 10 he made part of the Enllin..r'. Report in the resolutions IS preaented 10 Council.
This heing the time and place as advertised, the public h..rin~ was declared opon.
Councilmember Moot referred to the two policies regarding lbe lien ratio and maximum tax of 21' and questioned
if either of those thresholds were heing approached and if the thresholds were exccoded if it woold automatically
he brought back to Council.
Mr. LippiU replied lbat on lbe lien ratios there was a ,luorant.. to the bondholders that Ihere would he Ihat ratio.
If an appraisal came in higher lbe bond ratio would he kept 10 the 3: I amount. If the ratio excooded lbe 3: 1 ratio
the developer was required 10 put up a leuer of credit to the bondholders for the difference. The 2" was for lbe
people that would be paying lbeir taxes and was a general policy of lbe City. Staff tried 10 keep those under 2"
and in most caaes they were around 1.8". II was stafrs best intention to keep it under 2". Once lbe assessments
were confirmed, it would not normally be brought hack to Council unless so directed. The only way it could he
corrected would be if the developer made a contribution when they sold the house which was not lbe current
process.
Council member Rindone felt there should he a procedure in place for review in order to protect the proporty OWDer.
He questioned the time sensitivity of the item as he was not comfortable that there was no provision for a review
by Council.
Mr. Lippitt stated the bonds would not he sold until June so staff could come hack wilh a report hefore the bonds
were sold. That could he done witb lbe ......ments on the land because they were hased on henelit.
MSUC (RindonelHorton) to direct stall to return in a timely munn... with II mechunism for review should the
1% lien ralio be reached or exceeded.
Councilmemher Rindone stated it appoared that lIem 8 was continllent upon lIem 7 and questioned Ihe impact of
Council action since the current policy was I" and the propo...1 for lIem 8 was 1.8".
Mr. Lippitl stated the Acquisition Agreement had been siL'lled one yoar ago and indicated that they would pay 1.5"
or whatever lbe final amount was al Ihe time. They had also submitled a letler which 51ated Ihey agreed to pay
whatever lbe final amounl was. II did not relate to lbe cost of the assessments, it was a developor fee. Therefore,
Council could make it a condition lbat hefore the bond sale thaI staff return with a final resolution.
3""/'1
Mr. Boogaard Slated the charge imposed was pursuant to a policy estahlished hy Council. Policies could be deviated
from on a case by case basis. With the consent of EastLake who had consented 10 a deviation in the particular case
it would be binding on EastLake to hold Ihem to their pre-existing agreement 10 pay 1.5'if and the COLlncil could
.cknowledge thai the City, for good reason was considering changinglhat origination fee structure. EastLake would
then be bound hy the contract ralher than the existing policy which was in a stale of Ilux.
Council member Rindone slated on page 8.7, il was in cont1ict with Item 7 on page 7.5 where ElistLake
Dewlopmenl Company agreed to pay an origination charge of 1.5 %. The fi....1 impacI stalement Ii" Item 8 stated
il was hetween 1.0% and 1.5%. He requesled c1arilication as tn which was correct.
Clifti"d Swanson, Deputy Direclnr of Puhlic Works/City Engineer. replied if Item 7 had not heen approved the
onglOalton charge would have remained al I % and the fee or charge would have heen $79.000. If Item 7 had heen
approved it would have heen 1.5% and the charge would then have heen $119,000. Since ElistLake had agreed to
pay whatever was approved when Ihe item was hrought hack, Ihat was whatlhe Ie., would he. Presumahly, since
staffs recommendalion was 1.5% the Ie., would have heen $119,000.
Mr. Goss slated the sentence Slated, "It is anticipated Ihatthis origination charge would he hetween $79,335 and
$119,200". He queslioned if it would be more accurale to say, "It is anlicipated that this origination charge would
be $79,300 or $119,200".
Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct.
Councilmember Padilla stated it was his understanding that Item 8, as it regarded EasILake, ret1ected the stand alone
discussions with EaslLake and thai they had talked in lerms of 1.0 % to 1.5 % and indicated they were not willing
to have to deal beyond that. If Item 7 was to he adopled it would be 2% under the revised policy.
Mr. Lippitt staled it had heen in the pipeline since 1993 and that was the numher staff had always referred to. In
the staff report for Item 7 staff specifically kepi EaslLake's at 1.5% as the maximum. It would be staffs intent
to keep EaslLake's al 1.5% for that one district if Item 7 was approved as presented.
Councilmemher Rindone referred to the new methodology in the last paragraph on page 8-6 which stated
providing a significant benelil to EastLake" and he questioned what the signilicant benefit was.
Mr. Lippiu replied because the district was going to he huilt in three phases the honds would be issued during the
first year and the City's Finance Direclor had indicated Ihat he wanted only one hond issue for the project. There
would be interesl available in years two and three that was not spent for construclion and, Iherefore, the property
owner when moving in would he given their final assessment. The proceeds from the interest earned would go to
help the undeveloped land. Ooce the prqject was fully huilt out and the money was spent then all the land would
he paying the same amount each year. Ther. was a linancial henelitlo the developer because h. would not have
to pay as much.
Councilmember Rindone questioned ifit was one of the henelits on lhe menu of incentives for the high techlbiotech
zone.
Mr. Goss responded that was correct.
There being no further puhlic testimony, the 'puhlic hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTIONS 17874, 17875, 17876, AND 17877, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE DESIGNATIONS OF
OWNERSHIP AS PRESENTED BY STAFf, OffERED BY COUNCILMEI\fBER PADILLA, reading oflhe
lext was waived, pus.<ed and approved uRllnimously.
g'~ .:2~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date Mav 23. 1995
/71t?';;"
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Agreement for Deferral of Sewer Capacity
Fee for a Car Wash Located at 3048 Bonita Road
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public of works! ;pr/"
REVIEWED BY, City __ JCj ~~ (4/'" Vo'" y~_ No X )
In connection with the application for a building permit associated with development of a car
wash at 3048 Bonita Road, the developer was required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee of
$16,206.00. This fee was based on the amount of sewage estimated by staff to be generated
by the full development of the site. Information provided by the manufacturer of the car wash
equipment (which incorporates a water recycling process) indicated that the car wash may
produce much less sewage than sta.ffs estimate. Consequently, the developer has requested that
the City defer the payment of this fee until the car wash has been in operation long enough for
the actual sewage generation to be determined.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement for deferral of Sewer Capacity fees for a
car wash located at 3048 Bonita Road.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: When plans of the project were submitted to the City in connection with
an application for building permit, staff estimated that 7.3 Equivalent Dwelling Units of
wastewater would be generated by the car wash. This estimate was based on a count of fixture
units within the facility and an average generation factor for existing car washes within Chula
Vista which was developed by staff. A Sewer Capacity Fee of $16,206 was calculated by staff
and paid by the developers.
Subsequently, the developers became aware of another proposed car wash in Chula Vista (The
Shell station at Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive.) where the developer had
requested a reduction in the Sewer Capacity Fee on the basis of a lower estimated wastewater
generation rate than that used by staff. The estimated lower generation rate would result from
the use of water recycling equipment they proposed to use. This project has not been pursued
by the developer and thus a final agreement has not been reached. At this time staff cannot
support the lower rate because we have been unable to verify the manufacturer's claim
regarding recycling of wash water.
9- /
qJ,
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/23/95
9
Council directed staff to work with the developer of the Shell car wash in an effort to arrive
at a fair Sewer Capacity Fee and the developers of the Bonita car wash have requested similar
consideration.
This proposed agreement incorporates all the provisions which were expected to be included
in the Shell agreement. No Sewer Capacity Fees were paid in the Shell case, so the refund in
this instance is the fIrst such release of fees to the developers by entering into an agreement.
The proposed agreement between the City and the developers of the car wash, Mr. Charles R.
Tibbet and Mr. Paul D. Magnotto, provides that $13,986 of the Sewer Capacity Fee previously
paid to the City by the developers will be released back to them within fIfteen days of the
approval of this agreement by the City. The remaining $2,220 is to be retained by the City.
The agreement provides that fIve hundred dollars of the retained $2,220 represents a non-
refundable processing fee for the deferral. The remaining $1,720 is to be applied to the actual
Sewer Capacity Fee which is determined to be payable after the car wash has been in operation
for one year. $1,720 represents the approximate Sewer Capacity Fee attributable to the onsite
sanitary facilities and a drinking fountain.
The developers have indicated their intention to install a separate water meter for the irrigation
of landscaping and that intention has been repeated in the agreement as one of its conditions.
For commercial establishments our sewer rates are based on the assumption that 90% of the
water consumed onsite is discharged to the sewer as wastewater. That percentage, which
accounts for 10% of the water consumed on the site being carried away or evaporated is also
reflected in this agreement. Because of the use of a separate irrigation meter, no allowance for
irrigation of landscaping is provided.
The actual fee will be based upon ninety percent of the average daily water consumed being
considered to be wastewater. The average daily water consumption will be as metered by the
Sweetwater Authority during the bi-monthly billing period most closely agreeing with the fIrst
anniversary of the completion of the project and its placement into operation. The Master
Schedule of Fees provides a standard factor of 265 gallons of wastewater per day per
Equivalent Dwelling Unit. This wastewater factor will be divided into the ninety percent of
the average water consumption to determine the number of EDU's for which the project will
be charged at the rate of $2,220 each.
The agreement will be secured with a Deed Of Trust on the project property, which will be
recorded as a lien. The developers will pay interest on any amount of the fee in excess of
$1,720 at the rate of 5.5% per annum, compounded monthly. In the event of their default, any
outstanding amount will accrue interest at the rate of 10% per annum, compounded monthly,
plus a late fee of 5% per month on the amount of the outstanding fee.
9--~
~
Page 3, Item 9
Meeting Date5/23/95
If the actual Sewer Capacity Fee is less than $1,720 the City will refund the difference (without
interest) to the developer within thirty days of the establishment of the fee.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The City has adequate funds available in its Sewer Capital Improvements
Fund to provide for any necessary sewer upgrades over the time period covered by this
agreement. Accrual of interest over the term of the agreement as provided will enhance that
fund.
RID - File No.PA 002
M:\SHARED\MAGNOITO
9~3 /7-tf
q1
RESOLUTION NO. J79tJ;2.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL
OF SEWER CAPACITY FEE FOR A CAR WASH LOCATED
AT 3048 BONITA ROAD
WHEREAS, in connection with the application for a
building permit associated with development of a car wash at 3048
Bonita Road, the developer was required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee
of $16,206.00; and
WHEREAS, said fee was based on the amount of sewage
estimated by staff to be generated by the full development of the
site; and
WHEREAS, information provided by the manufacturer of the
car wash equipment indicated that the car wash may produce much
less sewage than staff's estimate, and consequently the developer
has requested that the city defer the payment of this fee until the
car wash has been in operation long enough for the actual sewage
generation to be determined; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to defer fee payment
and charge a fee based on actual measured sewage output versus
estimated sewage output in light of the following circumstances:
(a) Developer has demonstrated that the deferred
portion of the Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee is
likely to be refundable to Developer based on the
actual sewer discharge to be generated by the
Project;
(b) Developer has agreed to install a separate water
meter for irrigation of landscaping which will
facilitate measurement of sewer discharge at the
Project Property.
(c) Developer's willingness to secure its obligation to
pay the Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee, if such
payment is ultimately required, by providing the
City with a Deed of Trust against the Project
Property;
(d) The current sufficiency of the city's Capital
Improvements Fund to provide for sewer trunk
upgrades over the time period up until the
Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee would be required to
be paid under this Agreement.
9;5
cf6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement for Deferral
of Sewer Capacity Fee for a car wash located at 3048 Bonita Road
with Charles R. Tibbett and Paul D. Magnotto, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. (to be
completed by the City Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
At:
, City
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ruce M.
Attorney
c: \rs\ugnotto
9"t
qf\
AGREEMENT FOR
DEFERRAL OR REFUND
OF SEWER CAPACITY FEE
[3048 BONITA ROAD, CHULA VISTA]
THIS AGREEMENT, is entered into effective as of this
day of May, 1995, by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
municipal corporation, ("city"), and CHARLES R. TIBBETT, an
individual, and PAUL D. MAGNOTTO, an individual (collectively
"Developer"), with reference to the following facts:'
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, one of the individuals comprising Developer (or an
affiliate thereof) is the owner of certain real property (the
"Project Property") commonly known as 3048 Bonita Road, Chula
Vista, California 91910 (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 570-220-03 and 570-
220-30);
WHEREAS, Developer,
developing an automatic
Property; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of obtaining a building permit from
City for the development of the Project on the Project Property,
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 13.14.090 calls for Developer's
payment of a sewer capacity fee of $2,220 per Equivalent Dwelling
unit (EDU) of additional sewage flow generated by the Project;
or an affiliate thereof,
car wash ("Project") on
is currently
the Project
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule,
the number of EDU's for the Project has been estimated by city to
be 7.3, corresponding to a Sewer Capacity Fee of Sixteen Thousand
Two Hundred six Dollars ($16,206.00) (the "Estimated Sewer Capacity
Fee"); and
WHEREAS, in order to obtain a building permit for the Project,
Developer has already paid to the City the Estimated Sewer Capacity
Fee; and
WHEREAS, information provided to Developer and city by the
manufacturer of the car wash equipment indicates that a capacity of
1.0 EDU or less is adequate to accommodate the sewage discharged by
the car wash; and
1
q-7
qp
WHEREAS, because the car wash equipment manufacturer's
estimate of the sewage discharge is significantly less than the
City's estimate, Developer wishes to defer payment of the
difference until the actual sewage discharge can be measured and a
more accurate sewer capacity fee can be calculated; and
WHEREAS, in this specific case, city is willing to defer
payment of a portion of this fee on the terms and conditions set
forth herein in light of the following facts and circumstances:
(a) Developer has demonstrated that the deferred portion of
the Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee is likely to be
refundable to Developer based on the actual sewer
discharge to be generated by the Project;
(b) Developer has agreed to install a separate water meter
for irrigation of landscaping which will facilitate
measurement of sewer discharge at the Project Property.
(c) Developer's willingness to secure its obligation to pay
the Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee, if such payment is
ultimately required, by providing the City with a Deed of
Trust against the Project Property;
(d) The current sufficiency of the City'S Capital
Improvements Fund to provide for sewer trunk upgrades
over the time period up until the Estimated Sewer
Capacity Fee would be required to be paid under this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the
parties hereto as follows:
1. Terms of PaYment and Deferral.
a. within fifteen (15) days after City'S approval of this
Agreement, city shall release to Developer $14,340 of the
$16,206 Estimated Sewer Capacity Fee that Developer has
previously paid to the city. Of the $2,220 retained by
the city, $500 shall constitute a non-refundable deferral
processing fee. Developer acknowledges and agrees that
this deferral processing fee is a fair and appropriate
amount designed to reimburse the City for staff time and
expense in the processing of Developer'S deferral and
refund request. The remaining $1,720 shall be retained
by the city and, depending upon the "Actual Sewer
Capacity Fee" to be charged to Developer as provided
hereinbelow, shall be applied to such fee, or refunded to
Developer, as appropriate.
b. Approximately one year after completion of the Project,
and its placement into service, city shall review the
2
9,15
ct\-
overall non-irrigation water consumption within the
Project Property during the most recent billing period.
city shall then calculate the EDU's at the Project
Property on the bases that (1) ninety percent of the
total non-irrigation water metered onto the site is
discharged to the sewer as wastewater and that (2) 265
gallons per day of wastewater discharge, as provided in
city's Master Schedule of Fees is equivalent to one EDU.
c. The sewer capacity fee to be charged to the Developer
(the "Actual Sewer Capacity Fee") shall be calculated as
the product of the number of EDU's (calculated above)
multiplied times $2,220.00.
d. If the Actual Sewer Capacity Fee is greater than
$1,720.00, Developer shall pay the City the difference
between the Actual Sewer Capacity Fee and $1,720 (the
"outstanding Sewer Capacity Fee"), plus interest on the
outstanding Sewer Capacity Fee at five and one half
percent (5.5%) per annum, compounded monthly for the
period commencing with the effective date of this
Agreement and ending on the date the Actual Sewer
Capacity Fee was calculated. Such amount shall be due
and payable, by check or other immediately available
funds, by no later than thirty (30) days after the
outstanding Sewer Capacity Fee owed is communicated to
the Developer in writing.
If Developer fails to pay the Outstanding Sewer Capacity
Fee when due, Developer shall be in default hereunder and
any outstanding amount thereof shall accrue interest at
the default rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,
compounded monthly. In addition, because city will incur
extra administrative expenses in the event of Developer's
default, Developer shall be charged a late fee in the
amount of 5% of the outstanding fee for each month, or
portion thereof, the amount remains outstanding.
e. If the Actual Sewer'Capacity Fee is less than $1,720.00,
City shall refund the difference to Developer, without
interest, within thirty (30) days of the establishment of
such fee.
f. In order to secure Developer's obligations under this
Agreement, Developer shall execute, notarize and deliver
a Deed of Trust with respect to the Project Property in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Deed of Trust").
The Deed of Trust will be recorded as a lien against the
Project Property. Developer agrees to perform such
further acts and to execute and deliver such additional
documents as may be reasonably required in order to
3
9/(
~~
perfect City's security interest in such property and to
otherwise carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
Developer acknowledges that the Deed of Trust contains a
Due on Sale provision.
2. Other Fees Due and pavable.
Except as expressly provided herein, Developer shall be obligated
to pay all other processing and impact fees related to the Project
customarily required by the City, as set forth in the Master Fee
schedule or otherwise, at the time the Building Permit for the
Project is obtained.
3. Assianment and Transfers.
a. Developer may not assign its obligations or rights
hereunder without city's prior written consent to be
exercised in City'S sole discretion. Any attempted
assignment in violation of this section shall be void and
shall constitute a material default hereunder.
b. Should all or any portion of Developer's interest in the
Project Property be transferred before the Actual Sewer
Capacity Fee is paid in full, Developer shall remain
fully responsible for the payment thereof to the city on
the terms and conditions set forth herein.
c. Developer's obligations hereunder shall also run with the
land and be binding upon all successors and assigns to
the Project and the Project Property.
4. General Remedies for Developer Default: Riaht to Withdraw
Permits.
In order to enforce Developer'S obligations under the terms of this
Agreement, the city shall be entitled to pursue any and all
remedies provided at law or in equity, including, without
limitation, any and all remedies provided under the Deed of Trust.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event of
a default by Developer of its obligations hereunder, the City shall
also have the right to withdraw all business or other permits
issued by the City permitting the construction of the Project
and/or the operation by Developer of its business at the Project
Property or elsewhere in the City. .
5. citv's Riaht to Record Aareement.
If City so elects, city may record a copy of this Agreement in the
Official Records of San Diego County, in which event this Agreement
shall constitute a lien against the Project Property for the
benefit of City.
4
9-/t/
~
6. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a. Authoritv: Developer represents and warrants that
Developer has full power and authority to enter into this
Agreement.
b. Notices: Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or
by law, any and all notices required or permitted by this
Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to
either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly
served, delivered, and received when personally delivered
to the party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof,
when three (3) business days have elapsed following
deposit in the U.S. mail, certified, or registered mail,
return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid,
addressed to the address indicated in the Agreement. A
party may change such address for purpose of this
paragraph by giving notice of such change to the other
party. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal
delivery.
city of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: city Attorney's Office
Charles R. Tibbett
3048 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
(A party may change such address for the purpose of this
paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the
other party in the manner proviaed in this paragraph.
Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal
delivery. )
City:
Developer:
7. caDtions.
captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent
of this Agreement or any of its terms.
8. Entire Aareement.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
regarding the sUbject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written
representations, agreements, understandings, and/or statements
shall be of no force and effect.
9. PreDaration of Aareement.
5
9~Jl
~~
No inference, assumption or presumption shall be drawn from the
fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or drafted this
Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties
participated equally in the preparation and/or drafting of this
Agreement.
10. Recitals: Exhibits.
Any recitals set forth are incorporated by reference into this
Agreement.
11. Attornevs' Fees.
The prevailing party in any action enforcing the provisions of this
agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court
costs in addition to any other costs, damages, or remedies.
12. Governina Law.
The Agreement has been executed in California and shall be governed
by the laws of the state of California.
13. Invaliditv.
If any term, covenant or provisions of this Agreement is held by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain
in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired
or invalidated thereby.
14. Time.
Time is of the essence in the performance of the Parties'
obligations contained herein.
15. Waivers.
The waiver by one party of the performance of any covenant,
condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall
it be considered a waiver by him of any other covenant, condition
or promise. The waiver by either or both parties of the time for
performing any other act or identical act required to be performed
at a later- time. The exercise of any remedy provided in this
Agreement shall not be a waiver of any consistent remedy provided
by law, and any provision of this Agreement for any remedy shall
not exclude other consistent remedies unless they are expressly
excluded.
16. Further Assurances.
The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and
deliver such additional documents and instruments as may be
6
9~/2
Db
reasonably required in order to carry out the provisions of this
Agreement, or any of the agreements or documents referred to
herein, and the intentions of the parties.
17. Successors.
Subject to the restrictions on assignment contained herein, all
terms of this agreement shall be binding upon and be enforceable by
the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal
representatives, successors and assigns.
18. Joint and Several Liabilitv.
The individuals comprising Developer shall be jointly and severally
liable for Developer's obligations hereunder.
[Next Page Is Signature Page]
7
9~/J
q,l,
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL AND POTENTIAL REFUND OF SEWER
CAPACITY FEE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement
effective as of the date first set forth above thereby indicating that
they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete
consent to its terms:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Shirley Horton, Mayor
By:
Attested by:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
.n~
Attorney
8
9-/'/
q'\
.....of~
COIIIlI)' 01... Dioto )
...~~/'~ .....";l'~':i';,;.~..,., M~ PI1.b11c
M1 .~ '- '~:::':!~IO"OD_"'iIIol~~IO""~~"""'Io"widIia
~lIldl:b.CT"' "r to__...".....~lb8_.~auIbodMId~lIIdtbalby~.........OD
......... die ~or _eadl1.- w.JI oIwWctJ,... ~... aocacd"~.
ct--~~
I1VC j/; _
I
OFFICIAl. lEAl. II
_ . DIANE C. INANDAN
do . . NOTARY PUBlIC.CAlIFORNIA:
Il!' ,. 'COMM. NUMBER 1000638 !
II ~WPfllNCIPAlOfFICEINSNlIllEGOCOUNTY I
""0;'. UYCOUM EXP AUG 151997
_of"""""'"
""""" of........ I
""~~ Iflf!i' .....""'./)/~ c./~N'~"H6-Ic.
porI(IllfJJy IJIIlOINd I.. ,,1lHiN 6 TT'D""'-
~r-' ~~IO__lbDbMitot...faoaoryevideD08lO""'~~tlillcribedlO"wIddD
~........",.1IdtId 1O_..bII"""IllIiOCl\IIDd__ia~audloriDd ~lIIId1hatby"~'" '1P""~-'1t) CID
dID...... dIO,...pI;.......aky.. beWf 01 wIddl dID PD*lIlf( tlCIlod, ___ . ____.
c
f
II OFFICIAL lEAL II
DIANE C. INANDAN
~ ~ .; NOTARY PUBLIC4CAlIFORNIA!
Ii , . COMM. NUMBER 1000638 .:.
II ~PflINCIPAlOFF~EINSNlDlEGOCOUNlY I
"""~". MY COMU F.XP AUG IS 1997
9" J.5!9-ICf
----..-
~WtviduII6l)""'lor~
D_
0ftbr(I) ~)
"-
D_>
-
D_
......
-~>
OTnIIliDo(I)
T_
D""'"
<S/~ ~
r_l
-1-
_1-
-..........-
)(IDllMdIaI(I).... for-at~
D_
0fB00r(I) TIlIo(I)
"-
D_>
-
D_
......
_I
DTf'\IMo(I;)
T"'"
DOlboJ
SJ~~
_1-
_1-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item It?
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE:
/79t?.3
Resolution Approving request for fee waiver from Chula Vista Aquatic
Association
Director of Parks and R:rit~
City ManagerJ~ ~~I
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x.l
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The Chula Vista Aquatic Association (CV AA) is requesting a fee waiver in connection with their swim
pool use charges. The charges are for staff services (Lifeguards) provided by the City during CV AA's
use of City pools for team practices and competitive swimming meets. CV AA is requesting that the City
waive the outstanding balance due (including charges that have been assessed for past-due billings), and
allow them to continue use of the pools from a debt-free starting point.
Since the charges have been billed, according to the rates depicted in the Master Fee Schedule, the
request from CV AA is actually for the forgiveness of charges associated with their past use of City
swimming pool facilities. Staff has discussed the Association's request for the forgiveness of pool
charges, and have worked out a process which is agreeable to both parties. This report discusses the
provisions of the proposed agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council forgive 50% of the outstanding balance due and 100% of
the late fee penalties assessed against the balance due, and allow CV AA to reimburse the City for the
remaining balance over the course of 36 months.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable
DISCUSSION: The Chula Vista Aquatic Association (CV AA) is requesting a waiver of fees
associated with their use of City swimming pool facilities (Attachment A). Council reviewed the request
at their meeting on April 25, 1995, and referred the item to staff for evaluation and recommendation.
CV AA is a private, non-profit youth competitive swimming team that came into existence in 1973 when
a groups of parents took over the program that the City had been conducting since the mid-1950's. The
team utilizes the City's swimming pools for team practices and meets on a year-round basis. Beginning
in 1992, the City began providing City Lifeguards to oversee the team's activities at the pools. Prior to
that time, CV AA had provided their own lifeguard. The change was instituted based on a number of
concerns including liability issues, facility supervision and security, quality of lifeguarding services, and
accountability. CV AA is required to reimburse the City for these services on a monthly basis.
Due to unexpected financial difficulties encountered by CV AA during the past year, the team began
having problems meeting their financial obligations to the City last fall. Monthly payments have been
submitted on an irregular basis, often three to four months past due, and most recently, the team has not
(Alll.CVMI'EES....ll]
/t1- /
~
Item / fJ
Meeting Date 5/23/95
been able to reimburse the City for Lifeguard services for the past five months (December '94 - April
'95). The outstanding amount due is $4,331, which includes $279.94 in late fees assessed by the Finance
Department for overdue bills.
Staff met with the Board President and Treasurer of CV AA recently in an attempt to reach a mutually
agreeable solution to the problem. It should be noted that CV AA has already taken a number of steps
to mitigate their financial difficulties, and are making a good-faith effort to raise funds and manage their
finances is a manner that will allow them to reimburse the City for past and future pool use. CV AA has
iristituted changes in coaching staff, salary levels and incentives, and are actively involved in a number
of innovative and creative fund-raising activities that include incentives for parents and swimmers. They
are also soliciting corporate support and sponsorship and have increased monthly participation fees and
annual assessments to members. The team has also instituted an active membership recruitment
campaign, and they expect that their membership will increase substantially in the next three to four
months. The team has also reduced the amount of time that they are utilizing City facilities until a time
that increased membership warrants additional use.
CV AA's existence depends on their ability to utilize the pool, and staff is reluctant to prohibit continued
use at this point, since youth competitive swimming is a valuable component of an overall and
comprehensive aquatics program.
Staff and CV AA's representatives were able to negotiate an agreement that is mutually acceptable. The
proposed agreement addresses past reimbursements, as well as future payments for the teams' continued
use of the swimming pools. The details of the proposed agreement are outlined below:
1. The City would forgive 50% ($2,025.53) of the current outstanding charges due, along with
100% ($279.94) of the late-fees that have been assessed by the City for past due billings. The
total forgiveness of fees would be $2,305.47.
2. CV AA would reimburse the City for the remaining 50% ($2,025.53) of the current outstanding
balance (minus late fees), over a period of 36 months.
3. CV AA would be required to provide full payment, in advance, for estimated staff services on a
month-to-month basis, with payment due dates the last business day of the preceding month. This
payment schedule is proposed to commence on June 1, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT: Loss of $2,025.53 in staff services reimbursements from the charges that have
been billed, to the General Fund, and a loss of $279.94 in late fee charges.
Attachment:
Waiver Request Letter from CV AA
IAm.C"IMI'E6S.All]
2
/t:7~.2.
~
RESOLUTION NO. /79&3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF
DEBT FROM CHULA VISTA AQUATIC ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Aquatic Association (CVAA) currently
owes the City $4,052.06 in pool fees and $279.94 in late fees
("Debt"); and,
WHEREAS, CVAA is requesting a forgiveness of the Debt
associated with their past use of city swimming pool facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the fees were imposed are for staff services
(Lifeguards) provided by the City during CVAA's use of City pools
for team practices and competitive swimming meets; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE,
ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. Public Puroose Findinq. Chula vista Aquatic
Association is a non-profit association that serves a valuable
public purpose that would otherwise need to be served by the city,
and that the foregiveness of part of the Debt in the manner herein
allowed has a legitimate public purpose of permitting the
Association to stay solvent and operating in a manner that will
permit the CVAA to accomplish its mission and continue serving the
public good.
section 2. Partial Debt Forqiveness. On and after meeting
the following conditions:
a. CVAA keeps its future pool fees account current
during the Payment Period;
b. Prior to the commencement of CVAA's use of the
pool for a given month, CVAA shall advance the cost
estimated by the City Manager, or his designee, for
the estimated staff services rendered during the
CVAA useage of the pool; and,
c. CVAA pays $2,025.53 of the Debt (50% of the
Debt less the late fees), in equal monthly payments
of $56.26 per month for- the next 36 months
("Payment Period")!!,
the City will, at the end of the Payment Period, and if CVAA is not
then in material breach of the conditions of this resolution,
1. Note the amortization is non-interest bearing until a default
occurs.
/~-3
~
forgive CVAA from payment of the balance of the Debt ($2,025.53 of
the current outstanding fees due, along with 100%--$279.94--of the
late fees that have been assessed by the City for past due billings
incurred prior to the date of this resoltion.
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
C:\rs\CVAA.fee
J?'~ f
Bruce M.
Attorney
VedX
\0\
"
,. .
. Attachment "A"
RECEIVED
'95 Am 18 !Ill 'A7
my OF CHULA VISTA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(
April 18, 1995
Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton and Council,
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Chula Vista Aquatic Association, also known as
CVAA. We are in a position that we have never been in before. We are advised that
we will loose th~ use of city swim facilities if unable to pay the lifeguard bill to the City
in the amount of $3,395.75 by April 28, 1995. This will, in essence, terminate Chula
Vista Aquatic Association.
Because of an exceptionally harsh winter and equivocal economy along with some
unsound decisions made by the previous board, we are in a position to ask for help.
Our financial picture makes it impossible to come up with this sum at this time. We
have held fund raisers, assessed families, implemented a fair share program and
presented our quest for sponsorship to the community through an article in the Star
News. These actions have only allowed us to stay afloat but have not been enough to
payoff previous debts.
We are asking you, the Council, to please review our case and eliminate our past debt
allowing us to continue our operations on a clean slate with the City.
CV AA was founded in 1956, as part of the recreational program of the city of Chula
Vista In the 1960's CVAA was known as the "powerhouse" in the county. In 1973, in
response to funding cuts, the City of Chula Vista stopped sponsoring competitive
swimming. At that time, a parent's club took over the financial obligation of CV AA.
From 1976 to present, CVAA swimmers have set district records that still stand, as well
as National Age group records. We have been represented at the Jr. Nationals, and
swept first place In every event in the Eastlake South Bay Summer Games. In 1992
Chula Vista hosted the Short Course Junior Olympics and swimmers and families
were welcomed to our fine city by Mayor Tim Nader. Most recently two of our
swimmers qualified for Far Westerns. Some of our other swimmers just missed
qualifying by a few seconds.
CVAA provides many services to the community and its children. It is the only
program that provides year around training for swimmers in Chula Vista This training 1;;:,
allows the swimmers to swim at a competitive level. Thus, allowing them to receive
scholarships_fpr college and to go as far as they ever dreamed possible. With the 'J;J.,A,/
c&.:~~('// ~~ -r,PJ
.. .. p;~~. "'.. f!. IA. ~~,,~;:.;J Il: .,n:.,~.,
~ t1?! If .. \i.jig c Ti~Oi:a~TiUIi~~C~l rk'~':~S
0.:. P'~ /I..... ~~ /~ - .
'OIympic training center nearby we are in an Ideal situation to encourage our youth to
strive for their dreams. Some of those dreams have been met by previous CVAA
swimmers, such as Greg Lougainis.
Above all, CVAA provides each child with an individual goal, teaches discipline, and
the true meaning of a team is learned. It helps build self esteem and confidence.
Community pride is develOped as they are the representatives for their city. This
program provides daily swimming, training and exercise for our communities youth,
whether they have Olympic dreams or not. Many CV AA swimmers go on to become
lifeguards or recreational aides for the city.
We have contributed to the city through the purchase of equipment for the pool. We
have purchased lane lines, lane line reels, timing clocks and various other equipment
that Is used by many of the city's other aquatic programs. Over the years CV AA has
invested thousands of dollars in the Loma Verde facility.
CVAA also has two Memorial Funds. One allows financially burdened families an
opportunity to have their child swim for a nominal fee. The other insures that any
swimmer who qualifies for a Far Western or National Meet, but cannot afford
to, will go to that meet.
We are supported by the Parks and Recreational Department. During the summer
months they feed 25 to 75 children who have advanced swimming abilities Into our
program. This volume of swimmers allows CVAA to flourish in the summer months
and gets new children into the mainstream of swimming as one sport option that many
of them never knew about.
Board members, swimmers, families and supportive community sponsors do not want
this dynasty to die. In order to get us through this tough time we are asking for your
help. You can make the difference to our communities children by assisting us to
overcome this financial hurdle and put us back on a clean slate. Please find It in your
heart to offer these children another chance to keep their team together.
We are counting on you. We hope you will eliminate CVAA's past debt to the city in
order to allow the operations of CVAA to continue. WIth thirty nine years of history we
want to continue to be their for the children.
Sincerely,
a$-7!-< G 'i~
Anne Taylor, President
Board of Directors CV AA
JtJ~ ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
J)
Meeting Date
5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-09: Request to extend
approval for a private school for approximately three years (through
September 1999) and to allow the expansion of said school facilities into
the second story of the building located at 2400 Fenton Street within the
EastLake Business Center - Covenant Christian School
Resolution J 79 tJ r Denying the requested time extension but approving
a requested expansion of an existing Conditional Use Permit (pCC-94-09)
to Covenant Christian School to operate a private school at 2400 Fenton
Street within the EastLake Bu iness Center.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-XJ
The proposal is for an extension (throu~Sep;mber 30, 1999) of the term of an existing
Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-09, which approved Covenant Christian School, a private school
for grades K-12 at 2400 Fenton Street within the Eastlake Business Center. The permit was
approved by Council in December 1993 for a 2.5 year period extending through June 1996.
The application also requests permission to expand the existing facility, which currently operates
on the ground floor of a two-story building, to the second floor which was previously occupied
by Bonita Country Day School. The expansion would become effective inunediately.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA as a Class I exemption (the operation of an existing facility).
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Resolution to deny the requested
extension but approve the requested expansion for the term of the existing permit (June 1996).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 12, 1995, the Planning
Commission voted 5-0 to deny the requested extension but approve the expansion for the term
of the existing permit in accordance with Resolution PCC-94-09(M).
The Commission further recommended that staff work with the applicant in fmding a suitable
permanent EastLake location during the upcoming planning efforts for EastLake Ill, and that
staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the permit to grant a modest extension of
perhaps six to twelve months provided the school can document that they are actively pursuing
a permanent site (see discussion under Alternatives).
/1-/
\of)-
Page 2, Item ) /
Meeting Date 5/23/95
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The property, zoned P-C (Planned Community), lies at the easterly edge of the existing
EastLake Business Center and is bounded on the north, west, and south by undeveloped
industrial parcels. The property to the east is within EastLake III and is planned as an
extension of the Business Center.
The 1.25 acre site is occupied by a 20,000 sq.ft. two-story building, with access
provided via Fenton Street; 63 parking spaces are located along the north, east, and south
portions of the site. The property contains no recreational or playground facilities;
outdoor recreational and physical education activities are conducted in Scobee Park under
an agreement with the EastLake Business Center Owners Association. Scobee Park is
located approximately 1,000 ft. west of the school within the EastLake Business Center.
2. Zoning and Land Use
Covenant Christian School operates a private school for grades K-12. School activities
for up to 208 students and 24 staff are approved at Fenton Street through June 30, 1996.
Currently, Covenant Christian's secondary school (grades 7-12), comprised of 70
students and 10 staff members, occupies the first floor of the Fenton property (the
elementary grades of the school are presently held at their original Naples Street
location). The second floor of the Fenton Street property, formerly occupied by Bonita
Country Day School, is now vacant.
Covenant Christian School was approved for 2 1/2 years at this location by the City
Council in December of 1993. Although the applicant had requested approval for a five-
year term, the Council expressed concerns relating to the impact of a school site on the
development potential of the EastLake Business Center. In approving the 2 1/2 year
term, it was stated that the permit could be considered by the City Council for renewal
and extension beyond the approval date in consideration of the following specific factors:
(I) whether there exists, or there is expected in the near future to exist, within the
EastLake Business Park a demand for sites by users which, by virtue of
requirements of law involving the siting of hazardous waste generating uses
within a given distance from an operating school, may require such prospective
users to engage in costly and time consuming studies and reports before such use
may be allowed; and
(2) the potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the
plans for the Business Center.
/1~;2
"
Page 3, Item / /
Meeting Date 5/23/95
The permit was also conditioned upon the requirement that any request for extension of
the permit be submitted and considered at least one year prior to the June 1996 expiration
date. This was intended to allow the school ample time to fmd an alternate location and
to relocate if an extension was not granted.
Classes are held from 8:15 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8:15 a.m. -
12:00 noon on Fridays. As mentioned previously, recreational facilities are provided at
Scobee Park under an agreement with the EastLake Business Center Owners Association.
Under that agreement, recreational and physical education classes may take place between
the hours of 9:30-11:30 a.m. and 1:30-4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
An agreement from the Business Center Association granting approval for the use of the
park during the requested extension period has not been provided to staff. However, the
applicant has stated that one will be available at the City Council meeting.
3. Proposal
The applicant proposes to extend the approval period of the existing permit from June
30, 1996 to September 30, 1999. Additionally, the applicant requests permission to
expand current operations to the second floor of the existing building, increasing the
floor area utilized to include the entire building, or a total of approximately 20,000 sq.ft.
and increasing to a maximum of 260 students and 34 staff (see operational profile
attached as Exhibit "A"). The requested expansion would allow the school to relocate
its elementary grades from their Naples location to the Fenton site. The hours of
operation would not change.
In a letter supporting the request, the applicant cites the following factors (see Exhibit
"B"):
. the extension is supported by EastLake
. the school is consistent with the atmosphere of the Business Center
. no biotech company in San Diego has ever been required to do an RMPP
. there is no requirement for a business locating within 1000' of a sensitive
population to develop a Risk Management and Prevention Program
(RMPP); the school will not affect prospective users with regard to
expensive testing requirements (see staff comments on page 5)
EastLake Development Company has written a letter endorsing the request (please see
letter from Curt Stephenson of EastLake, attached as Exhibit "C"), but has not as yet
submitted documentation approving the extended use of Scobee Park. This is expected
to be presented at the Council hearing.
///3
t'*
Page 4, Item II
Meeting Date 5/23/95
4. Analysis
Staff has not received any complaints involving, nor have we been informed of any
problems regarding, the existing school operations. The conditions of approval have
been met, and the applicant is requesting this extension/expansion well in advance of the
June 30, 1995 deadline (one year prior to the June 1996 expiration date) specified in the
original approval.
As stated previously in this report, the two factors which were directed by the City
Council to be analyzed in considering a renewal or extension beyond the original
approval date of this permit are (1) whether future users may by requirements of law be
required to engage in costly and time consuming studies by virtue of proximity to the
school, and (2) the potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any
changes in plans for the Business Center.
Countv Hazardous Materials Manal!ement Division Requirements
Prior to January, 1992, Section 65850.2 of the California Government Code prohibited
a city or county from permitting a new facility which handled acutely hazardous materials
(ARMs) to be constructed within 1,000 feet of a school unless the requirements of a Risk
Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) were fIrst met and approved. On
January 1, 1992, this Section was revised, and the reference to 1,000 feet was removed.
However, absent specific criteria, the County of San Diego Department of Health
Services, Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD),
continued to use the 1,000 ft. rule until new standards were adopted in March, 1994.
With the new standards, HMMD, as the administering agency, is required to make a
specifIc determination as to whether a new or modifIed business operation could create
an acutely hazardous materials accident risk. If so, an RMPP is required. To make this
determination, HMMD has established an acutely hazardous materials accident release
screening model. Businesses that handle acutely hazardous materials (ARMs) that fall
below the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) are exempt from preparing an RMPP.
Businesses that handle levels of ARMs at or above the TPQ, are screened through a
computer model that uses various factors to determine whether an accident could result
in an off-site release (gasses being the most likely problem).
One of these screening model factors considers whether the facility in question is located
within a rural or an urban setting; however, proximity to a particular "sensitive"
population is not involved (see letter to applicant from Mike Handman of HMMD,
attached). Such proximity would, however, require additional analysis for the purpose
of addressing the population if an RMPP was required. Since proximity to a school
IJ,tj
\0">
Page 5, Item / I
Meeting Date 5/23/95
would not in itself trigger the RMPP, the first factor for consideration of renewal of the
permit would appear to be successfully addressed.
Comoatibilitv
The second issue to be assessed in considering any extension for the school is that of the
potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the plans for
the Business Center.
On February 14, 1995, the City Council approved amendments to the EastLake Business
Center Planned Community Regulations to establish a planned "High Tech/Bio Tech"
zone encompassing Phase I and II of the Business Center (see attached locator). This
zone is being created specifically to attract and encourage certain qualifying high
technology and bio-technology businesses through streamlined regulations and approval
processes. Although the site is presently surrounded by vacant property and is located
on the eastern periphery of Phase I of the Business Center, Fenton Street is intended to
be extended east and the property will eventually be almost directly in the middle of the
Center with the planned Phase II expansion. Planning and mapping for EastLake III,
which includes the Business Center Phase II expansion, is expected to be completed by
July - September 1996 based upon the Planning Department's current work program.
The plans for the new High Tech/Bio Tech zone include a streamlined permitting process
that will enable new businesses locating in this area to bypass the traditional Design
Review and Conditional Use Permit processes through a special Council Subcommittee.
The new regulations developed for this zone are specifically aimed at attracting and fast-
tracking new industrial development. Therefore, although the properties on this portion
of the Business Center are currently vacant, it is possible that new businesses could be
established in a relatively short period of time. Certainly decisions regarding future
locations could be made by companies very quickly as noted earlier.
The City is currently in the process of developing promotional programs intended to
attract quality users to this area. One such effort is the preparation of an overall "Menu
Agreement" with EastLake which will provide a vehicle for facilitating the transfer of
discounted and donated land and/or the payment by EastLake of City fees for City-
designated high tech/biotech companies. This tool has already been approved in concept
for use in negotiations with a pharmaceutical company which has indicated interest in
establishing a commercial-scale manufacturing operation in EastLake. This biomedical
company (whose discussions with the City require confidentiality at this point) currently
employs 100 people in an existing 70,000 sq.ft. facility. They are seeking to expand to
a 90,000 sq. ft. facility and are projecting an increase in personnel by approximately 75
people (see attached memo from Community Development).
//,,5
~
Page 6, Item / /
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Staff is of the opinion that the existence of the school could discourage some potential
users from locating in the Business Center, not only in the short term, but also for the
long term in the sense that prospective users would have no guarantee that the school
would not be further extended or even perhaps be established as a permanent use at this
location. The Community Development Department has also expressed concerns
regarding the potential negative impact the school may have on their ability to secure
tenants for the proposed BioShare contract pilot manufacturing facility (see attached
memo from Community Development).
It is also staff's concern that having a school in close proximity to a potential site may
have the effect of further inhibiting or discouraging prospective businesses that handle
hazardous materials from considering the location. According to HMMD, pending
federal regulations may impose additional restrictions on hazardous materials handlers
in the near future. Further, existing regulations are subject to change. For example, the
classification of what materials are "acutely hazardous" (ARMs), as well as the threshold
planning quantities of existing identified ARMs, is regularly revisedl updated, according
to HMMD. Potential users must therefore consider not only current regulations affecting
their businesses, but also possible future changes that might relate to the issue of
sensitive populations. The potential for impact on a Business Center user which handles
hazardous materials, resulting in increased costs either through studies or modifications
to operations or potential liability , could easily lead a prospective business to choose a
site where no such population exists nearby.
Setting aside the issue of hazardous materials, a school use is not considered by staff to
be appropriate in the middle of a developing industrial area. There is much merit to the
argument that schools and freestanding childcare facilities should be located in close
proximity to places of employment. However, from a planning perspective, uses of this
type should ideally be accommodated at the periphery of commercial and industrial areas
so as to minimize conflict between these very different types of uses. In fact, in order
to accommodate these and similar uses EastLake is required to set aside a total of 10.8
acres for Community Purpose Facilities.
A number of factors create the potential for conflict between children's schools and
industrial uses. Heavy truck traffic along Lane Avenue would pose a potential safety
issue with children crossing the street on their way to and from recreation activities at
Scobee Park (albeit accompanied by adults). Additionally, the noise of truck traffic and
the emissions associated with them are often not conducive to the atmosphere sought for
schools or child-related activities.
Noise is also a potential source of conflict between these two uses. Not only could noise
generated by Business Center uses negatively impact school operations, but perhaps more
importantly in this particular case, the noise generated by children playing, and the other
//~f,
\O~
Page 7, Item ) /
Meeting Date 5/23/95
activities associated with; school use, could be distracting and disruptive to research and
development, administrative, or other similar activities associated with Business Center
operations.
The issue has been raised by the applicant that daycare facilities are permitted as an
accessory use within the Business Center, and this is inconsistent with staff's contention
that a school for children is not compatible with the High Tech/BioTech uses being
sought for this area.
Daycare facilities have been permitted as accessory uses in the EastLake Business Center
since its inception and prior to the adoption of the BioTech zone amendments. It was
not deemed desirable to remove this opportunity from the district regulations for a
number of reasons. It is not uncommon for employers to now offer on-site child care.
These are generally small operations that are incorporated into the design of the facilities
as an additional amenity for employees. They are internal and accessory, but do not
supplant the intended uses in this zone.
Such facilities are offered and controlled by the employers and take place within the
users' facilities. Thus compatibility, or rather the lack thereof, would be addressed by
those most affected, namely the employers themselves. The number of children as well
as the range of ages served are limited. The childcare facilities and activities are
conducted and assimilated within the employer's facility, and thus outside activities and
issues involving a large number of school age children in a separate school facility on
an adjoining or nearby site are not an issue.
Given the potential for conflict between the school and the planned users of the EastLake
Business Park, and the adoption of the new high tech/biotech zone, the proposal to
extend the term of the permit does not appear to staff or the Planning Commission to be
consistent with the second factor to be considered in approving an extension, i.e. the
potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the plans for
the Business Center.
Alternatives
If the Council is reluctant to maintain the existing fIrm expiration date of June 1996 as
recommended by staff, the existing conditional use permit could be amended to allow an
administrative extension upon the subtnittal of documentation by the applicant that plans
for a permanent site are being actively pursued. Such an option should only be
considered near the expiration date of the existing approved term, perhaps within six
months of June 1996 (no earlier than January, 1996), and should be for no longer than
a six-month or twelve-month period. This option has been recommended by the Planning
Commission.
/I~ ?
.,
Page 8, Item / /
Meeting Date 5/23/95
This alternative would also recognize the fact that the planning for EastLake III will be
on-going over the next year or so, culminating in approved plans sometime around mid
to late 1996. If the school desires to remain in EastLake it would be the intent of staff
to use this process to work with the school and EastLake development to identify an
appropriate school site. In that case, a limited extension may be appropriate considering
the timing of the planning efforts.
A second alternative, suggested by the applicant, is the approval of the extension subject
to periodic (e.g. bi-annual, in June and December) review. The applicant suggests that
approval could be conditioned such that if new businesses locate within the Business
Center and create the potential for "conflict" with the school, the school could be
required to vacate the property within a six month period designed to coincide with the
end of a given school term (e.g. in June or December).
The second alternative is not supported for several reasons. First, it suggests a
framework for defming and determining conflicts which does not yet exist. Second, it
would likely require and suggest to prospective businesses the prospect of extended and
time consuming determinations of conflict. And, finally, it does not address and may
arguably exacerbate the perception of potential conflict by businesses considering a
location in the Business Center.
5. Conclusion
Based upon the information provided in the preceding sections, staffs recommendation
is for the denial of the requested extension but approval of the requested expansion for
the term of the existing permit in accordance with the Council Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fees for processing this application have been waived under the City's
non-profit fee waiver provisions.
Attachments
1. Commission and Council Resolutions
2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1995
2. Locators and Floor Plans
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Supplemental Information from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Applicant operational profile
Exhibit "B" - Applicantlerter
Exhibit "C" - Lerter from Curt Stephenson, EastLake Development
5. Lerter from HMMD
6. Memos from Community Development Department
7. Lerters to Mayor in Support of Application
8. P.C and C.C. Minutes and Resolution from Original Hearings on Covenant Christian School
J/-~
\\)~
RESOLUTION NO. /79tJ'I
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DENYING A REQUESTED TIME EXTENSION BUT APPROVING A
REQUESTED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(PCC-94-09) TO COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO OPERATE A
PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2400 FENTON STREET WITillN THE EASTLAKE
BUSINESS CENTER
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as 4500 Fenton Street, and for the
purpose of general description herein consisting of 1.25 acres located on the south
side of Fenton Street, within the EastLake Business Center ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Modification to Conditional Use Permit
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a modification of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-94-09 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
on November 21, 1994 by Covenant Christian School; said modification
requesting an extension of the term of the permit from June 1996 through
September 1999, and expansion of the school to include the second floor (the
"Project"), and
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on April 12, 1995 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council deny
the extension but approve the expansion for the existing term of the permit in
accordance with Resolution PCC-94-09(M); and,
the Commission further recommended that staff work with the applicant in finding
a suitable permanent EastLake location during the upcoming planning efforts for
EastLake III, and that staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the
permit to grant a modest extension of perhaps six to twelve months provided the
school can document that they are actively pursuing a permanent site (see
discussion under Alternatives).
1/-7
\\0
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Current plans for the area are expected to provide additional incentives for and attract
industrial users. These users are not expected to be compatible with a school use, and
conflicts and/or perceived conflicts between the two different types of land use could be
detrimental to implementation of the plans and the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons working in the vicinity as well as the children attending the school.
The interim expansion of the existing facility under the originally approved permit term
should not prove detrimental to either persons in the vicinity or the clients of the school.
The second floor was previously occupied by another private school.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The expansion, as conditioned, will be required to comply with all applicable regulations,
codes, and requirements.
D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any govermnent agency.
With the approval of the interim expansion and the implementation of all conditions, the
use will be consistent with the General Plan and the EastLake PC District regulations.
IV. CONDITIONS OF GRANT OF EXPANSION OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants the requested modification of Conditional Use Permit
PCC-94-09(M) to expand current K-12 grade school-type operations at 2400 Fenton
Street to include the second floor, subject to the following terms whereby:
A. Occupancy. The occupancy of the building by Covenant Christian shall not
exceed the staff/student figures provided by the applicant, i.e. 34 staff and 280
total students.
B. Recreational Facilities. The applicant shall provide proof of the continued
availability of Scobee Park for outdoor recreational purposes prior to expanded
occupancy.
C. Original Conditions. This permit shall continue to comply with all other original
conditions of approval for PCC-94-09 not in conflict with the above, as stated in
Resolution No. 17324.
II-IP
\\\
which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the
City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto.
However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which
the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected
to economically recover.
E. Time to Commence Use. This conditional use permit shall become void and
ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in
accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
F. The applicant understands and acknowledges that the permit shall expire on June
30, 1996, and that the applicant will no longer be allowed to continue in
operation after this expiration date. The applicant understands that the remaining
life of this permit may not provide the applicant with an opportunity to receive
a reasonable return on his/her investment and that the applicant hereby waives
any right to such amounts.
V. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect
ab initio. The authority of this resolution to use the property in the manner herein
permitted shall be suspended if challenged pending final resolution of the challenge.
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Presented by
(m: \shared\planning\pcc9409 .ce)
I/~I/ / il-flI.
~~
".
, I
, ' I '"
PUBUC,HlWUNG (J'IECKUsr
'. '-." , '",:.:,','-,,' "'.--
.. " '/;"3- /nJ """", '
PUBU~ HEARING:-.I>AJE;:- _ ." ,~ ><:::5., ,-.-', _:, ,-,_,[~t~:~. _', "_,,, _., ,~' '_, '.- _,' ___ ~"'> i>':,~__",:'_. : :"" .',_ '-'i'" _.,'-.";
SUBJECT ~,~ lh.< O~.. O(L~'1'E-dl-k~.~~~~.;S~
,:~~~,"~~~~~~~;~i~f~~~
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -, BY FAX V'; ~yrwiD_; BYMAlJ:.' '
PUBLICATION DATE .s It?;" I CIS ' I
< ,'''- '''!'''.- - -y-
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS~ ~:.1. o NO:MA:ItEij;r. , '
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, ConstructionIndusny Fed, 6(36 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San;Diego,:92122~'
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK ...$ lit::> !Cj,S I " , ' ,
.- - " ",. I ,.- " -'.-_,
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning V
t/
,'"-",
. I
I
,",,;""'"
> ;.n,
. ,
Originating Depamnenr
/'
Engineering
Others
" .
-I'-
,,' :,
'~.:- ",,-,
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
,,/
.5/1{ (qS
I,
i
I
"1
"
n '. .-
",
7/93
-55-
/1-;-3
'T
i,,',-
t.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering an application for
modification of an existing conditional use permit. The application, submitted by Covenant
Christian School, requests permission to extend the term of the existing private school for three
years (to end September 1999), and to allow the expansion of said school facilities during this
time into the second story of the building, increasing enrollment from 208 to 260 children and
34 staff. This project is located at 2400 Fenton Street, within the Planned Community wne
(EastLake Business Park). A plot plan and legal description is on fIle in the office of the
Planning Department.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from
environmental review as a class 1 exemption. Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council
must be received by the Planning Department office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this conditional use permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public
hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, May 23,
1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Tbe City of Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests iudividuals wbo require
special accommodatiou to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request sucb
accommodation at least 48 bours in advance for meetings aud 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please
contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is avaUable for the
bearing impaired.
DATED:
CASE NO:
May 8, 1995
PCC-94-09
j)/ /i
"
"-
J
.
m
...
~
PROJECf
LOCATION
)
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(I) APPLICANT: COVENANT CHRISTIAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MODIFICATION TO
SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AllOW
ADDRESS: 2400FENTONSTREET EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH 1" = 400' pec - 94 - 09
~
//;).-5///-/1
\~
'.
~V?-
iiitIM:
~~~~
em Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CIlY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LEITER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
.s/ I 0 ( qs
TO: Star News LelZal
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: ~ ~~ ~~
SURJECf: () ~ \~ j\jlo t::.......-
o
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover): d,
PUBUCATION DATE:
:sj 13:,/ qs
(~~
,-
If all pages are not received, please call Lorna @ (619)691-5041.
//~/~
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 9\9\0 . (6\9) 69\-504\
@"""""'*-.....
"
.'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Purpose of considering an application by Covenant Christian School for a conditional
use permit, PCC-94-09, to extend the term of private school for three years and allow
expansion of school facilities into second story of building @ 2400 Fenton Street.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
May 23, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: May 10, 1995
//-/7
"
5950801300
WESTERN SALT CO
POBox 149
San Diego CA 92112
5952320500
BEIN ROBERT/FROST WILLIAM/ASSOC
Attn: Jack Light '
14725 Alton Pky
Irvine CA 92718
5952321100
CALIFORNIA LAND ASSOCIATES No.1
6480 Weathers Pl #220
San Diego CA 92121
5952320300
990 LANE AVENUE PARTNERS
c/o Eastlake Development Co.
900 Lane Ave #100
Chula Vista CA 91914
5952320600
HODSON PARTNERS
14 Corporate Plaza Dr #150
Newport Beach CA 92660
JI -'I ~
5952320400
MAHONEY TRUST 11-22-89
266 Surf View Ct.
Del Mar CA 92014
, 5952321000
, EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT CO
. 900 Lane Ave #100
Chula Vista CA 91914
May 22, 1995
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Cowfll.
John Goss, City ManagecX:t ~~I
Robert A. Leiter, Director of P~nJ.oJ
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Request for Continuance of Public Hearing Regarding Conditional Use Permit -
Agenda Item No. 11
The applicant for the above referenced case has requested that the public hearing on this matter
be continued to the meeting of June 20. Staff supports this request.
//-/c;
Tue, May 23, 1995 12:52 PM Page 1 of 1
~II
o.fendlng the
Idea. of
Indlvldlllll
Ubelfy, the Free
""'rket, and a
Strong National
Defen..
'r'oung Americans for Freedom
r.'::"".''i'.
, ......
".'~~':ti<
~.~;~ . %
~.~.,~ 0
'. .,.... . 't
'-~ ~ ':' -
'-~ - - I-
,." ~...
San Diego County
Young Americans for
Freedom
. P.O. Box 1177' National City, CA 91951-11n . (619) 624-7190 .
23 May 1995
81m1e1E. MaiO
Dear Council Members:
I strongly urge you to grant Covenant Christian School (CCS) a lease
extension at their current Fenton Street location. I speak on behalf of the San Diego
County Young Americans for Freedom Board of Directors who unanimously feel this
extension would be in the best interests of East Lake and the citizens that reside
therein for several reasons.
First, as it is around a local church, the social and moml fabric of a commu-
nity is built around a school. CCS currently has this thriving prosperous fabric and,
as a result, has a profound effect on the East Lake community.
Secondly, a vote against the citizens of East Lake and the denial of the lease
renewal will have severe implications with regards to moving. For instance, the
move will impair CCS' faculty the ability to provide education at a quality that East
Lake children need in order to become productive citizens in our community.
Finally, we should always be encouraging the education of our youth. This
private institute, CCS. has undertaken this task with much success. In fact, with
such successs as it outgrew its previous location and now feels right at home on
Fenton Street at East Lake.
Anytime a private organization enters the realm of educating our youth, they
should be nurtured and accommodated. I urge you to fulfill this nurturing role and
show your support and concern for education.
Sincerely,
Samuel E. Antonio
Chairman, SD County Y AF
/)/;<p
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
,.<1., 3d
Ordinance Amending section 2.28.110 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code relating to Appoint-
ment of Members to the Board of Ethics
ITEM 1:2..
MEETING DATE: 5/23/95
SUBMITTED BY: Board of Ethics
4/sths Vote: Yes__No-X-
The Board of Ethics is proposing a revision to the current Code of
Ethics which is presented for Council's review. The purpose of the
revision is to allow for an alternative appointment process should
the Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court Judicial
District fail or decline to make an appointment.
BOARDS/COMMISSION ACTION:
1995 meeting, voted to
ordinance.
The Board of Ethics, at its April 24,
approve the changes contained in the
RECOMMENDATION: Place the ordinance on first reading
DISCUSSION:
Three members of the Board of Ethics have terms expiring on June
30, 1995, two of which are ineligible for reappointment since they
have served two terms. The current Board of Ethics selection
process requires the applicants to be interviewed and recommended
by the local presiding judge. This process has worked well for
many years. However, the last time there was a vacancy on the
Board, the then-Presiding Judge, was reluctant to interview
prospective applicants and make a recommendation for appointment
because of a stated philosophical belief that the judiciary should
not be intermeddling in local government. The city staff and
Ethics Board continues, however, to support the process because of
the additional credibility it gives the Board. In order to avoid
a delay in appointment, an alternative selection process has been
devised which will allow the Council to interview applicants and
make an appointment jointly passed with four affirmative votes.
The proposed amendment also adds an eligibility to Board membership
constraint by requiring that "No such person mav be appointed as a
member. or shall be entitled to retain their membership. if he or
she. within the past ten (10\ vears prior to the date of
appointment. has been convicted of a crime involvinq moral
turpitude. or has been found to have committed a criminal violation
of the Fair Political Practices Act ." The Board feels that this
adds an ethical standard to their Board that is suitable for their
mission.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
C:\ethics\228110.ord
/,2-/ /12-2-
~~
ORDINANCE NO.
:2..~3tJ
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION
2.28.110 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS
SECTION I: That section 2.28.110 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.28.110 Organization.
A. The Board shall be composed of seven members appointed by the
City Council for a term of four years, as prescribed by the
provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code of the
city of Chula vista. Prior to exercisina their authoritv to
appoint a person to membership, t~he City Council shall Be
E'eEluiFeEi to 13uemit refer for recommendation the list and
aualifications of applicants eaRliiEiates to the Presiding Judge
of the South Bay Municipal Court Judicial District or his or
her desianee. who shall review the list of applicants and
their aualifications. and who should select not less than 5
for the purpose of conductina in-person interviews and who
shall conduct such interviews. If said Judae or desianee
declines or fails to review such applicants. or conduct such
interviews. or make such recommendations. than the Council
shall interview such applicants themselves personall v. and may
make an appointment iointlY passed with four affirmative
votes. aflel sealL 'the jUellJe' s reeemmefH:iat.iefl ,.w.i t.h. ref:Jara t.e
appeiRtllleRts. No such person mav be appointed as a member, or
shall be entitled to retain their membership, if he or she.
within the past ten (10 years prior to the date of
appointment. has been convicted of a crime involvina moral
turpitude. or has been found to have committed a criminal
violation of the Fair Political Practices Act.
B. The ~oard shall elect from its membership a chairman and a
vice-chairman. The term of the chairman and vice-chairman
shall be for the period of one year, commencing on July 1 each
year. The chairman shall preside at all meetings. In the
absence of the chairman at any meeting, the vice- chairman
shall preside, and in the absence of both chairman and
vice-chairman, the Board members present shall elect a
chairman pro tempore for said meeting.
C. The city Attorney or an appointed representative shall act as
secretary to the Board. The secretary shall cause notice of
the meetings of the Board to be kept and distributed. The
secretary shall also give appropriate and required written
notice of all meetings to all members and persons having
business before the Board.'
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented and Approved as to form by
BrU~ ~~g~ Attorney
/~-J /12-1-
~l,
May 17, 1995
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Coun .
John Goss, City Manager.J~ ~
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning ~
GMOC Memo Regarding City Review and Position on SB 1066 (Campbell) -
Development: fees; school facilities
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has submitted the attached
memorandum to the City Council requesting that the City oppose the above mentioned
legislation.
The Legislative Committee concurs in the GMOC's position on this bill, and is currently
preparing letters of opposition. No Council action to refer this item is required.
(m:\home\planning\gmoc.rec)
13-}
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM
'95 ItAY17 AS :47
May 16, 1995
CITY OF CHULA VIST;
00 ClEIV<'S OFFICE
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chairman and Members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission
SUBJECT: City Review and Position on SB 1066 (Campbell)-
Development: fees; school facilities
At its May 5, 1995 meeting, the GMOC reviewed the schools threshold and herd reports
from the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School
District. Both districts expressed extreme concern oiler pending SB1066 which they
indicated could have drastic negative consequences to local school planning, financing and
construction efforts. "Several of the GMOC members are past and present educators, and
being familiar with the bill's content, the GMOC shares the districts' concern.
SB1066 would declare the Legislature's intent to prohibit local agencies from considering
the adequacy of school facilities when making land use policy decisions and approving
development. It also intends to limit direct and indirect requirements to build school
facilities as a condition of approving developments. While the bill proposes to offset those
prohibitions through nominal increases in state-mandated school fees charged in
conjunction with building permit issuance, authorities indicate those increases are
insufficient to cover the costs of needed school construction. In the GMOC's viewpoint,
such provisions appear quite contrary to our local commitment to ensure adequate facilities
to meet our growing community's educational needs as expressed through our Threshold
Standards.
Based on the hearing schedule for SB1066, the GMOC is bringing this matter to Council's
attention in advance of our annual report. The GMOC urges that Council direct appropriate
staff to immediately review the legislation, and consider forwarding a letter of opposition.
Sincerely;
1iC~
Chairman, GMOC
cc: John Goss
Bob Leiter
Ed Batchelder
(GMOC-94\SB1088.MEM)
/3-/ /1:1-4
~
~13
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
84 EAST"J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 · 619
EACH CHILD 18 AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EDUCATION May 17, 1995
JOSEPH D. CLUIlIHGS, PlLD.
SHARON GIlES
PAlRlCKA.J.IlD
PAMELAB. SMITH
III<E A.1IPEYIlER
SUPERINTENDENT The Honorable Shirley Horton
1JlIA8.BLPlLD. Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Senate Bill 1066
Dear Mayor Horton:
On behalf of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, I am writing to
express our concern over Senate Bill 1066 and request the City of Chula
Vista's assistance in defeating this legislation.
In its present form, this bill would repeal the holdings of the California Courts
of Appeal in the Mira, Hart and Murrietta ceses, and prohibit local agencies
such as cities and counties from considering the adequacy and availability of
school facilities when reviewing development proposals.
If this legislation is successful, the amount that a city or county could impose
on a developer for school mitigation would be limited to the statutory fees
authorized by Government Code Sections 530BO and 65970, or $1.721square
foot for residential, and $.2B/square foot for non-residential development.
These amounts are shared with the high school district, pro-rated on numbers
of students. Chula Vista Elementary School District's share is $O.76/square
foot for residential, and $.13/square foot for nonresidential. If limited to the
statutory fees, districts would be unable to provide facilities to serve new
growth. This fact is clearly demonstrated by the following illustration:
1. 2000 dwelling units provide students for one school (.3 students per
household equals 600 students)
2. Average dwelling unit size is approximately 1400 square feet
3. School mitigation fees for elementary school's is $0.76/square foot for
residential
) 3 ,-5
.
Mayor Shirley Horton
Page 2
May 17, 1995
4. Cost of elementary school in Chula Vista:
~
Olympicview construction bid (8/1194) -
Market value of land -
Furnishings -
Total cost of new school -
$5,139,000
1,250,000
300.000
6,689,000
5. Example: 2000
2S.14OO
2,800,000
x.76
$2,128,000
-6.689.000
<$ 4,561,000>
Dwelling units
Sq. Ft. per unit
Total Sq. Ft.
Mitigation fee/sq. ft. (Residential)
Total mitigation fees
Cost of new elementary school
UNFUNDED COST' .
Given the State's inability to meet the huge backlog of school facilities needs, if districts and
local communities are to lose the authority to consider facilities availability when approving
new development, then other elements of the historical school financing package must ba
bolstered to compensate for this critical loss. Examples of these elements include, but are
not limited to, conditioning S8 1066 on passage of legislation which 1) reduces the voting
requirement for a general obligation bond to 58% instead of the current two-thirds (SCA 14);
2) sets a cap of at least $4.50/square foot for new residential development. with an annual
Inflator; and 3) enacts a $2 billion statewide school bond in March or November, 1996.
It is essential that the Legislature commit to establishing a long-term stable funding source
to build new schools and modernize old classrooms.
In conclusion, the City has always supported the District in assuring that new development
be responsible for the provision of schools, along with other public facilities. We ask that
this support include contacting local legislators, lobbyists, and the League of California
Cities and urging opposition to S8 1066. if enacted, S8 1066 will wreak havoc on schools
throughout California. For Chula Vista, its passage will totally eliminate our ability to raise
funds locally to finance new schools to serve growth. leaving the children of Chula Vista in
an extremely precarious situation. if major new development projects, such as Qtay Ranch
and Salt Creek Ranch, are only required to pay statutory school fees, the District simply
cannot provide elementary facilities.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
~Q.S:0U..t
LIbla S. Gil
Superintendent
lSG:KS:dp
bb1~
/3/'?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / 'I
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance ..2.~.31 adding Section 17.07.035 to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code relating to provisions of the City's Open Space District
Regulations
SUBMITTED BY: Director of PURI~\Wor"'''~ r'
City Attorney \'6llV ';Fl.
REVIEWED BY: City Manageul1 ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
As a Charter City, we have adopted a procedural ordinance for administration and maintenance
of open space districts, which includes procedures for setting assessments, as contained within
Chapter 17.07 of the Municipal Code (MC). Property owners within open space districts are
assessed annually via the property tax rolls for upkeep of these districts. The assessments are
based on the annual district budgets plus reserves, which can fluctuate significantly from year
to year because of budget savings, excess reserves or unanticipated costs. Assessments can thus
go up or down each year because of these fluctuations, which has been a concern of the property
owners and staff.
Due to changes in State law in October 1993, if a majority of property owners protest an
increase in the assessment, that increase cannot go into effect, thus hampering the City's ability
to have sufficient funds on hand to maintain the districts. To counter having such variations in
the assessments from year to year and to minimize this threat of majority protest year to year
which could automatically eliminate the increase regardless of need, staff is proposing
amendments to the ordinance to allow the City to better stabilize the yearly assessments by
allowing the amount collected on the taxes to be different from the amount of the assessment.
Staff is also proposing to incorporate an inflation factor in the annual assessment to cover minor
cost increases, if needed, that could not be challenged by a majority protest. The public would
still have the right to protest the assessment and Council would still have the authority to reduce
assessments .
This is a companion item to the Open Space District Engineer's reports also on this agenda. The
inflation factor proposed will not take effect this fiscal year, but staff is proposing a collectable
which is different from the assessment as provided for in this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) place the Ordinance on the first reading adding
Section 17.07.035 with the alternative 1 language to the Municipal Code relating to changes in
the Open Space District Regulations; and 2) take testimony on the ordinance at a public hearing
scheduled for June 13 in conjunction with the Open Space District Assessments prior to
approving the adoption of the ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
;lj-j
~1,
Page 2, Item / 'I
Meeting Date 5/23/95
DISCUSSION:
Each year, by State law, staff presents, for Council consideration and adoption, an annual report
of the proposed amounts to be assessed for all open space districts within the City. All property
owners within the districts are notified of the proposed assessment and the date and time of the
public hearing. Section 22630.5 of the LLA72 provides for a majority protest for any
assessment that is increased from the previous year's assessment. If a majority protest is filed
(requires owners of more than 50 % of the assessable lands to file written protests which are not
subsequently withdrawn) the proposed increase must be abandoned, and the assessment remains
at the prior year's assessment, as Council does not have the authority to override the protest.
The City has, in previous years, frequently set assessments lower than the actual cost to provide
the required services in some districts because of two situations: (1) the district realized savings
during the previous year that were not expected and the savings were used to lower the
assessment for that next year, and (2) the City deemed it appropriate to collect less than the
anticipated cost because of objections raised by the residents as to the estimated costs. Last
year, for example, all but three districts were assessed lower than the actual costs, because of
previous year budget savings. Eventually, when savings are no longer available to artificially
lower the assessment, the assessment will need to be increased to cover the actual costs. A
majority of the property owners could protest the increase at that time and require the City to
set the assessment at the previous year's assessment amount. The City would thus be penalized
for having used the savings to lower the assessment since the new assessment would now no
longer cover the cost.
In addition, in one district last year, the City collected assessments in anticipation of
improvements being accepted by the City and the work paid for by the open space district, but
the improvements were not accepted and the cost of maintenance was borne by the developer
(Telegraph Canyon Estates, Open Space District 31). The City thus collected enough money in
FY 1994-95 to pay for next year's maintenance. In this case, if the current ordinance provisions
are used for setting the assessment for FY 95-96, the assessment would be zero since we
collected enough money last fiscal year to pay the estimated cost of maintenance for a full year.
As an alternative, the City could issue refund checks and then continue to collect the full
assessment. This is a costly, time consuming process since it would be difficult to determine
who would qualify for a refund since ownerships have changed in many cases. If the
"assessment" for FY 95-96 is set at zero, any assessment for FY 96-97 would be an increase
and the property owners could protest. With a majority protest, the City would be prevented
from assessing any amount in FY 96-97, since the previous year's assessment would have been
zero.
Staff proposes to make changes to the ordinance to allow setting assessments at reasonable
levels, while having the ability to collect a lesser amount. This ordinance change, as outlined
on the following pages, would allow for property owners to negate an increase in the assessed
amount. It would provide Council discretion if the amount proposed to be collected was more
than the previous year's amount collected but less than the assessed amount.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
The City has adopted the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (LLA72) in the California Streets
and Highways Code as the basic provisions of our enabling ordinance. As a Charter City we
/'1-~
\~
Page 3, Item..Lf
Meeting Date 5/23/95
may make further changes to the LLA72 as part of the enabling ordinance. Under the current
ordinance in Section 17.07 of the Municipal Code, the "assessment" is also the same as the
amount "collected." Staff proposes to amend this section to provide for the City to set an
assessment at one level and to set the collection, on the tax roll, at an amount equal to or lower
than the assessed amount. The key to this situation is defining an amount "collectable" on the
"assessment", and allowing the amount "collected" to vary as required to fund the district.
While an increased "assessment" might be able to be protested by a majority of property owners
in the district, the amount "collectable" could not as long as it was equal to or less than the
"assessment." As an example, if the actual estimated cost to provide the services for an open
space district was $250.00 per property, but the district had savings which allowed the amount
needed to fund the district to be $50.00 below this cost, the City could set the "assessment" at
$250.00 and the amount "collected" on the property taxes at $200.00. Then if, in the next year,
there were not enough savings, the amount "collected" and "assessed" could be set at $250.00.
The $250 would still be within the permissible "assessment," thereby a majority protest would
not trigger an automatic abandonment of the increase in the amount collected since the
assessment would have remained the same ($250). Council could still reduce the amount
"collected" if they desired to do so in response to any protest by the property owners. The key,
then, is to establish an appropriate "assessment" amount.
OPTIONS FOR SETTING ASSESSMENT
The general provisions of LLA 72 also allows Council to set a range of assessments upon
establishment of a new district or at the time the annual report of assessments is considered.
To date, staff has not set a range, but rather has set a single assessment amount per district each
year. The assessment has been set at an amount necessary to fund the maintenance for the next
fiscal year, often lowering the amount below the actual cost through the use of savings from the
current year.
Staff proposes two alternative methods for setting the "assessment."
Alternative 1
Change the ordinance to allow the Council to set a range, whereby the assessment for each
district is set at the previous year's assessment plus an inflator which is the lesser of the January
to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the change
in the estimated California Fourth quarter per capita personal income as contained in the
Governor's budget published in January. This change would provide for the assessment to be
raised for minor inflation without constituting an increase in the "assessment" subject to a
majority protest. These same inflators were initially used under the Gann Revenue Limitation
for the City's appropriations limit and sets a precedence for limiting taxes. In order to prepare
the information given to the property owners regarding the proposed assessments each year, the
index figure needs to be available prior to April in each year. The Governor's budget publishes
an "estimated" fourth quarter per capita personal income figure in January of each year. The
actual figure is not available until May. If, due to unforeseen circumstances, the cost to
maintain the district exceeded the amount allowed, the increase over the assessment could be
protested out by a majority of the property owners. Under this option, new districts would have
the "assessment" established in the same manner as is currently done, that is, approximately
equal to the estimated costs plus a reserve amount. The initial notice to the district of the
/zJ~3
~o....
Page 4, Item /'1
Meeting Date 5/23/95
"assessed" amount would be the estimated cost including an adequate reserve plus a provision
for the inflation factor.
The Estimated California Fourth Quarter per capita personal income index is calculated by the
State of California, Department of Finance, at the Economic Research Unit. Individuals wishing
to check that figure may call that Unit at (916) 322-2263. The San Diego Metropolitan Area
All Urban Consumer Price Index information is available from the U.S. Labor Department,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau maintains a 24 hour hot line at (619) 557-6538 and
additional information can be obtained at (415) 744-6600.
Alternative 2
Set the "assessment" at an amount which would not expect to be exceeded for ten years from
the date of district formation. Under this option the allowed assessment would not change unless
and until the costs "caught up to" the assessment amount. The Council would then hold hearings
on a new assessment which would be proposed to be sufficient for another then years. At that
point any increase in the assessment, no matter how minor, would be subject to a majority
protest. Under this proposal, the amount assessed would be considerably greater than the cost
initially, but the amount collected could be equal to the cost.
PROS AND CONS OF EACH METHOD OF SETTING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT
Staff Recommended Option: Initial vear estimate plus inflation factor. (Alternative 1)
This procedure would set the initial "assessment" amount at an amount that would provide funds
for one year's maintenance plus an adequate reserve of around 50% and then provide for the
"assessment" amount to increase each year based upon the lesser of the inflation factors
mentioned above. The base year upon which the assessment would be set is the FY 95-96
assessments for existing districts, or the first full year's assessment for district's created after
FY 95-96. The first inflator shall be applied in FY 96-97. For example, if the initial estimate
to fund the district maintenance in the first year plus the reserve was $100.00, and the inflation
rate was 3 percent for the year, this first year's assessment would be $100 and the next year's
allowable "assessment" not subject to a majority protest would be $103.00. The following year
the allowable "assessment" with the same inflation rate would be $106.09. The change in
allowable "assessment" would continue for subsequent years unless a new, higher "assessment"
was established by Council after public hearings subject to a majority protest.
PROS
1. The "assessment" for the first year will be the estimated cost to fund the district for each
parcel, based on the cost of all of the open space being maintained and all development
in the district being assessed.
2. Each subsequent year's "assessment" cannot increase more than the lesser of the two
inflators which would prevent the "assessment" from being increased significantly
without providing for the property owners to fIle a majority protest.
/J.j-i
\~
Page 5, Item /'1
Meeting Date 5/23/95
3. The amount of "assessment" would not have to be re-established if the "collectable"
amount did not exceed the "assessment" for that year.
4. The "collectable" amount could vary each year as long as the amount was less than the
"assessment" amount. This would provide staff with the ability to vary the "collectable"
amount without facing a majority protest.
S. The property owners have the right to protest either the assessment or the amount
"collected" to Council and Council can address their issues appropriately at any time.
CONS
1. If a large increase in water or other costs occurred which was not expected, the
"assessment" would have to be increased to cover the additional cost and the property
owners would be allowed to file a majority protest and eliminate the increase. If this
occurred, the assessments would not adequately fund the district.
2. As long as costs and assessments stay within the allowable increases, the property owners
would not have the ability to force a protest on the "assessment".
Initial hi"h annnal chane. no allowable assessment increases without mllioritv orotest
(Alternative 2)
This procedure would set the initial "assessment" at an amount that would not be expected to
be exceeded for approximately ten years from the first "assessment". For example, if the initial
estimate to fund the district maintenance in the first year plus the reserve was $100.00 and the
estimated actual inflation rate for the next ten years was 5 percent, the "assessment" would be
set at $163.00. The "collectable" amount for the first year would be the $100.00. The
"assessment" would not change until the "collectable" amount exceeded the "assessment", at
which time Council would be required to set a new "assessment". At that time, the new
"assessment" would be subject to a majority protest.
PROS
1. The "collectable" amount would be less than the "assessment" for a number of years
which would prevent the possibility of a majority protest eliminating any increase until
the "collectable" amount exceeded the "assessment". This would be anticipated to occur
at 10 years from the date the district was established.
2. The "collectable" amount could vary each year as long as it was less than the
"assessment" without facing a majority protest.
3. The property owners have the right to protest either the "assessment" or the amount
"collected" to Council and Council can address their issues appropriately at any time.
CONS
1. The initial
required.
"assessment" would be significantly larger than the "collectable" amount
/Jj~.?
\~
Page 6, Item / 'I
Meeting Date 5/23/95
2. The "assessment" would have to be increased in approximately ten years even if the
inflation rate assumed when the amount was established was not exceeded during the ten
year time frame. Setting the second "assessment" to cover another ten year period could
result in a majority protest and cause the "assessment" to be increased in smaller amounts
every year thereafter.
3. If the increased "assessment" is protested out, staff may have to return 2, 3 or more
times until an "acceptable" level is found.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Ordinance with Alternative I wording be adopted which will provide
for the following:
1. Distinguish" Assessment" from "Collection against assessment".
This distinguishes the difference between the "Assessment" and amount "Collectable" and
indicates that the "assessment" would be the maximum "collection" allowed without
providing an opportunity for a majority protest.
2. Require the "assessment" to increase annually by the lesser of the two indicated inflation
factors rather than set the initial amount sufficiently high to cover the cost for ten years.
This defIDes how the "assessment" amount is established.
3. DefIDe "Collection" on "Assessment".
This defIDes the "collectable" amount as being that amount needed to meet the annual
expenditures of the district, including delinquent collections and the permitted reserves,
but that is shall not exceed the "assessment."
4. Amount Due At Given Dates During Fiscal Year
This indicates that when the tax bill containing the "collectable" amount is paid, that
payment shall satisfy the "assessment" obligation.
Staff proposes to hold off of the second reading of the ordinance until late June, after the annual
assessment meeting with the property owners. Eight to ten thousand notices are sent to property
owners informing them of this meeting to discuss their open space assessment. Staff will review
this proposed ordinance change with the property owners attending that meeting, and return to
Council for the second reading.
NOTICES GIVEN
Notice of this ordinance will be given to all property owners within the open space districts at
the same time as notice of the public hearing for their assessments. The public hearings will be
noticed pursuant to Government Code 6063 which requires that notice be published at least once
a week for three weeks 10 days before the second public hearing. Staff will mail notice of the
hearings, 45 days in advance of the second public hearing. In addition to the assessment
/J/-t
\~
Page 7, ItemB
Meeting Date 5/23/95
information, the notice will include information regarding this proposed ordinance allowing an
inflation factor and defining assessment separately from collectable. The notice will indicate that
the June 13th public hearing, in addition to considering the levy of assessments, will be for the
purpose of taking testimony on the proposed Ordinance (under a separate report). Staff will also
notify the residents of an information meeting to be held by staff in early June.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the administration of open space districts are paid by the various open
space districts with the payment of property taxes. Adoption of the ordinance would provide
for amounts collected to be potentially less than the amounts assessed. It may also prevent some
majority protests that would prevent either the district from being underfunded or the City to
subsidize the district. If the district is underfunded, the maintenance level would have to be
reduced to below that which is necessary to appropriately maintain it.
M:home\engineer\agenda\0895s.sms
File OS-OOl
)l1-7/;4-$
~
ORDINANCE NO. .2/,3/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING SECTION
17.07.035 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
LANDSCAPING ACT PROVIDERS
SECTION I: That Section 17.07.035 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.07.035
Landscaping Act Providers.
A. Distinguish Assessment from Collection Against Assessment.
There is, under this assessment district procedure applicable in the City of Chula Vista,
a difference between the amount of the assessment imposed against any parcel of
property, and the amount which may be collected against that assessment. The purpose
of setting the assessment is to give the property owner notice of the maximum costs
which may be collected, and for the purpose of permitting a majority protest proceeding
on the assessment, but not on the collection. " Assessment", as used in these
proceedings, shall mean the maximum amount collectable in a given year under the
procedures allowed by this Chapter.
B. Amount of Assessment.
(Alternative 1 language)
1. Notwithstanding the costs which may be included in an assessment and Section
22569 through 22570 of the Streets and Highways Code, the assessment may, but is not
required to, be set in the initial year of the district's existence at an amount which is
expected to be equal to the estimated costs of operating the district, plus a reserve for
unanticipated expenses in accordance with Section l7.07.030. After the initial year of
the district's existence, the assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or
decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San
Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in
estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the
Governor's budget published in January.
2. For existing districts the base year upon which the assessment is set is the
1995/96 Fiscal Year. For districts created cifter July 1, 1995, the base year assessment
shall be the first full year's assessment. The inflation factor shall be applied first to
either the 1996/97 assessments or the second full year for new districts.
1
)t/~ 9
\~
(Alternative 2 language)
NotwithstaruJing the costs which may be included in an assessment aruJ Section 22569
through 22570 of the Streets aruJ Highways Code, the assessment may, but is not required
to, be set at an amount which is not greater than the estimated cost plus reserves that is
expected to be the highest annual charge in a ten-year period following the setting of the
assessment with the least fluctuation in the amount collected annually.
C. Collection on assessment.
Notwithstanding Section 22572, the amount which the City may collect on each
assessment by charge on the tax roll, shall be that needed to meet the annual expenses
and expenditures of the district, including delinquent collections and the permitted reserve
allowed under Section 17.07.030, but in no event in an amount greater than the amount
of the assessment.
D. Amount Due at Given Dates During Fiscal Year.
Until a property owner receives a tax bill properly demonstrating a lower amount due on
the assessment than the amount of the assessment, the amount due on the assessment
shall be assumed to be the amount set forth in the assessment. After receipt of a tax bill
that includes a lower amount due on the assessment for a given fIscal year, the lower
amount due on the assessment shall when paid satisfy the assessment obligation for that
fiscal year.
SECTION II: This section shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from
and after its adoption.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~:\sbared\attomey\1707035.
2
;1/, /tJ
\~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item IS-
Meeting Date OS/23/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution Il C\ OS amending Chapter VII, Section B, of the City's
Master Fee Schedule to establish new fees for various Aquatic programs and
activities
Director of Parks and Recreation~
City Manager fil: (4/5ths Vote _ No ..xJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
Next week, staff will be presenting to Council a balanced budget proposal for 1995/96. The proposed
budget will contain strategies for significantly reducing costs without impacting "core" service levels,
along with generating additional revenues, in lieu of even further cutbacks, which could start impacting
"core" service levels. This report brings forward, in advance, one of the revenue proposals contained
in the FY 95/96 balanced budget. While it is cumbersome at this time to separate aquatic revenue from
the whole budget package, the Parks and Recreation Department faces an impending deadline of May 24
for the publication of the parks and recreation brochure. Information contained in the brochure describes
the registration process for the summer swimming classes and any affiliated fees. Adjustments in fees
would need to be implemented before that date.
One of the proposed fee increases for additional revenue is in the City's Aquatic programs. Types of fees
include Daily Admission Fees, Annual Swim Pass Fees, and Swim Lesson Fees for various instructional
swimming classes. This report will describe the current fee structure in aquatics and proposals for fee
increases.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Resolution to amend Chapter VII
(Recreation Programs/Facilities), Section B (Programs) of the Master Fee Schedule to allow for:
1. An increase in fees for the Daily Admission charge for a child and a senior, from $0.75 to $1.00;
and
2. An increase in fees for the Daily Admission charge for an adult, from $1.00 to $1.50; and
3. An increase in the Learn to Swim lesson fee for a child from $18.00 to $22.00; and
4. An increase in the Learn to Swim lesson fee for Parent and Tot and Tiny Tot from $19.00 to
$22.00; and
5. An increase in the Learn to Swim lesson fee for an adult from $20.00 to $24.00; and
6. A restructuring of the Swim Pass from an annual charge to a 20 swim pass, with adjusted fees;
and
{AI13's. feeincrs.a13 -05-18-95]
~c;-l
\11-
Item ) r-
Meeting Date OS/23/95
7. The set-aside of 5 % of any new revenue accrued from the amended fees to structure a scholarship
fund (financial assistance) for residents who are unable to afford the aquatic charges.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed
proposed revenue sources at its regular meeting of April 20, 1995. The minutes of the April 20, 1995
meeting are "draft" minutes, awaiting Commission approval on May 18, 1995 (Attachment "A"). The
Commission may be making changes to these minutes, to clarify the intent of their recommendations.
Staff will make a verbal report to the Council of the Commission recommendations at the May 23, 1995
Council meeting. The following represents the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended increases
in fees (6-0), based on staff's proposed revenue information the Commission received for their April 20
meeting:
1. Raise aquatics Walk-in (Daily Admission) charge by $0.25, and charge children $1.00 and adults
$1.25; and
2. Recommend adults pay $1.00 for a Walk-In (Daily Admission) charge when accompanied by a
child; and
3. Raise Learn to Swim fees from $18.00 to $20.00 for a child, and $20.00 to $22.00 for an adult.
Since the Commission's meeting on April 20th, during Department budget preparation, several of the
revenue sources recommended by staff have been changed. New proposals include a change in the
swim pass structure. Staff will be presenting the new staff recommended revenues to the Commission
at their meeting of May 18, 1995.
DISCUSSION: The aquatics fee increases discussed below, are being proposed as a source of additional
revenue for the City to partially offset operational and staff costs. General tax dollars subsidize aquatics
operations, and that would still be the practice under the fees being recommended. Also, these fee
modifications are being proposed to bring the City of Chu1a Vista into the same price range as other cities
in the County. These fee increases are being proposed at this time, rather than during the normal budget
review, due to an urgency to establish new fees prior to the printing and distribution of the Parks and
Recreation Department's Summer Activity Brochure. Since a large number of the City's swimming
classes are offered during the summer months, any fee increases need to be publicized and would be in
effect during the summer season when the pools are at peak operation and participation. The new fees,
if approved, would be publicized in the Department's Summer Activity Brochure, which is scheduled to
be finalized for printing on May 24.
A notice of this meeting and the proposed fees has been posted at the City pools.
Throughout this year, staff has been developing a plan to generate revenue through a variety of sources.
The revenue plan that Council will consider is in response to declining resources and the necessity to
develop new revenues to support municipal recreation.
{AIl3's - feeincrs.al3 -05-18-95] 2
\~.~ ~
Item ) ~
Meeting Date OS/23/95
In developing the revenue plan, staff evaluated every activity conducted by the Department. This
evaluation revealed that the Aquatic Section is (1) the largest General Fund supported section in the
Recreation Division, and (2) the fees charged to defray aquatic operation and maintenance have not been
increased for years. The main reason fees have remained static over the years is because the Ciry has
attempted to keep aquatic services affordable and accessible to its residents. As a matter of fact, in 1992,
Council approved a non-resident fee requiring all non-residents to pay 50 % more than Chula Vistans for
aquatic services. This fee was an attempt to defray escalating utility costs (water, heat, electricity and
chemicals) and avoid passing these costs on to our residents.
This year, due to severe budget constraints, the Department is faced with developing new revenue sources
to help reduce expenses. The following analysis will illustrate: (1) Chula Vista's fees are very low, (2)
the proposed fee increases will fall within the fees charged by other cities, and (3) there is a significant
potential to defray expenses through revenue, and (4) the City will continue to help residents who can't
afford our services to secure scholarships (financial assistance),
Staff is sensitive to the situation that an increase in fees could place aquatic services out of the reach of
some participants. To mitigate this circumstance, staff is recommending that 5 % of the new revenue
accrued from the increase be set aside to offer scholarship to those in need. The Departtnent already
offers a scholarship fund for the residents who participate in classes.
Back2round
In determining the proposed fee adjustments, staff surveyed eleven cities in the County that have
municipal pools. These cities include: Carlsbad, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National
City, Oceanside, Poway, City of San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista.
Dailv Admission Fees
The existing walk-in fee at the pool of $0.75 each, for adults, children and seniors, has been in the
Master Fee Schedule since the summer of 1983. Prior to that time, the daily fee was $0.50 per person
for children and seniors, and $1. 00 for adults. Staff is recommending an increase in fees as follows:
EXISTING PROPOSED
Daily Admission - Child $0.75 $1.00
Daily Admission - Adult $0.75 $1.50
Daily Admission - Senior $0.75 $1.00
These proposed fees for children are equal to or less than the fees charged in neighboring communities.
A bar chart depicting Chula Vista's current ranking in the County for fees is Attachment "B". The fee
[AIl3's . fee incrs.a13 .05.18-951
3
\c;.-3
~
Item I~
Meeting Date OS/23/95
survey also revealed the price differential between adult fees and children/senior fees is $0.50 in 80%
of the cities that charge separate fees.
Swinuning Pool Passes
The existing Annual Swim Pass fees at the pool have been in place since the summer of 1986. The
Annual Swim Pass entitled users to unlimited swim privileges, at a reduced rate. Staff is recommending
that a "Punch Pass" be implemented in place of the existing annual pass. The annual pass system is
designed to offer a discount to the frequent pool user. However, in the survey of other County cities,
it is quite apparent that Chula Vista charges a swim pass fee that is substantially lower than the rest of
the cities. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to restructure the swim pass system to still offer
a discount, but not totally subsidize the frequent pool user. Under the restructuring, staff is
recommending to delete the Family discount because pool users will now realize an equitable discount
by purchasing a child, adult or senior punch pass. The previous Annual Swim Pass, because anyone
could use it, made it difficult to check if the pass was being misused. It was apparent the City was losing
revenue with an Annual Family Pass.
The punch pass would allow 20 admissions to the pool, and would be priced to offer a discount from the
Daily Admission fees proposed above (Children and Seniors would be receiving a 25 % discount; Adults
a 17% discount). Pass prices are recommended to be as follows:
EXISTING/ANNUAL PROPOSED/PUNCH PASS
Swim Pass - Children $15.00 $15.00/20 admissions
Swim Pass - Adult $40.00 $25.00/20 admissions
Swim Pass - Family $50.00 None
Swim Pass - Senior $30.00 $15.00/20 admissions
The proposed pass fees are also comparable to what other cities in the county are charging (Attachment
"C"), although only 50% of the other cities surveyed offer similar discounted passes and fees (the City
of San Diego currently has a punch pass system in place for over 10 years [$35.00 for 20 swims]).
Learn to Swim Classes (instructional)
Increases in the fees for instructional swinuning classes are also being proposed. The fee (for each
session) entitle the participant to 10 swim lessons. Current fees are:
[A1l3's - fee incrs.a13 -OS-I8-9S]
4
\S-~
\f
-
Item / ~
Meeting Date OS/23/95
EXISTING PROPOSED
Parent & Tot Classes $19.00/session $22.00/session
Tiny Tot Classes $19.00/session $22.00/session
Learn-to-Swim Classes $18.00/session $22.00/session
(child, ages 6-16)
Advanced Learn-to-Swim $18.00/session $22.oo/session
Classes (child, ages 6-16)
Adult Lessons' $20.00/session $24.oo/session
Parent & Tot and Tiny Tot class fees would increase by $3.00 per session, and Learn-to-Swim and
Advanced Learn-to-Swim, and Adult Lesson class fees would increase by $4.00 per session.
Learn to Swim fees have remained unchanged since a fee increase was adopted in 1989. At that time,
fees were increased by $2.50 per session for Parent & Tot and Tiny Tot classes, and $2.00 per session
for Learn-to-Swim and Advanced Learn-to-Swim classes. In the survey of ten other cities in the county,
only two cities (Oceanside and Poway) charge less than $22 per session for classes (Attachment "0").
The average cost of classes in the other cities surveyed was $23.86. The two cities operating programs
in the south bay in addition to Chula Vista both charge higher fees; National City currently charges $25
for instructional classes, and the City of San Diego charges $26 per session.
Additional Revenue Throll"h Non-Resident Fees
On August 25, 1992, the City Council approved a policy to charge non-residents a higher fee for various
Parks and Recreation programs. This was part of a Revenue Enhancement Plan that the Parks and
Recreation Department developed. The Council approved the implementation of a non-resident policy
and fee schedule implementing a 100% fee for park reservations, building rentals/leases, and ballfield
rentals; a 50 % fee for swim-related charges, and a 25 % fee for contractual recreation classes.
Any fee increases approved by Council would automatically raise non-resident fees by 50% over resident
fees.
Contractual classes only; not in Master Fee Schedule.
[A113's - fc:eincrs.aI3 -05-18-95]
5
,e; - s;
~
Item J ~--
Meeting Date OS/23/95
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff has calculated the additional revenue in 1995/96 which could be expected from
a fee increase. The basis for calculation is past revenue receipts and attendance at both pools. Potential
revenue may be:
Daily Admission Fee
Learn to Swim Fee
Swim Pass
FY 95/96
$22,000
$30,300
$40.000
$92,300
Revenue accrued from the non-resident fees will bring in additional funds in an estimated amount of
$40,000.
The additional revenue accrued will be new revenue to the General Fund which will still partially offset
the costs the Department incurs in pool operations and staff costs, but there will be less of a General
Fund subsidy for these operations. In addition, the fee increases will bring Chula Vista into parity with
other San Diego County aquatic fee charges.
Attachments: "A" - Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission of April 20, 1995
"B" - Bar Chart - Chula Vista Ranking with County Cities on Daily Admission Fees
"c" - Bar Chart - Chula Vista Ranking with County Cities on Swim Pass Fees
"D" - Bar Chart - Chula Vista Ranking with County Cities on Learn to Swim Fees
(A1l3's - fee men.at3 - OS-lS.9S]
6
\C; -lo
'\~
RESOLUTION NO.
/79 tps-'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER VII, SECTION B,
OF THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH
NEW FEES FOR VARIOUS AQUATIC PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the proposed budget proposal for FY 95/96 will
contain strategies on generating additional revenues for City
operations; and
WHEREAS, while it is cumbersome at this time to separate
aquatic revenue from the whole budget package, the Parks and
Recreation Department faces an impending deadline of May 24 for the
publication of the parks and recreation brochure; and
WHEREAS, information contained in the brochure describes
the registration process for the summer swimming classes and any
affiliated fees and adjustments in fees would need to be
implemented before that date; and
WHEREAS, one of the proposed fee increases for additional
revenue is in the City's Aquatic programs; and
WHEREAS, types of fees include Daily Admission Fees,
Annual Swim Pass Fees, and Swim Lesson Fees for various
instructional swimming classes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend Chapter VII (Recreation
Programs/Facilities), Section B (Programs) of the Master Fee
Schedule as follows:
liB. PROGRAMS
1. Swimming
a. Aquatic Classes
Fees for various aquatic Parks and Recreation Department programs and
classes shall be as follows. Non-Resident surcharge is 50%:
Re8ideat
.....~du.Jtly8Hdt
WINeR Re.ide.
~
1. :8egitmers ~ t27.0Q/parlieipllRl
8\ nlBfliittg /partieipftflt
2. }At .eeea ~l 8JparHeipftflt $27. QQJjlartieiJ3ftBt
S"illllBiag
/5/7
~~
J" Ti~. TeaJ $19Jjtftftieipant l:2g.9QIi18faeipRnt
8'I.":immiBg
1. Pareftt8 ftBa tetil $19,~air U8.OOIp,.;r
8\";im.mi:eg
Parent & Tot Classes $22.001 session
Tiny Tot Classes $22.001 session
Leam-to-Swim Classes $22. 001 session
(child. a~es 6-16)
Advanced Leam-to-Swim Classes (child. $22.00/session
ages 6-16)
b. Pool Passes
.o"...BBl:la:l:
Pamil y
.'.lI\:Ilt
$59 8eaior $30
$~9 Chilli $15
Punch Pass
Child:
Adult:
Senior:
$15.00/20 admissions
$25.00/20 admissions
$15.00/20 admissions
Daily: $.~ fler flersea
Child: ll.OO
Adult: ~
Senior: tLOO
2. Other
Fees for Parks and Recreation Department activities and classes shall be set in
consideration of the City's full cost including overhead. Non-Resident surcharge
for activities and classes will be 25 %. "
c
) /
t I
.'
~
IS,~
~,.,
\.
Bruce M. Boog
Attorney
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
s\aquatic.fee
/.>~ 1 /IS-IO
DRAFT
Attachment "A"
mY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 20, 1995
PAGE 3
6. The Chair asked if the Baldwin Company is requesting park credit for the two
acre parks. Mr. Aden replied that the parks have been changed to 3/4 - 1.5
acre parks and the Baldwin Company is requesting park credit for them.
7. Commissioner Alevy expressed concerns about the maintenance of the parks.
Mr. Aden explained that the park maintenance would be shared by the City
and the Baldwin Company.
8. Mr. Jamriska informed the Commission that there will be three alternative
plans for the Commission to review. One plan is the Baldwin Company's
suggested plan, one alternative is the Department's suggested plan, and one
plan has not been reviewed yet.
9. Commissioner Sandoval asked if the Baldwin Company would still build the
small parks even if they did not receive park credit for them. Mr. Aden
replied that it had not been determined yet.
10. Director Valenzuela interjected that the Baldwin Company should prepare a
trend analysis to determine what kind of recreation facilities should be placed
in the project, based on the demand of the people there. Director Valenzuela
also commended the Baldwin Company for making the changes suggested by
the Department and the Commission.
B. Department Budget
Principal Management Assistant Nancy Woods discussed revenue resources for the
Parks and Recreation Department Budget. Ms. Woods explained that the City
Manager is requesting budget cuts of 10%. Ms. Woods discussed the Department
staff recommendations for revenue resources.
The Parks and Recreation Commission made the following revenue resource
suggestions:
1. Raise the swim fees from $.75 to $1.00 for children and $1.50 for adults. A
discount could be offered for adults, when accompanied by a child.
2. Soccer teams should pay more for field usage, due to the fact that they tear
up the field more than other sports.
Motion to reject staff's recommendation in creating the ballfield maintenance
surcharge, and instead charge outside leagues to pay $100 per team for the use of the
City facilities.
MSUC Alevy / Carpenter 4-2
(Commissioners Hall and Sandoval opposed)
;.5'-//
DRAFT
DRAFT
Attachment "A-2"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 20, 1995
PAGE 4
Motion to approve staff recommendation to raise the aquatics swim fees by $.25, and
charge children $1.00 and adults $1.25.
MSUC Sandoval / Carpenter 6-0.
Motion to recommend that adults pay $1.00 for swim fees when accompanied by a
child.
MSUC Alevy / Palma 6-0.
Motion to support staff's recommendation to raise the Learn to Swim fees from $1S-
$19 per lesson; to $20 for children and $22 for adults.
MSUC Helton / Palma 6-0.
Motion to add Marina View, Terra Nova, and Discovery Parks to the picnic shelter
rental system.
MSUC Sandoval / Hall 6-0.
Ms. Woods discussed the remainder of the Budget Transmittal.
Motion to support the Staff Workload Plan for FY 95/96, including the Category 1,
2, and 3 projects.
MSUC Hall! Carpenter 6-0.
Commissioner Carpenter left the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
The Chair called for a five minute break at 9:35 p.m.
C. Term of Commissioner Hall
The Commission agreed that Commissioner Alevy will draft a letter and fax it to the
Commission Secretary to be typed on City letterhead. Commissioner Alevy will then
sign the letter and send it to the Council.
D. Coyote Canyon State Park Issue
1. Commissioner Sandoval offered to draft a letter to the State Parks and
Recreation Department stating that the City of Chula Vista Parks and
Recreation Department is against having all-terrain vehicles in the canyon.
The Chair will sign and send the letter.
E. Otay Gymnasium Project Report
Motion to table the Otay Gymnasium Project issue to a later date.
MSUC Helton! Alevy 5-0.
The Parks and Recreation Otay Gymnasium Sub-Committee agreed to discuss this
issue at the next meeting, which will be held on Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 6:30 p.m.
in the Parks and Recreation Department Conference Room.
/y/;2,
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT B-1
SWIM FEE COMPARISONS - EXISTING
CHULA VISTA - SAN DIEGO COUNTY CITIES
City of San Diego
Carls bad
PoWllY
EI Cajon
~ National City
o San Marcos
La Mesa
Coronado
Escondidp
Oceanside
ChulaVislll
Vista
$0.00 $O.~ $1.00 $1.~ $2.00 $2.~ $3.00 $3.~
DAILY ADMISSION - ADUL TjCHILD
15'13
~
-
CHILD- DOLLARS
~
ADULT - DOLLARS
ATTACHMENT C-l
SWIM FEE COMPARISONS - EXISTING
CHULA VISTA - SAN DIEGO COUNTY CITIES
-
CHILD - DOLLARS
~
ADULT - DOLLARS
City of San Diogo ~Ii
National City ~one
one
La Mesa ~one
one
Eocondido ~one
one
Oeeanstele ~one
one
~ Carlo bad ~one
one
a San Marcos is:~
Viola
Coronado
EI Cajon
Poway 12.00 i
Chula Viola $3.33 i
$0.00 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $HI.OO $18.00 $21.00 $24.00 $27.00 $30.00
SWIM PASS - ADULT/CHILD - PER MONTH
)~/'I
ATTACHMENT D-1
SWIM FEE COMPARISONS - EXISTING
CHULA VISTA - SAN DIEGO COUNTY CITIES
National C~y
Carls bad
C~ of San Diego
San Marcos
~
()
La M.sa
Escondido
Coronado
Chula Vista
EI Cajon
Poway
Oceanside
Vista
.00
.$2:1.00
$0.00 $!l.00 $10.00 $1 :1.00 $20.00 $2:1.00 $30.00 $3:1.00
SWIM LESSONS-ADULTicHILD-PER SESSION
/.5'/> /15-/Cp
-
CHILD - DOLLARS
~
ADULT - DOLLARS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
SYLVIA ARNETT.
425 Naples Street,
Chula Vista, CA. 91911
420-6999
I have lived in Chula Vista for 27 years and during those years
have worked and supported this community in any way it has been
possible because, this is my home.
24 years ago I was medically diagnosed as having M.S. an
incurable disease of the central nervous system.
As walking was no longer a choice for me, to maintain any kind of
life or physical health, I started to swim at a city pool 5 to 7
days a week. 24 years ago the City opened its pools for
recreation swim three months a year. That first year after the
pools closed at the end of summer, I approached the City's
Aquatic Director and asked for access to a pool on a daily basis
through the winter months. My request was accommodated provided
someone was available to lifeguard, I was to telephone each day
for an agreed time, this I did daily whatever the weather.
Through persistence, the following summer Chula Vista's first
Summer only, adult lap swim program came into being, one hour a
day 5 days a week at Loma Verde pool. The following winter, I and
two other swimmers approached the City for a winter lap swim
program and it was launched on the proviso that we could find 10
swimmers willing to sign up and pay 20 dollars each to cover the
cost of the lifeguard.
From those small beginnings [one person] I have watched the adult
lap swim program grow, creating not only an affordable health
maintenance program for all members of our community but also
providing jobs in the work place.
My physical situation has deteriorated, I am now confined to a
wheelchair, daily affordable access to the City's adult lap SWlm
program is imperative for me to maintain any kind of bodily
function.
I ask you to PLEASE look once again at this 600 percent increase
in price, with the added cost for my aide, I am barred access to
a public facility and program that I NEED.
Most sincerely,
~1.,jCl.- ~.
Sylvia Arnett
/~/7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / t?
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J 79 tfJ? Approving the Engineer's report for the FY 1995-96 spread of
assessments for Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, declaring the intention to levy and collect
assessments and setting June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. as the dates
and time for the public hearings.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ .
Director of Parks and Re ati~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
City Manageuq ~ ...,.
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items / (" I? and J 8'" have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Couocil member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement J 'I gives all background information and details on open space districts in
general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Eastlake Maintenance
District No.1 (ELMDl).
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the Report, direct the City Clerk to publish the
Resolution of intention pursuant to Government Code 6063, set the dates of the public hearings on the assessments for
Juoe 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION:
Bad'''l'Ouod
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Eastlake Maintenance District
Number 1, a City open space district, located along East H Street and Otay Lakes Road, adjacent to "SR 125"
(Attachment A). Table 1 relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for the Fiscal Vear 1995/96.
Agenda item of tonight's agenda contains all the general information regarding open space districts.
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase FY 95/96 FY 95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collection/EDU or Cost/EDU Revenue
Decrease(2)
ELMO #1(1) $190,600
Eastlake I $6.98 $9.31 $9.31 $4.34 0% $9.10
Easltake Greens 10.64 14.08 14.08 14.08 0% 15.24
OTC 0 125.95 125.95 77.31 0% 126.20
Salt Creek 1 6.98 168.31 168.31 158.70 0% 161.31
TC Channel(2) 0 6.16 24.00 16.74 270% 16.74
(1) All areas share in the cost of 01ay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways.
(2) Portions of Eastlake I BC and Eastlake Greens are in benefit area. Typical assessment for a single family home
did not exceed $1.24 (.2 x $6.16).
/~-/
0~
Page 2, Item /J,
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Staff recommends that the assessments for each of the areas, excepting the benefiting area for Telegraph Canyon
Channel, remain the same as FY 94/95. In each of these cases, staff recommends an annnal collectible as shown in
Table 1. Due to prior and current year savings, staff recommends collection of an amount less than the assessment by
utilizing excess monies in the fund (reserve, savings, interest). The reserve under this recommendation will be 53%.
Telel!raoh Canvon Channel
Portions of Eastlake Business Center and Eastlake Greens drain into the channel. In July of last year a new benefit area
(Zone E) was established within ELMD 1 to pay for the channel maintenance. Property owners were notified of the
estimated cost of maintenance (prorata share) for the channel between Eastlake and Rancho del Rey SPA 3 and were
provided the opportunity to protest. As only a portion of the channel (phase 1 of 3) was ready for turnover, Council
levied an assessment of ouly $6.16 per EDU for FY 94/95. Additional improvements (Phase 2) are ready for turnover
for FY 95/96.
Staff recommends the assessment be $24 per EDU representing the estimated ultimate annnal cost for all three phases
of the channel improvements. As any increase in assessment is subject to a majority protest, staff recommends serting
the assessment, which is the amount property owners receive as notice, at the higher amount of $24 (cost/EDU) not
the amount of revenue needed ($16.74). Alternatively, if staff set the assessment at $16.74, it would be subject to
majority protest for the increase from $6.16 anyway. The following year it might be necessary to increase the
assessment again if savings were not realized to reduce the collectible below the assessment set for FY 95-96. If there
is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the assessment at a lesser amount although $24 per
EDD is needed to provide the recommended maintenance when all three phases have been turned over to the City.
Cost of the formation of Zone E is included in the collectible amount, amortized over 5 years, per the City/Eastlake
agreement (Resolution 17588) which allows the City to reimburse Eastlake Development Company for this cost.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
RDB:dv
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
F:\HOMB\BNc:BNEER\AGENDA\OSELMDl.DDS
/~'2
~
RESOLUTION NO.
J79t9(,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR THE FY 1995-96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1, DECLARING THE
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND
SETTING JUNE 13, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY
11, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the City; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the city Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearings set for June 13 and July
11, 1995, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. The report covers Eastlake Maintenance District 1; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted an
information meeting for all property owners within this district in
January at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96
is as follows:
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % FY 95/96 FY
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collection/EDU Increase or Cost/EDU 95/96
Decrease(2) Revenue
ELMD #1(1) 190,600
EastIake I $6.98 $9.31 $9.31 $4.34 0% $9.10
Eastlake Greens 10.64 14.08 14.08 14.08 0% 15.24
OTC 0 125.95 125.95 77.31 0% 126.20
Salt Creek I 6.98 168.31 168.31 158.70 0% 161.31
TC Channel" 0 6.16 24.00 16.74 270% 16.74
(1) All areas share in the cost of Otay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways.
(2) Portions of Eastlake I Be and Eastlake Greens are in benefit area. Typical assessment for a single family home did
not exceed $1.24 (.2 x $6.16).
1
II, -3
\~\t
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer's report
to declare its intention to levy and collect assessments for the FY
1995-96 for the spread of assessments for Eastlake Maintenance
District 1, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 21, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California as the dates and times for the public
hearings on said assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessment pursuant to Government Code
Section 6063.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
f:J
Presented by
r , Clty Attorney
C:\rs\OS10eng.rep
.
2
Jt -1
\?'"
.
I
..
.
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
II
I
.'
.
..
.
EAST LAKE MAINTENANCE
CITY OF CHULA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE
-
:"',
\
"l-
i":< '.
,
.....
.,.'
'.~
l
, .1'
r
-
All .--.f1'qH'T WM ~ ...1MI em COUtICI. Of TME
em Ill' eMULA YllTA. IT,,ft Ill' _..... 01< ~_.... OF
&.IlMli IMOWII 0. TIel MlIMDIEI .........--..,. DIAMMI ....,.
MID ..T,....- .,. .... ~ ON 1MI DAY OF
,.. ",o",~""aT nrrDUOliiM_D1MI~
~~__"'IMI_0f1lllCITY
.~ ..IP Of tMI ern or CltUu. YIlT" ON ntI_ ..., OF
_ ,.. ..,......-.A, .IIADIT01MI...........,. ROU.
MCOIIDe . 1MI 0fIIIICI Of TMI ern ....,... ~ 1ME
-.cT MIOUMT OF IACtt ...-----..,..Ir.IVIID......1T IACH
IttUICI&. OF &MID IMOMiI 0. ...... MlDlDID ...........un
~. . .
em ~. em Of OIIIU YIlT"
'1 :.1 ..1III_Of1lllCITY.. ."Of1lllCITY
. OIIIU YIlT""" _., Of _.
'j
em_l_
em Of OIIIU YIlT"
_ ""'_.1111 cm ~._ cmOf
....... YIlT" _ _., Of _.
cm CUM ,em Of CIlULA YIlT"
---.,. ~-"'-~..
__Of_~ llI'1III_~llI'
_1eGO.ITAft OP"'~ ellUIl'
OlMm_llI'__~
...............
DISTRICT
NO. I
VISTA
OF CALIFQRNIA
a.a
-
.
.L.
-
--
-
";':':'.it(:;:/i..: .::.:;:,
. "':':;;':;::;:':.. .'~:~.~ .::,.<~:' ',', /,y.
_ ____ftl_OOUIIT\'Of
..,. -.ac. ....t l'I'O~ IWQIL..,.... DlTAUD
. J I = I OF _~lC &~........
LrGEND
~~~~~~UO~ ZONI A
-- -rr..".,. .~.~
c::::::> .a.~t~NT tIIO
~...... . ......... let.
--- .,., ~ to. &1 ."C:1IUtI'IIIIHCE
--...-r .
...- . ~ w.na -fIX
-- ar- -WTAL. I1M:IT UMTM IIIUflIIlf"a.
,
IAIT\A. UlITI_ --' 110. I
~1Il.11lI"
\~
J(} -
.
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
~
"
I
I
~
-
IAGRAM
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
CITY OF DtULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.
~\~- ,. -
~\~ (--'\ .~~ - ...
) \ ,~ 1 \ .......:::::;::,...) ~'\..
~\\ \\ / / /:/' "\,#"-
'1 I ~-jl!) \.J / /..-~/ ~~",,(f/
III / )~..J,//- "f/~
I I I II'" HI
II l# II /( ),Y
III I I \ II Iii
\ I \ \\ ~!
I \ II \~\ \ \ ZONE B !
: .IL JL II
I I \r=-ll-~ \1\
I;, I 0.. 1\1
I ! / II "~~= - -_/:;======:::--\~
III ~ 1\ ---- \~~
.1 I I! 1\ \\
II /? \~\ ~~
I II \~ ,,~
r~ Ii - -'~~ )~
~0. // \~
,,~ /~/ \\
~~ /;/ ~~
":-.... // ...!
,"""';---" "" ~
-----..- ~/..../-
~//.
_-~'""iii... --
,- ~ - --
---
.- ..
.
.
__NCI . MlREIY _ 10 _ COUtI'lY Ill'
loAN OlIGO, ..m_ '.',ClUI.'" POll _AlLID
_IJI_S Ill' "DMDUAL 'AIlCE~.
Id, -?
M.. A 1.
IMTI.MI _AIlCE_CT NO. J LA
_T NO.1 01'1 \;1)~
~ G~M
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,
~
('
/
..~'
-
ZONE C
--
I
_CI II HaRDY MADE TO '"I COUMTY OF
_DlIDO.....II_PAIlCn""" ___
....1II.1OIl. OF __ PAIlC&l.I.
/t- ?
1MT1JoKI..~I_C1' NO. J
_T NO.' OF .
\~
:;1 'dtl:l ( lCW a'g gJ ~i~~~ rn Iflli~~tlli~
i " "
R~ ~ " fi = c: ~
a~ ~ 8' :a a. cii ~gi~~ >
~'88-.g~g ~ !l!4 ~
~ " g .~"o .....'&0
::<>ii' ~fil 000. "d:;d .. "g=~w ~8 w
rn~Rll.2
"S. ~ c: ~ ~ a 'I'lO ~ g il ~~. 0 ~~wg. .3..g.8 B' I
~ " " - .....c: ~ ~ 3.;~B'g,~~'
::<> g ~ ~
~ ~ 8 8 Bog. !lt~
~ ~
~. "n '0 f);'" ~~
t ~ i ::1- ] j~ !'!l
0 S< ~
~ v. 1 - 'l!i!4
~
~ a-.
'" @
3: rn
0 n
0 0 ~
j ~
~
~ 8' g .. i~~ 0
.. '"%j
a-~ IX ~
""~ v. ~ ~N U'taso I
a .... ............'"..J~ .. 't..h1u
v. ~~~~o~~<:;
0
8 88888888 ~~I
.. .. @
'" ....._~~ \O8~
~ ~ g n
u,~w\c "Vt___~ 0
~~2l2lo8~~ ~ '" '"
8 88888888 v. ~ ~
Q ::1
.. .. ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
00
~ o~~~~o~~'g ~
! ~
8 888888888 a
-~
~
~
jj -g/
~
k
~
':t.
If)
~
~
I-
III
\!r
o
":)
eo
~
~
~1::
~ Q
d ..
Z",
tl .
'.8 II
is.a
~&i
.1 I
~ 'e
~~
~~
til:;;i
~ilJ.~~
121Hl ~
u~~s
[::
~~~~~~
~~;1;;!iilJ
~
gS~~r;;.
~ ,'"'' ~
u~~~
<-~=~
~ ~!iJ ~~
N~ ~
~~ou.~.
~ :::~~
:0
if
,..'"
.[1
'G ~ ti..
-&"pi
~~~
~i8.~~~
"It't--.....r--c
V1""'= 1""'l
~ '"
OO==c:J'I~
Pi ""'''It'
..... .....
=ex~~
<5......
~f"; ti
"'''';g'''1'l
.~"'.
...~'"
'" '"
~~"'~~
1""'l~ vf r--~
~ ~
sil!Us
('f'}NO\"';acr
M('t'll""l r-..
&l~~~E;
~~ ao.~ r--~ ...r ~~
~ !l, ~
~ !l,.~ ~
e .~ ~ .5
.5 ~"ll]
i 1=.1l ~
o ~ .5._ "3
n. iiii .9
~lB~
U:q
\IS :s
~~~
t"'-~.~
'" ~
"'2~
ta~('t)
~.,;!::
..,..,s
q~.
lIl:q~
~~<Ii
..... ....
...~
-.-I~8
"te
1!l
~
~ %~ i
5.5 5 ~
Ul ~
'll i 'll >-
Z..Z t>.
;t
.,;
~
'"
~
.,;
;t
.,;
~
~
S;
~
8
~
~
!:j
&:i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r:l
~
!:l
...
~
;1;
.,;
~
!:l
...
~
~
~
'"
11;
...
11;
...
~
.,;
..
~
.;
8
"'
S;
...
~
~
~
'"
il il
J J
~ ~
~ ~ ~
/~~t
::>
~
~
~
H<lil:;",~1l;
~~.~I=::ta:::
~~ .-l
<fl:j~~",~
~O\;:!;~~~
....t ........
~
"BV1~~~~~
'~~"';:r:l:8";
f-l~ ......,.-l
~~~~
0000
<.,bew
~ 0 0 0 4)
UU~
~
~
~
;;; ~~
o i ~"ai
:~ ~ g~ii
~ ~ ~~~
~.s _N~
"'~ ~il u.
d/jO <~ ~n~
<~ u- q:<
oS -gi ~....rao
.8 j <l '" !!l ~ .5 5
N'" 5~ .."'~~
~~ isln i~
a.o!l =.!!3"'~=~'U
~~ ~~~~~~.5
eO~Oil8~~a~
~~~",,,,.s,,, O~_
-;I'll .~~"'$o-!lO
~ -fZ" .. ~.. ~ ;! ~
~ 0 '" ~~ ~ ~ ~ :ll ~ ~
Z~N t"'i.,f.,;...or..:a6o'
~
~
~
~
a.
i
....
!
J
;j
t-l
f
,
ti>
~
f
.s;
~
~
f-.\-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / 7
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Resolution / 71t:J? Approving the Engineer's report for the FY 1995-96 spread of
assessments for City Open Space District No.1, declaring the intention to levy and collect
assessments and setting June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. as the dates
and time for the public hearin~s.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work<.J
Director of Parks and R~~
City ManagerJG1 ~ ~
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items / t, J 7 and I g'" have been separated due to conflict of
interest concems. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement 19 gives all background information and details on open space districts in
general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 1.
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the Report, direct the City CIeri< to publish the
Resolution of Intention pursuant to Govemment Code 6063, set the dates of the public hearings on the assessments for
June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Maintenance
District Number 1 located between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, east of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment
A). Table 1 relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for Year 1995-96. Agenda item
of tonight's agenda contains all the general information regarding open space districts.
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTffiLE AND % CHANGE
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 Proposed Proposed FY Assessment FY95-96 FY95-96
FY 95-96 95-96 % Increase Cost/EDU Revenue
Collect/EDU or Decrease
OSD No. 1 $78 $77 $77 $49 0% $81 $32,411
El Raocho del
Rey
Units 1-4
Staff recommends that the assessment of $77 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the cost of $81.
Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the assessment amount of $81.
Staff recommends a collection of $49 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($32). Funds are
available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this recommendation
will be 55%.
".~----
/7-/
~
----
Page 2, Item-.l2
Meeting Date 5/23/95
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
M:\HOME\ENOINEER\AOENDA\OSDl.DDS
J7~.2
"" ~
\:
RESOLUTION NO.
J7'Jr/?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR THE FY 1995-96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995 AT 6:00
P.M. AND JULY 11, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE
DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the City; and
.
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearings set for June 13 and July
11, 1995, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. The report covers Open Space District No.1; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted an
information meeting for all property owners within this district in
January at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96
is as follows:
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
FY FY Proposed Proposed FY Assessment FY95-96 FY95-96
93-94 94-95 FY95- 95-96 % Increase Cost/ED Revenue
96 Collect/EDU or Decrease U
OSD No. 1 $78 $77 $77 $49 0% $81 $32,411
EI Rancho del
Rey
Units 1-4
1
/7-)
\~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer's report
to declare its intention to levy and collect assessments for the FY
1995-96 for the spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance District 1, a copy of which is on file in the office of
the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 21, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in
the city Council Chambers, city of Chula vista, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California as the dates and times for the public
hearings on said assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessment pursuant to Government Code
Section 6063.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\OS10eng.rep
2
/7-'1
\~
~
.. . .-
~ ~~./
...............-.~I
--.........-...............
.1'
_,J
. '1
.~,
,
"
.
. J i
-,
. · i
,
,.
.~ (.
1 )O~3"d3".
/
./
/~
>
.,
"-
"'".'.
o' "
.......
'. ...
'I .
.', j
, J
- ~
.",
i >
t ~ ;.Pll,
-::;) ,0 J
~ 5 ~lil!.i
is... ;~ 'Iii
o i~1 to
~ ~ ! I!pll
~ E ~ ,hili
~ "ll'.l
z !I! ~ ll..:l'
~.. ;:fJl!
l!s ""
Ii
~
i'
f:
I'
\, '
il Ii
hi ~$;:
i' It\
Ii ~.
.
2. ~
z( a
. -
;
.L
~i
I' i
1'1:: i
. 1 f
I .
h;i,
11'
i ;~ ii:
"11
.! I
PI
I I !
; t i
I .: ~
. I'
:"1'
: f
"i t
ill1
., .
., ,
. ;.~:
Iii
! I
i ~ I .
, :;
; I
;1
\ HI .ct
\""'"
~ "O1:l:l [ :>om :1'9 gj ~i~~~ rn ~Qg'~~~Q!;~~S:9
g " " " <i
<l 0- <i " fl = c:: I (!i c:r "0 "1> n"",<::s .... s: sa
~ ,,00 g a ~~~88 ~ ~ ~ a 0- !; CIl ~ fl' ~ ~. ~ >
" " " 0- r); .... 8 C') 0 .... _. C)
;;~ ~ " e n C" ~: 8i5'e:E~IIo~ l4 ~
" = ClJ5.tl)"'C~
(g g =r'" 0-" 8 0 ::s = CIJ
" "'i'il ~~@~.g 008~e.aQ~CIl~o "
'!!I. e ~
~ 8 ~ ~ tj 8.F;;"~-.,!S".8 S. g
" ~ ~ ~ r.: g @.
" " " c:: I o "'"0 to n
~ a ~ ~ a s""'~"'C"6'" ~
~ ~ fl8 ~ ~ 'p,og ~c:C" ~
8 ~ ::s g: ~tji5' !!'>c: Z
II B. .." '" ..." ~~ ...,
" ~ 1 o. 9i'
1 e 51 ] l41't
;; ~ ] , "
~ - 'I!j n
g ~,...
01 ~
CIl ~ g
s:: rn
0 n
tj 0 ~
~ ~
2
~
gj 0
.. .. .. ~ >,j
c:: "''^ ,It '^ ~'" ~o I
I .. "'~ .,. '^ ~oo....,
~ '" ~; ~ '"....I';..... ...., ~ ~ "''0 ~~l~ ' ..
~'"
.l" ~!3P,^;S ..~gg ~z
~,... .. .,... ~
~ 8 . w. . 888
"';:;l :::l !>lie "'.,. 888*8 8g88 ~
<;j:I <;j:I....
tl
.. .. .. ~~ g
g:~ ,!>l '^ "'''' fq
...., '" ~~...., n
.. .. ~ "gg~ :g 00 ~ ...,. '0 ~-""'b 0
t::J :::l ~ ..~gg ~ ~ $~ CIl
!-"5='~V\Y" 0 0 00 Cii
"'''' ~~ ~ 8 8 . t.J,). . 888 '^.
888~8 8g88
<;j:I'" <;j:I ~
~ ~
.. .. ~ ~
'" I-"~~
~ '"
.. .. ...., '8 !>l '" ~ '0 ~~~ ~ ~
:::l Oil '0 og gg $
'^ 0 .,.
;... ~ v. 8 8 8888 888 a
.,. '" ,~
~
~
JIJ~?
\~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
/ 79c7~
Resolution Approving the Engineer's report for the FY 1995-96 spread of
assessments for City Open Space District No. 10, declaring the intention to levy and collect
assessments and setting June 13, I 95 at 6:00 p.m. and July II, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. as the dates
and time for the public hearings.
Director of Public WOrk~1JI
Director of Parks and Recreati
Item / IT
Meeting Date 5/23/95
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items / t, /7 and / f{' have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement 1'1 gives all background information and details on open space districts in
general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 10.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the Report, direct the City Clerk to publish the
Resolution of Intention pursuant to Government Code 6063, set the dates of the public hearings on the assessments for
June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Number 10
located along East J Street, west of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment A). Table I relates the present year's assessment
to the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995/96. Agenda item of tonight's agenda contains all the general
information regarding open space districts.
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTlBLE AND % CHANGE
Open Space District No. 10 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 Proposed Proposed FY Assessment FY95-96
EI Rancho del Rey 6 & Casa del FY 95-96 95-96 % Increase Revenue
Rey CollectionlEDU or
Decrease
AssessmentlEDU $25 $42 $83 $68 200% $42,865
CostlEDU $84 $88 $83 - - -
Staff recommends an increase in the annual assessment from $42.00 to $83.00' per EDU which reflects the FY 95/96
estimated maintenance cost. Staff recommends a collection of $68.00 per EDU and utilizing $15 per EDU from the
fund balance (reserve, interest and savings) to make up the difference. Funds are available to do this because of prior
years' savings. The reserve will be 53% with staff's recommendation.
/y--(
\~
Page 2, Item J fJ
Meeting Date 5/23/95
The assessment has been lower than actual costs for the last three fiscal years because of district savings (water
restrictions from '91 drought), low bid after levy of assessment and delayed turnover of new improvements. Staff's
recommendation will make the estimated annual cost and assessment the same amount. As any increase in assessment
is subject to a majority protest, staff recommends setting the assessment, which is the amount property owners receive
as notice, at the higher amount of $83 (cost/EDU) not the amount of revenue needed ($68). Alternatively, if staff set
the assessment at $68, it would be subject to majority protest for the increase from $42 anyway. The following year
it might be necessary to increase the assessment again if savings were not realized to reduce the payment (collectible)
below the assessment set for FY 95-96. If there is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the
assessment at a lesser amount although $83/EDU is needed to provide the recommended maintenance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public W OIks, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
RDB:dv
M:\HJME\BNaINBER\AaENDA\OSDlO.DDS
/8".; ,;L
\~
RESOLUTION NO.
/ 7 '1~1/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR THE FY 1995-96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 13, 1995 AT 6:00
P.M. AND JULY 11, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE
DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the City; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearings set for June 13 and July
11, 1995, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. The report covers Open Space District No. 10; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted an
information meeting for all property owners within this district in
January at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96
is as follows:
TABLE I
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
Open Space District No. 10 FY FY Proposed Proposed FY Assessment FY95-
EI Rancho del Rey 6 & 93-94 94-95 FY 95-96 95-96 % Increase 96
Casa del Rey Collection/EDU or Decrease Revenue
Assessrnent/EDU $25 $42 $83 $68 200% $42,865
Cost/EDU $84 $88 $83 - - -
1
) 'j" 3
~\
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer's report
to declare its intention to levy and collect assessments for the FY
1995-96 for the spread of assessments for city Open space
Maintenance District 10, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 21, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in
the city Council Chambers, city of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California as the dates and times for the public
hearings on said assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessment pursuant to Government Code
section 6063.
C:\rs\OS10eng.rep
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
2
/8'--if
\~ '"
w
U
Zo
<l-
Z
W
f-
Zo
<lZ
~
<l
f-
(/)
>
<l
-.J
:::)
I
U
LLLL
00
t3f- >-
<lU f-
0..0:: -
U)f- U
Z(/) W
wO I
0.. f-
o
.
. i
i : ~
n,
. .
i .
. · 5
! .. .
, i ;
- i r
: ~ .
In
\
/'
./
/'
I : _
i :I ;
..~i~..,
.
.;
.
r.
.
!
!
i
, !
f i !
,
. ,
1;1
~
Q
Z
,
..
.
:::::::
:::::;:
.......
::::::
II J
.! 1 i
1- .
l!.'Il
I
I I
f~
~::;;
&;J
~ .":
.
i
!
=-.:1
· 'I
ii/i
. . .
.. .
.. .
" .
)0. .
Hi
i
.
i
.
.
;; i
:e!
"1
~ i" ",.
::'1.
=!:: i
......
:.-
~'"
a. III ,
I .:
_. 5 ri
~i'. i
i!il!
u,,"oita
~!li:j
........ :"i
or r,:, =
..:."; a
:;; = ~ ::
"i!. ::
; a. ~.. c
::r~
/%--5
\~'?
.
I
!
III
.
. ~
;.~ l..
. .5
- i-
.
.
.
I,
I.'
I"
)
\
AAI\-
-,
.\
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I I
I A
1.Jl
I~
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
!'! I
i i I
I I I
f I
~~~ I h.....'
~I. ~l
Eli I
~~. ~ I
n~ ! I
e~- ~ I
. !~ I
I
I ;r~rll~~.
.
,
, I
--
, ,
4;
i!
Ii
i
i ~
:rl !
i !
I
.
lIUG......CANYCNIlOAD
I--
I (
, \
\ I \
\ i \
, , \
\ a \
. I
I r
I I
I
I
I
~
-I
.
.
'1
~ nnnl
l!BII .-. '11111i I' -- -llli I I
j liu lilll!I!I!ill IjllI!i!!!1
I1III Iii 1I'!;lill'i I I liill!:'ii!;1 I
Iii I . I'ji!. ", I I . !,!. Bill
. _. s ~ ~~ g. s~:...
. "1 !IIE. 1"'11'. I I !1'1...!i,. I
li'l II 111~~1 -I' II 1III III
1'1' I'~:I:I!: ! i I I li!:I!: Ii I
If. IIII '.i! I:; 1 IIII.!! I; 1
i!11 ,el; III' 'i" ; t IE:,II' ,"I I
. ,~! ill! .l,! I,i I . ilf!l!! ~!I ·
lil( l:: .-11 Iii I ~:!;"I !i:
!li il'll ~ I. II I al'.1 I' I!
i~e -& I -. ~ !I.- ~i
ill I,..' "' ,I I,!. Iii,
- . J I'" . J' 'I.
,: IlllI! U ji i Ilii! d ~I -
, I I., ,,' -j. 1...' I.
. . = . ...~.
'j
e ~I!I 0 ul
I!I 1!:li~ I I I!I I!:!i~ I I I
;..II.rll;
. ;., ;.
fl P' ·
.
.
.
.
CClITI__
..
,
.
I
I
1, . I . I
'J
. I .
I
I.
I
1
I
.
.
. .
.
I
. I
I
.
.
'AIEO ENTIWlI
...,
'-
--- -
/O~b
~G>
--
o
-0
IT1
Z
1
!
I
i
J
i
!
(j)
~
()
IT1
o
(j)
-i
:::0
()
-i
Z
P
o
i
I
I
~"
~
-
~ ~~~~~~~ 8 ~ ~ ~
1:
~ ~ ~!H~e~~~ ~ ~ it
..
~ N c:fj~ \C~ '"
~ "'- '"
.. ..
~ -
~ ~~~~~ ",>4< ....>4<
~ 0 8888888 8 ~ _N N'"
g~ ~~~o~~~ 0 V'l =<0:1'- N'" r-:
- ~ g:"~ ;:t '" or,
e .. ~
U 0'"7 ......r I.() \0" vi' ~ ~~
~ ~~ "'- '" a-
.. .. .. ~
u B
~ .!1l
'" ~
~ ~~~~~ i~ ..: i>4<
~ ~~ 8888888 8 ~ !~ ~ .'9 fi
g~~o~g~ ~ \0 O~"lt &: i 'Ii
~ ~:A .... -
"I." .... "I. ''It,, ,,0.. I
-'" '" -" N ~~
o~ "'- '"
~ - .. ..
0
~ -
~ -
.. ~
ffi en ...
0 0
u 0
~ ! ::;;
,;9 U IS en
~~ I I ~ i ~ i
li:l l5 ~
w" 2 '~ .~
.. gj,.... ".IS - ~.. ~
z il~rl .gOij ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 1
~ .- "
ij .e:c=ij~~'E ~ e !l .i ~ ~
::;; '~~i~~ ::>~
a 'E 8.5g:'Er2Jl"'~ 0 QM, tl e ::>~
~ ir~ ~~ I!!. " .e~ ~ 'Ob
~ Jl B8'8.Jl ~~~e~ ~~~1!~ ~.fi c ~i3 t
..
tj iB I:::i '-~8:~ 0" !
~ L~ '" .., - " II iC
0( ~ j'~,~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ il "
~ !!~~~ ::> ~! !~ '8 g
@ oS "'~
;5::;;Jl:lo F:...c1lo< ~... Ii;
IS",? /Ie- 2
----.---
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J 9
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: A. Resolution / ?'1tfl9 Approving the Engineer's reports for the FY 1995-96
spread of assessments for City Open Space Districts 2-9,11,14,15,17,18,20,23,24,
26, 31, Bay Boulevard, and Town Center, declaring the intention to levy and collect
assessments, declaring the intention to establish Zone 9 within Open Space District 20
and setting June 13, 1995 and July 11, 1995 as the dates and times for the public
hearings
p.
Resolution ) 7 ~ / t:l Approving boundary adjustment for City Open Space
District 31
Director of Public Works~
City Manage~ b ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_Noll)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The City administers 23 open space districts established over the last twenty-five years. The districts provide
the mechanism to finance the maintenance of common open space areas (canyons, trails, medians, etc.)
associated with and benefitting that particular development. As part of this process, a levy of an annual
assessment is necessary to enable the City to collect funds for the proposed open space maintenance. Tonight's
action begins the process for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
The City Engineer has prepared and filed reports on assessments for all existing Open Space Districts. The
above resolution approves the reports and sets the dates for public hearings to consider the levy of assessments
and collection of funds. An additioual resolution will approve a change to the boundary of Open Space District
31 to reflect the boundary adjustment between properties previously approved by Council. In a letter dated
October 17, 1994, Sweetwater Authority requested they be exempted from the yearly open space assessment
for a lot that they own in Open Space District 14. This report addresses that concern.
Last, a zone needs to be established within Open Space District 20 (Rancho del Rey) to pay for that
development's share of maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Channel. A zone is an area within an open space
district that is established to pay the share of maintenance costs of an item that does not have a benefit for the
entire district.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions:
I) Approving the reports including supplemental items of work, directing the City Clerk to publish the
Resolutions of Intention pursuant to Government Code 6063, and setting the dates of the public
hearings on the assessments for June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. The June
13 public hearing shall also be for the purpose of taking testimony on the proposed Open Space
Ordinance change, which is a companion item.
2) Approving a boundary adjustment for City Open Space District 31.
3) Staff also recommends that Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from the open space
district charges until they develop the site for their water facility be denied. This recommendation
is embodied within the assessments and collections in the first resolution.
4) Direct staff to notice the property owners pursuant to State Codes and include information on the
proposed ordinance change.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The budget and assessment information for Town
Center Maintenance District will be forwarded to the Town Center Committee via the Community Development
/9-/
\~\t
Page 2, Item-Lt
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Department upon approval of the resolution. As the advisory committee for the Town Center developments,
the Committee has historically reviewed this information and provided feedback to staff.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda statement is the yearly resolution of intention to assess property owners for open space
maintenance within the City. Table I contains the name and location of the districts. Table 2 relates the
present year's assessment to the proposed assessment and collectibleI for FY 95/96. Following Table 2, there
is some general information that applies to all the districts and then each district is analyzed individually. A
description of the noticing that is required is provided at the end of this agenda statement.
As a final note, Council should be advised that the preceding agenda items contain the same information on
Open Space District Nos. I, 10, and Eastlake which were separated due to conflict of interest concerns.
Background
Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter I, Part 2 of the Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also
known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City
Engineer has prepared and filed the annual reports for all existing Open Space Districts in the City. The name
and location of each open space district is shown in the following table.
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chuta Vista
Open Space Name Location
District No.
2 Lark Haven South and east of Lorna Verde Park
3 Rancho Robinhood Units 1 & 2 South of Allen School Lane
4 Bonita Ridge Camino Elevado
5 Southbay Villas Northern end of Crest Drive
6 Hilltop Vista Camino VISta Road
7 Zenith Units 2, 3, and 4 North and south of Palomar, east of I-80S
8 Rancho Robinhood Unit 3 Surrey Drive
9 El Rancho del Rey Units Pasco del Rey, north of Telegraph Canyon Road
11 Hidden Vista Village East H Street, east of I-80S
14 Bonita Long Canyon North and south of Country Vistas Lane
15 Bonita Haciendas Canyon Drive, east of Otay Lakes Road
17 Bel Air ridge Northeast of Pasco Ladera and East J Street
18 Rancho del Sur Easterly end of East Naples Street
20 Rancho del Rey North of East H Street, west of Otay Lakes Road
I The collectible is defined in a proposed ordinance change on tonight's agenda preceding this item.
/~'-;2
\~1
Page 3, Item / 'J
Meeting Date 5/23/95
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista
23 Otay Rio Business Park West of Heritage/OIay Valley Road, south of Otay
Rio Road
24 Canyon View Homes Rutgers Avenue, south of East H Street
26 Park Bonita West of the intersection of E Street and Bonita Road
31 Telegraph Canyon Estates North of OIay Lakes Rd, west of "SR 125"
Town Center No. I 1bird Avenue, north and south of F Street
Bay Boulevard -
These reports were prepared by the City Engineer or under his direction and are presented to Council for
approval in order to proceed with the public hearings set for June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. and July II, 1995 at
6:00 p.m. in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The reports cover districts listed in
Table 1.
The Parks and Recreation Department conducted information meetings for all property owners within each
district in January and the Public WOIks Department will conduct information meetings in June. At the January
meeting, staff explained the prelimiuary, proposed budget to 26 owners out of approximately 10,000 properties
receiving notice. Subsequent to the budget meetings, staff is recommending changes to the City's Municipal
Code regarding open space to allow an inflation factor on the assessment which would not be subject to
majority protest beginning in FY 1996/97 and to differentiate between assessments and collectibles.
Additionally, in the Council reports for the public hearings, staff will be recommending minor changes to the
FY 1995/96 collection amount to accommodate a proposed staff time budget increase. The proposed increase
(approximately 2%) is to include a Park & Recreation Departmental overhead factor in the budget.
The proposed revised budget, assessment, and ordinance change will be discussed at the June meetings. A
summary of the June meetings will be provided to Council at the second public hearing scheduled for July II.
Assessments
The proposed assessments and collectibles for Fiscal Year 1995-96 are as follows:
TABLE 2
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96 FY 95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collectn/EDU DecreaseCl) Cost/EDU Revenue
2 32.00 34.00 34.00 29.00 0% 39.00 7,221
3 250.00 267.00 267.00 197.00 0% 259.00 25,019
4 197.00 282.00 282.00 217.00 0% 271.00 45,570
5 224.00 243.00 243.00 221.00 0% 275.00 26,962
6 128.00 136.00 136.00 0.00 0% 84.00 0
7 87.00 95.00 95.00 34.00 0% 93.00 3,536
8 430.00 430.00 430.00 280.00 0% 434.00 30,800
)1-3
\~~
Page 4, Item J 9
Meeting Date 5/~
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96 FY 95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collectn/EDU Decrease(2) Cost/EDU Revenue
9 92.00 101.00 101.00 88.00 0% 123.00 33,792
11 81.00 83.00 83.00 67.00 0% 84.00 88,509
14 254.00 270.00 270.00 137.00 0% 269.00 119,650
15 234.00 234.00 234.00 183.00 0% 240.00 10,431
17 124.00 124.00 124.00 0 0% 116.00 0
18 303.00 293.00 293.00 228.00 0% 277.00 88,361
20(1) 203.00 203.00 - - - - 303,300
Zone 1 DB(3) - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 1.05 -
Zone 2 RC - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.22 -
Zone 3 H - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90 -
Zone 4 BC - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 16.11 -
Zone 5 1 - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15 -
Zone 6 11 - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41 -
Zone 7 111 - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 11.80 -
Zone 8 NDB - 0 30,09 0 NA 0.00 -
Zone 9 TCC - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 0.00 -
23 0 335.00 335.00 205.00 0% 212.00 11,480
24 210.00 432.00 432.00 298.00 0% 502.00 11,920
26 359.00 394.00 394.00 356.00 0% 356.00 6,764
31 NA 407.00 407.00 0 0% 392.00 0
Bay Blvd. 1,000.00 889.00 889.00 5.00 0% 1,291.00 50
Town Centre 43.00 45.00 45.00 39.00 0% 39.00 39,000
I) Represented average residential assessment in SPA 1.
(2) Compares FY 94/95 assessment to proposed FY 95/96 assessment.
(3) Includes supplemental item of work - drainage strncture south of East H Street, east of Paseo del Rey at no
additional cost.
District Assessments and Collectibles
As recommended on the companion item on tonight's agenda for amending the City's regulations relating to
open space districts, the assessments are generally held the same as FY 94/95. The assessment is generally the
total amount needed for maintenance and 50% reserves not taking into account higher reserves, interest and
savings. The collectible, on the other hand, is based on the budgets, reserves, savings, and fund balances,
including interest and previous year's savings. It must always be eqnal to or less than the assessment amount
or else the assessment must be increased. Under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 an increase in the
assessment is subject to a majority protest. This would cause the increase to be eliminated. The collection
amount can vary from year to year due to interest and savings and, as long as it is less than the assessment
amount, an increase from one year to the next cannot be eliminated by the protest. Under staff's
recommendation, ouly three open space districts would have an increase in assessment and be subject to a
majority protest on the increase (OSD 10, OSD 20 and Eastlake). In general, all budgets have decreased due
to adjustments in contract services, utilities and City staff services (OSDs 20 and 31 budgets are proposed to
be increased). The decrease in utility cost is based on actua1 use, not a forecast, and is due to more rainfall,
which means less water was used. The decrease in contract services affecting OSDs 2, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 26 is
/51-Y
,t,'"
Page 5, Item /1
Meeting Date 5/23/95
due to receiving and accepting lower bids on contracts. The decrease in City staff services for most districts
is due to shifting of costs to OSD 20 and OSD 31 corresponding to those districts' additional items proposed
for maintenance in FY 95/96.
Savings from prior years are proposed to be used to supplement the property owner collections to provide the
revenue needed for FY 95/96 maintenance while maintaining reserves between 50%-60% (City Code requires
reserves between 500/0-100%). For those districts where the reserve sti1l exceeds 50-60%, staff recommends
using the savings to offset some of the assessments to give lower collectibles. Staff generally tries to keep the
assessments level or with only gradnal increases, or decreases, each year.
The following summarizes the major changes for each district. Under the new proposed policy being considered
by separate item tonight, staff has made a distinction between the assessment and collectible amount; the
assessment, estimated cost and collection will become the same number whenever an increase in assessment
is necessary. The proposed assessment per EDU for FY 95/96 represents, in most cases, the prior year's
assessment. The prior year assessment differed from cost depending on reserves, savings, etc. This year, as
recommended on another of tonight's items, the assessment per ED U is the figure to be mailed to the property
owners and the collectible is the amount to be collected which is affected by reserves, savings, etc. The
collectible per EDU reflects impacts of the reserve requirements, ending fund balances and savings. For a
detailed outline, see Attachment A.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated FY 95-96
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95.96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95.96 Revenue
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU
I~SD No.2 $32.00 $34.00 $34.00 $29.00 0% $39.00 7,221
Lark Haven
Staff recommends that the assessment of $34 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) remain the same as FY
94/95. This is less than the cost of $39. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would
need to increase the assessment amount to $39 to provide the same level of service. Staff recommends a
collection of $29 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($10). Funds are available to
do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractua1 services. The reserve under this recommendation
will be 58%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSD No. 3 $250.00 $267.00 $267.00 $197.00 0% $259.00 $25,019
Rancho Robinhood
Units 1 & 2
Staff recommends that the assessment of $267 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $259. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $197 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($62). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 73%.
/9--f
~
Page 6, Item1Z-
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Collectn/EDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
aSD No. 4 $197.00 $282.00 $282.00 $217.00 0% $271.00 $45,570
Bonita Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $282 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $271. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $217 per EOU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($54). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 53%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Collection/EDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
aSD No. 5 $224.00 $243.00 $243.00 $221.00 0% $275.00 $26,962
Southbay Villas
Staff recommends that the assessment of $243 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the
cost of $275. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $275. Staff recommends a collection of$221 per EOU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($54). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual
services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 65%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Collection/EDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
aSD No.6 $128.00 $136.00 $136.00 $0.00 0% $84.00 0
Hilltop Vista
Staff recommends that the assessment of $136 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $84. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection this year, utilizing the fund
balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because a substantially lower bid was received
resulting in excess funds. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the maximum allowed under
the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refunds could be processed to lower the reserve below 100%. Staff
recommends against this alternative, as it is costly to process refunds.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Collection/EDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
I~SD No.7 - Zenith $87.00 $95.00 $95.00 $34.00 0% $93.00 $3,536
Units 2, 3, & 4
Staff recommends that the assessment of $95 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $93. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
J9-~
~,
Page 7, ItemR
Meeting Date 5/23/95
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $34 per EOU utilizing the
fund balance to make up the difference ($59). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings
mostly in contractual services and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under this recommendation will
be 60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSDNo.8 $430.00 $430.00 $430.00 $280.00 0% $434.00 $30,800
Rancho Robinhood
Unit 3
Staff recommends that the assessment of $430.00 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the
cost of $434. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $434. Staff recommends a collection of$280 per EOU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($154). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual
services and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 55%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSD No. 9 $92.00 $101.00 $101.00 $88.00 0% $123.00 $33,792
El Rancho del Rey
Units
Staff recommends that the assessment of $101 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the
cost of $123. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $123. Staff recommends a collection of $88 per EOU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($45). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual
services and utility costs and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under this recommendation will be
60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSD No. 11 $81.00 $83.00 $83.00 $67.00 0% $84.00 $88,509
Hidden Vista
Village
Staff recommends that the assessment of $83 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the cost
of $84. Eventually, if maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the assessment of
$84. Staff recommends a collection of $67 per EOU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($17).
Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly caused by delayed turnover of new
improvements and lower bids. The reserve under this recommendation will be 52%.
)'1---7
~
Page 8, Item4
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment FY 95-96
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 %Increase FY 95-96 Revenue
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionJEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU
I~SD No. 14 $254.00 $270.00 $279.00 $137.00 0% $269.00 119,650
Bonita Long Canyon
Staff recommends that the assessment of $270 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $269. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $13 7 per ED U
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($132). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 60%.
Sweetwater Authority owns a residential lot for future construction of a water tank within OSD 14. The
Authority has requested waiver from the OSO assessment (see Attachment C). Staff does not support this
request as the land is vacant and could be sold as residential lot. Staff recommends that Council consider an
exemption at the time water facilities are constructed.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionJEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
IOSD No. 15 $234.00 $234.00 $234.00 $183.00 0% $240.00 $10,431
Bonita Haciendas
Staff recommends that the assessment of $234 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the
cost of $240. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $240. Staff recommends a collection of $183 per EOU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($57). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual
services. The reserve under this recommendation will be 59%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionJEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSD No. 17 $124.00 $124.00 $124.00 0.00 0% $116.00 0
Bel Air Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $124.00 per EOU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than
the cost of $116. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no annual collection utilizing the
fund balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in utility
costs and drainage maintenance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the maximum allowed
under the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refimds could be processed to lower tbe reserve below 100%. Staff
recommends against this alternative as it is costly to process refunds.
/1- Fr
o/J
Page 9, Item--L2..-
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
AssmtlEDU AssmtlEDU AssmtlEDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
IOSD No. 18 $303.00 $293.00 $293.00 $228.00 0% $277.00 $88,361
Rancho del Sur
Staff recommends that the assessment of $293 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $277. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $228 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($49). Funds are available to do this because of prior and
estimated current year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 70%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96
AssmntlEDU AssmntlEDU AssmntlEDU CollectionlEDU Decrease(l) CostlEDU
OSD No. 20 - - - - - -
Rancho del Rey
Zone 1 Desilt Basin - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 1.05
Zone 2 Rice Canyon - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.22
Zone 3 H St. - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90
Zone 4 Business Center - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 16.11
Zone 5 SPA 1 - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15
Zone 6 SPA II - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41
Zone 7 SPA III - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 11.80
Zone 8 North Desilting - 0 30.09 0 NA 0.00
Basin
Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 0.00
Channel
Rancho del Rey is a phased development of three Sectional Planning Areas (SPA). SPA I is approximately
50% developed, SPA II homes are under construction and SPA III land is being graded. The OSD was
established in 1989 encompassing all three areas with the understanding that the open space improvements
would be constructed in phases. Becaose this is a large district and not all of the items to be maintained have
a benefit to the entire district, OSD 20 is made up of several zones as indicated above. Every property within
the district is in mOre than one zone.
Staff recommends increasing the FY 95/96 assessments to the estimated ultimate cost. As the developer and
guest builders own the majority ofland in SPAs II and III, protests will be minimized if increases are effected
this year. SPA II assessment ($211) is recommended to increase to accommodate the turnover of improvements
associated with it. Staff recommends the collection for SPA III ($6/EDU) be substantially less than the
proposed assessment ($130) because the development is not completed (except the Telegraph Canyon medians).
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment for SPA I (Zone 5) from $187 per EDU to $275 per EDU to
reflect the ultimate estimated cost. Staff recommends collecting a lesser amount (collectible) of $83 uti1izing
the fund balance to make up the difference ($192). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings
mostly in contractual services and utility costs due to delayed turnover of improvements. An increase in
/9-;
~'^'
Page 10, ItemA
Meeting Date 5/23/95
assessment could be deferred for SPA I residents, but staff recommends increasing it now to coincide with SPAs
II and III assessment increases. Although these areas are in separate zones, effecting the increases in a single
year is consistent with the areas being in one open space district. This simplifies the notice procedure and
reduces the errors in noticing. All of these assessment increases are subject to a majority protest this year.
Staff recommends minor assessment increases (less than $151EDU total) for Zones 1-3 to reflect the ultimate
estimated cost. Current year assessments are less because of savings, etc. A typical parcel in OSD 20 is
assessed for up to four different zones. Table 3 summarizes the combination of assessments.
TABLE 3
Typical Combined Assessment (FY 95-96)
SPA I (Zones lor 8, 2, 3, & 5) $298
SPA II (Zones I or 8, 2, 3, & 6) 265
SPA III (Zones I or 9, 3, & 7) 144
Business Center (Zones I, 2, 3, & 4) --
Industrial (per acre) 814
Commercial (per acre) 1,005
The reserve under this recommendation will be 41 %. Pursuant to City Municipal Code, the reserve will be
increased to 50% (minimum) over 5 years.
Zone 9 Telel!raoh Canvon Channel
Pursuant to the agreement between East1ake Development Company and the City, dated August 2, 1988 and
approved by Resolution 13716, the City shall use its best efforts to establish a maintenance district for the
Telegraph Canyon channel between East1ake and Rancho del Rey. In July 1994, Council established a zone
within ELMD I to share the maintenance costs of this section of channel. As Rancho del Rey final maps are
pending, it is appropriate to establish a similar zone within OSD 20.
If approved, properties whose stormwater runs off to the channel (south half of SPA 3) will be subject to the
additional assessment as shown in Table 4 based on their prorated share of the Telegraph Canyon basin (2.4%).
Rancho del Rey or one of the guest builders are the sole property owners in the proposed Zone 9 and
consequently staff does not anticipate any protests.
TABLE 4
OSO 20 - Proposed Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon Channel
Channel Silt Fence Plant Removal Total RDR @ 2.4% FY 95/96 Assmt Collectioo/EDU
Share of Cost & Cost/EOU FY 95/96
Phase I $4,079 $4,822 $8,901 $214 $4.92 $4.92
Phase 2 5,743 12,449 18,192 437 10.04 10.04
Phase 3 6,407 6,780 13,187 317 7.28 0.00
SUBTOTAL $40,280 968 $22.24IEOU 14.96
FORMATION COST 72 $1.65IEOU 1.65
TOTAL $1,040 $23.89IEOU 16.61
- The methodology for spreading the cost is consistent with the methods for the existing OSO 20 drainage zones.
_ A typical residentiallot in Zone 9 is equal to 0.2 drainage EOU's for a Zone 9 assessment of $4.78 (.2 EOU x
$23.89IEOU) and collection of $3.32 (.2 EOU x 16.61).
J'j-///
~
Page 11, Item.-.lL
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Staff recommends a collection of only $16.61 per EDU to provide adequate funds for Phase 1 and 2
maintenance. Phase 3 is not anticipated to be ready for turnover during FY95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CoIlectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
I~SD No. 23 - Otay $0 $335.00 $335.00 $205.00 0% $212.00 $11,480
Rio Business Park
Staff recommends that the assessment of $335 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $212. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. The higher amount of $335 was recommended by
the developer, based on his costs, in 1993. As there is a short history on this district, staff does not recommend
lowering the assessment at this time.
Staff recommends a collection of $205 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($7).
Funds are available to do this because of prior and estimated current year savings mostly in contractual services.
The reserve under this recommendation will be 50%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CoIlectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
OSD No. 24 - $210.00 $432.00 $432.00 . $298.00 0% $502.00 $11,920
Canyon View
Homes
Note: OSD 24 consists of only 40 townhomes sharing in the cost of large, landscaped slopes adjacent to the
townhomes.
Staff recommends that the assessment of $432 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than the
cost of $502. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $502. Staff recommends a collection of $298 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($204). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly due to delayed
turnover of improvements. The reserve under this recommendation will be 60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CoIlectionlEDU or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
rOSD No. 26 $359.00 $394.00 $394.00 $356.00 0% $356.00 $6,764
Park Bonita
Staff recommends that the assessment of $394 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $356. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $356. The reserve
under this recommendation will be 33% and is being increased to 50% over 5 years per City Code.
/9'-//
~
~
Page 12, Itemfl
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
AssmtJEDU Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
OSD No. 31 NA $407 .00 $407.00 $0 0% $392.00 $0
Telegraph Canyon
Estates
Staff recommends that the assessment of $407 per EDU remain the same as FY94/95. This is more than the
cost of $392. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection utilizing the fund
balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings due to the fact that
the City has not yet accepted the improvements, but began collecting the assessment in the belief that we would
begin maintaining it this fiscal year. The reserve under this recommendation will be 50% as turnover of
improvements is not anticipated to occur until January of 1996.
Council approved staff's recommendation last year to assess the full estimated maintenance cost even though
95% of the improvements would not be ready for maintenance. Council approved refunding 95% of the
assessment. Under the proposed ordinance change under a separate item, making the distinction between
assessment and collection, refunds are not necessary saving the property owners the cost of administering
refunds.
On March 8, 1994, Council approved Resolution No. 17410 referring to a minor boundary adjustment and
agreement between the City, adj acent property owners and the Baldwin Company, as a result of complaints in
the grading of the site, which blocked the adjacent property owners' view. As the adjustment occurred after
Council approved the formation of the OSD, staff recommends that Council approve a minor change in the OSD
boundary to be consistent with the lot line adjustment (Attachment D).
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
AssmtJEDU AssmtJEDU AssmtJEDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease CostJEDU Revenue
Bay Blvd Open $1,000.00 $889.00 $889.00 $5.00 0% $1,291.00 50
Space
Maintenance District
Note: Costs of this district are shared between four commercial parcels.
Staff recommends that the assessment of $889.00 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is less than
the cost of $1291. Eventually if the maintenance costs remained the same, staff would need to increase the
assessment amount to $1291. Staff recommends a collection of $5 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make
up the difference ($1286). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in utility costs
and a prior year delinquency brought current. The prior year delinquency amount, as outlined for Council last
year, had not been accounted for in the fund balance and the property owners were "over-assessed." Staff has
revised the procedure to prevent this from occurring in the future. The reserve under this recommendation will
be 60%.
/9-/..2
~
Page 13, Item~
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
AssmtlEDU AssmtlEDU AssmtlEDU CollectionlEDU or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
Town Center Open $43.00 $45.00 $45.00 $39.00 0% $39.00 $39,000
Space Maintenance
District
Staff recommends that the assessment of $45 per EDD remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of$39. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $39. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 53%.
Notice
The public hearings will be noticed pursuant to Government Code 6063 which requires that notice be published
at least once a week for three weeks 10 days before the second public hearing. Staff will mail notice of the
hearings, 45 days in advance of the second public hearing. The notice will inform the resident of hislher
district, last year and current year assessment and the proposed assessment for FY 95/96. The three districts
(OSD 10, 20 and Eastlake) which are proposed for assessment increases, will be notified that any increase in
assessment may be overruled by a majority protest. Staff will also notify the residents of an information
meeting to be held by staff in early June.
The notice will also include information regarding the proposed ordinance allowing an inflation factor and
defining assessment separately from collectible. The notice will indicate that the June 13th public hearing, in
addition to considering the levy of assessments, will be for the purpose of taking testimony on the proposed
Ordinance (under separate report). If Council does not approve the proposed ordinance, staff will revise the
assessments accordingly for the public hearing( s).
Sweetwater Authority will be notified of the hearings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public W OIks, and
Data Processing. Contractoal costs are outlined in Attachment A. These costs are recovered through the Open
Space District collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A Cost Summary
B District Maps
C Sweetwater Authority letter
D OSD 31 Boundary adjustment
M:\...\agenda\OSroi.dds
/9- /3 /17-11
~
~
RESOLUTION NO.
/?'1t7<}
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS
FOR THE FY 1995-96 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 2-9, 11,
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, BAY
BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTRE, DECLARING THE
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ESTABLISH ZONE 9
WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 AND SETTING JUNE
13, 1995 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 11, 1995 AT
6: 00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the city Engineer has prepared and filed the
annual reports for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in
the city; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the city Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearings set for June 13, 1995 and
July 11, 1995 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972. The reports cover the following districts:
1. Open Space District Nos. 2 through 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
23, 24, 26, 31-
2. Zone 9 within Open Space District No. 20
3. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping Districts
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted
information meetings for all property owners within each district
in January at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department will conduct
information meetings in June; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1995-96
are as follows:
TABLE 2
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96 FY 95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collectn/EDU Decrease(2) Cost/EDU Revenue
2 32.00 34.00 34.00 29.00 0% 39.00 7,221
1
)'1//-/
~
~-
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96 FY 95/96
AssrnntlEDU AssrnntlEDU Assrnnt/EDU Collectn/EDU Decrease(2) CostlEDU Revenue
3 250.00 267.00 267.00 197.00 0% 259.00 25,019
4 197.00 282.00 282.00 217.00 0% 271.00 45,570
5 224.00 243.00 243.00 221.00 0% 275.00 26,962
6 128.00 136.00 136.00 0.00 0% 84.00 0
7 87.00 95.00 95.00 34.00 0% 93.00 3,536
8 430.00 430.00 430.00 280.00 0% 434.00 30,800
9 92.00 101.00 101.00 88.00 0% 123.00 33,792
11 81.00 83.00 83.00 67.00 0% 84.00 88,509
14 254.00 270.00 270.00 137.00 0% 269.00 119,650
15 234.00 234.00 234.00 183.00 0% 240.00 10,431
17 124.00 124.00 124.00 0 0% 116.00 0
18 303.00 293.00 293.00 228.00 0% 277. 00 88,361
20<1) 203.00 203.00 - - - - 303,300
Zone 1 DBa> - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 1.05 -
Zone 2 RC - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.22 -
Zone 3 H - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90 -
Zone 4 BC - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 16.11 -
Zone 5 I - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15 -
Zone 6 II - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41 -
Zone 7 III - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 11.80 -
Zone 8 NDB - 0 30.09 0 NA 0.00 -
Zone 9 TCC - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 0.00 -
23 0 335.00 335.00 205.00 0% 212.00 11,480
24 210.00 432.00 432.00 298.00 0% 502.00 11,920
26 359.00 394.00 394.00 356.00 0% 356.00 6,764
31 NA 407.00 407.00 0 0% 392.00 0
Bay Blvd. 1,000.00 889.00 889.00 5.00 0% 1,291.00 50
Town Centre 43.00 45.00 45.00 39.00 0% 39.00 39,000
(I) Represented average residential assessment in SPA 1.
(2) Compares FY 94/95 assessment to proposed FY 95/96 assessment.
(2) Includes supplemental item of work - drainage structore south of East H Street, east of Paseo del Rey at no
additional cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the
City ofChula vista does hereby approve the Engineer'S reports for
the FY 1995-96 spread of assessments for City Open Space Districts
2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, Bay Boulevard and Town
Centre and declare its intention to levy and collect assessments.
2
/7/7 - ~
~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council of the City of
Chula vista does hereby declare its intention to establish Zone 9
within Open Spac~ District 20.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council does hereby
set June 13, 1995 and July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California as the dates and times for the public hearings on said
assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED based upon staff's
recommendation, Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from
the open space district charges until they develop the site for
their water facility be denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk is hereby
directed to publish the Resolutions of Intention pursuant to
Government Code section 6063.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
d, City Attorney
Presented by
C:\rs\OSAss.en
3
Ji~;Jf
\.~
RESOLUTION NO.
179/~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT 31
WHEREAS, Open space District 31 encompasses Telegraph Canyon
Estates; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 1994, Council approved Resolution No.
17410 referring to a minor boundary adjustment and agreement
between the City, adjacent property owners and the Baldwin Company,
as a result of complaints in the grading of the site, which blocked
the adjacent property owners' view; and
WHEREAS, as the adjustment occurred after Council approved the
formation of the open space district, staff recommends that Council
approve a minor change in the open space district boundary to be
consistent with the lot line adjustment as set forth in Attachment
D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of
Chula vista does hereby approve the boundary adjustment for City
Open Space District 31.
Presented by
~
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\osass.en
JW~
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 5/23/95
ITEM TITLE: Report on Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;1'(
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ti}!l (4/5tbs Vote: Yes_NoX)
The City of San Diego has released the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for
public review. Our staff has completed a preliminary review of the Plan, and has also solicited
public input regarding the draft Plan. The following is a preliminary report regarding the major
issues which have been identified at this time, as well as a discussion of the public review
process which is proposed for completing our review of the draft Plan and EIR/EIS.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the attached report,
and provide any further direction regarding issues which they wish to have addressed when this
matter is brought back at a public hearing on June 13.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
has reviewed the draft Plan, and will be meeting again on May 22 to formulate comments on
the draft Plan. The Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss this Plan on May 24.
Comments from both of these commissions will be forwarded to the City Council for your public
hearing on this matter on June 13.
DISCUSSION:
On March 28, staff provided the City Council with a Council Agenda Statement which included
an executive summary of the draft MSCP Plan, and discussed the review process for the Plan
and EIR/EIS. Since that time, City staff has been involved in extensive review of the draft Plan.
In addition, our staff has been working with MSCP Program staff from the City of San Diego,
as well as staff from the other participating jurisdictions (primarily San Diego County, Poway,
and Santee), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) to identify and attempt to resolve major issues which have been raised in our
review of the draft Plan.
..2~ --- /
~~
Page 2, Item .20
Meeting Date 5/23/95
MAJOR ISSUES
In our review to date, the following major issues have been identified:
1) Preserve Desilm
In November 1994, the City Council endorsed a draft "Multi-habitat Planning Area"
(MHP A) map for evaluation in the draft MSCP Plan and EIR. The MHP A map was
prepared by staff of the participating local jurisdictions, and depicted a 164,000 acre
regional preserve system that was generally consistent with adopted local general plans
and specific plans.
In reviewing the draft MSCP Plan, which is based on the MHP A boundary,
representatives of both USFWS and CDFG have indicated that there are several specific
locations in the draft Plan where the proposed "preserve design" (Le., location and
configuration of areas to be included within a permanent habitat preserve) is inadequate
to meet the requirements for protection of proposed covered species, including the
California Gnatcatcher. They have specifically indicated that there are deficiencies with
regard to the proposed preserve design of Otay Ranch, and that these deficiencies are so
significant as to make the overall regional plan unacceptable (see Attachment A, a letter
from USFWS sununarizing their comments regarding preserve design issues for the City
of Chula Vista). In discussions with USFWS and CDFG regarding the issues addressed
in this letter, City staff has taken the position that the preserve design should, to the
greatest extent possible, reflect the City's adopted plans, and that the City's plan review
and environmental review process has included extensive consideration of preserve design
issues. Staff is continuing to meet with USFWS and CDFG to discuss these issues.
In addition, City staff has been in contact with several property owners within the MSCP
Planning Area, as well as various City departments, and we have obtained specific
comments regarding both the preserve design configuration, and specific criteria for
implementing the preserve design. One major issue relates to the current designation of
certain areas within the Chula Vista planning area as "100% preserve areas," which
would require 100% of those areas shown within these boundaries to be included in the
final preserve. In response to comments received to date, we are evaluating alternative
. designations, such as "90% preserve areas," which would allow up to 10% of the area
within the boundary to be developed, and provide greater boundary flexibility. There
are also specific concerns regarding "buffer requirements" contained in the draft Plan,
which could place further land use restrictions on areas located outside of and adjacent
to the proposed preserve areas . We are requesting clarification of these requirements,
and may be recommending that they either be modified or eliminated in order that the
Plan can be administered more easily.
.,2 t7 - d...
~~
Page 3, Item ..20
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Finally, staff has recently received a letter from the Eastlake Company, with specific
comments regarding the accuracy of the proposed preserve designations within the
Eastlake III General Development planning area (see Attachment B.)
We are reviewing all of the preserve design issues discussed above, and will report to
Council with specific recommendations at the June 13 hearing.
2) Subarea Plans
As discussed above, the draft MSCP Plan includes a Multiple Habitat Planning Area map
which provides generalized designations of areas which would be placed into a regional
preserve system. However, the resource agencies have indicated that, in order for them
to provide local jurisdictions with authority to issue individual permits pursuant to the
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and specifically in order to receive permit
authority for Coastal Sage Scrub habitat loss in accordance with the State Natural
Community Conservation Program, it would also be necessary to prepare" subarea plans"
for each local jurisdiction. These subarea plans would provide greater detail regarding
preserve design configuration, adjacent land uses, and other detailed planning issues. It
had originally been our understanding that these more detailed plans could be prepared
subsequent to the adoption of the MSCP Plan, and that there would not be any further
environmental documents necessary for adoption of these implementation plans.
However, subsequent to the release of the draft MSCP, we were notified that in order
to be able to use the EIR/EIS for the adoption of a local subarea plan, it would be
necessary for the subarea plan to be included in the final draft MSCP Plan. In addition,
the USFWS and CDFG have just recently provided the local jurisdictions with a specific
listing of the required contents of a subarea plan, and it appears that these subarea plans
could require preparation of a significant amount of additional documentation, and will
also require more direct input from affected property owners. We have already begun
discussions with two of the major property owners within our General Plan area (Baldwin
Company, owner of Otay Ranch, and Emerald Properties, owner of San Miguel Ranch)
regarding the process and time requirements for preparation of subarea plans affecting
their properties. However, we are taking the position in our discussions with the
resource agencies on this issue that:
a) the requirements for subarea plans should be streamlined (for example, relying
wherever possible on already adopted local specific plans and EIR's), and
b) adequate time should be provided so that all participating jurisdictions can include
their subarea plans in the final draft MSCP, and thus avoid additional
environmental impact report requirements.
e2 tJ :J
~
Page 4, Item .2 tJ
Meeting Date 5/23/95
3) Imolementing Agreement
In addition to the MSCP Plan and subarea plans, each jurisdiction would be required to
enter into an implementing agreement with USFWS and CDFG in order to obtain
permitting authority. A model implementing agreement is included in the draft MSCP
Plan. Planning Department staff has been coordinating with the City Attorney's office
in reviewing this model agreement, and the City Attorney's office has prepared a
memorandum outlining specific issues and concerns with regard to the draft agreement
(see Attachment C, memorandum from Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney). Some of
the major issues which have been identified in the agreement are:
a) lack of adequate assurances being provided in the agreement that future listings
of covered species would be automatically included within a local jurisdiction's
permitting authority without requiring additional applications or review;
b) indemnification of the local jurisdictions from liabilities stemming from issuance
or denial of permits authorized under this agreement; and
c) questions regarding phased implementation and severability (i.e., what are the
consequences if one or more jurisdictions are delayed in their adoption of the
MSCP Plan, or later withdraw from the program).
These issues are currently being discussed with resource agency staffs and the Federal
Solicitor's office, and a status report on these issues will be provided to the City Council
at the June 13 hearing. However, it is our staff position that unless these matters can be
satisfactorily resolved, the risks inherent in accepting local permitting authority through
adoption of the MSCP and implementing agreement may be unacceptable.
5) Funding
The resource agencies have indicated that they need a commitment from local
jurisdictions toward providing local funding sources for implementing the MSCP land
acquisition program. The draft MSCP Plan sets forth a proposed allocation of
responsibility for land acquisition, addressing private property owners, state and federal
government, and local funding sources. The staffs of the local jurisdictions have
emphasized that neither they nor the local elected officials have made any specific
commitment to local funding, and have stated that any local funding sources would need
to be regional in nature, and be subject to voter approval. The issue here is whether,
and to what extent, the resource agencies will turn over local permit authority through
the MSCP without a local funding program in place.
c20-r
~\,
.
Page 5, Item .) tJ
Meeting Date 5/23/95
Staffs from the local jurisdictions have also indicated that there needs to be assurances
provided that there will be a significant commitment of funding to the program from the
Federal and State governments. In addition, once that commitment is made, if those
funding sources are not provided, the local participants in the Plan should not be
penalized by either eliminating local permit authority or requiring a higher local share
of financial participation.
In addition to the major issues outlined above, the Planning Department has received detailed
comments from several City departments (see Attachment D).
PROCESS FOR FURTHER REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN AND EIR/EIS
As noted earlier, staff has done an extensive review of the draft MSCP Plan, and is currently
beginning to review the draft EIR/EIS. In addition, we are working with USFWS and CDFG
to resolve major preserve design issues which have been identified regarding Otay Ranch and
other sites, as well as how a subarea plan can be developed and included in the MSCP Plan
without substantially delaying the overall MSCP review process.
In order to obtain additional public input, we are proposing that the City Council schedule a
public hearing on the draft Plan and EIR/EIS for its regular meeting on June 13, at which time
staff will have completed its review of the draft EIR/EIS, and will hopefully have resolved many
of the questions and unresolved issues which are identified in this report. It should be noted that
the original deadline for comments for the draft MSCP Plan was set for May 30; however, the
MSCP Policy Committee, at its meeting on May 5, voted to request a delay in this deadline to
coincide with the deadline for review of the draft EIR/EIS in late June.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff review and participation in this program is supported by the General
Fund at this time. It should be recognized that future implementation of this program could
result in significant additional local costs, which will need to be further evaluated prior to any
final actions being taken by the City Council on this matter.
Attaclunent A:
Attaclunent B:
Attaclunent C:
Attaclunent D:
Letter from Gail Kobetich, USFWS, dated 4/13/95
Letter from Katy Wright, Eastlake Development Company, dated 5/17/95
Memo from Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney, dated 5/17/95
Comments from City departments regarding draft MSCP Plan
(F8\mscp.All)
..2t7 - .s
~'\
-0~#w
A TT ACHMENT A
LETTER FROM GAIL KOBETICH, USFWS
DATED 4/13/95
- /-
.;2,0-7
THIS PAGE BLANK
-/j() -IT
,.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Eco]oF:ica] Services
Carbb~d hdd Office
2730 loki:r A"enue West
Carlsbad, Califutnia 9200~
"
April 13, 1995
Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: MSCP Plan Preserve Design Issues for the City of Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Leiter:
.
During past meetings with the City of Chula Vista and other jurisdictions on
March 29 and April 6, 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and
the California Department of Fish and Game outlined issues for the MSCP Plan
including preserve design issues. At those meetings, the Service committed to
providing a written list to each of the jurisdictions summarizing these
issues. Enclosed is the summary of issues for your jurisdiction, separated
into major subregional issues and clarification or sub-area issues. The
Service would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Chula Vista
on the progress made to date in resolving these issues.
Sincerely,
/1~e. 'l!~t:dc
Gail C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
1-6-95-HC-180
cc: Bill Tippets, CDFG
.
-~ c2tl ~/
PRESERVE DESIGN ISSUES
BY JUlUSDICTION
"
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
have identified to the jurisdictions several subregional preserve design
issues of concern including two under-represented habitat types, grassland and
vernal pools, and several specific areas, Otay Ranch, Del Mar Mesa
(Neighborhoods 8A. 4 and 5), Santa Fe Valley areas, Fanita Ranch, and City of
San Diego cornerstone lands. These issues are further discussed below under
"Major Subregional Issue" heading. Other issues under "Clarification or
Subarea Issue" consist of either correction or updates of the HHPA map or
issues that can be resolved when the applicable jurisdiction applies for its
subarea plan.
Maior Subre2ional Issue
1)
San Miguel
Ranch -
2)
Otay Ranch -
CITY OF CHtlLA VISTA
Preserve adequate amounts of the Otay tarplant on San
Miguel Ranch or preserve additional known locations
within the Otay River Valley area.
Resolve the recent reduction of 100% preserve areas to
90% protection and 400 acres of unspecified active
recreation within Otay River Valley. Resolve preserve
design issues.
""
Clarification or Sub-area Issue
1) Otay River
Valley
Connection
2) San Miguel
Ranch -
3) Lower
Sweetwater -
4) Amphitheater -
Connect Dennery Canyon with Otay River Valley from 805
to Otay Ranch.
Connect open space on north and south parcels of San
Miguel Ranch through SDG&E lands.
Provide adequate habitat/floodway connection and
buffer on the River.
Minimize noise impacts and revegetate adjacent slopes.
~
=<?J --/0
-.,
.
.
.
Countv of San Die2o/Chula Vista - Otav Ranch
Malor Subre2ional Issue
1) Otay Ranch Preserve Design - Modification of Otay Ranch is needed to
address: California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, vernal pool species including
California Orcutt grass, Otay Mesa mint, San Diego fairy shrimp, Riverside
fairy shrimp, prostrate navarretia, little mousetail, variegated dudleya, Otay
tarplant, San Diego thornmint and Orcutt's bird beak.
a) Road crossings
Otay River
Valley
Relocate State Route 125 within Johnson Canyon
consistent with Caltrans most recent proposals.
Delete Alta Road from O'Neal Canyon
b) Sal t Creek
Relocate development from south and east of Hunte
Parkway and pull the parkway back away from Salt
Canyon to provide buffers and avoid impacts to habitat
in side drainages.
c) Otay Lake
Relocate development out of the areas south and east
of Otay Lakes, reduce development north of Otay Lakes
in the resort area including preservation of the K6-9
vernal pools and San Diego thornmint
d) Proctor
Valley
Relocate development from middle Proctor Valley area
to resolve preserve design and greater protection for
the gnatcatcher
e) Inverted L
Relocate development from northern and middle portion
of the inverted L
f) Grassland
Preserve additional grassland
Clarification or Subarea Issue
a) Revegetation
Salt Creek and portions of Poggi Canyon contain
important linkage areas in need of restoration 10-15
acre Poggi connection
b) Recreation
400 acres of unspecified active recreation is proposed
in Otay River Valley. Active recreation should be
located at the edge of the preserve rather than within
the preserve
c) Hubbard
Springs
Provide adequate preserve design and linkage
~ 02,tJ~//
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ ..20~/;Z
..
.
ATTACHMENT B
LETTER FROM KATY WRIGHT
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
DATED 5/17/95
.
.
~ c2tJr/;J
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ p2tJ~)i
..
.
.
.
May 17, 1995
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Director
City ofChula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re The Comments of EastLake Development Company re: The Draft Multiple
Species Conservation Program, Dated March I, 1995.
Dear Mr Leiter:
Thank you for providing EastLake Development Company with an opportunity to
comment on the draft MSCP.
In summary, our review of the MSCP and its included graphics shows that it
erroneously depicts portions of EastLake on several Figures of the MSCP,
including 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 3.1 as either containing coastal sage scrub habitat type
on site, or depicting potential wildlife corridors along the Salt Creek area, which
transverses the EastLake Project in a north-south direction.
As confirmed by the attached correspondence from Mr. Barry 1. Jones, President
of Sweetwater Environmental Biologist, the EastLake Project does not contain any
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, as the City ofChula Vista's prior EastLake EIR's will
reflect. Commencing with the original Master ErR, the EastLake site has been
noted as highly disturbed due to dry farming for literally decades. Accordingly, ill.!
of the EastLake Project area is dominated by non-native grasslands and other flora,
which is not of a type considered to be a "sensitive habitat" within the MSCP.
We feel that the depiction of areas within the draft MSCP is neither necessary for
the purposes ofa preserve contemplated by the MSCP, nor is it consistent with the
existing land use entitlements, which are subject to the EastLake III General
Development Plan and Development Agreement.
While the General Development Plan may depict areas as open space, that
depiction cannot be equated to either the dedication of lands involved, nor legally
restrict the land uses to those the MSCP determines as compatible with a preserve.
A review of the land uses available to EastLake pursuant to the adopted City Plans
for the area (including the City's General Plan) will show there is a wide
divergence between the land use activities authorized by the City and the
"Compatible Land Use Activities and Preserved Management Guidelines,"
contained in Chapter 4 of the MSCP, and specifically, Table 4-1 "General
Compatibility of Land Uses and Management Activities Within and Adjacent to
Preserves. "
-?l-= -2fJ-/~
,
'~'-,-
I
.::.
~.,,-
~..........
~....
~
EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
900 lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula Vista. CA 91914
(619) 421-0127
FAX (619) 421-1830
Mr Robert Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page Two
"""'
It is clear that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service anticipate that under the "Model Implementing
Agreement/Management Authorization", Attachment A to the MSCP, the City would "Establish
and maintain land use and development project permitting procedures and regulatory programs
necessary to implement the MSCP and this Agreement, as described in Section 7 of this
Agreement. "
Section 6.2 of the Model Implementing Agreement thus requires (under the current draft MSCP
depictions of portions of EastLake) that the City under take land use actions inconsistent with the
existing approved land uses within the EastLake Plan area. For the reasons noted above, none of
the areas erroneously depicted in various Figures of the MSCP are necessarily desirable for
preserve purposes.
The following errors exist in the draft MSCP: Figure 2-] (all references are to the draft MSCP)
depicts the possible existence of Coastal Sage Scrub, native grasslands and oak woodlands on the
EastLake Property.
· In the EastLake \/illage Center there is a temporary detention base in leading into the ~
Telegraph Canyon Channel. The areas may assume this area to be construed as a wetland,
when it is not.
. There IS a eucalyptus grove in Salt Creek, not an Oak Woodland as depicted on Figure 2-].
· Contrary to Figure 2-], the dominant habitat type in Salt Creek are disturbed non-native
grasslands, with a small area of wetlands.
· There may be some coastal sage scrub on the park site south of the Olympic Training Center.
There is however, no coastal sage scrub along the westerly edge of upper and lower Otay
Lakes within the EastLake Project.
Figure 2-4 also contains a number of erroneous depictions of habitat types or public land
ownership. This Figure shows public ownership of an area in Salt Creek north of Telegraph
Canyon Road (Otay Lakes Road). This depiction is inaccurate and contrary to existing plans for
the area. As noted above, the City's classification of this area is as "Open Space" cannot be
considered synonymous with the MSCP's determination of a land use which is compatible with a
preserve pursuant to MSCP Chapter 4. Nor is the area publicly owned.
Figure 2-3 similarly depicts the area within EastLake west of upper Otay Lake, north of Otay
Lakes Road (Telegraph Canyon Road) as within public ownership. This area is not publicly
owned.
'1
.~
~/f' -/ ~
.
.
.
Mr Robert Leiter
May J7, 1995
Page Three
Figure 2-7 depicts as "park and preserve" various areas throughout Salt Creek and along the
western edge of both upper and lower Otay Lakes. These depictions are inconsistent with the
existing adopted General Development Plan and EastLake III Development Agreement for the
area The City's depiction of some of these areas as "parks and open space" does not limit their
use in a manner consistent with the land use compatibility matrix contained in Chapter 4 of the
MSCP.
Figure 2-9 contains errors in its depiction of areas of Salt Creek north of Otay Lakes Road.
Although these areas are currently used for agricultural purposes, the City's adopted plan for these
areas does not require their long term use for agricultural purposes.
Figures 2-2 and 2-9 indicate that areas of Salt Creek are "protected land" with a low habitat value.
F or the reasons stated above, this is untrue.
Figure 3-2 indicates that Chula Vista is to adopt a "hardline" preserve where 90% to 100% of
habitat is to be preserved We are concerned with this designation because it is incorrect, yet
under the draft Implementing Agreement the City is required to plan the areas as if the depiction is
appropriate
There are other inappropriate statements in the MSCP as it relates to areas within or adjacent to
EastLake For example, the extension of Orange Avenue will impact about 3 acres of wetlands
within the southerly edge of Salt Creek. If there is any significant mitigation required for the loss
of the adjacent wetland area, we believe that there should be public participation in the long term
maintenance of any mitigation area, versus maintenance becoming the responsibility of EastLake
Homeowners as assumed by the draft MSCP.
Finally, we would note that Figure 1-3 indicates several areas in EastLake as being "100% habitat
preserve", which is inconsistent with the current EastLake III General Development Plan and the
EastLake III Development Agreement.
In response to these inaccuracies, we request the City of Chula Vista correspond in writing to the
City of San Diego with respect to the MSCP and specifically request corrections to Figure 1-3, 2-
1,2-2,2-4,2-7,2-9,3-1 and 3-2.
Public ownership, the potential for a wildlife corridors, the presence of vegetation type or habitat
preservation value within the EastLake Project are all erroneously depicted in the above draft
MSCP Figures
~ 02j?~J7
""'"
Mr Robert Leiter
May 17, ] 995
Page Four
The City's failure to request clarification of these areas will undoubtedly cause it and EastLake
Development Company problems in the future because pursuant to an Implementing Agreement,
required that the City modify its land uses as a matter consistent with the MSCP.
Thank you for an opportunity to comment on this draft.
Sincerely,
~ [)MjU
Kat\' Wright
Project !\lanager
CKB!K\\'/jr/gmo
Attachment
""""
cc Mayor Shirley A Horton, City ofChula Vista
Councilman Jerry R. Rindone, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Scott D. Alevy, City ofChula Vista
Councilman John S Moot, City ofChula Vista
Councilman Stephen C Padilla, City ofChula Vista
John Goss, City Manager, City ofChula Vista
Craig K Beam, Esq., Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
~tl-l15
""'"
.
.
.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio North. Su~e 270. Son Diego. Califomia 92108 (619) 62A.2300 Fox (619) 62A.2301
May 16, 1995
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Project Manager
Eastlake Development Company
900 Lane A venue
Chula Vista, California 91914
Subject: Review of the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program.
Dear Ms. Wright:
I have reviewed the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP). Two specific issues are addressed in this review: I)
refinemenl in the vegetation mapping; and 2) the existing condition of the proposed
corridor along Salt Creek and its potentiallong-terrn value for wildlife movement. Both
issues are discussed below.
I completed an on-site review of the MSCP vegetation map for the Eastlake Project on
May 12, 1995. Because of the large coverage area, the vegetation mapping prepared for
the MSCP is done at a fairly gross scale and is not intended lobe used on a project
specific basis. Based on my site assessment, the primary discrepancy in the mapping
occurs in the northeast comer of the property. The MSCP map shows several small
patches of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurring on the Eastlake Project. My field review,
however, revealed that this area is entirely non-native grassland and dry farmed
agricultural land dominated by non-native grasses and an invasive weed (sweet fennel
[Foeniculum vulgare]). Native sage scrub species were essentially absent from this area.
The only location on the property where any Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs is in the
southeastern comer, as depicted on Figure 2-1 of the MSCP.
I also reviewed the proposed corridor along Salt Creek (see Figure 3-1 of the MSCP)
which traverses the Eastlake Project in a north-south direction. This drainage primarily
supports non-native grassland and agricultural vegetation, with little or no wetland
vegetation occurring along the entire drainage. Scattered patches of the non-native
tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) occur throughout. A box culvert approximately 12-feet high, 10-
feet wide and 100-feet long currently runs under Otay Lakes Road. Eucalyptus trees and
existing farm buildings occur just downstream of Otay Lakes Road. Much of the
~ ~t9-/1
biological studies. wildlife management. habitot restoration. environmental fesearch . regulotory compliance
re$OUl'ce planning. osses.sment, and mitigation. revegetation planning, implementation. and monitoring
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Eastlake Development Company
May ]6, ]995
Page 2 of3
"'""'
topography along the drainage consists of very low gradient slopes with a poorly defmed
corridor.
The Multi-habitat Planning Area depicted on Figure 3-] of the MSCP is based on data
provided on Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 among others. It should be noted, however, that
Figure 2-2 (Habitat Evaluation Map) does not even rank the corridor, but simply shows it
in agriculture. Figure 2-3, the Core Biological Resource Area and Linkages Map does
not include Salt Creek as either a core biological resource area or key linkage for the area.
Figure 2-4 identifies the area along Salt Creek as City owned, although it is my
understanding based on our conversations, that although this area has been identified as
open space on your General Development Plan, it has not been dedicated as open space at
this time.
In looking at the areas surrounding the Eastlake Project, high quality habitats, in
particular Diegan coastal sage scrub, occur to the south and east. The Core Biological
Resource Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3) identifies these areas as core areas
connecting with the Otay River Valley to the south, Otay Lake to the east and the Jamul
Mountains to the north. Significant undeveloped lands and redundant corridors through
existing Diegan coastal sage scrub occur just east of the Eastlake Project through these
areas.
"""
Based on my review of the MSCP maps and my on-site inspection, the proposed corridor
along Salt Creek does not appear warranted for the following reasons:
· it was not identified as a core area or key linkage on the Core Biological Resource
Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3);
· it does not support any high value habitats as noted on Figure 2-2 (Habitat
Evaluation Map);
· the current site conditions do not provide vegetative cover for use as a corridor;
and
· superior corridors occur to the east through high quality habitats and much larger
blocks of contiguous habitat.
I would like to add that multiple corridors within any preserve system are generally
preferred. However, given the present low wildlife value of the Salt Creek corridor, the
length of the corridor (in excess of three miles), and the far superior options for directing
wildlife movement through large blocks of habitat and much shorter corridors to the east,
'"""\
~ ..2/9 -;<('/
.
.
.
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Eastlake Development Company
May 16, 1995
Page 3 of3
suggests that any efforts towards maintaining corridors within the region should be
directed towards areas to the east of the Eastlake project.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if! may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
~'j J 0
Barry L. Jones
President
-~ .2t? -'0(. )
THIS PAGE BLANK
~-4J - oZA
..
.
ATTACHMENT C
MEMO FROM ANN MOORE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
DATED 5/17/95
.
.
~ ~~c2.3
THIS PAGE BLANK
~-2cJ~c2(
t.
.
DATE:
May 17, 1995
SUBJECT:
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program
Cl--- ~
TO:
FROM:
Our Office is in the process of reviewing the PUblic Review
Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP"), dated
March 1, 1995, and the Model Implementing Agreement, "Attachment
A", prepared by the City of San Diego. We intend on providing our
comments on the MSCP and the Model Implementing Agreement prior to
end of the public review period. However you have requested that
we provide you with a preliminary outline of our basic concerns
with respect to the MSCP and the Model Implementing Agreement.
Since the Implementing Agreement will serve as the document that
dictates how the MSCP will actually operate with respect to the
local participants we have focused our comments on this document.
We have the following comments:
.
1. Severability. The Model Implementing Agreement should
include a severability clause which would provide the city with
protection from the actions of other participants in the MSCP. In
other words, the City should have a guarantee that its "Take"
permit would not be jeopardized by the actions or inactions of
other local jurisdictions.
.
2. Withdrawal. The Implementing Agreement should include a
provision that would allow the City to withdraw from the MSCP
should federal or state laws or regulations change. This is
particularly important because of the recent discussions by the
Legislature regarding the future of the Endangered Species Act. In
addition, should the federal or state government require
modifications to the implementation of the MSCP due to "unforeseen
circumstances" the City should have the right to withdraw from the
MSCP. (See comment Number 4 below.) In addition, our withdrawal
from the MSCP should be allowed without penalty or liability and
there should be a guarantee that our withdrawal would not impact
previous "take" permits issued by the City and relied on by
property owners.
3. Covered species. A provision should be added that would
allow for the automatic extension of the City's take authority to
those species that are presently "covered" by the MSCP but have not
yet been listed as a protected or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act. In addition, the federal and state
government should not be allowed to ask for new mitigation measures
for such species. The Model Implementing Agreement only provides
that the MSCP shall be deemed to be adequate to support an
application for such a permit. This means that any time an
additional covered species is subsequently listed as protected or
endangered the city would have to apply for a new "take" permit.
~ ~t:J-~P:-
Bob Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page 2
"""
4. Unforeseen Circumstance. The Model Implementing Agreement
gives the federal and state government too much discretion to
change the terms of the MSCP. Specifically, the Model
Implementing Agreement provides that the federal and state
governments could seek additional mitigation from the City if there
is an "Unforeseen Circumstance." The term "unforeseen
Circumstance if far too ambiguous and should be more strictly
defined. In addition the City should be allowed to withdraw from
the MSCP if we disagree with a subsequent change in the terms of
the MSCP.
5. Funding. The local jurisdictions are being requested to
provide a far greater level of commitment to fund the MSCP than
either the federal or state governments. In fact, the Model
Implementing Agreement does not adequately obligate the federal or
state government to provide funding for the MSCP. In addition it is
unclear whether a lack of funding by the federal or state
governments would be considered to impact the "proper functioning"
of the MSCP. (See comment 7 below.) It is our understanding that
federal officials have represented that the local juriSdictions
would not be "harmed" if the federal government should not be able ""'"
to adequately fund the MSCP. However this representation is not ,
reflected in either the MSCP or the Model Implementing Agreement.
Perhaps, the preserve land requirements should be decreased if the
federal government is unable to adequately fund the MSCP. In
addition, a provision should be added that the funding
responsibilities of the federal and state governments shall not
have an impact on the "proper functioning" of the MSCP.
6. Liability. There are a number liability issues with
respect to implementing the MSCP. As a result of the recent
Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. Citv of Tiaard, 94 D.A.R. 8803
(June 27, 1994), the Endangered Species Act has come under intense
scrutiny. Consequently, we can not predict with a great degree of
certainty the outcome of a challenge to the MSCP at this stage of
its development. However we do know that such a challenge would be
expensive to litigate and if the city was to receive an adverse
judgment, it could be quite costly. In addition, the MSCP requires
the City as well as other jurisdictions to design mitigation
policies which could result in permit exactions being imposed that
may be held by a court of law not to be roughly proportional to the
project's impact. In essence the federal and state governments are
spreading the risk of liability from a "takings" downwards to the
local jurisdictions. Our office has repeatedly requested that the
federal and state government indemnify the city. This request has
been refused. At the very least, the federal and state governments
should provide the city with an opinion or a representation in the ~
Implementing Agreement regarding the legality of the MSCP and its
implementation.
~c2{lP<~
.
.
.
Bob Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page 3
7. Properly Functioning. The Model Implementing Agreement
provides that additional land or financial compensation or other
form of mitigation will not be required so long as the MSCP is
"properly functioning." Therefore it is critical that the term
"properly functioning MSCP" be defined to our satisfaction in the
Implementing Agreement.
S. Annexed Lands. We will need to clarify in our
Implementing Agreement how annexed lands will be handled.
Currently, the federal and state government has represented that
take authorizations can only apply to land within the land use
jurisdiction of the local entity. We will need to clarify that once
land is annexed to the City, the City's take authorization will
automatically apply to that land and that we can include this land
in our subarea plans.
As we stated above, we have provided you with only our
preliminary review of the MSCP and Model Implementing Agreement.
We anticipate having additional questions and comments upon our
further review of these documents. Should you have any further
questions please let me know.
cc: Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
(M:\Hole\Attorney\MSCP,Mel)
'~~~~7
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ c2jJ- 0( r
t.
ATTACHMENT D
COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
-~
c2(/ ~~ '1
THIS PAGE BLANK
~
~:Jt?
..
- .
.
.
.
/"..
,"';' "
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 1995
File # YE-OOl
TO:
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Work~ (
Program (MSCP)
Plan
FROM:
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public
SUBJECT:
Draft Multiple Species Conservation
This is in response to your memorandum dated ~pril 10, 1995 asking
us to review and provide comments on the subject document.
The second paragraph under Section 3.4.1 titled Subarea Plan
Approval indicates that subarea plans may be prepared by developers
using the adopted MSCP Plan as a framework plan and incorporating
its guidelines. Since the boundaries of the biological core areas
and linkages is not clearly defined in the MSCP Plan, there may be
a conflict between the developers' subarea plan and the city's
plans of Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Circulation Element
development.
It will be important for us in the future during the Implementing
Agreement and Subarea Plan stage to assess the impact of the MSCP
Plan upon the city's existing and future infrastructure and public
works. Also, it will be important to examine whether certain
infrastructure systems, such as sewer or other utility lines will
be accommodated within the planned habitat areas.
SMN:rb
(M:\HOMB\BNGINBBR\AOVPLAN\MSCP.SMN)
-~ -2tl~ J /
1
May 4. 1995
To:
Bob Leiter
Director of Planning
Carol Gove n I D
Fire Marshal ~
From:
Subject:
Draft MSCP Plan
I have reviewed the above document and offer the following comments.
PaQe 3 . 85 . Habitat Maintenance Assessment District (58445)
I realize this section deals with the public financing of long-term maintenance of natural
habitat. but would it not be appropriate to include funding that would cover the cost of .,
brush management as well.
Paae 3 .89 . MSCP ADDroval and Implementation Process
Perhaps this is the section in which general brush management guidelines are
mentioned.
Paae 4 - 5 . 4.2.3 DeveloDment
This is an area where fuel management is mentioned. but not in the context of brush
management and hazard abatement.
Paae 4 . 7 .4.3 . Guidelines for Preserve ManaQement Activities. 4.3.1 . Fire
Manaaement
To fire officials, this section is most critical. Fire Management Plans should be detailed
and very specific.
Paae 6 . 1 . Statement of Assurances
This section should also address brush management for life safety considerations.
"'"
.
Thank you for the extended time in which to comment.
0216-95
~ c:2~-3..2
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
April 27, 1995
TO:
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
(~ .
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director -
VIA:
Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager at'
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Comments on Draft MSCP
FROM:
The draft MSCP identifies "biological core areas" and "linkages" and further requires that the
preserve design include 70% to 80% of these areas. The identified core areas and linkages
affect every major current Community Development project, including the Midbayfront project,
the MCA Amphitheater/City Corporation Yard, the Veteran's Home, the Lower Sweetwater
Valley project, and properties along the Sweetwater River between 1-5 and 1-805. Three major
issues exist with respect to the application of preserving a specified percentage of habitat within
these areas. First, all of the core/linkage areas include land within other jurisdictions.
Limitation on development within these areas would require allocation of allowable development
percentages by jurisdiction or be complicated by oversight by a regional authority. Second,
resource quality varies from one core/linkage area to another. It does not seem reasonable to
apply a blanket percentage of preserve area to all core/linkage areas since some resources may
require protection of not only the resource area, but a substantial buffer from development as
well. Others may require direct protection of the resource, allowing a significantly greater
proportion of development. Third, some core/linkage areas contain a greater quantity of
habitat than others. For instance, some core areas may be laced with developable land while
others contain more contiguous habitat. Universal development limitations would not recognize
these differences.
Although it appears that the core/linkage areas have been established for solid habitat planning
reasons, the actual boundaries appear to be quite general. Community Development has a great
concern over application of specific limitations on development within these imprecisely
delineated areas. We would suggest that the core/Jinkage concept be retained as a preserve
planning tool, but that there not be a limitation on development within those areas as currently
depicted in the draft plan.
~ c2!/-J3
Memorandum
""""
DATE: April 28, 1995
TO: Bob Leiter, Planning Director
y Ranch Project
FROM: Gerald J. Jamriska, Special Planning
RE: Otay Ranch Project Team Comments on the MSCP
The Otay Ranch Project Team has initially reviewed the MSCP Plan and have comments
on the following major areas:
Biological Preserve Design Checklist
. Buffer Areas (p 3-45)
The plan calls for adequate buffers depending on adjacent land uses and resources. They
indicate edge effect studies suggest a minimum of 150 feet. More information is needed on
the location and use of the 1 50-foot buffer. The interface of this buffer with the Overall
Project Design unifying Dominate Skyline Landscape treatment may be in conflict. """"
. Preserve shape that minimizes edge effects (pJ-45)
The Otay Ranch Preserve area has detailed studies that justifY the preserve boundary.
Vertical as well as horizontal separation should be considered between the development
area and the preserve.
. Management Feasibility (pJ-45)
Land uses within and adjacent to preserve have to comply with compatibility guidelines.
These guidelines need to be reviewed in relationship to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
Resource Protection Guidelines
· Compensating Mitigation (p.3-65)
The Otay Ranch has already determined "compensating mitigation" as part of the Phase 1
RMP and will further identifY specific mitigation under Phase 2. Avoidance, impact
minimization and replacement have all been determined in the RMP. We are concerned
that additional mitigation will be required beyond the requirements of the RMP.
Subarea Plans
· Subarea Plan Approval (p. 3-90)
We are concern as to whether the Phase 2 RMP will satisfY the Subarea Plan --..,
requirements. Criteria for the subarea plan needs to be established to ensure the RMP is
consistent with the wildlife agencies plans for subareas.
-~ .2tfJ-J1
. .
.
.
.
. Preserve Management (p. 3-95)
Additional information is needed on the Preserve Management to ensure the Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner Manager is consistent. We are concerned about conflicts with the goals
of the Otay Ranch GDP for the Preserve Owner Manager.
MSCP Plan Amendments and Data Base Updates
. Incorporate new scientific data on habitats and species (p.3-95)
The Project Team is concerned about adding additional species to the Plan after its
adoption. The Otay Ranch has a 30 to 50 year build out and needs more assurance these
rules will be consistent and not changed.
MSCP Plan Implementation
. Annual Accounting and Biological Monitoring (p. 3-96)
The RMP requires monitoring and reporting on the preserve. We are concern about
consistency in reporting standards and that efforts not be duplicated with the Phase 2
RMP reporting.
Guidelines for Preserve Land Uses
. Recreation (p. 4-3)
Weare concern that active recreational land uses have been identified as incompatible with
the core areas and linkages. It seems inconsistent to us that single-family homes on large
lot would be considered compatible while active play fields and golf courses are not
compatible.
. Fencing (p.4-9)
The fencing standards described here are not consistent with the fencing for the Ranch
listed in the Overall Design Plan.
Statement of Assurances
. Assurances (p. 6-1)
A definition of extraordinary circumstances is needed to understand when additional
species or land might be added to the Plan. The Otay Ranch, as a long term project, needs
better assurance that the Plan will remain consistent. If the biological data is updated
every year is there the potential for extraordinary circumstances.
Additional species listing under the ESA are required to be considered by the wildlife
agencies. How can there be assurance if the Plan is going to change? What possible
species could be added? If this Program is comprehensive, then every species should be
covered.
-xr- d.tJ~J5
--::,.
. .
,
41.19.95
To: Jess Volenzuelo, Director of Porks and Recreation
From: Mortin Schmidt, Londscope Architect r<=;~
RE:
MSCP PLAN
I hove reviewed the document referenced above for Items and concems relating to porks,
open spoce ond troils The following ore my findings speCifiC to above identified Issues.
Speciflcolly:
1. Section Four of the document contoins 0 section that addresses the Issue of land uses in
the Core Areo, Linkoges ond Buffer Areo Table 41-1 and 41-2 tist uses for generol activities
and recreational activities, respectively. The text and Table 41-2 lists recreational
activities tho1 moy or may not be compatible or Conditionally compatible with the MSCP
Core, Linkoge and Buffer areas.
I hove attached cOpies of these poges to this memo for your r~w. Some octivlties
listed for incluson or exclUSion make sense, ond some don't. Of cone em relating to the
OIoy Volley Regional Pork is the identification of the placement of octlve recreation in ,
the buffer zone. This mayor may not be possible In the westem reoch of the regional
pork where the concept plan i$ proposlng recreation directly Odjocent to existing
development to north, ond the riparian zone Of the south. An InsuffICient bufterzone
occurs here to occommodote active recreation based on the reQuirements and
descriptions in the text.
2. Management plans ore also Identified os 0 reQuirement of the MSCP Program. How
would this reQuirement 'Mesh' with the OVRP ond OIoy Ronch Preserve Owner
Manager Programs?
It appears that the MSCP will not preCh.lde the JEPA and the City of Chulo Vista from utilizing the
OIoy Volley os 0 portion of the 'Greenbelt' ond the OVRP, SpeCifICS regordlng the proper
location. site plonning ond Impacts of octive recreatiOn Is on Issue that wDl hove to be
addressed to determine If the oreos that been Indicated on the OVRP Concept PIon for
recreation ore occeptoble.
')
~ c2o~Jb
.
May ~7, 1995
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Director
City ofChula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: The Comments of EastLake Development Company re: The Draft Multiple
Species Conservation Program, Dated March 1,1995.
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for providing EastLake Development Company with an opportunity to
comment on the draft MSCP.
In summary, our review of the MSCP and its included graphics shows that it
erroneously depicts portions of EastLake on several Figures of the MSCP,
including 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 3.1 as either containing coastal sage scrub habitat type
on site, or depicting potential wildlife corridors along the Salt Creek area, which
transverses the EastLake Project in a north-south direction.
As confirmed by the attached correspondence from Mr. Barry L. Jones, President
of Sweetwater Environmental Biologist, the EastLake Project does not contain any
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub> as the City of Chula Vista's prior EastLake ErR's will
reflect. Commencing with the original Master ErR, the EastLake site has been
noted as highly disturbed due to dry farming for literally decades. Accordingly, all
of the EastLake Project area is dominated by non-native grasslands and other flora,
which is not of a type considered to be a "sensitive habitat" within the MSCP.
We feel that the depiction of areas within the draft MSCP is neither necessary for
the purposes of a preserve contemplated by the MSCP, nor is it consistent with the
existing land use entitlements, which are subject to the EastLake III General
Development Plan and Development Agreement.
While the General Development Plan may depict areas as open space, that
depiction cannot be equated to either the dedication of lands involved, nor legally
restrict the land uses to those the MSCP determines as compatible with a preserve.
A review of the land uses available to EastLake pursuant to the adopted City Plans
for the area (including the City's General Plan) will show there is a wide
divergence between the land use activities authorized by the City and the
"Compatible Land Use Activities and Preserved Management Guidelines,"
contained in Chapter 4 of the MSCP, and specifically, Table 4-1 "General
Compatibility of Land Uses and Management Activities Within and Adjacent to
Preserves. "
02.tJ~ J ')
fJ'"
..~
,:."'~''''''
...
....
.....
EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula V1sta. CA 91914
(619) 421-0127
FAX (619) 421-1830
..
Mr. Robert Leiter
May 17,1995
Page Two
It is clear that the u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service anticipate that under the "Model Implementing
AgreementlManagement Authorization", Attachment A to the MSCP, the City would "Establish
and maintain land use and development project permitting procedures and regulatory programs
necessary to implement the MSCP and this Agreement, as described in Section 7 of this
Agreement. "
Section 6.2 of the Model Implementing Agreement thus requires (under the current draft MSCP
depictions of portions of EastLake) that the City under take land use actions inconsistent with the
existing approved land uses within the EastLake Plan area. For the reasons noted above, none of
the areas erroneously depicted in various Figures of the MSCP are necessarily desirable for
preserve purposes.
The following errors exist in the draft MSCP: Figure 2-1 (all references are to the draft MSCP)
depicts the possible existence of Coastal Sage Scrub, native grasslands and oak woodlands on the
EastLake Property.
. In the EastLake Village Center there is a temporary detention base in leading into the
Telegraph Canyon Channel. The areas may assume this area to be construed as a wetland,
when it is not.
. There is a eucalyptus grove in Salt Creek, not an Oak Woodland as depicted on Figure 2-1.
. Contrary to Figure 2-1, the dominant habitat type in Salt Creek are disturbed non-native
grasslands, with a small area of wetlands.
. There may be some coastal sage scrub on the park site south of the Olympic Training Center.
There is however, no coastal sage scrub along the westerly edge of upper and lower Otay
Lakes within the EastLake Project.
Figure 2-4 also contains a number of erroneous depictions of habitat types or public land
ownership. This Figure shows public ownership of an area in Salt Creek north of Telegraph
Canyon Road (Otay Lakes Road). This depiction is inaccurate and contrary to existing plans for
the area. As noted above, the City's classification of this area is as "Open Space" cannot be
considered synonymous with the MSCP's determination of a land use which is compatible with a
preserve pursuant to MSCP Chapter 4. Nor is the area publicly owned.
Figure 2-3 similarly depicts the area within EastLake west of upper Otay Lake, north of Otay
Lakes Road (Telegraph Canyon Road) as within public ownership. This area is not publicly
owned.
c2/J / J Y'
Mr. Robert Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page Three
Figure 2-7 depicts as "park and preserve" various areas throughout Salt Creek and along the
western edge of both upper and lower Otay Lakes. These depictions are inconsistent with the
existing adopted General Development Plan and EastLake III Development Agreement for the
area. The City's depiction of some of these areas as "parks and open space" does not limit their
use in a manner consistent with the land use compatibility matrix contained in Chapter 4 of the
MSCP.
Figure 2-9 contains errors in its depiction of areas of Salt Creek north of Otay Lakes Road.
Although these areas are currently used for agricultural purposes, the City's adopted plan for these
areas does not require their long term use for agricultural purposes.
Figures 2-2 and 2-9 indicate that areas of Salt Creek are "protected land" with a low habitat value.
For the reasons stated above, this is untrue.
Figure 3-2 indicates that Chula Vista is to adopt a "hardline" preserve where 90% to 100% of
habitat is to be preserved. We are concerned with this designation because it is incorrect, yet
under the draft Implementing Agreement the City is required to plan the areas as if the depiction is
appropriate.
There are other inappropriate statements in the MSCP as it relates to areas within or adjacent to
EastLake. For example, the extension of Orange Avenue will impact about 3 acres of wetlands
within the southerly edge of Salt Creek. If there is any significant mitigation required for the loss
of the adjacent wetland area, we believe that there should be public participation in the 'long term
maintenance of any mitigation area, versus maintenance becoming the responsibility of EastLake
Homeowners as assumed by the draft MSCP.
Finally, we would note that Figure 1-3 indicates several areas in EastLake as being "100% habitat
preserve", which is inconsistent with the current EastLake III General Development Plan and the
EastLake III Development Agreement.
In response to these inaccuracies, we request the City of Chula Vista correspond in writing to the
City of San Diego with respect to the MSCP and specifically request corrections to Figure 1-3,2-
1,2-2,2-4,2-7,2-9,3-1 and 3-2.
Public ownership, the potential for a wildlife corridors, the presence of vegetation type or habitat
preservation value within the EastLake Project are all erroneously depicted in the above draft
MSCP Figures.
;2(J~ J /
,
Mr. Robert Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page Four
The City's failure to request clarification of these areas will undoubtedly cause it and EastLake
Development Company problems in the future because pursuant to an Implementing Agreement,
required that the City modify its land uses as a matter consistent with the MSCP.
Thank you for an opportunity to comment on this draft.
Sincerely,
rJj UJ+t
Katy Wright
Project Manager
CKBIKW/jr/gmo
Attachment
cc Mayor Shirley A. Horton, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Jerry R. Rindone, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Scott D. Alevy, City ofChula Vista
Councilman John S. Moot, City ofChula Vista
Councilman Stephen C. Padilla, City ofChula Vista
John Goss, Ciry Manager, City of Chula Vista
Craig K. Beam, Esq., Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
c=2f)- yf/
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio North. Suite 270. San Diego. California 92108 (619) 624-2300 Fax (619) 624-2301
May 16, 1995
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Project Manager
Eastlake Development Company
900 Lane Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91914
Subject: Review of the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program.
Dear Ms. Wright:
I have reviewed the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP). Two specific issues are addressed in this review: 1)
refinement in the vegetation mapping; and 2) the existing condition of the proposed
corridor along Salt Creek and its potential long-term value for wildlife movement. Both
issues are discussed below.
I completed an on-site review of the MSCP vegetation map for the Eastlake Project on
May 12, 1995. Because of the large coverage area, the vegetation mapping prepared for
the MSCP is done at a fairly gross scale and is not intended to be used on a project
specific basis. Based on my site assessment, the primary discrepancy in the mapping
occurs in the northeast comer of the property. The MSCP map shows several small
patches of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurring on the Eastlake Project. My field review,
however, revealed that this area is entirely non-native grassland and dry farmed
agricultural land dominated by non-native grasses and an invasive weed (sweet fennel
[Foeniculum vulgare]). Native sage scrub species were essentially absent from this area.
The only location on the property where any Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs is in the
southeastern comer, as depicted on Figure 2-1 of the MSCP.
I also reviewed the proposed corridor along Salt Creek (see Figure 3-1 of the MSCP)
which traverses the Eastlake Project in a north-south direction. This drainage primarily
supports non-native grassland and agricultural vegetation, with little or no wetland
vegetation occurring along the entire drainage. Scattered patches of the non-native
tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) occur throughout. A box culvert approximately 12-feet high, 10-
feet wide and 100-feet long currently runs under Otay Lakes Road. Eucalyptus trees and
existing farm buildings occur just downstream of Otay Lakes Road. Much of the
d,?7~tJ /
biological studies. wildlife management. habitat restoration. environmental research. regulatory compliance
resource planning. assessment. and mitigation. revegetation planning, implementation. and monitoring
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Eastlake Development Company
May 16, 1995
Page 2 of 3
topography along the drainage consists of very low gradient slopes with a poorly defmed
corridor.
The Multi-habitat Planning Area depicted on Figure 3-1 of the MSCP is based on data
provided on Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 among others. It should be noted, however, that
Figure 2-2 (Habitat Evaluation Map) does not even rank the corridor, but simply shows it
in agriculture. Figure 2-3, the Core Biological Resource Area and Linkages Map does
not include Salt Creek as either a core biological resource area or key linkage for the area.
Figure 2-4 identifies the area along Salt Creek as City owned, although it is my
understanding based on our conversations, that although this area has been identified as
open space on your General Development Plan, if has not been dedicated as open space at
this time.
In looking at the areas surrounding the Eastlake Project, high quality habitats, in
particular Diegan coastal sage scrub, occur to the south and east. The Core Biological
Resource Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3) identifies these areas as core areas
connecting with the Otay River Valley to the south, Otay Lake to the east and the Jamul
Mountains to the north. Significant undeveloped lands and redundant corridors through
existing Diegan coastal sage scrub occur just east of the Eastlake Project through these
areas.
Based on my review of the MSCP maps and my on-site inspection, the proposed corridor
along Salt Creek does not appear warranted for the following reasons:
. it was not identified as a core area or key linkage on the Core Biological Resource
Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3);
. it does not support any high value habitats as noted on Figure 2-2 (Habitat
Evaluation Map);
. the current site conditions do not provide vegetative cover for use as a corridor;
and
. superior corridors occur to the east through high quality habitats and much larger
blocks of contiguous habitat.
I would like to add that multiple corridors within any preserve system are generally
preferred. However, given the present low wildlife value of the Salt Creek corridor, the
length of the corridor (in excess of three miles), and the far superior options for directing
wildlife movement through large blocks of habitat and much shorter corridors to the east,
ffi- if ;2...
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Eastlake Development Company
May 16, 1995
Page 3 of3
suggests that any efforts towards maintaining corridors within the region should be
directed towards areas to the east of the Eastlake project.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if! may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
~'J J 0
Barry L. Jones
President
cM~ (3