HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/05/03
Tuesday, May 3, 1994 Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
Redevelopment A~encv of the Citv of Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Member Fox -' Horton -, Moore -, Rindone -,
and Chairman/Mayor Nader -'
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 3 through 6)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency, 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 Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavor 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 Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
4. RESOLUTION 1401 APPROVING A SIDEWALK CAFÉ PROPOSAL FROM NUTS OVER
YOGURT SHOP AT 310 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE C-9 AND
WAIVING THE ANNUAL FEE FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WA Yo-The owner of Nuts Over Yogurt is proposing to locate
a 105 square foot sidewalk café adjacent to the shop. The Town Centre
Sidewalk Café Policy allows sidewalk cafés under certain conditions subject
to Agency approval. One said condition is the payment of an annual fee.
Staff recommends the fee be waived. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution with certain conditions. (Community Development Director)
5. RESOLUTION 1402 WAIVING CONSULT ANT SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING
AGREEMENT WITH LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION LIAISON SUPPORT FOR THE WIDENING OF
OTAY VALLEY ROAD--On 3/15/88 the Agency approved an agreement
with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. for preparation of engineering and
environmental studies for the widening of Otay Valley Road. Construction
of Phase I (from I-80S to Nirvana Avenue) is underway. Bids for Phases
2 and 3 (from Nirvana Avenue to the easterly City limits and from the
easterly City limits south to the Otay Rio subdivision, respectively) will be
received 5/11/94. The proposed contract provides for construction liaison
support services, on an as-needed basis, during the construction of all three
phases. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works-Engineering)
Agenda Page 2 May 3, 1994
6. RESOLUTION 1403 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WITH IDM SATELLITE DIVISION, INC., FOR THE
REMODELLING OF BUILDING AT 311 F STREET--On 4/5/94 the
Agency approved and Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with IDM
Satellite Division, Inc. for the remodelling of 311 F Street. Subsequent to
approval of the OPA the applicant had to make changes to the floor plans.
The change requires the OPA be amended. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Community Development Director)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the
Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak
infavorofthe staffrecommendation; complete the pinkform to speak in opposition to the staffrecommendation.)
Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
None Submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within
the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the
Redevelopment Agency 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 Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes andfollow up
action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency
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 Secretary to the Redevelopment
Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes.
7. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1400 AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF BOND UNDERWRITER, BOND
COUNSEL, AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE PROPOSED
NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 FOR ADVANCE
REFUNDING OF THE 1986 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS ISSUED BY
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FOR THE BA YFRONT /TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
FOR SAID PERSONS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR--The Agency
Agenda Page 3 May 3, 1994
authorized pursuing advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds on
12/28/93. The Agency is now asked to appoint the Bond Counsel,
Underwriter, and authorize staff to review the need for a Financial Advisor
as well as evaluate additional financing mechanisms. Actual approval of the
sale of the Refunding Bonds would be presented to the Agency in June 1994
assuming tax-exempt interest rate levels remain low, and the successful
completion of a validation proceeding now in progress. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Assistant City Manager/Financial Administrator)
{4/5ths Vote Required]
8. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1390 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY
1993-94 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1993.94
Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget
approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity,
it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by California
Community Redevelopment Law. The formal Agency adoption of the
budget had been delayed in order to determine the full impact of State budget
resolutions and to complete the evaluation of staffing needs for the Economic
Development function in the Community Development Department as
directed by City Council during and subsequent to the City's budget review
process. This item was continued from the meetin~ of April 19. 1993. Staff
recommends this item be continued to the meetin~ of Mav 17. 1994.
(Community Development Director)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the Redevelopment Agency 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 Agency
Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
9. DIRECTOR'S REPORTCS)
10. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Is)
11. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS
Agenda Page 4 May 3, 1994
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on May 17, 1994 at 6:00 p.m.,
immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
......
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request
individuals who may need special accommodation to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency at (619) 691-5047
for specific information on existing resources/or programs that may be available for such
accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in
advance for scheduled services and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing
impaired.
[C:\ WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\O5-03-94 .AG2]
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 4
Meeting Date 05/03/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /¿¡IJ/ Approving a Sidewalk Café Proposal from
Nuts Over Yogurt Shop at 310 Third Avenue, Suite C-9 and Waiving the
Am"", Fe< fm the U" of the "'b~R;gbt~f-W"
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director ~ l¿..çl.
k" (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No X)
Council Referral Number: N/A
BACKGROUND:
The owner of Nuts Over Yogurt shop is proposing to locate a sidewalk café adjacent to the shop
(see attached locator map). Approximately 105 square feet of the total area will be over the
public sidewalk. The Town Centre Sidewalk Café Policy allows sidewalk cafes under certain
conditions and subject to Redevelopment Agency approval. One of these conditions requires that
the applicant pay an annual fee for the use of the public sidewalk. Staff recommends that this
fee be waived. The proposal is being submitted for Agency consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt the resolution subject to the conditions therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Town Centre Project Area
Committee, at its meeting of April 21, 1994, reviewed the proposal and recommended approval
of the proposal subject to the condition that the applicant maintain the sidewalk cafe in good
appearance and condition (see copy of draft minutes).
DISCUSSION:
The proposed sidewalk café will be located just outside the existing Nuts Over Yogurt Shop and
operated as part of that business. The proposal consists of placing tables, chairs, and umbrellas
for outside customer seating. The furniture will be enclosed by an iron rail approximately 3.5
feet high (see Exhibit A). This enclosure will be located partly on private property and partly
over the public right-of-way. The total sidewalk café area will be approximately 315 square
feet, one third of which will be over the public sidewalk. The iron rail will encroach
approximately 3.5 feet onto the public right-of-way, leaving six feet of free pedestrian access
(see drawing and photos in Exhibit A attached).
The proposal is consistent with the existing Town Centre 1 Sidewalk Café Policy. The City
Engineer and the Town Manager reviewed the proposal and found it acceptable. The Town
Manager recommended that some planting material be used to provide some landscaping within
the enclosure. The applicant has agreed to this. He has also agreed to comply with the
conditions to provide the City with an insurance certificate and to sign a hold harmless
agreement. The sidewalk café will also require an encroachment permit to be issued by the City
'1- /
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 05/03/94
Engineer. An additional requirement stated in the policy is the payment of an annual fee
equivalent to $2 per square feet of public sidewalk area occupied by the proposal. The total area
over the right-of-way is 105 square feet. The corresponding fee would amount to $210 per year.
The applicant has requested that this fee be waived. He indicated he has to pay the
encroachment permit administrative fee. In addition, he has to purchase the insurance policy
required by the City. Also, the proposal involves the cost of the fabrication and installation of
the iron rail, plus the purchase of additional furniture. He has indicated that having to pay the
additional sidewalk fee could financially jeopardize his proposal.
Staff supports the applicant's request to waive the fee for the use of the sidewalk on the basis
that the cost of setting up the sidewalk café might end up being relatively high so as to make the
proposal financially infeasible, especially when the proposal involves a low-scale, family-
operated business in times of a depressed economy. Staff also supports the proposal and waiving
the sidewalk fee because the proposal will create benefits for the downtown area. The additional
sales generated by the additional customer seating will generate additional tax revenue. It will
also contribute to creating an interesting and festive ambiance which will attract additional
customers to downtown. This will create more economic activity. Waiving the sidewalk fee
will encourage the proposal and will make it feasible. Therefore, Staff recommends that the
Agency adopt the resolution subject to the conditions that the applicant:
1. Provide a certificate of general liability insurance in the amount of one million
dollars ( $1,000,000) naming the City as additional insured;
2. Execute the City's hold harmless agreement;
3. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City Engineer;
4. Maintain the sidewalk café furniture and area in clean condition as acceptable to
the City; and
5. Install sidewalk café furniture which is acceptable to the City.
The Agency members should be aware that Staff is currently reviewing the City's Sidewalk Café
Policy and will soon be processing an amendment to it. The proposed amendment is intended
to create a more flexible policy and adjust it to the existing conditions and the needs of the
merchants. Staff will bring this policy amendment for the Agency's consideration in the near
future.
FISCAL IMPACT: The only minor financial impact is that the Agency will forgo receipt of
$210 by waiving the fee for the use of the sidewalk.
[FILE:\MZT Disk VIIVA:\TOOGOOD.RPT]
I{.-2
6j
I I II
1"0
'----1 7 ~
@ 760-106-92 «
3.31 AC.
PROJ~Ci LOCAilON
~ 33
~ 181./9
2 @ ~ I~; I;;,nn: 8 -'\'"
2.16 AC. @
2.36 AC.
,: -tHE VILLAGE '"
ISgl3 "
2) ~ I 0
I ~ ex:
I" Ï
I' l/~ ~ E:J23 ~ I-
'" ~I ) ~..
.... ~ / ~'Io
'" 0 , ß&ß
:;:; "". /. 350
285,.& ~.so '- ~
,. ~
~~ ------=~22 ~~
:ì /oI.71.,U'28-'"
~
~' -
MAP 10505 - CHULA VISTA TCT. NO. 81.
MAP 9357 - CHULA VISTA TCT. NO. 79-
MAP 505 - CHULA VISTA - POR QSEC 137
ROS 9659
f-J
-
¡ ~
h- -~ J (f! +t
I '1 ¡ 5
r t¡--J+- {~
- - - - Q- '-- I
I í
- I I
"'" I I
~ ~ I
~ . I i
'\) <J I.
~~ ~
\::"
~ Ö I ì
) ~ I , Ii
'\JÎ") ao!
I If) I '<I: W
'^ ^ I ~
_OJ 'J I::l :-...
I ~ tV¡ 1 ~¡ ~
I ~ : I,
\ ~ I I ò
I ~ ~~~~--+I ~
¡ ý i - -- ÐL (\f)
~ - -
{ ~
41 ~ I
1 I
J I
I (f) 12
z ~<D
0 ;;:;r-:.
(f) ~""
0...:0>"1
Z(f)<>:~
<>:Z°<D
C:J:;:¡:<i~
a:~I-u.
-",,(f)
~O»(\
~~:5fij
, ::J u;>
<>: I~
1-+ I m o~
PROPOSED CAFE
SEATING LOOKING
NORTH
, -- -
I -~-.- ~
- -
-. - ~ - - .. ~.
---- -
--- '"- . -
-. '33 ì~~-~
.. "
-".;. ~ "- ;.--
PROPOSED STYLE OF
SIDE WALK CAFE
1--5'
Thli ¡age íntentionaIly lift blank.
1-6
MINUTES
TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
April 21, 1994 Council Conference Room
8:45 a.m. City Hall
1. RollCall
Members Present: Chairman Mason; Members Killian, Blakely, and Altbaum, Winters, and Lembo.
Staff indicated that Member Sánchez had called and indicated he will soon be resigning from this Committee. He
will be forwarding a letter.
Staff Present: Principal Communily Development Specialist Pam Buchan and Community Development
Specialist Miguel Z. Tapia.
2. Approval of Minutes of 10/7/93.
MSC (Blakely/Altbaum) to approve the minutes of 1017/93 as mailed.
REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS
3. Sidewalk Café Proposal (Oral Report).
Staff presented the proposal and indicated that the applicant (present at meeting) was proposing to locate a sidewalk
café in front of his business. The proposal consists of having chairs, tables, and umbrellas for outdoor seating.
This furniture will be enclosed by an iron fence. The enclosure will be over private property and public property.
The City's Sidewalk Café Policy allows this type of proposal to be over the public right of way. Staff is supporting
the proposal on the basis that it will create a festive ambiance which will potentially attracl more customers to the
downtown, This proposal reqnires Redevelopment Agency approval. It is being brought to the committee for input
and recommendation.
One member asked as to whether the City was making any efforts to encourage the location of this and other
sidewalk cafes. Staff responded that the policy is intended to allow and encourage this type of proposals. However,
there are some space limitations which pose difficulties for business owners to have outdoor cafes. This is
particularly the case in areas where there is not sufficient sidewalk width which will allow the location of tables and
chairs and still leave sufficient access for pedestrians, Currently, Staff is reviewing the existing sidewalk café policy
and will be making some changes to it in order to make more flexible and to fit it to existing conditions and needs
of merchants. This changes will have to be done in the form of an amendment to the existing policy and has to be
approved by the Agency at the recommendation of this Committee.
Another member indicated that a condition should be place on the approval so that the owner is made responsible
for maintaining the outdoor café in good condition, This means keeping the iron fence well painted and the plants
well maintained as well as the tables and chairs cleaned.
MSUC (Altbaum/Blakely) to support Staffs recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency to approve the proposal
with the condition that the café be maintained in good condition. Motion Passed (6-0-0)
4-1
Thís yage íntentíonaIly lift blank.
'-I-y
RESOLUTION / 'It) I
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A SIDEWALK CAFE PROPOSAL FROM NUTS OVER YOGURT
SHOP AT 310 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE C-9 AND WAIVING THE ANNUAL FEE FOR
THE USE OF THE PUBLIC-RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the Nuts Over Yogurt shop proposes to locate a Sidewalk Café adjacent to the
existing business; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting that the annual fee for the use of the public right-of-way
be waived; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is desirable because it will be beneficial and will contribute to create
a interesting and festive ambiance which will attract additional customers and create more economic activity;
and
WHEREAS, waiving the annual fee for the use of the public right-of-way will make the proposal
more feasible; and
WHEREAS, the Town Centre Project Area Committee recommended approval of the proposal
and waiving the fee.
NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA does hereby rmd, order, determine and approve the Sidewalk Café and waives the annual fee for
the use of the public right-of-way for Nuts Over Yogurt Shop at 310 Third Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant provide the City a certificate of general liability insurance in the amount of one
million dollars ($1,000,000) naming the City as additional insured;
2. That the applicant execute the City's hold harmless agreement;
3. That the applicant apply for and obtain an encroachment permit from the City Engineer;
4. That the applicant maintain the sidewalk café furniture and area in clean condition as acceptable to the
City; and
5. That the applicant install sidewalk café furniture which is acceptable to the City.
PRESENTED BY:
~~ ~
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
[FILRIMZT DISK VIffiA:\TOOGOOD.RESl
4-9
-..- -.
This fage ínttntíonaIly lift blank.
1-/0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5"
Meeting Date 5/3/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /'/0 ')..J Waiving the consultant selection process and
approving agreement with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. for construction
liaison support for the widening of Otay Valley Road
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public v:orksl ~
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director(¡l¿ \\, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO
1:','
On March 15, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency by Resolution No. 914 approved an agreement
with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. for preparation of engineering and environmental studies for
the widening of Otay Valley Road, Construction of Phase I of this project (from 1-805 to
Nirvana) is now underway, Bids for Phases 2 and 3 (from Nirvana Avenue to the easterly City
limits and from the easterly City limits south to the Otay Rio subdivision, respectively) will
be received on May 11, 1994,
The proposed contract with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc, provides for construction liaisons
support services during the construction of all three phases of the Otay Valley Road project.
The services will be provided on an as-needed basis and are not expected to exceed $25,000,
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve a resolution waiving the consultant
selection process and approving the agreement with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc,
DISCUSSION:
The construction of the Otay Valley Road improvement project is a multi-phased effort which
started on January 7, 1988, At that time, the Redevelopment Department was given
authorization by the Redevelopment Agency to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for
engineering and environmental consulting services for the widening of Otay Valley Road,
Following the Agency's selection process and after reviewing 12 proposals, the firm of
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. was chosen to perform these services for the Agency, A contract
between the consultant and the Agency was approved on March 15, 1988 by Agency
Resolution No, 914, The amount of this contract was $641,575.00, Subsequently and through
administrative approvals, this contract was increased to $646,575,00 (see attached March 15,
1988 Redevelopment Agency Agenda Statement).
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc, completed their work pursuant to the March 1988 agreement on
February 27, 1992, The plans and specifications they prepared were used to bid and award
Phase I of the project. Due to assessment district proceeding related difficulties, construction
on Phase I was delayed until January, 1994. Prior to commencing on the Phase I construction
work, Granite Construction Company, the project's contractor, raised some questions regarding
5-1
Page 2, Item 5
Meeting Date 5/3/94
the quality of the material in the roadway corridor and the mitigation site (located south of the
auto park parcels),
Due to the sensitivity of the concerns, our interest in proceeding with the project without any
further delays, the problems associated with the auto park site and the dumping of material
along the Otay Valley Road corridor, we considered it prudent to investigate the presence of
hazardous material along the project corridor and the mitigation site. Public Works staff
requested Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc, to provide the necessary reports and investigations on an
urgency basis for a fee of $24,500, It was staffs belief that the most efficient and expeditious
manner to obtain the reports and investigations would be to contract with Leedshill-Herkenhoff,
Inc, because of their intimate knowledge of the project and the area. The investigation work
was funded from the construction contingency fund for the project, as the need for this service
arose after the Phase I contract had been awarded to Granite Construction Company. The
investigation revealed a contaminated area within the mitigation site, which staff and Leedshill-
Herkenhoff, Inc, were able to delete from the project without incurring any contract delay
penalties or additional construction change orders.
As the construction proceeds, design related support services will be needed to provide answers
to questions and provide assistance on potential change orders. Because Leedshill-Herkenhoff,
Inc, were the designers of the project, are very familiar with all of its details, and has sufficient
staff to respond quickly in order not to delay the contractor, they are proposed to provide those
services. Staff will minimize the use of these consultant services as much as possible and will
involve the consultant only when our current staff is unable to perform the work due to a lack
of available staff time and/or the need for special expertise. The construction liaison services
are required immediately to continue with the Phase I construction activities. Bids for the
construction of Phases 2 and 3 will be received by the Agency on May 11, 1994, Construction
on these phases is expected to commence in September 1994, Thus, due to the proximity of
the Phases 2 and 3 construction activities, Public Works staff considers it prudent to obtain
construction liaison consultant services through Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc, This will assure a
continuum in the construction liaison support services during the entire Otay Valley Road
construction activities, Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.'s fees for Phases I and II, estimated to be
$22,500, will be paid from assessment district funds, Fees for Phase III, estimated to be
$2,500, will be paid from available funds in STM 319,
Public Works staff has been advised by the City Attorney's office that the proper way to obtain
these services is to enter into a separate agreement with the consultant instead of incrementally
increasing the existing purchase orders (see attached copies). The proposed contract, therefore,
is presented to the Agency to comply with this directive, In accordance with this contract, the
consultant will provide their services on a time and material basis throughout the duration of
the construction work (all 3 phases), The cost of these services is not expected to exceed
$25,000 (see attached copy of their rate schedule).
FISCAL IMPACT: The construction of the Otay Valley Road project is a multi-phased
endeavor. Funding for Phases I and II of the project has been obtained via the formation of
an assessment district and the issuance of bonds, A current summary of the assessment district
..5 -,;¿
Page 3, Item 5'
Meeting Date 5/3/94
funds is shown on the table below, As this table shows, there are sufficient funds to cover the
$22,500 cost of this contract attributable to Phases I and 2. The $2,500 remaining will be
obtained from CIP Fund STM-319,
I ST-123 (phases I & 2) I
RDA Fund 996 ST-123, 123 A, OVOOI, RD205 $1,765,167(4)
RDA Fund 996 ST-123 (slopes/improvements) 775,807
RDA Fund 996 ST-123, 994 (litigation) 172,836
Assessment No, 7 19,367
RDA Fund 996 TF-220 89,300
TSF 600 TF-220, TF-208 100,000(4)
Sewer Fund 222 1,161,000(2)
SDG&E 20A 320,000(3)
SDG&E 20A Oleander 10 Nirvana 642,226(3)
Sewer Fund 222 420,000(1)
Subtotal $5,465,703(')
Assessment District Cash & Bond Proceeds 6,515,413
City Advance for Series C Bonds 422,500
TOTAL $12,403,616
(I) This is a previously approved loan to the district which is to be repaid from
future Transportation DIF for Otay Ranch area,
(2) This is a previously approved loan to the district to be reimbursed by SB-
300 funds upon completion of construction,
ß) Estimated cost of SDG&E work equals estimated allocation of 20A funds
available for project from SDG&E.
(4) Amounts include money already encumbered for the project,
(') Approved by Resolutions 16706, 16725, and 16886,
I STM-319 (phase 3) I
Transnet Fund 603 STM319 I $97,330(6)
(6) Fund balance as of April 13, 1994
RS/File No,: AO-O60
AO-O87
AO-O88
WFC M:\hom.\enginee,\,...nda\leedhill
Attachments: a) March 25, 1988 Agency agenda statement
b) Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. rate schedule
c) Purchase orders 199462 & 1994624
d) Proposed agreement
S-ß
Thí.5 ,age íntenüonaIly left blank.
S-"I
r r
( , .~
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
( Item 4
Meeti n9 Date 3/15/88
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION No. 914 Approving Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. as
the consul tant to prepare the engineering and environmental
studies for the widening of Otay Valley Road and authorizing
the agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Directo~
REVIEWED BY: Executive Directo~C:t ~f~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_N°.LJ
On January 7, 1988, authorization was given by the Redevelopment Agency to
issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering and environmental
consulting services for the widening of Otay Valley Road. Twelve proposal s
were submitted in response to the RFP. These proposals were reviewed by a
committee consisting of four City staff members from the Communi ty
Development, Engineering, and Pl anni ng Departments. The four top proposers
were then invited for oral interviews. The firm of Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.
was ranked the highest by the participants on the interview panel. Following
thi s ranki ng the references of the top fi rms were checked before the fi nal
staff recommendation was formulated.
( RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.
as the consultant to prepare the engineering and environmental studies for the
widening of Otay Valley Road and authorizing the agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Agreement attached as Attachment A is divided into four phases. The items
included in each phase are generally described below.
Phase I
- Prepare preliminary design drawings.
- Issue identification.
- Prepare conceptual designs for consideration in ErR.
- Prepare technical sections for Draft EIR.
- Prepare schematic design of wetland mitigation projects.
L
5-S"
r r
( Page 2, Item 4
Meeting Date 3/17/88
Phase II
- Publish Draft EIR.
- Prepare Section 404 permit application and required al ternatives
analysis.
Phase III
- Prepare right-of-way drawings and record of survey.
- Obtain title reports and appraisals.
- Prepare constructi on pl ans for the roadway and wetland mitigation
projects (including landscape plans).
Phase IV
- Prepare Final EIR and Candidate CEQA Findings.
- Prepare Financial Plan.
r - . Prepare Phasing Plan,
I
\.-
The issue identification and preparation of the Draft EIP. to be completed in
Phase I and the preparation of Section 404 permit application to be completed
in Phase II will affect the lev~ of effort that will be required in Phases
III and IV for the final design of the roadway and wetl and mitigation
projects. The Agreement represents the best efforts of the City staff
committee to gage the level of effort that will be required for Phases III and
IV of the project. The not-to-exceed cost for the work to be undertaken is
$641i575.00. This fee is in line with the projected costs of the other three
fina ists for a similar scope of work.
FISCAL IMPACT: The not-to-exceed cost for the services descritled in the
attached agreement will be $641,575.00. There is $369,596 earmarked for
engineering and environmental services. In additi on, a portion of the
$355,000 earmarked for property acquisition will need to be expended for the
engi neeri ng and environmental servi ces because thi s work mus t be undertaken
before property acquisition. An additional appropriation may be required for
property acquisition. A better estimation of the appropriation that will be
required will be available following Phase III of the project which includes
apprai sal s of properti es that wi 11 need to be acqui red.
Some of this cost may be recouped following the implementation of the
financing mechanism that will be recommended as a part of this study.
In addition, a portion of the miti9ation design work (approximately $40,000)
is expected to be fi nanced by ¡' a 1 ker-Scott Properti es. An agreement with
'- Walker-Scott is currently being negotiated and will be submitted to the Agency
in the near future for review and approval. This money ~till be a
reimbursement to the Agency.
..5-6
..n,. ~U'"
-T-
I!I L£EDSH"'.HERKEHHOA'."""
5820 OIMtrlln DrlVtl ..--
Sui.. 101 -'", -
s.n~,CIIllIomill92121 " . - ,-,.- - c, '", --, ;,'-
(619) <855.7787 FAX (619) 055-0029 hi) \!} ~~7/92705.12/94
ISSei ì\i.R \ 6
March 14, 1994
Mr. Shale Hanson
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: CONSTRUCTION LIAISON SUPPORT FOR OTAY VALLEY ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
As I understand, the City of Chula Vista desires to enter into a contract with Leedshill-
Herkenhoff, Inc. (LH) for providing the continuation of construction liaison support during
the construction of Otay Valley Road. Presented below is the scope of work, general
duties of engineer, and rate schedule.
General Duties: LH shall provide professional services in the support of the City of Chula
Vista during the construction of Otay Valley Road. These services shall be provided only
at the request of the City of Chula Vista.
Scope: Services shall be provided at the direction of Chula Vista and may include:
preparation of special designs related to the project
attendance at project related meetings
- providing services of sub-consultants, including soil/geotechnical,
traffic, environmental
- observation of work in progress
- preparation of construction cost estimates
providing special investigations related to the project
preparing technical reports relating to the project
Rate Schedule: Reimbursement shall be monthly on a time and material basis, in
according with following rates and schedule of charges:
Principal $135/hr (Charles Bras)
Project Manager 115/hr (Wain Cooper)
Project Engineer 95/hr
Civil Engineer 75/hr (Steve McMillan)
Designer-Drafter 55/hr
Word Processor 40/hr
ALBUQUERQUE. SAN DlIOO . SANTA PI
5-7
----
------
It! LEEDSHILL. HE.KEHHOFF. IHC.
Mr. Shale Hanson
March 14, 1994
Page 2
Reimbursement shall also be provided for costs incurred during the performance of the
requested services. Reimbursement shall be:
Outside sub-consultants: cost plus 10%
Vehicle travel: $0.28/mile
Outside reproduction: cost plus 10%
Delivery costs: cost plus 10%
There shall be no additional costs for telephone, FAX, computers, or internal copies.
Very truly yours,
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC.
N~~
Wain Cooper, P.E.
Chief Engineer
WC:mt
-5..- ?
"""'1-:----";--'--;--'-- .ÖR:ïê; )N~i...~ '?~1§~ ~ -'-:---:-",:-:::-...-:¡::¡-;::;:::;-::ç:-.'
-"'-'~ i' ' "- " 19!jU'2';;' \,\,"¡,
,.JrúRo/' . PURCHASE ORDER, No " t' ' .r.......
~r~~p , .
CH LAVlSTA,CA9\910 CITY OF CHULA VISTA THIS ORDER NUMBER MUST APe
(B11J 891-6141 / ON INVOICES, PACKAGES AND PAl"
!AX (B11J 422-. RELATING TO THIS ORDER. ,-
II, (¡!>/(¡~;!j:t
\/ÉNDOR 1«), IIb!ì:"O RECEMNG RECORD '
, ~ I HEREBV ŒRTFV THATI HAVE REŒIVED,CAREFUllVWEIGHED.MEA~ ,
TO: ["L)"'l.IlòhlJ..L-h¡;l!K£t.hOl'~'. 1M': , URED OR COUNTED THE ITEMS INDICATED BELOW. THAT CUANTITle.- :
10~2~ dAkt.~5 CAt.~Ot. ROAü ÞNJ QUAUTES ARE CORRECTLV STATEDANOARE AS ORDERED, THA'
IoU1'1£ A-:HO THEY WERE REŒIVEOIlGOOOCXJNDIT1ONEXŒPT ASNOTEDHEREOI-' ,¡
~..t. ¡,,1~GO CA ~~1~1
SIGNED DATE i:
L .... ..-..--.....-"""""'_""'01"""'-""""""
""'_'0""",,-,,-'_.""".'-""0 "
-....."",..",.. ~_...... """'1"""""'. I
SHIP TO: '-O~,M.I,l'1':a: ¡¡to"",- 1,.1:...'¡ I.,"" oucm.
...7b 1:1J1.¡,.1.. A"I:.I,l.to DoIN8< -""",-al- NO,
~I.I.L¡' "lb'l'A ~A !d.!I.1.1- F,O,B CHtJLA \IISTA TERMS -..,
r1I¡ E'"
~.. ORDERED WHSE, _u
QUNmTY - SIOCK NO DESCfIO'TION - PM:( #NOr
J. .I. LVI' ..~~"11JJ:. bt.M"lLJ:.~ hJ:.LA'lJ:.1J ~O 'lh!. ..(;11110.0110 :00(;(;(,,'
C()I.b-U~(¡(';lvt. ..hA~j:; ()~' '¡hI:. VlAX
\ALLI:.:a: ¡,.~~¡;.. ~.l1.il:.t.1M.. ~l\üJJ:.(.;'l.
H.~1."'1J1M.. HI"" bV1 LH.l'11:.1.ì '1'0,
A&bl~~AhCJ:. lh O~'l¡'1t.l~'- ~ll.b,
R¡;;Co~Joll:.bUA';t. .lot. Ahl" ¡'"hi-IJ. LÀ£-
,. CVt'IOI\ Ok' COt.'Ht^l.:~ IJv~lit-.1.t.'l',:, At.1.I
~vhbu~~l~~ ~1.¡""ll.:1.b ~u¡"l~~ A~~IIAL
~vl,¡,'l R(¡Vl' J {It. \
Cl'n hAl\h..','l:.k'b A(¡'lhc,k<H, \'l'.lOI. "
\
toII:.M.. 1,.;"11:.1",. 3/1~/!I~ 1& ""'1'l'i\l..hl:.¡J
~(4::1J D!iI~/i':.óbb...)
'.lU'l'Ai:. :t Û 00(, " ','
----------------------------------..---------------------------------------------
t (¡ hiJ oJ;.¡.o'r ObJ 1:.(;'1' "kOJ !.l.:'l' Al'luu~'1 U"~lJ TAX we ¡.oukCbAblt.~ AG1:.h~
!I!lb !o!ló(; b'r1~~ ~(¡."O(;.o" (¡ u J~~ö ". 1:.örlhÚIoA
'lU'l'AJ.. ~u.O"II.O"
(,/'1 ~ 1-;',L/3.2.!:Ø bX& ~£LCX ()~"1Aa, BUX1:.k
~(5rßl~
¡ l fA-é BIt)
I...JPI.'~~ \... I" 5"
.
NOTE: PLEASE HAVE REOUISITIONER
READ F URCH~E ORDER TO CONFIRM
,,' QUANTITY AND DESCRIPTION CORRECT.
IF INCORRECT. PLEASE CALl
. PURCHASING, EXT. 5141,IMMEDIATELY.
NO CA:J. WILL SIGNIFY P.O. CORRECT.
) '...
" .: "',;" . ,,:.=\t;~'
... '? ,-..¡ . .' ,.':' s - 9 . ; -..: .:,'ò.
"",.., " " ,.., ,. "" . V:"'" ~ " /'..~:,:;'~7:'~'~~.'~r: ,', ,(',: .
, r,"', " , ".-
~HASlNG DIVISION PURCHASE ORDER No
31~ F UATH AVE., SUIT~ P THIS' ORDER NUMBER MUST APþEAP
C LA VISTA, CA 91910 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON INVOICES PACKAGES AND PAPERS
(619) 691.5141 .
FAX (619) 585-9118 RELATING TO THIS OADER.
.: 11/Cí3/!13 INSTRUCTIONS.
NDaR NO. 669 ¿ () NO CHARGE FOR PACKING OR DRAYAGE WILL BE ALLOWED UNLES5
SPECIFIED ON THIS ORDER
TO: IL1:;EÙ':'lilLL-b!!.F<!\J:.t,t.Vb'b', 1M:: IF COMPLETE SHIPMENT CANNOT BE MADE AS SPECIFIED, OR IF ANY
5820 Obf.RLIIoi Dr-IV!!. CHANGES ARE.ÞREOUIRED, NOTIFY THE PURCHASING AGENT
SUI"'!> 107 IMMEDIATELY
SA¡' I:;.lJ:.C;ú CA 92121374 3 SHOW SALES TAX AS A SEPARATE ITEM ON INVOICE
INVOICES WITH PREPAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES MUST BE
SUPPORTED BY ORIGINAL RECEIPTED BILL.
L MAIL DUPLICATE INVOICE TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Ih" """m,SI DeIllJed 'h_"w"h ,"SlNCI'O", I P.O. BOX 1087, CHULA VISTA, CA 91912
SHIP TO: ¡';¡'Gl ¡'l.EI< lb." LiE.P1/ Ð1DOROUOTE
CO <.¡'¡u¡'I~'Y DEVl.LOPMIo.1' 00<""" davsf'om""eipIOfo,der NO
~'. ". F.e.B. CHULA V1STA TERMS CONfiRM""
~"X 10.1::'1' n88M'¿TE
ITEM ORDERED WHSE ~SCA1P~ON UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
NO QUANTITY UNIT STOCK NO
ChAt-:C£ OIWl:.h
~Ll.ASl. lIo.CI<LAbE. bl.RvIC!>b TO PECvlú!>
Et-:VIRObMEb.TAL AbSESS~E~~S ~UH
hAZARDOUS hA~LkIALS F~R PHASE I,
II, III OF 1'I.E OTAY VALLEY IWAu
C~IoISTRUCTION. THE. THkEJ:. PHA~Eb
J:.XTElo.ú FkOh I-bOs TO 'lhl:.
. t-oOk'lIiERL.ï BOIH..oRï Of vnY RIO
SUBI:;.l\ I:::I0~
1 1 LOT TOTAL AMOU~T ~O~ RJ:.AU~ 44500.000 44500.
(EbG E87/PS135~7)
APPF<OVLLi BY Cln "'-A~AC;LF:
OC'l'OBER 27, 1993
TOTAL 44500.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FU~D LiEP1 O~JEC~ PRUJECT AMO~~~ C\RD ~AX PIC PURCHASlb.U AGEKT
603 6030 ST3~'$T~/9 500.00 v ~ JAMES v. ESPl~OSA
996 !/!ìbO 5'1'123 ~4,OOO.(¡0 0 0 /
'l'O'I'AL ;¿4,500.00 ~:. ,.-
~~ , '
1',".;:,:~::.sE HAVE REQUJSITIONER . I
f::",i., ,."H~~E ?RDER TO CONFIRM '-,--
(:"'." ry':iO ¡Æ~'(;,¡¡?TION CORR"CT
;' :. '~;~~~~~; }g(~~!~1~~~~t'E[iJA T;L Y .
,,' v ,'.c \"cc Slc;tI,FY P.Q. CORRECT. '
.
ORIGINATlN.s; DEn
5-fc)
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC.
FOR VARIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASES I, n & ill
OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
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 Agency-related entity as is indicated on
Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("Agency"), 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, completion of Phases I, II and III of the Otay Valley Road project require
services related to the construction activities of the roadway improvements which were not
included in the original agreement with Leedshill and Herkenhoff dated March 15, 1988; and
Whereas, such services may include, but are not limited to, investigating presence of
hazardous material, soils investigations, prepare design changes related to construction,
attendance of weekly meeting with contractor, completion of "As Built" plans, etc.; 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 Agency within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement;
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
WPC M:\HOME\ENGINEER\1768.94 Page 1
.5 -II
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Agency 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 Agency 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 Agency, operate to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
Agency 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, Agency and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of
negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associa.ted with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, Agency 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 SeJ;Vices shall
be paid monthly as billed.
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.
WPC M:\HOMElENGINE!!R\1768.94 Page 2
5 -/~
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 approval of the Agency:
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
Agency and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which
the Agency may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of
the Agency 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 deljvery 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.
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 Agency 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 Agencý a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory
to the Risk Manager or Agency General Counsel which amount is indicated in the space
adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
WPC M:\HOME\ENOINEER\1168.94 Page 3
.5 -/3
(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 Agency an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the Agency at their
unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the Agency 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
Agency General Counsel 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 Agency such other security therein listed in a
form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or Agency General Counsel.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the Agency and to otherwise
comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the Agency
A. Consultation and Cooperation
Agency 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 Agency shall permit access to
its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In
addition thereto, Agency 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 Agency
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, Agency 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.
WPC M:\HOMEIENOINEER\1768.94 Page 4
5-/'1
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the Agency to evaluate that the amount due and payable
'thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the Agency's account number indicated on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated ón 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 co¡1secutive calendar day in
excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or
Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the Agency, 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 Agency, shall be requested in writing to the Agency'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
Agency Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories
WPC M:\HOMEIENO!NEER\1768.94 Page 5
S-/~
,
as are specified in Paragraph IS of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by
the Agency General Counsel.
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 ù;>
influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know
Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants
and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of
Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the
Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best
of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's
duties under this agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic
interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as
prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the Agency General Council
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 Consultanfs
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
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise Agency of any such promise that may be made during the
Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
WI'C M:\HOME\ENOINEBR\1768.94 Page 6
.:5 - /Ct
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 Agency.
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 Agency.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Agency, 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 negligent conduct
of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others employed by the
consultant 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 Agency,
its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the Agency, 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 Agency, defend any
such suit or action brought against the Agency, its officers, agents, or employees, as a result
of the consultant's negligence. Consultants' indemnification of Agency shall not be limited
by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shaH fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant s~all violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, Agency 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 Agency, become the property of the Agency, 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 Agency by Consultant's breach..
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the Agency Administrator determines that the Consultants'
negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has
resulted in expense to Agency greater than would have resulted if there were no such
negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse Agency for any additional expenses
incurred by the Agency. Nothing herein is intended to limit Agency's rights under other
provisions of this agreement.
WPC M:\HOMEIENOINBER\l168.94 Page 7
5-11
- -
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of Agency
Agency 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 unfmished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the
option oCthe Agency, become Agency's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is
terminated by Agency 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 Agency, 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 Agency. Agency 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
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 Agency. 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
Agency. Agency 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
Agency is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. Agency 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 Agency, and none of them shall be entitled to any
benefits to which Agency employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime,
retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits.
Therefore, Agency 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 Agency harmless with regard thereto.
WPC M:\HOMEIFNGlNEER\1768.94 Page 8
.5 ---17
_.~_.
.- -
14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the
Agency unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the Agency and
acted upon by the Agency 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 Agency in the implementation of same.
Upon request by Agency, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with Agency
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 Agency.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by Agency, Consultant shall have no
authority to act as Agency's agent to bind Agency 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 Blld/or their
principals islare 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.
WPC M:\H0ME\F.NGlNEER\1768.94 Page 9
£-/9
-T-
.- -
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 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 Agency of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this
Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
WPC M:\HOMEIENGlNEER\1768.94 Page 10
S..-.)Ò
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN mE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC.
FOR VARIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASES I, II & m
OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency 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:
Attest: John Goss, Executive Director
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
Agency General Counsel
Dated:
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.
by: [7 ~K/ßzf2~
Charles R. Bras, P.E.
Regional Manager
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A.
() Exhibit B.
WPC M:\HOME\ENG1NEF.R\1768.94 Page 11
6,~1
Thís 'page íntentíonaIly lift blank.
S -- J. :J-
RESOLUTION NO. /yo~
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION
LIAISON SUPPORT FOR THE WIDENING OF OTAY
VALLEY ROAD
WHEREAS, on March 15, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency by
Resolution No. 914 approved an agreement with Leedshill-Herkenhoff,
Inc. for preparation of engineering and environmental studies for
the widening of Otay Valley Road; and,
WHEREAS, construction of Phase I of this project (from I-
805 to Nirvana) is now underway; and
WHEREAS, bids for Phases 2 and 3 (from Nirvana Avenue to
the easterly City limits and from the easterly City limits south to
the Otay Rio subdivision, respectively) will be received on May 11,
1994; and
WHEREAS, the proposed contract with Leedshill-Herkenhoff,
Inc. provides for construction liaisons support services during the
construction of all three phases of the Otay Valley Road project;
and,
WHEREAS, the services will be provided on an as-needed
basis and are not expected to exceed $25,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula vista does hereby waive the consultant
selection process and approve an Agreement with Leedshill-
Herkenhoff, Inc. for construction liaison support for the widening
of Otay Valley Road, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development office of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Direc or of the
Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized an irected t execute
said Agreement for and on behalf of the AgenC~.
Presented by Ii ved or~
ß--L ~ -/. -,
~ ¡f7~
John P. Lippitt, Director of Bruce M. r , Agency
Public Works Attorney
C:\rs\leedshil
.:S -J3
Thli 'page íntentíonaIIy lift blank.
S - :Ii
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 05/03/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 1'103 Approving An Amendment to Owner
Participation Agreement with roM Satellite Division, Inc. for the
Remodelling of Building at 311 F Street
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ~
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director &t<\9 (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No _X"'>
" Council Referral Nnmber: N/A
BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1994, the Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner
Participation Agreement (OPA) with roM Satellite Division, Inc. for the remodelling of the
building at 311 F Street located within the Town Centre 1 Redevelopment Project Area (see
attached locator map). Approval of the OPA included approval ofthe remodelling plans attached
to the agreement as Exhibit A. Subsequent to the approval of this OPA, the applicant had to
make a change to the floor plans. The change requires that the OPA be amended. The
amendment is being presented to the Agency for consideration,
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt the resolution approving an amendment to the
OPA with roM Satellite Division, Inc.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No review by any committee is
necessary because this amendment does not involve any land use or exterior design issue.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant, roM Satellite Division, Inc., is in the process of remodelling the building at 311
F Street (see locator map). The remodelling plans were approved by the Redevelopment Agency
at its regular meeting of April 5, 1994 through an Owner Participation Agreement. The
remodelling plans presented to the Agency at that meeting involve the modification of the
building elevations, increasing the height of the building, and expanding the floor area by
approximately 630 square feet.
The subject building is being proposed as the site for the City of Chula Vista's future Telecenter.
The Telecenter will provide office space and technological facilities for office employees who
normally commute from Chula Vista to other areas of the County. The purpose of the
Telecenter is to reduce the number of daily automobile trips and thus reduce traffic on the
highway system and its impacts on the environment.
Subsequent to Agency approval of the OPA and remodelling plans, the applicant had to make
a change to the interior floor plan. This change was required after it was found by the
applicant's engineer that the existing structure could not support the proposed additional height
of the building. The solution was the construction of a steel structure and platform around the
interior perimeter of the building in order to add strength to the existing structure so that it
(,-1
Page 2, Item -L-
Meeting Date 05/03/94
would support the additional height (see new floor plan attached as Exhibit A). Given this added
structure, the applicant decided to create a mezzanine for additional office space.
The applicant's new floor plans have to be incorporated into Exhibit A (remodelling plans) of
the OPA. This has to be done through an amendment to the current OPA. The additional space
created by the mezzanine also changes the parking requirement. The floor area to be added by
the mezzanine is approximately 3,117 square feet. This will require ten additional parking
spaces. Since the project is within the parking district boundaries, the project qualifies under
the In-lieu Parking Fee Policy to pay the parking fee instead of providing the parking spaces.
The applicant has agreed to pay the fee in the amount of $17,500. This fee will be added to the
fee for one parking space ($1,750) required by the small expansion of the building included in
the original plans. The total new parking fee to be pay by applicant is $19,250.
Other than the incorporation of the new floor plans to Exhibit A of the OPA and the additional
parking requirement, there are no other changes to the original plans. Neither the Town Centre
Project Area Committee nor the Design Review Committee are required to review this
amendment because it does not involve any land use or exterior design issues. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed amendment with the condition that the applicant pay the
parking fee prior to the issuance of the corresponding building permits.
FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant will pay a parking fee in the amount of $19,250 which will
be deposited in the In-lieu Parking Fee fund.
[FILE:IMZT DISK vmA,IIDMSATELRPT
~ - .:L
I
r
, - --'---
:J :J ---
Z Z n.
I¿J I¿J
> .- > ..
<C <C
~ : ~
. i"
m".E STREET
f- I-- ~ II
~ -- ~
.. - a:
~ ~ ~ 'IJJ
a -,-= Z Z :J
':-' ;¡; ::: :::: :'-::-. -- ---~ ~ ...' ~
---- I- -- .-- ,.. « _.~L,__«
- -.' .(....
- ... n 'PROJECT ::....-,- .~
T :"""...:,....'~(¡ ,'n. , - --' -' -" ..,; :: ';-;'r-
::RIENOSHIPPARK.' ... .:: -_.--' - LOCATION;l.;
;:'~X~~':>~~'f¿;"':j;... :::.- . } .-.. ,..
"r."f.-<ç'.. ~,¡,,"...'r r..-IJJ I .
" a: ...--
A a:
CHULA VISTA;; :<:.
PUBLIC LIBRARY :;!
:> .
1: ." I
u .. !
. I
;- "Ii F STREET
I I ~B 1:--~- --L,'~
t ,- _._-<---=---~--,z '
~ I I I.IJ -- I¿J -_.~--- 3: n.;_-- I.IJ
1 ~:J ----~-..' >
~ =; ~;:."Tr-=:-" 7.r.~' ~ z . -. ~: ':--~:: < :
>.~."..:,.,...".-:/',",r",;....;.,.......,-¡-- > ~ a: CYPRESS
<Nt'" ,-,',""rr.",-"~-""",,,':'-:-'" <'.. ".-
...,...:.-:...:....",.."r;r:.'.....:,:.,..;.>;,.:!"'" ~..,".""..
-,."."r., MEMO .'",~_.... ... ,,"" "u
.~.¡-;:..-;..;....., .!'I!AL PARK .~<:~,:;'" E ",,_',1~-:.~.~' ~u
"""""-"",,,~,""""":""'I""".i"r¿" ,::J..<., ","""
:t: ,. 'r"':"""""':";<'-;'~:"""""'~' . ,~..J":"""- ,
~~ffiffiÏBWAY 0 Q - . 0 "';A'Q~~~~: -, .
-..,.",., ,'"" ",'" 0::"" DJJJJIIITJ
- ,., .. """, ,,', , t
0 '~"'" ::::::. '.
u. .. ¡::.. : .
~. STREET ITIJJJIIII]] .
IIII I I .. D.' .'
f I I I --- ... --- .'
II (III ..'--.. ...":
LL_~ I I I I ... ,-- ..- -,,:",~
111111.--' :::--':<:--
... ... ~ ...
( . JORGE VALERO! l
311 F Street LOCATOR
( ORC ) Office Addition
NORTH -94-35 1~-3
(i:Þ - -3 . .
This ,age íntentíonally lift blank.
'-1-
Recording Requested By:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
When Recorded Mail To:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 (Space Above This Line For Recorder)
AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
IDM SATELLITE DIVISION, INC.
THIS AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment")
is entered into by the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred
to as "AGENCY"), and IDM Satellite Division, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "DEVEWPER").
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to remodel real property within the TOWN CENTRE I
REDEVELOPMENT Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY: and,
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for remodelling of said property to the Redevelopment Agency;
and,
WHEREAS, said plans for development have been approved by the Agency and incorporated into that certain
Owner Participation Agreement between Agency and Developer approved by Agency on AprilS, 1994 per Resolution
Number 1398 (the "Original Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer had to make changes to said plans in order to make the building structurally sound; and,
WHEREAS, the said changes increase the usable office space which requires an increase in the fee for parking
spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Developer agrees to pay the additional fee; and.
WHEREAS, said changes must be incorporated into Exhibit A of the Original Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, this requires amending the Original Agreement subject to review and approval by the Agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this Amendment and acknowledged to be true by the
parties hereto.
2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Number 568-152-28 located at 311 F Street,
City of Chula Vista, California.
3. The DEVELOPER covenants and agrees by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and
assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following:
A. That the property will be developed in accordance with the AGENCY approved development
proposal attached hereto as Exhibit" A" and on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document
No. RACO-13A,94 (TCI/OPA 94-2). This "Exhibit A" shall replace and supersede Exhibit A
~-S-
attached to the Original Agreement in its entirety.
B. Developer will pay the City of Chula Vista an In-lieu Parking Fee in the amount of $19,250 as
required by City Council Policy adopted by Resolution 9943. This amount includes the In-lieu
Parking Fee required under the Original Agreement for one parking space.
4. Agency and Developer agree that the covenants of the Developer expressed herein shall run with the land.
Developer shall have the right, without prior approval of Agency, to assign its rights and delegate its duties
under this Amendmeut.
5. Agency and Developer agree that the covenants of the Developer expressed herein ate for the express
benefit of the Agency and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Project Area as the Same now exists or may be hereafter amended. Agency and Developer
agree that the provisions of this Amendment may be specifically enforced in any court of competent
jurisdiction by the Agency on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the
boundaries of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area.
6. Agency and Developer agree that this Amendment to the Original Agreement may be recorded by the
Agency in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California.
7. Except as specifically provided herein all terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
"AGENCY"
DATED: By:
Tim Nader, Chairman
"DEVELOPER"
DATED: By:
Dr. Jorge Valerdi, Chief Operating Officer
IDM Satellite Division, Inc.
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency General Counsel
NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card.
Town Center I
IFILE,\MZT QJSK VIII\A,\IDMSATEL.OPAJ
G-h
~IIII~ S~t.e!lite
II U DIVIsIOn, Inc.
~' ,~~J;,:,,~~,,~, "'-<",'~<>~'~',"- ", -,,'~ - 0'
" ~">,,,' , '" ',', ",,- '
" , ',,",," '<"'~" '
~,','~"<"~,:""', ","~~~~'~:'<~" "~"<:õ~~,,~
~~""'" "~" ,'L'
t,' " "r' '", "'",,, "', "
~: ' \
! " "-'
L~,: '
)<~<,'
t' '-"""
¡ "
,
'--,
IOï""", ,I ",,'°:
L~I, / / ""-." p
\ "', ,,' J
" ">'" / ", /J'7í:\ 'r; .~
>, ,~
~'<" /'/ /' ,~~I
l " ,', ,
¡, ",', '"":C'---'~'-~--- ,-""'<,-, -""/'If '
(. "'" " '" '~ ! ", ,
j :(9', I,
k,' OPEN T" BELOW :
1, I
! 'i I
! ' l
I ' 'I
J '~~_.,-- ,~~.~
~EZZANINE LEVEL
.J ¡¿E¿ SUI:r4Œ. sf ff
E /!zo '
F- 995 '
ff é""27 v
:¡: 47; v
------=-
Talk-I... 2/17 v
466 Third Ave, ~ - ? '
ChulaVista CA91910 (619)422-1155 (Voice)
, (619)422-1415 (Fax)
This Jage íntentíonaIly left blank.
6 -t?'
RESOLUTION /1tJ3
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WITH IDM SATELLITE DIVISION, INC.
FOR THE REMODELLING OF BUILDING A 311 F STREET
WHEREAS, IDM Satellite Division, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")
desires to remodel real property within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area which
is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Redevelopment Agency; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer presented plans for remodelling of said property,
located at 311 F Street in Chula Vista, California, to the Redevelopment Agency; and,
WHEREAS, said plans for remodelling have been approved by the Agency and
incorporated into that certain Owner Participation Agreement between Agency and Developer
approved by Agency on AprilS, 1994 per Resolution Number 1398 (the original agreement);
and,
WHEREAS, the Developer had to make changes to said plans, after said plans
had been approved by the Agency, in order to make the building structurally sound; and,
WHEREAS, said changes result in an increase in the usable office space which
requires an increase in the In-lieu Parking Fee which has to be paid for parking spaces; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has agreed to pay the additional fee; and,
WHEREAS, such changes must be incorporated into Exhibit A of the original
agreement; and,
WHEREAS, this requires amending the original agreement subject to review and
approval by the Redevelopment Agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows:
1. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to
execute the subject Amendment to the original Owner Participation
Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and IDM Satellite
Division, Inc.
6-9
2. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized and
directed to record said Amendment to the Original Owner Participation
Agreement in the office of the County Recorder of Sa Diego, California.
Submitted by t&~
~~ ~
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary Bruce M. Boogaard
and Community Development Director Agency General Counsel
[FILR\MZT DISK VIM,\IDMSATEL.RES)
6 - /0
I
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date 05/03/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. / 1{)O authorizing appointment
of Bond Underwriter, Bond counsel, and Financial
Advisor for the proposed negotiated sale of Bonds
in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$30,000,000 for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax
Allocation Bonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula vista for the Bayfront/Town
Centre Redevelopment Project. This Resolution will
also waive the consultant selection process for
this project and appropriate funds in the amount of
$25,000. , .
SUBMITTED BY: Msistant city Manag~
Finance Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director~ 5THS Vote: Yes..lLNo_)
The Redevelopment Agency authorized pursuing the advance refunding
of the 1986 Tax Allocation bonds on December 28, 1993. This action
would appoint the Bond counsel, Underwriter, Financial Advisor and
evaluate additional financing mechanisms available. This action is
for the refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds only and does
not include any new financing.
Actual approval of the sale of the Refunding Bonds would be
presented to the Redevelopment Agency in June 1994 assuming tax-
exempt interest rate levels are low enough and the successful
completion of a validation proceeding now in progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc. (Grigsby) be selected as the
primary Underwriter for this proposed financing with Donaldson,
Lufkin & Jenrette (Donaldson) as secondary; that Jones, Hall, Hill
and White be appointed as Bond Counsel and that Kelling, Northcross
& Nobriga, Inc. be appointed as Financial Advisor, for a contract
cost not to exceed $25,000 from Redevelopment Reserves and
appropriating funds thereof.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In contemplation of refinancing the above referenced bonds, the
Council adopted Resolution No. 1383 on December 28, 1993, thereby
authorizing the issuance of the proposed "Refunding Bonds" pursuant
to an Indenture of Trust in substantially the form then on file
with the city Clerk. This Resolution also directed that:
1/ - /
--..
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 05/03/94
1. A judicial validation proceeding be filed to correct an error
in the 1986 Ordinance which established the original debt
limitation on the merged Bayfront and Town Centre projects
(The Refunding Bonds may not be issued until the completion of
this judicial validation process which is estimated for mid-
June 1994.)
2. The Bonds be sold in such a manner as shall be approved by the
resolution of the Agency following the adoption of Resolution
No. 1383 and prior to the sale of the Bonds.
The Redevelopment Agency validation complaint was filed on February
23, 1994. The Agency is now focusing on options for structuring
the proposed Refunding Bonds in a manner that will provide the
greatest economic benefit to the city. Achieving this objective
will require presentation of the proposed transaction to the credit
markets (i.e., rating agencies, bond insurance companies, etc.) as
well as an exploration of certain "derivative" financing products
being utilized by an increasing number of municipal issuers and of
potential benefit to the City in this proposed transaction.
Grigsby is recommending the use of derivative products to enhance
the city's savings and their financing plan is comprised of using
an underlying fixed rate refunding and a fixed-to-floating interest
rate swap. This financing plan will collectively provide the City
with significant savings from the underlying refunding, a small
upfront payment from the swap, and the ability to achieve a low
variable rate cost of funds for an interim period. The fixed-to-
floating swap would reduce the City's borrowing cost on a non-
specific $20 million portion of the fixed rate refunding bonds and
provide the City with an upfront payment.
This upfront payment is not an additional borrowing amount.
Rather, the upfront payment represents a pre-payment of the savings
generated by the swap structure over the forward period (i.e., 1994
to 1997). The swap would not affect the structure of the
underlying bonds.
Grigsby offers a capacity to execute these derivative transactions
and are one of the few underwriters having this ability.
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette have compiled some initial work on
this refunding and are based in Los Angeles.
Typically under a negotiated fee arrangement, all or a portion of
the underwriters fee is negotiated toward the end of the financing
process, just prior to the Agency's approval of the sale of the
Bonds. Grigsby has agreed to an upfront fee of 1% which is very
beneficial to the city as most rates are from 1.3%-2%. Grigsby is
a California-based investment banking firm with experience in the
area of redevelopment bond financings, and can address the bond
sale and certain other disclosure issues associated with the
proposed Bonds.
1-.1
--- ,-
Page 3, Item 7
Meeting Date 05/03/94
Grigsby and Donaldson agreed to fee wholly contingent on the sale
of the Bonds and the realizing of economic savings by the city. If
ris~ng interest rates between now and June wipe out existing
saVl.ngs, Grigsby and Donaldson are paid nothing for the services
they provide in preparing the Bond financing for market.
Jones, Hall, Hill & White have done extensive work for the City of
Chula vista and also have had a background in derivative financing
and we need their expertise considering their background with the
City. Due to the timing of this issue and the upcoming transition
of the Finance Director, the need has arisen for the services of a
Financial Advisor to evaluate the complexities of derivative
financing. staff is recommending the hiring of Kelling,
Northcross, and Nobriga, Inc. as Financial Advisors for the issue.
KNN is highly experienced in redevelopment finance, presently
serving as financial advisor to redevelopment agencies throughout
California. They are also experienced in evaluating applications
for derivative products, having just completed such a project for
the City of Santa Ana.
Tonigh~'s action will allow the finance team to commence with
preparl.ng the Bonds for sale. working with the Underwriter and
Financial Advisor, staff will explore options for enhancing the
potential savings of this refinancing through the use of a standard
bond issue as well as an "interest rate swap". If use of such a
financial product proves to be beneficial to the City, a staff
recommendation would be made to the Agency at such time the sale of
the Bonds is brought back to the Agency for formal approval in June
1994. We are recommending waiving the consultant selection process
for these four contractors due to the need of extensive knowledge
in the use of these complex financial transactions. These
contractors have the necessary background and knowledge and there
is the urgent need to move forward with the validation process.
FISCAL IMPACT
As the Agency may know, interest rates have been very volatile over
the past two months and no assurance can be given that this
proposed refunding will maintain its economic attractiveness. If
interest rates stabilize there is a potential savings for the
Agency of $100,000 to $200,000 per year. If rates continue to rise,
the refunding would no longer produce economic savings and would
not go forward.
A transfer of $25,000 is recommended to be appropriated from
reserves to fund the Financial Advisor.
1-J
Page 4, Item 7
Meeting Date 05/03/94
Attachments: 1) Council memo dated December 23, 1993 regarding
refunding of Bayfront Bonds
2) Joint City council/Redevelopment Agency
statement dated 12/28/93
3) Ordinance No. 2585
4) Resolution No. 1383
1-'1
-
MEMORANDUM
December 23, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor/Chalfman and City Council/Agency ~s
VIA: John D. Goss, City Manager/Executive DirectorJo/ Þtt-
FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director (7 '
SUBJECT: Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency for the
Refunding of Bayfront Bonds -- December 28, 1993
The Mayor/Chairman has been requested to call a Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment
Agency Meeting before the end of this calendar year in order to authorize the refunding of
Bayfront Tax Allocation Bonds for the annual cash flow necessary to pay principal and interest.
There is currently inadequate tax increment to service the debt. Total debt will increase. The
refunding reduces annual cash flow requirements. This allows debt to be paid with less or no
City contributions. The necessity of ho1diru! this meetÍrn! before the end of the year is to
establish the authority to issue the bonds before the effective date of AB1290 which olaces
time limits on the Al!encv's ability to issue debt instruments and collect tax increments to
retire that debt.
This item was not brought to the Agency at its December 14, 1993 meeting because the analysis
from the potential bond underwriting consultant was not received early enough to complete this
item in time to include in the Agency Agenda Packet.
AB1290, adopted this year, becomes effective on January 1, 1994. This legislation establishes
new time limits for Redevelopment Plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 (which includes the
Bayfront) and periods in which indebtedness can be repaid and tax increment can be received.
The time limit for the repaying of debt is 10 years after termination of the Redevelopment Plan.
The Bayfront Redevelopment Plan currently terminates in the year 1999. Pursuant to AB1290,
the Agency will thus cease to receive tax increments from the Bayfront Project Area in order
to retire debt in the year 2009. Staff is currently proceeding to amend the Bayfront Plan as
authorized by the Redevelopment Agency at its meeting of November 16, 1993 (Resolution
1356). The amendment to the Plan should take effect towards the end of the next calendar year.
If the Al!encv waits until after Januarv 1. 1994 the Al!encv will be orohibited from issuinl!
lonl!-tenn indebtedness (debts that extend beyond the year 2009) until the amendment to the
Plan takes effect towards the end of next year and assuming the amendment is not successfully
challenged. There is no guarantee that interest rates toward the end of next year will be as
1'~
-
The Honorable Mayor/Chairman and
City Councill Agency Members
December 23, 1993
Page 2
favorable as they are now. Bv takiru!: the reQuested action before the end of this year the
Al!encv will have the ontion of issuirn!: refundinl! nrior to the effective date of the nronosed
amendment to the Plan. Al!encv debt authorized nrior to Januarv 1. 1994 will not be
restricted bv the tenn limitation for the renavment of debt and receint of tax increments
under ABI290 and will bonefullv take advantal!e of currently low interest rates.
The action which the Agency will take will not obligate the issuance of bonds, the feasibility and
advantage of which are the subject of further analysis to take place early next year. However,
the Agency will be keeping valuable options open.
[C: I WP51 IAGENCYIMEM OSIBA YFRON 6 .MEMJ
1-~
- -
JOINT CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 14., b
Meeûng Date 12/28/93
ITEM TITLE:
[A] COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2585 AMENDING ORDINANCE 2146
WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF
TAX INCREMENT REVENUES FROM THE BAYFRONT/
TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, AND
AUTHORIZING INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY HEREOF
[B] AGENCY RESOLUTION 1383 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS IN THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED
$37,500,OOORELA TING TO THE BA YFRONTITOWN CENTRE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING EXECUTION OF RELATED INDENTURE OF
TRUST, AND AUTHORIZING INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY THEREOF
SUBMITTED BY: Co=",ity V<Wopmo", D"- (?, ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager/Executive Director-..¥1 i;: -
4/Stbs Vote: Yes - No...x..)
BACKGROUND:
The Redevelopment Agency issued $7 million in Tax Allocation Bonds for the combined
BayfrontlTown Centre Redevelopment Project Areas in 1979. These bonds were refmanced in
1984 and again in 1986 decreasing the total principal amount and annual debt service.
Subsequent to that action, however, tax revenues accruing from the Bayfront Project Area have
been reduced due to the passage of the Unitary Tax, transfer of major equipment by Rohr, Inc.,
and reduction in State subventions. In addition, the delay in the development of the Midbayfront
has not provided additional anticipated revenues to date. Annual debt service on the bonds
exceeds revenues accruing from the Bayfront Project Area. The proposed refunding of the tax
increment bonds, taking advantage of currently low interest rates, should reduce annual debt
service and, consequently, reduce the Agency's annual operating deficit for the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Area.
The Bayfront Redevelopment Plan currently terminates in 1999. AB1290 was adopted this year
and becomes effective on January 1, 1994. This legislation establishes time limits on the
duration of redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 and the period in which
1- 7
-- ,.
-
Page 2, Item 1./4.., b
Meeting Date 12/28/93
indebtedness can be repaid from tax increments received. As of January 1, 1994, this legislation
will limit the Agency's right to receive tax increment to repay new Bayfront debt obligations to
2009 (10 years after termination of the Plan). Agency staff and consultants are planning to
amend the Redevelopment Plan next year in order to extend it to the limits allowable under
ABI290. This limit, in accordance with legislation, will allow the Agency to receive tax
increments and repay indebtedness to the year 2024. However, the proposed Plan amendment
will not be completed until the end of next year. If the Agency wishes to issue bonds prior to
the effective date of the amendment, the term will be limited to 2009. However, if the Agency
authorizes refunding of the bonds prior to January 1, 1994 the time limit imposed by AB1290
will not prohibit the issuance of long-term bonds prior to the effective date of amendment of the
Plan. Therefore, if the Agency authorizes the issuance before January 1, 1994, the term of the
bonds and the ability of the Agency to receive tax increments to repay the bonds can be extended
beyond the AB1290 date limitation of 2009.
In 1986 the City Council passed Ordinance 2146 as required by AB690 establishing debt and
term limitations for the Bayfront/Town Centre Project Areas. The Ordinance established a
limitation on total tax increment revenues in an aggregate amount of $50 million for the Bayfront
Project Area and $20 million for the Town Centre I Project Area. However, these figures were
intended to represent the principal amount of bonds which could be issued for each Project Area
and not the total aggregate amount of tax increment revenues which could be received by the
Agency. (Total debt service is generally two to three times the face amount of the bonds). The
amounts set forth in Ordinance 2146 are, in fact, not adequate to retire current debt obligations
for the Bayfront Project Area. The City Council is requested to amend Ordinance 2146 to
replace these figures with the correct limits for total tax increment revenues as originally
intended.
This item was not brought to the Agency at its December 14, 1993 meeting because the analysis
from the potential bond underwriting consultant was not received early enough to complete this
item in time to include in the Agency Agenda Packet.
RECOMMENDATION: That: [1] the City Council amend Ordinance 2146 and authorize
validation proceedings and, [2] the Redevelopment Agency authorize the issuance of bonds
refunding the 1979 Tax Allocation Bonds and authorize validation proceedings.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Debt service on the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds for the Bayfront Project Area currently exceeds
income from the Bayfront Project Area creating a yearly deficit. Further research by staff
indicates that refunding of these bonds at currently low interest rates may be feasible and may
reduce annual debt service.
The current deficit situation was caused by the loss of tax increment revenues in the Bayfront
Project Area resulting from the following actions:
,If-?-
Page 3, Item L/4.- b
Meeting Date 12/28/93
[1] Transfer of major equipment by Rohr, Inc., outside of the Project Area
reducing their personal property tax.
[2] Passage of the Unitary Tax which reduced property tax revenues from the
SDG&E Power Plant.
[3] Reduction in State subvention revenues.
[4] Delay in development of the Midbayfront Project.
AB129O adopted this year and effective on January 1, 1994 establishes new time limits for
Redevelopment Plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 for the duration of the Redevelopment
Plans and the period which indebtedness can be repaid and tax increment can be received. The
time limit for receipt of tax increment and repayment of debt is 10 years after termination of the
Redevelopment Plan.
The Bayfront Redevelopment Plan currently terminates in 1999. Under AB1290, subject to
specified exceptions, the Agency will cease to receive tax increment from the Bayfront Project
Area in the year 2009. When the Bayfront Plan is amended next year, the duration of the Plan
may be extended to 40 years from the original adoption date (1974 to Year 2014) and the right
to receive tax increment and repay indebtedness would be extended an additional 10 years to
Year 2024. This Redevelopment Plan Amendment is expected to be submitted by staff toward
the end of next year.
If the Agency does not authorize refunding prior to January 1, 1994 the indebtedness limitation
under AB 1290 (2009) will make refunding infeasible prior to the 6ffective date of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan amendment. However, if the Agency authorizes the refunding before
January 1, 1994, the time limits .imposed by ABI29O will not prohibit the issuance of longer-
term bonds prior to the amendment of the Plan, nor will they limit the ability of the Agency to
receive tax increments to retire the bonds. The advantage of this is that the term of the bonds
can go up to 30 years and the Agency can take advantage of currently favorable interest rates.
Authorizing issuance of bonds prior to the end of the calendar year will also protect the Agency
in the event that the proposed Plan amendment is successfully challenged.
On April 15, 1986 the City adopted Ordinance 2146 which limited the amount of tax increments
the Agency may receive from the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project Areas, limited
the time for establishing loans, advances, and indebtedness to fmance said Project Areas, and
limited the time for commencing eminent domain proceedings. Under the limitation of total tax
increment revenues however, the sum of $50 million for the Bayfront Project Area and $20
million for the Town Centre I Project Area were erroneously listed as the aggregate amount of
tax revenues which could be received by the Agency. These numbers, in fact, reflect the total
principal amount of debt which could be issued for these Project Areas. At the time the Agency
took this action, the Agency was in the process of approving the issuance of $38.6 million in
Tax Allocation Bonds. The retirement of the principal and interest on this debt alone exceeds
the $50 million limit. The City Council is requested to amend Ordinance 2146 to reflect the
original intent and provide that the Agency may receive tax increments in an amount necessary
7-1
Page 4, Item -
Meeting Date 12/28/93
to retire up to $50 million and $20 million of debt, respectively, and authorize the collection and
division of adequate aggregate tax revenues necessary to retire that debt limit.
Finally, the Agency is requested to authorize validation of the bond refunding and action taken
with regard to the revision of Ordinance 2146 in order to establish validity and protect the
Agency against further legal action.
Approval of the resolution authorizing the sale of the bonds and revision of the Ordinance does
not obligate the Agency to any further actions to issue bonds. Staff, bond counsel, and
consultants will analyze the feasibility of refunding to substantially reduce the Agency's debt
obligations and report back to the Agency early next year. The Agency will receive, review,
and approve all bond documents before further actions may take place. The resolution includes
approval of the Indenture of Trust, dated February I, 1994, which is on me and available for
review in the Office of the City Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purpose of the refunding is to reduce the Agency's annual debt service obligations for the
Bayfront Tax Allocation Bonds. The extent of the reduction is subject to further analysis and
research and will be reported back to the Agency early next year.
[C :IWP51 IAGENCYlRA4SIBA YFRON6.RA4]
I-
., -10
ORDINANCE NO. 2585
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING ORDINANcE NO. 2146 WITH RESPEcT TO LIMITATIONS
ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX INcREMENT REVENUES FROM THE
BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, AND
AUTHORIZING INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY HEREOF
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula vista (the
"city") has heretofore enacted Ordinance No. 1541 on July 16, 1974,
approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Redevelopment
Project and Ordinance No. 1691 on July 28, 1976 approving the
Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project,
respectively (jointly the "Redevelopment Plans" and individually
the "Bayfront Plan" and "Town centre Plan"), pursuant the
California community Redevelopment Law (the "Law") consisting of
Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety code of the State of
california, and the Project Areas described in each of the
Redevelopment Plans (the "Project Areas") have been merged pursuant
to Ordinance No. 1872 enacted by the city council on July 17,1979;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant tò section 33333.4 of the Law, the city
council has previously adopted its Ordinance No. 2146 on April 22,
1986 which (among other things) contains a limitation on the
aggregate amount of tax increment revenues which may be divided and
allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plans; and,
WHEREAS, said Ordinance No. 2146 did not properly express the
intention of the City council as it existed at that time in
establishing said limitation, and the City Council wishes at this
time to amend said Ordinance No. 2146 to give effect to such
original intention;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
section 1. Findings and Determinations. The city council
hereby finds and determines that the limitation contained in
section 1 of Ordinance No. 2146 did not properly express the
original intention of the city council in establishing said
limitation, and that the amendment of said Ordinance No. 2146
pursuant to this Ordinance is appropriate to clarify the original
intention of the city Council. In making such finding and
determination, the City Council has considered, among other things,
the fact that concurrent with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2146
the city council approved the issuance and sale by the
Redevelopment Agency of the city of chula Vista of its tax
allocation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $38,655,000,
the aggregate amount of principal of and interest on which exceed
the limitations set forth in Ordinance No. 2146.
section 2. Amendment of Ordinance No. 2146. Section 1 of
Ordinance No. 2146 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
7-11
-~..
..
ORDINANCE 2585
follows:
"The aggregate amount of Tax Revenues which may be
divided and allocated to the Agency pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Redevelopmen.t Project
shall be limited to the amount which would be required in any
fiscal year to pay the principal, interest, issue and
underwriting charges coming due in such fiscal year on loans,
advances or indebtedness issued by the Agency in the
aggregate principal amount of Fifty Million Dollars
($50,000,000). the total ~ual amount of which principal and
interest is $ ß..I (J ~ ~. The aggregate amount of Tax
Revenues which maý be divided and allocated to the Agency
pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for the 'Town Centre
Redevelopment Project shall be limited to the amount which
would be required in any fiscal year to pay the principal and
interest coming due in such fiscal year on loans, advances or
indebtedness issued by the Agency in the aggregate principal
amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000). the total
actual amount of which rinci al and interest is
tf17""(> For purposes of calculation, it shall be
assumed hat the loans, advances or indebtedness of the
Agency bear interest at the maximum rate permitted by law,
that principal and interest come due and payable in
approximately equal annual installments, and that the loans,
advances or indebtedness mature over a period of thirty (30)
years from the date of their issuance (such issuance to occur
within the time limit set forth in section 2)Y. The Agency
shall be entitled to receive Tax Revenues in any fiscal year
in the full amount calculated under this section 1 even
though such amount may exceed the amount actually required to
pay principal of and interest on outstanding loans, advances
or indebtedness of the Agency in such fiscal year. Taxes
shall not be divided and shall not be allocated to the Agency
in excess of the limitations established in this section 1."
section 3. Institution of Judicial Validation Proceedings.
The validity of this Ordinance is hereby authorized to be
determined under and pursuant to the provisions of sections 860 et
~ of the Code of civil Procedure of the State of California. In
order to determine the validity of this Ordinance and the
amendments made hereby, the City Council hereby authorizes the law
firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White, a Professional Law Corporation,
in concert with the City Attorney, and such other attorney as City
Attorney shall employ (authority for which is hereby granted and
the expenditures for which are hereby appropriated from the
proceeds of the sale of said bonds) to prepare and cause to be
filed and prosecuted to completion all proceedings required for the
1. For the benefit of Council, this section 2 refers to Section
2 of Ordinance No. 2146 which established, as the time limit on
the establishing of debt on the Bayfront Plan as July 15, 1999,
and on the Town Centre Project as July 28, 2001.
7-/~
- ..
ORDINANCE 2585
judicial validation of the bonds in the Superior Court of San Diego
County, under and pursuant to said provisions.
section 4. urgency. This ordinance affects public safety,
health, and welfare of the City of Chula vista and its ighabitants
and therefore shall take full force and effect as provided in
section 5 below. The facts establishing this urgency are that the
discrepency between the Council's intent in adopting Ordinance No.
2146 and the actual articulation of Ordinance No. 2146 could pose
a limitation on the ability of the City Council to adopt a
resolution of intent to issue bonds for the purpose of refunding
preexisting indebtedness (1986 Bayfront Tax Allocation Bonds).
Furthermore, the clarification may be needed immediately (a) in
order to take advantage of the current lower interest rates and
lower debt service costs that are expected to be available on the
refunding issue; (b) in order to take advantage of the "grandfather
clause" set forth in Section 33333.6 of the Health and Safety Code
which exempts bonded indebtedness approved prior to January 1,1994
from otherwise limitations on the ability of the Agency to receive
tax increment; and (c) the monetary savings that are expected to
result are, due to the reduced tax increment proceeds generated to
the Agency from the Project Areas, are needed to avert a possible
declaration of default on the 1986 Bayfront Tax Allocation Bond.
section 5. Nunc Pro Tunc Effective Date. Based on the
finding that this Ordinance is a mere expression of the Council's
original intent in enacting Ordinance No. 2146, this Ordinance
shall, either
(1) upon the final reading and adoption hereof as an urgency
ordinance, or
(2) on the 31st day after the final reading and adoption
hereof if four votes are not cast herefor, or if a court
should determine that there is insufficient basis for
adoption of this ordinance on an urgency basis,
relate back to the date of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2146 as an
expression of the Council's original intent in adopting said
Ordinance, and shall take effect, nunc pro tunc, from and after the
effective date of the passage and adoption of Ordinance No. 2146,
adopted April 22, 1986 ("Nunc Pro Tunc Effective Date"). In the
event that a Court of competent jurisdiction should determine that
the Nunc Pro Tun Effective Date is invalid, this Ordinance shall
take effect as of the appropriate date set forth in subparagraph
(1) or (2) hereof.
Presented by
-~ç~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
07~ tt'~
L~an christopher
7 - 1...3
Thís ,age íntentíonaIly left blank.
7-/~
-
RESOLUTION 1383
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $37,500,000
RELATING TO THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF RELATED INDENTURE
OF TRUST, AND AUTHORIZING INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and
authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part I of Division 24 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Redevelopment Law"), including the powers to
issue bonds for any of its corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, Redevelopment Plans for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project and the Town
Centre Redevelopment Project, in the City of Chula Vista, California, (collectively, the "Redevelopment
Project") have been adopted and the Project Areas defined therein have been merged, all in compliance
with all requirements of the Redevelopment Law; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has heretofore issued its Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project 1979 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of
$7,150,000 (the "1979 Bonds") pursuant to Resolution No, 206 adopted September 18, 1979 and its
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project 1984
Tax Allocation Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $25,000,000 (the" 1984 Notes ") pursuant to
Resolution No. 480 adopted February 2, 1984, as amended on June 21, 1984, to assist the financing of
the Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds of the 1984 Notes has been applied to advance refund
the 1979 Bonds, thereby discharging such Resolution No, 206, and in addition the Agency has previously
issued its $38,655,000 aggregate principal amount of Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chu1a Vista
Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds (the" 1986 Bonds ") pursuant
to the Redevelopment Law for the purpose of providing funds to advance refund the 1984 Notes and to
provide additional financing for the Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Agency wishes at this time to authorize the issuance of its Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project 1984 Tax Allocation
Bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of advance refunding a portion of the 1986 Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, determined, and ordered by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds; Approval of Indenture. The Agency hereby authorizes the
issuance of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $37,500,000 for the purpose
of providing moneys to advance refund a portion of the 1986 Bonds and to provide additional financing
for the Redevelopment Project. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust dated as of
February 1, 1994, by and between the Agency and First Interstate Bank of California as trustee (the
"Indenture"), in substantially the form on file with the Secretary, together with such additions thereto and
changes therein as the Executive Director shall deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, and the
execution thereof by the Chairman shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions and
7-~
' ¡.
RESOLUTION 1383
changes. The Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to attest and affix the seal of the Agency to, the final form of the Indenture for
and in the name and on behalf of the Agency. The Agency hereby authorizes the delivery and
performance of the Indenture.
Section 2. Sales of Bonds. The Bonds sha1l be sold in such manner as sha1l be approved by
resolution of the Agency adopted following the adoption of this Resolution and prior to the sale thereof.
In connection with the sale of the Bonds, the Agency sha1l cause to be prepared an Official Statement
describing the Bonds, which Official Statement sha1l not be distributed until the form thereof sha1l have
been approved by resolution of the Agency in accordance with Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Section 3. Interpretation of this Resolution. It is the intention of the Agency in adopting
this Resolution that the issuance of the Bonds shall be fully authorized by the Agency with the effect set
forth in Section 33333.6(h) of the Redevelopment Law, as such Section has been enacted pursuant to
Assembly Bill 1290, known as the Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993. The sale of
the Bonds shall be subject to compliance with all procedures required by law, provided that any action
taken by the Agency to comply with such procedures shall not constitute a new or an additional
authorization of the issuance of the Bonds.
Section 4. Institution of Judicial Validation Proceedings. In order to determine the validity
of the Bonds, the Agency hereby authorizes the law firm of Jones Hall Hill & White, A Professional Law
Corporation, in concert with the Agency Attorney, to prepare and cause to be filed and prosecuted to
completion all proceedings required for the judicial validation of the bond in the Superior Court of San
Diego County, under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 86O!à ~ of the Code of Civil Procedure
of the State of California.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution sha1l take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PRESENTED BY:
~~
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
./ ø- .~'
(, --<" /lktl ¡¡¿,
LybchristoPher
Agency Treasurer
[C: I WP51 IAGENCYIRESOSIBA YFRON 6.RES I
7-/~
ITEM 7
RESOLUTION
The City Attorney had questions on this
item and will provide the Resolution to
the Agency on Tuesday evening.
'7-/1-
Thís 'page íntentíonaIly left blank.
/1, 1 F~
Revised Item 7
RESOL1JTION NO. 1400
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
APPOINTMENT OF BOND UNDERWRITER, BOND
COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE PROPOSED
NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 FOR
ADVANCE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 TAX ALLOCATION
BONDS ISSUED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE BAYFRONT/TOWN
CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND WAIVING THE
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AND APPROPRIA-
TING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Executive Director is directed to negotiate, subject to subsequent Agency
Board approval, the borrowing of funds by negotiating an agreement with Grigsby, Brandford
& Co., Inc. and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette for the issuance of tax allocation bonds in an
amount not to exceed $30,000,000 for the purpose of advance refunding the Agency's 1986 Tax
Allocation Bonds, but on terms not inconsistent with a provision that the underwriter's discount
from the par value of the bonds shall not exceed 1 % . As part of said negotiations, the City
Manager may, in his discretion, propose for Agency approval, an interest rate exchange
agreement by which the Agency may agree from time to time to make payments to GBDP, LP.
the interest rate exchange agreement provider and an affiliate of Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc.
based on a variable or fixed interest rate applied to a notional amount (as City Manager in his
judgment determines appropriate) in exchange for payments to be made to the Agency by GBDP,
LP.based on a fixed or variable interest rate applied to a notional amount.
Section 2. Jones, Hall, Hill & White is hereby designated and retained pursuant to our
pre-existing agreement with them for bond counsel services, as bond counsel to the Agency in
connection with the issuance of such bonds, and in connection therewith, shall receive
compensation only at the time of sale, if it should occur.
Section 3. The Agency does hereby approve the retention of Kelling, Northcross, &
Nobriga, Inc. pursuant the City's standard form consulting agreement modified with such
specific terms and conditions as shall be acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney, but
bfrbondl. wp Reso Appointing Underwriter, Counsel, Financial Consultant
May 3, 1994 Page 1
for an amount which shall not exceed $25,000; and upon the preparation of same, the Mayor
is authorized to execute same.
Section 4. The Agency hereby finds that the services required of the prospective
underwriter and, as applicable, interest rate exchange agreement provider, bond counsel and
financial advisor are highly specialized and that trust and confidence in such advisors and
purchasers are a key component in the selection of same. Agency hereby waives the competitive
bidding process for the services of an underwriter and interest rate exchange agreement provider,
bond counsel and financial advisor. '
Section 5. This resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption hereof.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution;
shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting which the same is passed
and adopted.
Presented by: J¿
Susan Merrill
Interim Finance Administrator
bfrbondl. wp
bfrbondl. wp Reso Appointing Underwriter, Counsel, Financial Consultant
May 3, 1994 Page 2
AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8
Meeting Date 05/03/94
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RED EVELOPMENT
AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1993-94 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THE~OR ~
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~\i~
t-, (4/5ths Vote: Yes ~ No ~
BACKGROUND:
The FY 1993-94 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget
approval process. In fact, the Community Development Department's budget, which
encompasses the City's redevelopment activities, has been approved as part of the regular City
budget approval process. Since the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, however,
it is necessary to also approve the budget separately as a Redevelopment Agency item which
allocates the already approved Community Development Department and Capital Improvement
Program budgets to each project area as required by California Community Redevelopment Law.
The formal Agency adoption of the budget had been delayed in order to determine the full
impact of the State budget resolutions, and to complete the evaluation of the staffing needs for
the Economic Development function in the Community Development Department as directed by
the City Council during and subsequent to the budget review process. Attached as Exhibit A
is the Economic Development staffing report. Additionally, when the budget was ready for
presentation to the Agency, staff was directed to provide the Agency Board with a report (which
is to include a 10 year projection of Agency revenues and expenditures) analyzing the Agency
financial condition and thte likelihood of emerging from the current deficit spending situation
This report is attached as Exhibit B.
The agenda statement outlines the appropriations necessary for current year Agency operations
as well as the portions of the City's Capital Improvement Program that require new funds from
the Redevelopment Agency. This budget also includes an addition of $274,722 over the amount
reviewed previously by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: That Agency continue the item to the meeting of May 17, 1994.
?-I
T1ü5 yltße b1teJttíOnally left ~1mk.
«'r
-.-.-. ..
I