HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/05/25
Tuesday, May 25, 1993
6:00 p.m.
.., declare under penalty of perjury th~t I 81ft
employed by the City of Ch,,;a Vis~a in the
Office of the Ci'::/ Clc(;':nd that I:ss oj
this Agend31!No';Jf::d ~{l;J tJuHef", :.:k;::/~2 2t
the Public rvi es Build;n,! and at City Hlll'.on
DATED, SiGNED
Re lar Me 'n 0 e Ci of Chu
Council Chambers
~ublic Services Building
CALI. TO ORDER
1.
ROlL CALI.:
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton ~ Moore ~ Rindone ~ and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUfES:
April 27, 1993 (Special Joint Meeting of the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency), May 4, 1993 (Special Joint
Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), May 11,
1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council) and May 11, 1993
(Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. City Manager John Goss will present an overview of the proposed Fiscal Year 1993-94
Budget.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 10)
The stoff reamrnrendations regarding the foUowing items listed wuJer the Consent CoJendm will be enDJ:ted by the
CoundI by one motion wiIhout discussion unless a COUJU:iImember, a member of the pub/U; Of" City stoff requests
thoJ the iron be pulled fOf" discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, p1eose fiH out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Cornplek the green form
to speak in favOf" of the stoff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the stoff
recommendoti.on.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission
RecomrnoulatiDns and Action Items. Items puUed by the pub/U; will be the fint items of business.
5. WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting installation of a sound signal for pedestrians at the intersection of 'Third
Avenue and "E" Street - Mildred Hook, Chairman, Visually Impaired Group, Fredericka
Manor, 183 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be
referred to staff and the Safety Commission.
b. Letter questioning usage of sewer funds for various City projects - Joseph W. Garcia, 484
Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff.
c. Letter of resignation from the International Friendship Commission - Maria Capetanakis,
770 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted
and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's
Office and the Public Library.
Agenda
-2-
May 25, 1993
6. ORDINANCE 2556 AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE 2546 ADOPTING CAIJPORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION'S JANUARY 15, 1993 ACTIONS ON THE CITY'S
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITfAL NUMBER EIGHT AND
ACCEPTING AND INCORPORATING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPE<JF1C
PLAN (second readinl! and adoption) - On 1/15/93, the California Coastal
Commission adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) Number Eight for
development of the Midbayfront with modifications that were acceptable
to City staff and consultants. Council adopted and authorized the
California Coastal Commission actions on 3/16/93. However, one Coastal
Commission modification to the Specific Plan was not included. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
(Director of Community Development)
7. RESOLUTION 17117 JOINING WITH OTIiER COUNlY AGENCIES IN OPPOSING THE
REDUCTION IN PROPER1Y TAX REVENUES FOR CITY AND COUNlY
GOVERNMENTS AND URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO SEEK
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING - Opposing shift of $2.6 billion in
properry tax revenue away from local governments. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Administration) Continued from the meeting
of 5/18/93.
8. RESOLUTION 17126 APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) POllCY - Council directed
staff to develop a policy to allow employees to voluntarily reduce their
work week with a corresponding reduction in pay. The policy
accomplishes that and has been approved during a formal meet-and-confer
process by the Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Police Officers
Association (POA) , and Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and an
informal process with Executive Managers, Middle Managers, and
Unrepresented Employees. International Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF)
elected to deal with the VTO Policy during negotiations for Fiscal Year
1993-94 and, therefore, are not included in the policy at the present time.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel)
9.A. RESOLUTION 17127 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94
SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE MAJNfENANCE
DISTRICTS 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, BAY BOULEVARD AND
TOWN CENfRE, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 13,1993 AND JULY 20, 1993 AT 6:00
PM. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBllC HEARINGS - On
3/2/93, Council directed staff to prepare and me reports of assessments for
all existing City Open Space Maintenance Districts. The resolutions
approve the reports and sets the dates for public hearings to consider the
spreading of assessments. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation)
B. RESOLUTION 17128 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94
SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CI1Y OPEN SPACE MAINrENANCE
DISTRICT TEN, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 13, 1993 AND JULY20, 1993 AT 6:00
P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBUC HEARINGS
Agenda
10.
REPORT
-3-
May 25,1993
PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE RELATED TO USTING OF CAIJPORNIA
GNATCATCHER AS A THREATENED SPECIES BY THE U.S. FISH AND
WlLDUFE SERVICE - On 3/25/93, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) announced that the California Gnatcatcher had been listed as a
threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act. On
3/30/93, the USFWS published a proposed special rule which would allow
regulation of incidental take of gnatcatcher habitat as well as long-term
habitat management planning to occur through the State's Natural
Community Conservation Program (NCCP). The proposed special rule was
released for a 60-day public review period which ends on 6/1/93. Staff
recommends that the City take a position in opposition to any changes to
the special rule which would mandate the use of the Clean Water Program
Multiple Species Conservation Plan or other subregional planning programs
other than the NCCP as a basis for compliance with the special rule.
(Director of Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as pub/U; hemin&< as required by law. lfyou wish to speak
to any item, p1eose fiH out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favOf" of the stoff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the stoff recommendoti.on.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuoL
11.
PUBUC HEARING
12.
PUBUC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO REDEVELOP SERVICE
STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE
AVENUE - The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission in
January 1992 and consequently appealed by Council in response to
concerns with traffic impacts and an over-concentration of alcohol sales
facilities. Consideration of the appeal has been postponed to coincide with
reconsideration of the alcohol sales issue. Continued from the meeting of
5/4/93. Staff recommends the public hearinl/ be continued to 6/1/93.
(Director of Planning)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-10; APPEAL OF ZONING
ADMINlSTRATOR APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO SElL ALCOHOUC
BEVERAGES AT PROPOSED MINl-MARKET AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE
IN C-N ZONE - In January 1992, the Zoning Administrator conditionally
approved a request to sell beer and wine at the proposed Texaco mini-hmarket at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the CoN zone. The request was
proposed under the City's recently adopted Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
procedure for alcohol sales in the CoN zone. The decision has been
appealed and has been scheduled to coincide with the appeal of the CUP
for the mini-market/car wash. Continued from the meeting of 5/4/93.
Staff recommends the public hearinl/ be continued to 6/1/93. {Director of
Planning)
Agenda
-4-
May 25,1993
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity fOf" the general pub/U; to address the City Council 011 any subject nuJIIeT within the Council's
jurisdiction thoJ is not an iron on this agenda. (Stole law, /wwever, generaIIy prohibits the City Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council 011 such a
subject, p1eose complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communiatlions Form. available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those wlw wish to speak, p1eose give your nmne and address
fOf" record purposes and follow up action. Your time is IimiIed to three min.uUs per speoku.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City CoundI will consider items which have been fOf"Warded to them fOf" consideration by one
of the City's Boords, Commissions and/Of" Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to e1U:it substantiol discussions and deliberations by the
Council, stoff, Of" members of the general publU:. The items will be considered individua/ly by the CoundI and stoff
reamrnrendations may in certain cases be presented in the altenuJtive. Those wlw wish to speak, p1eose fiH out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Pub/u;
comments are IimiIed to five minutes.
13. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNlY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNlY ESTABUSHING AN
JNfERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMITTING FlFIY PER CENT OF
THE CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNlY - On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93,
Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste
Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting
to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration)
REPORT
UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOUD WASTE ISSUES
14. RESOLUTION 17093 TRANSFERRING$2,5000FUNUSEDCOMMUNlTYDEVELOPMENTBLOCK
GRANT (COBG) FUNDS FROM VARIOUS SUB-GRANTEES TO THE
LUIHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF CAUFORNIA FOR THE "THURSDAYS
MEAL" PROGRAM - In July 1991, Lutheran Social Services and the South
Bay Ecumenical Council started a weekly meal program for homeless
people. The "Thursday's Meal" program currently serves 200 people, half
of whom are children. The committee overseeing the program has recently
expanded to serve meals on Mondays at the Presbyterian Church. Lutheran
Social Services has sent Council a letter requesting $2,500 to cover the cost
of utilities, maintenance, and insurance. It is a one-time request and
immediately needed due to the rapid growth of the program. Unused
CDBG social services funds are available from various sub-grantees. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development) 4/5th's vote required. Continued from the meeting of
5/11/93.
Agenda
-5-
May 25, 1993
15.
REPORT
REQUEST BY SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
TO SHARE IN THE COST OF TREATING TIJUANA SEWAGE - There is an
item on the agenda for the San Diego Area Wastewater Management Board
of Directors (SDAWMD) meeting of 5128/93 to approve sharing the costs
of treating Tijuana sewage between all the participating agencies if the
Federal government does not pay their share. Staff recommends
acceptance of the report. (Director of Public Works)
.... The City Council will meet as a Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency to discuss the following:
16.A. COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 17130 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE PRICE COMPANY - The
proposed MOU provides for assistance in improving the traffic access to the
Price Club Shopping Center off of Palomar Street. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development)
B. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1328 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH
THE CITY AND THE PRICE COMPANY
**** The Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting will adjourn to the regular City Council
meeting.
ITEMS PUllED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the publU will be consU/ered prior to tlwse pulled by CoundJmembers. Pub/u;
cornmen/s are limited to five mUwtes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointments: Ignacio Valdovinos - Aging Commission; and Marie Miekls -
Child Care Commission.
19. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilwoman Horton
a. ACA 25 (Woodrum: State ColleS?:e/Universitv FundinS?: Guarantees.
Legislative Committee Recommendation: OPPOSE. Continued from the meeting of
5/18/93.
Agenda
-6-
May 25,1993
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego,
Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. Continued from Ihe meeting of
5/18193.
Instruction to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Bayfront
negotiations. Continued from the meeting of 5/18193.
Instruction to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chu\a Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) ,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 5/18193.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Worksession/Meeting on Wednesday,
May 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, thence to a Regular Worksession/Meeting on
Thursday, May 27, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room and thence to the Regular City
Council Meeting on June 1, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
May 20, 1993
TO:
The Honorab 1 e Mayor and City Counc i 1 F n
John D. Goss, City Manager J{,. ~a~1
City Council Meeting of May 25, 1993
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, May 25, 1993. Comments regarding the Written Communications
are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from Mrs. Mildred Hook, Chairman of the Visually Impaired
Group at Fredericka Manor requesting a sound signal for pedestrians at
Third Avenue and E Street. Sound signals for the visually impaired were
installed at Third Avenue and F Street in 1990 at a cost of approximately
$4,500 plus labor. This appears to be a pedestrian safety issue.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE FORWARDED TO THE SAFETY
COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
5b. This is a letter from Joseph Garcia of the People's Lobby questionin9
usage of sewer funds for various City projects. Due to the complexity of
the questions raised in Mr. Garcia's letter, and the need for further
analysis by the City Attorney and Public Works, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
THIS LETTER BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR EVALUATION AND REPORT BACK TO
COUNCIL.
5c. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MARIA CAPETANAKlS' RESIGNATION FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY
CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST THE VACANCY IMMEDIATELY IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
AND THE LIBRARY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MADDY ACT.
JDG:mab
~
~
___________ , . 111_ _ "-------____.__._. _~
FREDERICKA
MANOR
n!L2 ~
-.....
~-< ::u
00 ~ J"I1
,...., 0
m(")
::::t:1-,- - IT!
-~~c.: co <
;-
(. ,
31 J"I1
,"';-- N 0
.:..' 0
-~. _-J
,., 0\
May 11, 1993
Mr. Tim Nader,
Mayor's Office,
276, Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista,
CA 91910
Dear Sir,
We are representing the residents of Fredericka Manor Retirement Community in Chula
Vista. It will be no surprise when we tell you that some of us are visually impaired whiJe
others use canes and walkers. Many of our residents feel that there is a great need for a
sound signal for pedestrians at the intersection of Third Avenue and E Street. One aJready
exists at the intersection of Third Avenue and F Street. Residents of Fredericka Manor, in
order to go anywhere to shop in Chula Vista, must cross the intersection at Third Avenue
and E Street. When there is a sound signal drivers are rnore aware that pedestrians have
the right to cross and for senior citizens this is an added measure of security.
There are over 350 senior citizens currently residing at Fredericka Manor. We would all be
most grateful if you and your City Council would give our request your earnest
consideration. We hope to have an early, favourable response.
Yours faithfully,
-..1:jd....ltJ.t-
J~~
Mildred Heck,
Chairman,
Visually Impaired Group,
Fredericka Manor
Vi':
-l
SEE ALSO A TIACHED SHEET
c~
.@:~M
~ ?'. NON-PROFITRETlREMENTCO~~~EALTHCAREFAClUTY
183 Third Avenue / Chula Vista, California 91910 / (619) 422-9271
RESIDENTS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR A SOUND SIGNAL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD AVENUE AND E STREET
NAME
v~ ~ /)-
I1lt1/ (fuzdi</' hU=;au7tf'~{C"L.
tJ~l'~:~) ~~"rl
~L;J~I-'1/~
~IUt/ ,;f ~
-GI'~~ m,t~
(:(' ('..~~ O-L ,. L t L (C-\/I-v-\" ~---t,,,---LP C( C ~-:;..--~_
111 ~ V t: "-~~
f~{/ 1.(Lr~ --,
:d4euJf~
qt; .
\..-. ' I
1/1 'c
/ r,"7 _.(."- J~'~'Z .f 1///, J,:':' I t L
'~fr. ~1W-61 "
J, (, I ll'J/\., v.h- ,I.<.+-'-" e-'0~
l....--h;.r;L/ h.', '
'O~~J!~ryj-13 J/-, -' - "~ ~,(/ ~~~)
I I' L~ ~__v,,"/.J.
t/ vI J :~-~, Y<-,,)
~ .c:~' .ci/lrz-~
i1{~~ vJ Ua-ft..-----
;g~~ ~
'.-12 7 -
"y~J"/' ( LA~"~
, tfzm~~J~~
C(4~ ,~~- ~.;02
TELEPHONE
./
<-7 -
~--~--~
~c"~
~
t.'
'-~
.' , 7 I/)" ,_
j'... '~
~-
~
f~
RESIDENTS SUPPORTING lHE REQUEST FOR A SOUND SIGNAL
AT lHE INTERSECTION OF lHIRD AVENUE AND E STREET
NAME TELEPHONE
,t~ I( ~p~Ah fA IV
7~~Jcf(}~"d (/!/a "PG~
d~-<UL~/(,f~ ~~)
~c'.~r~-t~)
~_~,I]~ (i:/~
!7~- ~
~ ~~~:^~cr " #\
i:y . V ./)/ aj>v-e~k~vJ-L ~. CL e.~ )
. .e,>yc' L. /(]. -' L
1'-1
%~~Je;U<~
l~7,~w(~dy~J
hA~ ~i-tQ4/tV;r /
, 5Lk' -t ..
r ~!:t:v~~CJC<::;;~ <
Jt~/% d:6L
J) fl.. /J. A . _..e~-1/L/
~/4'r'~ I ~L/L
}J.vruAfU~~ .J~/--4-
JA~ V.d;Juv ~A...<-<LG<V (, C",-",-,,)
',,~wv~
,} :Ji;:k
~'-V><L"-~ .71 ~
JtrCf~' .
A 7' t j!-7 Lk.. 1i.-nJ-ITI"l
u)ValA..~a,k:-, 0: ..-..
~ ~\-~UJ<-~:;.3 ~
RESIDENTS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR A SOUND SIGNAL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD AVENUE AND E STREET
NAME
-'-..u~~.. . cd.. ~,
CJ (Ii
/l.t~>l./0c ~,.~
/,' 1
/::1~~'l;rl/~L IfCi YL-<;L-,
, rei;.? ti 11;. ,f~A(~r'2/
'~;'ZNL<C''-- IJ;, {-l~ u:iAZ1 M--;1/
/I:!-If(~
Op.<>- )9. ,:,-+'''c_<-'A-.
/1f q:;;,<</t1L~J1( ~
~Vl/)f-:- . /;
(/1-/ /! tT1.j-{:/V\./'V'VL./1.../L--<::.
!~7 ~ l'-tv
';t)~ f;.~'
-;~:, ,;. )J/' I-rC1Uf/PLe;(..c/U
,/ Cc-'VC.'vC.1-C-"--
,ii4bw d( f>> J1/) 17
.(J) /. . 7;11 j) tu,C-Lc-Z
()/J(.6'/~-<A . " "
./c t; e. ,;j. j)al\,~~e
/1LO- \.. &;7 j
') n-6. -
~ v}J k, l (</'1 I-
a.JZ~ q L 1 ",,-) l~y
~/7 /7~
77,' - // /. I ! -
"z--- --/? - -" . vi d
<7c2/lA{C<"'J- r -"".- +
z'cx","",,~ '2.,11""-' ~"i
CdA-yZ-f.-I , ..;..>b.'-.
---"
TELEPHONE
........
'---'---
,
7~ C~/
RESIDENTS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR A SOUND SIGNAL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD AVENUE AND E STREET
NAME
~~ Ltvu--V~~~
;)1;, /:}6 ,0/
' 'E;(~
/crc: ~ f0~j /
1~ 1.3. h,.~
(\ ~ 5'-Jj~)
JJ/C<r<-~k"::~/~~
JC\~~ .,C~~~~
~J'~ f!~
., ~. "r; akt?t.A!,~:--
/ /(I"?U~ (/
-" () .)/. J J j)
4 /v4h~r . \&lfi~
\ ~.-\----
\gj &t,;lfYV~v\G.-~\~ ,,;'-~\
, /)\ ~
/z[,~ . u . .
(~.J) ~~~,a'/ek \
?J~ In ,Jk4-~1 / '.
<) ~ q /<! ~t/t.j eAtl
'"---YU:'o "'-' . -- jV<.~
._~ a 1j~~/
. : ;)// c~~~
/:---1z..,,1'iJ;~ .
f~ .) (/ J ~j
l5 cYVJ\A./IU- III ( V1AJ
'1(1 . 7\ I l pJ1/\-i j
rI~ tJv-V/Ay 'f+-V'"J '~
~~/~"
TELEPHONE
.-
RESIDENTS SUPPORTING mE REQUEST FOR A SOUND SIGNAL
AT 1HE INTERSECTION OF 1HIRD A VENUE AND E STREET
NAME
TELEPHONE
1/ )/I.~
/'/ U/}/l-i/'h 7 q \;1 ~"v/V)/l-ev
17J"i _ / IJ.' c;;;-
L~ ~/{..A
~-
J2rI~
tk-<?-> 5 ~1
~~~~~~
VJt)vc:d, .~~~
~~l~. ... r
( v // ^ 'vhctvj;;r'i!-~~
~~a~/Jl, ~
'A -4 OA . ......J/)---"
~ 7--hVUuvr
~,'~
-\-\ ~ w C.s::..,>- r
d~~~
~vv-:, \- '\.r.SYt q(
~L-n-~ /3~.
, r f-"
5~/~
L"':ff~i{1"n' '~>i,.".y'"""c;:,~...u. """ ""
Ill" '" lid ....1'" cO Af.\ :': '1; :\
,)
.b.t
DEDICATED TO GOVERNMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
a~
~/L'
6~
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
12 May 1993
COPIES TO:CITY COUNCIL
NEWS MEDIA & TAXPAYERS
Mr. Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Mr. Boogaard:
This letter is in reference to City Council proceedings of
May 11, current, conducted at City Hall.
The issues I wish to address and ask your legal opinion,
are in reference to the ESRI, (Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc.), contractual agreement and
procedure by the City Council, in awarding said contract,
the bidding procedures employed by the City Staff in
arriving at a designated contractor, the use of Sewer
Funds for funding city operations, not totally related to
Sewer Tax collections, and the designation on the City of
Chula vista Council Meetings Agenda, Council Item/Issues
procedures and placement for enactment and discussion
under the Consent Calendar and Items/Issues removed from
the Consent Calendar for later discussion.
We, the Taxpayers of this Community, have been led to
believe that the increases in Sewer Taxes, collected by
the Sweetwater Authority and forwarded to the City
h Treasurer, have been necessary because of the sewer rate
p;b~q? increases and contributions to the City of San Diego Waste
/'- jI~ Management District. These taxes, we have been told, are
computed on a flow rate basis of millions of gallons per
day, plus an annual fee, to the San Diego Metropolitan
[c. . Sewer District. Sewer Taxation, we are led to believe,
r ({i for direct sewer related costs.
f/7PBut) this is not so. Chula Vista City Staff
,- ~ Administration, on February 9, 1993, adopted Resolution
, i 16984, on the Council Agenda' s Consent Calendar, and
~ the City of Chula Vista, awarding the contract to ATEL,
Inc.
The City Council authorized a "Loan from the Sewer Fund", ",
in the amount of $50,000.00, to be paid back to the Sewer L' L /
Fund, in a period of five-years and a loan interest rate ~l7'
of six percent, from Public Facility Development Impact
cont'd (2)
Fees.
QUESTION? What Statutory Authority does the City Council
have, to collect and/or tax the people of this Community,
Chula Vista, under the aegis of a Specific Tax Levy, and
then begin a program of continual borrowinq, from that
Specific Fund, for other City Expenditures, not related to
the collection of that Specific Tax?
The Sewer Tax collected from the residents of Chula Vista,
is obviously greater than is necessary for Sewer Services,
or you would not be BORROWING from that Fund with the
provisions of restoring the monies, with Interest.
The Sewer Tax
raise revenue
Sewer costs.
is
for
being collected
City Operations,
under SUBTERFUGE,
not related to
to
the
There is currently, in the Sewer Tax Account, Ci ty of
Chula Vista Finance Department, approximately, Eight
Million, six hundred and eighty seven thousand, seven
hundred and seventy six dollars, ($8,687,776.00), as of
March 1 st, 1993., according to the Director of Finance,
Mr. Lyman Christofer.
In last nights action before the City Council, May 11,
current, the City Council appropriated monies for an
agreement with, ESRI, Inc., for a GIS System, in the
amount of an initial, $283,544.36. In accordance with
the query by Mayor Nader and Councilman Moore, City
Manager Mr. John Goss stated that Fifty-Six Percent (56%)
of the appropriation would be from the Sewer Fund and
would be a directly related expense factor, attributable
solely to sewer mapping.
However, you are in effect taking $624,133.00, from the
Sewer Fund for the Initial Funding of the GIS System, for
the first year, Fiscal 1992-1993. Since you do not have
first year Development Impact Fees, you are borrowing
from the Special Sewer Fund 221 for non-existent DIF,
thus making the total from the Sewer Fund, $1,622,103.00
and/or 67.5 Percent, and not 56 Percent, and you are back
dating these appropriated funds for fiscal year 1992,from
this current date.
SEWER FUND TAXES AGAINST THE RESIDENTS OF CHULA VISTA,
ARE UNJUSTIFIABLY HIGH, AND ARE BEING USED AS A BANK UPON
WHICH TO FLOAT LOANS FOR OTHER CITY OPERATION EXPENSES.
I question, Mr. Boogaard, the right of the City Council,
to unduly penalize and impose tax duties, under the guise
of SEWER TAXATION, on the Citizens of this Community, for
the purpose of creating a BANK.
5b~.2
cont'd (3)
Another Item in the GIS Agreement with ESRI, Inc., is
that the bids shown, appear to be for a basic start-
up kit, with the ESRI bid residing at $295,731.00, but
will entail an amount for completion of $2,400,501.00.
Since the City is committed to the initial costs with
this company, subsequent expenditures are carte blanche
for ESRI, since they at this point have control of the
program, and in addition, under the agreement, they
maintain ownership to the software, manuals and related
documentation, and must be returned to them if the City
or the Contractor (ESRI), terminate the agreement as per
Article 11 of said agreement, notwithstanding the hazards
to the City of Article 25.
I firmly believe that the City Staff have not protected
the city too well in these negotiations. We are paying a
significant amount.
There are some matters that need to be answered and the
City Council is not disposed to permitting the Taxpayer,
enough time on the floor to ask too many questions. This
issue will have to be addressed. City Administration is
handling close to a Hundred Million Yearly Budget, and a
Taxpayer, in many instances, are gaveled down after five
minutes. The Taxpayer is providing the Tax Dollars, and
have very limited say so. This can't possibly be right,
and must change for the betterment of this community.
Section 310 of the Cities Charter gives the Citizens of
this Community, the right to participate, without being
restricted or gaveled down, merely because the Council
does not want to listen to criticism or inquiries into
it's decision making.
I wish to point out to you, and I enclose an article that
appeared some time back in the news media, on the very
successful and innovative way, that the City of National
City is employing to map their Sewer System. The Sewer
Department is doing the actual work, and look at the
cost, $40,000.00, plus VCR tapes. No fancy programs,
complicated software, or consultants.
The City of Chula Vista could simply invest in the same
system, profit from the experience of National City, and
reduce very significantly, the cost of the GIS program.
Would the City of Chula Vista be interested, or would it
be too frugal a program for our City Staff and Council?
Let me touch, Mr. Boogaard, on the Voice Messaging System
I mentioned earlier in this communique. Mr. Goss, City
Manager, stated at that meeting, that it would be very
useful for backup, in case of emergency. Entirely not
so. Voice messaging is used for message forwarding and b
voice mail, or to connect to a given department through a
systems directory:>,. I do not believe that it would be 5: "3
successful for emergencies. Try calling the City of
Pomona, and then get ready to 'forget it'.
cont'd (4)
My conclusions, Mr. Boogaard, on the GIS System, is that
it is complicated, it encompasses many facets of
operation, is very costly, and the Taxpayers of this
Community were not given sufficient time to study and
digest, it's contents in order to address inquiries
regarding it's need, at this time of economic stagnation
in this country, and this county. Passed on two
successive Tuesdays, is not enough time.
The City Council has taken to removing Items from the
Consent Calendar, and moving those Items for discussion,
to the very last, on the Council Agenda Program.
THEY THUS, SUCCEED, IN DISCUSSING COUNCIL MATTERS, CITY
CODE AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS, AT TWO 0' CLOCK IN THE
MORNING, WHEN ALL THE TAXPAYERS ARE ASLEEP, AND THERE ARE
NO PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MR. BOOGAARD, THIS IS MALFEASANCE BEHAVIOR. THE CITY
COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT, TO USE SUREPTITIOUS
MEANS, TO ACCOMPLISH IT'S ENDS, AND DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF
REASONABLE NOTICE BEFORE THEIR PUBLIC FORUM, OF
PARTICIPATING AND/OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME DURING THE
DAY OR EVENING, OF LISTENING EITHER IN PERSON OR EARLY
RE-BROADCAST ON PUBLIC CHANNEL 24, ON WEDNESDAY NIGHTS.IT
SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN THE WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING, WHEN
IT IS UNCOMMONLY UNREASONABLE TO DO SO, AND PASS
LEGISLATION IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT, UNNOTICED.
THE PLACE FOR DISCUSSING ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, IS BEFORE THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS ENACTED. AN
ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR SHOULD TAKE
PRECEDENCE, OVER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, BECAUSE THE
PARLIAMENTARY ACTION IS OF THE MOMENT, AND IT SHOULD NOT
BE PROPER TO ASSIGN IT AS THE LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR
THE DAY.
Pulling important items from the consent calendar for
late discussion, looks more like a SCAM procedure and
should be invalid, as not being NOTICED, reasonably, to
the people. I will ask that you address this matter for
the meeting of May 18th, current.
I will conclude at this time. My objection to the use of
sewer funds for other than their intended purpose, may
intensify through legal process.
SEWER TAXATION SHOULD BE REDUCED, AND THE SURPLUS SHOULD
BE RETURNED TO THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. THE
SEWER TAX IS TOO HIGH AND CANNOT BUT CAUSE HARDSHIP FOR
MANY PEOPLE WITH LIMITED FIXED INCOMES.
,
Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca 91910
420-2535 Fax 1 (619) 427-7553
5j;,Lj
RECEIVED
'93 MY 18 P2:28
770 Lori Lane
Chula Vista, CA 91910
February 28, 1993
CITY OF CHULA'i) \ A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Nancy Taboada
Chairperson
478 Oak Place
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Mrs Taboada:
Under the present circumstances, I must resign my position as a member of the
International Friendship Commission as of May 1, 1993. This June I'm leaving for
Greece and plan to stay there the entire summer. Hopefully, in September I will be
attending a four year university out of San Diego. Therefore, I will not be able to
volunteer for the city.
Sincerely,
~~~
Maria Capetanakis
Cc"
o:i1' H (L/)
. 'If!:- ...... It> "r' '';il'l':::'' ^'
7 / 'fi~ lid' II r;;i"
COA\ltiUJNICJ1i,'fl \j~:i
/~ ~/<)~)
VU c '-Y00/ 2s
~,/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
b
ITEM TITLE:
Item
Meeting Date
~~ . 0
ORDINANCE .; >..:> ~ Amending Exhibit..!> of Ordinance
Number 2546 of the City of Chula Vista ac!~\'t.l1ifornia Coastal
Commission's January 15, 1993 Actions R~~ePt'ity of Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program Resubmittal Nu~ lilid accepting and incorporating
modifications to the Speci~~
S't-CO
SUBMITTED BY:
Community Development Director
(" c,
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ,_ I~ j,
J"J
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No_XJ
BACKGROUND:
On January 15, 1993 the California Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Number 8 for development of the Midbayfront with modifications that were acceptable to City
staff and consultants. The City Council adopted and authorized the California Coastal
Commission actions on March 16, 1993 (Ordinance 2546). However, one Coastal Commission
modification to the Specific PJan was not included in total in the Council's March 16 actions.
Therefore, the Council is requested to approve an amendment to Ordinance 2546 incorporating
the omission.
RECOMME]'I,1)A TION: That the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending Ordinance 2546,
that section of one modification to the Specific Plan was omitted as indicated below.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMME]'I,1)A TION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The City's Local Coastal Program Amendment No.8, comprising the Land Use Plan and
Specific Plan, was submitted to the Coastal Commission in December 1992, following City
Council action authorizing the submittal. A public hearing was scheduled before the California
Coastal Commission in mid-January 1993.
Coastal Commission staff reviewed the City's submittal and proposed 12 modifications to the
Land Use Plan and 14 corresponding modifications to the Specific Plan. The proposed
amendments dealt with issues concerning the following:
o
o
o
o
Height of buildings,
Phasing of development,
Location of the Cultural Arts Center,
Development Agreement,
1--1-
7-i 1." I
,
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 05/11/93
?
o Permitted Land Uses,
o Landscaping Requirements,
o Shared Parking and Parking for the Nature Interpretive Center, Parks, and
o Provision of a Habitat Restoration Management Plan and Biological Resources
Management Plan (both will require LCP Amendments).
Following negotiations between City and Coastal Commission staff concerning Coastal
Commission staff's recommendations, agreements were reached on most of the items which were
acceptable to City staff and consultants. However, Coastal Commission staff still required major
reduction in height of buildings and relocation of the Cultural Arts Center to the east of Marina
Parkway.
At the public hearing on January IS, 1993 the California Coastal Commission approved LCP
No. 8 as submitted by the City of Chula Vista including the proposed heights of buildings and
location of the Cultural Arts Center west of Marina Parkway. They also approved the
modifications to other items which were negotiated and acceptable to both Coastal Commission
staff and City staff and consultants. The modifications to the Land Use Plan and Specific Plan
as approved by the California Coastal Commission were submitted to the Agency and Council,
respectively, for adoption on March 16, 1993. However, in Section 5, Environmental
Management Program, a minor portion of the text was inadvertently omitted as indicated below.
5. Environmental Management Program. The following new Section "F" shall be
included in the Specific Plan as follows: [Chapter VI. Environmental
Management Program; F. Additional Diking, Dredging or Filling of Wetland
Areas, page VI-I2l (N~WJ~X(jt:aJj9~~4l!hg~ljQWQ!~W~,)
Diking, dredging or filling of wetland areas consistent with the provisions of this
environmental management plan shall be limited to the specific projects
incorporated into this plan for the creation of new or enhanced wetlands areas;
!,#y."I{#i>t...f##4~9((j{.p#~@n"i:l(f!!~#;...i:~ijpiJ#fr~lft.J]iJjlr~$iljj4'~finii$tfi4Y,
Mitigation for all disturbance of weiland areas shall be provIded attiieraiion of
4: 1 of new wetland areas created to areas disturbed. No other diking, dredging
or filling of wetlands or other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be
permitted without prior Coastal Commission approval through the Local Coastal
Program amendment process.
The section in the first sentence which is highlighted was omitted. The remainder of the section
was adopted as part of Ordinance 2546 on March 16, 1993. The City Council is requested to
adopt this Ordinance to amend Ordinance 2546 to include the complete sentence at the request
of Coastal Commission staff.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Midbayfront project as proposed will provide total development
approximating $0.5 billion. This development will provide substantial property tax increments,
gz
7';' 6- :z...
Page 3, Item 7
Meeting Date 05/11193
sales tax, and transient occupancy tax to the City and Redevelopment Agency. The amount of
revenue to be provided by this project has been estimated by Williams-Kuebelbeck and
Associates, Inc., the Agency's economic consultant, at approximately $84.4 million in Net
Present Value over the life of the project. This figure does not include any Agency or City
financial contributions to subsidize this project.
In addition, the project will provide a variety of job opportunities both during construction and
after completion.
[CIWP51ICOUNCILlI13SICCC-MOD2.113]
J-3
7.3 6-3
TInS PAGE BlANK
-{>-f
? ~J
- ,
6-i
ORDINANCE .2.>5(,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING EXHIBIT
A OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2546 OF THE CITY OF _~~\VISTA
ADOPTING CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'~rtt1ARY 15, 1993
ACTIONS ON THE CITY OF CHULA VIST AJ-~~ COASTAL PROGRAM
RESUBMIITAL NUMBER 8 AND ~Pffi.lG AND INCORPORATING
MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPEC~'1>LAN
WHEREAS, the City staff and consultants prepared Local Coastal Program
Resubmittal Number 8, comprising the Land Use Plan and Specific Plan, for submittal to the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("Council") and California Coastal Commission for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Ordinance Number 2532 on October 27, 1993
Adopting, on Conditions, the Bayfront Specific Plan, recertifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report on the Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal Number 8 Amendment
and Addendum thereto, Re-adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Specific PJan; and
WHEREAS, the J;,ocal Coastal Program Resubmittal Number 8 was subsequently
submitted to the California Coastal Commission ("Coastal Commission") for review, public
hearing, and action; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 1993 the Coastal Commission reviewed Local
Coastal Program Resubmittal Number 8, held the public hearing, and approved Local Coastal
Program Resubmittal Number 8 with minor modifications thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 1993 the Council adopted Ordinance 2546 amending
Ordinance 2532 by adopting California Coastal Commission's January 15, 1993 actions on Local
Coastal Program Resubmittal Number 8 and accepted and incorporated modifications to the
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there was an omission to the Coastal
Commission Modification #5, Environmental Management Program, (Exhibit A to Ordinance
2546) which added Section "F" to Chapter VI of the Specific Plan which can be corrected by
a minor modification to Ordinance 2546; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of minor modifications does not create the potential for
significant environmental impacts, and a California Environmental Quality Act exemption will
be filed upon the City's acceptance of modifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA does hereby ordain that City of Chula Vista Ordinance Number 2546 is hereby
-
.- G- t""
ORDINANCE 2XXX
Page 2
amended by incorporating into the Bayfront Specific Plan thereby adopted the proposed
modifications to Exhibit A thereto as described in Attachment 1 hereto, as through fully
incorporated herein.
Submitted by
Approved by
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
C,IWP51ICOUNCILIRESOSICCC-MOD2.0RD]
-
.
~-b
ORDINANCE 2XXX
Page 3
Attachment 1
Amendment to Attachment A of Ordinance 2546 of the City of Chula Vista
Adopting California Coastal Commission's January 15, 1993 Actions on the
City of Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program Resubmittal Number 8 and
Accepting and Incorporating Modifications to the Specific Plan
TEXT
5. Environmental Management Program. The following new Section "F" shall be included, as
follows: [Chapter VI. Environmental Management Program: F. Additional Diking. Dredging
or Fillinl1 of Wetland Areas. pal1e VI-12]
Diking, dredging or filling of wetland areas consistent with the provisions of this environmental
management plan shall be limited to the specific projects incorporated into this plan for the
creation of new or enhanced wetfands areas, fffy11Ji'ipi;l#~it!##!dlRy~!!~'l4~i!!iif~irfflqi;liiVf
rneasuresaruJ nature study. Mitigation for all disturbance of wetland areas shall be provided
at the ration of 4: I of new wetland areas created to ares disturbed. No other diking, dredging
or filling of wetlands or other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be permitted
without prior Coastal Commission approval through the Local Coastal Program amendment
process.
the text contained thU$, In Halics, was erroneously omitted by City
staff in transcribing Coastal Commission actions of January 15,
1993 and is required to be included in Ordinance 2546.
~
? 7
-
/
(;-7
TInS PAGE BU\NK
..e~
()
7-8'"
6-8
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date OS/25/93
7
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution: /7//7 Joining with Other County Agencies in
Opposing the Reduction in Property Tax Revenues for City and
County Governments and Urging the State Legislature to Seek
Alternative Methods of Funding
Assistant City Manager~l
/'"Z
City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
At a "Local Government Revolt" meeting held on May 19, 1993 to develop a unified
strategy in the County to defeat the State's proposal to shift property tax
revenues, over 60 public agencies (includin9 cities, the County, school districts
and special districts) agreed to approve a Declaration of Unity, which has been
incorporated into the resolution before you. This resolution may meet the need
of taking the position suggested by S.E.I.U. at the May 18, 1993 City Council
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION:
At the May 18, 1993 City Council meeting, Council was requested by the S.E.l.U.
Service Council to approve a resolution opposing a State budget proposal to shift
$2.6 billion of property tax revenue away from local governments. Staff was
directed to reword the proposed resolution to clearly state the City's intent
that opposition to revenue shift would not be adverse to schools receiving their
much-needed funding as well. On May 19, 1993, the County of San Diego, led by
Supervisor Diane Jacob, coordinated a countywide effort to unite County
governmental agencies in opposition to the tax shift. Distributed for adoption
by governing boards was a "Declaration of Unity" expressing much of the same
sentiments as intended in the S.E.I.U. proposal, which has been incorporated into
the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N.A.
envconf
7- / / 7-t.
RESOLUTION NO.
17/ J 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA JOINING WITH OTHER COUNTY
AGENCIES OPPOSING THE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY
TAX REVENUES FOR CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
AND URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO SEEK
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING
WHEREAS, San Diego County is the second most populous
county in the State of California; and
WHEREAS, within the San Diego County region there are 18
cities, 46 school districts and 122 independent special districts
who provide services to over 2.5 million people; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has,
since 1978, continually enacted laws that require the expenditure
of funds by local governments, but has not provided adequate
revenues to fully off-set the cost of these additional mandates;
and
WHEREAS, the State of California in 1992 "ripped-off"
$1.3 billion, depriving local government of the money needed to
provide services to protect the public safety, health and welfare
of the citizens of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the confiscatory shift of property taxes from
counties, cities and special districts in 1992 was no more than a
ploy for the State of California to shirk its constitutional
responsibilities for the adequate financing of public education,
placing the burden on the backs of counties, cities and special
districts; and
WHEREAS, the State's proposed budget for the 1993-94
fiscal year proposes to confiscate an additional $2.6 billion in
funds which now go to local government; and
WHEREAS, this $2.6 billion property tax shift represents
$34 million of local property taxes to the County of San Diego, $38
million to the 18 cities in San Diego County and $18 million to the
special districts in San Diego County, which have historically been
used to provide law enforcement and other essential local services;
and
WHEREAS, such an unfair taking of property taxes would
result in a substantial loss of control over the types and levels
of services which can be provided to San Diego County taxpayers;
and
1
/,3
WHEREAS, it is important to keep local revenues at the
local level to fund these local services; and
WHEREAS, local governments cannot have revenue stolen
from them without devastating and unacceptable reductions in police
and sheriff's protection, jails, courts, fire protection, paramedic
services, libraries, health care and essential services to the
families and children in our communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula vista that cities, schools, special districts and the
county join together in a Declaration of unity for the purpose of
reversing the tide of the erosion of local public services and
authority of locally elected representatives to govern their
jurisdictions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula vista that cities, schools, special districts and the County
of San Diego oppose the shift of $2.6 billion in property taxes
proposed for fiscal year 1993-94, the shifting of any local tax
resources to other agencies, and the shifting of program
responsibilities from the State to local government.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City council that cities,
schools, special districts and the County call upon the Governor
and the Legislature of the State of California to immediately
establish fundamental reform to include the following principles:
Mandate Relief: Grant local authority to eliminate State
mandates identified by the local jurisdictions as "low or no"
priority and grant local authority to determine the "level of
service" for mandates without adequate funding. Such authority
could be granted if a finding is made by a local agency that a
fiscal emergency exists and to protect the public safety, health
and welfare of its people, this authority it necessary.
Realiqnment of Functions and Revenues: Realign functions
between state, county and city governments to assure that services
are provided at the most logical and economical level of government
and realign revenue sources so that the levels of government
providing the services receive an adequate level of funding.
Stabilization of Revenue Sources: Stabilize revenue
sources for cities, counties, schools and special districts by
identifying and ultimately locking into the State Constitution a
guaranteed stable and predictable source of revenue.
Equitable Distribution of Revenues: Distribute revenues
in a fair and equitable manner within each local government
jurisdiction.
2
?-'f
Home Rule - Flexibilitv in service Deliverv: Establish
the ability of locally elected Boards of Supervisors, City
councils, special District Boards of Directors and School Boards to
institute home rule charters that establish flexibility for the
agency to carry out its service delivery based on outcome-based
measures.
Presented by
Bruce M. Boog
city Attorne
John D. Goss
city Manager
(F:\Home\Attomey\Proptaxl.Rev)
3
7..5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM ut
MEETING DATE May 25. 1993
SUBMITTED BY:
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION 17/';1, Approving the Voluntary Time Off (VTO) Policy
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL(~
r
CITY MANAGER..JC1 Dta ~l
(4/5th Vote: Yes__ NO~)
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council directed staff to develop a pol icy to allow employees to
voluntarily reduce their work week with a corresponding reduction in pay. The
attached policy accomplishes that and has been approved during a formal meet-and-
confer process by CVEA, POA, and WCE; and an informal process with Executive
Managers, Middle Managers, and Unrepresented Employees. IAFF elected to deal
with the Voluntary Time Off Policy during negotiations for FY93/94 and therefore
are not included in the policy at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the Resolution approving the Voluntary Time Off (VTO) Policy
for the aforementioned groups.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
At Council's direction, and with the support of several bargaining units, staff
began exploring the possibility of implementing a Voluntary Time Off Policy with
corresponding reduction in pay and no reduction in benefits. Accordingly, the
attached policy was developed for permanent and permanent part-time employees,
allowing them the option of taking the equivalent of up to one day off per pay
period without pay, for any reason, subject to approval of their department head.
As mentioned, credit toward sick leave, vacation, and retirement will not be
affected nor will VTO detract from service for step advancement, completion of
probation, and seniority for purposes of layoff. However VTO shall not apply
toward accumulated hours for overtime.
The primary advantage of this policy for employees is that they now have an
addi t i ona 1 form of 1 eave to take for any personal reason. From the City's
perspective, the policy will be easy to administer because VTO leave will be
handled in the same manner as vacation in that it will require prior notice to
the department, and take into consideration scheduling and staffing issues. Most
i nportant ly, the City wi 11 real i ze salary savi ngs when an employee is not
working. It is difficult to predict the amount of financial savings to the City
~/I
until we have some experience with the program; however, the City and County of
San Diego have both experienced substantial savings as their Voluntary Time Off
programs progress. (The City of San Diego saved approximately $1 million from
9/92 to 4/93; the County, approximately $4.8 million in a 1 year period; the City
of Escondido has just instituted a VTO program). Initial indications are that
employees in non-safety positions will take advantage of this policy, however,
employees in safety positions (because of staffing and overtime issues) probably
wi 11 not. Nonetheless, POA has signed the pol icy in hopes that some of its
represented employees will be able to take advantage.
As mentioned above, IAFF has declined to sign the policy at this time, stating
that they wanted to deal with it in the same manner that they are dealing with
other issues-at the bargaining table. We are hopeful that they will eventually
sign the policy and thereby make it applicable to all City employees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is expected that the City will recognize financial savings from the Voluntary
Time Off Policy. However, until we have some experience it is impossible to
predict that amount.
WP:Al13~VTO
~.,. .2..
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHULA VISfA
SUBJEcr: VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) POIJCY
POllCY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. XXXXX
600-01 OS/25/93 1 OF 1
I DATED: OS/25/93
DEFINITION
Employees in permanent and permanent part-time positions may elect to take up to the equivalent of 1 work
day off per pay period without pay for personal reasons, subject to staffing needs, * and with the orior
approval of their Department Head. FSLA - Covered employees may take VTO in increments of 1 hour, and
FLSA - Exempt employees (Executives and Middle Managers) must take VTO in full day increments.
Credit toward sick leave, vacation and retirement will not be affected.
VTO shall apply toward time in service for step advancement, completion of probation and seniority for
purposes of layoff.
VTO shall not apply toward accumulated hours for overtime.
VTO shall be granted without requiring employees to first use accumulated vacation, sick leave and
compensatory time off.
The City retains the right to revoke or modify this policy and any VTO granted hereunder at anytime.
* Employees who normally work an 8 hour workday may take a maximum of 8 hours; 9 hours for a 9 hour
regular workday and 10 hours for a 10 hour workday, Fire Suppression personnel may take up to 24 hours in
a 24 day duty cycle.
Sue Brown
C.V.E.A.
Billy Cox
P.O.A.
Eugenia Franco
W.C.E.
Don Schofield
IAF.F.
~'3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) POLICY
Employees in permanent and permanent part-time positions may elect to take up to the equivalent of
1 work day off per pay period without pay for personal reasons, subject to staffing needs,* and with
the prior approval of their Department Head. VTO may be taken in increments of 1 hour.
Credit toward sick leave, vacation and retirement will not be affected.
VTO shall apply toward time in service for step advancement, completion of probation and seniority
for purposes of layoff.
VTO shall not apply toward accumulated hours for overtime.
VTO shall be granted without requiring employees to first use accumulated vacation, sick leave and
compensatory time off.
The City retains the right to revoke or modify this policy and any VTO granted hereunder at anytime.
* Employees who normally work an 8 hour workday may take a maximum of 8 hours; 9 hours for a
9 hour regular workday and 10 hours for a 10 hour workday, Fire Suppression personnel may take up
to 24 hours in a 24 day duty cycle.
/"
/:j;t>-UrJt
-
/"
~. /. /.,
. / /-/
.< '-4--'.., (A--;tfCi-'/.h~ <>
! Eugenia Franco
W.C.E.
)tl(
Sue Brown
C.V.E.A.
8"'/
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/0<(,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY TIME OFF
(VTO) POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to develop a
policy to allow employees to voluntarily reduce their work week
with a corresponding reduction in pay; and
WHEREAS, the attached policy accomplishes that and has
been approved during a formal meet-and-confer process by CVEA, FOA,
and WCE; and an informal process with Executive Managers, Middle
Managers, and Unrepresented Employees; and
WHEREAS, IAFF elected to deal with the Voluntary Time Off
Policy during negotiations for FY93/94 and therefore are not
included in the policy at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby adopt the Voluntary Time Off
(VTO) Policy for the aforementioned groups, as set forth in Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by refere e as if set
forth in full.
candy Boshell, Director of
Personnel
~ty Attorney
Presented by
F; \home\attomey\vto.pol
r
~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 5/25/93
9
ITEM TITLE:
a.
Resolution / ? 1;< 7 Approving the Engineer's reports for
the FY 1993-94 spread of assessrnents for City Open Space
Maintenance Districts 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, Bay
Boulevard and Town Centre, declaring the intention to levy and
collect assessments and setting July 13 and 20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
as the dates and time for the public hearings
Resolution /7/:J.. r Approving the Engineer's report for
the FY 1993-94 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance District No. 10, declaring the intention to levy and
collect assessments and setting July 13 and 20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
as the dates and time for the public hearings
Director of Public Works ~ rl
Director of Parks and Recreati~
City Manager,j~ Y-><6 ~~\
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
b.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On March 2, 1993, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 17028 and 17029 directing the City
Engineer to prepare and file reports of assessments for all existing City Open Space Maintenance
Districts. These reports have been prepared and the above resolution approves them and sets the
dates for public hearings to consider the spreading of assessments.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt !he resolutions approving the Reports, direct the
City Clerk to publish the Resolutions of Intention pursuant to Government Code 6063 and set
the dates of the public hearings for July 13 and 20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: NoI applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter I, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways
Code, also known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the annual reports for all existing Open
Space Maintenance Districts in the City.
These reports were prepared by the City Engineer or under his direction and are presented to
Council for approval in order to proceed with the public hearings set for July 13 and 20, in
accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The reports cover the following
districts:
9-/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/25/93
9
1. Open Space District Nos. I through 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, and 26
2. Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
3. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping Districts.
The Parks and Recreation Department conducted an informal meeting for all property owners
within each district in April and the Public Works Department will conduct informal meetings
in June. At the April meeting, staff explained the proposed budget. A summary of the June
meetings will be provided in the Council Report associated with the July public hearings.
Assessrnents
The proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1993-94 are as follows:
TABLE 1
...... 'I ri
$42.56 $87.28 105% $69,433
28.92 32.44 ., 12% 8,077
331.10 327.94 <') -1% 41,648
183.64 197.08 <') 7% 41,387
226.58 224.22 <') -1% 27,354
128.00 128.00 <'I 0 20,736
72.12 87.60 <'I 21% 9,110
408.00 430.94 <'I 6% 47,403
93.62 92.88 '" -1% 35,667
83.46 25.96 " -70% 16,366
75.18 120.00 59% 158,524
323.20 319.94 <') -1% 279,426
220.54 234.24 <') 6% 13,352
146.36 ') 124.74 -15% 5,738
282.48 303.34 \'1 7% 117,562
246.28 203.72 -17% 438,812
680.26 486.00 <') -29% 19.440
N/A 359.00 I"~ N/A 6,821
1,031.60 '" 1,000.80 "^'. -3% 10,008
40.94 '" 43.58 \'^" 6% 43,579
(1)Per benefit unit
(2)Reserve is at 10%
(3) Assessments are based on preliminary budgets
(4)Reserve exceeds 50%
9-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 5/25/93
9
Open Space Districts 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20 (SPA I residential), 24 and Bay Boulevard
assessments are decreasing from last year. This is due to one or more of the following:
1. There were minor budget decreases mostly because of adjustments to staff services.
2. There were unanticipated savings experienced during May and June of 1991 due to
water allocation programs in response to the drought. Consequently, the FY 91/92
assessments did not reflect the savings. However, a portion of these savings were
reflected in FY 92/93 assessments and a portion are also reflected in the FY 93/94
assessments. Not all savings were passed on to the property owners in a single year's
assessment in an effort to flatten peaks and valleys. This is consistent with Municipal
Code, Section 17.07.030 which allows accrual of a reserve up to 100% of the budget.
In addition to the above, Districts 10, 17, 20, and 24 had other unanticipated savings during
FY 92/93 as outlined below:
1. Open Space District No. 10's assessment for FY 93/94 is substantially lower
than FY 92/93 assessment. This is mostly due to assessing the property owners
in previous years for new maintenance associated with the Ladera Villas
Subdivision and the turnover not occurring at the time anticipated. In addition,
the actual cost was less than that estimated by the developer and used to
determine the prior assessments. A portion of these savings are reflected in the
proposed assessment.
2. Open Space District No. l7's decrease is due in part to a decrease in the budget
item for City staff services (-4%) and a corresponding decrease in the reserve
(-2%). The balance of the decrease is due to savings from prior fiscal years
which are being used to lower the assessments.
3. Rancho Del Rey Open Space District No. 20's base assessrnent for FY 93/94 is
substantially lower than FY 92/93 assessment because of assessing property
owners an entire year for new maintenance associated with "Phase 5"
improvements and the turnover not occurring at the time anticipated.
4. Canyon Views' (District 24) assessment is proposed at $486 per home compared
to last year's assessment of $680 per home. The decrease is due to assessing
the homeowners for FY 92/93 in anticipation of the slopes being ready for
turnover in January of this year. However, the slopes have not been accepted
yet and it is not anticipated to occur until next fiscal year. Staff recommends
that only part of the savings beyond that needed for the 50% reserve
requirement be used to lower the assessments for FY 93/94. The balance of the
savings will be kept in the account to lower future assessments.
Staff is also investigating alternatives to reduce this District's cost in response
to Council direction. However, staff anticipates that any changes will not be
resolved in time for this year's assessment.
9".3
Page 4, Item.l.
Meeting Date 5/25/93
Open Space Districts, 1,2,4,7,8,11,15,18, and Town Center assessments are increasing this
year due to the one or more of the following:
I. Budgets were increased mostly because of an increase in utilities. Specifically, the
water service fee has increased.
2. Savings, due to the May/June 1991 water savings, were used in part to lower the 92/93
assessments and are not being used to lower to 93/94 assessments.
Districts 1 and 11 have additional increases due to new open space areas being turned over to
the District for maintenance:
a. District 1 includes an additional 6 acres of open space dedicated by the
Woodcrest Southwestern Subdivision.
b. District 11 includes an additional 4 acres of open space dedicated by the Brehm
and Woodcrest Terra Nova Subdivisions.
Typically, new improvement costs are added to the district at the same time the new
property owners are assessed. However, in both these districts, the homes were
assessed prior to turnover of the maintenance of new improvements. Effectively then,
the assessments in prior years were lower than anticipated.
4. Although Open Space District No. 7' s budget is decreasing, the assessments are
increasing. This is due to using prior years' savings, in part, to lower the assessments
for FY 92/93. Savings are also lowering the proposed assessments for FY 93/94.
Without the savings, the assessment would be $104/home instead of $87.60/home as
proposed for this coming fiscal year. Both FY 92/93 and FY 93/94 assessments are less
than the assessments levied during FY 90/91 and FY 91/92.
Additional information is provided in the attached Engineer's Report.
Notice
The public hearings will be noticed pursuant to Government Code 6063 which requires that
notice be published at least once a week for three weeks 10 days before the second public
hearing.
Also pursuant to Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, property owners subject to an
increased assessment shall be notified of the two hearings by mail 45 days in advance of the
second public hearing. However, staff will be notifying all property owners.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The City recovers their costs from the Open Space District Assessments.
DDS:OSOOl
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\883.93
9" '-I
ENGINEER'S REPORT
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
for
OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
NOS. 1 THROUGH 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,20,24,26
BAY BOULEVARD LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICT AND
TOWN CENTER LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICT.
FISCAL YEAR 1993-1994 (RENEWAL)
Prepared by: Engineering Division
Department of Public Works
City of Chula vista
,....
9~
ENGINEER'S REPORT
OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
NOS. 1 THROUGH 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26
BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTER
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as
directed by the city Council.
DATED:
\vi 1'-'( Ie,
, 1993
By
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed E neer's Report, together with
Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with
me on the day of , 1993.
City Clerk, City of Chu1a vista
San Diego County, California
By
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with
Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved
and confirmed by the city Council of the city of Chula Vista,
california, on the day of , 1993.
Resolution No.
City Clerk, City of Chu1a Vista,
San Diego County, California
By
(DDS3\ENGRPT)
9;(,
ENGINEER'S REPORT
OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
NOS. 1 THROUGH 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26
BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTER
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The city Engineer, Engineer of Work for open Space Districts
1 through 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26 Bay Boulevard and Town
Center, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, makes
this report, as directed by the city Council, Resolution 17029,
dated March 2, 1993, pursuant to section 22585 of the streets and
Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972), and Chapter
17 of the Municipal Code,
The improvements which are the subj ect of this report are
briefly described as follows:
The renovation, improvement, maintenance and
furnishing of electric current for the street
lights and appliances, for the landscaping
renovation and maintenance, for the drainage
area maintenance including silt removal.
This report consists of six parts, as follows:
. PART A--Plans and specifications for the improvements are
filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the
plans and specifications are a part of this report and are
included in it by reference.
. PART B--An estimate of the cost of improvement and net
assessment.
. PART C--An Assessment of the estimated cost of the improvement
on each benefitted parcel of land within the assessment
districts.
. PART D--A statement of the method by which the undersigned has
determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each
parcel.
. PART E--A list of names and addresses of the owners of real
property within these assessment districts, as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll for taxes, or as known to the
Clerk. The list is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment number.
. PART F--A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property
within these assessment districts.
9--7
PART A
Plans and specifications for the improvement of Open Space
Districts 1 through 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26 Bay Boulevard
and Town Center, have been filed separately with the street
Superintendent of the legislative body and are incorporated in this
Report by reference.
Plans and specifications for the improvement are numbered 82-1 to
82-7 dated July 2, 1982 for Bay Boulevard Landscaping District and
78-254 to 306 dated December 8, 1978 for Town Center 1 Landscaping
District.
9;~
om SPACK DISTRII;! BUDGKT 5 May 1993
PART B--KSTIMATK or COST AID MET ASSKSSMKMT PART B --ISTlMATI or COST AiD liT ASSKSSMIIT
om SPACK om SPACI OPEN SPACI om SPACK OPKI SPACK om SPACK om SPACK OPKM SPACK OPKN SPACK om SPACK om SPACK
DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DlSTRJcr NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 14
iAlntract Services $26,620.00 $6,650.00 $27,490.00 $29,090.00 $20,820.00 $12,810.00 $4,740.00 $31,510.00 $21,080.00 $78,510.00 $190,620.00
Utilities 13,420.00 1,730.00 10,580.00 12,140.00 6,820.00 4,990.00 3,580.00 9,510.00 18,520.00 17,660.00 69,240.00
Materials to .ain bldgs,struct. 600.00 380.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 780.00 360.00 350.00 1,500.00 2,550.00 4,000.00
Servics to .ain bldg,struct,grds 280.00 40.00 400.00 600.00 120.00 120.00 200.00 320.00 320.00 360.00 1,240.00
Landscape Supplies 760.00 340.00 210.00 1,100.00 950.00 310.00 230.00 420.00 1,010.00 310.00 3,180.00
City Staff Services 6,900.00 1,740.00 5,170.00 5,660.00 4,040.00 2,850.00 1,730.00 5,470.00 5,670.00 14,610.00 31,100.00
Backflo. Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trash Collection. Disposal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.00 0.00 0.00
Professional Services
Supple.entals 13,020.00 0.00 23,350.00
Other cOllodities
Advertising
~
\ KSTlMATiD MAINTKJANCK COST $61,600.00 $10,880.00 $44,650.00 $49,390.00 $33,550.00 $21,860.00 $10,840.00 $47,580.00 $49,500.00 $137.350.00 $299,380.00
"-S:l Reserve Requirmnt 30,800.00 6,528.00 25,450.50 34,573.00 23,485.00 15,302.00 8,672.00 28,548.00 33,660.00 59,335.20 209,566.00
Additional reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less rund Balance 22,967.00 9,331.00 28,453.00 42,576.00 29,680.00 16,429.00 10,403.00 28,726.00 47,497.00 38.232.00 229,529.00
MET ASSKSSMiM'! $69,433.00 $8,077.00 $41,647.50 $41,387.00 $27,355.00 $20,733.00 $9,109.00 $47,402.00 $35,663.00 $158,453.20 $279,417.00
Reserve Percent IT 93/94 501 601 571 101 701 701 801 601 681 431 701
KDU'S 795.52 249 127 210 122 162 104 110 384 1321.03 873.36
AssessleDt/KDU IT 93/94 $87.28 $32.44 $321.94 $197.08 $224.22 $128.00 $87.60 $430.94 $92.88 $120.00 $319.94
Aesesmnt/KDU IT 92/93 $42.56 $28.92 $33\.10 $183.64 $226.58 $128.00 $72.12 $408.00 $93.61 $15.18 $323.20
Percent change fro. 92/93 1051 121 -11 71 -11 01 211 61 -11 601 -11
Budget/KDU IT 93/94 $71.43 $43.69 $351.57 $235.19 $275.00 $134.94 $104.23 $432.55 $128.91 $103.91 $342.79
Budget/KDU IT 92/93 $55.61 $42.53 $339.06 $221.19 $271.23 $134.38 $109.81 $421.82 $134.14 $82.94 1338.16
om SPACK DISTRIC'l BUDGIT 5 ~ay 1993
PART Bu !STI~AT! or CDST AID KIT ASS!SS~!NT
om SPACK om SPACK OP!N SPACK OP!N SPACK om SPACK OP!N SPACK OP!N SPACK om SPACK
DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO. DISTRICT NO.
15 17 18 20 24 26 Bay Blvd To.. Center
Contract Services $7,820.00 $2,250.00 $73,500.00 $158,220.00 14270 2820 $10,000.00
Utilities 3,490.00 31,670.00 132,560.00 7,160.00 1,560.00 3,130.00 6,200.00
~aterials to lain bldgs,struct. 240.00 100.00 1,200.00 10,000.00 830.00 230.00
Service to lain bldg,struct,grds 120.00 0.00 160.00 40.00 120.00
Landscape Supplies 200.00 550.00 990.00 9,550.00 400.00 70.00 850.00 1,100.00
City Staff Services 2,050.00 2,430.00 12,870.00 71,810.00 3,320.00 1,260.00 8,400.00 32,080.00
BackfloR Certification 0.00 0.00
Trasb Collection & Disposal 560.00 280.00 280.00 480.00
Professional Services 0.00 120.00
Supplelentals 246,840.00
Otber cOllodities 1,250.00
~ Advertising 180.00 180.00
\ !STIIlATID IlAINTlNARC! COST $13,920.00 $5,890.00 $120,230.00 $629,010.00 $26,120.00 $6,030.00 $13,390.00 $50,930.00
"-
~ Reserve Reguirelent 7,656.00 3,828.50 60,\15.00 304,809.00 21,136.00 603.00 13,390.00 35,651.00
Additional reserve 2,507.00 0.00 330,408.00 0.00 187.00 0.00
Less rund 8alance 8,225.00 6,488.00 62,783.00 825,415.00 28,210.00 0.00 16,772.00 43,002.00
NIT ASSISS~!NT $13,351.00 $5,737.50 $1I7,562.00 $138,812.00 $19,346.00 $6,820.00 $10.008.00 $13,579.00
Reserve Percent 11 93/94 551 651 501 na 801 101 1001 701
!OU'S 57 46 387.55 na 40 19 10 1000
Assesslent/!DU rT 93/91 $231.23 $121.71 $303.31 1203.72 $483.65 $359.00 $1,000.80 $13.58
Assesslent/!DU 11 92/93 1220.51 1146.36 $282.18 $246.28 1680.26 na 11,031.60 $40.91
Percent change f roI 92/93 61 -151 71 -17% -291 na -31 61
Budget/IDU 11 93/91 $211.21 $128.04 $310.23 na $660.50 $317 .37 $1,339.00 $50.93
PART B: RANCHO DEL REY OSD 20 FY 1993/94
FY 93/94 JULY '93
93/94 BUDGET AMORT GRDSS lESS NET FY 93/94 FY 92/93 IN
BUDGET RESERVE CDSTS REn SAVINGS REVENUE ASSM'T/EOU ASSM'T/EDU RESERVE
lONE 1 O.silting Basin 0 0 33B47 33B47 2756 31091 3B.OB 24.84 101541
IDNE 2 Ric. Canyon 10610 5305 1101 17015 635 163BO 4.20 1.20 23403
IDNE 3 East H Str..t 12BI5 640B 0 19223 12751 6472 1.04 1.29 0
Ion. 4 Elploy..nt Park 52036 2601B 4002 B2056 54453 27603 11.10 14.6B 12006
IDNE 5 SPA 1 N/O H 529310 264655 3B627 B32591 5019B9 330602 IB5.94 235.60 0
~ lONE 6 SPA II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 12030
lONE 7 SPA I II 24240 2424 0 26664 0 26664 IB.9B 0.00 0
\ IOIAl 629010 304B09 77577 1011396 5725B5 43BB12 I4B9BO
"-
---
PART C -- ASSESSMENT ROLL
Assessment Roll is on file in the office of the City Engineer.
PART D -- METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
The manner in which the City Engineer has apportioned the annual
assessment to each parcel in the open space Districts is consistent
with the method of spread initially established by the Assessment
Engineer. Assessment Engineer for Bay Boulevard and Town Center
Districts was Patrick N. Rosetti. Assessment Engineer for Open
Space District No. 20 was Willdan Associates.
PART E -- PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
The property owner's list is made a part of this report by
reference and is filed in the Office of the City Treasurer.
PART F--ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM (Attached)
'I -Ie:<
.
-2
...
I.'
OSD
JNf~Y
CL.UB
"I
(pr;"'o
Ifl
"'
....v..
..". IT
!
~P1"M',-
, P4JU(.
.
t
"'111I0.'
"
.,
.
IH'''OHU'
."
"A'"
----"{~:,--: i - - - - -
~,~ '
I ~~-9 :
. -----....-,
~~__.._J______________
ill rr- I II
,
I
I
1-----
t
..1
II r - /
) I l//
i '
----...-----,. 1 c, Ty
,.-----.
. CiT~
- /- I I
~-___J
I
i
/
"
--
i?(,
?'Jt(
OSD 2,7
.
\
.,
.J.....,
./?i
,.
o'
-;
,
'-.
L .<
.,. ~
I
\u
\i.',
;, ~:.t~J': ~'
~i~~\.,,,,:
~\'.:
\I\,\~,-~-
-'. OJ. .
''').''~~'''
"> ~ ~."
5;,:
>'~~,
-~n:' "
~-
~4
......~
05D
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. VI OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PESCRIPTlON
PORTJaNS tV QUMTCN SECTJOII 94 AN/) (J{JAJlTEJ/ SErTkJN 114 OF IUNrHQ IJr( J.A NAeJIJN '" TNE ~ITY or CNIJlA VI$TA. C()(JNTY or
S4N lJIE6(). STATE or CAUI"(JNNU. At't'tYlj)J,W TO MAP TIIUlor Itk1 Jti~ FlaD IN TJ/[ orrKE or TIK RECORDER ar SAN DlC60 Ci1tJNTY.
~~ ~\~J~l
.......... I''''';' ~~~,^,i~l~~ MWN
'~;~~:'~~~",~:~.I~I..:~..,Ut,",:r~~~~' '\'. \\(~~L~1"'~~'7.:h~"l'l" , J
". ,. ." < :'.~) > ;"g':::~'--j~'+"'"'"'"'~l~[;;-m"H~l~\'r. :. \~ .;j~ g"" ;!)f '!" ~,"" I
1<##\.~'I.IJTtff,r",/ ,I, '\'" i u \,' \",~1""~ fJoA) ~ .u ~ .~/~,~ I~Js ~r
l "'. v:;;. 0'fo/'~Ic.t"",,'" i'" lol\lA\'" I, L- \ll rll-'~ ;G-7'~ /0."_
" ""-, /;;., '1--..,.~"'ti,-L. 1 ~ ~1~ i ~ . ~~ ~"~I:\~:':~~':J~):~.':''':';J::j~'/;;Ci9-- - '~,_..
''-., ',," (7t/'lIj.., ..........r-, . \-' \~'."""t::.r:-~'i~"""..-,.j:ii!i;.:.:,:::,,,.'.J'~/~lir-1-?t 1'" /
. ...~ "",, ,. ,,1"\ r!~:"':~".~""."":..",. I",
~ :-:;~/" "~~CD~::"" II ,,, 1M I'" J ,to. '''-t~~;iilit.~. AOI'O ~~;,I!fl!..~ii[;;.:+:L:'" /.:)
...,~....~ -~ ~.-.~..:I.-'::~ ___ -0- ~if!;.:!~
".....~~..... ;,i/lr ~<~"""""
om SPA" T. B[ "AlNJAIN[. ~ (J/ ~
ASS(SSMENT ~UN&[RS '~11\1) r fil ------- :II:,:l.:! ~~.~' I:~~.!..'~~,-!.Y"l'l'~"
~~ \ II. 'II f( Il.r
t. J 'n," -',,'-----,- ",.,,'""",
'f I......~. ,'n."'"'" ''''''''.1''''' ~I"....... ,.,....",.
:~:;:;:;:::::::;: ;~. ~,~::w~',:,::::,"" ~"~~,7, ;';~:':~'~':l ~~'.'.,I, ',~ "k~,;",:~: ~l
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ~...J-. .11'. "."'''~ "d ;,.... ,.,.,,,, "", "bl~ ".oJ ,"'.,~... ~
..., ".,~,~,,~, .,'10 ,...,.,1,1 ,-..l~., ""'n,". \m :',,;,
..', ,,,'I, ""''-'" ~,," I.I..",~" ~"..oJ ,.~,.,.~ ;,,,. ".
I. "'1'1,,,,,..1 ;"... """'n ... ,..III ..~,.,. """., '~'r"',' ,,.
..,,~..l "".'.11" ..."...",. ,...."". "'..11 ,. ,~ .....'~._'n
... 'T''''''.' ",.11 ~,,,in"'~' ",.,,,,",,.,. III I'r""~"."
.n "-... ,.~, ~ ,'1,,1\' ,.. 'hl~ "J~".
N/II'A- AWAM
NMNSCNtJt:)l
~~
..------
~
\
~
lC&END
---- DISTR'Cf
,n
~~.
APPROVAL
APPAOV[O IY fN[ CI-4ULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL BY
RESOLUTION NO.~. DA1[O; IZ-Z3-7~ .
AND rlUD Af nlE CootHY R[COROU ON~
197<' . rill/PAGE NO. 7~ '003195
It.) ~ ..a.w~
DIRECTOR! r Pu&lIC WORKS
~.1.0.
DIRECTOR or PARtes
1-l.I.C.
RECREATION
o
'"
t:J
..
~
..
::
~
..
-
::
~
1.."" ;"'." , ,I!, "'''''''111' ..-,'1:",',... ~",...... 1,1
",~ ,,,-,..,,, hi ~"'lJ'''' :! "I.'''' ,.. 'h,~ 0""
In".. ....,.":",,,. '~"r..,..... ",.,,,, ".' ~,........ ",,,'1,
"I;.,,,.., """ II..'''....." ....i" ;,.., ""n....... ".., '''''''. ~'.,Il
,.. ~'1" ."" '..., .,~ ". ,.,..... I,,' r~,,1c~ ;".. 1:,." :.' ,..,
."",."., t...l~ :m...".....i<~'."I,.1:...'~ ,..,,<1 rl''''r~
.",,! ,'l"~,,,"'l "'I ,,'"', ....."..., .,.h ..",'"'''' h"h,.....~...
..,,, 110 I,,,,,,, ,.......'''nLllnl."llhl """';11'..,
f,,~ rlll1 ,..10'",.. I~,,, ''''''''~ "I So,'"'''' ~ ,0.......
..."':.'",..""",,,..,,
I,....,~ ..... "''''0' I"'~ '....11 ..r ,,~"'r-.,t"\ "T'P' "'"
~",.".. '" """nl ,~." ....w,' b..,. ."... ~I".~ .,.11
"..",.....,~ ..,..", ""..,ll. ....I"',,'.r.... '" '10_'
'n.." "~,I..,, '"'''' h.....~ ".... r.. c.",,,.,I'lr...,,.,
.... ,., . "...1 1 '....~ ..., ""r. .-,,, ,...-", .., ,."" 'Ill-'
I.~. ,.... -,,'to, '",~",....~..I ~',,'l'''''' ~.In."
""''''''''''''''''''''.'
I,. ,_ ..' ",,-'r,",',,'''' <c."...., .,." ."".,. _,..,I ..
,..1""""..'".'1''',,,,,, lI.
".,,, I..",.., ..". "".,. "n..""'......'d".
".1 ,.."..,. "",,,, '"""'r",' ....~,,~ I,,""~""
,...",,,, ".~ l~'.."_ .,! ...., ,.., :_10} oJo. "., "".1,
tl,,_
"',-
u
/'
Cf"'l'~", ,l,y
l
.>-~
- ,
.~
I ~....,~.~..,.-;
f f
*'
~
."
\
~i
"M
'\i "",-no r....
\
"1""- \.
I"t" ~,
''',~
.
.
.
~
c
c
~
<
I'
"
"
I"~ .oe.. ~'l. [' ", I., ~...
" ."["u.... '"
, , ....""'...0 ., n ."(
,I. ""'"
.'."I"'CI_HI ,. '" '''.11
", ....0 " " II,.", "
d~ "....;.. .. "0.' I',.
,....O.'ll. W... " .",'
i'l .0('..,,,,,,1.,, " ....tcu,
,," ,1.....,...1'.('1 .. '" ...,
'" t"'O_llOC.p " '" " '"
it"' ...."Ll In .. .I....~o. ,
i" ..f"I'''O.( " " [10'.'..'.'
llil flllll.N.Ulfl " '''.C..I'' O.
'" ''''"''"/H.. ., .. OIU u',
II" I"IOG. Clfno..., .. "01.'__".
I :~ lll, ""'LO " .000...,,,..
\" co".......,,, " .' ,.......o'a
UuTI.., ". .~I " .,.elUDe'
,,, ..0.' u,.'" " "O.'("l."
rOI"le.'"olle ., '1'1''''0. "
I, " 'OlO.U',
" " '''1''.'''11.
II ., "0.',1"0'
\\'G. 1<".""00
., "'U.'CO! "
\~ .. "."0_"['
'\ ''''P OH.....o ('
"'{' .. ,., .. ,.
'~-';I0 " 0,..,...",
~ 0,.. ,. ...eooo"lO',
"t'
X- I~
~_.. j"
~
o
s."
.
"~
/, :
tl
'1
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
OSD 14,15,24
RANCHO DEL REY OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO" 20
~
(
~
L
~
,......
rJ ----.......-
. ~ .::,.
;:-
',\
! .
, 4'
i
9',. / rr
OSD 20
.A
~
'l
__"T~',
.
,~-_..
IY. '~1J...
'.'...---
...'
.....- -:.
.,'"
.
..---.-
iUL.A ViSTA
tl1ll\,...ME
..
,...-,
, 10\ ..Jo
,...,..,.-,
\- \ \ \
\~Hv\:'
~ 0\
~\~~.
.. t'
".
",.....,:;,""',.........,.)
""I , \ ~ . I '"\ )0, .Of; "
..<'.'....,' <,:..,...~ .1'. :ra.:.
I\...,:l\\"'~~ 'l~~'
,'(itJfE.RlI-o~'>V; .
,_,,,..,,.., .~.,,''''lK'' f"I'J'C."
,,:,1.......... "~f'''1f, . ,')....,''\-')
.\'...._'l.\":.--!~.
\.: "',:-
)" 0
.,' "'" ,..'It;
.........-
:.b,)~'" ,1
~
p
Q
o
.
n~
:0
.
1.
.
'.
_-n.
.
~ p p
. .
~ ;
. ~
~ ' .. e
~ .
.. p .
. "C 51
to
r ~ Q.~ ~
0
.. . .. () ..
. ..
~
..
o,.~\C,Olil
.
. ...
.....
--
.
\~
J1-
p
.
~
..".-..: - - ~'--
~~-_..~-:.~-~
-"' -=.-:.
,
i'--
~-_., .
o
..
>ji"..l" ,'I'
p .
~,
Cl'Iv'w" ",,,,,, ",
..
- i rl,,-"i..,
.0 \ I
'I \ ~ ~o_ .r
."j.. -+".,,... .,
1" \:."
\
- 'ie,
.
p
.
iER
~
~~"'"
,. -~.::;..~
--T-r---
'--
\ ~.
\.......:. -
--~'
, "
\ "-
\ "
\ :
,,-,
I
I CI rY
~-
"
\~
~
.
0
~
, ,
..
0 0
. .
-. .
.. ..
OMI,....
...
, .'
~
.
O.'t'\O,OM "
.. ......
.....
.......~
et,.-'" : "",.--...--
""'.......~ ,,-
... ...........'
...... .
......
,.oV10.
~
.
.
"O\ll.1l.t......O ,
~
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
Cl"' Il.
c,..~lIt("
,
"
,....pfl.O"'..
.
",."e.
"
-.'
..
() y.. .,
Q
" 01 ,.. .,
n
>
llj
~ ~
n r
~ ~
.. """..00 .. ,,.
. ~
n
o
.
o
.\ .. 0 ~
~ ~
:. . ..
,(I." . ~
>
" .'
~
--
"'" S1
'\\-,\" ~
.
>
,,",un" .. .
. .
~ ..
c ~
~ to J "T 0 ... ~ ~
9-'/1
~
..
.. .....1l-..,.
..~\,,<<'f
-......
\
\
;
. ..
r''' ,l
,
n
o
.
...
..
>
..
~
~
..
.
p
.
~
~
.
p
"10
~
it,S c.'
,.....~.,...
0'
..l"I\"ot("f "
> n
~~
'i ..
.
,
.
TOWN CENTER
OSD 26
c
...
--
.
.
"
Z)1~+r"i'"t-
BOu'l'\d"r,
"e"
.
-
-
-
-
I
II ST.
)... ~
~
~
l.lJ
llJ
~
ll.
l.C)
-
-
-
"J
"
"l:
I...
\I)
~
llJ
"
~
"
I
I
i
r
ANrH~,v'l"S .
.e.ESTAU/tANi
@)
~ (5&7.() 21. 29 ) .
~ --
-J
!'r\ -='AVS INN
....., Mt::JroR
,tJoat;
:td:
(~~7-0,:t" 38)
I
-
-
sr.
Jl
r
!.
~
,.
>.. CD
. i", --
I .:t.. 70/<'/ TO
I! Q:J Res TA"'I?,t:, IV T
i i : (S67-02/-37)
Ii ([)
11.
ORA"N BY TITl.t
- - - - ~._A.O.:.. -. SAY BOULEVARD ~-;2tJ
0':'':[
- 04-19-89 LIGHTING a LANDSCAPING DISTRICT
-. - - - . - -
ITII
II
I!
II
II'
il
II "r;"
11.
-
~\
ENGINEER'S REPORT
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
for
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
FISCAL YEAR 1993-1994 (RENEWAL)
Prepared by: Engineering Division
Department of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
9-;;'/
ENGINEER'S REPORT
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The City Engineer, Engineer of Work for Open Space
District 10, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California,
makes this report, as directed by the City Council, Resolution
17028, dated March 2, 1993, pursuant to section 22585 of the
Streets and Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972),
and Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code.
The improvements which are the subj ect of this report are
briefly described as follows:
The renovation, improvement, maintenance and
furnishing of electric current for the street
lights and appliances, for the landscaping
renovation and maintenance, for the drainage
area maintenance including silt removal.
This report consists of six parts, as follows:
. PART A--Plans and specifications for the improvements are
filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the
plans and specifications are a part of this report and are
included in it by reference.
. PART B--An estimate of the cost of improvement and net
assessment.
.
PART C--An Assessment of the
on each benefitted parcel
district.
estimated cost of the improvement
of land within the assessment
. PART D--A statement of the method by which the undersigned has
determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each
parcel.
. PART E--A list of names and addresses of the owners of real
property within this assessment district, as shown on the last
equalized assessment roll for taxes, or as known to the Clerk.
The list is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment number.
. PART F--A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property
within this assessment district.
9 - tl-d--
ENGINEER'S REPORT
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as
directed by the city council.
DATED:
~\ 1\" \ C'
, 1993
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed E gineer's Report, together with
Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with
me on the day of , 1993.
B
City Clerk, City of Chula vista
San Diego County, California
By
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer'S Report, together with
Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved
and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
california, on the day of , 1993.
Resolution No.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista,
San Diego County, California
By
(DDS3\ENGRPT1)
9 -.,23
PART A
Plans and specifications for the improvement of Open Space District
10, has been filed separately with the street Superintendent of the
legislative body and are incorporated in this Report by reference.
9- .20/
OPIN SPACI DISTRIC'! BUDeIT 5 May 1993
PART B--ISTlKATI 01 COST lJD liT ASSISSMII1
om SPACI
DI5TRIC'! 10.
10
Contract Services
Utilities
Materials tn lain bldgs,struct.
Service to lain bldg,struct,grds
Landscape Supplies
City Staff Services
Backflo. Certification
Trasb Collection & Disposal
Professiooal Services
Supplmntals
Otber cOllodities
Advertising
$32,820.00
13,180.00
0.00
200.00
740.00
6,020.00
0.00
ISTlKATID KAIITIIANCI COST $52,960.00
Reserve Requirelent 52,960.00
Additional reserve 0.00
Less fund Balance 89,554.00
lIT ASSISSMlNT $16,366.00
Reserve Percent fY 93/94 100%
IDU'S 630.37
Assesslent/IDU fY 93/94 $25.96
Assesslent/IDU fY 92/93 $83.46
Percent cbange frol 92/93 -69%
Budget/IDU IT 93/94 $84.01
Budget/IDU IT 92/93 $134. 74
9'>>
PART C -- ASSESSMENT ROLL
Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
PART D -- METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
The manner in which the City Engineer has apportioned the annual
assessment to each parcel in the Open Space District is consistent
with the method of spread initially established by the Assessment
Engineer.
PART E -- PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
The property owner's list is made a part of this report by
reference and is filed in the Office of the City Treasurer.
PART F--ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM (Attached)
9":;;'
RESOLUTION NO.
17/~7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS
FOR THE FY 1993-94 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-9, 11,
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, BAY BOULEVARD AND
TOWN CENTRE, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY
AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 13
AND 20, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND
TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the City Engineer prepared and filed the annual
reports for all existing Open space Maintenance Districts in the
city; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with public hearings set for July 13 and 20, 1993,
in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972". The
reports cover the following districts:
1. Open Space District Nos. 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, and 26
2. Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
3. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping Districts
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conducted an
informal meeting for all property owners within each district in
April at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works
informal meetings on June 19 and 21
explain the proposed assessments; and
Department will conduct
at which time staff will
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1993-94
are as follows:
FY 92-93 FY 93-94 % Increase or FY 93-94
OSD Assessment/EDU Assessment/EDU" Decrease Revenue
1 $42.56 $87.28 105% $69,433
2 28.92 32.44 12% 8,077
3 331.10 327.94 -1% 41,648
4 183.64 197.08 7% 41,387
5 226.58 224.22 -1% 27,354
6 128.00 128.00 0 20,736
7 72.12 87.60 21% 9,110
8 408.00 430.94 6% 47,403
9 93.62 92.88 -1% 35,667
1
9t1'1
11 75.18 120.00 59% 158,524
14 323.20 319.94 -1% 279,426
15 220.54 234.24 6% 13,352
17 146.36'" 124.74 -15% 5,738
18 282.48 303.34 7% 117,562
20 246.28 203.72 -17% 438,812
24 680.26 486.00 -29% 19,440
26 N/A 359.00'" N/A 6,821
Bay Blvd. 1031.60(1) 1000.80'1) -3% 10,008
Town Centre 40.94(1) 43.58(1) 6% 43,579
(I)Per benefit unit
(2)Reserve is at 10%
(3) Assessments are based on preliminary budgets
WHEREAS, included in the assessments for Rancho del Rey
Open space District No. 20 are annualized costs which amount to
$77,577, and $252,831 from previous years which are amortized over
30 or less years and maintenance costs for additional improvements
associated with Telegraph Canyon Road; and
WHEREAS, included in the assessments for Open Space
District No. 1 are maintenance costs for additional improvements
associated with Woodcrest Southwestern Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, included in the assessment for Open Space
District No. 11 are maintenance costs for additional improvements
associated with Brehm and Woodcrest Terra Nova Subdivisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Engineer's reports
for the FY 1993-94 spread of assessments for City Open Space
Maintenance Districts 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, and 6, Bay
Boulevard and Town Centre, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the city Clerk, and declare its intention to levy and collect
assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set July 13 and 20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City
of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista, California as the
dates and times for the public hearings on said assessments.
Presented by
city Cle
nt tOtGove
APpr' t f '
, r
;lBr~e M. Boogaard,
is hereby
nment Code
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
directed to publish said assessments pursu
Section 6063.
by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Attorne
2
Q/l'r2
RESOLUTION NO.
17/,,2~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR THE FY 1993-94 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10,
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JULY 13 AND 20, 1993
AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known
as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chu1a vista Municipal
Code Chapter 17.07, the city Engineer has prepared nd filed the
annual reports for all existing open Space Maintenance Districts in
the city; and
WHEREAS, these reports were prepared by the City Engineer
or under his direction and are presented to Council for approval in
order to proceed with the public hearings set for July 13 and 20,
1993, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
The report covers Open Space District No. 10; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department conduced an
informal meeting for all property owners within this district in
April at which time staff explained the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department will conduct an
informal meeting on June 19, 1993 at which time staff will explain
the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1993-94
is as follows:
FY 92-93 FY 93-94 %Increase
OSD Assessment/EDU Assessment/EDU IDecrease
10
83.46
25.96
-70%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chu1a vista does hereby approve the Engineer'S report
to declare its intention to levy and collect assessments for the FY
1993-94 for the spread of assessments for City open Space
Maintenance District 10, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
set July 13 and 20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
1
98,}
city of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California as
the dates and times for the public hearings on said assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish said assessment pursuant to Government Code
section 6063.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
?Bruce M.
bY'y
Presented by
Boogaard,
C:\rs\OSlOeng.rep
2
'1 g..-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
/0
Meeting Date 5/25/93
ITEM TITLE: Report on Proposed Special Rule Related to Listing
of California Gnatcatcher as a Threatened Species
by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Plannin~ c~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager-J~ ~~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS)
announced that the California Gnatcatcher had been listed as a
threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act.
On March 30, 1993, the USFWS published a proposed special rule
which would allow regulation of incidental take of gnatcatcher
habitat as well as long-term habitat management planning to occur
through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP).
The proposed special rule was released for a 60-day public review
period which ends on June 1, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City take a position in opposition to any
changes to the special rule which would mandate the use of the
Clean Water Program Multiple Species Conservation Plan or other
subregional planning programs other than the NCCP as a basis for
compliance with the special rule.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As noted above, and previously reported to the City Council, the
listing of the California Gnatcatcher was accompanied by issuance
of a proposed special rule which would allow local jurisdictions
and propertyowners to develop local multi-species conservation
plans through the State's NCCP program (see attachment 1). In
addition, local jurisdictions which are participating in the NCCP
program would be allowed to issue incidental take permits for
coastal sage scrub habitat, subject to meeting State conservation
guidelines. This approach has been viewed as being preferable to
the Federal permitting process that would normally accompany the
listing of a threatened or endangered species, by allowing some
local and regional flexibility in the planning and regulatory
process.
City staff has been working with Federal and State agencies, as
well as other local jurisdictions, to evaluate the proposed special
rule. One regional technical advisory committee in which City
/&'1
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/25/93
1&
staff has participated, the SANDAG Regional Conservation
Coordination Committee, has drafted proposed amendments to the
special rule which specifically address the relationship between
the listing of the Gnatcatcher and certain subregional multiple
species conservation programs which have been initiated in San
Diego County. The three subregional programs which have been
identified (Clean Water Program Multiple Species Conservation
Program, North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, and
County Multiple Species Wildlife Habitat and Open Space
Conservation Program) are proposed to be recognized in the special
rule as Ongoing Multi-species Plans (see attachment 2). The
proposed language would recognize that other NCCP plans may proceed
within areas covered by the proposed Ongoing Multi-species Plans
"if consistent with the aMPs."
City staff is concerned that this proposed language, if added to
the special rule, could be interpreted to limit a local
jurisdiction'S ability to proceed independently, or in conjunction
with other governmental entities, to prepare an NCCP. The City of
Chula Vista is located within the study area of the Clean Water
Program Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and City
staff has participated on the Working Group in the development of
this planning program. However, the City has also moved forward
independently with the County of San Diego to submit an NCCP
enrollment agreement for the South County NCCP. Until the State's
NCCP conservation guidelines are completed, and City staff is able
to review various policy options with the City Council for
proceeding in this program, we feel it is premature for any action
to be taken by the Federal government which would restrict local
options for participation in the NCCP program.
Therefore, staff would recommend that the City Council take a
position that the special rule for California Gnatcatcher not
contain any provisions which would require participation in, or
consistency with, any existing subregional multi-species plan other
than the NCCP. We would recommend that this position be
communicated to the USFWS during the 60-day review period, and that
this position also be carried forward by the City's SANDAG Board
representative when this matter is considered by the Board
(currently scheduled for May 28.)
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(specrul.all)
1~"rJ.-
16758
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 59 I Tuesday. March 30, 1993 I Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR
Ash and Wlldllle ServlC8
50 eFR Part 17
RIN 101 &-AB56
Endangered and Threataned Wildlife
and Plant.; Proposed Special Rule To
Allow Taka of the Threatened C<>estel
California Onatcatcher
AGEHCY: Fish and Wildlife Sarvice.
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed special rola.
SUMMARY: The implementing regulations
for threatened wildlife generally
incorporate the section 9 prohibitions
for endangered wildlife. except when a
spedal role applies. In the case of the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilo
coli/ornico coli/ornico), the Fish and
wildlife Service (Servica) found that the
prohibitions for andangered spedes
were generally necessary and advisable
for conservation of the species. This
finding is published in this same
Federal Register separate part.
However. pursuant to section 4(d) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and the implementing
regulations. the Sarvice proposes to
define the conditions associated with
certain land~use activities under which
take of the coastal California gnat catcher
would not be a violation of section 9.
The Service se€ks comments from the
public on this proposed spedel rule.
OATES: Comments from all interested
parties must be received by June 1.
1993.
AOORESSES: Comments and materials
concerning this proposal should be sent
to the Field Superviser. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fiald Offica.
2730 Loker Avenue West. Carlsbed.
California 92008. Comments and
materials recei vad will be available for
public inspection. by appointment.
during normal business hours at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeffrey D. Opdyde. Field
Supervisor. at the address listed above
(telephone 619/431-9440).
SUPPLEloIEHT ARY INFORloIA noN:
Background
. The fineI rule to list the coastal
California gnatcatcher (Poliopula
cali/ornico cali/ornico) as threataned.
published in this same Federal Register
part. prllsents discussions describing the
current range and status of the
gIlatcatcher. previous Federlll actions on
this species, a summary of tha
comments and recommendations
received in response to the Service's
proposal to list the gnatcatcher. detailed
descriptions of the factors affecting its
continued existence, the reasons why
citical habitat is not being proposed.
and the conservation measures available
to federally listed species. .
Section 4(d) of the Act provides that
whenever 8 species is listed as a
threatened species. such regulations
deemed necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the
spedes may be issued. Thase
reguletions may prohibit any ect
prohibited for eodangered species under
section 9Ia). These prohibitions, in part.
make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to
take (includes harass, harm. pursue.
hunt. shoot, wound: kill, tr1lp. or collect;
or to attempt any of these), import or
export. ship in interstata commerce in
the course of commercial activity. or sell
or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commarce any listad wildlife species. It
is also illegal to possess. sall. deliver.
carry. transport. or ship any such
wildlife that has be€n taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Sanries and State conservation agencies.
The implementing regulations for
threatened wildlife 150 CFR 17.31)
incorporate, for the most part. the
prohibitions for endangered wildlife (50
CFR 17.21). except when a special rule
applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)).ln the esse of
the coastal California gnat catcher. the
Service found that tha prohibitions for
endangered species were generally
necessary and advisable for
conservation of the species. However,
pursuant to section 41d) of the Act. as
amended, and 50 CFR 17.31lcl, the
Service proposes to define the
conditions under which take of the
coastal California gnatcatcher resulting
from specified land.use activities
regulated by stata and local government
would not violate section 9 of the Act.
The Sarvice recognizes the significant
efforts undartaken by the State of
California through tha Natural
Community Conservation Plannins Act
of 1991 (NCCP1. as well as such
programs as the Multiple Species
Conservation Program of San Diego
County and the Multispecies Habitat
Conservation Planning effort by
Riverside County. to approach
systematic evaluation and restoration of
habitat for the benafit of healthy
ecosystams, rather than a species-by-
species approach. Such efforts
encourage holistic management of listed
species. like the coastal California
gnat catcher. and other sensitive species.
. As a result. the Sarvice is proposing a
speciel role that would defina the
conditions under which taXe associated
/~".3
with certain land-use activities would
be authorized. Under this special role
.the Service would permi. take of the
coastal California gnat catcher assodstoo
with land-use activities covered by an
approved plan prepared under the
NCO'. provided the Servies determines
that the approved plan meets the
issuance criteria of an incidental take
pennit pursuant to 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2).
Moreover. while tha NCCP plans are
being developed. the special rule would
permit take of tha gIlatcetchar resulting
from activities conducted in acCordance
with conservation guidelines developed
bv tha Sciantific Reviaw Panel
establishad under tha NCCP process.
provided the Service determines the
guidelines meet the 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2)
standards. The Servica believes that this
special rule y,;ll provide for habitat
conservation and management essential
to the recovery of the gnatcatcher in 8
manner consistent with the purposes of
the Act.
Finalization of this special rule is
contingent upon adoption of the
Scientific Review Panel's planning -
guidelines for the Coastal Sage Scrub
NCCP program by the Californie
Department of Fish and Game and the
Service.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service will
comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPAl in implementing the provisions
of Ihe proposed special rule. Pursuant to
the NCO' Procass Guidelines adopted
by the California Resources Agency and
the California Department of Fish and
Game. a joint Slate/Federal
environmental document will be
prepared for each. NCCP plan. At the
start of a NCCP planning effort, e
planning agreement will establish the
extant of Federal involvement and
Sarvice obligations under NEP A. As
appropriate, the NCCP lead agency will
provide documentation to assist the
Service in NEPA compliance. Both State
and Federellaw provide for preparation
of a joinf StatefFederal environmental
document.
Li5t of Subjecls in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species.
Exports. Import!. Reporting and
recordkeeping rllquirements, and
Transportation.
proposed Regulation. Promulgation
Accordingly, It is herehy proposed to
amand part 17. subchapter B of chapter
I. title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. as set forth below:
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 59 I Tuesday. March 30. 1993 I Proposed Rules
PART 17-{AMENDED]
517.11 Endang<<ed .nd thr..taned
wlldlifa.
"
(h) . . .
16759
Special
rul6S
Species
Common name Scientific name
Histonc range
Venebrate popu-
lation where endan- Status When listed
gared or thraatened
CMlIcal
ha!>ltat
B<ROS
Gnat=her. coastal PoIioptilB csJilomics U.S.A. (CA). t.lexlco Entire ...................... T
Calilomia. cali/omica.
496
NA .17.41 (b)
3. It is proposed to amend S 17.41 by
adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
S 17.41 sj;ee101 rUl.~lrda. .
* .~.;. ,~-..: .
(b) Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptilo coli/ornico coli/ornico).
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs
(b)(2) and (3) of this section. all
prohibitions of S 17.31 (a) and (b) shall
apply to the coastal California
gnatcatcber.
(2) Incidental teh of the coastel
California gnatcatcher is permitted if the
take results from activities conducted in
accordance with a Natural Community
Conservation Plan for the protection of
coastal sage scrub habitat. provided that:
(i) The Natural Community
Conservation Plan has been prepared,
approved, and implemented pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code sections
2800-2840; and
(ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service has
issued written concurrence that the
Natural Community Conservation Plan
mB€ts the standards set forth in 50 CFR
17.32(b)(2). The Service shall issue its
concurrence pursuant to the provisions
of the Memorandum of Understanding
dated December 4. 1991. between the
California Department of Fish and Game
and the Service regarding coastal sage
scrub natural community conservation
planning in southern California. (Copie,
of the Memorandum are available from
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2730
Loker Avenue West. Carlsbed. CA
92008.)
(3) During thE> period that a Natural
Community Conservation Plan referred
to in paregreph (b)(2) of this section is
being freparsd. incidental take of the
C08sta California gnatcatcher is
permitted if the take results from
activities conducted pursuant to
guidelines prepared by the Scientific
Review Panel for this program and
edopted by the Califomie Department of
Fish end Game pursuant to California
Fish end Game Code section 2825.
provided that:
(i) The take occurs in an area within
a local governmental jurisdiction that is.
enrolled in the netural community .
conservation planning process; .
(ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service hes
issued written concurrence that the
guidelines meet the standards set forth
in 50 CFR 17 .32(b)(2). The Service shall
issue its concurrence pursuanllo the
provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated December 4. 1991.
between the California Department of
Fish and Game end the Service
regarding coastal sage scrub natural
community conservation planning in
southern California; and
/ ~ .,L,!
(iil) The lotalloss of coastal sage
scrub habitat resulting from activities
coverad by this paregraph docs not
exceed the restrictions denned by the
Scientific Review Panel/California
Depertment ofFish end Game
guidelines.
(4) If the Fish and Wildlife Service
has concurred in the guidelines referred
to in paregraph (b)(3) of this section. the
Service shall review the guidelines
every six months to determine whether
they continue to meet the standards set
forth in 50 CFR 17.32(bJ(2).lfthe
Service determines the guidelines no
longer meet these standards, the Service
shell consult with the California
Department ofFish and Game pursuant
to the Memorandum of Understending
dated December 4. 1991. to seek
eppropriate modification of the
guidelines. and shall revoke its
concurrence under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section if appropriate modification
of the guidelines does not occur.
Dated: March 19. 1993.
Jou F. Turn....
Dinctor. U.S. Fish and WiJdJjf~ Service.
IFR Doc. 93--7147 Filed 3-25-93: 11:25 ami
IItUJNG c:ooe. .Q1o-a-P
~
.
~-)eAfl
--
1
May j, 1993
Mr. Jeff Opdycke, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Opdycke:
We are writing in response to the Federal Register, Volume 58, No. 59, Tuesday, March 30,
1993, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Special Rule to allow take
of the threatened Coastal California gnat catcher". We have the following comments on
paragraph 17.41 Special Rules - birds:
The rule refers to "guidelines prepared by the Scientific Review Panel". It is our
understanding that the referenced guidelines are not available for review, and may not be
available for review before this public review comment period expires. The public must be
given an opportunity to review the guidelines prior to the guidelines adoption.
(b)(2) This paragraph permits incidental take of the Coastal California gnatcatcher if the
take results from activities conducted in accordance with a Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP) for the protection Df coastal sage scrub habitat. We
suggest the following additions:
New (ill):
Pursuant to the Ongoing Multi-species Planning Agreement, dated March 1993, for
San Diego County there are three Ongoing Multi-species Plans (OMP) that have
been acCepted as consistent with the NCCP Process Guidelines: the North San Diego
County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, the City of San Diego Multiple
Species Conservation Program and the County of San Diego Multiple Species
Wildlife Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program. It is recognized that there
are, and in the future may be Dther NCCP plans within the Ongoing Multiple Species
Plans (OMPs) that can proceed if consistent with the OMPs.
These three programs provide a context in which the coastal sage scrub becomes one
Df several habitats of study, provide a framework to implement the NCCP standards
per the planning agreement referenced in paragraph (2) (ill), and provide procedures
by which the Conservation Guidelines, as prepared by the Scientific Review Panel,
and adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game, will be integrated and
implemented.
/1/'.5'
New (iv):
The Departrnent of Fish and Garne and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
encourage individual jurisdictions and property Dwners to work with the Ongoing
Multi-Species Plans, and that individual plans not prepared within the context Df the
NCCP will be required to obtain permits otherwise available under the Endangered
Species Act.
(b )(3) This paragraph allows for incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher during
the period in which plans are being prepared, if the take results from activities
conducted pursuant to the Conservation Guidelines. We suggest the following
additions:
New (iv):
An interim take procedure shall be established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
that can be immediately available following final listing of the gnatcatcher in the
federal register.
We suggest adding the following two paragraphs:
New (5)
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be signed between the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the
aMP to include:
(i) A determination of the work program with scheduled "milestones", to
provide a basis for determining "reasonable further progress".
(ii) Interim funding of conservation efforts.
(ill) A determination of the relationship between the conservation of the
Coastal California gnatcatcher and other species Df concern.
(iv) A determination of the review and approval process of the aMP and
the implementing measures to be undertaken by the OMP, the
California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
New (6)
No federal EnvirDnmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is
required for the adoption of the Rule. Wildlife conservation will be provided
for comprehensively in the various aMPs.
At the end of each six month period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall
prepare a report in concert with the various OMP's on the range-wide
progress made during the past six months with respect to the conservation
planning efforts, the cumulative amount of take, the assured conservation with
IC"'~
regard to the Gnatcatcher, and the future prospects with respect to the
Gnatcatcher. The semi-annual report shall be available for public comment
and review prior to finalization.
Thank you for consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please call Janet
Fairbanks at 619-595-5370.
Sincerely,
Gloria McClellan, Chair
San Diego Association of Governments fDr the
North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
Jack McGrory, City Manager
City of San Diego for the
City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program
Brian Bilbray, Chair
San Diego County Board of Supervisors for the
Multiple Species Wildlife Habitat and Open Space Conservation PrDgram
cc Mike Spear
Dale Hall
Gail Kobetich
Carol Whiteside
Larry Eng
Dick Zembal .
Nancy Gilbert
/11" 7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item II
Meeting Date 5/25/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-24; Appeal of Planning
Commission approval of request to redevelop service station and add mini-
market and car wash at 1498 Melrose Avenue
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution Affirming the decision of the Planning Commission
and thereby approving PCC-9l-24
,'7 ,,7
Director of Pla~ing )11/(/
City Manager.JG. , '6.~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
Council Referral #2539
REVIEWED BY:
The proposal is to redevelop an existing service station site into a self-serve gas facility with
mini-market and car wash at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial zone.
The project was approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1992, and subsequently
appealed by the City Council in response to concerns raised by surrounding residents and
business owners with respect to potential traffic impacts and an over-concentration of alcoholic
beverage sales facilities in the area.
This item was continued from the meeting of May 4, 1993, at the request of Texaco. An
additional continuance of one week is recommended by staff in order to reserve the meeting of
May 25, 1993, for budget deliberations. Texaco does not object to the delay.
ThemailinglisthasreceivedarevisednoticeforthemeetingofJunel.1993.at 4:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a motion to continue PCC-92-24 to the meeting
of June 1, 1993.
(PCC91-24.Al13)
//~/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /.2..
Meeting Date 5/25/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-1O; Appeal of Zoning
Administrator approval of request to sell alcoholic beverages at proposed
mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue - Councilman Fox
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution Affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator
and thereby approving PCC-93-1O
/,7'~ /
DirecIor of Planning/q1l.
City Manager~ ',;6.~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
REVIEWED BY:
On January 7, 1993, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Police Department,
conditionally approved an application by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to sell beer and
wine at a proposed mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N zone. An appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by Councilman Fox on January 14, 1993.
This item was continued from the meeting of May 4, 1993, at the request of Texaco. An
additional continuance of one week is recommended by staff in order to reserve the meeting of
May 25, 1993, for budget deliberations. Texaco does not object to the delay.
ThemailinglisthasreceivedarevisednoticeforthemeetingofJunel.1993.at 4:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a motion to continue PCC-93-1O to the meeting
of June 1,1993.
(PCC93-1O.Al13)
I~--/
'),
-------
-L,.::;sr~lljd_" y OF lill..LIA.l., ,~. CLAYCUr;,D, ~1.1V~ uUr~ ~I~-f., 1~,C _,forming)
'.c'O Cr..L1.h -V-;;;;'ilr~ CI'i'Y CCJ-,1CJ.L .iJL-,~{Iri;J ul;i\l GCi'.i<.Jr';l C.A".--\iC.i~~ ii~_ ;l\~L~I~-(
, ,. ^' ,n '1"
'. ",Liul al' ".LW'l' l.. J tltA~ 25 1993
liohn i~illett, representing tne liall ~llip ~ocie~y and tne Chula
Vista yacht club testified before the San Jiego Unified Port
"istrict (:,UUPu) Board Df Port Commissioners on li1lnl 27, 1993,
:;"1'1 favor of -ens ;;j,.2Uj,705 Chv,l.a Vi~:;T,a ~';autical .i\ctivity (i\l1.C)
!~enteI' (See JUUPU Agcnca Sheet :0. 57, 1~.-17-91) everl though tne
,-,auticztl Cente.y vlil] Oi)crate at a mi!1imUlil ,)50,000 Cle:ficit each
jear.
,':il1ett 321.iCl, _ _ _Cbserva1;io:: b;':i boat opcrator~3 ana personnel
;'smi..Liar \\'i tnl::aysiCle Part: :"3ubb-:est "tne praposerj aeveloprnent vIiil
:~ave little or no ir:'lpe"ct on ra:t'ting of 1)irds vihich occurs south
of the entrance to Chula Vis~a harbor rather than i~ the pro -
posed. Plan 1\r:1endment. _ _ _Personal observation indicates that
birds feed from north of F Jtreet to the Jweetwater Channel and
Bout}) of the entran(~e .to Chula Vis~a Garbor ana only freq
'inlirequently :J.re brown pelicans observC?(j flying, over the pro -
:Josed Plan ./llIlCY"J.(lc~'(lent c3.rea.. "
,;illett ~;hould no'/! ~n;La;y t.h.8 -.;>100, 000 ,)outl~! Jan .:.Jiceo Day ":;nnance-
~len'c Plan, 'oarticularJ..vthe bira count~.::; 00:18 OJ pC:l.id exper"0S in
~:;horelinc census are2. '1/6, whiCh extends fro;:'; :-..l ,:.;treet SQutt)
uO the 8hula Vista harbor entrance and wes~ to just beyond ttte
~}red~:;ed channel, and open v,rater CerlS\).f3 are:-3. 4/2 extenoinc; V'lest
i'rorn 1/6 to tile center of the bay, north to almost Ii' stre(~t and
:30Uti'1 to approximately J' Stree~.
Che shoreline area l/e durin: 1988-89 3~udy periOdS haa at one
.~ime alrno~;t 1,100 birds a.nCi a~:i many as 1J differen-t KlnCiS. Yor
instance one count during Feb., 1989, fOllnd 70 lesser scaup.
.Juring 1'\0V., . 88, tnere 'Ivere 1, 000 sl~rf seaters and the next Feb.,
150. In liov. 'f3tJ tlwre were 30 marbled gOdwits and 30 western
,"3and p:L1Jsrs in April, li e9. HOne of the highest, Least '_2ern .total~:;
'vas obtained. at this E:;tatiotl and Ero'.:y"1-:' pelican \,vas reported
'3..t ~hi.s station.'\
2he open ~V3."ter 4/2, where manv canoes anti l'\.ayaks v/ould want to
play had. as rilany as 2,L-+-00 birds at one 1:ime 'and as many a~3 24
differen~ species. In June, '88, one endangered least ~ern was
~oun~ed and in ~une, '89, there were 5. Brown pelicans were
80unted in ,June a!1d i"lOV. of '(38 and ~Jtlne of 189. In Fob., ; .39,
there were )0. Pelicans, too, are endangered. In Nov. '88
there were also 41 western grebes, 25 pintail ducks, 50 lesser
scaup, 535 surf scoters, 87 bufflehead ducks 127 wes~ern sand-
'oiDcrs anCl more."'llhis is the secona smallest of the boat survey
s~~nions but ranked finit along with one other sta1;ion in species
diversity and second in abundance."
cel1sus
Both/areas had willecs.
eV~~4~ - /
BfB 2
rhese facts and figures indicate that tnere was a hidden agenda
'!ihen "Jtuaies of California Leastcerns and "~ater Associated
-,irds at the Chula Vista lJayfront, San uiego County, California",
C-onee ana Stokes Assoc., rYle., was aone in 1987-88 and the
,;tuaied "bayfront" extenaea only from nortn of G --,treet to tne
Sweetwater Channel.
ro mi~igate disturoance to alreaay greatly aiminishea 11umbers
of wintering and migrating birds, it will be necessary to pro-
hibit water activities from a Cnula Vista ~autical Center frora
Cctober 15 to ~arC}l 15. Co~cerrl for the least tern will prohibit
a.-ter ba:::;ed c.ct:Lvi t~; fro'!:l April 1 to ,)epte~~jber 15.
._"h2..t leaves maybe 1'~- - 2 mO~1tns ror more or less slo\'v' speea water
;:;ports in ;:.,Quth San ~)ieGo Day.
JO you really want to spend ~J.2 millioil and ~50 tnousand eacn
,::: ~::c 'p;1rc; p::a:::'~ yem ~;;~
oJ~~~-~
Item
Meeting Date
/3
5/25/93
CDUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE: REPORT Update on Regional Solid Waste Issues
RESOLUTION 17/';'~ Approving Agreement By, Between and
Among the County of San Diego and the Cities of the County
Establishing an Interim Solid Waste Commission and Providing
for the Disposal of Solid Waste, and Committing 50% of the
City's Wastestream to the County
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Managemen~t ~ssistant SnYder~
\1
REVIEWED BY: City Manager.j~ "./Z (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No....!....>
On 3/30/93, Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid
Waste Part i c ipat ion Agreement in a workshop wh i ch i dent ified genera 1 concerns and
directed staff to focus on key concerns and recommendations for modifying the
Agreement. At the regular meeting of 4/20/93, Council again received updated
information on specific concerns and suggested revisions, and provided input to
Councilmember Moore in representing South Bay cities in renegotiating the
Agreement.
The SANDAG Board (sitting as the Integrated Waste Management Task Force) had
established an Elected Officials Steering Committee with the direction to
negotiate a modified Participation Agreement acceptable to the entire Task Force.
The new Agreement would then be distributed to all the cities and the County for
action by the respective councils and the Board of Supervisors.
This report now presents the revised Agreement (Attachment 1) approved by the
Integrated Waste Management Task Force. It also discusses the significant
changes from the original Agreement, the effect of regional solid waste
activities, and implications of the recommended and alternative actions. The
Agreement requires action by the City Council on or before June 1, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Not appl icable.
In general, a key aspect of the revised Solid Waste Participation Agreement
currently under consideration is that it was drafted and approved by elected
official representatives from each city and the Board of Supervisors. With that
in mind, it can be more easily understood in terms of a set of political
compromises designed with the intention of meeting the needs of the entire
region's residents, businesses and institutions. It is not as lengthy as the
original Agreement because the major task is not long-range facility and system
planning for twenty or more years. However, it is more complex in that it
represents a delicate balance of many interests and concerns, and there are
numerous uncertainties created by the nature of such an agreement.
13~/
Page 2, Item /;:r
Meeting Date 5/25/93
The Aareement
The proposed Agreement establishes an Interim Solid Waste Commission for no
longer than one year with the primary charge of determining the ultimate form of
governance. This is a distinct change from the original Agreement which allowed
a city the opportunity to become a partner in the County's system and to take on
an enhanced advisory role in that system. Originally, it was an Agreement
developed in a regional forum but ultimately executed between the County and an
individual city, and it was designed to meet both short term system financing
needs as well as long term planning and financing needs.
The "Interim Agreement" now under cons i derat ion acknow1 edges two important
tactical changes: 1) the prospective Member Agencies are not yet in concurrence
about whether their participation should be in an advisory role, a Joint Powers
Agency, a Special Act District, etc., and feel that this decision needs to be
made before long term facility planning proceeds; and 2) the spirit of regional
cooperation is crucial to this process, and participation by all agencies is
highly desirable. To this end, the revised Agreement binds all the cities and
the County for the period of time (up to one year) necessary to make the
governance decision. If one aaencv fails to take positive action on this
Aareement bv June 1, 1993, it is not executed and there is no subseauent action
specified in the Aareement.
Attachment 2 is a list of highlights of the Agreement's other provisions.
The Flow Control Covenant
Although the Elected Officials Steering Committee agreed to defer long term
facil i ty P 1 ann i ng and fi nanc i ng unt il sett 1 i ng the governance quest i on, the
County's continued need for funding for the San Marcos landfill is provided for
in the Agreement. As was pre v ious ly reported to Counci 1, appro x imate 1y $43
million of the currently planned $60 million expansion has already been expended
from the reserves of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and bonding is now required
to replace the expenditures and keep the Enterprise Fund solvent. A flow control
commitment of at least 50% of all the waste stream for each city (with the
exception of the City of San Diego) is provided for in the Agreement in order to
ensure the bonds could be sold at a sufficiently high rating.
A serious question from the cities during this negotiation process was an
explanation of how the County would approach the bond financing issue if the San
Marcos landfill was forced to close. If the expansion is halted as a result of
legal challenges or reversals in permits issued by the regulatory agencies, many
of the activities then become necessary to provide for the closure of the
landfill. Buffer zone properties already purchased would become assets to be
sold when market conditions improve and the remaining $17 million for future
purchase of buffer zone propert ies wou 1 d not need to occur. However, the
difference could be come from another $30-$40 million in remediation costs at
closed disposal and burn sites which is not intended for inclusion in the $60
million issue, but will be necessary in FY 1994-95.
J3"~
Page 3, Item /~
Meeting Date 5/25/93
For purposes of the flow control covenant only, the term of this Agreement will
be the term of the bond issue, not to exceed 20 years. The initial commitment
is to the County since there is no Interim Commission in place and the County
will be the bonding agency. In making this flow control commitment, a city may
initially choose to commit more than the minimum 50% of the annual tonnage. Some
cities may choose a commitment of 100% if there is an expectation that,
realistically, the waste will continue to go to the County system and the city
desires a guarantee that all of its waste will be disposed for the term of the
bonds.
It is extremely important to understand the ramifications of the initial flow
commitment, especially at a level less than 100%. Should a city choose to commit
only 50% of its wastestream when the Agreement is signed, the County will allow
the City to dispose of the remaining 50% in the County system at no surcharge for
the first six months of the Agreement. Within six months, the city must then
determine whether or not to commit the remaining 50% flow. Refusing to commit
the remainder at that time would subject the city to a surcharge on the tip fee
(not to exceed 50%) for any waste above the original 50% commitment continuing
to go into the County system. The city would also have no guaranteed disposal
rights for the uncommitted portion.
Any commitment of flow after the original Agreement will become a commitment to
the Commission rather than to the County. The flow commitment will be retained
by the Commission and by the successor entity once a final decision on governance
is made. Should there be no decision reached on a final governing authority
within the allotted twelve months, the Commission will remain intact as a body
with responsibility for disposing of all waste committed directly to the
Commission. This could amount to having the waste disposed within the County
system, but is dependent on whether the County rema ins as a member of the
Commission and/or the Commission chooses to contract with the County for disposal
capacity.
Impacts on the Rate Paver
Every discussion on a proposed Participation Agreement has focused on the effect
of a city's action on its rate payers. Approval of this Interim Agreement by
June 1, 1993 by all cities and the County will allow the County to move forward
with the bond issuance. That bond issuance will keep the tip fee increase for
July 1, 1993 to a minimum increase of $15, going from $28 per ton to $43 per ton.
Such an increase translates to single-family residential rate increases in the
range of $1.50 to $2.00 per month.
If the County is unable to issue the bonds, the tip fee will need to be raised
to about $65-67 per ton in order to generate enough revenue to keep the
Enterprise Fund solvent. The impact on the individual rate payer would be in the
range of $4.75-$5.25 per month above the current rate. These impacts refer only
to the tip fee component of the monthly rate, and, of course, do not include
costs for the hauler's general operating increases, new program costs such as
yard waste recycling, etc.
1;]'3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
/J
5/25/93
Liabilitv Issues and Staff Concerns
This report has explained the provisions of the proposed Agreement drafted by a
representation of the City Attorneys Association with assistance from the City
Managers under the clear direction of the Steering Committee. Any report
discussing issues with such significant impacts would be remiss if it did not
also discuss how the Agreement addresses key legal and policy concerns of staff
and Counc i 1.
L iabil ity issues were a major concern expressed by Council at the 3/30/93
workshop and again at the 4/20/93 meeting. Although there are many uncertainties
which cannot be addressed in the document, it was generally opined by the
drafting attorneys that a signatory city would not be undertaking either any
General Fund liability or any more environmental liability than is usually
maintained. That opinion may not necessarily be the opinion of the Chula Vista
City Attorney.
From a management perspective, it is critical that there be no (additional)
General Fund exposure as a result of this action. It is also noted that the
liability question becomes paramount once the 90vernance issue has been settled.
At that time, a city would know the extent to which a "partnership" is envisioned
and would be able to assess the impact of accepting more responsibility for the
privilege of having more authority.
Other concerns included rate-setting authority. The Agreement's primary purpose
is to establish the Interim Commission which will then determine the form of
governance and commensurate amount of rate-setting power. Therefore, cities play
only an advisory role to the Board of Supervisors during this (up to) one year
period, although the Agreement specifies that fees will not exceed the County's
cost of providing the disposal service.
Because of the uncertainties created by the provisions of the Agreement, staff
has attempted to create a few possible scenarios (Attachment 3) for the purpose
of helping Council think through the ramifications of some recommendations or
actions. It must be stressed that these scenarios are speculative, based only
on staff's projections of likely possibilities. They are not based on any
commitments or expressed plans of any jurisdictions.
The City Attorney will be presenting a separate and more detailed analysis of the
major legal concerns with the Agreement.
Conclusion
It was noted at the beginning of this report that the Agreement presented for
action is a product of a political process. It was also described above that the
staff recommendation to enter into the Agreement with an initial 50% flow
commitment to the County is not an ideal situation because of the uncertainties
which cannot be projected or covered in the Agreement. However, the
recommendation is presented as it was intended by the Steering Committee: taking
a step in the direction of regional cooperation for a regional problem.
/3''-/
Page 5, Item J;J
Meeting Date 5/25/93
The recommendation to initially commit only 50% is also not without risks but is
made on the basis of the Council's previously expressed concerns regarding the
need to retain as much flexibility as possible. This action will also keep the
rate payer's increase as low as possible until the next informed decision (by
December 1, 1993) can be made regarding the City's willingness to participate in
the future structure of the County's landfill system.
The staff recommendation places this issue before the Council for action at this
time. Because of the magnitude of the decision and the complexities presented
by the Agreement, Council is reminded that an additional option would be to hold
the discussion at this meeting and continue the item for a decision at either
meeting on 5/26/93 or 5/27/93. Also, if it is important to Council to know how
the Agreement has been received by other City Councils, that updated information
would be more fully available. Attachment 4 reports that, as of 5/20/93, 9 City
Councils have considered the Agreement, with 5 cities approving it and 4 cities
scheduling action by 5/26/93.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this issue will fall directly on the rate
payer, as indi vidua 1 trash co 11ect ion rates wi 11 increase somewhere between
$1.50-2.00 or $4.75-5.25 per household per month. It is also noted that these
increases will be determined by the collective action of the cities and the
County, and may not be directly linked to the specific action taken by the City
Counc i 1.
If the Interim Commission is established on June 1, 1993 as a result of regional
approval of the Agreement, the City will receive solid waste facility ("host")
fees as a provision of the Agreement. Based on the current tonnage entering the
landfill through the City, it is estimated that the City would be eligible to
receive from $1.2 to $1.5 million in General Fund revenue in FY 1993-94.
J3'->'/IJ'1.
Attachment 1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 1
AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY DF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
(" INTERIM AGREEMENT")
This Agreement (" INTERIM AGREEMENT"), is entered into by,
between and among the County of San Diego ("COUNTY") and the Cities
within the COUNTY, for the purpose of providing a committed flow of
solid waste that serves as a basis for the COUNTY to issue bonds to
finance the expansion and/or closure of the San Marcos Landfill and
to provide financing for other necessary solid waste system
projects; to provide a process, for up to twelve months, by which
the parties can mutually participate in dealing with regional solid
waste matters; and to develop a permanent governance authority to
deal with regional solid waste matters that will promote the long
term health and safety of the residents of the COUNTY and the
Cities.
Now, therefore, the undersigned COUNTY and cities (collectively,
"Member Agencies") agree to participate in good faith in the
performance of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, and to act in a manner that
conforms to the spirit, intent and general premises of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT, and in accordance with the following:
1.0 MEMBERSHIP
1.1 COUNTY Membership. To be a signatory of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT and participate as a full member of the Interim
Commission, the COUNTY is committing 100% of its Acceptable Waste
flow in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of this document.
1.2 city Membership.
and participate as a
city is committing at
Acceptable Waste flow
of this document.
To be a signatory of this INTERIM AGREEMENT
full member of the Interim Commission, each
least 50%, and may commit up to 100%, of its
in accordance with the provisions of Part 3
a. A member city committing at least 50% of its Acceptable
Waste flow at the time of signing this document may, until December
1, 1993, deliver more than its committed Acceptable Waste to a
COUNTY facility and such a~ditional waste shall not be subject to
the Economic Risk Surcharge set forth in this document at Part 3,
section 3.6, subsection d.
1
/3' 7
\
I
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 2
b. On or before December 1, 1993, a member city may file a
written addendum, in a form acceptable to the Interim Commission,
committing Acceptable Waste in addition to that committed in
Section 1.2 (a) to the Interim Commission; on the terms set forth
in section 3.10.
1. 3 ci tv of San Dieao MembershiD. Based on.. the City of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues, the City
of San Diego may participate as an ex-officio non-voting member of
the Interim commission. The COUNTY will negotiate a separate
agreement with the City of San Diego which reflects the City of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues. Such
agreement will be brought before the Commission for review and
comment prior to adoption.
2.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This INTERIM AGREEMENT shall take effect on
June 1, 1993, so long as on or before that date, the COUNTY and
each city in the COUNTY have executed this document; otherwise this
document shall have no force or effect whatsoever.
2.2 Term. Except as otherwise provided in Part 3 of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT concerning the commitment and disposal of Acceptable
Waste, the term of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall expire on May 31,
1994, unless sooner terminated by creation of a permanent
governance entity pursuant to Section 4.5(c).
3.0 COMMITMENT OF SOLID WASTE FLOW
AND DISPOSAL OBLIGATION
3.1 Title. This Part of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be known as
the "Flow Control Covenant."
3.2 Commitment of AcceDtable Waste. To the extent allowed by law,
each Member Agency agrees that the portion of its Acceptable Waste
designated in the execution section of this document shall be
delivered to the facility that the COUNTY reasonably designates.
. For purposes of this agreement, a 50% commitment constitutes the
tonnage commitment for the respective cities as set forth in
Exhibit "A", until adjusted by the Interim Commission. The Interim
Commission may review the tonnage commitment and revise the
apportionment.
2
/3-~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 3
3.3 Acceptable Waste Defined.
a. "Acceptable Waste" is gaJ":bage, refuse, waste and other
matter which is legally acceptable at a Class III landfill pursuant
to California Code of Regulations Title 23, Subchapter 15 or under
such laws or regulations as are in effect at the time of disposal
which is generated within its respective jurisdiction which, for
the COUNTY, consists of the unincorporated area. Except: waste
generated by a State or Federal governmental entity unless the
Member Agency has exercised control over such waste and chooses to
commit it; or waste generated by any person and transported or
disposed of by or on behalf of a self hauler hauling less than 50
tons per month.
b. Each Member Agency shall have the right, without penalty,
to recycle (as defined at Public Resource Code 9 40180) any solid
waste (as defined at Public Resources Code 9 40191) by any means
selected by the Member Agency and any such recycled material shall
be excluded from the commitment otherwise made to the COUNTY by
this Flow Control Covenant. However, if the residue of the
recycling process which can legally be disposed of at a Class III
landfill exceeds five percent (5%) of such recycled material, such
process residue shall be returned to the System for disposal unless
exempted by the COUNTY.
3.4 Enforcement of Flow Control. To the extent allowable by law,
each Member Agency shall establish, implement and carry out a waste
flow enforcement program which is sufficient to assure compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant. This program may include to the
extent necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, but shall
not be limited to, (1) licensing, permitting or franchising
haulers (on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis), upon the condition
of compliance with the Flow Control Covenant, (2) adopting
ordinances or resolutions requiring compliance with the Flow
Control Covenant, and (3) taking enforcement actions under any
such license, permit, franchise, ordinance or resolution. Direct
municipal collection of Acceptable Waste shall not be required
hereunder unless all other available means and methods of enforcing
the Flow Control Covenant have been unsuccessful. If any event or
circumstance (including without limitation a change or adverse
interpretation of applicable law) impairs or precludes compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant by the means or methods then being
employed by the affected party, such party shall implement
al ternati ve or substitute means and methods to enable it to
lawfully satisfy the terms and conditions of the Flow Control
Covenant. If a change or interpretation in applicable law impairs
or precludes either party from complying with the Flow Control
3
/ 'J '7
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 4
Covenant by any means, such party shall use its best efforts, to
the extent practicable and subject to indemnification by the
COUNTY, to effectuate executive, legislative or judicial change in
or relief from the applicability of such law so as to enable City
lawfully to resume compliance with the Flow Control Covenant as
soon as possible following such change or interpretation of
applicable law. Compliance by the affected party with its
obligations under this paragraph shall be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the its obligation to enforce the Flow Control Covenant.
a. Power to Exercise Flow Control.
Each Member Agency represents that it has the right,
power and authority under existing applicable law to enter into,
comply with, implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant. Each
party shall use good faith and best efforts to preserve, protect
and defend its right and power to enter into, comply with,
implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant in accordance
herewith against any challenge thereto, legal or otherwise
( incl uding any lawsuits by or against such party, whether as
plaintiff or defendant) by any person based upon breach of
contract, violation of law or any other theory.
b. Consistency of Aqreements.
As soon as practicable after the Effective Date, all
licenses, permits, contracts, agreements, leases, franchises,
ordinances and resolutions of the affected party which are lawfully
in effect with or pertaining to any person relating to or affecting
Acceptable Waste shall, if and to the extent necessary, be amended
to provide explicitly that the affected party shall have the right
without material restriction to direct the delivery of the
committed Acceptable Waste in accordance with the Flow Control
Covenant. On and after the Effective Date, the affected party
shall not enter into, issue or adopt any license, permit, contract,
agreement, lease, franchise, ordinance or resolution which is
materially inconsistent with the Flow Control Covenant.
3.5 COUNTY's Disposal Obliqation. In a manner that is economical,
fiscally sound and reasonably protects the environment, the COUNTY
agrees to dispose of the Acceptable Waste directed by Member
Agencies to the COUNTY under this Flow Control Covenant.
4
/ :3 -/ tJ
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 5
3.6 Disposal Charqes. The COUNTY may only charge a Member Agency
for the disposition of Acceptable Waste by imposing a fee in an
amount that does not exceed the COUNTY's cost for providing such
disposal. All revenue, including interest earned thereon, from
disposal charges shall be placed in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
used only for solid waste purposes.
a. Tip Fee to Member Aaencv. The Tip Fee charged by the
COUNTY for the disposal of Acceptable Waste within the System shall
be sufficient to fund the reasonable and necessary costs for
operation, management and financing of the System, including:
solid waste facility closure and post closure costs, solid waste
facility and mitigation fees. For the disposal of Acceptable Waste
the COUNTY shall charge all sources in the unincorporated area, and
shall charge a Tip Fee for waste delivered from a Member Agency.
(1) Solid Waste Faci1itv Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law, the COUNTY shall
charge a Facility Fee for waste delivered for
processing or disposal to a system facility. The
COUNTY shall pay-over the collected Facility Fee to
the ci ty or COUNTY in the case of the
unincorporated area in whose jurisdiction the
facility is located to compensate the hosting
member for the reoccurring impacts of having the
facility within its jurisdiction. The Facility Fee
shall initially be set at an amount equivalent to
the appropriate percentage for the facility type
(as described below), as that percentage of the Tip
Fee in effect on January 1, 1993. Thereafter, the
Facility Fee shall be adjusted automatically and
concurrently with any increase in the Tip Fee, by
an amount equal to the percentage increase in the
Tip Fee but not greater than five percent (5%) of
the then current Facility Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Facility types and percentage of the Tip
Fee* (In effect on January 1, 1993):
o Landfill = 10% of Tip Fee ($2.80)
o Mixed Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility
= 7.5% of Tip Fee ($2.10)
o Transfer Station = 5% of Tip Fee ($1.40)
*For the
section,
Facil i ty
purpose of the calculation in this
the Tip Fee does not include the
Fee or the Mitigation Fee.
5 J3~/1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 6
(c) If a jurisdiction has more than one
Facility at the same location, or contiguous
location, it would receive the higher of the
applicable Facility Fees, but not more than
one Facility Fee.
(d) The Facility Fee for all future
facilities shall be the Facility Fee for that
type facility as of January 1, 1993 with
adjustments as described in subsection (1),
above.
2. Mitiaation Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law and commencing
July 1, 1993, the COUNTY shall impose a Mitigation
Fee for waste delivered to a system facility. The
Mitigation Fee shall be in an amount that is five
percent (5%) of the Tip Fee in effect on January 1,
1993. Thereafter, the Mitigation Fee shall be
adjusted automatically and concurrently with any
increase in the Tip Fee, by an amount equal to the
percentage increase in the Tip Fee or an amount not
greater than five percent (5%) of the then current
Mitigation Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Mitigation Fee funds shall only be used for
specific projects that correct a documented impact
arising from a system facility. Any City or the
COUNTY for the unincorporated area may apply to the
COUNTY for a share of the Mitigation Fee funds.
Mitigation Fee funds shall not be used for a
mitigation measure which is required for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act or
any other regulatory process. Moreover, any Member
Agency which is receiving a Facility Fee for a
particular facility will not be eligible to receive
Mitigation Fee funds for that same facility.
b. Economic Risk Surcharae.
(1) To the extent allowed by law, in order to offset any
increased costs to the system and account for any
economic risks created by non-committed waste being
deposited into the system, COUNTY may impose an Economic
Risk Surcharge for the disposal of Acceptable Waste from
a non-signatory source or from a Member Agency in excess
of the portion of Acceptable Waste committed under the
Flow Control Covenant.
6 /3~/.2..
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 7
(2) From June 1, 1993 to June 1, 1994 the surcharge
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Tip Fee in
effect at the time of the transaction, excluding the
Solid Waste Facility Fee and the Mitigation Fee, if any.
The criteria used to establish the Economic Risk
Surcharge include but are not limited to: capital
charges, the increased depletion rate of landfill
capacity and timing effects. Economic Risk Surcharge
funds shall only be used to pay for the costs of the
operation, management and financing of the disposal
system.
3.7 Protection of Flow Control Covenant. If any challenge raises
issues common to the Member Agencies under this Flow Control
Covenant, the COUNTY through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund shall
indemnify and hold harmless the affected party from the reasonable
costs, fees and expenses properly allocable to defending such right
and power.
3.8 Expiration and Reversion of Flow Control Covenant.
a. Expiration. This Flow Control Covenant shall expire on
the first of any of the following to occur:
(1) No Bond Issue. As to all members, on May 31, 1994,
unless the COUNTY first relies on the Flow Control
Covenant in issuing bonds to finance the San Marcos
facility expansion and/or closure and to provide
financing for other solid waste projects in the
approximate amount of $60 to $100 million;
(2) Expiration of Term of Bond. As to all members, if
the COUNTY timely issues the bonds described above, the
Flow Control Covenant shall expire upon the expiration of
the term of such bonds or upon the refinancing of such
bonds, but in no event later than 20 years from the date
of the original bond issuance.
(3) Improper Charqe. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY imposes on a Member Agency a fee that is not
consistent with this Flow Control Covenant and after 60
days written notice from the Interim Commission, COUNTY
fails to adjust the fee so as to be in compliance with
this Flow Control Covenant and fails to refund or grant
a credit for any over-charges;
7
/3'/,)
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 8
(4) Failure To Dispose. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY is unable to dispose of all of the committed
Acceptable Waste from the member and after 60 days
written notice from the Interim Commission County fails
to dispose of such waste; or
(5) Leqal Impossibilitv. As to affected members, if the
law precludes a member from directing the flow of
Acceptable Waste to the COUNTY.
b. Reversion.
(1) To Member.
Covenant to the
shall revert to
Upon expiration of the Flow
COUNTY, the member's commitment
the committing member;
Control
of flow
(2) To Interim commission. In the event that a
permanent governance entity is not established pursuant
to Section 4.5 (c) any flow committed to the Interim
Commission shall be retained by the Commission, as
allowed by law, otherwise to the Member Agency.
(3) To Permanent Entitv. If a permanent governance
entity acceptable to the Interim Commission is
established pursuant to section 4.5 (c), the member's
commitment of flow shall be assigned to that permanent
entity on the terms specified in the document creating
the permanent entity.
3.9 continuation of Interim Commission. Notwithstanding Section
2.2 hereof, the Interim Commission established in Part 4 shall
continue to exist so long as is necessary to accomplish the
purposes of Part 3.
3.10 Flow Commitment to Interim commission.
Interim Com~ission shall be subject to the
the Member Agencies:
Flow commitment to the
following covenants of
a. The commitment shall be for the same term of the initial
commitment made to the COUNTY.
b. The COUNTY shall dispose of the commitment to the Interim
commission without surcharge until May 31, 1994.
c. In th~ event that a permanent governance entity is
established pursuant to Section4.5(C), the flow committed to the
Interim Commission shall be assigned to that entity. In the event
that such an entity is not established, the Interim Commission
shall retain the commitment.
8 IJ..)tf
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 9
3.11 AlleQation of Breach. In the event that a Member Agency
alleges that another Member Agency has breached any part of this
Part 3 or Section 4.6 the dispute shall be submitted to the Interim
Commission; the determination of the Interim commission shall
constitute a rebuttable presumption of compliance with or breach of
such part or section.
4.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF Interim Commission
4.1 Establishment. There is hereby established the Interim
commission to accomplish the purposes set forth herein.
4.2 Composition. The Interim Commission shall consist of one
commissioner from the County of San Diego who shall be a
Supervisor; one commissioner from each member city who shall be a
mayor or councilperson: and one ex-officio commissioner from the
City of San Diego who shall be a mayor or councilperson.
Commissioners shall be appointed by their respective governing
bodies which may also appoint an alternate commissioner.
4.3 Procedures. The Interim Commission shall be SUbject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code ~~ 54950 et ~) and shall adopt
regulations to govern its internal operation.
a. A Chairperson and vice-Chairperson shall be chosen by the
Interim Commission.
b. The Commission shall meet at least once each month on the
Commission's established regular meeting date.
c. Special meetings may be called at the request of three
commissioners with a minimum of 72 hours notice to all members
of the Interim commission.
d. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a
quorum.
e. Actions shall be determined by a majority vote of the
commissioners, based on one vote per Member Agency. The
Interim commission may amend this document to establish
procedures for a "Weighted Vote."
4.4 Staff for Interim commission.
such County administrative staff
Commission. The Interim commission
staffs of the members.
The COUNTY agrees to provide
as requested by the Interim
may request assistance from the
9
J J " /..5
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 10
4.5 Role of Interim Commission.
a. Advice. The Interim commission shall provide advice to
the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY on the following matters
that concern solid waste facilities, operation, rates and
financing: capital projects in excess of $50,000, disposal
al ternatives if the San Marcos site is closed, other disposal
options, outside-county disposal, intra-county transfer of solid
waste and Tip Fees.
b. Notice and ODDortunitv to Advise. Before considering a
solid waste matter listed in section 4.5 (a), the COUNTY will
provide to the Interim Commission a full staff report on each solid
waste matter to be addressed by the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors;
in sufficient time for the Interim Commission to consider the
matter on the agenda of the Interim Commission's regular meeting.
The COUNTY is not required to comply with this process when an
emergency condition must be addressed and there is insufficient
time for compliance. In the event of such emergency, the COUNTY
shall provide a staff report to an Executive Committee appointed by
the Interim Commission.
c. DeveloD Permanent Governance Entitv. The Interim
Commission shall consider alternative organizational structures,
including a joint powers agreement, for exerting a unified effort
to accomplish regional, solid waste objectives. No later than May
31, 1994, the Interim Commission shall develop a permanent
governance entity designed to maximize the members' collective
strength in pursuing their interests in disposing of solid waste.
The permanent governance entity:
(1) Shall include all participating cities and the
COUNTY;
(2) Shall be empowered to contract for solid waste
processing and disposal; and
(3) May be empowered to (a) take over and operate the
COUNTY facilities, (b) create new facilities and (c)
contract with outside providers.
d.
provide
Interim
AcceDtable Waste DisDosal. The Interim Commission shall
for disposal of Acceptable Waste flow committed to the
commission. 2
10
/.J'/~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 11
4.6 Attaininq SUb-Reqiona1 Disposal Ob;ectives. During the term
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the COUNTY and the other Member Agencies
agree:
a. Process. To plan and implement the objective of
pro,:,iding facilities to meet the waste disposal needs of the
van.ous sub-regions of the County of San.. Diego, without
unreasonably impacting another sub-region in an adverse manner.
Any dispute shall be resolved by the Interim commission in
accordance with section 3.11.
b. North County Disposal Option. The county will use its
best efforts to provide a North County disposal option.
c. waiver of Geoqraphic Ob;ection. On condition that the
covenants set forth in section 4.6(a) and (b) are being performed,
not to object, on the basis of geographic origin, to the direction
of Acceptable Waste to any facility.
5.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.1 withdrawal.
a. Procedure. If any Member Agency requests to withdraw
from this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the Interim commission shall calculate
the impact on the system of such agency I s withdrawal taken in
conjunction with all other members desiring to withdraw, and shall
thereafter formulate, in negotiation with all such agencies, a set
of final terms and conditions for early withdrawal which will
become effective upon approval of the Interim commission.
b. Limitation On withdrawal Charqes/Pena1ties. There shall
be no charge or penalty imposed on the withdrawing Member Agency if
the reason for withdrawal is the expiration of the Flow Control
Covenant as to the withdrawing member.
c.
section
survives.
Survival.
5.1 shall
Notwithstanding
survive as long
Section 2.2 hereof, this
as the Interim Commission
5.2 Notices. All notices, demands or requests pursuant to this
INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be in writing. All notices, demands and
requests to be sent to any member shall be deemed to have been.
properly given or served:
a. On the date of actual personal service; or
11
J:J'/?
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 12
b. On the date actually received, if deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party at the address of the Member
Agency's regular meeting chambers, or other address designated by
the Member, postage prepaid, registered or certified, and with
return receipt requested.
5.3 Non-Severabilitv. In the event that a substantive provision
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be determined to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall
negotiate in good faith such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this INTERIM AGREEMENT or such other appropriate
action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein. If negotiations in good faith fail,
the INTERIM AGREEMENT, including the Flow Control Covenant, is
terminated.
5.4 Waiver of Breach. No breach of any provision herein can be
waived unless in writing. waiver of anyone breach of any
provision herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
breach of the same or other provision hereof.
5.5 Remedies. All Parties hereto shall have the right to commence
any action at law or equity, including specific performance, to
remedy a breach of the terms herein, provided that neither Party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement except as provided
herein.
5.6 No Third partv Riahts. There are no
beneficiaries of this Agreement. No action may be
enforce this Agreement, except by a Member Agency.
third party
commenced to
5.7 Counterparts. This
counterparts.
document
shall
be
executed
in
12
I J" /~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page l3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this INTERIM
AGREEMENT as of the dates set forth.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
committing lOO% of its
Acceptable Waste flow
Date:
CITY OF LA MESA
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
SUPERVISOR
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CARLS BAD
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
.CITY OF LEMON GROVE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
13
ly~/7
I
I
CITY OF CORONADO
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF DEL MAR
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EL
committing
Acceptable
Date:
CAJON
% of its
Waste flow.
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
APPROVEO BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 14
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF POWAY
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
14
/ ..J - .,2 t?
CITY OF ENCINITAS
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 15
CITY OF SANTEE
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF VISTA
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
15
/3-,;2./
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY WASTESTREAM COMMITMENT*
Member Aqency
Waste Tons
Chula Vista
Oceanside
Escondido
El Cajon
Vista
Carlsbad
National City
Encinitas
La Mesa
Santee
poway
San Marcos
Imperial Beach
Coronado
Lemon Grove
Solana Beach
Del Mar
82,399
80,450
65,566
52,430
44,028
38,149
34,065
32,844
31,399
31,289
26,371
24,854
15,767
15,503
14,327
7,663
2.875
600,000
* Calculation utilizes July 1992 population figures as
approved by SANDAG
. .
J J -'');L.
Attachment 2
"INTERIM AGREEMENT" HIGHLIGHTS:
SECTION
WHAT DOES THE CITY GET? COUNTY PROMISES:
3.5
3.10(b)
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
4.6(a)
4.5(c)
1.1
4.5(a)
10)
1)
TO DISPOSE OF ALL FLOW INITIALLY COMMITTED TO THE
COUNTY (50-100%) FOR TERM OF BONDING WITHOUT
SURCHARGE
2)
TO DISPOSE OF ADDITIONAL FLOW COMMITTED TO
COMMISSION BY 12/1/93 (RATHER THAN COUNTY) UNTIL
5/31/94 WITHOUT SURCHARGE - THIS IS KNOWN AS THE
"WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY"
3)
4)
5)
DISPOSAL WILL BE ECONOMICAL AND FISCALLY SOUND
DISPOSAL WILL BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
DISPOSAL WILL BE AT A COST THAT DOES NOT EXCEED
COST OF DISPOSAL
6)
TIP FEE AND SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE FUND TO BE USED
ONLY FOR SOLID WASTE PURPOSES
7)
TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT THE OBJECTIVES OF PROVIDING
FOR FACILITIES FOR EACH SUBREGION
8)
TO PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPING A PERMANENT GOVERNANCE
ENTITY
9)
TO COMMIT 100% OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
WASTESTREAM TO THE SYSTEM
TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM THE INTERIM COMMISSION WHICH
THE CITIES SERVE ON
WHAT DOES THE COUNTY GET? CITY PROMISES:
3.2
3.10
1)
2)
BY JUNE 1, 1993 TO COMMIT FROM 50% UP TO 100% OF
ITS WASTESTREAM (AFTER RECYCLING) TO THE SYSTEM FOR
THE LIFE OF THE BONDS OR 20 YEARS, WHICHEVER IS
SOONER
BY DECEMBER 1, 1993 TO COMMIT THE OTHER 50%, OR
REMAINDER OF WASTESTREAM TO THE COMMISSION OR
AGREES TO PAY A SURCHARGE TO CONTINUE TO USE THE
SYSTEM FOR THE UNCOMMITTED FLOW
13'';;]
"INTERIM AGREEMENT" HIGHLIGHTS
3.4
4.0 &
4.5
1.3
PAGE 2
3)
TO ENFORCE THE FLOW CONTROL COVENANT TO THE COUNTY
AND THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE BY LAW
4)
TO PARTICIPATE IN AN "INTERIM COMMISSION" CREATED TO:
(a) DEVELOP A PERMANENT GOVERNANCE ENTITY
BY MAY 31, 1994
(b) PROVIDES ADVICE TO THE COUNTY ON:
CAPITAL PROJECTS IN EXCESS OF $50,000
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES IF THE SAN MARCOS
SITE IS CLOSED
OTHER DISPOSAL OPTIONS
OUTSIDE.-COUNTY DISPOSAL
INTRA-COUNTY TRANSFER OF SOLID WASTE
TIP FEES
(c) PROVIDE PARTICIPATION BY EVERY CITY, INCLUDING THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AS AN EX-OFFICIO NON-VOTING
MEMBER DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE ROLE AS A SOLID WASTE
SYSTEM MANAGER IN THE REGION
/3 -.;.,-/
SCENARIO 1:
Attachment 3
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS AND IMPACTS ON CHULA VISTA
ONE AGENCY (OR MORE) DOES NOT SIGN, BUT...
SCENARIO lA:
ENOUGH CITIES INTERESTED
SUFFICIENT COMBINED TONNAGE
TONS)
WITH
(600K
o County may execute new (but similar) agreement
with interested cities and proceed to bond for San
Marcos.
o Tip fee for non-signatory cities eff. 7/1/93
increases from $28/ton to $58/ton (includes 50%
surcharge but not on all components, i.e. facility
and mitigation fees).
o Commission formed with signatory cities and
proceeds to deal with organizational structure
question before tackling long-term facility issues.
o Non-signatory cities would be paying surcharge,
but would probably have at least a year before
seriously needing to determine where else to take
the trash-- until long-term facility planning
starts with new Commission, County system will want
additional revenue.
o Commission will pay solid waste facility and
mitigation fees only to its members under terms of
the revised Agreement.
IMPACT ON CHULA VISTA AS NON-SIGNATORY:
o Potential loss of facility fee revenue currently
budgeted at $1.2M (assumes CV would receive entire
fee and would potentially be $70K/ yr. higher as
tip fee "escalator clause" to go into effect 7/1
and pay $2.94/ton) unless fees received through
another process such as CUP at Otay landfill.
o Estimated impact on single-family household
(SFH) trash rate based only on landfill pass-
through cost could be increase from $12.28 to
$16.24/mo, an increase of $3.96/mo. or 32%. This
assumes no other increases such as hauler operating
( "CPI" ) increases, franchise fees, new program
costs (yard waste), etc..
/ :3' ,25"
/1
)
SCENARIO 2:
o Unknown additional staff/consultant costs to
determine City's other waste disposal options,
needing to include transfer facilities at the very
least.
o Possible litigation costs related to loss of
facility fees, tip fee surcharge, etc..
SCENARIO IB:
NOT ENOUGH CITIES INTERESTED WITH
COMBINED TONNAGE OF 600K TONS
o County unable to bond, tip fees raised to $65-67
to cover revenue needs.
o No facility fees paid except as part of land use
condition, i.e. currently at San Marcos and
probably at Otay sometime within the next FY.
o County will make major policy decisions about
future operations and facility planning, possibly
planning only for the unincorporated area and maybe
negotiating separate contractual arrangements with
any cities not wanting to assume burden of going
anywhere else. These contracts could be short or
long term opportunities.
IMPACT ON CHULA VISTA AS NON-SIGNATORY:
o Potential loss of facility fees until mechanism
such as CUP for Otay landfill is available.
o Estimated impact on SFH trash rate could be
increase from $12.28 to $17.43/mo., an increase of
$5.15/mo. or 42%.
o Unknown addi tional
litigation costs.
and potential
staff
ALL CITIES SIGN NOW, COMMIT 50% FLOW TO COUNTY...
SCENARIO 2A:
DURING FIRST 6 MONTHS, IF
SM LANDFILL CLOSES AND
NO ORG DECISION MADE
o County still needs flow commitment and proceeds
to bond to keep SWEF solvent.
o Commission continues to work on organizational
structure for (up to) 6 additional months.
1:>"'..26
o Tip fee remains at $43/ton for all cities for
the first 6 months, although there may need to be a
small increase to cover transfer costs for North
County waste to go elsewhere. Commission would
determine how to handle and make recommendation to
the Board on tip fee change, if necessary. Assumes
hauler transport cost extends to transfer station,
then additional cost to go to Sycamore or Orange
County or elsewhere would be spread system-wide.
o County required to dispose of all committed
trash and agrees to take more at no surcharge only
for 6 months.
o Cities originally committing only 50% need to
decide whether to commi t remainder to the
Commission and not be subject to surcharge of 50%
on the remainder, or to not commit any more and pay
surcharge on remainder or take remaininq trash
elsewhere.
o Commission decides where to dispose of all waste
committed to it, therefore, it would be possible
for a city to have the County-committed (50%) waste
going to a County facility, and the remainder 50%
committed to the Commission being sent
elsewhere...an operational nightmarel
SCENARIO 2B:
DURING SECOND 6 MONTHS, IF
ORG DECISION UNACCEPTABLE TO CITY,
ONLY ORIGINAL 50% TO COUNTY
o Assumes city paying surcharge on 50% and still
taking to County system until governance issue
decided, then city determines governance decision
is unacceptable (i.e. too much liability).
o City would need to negotiate with any disposal
service provider which could also be: the County
system as part of the Commission, the County as
separate from the Commission (if it is ultimately
not included), or the Commission without the
County.
/3-.:2.7
Attachment 4
Schedule for Cities' Actions on Interim Aqreement
(As of May 20, 1993)
May 17, 1993
May 18, 1993
May 19, 1993
May 25, 1993
May 26, 1993
June 1, 1993
Del Mar
Continued to May 21
Solana Beach
APPROVED
Carlsbad
Continued to May 25
Coronado
APPROVED
El Cajon
Continued to May 25
Lemon Grove
APPROVED
poway
APPROVED
Encinitas
Discussion only, action May 26
Imperial Beach
Chula Vista
APPROVED
La Mesa
National City
San Marcos
Vista
Encinitas
Escondido
Oceanside
Santee
County of San Diego
J]'2<6'
Date:
May 11, 1993
To:
Honorable Mayor and Council Membe~s
From:
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney \' '>
Interim Flow Control Agreement
Re:
The following are my major concerns and criticisms of the proposed
interim flow control agreement set for review on your Tuesday night
agenda.
1. Landfills Assure Low Tippinq Fees.
Waste management technology includes low cost, high value
technology such as landfillsY, and high cost, low value technology
such as the NCRRA FacilityY. The county Trash system is probably
at the end of its "good value" life and will now enter an era of
"high cost, low value" life because the County refuses to site
landfills in the unincorporated area of the County.
There are three major landfills in the System. The San Marcos
landfill may close within the year if permits are not granted, but
even if they are granted, the expansion will only give the landfill
an approximate 7 year life. The otay Landfill is about to close
its currently permitted space, but with the CUP it will gain an ad-
ditional 1 to 2 years, and with Canyon 3, it will gain an addition-
al 6 to 8 years. I am not familiar with the life of the third
landfill.
The County either refused to, or has been unable to, site new
landfills.
Maior Point:
We should not become inextricably committed to a system that
either (1) doesn't have adequate landfill capacity, or (2)
won't commit to using landfill technology to manage waste, or
1. By way of example only, landfills may process trash in the $20
per ton range.
2. A "dirty MRF" (Materials Recycling Facility) may remove
recyclables from the waste stream at $200 per ton processed.
f10w10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 1
13'';'
(3) won't give us authority to site landfills in the
unincorporated area of the County!
Maior Concern:
This Agreement commits our flow for up to 20 years, possibly
longer, without giving us any authority to site landfills, or
a commitment to use landfill technology, and it commits our
flow to a system that seems doomed to use high cost, low value
technology!
2. Tippinq Fees Are Goinq to Escalate Tremendouslv and without Anv
citv Control
Our residents~ will become committed to pay whatever tipping
fee may be set by the County for possibly 20 years, and maybe
longer. It is bound to increase. This year's increase is already
proposed at $15, from $28 to $43 per ton. This is a 53% increase,
and it is clearly expected to climb as high technology methods and
unaccrued expenditures have to get financed by reducing tonnage
over compressed time periods. It could easily reach $65 per ton
within 3 years, and the $100 per ton mark not far thereafter.~1
3. The Aqreement Gives cities No Control Over the Svstem.
The proposed Interim Commission is only advisory to the
county's authority to run the system. They can ignore our advice.
We will have no control over the costs of the system, or the fees
set to pay for those costs.
4. This Aqreement Mav Interfere with the Motive of the Countv to
Give Us Full Authoritv Over the Trash System.
There is the notion that within a year, the cities and the
County will move to a permanent governance authority ("PGA"). It
seems to be a major liability, and I am not sure that we will want
to assume it. But if we do decide later that we want to, the PGA
3. Residents here mean home dwellers and businesses.
4. We estimate, at the current tipping fee level, that every $10
increase in the tipping fees means a $1.00 increase per month in
the monthly trash bill of a single family resident. Under our
current trash rate structure, land fill costs represents about 30%
of the $10.00 per month trash bill. A $10 per ton increase in land
fill costs will generate about a $1.00 increase in the monthly bill
of the single family resident. So if the tipping fee goes from $30
to $40--a 33% increase, the monthly bill will increase from $10.00
to about $11. 00.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 2
13'JO
should have, at a minimum, landfill siting authority.
require the County to surrender its authority over
system, including landfill siting authority.
This will
the trash
This agreement gives the County all the flow they need to
finance their system without jeopardizing their general fund. They
will be substantially less motivated to surrender critical pieces
of authority to the PGA later since they have what they need out of
this "interim agreement".
5. The Aqreement Won't Be Modified to Give cities Rate settinq
Authoritv.
The County can not, by certain bond covenants, give cities the
right to approve tipping fees. The County has "rate covenants" in
their outstanding bond agreements requiring them to set the rates
at whatever amount is necessary to service the debt and keep the
system afloat. They need that authority not just to service the
bonds but to keep the system from being financed by the County
General Fund. If they surrendered it, they would jeopardize their
general fund.
Even if the cities were given the right to approve increases
in the tipping fee, it would have to be reasonably exercised, and
they would have to be set to cover the costs of the system.
The problem is that the system has not properly accrued for
its costs of doing business; it has not sited new landfills, it has
incorporated high priced, low value technologies.
The only way for us to avoid these costs is to retain the
right to take all of our trash elsewhere when the market place
provides a cheaper alternative. This agreement is designed to
prevent that alternative, and achieves that purpose quite
effectively.,l/
6. Reducinq the Flow Commitment to 50% Doesn't Alleviate
Concerns.
The Flow Control Covenant now obligates each member agency to
deliver a fixed tonnage, declared to be about 50%, of its
Acceptable Waste to such waste disposal facility (landfill, MRF or
transfer station) as the County may reasonably designate.
a. The Risk of Uncontrolled Esca1atinq Tippinq Fees is
Enhanced--not Reduced--bv Reducinq the Flow.
5. A recommended amendment could be made to allow termination when
alternative disposal costs become cheaper.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 3
13'J/
The risk of uncontrolled escalating tipping fees is worse than
before because the County retains the authority to set the
disposal charges (see section 3.6) and they may simply divide
the cost of doing business by half as much tonnage causing the
rate to escalate twice as much as under the circumstance where
we would give 100% of our trash.
b. The Commitment is for Fixed Tonnaqe, Not 50%.
Total flow has been dropping over the last three years
2.5 million tons per year to 1.6 million tons per year.
may be due to recycling, maybe the economy. I assume
vista's proportionate tonnage has been dropping also.
from
This
Chula
This agreement requires us to commit 82,000 tons per year, not
50%. I don't know if this is 50% of our City's tonnage or
not,W but if the trend of reduced flows continues due tb
recycling or the economy, 82,000 tons will become an
increasing percentage of our total flow--flow we may need
later to build our own facilities in the South Bay.
c. Risk of Pavinq Escalatinq Transport Costs.
Right now, we transport the trash from the city res idents
curbside to the Otay Landfill--just a few miles. Our
residents pay for the cost of that transport. Under the
revised agreement, the city is still exposed to the same risk
of paying higher transport costs since the County may
designate any of its facilities to which the City of Chula
vista would be required to deliver its trash. Conceivably,
and for purely economic reasons, it may be necessary to
deliver a certain amount of trash to the NCRRA facility in the
North County and the cost of getting it to the North County
facility would, without further protection, be borne by the
member agency.
6. Enforcement of the Flow Control Covenant may have Trash Fund
and General Fund liabi1itv exposure for the city.
A. Traditional Flow Control mav be illeqal.
The city will still be required to resort to direct municipal
collection of acceptable waste if that is necessary in order
to get the trash delivered to a designated facility. Recent
cases have held that municipalities lack the authority to exe-
6. I inquired and was advised that the amount of our tonnage is
not precisely known.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 4
):J <J:L
cute traditional Flow Control CovenantsY because there is an
insufficient legitimate state or city interest to justify in-
terjecting itself into affairs of "interstate commerce" .~I
B. We May be Required to Cancel Franchises and Become a
Municipal Collector.
If we do not have the power to require a licensed hauler to
take their trash to a County facility charging $100 per ton
because there is a cheaper facility available at $70 per ton,
the Agreement requires "municipal collection"--that is, we
pick the trash up ourselves and take it to the County facility
and pay the $100 per ton. We hope that we can collect the
$100 per ton from those persons whose trash we collected.
C. Our General Fund May Pay the Difference.
However, it seems to this lawyer to be a natural extension of
the recent trend of cases that, if a "traditional flow
control" is illegal, we would also lack the authority to
charge for municipal collection in an amount that reflects the
$30 per ton increment. If we can't collect it, our general
fund will be required to cover the difference. At $30 per ton
for 160,000 tons per year, this could amount to $4,800,000 per
year out of the general fund.
This non-traditional flow control covenant has not yet been
tested~, so I admittedly could be wrong about this
conclusion. However, the magnitude of this risk must be
considered in deciding whether to approve this agreement.
If I am right, about the way the case law may develop, the
City'S General Fund will have to pick up the incremental
difference between the free market price for trash tipping and
the County controlled price. Our General Fund will therefore
7. Traditional covenants do not require municipal collection.
They simply make it a law that a trash generator--a resident--sha1l
deliver his trash to a system facility and make it illegal to
deliver it outside of the system.
8. Ordinances which we would be required to adopt, banning export
of trash from a system haye been held to interfere with a waste
generators or waste haulers ability to take trash--a commodity--to
an out-of-state facility, thereby interfering with interstate
commerce. This can only be done with a substantial state interest.
9. It was recently devised by County's bond counsel to survive the
recent trend in cases.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 5
/3' J;J
be "bailing out" the County Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and
General Fund problem.
If I am wrong, our ratepayers will be paying the differential.
D. Enforcement Costs.
In addition to this exposure to General Fund liability, the
City'S Trash Fund will be incurring costs in enforcement
actions when haulers start taking their trash to the cheaper,
non-County dump sites.
I note that the Commission is assuming responsibility for
reasonable costs, fees and expenses incurred in anyone
party's litigation costs associated with a challenge that may
be common to all member agencies such as protection of the
Flow Control Covenant. I note, however, that the indemnity is
not out of the County's General Fund, but out of the County's
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, a fund which will be
redistributed back to the member agencies through the tipping
fees. We, in essence, then would be indemnifying ourselves.
If we are going to assume the philosophy that it is
appropriate for the system to pay for itself and that the
costs of the system, such as enforcement costs, should be
spread to the system users, it should be a normal extension of
that philosophy to have the system pay for all enforcement
actions.
7. Our Warranty That the Flow Control Covenant is Valid
ExplicitlY Shifts the Exposure to the City's General Fund.
If it isn't already apparent that we may have General Fund
exposure, the Agreement, at Section 3.4(a) requires us to warrant
and represent that we have the right, power and authority under
existing applicable law to enter into, comply with, and implement
the Flow Control Covenant. The way the Flow Control Covenant is
defined in the Agreement (to-wit: an agreement to pick up the trash
ourselves if everything else fails) makes that clause "probably
enforceable" but again, if the traditional aspect of the Flow
Control Covenant is not enforceable, its illegality will not make
it chargeable to the Trash Users, and the warranty will have to be
paid out of the City'S General Fund.
8. Economic Risk Surcharqe May Be I11eqal. and Cheaper than the
Alternative.
The County has threatened to impose an "economic risk sur-
charge" equal to 50% of the tipping fee on those cities refusing to
floW10.Wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 6
);<31
sign.J.Q1 There is a constitutional prohibition on imposing a
charge for a service that is greater than the cost of that service.
To the extent that this is a quantifiable element of cost, we may
have to pay it. To the extent that it is a penalty, it may be held
illegal.
But regardless of its illegality, if we have to pay it for
three to five years while we develop alternatives, it may be better
than uncontrolled escalating tipping fees for 20 years.
9. It is FiscallY Imprudent to Finance A Facility with a 7 Year
Life Over a 20 Year Period.
The proposal contemplated currently by the County is to issue
20 year bonds to finance the San Marcos expansion which, even if
permitted, will have a life expectancy of only 7 years. At least
600,000 tons of our waste flow, and hence our tipping fees, will be
paying for that expansion for 20 years. But at the end of 7 years,
we will be giving our tonnage not only for the closed San Marcos
facility, but we will have to use our tonnage to provide financing
for new facilities to handle ongoing north county trash and for
cleaning up the closed facility.
At about the same time, in 7 years, the Otay Landfill capacity
will have been exhausted, and we will also need to use our tonnage
to provide financing for new facilities to handle ongoing south
county trash. The tipping fees for this tonnage will now be
bearing the freight for the 7 year life of the San Marcos facility-
-now closed, the clean up costs for the closed facility, a new
north county facility, the NCRRA, and our own new south county
facility.
It seems that we could find and develop our own landfill and
pay for it with our own tipping fees at a price that won't carry
all of this extra cost baggage. At a minimum, we should be sure
that we can't do it cheaper before we make a multi-million dollar
decision.
10. The Aqreement May Impact Our Ability to Attract Business and
Jobs, and May Be an External Control on our Growth.
Waste management is a critical limiter on growth. By
committing our flow for the overall system, and empower~ng a non-
city authority to make it available and price it, we are losing
10. Thus, if the tipping fee is $43 per ton for signatory cities,
Chula vista ratepayer, if it refuses to sign, would be charged
$61. 50.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 7
/3-.:35'
control over an aspect of the quality of life we can offer our
businesses and residents.
11. The County Is AlreadY C1aiminQ Half of Our Host Fee.
A strong motivation for the City to consider entering into
this agreement is the provision that the City will be paid a Host
Fee of $2.80 per ton, a charge that will be passed on to our
residents.
since the Otay Landfill is already partly in the territory of
the City and partly in the territory of the County, the County has
already indicated that they will claim half of the Host Fee, and
because most of the future landfilling activity will be on the
County side, they may lay claim to more of the tipping fee than
half in the future. Therefore, much of our motivation should be
diminished.
Recommendation:
It is my foremost recommendation that you do not approve the
agreement.
It is my secondary recommendation that, if you feel the need
to approve an agreement, that the agreement be amended as follows:
1. give the cities, not the County, landfill siting
authority.
2. give the city the ability to terminate the flow
control covenant without penalty or cost at such time as
the cheaper alternate tipping fees become available to
the City.
3. give the City the ability to terminate the flow
control covenant at such time as the City'S general fund
may be obligated to pay for the tipping fee.
4. specify that as to the otay Landfill Host Fee, the
City of Chu1a vista shall receive all of said Host Fee
for the duration of the Flow Control Covenant.
I will address minor criticisms at the time of the hearing upon
request.
flow10. wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 8
13"'3~
RESOLUTION NO.
17/4e;
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN
AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE
CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, AND COMMITTING 50% OF
THE CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNTY
WHEREAS, on 3/30/93, Council discussed regional solid
waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement in
a workshop which identified general concerns and directed staff to
focus on key concerns and recommendations for modifying the
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of 4/20/93, Council again
received updated information on specific concerns and suggested
revisions, and provided input to Counci1member Moore in
representing South Bay cities in renegotiating the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board (sitting as the Integrated
Waste Management Task Force) had established an Elected Officials
steering Committee with the direction to negotiate a modified
Participation Agreement acceptable to the entire Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the new Agreement would then be distributed to
all the cities and the County for action by the respective councils
and the Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chu1a vista does hereby approve the Agreement by,
between and among the County of San Diego and the cities of the
County Establishing an Interim Solid Waste Commission and Providing
for the Disposal of Solid Waste, and committing 50% of the city's
Wastestream to the County, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chu1a vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
,
stephanie Snyder, Principal
Management Assistant
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
F: \home\attomey\SoIWaste.res
/3' 37
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
J~
ITEM TITLE:
Item
Meeting Date
RESOLUTION I '7 tJ 9 JTranSferring $2,500 of unused CDBG funds Pi}~.)
from various sub-grantees to the Lutheran Social Services of California for
the "Thursday's Meal" program
SUBMITTED BY:
Community Development Director
City Managerj". ~ ~\
c.. S .
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: YES _ NO ....L)
BACKGROUND: In July 1991, Lutheran Social Services and the South Bay Ecumenical
Council began a weekly meal program for homeless people. The "Thursday's Meal" program
currently serves 200 people, half of whom are children. The committee overseeing the program
has recently expanded to serve meals on Mondays at the Presbyterian Church. Lutheran Social
Services has sent the City Council a letter (see attached) requesting $2,500 to cover the cost of
utilities, maintenance, and insurance. This is a one-time request and immediately needed due
to the rapid growth of the program. Unused CDBG social services funds are available from
various sub-grantees.
RECOMMEl\'DATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution transferring $2,500 of
CDBG funds from various sub-grantees to the Lutheran Social Services of California for the
"Thursday's Meal" program
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Thursday's Meal program was started by the South Bay Ecumenical Council, Lutheran
Social Services, and Chula Vista Human Services Council in July 1992. The purpose of the
program is to provide a weekly dinner meal, prepared and served by local church groups, to
homeless and needy families and individuals. The program is coordinated by Lutheran Social
Services and an ad-hoc committee of volunteers from various churches. Fay and Jerry Needle
of the Grandmothers Club provide on-site management and also pick-up food donations. To
date, over 500 volunteers from more than twenty religious organizations have prepared and
served meals. At the first meal served last July, a dozen people were served; currently, about
200 people are served each Thursday. The committee has recently added a Monday dinner
meal, which is prepared and served at the Presbyterian Church on Hilltop Street.
Due to the unexpectedly large response to the Thursday's Meal program, Lutheran Social
Services is making a one-time request for $2,500 of CDBG funds. Although the facility spaces
are provided without charge to the program, the Salvation Army and Presbyterian Church are
charging $15 per use for the cost of utilities and maintenance. In addition, Lutheran Social
Services must purchase paper products, plastic utensils, coffee, and cleaning supplies.
If-I
Page 2, Ite~A
Meeting Date 7/93~~J
The ad-hoc committee is raising funds from the community to cover these expenses in the future,
as well as to expand the program to another night. However, the rapid growth of the program
has created an immediate need for the funds requested.
Unused CDBG social service funds are available from previous years. Several sub-grantees did
not use up their entire allocation, leaving amounts ranging from $200 to $1000.
FlSCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the general fund. The CDBG funds to be transferred
were allocated to sub-grantees in previous years but remain unexpended.
The funds are from the following accounts:
Jobs For Youth
Otay Comm. Clinic
Project Hand
Sweetwater UHSD
Shared Housing
TOTAL
647-6471-BG222
647-6471-BG237
647-6471-BG239
647-6471-BG249
647-6471-BG228
$ 1,036
767
282
200
215
$ 2,500
_ /f'2.
RESOLUTION
I '11J93
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TRANSFERRING $2,500 OF UNUSED CDBG FUNDS FROM VARIOUS SUB-
GRANTEES TO THE LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE "THURSDAY'S MEAL' PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the South Bay Ecumenical Council, Chula Vista Human Services
Council, and Lutheran Social Services have established a home repair program for senior
citizens; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, CDBG funds are available for reappropriation from completed
projects; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, mE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS. FOLWWS:
SECTION I. The City Council transfers $2,500 from the following accounts to
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California for the Thursday's Meal Program (a new
project):
Jobs For Youth
Otay Comm. Clinic
Project Hand
Sweetwater UHSD
Shared Housing
TOTAL
647-6471-BG222
647-647l-BG237
647-647l-BG239
647-647l-BG249
647-6471-BG228
$ 1,036
767
282
200
215
$ 2,500
SECTION II. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect
immediately upon the passage and adoption hereof.
SECTION III. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions said City; and shall make
a minute of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is
passed and adopted.
14"" - 3
~9-3
Resolution
Page 2
Presented by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
[DHARRIS:DISK-93-4\LSS2.RES)
14-t
~9~r
..+.. ~~ III :0
..,~ ~~ ~ ~
:><.ic::= I iol
tnr-- - _
01> <::
"'T1c:: ;0:: --
~- - '"
Lutheran Social Services of Southern Cliifrottlia 0
March 25, 1993
Mayor Tim Nader and
The City Council of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
~' . -~,..'-
Lutheran Social Services has been sponsoring a weekly congregate meal
program at the Salvation Army facilities (648 Third Avenue) since July of
1992. By the end of February we had served 3,302 people, 1,363 of whom
were childrenl Most of these people are the working poor of the South Bay,
with the number of homeless growing.
I am proud to say that this meal is served by congregations and organiza-
tions from all over San Diego County. To date a total of 539 volunteers
haye generously given 1,499 hours of their time towards this effort.
Due to the growing numbers of those in need we will begin offering another
weekly meal on Monday, March 22, at Chula Vista Presbyterian Church.
The volunteers are in place for months in adyance, and we expect those we
serye will be comparable in size to our meal on Thursday. Before the end of
the year o,..r gosl is iO aUG 'vel anothe. cOIIsrega16 "'''01 on toithar Tuesday u,
Wednesday evening.
Currently we pay $15 per week at each site for utility and maintenance fees.
Over the course of a year these costs total $1,560. We also purchase
annually another $2,000 in paper products, utensils, coffee, and cleaning
supplies. Lutheran Social Services charges a nominal fee of $500 annually
for proY/ding liability insurance, bookkeeping and program management.
Though proceeds of $500 are anticipated from congregational gifts a
yet unknown percentage will.be received from the Crop Walk, we
financial need of $2,500.
~
~rcn"",
I /' "'1' D ,~\
- -) ~ -- '-'
1993 '-- S!
"vI
3101 '"rth """';4:; CA "'03;;';~.~~f'~ 6ru;;:;;;p'
"
Mayor and Council
Page Two
March 25, 1993
On behalf of this program we are asking the City of Chula Vista for $2,500
- from CDBG funds to help meet current expenses and to expand this program
to one more night before the end of 1993. Next year we calculate our
financial need to be substantially less, since our financial resources base is
growing slowly and steadily.
This program serves a nutritious meal to mostly low-income families in Chula
Vista. The bulk of this meal is provided and served by volunteers. It is a
real need in the community and, therefore, I believe it is worthy of your
consideration. Please feci welcome to spend an evening with us and see
first-hand this wonderful cooperative effort.
Perhaps the City Council would like to put together a meal and serve itl
would be pleased to help you do that, if your time permits.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters. I have appreciated your
support in the past. J look forward to hearing from you soon.
Respectfully,
. !J;t )PIA J~~
~tt JJ'nki~s
Area Director for San Diego County
14 -G,
-13$ 't.
~Jf?-
:::..,.~ ~
~.-....;~.-...;
~:~~~
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 17, 1993
From:
The Honorable Mayor and city counn:t)
Bruce M. Boogaard, City AttorneY10~
Lutheran Social Services Contract for Meals Program
To:
Re:
Please be advised that I have now reviewed the operation of the
Lutheran Social Services Program for the feeding of homeless and
have been advised that there will be no religious proselytization
whatsoever; that the Lutheran Social Services, although connected
to the Lutheran Church, is not, in fact, the Church itself. It is
my opinion that there is not a violation of the separation of
church and state principles in connection with the funding of this
program and recommend that the program proceed in the manner
recommended by staff.
BMB: 19k
cc: John Goss
Chris Salomone
David Harris
F:\home\attomey\luthserv .rne,m
/Lf-7
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item If
Meeting Date 5/25/93
ITEM TITLE: Report on Request by San Diego Area Wastewater Management District
to share in the costs of treating Tijuana Sewage
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
'\
REVIEWED BY: City Manager -JG ~ ~1
There is an item on the Agenda for the San Diego Area Wastewater Management Board of
Directors (SDA WMD) meeting of May 28, 1993 to approve sharing the costs of treating Tijuana
sewage between all the Participating Agencies if the Federal Government doesn't pay their share.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the staff's report and support the City of San
Diego in efforts to receive funding from the Federal Government for their proportionate share
of operation and management costs for sewage treatment and that Chula Vista, San Diego and
other Participating Agencies not agree at this time to share in the cost.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
The City of San Diego has been treating Tijuana sewage since last year through an agreement
with the Federal International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). San Diego has been
paid a negotiated amount from the IBWC for this year, but there are not adequate funds in the
Federal Budget for next year to cover the total proportionate costs including overhead. The
Federal Government is not being charged any costs for Clean Water Program (CWP) costs. San
Diego wants to charge commercial rates to the IBWC (not including CWP Administration costs
or costs that would expand the system). Staff believes that this is fair and reasonable. In
essence San Diego is asking member agencies to share the cost with San Diego to make up any
cost difference not covered by the Federal Government.
Staff does not support agreeing at this time to share in the costs should IBWC not be able to get
funding. President Clinton indicated in his address in San Diego Monday that he would seek
approval for this funding.
The costs to Chula Vista for next year would amount to $153,291. This represents
approximately 30 cents per month per single family household.
/.5''''/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date: 5/25/93
Should the Federal Government not come forward with funding, then the issue could be revisited
by the SDAWMD. Options would include:
. Not treating the sewage, and polluting the ocean.
. Sharing the full cost by all the Agencies in the system based on annual flows. ($153,291
for Chula Vista)
. Paid for fully by City of San Diego. (Cost for Chula Vista = $0)
. Paid for by the benefiting coastal cities only. (Cost to Chula Vista = $0)
. All Participating Agencies, including San Diego, pay actual out of pocket costs, not
overhead. (Cost to Chula Vista = ?)
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes it is premature to agree to any funding to share in the cost of treating Tijuana
sewage. Chula Vista should give political support to SDA WMD to help convince the Federal
Government of their responsibility to pay their fair share. Should the region's efforts not be
fruitful, then the issue could be revisited by SDAWMD.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None if adopt staff recommendation. If comply with San Diego request the cost for Chula Vista
would be $153,291.
Attachment: City of San Diego CWP report.
JPL:SB FILE NKY-220
F:ENGlNEERIAGENDAISDAWkfD.520
052093
/5".2
DATE:
'.
City of San Diego
CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
533-4200
CWP-
In reply. please refer to
Chronological Number:
109786
April 30, 1993
TO: H. R. Frauenfelder, Interim General Manager, MS 970-A
FROM: Dave Schlesinger, MS 970
SUBJECT: Funding for the Continued Treatment of Tijuana Sewage in the San Diego
Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro)
This memo is in response to the request by the San Diego Area Wastewater Management Board
of Directors at the April 23, 1993 meeting for additional backup information on projected costs
that might be shared with the City of San Diego by the other agencies in the event Federal
reimbursement is not forthcoming. Included is a copy of the agreement signed by the City of
San Diego and the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) which states inter
alia:
"The United States Section will seek funding from the United States Congress in its 1993
Fiscal Year budget request to cover the amount necessary to reimburse the City......at
a rate of $600 per million e:allons of sewage. In subsequent vears the U.S. Section will
seek funding.... . to cover the amount necessary to reimburse the City.. ... based on the rate
charged by the City to commercial customers.
Also included is correspondence by the City and State to the effect that the amount to be charged
for Federal Fiscal Year 1994 is $821 per million gallons of sewage treated.
The following are the current estimates of cost sharing by the participating agencies based on
the following assumptions:
1.
Mean daily flows for the entire year will be 10.5 mgd. This represents the average daily
flow for calendar year 1992 as measured by the IBWC.
2.
Federal reimbursement for 1993 is based upon $600/mgd.
3.
Treatment will recommence on May 1, 1993 after repairs are completed on the Mexican
flow diversion structure.
4.
. Federal funding for FY93 will be limited to $613,000.
5.
Reimbursement for FY94 is based upon $821/mgd.
6.
Federal Funding for FY94 will be limited to $313,000.
7.
Agencies will provide reimbursement for treatment of Tijuana sewage based upon their
proportionate flow in the Metropolitan Sewer System as estimated for FY93 and FY94
respectively.
8.
E1 Cajon will become a District member in 1993 as a result of modification to the
weighted vote.
I.?:J
109786
H: R. Frauenfelder, Interim General Manager
San Diego Area Wastewater Management District
Funding for the Continued Treatment of Tijuana Sewage in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro)
April 30, 1993
Page 2 of3
PROPOSED COST SHARING FOR TREATMENT OF TIJUANA SEWAGE
BY PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND CITY OF SAN DIEGO
AGENCY FY93 FY93 FY 93 FY94 FY94 FY 94
FLOW PROJ. FLOW COST FLOW FLOW COST
(MGD) PROJ. SHARE PRO] PROJ. SHARE
% OF (MGD) % OF
TOTAL TOTAL
Chula VistalMont. 10.31 5.88 45,536 10.01 5.41% 153,291
Coronado 2.22 1.27 9.835 2.23 1.20% 34.002
Del Mar 0.63 0.36 2,788 0.71 0.39% 11,051
El Cajon 6.59 3.76 29,118 7.92 4.28% 121,273
Imperial Beach 2.55 1.46 11.306 2.25 1.21% 34,285
La Mesa 4.16 2.37 18,354 4.38 2.37% 67.154
Lakesidel Alpine 2.38 1.36 10.532 2.60 1.40% 39,669
Lemon Grove 1.59 0.91 7,047 1.77 0.96% 27.201
National City 3.04 1.73 13,397 4.01 2.17% 61.487
Otay 0.30 0.17 1,317 0.39 0.16% 4,534
Padre Dam 3.91 2.23 17.269 4.17 2.25% 63,753
Poway 3.28 1.87 14.482 3.78 2.04% 57,803
Spring Valley 5.97 3.41 26,407 8.72 4.71% 133.457
Wintergardens 0.90 0.51 3.950 0.76 0.41% 11.617
AGENCY TOTAL: 47.83 27.28 211.260 53.60 28.96 % 820,577
City of San Diego 127.51 72.72 563.153 131.41 71.04% 2.012.908
SYSTEM TOTAL: 175.34 100.00 774,413 185.01 100.00 2.833,483
%
NOTE:
Estimated costs to treat Tijuana sewage in FY94 ($2.8 MILL) is approximately
4% of total estimated Metro O&M Costs for FY94.
/5,i
109786
H. R. Frauenfelder, Interim General Manager
San Diego Area Wastewater Management District
Funding for the Continued Treatment of Tijuana Sewage in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro)
April 30. 1993
Page 3 of 3
It should be noted that the proposed cost sharing by the other agencies would not be required
if the Federal Government abided by its signed agreements. The Federal budget process in
Washington will, however, undoubtedly adversely impact any requests from the mwc for
treatment of the Tijuana sewage. The City will continue to work closely with our Congressional
delegation to ensure that the Federal Government does honor its commitment to what all agree
is a Federal Funding responsibility.
FDS:kw .
C:\wp51 ldocIFDS\30422.MEM
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
CWP Chron. No. 109617 _~~
CWP Chron. No. 109143 ....C'.~> .
IBWC Memonmdum of Agreement t"\~ ~
. ~"
/..s: .5
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
Meeting Date OS/25/9)
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL
fl.
Resolution J 7/30 Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Price Company
AGENCY [!.. Resolution 1328 Approving a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Price Company
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director (.S .
REVIEWED BY: Executive DirectorJ~'1j '6:~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X)
BACKGROUND: In discussions with Price Club concerning their plans for their Broadway
store and the new H Street store, the need for improving access off Palomar to the Broadway
shopping center was identified. The Price Company is requesting a level of assurance from the
City via the proposed Memorandum of Understanding that the City intends to facilitate this
improvement. The improvements entail acquisition of right-of-way, in order to upgrade an
existing private driveway to public road standards, and relocating an existing traffic signal from
in front of the Palomar Trolley Station to the new road's 4-way intersection at the secondary
entrance of the future Palomar Trolley Shopping Center (see Map A).
The proposed improvements benefit traffic flow on Palomar Street and traffic conditions at the
intersection of Palomar Street and Broadway.
It should be noted that Price Club is scheduled to close escrow on the H Street property the
week of May 25, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council and Redevelopment Agency approve: 1) their
respective resolutions approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the Price Company
providing assistance in improving the traffic access off Palomar Street to the Price Club
Shopping Center, and 2) authorize staff to prepare any additional documents necessary to
implement the MOU.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed new public road will provide a public right-of-way between Palomar Street and
Oxford Street to the Price Club Shopping Center. This will benefit both the City, in terms of
improved traffic flow on Palomar and easing congestion at the Palomar/Broadway intersection,
and the shopping center tenants, as well as optimize the development potential of the vacant
I~'" /
Item 1(,
Meeting Date 05/25193
parcel located west of and adjacent to the existing Price Club store (parcel #4; see attached
map B).
The proposed MOD provides for cooperation and cost sharing between the City, Agency and
Price Club to effectuate the proposed new access road. Key terms are as follows:
L Rig.ht-of-Wav Acquisition
Approximately 38,953 square feet, or .89 acres of land, is required to be dedicated to
the City for public right-of-way (see Map C). Price Club is responsible for negotiating
to acquire this property. Should their efforts to secure voluntary dedication or sale of
the property not be successful, the City agrees to consider using eminent domain.
However, whether acquired through voluntary sale or condemnation, Price Club must
pay all acquisition costs, which could range from $0 to an estimated $429,000 (based on
38,953 square feet at $1 LOO/square feet).
2. Use of Eminent Domain
As indicated, the City agrees to consider using eminent domain in the event Price Club
is unable to acquire the right-of-way through voluntary dedication or sale. However, the
City will not pay for acquisition costs.
3. Road and Sil!nal Construction
Price Club will pay up front for road improvements and signal relocation. The City or
Agency will reimburse Price Club for the actual cost of construction over time from
revenues generated by parcel #4 and subject to such terms as provided for in a future
agreement. (The current rough estimate of construction costs is $272,000).
4. MTDB Approval
The City and Agency agree to facilitate MTDB approval of the traffic signal relocation.
5. Lel!al and Other Consultant Fees
Price Club agrees to pay for all legal costs associated with the proposed MOU and
related agreements (estimated to not exceed $30,000). The City and/or Agency agree
to pay for legal and other consultant costs related to eminent domain proceedings not to
exceed $50,000.
In terms of environmental review, the proposed improvements are found to be exempt from
CEQA as there is no new project (as defined by CEQA) involved. A CEQA exemption will be
prepared and filed upon approval of the MOU.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed MOU would result in the following estimated fiscal impacts
to Price Club and the City/Agency, respectively:
/h ;,,2,
Item I ~
Meeting Date OS/25/93
Cost Item
Price Club
Citv / Al!encv
Land Acquisition
Construction and Signal relocation
Legal/Consultant Fees
Est. up to $429,000
Est. $272,000
NTE $ 30,000'
-0-
Est. $272,000
NTE $ 50,000
NTE $322,000
TOTAL
Est. uo to $731.000
In summary, City/Agency costs are estimated to not exceed $322,000. Price Club's costs, while
potentially up to approximately $730,000, are actually expected to be significantly less due to
some level of voluntary right-of-way dedication.
*Estimated at approximately $15- $20,000.
Cheryl #2
PriceClb.MOU
I~'J
uu
.~........... .
-------------.
.. ~
.
--- ----------
-1'1 ..... ........ ~
., -. .. . .
'"
,\
~
oJ"-
.1;:)
l1-
)(
<;:)
/
/
/
/
/
/
..
o.
/
/
--------,/--
/
/
/
I N t7 V S T P. I ^ L p.> L" D.
~MAP A
\1
"'-
,
......
~ ~
~tt; ~~
~~ ~~
\
l
,
,.
/
/
/
t-
---J~~
~ ~~
)
, ~
t;""* ~
\tI \j\
;;'-i
, H T....USlI ~I ' r- .
Ill... . ~
I I J } rND....... t...,
NOSIOY"
I~ "l^Y
LNMYlOOOM
-
.ICJi
l.:.OOHOlO:>
~
~
SlldV~ I _
I I
"lUll I J
lOISHoaHVH I I
I I
D I I
.J
1, ED
r
<
o
ED
:II
~
o
~
.
:<
'802
." a
anl:>
l:>Uld
;., ~ ., '3 ,;)~.laf J
'8021 'N Cf
%
II>
"'I
Z
o
C
III
-i
::II
.
r
~
~
"'
J
- -"UlIl1S-- -OHO""XO--
l:Q
P-t
-<
~
'SS3:J:Jtt
tlttW07ttd
lC
...~
::
....
I I
"!l
1,
....
,..<-
z."..
000
....
l\J'I!
R:vil
......
ION..
....
..ar
......
tWt"
j.()
-
"n""
JdVW.
..
J:
I..
r
~~
,
Jlf J
I@:o
r; N
;:
~
.,
w'
..'
..I
..
't9&
o
"
,
@.
,
I
1:0:
If:;
IC
I"
I~
z,_
::!'J
';1.1
l~fI!l
~
''-'
'~
,. I
~ ..
,~ I
I
I
..
111;;1
" ..I
...
01
"I
I
..~ t
01 ~::@)
.." N~ @J
__H 1Pl!.'497' -.".
'" ,........'s..'lIV .7'."c:r -n-- ""'8.91 PM 3&~
i@ !Ii i(ID!
. 1; ..
n
-
E)
\
IIIAP",..",.",
---
z
)>
;s::
,...
o
~,.~"
....
." '
../to
I,'
",,,, ,,-ifl
. l ..,.
i\ . " \1\
,'j
.",
:;.a-
- ..
. Zr.:\.
~\::J _
~
.,
;:
.
~
.
@
. .
@
.
'.
,
~
'.
.............~"';:'::.......-.:.
. .j../~-2S0
't.
~ .
'?-?I ~
.f
,.
~--~....._..--<. "-- ....
.~.-""'" . p ~,
,-:.1 ,-.
....._.-...1'1;4
MRY 14 '93 14:03
"'" ,....
F-782 T-310 P-004
. --.. . ..,
-.~~
THE PR I CE COMPRNY
.._---............ .......-- ..
6195814964
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
PALOMAR ACCESS
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
This Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") is made
and entered into as of this day of ,
199_, by and among the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
corporation having charter powers ("CITY"), THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of
the State of California (the "Agency") and THE PRICE COMPANY, a
California corporation ("Owner") with reference to the recitals
set forth below.
RECITALS
A. Owner is the legal owner of certain real property
(the "Site") located with the City and within the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). The site is
described, for purposes of identification only, in the descrip-
tion of the Site, attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Attachment No. 1 and is shown on the site Map attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Attachment No.2.
B. The site is currently partially developed with a
Price Club retail outlet. A large portion of the site remains
undeveloped due to the lack of access.
C. In order to facilitate development and use of the
remainder of the Site, to service additional properties with the
Project Area and improve circulation within the Project Area the
parties hereto desire to cooperate to provide a new public street
(the "Street") as generally shown on the site Map.
D. The property required for the construction of the
Street (the "Right-of-Way") is located outside the boundaries of
the Project Area.
E. Construction of the Street will require the
relocation of an existing traffic signal currently located at
the entrance to the MTDB Palomar Trolley station (the "Trolley
Station") and realignment of the entrance of the Trolley station.
F.
provisions of
supports the
element.
Construction of the Street is consistent with the
the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area and
goals of the City'S general plan circulation
5\20 13422G. N~4
-1-
1?-7
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals set
forth above and for other good and valuable consideration pro-
vided for herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Provisions of the street Benefits the Proiect
Area. It is the determination of the City and Agency that con-
struction of the street will be a benefit to the Project Area in
that the street will provide access to the Site, improve access
to other properties within the Project Area and generally improve
circulation with the Project Area.
2. Acquisition of the Riaht-of-Way.
(a) Owner to Acquire. Owner shall attempt to
acquire the Right-of-Way at Owner's sole cost through pur-
chase from third parties. The precise al ignment of the
Right-of-Way shall be determined by city.
(b) Consideration of Eminent Domain. In the
event that Owner is unable to acquire the Right-of-Way
through voluntary sale at a purchase price acceptable to
Owner and upon receipt by city of a written request from
Owner, City agrees to review and consider use of the City's
power of eminent domain to acquire the Right-of-Way.
Owner acknowledges and agrees that this MOU is
not intended and shall not be interpreted to bind or commit
City to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the
Right-of-Way or for any other purpose. City's sole obliga-
tion pursuant to this MOU is to duly consider, after compli-
ance with all legal and procedural requirements, whether the
public interest and necessity require the exercise of
eminent domain to acquire the Right-of-Way. In no event
shall City's determination that the exercise of eminent
domain is not appropriate or required to acquire the Right-
of-Way be deemed a default of this MOU or a lack of good
faith on the part of City.
(c) Allocation of Costs. In the event that Owner
is unable to acquire the Right-Of-Way by voluntary purchase
and the City after receipt of a written request from Owner
authorizes the exercise of eminent domain to acquire the
Right-Of-Way: (i) the City and/or the Agency shall bear the
first Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) of the cost of the
necessary expenses including, but not limited to,
appraisals, consultant fees, legal fees and court costs (the
"Processing Costs"), and (ii) Owner shall bear the remainder
of the Processing Costs and lOO% of the cost of the Right-
Of-Way.
S\Z013422G. NW4
-2-
I~-Y
Notwithstanding the above, in the event that the City
commences exercise of eminent domain and the total cost to
acquire the right-of-way exceeds the Owner's last offers to
the involved third parties by fifteen percent (15%) or more,
Owner shall have the right to terminate this MOU upon
provision of written notice to City and Agency and payment
to City of all costs expended or incurred relative to the
eminent domain action prior to termination of the MOU. Said
costs shall include costs and damages incurred or expended
due to a termination of the eminent domain action by City
due to Owner's termination of the MOU even if incurred or
expended before or after termination of the MOU. Owner
shall pay all costs, expenses and damages to City within
thirty (30) days of receipt of reasonable evidence of said
costs, damages and expenses.
3. Construction of street Improvements. In the event
the Right-Of-Way is acquired by Owner or city, Owner shall
construct the required street improvements (the "street Improve-
ments") in accordance with the specifications established by City
and at Owner's sole cost. Such construction shall include but
not be limited to installation of pavement, curbs, gutters and
sidewalks and the relocation or the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of the street and Palomar Road.
If the Right-of-Way is acquired by Owner, upon
completion of construction of the street Improvements, Owner
shall convey the Right-of-Way to City at no cost to City.
In the construction of the street Improvements, Owner
shall comply with all applicable public bid and prevailing wage
requirements.
4. Reimbursement of Owner. At such time as the site
is further developed by Owner or Owner's successor-in-interest,
the Agency and/or the City shall reimburse Owner for the actual
cost of the construction of the Street Improvements, as found to
be reasonable and approved by the City Engineer, in accordance
with terms and conditions to be mutually agreed to and set forth
in a document executed by Agency and Owner. Such reimbursement
may be paid to Owner over time from tax revenue generated by the
future development of the site.
5. city/Aqency Assistance. City and Agency staff
shall use reasonable efforts to work to encourage and facilitate
MTDB approval of (i) the relocation of the existing traffic
signal from the Palomar Road entrance to the Trolley station to
the intersection of the street and Palomar Road; and, (ii) the
realignment of the entrance to the Trolley station. The staff
shall also use reasonable efforts to facilitate agreements
between MTDB and other third parties to provide necessary
easements to accommodate entrance to and exit from all properties
S\Z013422G. N"4
-3- It'?
affected by construction of the street. Neither the City nor the
Agency shall be required to incur any cost or expense to obtain
the approvals or agreements referenced above, nor shall the City
or the Agency have any liability in the event that, despite such
reasonable efforts, such approvals or agreements are not
obtained. In the event MTDB fails to approve the relocation of
the traffic signal, City, at city's sole discretion, shall have
the right to terminate the MOU with no liability to Owner or
Agency.
6. Reimbursement of Consultant Fees. Owner shall
pay to Agency an amount equal to the cost to Agency for consul-
tants and legal counsel incurred relative to the drafting and
approval of this MOU and any documents necessary to implement
this MOU provided, however, that Owner's obligation to Agency
pursuant to this paragraph 6 shall not exceed THIRTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($30,000.00). Payment shall be made to Agency within
thirty (30) days of receipt by Owner of reasonable documentation
of such costs.
7. Notices. All notices or other communications
required or permitted hereunder shall be addressed as follows
and be in writing and shall be personally delivered, sent by
overnight mail (Federal Express, Express Mail or the like) or
sent by First Class Mail.
If to City:
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a vista, California 91910
Attention: John Goss
with a Copy to:
City of Chu1a vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: Bruce Boogaard
City Attorney
with a copy to:
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
4695 MacArthur Court, 7th
Newport Beach, California
Attention: Marcia Scully
& Hampton
Floor
92660
If to Agency:
The Redevelopment Agency of
The City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: John Goss
with a Copy to:
City of Chu1a vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: Bruce Boogaard
Agency Counsel
S\Z013422G. N~4
-4-
Ii, ,/~
with a Copy to:
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
4695 MacArthur Court, 7th
Newport Beach, California
Attention: Marcia Scully
& Hampton
Floor
92660
If to Owner:
The Price Company
4241 Jutland
San Diego, California 92117
Attention: Mr. Don Howells
with a Copy to:
Mr. Joseph R. Satz
Vice President-Counsel
The Price Company
4649 Morena Boulevard
P.O. Box 85466
San Diego, California 92138
8. Disputes. In the event of a dispute this MOU will
be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any litigation regarding this MOU shall be
filed in the Superior Court in the County of San Diego. In the
event of litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable costs including but not limited to attorney fees.
9. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that
the contractual relationship among the City, Agency and Owner is
such that each party is an independent entity and not an agent
of any other party.
10. Further city /Aqency Assistance. It is under-
stood that the terms of this MOU embody the final assistance
which the City or the Agency is willing to provide to the Owner
in connection with the development of the site.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this MOU
on the date first above written.
"CITY"
City of Chu1a Vista, a municipal
corporation
By:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Approved As to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
S\Z013422G.NW4
-5-
/""/1
Approved As to Content:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
"AGENCY"
The Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista, a political
subdivision of the state of
California
By:
Tim Nader, Chairman
Approved As to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Marcia Scully
Special Counsel to Agency
Approved As to Content:
Chris Salomone
Executive Director
Community Development Department
S\Z013422G.N~4
-6-
/q; '1';"'/ ,/,,/:3
"OWNER"
THE PRICE COMPANY, a California
corporation
By:
Its:
S\Z013422G.N~4
-7-
/~ ~/:J
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Parcels 1 and 4 of Parcel Map 12083 filed in the Office of the
county Recorder, County of San Diego, state of California in F/P
82-124226 recorded on April 29, 1982.
It, --Ii
~
, rt ,"'>va 111----.:1 ' ~
~ 'iJn,I... Ly~~
I I '"3Nt LNOS~~""3r
HOSI0Y'"
lJl
;u
o
~
o
~
~
:<
I~ "3Nt
LNMYlOOOM
'SOZI ''''"d
I I
'N"31"3 I ]
"30IS110ell\lH I I
I I
DI I
CJ
S"31d\l~ I ~
-
J~I
OOIlOlO:>
:lI
1
lD
r
<
o
-
Z
o
c
'"
-i
;U
~
r
en1:>
"3::>1 lid
~
\
~
'SOZ
'W"d
~
I"
fit
J
~ "ON
- -
- -'J."3lY.1S-- -OIlOHO--
lN3WH:Jtlll~
'SS3:J:JtI
C/ttW07ttd
RESOLUTION
/?/3tJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(!\fOU) WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE PRICE
COMPANY
WHEREAS, The Price Company desires to improve access to the Price Club
shopping center off Palomar and Broadway; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve traffic conditions on Palomar
Street and Broadway Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council in conjunction with the Price Company, have
identified an approach to implementing such improvements via acquiring public right-of-way,
realigning an existing private driveway and relocating an existing traffic signal to a newly
created four-way intersection; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed acqulSluon and
improvements are of benefit to the City and the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area based
upon:
Improved traffic flow on Palomar between Industrial Boulevard and
Broadway Avenue
Lessened congestion at the intersection of Palomar and Broadway.
Improved access to the commercial and industrial businesses north of
Palomar
Generally improved traffic circulation within the Project Area; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA does hereby f"md, order, determine and approve the MOU providing for cooperation
and cost sharing between the Redevelopment Agency, the City of Chula Vista and the Price
Company as relates to public improvements benefiting the City and the Southwest Project
Area.
PRESENTED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
~L. ~(L~~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
./'
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
A:\CNCL-MOU.RES
If,/l-I
RESOLUTION /3:L?
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOm WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
THE PRICE COMPANY
WHEREAS, The Price Company desires to improve access to the Price Club
shopping center off Palomar and Broadway; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency desires to improve traffic conditions on
Palomar Street and Broadway Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency in conjunction with the Price Company,
have identified an approach to implementing such improvements via acquiring public right-of-
way, realigning an existing private driveway and relocating an existing traffic signal to a newly
created four-way intersection; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the proposed acquisition and
improvements are of benefit to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area based upon:
Improved traffic flow on Palomar between Industrial Boulevard and
Broadway Avenue
Lessened congestion at the intersection of Palomar and Broadway
Improved access to the commercial and industrial businesses north of
Palomar
Generally improved traffic circulation within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements are consistent with the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan which authorizes the Agency to install public improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA does hereby fmd, order, detennine and approve the MOU providing
for cooperation and cost sharing between the Redevelopment Agency, the City of Chula
Vista and the Price Company as relates to public improvements benefiting the Southwest
Project Area.
PRESENTED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
~,C::;~
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
Agency General Counsel
A,IAGNC-MOU .RES
liJ!3 .,1
II
,
/qo..-.
MJEMORAJ':ffiJlTh&
COUNCIL COMMENTS
May 20, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Legislative Committee
SUBJECT: Legislative Analysis - ACA 25 (Woodruff)
Attached for your review is an analysis of ACA 25. Past council
action has indicated a sensitivity to proposed legislation which
would pit city and county funding against funding for education.
ACA 25 addresses the issue of a guaranteed funding level for
university level education, but in doing so greatly impacts the
availability of funding for cities and counties. It is important
to note here that university level educational institutions
generally have established independent fund raising mechanisms - a
case which is not common to public school districts and community
college districts. While ACA 25 is addressed under section I of
the 1993 Legislative Program (items not requiring formal Council
action), it is recommended that the bill be reviewed by the full
council.
I. ITEMS REOUIRING COUNCIL DISCUSSION/ACTION:
1.
ACA 25 (Woodruff): Hiqher Education Fundinq.
apply Prop 98 and Prop 111 funding guarantees for
secondary education.
Proposes to
public post-
Recommendation: OPPOSE
Should you have any questions on any of these recommendations,
please feel free to contact me at 691-5031.
194.. - /
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
May 7. 1993
BILL AUTHOR TiTlE INTRODUCED AMENDED
ACA 25 WOODRUFF HIGHER EDUCATION: 4/26/93 --
MINIMUM FUNDING
CITY POSITION LEAGUE POSITION RELATED BILLS ADDRESSED BY LEG. PROGRAM
PENDING OPPOSE NONE YES; SEC. I.B.1.a.
STATUS: PENDING ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
BACKGROUND; THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AMENDED BY PROP 98 IN 1988 AND BY PROP
111 IN 1990, ESTABLISHES A GUARANTEED MINIMUM LEVEL OF STATE FUNDING
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS.
ACA 25 would: APPLY THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO SCHOOL
DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF "HIGHER
EDUCATION", DEFINED AS THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS AND THE CALIFORNIA MARITIME ACADEMY.
AS WITH ALL PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, THIS BILL, IF
APPROVED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF
THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, WOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE ONLY IF APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS VOTING ON THE
PROPOSITION. (JUNE 1994 BALLOT).
NOTE: NOT REFERENCED IN THE PROPOSAL IS THE SUBSTANTIAL ABILITY FOR
I THESE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCA TION TO RAISE FUNDS FOR OPERA TIONS
INDEPENDENTL Y OF STA TE FUNDING - A CASE WHICH IS NOT COMMON TO
PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS.
FISCAL IMPACT: AS A RESULT OF THE DECREASED FLEXIBILITY IN BUDGET MANAGEMENT
INDUCED BY GUARANTEED FUNDING LEVELS FOR CERTAIN GROUPS,
COMPETITION FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE REMAINING ENTITIES MANDATED
BY THE STATE TO PROVIDE SERVICES WOULD INCREASE DRAMATICALLY.
DATE TO COUNCIL
5/13/93
RECOMMENDATION
OPPOSE
LETTERS
YES
C;\ WP51 \ANA L YSES\ACA25.ANA
/90.. ,,;2..
214-27-'93
...;.....
TUE
12:56
Advocat.lon
(
C\LJP'OIINlA I.ECIS1,A1VJl&--19lI3-8t IIF..GVu.R SEsSION
A:iS~mbly Constitutional Amendment No. 25
-
(
Introduced by &$sembly Mell1be~ Woodruff and Eutin
(Coauthor: Senator Hayden)
April 26, 1993
~embly Constitutional Amendment No. 25-A resolution
to propose to the people of the State of California an
amendment to the Constitution of the State, by &mending
Sections 8 and 8.5 of Article XVI thereof, relating to
postsecondary education.
(
LEGISL.\TIVI!: COUNSEL'S DI=
ACA 25, as intro<luced, Woodruff. Postsecondary
education: niliUmum fundUlg,
The Califumill Constitution, as amended by Proposition 98
on November 8, 1988, and Proposition III on June S, 1990,
among other things, establishes a constitutionally guaranteed
minimum level of state funding for school districts and
Community college districts.
Under exi~"ting law, as added by Proposition 98 and
amended by Proposition 111, ~% of state revenues in e"cess
of the state's appropriations limit is required to be transferred
and allocated to Sections A and B of the Stale School Fund in
proportion to the enrollment in school districts and
COIrununity college districts, respectively, and is required to
be eltpended solely for instructional improvement and
accountability, as specified.
nus measure would apply those constitutional provisions to
institutions of public higher education. as defined.
Vote: 0/;,. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
""110
)9~ ,J
P_"'2-f,V'
I'
I
I:
Ii
:;
,
."....;
....
III
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~ 20
~, ~
~~23
~~ ~
'26
r-~~
V1 28
.. 29
N 30
..
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
n.
t
o
IJJ
:J
...
III
0\
I
r-
N
I
or
~
ACA 25
-2-
Resolved by the Assembly, the SeDJJte roncurrfng, That
the Legislature of the State of California at its Im-94
Regular Session commencing on the seventh day of
December 1992, two.thirds of the members elected to
each of the two houses of the Legislature voting therefor
hereby proposes to the people of the State of Califo~
tha~ the Constitution of the State be amended as foUows:
Flut- That Section 8 of Article XVI thereof Is
amended to read:
SEC. 8. (a) From all stete State revenues there shall
first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the Mete
State for support of the publlc school system and JllfeHe
institutions of public higher education.
(b) Commencing with the 1990-91 fiscal year the
moneys to be applied by the ttete State for the support
of school disbicts and community college districts and
commencing with the 1994-95 Rscal year, the moners t~
be applied by the State for the support of institutions of
public higher edUC4tion, shall be not less than the greater
of the foUowing amounts:
(1) The amount which, as a percentage of General
Fu~d revenues which may be appropriated pursuant to
Article xm B, equals the percentage of General Fund
revenues appropriated for school districts IIftEI
community college districts, /lDd institutions of publi~
higher education, respectively, in fiscal year 1986-87.
(2) The amount required to ensure that the total
allocations to school dlstricts _, community college
districts, tUld institutions ofpublic higher education from
General Fund proceeds of taxes appropriated pursuant to
Article XIII B and allocated local proceeds of taxes shall
not be less than the total amount from these sources in
the prior fiscal year, excluding my revenues allocated
pursuan~ to subdivision (a) of Section 8.lS, adjusted for
changes m enrollment and a~usted for the change In the
cost ofljving pursuant to paragraph (1) ofsubdivisioD (e)
of Sec~on 8 of Article xm B. ThIs paragraph shall be .
operative only in a fiscal year in which the percentage
growth in California per capita personal income is less
than or equal to the percentage growth in per capita
'-.
-3-
ACA 25
1 General Fund revenues plus _W one-half of _ 1
2 percent.
3 (3) (A) Tbe amount required to ensure that the total
4 allocations to school districts MId, community coDege
5 disbich, and institutions of public higher education from
6 General Fund proceeds of taxes appropriated pursuant to
7 Article XIII B and allocated local proceeds of taxes shall
8 equal the total amount from these sources in the prior
9 fiscal year, excluding any revenues allocated pursuant to
10 3Ubdivision (a) of Section 8.5, adjusted for changes In
11 enrollment and adjusted for the change in per capita
12 General Fund revenues.
13 (B) In addition, an amount equal to one-half of _ 1
14 percent times the prior year total allocations to school
11\ districts llIIli, community coDeges, and institutions of
16 public higher education from General Fund proceeds of
11 taxes appropriated pursuant to Article XIII B and
18 allocated local proceeds of tues, excluding any revenues
19 allocated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8.5,
20 adjusted for changes in enrollment.
21 (C) This paragraph (3) shall be operative only in a
22 fiscal year in which the percentage growth in California
23 per capita personal income in a fiscal year is greater than
24 the percentage growth in per capita General Fund
25 revenues plus _ W one-half of _ 1 percent.
26 (c) In any fiscal year, if the amount computed
27 pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) exceeds the
28 amount computed purruant to paragraph (2) of
Z9 subdivision (b) by a difference that exceeds one and
30 one-half percent of General Fund revenues, the amount
31 in excess of one and one.half percent of General Fund
32 revenues shall not be considered allocations to school
33 disbicts _, community colleges, tUld institutions of
34 public higher education for purposes of computing the
35 amount of state aid pursuant to paragraph (2) or 3 (3)
36 of subdivision (b) in the subsequent fiscal year.
37 (d) In any fiscal year in which school district. MMi,
38 community college districts, and institutions of public
39 higher education are allocated funding pursuant to
40 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) or purmant to
.. .M
I
:1
Q.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
.. 20
~ '- 21
O~22
~ " 23
"D '" 24
;~
" 29
N 30
.. 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
c
o
111
:J
I-
III
0\
I
I'-
N
I
t
III
ACA 25
-4-
subdivision (h), they shall be entitled to. maintenanc'"
factor, equal to the difference between (1) the amount
of General Fund moneys which would have been
apP~opriated P\lI'SUIInt to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b) if that paragraph had been operative or the amount
of General Fl1I\d moneys which would have been
appropriated pursuant to subdivision (b) had subdivision
(h) not been suspended, and (2) the amol1l\t of General
Fund moneys actually appropriated to school districts
- , community college districts and inStitutiollS r7f
public higher education In that fisc;U year.
(e) The maintenance (actor for school districts lIft6
community college districts, and institutions of puhli;
higher education determined pursuant to subdivision (d)
shall be adjusted annually for changes in enrollment and
adjusted for the change in the cost of living pursu~t to
paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 8 of Article
XU,I B, until it haa been allocated in full. The
.mamte~ance factor shall be allocated in a manner
det~rmmed by the Legislature in each fiscal year in
which the percentage growth in per capita General Fund
revenues exceeds the percentage growth in California
per capita personal income. The mllinte~ Factor shall
be reduced each year by the amount allocated by the
Legislature in that fiscal year. The minimwn
maintenance factor amoWlt to be allocated in a fiscal year
shall be equal to the product of General Fund revenues
from proceeds of taxea and one-half of the difference
between the percentage growth In per capita General
Fund revenues from proceeds of taxes and in California
per capita persona1income, not to exceed the total dollar
amount of the maintenance factor. .
(f) For purposes o( this section, "changes in
~nrollment" shall be measured by the percentage change
m average daily attendance. However, in any fisca1 year,
there shall be no ~bnent for decreases In enrollment
between the prior fiscal year and the current fucal year
unless there have been decreases in enrollment between
the second prior fiscal year and the prior Iisca1 year and
between the third prior Nca.I year and the recODd prior
,-
- -
...~
....~
,
.,-
-5-
ACAZ
1 fiscal year.
2 (h) Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) o( mbdivision
3 (b) may be swpended for 0Ile year only when made part
4 of or included within any bill enacted pursuant to Section
5 12 of Article IV. All other provisiona of subdivision (b)
6 may be suspended for one year by the enacbnent of an
7 urgency statute pursuant to Section 8 of Article IV,
8 provided that the urgency statute may not be made part
9 of or included within any bill enacted pursuant to Section
10 12 of Article [V.
11 (1) "Institutions of public higher education," For
12 purposes of thi8 section, meana the following:
13 . (l} The CaJiFomia SllIte University and each campus,
14 branch, and Function thereof.
1S (2) The University of CsJUomia and each campus,
16 branch, snd function thereof.
17 (3) The CaJiFomia Maritime Academy.
18 Second-That Sectton 8.5 of Article XVI thereof i!
19 amended to read:
20 SEC. 8.5. (a) In addition to the amount required to
21 be applied for the support of school districts MMI,
22 community college districts, and institutions of public
23 higher education pursuant to Section 8, the Controner
24 shall during each fiscal year transfer and allocate all
25 revenues available pursuant to paragraph I (1) of
26 subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIII B to that
27 portion o( the State School Fund restricted (or
28 elementary and high school purposes, tIIt8 to that portion
29 of the State School Fund restricted for community
30 college purposes, rBlIIl8sli.vely, and to the General.Fund
31 for purposes of sllocation to institutions of public higher
32 education, in proportion to the enrolhnent In school
33 districts 11II8, commumty college districts, and
34 institutions of public higher education, respectively.
35 (1) With respect to llmds allocated to that portion of
36 the State School Fund resbicted for elementary and high
37 school purposes, no transfer or allocation of funds
38 pursuant to this section shaIJ be required at any time that
39 the Director of Finance and the Superintendent of Puhlfc
40 Instruction mutually determine that current annual
U1
III
0.
c
o
~
II
0"-
~~
(! \
O\~
11
..
N
...
III
:J
..
(j)
0\
I
too
N
I
t
III
ACA 25
-6-
1 expenditures per student equal or eJCceed the averag3
2 annual expenditure per student of the 10 states with the
3 highest annual expenditures per student for elementary
4 and high schools, and that average class sI2e equals or Is
II less than the average class size of the 10 states with the
6 lowest class size for elementary and high schools.
7 (2) With respect to funds allocated to that portion of
8 the State School Fund resbicted for community college
9 purposes, no trllDSfer or allocation of funds pursuant to
10 this se(:tion shall be required at any time that the
11 Director of Finance and the Chancellor of the California
12 Community Colleges mutually determine that current
13 annual expenditures per student for community colleges
14 in this ttete State equal or exceed the average annual
15 expenditure per student of the 10 states with the highest
16 anDual expenditures per student for community colleges.
17 (3) With reIp6ct to funds allocated to the General
18 Fund for purposes of allocation to institutions 01 public
19 higher education, no tnmsler or sllocatlon of funds
20 pursuant to this section shall be required at any time that
21 the DirectorofFmanceand the Trustees of the California
2.2 State University, the Regents of the University of
23 CalifomJa, and the California Maritime Academy Board
lM of GovernorS' mutually determine that CU./Tent annual
25 expenditures per student for institutions of public higher
26 education ln this State equal or exceed the average
27 annual expenditure per student of the 10 states with the
28 highest annual expenditures per student for institutions
29 of public higher education.
30 (b) Notwithstanding tIte 1',M'i&ie811 ef Article XIn B
31 funds allocated pursuant to this section shall not
32 constitute appropriations subject to limitation.
33 (c) From any IUnds transferred to the State School
34 Fund or slJocated to the General Fund pursuant to
35 subdivision ~e ControDer shall each year allocate to
36 each school' ct 8IltI, community college district and
37 institution of public higher education an equal W:ount
38 per enro\lment in school districts from the amount in that
39 portion of the State School Fund restricted for
40 elementary and high school purposes ae&, an equal
.. ,....
'. )
-7-
ACA 2S
1 amount per enro\lment in community college districts
2 from that portion of the State School Fund resbicted for
3 community college purposes, and an equal amount per
4 enrollment in institutions of public higher education
5 from the General Fund.
6 (d) All revenues allocated pursuant to subdivlslon (a)
7 shall be expended solely for the purposes of instructional
8 improvement and accountabillty as required by law.
9 (e) Any school district maintainlng an elementary or
10 secondary school shall develop and cause to be prepared
11 an annual audit accounting for such funds and shall adopt
12 a School Accountability Report Card for each school.
13 (I) "Institutions of public higher education," for
14 purposes of this section, means the foUowing:
15 (1) The California State University and each campus,
16 branch, and function thereof.
17 (2) The University of CaJifomla and each campus,
18 branch, and function thereoF.
19 (3) The California Maritime Academy.
o
~. .[1
99 1110
.
-2
o'
~
-"
y
'I--"
5
...
-'
11t~
osn 1. f:\.Q lfl
17
1 g