HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/07/11
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
6:00 p.m.
"I declare lIn~er penalty of perlurf \hat I aM
emr,lo'/ed by the City of Chul~ VIsta In. the
Office of tile Citf Clerk and t""t I pos.ed
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin B~ard et
the PUbliC. SerV)CeSJ3Uilding. a"-~ at y.t 'Hall on"
DATED, '/ (./YS SIGNEDGJ. / .~
, I
Re.ular M'eetin. of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _' Moot _' Padilla _' Rindone _' and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 14, 1995 (Special Workshop/Meeting of the City Council), June
20, 1995 (City Council Meeting), June 20, 1995 (Special
Worksession/Meeting of the City Council), June 20, 1995 (Joint
Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), June 21, 1995
(Special Worksession/Meeting of the CIty Council), and June 27, 1995
(City Council Meeting)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Presentation by International Friendship Commission of five students going to Odawara,
Japan to participate in the Tokimeki International Student Exchange Program. The students
are: Michael Bullen, Michael Gonzalez, Kevin Hardiman, Francisco Sevilla, and David Taboada.
b. Presentation by Metropolitan Transit Development Board staff members on South Bay
Transit Studies.
c. Proclaiming July 1995 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City. Historically, agencies
throughout California have recognized July as Parks and Recreation Month to bring an increased
awareness of the value of the recreational opportunities to all residents of the community. The
proclamation will be presented by the Mayor to the Chair of the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
d. Presentation by Larry Wade and Dean Eckenroth announcing a new newspaper, the "Chula
Vista Eagle".
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene mto open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 14)
The staff recommendations re~arding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pullea from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
CommIssion Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed rel?ortable actions taken
in Closed Session on 6/27/95. It is recommended that the letter be receIved and filed.
Agenda
-2-
July 11, 1995
b. Letter of resignation from the Safety Commission - Bob Thomas, 650 Floyd Ave., Chula Vista,
CA 91910. It is recommended that tbe resignation be accepted witb regret and the City Clerk be
directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public
Library.
6. ORDINANCE 2634 ADDING SECTION 2.03.030 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE HANDLING OF MAIL BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
STAFF AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.090, 2.04.120, AND 2.04,130
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AGENDA SUBMITTAL
AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES, WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS,
AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (first readin!!:) - Currently, the Municipal
Code states that the City Clerk is to open and process the Mayor/Council mail,
that the submittal day for items to be placed on the Council Agenda under
Written Communications is on Tuesday prior to the Council meehng, and that
the preparation and delivery of the agenda is to be on Friday. This is all
inconsistent with current practice. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (City Clerk)
7. ORDINANCE 2635 AMENDING SECTION 10.48.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE -
INCREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN
AREAS AND ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON EAST
"J" STREET FROM CASSIA PLACE TO RIVER ASH DRIVE AND
ADDING THIS LOCATION TO SCHEDULE IX (first readina) - Based on
the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 40803 an pursuant to
authority under the Municipal Code Section 10.48.030, the City Engineer has
determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic
congestion, and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on East "J"
Street between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive be increased from 30 MPH
to 35 MPH. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading.
(Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 17947 AUTHORIZING AN ANNUAL MANDATORY UNPAID 40-HOUR WORK
FURLOUGH FOR EXECUTIVE MANAGERS, MID-MANAGERS, AND
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES - On 6/27/95, Council approved a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Chula Vista Employees Assocllltion and
unilaterally implemented an agreement with Western Council of Engineers both
authorizing an annual unpaid mandatory 40-hour work furlough. The
development of those agreements anticipated tbe same furlough for Executive
Managers, Mid-Managers, and Unrepresented employees. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel)
9. RESOLUTION 17948 PURSUANT TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DISAPPROVING THE EXISTING
RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS AND
APPROVING COX COMMUNICATIONS' RATE REDUCTION AND
REFUND PLANS - On 6/21/94, Council adopted a resolution ordering Cox
Cable to reduce its rate for Basic Service retroactive to 9/1/93. On 8/24/94,
Cox Cable filed an appeal to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
of the City's rate reduction order. On 4/7/95, the FCC released its decision on
Cox Cable's appeal of Chula Vista's rate reduction order. Since the FCC's
April 1995 decision, Cox Cable (which has changed its name to Cox
Communications) has been working cooperatively with the City's cable rate
regulation consultant, Public Knowledge, Inc.. to implement the FCC's decision
in terms of determining the appropriate cable rates since 9/1/93. Cox
Communications and Public Knowledge, Inc. have now reached agreement on
these issues. Staff recommends Council approve the refund plan submitted by
Cox Communications, which provides a one-time refund of $3.94 per Chula
Vista subscriber for Basic Service overcharges during the period of 7/14/94
through 7/31/95, and approve Cox Communication's plan to reduce the monthly
rate for Basic Service in Chula Vista from $7.64 to $7.26 (a reduction of$0.38
per month). (Deputy City Manager Thomson)
Agenda
-3-
July 11, 1995
10. RESOLUTION 17949 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "RE-ROOFlNG
PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING AT 276 FOURTH A VENUE IN THE
CITY (GG-147)" - On 6/21/95, bids were received for re-roofing tbe Public
Services Building at 276 Fourth Avenue. The project involves localized deck
reattachment/repair/replacement, installation of roof insulation, new cold process
built up roofing system, gravel surface, new drains, special flashing and
accessories. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract
to Bryant Universal - El Cajon in the amount of $68,787.00. (Director of
Public Works)
11. RESOLUTION 17950 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "CONSTRUCTION OF ELM AVENUE
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN CYPRESS STREET AND
MADRONA STREET IN THE CITY (STL-210)" - On 6/14/95, bids were
received for construction of Elm A venue alley improvements between Cypress
Street and Madrona Street. The project involves installation of Portland Cement
Concrete (PCe) alley paving, PCC alley approaches, sidewalk ramps, asphalt
concrete paving, excavation and grading, preservation of property, and other
miscellaneous work. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the
contract to Star Paving Corporation - San Diego in the amount of $24,937.20.
(Director of Public Works)
12. RESOLUTION 17951 AUTHORIZING MA YOR TO SIGN A LETTER TO THE CHAIR OF THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)
REGARDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PROGRAM - The current NPDES
permit expires on 8110195, at which time the RWQCB is scheduled to adopt
Tentative Order Number 95-76. Co-Permittees followed specific directions and
documents provided by RWQCB staff in developing the permit renewal
application. However, on 5/19195, the RWQCB issued Tentative Order Number
95-76, which is not based upon those directions and documents. Staff believes
that Tentative Order Number 95-76 is not in line with the purpose and intent of
the Federal regulations, will relegate State responsibilities to cities, may
unreasonably expose Co-Permittees to citizen lawsuits, and will be prohibitively
costly to implement. Staff has prepared a letter from the Mayor to the Chair of
the RWQCB outlining the City's concerns and requesting that the RWQCB
direct its staff to withdraw the Order. evaluate the permit renewal process, and
work with the Co-Permittees to develop a reasonable and implementable permit.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
13. RESOLUTION 17952 APPROVING SEWER BILLING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH SWEETWATER AUTHORITY THAT
PROVIDES FOR THE SEPARATION OF WATER AND SEWER
BILLING WITH SWEETWATER CONTINUING TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE CITY TO BILL SEWER
CUSTOMERS - The Sweetwater Authority has indicated its intention to
tenninate its agreement to provide sewer billing and collection services and has
requested that the City establish an alternate billing method. The agreement
provides for the initial and ongoing tlow of information by Sweetwater so as to
allow the City to assume that billing and for the City to pay Sweetwater its
reasonable associated costs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-4-
July 11, 1995
14. RESOLUTION 17953 APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE SHARING OF COSTS TO REPLACE
DETERIORATED AND SUBSTANDARD DRAINAGE FACILITIES
WITHIN THE CLUB VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION, AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ADVANCE FUNDS TO
FINANCE CLUB VIEW TERRACE'S SHARE, AND APPROPRIATING
$33,600 FROM THE STORM DRAIN REVENUE FUND - The Chula Vista
Presbyterian Church located at 940 Hilltop Drive is in the process of building
an addition to their Church. As part of their plans, the Church is
undergrounding the drainage that flows through their site in order to make the
site more usable. In order to make the system work, the downstream pipe needs
to be replaced. The Presbyterian Church is desirous of determining whether or
not the City will participate in the project as soon as possible since they are
under construction and the delay is causing them undue hardship. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's
vote required.
· · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · ·
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by Inw. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are Limited to five minutes per
individual.
15.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09: REQUEST TO EXTEND
APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR APPROXIMATELY
THREE YEARS (THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1999) AND TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF SAID SCHOOL FACILITIES INTO THE SECOND
STORY OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2400 FENTON STREET
WITHIN THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - COVENANT
CHRISTIAN SCHOOL - Covenant Christian School was approved by Council
to operate at 2400 Fenton Street within the EastLake Business Center for a 2.5
year period extending through June 1996. The School is requesting to extend
the permit for 3 years (to September 1999) and to expand the operations from
the first floor to include the entire building and to increase the maximum
enrollment from 208 to 260 children. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 6/20/95,
RESOLUTION 17904 DENYING A REQUESTED TIME EXTENSION BUT APPROVING A
REQUESTED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (PCC-94-09) TO COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO
OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2400 FENTON STREET WITHIN
THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 -
Based upon the advise of the City Attorney. EastLake Maintenance District
Number 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict
of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the
proposed assessment in this district. Staff met with property owners on June 8
and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued
from the meeting of 6/13/95.
RESOLUTION 17954 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE
16.
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda
-5-
July 11, 1995
17,
PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 10 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 -
Based upon tbe advise of tbe City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District
Number 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 bave been separated due to conflict
of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the
proposed assessment in tbis district. Staff met witb property owners on June 8
and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff
recommends approval of tbe resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued
from the meeting of 6/13/95.
RESOLUTION 17955 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 10
18.
PUBLIC HEARING
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1995/96 - Based upon tbe advise of tbe City Attorney, EastLake
Maintenance District Number 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 bave been
separated due to conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns
property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Staff met with
property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to
answer any questions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works) Continued from tbe meeting of 6/13/95.
RESOLUTION 17956 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NUMBER ONE
19. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, BAY
BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTER MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 - In accordance witb tbe Municipal Code Section
17 .07, tbe City Engineer prepared reports on tbe spread of assessments for tbe
open space districts. On 5/23/95, tbe reports were accepted and tbe required
public bearings were set. Tbe first public bearing was conducted on 6/13/95.
In letters dated 10/17/94 and 6/20/95, Sweetwater Autbority requested tbey be
exempted from the yearly open space assessment for a lot they own in Open
Space District Number 14. Last. a zone needs to be establisbed witbin Open
Space District Number 20 (Rancbo del Rey) to pay for tbat development's sbare
of maintenance of Telegrapb Canyon Cbannel. Staff recommends approval of
tbe resolutions. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of
6/13/95.
A. RESOLUTION 17957 DENYING SWEETW A TERAUTHORITY'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 14 ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING CERTAIN
OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO BE
MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT, ESTABLISHING ZONE 9 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
20 AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-9,11, 14, 15, 17, 18,20,23,24,26,31, BAY
BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTER MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
B. RESOLUTION 17958 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INITIATE THE OPEN SPACE
PROCEEDINGS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
r.
Agenda
-6-
July 11, 1995
20.
PUBLIC HEARING
ADDENDUM TO THE 1993 UPDATE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, WITH NO CHANGE IN THE FEE
AMOUNT - On 5/23/95, Council determined that the El Dorado office building,
315 Fourth Avenue (a facility proximate to the Civic Center and capable of
meeting the City's interim office space needs) is currently available for purchase
at a reasonable price. Council directed staff to pursue the City purchase of the
building as part of the Civic Center DIF. The purchase is anticipated to be an
interim step in the implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan and is not
expected to affect the end cost of the project. The proposed addendum to the
Public Facilities DIF will not impact the level of fees assessed. Staff
recommends this item be continued. (Deputy City Manager KrempllSenior
Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of 6/20/95.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mailer within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
21. RESOLUTION 17959 TO BECOME A FOUNDING COMMUNITY LEADER OF THE
NATIONAL "ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP
CHALLENGE" - The "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge" is a
grassroots response to the National Environmental Technology Strategy. The
project is being developed by a coalition of the nation's corporate,
environmental, government and academic leaders to promote and showcase
examples of "better, faster, cheaper, safer" environmental technology, and to
demonstrate how sustainable environmental protection, cost-savings and
economic competitiveness go hand-in-hand. As a result of the City's Border
Environmental Commerce Alliance, Chula Vista has been invited to join the
Challenge as a "Founding Leader". Staff recommends approval nf the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
Agenda
-7-
July 11, 1995
22. RESOLUTION 17960 AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL FOR THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA, SPA 111, TRACT 90-02 - On 3/28/95, Council received written
correspondence from Ms. Claudia Diamond (Diamond Consulting Group) which
was addressed under oral communications. Ms. Diamond raised two concerns
regarding the development of Rancho del Rey SPA III in the area of Paseo
Ranchero. One concern was the need for an eight foot sidewalk and whether
or not there would be a horse trail through the area and the other was that of a
45 M.P.H. speed limit based on the design speed, as opposed to the 35 M.P.H.
speed limit requested by the Homeowners Association. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks)
23.A. RESOLUTION 17961 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 90-2, RANCHO DEL REY, SPA 111, PHASE
2, UNIT 2 - On 7/30/91, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey, SPA Ill. Phase and unit boundaries were
delineated. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public
Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17962 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 90-2, RANCHO DEL REY, SPA III, PHASE
3, UNIT 2
C. RESOLUTION 17963 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 90-2, RANCHO DEL REY, SPA III, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
24. REPORT STATUS ON THE ALUMINUM AIR FUEL CELL RESEARCH PROJECT
AND REPORT ON POTENTIAL FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN
PROJECT - On 6/21/94, Council approved participation and execution of
$43,000 in pass-through California Energy Commission funding to fund Phase
1 of the development and implementation of an alternative fuel cell technology
research project, in coordination with a San Diego company, SAle. The City's
participation and funding phase has been successfully completed. Staff
recommends Council accept the report. (Environmental Resource Manager)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to jive minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
25. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
r-
Agenda
-8-
July 11, 1995
26. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
a. Ratification of reappointments:
Allinll, Commission on - Marie O. Scrivener and Ignacio Valdovinos;
Anneals and Advisors. Board of - Bill H. Harter;
Cultural Arts Commission - William Virchis;
Economic Development Commission - Marcia Boruta (Ex-Officio), Marshall Compton, John
Munch (Ex-Officio), and William Tuchscher;
Ethics. Board of - Susan Herney;
Growth Mana~ement Oversi~ht Commission - Tris Hubbard (Education) and Will T. Hyde
(Environmental);
Librarv Board of Trustees - Constance Clover-Byram;
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - Steven Carl Thomas and Peter 1. Watry;
FIannin!! Commission - Frank A. Tarantino; and,
Veterans Advisorv Commission - Agustive A. Hennes, Jr.
27. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council member Moot
a. Performance evaluation for City Manager and process for conducting evaluation and preserving
confidentiality of Closed Session evaluations. This request is to be discussed in Closed Session
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
ADJOURNMENT
JItJ-j
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Meeting of the City Council on Wednesday,
~ 12, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building, and thence to the Regular
City Council Meeting on July 25, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City
Council Meeting.
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are pemzitted by lnw to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by lnw to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
'-
{
Agenda
-9-
July 11, 1995
28. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Vega vs. the City of Chula Vista.
. Chula Vista and nine other cities YS. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA
lawsuit.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Westem Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
29. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
c
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
6:00 p.m.
". declare l>lnder penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Cler~\ anrl that I posted
this Ag"nda/Noti~e on the Bulle"n Board at C'ty C '1 Ch b
. . " . ~ 1 ounel am ers
the Public ~1ies Bwla,"g and at ~ p bl' S . B 'Idi
DATED, Y ?-. >.> SIGNED C;I; ~' u lC emces Ul ng
C/
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
28. CONFERENCE wrrn LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
.
Fritsch vs. the City of Chuta Vista
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
28. CONFERENCE wrrn LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
.
Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
28. CONFERENCE wrrn LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista
It
July 3, 1995
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and city coun~~~
John D. Goss, city Manager~ ~6~~
City council Meeting of July 11, 1995
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city council meeting of Tuesday, July 11, 1995. Comments regarding
the Written communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the city Attorney stating that there
were no observed reportable actions taken in Closed Session on
6/27/95. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND
FILED.
5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT BOB THOMAS' RESIGNATION FROM THE SAFETY
COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE
DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
JDG:SWM:mab
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
J/-b
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Meeting Date'7/ll/95
ITEM TITLE: SOUTH BAY TRANSIT STUDIES
SUBMITTED BY: ~l'merrlber Jerry R. Rindone
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No~)
A presentation by staff merrlbers of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board on transit studies which have been done
of and for the South Bay region.
For Information Only
Form A-1l3 (Rev. 11 /79)
t/iJ - /
MTDB
Metropolnan Transn Development Board
.;
,
.
1255 Imperial Avenue, Sune 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
Agenda Item No. C5
For Executive Committee Discussion
May 4, 1995 SRTP 820.13 (PC 271)
Subject:
SOUTH BAY TRANSIT STUDIES
INTRODUCTION:
This item summarizes available information on transit planning in
the South Bay area. Past planning efforts include: (1) the
South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study (March 1991), a recon-
naissance planning effort that identified potential transit
alternatives; (2) the South Bay Public Transportation Plan
(March 1993) that analyzed existing studies and development plans
and produced a conceptual bus and rail transit network; and (3)
the South Bay LRT Extension Study - Report of Conceptual Engineer-
ing Study (June 1993) that provided spot LRT engineering analysis
to supplement the earlier studies. Ongoing efforts include the
planning of Otay Ranch, the Otay Mesa Road/State Route 905 expan-
sion project, and the plannin~ of State Route 125.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the MTDB Executive Committee receive this South Bay update
report for information.
Budoet ImDact
None.
DISCUSSION:
" .
South Bav Rail Transit Extension Studv
The South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study (March 1991) report
summarized the results of a year-long study that examined the
feasibility of extending rail transit services into the developing
South Bay area. The study, conducted by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG), was a reconnaissance planning effort
aimed at defining which corridor alternatives were feasible for
further analysis. Funding for the study was provided through the
TransNet local transportation sales tax program. The ballot
measure on which TransNet was based included up to $1,000,000 for
a detailed analysis of trolley extensions in the South Bay.
Member Agencies:
Cllyo' Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of EI Cajon, City of Imperial Beach, City of La Mesa, City of Lemon Grove, City of National City, City of Poway, City of San Diego, City of
Santee, County of San Diego, State of California
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transit System and is Regulatory Authority for (@)paratransitAdministration i.J 1 _ 7
Subsidiary Corporations: ~ San Diego Transit Corporation, [I) San Diego Trolley, Inc. and (jJ San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company 7 p ./
---- I
.
The SANDAG study included an alternatives analysis, a cost-
effectiveness comparison, and an investigation of land use
influences for six alternatives. Based on the findings of these
analyses, alternatives recommended for further study were: (1) a
composite corridor for the extension of light rail transit (LRT);
and (2) the designation of State Route (SR) 125 as an express bus
corridor. These alternatives are shown in Attachment A.
The study also recommended that transit-supportive land use
policies be adopted to facilitate transit use in the developing
South Bay area. The cost-effectiveness of future LRT lines would
be determined based upon the degree to which accommodations for
transit were included in the planning of the corridors. Finally,
the study concluded that commuter rail was an infeasible option,
given operating conflicts with the South LRT Line and low cost-
effectiveness compared to other LRT alternatives.
South Bav Public TransDortation Plan
The South Bay Public Transportation Plan (March 1993) was prepared
by MTDB in order to provide a comprehensive document which
contai ned the 1 atest ,i nformat i on of the pl anned future transpor-
tation network in the South Bay region. The South Bay Public
Transportation Plan set a general framework to guide transpor-
tation and land use decisions in the South Bay. It identified
where future transit services are most likely to occur, so that
proactive reservations of right-of-way and planning for transit-
oriented development can take place. The plan emphasized that
transit-oriented land use planning is needed for transit to be
successful and automobile trips to be reduced.
The South Bay study effort produced a conceptual transit network,
which included refinements to previously identified guideway
corridors and improvements to the bus system. The transit network
is considered conceptual because the areas in which the transit
routes would operate are still being planned. The network is
described below and shown in Attachment B.
o Rail Transit. The best operating plan for rail transit was
determined to be a "horseshoe" pattern along SR 905 and
SR 125, connecting Otay Ranch to Otay Mesa (see Attach-
ment C). This al ignment has been included as a "Future Rail
Extension Under Study" in MTDB's Regional Rail Transit Plan,
and as a "Potential Guideway Corridor" in the 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan. In addition, an option for a possible
rail connection to the Otay Mesa Border Crossing was
retained. Currently, the alignment through Otay Ranch is
being further refined as more detailed planning takes place
for the Otay Ranch project.
o Bus Transit. The conceptual transit network includes
extensions of existing bus routes, as well as the addition
of crosstown routes and local shuttles in Otay Ranch and
Otay Mesa. It also includes an express service operating
-2-
2/IJ ~ f
during peak travel periods along the future SR 125 high-
occupancy-vehicle lanes. The plan features a bus system
that could operate in advance of rail, as a paralleling
local service that would build ridership sufficient for the
eventual operation of rail.
The proposed rail lines for the South Bay are included as future
rail extensions under study in MTDB's Long Range Plan; however,
these rail lines, and the supporting bus services, are not funded
at the present time. It is anticipated that new transit services
would be funded in part through provisions in financing plans of
new projects, benefit assessment districts, or other local means.
The staging of the proposed transit improvements and transit
facilities will depend entirely on the rate of development that
takes place and the availability of funding. As requested by the
Executive Committee, letters have been sent to the city of
Chula Vista and the county of San Diego regarding the need to
pursue local funding for the proposed Otay Ranch transit line (see
Attachment D).
South Bav LRT Extension Studv - Reoort of Conceotual Enqineerinq
Tasks
The South Bay LRT Extension Study - Report of Conceptual
Engineering Tasks (June 1993) was prepared by Boyle Engineering
Corporation (Boyle) for MTDB. It supplemented the South Bay Rail
Transit Extension Study and the South Bay Public Transportation
Plan by providing spot engineering on areas identified in the
SANDAG study. Among other tasks, the Boyle study identified
potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated
with the proposed Plaza Bonita Station site and the crossing of
the Sweetwater River. Boyle also assisted with the incorporation
of rail in the design for the southern section of future SR 125,
and for the LRT connections to SR 54 and SR 905 from the
South Line.
State Route 905/0tav Mesa Road
Caltrans and the city of San Diego are currently conducting a
Major Investment Study (MIS) for the SR 905 expansion project.
MTDB is participating in the MIS process and has asked that future
guideway development be included as a project alternative in these
studies. It is not suggested that LRT would replace the freeway
expansion project, but that consideration of LRT could influence
the decision on the design concept and scope for a major
investment in the study corridor.
The city of San Diego is intending to prepare an environmental
impact report (EIR) for the widening of Otay Mesa Road from four
to six lanes. This project is considered an alternative to the
SR 905 project, and would likely occur prior to the SR 905
expansion. MTDB has also asked the city of San Diego to consider
LRT in the Otay Mesa road-widening EIR. This would involve
-3-
,/
1//; -- ~
evaluation of biological, cultural, land use, and traffic impacts
that may occur due to the additional right-of-way needed for the
LRT alignment, as compared to the road-widening project. MTDB
would be responsible for more detailed environmental analysis and
clearance at the time a transit project is proposed.
As a part of the Otay Mesa Road EIR, there will be an updated
South Bay travel forecast prepared for the year 2020 and build-
out. The draft EIR is expected to be distributed for review in
six to 12 months.
State Route 125
Plans to extend SR 125 from SR 905 to SR 56 near Poway were part
of the original California Freeway and Expressway system adopted
by the State Legislature in 1959. The route adopted for the
segment between SR 905 and SR 54, however, was rescinded in
June 1976. This segment is now being planned as a toll facility
as part of a joint venture between Caltrans and California
Transportation Ventures (CTV). The draft environment impact
report/environmental impact statement for SR 125 is due out this
summer.
SR 125 is initially planned as a four-lane facility, with possible
expansion to four lanes in each direction and high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes. The highway project is being designed to be
compatible with transit by: identifying the potential future LRT
line on the engineering plans; setting freeway grades that are
compatible with LRT operations; and planning for future HOV lanes,
which could be used for express bus service in accordance with the
South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study and the South Bay Public
Transportation Plan. SR 125 plans also identify the proposed
future intermodal transfer station at the SR 125 interchange with
Otay Mesa Road. The right-of-way for the transfer station is
reserved until the year 2004, through conditions in the adopted
East Otay Mesa Specific Plan. However, the footprint of the
proposed LRT line is not included in the grading plans of the
highway project.
<--
Thomas F. Larwin
General Manager
=- ./ ~.....
TFL:NSBragado:nsb:lst
AI-MAY4.#C5
4/27/95
Attachments: A. South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study Figure
B. South Bay Conceptual Transit Network
C. South Bay Proposed LRT Extension
D. Letters to City Managers Regarding Light
Rail Transit Funding for Otay Ranch
-4-
'iP ~ (,
Att. A, AI C5, 5/4/95, SRTP 820.13
.__._._.__.__.__._-'_._'-_.__._._._--=~:.,
.'
M'~
ff
~
...,,--~ "
....~'3>~
, -'
...,--...,.'
.~OI~
~....' ,-...-
;., 1}
.
.
/'""-
~ i/...... ----.""'"-'"
. --
~'--
.-
?
"
I
I
i
i
I
11
Ol.y ....".y Rd.
'-
/
./
..~ ange Ave.
"
..
--
...-
--
-
South Bay Rail Transit
Extension Study
San Diego Association of Governments
11m'
',eMf I.......... IRe
-UgIII_~
(AIll.m.n.. E)
-~-
~
C_a)
RECOMMENDED
CORRIDORS '
~l
.S-
- -
_&2:
..~
;jlr?
A-I
'-- .4.
Att. B. AI C5. 5/4/95. SRTP 820.13
.
'Ii""W
.,,~
.
~.
,
,
,
,
.~
..............;........,.:::..
. ~,*~.;..
,.:.;."
...;.:.;;;:~:m;~,...
/..~~
1-
N
,
2 Miles
"
t. ./'"
.',
,
. ........
.1"
,#"
i
.;/~"
'.
.~~
...
....
:\,
""
"
""..
. ....,.
'". """
"lI,"""',,"
... ""'"
."" "'"
. ,',"~.
"'ii,
o
Approximate Scale
.-. SW8elWater
F\8servoii
'd""
\.,
<\.
.....~~
~
u_
Olay
Reservoir
....". ~
,,';,
-.' "q:,.
.........
....
..
..
i,
.
-. .
'- .:. . .,~ '. ..,.-,.-- ...,~~~
J)f'*~ t,,/ ." ., [f
\ -- .,....,.. ':~' ..,.~ .......... ~
.L....,.~.s~_.,.,.~:.,..__,.\:-;~yr~.. .n:' :.... ," ...., .,~.
: ~~.. i"'O ~ ::.... . ~.:.. .~:m'
:~._#>: II ~~~...,_.-:'\;. ~~f~....:.
'''' '. iI.... .,. '...
,! :,.. , ';'"' '."
: i ..,...;:-;~ ,
"--..,.--.,,, a '. _.,.,..'-
o;V;~;Rd-;"""_;; #"~~"
'I .".......... "
, ". ..
. ' ~
, ...
..
.
"
, '.
. ____.QIqy.Mna Rd. :
,.....IIII~.IIII
..,,:,:~,:~",",,"~:=;:,~~,,!:,,_:-;.:._..: _....... ".. :-^.........:....W.W..;U..... UN..,.,...
. .. .........;.....................~............
"',.. -..-..................
.:.......... ...'..............:$~P.fJ.y.i.VJ.......h..:......................;../...., .;~~_~._i._,...
........., USA . t"Il~I-'-
,..,~..........w>.w.w...... .' 'l_t~l...~_l~
~~_t_~'"
-' Mexico
Lower
Olay
~l'YOir
.~,
r~
~.
:If
~
lA\l8Ill~~y;jIlAJ8l*~~
. _~...8H_-Sdll..~~l!:
-s:~1
MTDB
Figure 5-'
-
-
Existing Rail
Proposed Rail
Existing Bus
Proposed Bus
Rail Station
Park-and-RideiRail Station
G Park-and-Ride
. Transfer Facility
South Bay 'I j / r
Conceptual Transit Network
----
o
e
B-1
~
.
-
'eI
.;C(..
~
\e(~O.
s....ee\'fl~
'!"IS\.
'"
;;
w
'i
It
\..s\..
\V
Main 51.
Palm Ave
-
'eI
.....-,-:..:.:;;::;.;
...........;.;,.;.:.;.,..,,,............
MTDB
Att. C. AI C5. 5/4/95. SRTP. 820.13
@l
O.
<l'
#~
.f
~
l'
N
1
2 Miles
o
Approximate Scale
Sweelwater
ReservoIr
Orayl.
<i.lres ~a
Cb
>;~c ,Q.,
i;)? ~
""0
?~
'"
.so
?-t".
~/
~
o.
,<1'
..:..~
d-
q'&'
Upper
Olay
Reservoir
m
'"
'"
ii
7
.
0,_
:Ylq,o\:
..'1
~
l
~
.
<;\.
",.t
,?a\O
1I,.."e.
01"lJ.~e
Lower
Olay
Reservoir
"\l
w
.
.
o
"
.
o
o
~
.
a
Olav Vallev Ro
-
~1.Lonestarl (0.,.".
S\... ~
. .,
. _.fiB,.IOtay Mesal
#. ~"
~ ~..
."" Airway Rd__ ~:: \
-" ... .,.
.....\............ ~ .....: \.
" Srempre Viva -
~ . : ..
.' -
..... U.S.A . .0'" ....
.,., .. -.....,.-...:.:..".:.,...... ..... "';'- .
~:U,'::'::~::~:~ . ,. Mexico ~l~~~:ti~~:r~~:~rt
Connection
~
"
"
0.
South Bay
Proposed LRT Extension
fj~1
---
........
-00
~
Adopted Alignment for Planning Purposes
Alternative Alignments
San Diego Trolley South Line (Existing)
LRT Station
Park-and-Ride/LRT Stations
Existing Freeways
Proposed Freeways C-I
MmB ~ " L1!ID
Metropolitan Transrt Development Board -
-
~:: -::;er!,l .:....>:'1""....:- -:;c;:!e ~:~OO
-..- ...:- -', -.:.~,:'
- .,..,~,
Att. D, AI C5, 5/4/95, SRTP 820.13
April 21, 1995
AG 270.1 (PC 271)
Mr. John P. Goss, City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2631
Dear John:
Subject: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FUNDING FOR OTAY RANCH
At the request of the Executive Committee of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB), I am writing to you regarding the lack of identified
funding for transit services in the proposed Otay Ranch master planned
community.
We have been pleased to participate in the Otay Ranch planning effort and have
appreciated the project team's responsiveness to transit issues. The
Otay Ranch plan provides needed right-of-way for light rail transit (LRT) and
serves as an excellent example of coordinated land use and transportation
planning. However, despite the importance of transit to the overall plan,
there has not been a funding source identified to provide the service.
Some options for funding are presented in the Otay Ranch Project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), which states that Otay Ranch applicants shall contribute
their "fair share" to the capital and operating costs associated with the new
transit system. This "fair share" is apparently to be considered in facility
financing plans at the time that sectional planning area (SPA) plans are
prepared. Further, the EIR states that the applicant shall work with MTDB to
establish benefit assessment districts to fund new transit routes. This
working relationship is essential to the project; adopted mitigation measures
limit development to no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square
feet of commercial use until funding and construction for light rail transit
is assured.
We believe that sources of transit funding should be identified as a part of
the SPA process to ensure that future costs are distributed over as broad a
base as possible. We look forward to working with you on this important
issue. Please contact William Lieberman, of my staff, to pursue this matter
further.
~1~,
Thomas F. Larwin
General Manager
TFL:nsb:seg/L-GOSS.NSB
cc: William Lieberman
Gerald Jamriska
Member AgenClf~s
C,ly 01 Gnu!a Vista. e,ly of Coronado. City 01 EI CaJOn. C,ly 01 tmpenal8eael'1. City 01 La Mesa. City 01 Lemon Grove. City of Nallonal City. C'ly 01 Poway. Clly of San DIego. City 01
Sante.. COlomt.,. of San Diego. State Of Cahfornla
Metropolitan TranSit Development Boara IS Coordinator 01 the Metropolitan Transit System ana is Regulatory AuthOrity for Q, Paratransit Administration 0-1
SubSldtarv CorpcrallOns ...... San DIego TranSIt CorporatIon, ..e. San Diego Trolley. Inc. and -. San Diego & Artzona""""'E8stern Railway Company
'" ..
IJ;~/j}
MTDB L5h
Metropohtan Transrt Development Board - _
-
~":'t~"E:. ;""pr:...02::_;e' :,nc
".
- - .
. . -,..c
April 21, 1995
Mr. David Janssen, Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Diego
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 209
San Diego, CA 92101-2472
Dear David:
Subject: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FUNDING FOR OTAY RANCH
At the request of the Executive Committee of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB), I am writing to you regarding the lack of identified
funding for transit services in the proposed Otay Ranch master planned
community.
AG 270.1 (PC 271)
We have been pleased to participate in the Otay Ranch planning effort and have
appreciated the project team's responsiveness to transit issues. The
Otay Ranch plan provides needed right-of-way for light rail transit (LRT) and
serves as an excellent example of coordinated land use and transportation
planning. However, despite the importance of transit to the overall plan,
there has not been a funding source identified to provide the service.
Some options for funding are presented in the Otay Ranch Project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), which states that Otay Ranch applicants shall contribute
their "fair share" to the capital and operating costs associated with the new
transit system. This "fair share" is apparently to be considered in facility
financing plans at the time that sectional planning area (SPA) plans are
prepared. Further, the EIR states that the applicant shall work with MTDB to
establish benefit assessment districts to fund new transit routes. This
working relationship is essential to the project; adopted mitigation measures
limit development to no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square
feet of commercial use until funding and construction for light rail transit
is assured.
We believe that sources of transit funding should be identified as a part of
the SPA process to ensure that future costs are distributed over as broad a
base as possible. We look forward to working with you on this important
issue. Please contact William Lieberman, of my staff, to pursue this matter
further.
tt:y,
Thomas F. Larwin
General Manager
TFL:nsb:seg/L-JANSEN.NSB
cc: William Lieberman
Gerald Jamriska
MemDer Agenclp.s'
C,lyOI Gnula VIsta. CllvotCoronsoo. C.lvol El Cajon. C,tyotlmaenal BeaCM. Clly 01 La Mesa. Cllvol Lemon Grove. City 01 NatIonal Clly, C,lyol Poway. Clly ~j San Diego. CIty 01
Santee. Counly olSan D.ego. Slale Of Caillorma
Metropolitan TranSIt Development Board IS Coordinator 01 tne Metropohtan TranSIt System and is Regulatory Authority for ... ParatranSlt Administration
Subsidiary CorporatIons .....- San Diego Trans.t Corporation. 060 San Diego Trolley. Inc. ana . San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Comoany
. ...
1/);-/)
0-2
PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF JULY 1995 AS
PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, all levels of government and private enterprise throughout the State
of California participate in the planning, development, and operation of parks and
recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that attention be focused on the mental and physical
benefits derived from involvement in leisure activities in private and public park areas;
and
WHEREAS, positive recreational experiences in our recreational facilities and
beautiful parks contribute to good health and enhance the quality of life for all people;
and
WHEREAS, park and recreation opportunities provide something of value for
everyone:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby proclaim the month of July 1995 as PARKS AND RECREATION
MONTH in the City of Chula Vista and encourage the citizens of Chula Vista to use and
enjoy the parks and recreation facilities in our community.
1/c - /
fi
"
~V?-O
:::~- :
~~~~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
June 30, 1995
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meetings of 6/27/95
To:
Re:
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed session, that there were
no actions taken in the Closed session of 6/27/95 which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported.
BMB: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.no
~-J
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
CM PRODUCTS
TEL No.1-800-992-9321
Jun 15.95
I
7:11 No.001 P.01
RECEIVED
Robert S. Thomas '95 .0 16 P3:33
ClY OF CHUlA VIS 1
ctFf ClE~K 'S OFF!'
June 15, 1995
MayOr Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vi eta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor,
Due to my recent appointlllOnt to the Planning commission, I due here
by resign my poaition on the safety Commission effective at our
last meeting, June 6, 1995. I thank you for the opportunity to
serve on the safety commission and I look forward to continuing my
service to the City of Chule Vista as a Planning Commissioner.
Sincerely,
P;;;e ~
Bob Tho_s
~{J
'f~r
a.)
,
!l
7
1
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
r 'P!75
5b-/
(~
'fl"
.v
nl:)
-c;'
6d~
~50 ~///~' c;/ t/9i//
~ J-r;P ?/5~ft{
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:~
ITEM TITLE:
02/P Y(
ORDINANCE **** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADDING SECTION 2.03.030 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE HANDLING OF MAIL BY THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL STAFF AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.090, 2.04.120,
AND 2.04.130 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AGENDA
SUBMITTAL AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES, WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS, AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting Date:
7/11/95
SUBMITTED BY: City ClerV'
4/5th Vote: () Yes (X) No
Currently, the Municipal Code states that the City Clerk is to open and process the
Mayor/Council mail, that the submittal day for items to be placed on the City Council Agenda
under written communications is on the Tuesday prior to the Council meeting, and that the
preparation and delivery of the agenda is to be on Friday. This is all inconsistent with current
practice. Other inconsistencies in the Municipal Code deal with the way in which requests are
handled for oral communications and that those requests, according to State law, can no longer
be debated by the City Council at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: To place the attached ordinance on first reading which would change
the following: (I) the responsibility of opening and handling of the Mayor/Council mail from
the City Clerk to the Mayor/Council Secretary; (2) the deadline for receiving written
communications in the City Clerk's Office which are to be placed on the city council agenda to
Monday, eight days prior to a city council meeting, instead of Tuesday as currently stated in the
Municipal Code; (3) the preparation and delivery of the city council agenda from Friday to
Thursday; (4) that requests to address the city council under oral communications are received
by the City Clerk prior to the time when oral communications are invited, and (5) that oral
communications are not subject to debate by the City Council. These changes will make the
Municipal Code consistent with current practice. In the matter of City Council debating issues
under oral communications, this change would make the Municipal Code consistent with state
law.
BOARD & COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
HANDLING OF COUNCIL MAIL: Under the current Municipal Code, the City Clerk is
authorized to receive and open all mail addressed to the City Council. In practice, all council
mail is being received and opened by the Mayor/Council secretary. The recommended change
to the ordinance simply makes the ordinance consistent with current practice.
t?-/
\:
Page 2, Item: ~
Meeting Date: _ 7 /11/95
AGENDA SUBMITTAL AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES: On 8/4/92, City Council
directed staff to assemble and mail city council agendas on Thursdays instead of Fridays. The
purpose for the change was to give Council an extra day to review the volume of information
they were receiving; to give the public more time to receive their notices of the meeting; and
to help eliminate last minute requests from Council to the City Attorney's Office. This became
effective October I, 1992. Since this direction from the Council, the Municipal Code has never
been changed. Therefore, the proposed ordinance reflects the changes to make current
procedures consistent with the Municipal Code.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Under the current Municipal Code, the deadline for
submitting written communications is 4:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. However, when staff receives
a written communication late on Tuesday afternoon, it does not give them adequate time to
investigate, prepare a report with a recommendation, and deliver it to the Clerk's Office on
Thursday in time to be included in the agenda packet. Therefore, staff is requesting that the
schedule be changed to reflect that written communications be received on Monday, eight days
prior to the scheduled meeting (and three days prior to the agenda packet being delivered to the
Council) in order to allow enough time for such an investigation and preparation of a report to
Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: The current Municipal Code sets a time when people can
request to speak under Oral Communications. This is no longer being done. Instead people
submit their requests to speak under Oral Communications when they arrive at the council
meeting and at any time prior to the item being addressed on the agenda. Also, another change
from the current Municipal Code is that oral communications are not subject to debate by either
the Council or the public; this is established by state law.
FISCAL IMPACT: By giving the extra day to review written communications, it would avoid
last minute rushing which often lead to staff inefficiencies.
attach:
Draft Ordinance
Council Minutes
Current Municipal Code Sections
d>~~
{l
ORDINANCE NO. 2634
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING
SECTION 2.03.030 RELATING TO THE HANDLING OF MAIL
BY COUNCIL STAFF AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.090,
2.04.120, AND 2,04.130 REGARDING AGENDA
PREP ARA nON AND DELIVERY, WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS, AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1.
Section 2.03.030 is hereby added to Chapter 2.03 as follows:
'{4;~!~R~H~n~~Ipg@bm~!~!
~;
~111111111_rfBr;~~~IRt~~11~i'~~IWI~~~~lli~[~II~IUjlll
q!!g$~M%!~$!!~gmm!!!!~B~!19!!~!~~tHi~~~j~Ir~~iI~~~~!;
Section 2. Section 2.04.120 of Chapter 2.04 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"2.04.090
Agenda-Submission of items-Preparation-Effect.
A. Preparation and Delivery of Agenda.
An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting, including Council Workshop
Meetings, containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted
or discussed.
1. Delivery to City Clerk. Summary of agenda items shall be delivered to
the City Clerk not later than noon Oil tllc Tucsday tW~~Y$P~Y~ preceding
the regular meeting. Agenda items, i.e., backgrollnclandrequests for
particular actions or repo~~,~~~ll be delivered to th~. Sity~ ~~!!g$~r
not later than tell a.m. D!r!lPiWi on the Tl'llmday M?fjH!l~~g~y preceding
the regular meeting. The clerk shall thereafter prepare the agenda under
the direction of the city manager.
t'.]
i ~..-
I".".,
.~
2.
Delivery to Council. The agenda, together with all reports, resolutions
and ordinances pertaining thereto, shall be delivered to council members
on the Friday If. g\'liiW~y preceding the regular meeting.
.,',.,',........,-.-........
"2.04.120
Written communications.
A. The city clerk is authorized te reeeive aRd epeR all mail addressed te tile eity
emllleil RAd slla:11 give it immediate atteRlieR to tile eRd tllat all admiRistrtilivc
BHsiRess referred la iR said commHRieatieRs aRd Rot Reeessarily reqHiriRg eellRcil
aetieR may Be dispesed of BelweeR eellRcil meeliRgs. Previded, tllat a:11
eemmHRicatioRs llfld aRY aetieR takeR pllrSHaRt tl1erelo sllallbe rSflerted Ie Ihe eity
eellReil t.FlY eommllRieatieR reqHiriRg cOI:IReil aelieR sllall be plaeed lIpOR tile
IlgcRda fer tile Rellt reglllar meetiFlg tegetller with a repert aRd reeoffimeRdatioR
BY Ille city staff. ".11 corresp6RdeRee sllallBe aRswered er aeknewledged as seaR
as p1'lletieallle. to place any communication reqlliringcouncil action received al
the Q1erk'$ Office prior to four p.m. on Tl:lcsday Monday, eight days prec~ing
eaCh9?pI\Cilmeeting, and shall be listed on the agenda as provlded for under the
9rderQfbllSine~sestablished in this chapter. Any such communication received
tMi'~ftershall1;>e .liSted on the .agenda for the next regular. council meeting held
thereafter:, AlIcomlnunications shall be submitted to the Council with a report
l\i1diecomlnendation by the city staff: All correspondence shall be answered or
aC~6'.Vle<lged<U>soonaspracticable. (Ord. **** ~I (part), 1995: Ord. 2426 ~2,
i990: Ori:l. 2085~4,1987: Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973: prior code ~I.205(4).)"
"2.04.130
Oral communications.
All citizens requesting permission to address the city council on any matter not contained
in the agenda of a regular meeting may submit such request to the city clerk Rot later
tllaR RiRe a.m. eR tile Friday preeediRg eaell cOI:IRcil meetiRg. PROrJPJVe!:ime91ll}1ll:
!h~mAAtmg~twlj!9Pi!gj';f!(igjnln\iPi9~tigij~il\t~)ny!ted; The nature of the oral
commu~icatioI1aI1dtheI1ame of the person or persons desiring to be heard shall be
clearly stated in such requests. Sl:Iell aelioR v..ill assl:lre prierity ef tllis elass of
eemml:lRieatieR e-..er geReral oral adElresses Ie tile eetiReil. Such oral communications
shall not be subject to debate or participation by !h~9,tY999#Rilp~ other members of the
public present at the council meeting. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part); prior code ~1.205(5)).
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect 30 days after its
second reading and adoption.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
~-y
APP'Z. '~~~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Presented by:
,
.,
,.
Horton stated that after Council1s discussion the previous week in closed session, discussing some of the
conflicts between a couple of the departments, she thought a solution would be to possibly move the
meeting date over one day. It would give the Council more time to review the volume of the information
that they were given on Fridays and would give the public more access, more time to receive their notices
and help eliminate last minute requests from Council to the City Attorney's office. After discussing the item
with the City Manager's office and the City Clerk's office, they led her to believe that was possible but
recommended that they consider having their packets presented to them on Thursday night. She felt that
the voLume of information that Council received was totaLLy outrageous but giving them an extra day would
provide them more time to get through the information. She said the City Manager did request that Council
give the departments thirty days to implement the change. (08/04/92)
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to change the deadline from Friday to Thursday for delivery of the agenda packet
and noticing to the public, to be effective in October.
City Attorney Boogaard stated there was a matter of some urgency that came up the previous day as a result
of the settlement discussion he had regarding Siroonian versus the City of Chuta Vista. He needed to discuss
it with the CounciL in cLosed session. He stated that it woutd require a 4/5th's vote.
MSC (Nader/Horton) that an urgency existed and add to closed session Siroonian vs. City of Chula Vista.
Approved 4-0-1 with Councilman Moore absent.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 7:00 p.m. and met in closed session at 7:24 p.m. to discuss:
From City Council Minutes dated 8/4/92
tf
\1
2.04.060 Meetings and conferences open to the public-Exceptions.
All regular and spedal meetings of the dty coundl, all regular and spedal conferences of the dty
coun . and the meetings of all commissions and boards established by the dty council shall be open to the
public. all regular council meetings, all dtizens shall have the right to personally or through unsel
present vances or offer suggestions for the betterment of municipal affairs, in accordance ith the
limitations p vided by this chapter to establish reasonable regulation of said meetings. Public idpation
at spedal meet s of the dty council or regular or spedal council conferences shall be limo d by coundl
action, and no c. 'zens may be heard at such meetings or conferences unless permis" nis granted or
requested by the d ouncil. Pursuant to the provisions of the laws of the state, the c' council may hold
executive sessions fro which the public may be excluded for the consideration of e following subjects:
A. Personnel matters: T onsider appointment, employment, or dismissal a public officer, person or
employee or to hear com aints or charges brought against an officer employee unless such officer
or employee requests a pu 'c hearing. The council may exclude om any such executive session
during the examination of a . ess any or all other witnesses' e matter being investigated; and
to consider matters of labor neg . ations with employee asso . tions or unions;
B. Attorney-client matters: To consider p posed or pend' litigation to which the dty is a party;
(Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code ~1.202
C. Security efforts for the public and public e oyee To meet with the chief of police and other law
enforcement officers on matters relating to sec . efforts for the public, public employees and public
buildings.
2.04.070 Attendance.
Councilmembers are expect to attend all meetings of the dty co cil. If a councilmember absents
himself without permission fro all regular dty council meetings for thirty ys consecutively from the last
regular meeting he attends, . s office becomes vacant and shall be f1lled as a
~2 (part), 1973; prior cod 1.203).
embers of the council shall constitute a quorum and shall be suffident to tr act regular
business. ess than three councilmembers appear at a regular meeting any member, or if all m bers are
absent, e dty clerk, shall adjourn the meeting to a stated day and hour. The clerk shall cause a
noti of the adjournment to be delivered personally to each councilmember at least three hours befo
a . urned meeting. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code ~1.204).
2.04.090 Agenda-Submission of items-Preparation-Effect.
A. Preparation and Delivery of Agenda.
An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting, including Council Workshop Meetings,
containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed.
1. Delivery to City Clerk. Summary of agenda items shall be delivered to the City Clerk not later
than noon on the Tuesday preceding the regular meeting. Agenda items, i.e., background and
requests for particular actions or reports, shall be delivered to the City Clerk not later than ten
(R 11/91)
32
t:,-')
~
2.04.040 Meetings-Special-Notice required-Waiver of notice.
Special meetings may be called any time by the mayor, or by three members of the city co cil, by
ivering personally or by mail written notice to each council member and to each local ne paper of
ge ral circulation, radio or television station requesting notice in writing. Such notice must e delivered
perso ally or by mail at least twenty.four hours before the time of such meeting as specifle In the notice.
The ca and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the busines 0 be transacted.
No othe usiness shall be considered at such meetings. Such written notice may be . pensed with as to
any counc' member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes, mes with city clerk a written
waiver of n . ceo Such waiver may be given by telegram. Such written notice ma also be dispensed with
as to any co ilmember who is actually present at the meeting at the time it co enes. The call and notice
shall be poste t least twenty-four hours prior to the special meeting in a 10 tion freely accessible to the
public. Neither e notice nor posting requirements shall apply to an emerg cy special meeting authorized
by Government Co e Section 54956.5. However, during a meeting called ursuant to such section, the City
Council shall not me in closed session pursuant to Government Code ction 54957. (Ord. 2185 ~1 (part),
1987; Ord. 1486 ~2 ), 1973; prior code fil.202(3)).
2.04.050 Worlcshops.
A The Mayor may announce, or the Council on majori ote may direct, at any regular council meeting,
the convening of a Counci Workshop Meeting 0 the fourth Thursday of the month, and in such
event, the Council shall con ct a Council me g on said fourth Thursday of the month, at 4:00
p.m., in the Council Conferenc Room, in the ,vic Center Complex, Administration Building, at 276
Fourth Avenue. Said meeting hall be wn as a 'Council Workshop Meeting', and shall be
conducted in a 'workshop' contex accord' g to the rules, policies, and guidelines herein set forth in
this section.
B. hop Meeting shall be to address matters which are primarily
of a planning character, or other m ers hich require extensive deliberation of such length, duration,
or complexity as to be not conve entiy ca ble of being addressed at the council meetings scheduled
for the regular Tuesday coun meetings. otwithstanding the foregoing, other matters may be
addressed which, in the opin' n of the City Ma ger, have some aspect of urgency to' them, or should
be addressed at such mee ' g in subsequent Tue ay city council meeting.
C. Notice requirements fo special council conferences, ther than Council Workshops noticed in the
manner herein provi d, shall be the same as those fo pecial council meetings.
D. At such council rkshops or special conferences, the ci council may require the attendance of
members of any oards and commissions, or members of the dministrative staff for the purpose of
items that appear on the council conference a nda.
E.
Council W rkshop Meetings shall be deemed a regular City Coun 'I
purposes and the City Council shall have the full authority to take any
Counc' s otherwise authorized by law or charter to take at meetings.
meeting for all intents and
d all actions which the City
F. The ity Clerk, unless otherwise directed by the City Council, may limit e record of Council
W rkshop Meetings to a record of actions taken ('Action Minutes') by the Cou
2444 ~2, 1991; Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code fil.202(4)).
{
3~~
(R 11/91)
~ ~ -- ,---
a.m. on the Thunday preceding the regular meeting. The clerk shall thereafter prepare the
~ agenda under the direction of the city manager.
2. Delivery to Council. The agenda, together with all reports, resolutions and ordinances pertaining
thereto, shall be delivered to councilmembers on the Friday preceding the regular meeting.
B. Posting and Public Availability of Agenda.
The agenda shall be posted at least seventy-two houn before the regular meeting in a location freely
accessible to the public, and be made available to the public as soon as practicable.
C.
1. Th agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting.
2. Items 0 usiness shall be placed on the agenda at the direction of the city manager; city
attorney; c clerk; a majority of the council; or a Council-ap ved board, commission or
committee up an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire m bership of said body directing
same.
3. For items to be consi red as a public hearing at any ci council meeting, inclu4ing Council
Workshop Meetings, st shall notice, and Council s I address, the public hearing at the
beginning hour of the mee which the public he will be considered, or as soon thereafter
as the Council's agenda may rmit in its due co
(
4. The Agenda shall provide a section or mem of the public to directly address the Council on
items of interest to the public within e sub' ct matter jurisdiction of the Council.
S. The Agenda shall provide a section entitl 'Mayor's Report" which section shall be reserved for
reports of the Mayor to the City, the st or e public on matters of City business. If there is
any written material which is the sub' ct matte of a Mayoral Report, the Mayor or his designee
shall make a diligent effort to pro de the City erk with a copy of said written'material in
sufficient advance time to permit e inclusion of s e into the Agenda and related material for
delivery to the Council.
6. The Agenda shall provide a ection entitled 'Council Co nts' for Councilmembers to directly
address the City, staff, r the public on items of inter t rCouncil commel1ts'j to the
Councilperson. If ther any written material which is the subJ t matter of Council comments,
the sponsoring coun person shall make a diligent effort to proVl the City Clerk With a copy
of said. written m erial in sufficient advance time to permit the lusion of same into the
Agenda and rela d material for delivery to the Council. !
D.
Whenever fe-'lble, each item on the agenda shall contain a staff recommendation
action /'sted to be taken by the council.
E. Prohibitation of Action; Exceptions.
No matters other than those listed on the agenda shall be acted upon by the Council, except as
provided in Section 2.04.100.
(
t~~
33
(R 6/93)
1. A direction by the council to refer a matter not on the posted agenda raised by a member of the
Council or of the public, to staff for a report or to place a matter on a future agen shall not
constitute action.
The city
determination;
1991; Ord. 2426 U, 1990; Ord. 2185 ~2, 1987; Ord. 1486 ~2 (p
2.04.100 Items not on
upon items of b . ess not on the posted agenda upon a
A. By a majority vote than an emergen situati ,as defined by Government Code Section 54956.5
exists; or
B.
members present, that the need
C. The item was posted for a or meeting of the city co cil occurring not more than five calendar days
prior to the date action' taken, and at the prior meetin the item was continued to the meeting at
which action is bein aken.
requiring approval for form, legality or administration.
(Ord. 2185 ~3, 1987.' rd. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code U.205(2)).
I ordinances, resolutions and contract documents shall, before presentation to the co cil, have been
a roved as to form and legality by the city attorney or his authorized representative, and sha ave been
xamined and approved for administration by the city manager or his authorized representative, wh
are substantive matters of administration involved. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code ~1.205(
2.04.120 Written Communications.
A. The city clerk is authorized to receive and open all mail addressed to the city council and shall give
it immediate attention to the end that administrative business referred to in said communications and
not necessarily requiring council action may be disposed of between council meetings. Provided, that
all communications and any action taken pursuant thereto shall be reported to the city council. Any
communication requiring council action shall be placed upon the agenda for the next regular meeting
together with a report and recommendation by the city staff. All correspondence shall be answered
or acknowlegded as soon as practicable. Such written communications considered by the city council
shall be presented to the city clerk by four p. m. on the Tuesday preceding each council meeting and
shall be listed on the agenda as provided for under the order of business established in this chapter.
(Ord. 2426 ~2, 1990; Ord. 2185 ~, 1987; Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code 11.205(4)).
2.04.130 Oral communications.
All citizens requesting permission to address the city council on any matter not contained in the
agenda of a regular meeting may submit such request to the city clerk ~t 1.......... t'h~" "~". ~"" 1rR the PIiday
~Jlreeelling ear'- f^',IBciI_ering. The nature of the oral communication and the name of the person or
persons desiring to be heard shall be clearly stated in such reques$l". ~..... areA" wm ......A pa:ieFily llf this
(R 6/93)
3(
~-i
\
cl~~s or ~uJ.hu_a.R.h:-"'i ... "vel X:'l;u':"fsl AF-1 -..1..1--.......,; 19 tAP- -HlIft-l.Hlrl:lER 8fall3ft.Hltln;,"Gl~vu~ sha111l0l be
-- .,
8~jeet to 4a~ate ef''''~''lF:n4gA BY ad..... luci11bc:u uf me: }luDl;... y.~.n.ul wl d.... .............dllRontiRg. (Ord.1486
fi2 (part), 1973; prior code fi1.205(5)).
2.04.140 Order of business.
At the time set for each regular meeting, the councilmembers, city clerk, city manager, city atto ey
an such department heads as have been requested to be present shall take their regular places' the
coun . chamber. The'mayor shall call the meeting to order and the business of the council shall taken
up for onsideration and disposition in the order set by resolution, except that with. consent of majority
of the co cil, items may be taken up out of order. All business brought before the council wil e promptly
attended t provided, that upon the request of any councilmcrnber, the same shall be referr to the proper
official for in estigation before any action shall be taken thereon by the council as a w ole. The agenda
shall contain title headings and shall be conducted ir the order as set forth by solution of the city
council. (Ord.1 1 U, 1977; Ord. 1506 fi1, 1973; Ord. 1486 fi2 (part), 1973; P . r code fi1.206.)
A.
Items 'for inclusion 0 the agenda, which have been reviewed y the city manager and staff and
special Council consideration, ma' (! to the council for study and which
are made available to the blic prior to and at council rnee . gs, shall be grouped together for action
by the city council. Staff rec endations on the action be taken for said items shall be indicated
in a concise and summary fo . These matters shall e listed under what is to be known as the
"consent calendar" in the order 0 business as indicate in Section 2.04.140. Adoption of the consent
calendar may be made by a simple otion approve by the city council; provided, however, that the
presiding officer shall first advise the udience th the consent calendar matters will be so adopted,
in total, by one action of the council ess a council member or any individual or organization
interested in one or more consent calen i ms has any question or wishes to make a statement
relative to such an item. In that event, the siding officer may defer action on the particular matter
or matters and place the same on the age a fo consideration in such order as he deems appropriate.
\
B. It is understood that the motion for proval of ite s on the consent calendar encompasses therein
a waiver of the requirement of read' g of the text of dinances and resolutions contained therein at
a direction that the reading of th ext be waived and t the heading only be read, and in the case
of ordinances, that such ordina ce be placed on second ading and adopted.
C. The written agenda availab to the public and to the city co cil shall provide the following notice
of explanation to the pub 'c concerning the consent calendar:
"All matters liste nder CONSENT CALENDAR will be enacte y one motion in the form listed
below. There I be no separate discussion of these items prior the rim the Council votes on
the motion u ess members 'of the Council, staff, or the public guest specific items to be
discussed a or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate acti . Members of the public
who wish discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the ctem upon invitation
by the ayor, state their name, address and Consent Calendar item numb "
(Ord. 2442 U 1991; Ord. 2426 fi3, 1990; Ord. 2116 U, 1985; Ord. 1486 fi2 (part), 13; prior code
U.207).
/
,,~/tJ
35
(R 11/91)
2.04.160 Mayor to preside.
The mayor shall be the presiding officer at all meetings of the city council. In the absence of the
mayor, the mayor pro tempore or the city clerk shall call the council to order, whereupon a temporaty
presiding officer shall be elected by the councilmembers present to selVe until the arrival of the mayor or
mayor pro tempore or until adjournment. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code U.208).
2.04.170 Presiding officer powers and duties.
A Participation: The presiding officer may move, second, debate, and vote from the chair. He shall not
be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a councilmember by reason of this action as
presiding officer.
B. Questions to be stated: The presiding officer or such member of the city staff as he may designate
may verbally restate each question immediately prior to calling for the vote. Following the vote the
presiding officer shall announce whether the question carried or was defeated. The presiding officer
in his discretion may publicly explain the effect of a vote for the audience, or he may direct a member
of the city staff to do so, before proceeding to the next item of business.
C. Maintaining order and decorum: The presiding officer shall be responsible for the maintenance of
order and decorum at all meetings. He shall decide all questions of order subject, however, to an
appeal to the council.
D. Signing of documents: The presiding officer shall sign all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other
documents necessitating his signature which were adopted in his presence, unless he is unavailable
in which case an alternate presiding officer may sign such documents.
E. Appointment of committees: The mayor may, subject to the advance approval of the council, appoint
such committees of councilmembers, city staff and private citizens or a combination thereof as he
deems necessary and expedient to assist and advise the council in its works.
(Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973; prior code ~1.209).
2.04.180 Call to Order-Presiding officer.
The mayor, or in his absence the mayor pro tempore, shall take the chair at the hour appointed for
the meeting, and shall call the council to order. In the absence of the mayor and the mayor pro tempore,
and the failure of the mayor to appoint a temporary presiding officer, the city clerk or his assistant shall call
the council to order, whereupon a temporary presiding officer shall be elected by the councilmembers
present. Upon the arrival of the mayor or the mayor pro tempore, the temporary presiding officer shall
relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business then before the council. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part), 1973;
prior code U.210).
2.04.190 Roll call.
Before proceeding with the business of the council, the city clerk shall call the roll of the
councilmembers and the names of those present shall be entered in the minutes. (Ord. 1486 ~2 (part),
1973; prior code ~1.211).
(R 11/91)
36
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item2
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE:
Ordinance .2~~ Amending Schedule IX, Section 10.48.030 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code - Increasing State Law Speed Limits in
certain areas and establishing a speed limit of 35 MPH on East "J" Street
from Cassia Place to River Ash Drive and adding this location to Schedule
IX.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~rf1/"
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Based on provisions of the California VehicYe C:: Section 40803, and pursuant to authority under
the Chula Vista Municipal code Section 10.48.030, the City Engineer has determined that in the
interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion, and for the promotion of public safety,
the speed limit on East J Street between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive be increased from 30
MPH to 35 MPH.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Ordinance establishing a 35 MPH speed limit on East "J" Street from Cassia Place to
River Ash Drive.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Safety Commission on May 11, 1995, voted MSC 6-0-1, with Commissioner Pitts absent, to
support staffs recommendation and recommend to City Council to adopt an Ordinance increasing
the speed limit on East "J" Street between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive from 30 to 35 MPH.
DISCUSSION:
The City Engineer has determined the need to increase the posted speed limit on East J Street
between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive from 30 mph to 35 mph to comply with the California
Vehicle Code Section 40803 Speed Trap Evidence. Section 40803 requires evidence that a Traffic
and Engineering Survey has been conducted within five years.
East J Street in this area is a 50' to 64' curb to curb residential collector street with residences
fronting on both sides of the roadway. Most of East J Street is striped with a two-way turn lane
leaving one lane in each direction with parking on both sides. The design speed is slightly less than
40 mph because of the vertical alignment of the roadway. The Average Daily Traffic is 4,580
vehicles per day on East J Street in this area.
7-/
\'
Page 2, Item1
Meeting Date 7/11/95
The above-mentioned traffic survey shows an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph. The accident rate
is 1.04 accidents per rnillion vehicle miles (A VM) which is much lower than the statewide average
of 2.12 A VM for similar roadways in the State of California. The seven (7) accidents that have
occurred over a period of over four (4) years, have been distributed over the one (1) mile length
covered by this Survey. There has been no pattern as to the type or location of these accidents.
There have been three (3) intersection accidents and four (4) segment accidents reported. Four (4)
of these accidents involved a single vehicle striking parked vehicles, and involved drivers operating
a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Based on the above data, it has been determined that the speed limit should be posted at 35 mph in
accordance with the California Vehicle Code requirements. The current survey expires on July 16,
1995. It is recommended that the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code be revised as follows:
10.48.030 Schedule IX - Increased Speed Limits in Certain Areas
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit
East J Street Cassia Place River Ash Drive 35 mph
All East "J" Street residents, between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive, were notified of the May
11, 1995 Safety Commission meeting. These same residents were notified of tonight's City Council
meeting. Of the resident's that contacted staff, most were in favor of raising the speed limit to 35
M.P.H. Staff did recieve one telephone call from a resident who is opposed to the 35 M.P.H. speed
limit.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to replace six signs and seven pavement legends is $400.00. The
work will be accomplished as part of the Public Works Department's operating budget.
Attachment: Area Plat w/existing 30 mph speed limit signs
Engineering and Traffic Survey with supporting data
Excerpts from Safety Commission Meeting Minutes dated 5111195
(M:\homc\engineer\agenda\Cassia.MJD)
7-~
I'
ORDINANCE NO.
.:l./,y..r
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.48.030 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE - INCREASING STATE
LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND
ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON EAST
"J" STREET FROM CASSIA PLACE TO RIVER ASH
DRIVE AND ADDING THIS LOCATION TO SCHEDULE IX
WHEREAS, based on provisions of the California Vehicle
Code section 40803, and pursuant to authority under the Chula vista
Municipal Code section 10.48.030, the City Engineer has determined
that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic
congestion and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit
on East J Street between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive be
increased from 30 MPH to 35 MPH; and
WHEREAS, a traffic and engineering study, as required by
State Law, was conducted by staff and it was determined that the
85th percentile speed on East "J" Street is 39 M.P.H. between
cassia Place and River Ash Drive; and
WHEREAS, based on the traffic survey and accident data,
it has been determined that the speed limit should be posted at 35
MPH in accordance with the California Vehicle Code requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission at its meeting of May 11,
1995 voted 6-0-1, with Commissioner pitts absent, to support
staff's recommendation and recommend to the city Council to adopt
an Ordinance increasing the speed limit on East "J Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula vista
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Schedule IX of Section 10.48.030 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code, Increasing State Law Maximum Speed Limits in
certain Areas, is hereby amended to include the following changes:
10.48.030 Increased Speed Limits in certain Zones - Schedule IX
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit
East J Street Cassia Place River Ash 35 M.P.H.
Drive
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption, or when the
appropriate signs are erected giving notice of the maximum speed
limit, whichever occurs last.
Approved as to form by
~ /'V\ ,l~'WL ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, cit
7' f7Atfrney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
/
.
-
, y\ ~'"
~-~ \
. ... ,~.....
L.--.3 -0
\
\~
---\ ~
U)
z
"
-
U)
%
A.
:i
o
CW)
"
z
-
I-
U)
-
><
W
%
l-
i
I:
I
) -
~\
- ---
. ~ ~
L --
.----:
~
J.'-
l-
e(
..J
A.
e(
W
IX
e(
"
III
...
~
-
~
I
@
..
iis
-i
.
(
..
..
.
c
.
l!
a
.
-
.
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
l,
STREET:
LIMITS:
East J Street
Cassia Place - River Ash Drive
Existing Posted Speed Limit:
30
MPH · See below for revision
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment:
Date Taken:
Number Vehicles on Sample:
85th Percentile Speed:
Range of Speeds Recorded:
Cassia PI. to
La Senda Way
3/15/95
100
37
46 - 24
La Senda Way to
Paseo Del Rev
3/15/95
100
39
53 - 27
Paseo Del Rey to
River Ash Dr.
3/15/95
100
39
48 - 27
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width
Horizontal Alignment
Vertical Alignment
Number of lanes for both directions 2 - 4
Floyd Rmin. - 500'
over 400' V.C. between La Senda Wa and Arro 0 Dr.
less than 35 MPH)
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic
On-Street Parking
4,580
Allowed.
(
Special Conditions Predominate Iv sin21e familv dwel1inQs. Church and nT@Rchnol p-/o
Paseo Del Rey.
Accident History The accident rate at this se2ment (1.04 accidents ner million vehicle
miles) is lower than the avera2e accident rate (2.12) for similar roadwavs in the State
of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
Leonardo Hernandez
Date
4/18/95
Recommendation Increase sneed limit to 35 MPH due t.o Rnmm:n"V of "peed A.l11'"VItYR. Tn:Ant.fAY
characteristics and traffic characteristics.
Date recommen~ation approved:?1.1~ 3. Irr~
By ~,.e...t~~ X. /2.:.;~
7-/'
~?-OfESSIO~~
~~.~
7/"!:' Q:'f' ~ \~,.~
I !'a l<; "" z \\
'0)' ,. ~
'~lJ 1'I'tAF'(-\V ~
~ C&\~~
Approved speed limit: 35 MPH
(
Per CVC 40803. Survey Expires:
3/15/2000
an' OF CHVl.A VJSTA. . VEHIC1.E SPEED StIJlVEY
<- . .
DIRECTION !5'" -0 W -/ CUM.
MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES lOTAL ~ ~
. II .. ..
60
59
58
51
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48 ,/ /' ~ , ,,,,,
,
47 C"J (} ,,~
46 <=> C '.(."
4S .,./" I / <1.<:'
..... ,./ , <'-I
~ r. I I ~ -
42 (j /" /' / ~ ~f '."'-
41 0 ," ) A ./ ./ c- ." ~
40 r. SG
I
- ~39 a /" ./ ./ S .s 'e'~. 0:-
38 D ) r- (' / $ $' ,'0
r1 (--: ,....., Ir) r- f\ /' ./ ./ /' / / '/ /1 ~~
36 ('; /'I) "';;j ') r-) 9r; n /' ./ ./ ,,- ./" 13 I.' r.:.,.
as r /""i ,.....) n /) /' ,/ / Ie' :;/
/{l
34 C r' 1(" ./" /' ./ (> " '1/
33 1[:"' j"" ./ / ./ ..,' ., ~,
32 r ,...., r) /' ... ....- --;;;; 5t' '" .",c)
31 /' / 'i'... ~ '7'~
30 r (' ,--- / ./ / 7 -? :;z
~ ,
29 ('" ("'. ,/ ./ / / ./ '? i>- f ...
28 C /' 7, ~ ,-
:z7 ,--, 0 - /' '{ '" <-I
26 .
25
24
~
-
{
:w
RECORDER: ./"" L ././ ,j'/ I TOTAl. NUWID or vDUC\a /C<c)
7"'7
~
SEGMENT UNDER STUDY
DATE 3 - /t': - Of':-
~ START //'7(
;:-,.. ~ ..:r r-"--- .
SURVEY srn J" '" ,.,/
. 'AM/PM 11ME END
.~......\~.
v
...,.--,
I-n .t?'~........
"RJ,,.,i
)7 . 30::-
<'"(-) ., ( Pr.J j f- P.-, 0' ~0..1 n,~. .7
Prl POSTED SPEED 3(':)
AM~
WEAnIER C /;-,-, )
CITY OF 0It1LA VISTA.. VEHICLE SPEED stlltVEY
SEGMENT UNDER S1UDY
~..,,:r
,/
y
~7~,c;/f~:" f:k
!VY)'/ ~~ ,..k
....e __k; /"/.2 ~ aJff' ~ r,-.),~~
v
'/ / '~J.
-1t.7JI""'u' /G--;';:<)'
.......-, 1
AM~ WEA. THER ,r- pf" ~
t.,i 1""'-' ,
AI ~?..II
.... .-'
D TE - ./ .- ~
A ,,- /.. - -, ":
i. ~TA.RT ? '1<"
SURVEY SITE
~
POSTED SPEED
m
. ,
DIRECTION ~ _0 t'L.J -/ CUM.
MPH NUMBER OF VEHla.ES TOTAL 10 10
. It It ..
60
59
58
51
56
55
Sf
53 0 , , ',r, ,
52 ..., ,.-, o/,.,r
51 r, (-, .." ..:
50 " -
-> L-l_
4!/ - .. - -
411 r, - t'~, ..1
47 <n.J (I :'/~'
46 -' " v/.;.~
L,
45 ,""', r, ,"",'",:-
A4 :-.. ,,' ...; .;;
1 <--~ I['j /'- ./ " {/ .--'"
42 ,-;, / , -, '~
41 () / ./ ... :'" ~</
40 () -:; 0 ./ ,/ ./ '" (...;' ':"/
~
- ~39 0 i.--J t') 1,.-;) ~ 1,..- ,.- ~J /' / ./ V /'7 7.
38 ~ 0 /" /' /" / ./ / ./ / //;' .;-- :r3
37 ,,-::- Ir3' r- ,-- r' :,.-, ./ , "2 ~ ....~ .:;
36 0 ,.-...; r-. r /' / V V V ~. '" ~C'-
3S ,'J 1("') /' ./ ./ /' ./ ./ / ~-:-: '/;;'
~
34 ,...,. r--) / / . , ,/ ,- (:' '7 s.
- -
33 r") -'J <" In r-J r' ./ ./ ./ ./ /1:' (' . 3c
,
32 (') I(~) r; , ./ V V ./ /' / / / '? /~ - .,
31 c0 "..... (' . ,,- '-' </ //~
30 0 (",' ./ '? :3 6
29 /" 1/ ~ c: "'"
:zI e:> r) (' ,
'D r~ / / /
26 , r. (") "",
25 c:, 0 (~
24 ~ '" ,-
Z3 r'. (~ '"
, (~i '-, r,
(-') " 6
20 () .', -,
,j
RECORDER: ,,/ L_c/L .// I TOTAL NUWIII or YIKJCLa /.->,,) 7-fr'
lIME END '3 : Or)
''1D..I"_\~l
u
T-30 CHULA VISTA RUN DATE: 6- 7-95
ROUTE SEGMENT COLLISION SUMMARY -- E J ST 1
INTRSCTN CROSS STREET NAME SGMNT PERIOO 1: 1- 1-91 to 2-28-95 PERIOO 2: 0- 0- 0 to 0- 0- 0 CHANGE
LOCATION OlsT , HO SO RE BO HT 0' PE OT INT SEG HO 50 RE BO HT 0' PE OT INT SEG IN
CODE MILES ON SN AR SO OB TN 0 HR CLL CLL ON SN AR SO OB TN 0 HR CLL CLL RATE\
24500 CASSIA PL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22710 LA SENOA NAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22720 ARROYO PLACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22730 ENTRADA PLACE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 MESA COURT
140 MESA PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 PA5EO DEL REY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
( 24510 REDBUD RO
24510 REDBUD PL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.09 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24520 CNESTNUT CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24530 BEECHGLEN OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24540 RIVER ASH OR 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUMMARY TOTALS .96 3 4 0 0
TRAffIC VOL/COLLISION RATE: 6000/ .799 0/ .000 .000
(
7-;
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHUlA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, May 11, 1995
7:03 p.m.
Counci I Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Smith, Commissioners: Bierd, Cochrane, Liken, and Miller
MSC (SmithlThomas) to excuse Commissioner Pills due to an unforeseen emergency. Approved 6-0-1 with
Commissioner Pitts absent.
Excused Absence: Commissioner Pitts
Also Present:
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera Associate Traffic Engineer; Sgt. Gene
d'Ablaing; and Shirley Buxton, Recording Secretary
2. Pled..e of Alle..iance/Silent Praver
3. Ooenin.. Statement - Read by Chair Thomas
4. Aooroval of Minutes: April 13, 1995
MSC (Smith/Miller) to approve the minutes of April 13, 1995 as presented. Approved 5-0-1-1 with
Commissioner Pitts absent and Commissioner Bierd abstaining.
MEETING AGENDA
5. REPORT on Request for Speed Humps on Albany Avenue in the area of Otay Elementary School
Commissioner Miller indicated she would have to abstain on the item since it would be a conflict of interest
related to her employment. She then left the dais.
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
Hal Rosenberg indicated that Council had expressed an interest in a speed hump policy and that was why staff
was preparing a policy, even though in the past he was against them.
Chair Thomas indicated his pleasure that speed humps were being reviewed.
Commissioner Cochrane asked if there was a speeding problem in front of the school.
Frank Rivera said that the problems existed during the dismissal time. He could not say there was a speeding
problem, but parents were concerned because of the pedestrian activity in the afternoon.
MSC (Thomas/Smith) that the issue of speed humps on Albany Avenue be revisited at such time as the City has
a policy in place to govern installation of the design features. Approved 5-0-1.1 with Commissioner Pills absent
and Commissioner Miller abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
6. REPORT on Increasing Speed Limit on East J Street from Cassia Place to River Ash Drive
Frank Rivera presented staff's report and showed slides of the area.
7~/tJ
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
May 11, 1995
Page 2
Lloyd Heiydt, 660 East J Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, opposed the speed limit increase. He did not protest
the proposed increase for the entire street, but in the area of the crest on East J Street. La Senda Place was at the
top of the crest and it was a blind intersection because of the vertical curve. He felt staff should have pinpointed
where accidents occurred because he was aware of several accidents on the street. He proposed a 25 mph speed
limit from Cassia Place to the 'danger zone' at the crest of the hill. If an all-way stop were installed at La Senda
Place and East J Street, it would warn the motorists of upcoming changes in the roadway. He suggested extending
the raised median on East J Street, installing an all-way stop at La Senda Place and East J Street, and lowering the
speed limit near La Senda Place.
Mike McColley, 836 East J Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, lived east of Paseo del Rey which was where East J
Street reduced in an easterly direction from two lanes to one lane. He had difficulty exiting his driveway because
vehicles traveling west exceeded the 30 mph speed limit. He opposed raising the speed limit to 35 mph. He
questioned the 85th percentile speed of 37-39 mph, when he saw vehicles that traveled over 40 mph. He had
not seen any officers recently enforcing the speed limit around East J Street.
Don Baker, 837 East J Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, said the curves on East J Street were designed for 34 mph.
If motorists traveled 9 mph over the proposed speed limit at 44 mph, they would be traveling 10 mph over the
design speed. There was no sight distance to back out of his driveway. He said the street had only been posted
for the last two years at 30 mph and prior to that the street was not posted. The street should be posted at 25
mph. He felt the 30 mph was not being enforced and asked if the 35 mph would be enforced. There had been
seven accidents because of the two curves in the roadway. The accident statistics indicated that the street was
1/2 the State average. He felt actual accidents should be used for statistics and reduced to zero.
Robert Torbett, 668 EastJ Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, had been in law enforcement for 41 years and a former
Safety Commissioner. He walked East J Street almost daily and drove it several times a day. He supported the
increase in the speed limit to 35 mph and said that motorists did not drive the posted speed of 30 mph. The
Police Department frequented the area and wrote many tickets. After he left the Safety Commission, he almost
went to the City Council to request that another committee be formed to look at the removal of stop signs and
to increase speed limits within Chula Vista. There was no reason that the.speed limit could not be increased to
35 mph and still be safe, unless the City wanted a speed trap.
Chair Thomas asked staff for a comment on the design speeds as mentioned by the speaker.
Frank Rivera said the design speed for horizontal curve (left to right) had a minimum 500 feet radius, which
exceeded 35 mph. The limiting design speed was the vertical curve and the design speed was 34 mph.
Hal Rosenberg explained vertical curves and sight distance related to curves. He commented on one of the
speakers who indicated that if the speed limit were raised, the tolerance for speed would be greater. He
explained that without a speed survey, the courts would have difficulty upholding a speed ticket. A speed survey
was required in order to enforce speeding tickets. Motorists were currently traveling at 35-40 mph. If the 30 mph
posting remained, the Police Department would be powerless to enforce speeding because of the speed trap law.
Chair Thomas mentioned for the record that a flyer had been received from Mr. Dennis J. McCarthy, 723 East J
Street opposing the speed limit increase.
Hal Rosenberg mentioned that the courts were in favor of the increase based on the speed survey.
Frank Rivera said the current speed survey expired in July 1995 and, therefore, needed to be re-surveyed to
indicate current speed limits.
Commissioner Cochrane asked what would happen in five years when the next survey was completed and it was
found that the 85th percentile speed increased again. He asked if the speed would keep going up.
7-/1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
May 11,1995
Page 3
Frank Rivera said the design speed of a roadway would be the limiting factor. The accidents and other criteria
would be reviewed at that time, but the design speed would ultimately keep a speed limit from be raised to an
unsafe speed.
Vice Chair Smith asked if the daycare center on East J Street qualified for any 'Children at Play' signs or '25 mph
are children were present" signs. He also asked for accident history.
Frank Rivera said the daycare center did not qualify for special signs. He then reviewed accident history.
Hal Rosenberg reminded everyone that with regard to accidents, only reported accidents that were investigated
by the Police Department were included in the report.
Commissioner Liken addressed the residents. He mentioned that he had been a police officer with the City and
frequently worked East J Street. He gave an account of his personal experience of working East J Street. He
reiterated staff's position that the speed survey had to be on file so that violations could be upheld. State law
stated that the 85th percentile was what most motorists considered a 'reasonable and prudent" speed to drive.
The other 15% of motorists were driving at the extreme speeds that created accidents. There was more of a
danger if the City did not raised the speed limit, and therefore allow radar to be used to enforce speeds.
Commissioner Bierd asked about the possibility of a temporary speed zone until a more formal survey was
completed.
Frank Rivera responded that the speed survey conducted in March 1995 was a formal survey which would be
in effect until the year 2000. There was no such thing as a temporary speed zone.
MSC (likenlThomas) to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance increasing the speed limit on East
J Street between Cassia Place and River Ash Drive from 30 to 35 mph. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner Pitts
absent.
7. REPORT on Request for an All-Way Stop at Eastlake Parkway & Clubhouse Drive
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
Hal Rosenberg indicated that if the intersection operated as a typical four way intersection, the traffic volumes
would be different and the warrants could come closer to meeting the required warrants for a stop signs. It would
require Eastlake High School to alter their circulation plan, which to date, they had not been willing to do.
Chair Thomas asked if Eastlake High School was still opposed to opening the gate at the main entrance.
Hal Rosenberg responded that staff had met with the planners and engineers for the Sweetwater Union High
School District and they were in concurrence about opening the gate. However, the Eastlake High School
Principal was not agreeable to opening the gate.
Chair Thomas commented that the last time the issue was before the Commission, the Eastlake High School
Principal refused to meet with him.
Hal Rosenberg said the request for the stop sign had now come from the community.
Commissioner Cochrane suggested that the Commission not take action on the item. The school had elected to
close one of the main traffic avenues, which had compounded the problem. Until the school cooperated with
City, the decision should wait.
7'/~
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 17 9/f'? Authorizing an annual mandatory unpaid 40-
hour work furlough for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers, and
Unrepresented employees
SUBMITTED BY: Candy Emerson, Director of Personnel~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager r:&
(4/5ths Vote: Yes~o..xJ
On June 27, 1995, Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chula Vista
Employees Association and unilaterally implemented employment conditions for Western Council
of Engineers, each authorizing an annual unpaid mandatory 40-hour work furlough. It was
anticipated that the furlough policy would apply to non-safety Executive Managers, Mid-
Managers, and Unrepresented employees.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution authorizing an annual, mandatory,
and unpaid 40-hour work furlough for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers, and Unrepresented
employees. (Because Public Safety Executive Managers and Mid-Managers will not realize the
2% at 55 retirement benefit, it is recommended that they be exempt from the work furlough).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
During the meet and confer process with CVEA a number of proposals were evaluated to offset
the cost of the 2 % at 55 retirement upgrade that CVEA, WCE, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented employees had expressed a significant interest in.
It was agreed that in order to fund the improved retirement plan, an unpaid 40-hour work furlough
scheduled between the hard holidays of Christmas and New Years would take effect each year.
Recognizing that there are essential City services that must continue, it was agreed that those
employees who would be required to work during that period would have the 40 hours placed in
a "furlough leave bank" for use sometime during the fiscal year in a manner similar with floating
holiday leave. (The same would apply to the additional hours in those years where only four work
days fall between Christmas and New Years.) Determination of positions that will require
staffing during that period will be made upon advice of Department Heads by the City Manager
who will inform the City Council prior to the furlough.
8" /
,f.
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 7111/95
Throughout the discussions, it was anticipated that the aforementioned furlough policy would
apply to all Executive Managers, Mid-Managers, and Unrepresented employees who benefit from
the retirement upgrade.
Consistent with CVEA and WCE provisions, it is proposed that in an effort to minimize the
financial impact of the work furlough on employees, the employees' bi-weekly pay will be
reduced throughout the year by an amount reflecting the 40-hour work furlough. The adjustment
will commence July 7, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT: Based upon current staffing levels, savings from the work furlough for
Executive managers, Mid-Managers and Unrepresented employees for FY 95-96 is anticipated to
be $188,000. City wide savings resulting from the furlough for FY 95-96 is approximately
$440,000.
a:\a113\WORK FURLOUGH
~,- :2-
~)
RESOLUTION NO. /79'17
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN ANNUAL MANDATORY
UNPAID 40-HOUR WORK FURLOUGH FOR EXECUTIVE
MANAGERS, MID-MANAGERS, AND UNREPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, on June 27, 1995, Council approved a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Chula vita Employees Association and
unilaterally implemented an agreement with Western Council of
Engineers both authorizing an annual unpaid mandatory 40-hour work
furlough; and
WHEREAS, the development of
the same furlough for Executive
Unrepresented employees; and
those agreements anticipated
Managers, Mid-Managers and
WHEREAS, consistent with CVEA and WCE provisions, it is
proposed that in an effort to minimize the financial impact of the
work furlough on employees, the employees' bi-weekly pay will be
reduced by an amount reflecting the 40-hour work furlough which
adjustment will commence July 7, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby authorize an annual mandatory
unpaid 40-hour work furlough for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers,
and Unrepresented employees, excluding Public Safety Executive
Managers and Mid-Managers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED effective July 7, 1995, the bi-
weekly pay for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers and Unrepresented
employees will be reduced by an amount reflecting the 40-hour work
furlough.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Br~ 7!::::::-Ci~
Attorney
John D. Goss, city Manager
c: \ rs\ furlough
8",3
r, I
.......
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
9
Meeting Date
7/11/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution 1791Y approving the rate reduction
and refund plans submitted by Cox Communications
for cable television rates and charges for the
Basic Service tier and associated equipment.
~
Deputy City Manager Thomson ~I
city Manager~ ~ ~G(4/5ths Vote: Yes___ NO~)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On June 21, 1994 the City council adopted a resolution ordering Cox
Cable to reduce its rate for Basic Service retroactive to September
1, 1993. On August 24, 1994 Cox Cable filed an appeal to the
Federal Communications commission (FCC) of the City's rate
reduction order, and staff subsequently filed an opposition with
the FCC to Cox Cable's appeal. On April 7, 1995 the FCC released
its decision on Cox Cable's appeal of Chula vista's rate reduction
order. In its decision, the FCC upheld the city's position on two
issues and upheld Cox Cable's position on one issue.
Since the FCC's April 1995 decision, Cox Cable (which has changed
its name to Cox communications) has been working cooperatively with
the City's cable rate regulation consultant, Public Knowledge,
Inc., to implement the FCC's decision in terms of determining the
appropriate cable rates since September 1, 1993. Cox
Communications and Public Knowledge, Inc. have now reached
agreement on these issues, as indicated in the attached June 1995
letters from Cox communications and from Public Knowledge, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the resolution:
1. Approving the refund plan submitted by Cox
communications, which provides a one-time refund of $3.94
per Chula vista subscriber for Basic Service overcharges
during the period of July 14, 1994 through July 31, 1995,
with the refund credited to subscribers on their August
1995 bills.
2. Approving Cox Communication's plan to reduce the monthly
rate for Basic Service in Chula vista from $7.64 to $7.26
(a reduction of $0.38 per month) effective August 1995.
3. Approving the maximum permitted equipment and
installation rates as calculated by Cox on FCC Form 1205
as substantially correct, and approving Cox's plan to
reduce the equipment and installation rates that are
9-/
;)
J:tem
9
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 2
above the maximum permitted rates effective August 1995
and to increase the decoder box rental rate to the
maximum permitted rate.
4. Determining that no refund is due to Cox subscribers for
Basic service from September 1, 1993 through July 14,
1994.
BOARD/COMMJ:SSJ:ON RECOMMENDATJ:ON: N/A
DJ:SCUSSJ:ON:
Backoround
The Federal "Cable Television Consumer Protection and competition
Act of 1992," which is referred to as the Cable Act of 1992,
provided local cable television franchising authorities such as
Chula vista with the ability to regulate, to a limited degree, some
of the rates charged by their cable operators. A city's rate
regulation authority is limited to the rates charged for the Basic
Service tier and associated equipment and installation charges.
This tier includes local commercial stations and public educational
and governmental access channels. Rates for expanded tiers, which
include such satellite channels as CNN, ESPN and MTV, are referred
to as the Cable Programming services (CPS) tier. CPS rates are
regulated by the FCC, not by the city, and the FCC reviews specific
CPS rates only upon the filing of a complaint by a subscriber or by
a franchising authority. Rates for premium and pay-per-view
channels, such as RBO or pay-per-View movies, are not regulated by
any agency under the Cable Act of 1992. The effective date of the
City's limited rate regulation authority under the Cable Act of
1992 was September 1, 1993.
On September 7, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution #17245
authorizing city staff to submit a certification application to the
FCC for regulation of cable television Basic Service tier rates and
adopting regulations and procedures for the city's rate review that
are consistent with the FCC regulations. On October 12, 1993 the
city Council adopted Resolution #17271 amending Resolution #17245
to indicate that Chula vista Cable is not subject to rate
regulation under the FCC guidelines because staff had determined
that Chula vista Cable is subject to effective competition as
defined in the FCC regulations. Thus, under the FCC regulations,
the City can regulate Cox Cable's Basic Service tier and equipment
rates, but the city cannot regulate any rates charged by Chula
vista Cable.
j~)
')
:Item
'1
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 3
The City submitted its application to the FCC for regulation of
Basic Service tier rates on October 12, 1993, and the city was
effectively certified to regulate Basic Service tier rates of Cox
Cable as of November 12, 1993. On December 10, 1993 Cox Cable
received the city's notification that it was certified and that it
was requesting Cox Cable to submit its FCC Form 393 within thirty
days regarding its rates since September 1, 1993 for Basic Services
and associated equipment. On January 10, 1994 the City received
Cox Cable's FCC Form 393 (the form the FCC required cable operators
to use to justify their rates), as requested by the city.
On January 4, 1994 the city Council approved a Memorandum of
Understanding with the cities of La Mesa, Poway, National City and
Imperial Beach to provide a framework for administering a contract
with Public Knowledge, Inc. to review the FCC Form 393 submitted by
Cox Cable to each of the five cities. The firm of Public
Knowledge, Inc. was jointly selected by the five cities after
conducting an RFP process.
Public Knowledge, Inc. reviewed Cox Cable's Basic Service tier
rates in terms of their conformance with the FCC regulations
promulgated to implement the Cable Act of 1992, and had several
discussions with Cox Cable officials. Public Knowledge provided
the City with a report dated March 7, 1994, which identified
several problems with Cox Cable's FCC Form 393 submittal and
concluded the city could order Cox to reduce its rate for Basic
Service. The city provided Cox with an opportunity to review the
March 7, 1994 Public Knowledge, Inc. report prior to conducting a
public hearing on Cox Cable's rates, and Cox disagreed with parts
of that report. Both Cox and the City asked the FCC to clarify
some of its regulations that were related to the points of
disagreement, but it was unclear when or even whether the FCC would
clarify those points.
At its May 3, 1994 meeting, the City Council opened a public
hearing regarding Cox Cable's Basic Service rates, received public
comment, and continued the public hearing to June 21, 1994 at Cox's
request. On June 21, 1994 the city Council conducted the continued
public hearing (Agenda Statement and minutes attached) and adopted
Resolution #17545, which: (1) disapproved the rates Cox Cable had
charged for the Basic Service tier since September 1, 1993; (2)
ordered Cox Cable to reduce its rates for Basic Service from $7.91
to $7.75 per month retroactive to September 1,1993; and (3)
ordered Cox Cable to provide a refund plan to the City Manager for
approval within fifteen days of the effective date of the
resolution, which was to be effective July 25, 1994.
9~]
t1" I ~.
<:;7--.
Item
9
.
Meetinq Date
7/11/95
Page 4
On August 24, 1994 Cox Cable filed a formal appeal with the FCC of
the city's June 21, 1994 rate reduction order, along with appeals
of similar orders made by the Cities of San Diego, La Mesa and
Poway. city staff, in coordination with Public Knowledge, Inc. and
with the cities of San Diego, La Mesa and Poway, prepared a formal
response from the city of Chula vista to the Cox Cable appeal and
sent it to the FCC on September 7, 1994.
On April 7, 1995 the FCC released its decision (copy attached) on
the appeals filed by Cox Cable in August 1994 of the rate reduction
orders adopted by Chula vista, San Diego, La Mesa and poway
regarding the Basic Service tier rates. There were three primary
issues raised by Cox Cable in its appeal to the FCC of our rate
reduction order. In its decision, the FCC upheld the city's
position on two issues and Cox Cable's position on one issue. In
upholding the city's position on two issues, the FCC basically
confirmed the appropriateness of the city's June 1994 order for Cox
Cable to reduce its rates for Basic Service from $7.91 to $7.75 per
month retroactive to September 1, 1993.
In upholding Cox Cable's position on the third issue, however, the
FCC required the City to allow Cox Cable to offset the $0.16 per
month overcharge since September 1993 in the Basic Service tier by
its "undercharges" for equipment rental rates during the same
period. These "undercharges" are the difference between the
equipment rental rates actually charged by Cox Cable during the
subject period and the higher maximum permitted rate that they
could have charged under the FCC regulations. This netting out of
equipment "undercharges" from Basic Service tier overcharges is
referred to as a "refund offset" in the FCC ruling.
Conclusions Reqardinq Cox Rates and Refunds
Since the FCC decision was released on April 7, 1995, Cox
Communications has been working cooperatively with the City and its
cable rate regulation consultant, Public Knowledge, Inc., to
determine the amount of rate reductions and refunds that are
consistent with the FCC regulations and its decision on Cox's
appeal.
Cox Communications has been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of Public Knowledge, Inc. and staff that its overcharges in the
Basic Service tier from September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994 are
fully offset by its equipment undercharges during this same period.
Therefore, the city cannot require refunds from Cox for the Basic
Service tier overcharges during this period.
Effective July 14, 1994, the FCC revised its initial regulations to
9-'/
Item
'1
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 5
require further reductions in regulated cable services, using a new
series of FCC forms (numbered 1200, 1205, 1210, and 1215). Reports
from Public Knowledge, Inc. dated January 30, 1995 and February 20,
1995 are attached that reviewed Cox Cable's FCC Forms 1200-1215
regarding its Basic service and related equipment charges since
July 14, 1994. Cox Cable reviewed drafts of these reports, and
agreed with some of their findings but initially disagreed with the
findings that involved the same issues that Cox had previously
appealed to the FCC. After the FCC's April 7, 1995 decision on
Cox's appeal, Cox and Public Knowledge, Inc. have been able to
resolve those issues and thus determine the maximum permitted rates
for the period since July 14, 1994.
As indicated in the attached June 12, 1995 memo from Public
Knowledge, Inc. and the attached June 15, 1995 letter from Cox
Communications, both the city's consultant and Cox Communications
have agreed that a refund of $3.94 is appropriate for the Basic
Service tier for the period of July 14, 1994 through July 31, 1995.
This refund amount is based on Cox's Basic Service overcharges net
of refund offsets required by the FCC's decision. For all of the
Cox subscribers in Chula vista, this will amount to a total refund
of $129,532, which will appear as a credit on the August 1995 bills
sent to the subscribers.
The attached June 1995 lett~rs from Public Knowledge, Inc. and Cox
communications also indicate that both are in agreement that the
monthly rate for the Basic Service tier should be reduced from
$7.64 to $7.26 per month effective August 1995. The following
chart indicates the current rate, the maximum permitted rate under
FCC regulations, and the rate that Cox will be implementing in
August 1995 for the Basic Service tier, equipment rental and those
installation charges that need to be changed.
9-5
3
Item
9
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 6
Current Maximum New change
Rate Permitted Rate
Rate 8/95
Monthlv Basic Service
Chula vista $7.64 $7.26 $7.26 -0.38
Monthlv Eauipment Rental
Remote Control $0.45 $0.35 $0.35 -0.10
Converter Box $1.61 $1.51 $1.51 -0.10
Addressable Decoder
Box $2.80 $2.94 $2.94 +0.14
Installation Charaes
Additional Outlet
Installation
. at time of $36.50 $30.97 $30.00 -6.50
initial
installation
. after initial $40.50 $35.74 $35.00 -5.50
install
As indicated above, all of the rate changes Cox is implementing in
August will be reductions except for the monthly rental of an
addressable decoder box which Cox will be increasing by $0.14 to
the maximum permitted rate. Several other installation charges
will be remaining unchanged, as indicated in the attached June 1995
letters from Public Knowledge, Inc. and Cox Communications.
The FCC Forms 1200, 1205, and 1210
calculations that justify the
Council's information.
that provide Cox Communication's
above rates are attached for
FCC Regulations require cable operators to provide thirty days
notice to subscribers of rate reductions as well as rate increases.
In order to implement in August 1995 the rate reductions and
refunds described in this report for Chula vista as well as similar
9~?
'3
Item
<1
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 7
actions for the nine other agencies with which Cox has franchises
in the San Diego region, Cox needs to provide notification of these
actions to its subscribers in July. Therefore, Cox has proceeded
to start notifying its customers throughout the San Diego region of
the rate reductions and refunds. Since city staff and the City's
rate regulation consultant were in agreement with the rates Cox
Communications plans on implementing in August, staff did not
object to Cox proceeding with the July notification of its
customers in Chula Vista, especially since the city must conduct
its rate regulation in strict accordance with the complicated FCC
regulations. Cox understands, however, that the city Council of
Chula vista has the right to take formal action on its Basic
Service rates and that the City reserves the right to order rates
different from those being implemented by Cox when the city council
takes action on this report. The notice of rate reductions and
refunds Cox is providing to its Chula vista customers is consistent
with this report's recommendations.
other Related Issues
As described earlier, under the 1992 Cable Act and the FCC
regulations, the City has authority to regulate only the Basic
Service tier rates and related equipment and installation rates.
The FCC itself regulates the Cable Programming Service (CPS) rates
upon the filing of complaints with the FCC from customers or from
the franchising agency. Several customers within Chula vista have
filed complaints with the FCC regarding Cox's CPS rates, and staff
has provided information to the FCC which staff anticipates could
result in the FCC ordering separate rate reductions and refunds for
the CPS tier retroactive to September 1, 1993. Staff had
previously anticipated that the FCC would make a determination on
CPS rate reductions and refunds much earlier than now, so at this
point staff is unable to indicate to Council when the FCC will take
action on the outstanding rate issues related to the CPS tier.
When the FCC does take action, a significant additional refund and
rate reduction may well be forthcoming to Chula vista subscribers
to the CPS tier. Most Cox customers subscribe to the CPS tier in
addition to the Basic Service tier.
It should also be noted that there has been considerable discussion
at the federal level about modifications to the 1992 Cable Act.
This issue is part of a broader issue regarding deregulating many
aspects of telecommunications including cable television and
telephone service, "video dial tone" and other new technologies
frequently considered part of the "Information Superhighway".
Staff has been monitoring federal legislation, and the City has
taken positions on numerous House and Senate bills in this regard.
It is possible that this legislation will significantly deregulate
9~'}
-7
Item
q
Meeting Date
7/11/95
Page 8
cable television, but many bills continue to provide some level of
rate regulation of cable television service, at least until there
is evidence of significant competition. staff will continue to
monitor this legislation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The actions described in this report will provide a refund of $3.94
per Cox Communications subscriber in August 1995 for a total refund
of $129,532 for Cox subscribers in Chula vista. Rates for Basic
Service and related equipment will also be decreased by an average
of $0.36 per subscriber per month effective August 1995. Taking
into account reductions in installation charges, the total rates
paid by Cox's subscribers in Chula vista for Basic Service and
related equipment and installation charges will be reduced by over
$12,000 per month.
The franchise fee paid by Cox communications to the City of Chula
vista is 3% of gross revenue. The City's FY 1995-96 revenue from
franchise fees will therefore be reduced by about $8,000 as a
result of the rate reductions and rate refunds described in this
report, but staff has not given any consideration to the potential
impact of rate regulation on these fees in conducting the rate
regulation function.
Attachments:
A. June 15, 1995 Letter from Cox Communications
B. June 12, 1995 Memo from Public Knowledge, Inc.
C. April 13, 1995 Council Information Item and FCC Decision on
Cox Cable's Appeal
D. February 20, 1995 Letter from Public Knowledge, Inc.
E. January 30, 1995 Report of Public Knowledge, Inc. regarding
Review of Cox Cable Rate Filings
F. June 21, 1994 Council Agenda Statement
G. Minutes of Council Meetings Held on June 21, 1994 and May 3,
1994
H. FCC Forms 1200, 1205 and 1210 from Cox Communications
9-r
... /
.:'J
RESOLUTION NO.
17'JI/Y
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION DISAPPROVING THE EXISTING RATES AND
CHARGES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS
AND APPROVING COX COMMUNICATIONS' RATE
REDUCTION AND REFUND PLANS
I. RECITALS.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista (the "city") was certified by
the Federal Communications commission (the "FCC") to regulate the
Basic Service Tier, and associated equipment, which certification
was effective on November 12, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the City provided written notice of said
certification to Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. (the "Operator") on
December la, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the City has adopted regulations with respect to the
Basic Service Tier and associated equipment that are consistent
with the regulations prescribed by the FCC; and,
WHEREAS, the City has adopted procedural laws and regulations
applicable to rate regulation proceedings which provide a
reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested
parties; and,
WHEREAS, the City delivered a written request to the Operator
on December 10, 1993 to file its schedule of rates for the Basic
Service Tier and associated equipment with the City; and,
WHEREAS, the operator filed with the city an FCC Form 393 on
January la, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, on February 1, 1994, the city notified the Operator
pursuant to section 76.933(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Communications commission that it was unable to determine
based upon the materials submitted by the Operator that the
existing or proposed rates were within the FCC's permitted Basic
Service Tier charge or actual cost of equipment and that the City
was tolling the thirty-day deadline found in section 76.933(a) of
the FCC's Rules and Regulations for the purpose of requesting
and/or considering additional information or to consider the
comments from interested parties for an additional ninety days (a
"Tolling Order"); and,
1
9-7
~~:;1
,r
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1994, the City Council ordered the Operator
to keep an accurate accounting of all amounts received by reason of
the rates proposed by Operator on its FCC Form 393 and on whose
behalf such amounts were paid (an "Accounting Order"); and,
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1994, the city Council continued the Public
Hearing on the Operator's FCC Form 393 submittal to June 21, 1994,
at the request of the Operator; and,
WHEREAS, the city reviewed all relevant information including,
but not limited to, the FCC Form 393 dated September 1, 1993; the
Report of Public Knowledge, Inc. (the City's "Consultant") dated
March 7, 1994; the letter from the Operator dated May 19, 1994; the
letter from the Consultant dated June 6, 1994; the staff reports;
and other relevant written evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted the continued Public
Hearing on June 21, 1994 and adopted Resolution 17545 disapproving
the Operator's rates and charges for the Basic Service Tier and
associated equipment and ordering rate reductions and refunds
retroactive to September 1, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Operator filed an appeal on August 24, 1994 to
the FCC of the City's June 21, 1994 reduction order; and
WHEREAS, the Operator filed with the city FCC Forms 1200,
1205, 1210, and 1215 on August 15, 1994, and the city subsequently
provided the Operator with a Tolling Order for that submittal on
September 9, 1994, and with an Accounting Order on November 22,
1994; and
WHEREAS, the Operator filed with the City FCC Forms 1210 and
1215 on November 1, 1994, and the City subsequently provided the
Operator with a Tolling Order for that submittal on November 22,
1994, and with an Accounting Order on February 15, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the FCC on April 7, 1995 released a Consolidated
Order (DA 95-743) regarding the Operator's August 1994 appeal; and
WHEREAS, since the FCC issued its April 7, 1995 Consolidated
Order, the Operator and City's Consultant have reviewed the
Operator's rates and charges since September 1993 for compliance
with the applicable FCC benchmark standards and refund regulations;
and,
WHEREAS, the Operator has submitted in June 1995 revised FCC
Forms 1200 and 1210 to City and City's Consultant based on the
determinations in the FCC's Consolidated Order; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed all
including, but not limited to, the FCC Forms
and 1215 filed by Operator; the Consultant's
relevant information
393, 1200, 1205, 1210,
reports dated June 12,
2
9-/61
\:.? !
1995, February 20, 1995, and January 30, 1995; the Operator's
letter dated June 15, 1995; the FCC's April 7, 1995 Consolidated
Order; the staff reports; and other relevant written evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City has now made a final decision upon the
appropriateness, or lack thereof, of the existing rates and charges
for the Basic Service Tier and associated equipment since september
1, 1993 as identified on the FCC Forms 393, 1200, 1205, 1210, and
1215.
II. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before City
Council on June 21, 1994, Agenda Item 20, and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom as well as the following described
items are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding:
A. April 7, 1995, Federal Communications Commission's
Consolidated Order (DA 95-743);
B. Consultant Public Knowledge, Inc.'s Reports of June 12,
February 20, and January 30, 1995 prepared for the city
of Chula Vista; and
C. Operator Cox Cable's June 15, 1995 letter to City of
Chula vista and the Refund Plan contained therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 2.
section 3.
The existing rates and charges for the Basic
Service Tier and associated equipment as identified
in the FCC Forms 1200 and 1210 filed August 15,
1994 and Form 1210 filed November 1, 1994 are
hereby found and determined not to be reasonable
because they are not in compliance with the
applicable FCC benchmark standards and are
therefore disapproved in part for the reasons, and
on the grounds, as contained in the Consultants'
Reports dated June 12, 1995, February 20, 1995, and
January 30, 1995.
This Resolution constitutes a written decision
within the meaning of Section 76.936 of the FCC
Rules and Regulations disapproving the rates
implemented by the Operator on July 14, 1994
pursuant to Operator's August 15, 1994 filing and
the rates implemented on April 1, 1995 pursuant to
Operator's November 1, 1994 filing.
The Operator's refund plan dated June 15, 1995 is
hereby approved. Said plan provides a one-time
refund of $3.94 per subscriber, including interest,
for Basic Service tier overcharges net of refund
offsets for the period of July 14, 1994 through
3
9-//
section 4.
section 5.
section 6.
section 7.
Presented by
July 31, 1995. This refund will be credited to
subscribers on their August 1995 bills.
The Operator's plan to reduce its monthly rate for
Basic Service from $7.64 to $7.26 effective August
1995 is hereby approved. Said plan is indicated in
Operator's June 15, 1995 letter and in Operator's
revised FCC Form 1210 submitted in June 1995.
The maximum permitted equipment and installation
rates as calculated by Operator in its FCC Form
1205 submitted on March 3, 1995 are approved as
substantially correct. The Operator's plan, as
stated in its June 15, 1995 letter, to reduce its
equipment and installation rates that are above the
maximum permitted rates and to increase the
addressable decoder box rental rate to the maximum
permitted rate, effective August 1995, is hereby
approved.
Pursuant to the FCC's April 7, 1995 Consolidated
Order, it is hereby determined that a refund is not
required of operator for Basic Service Tier
overcharges from September 1, 1993 through July 14,
1994, as a result of refund offsets during that
period.
The City Clerk is directed to post a copy of this
resolution in such place or places as City Notices
are normally posted and to make copies of this
written decision available to the public at the
office of the City Clerk during normal business
hours.
Approved as to form by
B~~1r
City Attorney
James R. Thomson
Deputy City Manager
U:\SHARED\ADMIN\CDX1
4
1 ,,- / ,;l..
?
...J
.,
..
.
.
.
Attac:ment - ;::17'(,/
June 15, 1995
'4:
'Ct--
~/
{O?
"J"
5159 Federal Boulevard
San Diego, California 92105.5486
16191263.9251
Mr. Jim Thomson
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Jim:
Re: Basic Cable Service Refunds
As you are aware, on April 7, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released
Consolidated Order DA95-743 which responded to the appeals oflocal cable rate orders filed by
Cox. The FCC's Order clarified several issues that have enabled Cox to revise its rate
calculations and to determine appropriate rate adjustments and refunds. These new rate and
refund calculations have been audited by the City's consultant, Jay Smith. Cox is in full
agreement with Mr. Smith's report, which recommends a reduction in basic rates to $7.26 from
$7.64. Accordingly, effective with the August bills, the basic monthly rate will be reduced by 38
cents. In addition, other rate changes in accordance with the findings will be implemented, as set
forth in Table 1 below and in Exhibit AI. Subscribers will be given 30 days advance notice of the
rate modification.
Table I:
Basic Tier Service
Decoder
Remote
Converter
Current Rates* Adiusted Rates*
$7.64 $7.26
2.80 2.94
A5 .35
1.6] 1.51
*Does not include FCC regulatory fee.
ProDosed Refund Plan: Based on the above and Mr. Smith's calculations, the total refund
including interest covering the period through July 31, 1995 is $129,532 (Exhibit A). Cox
proposes a one-time refund of$3.94, which would appear as a credit on the August 1995 bills of
all Chula Vista subscribers.
Cox appreciates the time, effort and cooperation of both the City and its independent auditor in
working with us to ascertain the appropriate monthly rates and refund amounts. Please call me or
Steven Collins if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~'~t/(i1 ))({~y/~
Sandy Murphy J .
Vice President, Public Relations
cc:
Steven Collins
Y;1-/3
.~
.
.
EXHmIT Al
.
~ ~-jtl
-:;.> (
~--'
.
.
.
.
",S'
= !;
;; ~
~
0.
",I
:: =-
'5' n
i. =-.0
o _
~ !.
cg
..
"'
S~
..
.~
'f
'" ..'"
.~ oc .~~
_->0
~ ~~
ti~~::
.\0 tz\O
O\t.J"vo......
VlNOY->
....OVlO\
w
'" W'"
'"...11'-.1"-......
~::~
\0 t$>
ic.....'\o....
~~:t;j
~ ~
N .-
Oe 0 ""...J
'" ~ ->
N~ ~
::; ~\O
.0"" "000...
l.W_o\N
ot...Jt-.l_
.P ~\O
.:c~~
.......($_
;; ;;;lID
t-.J....OO'"
t5~e;:j
~ -
WO
'l",.;..,JN(,..
~e;~::j
"'-
"0
........,Jo...'"...l
1,oI1,C.....,..
\0_0.00
;;
"'0
o..oo"-"'..J
tx::j~t
- ::ip
~ ~.~:i:!
..... "'" CO OC
~
~.,..:g;!
.0\ "....l '"...I 00
...,Joo....oo
OClCt-JN
W
~
~Y'
~ ~
W->
NW
....Ii'
o 8
'"0.
.~
.....-..-. VI
....t...lQ\ "v.
\0\000 ..,J
....,!:~ ...
.\0,-...
N~W
->"'W
O~::g
.\0-...
:t~~
-S~
;.0,-.:-
.."'N
~~~
.\O.-.r
""'N
"'0->
O\~::::
.\O_~
~"'N
->O~
N::B~
I~--
_W->
"...1'1",.;"-
->N~
ot.!9.:::
.>C,.-._
'" '" N
NOW
-~~
~~N
"''''-
-~!;j
.\0-..
"'~-
->"'~
..J~~
p --"
"'~-
->"'->
-.J~~
,,0.-...
->~-
.."'~
OO.!9$
,,0.-...
-> ~-
.."'~
OO.!9$
j;.-. ..
->~-
.."'~
OO.!!:~
I~ !" .~
~ _ N
~~->
t..l~~
IEl~::;: t
0...........,;".
~S~ ~
~ir
Inn'
I"l
~
~(j~t:tll:
g 0 ~ :: ;'
8. in fl ;=;
A A ;
..
~
_ W
\00\0\_
Oo"u.Oc'Oe
""0"".....
O\lJ>N.....
-
...
o
->
_ _ W
\0 0\ C)<.l'o,l
\c'1",.;"oc"o
t-.l..,J\O_
OC.,..l"oI\O
'W
W
W
~O\::i~
'1...>NN.......
N......OO
\010-..10
'W
W
W
N _W
e~~t~
0,.......00
l,o.l\O \0 0
'W
:;;!
N _W
,,0,,0\ ,,-.J J,J
NON"""
.........vo\O
o.....""oc
'4
~
N _W
"e.......J N
N","Nb.
oe....OI:-..J
""c._N
'"
N
...
~
'"
'4
~
->
N _ W
'OY'....J~
O~ ->
.......,J.....IM
.....oe"".....
-
"8;
'"
,,\0 .....::ii:::
~jg~
_OI.Wl;Ill
'4
'"
o
..':0......;: jj
ocO\i.o"....l
0,....0:....
\O...,JClCt-.l
;:;
";
_ W
IO.....-..lt-.!
Ocv.'Q"....l
OC 00........
...O\l,o.l.....
;:;
v.
S
..iD........'::jJ:j
:::::Sc:i8
C7\.... N_
j:l
~
o
N
_ _ W
..\C............Jj'.,)
ts::S;:;:j8
o......t-J_
j:l
~
o
N
So..... '::i jj
~~t::!
o......t-.J_
~
..
'"
..
o
r
...
:.
'"
..
>
.
n
:f
[('
..
:f
E
:f
2
~
:f
'"
~
:f
'"
....
'"
'"
..
...
.
.
'"
~
>
..
"
'"
~
~
:t
OJ
--l
:>
::'
~
:j;
~r")
..,0
"l"l:><
<::l"lr")
e":><>
<""till
"'Oe"
~"'l"l
<::",
;:::=>
e"l"lZ
<~CI
"'"'-
"'r")l"l
_C'l
~O
3:
.
"
:j;
f
'<
'"
~
...
.
.
:j;
...
:.
'"
~
'"
....
'"
'"
~
...."
~ "
!.=
. ..
1//5
.qc
Attachment
B
Date: June 12, 199~
.
.
To:
Jim Thomson, City of amla Vista
GeITy Bolint, City ofNationaI City
Bob Hain, City of Imperial Bcac:h
Sandra Sclwl1Z and Carol McLaughlin, City of La Mesa
Patrick Foley, City of Po way
Subject
Jay Smi1b, Public Knowledge, Inc.
Update on Cox rates: Form 1200 re1\mds and Form 120~ revised
conc:lusion
From:
Form 1200 reftmds
.
Over 1he past sevcml weeks I haw been talking with Cox financ:ial personnel and
reviewing analyses Cox bas prepared to determine refimds due IUIder 1be Form 1200. Cox
bas acc:epted the FCC's decision on the Form 393 appeal to mean 1bat our findings on the
Form 1200 were correct. It is my unders1ating 1bat Cox will voluntarily adjust its rates in
August to reflec:t 1he findings of the Form 1200 review (adjusted by IUbsequent Fonn
1210 filings) and will reflect on August billings the subscriber basic: service refimds for 1he
July 14, 1994lbrough July 31, 199~ period. Cox bas preseored revised Form 1200s and
1210s for my review (1he Form 1210s eover up lbrough September 30, 1994; Cox used
this period to set its April 1, 1995 basic rate, which remains in effect). I ha~ also
reviewed refund calculations, including offsets for certain equipment "undercharges."
Cox personnel were very cooperative in this effort. I coordinated with the City of San
Diego auditor to help assure consistency. In my opinion, 1he Forms and the refund
calculatiOllS that I reviewed conform to the FCC's prior rulings.
A summary of1he refimds for each community is attached. The August basic rate will
also be lower by 38; per month for each community, but I remind you 1bat Cox can
submit Fonn 1210s as frequen1!y as quarterly to update this rate.
Form 1205 revised conclusion
I previously (April 26, 1995) reported to 1he Cities OIl the Federal CommunicatiOllS
Commission (FCC) Form 120~ filed by Cox to update the reported costs used to establish
mAximum permitted installation and equipment rates. A schedule showing the mA,.;mllm
permitted rates was attached to the report letter; 1hose rates included the eost of instal1ati0ll
materials in addition to the maximum permitted charges determined on the Form 1205. I
have subsequeot1y further analyzed installatiOll materials costs in conjunction with
reviewing Cox'a calculations ofinstal1ation offaeta to refunds due on Form 1200 rates.
Based on this analysis, I have coocluded 1bat Cox should D2! add materials costs to the
maximum permitted rates detemJiDed 0Il1he Form 120~ because:
.
~ 7-/i-
t-l
I
.
.
. The costs of ma1lilrials related to certain types of instal\atiODB were imbedded in 1he
Schedule B costs rcvOfled on 1he Form 1205, and arc 1bercforc already included in lhe
Hourly Service Charge (HSC) used 10 determine installation rates.
. The costs of ma1lilrials related to 01ber types of installations were capitaJized by Cox
and Dot included anywhere on lhe Form 1205; conaequcnt1y lhe costs oflhese
materials were Dot "unbundled" fi'om lhe monthly progrwmming services rates
determined OIl the Form 1200. In effect, Cox rocovors the costs of these materials
through monthly progl"'mming services rates 1hat arc higher than they would olherwise
be if the materials costs bad been unbundled.
Cox should 1bercfore dwge installation rates no higher than 1hose determined on the Form
1205, wilh no additional charges for ma1lilrials. A Ilep8r&te materials charge would moan
1hat Cox would "double collect" the cost of the materials. I have discussed this issue with
Cox. and it is my undersmnt!inE 1hat Cox intends 10 adjust its rate structure by August, and
lhat it does DQ! intend to add materials costs to the Form 1205 ....~mum permitted rates in
setting rate card rates. The attached schedule shows Ihe maximum permitted equipment
and installation rates as Ihey should be, carrecting lhe schedule I seot previously, which
incorrectly included materials costs in addition to the Form 1205 costs.
City action
.
Each City should first request that Cox submit to it1he revised Form 1200 and 1210s and
tile refund calculatiOll for tbe respective City (iflhe submitllod refUnd calculation differs
fi'om that shown in the attached exhibit, you should contact me), and 1hat Cox state in
writing what its plan is to deal with 1he refimd and adjust its rates. If Cox voJuntarily
complies, as it has indicated it will, there may be DO need for a formal bearing or rate
order. However. you may wish to hold a bearing to afford the public: the opportunity to
comment, and to have your Council vote on acceptance of the Cox plan. It seems to me
lhat the degree offorma1ity in the process is your call..
Call me at 503-287-7273 if you have questions or comments. I will be out a great deal
over lhe next ten days, but will return messages.
.
~ 7>-/7
I. "
-t,..
.
Chula Vista
National City
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Poway
.
.
Smnmary of Cox Basic Senice Refunds for the
July 14. 1994 - July 31. 1995 Period
Total Amount of Refund
Approximate Refund
oer Subscriber
$129,532
527,654
$21,814
$68,947
$41,493
~ 9-';%
53.94
53.96
$4.08
$4.01
53.90
tj
. Comparison of Current Cox Equipment and IJUtaIlatlon Rates
to Mulmwn Permitted Rates per FCC Fonn 1205
(Updated JID1e 8, 1995; excludes fnmthbe fees)
Cox
CuIrcnt Maximum
Actual Permitted Difference
Remote control ren1ll1 (mon1bly) SO.45 $0.35 SO.10
Converter rental (mon1h1y) S 1.61 $ 1.51 SO.10
Addressable decoder rental S2.80 $2.94 $ (0.14)
(mon1h1y)
lnstallation - drop not on premises $ 43.00 S 47.65 $ (4.65)
lnstallation - drop on premises $ 22.00 $ 23.83 $ (1.83)
Additional outlet installed at time of $ 36.50 S 30.97 S 5.53
initial installation
Additional outlet installed after $ 40.50 $ 35.74 $4.76
. initial installation
Move outlet at initial installation $ 21.00 S 30.97 $ (9.97)
Move outlet after initial installation $ 32.50 S 35.74 $ (3.24)
In-home service c:al1 $ 31.50 $ 35.74 $ (4.24)
Basic/CPS upgrade/downgrade (if $ 10.50 $ 11.91 $ (1.41)
Vip required)
.
~ 9'-/1
L-I
~~~
-.-
~~... .,;:..-.:
~---
Attachment
C
'.
01Y OF
CHULA VISTA
MEMORANDUM
April 13, 1995
VIA
The Honorable Mayor and City Council ~
61
John D. Goss, City Manager d
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager
1G
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
FCC's Ruling on Cox Cable's Appeal of Rate Reduction Orders
.
On April 7, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its decision on
appeals filed by Cox Cable in August 1994 of rate reduction orders adopted by the cities of
Chula Vista, La Mesa, Poway and San Diego in June and July of 1994. The rate reduction
orders appealed by Cox Cable concerned the rates charged by Cox Cable for the Basic Service
Tier. from September 1,1993 through July 14,1994. A copy of the FCC decision is attached
for your information.
There were three primary issues raised by Cox Cable in its appeal to the FCC of our rate
reduction order. In its decision, the FCC has upheld the City's position on two issues and Cox
Cable's position on one issue. In upholding the City's position on two issues, the FCC
basically confirmed the appropriateness of the City's June 1994 order for Cox Cable to reduce
its rates for Basic Service from $7.91 to $7.75 per month retroactive to September 1, 1993. In
upholding Cox Cable's position on the third issue, however, the FCC is requiring the City to
allow Cox Cable to offset the $0.16 per month overcharge in the Basic Service Tier by its
"undercharges" for equipment rental rates during the same time period. These 'undercharges"
are the difference between the equipment rental rates actually charged by Cox Cable during the
subject period compared to the higher maximum permitted rate that they could have charged
under the FCC regulations. This netting out of equipment 'undercharges" from Basic Service
Tier overcharges is referred to as a "refund offset" in the FCC ruling.
Staff still needs to review the FCC ruling with Public Knowledge, Inc. (the City's consultant
for cable rate regulation) and with Cox Cable to determine the net effect of the FCC ruling,
but it is likely that the refund offset issue will minimize, if not eliminate, the customer refunds
that would have otherwise been required of Cox Cable for its Basic Service Tier overcharges
from September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994.
.
By resolving the primary issues of dispute between the cities and Cox Cable, the FCC ruling
also sets the stage for what staff anticipates will be customer refunds of about $0.29 per month
when the FCC completes its separate review of Cox Cable's Cable Programming Service Tier
.Jk4 9.-c20
If
" :
.
.
.
FCC Ruling on Cox Cable's Appeal
April 13, 1995
Page 2
rates for the period of September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994. Similarly, staff anticipates
there could be subsequent refunds of up to $0.32 per month for the Basic Service Tier and up
to $0.48 per month for the Cable Programming Service Tier from July 15, 1994 to date, when
the City and the FCC complete their respective reviews of those rate tiers.
On a separate but related issue, Cox Cable is raising its rates during its April billing cycle for
both the Basic and the Cable Programming Service tiers. Staff believes that the City, the
FCC, and the customers may not have received proper advance notification of these rate
increases. Staff will be reviewing the notification issue as well as the increase itself with Cox
Cable.
These issues will all be addressed in more detail in a report that staff plans to bring forward to
the Council in May of 1995. If you have any questions about this process in the meantime,
please contact Jim Thomson at 691-5031.
Attachment
k\(J'l"lS)\aUUNO.FCC
;:4 ;J'-~/
tl~
.
.
.
.. _ RPR 07 '95 1!12:22PM FCC CRELE ~
P.2
, .
:'
Befor~ the
ftIDEllAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WIJllllDltoD, D.C. 20554 .
In Ihe Matter of: ) DA 95-743
)
COX CABLB SAN DIBOO, INC. )
)
Appeal of Local )
Rate Order of City of )
ChuIa Vista. CA.; )
)
Appeal of Local )
Rate Order of City of )
La Mesa. CA.; )
)
Appeal of Local )
Rate Order of City of )
Poway, CA.: )
)
Appeal of Local )
Rate Order of City of )
San Diego, CA. )
CONSOLIDA.TED nlln"RR
Adopted: April', 199'
By D Chief. Cable Ser.ices Bureau:
L INTR.ODUcnON
Rei"",,: Aprll7, 199.5
1. By this order. the ColJllll1saion CODSOlldates aDd resolves four separate appeals
of local cable nte orders filed by COlt Cable San Diego, IDe. ('Cox") OD August 24. 1994.
The 11m appeallnvolvca tile local rate order Id"V"d by the City of ChuIa Via. Califomia
on:JuDe ZI, 1994, whlcl1 w...... effec:tl.ve on My 15, 1994. Tbe secoll4 appeal involves !be
local nte order Idopted by the City of La Mesa, CIUfornla OD JUlJO 14. 1994, which ~
e~ve on July 15. 1994. Tbe third appeal involVCI the local rate Older Idopted by the
City of Po way. CalIfomIa on JUDe 28.1994, wbich bee....... declive on July 15.1994. Tbe
fourth appeal involves the 1oQa1 me order Idopted by tbe City of San Die&o, CI1i1'omia on
July 15, 1994. Tbe Burau hu dctcrml:acd that tile i'locce<lll\(' lIe auffIcJeptly .h..llar to
justify 1be joint resolution of all of \be lssuelI ralIe4 by each party In . Iln&le consolkl......n
;:49/~~
if
R'R ~'95 1i!I2:23PM FCC CRB...E B.REFU
P.3
.
order. 1 We find that this consolidation will not prejudic:e any of tile parties IIIId will ~
the Intcresl.ll of admlnistr_tive effiQI.ellC)'.
2. Each of tile loc:a1 EItC orden esllbll8hes a oew replated I8le ...J-,..I. for
Cox's basil; service tier rates an4 usOQiatod equipment.' SpeQitically, eech city" local rate
order requires Cox to Impleml:nt certiln rare reductiODS and to issue P1\uJdI to ~,
4atiDg back to September 1, 1993.'
3. Cox rail;es tbree iIIoeI on appeal. First, Cox IIf8IIl:S tbBt 1be Cilles haw
miaappllcd the Commission's rate xeaulations by refIlsiDg to offset equlpmeDt UIIllercbarges
a.alnst programmiD& owrclwgC3 in clctc"nlnll1f 1ta totallefwld liability. Second. Cox
argues that it was h..p.UJ^". for tile Cities to diJanow equipmmt revenue (In lJDe 204)
attributable to the lea.tc of clccoclcrs. Cox asserts that lbc clw&es for the ,*oder that the
Cities cIisallowed were lDcludcd in tile fee it cIwIcd QUStDmel8 who aubscribcd to JlT"'"'l1nn
c:baJmels, and sinQe that portion of the premium "honn"l fee was, In fact, a fee for Jeue of
reau1ated equipment. It ahould be adclcd to Cox'. cquipmcDt t'CVCIlIIO. Tbird, Cox arguea that
tile Cities erroneously 'refreshed' Ibe lnftatlon fisures in its PCC FOnD 393, even thoulh its
raleS were justified using the olcl. dsta.
.
I Cox addresses me ssme Issues 8Dd relies 011 substaIIlial1y the ume araumems ill each
appeal. LIkewise. the cities of Chula Villi. La Mesa. Powa)', and San DIOIO (coUectivdy,
.the Cities.) bave filed IIlbstantlally similar oppositions. In addition to tile. four separate:
appeals of lbc local cable rate orders, Cox also fUec1 separate petitions for uy of the local
cable rate order of each of the four l:itles involved in tbla proc-ll'li. Ber.n~ we are
resolving these disputes on the merilB preaentcd in thc tcveral appeals, tbe requestI for ltay
bave been rea;Ic:red moot.
S BaQb of the four cities helcl. IepSrltc publlc hearings and made separate rate decisions.
The cities of ChIIla Viall. La Mesa, 8Dd Poway joinUy coDlrlCted with the same ccmaultiDg
firm, Public KnowJedsc, Inc., to review the FCC Form 393 lubmitted by Cox. Su. e.g.,
Ul Mesa Opposition at 1. We nOle that our rules permit co........niriet that are lICt'Ved by b
I8DIC system to make &rraIIIcmenlI to share the colt of dsta collection (e.g.. hlrin& an
indcpendctll consultina firm to review the Porm 393 IIlbmittcd by an operatOr) and to make
independent raw decisions. Su Report 8Dd Orclcr 8Dd Further Notice of Proposed
Rulcrnolc1nll, MM Doclet 92-266. 8 PCC Reel '631, ~8 (1993) ("RepDrt IJ1I4 Orrler").
The City of San Diego relied on its Audit Divllion to coDduct a review of Cox's Porm 393.
The Awlit Division'. flndll1gS regardina Cox's Porm 393 are ..,lWoftrially oimna~ to those
made by tbe other cltles' private CODJUltanL .
3 UDder tbe Cable Television COIlSllJll8l PiOlCCtlon and Competition M. of 1992 ("1992
Cable Act") and the Commission's implem~nting ~IQlatiODS. local fran~JoI,lftg IJlIhorities
may regulate rates (or basic cable service IUld usoc1ated equipment. See Cable Televisloll
Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L. No. 101-385. 106 SII~ 1460 (1m);
Cmnmnmr;;atioDS Aot, , 623(b), 47 U.S.C. I 543(b}.
2
.
..P'i-ol}
'.
.
.
.
-RI""\'<\::Jrr'=:J:).~.G:I""lTlrl.....l..,;.-\..HI1..L.~
'.
4. ID respouse, the Cities m.inllllin lbat Ibcy properly applied ~ l'lnmml&,ion',
regulations in 1beir me ordm in reprd to offsets. Al1erDatl.vely, the Citielarpe that, if
the Commimon decides lbat a tdUDd offset is app1icab1e in this cue, lhc offset Ihould take
into accoUDl BDy overcharges on 1be cable pro&""mming lIClVice ("CPS") den, I!ld 1be offset
ahould be made in proportion to 1be munber of I'.hoo"",,'. in uae on each tier.. With respec:t to
the decoder issue. the Cities araue that they were juatifiec1 in mnovlDi that portion of the
equipment rcvame aurlbuteci to the lease of 1be decocl.... ,iDee Cox could !lOt prove that it
actually cbarged pEell1ium lU~dbm for them. With reapett to tbllnflation adjustmeDt
ilsue, the CltieI que that ll1ey pzoperly alljUIli:d Colt', ilIflatWn data In ~ with 0I1I
rules.4
D. DISCtJSSION
5. UDder our rules, me orden mado by local fra.tonh1al"llUtbodtiea may be
appealed to the Commll5ion! In rulina em appeala of local rate ordm, dill Cnmmi-ion wm
IlOt conduct a de lWVO nvillW, bIlt instead willlUltain the bDchlslns authority's cIeciIiOJl as
tona as there II a muoDable basis for that decilion.' Therefore. Ibe Commialion wUl
reverse a fraIll:hislllg autbMity's decision omy if It determlnes that the fraDcliislng authority
acted unreasonably in applyins the Commission', rules in rendering ila local me order.1 If
dJ: ('nmmWiion ~ a fraocbislDi authority'. dec;iaiOD, it will DOt JUbstitIltc ita own
decisioD, but IDstud wUl rellWlll the Iuue to dJ: ftancbislng authority with imtructlons to
resolve the cue COllllatom with the Ownml..ion'. decision on appeal "
A. JleIUDd 0fr8etB
.
6. PCC Form 393 is !be offk:lal farm UIIll1 by nlgulatora to dcccrminc w~ an
opellltor" regulated rates for p~, equipment and I_.n.tions were reuoDllble
4 The CitM alIo auert that the Commiul"D 1hou14 "!pore" the Form; 393 Cox
~ U lID exhibit 10 its appeala bee,.,,,, that Porm is different from the onea Cox
IUbmitted to the Cities for rate review and because !be Cities have lKlt bad ~ opporamity to
review that DeW versiOD. We need not address thIa issue IIm:e It is DOt IleCCiSsary for 111 to
review Cox's Form 393 in decidina thia appeal.
s 47 C.F.R. 176.944.
. See Rqort tWl Onkr, 8 PCC Rod at 5731i Thinl Otdcr on Reconsideration in)IM
Docket NOI. 92-266 ml92-26Z, 9 pee Rod 4316. 4346 (1994) ("7lIIrd Recon. Order").
, TIIlrd lWC01L Orrhr, 9 FCC Rod at 4346.
· Id.
3
~?-;L(
< ,
,--I
WR il7. '';l'5 =, <::<It"'I'l . u.; l.HI:I...L I:f..J'Q:HJ
r..J-
'.
..
.
dUrIng tbe time petiod from Sept.....ber I, 1993 UDtll May 14, 1994.' Fonn 393 is divldlld
iDIo three soparate. but Intem1aled parts. In Part n, lhe operator ~1l:Ulltes n. IIIlIXImum
permiucd propammlDa rates, wb11c In Part m. lhe operatOr calculates its CClI!ipuIcIU I.IIl1
Wi. nation CON aud mp..llJll'''' permitted eqn\pml!nt aud I1laUl1ation rates. Part I is a cover
ahcct that li&ts the various progrommlng, equipmeDt aud iDstallation raI.eI that bave been
calculated in Paris D and m and comparea lhem to the rates the operator baa lCIIIa11y charlcd
dUriJl& tbe period of review.
7. Tbc opcmor's ",njrinnn pcnnitlcd rIlC8 are derived by comp1eliD& Parts U
and m of the Fonn 393, punuant to which the operator calculltt.s the sclUal'lIgmpte
revc:uuea collected by the opuator for zegulatcd progrs.mmID&, oquipmcat UIll insta1Iadon, u
of the iIlltlal date of regulation ("curmtt rate") or U of Soptmnber 30, lm.lo A!tI:r
talcula'1"f actual aspsate rewwee, tbe operator COIlYens thole tllV8DIItI .0 a ptl..('h."""l
rate, aM tbm ~ Ibe pcr.Q1lnnAI flgmes to tIu: applicable bcJIt.hmll1'k rate. If an
operator', curreDl per..eh.n...t rate Jevelll below the appUcab1e beDchmMt rate, lben the
operator' 8 rate leul is deemed reasonable, but it IDII8t mnain at lla current level. If its
cummt per..ebanncl rate level excocdl the bcllChmark rate, lhe operator must ~ ~re
its September 30, 1992 per~h........t. rate level to the applicable benchmark rate. If ils
September 30. 1992 pcr..eba1lDOl rate 1eYells above the 1lIt'c;lJm.~ rate, it ~ reduce this
rate !evellD the \lenr.hm.TIt rate or by 10", wh1chever redw:tlon is less. AfrJ:r compltlng
the pctmitted rate level in this "'on...... (wbetber bucd on current ralllS or September, 1 m'
rates), monlh1y equiplllCDl aud lnsta1lation colli are removed to derive tbe ",...tnmm
permitwi prosrammiDa rates. Ma1<1mum permitted rate. for oquipmcD11.11l1 putt.tion are
baed on actual cost aud are separately calc:u1ated in Part m of the Porm 393. In revieWiDg
Cox'. Form 393. lhe Cities determinecllbat Cox', rates for basic service excMdecJ its
mBJtl7"l1m permiaed rate au4 Ihould be ndJ)....t. Cox UlClU that wb11c the CldDs have
ordend Cox to ret\mcl me excessive charges for basic service, It dld DOt l110w Cox to reduce
lhe amOW1t of tbc refuDd by lhe IDlOunt tbat Cox wu III:IdcrcbargiJ for buie equipment.
8. Aftmo setting the various regulalBd ratel1bat an operator II ~ to cbarge
on a prospective buis. . franehi&iD& authority should then dek"..lu if tho oPerator II liable
for any II1b1crlber refuDds. A refUn<lllabUity can be inv-' wben an opcritor's IICtII.8l
.
9 To the exumt thaI an operator ba5 ICII8IIt to take advamaae of the refIm4 deferral
period available UDder the Second Order on Reconaicleration, FOIU'lh Report ~ Order, and
Fifth Noth:c of Proposed Rul=-Idng in MM Doeket 92-266, 51 FCC Red 4119, 4183-4185
(1994) (wS<<tmd RIcon. emur"), the maximum permltted rates IletmDined m. Fonn :393
may alIo apply tnlm May 15, 1994 \UltIl the clam that tile openlD1' impleJDellD' trs IIBW
ratea, U dctt....l...... UDder Ibe Penn 1200 1IritI.
10 An opntor must caleu1alB lla rate in .tfect on September 30, 1m. 0Illy If its c:arrem
rale level is above the Il"-h"'.'" DIe. If an operator', c:unem rate level II at or below tbe
beucbmark rate, it II DOt zequirecl to ca1clllate ill September 30, 1m pot..o"'".....1 rate.
. ,
4
.
~9~
"/
'""," .-
"
"
.
cbarges exceed maximum permitted levels during the applicable period of review. II If'an
operator's aggregate revenues computed from ita actUal rates exceed its revenues computed
from ita pcrmitll:d ratl:ll 4ur1llg tho period of review. the operator must refWId the differenc:e
to aublCribcrs.12 In this proc:eeil;I1i, any ro1'wlda to be paid by Colt should be ~ted
baled on Ihi. method.
9. Wblle the Commlallion willlllStaiD the dccisiOllS of fruAisllll authorities If
there is a reasoD&ble basis for doIJI& '0, we expect fram'.hlllng authorities to adhere to the
matb-..tlt-.a1 priDClples UD4etlyblg the t-,,-hmA1'k methodoloay, particularly' wilen
c:alcn1.tl,. IIIl operator'. 1dImd liability.1J In Ihis cue, tho Cities bave dlrec1ed Cox to
reduCe its basic telVice cbargel to tbe mnJn:p1Jl'l permitted level aDd to blue. mfuDda 1Vithout
regard to the fact that some rates for equipment arc below 1hc ,rnnimam pennitled lovcb,
We flDd wt the Cities must offset or reduce any rcfum1s they may order by the di!fi;,w;e
betWeol1 the aw equipment aDd lmlallation rates that Cox charged aDd tbe '....~
pcnniacd rates wt it could bave Wried clurm, tho applicable period of review. 14 We arc
remandlDg Ihis Issue to the Cities so !bat they can reconsider their respective ru1IDgs in a
IIWIIlllr consistent wllh our findings. IS '
.
II Su 47 C.F.R. i 76.942.
l2 See Third Recon. Ordtr, 9 FCC Red at 4353 ("Although maximum pj:rmittod rate. arc
always determlned on aD U1lbUlldled balls, t.t., IICparately for program ~ aII1I
equipment, retimd liability may IIleIll from buDdled rateS. We conclude that ~ muDd
liability ahould be calculated baled. on the difference between olel bundled ratl:ll and the 111m
of the new unbuDd1ed program service charge(s) and the new unbundled equipment
charge(s), ").
12 Set lWport and Order, 8 FCC Red at 5731; Third Recon. Orrkr, 9 FCC Red at 4346.
14 Set Third Rtcon. Ortkr, 9 FCC Red at 4353. However, we DOte !bat operators may
not Ilet proar"",ml,. IICMce rateS at hiaher Ihan permitted maximum rates tQ recover loll
equipment revenues when they voluntarlly price equlpmoot rates below Ibeir ""'''mllm
pennitll:d levels. To permit operllOra to do 110 wou1d.11IIdermiDe Conpss's;;..rfOftrion to
create a competidve market of cable equlpmOl1t providers. See ~ Act, I
62AA(c)(2)(C), 47 U.S.C. I 544A(c)(2)(C); Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection md Competition Act of 1992: Comp_tabllity BetweeI1 Cable
SystemS and Consumer Eloctronlea EquipmeDt, First Report aml Order, 9 FCC Red 1981,
1982 (1994).
\5 Se, TCI Cablevision of North CentrIl Keo1Ul:ky, IDC. (MOU1lt Wasblq1DD, ICY). DJ.
94-1479 (Cab. Serv. Bur.. releasee! December 14, 1994); let also Cnm""",1ty TV
Corporation (fown of Alton. N.H.), DA 95-147 (Cab. Serv. Bur., relweci February 6,
1995).
5
.
~9~~
,)
.~) ,
'.
"
.
10. The Cities argue that if tbe CommIssion decides that a r:efund offset Is
applicable in this case, tbe offset shoulc:l be apportioDed between the basic aDd CPS IelVlce
be<'1Il'- "the n:troactiYc equipment charge is for cquipmeut uscd for both tlots, "1'1Dd
bet',,,,, "[t]b1. apportioDJlleDl metbod woulc:I be c:OIIIiJt8IIt wilh the Pcnm 393 proc:.edUrei.
where the tota1 cost of !be equipmeat ~ (Step G LiDc 34) affects (at WoEbheet 3 Line
301) the ."nlmum llO""lft"" mtc applied to each tier of 1CI'Vicc. "17 The Cities' aqument is
''IV'"''''laslve.
.
11. We haye previooIly silted that tile rate reauJation for basic equipmed ~
all equipment used by subscribers to receive the basic service tier, even if the equipment is
also U8Id for other cable 1erYlcea.1I Thc,,,r.,.~, all rile cak:uWioDs iDYolvu., IllCh
equipment, 1Dc:J1I4iDi offsets, are properly confined to die basic tier. Apportlonina refuD4
offIets between basic aDd as lien, b..s OIl equipment dlarg.., woaJd IIOtbe c:oDIlsteDt
with oar mgulatory achcmll which CODSidm all cquipmeat UIlId to ncelve balc semcc as
basic equipmenL 19
B. Char.. for Dec:oder.
12. Bach city's rate order reflects tbe mnoval of a portion of tile equlpment
ICVCIIDC that COlt included in Line 204 of ita Fonn 393 filina. AccordlDg to tile C1t1oa,
dur\JIg the applicable period, Cox teased de('ooers at no cbarJe to thole IUbsCrtben woo alao
pun:based ODe or more pay 1Il'Vices. Cox', decoders, also laIown II addresaable converters,
~ RCeive, lD addition to basic servke aod cable prolT"mml'll ,crvk:c t1ersi pmnI.um
,,".......I.s aDd pay-per-view aervicea.3lI 'Ibe Cities 1\1rtber lIert 1bat Cox provided tbeae
decoders for free in order to iIIduce IIIbscribera to pmcbue pay services. The Cities also
dlsallowed iDcluslon of these decoders as equipment melllle becan8l' IlOIIe of the pay aervlce
revenue ncelved from tIlese IIIbIcriben wu booke4 separately II equipment'~ in
Cox'. accoumlng records and, tber:efore, charges for tbc8e decodan e:oWd DOt be verified.
AccoIdiIli to the Cm, only in prepariDs its Pmm 393 did Cox assign some of the pay
service r:eVCllUC to tbe equipment ca!egol')' aDd assign a valul: to the clecOdm based ClI1 what
subacrlben who cUd DOt take ID3' pay ICrvlcca paid for the cJoooden. .
16 San Diego Opposition at 10 n. 7.
17 Chula Vista Opposition at 7-8; POWIY Opposition at 6; and tll:CDrd La M.ua
Opposition at 2 ("Tbc City of La Mea IIIppotls aDd c:om:urs with lbe view. npruaed in
ChuJa Vista'. [0pp0a1tlonJ").
. 8M Rqor1 tw1 Order, 8 FCC Red 1115800; _1Il8O 47 C.P.R. 1 76.923(a).
. We IJOI8 1hat DDJIC of oar decisions to date have allowed for any type 'Of refuDd oft1eta
between tiers.
. 8M Rqor1IJ11d Ord4r, 8 FCC Bcd 111 SBOZ.
6
r
.
~ ~~/ I
t)' "I,.
',- ../
.'.
",
.
.
.
.~T.~. __ ~_ _.-..__ ~ -- --
13. Cox arpes tba11t wa Improper for the Cities to disallow equipmeut mwmue
attributable to the ltue of dec:odm. OrdlDarlly, Cox e1wge<l those lIIb8criben who
puzdJa8ed only tiered selYicea a mouthly fee of twO dollan for the IeI1tIl of decoder
equipment, which Cox iJlc1uded in ill Form 3!i1j a part of its eqlllpm~ reVeDUe. Cox
COJItends dlat it Ibould also be able to COII8Ider a part of Ita equipment - a cIwge of
$2.00 for each 1II1bIcn'bcr who did not pay llepal'&tcly for a decoder. In tuppOrt of this
proposition, Cox aUeles that tbe price of tile decoder wu iDc1uded In (be fee If cbarae<l
subscrlben for premium ..~1I. aDd IiDce that portion of the premluaIl'~llin....' fee w.., in
fact, a tee for Jeue of rqulated equipment, it abculd be a4dcd to Cox', equipment ~.
Cox disputes the Cilies' ebarg' that it provided the decoden at DO cbarp. a 8 promoIiOD8l
oft"wq. Cox uaens that it _ Ita .,....t.1'll. ~ce to buD4le dococIer _ wJth (be
cost of premiUm aervices. PInal1y. Cox arpes that the City', rell.""" on tbe r.:t that Cox
did JI.Ot book the decoder reveauo u equipment rev_ is misplaced. Cox aseru tbat, prior
to rate regulatiou, cable operaten wote DOt ~ to moi_in tbeIr booDle U to
disti\liUi8h reveuue Jeeeived for provldlDi prmnlum aervlcea from equipu'"'''' reveuue.
14. JW-'- the decodeR at issue hen: are also ued to receive tbe baaic serviee
tier, In additiOD to other tiers of tervices, they constitute equipment .ubject to resuJation by
local fraDthisiDg authorities. I. In thls c:ase. however, Cox faile<l to &atlsfy Its bulden of
proving that it fChlolly charge<l pt"'mlllm sublcriben for the deeoden In qucatlOlla ils
burden of demuUlltn&ting that any charges for the cIc:coden were not already tucorporated In
its regulated equjpmeDt cbargOl. Z3 N the Cltiea point out, Cox did DOt book any of tile pay
aervtc:e reveDUe recelve<l u cqulpmmIt revCIIUC in its ~ recosd& for the applicable
period, and, tberefore, cIwgeI for the c1ecodm could not be verl1Ied by die Cities. Cox
docs JI.Ot 8tgIIO that any of the Citiee dolliod It the opporbmity to provide proof of its allege<l
cbarges for tbe dccodcn, but iDIists that it mould nevertbelels be able to cIwge for the
drod..... In question. Bven after Cox received the rate review reportI from the CllIes which
iDdic:ated lhat ~er charges would be cllsalIowed from equipment roveJlDO, Cox ~t...d
110 new information that would justify lncludlDi the decoden U regu1aled revenuo. for the
foregoing reaous, it was reuOll8ble for the Cltles to dilaUow in LlIIe 204 of Cox', Form
393 fllin& !bat portion of equipmcot revelllle attributable to the lease of decoders. We will,
theJd'o.t, affirm. tbe Citiel' rate orden OD tI1la \ISUe.
c. lDft8tlon Factor CalcuIatioD
15. OIl the FCC Form 393, the Cmnml.'ion peanba en Inflation adjustment of tbe
t><-'lm1orlt rate. The lnflatiOD adjuatment Ia e&k:u1ated by compariDg the GroI. National
21 S-,47 C,P,a. I 76.923(&).
a Se,4'7 C.P.R.. 176.937. S<< abo SammOll8 Comm1JDll:atiOll8. 1Dl;.,'DA 95-194
(Cities of BurbaDk 8Il4 OleDlJaJo, CA), at 1 14 (Cab. Serv. an-., zeleasecJ FebrIIar)' 10,
1995).
1
71~.2~
,?-.
\
.,
.
.
Product Price Index ('GNP-PI') of September 1992 with the GNP-PI of the IDltlal date of
regulation. The GNP-PI is released quarterly by the DepartmmIl of COIIIIDllrCe and the
figure for a ~lfic qlW1tlis IUbjcct to later refiDcmcnt by the I>epartmaIt of Comml:rCC.D
'lbat n:fineJIIeDt can affect tile beDcblllarlt rate. In order that opeI8to~ mt ~ pet"'1l,"'" for
relying on oarUer fiIures provided ill good faith eff01'l8 to comply with our rules, the
("Qnnfti~.ion bas IIatcd that. "(r]aIel Ie'l 111 acx:ord~ with tben-c:umDt iI111ation and other
data will DOt be drm.Il1 unreasonable solely on account of IUb8equeDt c:IIaDges ill that data. 024
'lbc ComlniAion baa aIao 1Iatcd. bowever. that "[w]hoD current rat.e8 IfO Illljul1ified by
IJI&lysla using 1be old data (so that a rate adjuJlmeIIt would be 1IK1l....~ ill any CYCDt). cable
operamn will be requirecl to ~ their nteI purauanl to c:w:rent dIIta. In tbeIe
l:\rol,..._--. tile rcsultiD& ratea IIlUIt be bucd on c:urreDt dam. .25
16. Colt c:Jalma that the data UIll4 to tl'Ilt!01lete the lDflatiOll factor on its iDitlal FCC
Form 393 II ......_t and ahou1d have been a;ceptccl by the Citlca. AJthougb the inflation
data that Cox UIed in iIB Initial twna was currellt at lbe lime of that ft1IDg, die Ponn 393 that
Colt Il1bmitted required ~ IIIlre1ated to the Inflation data. F01' example, in reviewing
Cox'. Form 393, the Citiee fouDd errors ill Cox's calculation of equipment basket cSata .1.DI;e
it 0mitte4 rate of return and lnc:ome taX Information. which flDdlDi Cox does not challense.26
The CiIies cliJalIoweQ Cox's alleged cquipmeD1 revenue 111 Uno 204 attrib\ltable to the \eue
.
:IS Su PubUe Notielf., 0uesti0lll and AtltCWl!Tll on Comnletlon of FDnIJ 393 ."d
Assoc:iatcd Pilin.. houl.......enlS, Question No.9 (relcasecl November 10, 1993) ("The
Cnmmll$ion stated 111 a n-tion and Amwer Iheet released on July 30, 1993, that the most
rcoeudy available GNP-PI sbouId be used when ....1m1g rate benclunl1't caJc:ulatiom. In lhiJ
rellard. the GNP-PI for the thlId quam:r of 1992. which is listed lD Form 393, Part n,
Worltlheet 1. was 1JP".- by die Departmellt of Commerce on August 31. 1993 after the
form WIllI printed. Tbc DeW ..,mho, 11122.5. This upcIlt'" JUDber for tile GNP-PIIhou!d
be UIIld rather tban the m.......... priDled on the fonn. "). .
M PubUc Nolie,. ~tlnlll .nd Answers on I"'ah\e Televilion Rate Replation, QUestion
No.5 (released J\II1ll 1. 1994). Self. 77Ilrd R/f.con. OnUr, 9 FCC Red at 4349-4350; 47
C.P.&. , 76.922(b)(9)(i).
zs T1Ilrd Rlcon. Ordtr. 9 FCC Red at 4349-4350 (empbuilln orIaIna1). SI,47 C.F.R.
, 76.922(b)(9)(iii).
. WbeD. die rate ofretunllm41noolne t8XllS IfO Inch"!""'. Cox'.lJDB 301, MODIh1y
Equipment aDd IDJb nsri"" COlt, Is parar !hill that it lqIvztecl. I.iDe 301 iI. 1Ubtra=cl fl:om
tile Bale Rate per Ch.."....I. and 10 a 1ar&er ctII:rY producca a lower MaJrimum IDl.tla1
Permiua1 Rate per Cha1mel. 1'he reduction 111 the MaTlmum Iukial PermiIiId RaIe per
r.hRnftl!l. boc:auee of lhiJ a4ju1tDlent. result8 111 CoJ;'. buIc tier rata belDg umeuonable
1IIIIiIlr the beDchm."" formula.
I
.
ynJ .9~;2(
L
'--)
..
.
.
.
.
ilF'R il7 '95 1112:2Ef'M FCC c::RB..E.~
r~~u
'.
of decoders to premium ~.nnelll1bsm~rs.71 In lIddition, Ibe cities of Chu1a Vista, La'
Mesa. 8J1d. Poway fOUDd erron wlrh respect to Cox' s iDcomct c:ount of satellite ..J.llTmI!l..
AI such, the Cl1ies dcla'miDed that there ....re otber probllSlJlll in the Cox filiII& in Id.dltion to
~1ttl.t"'" iDf1ation faClDIS, lUIIl that Cox', ratDs wCNld not have been jultlfied.in any CVCD1
even if the old lDflaUon data were accepted by the Cities. 1berefore, the Cities'
c1ctcrminatiOlJ wu correct that Ibe illflation factor mIIIt be recaJl'\IIPt'Pid using Ibe updated
inflation data.
D. DecIIratGrY 'Rnlllll JleprdlDa rrlDt'hl- F.-
17. 'lbI City of La Mna, ill itB OppositiOl1, tI uta tile (:onmtlHlon to iIIue ·
dccIaratm'y I1IUDg atatiua that Colt, .1.Dce October of 1992, bas been iDawro;rialely ~
tbroUlb to La Mesa IUbserJben additional fraDcbiBe fees in violation of tile fn""hl...
qreemcnt.zt ThIs mattar, however, is not apeeific:ally add1'eUed In the City's rale order, and
Cox did DOt Isk the C01II1I1iJslon to Iddresa this frulcbiBe foo matter on ~.JO By IOO~"I
8 declaratory rv1ing an this matter. tile City of La Mesa In ~ is ukID&.tbe Cnmmlulon
to review the City'. franchise Igreement with Cox. and specifically Its own clecision on this
fnncJlI~ fee matter, w1llcb is inappropriate. given the context of this Commission
proceedlDg, IIlJd lDcoasistent with Seeden 76.944 of OlD' rules.'1 'l'b&mlfOre, we deny the City
of La Meaa's request mat we luae I declaratol)' ruling OIl this fnnchl,.. fee m.atte.r.
m. ORDERING CLA.tJSES
18. Accordingly, rr IS OlUJEREI) that 1be foUowiDg CommiIaicln pr'OC*"i1Igs:
(1) the Ippeal by Cox Cable San Diego, IDe. of Ibe local rate order adopted by the City of
Chu1a Vista, California; (2) tbc appeal by Cox Cable San Die&o, IDe. of the local rile order
,
II Sf'" 13-15, Sll{JrtJ. of tIlIB Otdcr.
21 La Mesa Opposltlnn 81 2.
29 Cox lD4leates in I letter . datec1 July 14. 1994. to tile City of La Meaa that "(t]he
additiOllal fraDcIlise fee mat Colt lias been coneetln& wlll expire In October of 1994, at which
time (Colt] will revert to the 'DOnII8l' fee strUCture.' La Mesa Opposition, Exhibit E. 1be
City of La Mesa clalml that Cox bas been impropcrly passiDa through -sa frIDdlllll!l fees
to La Mesa ,ubseriben 1hIJt were VDderpaid in previous )'ears, prM..l11i rate reJUlatlon.
AccordiDa to a report prepared by the City of IA Masl" eoDlUltaDt, Cox bas been appJyina I
oS.703" frtftl'.hi~ fee u a pIIIIthroaih to aubIcribcrs in La Mesa, when tbI: fntl"lIise
&Il'"I"~"1 c:alJa for 0Dly 5.0". Sf, Appesl, Exhibit C It 7.
10 ThIs fraIdI.I... fee matter illddresIed by the City'. CODBUltaDt in !IiJ report IIIlID I
letter from Cox to the City. au IA Mesa Opposition at 2 (c:lt1Dg Appeal, BxhibUa C IIIl D).
11 S<< 47 C.P.a. t 76.944.
9
P 1-30
,
,'.
..
"
.
adopted by the City of La Mesa. Callfornla; (3) the appcaI by Cox Cable San Diego, IDe, of
the local rate order adopted by the City of Poway, Califamia; and (4) the Ippeal by Cox
Cable San Diego, IDe. of the local rate order adopted. by the City of San Dlligo, CIlifoL'llia.
are consolidated into ODe pror-il1l.
.
19. IT IS FUB.TIIER ORDERED tbat Cox Cable San DioIo, hxi. ',1ppCIl of the
rate Older adopted by the City of CIu1a Villa, the City of La Mesa, the City of Poway, aDd
the City of San DIo&o, ngardiDg tbe ret\IDd offset iuue Ie REMANDED to tile teapCCtiVe
local fraDchislDi authorities for ICIOlutlonlll KCQrdm:e with the tenDs of thja Coll8Olidated
Order. rr IS FURTHER ORDERED tbat the request made by the CIty of Chu1a Vista, the
City of La MOIl, the City of Poway, aDd the City of San Diego that any reftIDd offHt Ihaulcl
be apportioo:d between basic acrv1;e m1 cable prolf"mminl service tlcn Ie DENIED.
20. IT IS FUB.TIIER ORDERED !bat Cox Cable San Diego. Inc..'s appeal of the
rate order adopted by the City of Clula VIsta. the City of La Mesa, the City of Pow.y, aDd
the City of San Diego, regardina tbe IIsue of Cox', dcc:oder c:harges iI D~.
21. rr IS FUB.TIIER ORDERED that Cox Cable San D~o, ID;;.', appeal of the
rate order adopted by the City of Cmla Vista, the City of La Mesa, the City, of Poway, aDd
tile City of San Dle&o, reaudini the IDflatiOD faaor calculation Im10 iI DENIED.
22. rr IS FUB.THER ORDERED tbat the City of La Mesa', ~ that the
Commission issue . declaIalory ruling reaardina fIIIDCbi", (cea is DENIED. '
23. 'Ibis action iI tam by the Chief, Cable Scrvll:es Bureau, punuam to authority
delegated by Seetlon 0.321 oftlle Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. . 0.321.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMIssION
~/i.d, j.
M 'J. Jo
f. Cable SerVices
10
.
.Y4-- ~~:; /
/-
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
Attachment
D
.
3510 SUNRIDGE DR. S.
SALEM. OR 97302
(503) 581-0878
FAX (503) 581-2026
2828 N.E. STA1\,ON
PORTLAND. OR 97212
(503) 287-7273
FAX (503) 287-7323
February 20, 1995
Mr. Jim Thomson
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Jim:
I have reviewed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 1210 (dated October 31,
1994) submitted to the City ofChula Vista by Cox Cable San Diego (Cox). This Form 1210
updates the previous maximum permitted rates, based on changes occurring in the July 1, 1994
through September 30, 1994 period. I identified the following issues:
.
.
. The rates listed as the previous "full reduction rates" (Line A2) for basic and cable
programming services are incorrect because adjustments should be made to the previous Cox
F()rm 1200 and Form 1210 (April 1, 1994 through June 30,1994 period) filings (see my report
to the City, dated January 30, 1995). The correct previous "full reduction rate" for basic
service is $7.21 (versus $7.49 in the Cox filing). The correct previous "full reduction rate" for
cable programming services is $13.37 (versus $13.87 in the Cox filing).
. Cox included a purported increase in the possessory interest tax of about 5.7 t per subscriber
per month as an external cost increase, reported as part of Line B6. The FCC has indicated
that the possessory interest tax may be included only if the assessment is very directly related
to subscriber revenues. Cox has provided a legal opinion that the tax meets the criterion
established by the FCC for external cost treatment (see attachment). However, Cox assigned
all of the increase to the basic tier of service. Instead, Cox should have allocated the tax across
services (including unregulated pay services). Cox has agreed that the possessory interest tax
external cost should be allocated, and suggested chaMel counts as the basis for the allocation.
Approximately 29 percent of the channels are on the basic tier, resulting in about 1.7t of cost
allocated to basic service for the possessory interest tax increase.
. Another 3t per subscriber per month of the amount that Cox included in "taxes" on Line B6 is
a regulatory fee imposed by the FCC that the FCC indicated operators may begin to pass
through to subscribers in December, 1994. We do not challenge Cox's right to automatically
pass through this fee (the FCC says that it may), but we believe that it need not be reported on
Line B6. Reporting the amount on that line creates certain minor problems (it inappropriately
puts the incremental amount in the base for future inflation and does not readily account for the
. fact that the allowable amount increases to 4t per subscriber per month after three months).
yr 9 ,JJ.-
CO^'SL'L77/1iG AND INFORMA770N SERVICES FOR PUBliC MA.\'AGEME.\T EXCEll.ESCE
5
.
.
.
Instead, we believe that it would be more straight forward to simply treat the fee as an add-on
to the maximum permitted rate, just as franchise fees are treated.
Consequently, we have adjusted the Cox Form 1210 to reflect what we believe to be the correct
previous "full reduction rates," to allocate the amount that Cox reported as an external cost for
the possessory interest tax on Line B6, and to exclude the 3 ~ per subscriber FCC fee reported on
Line B6. The resulting maximum permitted rates are $7.40 for basic service (Cox may add the
FCC fee and appropriate franchise fees to this rate) and $13.82 for cable programming services
(Cox may add franchise fees to this rate). These rates compare to the $7.75 for basic and 514.30
for cable programming services filed by Cox in the unadjusted Form 1210.
We recommend that the City keep an accounting order open on this Form 1210 until the FCC has
ruled on appeals pending for this Cox system regarding Form 393 rates. The results of these
appeals will help determine the appropriate actions to take regarding any refunds or prospective
rate reductions. We also recommend that the City forward a copy of this report to the FCC to
provide information related to possible FCC actions on the cable programming services tier.
An adjusted Form 1210 is included as Attachment A, and Cox's legal opinion on the possessory
interest tax is included as Attachment B. Please contact me at 503-287-7273 if you have' any
questions.
.
Sincerely,
, /1 C::-';(-'
>/~1 L . ~;L
Jay C. Smith
President, Public Knowledge, Inc.
~ 9~)J
C'
,-,:J
.
.
.
Attachment
E -
REVIEW OF COX CABLE SAN DIEGO RATE Fll..INGS
FOR THE ClTlt;S OF CHULA VISTA, IMPERIAL BEACH, AND NATIONAL CITY
FOR BASIC SERVICE RATES ESTABLISHED JULY 14,1994
Prepared by Public Knowledge, IDe.
January 30,1995
Y~-Jf
5'
REVIEW OF COX CABLE SAN DIEGO, INC. RATE Fll..INGS
. FOR TIlE CITIES OF CHULA VISTA, IMPERIAL BEACH, AND NATIONAL CITY
A. Introduction
This review of certain cable television rates charged by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. (Cox) was
performed for the following cities:
. Chula Vista
. Imperial Beach
. National City
The filings for these communities were identical because each is served by a SSO MHz system.
We reviewed the following Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Forms that Cox had
submitted to these jurisdictions:
. 1200 (dated August 10, 1994)
. 1205 (dated August 10, 1994; Forms for 1991 and 1993)
. 1210 (dated August 10, 1994, for the period of April 1, 1994 through June 30,1994)
.
The review was based on a complex set of rules and procedures that the FCC has developed for
regulation of cable TV rates in accordance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992. Local franchising authorities are empowered to regulate monthly
rates for basic programming' services and equipment rentals, as well as installation and related
transaction charges. The FCC intends to directly regulate monthly rates for "cable programming
services" (more commonly caIled "expanded basic" or "tier" services). Cable programming
services (CPS) are packages of program services not included in the "basic" package and for
which the subscriber must pay an additional monthly fee. The rates for still other programming
services, offered on a per channel or per program basis, commonly calIed premium or pay
services, are not regulated by either local franchise authorities or the FCC under current law.
The purpose of the FCC Forms 1200 and 1205 is to provide a framework for a cable operator to
submit certain data and calculations to justify its rates as of the initial date of regulation, in
accordance with FCC rules. Monthly programming service rates are compared against
benchmarks developed by the FCC (Form 1200), and equipment and instalIation charges are
developed based on an operator's actua1 costs (Form 1205), again as determined by FCC
guidelines and procedures. The Form 1210 provides for changes in rates related to changes in
certain "external costs." The end result is intended to be a set of maximum permitted rates and
charges applicable to the cable operator in the local franchise area.
The Forms 1200 and 1205 and the initial Form 1210 (dated August 10, 1994) relate to the rates
established July 14, 1994. The rates determined by these forms are important not only because
they set the maximum permitted rates for the near term, but also because future adjustments for
inflation and any increases in external costs wilI build from the rates established by the Form
1200.
.
P9-JS
)
!.:
.
.
.
B. Scope and Procedures
Our review included assessing Cox's compliance with FCC rules and guidelines; evaluating the
accuracy of certain data and calculations; and testing the reasonableness of certain methods and
assumptions that Cox applied. We performed the following procedures:
. Performed a preliminary review of the Forms 1200, 1205, and 1210 and the associated
support included with Cox's filings, and prepared a request to Cox for additional information.
. Received and reviewed Cox's response to the data request
. Checked support for several key data elements on the Form 1200, including:
Channel counts
Subscriber counts
Historical rates for specified periods
Historical installation and equipment revenue for specified periods
Changes in reported programming costs
Number of tier changes in 1993
Census income level
Number of additional outlets in 1993
Number ofremotes rented in 1993
Number of systems in the MSO
. Visited Cox headquarters to further assess the support for the information on the Forms; for
example:
Rechecked the channel counts affecting the maximum permitted rates
_ Updated findings of previous review of installation and equipment costs (Form 393, Part
III) and checked certain new information to evaluate the Form 1205 data
Compared Form 1210 programming costs to a ,nmmary of Cox's contract rates
Entered the data on an FCC spreadsheet to test the accuracy of the calculations
Performed selected sensitivity tests to observe the rate effects of changes in certain key
data elements
. Evaluated the additional information and adjusted certain data elements from the figures
originally included in Cox's filing, based on our understanding of the FCC rules, instructions,
guidelines, and intent.
. Prepared this report.
y:,,;r?
i..;
..
.
.
.
We performed the procedures that we believed to be appropriate within the time and budget
limitations established for this review. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters
may have come to our attention and our reported findings may have been different.
C. Findings
We identified four problem areas in the Cox filings:
. Inaccurate channel counts
. Inappropriate inclusion of certain equipment revenue
. Inconsistencies in installation and equipment cost data
. Inaccurate count of labor hours
Each of these problem areas is discussed below. It is our understanding that Cox personnel have
reviewed a draft of our findings and agree with each of our adjustments except our exclusion of
certain "imputed" equipment revenue. The imputed revenue issue is currently on appeal to the
FCC based on the Chula Vista's previous order regarding Cox's Form 393.
Inaccurate channel counts. Cox incorrectly reported the regulated channel count for the initial
date of regulation (fall of 1993) at Line HS on the Form 1200: for Chula Vista, Imperial beach,
and National City, Cox reported 51 regulated channels; the correct figure is SO. We adjusted the
count to the correct figure. The channel count adjustment slightly reduces the maximum
permitted rates (about It for basic service).
"
Inappropriate inclusion of certain equipment revenue. The Form 1200 requires September
1992 installation and equipment revenue to be reported (Line OS); in Cox's case, this figure
helps to determine the maximum permitted rates. In determining its reported amount, Cox
included not only revenue that it actually received for installations and equipment in the
twelve-month period ending December 31, 1992, but also an iTl\Puted amount of revenue for
converters used by pay services customers. In fact, during the applicable period, Cox did not
charge pay customers a separate equipment charge for converters. A Cox representative has
stated that the rationale for including revenue for these converters in Line OS is based on the
theory that the converters had value, and that Cox could have charged pay customers separately
for them had the company so chosen. Yet we are aware of no FCC rule, guideline, or
clarification that states that operators can include imputed amounts in the figures reported for
equipment and installation revenue. The amounts that Cox reported for imputed revenue for
these converters are I1Q1 identified as equipment revenue in the Cox accounting records for the
applicable period, nor, to our knowledge, were pay customers during this period informed that
they were paying a specified amount per month for converter rental. We therefore believe that
the imputed portion of the revenue amount that Cox has reported at Line OS should be
disallowed.
In making an adjustment for the imputed revenue, we also based Line OS on September 1992
data only (as opposed to an annual average for 1992 which Cox applied), as directed by the
Form 1200 instructions - this change is favorable to Cox. The net effect of subtracting the
imputed revenue and substituting the September data is a $36,979 reduction in Line OS for
h'-37
1.:-'
.
.
.
Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and National City. The net reduction reduces the maximum
permitted basic rate by about 18~.
Inconsistencies in instaUation and equipment cost data. Cox completed two different Form
1205s for equipment and installation costs: 1991 data were used to determine the cost amount to
unbundle from monthly programming service rates (at Lines D2 and 12 of the Form 1200); 1993
data were used to set installation and equipment rates. The 1993 costs were generally higher
than the 1991 costs. There were two significant inconsistencies in how Cox determined the costs
for 1993 versus 1991:
. Two field service departments.had been combined by 1993, but were not combined in 1991.
Cox counted the cost of the combined department for 1993, but counted only one of the
departments for 1991. To correct the inconsistency, we added the second department's
allocated costs to the 1991 data ( $679,634 added to Schedule B on the Form 1205).
. Cox counted the cost oflost converters in 1993 but not in 1991. We added the lost converter
costs to the 1991 data ($107,015 added to Schedule B on the Form 1205).
Our adjustments reduce the maximum permitted rates for monthly programming services
because they unbundle (subtract) $2.71 per subscriber, versus $2.50 in Cox's original filings.
This change reduces the maximum permitted basic rate by about 7~.
Inaccurate count of iabor hours. The Form 1205 requires that equipment basket labor hours
be reported at Step A Line 6: The hours number is used to determine the Hourly Service Charge
(HSC) applicable to installation and equipment labor. We found two problems in the figure that
Cox reported. First, there was an arithmetic error that caused an under-count of hours. Second,
Cox used the same hours data that it had used on its Form 393, but used updated cost
information to establish equipment and installation costs. We corrected the arithmetic mistake,
and calculated hours for the 1993 fiscal year (coterminous with the cost data that Cox applied)
rather than the hybrid 1992-93 year that Cox had used to derive the hours. We also adjusted
converter, decoder, and remote maintenance hours to remain consistent with the methodology
Cox had established for allocating equipment costs. Our adjustments result in 131,569 labor
hours, versus 110,275 reported by Cox. This change causes the HSC to be reduced from $47.48
(Cox revised filing) to $39.79 (adjusted 1993 Form 1205).
D. Recommendations
We recommend that the Cities order refUnds for basic service. The refunds apply to the rates
that Cox put into effect on July 14, 1994, and should be based on the maximum permitted rates
established by the adjustments (as described above) to the August 10, 1994 Cox Form 1200,
1205, and 1210 filings. The refunds apply for the period between July 14, 1994 and the date that
Cox implements rates that comply with the Cities' rate orders. The recommended maximum
permitted basic rates compare to Cox's current actual rates as follows:
y6'1-J%
c,.
.
.
.
Actual Cox
Basic Rate
Recommended
Maximum Permitted
Rate - Refund Period
Refund Amount
Chula Vista, Imperial
Beach, and National
City
$7.47
$7.21
$0.26
The attached Exhibits A. B, and C show the calculations for the recommended maximum
permitted basic rates.
We do not recommend any refund order at this time for equipment and instal1ations because, for
the most part, Cox's current rates are below the adjusted maximum permitted rates that we
calculated (with three smal1 exceptions; see Schedule A). However, the maximum permitted
rates shown in the attached Schedule A, rather than the rates determined in the unadjusted Cox
filing, should be used as the basis for determining any offsets that Cox may include in its refund
plan for overcharges for monthly programming services. We also recommend that the Cities
review this matter when Cox submits an updated Form 1205 (due by March 1, 1995) to assure
that the actual Cox instal1ation and equipment charges are within the maximum permitted rates
established by the updated Form 1205 filing. Any changes in the actual equipment and
instal1ation rates should be implemented in July, 1995, one year fol1owing the last previous
change in these rates.
We also recommend that the Cities forward a copy of this report to the FCC, who has
jurisdiction over cable programming service rates. The adjustments we have made cause a 47t
reduction in the maximum permitted cable programming service rate for the refund period.
~/;J~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Attachment
F
Item
,H)
.
Meeting Date
6/21/94
B.
Public Hearing regarding existing and
proposed rates and charges for Cox Cable's
Basic Service Tier and associated equipment
Resolution 17f~r disapproving existing
rates and charges for the Basic Service Tier
and associated equipment for Cox Cable,
prescribing rates and charges for the Basic
Service Tier and ordering a refund to
subscribers
ITEM TITLE:
A.
.
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City M~nager ~mson
REVIEWED BY: city Manager db b '11 C4/5ths Vote: Yes_ .0....1..-)
At its May 3, 1994 meeting, the City Council opened this pUblic
hearing, received public comment, and continued the public hearing
until June 21, 1994. The council also adopted a resolution on May
3 approving the issuance of an accounting order to Cox Cable which
reserved the City's right to subsequently order rate reductions and
refunds retroactively to september 1, 1993 in the event the City
takes action to disapprove Cox Cable's Basic Service Tier rates.
The May 3 public hearing was continued until June 21 at the request
of Cox Cable, in order to provide Cox Cable additional time to
analyze and comment on the report of the City's consultant (Public
Knowledge, Inc.) regarding Cox Cable's rates as well as to provide
additional time for both the City and Cox Cable to review the
impact of the new Federal communications commission (FCC) rate
regulations that were issued on March 30, 1994.
.
These new FCC regulations are effective May 15, 1994 and affect Cox
Cable's rates thereafter. In a separate item on the June 21, 1994
meeting agenda, the City Council will be considering the First
Amendment to the Memorandum of understanding with the cities of La
Mesa, Poway, National City and Imperial Beach to obtain additional
consulting service from PUblic Knowledge, Inc. to review the rate
submittals that Cox Cable will be providing to the respective
cities for cable rates after May 15, 1994. The FCC has made it
very clear that franchising authorities should treat regulated
cable rates for the period from September 1, 1993 through May 14,
1994 separately from the rates after May 15.
Since the public hearing on May 3, the cities' consultant and Cox
Cable further reviewed and discussed the issues of disagreement
that Cox Cable had with the Public Knowledge, Inc. report and
narrowed the gap slightly, but there are still significant
differences between our consultant's report and Cox Cable'S
position regarding Cox Cable's maximum permitted rates. At this
point, staff does not anticipate that we will resolve these issues
with Cox Cable without the FCC's intervention, and therefore staff
1~9-L/tJ
.
.
.
Meeting Date
6/21/94
recommends that council, after taking any additional public
comment, adopt the resolution. The resolution disapproves the Cox
Cable Basic Service Tier rates and orders a rate reduction and
refund plan with the resolution having an effective date of July
25, 1994.
This delayed effective date approach provides Cox Cable with a 34-
day period to try to obtain further clarification from the FCC on
the remaining issues of disagreement between Cox and the city's
consultant before Cox Cable is required to either submit their
refund plan to the City for approval Or formally appeal the City's
decision to the FCC. This is a compromise approach worked out by
the La Mesa city Council after lengthy discussion at its June 14,
1994 public hearing, and Cox Cable and Chula Vista staff
subsequently verbally agreed to jointly recommend that the Chula
vista city council take similar action.
The FCC has previously advised cities not to wait for the FCC to
resolve every issue that cable operators may raise to justify their
rates; instead the FCC has advised cities to make a good faith
determination of the maximum permitted rates and the cable
operators may appeal those decisions to the FCC if they feel they
have adequate grounds to do so. .
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
1. Conduct the continued public hearing; and
2.
Adopt the resolution, which:
a. Disapproves the rates Cox Cable has charged for the
Basic Service Tier since September 1, 1993
b. Orders Cox Cable to reduce its rate for Basic
Service from $7.9i to $7.75 per month (contingent
on Cox filing an updated FCC Form 393), retroactive
~o September 1, 1993
c. Orders Cox Cable to provide a Refund Plan
(including interest due to the subscribers) to the
City Manager for approval within 15 days of the
effective date of the resolution, which is July 25,
1994
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: NIA
DISCUSSION:
Backaround
As described more fully in the Council agenda statement for the May
3, 1994 public hearing (attached as Exhibit 4), the Federal "Cable
Television Consumer protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Cable
Act of 1992)" provided local cable television franchising
authorities with the ability to regulate, to a limited degree, some
2~
~9/fl
u
.
.
.
Keeting Date
6/21/94
of the rates charged by their cable operators. A City's rate
regulation authority is limited to the rates charged for the Basic
Tier of Services and associated equipment. This tier includes
local commercial stations and public, educational and governmental
access channels. Rates for expanded tiers, which include such
channels as CNN, ESPN and MTV, are now known as "Cable Programming
Services" and are regulated by the FCC upon the filing of a
complaint by a subscriber or a franchising authority. Rates for
premium and pay-per-view channels, such as Cinemax or BBO, are not
regulated by any agency under the Cable Act of 1992. The effective
date of the City's limited rate regulation authority was September
1, 1993.
On September 1, 1993, Cox Cable's monthly rate for an 18-channel
Basic Service Tier in Chula vista was reduced to $7.91 compared
with a former $14.85 rate for a 15-channel line up. As of that
same date, however, Cox Cable increased its Cable Programming
service (CPS) monthly rate from $8.10 to $14.51 in Chula Vista.
The total of both tiers (Basic plus CPS) was thus decreased from
$22.95 to $22.42 in Chula vista, as well as in Imperial Beach,
National City and Santee. As indicated in Exhibit 7, Cox Cable
established three different groups of rates for its. ten franchise
areas in the San Diego region, based on the number of channels and
the date of the upgrade that Cox Cable provided in each of the
franchise areas. Cox Cable also modified its fees for various
equipment and installation services on september 1, 1993, and those
fees are also shown in Exhibit 7.
On September 7, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 17245
authorizing the City to submit a certification application to the
FCC for regulation of cable television Basic Service Tier rates and
adopting regulations and procedures for the City's rate review that
are consistent with the FCC regulations. On October 12, 1993 the
City Council adopted Resolution 17271 amending Resolution 17245 to
indicate that Chula vista Cable is not subject to rate regulation
under the FCC guidelines because'staff had determined that Chula
Vista Cable is subject to effective competition as defined in the
FCC regulations.
The City submitted its application to the FCC for regulation of
Basic Service Tier rates on October 12, 1993, and the City was
effectively certified to regulate Basic Tier rates of Cox Cable as
of November 12, 1993. On December 10, 1993, Cox Cable received the
City's notification that it was certified and that it was
requesting Cox Cable to submit its FCC Form 393 within thirty days
regarding its rates since september 1, 1993 for Basic Services and
associated equipment. On January 10, 1994 the City received Cox
Cable's Form 393, which is attached as Exhibit 5 with a transmittal
letter from Cox Cable dated January 6, 1994.
On January 4, 1994 the City Council approved a Memorandum of
Understanding with the cities of La Mesa, poway, National City and
Imperial Beach to provide a framework for administering a contract
with Public Knowledge, Inc. to review the FCC Form 393 submitted by
Cox Cable to each of the five cities.
3~#9_~~
i
....-')
.
.
.
Meeting Date
6/21/94
Review of Cox Cable's Rates
The report from Jay Smith, President of Public Knowledge, Inc.
regarding Cox Cable's Basic Tier rates in Chula vista and
associated equipment is dated March 7, 1994 and is attached as
Exhibit 3. As noted in the report, Mr. Smith conducted a review
and analysis of the Cox Cable FCC Form 393 benchmark rate
submittal, including a visit to the Cox Cable offices and several
discussions with Cox Cable officials. Mr. Smith also met with
staff from the five cities to review various matters relating to
the study prior to finalizing his report.
In general, the public Knowledge report concluded that Cox Cable
had attempted to prepare its Form 393 carefully and in accordance
with FCC rules as Cox interpreted them. Mr. Smith found that Cox
Cable's rates for equipment rental (remote controls, converter
boxes, and addressable decoder boxes) have been acceptable under
the FCC regulations. However, he identified several problem areas
that are detailed more fully in the Public Knowledge report
including:
Incorrect date and inflation factors;
Incorrect reported installation and equipment revenue;
Inappropriate method to count satellite channels;
Inappropriate exciusion of income taxes and return on
investment from equipment and installation costs; and
Incorrect allocation of certain equipment and
installation costs.
Mr. Smith's analysis indicated that the correction of some of these
problems decreased the maximum permitted rate per channel while
other corrections caused increases. Overall, the March 7 Public
Knowledge, Inc. report concluded that the City could order Cox to
reduce its monthly rate for the Basic service Tier from $7.91 to
$7.72, a reduction of $0.19 per month. The consultant's
recommended rate was based on a maximum initial permitted rate per
channel of 42.9C compared to the 44.0C indicated in the Cox FCC
Form 393 filing, and assumes 18 channels of Basic service. On an
annual basis, this reduction in the Basic Service Tier would equate
to about $72,000 for the 31,600 Chula vista subscribers to Cox
Cable.
The Public Knowledge, Inc. report also concluded that Cox's Cable
Programming Service (CPS) rate, which is subject to rate regulation
by the FCC rather than by the City, should be reduced from $14.51
to $14.16 per month (assuming 33 channels), a reduction of $0.35
per month. The potential annual reduction for Chula vista
subscribers for the CPS rate would thus be about $132,000. The CPS
rates will be addressed separately by the FCC at a later date, and
staff intends to monitor and assist the FCC in its review of the
CPS rates.
After staff reviewed the Public Knowledge report and discussed it
with Mr. Smith, staff sent a copy to Cox Cable on April 15 for
~~f~/J
r
'c
~
.
.
.
Keeting Date
6/21/94
their review and comment. As previouslY indicated, Cox Cable, in
a letter dated April 21, 1994, requested additional time to review
the Public Knowledge, Inc. report as part of its request for
continuing the May 3 public hearing until after June 15. Mr. Smith
of public Knowledge, Inc. met with Cox Cable's Vice President of
Finance on May 5, 1994 at Cox Cable's request and expense, to
attempt to resolve points of disagreement that Cox Cable had with
the public Knowledge report.
subsequently, Cox Cable sent a letter dated May 19 providing Cox
Cable's formal response to the Public Knowledge report. In.the May
19 Cox Cable response, which is attached as Exhibit 2, Cox Cable
disagrees with the points in the Public Knowledge report that would
serve to reduce Cox's maximum permitted rates and accepts those
points that would serve to increase their maximum permitted rates.
Furthermore, Cox Cable's May 19 response also takes the position
that, even if the Public KnOWledge report were correct in terms of
Cox Cable having a refund liability, Cox could offset its
overcharges for the Basic Service Tier rates by taking into
consideration equipment charges which it voluntarily set at a level
below the maximum permitted rate for remote controls, converter
boxes and decoder boxes. In effect, Cox Cable is suggesting that
it could institute a theoretical rate increase retroactive to
september 1, 1993 for these equipment components and thereby
eliminate most, if not all, of its refund obligation. Cox Cable
cites FCC references for this position as well as for several of
its other positions in its May 19 letter.
In a letter to the City dated June 6, 1994, Jay Smith of Public
Knowledge, Inc. responded to the points raised in Cox Cable'S May
19 letter. The public KnOWledge response, which is attached as
Exhibit 1, agrees with one of the points raised by Cox Cable but
disagrees with other more significant points. More specifically,
our consultant agrees that the FCC guidelines allow Cox Cable to
use the full 1992 fiscal year (ending December 31, 1992) to
calculate its installation and equipment revenue. This would
result in an additional $.03 per month in the maximum allowable
rate for the Basic Service Tier, increasing it from the $7.72
figure in the March 7, 1994 report from Public Knowledge, Inc. to
$7.75 per month. public Knowledge, Inc. continues to disagree with
the other points raised by Cox Cable in support of their higher
Basic Service rates. Thus, the adjusted maximum monthly charge for
the Basic Service Tier recommended by Public Knowledge, Inc. is now
$7.75 compared to the $7.72 figure in the March 7, 1994 report.
If the City orders Cox Cable to reduce its rates for the Basic
Service Tier from $7.91 per month to the adjusted maximum monthly
rate of $7.75, it will result in a reduction of $0.16 per month in
the cable rates for about 31,600 Chula Vista subscribers,
retroactive to September 1, 1993.
Refund Issue
,
As indicated above, in its May 19 letter to the City (EXhibit 2),
Cox Cable asserts that:
5
.~ft 9/1/'1
L
Meeting Date
6/21/94
.
"It is cox's belief that these interpretations of the
FCC's initial rate order and subsequent clarifications
are accurate. However, in the event that the consultant
has significant disagreement, and Cox is required to
lower its Basic rate, Cox would offset any potential
Basic refund with the amount Cox has been undercharging
in equipment. This is allowed under the FCC's Third
Order on Reconsideration..."
The June 6 public Knowledge letter (Exhibit 1) includes the
following response:
"contrary to what Cox states in its letter, I do not
believe that Cox can offset Basic rate refunds with
retroactive equipment rate increases when none of the
Basic rate refund would be attributable to adiustments in
the eauioment basket costs (I interpret paragraph 104 of
the Third Order on Reconsideration differently than-
Cox)."
Furthermore, william Marticorena, an attorney with the firm of
Rutan and Tucker who specializes in legal issues related to cable
television and who has done work for Chula vista and some of the
other local cities, has also reviewed this issue. In a letter to
the city of poway regarding the same Cox Cable assertion made to
that city, Mr. Marticorena stated that:
.
"In essence, such an approach would allow the Cable
operator to institute a . phantom . retroactive rate
increase which, if actually implemented, may well violate
the Commission'S rate freeze."
In an attempt to quickly resolve any ambiguity that may exist in
the FCC regulations referenced by Cox Cable regarding this refund
issue, the city Manager sent a letter (Exhibit 9) to the FCC on May
23, 1994 requesting that the FCC provide a clear interpretation of
the meaning of paragraph 104 of the Third Report and Order. The
question posed by the City to the FCC is:
"May a cable operator retroactively (to September 1,
1993) increase equipment rates where its actual rates
were below the maximum permitted rates it calculated on
its Form 393, in order to offset refunds resulting from
reductions to the _ Basic service rates ordered by the
franchise authority, when no part of the Basic Service
rate reduction is attributable to any adjustments to Part
III of the Form 393?"
Staff has not received any response from the FCC to this request
for clarification, nor has it received any assurance from the FCC
that a response will be forthcoming in the near future. It has
been very difficult to obtain formal responses from the FCC to
inquiries such as this regarding specific cable regulation issues.
.
~ ~ 9~ff
r-
I
.
.
.
Meeting Date
6/21/94
Recommended Course of Action
The FCC has suggested to cities that they should not try to get the
FCC to resolve every issue that may seem ambiguous; instead, the
FCC suggests that cities should proceed to make rate determinations
in good faith, and have indicated that they will defer to the
franchising authority's decision if it is supported by a reasonable
basis. If a cable company such as Cox Cable disagrees with a
franChising authority's action, it may appeal the decision directly
to the FCC. Staff has concluded that at this point the City has
made a good faith effort to properly interpret the FCC regulations
and that it is appropriate to take action at this point.
It should be noted that the FCC regulations prohibit a city from
ordering a refund for a period of more than one year prior to the
time the City takes action. Since the city's rate regulation
authority began on September 01, 1993, if the Council does not take
action before the end of August, it will start losing the ability
to order retroactive rate refunds.
Cox Cable has indicated that it would prefer that cities such as
Chula vista not take action on its rates yet (if at all) and has
been asking for continuances of various public hearings on its
rates. In fact, the initial May 3, 1994 Chu1a Vista public hearing
on Cox Cable's rates was continued to June 21 at the request of
Cox.
As mentioned in the introduction to this report, last week the La
Mesa City council considered another request from Cox Cable to
continue its June 14 public hearing until July 25. After lengthy
discussion at its June 14 hearing, the La Mesa City council instead
decided to adopt its resolution disapproving Cox Cable's rates but
modified the resolution to make it effective on July 25. By
delaying the effective date of the resolution, La Mesa is providing
Cox Cable the time it requested to see if the FCC clarifies its
regulations regarding the issues of disagreement between Cox Cable
and the five cities' consultant. On June 14, right after the La
Mesa public hearing, the General Manager of Cox Cable, Bob McRann
and Deputy City Manager Jim Thomson verbally agreed to jointly
recommend that the Chula vista City council take similar action,
which is reflected in the recommended resolution.
The recommended resolution disapproves Cox Cable's rates since
september 1, 1994 for the Basic Service Tier and orders Cox Cable
to provide a Refund Plan to the City Manager for approval within 15
days of the effective date of the resolution, which is July 25,
1994. That starts the clock on July 25 for the period of time that
Cox Cable has to appeal the City's action to the FCC or to submit
the Refund Plan to the city Manager for approval.
The refund, which would be retroactive to September 1, 1993, would
be based upon updated numbers resulting in the maximum permitted
rate of $7.75 per subscriber for Basic service, subject to Cox
7~fi'1;'Y~
"
/
.
.
.
Meeting Dat;-e
6/21/94
cable filing a revised FCC Form 393'. staff is not recommending
future rate reductions at this time because, from a practical
standpoint, the rate changes could not be implemented prior to Cox
changing their rates on July 15, 1994, as a result of the new FCC
regulations which become effective on May 15 and July 15, 1994.
Issues Raised bv Public at Mav 3 Public Hearinq
At the May 3, 1994 public hearing, two residents addressed the
Council and raised issues related to Cox Cable. At that meeting,
council directed staff to notify them of the continued public
hearing (such notice has been provided) and provide the Council
with a summary of the public input received at the May 3 public
hear ing . .
The first speaker was Hale Newcomb, who expressed two concerns: (1)
that the overall rates charged by Cox Cable are too high and should
be decreased; and (2) that Cox Cable charges customers to reduce
service tiers from the Basic plus Cable Programming Service (CPS)
down to Basic only, and Mr. Newcomb feels there should be no charge
for this downgrade in service. The second speaker was Carolyn
Butler, who requested that Council take action to improve the
quality of programming provided by Cox Cable between 10 p.m. and 6
a.m.
In response to Mr. Newcomb's first concern, staff and the Public
Knowledge, Inc. consultant have been working diligently to ensure
that the regulated rates charged by Cox Cable are within the
maximum permitted amounts based on federal legislation and FCC
regulations. Regarding Mr. Newcomb's second issue, staff has
determined that the fee charged by Cox Cable for downgrading
service tiers from the Basic plus CPS to Basic only is subject to
regulation by the city. In response to requests that staff made to
Cox Cable regarding the justification for those rates, Cox Cable
sent a letter dated June 6, 1994 that indicates the cost to Cox
Cable for downgrading service tiers is actually $42.90, but the fee
charged to customers is $24.94. Staff has reviewed this issue with
the Public Knowledge, Inc. consultant and has concluded that the
rates charged by Cox Cable for this service are reasonable under
the FCC regulations since the downgrading of the service tier
requires the installation of a "trap" at the subscriber's
residence. Thus, Cox Cable has costs related to the service trip
to the consumer's residence as well as the cost of the trap itself,
as described in the June 6 Cox Cable response, which is attached as
Exhibit 8.
Regarding the concern voiced by Ms. Carolyn Butler, federal
legislation and FCC regulations do D2t provide any authority for
cities to regulate the quality of programming provided after
10 p.m. or any other time of the day. In fact, the freedom of
'If Cox Cable does not file such a revised Form 393, the
resolution provides that the rate reduction would be to the $7.72
rate previously discussed.
8~.
/1 f~'i7
I
.
.
.
Keetinq Date
6/21/94
speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution make it difficult for
even the federal government to get involved in regulating the type
or quality of programming.
The minutes of the May 3, 1994 council meeting, as well as the
minutes of other council meetings where the cable television rate
regulation issue has been discussed, are attached as Exhibit 6.
~ew FCC Reaulations
As mentioned, previously, on M~rch 30, 1994 the FCC issued new
regulations intended to requ~re further rate reductions for
regulated cable services, and these new FCC regulations became
effective on May 15, 1994. The new regulations, however, provide
cable operators with the option of deferring implementation of the
new regulations by an additional sixty days if the cable operator
is willing to meet specified conditions. On May 11, 1994, Cox
Cable notified the City that it has elected to take advantage of
this sixty day extension and not change any of its rates between
March 30, 1994 and July 14, 1994.
Cox Cable will be required, as a result of these new FCC
regulations, to submit new FCC Forms 1200 and 1205 for review by
the cities. Cox Cable has notified staff that their rates will
change effective in July 1994. The notification that Cox Cable is
in the process of sending to its Chula vista customers is attached
as Exhibit 10.
As indicated in that exhibit, starting in July Cox Cable plans on
decreasing its monthly rate for the Basic Service Tier in Chula
vista from $7.91 to $7.47, a reduction of $0.44 per month. Its
Cable Programming Service (CPS} rate will be reduced from $14.51 to
$13.84, a reduction of $0.67. The change in the charge for the
Basic Tier plus the CPS tier will thus be from a total of $22.42
per month to $21. 31, a reduction of $1.11 per month. As also
indicated in Exhibit 10, however, Cox Cable will be increasing its
charge for remote controls from $.27 per month to $.45, an increase
of $ .18 per month. The charge for converter box rentals will
increase from $1.05 to $1.61, an increase of $.56 per month. The
cost of the addressable decoder box rental will increase from $1.88
to $2.80 per month, an increase of $.92 per month. Thus a customer
with Basic plus CPS service who rents a remote control and a
decoder box will have a net reduction of $0.01 per month.
The July 1994 rates summarized above are for Chula Vista, National
City, Imperial Beach and Santee. The rates for other franchise
2 For multiple dwelling units in Chula Vista, Cox Cable has
indicated that the rate for Basic service will decrease from $7.91
to $7.47, and the CPS rate will increase from $10.04 to $10.48,
with the total for both Basic and CPS thus remaining the same at
$17.95 per month. Multiple dwelling units having contracts with
Cox Cable that were signed prior to April 1, 1993 may have lower
rates until those contracts expire.
9 ~~9-t/g/
II
.
.
.
Heetinq Date
6/21/94
agencies differ regarding the Basic Service Tier and the CPS tier,
with some cities experiencing an overall increase in the rates for
the Basic plus CPS tier. The equipment rates announced by Cox
Cable for remote controls, converter box rentals and addressable
decoder box rentals are the same for all cities served by Cox Cable
in the San Diego region.
As previously discussed, Cox Cable will submit new FCC Forms (1200
and 1205) to the franchise authorities justifying the rates that
they will start charging in July 1994. At the June 21 council
meeting, the Council will be considering a separate agenda item for
the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with the
other four cities we have been working with to hire Public
Knowledge, Inc. to review the new rates that Cox Cable will be
charging starting in July. It should be emphasized that the rates
from September 1, 1993 through May 15, 1994 were under one set of
FCC regulations, and the rates after May 15, 1994 will be under a
different set of FCC regulations (those issued on March 30,1994).
It is perhaps helpful to view the. review of the rates from
september 1, 1993 through May 15, 1994 as phase 1 of the city's
rate regulation process, and the review of the rates after May 15,
1994 as phase 2. The FCC has made it clear that these two time
periods should be treated independently.
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action to reduce the maximum rate
that Cox Cable charges for its Basic Service Tier by $0.16 per
month would provide a savings of about $5,100 per month to the Cox
Cable subscribers in Chula vista. For the 8~ months from September
1, 1993 through May 15, 1994, this would amount to a savings of
approximately $43,000 to Chula vista subscribers.
If the FCC takes separate action in the future to reduce the
maximum rate that Cox Cable may charge for its Cable Programming
service tier, that reduction would further increase the amount of
refunds Chula vista subscribers would receive. Based on the most
recent analysis by public Knowledge, Inc., the CPS refund could be
an additional $0.29 per month or $77,600 to Chula vista subscribers
for the same 8~ month period.
Since the franchise fee paid by Cox Cable is 3', the city's revenue
from franchise fees would be reduced slightly by the recommended
action, but staff has not given any consideration to the potential
impact of rate regulation on these fees in conducting the rate
regulation function.
The cable rates after May 15, 1994 will be governed by the new FCC
regulations issued on March 30, 1994, so those amounts are not
affected by the action recommended in this report.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1
Letter from Public Knowledge, Inc. dated June 6,
1994 responding to the comments in the May 19, 1994
letter from Cox Cable
10~_
~
rr/I'?
1-'"/
I
.
.
.
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
.eeting Date
6/21/94
Letter from Cox Cable dated May 19, 1994 providing
comments on the March 7, 1994 Public Knowledge,
Inc. report
Report from Public Knowledge, Inc. dated March 7,
1994 reviewing Cox Cable's .FCC Form 393 Basic
service Tier and Equipment rates
Agenda statement for Public Hearing on May 3, 1994
Council meeting
Letter from Cox Cable dated January 6, 1994
transmitting its FCC Form 393 Basic Service Tier
and Equipment rates
Minutes of council meetings of May 3, 1994~ January
4, 1994~ October 12, 1993~ and september 7, 1993
Cox Cable publication listing its september 1, 1993
rates for its various services
Letter from Cox Cable dated June 6, 1994 regarding
their fees for changing service tiers
Letter from city Manager dated May 23, 1994 to the
FCC requesting clarification of refund obligations
of cable operators
sending its
Cox Cable's
Notif ication that Cox Cable is
customers in June/July 1994 regarding
rates effective in July 1994
11~ !
p 9--S-P f-0
AttachrnenL
G
Minutes
June 21, 1994
Paae 5
report and di t staff to refer the draft Council policy to the Ecooo,mic Development Commission ~d Plannina
Commission fo view and comment prior to final action by CounCIl. (Director of Planoina) Continued from
the meetina of 6 4/94.
Mayor Pro Tem Hort questioned if the boUDdaries included the Otay Ranch area that could be &IIIIexed into the
City.
Robert Leiter, Director of P 'a, responded that was correct.
19. REPORT OPOSED FOCUSED PLANNING AREA CRITERIA FOR THE
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERV TION PROGRAM -ID January 1994, Council appointed CouncilmaD Bob
fox to participate on a policy commi for the Clean Water Proaram Multiple Species Cooservation Proaram
(MSCP). 00 2/28/94, the MSCP Polic Committee requested that the participatina jurisdictions provide input
reaardina recommended criteria for fonnin "focused plannina area," which would define a study area for a future
reaiooal habitat reserve system within the lean Water Proaram service area. Staff recommends Council
conceptually endorse the approach to delineatio of a "focused plannina area" as recommended by the City of San
Dieao, and authorize its representative on the MS Policy Committee to recommend that the approach be refined
to be more directly applicable to Chula Vista and e other participatina jurisdictions. (Director of Plannina)
Continued from the meetina of 6/14/94.
CALENDAR · ·
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLlITlONS AND ORDINANCES
20. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHANGES FOR
COX CABLE'S BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT 00 5/3/94, Council opened ~
public heariDa on Cox Cable's rale8 for the Basic Service Tier and associated equipment and continued the publ;.:
hearina to 6/21/94. The report of the City's coosullaDt indicates that Cox Cable's rates durina the period of 9/1/9c
throuah 5/15/94 were hiaher than the maximum rates permitted under federal Communications Commissioi'
reaulations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration)
RESOLlITlON 17545 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 76.933 (C), 76.936, 76.940, 76.941 AND 76.9&;
OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMlSSIOl'
DISAPPROVING THE EXISTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER AJIIT
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR COX CABLE SAN DIEGO, INC" PRESCRIBING RATES AJIIT
CHARGES FOR THE BASIC SEIlVlCE TIEIl AND ORDERING A REFUND TO SUBSCRIBERS
.
Jim Thomsoo, Deputy City Manaaer, stated due to due process concerns the consullaDt had recommended that th
representatives of Cox Cable be allowed to speak last and be aiven lonaer than the five minute maximum. Th
intent was to have the actual resolution become effective July 15th. That would be the start of the clock, under fCI
reaulations the operator had thirty days from that point to file an appeal to the fCC. That would allow extra till>
for the fCC to make determinations reaardina three issues that were currently in dispute. Staff felt the coosul"-'
had made an appropriate recollU!lelldation and that the fCC would not chanae it. Therefore, staff felt it was
reasonable compromise.
Councilmember fox stated his coocerll was that the fCC had Dot cooperated in answerina some of the City'
questions in a timely JIl&IIIIet. He questioned what made staff feel that the FCC would respond by July 15th ..,
if it would be possible that the City would be faced with a DOD-response to the fCC and have to extend the deadlin
further which would encroach upon the one year period.
Mr. ThoDlSOll respoDded that he had DO assurance that the fCC would clarify those issues by thaI date. Staff we
willina to recommend thaI resolution become effective immediately, but the ultimate recommendatioD was
~ 9<5}
. Minutes
June 21, 1994
Page 6
e
compromise worked out to avoid lengthy discussioa at the meeting. In the opinioa of bolb staff &;Dd Ibe CODSU~tant
it was not necessary for Ibe FCC to clarify all of Ibe issues. Staff felt the coDSUltant was well quahfied aDd famlliu
wilb Ibe FCC regulatiODS aDd it was his best opinioa that !he recolDlDOllClatioas before Council were reasoaahle.
Cox Cable would bave two aIlematives: I) 10 ahead aDd abide by the resolutioa aDd provide a refund plaD to Ibe
City M&D&ler for his approval aDd subsequeotly implement the refund plaD; or 2) to appeailbe decision of Ibe City
Council to Ibe FCC. In eilber cue the FCC would be Ibe ODe to malte the clarificatioas, therefore, be did DOl feel
there would be aDY disadvaDtaae.
This beinllbe time aDd place u advertised, !he public beariDl was declared opeD.
. S&IIdra Murpby, 5159 Federal Boulevard, SaD OielO, CA, rep_tinl Cox Cable, IIatod Cox disputed
Ibe coosultant fiDdinl5. They bad seat letters to the FCC requestinl clarificatioa of issues md expected respoase
from Ibem within Ibe DOxt thirty clays. If the FCC ruled in their favor CD Ibe two major i_ in dispule there
would be lillie, if my, refund. In the _time they supported the staff recolDlDOllClatiOD, i.e. the resolutioa.
Councilmember Fox questioDed wbatlbeir positioa was if by July 261b !he FCC bad DOl respoaded to Ibeir appeal.
Ms. Murpby responded that she could not specifically respond to Ibe questioa, butlbey could provide Ibe refunds
at that time or appeal to Ibe FCC. The City of SaD Diego and Ibe City of lA Mesa also sent requests for
clarification. They wmted to deal with the issue oa a local level as they felt Cox md the cities knew the issue best
and did not want to pursue it on a formal level due to Ibe expense involved in dealing wilb tbe FCC. Council bad
until Seplember 1st to order a refund, retroactive including interest. Therefore, Ibere was no risk to the City or
customers oa mavinl forward with Ibe resolution.
Council member Fox stated be was disturbed by some of Ibe thinls in Ibe report. The races that resulted in a
ereductioa in charles to Cox Cable, Cox Cable disputed. In tbose areas that resulted in m increase to Cox Cable,
Ibey aareed to. One of Ibe key ugIIIIlOIIts for Cox Cable was that Ibey bad been undercharginl when renting out
equipment so Ibey wmted to retroactively increase Ibose rates charged for equipment md Ibey would call it a
"wash". He totally rejected that argument md felt Cox Cable was looking for ways to "stick it to" Ibe racepayers
in Cbula Vista. There was a pattern where Cox Cable was askinl cities for a continuaace because Ibe cities were
approachinllbe one year rule.
Ms. Murpby stated Cox Cable bad no inteotioa of retroactively increasing equipment rates. The FCC rules allowed
m off-set md tbat was oae of Ibe issues Ibey were trying to get clarified. It was Ibeir interpretation that Cox Cable
was able to off-set, butlbe cODSultant inlerpreted it differenlly. If Ibe FCC provided a ruling in Ibe City's favor,
Cox Cable would provide Ibe refunds as required to do and would include inlerest retroactively.
Councilmember Rindone stated be bad beard a different respoase from Ms. Murphy Ibm in the report md
questioaed if Cox Cable would refund if the FCC ruled in favor of the positioa expressed by the consultant.
Ms. Murphy responded that OD" the FCC clarified the issue it would be done, Ibe issue would be settled. They
would ei!her rule in favor of the cities or Cox Cable.
COIIDCilmember Rindone questioaed the basis for the 44C reductioa in July.
Ms. Murpby responded that it was Rate Regulatioa 2 which bad been passed in Much. That was a DOW formula,
DeW forms, etc. It was a sepuale issue.
Mutin Aultbaum, 581 "C" Street, Cbula Vista, CA, representing Cbula Vista Cable, stated approximalely 10,000
people livinl in aputments md condominiums were receivinl lower rates tb&D Ibe rest of Ibe residents in Cbula
Vista. By federal law Ibey should be payinl the rale everyone else was payinl. If Ibe $5.00 Ibey were being
subsidixed was spread out over Ibe olber 2/3rd's of the subscribers it would result in about $ 1.50-$ 1.70 reduction
ea manlb for everyone in Cbula Vista. He felt !he coosultant should cbeck into Ibe $5.00 subsidy.
~ 7<~.A
'.
Minutes
JUDe21,l994
Page 7
,.
COUDcilmember Rindone questioned if the consultaDt was aware of the situation described by Mr. Aultbaum.
Mr. Thomson stated that issue UDder the FCC reculatiODS was Dot as clear as other issues. One aspect was clear,
i.e. that by 4/1/93 any contract entered into for multi-family reaidences prior to that period would be llrandparented
whicb would allow them to be Don-uniform. ADy new contract entered into after that date would require that there
be uniform rates tbroullbout a franchise area. There was a provision that there could be different rates for different
typea of reaidences, i.e. an apartment house versus a sinllle family residence. It was then incumbent upon the cable
operator to justify wby those rates were different. He bad requested clarification from the FCC regardmll different
typea of CODtracts and clarification from Coa Cable relluding their CUfTeDt practice. Staff was looking into it.
COUDcilmember Foa stated Council bad been told that Coa Cable bad been charainll customers when dOWDllradinll
their services. He questiODed whether Mr. Aultbaum felt that to be a reasonable charlle.
Mr. Aultbaum responded that it was onerous.
Mr. Thomson stated staff felt it was within the ability of the City to reculate that cbarlle, but in regulating that the
City would have to follow the framework set up by the FCC and Dot look at wbat the profit was or the rate or
return. After review staff felt the cbarge by Coa Cable was reasonable UDder the FCC regulations.
Council member Foa requested that review of charles by Coa Cable for additional outlets, i.e. Cbula Vista's
authority to regulate and what the charles were and Don-staDdardized rates for S\Ibscribers be placed under his
COlDlllCllts at the 7/12/94 meetinll.
.
. Carolyn F. G. Butler. 97 Bisbop Street. Cbula Vista, CA, stated she bad sia pay cbl.llllels and bad been
told the rates were Dot lloing up and requested c1arificatioD.
There beinll DO further public testimony, the public bearing was declared closed.
Mr. Thomson stated the additional outlet issue was considered equipment or service related and was regulated by
the City. It was not dealt with by tbe consultant contract as they focused on the major iSS\les. Staff could look at
that further. The multi-family issue appeared to be within the scope of the City's reculations as it applied to the
basic service rate. To the eatent tha. they had different rates for the CPS tier or the pay-for-view or premium
channels was Dot within the City's scope.
COUDcilmember Moore questioned if the associated equipment included the decoder boaes, remote controls, etc.
Mr. ThOmsoD responded tba. the remote control, basic converter boa, and addressable converter boa was included.
The part not evaluated in detail was the one time charlle in terms of bow mucb time it took their service personnel
to 10 to a bome on an averalle call to cbange an outlet.
RESOLUJ'ION 17545 OFFERED BY COUNCn.MEMBER RINDONE, reaclilll 01 the tat was waived, passed
and approved 4-e-l witb Nader absent.
. Dr. Robert Penner, 681 Thi venue, Cbula Vista. CA, Cbula Vista Port Commissioner, stated the Port
took action on the district financial assis The City of Cbula Vista received $100,000 of fundinll for
various activities.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
.
. Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue. Cbula Vis. A, rep........ting the Chamber of Commerce, updated
Council on the upcoming Chamber activities.
~~
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Pase 4
-"UDcUmember Moore slaled the GMOC
rt was 10 have beeD scheduled for review within the budset period.
Msyor Nader sugSested that the item be tnil
Manager's ColD!Dellts.
d discussed UDder 'Scbeduling of Meetings' UDder the City
.
. . END OF CONSE
NDAR · ·
J'lJBLlC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND nlmINANCES
11. PlJBLlC HEARING REGARDING EXlSI'ING AND PROpOSED RATES AND
CHANGES FOR COX CABLE'S BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. As authorized
by the Fedetal Cable Act of 1992, the City is reviewiDgthe Illtes charged by Cox Cable since 9/1/93 for the Basic
Service Tier of cable television service and associated equipment. Cox Cable bas requested additiODll time 10
review the City's analysis of its Basic Service Tier Illtes and 10 review DeW regulations iaaued by the Fedellll
Communications CommissioD on 3/30/94. Staff recolD!Dellds continuance of the public bearing and approval of the
resolution. (Adminislllltion)
RESOLlITION 17472
TO COX CABLE
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ACCOUNTING ORDER
Jim Thomson, Deputy City MaDlger, stated Cox Cable bad requested that the public bearing be continued UDtil after
6/15/94. Staff recommended the public bearing be opened, public testimoDY taken, and the public bearing continued
until 6/21/94.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public bearing was declared open.
. . Hale Newcomb, 515 Elm Avenue, Cbula Vista, CA, stated a cbarge bad been added in excess of $20.00
10 remove a service and get back 10 IlaDdard service. That bad now been reduced 10 $10.00 but be saw 00 reasoo
for subscribers 10 pay for something taken off their service. If a subscriber declined a service it should be removed
without a charge. He recolD!Dellded that the service reduction charge be eliminated and the reduction of service
down 10 basic be removed completely.
Mayor Nader requested that anyone testifying be notified of future. bearings 00 the item. He also requested that a
summaty of testimooy be given 10 CoUDcil when the item was reheard.
CouncUmember Moore felt the pro's and coo's regarding the Bpe8kers COlD!Dellts should be included when the item
was reheard.
Couoci\member !liDdone did oot believe that the requeats made by Mr. Newcomb ~ under the authority of the
Council and requested clarification by the City AlIomey.
. Mr. Thomson stated it was his underat&Dding that it was an issue that was UDder the City'. regulation and be would
clarify that further with the FCC. The FCC did provide that up 10 $2.00 could be charged for servicea that oouId
be doDe througb a computer tenDiDaI. The service referred 10 by Mr. Newcomb did require a trip out 10 the
~bome.
Counril-mber !liDdone requested that during the interim, Mr. Newcomb be iDfonDed repnting the authority.
. SIeVe CoIIiDs, '''I'.lHD'ing Cox Cable, stated a trUCk roll was oeceasary and UDder the guideliDes they were
aJlowed 10 charge a apecific fee for diSCOllJlection of a particular service. They were working closely with the City
Mana,er'. office.
.
Yf~f
.
..,
May 3, 1994
Page S
.
. CarolYD Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Cbula Vista, CA, requested that TV proerammmg be improved after
10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.
MS (HortonlRinclone) to continue the public bearillll to 'nll~ lUId adoptltesolution 17472.
CouDcilmember Fox requested clarification rej;arding FCC actiOD relating to regulated rervices, i.e. whether that
'applied to municipal regulations or FCC regulations. He questiODed whether the City bad the flexibility to reduce
by 109' or 179'.
Mr. ThOmsoD respoDded that it would be applied to both. The regulations provided that either the FCC or the City
could reduce the rates up to 109' under the old rules and up to 17 9' under the Dew rules or a beoc:hmark Dumber.
whichever was higber. It depeoded on bow high they were in September 1992 compared to nationwide data.
.
Mayor Nader questioned what the legal effect would be of approving the reoolution. He further questiODed if the
approval of the reoolutioD would either lock the City into, or preclude the City from, any action that it would
otherwise take.
Mr. lbOmsoD respoDded that it would enable the City to order refunds retroactive to September I, 1993 if after
making a liDal detennioatioD the Council ordered those refunds. Without taking such actiOD at the meeting, or Dext
weeks meeting, the City would lose the opportunity to retroactively reduce rates. The resolutioD fully enable the
City to have all options available.
VOTE ON MOTION AND RESOLUTION 17472: approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNlCATIONS
.
. CarolYD Butler, Bishop Street, Cbula Vista, CA, thaoked Harlan WilsoD for the iostaIlatioD of a bus
beoch at the corner of First
. Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacio VODue, Cbula Vista, CA, Executive Director of INDWEll..ER, reported on
alternatives of solid waste, lraDSfer, d disposal. S~e bad arranged with Urban Ore IDcorporated to provide
informatioD that was pertinODt to cont t Degotiations for solid waste disposal. She specifically requested
iDformatioD OD lraDSfer facilities. IDformatl would be presented to the Resource CooservatioD CommiSSioD on
5/9/94.
. Mark Whillock, 346 FroDt Street, EI CajOD, A, representing Whillock Contracting, Slated he bad Dot
received the reteDtion held by the City on a project they mpleted for the City. lbe CODtract called for approval
by Council thirty.five days after the CODtract was comple lbe City bad Dot followed through from the very
begiDDiDg of the coDtract through the completion of the projec. It was a waste of the Council's time and his time
to follow-up on contract agreemetllS. He questioned what it to get the City to follow through with their
agreemetllS.
City Attorney Boogaard staled he bad reviewed the OODtract dispute and . he oou1d Dot IpCl&k to the paymetlt,
be aasured CouDcil thal staff was vigilaDt in protecting the iDtereats of the Ci Any disputes that were resolved
lIhauld have beeD reoolved ill mOT of the City in his opinion. There were a lot lema with the project.
Clifford Swanaoo. Deputy Director of Public Works/City EDgiDeer. Slated the reteDtiOD
the FiDance DeparlmeDt that day and FiDance would issue a c:beck on Friday. Staff w
_ if it could be issued earlier.
Mayor Nader req-.cI that at&ff be prepared to report back to CouDcil Dext ~ if the c:beck
by Mr. Whillock by thOD.
.
Y9~~
.
..,
.
.
.
JUN 2 7 199$"
June 23, 1995
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Thomson
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Jim Thomson:
RE: Revised FCC form 1210
Enclosed is Cox Communications revised form 1210 for the period July through September of
1994. This form was originally filed in October of 1994 but has been updated for the FCC's
findings pertaining to Cox's rate appeals and the audit performed by Public Knowledge. The
maximum permitted rate derived by this form is the rate Cox is using to update its basic service
level in August. The allowable four cent FCC regulatory fee will be added to this rate.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
I(~'
(
~
Kevin Morse
Accounting Manager
cc: Steven Collins
~
t-5P
r
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
.
FCC FORM 1210
UPDATING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR REGULATED CABLE SERVICES
"UPDATE FORM"
;;rUN 17
Iff$"
[Commumty Untt Jaentifier (CUilJ) 01 Cable System IlJaLc 01 tonn :submiSSion
CA0319 101311'4
jffame or Cable Operator
COX CABLE SAN DIEGO
l\faihng Address of Cable Operator
5159 FEDERAL BL YD.
ITty talc ,
SAN DIEGO CA 911 05-5486
[l'rame and T1Ue 01 person complel1ng thIS torm:
DALE THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
ITelephone number ax Number
619-166-5410 619-166-5555
Name 01 Local trarichismg Authont)'
~mz 450- CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mailmg Aaaress on::-ocal ttanchlsmg Anthont)-'
FINANCE DEPARTMENT 176 FOURTH AVE.
City tal, ,
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
I
I
~
!!!
-
i
.
Page 1
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
FCC Form 1210
May \994
"-/
r;t-
9-5?
>I
!
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
1. StatUI of FCC Fonn 1200 Filing (enter an "x" in tbe appropriate box)
. A. Is this form being filed along with an FCC Form 1200?
YESI
B. If yo. on..,,,.d "No" 10 l.A., ha, on FCC Fonn 1200 prov;ouoly heen fiI.d ::r' FCC' X
If yes, enter the date filed. 07115194
I(mmfddlyy)
If you are filing this form with your Local Franchising Authority, but have not submitted an FCC Form 1200 to it, a copy of
the previously filed FCC Form 1200 must accompany this form.
C. Has an FCC Form 1200 previously been filed with the Local Franchising Authority?
Ify., entor tho date fi:~1
\(mmfdd/YY)
x
07115194
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
Nol
Nol
x
NOI
If you arc filing this form with the FCC, but have not submitted an FCC Form 1200 to the FCC, a copy of the previously filed form or an
original FCC Form 1200 must accompany this form.
2. Statul.ofP~vious Filing of FCC Fonn 1110 (enter an "x" In tbe appropriate box)
A Is this the frrstFCC Form 1210 filed in any jurisdiction?
YESI
B. If you answered "No" to 2,A., has an FCC Form 1210 previously been filed with the FCC?
Ify., ontorth. date ofth. mo," ",on,fil:sl 07/:51.4
I(mmfddlyy)
.
If you are filing this form with your Local Franchising Authority, hut have not submitted an FCC Form 1210 to it, a copy of
the previously filed FCC Form 1210 must accompany this form.
C. Has an FCC Form 1210 previously been filed with the Local Franchising Authority?
Ify., .ntorth. date ofth. mo," ""nl fil:sl
tmmfdd/YY)
x
07/15/94
Nol
x
Nol
Nol
If you are filingthisfonn with the FCC, but have not submitted an FCC Form 1210 to the FCC, a copy of the previousl)' filed form or an
original FCC Form 1210 must accompany this form.
3.lndl~ate tbe time period forwbl~b tbil fonn II being flied.
From
07/01/94
... Cable Pl'Olrammlng Semcel Complaint StatUI (enter an "x" In tile appropriate box)
A. ls this form being filed in response to an FCC Form 329 complaint?
Ify., ontor tho date ofth. oompl:~1
I(mmfddlyy)
.
Page 2
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
r 9-f7
10
09130/94
I(mmfdd~"y)
Nol
x
FCC Form 1210
May 1994
,
r,..
Federal Corrununications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
Bul,
Tier %
ODULE A' TRANSITION RATES AND FULL REDUCTION RATES FROM PRE~10US FILING OF FCC FORM 1100 OR FCC FORM 1110
Tier 3
Tier 4
TierS
Al
Transition Rate per Tier (previous)
$6.5289
$0.00
A2
Fun Reduction Rate per Tier (Previous)
$7.1193
$0.00
.
.
Page 3
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
~9~37
FCC Form 1210
May 1994
r-il
/.
Federal Conununications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060..Q595
Expires: 4/30/97
MODULE B, CALCULATING CURRENT & NET EXTERNAL COSTS
. b . d .
. Unt Deatrintion Basic: Tlu2 Tier] Tlu4 Tlu!5
Current Extemal Costs
BI Current Programming Costs
Bla Cost of Old Programming per Tier 543,074.7875 $0.00
Bib Cost ofPgming. Shifted from other Tiers $0.00 SO.OO
B1e Cost of New Programming per Tier $0.00 SO.OO
Bid Cost ofPgming. Shifted to other Tiers $0.00 $0.00
BI. Cost ofPgming. Dropped from System per Tier SO.OO SO.OO
.
Blr Total Pgming. Costs per Tier (Bla+Blb+Blc] 543,074.7875 SO.OO $0.00 SO.OO $0.00
B2 CUlTetlt Retransmission Consent Fees $0.00 $0.00
B3 Sum of Current Pgnting. & Retrans. per Tier [Blf+B2] 543,074.7875 $0.00 $0.00 SO.OO SO.OO
B4 Margins: Pgming. & Retrans. per Tier [B3 x .075] $3,230.6091 SO.OO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
B5 Total Pgnting. & Retrans. Costs per Tier [B3+B4] $46,305.3966 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
B6 Taxes per Tier $1,765.5' $0.00
B7 Franchise Related Costs per Tier $0.00 $0.00
B8 Total Current Ext. Costs per Tier [BS+B6+B7] $48,070.9366 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00
~ CUlTetlt Subscribers per Tier 105705. o.
BID CulTent En. Costs per Tier per Sub. [B8 1 B9] $OA548 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Previous External Costs
Bll Previous Programming Cost Adjustment for First Filing of FCC Form 1210
Blla Programming Costs per Tier from Form 1200 $0.00 $0.00
Bllb Margin on 3131/94Prog. Cost [BI la x O.075} $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Bile Subscribers per Tier as of 3/31/94 O. O.
Blld Programming Margin Adjustment [BIlbiBlle] $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
BI2 Retransmission Consent Adjustment foryourFonn 1210 Filing for the period including October 6,1994
BIZa Previous Retransmission Consent Fees per Tier $0.00 $0.00
BI2b Groascd~Up Prevo Consent Fees [B12a x 1.075] SO.OO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
B12e Previous Number of Subscribers per Tier 61643. O.
B12d Retransmission Margin Adjustment [B12b/B12e] $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
B13 PreviousExt. Costs per Tier per Sub. {See Instructions] $0.4618 $0.00
B14 Adj. Prev. Ex\. Costs (Blld+BI2d+B13} $0.4618 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Change in External Costs
15 NetExtcmal Costs-pcrTicrper Sub. (BIO~B141 ($0.007) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
~U; ~onn l~lV
Page 4
Excel4.0 Win., Version 2.0
~~-~c7 /r-~I
May 1994
,.
;.
;>
Federal Conununications Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
ODULE C, NON-EXTERNAL COST ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANNEL CHANGES
.
Bul<
Une Deseri tlon
b
Tlerl
<
Tier 3
d
Tler4
.
TierS
CI
Previous Number of Regulated Channels per Tier
18.
o.
C2
Current Number of Regulated Channels per Tier
18.
o.
C7
Adjustment per Channel [see table}
$0.09
C3 Net Reg. Channel Changes per Tier tC2 - CI}
C4 Sum ofPrcviousChannels [sum Cl 001. a-c)
C5 Sum ofCuttent Channels {sum C2 col. a-e}
C6 Average ofPrcvious and New Channels (C4+C5)12
C8
Non-External Cost Adjustment per Tier IC3 x C7]
$0.00
MODULE D, ADJUSTING TRANSITION RATE FOR CHANGES IN EXTERNAL COSTS AND CHANNEL CHANGES
. b < d .
Un. Une De.erintlon Bul< Tier 1 Tler3 Tier 4 TierS
Dl Transition Rate per Tier {AI} $6.5289 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
D2 Net Change in External Costs per Tier [B I 5] ($0.007) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 Non-External Cost Adjustment per Tier le8] $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 Updated Transition Rate per Tier fDI +D2+D3) $6.5219 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
MODULE E, ADJUSTING FULL REDUCTION RATE FOR INFLATION, CHANGES IN EXTERNAL COSTS AND CHANNEL CHANGES
. b < d .
Un. Une Deseri tlon Bul< Tier 1 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
EI Full Reduction Rate per Tier tA2) $7.1193 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E2 Non-External Cost Adjustment per Tier [Cg} $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E3 Total JUviousExt. Costs pcr Tier per Sub. {B14] $0.4618 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E4 Full Reduction Rate per Tier per Sub. [EI +E2-E3] $6.6575 $0.00
E5 Inflation Adjustment Factor (See Instructions]
E6 Adjusted for Inflation per Tier (E4 xES] $6.8006 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
7 Current En. Costspcr Tier per Sub. (BIO) 50.4548 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E8 Updated Full Reduction Rate per Tier [E6+E7] $7.2554 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
.
Page 6
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
yT 9---t:J-
FCC Form 1210
May 1994
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
DULE F, COMPARISON OF TRANSITION AND FULL REDUCTION RATES
.
IWI<
Une Descri tion
b
Tler1
F2
Weighting Factor [FI col. a-e I FI col. al
J.
o.
< d .
Tier 3 Tler4 TierS
O. O. O.
o. O. o.
$0.00 $0.00 SO.OO
SO.oo SO.OO
FI
Current Subscribers per Tier [B9]
105705.
O.
F3
Updated Transition Rate [D4)
S6.5219
$0.00
F7
Weighted Full Reduction Rate [F2 x F6)
$7.2554
F4
Weighted Transition Rate [F2 x F3)
$6.5219
F5
Aggregate Transition Rate (sum F4 col. a-e]
$6.5219
F6
Updated Full Reduction Rate [ES)
$7.2554
F8 Agg~gate Full Reduction Rate {sumF7 cola-e]
COMPARE LINES F5 AND FS.
IfFS Is larger than n. enter tbe tier rates from Une F3 (your updated transition I'llte) In Une F9 below.
Ifn.. larger than FS, enter the tier I'lltes from Une F6 (your updated full reduction I'llte) In Une F9 below.
S7.2554
F9
Maximum permitted Rate
57.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Note 1: The maximum permitted rate figures do not include franchise fees. The amounts billed to your subscribers will be the sum of the appropriate
permitted rate and any applicable franchise fee.
Note 2: The maximum permitted rate figures do not take into account any refund liability you may have. If you have previously been ordered b)' the Conunission
or your local franchising authority to make refunds to subscribers, you are not relieved of your obligation to make such refunds regardless of whether
.. permitted ",te m'Y b. higher th.n the cont....d ",t. 0' you, current ",t..
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON TillS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S. CODE TITLE IS, SECTION 1001), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 503).
I certify that the statements made in this fonn are true and correct to the best. of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith..
Name of the Cable Operator
Signature
D.te
Title
.
Page 7
Excel4.0 Win., Version 2.0
~ f-k-?
FCC Form 1210
May 1994
;.
.
.
.
Federal Conununications conunission
Washington, D.C. 20554
TABLE A.
Page 8
Approved by: OMB 3060-0595
Expires: 4/30/97
NON-EXTERNAL COST ADJUSTMENT FOR
CHANGES IN CHANNELS
Average Channels Adjustment
From: To: per channel
7 7 $0.52
7.5 7.5 $0.45
8 8 $0.40
8.5 8.5 $0.36
0 9 $0.33
9.5 9.5 $0.29
10 10 $0.27
10.5 10.5 $0.24
11 11 $0.22
11..5 11.5 $0.20
12 12 $0.19
12.5 12.5 $0.17
13 13 $0.16
13.5 13.5 $0.15
14 14 $0.14
14.5 14.5 $0.13
IS 15.5 $0.12
16 16 $0.11
16.5 17 $0.10
17.5 18 $0.09
I8.S 19 $0.08
19.5 21.5 $0.07
2 23.S $0.06
24 26 $0.05
26.5 29.5 $0.04
30 35.5 $0.03
36 46 $0.02
46.5 99 $0.01
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
FCC Form 1210
May 1994
);L/r ~~t {
r
'6
F~~rW ComlllllDic;MjOllJ ConuaiasiOll
Wubinpon, D C 20~~<t
Appnrra!by OMBJll6O.054':l
-""'"'
FORM 1205
DETERMININC RECVLATED EQUlrMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
"EQUlrMENT FORM"
OIIlmllll'~ nil ntl ~Il
..,....
o onn" ,1I10Il
CA0319
&lll~0 ~,
cox CABLE SAN DIEGO
IllI ao IaIOf
51St FEDERAL BLVD,
,"
SAN DIEGO
_ I~ pc"""llOlI'IP~1II IS
DALE THOMPSON. VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE. ADMINISTRATION
".
a., \IlIl I
'19.1...5410
'1"~5555
~" '" "
CITY OF CHVLA VlST A
Mallnl OllleUO ~lilnlA."lho"r.
1" FOL'RTH AVE
'I)" I:~ 1:19I:DO<
CHllLA VISTA.
I. 11IiI............1iIed: IEa,,"".n "a" in dle IIPPAPria......1
Din _1_...;\11 FCC Fonn 1200, FCC Fo,," 1110. Of FCC fonn 12~
A.mdI dle COlIlplcud FCC Form \ZOO, FCC Form 1220. or fCC Form 1225 Uldlc fnlnlllfdlili form
01
mln otdefUl fulfill FCCr'IIlcsftlq\l,rin...__ filinloflhisl"onn
EnlIfdle_DnwhicllyOlllaJlfil~d1ilform I 061)0/94 Il"""'ddI""
._ ""'....."........~............"",.........,_"""FCCF~"'M...pno'fiI"..f~"~~ _......
2. ......4...... wIIidl ,...d...."IU'......,... dle6..,............. ill dail '0,.: 12/]1/94
Nok_ TIliI".;U~dlcCllclof1be IZ-u. fi-'yur......)'OlIlftfih......""'"
ICtuIlIddlYY)
~\7'CO:;:"~......,.-,U.."_I.."'- ..................1
S..~rSIllttpClnUOII
'"aw1llnp
Soll:'~ip
ou.r l'!cuI: hp!alII belowl
.
....'
9/J;3
fCCF_!20$
..."...
F..,..c-___c-miIlliDII
Wuhiftl\Dll.D,C 20SH
~byOMB~9'2
&pi_ 4I)(IW7
.
(5 ,...Iowl
"'.145.11100
13".01000
.
RAMD TOTAL 1_ "'.........crWI1
A Annual 0, ~fDr5\IC,IuWI_"''''''ofEq....
15.4.,.,.....
.
....'
...-rr: ()IMr I. CMIilk Wlor. AulO..-.... __ ~.MiJc. SUIIIIO'I COIl
....,,:Cllblr2.
-')rir
9~i?
PCCF.-I20'
w.y I""
-,
t
,..~ COIIIm~ Commwaon
W..mlll\ll'l. DC. 211554
AppnMd by OMS )06000592
Elqli_4I3OI91
.E C, CAPITAL COSTS 0' LEASED CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT .....~l ~moce] Convene. t Convcm.2 COllvertc,] Oche.EqUl
u' enl ~ocel
B Toul Mai~Sc...iceHourl(AaadlE~IUAUOlll 516) )520 \2414
C Tot.:lI'ofUnlu,nSc".ice 15102) 5"120 171935
D G_BooII.Vallolt $1.490,60300 13.90.260400 S24.6341S3OO
E A~u~n...,~Ol'l S729.'7)4OO C.Ns.moo 512,)30.61700
, tkftmd T...~ 516.JSSOO $111."12400 SU12.lnoo
G NClBook vtJuc: ID.(E"FII 16"1.01400 so 00 so 00 SI.166.)l700 SIO,990.669oo so 00 so 00
H Orouod.UD tt.= of Rctum IFrom Sc:hed A. l.irw: Hl 014"19 \\. \}} ....... .} \.
I Refilm Ollltwel\rllenl G"",_.U" for T,-UI IG" HI S99.13IW62 so 00 so 00 5202.06017301 SI,61!,167 so 00 so 00
J Cu,"",IPRlvilion(or~~ $241.4).400 16S7.111OO S4.105.69200
. .......ua1 c..~ CDJU 11"1) 5).41.1"129462 so 00 so 00 "'9;S6 55,1)0.&59 1000 so 00
L GRAND TOTAL lau..r I..ioM K IOtlriell ....U.,2I,..5oI.
IN....
SCHEDCLE D: A\'ERAGE HOURS PER I!\lSTALLATlON
A A'1' e Hours ~r Un....ilal Henne InnallallOn (1IUdI an e'<t/l.....onl
8 Aye . Hours , Pre.WiRld Home Iluullal>on CIIl:Idl an e""llNUonl
"
C A\'C Hou.. rAddjtionalCoMocuonInNlll&ion.Tu..eoflnitialIluulIMlOllf~ ane lanMionl
'"'
D A
e HQurs r Addlticmal Connccuon lMal1ll&ioft bqU;M
lMallauonCMlach ane lanaIlon)
'"
E OIherlDRallal>on Cb\-hcmT
it\1
Aye HoursPl"~I:Ition(=zh...uplaMtiOl'l.
DO'
Ayt! c Hou.. IrIN1i11ion (aagd, an
'"
hem 3 (Spc(it\',l
Ayt! eHoul"I rlnUl_(~an Jana>anl
'"
.
....'
""p 9~tf?
pec'....1105
...",...
/-'
f.denl CoInmCliCll&ionl CoInmigillll
WuIUaplll. p,C lOSS04
RKSHEET fOR CAl.CULA TlNG .ER....ITTED EQUIPMENT AND INST ALl.A TION CHAReES
STE' A. "....rI St-.....~. 0.1111'
I ,wCoruOflnNll"OllandMain_1Sdledul~A,SO' 11
:z A/lrIIIaIOpcl1llJft E Ifor~~on..dMaift\en_ISdIodul~B.Io,21
3 U (AlllW (Olll:and Opef1IAin E ftln for IlINllabon and Mainlen:ll\g: ILMc 1 .. L,fte 21
CUIlOrfterUlu.pmeftl andlllSUJla&ioft'cl'Cl:l\ e(:w.;w:halln.laro:IUonl
A..aI CUIIDIIIC' ui t1'It ~billU:lIiVlClt II'Id IuWlauon Costs. bdudift C_oflA:ued E.cIu.pmenIILillC) kLint 41
ToW I.Mlor Houn for Mail\lCMltClt MlIllnaAlJ-"", of CuSlDme' u' all IIllI 5efyiCCl 1-" "pl_onl
...... Sc1'\'i~ C r (HSCI (UIIC SII.iM 61
METHOD Of IIl.LlNG FOR INSTALL.ATIONS CrI-" .'." ia 1M .,.,.,......,
~_tril....~'...1IouJ__0IIIbcHSC........ilIU.1
X IMutliIIioubiIW.......d\arJr
.........II"i...a....tt
U.if_ HSC fof a111llMllll>oaa tFIOlIl SIitp A.lilIc 11
OR
A eforlnlulla&iollT
..u...;nodHomclnIlalIa&iCM
.1 HSCll..inr'
a2 A"'l1IIr Houn per Un..'. HolM Inl\al~ tSchc:clulr D. LiM AI
al CIIarIeptrUfI..i..HornrIIlMlIaiOllla11la21
b ~.-jrclll Home lnJWI&IOII
bl HSC ILiM"
b2 A........ Houn pe' Pn:-wi_ Home lnlUJlaion (Sc.h~ule D.Line BI
~) Clw1r pel Pre....,i.. Horne lnNll&lon Iblk b21
.
.....
14'6514
I.
104'6514
"
SoI7051'
065
S4'~14
O.'S
$.4'651'
0.65
$4'651'
025
1476514
'7l
Appn:Md by OMS )060005112
~",,4IJOJ\l'
S57.13733'
~.471.0UOO
S5.534,115
1
S5.53<1,115
110139
14'6514
'"
$)0,1113<1
$351115
PCCF_I:Z~
....,...
-~ f,t-Y
./
Fdtal c-unicllionl Comm.uiCIII
..IIIJWl,D.C_Z05S4
~b)'OMB'06G-0592
Exptra,4f)OI97
l:loll.r'-_, .....10". , . ,
tC.lnI'* 1IrP.,IIe1:v f.r ",dI ,;_nific,n,ly cliflt"'" tv_I Ilcmou: I -, ...~)
l_r.~"'''M""".1C ,,~I"m""'mS""'"',CL'~BI 511>' 0 ,
el1..i_'1 SA76'1. SA76514 $-C7UJC
I Mai--,Scl'\'i~ Cent ILine 10. Une III 1279,1I012n SO 00 SO 00
13 Allllual c:.p;1Al CON lC_' Itdln c.olwnll frgm Sdtc4ulc C, LIne "I S)C~.I72 9462 SO 00 SO 00
.. ToW COfIorR<:molC jUnc 12 + Linc 1)1 S627"H07H SO 00 SO"
" "'llmbe,oIUniUiiIlScl'\'i~ IC do ~_n from khodllle C, Unc Cl 1'1023 0 0
" Unll COlI lUM 14/l..iftc 151 5ol"SJ SO" .."
" ~pc,Mondt tUnc Ifoftl211 SO)46) SO 00 SO"
Ilj'U, 'W'"..rlC._.'-Oft....rter----'O.a . Con":ne'2 ,
lCaI~ .n~..",_h~-,lie...th-."""'-. Con_rl Con_r)
II TOQI MIitIIalI/twStr'wKl= HllIlrs tCom:sp;1fllIl CDIl1mnfrornSdllodulcC.UncBI :mo 1241" ,
" HSCjUnc1 $41451" $47,6SI" $476'14
20 To&al~""'ioeCOflIUIlfIl.19 $167,132.9096 S'91.5.....1..7 SO"
1I NtnualC C~ C , co!wnn fmm Sdledllle C, Une Kl 11'9,"6 1'.130,159 .."
II To&aI C_ofConvcnerjLIIlC 2(1+ Unc211 $1,026.919 16.322,&03 .."
II NllmbcTofllrliuiIl5cn'K:c1 , coIl1111n from SdIodlllc C. LUIC C '6120 171935 ,
ld Un;\COIlIIUIlC22Jl.ine231 1111063 nUllS SO"
" J.a&.cpcrltlOllltl lUIlI:2"'(12l1 $1,501~ 12M" SO'"
STEP [, Ch........ f., Otlwr Lened [quipmenl
21> Tol.ll ~ScNi" Houl5 tCorrc lil c.oh.mn frorn Sdtl:cIIII~ C. Line: 81
27 HSC,Unc7
21 'ToW~Sel'\'lce((t1l ILinc26,.,LlIlC271
29 Annual CoeU IColftlJll'lldln c.olllmn frum Sc:llcdule C. Line Kl
30 Toul COIl of Ellllipmenl IU,", 21+Lim: 2V
II "'um~tofUnll.s,nSCnl"tCom: In c.ohlmnfnlrnSch.eduleC.LincC
32 UnnCllII lLinc)OfLInc311
J) ~pcrNoNh ILlIldU(l111
,
s.tun4
SO"
SO 00
SO'"
o
SO'"
SO"
METHOD or IULLINC fOR CHANGING SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT ",!Me an "." _1M ...,,,,,ri,. b"1
X . N__ CMrac (Emcr* nominlll..... Line 34)
... U.ifrInrr Hourly Service ClwJe
:Ill an 10-. Clwle (EnlCr the Avente Houll fOr (hutl,nl 5c-n.ce TlCfI in ~ne: 36b )
f., Chanlin Semu T~" or _I
omllllll e for CIIan ,n SCNloe TIers
,ov_."ncallILlll JQIcofch ce_ 1~",...'lldtcbo".tMn,~1
OR
H Uniflll'mHourl\'SeI'\'K:cC
OB
~6 ^,e c c for CIIan In Sen'," T.el'li
,'" HSCIJ.inc7,
3flb.A~HoIlrstcla...pScrv>ce TIC"
36c AWCftI~ Cl\alJe for Chanlilll SeN'" Tiers IUne 3"'. Line 36bl
"'"
",
SA7651"
",
.
-,
...."p 9rt.1
PCCf_1205
~'I994
FIIlImlCocnm..-at>ansCamftl~
w~,DC 20)~
TYAi:ETfOR CALCULATINC TOTAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
~CallII&lCorllorl..-l~onIllClM__tScIled"ICA.Bo- II
2 ToWMnUOll r.IlIn lIClfofInNl~.wIMaon_IScIlcdulcB,Bo-21
ToWAMu.alC iulC_ofLnNlIal.iOfl_Main_ull.inc I+Unc21
C\I$lOmCf ui ..... ....llil1ion h l~ IMlF.ionl
AM.... Cl'IIOmcr ul hbilllefl&n<<" lill"".llaliCIII CDIU, Eadud;n CoN of t.c.cd Ul enl
Linc3l1Unc4
6 Toul iwCoNof~Cu_cr I lScIlodulr C. Box 31
7 AIIIIIIIIC_Cf Ul IndlnNlI.w.CoIUIUnc).unc6
. P~rc.cll c AU~ I(l f~ix Aru (_ -.wcuonll
9 AHoc.aaed AnnIYl ul Ind WlalIatiM c....1UrK 7 .Une"
10 Mol\lhh uipmcmed....llallOllCorllU../(llI
II Number ofB_ie SubKribcn in FfMcIlix
12 MOIIUlI;:E;~illlllcnl""'~~oneolt_s.t.cnbeIILirK 10/Line II
13 Infl:ll.ionAdiustmcntF_JSecInM/COOllSI
14 AdIlIRCdMonUlI~ Ul MdItirlalI.--Co&tIlCl'SublcnberILineI2IlLincIJ
.
.
.....
ApptowM by- OMS)Cl6I).OW2
¶' 4IlOI91
157,137.))7
s.s,4tT.04aOO
15.))4.11)
,
1),534.11)
S6.ll31.2"
SI2,412.473
,
SI2.4?l,473
$1,039.1?2.7321
12")2
13m9
,
$.3ISJ9
-'OW~9_?tJ
rcc F_ 120)
..."...
'fccknl c--- -.V'I' c-.n.....
W~DC 20H'
EHEDUU
"__",Il4I...s1,ti...RJ.tn IPmniaod 1,_
I forCableSrMcclnnallaloru
a Houri.' RaIc IS'- A. Une 71 T ""I
b.A_elMlalladonn....es
, IuIaIbtion or Un,.;_ Homn IS~.o Une hll 14765
2 IIul.llaliOll of"",,,* Homa 15'- 8..... 9b) Illn
) ......llIlionofAdclitiorIII C___IlTinte orlAitiII......lIliOllIS- 8. Li~!Iit) 13097
. IulaIlat.ion or A.ddicioMl C....-- ....i,;1\I. ot.. ldaIll~ 8. LiM 9d)1 SU74
5 Cllbr:'IMII~(_;f\IIS'-B.~9d.Ile6.~91
. 1)0,97
. 111.'1
, S3S7.
l Monthl.,o..u.e forw-ofR.clnowCOIluabl!il<:l C.Line 17.GOIl1lftlll_t
a-_ Conuul T-- I SO"
~ConuuIT-2 SO"
k_ Conuut T_) ....
l MOIlull., ChaNe forw-orcOll_' ~ IS,,", D. Litle 2S. colwnlll.-cl
(on_80,T._1 SI51
ConVCIVT Bo. T.. 2 ""
Con~_ Bo. T. l SO"
. Mondlt..n. cfo,~ofOlherE4ui~IS~ E. LiM HI
0tM,J:~ i'Pfll~ftIIS-'''1 1 ....I
, C' e forChan.ln"lie"nfan'lrS~ F. u..:H, lSor)6c1 T "..I
u.eoa COST AND POLICY C1tANGES
tndiCIIC~"""IO"'followinl....-.,',bci......".1hc1PPfUllRll&1roII
~_..._-_..._-_..__...".........~'
2 ~__laliallwilllar____""~IIcrc..-lftapI'
[]]VES
DND
) .,,.......6...thi.ror........~,.ow.......~fOIlC'J'.c..._--..&illIor_IIIoc1&ion...a._art--..Ihc-
ilIdllIllod.lhc~ol..1l..._~dlarps7
8yES(V0II.......a.r.u~.
ND
a.nnCAnON STAnMENT
W1Ll.FUL FA.l.SE STATEMENTS MADE ON THlS FOIlM AlE PUNlSHABLE BY FtNE ANDIOI. IMPIUSONMEN'I"
(U.S. CODE TTTU: II. SEmON 1001 I. A.NO'Ok FOfI.f'EmIU (U.s. CODE. T11LE 47. SEC'nON 50))
ICIIIliI'y""'____. ai. ....._... ____... _oI..ybowMdp IJId belier._..... ill rood faith
N.nc"_ Cabl. 0,... Sip&lrc
C..C"'1c
-
no.
.'"
Vke........ ,.._
.
....'
.....w~ ~_?/
AppftMd by OMB)060.0S92
~..,~1
fCC'-11OS
....,...
'-'I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
.
FCC FORM 1200
SETTING MAXIMUM INITIAL PERMITTED RATES FOR REGULATED CABLE SERVICES
PURSUANT TO RULES ADOPTED FEBRUARY 21, 1994
"FIRST.TlME FILERS FORM"
v'~
'$~
(9$
onunumty mt en ler (
o c esystcm
ate 0 orm Su won
CA0319
ameol
06101194
e erator
cox CABLE SAN DIEGO
Lng A essol e eralOr
5159 FEDERAL BLVD.
l~ S~tc
SAN DIEGO
ame an It e 0 person comp eung IS onn:
CA
91105-5486
DALE THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
e cp one own
ox um
619.166.5410
619.166.5555
1rame 01 L..ocaJ r rancnlS1ng AuUlonly
450 ~mz. C1TI' OF CBULA VISTA
Kliiftng Address 01 Local rranchlS1ng Authonty
FINANCE DEPARTMENT 17' FOURBT AVE.
ell)' [S"l< ZIP <..ooe
CBULA VISTA CA 91910
.
1. Place an "s" In the appropriate box:
A. Is this fonn being filed for the ftrst time anywhere?
YESIX
Nol
B. If you answered "no" to lA.. is this an exact copy of the FCC form 1200 submiued elsewhere')
YESI
Nol
C.1fyou answered "yes" to lB.. enter the date on which the FCC fonn in lB. was filed.
I(mm/ddlyy)
2. Enter the date of tbe rates you a" .eekin& to justify with thi. nlin&:
03/31/94
l(mm/ddIyy)
3. indicate which of tile followlnc forma a" attached by pladn& an "s" In tlae appropriate bu(es):
WFCC Form 1205 "Equipment Form" complct.cd for \he fi.:oal year closing: 12131/93
WFCCForm 1205 "Equipment Form" completed for the fiaca1 ycvclosing:
l(mm/ddIyy)
l(mm/ddIyy)
11/31/91
WFCCForm 1210, "Updatc Form"oovering the period from:
WFCC Form 1215,"A I. Carte Offerings".
04101"4
to
06130/94
l(mm/ddIyy)
Ii
.
Page 1
Excel 4.0 Win., Version 2.0
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
!!!!
..
;
tI--r7 9~?~
H__~:_L-
Federal Conununications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
MODULE A: CALCULATING YOUR MONTHLY REGULATED REVENUES PER SUBSCRIBER AS OF MARCH 31, 1994
.' . b , d ,
Un. D'lcrintion Bul, Tier 1 Tler3 Tier 4 TierS
Al Channels per Tier as of 3/31/94 18. 32.
A2 Subscribers per Tier as of 3/31/94 6163S. 6088l.
A3 SubscribcJ"..Channels per Tier (AlxA21 . 1109430. 1948192 O. O. O.
A4 Sum of Subscriber-Channels (sum AJ col. .-eJ 30S7622. ..
..
AS percentage of Sub.-Channels per Tier [AJ/ A4J 0.3628 0.6372 O. O. O.
A6 Monthly Charge per Tier as of 3/31/94 57.91 514.S1
A7 Subscriber Revenue per Tier (A2x:A6] . $487,Sn.8S 5813,383.31 $0.00 $0.00 SO.OO
Total Subscriber Revenue {sum A7 col. a-e] 51,370,916.16 .... . .,.
A8
, ...
A9 Total Equipment Revenue 85 of 3/31/94 S121,264.68S4
.. .'
AIO Any Franchise Fees included in A8 or A9 SO.OO . .
. - ..
All Total Regulated Revenue IA8+A9-AIOl SI,492,180.84S4
A12 Total Regulated Revenue per Sub. [AIl1A2 col. a} S24.21 . .
"
.
.
Page 2
Excel 4,0 Win" Version 2.0
)hf9-?;J
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
--- - --.--.----.------
-:-'
'1
i
Federal Conununications commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
o If you indicated your March 31, 199.$ CPS rates included all allowable external costs, an "X" will appear in the box to the left.
MODULE B: ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAVl EXTER.''lAL COSTS THROUGH MARCH 31, 199'
. . , d .
Un. Une Desrrintlon Basi, Tint Tler3 Tin 4 TierS
Brginni"1Z Date Extrmal Co.~t Data
Bl Enter Beginning Date (mmJddl)'Y) ISee Instructions) 09127/93
B2 Programming Cost per Ticr on Beginning Date S21,936.421l S196,90l.3084
B3 Taxes per Tier on Beginning Date SO.OO SO.OO
B4 Franchise Related Costs per Tier on Beginning Dale SO.OO SO.OO
Bl Total External Costs pet Tier fB2...B3....B4) S21,936.421l SI96,90l.3084 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO
B6 Subscriben per Tier on Beginning Date 61845. 6\506.
B7 Avg. Ext. per Sub. per Tier on Beginning Date [B,5/86} SO.3l47 $3.2014 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO
March 3/, 1994 External Cost Data
B8 Programming Costs per Tier on 3/31/94 S2l,695.6315 S223,250.627
B9 Taxes per tier on 3/31/94 SO.OO SO.OO
Bl0 Franchise Related Costs per Tier on 3/31/94 SO.OO SO.OO
Bll Total External Costs per Tier ['88...B9....B 10J S2l,69l.631l S223.2l0.627 SO.OO SO.OO $0.00
12 Subscribers per Tier on 3/31/94 1A2} 61635. 60881. O. O.
BJ3 Av@:. Ext. Costs per Sub, per Tier on 3J31/94 SO.4169 $3.667 $0.00 SO.OO SO.OO
Changt in Exttrnal CO,\'Lf
B14 Nct External Costs per Sub per Tier [BI3.B71 $0.0622 $0.4656 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO
B15 Nct External Costs per Tier 1B12 x B141 S3.833.697 S28,346.1936 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO
B16 Total Net External Costs (sum BI5 col. a.eJ S32,179.8906
B17 Avg. Change in Ext. Costs per Sub. IB16/812 col. al SO.l221 ..
.. .'"'
B18 Current Rate without External Costs IA12) S24.21 .
. ......:". .< ,,<
" ,~;<..
B19 Current Rate with External Costs [B17+B181 S24,732\ ' " , .. ....
.
Page 3
Excel 4.0 w;::;r '1-? i
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
vi
Federal Communications Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
DlfYOU indicatcd you qualify as a "Small Operator" an "X" will appear in the box to the left, then skip Module C.
MODULE C, CALCULATI:<G YOUR BENCHMARK USING MARCH 31, 1994 DATA
d
Tier"
.
Tier!
. b .
Un. Une Deleri don Bul. Tier 1 Tier 3
CI Channels per Tier as of3I3t/94IAt] 18. 32.
C2 ~umber of Regulated Non-Broadcast Channels per Tier 11. 32.
C3 Subscribers per Tier as of 3131/94(A2] 61635. 60881.
C4 !'Jumber of Tier Changes in Fiscal Year 93 95.
C5 CenSUS Income Level 33688.
C6 Number of Additional Outlets in Fiscal Year 93 18128.
C7 Number of Remotes Rented in Fiscal Year 93 23753.
C8 7'Jumber of System Subscribers 326353.
C9. Were: you part of an MSO on 3/3 I 194? (l"'Y,O=N) I.
~umber of Systems in your MSO as of 3/31/94 ~;..:.~
C9b 35.
CIO Benchmark Rate $21.0849 .' - _.. ~
o.
o.
o.
o.
O.
......,._~,-,.
,,'.
"~'~~~,~~;~~.:~~tt.,~~ '
.,. ~",'i~--~:\rt::~Y~~~.~~;~~~:
.. C~7:~,{t:.-
'>~~:
.;\~;~;:~:;;:~
.~ ;,-:;:i;-~-;
...../".
- ,. -" .':'.- ...',
.'~f2t~~:~...~;:"' -
COMPARISON OF MARCII3!. 1994 RATE WITH BENCHMARK RATE
IfBI9 (your 3/31/94 rate adjusl.cdfor external changes) is larger than CtO (your benchmark rate), skip ModuleD. and complete Module E,
IfCIO ()'our benchmark rate) is larger than Bt9 (your 3/31/94 rate adjusted for exlcmal changes), complete Module D. and skip Module E.
YOUR CURRENT RATE wITn EXTERNAL COSTS IS ABOVE THE BENCHMARK.
SKIP MODULE D. AND GO TO MODULE E.
.
Page 4
Exce14.0~ 9--7.5
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
--..-.-- --. -..- ._.~_._----
>-",..,
..,
Federal CorrunW1ications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060.{)601
Expires: 4/30/97
D2
~fonthly Equipment Cost per Sub. [From Form 1205)
S2.8191
b
Tier2
TO BE COMPLETED IF LINE BI9 < CIO
. d
Tier) Tier"
MODULE D' RESTRUCTURED MARCH 31,1994 RATES
n.
Une Desert tlon
.
Basi.
Total Regulated Revenue per Sub. (line A121
DJ Monthly Service Revenue per Sub. (01-02)
D4 Number of Subscribers per Tier as of J/3 I f94 (A2)
D5 Total Regulated Service Revenue [DJ x 04. co1. a)
D6
Percentage of Subscriber-Channels per Tier(A5)
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
D7
Regulated Revenue per Tier (05 x 06, eol. a.e)
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
D8
Replated Revenue per Til:T per Sub. (071D41
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
D9
Net External Cost per Tier per Sub. [B14]
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
DI0 Restruct\lred 3/31/94 Rates roS + 09) n/.
If you completed l\'Jodule D, go to Module 1'1 and enter Line DIO, column. a-e, on Line Fl.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
2
Monthly Equipment Cost per Sub. [From Form 1205)
S3.1286
MODl:LE E, RESTRUCTURED BENCHMARK RATES
Un.
Une Dncri tion
.
Buic
EI
Benchmark Rate tCIO)
$21.0849
E3
Benchmark Rate minus Equipment Cost lEI - E21
S17.9563
E4 ~umber of Subscribers per Tier as of 3131/941A2J
E5
Total Regulated Service Revenue IEJxE4. col. a1
SI.l06.736.6821
E6
Percentage of Subscriber-Channels per Tier r A51
0.3628
0.6372
O.
O.
O.
E7
Regulated Revenue per Tier 1E5xE6. col. a-e1
S401.569.2186
$705.167.4636
SO.OO
so.OO
SO.oo
E8 Regulated Revenue per Tier per Sub. 1E71E41 $6.'1'3
If you compleled Module E, go to Module F and enter Une ES, columns a-e, on Line Fl.
$IU827
sO.oo
SO.OO
SO.oo
MODULE F, PROVISIONAL RATE
Fl
Provisional Rate per Tier
I
.
Basi.
56.51531
b
Tier2
Sl1,58271
.
Tier)
d
Tier.
.
Tier!!
Un.
Une Descrintlon
SO.oo I
$000 I
SO.oo
.
Page 5
Exoo14.0 Win., Version 2.0
~ 9-7?
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
l'
"
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
MODULE G, CALCULATING YOUR FULL REDUCTION RATE USING SEPTE~mER30, 1991 DATA
. b
e Une Delcri don Basic Tier 2
.
Tier]
d
Tier"
.
TierS
Gt Subscribers per Tier as of 9/30/92 62624. 62482.
02 Monthly Charge per Tier as of 9/30/92 I4.8S 6.6
03 Subscriber Revenue per tier (01 x 02) $929,966.40 $412,381.20 $0.00
04 Total Subscriber Revenue lsum 03. col. a-e] $1,342,347.60
OS Total Equipment Revenue .5 of 9130/92 $273,413.00
G6 Any Franchise Fees included in G4 or GS above $0.00
07 Total Regulated Revenue (G4+GS-G6] SI,61S,760.60
08 Av@.RegulatedRevenueperSub. (G7/Gl, col. aJ $2S.801
09 Adjusted for 17'% Competitive Oiff. (08 x .83) $21.4148
GtO Avg. Reg. Rev. with Inflation to 9130/93 (G9 x 1.03J $22.0S73
MODULE H, ADJUSTMENTS FOR CHANNEL CHANGES FROM SEPTEMBER 30,1991 TO THE
EARLIER OF THE DATE OF INITIAL REGULATION OR FEBRUARY 18, 1994
Un.
Une Deleri tlon
.
Bul.
b
Tier 2
.
Tier]
d
Tier"
.
Tier!
S~plember 30. J992 Dala
H2
Subscribers to the System as of 9130/92
322S42.
Total Regulated Channels 9/30/92
H3
Total Regulated Satellite Channels a5 of 9130192
37.
Dalafrom the Earlie,. of Ihe DOll' of In ilia} Rl'flUlation or Fl'bruary 28, J994
H7 Total System Regulated Satellite Channels
H4 Enter the Start Date (See Instructions]:
HS Total Regulated Channels
H6 Subscribers to the System
djrutmenl for Channel Changl's
OrolS Full Reduction Rate (GIO xH8)
H8 Adjultment Factor from Benchmark Fonnula
119
$22.2309
.
Page 6
Excel 4.0 Wm., Version 2.0
~ 9-7l
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
::
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
MODULE I, RESTRUCTURED FULL REDUCTION RATE
n.
Une Des,,'; tion
Approved by: OMB 3060-0601
Expires: 4/30/97
.
Bulc
11
Gross Full Reduction Rate [H91
b
Tier 1
.
12
Monthly Equip. Cost per Sub. (From Fonn 12051
.
Tier 3
S22.2309
S2.8191
S19.4118
61635.
SI,I96,447.9284
0.3628
0.6372
O.
O.
O.
13
Full Reduction Rate 111.121
S434,120.1186
$762,327.8098
SO.OO
SO.OO
SO.OO
14
Subscriben per Tier as of3131/941A2)
S7.0434
SI2.'216
SO.OO
SO.OO
SO.OO
15
Regulated Revenue (13 x 14. co!. a I
Dala from the Earlier of .he Datr of Initial RrgulaJion or Fdruary 28. } 994
.
16
Percentage of Subscriber-Channels IA5}
17
Regulated Revenue per Tier 115 x 16 col. a-e}
18
Regulated Revenue per Tier per Sub. '17114, col. a.e)
19 Enler Start Date (mmiddlyy) (see lnstrUctionsl
110 Progranuning Cost per Tier at Start Date
111 Taxes per Tier at Start Date
112 Franchise Related Cost.s per Tier at Start Date
113
Total External Costspcr Tier (110+111+1121
114 Subscribers per Tier at Start Dale
I'
Avg Ext Costs per Sub per Tier at Start Date 1113/114)
Change in Ex.ernal Costs
116
Avg. Ext. Costs per Sub, per Tier as of 3131/94 [B131
117
Net Externals per Tier per Subscriber 1116.1151
118
Full Reduction Rate T Externals (I8+1171
Page 7
--------------
09/27/93
S21,936.4215 SI96,905.3084
SO.OO SO.OO
SO.OO SO.OO
S21,936.421 , SI96,905.3084
61845. 61506.
SO.3547 $3.2014
SO.OO
SO.OO
SO.OO
SO.OO
so.OO
so.OO
SO.4169
S3.667
SO.OO
so.OO
SO.OO
SO.0622
SO.4656
so.OO
SO.oo
SO.OO
S7.1056
SI2.9872
so.OO
SO.oo
SO.OO
Excel 4.0 ;;:;;-0 ~ __ ? ;/'
FCC Form 1200
May 1994
._-_.-_.--_._~--' .--.------ ~---
Federal Communications Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Approved by: OMS 3060-0601
Expires: 4130/97
MODULE J, COMPARISON OF PROVISIONAL RATE WITH FULL REDUCTION RATE
t Unt Dts~ri tlon
. b . d .
Bule Tier 1 Tlu3 Tltr4 TIerS
61635. 6088!. O. O.
I. 0.9878 O. O. O.
86.5153 811..1827 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
86.5153 $11.441 80.00 $0.00 $0.00
11 Subscribcnper Tier as of 3131194 fA2]
12 Weighting Factor (11 co!. a-e I 11 001. a]
n Provisional Rate [FI]
J4 Weighted Provisional Rate In x n]
J8 Aggregate Full Reduction Rate {sum 17 col a-el
COMPARE UNES J5 AND J8.
If JS is larger than J8, enter the amounts from Line J3 (your provisional rate) in Line KI below.
If J8 is targer than JS, enter the amounts from Line J6 (your full reduction rate) in Line KI below.
JS ABgregate Provisional Rate (sum J4 001. a-e)
J6 Full Reduction Rate (1I8)
17 Weighted Full Reduction Rate (J6 x 12]
MODULE K, MAXIMUM PER.'IfITED RATES BY TIER
KI
MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES
I
s7111
SI2.99 1
$0.00 I
$0.00 I
$0.00
Note I: The maximum permitted rate figures do not include franchise feeL The amounl.S billed to your IUbscriben will be the aun. of the appropriate
permitted rate and any applicable franchise fee.
.ote 2: The maximum permitted rate figures do not take into account any refund liability you may have. If you hIVe previously been ordered by the Commission
your local franchising authority to make refunds to subscribers. you arc not relieved of your obligation to make such refunds regardless of whether
the permitted rate may be higher than the contested rate or your current rate.
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S. CODE TITLE 18, SECTION 1001), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 503).
I certify that the statements made in this form arc true and COl1"CCt to the best of my know1cdlc and belief. and arc made in lood faith.
Name of the Cable Operator
Sipaturc
Dale
Titlo
.
Page 8
Exce14.0 Will., Version 2.0
~ 9~?1
FCC Fonn 1200
May 1994
'~--.-----'-'
:-".
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item It?
Meeting Date 7/11/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution 199'11 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for
"Re-roofing Public Services Building at 276 Fourth Avenue in the City
of Chula Vista, California (GG-147)"
01""", of ]>"bl;, wo~ rn/
City Manage~j(~ ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on June 21, 1995 in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received bids for "Re-roofing Public Services Building at 276 Fourth
Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California (GG-147)." The project involved localized deck
reattachment/repair/replacement, installation of roof insulation, new cold process built up
roofmg system, gravel surface, new drains, special flashing and accessories.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award contract to Bryant Universal -
El Cajon in the amount of $68,787.00.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for this project are budgeted in the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget. The purpose of the project is to remove and replace all flat roof materials on the
Public Services Building. Over the past four years, numerous leaks have developed on the flat
roof areas. City crews and contractors were unable to adequately repair this roof. Core
samples indicated deteriorated roofing felts and that there were only two plys of material on
portions of the roof. Existing roofing materials contain asbestos, which should be removed
rather than recovered.
Bids for this project were received from five contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Bryant Universal - El Cajon $68,787.00
2. Nelson Roofing, Inc. - Escondido 71,550.00
3. Striker Roofing, Inc. - Escondido 73,791.00
4. Roejack Roofing, Inc. - El Cajon 79,760.00
5. Lakeside Roofmg, Inc. - Lakeside 101,924.00
The low bid by Bryant Universal - El Cajon is below the Engineer's estimate of $88,900 by
$20,113 or 22.6%. Staff received an excellent bid for the proposed work. Staff has reviewed
the low bidder's qualifications and references to do the work and found them to be satisfactory.
Staff, therefore, recommends the contract be awarded to Bryant Universal - El Cajon.
/Il' /
Page 2, Item / tl
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy of the contractor's disclosure statement (Exhibit A).
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
determined that the project is a Class I exemption under Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act requirements.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is Residential Construction Tax Funds. Contractors
bidding this work were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for
the work under this contract. No special minority or women owned business requirements
were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to
bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications.
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $68,787.00
B. Contingencies (Approximately 10%) 6,913.00
C. Staff (Design and inspection) 5,500.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $81,200.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Reroofing of Public Services Building (GG-147) $81,200.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $81,200.00
FISCAL IMPACT: The award of this contract represents an expenditure of $81,200 in
Residential Construction Tax Funds in the 1995/96 CIP budget. Construction of this project
will eliminate the leaking roof in the Public Services Building and prevent the possible damage
to equipment and drawings. Overall City maintenance will be reduced because City forces will
not need to spend an excessive amount of time trying to fmd leaks in the existing roof.
Attachment A: Contractor Disclosure Statements
SLH:GG-147
m:\home\enginecr\agenda\roofbids.sll1
1~~,2
RESOLUTION NO. /? 90/9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR liRE-ROOFING PUBLIC SERVICES
BUILDING AT 276 FOURTH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (GG-147)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 21, 1995 in Conference 2 in
the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works received
the following five bids for lire-roofing Public Services Building at
276 Fourth Avenue in the city of Chula vista, California (GG-147)":
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Bryant Universal - E1 Cajon $68,787.00
2. Nelson Roofing, Inc. - Escondida 71,550.00
3. striker Roofing, Inc. - Escondida 73,791.00
4. Roejack Roofing, Inc. - E1 Cajon 79,760.00
5. Lakeside Roofing, Inc. - Lakeside 101,924.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Bryant Universal - El Cajon is
below the Engineer's estimate of $88,900 by $20,113 or 22.6% and
staff has reviewed the low bidder's qualifications and references
to do the work and found them to be satisfactory and, therefore,
recommends the contract be awarded to Bryant Universal - El Cajon;
and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that
the project is a Class 1 exemption under section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act requirements; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is
Residential Construction Tax Funds and contractors bidding this
work were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed
by them for the work under this contract; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, but
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade
publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. That the City Council of the City of Chula
vista concurs in the determination that this project is
categorically exempt under Class 1 of the California Environmental
Quality Act, and directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to
JtI'3
c\
v
file, or ratify the filing of, a notice of exemption for this
project.
section 2. That the city council does hereby accept the
bid of Bryant Universal as responsive.
section 3. The city council awards the contract for "re-
roofing Public Services Building at 276 Fourth Avenue in the City
of Chula Vista, Ca. (GG-147)" to Bryant Universal in the amount of
$68,787.00, the lowest responsible bidder which submitted a
responsive bid to the approved specifications.
section 4. The Mayor of the City of Chula vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~ 'Y1;U~~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, ci y
Attorney
C:\rs\reroof.psb
Itl,Jj
THE CITY OF CllliLA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~~l.tl~/T
A
(ou are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions,
on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
n/;;:tj
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all'individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
n/a
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as tfl!Stee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
n/a
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
. committees. and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ NoXlL If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you
have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
n/a
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or prec...!hlg election period? Yes _ No~ If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date:
6-21-95
" " " (NOTE: Attached additiO~1;);;"
Signature ~ntractor/App~
Douqlas H. Kinq - General Manager
Print or type name of Contractorl Applicant
" l!mm1 is d~ as: .Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint ventUre. association, social club. fraternal organizJJtion,
corporation, estate, trUSt. receivet', syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipaUty, district, or other poUtical
subdivision. or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
13
/~'..5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Ij
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution 179 5'C Waiving immaterial defects, accepting bids
and awarding contract for "Cons tion of Elm Avenue Alley
Improvements between Cypress Street d Madrona Street in the City of
Chula Vista, California (STL-210)".
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public Wor~
City Manager~ ,~
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
At 2:00 p.m. on June 14, 1995, in Conference Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received bids for "Construction of Elm Avenue Alley Improvements
between Cypress Street and Madrona Street in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-21O)."
The project involves installation of portland cement concrete (PCC) alley paving, PCC alley
approaches, sidewalk ramps, asphalt concrete paving, excavation and grading, preservation of
property and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Waive minor irregularities in low bid (lack of submittal of notarized affidavit and of
disclosure statement).
2. Accept bids and award contract to Star Paving Corporation - San Diego, in the amount
of $24,937.20.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
A majority of the affected property owners signed a petition to form a special assessment
district (93-01) to fmance construction of these improvements. This assessment district was
approved by the City Council on May 16, 1995. The City is financing the construction costs
and will be reimbursed by the property owners through collection of assessment installments
with their property taxes.
Bids for this project were received from ten contractors as follows:
//-J
Page 2, Item / /
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Star Paving Corporation - San Diego $24,937.20
2. Fox Construction - San Diego $29,116.00
3. Gypsy Queen Inc.- National City $32,385.00
4. Frank & Son Paving Inc.- Chula Vista $36,080.40
5. Carolyn E. Scheidel Contractor - La Mesa $36,664.00
6. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista $36,960.00
7. Marquez Constructors, Inc. - Spring Valley $37,012.50
8. Hammer Construction Company - Chula Vista $41,123.60
9. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $42,361.00
10. Interwest Pacific Ltd. - San Diego $47,134.80
The low bid by Star Paving Corporation - San Diego is below the Engineer's estimate of
$39,375.00 by $14,437.80 or 36.7%. Staff received an excellent bid for the proposed work.
Staff has worked with the personnel from this firm and their work has been satisfactory. We
therefore recommend that the contract be awarded to Star Paving Corporation.
Star Paving Corporation did not submit with its bid the affidavit to accompany the proposal
and the City of Chula Vista's Disclosure Statement. Attached is a letter of explanation from
the contractor along with the completed forms (see Exhibit A). Because the lack of these
documents did not provide an advantage to the low bidder, staff recommends waiving the
minor irregularity.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
determined that the project is a Class I exemption under Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act requirements.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is the Transportation Partnership Fund. Contractors
bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them
for the work under this project. No special minority or women business owned requirements
were necessary as part of the bid document. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid
through the sending of the notice of contractors to various minority trade publications.
11~;2
II"
Page 3, Item /1
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $24,937.20
B. Staff (Design and Inspection) 16,000.00
C. Material Testing 500.00
D. Contingencies (Approximately 10%) 2,562.80
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $44,000.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Alley Improvements - Elm Avenue - Cypress Street to $44,000.00
Madrona Street (STL-2l0)
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $44,000.00
The design and inspection charges on this project are higher as a percentage than normal
because of the following reasons. First, because a fairly detailed amount of work is needed
to prepare any set of plans, and the project is relatively small, the staff costs at full cost
recovery rates will be a larger percentage than on larger projects. Second, Engineering staff
had to work closely with the affected community and spend more time, as a percentage of the
project cost, in community meetings. Finally, this is an assessment district project which
requires more staff time to set up than other projects funded directly by the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Construction of this project will improve an existing dirt alley with PCC
pavement, thereby eliminating the need for the City maintenance personnel to occasionally
grade the alley. Overall City maintenance on this alley will be reduced by the improvements
being installed. The award of this contract represents an expenditure of budgeted CIP funds.
The construction costs less the staff costs will be reimbursed by the property owners in the
assessment district. The staff costs of approximately $16,000 are covered by the Council
policy on participation with property owners in assessment districts and is funded from the
General Fund.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Letter of explanation from contractor and accompanying documents
A. Affidavit to accompany proposal
B. City of Chula Vista Disclosure statement
SH:dh
(M:\home\engineer\agenda\S1L210)
STL-210-6
//-:5 f;-f
!r'\
'..--1'
RESOLUTION NO.
/795d
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS,
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
"CONSTRUCTION OF ELM AVENUE ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN CYPRESS STREET AND MADRONA STREET IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (STL-210)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 14, 1995, in Conference
Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following bids for "Construction of Elm Avenue
Alley Improvements between Cypress Street and Madrona Street in the
City of Chula Vista, California (STL-210)":
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Star Paving Corporation - San Diego $24,937.20
2. Fox Construction - San Diego $29,116.00
3. Gypsy Queen Inc.- National City $32,385.00
4. Frank & Son Paving 1nc.- Chula Vista $36,080.40
5. Carolyn E. Scheidel Contractor - La Mesa $36,664.00
6. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista $36,960.00
7. Marquez constructors, Inc. - Spring Valley $37,012.50
8. Hammer Construction Company - Chula Vista $41,123.60
9. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $42,361.00
10. Interwest Pacific Ltd. - San Diego $47,134.80
WHEREAS, the low bid by Star Paving Corporation - San Diego is
below the Engineer's estimate of $39,375.00 by $14,437.80 or 36.7%
and staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Star Paving
Corporation; and
WHEREAS, Star Paving Corporation did not submit with its
bid the affidavit to accompany the proposal and the City of Chula
vista's Disclosure Statement as set forth in a letter of
explanation from the contractor along with the completed forms (see
Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, because the lack of these documents did not
provide an advantage to the low bidder, staff recommends waiving
the minor irregularity; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that
the project is a Class I exemption under section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act requirements; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is the
Transportation Partnership Fund and contractors bidding this
project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons
employed by them for the work under this project; and
//~5
WHEREAS, no special minority or women business owned
requirements were necessary as part of the bid document, however,
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
of the notice of contractors to various minority trade
publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the city Council of the City of Chula
vista concurs in the determination that this project is
categorically exempt under Class 1 of the California Environmental
Quality Act, and directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to
file, or ratify the filing of, a notice of exemption for this
project.
section 2. That the City Council does hereby accept the
bid of Star Paving Corporation Universal as responsive and waive
minor irregularities in low bid (lack of submittal of notarized
affidavit and of disclosure statement).
Section 3. The City Council awards the contract for
"construction of Elm Avenue alley improvements between Cypress
Street and Madrona Street in the city of Chula Vista, Ca. (STL-
210)" to Star Paving Corporation in the amount of $24,937.20"the
lowest responsible bidder which submitted a responsive bid to the
approved specifications.
Section 4. The Mayor of the city of Chula vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ity
C:\rs\STL210
//~t
.f'i.HI~I-r
f\ ,.., .\
'-'
i.
STAR PAVING CORPORATION
2385-A Cactus Road
San Die~o, Calif. 92173-4006
(619)661-1612
FAX (619)661-6442
June IS, 1995
City of Chula Vista
c/o Shale L. Hanson
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Calif. 91910
RE: <DNSTlUJCTI~ OF ALLEY IMl'IlOVI!JDNI' li1<<II "J" S'l1lEET TO
KEARNEY S'l1lEET BmWEm EIJA AVEMJE AND SJOCDID AVEMJE
IN '11fE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIF<JlNIA (STL-220)
Dear Mr. Hanson;
Please except lIlY apolOR'Y lor any inconvenience lIlY oversidlt in havilllt
enclosed the proper AFFI~VIT FalM as required by your departJBent in
referenced to the above captioned project.
Enclosed you will find the proper doCtDellts, and ask for the opporbmity
to -.d our error and have the contract awarded to our Ii....
It has been a pleasure working with the City of Chula Vista in the past,
I truly hope we can continue working t~ether.
Respectfully Yours,
resident
JFJ/rch
//-7
AFFIDAVIT TO ACCOMPANY PROPOSAL
USE THIS FORM WHEN BIDDER IS A CORPORATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS.'
COUNTY OF SIJAI 0/Ef,o )
-
-
-
.
J):} VI Hf1 _ l 77ME?VE~
,- .
, affiant, the _vlc?..E ;:>.t'.c.:O..DEN~ - H4V~/No/
President, Secretary, or Managing Officer tP,t::F/<!E~
-
-
-
of
orM Jll1l1/N~ &-\fXtC'/9T/;N
Name of Corporation
-
-
-
-
l
the corporation who makes the accompanying proposal, having been first duly sworn, deposes and
says: that such proposal is genuine, and not sham or collusive, nor made in the interest or in behalf
of any person not therein named, and that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or
solicited any other bidder to put in a sham bid, or any other person, fmn, or corporation to refrain
from bidding and that the bidder has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure for
himself/herself an advantige over any other bidder:
C -\0"'-"- 'V)~
Signature
PFesident, Secretary, or Managing Officer
iiii
-
-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS.
COUNTY OF )
On before me, personally
appeared, Dally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the (s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to m the/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/h ir signature(s) instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the pers acted, executed, the ins t WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(This Area for Official Seal)
\' $EF
A T1fJC' /-1 ED
-,'Ir- - CAJ-; I(
It (!,IC/y {) lULC IJf..-( t:. In ot' ~
J;' 8"
m:\.. .CON11lAC'NKemeAl,y .32<Boi1cr.MiD)
14
( ~<.
....
AFFIDAVIT TO ACCOMPANY PROPOSAL
USE THIS FORM WHEN BIDDER IS A CORPORATION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA) SS.'
COUNTY OF Sillv' 0iEf,o
)
J/lVI&". lTJMENE~
t. .
, affiant, the --0u ;J,eL6:fADENf - n~~/IV~
President, Secretary, or Managing Officer {/J,t::F/(!E,e
of
0"rM fl.4l1//v<? t!o~()e~/9T/;N
Name of Corporauon
the corporation who makes the accompanying proposal, having been first duly sworn, deposes and
says: that such proposal is genuine, and not sham or collusive, nor made in the interest or in behalf
of any person not therein named, and that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or
solicited any other bidder to put in a sham bid, or any other person, finn, or corporation to refrain
from bidding and that the bidder has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure for
himself/herself an advanta'ge over any other bidder:
,
ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of CAc..1R"JtY"i4 }
CountyOf.5'4d ~/~(;,t. .
r.1.G;Jf"7 . &R7E/VJil9 1/?Kh.No7.4,i'Y fluflLjc!-,
On [) : I OA~ . before me, . NAME. Tm.E OF OFFICER. E,G.. . JANE DOE. NOtARY PUBLIC"
personally appeared 'J'II v / ~;e. J; ;, G1'..{E(\) OF SIGNERIS)
J:ilnArsonally known to me. OR. 0 (3F8vedte me 311 11.6 ~;i;t "". ~al;~f'a",'ull 6.ri16006
~~ to ':'11 tile lIereell(s) whose nam~~
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that $/~/t)l(Y
executed the same in 4!])/bU/~r
authorized capaclty~), and that by
tfil&'~/1II@tr signature" on the Instrument
Ule personte), or the entity upon behaK of
which the persontll1 acted, executed the
instrument.
_ OITICIAL SE~.L
~r Hortensia Torres
~ . NOTARY PL8.IC . CALIFORNIA
IAN DIEGO COUNTY
u,eamm. ElIpI'" Aug B.1895
anQoffi'
No.S179
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
o INDIVIDUAL
~IIPORATE
OFFICER(S)
m.E(SI
o PARTNER(S) 0 UMITED
o GENERAL
o AnORNEY-IN.FACT
o TRUSTEE(S)
o GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
o OTHER:
,
:ic
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTlTYIIES)
.5'TJtue VA-,) //1/,11
(i-f) i? fJ,(J J-2.tJ I/O J
ATTENTION NOTARY: A1lhough Iho inlonnalio
THIS CERTIFICATE
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBEDAT RIGHT: / I ~
SIGNATURE OF
tad baIow II OPTIONAL, II could I ~audulant_nl 01 thIa cortlll_ .. an unauthorizod documant
Tille or Type of Document fJrPIJ'JLJ vir -rf) /i(l(Um1JJAN/ fJrr.{l/J~'-
Number of Pages 3 Date of DocumentO~ - / 'f - 9~
Signer(s) Other than Named Above
04 . ~-- Patk CA 91304-7104
01B92NATIONAl NOTARY ASSOCIATION. B236 RammetA.... P.O. Bo. 71-~m' _
.n.c:. \......1 VI' \....D.U....1t. 'L311t. UL3LLVl3lJJ\& 131It.l~l'ml'ljl
You are required to file a Stalemenl of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions,
on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or lbe Contract
, e.g.. owner, applicant, Contractor. subcontractor, malerial supplier.
KA~/)EI Jkr,JI/ ,4N:D€ Z
- ,
. ;;;v'/~ t.l7mENF7
2. If any person" idemjfied pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list lbe names of all individuals owning more
than 10% of lbe shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interesl in the partnership.
~A1i/EI Ilet:N/W.DF2
,
tMl//E'/e. U/,MG/o/E Z
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, listlbe names of any person serving as
director of lbe non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
//
/
4. Have you had more than $250 wonb of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past rwelve month? Yes _ No .x If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you
have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
.
LMlliiOR- U/MEtv'EL
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1 ,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No X If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date: W/\/c
· · · (NOTE: Attached additillll;8I pales as ....._Gry) · · ·
/'fJ9Q-F C ~"QQA- <J';"".A~
' Signatore of Contractor! Applicant
t 7:41// e1f" all'I1L.-::'N~Z
Print or type name of Contractor! Applicanl
" fn:JJJ!J. is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraterrwl organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
/I~/?J
15
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
/:2
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Resolution /795/ Authorizing Mayor to sign a letter to the Chair of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Regarding the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work
REVIEWED BY: City Manageu~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No.xJ
The current NPDES permit (RWQCB Or er No. 90-42), which is a waste discharge permit regulating
discharges from municipal storm water conveyance systems in San Diego County, will expire on August
10, 1995. At that time, the RWQCB is scheduled to adopt a new order and five-year permit, which is
currently referred to as RWQCB Tentative Order No. 95-76. At the February 14, 1995 meeting, the
Chula Vista City Council passed Resolution Nos. 17808 and 17809 approving the City's Fiscal Year
1996/2000 NPDES Storm Water Quality Management Plan/Permit Application to the RWQCB and
approving the City's participation in a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the Regional Storm
Water Quality Management Plan in San Diego County. At the direction of RWQCB staff, a guidance
document known as the "Mumley Memo" was used to develop the City's application and plan.
However, on May 19, 1995, the RWQCB issued Tentative Order No. 95-76, which is not based upon
the Mumley Memo or the Co-Permittees' Regional Storm Water Quality Management Plan/Permit
Application. Further, City staff believes that Tentative Order No. 95-76 is not in line with the purpose
and intent of the federal regulations, will relegate State responsibilities to Cities, may unreasonably
expose Co-Permittees to citizen lawsuits, and will be prohibitively costly to implement.
In response to Tentative Order No. 95-76, staff has prepared the attached letter from the Mayor to the
Chair of the RWQCB outlining the City's concerns and requesting that the RWQCB direct its staff to
withdraw Tentative Order No. 95-76, evaluate the NPDES Municipal Permit renewal process, and work
with San Diego County Co-Permittees to develop a reasonable and implementable permit.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing Tentative Order
No. 95-76 and requesting modification thereto.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Tentative Order No. 95-76 includes a number of onerous and/or unnecessary provisions that go beyond
the purpose and intent of the federal regulations. These provisions will take the storm water program
in a direction that is not in line with the federal regulations. More importantly, a number of provisions
contained within Tentative Order No. 95-76 will be costly and time-consuming to implement, will be
wasteful of City staff and fmancial resources, and will not result in significant pollutant reductions or
/,2 - /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7/11/95
/2..
benefits to receiVing water quality. Still other provisions represent an attempt by RWQCB staff to
relegate its responsibilities to Co-Permittees. These provisions include, but are not limited to:
1. The implementation of numerous mandatory storm water quality management measures without
regard to potential water quality benefits, existing data, priority, or cost. City staff estimates that
the annual cost to implement direct NPDES activities in the City of Chula Vista may double or
triple to approximately $500,000 to $750,000 annually.
2. A burdensome analysis and certification by each agency's legal counsel of local storm water,
grading, and other ordinances that demonstrate legal authority to implement and enforce each of
the key regulatory requirements contained in the federal regulations. This requirement is
unnecessary and repetitive of several hundred hours of City staff work performed under Order No.
90-42 in developing the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. City
staff resources would be better utilized in concentrating on other aspects of the storm water
program.
3. Performing special monitoring of all classes offederally exempt discharges to determine whether
or not these discharges should be prohibited on a case-by-case basis. This requirement will cost
Co-Permittees several hundred thousand dollars to implement. The federal regulations, by
conditionally exempting these categories of discharges, recognizes the relatively insignificant
impact that these discharges have on water quality impairment in comparison to other urban
discharges. Further, it is incomprehensible that the RWQCB would require Co-Permittees to
perform monitoring of these minor discharges while agriculture, which is the largest single
nonpoint source of pollutants causing water quality impairment in the United States, has an
across-the-board exemption from NPDES regulations.
4. Reviewing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) developed by business and industry
in conjunction with State NPDES General Permits. This requirement alone will cost the City of
Chula Vista $60,000 to $100,000 annually. The State appears to be simply trying to compel
municipalities to carry out the State's administrative and enforcement responsibilities, while the
State "pockets" NPDES General Permit fees.
5. Requiring Co-Permittees to develop specific best management practices (BMPs) that must be
implemented by all businesses and industries. The State's NPDES General Permits do not
mandate specific BMPs for dischargers unless a violation has occurred. Implementing this
requirement will require Co-Permittees to become educated and knowledgeable about literally
thousands of business and industrial processes and practices in order to develop effective business-
specific and industry-specific BMPs. The State NPDES General Permits recognize that
dischargers are better able to select the most effective BMPs and we believe that this philosophy
should also be applied to our new permit.
Also, a number of the provisions contained within Tentative Order No. 95-76 are ambiguous and appear
to be designed to protect the RWQCB from potential citizen lawsuits, while unreasonably exposing the
/ .2 - .2..
,.
Page 3, Item / .2...
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Co-Permittees to such lawsuits. This is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that RWQCB staff has
impeded progress on the NPDES storm water program in San Diego County over the past five years
because of its inability to provide substantive review comments to the Co-Permittees in a timely manner
and because of RWQCB staffs inability to give clear, unambiguous direction to the Co-Permittees. It
must be noted that the RWQCB Executive Officer's review comments on the City's first eight
compliance reports covering the period between July 1990 and July 1994 were not received until January
18, 1995, which was the day after the Co-Permittees submitted their permit renewal application.
Staff has prepared the attached letter from the Mayor to the Chair of the RWQCB outlining the City's
concerns and requesting that the RWQCB direct its staff to withdraw Tentative Order No. 95-76 from
consideration at their meeting of August 10, 1995, evaluate the NPDES Municipal Permit renewal
process, and work with San Diego County Co-Permittees on an implementable permit.
The official 45-day public comment period ended on July 7,1995. RWQCB staff will incorporate public
comments, as they deem appropriate, into the final draft Order to be considered at the August 10, 1995
RWQCB meeting. Because the RWQCB might not withdraw Tentative Order No. 95-76 as requested
in the attached letter, Engineering staff has forwarded specific, detailed comments to the RWQCB on the
Order to assure that these comments become part of the public record and are responded to in writing
by RWQCB staff.
FISCAL IMP ACT: If Tentative Order No. 95-76 is implemented in its present form, the costs for City
implementation of its responsibilities under the Storm Water Quality Management Program will increase
significantly. The FY 1994-95 NPDES budget was approximately $440,000, of which staff estimates
approximately $260,000 was expended. The average annual cost to the City for implementation of the
NPDES Program under Order No. 90-42 was approximately $265,000 between FY 1992-93 and FY
1994-95. In preparing the Storm Water Quality Management PlanlPermit Application approved by Chula
Vista City Council Resolution No. 17808, staff estimated that the City's annual costs between FY 1995-
96 and FY 1999-00 would range from about $405,000 to $425,000, which represents an increased
financial commitment of approximately 60% over the City's expenditures under Order No. 90-42. Under
Tentative Order No. 95-76, future budgets could vary between $500,000 and $750,000 per year,
depending upon the Order's interpretation.
It must be noted that failure to comply with any aspect of an NPDES Permit could result in the
imposition of up to $25,000 per day fines by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and
up to $50,000 per day by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Attachment: Letter from Mayor to Chair of the RWQCB
KPAlkpa
cc: File No. KY-181
[M::\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\NPDES\ORD95-76.113]
/.2-:>/:<-1
RESOLUTION NO. 179~/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER
TO THE CHAIR OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB) REGARDING THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the current NPDES permit (RWQCB Order No. 90-
42), which is a waste discharge permit regulating discharges from
municipal storm water conveyance systems in San Diego County, will
expire on August 10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, at that time, the RWQCB is scheduled to adopt a
new order and five-year permit, which is currently referred to as
RWQCB Tentative Order No. 95-76; and
WHEREAS, at the February 14, 1995 meeting, the Chula
vista City Council passed Resolution Nos. 17808 and 17809 approving
the city's Fiscal Year 1996/2000 NPDES Storm Water Quality
Management Plan/Permit Application to the RWQCB and approving the
City's participation in a Memorandum of Understanding to implement
the Regional Storm Water Quality Management Plan in San Diego
County; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of RWQCB staff, a guidance
document known as the "Mumley Memo" was used to develop the city's
application and plan; and
WHEREAS, however, on
Tentative Order No. 95-76, which
or the Co-Permittees' Regional
Plan/Permit Application; and
May 19, 1995, the RWQCB issued
is not based upon the Mumley Memo
Storm Water Quality Management
WHEREAS, city staff believes that Tentative Order No. 95-
76 is not in line with the purpose and intent of the federal
regulations, will relegate State responsibilities to Cities, may
unreasonably expose Co-Permittees to citizen lawsuits, and will be
prohibitively costly to implement; and
WHEREAS, in response to Tentative Order No. 95-76, staff
has prepared a letter from the Mayor to the Chair of the RWQCB
outlining the City's concerns and requesting that the RWQCB direct
its staff to withdraw Tentative Order No. 95-76, evaluate the NPDES
Municipal Permit renewal process, and work with San Diego County
Co-Permittees to develop a reasonable and implementable permit.
/,)-5
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter to the Chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) expressing the City's concerns with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director
of Public Works
~~~~.~
Bruce M. Boogaard, city
Attorney
C:\rs\NPDES1
/.2 - ~
r---
July II, 1995
File No. KY-181
The Honorable Judy Johnson, Chair
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92124-1331
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PERMIT RENEWAL - TENTATIVE ORDER NO. 95-76
The City of Chula Vista has been a leader and active participant in the development of a viable storm
water quality program in San Diego County for the past five years. The City of Chula Vista and other
Co-Permittees have submitted nine compliance reports to date. The San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SDRWQCB) Executive Officer's review comments on the first eight reports were
received the day after the Co-Permittees submitted their permit renewal application. The first eight
reports described Co-Permittee NPDES activities between July 1990 and July 1994.
In accordance with SDRWQCB staff direction, the City of Chula Vista and the other nineteen Co-
Permittees developed a NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit renewal application based upon a
statewide guidance document known as the "Mumley Memo". In an October 18, 1994 letter to the San
Diego County Co-Permittees, the SDRWQCB directed the Co-Permittees to "address each and every
component of the guidance document". Our compliance reports, in conjunction with the Mumley
Memo, were used to prepare the permit renewal application, which closely followed the SDRWQCB's
instructions.
After four meetings of the Co-Permittees and SDRWQCB staff and after hundreds of hours of work by
the Co-Permittees, the draft permit application was submitted to the SDRWQCB by the Principal
Permittee (City of San Diego) on January 17, 1995.
We were dismayed that the first draft of the permit, which was distributed by SDRWQCB staff at the
March 8, 1995 Co-Permittee meeting, did not use the Co-Permittees' application or the Mumley Memo
as its basis, as had been previously promised. The Co-Permittees sent a letter (copy attached) to
SDRWQCB staff expressing concerns about this draft permit. At the Co-Permittee meeting of April
12, SDRWQCB staff promised to make specific changes in response to Co-Permittee concerns and to
discuss these changes at the May 17 Co-Permittee meeting. However, SDRWQCB staff released the
official draft on May 19, 1995 for a 45-day public comment period without prior input from the Co-
Permittees. The official draft contains elements which the Co-Permittees had previously expressed
concern over and which SDRWQCB staff had specifically promised to revise.
/,2 -7
The Honorable Judy Johnson
Page 2-
July 11, 1995
The official draft permit includes a number of onerous and/or unnecessary provisions that go way
beyond the purpose and intent of the federal regulations. We believe that these provisions will take the
storm water program in a direction that is not in line with the federal regulations. More importantly,
a number of provisions contained within Tentative Order No. 95-76 will be costly and time-consuming
to implement, will be wasteful of City staff and financial resources, and will not result in significant
pollutant reductions or benefits to receiving water quality. Still other provisions represent an attempt
by SDRWQCB staff to relegate its responsibilities to Co-Permittees. These provisions include, but are
not limited to:
1. The implementation of numerous mandatory storm water quality management measures without
regard to potential water quality benefits, existing data, priority, or cost. City staff estimates
that the annual cost to implement direct NPDES activities in the City of Chula Vista may double
or triple to approximately $500,000 to $750,000 annually.
2. A burdensome analysis and certification by each agency's legal counsel of local storm water,
grading, and other ordinances that demonstrate legal authority to implement and enforce each
of the key regulatory requirements contained in the federal regulations. This requirement is
unnecessary and repetitive of several hundred hours of City staff work performed under Order
No. 90-42 in developing the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
City staff resources would be better utilized in concentrating on other aspects of the storm water
program.
3. Performing special monitoring of all classes offederally exempt discharges to determine whether
or not these discharges should be prohibited on a case-by-case basis. This requirement will cost
Co-Permittees several hundred thousand dollars to implement. The federal regulations, by
conditionally exempting these categories of discharges, recognizes the relatively insignificant
impact that these discharges have on water quality impairment in comparison to other urban
discharges. Further, it is incomprehensible that the SDRWQCB would require Co-Permittees
to perform monitoring of these minor discharges while agriculture, which is the largest single
nonpoint source of pollutants causing water quality impairment in the United States, has an
across-the-board exemption from NPDES regulations.
4. Reviewing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) developed by business and
industry in conjunction with State NPDES General Permits. This requirement alone will cost
the City of Chula Vista $60,000 to $100,000 annually. The State appears to be simply trying
to compel municipalities to carry out the State's administrative and enforcement responsibilities,
while the State "pockets" NPDES General Permit fees.
5. Requiring Co-Permittees to develop specific best management practices (BMPs) that must be
implemented by all businesses and industries. The State's NPDES General Permits do not
mandate specific BMPs for dischargers unless a violation has occurred. Implementing this
requirement will require Co-Permittees to become educated and knowledgeable about literally
thousands of business and industrial processes and practices in order to develop effective
business-specific and industry-specific BMPs. The State NPDES General Permits recognize that
dischargers are better able to select the most effective BMPs and we believe that this philosophy
should also be applied to our new permit.
/:2-?"
The Honorable Judy Johnson
Page 3-
July 11, 1995
Finally, it is our opinion that a number of the provisions contained within Tentative Order No. 95-76
are ambiguous and are designed to protect the SDRWQCB from potential citizen lawsuits, while
unreasonably exposing the Co-Permittees to such lawsuits. This is particularly disturbing in light of
the fact that SDRWQCB staff has impeded progress on the NPDES storm water program in San Diego
County over the past five years because of its inability to provide substantive review comments to the
Co-Permittees in a timely manner and because of SDRWQCB staff's inability to give clear,
unambiguous direction to the Co-Permittees.
The permit renewal process has been counterproductive to the development of an implementable and
effective five-year program to reduce stormwater pollution in San Diego County. We had hoped for
stronger, more reasonable leadership and direction from SDRWQCB staff. Instead, our efforts have
been frustrated by SDRWQCB staff's actions during this permit renewal process, as well as during the
past five years under SDRWQCB Order No. 90-42.
I would like to reiterate our City's commitment to developing and implementing effective programs to
reduce pollutant discharges to and from the City's storm drain system. The City of Chula Vista will
continue its leadership role in the storm water quality program in San Diego County during the next
five-year permit period. However, Tentative Order No. 95-76, if adopted in its present form, will be
too costly to implement and will not give the Co-Permittees the latitude necessary to develop cost-
effective programs that maximize pollutant reduction using available resources in this time of recession
and revenue take-aways from local government by the State.
Tentative Order No. 95-76, in its present form, will render the San Diego County NPDES municipal
storm water quality program prohibitively costly, non-implementable, and ineffective. We are
requesting that you direct SDRWQCB staff to withdraw the current 45-day draft. This would allow
SDRWQC staff the opportunity to evaluate the NPDES Municipal Permit renewal process. SDRWQCB
staff and the Co-Permittees could then meet in a less rushed atmosphere to develop a permit which has
continuity with SDRWQCB Order No. 90-42 and which recognizes that the Co-Permittees are in the
best overall position to select storm water quality management measures that are both implementable
and effective.
SHIRLEY HORTON, MAYOR
attachment
KP A/kpa
cc: The Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor of California
The Honorable John Caffrey, Chair, State Water Resources Control Board
The Honorable Mary Jane Forster, Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board
The Honorable Marc Del Piero, Member, State Water Resources Control Board
The Honorable James M. Stubchaer, Member, State Water Resources Control Board
).,2 ... ?
!;
The Honorable Judy Johnson
Page 4-
July 11, 1995
The Honorable John W. Brown, Member, State Water Resources Control Board
The Honorable Gary Arant, Vice Chair, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Honorable John V. Foley, Member, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Honorable John Lormon, Member, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Honorable James Mocalis, Member, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Honorable Frank Piersall, Member, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego County Co-Permittees
Ms. Libby Lucas, Environmental Health Coalition
{M:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\NPDBS\RENEW ALl.LTR]
/).-/tl
THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
EXEClfflVE COMPUX
1010SECONDAVENlIE.SUI7'E 1200.SANDlEGO. CAUFORNJA 92101-490'
TELEPHONE: (619)
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING
DESIGN DMSlON
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attention: Deborah Jayne
9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92124
Dear Deborah:
This letter is in response to the unofficial draft storm water permit 9S-xx distributed to the San
Diego County co-permittees on March 8, 1995.
May I first convey the unanimous feeling of indignation at the cavalier manner in which our
submittal of the draft permit application" was summarily dismissed. That comprehensive 4"
thick document was the result of specific direction from the Regional Board to develop a
document precisely according to the Mumely Memo outline and submit it 180 days prior to the
expiration of Order 90-42. The preparation of the "application" included four meetings of the
entire Stormwater Task Force plus literally hundreds of person-hours of work by all of the co-
permittees. We were assured that the submitted document would be reviewed and EACH co-
permittees program evaluated and commented upon as to adequacy for the coming five-year
permit period. To have all of that work cast aside with the comment that it is too much work
to critique 20 separate management plans was a complete SUIprise to the co-permittees and a
great disappointment, to say the least.
That having been said, we must move on to the review of the document that apparently WIll..
be our new permit. Based upon the comments made at the March 27 Stormwater Task Force
meeting, I submit the following for your consideration:
TASK 1.B APPROVALOFM.O.U.
Would suggest 90 days for co-permittee legislative body approval due to time
requirements to get items on Council dockets.
TASK m.c INTERDEPARTMENTAL RFSPONSIBlLITIES
/.)..~//
4-~~.
~
DIVERSITY
MNGS us AlL TOGETHE~
This heading is not defined.
<' ,':
"ASK V.A FISCAL ANALYSIS
Fiscal analyses should be limited to programs and expenses DIRECTLY RELATED to
the NPDES program. Including a myriad of programs that may peripherally augment
the storm water pollution control program (such as street sweeping, recycling, water
conservation and even Traffic Congestion Management) would be an auditing nightmare.
Keeping track of such expenditures may have no direct bearing on the effective ness of
the NPDES program.
TASK vn.A WET WEATHER MONITORING PROGRAM
Need Attachment A
TASK Vrn.A ICIID DETECTION PROGRAM
Need Attachment B
TASK Vrn.B PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT TASK VID.A
Request 120 days to complete these tasks.
TASK Vrn.B.4 . CITIZEN COMPLAINT HOTLINE
Need Attachment B. What is a "hotline"? Dedicated line? Voice Mail?
TASK IX.A.! PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMIlIt;E
Regional Board should select public outreach group members.
Need 180 days to develop programs.
Use only one foreign language. Spanish is predominant. Other language percents are
minimal and varied (Filipino and Vietnamese dialects) and most speak English.
Permittee interdepartmental education should fall under Task IX.A.S.
TASK IX.A.4 STREET SWEEPING
Please define "manner which improves water quality." It seems that ANY street
sweeping would improve water quality.
TASK IX.A.S IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF LITTER. ETC. ETC.
Replace with program to eliminate improper disposal of soUd waste.
TASK IX.A.' CONSTRUCTION SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM
Limit program to projects greater than one acre. Most cities usually have hundreds of
construction permits for room additions, fences, patios, etc. in effect which should not
require BMPs. (City of San Diego usually has more than 2,000 such permits ongoing
at any time.)
1..2,/J-
!!
~
TASK IX.A.S.c MUNICIPAL INTEGRATED PEST CONTROL PROGRAM
Are there such programs elsewhere in the state? Need guidance on this.
TASK IX.A.S.d SEWAGE SPILL PREVENTION PROGRAM
Sewage spills are accidents. Sewerage systems are designed as best as possible to
prevent leaks and spills. Spills are usually the JeSuIt of storm damage or other
catastrophic occurrences or vandalism. Need examples of sewage spill prevention
program.
,.ASK IX.A.S.e MUNICIPAL POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Add "maintenance" to Streets &. Roads, Flood Control Activities and Public Facilities.
TASK IX.A.' COMMERCIAL SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM
There is a serious problem with "require" and "all" in this section. Lacking a violation
of our respective pollution control ordinances or other laws it is doubtful whether
municipalities would have the authority to "require" commercial businesses to implement
water quality BMPs. To require this of ALL commercial sources would be a formidable
task for large cities. The City of San Diego has more than S2,OOO commercial
businesses, for example. Many cities have developed programs for contacting and
cooperation with key commercial groups such as the Automotive Service industry, the
carpet cleaning industry and the restaurant/tavern industry to name a few. We have had
good success in eliciting cooperation from these groups and will continue a liaison with
them and other groups.
TASK IX.A.tO INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM
See comments under IX.A.9 above. We will instigate a review of all industries we show
in available records as having SIC codes which require a separate State Industrial
Stormwater Permit, insure that they do, in fact, have a permit and begin an inspection
program that will insure inspection of all facilities within the next five-year permit
period.
TASK IX.A.l1 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
As you know, Traffic Congestion Management programs are under the control of the
State Air Resources Control Board and in San Diego County the TeMP is handled by
SANDAG. This item should not be part of the NPDES program unless SANDAG is
made a co-permittee.
/.2- / J
,.., 1
(--,-"--.!
,
,.
TASKS IX.B.C.F.I.&L EVALUATIONS
Evaluation of the effectiveness of stonnwater/urban runoff pollution control measures is
extremely subjective. Spending any appreciable amount of time and money on the
development of such highly suspect data is certainly not cost effective, what with the
fiscal straights most cities find themselves in these days. We would recommend that the
above tasks be consolidated into TASK X- -To the extent practicable, conduct an annual
analysis of the effectiveness of the overall stonnwater/urban runoff pollution control
program in each Permittee's area of jurisdiction."
We would hope that the official draft permit with attachments would be available at the April
12th meeting and that Board staff will be prepared to respond to the above concerns and
comments at that time. In the meantime, don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
jG?'c2;,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
SUBl\flTTED BY:
Resolution /795.2 Approving Sewer Billing Memorandum of
Understanding with Sweetwater Authority that Provides for the
Separation of Water and Sewer Billing with Sweetwater Continuing to
Provide Information Needed fi~or the City to Bill Sewer Customers
Director of Public of Works --rI
Deputy City Manager Thomso (/ I
City Manager 11 ~ 1" (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The City has contracted with the Sweetwater Authority for sewer billing and collection services
since 1962. They have notified the City since 1991 that their intention is to cease providing
this service and have urged the City to establish a new manner of accomplishing this billing.
Staff has submitted reports on this subject to Council on several occasions over the last year,
with the most recent Council meeting at which this item was formally considered on May 9,
1995 (Agenda Statement and minutes attached). Several concerns were expressed by Council
at that time, and a subcommittee of Councilmembers Rindone and Moot was formed to discuss
those concerns with elected representatives of the Sweetwater Authority. The recommended
Memorandum of Understanding is a result of those discussions.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Approve the resolution approving the Sewer Billing Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Sweetwater Authority;
2) direct staff to proceed with all actions required for its implementation, with the City
performing the sewer billing bi-monthly based on information from the Sweetwater
Authority and contracting out for printing/mailing and lockbox services.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Several alternate sewer billing alternatives have been investigated since the City was advised
of the Sweetwater Authority's intention to discontinue this billing for the City. The alternatives
are generally described as follows:
1. Bill in-house, using information provided by the Sweetwater Authority and
contracting for bill printing/mailing and lockbox services (Recommended
Alternative).
2. Bill through the Sweetwater Authority, with separate water and sewer bills, and
contract for printing/mailing and lockbox services.
/:]- /
Page 2, Item J J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
3. Maintain the current billing method, with the Sweetwater Authority performing
joint water and sewer billing and collection bimonthly.
4. Modify the current billing method, with the Sweetwater Authority performing
the billing and collection for both water and sewer on a monthly rather than
bimonthly basis.
5. Bill residential accounts on the county property tax roll and non-residential
accounts in-house by staff.
6. Bill all accounts on the county property tax roll.
All of these alternatives have been rejected by either the City Council (Alternatives 5 and 6)
or the Sweetwater Authority (Alternatives 3 and 4), except for Alternatives 1 and 2. In the
recent discussions with Sweetwater, Alternatives 1 through 4 have been reviewed and
Alternative 1 is the approach provided for in the proposed MOU with the Sweetwater
Authority.
Sweetwater believes that the eXlstmg billing arrangement (Alternative 3) would require
changing to a monthly billing cycle (Alternative 4) due to the amount of the combined water
and sewer charges. Such a change would involve substantial costs (greater than separate
billing), and possibly create an adverse reaction among the water/sewer customers.
Following the City Council meeting on May 9, 1995, the Council subcommittee and City staff
met with the Sweetwater Authority subcommittee of Directors and Sweetwater staff on May
24, 1995. This meeting resolved most of the issues between the two agencies and narrowed
the focus to Alternatives 1 and 2. A second meeting of this group was held on June 21, 1995
and the remaining issues were resolved, with Alternative 1 being the alternative recommended
by the Council Subcommittee and City staff and also being very acceptable to the Sweetwater
Authority.
The MOU submitted for City Council approval on July 11, 1995 reflects the understandings
conceptually agreed upon between the Sweetwater representatives and the City Council
subcommittee. It is scheduled to be submitted for approval by the Sweetwater Board of
Directors on July 12, 1995.
The MOU provides for the City to assume the billing of Chula Vista sewer accounts previously
billed for the City by the Sweetwater Authority by December 11, 1995 to January 11, 1996 at
the latest. It is proposed that the printing and mailing of the bills and the processing of
payments be accomplished by City vendors under individual contracts after completing an RFP
process. A drop box is proposed to be installed in the northerly side of the Public Services
Building to accommodate those customers who prefer to not enter the building. All drop box
payments and payments made at the Finance Department counter are to be delivered to the
lockbox vendor for processing. City staff will provide billing information to our
printing/mailing vendor based on data provided to us by the Sweetwater Authority and post the
RlD:rd - KY 081
M:\SHARED\SWRAGMIB.113
/J~.;J..
Page 3, Item / J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
account information to show payment information after that data is received from our lockbox
vendor.
The MOD specifies services that the Sweetwater Authority will provide to assist the City in
converting the sewer billing and collection process. It also specifies information that
Sweetwater will continue to provide to the City every week after the conversion process; this
ongoing information concerns new and closed accounts and water consumption information
upon which some of the sewer bills (commercial and industrial) are based. The MOD provides
that the City will pay the Sweetwater Authority $350 in startup charges related to the
conversion process and $500 per month for the ongoing weekly information updates that the
City will receive from Sweetwater. These ongoing charges would be reviewed every two
years.
The MOD further provides that the City and Sweetwater will equally split the cost of including
an insert in the final sewer billing conducted by Sweetwater explaining the change in the sewer
billing method to the customers. Both the City and Sweetwater will review and approve the
language in the insert. For single family residents, the final sewer billing provided by
Sweetwater will be for one month so that when the City starts its bimonthly billing, the water
and sewer bills will be sent on staggered months.
The MOD also provides for Sweetwater and the City to meet and confer regarding Sweetwater
resuming sewer billing if Sweetwater changes to monthly water billing during the term of the
agreement, which is ten years with a five year option.
In order for the MOD to be implemented and for the City to assume the sewer billing, the City
must complete a number of preparatory actions. These actions include:
1. Issue Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for lockbox services and printing/mailing
contractor.
2. Order the billing software based on an RFP process already conducted as
discussed in the May 9, 1995 Council Agenda Statement.
3. Order furniture and equipment needed for the implementation of the billing
procedure.
4. Award contracts for the printing/mailing and lockbox services, and complete the
startup process for the lockbox service.
5. Convert Sweetwater data to a format compatible with the City's new billing
software.
6. Fill the Administrative Office Assistant III position in the Public Works
Department.
RID:rd - KY 081
M:\SHARED\SWRAGMTB.113
J 3<>
Page 4, Item / J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
7. Train staff in the use of the new software and commence parallel billing with
Sweetwater to verify that the process is working properly.
8. Install a drop box at the City offices to accommodate walkup customers.
9. Commence sewer billing by City.
Initial documents to start some of the above actions have been prepared in advance. Upon
Council approval of this report, and similar approval by the Sweetwater Authority's Board of
Directors on July 12, 1995, these documents will be appropriately forwarded and the
changeover process started. The target date for conversion is December II, 1995.
It should be noted that the changes in the method of sewer billing described in this report are
limited to those residences and businesses served by the Sweetwater Authority that are not in
annexed area formerly in the Montgomery Fire Protection District. The Montgomery area was
billed for sewer service on the property tax bill when the area was served by the County and
the City has continued using the same billing method as the County for that area. It is not
currently recommended to modify that billing method for the Montgomery area, but the
recommendations in this report would allow the City to start billing the Montgomery area the
same way as the rest of the Sweetwater Authority customers if the Council subsequently
decides to make such a change.
Similarly, this report does not recommend changing the method of sewer billing in the area
served by the Otay Water District. Otay has been billing their customers for sewer as well as
water in a manner similar to the Sweetwater Authority, except Otay has been billing on a
monthly cycle rather than the bimonthly cycle used by Sweetwater. While Otay at one point
was requesting the City to take over its own sewer billing, they are not currently requesting
such a change and City staff is not recommending such a change. The recommendations in
this report would, however, allow the City to start billing the Otay customers for sewer service
if that becomes necessary at some future point.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The budget approved by the City Council on June 27, 1995, for FY 1995-96 includes
appropriations for start-up costs and first year operations in both the Sewer Service Revenue
Fund and the General Fund for sewer billing and collection.
The first year cost to the Sewer Service Revenue Fund will total $213,110 made up of $33,150
in one-time costs and $179,960 in on-going annual costs. The one-time costs include $21,150
for microcomputer hardware, software and office furniture; $2,000 for installation of a
dropbox; $3,500 set-up and conversion cost; and $6,500 for customer notification of billing
change. The annual on-going costs includes $50,000 for bill printing and mailing contract;
$28,900 lockbox and bank service charges; $6,000 Sweetwater Authority charges for
information updates and on-line access; $1,500 software warranty and enhancements and
$93,560 reimbursement to the General Fund for additional staff costs. Staff estimates that the
RID:rd - KY 081
M:\SHARED\SWRAGMlB.113
11''1
Page 5, Item /3
Meeting Date 7/11/95
annualized cost of the recommended method of conducting sewer billing will be approximately
$6,800 more than the current costs to the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
By being able to more closely control and monitor the sewer billing, staff anticipates that some
and perhaps all of this increased cost may be offset by increased Sewer Service Revenue as
a result of more accurate sewer billing.
One Administrative Office Assistant III position was added to the FY 1995-96 General Fund
budget for a total cost of $40,890 which includes salary ($29,160), benefits ($10,690), and
equipment/supplies ($1,040). This will be offset by the $93,560 in reimbursement to the
General Fund from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund, which represents the cost for that
position, part of the cost of existing Finance Department positions that will be involved in the
billing and collection process, and indirect costs related to this process.
Attachments:
1. June 20, 1995 letter to General Manager of Sweetwater Authority from Deputy City
Manager regarding Sewer Billing.
2. June 6,1995 memorandum to Councilmembers Rindone and Moot from Director of
Finance regarding Sewer Billing Uncollectibles.
3. June 6, 1995 memorandum to Councilmember Moot from Director of Public Works
regarding Requested Additional Information on Sewer Billing.
4. May 16, 1995 Council Informational Memorandum from Deputy City Manager
regarding an Update on Sewer Billing Issue with Sweetwater Authority.
5. May 9, 1995 Council Agenda Statement regarding the City's intention to transfer sewer
billing from the Sweetwater Authority.
6. Minutes of the May 9, 1995 City Council meeting.
7. January 18,1995 Council Informational Memorandum from Directors of Public Works,
Finance and Management and Information Services regarding Update on Sewer
Customer Billing.
8. November 17, 1994 Council Informational Memorandum from Director of Public
Works regarding Sewer Billing Update Following Board Meetings of Sweetwater
Authority and Otay Water District.
9. Minutes of October 25, 1994 City Council meeting.
RlD:rd . KY 081
M:ISHAREDISWRAGMl1l.113
JJ-5i3-?-
RESOLUTION NO. J 79,f',2..
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SEWER BILLING MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
THAT PROVIDES FOR THE SEPARATION OF WATER AND
SEWER BILLING WITH SWEETWATER CONTINUING TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE CITY TO
BILL SEWER CUSTOMERS
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with the Sweetwater
Authority for sewer billing and collection services since 1962; and
WHEREAS, they have notified the City since 1991 that
their intention is to cease providing this service and have urged
the City to establish a new manner of accomplishing this billing;
and
WHEREAS, staff has submitted reports on this subject to
Council on several occasions over the last year, with the most
recent Council meeting at which this item was formally considered
on May 9, 1995; and
WHEREAS, several concerns were expressed by Council at
that time, and a subcommittee of Councilmembers Rindone and Moot
was formed to discuss those concerns with elected representatives
of the Sweetwater Authority; and
WHEREAS, the recommended Memorandum of Understanding is
a result of those discussions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Chula vista and Sweetwater
Authority for Sewer Service Billing and Collection in the form
presented, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk as Document No. (to be completed by the Clerk in the
final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Chula vista
and that city staff is directed to take all appropriate actions to
implement same.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~~
-~, 0---
. Bo aar ~ty
Attorney
C: \ rs\ sewe r. mou
/:J~7 )3-lr
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
FOR SEWER SERVICE BILLING AND COLLECTION
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, here'inafter ( "Agreement")
made and entered into this day of , 199 , by
and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter ("ci ty") and SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, a j oint powers
agency, hereinafter ("Sweetwater");
Recita1s
WHEREAS, city has previously entered into an agreement with
the california Water and Telephone Company, dated October 30, 1962,
as adopted by Chula vista Resolution No. 2949, and amendment
thereto adopted by Chula vista Resolution No. 3510, regarding
collection of sewer service charges; and
WHEREAS, Sweetwater is the successor to the California Water
and Telephone Company; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1979, the parties hereto further
amended said agreement by Chula vista Resolution No. 9778 to
substitute the name of the Sweetwater Authority for that of the
california Water and Telephone Company, to modify the amount of
payment due to Sweetwater for rendering the sewer service
statements and to provide a new anniversary date for the timely
review of fees and giving of notice of cancellation; and
WHEREAS, the parties further amended said agreement by
Resolution No. 12678 to provide for an increase in the fee to be
paid to Sweetwater for each individual sewer service statement
rendered; and
WHEREAS, the parties further amended said agreement on July
23, 1991 by the "Fourth Amendment to Agreement" which provided
notice by Sweetwater of cancellation of its obligations under these
agreements effective June 30, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the city has requested
prov~s~on of its obligations under
Agreement until the end of 1995; and
Sweetwater to extend the
the Fourth Amendment to
WHEREAS, Sweetwater has continued to provide billing services
for city; and
WHEREAS, the City and Sweetwater have coordinated efforts to
transfer the billing responsibility from Sweetwater to the City and
have identified all functions and responsibilities which each party
must assume; and
CMC2961
//3-'1
/.-"'.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the forgoing recitals and
the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into the
agreement.
2. The city will assume all responsibility for billing and
collecting its sewer accounts that have previously been billed
and collected by Sweetwater. The parties will use good faith
and best efforts to have the city assume said responsibility
for sewer billing cycles starting on and after December 11,
1995 or earlier. If needed to properly complete the transfer
of responsibility, the City may have up to one additional
month to complete the transfer. In any event, therefore, the
City shall assume said responsibility no later than for sewer
billing cycles starting on and after January 11, 1996.
3. On a date in 1995 to be determined by city, Sweetwater shall
provide to City in a computer file a starting database for all
Sweetwater customers. This information for areas outside of
City boundaries will allow verification that National City,
County and Chula vista customers are properly identified.
Information would include:
A. Names and addresses of customers and property owners,
where available
B. Account numbers
C. Revenue code
D. Water consumption (3 Year History if available) for Chula
vista customers
E. Notice of delinquent accounts and amounts
F. City Code
G. Low income sewer rate code
H. High/Medium/ Low strength codes for commercial/industrial
accounts
I. Sewer Flag
J. Owner/Renter flag
4. For so long as the city's sewer rates are based in whole or in
part on water consumption, Sweetwater shall provide to City
via tape or electronic transfer on a weekly basis a current
record of:
B.
C.
D.
All account changes and new services, including opening
dates and customer name, and owner name and address as
provided by customer
Closed accounts and date of closing
Water consumption during period
Water consumption adjustments for previous periods.
A.
=
tMC2961
-2-
/J~/t7
5. Between the date of this agreement and December 31, 1996
Sweetwater shall provide to city Customer Account Inquiry
(CAI) screens to provide on-line access by City to water
consumption history and account activity of all city sewer
customers within Sweetwater.
6. On or before May 15, 1996 Sweetwater shall provide to city a
computer tape of accounts and annual water consumption for
sweetwater customers within the Montgomery area of Chula vista
for billing through the County Tax Roll. consumption
information shall be from April 1, 1995 to the ending read
date closest to April 1, 1996. The following information
shall be included:
A. Account numbers
B. Revenue Code
C. Name and site address, including ZIP Code
D. Owner's name and address as available, including ZIP Code
E. Annual water consumption
F. Identification of accounts which were opened o~ closed
during the consumption year
G. Number of units for multiple family dwellings
H. High/Medium/Low strength codes for commercial/industrial
accounts
1. Sewer flag
J. owner/Renter flag.
7. Sweetwater shall charge City its cost for producing and
providing all information provided for in paragraphs 3, 4, 5,
and 6 above. Said cost for the service provided in paragraph
4 shall be reviewed every two years on the anniversary date of
this agreement. The current pricing schedule is set forth in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
8. The final sewer billing for single family residential accounts
sent by Sweetwater shall be for one month of sewer charges,
unless Sweetwater and city jointly agree to an alternate final
billing cycle.
9. Sweetwater shall prepare, with the advice and consent of the
City, an insert in the final sewer billing sent by Sweetwater
Authority which shall describe the change in billing procedure
and the reasons therefore. Sweetwater and the City shall
share the costs of producing said insert equally.
10. In the event Sweetwater determines to bill for water service
on a monthly rather than a bi-monthly basis during the term of
this agreement, or an extension thereof, Sweetwater shall
notify City in writing of its intent at least six months prior
to implementing said monthly billing. Within thirty days of
receipt of said notice, city may request Sweetwater to consult
with city regarding the possibility that Sweetwater would
resume sewer billing of City sewer customers. Upon receipt of
said request Sweetwater shall meet with responsible city
:MC2961
-3-
/3~/1
officials in good faith to discuss the resumption of sewer
billing.
11. This agreement shall be for a term of ten (10) years and shall
expire on the anniversary date in 2005. The agreement may be
renewed for a period of five years upon receipt of a notice
requesting renewal from City on or before March 1, 2005.
12. In the event city determines it no longer needs to have
Sweetwater perform the service provided in paragraph 4 during
the term of this Agreement i or an extension thereof , City
shall have the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement
after providing Sweetwater sixty days notice of such a
termination.
13. The Fourth Amendment to Agreement, dated July 23, 1991, shall
remain in full force and effect until City assumes
responsibility for billing and collecting its sewer accounts
as provided in paragraph 2 of this Agreement, at which time
the Fourth Amendment to Agreement shall automatically be
terminated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
Chairman
Mayor
Date:
Date:
Attest:
Attest:
secretary to the Board
city Clerk
Approved as to form by
Approved as to form by
--y- c=
c ~-.-o /C
--
C~ky AttorneY .
r-. /.. ". ~/1
\~:...~ Vv\ ~ \-;:-;fZ'-u.r'l-""'1""'-.-
~~
- . '>-
Attorney for Sweetwater
:MC2961
-4-
J3---/.:L
A.
B.
CMC2961
EXHIBIT A
Initial Pricing Schedule that
Sweetwater May Charge city
One time start-up charge of $350.00 for setting up a system to
transfer customer information as provided in paragraphs 3, 4,
5 and 6.
Charges of $500.00 per month for weekly information update and
maintenance of Sweetwater customer database as provided in
paragraph 4, starting when the city assumes responsibility for
billing and collecting its sewer accounts, as provided in
paragraph 2.
C.
Additional programming services as requested by city and
mutually agreed upon on a case by case basis.
;3r/Y)3-;r
.
.
.
. !
ATTZ.~ 1
~~~
01Y Of
CHUlA VISfA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
.::11 /...-S
JuDe 20, 1995
Mr. Dick lleynolds, General Manaser
Sweetwater Authority
505 Garrett Avenue
Chula VJStI, CA 91910
BE: Sewer Bi11ina
Dear Dick:
At the May 24, 1995 medina ofrepresentatives ofour respective aaencies, one or more of your
Directors requested a letter &om the City addreasina the timetable for convertina the IeweI' bilIins
process to an alternate system separate from the SweetWater Authority'. water bills. TbiJ letter is
in response to that request.
As you know, staft'from the City ofChula Vasta and the SweetWater Authority have bad
numerous meetinas and discussions both before and after that May 24 meetina to try to raoJve
the issuea that need to be addreased to move forward with the IeweI' billina convenion process. I
am hopefUl that we can conceptually resolve the remainina issuea at the JUDe 21 Jre""l"'l of our
laencies' subcommittees 10 that we can finalize the draft MOU and preKIlt it for formal approval
at the July 11 ChulaVista City Council meetina and the July 12 SweetWater Authority Board of
Director's medina-
City staft'has prepared the attached proposed conversion timetable based on this aaaumption that
the MOU is approved on July 11 and 12. As indicated on the chart, City Itd'amic:ipates ltaJtina
paraDe! City bOOna with SweetWater bi11ina in mid.()ctober with the City takina over the bi11ina
about December 11. City Itd'therefore considers December II, 1995 to be I JOOd tuptdate to
~ toWard, but we would request a potential pace period ofup to two additionallllOlltha if
curreatly unanticipated problems prevent us &om meetina that tupt date.
Since the attached timeline is dependent on the approval of the MOU by our nip lethe IChnina
boards, I would suaest that we include I provision in the MOU that indiCltel we will attempt in
,ODd faith to complete the convenion within five IIlOIIthJ of the formaJ mutual approval of the
MOU and that the convenion will in any event be completed DO later than lIVeD IN)IdM after
formal approval orthe MOU.
We realize that this proposed time lCheduIe wiD result in the convmion beina completed
I7t FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA . CALIFORNIA 11110 . (111)111.1031 . FAX (1,')115..,2
. 11: --- ~ /;1---;.5'
Mr. Dick R.eynolds, ~eraJ Manaaer
June 20, 1995
Page 2
aomewhat later than the September 30, 1995 timetable that we diaculled It an Interaaency Water
Tak Force meetinS. I would imasine that one orthe coDceru that could be raised by this
proposed timetable is therefore whether the City plans on increuina its sewer fees prior to the
cOnversion banS completed. I have diaculled this issue with both John Lippiu and John Go..,
and while we cannot speak for the City CowIciI, we can usure you that at the 1tIff1evel we have
DO plans to recommend any iDcreue in the sewer fees prior to the completion orthe conversion.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or ClOIICeI1IS, please do
DOt hesitate to contact either City Manlser John Go.. or me It 691.5031.
'"""
E'
~~
Deputy City Manaser
JT:dt
cc: Council Subcommittee Members Moot and R.iDdone
John D. Goss, City Manaser
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
-...
A~__,.JIL8D.
'"""
/J-j ~
CITY OF CHULAVlSTA ~
'l'IM! LINE FOR CHULA VIS'l'A ASStiMP'l'ION OF SBWBR aILLIHG
City Council approval of MOU.
Sweetwater Board approval of MOU.
a. Send out apP's tor lockbox services and
printing/mailing contractor.
b. Purchase Order for Dynasty software.
c. Submit Request for Personnel for hiring
Ac!minbtrative Office A..btant III (AOA
III) .
d. Submit requisition for AOA III furniture
and equipment.
Bstablish on-line dial-up communication with
Sweetwater Authority.
8/11/95: Closing date for responses to appls for
lockbox and printing/mailing services.
.
7/11/95:
7/12/95:
7/13/95:
8/4/95 :
8/28/95: Commence converdon of Sweetwater data for
~asty 8oftware.
Select recommended
printing/mailing vendors.
9/25/95: Hire AOA III.
10/3/95: Award contract. for
printing/mailing vendors.
9/8/95:
.
lockbox
and
lockbox
and
10/9/95: Commence .taff training for Dynasty software
and start lockbox set-up proces..
10/16/95: Commence parallel sewer billing by City.
(Sweetwater continue. actual billing.)
12/4/95: Lockbox setup proce.s cCllllplete.
12/11/95: Commence separate sewer billing by City.
. Cl'_~~.oar
~
/;J~I '}
""'
,
- This Page Blank-
"""'\
""'
~ )J~/Y
.
.
.
ATTA~ 2
INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATil I
June 6, 1995
Councilmember Jerry R. Rin40ne
CouncUmember John S. Moot
John D. Go.., City Mana;er l"'.ln. 1'6
Robert W. Powell, Director of Finance~
"'BWBR IILLI.Q VRCOLLBCTIILIl.
~I'
'nAI
nONI
'VII.7BC'1' I
Durin; the meeUng with Boar4 Membera an4 .taff frD1ll the SWeetwater
Authority on May 24, 1995, you a.ke4 for information re;ar4in; the
impact. on revenue collection. from the 4ifferent billin; aeth04.
un4er 4iacu..ion. The three 41fferent meth04. that bave been un4er
con.i4eration inclu4e (1) Sweetwater continuing to bill an4 collect
.ewer revenue with the water revenue, (2) the City preparing the
.ewer bill. an4 collecting the .ewer revenue .eparately, an4 (3)
the City contracting with Sweetwater to prepare .eparate bill.
during alternaUn; month. with the City collecUn; the .ewer
revenue. .
We do not believe that there wou14 be any differance in the
collection experience under meth04. 2 an4 3 .ince bothaeth04. have
the city re.ponsible for the collection activity without the threat
of water .hutoff to a14 in that effort. Focuain; then on the
impact on collection. from not billing jointly with Sweetwater, we
wou14 expect the initial year(.) to reflect an increa.e in
delinquencies but that the.e delinquencies would eventually be more
thanoff.et by increa.e4 intere.t an4 penalty revenue. coll.ct.4
with the delinqu.nt ..wer bill. wh.n pa14 throu;h the COunty
Property Tax Coll.ction Sy.t.m.
Uain; the thr.at of water ahutoff, Sw..twat.r 18 r.port.dly
.xperiencing only 0.3 perc.nt in uncoll.ctibl.. to be writt.noff.
In di.cu..ion. with .taff frD1ll the Citi.. of La M..a an4 El cajon,
who w.re ..parat.4 from joint bUlin; witti the H.Ux Water
Di.trict, th.ir initial delinqu.ncy rate. incr.a..4 .i;nificantly
to betw..n 2 an4 3 p.rc.nt, but b.v. .inc. d.cr....4 to
approx1mat.ly 1 p.rc.nt. Sinc. both of th... ~iti.. ar. u.in; the
County Prop.rty Tax Sy.t.m for coll.ction .nforc.m.nt,.. it i.
.xp.cte4 that any uncoll.ctible. wUl .v.ntually be aore than
off..t by the amount of p.n.lti.. an4 int.r..t cOll.ct.4 on
d.Unqu.nci... D.Unqu.nt account. pl.c.4 on the Prop.rty Tax Roll
accru. an initial 10 p.rc.nt penalty an4 1 1/2 perc.nt inter..t
.ach aonth until pai4. .
To 'UIlIIlIariz., althou;h the city aay .xp.ri.nc. a t.mpor.ry incr....
in uncoll.ctibl.. ov.rth. fir.t on. to two y..r. with ..p.rat.
..w.r billing, it i. .xp.ct.4 th.t ev.ntu.lly th.r. will be little
Dr no diff.r.nce in d.linqu.nci.. betw..n the two a.th04..
~ /J~/1
"""
- This Page Blank -
~
~
~ J3~oW
A'l'TACBMBNT 3
INPOIMATION MEMORANDUM
.
Jun. '1, 1995.
Fil. No. StY 081 .
.
'J'O: Councillllnlber John S. Moot '
VIA: John D. Go.s, City Manager 11 Jrt 1&
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Pub11c Works ~
IUBJBCT: Requ.sted Additional IDfcmution on ....r Bil11ng
SUbs.quent to tb. ...ting bet..en tb. City Council IUbccmm1tt.e
(yours.lf and Councilmember lliDdone) on S...r Billing .itb
....twater Authority dir.ctors and st.ff on May 2~, 1995, you
requested additional information on th. t.o alt.rnatives ref.rr.d
to a. Situ.tion. 2 and 3 in th. May 2~ ...ting.
...- .
As you probably r.call, Situ.tiOn 2 is the alt.rnative of th. City
doing its own billing .itb. the assistanc. of on. vendor for
printing. stuffing and mailing th. bills and a ..cond (lockbax)
vendor for r.c.iving and proc.ssing p.yments. Situation 3 is tb.
....twater Authority doing -Pbantom- billing for th. City. Aft.r
furth.r discu.sion .itb tb. ....twat.r Authority st.ff, tbis
.ituation bas .volved into a .omewbat diff.rent proc.ss than ...
originally visualiz.d. Th. current thougbt 18 that aw..twat.r
would produc. a computer tape or r.port for original bills, ..cond
notic.. and delinqu.ncy notic.. for us. by our bill print.r/mailing
vendor and .ould do the customer d.tab.s. maintenanc. aft.r
receiving payment information from our lockbax vendor. ,
Thr.. exhibits are attacbed to this 1IIellIO to r.spond to your requ.st
for .dditional information. Exhibit A 8U1IlIIl&rb.s th. relative
advant.g.s .t.ff bas identifi.d for Situ.tions 2 and 3.
Th. May 2~ me.ting with .w.et..ter repr.sentatives appeared to and
witb a cons.nsus among th. el.cted representatives to puf8U. the
.Phantom- s.w.r billing b.Y ....t.at.r (.ituation I). .iDc. you
aubs.qu.ntly r.qu.st.d addltional infOZlll&tion on !:loth 'ituations 2
and I, staff f..ls that it is our professional responsibility to
inform you and Councillllnlber lliDdon. that City staff continu.s to
f.vor th. s.wer billing b.Y the City alternative ('ituation 2) over
th. .PhantCIII- ..w.r billing by aw..twater alt.rnative, primarily
becaus.. of the intangible factors listelS in ....Mhit A.
. .
Non.tb.l.ss, staff also consid.rs th. .PhantCIII- ....r l:)illin9 by
.w..t..t.r to be a .atisfactoxy alternative, and staff is tr:r:r.d
to support eitb.r Situ.tion 2 or I if the Council IUbc tte.
wants to recommenlS on. alt.rnative over th. oth.r. It is.taff'.
. imcS.rstanlSing that th. ....tw.t.r Authority 18 cOlllfortabl. .ith
.~ /;r~..21
Councilmember Moot
-2-
June 6, 1995
""'"
ei~her of these two alternatives. Their primary concern is with
avoi~ing the two joint billing alternatives referre~ to at the May
24 meeting.
Exhibit B compares the tasks associated with the billing effort
under both situations 2 and 3. As ~iscussions with the Sweetwater
staff have gone on, these situations have become more similar than
~ifferent. These similarities are noted throughout the
comparisons.
Exhibit C compares the overall costs for Situations 2 and 3. These
figures have been further refined in ongoing ~iscussions with
Sweetwater Authority staff. Staff now estimates the .Phantom"
billing. by Sweetwater to cost about $3,500 less than billing by the
City. This figure includes approximately $10,000 in one time
startup costs annualized over five years.
Staff is available to discuss these
Councilmember Rindone at your convenience,
the June 7 budget review session.
issues with you and
possibly before or after
""""
CC: Councilmember Jerry Rindone
aLD
c. ,..n \a......11.L
~
~
/ J' r- 02,2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF .PHANTOM. SEWER BILLING BY
SWEE1WATER AND BILLING BY CITY
.Phantom. Sewer Dillin, By Sweetwater (Situation 3)
I. Sweetwater already has the hasic billiD& system in place.
2. Lower ,tart-up and alightly lower qoiDg costs than billiDg by the City.
3.
When compared to usiDg two separate billiDa systems, ahariDa iDformation IJId costs with
Sweetwater to the areatest extent possible appears to be more effICient IJId to be to the
customer',ldvantage.
/
4. Cooperative situation Ippears to work well in the La Mesa IJId E1 ~on relationship with
Helix.
RUlinEr Qy City (Situation 2)
I.
This method will allow for creater flexibility in the future for chanaes in the billiDg
system. For example, if Montlomery and Otay customers need to be billed differently
in the future than they are now, we will be set up to handle it with minimum effort.
While Situation 2 may be sliahtly more expensive than Situation 3 !lOW, it could well be
less expensive in the long run.
F.nhllneed availability of management and customer information IJId opportunity for better
customer service. For example, with our own software we can demonstrate the affect
of proposed rate changes with good precision and little effon. Also, at some point in
time, with creater implementation of our GIS, we anticipate beiDa able to chanae the
manner in which the Storm Drain Fee (included with the sewer bill) is usessed, basiDg
it on the extent of impervious surfaces within each individual property. While we can
do this type of billing with the proposed in-house Dynasty software, Sweetwater may not
be able or willina to make such a major revision in its system.
2.
3. We have noted that the Sweetwater Authority has made (or m.lr~s) errors in classifyiDg
addresses u beiDg within the proper area of the City. We should be able to more euily
avoid or correct this type of error if we completely control the billiD& process.
ILD
.C:\WPIIftOCll1f
~
/;J.-~3
IMC:m:\home\engine.r\.ewer\bilt.k
""'"
~ J;J~Y
\
.
.
.
~'!~
ATTAcmnnqT ..
U'IUI^ YDII'\
.
COlJNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDlJM
May 16, 1995
TO
VIA
FROM
The Honorable Mayor IJId City eoo.....rt
JobIl I). Goss, City Manapr 't" ~
Jim TbomIOn, Deputy City ~ ~V'
Update on Sewer Bi1lin& Issue with Sweetwater Authority
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUBJECI'
.
.
At its May 9, 1995 medin" the City Council directed ItIff to reconvene meetlnp with the
SweetWater Authority to further ,mew the issue of the best UI4 most cost effective system for
bWinI and providinl both water UI4 awer ~ to the constituents. Council abo
desipated Councilmembas RincScme and Moot to meet with eJeet-d ofF..!.'.. from the
SweetWater Authority. The purpose of this memo II twofold: (1) to iDfonn Council of lOIII8
upoom)nl meetinls InvoJvinl the Sweetwater Authority Board, Ind (2) to iuure Council II
aware of a previous commitment the City made In February 1994 to convert the City', tewer
bWinI to an alte:mate system by July I, 1995 or Vf!r1 ahortly thereafter.
Staff is attemptln, to schedule a meetin& of tbis Council subcommittee with a ."';1...
aubcommittee from the Sweetwater Authority, pedIaps OIl May 24 or May 26. Staff is abo
attemptln, to ,ather additional Information from Sweetwater Authority staff to more fuDy
answer the questions raised by Council at the May 5) mild",.
. In the meantime, staff wanted to make Council aware of two upc:omin& meetlnp In case
CouncUmembas wanted to attend to apress their conccms further. The Sweetwater
Authority Board of DirectorI wiD have their ftIUJar meetin& OIl Wect"''Y, May 17, at
7 p.m. Their GeMral Manlier Indicated that CouncUmember'I could cctaInly apcak to. the
Board on the awer bWinI issue under the 0J'I1 eon-tmlO"tI-.qeDda """;"1, altboulh It
could DOt be diJcussed substantively by the Board aInce 1t',1IOt OIl their May 17..... The
Mlt meetin& of the Interqency Water Task Fon:e IIlCbeduJed for )I~, May 22 at 9:00
a.m. In the Council Conference Room. UI4 the issue of tewer ~l"lla alIeady OIl the .",..
for the Task Force meedna (Item '4: Sewer Bi1lin& P...... Jteport). Tbe OouDcD',
15jN J Ir'lativea OIl the Interapney Water Task Force lie Mayor BartoD IJId CouPeI1-~
PadWa; It II ataff', understandin& thatCouftcl1l11ember Padilla wm be UIlIble to attend the May
22 Interqency Water Task Force meetin&, 10 other CouncIl-bas miaht Want to consider
atten4In&.
--~
/;?-;;2~
" .
.
.
.
TIle Honorable Mayor and City CouncIJ
May 16, 1995 .
Pale 2
,
. Staff would also lib to remind the CouncIJ of a commitmeDt made in Pebruar)' 1994 to
OOIIvert the City'sleWa' biJUna from the Sweetwater Authority System to an altenIate hltli."
I)'SIem by July I, 1995, allhou&h the Sweetwater Authority ""'I'll n-1ItivealUbJequentJy
iDdi""""" a willinJllClSS to aJJow ilia couple of IdditioDalmonths beyoIId II1II.........;- u km&
u we ~ maJdnaaood JlJuJI'IIS toward coave:rdDa to an altenIate IeWa' ~1I1l." .,.....
.,............ is a memo lent to the City CouncIJ 011 Pebruar)' 16,1994 iufonniJJa r......eu oftbe
nquest that the Sweetwater Authority bad made for IUCh a wrluea -mlUDeIlt u weD u a
copy of the letter of commitment that the City Manaaer was pJamllna 0II1e11CtiD& to the
Sweetwater Authority if the CouncU did not apress Ifty conc:ems Ibout that course of 1Clion.
Since DO members of the City CouncU expressed OOIIctm at that point about lenclina the Jetter,
the City Manager did lend the Jetter that is atIIChed to the Sweetwater Authority Board. 'Jbe
Jetter indicated that if the Sweetwater Authority Board IJ'lllted the City a one-year atension
from their previous July I, 1994 deadline to a DeW July I, 1995 deadline, then the City would
commit to meetina that ~""i'le for OOIIvertina the City'sleWa' bUJina to 1ft altenIate aystem.
Upon nceipt of the City Manaaer'. Febnwy 16, 1994 Jetter, the Sweetwater Authority Board
IJ'lllted the one year extension of its d........i"e to July 1995, u the City bad nquested. Since
the Sweetwater Authority Board ofDireaors is wry 1ikeJy to IMjNtIS ICious o-cem Ibout"""
whether the City is meetina this commitment, Ilaff WlDted to make ~ the City CouDcD is
aware of the commitment that was made in Febnwy of 1994 to the Sweetwater Authority
Board before CouncUmembers discuss the issue with dected offidaJs from the Sweetwater
Authority.
Atrachment
"""\
~ )J~c2?
,---
,
r
"
1'ebruary 16, 1994
1'.11e 110. 0-081
.~I
. naIIl
81JB3BC'1'1
Honorable JIa)'Or aneS Cl ty Counc11
",ohn D. Go.., CUy 114n.ger i
VpcS.t. on s.wer Bll11n;
ftl. aport ie ~o provld. Councll wlth an .peS.t. on ~he .tatu. of
~e Clty" aque.t. ~o ~e Sweetwater AuthOrity and et.y w.t.r
>>1aUlct ~o . conUnue ~olnt ....r aneS w.ter b1111ng util ~e
.1tuaUon wlth ~e San Dle;o Area wa.tew.ter Jlanag...nt Dl.trlct
(SDAWHIl) i. Jaunm. Prevlously, both w.ter dl.trictl b.eS requesteeS
that ~. Clty of Chula Vllt. ..par.te our ....r b1111ng from ~elr
water bill1ng .ff.ctlve ",uly 1, l"C.
S .t wlth Bud pockllngtoD, Chair of Sweetwater AuthorUy, aneS Dlck
Reynold., General Kanager, on W.dne.day, February 16 to .ee wh.t
c1rcWllSunce. would make It 1II0re Ukely for Sweetw.ter Authority to
approve an .xt.ndon of ~. July 1, U94 de.d11ne. Bud Pock11ngton
indlc.t.d a wllllngn... to recOllllllend to the Board a one ye.r
enendon u ",ulyl, 1195, if the Clty would Indlcate in wrlUng
~.lr w1111ngn... ~o cClllllll1t to th.t d.te. Attached i. a copy of
~e 1euer I int.end to aend to hlm IncUc.tlng th.t va wll1 cOmmit
~o .et.lng the July 1, 1"5 d..d11ne: ~he Sweetwater Authorlty
. Board wll1 be con.ld.ring thl. l..u. at thelr 1'ebru.ry 23 .eUng,
. 10 pl.... cont.act ... a. aoon a. po..lbl. if you have any concern. .
about thi. cour.e of acUon. .
At ~h. aft.rnoon ..Ung of ~h. et.y W.ter Dl'1trlct Bo.rd, Bud
pockllngt.on axplalneeS to the etay Bo.rd the recOllllllendat1on be was
901n9 to make to the Swe.t.wat.er Authority Bo.rd to ext.end the ,01nt.
bl111ng unt.l1 July 1, 1"'. ~he et.y W.ter Dl.tr1ct voteeS to
extend ~he ,01nt. .ewer and water bll11llg antll July 1, 19t5,
conUngent upon the Sweet...ter Authorit.y Board abo gr.nUng an
ext.eDllon.
.ecelvlng a on.-ye.r ext.n.lon from the w.t.r agencle. ~1de.
~ch n.eded addltlon.l tt.e for the Clty u decide bow ~e Clty
,,111 bll1 ....r cu.t.omera. At thl. point, ltaff II le.ning toward
nCClllllllend1ng ~at nddenUal cu.t.OJDer. be billed on ~e ~rty
Ux tlll1 and cOllllllerc1a1/1ndu.tria1 cu.tOJIIer. be bl11ed b1Jllont.hly by
~e City. Staff w111 be cOJD1ng back to Councll later ~. year
"lth a 1IlOfti-detalled aport on b1l11ng alternativel. and a
%ecOlaleftd.t.1on.
.Attachment
-.- '"...-
.
~J;J-;;)')
._. _...- . ..-------.,..----.. . .--..". .. ..
.. ..J..
.
.
~"'~
~
01Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAClER
.......,
.
I
.
.
,
F.bruaxy 16, 1994.
l'.11e . n-081
JIr. Bud .ocklln~on, Chair
.we.~wa~er Au~hori~y
505 Garrett Avenue
Chul. V.1at., CA nno
>>ear 'Bud I
.~. City of Chule Viat. haa requeated the .weetwa~.r Authori~y
Board to conUnue join~ aewer and wUer b.11l1n9 unt.11 th. aituaUon
wi~h the San Diego Ar.. Waatewater Management Diatrict .1a known.
You have ..k.d th.~ we clarify th. time fr.me and indic.te wh.th.r
we would agre. to an .x~enaion of .the curr.n~ 'oin~ b.11llng that .1.
UmU.d to July 1, 1995. ..
We feel tha~ an .x~enaion un~.11 July 1, 1995 would provide our Ci~y
Council and ataff .ufficient time to make more 1nfo~d deciaiona
and perfoZ'lll th. n.c....xy work to conv.rt the aewer Cu.~omera to an
ahern.Uve b.11l1ng aya~em. If the Sweetwat.er Au~horUy Board
,r.n~. the City of Chul. Viat.a art ex~enaion to July 1, 1"5, we
wl1l COJllIIIU to ..eeUng tha~ deadUn. for converting our .ewer ~
cuat.om.rs to an .lterna~e billing .y.t.em.
~nk YO\l for your cooper.Uon in this ma~~.r.
Sincer.ly, ·
John D. Go..
CUy Manager
CCI Mayor/Councll
~ i)'ir
171 FOUFlTH AVENUEatULA VISTA, CALFORNIA .,11111(1'1)8'<<11'
"""\
.ATTA~ 5
COUNCIL ~GENDA STATEMENT
.
Item
Meeting Date MIIV g. ,g!J:;
SUBMr1'TED BY:
Resolution Declaring the CIty'a Intention to transfer
.ewer billing from the Sweetwater Authority to In.houae billing,
appropriating t29,940 from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund for
additional atan-up costs for Implamentlng the change In billing
.arvlce, and amending tha budget to add one new ataff position
to the Public WorkllEnglnearlng Sewer Section.
Director of Public Works
Director of Finance
Director of Management and Information Services
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sthl Vote: Ves ...L-No---l
.
The City currently contracts with Sweetwater Authority to bill City of Chula Vista
sewer service jointly with their water service. During the past few years, Sweetwater
Authority has notified the City that they Intend to cease the joint billing arrangement.
While the City has been successful in postponing the date in the past, the current
cutoff date is September 30, 1995. In the past City staff has presented City Council
with alternatives and recommendations for taking over tha sewer billing. This agenda
Item Is to finalize the steps necessary for the City to take over the billing of the sewer
customers now billed with water service by Sweetwater Authority and to bill the
customers directly by the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize staff to transfer sewer billing from
the Sweetwater Authority to In-house billing, epproprlate t29,940 from the Sewer
Service Revenue Fund for stan-up costs for equipment, aupplles and aervlces
necessary to bill sewer customers, and approve the addition of one ataff member to
the Public WorkslEnglneerlng Sewer Section. The costs to the General Fund for the
additional staff person are to be reimbursed from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
,Bllckaround During the past few years both Otay Water District and
Sweetwater Authority have notified the City of Chula Vista that they Intended to
cease billing aewer for the City jointly with their water bills. While both had agreed
to postpone the cut-off date In the past, the water districts Indicated In Spring 1994
that the latest cut-off date of June 30, 1995 was firm. During the Jun. 1994 budget
process Council accepted a staff repon recommending the City bill residential aewer
customers on the County propeny tax bill and commercial sewer customers directly.
The County propeny tax bill Is used to bill sewer services by aeveral cities and
.
~ IY'c27
Page 2. Item
Meeting Date Mav 9. '995
unincorporated areas .In the County, Including the old Montgomery Sanitation District """
customers In Chula Vista.
,In September/October 1994 the City mailed over 38,000 letters to all sewer
customers explaining the proposal to bill rasldentlal sewer servlca on the property tax
bill and commercial customers In-house. City staff conductlild a serlas of Informational
maetlngs for Interested citizens. At the October 25, 1994 City Council meeting
(ATTACHMENT Bl, Council conducted a public haarlng on the various alternatives for
sewer billing. At that council maetlng, Council postponed a final decision on sewer
billing and granted the Chamber of Commerce 30 days to address the Issue of Joint
billing with the two water agencies. Based on public Input, Council also took action
at the October 25, 1994 meeting to ramove property tax billing from consideration as
a sewer billing option. The Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce attended
the next board meeting of each water district and urgad them to continue the Joint
billing of water and sewer services. In November 1994, the Sweetwater Authority
Governing Board reaffirmed their Intention to cease the Joint water/sewer billing, but
they were willing to extend the June 30, 1995 deadline by a few months. The Otay
Water District Board Indicated they were open to continue the Joint billing, but delayed
a formal decision until they have an opportunity to meet Jointly with the Chula Vista
City Council. City staff is currently working with the Otay Water District staff on
several issues Including sewer billing.
Following the City Council direction to look at options other thIn. property tax billing ~
for residential customers, City stIff further researched the options of doing all billing
In-house or contracting out sewer billing to another compllny Dr agency. Based on
studies of billing options that considered cost, customer service, availability of
customer information, management Information and futura flexibility, City staff
notified Council In Jsnuary 1995 (ATTACHMENT Cl, thst It would proceed with the
steps necessllry to transfer sewer billing from tha Joint billing now provided by
Sweetwater Authority to an In-house billing system.
While the City has not received official notlficstlon from the Otay Water District, we
anticipate the continuance of joint billing for the OtllY Water District customers. There
have been no plans at this tlm. to change the method of billing the customers who
are In the old Montgomery SlInltatlon District. The City will continue to bill their
sewer chllrges on the County property tax bill.
Current Status Staff has completed the Investigation. of the costs and steps
necesssry to bring sewer billing In-house for the Swaatwater customarswho are
currently billad Jointly with water sarvlca. The In-housa billing systam that staff Is
proposing would be eble to handle all of the City sewer customers In the future If It
becomes desirable Dr necessllry. The estimated cost to the City for trensferrlng sewer
billing for customers now billed jointly by Sweetwater Authority Is U6,500 for FY94-
95 and .11,000 of one-time costs and .137,230 on-going annUli costs In FY95-96.
The annual on-going costs will be off-set by savings of approximately .162,000 In ~
billing cost currently paid to Sweetwlltar Authority . ATTACHMENT A summarlzas the
.~ /J--JO
.
.
.
Page 3. Item
Meeting Dat~ Mav 9. '99& .
Initial costs end estimated on-going costs.
.
In order to accomplish a smooth transition from joint billing to lepsrate City and
Sweetwater Authority billing, there are leveral Iteps to be taken.
1. Work with Sweetwater Authority Itaff to Insure I Imooth tranlltlon.
2. Hire Ind train necessary staff.
3. Acquire billing hardware, software and supplies.
4. Conven the customer data base and conduct trial billing tests.
6. Inform the customers of the changes.
S. Contract for printing, mailing and lockbox services.
7. Arrange on-going data base update with Sweetwater Authority, Including water
usage for commercial and multi-family.
Work with Sweetwater Authorltv Staff City Itaff has met with Sweetwiter
Authority staff to plan the transition. The two staffs are working on a tlme.teble,
customer notification, data conversion, trlai billing and on-going exchange of
Information. Formal and Informal meetings will continue throughout the tranaltlon.
Currently the Joint water/sewer bill Is sent every other month to residential customers
by Sweetwater Authority. Sweetwater Authority has requested that the City bill
lewer bl-monthly on the alternate month from the water bill for lingle family
residential customers. This would give the customers alternating Imaller bills once
a month rather that both bills every other month. Since lingle family residential
customers are billed a flat rate for lewer, this could be done. Unle.. Council directs
otherwl.e, staff will proceed with thl. plan of Iltemating lingle family re.ldentlal
lewer billing with the water bill.
In addition to working with Sweetwater Authority, City ataff Is allo In contact with
National City Itaff as they a.sume In-hou.e lewer billing and with the city Itaff. of
1.a Me.a and EI Cajon that took over lewer billing e few yearl ego. Staff ha. 11.0
been working with the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego County
Apanment A.soclatlon to enlure we are meeting the concernl expre..ed by them on
behalf of their members. The main concern. .xpr....d Ia.t October d.alt with the
tran.fer of .ewer charges from tenants to landlord. that would ben.ce.sltated by
changing sewer charges to the propeny tax bill. By billing the cu.tomers directly, we
can lend the lewer bill to the current recipient and not affect the rental retes.
Hire and Train Staff Based on the .xp.rl.nce of oth.r cltl.., Itaff antlclpat.. the need
for a minimum of one additional clerical Itaff member at thl. time. This new Itaff
~ /;J<J /
Page 4. Itern
Meeting D~ Mav 9. 1995
person will be an Administrative Office Assistant III and will work with a current .""",
Administrative Office Specialist who will be assigned to also work on the In-house
sewer billing. The new position could potentially be filled by a transfer from an
existing City position.
Currently, the sewer section of the Public Works Englnearlng Division Is In charge of
tha sewer billing. This Involves working with the water districts, monitoring the
contracts, answering customer Inquiries, setting sewer rates, processing sewer
variance requests, and assigning sewer service charge codes. Sweetwater Authority
ataff currently updates the customer data base, generates the bills, processes
payments, collects delinquent accounts and answers customer Inquiries. With the
addition of In-house sewer billing for the majority of the Sweetwater customers, this
will mean City staff will be ganaratlng approximately 9,000 bills par month with the
additional tasks of up-dating the customer data base, handling the additional customer
Inquiries,' generating bills, posting payments, and collecting delinquent accounts. To
save costs and minimize the number of staff needed to produce and mall the bills and
post the payments, staff proposes contracting out the bill printing, atufflng and
mailing services and the bill payment lockbox services. The cities of EI Cajon and Le
Mesa have found these to be cost-effective ways to keep down the high cost of
equipment and the need for additional staff.
Under the tentetive schedule for generating in-house sewer bills, the first sewer-only
bills would be mailed by the City starting October, 1995. In order to train the new
employee, convert the billing data base, test the new billing system and prepare for
tha initial billing, It would be desirable to hire the new employee by June 1, 1995.
The cost for one employee for one month would be 15,200. There are three days of
formal training provided by the company that developed the new billing system
Included in the cost of the software. Additional variable costs associated with travel
expanses for the trainer during the three days of training are estimated to be $300.
"""\
Acoulre ,lIIlno Hardware. Softwere and SUDDlles City staff has evaluated bids for
utility billing software that Is compatible with the existing City microcomputer
network. The package selected Is appropriate for billing small or large numbars of
customers. The billing system Is a proven product that Is used In more than 100
utility billing applications around the country Including the County of San Mateo,
Capistrano Valley Water District, Callveras Public Utility District and City of Hannibal,
Missouri. Two additional microcomputers and a printer will be needed for the new
employee and the existing employee who will be dedlca~ed to sewer billing. While
specific supplies have not been finalized, estimates are based on preliminary
investigation of costs of bills, envelopes and office supplies for billing. For the
convenience of customers wishing to pay at City Hall, we propose Installation of a
drop box outside the doorway oUhe Public Services Building. The costs for hardw.re
and software Is 117,760 and for furniture, equipment, telecommunications and
supplies Is 13,540.
""'"
.~ )J~J;2...
Page 5, Item
MHtlng Date MIIV I. '9~!i
. ~onvlln the Customer Datil BIIse IInd Conduct Trllll Blllino Tests tIItiIII data bese
conversion will be provided by the software company as part of the software cost~
There will also be conversion work to be provided by Sweetwater Authority staff and
City staff. City staff will provide data verification. . Several parallel and trial billings
will be conducted In conjunction with Sweetwater Authority billing prior to cut-over
to In-house City billing. This Is to minimize as much as possible any conversion and
billing errors.
Itlform Customers of the Bllllno Chenoes All Sweetwater Authority customers now
receiving a Joint waterlsewer bill will be notified of the arrangements for sewer billing
by a flyer Inserted In their final Joint waterlsewer bill sent by Sweetwater Authority.
Once we know the decision of Otay Water District, we will notify the customers of
either the continuation of joint billing or the aeparatlon of billing with the sewer being
billed direct from the City. The proposed flyer will be brought back to Council prior
to sending to the customers.
Additional customer notification will Include letters mailed to property owners whoae
tenants now pay for water end sewer. We will notify the property owner that we will
continue to mall the sewer bill to the tenant unless the property owner wlahes
otherwise. We will Include information on sewer billing In the Chul. Vis'. au.rterly
and will send out news releases to the media. The new bill will have e meuage area
where short messages can be added to the bill.
.
~ontrect for Printlno. Maillno end Lockbox ServlclIs To handle the high-volume
printing, stuffing, mailing and payment processing associated with 9,000 sewer bills
a month, staff proposes to contract out the printing, stuffing, mailing and lockbox
services. The cities of La Mesa and EI Cajon and the Helix Water District have found
this to be a very satisfactory and cost effective solution to avoid the Initial cost of
expensive equipment and additional staff to process the volume. Staff will monitor
and continue to evaluate the costs and pros and cons of contracting out all of these
services to see If It would prove advantageous to bring some of these functions In-
house In the future.
Arrana. on-Dolna data baSil uDdat. with Sw.lltWat.r Autharhv .Includlna wilt., u..ae
for commerclel IInd multl-femlly Since water usage Is the basis for charges for
multi-family and commercial accounts, the City will need to receive water usage
information from Sweetwater Authority on an on-going beals. In addition, one
concern expressed by the Chamber of Commerce at the time of the October, 1994
publiC hearing was the ability of the City to cease sewar billing when the water has
been turned off for a vacant rental unit. To addre" these needs, .taff Is dlscuulng
on-going cooperation between the City and Sweetwater as part of the meetings with
the Sweetwater Authority staff. Sweetwater staff has agreed to provide water usage
Information and account maintenance information such es turn-offs, new .ervlces,
change of billing address, etc. Contractual costs are stili being negotiated.
.
~ /;J~3;J
Pege I. Item
M....ng Date Mav 9. '995
Alternative The City Attorney recently brought to staff's attention an alt.ernative to
be brought forward for Council consideration. While the City has spent several years
delaying Sweetwater Authority's request to separate the sewer and water bill, all
Indications were that there was no more room for delay. Under our agreement. either
party had the right to terminate the agreement and Sweetwater was choosing to
exercise that right. However. In December 1994 there was an appellate court
decision that recently came to the attention of the City that the City Attorney feels
could have a bearing on the City's ability to demand that the water districts bill sewer
aervlces for the City. In that court case the court determined that a city has the right
to force a utility company to collect a utility users tax. While it does not cover service
fees. the City Attorney feels that an argument could be made that the City could pass
an ordinance that requires the water districts to collect lewer fees along with their
water fees.
.~
One of Sweetwater Authority's major objections to continued joint water/lewer billing
Is the growing size of the water and sewer bill with the Joint bills often exceeding
.100. They have said that continued joint billing would force them to go from bi-
monthly to monthly billing. This would cause them to add staff and expand their
facilities to accommodate monthly meter reading which would add considerable cost
to the billing process.
Unless directed otherwise, staff will not pursue this option of forcing Sweetwater ~ .
Authority to continue the joint billing and will proceed with bringing the billing In-
house.
FISCAL IMPACT: The appropriation of .26,500 from the Sewer Service Revenue
Fund Is needed In FY94-95 to bring sewer billing In-house. The on-going annual cost
to the Sewer SerVice Revenue Fund will be .137.230. Staff estimates an additional
onetime cost of .11,000 in FY95.96. The annual costs will be off-set by the
reduction of the fee now paid Sweetwater Authority of .1.50 per bill or an estimated
.162,000 per year. There will be a net gain to the General Fund of .1.870 In FY94-
95 and $22,370 In FY95-96 because of reimbursement of Itaff and overhead costs
by the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Estimated One-Time and Ongoing Sewer Billing Costs
Minutes from October 25. 1994 City Council Meeting
Memorandum: Update of Sewer Customer Billing
... .' - __wIOI.'"
~
~ J;J~;5r
ATTAcmnnrr 6
. MINUTES OF A REGULAR lu;t;IJriG OF THE crry COUNCD.
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
c:-cil 0Iambets
Public s.m- Buildin,
'.
n-da)', Ma)' 9, 1995
6:08 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
I. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Call1len-'-1 AIevy, Moo&, Padilla, RiDdoDe, ad Mayor HorlolI
JoIIII D. 0oIl, City Manapr; Bnac:e M. BoopanI, City AlaM)'; ad Vicki C.
Soderquist, DepUI)' Cil)' Clerk .
3.
2.
April2S. 1995, April2S, 1995 (AdjOllmed Special Meetin,), ad Ma)'
2, 1995.
llSC (MooIIAlevy) to approve the minutes r April 25, IlI!IS (Atljoumed Special), April 25, Il1!1S, and )"y
2, 1"S .. pNtIIted. Approved unanlmo wilb Horton abs&alnl.. on the minutes or )Illy 2, Il1!1S.
.c. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DA V:
.
a. Oath or omce: HOUIin, Adviaory Commission arban A. WOI1b; a-ree c:aa.rvatioo Colllllliuieo
. Kevin B. Clark. Oath of office wu ,iven to Barbara WOI1b and lCeviD B. Clark by Depuly Cil)' Clerk
Soderquist. .
(llem pulled: 6)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYO HORTON, ...cIilll or the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously, with Counclbnember Rlndo abstalnllll on Itllll ..
5. WRl1TEN COllf1lfUNlCATIONS:
a. Letter rrom the City Attomey utll1l Chat .. a nsult or deliberations Cha In CIoIed s.sIon
on 512"S, the City CoundIauthorlaclltltlnent or the Dilley Rock QuuIT)' Iltlaatl and the .._ent wiU
lie available In draf't lorm In the City o.k'. oII"ace prior to the 5""5 CounclI ...Except lor the
'lII'IIoll1l, then was DO otber obsened reportable action taken by the CIt)' Councll iii 5ealon. II II
_- ded thai tha IetIer be *lived ad filed.
.
6. RESOLUTION 1'71111'7 DECLARING THE ClTY'S INTENTION TO TJlANSFER SE\\D
BD.LING FROM THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY TO IN.HOUSE BD.LING, APPROPRIATING
S2',ll4O FROM THE SEWER SERVICE REVENUE nlND. FOR ADDITIONAL START-tIP COSTS FOR
DIPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN BD.LING SERVICE, AND AMENDING THE BUDGET TO ADD
ONE AD)IINIS'I'RATIVE OmCEASSISTANT m TO THE PUBLIC WORKSJENGINEERlNG SEWER
SECTION - TIle Cil)' curnatl)' _lractI with Sw..cwaler Authoril)' to bill_1irvlce joiDdy with lI!eir water
aervlc:e. Tbi, lito fiDalia the lIepa_ry lor the Cil)' to talc. _ the bill1n, or the _ -- dire;tly.
Staff recommendJ approval of the _Iulion. (Dinctor of FiDance, Dinctor of Public Worb, ad Dire;tor of
M-aemenl and Informalion Servi_) "'Stb'. vOle required. Pulled from the c-st Calendur.
~ /;J/3.5
loIiDlIles
May 9. 1995
Pa&e 2
CouDcil__IoIOOl q~oned wballbe IIIfo_t -"...im would be for delinquent_II. He lUrIber
..-dlllllll if.... - IjoiDtll--.t wilb S~ tbat would allow Ibe mut off ofwater for ....ld _
WJIs. r-
~
Susaa 0Ik, 6._~ t FiDaDee Director. Ilaled lben were two viable optionl: 1) ~ ooIllCtion ..-. &lid 2)
to put tba ooIIICtillD 011 Ibe tall biD. i.e. Ilia 011 tba property. The _d option _ beiD, utilized by Ibe cities
of EI ~llD IIId lA 101_. Staff Iaad DOt addreaaed tbat _ .........,. !hey _led to _ Ibe probI_1IId tbao
ntulD with a1le1Dativea. Water Ihuloffl would DOl bea optiOll lvailable to !be City uaIeIIlbe Aulbority liNed
to it. They W iDdi""'''''' to Ilaff tbat Ibey were DOl iIltenated ill tbat optiOll.
Jo!uI Lippitt. Dinctor of Public Works. iDfOl1lled CouIll:i1 tbat iflbe CIIIIomer eeparaled 1M ClIIIIIIt bill out and OIIIy
paid tba water portiOD ad DOt Ibe eeWer it _ up to !be City to DlIl1ectlbe deliDquenc:y. .
C'OI'11ea'....o,ber 101001 qlMlliODed if !be oIber cities _tend I probl_ wba !be billl _1IpUIled.
MI. Cole replied tbat both EI CajOll ad lA Mea found tbat their _-collectibl.. iDCNUed quite I bit wtJen
Iep8rated from lbe waler bill. Bolb cities fouDd tbat wba it _ put oa !he propeny tall bill their _-collectibl..
_t beI_ wbat tbay were wba lbey were DlImbiDed.
CoutIcilDalber JtiDdoDe Ilated wba Ibe it_ bid beg pmoioualy pruented Council bad beg adamInt about DOl
iDcludiD, it oa !be propeny tall billl. The repon delineated four additioaal services that would be coatracted out.
i.e. !be bill priDtiD,. atuff"lD,. lIIIi1iD, services. and lock-bolL services. He queatiODed !be estimated _ for Iboae
arvicea.
loll. Cole replied !be bi....t COIl of lbe lIIIi1in, lervice _ poIla,e which lbe City would have wbether doin, it
iIl-houae or DlIIIlraCIed out. By uaiD, I lock-bolL service it would reduce the hank service COllI. The actual COllI
ucludiD, poIlaae would be approlLimalely $40.000/year. There would be additioaalllaff COllI of doin, it iD-bouae
ad equipaut_. .
CouDcilDalber RiDdoae quealioned lbe COIl for coatractin, the billin, lervice nIher than doin, it iII-houae.
loll. Cole Ilated it_ utimaled It I 1/2 times lbe COIl of doin, it in-bouae.
CoutIcilmembei RiDdoDe Ilated Ibe City Altomey Iaad addreaaed !he iuue of I leaal _us and be nquealed
clarificatiOll 011 WI position.
Mr. Boo,aard replied that ill December 1994. !he Fourth Appellate Dillrict ruled in I Utility User Fee cue tbat
I city had the ~ to order I utility to collect itl Utility User Tall. Wbile it _ DOlI talL. but I utility cha.....
it_ _tially tba __ cue. It_ I aJi,ht utenaion of tbat cue. but could be I buil for Ilron, DeJOliationa
or pertaapa I DOIIrt cue to nquire Ib_ to do IL Staff had DOl played tbat card wilb !be Authority. but had
..,otiated ill 117in,III pl them to do It vollllltarily. An a1'-live dilCUlled ill Ibe nport ...... to direct Ilaff III take .
. 1trOD,. ...,otiatiDJ ItlIIIce 011 Ibe buil or tIuat of tbat cue IIId aimilar Jaw. .
CotIII..n_.... JUadoat lilted it would __ !be u1li1l11te pi of all a1ected officiala would be to ~ !be IIIOIt
COIl effective l7*1li ill !be lOll' tenD public iII_. WlyallMded to be fouad tbat _ _ COIl efflCtive ill
;rovidiDJ Ibe ___ IIId ooIlectiD, !be COllI for both aervicea. He _ DOlcoatideat .... had ace urred IIId would
DOlIUJlPClllIbe IIIOIutiao. The 1IIf-' _10...1.. ~ tba -1)'Ilam and !be -1)'11- _IIi,hly
deairal!1e.
MS (RladoneJPadiUa) to direct ltafl'to neon_ Ihe llltetlnas with Ihe S......water Water Authority 10 .-II
.. IIIIt ucI .., ~ ell'adi.. I)'ItIm for blIl1", ucI proYidi", both ..w:. to .. CIlIIIStituenis.
"""
"",.
,
~ /J~Jd,
Nillutel
Nay 9. 1995
Paae S
.
.
CouIIcil_tw.r Padilla ......111 to lbe .... ClIImIIlly'paid to Sweetwater of SJ.501bi1l1Dd qIIeIlioaed die
aIelbocloloay ud ClOIIIIlI"- uaed reaardiD, _pow<< 8IICI JoailtiCl ill proeeuiD,lbe Cily'a portioa of lbe biUiII,
..... die -'I to lbe City i11-11ouae.
Na. CoIc npJiad lbe cumat -'tad willi haetwatar Ilalad lbe City -ad pay lbeIII SJ.501biD 10 it _ a fiud
~. '1110 ~ eatimatlll for i11-11ouae _ buill more 011 the uperi_ of lbe citiea of La Nell ud EI ~OII
IlIaD 011 wbat Sweetwater _ ClIImIIlly doiDa for lbe citiea of awJa Villa and NatiooaI City.
CouIItill""mher Padi1Ia lpIIIlioallllf die SJ.501bi1l_ overlDd above s-etwater'. ~.
Na. CoIc Ilalad it _ ... lIIIlIantaDdiDa it _ buill 011 abariD, ~.
Nr. UppiU 1lIt1111bere _ _ ~ abariD, t , ..... Sweetwater did .... NldiDa for their Cl.Ilomers, etc. '1110
1J.501biU lipre _ developed by S~ aevaaI ,.n 110.
Nr. G_1lI1ed Sweetwaler wantlllto pI rid of the Cily'a _ bill in, hlcause of the complainll _ived and
Ibeir COIIcem thaI because the lize of the _ billl, due 10 the Clean Waler Pro,ram, they would bave to '0 from
bi'lDOIIthly 10 mOllthly billilla which would result ill an incNIIollI COIl. They fell they could .void thaI iDcreue for
.while if they did DOl do the Cily'. _ billilla.
Couocilmember Padilla '1ueatioaed whal thin,l were looked al for COmparilODl. i.e. pen:enta,e of _pow<< time.
capital, penoIIDel eoIlI thaI Sweetwater would be relievolll of if they did DOt do !be Cily'a _ billiDa. He fell
thaI _ bow the Cily could arrive at whal the .vin,. would be to the City. '1110 City did DOt bow if they took
over the billin, if Ibere would be more people complainin,to C1aula Villa than Sweetwater IDd whal thole iIIIpacts
-ad be or whal penoIIIlIl would be needed ill the future thaI _ DOt ,-dy IDticipatlll.
1141. Cole replied the _ of the billin, wu . very ameli part of die _ cllarae to the cu__. Tbe Sweetwater
Board fell thaI the a..ravatiOll _, problCftll with coll..clions. and the fact that they were bavill, to put ill a lot
1IIOre effort ill colleclions (IOme of the bill. we" loin, over S I 00) wu min, them to CO to a monthly billill,.
Sweetwaler lIliDIIled they would bave to add AX iliff memhen to '0 to monlhly billin,. For them to absorb the
loa of revenue from the cities of National Cily and ChIlla Villi wu much'" _Iy than bavill,to CO to monthly
IDIler readiD,. They were allO talkin, aboul the need to expand the Iize of their buildiD,to .""""',.......Ie additiOllal
iliff. When they looked al the COIlllliDIIle of doin, OIIly waler bill in, v-. doin,_ biUiII, they were addiD,
In the COIl ofbavill,to '0 to a monthly billill,. When they did thaI then the City doiDa gparate biIIin, wu cbeaper
to the ClIIlomer overall.
Councilmember Padilla '1uutioaed if iliff wu comfortable with the estimate thaI the City coulcl do the biUiDa at
the .me _ or leu than whal SMlCwaler could.
.
114,. Cole replied thaI if il could be doae with the oae addilional iliff member ...~ !be City couIcI do II for the
_ or leu. 'I1Ie OIIe lIIlkDowD that would DOt be known IIDliI the City wu into the proaram _ wIIetber the
proaram _ UDderIlIffed. Staff bad lIlimatlll 011 !be lide of UDder IlImn,__ over IlaffiDa . m". by cIoiDa
_ llbiftill, of iliff it could be lO\ered unlil they bad !be proper llIff'ma level.
Couoellmember Padilla ljUIIlioaed If Ibere wu aoytbin, that couIcI be doae In -"iDa with the Authority iliff
nprcIin,lpICifiCl to find OUl_lpICilically what woulcl be NquiNd to _ all !be polIDliall. He did DOt wanl
III put die City In a poIitiOll of doiD, lbe In hOllN biUiDa and than decidin, that then _ a ~ that _
_ro. . He fell it pndeat 10 find that GUt abead of time ... add... how it -ad be "'1 willi wbeo the COIl
.....011 _.
114.. Cole Ilalad die particular _ iliff _ __ aboul _ the CUIl_ that wallead In IDd paid at lbe
counter. 'I1Ie City of EI ~OD .-ivad very few walk In paymenll, the Cily of La Nell .-ivad . Jarae Dumber
of walle ill paymenll but they werelocatlll ri,hloexl to the Helill Wiler Dillricl. Sweetwater Authorily did .-ive
a Jarae DUmber of walk ill pa~1I bul they fell_ of thoae carne from National City. TIley allO bad a diff_1
~ /J~]7
NiIIUleI
Nay II, IlIlI5
J>aae4
way of 1"1 r-':'IIlbe drop-by paymeall. SlIff JII'IlIIONCIto ~ Ibe paY_II ill Che drop-box to !be look-box
-.vice nlber dau City ..ff proceuiD.lbem. Thai would CUI down aa !be number of minules per cut_ at Ibe
--. SlIfr.wld ~ mlY cut_1bat walked up to !be _ter with a pa)'menl.
('--"/'-- PadiJIa ~0Ded if lUff felt ...... was _ for fwIber neaotiatiOIII with !be Authority in 11I'1III
of Iulln -.,-11.
lim ~. Deputy City N-aer, nplied Ibat..ff at all level.. iDcIudiD.'lbe City Mana,., mid previous
CoImciJmemben. IIad lIIked wilb the Sweetwaler official. mid lie did 110I bave mlY _ to lleIieve !bey would
dwI.e lbeir IIIiDcI aa lbe laue. If Couacil fell mI effort abciuld be made, lie llroa.ly _,pIIed tbal il be ODe or
two Members of Ibe Council. He fell ..ff IIad doae evll')'lhin. ill Ibeir power to II)' to conviDce !be Authority to
110I aepuale Ibe billiD.s. 11Ie Aulbority felllbey IIad pe lbe atra mile by allowiD.!be City to ..y wiIb Ibem
Joa,., dau Ibey _led Ibe City to.
Nayor Hortaa queatiaaed lbe impact of a conlilluance.
Ms. CoIe..1ed iflbe.item was delayed il would probably push back Che Seplember 30th dale. She did 110I feeJ a
contiDuance of a couple of weeks would delay the pro.ram.
Mayor Hortaa Mated if Cou1lciImember RiDd_ aareed aha would IUJlPOI1 the molion if lbe ilem would be brou.hl
back ill a 2.3 week period.
Cou1lciImember liDdone alreed. He then nfeme! 10 pale 6-5 when il ..led thai conlractual COlIS _ lIiII bein.
1Ie,00iated. He fell untillbe Couacil was fully convillced thalChey ware lookinl al the best Ionl term COlI for both
MYices, mid be did nol feel ..ff IIad arrived at thai yet, he was 110I convinced thai was the way the Cily IIad to
JO. Maybe there was mI adjuslmenl in the aervices in the COlli the Cily was rapcm.ihle for. He feJllbere __
_ Jot of Jaidden eoMI tbal __ nol idenlified.
~
Couacilmember MOOIau.aeated an RFP be illUed to _ whal an oulside provider would charae the Cily for lIoin.
lbe bil1iq. He ~ioned if tbal was feasible.
Ms. Cole nplied tbal aD UP IIad 110I been dOlle. SlIff bad conllCled aeveral differenl COIIIpIIIiea mid ~ved
..imalel. Tbe problem was tbal City ..ff lIiII bad 10 be involved. 11Iere was a Jot to _ billin. other lhmI
billi11. and ~vin. paymeoll. SlIff fell comfortable thallhey _ II competilive with Iboae _ II any biIIin.
.,ency. Tbere _ also advanlllea to the Cily'. Oeneral Fund for doin. some ofChe work in-llouae. 'J1Iere was
mI overbead factor Chal WIlli inlo the billin.lhel would come back 10 the General Fund mid if dOIIe by an outside
_pncy, Cheir overbead flClor would also fiaure inlo it, bul thai would ao back to the company and nol the Cily or
benelil!be cilizals. She felt timin. would be a problem beelUII an RFP would like aeveral manlhe.
Mr. Ooa Mated if there were further 1Ie.00000ions wilb Sweetwater ..ff could _ if they could... _ tiIne to
110 that. If 110I mI UP process, ..ff could do a _ formal proposal fnlm Iboae already conllcted 10 ...... would
lie aomeIbin._ delIiled for compariaon. 11Ie motiaa was for ..ff to ... wilb Sweetwater mid ... fIUIItioned
if Ibera was to be. Council .....-.lIIive or CooDcil aubonmmillee to ... with !be alected ofIiciaI. .. !be
s-... BoanI.
~.
~'I'..11p' .,,'~r Rindaae fell CouDcilwas akin. If _Iin._ ayatems _Id be cbeaper than bavina _ iyIIcm.
It was difficuJlto -~Irllllld Ibat _Iin._ llpanlel)'llems that bad 10 _y llOIIIIDonaIilies could be cheaper
than _ aiD.1e 1)'IIem. If _ or _ aIected officials fnlm lbe City needed to ... with _ or _ elected
officials fnlm !be Authority tbal was fiDe. but that would nOt be !be OIlIy 1Iep. The prIl1l11ry IIep _ to try mid
Wrify tbal _ iyIlemI could not be II COlI effective II ... I)'IIem and any ocher problema. He voIunteend to
... with tile aIected official. of !be Authority.
C-'IIcll-mber Moot -.d be would also ... with the alected officials with Councilmemher RindOlle.
""""
~
JJ~J7
MilluteI
May P. IP95
Paae 5
.
Mayor HOI'lOD Ila1ad ... -wi be DI 'l", with ... Authorily ..-ally. ClUlaide' of ... maetiD, of ...
.,,,,,^,,,,,,lttee.
Courool'....lIIlHor Padilla Ila1ad . joiDI maetiD,-'d be beld or ... ""'pIIC)' Watar Tat '- _Id be uaed to
..-.... iaaue. He felt eour..n__ Moat _ --=t ill -tiDJ to look III privata a1tan1ali_.
VOTE ON MOTION: ...,.".ad ,-..t"'ousI,.
,.
REQUIRED.
PORT RENWJC
way atop atth. ill
.faty aDd to _lICe
befon Council to make
Public Works)
AMENDING SCHEDULE D. SECTION 10.52.830 FOR SPECIAL STOP
OUGH STREETS AND STOPPED INTERSECTIONS -CORRAL CANYON ROAD AND
ORTON ROAD. A trial traff'1C N,ulatiCIII_ -1.lilloecl ill Au.... 1994 to lIIIlaIlaD all.
tiOll of Com! CaD)'CIII Road and Port Ranwlckfl'bortClll Road for ... proIIIOliCIII of public
IC IauardI aad -a-tiCIII. ne atop aiJlll "va ... ia afract for lipl _tIu aad iI
a11.way atop pennaIIIIIl. Staff ncollllllllllls approval of tile ~UtiOll. (DiNClor of
.
.. RESOLUTION 1'11119 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (l5-tS.op)FORTHE"CMC
CENTER PARKING LOT EXPAN N (GG.I48)" AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
THEREFOR. On 4/12/95. ..led bids .-ived for 'Civic Cenler Parkin, Lot ExpallliCIII (GG.141).' 'I'IIe
work to be dOlIe iIIcluda .cavalion and dinl. asphalt COI\CNle pa_l. cnuhed .......1. .... curb aad
IUller. planler curbs. COIISlnacliOll of CODCNt rb outlet and drainaae channel, land....p" planlina. irriptiCIII aad
IllliDleIIaDoe. parkin,lolli,hlin,. atripinland . I. traffic conlrol. and ochtr milOlll_ work ihOWD CIII the
plans. Staff NCOIIIIDIIIdI approval of the NIOlull . (DiNClor of Public Worka)
Councilmember RiDdOlll declared . _Diet and abItai from participaliCIII due to the pro&imity of his ~ to
dae projecl.
P. PUBLIC HUllING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC .1; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
AN tJmfANNED CELLULAR COJ\ff,fVNJCATIONS FACalTY ON SITE OF THE OTAV WATER
DISTRICT WATER TANK. LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY TERf, S OF GOTHAM STREET.
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR . AirToucb Cellular is Nqueatina permiaiCIII to .. -............ oeIlu1ar
~caliCIIII facility at th. _thwat corner of the waler laDle paroellocated at Y IanlliDUI of ~ho...
Straet. Staff ncommends approval of the _luliOll. (DiNClOr of Plannin.) C4InIi ,.... die ..una of
3/14/9S.
RESOLlTrlON 1'1190 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PElUUT,I'CCf5. TO AlRTOUOI
CELLULAR TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FA !TY AT THE
EASTERLY TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET
aad ...
MartiD MiDer. Ii uriole PIuuIer. pva. "ide ..-taliCIII of the Jh....md '-tiao at Ooth....
a1ten1ala lita: ,.ot' .... Hip ScbooI aite; Coate A_ waIer laDle aite; 1'_ SlI'aIl aite; and ..
lite.
CouIr..n"........ Moat queatiCllled if the 1IIllIIOpOI. a110 W the bue facility.
.
0' JJ-JJ
"'"'"
- This Page Blank -
~
"'"'"
~ JJ~ytJ
A'l'TAt"a'M1ftqT 7
MEMORANJ)VM
JaDlW)' lB. 1995
.
SVBJ'ECT:
Hcmorable Mayor and City CouDcU
JohD D. Gou, City Ma.lla&er .
JoIm Uppiu, Director or Public Warb
Robert Powell, DireclOl of Fi...- .
LouIe ViplpiaDo. Director or MaDapmeDt and IDfanDatioD Semces
Vpdate on Sewer Customer BilliDa
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
Over the past few years both OIly Water Dis1rIct and SweetWater Authority bave DOtified the
City of Ch~la Vista that they iDteDcI to cease joint water and IeWeI' bWiJI&s for die City. WhUe
lbey bave qreed to pos1pODC the cut.off date iD die past, the cumDt date or f1Da1 billiD& for both
water districts is JUDe 30. 1995. At the October 25, 1995 City Q)o.nt!U ~"lI. CouDcU
CODducted . public bearilli on the ftrious altenlltives for IeWeI' bWiIIi. At that COUDC1l
meetiDa. CouDCU J1Uted the Chamber of Commerce', request to POSlpODe. fiDal decision on
sewer bWiIIi. ,!villi the Chamber time to address the issue of joint bWiIIi witb die two water
aaeDClu. The CouDCU also took lCtlon at the October 25, 1995 _.ti'll to remove property 1U
billiD& ftom cousideration u a sewer bWiIIi option.
. As oudiDed to CouDcU in the November 17, 1994 informatiODal memorandum, Sweetwater
Authority v.....1rnously voted to proceed with tenDmtl'll die joint billiD& qreemeJII. 'Ibe OIly
Water District indicated . wWilliness to recoDSider their decWon to tenDiDate joint b111iD&.
However. they ulced for more time to make the decision. . 'Ibey reco"""eJIded . joint meetiDa
with the Chula Vista City CouncU. Because of the requested delay by Otay Water Dis1rIct, both
Olay Water District and Sweetwater Authority are wl1liD& to extend die JUlIe 30. 1995
tenDiDation date a few montba to allow the City time to make die DeCeI'..,.muaementl to like
over billiDa.
SiDce the October 25. 1995 City CouDcU mt ';",. City staff IIu exwotl........ to IDvestipte the
.111iD& optiODS or contractiD& separate bWiIIi wltb die water apnciea. b111iD& in-IIoaae and
IlODtrICIiD& with . tbIrd party. As pan of the invutipt1oD, iliff IIu met with the 0-."'. or
Commerce staff, water district ataffa. San Dlelo CuuDty ApartmeDt AI..,..w. members.
prlvate WDdon and El Cajon and La Mesa City 1tIfra. With infClr"J'Aflftn from tbeIe IOUICCI.
iliff IIu been able to refiDe b111iD& ClOIU and isneI. . . . .
.
WhIle b111iD& 0ClIlI are a ~ fIctor in die b111iD& metbod. other __ to ClODSIder are
customer service. coUecdOD enfon:emeDt, avallabUity or manapmeDt and coaoomer IDformatiOD
and flulbUity for future cban&es. . . BWiD& in-house provldes die Oy.,oJ llmIty for the '-t
customer service. tbe best availabUity. of IIIIIlIPIDCId aDd CUItoIDer informatiOD aDd the ~
.
~ /Y-'iI
\ >
Sewer Customer BilIina Update
-2-
January 18, 1995
flwllility for future e"""""""'ilents. The other Ifea5 10 explore are IlOSt 10 customer and
enforcement.
RefillelfteDt of IlOSts IiDce die October 25, 1995 meetiD& lMic-te dlat die only lltenlative 10
billina In-house dlat could be Jess apenslve dIID die in-house option would be a joint bi11iD&
manaement with Laidlaw. For DUlDerouJ reasons, staff feels dIat joint bi11iD& with Laidlaw is
DOt a viable option. The other factors of customer service, ClOllec:tioD enforcemeDt, availability
of lIWI8.ement information and flexibility for future c:Iwl&es OIltWeiah tbe ama11 poccfttl.t uviD&
from joint bi11iD& with 1..ldJaw.
.
PrelimiDar)' calculations mow die aaviDp potential 10 be 1e.u dIID $3 per Jar per
customer or a total aunual aaviDp of $45,500 for die 15,300 Sweetwater
customers. (In fact, total aewer bi11iD& ."lftl"letrative IlOS1S reprelentI only 5"
of the total sewer billina.) >
While 1Unlin. off water for DOn-payment of aewer directly affects die delinquent
customer, discoDtinuina larbaae service for DOD-payment of aewer affects the
Dei.bborbood as well as the DOn-paYina customer.
People are llOW confused betweeJl the City and Laidlaw when die)' have questions
about their vasb bill. The City Cotmcil offICe and die City Manaaer', offICe
receive calls now dlat ri.btiy abouId be directed to Laidlaw. A""II'1 aewer 10 tbe
Laidlaw bill would compound die confusion.
There is an inherent cozmection betweeJl water and aewer l)'ltems. There illIO
,imilar CODDeCtion between aewer and lOUd waste disposal.
Since customer and water usaae information will ,till be Deeded from die water
qeney, there would be a hip potential for errors with three qencies Involved
(water, City, Laidlaw).
There is DOt an exact mateh of aewer and ,..lIft.w customeI'I. Not all aewer
customers ,ubscribe to Laidlaw service and DOt alll..ldlaw customers are hooked
to the aewer ,ystem. For rentals, dim are cues where die landlord pays for
Laidlaw service and the teDlDt pays for water and aewer service.
Sweetwater', maiD complaiDt about tbe current joint billina is dIat tbe combiDed
bi-monthly bill is too hiah. 'Ibis problem would just transfer 10 the Laidlaw bill. .
If die joint bill cauaea larler IIWDben of dtlinqueneies as Sweetwater ~"".,
dIeD addina aewer charles 10 the I .14I1,w bill could Idvenely ~et die JW"''-
of delinquencies on a joint aewerllruh bill.
Joint bi11iD& could also complicate future "'Motu. aep;.MM.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bued on all of dIese factors, staff iI pre e-"I"I with funber iaYatIptioD of in-JIouIe bi11iD&
optioDS. If Olay Water District iI willina 10 ~lm.Ie the joint bi11iD& lZ'I'aIIIelrll~. the City
could transfer only die Sweetwater Authority customeI'IlO in-house bi11iD&. 'Ibis would provide
die least amOWlt of cJwIae for die. ClIItomerl at a ClOSt effective pD. Bi11iD& In-house
eliminates the major concerns expressed at the October 25, 1995 public heariDa. ')bat ii, it will
DOt transfer the billina to the pl~ tax bill. It willlllow laDdlords 10 maintain the lame
~
/:J - '1J-
.~
~
"""\
.
.
-
Sewer Customer BilliDa Update
-3-
January 18, 1995
billiDa mangements u they currently have, i.e. billiDa tile tenant directly if tile landlord 10
desires. RecelviDa service information from Sweetwater Authority would permit aewer service
billiDa to discontiDue when water service is 1lIrDed off w!Ien a naideDCe is YaCIDt. AlternatiD&
a bI.montbly sewer billiDa with Sweetwater', bi-DIODthly water billiDa would live customers
cweJve amalJer montbly bills rather 1ban six laraer bi-montbly paymeDts ill a JIII'. .
Staff will briDa this issue back to a City Councu ~tiD& ill tbe IIW future U lOOn u OIay
Water District makes a decision or is ready to meeL ID the JDterim l1Ift'is pre r"i"l with the
research needed to obtain and implement a cost effective and customer service oriented iD-bouIe
billiDa system for at least those Sweetwater alXlOUJIts that must be traIISfemd.
.-' .~ ..-
KYoCIIl
~ /5~J/J
""'"
- This Page Blank -
'"""'
"'"
..J--4 / }/o/7
S~N~,1
(/
'(1'5 .
ATTAt"'IIM"IrI\'! 8
e
MEMORANDUM
November 17,1994
..
.
TO:
Honorable Mayor aDd City CouDCil
. John D. Goss, City Manager !
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works Y
.
VIA:
nOM:
SVB.JECT:
Sewer BilliDa Update FoUowiDa Board MeetiDp of Sweetwater Authority aDd Otay
Water District
At the October 25, 1994 City Council meetiDa. CouDCil aranted the Chamber of Commerce's request
to postpone any decision 0)1 . sewer billiDa until the November 22 Council meetiDa. The Chamber
wanted time to address the water districts about continuiDa the joint billiDa u the best billiDa solution
from the customer's standpoint. The CouDCil also removed County p10ptlty tax billiDa from
CODIideration u a billiDa option.
At the November 9, 1994 meetiDa the Sweetwater Authority Board of Directors voted ""."imously to
proceed with terminatiDa the joint billing qreement u of June 30, 1995. They will be preparing a
.Jetter for the City restatiDa the Authority's position aDd describiDa their offer to provide billiDa
JDformation dlat would. mi"imi...e the impact on citizens.
At the November 16 meetiDa of the Otay Water District Board of Directors, the Board indicated they
were open to consider continuing the joint billing arranaement, but they want a couple of months to sort
it OUL They are reoommtndiDa a joint meetiDa in January between the Cbula Vista City Council, the
OIay Water District Board and the Sweetwater Authority Board. The topic of sewer billing would be
ODe of the agenda items for such a meetiDa.
The Olay Water District Board also indicated that they would extend the June 30, 1995 deadline a few
momhs siDce they were ,clri"l for more time to IIlIke a decision. They iDteDd to uk Sweetwater
Authority to also extend their June 30, 1995 deadline at the ~ 91Dterqency Walei' Taskforce
meetin&. Since we will DOt be billiDa on the ptopea ti tax bill1lDder any 1ICeIlllio, the City is DOt locked
iDto meetiDa a County deadline. Thus, a delay of a decision for a few momhs with an extension of the
deadline from the water districts would DOt be critical to the City's ability to IISUIIIe the billiDa
raponsibility.
Because of the action of the Otay Water District Board of Ditectol6, IIaft' wUl DOt be briDaiDa sewer
billiDa bIck to City CouDCil on November 22 u previoully lCheduled. We will readdreu this issue
wIleD more JDformation beoomes available.
eiY.w ....
.:vr-- / ;J-~
"""\
- This Page Blank -
"""'\
."",
~ JJ--'1?
.
.
.
ATTA~ 9
MiDuleI
Ora., 1/ 25, 1994
Pap 3
Co tIIIcribIllI eM '-'111 ., eM ....1IaII... c.uronla IIIaIda kuriI, Ad (OI5A), -
--.111I It, to adopt .-w- '-II, -4' ~ "....lioa 1M . c.Jil__ lor tt.alth
lcuril)', 5201 C Avc.,OIkIand,CAt46II.lIill l7 .o-I.....c:.....;I...VII...liklllia.......
tIoa ..... lilt Cultun1 AnI 1: '-'jl' . o.r AriD,414 lilt 1U1II1lII St., QuIa
..... 1M lllipatioa lie I J lid wllh ..". .... .... City CIIIIt .. diNCled
10 1M Madd)' Act . .... CIIIIt', 0Ir1Ol .... .... Public LiIlru7.
d. lAtter .,
Villa, CA 91911. Ilia
. post illll "i...,,1ICCOId
6. RESOLtmON '''90 41V1NG THE BIDDING PROCFft AND AJ'PROYING THE I'URCP "Sf'
orFOUIl3loSSELr.cHECK WO AnONS......'iIcII Y_I994I95Capilll~1 ....1 ProjclIludJll
_lIiDs lllllda IIlocaled lor 1M 01 four 11I1 cIIIdt .od~.'ioaJ. AI'M ia 1M )' _u~_1O 1IIpp1)'
. worUlIlilllllllal iDeem- wllb 1M If" INLEX __led cimtIalilIIll)'llllD. ....1Jtlnr)- ... 10 "VII
... biddiDl pll; II'. purdlul four UDi IlIrr _a.?'" -fI .PIDYII of.... .-IlIliorI. (J..iIaIJ DinctGr)
. '
.,. RESOLUfION '''91 APPROYIN GRANT APPL1CAnON IN THE AMOUNT or 1200,_
TO THE TOBACCO COJ\iROL$ICTION, C FORNlA DEPARTMENT or HEALTH SERVICES ......
....1 propoal cleveloped b)' lbe Park, " krallillll I, .. IIehaII of... Quia Villa Youtb CoIIiIillll,
raquesll 1200,000 _.24 IDODth period (1/1/95 . I 1196). GrIDlIlllldiftI will lie -.II IoWn I ""...
ptOjeel coordiDalor throulh lbe Parka " krallillll I, . MIl . ava-t ... )OIItII...,.,,-- projact
IIpllIIIONd b)' lbe Cil)' IDd South Ba)' c-unil)' Services' 'daBiz Propun, ... youtb ACTION PropuI.....
olber pnllrlllll lII'\'inl aula ViIla)'Olllh. IlIrr of 1M .-IlIliorI. (DiNCtOr 01 Parka.
krallillll)
.. RESOLtmON "'''2 AMENDING SCHEDllLE VI, $I ON ID.S2.M1 or THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO PARKING TllolE LIMITED ON CERTAIN REm. SHASTA STREET FROM
DEL MAR A VENUE TO TWIN OAKS A VENUE, A PORTION 0 HE lID BLOCK or DEL MAR
AVENUE, A PORTION or THE 200 BLOCK or \\1I1TNEY AVENUE tlo.... proviIiou 0I1ICtiClII
10.52.230 Dllbe Mlllliclpa.1 Code, lb. Cil)' EDam- IIullllmtliDed...... 1M iIi ofDliIlliziDJII'IfIic.......
.... tralfic _JIIIillll, and lor 1M ~lIIl 01 public .ftt)'. a .-IlIlIlIIl '. two IIour IillllliIIIIlIlI
pukiD. rutrictiDJI .. ...blished iD lb. 500 block 01 Del Mar A_III, ... 200 ...... ..... .... WWlDe1
A__. slIrr ~ apprDYII of 1M .-I1IlIlIIl. (DiNclor of Public Works)
· · iND OF CONSENT CALENDAIt..
PUBLIC HE:A1lINGS AND 1lD.ATED RESOLtmONS AND O1lDINANtT.~
t. PUBLIC HE:A1lING BILLING USlDENnAL SEWER CHARGES ON nit COUNTY
PROPERTY TAX BILL AND NON.RESJDEN'J'IAL SEWER ClWtGES IN-HOUSE STARTING IlILY._
."5 . 011)' Wa.., Diltrict IIICI S~.-w.Iar AlrL. ritJ aalified 1M CilJ ........, wiIhIIf 10 ... 10....... .,. I ..
IDprovidejoinl wacll'__ WlliDJ'frICtivt .,1I1t'. ..... CilJ _ .. II HIM. Y '\. ..._........ ofWIii.,
far lIIrae ,..,. .... . _ for............ AdDri'lJ......ID....... ilia....... 10 1I11tS; ... CilJ.......
. wriliDllD -.l 1M ....1_. Iolb.... diIlrictI"Vllaa""'" 10 ... CilJ .... ... 1'"....finD. .. Me
1994, c-cil dinctad IlIrr 10 '-1 ; r ~ wI1h ....10 .....,. _1NI1iDJ to. ........ A",.. Jlt).... 0117
W..., DiIlrict 10 ... Caual)' IllIOIb far .....liII p - . III .... 10 . ..'1It1lilliDJ far \r-i~-- I . Ill! .
elrlctiVII 111/95. ItarrncAIIIIllflapptDVal of.... .-IlIliorI. (Dinc:Ior of PltbIic WClIb, DiIICIOI of'__
.. DincIor of M_'-' "1afDn" .;- SIni )
, RESOLtmON "83 DECLARING THE ClTY'S INTENTION TO TRANSfER SEWER
ClWtGES FROM THE SWEETWATER AUJ'HOIUTY AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT BILLS
UIEC11YE IlILY ._ I"", AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ~OCEED WITH THE STEf5 NECF.ssUY ','
/.3-7"7
MiD\IleI
OcIOller 25. 199..
Pap"
TO BILL aESlDENI'IAL SEWER AND STORM DRAIN CHARGES ON THE COVNTY PROI'EllTYTAX
au AND NON.aESlDENTL\L AND MOBILE HOME 'ARK CHARGES IN-HOUSE
""'"
..... CoJe. PriDcIpIJ MaIIa--, AIIiIlaDt. p'" a Waf .mew or .. alafI' m I ~.,;,.," pabIi;
"f_liaaCllllplip _lIcId tollClCifyCllllI"fl of"'ll'~ II ~;"adlu.. iDatilllel,_ud tooU ,..,
frObltllll ill ... .-6od __ 10 it could" add,.., prior to 1M diu.. .. .. W11iDa .Mot Ii'" lID.
f<<lP1t I!liadtf ... iDformalioul .. r'\'lal IIcId. 16I1II1pbaoe calli .... f '_. IIId J .... .... ...wd.
Oul of 262 -lIdI, ... majorill W fIIIUli- DGI1 willi III ......a _ = L fJo or 0lIIIIp1aiD1I. 10 MIl ... CilJ
_ doiDa. 'oIlowiDalllal iIIf_lillD .." lDOIIifiad dleir _,.. n~'\i... 10 IliII 8IOlIiIe.... pub .. .CUIl
aIofta willi ... I rcial_lI. 111ft' -'d .. workiDaIM SIll Dieao 0-11 HlIlIIiDa A.....,,;lJ 10 _ dial
"'lIlI\ior porliaa of... _ Ililllllal _ ~lcbed IroIII ... __ 10 .. ludIonI_ 801 _led . a _I
iIIw .. _lJIeir _tal CIIpI. IlIfI' -'d ..... 10 CouDciI wiIb a nIIIDd pokJ 10 .......' ~ ...
-viDal- 10 1IlIllfiuiDa. .
o-~i". \ II Faa nfemd 10 ... Ielllf 10 0lun;1I "- .. c.unlJ ... r ill 1.. 111_ 10 .. alafI'
_CIIlIIII ~";aa a quutiODed if Ibe f. per .'---11I1 ~ pi" of... llIIIuaI --JOina 00Il _ n'*'-' ill ...
.." NpOfL He 1pUli0Ded if 1M " ..., _ _a1l11liDa 1M ,. ... 10 poIIibl. ICliCIllby .. QuIa Vi-.
C~.l:'il.
MI. CoJe .hq;:fllIlal _ -'. SlI"!IId DO iDdi;aliaa lhal it _ ..laa--'lllled _10 ~.'i.11CliCIll
by c-dJ. Counll aIao ltiIIad Ibeir _f ....... _ ... ... lOll lad Ibcrafon. it -'d aIao afrKllIIam if
ailld.
~ n... = r N_ .-maoad if all of.. ~'I -1Ii1IinI- "'lIIrouP .. III IOIla.
..... Coli nlJlcDcled IIlaI it _ ...1IIIiD;orpclISlId __ of.. c.unlJ ....lwliDa iDduatriaIlIIII II r;ial. .
DliII of 0.. '''-a IJDperiaI BudI all billed _ ... ... 10111.
. .
Coun;il..., fIoI1oD ~iaoad will 1M C1l)' -'d "'\11 auda alalllr "- .. ... 'J if it _ alradl
WiDa dooe i111be County 11III oIber cilill.
M1lor N. *1Id lb. ".~tol' W ..led IIlaI .. did 1lOl1ik. ... ,,-11III wiIIItd it _ 801 _a'" dial
Wll. TIIc 011 lied ... DOlif*, IIlaI 1M WIllI dillricll -'d DOl allow .. CilJ 10 -wtlll WIJiDa _ lbeir
"'f .-.
""'"
c-cihDelllber liodoM qualiCllled if IMn _ 1 ....I probIllIl or __II" willi "villa'" .me. ... CIII die
... ~iII. i... alledudiOl\ for iIIcome 1111 purpora. HI _led ..ff to clarify lhal ... ud whelMr it -w allow
... 1IlI,.,., to IllilillIbal . a dtdllCliOD OD dleir __ .....
Rollerll'vMU. Director of FiIIacI. ..led il _ fairtl cIIar dial it _ DOl III 1llduc:la1ll.. T'-n _ p-lillJ
ftderaIlqirlaliaa lIIal would nquire 1M COUIIlltil1 ooIlec1or to ...1111 .. iDfonDaliaa for.. IIIJII1II' 1110 wiIal
_ aDd _ DOl"'lICli~I.. 11aal1l . : ..aibilill_ '-Iaa put _ ... .., III toll . ,a.
'niI..,....-Iad.-. .....i,..., ....puItIic......- ~-_. 4d....
. JOIIpb GaIcia. .... Fiftb A_III. QuIa V.... CA. 1....-liDI... hlpI.'II.oWl,.IIIlad.. _...
tIIould .. adjllllad to cover ... ... of.. ............ lad IIIouId DOl .. a ... far ... CIlJ.
lit fall ... ooIlactiOD of die _ ... _ .. III IliII -'d .. Ie diI'IIIt "<ivl'. "''''CilJ
GarlIr.
o-dJ... lu U- called Ibr a poial of --1lIlIaa ... .. .... .... t'1 ~U - ... ...... '" WIJiDa
10 ... III RlIIa. .
"""""
~ ~ /}~(r
104...
01191125. 1994
PIle 5
.
104.,. Nader NqIII8I*I....1 Mr. Gucia Iacus .. ...
~. ..... Ialcr ill ... DIIina.
II _ daal iIIue _ lie -'d lie .....'.,..t npnIiaa
Mr. Garda IIated .. Oaartar p1o.ilrllor .. OO!~ 01... fa. flam ... ......,.. _ lie did .. feel II
IIIouId lie ~.oIII. .
. aotIat E. s-r-. P. O. loa 1027. Nu.aI City. CA, npr .~..... Ditao CDuaI)' ~
~._I.'iOD.1Iated lie _ .. 0MIaf 01 two .al. famil,flliI'._ .. .. City. He fell.......
.. IIIe IIiIlitla_1lI aift . S200 .JllllllIO WID _ I .. ilv--- -'d .. lie atiI JuI,_
c-i1Wvo' .. difflCull, 01 llYiDalO ....1Iuou.. ....... He Ilk .....1IIouId ... P.
.. opeiOll of I bi-aal,lIui. willlllllllllllUCllaraelllded 10 - City...... willl tAopuI)'
__ 10 lie MId NlpCllllible If... ..... did .. pi,. 0pI_ IIIouId lie p.. He fall
Mditiorlll problea -'d Ifill .... IIi1Iiq _ lor MIa' _"....ioe .......... He'"
... IOId daallMttWlllr ... offend 10 do I dumm,lIi1Iiq far ... City witIl... -,1IaiD.a
ailed 10 ... Cil,.
eo,,.....-_ '01 aa-illMll if..rr_ __ 01... .....1111&... offer.
.
M.. Cole ....Iad.. daal_ of'" aIIaruIi_1IltdiIII b)'..rr_.. opIiOD 0I1taYiDa... WIt.CIII, .:- do
... billiq for tile Cil, and w. opIiOD _ _ .paoIivt ..... doinallle lliliina .. bllle. 111ft'... _ IOIIU,
looked II ... oplioa of billillalaUlI vwaalud_. Iul fell ii_I' lie.. admiaillrllivt a1"1IIIIn wIIicIa
WDUId fIIlIIl iD I 1Ii,_ 001II of iD b_ billina witllout IIIe IIeDefIII of 00Il .viDa _ .. III tall.
M.,. M"er ...-liDDed If... opIiOD 10 allow ... IuICIlord 10 "vt llleir .....11 WIIad ........, off.. III ftIII
_Id _It iD III adlllitlillrllivt lIiahlllllrl If... IeIIcIoHw _ willillalO pi' .. M"litII""Jlivt IllIIlI. He
.....iODed wIlether tile SIll Die,o Cowl)' Aparlatll AaocilliOll ... '-' polled 10 _ .... llleir ....._
..,ar'iIl, tile biUmllO'" IatIItIII willl adIIIillillnlivt 00III1Ieina paid b)' ...1atIcIIonIa. He ,.-'1111.'._
Ill.. ... ... dleeuuiOD nprdiaa IIIpIrII& IIiU ill... _ DiliDa u ... Mla'1IiIII.
104.. Cole ..... ... Mla'lItIhoritill'" iDdiaalad .... .., _ _ 11111 fill,", .. daal.-.
c-llalmber RindOl\l NIl..... clarific:aliOD 01 111m , .. .. .oIL
JOVWUIUlIIaa-- _1lI..vt 10 ...1IiI1ed ........,.
104.. Cole IIIIIit ... 101- n'llllJCllcia wauIcI... billed ill b_ ... witIl.. .; Rill I 'III In.
~.I..... _..0. .L_ daal_"""" daal
.
W Davil. 233 'ourdl A_III. ClluIa Villa. CA. npr r';",.. CIIuIa Villa"'. '1/ 01 't"= ...
.roadwa)' "......i.liOD. ... Pacific 1outhV411 AJ-*ioo 0I1taa11on. -antuJated ..rr _ ...
outruds proJIIID. 'I1ae)' ncopiIIII"'lCIioD - _ 01.. City'. -"IDa bul..m, rr-...
WI" aullloritill. but ...)' fait ... _I .,.... -us waIJ _1IIouId _ lie....... He
nqueus . four -.It ....)' 10 "'" .... ID oppoItIIDil,lO ... _ 10 ... .... oIficiaIe _
1M two water boenII _ _viloe .... daallli1liq lIIIouIcI lie .. . 11_ 'I1aere - 14
_: I)'" flow 10 .. CiITo 2) ..., ... . I ..... 01 ooIIacIiaD, J) III' ~ 1IIiI)' ....
lor Iudlonla; C) lilt I.... _II, I... II WDUId Ilk. two,.,. lor.. iIIIr 11111 r r r lIDIlo IIIcII
lip willl..."OJ! ml 1CIioD;5) , 1 [1_ 11_ _..... .1 Jti 111II1II 1I.......1rIIIad .....
., ...; .. 6) IIIIIIII - a1lbili1)'. . .
NIcllelIe MOrIllO. 1011 00":- 4el1io.... lID Dieao, CA,... r'~'" lID Dieao eo..,
Apartaal "..--I.,;oe, cleriW daalMr. '-"__', nit........ I _ L 'II _ _ II
.-_ 01... *11 = [','Ioro. .,... 801'" rIINctIy 8OIIfied................ .... fall...
t1fllUIIIlor I lour.... ..,-'d lie.... m r b)' ... r r . "De.
Nut 'rukliII. 120 -C' ...... .. Dieao. CA, I~ 'i.a 1M lID DiIIO CIlalI)' ......
Aaeociltioll. ..... .... 1M ClII'I'-' po . : rrl .... -'d lie ill ._1Ii1Iiq lor"" - ,.
lor ... IIIlIlti.faIIIi', people daal ... 10 obceiD . "If'- --- .... ...)' _ lleiaa IrIIIad .
....dIDtiaI. .. IIleir opiDIoe .., ...... 10 -'vt 1M I = _c ....11 of I'IIrOfilIiIIa II ..
.
-
ii
;;
-
.
i
!!!!
Ii
I
..
-
"
.
i
.
.
"
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
~
. ~ /J~7'7
NiDUlIS
October 25. 1994
Pal' 6
'.
.
....1 ti.... 11Iey pld'a...d 1O..1Ii1Ied dined, ~ .... _Ill. ... ~"'Iour...
~, AI III I A..<! b, ... n....._. .
N.yor Nader ....DDIlf ...... iI-sd.. ".r..bIe to~, ...Ilaai b four... ..... .... oIftriaa....
IlplioIlI or 8IOViq ... Dllti-..." _ 60ta ... ...r~-tl.1 to .......: W CIIIapIf.
Nr. 'lIIIIcJiD fUllldJC! dial .... IiIDe to ... II willi all iIwoIVIlI..... -'d .. ........J:.r'flf. no
ApartDDI AIIoeialioo did IIOC .". willi die ....... HI~ IIIICIIarp '" Nr. ...... AI ~...- 1IIlI-wk IIDme
,.,u _ IIOC _vin, to pa, It. no)' pral'mad ... .... .... .... 60ta 11.67 to 11.10 IIIlIdo III biIIiq..
IIoute or Uve ... .... eudIoril)' do ... biUiDa. .
. T.A. Patanai*l. 1300 Put Drive. Quia ViaIa. CA.......... _1IllNd 1IIlI. ".mo.... I.....,
__. IIIt nq\lllllld lhal it .. Id\ ... M)' 1I_1IId If il W to lit cllupl dlall ,..,., blU
lit lIIIiled wllieb wuuld Jive die 1aD~ ... optioo or pa7lal it III or W_lIIIl, willi I 15.00
r.. lb. fcIll1la1 would 111_111_ 00 filled itlcollN to bud... dleir~.
. Nike TIner. 9 Paloaw Drive. Quia Villa, CA.""" lit _1lpJ I"~ to...llIff. II ~-''-1IIlI
_ted to _ _ I)'pe of.iNCl billin,.
. lid Morris. Sr.. 162 Cedar A_. QlIla ViaIa. CA."""'" pI~J 1-'d...1Iim '*- S2OO-
1225/IDODIIl. He f.lllIl. CII)' ..DUld keep ... IlalUI quo.
. Carollll 1'.1. BUll.. 97 Billlop SIne!. Cblll. ViaIa. CA.""" If If,roM.'' _ blU -'11"_
.... bcr IIoue par-I. She fell CouDcIllbouId 1Ik.1Cli00 to keep it ... M)' 11_ -eI)'
., billed.
CouIIdla16111ber Horu. 004 -..1 dial Mr. ..,.01.. aplain M)' ... WlliD,-'II IIOC -at .. way II -
_dy., billed.
Dick Re1l101... 505 Gamlt A_. Cbul. Vista. CA. Chnml M....,.1MIIWIIIr AtIlt.oriI)'.. . I r 1-~
"'1 ... -.It load for dlelr billlll'leCtioo _ 1acnuin,IIIIIlIIII, AI die -.. WII.... .....
icoIIolllie coadillOOl,..,. auch dlal people __ _viD,IIION .iU_II)' ill pe7illl W.., WIIa
whicb led diem 10 the COlIelllJiOlllhalthe, would _ve to JO from W._lhl, billiDJ 10 .-lIII,
billiD, wbicb _Ill _II iD . COlt or 1270.ooo/)'Ur. II _Ill allO cnale olhw plKI IIICb
AI addill' 1111 ..ff membtn IIId ..ff apace. Tllerefore. die, did IIOC _I to IIave to JO to
1DOD1hI)' billiD,. WIleD lIle CiI)' taiaed _lIIeIr orr_.-lVlll 00 -.. or 100 IIIIIa par.,
nIIlelIlO _ lor . ,.. _lh period.
C_illDembtr Horu. ._ioaed ..Iller die, oould _ve. -.. 00'" ""IIlI-'~ auwaiDa.,.... dial If
aile call_ npnIiD,_ biDiD,"'I"" 1houIcI__'" Cil,.
Nr. RI)'IIOIdI. . laW dlal oould "'bl, lit.... "'''1IIlI or"')'UF. no difficult,. ooIlac1iDi blUa.
... el'''O_ _11_ W.r .... eacII)'UF. 11Ie, fell wlliIoul... - biUiDa..., -'d .... or_
,.. _)' 60ID _viDa to JO to. .elhl, blUiDJ. .
.
C'oIIIIciIlDeID Horu.., rP'n '......n IWW.--....... - -W lit ........tUcIa-'dallclw...,.... .
to .., ... M'Il....d' -.
Mr. a.,.oJda j . nW 1iIal-'d IIOC aoIve .. ...llI. ....... .. r . r orialplirial..1lIff 0 .... ..
... ... -I .....lioo II lOOk fDr .. . ., . .-n.
'1Itn "'110 ,..,... pa1IIic ""I 111. .. JIldtIie ...... _'1 I ......,.
CIlUDell_ . r ai-i_ fell'" iIIpulll ... ...nna W '-IlID11I1nI and W IIIoupl bWud __dlal......,
tiardIIr _....1_"-. ... -'d IIOC VOle lor 1II)'\11iD11i1al-'d plica .. blUiDJ 00 tile lIlIlOIl.
~~ Iy5{J
""'"
""""
,
-t:.
.........
NiDuleI
~'1. 25, 19P4
. ,.,. ,
.
MS (RWoneIFox) to ......1. ... epIIoa ,. .. --'lIIralIoB tI"ld. ... - ~-.... . ... -..lID
- ........ . .
.
NlJOf Nader lpIIIlioDIlI if.... _ . .-qui-' ... aU IIiIIa ... ... _ .... IIII1i11 .. .... if8CIC paid.
_ 11111. .&.1"'.... City -W leU lilt A ., to do.
Nr. 1oopanI. r Int., ... .. -W lIave to -= II...... .. .... Mdt to CDuodl.
NlJOf Nader IlIIed lie _ iDcliMd to .oil for die BICioD _ die ftoor willi _ . i I I -.:-,. i.e. If die aulnD
apcioll_ IIIIed out ancIlf.... .... diIlricta did _ a1ICIW lilt City to _liaue die ~ IJIIIIII II ww1d .-II
.. . "'1_ illerl r "f ill onJar to _ two .......... IliJliDp. HI felt lilt --'w...s IllIIiq .,... _ ........
.. IDOl! alficiaDllIJd IIIppoNd ... lour .. lIIla1. If lilt ..-1 i1*ID -'d 8CIC .. _liavad lie -W ..
iDcliDed to .... "'1 ...- -'d "va . IuIIIp _ ,,~I oa lilt III llill. if ...., ,..,.,., .......... 1llIIiq.
Hi. .oil _ _III ....11_1 of. --...."? .... Ill" I - 10 ... ... II1II of die IIi1I if die City _ 8CIC
a11uw.d 10 _liD. willi .... CUIftIII '1*ID-
t-llillDelDbcr IliDdoAt fell.IJIIlMq_1 ..aioa WO\Ikl "10 provide . four __ will 'r,... of opportlIIIity to ~
willi ... _Jar '-rd.. TIlt iJDporwlc:e of.... lint JDOIi. _ 10 .. . clear -al ... OollDcll__JoiDI
.., UDder 1111 -no, lnIJ.f,r lit, __ .,... 10 lite aullilJJ. Tllenf-. II-W .. WI7 clear .. .... WIIIr
IlDard. "'1 C-;U would DOl dIIIJ,. dIelr poaiti. 1IJd, if i1.-1...s ill III .... ..... 11_ .... 10 ...1CIiODa
of ... .... IIIIItDriIill.
C-;U_bcr FDI IIIlelI .. _rnd willi Couac:U..r '-'Ilppr ~ He did _ leal .... IIunIID
abouId ... Iltiftad from _ qtIlC1to IIIDIIttr .t 'l I" _ qtIlC1 _ __va""_ 111 III... call. . .
dtliDq-1 pIObIIID,
CouncilJDeJDber M_ aIIlad llinll, ptIlpD1C III11il1 W _ _1rDI...... . _11ip" purpo.lIIility. Itww_
aboul lite onI)' utilil)' lite. _Id DOl .. ahUl off. If lite Cil1 -' a1_ ill the IllIIiq ..., -'d 8CIC ahUl off....
aavillt wllidl-'d _II ill I Jarpr Iou of failun 10 pI1.
VOTE ON MOTION: ..praYed _nlmDllll,.
MSUC (RlndcmeIN.der) dtIa, flInher 8dIoa 'or at"'" ,_ ..... to allow . ..porlunlty ,. _unity
lIilCUlll0ll1lri1h ... Cwo wlltr IIoardl to ""'" ... CUI'IWIl ~ IJIWD ... aYOldanct " ., .... III
IDIU.
.
· · · B.... l1li... .....1:21.... · · ·
CaroIJD F. J. JUlIar, ., liahap , QuIa Villa, CA. ......... ... t' In 1I1V,loIi'" die City
IrllllpDnlti. DOJDmiIlle. "..... .. m . ....... .... tllfrlC . .... nJlq IIIIioa
_ PaJ_. TIlt H_1taJaIi IIIe did 8CIC lIave......... wiIII.,..- r 111aliOD__
.. &he fell If.... &-"1 al18lioa _ _II rMaNi.1ir1il1llouJd lie _atin~ widt...
V-. '"'--Inial" ..
"- I. NarIiD'Hal092 ~ L~H load:"" ~ CA.... Ill.. C 1".10'" .!"',Ioct
Quan)r. ...._ _ _ . _ INct InIIIic (lIS INcta _0&_ 6:00
.... lid 10:00 ....) oa dtIIr ......
AIaD SIIY8r. 112 ~ ClDuIt, QuIa Villa, CA.... II . 10'" DaIq Jock Quan7. If
.. projacIioaI __ -.cI II -W .-II ill . INct ... ... .... .... ftII7 1M
........ B'..-alllllld ..Ill wllicll aII...s ....... would .. vP- r'" ilo.J .... Hefell
... -W .. IIlIIlpacIoa air CJuality, aala. InIIIic voI_, 10 wIIlcIaI tlrivlqOll
ORA.L COMMUNICATIONS:
.
.
.
hff ~ /y-.s-j
~-5' .
""""I
- This Page Blank -
""""I
."",
x::r; J J' ~ ~;J-
'.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 07/11/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / '?f.5'.3 Approving in concept the sharing of costs to
replace deteriorated and substandard drainage facilities within the Club
View Terrace subdivision, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
sign the agreement, authorizing the City to advance funds to finance Club
View Terrace's share, and appropriating $33,600 from the Storm Drain
Revenue Fund.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public worV ~
REVffiWED BY: City Manager ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes...x..No->
The Chula Vista Presbyterian Church located at 940 Hilltop Drive is in the process of building
an addition to their Church. As part of their plans, the Church is under grounding the drainage
that flows through their site in order to make the site more usable. Their proposed drainage
system ties into a private downstream system that was constructed more than 40 years ago.
Because of the age of this downstream system, the corrugated metal pipe is silted up in places and
deteriorated in others. In order to make the system work, the downstream pipe needs to be
replaced. City Council Policy Number 522-01 provides for the City's participation in a
cooperative drainage project. The Presbyterian Church is desirous of determining whether or not
the City will participate in this project as soon as possible since they are under construction and
the delay is causing them undue hardship.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the resolution which approves in concept the
sharing of costs to replace deteriorated and substandard drainage facilities within the Club View
Terrace subdivision, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to enter into an agreement,
authorizes the City to advance funds for Club View Terraces share, and appropriates the funds
necessary to finance the City's share and the advance of the funds to cover the downstream
property owner's share.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The Chula Vista Presbyterian Church located at 940 Hilltop Drive is in the process of expanding
their facilities. In order to construct the addition to their facilities they needed to regrade their
site and construct a storm drain to handle the natural drainage flowing through their site. After
beginning the construction of their new drainage facilities they determined that the downstream
storm drain is almost totally plugged and asked for the City's assistance.
/'1-'/
f:2,l
. ,
Page 2, Item J f
Meeting Date 7/11/95
City staff investigated and determined that the City did not have a drainage easement for either
the Church drainage system or the downstream facilities. The downstream facilities were
constructed under the County's jurisdiction more than 40 years ago. Those facilities were
constructed of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and, in addition to being nearly plugged with silt in
places, is corroded through in many other places in the bottom of the pipe. As a result, that pipe
cannot be cleaned to restore flow, but must be replaced. This system was constructed, and is
owned by, Mrs. John J. Bryan, who owns the entire development along Club View Drive. Mrs.
. Bryan's husband is recently deceased and her brother, Mr. Charles Hunting, has power of
attorney for her.
The drainage system running through the Church and Bryan properties is a sub-basin of the
Telegraph Canyon drainage system. This particular portion of the system drains approximately
20.4 acres. After leaving the Bryan property, the storm flow runs across the San Diego Country
Club property then enters the main Telegraph Canyon Channel at the corner of Third Avenue and
L Street.
Council Policy Number 522-01, which was approved by Resolution 4786 in 1968, authorized the
eligibility for City participation in drainage projects. The policy defined participation on the size
and type of drainage facility. The three types of channels defined are major channels, lateral
channels, and local channels. A local drainage channel or system is defmed as a drainage system
which collects local runoff from an area of less than 100 acres and transports water to a lateral
or major system. Thus, the Channel in question qualifies as a local system.
The policy also outlines the general responsibility for construction of drainage facilities. For local
Channels the policy states:
All costs involved in design and construction of local channels and structures, including
structures in a major or lateral channel serving a local system, shall be borne entirely by
property owners desiring the improvements, provided, however, that the City may
participate in said costs in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (50 %) if the particular
improvement constitutes a project eligible for cooperative fmancing as outlined in Section
6 of the Policy for Financing entitled "Cooperative Drainage Projects."
Section 6 of the Policy for Financing states:
A cooperative drainage project is one in which the City shares the total cost of the
installation with the property owner. The percentage of participation shall be based upon
an estimate of the respective benefits derived by the City and the property owner prepared
by the Director of Public Works, and the City's participation shall be limited to 50% of
the total cost of the most economical design. The purpose is to assist in the development
of older areas which were subdivided without the construction of adequate facilities,
thereby reducing maintenance costs to the City.
J J(2
Page 3, Item -.!!/
Meeting Date 7/11/95
The policy further states that projects are eligible for cooperative financing if they meet any of
the following conditions:
(I) Will accept drainage off improved City Streets or other public rights of way,
(2) Will accept drainage from large partially developed areas and the property on which
the drain is to be constructed is already subdivided,
(3) The drainage facility to be installed will benefit the City by eliminating a maintenance
problem and/or a public hazard.
Last, the policy states that projects do not qualify for cooperative financing under two conditions:
(I) The facility is intended to provide a culvert under an unimproved street,
(2) Drainage work contemplated is incompatible with the overall drainage plan for the
area.
City staff has met with all the Church representatives, the Church's contractor, and Mr. Charles
Hunting, who represents Mrs. Bryan. Staff has proposed that the City may be able to participate
in the replacement of the storm drain, subject to Council approval, under the following conditions:
First, that the system is designed to City standards; second that the City's participation is limited
to one-third with the Church and/or Mrs. Bryan contributing the remaining two thirds; third that
both the Church and Mrs. Bryan dedicate drainage easements to the City for future maintenance
of the improved system; fourth, that the Church obtain 3 informal bids to do the storm drain
construction, and; fifth, that the Church and Mrs. Bryan hold the City harmless resulting from
delays in the construction of the drainage system and from construction activities on the site. In
addition, it was proposed that the Church or their contractor take the lead in obtaining the plans
and estimates for the proposed work. Staff believes that all of the conditions are necessary to
meet the requirements of Policy 522-01 and that with them, the City is justified in participating
in the costs.
The contractor for the Church had a preliminary estimate that to replace the existing 18" CMP
with an 18" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is approximately $24,500. An 18" pipe, however,
probably will be of an insufficient size to meet City standards, and without the benefit of a
completed engineering analysis, it was further estimated that at least a 30" pipe would be required.
The Permit Section of the Engineering Division has preliminarily estimated, without the benefit
of plans or other more detailed information, that to construct the required 300 feet of 30" RCP,
three c1eanouts and replace the existing pavement within the private Club View Drive would be
approximately $45,800. This estimate is based on the Unit Price List for Estimating Subdivisions
and Permit Bonds prepared by the City of San Diego and used by the City of Chula Vista to value
permits and bonds. Our experience indicates that estimates based on this price list are usually
/1-]
I
I
I
i
.
I
I
Page 4, Item d
Meeting Date 7/11/95
high, however, we cannot provide a more reasonable figure without more information. The
contractor for the Church guesstimated that the construction work could be as low as $30,000
without the City's fees. In addition, there would be $600 in plan check fees plus $2,400 in
inspection fees for a total of about $3,000 in miscellaneous fees. In the past, the City has' covered
the cost of the plan check and inspection fees as an additional incentive to upgrade the City's
infrastructure. It is recommended that the City cover those costs and not require the Church and
downstream owner to pay those fees per past practice. Thus, it appears that the City's proposed
1/3 share would be between $10,000 and $15,300 plus the permit fees of approximately $3,000.
Funds are available within the City's Storm Drain Revenue Fund (Fund 227) to cover the City's
proposed share.
.
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
Staff proposes to continue working with the Church and Mr. Hunting to fmalize the figures and
to have the plans prepared. However, due to the time constraints by the Church and the interest
of all parties to have an indication as to whether or not the City would participate, they have
requested that the City Council approve the conceptual sharing of costs to replace the deteriorated
and substandard drainage facilities within the Club View Terrace subdivision.
At the meeting with the Church and Mr. Hunting, the possibility of the City financing Mrs.
Bryan's share in the manner of an assessment district was discussed. Under this scenario, the City
would advance as a loan Mrs. Bryan's share and enter into an agreement for her to repay that
amount, with interest, over a ten year period on the property tax collection. The concept is similar
to the situation approved by the City Council recently for the Bennett property on East J Street
adjacent to the Rancho del Rey Project. Staff would recommend that Council approve such a
fmancial arrangement if it is subject to the following conditions:
1. That the loan be secured by a lien on the property and collected on the property tax;
2. That the loan be amortized over a ten year period at 7% interest; and
3. That the loan be repaid in full when the property changes ownership (including by
inheritance) .
Approval of the resolution would authorize the City Manager or his designee to enter into an
agreement to advance the funds for Mrs. Bryan's share subject to those conditions. In this
instance the City Manager intends to delegate the authority to one of the Deputy City Managers.
This is being done to avoid a perception of any conflict of interest as the City Manager attends
the Presbyterian Church. It would also mean that the City would have to advance an additional
amount estimated to be between $10,000 and $15,000. Including the loan, the amount needed to
be appropriated is $33,000.
1'1-'/
, .'
-I
Page 5, Item d
Meeting Date 7/11/95
FISCAL IMPACT: The approval of the resolution would authorize City staff to continue
negotiations with the Church and Mrs. Bryan's representative that would ultimately result in an
expenditure of as much as $33,000 in City Storm Drain Revenue Funds. If Mrs. Bryan needs the
fInancial assistance, the City would recover the amount advanced, plus interest, over a ten year
period. If Mrs. Bryan does not need the fInancial assistance, the City's expenditure would be less
by the amount of her share. Upon completion of the work, all unexpended funds would be
returned to the Storm Drain Revenue Fund.
Upon completion of the replacement storm drain system, both the Church's storm drain and the
Bryan storm drain would be taken over by the City for routine maintenance.
Attachments :
Resolution No. 4786
Letter from Chula Vista Presbyterian Church
m:\home\engineer\agenda\ presbytn.cls
/,1-5'/1-(,
Ol.
"
t.
.'
.
.)Iay'3, 1968
RESOLtl'l'ION NO. 4786
RESOLtl'l'ION OF '1'HE CI'l'Y COUNCIL OF '!'HE CI'l'Y OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY RELA'1'ED '1'0 '1'HE RESPONSIBILI'l'Y
AND FINANCING OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND '!'HE CRITERIA FOR
THE DESIGN AND CONS'1'RUCTION OF S'1'ORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
-,
'1'he City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vsita has
heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 1032, relating to the control of
drainage areas and watercourses, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, in addition
to the establishment of regulations thereby which were intended to
protect persons and property against water damage and flood hazards,
it is necessary to establish a policy to implement said ordinance
and carry out said purpose and intent.
NOW, '1'HEREFORE, BE I'1':'RESOLVED by the Ci ty Council of the
City of Chula Vista that said Council does hereby establish the
following drainage policy.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to establish the
responsibility and criteria for the design and construction of storm
drainage facilities, and the financing thereof, predicated on:
1. Protection of life and property of citizens,
2. Protection of City-owned improvements and facilities;
3. Protection of vehicular and pedestrian traffic from
damage, 'hazards and unusual delays;
4. Elimination of unsightly and unsanitary ditches and ponds;
5. Reduction of maintenance costs of drainage facilities;
6. Availability and applicability of a variety of means of
financing said drainage facilities.
BACKGROUND. In order to protect both public and private
property, the construction and improvement of drainage facilities to
accommodate storm water runoff, it is necessary and essential to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community that proper imple-
mentation of the necessary program be established, which requires the
establishment of the design criteria, the fixing of basic responsibility
and provision for methods of financing. Design criteria are established
by the Public Works Department, based on technical and scientific data,
calculated to achieve the goals set forth in this policy. While the
basic responSibility for handling drainage problems rests with the
property owners, the coordination and intergration of drainage facilities
becomes a community responsibility, and is accepted as such. The imple-
mentation of any overall drainage program is fundamentally dependent
upon the resolution of the question of financing. While drainage pro-
jects have constituted e small percentege of the City's capital outlay
expenditures in previous years, in the year 1967-68 such drainage pro-
jects amount to forty percent (40') of said capital outlay expenditures.
However, because of the magnitude of the problem, aole reliance upon
annual appropriations from the Capital Outlay Fund is insufficient to
meet the community demands. In addition, because the nature of benefit
from such public works vary, the method of financing individual projects
also differs. '1'herefore, the misunderstanding and uncertainty which
has prolonged the inadequacy of drainage facilities except. in new sub-
divisions may be attributed to the absence of a clearly established
policy pertaining to the financing of drainage facilities..
'l'YPES OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
include the following:
Drainage facilities commonly
/tj-7
-1-
/'
i
1. Sto~m D~ain. A system of closed conduits connected by
cleanouts, curb inlets, and other appurtenances.
2. Cu~ve~t. A pipe or rectangular box under a roadway and
open on both ends.
3. D~ainage.Ditoh. A ditch which is less than 8 feet wide
on the bottom and constructed to carry storm runoff.
4. D~ainage Channe~.A drainage channel which is constructed
more than 8 feet wide on the bottom.
5. B~ow Ditoh. A ditch constructed on the top of a cut or
fill bank for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.
6. Natu~a~ Ditoh. A ditch (or channel) which has been created
by natural storm runoff and erosion.
7. Drainage Swa~e. A very wide and shallow depression which
carries surface runoff.
8. F~ood Contro~ Channe~. A channel constructed to prevent
the flooding of land due to rising waters or waters which
overflow their natural stream beds.
DEFINITIONS.
1. Major D~ainage Channe~ or System. A channel which drains
an area in excess of 750 acres.
2. Latera~ Drainage Channe~ or System. A channel which drains
an area in excess of 100 acres but less than 750 acres and
empties into a major channel.
3. Loca~ Drainage Channe~ o~ System. A drainage system which
collects local runoff from an area of less than 100 acres
and transports water to a lateral or major system.
4. D~ainage Channe~ or System. An open or closed conduit,
improved or unimporved, designed for the purpose of
collecting and transporting storm water runoff in such
manner as to protect public and private property.
5. D~ainage St~uotu~e. A catch basin, outlet, inlet, headwall,
spillway, energy dissipator, junction box, cleanout.box,
diversion. box, etc., in a drainage channel or system.
6. Design Storm. A storm of such magnitude which may be
expected to'occur once during a specified number of years
and resulting in the maximum storm water runoff to be
antiCipated once during that specified number of years.
DESIGN CRITERIA.
1. In general, all major drainage channels shall be designed
to discharge a SO year ultimate storm, without static
head, lateral channels shall be designed to discharge a
10 year .torm without static head at entrances and a 50
year ultimate storm utilizing available head without
causing substantial damage to surrounding property, and
local channels shall be designed to discharge a 10 year
storm utilizing available head without causing substantial
property damage, except that where a sump condition exists
and excess runoff has no alternate route, special design
shall be required for the protection of property.
JlI-Y
/.J . I .-?C'/_
'",
2. Open drainage channels shall be lined with gunite or Port-
land Cement Concrete unless physical circumstances dictate
a particular channel be constructed as a temporary channel.
3.
Runoff quantities to be accommodated in the design of all
structures shall be as set forth in or derived from the
report prepared by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith which
is titled "A Special Study of Storm Drain Facilities" and
is on file in the office of the Director of Public Works.
.
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
Const~uotion Responsibility; Gene~ally. As stated herein, the
basic responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of drainage
facilities is that of the property owner through whose property the
natural drainage channel runs and who requires the improvement of said
facilities for the protection of his property interest. However, the
City does have a general responsibility to insure the proper construction,
maintenance and improvement of drainage facilities to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare of the City as a whole. The delinea-
tion herein of the various situations wherein it is attempted to establish
responsibility for the construction of several types of drainage facilities
should not be construed as fixing the respective financial obligations
of the City or the property owner, or establishing the sources of funds
for said construction, unless such obligation or sources are specified
herein.
1. Majo~ Channels. The responsibility for the cost of the
design and construction of the most economical design of
major channels and structures shall rest with the City as
a whole and shall be constructed as funds allow in order
of priority, based upon need for property protection as
determined by the Director of Public Works subject to the
approval of the City Council, and upon the desire of property
owners involved to effect other improvements which in turn
necessitate the construction of major channels and structures.
In the event that the property owners desire a system in-
volving greater expense than that which is approved by the
Director of Public Works as being adequate and appropriate
under the circumstances to resolve the drainage problem in
accordance with design standards, they shall be required
to contribute the difference in the cost as estimated by
the Director of Public Works.
In the case of new subdivisions, the basic responsibility
for the cost of design and construction of major channels
and structures shall be borne by the subdivider exclusively
. in those cases where the subdivision comprises a substantial
portion of the drainage basin involved. In those cases
where the subdivision through which a major channel will
run comprises a relatively minor portion of the total drain-
age basin, the City may enter into a reimbursement agreement
with the subdivider to provide for reimbursement by the
subsequent subdividers of land which are shown to benefit
from the construction of the major channel. The basis of
said benefit shall be determined by the Director of Public
Works. In some instances the City itself may participate
in the construction of major channels and structures within
subdivisions based upon a division of benefits inuring to
the subdivision and to the City as a whole.
In the event that the City is unable to participate in con-
struction at the request of property owners inVOlved, the"
minimum requirement shall be that the property owners shall
bear all cost of construction of temporary facilities for
the ultimate design at all street crossings and may, at
their option, bear the cost for permanent construction of
/'1-7
-3-
R- J.f1S0
/.
i
.'
. .
the entire system. The City .hall, upon request of the
property owners, enter into a contract to reimburse the
property owners for the cost of all permanent facilities
constructed at their expense, provided that funds are
made available through a general obligation bond i.sue
for construction of .uch major channel within a period of
10 years from the date of contract. The amount to be re-
imbursed shall be based upon the estimate of the Director
of Public Works, and shall be without interest.
2. Late~aZ ChanneZs. The responsibility for the cost of
design and construction of lateral channel. and .tructures
may be shared equally by the City and property owners in-
volved. ~he City may initiate special asse.sment improve-
ment districts for construction of lateral channels when
funds are available to share the cost with property owners.
The City, if funds are available and when r.quested by
property owners, may participate in construction of lateral
channels by contributing up to one-half of the cost as
estimated by the Director of Public Works. If City funds
are not available, and .the property owners wish to proceed,
they may do so at their own expense and no reimbursement
will be made by the City.
3. LocaZ Channah. All costs involved in design and construc-
tion of local channels and structures, including structures
in a major or lateral channel serving a local system, shall
be borne entirely by property owners desiring the improve-
ments, provided, however, that the City may participate in
said costs in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (SO,)
if the particular improvement constitutes a project eligible
for cooperative financing as outlined in Section 6 of the
Policy for Financing entitled "Cooperative Drainage Projects".
POLICY FOR FINANCING VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS.
There are six basic categories of drainage projects classified
according to the suggested method of financing. These categories and
the financing policy applicable to each are as follow81
1. FZood Cont~oZ P~ojects. Projects such a. the Sweetwater
Valley Flood Control Channel are major works involving
the expenditure of many thousands and millions of dollars.
These projects are ordinarily designed and constructed
with federal funds through the a.sistance of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The federal government usually
pays for all costs except right.-of-way, relocation and
reconstruction of utilities. Th.se latt.r cost. ere paid
by the City with reimbursement by the Stet. of California,
Department of Water Resources. Flood control project. are
initiated by governmental action ~ough the City Council,
the State of California, and the Congress .nd the Executive
Branch of the United States Government. Priority f6r con-
struction is determined by the U. S. Army Corp. of Engineers.
Some of the federal and .tate financed flood control pro-
jects will be partially justified because of land enhance-
ment and, in these instances, the federal government may
~equire the City to pay a portion of these enhancement
benefit.. These funds may be Obtained by ......ment of
the land subject to inundation, or fr~ City funds.
2. Subdivision P~ojects. These are .torm drain. and other
drainage facilities installed in connection with new .ub-
divisions. When a property is subdivided, the subdivider
is required to accept the .urrounding drainage as it enters
hi. property and convey it in appropriate facilities .cross
JL//tJ
-4-
A~)..j7g~
- I
.,
.
his property to a suitable discharge, which may necessitate
the acquisition of easements and construction of off-site
drainage facilities. 'The cost of these projects will be
paid by the subdivider. In addition, the City may require,
by ordinance, the payment of a fee as a condition of the
approval of a final subdivision map, for purposes of de-
fraying the actual or estimated costs of constructing
planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface
and storm waters from local or neighborhood drainage areas,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 11543.5 of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
3. CapitaZ Improvement Projects. These are drainage facilities
which will benefit either the entire City or a very large
community. Such projects are initiated by recommendation
of the Director of Public Works and given a priority for
construction subject to the approval of the City Council.
Projects of this nature will be financed by the City,
either from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds.
Projects which are involved with the Select System of
Streets are eligible for financing, in whole or in part,
by Gas Tax money.
4. Assessment Projects. These are projects which benefit
only a local community and which are constructed under
1911 Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings. Such projects
are initiated by a petition from the owners of 60' of the
property within the area to be benefitted. Because of
the nature of such projects, the assessment district will
pay all costs and the district will include only that
property which will receive direct benefit.
5. Assessment Projects ~ith CitV Participation. These are
projects which, in addition to benefitting a local community,
also include work which is of general benefit to an exten-
sive area. Such projects are constructed under either 1911
Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings but with the City
participating in the cost. The extent of City participation ,.1
will be limited to that portion of the project of general "~
benefit to the City as a whole and usually will not exceed
50' of the total cost, although the exact amount for any
project will vary, depending upon the relative benefit and
the responsibilities involved. City costs will be financed
from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds as
appropriate. Projects may be initiated either by petition
of those property owners affected or by the City Council
based upon the recommendations of the Director of Public
Works. Capital Improvement Projects included in the City's
Capital Improvement Program but with relatively low priorities,
if reclassified as assessment projects with City participa-
tion, may be advanced in the program and given priority over
other Capital Improvement Projects.
6. Cooperative Drainage Projects. A cooperative drainage pro-
ject is one in which the City shares the total cost of the
installation with the property owner. The percentage of
participation shall be based upon an estimate of the
respective benefits derived by the City and the property
owner prepared by the Director of Public Works, and the
City's participation shall be limited to 50' of the total
cost of the most economical design. The purpose is to
assist in the development of older areas which were sub-
divided without the construction of adequate drainage
facilities, thereby reducing maintenance costs to the City.
-5-
;'1-1/
/r2 ~rl fC,
"
.'
'.
The City's share of the cost of such projects will be
financed from the Capital Outlay Fund or Gas Tax funds
as appropriate. Drainage facilities connected wi~h new
subdivisions are not eligible for cooperative financing
unless the drain involved is one which has been previously
classified as a Capital Improvement Project, and included
in the City's Cspital Improvement Program, and funds have
been budgeted but not expended therefor.
(a) Projects are eligible for cooperative financing if
they meet any of the following conditions:
(1) Will accept drainage off improved City streets
or other public rights-of-way,
(2) Will accept drainage from large partially developed
areas and the property on which the drain is to be con-
structed is already subdivided,
(3) The drainage facility to be installed will benefit
the City by eliminating a maintenance problem and/or
a public hazard.
(b) Projects do not qualify for cooperative financing under
the following conditions:
(1) The facility is intended to provide a culvert
under an unimproved street,
(2) Drainage work contemplated is incompatible with
the overall drainage plan for the area.
Presented by
d!roZ flf!:~f PUD11C
Works
Approved as to form by
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of
following vote, to-wit:
COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA
June , 19~, by the
AYES:
Councilmen McAllister, Sylveoter. Homilton. Scott
Councilmen None
Councilmen McCorquodale
'1 /I ~ '^" Ij. V...J.I-
/~ .._ j, "y~l\l. ..."l!." .~ V....
~.-0 ,r<- i..a&! /i--,PdY
1 ty Cler _' _
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) as..
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
IlAYES :
ABSENT:
ATTEST
I,
Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
correct copy of Resolution No.
amended or repealed. DATED
, City Clerk of the City of Chula
that the above is a full, true and
, and that the same has Dot been
/J/~/,2
City Clerk
f- J../7&'L^
-6-
Chula Vista
Presbyterian
Church
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
July 5, 1995
Dear Mr. Krempl,
In order to address issues related to the proper and legal flow of surface water from
from city streets through various privately owned properties, a joint meeting was
called which included representatives from all concerned parties.
Present at the meeting on June 29, 1995 to represent the three parties concerned were
the following:
Mr. Charles Hunting
Representing the party of the property owner along the
western border of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church
Architect, Engineer, and Construction Company Representatives,
. Representing the party of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church (CVPC)
Members of City of Chula Vista Engineer Department (including Cliff
Swanson)
Representing the party of the City of Chula Vista
The purpose of the meeting was to find the best possible solution to problems related
to the proper and legal flow of surface water from from city streets north, south, ease
and west of the swale on the eastern boundary of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church
(along Hilltop Drive), flowing through church property east to west, thence through
the residential property immediately west of church property (Club View Terrace),
thence through such property to the San Diego Country aub.
The representatives of these three parties (i.e. the City of Chula Vista, the Chula
Vista Presbyterian Church, and owner of residential property raub View Terrace] to
the immediate west of the church) agreed in conreptto share equally in the Cost of
improvments to adequately solve drainage problems subject to the following
conditions:
pI-I.!
940 Hilltop Drive Chula Vista, California 91911-2299 (619)426-2211 Fax (619)426-4373
,0/
:: 1.1-
.
.
1. The existing 18" deteriorated drainage line from within CVPC property through
residential property immediately to the west of CVPC will be replaced by a new
concrete drainage line of approximately 27", subject to approval of the three parties
concerned.
2. CVPC and the owner of residential property to the immediate west of CVPC will
agree to a city drainage easement which will be subject to future inspection and
maintenance by the City of Chula Vista.
3. The City of Chula Vista will assume responsibility for maintenance and operation
of the drainage line once it has been accepted by the city.
4. The three parties will proceed expeditiously and in good faith to permit the
authorized construction including permit process, bid approval, and associated
inspections in an order which will not unduly delay present approved construction
at CVPC and which will minimize any future rain delays.
5. The City of Chula Vista will arrange advancement of funds with the property
owner to the west of CVPC via a quasi 1911/1913 Act payment plan if deemed
necessary to reduce burden of share payment in lump sum.
6. All design work, permits, and other associated fees will be included in the equal
one-third shared billing of this drain improvement.
We would like to thank all concerned for the time, talent, and hard work that has resulted in an
solution which is deemed acceptable to all three of the concerned parties.
Our congregation as a body looks forward to a speedy and fair process that will not delay our
building project, and one which will provide long range security for all concerned parties in future
major rainstorms.
Sincerely,
Members of CVPC Buil~g ComC1\
1
/'1- If
.
RESOLUTION NO. 17953
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CONCEPT OF SHARING
THE COSTS OF REPLACING DETERIORATED AND
SUBSTANDARD DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE
CLUB VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION, AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE AND
EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE AGREEMENTS,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ADVANCE FUNDS TO
FINANCE CLUB VIEW TERRACE'S SHARE, AND
APPROPRIATING $33,600 FROM THE STORM DRAIN
REVENUE FUND
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Presbyterian Church located at
940 Hilltop Drive ("Church") is in the process of building an
addition to their Church and as part of their plans, the Church is
under-grounding the drainage that flows through their site in order
to make the site more usable; and
WHEREAS, the Church's proposed drainage system ties into
a private downstream system located on property owned by Mrs.
Bryan;
WHEREAS, the Church's and Mrs. Bryan's current drainage
system was constructed more than 40 years ago and the system's
corrugated metal pipe is silted up in places and deteriorated in
others; and
WHEREAS, in order for the Church's proposed drainage
system to work, the downstream pipe needs to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy Number 522-01 provides for
the City's participation in certain types of drainage projects; and
WHEREAS, the construction of approximately 300 feet of
reinforced pipe wi thin the Club View Terrace Subdivision ("Proposed
Drainage System") qualifies as a local system eligible for City's
participation pursuant to City Council Policy Number 522-01; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the concept of sharing with
the Church and property owner, Ms. Bryan, the costs to replace
deteriorated and substandard drainage facilities within the Club
View Terrace Subdivision subject to the conditions described below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his
designee is hereby directed to negotiate an agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, with the appropriate parties that
1'1- /5'"
is consistent with and incorporates all of the following
conditions:
1. The Proposed Drainage System shall be designed to
city standards;
2. The City's participation shall be limited to one-
third of the costs of constructing the Proposed
Drainage System, not to exceed a total of $15,300,
with the other participating parties (the Church
and Mrs. Bryan) contributing the remaining two-
thirds of the costs;
3. The participating parties shall dedicate drainage
easements to the City for future maintenance of the
Proposed Drainage System;
4. The Church shall be responsible for obtaining three
informal bids to construct the Proposed Drainage
System;
5. The participating parties shall hold the City
harmless from any damages resulting from any delays
in construction of the Proposed Drainage System or
damage to the construction site;
The Proposed Drainage
Council Policy 522-01
conditions set forth
Policy 522-0l.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council approve the
advancement of funds to Ms. Bryan, of an amount not to exceed
$15,300, to finance Ms Bryan's share of the costs to construct the
Proposed Drainage Facility, subject to an agreement containing all
of the following conditions:
6.
System shall conform to
and in particular to the
in paragraph 6 of Council
a. Any such advance or loan shall be secured by a
lien on the property or by such other means
acceptable to the City Attorney.
b. The loan shall be amortized over a ten year
period at 7% interest.
c. The loan shall be due and payable in full if
the property changes ownership (including by
inheritance) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
appropriate $33,600 from the Storm Drain Revenue Fund into Account
227-2275-DR128, for the following: to finance the City's
participation in the construction of the storm drain system; for
the loan to Mrs. Bryan, and for the associated plan check fees.
1'1; /}
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
1:\hole\attorney\Clubview
Jl!- / 7
Approved as to form by
~ '/1It~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, cit
Attorney
1--.5/
"(W)60-v6-;Xld uOllnlos:l1! q1!M :l::m-eplO:J:lU U! l!Ull:ld jjullS!X:l :lq1 JO
Ull:l1 :lqllOJ uo!su-edx:l :lql :lAOldd-e 1nq UO!SU:l1X:l p:l1S:lnb:ll :lql AU:lP 01 O-!; p:l10A UO!SS!UlUlOJ
jjU!UUllld :lql '!;661 'Zl Hldy uo :NOIJ..Y<IN3WWO;JID! SNOISSIWWO;J/SUlIVOo.
"(9661 :lunf) l!Ull:ld jjullS!X:l :lql JO Ull:ll :lqllOJ uo!su-edx:l p:l1s:lnb:ll :lql :lAOldd-e 1nq UO!SU:l1X:l
p:l1s:lnb:ll :lql AU:lP 01 uOllnlos:l1! :lql1dop-e H:JuuoJ A1D :lqlWqJ.. :NOIJ..VUN3WWO;JID!
" (A1Hp-eJ jjUllS!X:l u-e JO UOllU:ldO :lql) UOlldw:lx:l I ss-elJ -e s-e y~tlJ l:lpUn M:l!A:lll-e1U:lWUOl!AU:l
WOlJ 1dw:lx:l S! l-esodOld :lql 1-eql p:lU!Ull:l1:lP s-eq lOl-eU!PlOOJ M:l!A:l1! IlllU:lWUOl!Autl :lql
"SS:l:Jold l:ljjpnq :lql Aq p:l1-e1!SS:l:J:lU S-eM '!;661
'oz :lunf JO jjU!l:l:lW :lql WOlJ :l:Ju-enU!luo:J 1U:lnb:lsqns y "llod:ll S!ql JO PU:l :lq11-e p:lZp-eUlUlns
:ll-e suo!ssms!p :lsoqJ.. "JJlllS ql!M s:lnss! :lq1 JO uo!ssms!p l:lqllIIJ lOJ MOU-e 01 1u-e:JHdd-e
:lql JO lS:lnb:ll :lql1-e '!;661 '€Z A-eW JO jjull:l:lW :lql WOlJ P:lnulluo:J AUllU!jjpo S-eM W:l1! S!ql
"AI:lW!P:lUlUl! :lA!P:lJJ:l :lwo:J:lq PlnoM Uo!su-edX:l:lqJ.. "looq:JS A-eQ AJlunoJ -e1!Uog Aq
p:l!dm:Jo AISnO!A:lld S-eM q:J~M lOOlJ PUO:J:lS :lq1 01 'jju!PHnq Al01S-OM1 -e JO lOOlJ punOljj :lql uo
s:lWl:ldo AllU:lllm q:J~M 'AlHP-eJ jjullS!X:l :lql pu-edX:l 01 UO!SS!Ull:ld sls:lnb:ll oSI-e UOll-e:JHdd-e :lql
"9661 :lunf qjjnolql jjU!PU:l1X:l pop:ld l-e:lA !;"Z -e lOJ €66Il:lqW:l:J:lQ U! H:JunoJ Aq p:lAOldd-e
S-eM l!Ull:ld:lqJ.. "l:llU:lJ sS:lu!sng :l)jllllslltl :lql U!ql!M l:l:lllS U01U:ld OOvZ 1-e Zl-)I S:lpujj lOJ
100q:JS :ll-eApd -e 'looq:JS mllspqJ 1UllU:lAOJ p:lAOldd-e q:J!qM '60-v6-JJd l!Ull:ld :lSfll-euOll!puoJ
jjullS!X:l u-e JO Ull:l1 :lql JO (6661 'O€ l:lqW:l1d:lS qjjnolql) UO!SU:l1X:l u-e lOJ S! l-esodOld :lql
~_~ ~rl:ljj-eU-eW Al!J :Xo. mlM.IDAID!
. ~ jj\I!lill-eld JO lOl:J:llm : Xo. U3J..J..IWo.flS
"l:llU:lJ sS:lu!sng :l){llllS-etl :lql U!ql!M l:l:lllS U01U:ld OOVZ
W 100q:JS :lWApd -e :lWl:ldo 01 100q:JS mlls!JqJ 1UllU:lAOJ 01 (60-v6-JJd)
l!Ull:ld :lSfl l-euompuoJ jjU!lS!X:l u-e JO uo!smdx:l p:llS:lnb:ll :lql
jjU!AOldd-e 1nq UO!SU:l1X:l :lWll p:l1S:lnb:ll:lql jjU!AU:lQ,ht16tl uOllnlos:l1!
100q:JS m!lspqJ 1UllU:lAOJ - l:llU:lJ sS:lU!sng :l){-e'llS-etl :lql U!ql!M l:l:lllS
U01U:ld OOVZ 1-e P:l1-e:JOI jju!PHnq :lql JO Al01S puo:J:lS :lql 01U! S:lllHp-eJ
100q:JS P!-es JO Uo!su-edX:l:lql MOU-e 01 pm (666Il:lqW:l1d:lS qjjnolql) Sl-e:lA
:l:llql APWlII!XOldd-e lOJ 100q:JS :ll-eApd -e lOJ I-eAoldd-e PU:l1X:l OllS:lnb:l1!
:60-v6-JJd l!Ull:ld :lSfl lllUO!l!PUOJ : (P:lnUllUOJ) jjuP-e:lH :J!Nfid
~ ON-S<lX :OllOA sqlS/v)
:3'lJ..lJ.. W3J..1
S6/11/ /. OllCU llu!l;};}W
/,/
WOln
J..N3W3J..VJ..S VUN3~V 'lI;JN[lO;J
Page 2, Item ;S'
Meeting Date 7/11/95
The Commission further recommended that staff work with the applicant in finding a suitable
permanent EastLake location during the upcoming planning efforts for EastLake III, and that
staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the permit to grant a modest extension of
perhaps six to twelve months provided the school can document that they are actively pursuing
a permanent site (see discussion under Alternatives).
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The property, zoned P-C (Planned Community), lies at the easterly edge of the existing
EastLake Business Center and is bounded on the north, west, and south by undeveloped
industrial parcels. The property to the east is within EastLake III and is planned as an
extension of the Business Center.
The 1.25 acre site is occupied by a 20,000 sq.ft. two-story building, with access
provided via Fenton Street; 63 parking spaces are located along the north, east, and south
portions of the site. The property contains no recreational or playground facilities;
outdoor recreational and physical education activities are conducted in Scobee Park under
an agreement with the EastLake Business Center Owners Association. Scobee Park is
located approximately 1,000 ft. west of the school within the EastLake Business Center.
2. Zoning and Land Use
Covenant Christian School operates a private school for grades K-12. School activities
for up to 208 students and 24 staff are approved at Fenton Street through June 30, 1996.
Currently, Covenant Christian's secondary school (grades 7-12), comprised of 70
students and 10 staff members, occupies the first floor of the Fenton property (the
elementary grades of the school are presently held at their original Naples Street
location). The second floor of the Fenton Street property, formerly occupied by Bonita
Country Day School, is now vacant.
Covenant Christian School was approved for 2 1/2 years at this location by the City
Council in December of 1993. Although the applicant had at that time requested
approval for a five-year term, the Council expressed concerns relating to the impact of
a school site on the development potential of the EastLake Business Center. In approving
the 2 1/2 year term, it was stated that the permit could be considered by the City Council
for renewal and extension beyond the approval date in consideration of the following
specific factors:
(1) whether there exists, or there is expected in the near future to exist, within the
EastLake Business Park a demand for sites by users which, by virtue of
requirements of law involving the siting of hazardous waste generating uses
J5'~
Page 3, Item / S
Meeting Date 7/11/95
within a given distance from an operating school, may require such prospective
users to engage in costly and time consuming studies and reports before such use
may be allowed; and
(2) the potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the
plans for the Business Center.
The permit was also conditioned upon the requirement that any request for extension of
the permit be submitted and considered at least one year prior to the June 1996 expiration
date. This was intended to allow the school ample time to find an alternate location and
to relocate if an extension was not granted.
Classes are held from 8:15 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8:15 a.m. -
12:00 noon on Fridays. As mentioned previously, recreational facilities are provided at
Scobee Park under an agreement with the EastLake Business Center Owners Association.
Under that agreement, recreational and physical education classes may take place between
the hours of 9:30-11:30 a.m. and 1:30-4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
An agreement from the Business Center Association granting approval for the use of the
park during the requested extension period has not been provided to staff. However, the
applicant has stated that one will be available at the City Council meeting.
3. Proposal
The applicant proposes to extend the approval period of the existing permit from June 30,
1996 to September 30, 1999. Additionally, the applicant requests permission to expand
current operations to the second floor of the existing building, increasing the floor area
utilized to include the entire building, or a total of approximately 20,000 sq.ft. and
increasing to a maximum of 260 students and 34 staff (see operational profile attached
as Exhibit "A"). The requested expansion would allow the school to relocate its
elementary grades from their Naples location to the Fenton site. The hours of operation
would not change.
In a letter supporting the request, the applicant cites the following factors (see Exhibit
liB"):
. the extension is supported by EastLake
. the school is consistent with the atmosphere of the Business Center
. no biotech company in San Diego has ever been required to do an RMPP
. there is no requirement for a business locating within 1000' of a sensitive
population to develop a Risk Management and Prevention Program
IS-']
Page 4, Item /5
Meeting Date 7/11/95
(RMPP); the school will not affect prospective users with regard to
expensive testing requirements (see staff comments on page 5)
EastLake Development Company has written a letter endorsing the request (please see
letter from Curt Stephenson of EastLake, attached as Exhibit "C"), but has not as yet
submitted documentation approving the extended use of Scobee Park. This is expected
to be presented at the Council hearing.
4. Analysis
Staff has not received any complaints involving, nor have we been informed of any
problems regarding, the existing school operations. The conditions of approval have
been met, and the applicant requested this extension/expansion well in advance of the
June 3D, 1995 deadline (one year prior to the June 1996 expiration date) specified in the
original approval.
As stated previously in this report, the two factors which were directed by the City
Council to be analyzed in considering a renewal or extension beyond the original
approval date of this permit are (1) whether future users may by requirements of law be
required to engage in costly and time consuming studies by virtue of proximity to the
school, and (2) the potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any
changes in plans for the Business Center.
County Hazardous Materials Management Division Reauirements
Prior to January, 1992, Section 65850.2 of the California Government Code prohibited
a city or county from permitting a new facility which handled acutely hazardous materials
(AHMs) to be constructed within 1,000 feet of a school unless the requirements of a Risk
Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) were first met and approved. On
January I, 1992, this Section was revised, and the reference to 1,000 feet was removed.
However, absent specific criteria, the County of San Diego Department of Health
Services, Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD),
continued to use the 1,000 ft. rule until new standards were adopted in March, 1994.
With the new standards, HMMD, as the administering agency, is required to make a
specific determination as to whether a new or modified business operation could create
an acutely hazardous materials accident risk. If so, an RMPP is required. To make this
determination, HMMD has established an acutely hazardous materials accident release
screening model. Businesses that handle acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) that fall
below the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) are exempt from preparing an RMPP.
Businesses that handle levels of AHMs at or above the TPQ, are screened through a
/5-'1
Page 5, Item /5
Meeting Date 7/11/95
computer model that uses various factors to determine whether an accident could result
in an off-site release (gasses being the most likely problem).
One of these screening model factors considers whether the facility in question is located
within a rural or an urban setting; however, proximity to a particular "sensitive"
population such as a school is not involved (see letter to applicant from Mike Handman
of HMMD, attached). Such proximity would, however, require additional analysis for
the purpose of addressing the population if an RMPP was required. Since proximity to
a school would not in itself trigger the RMPP, the first factor for consideration of
renewal of the permit would appear to be successfully addressed.
Comoatibilitv
The second issue to be assessed in considering any extension for the school is that of the
potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the plans for
the Business Center.
On February 14, 1995, the City Council approved amendments to the EastLake Business
Center Planned Community Regulations to establish a planned "High Tech/Bio Tech"
zone encompassing Phase I and II of the Business Center (see attached locator). This
zone is being created specifically to attract and encourage certain qualifying high
technology and bio-technology businesses through streamlined regulations and approval
processes. Although the site is presently surrounded by vacant property and is located
on the eastern periphery of Phase I of the Business Center, Fenton Street is intended to
be extended east, and the property will eventually be almost directly in the middle of the
Center with the planned Phase II expansion. Planning and mapping for EastLake III,
which includes the Business Center Phase II expansion, is expected to be completed by
July - September 1996 based upon the Planning Department's current work program.
The plans for the new High Tech/Hio Tech zone include a streamlined permitting process
that will enable new businesses locating in this area to bypass the traditional Design
Review and Conditional Use Permit processes through a special Council Subcommittee.
The new regulations developed for this zone are specifically aimed at attracting and fast-
tracking new industrial development, and creating conditions as desireable as possible for
industrial operations. Therefore, although the properties on this portion of the Business
Center are currently vacant, it is possible with the new regulations and programs that
new businesses could be established in a relatively short period of time. Certainly
decisions regarding future locations could be made by companies at any time.
The City is currently in the process of developing promotional programs intended to
attract quality users to this area. One such effort is the preparation of an overall "Menu
Agreement" with EastLake which will provide a vehicle for facilitating the transfer of
/.5>5'
Page 6, Item /5
Meeting Date 7/11/95
discounted and donated land andlor the payment by EastLake of City fees for City-
designated high tech/biotech companies. This tool has already been approved in concept
for use in negotiations with a pharmaceutical company which has indicated interest in
establishing a commercial-scale manufacturing operation in EastLake. This biomedical
company (whose discussions with the City require confidentiality at this point) currently
employs 100 people in an existing 70,000 sq.ft. facility. They are seeking to expand to
a 90,000 sq. ft. facility and are projecting an increase in personnel by approximately 75
people (see attached memo from Community Development).
Staff is of the opinion that the existence of the school could discourage some potential
users from locating in the Business Center, not only in the short term, but also for the
long term in the sense that prospective users would have no guarantee that the school
would not be further extended or even perhaps be established as a permanent use at this
location. The Community Development Department has also expressed concerns
regarding the potential negative impact the school may have on their ability to secure
tenants for the proposed BioShare contract pilot manufacturing facility (see attached
memo from Community Development).
It is also staff's concern that having a school in close proximity to a potential site may
have the effect of further inhibiting or discouraging prospective businesses that handle
hazardous materials from considering the location. According to HMMD, pending
federal regulations may impose additional restrictions on hazardous materials handlers
in the near future. Further, existing regulations are subject to change. For example, the
classification of what materials are "acutely hazardous" (AHMs), as well as the threshold
planning quantities of existing identified ARMs, is regularly revisedl updated, according
to HMMD. Potential users must therefore consider not only current regulations affecting
their businesses, but also possible future changes that might relate to the issue of
sensitive populations. The potential for impact on a Business Center user which handles
hazardous materials, resulting in increased costs either through studies or modifications
to operations or potential liability , could easily lead a prospective business to choose a
site where no such population exists nearby.
Setting aside the issue of hazardous materials, a school use is not considered by staff to
be appropriate in the middle of a developing industrial area. There is much merit to the
argument that schools and freestanding childcare facilities should be located in close
proximity to places of employment. However, from a planning perspective, uses of this
type should ideally be accommodated at the periphery of commercial and industrial areas
so as to minimize conflict between these very different types of uses. In fact, in order
to accommodate these and similar uses, EastLake is required to set aside a total of 10.8
acres for Community Purpose Facilities.
/ 5,-~
(,r<'
I';
i "'
Page 7, Item /5
Meeting Date 7/11/95
A number of factors create the potential for conflict between children's schools and
industrial uses. Heavy truck traffic along Lane Avenue would pose a potential safety
issue with children crossing the street on their way to and from recreation activities at
Scobee Park (albeit accompanied by adults). Additionally, the noise of truck traffic and
the emissions associated with them are often not conducive to the atmosphere sought for
schools or child-related activities. Not only could noise generated by Business Center
uses negatively impact school operations, but perhaps more importantly in this particular
case, the noise generated by children playing, and the other activities associated with a
school use, could be distracting and disruptive to research and development,
administrative, or other similar activities associated with Business Center operations.
The issue has been raised by the applicant that daycare facilities are permitted as an
accessory use within the Business Center, and this is inconsistent with staff's contention
that a school for children is not compatible with the High Tech/BioTech uses being
sought for this area.
Daycare facilities have been permitted as accessory uses in the EastLake Business Center
since its inception and prior to the adoption of the BioTech zone amendments. It was
not deemed desirable to remove this opportunity from the district regulations for a
number of reasons. It is not uncommon for employers to now offer on-site child care.
These are generally small operations that are incorporated into the design of the facilities
as an additional amenity for employees. They are internal and accessory, but do not
supplant the intended uses in this zone.
Such facilities are offered and controlled by the employers and take place within the
users' facilities. Thus compatibility, or rather the potential lack thereof, would be
addressed by those most affected, namely the employers themselves. The number of
children as well as the range of ages served are limited. The childcare facilities and
activities are conducted and assimilated within the employer's facility, and thus outside
activities and issues involving a large number of school age children in a separate school
facility on an adjoining or nearby site are not an issue.
Given the potential for conflict between the school and the planned users of the EastLake
Business Park, and the adoption of the new high tech/biotech zone, the proposal to
extend the term of the permit does not appear to staff or the Planning Commission to be
consistent with the second factor to be considered in approving an extension, i.e. the
potential for conflict with surrounding development and/or any changes in the plans for
the Business Center.
J5'?
Page 8, Item 15
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Alternatives
If the Council is reluctant to maintain the existing firm expiration date of June 1996 as
recommended by staff, the existing conditional use permit could be amended to allow an
administrative extension upon the submittal of documentation by the applicant that plans
for a permanent site are being actively pursued. Such an option should only be
considered near the expiration date of the existing approved term, perhaps within six
months of June 1996 (no earlier than January, 1996), and should be for no longer than
a six-month or twelve-month period. This option has been recommended by the Planning
Commission.
This alternative would also recognize the fact that the planning for EastLake III will be
on-going over the next year or so, culminating in approved plans sometime around mid
to late 1996. If the school desires to remain in EastLake it would be the intent of staff
to use this process to work with the school and EastLake development to identify an
appropriate school site. In that case, a limited extension may be appropriate considering
the timing of the planning efforts.
A second alternative, suggested by the applicant, is the approval of the extension subject
to periodic (e.g. bi-annual, in June and December) review. The applicant suggests that
approval could be conditioned such that if new businesses locate within the Business
Center and create the potential for "conflict" with the school, the school could be
required to vacate the property within a six month period designed to coincide with the
end of a given school term (e.g. in June or December).
The second alternative is not supported for several reasons. First, it suggests a
framework for defining and determining conflicts which does not yet exist. Second, it
would likely require and suggest to prospective businesses the prospect of extended and
time consuming determinations of conflict. And, finally, it does not address and may
arguably exacerbate the perception of potential conflict by businesses considering a
location in the Business Center.
5. Conclusion
Based upon the information provided in the preceding sections, staff's recommendation
is for the denial of the requested extension but approval of the requested expansion for
the term of the existing permit in accordance with the Council Resolution.
6. Meeting with property owner and EastLake Development Company
On May 26, 1995, staff met with the property owner and a representative of EastLake
Development Company to discuss the possibility of pursuing a SPA Plan Amendment
which would redesignate the property and adjoining acreage to the south as a Community
Purpose Facility (CPF) site. It was and is staff's position that if the school wishes to
!S..-g/
/5
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date 7/11/95
occupy the site permanently, then a plan amendment would be the appropriate process
to pursue such a request.
With regard to potential support for such an amendment, staff indicated that the issues
addressed with the conditional use permit would remain the same, but would also include
the permanent conversion of industrial acreage to non-industrial use. In the opinion of
staff, it would be incumbent upon EastLake and the school to address these issues, not
only in the context of the existing Business Center but also the Phase II expansion of the
Center.
The meeting ended with staff agreeing to react to any conceptual plan amendment
proposals prior to the Council hearing on the conditional use permit. Subsequently, on
June 29, 1995, the City received a copy of a letter from EastLake to the School
indicating support for the present extension, but not for permanent location in the
Business Center. EastLake further offered to work with the School to find an appropriate
permanent location within the EastLake Community (see June 29 letter attached as
Exhibit C).
7. Coordination with AirTouch Cellular
When this item was continued from the meeting of May 23, 1995, Councilman Rindone
requested that staff coordinate this request with any plan AirTouch Cellular may have for
locating a cellular antenna facility on or adjacent to the site. We have been informed by
AirTouch that they are no longer looking at the Fenton Street area as one of their
alternate sites to serve the EastLake area.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fees for processing this application, which approximate $2,400, have
been waived under the City's non-profit fee waiver provisions.
Attachments
1. Commission and Council Resolutions
2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1995
2. Locators and Floor Plans
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Supplemental Information from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Applicant operational profile
Exhibit "B" - Applicant letter
Exhibit "C" - September 22, 1994, Letter from Curt Stephenson, EastLake Development
June 29, 1995. Letter from Curt Stephenson, EastLake Development
5. Letter from HMMD
6. Memos from Community Development Department
7. Letters to Mayor in Support of Application
8. P.C and C.C. Minutes and Resolution from Original Hearings on Covenant Christian School
/5--9
RESOLUTION NO. /7ftJ'/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DENYING A REQUESTED TIME EXTENSION BUT APPROVING A
REQUESTED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(PCC-94-09) TO COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO OPERATE A
PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2400 FENTON STREET WITHIN THE EASTLAKE
BUSINESS CENTER
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as 2400 Fenton Street, and for the
purpose of general description herein consisting of 1.25 acres located on the south
side of Fenton Street, within the EastLake Business Center ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Modification to Conditional Use Permit
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a modification of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-94-09 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
on November 21, 1994 by Covenant Christian School; said modification
requesting an extension of the term of the permit from June 1996 through
September 1999, and expansion of the school to include the second floor (the
"Project"), and
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on April 12, 1995 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council deny
the extension but approve the expansion for the existing term of the permit in
accordance with Resolution PCC-94-09(M); and,
the Commission further recommended that staff work with the applicant in finding
a suitable permanent EastLake location during the upcoming planning efforts for
EastLake III, and that staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the
permit to grant a modest extension of perhaps six to twelve months provided the
school can document that they are actively pursuing a permanent site (see
discussion under Alternatives).
1.5'1/
Ie
D. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 20, 1995 to receive
the reconunendation of the Planning Conunission and to hear public testimony
with regard to same.
E. Environmental Exemption
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposal
is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 1 exemption, the
operation of an existing facility.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Conunission at their public hearing on this project held on April 12, 1995, and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance or denial of conditional use permits or
modifications thereto, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary
basis that permits the stated fmding to be made.
A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The site does not represent a suitable location for the school to continue operations
beyond the existing approved term due to the potential for conflict with anticipated
development in the area, including the recently approved High Tech/Bio Tech program.
Several sites have and will in the future be reserved for Conununity Purpose Facilities
in the eastern territories.
The proposed expansion, within the existing approved timeframe, will allow the school
to consolidate their operations and should pose no additional impacts as conditioned for
the present term of the permit.
/5~/2
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Current plans for the area are expected to provide additional incentives for and attract
industrial users. These users are not expected to be compatible with a school use, and
conflicts and/or perceived conflicts between the two different types of land use could be
detrimental to implementation of the plans and the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons working in the vicinity as well as the children attending the school.
The interim expansion of the existing facility under the originally approved permit term
should not prove detrimental to either persons in the vicinity or the clients of the school.
The second floor was previously occupied by another private school.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The expansion, as conditioned, will be required to comply with all applicable regulations,
codes, and requirements.
D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
With the approval of the interim expansion and the implementation of all conditions, the
use will be consistent with the General Plan and the EastLake PC District regulations.
IV. CONDITIONS OF GRANT OF EXPANSION OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants the requested modification of Conditional Use Permit
PCC-94-09(M) to expand current K-12 grade school-type operations at 2400 Fenton
Street to include the second floor, subject to the following terms whereby:
A. Occupancy. The occupancy of the building by Covenant Christian shall not
exceed the staff/student figures provided by the applicant, i.e. 34 staff and 280
total students.
B. Recreational Facilities. The applicant shall provide proof of the continued
availability of Scobee Park for outdoor recreational purposes prior to expanded
occupancy.
C. Original Conditions. This permit shall continue to comply with all other original
conditions of approval for PCC-94-09 not in conflict with the above, as stated in
Resolution No. 17324.
/5'13
I ,:...
.~
r
D. Post-Approval Conditions. This pennit shall be subject to any and all new,
modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to
advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare
which City shall impose after advance written notice to the pennittee and after the
City has given to the pennittee the right to be heard with regard thereto.
However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Pennittee of a substantial revenue source which
the Pennittee can not, in the nonnal operation of the use pennitted, be expected
to economically recover.
E. Time to Commence Use. This conditional use pennit shall become void and
ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in
accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
F. The applicant understands and acknowledges that the pennit shall expire on June
30, 1996, and that the applicant will no longer be allowed to continue in
operation after this expiration date. The applicant understands that the remaining
life of this pennit may not provide the applicant with an opportunity to receive
a reasonable return on his/her investment and that the applicant hereby waives
any right to such amounts.
V. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated;
. and that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect
ab initio. The authority of this resolution to use the property in the manner herein
pennitted shall be suspended if challenged pending final resolution of the challenge.
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(m: \shared\planning\pcc9409 ,cc)
/5'-)1
-
---- I --- ---
J~ #-I~
i.
,
.
COMMISSION AND COUNCIL
RESOLUTIONS.
.
.
~ /5>8
THIS PAGE BlANK
/)f'lt?
"'""
'-
"""
""'\
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-94-09(M)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A REQUESTED TIME
EXTENSION BUT APPROVE AN EXPANSION FOR AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (pCC-94-09) TO COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO OPERATE
A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2400 FENTON STREET WITHIN THE EASTLAKE
BUSINESS CENTER
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the modification of an existing conditional
use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 21, 1994
by Covenant Christian School; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a modification to Conditional Use
Permit PCC-94-09 to extend the approval through September 1999 and expand operations to
include the second floor for the existing private school at 2400 Fenton Street within the EastLake
Business Center; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is
exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 1 exemption, the operation of an
existing facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit modification and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within an area of 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10
days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 12,
1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby recommends that the City Council deny the request to extend the term of the permit but
approve the request to expand operations to include the second floor based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
The Commission further recommends that staff work with the applicant in finding a suitable
permanent EastLake location during the upcoming planning efforts for EastLake m, and that
staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the permit to grant a modest extension of
perhaps six to twelve months provided the school can document that they are actively pursuing
a permanent site.
.-~
15-/7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City """"
Council. .
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of April, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Tuchscher, Fuller, Ray, Salas, and Willett
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Tarantino (excused)
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
~
-~ Jy/g(
""""
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1995
.
.
-/;5~11
"""".
THIS PAGE BLANK
""'"
~'-20
1
.
.
.
:....... ,...~,- ~-- --.~ ... ~
~... '''w,-"- ... ..-... -::.__ _-.,;
....- ....---.-,
...: - --- \"" -_/ ..... .- ---../-
Excernt from the 4/12/95 Planning Commission Minutes
ITEM 1:
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09; REQUEST
TO EXTEND APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR
APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS (THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1999) AND
TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF SAID SCHOOL FACILITIES INTO THE
SECOND STORY OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2400 FENTON
STREET WITHIN THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - Covenant Christian
School
Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report, noting that staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the expansion to the second story, and deny the request to extend
the term of the conditional use permit.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Dan Malcolm, 3252 Holiday Ct., La Jolla 92037, speaking in favor of Covenant Christian
School, noted that the Planning Commission had approved by a 5-2 vote the conditional use
permit in October 1993. At that time the Commission knew the biotech zone was coming, and
it was part of the discussion when the Commission recommended a five-year CUP. Regarding
the requirement for a hazardous waste materials test in a biotech zone, Mr. Malcolm stated that
the Hazardous Materials Division had told him that no biotech company in San Diego had ever
been required to do the test. From that standpoint, the school would not have any potential
impact on any biotech company coming into the park. Regarding a school deterring biotech
companies from locating in the park, Mr. Malcolm stated he was in disagreement with that. Mr.
Stephenson of EastLake had approved a five-year extension of the permit. The building had
operated as a school for five years. He felt that considerable weight should be given to Mr.
Stephenson's endorsement. Mr. Malcolm noted that adjacent to the site and to the west, there
were two community facility zones which allowed churches, daycare centers, and schools. He
felt it was ironic that 200 feet away, it was a major impact on the biotech center. He did not
believe that was valid. Mr. Malcolm asked the Commission to reaff1rID the October 1993
decision.
Hank Gotthelf, 2339 Calle de la Garza, San Diego, a principal of California Land Associates,
stated they had marketed the property since it was built; it had been built for a special use--to
house a rehabilitation center for LASER. LASER had signed a lease, but had been denied the
right to occupy the building. The building is different from an ordinary office building in that
it has larger space occupancy requirements, with an area to be primarily used as a kitchen area.
It is set up for teaching. He asked the Commission to look at the benefits and detriments. The
building had been occupied as a school and as a house of worship. He asked the Commission
to reconf1rID the use at least for the extended period, because they did not have biotech tenants
in the community. The property had been marketed by several agencies which had not been
successful. Mr. Gotthelf stated that Covenant Christian School was a wonderful operation, a
credit to the community and themselves, and a desirable tenant. He reiterated that EastLake,
//5r~J
PC Minutes
-3-
April 12, 1995
""""
as the developer of the community, stood in their favor and the Commission should listen to
them. EastLake and California Land Associates had a huge fInancial risk.
Mrs. Roger Wagner, 331 Quince Place, Chula Vista, the High School Principal of Covenant
Christian School, stated the school had been in Chula Vista since 1976, has a good reputation
in the City for academics as well as for meeting the needs of the children in the community.
The students are reputable students who grow up to be good citizens of the City. The students
are involved in the boys and girls clubs of "L" Street and Oleander by refereeing, coaching,
volunteer work; also involved in the police athletic league and Birch Patrick Convalescent
Center. Before moving into the present facility, Covenant Christian School had searched for two
years to find a facility; they are not in a position to buy land and build a building. The building
meets all their needs, and in an area of Chula Vista where the school needs to be--in Eastern
Chula Vista. She encouraged the Commission to allow them to stay.
Nevins McBride, 6480 Weathers Place, San Diego 92121, a principal in the California Land
Associates, and the owner of the building at 2400 Fenton Street, stated there had been concern
that a school would scare away a prospect R&D high tech/bio tech user. Mr. McBride then read
a letter from Ivor Royston, founder and Chief Executive Officer of San Diego Regional Cancer
Center and several other bio-tech companies in San Diego, who commented on the importance
of nearby schools and daycare in the decision-making process of a typical high tech/bio tech user
looking for new piece of land to build. Mr. McBride summarized Mr. Royston's comments to '""'"'
be that a community which attracted the best people needed facilities such as schools, daycare,
shopping, restaurants in close proximity to the facility. The high tech/bio tech zone allows
unpremised daycare with no approval from the City. Mr. McBride stated that the school was
not an abnormal use, and that the high tech/bio tech user was not worried about a school down
the street.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Tuchscher asked the Commissioners if they had questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Willett noted that he had heard nothing about recreational programs for the
children. He was concerned about traffic, and also the educational aspect of the school.
Mrs. Wagner stated that there were only older students using the school, and they used Scobee
Park for recreation. It was very safe for them; there were crosswalks, and they were under
supervision at all times. The property adjacent to them was undeveloped. They planned to
work with EastLake to utilize that property for play, if they moved the elementary students.
They had not attempted to fmalize anything until they knew if they could expand their usage of
the building.
Commissioner Salas asked Mrs. Wagner what happened if a business wanted to use the park for
recreational activities and the students were not allowed to play in the playground. Mrs. Wagner ""'"
stated that had not happened in the year they had been there. The park is used by the other
~;ZCA
.
.
.
-- ..1
PC Minutes
-4-
April 12, 1995
property owners mostly on the weekends. Occasionally, there are individuals in the park on
their lunch hour, but the school only used the park from 2:00-3:00 when people are in their
offices. It had not been a problem. In order for a property owner to use the park for a
company picnic, it had to be reserved through EastLake Development. Any conflict that would
arise would be worked out. There had been no conflict, and no complaints from any property
owner about the children.
Commissioner Salas was concerned about ill-meaning people visiting the park who could not be
screened out during the time the children were using the park. Mrs. Wagner stated that
EastLake Development Company hires a security company which roves the park during the day.
In addition, there was always a minimum of two teachers present. A problem had not arisen;
having security there had helped.
Commissioner Fuller asked the school's long-range goals as to fmding a permanent location.
Mrs. Wagner replied that they would like to stay in the City of Chula Vista. She was the High
School Principal and not on the school board. They would like a facility where they could house
their entire campus; they did not intend to get enormous; they did not want to try to compete
with a public school. Their maximum class size was 25, with one class per grade.
Commissioner Fuller questioned whether there was an established policy now in existence by
the Board to continue to look for a permanent location. Mrs. Wagner answered affmnatively.
She noted they would like to get their campuses back together.
Chair Tuchscher asked if there was a program in place to do that. Mrs. Wagner said that all
their energy had been directed towards getting the conditional use permit extended. They could
not go beyond that until they knew what was going to happen.
Commissioner Willett queried Mrs. Wagner about the hour per day the school used Scobee Park.
For the number of students and split of grade levels, he was concerned about recreation being
only an hour per day. Mrs. Wagner explained that in junior and senior high school, they did
not have recess. They had a college-preparatory program with seven periods per day, with a
break in the morning, lunch, and then a physical education class.
Commissioner Ray questioned staff regarding any inquiries regarding sites in the high tech zone.
Mr. Griffm stated that the zones were very recently established and the regulations had been put
in place, with promotional efforts being handled through the Community Development
Departtnent. He was not personally aware of any interest at this time. A memo was included
in the Commission packet from Community Development which supported staff s
recommendation.
Commissioner Ray asked if City staff was aware if any additional time had been granted in
terms of written authorization to use Scobee Park for an extended time. Mr. Griffm understood
there was no objection from EastLake. Commissioner Ray was concerned that there had been
a condition in the original conditional use permit that the applicant would provide proof
~5rd-J
PC Minutes
-5-
April 12, 1995
~.
satisfactory to the Director of Planning that legally enforceable rights to suitable outdoor
recreation or physical education facilities have been obtained for the duration of the permit.
Loss of such of facilities shall be revocation of permit. Mr. Ray asked if that requirement had
been fulfilled. Mr. Griffin did not know if that written permission had been obtained for the
extended period.
Mr. Malcolm returned to the podium to state that the School's long-term plans did not include
use of Scobee Park. They had been in contact with EastLake regarding leasing the adjacent
space on area I, which was contiguous to the school property. Mr. Stephenson was in support
of it. In a letter from Mr. Stephenson, he stated there had been no ascertainable wear and tear
on the park, and he did not foresee any problem extending Scobee Park for existing years. He
noted there was a year left on the current agreement, with an additional 2-acre site on the
existing church campus which the school had been allowed to use, in addition to the Boys &
Girls Club. They did not have to use Scobee Park.
Chair Tuchscher noted that in the public hearing before the Planning Commission, Mr.
Stephenson had represented that the park was controlled by the users of the business park, and
he needed their approval to grant use for the school. He asked if that had been achieved.
Regardless to whether there were alternatives for providing recreation for the students, the only
one within the Planning Commission's control was the park, or some substantive evidence of
contractual obligations to provide those services outside the park. Mr. Griffm stated that may '1
have been an oversight of staff; it should have been confirmed that the Business Center Owners
Association had granted extended use of the park for those activities. Staff could work with the
School to make sure that condition was satisfied, or attempted to be satisfied, before a fmal
decision is reached on the permit. In addition, he noted that simply grading and using the area
next door for a recreation area could not be accomplished without a modification to the permit.
It would have to again come before the Planning Commission and Council, because it would
modify the parameters of the use.
Chair Tuchscher asked the applicant if they were aware that EastLake had gained approval from
the business park users for use of the park for the School's purposes.
Mr. Gotthelf stated he had spoken with Mr. Stephenson within the past 24 hours, and they had
not gained that vote. However, Mr. Stephenson had indicated that it would be his position on
behalf of EastLake to gain that recognition and positive vote. Mr. Gotthelf thought that could
be a condition to the approval for the extension to 1999.
Commissioner Fuller clarified that Mr. Gotthelf was speaking to the use of Scobee Park, and
asked if he would speak to the fact that there would have to be an additional conditional use
permit for the use of the area #1. Mr. Gotthelf stated he agreed with that.
Commissioner Fuller commented that the City was working currently on an application for a
high tech use. The concern of the Redevelopment Agency was that any extension of what was ""'\
considered an interim use by a school was in conflict with what they were trying to establish
~'02/
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-6-
April 12, 1995
with a biotech zone. She agreed that since the interim use was acknowledged in the original
application, she did not feel comfortable with the School's presentation of information that there
was a current long-range plan for permanent location in place. She felt an extension of five
years would establish them in their current location; she did not feel comfortable that they were
actively seeking another location.
Commissioner Ray asked how it could be worked into the resolution that staff would work with
the School in fmding a permanent location in the EastLake Planning Area ill. Mr. Griffm stated
it could be included in the motion recommending that staff be directed to work with the School
and EastLake in fmding an appropriate location. However, on an unofficial basis, staff would
be glad to work with the School to fmd a site.
Chair Tuchscher commented that this was an issue of basic land use. He did not think it had
direct correlation to the biotech zone question. There was interest from some biotech firms.
He was not sure it was in conflict with this use. He was concerned with the permanency
associated with a long-term conditional use permit in a business center. He felt it was in conflict
in general with the uses that were ideal for the long-term benefit of the City and the Center.
The potential of some limited extension if the School were working diligently to fmd a new site
or a new building or relocate would be appropriate.
Commissioner Salas stated that the first time the matter came before the Commission, she had
deep concerns about the appropriateness of a school being in the area. Those reservations still
stood; she shared Commissioner Fuller's concerns regarding another five-year extension; there
did not appear that the School had any formal plan to look for other sites. Therefore, she would
vote as she did the first time the matter came before the Commission.
MSUC (Ray/Fuller) 5-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to adopt Resolution PCC-94-
09M recommending denial of the extension to the CUP but accepting the expansion for
Covenant Christian School to operate a private school at 2400 Fenton Street within the
EastLake Business Center, and also recommending that staff be directed to work jointly
with Covenant Christian School to fmd a more permanent location in Chula Vista or,
specifically, EastLake ill, and adopting the balance of the paragraph in the staff report on
page 4, paragraph 3, namely, that staff be given the ability near the expiration date of the
permit to grant a modest extension of perhaps six to twelve months provided the school can
document that they are actively pursuing a permanent site.
~
/~/d-S
"'"
THIS PAGE BLANK
t.
"'"
~
Jy.2?
"'"
.
LOCATORS
AND
.
FLOOR PLANS
.
~
/!3/d-/
'1
THIS PAGE BLANK
,.
.........
-~5>oLgr
.........
J II J
e I,...V
.
'"
~
'ROJECI'
LOCATION
~
~.
.
.
.
CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NORTH
ICALI:
1" - 400'
FILl IIUMIEII:
PCC.94.09
PIIOJICT DIICIIIPTIOII: MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO "ALLOW
EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR A PRIV ATE SCHOOL
/y""l1
APPLICANT: COVENANT CBRlSTlAN
SCHOOL
ADDIII": z.eoo FENTON STREET
':J -
, ,.,
-ej6-
',I
~
.>,/
PHASE II
-,
,
-
CHULA VISTA PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR -...~: City lDitiated . ~'CB'1\m.:rmi lONE
C) -, usn..u::I atJUNISS C&NrU.PILUE I AD
8CAU, ... -..." ~.
NORTB NONE PCM-95-06
""'"
.>'
~ J~Yo
.
.
;CiN=r,,~ ~r"I::rc.-r
~.
":1
~
..
:1
.f'"
I~~
J'F
.~
r
.
:;oj ~ Z.1
1< 31:1l..U it Jc,...n
.
.-
STUDENT DROP-OFF TRAFFIC FLOW
~I-r(; Pl.-At...!
POTENTIAL EVACUATION AREAS
,
-~
~,.'-
/;;- J I
.
~
'.t.
~
~ ~
1.11
~i
Ill' 0.1
.., III
:s "2 ~
~ ~ l
&J ..
oJ -
- cc
:S'S:
m u
I.h ;
2 c
f: 2
VI III
~ 5
.,.
~
1-1
~
! ::
c ...
!~~
\: I
...
lU
1
'~
~ ~
~ I
~ /5~~
~ _.
e _
''''~
d !
~ '"'
~ ::
~ ' ~
t
c!i
~ :
! ~~
\:
Ir,
~
8 ';i'
Il: ...
&II - 4
WI 7'
S :.
"
I,
~
k
LJ'T
1 ·
o
CII:
5
~
:s
-
I
atOClIl:l~O:>
I-
;
w-,
w
8
&
~
TTjI! I I 11
II . I .
I .
I .
Ill. i
~
-
. ~ (i4J
o """" lID
I E.I~
I ~! i I
L lJ_:. J i
I II W. i
i ! i .1 i~ U
1:[" VI
.
!. if
i",
\-
~- ~
C> .
C> ..
U:lI!t
I ". ~
'" -
~ ...
liD ("&1110'
>-
c:
C
t::
I~
imi
. illi
,
, WI
~I
:I
ij
.
~ ,..,
& ")~
~ !
I
J
..,
- ..
-
..
.~
~
w.l
~
tu $
kl
~ 8
v 0
U 0
~ 0 _
, c; . '"""'
t Cl "
IiJ ~
&l. {
o ~
o
:r-
N
..
~
~
'"'""
.
~J
~!
~u
::>
v~
~E
-
0l:lC
j5
~~
&~
I~
w
.
......
8
-
::l
~l~
~
w
E
I
c..
Il\
U
......
o
,
\A
v
......
,
VI
-...J
1 -
!t~ 7
~ 0
\J -,
.....'
i!
, "'.-
S 01<-
vd
';' , oJ
'i M-
~ ~
~
o
o
~
~
,......
.
i" ::.
'"
-..J
.....
!
I
'J'
-
.
~~
~~
.....
o
T
'"
u
<r
l
~ l'
...
~ In I
:I - 0
u V
::t(
~I)
1~
,.
~
I
~
o
bo.O
~
8
~I
~
Wi
~~
E.
~
,...
~
.
....
....
/~J} ~
..
...
.!.
,.
~
)...
~
\w I
U,) '::>
~ ~;
, ~ sf
IC~
8~l
~
-..
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
~
"'"
~ /f'-.J'f
.. .-l
I -- ~-
.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
.
.
-~y yS--
J.15 PM i:IA1L PkGPERTiES GRF
FAX NO. 619 45" jdoJ
F, 2
._..,pFH.c.:.9S.J5ll...l,i:_~ lP,CITY CF QU.A VISTA TEl. NO:
1f775 P02
~
t
,
i
You Ire required to "Ie I SlIlemenl lit DI~cloture 01 "'rllln owneflhlp or nnanclal lnlcrcau, ~enlt, or IImpalan
ellnlrll>ullunf, un III mlllen whl~h will /'C<julrc discretlonll)' a.ll"" on the plrl oCt". City Olundl, Plnnlft' o.III","'lon,.lId
.11 other omel.1 bodl.. The lolluwln. Informallon mlllt b. dll~,
'"'"
\.
Ustlho n.mOl 01 all pol'lOnl lIavi.1 I Rnlnclallnt.fOlI In Ih. properly...hleb I. Ihe luhjec. ollhe appllQllon or lhe
conlracl, ...., O1Nn.r, 'rrIlDlnl. conuacIOt,lullCan"."or, m.lerlalluppller.
l
"A....^_ '"'.......... - "...wt"'Sf..., ft..............., 'a....ea.r
Covenant Christian School
, Mav4~. U_._I~_ ~-----, ~--.-'W
U.M~ rA..~_1. _ r-__..... ..1-.aw
1. lC.ny petlOn' ldenllnc4 rurlulnl III (\) .bo....ll. corpor.tlun or parlneflllip,lilllho n.mes or alllndMdu.1I OWI\ln.
morc IhlD I~ of the .bar" in Ibe corpol1llkln or ownln. Iny p.rlnctllllr tnlerCllI In lilt p.rt.cflMp,
). II any rOrlOn' Idcnlill~d pur~u.nl III (I) allow I, nUlI-pronl oraanlzallon or . lIull. 1111 Ihe ".11I. or.ny penon
len-In. .. dlreclor ollbe non-prunl oraanll'.AIlon ur u IlIllIGe or beneficiary or IIUIlor or lhe ItIllI.
.~oaer wan8~r.- ~reS~d~nt ~ r.h~;rm~n
ovenant rlstlan cool
"'"
4.
Have ~ou h.d ml>re lhan S25ll wOrlh ur b~inlS lIall.laCled ",Uh any rn:~r of Ihe Cily Il.rr, Buardl, ComllllAloDl,
Commlllea, and CouDcll wUbln Ihe pasll"'elve montM? Yca_ No 1f)'CA, pi.... Indlcale ,0110"(1)1 _
5,
Please Idenn!)' Ci~h ~na every person, InCludln. Iny I.enll, emplO)'CCl. coll.luh.nls. or Independ."1 ...."Iraclon who
you lIIye wl.ncd to rcprCl<:nl )'\IU before Ihe City In thll IIIlller.
Da~ ~1~^1~ _ ....41 O.Ap..,4.. r..^UP
6.
Hive you .ncllor your llUi~rs or .,.nll,la Ihe aU\?"I., conlrlbuICIl more lhln $1,000 10. Councllrn.mllcr In Ihe
.urrent or prc=ln. ciccI/on per104? YClI_ N'jiL Ir~. stlte wtIleh Counellrnembtr(I);
Au" a4dltlOlI&I ,.... -4: ._~ ~ ~
~ Ilanaturo ~O'/aPPIIC&ll.1
...::J..t;A #. W~~ eo (Z.. i'A.E:I.
Ptlnl or type name of conlllelJlappltClDI
. emwil../md.... 'A"YltoIivlllw.( fI~" ...,.",.<nItl,. /WtJ -. .....1...... _III '.1. ~.., "".",i",'i",. ,..,...,;.,., _It,.........,.", 1fIti/'... '"'"
lAv ,,~ *" (NINf ''''''''to ".... fII."J 'O~ fit) ,1fwutlftlnlyj .u..t,,, or tIIMr poJitittJ 1W...,lJ(~ t>> "I)' ~ ,..., 01 ~rlOIt .11,.,. , ..,..
DaI.,-.4-'/z..-q ~
· · . (NOTB:
~. ~J.?
. ~.. -'- ..,...
.
EXHIBIT "A"
.
.
~ /5--- .11
THIS PAGE BLANK
~J5~)0'
-'"\
..
-'"\
~
-I
. Covenant Christian School
S05 East Naples Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911
.
.
November 21,1994
Mr. Steve Griffin & Ms. Amy Wolfe
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Prome of planned usage of property at 2400 Fenton Street, ChuJa Vista, CA
Covenant Christian School is currently applying for a Conditional Use Permit in connection
with plans to lease approximately 10,000 square feet on the ground floor of a buildiDg at 2400
Fenton Street. Chula Vista (in the Eastlake Business Center).
1. PROPOSED USE
The applicant proposes to use this facility for the operation of a non-profit, religious (Christian)
day school comprised of grades kiDdergarten through twelfth. Currently the secondary school
(grades 7-12) are occupying the ground floor of the Fenton Street facility. Leasing of additional
space in the building to accomodate the rest of the school is anticipated in the future.
Covenant Christian School has been offeriDg an alternative educational opportunity in the
Chula Vista community for nearly twenty years, having operated at 505 E. Naples St., Chula Vista,
CA since its founding in 1976. It has a multi-racial and multi-national constituency made up of
families who reside primarily in Chula Vista and other South Bay communities, though it draws
students from as far away as EI Cajon.
The proposed lease of this property is for a period of five (5) years, with an optional five-year
extensioD. The school sees this site has having both short-term and long-term potential for accom-
modating a thriving, growing school iDto the next century.
2. STUDENT POPULATION
The enrollment for the 1994195 academic year is approximately 150 sudents, with the sec-
ondary school comprised of 70 students currently occupying the Fenton Street property. We pro-
ject an incremental growth over the next five years (see the scheduled breakdown below) which
would bring the size of the total student body to approximately 270 (152 e1ementary/116 sec-
ondary).
..
There are preseDtly approximately 20 members of the administration, faculty, and staff (ap-
proximately half of which are working at the Fenton Street facility). The anticipated growth in stu-
dent population might require the additioD of 5-10 more faculty/staff persons.
~ /5''-'Y'1
USE PROFILE FOR COVENANT CHRlSTIAN SCHOOL -- 2 """"
3. HOURS OF OPERATION
The hours during which classes are held are 8: 15 AM - 3;00 PM (Monday - Thursday) and
8: 15 AM - 12:00 noon (Fridays). Staff members usually begin arriving around 7;30 AM and re-
main until about 4;00 PM.
4. PARKING
There is a total of 65 available parking spaces on sight, and there is currently no other tenant of
the building.
According to the mandated ratio of parking to pupils, we would need a total of 20 spaces for
the current size of our student body. and would need a total of 59 for our projected maximum en-
rollment of c. 260 students (see the scheduled breakdown below).
ELEMEJIl'TARY SCHOOL
, Student~ I Snaces
SECONDARY SCHOOL
, Studcnl$ , Soaces
TOTALS
, Studenls
, Soaces
Year #1
Year #2
Year #3
Year #4
Year #5
100
122
132
142
152
20
24
26
28
30
(86)*
96
106
116
(21)*
24
26
29
100
122 (208)*
228
248
268
20
24 (45)*
50
54
59
""'"
* If the elementary school is moved to the Fenton Street facility for the 94195 school year.
S. TRAFFIC FLOW ON THE PROPERTY
Parents will use the two driveway entrances on the nom end of the property to drop off and
pick up students before and after school (as outlined in our original request for a C.U.P.). Faculty
and staff parking will be along the east side of the building as indicated. There will be no anticipat-
ed traffic to the rear (south) end of the parking area during school hours. A tum-arol1l1d hammer-
head area for emergency vehicles is provided in the rear of the building and will not be obstructed
by any school use. In case of an emergency, the student body would be evacuated from the build-
ing and assembled away from the flow of emergency vehicle traffic.
6. OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE
.
The applicant has received permission from the Eastlake Business Center Owner's Association
for the use by our students of Scobee Park for recreational and physical education puIpOSes. The ~
~ ;s:.Ytl
.
.
.
USE PROFILE FOR COVENANT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL.. 3
applicant is agreeable to the conditions set forth by the EBCOA, and will schedule its recreational
and physical education classes to coincide with the times indicated by the EBCOA (i.e., 9:30-]] :30
a.m. and ]:30-4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). The students' passage to and from the park
will be supervised by qualified staff personnel from CCS.
]f you have any questions about these revisions to our plans for our use of the building, please
let us know.
R'ZIIY":1
Rev.~er,~
Board of Directors
Covenant Christian School
~
~ 5-Y/
""""
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
~
.......,
-/ )y;!;2
.
EXHIBIT "B"
.
.
~ jYt/;;
"'""
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
~
~/'~'/
"""\
.,m
.
. C
RETAIL PROPERTIES GROUP, INC.
A full Service Commercial Real estate Company
October 19, 1994
Mr. Steve Griffin
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING C.U.P.
2400 FENTON STREET, CHULA VISTA
Steve:
.
Please consider this letter a request for modification of
the above referenced Conditional Use Permit on behalf of
Covenant Christian School. The items Covenant Christian
School specifically request to modify on the C.U.P. are as
follows: 1. Extend the term of the C.U.P. by three years
to a new expiration date of September 30,1999. 2. Change
the C.U.P. to allow the entire building to be.used as a
schOOl use. 3. Increase the total number of students
allowed at the building from 208 students currently to 270
total students.
First, with regard to requests 2 and 3, it is ou~ belief
that because Bonita Country Day SchOOl formerly occupied the
upstairs of the building for two years, Chula Vista has
already scrutinized and approved the upstairs for Bchool
use. Bonita Country Day School's usage of the upstairs
space was very similar to the proposed usage by Covenant
Christian SchOOl which is primarily classrooms for grades
seven and above. Regarding the increase in total student
population, we are only requesting a 62 student increase,
even though the schOOl is doubling it's square footage from
10,000 to 20,000 square feet by taking the upstairs space.
.
Second, in reference to the request for time extension of
the C.U.P., Covenant Christian would like to present the
fOllowing reasons why the request should be granted. First,
EastLake Development Company, in a letter dated September
22, 1994 supports an extension of the C.U.P. for five years
and specifically states in the letter that this use is
consistent with the atmosphere they are projecting for the
community. Second, this use will not negatively impact on
any future Biotech use within EastLake Business Center.
According to Michael Dorsey, the Supervising Hazardous
Materials Specialist with the City of San Diego HAZMAT, in a
letter dated October 19, 1994, of the over 200 biotech
companies currently operating in San Diego County, NOT ONE
has ever been required to undergo a Risk Management
Prevention Plan (RMPP). __Th~S bj~~;i~currentlY
Telephone (619) 45~990- fAX (619) 453.9965
5230 Carroll Canyon Road. Suite 100 San Diego. California 92121
./
.un~
.
.
"""
operating biotech company has ever reached the threshold use
for acutely hazardous materials. In addition, according to
Mr. Dorsey, proximity to a sensitive population such as this
school or a hospital does not trigger an RMPP anyway. They
are triggered ONLY by exceeding the threshold use for
acutely hazardous materials. Even if a school use were to
impact a biotech company with regard to having to perform an
RMPP, it still makes no difference that a school is placed
on this site because Kaiser Hospital is directly across the
street and next to Kaiser is a Communities Facility Zone
proposed for daycare use. Both of these uses are also
listed as sensitive populations in relation to RMPP's.
The conclusion of these facts is that the location of
Covenant Christian School on this site has absolutely no
impact on any future Biotech activity or any other potential
user interested in locating within EastLake.
In Section 3 of the Covenant Christian C.U.P. (Res. No.
17325), regarding extension of the existing C.U.P. the
document states: The primary factors to be considered in
renewing and extending the permit is 1. whether there
exists, or there is expected in the near future to exist,
within the EastLake Business Park a demand for sites by
users which by virtue of requirements of law involving the .~
siting of hazardous waste generating uses with a given
distance from an operating school, may require such
prospective users to engage in costly and time consuming
studies and reports before such use may be allowed, and
2. the potential for conflict with surrounding development
and/or changes in the plans for the Business Center.
We believe that we have adequately demonstrated that the two
criteria for extension of the C.U.P. listed above have been
satisfied:
1. EastLake supports the extension for a five year
period.
2. The school is consistent with the atmosphere of the
center.
3. No Biotech company in San Diego has ever had to
do an RMPP because no currently operating biotech
company has exceeded the threshold for hazardous
materials. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that EastLake
will attract the first biotech company in San Diego
to exceed this threshold.
4. The school will in no way affect prospective users
with regard to expensive hazardous materials
testing.
5. The school sits across the street from Kaiser
hospital and the C.F.D. zone, and both uses, like
the school, are listed as sensitive populations ~
under the code. There is NO requirement for any
business constructing a facility withing 1000
feet of a sensitive population to develop a
~ /f'-f/c;
.
;
.
.
,
.
.
RMPP. If the city does not intend to ultimately
move Kaiser then a school located across the street
is a non-issue.
It is for these reasons that Covenant Christian School
respectfully requests that the modification to the existing
C.U.P. be granted.
Sincerely,
~:m:~GROU~
Dan Malcolm
Associate Vice President
INC.
dm:covchris
Enclosures
-~ 5-Y7
'""""'\
THIS PAGE BLANK
'""""'\
~
/f~;/Y'
""""
.
EXHIBIT "e"
.
.
- 0Fr:J
. September 22, 1994
Mr. Dan Malcolm
RETAIL PROPERTIES GROUP
5230 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92121
Re: Covenant Christian School
Dear Dan:
Covenant Christian School is a tenant in a building that is in the EastLake
Business Park. We understand that they will seek an extension of their
current Conditional Use Pennit. To that extent EastLake would like to
make the following statements:
1.
EastLake Development Company has not heard nor been
noticed that any rules or regulations imposed by the Business
Center have been violated during the past year.
2.
The recreational facilities at Scobee Park were not designed
or equipped for school use, however, at present there has not
been any ascertainable wear and tear associated with
Covenant Christian's use beyond normal.
3. The use on a conditional basis, is consistent with the
atmosphere that EastLake Development Company is
projecting for their community.
It is for these reasons EastLake would support an extension of the
Conditional Use Pennit for Covenant Christian for a total period of five (5)
years.
Please call if you have any questions or concerns.
Respectfully yours,
.
CS:ds
~52/
cc: Steve Griffin. City of Chula Vista
"""
AI
..
~
~
E'ASTLAKE
DEVELOI'MENT
COMPANY
"""
""'"
900 Lone Awnue
Suite 100
Chulo 111,10. CA 91914
(619) 421.0121
FAA (619) 421.1830
.
LETTER FROM H.M.M.D
.
e
.-7 /737
~
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
"""
~~~
~
,1'1
I '
, ,
"; 1 I, I I
., .
I l"t ",,1,--1
~
WI
.
QIllUHt~ of ~n1t ~"~BJ.l
nOE'I!RT K. "oss, M.O,
Ofn::CTon
OEP/l.nlMf!Nl' '.:>r HEALTH EtERVICES
EI~VIJ~(lNMEN1N. HUALTH SERVICE.S
orrlCE or THE DF-tUIY DI.rCTOR
,. O. lOX 15261
SAIl DIEGO, C~ 9211$'5261
t6l91 131.2222
,.. I, J3S. 2174
HlIZlInOOI.IS MATEHIA1"r, ""H^Glm~:N'J.' I>lVl Slt.'"
r. O. BOX 85261
SAM D1ECO, C^ 921e6-52Gl
(Eil9) 338-2222
o~tob~r 19, 1994
Pan Halcolm
Retail Froperti~n ~roup, Inc.
5230 erln'oll canyon Road, suite 100
San Diego, CA 92121
REI 'ropo..~ I~.tlak. 81oteoh lon_ - Chula vista
Dear' Mr. Halcolm:
.
'Ih!s 1" in rer::ponsn.. to ~'our. O:tober 13, 1994 l~tter. In regllrds to
the SC\!\ Dleg" Ct"Jnty lIazll.rdour. Hflte:rials HalHgement. Division'.
(PJ-Uo\fl) l'J.Rk kDm.lg\lnlcnt o.l'ld Prevention rr'ogran\ (RHPP):
1. CU':t'ent.ly fll' Cll'..rat-.ing blot.ech company in San Diego
CllUllt~. h~s t;el?11 required to prepare a Risk Hanagf1l\lflnt lmc1
Prevention Program.
2. J'roxlmity to the Y.ftlser HospH.al e>r It"Y other ""JlBltive
populaticn doell not by itself, r~q',lre e buslnll.. to
prepare a RMPP. 'I'he RUFP rroe...s !II pr9011'1tated br the
amount of. aC'utely hanrc:lol1ll1 materials (AllHs) a bu. ne.s
has on .i te and the manner in whloh tho.e ARM. are
handled.
3, Biotech eOJlll'!lllhs in San DIego County use AHH. and other
har-ardoTHr. Ir.at:.dole. In J!lo.t ca.e. however, biottlch
complllliell handle AlUls below the threshold planning
'Iua!ltity ('l't'Q) 1.vels that wouldr.equJ.re a lUiPP. Howevel I
the HHtolO h..1J the authority to r9quire a buBinflss that
hOlldles fill ""K below TPQ to pT..pllre a RHPP if it 18
deterll\lned there is a 8ignificant. likelihood of an
accieSent t'hk.
section 25534.1 in the CaU.fornJIl IIea1th , safety eocSe
requ ire. the NiPP pre-oe.s to. gh'e consideration to
populations locllted in 80hoo1.., re.ldentilll area.,
general Bout"! C1f1re hospital", lonljl-teJ:1l\ health care
faoiUtle., em" child I;tay cal'e faoilities, There is no
req\lirement for a busll,,,.s constructing II facUity within
-y /5-5)
"p,.el'l!nt/on CDml!S Flt'st"
4.
.
.
, ,
Dall Haltlollll
-2-
Ootober It, It..
"""'"
e 10(1(1 lp.ot 0:' allY sensIt.ive populat;ioll to devtllop a RHPP
pdo:: tt' l"~:-lJrll."c)'. Exist.ing law now requirelll the IIHHD
t.r, tlE'teun.lnos if thel'El im a significant likelihood that a
t:UI. ll'l'!'!!!s 'B hrll'ttH J "9 of all 1.111'1 00'.11d 1'08e an Clccid'lnt
"!Ellt. The- IlHlID USf!'1! a r.'Ollst'l"VRlivlll oc,mpllt:er ftir .ode1 to
make these de-terminations.
In c1 os 1119, t.he mum 1iIIlC"ul:llges all city phnning and building
depllrt.Jnenls to locati'> bllF.l~n9SB'!l'!l th~l h~nt!l'9 lUml!l emtt hazardous
matedals in the arpropr l'lte building zOllon to evoid confliots C'ver
land use iPl!lues. Pl"'llr;.e call JIIe at (E:19) 3311-2372 if you ha-..e any
questions.
sincerely,
,?~~~ 1":.:?c.a~_-----
t'~~;? DOnSEY, sUP"'~~ is i nil H3.l:!\rdoll':\ lll\terie.ls
~uzllIdous MaterIal!! HmllHgement Divisioll
Special J.st
'.,
HD:md
co: Janet. Ortiz, Chief, IlHMD
Mike lIandmon, Progrl'l.m Coordillator, mum
~
.
-~5-:51
""""
.
-I
.
.
.
---- I
MEMORANDUMS FROM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
-7;5--5p
"'""
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
-"""\
~
).5r5t,
"'""
--I
1
. memorandum
.
.
May I, 1995
TO:
Patty Nevins, Planning Technician II
~
FROM:
Curtis Valenzuela, Senior Economic Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Recent Activity in the High TechlBiotech Zone
Patty, per your request, I have attached the agenda statement from the April 18 Council meeting which
requested that Council approve in concept an agreement with EastLake that would allow EastLake to
transfer economic incentives to a high tech company wishing to locate in the High TechlBiotech Zone.
It outlines the company, how the fees would be transferred to the company.
Second, the Mayor's office recently received a letter from a San Diego based pharmaceutical company
which as part of their long-range manufacturing plan wanted to speak with staff regarding the
opportunities that may be available in Chula Vista to support their establishment of a commercial-scale
manufacturing operation. As stated in their letter, this clean manufacturiItg facility would service not
only their needs but also those of their corporate partners which include other United States firms as
well as Japanese-based pharmaceutical companies. From this letter and a subsequent meeting, there
seems to be a strong movement to create such manufacturing here in Chula Vista. The Eastgate Park
in San Diego is impacted by the flight path of aircraft entering and leaving the Miramar Air Station
limiting the type of development which can take place in that park. In addition, the High TechlBiotech
Zone in Chula Vista offers companies a real opportunity to locate manufacturing facilities in California
because there is not current space available in the Torrey Pines area to accommodate such efforts.
Please let me know if you need anything further for your agenda statement regarding the Covenant
Christian School which I understand is going to Council on May 16.
Patty, would you please forward a copy of that agenda statement so that I can inform Cheryl about the
upcoming meeting.
Thanks for your help and we appreciate the opportunity to assist you in this matter.
I(MD)c:\wp51\dcx:ument\397.95 (rev. May 1. 199.5)]
-~
/.5'n
memorandum
~
April 4, 1995
TO:
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development ~ 7 .
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Proposed expansion of activities and extension of the existing Conditional Use Permit
allowing Covenant Christian Schools to operate in the EastLake Business Center
The following comments are in response to a proposal by Covenant Christian Schools to expand current
activities and extend their existing conditional use permit (CUP) through September of 1999. Covenant
Christian School is located at 2400 Fenton Street within the EastLake Business Center. Their existing
CUP allows operation through June of 1996. As you know, Council has designated the EastLake
Business Center, both Phase I and Phase II, as the High TechlBiotech Zone. The school's current
location is essentially centered in the business park and we feel is an incompatible use for any industrial
area, due to conflicting activities (truck traffic, storage of chemicals, etc.). We, therefore, feel that
extension of a CUP is potentially in conflict with the Council's desire to r~ruit industry in general and
to make the High Tech/Biotech Zone as business-friendly as possible. The increased regulation caused
by the school could also negatively impact our ability to secure tenants for the proposed BioShare """'"
contract pilot manufacturing facility. We understand that Planning Department staff is willing to help
Covenant Christian Schools explore alternatives within their existing CUP time line and we support the
staff recommendation being forwarded.
((MD)r;::\wp51\dOCWDent\346.9S (rev. April 4, 1995)]
-~ "'"
)5'-- sy
-- ---- 1- -
.
LETTERS IN SUPPORT
OF APPLICATION
.
.
-r
/5---5/
\
,
"""'
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
"'"
.~
J~'- ~ tJ
"
,
a" COVENANT ChRiSTiAN Schoo
\... \t, J 505 East Naples Street. Chula Vista. CA 91911 . 619/421-88
Mark W. Dolan. Headmaster' .
.
March 21,1995
Dear Mayor Horton,
It has been some time since your visit to our school. I have tried several times to
. reach you by telephone to discuss your further' support of our situation here In Eastlake
but between our busy schedules have not been able to make contact. . . .
I know that some of the information you received on the day of your visit was new to
you and I hope that you have been able to use II to reconsider some of the Issues
Involved in our coexistence with the planned biotech zone. As I mentioned to you
then, we are supportive of the direction of growth you have planned for our clly, but we
also believe that Chula Vista needs a school of our caliber to meet the needs of some
of lis children. It Is our plan to stay In Eastlake where our campus can grow to meet
1hose needs. Covenant has a mission to fulfill which will. only enhance the
opportunities to be found in Chula Vista. . .
We are scheduled to meet with the Planni!'!g Commission on Wednesday evening,
. April 12. I do hope that you will be able to give us your support in our attempt to obtain
a more permanent Use Permit. We need to be able to commit to a lengthy stay at this
. location In order for II to be an economically feasible Investment.
Again. we have much to offer the city of Chula Vista. We are committed to
community involvement and have proven for the past 19 years our stability as well as
our support of this city. Our students have volunteered at Birch Patrick and Frederica
Manor Convalescent Homes, have refereed and coached for the children at the two
Boys and Girls Clubs, have candy-striped at Sharp Hospital. have become Involved In ..
the Police Athletic League and have served on the Youth Council. The list could go on
and on. They are respectable and responsible citizens who deserve to have the best
location for their school. Eastlake can provide all that we need to serve them so that
they In turn can serve Chula Vista. '. . . .' . .
Please consider how you can help persuade the Planning Commission to work out
. our coexistence with the biotect) zone. Surely there Is enough land out here for us. all.
Sincerely,
Sherry agner
High School Principal
.
..
- ~5'-~/
J
---
"""'\
". .-" . ~.. ., .
.. ,"
Mayor Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vista
276 4th. Av.
Chula Vista, California 91910
MAR~;, 'c,:;
I. t ,. ~
PLAit
, ~. f (
March 23, 1995
Dear Mayor Horton:
I am writing in regards to the purposed re-zoning to
accommodate the Bio-Tech industry in the area of
2400 block of Fenton (Eastlake). The reason for my
letter is that I am concerned with the future of the
school that my son attends: Covenant Christian School
which is located at 2400 Fenton, In Eastlake.
As a long time resident of Chula Vista, I understand the
desire of the city officials wanting to attract
prosperous businesses to the area. I also understand that
there is some concern about locating a Bio-Tech industry
near a school. I really can't see where this would pose a
problem. I feel with all the environmental safe guards
that we have today, that the school and any Bio-Tech
industry near the school could easily co-exist
I would like to see the Conditional Use Permit for
Covenant Christian School be extended on a long term
basis. This school not only provides an excellent
education to the children who reside in Chula Vista, but
also draws children from neighboring communities, such as
National City, San Diego, Imperial Beach, and Mexico.
I would also like to bring to your attention that Kaiser
Medical offices are just around the corner from the
school. Also, I understand that a Pre-school is going
to open next to the Kaiser offices, in addition to the
other businesses that already exist in the area of the
school. This is just a sample of the variety of
businesses that can co-exist with the proposed Bio-Tech
industry safelY.
""""
~
/p-/c:L-
."",
/-
(e
.
.
,
.
I
Mayor Horton: I request your help in the re-zoning, to
make the location of Covenant Christian School permanent,
at 2400 Fenton in Eastlake. The school is an asset to the
surrounding community of Chula Vista. As a parent
of a student at Covenant Christian I know this for a
fact. Thank you for YOUr help.
Re:
Edward G. Woodrich
682 East J St.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
482-8735
~::::;:Aur-~
Edward G. Woodrich
cc: Chula Vista Planning Commission
-~
/ytf ;J
THIS PAGE BLANK
~y;,;/
.~
~
..
"""
,
"""
-~I
.
P.C. AND C.C. MINUTES
AND RESOLUTIONS FROM
ORIGINAL HEARINGS
.
.
/ />-t S
."""
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
~
"""'\
-~-tt~
.
COVENANT CHRISTIAN
CC Resolution of Approval 12/14/93
CC Minutes 12/7/93
PC Minutes 10/27/93
.
.
~ /f--~ 7
THIS PAGE BLANK
-~
/p:~y
"""'
..
;
""'"
] -
.
.
*
RESOLUTION NO. 17325
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ISSUING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-
09 TO USE 2400 FENTON STREET IN THE EAST LAKE BUSINESS
CENTER AS A PRIVATE SCHOOL UNTIL JUNE 3D, 1996, SUBJECT
TO POSSIBLE EXTENSION
.
WHEREAS, I duly verified Ipplication for a conditionll use pennit was filed
with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on August IB, 1993, by Covenant
Christian School; Ind,
WHEREAS, said Ipplication requested Ipproval to establish Ind operate I
private school for a minimum five-year period It 2400 Fenton Street (APN 595-232-
11) ("Subject Property") in the EastLlke Business Center ("Project"); Ind,
WHEREAS, the City's Planning Comission hIS the luthority to grant
conditional use permits for certain uses over the Subject Property pursuant to
the authority of Ordinance No. 2522 Idopted by the Cit~ Council on June 3D, 1992,
being the EastLake I PI Inned Comunity District Regulltions, as amended; Ind,
WHEREAS, the Pllnning Director set the time Ind place for I hearing on Slid
conditional use permit application Ind notice of slid helring, together with its
purpose, was given by its publicltion in I newspaper of generll circulltion in
the City Ind its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property It lelst 10 days prior to the helring; Ind,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held It the time Ind pllce IS Idvertised, nlmely
7:00 p.m. October 27, 1993, in the Council Chlmbers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission Ind said hearing WIS therelfter closed; Ind,
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1993, the Comission voted 5-2 to Ipprove the
conditional use permit for I five year period, blsed on the findings Ind subject
to the conditions contlined in Resolution PCC-94-09, a signed copy of the
resolution was filed with.the City Clerk on November 3, 1993; and,
. WHEREAS, on November II, 1993, and within the time to file In appeal, In
Ippeal from the decision of the Pllnning Commission WIS filed by Bonitl Country'
Day School; Ind,
.WHEREAS, slid Ippell WIS blsed on cllims thlt the child welflre, security
and safety issues Issociated with the proposed use hive not been adequately
addressed; thlt the Pllnning Commission's decision WIS blsed on Iccepted planning
practice thlt does not address the unique circumstances of this project, Ind that "
the blsis for the approval of the five year permit tenn WIS the business
agreement between the building owner Ind Covenlnt Christian School; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time Ind pllce for I helring and said
appeal Ind notice of Slid helring, together with its purpose, WIS given by its
publication in I newsplper of generll circulltion in the City Ind its ..iling to
~ /5-~J
.
r
Resolution No. 17325
Page 2
property owners wi thi n 500 feet of the exteri or boundari es of the property at
least ten days prior to the hearingi and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
4:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 7, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the City Council.
. WHEREAS, this Resolution is passed pursuant to the authority of Section
19.14.130 by which the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify in whole or in
part any determi nat i on of the planning corrrni ssi on upon the hearing of such
appeal, subject to the same limitationsd and requirements of finding 15 are
placed upon the planning commission by said Chapter 19.14.
NOW, THEREfORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds 15
follows:
1
.
SECTION 1.
CEQA Consideration.
The City Council does hereby confirm and endorse the
determination of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator
that, and hereby finds on its own behalf, that the Project is
exempt from environmental review as a Class l(a) exemption under
Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2.
Conditional Use Permit findings.
Pursuant to the requirement of Section 19.14.130, the City
Council makes. the following findings, presented in bold
lettering. IS specified in Section 19.14.08015 followS,based on
the evidence therein below set forth:
1
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary Dr
desirable to provide a .ervice Dr facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood Dr
the CDIIIlunity.
The site represents a suitable interim location for the
school to continue to lIIIet the private educational needs of
the community provided the circumstances which favor
approval at this tillll are subject to review and
reconsideration in five years tillll to determine if the
development of the surrounding area and/or any changes in
the plans or regulations of the Business Center..y result
in a conflict in uses.
That such D.e will Ilot under the cil"CUlstances of the
particular cue, lie detriMntal the health, safety or
general welfare .of persons ...siding or working in .the
vicinity or injurious to property or 1aprov..ents 1n the
vicinity.
.'
2.
""'"
~ /~-?c/
.
.
SECTl ON 3.
.
Resolution No. 17325
Page 3
The present lack of development illlnediately surrounding the
site should lmeliorate Iny potential conflicts between
uses. The permit, IS conditioned, will further ensure
compatibility with co-tenants Ind other froperties within
the Business Center, Ind will 11 ow review Ind
reconsideration of these circumstances within two years
time.
That the proposed use will c~ply with the regulltions Ind
conditions speciffed in the Munfcipll Code for such use.
The Ipproval of the permit, IS conditioned, will require
the use to comply with 111 Ipplicable regulations, codes
and requirements.
4. That the grlnting of this conditionll use peMlit wfll not
Idversely Iffect the generll plln of the City or the
adopted plln of Iny goverftlent agency.
3.
With the approval of this permit Ind the implement of all
condi t ions, the use will be consistent wi th the General
Plan and Eastlake PC District regulations.
Grant of Use Permit on Specified Conditions.
The City Council hereby grants permission to the Owner of the
Subject Propert to use the Subject Property to establish Ind
operate a private school until June 3D, 1996, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Term. The permit is Ipproved for I period ending June 3D,
1996 Ind subject to periodic review during that period of
time. The permit may be considered by the City Council for
renewal and extension beyond that date provided I written
request therefor, Ilong with the required fee, exhibits Ind
information, is received, deemed complete Ind Ipproved by
June 14, 1995.
The primary factors to be considered in renewing Ind
extending the permit is (1) whether there exists, or there
is expected in the near future to exist, within the
Elstllke Business Plrk a demand for sites by users which,
by virtue of requirements of law involving the siting of
hazardous waste generlting uses with a given distlnce from
In operlting school, ..y require such prospective users to
engage in costly and tillle consuming studies and reports
before such use ..y be Illowed, and (2) the potentill for
conflict with surrounding development Ind/or any changes in
the pllns for the Business Center.
~ /S<>/
Traffic and Parking. Prior to occupancy the property owner
shall submit to the Director of Planning a program to avoid
traffic conflicts and allocate parking between the two
schools and any other potential building tenants per City
standards. Said program shall be agreeable to and signed
by representatives from both schools, or shall be shown to
be legally enforceable by the property owner/landlord.
Phys i ca 1 Educat ion. Pri or to occupancy the applicant shall
submit a schedule of' outdoor recreational and physical
education activities which conforms with the parameters of
use approved by the EastLake Business Center Owners
Association; the applicant shall frovide proof satisfactory
to the Director of Planning that egally enforceable rights
to suitable outdoor recreational and physical education
facil ities have been obtained for the duration of the
permit. Loss of such hcil ities shall be grounds for
revocation of the permit.
Occupancy. The occupancy of the buil di ng by Covenant
Christian shall not exceed the staff/student figures
provided by the applicant, i.e., 24 staff ~nd 208 total
students consisting of 122 students in grades K-6, 46
students in grades 7-9, and 40 students in grades 10-12,
and/or the number of staff/students indicated by the
parking allocation program, whichever is less.
5. Restriction on Outside, On-Site Uses. All on-site school
activities, including recess and recreation, and pre-school
and post-school activities, shall be limited to the inside
of the buil di ng.
Resolution No. 17325
Page 4
3.
4.
>
J
2.
~
......"
6. Crossing Guards. Trained, uniformed adult crossing guards
shall be provided at the intersection of Fenton Street and
Lane Avenue to oversee and protect the chil dren on all
trips to and from Scobee Park.
7. Code Compliance. Pri or to occupancy the school shall
comply ~ith all of the codes, requirements and conditions
imposed by the Department of Building and Housing and the
Fire Department.
S. Interim Use Acknowledged. By the acceptance of this
permit, the applicant acknowledges that the school has been
approved as an interi. use, and its occupancy of the
facilities at 2400 Fenton Street shall in no .ay restrict
the use of adjacent properties f~ uses otherwise deemed
appropriate under the Business Center PC District
Regulations.
Post-Approval Conditions. 'This permit shall be subject to
any and all new, ~dified, or deleted conditions imposed
9.
-I
. """\
~y ?..2
.
~
.
10.
.
,
Resolution No. 17325
Page 5
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate
governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare
which City shall impose after advance written notice to the
permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City,
in exercising this reserved right/condition, lily not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial
revenues source which the Permittee can not, in the normal
operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically
recover.
Time to Commence Use. This conditional use permit shall
become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year
from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with
any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be
reviewed by the City for additional conditions or
revocation.
failing any of which conditions, or failing the continued
maintenance of same as the condition may require, this permit,
shall, following a public hearing by the City Council at which
the Applicant or his successor in interest is given notice and
the opportunity to appear and be heard with regard thereto, be
terminated or modified by the City Council.
.
Denial of Appeal.
The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of Bonita Country
Day School.
SECT! ON 4.
Presented by
2:/;;;;: /
',./ .~L
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
.
by
1~
VBruce M. Boog~
Ci ty Attorney'
~ /s-?;;
Resolution No. 17325
Page 6
~
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, Nader
NOES: Counci 1 members : None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
J//h/
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
~
puty City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoi ng Resol uti on No. 17325 was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting of the Chula Vista City
Council held on the 14th day of December, 1993.
Executed this 14th day of December, 1993.
~
~J5-?Y
.
~ - .--....--.-.--.-
13. PUBUCHEAlUNG pec.~ APPEALOPniEOECSlONOPniEPLANNlNGCOMMlSSlON
TO APPROVE CONDmONAL ust PERMIT pec.94-09. On 10J27/93,dle PlanninS Commission voted 5.2
to approve Conditional Use Permit PCc.94.09 and allow die operation of a private clay achool (Covenant
Christian School), at 2<400 Fenton Street for a period of five yean. On 11/11/93, Bonita Counay Day School
appealed die PlanninS Commission's decision. The appeal was based on claims dlat child welfare, aecurity,
and safety issues had not been adequately addressed; dlat the PlanninS Commission made a facility use
decision based on accepted plannins practice that did not address the unique cimlmstances of die project;
and thlt the basis for die approval of a five.year conditional use permit was the business aareement between
the buildinS owner and the applicant. ~taff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of PlanninS)
tf)
~
~
N
'-
~
~
.
(~~'L'd
.h'.' ~<d rr-r)
.
y /5-?f"
Minutes
December 7, 19931
Page 7
RESOLtmON 17325 DENYING 'I'H! APPEAL OF 'I'H! DEQSlON OF 'I'H! ~G
COMMISSION AND ISSUE CONDI110NAL USE PERMIT PCC-9+09 TO USE 2400 PENrON S11tEET IN nm
~ BUSINESS CEN'lF.R AS A PRIVATE SOiOOL POR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Greg Colt, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA, representing Gordon Ountee, stated they
were in agreement with the staff recommendation with one exception, Le. the issuance of the CUP for only
two yean. Curt Stephelllon with the EutLake Businell Center Ownen Nsociation, Itated they had
approved a two year use agreement of Scobee Park and as far as he was concerned there was no problem
in getting an extension beyond the two yean. Another concern was the lOll of commercial space in the
Center. A school in that location had been acceptable before and they felt the addition of Covenant
Christian would not detract from the operation of either Bonita Country Day or the industrial space in the
Center. He requested consideration of a five year period. There was a desire and intent by Christian
Covenant to look at it as a long term move by possibly acquiring the building, purchase the space next door
for on.site recreation usage, and then applying though the City to get community facility zone on that
property which could be in.lieu of additional community facility zoning in the next phue of the EutLake
Business Center.
. Dan Malcolm, 660 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA, representing Covenant Christian, stated the
reason they needed a five year term was that Covenant Christian needed lower rent in the lint several years
of the term and would make it up with more rent in the final years of the term. The other reason w---.
because Covenant Christian could not amortize the cost of a move of such magniNde over a period of till "\
years, it was not feasible. The building had originally been built as a specialty building for a school for
Laser Inc. Since that time Laser Inc. never occupied the building and as a result the building sat vacant for
3 1/2 years on the ground floor with Bolita Country Day on the upper floor. EastLake had no objection with
the five year term. They felt a precedent had been set to justify the five year term with the recent National
University lease, with no term, on Bay Boulevard. EcIuTek was C1IITently negotiating on Bay Side Business
Park which was an industrial ~one.
. Mark Dolan, 1398 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, representing Covenant Christian School,
Itated Covenant Christian had been serving the Chula Vista and greater Southbay area since 1976 with
alternative education. They were also concerned with child welfare, security, and safety. They had met with
the Catanuro's leveral times and felt they had resolved the issues, lome still needed to be handled, but they
had agreed in good faith to work those out in the ruNte. He requested Council uphold the Planning
Commission decision for a five year CUP and deny the appeal of Bolita Country Day School. They needed
the five year CUP due to the disruption of the move to a new facility and to recover cosu for necellary
repain to the building. The EastLake Development Company had no opposition to their use of the building
for a five year term. The Planning Commission did not believe there was a real conflict between the school
and industrial use at that site and felt the five year permit _uld be an advantage. He requested Council
deny the appeal and let them move forward. . .
. Paul Catan~, 372 Camino E1evado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Oay School, stated
the Iltuation was not as simple as had been presented. If It was not a landlord tenant is::Je, he questioned
what was. A landlorclltenant issue was what the Planning Commission had stated they would not use ~.
a resolution to the problem, yet they decided to go against the staff recommendation. Because of that he
felt the decision of the Planning Commission was flawed. They had been in the building for 2 1/2 years and
had lafety and welfare concerns for their children and for the other ,chool also. They had only been
contacted when Covenant Christian felt they had to do It to get to the next Itep in !!Ie planning p~
There had never been a ,erious conversation where they had been included or asked If It could work. n' "\
had informed Mr. Dunfee, through lease negotiations, that they were going to build a lower school. He ha..
been trying to get the dOWllltain added to his leue for the put year. They were being pushed out and
disregarded and the emotional well being of the children waS being disregarded. Their CUP haa been for
one year with a review and a two year extension. Now the Planning Departltient offered another school two
.~ 8--7~
ML.,utes
December 7, 1993
_8
yean with a review which was better than they had received and he did not feel things were being applied
evenly. He felt there was a great potential to do damage to a lot of kids. He asked that if Council did not
approve the appeal and send it back to Planning, that they gtaIlt continuance to allow representatives of
both schools to sit down and do the hard work to get the ISsurances that the children would be protected
so there would not be any victims. .
Counci1member Horton questioned who their lease agreement WIS with. She further questioned if they
would give Bonita Country Day School a longer lease than what was being given to Covenant Christian
School.
Mr. Catanuro responded that it was with Dunfee and Associates. Covenant Christian School had a need
to expand and had the (mandal wherl!.with.all and they were being pushed out of the building. They had
a three year lease term which did not have options at the end. When they entered into the lease they were
in a pretty good growth period and felt they would be able to either lease the whole building or be in a
position to buy a piece of property and build their own campus. He stated their moving costs would be
approximately $60,000.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if Mr. Catanzaro had been informed by the lancllord that the lease
would not be renl!wed and when that had happened.
Mr. Catanzaro responded that he had been informed by the lancllord the day of the Planning Commission
hearing, one month ago. He had actively been looking for alternatives since Mr. Dunfee made it dear the
lease would not be renewed. It would take until the end oC the school year to get something and to make
.ork.
. Suunne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Day School, spoke
on behalC oC Dr. Linda Alros who was unable to be at the meeting, she felt there was a potential for both
psychological and emotional problems due to displacement, and loss oC identity. Speaking on hl!r own behalf
she stated the proposal had bl!en based on many statements that were far less trUe and contained many
omissions. Bonita Country Day lower school had to be located on the lower floor and they had occupied
classrooms there since 1991. The twO schools would share the same bathrooms, hallways, and common
areas. Their CUP had been for seventy srodents for an interim temporaty school. Bonita Country Day had
been given a threat that unless they withdrew their list of objections before the Planning Commission
hearing the space on the lower level would no longer be available to Bonita Country Day School. Their
objections dealt with the safety and welfare of children and, therefore, they could not withdraw their
objections. Yesterday, Covenant Christian had shown them a floor plan that did not indude fint floor
classroom spacl! for their school. Before the current meeting they had been handed a letter stating Bonita
Country Day would be allocated to a small space in the comer of tlte building. Shl! felt Covenant Christian
was moving because they wanted a permanent location and that it should be taken into consideration. No
consideration had been given to noise intrUsion or disNption of their current program.
Councilmember Horton questioned if the safety concerns expressed would not also apply to Bonita Country
Day School.e
Ms. CatanzarO responded they had a safety problem with crossing at an uncontrol1ed intersection with a
blind grade. They crossed with a teacher and seven or eight students at that comer and it was stil1 a
dangerous situation. With the additional students and uaffic she felt there WIS a hazard.
Councilmember Moore stated one of the conditions presented WlS that there would be uniform crossing
_ar,,~~e questioned if Bonita Country Day had uniformed crossing guards every time students crossed
~. Catanzaro responded that when the students crossed as a group, most of the time a teacher held the
hands of Sl!veral srodents and then crossed the street. She stated they did have uniform crossing guards.
..
~ /y??
Minutes ,
December 7, 1993
Page 9'
~
Mayor Nader questioned if there was anything in writing from the owner of the property which indicated
their lease would be affected by potential action by Council.
Ms. Catanz.&rO responded there was nothing in writing.
. Lili Lopez, 184 Marigold Court, Chula Vista, CA, student at Bonita Counay Day School, spoke against
the approval of the CUP. .
. William Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, Member of the Planning Commission,
stated he was available to answer any questions.
Councilmember Horton stated the City was diligently aying to attract high techlbio tech industries into the
area and questioned if Mr. Tuchscher felt it was a wise decision to allow a five year CUP.
Mr. Tuchscher stated as the application was presented to the Planning Commission it was not a choice of
yean, but five yean or none. They deliberated regarding having a school on-site with current uses in the
area and felt it was an appropriate use and seemed to be working well. He was very aware of the bio tech
:r.one and it was the feeling of the Commission that a school was looked at as a favorable element of the
community and complimentary with those uses. Mr. Stephenson had represented to the Planning
Commission that the park was controlled by the usen of the Business Park and that he would go back to
them and get approval for five yean. He agreed it was an important element. It had also been presented
to the Commission that the existing lease would expire in a six mon~ period and it would not be renewed.
Councilmember Horton questioned if it was being inconsistent in granting one school a CUP for a shorter
period of time and now the Commission was recommending a five year CUP.
~
Mr. Tuchscher responded that he was not on the Commission when the previous CUP had been srant, .
In light of the economy the Commission felt it was the best thing to do.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, informed Council the CUP for Bonita Country Day School had been
granted administratively and did not go before the Planning Commission or Council.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the Planning Commission discussed any covenant for the use of
Scobee Park or physical education.
Mr. Tuchscher responded that it was not a condition of approval, but was represented strongly that it would
be eminent by the Eastl.ake Development Company that it would be achieved. It was a land use issue only
and all issues regarding tenants in the building and lease hold venus ownenhip was irrelevant to the
discussion before the Planning Commission. ' .
Mr. Leiter stated staff felt anything over rwo yean would be moving toward a more permanent type of land
use and potential conflict with future industrial land uses in the vicinity. Staff felt that rwo yean or less
would clearly be a temporary use and that the applicant would clearly undentand that in the future the CUP
could not be extended if other indusaial usen came in that would be in conflict with the school. Staff had
recommended to the Planning Commission a rwo year CUP. While they did not bring that forward to
Council, staff continued to recommend a rwo year time limit.
. Susan Stroud, 1900 Granger Avenue, National City, CA, stUdent at Bonita Country Day School,
questioned why it was being done in the middle of the school year.
. Cindy Resler, 1610 Palm Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stUdent at Southwestern College, felt the message
being sent to the stUdents was that it was very important to bring bio tech industry to the City because it
would be financially beneficial. Unfortunately, she felt it was not right to put the bio tech industry be~
educating the youth of the community. By educating the youth it would build a stronger community.'
,~ /5-?%
Min\jtes
_ember 7,1993
.10
Mayor Nader lUted he agreed that die bio tech industry and education did not have to be in conflict with
each other, die City had to have both. The primary reason to develop die bio tech industry in die Soudlbay
was to provide job opportUnities for young people. Education was important as was job opportunities.
Mr. Cox stated Bonita Country Day had a lease dlat ran through June, 1994 and there was no effort to
displace diem. The issue was brought to stafl'in August and die intent of Christian Covenant was to be in
operation die entire year, but their intent now was to be in session starting January. They would have
approximately one hundred stUdents from K-6 on die lower floor only until die end of die school year. He
felt a plan could be worked out to accommodate both schools. They had met with die Catenzaros and
agreed upon die houn of operation, die drop-off point for .Ndents to avoid conflicts, mared use of die park
and parking apaces. There were odler issues dlat needed to be dealt with, including the allocation of .pace.
In reference to die December 7th date, dlere was a letter Jiven to die Catenzaros before die meeting
regarding their desire to have space downstairs, dley currently did not have a lease downatairs. The offer
was made several weeks ago and Bonita Country Day needed to respond as Covenant Christian had
requested a response within five days.
. Gordon Dunfee, 6480 Weathe" Place, San Diego, CA, stated dlat action by CouncD would not
displace anyone in their buDding, They were looking for a CUP for five years to assist Covenant Christian
School to enter die ground floor. They had made proposals to Bonita Country Day School on three
occasions, that they were prepared to stand behirld, that would allow diem to continue to. use ground floor
.pace, which they had been using since 1991 without a lease or paying rent. .
. Dan WDkens, 3848 Avenida San Miguel, Bonita, CA, whose son attended Bonita Country Day, atated
parents of sNdents at the school had voiced their concerns to the Catenz&ros. He did not want the
a1ity oC education to be lost in all the rhetoric.
Mr, Catenzaro informed CouncD he had been given the offer by Mr. Cox only beCore the meeting and not
two weeks ago.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
CouncDmember Moore stated there were other industrial buDdinga being utDWid for other uses and many
industrial buDdinga were sitting vacant. He felt what CouncD was doing was right in providing temporary
uses in those vacant buDdinga. He referted to page 13.9 and quemoned if ..... review and reconaideration
oC these circumstances within a two year time frame. and questioned if the two year reference WII in error
and if the word .circumstances. mould be .conditiona..
Steve Griffin. Senior Planner, lilted die resolution adopted by die Planning Commission only changed die
term of the permit, the conditions atayed the same. It was an ovenight dlat die two year term WIllett in,
it mould have been changed to five years.
Mr. Leiter stated there WII a .eparate condition in the conditional use permit dlat required tJ:Iat recreational
facDities be maintained. If EastLake Business OWners Association wanted to terminate the abDity to use
Scobee Park, the school would have to provide other facDities. If they did not do that, it would be a baais
for the City to bring up the conditional use permit for review.
MS (I'~ to -wow.. alI'nc-"~ with a tw8 year ntber Ibm the year....
"
CouncDmember Horton stated me would Mcond the motion baaed on the information nceived at the
'eting. There was no guarantee the twO jear agreement for Scobee Park would be extended.
ayor Nader lilted it was his understanding that if the lease o~ Scobee Park WII not extended put two
years, die applicant would be out of compliance with the CUP and, therefore. the CUP would be revoked.
He did not understand why the length of the CUP would have to be shortened.
~ /S~?7'
Minutes
December7.1993~
Page 11
City Artorney Boogurd stated dat wu correCl.
ManON WlniDRAWN: (FozJ
llESOumON 17325 OPPERED BY muNau.mMBER. POX.I'UdiDI fIllbe ear _ ..md.
. Councilmember Rindone felt dlere were two odler famn dat needed to be uamlned: 1) #3 on page 13-10
to see if die commlanent regarding physical education wu avanable; and 2) -mtence and interfacing
of two educational instiNtions, He undentood il wu only the land life issue before Councn. but there were
issues beyond dat.
SlJBS'I11lm ManON: (lUndoae) to comiDue die public beariq for _ w.It ill Gnler to resoIw Ibe
foUowiDa two issues: 1) cIegeIop an operational plan between the two educational iDIdMioDs; and 2) Id
and die poll!l1tia1 tl!I1aDl were to determine if Ibey were able to obcaiD a live JUI' IeMe lnm Ibe CIWDeI' of
die business park.
SlJBS'I11lm ManON SECONDED: (Honon)
Councilmember Horton questioned if after July 1994 Bonita Country Day School would be allowed to pt
an extension of their leue,
Mr. Dunfee responded dlat they would not be allowed an extension on dleir leue.
VO're ON SlJBS'I11lm ManON: Ip/>Iuwed 3-2 with Moore aDd Nader opposed.
CouncUmember Moore felt CouncU was fonning a routine of continuing items after listening to two or dlree
houn of testimony. He questioned if the maker of the motion would haw anodler motion chat would
restricl duplication of lestimony thaI had already been liven.
"""'\
CouncUmember Rindone .tated he had made it dear dat he wu in favor of die five JUI' CUP bUl did not
feel there had been an answer u to whether die physical fitness component had been sranled. He a1so
wanted 10 see the two .chool. work together to protect die INdents.
CouncUmember Horton stated .he had voted for die continuance because from a land use panpective she
was not .ure that granting a five year CUP wu in die best interest of die City. She had a problem in
displacing die INdents dial were already dlere.
Mayor Nader stated he voted apinst die continuance bacallfe Ibe 1aua wu a private matter chat CoweD
had no control over. .
Mr. Cox .tated it wu his undentanding thardle two parties were co 1ft cogelber co.-lw die outstanding
..ues. He requested WI City staff call die meetings and moderate. .
"
~
~ 6/JYtJ
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-12- October 27,1993
Excernt from PlanninlZ Commission Minutes of 10/27/93
ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09; REQUEST TO ESTABUSH A
. PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR GRADES K-12 AT 2400 FENTON STREET IN 1lIE
EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - Covenant Christian School
Principal PlanDer Griffm preser.ted the staff repon and recommended a shoner initial approval
period of two years. The propoDents requested five years aDd saw the potential of using the
building over the long term as a school. Staff recommended that the permit be coDditiODed on
a tw~year time limit with ability to exteud that further provided that the conditions ,......;n...d
essentia1ly the same. Mr. Griffm DOted that Bonita Country Day Scbool had expressed COIlCCrns
about shared use of the building. The two issues of most CODCenl to staff in this regard were
the coordination of drop-offs and pick-ups, aDd shared use of the parking lot. The other issues
brougbt up by Bonita Country. Day Scbool were probably internal issues that could be worked
out between the panies without the City's involvement. Several letters bad been received since
the Commission packet bad been delivered whicb bad been place on the dais prior to the
meeting.
Commissioner Ray asked why staff bad set a defmitive time period of two years.
Mr. Griffm replied that staff thought the tw~year period was a reasonable shon-term period
which would allow staff to look at the property and analyze wbat bad bappeDed during the two
years. Staff did not feel the property was an appropriate site to accommodate a scbool over the
long term; it bad no on-site recreation facilities; the children must be taken to aDd from a park
which required crossing streets which would eventually carry a significant amount of industrial-
type traffic; if the site was to be considered for school use, it should be in the context of an
amendment to the EastLake Plan aDd considered in the context of overall land uses aDd
compatibility. Mr. Griffm DOted that interim-type uses in an industrial center are usually limited
. to two or three years, subject to reapplication aDd renewal rather than just review. The ones on
which a review requirement are placed were usually uses d!at staff had concerns about bow the
operational impacts would affect others. Mr. Griffm said in this case, if staff bad the choice of
DOt approving it at all or approving it for an iDdefmite period, they would be recommending
denial of any use of the site for a school. However, with the pace of development, it could
accommodate a school for a shon period of time.
Commissioner Ray asked the Assistant City AtttJrDey what was Ibe R8l difI'~~ in teffi." a
tw~year limit with a review and . potential extension ftrSl1S the DOnDallaniUale.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf ltated that leDera11y conditional use permits run with the land,
10 that and the variance, UDless specifically limited, were load forever. There would bave to
be a major change to ,et rid of it, as opposed to its expiring by its own laniUale. There was
a significant difference in termS of the viability of the property salability effect on its title.
~/ytf/
,
PC Minutes
-13-
October 27, 1993
""""
Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Rudolf said even if the building lease had expired and not
renewed by the owner of the property, the conditional use permit would be in effect and
IOIDeOne else could hold the property out for that use.
Commissioner Ray asked if the conditional use permit could be only for that tenant. Mr. Rudolf
said it was DOt typically done. The focus should be on the use in the more generic IeDSe.
Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the term "lIWIufacturing district" and asked if there was
lOIIIe significance to that. Mr. Griffm stated it was the term being used in the EastLake Plan,
and terminology could vary in the plAn"...d communities.
Commissioner Salas asked if there were any projections on the build-out time of the bio-tech
area. Mr. Griffm said it was in the discussion stage DOW, and be had no idea as to when that
might come into reality.
1bis being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The following speakers were in favor of the project and gave a IS-minute orsanized
presentation: .
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV'1'10, apeUil1g on behalf of the property owner,~
stated that they were in auppon of staffs recommendation with the exception of the two-year
time period. He thought it was a good land use and would be good for future businesses in that
their employees could put their children in a private school, if they wished, which was close and
where they could visjt at lunch, etc. Mr. Cox introduced Mark Dolan, the Headmaster of the
Covenant Christian Schoo!.
Mark Dolan, 13'8 Oleander, CV '1911, Heldmnter of the Covenant Christian School,stated
that they had outgrown the practical capacity of their current facility. EastLake was a very
desirable location for their school; it had a good long-term potential for them; they were pleased
with the Fenton Street building in the EastLake Business Park; it had good visibility, an
attractive architecture for their needs, .the site was convenient within the business park on a cuI-
de-sac away from busy streets. They had worked out a use.qreemem for the Scobee Part
which they believed adequately met their frn""""iate Deeds for playpound apace. To their
bowledge, DOne of the other permanent bnsiJrsses saw any incuDpatibility with baviDa a school
in that area. Mr. Dolan said a two-year permit was DOt IODI enoup to cover die amortization
COlt of the lease. The price would be more than they could afford over a Ibon 1ImD like two
years; extending the lease to five years would permit the school to pay a .....t1er amount during
die first couple of years &turinI which time they could recruit additionallCUdents to afford the
lease payments over die hlIl.....e of a five-year lease period. A two-year permit was DOt
IUfficient time to cover the financial COlt or the practical diftlculties involved in a move-in.
They had IeUChed for other locations in the City, and everywhere they went they were faced
. with having to obtain a cOnditional use permit. They must bave a fiv.e-year conditional use """"
permit for the building on Fenton Street, or it would be of DO use to them.
~)~-g-J.-
,
.
PC Minutes
-14-
October 27,1993
Mr. Cox noted that Curt Stephenson was Ivailable for any questions regarding the EastLake
Business Center Owners Association and the proposed lease for the recreation uses of Scobee
Park.
Commissioner Moot, referring to the Igreement in the plAnning Commission packet, asked Mr.
Stephenson lbout the two-year limit on the use of Scobee Park. It leCIIled to be inconsistent
with what Mr. Dolan had aid-that there were DO outst.nding issues between the School and
EastLake. .
Curt Stephenson, 900 Lane AnDue, Suite 100, CV. aid be was Vice President of the
EastLake Development Company and also the President of the EastLake Business Center Owners
Association. Mr. Stephenson aid Scobee Park was not set up for recreational flcUities for I
school, and it was an unusua1 request from that standpoint. They had taken I request before,
however, from Bonita Country Day and had surveyed the owners who had felt it was an
Ippropriate type of use. As I result of that, when Mr. Dolan originally IpproaChed them, he
had requested I two-year period and the Association thought that was I reasonable timeframe
and had agreed to that. Extending that period to five years would mean he would have to go
back and ask each of the individual owners Igain, but he assured the Commission that he
believed they would accept the five-year period. Beyond that, they believed the school was an
appropriate use for an interim facUity. Mr. Stephenson DOted, also, that there were multiple
. access to the park. The only route would not be along Fenton.
Commissioner Salas, referring to possible conflicts for park use by I company wanting to use
it for I single company event and the use of the park by I school, felt it was too broad. Could
anything be done?
Mr. Stephenson said that as a specific owner of the property. the right to use the park could not
be taken away from them. They were requesting if I conflict would arise, that Covenant
Christian would suspend that day's activities 10 EastLake could abide what bad been guaranteed
all the people in the park.
Commissioner Salas asked how often such an occurrence would arise where Covenant School
would have to IUspeDCI their outdoor activities. Mr. StephcIlSoll replied that at the present tiuie
it was lbout one day I month, where it took the entire park. Sometimes it was cJurin& the week,
and sometimes on the weekend.
Commissioner Salas questioned the time dlat l.nd....apiDa was done 011 Mondays from 7 a.m. to
10:30 a.m. and DOted that it would preclude the momin& -=as period of the IChooI every
Monday. Mr. Stephenson aid the mowers would nm for a tbree-bour period but DOt over the
whole park at once. There were areas in the park that would be mowed early in the momin&.
It was something that could be worked out with the IChooI throuJh their lChedu1e.
Chairman Martin said that the Irea was earmarked for bio-tech. As a business person in that
area. was Mr. Stephenson Iware of any projected time when that might happen.
.
..
.
~/~-r;J
PC Minutes
-15-
October 27, 1993
"
Mr. Stephenson reported that they were working with staff to look at existing lots to do an
overlay for a bio-tech zone. and were also looking at the future Phase D. Phase D would require
a full-blown EIR and EastLake Development Company would be coming back to the Planning
Commission with additional reports. He could not give a timeframe.
,
Commissioner Tarantino questioned Mr. Stephenson if a five-year conditional use permit would
be 100 restrictive. Mr. Stephenson, Ipf'-"lri,,& as EastLake Development Company, felt there
probably would not be a problem with a five-year conditional use permit. He felt the two years
was appropriate because it would give a test case of bow they would use the park and what kind
of conflicts would be realized and the resolution of those. If they had the same track record that
Bonita Country Day currently had with them for the past two years, dley probably would not
have a problem approving five.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if it would be their desire to have the leases run in tandem and
expire in tandem. would that be advantageous to the Business Park.
Mr. Stephenson did not believe there was a deep-rooted conflict with the use. Five years was
an adequate time for them to negotiate to find out whether or not they could expand their
facilities into the other vacant lots DCa!' there. They could possibIY-_TequCst a rezone to a
community zone area, which could work in a business setting.
Gordon Dunfee, 6480 Weathers Place, San Diego 92121. the Managing General Partner for """"\
the property, requested a five-year term as a minimum. '.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Dunfee for confumation that they did not intend to extend the
current lease with Bonita Country Day School after the remaining eight months. Mr. Dunfee
said it was their intention to not extend. There were no extension rights; it would be a new
lease and. at that point. they did not intend to lign a new lease.
Commissioner Ray queried if in any event there was not a Covenant School before die planning
Commission. it was his intention to not extend the current lease for Bonita Country Day, or was
it strictly the financial gain because of Covenant School. Mr. Dunfee aaid it was a combination
of aJJ the factors. -
Mr. Cox returned to the podium and commented that die ODIy iaaue of CODtaIdon was the two
year veraus the five years requested by the applicaDi. He asked the Cor-niulon'l c:onalderation
of that since it was very critical to the viability of the project. Mr. Cox requested a abon time
at the end to respond to comments or queatioml'liaed duriDa the public hearina.
Cornmicsioner Ray asked if the agreemeDl whlcb had been made was clepeP<Sent upon IOIDCthing
more than a two-year conditional use permit. or If everything baslcaJly qed for financial
reasons on a five-year. Mr. Cox aaid be understood that the five years was . very key
component of the project. and the lease would be for five years.
. ,
-,
~Y?r
~.
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-16-
October 27, 1993
The following were in opposition to the conditional use permit:
Paul Catanzaro, 371 c-mlno Elevado,Bonita 91910, the Hr~"m~cter of the Bonita Country
Day School, asked for denial of the application. He felt the issue was far more complex than
the question of the building's adequacy for I school. Bonita Country Day School would be
isolated on the second floor. Children of tWo different schools could cause problems. there was
DO agreement between the two schools regarding subletting first-floor classroom Ipace for
Country Day School; where did Bonita Country Day fit iD-did they simply let displaced until
the end of their lease; safety; DOise. Mr. ('..t~nuro questioned CovCDaDt Cbristian School's nue
iDtentions-would they let a conditional use permit only to set into the bui1dinl and squeeze
Bonita Country Day out? Mr. Catanzaro also wanted open dialog between the two schools in
order to work together for the benefit of all parties. They were concerned with the children's
safety, noise, security, parking, and traffic, which would affect the quality of education
presented by both schools. Mr. Catanzaro also stated that the property was in foreclosure, and
wondered how Covenant Christian School could feel secure mAlriTlg a commitment to a landlord
who could not auarantee performance of his end of the lease until be regained full title of the
property .
,
LaVonne Cashman, 669 Rue Pare, CV 91913, was concerned with traffic and safety problems,
insufficient parking, uncontrolled Fenton!Lane intersection, children crossing street where there
was no stop sign, high speed of traffic. She urged a study of the intersection before making a
fmal decision.
Genevieve Brody, 1041 Paseo Del Norte, CV 91910, a senior at Bonita Country Day, said the
school was like a small family; they could depend of staff and students; bad their own identity
as a safe and drug-free environment without outside pressures. She felt that allowing 200
students to occupy the same building would destroy the str\1CtIIre of their environment and would
cause conflict ofauthority and confusion of discipline.
Richard Chavez, 5646 Pray St., Bonita 91910, apoke Igainst the conditional use permit. He
bad experienced Ittending a shared facility with another school. There was conflict amollg the
ltUdents. It was always .us. and .them.. Two schools in the same facility was bad plannif1g.
Sblrley Cuper, 3921 Lonl Canyon Dr., Bonita 91911, laid her c:biId, who bad aleaming
disability, bad been altUdent It Bonita Country Day School. The neuroloaic:al pediatrkian who
dealt with learning disabilities bad told them be should 10 to school in a very IIDa!l environment
with people who were IrIiDed to work with 1his type of chi1dIeD. AuendaDce at die Bonita
Country Day School was an exbwwely lU~fSful experieDcc for diem, and ber IOn bad been
able to mainstream in high school. She praised the school for the quiet, IoviDa atmosphere, and
marvelous individual attention be bas received there.
Suzanne Catanzaro, 371 Camino Elevado, Bonita 91901, the Director of Curric:ulum at Bonita
Country Day School, said it was I two-story building built to I B-2 code with very little JFlSs
around the building. Bonita Country Day occupied approximately 8,000 sq. ft. which only
7' J5-~
PC Minutes
-17-
October 27, 1993
allowed for 70 students. The classes were very small by school &tarvt.rds; I little over 30% of
the students were learning disabled and required very smaI1 classes, I quiet environment, and
as little distraction as possible. The proposed use would JlUtly disrupt the quiet enviromnent
and would infringe upon their unique community. Mrs. Catanzaro stressed the efforts of the
CoUDtI)' Day Schoolldminiotration to keep Scobee Park open space and buildiDis clean; lIhe felt
the use of Scobee Park by Covenant Christian School would jeopardize their C(lntim.~ use of
Scobee Park. Scobee Park was DOt designed to be used as I school playground; the iDcrease in
students almost precluded broken sprink1er heads and damage by foot traffic to lawns and I
tremendous increase in garbage. Bonita Country Day School had nndom ",arvtotory drug
testing, and was concerned lbout their mainf~'1llDCe of I drug-free environment with the addition
of students. A second, different school in the facUity would ""rrvr the CODtiDuation of their
program. She asked rejection the Ipplication of Covenant ~ School for I bigh-density
use in the facility. There were many other types of uses that would be much more compatible.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mrs. Catanzaro if she was Iware as part of the Itaff that the owner
of the building was not going to renew their lease, and that they would only be there eight more
months with possibly six months with the other school. They would be displaced regardless of
whether the other school was there.
r
~
Mrs. Catanzaro responded that on August 25, the owner of the building asked them to lease the
entire building. His change of interest in Bonita CountI)' Day leasing space in the building bad
been fairly recent, and bad not been known to them. "'"
Commissioner Fuller said it was obvious that the owner of the building for economic reasons
wished to lease the entire building. or at least I larger portion of the building that what was been
currently occupied. Answering Commissioner Fuller, Mrs. Catanzaro said they had been in that
location for three years and in I commercial building on Bonita Road,prior to that.
Commissioner Salas concluded that if they would allow Bonita Country Day School was allowed
to extend their lease, they would not be willing to be in the same building with Covenant
Christian School. Mrs. Catanzaro said the proposal would JlUtly biDder the enntim.ation of
their programs as they were. The H~o"macter had said be would be happy to work with the
other school to see if they could make some arrangements 10 that both schools could exist in the
building. They were lware that the owner of the building was desperate to lcue 1pICC. Bonita
Country DIY'S prefereDCC would be that it arn.o11y followed its oriaiDal uae IS In off'JCC
building. Because of the ""'011_55 of their dustS and the way their pIJ'ticu1ar achool operated,
they would fu.Dction better in an off'JCC-type situation.
Commissioner Salas asked If the decision DOt to renew the Bonita C-."")' Day lcue was
because of their objection to share the tmildi"i beco,,- of their dift'Cf~ pbilosopbica1ly.
Mrs. Catanzaro said there was I suggested ~t presented to them in I memorandum after they
had met with the owner of the buildiDi and n.p1eaentatlvcs of the CovcIlant Christian School,
and they addressed the different points of objection that they had liken to tbe planni'1J
-~ /~-g-'~
.'
~
.
.
.
,
.
PC Minutes
-18-
October 27, 1993
Deparunent. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mrs. Catanzaro had indicated that things were
DOt settled, but everyone agreed that the meeting had been successful because it had opened the
door for discussion. Shortly after that, the OWDCr of the buildina bad sent a letter 10 the
plAnning Department saying all the issues had been cleared up at the meeting, aDd sent Bonita
Country Day School saying 10 agree 10 this, or else, which evidently iDdicated his interest in
perhaps discontinuing their relationship after the term of their lease. It was their iDlentlO stay
in the building.
Commissioner Salas questioned Mr. Stephenson regarding his rationale for preferring that
Covenant Christian have a five year lease versus two year. He bad stated his experience with
Bonita Country Day School was such that he was JUre there would be DO objection from the
other owners of the park that there be a school there for that length of time. She wondered if
they were good clients, why they weren't willing 10 extend the lease? She felt it was
discriminatory. Mr. Stephenson said he was DOt the building OWDCr aDd represented the
development company and Scobee Park. He could not respond 10 it.
Chairman Martin if the 20 sq. ft. per snulent was a regulation. Ms.lUtAn'7A1'O replied that she
was given the information by the Building Department.
Mary Ella Fetzer, 1041 Paseo Del Norte, CV '1'10, a retired school teacher, believed two
schools with two philosophies, different rules, different beliefs, different regulations, different
identities could not operate out of the same facility aDd stilll"RintRin their own autonomy; DOt
standard practice; would cause confusion to parents and snulents; quality of education; safety
of children. Opposed - not a good use.
Geol'le Kost, 3609 BeUe Bonnie Brae R.d., Bonita '1901-2703, a member of Bonita Country
Day School Board, said Bonita Country Day School bad no drug problem, DO drop-out problem.
Jrlduate all their students; 97% go to coUege; DO gang activity; mixed type of school but have
a ratio of 1 teacher 10 7 ItUdents; School is unique; builder bas fiDancial problem, but the
Commission should concentrate on what would be good for the ItUdents in the building today
aDd the School's previous IlICCCSS. Economic problems DOt unique 10 property OWDCr; ..hRn""
for npwion aDd possible use of land close 10 the School in lieu of the Scobee Park for
recreation, since it may be years before the iJttIt,mjal part is built out. R.eprdina 10 tWo years
wrsus five years, Mr. Kost thought five years were reasonable. He was concemed about the
eight months Bonita Country Day School would be CIIdurin& ."..""" from . ICbooI that may
llave a different philosophy. The ltUdents would cause the problems, aDd Mr. Kost felt the
problems would be qainst Bonita e",,"")' Day School.
Nancy Matson, 1072 Surrey DrlTe, Bonita '1902, spoke 10 the ~ of the p1Rnn!." ..
Commission about the use of the area for alCbool. Because ~""'Y Day School was 10 1IDall,
it did DOt impact the area of IIDall manufacmring companies. Both schools bad loyalltUdents
aDd there would be rivalry. .
-~ /yff7
,
.
PC Minutes
-19-
October 27, 1993
'"
Scott A. Moomjian, 4933 Chaparral Way, SD 92115, Social Studies Teacher at Bonita
Country Day School, discussed ltudent density and environment, building DOt design to
.""""'modate the DUmber of ltudents a DeW school would bring, interference of DeW ltudents
with learning environment, DOise inside the building and from the parking lot area, cleanliness,
decrease in quality of building with increase of quantity of pollution produced by &DOther school
on the premises. Mr. Moomjian asked that the pl.nnillg Comml.sion reject Covenant
Christian's application 10 move into 2400 Fenton St.
Felix Valdez, 3196 ('...mln1to QuIxote, SD 92154, ltudent at Bonita Country Day School, said
more ltudents would be confusing and would take away from the education of the existing
ItUdcnts.
Walter Padelford, 1963 Rue Michelle, Bonita 91902, James Perlcomb, Sr., 205 ('...mlno del
Cerro Dr., and Del Vogel, 785 Mission A,enue, CV 91910, had filled out speaker slips in
opposition. but were not present when called.
Chairman Mania called Mr. Cox back 10 the podium for the rem.inillg time be bad requested.
.
Greg Cox said the issue before the Planning Commission was whether it was a legitimate use
for that panicular building. Based upon the fact that it bad been a school in the past, this would
also be an acceptable use. The issues which had been raised were landlord/tenant-related issues. """".
Staff did not feel there was a concern about traffic, bad ,nat'hed the appropriate conditions
regarding the recreation space; EastLake Development had DO problem with the five-year
timeframe, and had not had problems with Bonita Country Day utilizing the existing park.
Referring to the statement that the property was in foreclosure, Mr. Cox did DOt have that
information, but believed there was a potential with CoveDlDl Christian School 10 occupy the
first floor with the intent to ultimately occupy the entire building when available. He added that
he thought Bonita Country Day School bad an excellent program, but their lease would expire
and there was a desire on the pan of the property owner 10 lease the entire building. He felt
the concerns would be present on any other land use.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Dunfee, the property owner, in light of the iaues raised that
were landJord/tenant issues, if be bad considered waitin& Until the cunent lease bad expired and
then going before the Qunmio,ion with a clean llate, Ihoq that the buDding bad previously
been used as a school, lather than m.1rillg the Qunmiosion feel they bad 10 make ajudgment
Placin& two educational facilities in the same building.
Mr. Cox Died there would be a Deed for both parties, If the Commio,ion approved the
conditional use permit, 10 meet and w9lk out IODle of the operational de.-no. He believed they
were IOlvable details, as long as both parties were williDa to do 10.
Chairman Mania asked where the Covenant Christian School was presently located and who
would be moving in there? Mr. Cox replied that they bad OUllJ'OWD that facility and would be ""'"
moviDi, for the first six months, the K-6 operations.
.~ J~rg/.
~
. PC Minutes
-20- .
October 27, 1993
.
.
7be followinQ did not meak. but wished to ~,dner their MDOsition. No addresses were 2iven.
Esther Dunn, Naomi Hoffman, Christine S. Beeker, PauliDe Haltmeyer. Karen Cat.n7....0.
Walter Burrola, Waldo Bond, Bariska Burrola. Burleigh N. Kroener, Humbeno Rodriquez.
Beverly Meester. William Meester. Martha Klein, Luna Cohen, Paul Cashman, Margaret Block,
Mimi Alfonso. Fernando Alfonso, Ed Preble, Stella Preble. Todd Preble, Ron Schuler, Lonera
Hannig, Johann Casas, Socorro Barreras, Oscar Costello. Allan McCloud. Barbara McCloud.
Calhy Stroud. Kenneth Stroud, Tony SWks, Barbara Starks. Sukumer Boyd. Sharta Boyd, Doug
Pilliang, Gayle C. Caliges, Mary L. Hiatt, Maria Zacorozay. Li1i Lopez
No one else wishing to speak, the public bearing was closed.
Commissioner Ray said Bonita Country Day was granted a one year ,tlministrative conditional
use permit, and it was extended by two years. Since there was an existing 'conditional use
permit. if a five-year permit were granted. would it be in effect until 1995?
Principal Planner Griffm conflmled that the conditional use permit ran with the land. but the
parameters of the use had to remain the lIIDe. The Bonita Country Day application was
approved with a maximum of 70 stUdents. it was based on a certain schedule. and agreements
regarding Scobee Park. If another different application came in, that raised other issues. and
would have a minimum need to modify a conditional use permit if it was by the lIIDe applicant.
or require a new conditional use permit if it was a new applicant.
Commissioner Tuchscher said the issue was land use and the only comments relevant were land-
use-oriented comments. It was unfortunate that some of the communication and venting did not
happen before it went before the Planning Commission. He was certain staff had tried to pull
the parties together to work through some of those issues. Testimony had shown that a school
was appropriate. and the question was size and the impact on the area.
MS (TuchscherlFuller) to adopt a resolution approvin& a conditional use permit on the
property for a five-year term.
('.nmmiu:ioner Ray asked that condition DO. 1 be reviled to show a five-year period iDsteP~ of
two years, subject to periodic review.
The maker of the motion concurred and said be would modify the motion.
JEVI~ED MOTION
To adopt a resolution approvin& a cOnditional use permit OD the property for a live-year
tenD, IUbjec:t to periodic review.
.'
.
~ )f-%'1
,
.
PC Minutes
-21-
October 27. 1993
'"'"
Commissioner Salas did DOt agree with extending the term to five years because of unknown
Deeds iD the future, and the potential objection of ascboolsite being there. . She agreed with the
iDitia1 rtaff recommeDdation of two years.
Commissioner Tucbscber aid that the bio-tech zone was iD its infancy. It was hopeful that it
would be IUCCessful iD attracting some jobs and lood companies to the area. but it was an
untDOwn. The EcoDOmiC Development Cnmmic,ion had recently completed . market ltudy
which demonstrated that they estimated only 7 acres of industrial land per year would be
absorbed in Chula Vista iD the next leveral years. He felt EastLake Business Cemer might
attract some of that, but they had roughly 35 acres of vacant land which was finiclvd. plus other
industrial land not yet graded. Mr. Tuchscher felt comfortable that for the next five years there
would not be any major conflict iD the area.
Commissioner Salas objected also to the five years because the agreement between Mark Dolan-
and CUn Stephenson iD terms of the EastLake Business Center Owners Association was for two
years to meet certain conditions. While Mr. Stephenson said be would probably let a positive
response from the other tenants of the park, that was DOt a certainty.
Commissioner Fuller said she agreed with Commissioner Tucbschel that because of the
economic outlook of the EastLake Business Park and that there were DO other buildings
conslJ'Ucted around the school, the five-year term made it more eco~cal1y feasible, the """
agreement regarding Scobee Park could be reconsidered to be extended to five years, she would
be wUling to accept it. In answer to a comment iD one of the letters received. Commissioner
Fuller noted that iD some areas, the City was planning community facUity districts where
facUities could be located, provided they build their own facUity or have someone build it for
them.
Commissioner Tucbscher ltated that the conditional use permit was predicated upon providing
access to Scobee Park. If the tenants did DOt give ID extension to the two-year concession they
had already provided, the conditional use permit would then be iD violation.
AlsiltaDt City Attorney Rudolf replied that there was DO lpeCifk requiremeDt In the conditions
that there be, prior to 0CCllJlIDCY or during the CIIlire OCCl'P"~, whether two JCIlI or five
years, obt.lnl." and maint..lnlng adequate, IUitable outdoor recreationallDd physk:al education
facilities for the ItUdeDtl. .
o-mlclioner Ray asked if the maker of the motion WCIUld lite to add a CODdition _Ii." that
it should be predicated on obt..lnl",1D qreemtnt with the 1::..81 .1... BusiDess Cater for use of
Scobee Park to lUll COJICWTeDt with the lease a1lI1Ior develOv.......t of their own physical
educational facilities.
.
,
The maker of the motion asked Commluioner Salas if that IItiJfied her; upon her Delative
answer, Commissioner Tucbscber DOted that the oriainal motion 1toOd. .""".
-~/S--/!J
JUN. - 29' 95(THUI II: 44
EASTLAKE
TEL:619 421 1830
June 29, 1995
Mr. Dan Malcobn
Retail Properties Group
3252 Holiday Court, Suite 110
La 101la, CA 92037
RE: Covenant Christian School
Dear Dan:
Sisnificant time has elapJed since my letter, dated September 22, 1994, regarding
EastLake's position on the extension of the CUP. During this period the City of
Chula Vista adopted by ordinance the High TecblBiotech Zone across the
EastLake Business Center and progress hu been made toward attracting new
business to the zone. The site across the street had been seriously coDSidered by a
company looking to relocate to EastLake before we redirected them to Lots 18 &:.
19.
EastLake will c;ontinue to support one extension of the existing CUP for a period
equal to the original COP (two and one half years). Our support is conditioned
upon the school waiving their right to object to or make claim against any high
tec;h or biotech company that elects to locate anywhere within the EastLake
Business Center Phases 1&:.2 or against EastLake Development Company.
Further our support is conditioned that the school will Dot attempt to make tbe
current site a permanent location. EastLake cannot support a permanent location
within the High TechIBiotech Zone.
EastLake has supported Covenant Christian School in the past with the c;lcar
understanding that use of property in the business c;enter as I school would be
temporary. If Christian Covenant School is interested in a permanent location
within the EastLake Community on appropriately zoned land, we would be happy
to discuss these sites in an effort to sec;ure I permanent location.
CS:jv
cc;: Steve Gri1l1n- City ofChula Vista
Sherty Wagner- Covenant Christian Schools
Hank Gotthelf
Gordon Dunfee
Jf-9/
I
P.002
~
---
).1
...
..
...
fASTLAKE
m~r
900 lano_ue
~1IG100
0>UI0 \lltle. CA 91Q1'
(619) 421 01??
fAX (619) <121-1530
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / IR
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Open Space District No. I for Fiscal Year 1995-96
Resolution /795 ~rdering certain open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained,
approving modification to the Engineer's Report and levying the assessments for Fiscal year
1995-96 Open Space DiS~' No. I
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works /W
Director of Parks and Re~~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ti!!} I (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...K)
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items J t., 17 and / Y have been separated due to potential
conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district.
Council should note that agenda item / '1 gives all background information and details on open space districts
in general, which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 1.
Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions.
A public hearing was held on June 13, 1995 to receive testimony on the proposed assessments. This is the second
public hearing as required by law.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
2) Direct staff to tally all protests.
3) Adopt the resolution to approve modifications to the Engineer's Report and levy the assessments for Fiscal
Year 1995/96.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Number
(OSD) I located between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, east of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment A).
Table I relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for Year 1995-96. Agenda Item 19
contains all the general information regarding the open space district.
/?-}
I::
Page 2, Item / t
Meeting Date 7/11/95
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S YS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
FY94-95 FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimate
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase d FY95-96
Assmt/EDU Collect! or Decrease FY 95- Revenue
EDU 96
Cost!
EDU
OSD No. 1 $78 $77 $81 $53 (1) 5% $81 $35,075
E1 Rancho del Rey
Units 1-4
(I) Proposed payment amount includes sufficient funds for reimbursing the General Fund for staff costs at full cost
recovery.
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $77 to $81 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to reflect the
ultimate estimated cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $4.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a
collection of $53 per EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient frmd balance to make up the difference ($28).
These excess frmds are available because of prior year savings, mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 59%.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and
Information Systems. The General Fund will be reimbursed $5,530 for City staff services from the OSD frmds for
FY1995/96. All other costs, which include contract maintenance services, utilities, and landscape supplies, are estimated
to be $48,560. Of the total budget amount, $35,075 will be recovered by the collectible and the remaining $19,015 will
be paid for by reserves. There is no General Fund impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
C Protest Letter
M:\HoME\ENOINEElt\AGENDA\OSDIPH2DDS
Jt ~ ;l.
. .
Ii..,
1-
L
.-
I
, ! I
I
I . .
.. . I
r.1~ I So '..'
I.'
II Z
, . . .
I
"
t
3
"
m
6
S"
m
6
g
~
6
U>
Q'
!
-I
""to )> "'tIl ",,("l 8 ~~~1:'1:' tIl i~i~~~~~~(g~
~~ 00 " g ~ g. I
00 ~[ ..., 00 ! 00
" ~ g. )> ~ g: " ~ ~ - !.l :T ~ '" ~ g" ",,";'
00
~~ 00 '" "i ~ ~" ("l 0 ~ !.l a
~ l:l>ii' " <T ~"'E."C'" i" !l ~ g, s; 11 0' 00
g"o I~
~ c:: ~ ~ 8 g;g:a~l s;_~("l[",~0' ~
" ~ " "" " g ~~~~~ i g,.,.", "~ "~,d "
i3' g ~" i [" ~" ~ S ~ lr g: ;: ~
~ >-,j ...g: g s;l"" ooell"_
~ 1l " ]" 00 "8 '" ell"
~" ... 1 it
0 ~ 1 g
~ v. l
~ ~
:;! ~ ("l
00 tIl
("l
0
... ... ... -
w v. w v. _ N '"
... ...- - ... v. _00"'" '"
... w ... .8"- '\0 "0 N '^'" ~.oo "0 '"
00 v. Ul ~ ~~ov.;:; '" ~~~~ 08<5 ~~
-'- ... "0... 'N 0
W. - 8 . w. . 888 ~~
w...., 00 ...., V. N"'" :.., 888~8 8~88
"$,l.H - V. W ~"""'
'" '"
."
... ... ... -~
a-N N v. NN "''''
-... .00 ...., a- --...., ~S!
... ... ...., "00 \0 '" 00 N .... '" ~~8 ' '"
...., ...., 0_ 0 - oo""'woo ~~
o,~ ,:-' ~ ~~!=>VlY. 0 0 !=>w!=>!=> 000
-...., 0 888~8 8 8 8~88 888 v.~
'$.,N ,#-0 ...
~
... ... - "
"'-
a- _ w '"
- a- -....,... w
... ... ...., "8 NW~\O ~.w", ,
...., ...., gg~ gg -
:-' 00 '" 0 !=>?>~ '"
00 '" 8 8 8888 '"
- v. 888 ...
... a- N
m
U>
-;
!!:
~
m
o
"
eJ
c::
t
~
z
-;
m
z
>
z
"
m
"
o
U>
-;
U>
::1
5\
l\l
'-
c
~
"
:"
-
~
It -'I
/,'
I,{":'
. ..
/lem
June3, 1995
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works Engineering Division
(Public Works Dept)
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
Re: Proposed Increase In Assessment on Assessor's Parcel # 642-31-507 00 (Chula Vista)
Property Address: 1232 Calle San tiago, Chula vista CA 91910
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to inform you that we, the DE GUZMANS are opposed and protesting to the subject assessment
As of now we can't hardly pay for the Mortgage payment, the Homeowner's Insurance, the property taxes
and other assessed taxes. We can't almost have anything left to buy food for ourselves, to pay for utilities
and to pay for our other daily needs.
Sincerely yours,
~.
, 4;.
Roberto),f. d Delia C. De zman
1232.'calle Santiago
Chula Vista Ca 91910
c~~
OSD'
Fdsj1c..
81
JJ~5)~-?
r:Y q1!?)
7710
FY'i3/'lY
78."i&
REVISED 7 f7 /95
Marked to show changes
RESOLUTION NO. 17954
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION
TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.
1
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the city
Council has caused the formation of various districts under and
pursuant to either the Chula vista Open Space District Procedural
Ordinance ("Procedural Ordinance"), as contained in Chapter 17.07
(adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Act
("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code section 22500, et
seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as Open Space
District No.1; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the
city Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments
for said Open Space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer's
Report"); and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1995, the City Council approved the
Engineer's Report and set June 13, 1995 and July 11, 1995 as the
dates for the public hearings; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessment for Open Space
District 1 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 is shown below:
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIIlLE AND % CHANGE
FY94-95 FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY95-96
Assmt/EDU Collect/ or Decrease Cost/ Revenue
EDU EDU
OSD No.1 $78 $77 $81 $53 ''l 5% $81 $35,075
El Rancho
del Rey
Units 1-4
(1) Proposed payment amount includes sufficient funds for reimbursing the General Fund for staff costs at full
cost recovery.
1~-7
WHEREAS. Council adopted Ordinance 2631 on June 13. 1995.
distinquishinq assessment from collection aqainst assessment: and
WHEREAS. Ordinance 2631 shall be effective on the thirtieth
dav from and after its adoption. (four davs after the second public
hearinq): and
WHEREAS. the assessments levied are based on Ordinance 2631
beinq in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to Open Space and
Maintenance District No.1, that the city council of the city of
Chula vista does hereby find that written protests against the
proposed assessment increase have not been made by owners
representing more than one-half of the area of the land to be
assessed for the improvement and confirms the diagram and
assessment contained in the modified Engineer's Report, and orders
the open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained. The
adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of the
assessment as proposed in the modified Engineer's Report for the
1995-96 fiscal year and set forth hereinabove for Open Space and
Maintenance District No.1. continqent upon Ordinance 2631 takinq
effect and beinq in full force on the thirtieth dav from and after
its adoption. to-wit: Julv 13. 1995.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B=M;h~or
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
'''-~
I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Open Space District No. 10 for Fiscal Year 1995-96
Resolution 17? 5' ~rdering certain open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained,
approving modification to the Engineer's Report and levying the assessments for Fiscal year
1995-96 Open Space District No. 10
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
Director of Parks and R n~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ ~l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-XJ
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items /&, 17 and 1 ~ have been separated due to potential
conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district.
Council should note that agenda item 1'1 gives all background information and details on open space districts
in general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 10.
Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions.
A public hearing was held on June 13, 1995 to receive testimony on the proposed assessments. This is the second
public hearing as required by law.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
2) Direct staff to tally all protests.
3) Adopt the resolution to approve modifications to the Engineer's Report and levy the assessments for Fiscal
Year 1995/96.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Number 10
located along East J Street, west of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment A). Table 1 relates the present year's assessment
to the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995/96. Agenda Item 1'/ contains all the general information regarding
the open space district.
/7- /
Page 2, Item / 7
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Open Space District No. 10 FY93-94 FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase or Revenue
EI Rancho del Rey 6 & EDU EDU Assmt! Collection! Decrease
Casa del Rey EDU EDU
Assessment/EDU $25 $42 $83 $71(1) 200% $44,756
Cost/EDU $84 $88 $83 - - -
(1) Proposed payment amount for inclusion of full cost recovery.
TABLE I
PRlOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
Staff recommends an increase in the annual assessment from $42.00 to $83.00 per EOU which reflects the FY 95/96
estimated maintenance cost. However, Staff recommends a collection of $71.00 per EOU from residents, and utilizing
$12 per EOU from the fund balance (reserve, interest and savings) to make up the difference. These excess funds are
available to do this because of prior years' savings. The reserve will be 56% with staff's recommendation.
The assessment has been lower than actual costs for the last three fiscal years because of district savings (water
restrictions from '91 drought), low bid after levy of assessment and delayed turnover of new improvements. Staff's
recommendation will make the estimated annual cost and assessment the same amount. As any increase in assessment
is subject to a majority protest, staff recommends setting the assessment, which is the amount property owners receive
as notice, at the higher amount of $83 (costJEOU) not the amount of revenue needed ($71). Alternatively, if staff set
the assessment at $71, it would be subject to majority protest for the increase from $42 anyway. The following year
it might be necessary to increase the assessment again if savings were not realized to reduce the payment (collectible)
below the assessment set for FY 95-96. If there is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the
assessment at a lesser amount although $831EOU is needed to provide the recommended maintenance.
At the previous public hearing, a resident of this district protested the assessment indicating that the $83 assessment
per EO U was doubling for the third year in a row and suggested that the rates had always been nearer the $25 rate.
For Council's further information, the assessment per EOU in FY 91/92 was $131.48 and in FY 92/93 was $83.46.
The reason for the lower collections in FY 93/95 was due to a combination of savings which resulted in large reserves.
This necessitated the reduction to the figures indicated above to stay within the open space district guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and
Information Systems. The General Fund will be reimbursed $5,330 for City staff services from the OSO funds for
FYI995/96. All other costs, which include contract maintenance services, utilities, and landscape supplies, are estimated
to be $46,610. Of the total budget amount, $44,756 will be recovered by the collectible and the remaining $7,184 will
be paid for by reserves. There is no General Fund impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
M:\HOME\EN<lINEER\AGEl'IDA\OSDlOPH2.DDS
17':2..
.r
\
~Q ~
~ ct
i~ g
~ ~~
~+- >-
~~ t:
V)+- u
~~ ~
II '
I.
II
II
I
.. ,
1'.
t II
. . I
J I
I ii I
!
/'
/'
/'
io
I I:
.
, ,
~--..- -
.
.
.
.
,
T
, :!..
I . .
, ....
\ .. I "11 ~
~\!. . .0 .
\\,
\11-
.. .
. ~
I '1-'
I :
..
r t
i
.~
h
. I ~
:;:
;
Ijl.
1 I
I. j ]1
,11!Jlrf.'ii 11',111'1',"':; nLil;Jlf'i,,!J1 'j I
1II"f1'", ~'IJ ,. '.,'" 1'1'
, ','" '.,;.' I '
IIIJ!,mlll IIu 'mflJIl ~luU :jfh! . I':
'1'!I/'/II:iJ,IIJo1 nl"i 1I"/'J:r!IIJ"u,I'lf ~I"j ~ J
I U II I adl.. , ...., ,",11. I
IIII I G
o
.. ..
.
~
IIII
,..
IH
I,'
I !
" ,.
IJ ..
Iii .,
I~I !
I
,0,
.
o
'II; r
.
I
.
,
.. :....-
f
,
.. 'I 'I
e: .. e. ..1'. . m IIIIIrI
., \ I~ BliP 1119 fJ III IIII~ li1ijllllil!',,1I1 rlilijlli!'I~ II
" I Ii I. 'II .111111111111' I .111)111111
I · I II I,ll I I II III I I
I I . . ~ I~iil~ I,~ I ~iil~ ~ I
.. I III I1II I'll II li~II'11 !i
I I II III: .all III '111
I I .' IDlftU. UI
. ,
,
,
,
.
.
.
. .
.
,i
.
. . . . .
, .
I
I
.
.
. I I
. t. . . _
I I
~A.II!~
f~~11~~. ' _.'
! ' ,
~----------------
.
--
~.
, .
/7-Y
,If
i
-
-
l
~
~
fi
i
i
~
~
~
ii
I
e
c#1
l 8888888 8 ~ ~ ~
S8~o~~~ ~ a i
-
,
.~ N'f"i' '<II ...
;;- V'\
- - ...
i lUH~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ =~ !:!~
i~ ...,
~~!C~~~ := ~ c~~ i i
Cl. .
~~ -.., .., 5 s:; :::~
;;-
III 8888888 ~ ~~~8~ ! ~l Ei i ,~
~- gigoig~ i. I. c~s. &
~ "l. .... .. "l.
_... V'\ 5 ~ ~i
- ;;-
8
II I .. i 1 .
-I I ( .
hu ! ti !
J ! i I
Hldlhl ~II
lid iJ
i
J 7-
/7-' "ir,
REVISED 7/7/95
Marked to show changes
RESOLUTION NO. 17955
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED,
APPROVING MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
1995-96 FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the
city Council has caused the formation of various districts under
and pursuant to either the Chula vista Open space District
Procedural Ordinance ("Procedural Ordinance"), as contained in
Chapter 17.07 (adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and
Landscaping Act ("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code
Section 22500, et seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as
Open Space District No. 10; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the
City Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments
for said Open space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer'S
Report"); and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1995, the city Council approved the
Engineer'S Report and set June 13, 1995 and July 11, 1995 as the
dates for the public hearings; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessment for Open
Space District 10 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 is shown below:
Open Space District FY93- FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment FY 95-
No. 10 94 Assmt! FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase 96
El Rancho del Rey 6 Assmt/ EDU Assmt/ Collection/ or Revenue
& Casa del Rey EDU EDU EDU Decrease
Assessment/EDU $25 $42 $83 $710) 200% $44,756
Cost/EDU $84 $88 $83 - - -
(1) Proposed payment amount for inclusion of full cost recovery.
TABLE I
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
WHEREAS. Council adopted Ordinance 2631 on June 13. 1995.
distinquishinq assessment from collection aqainst assessment: and
/7-7
WHEREAS. Ordinance 2631 shall be effective on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption. (four days after the second public
hearinq): and
WHEREAS. the assessments leyied are based on Ordinance 2631
beinq in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to Open Space and
Maintenance District No. 10, that the city council of the city of
Chula vista does hereby find that written protests against the
proposed assessment increase have not been made by owners
representing more than one-half of the area of the land to be
assessed for the improvement and confirms the diagram and
assessment contained in the modified Engineer's Report, and orders
the open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained. The
adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of the
assessment as proposed in the modified Engineer's Report for the
1995-96 fiscal year and set forth hereinabove for open Space and
Maintenance District No. 10. continqent upon Ordinance 2631 takinq
effect and beinq in full force on the thirtieth day from and after
its adoption. to-wit: JulY 13. 1995.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
c:\rs\OS10Levy
J1-~
!f
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item rr
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Eastlake Maintenance District No. I for Fiscal Year 1995-96
Resolution /7 95'~rdering certain open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained,
approving modification to the Engineer's Report and levying the assessments for Fiscal year
1995-96 Eastlake Maintenance District No. I
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Wolks nlv JI::
Director of Parks ~d R~~O~
City ManagerJf\ ~~)
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items lv, 17 and /1T have been separated due to potential
conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district.
Council should note that agenda item /9 gives all background information and details on open space districts
in general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Eastlake Maintenance
District No.1 (ELMDl).
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-XJ
Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions.
A public hearing was held on June 13, 1995 to receive testimony on the proposed assessments. This is the second
public hearing as required by law.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
2) Direct staff to tally all protests.
3) Adopt the resolution to approve modifications to the Engineer's Report and levy the assessments for Fiscal
Year 1995/96.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Eastlake Maintenance District
Number I, a City open space district, located along East H Street and Otay Lakes Road, adjacent to "SR 125"
(Attachment A). Table I relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for the Fiscal Year 1995/96.
Agenda Item 1 ? contains all the general information regarding the open space district.
.
I%'- I
, ,
Page 2, Item J 0-
Meeting Date 7/11/95
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93/94 FY94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase FY 95/96 FY95/96
AssmntlEDU AssmntlEDU AssmntlEDU CoIlectionlEDU or CostlEDU Revenue
Decrease(2)
ELMD #1(1) $190,566
East1ake I $6.98 $9.31 $9.31 $4.34 0% $9.10
East1ake Greens 10.64 14.08 15.24(3) 14.08 0% 15.24
OTC 0 125.95 126.200) 77.3 I 8% 126.20
Salt Creek I 6.98 168.31 168.31 158.70 1% 161.31
TC Channel(2) 0 6.16 24.00 16.74 270% 16.74
(1) All areas share in the cost of Otay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways.
(2) Portions of Eastlake I BC and Eastlake Greens are iu benefit area. Typical assessment for a single family home did not
exceed $1.24 (.2 x $6.16).
(3) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff gave notice to the owners of the amount shown.
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE ANO % CHANGE
Staff recommends that the assessments for each of the areas, excepting the benefiting area for Eastlake Greens, Olympic
Training Center and Telegraph Canyon Channel, remain the same as FY 94/95. However, in each of these cases, staff
recommends an annual collectible as shown in Table 1. Oue to prior and current year savings, staff recommends
collection of an amount less than the assessment by utilizing excess monies in the fimd (reserve, savings, interest). The
reserve under this recommendation will be 53%.
Eastlake Greens
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $14.08 to $15.24 per equivalent dwelling unit (EOD) to reflect the
ultimate estimated cost for FY 95/96. Staff recommends a collection of $14.08 per EOD from residents, since there
is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($1.16).
Olvmpic Training Center
Staff recommends a minor assessment increase from $125.95 to $126.20 per EOD to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents only a $.25 per EOD increase. Staff recommends a collection of $77.31 per EOD from
residents, since there is a sufficient fimd balance to make up the difference ($48.89). These excess fimds are available
because of prior year savings.
Telegraoh Canvon Channel
Portions of Eastlake Business Center and East1ake Greens drain into the channel. In July of last year a new benefit area
(Zone E) was established within ELMO 1 to pay for the channel maintenance. Property owners were notified of the
estimated cost of maintenance (prorated share) for the channel between East1ake and Rancho del Rey SPA 3 and were
provided the opportunity to protest. As only a portion of the channel (Phase 1 of 3) was ready for tornover, Council
levied an assessment of only $6.16 per EOD for FY 94/95. Additional improvements (Phase 2) are ready for tornover
for FY 95/96. It is anticipated that Phase 3 improvements will be torned over to Open Space maintenance in two years.
Staff recommends setting the assessment at $24 per EOD, representing the estimated ultimate annual cost for all three
phases of the channel improvements. Staff recommends the higher amount of $24 (costlEOU) rather than the amount
of revenue needed ($16.74) next year, because in a subsequent year it might be necessary to increase the assessment
again if savings are not realized. If there is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the
/8'.-.)..
if',
Page 3, Item / g/
Meeting Date 7/11/95
assessment at a lesser amount, although $24 per EDU is needed to provide the recommended maintenance when all
three phases have been turned over to the City.
Cost of the formation of Zone E is included in the collectible amount, amortized over 5 years, per the City/Eastlake
agreement (Resolution 17588) which allows the City to reimburse Eastlake Development Company for this cost.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and
Information Systems. The General Fund will be reimbursed $37,720 for City staff services from the OSD funds for
FYI995/96. All other costs, which includes contract maintenance services, utilities, and landscape supplies, are
estimated to be $217,630. Of the total budget amount, $190,566 will be recovered by the collectible and the remaining
$64,784 will be paid for by reserves. There is no General Fund impact.
Attachments: A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
C Protest Letter
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AOENDA\OSELMDP2.DDS
/~} )~~f
!\(
~IVI
(.
EAST LAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
CITY OF Q(ULA VISTA
COUNTY OF IAN ClIEGO,ITATE OF CAUFORNIA
-
1," . .'c.
.
o
'-
.
....1oJ~ l>
. .
o
~_A
-
. .,"
. .:: .
',' '",' ,0'
o
.'
"
-
~
.,'
..!, .
...-...
-
-
. ..,
L
..
. '--0- 1 - .... ..... .. . "'" --. .. ""
""'..~..,A."."..IL. a -........-ew..
.........,...~ A.......A_~...,~._._..,.
... ....A..._ -........-a...,. _..,.,,_
_ ....--.-- --_.-.~
_ IDI.l _ ._ . . I"CI .. . "'"
. -, ..... ""'.....,~ ""... "" -..,..
1iiOiiii.- -- .....",.__1DI.l
.. . ... _ .. ... "'" ....... _ ftIl
~_...- "'-'-~.....~"C"
.... . ... __ fill .. A -----un
- .. iJ'. . '. .
.. ........ -.."".
..
" .........Im 1
....""...-., ..
- II.~"..""'''
......... ---.-......
f __. .... _. -,
.
L...r..&
".Im
_.
~_..'
I;
.
.... .-
.--.."".
=._. ... ... 1m........ 1Il'f"
"",..--.. _.
c:>
-......
~ -
.---
~_. "_11
~. "'l'1__._'-
ar- ....~__--I--
.
-.-
...
"'" ..... . "'" .. ...... "".
L
---..... .-"""",""".
......--. .................
..._."'''...., I ..
-
.." --..... -.....
)8",S
,
o
.-Pt--" II _~.,
~. ....
.
I . . . AGRAM
. EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
CITY OF 04ULA VIS T A
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALtFORNIA
NO.1
.
..~~. ~-
~,\ 0 ~~
,: \ \ II ...-:'= '::::... \.......
\\' \\ II /:,'" ":\ -~"
I~ ~/ -~ ~:\ ~
,I I l I ..... /;- ,. '\:\.;l v
II I 11r--;.~1 . '~.&'1'1'/
II, I' II 7/ ,.
\~ I I \ II l,/
\ , \ \ \ I
I! I '\ \ \ ZONE 8 i
, I \'0.__-1.... I
I, I r--Ir~~ \ \
I, I '\ ---'~
Ii J II ~"- ",--=-"'\
L "----,, '~
iI' ,(/1, II --- ~\~
" I . \ \ \~
I' 1 /? \~ ~~
I II ~ ~
I 1/ ~ ~
r~ L. - ~~ I.'~
~~~ j/ ~t
\ ~,:/ ~
~....:__.....-:,'7
...._~..., . .",,'
..."""........
_-er-7N':~;/
-- ~
. '
-
.
.'
....1ICe . ....... - ,. ,.. -- ..
.......IIICI..II.oe.---III-
......... .,4l...~IJ\L ~. -.
. J8'-~
.
n.&1. ! ......,
....,.... ..-.,~.~..-ct.. I
..,~...
,
\ RAM
, . EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.]
.
. CITY OF OtULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~, -;?
(' )
,
.. ,/ ,
\ ',-
~
-r
\ --
I , .
.
. ZONE C
&
t
......01 . _.... _,.,. __ If
IAII....O........ ,,,,,ea..... _111-
......... " .1lI. I .'" 'M.......
/ 3"-- ?
eaIMllI.. 11 ......-. - I
..,..... \
I
-
-
1
:
~
i
...
I
I
~
i
<II
...
iIi
i
I
s
i 888888888 8
I ~ ~~~. 0 !.~~ ~ 0 ~
illl- -jq 00
-
-
..
; ~ ~~~~~~~~ 8
6.~.~ C> ~~i.~ I
i_i !~'" .~-...
..
Iii 88888888 8
g~~O~~$$ $! Jlt
:;G..,~ ~S;;"'~ "'I.
..,
-00 a
-
..
8
. I
I I i I f
Illitltillll I lilll ~ II II ) i)
i.
ti
13"
..:
\ !
:rc7~ 6j~,/
~ -1'7; ~~4j
~~ ~~ ~~~~
11-.I!J ~ ~ A~-,.._~ r~ ~
-f~ .}ISfmcr ~ ~~~
. V ~ 0~Q/:/;~ /9-7 ~4 Y ~
/~~ ./pWY~~-
~ ~~<S"Y;Pc.A tf? ~ S\, vc
::ew MliY~~ ;;~~
~~A ~~
~;72-~ ,~ /'. Vt9tA./w4fA:.-
-4?tJ/1/b //1/'7 ~/o:"'~~
~ &~ ~4 :.€4t'-< - t7
y~~
JJF~#' ,K. ~ 7
FJJJ7:7
.Jf :Pt.r: ~t / )~ tKJ
0/CDV/ 7L &~J.,?-
l""'l
~~~ ,..::2)
o 0 ~tt
W f:? -CO
~ \0 ~
... l""'l ~x:
... olfi
~ I 15d
0:: >->-
~ 65
-tG' ~C' rh ph?r
~( I 3 (CIS"
IILI'II'<..J~---'--7
-- 1-
/tC:~~~~/C
/'1 ff~"'/~~ ~
V/~JI;rA/.t/
PrQfosed t! tf.32.
[It.{rreflt # '1,32-
eLM f) /
)~,,/~
.--'
RECEIVED
3990 OLD TOWN AVENUE
SUITE 107B
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 295-2822
'95 .0 23 mo :,15
CITY OF CHULA vis.
Crt( ClERK'S OFFI\.
June 21, 1995
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
"-"~' '
Re: ODen SDace District Annual Assessment. APN# 595-292-58-00
Dear City Clerk:
The purpose of this letter is to oppose the proposed
assessment in the Open Space District. My current property taxes
should cover all costs related to maintenance of the district. I
stronalv obiect to paying an assessment because the city is unable
to correctly manage the funds collected from property taxes.
Due to the Mello-Roos assessment on my property the taxes have
almost doubled. Special assessments have proven to adversely
affect the market value of properties, since there are less able
buyers willing to pay these higher taxes. This nronosed assessment
will actually cost more than its face value.
There needs to be more accountability of the use of funds by
the city. Something must be done to stop these continual attempts
to make the taxpayer pay for the inefficiency of the government.
Sincerely,
'w!t~ord
for Juliette Tyor
It"'l/
bLMDI
q.31- Cf.32.
~;:t8
I
I
:c!~ UtI'. ~Ult~
_0._ ...................0
~~, "'....~ N
l]!~!
~
Q~~$!!:
I ..-~
t:l t;(1I
~
fgO.'F:i
::.t ~
lUi~!Oi!l!;
~....:tf::IO~
...t: -
!~~~~;~
t: --
I~;;;!: :e
I4I :! ~ \Ci.
!IHU~6=
to\:'~~.o
t: --
it
.0
-
..
t
OOI;:::;;:Q
........ ....
ft-;::3
,
'"
I
~
~~~ ~ ~
\Cl .......... _
~
-
iigi~
!!!!!
~~~~~ oOl~~ 5t!Oi ~ ~
Jo~~; ~-~ _"'~ ~ ~
~
lQ
-
~
t:
~
i 1 ~E
~ ~ ~]!
! 5 j !",I il ill. ,
~j 1-1 !J!<
A&1 ~ u~..!
~~ I I I ~ i; t~I!~11
~\ i .o1~II!lB~
I' ~ 1~~II~islg
J Iii I j~llt:t:!t:IJ!
lh t ;/r i(~-~;. ..,.... ·
"'B~l~ l~O~$ ~~~ ~ :! ~
!!i:e~ =~ ~ ~;:Q:"'" -.....
ljiii I!~~i ~,~
I J~~~! ll{~~ -i!
t:: 15:;sli t;....-li lIil
-
il
Iii
t
II
i tru
IJ lilt)
IJJ !!l!
~ ~! S
! "
REVISED 7 f7 /95
Marked to show changes
RESOLUTION NO.
17956
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION
TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the City
Council has caused the formation of various districts under and
pursuant to either the Chula vista open Space District Procedural
Ordinance ("Procedural Ordinance"), as contained in Chapter 17.07
(adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Act
("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code section 22500, et
seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as Eastlake
Maintenance District No.1; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the
City Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments
for said Open Space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer's
Report"); and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1995,
Engineer's Report and set June 13,
dates for the public hearings; and,
the City Council approved the
1995 and July 11, 1995 as the
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessment for Eastlake
Maintenance District 1 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 is shown below:
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95 96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93/94 FY94/95 FY 95196 FY 95/96 % Increase FY 95196 FY95196
AssmntlEDU Assmnt/EDU AssmntlEDU Collection/EDU or Cost/EDU Revenue
Decrease(2)
ELMD #1(1) $190,566
Eastlake I $6.98 $9.31 $9.31 $4.34 0% $9.10
Eastlake Greens 10.64 14.08 15.240> 14.08 0% 15.24
OTC 0 125.95 126.20(3) 77.31 8% 126.20
Salt Creek I 6.98 168.31 168.31 158.70 1% 161.31
TC Channelal 0 6.16 24.00 16.74 270% 16.74
0) All areas share in the cost of Otay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways.
(2) Portions of Eastlake I Be and Eastlake Greens are in benefit area. Typical assessment for a single family home did not
exceed $1.24 (.2 x $6.16).
(3) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff gave notice to the owners of the amount shown.
/9-/3
WHEREAS. Council adopted Ordinance 2631 on June 13. 1995.
distinquishinq assessment from collection aqainst assessment: and
WHEREAS. Ordinance 2631 shall be effective on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption. (four days after the second public
hearinq): and
WHEREAS. the assessments levied are based on Ordinance 2631
beinq in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to Eastlake Maintenance
District No.1, that the City Council of the city of Chula vista
does hereby find that written protests against the proposed
assessment increase have not been made by owners representing more
than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed for the
improvement and confirms the diagram and assessment contained in
the modified Engineer's Report, and orders the open space and
maintenance facilities to be maintained. The adoption of this
resolution shall constitute the levy of the assessment as proposed
in the modified Engineer's Report for the 1995-96 fiscal year and
set forth hereinabove for Eastlake Maintenance District No.1...
continqent upon Ordinance 2631 takinq effect and beinq in full
force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. to-wit:
Julv 13. 1995.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard
city Attorney
/2-/4
i (
ITEM TITLE:
/I'
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /9
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Public Hearing: Open Space Districts 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, Bay
Boulevard, and Town Center Maintenance Districts for Fiscal Year 1995-96
Resolution /7f5'70enying Sweetwater Authority's request for waiver of OSD 14
assessment and ordering certain open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained,
approving modification to the Engineer's Report, establishing Zone 9 within Open
Space District 20 and levying the assessments for Fiscal Year 1995-96 Open Space
Districts 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, Bay Boulevard, and Town Center
Maintenance Districts
8.
Resolution /7ff!iuthorizing staff to initiate the Open Space proceedings for FY
1996/97
Director of Public WOrks~rr;:;
Director of Parks and ReCf ti
City Manager0G ~ -7
(4/thy Vote: Yes_No-X)
In accordance with the City Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared reports on the spread
of assessments for the open space districts. The reports were accepted and the required public hearings were
set by Council at its meeting of May 23, 1995. The first public hearing was conducted on June 13, 1995. This
agenda statement includes information related to the above districts and general information related to Open
Space Districts I and 10, and Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1.
In letters dated October 17, 1994 and June 20, 1995, Sweetwater Authority requested they be exempted from
the yearly open space assessment for a lot that they own in Open Space District 14. This report addresses that
concern.
Last, a zone needs to be established within Open Space District 20 (Rancho del Rey) to pay for that
development's share of maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Channel. A zone is an area within an open space
district that is established to pay the share of maintenance costs of an item that does not have a benefit for the
entire district.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
2) Direct staff to tally all protests.
3) Adopt the resolution to approve modifications to the Engineer's Report, establish Zone 9 within
Open Space District 20 and levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
4) Defer action on Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from the Open Space District charges
until they develop the site for their water facility or enter into an agreement with the City and
authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement.
5) Authorize staff to begin the process of determining assessments for FY 1996/97.
J9~/
Page 2, Item4
Meeting Date 7/11/95
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The budget and assessment information for Town
Center Maintenance District has been forwarded to the Town Center Committee via the Community
Development Department. As the advisory committee for the Town Center developments, the Committee has
historically reviewed this information and provided feedback to staff.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda statement is the yearly resolution to levy assessments to provide for open space maintenance within
the City. Table 1 contains the name and location of the districts. Table 2 relates the present year's assessment
to the proposed assessment and collectibleI for FY 95/96. Following Table 2, there is some general
information that applies to all the districts and then each district is analyzed individually.
As a final note, Council should be advised that agenda items _, ~ and _ contain the same information
on Open Space District Nos. 1, 10, and Eastlake which were separated due to potential conflict of interest
concerns.
Background
Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter I, Part 2 of the Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also
known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City
Engineer has prepared and filed the annual reports for all existing Open Space Districts in the City. The name
and location of each open space district is shown in the following table.
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista
Open Space Name Location
District No.
2 Lark Haven South and east of Lorna Verde Park
3 Rancho Robinhood Units 1 & 2 South of Allen School Lane
4 Bonita Ridge Camino Elevado
5 Southbay Villas Northern end of Crest Drive
6 Hilltop Vista Caroino Vista Road
7 Zenith Units 2, 3, and 4 North and south of Palomar, east of 1-805
8 Rancho Robinhood Unit 3 Surrey Drive
9 El Rancho del Rey Units Paseo del Rey, north of Telegraph Canyon Road
11 Hidden Vista Village East H Street, east of 1-805
14 Bonita Long Canyon North and south of Country Vistas Lane
15 Bonita Haciendas Canyon Drive, east of Otay Lakes Road
17 Bel Air ridge Northeast of Paseo Ladera and East J Street
I The collectible is defined in Ordinance 2631 approved 6/13/95.
/9'- ,2
Page 3, Item / 'I
Meeting Date 7/11/95
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista
18 Rancho del Sur Easterly end of East Naples Street
20 Rancho del Rey North of East H Street, west of Otay Lakes Road
23 Otay Rio Business Park West of Heritage/Otay Valley Road, south of
Otay Rio Road
24 Canyon View Homes Rutgers Avenue, south of East H Street
26 Park Bonita West of the intersection of E Street and Bonita
Road
31 Telegraph Canyon Estates North of Otay Lakes Rd, west of "SR 125"
Town Center No. I TIrird A venue, north and south of F Street
Bay Boulevard -
The Parks and Recreation Department conducted information meetings for all property owners within each
district in January and the Public Works Department conducted information meetings in June. At the January
meeting, staff explained the prelimiuary, proposed budget to 26 owners out of approximately 10,000 properties
receiving notice.
Subsequent to the budget meetings, staff recommended, and Council approved, changes to the City's Municipal
Code regarding open space to allow an inflation factor to be applied on the assessment which would not be
subject to majority protest, beginning in FY 1996/97, and to differentiate between assessments and collectibles.
The proposed budget, assessment, and ordinance change were discussed at the June meetings. There were no
unresolved open space issues remaining at the end of the meetings.
Assessments
The proposed assessments and collectibles for Fiscal Vear 1995-96 are as follows:
TABLE 2
PRIOR FY'S V.S. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % locrcase FY 95/96 FY95/96
Assnmt! Assnmt! Assnmt! Collection! or Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease(2) EDU
2 32.00 34.00 39.00(4) 30.00 15% 39.00 7,470
3 250.00 267.00 267.00 204.00 0% 259.00 25,908
4 197.00 282.00 282.00 224.00 0% 271.00 47,040
5 224.00 243.00 275.00(4) 229.00 13% 275.00 27,938
6 128.00 136.00 136.00 0.00 0% 84.00 0
7 87.00 95.00 95.00 39.00 0% 93.00 4,056
8 430.00 430.00 434.00(4) 300.00 10/0 434.00 33,000
9 92.00 101.00 123.00(4) 93.00 22% 123.00 35,712
11 81.00 83.00 84.00(4) 74.00 1% 84.00 97,756
19-J
Page 4, Item /1
Meeting Date 7/11/95
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase FY 95/96 FY95/96
AssllUlt! ASSllUlt! AssllUlt! Collection! or Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease(2) EDU
14 254.00 270.00 270.00 150.00 0% 269.00 131,004
15 234.00 234.00 240.00(4) 189.00 3% 240.00 10,773
17 124.00 124.00 124.00 0 00/0 116.00 0
18 303.00 293.00 293.00 234.00 0% 277.00 90,687
20(1) 203.00 203.00 - - - - 302,2250
Zone 1 DB(3) - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 45.28 -
Zone 2 RC - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.44 -
Zone 3 H - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90 -
Zone 4 BC - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 18.25 -
Zone 5 1 - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15 -
Zone 6 11 - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41 -
Zone 7 111 - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 130.50 -
Zone 8 NDB - 0 30.09 0 NA 30.09 -
Zone 9 TCC - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 23.89 -
23 0 335.00 335.00 205.00 0% 212.00 11,536
24 210.00 432.00 502.00(4) 341.00 16% 502.00 13,640
26 359.00 394.00 394.00 356.00 0% 356.00 6,783
31 NA 407.00 407.00 0 0% 392.00 0
Bay Blvd. 1,000.00 889.00 1291.00(4) 31.00 45% 1,291.00 310
Town Centre 43.00 45.00 45.00 39.00 0% 39.00 39,000
(1) Represented average residential assessment in SPA I.
(2) Compares FY 94/95 assessment to proposed FY 95/96 assessment.
(3) Includes supplemental item of work - drainage structure south of East H Street, east of Paseo del Rey
at no additional cost.
(4) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff noticed the owners of the amount shown.
Staff notified the property owners of the proposed FY 95/96 assessments shown above. The figures were
modified to be consistent with Council direction. The assessments, as shown, represent the current assessment
(FY 94/95) or the estimated FY 95/96 cost, whichever was greater. This provides Council with the most
flexibility whereby Council may opt to reduce assessments upon taking testimony at the hearings.
Modifications
As previously presented to Council at the June 13, 1995 open space public hearing and adopted in the FY
1995/96 budget, a minor cost (less than 3%) will be absorbed by the open space districts to cover Park and
Recreation's administration cost of $45,000. In most cases the amount proposed for collection has been revised
to accommodate the $45,000 cost. In the few cases where this couldn't be done, 2 this additional cost is covered
by reserves, interest, etc. From a practical standpoint, this 3% cost increase is considered minor as the
maintenance cost estimates are typically no more accurate than this.
2 The amount collected could not be increased above the assessment amount.
/1~Y
Page 5, Item-LL
Meeting Date 7/11/95
District Assessments and Collectibles
The assessments are generally held the same as FY 94/95 or increased to reflect the estimated FY 95/96 cost.
The assessment is generally the total amount needed for maintenance and 50% reserves not taking into account
higher reserves, interest and savings. The collectible, on the other hand, is based on the budgets, reserves,
savings, and fund balances, including interest and previous year's savings. It must always be equal to or less
than the assessment amount or else the assessment must be increased. Under the Landscape and Lighting Act
of 1972 an increase in the assessment is subject to a majority protest. This would cause the increase to be
eliminated. The collection amount can vary from year to year due to interest and savings and, as long as it is
less than the assessment amount, an increase from one year to the next cannot be eliminated by the protest.
Under staff's recommendation, a total of 12 open space districts would have an increase in assessment and be
subject to a majority protest on the increase (OSD 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, OSD 24, Eastlake and Bay
Blvd). In general, all budgets have decreased due to adjustments in contract services, utilities and City staff
services (OSDs 20 and 31 budgets are proposed to be increased)'. The decrease in utility cost is based on
actual use, not a forecast, and is due to more rainfall, which means less water was used. The decrease in
contract services affecting OSDs 2, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 26 is due to receiving and accepting lower bids on
contracts. The decrease in City staff services for most districts is due to shifting of costs to OSD 20 and OSD
31 corresponding to those districts' additional items proposed for maintenance in FY 95/96. This will be offset
by including a full cost recovery factor in the Park and Recreation staff time.
Savings from prior years are proposed to be used to supplement the property owner collections to provide the
revenue needed for FY 95/96 maintenance while maintaining reserves between 50%-65% (City Code requires
reserves between 50%-100%). For those districts where the reserve still exceeds 50-65%, staff recommends
using the savings to offset some of the assessments to give lower collectibles. Staff generally tries to keep the
assessments level or with only gradual increases, or decreases, each year.
The following summarizes the major changes for each district. Under the new policy approved June 13, 1995,
staff has made a distinction between the assessment and collectible amount; the assessment, estimated cost and
collection will become the same number whenever an increase in assessment is necessary. The proposed
assessment per EDU for FY 95/96 represents, in half the cases, the prior year's assessment. The prior year
assessment differed from cost depending on reserves, savings, etc. This year, the cost per EDU' is the figure
that was mailed to the property owners and the collectible is the amount to be collected which is affected by
reserves, savings, etc. The collectible per EDU reflects impacts of the reserve requirements, ending fund
balances and savings. For a detailed outline, see Attachment A.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated FY95-96
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 Revenue
AssmtJ AssmtJ AssmtJ Collection! or Decrease CostJEDU
EDU EOU EDU EOU
I~SO No.2 $32.00 $34.00 $39.00 $30.00 15% $39.00 $7,470
Lark Haven
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $34.00 to $39.00 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
to reflect the ultimate estimated cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $5.00 increase per EDU. However, staff
recommends a collection of $30 per EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up
the difference ($9). These excess funds are available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual
, This does not reflect increase(s) due to the full cost recovery factor of $45,000.
, Or if FY94/95 assessment was greater, staff noticed owners of that amount.
/~-f
"
Page 6, Item I 9"
Meeting Date 7/11/95
services. The reserve under this recommendation will be 60%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $1,420'
for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY95-96 % lncrease FY95-96 FY95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 3 $250.00 $267.00 $267.00 $204.00 0% $259.00 $25,908
Raucho Robinhood
Units 1 & 2
Staff recommends that the assessment of $267 per EDD remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $259. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of$204 per EDD from
residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($55). These excess funds are
available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 76%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $3,570 for City staff services from the
OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % lncrease FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU EDU .
I~SD No.4 $197.00 $282.00 $282.00 $224.00 0% $271.00 $47,040
Bonita Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $282 per EDD remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $271. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $224 per EDD from
residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($47). These excess funds are
available because of prior year savings mostly in utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be
55%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $5,800 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 5 $224.00 $243.00 $275.00 $229.00 13% $275.00 $27,938
Southbay Villas
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $243 to $275 per EDD to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $32.00 per EDD increase. However, staff recommends a collection of
$229 per EDD from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($46). These
excess funds are available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The
reserve under this recommendation will be 68%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $3,630 for City staff
services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
, The figures presented here, for each district, excludes full cost recovery amount of $45,000.
19~~
f "'J
Page 7, Item--.f.J-
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
IOSD No.6 $128.00 $136.00 $136.00 $0.00 0% $84.00 0
Hilltop Vista
Staff recommends that the assessment of $136 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of$84. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection this year, since there is a
sufficient fund balance for all maintenance. These excess funds are available because a substantially lower bid
was received resulting in excess funds. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the maximum
allowed under the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refunds could be processed to lower the reserve below 100%.
Staff recommends against this alternative, as it is costly to process refunds. The General Fund will be
reimbursed $1,780 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
IOSD No.7 - Zenith $87.00 $95.00 $95.00 $39.00 0% $93.00 $4,056
Units 2, 3, & 4
Staff recommends that the assessment of $95 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of$93. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $39 per ED U from residents,
since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($54). These excess funds are available
because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under
this recommendation will be 65%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $1,510 for City staff services from
the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 8 $430.00 $430.00 $434.00 $300.00 1% $434.00 $33,000
Rancho Robinhood
Unit 3
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $430 to $434 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $4.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of $300 per
EDU from resident, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($134). These excess
funds are available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and adjusting the reserve
balance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 60%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $4,940
for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
/9- ?
-I
Page 8, Item4
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
10SD No.9 $92.00 $101.00 $123.00 $93.00 22% $123.00 $35,712
EI Raocho del Rey Units
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $101 to $123 per ED U to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $22.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of $93 per
EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($30). These excess
funds are available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs and adjusting
the reserve balance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 64%. The General Fuud will be
reimbursed $4,910 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No. 11 $81.00 $83.00 $84.00 $74.00 1% $84.00 $97,756
Hidden Vista Village
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $83 to $84 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $1.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of $74 per
EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($10). These excess
funds are available because of prior year savings mostly caused by delayed turnover of new improvements and
lower bids. The reserve under this recommendation will be 60%. The General Fund will be reimbursed
$10,880 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 %Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No. 14 $254.00 $270.00 $270.00 $150.00 0% $269.00 $131,004
Bonita Long Canyon
Staff recommends that the assessment of $270 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $269. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $15 0 per EDU from
residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($119). These excess funds are
available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 65%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $22,330 for City staff services from the
OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Sweetwater Authority owns a PC zoned lot for future construction of a water tank within OSD 14. The
Authority has requested waiver from the OSD assessment (see Attachment C). Staff does not support this
request as the land is vacant and could potentially be sold as a residential lot. Sweetwater Authority's Master
Plan (1993) shows this area to be the future site of a water tank. Staff recommends that Council consider an
exemption at the time water facilities are constructed. Altematively, staff recommends that Council grant the
waiver beginning FY 95-96 if the Authority enters into an agreement with the City guaranteeing payment of
all charges should the lot be developed for other purposes.
/?-y
Page 9, Item /9
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmtl Assmtl Assmtl Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 15 $234.00 $234.00 $240.00 $189.00 3% $240.00 $10,773
Bonita Haciendas
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $234 to $240 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $6.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of$189
per EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($51). These excess
funds are available because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 62%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $1,840 for City staff services from the
OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmtl Assmtl Assmtl Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
IOSD No. 17 $124.00 $124.00 $124.00 0.00 0% $116.00 0
Bel Air Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $124.00 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than
the cost of $116. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no annual collection, since there
is a sufficient fund balance for all maintenance. These excess funds are available because of prior year savings
mostly in utility costs and drainage maintenance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the
maximum allowed under the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refunds could be processed to lower the reserve
below 100%. Staff recommends against this alternative as it is costly to process refunds. The General Fund
will be reimbursed $2,200 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmtl Assmtl Assmtl Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 18 $303.00 $293.00 $293.00 $234.00 0% $277.00 $90,687
Rancho del Sur
Staff recommends that the assessment of $293 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $277. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of$234 per EDU from
residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($43). These excess funds are
available because of prior and estimated current year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs.
The reserve under this recommendation will be 72%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $10,490 for City
staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
19-;
'/
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96
Assnmt/EDU Assnmt/EDU Assnmt/EDU CollectionlEDU Decrease(l) Cost/EDU
OSD No. 20 . - . . . .
Rancho del Rey
Zone I Desilt Basin . 36.67 45.28 0 23% 45.28
Zone 2 Rice Canyon - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.44
Zone 3 H St. . 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90
Zone 4 Business Center . 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 18.25
Zone 5 SPA I . 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15
Zone 6 SPA II . 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41
Zone 7 SPA III . 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 130.50
Zone 8 North Desilting - 0 30.09 0 NA 30.09
Basin
Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon . 0 23.89 16.61 NA 23.89
Channel
Rancho del Rey is a phased development of three Sectional Planning Areas (SP A). SPA I is approximately
50% developed, SPA II homes are under construction and SPA 1lI land is being graded. The OSD was
established in 1989 encompassing all three areas with the understanding that the open space improvements
would be constructed in phases. Because this is a large district and not all of the items to be maintained have
a benefit to the entire district, OSD 20 is made up of several zones as indicated above. Every property within
the district is in more than one zone.
Staff recommends increasing the FY 95/96 assessments to the estimated ultimate cost. As the developer and
guest builders own the majority ofland in SPAs II and 1lI, protests will be minimized if increases are effected
this year. SPA II assessment ($211) is recommended to increase to accommodate the turnover of improvements
associated with it. Staff recommends the collection for SPA 1lI ($6/EDU) be substantially less than the
proposed assessment ($130) because the development is not completed (except the Telegraph Canyon medians).
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment for SPA I (Zone 5) from $187 per EDU to $275 per EDU to
reflect the ultimate estimated cost. However, staff recommends collecting a lesser amount (collectible) of $83,
since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($192). These excess fimds are available
because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs due to delayed tornover of
improvements.
Staff recommends minor assessment increases (less than $15/EDU total) for Zones 1-3 to reflect the ultimate
estimated cost. Current year assessments are less because of savings, etc. A typical parcel in OSD 20 is
assessed for up to four different zones. Table 3 summarizes the combination of assessments. The proposed
new Zone 9 is summarized in Table 4.
/9-/t:l
Page 11, Item~
Meeting Date 7/11/95
TABLE 3
Typical Combined Assessment (FY 95-96)
SPA I (Zones lor 8, 2, 3, & 5) $298
SPAll (Zones 1 or 8, 2, 3, & 6) 265
SPA III (Zones 1 or 9, 3, & 7) 144
Business Center (Zones 1, 2, 3, & 4) --
Industrial (per acre) 814
Commercial (per acre) 1,005
The reserve under this recommendation will be 41 %. Pursuant to City Municipal Code, the reserve will be
increased to 50% (minimum) over 5 years.
TABLE 4
OSD 20 - Proposed Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon Channel
Channel Silt Fence Plant Total RDR @ 2.4% FY 95/96 Assmt CollectionlED
Removal Share of Cost & CostlEDU U FY 95/96
Phase 1 $4,079 $4,822 $8,901 $214 $4.92 $4.92
Phase 2 5,743 12,449 18,192 437 10.04 10.04
Phase 3 6,407 6,780 13,187 317 7.28 0.00
SUBTOTAL $40,280 968 $22.24/EDU 14.96
FORMATION COST 72 $1.65/EDU 1.65
TOTAL $1,040 $23.89/EDU 16.61
- The methodology for spreading the cost is consistent with the methods for the existing OSD 20 drainage
zones.
- A typical residential lot in Zone 9 is equal to 0.2 drainage EDU's for a Zone 9 assessment of $4.78 (.2
EDU x $23.89/EDU) and collection of $3.32 (.2 EDU x 16.61).
Pursuant to the agreement between Eastlake Development Company and the City, dated August 2, 1988 and
approved by Resolution 13716, the City shall use its best efforts to establish a maintenance district for the
Telegraph Canyon channel between Eastlake and Rancho del Rey. In July 1994, Council established a zone
within ELMD 1 to share the maintenance costs of this section of channel. As Rancho del Rey final maps are
pending, it is appropriate to establish a similar zone within OSD 20.
If approved, properties whose stormwater runs off to the channel (south half of SPA 3) will be subject to the
additional assessment as shown in Table 4 based on their prorated share of the Telegraph Canyon basin (2.4%).
Rancho del Rey or one of the guest builders are the sole property owners in the proposed Zone 9 and
consequently staff does not anticipate any protests.
J9'11
Page 12, Item--1i
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Staff recommends a collection of only $16.61 per EDU from residents to provide adequate funds for Phase 1 and 2
maintenance. Phase 3 is not anticipated to be ready for turnover during FY 95/96. The General Fund will be reimbursed
$67,740 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
IOSD No. 23 - Otay $0 $335.00 $335.00 $205.00 0% $212.00 $11,536
Rio Business Park
Staff recommends that the assessment of $335 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $212. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. The higher amount of $335 was recommended by
the developer, based on his costs, in 1993. As there is a short history on this district, staff does not recommend
lowering the assessment at this time.
Staff recommends a collection of $205 per EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make
up the difference ($7). These excess funds are available because of prior and estimated current year savings
mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this recommendation will be 50%. The General Fund will
be reimbursed $1,550 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 24 - $210.00 $432.00 $502.00 $341.00 16% $502.00 $13,640
Canyon View
Homes
Note: OSD 24 consists of only 40 townhomes sharing in the cost of large, landscaped slopes adjacent
to the townhomes.
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $432 to $502 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $70.00 per EDU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of
$341 per EDU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($161). These
excess funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly due to delayed turnover of
improvements. The reserve under this recommendation will be 69%. The General Fund will be reimbursed
$2,530 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 0/0 Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No. 26 $359.00 $394.00 $394.00 $356.00 00/0 $356.00 $6,783
Park Bonita
Staff recommends that the assessment of $394 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $356. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
/9-;.2.
Page 13, Itemfl
Meeting Date 7/11/95
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $3 5 6 per ED U from
residents. The reserve under this recommendation will be 33% and is being increased to 50% over 5 years per
City Code. The General Fund will be reimbursed $1,140 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY
95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmtl Assmtl Collection! or Decrease Cost/EOD Revenue
EOD EOD EOD EOD
OSO No. 31 NA $407.00 $407.00 $0 0% $392.00 $0
Telegraph Canyon
Estates
Staff recommends that the assessment of $407 per EOU remain the same as FY94/95. This is more than the
cost of $392. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection, since there is a
sufficient fund balance for all maintenance. These excess funds are available because of prior year savings due
to the fact that the City has not yet accepted the improvements, but began collecting the assessment in the belief
that we would begin maintaining it this fiscal year. The reserve under this recommendation will be 50% as
turnover of improvements is not anticipated to occur until January of 1996. The General Fund will be
reimbursed $13,070 for City staff services from the OSO funds for FY 95/96.
Council approved staff's recommendation last year to assess the full estimated maintenance cost even though
95% of the improvements would not be ready for maintenance. Council approved refunding 95% of the
assessment. Under the ordinance change approved June 13, 1995 making the distinction between assessment
and collection, refunds are not necessary saving the property owners the cost of administering refunds.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection or Oecrease Cost! Revenne
EOD EOD EOD /BOD EOD
Bay Blvd OSO $1,000.00 $889.00 $1291.00 $31.00 45% $1291.00 $310
Note: Costs of this district are shared between four commercial parcels.
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment of $889 to $1291 per EOU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $402 per EOU increase. However, staff recommends a collection of $31
per EOU from residents, since there is a sufficient fund balance to make up the difference ($1260). These
excess funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in utility costs and a prior year
delinquency brought current. The prior year delinquency amount, as outlined for Council last year, had not
been accounted for in the fund balance and the property owners were "over-assessed." Staff has revised the
procedure to prevent this from occurring in the future. The reserve under this recommendation will be 62%.
The General Fund will be reimbursed $7,650 for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
19"13
Page 14, Item.-lL
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
Town Center Open $43.00 $45.00 $45.00 $39.00 0% $39.00 $39,000
Space Maintenance
District
Staff recommends that the assessment of $45 per EDD remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of$39. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $39 per EDD from the
residents. The reserve under this recommendation will be 53%. The General Fund will be reimbursed $19,400
for City staff services from the OSD funds for FY 95/96.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and
Information Systems. The General Fund will be reimbursed $233,2016 for staff time from the OSD funds for
FY 1995/96. All other costs, which includes contract services, utilities, and landscape supplies are estimated
to be $1,441,067 (see Attachment A). Of the total budget amount, $884,838 will be recovered by the collectible
and the remaining $789,430 will be paid for by excess reserves. There is no General Fund impact.
Attachments:
A Cost Summary
B District Maps
C Sweetwater's Request
D Protests
M:\...\lIgenda\OSph2.dds
6 Includes $45,000 for full cost recovery.
19..-/(
.
.
~
-
~
~
~
~
o
<.>
w
~
'"
z
l!!
z
i
...
o
i
w
4:
~
ft/ (/
'.
8888888 ~ 0 ! ...
8: -
N ...
~~iQ~~~ s: ...
- ...
. ~ - N
~ 0\ NO. _'" '" ... ...
N _ ~
.... - ...
~ 8888888 8 ~~~~~ 0 ~~ ..'i!.
i~ -
N ... N
~~iQ~~~ 0 '" OlE'" E viN
~ ~. ...~ ~
"," vi' ..: \Do. ! 0. 00. ...
...- N ... '"
~- ... ...
I:J! 8888888 8 8~888 0 ...'i!. a~. :;Cl Iii~
-
N .. -
~o;' ~~iQ~i~ Q . V\ . . . ~<;' N ....
S. ~. o~~. ... ... ...
:;; ~ ..
~ \Co. .. .. .. ..
'" ... -'" In - -...
...- ... ..~
- ... ...
i 8888888 8 ~ ~~ ~
Siiiogli28 ~ - ~~ ,.;
- ....
. ......"\ N _.... .o. N ...
~ ...0 '" ~ ... ...
N_
t'>- ...
~ ~~~~~~~ 8 ~~~~~ ~ !'i!. !~
i~ - ..o
~.~.~o~~i ~. ~ . N
~ 0.....,.. 0..
N- ~
.. \D.. 0'\...
l:l8: .oN .. '" .. '" ... ...
-- ... N N'"
~- ... ... ...
I:J! 8888888 8 ~~~~~ ... ..~ iH~ !1l N~
N ...~
- 0. ...
~o;' ~iiQgli2~ Q . N .;'
:::l o~~ ;I' ... . ...
- '" l!l
0'" 00..-.. N "1. o. 0. 0 N
~ .o - ... ... ...... N'" .. ... ..
- - ... N ... N
- ... ... ...
8 88888 8 ~~~~~ 0. ; ...
8: ....
N N
~ iQ~~~ ~ V\ 0001"'- ... ..;
- ... ... .. ~ ~
. "'- f"l f"l r--.. - "l. .... '1
..~ ~ - :i .. ..'"
...
~-
i~ ~~~~~~~ 8 8~888 0. ~~ 00';1.
..
N 0. .o
~ . V\ . . . .. vi
~.~.~o~s1.i :q oj!!!!j; ... ....
... 1"'-... ...... \0.. ... ...
l:lt ~N - - '" ..=
-
~- ...
;! 888 888 ~ ~ ~~~~~ 0. ~~ 00 0. ;:~
~ ~t;:.. ...
gSi ~~~ 0 ~. ~. o~~ ~o;' ... 50;'
00;' t;
~ "l.-'" ... ... ...
",...r - '" ..t;
- ... ...
8
Ii sl lZl !
~ i 01 ~
I 1 1
hul >-
~ 1.1! 9 'j old ,5 .8 j :S'" ro. !
! ~ ~
J lllllll11 ~ it 8j it
1
· T I~J f ;lJ!~ t I
~~lJiJl' l~' '" J~
f2 ~ ~3~ ~ ~J !~ ~ ~J
~ /9-/3
i
.l!
~
I
.:.:
!
~
...-
i
i~
~-
eJ~
~:A
s:
-
~
-
-
~
~
~
E
o
u
OJ
u
z
<
z
~
j
IL
o
i
OJ
8i
-
,
..,
'Os:
0-
ll:
~~
- '
Cl!
~-
eJ
~~
'"
s:
-
!
-
,
:;:
'"
",-
i
t'"
e~
a!
~-
eJ~
~:\
s:
-
c
!Z
OJ
I
u
~
<
8888888
~ggoggg
f"ooV'\t'I"I Nr--M
~..; ..:
8888888
gggooog
...."l..., l:i 1;;. N
01;" -
8888888
&jggoggg
\D.........tf'I M "'l.N
..,.., -
M
8888888
g2gog~:;:j
OOO\t' t'f'lOO_
N" N
-
M
8888888
~~gQg~~
ooor-- t'I"IO-
MID" M"
-
M
8888888
si~gogg:;:j
\QOf'-o f"'ll'"-_
","", -"
M
8888888
:;:j:;:js;io~~:;:j
0000150 O\Q_
O"\l:J" ."
t:l
8888888
ggs;io~g:;:j
It"lt'l"lOl5 0'\__
0\" otO ."
-
M
8888888
oOiooOOO
-""" ~MN
"'\ 'ID.. 0\ \C.. _
"'00 ..,
;;
Ii 1
R ~ I J 0 01 ~ oR J
] JHI~Un;
~~ jJ l!j ~ tt~ J
8
i
c'
-
M
8
~
~
-
-
M
8~888
~"'oi~
010" 0" 0\
_M
!
-
s
r;;
M
8
~.
'"
M
8~888
.n\Ddc--iff'i
c "''''
C"l. ~o..
\D =:
!
-
li~
E
8
~
~
8 8~888
g ~...o.,;..;
- "l. ~s.
f'f'I" \C ..... N
N _ -N
M M
8
~
..,
-
M
~~~~~
~_c~i
.., ...
- N
!
-
...~
i'?
~
"l.
..,
;l
8
i.
..,
..,
M
8~888
. \C . . .
~ c!::~
'" -~
...: \D" 0\"
N ~~
N
~
8
..
N
-
M
8
~
..,
;l
8~888
V"i\Cdo\"o
Ii;; ~~
N oo"r--"
N NN
M
N
~
-
\C'#.
N~
.,;
..,
-
M
8
, hul
~ ~ijl~
~ ~l>l~3~
~
-
~~
l'7
~
-
~
;!i
N
M
~
-
~~
..;
..
N
M
~
-
..."#.
0'9
:i
N
M
~~
M",
01;
aa
'" 00 '"
~~ ~
..,...... ..
N
M
1 Ql f
! ti ~
if ]! ~
11 ~I I
8A! Je.: ~
;
~ /7"-/~
..,
N
~
M
::::5
.-
-
-
M
'"
'"
M
.....~
Noo
,.;-
",'
'"
...
'"
...
..,
;;
o'#.
-~
..;
...
-
'"
~
..,
-
'"
Cf'I"t!.
'" -
..;"'j
1\1&
8
.,;
...
N
'"
",';1.
.., -
,..:
...
N
M
...'#.
...-
lIl'
...
N
'"
!
08
j
~ ~
Ii
~
"""
I
CIl
~
r
u:
.
.
I
-
.:
!
~
~
~
8
III
U
Z
~
~
j
...
o
III
I
c
It
u
~
<
fi 88888888 8 ~ a ~ -
...; 0
Sii~~c:ig~c:ig c:i 12 ... ...; !
- \C.<"\.. ...."\.~... ... =
, \C. - -
8! ~"'... ~ .... ..
- ...
- ..... -
- ..
-
i", 88888888 8 ~~~~~ a ..'#. ~~
...; "'''' ...~
I~ g~~egSii~g ~ '" 0 ... ... a ~...
:<I. '-.~. ...
~CJ'\.... 1"'"0.. N -
....~... ... '" fn ~2
li - -
- -
i! .. ..
88888888 i. ~~~~~ a =~ ~ ~. a :g~
~i~ega~~ ...; ~.. i'
I~ ! O~l!: ...
... ~
.. .... ..... .. -. "\ -
r--OOtf'l (:I - l;; i!
li'" - -
- -
..
fi 88888888 8 ;;I; .. ~
... .. ...
~e~c:ieee~ ~ ~ ""
- N _r--M ~
, .. V'\.... 0.. \C.. tf'I ...
8! -.. - _'" - 0- ..
... - ~
",- ..
i 88888888 8 8~888 ;;I; i~ S;;~
!~ ...
~.~~ e ~.~.~~. ~ . "" . . . ...;- ""
~ =~-
"\ <"\.S. 0 ...
..... - -
2Sfi !::~_ _In _ &:! ~ ~o- .. ..
~- .. .. l:l
eJ! 88888888 8 ~~~~~ ;;I; fii~ ... ... ... Vl~
... 0- - ... \OS
~.. e~~eggSii8 g ..... =0\00 E' .. ..... - s:i"i'
;;1;. . o.o-....~. .. -~ '" ..
0'" ~. ... "1."\ ... -
~ 0\00- -... - li g "'''' .. ..
-- ~ ...
- .. ..
88888888 8 0 ~ 8
fi -
-
ee~eeeee g ~ ....
- __ N.....N ...
. V'\."\C'f'I ... ......fl") "\ ~ ~
8! _ 0- '" li
...
.. - ..
i 8888888 8 ~i~~~ 0 ~~ S~
i~ -
-
g~~eSiig:;j ~ _ eoof'Pl e ~
~ ~~. ...
f'oo... .. C'f'I .... "\ tf'I ~
Q~ 0- '" 0- ... ~....
~- l:l- ~ ... ...~
.. ~~~~~ 0 ,~ .';!!.
"'! 8888888 ~ - ~~. ~
- ... .. ...
~- g~~eSii~Sii ~ ..... otf'li I'? ~ ~.
oJ. - ... ...
"""....f'Pl ..... "tf'I ~ - ... ~
~ 00 ~ li r;tS ...,;'",," ..
...- ... ~...
- .. ..
8
n. Jlj i i ~l en- ~
1 ~ o~
~
] ;e" ~ ]
I oil :a o~ ~ 0 0 ~hul ! E ~
l ~!lljl t- II ~] Ii
1
Hllhhlld I 111]; ~ iJ
!
-O!
I
i
~
I
I
u.:
~ /9 - / 7
~
-
g: ~ 8 88 8 8 ~ ~ ~
~ g ~g ~ ~ ~ oti
- '"
. a - '" .... - -
..~ '" vi .. ..
..
--
i 8 8 ~~ ~ ~~ ...';/1.
i~ 8 ~ ~i~~~ .... ..,
~ g ~~ ~ ~ :::i S~::; ... ....
~i .... ..,
<"l. - Q ,,",OCt- - -
;: .... ~ \IS M"'O/O""," .. ..
..
~-
Il~ 8 8 88 8 8 ~~~~~ ~ I~ ~~ ... l5j~
~
~- ~ g ~g ~ ~ :e-~~~ ='";' .. ",,-
-'
o . - "'<"l. "l. -
~ "l. .
- .... '" '" ......, ...
- .. .. -
8888888 8 .... .., ....
g: '" .... -
~giog~~ ~ ... ,..;
- .., ...
. OO...M NQ_ ;: ....
.., S;;..:' .... ~ ..
=~ ..
0 8~888 I;; ~~ -'#.
z 8888888 8
i~ ....-
~giog~~ ~ . '" . . . ... ...
~ O!::;; .., ...
t"\N N__ .. ......t"'l.. .... ....
~... .... ..:' 00 00 .., .. ..
IS~ - -
~- .. ..
~~~~~ .... t~ ~~
Il~ 8888888 8 '" .... .., 0
!In:: '"
~'";' ~iiog~~ 0 ~ o~~ m'7 "'0 ;: ~ ..
-
og: ..f'I'l.N N..- ..... ""'.. C"'l."':. - -
~... - .., 00 _0 ... ... ...
- --
- ... ...
8888888 8 .., ~ ~
g: lO;
~i~oggi g ... ....
- '" ....
. 1oC..f'1... -...-:'f'1. .., .... ....
.., ~O\.. t"'l__ g; ... ...
:!:~ '" ..,
- ....
... ...
0 ~~~~~ 5] ",';/I. oo"#.
z 8888888 8
i~ ..,'" 00'"
g~~ogii ~ ; 00\0 ~ oti
00
"l. .. -."l.<"l. . S.-:- ....
~g: ~Q:l;'" ..,'" - .... - 00'" ... ...
.... '" ~ -::I
- ....
~- ... ... .......
~~~~~ .., ~~ ...~
Il~ 8888888 8 lO; :ilg 12 ....
gg~oggi ~ .;,. .... .;
~'";' .... QV"lN .....: ...
- -.... ... :l:
"'t. 00.... -:. t'I'). C"i. <"l. ........ rt I"";. - ..,
~ ~~.. <<"\:;::1_ '" ;:; ~~ .. ;; ..
..,
- - ;: - ....-
... ...
8
ij J i I ~I (i;' !
IS ~
, J' R bul 's. 'E
~J :a'" J
J ntJWi1 ~ ~ g
I :af ~J j ~j
.!l S f~ ~ ~] :f II]!~ :a i Ii
~~'l -SJ-ll DO ~- 0
J~~j tJ~J:I~J ~ 8J rl
gj ~~~3~ J~ ~ Ill...
-
!
~
~
~
o
o
w
o
z
~
~
j
~
i
Ii;
w
c
!Z
w
I
o
~
<
~ 1'j-/8"
""""
,
~
5
.a
j
o
Ji
8
'"
-
..
}
5
III
j
""""
j
~
!
!'
J
Ii:
T
.
.
~ ~~~ 88 8 gg ... .,.,
.: l ... ... ...,
l C>C>8 ~ ~ft i a s
- - ...
. "l....,."'l. ~ ... ...
... ...- - .... .. ..
~ to... - ....
~ -
~- ..
i.,., 8~888 .. ..~ -"it.
t 888 88 8 ..
i~ ... ... ... .,., ...,
~.~.~ ~~ ~. ff'i""c:i"':ri g' 0;
~ ... ~.,., ....
"'I. . C>. ...
... .. - ... ~ .,., ~..., ..
8 to... - ... ...
- -
'" ~ .. ..
~ 888 88 8 8~888 .. ~~ ... ... ...'#.
:i I10f .. ~
... a ~. ......,
'" ~:t: ~~.~ ~~. ~. ...;r-df"ioO ~. .. t::~
!z ~ .,.,.. ~
"'l. ... ....
i ~ i~- C> S !:: ~~ .. ...
-
- - ..
... ...
0 8
i -
I It i!j . I i i
Ii; ut ~
'"
hu~ 1 ~
! -.. !
.;,: 1 ~ 100
it 1 h!J~h:lt I ~t ]! ~ I~
u mlnhd~1 jing iJ 1 I.
~ '" II I
~ R
< ~~!~ :(
...
/9-/1
~- -
~
-
-
!
~
t
l'.!
fl
(,)
...
~
~
...
~
i
~
i
...
<
~
w
!
(,)
~
c
-...
,
888 8888 8 ... 8 ...
ii - ...
~~~ ~sii ~ '" ~
- '"
, 00. _ "'l. ... ... ...
... ...- - ... ...
lll~ ...
~ 888 8888 8 8~888 ... ~~ ~~
i! -
dcie dcc:io ~ r-,iNd"";",,; ~- ...;
... -.... ...............00 '" ...... '"
00.. Ol - .. ... ... "'. ... ...
Q~ ...- - -' ti ... ...
... }
~-
oii:
eJ~ 8~~ 8888 8 8~~:tl8 ... =~ ....... "3- ~~
-
~iii '" 00 .5
~- ' .. .. ~ oOf""I ~"'" "'" ... .... ... ~
fZ-r-- ... . ... "
0,)., ","'- - ... lEl ...~ '" ~ J
- ...
.- N . ... ...
! ...
... ~
88888888 8 .. 00 ..
ii . ... '"
~S~Q82si Q Q Q
- - - ~
. f'i.-OO ....--N "'l. a
~ .....r-: . l=i
-
.- ... ...
"!
~'" 88888888 8 ~~~~~ i ...'" :q~
... '"
~~ ~~~Q~~Si Q , .. ' ...
'" O~f""I :;l- ~,
... ~ ...
"1....00 00.._ N -:. . ."'l. ~ '"
iiiOO ... - .. ..... ...
B~ ... - -- }
... ...
~ 8~ i .'#. V)'$.. "'"
eJ~ 888 8888 8 ~~ ~~ ...
.- .. ...-;> .5
~~~ 8~si 2 ...;'" . ... '"
~";' '" ... a' ... . ... N J
1::. ~ :2. ... ~
"l. ... 00 .oo..-N - -
0'" ~ ... '"
8: 00 00 - ... .....
... - ...-
- ... ...
ii ~ ~
- I 1:
,
rl~
~ ~
~
~~ 88888888 8 8S888 ~ ~ ~ !!
iQ~QQQQi ~. ~-QQ~ ...; ~ ~
- -r--.... ...
Ill). \C.. N"'.. N ... ...
Bii ...... ... .... - 00 ... ... ...
... - - >-
~- ... ... ....
~ ,5
88888888 8 ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ '" =~ I
~~ ...
~~~Qg~i~ ~ Il~ ... '" ... N~
~ ..~~ .....: ... -
'o..f"\ N").. .. t"l."1. N - N
8: ~. - - '" "'- '" ... '"
- - :;!
- ... ... al
8 I
II 1 I [ "I E!
~ CI)
15 ~ ~
j is hul 's.
R ~ :s J ,R j ~ ,R Jj ~J :s .," .... !
~ ~ g
] l~.f]sJ~11 I :sf ~J I :;l ~ I
.!I S 8. 'i ~ ~ ,I f JI]l~ Ii
Jjjjj8Jlj}~ ~ 'j J ~ i J
~ts~ li.l ~ !~ ;,(
0:.:
-rr-LY Itt-c2O
I
.
.
~
~
~
~
..,
~
~
~
o
w
o
z
~
l!!
z
i
...
o
,
w
- I
l 88 8888 ~~~ 8 ~ GO ~
on
~.~. c:iS~~ ~~~ ~ - ..; -
- ~ on
. ..-:, ..- ...
g: c... -.... - -
- .... on
i~; ... ...
8888888 ~~ 8 ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ....#.
....-
~~~c:i~~8 Ci ~ ...... el"'-l' - .,; ...
ij~ on _on ~ on
. . "'I. .. - "1. "'1."1. ...
er--- _N .... '" ....on
- .... on .... ..~
... ...
~ ~ 8888888 ~~ 8 8~8!:;8 ~ lf~ "'~ on ~~
~g~c:iSS~ ~. . '" . 0\ . 0\'7 ~ . ~ e\~
Ci e o..~ -
- S ~lf .... '" ....
,), ..\0.. -.........- - ... ~ ...
~ C...- -a- '" -: oM ","
- - ~ .... ....
- ... ...
~~ ~~~~~ 8 8 C i 8
l -
cc ~~~ic g ~ ~ '"
t ~ :l::l ....
00 .. - .... - .... "l.
..; GO ..; - -
~~~ ... - ... ...
...
~ion 88 ~~~~ 8 ~ ~~~~~ C 8~ ~~
-
dd g '-
.. ~ ~i~i C S_c~~ ~. -
-.... - ....
.. - "'..... 00......_.... - ~ C"i, "\ 00.. GO .....
~~! ~ "". .... "'~ ... -
- - - ...
...
~ 88 88888 ~ 8 ~~~~~ C i#. -c - g~
-
,l!i: ....- '"
Sg ~~c:ig~ i c:i ... .... "'I. . _
- 8 eo":!; ;;;- ... -
_ - - ~
~ ......... GO "'. .... - - "'. .... .... ... ...
.... ... .... oc" .. M -
... - ...
- ...
- ion ;:~~ ~8S 8 on on lEI l;C
....
PO ~ .......... !. ~ .... ij ~
ii~ ...... ...
- -
... ...
i 888 888 I~~~ 8~8:i8' on (;;#. ~~ i ~::!;
~ ....
.... on_ ,.::2:
~S~ ~J~ ~~.~ ' '''l.' 'c
- c ~"'l a,'i" '"
~ ~ f'\ -.. .. ......... l:l
i~~ .... .... ~-~ --
- ...
- - -
M
8
t} l ui r;:o ~
" ,j!,! , 1 ~ '~
hul j ;:eM ~ j
i l!tljjh1r ~ H g
I ~J 8j iJ
I
!tlJI~I~fl!1 ;Il!~ ~ ~J ~! j
~ ~3i ! -<
~
J!
~
~
-
M
I
9
!
U;
~ /'1-.;21
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1, 1995
"""'I
OPEN SPACEDISTRICfNO. 20
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contract Services $340,350.00 $218,580.00 $318,500.00
Utilities 226,430.00 262,530.00 203,750.00
Materials to main bldgs,struct. 21,450.00 18,470.00 18,470.00
Service to main bldg,struct,grds 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Supplies 16,930.00 14,130.00 14,130.00
City Staff Services 67,740.00 64,470.00 71,840.00
Backflow Certification 760.00 360.00 360.00
Trash Collection & Disposal 2,800.00 1,960.00 1,960.00
Professional Services
Supplementals
Other commodities
Advertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COST $676,460.00 $580,500.00 $629,010.00
Reserve Requirement 278,626.00 350,052.00
Reserve Percent 41% 65%
Additional reserve
Less Fund Balance
NET ASSESSMENT
See attached
EDU'S worksheet
Collectible/EDU
Percent change from prior years
Even dollar collectible
Revenue from even $ payment
Assessment (NTE FY94/95)
Budget/EDU
Percent chanlle from Drior years
"""'I
~
F:\home\Engineer\Openspac\OSfcr.wq 1
/7 --e-l~
.
.
.
~ll-
~ Z [
~ If
llll,-
~II
~~~
~~
~~
~
~j~
~
i~"
1ql
Cllg',
1IIg',-
~o/ll&l,
~"''8
~ Cll
=Sif")~r--~o~
~~~~""
- -
r:~~~~ef't\=o
.00\8\. to-
.~~~gg ~
c:>=.!.~.~c:>~c:>c:>
"'Sl!l~ r-
l@~~~~~~C:>~
'" . . "l. . .
_~~~~N
=~e~@oo==
.';i.
C:>s:!22N~C:>~C:>!:I
"i."l."l.~ "l. r-
\DlI'lO\~ r--
--N
l@ ~ ~.~!;~~ c:> c:>
t!~~~~:t
...-
e. ~~~~i
CrtiSO-Ntt'lzfj
~~~~~~~~~
I . I I I I I I I
_Ntt'l"'V'l\Cr--OOO'\
~~~~~~~~~
~
~
;1;
N
19
c
'"
'"
~.
8!
~
~
~
(
~
~~
.~ ~
~~~
i i
~::l:E
!i~'"
:!l_~
7t1i
!N_
~~~~
Z"';Ntf')
~.
~
\0
~ /1~;2)
G~
ffia-
~
-'"
ai
~
~~
8~
~
.Sl~
1~
=~
8
~-s~
.$ ::i ~
S<~
~ '"
e~
~c;!;
~
~
~~1':l1':l888~&'l
. . . . . . N . .
~~:q~P3~~~~
rt'l...\&)...N.....,; .........
gI:~:s~~8~88
~...;t"i~~ogoo
"'NO...."'....088
o N0\............ <q-ClO
.....lM~\tSvi~....;oo
......1'............
NN
~
88:R~1Xl~Sl8Sl
Oc::iMOf'f"lOO.....;trio\tS
.... ....
N
~;~:q:!l~~~!iO
.,.;t"i~od:6...;oot"i
'V ...... ,- ...... M M N
NN....
to~~:q~8~88
'lSot"iodr..:oQ\oo
'" .... 00
....
IE. ~~~~;
O'v.i 0 .... N '" .g 0
~.~= !!l~~~~u
~1lI::~~v.lv.lv.l~~
I I I I I I I , I
......NM"I::ttr)\C)t'OOQ\
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~
1
~ JC}-,2(
Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
Annualized Costs
Amount AccmaaIaIecl
tor FIIcaI Years: FY '5-96
IzoDe DeocrIalion !IO.'l fl-f2,!l2-fl,'3.H,M-'5 Amount Work DeocrIaUon
1 DeoiltiDg Basin 5134,818 $0 DesiltiDg buin mamteDallce (every 5 yean)
$33,500 $0 Stabilization .tuuct.... mainteDallce (every 3 yean)
2 Rice Canyon $4,365 $0 Staging Ala. A.c. OYeJiay and .tripe (every 5 yeanO
51,140 $228 Staging..... maintCll8llce (30,-- period)
512,460 $0 MiscellanOOlll
3 E. H .treet $0 $0
4 SPA 1 Ph... 1 520,010 $4,002 MODumentatiOD "'PJacement (3O-yr period)
(BUlin... CIr.)
5 SPA 1, Ph.... 2-6 5189,125 $34,617 Theme wall & mODument "'Placemenl (30-yr)
6 SPA 2 $0 $0
7 SPA 3 $0 $0
ToW 53f5,418 138 847
oles:
1. Zone 2 - 512,044 from mil<: merve 10 he uoed for mt<: (95196)
2. Zone 2 & 3 - Amortized cool for walla 001 determined
3. Zone 1 - $26,230 (5 yro) & 56,700 (3 yro) for
db & .tabilizatiOD .tructures not collected beyond 5 yro
per Code; Zone 2 $873 (5 yro) for AC not collected.
..,\bome\eqiDoa\opeolpa<\rdraDouaLwql
.
-fH1
19-:2->
.""",,
- This Page Blank-
........,
~
/9-..2~ ~
.
.
.
/9'-,'}. '} ~ f.\-\\o.cnN\eC\t 'tS- Mo.ps
(/)
~
::r
I
ftJ
+-
c
Q)
f
>
o
i
C!
"
OPEN SPACE
OF THE CITY
,DISTRICT NO. n
OF CHULA VISTA
DESCRIPTION
II MI,_ ii' TN' """T Mil" .,. "A&'7_' NU,t:>III ", """"NIP .. -.vr".
"""NU 1lVE17, ."'IV M'NAIINIM iJM$1 _8 ""I''''''N, "'~~"'NtJ '" 'e~tM'D
41" .#UI'''''' MAP MtJ. #~"". "I.ef,l IN ,,,~. "",ce ",. ,,,e C~Nn' ,"~AC":U'~
'" loAN PIIU. .'''71 DI" e'At.lrA/fNIA ,,,,,," 411'11I1# ,.,,,,,,N I.""~"'A"'IIII &NUl"
WIT... "'...." IIN). I _"INI1'I"''''' Nil MA_ ,,,.,.", ~. 74311; AN" UIK"AIIIN
rNu". VI"'" UNIT ~. I #4I~"'W"tMI ""II MAli 'NIIIN ,.",. 'N~S; ""''' lAIr.
NAYIN eN""" YIITA Nt>. .. '''_D1''''3~N 'e~ MAP TNueN 1M. 71~; AND
~AtltIt'N"'YIN e"'I4.A W"" """" Nil. of 6vINW''''''' '41t MAP '''''UN AO,
71_'.IU4AffIl. ",....'11 ~ '<<611''''' "..1tI,#tWIM UTII'. U/JT'C'JfND
NH,"/AI/ Ace....
..'
~
fflAC'
~
~
~
".
HI --
-" --
"'
'"
",
HI l
."
."
L
~ i
~
~ ~
" Hu.r.....,..
"
..
I
N
V bIJ
l.EGEND
--Dnl,./d 6twm:l.,."
=IJ,." 6,._ ,.. M _Inl"'_
n' b....",.,,1 NII",b."..
- $IIWit1l,iII" ANnuI.I,.,...
~tA","! M' .V../#4t '" .......,.,.",
j::
, .
r
~
)
APPROVAl.
Jtl ~ ;J.. Y
~
._~--".
..c......,~
""'._._..15.
"J.:f<
tAPIII1DV4D ." TN# eNV~" ",.rA e,r"
GNlNelL ." I1II>>N~N~1 AlrlD
..""""
-,.
.
I
I
Iii
· :'!i I
I Uh~. ,Lti ~i~'~
1111"'t~ i, 1!1!1!: ~;,!ii: j;:~~
' . 'Iil i'I:.. ,..I.., _"1,, I
I III ., ,- I" fIt, r~ I, 1'&" I ~t',,~
. 1 '.". I. i,., p, ~ ~_ ,_,
I ,u .li.I", ; ";01_';: ~1':' ~ :; '';,
I li1t!I!1Ij , 1,1 !l~,i:; ':;j;; ;,< I
Ii .I'I"I"Hi ~,; n'll';H ;!"'l.~t 'lff:~ I 1
I '1' I 0,- I I! ~t.. to, I;. '! . . ,~
I".'; .1.'11 j"U .... l,!u-liii ifl,:t\ ~!:1; ,II'
1111.1!,P It I". 4,_ ""'y. , p:tt J
:11i11,j j ,lii!'I! m,;;; :':'1; ,
. Il'jl'l j.... h 111,11,1..- ,t,',.: ".1;
.1 1 II"' :. 1. ,':,,=t l"~ii: ;i';I~.
.' I I' ~ t" ,a Us. ~ j ..,"~. j"" _ . ;
I: . I I,i 11 'I'hill', oil, ...... '
.j, i 1.1!1I. ". '"
i' II! m ~ I
I I ~ ~
,,-
,
r..."-....
.
--.........-..
,. .~__..Jo.
....
.. __'II'.'.,
.
'f
\~
.
,
I ',1111,
, \,
h I !;hl
j ~ "IIIi"
!! ~ ililli
..,
c
.
r
I
l'
.~
.
~
.
~
/1~.,,23
'.
I
II
r
II
I'
5
A)~
2if
J:r
!
\t
..
'. !
.Q:
I
/
. /..,
'Ii
-
. .
."
.1
r.
=!i
!
/ T,: t'
Y ,..,.,.
, j''1. .
: ~;~~J~ii
;:." . ~
',>.:,
"
.. ~. .
. :".
, .
~
-'~
.~ '
~ ViJ; i! I':
gi id
-.~
~
~
if,..r.:"
"
~ 17'- 30
/ .
.. ~ \ ~
t ,.
. i ~ jl
.. .
t .
II
........
.
. c
i."
..
Id>
..
i c
..
cll,.
:~'"
-..
.lla
c.,
ill~
viii..
;a~
;ga
v
fii
. .
~,j
hi'
I jJ
~Iil
~4'
! .
. I
~ o:!
1, :
!.! .
1 /
. ....
i i:=
.1' .~
~ ;
1 j
j ..
~
.
. .
i ! j
:l!
i ~ :
"""
-
r.......,
I I
( .... . I
~ J I
"
J/ I
' II,
.
l
/"--
"" .'
'\.
""..
\.
),I.....
//~*
J/~:"
6~ ......
.,~':~~:..::ii:::.
~........I'"
#/....."....
~.................~......
. //";';:"~
.~
--
-v~-.
....-----
~ /7;'-~/
I . ,
.. 1t Il
~ ; . It
~ , l:. "
, =
; t
! :
.~" .
r cS>
Ia:
. c
'.. !!l
IlIz
cl!'''
-..
;Z5~
iis
u
.~!
015"
- lis
-
u
~
~I!
'~l
Ll
~ J!
ill.
1 'I
i~l
I ~ i
" I
. I
I,
" .
!;,
: jj;
, .
.,11
. i I
1 ' I
ill
~ . ,
" ! i
. ~. J
i : 1
. .
. ,
;=:.
"II,
"
-
t
, \
!
--
"~OC:'
.~
~,
ii':4!
.:r( I
<'-- N:
\ t.J
\' ~il
\141
..
;
.
i
.
t
,
;
,
,
_.~
~
. 17- J.,2
i /'1
"
"
I.
! III
. 'I
. ,
"
.f
..
. . ....
~ ~!t:
.. if ..
): ,.
If ..~
! 4'
!.;
II>
: 4' ...
1i;i5
:!a
w"
.5*
. !:I.
i!~
. ..
;i!
: II
;
'""'
I
I
:
I
I:
. .
,
;.
.~
.','.
do!
,
. ,. ,
i
.
.
.
.
.
~""", oPIKJ./Ecr
,\. .
~p\~"' ':'..
,.;tItJ' . -
.'
~
I~
VlCINlrr MAP
~D "A..I
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.5
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
!! [S C RIP T I 0 tj
A PORTION OF THE SO~THWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 10 AND
THE 'JCnHll[ST QUART!' OF Q",RTtR SECTI(J!l 69 OF THE M:ICHO II( 1,\ 1lAC10". 1= TI;[ CITY OF CHJjI,\ VISTA. CQl;;ITV
':ti SAIl !IEGG. STATE OF C.LtfO"'I'. ACC"'''''' TO !lAP THE'E:if !ll\. lU IlA:lE .V I'IIt'~Ju.. \'!O flU IN TItE OFFICE
OF THE C~UNTV RECOR:lER !if SAID SAN DIEGG CQUm.
~
,
I
DIr,VF
,I.or ...
,
,
I
.,
..
H ",-""-'"
..
OJ
.. --....
. ,
. "
",
..
..
",.-.-4.0' '"It
DAv",
,.-&tI, -I'"
1.0T A. II 202 Ae
1..01 e - 1410A;
Totol-12.'12 Ac
. '". ": .~:
'"':":~".'~ ,- . .--::;";": '-.'
:r '.~ l:".
\'~ " ";'1
':"I'
. '.;r~'.:"::'''.
:::::::::::::::::
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...
\., .,. .....'m.'" ." ",.:1..' ..'.11,.,.. .';.,,".d
"',.--,"" ,..".,. .",,.,.1... ;..,,: .,..... ..:,,:: 10 ....1 .,.~
;" ,... ..,...1 . '. Cll' . ,-,.. .,..1 ~'.'ro .'H'.' ~l",,,'h"'.
.... "" :l....,,'...I.....:,t\'...lor...I..,IIldj;r.._...
"', ."....!.fl' ,'O\!. ,...t.,l ,.."." 1'1:Ir.!".: .\11." 'In..
".0: ;, ......,-'.,01 ''- :,~. ," .,,,,,,., L.,.,....... ........~ ;0"" II.
!. h' ;0,..:..'..1.,'...." I ", ...............".....,.,~ '''''
,...,...., .....,,,.. .......'~. ',,,,,It. ""Lilli_ ".""._....
.-I'''tI. ..........".......,......,.>';........ .\1I1.....q..'._
,,.c....:...., """'__'1'.'.:0"",
,
:.':.,'.:,~::.~
.:. . .... "..',~.
~~ ~.' .'
,." .,..... ~..,. .::.."", ,"',:."::, ,.., ........,. .\11
. ~.. "."" ~ ",-;1\'''' fl:,.. .h.t.
,
',", ". .. ~.~ ..., . ........,.,., '1"'1''-'11''1\ ........" ".:1:.,11,
. ..,..I ,. :1: ,'<:!"....., ~.~ .".' ~'1"~'" ."'" ,,...... ..,,,,11
'. .,. '" ...01 ..... ,." 1'" "I''' ':1 !~,...... ..:..1 r,,""lSl"'"
. ....,. .."". ,...,,~...,I l':"Il'~ '''::01 110-.......
..,~, ...........<} :.' .''fl.,..""" ."l'. ""':11'\..: t!\'C/r'......"d
-,~ "" ;...." I" I" 1:'..1111.',,, "'.dUn "VO";Oll''''
',.,. ~,11 I~ "",:.:. ,.,....,~'._..: li<"U.1fl 2 1ft.......
..',.'...."-,..."'.."',.....
~
t--l.\.c.
',"'''.'''~:''.~lr'::'.'''''''''''''''l''~I''''U'l'I"",,I'''''
.' ........ '" ~_.,....,: ."., .,. .".. "1"'" :'Ilfl .,.".. .."11
...:,.:.,~.... .,,..t ''''''''1'.. "..~, ,,!....ro"fll 1"_ ",...
.. ..' "'I'....'fJ i... l~,h. .,~l! ~".....\l'.n 'I,,... :.'1'
.. ."'-.... 2 'I.........,. ,,'..r. !"'.", "Ift.'..l ,,' n''''llIr
.', ~. " . ".~. '~''''',''n' ",' r.,."..,.. ~.:(l ..'
\ :,. :..,. .....~
1,...... "."_...,,,....u., I',.~..,,,... 'e._.~ ......,. .!::t:t 1.,
"""" ,""'. ,,,,.:..,,11. '-:' "'. ::-",01'. :10<
,"'''. I." :..... . .,,,. ,... -. " ,',,"'t!tI.;.,.,..,.~. :,,:;:,
",,,. .r"; ......,."'.. r;~''''t -=H....'''! ....10:1:,." l\rlllf....'tI
, "_.';"'''. ,.,....,."..... " ~ ~.";.,, ~_:, d.' r., ""'.~,
....f.-'
A/.(7~. .
\ DIREfTOR OF Pull.1~ WORIS
..s::.. z.:::._.
. DIIECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION
/1- ,J;J
.
J'-P.7:r
lolTE
8- 20- IS'
;AU
..0 -If-on
ii
i!"1
~~
~-
..
~I
.."
!::-
"
~-
~-
U
I.LJ ~ l!
:c lr-
..... '"
I..
L&.. e:
o ~ ~
:> ~~ll
::l !~
c; "" IW
Z h
..... ~,
u i~
~ it ~ -
~ -~ "[.
e Ii '~i
W II ~I
u ~5 /
<t h
g; h .
::;
Z -"
w !~
25 h
~
:>
.~
:c
u
L&..
o
~
.....
(3
.ll
~,
.~
!I
~
;~ ,I /
'It<1t i /
/1/
.t>,
~".l611:UItII
~f
tl
--- Z,
~l
:!
. ~'!L,,:~
! ~JEJF it
j :.~: ~ ; ~
: 1:;".1 f ~
j '- ~ 1.: <r C
r f: ~.!!:"
/' !i~.. ~!!, ~
;r( .:. .
~1'iWm
~ I:~E~;"f;
i it!,t!~ f s
t . ~;:!.;1 J
! iHHo:..!'
I :;:r-tt:EI
'I !;.'~.,~,=~_!
~: I /:..' ,_ ~::...
F' ~"~-;i.-r.~
::;1 I ~.!~.Hi.u
~!
.,
fl .. I
~I ~
t!.. ...
.:'", ......
.......
.~._" :::::::
.:.....
- I ,.....
~ ~.....
.......
,
~:
;;! ...
-
~.J
~ ."....
~
,
I
'~
/
-/
..
.
i
i = i
~ ~ i
= .
" ..
.. is ..
II,"
.::: i "
}~:
',' ,.,~ f;
... !;
:ii .I"",:
i ~ '" i r
:; i~ I ~.!
:1 11'~ ;-;;
;: ~~; ,;.!
~.::_ ti; ;;
!: ~ :~.; .!
~~I ;~ i- i ~
f.':: t,', ,,;
'. ", ,.
U .
'.:.' ~1! iF
-=.lI:'; ...i
" .-.. I-
ll' i;t.:I.a
;1 !:'!hj:
.. -; ~ ioJ E - ..;
!i .5-;i.:lii
'":
~r1
. .
~ /j>--;J(
\
.
fit!
; ':!
"' ~ ; .
i:;f
,,'!:.:l:;
:'q~
'., :
t .t ~
114'.l':
:.;- {
.t.!"!
~ ;1:
iii-:
!~~E
"".
. ~! ~
~iio;
,,-...I
.
i~m
;~~~~
T!!;r"
HW
i.!,!~
:.!1:d
j!l:;
~;;,a
;..., .
e"'-:-:e-;:
nm
"""'.
\i
.
~.
"",.",
~
;:::::,;II!;
::t
-
":i
"
l
;~'~i
S..!..
~~;~
"~~l!
~i~i
j~iJ
!it~. .
:a =
'" "!,,
~~fS~l!
Q. ~I-
.. ...
'~
I
.
.
5CA~. 1~.600'
,-! \ ~;';l~ .'.
r;:,
":;.\ :..!~..' I' ll'.~ l'l\
-'f'
.................
:::::::::::::::::
~.I.'(J."
. _: .:~
. . ',."
L-41,tZY!
~~~
tJ.,.c.
~.I.C.
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.7
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
IUClIPTlOIl
"11aC I '01"'" If au'ln. st~JI. II Of ....ttl. It U .l~'''' 'II llll Cln If OIVlI tlsn talt ""'''Ill II."'.. IS
UIII" ,. .....0 IU, 15 "Lla III Tllf ,f"et If Tilt touIn lleoll.." 'II 11111 tollIl" un 111111 nl". .11
.., IICI .... 11I0 UtIIT. II .., lie eotOJ .11 lilt tin If t!lUU "Sf' tIlIIl" If SAI 11111 SUTl 0' Clll'....,.
aWIDI..' TO '''1 .." '''UIO' FILla III 'lit O"ltl 0' Tilt (01/11" .n.lIIt. Of '11 111111 CIl/II" IUfI., CALlf.1t lIern
LIT II is SIll." WilT" II ,f SltD II' Il1O ..01 IS IlCPHI II ",,"","
_t
-..-
.
.
to
7
&
~
lO
II
It
I~
.
)
.
%
.
)
.
n I %!il>"'ZfI
';:.:.l-'~~ \ I",'-:I":'l"~~
.. '(~T';lI":
;., '''.1''''',-- " ""," .,' ,,.... ,',.'~ .,....... ,'L"".1ll
~,.. ,,~, ". ,.r ",r-.'" l~' ".'.... ,'"Iii. ."., ."Ill
,_ "..,,,,,,1 I~ "'1' I' n~ .",1 ""'~"""'" PH"'I.".
.,1. ,". . .-....,,'. ~..I .,.. , .. n .,..,. ~,..j~ ...., .:...........
.,. ",.", ~, ',. .l,.' . ;.",,, , l..n' ,,,. .In. ....."
. ;". .. ....1 ,n ,.:..'"~,, .-~.-""l ".....,.~ "'r'<' I..
. l"'" ."., ,....... ' , . .,. ~ r._, .,,,r,,,,,' 11.'
.. ... .... '.. .1; r.' ~~.., 1 1. :0. ...." ......1'\
. II -.':.t. ;:r..1 ~,~. "''''''''. .\11 I'""'-'~""'"
'" .... . ..~;; .." ,., '~.'~ .,"""
... .1'..... .'.....1'. ""....".", ~\..,._. \11
'" ,,,'r;: .,,,,_h '. II".. .1~....
....- . r'_.' .'" nl .rr",' "01 ...,..,.,... 1~11 ,..111
..01 ." ::;, '. ::'~ ':;::~. ~',~..:,:~i,^..,,:,,~.:.":;,~,' ~:_~'.,~.\.'J:l,
'. ". '..01.. ,..... ..".."....", :_...,.. ". :10: ,:........
, ..~..__. ,.., .. T...."..' ..Ii.' rr.':n..l ~'.'l,,_..t...
,~,...' ,.. ,. '.."'1.1:" t_. ..,,,,, . ,;.,.' "
'..'''''' 1"'" \ ,..,..r. .': ~.. t \ ." ;l ./'1 "..
,'.,'1...."..........
.... ,... T,;,..',,.....,.. .~, n' "r I.""" .,., 'rr'~,' ,....
T.; . . r .' .., ,. .,'. ..,~, .... _..
"..,,.,,. ..' ..,..,,, ;....1............, '."'.'
.,. ,..... '.., ,. >.r." ~"" h. r. '" ..:
~ . ,,~. ...,. It..,. - ":'10:
.... . ; ..' no, .' '..' ... ~,.:.' " .
b ' ,~ . (J 4?-J~ ~ ~
DIRt(TD' 0< M[IC WO'KS
..,.",...
.c... -.,.I....J..t..-
DIRt(TD' CF P.R.S' REm,"Ct1
.,..,.,......1..' .r.:
'..,...:,..
.,..-__t.,
.,',
......
"
.
I .
I
I~...&.......;.
, t,
"
t
.
4'1\
..% J.....
t ;/
V/eu"OTy MA"
-_"
-... /,,-/.;.~
':;'T[
.
.
.~-".7'
lATE
/7'/3S-
.COC_.III
"D,. L,Q"
" 'if 1111-',' iIil"'f. I:ilf.
l'I,11l!l!!!iI hi gl"',!!lll;:' IlI,'!i! fjllll!
' 1 c.J""~'a ~'-tu , I.
. !'i!'!1'~I"j Ii! 'mIl!", 'Ij_).! 'I"P
, I!:i. ~ml Ii )i~.. l:il!IHl! 111111 .!,'.i:
I!. .' !'. I.", ~'i;_"11I I ,. I ,.
~ t ~.I~'~~:ti'. !!.', ~I~,!!r .. r "'il ".,1
}t~,I~:.J":'i~ :':,:; -:;,..i:t!H/"II". !:-:! jl
hl~l!~l'" .~~~ l=hlt"-f~ I-III !J!. i
'l~~~~!ii:ll:i iif,l l~il'):iiJ JIll .. Ai.l!,
,f.i!h'~t_,. ~... , I .
.0
I j
,
I
i
~
~
11
w
><~
j~
:=:::-
;
c
: :
! ~
,
5
-
~
'-
I 1
'w
, f
.
III
I I ,
'r,
'-I
~ r'~'
CD l/) Hi
~ :; " '-, i~ j
;r~ ..
c( I:: i
~ ..J ~ '"'"'\
~ :l i~f '.
% z Ii. '
~ 't" .::>
(..) = , = I
k- II:: ~ r I
i5 0 ,. !ilU
I&J >- 'ir z u=';'
(..) t: 1-. i! nil ~
~ .,. lI: .... . IliiU
(..) la-
,=1 ~ "'" .
l/) I&J ii:ii!
~ "I. u ~
z ;1;- z .
I&J c 55!!!
."11 lI:
Q. k- s. !:
0 0 lia:
~i;' c:::)
i=!E
Ir~
;;
UE) ~
-
,
.
I .
= .
I- ;
i:J.j
:: 5 I
~!.=i
";'r
I L S ,
':/' @~ I
; I ~
~ J9-3?
-
--
11
.
/
~}. .
r'
I ~
~'r\'S
M'
-..
"Jr,
,'" ~
iD'"
iDT.
,"'~
"""
7r1TAI.
.
.
.
.
.
.
." .lie
.M <<
~17.tfC
~".AC
.",N
G"~C
I.MAC
".iIIAC
f,J.I.C.
CITY OF CHUU
VISTA OPEN
ASSESSMENT
SPACE DISTRICT
DIAGRAM
No.
9
LA!UJ J)lkJIIJPT'NfJN
,jIDf7'~ ~*M/IfW" ~..
....... or......,.., 1/1I U ~MMI. #II
... IN'" ., eIiIIIt~ .." a:JIN17''' "1iIIS(),
=.:,:r_~~~~J _=...'f #"~
1MDtI4III1I,..l/IIIIIMItrIIW"I'....",N.IM..
--
-
~
-
"'c,'::_: _;~,~
.1,: /1 04'2;.. - /,.".,?
"'AE~1IiDI' . pv<<1e WDlfJltS IfWTI
A........"... ~ '0-'''''''7
IJIItKTDIf '" IIJtIIWI:S #1tN''''''''N:M/ /UTI 19 - J
~
---
-_ .,lfKT IlJUNII/I'IW
aNN....' e.
MMNNIItICD \
{.......",",. ~". \
~r NlMllMM
\
\
\
\
\
I
I .
I ! ,
I !
I ~
I .
i:
,W
'.
-,
., I
h._-t
LI!
.. ; I
~~ f:
~
-
_____1__......
.__.___-.11___
___.a........__.....
_____...010I1__
---.----. --
-""".-..-------
._-_...11'___....
___. _"_1."-
.._..,,__. MI_
.-.-,---.
=:'::''::''.::::'t.:::-:-_~- Al.l
______.....WlJ
....-._____1- -.II
..------..---.-
__. --___""111-
--.---....---
_. ao_..__IllU"_'_
_MlI_. _..__...._
----_.
--------
-..------...
---.. -..-.....-
-...-...--...-.-"'--
_._1.___,_-.....-.-
-.., '... _.._.,""'._,.:~.
-....--
_.,____.._1__ _II.
_.,_...1_..._'.....,.....
fN_ .... _ _.___11"
-----...---
___, _",..._..,t___,.
......-.
..- .,~
.....",. II' T/IIII ("""'" IIfI'6'"
,,""'~6..tII'IWtI:IN'Tlt/lNi/fI{),
.&&6 ~IJJIIJI.:.ZL
A';D FIl AT ~'::/.::~.,=:
/
/
:O_~
<l
wil5:5
~ -3
" 5\z~l5~
I w.... Vl
I z....~>->
, r--~'--- ~ ! .... 5
, " "..J ~
, '--..t:.
""-',
.:.:.:.
;::::::
......
:::::.:
:::::;:
I i
F']
~"~{
:~
,,',.
":',';'
..
..
..:
,.....,
~I
"
~
.
.
!o i,
! f I
"
.;,'
)~.
':7'~'.~
i.:..~' :~::::~",:"
'.
'-',.
:::.
,-.....
,'.t',
'., r .
. 0" ,_ ,~ ~
.}!'.'
.".,
. ,",
,"' .
.,.:.
.~: . ..;
,....,.::..
......
.,.
....;,.
....l...
"
..
',~~.
.~-
"
'E
,..
"" 'I,
gW
>wi
,.
,\
I.l.
-,
2
t
II
;1,
it,$ .;
, :.1
')P"':."Oi"
'. .
..... . ". ,':
;.'t.:::.<~.~" ','
..:.,;',",'..,' ..,'
.;,..>,./......"
~':'/
,.; :'4.
....,..
,..t:
""
.
.
.
I
,
(
,
I
,
I
I
I
i~--
------ .-
~ /'1-3Y
,
\
'i
~
0'
Ii
,~
~
U
~
:t
~l
i~'
~l!
1,:
j. i-l
j:i'
liJ
."
I-I
. ,~
Ii
II
j! '.
.
w
.
I
I
'0
I % ~ ! II , )
III 'j
9 U i i :
lil
co H!I'~!'i
,', ".... a:
co
CJ
w Pi; I
'a:
~ g
" .
_ u
.
",
'6
N
i
ii
t
Ii
'"
<I
(
0.
::-
I
a
'"
o
~
6:
tI
.
~h
~ 1 ~
; J" i
. -
~ s:
6c~ ~.~' ~,.,
- 2 . ~
.. i ~ ~, .
li}ll,'nti;' ,Iii WJijiiiffllli ",'WI
1i,111)I',' ,'I ~I""f" 'fl"!' ,'".
1~:If,":I:I'! :U .'!I,I"III"IM ,,"H
""1 '1,1 . 'I . " I, ""1'("""1 ,.1,"
, u ,111M lfl! Ifl!~,;.;.Ji,:iilnf.I1'
, . "
. '~, I.. I I I
N ~ . ~_~ )9-7'0
@
.
.
i!
.
..
J J
J J
II
II
I'
Ij
~
r
.,:
.
l
.
,....
:tI::~
I-
z.
:)
z
~
z
ct
o
C}
z
o
-J
f$
:if
o
m
.
f'
"
il~'I!Hl;'i IH I;i',m~il f,Wiii iilt
Ill! 1!!~1 III {ll Ill'!' fIll<! SI!il
11' 1'-.' ., . s" -"1 ..,
II II .1. " S' I 'llil-ll', '","II.. ltf' ':
I . 1 . ~ sc~- k:', 1 ~
i Ii!:!.!!!I!; jl, 11!!;il!l! 1~~!IJI I;:>
'i "..<,."'" "1' l'I."!'1 ."J J' ~"1,'
~. ~~~~~J.,.IJ. ~.'~~~~i a J~~IJ-~ -i~~
tl1j'il"jj~ ~i ! li'l"i!111 1:111" l.i~
:!llilll'l! Illi 1~!ilii1~ i: !~f !ln~
llihullm Jh. hbluih hi! .. 1M
~i~~i~ 7l;',~'~ E ~IIIII
~~.~
::::::: ;l
;~:~: ~,
~ .. ~
~ N
J ..;
.,.: ..
... 1 ~
c f
'of .,
.11 :! J :---8
=
H <JOD
~
,
~~ w j"" I~ jA'I ~! j.o!l.11
;; kll""<..:l r;'~ \'4 l"l~: ~
lit : .! :.!.. !! 1
: ! : i :!:It!
i~:e!!i~~L~! :~i:
~i=!=!~i~~Ei !:~!
ritl!I~I!i!l;i I;~j
it. . . . l:i. . i: ~ ,
!!:~:~!!~~l !~:~!
! .", ! ~. i ... i ~....., i :: 1: i
i f i ~j ~ i H ~ i .. i 1 ~ i ..
-,I:I"',i!:Il<~r" .~..,
. , . , ... , 'T ' ........ I 1-.... I
.. : i: ; i: i.. I "',;, ~ i I~:i: I
~'f,,'.'~-l' If..;
!~.!~!~is~s:! !~-::::l
,.. .... I .....,. , .. I .
. .. . I ,
~ . I ! i : I :
g!!~ iEJ.EJ!EJi'-I-I~li. jl"J!iJ i
... It!.. :.. .. I .' I ...".. I .. : .... I .
,.. .., ..,......,.., .......
; I! . j. 'I! ' ! I! !Ii ;
:: :::;;.1:0 m! lti~:
:; ;1; ;:e;:: IS.:
;ii lic. i~~! ii~i
Ii! !... 1~5! iwSI
i~ ~i~ ~~f,i.I~~1
~!~l% ! PI!" iUi
-if,' i, j i~:"
t;l , ". j" .J, .. " ,.J, ,. ,
i ~ ,f: !: ff!:!. !~:!": i
, .... . - ..........., ... ~ I
-:::la S; :O;~~: :t~:1
~:Ii!~ . &~~i i;;;~j
:-.:- -:"._-: :--,
.., . ~ i' I' ..!..... i . j" "j"
_el_ '0'0 6 'e:;e , .00-
i~!i l .. !.. _,!..._ '" ! .. i ." ..1..
" , ,. .
'I '..,'...' ''''
-illS 8i ~ !~i! I~
I" I - '...' . It
: = I;' &1 "! :..: '1 I.
I '.' '. .... I - I" . *
. :.-:.. ..: ..,...:..: ....1..
"'!:~ I'" I'" ... I .... :.... I'" ....
-51 .. !.. ..:.."." i .. ! . ".! .-
l?, : .. :... .. I .. :,.:. I.
'''1-
I
.
. ,
"
. .
BONIT A
HACIENDAS
I ~/319 ~
~ ....-..
~~illiIIIIWJIIIIIIIIIII!!W '-
!!!I1y...!................ Y
:~illillll!m~~ili~llHgl::.:.:.:~ ~
............ .3 &
9
10
VIA
37
J~\ \~\ /
I . .
?A~\\
~3
IS
14
3'
55
S4
.
ENCAN7Al)A
/'
/!1
'.5"4'
--
. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 15
~ /1-f/c2
~
/31'1.7:2.
'1.058 P,Er.>,
. I P'::-R /r.
'-.
,
~
'"
.
~
"
It-
"
46 \
- ,
45
44
.. ....
43
~
..
.
"
..
,
~
'.'
~
~
:::;;
:$1, .
~. t.
. ...
::'0 .'-.
.. ~'''.
29
26
2~
27 ~~
,
""'""
L
J
.
!
i
I
.1
<
..
z
w
~
<
~
.
!
:!
==: <:::
u -
z CI)
<C ~- -
zo>
:::: <:
=- L"- ..
- -
z......::;
~gG
- -
-'... -
--0
'-"U
<:-,
,.. ...... >-
:;:::...::...
J"~~
~u
Z,---
--'-: - ..._~
- -
,..
-
o :-
s
II
~ i
; I !
i1l i . I
~ I I .
n I ~
l....I
~
$..
-..,
c-
.0
0/&
-~
22
~
c
z
!
.
...
~
t
i
g
-
i
:;;
s
tioOl
c_o
a::..cr1
-~"
c"'-
i"?i
CiCL
c
:!i!2
o
~
. ,
~
~
...i
..,
..,.
.....
- "
;... I. !i'rll,. J..
,-U "J-.iI" I .1,
~d !1.;;rI'!~J;:rI~lill'
..:, 11I,/II'>i:J,';1
"I" .'. Jil, ~ ~I"'I
'I I -. I '''''!!I I
t"'J i 'j'li!'.IlI.., ..11
:I,~ 1. Ii:,=,': f- I.
ftlJil ;;-13. ..:ti;h!!i"
'I",' J.I:.':I;~::~i:'<l ;.i~1
. "III'c,J'I!. ....,
;"'J' -,- 11'- "11'>'1
II" f.''': 1-.' I
. ,- ,.~!:It .fF"u!l_i.
!ll,' is'I,:;;,!t:.lt'''1
'~II 11: Jj:til:1lll,fltz
Ilif. ;.::! !Za';.l .I:l~
t'l!1 '-I"-I';lo-l\lI'I'~'"
J 11........ _1 .., J
Ih.! 'U1U!!II..ill..I.
.
I
/f-f/ ;J'
II
~;
o Ol
i I
ill
= I
I !
"
--
",.~ ~
~ T "'1:::ll
;...",e ,I,
- 1~! >-1
W ii/I '""
11 -! I ~,
1 :; U
I Y >:
-- .J.....'
\
--1'
I
I
I
I
I
~
, \
. -
, · t
I
. !:
: i
II
i
'c ;
~ i
..
)0 ~
5 ..
I
I.
. I J
I J
L
.
I
I
,I
i
.
c
~
,
: ! !
:1 I'
Ii II
'I !
iI i
I ~ I u~~
. f ~ i "I'. 'Id-~~l _:.-- ~
I IS I ... I III, I 2 ~ ';, ,'EdI" l!i:. a.. r
Iii I 11-. III" I ..;~r ~ co,
. I. II ! ~ t ~ i I!! I .. . I I~ -:'1 ~ S. :
III f f I III Iii I ijl!lI, 1_" .71' '~~' <0 en ~111 :
, .' iti..J (~)
, ~.I , I ~ w '1'1
.___. ... c 1-'
\ Ii!O bll/
I i (I) ::J: f
I ;2 ~~ II
.: I~<t ~
' (.) a: ...
J '
!I... . II
..
I
I
"""'\
.
I
,
I
I
F:
I !
I.'
I
I
J .,
. ,
!
!l:
~
I
I
f I
.
,
\.
,.
~
I ~
~ ''J
\l "
~~
I ,
~~
;~
.
,.....
(ti {J
- ~
.a
~ ~
~
~ /1-L/?
1
~
~
. .~
-<::....
\l'-"-JM'-
2 ~ 011j-1'
Q N-.:..
c/) IV
Q ........
'""
~ /7-'I?
,
-- i
s .
. I
. .
I I i
III I I
I I
III I i I
g I
z i" l
III i I
~ I II I
f't') -' II I
C\J II' II ,I
2 11'1 I'] I'
~ ~ ~~~l ~
0::
~
U)
Z5
~ w ...
4~
c:t
z .
w
o ~ I
_ Z ,-
0:: <i .
>- ::E .'
~ ~ !
o ~ I
U)
~
-
.
.. .:
I ~..
.
~ 19~'/Y
r;-
c
..
.
'"
.
Ie
U
C
..
..
c
.
.
'II ,.
.
I
.
.
J' .
..
.
. ..
.
-
.
-
I
f. .
1 i . o.
r! ' -
I &
8-
I &
I .
. .
.
.-
.
.~r:::'
.~
.
.
-
.
.
.
. ~.
.
.
.
J'1'il.~
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
,
I
J ,
lli~
) ..
I
.
II,
f I
I
i
~
.
P 82
-0-
ca C-
I ,
~~
f
o f
~
l .( -t.
e I ~
III ~
~ ~ .
{/l ~
'1 ~ ~ \.
~~
\. ~
I '0
. ll.
.;
~
l
-i.
0;.
~. /9-5&
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT :-./0. 31
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CAUFORNIA
TELEGRAPH CAXYO~ ESTATES
-,
.
i~
:Q
_b
.
!1.
t' !,., I,
, ' , I
;'0" 1'1)'1
,~
,,~=%
.. -
.~
... :
'"
. .. .
'" .. e
...
.
;
.
.
fill ....1.$1.W
!OO.DJ' .
.k
~.
He;
:;b
.
'.
'w
."'~
...;.",..
ll>.....~"'.
,
"
!~
."
0'
.'
.,\""
<'
,
.~.
....~...,'.
~.~.'l,i
,"
:'i-
I !~
~
~
>::::::""""
.ErUE IrlCf '5 04(REIY WAX TO rlolE COUOr,j-" or
SA"'! 0'[00. ASSESSOR l'ARC[.. "A" ~OR ::lEUII.U>
O.Me"'$ Qf\lS or IfirIIOIV'DUA.. JIoAJtCt.,.S.
"fill ASS[SSM'",", .AS ;.[YI[O IV THE CITY COUNt,.. or r..t
CITY or c..u~ ViS'!'.... STArr Dr CAUrORNIA. 01\1 PARCE.S
or J.NO S"OWfrt ON ,.'" S ."'ENOEl) ASSESSMENT )lAG"... .......
S"',O ASSESSMENT W"'S ~VIEO ON Ttoll ____ DAY Of _____.
1113. "("CRtNtE S .....OE TO THE "SSCSSMt,." ROl.l
'tEtOROtO "1\1 THE orrlct or Tk[ CIT'I' ENCIHEtR rOIl THE
fUCT ."OUNT or [At'" ASSESS..rNT .[VIEO AGAINST EACH
JIo,ucn or ~...::> s..awllt ON THIS "MENDro 4SS::SS"[~T
JtAGIt"w.
LO' " 1.13 ACRtS
LO" .. '.12 ACRES
LO' 'C D.SI ACItES
LO' 2' .. 20.14 "ClitES
LQ" 2. 2.45 ACRES
LOT JA - '.SO ACRES
t:ITY CLE't1( .. C;~TY O. C:HU..A VISTA
"[CORDED IN THE ornCE: OF THE CITY ENGIN[ER or Tf04[
CITY or CHUl.A vtS"!'A THIS __ DAY or ___. '113.
l;1rt' INGINUW - t:~T Uf gfU;J. VISTA
r~LtD 'N THE orr-lCt OF' "'liE C'TV CL.l:ItK or 't"'E c~-Y
or CHULA YiSTA THrs ___ DAY or ____. 1.13.
~
~
ASSnSw[I\l'!' D'STlItIC. eoUNl)ARY
ASS[SSMENT NUYIER
C:ITY c:u:ltl( - cr~Y OF' CMU..... VISTA
-.-
I
I r~
t&i'~
"LED THIS ___ DAY or _____. ."3 AT _____ IN
THE Or-FICf or THE COUNn' A\lD:TOR OF THt COUNTY or SA""
DIEGO, STAn Dr CALIFORNIA.
:qqIG.....E:D Oll[""l SPACE
,
.ifC
"0
100
0,0'
COUNTY AVo ~OR Of U""l D1rc;o COU"lTY
"""
ORN..wtNrAL LANDSCA~[
CRAIl...le SCIoLl
..ofill-IRR.CATt~ OPEN $I'ACt
~.
. J~.~"'''''''''.IIIt_
,_.--._-
~ It~............--
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 31
SHEET NO. 1 or .
011110, .oJI 11'.-1' 04 n... Q~-I~-l
.
~
. .
.
-
-
-
-
. I .. -..- I
I .
bl~+ric.'" I .-e" I Sr.
.
Bo",""d." n
AII'II~W'S . o' \
IISTAUC/(N7'
@. )..
~ (6,.,.(JZI.19 ) . -
-
~ -
~ -- :k
..., &u
~ ~YS INN
It1I" ""If au
~tPDQ~ Clr:
(4~7'()ZI. 38) It.
. ~ CD
. I '" --
I tf"\ 4L T()~I r"
" ~45 r~vlf'<"'7
i
if . (16"'''ZI'.'7)
Ii <D
~ SO"" ~XCHA
= IU~7A(j,q,A T
ijj
II'
II " ;:: "
lL
=
IT
.
.
.
ClII"'H IT
Z.A.O.
- ..-.
.
~
It)
-
-
-
-
COJ
....
~
.....
V)
~
\ij
....
~
.....
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
ST.
11
I.
-
-
-
~
, If l.E
. BAY BOULEVARD ~ )'J-~.;2
LIGHTING a LANDSCAPING DISTRICT
CloIo'E
04-19-89
- - _. - .. .. . --
.
.
.~. - . .~ IE 4. T
- """'"
;
@ ()44,Z.J . . ()7/-01 @
... .... bi':~ic.t
@) - . .
- ()"" -2 Z . ()7'-()Z e &Ou.l'\ ciA,.y
@ ()<l4 -21 ~
A$SeS.50125 ~?"OJ
BOOK (!) ()"" -20 0'71 -04 .J
NR 5~8 (!) ()44-19 - "'1,-"$ ~
0 ()44 '18 au "7'-12 (!)
~ O~.4 ./7 ~ "'1'-/.J @J
()4<1-/~ ~ ()7'-14 @
~ "4
()4<1-IS :> "'1'-1$ @ .
CD ()<I<I-14 ~ t} .
0 ()?,-,~
044'IJ
=. ,n,-,'1 0
(i) 0</.4'12
DAVID.st') V oS 1t~~T ")
-
@ IS2 -21 I~ I- 2~ 3
0 1tJ.I-OJ
. IS Z -z.o
l.l.J 1~/-()4 U
~ ~ .0 IS2-1'1 I"" I . C$
~ 1($1-""6
~ @ 152 -16 1($1- C'7 41
:::l
It '45/~ ~ ..
"- e ISZ -/7 C ):
~ 1~/-C9 (:
a V') @ 1$2 '/~ ~ 14' -ID ~
.....
t ...
Q ~ 1$2 . Iii :t I.' -II
t: ~ /52 - /I ... ~ 0
~ 145/-/2
. ~ 1'52 . 10 ij
0 I~ I - I:oJ
~ e /S2- ()IJ I~/- 27 I
~
I 152 -C8 /41- 28 I -
...
~ 1~2 . ""7 '.'-.$S @)
II 152.06
-- -r;'W I . I
s7FeeT S~T'OFi
I , I FILE NO JO-OC 1.
OWN By: JW'" TO;V,v CENiER NE I SiRE:T L.laHTING .;
OATE: I L~ N.:JSC':' PE ,J.,f~/NT=N,J.,vC.: OISTRICT
j9-?t
-
..., - ....
I
(
.. .
--------- 1
" (; "
CATE:
srR~.!T
-
.
TO:-V,v CENT,";'': 57,;':':7 l/~;lr/N(j ~
L I' "-&:.c' -:or- .,. ........_N,. "e" "'15-~//"
,. ,...", _ "., I _ 1-"'. I; v I .= ,.., v .: /./ I ,-r " --
/9-.5-
")
- This Page Blank-
'")
,
~ /1-53
'-, ,10:21ilM SWEtti'l!:m;:RfluTHOR!tV:,': ,: "'-: :",:-:"'c":::~"", ,,'-,.:...': ,P.2/~', ..'
.~~. ...;~ .:; ..;:~. .:: ;. "':'.:;,-4..~:. ~ :.: . ......u~:... .~...; .' ',:'. .:...>:....~..~..:/::::~~.X.,~i.~.. ~"" -;':7::":. ":.:' .:~. ",'"' . ';:" ~ :. '..
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~c.
10$ GAlllliTT AVENUE
POST O'FICE BOX 2321
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ."'2-232a
(a,,) 420.,.'3
FAX Ie,,) 425-7469
October 17, 1994
~
OOY!IIIN.,.a IOAIliO
avo fII0~\.IN<lTON. eM_AN
Ge.Of'Q! ., WAURS VIC. eHAI"~AN
Iul .,IAMITT
iOWIN J. 'tULI
Wl~GA~lT ... wil.$"
~1I1 WOI.NllwlCl
CARV' wRIGHT
W"N;,t. A,Y!flV
'''e:''~l;IlI!''
DIAN J. "flylS
S!C"!.,o\"Y'A:>tJIINIIT"A"I~' AICI
..
Mr. Cliff Swanson, city Engineer
City of chula vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Cbula vista, CA 91910
Subject: OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT
Dear Mr. Swanson:
.
Enclosed is a check for $270.02 to cover the yearly open space
~assessment for this year. All a non-profit public agency,
Sweetwater Authority requests to be exempt from this fee for future
years.
Plea.. let me know what steps need to be taken to rem~ve Sweetwater
Auth~rity from the assessment c2!strict. If you have allY questions,
please call Mr. Hector Martinez at 420-1413, ext. 226.
Very truly your.,
-,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
\-z:: '" "..\
,-- '. . ,./-~.:I T'r 'v
'- allies L. Smyth
Chief Enqineer
JLS:HM:le
enclosure: as cited
pc:
Ms. Donna Snyder, City of Chula Vista, En~. Dept.
Mr. Richard Reynolds, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Hank Qaus, Sweetwater Authority
k,\I.UtI.\t.tte..\.wansGn.CY
.
frl/j--4
.. ft,.L'.'. A _. .
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA 81812.2328
(1118) 420-1413 .
FAX (618) ~7468
June 20, 1995
GOVERNING BOARD
BUD POCKliNGTON, CHAIRMAN
GEORGE t:I. WATERS. vice CHAIRMAN
JAMES F. DOUD, SR.
SUEJAARETT
MARGARET COOK WELSH
JAMES $. WOlNIEWICl
CARV F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
OIAN J. REEVES
SECRETARY
."""
Ms. Donna Snyder
City of Chula Vista
Enqineerinq Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FEE
Dear Ms. Snyder:
As discussed durinq your phone conversation with Mr. Hector
Martinez, the Authority reiterates its oriqinal request to remove
the open space easement fee requirement. The City of Chula Vista's
staff recommendation to deny the Authority's oriqinal request to
waive the open space fee is based on no water facilities beinq
built on the site, and the potential for the sale of the property
to a private developer. """
In response to that concern, the Authority has no interest in
sellinq this property. The Authority is planninq to construct a
2.5 MG water storaqe tank as soon as funds become available. The
construction of this tank will eliminate the existinq water storaqe
deficit. Attached are copies of a portion of our updated Master
Plan showinq these facilities.
Please keep the Authority informed of the latest developments on
this issue.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hector Martinez at
422-8395, ext. 613.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~.~
es L. Smyth .
ief Enqineer
JLS:HM:vls
attachment:
Copies of portion of updated Master Plan
'1
k:\leurle\vlckle\openspace.l tr 0 ~ \~
A PublicAgency, ~ J '75?
Serving NatioTllll City, Chukz Vista and SUITOUnding Aret1S'
.
~~h;bif-1)
I 'i'Rmtsr TH€ 1?R.Of'OSEO M.)1J\AAL
ASS~SSM,B~T ~ FY qS/qrp .
'r
I+e.rn '.
\q,~<
.~ 11\
~
~~.~
:r~".~
FIl3/U.2- !PR.~ALOSl?;J.o.. , _
:1 . ~T Tfrve f/lOfbsed ItIJNI/ItL
/JS5es<;;/-ie,JT "P'J: ~f7s;46'
.
v'f: '(>
'r.
X"<
.
PJt.3/l/~ .1?DR-3PAI OW:ZO
James B. at Margaret W. MARrIN ~ 7 /9 'i r
1092 Torrey Pines Road /f ' I ;;1
ChuIa V1Sta, CA 91915
~/'lJU. ~ IAN.-.Wlf. ,M ,'11W ".r~ ,; /" {,
~f:i;;, ~ ~ h. if' ~ ~ d-
~!J /'1 ",. fjI".:. r '1f/'15 ~ A,.;..(. 3' "~.
~ tAf-t:"I~ 7t(~'14 ~('."'41'<.- ~ rt
'4 t:~-<..J: ~ ~ , ?
o ;..~~~~ . ,
:.;- --l; ~ ~ ,lit ~ ,."d A ,.t.44.t ..
fLe~d,,{rJ'/4~ ~~ OS[);z.t) n/j;;~~ ~ J1-:SY
Ii' \+efY'\
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
"""
June 5, 1995
Engineering Staff,
Our thoughts regarding Open Space District areas fee
assessments for maintenance.
We are property owners in Rancho Del Rey. We utilize Rice
Canyon open space reserve a great deal for hiking, wildlife
viewing, and exercise. We have observed little if any maintenance
by the City of Chula Vista. on rare occasions someone will buff
the brush area at the entrance to the hiking/riding trail...that is
it! The parking access area is the only structure that could
require monitoring and maintenance, since it is nearly new little
is required at present. Outside of dumping trash receptacles what
maintenance is necessary? The very nature of an undeveloped open
space area would negate any necessary maintenance. The whole idea
being to leave the natural setting alone, undisturbed. We do not
"see" the need for an increase in maintenance costs. We don't see
what our maintenance money is buying right now!
We are totally opposed to any change in Municipal Code that
would allow for automatic assessment increases calibrated by an
inflation factor. The City will have to justify their needs every
year to the taxpayers of the district.
~prel~, .
ft Ani ta and Robert Rea
1219 Cima Del Rey
Chula Vista, CA 91910
""'"
""'"
/~ :51
i~~t6~~
~ .... O~D;20
~
City of Chula Vista
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue]
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
RECEIVED
'95 .... 12 AlI:15
CITY OF CHULA VIST r
CITY ClE~K'S OFFICi
June 7, 1995
",.....
i
Per the Notice of Public Hearings dated 5/24/95 issued by the Department of
Public Works, Engineering Division of the City ofChula Vista, We hereby
submit our protest to the proposed annual assessment for FY 95/96.
I"'""
Alonso . Jr. & Katherine Velasco
507 to Drive
W is Ca 91910
",v:r
r-
jtjr-tt/
~
()SD 20
-
-
RECEIVED
'95 .III -9 P 3 :33
Cft'y Of CHULA VIS 1 :
em' Cl.E~K'S OFFIC'
.
EOD PARTNERS NO.1
9745 Granite Ridge Dnve, Suite 1170
San Diego, CA 91123
June 6, 1995
OTY OF QIULA VISTA
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula VIsta,CA 91910
Re: Tax Parcel 640 293 04 00
Address: 1045 TIerra Del Rey, Chula Vista, CA
To Whom It May Concern:
This Jetter Is in protest Jegarding a tax increase of any kind at this time.
This building was recently completed for the Employment Development I>epa1'tme1\t State of ·
CalifomIa. There Is no possible way to pass on a tax increase to the State of CalifomIa.
At present, we are faced with almost a 200% assessment for District 88-2 over our normal
taxes.
Should your proposed assessment be approved by the Chula Vista council, we would be
forced as a developer to strongly consider any further constructlon in your city.
G.Ibe
o Partners No.1
JGl/hh
Enclosures
) ~ --~ /
~
OSD :2.0
.
.
.
RECEIVED
'95 JJ{ 16 A10:1 0
June 13, 1995
CtlY OF CHULA VIS~ ,.
ell"( ClEftK'S om:
To: city of Chula Vista
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Calif 91910
.
..
RE: Protest in Fiscal 95/96 Open Space District Assessment.
FR: Geoffrey Tsuchida
1283 La Crescentia Drive
Chula Vista, calif 91910
-
I am f1ling this protest in the belief that the Fiscal 95/96
assessment increase from $198.88 F1scal 94/95 to your new
proposed assessment of $292.55 is over 48% increase over 94/95.
Fiscal 93/94 was $198.69. Attached is a copy from the Star News
that shows other open space assessments in the Eastlake/Rancho
del Rey area and it shows that fiscal 95/96 15 about the same
or a small increase in most areas.
If this trend applies to my assessment area, it should be about
the same or less.
With the addition of large business's in the Rancho Del Rey
business center. it should be providing additional monies for the
'..ork being done on "H" street for street/sewer/and maintenance
of these areas.
Rancho Del Rey is approximately 20\ built, and there are numerous
number of new hous1ng starts in the area. These new starts
should provide new assessments for maintenance and etc.
Please review this n~w proposed assessment and reduce it to a
reasonable amount.
Sincerely Yours,
.~_ U),C}'
Geoffrey Tsuchida
1283 La Crescentia DR
Chula Vista, Calif 91910
Qw ~~Y'4~l/3t::tQ
);-1-..2- ~uSD;;to
--"
. H.e \'VI
"""\
ENTERPRISES
Properly:
Park Plaza at the Village
Real Estate Investment
and Management
May 31, 1995
City of Chula Vista
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: ANNUAL ASSESSMENT . OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Gentlemen:
I am writing on behalf of Park Plaza, owner of parcels 568-270-21-00 and 568-270-23.Q0
located in the Towne Center Open Space District. Park Plaza wishes to protest the
assessments budgeted by the City and favors a 50% reduction of the fees. ."""
In the 1989-90 fiscal tax year, Park Plaza paid $794.24 and $287.00 in assessments for each
respective parcel. In 1995-96 the City is proposing assessments of $1.894.54 and $684.02,
representing a 138% increase over the 1989-90 fiscal tax year. That translates to an average
simple increase of 23% per annum for the last 6 years. This kind of inflationary budgeting is
simply too much to pay.
In summary, we believe that the City should do as all other well run businesses, municipalities
and families do: live within its means. Roll back the Open Space District assessments 50%.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
fb; a.
Kevin B. Haddad
wp51_\dlull.pp
'""\
;D--tP
/9 --65 1?ec:d b/e/qS-
-reM})
Telephone BIO) 20"4144 Fax BtO) 20'-414'
117:": San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 640. Los Angeles, California 90049-5051
/~ :IF 19
July 1, 1995
Robert G. Sampsel
710-98 Callejon Ciudad
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 656-2812
City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Open Space District No. 20 - annual assessment
Dear COl:mcil Members,
This letter is in response to your letters about the approval of the proposed annual
assessment increase. Of course I am aaalnst any increase in taxes.
I am a new first time homeowner. I work hard to keep a roof over my head. I did not
buy a house out in Eastlake (91914 zip code), because you were doing the same
thing to them. So now you are telling me I should not have bought a home in Chula
Vista period.
From all of history we have learned that the easiest way to get money is to steal it from
others. So why don't you set an example and earn the money. That is why we voted
for you. Earn your paycheck. Sure it is easy to say 'tax the homeowners'. Are you
willing to pay this extra money? If I pay taxes for the Parkway Pool, why doesn't the
owners of the homes across from the pool pay for Discovery Park? We both have the
same access to each.
Maybe the city is growing to fast. You are already stealing Bonita business's tax
money. Maybe you are allowing to many homes to be built. Maybe you should think
about the big picture instead of the small one. One thing is for sure, if you raise my
taxes, I will have less money to spend in Chula Vista stores. As will other
homeowners. Businesses may go bankrupt and you will not be getting their tax
money. Have you thought about that?
I sI2.!l2! favor any increase in my taxes, unless everYone In Chula Vista pays for
the increase.
\, o. \ _\.. '2>l.\bct IV\5,iol\
"+'~opo:s ed. c.~ tl>FI.="~
-'ftJ )!J.
Robert G. Sampsel
/1.\'" ~
~>>
/9 -'t?J/
C;'SJy/f ~o
Hem -Ii< 19
, -
RECEIVED
v' '95 JL 10 A9:52
M'V Of CHULA VIS': "
CIf\' CLEftK'S orFr
July 6, 1995
Dear sir/madam:
This is a letter of protest on the proposed annual
assessment by the city of Chula Vista. The issues I am raising
here are number one: At Sunbow development only Naples street
and medical center street are landscape open space maintained
by the city. I live two blocks away from Naples street and
there is no landscape whatsoever in our area. So the enhancement
of beauty and propn'ty values in the neighborhood as claimed
by the city does not make sense. Number two: Please see attached
copy concerning mello roos taxes that we pay every year which
include open space maintensBce. Number three: I think this is
unfair because it doesn not benefit me but it benefit those
residences along the landscape areas maintained by the city.
Yours truly,
.~
Geronimo Abalos
-
ll'f~ 'b1f\~tJ]) CI
CffuLA VlsT1l CA'1I'fI/
c.,s5",f 'iII!J P"a'T;:::lo/5j1f", C'ollu.-f/Mt..-
IJ 793 (:f :<93 ~ 023t!
)f/j,,;' QS[) =11= /8
pj 1 6f;2-.
or; '11
h ...
.. >l ~
't:lew:i
s.o(U~
':1: ...
~: ~
.u' lfl
- ~ ~
::.11 u.!:!
'l-~~
, u ~
~ 'S
?~~
; 'l5..'i
. ~ ~
~ V; 0
l -"
) ._ V;
,. ".l!
: 8.;;;:
: ~.....
Slj!l8
'l::: --:
. C':I .-
'- ~
;'8 ~
~ ~. ~
j ... li
~ ~'~
,,c ~
. t- 0._
U)
~
I
o
-
-
(I)
E
.....
::J
o
.c
o
~
o
c
~
J2
"0
(I)
(I)
C
~
~
::J
.0
(I)
E
o
.c
~
(I)
Z
...----...., --'-"-'-'~-"
, -
~
~8~!~~~ ~~~~tjr~!*~~!j..
~ ~ l~.r'~ i. ~'!I.:t!l~ n~ ~HI~ il~ >.
.!~=B~~ -t.. ~~ 81"'E~~~~ "
.5j~'e~]. ~ J:l~ 8.,5 S.d_~...il I! ~
r I!~~! J'!~l!~~~3~s~l~~1
~I~~~~~ 1!~j!JIRi~'~~~Jt~
B 'E.j U:: S . ~ f:ll i j ~ t; = ~.l! ~ J . :ll ~.~
1!~~;jljlll~lji~J:;il~lliJ
. g",~~y ]~ i'~].J~~l~~j*~.
.l;l il .- ~ ] ~ 0" .- f- .- ~ 'J!!. _ ~... ,..
fi "'.= lS. i! ~ "'.., 'i.C.~.5 1i' ~ ,~- '-1'- ~..!l" IS'
=>,C:CI:l":;; ~-. t>~UII::~-~._ Cii;;Ec '"
- ~ c ~.... ... u'-" >. > c::I 100
~!~~8t ~.~ ~~ ~~~i'>~ ~~>. ~
'.~!UUC':l- ~~ OO~~~_=pc -fi=~
~U~Uv;~ ~'" UV;u~u>.EaC':l!c =~~
C': tJl t- '-.- ~ C 0.0 I:lCl > .- _ E .c: 0 ~ 0...
-~'I~u !t ~~o8etoh: ~~i_~
- . fi. .S< u ~" i3 '" .. = . c.W '" ~ ."... "'_
C':I >..-. "c, l;, 9 Q., Q. - - ! Vl 0 0'1 Q Q. 1a ,s.! ""
il:"~~~~ ~ u~~~~k~=eslp~~r
'" ...., , .. ~.., .t:'.- 0.. Y _ lS.. c. ~
~.~ -~c -~_ ~~-B~-~O~~._ ~~_
~ u c. til '0 ~ 0 c; ~ ,I:~' . - i ;>-"~ ~..2 ti E.5:; t; ~ ~ =
~.t:'~s~ -u ~1~=~a5~~<~~s~~~a
I..> I- 5 c.o 5 ~ ~ st -oc: .':;: s: Z O'C:.o u I)()~ ~ 0 2 t""\ tJ i!5 ....,;
~ >. ~ u f"o" :.::. I;t it :.::: '': 1'-1 cu ~ .5; ',E: 001.: ..... -S cr:: l.,;;;
-~"~l!~ II "'~'Y" '~"-i3 ,,..
~ 8"8 2' s a ~ .:: ...~ ';( 5 ~ of' ~8 E ~ co l!: ~:s: ~ 'C.
x~ Q.-~bLl E!Es>,,~'R'" .\1 >>.,0_ ~~
~j~lt~1! ~.~5~Ji3i~~ fg~1 2E
OJ:i~.g~. ~~~'i]J~;].s !!IHi]~
....\/~illll- .!'.iI-ll".~eij_ Ey ~ll
~.E ~~~;s'i '~~j ~;''5 I! g,H~lll'~'" ~~
~1~!a~~iJ!~81~~~]~~I$:i i;
tit ~ 'fi .~ .&. tJ ~ .':: M >.. ii! >. e ~ E l. l:; -= .~ l:l
.Yi3':a~g~.l/....i~e-i mg.-;o2, ~"f'li;o""
~.l!:]Il~lj[il~1 j=a~~~~~5.' !~~
'" S :J - II 8. l!. [ IS. ~ '0 .!! lli: ,...:l 0 l:;
, 8 ~O.. ..,.!o.!! S.'ll ' II ' ~''llJ' tJ, ' ".'"
~"'.i~ ~ ~~~~~.~el~ L=.i ~.1
~8.~~.Q ~ .rli'!...i-!!:li"~'H IJ-e
~~I~: ~ i~iiJfJ~!t;!II., :J~
... ~ ...8. ,,~ .11 11.i.;e . l:.1l ~ 1"1'1 Ii' ~
:5ti~i ~/ ~:;;=~...~~i'l!4 lI'~!l-l~
j . l! ~ i' "1I,l! ~ lit ~_ ~! J 11.$ . 2,.- f
il;~: ~~!'I ij] :[~'5 i.~~~j~i:i
~.lllill'~I:f'lllll~ll~ ~~
~='~6~"~i3~~~ , =,~,~~y_~,~
Ec'-il.,;;;~~~~o~'_ ~ ~'~~~~.~c~~~._~
o~~ ~ ..u~~~-~ ~ ~~l"'~ 6c ....
~~~~5~C!~~ ~ ~ -'-e~' l.,;;;~~~~
~~'Q~~!:s: .~ ~ g .~~~~c ~IY"e;
c:Q"c_-=c' .W: llIC ill :e _." ~
~~~"'~l=~~~]i , ~~~ ~~ ~e~.
1~~"1~~I<~~e. ~~e~~~~~~~
~~it!~J~I:f~ .~ ~~~"I'!~~I'~~
.- ~ c. ii 5 ~ F ~ ~ .... ...ll.5. ~ ill ill ..
I~E~~~~I!]EI~~ ~Iil. S~'_~~
~~~i~e~j~~~j~J~f~l~JI~~~"~
~gP~~J~~~~Q~J~~<~~~1 !liJ~
...i____~_i"~_ _ ,,~ou ic.c..~
.s~
~ ~
~~
~ ~J
o =!j
~ a~
H~~
~>-~.."'.._'"
/fern 41= 19
'.
J9~rJf
Pj ;; D-I,;).
REVISED 7 f7 /95
Marked to show changes
RESOLUTION NO.
17957
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING SWEETWATER AUTHORITY'S
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF OSD 14 ASSESSMENT AND
ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING
MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING ZONE 9 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
20 AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
1995-96 FOR OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26 31;
BAY BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTRE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the city
Council has caused the formation of various districts under and
pursuant to either the Chula vista open Space District Procedural
Ordinance ("procedural Ordinance"), as contained in Chapter 17.07
(adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Act
("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code section 22500, et
seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as follows:
1. open space District Nos. 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24,
26 and 31.
2. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre Maintenance Districts.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the city
Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments for
said Open Space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer's Report");
and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1995, the City Council approved the
Engineer'S Reports and set June 13 and July 11, 1995 as the dates
for the public hearings; and,
WHEREAS, Zone 9 (which is an area within an open space
district that is established to pay the share of maintenance costs
of an item that does not have a benefit for the entire district)
needs to be established within Open Space District 20 (Rancho del
Rey) to pay for that development's share of maintenance of
Telegraph Canyon Channel; and
WHEREAS, Sweetwater Authority in letters dated October 17,
1994 and June 20, 1995, requested they be exempted from the yearly
open space assessments for a lot they own in Open Space District
14; and
/q A.-I
c'
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessments for Fiscal Year
1995-96 as they compare to the last year are shown below:
TABLE 2
PRIOR FY'S V.S. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95196 FY95196 % Increase FY 95196 FY95196
Assmntl Assmntl Assmnt! Collectionl or Costl Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease(2) EDU
2 32.00 34.00 39.00(4) 30.00 15% 39.00 7,470
3 250.00 267.00 267.00 204.00 0% 259.00 25,908
4 197.00 282.00 282.00 224.00 0% 271.00 47,040
5 224.00 243.00 275.00(4) 229.00 13% 275.00 27,938
6 128.00 136.00 136.00 0.00 0% 84.00 0
7 87.00 95.00 95.00 39.00 0% 93.00 4,056
8 430.00 430.00 434.00(4) 300.00 1% 434.00 33,000
9 92.00 10 1. 00 123.00(4) 93.00 22% 123.00 35,712
11 81.00 83.00 84.00(4) 74.00 1% 84.00 97,756
14 254.00 270.00 270.00 150.00 0% 269.00 131,004
15 234.00 234.00 240.00(4) 189.00 3% 240.00 10,773
17 124.00 124.00 124.00 0 0% 116.00 0
18 303.00 293.00 293.00 234.00 0% 277.00 90,687
20(1) 203.00 203.00 - - - - 302,2250
Zone 1 DB(]) - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 45.28 -
Zone 2 RC - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.44 -
Zone 3 H - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90 -
Zone 4 BC - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 18.25 -
Zone 5 I - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15 -
Zone 6 II - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41 -
Zone 7 III - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 130.50 -
Zone 8 NDB - 0 30.09 0 NA 30.09 -
Zone 9 TCC - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 23.89 -
23 0 335.00 335.00 205.00 0% 212.00 11 ,536
24 210.00 432.00 502.00 341.00 16% 502.00 13,640
26 359.00 394.00 394.00 356.00 0% 356.00 6,783
31 NA 407.00 407.00 0 0% 392.00 0
Bay Blvd. 1,000.00 889.00 1291.00 31.00 45% 1,291.00 310
Town Centre 43.00 45.00 45.00 39.00 0% 39.00 39,000
l'J Represented average residential assessment in SPA I.
m
Compares FY 94/95 assessment to proposed FY 95/96 assessment.
(3) Includes supplemental item of work - drainage structure south of East H Street, east of Paseo del Rey at
no additional cost.
(4) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff noticed the owners of the amount shown.
/Qf\-r;9..
WHEREAS. Council adopted Ordinance 2631 on June 13. 1995.
distinquishinq assessment from collection aqainst assessment: and
WHEREAS. Ordinance 2631 shall be effective on the thirtieth
dav from and after its adoption. (four davs after the second public
hearinq): and
WHEREAS. the assessments levied are based on Ordinance 2631
beinq in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to all Open Space and
Maintenance Districts herein referenced that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby find that written protests
against the proposed assessment increase have not been made by
owners representing more than one-half of the area of the land to
be assessed from the improvement and confirms the diagram and
assessment contained in the modified Engineer's Report, and orders
the open space and maintenance facilities to be maintained. The
adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of the
assessments as proposed in the modified Engineer's Report for the
1995-96 fiscal year and set forth hereinabove for Open Space
Districts 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, Bay
Boulevard and Town Centre Maintenance Districts. continqent upon
Ordinance 2631 takinq effect and beinq in full force on the
thirtieth day from and after its adoption. to-wit: Julv 13. 1995.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
establish Zone 9 within Open Space District 20 and levy the
assessments for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby defer
action on Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from the
Open Space District charges until they develop the site for their
water facility or enter ito an agreement with the City; and the
city Manager is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement in a
form acceptable to the city Attorney.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, city
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\OsLevy.all
/q p..,-3
r~
RESOLUTION NO.
n 9~-r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INITIATE THE
OPEN SPACE PROCEEDINGS FOR FY 1996/97
WHEREAS, Chula vista Municipal Code section 17.07.020
incorporates the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Codes; and
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways code, section 22622 requires
adoption of a resolution to initiate proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized
to prepare and file an Engineer's Report to begin the process of
determining assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 for Open Space
Districts 1-11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26 and Eastlake
Maintenance District No.1, Bay Boulevard Maintenance District and
Town Centre Maintenance District.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ ~~t"'-
Bruce M. Boogaard, 1ty
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
\C\~- \
Item No.
..1.tJ
Date
7/11/95
.Jtl. PUBLIC HEARING ADDENDUM TO THE 1993 UPDATE OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, WITH NO
CHANGE IN THE FEE AMOUNT
staff recommends that the item be continued.
~{)-tl
'J'
~"-",,,,,,,,<,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'''"'''''''''''''''--''''-- ,-"-"~~,-,~~~'"-.._----,,,,
-",""",--,.
~ ",___,,,__,:_____~_,_,,,,,,~,,,,-,,,,,_,.4..~(~~,..u,L_____..___" ""_..,,,_,,~~
~~i
,.1-
/r
/
PUBLIC HEARING Q-lECJ{ LIST
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAXL; BY HAND ; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE lD 0 ~ ~ f
~
PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
.\-l...A..
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
-
NO. MAILED
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San D'ego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK c..
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
-55-
.>>-t} -I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Purpose of approving addendum to 1993 Update of the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee, with no change in the fee amount.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
June 20, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: June 7, 1995
Publish on June 10, 1995 and June 14, 1995
..2 tJ -() - d-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item ;../
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Resolution I 795'J To become a Founding Community Leader ofthe National
"Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge"
SUBMITTED BY:
Community Development r,e.ctor
City Manager.J1 ~~l
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge" is a grassroots project being developed by a coalition of
the nation's corporate, environmental, government and academic leaders to promote and showcase examples of
"better, faster, cheaper, safer" environmental technology. The "Challenge" is being designed to promote new and
innovative environmental technologies that "give us a healthier environment, a greater market share for U.S.
companies, and more jobs for American workers." The overriding goal is to challenge communities, non-
governmental organizations and businesses to foster technology partnerships and put environmental technologies
to use. As a result of our Border Environmental Commerce Alliance (BECA), Chula Vista has been invited to
join the Challenge as a "Founding Leader." As a Founding Leader, Chula Vista will help develop and lead the
Challenge. In turn, we will be "spotlighted" as a national leader of this effort to stimulate the use of innovative
technologies that enhance the economy and protect the environment.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution I) accepting the invitation to become a Founding
Leader of the national "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge (ETLC)," 2) approving in concept the
City's hosting of a Regional Roundtable subject to approval by Council of the Roundtable format, and related
budget impacts; and 3) directing staff to work with the "Challenge" coalition to develop and implement the ETLC
program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
I. INVITATION TO CHULA VISTAI"KICK OFF" MEETING
In mid-May, staff was approached by a representative from the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.), Mr.
John Atcheson, who indicated a strong interest in providing on-site, direct assistance to BECA in terms
of facilitating access to diverse federal resources. This individual has been involved in high level efforts
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Pollution Prevention Office), D.O.E., and the White House
Science Office, and he was involved in developing the Economic Competitiveness section of the White
House National Environmental Technology Strategy and the Administration's Environmental Technology
Export Strategy. Staff is currently in discussions with this individual regarding the potential for him to
be made available "on loan" from D.O.E. to the BECA program. This individual has already assisted
BECA by linking Chula Vista to the national "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge," resulting
in an invitation to join the program as a Founding Community Leader, as discussed in this staff report.
On May 25 "Challenge" project managers Church and Dwight Co., Inc. (maker of ARM & HAMMER
environmental technologies) and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation invited a BECA representative
;1;-1
~\
Page 2, Item .21
Meeting Date 7/11/95
to attend a June 13 Kick-Off meeting for representatives from environmental organizations, corporations,
non-government organizations (NGO's), local communities, academic institutions and the federal
government at the Washington office of Spiegel & McDiarmid. The purpose was to introduce the
Challenge Leaders (committed and prospective), and to discuss program objectives, game plan, and the
potential roles of the Leaders.
Examples of participating business leaders include SAIC, American Standard/The Trane Co., Lockheed
Martin Energy Systems Corp., ATT, Home Depot, Safety-Kleen, General Motors, Dow Environmental
Inc., Hewlett Packard, ITT & 3M. Among federal government representatives were D.O.E., E.P.A.,
D.O.C. and the White House Science Office. Academic institutions included University of Virginia,
Cornell University, University of Michigan, and Princeton University. NGO's included such agencies as
Claes Nobel Institute for Environmental Technologies (NY), Institute for Sustainable Technology (W A),
Global Environmental and Technology Foundation (V A), Rocky Mountain Institute (CO), and Renew
America (D.C.). And, finally, attending local communities included Charlottesville, VA, Chattanooga,
TN, Orlando, FL, and Baltimore, MD.
The City's Economic Development Manager represented Chula Vista and the BECA at the June 13
meeting. The Economic Development Manager was able to travel to Washington due to Challenge project
managers providing the needed travel and lodging funds - approximately $1,000. Chula Vista's BECA
program, Greenfleets and proposed Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project were discussed at this
meeting, and related materials were provided. The Economic Development Manager was subsequently
selected to participate on an Ad Hoc Steering Committee to help refine "Challenge" parameters for input
to and approval by all participating Challenge leaders. Proposed Challenge guidelines will be presented
to all Challenge Leaders via conference call on July 20.
II. "CHALLENGE" MISSION
The Challenge is an action-oriented campaign that will focus on fostering technology partnerships, putting
environmental technologies to use, and showcasing the innovation and success stories that result. This
will be accomplished by building the coalition of technology providers, potential ~, environmental
organizations, local communities and academic institutions which will in turn publicly "challenge" the
nation's corporations and local communities to put these technologies to use.
The Challenge will broadly define "environmental technology" using the following "National
Environmental Technology Strategy" definition:
"A technology that reduces human and ecological risks, enhances cost effectiveness,
improves process efficiency and create products and processes that are environmentally
beneficial or benign. The word "technology" includes hardware, software, systems, and
services. Categories include those that avoid environmental harm, control existing
problems, remediate or restore past damage, and monitor and assess the state of the
environment. "
Objectives are:
I) Showcase environmental technologies and leaders that are solving the nation's
pollution problems "better, faster, cheaper, safer."
.2/-.2.
Page 3, Item-.d:l
Meeting Date 7/11/95
2) Demonstrate how sustainable environmental protection, cost savings, and
economic prosperity go hand-in-hand.
3) Illustrate how action-oriented technology partnerships both create value for the
partners and for society as a whole.
The goal is to have at least 50 corporations and communities take the Challenge within the initial two year
period.
III. PUBLIC PROMOTION
The Challenge will be publicly launched sometime in the fall of 1995 and then promoted through a series
of Regional Roundtables (approximately 6). It is currently envisioned that BECA will host one of these
roundtables in Chula Vista. After partnerships are formed and technologies are used and demonstrated,
the provider and user will assess how the use benefited the company in terms of cost savings and how it
resulted in environmental improvement.
This assessment will be evaluated by a committee of academic and environmental leaders. The initial
"success stories" will be published and showcased in a national celebration, along with those who issue
and accept the Challenge, at the end of the two-year first phase of the program.
IV. ROLES OF "CHALLENGE" LEADERS
A. "Founding Leaders" (Issuing the Challenge)
The project will be guided by the Founding Leaders, who will serve as the Advisory Board.
Founding Leaders wiJI issue the Challenge to America's corporations and communities at an initial
launch and then reissue the Challenge at regional roundtables and other events and forums around
the country.
Founding leaders wiJI benefit in the following ways:
I) Public recognition as Environmental Technology Leader.
2) Relationships with innovative corporations, national
environmental organizations, academic institutions, other local
governments, and federal officials.
3) Public visibility as prominent spokespersons for the Challenge at
public events.
4) Opportunity to access federal programs and resources to foster
the development, use and export of environmental technology
(e.g. E.P.A., D.O.C., D.O.E., D.O.D., Interagency Environmental
Technologies Office).
5) Facilitate partnerships to implement use of environmental
technologies.
.2/ - J
Page 4, Item ~ J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
The City and BECA, in particular, would be expected to benefit from the positive, image-building
publicity and the unique access to federal programs that could help achieve ongoing BECA
funding and expanded BECA Pilot Programs (including cross-border initiatives) as well as
potentially help City projects such as the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus to be successful.
B. Leaders "Taking the Challenge"
When a business or community takes the Challenge, they agree to:
1) Form a partnership with one or more technology provider to put an
innovative technology to use.
2) Work with the provider to cooperatively assess the results of the
partnership and write up the "success story" including documentation of
pollution reduced, energy saved, cost savings achieved, and other
economic and environmental benefits.
3) Submit the "success story" for review to the Challenge Evaluation
Committee.
4) Help promote the "success story" in publications and public events.
5) In the case of a local community, the "success story" can be related to:
.
Use of innovative technologies
Challenging local/regional businesses to participate
Challenging counterpart cities/counties to participate
Implementing policies, management systems supporting
Challenge goals
Assisting business to successfully take the Challenge
.
.
.
.
V. EVALUATION OF CHALLENGE SUCCESS STORIES
A Challenge Guidebook will be distributed which provides examples of real world innovative technology
providers and lists generic ~ of technologies (e.g. aqueous cleaners), as well as sources of innovative
technologies (e.g. federal programs, or BECA ).
An Evaluation Committee will be formed, comprised of 12 Founding Leaders including six representatives
from NGO's; two from academic institutions; two from local communities; and two from the business
community. This committee will develop the specific criteria for evaluating "success stories" prior to the
Launch. Founding Leaders will approve the criteria. Successes will include projects at different stages
of development (e.g. in planning, underway, and completed) as well as in different categories (e.g. putting
technology to use; forming high potential partnerships; involving stakeholders).
Businesses taking the Challenge will complete an application form, describing the proposed partnership
and environmental technology to be put to use, as well as how they plan to measure "success." The
company will be responsible for providing documentation of results to the Evaluation Committee.
..2/-r
1', l
~-'
-I
Page 5, Item-.d.L
Meeting Date 7/11/95
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council commit to Chula Vista acting as a Founding Leader and direct staff to
work with the Coalition to develop and implement the program. As noted, staff has begun to work with
the coalition informally pending Council's approval of this resolution. It is staff's opinion that the
"Challenge" represents an outstanding public relations and federal resource opportunity for BECA as well
as potentially for other city environmental technology projects such as the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Business
Demonstration Project.
Staff also recommends that the Council conceptually approve City/BECA hosting of a Regional
Roundtable, which is further discussed in the next section.
VII. SCHEDULEINEXT STEPS
As noted, the Founding Leadership Coalition will discuss updated general program parameters on July 20
(via conference call) with the goal of adopting same. An Evaluation Committee will be formed,
evaluation criteria will be established and approved, and a Guidebook will be published. The Challenge
is plarmed to be launched in September 1995 with regional roundtables following. We will be pursuing
the prospect of BECA co-sponsoring a Western Roundtable and returning to Council with more detailed
information, including any required City expenditures prior to a final commitment bv the City to host such
an event.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost to the City to act as a Founding Community Leader. However, it
will entail staff support which will be assigned primarily to grant. funded BECA staff, but may also include
Economic Development, Public Information or other staff.
In terms of hosting a Western Regional Roundtable, staff will need to clarify costs (not yet determined) and what
financial contributions can be made by the Challenge Coalition, the BECA grant funds and/or other BECA
partners, and return to Council for final approval to proceed. At this point, it is anticipated that no significant
financial contributions will be needed from the City. However, if needed, such costs could potentially come from
and not exceed the $15,000 appropriated to the Economic Development budget for marketing in FY 1995/96.
[(MD)C:\wp51\document\462.95 (rev. July 6, 1995)]
..2./-5 );/-?
--
RESOLUTION /? 951
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AFFIRMING OUR DESIRE TO BECOME A
FOUNDING COMMUNITY LEADER OF THE NATIONAL
"ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP
CHALLENGE"
WHEREAS, on the eleventh day of July 1995, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was duly
convened upon notice properly given and a quorum was duly noted; and
WHEREAS, the "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge" is a grassroots project being
developed by a coalition of the nation's corporate, environmental, government, and academic leaders to
promote and showcase innovative technologies that "give us a healthier environment, a greater market share
for U.S. companies, and more jobs for American workers;" and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista as the administrator of the Border Environmental Commerce
Alliance (BECA) has been invited to participate as a Founding Leader, in the "Environmental Technology
Leadership Challenge;" and
WHEREAS, as a Founding Leader, Chula Vista will serve on the "Challenge" Advisory Board and will
help issue the challenge to American corporations and communities to foster technology partnerships and
to put innovative environmental technologies to use; and
WHEREAS, as a Founding Leader, Chula Vista will gain national recognition as a Community Leader
and enhanced access to federal and corporate resources, and will have the opportunity to participate in the
national launching of the project and to host a regional "Challenge" roundtable.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find,
order, determine and resolve as follows:
1. To accept the invitation to become a Founding Leader in the "Environmental Technology
Leadership Challenge."
2. To agree, in concept, to host a Regional Roundtable subject to subsequent approval by
Council of the roundtable format and its budget impacts.
3. To direct staff to work with the "Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge" to develop
and implement the program.
PRESENTED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
~~~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
0-f'- ?'vt~~ t<~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
[(MD)c:\wp51\document\471.95 (rev. July 6,1995)]
.2/~ 7
"') '."
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J.J.
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /? ? I tl Amending the Conditions of Approval for the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works I C'l
Director of Parks and Recreatio~
t(v
REVIEWED BY: City Manager o<,,((n (4/5 Vote: Yes_No X)
") '" Council Referral No. 2960
At the March 28, 1995, meeting of the City Council, Council received written correspondence
from Ms. Claudia Diamond (Diamond Consulting Group, 539 Telegraph Canyon Road, Suite
145, Chula Vista, CA 91910 - Exhibit A) which was addressed under oral communications. In
her presentation to the Council, Ms. Diamond raised two specific concerns which she indicated
she felt had not been adequately addressed in connection with the construction of Paseo
Ranchero. McMillin Development Company (Rancho del Rey) is currently constructing Paseo
Ranchero as part of their SPA III development. This construction includes the widening of the
existing sidewalk along Paseo Ranchero from 5.5 feet in width to 8 feet in width as part of the
community trail system planned by the Parks and Recreation Department to run from the south
leg of Rice Canyon to Telegraph Canyon. One of Ms. Diamond's issues is the need for the
eight (8) foot sidewalk and whether or not there would be a horse trail through the area. Ms.
Diamond is opposed to the widening. The other issue raised by Ms. Diamond at the meeting,
but not in her March 28 letter, was that of a 45 M.P.H. speed limit based on the design speed,
as opposed to the 35 M.P.H. speed limit requested by Homeowners Association. She indicated
that the speed limit was proposed to go to the Safety Commission, but had not done so yet.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council approve the resolution amending the conditions of
approval for Chula Vista Tract 90-02 to delete the requirement for an expanded 8 to 10 foot
wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along the western side of Paseo Ranchero adjacent to the
Villa Palmera development.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In her letter and presentation, Ms. Diamond is addressing two main points. The first main issue
she addressed was that she attended the November 22, 1994 meeting and that she has had no
follow up to the meeting. As indicated in the November Council meeting, when new streets are
completed, the speed limits are not immediately posted and are subject to the prima facie speeds
as set forth in the California Vehicle Code. Once an engineering/traffic survey has been
conducted giving justification for the need to decrease or increase the prima facie speed limits,
local agencies may then post the appropriate speed limits. The law also provides that the speed
limit may be lowered below the 85th percentile only when physical conditions are present which
p2)..-!
Page 2, Item .1).
Meeting Date 7/11/95
are not readily apparent to the driver. In the case of the design of Paseo Ranchero, the presence
of such physical conditions cannot be clearly stated without a full engineering and traffic survey
after the road is in operation. Ms. Diamond will be notified when this item goes before the
Safety Commission.
The second main issue concerns the proposed expansion of the sidewalk adjacent to her
development. The walk along Paseo Ranchero was proposed to be widened from the current 5.5
feet to a width of 8 feet as part of the regional pedestrian trail system throughout Rancho del
Rey. The purpose was to provide a pedestrian linkage to the open space areas and adjacent
communities as one of the amenities of the Rancho del Rey plan. The trail system was approved
by the Council in conjunction with approval of the SPA plan. The residents of Villa Palmera
have had questions about the effect of the sidewalk on the landscaping and other related items.
The attached letter (Exhibit B) from Barbara Chandler dated January 3, 1995 expressed those
concerns.
The Parks and Recreation Department has re-evaluated the need for the widened portion of the
trail along the Villa Palmera frontage. The Department has determined that in an effort to work
with the residents of Villa Palmera the expanded sidewalk can be eliminated and that directional
signage can be used to inform the public that the trail system continues from Rice Canyon down
to Telegraph Canyon Road. The developers have consented to placing these directional signs
and to amending the conditions of the tentative map required to implement this change (Exhibit
C). Therefore, the conditions of the Tentative Map need to be revised. Approximately 500
feet of the trail will be affected. The wider combination concrete sidewalk and decomposed
granite trail system will start again south of East "J" Street.
In order to affect this recommendation, it is suggested that Condition Number 12 of Resolution
number 16222 be amended to read as follows:
The developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8 to I 0 foot wide sidewalk/recreational
pathway along the western side of Paseo Ranchero, to connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice
Canyon and in the Telegraph Canyon Road open space area. These improvements shall be installed in
conjunction with the construction phases of Paseo Ranchero specified in the Public Facilities Financing.
A wider sidewalk/trail system shall not be required across the frontage of the Villa Palmera subdivision at
the northwest corner of Paseo Ranchero and East "r Street.
Approval of the resolution will implement the above change.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All of the costs of these changes will be borne by the developers of Rancho del Rey. All City
staff costs will be reimbursed by them. The future cost of maintenance of the trail system may
be insignificantly lower due to not having to maintain the extra width of the trail across the Villa
Palmera subdivision. The amount of the maintenance cost decrease cannot be determined.
Attaclunents:
Exhibit A: Letters dated March 14 and 28, 1995 from Diamond Consulting Group
Exhibit B: Letter January 3, 1995; from Barbara Chandler
Exhibit C: Letter from McMillin Development Company
File: EY~393. BY.399
m:\home\engineer\agenda\diamond. cis
.22~ ;2
.<
RESOLUTION NO.
1?9~tJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA)
III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Tentative
Subdivision Map by Resolution No. 16222, commonly referred as as
Rancho Del Rey sectional Plannng Area (SPA) III, Chula vista Tract
90-02, ("Tentative Map"); and
WHEREAS, Condition No. 12 of the Tentative Map requires
McMillin Development Company (Rancho del Rey) to construct Paseo
Ranchero as part of their SPA III development which construction
includes the widening of the existing sidewalk along Paseo Ranchero
from 5.5 feet in width to 8 feet in width as part of the community
trail system planned by the Parks and Recreation Department to run
from the south leg of Rice Canyon to Telegraph Canyon; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department has re-
evaluated Condition No. 12 and determined there is not a need for
a widened portion of the trail along the Villa palmera frontage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby amend Condition No. 12 of approving
the Tentative Map to read as follows:
12. The developer shall be responsible for construction of an
expanded 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalkjrecreatinal pathway
alon gthe western side of Paseo Ranchero, to connect the
trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the
Telegraph canyon Road open space area. These
improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the
construction phases of Paseo Ranchero specified in the
Public Facilities Financing. A wider sidewalk/trail
system shall not be required across the frontage of the
Villa Palmera subdivision at the northwest corner of
Paseo Ranchero and East "J" street.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
other conditions of Resolution No.
and effect.
except as modified herein, all
16222 shall remain in full force
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~ Nl~~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, cit
Attorney
,,2:2.- ;J!JA-f
t'l- hibJ- A
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
jb
A DIVISION OFCC& R PROPI!RTYJNVBSTMEIITS,INC.
S39 Telegraph Canyon Rei. Sic. '145 Chula Villa, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fu: (619)-421-5628
March 28, 1995
Mayor Shirley Horton IDd The Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
De8r Ms. Horton IDd City Council,
I have twice previously made presentations to City Council The first time was August 23, 1994. After which,
City Council _t my concerns to various members on the city staff fer review lIIId resolution. I, &lone with two
other home owners in my community met with staff on September 23, 1994. The first thine I was asked at that
meetina was "So which issues out of your questions do you want 811SWe1ec17" "All of them" I responded. It became
evident very quickly that the men sitting around the table had DO inlAlntion of answering any questions except those
which they had hand picked. A writlAln response was received, but many issues remained unanswered. As of this
date, the situatioo remains the same.
I next atlAlnded the November 22, 1994 City Council Meeting. As luck would have it, our FAX machine was on the
day that the City faxed me over the page that dealt with Villa PaImeta Concerns being on thai agenda. I never
received a follow up phone call to be sure I received the fax, no letter, ell:. I did atlAlnd the November 22nd meetin&
lIIId once again addressed issues of concern which had been presented previously. It is now FOUR months later and I
have received absolutely NO follow up to that ~ting. (Copy of my presentation atlachecl). AI the City Council
Meeting that Diabl, discussion ensued reganling the posting of signs from 4) B) of my concems. II was further
determined thai the Safety Commission would review the speed limil issue addressecI in concern 3). I am still
waitina to attend the Safety Commission Meetina!
I find it incredible that we, the taxpayers, contribute to the salaries of the people working for the City IDd yet they
have no obligation whatsoever to respond 10 our concerns completely IDd in a timely manner. If this was private
industry, a person would be fired for not responding 10 cnn.....- concerns. In private industry a company Mp-l.
on its people doing a good job and responding to the public or the company will fold Apparently, whether you do
your job or not, worlting for the City guaanlees you a paycheck!
Infac:t, the City views the homeowners of Villa Pa1mera as "low rent apartment dwelling troub1emakers." This,
incidently, is a direct quote by more than one member of the City staff, which of courae explains why the City does
not care whether we are respondeclto or not! I should like to tell you that we have qDite a number of impessive
people who own the 76 single family homes in our community. We have writen, consuJtants, apeakers, nurses,
doctora, dentists, lawyers, retired military, retired folka who spent much of their careers wodWJa in industriea riabl
here in Chula Vista, lIUCce&SfuJ business 0WDeI'8, people who work for JocaJ TV llations, educators, people who stay
home to raise their cbildren and those who even watch their ll""""'hildren I The home owners are a very eclectic and
law abiding group of individuals. The Community has a homeowners as&OCiation because we have a pool lIIId
common area 1000""lping. The Community is meticulously ","m..m..t which is a reflection of pride in ownership.
The City, as well as the bui1der should be delighted to have neighbon who take such aood care of their homes.
This will only make a new community more lIIlUketabJe when the homes are built.
The Community is still very concernecI over Ihe proposed expanaion of the sidewalk which nms &long Paseo
Ranchero on the west side. Resolution 16222, 114. c. (attachecl) states (The fino) design of Paseo Ranchero sha11
incJude...excepl in} "Mission Verde subdivisions where existing conditions sha11 remain." Per the City's' Streel
Design Standan! Policy', 8' wide sidewa1ks are constructed &lone 4 Lane and 6 Lane Major S_ in commercial
areas, NOT in residenti&l areas. The sidewalk designation for a 'CJaas I Colleclor Street' is SoS', which is the
existing condition along Paseo Ranchero. An 8' wide aidewa1k ia completely inccaaisteut with the sidewalks in and
around Rancho Del Rey (see atD~'-' sheet). .
;!)-f
A-I
Taking an additiooal2.S' of sidewalk away from the ViDa Palmera Community would severely compromise the
habitability of the homeowners living along this stretch of sidewalk. The backyuds of the homes to be built on the
east side ofPaseo Ranchero will be at least SO' from the road and there will be a wall around the I"V1""Ii",,; a much
different condition than our homes. At a meeting of the ViDa Pa1mera Homeowners in January of this year,
Coustance Byram of McMillin indicated that she knew of DO reasoo why the expanded sidewalk could not be on the
east side of Paseo Ranchero.
If the City insists on recldessly abandoning its own guidelines in proposing to expand the sidewalk, we have a
solution. As you are aware, an equestrian crossing 011 Rancho Del Rey l'ukway has been approved by the City
Engineer. Building an equestrian crossing over Paseo Ranchero Dorth of the ViDa Palmera Community to
accnmmn<l.tp pedestrians will leave our sidewalk intact, while still providing an S' sidewalk (trail) on the east side of
Paseo Ranchero.
Thank you for your time.
ODd RN, BA, MPH
President, ViDa era Homeowners Assoc.
PreSideDt, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
cc: ViDa Palmera Board of Directors
Curtis Management, Christine Olivas and Legal CouDSeI
.2)'-.? f2- /2.. A - d-.
an OF CHULA VISTA
CITY CLEItK'S OFFICE (,
':f'!
RECEIVEDD~~~OF~~~~~~Otrn~! :.~[C8Jt/)
15 lIAR 17 AID ~2 539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. SIc. , 145 Cbula Villa, CA. 91910 ~;, t.101'/){f.~J;.
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628 ') ,""'",. '" CFt:JI_'" ..
~.) -II.;;" !Jr ''"'c: .,: ,
",,:-CIl\ 1".. ^
\.~, u..Ifi '/"
,<,~
Mayor Shirley Horton and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 14, 1995
Dear Ms. Horton and City Council Members,
I would like to request an opportunity to address the Council at the meeting of March 21,1995
regarding an unresolved issue affecting the Villa PalmeJa Community. The presentation will be
limited to 10 minutes.
Your office can contact me at the above phone number or address to let me know where I will be
on the agenda.
Thanking you in advance.
CkA'~~~~~rnPJ-/
Clau:~:;f~, BA, MPH
President, CC&R 'PtO}'<'l Lj Investments, Inc.
President, Villa Palmera Homeowners Association
cc: Villa Palmera Board Members
Curtis Management
V. P. Association Legal Counsel
e1J.-?
-,~"""", ....T.
\J V;;':-- UIJ ''&'&:-'J.Ul.tJ I
-'l.-I fT""Vr LnL'U V I~l}l i11- -1/ 1
E-1hi bi-+6
March 31, 1995
TO:
FAX:
FROM:
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer/City Council Members/Mayor Horton
691-5171
Barbara Chandler
RE:
PROPOSED EXPANSION OF PASEO RANCHERO SIDEWALK
At the March 28 City Council Meeting, City Council concluded that further review was
needed on Item 5B, the proposed expansion of the sIdewalk on the west side of
Paseo Ranchera befare any final conclusion could be made.
I found that to be a fair and encouraging assessment of what we feel is a grossly
unfair and unnecessary proposal. I thank City Council for its time.
Apparantly, though, McMillin has not gotten the message that this proposed sidewalk
expansion has not reached final conclusion. Yesterday, 3130, they marked up the
sidewalk and grassy areas In front of our homes In apparant preparation for sidewalk
expansion.
I'm fervently hoping that this is due to a lack of communication between the City
Engineer's office and McMillin. I would hate to think that private Industry would be
allowed to just flagrantly ignore City Council's conclusIons, or the due process entitled
to us as taxpaying, homeowning citizens of Chula Vista.
Please tell McMillin to Immediately stop all preparation for sidewalk expansion until this
Issue has reached final resolution.
By the way, I understand some members of City Sta.ff refer to us residents of Villa
Palmera as "low-rent troublemakers." That's odd. Last time I checked, my husband
and I were a single family homeowners wIth professional careers that earn us In
excess of $100,000 a year.
Welfare, anyone?
sincere~ I-
..1""".,.,
1063 Castana Plaza
Chula Vista, CA 91910
-
6-1
.22 --1
f:,fh I bl + C-/
. Oz\N01O.DfL.Rf:Y.
July 5, 1995
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention:
Mr. Clifford L. Swanson, DeputY Director of Public Works!
CitY Engineer
Subject:
CitY Council Resolution 16222, Chula Vista Tract 90-02
Consent to Modification of Condition # 12
Dear Cliff:
Condition #12 of the CitY Council resolution approving our project known as Rancho Del
Rey SPA ill requires an expanded 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along Paseo
Ranchero to connect the trail system in the southerly leg of Rice Canyon to the Telegraph
Canyon Road corridor. We understand that the CitY Council is considering a modification
to this condition which would delete this requirement for the portion of Paseo Ranchero
directly adjacent to the Villa Palmera condominium project. We have no objection to this
modification.
Very Truly Yours,
Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P.
~$~
Thom Fuller, P.E.
Vice President, McMillin Project Services, Inc.
c-;
2.2 "11
2727 Hoover Avenue
NationAl City, California 92050.9973
.
(0191477.411 ,
fie::;
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Sle. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
TO: Mayor Shirley Horton and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton and City Council,
Per the proposed Resolution No. 17960 I would strongly encourage you to vote in the affirmative.
July 11, 1995
As you are aware, on behalf of the single family homeowners of the Villa Palmera Community, I
requested that the sidewalk remain as it exists, that is 5.5', since August of 1994. Two times
subsequent to my original presentation, I presented my concerns and noted the violation of the
City's own 'Street Design Standard Policy' regarding the street size and corresponding sidewalk
widths along the easterly portion of our development That specifically, 8' wide sidewalks are
constructed along 4 Lane and 6 Lane Major Streets in commercial areas, NOT in residential areas.
As I am hoping that your vote will support leaving our sidewalk at the existing 5.5' width, I have
the following concerns which I ask you to address and apprise me of as soon as you can:
1. When will the markings made along the entire expanse of sidewalk be removed and by whom?
These markings were placed in March of this year and despite inclement weather remain very
visible.
2. How will the sidewalk north of our existing sidewalk abut with ours? It will be 8' (or IO'?)
wide and ours is 5.5'. Obviously, we desire it to appear as though the two belong together and the
union is aesthetically pleasing. One suggestion would be a gradual contouring of the yet to be built
sidewalk until it, too, is 5.5'.
3. The original designation of this expanded sidewalk (per Resolution 16222 and in conversations
I had with Marty Schmidt of the City and Constance Byram of McMillan) was equestrian. At our
meeting with City staff in September, the City indicated that it was not designated equestrian and
that signage could be posted indicating NO HORSES. When and where will this be done?
The other issue that is addressed in the same Council Agenda Statement as Resolution No. 17960
is that of the speed along Paseo Ranchero.
As you are aware, this issue was one of our major concerns as long ago as August of 1994, was
addressed to City Council on three separate occasions and has continued to be a major concern.
Very shortly after most of us purchased our homes, the road design was changed, which meant a
wider road, increased speed and elimination of the parking lane. City staff has continuously
denied that the road was ever designated anything but how it is now proposed. City Council
adopted The Street Design Standards Policy in Resolution 15349 on October 17, 1989. Almost
every home had been purchased in our development prior to that date! (See Attachments A & B).
At the meeting with City Staff in September of 1994, I repeatedly raised my concern that children
would be walking along Paseo Ranchero, that speeds in excess of 35 MPH would be dangerous
and that an injury or even death was certainly foreseeable by the City of Chula Vista. Harold
Rosenberg, the City's Traffic Engineer finally consented to having the posted speed at 35 MPH
until such time that the 85 % was conducted. (Please see the attached memo {#2} from Steve
Griffin, Principal Planner dated September 23, 1994 [Attachment C], my letter dated September
28, 1994 {#3}to Steve Griffin [Attachment D) and Steve Griffin's letter dated November 4, 1994
{#3}[ Attachment E)). Subsequent to that meeting, Harold Rosenberg's report reflected a speed of
40 MPH.
02,;2-/ ;J
"r"' , \
<J~"l
At the same meeting, I also spoke about posting a 25 MPH sign on Paseo Ranchero in the vicinity
of the school. Mr. Rosenberg indicated that it was not necessary since the entrance to the school
was on East "J" St In his letter dated October 20th to Steve Griffin, Mr. Rosenberg indicated that
he will install the 25 MPH sign. (Attachment F). This means that there will be THREE different
speed postings along Paseo Ranchero beginning north at East "H" St. and ending at East Telegraph
Canyon Rd This is because McMillan has indicated that the speed south of East "J" St. along
Paseo Ranchero cannot be posted above 35 MPH do to the topography of the land. This expanse
of road will be most confusing to motorists, no doubt. I sincerely hope that no one is injured nor
that any lives are lost as a result of foolishness and lack of foresight on the part of the City Traffic
Engineer and the City.
Please keep me informed of any study (studies) which are conducted I look forward to meeting
with the Safety Commission.
As always, my sincerest thanks to you, members of the City Council.
.
Claudia J.
President, . a Palmera HOA
President, CC&R Property Investments
CC: Villa Palmera Board Members
Curtis Management Co.
Legal Counsel
J.J -/1
-
.01 - - - \
a~ .. .. .. ;''' .. .. .. U" U" .. ..
,... ,... 0 -... on ... on -0 -0 on '"
.. .. .. .. ... .... .... ..
"
-
-
....
..-
~e; . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0
M~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
on 0 '" ... .... .... .. ...
",0 .... ..
~X~
-
..
:z -
"'~:z
z: ... 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0
I ii 0 on 0 0 0 0 C> C> I
0 .... ... ... .. .. .. ...
..
,f ..
I !li: '" .-< .-< .-< .-< N N ,.., ,..,
P.t 10 Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
Cl Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0
, .c~ > > > > > > > > >
U U U U U U U U U
.
~ 1
~t 0 ~1 ... ... C> ... .. ... .c
.. ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ....
...!; '" :z
UIll
..u
to
:il~= .
.....!:; ... ... 0 C> C> 0 0 C> 0 0 0
to .... ....
i~:
u",.c
t:aLol
t~= - . \ . - - -
tl l:i '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - <>
~ ...
.."...
Ul:Z~
...
.
...0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... <>
:z
::l~
alt '" . -
.. ... ... ... <> .. .. ... ... <> 0
I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1.>; N
.. ....
0 ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ...
:z
130 , .
.... <> <> 0 '" <> on '" on '" '"
.... ,... "' ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
.....
Oil>
13.: <> 0 <> 0 0 I . I I I .
0 <> <> <> 0
.. . 0 <> 0 <> ..
..0 . .
~.c 0 "' 0 ... ..
on ... ..
Vl' .
~!i " .-< .-< .-< .-< N N '"' '"'
u"'O
~ ! ..
2 Q
..~ '" '" u
~\~~ ~ ~ lI> lI> ~~
.. :;2~ .. ..
~ ...t ... .. ,.: "'.
~::l .. ..... .. '" ... ....
'" UlI> '" =:;2 "'2 zQ
.. 0::> '" WI
I . 0" 0 'iO .. ..u ",u 0" ..
0 ...0 ... :t.:' % \!So .co ...:> ...
... a lI>U III :::... ~ ..... 3''' ..u ..
. I;! :! 0 I I ::l ~
... U ... ... ...
",d"
']
~
. ::.s'
"'"-L
..
I
I
~
..
~
-
\j i
U
~
c t:
..
1 U
<:
)
(; . .
.;2:2-/~
-66-
.i1ra
---,~------------
S :2= " \
. 00 ..
~ . ~w S
,,~ 01 -!
0
.. ::i..
a ..
01 0"
\ ~~ ~'"
.., ~2
~ :il" 0:<
Ol- ..
~ ~::: tlS
0111>
.01 ii...
~ 26 ..
lI>
.. ..
~~ 01 .
III \:l~
Ol ...
~ ~~ ......
lI>
..
....
0
" II>::i . ....
t: ~~ .. ..
.' ... ~~
:! ..
~~ 3'11>
.. ..
.. 0 ...:
~ ow
0'" .. ..I:::
~{; ..
01 "':>"'
. ... U ",,,,
~ ~:z .. ... Ol
01 "Q" .
II> O~"
~~ '"
... z ..
~I .." ." .c~~
. ......
. '" :;:.. 01 "':>11>
~ ... ... ~ "u
.,; 7,1 ..t .. ..
ti .c",z
... .. I ~tl " ~:z;.'"
" 01 ~: :~j ~ .....,J!
:l .. ~t; " .:.0
,.~ &/: () ... :>)
<> ...~. ... '" .. I
.. <> 01" U ...-
l< ... !:! Ill' ~~ 0- -....
.. ,,' \:l. "01'"
U " 0( . " '" 0
01 .. '" ... ....:"
t .. .. ..0 :> ".....
U" ..... 0 0:0
)(0 ..!( ~ .c...o
0 ..... '" ...~..
!\l ~, ~~
foO ~ ....Ill
... 0" 0: ii~ ozo:
i ",.. r, ~ z~B
U ... ..
w .... :> '" 2 0"
.. 2'" 0 o - 1-4:>1:-.
.. ...'" '" r....c c
Q iHj z t~ ., U"
... :> 0:
01 Z iil~ .. oXL
III .. Q '" w:> .
:~ 01 foU !:l ..:l: .
~ :3' ",,,, ~ ....
0 :Z01ll .. .. z.
.. 85~ ~ :> t-4 =
= 0'" oJ o:;:f-
0 < .. 0:
... "'.. a: Q ..... ,
5 1Il% W o -!;j .. Po. = (
.. ~f;! III ..a: .. .c...
.c 0 W \:l '>'I..."
... ~ .." ..fo2
.. .... .. l::~... U ~~'
.. .. '"
.. = <> ..",a: 0
j ~ ...= :z; ... .. u M
.. ... III ...
... .,,, '" "'::!'" ~ wo
u ~ foZ 0: ., .c ~ z=
"'~ < "':> ...
U i ... ou'" '" .
... f;! ... 0 tl z..
= "'.. .. IIlW ....
.. 0 wO u \:l0" 0(
~ u "'g 0; :>0 Q .....
..... ~ ..0:
:5 :z; .. " IIlU'" .....
'" ag or. - '" Uf;!
... !;! 1::"'5 ..
~ .. '" "'...
... "'.. ~, ",~.c 0 ",..
U .. ... ....
- - ,.
.. e U '" . . .
- -- ... ... ...
][igu~e 14
_ .no
CLASS I COLLECTOR STREETS'
:1'>.
I
~-"
, .'j'-'
"'It!,
___ 5.
'.~
~
""i
94'
8%
700' with 5% supere1evation to 1100' with no
supere1evation
Class I collector ,streets serve primarily to circulate localized traffic
and"to distri.bute traffic to and from arterials and major streets. Class
I collectors are designed to accommodate four lanes of traffic, however,
th~y'carrylower traffic volumes at slower speeds than major arterials,
and'they have a continuous left turn lane separating the two directions of
traffic flow. Typically, intersections shall be spaced no closer than 660
feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and signalized
intersections shall be spaced at one-quarter mile intervals.
Design ADT
~inimum design speed
Curb-to-curb
Ri ght-of-way
r,laximum grade
Minimum curve radius
22,000
~l
, .......;
'.
Access to arid frpm this'Class I collector street from abutting properties
shal1'typically be controlled but not restricted. No direct access from
single-family residential homes is. allowed. In developed area of the City
di rect access from si ngl e-family homes coul d be allowed wi th approval of
City Engineer. '_ ",{_l' , _ --JT _ r II
However, P<I,rking at critica __ ocations may be denied as deemed appropriate
by the Ci ty Engi neer. If a bike 1 ane is to be provi ded in conformance
with the Bicycle Element on this Class I facility and parking is to be
retained, an additional 10 feet of right-of-way will be required to allow
for a 10-foot widening of the roadway cross section.
In special cases if no abutting property access is allO\~ed, the strip's
median, with approval of City Engineer, can be reduced to 4 feet.
\lith approval of Ci ty Engi neer, in developed areas, wi th 1 ess than 74 feet
curb to curb (64') no widening is required except at approaches to
intersections as per Exhibit "A". Approaches shall be designed as per
Exhibit "F." Left turn into an intersection driveway will be prohibited
by a raised median. Further modifications may be allolied to this standard
as a result of the existing and projected traffic volumes.
s'
It
.... ss' /94'
It
s' .J
LANOSCAPED ~
BUFFER AREA
EASEMENT 4.5'
10'
-l'- 34'/37'
'*"34'/37'
10'
t~~ts ~
(Z;I MAX ,/ c-r
y/ PARKING ~ I s'
<t.
20/0 I 20/0
I , J
IZ' I IZ' I 4i,~' IZ' 12'
I I
CLASS I COLLECTOR
SLAND$CAPED
BUFFER AREA
5.5' . 4.5' EASEMENT
.......
~S., MAX'/
Z% ~
: - I 2:1 MAX
I ~PARKING ~
, ""'THE MEDIAN
WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED
TO 4' WITH THE APPROVAL
OF THE CITY ENGINEER
5.5'
** Landscaped slopes greater than 5:1 may be acceptable as determined by the
Director of Planning.
-
T..~
-7-
J.;l-J?
€."<-'""
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Claudia Diamond, Diamond Consulting Group
) principal planner
Resolution of Issues raised by Villa Palmera HOA
SUBJECT:
If the following will re~olve your concerns with the trails/speed/
safety issues, please let me know as soon as possible and a letter
will be prepared memorializing these points:
'.. The recreational trail fronting Villa Palmera will consist of
, an 8 ft. -wide concrete sidewalk (2.15 ft. expansion). The
trail will not be designated or promoted as an equestrian
trail. Tom Fuller has stated McMillan will assume
;responsiblity for relocating irrigation necessitated by the
// sidewalk expansion.
,
.. 1 =::-~
Once Paseo Ranchero is completed between east "H" street and
Telgraph Canyon Road, a speed study will be condueted to
determin the appropriate speed limit for the entire length of
'the street in accordance with the provisions of the california
Vehiele Cede.
The results of the speed survey will be made available to the
Villa Palmera homeowners and presented to the safety
commission. The Villa Palmera homeowners will be notitied and
invited to attend the Safety Commission meeting.
3. As noted at our meeting, Paseo Ranchero was never intended to
/ a9comodate on-street parking. On-street parking will be
~ohiblted along the entire lenghth of Paseo Ranchero.
.1.1'
;J,:2-/%'
/"
/'
-I
~
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, 1Ne.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628
TO: Steve Griffin, Principal Planner
Planning Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Dear Steve,
I'm glad I had the opportunity to meet with you and the other gentlemen on
September 23, 1994. It's nice to be able to attach names to faces.
While the meeting was somewhat productive, there are still issues which
remain undiscussed and/or unresolved. I will use my letter to Mr. Nader
and the City Council dated August 23, 1994 for the following format.
1. The City may have copies of addresses in a book, however, that supplies
no proof that the residents were notified.
2. The City insists that an equestrian trail was never planned through the
area, however, it is so stated in Resolution 16222, Condition 12 that the
developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8-10' wide
sidewalk/recreational pathway along the west side of Paseo Ranchero to
connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the
Telegraph Canyon Rd. open space area. Condition 30 of the same Resolu-
tion refers to the sign program identifying the trail network in the open
space areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero and Condition 31 refers
to the equestrian type fencing. Clearly the intention is for horses to
travel through this area.
Per our meeting (and your memo dated September 23, 1994), the City is
proposing expanding the existing sidewalk by 2.5' which would enlarge it
to 8'. Per the City's 'Street Design Standard Policy', 8' wide sidewalks
are constructed along 4 Lane and 6 Lane Major Streets in commercial
areas, not in residential areas. Infact, the sidewalk designation for a
'Class I Collector Street' is 5.5', which is the existing condition along
Paseo Ranchero. (See Condition 14. C. of Resolution 16222).
At the meeting we also discussed City Health Codes with regards to
~:2 - / /
horses, but no one in attendance knew what they were. What a re the
health codes with regards to horses; Le., proximity to nonpublic resi-
dences and the disposal of excrement?
Also with regards to horses, does the city have any ordinances
prohibiting horses from using concrete sidewalks that are designated as
recreational pathways? At the meeting on September 23, we determined
that the City will not designate or promote the sidewalks on the western
side of Paseo Ranchero, (along Villa Palmera) as an equestrian trail. Will
there be signs posted indicating 'no horses'? Will the horses be allowed
to travel on or adjacent to Paseo Ranchero?
I As we discussed at the meeting, and as is addressed in your memo to
<<e dated September 23, 1994,
- In .ather than the 'Collector I ' minimum designation of 45 MPH. Once
construction of Paseo Ranchero is completed between E. "H" SI. and Tele-
graph Canyon Rd., a speed study will be conducted to determine the appro-
priate speed limit for the entire length. Which department should the
Board of Directors of Villa Palmera contact at the City and how will the
City notify the Board of Directors of Villa Palmera and its residents
regarding any changes to the 35 MPH? A ust this.
week, I -, me tililWlilll -- ~ ~ . ~1-_ .
~I -.I I -, --~- ... ][1 _ , "'" .
- I Iii
Discussion ensued regarding the entrance to the proposed schools along
E. "J" SI. and the associated speed. Whether the main entrances to the
schools are located on E. "J" SI. or not, speed along Paseo Ranchero in the
vicinity of the schools cannot be safely posted greater than 25 MPH. To do
so would be negligence on the part of the City. For example, the entrance
to the Hazel Goes Cook School is on Cuyamaca Ave. and yet the posted
speed limit along "L" SI. in the vicinity of the school is 25 MPH. The
entire expanse has a fence and the posted speed limit before and beyond
the school is 35 MPH.
Protecting the existing down slope residents in the Villa Palmera Com-
plex along Paseo Ranchero from out of control vehicles, hoodlums or users
of the recreational trail/expanded sidewalk is still an unanswered
concern. It also remains a concern how the City plans to protect Circulo
Verde (the private road) from public access.
~ , '''' '\i
0; .. _ ~ _ _
4. I was told that EIRs were done for both sides of Paseo Ranchero and
that infact the noise levels fall within the acceptable range of 65 dB-A.
01.2- .)CJ
~Vt--
~
~~-=~
~~~-
~
(llY OF
CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_J~~l ~ I _ 11\IlLJ
Claudia Diamond
President, Villa Palmera Homeowners Association
539 Telegraph Canyon Road, Ste. 145
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Diamond:
Following are responses to the items listed in your letter of
September 28, 1994 (attached hereto):
1. The copies of the mailing labels contained in our files for
the Rancho del Rey (RdR) III Sectional Planning Area Plan
(PCM-90-06) and Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-90-02) reflect
that notices were mailed to all of the Villa Palmera
homeowners and the management company for the HOA at least 10
days prior to each of the public hearings associated with each
phase of the project. I would be glad to review these records
with you in detail at your convenience.
Since the City does not use certified or registered mail for
public hearing notices, we have no direct information
confirming that the notices were received, only that they were
mailed. However, we were not made aware of any irregularities
in the noticing procedures during the hearing process, which
sometimes occurs if there is a problem with mail delivery.
2. The 8-10 ft. wide s..idewalk/recreational pathway called for in
Tentative Map Resolution 16222, attached hereto, is intended
as a pedestrian trail/pathway to accommodate pedestrians only,
Le., walkers and joggers. The present proposal to expand the
sidewalk fronting Villa palmera from the standard 5.5 ft..
width to an 8 ft. width is intended to facilitate the trail in
a manner which is not disruptive to Villa Palmera residents.
As stated previously, the trail/sidewalk is not intended to
accommodate equestrian use, nor could a sidewalk be used for
this purpose. section 10.28.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code prohibits the use of sidewalks for horses (please see
attached CVMC 10.28.050). According to the Police Department,
horses cannot be prohibited from using public streets in
accordance with California Vehicle Code section 21050, also
attached hereto. But again, there is no intention to
designate, encourage or facilitate equestrian use of pasex
Ranchero. ',-
.):2--';;"/
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5101
It is our understanding that you were going to meet with the
Villa Palmera homeowners regarding the proposal to widen the
sidewalk by 2.5 ft. and get back to us with their reaction and
further discussions if necessary.
~With respect to the issue of speed limits, school posting and
~. road protection, please see the attached memos from Harold
Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, dated October 20, 1994, and
from William Ullrich, Senior civil Engineer, dated October 25,
1994.
,,,
. '.
The City Traffic Engineer should be contacted regarding posted
speed limits or any other issue related to traffic control.
The city Traffic Engineer will also assume the responsibility
for notifying Villa Palmera homeowners as well as the
management company for the HOA, regarding any proposal to
establish or change the posted speed limit along Paseo
Ranchero.
4. The Environmental Review Coordinator, Mr. Doug Reid, will be
glad to review with you in detail the applicable Environmental
Impact Reports for the RdR III sectional Planning Area Plan
(EIR-89-10) and the General Plan Update (EIR-88-02); the
latter document being the one which reviews the potential
noise impacts from the city's major and collector street
network. Mr. Reid can be contacted at 691-5104.
As noted, the latest documentation on traffic noise impacts
comes from EIR-88-2. This document shows that the 65 CNEL
(Communi ty Noise Level Equivalent) contour, which is the
acceptable standard for exterior residential noise levels,
falls 39 ft from the centerline of Pas eo Ranchero. Since the
right-of-way for Paseo Ranchero is 94 ft., the 65 CNEL would
occur within the right-of-way, some 35 ft. from the homes
within Villa Palmera which front upon Paseo Ranchero. The
figures indicate that these homes fall within the 60 CNEL
contour, which is 5 CNEL below the acceptable level.
.,2:2 -:2;L
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I,r; ""
..;;Y
r;, .
M!Hl!QRABIHlM
D'~'" -
...., '"
i"
~,
"-.~
FROM:
Stephen Griffin, Principal Planner
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Pu~ Works Director/City Engin#
_.fi;/;fic Engineer
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Proposed Speed Limit on Paseo Ranchero
Subsequent to our discussion in the meeting held to consider the impact of the
development along Paseo Ranchero, we have reviewed the roadway design speed In the
area of Paseo Ranch~t "J" Street. Based on the roadway design,~
., ~U'iJ J' -However,o~'
- procedures are to not post a limit until after the road Is opened to traffic and Ii"
speed survey can be completed. Once that is completed, all factors which affect the <:/.7.1', ~
establishing of the speed limit on Paseo Ranchero will be considered and the most--r.--~~
appropriate speed limit will then be established and posted. The California speed trap ~
law requires Engineering/Traffic Survey be performed to determine what the most t/5 <
-.appropriate speed limit is for prevailing conditions. ~-
'An Engineering/Traffic Survey takes Into account design characteristics of the ro~ .
including design geometrics such as vertical and horizontal curves, accident rates,
special conditions such as schools, parks and other factors, and most Importantly, the
85th percentile speed. California Law bases the posting of speed limits on the
./ilSsumption that motorists on the roadway will drive at or below a speed that they
feel to be safe and appropriate for roadway conditions. We do not believe it is
advisable to post a lower limit now that might have to be increased later.
A lower posted speed limit than that determined by the Engineering/Traffic Survey, is
considered a "Speed Trap" is therefore not legally enforceable by the Police
Department and is not defensible in the courts. An artificially low speed limit can also
pose a real problem In maintaining a safe operation of the street. In the
Engineering/Traffic Survey, unusual conditions are considered to be roadway conditions
that are not readily apparent to the motorists and are taken into account when
establishing the most appropriate speed limit.
The City _ _ ~. JIll, he proposed Elementary School
site at the intersection of East "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero once construction for
the school nears completion. At that time, we will be posting the appropriate "School"
series signs . r I 11 ~n advance of the
school boundaries facing northbound and southbound traffi
" 'l
I hope this information will help you resolve any questions regarding this issue. If you
have any question about this information or any other traffic related matters, please
feel free to call me at 691-5237.
.1;2 -;;:>
(C:\DENNIS\RANCHERO.IlOC)
---
---
.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
July 5, 1995
File No. EY-393
. EY-399
Council Referral No. 2960
To: . Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: ;. John Goss, City Manager tf-:f[r
J,r
From: John Lippitt, Director of Public Work~
Subject: .Report on concerns expressed by the Villa Palmera Homeowners Association
regarding construction activities on Paseo Ranchero
At the March 28, 1995, meeting of the City Council, Council received written communication
from Mrs. Claudia Diamond (Exhibit A) which was also addressed by her under oral
communications. In her presentation she raised some concerns which she felt had not been
adequately. addressed in the construction of Paseo Ranchero. A separate Council Agenda
Statement addresses the two main concerns, however ,the Council referral also requested that,
since this issue has included several communications back and forth, City staff relay the issues
and chronology. The purpose Qf this memorandum is to set out the issues and chronology.
At a series of continued public hearings in July of 1991, the City Council approved the tentative
subdivision map for Rancho del Rey, SPA III. The minutes of the July 9 and July 30 Council
meeting are attached. No action other than continuing the hearing was taken at the July 18
meeting. The minutes of the July 9, 1991 public hearing state that a McMillin Communities
representative indicated they had notified over 1,200 people when SPA III had been presented
and that two forums had been held. Although the July 9 meeting was legally noticed, the
Council continued that hearing so that an expanded noticing of the public hearing take place.
The new noticing went to all 1200 individuals noticed by McMillin. The Council approved the
Tentative map at the July 30 meeting.
Condition of approvai number 12 specified that the developer shall be responsible for
construction of an expanded 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along the western
side of Paseo Ranchero, to connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the
Telegraph Canyon Road open space area. Attached is a copy of Council Resolution Number
16222 approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Rancho del Rey, SPA III.
At previous Council meetings Ms. Diamond indicated that she did not receive notice of the
public hearing. The Planning Department reported that the owners within the Villa Palmera
subdivision were on the mailing list and that, to their knowledge, every person on the mailing
list was sent a notice. However, since the notices are not sent by registered mail there is no
proof that the letters were actually sent or received.
.'
;2.2 ~ cJ.. 'I
Honorable Mayor and City Council
-2-
July 5, 1995
At the August 23, 1994, Council meeting Claudia Diamond presented a letter under written
communications and addresed the Council on their concerns. The Council referred the questions
to staff to meet with the representatives of the Homeowners Association. Council indicated that
staff should provide a memo to Council regarding the answers, but that the response did not
have to be agendized. Both Ms. Diamonds letter and the Council minutes are attached.
Staff met with Ms. Diamond on September 23, 1994, to discuss her concerns. Staff from
Planning and Public Works Departments plus McMillin Development Company were in
attendance. At that meeting City staff explained the project to Ms. Diamond and addressed her
questions. Steve Griffin of the Planning Department followed up with a memorandum to Ms.
Diamond that same day (Exhibit G). Following the September 23 meeting Ms. Diamond sent
a letter to Steve Griffin of the Planning Department with further questions and concerns. That
letter, dated September 28, 1994, is attached as Exhibit H. Staff members from the Engineering
Division and Rancho Del Rey Investors responded in writing to Mr. Griffin on various items
of Ms. Diamonds concerns. In turn, Mr. Griffin responded in writing to Ms. Diamond by letter
dated November 4, 1994 addressing her concerns. All these responses are attached as Exhibits
I through L.
On November 22, 1994 the City Council reviewed and approved the Master final map of Tract
90-02, Rancho Del Rey, SPA III, and approved the subdivision improvement agreement for the
completion of improvements required by the subdivision. In addition to the Agenda Statement,
staff also provided a separate report on staff reponses to Ms. Diamonds concerns. Copies of
these items are included as Exhibits M and N.
At the November 22 Council meeting Ms. Diamond presented a letter (Exhibit 0) and addressed
the Council as a representative of the Villa Palmera Home Owners Association indicating there
were still concerns which had not been answered despite a meeting with the City. Those
concerns were: I) notice of hearing; 2) trail; 3) safe speed along Paseo Ranchero; 4) safety of
Villa Palmera Homes/Residents; and 5) builder issues. All of her concerns were again addressed
by staff at this meeting and the Council approved the final map and subdivision without any
changes. The minutes of the November 22, 1994 meeting are attached as Exhibit P. While the
Council did not make any changes, the Council did refer to the Safety Commission concerns
posted on speed and alternative traffic controls for the homeowners in the neighborhood.
As explained at the Council meeting and in a December 27, 1994 memorandum to Council
(Exhibit Q) on this item, the issue would not go to the Safety Commission until after the road
is completed and opened to traffic. Before any speed limit can be set a speed study needs to be
done as required by the California Vehicle Code and the limit set at the speed at which 85
percent of the vehicles are traveling. There were no engineering reasons clearly evident on
which a lower speed limit could be based.
Last, she expressed her concern with the lack of interest and response from staff regarding their
concerns. In her first paragraph Ms. Diamond alleges that many of her issues were not
.'
,).;2 --- ,.1 ~
.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
-3-
July 5, 1995
addressed. As can be seen by all of the above information, staff believes that all of her issues
have been addressed on several occasions.
m: Ihomelellglllterladmillldiamolld2. cis
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Letters March 14 and 28, 1995; from Diamond Consulting Group
Exhibit B: City Council minutes luly 9, 1991
Exhibit C: City Council Minutes luly 30, 1991
Exhibit D: Council Resolution 16222
Exhibit E: Letter August 23, 1994; from Diamond Consulting Group
Exhibit F: City Council minutes August 23, 1994
Exhibit G: Memo September 23, 1994; Steve Griffin to Claudia Diamond
Exhibit H: Letter September 28, 1994; from Diamond Consulting Group
Exhibit I: Memo Oct. 25, 1994; William Ullrich to Stephen Griffin
Exhibit 1: Memo Oct. 20, 1994; Harold Rosenberg to Stephen Griffin
Exhibit K: Letter October 21,1994; Rancho Del Rey Investors to Steve Griffin
Exhibit L: Letter November 4, 1994; Steve Griffin to Claudia Diamond
Exhibit M: Agenda Statement 11/22/94 Council Meeting
Exhibit N: Council Information Memorandum dated 11/22/94
Exhibit 0: Letter November 22, 1994; from Diamond Consulting Group
Exhibit P: City Council minutes November 22, 1994
Exhibit Q: Memorandum December 27, 1994; 10hn Lippitt to City Council
..."
d;2~2?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .2 ~
Meeting Date 7/11/95
ITEM TITLE: r). Resolution /7 7 ~ I Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey,
SPA III, Phase 2, Unit 2
(J. Resolution / 'J'l ~..2 Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey,
SPA III, Phase 3, Unit 2
C-. Resolution / ?9t3 Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 90-2, Rancho Del Rey
Spa III and Authorizing the Mayor to execute same
SUBMITTED BY' Di",w' of ""lib, w",.r~kS
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ b~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X)
On July 30, 1991, by Resolution 16222 (Exhibit A), City Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 90-2 - Rancho del Rey SPA III. On that tentative map,
phase and unit boundaries were delineated. The final maps for Phase 2, Unit 2 and Phase 3,
Unit 2 are now before Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions approving the final maps and
subdivision improvement agreements for Chula Vista Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey SPA III,
Phase 2, Unit 2 and Phase 3, Unit 2 and the related Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The first two final maps of Chula Vista Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey SPA III, Phase 2, Unit 2
and Phase 3, Unit 2 consist of a total of 241 single family residential lots and a total of 3 lots
for open space, public utilities, and other public uses. Plats of the individual subdivisions are
attached (Exhibits B and C).
The final maps for said subdivisions have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map. Approval of these
maps constitutes acceptance by the City of all drainage, tree planting, and access easements
within the subdivision. Approval of the maps also constitutes acceptance on behalf of the
public of all the streets dedicated on the subdivision maps and acceptance of all the lots
~:J -/
....j"
Page 2, Item .2 )
Meeting Date 7/11/95
granted on said maps for open space, public utilities, and other public uses. Streets, easements,
and open space lots associated with individual units are listed on the attached Exhibit D.
The developer has entered into a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SSIA)
to satisfy conditions of approval Numbers 8, 13, 32, 33, 41, 45, 47, 48, 53.5, 56, 58, 62, 63,
64, 65, 66, 67, and 77. These conditions are applicable to all Rancho del Rey SPA III final
maps. The conditions and terms of agreement are outlined below:
Condition Nos. 32 and 33 - Requires the developer to provide parkland as
described in Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan, including land, fees, or additional
improvements, in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and
requires that the park located in Phase 3, Unit 4 shall be a minimum of 10 net
usable acres.
In satisfaction of the conditions and until the parkland is granted to the City and
the improvements for the SPA 111 Park are bonded, the Developer has posted
a performance bond in the amount of the park fees which would otherwise be
payable under the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, calculated as the product of
the number of residential lots in the map to be approved times the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance fee per lot currently in effect. Similar bonds will be
posted prior to approval of each subsequent final map.
Condition No. 41 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for single family residential use, to submit a list of lots indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations.
The developer has satisfied this condition by submitting an interim list of lots
for both final maps and agreeing to include a final list as part of the "as graded"
soils reports.
Condition No. 47 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for the Project proposing diversion of sewage into a foreign basin, to enter into
an agreement with the City relative to the diversion.
In compliance with Condition No. 47, the Developer has agreed to pay for the
utilization of a portion of the sewer capacity created in the Telegraph Canyon
trunk sewer by the removal of two sewer pump stations. The amount of payment
will be equal 73.2% of the costs for removal of the pumps stations which is
equivalent to the proportion of the number of diverted dwelling units to the
capacity (in dwelling units) created by removal of the pump stations.
Condition No. 48 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for the Project entailing the removal of existing sewer pump stations (Mission
Verde and Candlewood), to enter into an agreement to establish the scope of
work and the amount to be reimbursed by the City for performing such work,
as more specifically described in the condition.
..2:1 '..,2..
Page 3, Item ),J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
In satisfaction of condition No. 48 the Developer has agreed to remove said
sewer pump stations subject to reimbursement of 26.8% of the removal costs to
the Developer as approved by the City based of preliminary cost estimates
included in the SSIA.
Condition No. 53.5 - Requires the developer and City, prior to approval of the
first final map for the Project, to enter into a Development Agreement requiring
the developer to advance the costs of relocating, or at City's option, building and
relocating, Fire Station No.4 to a site satisfactory to the City, in exchange for
which the developer shall be granted certainty of entitlements or other mutually
agreeable consideration.
The Developer has satisfied this condition by agreeing to deposit with the City
on February I, 1998, a cash advance in the amount of $598,600 for the
relocation of Fire Station No.4, and has submitted a performance bond in the
amount of $650,000 to secure said obligation. As partial reimbursement, the
Developer will accrue Fire Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDlF)
credits as building permits are issued for SPA III development. On January 1,
2002, the City is obligated to reimburse to the Developer the balance of the cash
advance, calculated by subtracting the sum of the total amount of credits given
to the Developer and a $125,000 consideration to the City from the original
amount of cash advance ($650,000). The Developer is not required to pay the
fire services component of the PFDlF and has the option of entering into a
Development Agreement to secure entitlements for SPA III development.
Condition No. 56 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of the first final
map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to provide a park-and-ride
facility and related improvements near the intersection of East H Street and
Paseo Ranchero, or at the discretion of the City Council, satisfy the requirement
of this condition through dedication, improvements, and/or financial participation
in a park-and-ride facility master plan.
The Developer has entered into a separate Park and Ride Agreement dated June
13, 1995 with the City the Lutheran Church of Joy to satisfy this condition. In
addition, the SSIA includes a provision wherein the City agrees that breach of
contract of the Park and Ride Agreement by the Church of Joy does not
constitute breach of contract by the Developer.
Condition No. 58 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of the first final
map for the Project, to provide a schedule for the development of low income
housing as defined in the agreement between the City and Rancho del Rey
Partnership per City Council Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7, 1990.
In satisfaction of Condition No. 58, the Developer has entered into a separate
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City. The tentative schedule for
:l.3'J
Page 4, Item ~ J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
providing the required affordable housing units caUs for start of construction by
April 1996, and occupancy by February, 1997. The Developer has provided
deeds of trust on the affordable housing property and the information center lot
within SPA I as security in the interim.
The Developer has satisfied the foUowing conditions through provisions in the SSIA wherein
the Developer agrees to perform or meet the requirements in said conditions:
Condition No.8 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for the Project, to enter into an agreement with the City wherein the developer
agrees not to oppose the inclusion of the off-site portion of East J Street adjacent
to Buena Vista Way in Open Space District #20 (Zone 7).
Condition No. 45 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for the Project, to enter into an agreement to perform sewage flow monitoring,
in the locations and at the intervals determined by the City Engineer, and under
certain circumstances construct parallel facilities, as more specifically described
in the condition.
Condition No. 62 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of each final map
for the Proj ect, wherein the developer agrees to comply with that version of the
Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality Improvement Plan and
Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
Condition No. 63 - Requires the developer, prior to final map approval of any
phase for the Project or unit thereof to enter into an agreement with the City
whereby:
1. Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in
the subject subdivision if anyone of the foUowing occurs:
a) Regional development threshold limits set by the then current adopted
East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
b) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed
the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
2. Developer agrees that the City may withhold occupancy permits for any of the
phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP)
for Rancho del Rey SPA III if the required public facilities, as identified in the
PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been
completed.
;(J-~
,.,-~ ,. ,
Page 5, Item .2 J
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Condition No. 64 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of each final map
for the Project, to enter into an agreement not to protest the formation of a
district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways along streets
within and adjacent to the subject property.
Condition No. 65 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of each final map
for the Project, to enter into an agreement to hold the City harmless from any
liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from the
Project.
Condition No. 66 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of each final map
for the Proj ect, to enter into an agreement to participate in the monitoring of
existing and future sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the
financing of the preparation of the Basin Plan and, pursuant to any adopted
Basin Plan, agree to participate in the financing of improvements set forth
therein an equitable manner.
Condition No. 67 - Requires the developer to permit all franchised cable
television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide service
for each lot within the subdivision and enter into an agreement with all
participating cable television companies as more particularly set forth in
Condition No. 67.
Condition No. 77 - Requires the developer, prior to approval of any final map
for the Project, to either:
a) comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement, the terms, conditions
and provisions of the Sectional Planning Area Plan, and such Water Conserva-
tion Plan, the Air Quality Plan and the Public Facilities Financing Plan approved
by the City Council (collectively, the "Plans") as are applicable to the Project
prior to approval of any final map; or
b) enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such security
(including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
procedures as the City may require, assuring that, after approval of the final
map, the developer shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with,
and implement such Plans. Condition No. 77 of the Resolution also requires the
developer to agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water
Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent
imposition of the condition.
The developer has also executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for each map and
provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required public improvements, has paid all
applicable fees and has provided bonds to guarantee the monumentation for said subdivisions.
The agreements are now before Council for approval.
.J. :J -5'
-
'>'c../
Page 6, Item .J..;5
Meeting Date 7/11/95
Plats are available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMP ACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans
and final map will be reimbursed from developer deposits.
SPJEAF:sb
m:\home\engineer\agenda\fmrdr.se
EY-399
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Resolution 16222 and minutes of July 30, 1991 (excerpt)
Exhibit B & C - Plats
Exhibit D - List of streets, easements and open space lots for each map
Exhibit E - Disclosure Statement
.23~~ P3- 1'0
r")
DJ
L'I \U- bJ A
1:/,.2 J
.
RESOLUTION NO. 16222
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION HAP FOR RANCHO
DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III. CHULA VISTA
TRACT 90-02
.
WHEREAS. a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was
filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 8. 1989
by Rancho del Rey Partnership; and.
WHEREAS. saidafPlication requested the subdivision of approximately 405
acres into residentia lots. open space areas. a school lot. park and community
purpose facility lot; and.
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held an advertised publiC hearing on said
project on May 8. 1991. and continued to May 22. 1991; and.
WHEREAS. the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing. together with
its purpose. was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
(
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
7:00 p.m., June 18, 1991, in the Council Chambers. 276 Fourth Avenue. before the
City Council and said hearing was thereaft~r.~losed; and.
" .
WHEREAS. the City Council recertified EIR-89-10. with Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Rancho del Rey SPA III.
NOW THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL finds as follows:
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del.Rey
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III. Chula Vista Tract no.
90-02, is found to be in conformance with the various
elements of the City's General Plan based on the
following:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2.
The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets. sewers. etc. -- which have been designed
to avoid any serious problems. ,
.
%I 02)-7
Resolution No. 16222
Page 2
~
3. The project is in substantial confonoance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Element as follows:
A.
B.
Land Use _ The project is consistent with the General Plan, El
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the SPA III Plan which
designates the property PC -Planned Community, with a variety
of land uses and residential densities.
Circulation - All of the on-site and off-site public streets
required to serve the subdivision are consistent with the
circulation element of Chula Vista General Plan and the
circulation proposed within the El Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan. Those facilities will either be constructed or in-lieu
fees paid in accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA III Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
Housing - A low and moderate housing program with an
established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate will be implemented
subject to the approval of the City's Housing Coordinator.
Computation of the satisfaction of this condition will include
the entire El Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area.
Conservation and Open Space - The project provides 148.3 acres
of open space, 36% of the total 404.9 acres. Grading has been
limited on hillsides and grading plan approva'l will require
the revegetation of slopes in natural vegetation. Approval of
EIR-89-10 included the adoption of ,a mitigation monitoring
program outlining the mitigation measures required for project
impacts on geology, soils, biology, air, water, cultural
resources, land form, transportation and utility sources.
E. Parks and Recreation - The project will be responsible for the
improvement of the 10 acre net neighborhood park and payment
of PAD fees or additional imptovements as approved by the
Director Parks and Recreation. In addition, a trail system
will be implemented through the south leg of Rice Canyon,
connecting with other open space areas.
F. Seismic Safety - The Rancho del Rey site is crossed by the La
Nacion Fault Zone which has one prominent fault, running north
to south, with other potential traces. The mitigation
monitoring program adopted with EIR-89-10 provides for
measures to be taken to mitigate the impacts of development in
association with the fault zone.
C.
1
D.
G.
Safety _ The site will be within the threshold response times
for fire and police services. The'project will increase the
need for additional personnel, however, the City is planning
'1
~ 023 ~~
to meet that need with additional revenues provided by this
project.
Public Facilities Element - This project is obligated in the
conditions of approval to provide all on-site and off-site
facilities necessary to serve this project. In addition to
that, there are other regional facilities which this project
( together with SPAs I and II) is contributing to, including
a public library site, fire station site, and fire training
facility site. The subdivision is also contributing to the
Otay Water Distri ct I s improvement requi rements to provi de
terminal water storage for this project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
Noise - The units will be required to meet the standards of
the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
Scenic Highway - The project does not affect this element of
the General Plan.
Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided along Telegraph
Canyon Road, East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero Road as shown
in the Circulation Element.
Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned for the
site. The project sha".~e subject to RCT and OIF fees.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the
housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the
public service needs of the residents of the City and the available
fiscal and environmental resources. The development will provide
for a variety of housing types from single family detached homes to
attached single family and senior housing. In addition, the
addressment to providing a percentage of low and moderate priced
housing is in keeping with regional goals.
5. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially
allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating
and cooling opportunities.
.
H.
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 3
I.
J.
K.
L.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP for Rancho del
Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02, is approved subject to the following
conditions:
.
~ ..2J~Y
Resolution No. 16222
Page 4
""'"
General/Preliminarv
1. The Public Facilities Financing Plan shall be followed with improvements
installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold
standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, the sequence
in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future East
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The City
Engi neer and Pl anni ng Di rector may at thei r discreti on, modi fy the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant
such a revision.
2. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-10 as
required prior to Final Map approval, are hereby incorporated as
conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may modify the sequence
of mitigation at his discretion should changes warrant such a revision.
The developer shall comply with the Community Purpose Facility Ordinance.
The areas proposed to show compliance with said ordinance shall be
provided prior to approval of the first final map. Areas of consideration
for qualification must be within the areas of SPAs I, 11 or 111.
Amendment to the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Plan Areas
may be necessary to accomplish compliance.
3.
"""\,1
4. Prior to final map approval for Phase I, a Precise Plan shall be approved
by the City Council detailing the development of the Specialty Housing
project. The precise plan shall include but is not limited to: detailing
the density of the various portions of the project; identifying the amount
of recreational and open space facilities; detailing the financial
arrangements available to proposed tenants; identifying the age limits and
any income requirements of tenants; and showing the percent of the project
for sale or rent.
Streets. Riahts-of-Wav and ImDrovements
5.
6.
Prior to any final map approval for Phase 2 or 3 or any unit thereof, the
developer shall obtain all necessary right-of-way for the construction of
the unimproved off site portion of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera,
from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place. . .
The developer shall construct the unimproved off site portion of EastlJ"
Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place, to a
Class II Collector Standard, except that the 5 foot sidewalk NY be
asphalt concrete instead of portland cement concrete. The construction of
these improvements shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for
Phases 2 or 3 or any unit thereof. The subdivider may request the
formation of a reimbursement district for these off-site improvements in
accordance with section 15.50 of the Municipal Code~
1J
~ c15-)?J
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 5
.14.
7. The developer shall request the vacation of that portion of Paseo
Marguerita as necessary to accomplish the design as shown on the tentative
.map. Said vacation shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the
final map for Phase 2, Unit 3.
8. The off site portion of East -J- Street adjacent to Buena Vista Way shall
be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, public utilities and other
public uses. The grant of this property shall be completed prior to
approval of a final map for Phase 3, Unit 3. . The developer shall enter
into an agreement to not oppose the inclusion of this property in Open
Space District' 20 (Zone 7) prior to approval of any final map for Rancho
del Rey SPA Ill. The developer shall be responsible for the costs
associated with annexing this property to Open Space District' 20.
9. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of off site
improvements at the westerly end of Paseo del Norte in the Casa del Rey
subdivision. The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed
prior to approval of the final map for Phase 2, Unit 2. A cash deposit
was previously deposited with the City to pay the cost of this work. The
amount deposited is available to the developer for construction of these
improvements.
10. Prior to final map approval for Phase I, the developer shall dedicate
additional right-of-way along the frontage of the property on East -H-
Street to provide a 20 foot parkway (existing curbline to property line).
11. The developer shall be responsible for construction of a
sidewalk/recreational pathway along the entire frontage of subject
property on East -H" Street from Paseo Ranchero westerly to Paseo del Rey
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of Planning and the
Director of Parks and Recreation. The construction of these improvements
shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for Phase 1.
12. The developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8 to 10
foot wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along the western side of Paseo
Ranchero, to connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and
in the Telegraph Canyon Road open space area. These improvements shall be
installed in conjunction with the construction phases of Paseo Ranchero
specified in the Public facilities financing Plan. .
The developer shall be responsible for the construction of wider sidewalks
at transit stops, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
The final design of Paseo Ranchero shall include eight foot wide landscape
easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined
by an open space lot at least eight feet wide with slopes no greater than
5:1, except in the following areas where the final design shall be subject
13.
.
.
~ 02;1-//
Resolution No. 16222
Page 6
"'"
to the approval of the Planning Director. Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
A. Adjacent to the lots fronting on Cabo Calabazo. Calle Candelero and
Punto Hiraleste where a special slope and retaining wall design will
be implemented.
B. Along the Junior High School site.
C. Along the existing Laden Villas and HissionVerde subdivisions
where existing conditions shall remain; and
D. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District.
15.. The final design of East "J" Street shall include 5.5 foot wide landscape
easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined
by an open space lot at least 5.5 feet wide with 5:1 maximum side slopes.
except in the following locations where the final design shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Director. Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
A. Along the park site.
B.
Along the two corner lots at the intersection of East "J" Street and
Camino Hiel (lots 82 and 97 of Phase 2. Unit 1) and the southeast
corner lot of East "J" Street and Cabo Capote (lot 85 of Phase 2.
Unit 2);. .
C. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District.
and
)
D. Along the existing Bel Aire Ridge subdivision where existing
conditions shall remain.
16. All retaining walls which interface with the public street system shall be
constructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Rey SPA III Design Guideline
standards for exterior walls.
17. The developer shall be responsible for construction of full street
improvements for all public and private streets shown on the Tentative Hap
within the subdivision boundary. and for the construction of off-site
improvements to construct Paseo Ranchero. East "J" Street and Paseo Ladera
as shown on the Tentative Hap. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Said improvements shall include. but not be limited to. asphalt ~oncrete
pavement. base. concrete curb. gutter and sidewalk. sewer and water
utilities. drainage facilities. street lights. signs. fire hydrants and
.........
,A-tii ,};J'-- /;2.
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 7
transitions to existing improvements. Street intersection spacing as
shown on the tentative map is hereby approved.
All the streets shown on the Tentative Hap within the subdivision
boundary, except private streets, shall be dedicated for public use.
Design of said streets shall meet all City standards.
19. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be provided at
the end of streets having a length greater than 150 feet, measured from
the center line of the nearest intersecting street to the center of the
cul-de-sac, except as approved by the City Engineer.
20.- Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in accordance with
City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
18.
lot Confiauration
21. Frontage on all lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet at the right-of-way
line except as approved by the City Engineer. This condition does not
apply to flag lots, as defined in the Municipal Code.
.
22.
23.
.
lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as approved by the
City Engineer. When adjacent to open space lots, property lines shall be
located a minimum 2.5 feet from the top of slope.
The freparation of final maps and plans for the locations listed below
shal be carried out in accordance with the
following criteria unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning:
A. Provide a minimum 50 feet from the corner of Paseo Ranchero and East
-J- Street to lots 6 and 7, Phase 3, Unit 2, to provide additional
buffer and transition area at the corner.
B. Provide a pedestrian throughway between lots 130 and 131, Phase 3,
Unit 2, from Camino Calabazo to east -J- Street -across from the
school and park sites.
C. Lot 128 of Phase 2, Unit I, shall be widened to a minimum 50 foot
width to accommodate a combined slope and maximum 5 foot retaining
wall. This is to avoid a -tunnel- effect created at side lot lines.
D. Lots 3 - and 5, Phase 2, Unit 3 shall utilize lIaxillUlD 5 foot high
retaining walls, and/or a combination of retaining walls and crib
walls.
~ .2:J-;J
Resolution No. 16222
Page 8
-..,
E. Provide a different name for each of the portions of Palazzo Court
located to the east and west of East -J- Street and the portions of
Dorado Way located to the east and west of Camino Miel.
Street Trees/ODen SDace
24. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance
easements along all public streets as shown on the Tentative Map. The
width of said easements shall be as outlined in the City's Street Design
Standards Policy.
25. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones
shall be included where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems
disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-of-way.
26. All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-way shall maintain a
width so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping treatment behind the back of
sidewalk. '
Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space areas
covered by home owners associations shall be covered by CC&Rs to be
submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of the
associated final map.
28. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall request in
writing that maintenance of all facilities and improvements within the
open space area associated with such map shall be the responsibility of
the Rancho del Rey Open Space Maintenance District.
27.
""'\\
29. Prior to approval of the first final map, a comprehensive landscape plan
shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect
and Director of Parks and Recreation. Prior to approval of each final
map, comprehensive, detailed landscape and irrigation plans, erosion,
control plans and detailed water management guidelines for all landscape
irrigation shall be submitted in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape
Manual for the associated landscaping in that final map. These detailed
landscape and irrigation plans shall be for the review and approval of the
City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation. The
landscaping format within the project shall be to emphasize native,
drought tolerant plant material. Exceptions can be made for areas where
reclaimed water is exclusively used. The comprehensive landscape plans
shall address: ",
A.
Slope enhancement and landscape treatment for the slope in Open
Space Lot A, Phase 3, Unit 3, beneath the Junior High School lot.
The plan shall address and provide for mature size plant material,
boulder work and/or buttress work on the slope.
"'"
~ 023 'iy
.
.'
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 9
A naturalized revegetation program for areas of grading in open
space lots, which ..y include temporary irrigation.
The disturbed .native" areas within Telegraph Canyon Road open space
corridor. This area shall include tree groupings or tree groves.
These plantings shall be treated as random plantings and shall be
identified in at least six areas along the corridor with each
location providing plantings of 50 to 100 trees. The exact number
of trees and locations are to be approved by the Planning Department
and Department of Parks and Recreation. The intent of these grove
areas is to provide a consistency with existing grove areas in the
open space corridor west of the Rancho del Rey SPA III area.
All graded areas shall be replanted prior to the approval of any final
map. Germination of plant material shall be guaranteed by the applicant
to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect.
B.
C.
30. Prior to approval of the first final map, details showing the location and
design of the trail system and a sign program shall be submitted to and
approved by the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation. The trail
system in the open space lots shall be a minimum 6 feet wide within an 8
foot horizontal clear space and a 10 foot vertical clear space. The
associated sign program shall identify the trail network in the open space
areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation.
31. Prior final map approval for Phase 3,' Unit 3 and Phase 4, Unit 2 as shown
on the Tentative Hap, cross sections shall be submitted to and aPfroved by
the Director of Planning and City Engineer illustrating the nterface
where the trail is located adjacent to the drainage ditch along Telegraph
Canyon Road. The fencing of the drainage channel shall be aesthetically
pleasing incorporating the use of plantings, equestrian type fencing and
vinyl clad fencing. These cross sections and decorative fencing program
may be included with the comprehensive landscape plan. Fence gates shall
be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer to allow
maintenance of the drainage channel.
Parks
32. The developer shall be obligated for 12.5 acres of parkland as described
in the approved SPA Plan, including land, and/or fees, and/or additional
improvements, in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The
actual final acreage will relate to the number of units approved with the
final ..ps.
33. The park located in Phase 3, Unit' 4 shall be a minimum 10 net useable
acres. Design and development of the park shall be subject to the
~ ~J-/';:-
Resolution No. 16222
Page 10
'"""'\
approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation and shall conform
.with the park master plan to be adopted by the City Council.
34. An adequate buffer and separation of 50 feet shall be provided between the
residential lots at the eastern end of Palazzo Court and the existing park
facilities, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Solution may include but is not limited to relocating an existing tennis
court or lot redesign. .
35. A minimum 20 foot wide access corridor shall be maintained at the end of
Paseo Palazzo where the cul-de-sac abuts the existing park. Said area
shall be made part of the park. Detail and design of the access shall be
submitted to and approved by the Departments of Planning and Parks and
Recreation prior to final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 1.
Gradina/Drainaae
36. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the
grading plans.
37.
38.
39.
Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed
approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and
grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the
requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797
as amended). The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate
compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual.
Grading proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning for consideration of balanced cut and fill,
utilization of appropriate soil types, effective landscaping and
revegetation where applicable. Grading shall occur in separate phases
unless a single phase operation is approved with the grading plan.
A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E prior to
any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which would affect
access thereto.
~
40. The developer shall make a reasonable effort to obtain permission to grade
the slopes along Buena Vista Way at the former intersection of East aJa
Street. If permission to grade said slope is not reasonably attainable as
determined by the City Engineer, the regrading of these slopes shall not
be required. The provisions of this condition shall be complied with
prior to approval of the final map for Phase 3, Unit 3.
41. Prior to approval of any final map for single family residential use, the
developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between two
situations.
~I
~ .21-/1-
.
42.
43.
44.
Sewer
Resolution No. 16222
Page 11
Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage
system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. Lots 71, 72
and 89 of Phase 2 Unit 1 shall be designed so that there will be no
negative grading or drainage impacts to the adjacent off-site properties.
Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures
including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access shall be provided to
drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot or as
approved by the City Engineer.
The use of boulders in minor drainage basins and energy dissipators in the
canyon and open space areas in the manner approved by the City Engineer
and Planning Director, is encouraged to allow water to be captured and to
allow trees to grow naturally.
45. The developer shall be responsible for performing sewage flow metering to
monitor three segments of main identified in the Rick Engineering report
dated September 5, 1990 as sections QR, XIX2 and KL. Metering shall be
accomplished at the locations determined by the City Engineer. Metering
shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permit for SPA
III and be repeated at intervals directed by the City Engineer. Should
any of these segments have metered flows which fill more than 80% of the
pipe diameter, the applicant shall construct parallel facilities as
determined by the City Engineer. .The developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City prior to first final map approval providing for
all i.tems indicated above. ..
.
46.
47.
48.
.
An improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided
to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20
wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in
a foreign basin. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City relative to the diversion of sewage prior to final map approval for
any phase or unit thereof proposing said diversion.
The developer shall be responsible for the removal of the existing sewer
pump stations (Mission Verde and Candlewood). Prior to approval of any
final map entailing said removal, the owner and the City shall enter into
an agreement to establish the scope of work and the amount to be
reimbursed by the City to the subdivider for performing said work. The
developer may also request the formation of a special sewer service area
..' . to ~rovide for the cost of connection of the area currently being served
by the Candlewood pump station to the permanent gravity. sewer system.
~ ;r3--) 7
Resolution No. 16222
Page 12
'""l
Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the scope of work at both
sites shall be limited to the removal and disposal of equipment, grading,
landscaping and construction of new sewerlines and manholes required for
connection to the proposed Rancho del Rey sewer system. Any upsizing of
Rancho del Rey Sewer lines due solely to the flow generated by the Mission
Verde.and Candlewood areas shall also be included.
Reclaimed Water
49. Prior to approval of the associated final map, the developer shall provide
on-site infrastructure to accept and to use reclaimed water when it is
available, along Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H"
Street and along East "J" Street from Paseo Ranchero to the park site, per
the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan.
50. Any costs incurred from retrofitting the reclaimed water system, when
reclaimed water becomes available, shall be paid by the developer. Monies
for this shall be held by the City, through a deposit set up by the
developer. The amount shall be determined by the developer, approved by
the City and in place prior to approval of each associated final map.
~ ~
51. Fire hydrants will be required per the Fire Department standards. Hydrant
spacing is 500 feet for single family and 300 feet for multi-family
dwellings. . .'
52. Maximum hydrant pressure shall not exceed 150 psi.
53. Fire hydrants and roadway access (per City Fire Marshall approval) shall
be installed, tested and operational prior to any combustible materials
placed on-site.
53.5 Developer and City shall, prior to the recording of the first final map
including all or any portion of the territory of the tentative map, have
entered into a Development Agreement which shall include, but shall not be
limited to, a promise satisfactory to the City requiring the develofer to
advance the entire costs of relocating, or at City's option, to bui d and
relocate, Fire Station No. 4 to a site satisfactory to the City, in
exchange for which developer shall be granted certainty of entitlements,
or such other mutually agreeable consideration.
Aareements/Covenants
54. Prior to final map approval for Phase I, Unit I, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City to guarantee the development of the parcel
specifically for senior housing.
..""'\
~ c2~-/r
.
55.
56.
.
57.
58.
59.
60.
.
T
Resolution No. 16222
Page 13
Prior to the approval of the first final "P. the developer shall enter
into an agreement to provide a right turn lane at the intersection of
Paseo del Rey and East "H" Street. to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. if the threshold standards for this intersection as expressed in
the then current Growth Management Ordinance are exceeded at any time
during the development of this project.
Prior to approval of the first final "P. the developer shall enter into
an agreement to provide a park-n-ride facility near the intersection of
East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero to include 50 parking spaces. 10
bicycle lockers. lighting. trash receptacles and circulation striping to
the satisfaction of the City Transit Coordinator. In addition. a transit
stop. to include a bench. shelter and trash receptacle. shall be provided
on the north side of East "H" Street. A plan of said improvements and the
timing thereof shall be submitted and approved by the City Transit
Coordinator. Requirements of this condition may also be met by
dedication. improvements. and/or financial participation in a park-n-ride
facility master plan. at the sole discretion of the City Council. The
specific site shall be in the vicinity of the site indicated herein or at
an alternative site possibly off the territory of the tentative map which
alternative site shall meet with the approval of the City.
Prior to approval of each final map. copies of proposed CC&Rs for the
subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning
Department.
Prior to approval of the first final" map. the developer shall provide a
schedule. subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City
Housing Coordinator. for the development of low income housing as defined
in the agreement executed between the City and Rancho del Rey Partnership
per City Council Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7. 1990.
Prior to the approval of any final map for the subject subdivision or any
unit thereof. the developer shall obtain all off-site right-of-way
necessary for the installation of required improvements for that unit.
The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site
public storm drains. sewers and other public utilities prior to approval
of the final map. Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater
than pipe size. but in no case less than 10 feet.
The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to
consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of-way cannot be
obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right-
of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act
are covered by this condition.
After said notification. the developer shall:
~ 02;1-/7
Resolution No. 16222
Page 14
A.
B.
61.
62.
63.
"""
,
Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements
required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative Map.
Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-
way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City
Engineer.
Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared
and appraisals complete which are necessary to cODlllence condemnation
proceedings.
If the developer so requests, the City may use its powers to acquire
right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements
or. work related to the Tentative Map. The developers shall pay all
costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the
approval of the Final Map.
All off-site requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5
of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived in accordance with that
section of the Act if the City does not comply with the 120 day limitation
specified in that section.
C.
D.
"'I
Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City to include the subdivisions in the Mello Roos
public facilities district or an acceptable alternative financing program,
subject to the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater
High School Districts.
Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City wherein he agrees to comply with that version of
the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is
issued. Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current
East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
Prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
A. . The developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for
any units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following
occurs:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the then current
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been
reached.
~
~ 02Y-02-tJ
64. Prior to approval of each final ~p, the developer shall agree to not
protest the fonnation of a district for the Nintenance of landscaped
medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subject
property.
65. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City wherein he holds the City harmless for any
liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting
from this project.
66. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the
developer agrees to participate in the monitoring of existing and future
sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the
preparation of the Basin Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan,
agree to rarticiPate in the financing of imfrovements set forth therein,
in an equ table manner. Said agreement shal be executed by the developer
prior to final map approval for any phase or unit proposing to discharge
sewage into the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer.
67. The developer shall pennit all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable
television service for each lot within the subdivision. The developer
shall enter into an agreement with all participating Cable Companies which
shall provide, in part, that upon receiving written notice from the City
that said Cable Company is in violation of the terms and conditions of the
franchise granted to said Cable Company, or any other terms and conditions
regulating said Cable Company in the City of Chula Vista, as same may from
time to time be amended, developer shall suspend Cable Company's access to
said conduit until City otherwise notifi.es developer. Said agreement
shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final ..p approval.
The developer shall utilize the Paseo Ranchero corridor for construction
traffic unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A construction
traffic plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval
of the first final.map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first. The plan shall include. provisions for dust control and state hours
of operation. Revisions to said plan shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
.
.
68.
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 15
Traffic volumes, level of service, public util ities and/or
services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective
Growth Management Ordinance.
B. The developer agrees that the City NY withhold occupancy pennits
for any of the phases of development identified in the Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Rancho del Rey SPA III if the
required public. facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended
by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed.
2.
~ c23~02/
Resolution No. 16222
Page 16
"""'.
Fees/Pavments
The subject property is within the boundaries of Open Space District #20
(Zone 7), Open Space District #10 (Phase II) and Assessment District #87-
1. Prior to final map approval or other grant of approval for any phase
or unit thereof, the developer shall pay all costs associated with:
A. detachment of subject property from Open Space District #10 (Phase
II); and .
B. reapportionment of assessments for Open Space District #20 (Zone 7)
and Assessment District #87-1 as a result of subdivision of lands
within the project boundary.
70. The developer shall pay:
69.
A. Spring Valley Sewer Trunk connection fees ($130/acre) prior to final
map approval for any phase or unit thereof contributing flow to the
Spring Valley Trunk Sewer.
B. Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance 2384.
71. PAD fees shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted Public
Facilities Financing Plan for Rancho del Rey. RCT fees and DIF fees shall
be paid in accordance with the applicable regulations, including the duty
to pay the fees in effect at the time the bulding permits are issued. PAD
fees shall be guaranteed until such time as th~ ~ity waives said fees.
Misce 11 aneous
72.
73.
74.
""'" !
The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California System -
Zone VI (1983).
Prior to final map approval for any unit, the developer shall submit a
copy of said final map in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file.
This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the final map shall be based on
accurate coordinate geometry calculations and shall be submitted on 5 1/2
HD floppy disk prior to recordation of the final map.
The developer may file a master final map which provides for the sale of
super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of
units and phasing thereof, shown on the tentative map. .
If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the
approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot
which will be further subdivided.
'"'""
--A---=itP ~ J ,- ..2 .2
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 17
.
The City Engineer may condition approval of such a final ~p to require
necessary plans to' provide infrastructure necessary top meet City
threshold policies and to contonu to the approved Public Facilities
Financing Plan. All super block lots created shall have access to a
dedicated public street.
Bonds in the amounts detenuined by the City Engineer shall be posted prior
to approval of a master final map. Said ~ster final map shall not be
considered the first final map as indicated in other conditions of
approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots shown on
the tentative map. .
Code Reauirements
75. The developer shall comply wi th all relevant Federal, State and Local
regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be
responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to
demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
76. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code as they exist at the time of issuance of the building
penuit. Preparation of the final map and all plans shall be in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and
Subdivision Manual.
77. Applicant shall comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement, the
terms, conditions and provisions of the Sectional Planning Area Plan, and
such Water Conservation Plan, the Air Quality Plan and the Public
Facilities Financing Plan approved by the Council ("Plans") as are
applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative
Map, prior to approval of the Final Map, or shall have entered into an
agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including
recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
procedures as the City may require, assuring that, after.approval of the
Final Map, the Applicant shall continue to comply with, remain in
compliance with, and implement such Plans. Developer shall agree to waive
any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air
Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the
condition.
.
~ .:2;]-;2.J
Resolution No. 16222
Page 18
."""
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property.
Presented by
Approved as to by
~~~ .1,..."
City Attorney
.l..4i!.#
Director of Planning
~ cJJ"u2Y
""'\
-""'\
.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 19
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 30th day of July, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Grasser Horton, Moore, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Nader
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Malcolm
.~ Tim Nader, Mayor
.
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A.Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16222 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 30th day of July, 1991.
Executed this 30th day of July, 1991.
ss.
.
~ ,;2J".2~
Minutes
July 30, 1991
Page 2
~
PUBUC HEARINGS AND 111':1 "TED RESOLtmONS AND ORDINANCES
7. PUBUC HEARING PCS-90-02: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 404.9 ACRES KNOWN AS RANCHO
DEL REY SECI10NAL PLANNING AREA m, CHULA VISl'A TRAcr NUMBER 90-02 LOCATED BE1WEEN
EAST "H" STREET AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD,IMMEDIATELY SOtnH OF RANCHO DEL REY SPA
I; RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP - The public hearing on this matter was continued from the meeting
of July 9, 1991 to allow for notification of additional residents within the vicinity of the proposed project.
The City Attorney's Office has revised the draft resolution to reflect changes in the tentative map conditions
which were voted on by the Council prior to taking action to continue the hearing. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 7/18/91 meeting.
Mayor Nader informed the Council that Councilwoman Grasser Horton had divested herself of the holdings
for which she had previously declared a conflict of interest and would be able to participate and vote
tonight.
Councilman Malcolm stated that his pension plan acquired stock approximately one month ago and the
nustee had not divested and therefore he would abstain from participation and voting.
City Attorney Boogaard informed Councilman Malcolm that he would also have a conflict of interest on Item
#8.
Mayor Nader informed Council that he would have to leave the Council meeting in order to attend an
AbTech II meeting at 7:00 p.m.
~
Mary May representing Lattieri/Mclntyre, stated the public hearing had been continued in order to expand
the public mailing list. Staff had the opportunity meet informally with those residents expressing concern
and staff felt that the issues were addressed at that time. Staff would recommend the following addition
to Condition 29 "all graded areas shall be replanted prior to the approval of the final map. Germination of
plant materials shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City's landscape architect".
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened.
AI Hanson, 1321 Mesa Grande Place, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations.
He did not feel the water issue had been addressed and that building should not be allowed until new water
resources were found. He felt it unfair for existing homeowners to have to conserve water. He also
questioned the amount of open space between Buena Vista Drive and the townhouses.
Jon Buddingh, Jr., 1363 Santa Cruz Court, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendations. He felt the major concern was the water off.set program and that it should be set at
100%. Every development should be required to supply all the water it will use. He further expressed
concern over the four lane roadway through Rice Canyon and recommended the consnuction of a bridge
in order to leave the bottom of the canyon untouched.
Clifford Swanson, City Engineer, responded that future traffic projections show high volumes which would
require a four lane roadway. The projections are from existing and future development, not just this project.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the EIR addressed the four lane roadway through the canyon. He further
stated that it was his understanding that the water off. set was 100% and the only factor to be determined
was which off.set program would be utilized.
""""
~.,23;,.2t
Minutes
July 30, 1991
Page 3
.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated that the condition was written so the applicant would have to
comply with a City approved water off.set policy. A 1'00% off.set was the direction of the Council at the SPA
level and Council can establish the off.set at whatever level is felt appropriate.
Mayor Nader stated it was his undentanding that building could not take place until a water off.set plan
is approved by Council. Whatever plan is approved must be approved and certified as meeting the objectives
for the City.
Ms. May stated the horizontal distance between Buena Vista and the townhouses will to 3S to 100 feet. The
strUctures on the pad will be an additional 20 to 7S feet. The parcel is subject to precise plan approval and
will have to be brought back in a public hearing forum.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the water off-set plan would be adopted before the precise plan is brought
back for adoption.
Mr. Leiter responded that it was a condition before final map recordation but the developer could flIe a
precise plan before that time.
Ken Baumgartner, representing McMillin Communities, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA, spoke in
support of the staff recommendations. The project being discussed is in the later part of the overall plan
and he would assume that a water off-set plan could be approved by Council before then. . He then gave a
brief summary of the planning process that began in the early 1970's. The plan has been reviewed by the
Parks and Recreation Commission and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.
.
Betty Dehoney, P 8< D Technologies, author of the EIR., stated that it would not appear there would be
substantial differences from a four lane to two lane roadway.
Allan Tait, 1372 Cerritos Court, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations. He
thanked the Planning staff for meeting with the neighbon regarding their concerns. He expressed his
concern over the lack of open space and felt the natural heritage of the City was being destroyed. He hoped
that the City would at some point set aside a regional park or major green belt.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Mayor Nader' stated that he shared the concern that all developable land was being developed. He
questioned whether staff had considered, if there was a desire to reduce the total amount of development
and to increase the preservation of aesthetic open space, as to where and how a reduction in density would
be achieved and the number of units that would be involved.
.
Mr. Leiter responded that staff had not reevaluated the project in terms of an alternative such as that. The
EIR had addressed alternatives regarding environmental issues but not density.
Councilman Rindone felt that McMillin had submitted a plan with mixed uses and variety that compliments
the existing areas.
Mayor Nader stated that the water and air conditions were attached at the SPA level and it was his
undentanding that the water off.set would be 100%. He did not have a problem with purring over the
determination of who's 100% water off.set plan is adopted, but anything less than 100% would not meet
his intent of the motion made at the approval of the SPA plan.
c2]'~.2 ?
~
Minutes
July 30, 1991
Page 4
~
MF (Nader) the condition of the tentative map be amended to reflect that the plan ultimately ap{>.u,ocd and
certified by the Council be a 100'16 water off-let. Motion died for lack 0( second.
Mr. Leiter stated the current condition requires the developer to comply with a water off.set policy as
determined by the Council.
Councilman Moore felt that numerous checks and balances had been included in this development and it
was the first development to have air and water off-sets. The City of Chula Vista has one of the best growth
management plans in the state.
Councilman Rindone stated philosophically he could support the 100% water off.set but noted that the
Council had set a condition which required the developer to comply with whatever water off-set program
was adopted by Council. There should be a cooperative county.wide partnership for water conservation.
He felt the Council had been very progressive regarding water conservation.
Mayor Nader agreed that Council had been progressive setting an air and water off.set programs. He had
been advised that a 100% air quality off.set would not be attainable but a 100% water off.set would be.
He had been willing to compromise regarding the air quality off.set with a 100% water off-set. It was his
understanding that this would be incorporated in the tentative map. He felt compelled to vote no on the
tentative map unless that amendment was made.
Councilman Rindone stated that with the existing condition, the Council still had the option of setting a
higher water off.set.
Mayor Nader StIlted he would have to leave the meeting but wanted to address Item 8. He stated that he
did not have the biological expertise to say whether the gnatcatcher should or should not be listed. Unless
scientific data was available, the decision may be better off left to the experts.
'""
Mayor Nader left at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Pro Tempore Moore chairing the meeting.
RESOUTnON 16222 OFFERED BY MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MOORE, reading of the ten was waived
Mayor Pro Tempore Moore requested that staff keep Council informed on the progress and status of the
water off.set programs.
Mr. Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, que~tioned whether it was Council's intent to include the
modifications to Condition 29 as recommended by staff.
City Attorney Boogaard StIlted the amendment to Condition 29 should state 'All graded areas shall be
replanted prior to the approval of any final map. Germination of plant material shall be guaranteed by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the City landscape architect".
Mr. Baumgartner responded that the developer agreed with the amendment.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (MoorelRindone) to amend Condition 29 as recommendect by staff. Approved
341.1 with Mayor Nader absent and Councilman Malcolm abstaining.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 16222 AS AMENDED, approved 341.1 with Mayor Nader absent and Councilman
Malcolm abstaining.
""""
dJ.-~Y
Ac?-~-
Minutes
July 30, 1991
Page 5
.
RESOLUTlON IF.??? APPROVING TIm TENTAnvE SUBDMSlON MAP POR RANCHO DEL lEY
SECl10NAL PLANNING ~ (SPA) m. CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ACl10N ITEMS
8. REPORT ONENDANGEREDUS'l1NG STAnJSOPTImCAlJPORNIAGNATCATCHER
AND CURRENT REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONALEPPORTS TO PREPAREAHABlTATCONSERVATIONPLAN
. The report contains a review of the current status of the California Gnatcatcher as a state and federal
endangered species. Current programs by other agencies and groups which are proposing to preselVe
sensitive biological habitat, and Chula Vista's options are also listed. Staff recommends Council: 1) authorize
the City Manager to send a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission regarding the potential listing
of the California Gnatcatcher as a candidate for state endangered species; and 2) direct staff to prepare a
habitat conservation program for areas within the City containing sensitive biological habitat, including
coastal sage scrub habitat. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 7123/91 meeting.
Councilman Malcolm abstained from participation and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of
interest.
.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a brief review of the report. Staff recommended that Council
submit a letter to the Fish and Game Commission recommending that they defer their decision at this time
and make their review in conjunction with a review being done at the federal level. It is felt that action at
the state level would be premature at this time. The second item is the development of a habitat
conservation program. This program would be coordinated with other regional and county programs that
are currently underway. Staff would come back to Council with a work program in the future.
Councilman Rindone stated that due to the short timeline, staff should fax the information with a letter as
follow-up.
Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated that one member of the Council felt that there should be no action taken.
MSC (Moore/Grasser Horton) to accept the report and staffrecommendations. Approved ~1.1 with Mayor
Nader absent and Councilman Malcolm abstaining.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ITEMS 1>InJ.Im PROM TIm CONSENT ('.AT ENDAR
No items pulled. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
.
d-J--..2 9
~
~
- This Page Blank -
~
"""'
~ ;2:J~3o
.
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-02 N
RANCHO DEL RIY SPA m. PHASE 2. UNIT 2
']"Ji~JtUl.,tJ Uhibi+ 13
lief']" NtIS']".,tJ
, M.,tJp IV.~ Ilk:;..)'
I' O~ 1<
1 I ~ I a ':0 q01
I """ ~T ;' , \
S 811 I ~;' , \ ...
I ,....~..? 4~
I I ),' . ')-, C~
I 1~8 ~~""C'<j."tj
A# ?.vO Jlf, V;p
41:;(J,.~I)~ Q. Q)""tj
~ -1'. ~IAI~~Y 0"'0
o ""'" A# ~~.. :.?
1.0,. ~ lal"'-'~ ~
..? r(J
~
.
'-
C)
~,
~~aJ
~::::;)~
(0 to-Q)
S;,O
o-'j'
~Q:)d~I If '<
Sd<:Ifal lfa
;t <:l{ ~...1- T-
()~ ~\ t \ , f
() 01
~
~ t\
0\
I I
110 I
I~I
~
~
r
.~
lID ICALE
zoo D lDO
~I
GRAPHIC SCALE:
Illl ".-00. -
zoo <<Ill :23--;f I
1 I~
1 inch - 200 ft.
PREPARED BY:
CRAIG. BULTHUIS Ie STELMAR
QoII ....... . .... .....,... . .... .......
2611 ADAMS AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92116
PHONE: (819) 297-3974~::l\::.
"""""l
'.
- This Page Blank -
"')
-""'\
~ ;23 ---J ;L
.
~hjb; r'-'
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-02 ..
RANCHO D~L REY SPA III PHASE 3 UNIT 2
PHASE 3
UNI,. I
PHASE 3
UNJ,. J
PHASE 3
UNI,. 3
AlSION
.ROE
MAP 12165
.
N
PHASE 3
UNI,. ..
N
;2;;-- :J.'f () ~ VlClNnY M/IP
p<. ~ I NO SCALE
,'"
f....
~
- This Page Blank -
'""'"
~
~ .;L}' ---;J' Y
.
.
.
Exhibit D
The following is a list of all residential lots and lettered lots for the maps listed on the item
title of this report.
Map Residential Lots Lettered Lots
Phase 2 Unit 2 85 1
Phase 3 Unit 2 156 2
TOTALS 241 3
Approval of the Final Map for Phase 2 Unit 2 constitutes acceptance on behalf of the public
of Camino Atajo, Plaza Capote, Plaza Narisco, Cordova Drive and the acceptance of Lot A in
fee for open space and other public purposes; and acceptance on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista of the easements with the right of ingress and egress for the construction and
maintenance of drainage facilities and tree planting and maintenance along dedicated streets
within this subdivision, all as shown on the subject map.
Approval of the Final Map for Phase 3 Unit 2 constitutes acceptance on behalf of the public
of Plaza Miraleste, Via Miraleste, Via Monada, Camino Calabazo, Plaza Amparada and the
acceptance of Lots A and B in fee for open space and other public purposes; and acceptance
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista of the easements with the right of ingress and egress for
the construction and maintenance of tree planting along dedicated streets within this
subdivision, all as shown on the subject map.
~ ~;J~3-r-
,J- ,,) (
~
- This Page Blank -.,
"""\
"""\
.D4 2J-Y?
~
Agenda Item 23A-1
Marked to Show Changes
RESOLUTION NO.
17961
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 90-02, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, PHASE 2,
UNIT 2, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE
PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE OPEN SPACE LOT GRANTED ON SAID MAP,
ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, PHASE 2,
UNIT 2, and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of Lot 4, Chula vista Tract No. 90-
02, Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Master Final Map in the City
of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of california,
according to Map thereof No. 13176, filed December 14,
1994, in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, State of California.
Area: 14.227 acres
Numbered Lots: 85
No. of Lots: 86
Lettered Lots: 1
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: Camino Atajo,
Plaza Capote, Plaza Narisco and Cordova Drive, and said streets are
hereby declared to be public streets and dedicated to the public
use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lots A is hereby accepted for
Open Space and other public purposes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
1
dl3 A-I
on behalf of the City of Chula vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for street tree planting and maintenance,
general utility easements within open Space Lot A and drainage
easement, all as granted and shown on said map within said
sUbdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that said
lot is dedicated for Open Space and other public uses and is
accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista and that those
certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for the
construction and maintenance of street tree planting, as granted
thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is accepted
on behalf of the city of Chula vista as hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego. after the citv Clerk has
recei ved the improvement secur i ties. Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication. and anv other items. as the city Attorney may deem
necessary. to satisfY the security obliqations of the Developer as
set forth in the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Aqreement for
Chula vista Tract 90-2. Rancho del Rey SPA III.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1995, for
the completion of improvements in said sUbdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~ ~~e. {:~
Bruce M. Boogaard, ci y -
Attorney
C:\rs\RORSpa3.un2
2
~3A-~
v
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
270 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax i. due as this is a conveyance to a
public agency of 1... than a fee interest for which no
cash consideration has been paid or received.
Declarant
. Por Ilccordcr'. UIe 0aIy
SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Rancho del Rey SPA m, Phase 2, Unit 2
THIS SUBD,IVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into this 5' - day of ~ ' 1995, by and between RDR INVESTORS,
L.P., a California limited partne 'p, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, California 92050
("Subdivider"), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation ("City")
with reference to the following facts:
A. The City Council of the City, on July 30, 1991, approved Resolution No. 16222
(the "Resolution"), approving a tentative map of Chula Vista Tract 90-02 ("Tract 90-02"), a
proposed subdivision known as Rancho del Rey SPA m.
B. Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City, for approval and
recordation, a final subdivision map (the "Final Map") of a portion of Tract 90-02 to be known
as Rancho del Rey SPA m, Phase 2, Unit 2 (the "Subdivision"), pursuant to the provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the provisions of
Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (the "Code") relating to the filing, approval and
recordation of final subdivision maps.
C. The Code provides that before a final subdivision map is finally approved by the
City Council of the City, a subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public
improvements and land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions
before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the City Council for the purpose of recording
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative, the subdivider
shall enter into an agreement with the City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure
the performance of the work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Code, agreeing to
install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements
l'Ittue 2. u.ir 2
111/05/9'
-1-
c23/J- 3
,..., ~-
1
and land development work required in the subdivision within a defmite period of time prescribed
by the City Council.
D. Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of the Final
Map by the City Council, to enter into this Agreement which provides that Subdivider will install
and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvement work required by the
City in connection with the Final Map of the Subdivision ("Improvement Work") and will deliver
to the City improvement securities described below as approved by the City Attorney.
E. Complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion
of the Improvement Work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as shown on
Drawing Nos. 94-382 through 94-378 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer.
F. An estimate of the cost of constructing the Improvement Work according to the
plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of Eight
Hundred Forty Six Thousand Dollars ($846,000.00).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and its successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which
encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to do and perform or cause to be done and performed,
at its own expense, without cost to the City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction
and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the Improvement Work required
to be done in connection with the Final Map in and adjoining the Subdivision, and will furnish
the necessary materials for the Improvement Work, all in strict conformity and in accordance
with the plans and specifications, which documents have been filed in the office of the City Engineer
and are incorporated by this reference in this Agreement.
2. All monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will
install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this Agreement to be completed on or before the third
anniversary date of City Council approval of this Agreement.
4. Subdivider will perform the Improvement Work as set forth above, or that portion
of the Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in the
Subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for the
buildings or structures in the Subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City
Engineer has certified in writing the completion of the Improvement Work or the portion thereof
serving the buildings or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement
security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph.
_2. _2
111105/95
-2-
.2:JA~~
.
"
S. In the performance of the Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide
by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City and the laws of the State of California
applicable to such work.
6. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City, in the sum of Four Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Dollars
($423,000.00), which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of the Improvement Work
by Subdivider and is attached as Exhibit "A".
7. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City, in the sum of Four Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Dollars
($423,000.00), to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation
of the Improvement Work by Subdivider and is attached as Exhibit "B".
8. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City in the sum of Twelve Thousand Forty Dollars ($12,040.00) to
secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached as Exhibit "C".
9. Upon certification of completion of the Improvement Work by the City Engineer
and acceptance of the work by the City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that
all costs of the work are fully paid, the whole amount of the improvement security for the
Improvement Work, or any part thereof not required for payment of the costs of the work, shall
be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement
security .
10. If the work on the Improvement Work is not completed within the time specified,
the sums provided by the improvement securities for the Improvement Work may be used by
the City for the completion of the Improvement Work in accordance with such specifications
contained or referred to in this Agreement. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any shortfall
between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of
construction (mcluding a reasonable allocation for overhead) and any proceeds from the
improvement security.
11. In no case will the City, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for
any portion of the costs and expenses of the Improvement Work, nor shall any officer, his/her
sureties or bondspersons, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for such work or any
materials furnished for the work, except to the limits established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the state Subdivision Map Act and the provisions
of Title 18 of the Code.
12. Any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished
and other incidental expenses) incurred by the City in connection with the approval of the
_2.UIIiI2
111105/95
-3-
,) 'J19-f
,.~.... -,
",,,;,../-."
Improvement Work, plans and installation of the Improvement Work, and the cost of any street
signs and street trees as required by the City and approved by the City Engineer, shall be paid
by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit with the City, prior to recordation of the Final
Map, a sum of money sufficient to cover such costs.
13. Until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by the
City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care and maintenance of, and any damage to, the
Improvement Work. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public
improvements for a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance and correct any and
all defects or deficiencies arising during such period as a result of the actor omission of Subdivider,
its agents or employees, in the performance of this Agreement, and that upon acceptance of the
work by the City, Subdivider shall grant to the City, by appropriate conveyance, the public
improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that acceptance by
City shall not constitute a waiver of defects.
14. City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any
injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the act or omission of Subdivider, its agents
or employees, related to this Agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City,
its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability
or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, it agents or
employees, related to this Agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security
shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement
to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of
property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction
of the Subdivision and the public improvements as provided in this Agreement. It shall also extend
to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of
the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as
the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing
for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility
for such damage or taking, nor shall the City, by such approval, be an insurer or surety for the
construction of the Subdivision pursuant to approved improvement plans. The provisions of this
paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement and shall remain in full
force and effect for ten (10) years following acceptance by the City of the improvements.
IS. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceed;'lg against the City, or its agents, officers
or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeals
board or legislative body concerning a subdivider, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in ~66499.37 of the California GOVERNMENT CODE.
16. The burden of the covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the
benefit of the Property. The Burden touches and concerns the property. It is the intent of the
parties and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership
of the land which it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title, as to
an individual lot or unit within the Subdivision upon the sale of such lot improved with a residence,
_.2.I1I1II2
(17105/95
4-
.23/9-t
~:.,.J
. ,
provided however, the City detennines that the effect of such release or in conjunction with previous
releases will not jeopardize the completion of the improvements or other obligations remaining
under this Agreement. However, as to any lots which have not been released, the Burden of
this Agreement shall continue to encumber such lots and shall be binding upon, and run with,
the ownership of such lots until such lots are released. If requested by Subdivider, the City shall
execute a quitclaim releasing the Burden of this Agreement from the title to any such lots. If
Subdivider assigns any portion of the Subdivision, Subdivider shall have the right to obtain a release
of any of SubdiVider's obligations under this Agreement, provided Subdivider obtains the prior
written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment shall, however, be subject to this
Agreement, and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land.
The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee
acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of
the Subdivider under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City,
its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the
Subdivision which is being acquired by the assignee. If Subdivider assigns any portion of the
Subdivision subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon request by the Subdivider orits assignee,
the City shall release the assignee of the Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion
if such portion has complied with the requirements of this Agreement, and such partial release
will not jeopardize, in the opinion of the City, the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden
will not be completed.
IN WITNFSS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as
of the date set forth above.
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By: MclvfTT.T.TN PROJECT SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation, as Attorney-in-Fact
under Durable Power of Attorney
By f1.'.MId ,/ B!<'<'-nA'""",d~~
Its e,,-~', - i/ P (J
By ~\-9-dL-
Its v: 1'.
l'ItMe 2, UIIiI 2
rnlll5l95
-5-
..2J/J-?
",
,>,-.'.'
. .
ATIEST
City Clerk
Approved as to form by:
d /\tv-- 0 ?'vt{fUk 0 (y~
City Attorney
_.2. _2
111106195
CITY OF CBULA VISTA,
a California municipal corporation
By
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
-6- cJ.3/1 - g/
I'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY Ot: SAN DIEGO
)
) ss.
)
On Julv Ii. lQQ-;, before me, .T~rR." lb..~1r
personally appeared Kenneth s. Baumqartner aDd ThoIIl Fuller
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (or y.o.....i lu ~ on the basis sf .a_tery ..;id~&ee) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that ftefshelthey executed the same in hisAlerItheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hisfher/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
) 55.
)
-4""-"'~.-
-~ -"
~~ JOVCfAE',
I " . COMM, ~C;'l,i ,
. ~.. ~
. n NOTAAVPl.8UCCAUFO."'J\lA l..
IAN lliE"'.o COttIIY ..
R ,.' My~.~~~,3~. !!9.~ 11
(Seal)
G'" "::i," " ""'JOYCEA:BRoc,t ''''~
..~ COMM.#989471 ~
. ,.: NOTAr7l PlIJUCCAIJ'"rOiUA it
I SAN OIC(;() COltI1Y ..
i " ~c~.~MaohSl.19'17 ~
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
rd,~
t/
On
personally appeared
, before me,
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Seal)
SUPP.S1A
July S. I99S
-15-
~J/?-1
_, SIA r.. _ dol.., SPA m
"
LIST OF EXlDBITS
Exhibit "A":
Improvement Security:
Faithful Performance
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$423,000.00
Exhibit "B":
Improvement Security:
Material and Labor
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$423,000.00
Exhibit "Co:
Improvement Security:
Monuments
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$12,040.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by:
City Attorney
Three (3) years from date of City Council approval
of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Improvement Completion Date:
"""'2._2
lTIlll5l95
-8-
.). 3/1 -/ c:J
Agenda Item 23B-1
Marked to Show Changes
RESOLUTION NO. 17962
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 90-02, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, PHASE 3,
UNIT 2, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE
PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP,
ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, PHASE 3,
UNIT 2, and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of Lot 9 of Chula vista Tract No. 90-
02, Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Master Final Map in the city
of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 13176, filed December 14,
1994, in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County.
Area: 22.980 acres
Numbered Lots: 156
No. of Lots: 158
Lettered Lots: 2
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: Plaza
Miraleste, Via Miraleste, Via Monada, Camino Calabazo an Plaza
Amparoda, and said streets are hereby declared to be public streets
and dedicated to the public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lots A and B are hereby
accepted for Open space and other public purposes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for visibility and street tree planting and
~.3 {6-1
,:~".f.-
maintenance, general utility easements within Open space Lots A and
B, all as granted and shown on said map within said subdivision,
subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that said
lots are dedicated for Open Space and other public uses and are
accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista and that those
certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for the
construction and maintenance of street tree planting, as granted
thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is accepted
on behalf of the city of Chula vista as hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego. after the citv Clerk has
received the improvement securities. Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication. and any other items. as the city Attorney may deem
necessary. to satisfy the security obliqations of the Developer as
set forth in the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Aqreement for
Chula vista Tract 90-2. Rancho del Rey SPA III.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1995, for
the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
OA- ~cn~ J.~
Bruce M. Boogaard, city
Attorney
C:\rs\RORSpa3.un2
2
dl3-8~
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
270 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a
public agency of leu than a fee interest for which no
cub consideration baa been paid or received.
Declarant
PorRc:corder'. UICOIlIy
SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Rancho del Rey SPA ill, Pbase 3, Unit 2
TIllS SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into this ~ day of ~~ ' 1995, by and between RDR INVESTORS,
L.P., a California limited partne .p, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, California 92050
("Subdivider"), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation ("City")
with reference to the following facts:
A. The City Council of the City, on July 30, 1991, approved Resolution No. 16222
(the "Resolution"), approving a tentative map of Chula Vista Tract 90-02 ("Tract 90-02"), a
proposed subdivision known as Rancho del Rey SPA m.
B. Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City, for approval and
recordation, a final subdivision map (the "Final Map") of a portion of Tract 90-02 to be known
as Rancho del Rey SPA m, Phase 3, Unit 2 (the "Subdivision"), pursuant to the provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the provisions of
Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (the "Code") relating to the filing, approval and
recordation of final subdivision maps.
C. The Code provides that before a fInal subdivision map is fInally approved by the
City Council of the City, a subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public
improvements and land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions
before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the City Council for the purpose of recording
in the OffIce of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative, the subdivider
shall enter into an agreement with the City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure
the performance of the work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Code, agreeing to
install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements
_oS.lhI/l2
rn 105195
-1-
.)J[]-3
and land development work required in the subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed
by the City Council.
D. Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of the Final
Map by the City Council, to enter into this Agreement which provides that Subdivider will install
and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvement work required by the
City in connection with the Final Map of the Subdivision ("Improvement Work") and will deliver
to the City improvement securities described below as approved by the City Attorney.
E. Complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion
of the Improvement Work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as shown on
Drawing Nos. 94-490 through 94-481 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer.
F. An estimate of the cost of constructing the Improvement Work according to the
plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of $1 ,354,800.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and its successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which
encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to do and perform or cause to be done and performed,
at its own expense, without cost to the City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction
and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the Improvement Work required
to be done in connection with the Final Map in and adjoining the Subdivision, and will furnish
the necessary materials for the Improvement Work, all in strict conformity and in accordance
with the plans and specifications, which documents have been filed in the office of the City Engineer
and are incorporated by this reference in this Agreement.
2. All monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will
install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this Agreement to be completed on or before the third
anniversary date of City Council approval of this Agreement.
4. Subdivider will perform the Improvement Work as set forth above, or that portion
of the Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in the
Subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for the
buildings or structures in the Subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City
Engineer has certified in writing the completion of the Improvement Work or the portion thereof
serving the buildings or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement
security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph.
",.,.,. _ 2
117105195
-2-
..2.JP~(
5. In the performance of the Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide
by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City and the laws of the State of California
applicable to such work.
6. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City, in the sum of Six Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred
Dollars ($677,400.00), which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of the Improvement
Work by Subdivider and is attached as Exhibit" A".
7. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City, in the sum of Six Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred
Dollars ($677,400.00), to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the
installation of the Improvement Work by Subdivider and is attached as Exhibit "B".
8. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the execution
of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency
has been approved by the City in the sum of Twenty Six Thousand Dollars ($26,000.00) to secure
the installation of monuments, which security is attached as Exhibit "C".
9. Upon certification of completion of the Improvement Work by the City Engineer
and acceptance of the work by the City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that
all costs of the work are fully paid, the whole amount of the improvement security for the
Improvement Work, or any part thereof not required for payment of the costs of the work, shall
be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement
security.
10. If the work on the Improvement Work is not completed within the time specified,
the sums provided by the improvement securities for the Improvement Work may be used by
the City for the completion of the Improvement Work in accordance with such specifications
contained or referred to in this Agreement. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any shortfall
between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of
construction (including a reasonable allocation for overhead) and any proceeds from the
improvement security.
11. In no case will the City, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for
any portion of the costs and expenses of the Improvement Work, nor shall any officer, hislher
sureties or bondspersons, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for such work or any
materials furnished for the work, except to the limits established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the state Subdivision Map Act and the provisions
of Title 18 of the Code.
12. Any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished
and other incidental expenses) incurred by the City in connection with the approval of the
-'3._2
r171OS/95
-3-
-2J!J~5
Improvement Work, plans and installation of the Improvement Work, and the cost of any street
signs and street trees as required by the City and approved by the City Engineer, shall be paid
by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit with the City, prior to recordation of the Final
Map, a sum of money sufficient to cover such costs.
13. Until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by the
City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care and maintenance of, and any damage to, the
Improvement Work. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public
improvements for a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance and correct any and
all defects or deficiencies arising during such period as a result of the actor omission of Subdivider,
its agents or employees, in the performance of this Agreement, and that upon acceptance of the
work by the City, Subdivider shall grant to the City, by appropriate conveyance, the public
improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that acceptance by
City shall not constitute a waiver of defects.
14. City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any
injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the act or omission of Subdivider, its agents
or employees, related to this Agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City,
its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability
or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, it agents or
employees, related to this Agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security
shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement
to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of
property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction
of the Subdivision and the public improvements as provided in this Agreement. It shall also extend
to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of
the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as
the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing
for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility
for such damage or taking, nor shall the City, by such approval, be an insurer or surety for the
construction of the Subdivision pursuant to approved improvement plans. The provisions of this
paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement and shall remain in full
force and effect for ten (10) years following acceptance by the City of the improvements.
15. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers and employees, from any claim, action or plooeedif\g against the City, or its agents, officers
or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeals
board or legislative body concerning a subdivider, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in 166499.37 of the California GoVERNMENT CODB.
16. The burden of the covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the
benefit of the Property. The Burden touches and concerns the property. It is the intent of the
parties and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership
of the land which it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title, as to
any individual lot or unit within the Subdivision upon sale of such lot improved with a residence,
_J. u.u 2
111105/95
4-
cJ3[J-~
provided however, the City determines that the effect of such release, or in conjunction with
previous releases, will not jeopardize the completion of the improvements or other obligations
remaining under this Agreement. However, as to any lots which have not been reJ~v<l, the Burden
of this Agreement shall continue to encumber such lots and shall be binding upon, and run with,
the ownership of such lots until such lots are released. If requested by Subdivider, the City shall
execute a quitclaim releasing the Burden of this Agreement from the title to any such lots. If
Subdivider assigns any portion of the Subdivision, Subdivider shall have the right to obtain a release
of any of Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement, provided Subdivider obtains the prior
written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment shall, however, be subject to this
Agreement, and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land.
The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee
acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of
the Subdivider under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City,
its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the
Subdivision which is being acquired by the assignee. If Subdivider assigns any portion of the
Subdivision subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon request by the Subdivider or its assignee,
the City shall release the assignee of the Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion
if such portion has complied with the requirements of this Agreement, and such partial release
will not jeopardize, in the opinion of the City, the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden
will not be completed.
IN WITNFSS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as
of the date set forth above.
RANCHO DEL KEY INVESTORS, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By: Mc~ T .TN' PROJECT SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation, as Attorney-in-Fact
under Durable Power of Attorney
By
W:l/fUdt >I Ilrd<- 4"'J~
Its ~ <' c. t/. P ()
By ~l-Jaa.-
Its v. p
_.J.UIIiI2
111105/95
-5-
c23[J -7
"
A TIEST
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a California municipal corporation
City Clerk
Approved 81 to form by:
CtAr- Y\^-~ - ~
City Attorney
By
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
PItoI.,. lTIoIr 2
111105/95
-6-
.2Jg~r
r
,f
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
) ss.
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
On .1'1.11v 5. lqqli, before me, .Tny"eo a. 'R_.......w
personally appeared Kenneth s. Baumqartner and ThOlll Fuller
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (Of l'<v...d Iu lj~ on the Ilw of satisfaetery evi4e&ee) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) ware subscribed to the within instrUment and acknowledged to
me that ftefshelthey executed the same in hi&/II8FItheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hisftreT/their signature(s) on the instrUment, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrUment.
Signature
yrd.~
li)"~~Cl
R ,'. MyCOlMl.Ell;I!!oo_a'.'~' a
,_. ~.,..,. "................'\....,.. -.{
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
) ss.
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
On
personally appeared
, before me,
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrUment and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrUment, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrUment.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature
SUPP-SIA
July 5,1995
-15-
.2;J[J~ i
Sow. SIA ,.. _ dol.., SPA m
LIST OF EXlllBITS
Exhibit "A":
Improvement Security:
Faithful Performance
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$677,400.00
Exhibit "B":
Improvement Security:
Material and Labor
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$677,400.00
Exhibit "CO:
Improvement Security:
Monuments
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$26,000.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by:
City Attorney
Three (3) years from date of City Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Improvement Completion Date:
_.J.l1IIII2
IIII05I9S
-8-
cl.38..- /cJ
.
,--
RESOLUTION NO. J1 Q(#.3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT
90-2, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on July 30, 1991, by Resolution 16222, the city
Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula vista
Tract 90-2, Rancho del Rey SPA III ("Tentative Map"); and
WHEREAS, the developer has entered into a Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to satisfy conditions of approval
Numbers 8,13,32,33,41,45,47,48,53.5,56,58,62,63,64,
65, 66, 67 and 77 of the Tentative Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula vista Tract 90-2,
Rancho Del Rey SPA III, 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 same on
behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~~~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~3C-1 /;'3C-t<
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a
public agency of leas than a fee interest for which no
cash consideration has been paid or received.
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Rancho del Rey SPA m
d This Supplem n Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this
-5 - day of , 1995, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
California ("City or Grantee" for recording purposes only) and RANCHO DEL REY
INVESTORS, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Developer" or "Grantor" for recording
purposes only), with reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this .
Agreement:
A. This Agreement concerns and affects real property located in Chula Vista,
California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
("Property"). Property is also commonly known as Rancho del Rey SPA m, a proposed land
development project ("Project"). For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Project" shall
include the term "Property."
B. Developer is the owner of the Property.
C. City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Rancho
Del Rey SPA m, Chula Vista Tract 90-02 ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision
of the Property.
D. City has adopted Resolution No. 16222 ("Resolution") pursuant to which it
approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly
described in the Resolution. The description of the conditions in this recital section of this
Agreement is intended only to summarize and paraphrase such conditions in the Resolution, and
is not intended herein to modify or explain them, and is not intended as a basis for interpreting
them.
.-
-
S\JI'\'.sJA
July 5, 1995
-1-
&.3 C---3
Supp. SIA for ....... dol'" SPA m
E. Developer is ready to file finals maps for the Property (the "Final Maps") and by
this Agreement will satisfy a number of conditions of the Resolution required to be satisfied
prior to the filing of the Final Maps.
.
F. Condition No.8 of the Resolution, in part, requires Developer, prior to approval
of any final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to not oppose the inclusion of the
off site portion of East "J" Street adjacent to Buena Vista Way in Open Space District # 20
(Zone 7).
G. Condition No. 13 of the Resolution provides that Developer shall be responsible
for the construction of wider sidewalks at transit stops subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
H. Condition No. 28 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of any
final map for the Project, to request that maintenance of all facilities and improvements within
. the open space area associated with such map be the responsibility of the Rancho del Rey Open
Space Maintenance District.
I. Condition No. 32 of the Resolution requires Developer to provide 12.5 acres of
park land as described in SPA Plan, including land, fees and/or additional improvements, in
accordance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections
17.10.010, et seq.) as more specifically described in the condition.
J. Condition No. 33 of the Resolution requires that the park located in Phase 3,
Unit 4 shall be a minimum of 10 net usable acres, as more specifically described in the
condition.
.
K. Condition No. 41 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of any
final map for single family residential use, to submit a list of lots indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations.
L. Condition No. 45 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of the
first final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to perform sewage flow metering to
monitor the main, in the locations and at the intervals determined by the City Engineer, and
under certain circumstances construct parallel facilities, as more specifically described in the
condition.
M. Condition No. 47 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of any
final map for the Project proposing diversion of sewage into a foreign basin, to enter into an
agreement with the City relative to the diversion.
N. Condition No. 48 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of final
map for the Project entailing the removal of the existing sewer pump stations (Mission Verde
and Candlewood), to enter into an agreement to establish the scope of work and the amount to
.-
-
SUPP-SIA
July 5, 1995
-2-
d,-3C- '-t
.... SIA ..... ...... dol .." SPA m
- I
be reimbursed by the City for performing such work, as more specifically described in the .
condition.
O. Condition 53.5 of the Resolution requires Developer and City, prior to approval
of the first final map for the Project, to enter into a Development Agreement including a promise
satisfactory to the City requiring the Developer to advance the costs of relocating, or at City's
option, building and relocating, Fire Station No.4 to a site satisfactory to the City, in exchange
for which Developer shall be granted certainty of entitlements or other mutually agreeable
consideration.
P. Condition No. 55 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of the
first final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to provide, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, a right turn lane at the intersection of Paseo del Rey and East "H" Street if
certain threshold standards in the Growth Management Ordinance are exceeded, as more
specifically described in the condition.
Q. Condition No. 56 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of the
first final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to provide a park-n-ride facility and
related improvements near the intersection of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero, or at the
discretion of the City Council, satisfy the requirement of this condition through dedication,
improvements, andlor financial participation in a park-n-ride facility master plan.
R. Condition No. 58 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of the .
first final map for the Project, to provide a schedule for the development of low income housing
as defined in the agreement between the City and Rancho del Rey Partnership per City Council
Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7, 1990.
S. Condition No. 61 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of each
final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement with the City to include the subdivisions
in a Mello Roos public facilities district or an acceptable alternative financing program, subject
to the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater High School Districts.
T. Condition No. 62 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to approval of each
final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement wherein Developer agrees to comply with
that version of the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is
issued. Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water
Conservation Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA m.
U. Condition No. 63 of the Resolution requires Developer, prior to final map
approval of any phase of the Project or unit thereof to enter into an agreement with the City
whereby:
.-
-
SUPP-8IA
July S. 1995
-3-
d2> c- S
8upp. SIA far __ doIl1oy SPA m
1.
Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any
units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs:
.
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the then current
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been
reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth
Management Ordinance.
2. Developer agrees that the City may withhold occupancy permits for any
of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing
Plan ("PFFP") for Rancho Del Rey SPA ill if the required public
facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual
Monitoring Program have not been completed.
V. Condition No. 64 of the Resolution requires the Developer, prior to approval of
each final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement not to protest the formation of a
district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways along streets within and
adjacent to the subject property.
W. Condition No. 65 of the Resolution requires the Developer, prior to approval of ....
each final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to hold the City harmless from any 'WI'
liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from the Project.
X. Condition No. 66 of the Resolution requires the Developer, prior to approval of
each final map for the Project, to enter into an agreement to participate in the monitoring of
existing and future sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the
preparation of the Basin Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in
the financing of improvements set forth therein in an equitable manner.
Y. Condition No. 67 of the Resolution requires the Developer to permit all franchised
cable television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide service for each
lot within the subdivision and enter into an agreement with all participating cable television
companies as more particularly set forth in Condition No. 67.
Z. Condition No. 77 of the Resolution requires the Developer, prior to approval of
a final map for the Project, to either (a) comply with, remain in compliance with, and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Sectional Planning Area Plan, and such
Water Conservation Plan, the Air Quality Plan and the Public Facilities Financing Plan approved
by the City Council (collectively, the "Plans") as are applicable to the Project prior to approval
of any final map or (b) enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such
security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
-
-
SuPP-aIA
July 5, 1995
-4-
0l-2. c - c;,
..... SJA r.r __ dol .., SPA m
procedures as the City may require, assuring that, after approval of the final map, Developer .
shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such Plans. Condition
No. 77 of the Resolution also requires Developer to agree to waive any claim that the adoption
of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent
imposition of the condition.
AA. There are certain other unperformed and unfulfilled conditions of said Tentative
Map.
AB. City is willing, on the promises, security, terms and conditions herein contained
to approve the Final Maps as being in substantial conformance with the conditions of the
Tentative Subdivision Map described in this Agnement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties agree as set forth below.
1. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners.
a. Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the parties as
to any or all of the Property until released by the mutual consent of the parties.
b. Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants ..-.
contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the land owned by the City adjacent ....
to the Property. The Burden touches and concerns the Property. It is the intent of the parties,
and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership of
the land which it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title, as to an
individual lot or unit within the Project upon the sale of any lot improved with a residence,
provided however, the City determines that the effect of such release, or in conjunction with
previous releases, will not jeopardize the completion of the improvements or other obligations
remaining under this Agreement. If requested by Developer, City shall execute a quitclaim
releasing the Burden of this Agreement from the title to any such lots. If Developer assigns any
portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, Developer shall have the right
to obtain a release of any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, provided Developer
obtains the prior written consent of the City to any such release. City shall not withhold its
consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee demonstrates, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the City, its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates
to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by the assignee.
2. Condition No. 8 - Off Site Open Space. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 8 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees to not oppose the inclusion of the off site
portion of East "J" Street adjacent to Buena Vista Way in Open Space District # 20 (Zone 7)
and to pay the costs associated with annexing such property into the Open Space District. This
agreement to not protest the inclusion of the Property shall not be deemed a waiver of the right
-
-
SIJPP.8IA
July 5. 1995
-5-
~3 c- l
.... SlA fa' __ doIl1oy SPA m
to challenge the amount of any assessment which may be imposed due to the addition of these
new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot
election.
3. Condition No. 13 - Wider Sidewalks at Transit Stops. In satisfaction
of Condition No. 13 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to construct wider sidewalks at transit
stops subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Developer has made a deposit with the City
(Receipt No. 80150, Deposit Account No. DES7S) in an amount satisfactory to the City
Engineer to assure the completion of such wider sidewalks.
.
4. Condition No. 28 - On Site Open Space. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 28 of the Resolution, Developer on August 4, 1994 requested that maintenance of all
facilities and improvements within the Project open space be included in Open Space District
#20.
S. Conditions No.s 32 and 33 - Parks. In satisfaction of Condition No.s 32
and 33 of the Resolution, Developer shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City,
simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, 10 net usable acres of parkland, as usable
as determined by the City, in Phase 3, Unit 4 ("SPA ill Park") and complete construction of the
park improvements shown on the "Conceptual Site Master Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA ill
Park Improvements" by the earlier of the opening of the public junior high school (as defined
in the PFFP) or July 1, 2002. Developer shall commence construction of such improvements
by July 1, 2001. Developer agrees to provide, by July 1, 1996, for the City Engineer's
approval, the current estimated cost for construction of the SPA ill Park Improvements adjusted
for the compounded effect of inflation as measured by the 20 City' Average building cost prices
recorded in the National Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for seven years
commencing July 1, 1996 ("Estimated Costs").
..
...
In consideration for Developer agreeing to complete construction of the SPA ill Park
Improvements within the time frame described above, City agrees to waive its rights, contained
within Condition No. 63(b) of the Resolution, to withhold occupancy permits for any of the
phases of development identified in the PFFP for Rancho del Rey if the required public
facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the annual monitoring program, have not
been completed.
Developer shall deliver to the City, in accordance with the schedule described below,
improvement securities, in an amount of 125% of the Estimated Costs of the SPA ill Park
Improvements, from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the Developer.
Prior to the approval of each final map in the Project, until the SPA ill Improvements have been
fully secured, Developer shall deliver to the City an improvement security in an amount
calculated as the product of the number of residential lots in the map to be approved times the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance fee per lot then in effect, which would have otherwise been
payable under the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer
J1Jl'P-51A
IlIIy 5, 1995. (llIIy II, 1995...._ ....)
-6-
Iupp. SIA r.. ....... dol Roy SPA m
-
-
~3 C-)3
sba1l post any additional improvement securities required to equal 125 % of the Estimated Costs
of the SPA m Park Improvements by July 1, 2001.
If the SPA m Park Improvements are not completed within the time specified above, the
sums provided by the improvement securities for such improvements may be used by the City
for the completion of the SPA m Park Improvements. The Developer shall pay the City any
shortfall between the total costs incurred to complete the work and the proceeds from any
improvement securities, which includes, but is not limited to, the cost of design, administration
of construction, and attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the City in order to obtain such
shortfall amounts.
.
Developer and City agree that the fully improved 10.0 acre SPA m Park will satisfy the
requirement for 1095 units in the Project; provided, however, the SPA m Park shall not be
smaller than 10 net usable acres. City and Developer acknowledge the possibility that, by future
agreement between the City (at the discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation) and
Sweetwater Union High School District, the lot line between the SPA m Park and the school
site in Phase 3, Unit 4 may be adjusted. The possible lot line adjustment shall not cause the
SPA m Park to be smaller than 10 net usable acres.
The actual park requirements, in excess of 1095 units, will not be known until future
final maps are filed containing the additional units. Developer has agreed to provide the
parkland (as applicable) and pay the required fees (as applicable) in accordance with the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance for any additional units in excess of 1095. Developer shall be
entitled to a credit (not to exceed $150,000) against any such future fee obligation in the amount
of the actual cost of certain extra improvements in "Marisol Park" in SPA n, Phase 2, Unit 4 .
("Extra Improvements"). The Extra Improvements, which consist of tennis court lighting and
comfort station facilities, are estimated to cost approximately $140,000. This estimate is
preliminary and subject to the final determination by the Director of Parks and Recreation upon
completion of the Extra Improvements. The Director of Parks and Recreation shall make the
final determination on expenditures which are eligible for a credit against future Parkland
Dedication Ordinance fees. If such future Parkland Dedication Ordinance fees have already been
paid prior to completion of the Extra Improvements, Developer shall be entitled to cash
reimbursement for allowable expenses for the Extra Improvements.
6. Condition No. 41 - I.Jst of .Lots. In satisfaction of Condition No. 41 of
the Resolution, Developer agrees to supply the City prior to the approval of any final map with
an interim list of lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition
between the two situations. After completion of grading operations, Developer agrees to supply
the City a final list of said lots, as part of the as-graded soils report.
7. Condition No. 4S - Sewale Flow Meterin&. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 45 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to perform sewage flow monitoring of flows to the
Spring Valley Trunk Sewer, in the locations and at the intervals reasonably determined by the
City Engineer, on the three segments of the main identified as sections QR, X1X2 and KL in
-
SUPP-SIA
July 5. 1995 - (July II, 1995...._ .....)
-7-
Supp. SIA for ...... 4oI1loy SPA m
-
cl..3-C- q
the Rick Engineering report dated September 5, 1990. Developer has already performed the
initial metering, the results of which are on file with the City Engineer, and Developer will
perform additional monitoring prior to the issuance of building permits if requested by the City .
Engineer. Should any of these segments have metered flows which fill more than 80% of the
pipe diameter, Developer will construct parallel facilities as reasonably determined by the City
Engineer, subject to reimbursement by impact fee credit, reimbursement agreement or other
mutually acceptable mechanism to reimburse Developer for excess capacity of the parallel line
not required to serve the Project. .
8. Condition No. 47 - Sewage Diversion. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 47 of the Resolution, City approves the utilization of the Telegraph Canyon Basin by
Developer for four hundred fifty eight (458) EDU of sewage capacity in the Project, and
Developer agrees that it shall only be entitled to reimbursement for twenty six and eight tenths
percent (26.8%) of the costs of the sewer improvements described in the following paragraph
regarding the removal of the Candlewood and Mission Verde Pump Stations.
9. Condition No. 48 - Pump Stations. In satisfaction of Condition No. 48
of the Resolution, Developer agrees to remove the existing Mission Verde and Candlewood
pump stations and to construct the sewer improvements shown on Chula Vista Drawing No. 94-
383 through No. 94-384 andChula Vista Drawing Nos. 94-51, 54 and 58. Developer agrees
to pay all incidental expenses incurred in connection with said construction (i.e., plan
preparation, inspection, supervision, surveying costs, soils and material testing, printing and
similar costs). Developer agrees to secure at least three (3) qualified bids for the work to be
[coMnued on page 8J
.
SUPP-SIA
July 5, 1995 . "uIy II, 1995...._ .....J
.-
-7a-
..... SIA far _ dellley SPA m
--
d2. C-I 0
,:>/,
done and to grant the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The detailed cost .
estimates, attached to this Agreement as Exhibits B and C, itemize those costs attributable to the
removal of the Candlewood and Mission Verde sewer pump stations and exclude any work
attributable to any non-pump subdivision improvement. The estimates are preliminary and
subject to the final determination by the Director of Public Works upon completion of the pump
improvements. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges during construction
shall be justified and shall be documented to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
City agrees that when all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, Developer
shall submit to City verification of payments made for the construction of the pump
improvements. The Director of Public Works shall make the final determination on expenditures
which are eligible for cash reimbursement.
10. Condition No. 53.5 - Fire Station. In complete satisfaction of Condition
No. 53.5 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to advance the costs of relocating Fire Station
No.4, and City agrees to negotiate in good faith with Developer the option to enter into a
Development Agreement to grant Developer certainty of entitlements, as follows:
a. Develo,per's Advance Fundinl! of Fire Station Relocation. In
consideration of the option to obtain vesting of entitlements under a Development Agreement,
Developer to advance the costs of relocating Fire Station No.4, as follows:
(1) Advance of Fire Station Relocation Costs. On February 1,
1998, Developer will deposit with City the "Advance Amount" (as defined below) for the .
relocation of Fire Station No. 4 to Rancho del Rey, which shall include the design and
construction of a 4,000 square foot, 2-bay fire station, including fixtures, furnishings and related
costs.
(2) Advance Amount. The amount advanced by Developer (the
"Advance Amount") shall be Five Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Dollars
($598,600), adjusted annually on February 1, 1996, February 1, 1997 and February 1, 1998
based on the one-year change (from January to January) in the 20 City Average building cost
prices recorded in the National Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
(3) Security for Advance. Before recording the first Final Map
in SPA ill, Developer will provide City with a performance bond in the amount of Six Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) to secure the Developer's obligation to deposit the Advance
Amount. City shall immediately release the performance bond upon Developer's deposit of the
Advance Amount.
(4) Non-reimbursable Amount. One Hundred Twenty Five
Thousand Dollars ($125,000) of the Advance Amount shall be considered consideration for this
Agreement and shall not be subject to credit or reimbursement.
-
-
SIlPP-sJA
July 5. 1995
-8-
~-.3 c- / I
..,.SIA...._cIoIlIoySPAm
C.
(5) PFDIF Credits for Advance. City agrees to partially
reimburse Developer for the Advance Amount by giving Developer credits against the fire .
services component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("PFDIF") payable by
Developer with respect to only SPA m. Such credits are herein called "Fire PFDIF Credits".
The fire services component of the PFDIF is currently One Hundred Forty One
Dollars ($141) for each residential building permit, but the Fire PFDIF Credits shall be in the
actual amount of the fire component of the PFDIF in effect at the time the building permits are
issued. Neither Developer nor any Builder shall be required to pay any fire services component
of the PFDIF for SPA m. The Fire PFDIF Credits shall not apply to SPA I or SPA n.
The Fire PFDIF Credits may be assigned by the Developer, in whole or in part,
to any Builder or to a successor Developer, but shall not be deemed to have been assigned unless
such assignment is specifically made by Developer in writing.
If the PFDIF (or its fire services component) is abolished or materially reduced
after the effective date of this Agreement, the Fire PFDIF Credits shall be applied, as
determined by the greater of the last effective rate of the Fire PFDIF or $141 per unit, to any
fees which replace the PFDIF (or its fire services component). .
(6) Reimbursement of R:llance of Advance Amount. On or
before January I, 2002, City shall reimburse Developer an amount equal to: the Advance
Amount, less the Non-reimbursable Amount, less the total amount of all Fire PFDIF Credits
given Developer (and its assigns). For example, if the Advance Amount is $650,000 and the
total amount of all PFDIF Credits given as of the reimbursement date is $175,000, City shall
reimburse Developer $350,000 ($650,000 - $125,000 - $175,000 = $350,(00).
...
....
b. Develooment A~reement. In consideration of Developer's
agreement to advance the costs of relocating Fire Station No.4, City agrees to negotiate in good
faith with Developer the right and option, in Developer's sole discretion, but no obligation, to
enter into a Development Agreement to grant Developer certainty of entitlements for the
Property. Developer's agreement to advance the funds for the relocation of Fire Station No.4
would be the City's sole consideration for the vesting of entitlements to be granted by the
Development Agreement. Developer shall have the right and option, in its sole discretion, to
exclude from the Development Agreement any property which has been acquired by, or is
subject to a purchase or option contract to be acquired by, a third party.
11. Condition No. SS - Paseo del Rey Right Turn Lane. The right turn lane
at East "H" Street and Paseo del Rey referred to in Condition No. 55 of the Resolution has
already been constructed in connection with the Rancho del Rey Power Center, as shown on the
Improvement and Grading Plans for the widening of East "H" Street and Paseo del Rey,
Phase 2, City of Chula Vista work order numbers PC-946 and PG-485 in satisfaction of
condition No. 55 of the Resolution.
-
-
S1l1'l'-8IA
July S. 1995
-9-
Sow. SIA far __......, SPA m
~-3 c- /cS
12. Condition No. 56 - Park-n-Ride. Developer and City are parties to an
agreement dated as of June 14, 1995 entitled" Agreement between City of Chula Vista, Church
of Joy and Rancho del Rey for Park and Ride Facility" (the "Park and Ride Agreement") .
pursuant to which the Church of Joy has agreed to provide a park and ride facility in satisfaction
of Developer's obligations under Condition No. 56. If Church ofJoy does not construct the
park and ride facility and enter into an agreement with CalTrans for the facility's operation,
slgJ'llge, maintenance and repair, then Developer shall be obligated to provide the park and ride
facility as described in Condition No. 56.
13. Condition No. 58 - Low Income Housing. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 58 of the Resolution, City, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 17829, and Developer
have entered into that certain Rancho del Rey SPA m Affordable Housing Agreement dated as
of March 7,1995.
14. Condition No. 61- School Financing. In satisfaction of Condition No. 61
of the Resolution, the Project is included in Community Facilities District (CFD) No.3 of both
the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater High School Districts, and both districts have
confirmed to the City, in letters dated June IS, 1994, that the Project's impacts on school
facilities is fully mitigated through participation in these CFDs.
15. Condition No. 62 - Growth Management Ordinance. In satisfaction of
Condition No. 62 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with that version of the Growth
Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is issued, including but not limited
to the then current East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA m.
....
..,
16. Condition No. 63 - Permits Not to Issue While Thresholds Deficient or
PFFP Facilities Not Completed. . In satisfaction of Condition No. 63, Developer agrees that
City has the right to withhold building permits for any dwelling units on the Property at such
time as anyone of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the then current
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached;
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance; or,
c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as
amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed.
IUPP-SIA
July 5. 1995 . (101111. 1995...._ JIIIc)
-10-
....,. SIA r.. __ del Roy SPA m
-
-
013 C-I.2
-/
17. Condition No. 64 - No Protest of Maintenance District. In satisfaction
of Condition No. 64 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees to not protest the formation of .
a maintenance district for the maintenance of medians and scenic corridors along streets within
and adjacent to the Property. This agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public
improvements shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any
assessment which may be imposed due to the addition of these new improvements and shall not
interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election.
18. Condition No. 65 - Erosion, Siltation and Drainage Indemnity. In
satisfaction of Condition No. 65 of the Resolution, Developer agrees that, on the condition that
City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim, action or proceeding, Developer shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees, from any
claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, related to
erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from the Project. City agrees to
reasonably cooperate with Developer in the defense of any such action, claim, or proceeding.
19. Condition No. 66 - Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. In satisfaction
of Condition No. 66 of the Resolution, the Developer agrees to comply with the Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer Basin Plan and implementing City ordinances.
20., Condition No. 67 - Cable Television Easements. In satisfaction of
Condition No. 67 of the Resolution, the Developer agrees to permit all cable television
companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit to and ~
provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the Project. Developer further agrees .,
to grant, by license or easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of
Chula Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within
the Project only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista the
condition of such grant being that (a) such access is coordinated with Developer's construction
schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not
require the trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of such conduits; and (b) any
such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance
with, the terms and conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances
. and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may
have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby
conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant by such remedies as
the City determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon a determination by the
City of Chula Vista that they have violated the conditions of the grant.
21. Condition No. 77 - Compliance with Plans. In satisfaction of Condition
No. 77 of the Resolution, Developer hereby certifies that Developer is currently in compliance
with and agrees to (a) remain in compliance with, and implement, the terms, conditions and
provisions of the Plans prior to approval of any final map, or (b) agrees to provide the City with
such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
-
-
SUPP.aIA .
lolJ 5, 1995
-11-
.... SlA r.. __ doIlloy SPA m
cl-3 c- 14
procedures as the City may require, assuring that, after approval of the final map, Developer
shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such Plans. .
Developer agrees to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air
Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the condition.
22. Compliance With UnCuliilled Conditions. Developer agrees to comply
with all the conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map applicable to the Property which remain
unperformed or unfulfilled at the time of the filing of the Final Maps.
23. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this
Agreement constitutes satisfaction of Developer's obligation of Conditions 8, 13, 28, 32, 33, 41,
45,47,48,53.5, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 77 of the Resolution.
24. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either
or both parties, may be recorded at the option of either party.
25. Miscellaneous.
a. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by
law, any and all notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or
delivered to either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served, delivered, and
received when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when
three (3) business days have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. mail, certified or registered .
mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in
this Agreement. A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving
written notice of such change to the other party. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal
delivery .
City:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Director of Public Works
Developer:
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
% McMillin Project Services, Inc.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 91950
Attn: Rancho del Rey Project Manager
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of
such change to the other party in the manner provided in this paragraph. Facsimile transmission
shall constitute personal delivery.
-
-
SUPP-8IA
July 5, 1995
-12-
Supp. SJA far __ dol Roy SPA m
cl.:1 C- IS
,"':J' .-
b. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for
convenience of reference and do not defme, describe or limit the scope or intent of this
Agreement or any of its terms.
.
c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written
representations, agreements, understandings, and statements shall be of no force and effect. This
Agreement is not intended to supersede or amend any other agreement between the parties unless
expressly noted.
d. Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or
presumption shall be drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared or drafted this
Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties participated equally in the
preparation and drafting this Agreement.
e. Recitals; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above are
incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
f. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of
this Agreement, the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees
in addition to any other costs, damages, or remedies.
.
-
-
SUPP-8IA
lu1y 5. 1995
-13-
~3 c.-ICo
_. SIA r........ dol Roy SPA m
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be execute
the day and year first hereinabove set forth. .
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet,
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
0--.- rtJ.%--R I .n~
Bruce M. Boogaard, ~-
City Attorney
SUPP-81A
IuIy 5, 1995
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By: McMillin Project Services, Inc.,
a California corporation, as Attorney-In-
Fact under Durable Power of Attorney
By: d(1~ >/ ~4.'~~1A''t?=--
Name: F/LL-' l. 1'/ /1 ^!I,'u1~ft, (. 13a(<d-'J~O-~'-
Title: E~ <' c. t/. P
By:~----'7~
Name: fflOi"1 6./'-~
Title: V p.
.
-
-
-14-
Supp. S1A'" __"'by SPA m
at.3 c- il
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
) ss.
)
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
On .Tnlv Ii. ,qq.:;, before me, .T"'Y~A a A...~1r
personally appeared Kenneth S. Baumqartner and ThOlll Fuller
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (or I'<u...d ~ me on the basis ef Slitillfeeklf}' evi4ellee) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that hefshelthey executed the same in hi&lIlerItheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by
Jmther/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s) , or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Il""'~'" """'~
.. ~ Jo':;C;AaRocr~'d
~. .:. CC:V:M. t99a~71 I
I " ~"NO;A.'tfPU:UC~
g . My &.IN Dl<GO COl.Nl'\' ..
. . , ,,~.~~$1.,",~
Signature ~ tf. ~
1//
(Seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
.
On , before me,
personally appeared
, Notary Public,
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Seal)
-
-
SUPP-8IA
July 5. 1995
-15-
_. SIA r.. __....... SPA m
Ol..? c- I ~
I -
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 1 THROUGH 16, INCLUSIVELY, OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-02, RANCHO
DEL REY SPA Ill, MASTER FINAL MAP, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 13176,
FILEDONDECEMBER14, 1994, FILENO. 1994-712524, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
0.3 c- lq
.
Ai.
...
.-
-
Exhibit "B"
Construction Cost Estimates .
Costs of Removal of Pumping Station and Associated Improvements
Candlewood (Corle De Cera)
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
1. ABANDON PUMP STATION 1LS $8,900.00 $8,900.00
2. PVC8" 486 LF $50.00 $2,430.00
3. MANHOLES (COMPLETE) 3EA $1,850.00 $5,550.00
4. CONNECT TO EXIST MANHOLE 1 EA $800.00 $800.00
5. PLUG EXISTING MANHOLE 3EA $200.00 $600.00
6. ADJUST MANHOLE (COMPLETE) 3EA $350.00 $1,050.00
7. STAKING 500 LF $5.00 $2,500.00
8. SOILS TESTING 500 LF $15.00 $7,500.00
9. TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $200.00 $200.00
SUBTOTAL $29,530.00
-
..
Additional costs for work within Rancho Del Rey Spa III, Phase 3, Unit 1 associated
with extra depth of sewer (15' to 23' deep) required to achieve pump station removal.
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
10. PVC8" 538 LF $4.00 $2,152.00
11. MANHOLES 2EA $200.00 $400.00
12. LATERAL 4" 12EA $60.00 $720.00
SUBTOTAL $3,272.00
GRAND TOTAL
$32,802.00
-
-
~3C-~O
EXHIBIT "B"
Exhibit .C.
.
Construction Cost EstimateS
Costa of Removal of Pumping Station and Associated Improvements
Minion Vente
IIEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TnTAI PRICE
1. ABANDON PUMP STATION 1LS $8,900.00 $8,900.00
2. DEMOLISH WAlLS, SLAB, & LANDSC 1LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
3. CONNECT TO EXIST 1 EA $800.00 $800.00
4. PLUG EXISTING 2EA $200.00 S4OO.oo
5. STAKING 1LS $500.00 $500.00
6. SOILS TESTING 1LS $400.00 S4OO.oo
7. BARRICADES 1LS $650.00 $650.00
SUBTOTAL $31,850.00
.
NOTES:
1. Above does not include removal or sluny fill of approx. 1,015 LF-6" force main.
Instead, it only includes plugging 6" force main at exist pump station and
abandoning the force main in place.
2. Item No.2, "Demolish Walls, Slab, and Landscape" will be defined through
negotiations between the City and the Villa Palmera Home Owner's Association.
Agreement on this item of work has not been reached.
.-
-
~3 C-~ I
EXHIBIT "C"
-I
Insurance Company of the West
.
HOME OFFICE: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT BOND
BOND NO. 1371845
PREMIUM: $13,000.00
KNOW All. MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS. L. P. A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Principal, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST. a
Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of California and authorized by.the Laws of
the State of California to execute bonds and undertakings as sole surety, as SURETY, are held and
firmly bound unto CITY OF CHULA VISTA in the just and full sum of six hundred fi!tv thousand
and NO/l0aths DOLLARS ($650.000.00\ for the payment whereof, well and truly be made,
said Principals and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, administrators, successors and
assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these persents.
THE CONDITION of the foregoing obligation is such that whereas the above bounden Principals
have entered into an agreement with the City of CHULA VISTA to do and perform the following
work, to wit:
Fire Station Fees Per City of Chula Vista's Proposed Business Terms of Agreement, Rancho Del
Rey. Spa III and Fire Station Condition, Dated 5/31/95. .
NOW, THEREFORE, if the above bounden PRINCIPAL shall well and truly perform the
work contracted to be performed under said contract, then this obligation shall be void;
otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
PROVIDED FURTHER, The SURETY, if so elects, may cancel this bond by giving thirty
(30) days written notice to Obligee.
SIGNED AND SEALED this Wh day of ~, A.D. 192Q.
PRINCIPAL
SURETY
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST
"SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE
BY
"SEE ATTACED SIGNATURE PAGE
BY
-
-
~3 C -.;l d.
.
SURETY:
Insurance Company of the West
BY ,tlf -1!J,x <
Sioux M nyon, Att rney-in-Fact
DEVELOPER:
RANCHO DEL REV INVESTORS, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: McMillin Project Services, Inc.,
a California Corporation, Attorney In Fact
und durable Power of Attorney
By: .
Its: U.e<.-. LI. f-
By: Y:;<4<<'# x/ n//A'-jd(J...~h
Its: C''lf-P( c/ P
-
-
c:::;J0 C -.s-J
,
j
Insurance Company of the \Vest
HOME" OFFICE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
POWER OF ATTORNEY
.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESF PAFSFNTS: Th~t INSlJRANCF: COMPANY OF THF.. WEST. AI CFllilorniA Commation. does hereby appomt:
SIOUX MUNYON
its trUR and lawful AUOrnfly(s)-tn-FaC'.t. with lull pOWAr ~nd authority, to ftKAClItA. on hAhl"lt of thfl Comoanv. fidelity Rnd surety bonds. undertakings,
and athAr contract!'> of 5uretvl'Ohio of a similAr n~lllrA.
This PO......flf ot Attorney is Qfl'lntAn ",nn is siQned ann saalAn by fec:similA undAf the authority of the following Aesolution adopted by the Board
of DlrElctorl" on th('l 22nd day of Novflmbflf. 1994. whic:h sa in Resolution has not beAn amanded or rescinded snd of which the following 15 a
tfUR eopy:
"RESOLVED. that thfl CheirmAn of the. BOArd. thA Pre~ic1Ant. an Executive Vice President or a SAnior Vice President of the Company,
and each of them, is hereby authorilfld to executa PowArs of Attorney qualifying the attorney named in the given Power of Attorney to execute
on behalf of the Company, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, or other contracts of suretyship of a similar nature; and to aUach thereto
the seal of the Company; pro...ider.! however, that the absflnce of the seal shall not affect the ...alidity of the instrument.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signatures of such officers and the seal of the Company, and the signatures of any Witnesses, the
signatures and seal 01 any notary, and the signatures of any officers certifYing the ...alidity of the Powe~ of Attorney, may be affixed by faCSimile:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST has caused these presents to be Signed by Its duly authOrized olllcsrs
th.s 28th day of March 1995.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST
SS:
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
--
March 28th, 1995
On this before me personally appeared John L. Hannum, Senior Vice PreSident 01 INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE WEST, personally known to me to be the indi...idual and officer who executed the within instrument. and acknowledged
to me that he executed the same in his official capacity and that by his signature on the instrument the corporation on behalf of which he
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and offiCial seal.
CERTIFICATE:
" .. . OfFICIAL SEAL
~... ......." FRANCIS FAFAUL
: . . NOT IoRV PUBLIC-CALfORNIA
; . ai - . SAN DIEGO COUNTY
-=. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
,.,,,...,, AUGUST 11,1995
l, E. Harned Da...is, Vice President of INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST. do hereby certify that the original POWER OF ATTORNEY,
of which the foregoing is a true copy. is still in full force and effect. and that this _ certificate may be signed by facsimile under the authority
of the abo...e quoted resolution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ha.... subscribed my name as Vice President, on this 19th
1995
day of June
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST
E16~u~'~;J
E. Harned Da...is, ice PreSident
.-
-
JCW 37
cl\3C -~ +
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO
On June 19. 1995
.....
} 55.
PERSONALLY APPEARED
SIOUX MUNYON
, befofe me,
. ANNE M. WRIGHT
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowl-
edged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/
her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/
their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, ('xecuted
the instrument.
Wl1NESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
fit ~ ~//
:?" ~~
r-~,~ ANNE- M W"I(;:HT ~
;;' d',j;",:,\ COMM 11;::95048 ~
l~ h~,~ 'rI~;':;. -i') f,'01 t,R~ PU~UC-C,~i Ii 0HNIA
(..{{:;-q, -" "::,'rt SAN D!l-:U~j c()u~n.\' .-.
()\ ),~,~ :-:r;'/ ~"ly CO~M\1iSSON ~XPIRES !
' \.'~?>'J M~Y'Y' w.1 '
(1 ~~......:.L".;+.>' ,I. 4.oJ,
~~-~
TI,;, arm for Official NOlarial S.al
OPTIONAL
."
,:,:;.,,:'
:;'.)
',.,", " ~
, ",', ,"'.'::,'
.."t,:;';,;! :~~
" :",?;7t.\:; ?:~~:_j~ ~~~
"',"',"
'T. .~'...
';.-,'::'
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment 01 this form.' .
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
o tNDIVIDUAL
o CORPORATE OFFICER '
o PARTNER(S)
TITLEIS)
o LIMITED
o GENERAL
.' Q9 ATIORNEY-IN-FACT
, 0 TRUSTEE(S)
o GUARDIANlCONSERVATOR
, 0 OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME Of PERSON(S) OR ENTlTY(IESI
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST
ID-OllI RoY. 6/94
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT.
,"
Contract Bond
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
2
NUMBER OF PAGES
6-19-95
DATE OF DOCUMENT
RANCHO DEL REY, L.P. A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
/'
~-.3 c - Cl.J
ALL~URPOSEACKNO~EDGEMENT
.,...'
.
Hi
CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
No. 5907
State of Ca.-I i .p () I'" n i 0-
County of S"-,,, D i ejO
On './Cf-'15
.
before me, Rhona..CL m. Ange./, NOTo..ry PL>bli~
NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER. E.G., "JANE OOE, NOTARY PUBUC.
personally appeared :Joe W. Shiel',! o...nd Kenne+h S. Baumjo..r+ner;-
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
~personally known to me - OR - 0 IlFs':eEl te A'le el'l tl:l8 [)...~i!l 8f lle.tiefaete'l"j e':iil8J'1ee
to be the person(s) whose name(s) te;'are
subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that Re:el:le/they executed
the same in l"Iie:ner/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by l:Ii!l:I.GI/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
DATE
. '. . Rhonda M. Ange ~
" Comm. #992158 ~
. = NOTARY PUBUC CAL.IFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Com... E)I(plres Apl'il21, 1997 ...
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
D<~~~~
OPTIONAL
...
....
Though the data below Is not required by law. It may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
o INDIVIDUAL
o CORPORATE OFFICER
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
o PARTNER(S)
o LIMITED
o GENERAL
o ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
o TRUSTEE(S)
o GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
o OTHER:
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTrTY(IES)
.-
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
-
01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION. 8236 Aemmet Ave.. P.O. Box 7184- Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184
~...3 c -~ C-
Page 1, Item
Date July 11. 1995
)1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE: Report on the status of the Aluminum Fuel Cell Technology Project sponsored
by the City and the California Energy Commission.
SUBMITTED BY: Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resource Mana~
REVIEWED BY: John D. Goss, City Manager r;,trl., (4/5th Vote: Yes_ No~J
This report provides a summary of the results of a city-sponsored research and development
project and demonstrates the significance of municipally sponsored research projects aimed at
commercialization of a particular environmental technology. This report comes at the end of
the city-sponsored one year project, developed in cooperation with scientists from Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the proponents of the research project, to
develop an aluminum air fuel cell to power electric vehicles. SAIC is a national corporation
that performs research and development on alternative fuel vehicle components. Per direction
by Council to promote environmental businesses, to "incubate" new environmental
technologies with future promise for commercialization and growth, and to develop a
comprehensive energy conservation program, staff has participated in the aluminum air fuel
cell development proj ect from the onset, and is presenting this report as the first phase of the
proj ect is completed. The City has acted as catalyst in this proj ect by passing through
federal/state funds legislated for this purpose to a local business. Staff recommends continued
participation in the upcoming phases of the project, including the development of a pick-up
truck powered with an aluminum fuel cell and the commercialization of portable power
generators utilizing the technology developed during the first phase. In return, SAIC has
stated its intent to locate a facility in either the BECA incubator and/or the Hi-Tech/Bio-Tech
zone.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue as a key sponsor and participant in the aluminum air fuel
cell development project and request $500,000 from State of California pass-through
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Funds for implementation of Phase II.
DISCUSSION:
In November 1993, the City Council approved acceptance of $50,000 in grant funding from
state Petroleum Violation Escrow accounts, which was specifically legislated for the sole
purpose of sponsoring an experimental aluminum air battery (fuel cell) research/development
project. Of the total funds, $43,000 was provided to SAIC and $7,000 was utilized to
implement the Greenfleets program, and recover costs relating to staff reimbursement, an
environmental management intern, conference travel, printing, and postage.
As part of the City's overall effort toward development of an energy conservation and air
quality improvement program, and consistent with the City's environmental agenda, the City
applied to the State to fund the development of an aluminum air fuel cell research and
development project. As a result, the city received $50,000, which the Council accepted in
November 1993, from the California Energy Commission, the agency assigned to manage
d-~-I
':;;
,u
Page 2, Item .2 'f
Date_July n~95
energy related special projects. Staff has worked with SAIC's project manager to oversee the
proj ect through the completion of Phase I to fulfill all requirements by the California Energy
Commission.
In Phase I, SAIC has undertaken an aluminum air fuel cell development project with the goal
of demonstrating the feasibility of manufacturing useful products based on aluminum air fuel
cell technology. The project was approached in phases. The goal of the first phase has been
to demonstrate, in the laboratory, the operation of a fuel cell using inexpensive aluminum
pellets. Planned later phases include the construction of prototype power sources and their
demonstration in products such as portable generators and the development of an electric
pick-up truck powered with aluminum fuel cell technology. Later phases would also include
marketing and mass production of products that have demonstrated a market in the prototype
phase. Phase One has been sponsored by the City of Chula Vista and is the subject of this
report.
What is an aluminum fuel cell?
A fuel cell is an "electric engine" that, in this case, utilizes aluminum metal to power the fuel
cell. Fuel cells offer the potential to replace internal combustion engines in transportation
applications and have already been used as power sources in spacecraft and stationary power
units. The aluminum air fuel cell generates electricity through the following method:
inexpensive aluminum pellets are dropped into a storage hopper on-board the vehicle, the
pellets are then fed into a container filled with a chemical, or electrolyte, which reacts
electrochemically with the aluminum. This reaction produces electricity to power the vehicle,
generator, etc..The by-product, which is a powder produced from this process, is filtered into
a replaceable cartridge (similar to an ink cartridge in a copy machine) and can be removed
when the aluminum is spent. This byproduct is benign and recyclable. Different chemicals
are being tested for reactivity, and the review team, of which the City is a participant, has
recommended that non-toxic or less toxic chemicals be tested and utilized in this process.
Advantages of an aluminum air fuel cell includes:
. Extended range compared to battery powered vehicles
. emits no pollutants when consumed
. displaces petroleum consumption - reduced dependence on one fuel source and foreign
oil
. has a high energy density
. is nonflammable and nontoxic
. is abundant and recyclable
Why Aluminum air fuel cells?
Aluminum is considered to be an attractive fuel due to the fact that aluminum is extremely
energy-efficient, producing a large amount of energy per unit compared with other fuels.
Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth, it can be supplied domestically, is
nontoxic, nonflammable, recyclable and produces zero emissions.
.).t/, .1
?c"c
-T
Page 3, Item .11
Date_July II. 1995
The main disadvantage to using aluminum as a fuel is that it is expensive compared to fossil
fuels or hydrogen. One of the primary goals of Phase I and Phase II of this development
effort is to reduce this cost as much as possible by demonstrating the feasibility of using
cheap, "smelter-grade" aluminum as a fuel.
Project Review Team:
The Phase I project team and Phase II Planning Team members include the City of Chula
Vista, SAIC, Eltech Research Corporation, Kaiser Aluminum, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the California Energy Commission (which provided funding to the City)
and Pennsylvania State University. This group represents the leading U.S. experts on
aluminum/air power systems.
Phase I Completed:
The goal of phase I was to demonstrate the feasibility of manufacturing useful products based
on the use of aluminum/air powered technology. Specifically, Phase I has demonstrated
successfully in the laboratory the operation of a single aluminum air cell fueled with
aluminum. SAIC built a fuel cell test rig, tested a number of areas measuring the amount of
energy output, erosion of materials, voltage, current, power, conductivity, and conducted data
acquisition for the procedures, making adjustments along the way based on the results of
these tests.
Another key task in the Chula Vista sponsored effort was to assemble the components of the
first generation cell. This is shown in Attachment 1. Testing included:
. determining susceptibility to leaks and improving design to accommodate such
problems
. determine quality of electric contact of pellets
. determine quality of pellet flow through the cell
. determine performance of the pellet feeding mechanism
. determine the reusability of pellets after use
. test performance of various cell mechanisms and materials
Results of Chula Vista sponsored Phase I:
. Testing showed electrolyte leakages, so the cell was redesigned to eliminate leakages
and seal edges of the cell. The new design takes advantage of stronger material and
currently the improved design is operating routinely without leaking.
. It was qualitatively determined that aluminum pellets were making contact adequately
with each other, resulting in about 50 Amps of current drawn from the single cell.
More measurements will be taken in the next phase, contact resistance does not seem
to be a significant problem for a pellet-fed aluminum/air cell, although it may reduce
cell efficiency a degree.
. The packing and flow of aluminum pellets were tested. It was observed that the
;l '1- .3
r)'
('.,.
Page 4, ItemA-
Date_July 11. 1995
packing of pellets seemed to improve over time. No evidence of clogged pellet flow
or poor packing was observed for discharges. Pellet packing and flow were
satisfactory .
. Development of a data acquisition system as a reliable tool for controlling the
experiment and collecting data. This computer system had a touch screen. The
purpose of testing a touch screen with the system was to demonstrate the feasibility of
using a computer system in a prototype electric vehicle, in which the driver could
control the power source with the touch screen. The research concluded that the data
system worked very well and was convenient and easy to use.
. A number of technical tests were done measuring the voltage, efficiency of the cell
and a variety of electrolytes.
This laboratory work resulted in utilizing advanced aluminum air fuel cell technology, which
will lead toward development of a demonstration vehicle and the commercialization of non-
polluting automobiles and power generators.
Proposed Phase II:
To continue this project, SAIC has requested the funding partners solicit support from the
state to fund the next phase. The next phase, if funded, would include
(a) the manufacturing of portable power generators, initially developed for military
field applications, and
(2) demonstration of a prototype electric pickup truck rechargeable in 10 minutes with
a range of 300 miles.
The onboard energy source will be an aluminum air fuel cell based upon the findings of
Phase I.
The aluminum air powered truck produced during this program will have a longer range, with
a shorter recharge time, than any zero emission vehicle ever developed. The power system
will be fueled in the same way as described in phase I. Refueling will be possible in ten
minutes or less, and the range of the vehicle will be at least 300 miles between refueling.
The team for Phase II would include the same partners as in Phase I. The cost of Phase II is
$1.95 million, and each participating sponsor would provide some funding toward the project
from pass-through grants received from state and federal agencies. South Coast Air Quality
Management District has committed $500,000 over the next two years. The project will
consist of two major tasks, each of approximately one year's duration:
1) component development, advanced power module demonstration and power system
design and construction;
2) assembly, testing and refmement of the power system and installation of the engine
into the truck.
.;t/;1
rll
cT-' I
Page 5, Item4-
Date July II. 1995
The project would culminate in a test drive from Chula Vista to Sacramento.
SAIC has requested the City co-sponsor Phase II by requesting an allocation of $500,000
pass-through funds from the State of California's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account, money
collected by the federal government, and passed along to states as a direct result of oil
company overcharges in the 1970's. The rest of the funding would be provided by other co-
sponsors. Fuel cell development is a "high priority" technology for development in the State
of California. It is one of the most promising technologies that enables California to meet its
zero emission standards for vehicles without sacrificing range and performance. This project,
coupled with the hydrogen fuel cell demonstration project will clearly place Chula Vista as a
leader in both new environmental technology development opportunities, and in its
commitment to incubating the evolution of these technologies from inception to
commercialization -- assisting businesses along the way through BECA and other related
programs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact on the general fund. If the council chooses to support the recommendation,
the City would attempt to obtain PVEA grant funds from the State of California for this
proj ect.
.2'/-5 ?-'I-7
P-", r
r;:i'~
~ i+fY'IUVT \
Figure 4. The First Generation CeD and fuel (US quarter shown for scale)
)Jl?
I.
.
.
FUEL COSTS FOR A SMALL PICKUP TRUCK
5
1st GEN. 2nd GEN 3rd GEN 411l GEN. GASll.H s.!:NI
SAlC All"" SAICAllAI, SAIC All"" SAlC All"" lli/lRE
BATTERY
FASr
lli/lRE
BATTERY
30
25
20
.I
Ii
115
J
10
o
TOTAL LFECYCLE COSTS FOR A SMALL PICKUP TRUCK
10
1st GEN. 2nd GEN 3rd GEN 411l GEN. GASll.H s.!:NI
SAlC All"" SAlCAllAI' SAlC All"" SAlC All"" lli/lRE
BATTERY
FASr
lli/lRE
BATTERY
70
60
50
.I
Ii 40
1
I 30
20
o
Figure 6. Fuel and lifecycle costs for a small pickup truck
16
.1 J/- r
q
,21-~
r')
~-
,lV-ILl
-,-
,,- 1'"1'
1nful1l...b.on Item
From:
Honorable Mayor Horton and City Councilmembers
John Goss, City Manager r
Barbara Bamberger, City of Chula Visb:"" ~
To:
Via:
Date:
July 11, 1995
Subject:
Revised staff recommendation for Item #24
As result of ongoing conversations and communications with the various state
legislators and decision-makers related to available state funding for energy
technology research projects such as the aluminum air fuel cell project, stqff has
revised Us originDl ~for gate funding supparl.
Staff recommends a $100,000 reduction from the original funding level, based
upon the fluid nature of state funding disbursement priorities for such projects,
a reduction in total state funding available this year, and a belief that this
reduction will retain the viability of the project without eroding legislative
support. The attached resolution supports this modification. The
recommended change is underlined and reads as follows:
"Continue as a key sponsor and participant in the aluminum air fuel cell
development project and request $500,000 no m ore than $400.000 from State
of California pass-through Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Funds for
implementation of Phase II."
Approval of this recommendation allows staff to pursue state grants to support
the project. No general fund moneys will be used.
) Jj--//
,-. r
",.
~-
;%,7 (7~ dGEMP4
-;; jlf /77/7./ rp
RESOLUTION NO. 17 r~ ~ 7& f-rE /'1 4P~ i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO SUPPORT CONTINUING IN PHASE II
OF ALUMINUM AIR FUEL CELL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, staff has presented a summary of the results of
a city-sponsored research and development project; and
WHEREAS, this project demonstrates the significance of
municipally sponsored research projects aimed at commercialization
of a particular environmental technology; and
WHEREAS, the aluminum/air research project is being
developed in cooperation with scientists from Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) , the California Energy Commission,
and South Coast Air Quality Management District to develop an
aluminum air fuel cell to power electric vehicles; and
WHEREAS, per direction by Council to promote
environmental businesses, to "incubate" new environmental
technologies with future promise for commercialization and growth,
and to develop a comprehensive energy conservation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby support the State of California's
continued participation in Phase II of the project, including
development of a pick-up truck powered with an aluminum fuel cell
and the commercialization of portable power generators utilizing
the technology developed during the first phase.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city of Chula vista
continues as a key sponsor and participant in the aluminum air fuel
cell development project and requests $400,000 from the State of
California's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Funds for the
implementation of Phase II.
c:\r.,fUelCel1
O'y
Presented by
Barbara Bamberger, Environmental
Resource Manager
J1j~)J-.
~.
(j
~