HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2000/04/18 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 18, 2000 ~r 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CI'IY OF
CHULA VISTA
City Council City Manager
Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr.
John S. Moot City Attorney
Stephen C. Padilla John M. Kaheny
Mary Salas City Clerk
Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow
The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m.
and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m.
Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on
Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47
,--
i
I
APRIL 18, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
'" declare under penalty of perjury that I om
em)lo::ed by the City of C:,u!a Viela in till
Q,'ica of ',",0 eil; Cbr', cnl that I pootod
tills A"enja/,~o;i~e on the Ouiletin O''','d at
the Public Services Buibin:~ und at City HIli on
AGENDA DATED. t7'f/IV/OO SIGNED~"
6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO RON BOLLES, DIRECTOR,
CONGRATULATING CHULA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL, SCHOOL OF THE
CREATIVE AND PERFORMING ARTS
. PRESENTATION OF A DONATION BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE
CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER
. PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE TO DAVID DAVENPORT, SECOND
PLACE WINNER IN THE ENGINEERING CATEGORY, SENIOR DIVISION,
AT THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE FAIR
. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF
APRIL 24 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2000 AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
. INTRODUCTION BY CHRISTINA CHANG, DIRECTOR OF THE MISS
CHULA VISTA PAGEANT, OF JAYME DONLON, MISS CHULA VISTA
2000, ADRIENNE CAMPBELL, FIRST PRINCESS, AND LONNA
CORNWALL, SECOND PRINCESS
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the
Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without
discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on
one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in
the lobby) mid submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items
pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
,~
"-"
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on April 11, 2000, there were no
actions taken which are required under the brown act to be reported.
Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed.
AGENDA
APRIL 18, 2000 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
· PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO RON BOLLES, DIRECTOR,
CONGRATULATING CHULA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL, SCHOOL OF THE
CREATIVE AND PERFORMING ARTS
· PRESENTATION OF A DONATION BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE
CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER
· PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE TO DAVID DAVENPORT, SECOND
PLACE WINNER IN THE ENGINEERING CATEGORY, SENIOR DIVISION,
AT THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE FAIR
· PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAiMING THE WEEK OF
APRIL 24 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2000 AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
· iNTRODUCTION BY CHRISTiNA CHANG, DIRECTOR OF THE MISS
CHULA VISTA PAGEANT, OF JAYME DONLON, MISS CHULA VISTA
2000, ADRIENNE CAMPBELL, FIRST PRINCESS, AND LONNA
CORNWALL, SECOND PRINCESS
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the
Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without
discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be removed 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. Items
pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on April 11, 2000, there were no
actions taken which are required under the brown act to be reported.
Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed.
Page 1 Council Agenda 04/18/2000
B. Letter of resignation from Viviane Marquez, member of the Resoume
Conservation Commission.
Staff recommendation: The resignation be accepted with regret and the City
Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Office
of the City Clerk and the public library.
C. Letter from Virgil Pina, requesting a quarterly report to the community detailing
traffic stops made by the Chula Vista Police Department.
Staff recommendation: The letter be referred to the Chief of Police for a report
back to Council.
2 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON
THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, APPROPRIATING $24,851 FROM
TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (TPF), AND SETTING MAY 16, 2000
AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TWiN OAKS
AVENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE DEFERRAL OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING
CRITERIA TO QUALIFY FOR DEFERRAL FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01
On January 20, 1998, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911
Block Act, the City Council, by Resolution No. 18873, awarded a contract to ABC
Construction Company for $179,755 for Twin Oaks Avenue improvements from Naples
Street to Emerson Street (STL 232). The work has been completed and improvements
have been accepted by the City Manager. A resolution must now be adopted to accept
the filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing
on the assessments.
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. (Director ofPublic Works)
3 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
VACATING THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND
EAST PALOMAR STREET OFFERED FOR DEDICATION ON MAP NO. 13615
AND BY OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST RECORDED AS
DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0510233
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FINAL "A" MAP NO. 2 FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04,
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE OFFERS OF
Page 2 - Council Agenda 04/18/2000
DEDICATION FOR OLYMPIC PARKWAY, EAST PALOMAR STREET, AND A
PORTION OF SANTA ROSA DRIVE, ACKNOWLEDGiNG ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE
INTERESTS 1N LOTS A, B, C, D, H, J, K, L, O AND P FOR OPEN SPACE AND
OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES, LOT I FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES, LOTS Q
AND R FOR TRANSPORTATION, OPEN SPACE AND OTHER PUBLIC
PURPOSES, ALL AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITH1N SAID SUBDIVISION, AND
VACATING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTAiN
IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR OPEN SPACE LOTS AND PARK
LOTS LOCATED WITHiN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FINAL "A" MAP NO. 2
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5 "A" MAP NO. 2
AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Adoption of the resolutions will approve "A" Map No. 2 and the Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Village 5 of the Otay Ranch Project. The map
contains twenty "super block" lots which will require the subsequent filing of Final "B"
Maps, and one multi-family lot (maximum of 182 units) which will require subsequent
Design Review approval. Also considered for approval is the summary vacation of a
portion of Olympic Parkway previously offered for dedication on August 4, 1998 by
Map No. 13615. Subsequent design efforts shifted Olympic Parkway slightly north of
the previous alignment. As a consequence, the existing Irrevocable Offer of Dedication
(IOD) is partially offsite of the proposed "A" Map and cannot be fully vacated on the
map. The proposed resolution will vacate the unneeded IOD, which will be replaced by
a new IOD granted on the proposed "A" Map. This new IOD will provide the required
right-of-way to accommodate the ultimate improvements of Olympic Parkway.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ELECTING NOT TO BE A PART OF A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO
REPLACE THE AFFORD GROUP AND METRO COMMISSION
In 1997, Chula Vista entered into an agreement between the 15 participating agencies
and the City of San Diego for the provision of wastewater treatment for the parties
involved. The agreement set up the METRO Commission as an advisory body to the
City of San Diego and also set up roles and processes to pay for the construction,
operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment.
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director 9fPublic Works)
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF
CHULA VISTA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FY 2000-01.
The agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $127,830 of County of San
Diego Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 funds for provision of Chula Vista
Transit services in the unincorporated area of the County.
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Page 3 Council Agenda 04/18/2000
6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
The Fiscal Year 2000-2001 claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds to support Chula Vista
Transit (CVT) operations and capital procurements was submitted to SANDAG and
MTDB on April 1, 2000, as required by state law. A "TDA Claim" is an application for
TDA operating and capital funds for the upcoming fiscal year. During the first week in
March, SANDAG issues the TDA guidelines, which include the City's total TDA funds
available for the next fiscal year. Staff prepares the TDA claim and submits it both to
SANDAG and MTDB by the April 1st deadline. Staffthen returns to Council in April for
ratification of the claim. An amendment to the claim may be made by direction of the
Council after submission to SANDAG and MTDB. The total claim is in the amount of
$3,461,320, consisting of $3,333,490 claimed against the City of Chula Vista's TDA
funds and $127,830 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (DimctorofPublicWorks)
7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION OF EIGHT APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL
YEAR 1999-2000 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
The Safe Route to School (SR2S) Program is a new federal program that resulted from
the passage and signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 1475. AB 1475 calls for the California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to establish and administer a "Safe Route to
School construction program" and to "use federal transportation funds for construction of
bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects." Current regulation requires
that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for funding.
Projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been
evaluated and assigned a priority by CalTrans.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS, TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS AND CITY LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND
PARKWAYS
Bids to provide landscape maintenance services for new Community Facility Districts in
Otay Ranch and Sunbow II were requested on January 15, 2000, and received on
February 16, 2000. Bids were also requested to provide landscape maintenance services
for the City's landscaped medians and parkways and Telegraph Canyon Road medians
and parkways because of new landscaped areas developed in Otay Ranch and Sunbow II
and new landscaped medians and parkways on Telegraph Canyon Road. Bids for the
City's landscaped medians and parkways were requested to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of contracting versus city staff maintenance.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Page 4 Council Agenda 04/18/2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking daring Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any
issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule
the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited
to three minutes.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial
discussion and deliberation by the Council, staff, or members of the public. The
items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations
may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any
item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and
submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
:15P.M. 9. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT ON BROWN FIELD
EXPANSION
The City's consultants from Aviation Systems Associates will present findings resulting
from their analysis of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment
on the proposed expansion of Brown Field into an Air Cargo Facility.
Staff recommendation: Council take one or more of the following actions: 1) Take a
position in opposition to this project; 2) Request mitigating conditions from the City of
San Diego; 3) Direct staff to submit this Council's comments to the City of San Diego
with respect to the proposed expansion of Brown Field. Council may also wish to direct
staff to develop a public information campaign to bring this issue to the attention of
Chula Vista residents, business owners, schools, etc. (Director of Planning & Building)
10. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET TO ADD SIX POSITIONS TO THE MANAGEMENT
AND INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
AND FURNISHINGS, AND RETITLING TWO EXISTING POSITIONS (4/5THS
VOTE REQUIRED)
The Management and Information Services Department is requesting six full-time
positions, two relating to data base administration, one relating to managing the
microcomputer support function, two relating to application support, and one relating to
GIS support.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista Amending the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 Budget to Add Six Positions to the
Management and Information Services Department, Associated Equipment and
Furnishings, Retitling Two Existing Positions, and Appropriating $13,360 from the
Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund and $20,000 from the
Unappropriated Fund Balance of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
(DIF) Fund Therefor. (Director of Management and Information Services)
Page 5 Council Agenda 04/18/2000
11. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDiNG THE FISCAL
YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT TO ADD
TWO POSITIONS, CHANGE ONE TEMPORARY POSITION TO PERMANENT
STATUS, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
Because of the City's rapid growth, the need to expediently process development-related
documents, and changing technology, the City Clerk is requesting to add two full-time
positions, one Deputy City Clerk and one Records Technician to process contracts and
recorded documents and perform records management duties. Also requested is
permanent status for a temporary position funded by Development Impact Fees.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista Amending the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 Budget for the City Clerk's
Department to Add Two Positions, Change One Temporary Position to Permanent
Status, and Appropriate Funds Therefor. (City Clerk)
12. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT ON PROS AND CONS OF
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF TOLL ROAD SR 125 BY SMITH AND KEMPTON,
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS CONSULTANT (Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
A. Scheduling of meetings.
14 MAYOR'S REPORTS
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B)
· One Case
17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG EXISTiNG LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A)
A. Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista, USDC, 98-CV-0972-E (CGA)
B. Brentwood Mobilehome Park v. City of Chula Vista, S26517
ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session and thence to the Regular Meeting of May 2, 2000, at
4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thence to an Adjourned Meeting with the Child Care
Commission at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
Page 6 Council Agenda 04/18/2000
CI'IY OF
CHULA VISTA
MEMORANDUM
April 11,2000
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager~/,~,-z,//'
Subject: Council Meeting of April 18, 2000
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting
of Tuesday, April 18, 2000. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as
follows:
la. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge
from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on April 11, 2000, there
were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
1 b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT VIVIANE MARQUEZ' RESIGNATION FROM THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET
AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING
TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PUBLIC LIBRARY.
lc. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER FROM VIRGIL PINA BE
REFERRED TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE FORA REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.
DDR:mab
CrlY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY
Date: April 12, 2000
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ann Y. Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 4/11/00
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session
on 4/11/00 to discuss:
· CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B)
One Case
The Senior Assistant City Attorney hereby reports to the best of
her knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed
Session in which the Senior Assistant City Attorney participated,
that there were no reportable actions which are required under the
Brown Act to be reported.
AYM: lgk
276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA o CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5037 · FAX (619) 409-5823
RECEIVED
OTY CLERK'S OFFICE'
To: Honorable Mayor Horton
and Members of the
Chula Vista City Council
From: Virgil Pina
Lifetime resident
City of Chula Vista~
Dear Members of the City Council, the fair, honest, and proper treatment for all individuals
within our fine city is of mai importance to families within Chula Vista. Within the last few years
Chula Vista has experienced tmmendous,y growth. Our city's friendly and diverse population has
increased to over 165,000. With this growing population in mind and the recent increase of
lawsuits by minority families against me City, some with serious allegations of civil fights
abuses, many believe now is the time for our city to implement a more checked and open system
of protection for residents and visitors alike. The implementation of more checked and open
systems of protection for individuals and families within our city is a responsible mature step of
progress. Specifically what is being requested is a quarterly (4 times per year) report to the
community regarding traffic stops by our city's police department. This open report would inform
the public as to the frequency of minority stops by the police department. The report would give
the community a better view as to the existence or non-existence of racially motivated traffic
stops by our police department. This move toward more open protection of our residents and
visitors is not anti-city or anti-police. It is proper and correct protection for residents and visitors
alike. It will speak well of Chula Vista throughout our county and throughout our state. The
wholesome growth of any community is dependent on the respect and protection of every
individual's dignity and human fights. Let's remember the words of former President Jimmy
Carter when he said "America did not create human rights but human rights did create America".
Also with a voice of concern for people California Governor Gray Davis recently spoke on the on
the issue of racial profiling and expressed to the Senate his strong support for the voluntary
disclosure of traffic data by our State's cites and counties. In closing, friends let me express to
you my deep sadness concerning the delay of proper protection for ChulaVista residents. The
City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager's office have been clearly aware of this need, but
yet have taken no action to rectify the problem. Let's move in a good direction, a direction other
cities such ns San Jose and San Diego have taken. Let's give open, checked, and wholesome
protection to our people. May I inform you there are many local community organizations that
sincerely share this concern for our people and are hoping for a positive response by you the
honorable members of the Chula Vista City Council. Please take a look at the enclosed ACLU
Special Report and feel free to communicate back with me at your nearest convenience.
; Thank you.
Sincerely: ~~ ~
Virgil P~*na (619) 427-5456
American Friends Service Committee
November ]5, 1999 U.S. - Mexico Border Program IUSMBP)
Rick Emerson, Chief
Chub Vista Police Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Chief Emerson,
It is with great concern and indignation that ! write this letter to you regarding
serious violations of human and civil rights of Mexican American families in Chub Vista
by members of your police department. Last Saturday, November 13t~ I interviewed the 2ra
family in 6 months who have been assaulted by CVPD A 3'a complaint did not involve
police violence.
There is no doubt in my mind that racism played a major role in at least one of the
incidents - possibly in both. The use of excessive and unnecessary force by police on men,
women and children where there is no threat to police can not be tolerated. Based on
interviews I personally conducted with these families, I can only conclude that you have
police officers in your department that treat Mexican families different than they would
white families in similar circumstances.
The problem now is, who do these families call when they need the police?
Tragically, the children who were maced are terrified of police now. Some of the children
still can not erase the memory of seeing police beat their mothers, uncles and aunts. For
many, this is the only image they will carry for the rest of their lives of police. These
families can not even bring themselves to file a complaint with CVPD because it means
having police come to their homes to interview them.
In my extensive experience of filing complaints against police departments around
the county, police investigating police 99.9% of the time adds up to zero justice for
citizens. How do you build trust in a police department when the community they are
supposed to "protect and serve" fear and distrust the police? Where is the oversight and
accountability? How is this kind of police violence possible? All of the families have been
advised of all legal options open to them.
Sincerely,
Roberto L.'lgI'artinez, Directo(~)
U.S.-Mexico Border Program
cc Virgil Pina, Human Relations Commissioner
City of Chula Vista / (~ ~ ~52,
AFSC/USMBP: (619) 233-4114 P.O. Box 126147, San Diego, CA 92112 FAX: (619) 233-6247
American Friends Service Committee
October 26, 1999 , U.S. - Mexico Border Program IusMe~'!
Virgil Pina
Commissioner for Human Relations
City of Chula Vista ~
654 Sea Vale Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Virgil,
Congratulations on your work and dedication in attempting to improve
police/community relations in Chula Vista. As you know, I have received several
complaints over the last few months involving serious abuse by the CVPD. All of the
complaints are from Mexican families, which raises serious questions regarding racism
within the CVPD.
I think your suggestions regarding a suggestion box in the lobby of the police
station, as well as the attachment to the citizens' complaint form, is an important start in
terms of making these processes available to the public. I hope these services will also be
available in Spanish, as well as English. Your third suggestion regarding open reports to
the community regarding police traffic stops and arrests I think will be very helpful in
tracking and preventing racial profiling by police.
Given the seriousness of the complaints my office has received regarding abuses by
CVPD, perhaps this would be a good time to introduce the idea of a citizens' review
board. However, the only kind I would recommend is an independent review board. The
model being used by San Diego is a total failure. I know, because 100% of my complaints
over the last 5 years have been rejected. Anytime you have the same police department in-
vestigating your complaints for the citizens' review board, the outcome of those
complaints is predictable. If you want the citizens to regain trust i~n their police
department, then you also need a review board that they can also trust.
Good luck with your work on the Human Relations Commission. I hope you
receive support for your suggestions. I rarely receive serious complaints against the
CVPD. I hope you and your commission can get at the cause of this rise in complaints.
Please call me ifI can be of any help.
Sincerely,
Roberto L. Martinez, Director ~
U.S.-Mexico Boi'der Program
AFSC/USMBP: (619) 233-4114 P.O. Box 126147, Son Diego, CA 92112 FAX: (619) 233-6247
Se~t by: 0¢t-17-98 04:54a~ from 4275456~$19 58~ 5774 page I / I
CENTRAL OFFICE: 610 22ND STREET, SAN DIEGO~ CA 92102
MAILING ADDRESS; P.O. BOX 620116, SAN DIEGO, CA 92162
(61~,) :;36-1228 FAX (619) 236-8964
Febnlmy 7, 2000
Police Chief Rick Emerson
Chula Vtsta Police Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Chief Emerson:
I understand that you have received correspondence from several sources regarding
police practices mlarJ~o to treatment of minorit/es by members of yom police department, Asthe
City of Chu[a Vista continues its planned growth, police/community relations will become an
increasing important matter ~or your department as well as all citizens and residents within your
jurisdiction.
W* suppost the suggo~iens made by others to your office for a ~ul~estion/comment box
either at police headq~ or city hall facilities; attachments to the police complaint forms
given to citizens and resid~ts; and a q~mrterly public report to the community relative to police
traffic stops and arrests. We would go a step further and also recommend creaUen of an
independent Police Review Board.
As your fine city continues in its growth, it seems that it will become more and more
important that all public departmems become accessible and responsive to the needs of the public,
and that the public has total trust and confidence in the institutions that serve them.
Sincer,ely '~
~;' / ~,~ ......
Ras/mondqJzeta
President/CEO
cc: Mayor Shirley Hortx>n Com~cilwoman Mary Satas
Virgil Pina, Human Relations Commission ~"
P.O, Box 87131
San Diego, CA 9L:'138-7131
(619) 232-2121
January 14, 2000
Mr. Virgil Pina
654 Sea Vale St.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Collection of Traffic-Stop Data by the Chula Vista Police Department
Dear Mr. Pina:
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, I
write to join you in urging the Chula Vista Police Department to collect and publicly disseminate
statistics regarding the race of individuals who are stopped for minor traffic infractions. As you
know, many African-Americans and Latinos in our community believe that law enforcement
officers utilize race to decide who to target for traffic stops. Whether accurate or not, this
perception corrodes the relationship between law enforcement and people of color in our
community. The only way to address the issue is to first determine whether, in fact, race plays
an inappropriate role in traffic stops. To accomplish this objective, police departments must
collect and disseminate data regarding the race of all individuals who are stopped for minor
,,~,a,~tl,,ns -- The Sa~ Diego
Police Department has already begun to collect such statistics, and we believe that the Chula
Vista Police Department should follow the SDPD s lead.
,, Almost every African American or Latino can tell a story about being pulled over by the
police for no apparent reason, especially if the person was driving in the "wrong place" at the
"wrong time" or even driving the "wrong car." While such anecdotal evidence of racially
motivated traffic stops is plentiful, few formal studies have been done. One of the few, an
ACLU study in Maryland, revealed an alarming disparity in motorist stops and searches.
Although African Americans comprised 72% of those pulled over, they represented only 14% of
the drivers. The same study revealed, however, that police searches conducted pursuant to these
traffic stops uncovered contraband from African American and white motorists at virtually the
same rate -- 28.4% in searches of blacks and 28.8% in searches of whites.
For most of us, our most frequent interaction -- often our only interaction -- with police
officers involves minor traffic violations.' These encounters heavily hffluence lasting perceptions
of the law. When decisions about enforcing traffic laws appear to be based on race, confidence
in law enforcement erodes. For many years, the ACLU has urged police departments across the
nation to increase their effectiveness through community-based policing strategies. Now that
these strategies are in place in many cities -- including here in San Diego County -- they start
with two strikes against them because of the perception that race plays a role in who gets stopped
by the police. We join you in urging the Chula Vista Police Department to directly address this
impediment to effective policing by collecting statistical information regarding the race of
individuals who are stopped by its officers for traffic infractions, and sharing that data with the
community.
If the data de,vc.~tr~tes ,,o racia! dispar%~ the P,,!ice Dep:_,-tment wi!! have a powe~a!
tool with which to dispel the widespread perception that race plays an inappropriate role in its
law enforcement practices. If, on the other hand, the data demonstrates that people of color are
disproportionately stopped for traffic infractions, the Department will have the confirmation
required to forcefully and directly address the problem. In either case, the community's
relationship with its Police Department can only improve.
Sincerely,
Linda Hills
Executive Director
Racial Profiling in America hVp://www.aclu.org/profiling/report/iadex.hlml
Arrest the Ra ¢: zm.
Driving While Black
Racial Profiling
On Our Nation's Highways
By David A. Harris,
University of Toledo College of Law
An American Civil Liberties Union
Special Report
June 1999
INTRODUCTION
On a hot summer afternoon in August 1998, 37-year-old U.S.
Army Sergeant First Class Rossano V. Gerald and his young son
Gregory drove across the Oklahoma border into a nightmare. A
career soldier and a highly decorated veteran of Desert Storm and
Operation United Shield in Somalia, SFC Gerald, a black man of
Panamanian descent, found that he could not travel more than 30
minutes through the state without being stopped by the Highway
Patrol on two separate occasions.
During the second stop, which lasted two-and-half hours, the
troopers terrorized SFC Gerald's 12-year-old son with a police
dog, placed both father and son in a closed car with the air
conditioning off and fans blowing hot ak, and warned that the dog
would attack if they attempted to escape. Halfway through the
episode - perhaps realizing the extent of their lawlessness - the
troopers shut offthe patrol car's video evidence camera.
Racial Profiling in America http://www.aclu, org/profiling/reporl/index.html
Perhaps, too, the officers understood the power of an image to stir
people to action. SFC Gerald was only an infant in 1963 when a
stunned.nation watched on television as Birmingham Police
Commissioner "Bull" Connor used powerful fire hoses and vicious
police attack dogs against nonviolent black civil fights protesters.
That incident, and Martin Luther King, Sr.'s stirring I Have a
Dream speech at the historic march on Washington in August of
that year, were the low and high points, respectively, of the great
era of civil rights legislation: the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the
1965 Voting Rights Act.
How did it come to be, then, that 35 years later SFC Gerald found
himself standing on the side of a dusty road next to a barking
police dog, listening to his son weep while officers rummaged
through his belongings simply because he was black? Rossano and
Gregory Gerald were victims of
discriminatory racial profiling by police.
There is nothing new about this problem.
Police abuse against people of color is a
legacy of African American enslavement,
repression, and legal inequality. Indeed,
during hearings of the National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders ("The
Kerner Commission") in the fall of 1967
where more than 130 witnesses testified
about the events leading up to the urban
riots that had taken place in 150 cities the
previous summer, one of the complaints
that came up repeatedly was "the
stopping of Negroes on foot or in cars
without obvious basis."
Significant blame for this rampant abuse
of power also can be laid at the feet of the government's "war on
drugs," a fundamentally misguided crusade enthusiastically
embraced by lawmakers and administrations of both parties at
every level of government. From the outset, the war on drugs has
in fact been a war on people and their constitutional rights, with
African Americans, Latinos and other minorities bearing the brunt
of the damage. It is a war that has, among other depredations,
spawned racist profiles of supposed drug couriers. On our nation's
highways today, police Ostensibly looking for drug criminals
routinely stop drivers based on the color of their skin. This practice::
is so common that the minority community has given it the derisive
term, "driving while black or brown" - a play on the real offense of!:
"driving while intoxicated."
Ra~ial Profiling in America htlp://w~vw,aolu.org/profiling/reporffindex.htmt
One of the core principles of the Fourth Amendment is that the
police cannot stop and .detain an individual without some reason -
probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion - to believe that he i
or she is involved in criminal activity. But recent Supreme Court
decisions allow the police to use traffic stops as a pretext in order
to "fish" for evidence. Both anecdotal and quantitative data show
that nationwide, the police exercise this discretionaE/power
primarily against African Americans and Latinos.
No person of color is safe fi.om this treatment anywhere, regardlessl
of their obedience to the law, their age, the type of car they drive,
or thek station in life. In short, skin color has become evidence of
the propensity to commit crime, and police use this "evidence"
against minority drivers on the road all the time.
DRUG TRAFFICKERS ARE NOT "MOSTLY
MINORITIES"
Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are
committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has
nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look
for drugs primarily among African Americans and Lafinos, they
find a disproportionate number of them with contraband.
Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted,
and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is
primarily a minority activity. Ttffs perception creates the profile
that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time,
white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug
dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the
perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities
is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues.
This vicious cycle carries with it profound personal and societal
costs. It is both symptomatic and symbolic of larger problems at
the intersection of race and the criminal justice system. It results in
the persecution of innocent people based on their skin color. It has
a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the entke justice system. It
deters people of color fi.om cooperating with the police in criminal
investigations. And in the courtroom, it causes jurors of all races
and etlmicities to doubt the testimony of police officers when they
serve as witnesses, making criminal cases more difficult to win.
Racial Profiling in America http://www.aclu.org/pro f'fling/repor t/index.html
i Yet despite overwhelming evidence -
including the police department's own
statistics on traffic stops - officials in law
enforcement continue to deny the reality
of racial profiling on our nation's
highways. Some deny that the
phenomenon of racial profiling even
exists, while others declare with
indignation that their officers do not stop
motorists on the basis of skin color.
Still others argue without apology that
making disproportionate numbers of
traffic stops of African Americans and other minorities is not
discrimination, but rational law enforcement. But as one officer
learned, such "honesty" can be a dangerous counterpoint to official
denials of profiling.
Carl Williams, New Jersey's Chief of Troopers, was dismissed in
March 1999 by Governor Christine Todd Whitman soon after a
news article appeared in which he defended profiling because, he
said, "mostly minor/ties" trafficked in marijuana and cocaine.
Williams' remarks received wide media attention at a time when
Whitman and other state officials were already facing heightened
media scrutiny over recent incidents of profiling and public anger
over police mistreatment of black suspects.
Whitman and her attorney general, Peter Verniero, recouped from
Williams' remarks somewhat when they issued a statistical report
on April 20, 1999, acknowledging that the problem of racial
profiling is, as Verniero put it, "real, not imagined." The credibility
of that admission was seriously undermined, however, when
Whitman told The New York Times that evidence of racial
profiling is "not something [the state] had any reason to
anticipate."
Surely Whitman had not forgotten that, for the past five years, her
~ ~ legal department had fought a court ruling that a policy of racial
profiling was in operation on the New Jersey Turnpike? The court
had lambasted the "utter failure by the State Police hierarchy to
monitor and control.., or investigate the many claims of
institutional discrimination." Can it be a coincidence that only a
few hours before Whitman and Verniero issued their April 20
report - and one week before the state's appeal was to be argued in
court - word came suddenly that the state had dropped its appeal?
As events in New Jersey demonstrate, even when faced with a
lawsuit, statistical evidence from independent experts, public
............ ~
Racial Profiling in America http://www.aclu.org/profiling/repor t/index.html
pressure and intensive news coverage, officials in law enforcement
and government are not eager to acknowledge the problem of
racial profiling.
The ACLU believes that addressing the problem will require a
multi-faceted effort. Our state ~ffiliates and other civil fights
advocates have brought lawsuits based on showings of
discrimination by law enforcement agencies, but legal action is onlyi
a beginning; these cases are always difficult, long-term efforts that
take considerable resources and plaintiffs of unusual fortitude. For
instance, a lawsuit filed in Oklahoma earlier this month on behalf of~
SFC Gerald and his son may take years to resolve.
Legislation at the federal and state levels and local voluntary
efforts can advance the momentum to collect accurate data on the
problem and rein in overzealous - and sometimes illegal - law
enforcement practices.
Fighting crime is surely a high priority. But it must be done
without damaging other important values: the freedom to go about
our business without unwarranted police interference and the fight
to be treated equally before the law, without regard to race or
etlmicity. "Driving while black" assails these basic American ideals.
And unless we address this problem, all of us - not just people of
color - stand to lose.
THE ROAD TO "DRIVING WHILE BLACK"
The pervasiveness of racial profiling by the police in the
enforcement of our nation's drug laws is the consequence of the
escalating the so-called war on drugs~ Drug use and drug selling
are not confined to racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.; indeed
five times as many whites use drugs. But the war on drugs has,
since its earliest days, targeted people of color. The fact that skin
color has now become a proxy for criminality is an inevitable
outcome of this process.
The latest escalation of the war on drugs was declared officially in
1982, when President Ronald Reagan established the Task Force
Racial Profiting in America htt p://www.aelu.org/proffling/reporffindox.htmt
on Crime in South Florida under Vice
President George Bush's direction. The
primary mission of the Task Force was to
intensify ak and sea operations against
drug smuggling in the South Florida area,
but it was not long before the Florida
r Patrol entered the fi'ay In 1985,
the Florida Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles issued guidelines for
the police on "The Common
Characteristics of Drug Couriers." The
guidelines cautioned troopers to be
suspicious of rental cars, "scrupulous obedience to traffic laws,"
and drivers wearing "lots of gold," or who do not "fit the vehicle,"
and "ethnic groups associated with the drug trade." Traffic stops
were initiated by the state troopers using this overtly race-based
profile.
The emergence of crack in the spring of 1986 and a flood of lurid
and often exaggerated press accounts of inner-city crack use
ushered in a period of intense public concern about illegal drugs,
and helped reinforce the impression that drug use was primarily a
minority problem. Enforcement of the nation's drug laws at the
street level focused more and more on poor communities of color.
In the mid- to late~1980s, many cities initiated major law
enforcement programs to deal with street-level drug dealing.
"Operation Pressure Point" in New York was an attempt to rid the
predominantly Hispanic Lower East Side of the drug trade.
Operation Invincible in Memphis, Operation Clean Sweep in
Chicago, Operation Hammer in Los Angeles, and the Red Dog
Squad in Atlanta all targeted poor, minority, urban neighborhoods
where drug dealing tended to be open and easy to detect.
The goal of these inner-city efforts was to make as many arrests as
possible, and in that respect, they succeeded. Nationwide, arrests
for drug possession reported by state and local police nearly
doubled from 400,000 in 1981 to 762,718 in 1988. Comparable
figures for arrests for drug sale and manufacture rose from
150,000 in 1981 to 287,858 in 1988. Minorities were
disproportionately represented in these figures.
According to the government's own reports, 80 percent of the
country's cocaine users are white, and the "typical cocaine user is a
middle-class, white suburbanite." But law enforcement tactics that
concentrated on the inner city drug trade were very visibly filling
the jails and prisons with minority drug law offenders, feeding the
misperception that most drug users and dealers were black and
Latino. Thus a "drug courier profile" with unmistakable racial
Ravial Profiting in America ht~-p://www.aclu.or g/profiling/r~porl/indo~c html
overtones took hold in law enforcement.
The profile, described by one court as "an informally compiled
abstract of characteristics thought typical of persons carrying illicit
drugs," had been used in the war on drugs for some time. The first
profile was reportedly developed in the early 1970s by a Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent named Paul
Markonni while he was assigned to surveillance duty at the Detroit
Metropolitan Airport. By 1979, Markonni's drug courier profile
was in use at over 20 airports. The characteristics of the Markonni
profile were behavioral. Did the person appear to be nervous? Did
he pay for his airline ticket in cash and in large bills? Was he going
to or arriving from a destination considered a place of origin of
cocaine, heroin or marijuana? Was he traveling under an alias?
In the 1980s, with the emergence of the crack market, skin color
alone became a major profile component, and, to an increasing ~::
extent, black travelers in the nation's airports and found themselves
the subjects of frequent interrogations and suspicionless searches
by the DEA and the U.S. Customs Service. These law enforcement ~
practices soon spread t° train stations and bus terminals, as well. ~
Sometimes the discriminatory nature of profile stops and searches
was so blatant that judges took notice. In the early 1990s, one
New York City Criminal Court judge, in dismissing the charges
against an African American woman who had been stopped and
searched in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, wrote: "I arraign
approximately one-third of the felony cases in New York County
and have no recollection of any defendant in a Port Authority
Police Department drug interdiction case who was not either black
or Hispanic."
In 1986, a racially biased drug courier profile was introduced to
the highway patrol by the DEA. That year the agency launched
"Operation Pipeline," a little known highway drug interdiction
program which has, to date, trained approximately 27,000 police
officers in 48 participating states to use pretext stops in order to
find drugs in vehicles. The techniques taught and widely
encouraged by the DEA as part of Operation Pipeline have been
instrumental in spreading the use of pretext stops, which are at the
heart of the racial profiling debate. In fact, some of the training
materials used and produced in conjunction with Pipeline and other
associated programs have implicitly (if not explicitly) encouraged
the targeting of minority motorists.
The consequences of these law enforcement practices and
sentencing policies are painfully evident today in the demographics
of our prison population. According to an April 1999 report
Racial Profiling in America htlp J/www.aclu.org/pro fdin~reportJindex.html
prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by The
Sentencing Project, there are now an estimated 400,000 inmates in
the U.S. either awaiting trial or serving time for a drug offense, outi
of a total inmate population of 1..7 million. "The combined impact
of increased drag arrests along with harsher sentencing policies has:.
led to a vast expansion of drug offenders in the nation's prisons andi
jails," the report explains. "As these policies have been
implemented, they have increasingly affected African American andi
Hispanic communities. The African American proportion of drug
arrests has risen from 25 percent in 1980 to 37 percent in 1995.
Hispanic and African American inmates are more likely than
non-Hispanic whites to be incarcerated for a drug offense."
Today, blacks constitute 13 percent of the country's drug users; 37
percent of those arrested on drug charges; 55 percent of those
convicted; and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to
prison.
WHREN v. U.S,: THE SUPREME COURT
UPHOLDS PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOPS
At the same time that racial profiling by law enforcement was
expanding, the Supreme Court's sensitivity to Fourth Amendment
rights was contracting. The constitutionality of pretexual traffic
stops - using a minor traffic infraction, real or alleged, as an
excuse to stop and search a vehicle and its passengers - reached
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 in a case called Whren v. U.S.
The question before the Court was, is a
search constitutional if it would never
have taken place if the police were not
looking for an excuse to get around the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment?
In its fiiend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU
argued that pretextual searches violate the:
core principles of the Fourth Amendment,
and warned that to sanction such searches
was to "invite discriminatory
enforcement." The Court did not heed
our warning, however, and instead
declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a
legitimate legal basis for a stop, regardless of the officer's
subjective state of mind.
In practice, the Whren decision has given the police virtually
unlimited authority to stop and search any vehicle they want. Every
driver probably violates some provision of the vehicle code at somei
time during even a short drive, because state traffic codes identify
Racial Profiling in America hUp://www.aclu.org/profiling/report/index, ht mi
so many different irffxactions. For example, traffic codes define
precisely how long a driyer must signal before turning, and the
particular conditions under which a driver must use lights. Vehicle
equipment is also highly regulated. A small light bulb must
illuminate the rear license plate. Tail lights must be visible from a
particular distance. Tire tread must be at a particular depth. And alli
equipment must be in working order at all times. If the police
target a driver for a stop and search, all they have to do to come upi
with a pretext for a stop is follow the car until the driver makes an
inconsequential error or until a technical violation is observed.
Since Whran, the Court has extended police power over cars and
drivers even further. In Ohio v. Robinette, the Court rejected the
argument that officers seeking consent to search a car must tell the
driver he is free to refuse permission and leave. Maryland v.
Wilson (1997) gave police the power to order passengers out of
stopped cars, whether or not there is any basis to suspect they are
dangerous. And in Wyoming v. Houghton, decided on April 5,
1999, the Court ruled that after the lawful arrest of the driver, the
police can search the closed purse of a passenger even though she
had nothing to do with the alleged traffic infraction and had done
nothing to suggest involvement in criminal activity.
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE OF A NATIONWIDE
PROBLEM
Media coverage of racial profiling as a phenomenon in law
enforcement has been simmering slowly over the past decade; in
1998 it finally began to boil over.
In the past year, front-page stories, editorials and columns have
appeared in every major national newspaper and countless local
dallies. The phrase "driving while black," used with bitter
familiarity for years in magazines and newspapers targeted for
African Americans, can now be found in the pages of Esquire,
Newsweek and T1ME.
Of course, media fascination with a social problem does not
necessarily make it "real," any more than lack of media coverage
makes it nonexistent. But the dozens of stories in the press and on
the airwaves, combined with the statistical reports, the lawsuits,
and recent legislative action, make a powerful argument that
"driving while black" is not just an occasional problem.
It's time for our national leaders to realize that this is not about a
few "bad apples." It's about the whole tree, right down to the
roots. The following stories are just a small sampling:
Racia,! Profiling~in America ht~p://www.a¢lu.org/proffling/repor~/index.html
In Arizona, the Phoenix New Times told the story of Larrel Riggs,
a 42-year-old marketing executive who was pulled over on a
highway by two officers from the Scottsdale Police Department in
1997. The police demanded to see his driver's license and
registration. When Riggs handed over the documents, he was told
to wait in the car. Then, instead of waiking back to their car in the
normal way, the officers slowly backed away from Riggs, watching
him, hands on their guns. "I really got a flight," said Riggs. "It's
broad daylight, I'm being polite, I've given them the information,
I've complied with everything they asked me to do, and still they're
treating me like a criminal."
In the end, Riggs received a citation for "an illegible license plate"
and they let him go. The entire process had taken about a
half-hour, and Riggs was so badly shaken that he couldn't sleep
that night. "I feared for my life. It was nerve-racking They looked
like they'd have pulled their guns if I'd so much as sneezed."
Source: Phoenix New Times
In California in 1997, San Diego Chargers football player Shawn
Lee was pulled over, and he and his girlfriend were handcuffed and::
detained by police for half an hour on the side of Interstate 15. The
officer said that Lee was stopped because he was driving a vehicle
that fit the description of one stolen earlier that evening. However,
Lee was driving a Jeep Cherokee, a sport utility vehicle, and the
reportedly stolen vehicle was a Honda sedan. Source: San Diego
Union Tribune
In 1996, two officers in police cruisers followed George
Washington and Darryl Hicks as they drove into the parking
garage of the hotel where they were staying in Santa Monica. The
men were ordered out of the car at gun point, handcuffed and
placed in separate police cars while the officers searched their car
and checked their identification. The police justified this detention
because the men allegedly resembled a description of two suspects
being sought for 19 armed robberies and because one of the men
seemed to be "nervous." The men filed suit against the officers and
the court found that neither man fit the descriptions of the robbers
and that the robberies had not even occurred in the City of Santa
Moniea. Source: The Los Angeles Times
In Colorado, officials in Eagle County paid $800,000 in damages
1995 to black and Latino motorists stopped on Interstate 70 solely
because they fit a drug courier profile. The payment settled a
class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of 402 people
stopped between August 1988 and August 1990 on 1-70 between
Eagle and Glenwood Springs, none of whom were ticketed or
arrested for drugs.
Raai~ Profiling.in America htlp://ww w.aelu.org/profiling/repor t/index.html
One of the plaintiffs, Jhenita Whitfield, who is black, said she and
her sister, who is in the Navy, were stopped May 5, 1989, while
driving through Eagle County fi.om San Diego with four small
children. She said she was told that she failed to signal properly
before changing lanes. The deputy then asked to search her car.
She consented. "I didn't want any hassle," she said. "I didn't feel I
had a choice. The kids were hungry and one had to go to the
bathroom. I figured, let's do it and get the hell out of here."
The agreement called for the case's dismissal and required that
police not stop, seize or search a person "unless there is some
objective reasonable suspicion that the person has done something
wrong." Source: Rocky Mountain News
In Connecticut, the issue of DWB has arisen in several incidents.
Most prominent, perhaps, was the disclosure last year of a 1993
memo by the chief of an albwhite police force in Trumbull, a
suburb of Bridgeport. In the memo, Chief Theodore Amhrosini
advised officers of a series of armed robberies in town and urged
them to take the offensive. "One form of deterrence might be to
develop a sense of proclivity toward the type of persons and
vehicles which are usually involved in these crimes," the memo
said. "Not only is it our obligation to enforce the motor vehicle
laws, but in doing so, we are provided with a profile of our
community and those who travel within its boundaries."
One prominent victim of the Trumbull profiling was Alvin Penn, an
African American Bridgeport Democrat who is deputy president in
the state Senate. On Mother's Day in 1996, a Trumbull police
officer stopped Penn as he drove in a van through this
predominantly white, suburban town, and asked to see his license
and registration. As the officer gave the license back, he asked
Penn if he knew which town he was in. Bridgeport, the state's
largest city where blacks and Hispanics comprise 85 percent of the:
population, borders Trumbull - which is 98 percent white. "I asked
why I was being stopped and why I needed to be aware of which
town I was in. I wanted to know what difference that made," Penn
said, recalling how he got lost and was turning around on a
dead-end street when the officer blocked his van with a patrol car.
"He told me he didn't have to give a reason for stopping me and
said ifI made an issue of it he would give me a ticket for
speeding," Penn said.
Trumbull, which is now under investigation by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the Department of Justice, is not the only
Connecticut community to experience profiling. In suburban Avon,,
for example, former police officers corroborated the existence of
Racial profiling in America htt p:/Ax~v.aclu.org/pro fding/mpor t/index.hlml
the long-rumored "Barkhamsted Express," a slang term for the
routine stopping of black and Hispanic motorists traveling through
town fi-om Hartford to the Barkhamsted reservoir. Sources: The
Hartford Courant and The Boston Globe
In Florida in 1997, Aaron Campbell was pulled over by Orange
County sheriffs deputies while driving on the Florida Turnpike.
The stop ended with him being wrestled to the ground, hit with
pepper spray and arrested. It turned out that Campbell was a majori
in the Metro-Dade Police Department and had identified himself as=~
such when he was pulled over for an illegal lane change and having
an obscured license tag. Said Campbell, "The majority of people
they are searching and humiliating are black people. That's why I
was so angry. I went from being an ordinary citizen and decorated
officer to a criminal in a matter of minutes." Source: The
Washington Times
In Indiana, Sgt. David Smith, an African American police officer,
was pulled over while driving an unmarked car in the City of
Carmel in 1997. Sgt. Smith was in full uniform at the time, but he
was not wearing a hat which would have identified him as a police
officer. According to a complaint filed with the ACLU, the trooper
who stopped Smith appeared to be "shocked and surprised" when
Sgt. Smith got out of the car. The trooper explained that he had
stopped Smith because he had three antennas on the rear of his car
and quickly left the scene. Source: The Indianapolis Star
In Kentucky, De Juan Wheat, a former University of Louisville
basketball star, was pulled over while driving in downtown
Louisville late one night in 1998. The officers, who claimed they
were looking for a truck like his, made Wheat get out of his vehicle
while they searched it and ran warrant checks. When a black
officer recognized Wheat, tensions eased and the officers let him
go. Source: The Courier-Journal
In Maine, the Portland Press Herald last year reported that the
city's minority residents feel the pressure of police bias. In a
front-page article, the newspaper told the story of Michael Stovall,
a 35-year-old lawyer who passed a police officer going in the
opposite direction on a city street and watched as the patrolman
did a U-turn and pulled up bettind him. Stovall was followed for
several blocks while the officer spoke into his radio. Finally, the
newspaper said, the patrolman left, leaving Stovall to wonder.
Another African American, Judith Hyman, said she was stopped by ::
a Portland police officer while driving on a city street with her son,
who is black, and his girlfriend, who is white. "The officer pulled
us over to see if we had our seat belts on," Hyman said. "We all
............. T
Ra¢i~,l Prof~g in America htr p://w-~x~.aclu.org/profitiag/r~por t/mdex.html
were wearing seat belts and I wasn't speeding, so, really, why were
we stopped?"
The newspaper also told the story of Mutima Peter, an immigrant
fi-om Congo and pastor of the African International Church, who
said he was once questioned by an officer after parking his car.
"When I got out, an officer asked me for my driving license and
asked me who is the person I know in Portland," Mutima said. "I
told him I know [Police Chief Michael] Chitwood and he said 'OK'
and left. People said I should speak out, but this is a general thing
for many people." Source: The Portland Press Herald
iln Maryland, in 1997, Charles and Etta
Caner, an elderly African American
couple from Pennsylvania, were stopped
by Maryland State Police on their 40th
wedding anniversary. The troopers
searched their car and brought in
drug-sniffing dogs. During the course of
the search, their daughter's wedding dress
was tossed onto one of the police cars
and, as trucks passed on 1-95, it was
blown to the ground. Mrs. Carter was not
to use the restroom during the
because police officers feared that
he would flee. Their belongings were
strewn along the highway, trampled and
urinated on by the dogs. No drags were found and no ticket was
issued. The Caners eventually reached a settlement with the
Maryland State Police. Source: The Daily Record
In 1998, Nelson Walker, a young Liberian man attending college in
North Carolina, was driving along 1-95 in Maryland when he was
pulled over by state police who said he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
The officers detained trim and his two passengers for two hours as
they searched for illegal drags, weapons, or other comraband
Finding nothing in the car, they proceeded to dismamle the car and
removed part of a door panel, a seat panel and pan of the sunroo£
The officers found nothing and in the end handed Walker a
screwdriver, saying, "You're going to need this," as they left the
scene. Source: The Raleigh News-Observer
Gary D. Rodwell repeatedly refused to consem to a search of his
vehicle when he was stopped for three hours on 1-95 in 1998. He
said that the officer threatened to arrest him and called in a canine
unit to search the vehicle. When no drugs were found, the officer
accused Rodwell of lying, took his keys and called a tow truck to
impound the Pontiac Bonneville Rodwell was driving. Rodwell had
Racia, l Profiling. in America hRp://www.aclu.org/proffling/report/index.htnd
to pay the tow truck driver to get his car back. He is now a part of
a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Maryland. Source: The
Baltimore Sun
In Massachusetts, speaker aRer speaker, including black doctors
and lawyers, testified before a legislative committee in April 1999
about being stopped by police officers, apparently because of the
color of their skin. The speakers were supporting a bill that would
require the state to collect traffic stop statistic~ to see if blacks
were being stopped inordinately. "This is not a new thing for
anyone that is black in this city," said Ajibola Osinubi, 44, a native
of Nigeria who heads his own advertising and public relations firm
in Boston, Source: Associated Press
Yawu Miller, a black reporter with the Bay State Banner, decided
to find out how long two black men could drive at night in
Brookline, a predominantly white community, before being pulled
over by the police. It happened almost immediately. Three cruisers
with flashing blue lights appeared in Miller's rear view mirror. One
cruiser drew up along side Miller's car and asked, "Are you lost?"
When Miller replied in the negative, the officer said, "You're from
Roxbury. Any reason why you're driving around in circles?"
Source: Bay State Banner
In Michigan last year invited officials African Americans and other
minorities to air their grievances about police mistreatment at an
all-day forum. Among those telling their stories was Alicia Smith
of Oak Park, a 19-year-old African American who was driving to a
movie with friends in her hometown when two white officers
stopped her without explanation and asked where she was going.
"There was no probable cause," said Smith, who wasn't ticketed.
"It was just harassment."
Another African American woman told of her husband's experience:
of being stopped and warned about a "tilted license plate." Paul
Worthy, a 59-year-old retiree, said he was stopped - and released
without a ticket - by white officers in Detroit while driving a
Cadillac. "I'm no criminal," Worthy told the Detroit News. "I
worked at GM as a skilled tradesman for $25 an hour. I worked
everyday just like that police officer did." Source: The Detroit
News
In Nebraska, the Omaha Human Relations Board released a series
of recommendations last year for improving relations between
police and minority communities. Among the recommendations,
the Omaha World-Herald reported, were that the Mayor's Office
and City Council address complaints that police target minorities
for traffic stops and subject them to other forms of harassment.
Racial profiling in America http ~/www.a¢lu.org/profi[ing/repor t/indgx.html
Ron Estes, an African American firefighter, told of visiting a modeli
home in a west Omaha subdivision. Although the homes were
closed, Estes told the Human Relations Board that he spoke to a
resident of the subdivision for about 30 minutes while sitting in his
Chevrolet Blazer. A few days later, he stopped by his fire station to
pick up his gear when he overheard an Omaha police officer askingI
other firefighters questions about his truck, which had a
personalized license plate that read BSICBLK. Estes said he later
learned that the subdivision resident he had talked with was a
police officer who reported his visit as suspicious. Shortly
thereafter, Estes bought a new personalized license plate. It reads
SUSPECT. "That just lets you know how they look at us, as a
threat, as a suspect, without even really knowing us," Estes said of
some white police officers. Source: The Detroit News
In New Jersey in 1998, four young men - three African Americans i
and one Hispanic - en route to a basketball clinic in North Carolina::
were shot on the New Jersey Turnpike after their van was stopped
for speeding and suspected drug trafficking. The men contend that
they were not speeding, but were stopped because of their race.
The two officers involved in the Turnpike shooting was
subsequently indicted for falsely listing black motorists as white in
their reports. Source: Emerge Magazine
In New York, Collie Brown was driving from Albany to
Bethlehem with his young daughter asleep in the car in 1997 when
he noticed that his headlights were dimming. He stopped the car
and got out to see what was causing the problem. A Bethlehem
police car pulled up behind him with its lights flashing, and the
officer asked if he needed any help. When Brown replied that he
did not need any assistance, the officer told him to get behind the
car and proceeded to handcuff him. The officer informed Brown
that the car had been reported as stolen, which was true. Brown
had reported the car stolen many months earlier at, er it had been
hot-wired in frout of his home in Albany. The Albany police had
recovered the car a week afrer it was reported stolen. At no point
was Brown ever asked for his registration or driver's license prior
to being handcuffed. The officer eventually retrieved Brown's
wallet from the car and discovered that the car did belong to him,
and Brown was released. Source: The Albany Times Union
In North Carolina, which recently became the first state in the
nation to adopt legislation to help quantify the DWB problem, an
analysis by the Raleigh News and Observer found that a highway :'
drug unit ticketed black men at nearly twice the rate of other police~:
units. In most cases, the newspaper reported, the drivers were
charged with minor traffic violations and no drugs were found.
Racial Profiling in America htlp://www,ach.opg/profiling/repoWindex.html
The story of Robert Gardner was typical. In 1995, Gardner was
stopped while driving a 1990 Lexus on 1-85. A laboratory
technician at North Bronx Hospital in New York, Gardner was
driving with his cousin to visit family in South Carolina when he
was pulled over for speeding. The officer asked him to sit in the
patrol car and peppered him with questions: Where are you going?
What is your job7 When are you going back? Then the officer wenti
to Gardner's car and asked the same questions of his cousin,
Sharon. He then got permission fi.om Gardner to search his car.
"I thought he was just going to look in my glove compartment and
trunk," Gardner said. But, he said, the officer opened the alarm
system and compact disc player. He removed door panels, molding
and seats. He let air out of the tires and rapped on them. Then he
deflated the spare and bounced it on the road. He found nothing.
Gardner told the newspaper that he left the scene with a $25
seat-belt ticket, an annoying vibration in his Lexus and the belief
that he had been treated unfairly. "He claimed I was speeding, but
never gave me a speeding ticket," Gardner said. "I think they
stopped me because I'm black." Source: Raleigh News-Observer
In Pennsylvania, Jonny Gammage was pulled over while driving his i
cousin's Jaguar at 2 A.M. in 1996. As Gammage pulled over, a
total of five Brentwood police cars arrived on the scene. One of
the officers said that Gammage ran three red lights before stopping
after the officer flashed his lights at him. The officer ordered
Gammage out of the car and saw him grab something that was
reportedly a weapon, but in reality was just a cellular phone. The
officer knocked the phone out of Gammage's hand and a scuffle
followed. The other officers beat Gammage with a flashlight, a
collapsible baton and a blackjack as one put his foot on Gammage's
neck. Jonny Gammage died, handcuffed, ankles bound, facedown
on the pavement shortly after the incident began. He was unarmed.
source: People Magazine
In Rhode Island, the Providence Journal-Bulletin reported last year
that as far back as 1990, the Rhode Island ACLU has been
investigating complaints fi.om Hispanics that they were being
" unfairly targeted on 1-95. At the time, U.S. attorney Lincoln
Almond (now Governor of Rhode Island) claimed that Hispanics
were dominating the cocaine and heroin trades in the United States
and were defendants in more than 90 percent of drug cases.
A bill to explore whether minorities are targeted by police failed
last year in the state legislature, but has been reintroduced. While
the state police oppose the measure, saying it is a waste of their
time, the Rhode Island ACLU and the Urban League of Rhode
Island are aggressively lobbying for its passage. Source:
Racial, profiling in America htip://www.aclu.org/prof3Jmg/report/index.html
Providence Journal-Bulletin
In Oregon, leaders ofthe State Police, along with 23 Portland-area
police departments and police unions, recently signed a resolution
taking a strong stand against race-based profiling. Portland Police
Chief Charles Moose said the resolution was intended to reassure
citizens that race-based policing would not be allowed.
Another chief, Ron Louie, told the Portland Oregonian that in his
25 years as a police officer, he's seen the hurt and resentment in the
faces of minority motorists who feel they've been stopped because
ofthirr race. And as a Chinese American, he told the newspaper,
he understands those feelings. "I know what it was like to be with
a carload of kids in San Francisco," he said, "and get yanked over
by police officers because we all had black hair."
LeRon Howland, the Oregon State Police Superintendent, said that}
the resolution means that "if you have a police officer out there
who uses his badge for racially motivated conduct, it will not be
tolerated by police agencies or the leadership of the unions."
Source: The Portland Oregonian
In Oklahoma, the ACLU filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of
Sgt. First Class Rossano V. Gerald, 37, and his son Gregory, 13,
claiming violations of federal civil fights law and of their
constitutional rights to equal treatment and to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. SFC Gerald, whose story is
chronicled in the opening pages of this report, said he is bringing
the lawsuit to assure his son that authority figures who abuse their
power are brought to justice. "I'm an authority figure myself," said
SFC Gerald, a career Army officer who received a Bronze Star for
his outstanding performance in Desert Storm. "I don't want my son
thinking for one minute that this kind of behavior by anyone in
uniform is acceptable."
In South Carolina, La-Prell and Tammie Drumming were driving
down a street in January 1999, when they noticed a vehicle closing
in on their bumper. Moments later, a man with a baton was
smashing 26-year-old La-Prell's car window and dousing her with
pepper spray. "I absolutely feared for my life," said La-Prell, sayingi
she suffered a concussion afl, er being hit by the officer's baton threei
times. "You expect this kind of thing in Atlanta, but not in a small, ~
quiet town like Aiken." The police officer, who was off-duty at the i
time of the incident, was fired by the Aiken Public Safety
Department after the incident. Source: The Augusta Chronicle
In Tennessee, at a May 1999 meeting with the Nashville Human
Relations Commission, Mansfield Douglas, a Metro councilman,
Ra¢{al Profilin§ in America htip://www.aclu.org/pro fflinfl/reporYind~x, html
reported that two months earlier he had been pulled over by a
police officer in the very district he represents. "He told me there
were a lot of people in this area driving without valid licenses and
he wanted to make sure mine was valid," Douglas said. "There was:.
no reason at all for him to have done that anyway. It really gives
you a sense of outrage, but it can be stopped."
In Texas, a 1995 analysis of more than 16 million driving records
by the Houston Chronicle found that minority drivers who strayed
into the small white enclaves in and around the state's major urban
areas were twice as likely as whites to be ticketed for traffic
violations. The study found that Hispanics were ticketed most
omen, though blacks overall faced the sharpest disparities,
particularly in the suburbs around Houston where they were more
than three times as likely as whites to receive citations. Bellaire, a
mostly white city surrounded by southwest Houston, had the
widest disparity in ticketing minorities of any city statewide, with
blacks 43 times more likely than whites to receive citations there.
Source: The ltouston Chronicle
In Wisconsin, a hearing in Madison in 1996 on the issue of racially
biased traffic enforcement turned into an emotional outpouring, as
African American residents shared accounts of harsh experiences
with the Madison police. "It's a lot deeper than a ticket," Semell
Williams told members of the city's Equal Opportunities
Commission. Williams said that the previous summer he had been
followed from the Darbo neighborhood by a convoy of police cars
that grew to 11 by the time he was pulled over. Before the crowd
that had gathered to watch, he was fomed to lay face-down in the
street as officers trained their guns at him. "Do you know how
belittling that was?" asked Williams. "And to have 11 guns drawn
on you for traveling through the city - I could have been dead."
Although the police eventually gave him permission to leave, they
offered no explanation or apology, nor was any citation issued.
Source: Capital Times (Madison, WI)
THE DATA ARE IRREFUTABLE
To date, the ACLU has filed lawsuits challenging the police
practice of racial profiling in eight states. The statistical evidence
collected in the course of this litigation shows a clear pattern of
racially discriminatory traffic stops and searches. In some
instances, the law enforcement agency sued has denied the ACLU's i
allegations and has vigorously defended the lawsuit. But the
numbers tell a different story. A detailed description of the data
from three of the lawsuits is described below.
Chavez v. Illinois State Police
Racial profiling i~ America http://www.aclu.org/profiling/mpor t/index.html
This class action lawstfit was originally filed in federal court in
1994 a~er the ACLU of illinois received hundreds of complaints
from black and Hispanic motorists who believed that the l]linois
State Police were singling them out for highway drug searches.
The case is still in litigation, and in April 1999, the ACLU
submitted to the court several analyses completed by a team of
statistical experts who analyzed databases maintained by the
Illinois State Police. The experts concluded that state troopers,
especially those assigned to a drug interdiction program called
"Operation Valkyrie," singled out Hispanic motorists for
enforcement of the traffic codel:
· While Hispanics comprise less than eight percent of the
Illinois population, and take fewer than three percent of the
personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise
approximately 30 percent of the motorists stopped by I SP
drug interdiction officers for discretionary offenses such as
failure to signal a lane change or driving one to four miles
over the speed limit. For example, in ISP District 13, which
covers seven counties southeast of St. Louis, Hispanics
comprise less than one percent of the local driving-age
population, yet they represent 29 percent of all people
stopped by these officers for speeding less than five miles
above the speed limit.
· Troopers assigned to Valkyrie teams stop Hispanic motorists
for traffic violations two or three times more frequently than i
other ISP troopers patrolling the same highways and charged
with enforcing the same laws. This problem is particularly
severe in the case of discretionary offenses such as failure to
signal. One example is warnings for improper lane use in ISP
District 17, where Hispanics comprise less than three percent}
of the local driving-age population. Hispanics make up 25
percent of the persons stopped by Valkyrie officers for the
offense, while the rate for non-Valkyrie officers is only eight
percent.
When it comes to searches of vehicles, the state's data did reflect
the races of those searched. Analysis of the data reveals that the
state troopers single out Hispanic and African Americans motorists
for searches of their vehicles:
· While Hispanics comprise less than eight percent of the
Illinois population, and take fewer than three percent of the
personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise 27 percent of
the searches conducted by Valkyrie officers. This problem is
severe in many 1SP districts. For example, in District 11, the
P~cial Profiling in America htlp://www.aclu.or g/pro fdias/r~por t/index.htnfl
area surrounding East St. Louis where Hispanics comprise
less than one pement of the local driving-age population,
they comprise 41 percent of the searches.
* While Afi4can Americans comprise less than 15 percent of
the Illinois population and take approximately l0 percent of
the personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise 23
percent of the searches conducted by Valkyrie officers. In
District 4, where Afl'lean-Americans comprise 24 percent of
the local driving-age population, but are the targets of 63
percent of the searches.
,, While troopers ask a higher percentage of Hispanic
motorists than white motorists for consent to search their
vehicles, they find contraband in a lower percentage of the
vehicles of I-Iispanic motorists. This demonstrates that
searches are based on race, not results.
Minorities Stopped on Illinois ltighways Based on field
reports filed from 1987-1997
African Americans Hispanics
Percentage of: Percentage of:
....... ~i~'~'""'":i Area Area Area Area
h~eludes drug Motorists Motorists Motorists Motorists
interdiction stopped by stopped by
trait drug unit drug unit
.................. ........................ ............ .............
5
~'" '~ -- 4 ~~ ~~'i
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
NAACP v. City of Philadelphia
In the early 1990's, the U.S. Justice Department began an
Rag!al Profi~n~, m America htlp://www.a¢lu.org/profffmg/report/index.hrnd
investigation into the systematic abuse perpetrated by a number of
white police officers in the 39th Police District of Philadelphia
based on evidence that these officers were planting drugs on
African Americans, assaulting them during arrest, and wrongfully
obtaining their prosecution and conviction. Ultimately, six officers
Were tried, convicted and incarcerated for their criminal activities.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania believed that the problem in
Philadelphia was considerably larger than the actions of six police
officers, and that racial bias in law enforcement was rampant.
Under threat of ACLU litigation, the city entered into negotiations
which, for the first time in the country, required a detailed racial
analysis of police data. A case filed in federal court resulted in a
settlement which required the city to record information about all
vehicle stops, including the reason for the stop, any police action
taken, and the race of the driver stopped.
In July 1998, the ACLU issued its Fourth Monitoring Report:
Pedestrian and Car Stop Audit. The report was based on data
derived from all incident reports of car stops initiated by the
Philadelphia police in four specific police districts during the week
of October 6, 1997, and by the officers of the Narcotics Unit
during the month of August, 1997.
The police districts chosen for analysis encompassed communities
that are relatively integrated. The incident reports disclosed that
where a reason is given for a car stop, in virtually all cases the
precipitating event was an alleged traffic violation.
According to the 1995 census, Philadelphia's population is 42.2
percent African American, 54.1 percent Caucasian, and 19.6
percent Latino. The minority population that operates motor
vehicles in Philadelphia is highly unlikely to be any greater than
these numbers, and in all likelihood is less. The Philadelphia
suburbs are predominantly white and many suburban drivers come
into the city on a daily basis. Notwithstanding this and other
possible factors, the ACLU assumed that driving patterns were
consistent with population (by race).
Since there is no study or data that supports the view that racial
minorities violate traffic laws in any greater number than whites,
one would expect that traffic stops in Philadelphia would be largely
consistent with the census race data, and that no more than 40-45
percent of the stops would be of African Americans and roughly
more than 60 percent of all minorities.
The data, however, reflect stops of minority drivers at a highly
significant disparate rate. For the week of March 7, 1997, of the
Rat(al Profiling. in Americ~ http://wv*nv.aclu.or~/profding/report/index.html
516 incident reports which were generated pursuant to police car
stops, 262 contain racial and/or ethnic data about the individual(s).
Of these 262 stops, 85.9 percent were &minorities as shown
below:
AI~ Car Stops With Known Race of Suspect for the Week of .
March 7, 1997
Asian Afr. Am. Latino White Total
11 207 7 37 262
4.2% 79.0% 2.7% 14.1% 100.0%
With slightly twice as much data to work with for the week of
October 6, 1997 (as a result of requesting incident reports from an
additional district), of the 1,083 car stops, race was recorded for
524 instances. Of these 524 stops, 71.1 percent were of minorities
as shown below:
All Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect for the Week of
October 6, 1997
Asian Afr. Am. Latino White Total
14 233 125 152 524
2.7% 44.5% 23.9% 29.0% 100~0%
Wilkins v. Maryland State Police
In 1993, the ACLU brought a class-action lawsuit against the
Maryland State Police (MSP) on behal£ of Robert L. Wilkins, an
African American attorney who was stopped, detained and
searched by the MSP for no apparent reason. A court decree was
entered in settlement o£ the lawsuit which included a requirement
that the state maintain computer records of motorist searches so as i
to permit monitoring £or any patterns of discrimination.
In November 1996, the ACLU of Maryland asked the court to hold}
the MSP agency in contempt of court on the grounds that the state!
police were violating the earlier court decree by continuing a
pattern of race discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried
out along the 1-95 corridor. With the assistance of Dr. John
Lamberth, a Temple University Professor of Psychology with
extensive expertise in statistics, the ACLU presented the following
analysis of its traffic survey to the court:
A. Traffic Survey Results
Racial Profiling in America ht~p://www.aclu.org/pro fding/mport/index.hianl
Five thousand, seven hundred and forty one cars were
observed in a "rolling survey" designed to identify the
race of the driver over the course of approximately 42
hours2. In the vast majority of cases, 96.8 percent, it
was possible to identify the race of the driver of the
vehicle. Nine hundred and seventy three, or 16.9
percent of the cars, had black drivers. Four thousand
three hundred and forty one, or 75.6 percent of the
cars, had white drivers. The great majority of drivers -
5,354 of 5,741, or 93.3 percent - were violating traffic
laws and thus were eligible to be stopped by State
Police. Of the violators, 17.5 percent were black and
74.7 percent were white~ Overall results of the traffic
survey and the count of violators are shown in Table
1.
Table I: Drivers and Traffic Law Violators by Race from 1-95
Corridor Study
White Black Other Unknown All Minority
Number of 4,314 973 241 186 1,214
Drivers
Observed
Number of 4,000 938 232 184 1,170
Violators
Observed
Percent of 75.6% 16.9% 4.3% 3.2% 21.1%
Drivers
(by race)
Percent of 74.4% 17.5% 4.4% 3.4% 21.8%
Violators
(by race)
B. Record of Searches by the MSP
Between January 1995 and September 1996, the
Maryland State Police reported searching 823
motorists on 1-95, north of Baltimore. Of these, 600,
or 72.9 percent, were black. Six hundred and
s'mty-one, or 80.3 percent, were black, Hispanic, or
Other racial minorities. Only 19.7 percent of those
searched in this corridor were white. Most of the 1-95
searches - 646, or 85.4 percent - were conducted by
13 troopers. Search breakdowns for those troopers
are listed in Table 2.
Racial,Profil~ag ~n America htlp://www.a¢lu.org/pmfiling/reporl/index.html
Table 2: Individual Troopers Who Made 10 or More Searches
Along the 1-95 Corridor and the Numbers and Percent of
Blacks and Minorities Searched
Trooper Total Blacks Total Percent Percent
Name Number Seaehed Minorities Blacks Minorities
Searched Searched Searched Searched
John E. 68 51 58 75.0% 85.3%
Appleby
Melvin 12 12 12 100% 100%
Fialkewicz
John 1L 30 23 27 76.7% 90.0%
Greene
Steven I~ 65 53 55 81.5% 84.6%
Hohner
David Hopp 37 8 11 21.6% 39.7%
David B. 150 125 131 83.3% 87.3%
Hughes
Miehaal T. 70 57 59 81.4% 84.3%
Hughes
Steven O. 32 19 26 59.4% 81.3%
Jones
James Nolan 54 45 47 83.3% 87.0%
Paul J. Quill 70 41 52 58.6% 74.3%
Christopher 26 23 23 88.5% 88.5%
Tideberg
Ernest S. 40 39 39 97.5% 97.5%
Tullis
John Wilhelm 46 15 26 32.6% 56.5%
Based on his analysis of the data, Professor Lamberth concluded:
"The evidence examined in this study reveals dramatic
and highly statistically significant disparities between
the percentage of black Interstate 95 motorists
legitimately subject to stop by Maryland State Police
and the percentage of black motorists detained and
searched by MSP troopers on this roadway. While no
one can know the motivations of each individual
trooper in conducting a traffic stop, the statistics
presemed herein, representing a broad and detailed
sample of highly appropriate data, show without
question a racially discriminatory impact on blacks and
other minority motorists from state police behavior
along 1-95."
Rac?l Pm, filin~ in America http://www.aclu~o~g/profiling/report/index.html
THE PERSONAL AND SOCIETAL COSTS
"When I see cops today, I don't feel like I'm protected.
I'm thinking, 'Oh shoot, are they gonna pull me over,
are they gonna stop me?' That's my reaction. I do not
feel safe around cops,"
- Emmanuel, early 30's, financial services executive
Race-based traffic stops turn one of the most ordinary and
quintessentially American activities into an experience fraught with
danger and risk for people of color. Because traffic stops can
happen anywhere and anytime, millions of African Americans and
Latinos alter their driving habits in ways that would never occur to
most white Americans. Some completely avoid places like all-white~
suburbs, where they fear police harassment for looking "out of
place." Some intentionally drive only bland cars or change the way
they dress. Others who drive long distances even factor in extra
time for the traffic stops that seem inevitable.
Perhaps the personal cost exacted by racially-biased traffic stops is
clearest in the instructions given by minority parents to their
children on how to behave if they are stopped by police, regardless
of economic background or geographic region. African American
parents know that traffic stops can lead to physical, even deadly,
confrontations. Karen, a social worker, says that when her young
.son begins to drive, she knows what she'll tell him:
"The police are supposed to be there to protect and to
serve, but you being black and being male, you've got
two strikes against you. Keep your hands on the
steering wheel, and do not run, because they will
shoot you in your back. Let them do whatever they
want to do. I know it's humiliating, but let them do
whatever they want to do to make sure you get out of
that situation alive. Deal with your emotions later.
Your emotions are going to come second - or last."
Christopher Darden, the African American prosecutor in the O.J.
Simpson case, says that to survive traffic stops, he "learned the
Racial ~Pr off, ling ~n Amedeoa htlp://ww w.aclu.org/profiling/reporffindex, html
~ rules of the game years before... Don't
· ~ move. Don't turn around. Don't give
i Some rookie an excuse to shoot you."
The perspective of Mr. Darden - who
spent 14 years working closely with
police to prosecute accused criminals - is
i not unique. And for people of color, it
continues to be reinforced by far too
many real-life experiences·
Widespread DWB practices deeply
undermine the legitimacy - and,
therefore, the effectiveness- of the
criminal justice system Pretextual traffic
stops fuel the belief that the police are not l
only unfair and biased, but untruthful as
well. Each pretextual traffic stop involves
an untruth, and both the officer and the
driver recognize this. The alleged traffic
infraction is not the real reason that the
officer has stopped the driver· This
becomes obvious when the officer asks the driver whether he or
she is carrying drugs or guns and seeks consent to search the car.
If the stop was really about enforcement of the traffic code, there
would be no need for a search. Stopping a driver for a traffic
offense when the officer's real purpose is drug interdiction is a lie -
a legally sanctioned one, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless·
What happens when law enforcement embraces a tactic that is
based on the systematic and transparent deception of
overwhelmingly innocent people? And, what happens when that
tactic is employed primarily against people of color? It should
surprise no one that those who are the victims of police
discrimination regard the testimony and statements of police with
suspicion· If jurors don't believe truthful police testimony, crimes
are left unpunished, law enforcement becomes much less effective,
and the very people who need the police most are left less
protected.
Pretext stops capture some who are guilty but at an unacceptably
high societal cost. The practice undermines public confidence in
law enforcement, erodes the legitimacy of the' criminal justice
system, and makes police work that much more difficult and
dangerous·
PUTTING AN END TO RACIAL PROFILING
Although this decades-old problem cannot be solved overnight, it
Racia, I Pro, illin8 in America htlp://w~w.aclu.org/profiling/r~por t/index.html
is time to launch an all-out frontal assault on DWB. The ACLU
calls on the U.S. Justice Department, law enforcement officials and
state and federal legislators to join us in a comprehensive, five-part
battle plan against the scourge of racial profiling.
FlRST: End the use of pretext stops
Virtually all of the thousands of complaints received by the ACLU
about DWB - and every recent case and scandal in this area -
seem to involve the use of traffic stops for non-traffic purposes,
usually drug interdiction. Although the U.S. Supreme Court failed
to declare searches subsequent to a pretextual stop
unconstitutional, that does not mean that such a tactic is wise or
effective fi.om a law enforcement perspective.
It is time for law enforcement professionals to use their own best
professional judgment in scrutinizing the wisdom of the pretextual
stop tactic. All the evidence to date suggests that using traffic laws
for non-traffic purposes has been a disaster for people of color and
has deeply eroded public confidence in law enforcement. Using
minor traffic violations to find drugs on the highways is like asking
officers to find needles in a haystack. In 1997 California Highway
Patrol canine units stopped nearly 34,000 vehicles. Only two
percent of them were carrying drugs. Law enforcement decisions
based on hunches rather than evidence are going to suffer from
racial stereotyping, whether conscious or unconscious.
SECOND: Pass the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act
At the beginning of the 105th Congress, Rep. John Conyers
(D-MI) introduced H.R. 118, the Traffic Stops Statistics Act,
requiring the collection of several categories of data on each traffic
stop, including the race of the driver and
whether a search was performed. The
Attorney General would then conduct a
i study analyzing the data. This would be
!the first nationwide, statistically rigorous
study of these practices. The idea behind
was that if the study confirmed
people of color have experienced for
years, it would put to rest the idea that African Americans and
other people of color are exaggerating isolated anecdotes into a
social problem. Congress and other bodies might then begin to takei
concrete steps to channel police discretion more appropriately.
The Act passed the House of Representatives in March of 1998 by
a unanimous vote and was then referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, but the Committee never voted on the measure or held
Raci~ P~fi~n~g in America htlp://w;*w.aclu.org/profiling/r~portfmdex.hmd
any bearings.
In April 1999, Congressman Conyers reintroduced the Traffic
Stops Statistics Study Act (HR 1443), sponsored in the Senate
(S.821) by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI).
Passage of the Act should be viewed as a first step toward
addressing a difficolt problem. While it does not regulate traffic
stops, set standards for them, or require implementation of
particular policies, it does require the gathering of solid,
comprehensive information~ so that discussion of the problem
might move beyond the question of whether or not the problem
exists, to the question of how to fix the problem.
THIRD: Pass Legislation on Traffic Stops in Every State
Even if the Traffic Stop Statistics Study Act does not become
federal law, it has already inspired action at the state and local
level. The ACLU calls upon legislators in every state to pass laws
that will allow the practice of traffic enforcement to be statistically
monitored on an ongoing basis.
In North Carolina, a bill requiring data collection on all traffc
stops was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the
state legislature and signed into law by the governor on April 21,
1999. This became the first law anywhere in the nation to require
the kind of effort that will yield a full, detailed statistical portrait of
the use of traffic stops.
Similar bills have been introduced in Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Virginia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Arkansas, Texas,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Florida, and California. Efforts are
under way in a number of other states to have bills introduced this
year.
FOURTH: The Justice Department Must Take Steps to
Ensure that Racial Profiling is Not Used in Federally Funded
Drug Interdiction Programs
The U.S. Department of Justice has a moral and legal responsibility
to ensure that Operation Pipeline, and every other federally funded
Raeia~l P~filin.,g? ~n America hlsp://www.aelu.org/profi/ing/reporffindox, hlnfl
crime fighting program, is not encouragingi
or perpetuating racially biased law
enforcement. Drug interdiction goals -
important as they may be - do not
outweigh the government's obligation to
root out racially discriminatory law
enforcement practices. Attorney General
Reno has stated it is "very important to
i pursue legislation" on data collection. But
ito date, the Justice Department has not
taken a position on the pending federal
bills. The Justice Department should actively support the passage
of the federal Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act and take the
following additional steps:
· Restrict future federal funding for Operation Pipeline and
other highway drug interdiction programs to local, state and
federal agencies that agree to collect and report
comprehensive race data on who they stop and who they
search.
· Conduct a systematic and independent review of Operation
Pipeline and all other drug interdiction training programs
supported directly or indirectly with any federal funding, to
root out any implicit or explicit racial references that
encourage improper profiling.
· Restrict future federal funding for Operation Pipeline and
other highway drug interdiction programs to agencies that
agree to implement a series of preventive measures, such as
an early warning system that tracks officer behavior and
identifies officers who engage in discriminatory practices, a
ban on extending the length of a non-consensual traffic stop
in order to have drug-sniffing dogs brought to the scene, and::
the use of written "consent to search" forms that inform
drivers of their right to refuse consent to a search.
FIFTH: The 50 Largest U.S. Cities Should Voluntarily Collect
Traffic Stop Data
Jerry Sanders, San Diego's Chief of Police, announced in February
of this year that his department would begin to collect race data on
traffic stops without any federal or state requirement or any threat
of litigation. In March, Chief William Lansdowne of the San Jose
Police Department announced that his department would follow
suit, and in April, Portland Police Chief Charles Moose
spearheaded an anti-profiling resolution signed by 23 Oregon
police agencies - including the State Police - that included a
Racial f'm. fifing,in America htlp://wwv.aclu.org/profil~ng/repor t/ind~x.html
commitment to gather traffic stop data.
These efforts should be replicated in all 50 of the largest cities in
the U.S.
CONCLUSION
In April of this year, the ACLU of Northern California established
a statewide toll-free hotline for victims of discriminatory traffic
stops. The hotline number has been publicized on billboards and
through a 60-second radio spot. In the first forty-eight hours, the
hotline received 200 calls. As of this writing, the count stands at
over 1,400.
In mid-May, the national ACLU set up a nationwide DWB hotline
- 1-87%6-PROFILE. Although the number is just beginning to be
publicized through an ad in Emerge magazine and the ahing of a
radio public service announcement, the calls have started to pour
in.
Although some police officials are still in denial, we have presentedi
strong and compelling evidence, of both an anecdotal and
statistical nature, that racial profiling on our nation's roads and
highways is indeed a nationwide problem. As such, it demands a
nationwide solution.
The ACLU will continue to monitor incidents of racial profiling
closely and will, where appropriate, bring new cases to court. But
elected and police officials would be wise to act sooner rather than
later. The steps towards a solution are dear:
1. End the use of pretext stops as a crime-fighting tactic;
2. Pass the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act;
3. Pass remedial legislation in every state;
4. Ban racial profiling in all federally funded drug interdiction
programs;
5. Collect city-by-city traffic stop data on a voluntary basis.
ENDNOTES
1. Because the races of those stopped were not recorded by thei
Illinois State Police, this analysis was performed by
calculating the incidence of Hispanic surnames among those
who were stopped. This data cannot be analyzed for African
Americans since they do not comprise a cohesive set of
surnames.
Raci~al P,r ofili~ in America ht~p://www.a¢lu.or~/profiling/r~poCr~'md~x.html
2. Observers rode in cars at a constant 55 or 65 miles per hour
(depending upon the posted speed limit) northbound from
exit 67 ofi-95 to the last exit in Maryland, exit 109. They
were instructed to count the cars they passed (i.e.,
non-speeders) and classify them as non-violators, unless theyi
were violating some other traffic law. They were also to
classify each car as to the race of its driver.
Credits
This report has been prepared by the American Civil Liberties
Union, a nationwide, nonpartisan organization of 275,000
members dedicated to preserving and defending the principles set
forth in the Bill of Rights.
Driving While Black: Racial Proffiing on our Nation's
Highways was written by David Harris, Professor of Law at the
University of Toledo College of Law. Professor Harris has
authored numerous scholarly articles on the subjects of racial
profiling and search and seizure. He is currently working with
Members of Congress and state legislators throughout the country
on solutions to the problem of "driving while black."
Additional reporting was provided by John Crew, Director of the
Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California; Phil
Gutis, Director of Legislative Communications for the ACLU
Washington National Office; Loren Siegel, Director of Public
Education for the ACLU; and Emily Whitfield, Media Relations
Director for the ACLU.
Prepared by the Department of Public Education, Loren Siegel,
Director; Rozella Floranz Kennedy, Editorial and Marketing
Manager; Sara Glover, Graphic Designer.
American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004.
(212) 549-2500
122 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 544-1681
Nadine Strossen
President
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~',
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting filing of Engineer's Report by the City
Engineer on the cost of construction, appropriating $24,851 from
Transportation Partnership Funds (TPF) and setting May 16, 2000 at 6:00
p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing on Assessment District 96-01
for improvements to Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson
Street in the City of Chula Vista
Resolution Approving the deferral of assessments and establishing
criteria to qualify for deferral for Assessment District 96-01
/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ?~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On January 20, 1998, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act,
the City Council by Resolution No. 18873 (Attachment A) awarded a contract in the amount of
$179,755 for Twin Oaks Avenue improvements from Naples Street to Emerson Street (STL 232)
to ABC Construction Company. The work is now completed and improvements have been accepted
by the City Manager. A resolution must now be approved to accept filing of the Engineer*s report
on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing on the assessments.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolutions:
1) Accepting filing of Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction
of the improvements to Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street.
2) Appropriating $24,851 in TPF funds to cover a portion of the Trunk Sewer Fund
loan.
3) Setting May 16, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for public hearing on the
~ ! proposed assessments for the improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue
to Fifth Avenue.
4) Approving the deferral of assessments and setting deferral criteria
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630 (Attachment B) the City Council accepted a petition
signed by 18 of the 20 affected property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Act) for the construction of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and
Emerson Street. The public improvements included widening the existing street to Class II Collector
standards, pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, roadway striping and
miscellaneous appurtenant structures. The original estimate for total project costs was $340,000,
with the construction costs at $216,000. Funding for this project was to be from Gas Tax Funds,
with a $115,000 loan from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to be repaid over 10 years by the
property owners. In July 1997 a ballot process was held in accordance with the requirements of
Proposition 218, and 78.9 % of the property owners' weighted vote (excluding four property owners
who declined to vote) supported the formation of the assessment district.
On July 22, 1997 Council held a public hearing and directed City staff to commence with
construction of the improvements per Resolution # 18739 (Attachment C). The construction contract
was awarded to ABC Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $179,775 on January 20, 1998
by Resolution # 18795. It was assumed that construction costs would total $246,000 including
contingencies and water line relocation costs.
ABC Construction Company completed the construction of improvements in November 1998. A
final inspection was made, all work was found to be completed in accordance with the contract plans
and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Staff has now received, and the City
has paid, all the contractual invoices for this project. The amount paid to the contractor, including
adjustments to contract quantities and change orders, totals $184,667.44. Additional utility line
relocation and soils testing bring the total construction cost to $216,554.08. The improvements were
accepted by the City Manager on February 8, 1999 (Attachment D).
Staff has completed the accounting of the expenditures and apportionment to property owners, as
shown in the Engineer's Report (Attachment E). The original ballots given to homeowners divided
up the total estimated property owners' share of the construction cost on the basis of $94 per linear
foot and an estimated owner's share orS114,868. The City's revised analysis indicates the residents'
total share to be $87,855. Of that amount, $2100 was for the installation of a sewer lateral, which
has been billed separately to the property owner of 1131 Twin Oaks Avenue. The remaining
$85,755 was assessed to the property owners based on the actual improvements constructed at each
property. The portion which will be in the assessment district will be $81,579, which excludes 239
Naples Street.
T,'~h? property located at 239 Naples Street is not technically located in the Assessment District but
was included in the construction contract for street improvements (STL-232) for the following
reasons: 1. The property owner had acquired a building permit which triggered the requirement to
construct street improvements and pay a deferral fee or construct improvements, 2. The property is
located adjacent to 235 Naples, which is part of Assessment District 96-01, and 3. Street
improvements are generally less expensive if they are constructed as part of a larger project. Council
authorized a deferral agreement with property owners Michael and Tonya Arnold on September 15,
1998 by Resolution No. 19171 (Attachment F). Due to the relationship of this property to
Assessment District 96-01, the Amolds were offered the same arrangement as that which was offered
to owners within the District, including calculation of the property owner's share and payments over
a ten year period. The City's original cost estimate was $5828.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
City staff did not bill the Arnolds for the payments stated in the contract for Fiscal Years 1998-99
and 1999-2000 due to the delay in availability of £mal construction costs. The payment deadline has
therefore been extended. As stipulated in the contract, the total principal due has been recalculated
to $4176.47. The Amolds will have the same option for prepayment as the residents in the
assessment district or will be assessed on the tax bill as addressed in the contract.
The property owners at 1101 Twin Oaks and 235 Naples Street, who were estimated to be assessed
for a total of $8366 and $13,066, respectively, requested that the City evaluate methods to reduce
their assessments. Based on the reallocation of costs in the Engineer's Report, the actual
assessments have been reduced to $4,788.00 and $7,128.72, respectively, because of overall cost
reduction and recalculation based on specific improvements on or adjacent to all of the owners'
properties.
A public hearing is proposed to be set for May 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to take testimony on the
assessments after which the actual assessments may be levied on the various parcels. Funds for this
project were included in the FY96/97 budget for project STL-232.
The improvements were financed by the City and AD 96-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block
Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with
Council Policy Number 505-01. The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies
to impose assessments on benefitting properties to fund the construction of public improvements.
The property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-off period
following confirmation of assessments. If the assessments are not paid during that time or are
deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period often (10)
years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. Property owners may pay the balance of their assessments
at any time during the ten year repayment period without penalty.
In response to property owner's concerns, staff prepared three payment alternatives which were
presented to Council on July 15 and July 22, 1997 (Attachment G). Note that these financing
schedules will be revised due to the lower cost to residents. Alternative 1 is the standard plan most
property owners use to spread payments over 10 years at 7 percent interest. Alternatives 2 and 3
involve the deferral of any payment of the principal and therefore require further Council action.
Alternative 2 provides for semi-annual payments of interest only over 10 years, with the principal
due at the end of 10 years or when the property changes ownership. Alternative 3 provides for one
bol!oon payment of both principal and interest at the end of 10 years or upon change of ownership.
It is recommended that Alternatives 2 and 3 would only be offered to property owners meeting one
of the following criteria:
1. An income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income Standards as contained in the
City's Master Fee Schedule;
2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council (For example, a senior citizen,
retired, and unable to pay the assessment).
A similar policy was established for Assessment District No. 93-01 when the City Council approved
Resolution # 17980 (Attachment H) on July 25, 1995. If approved, it is planned that staff will
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
receive and review deferral applications during May and June 2000. Should any property owner
within the district meet one of the criteria under Alternatives 2 and 3, a deferral agreement will be
prepared and brought before City Council for consideration.
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Improvement Act of 1911 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California any deferral of assessments shall be approved by a Council
Resolution.
Accepting the Engineers Report and setting a date for public hearing on the assessments is the first
step in finalizing this project and setting the assessments. Other future actions anticipated to be
taken by the City are outlined below with estimated dates. These dates are approximate only and
may change.
ACTION DATE
1. Council Meeting (tonight's agenda) 4/18/00
a). Accept filing of Engineer's Report
b). Set Public Hearing on Engineer's report
c) Approving policy for payment deferral
2. Notice of Public Hearing to Property Owners mailed out 4/21/00
3. Council Meeting 5/16/00
a). Public Hearing on Engineer's Report
b). Adopt Resolution Confirming Engineer's Report
c). Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien
4. File Assessment Diagram 5/19/00
a). City Clerk
b). County Recorder
5. Deferral period for qualifying property owners begins 5/22/00
Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period
6~ ~ End deferral period for qualifying property owners 6/22/00
End 30 day Pre-payment period
7. Council Meeting (for property owners qualifying for deferrals, if any) 7/18/00
a). Adopt Resolution approving deferral agreements
8. Due Date of First Billing 12/10/00
All property owners within this assessment disthct have been mailed copies of tonight's report to the
City Council.
Page 5, Item__
Meeting Date 4/18/00
FISCAL IMPACT:
The following is a breakdown of all costs associated with the project:
CIP # STL-232
Budgeted Contract Actual Funded
Amount Award Cost By
Construction Amount $227,330 $ ! 79,775 $184,667
Paid to Contractor (115,000) ($85,755+ Gas Tax +
(Property owners' $2100 sewer Trunk Sewer
share) lateral) Fund
Miscellaneous $32,670 $32,670 $31,887 Gas Tax
Construction
Expenses
Staff $80,000 $80,000 $121,152 Gas Tax
Project Total $340,000 $292,445 $337,706*
*Staff costs as of May 1999
Total appropriations are from the following funds:
Gas Tax: $225,000
Trunk Sewer Fund Loan: $115,000
TOTAL $340,000
Since the amount appropriated is more than the total cost, it is recommended that the difference of
$2294 be returned to the Trunk Sewer Fund as a partial repayment of the loan.
Only $87,855 of this amount will be payable by residents either through the Assessment District,
sewer lateral fees or an agreement with the City. (In accordance with Council Policy No. 505-01,
property owners are not assessed for staff costs.) This is lower than the amount of $115,000
estimated originally based on lower construction costs but higher staff costs and differences in the
method o f apportioning costs. Since the amount of $24,851 ($27,145 minus $2294) will never be
r,apa, id by the residents to the Trunk Sewer Fund, it is recommended that this additional amount be
appropriated from Transportation Partnership Funds (TPF) to repay the Trunk Sewer Funds.
In addition to the cost summarized above, the City will maintain the street
improvements.
Attachments: A. Resolution No. 18873
B. Resolution No. 18630
C. Resolution No. 18739
D. Memorandum from the City Manager signed February 8, 1999
E. Engineer's Report
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
F. Resolution 19171 and agreement with Michael and Tonya Arnold
G. Payment schedules for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
H. Resolution No. 17980
H:\HOME~ENGINEERXAGENDA\twinoaks.emc
FILE: 0725-10-AD9601
· E1 T
RESOLUTION NO. 18873
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF "TWIN OAKS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS,
FROM NAPLES sTREET TO EMERSON STREET, IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CA.". (STL232)
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on December 17, 1997 in Conference Room 1, the Director
of Public Works received the following nine sealed bids for the c~)nstruction of ~Twin Oaks
Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, CA."
(STL232):
.: ..~ . . .~ .
Contractor Bid Amount
ABC Construction Co, Inc., San Diego $179,775.00
Heftier Company Inc, San Diego ~ .,.. $!85,637.00
C.W. McG~ath, Inc., San Diego $186 753.00
Single Eagle, Inc., Poway $190 510.50
Star Paving Corporation, San Diego $191 430.00
L.R. Hubbm-d Constr. Co., Inc., San Diego $201 256.70
Frank and Son Paving, Chula Vista $207 494.90
Seheidel Conlx. & Engrg., La Mesa $243 052.50
Well- Constr. Corp., San Diego * $623,621.40 (calc. e~Tor)
WHEREAS, the Iow bid by ABC Construction Company, Inc., is below the Engineer's
estimate of $212,030.00 by $32,255.00 or by 15%; and
WHEREAS, staff has verified the contractor's license and other c~uatifications and
determined that they are in good order, they have satisfactorily met all the requirements and,
therefore, recommend awarding the contract to ABC Construction Company, Inc., San Diego;
and
WHEREAS, this project is primarily funded through Gas Tax Funds and Trunk Sewer
Capital Reserves and based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630, Council accepted a petition,
signed by 18 of the 20 property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue, for the formation of an
assessment district (96-01) to construct street improvements, such as, curb, gutter, sidewalk.
and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street; and
Resolution 18873
Page 2
WHEREAS, subsequently, on May 6, 1997 Council approved Resolution No. 18657
"Approving the .boundary map showing the proposed bou, r~.daries, f_or Asse~s,ment District 96-
01 Of properties to be assessed for street impr0Vem~nts" a_nd Resolution. Np. 18568 "Ordering
installation of improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue be?vv_een.Nap_les. Street and Emerson
Street, ordering the Superintendent of streets to give notice and.~de~'construction and
setting public hearings on Resolution of Intention to form Assessment DIstnct 96-01 pursuant
to the Block Act of 1911"; and
WHEREAS, on J_uly 15, 199~, Council held Public Hearings on the Resolution of
Intention to form Assess'ment District 96-0i, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street
and Emerson Street, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, and on July 22, 1997 Council
held another Public Hearing on the same issue, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 and
approved Resolution No. 18739 "Making findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27
of the Improvement Act of 1911 ", and directed staff to proceed with the construction of the
project; and -,~ : ..
WHEREAS; the City's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the Work involved in
this project and determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301 (c), Class 1 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and : '
WHEREAS, the city has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the ."Right
to Vote Act" by mailing out ballots to all p, roperty owners subject to an increase in their
property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial
obligation, that 64.5% of the property owner's share,: voted in favor of forming the
assessment district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City CoUncil of the City Of Chula Vista does
hereby accept the nine bids and awards the contract for the construction of "Twin Oaks
Avenue improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, Ca."
(STL232) to the lowest responsible bidder, ABC Construction Company, Inc. in the amount
of $179,775.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, on
behalf of the City of Chula Vista, a copy of which shall be kept on file as Document No.
C098-010.
PresentecJ by Approved as to form by
John P. Li Jz~-M. Kahehy
Public Works Director ~ Attorney
Resolution 18873
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 20th day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton
NAYES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
St~irley Hor~on, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly/~. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
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. 18873 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of January,
1998.
Executed this 20th day of January, 1998.
Beverly A/'Authelet, City Clerk
COUNC]I, AGENDA STATENEENT
Meeting Date 1/20/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /g~7~ Accepting bids and awarding contract for the
construction of "Twin Oak~ Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to
Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, CA.' (STL232)
/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5tlas Vote: Yes__No X )
At 2:00 p.m. on December 17, 1997 in Conference Room 1, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids for the construction of "Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples
Street to Emerson S~eet, in the City of Chula Vista, Cg:." (STL232). The work to be done
includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and ~ading, installation of
asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, cold planing, pedestrian ramps, curb and guttez,
side~x~alk, clfive~mys, curb iv3~ storm drain clean out, plastic pipes, reinforced concrete pipes, sewer
laterals, street lighting, adjustment of sewer manholes, pavement striping and si~ing and other
miscellaneous items of work as shown on the plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That Coanzil approve resolution accepting bids and awarding contract
to ABC Construction Company, Inc., San Diego, in the mount of $179,775.00.
BO.aJEDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630, Council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20
property, owners on Twin Oaks Avenue, for the formation of an assessment district (96-0t) to
consm~ct street improvements, such as, curb, garter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue
between Naples Street and Emerson Street. That same day, by the approval of Resolution No.
18631, Council authorized the appropriation of $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of Gas
}flax funds into the Twin Oaks Avenue project account. Stuff, at that time, had estimated the total
p~oject costs at $340,000 with the construction costs at $216,000. AboUt $115,000 of the estimated
$216,000 cost of corkstmction was to be reimbursed fi.om the property owners upon successfxd
formation of the assessment d/strict. The project was then included in the Capital Improvement
Pro_roam (CI:P) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998.
Subsequently, on May 6, 1997 Council approved Resolution No. 18657 "Approving the boundary
map showing the proposed boundaries for Assessment District 96-01 ofpropexties to be assessed for
/
Page2, Item ,
Meeting Date 1/20/98
s~reet improvements" and Resolution No. 18568 "Ordering installation of improvements on Tgqn
Oaks Avenue between Naples Slxeet and Emerson Street, ordering the Superintendent of Streets to
give notice and order construction and setting public hearin~ on Resolution of Intention to form
Assessment D'~xict 96-01 pursuant to the Block Act of 1911.~
On July 15, 1997, Council held Public Hearings on the Resolution oflntenfian to form Assessment
District 96-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Slzeet, pursuant to the
Improvement Act of 191 I, and on July 22, 1997 Council held another Public Hearing on the same
issue, pursuant m the Improvement Act of 1911. That same da3,, Council also approved Resolution
No. 18739 "M ~alcing findings at public hearing pur.mmnt to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of
1911 ", and directed staff to proceed with the oonsmmfion of the project.
The project was advertised for a period of four weeks and plans were purchaged by 16
contractors, and on the bid opening date we received nine.bids, shown below:
Contractor Bid Amount
ABC Construction Co, Inc., San Diego $179,775.00
Heffier Company Inc, San Diego $185,637.00
C.W. McGrath,/nc., San Diego $186,753.00
Single Eagle, Inc., Poway $190,510.50
Star Paving Corporation, San Diego $191,430.00
L.R. Hubbard Constr. Co.,/nc., San Diego $201,256.70
Frank and Son Paving, Chula Vista $207,494.90
Scheidel Contr. & Engrg., La Mesa $243,052.50
Weir Constr. Corp., San Diego * $623,621.40 (~alc. error)
The Iow bid by ABC Construction Company, Inc., is below the Engineer's estimate of
$J12,030.00 by $32,255.00 or by 15 %. The F.n~o~neer's estimate was based on bids received for
similar projects. It is our opinion that staff received excellent bids for the project. We have
verified the contractor's license and other qualifications and determined that they are in good order.
The Iow bidder has satisfactorily met all the requirements. We, therefore, recommend awarding the
contract to ABC Consumction Company,/nc., San Diego.
/
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 1/20/~9~
Disclosure Statement
A copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement is attached.
Prevailing Wage Statement
This project is primarily funded through Gas Tax Funds and Trunk Sewer Capit~l Reserves.
Based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing w~e requirements were necessary
as part of the bid documents.
Assessment District Issues
During the course of forming this assessment district, the property ovcners indicaled that they had
three major concerns that needed to be addressed before the assessment district could be formed;
setting a limit on the cost per lineal foot of improvement, providing alternative financing
arrangements for people with financial hardships and retention of their existing mailboxes and
services.
The irfifial cost estimate that staffprepared for the petition, estimated the cost of the improvements
to ~ about $94 per lineal foot of frontage. Althoug. h the low bid was significantly lower than the
eng-i~eer's estimate for the whole project, the property owner's share is still about the same
amount, because the nnlt prices bid for the reimbursable items of work was approximately the
same as the engineer's estimate. The actual mount to be paid by each property owner would be
determined at the completion of the construction activity which is expected to be sometime in
May 1998. The cost will not exceed the $100.00 per lineal foot cap established by the property
owners.
A few property o~mers also expressed a concern about the possibility of deferring assessment
payments due to financial hardship. Staff will address each request for deferral of payments on
an individual basis based on Council approved guidelines. These deferral requests will be brought
to the Co~.mcil for approval within the next few weeks.
The last concern expressed by the property owners was the retention of their existing mailboxes.
,Thq U.S. Postal Service had design guidelines for modification of mailboxes and services within
new construction areas that would have impacted the property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue. Due
to the involvement of the area residents, the Chula Vista Postmaster decided that mailbox locations
and services would remain unchanged, thus addressing their concern.
The City hue complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes
Act', by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes
and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 64.5% of
the property owner's share, voted in favor of formJmg the assessment district.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 1/20/98
Ali affected property owners have been notified of tonight's proposed Council action on this
project.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and
determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301(c), Class t of the California
Enviromental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL I1V[PACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Con,-act Amount $179,775.00
B. Contingencies (Approximately 21%) $ 37,570.45
C. Sweetwater Authority (City Share of Water Facilities $25,000.00
Relocation Costs)
D. Material Testing $3,654.55
E. Staff Cost (Inspection, Design, Surveying, Traffic and $ 24,000.00
Assessment District Formation)
TOTAL FU3NDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCT/ON $270,000.00
I~tlNDS AVArI.~BLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements (STL232)- Project Accounts $270,000.00
TOTAJo FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $27§,000.00
Funding for this project was budgeted in the FY 96-97 CIP budget. The project as budgeted
($340,000) will utilize Gas Tax Funds ($225,000) and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves ($115,000).
The funding from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves is a loaa and will be used to fund the full
amount of the costs estimated to be repaid by the property owners. The City will be reimbursed for
aborn $115,000 over a period of 10 years at 7.00% interest, through the administration of
~A~sessment Dislrict 96-01. The action requested tonight would allow staff to expend these funds
for the construction work. Upon completion of the project, all funds not utilized will be reimbursed
either to the Gas Tax Fund if it is not an item to be reimbursed by the property owner or to the
Tnmk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund if the savings is fi-om reimbursable work that was not done. The
project will require only routine City maintenance (mainly street sweeping) upon completion.
Exhibit: A - ResolmionNo. 18739 B - Resolution Nos. 18657 and 18658
C - Resolution Nos. 18630 and 18631
D - Contractor's Disclosure Statement
File #0735~10-STL232 & 0725-10-AD96-01
RESOLUTION NO. 18630
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING PETITION FOR FORMATION OF A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. AD96~01 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON TWIN OAKS
AVENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received a petition from property owners in the 110~
to 1150 block of Twin Oaks Avenue, south of Naples Street to north of Emerson Street
requesting that special assessment proceedings be commenced in accordance with th
Improvement Act of 1911 for the construction of missing street improvements such as curl:
gutter and sidewalks; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right T~
Vote On Taxes Act," a ballot has been mailed to the affected property owners an(
65.57 percent of the property owners are in favor of the district; and
WHEREAS, upon acceptance by the Council, the petition will be filed in the City Clerk's'
office; and
WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will permit staff to begin assessment districl
formation proceedings and award the contract for the improvements within Fiscal Year 97/98
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby accept the petition for formation of,a special Assessment District No. AD96-01 for th6
construction of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson
Street and direct staff to proceed with the assessment proceedings as required by the
Improvement Act of 1911 and Proposition 218.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Di~ctor of Public Works "./l~itv Attorney
Resolution 18630
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
C~llifornia, this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton
NAYES: Coun¢ilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
~'~/'~'~ Mayor
~~S~hirle y Horton,
ATTEST:
Beverly AfAuthelet, City-Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
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. 18630 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 15th day of April,
1997.
Executed this 15th day of April, 1997.
RESOLUTION NO. 18739
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA MAKING FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911" TO FORM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01, ON TWIN OAKS AVENUE
BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND EMERSON STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution of Intention No. 18658 ordering the
installation of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson
Street pursuant to the "Improvement Act of 1911"; and
WHEREAS, all owners of property within the proposed assessment district were mailed
notice of the public hearings and the estimated assessment to their property; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention was published twice in the Star News on
Saturday, June 28, 1997 and Saturday, July 12, 1997 with the first publication being at least
ten days prior to the public hearing date; and
WHEREAS, each property owner within the proposed district was notified on May 5,
1997 to construct the improvements abutting their property within sixty (60) days after notice
is given·
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinqs: The City Council does hereby find as follows:
A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has
instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27
of the "Improvement Act of 1911" being Division 7 of the
Streets and Highway Code of the State of California for the
construction of certain authorized improvements in a special
assessment district known and desi§nated as Assessment
District No. 96-01 (AD No. 96-01).
B. Notice has been given in the manner and form as required by Jaw
and specifically Article II, Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and
Highway Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the
~ ~ office of the Superintendent of Streets (0725-10-AD9601).
C. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence
heard relating to the work of improvement as proposed for the
Assessment District, and the legislative body is desirous at this
time to proceed.
Section 2. That all protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied.
· ' Section 3. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause
the construction of the works and improvements in said Assessment
District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days'
Resolution 18739
Page 2
after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/5/97) to cause the
work to be done.
Section 4. The works of the improvement shall be done and carried through and
financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement
Act of 1911" and for all particulars as to these proceedings, reference
is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the public
improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give
notice.
Section 5. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the
provisions of said Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each
assessment remaining unpaid following the expiration of a 30 day cash
collection period. Said balance shall be payable over a period of 10
years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The City shall collect the
unpaid balance of any assessment on the district properties semi-
annually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes, excepting those
properties for which a payment deferral has been approved. The
collection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance
with the payment schedule stipulated in their deferral agreement.
Section 6. The City has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the
"Right To Vote On Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property
owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted
the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that
64.5% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of forming the
assessment district,
Presented by Approved as to form by
J oh~. Lippitt
Pubic Works Director yAttorney
//
Resolution 18739
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Rindone, Salas, and Horton
NAYES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley H~rton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly 4. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
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. 18739 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 22nd day of July,
1997.
Executed this 22nd day of July, 1997
Beverly A.//Authelet, City Clerk
COT~.~CL~ AGENDA STA-~'EM~E.N-I~ -~
- Item J~
Meeting Date 7/2.2/97
ITEM TITI,E: Public H~a-ing on the Resolution ofInmntion m form Assessment Disu%t
90-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street,
pursuant lo the Improvement Act of 1911.
R sol don /f-7 3 pubic
pursuant ~o Chapter 27 of the "ImprovemenI Act of 1911 ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Wotw ~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (415ths Vote: Yes._No X )
On 1Vmy 6, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18657 approving the boundary man for AD96-01.
At the same m~dng, Council also approved Resolution of Intention No. 18658 (see Exhibit A)
ordering the im-mlla~on of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street lo
Emerson Street pursmnt to the Improvement Act of 1911 (also Imown as the 1911 Block Act) and
setting the public he. arings for July 15 and 22, 1997. The public h-~fings are being held to receive
publictestimuny on the proposed disttictimprovements. The firs'tpublic hearing was held on July
15, 1997. No property owners tesfffied at the first public hearing.
RECOlVI~ENI)ATION: It is recommended that the Council:
1). Hold the public hearing;
2). Receive lemon3';
3). Close the public hearing;
4). A.rrprove the resolution m~king findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911 ".
BOA-RI)S/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On April 15, 1997 by Resolution # 18630, Council accepted a petition, sigued by 18 of the 20
property owners, for the £onnation of an assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the conmrncfion
of 5tnxct improvements, such as ctrrb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between
Naples Street and Emerson Street. The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local
agencies to impose assessments on benefitted property to finance the conslrdctlon of public
Page 2, Item.
Meeting Date 7/22197
agencies to impos~ assessments on benefitted property to 5n~nce the comu~uction of publis
~nfr~lxucture facili~es. The public improvements proposed m be ~nced ~xough Assessment
District (AD) 96-01 include widening the street from apaved widlh of 24 feet to 36 feet, pedestrian
ramps, curbs, _mxtI~, sidewalks, driveways and miscellaneous appurtenant straz~es. Completion
of the improvements is projected for the first quarter of 1998.
In addPrtion, on April 15, 1997, Council also approved Resolution # 18631 appropriating $180,000
from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax fund into the Twin Oaks Avenue projem account
Staffhas esfimmed the total project costs at $340,000 with the consm~fion costs at $216,000. About
$115,000 oftbe estimated $216,000 cost of commmcfion is to be reimbursed from the property
owners upon successful formation of the assessment district. The construction of the missing street
improvements is included in the Capital Improvement Progxam (C'LP) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998.
All owners of property within the proposed assessment district (see Exhibit B) were mailed notice
oftbe two public hearings and the estimated assessment to their properties. The boundary map of
AD96~01 was filed in the County Recordegs Office on Friday ~ 9th, 1997. Also, as required by
the A~ the Resolution of Intention was publisbed twice in the STAR NEWS newspap~ on Sanr~day
June 2gth and on Saturday July 12th, 1997, with the first publication being at least ten (10) days
prior to the Public Hearing date.
In compliance with the Act, each property owner within the proposed district was also notified to
construct the improvements frontin~abntting thek property. The notice also indicated that if
comqnlcfion is not commenced wi*bin sixmy (60) days after the notice is given, the City shall proceext
with the construction of the improvements and the cost of said cornea-action shMl then be assessed
as a lien on the property. Lfthe assessment is not paid upon confirmation, the City shall collect the
unpaid balance of any assessment semiaunua3y in conjunction with the collection of City taxes. In
accordance with the Resolution of Intention, said balance shall be paid over a period often (10) years
at an interest xate of 7% per aunum. The assessments are based on the amount of frontage on Twin
Oaks Avenue and aportion, of Naples Street. The assessmentsrange:from$4,700to$13,066 (see
ExJm-bit C). As of July 15, 1997, none of the property owners has applied for a construction permit
to~ instal/the improvements.
Al/property owners were invited by mail to attend a meeting on Thurs'day May 29, 1997 at which
derails of the projem were discussed_ Only one o£the property owners attended the meeting although
staffdid receive some telephone calls from other property owners. S*affwas able to resolve those
issues which were brought to their attention. Specifically, those issues centered on the widths and
locations of driveways. The major issues discussed at the meeting were: 1) assessment district
proceerlings; 2)project schedules; 3) project cost estimates and property owner's share of costs; 4)
payment schedules; 5) financing alternatives 6) project design; 7) a question & answer session; and
8) upcoming public hearings.
Page 3, Item .
Meeting Date V/2-2197
In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 2] 2, the "Pdght To Vote on Taxes Act",
which was passed by a majority of the state voters in a genemllyheld election of November 5, ] 996,
staffhad to prep. are ballots, lh'oposition 218 requires that a ballot be mailed to all property owners
which may ~ subject to an increase in their property taxes. When the ballots are returned, the
majority of the votes for or again~lt, based on financial obligation determines whether or not this
district is formed. The results of the voting ballot returns as of June 18, 1997 show the following:
16 ballots of 20 tetra-heel with 14 in favor ($74,166) and 2 against ($19,834) the formation of an
assessment dis~ct Based on the property owners total f~nanc'ia] obligation ors114,858, the ballots
r.'mzmed represent 64.57°,/0 oftheproperty owner's share of the financial obll~gation~roting in favor.
As of July 15, 1997, the other 4 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots, but they
do have until the close of the second public hearing date of July 22, 1997 to cast their vote (see
~-ehed ballot s~rmmary Exhibit D). Even ffthese final 4 property owners submit/heir ballots
%trainer the fu~ ,,iation ofthi.~ district, their sum financial obligation Wi]/llOt be eno ~ugh lo reverse the
majority vote submitted. The property owners which have already submitted their ballots, also have .
~mtil the closure of the second public hearing date to change th_qr vote, if desired.
Est/mated Assessments
The estimated project cost is $340,000. The City will finance the construction o~'the knprovements
e~i.kt, ate~ at $216,000 and will be reimbursed by the property owners their share of the cost of the
/mprovements which are estimated at $114,858. The City will collect these funds through the
formation of AD96-01 and the collection of installments with their prop~tLy taxes. Desi_en,
inspection, district formation costs and contingencies, e~rnated at $124,000, will not be reimbursed
and will be absorbed by the City in accordance with Council Policy #505-01 (Exhibit E).
.As mentioned above, the proposed total assessment mount is $114,858. The estimated amounts to
be assessed to cacti o~'the parcels in the district is presented in Exhibit C. In order to address the
Council'.s and property ownea~s concerns over financial harcl~hip in meeting the payment obligations,
staff ha~ incl~ried-an attachment (Exhibit F), which describes alternative payment methods that
Councilhas artnpted for other assessment districts. If there is a property owner which h~ financial
difficulties, th~ must have Council approval in order to utilize any of the reduced payment
~t~matives (Alternatives 2 & 3).
Resolutions
TonJghes amion will continue the proceedings for the formation o£AD 97-01 pursuant to the "1911
BlockAct". By approvingtheproposed resolution Council will makethe foliowing findings:
1. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, h~ instituted proceedin~
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 o£the "Improvement Act oflgl 1 being Division
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 7~2/97
7 of the S~'¢¢ts and Highways Code of the Sm/e of California for the ¢on.vtrucfion of certain
authoriz¢d improvements in a special assessment district lmown and desiga~ated as
Assessment District No. 96-01 (AD No.96-01);
2. Notice h~s been given in the manner and form as required by law and specifically
Article IL Part 3, of Div/sion 7 of the Slx'eets and Highways Code, and a Certificate of
Compliance is on file in the office of the City Clerk;
3. The City has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right To Yom On
Taxes Act", by m~iling om ballots te all property owners subject to an increase in their
property la,xes and haq counted the ballots returned and found ~ha, based on financial
obligation, that 64.5% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of forming the
assessmmt district;
4. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidgnce heard relating to the
work of fac kaprovement as proposed for the Assessment District if said conslruction is not
commenced wifhin sixty (60) days after notice is giv¢i1 to the property owner (by 7/05/97)
cause the work to be done;
'- 5. All protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied;
6. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the comUucfion
of the works and im.rrrovement in said Assessment District if said construction is not
commenced within six-~- (60) days after notice is g/yen to the property owner (by 7/05/97)
cause rue work to be done;
7.. The works of the improvement sh~ll be done and carried through and financed pursn~nt
:to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "improvement Act of 1911" and for all particulars as
to these .rrroceedings, Teference is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the
public improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets Io ~ve notice;
,' .
8: The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the provisions of
said Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each assessment remaining unpaid following the
expiration of a 30 day cash collection period_ Said balance shall be payable over a period
of 10 years at an interest rate of 7% per annurm The City qhal! collect the unpaid balance of
any assessment on the district properties serrfi-annnally in conjunction with the collection of
City taxes, excepting those properties for which a payment deferral h~¢ been approved. The
collection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance with the payment
schedule stipulated in their deferral a~eement
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 7/2-2/97
Futore Actions
Bid results and award of the constru~tion contract would be submitted to Council by Septemb=
1997. This it~n will include a public hearing wh~re the prop~5' ownm-s can review their
ass=sments base on bids and, if they so desire, request Council to stop the dis~ict proceedings.
Pm:mmnt to the "]9! 1 Block Act", con~rmation of the assessments will be bro _ught befor~ Council
on or about April 199g, after the improvements are constructed. The corn-traction is anticipated to
be completed b~v late February, 1998.
All propea~ ownem within ~ proposed asse~m~t distri~ cfa0 parcels have be~ sent a copy of
toul_Mat~s City Coanz'fl ~genda statement and attachments.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project was ori~nally approved i~the FY96/97 budget as CIP project
S~u_.as2 - Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples and Emerson S~ts. The fxmmcing for this project
('Proje~ total of $340,000) is being funded through Sewer Trunk funds ($I 15,000) and Gas Tax
f~nds ($225,000).
Ass~_~mnent dLv~rim proc~dinCs will allow for the property owners w~hin this dis~zict to participate
in conffibuting 51t4,800 towards the costs of the zox~mztion, preliminarily c~mated at $216,000.
The estimated property own~s share will be reimbursed w/th 7% interest over a period of 10 years.
Exhibk5: A - Resolutiorm # 18657 & 18658
B - Boundary Map
C - E~imated Assessments
D - Ballot Summary
E- Council Policy # 505-01
F- Description of Payment Alternatives
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 1999
File: 0735-10-STL232
TO: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Street
This is to inform you that this office has acknowledged completion of the subject project on the date
shown below. You may now acknowledge acceptance of this project.
~aavid D. Rowlands, Jr. Date
City Manager
c: Roberto Saucedo
Dolly Hicks
Bill Ullrich
Michael Meacham
Nancy Ross
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 1999 ,
File: 0735-10-STL232/°f'
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Streets
This is to inform you that in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 16034 adopted on January
22, 1991, this office has ac 'knowledged completion of the Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples
Street to Emerson Street Project.
This project was awarded on January 20, 1997 by Council Resolution No. 18795 to ABC
Construction. The project installed full street improvements, consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalks,
and pavement. The final construction cost for the project amounted to $223,744.26. The City spent
$179,775.00 for the original contract, $5,180.44 for adjustments to conlxact quantities ($184,955.44
total for contract items), $6,902.18 for change orders, $5,022.00 for soil testing, $24,140.64 for
relocation of Sweetwater Authority facilities, and $2,724.00 for relocation of SDG&E facilities, and
$116,231.94 for staff time (as of 9/24/98), for a total cost of $339,976.20.
This project was partially funded via an assessment district. Upon staff's acceptance of the
improvements, Council will consider an agenda item regarding the assessment district.
Attached is a complete Financial Statement for the project. It should be noted that $340,000.00 was
appropriated for this project.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
January 19, 1999
File: 0735-10-STL232
Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Streets
I. Appropriated Funds
Total I ............. $340,000.00
II. Contract Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Statement
a) Award Amount $179,775.00
b) Contingencies $ 32.670.00
Total II ............ $212,445.00
III.Actual Expenditures
Construction:
a) Contract work (ABC Construction)
1 ) Original Contract $179,775.00
2) Adjustments to Contract Quantities $ 5.180.44
Adjusted Contract Amount ..................... $184,955.44
3) Change Orders $ 6.902.18
Total Paid to Contractor ........................ $191,857.62
b) Other Expenses
6) City's share of Relocation Costs of Water Main/Laterals
(To Sweetwater Authority) $ 24,140.64
~ 7) Testing Expense (Soils) $ 5,022.00
8) Relocate SDG&E Facilities ........................... $ 2.724.00
Other Expenses Total ...................... .... . $31,886.64
Construction Cost Subtotal .................... $223,744.26
c) StaffCosts $116.231.94
Inception to 9/24/98 (latest available report)
Total III ............ $339,976.20
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 1999
File: 0735-10-STL232
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Streets
This is to inform you that in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 16034 adopted on January
22, 1991, this office has acknowledged completion of the Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples
Street to Emerson Street Project.
This project was awarded on January 20, 1997 by Council Resolution No. 18795 to ABC
Construction. The project installed full street improvements, consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalks,
and pavement. The final construction cost for the project amounted to $216,554.08. The City spent
$179,775.00 for the original contract, less $1,721.74 for adjustments to contract quantities
($178,053.26 total for contract items), $6,902.18 for change orders, $5,022.00 for soil testing,
$24,140.64 for relocation of Sweetwater Authority facilities, and $2,724.00 for relocation of
SDG&E facilities, and $116,231.94 for staff time (as of 9/24/98), for a total cost of $339,976.20.
This project was partially funded via an assessment district. Upon staff's acceptance of the
improvements, Council will consider an agenda item regarding the assessment district.
Attached is a complete Financial Statement for the project. It should be noted that $340,000.00 was
appropriated for this project.
c: Dolly Hicks
( H ~ItOME~ENGIN~ER\INSPECT~CIP~CLOSE~SUBMITTELa, CCEPTED~TL232 MEM.2;
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
January 19, 1999
File: 0735-10-STL232
Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Streets
I. Appropriated Funds
Total I ............. $340,000.00
II. Contract Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Statement
a) Award Amount $179,775.00
b) Contingencies $ 32.670.00
Total II ............ $212,445.00
III. Actual Expenditures
Construction:
a) Contract work (ABC Construction)
1) Original Contract $179,775.00
2) Adjustments to Contract Quantities $ (!.721.74)
Adjusted Contract Amount ..................... $178,053.26
3) Change Orders $ 6.614.18
Total Paid to Contractor ........................ $184,667.44
b) Other Expenses
6) City's share of Relocation Costs of Water Main/Laterals
(To Sweetwater Authority) $ 24,140.64
7) Testing Expense (Soils) $ 5,022.00
: ~ 8) Relocate SDG&E Facilities ........................... $ 2.724.00
Other Expenses Total ........ $31,886 64
Construction Cost Subtotal .................... $216,554.08
c) StaffCosts ~' · '~"' "'
Inception to 9/24/90° (latest available report)
Total III ............ $~
(H\ttOME/ENGiNEER\INSPECT',ClP\CLOSE~SLIBMITTELn, CCEPTED~STL232MEM-4, mil); Form4 C~) o ~) ?~ (~/20/00;4:42pm)
ATTACHMEN'~ ~
ENGINEER'S
REPORT
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 96-1
Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements
from Naples Street to Emerson Street
On April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630 the Chula Vista City Council accepted a petition signed
by the affected property owners to form a special assessment district per the 1911 Block Act for the
construction of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson
Street.. The street improvements included widening the existing street to Class II Collector standards
and construction of pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, roadway striping and
miscellaneous appurtenant structures.
In accordance with Council Policy No. 505-01, the City finances all staff costs, replacement of
pavement in the portion of the street section previously improved, utility relocation and one half the
improvements on the longer length of comer properties. The assessment district funds the remaining
construction costs. The amount to be financed by the district was originally estimated to be
$l 14,868. A balloting process was conducted in April 1997 in accordance with Proposition 218,
which apportioned the $114,868 among the property owners based on front footage on Twin Oaks
Avenue and Naples Street. A weighted vote of 64.57% (based on financial responsibility) supported
the formation of the assessment district.
The construction contract was awarded to ABC Construction Company in the amount of $179,775
on July 22, 1997 by Resolution # 18795. It was estimated that construction costs would total
$246,000 with the inclusion of contingencies and water line relocation costs. The final financial
audit for this project is shown in Table 1, Financial Statement, which includes costs updated to May
1999. As shown in the Table, the total amount paid to the contractor for this project was
$184,667.44. The total construction cost was $216,554.08 due to the cost to relocate utilities and
perform soils tests. The total project cost was increased to $337,706.00 due to the high cost of
design and construction inspection (by City staff) on this project. The utility relocation costs and
increased City staff costs do not affect the assessment district, since these kinds of costs are paid by
the City in accordance with the City's policy on participating in 1911 Block Act Assessment
Districts, No. 505-01.
The last progress report prepared by the construction contractor for this project is included as Table
2, Monthly Progress Estimate, received on January 22, 1999. These line items were then broken
down into items payable by the City and items payable (at least partly) by property owners. A
summary of this breakdown is provided in Table 3, Cost of Project. Detailed cost breakdowns for
each property are provided in the Appendix.
The items which are payable by the City include utility relocation costs, restoration of existing
improvements and installation of storm drain improvements. However, where a tree planted by a
property owner or resident is located within existing street right-of-way it is the owner's
responsibility to pay for the removal of the tree. The City shares in the costs associated with
construction of the roadway. The City pays for the cost of reconstructing the portion of the roadway
which was originally paved, including disposal of existing improvements, earthwork (excavation
and grading), base and paving. Property owners pay for the previously unpaved portion of the
roadway, as well as for construction of the curb, gutter and sidewalk and the driveway approaches,
and installation of new street lights.
2
Property owners also pay for the installation of new sewer laterals. One sewer lateral was
constructed as part of this construction contract at 1133 Twin Oaks Avenue. However, it was not
the intention to include the cost of constructing sewer laterals with'm the assessment district, and this
cost is not covered by the amount originally estimated for this parcel. This property owner will
therefore be required to pay for the cost of this lateral when a plumbing permit is obtained for this
property.
The cost for each property was obtained by reviewing the construction drawings for this project and
field calculations made by the construction inspector. Efforts were made to reconcile the quantities
obtained from these sources with the total quantities measured by the contractor. However, as can
be seen on Item Nos. 7 and 9 on Table 3, the total quantities measured on a parcel-by-parcel basis
were somewhat less than the contractor's totals (876 LF vs. 915 LF and 5141 SF vs. 5298 SF,
respectively). In these cases, it is reconmaended that the City pick up the difference in cost.
The Council Policy generally stipulates that each property owner pay for the improvements
immediately adjacent to the property. This is appropriate in establishing a direct benefit between the
cost to each property and the improvements provided, However, the City decided to provide an
additional discount for comer properties where such properties have improvements on both the
frontage street and the adjoining street. On these properties, the City would pay for the cost of
improvements adjacent to half the length of the longer of the two sides. The property owners would
pay for the remaining improvements, including the comer pedestrian ramp.
This policy would not appl;¢ to most of the comer properties. The properties at the comer of Twin
Oaks and Emerson Street, 1148-1150 Twin Oaks Avenue and 228-230 Emerson Street, have full
improvements which end at the curb return on Twin Oaks. These property owners are only being
charged for street paving up to the curb return. The City is paying for the cost of the asphaltic
concrete pedestrian ramps, since they would be replaced with concrete ramps at the time that
Emerson Street would be improved. The property at 1101 Twin Oaks Avenue has full improvements
to the end of the curb return on Naples Street. Since the policy does not address this specific
situation, this property was charged for curb, gutter and sidewalk and partial road costs up to the curb
return.
The only property which resembles the situation described in the policy is 235 Naples Street. The
improvements were constructed on both the Twin Oaks and Naples side of this property. However,
the curb, gutter and sidewalk costs on Naples Street to the curb return had been included under the
cotegory of Restoration of Existing Improvements and were therefore paid by the City. In the
in'tqrest of equitability, it is therefore recommended that 235 Naples Street be billed for
improvements to the curb return on Naples Street. This would be similar to the assessment for 1101
Twin Oaks Avenue.
The property at 239 Naples Street was included as part of the construction contract, even though it
was not part of the plamaed assessment district, because a building permit had been obtained for new
construction at that address. The property owner was therefore obliged to construct street
3
improvements or pay for such improvements. Due to the proximity of this property to the new
district, it was considered equitable to include them in this contract and provide the property owner
with the same benefits as the other property owners. They have a separate contract with the City and
will be billed by the City under the terms of that contract.
A summary of costs to be billed to each property is included in Table 4, which compares the actual
amount each property owner will be assessed to the amounts on the original ballots. The sewer
lateral costs have been excluded from this table. As demonstrated on this table, all property owners
will be assessed at a lower rate than estimated for the ballots. The properties included in the district
are shown on the map labelled Exhibit A.
l
TABLE 1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Twin Oaks Improvements from Naples to Emerson Streets
I. Appropriated Funds
Total I ............. $340,000.00
II. Contract Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Statement
a) Award Amount $179,775.00
b) Contingencies $ 32.670.00
Total II ............ $212,445.00
III. Actual Expenditures
Construction:
a) Contract work (ABC Construction)
1) Original Contract $179,775.00
2) Adjustments to Contract Quantities $ (1.721.74)
Adjusted Contract Amount ..................... $178,053.26
3) Change Orders $ 6.614.18
Total Paid to Contractor ........................ $184,667.44
b) Other Expenses
6) City's share of Relocation Costs of Water Main/Laterals
(To Sweetwater Authority) $ 24,140.64
7) Testing Expense (Soils) $ 5,022.00
~' ' 8) Relocate SDG&E Facilities ........................... ]; 2~724.00
Other Expenses Total ........................... $31,886.64
Construction Cost Subtotal .................... $216,554.08
c) Staff Costs $121.152.00
Inception to May 1999 (latest available report)
Total III ............ $337,706.00
TABLE 3
CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DIVISION
COST OF PROJECT
PROJECT TITLE: TWIN OAKS IMPROVEMENTS, BETWEEN NAPLES AND D^T~: 09/03/99
EMERSON STREET pREPARED BY: AWS
PROJECT WAS ACCEPTED BY CITY MANAGER OF 02/08/99 CHECKED BY: EMC
QUANTI3~r' I UNIT AMOUNT CITES COST OWNER~ COST
40 TEM UNIT PRICE
1 Removal & Disposal of Existing Improvements LSI LS $8,800.00 $8,800 $6,100 $2,700
2 Excavation and Grading LS LS $37,000.00 $37,000 $19,138 $17,862
3 Asphalt Concrete Paving (693.09 Tons x $42.50I, 4" AC 27,748 SF $1.06 $29,413 $21,834 $7,579
4 ^ggmgate Base (1,185 Tons x $17.00) 8" base 24,516 SF $0.82 $20,103 $14,239 $5,864
5 Cold Planing 552 SF $3.00 $1,656 $1,656 $0
6 6" Type "A" Asphalt Concrete Dike 135 LF $9.00 $1,211 $1,2t 1
7 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 915 LF $13.50 $12,353 $533 $11,820
8 4" PCC Sidewalk & Slabwork 7,842 SF $2.00 $15,684 $0 $15,684
9 i" PCC Driveway Approach 5298 SF $2.20 $11,656 $346 $11,310
10 PCC Type "A" Pedestrian Ramp 2 EA $400.00 $800 $0 $600
11 Asphalt Conqrete Pedestrian Ramp 4 EA $500.00 $2,000 $2,000 $0
12 18" Plastic P!pe 92.5 LF $62.00 $5,735 $5,735 $0
13 12" Plastic Pipe 11.5 EA $47.00 $541 $541 $0
14 {einforced Concrete Type "B" Headwall 2 EA $900.00 $1,800 $1,800 $0
15 Modified Type "A4" Cleanout I EA $2,700.00 $2,700 $2,700 $0
18 Adjustment of Existing Sewer Manholes I EA $575,00 $575 $575 $0
17 4" Sewer Lateral 30 LF $70.00 $2,100 $0 $2,t00
18 Concrete Encasement 15 LF $25.00 $375 $375 $0
19 Furnish & Install 27' Light Standard Complete with Foundafion, 8' 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000 $0 $7,000
Mast Arm, 100-Watt Multi-Tap Luminaire, Lamp & Photo Electric Cell
20 Furnish & install #3 Pull Box with "Street Light" Lid 4 EA $225.00 $900 $0 $900
21 Furnish & Install #3312 Pull Box with "Street Light" Lid 2 EA $450.00 $900 $0 $900
22 Furnish & Install Conduit & Conductors 157 LF $17.00 $2,669 $0 $2,6691
23 Signing & Stdping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 $1,000 $0
24 Traffic Control (Owner's responsibility 1/3 of cost) 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000 $1,333 $667
25 protection & Restoration of Existing Improvements 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 $6,000 $0
26 Type "B" Storm Drian Inlet, Length = 4' 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 $3,000 $0
27 Furnish & install 12"x18" CSPA Bit Coated Pipe I LS $996.00 $996 $996 $0
28 install 2 - Drain Pipes, Lower 4 Water Laterals I LS $2,800.00 $2,800 $2,800 $0
29 Slopework & Reinstall Fence at 1148 & 1150 Twin Oaks 1 LS $3,106.18 $3,106 $3,106 $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $184,871 $97,016 $87,855
SOIL TESTING $5,022 $5,022 $0
RELOCATION OF WATER MAIN & LATERALS $24,141 $24,141 $0
RELOCATION OF SDG&E FACILITIES $2,724 $2,724 $0
STAFF COSTS (AS OF 05/20/99.~_ $121,152 $121,152 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $337,910 $250,055 $87,855
(h:\HOME\ENGIN EER\ADVPLAN~ESTIMATE\TWINOK2.WB I )
File: 0725- I 0-AD9601
TWIN OAKS AVENUE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01
MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1997
6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
I. Introductions - City Staff and Residents
II. Update on Assessment District Proceedings
III. Schedule of Public Hearings
W. Project Cost Estimates and Property Owner's Share
V. Financing Alternatives/Payment Schedules
VI. Project Design
VII. Resident's Review of Project
VIII. Question and Answer Session
IX. Adjourn to Public Hearings on July 15 & 22, 1997 at 6:00 P.M.
City Staff Present:
Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer
Anthony Chukwudolue, Assistant Civil Engineer
" Frank Pdvera, Civil Engineer
APPENDIX
TWIN OAKS AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND EMERSON STREET
(NOT TO EXCEED $100.00 PER LINEAR FOOT)
SIDE OF STREET
619-122-16-00, 1148-1150 'I-VVIN OAKS AVENUE
OF IMPROVEMENTS; 18' DRIVEWAY; 69' CURB, GUTTER & S/VV
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (87.34'/1,295' = 6.744%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,207.18
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (87.34' X 5.5' = 480.37 SF) 480 SF $1.06 $509.19
3 Aggregate Base 480 SF $0.82 $393.90
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 69 LF $13.50 $931.50
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 530 SF $2.00 $1,060.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 205 SF $2.20 $451.53
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) I LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42,86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,659/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($687/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
13 Slopework & Reinstall Fence at 1148 & 1150 Twin Oaks 1 LS $3,106.18 $0.00
TOTAL $5,131.21
619-122-17-00, 1140 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 20' DRIVEWAY; 32' CURB, GUTTER & S/W
APPROACH ON ADJOINING PROPERTY)
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 32 LF $13.50 $432.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 274 SF $2.00 $548.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 244 SF $2.20 $536.36
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Puli Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,302.39
619-122-18-00, 1138 TVVlN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 32' CURB, GUTTER & SNV
REMOVAL OF BLOCK WALL
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' -- 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 32 LF $13.50 $432.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 244 SF $2.00 $488.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 189 SF $2.20 $416.46
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,122.49
619-122-19-00, 1136 TVVlN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 34' CURB, GUTTER & S/VV
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 34 LF $13.50 $459.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 294 SF $2.00 $588.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 189 SF $2.20 $414.99
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,248.02
619-122-20-00, 1134 'PNIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 25' DRIVEWAY; 23.75' CURB, GUTTER & S/VV
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 25 LF $13.50 $337.50
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 386 SF $2.00 $772.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 407 SF $2.20 $896.06
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,791.59
619-122-21-00, 1130 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 14' DRIVEWAY; 36' CURB, GUTTER & S/VV
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50' / 1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $644.40
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 36 LF $13.50 $486.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 260 SF $2.00 $520.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 244 SF $2.20 $535.83
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,281.14
619-122-22-00, 1120 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' & 13' DRIVEWAY; 11.33' CURB, GUTTER & SNV
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 11 LF $13.50 $152.96
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 316 SF $2.00 $632.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 244 SF $2.20 $536.23
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900,00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,107.21
619-122-23-00, 1116 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 14' DRIVEWAY; 36' CURB, GUTTER & SNV
REMOVAL OF 3 TREES
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.6%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 36 LF $13.50 $484.65
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 210 SF $2.00 $420.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 176 SF $2.20 $387.97
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
13 Removal of Three Trees 3 EA $300.00 $900.00
TOTAL $3,978.65
619-122-24-00, 1112 TWIN OAKS AVEN U E
FRONTAGE OF TWIN OAKS; 22' DRIVEWAY; 28' CURB, GU~FER & S/W
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.'12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 28 LF $13.50 $378.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 318 SF $2.00 $636.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 270 SF $2.20 $593.19
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,393.22
619-122-28-00, 235 NAPLES STREET
32' DRIVEWAY; PEDESTRIAN RAMP; RELOCATE PORTION OF CHAIN LINK FENCE
IMPROVEMENTS ON ENTIRE FRONTAGE, LENGTH OF IMPROVEMENTS 187'
CORNER LOT OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY IS 120 LF OF PCC IMPROVE. AND DRIVEWAYS, 120 LF OF TRAVELWAY
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (120'/1,295' = 9.266%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,658.61
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (120' X 5.5' = 660 SF) 660 SF $1.06 $699.60
3 Aggregate Base 660 SF $0.82 $541.20
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 72 LF $13.50 $972.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 692 SF $2.00 $1,384.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 407 SF $2.20 $895.40
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 1 EA $400,00 $400.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) I LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $7,128.72
T ! Trl~
619-122-27-00, 239 NAPLES STREET
IN DISTRICT, BUT WAS IMPROVED AT THE TIME OF DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS
FRONTAGE; 22' DRIVEWAY; 40' CURB, GUTTER & S/W
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (62' / 1,295' = 4.788%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $857.05
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (62.0' X 5.5' = 341 SF) 341 SF $1.06 $361.46
3 Aggregate Base 341 SF $0.82 $279.62
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 40 LF $13.50 $540.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 488 SF $2.00 $976.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 266 SF $2.20 $584.43
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 ~3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $4,176.47
SIDE OF STREET
619-131-01-00, 1101 TVVlN OAKS AVENUE
LENGTH OF IMPROVEMENTS 89'
DNV IMPROVEMENTS, 89' OF CURB, GUTTER & SNV
RELOCATE CHAIN LINK FENCE & 6' WOODEN FENCE
CORNER LOT, PCC IMPROVEMENTS TO CURB RETURN
OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY IS 89' OF IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (89' / 1,295' = 6.873%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,230.27
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (89' X 5.5' = 385 SF) 514 SF $1.06 $544.84
3 Aggregate Base 514 SF $0.82 $421.48
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 89 LF $13.50 $1,201.50
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 206 SF $2.00 $412.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 0 SF $2.20 $0.00
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 1 EA $400.00 $400.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Contro~ ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $4,788.00
619-'131-02-00, 1109 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 20' DRIVEWAY; 30' CURB, GUTTER & SNV
REMOVE EXISTING BLOCK WALL, RELOCATE PLANTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
I Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 30 LF $13.50 $405.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 380 SF $2.00 $760.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 361 SF $2.20 $795.08
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit&Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,746.1 t
619-131-03-00, 1115 TWIN OAKS AVENUE.
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 59' OF CURB, GUTTER & S/W
RELOCATE CHAIN LINK FENCE
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (75.0'/1,295' = 5.792%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,036.77
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (75.0' X 5.5' = 412.5 SF) 413 SF $1.06 $437.25
3 Aggregate Base 413 SF $0.82 $338.66
4 6" PC¢ Type "G" Curb & Gutter 59 LF $'13.50 $796.50
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 298 SF $2.00 $595.14
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 189 SF $2.20 $415.91
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $4,198.14
619-131-05-00, 1127 'DWlN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 58' OF CURB, GUTTER & S/W
REMQVE 2 TREES
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (75.0' / 1,295' -- 5.792%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,036.77
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (75.0' X 5.5' = 412.5 SF) 413 SF $1.06 $437.25
3 Aggregate Base 413 SF $0.82 $338.66
4 6" PC(:; Type "G" Curb & Gutter 58 LF $13.50 $783.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 259 SF $2.00 $518.60
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 272 SF $2.20 $597.85
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
13 Removal of Two Trees 2 EA $300.00 $600.00
TOTAL $4,890.04
619-131-06-00, 1131 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 34' CURB, GUTTER & S/~V
REMOVE 3 TREE TRUNK STUMPS & ONE TREE
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $69'1.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 34 LF $13.50 $459.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 371 SF $2.00 $742.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 187 SF $2.20 $412.17
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
13 Removal of Three Tree Trunks & One Tree 4 EA $300.00 $1,200.00
TOTAL $4,599.20
619-131-07-00, 1133 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 23' DRIVEWAY; 29.3' CURB, GUTTER & SNV
SEWER LATERAL
DRIVEWAY APPROACH ON ADJACENT PROPERTY)
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5,5' -- 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 29 LF $13.50 $395.55
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 489 SF $2.00 $978.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 333 SF $2.20 $732.16
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
13 4" Sewer lateral at 1133 Twin Oaks Avenue 30 LF $70.00 $2,100,00
TOTAL $5,991.74
EXCL. SEWER $3,891.74
619-131-08-00, 1135 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE; 16' DRIVEWAY; 34' CURB, GUTTER & S/W
OUTLET TO EXISTING OUTLET
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 34 LF $13.50 $459.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 518 SF $2.00 $1,036.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 190 SF $2.20 $417.01
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400,00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42,86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $3t.76
TOTAL $3,698.04
619-131-09-00, 1137 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE, 12' DRIVEWAY, 38' CURB, GUTTER & S/W
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50' / 1,295' = 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1,06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 38 LF $13.50 $513.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 298 SF $2.00 $596.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 170 SF $2.20 $374.99
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit&Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,270.02
619-131-10-00, 1143 TWIN OAKS AVENUE
FRONTAGE, 12' AND 16' DRIVEWAY, 22' CURB, GUTTER & S/W
RELOCATE 4' WOODEN FENCE
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (50'/1,295' -- 3.861%) 1 LS $17,900.00 $691.12
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (50.0' X 5.5' = 275 SF) 275 SF $1.06 $291.50
3 Aggregate Base 275 SF $0.82 $225.50
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 22 LF $13.50 $297.00
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 516 SF $2.00 $1,032.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 353 SF $2.20 $776.05
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $3,891.08
APN 619-131-11-00, 228-230 EMERSON STREET
87.28' OF IMPROVEMENTS, 20' DRIVEWAY, 67' OF CURB GUTTER & S/W
REMOVAL OF BLOCK WALL
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading (87.28' / 1,295' = 6.74% 1 LS $17,900.00 $1,206.46
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving (87.28' X 5.5' = 480 SF 480 SF $1.06 $508.80
3 Aggregate Base 480 SF $0.82 $393.60
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 67 LF $13.50 $904.50
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 495 SF $2.00 $990.00
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 246 SF $2.20 $540.65
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) 1 LS $7,000.00 $333.33
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $42.86
.11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $127.'10
t2 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1 LS $667.00 $31.76
TOTAL $5,121.92
OWNER'S CONTRIBUTION $87,855.42
(H:\HOME\ENGINEER~ADVPLAN\TWlNOAKS.WB1)
OWNER'S CONTRIBUTION
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation and Grading 1 LS $17,900.00 $17,862.05
2 Asphalt Concrete Paving 7,150 SF $1.06 $7,579.39
3 Aggregate Base 7,151 SF $0.82 $5,864.12
4 6" PCC Type "G" Curb & Gutter 876 LF $13.50 $11,819.66
5 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 7,842 SF $2.00 $15,683.74
6 6" PCC Driveway Approach 5,141 SF $2.20 $11,310.31
7 PCC Type "A" Pedestrain Ramp 2 EA $400.00 $800.00
8 Street Light Standard ($7,000/21 Residents) I LS $7,000.00 $6,999.93
9 #3 Pull Box with Street Light Lid ($900/21 Residents) 1 LS $900.00 $900.06
10 #3312 Pull Box with Street Light Lid 1 LS $900.00 $900.06
11 Conduit & Conductors ($2,669/21 Residents) 1 LS $2,669.00 $2,669.10
12 Traffic Control ($667/21 Residents) 1/3 of Total 1 LS $667.00 $667.00
13 Miscellaneous * 1 LS LS $4,800.00
TOTAL $87,855.42
* Miscellaneous charges include the following:
Tree Removal @ $300 ea (9 Trees x $300) = $2,700
Sewer Lateral @ $2,100 ea (1 Lateral x $2,100) = $2,100
RESOLUTION NO. 19171
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING DEFERRAL AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL
AND TONYA ARNOLD ON PAYMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
" OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT 239 NAPLES' STREET AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the construction of street improvements at 239 Naples Street (Assessor'
Parcel No. 619-122-27-00) was included in the contract for Assessment District No. 96-01
Construction of Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street; an
WHEREAS, a deferral agreement will provide the same payment plan to the propert
owners of 239 Naples Street that is being provided to the property owners within th~
boundaries of the adjoining as.sessment d!strict.-j
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista doe:
hereby approve the Deferral Agreement with Michael and Tonya Arnold on payment for
construction of street improvements at 239 Naples, a copy of which shall be kept on file ir
the office of the City Clerk as Document No. C093-137.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the. City of Chula Vista.is hereb~
authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City,.~0f'CHula
Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John£. L', pi. raheny
-Public Works Director
y tg Attorney
Resolution 19171
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 15th day of Septembe¢, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horto~,, Mayor
ATTEST:
Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California; do .hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 19171 was'duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
at a regular m~eeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 15,h day of September, 1998.
Executed this 15'h day of September, 1998.
Beverly A/'Authelet, City Clerk
COUNCIL AGEhrl)A STATEMENT
Meeting Date 9/J[;~/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /'~/~7/ Approving Deferral Agreement with Michael and
Tonya Arnold on Payment for the Construction of Street Improvements at
239 Naples Street and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Deferral
Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ 0~
REVIEW'ED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes __ No X )
The construction of street improvements at 239 Naples Slreet (Assessor's Parcel No. 619-122-27-00)
was included in the contract for Assessment District No. 96-01, Com'tmetion of Twin Oaks Avenue
Improvements, fxom Naples Street to Emerson Street. The deferral agreement will provide the same
payment plan to the property owners of 239 Naples Street that is being provided to the property
owners within the boundaries of the adjoining assessment district.
RECOM3~2NDA~ON: That Council approve the resolution approving the deferral agreement
with Michael and Tunya Arnold on payment for the construction of street Improvements at 239
Naples Street and authorize the Mayor to execute the deferral agreement./
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In May 1~995 the property owner at 239 Naples Street applied for a permit to construct a single
family home. As a condition of that permit, the property owner was required to either construct
street improvements or enter into a deferral agreement with the City, to be secured by a cash bond
or lien. The mount of the cash bond was computed to be $4,700, based on an estimate of the cost
to'design and consm~'t these improvements. The application for the deferral was approved but the
cash bond was never paid and the agreement was never signed. After construction on that site was
completed, the property was sold to the current owners, Michael and Tonya Arnold.
On April 15, 1997, by Resolution No. 18630, Council accepted a petition signed by 18 of the 20
property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue for the formation of an assessment district (96-01) to
construct street improvements - including curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement- along Twin Oaks
Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street. The boundary map subsequently approved by
Council in May 1997 included the comer property at 235 Naples Street, which is immediately to the
east of 239 Naples Street. Due to the deferral application and proximity to the assessment district
boundaries, the property at 239 Naples Street was included in the design and construction contract ":
x%r Assessment District No. 96-01, but noI included in the district.
Page 2, Item __
Meeting Date 9/15/98
~rhen it was discovered that the cash bond had not been submitted, City staff approached the
Amolds to determine if they would be interested in having the street improvements constructed in
front of their property. Although it would be too late to include their property as part of the
assessment distx-ict, stafffelt that, in the interest of fairness, the same financing arrangements which
had been offered to properties w/~hin the dislrict and corresponding to Council Policy No. 505-01
should be offered to Mr. and Mrs. Arnold. The Arnolds indicated that they were interested and
si~maed the proposed agreement in the presence ora notary on June 29, 1998.
Provisions of the Proposed Agreement
This agreement includes several provisions which ar~ identical to the provisions for properties in the
assessment district. Under Council Policy No. 505-01, the City normally pays for design costs and
costs for consmaction w/~hin the original paved roadway. On ~hi~ basis, the design engineer's
estlm~ae, for the property owners' share of the cost of improvements w/thin Assessment District No.
96-01 was $94 per I/near foot of frontage. Tiffs figure was used to compute each property owner's
estimated cost, which was included on the ballot required by Proposition 218. Since the Naples
Street ~ontage on 239 Naples Street (Parcel No. 619-122-27-00) is 62 linear feet (to the nearest
foot), the max/mum principal amount of $5828 was included ha the contract Based on the original
staff estimates for this project, the City's share of the expenses (inclurtlng desi~ma, inspection and
artmini~trafive costs and a portion of construction costs) would be approximately 163 percent of the
residents' share. The City's share of costs for the Amolds' property would therefore be
approximately $9500. As indicated, the City's share is already included in the CI~ appropriation.
Pa3~ent Ahemafive 1 of Assessment District 96-01 stipulates an interest rate of 7 percent per 3,ear
over a period of 10 years.' This method of financing was approved by Council by Resolution No.
18739 on July 22, 1997, which formed Assessment Dislrict 96-01. This rate is also included in the
proposed agreement.
The construction cost breakdown for each property included in Assessment District 96-01 will be
~eassessed after construction is completed. Each property owner will only pay for those
/mprovements associated with their own property. All costs associated with 239 Naples Street will
be separated out from Assessment District costs.
The $94 per linear foot estlma~'e was based on a tolal construction cost estimate of approximately
$215,000, including a property owners' share of $115,000. Since the actual contract award was for
$179,775, it appears that the $94 per linear foot figure is somewhat higk Therefore, a clause is
included in the proposed contract which would require the City to recalculate the cost payable by
the property owners after construction of the Twin Oaks Avenue improvements is completed.
Page 3, Item __
Meeting Date 9/15/98
FISCAL IMPACT: The funding sources used for CIP Project STL-232 (Assessment District 96-
01 ) were the Cves Tax for the City's share of costs and a loan from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve
Fund (Fund 227) to finanCe the portion which would be paid back by the residents over a period of
ten years. The total appropriated was $340,000, including $260,000 for construction ($45,000 of
that for contingencies). Since the eontra~ award mount was $179,775, su~cient unused funds will
be available bom the Gas T~x and Fund 222 to construct these improvements. If the maximum
priucipal umoum of $5,828 becomes the actual amount due based on the actual construction costs,
the Arnold's mmual payment, at the 7% interest rote for 10 yem-s, will be $830.
Exhibits: A. Resolution No. lg873
B. ResolufionNo. 18739
C. Resolutions Nos. 18630 and 18631
D. Proposed Boundaries: Assessment District 96-01
E. Desc-ripfion of Payment Alternatives
F. Council Policy No. 505-01
~IOIvlLe~ENGINEER~AGI~IDAXARNOLD 1 ~MC FILE 0725-10-AIY)6-01
RecoVer: Recor~
Recording re~ested
pte~e remm to: ~ :
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista. CA 91912
AGREEMENT FOR
THE TERMS OF PAYMENT DEFERRAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF
CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND LIEN SECURING THE FUTURE INSTALLATION OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY
MICHAEL C. AND TONYA M. ARNOLD
AND LOCATED AT 239 NAPLES STREET
ASSESSORIS PARCEL NO. 619-122-27-00
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ff~ day of
. ?~fApT-~r'-/,~/~/7~ , 1998, by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Michael C. and Tonya M. Arnold, hereinafter
referred to as "Property Owner";
WlTNESSETH
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this agreement is commonly known
as 239 Naples Street, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, is idemified in the County Assessor
records as Parcel No.619-122-27-00, and is legally described as:
The Center portion of Lot 24 of Block 2 of Castle Park, a subdivision of Lots 17, 18, 23,
24, 25, 26, 31 and 32 of Quarter Section 120 and of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29 and
30 of Quarter Section 141 of the National Rancho, in the City of Chula Vista, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1752 recorded April 2,
1923, in the office of the Recorder of said County of San Diego.
hereinafter referred to as "Property"; and,
WHEREAS, Property is owned by Property Owner; and,
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998 the Chula Vista City Council adopted Resolution No.
18873 instituting proceedings pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 for the
construction of certain authorized improvements in Assessment District 96-01, "Construction of
Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements from Naples Street to Emerson Street'(Project STL-232),
which is adjacent to said property; and,
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997 the Chula Vista City Council adopted Resolution No.
18630 accepting petition for formation of special Assessment District 96-01 for the construction
of said street improvements. Said improvements were proposed to be financed pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 27, with the City collecting each assessment remaining unpaid following
the expiration of a 30 day cash collection period. Said balance would be payable by each property
owner at an interest rate of 7 percent per annum over a period of ten years; and,
WHEREAS, the Property Owner hereby requests that the City construct street
improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and street Widening, on Naples Avenue in front
of said property; and,
WHEREAS, the City has decided to offer Property Owner the same f'mancing option
offered to property owners within Assessment District 96-01. Property owner's share of the
construction cost will be determined based on Council Policy No. 505-01, "Participation by the
City of Chula Vista in 1911 Block Act Program Proceedings", enacted by Resolution No. 11373
and effective August 30, 1983,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the parties hereto
as follows:
A. Terms of Payment:
1. Property owner shall pay to City the maximum principal amount of $5828,
with 7% interest, over a period of 10 years. The maximum initial payment
of $415 shall be due and payable on December 10, 1998. The second
semi-annual payment of $415 shall be due and payable on April 10, 1999.
The subsequent 18 semi-annnal payments equal to a maximum of $415 each
,' , shall be billed and payable with the tax bill beginning in Fiscal Year 1999-
00 and thereafter through Fiscal Year 2007-08.
2. After construction of the Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements has been
completed, the cost payable by Property Owner shall be recalculated by the
City based on the actual cost to the City. In no case will the cost to Property
Owner exceed the amounts given in Section Al. If final construction costs
for the Property are not available prior to December 10, 1998 the City may,
at its option, extend the December 10, 1998 payment deadline.
Page 2 c~~ ~:)?
3. Property owner may pay the principal without any additional interest, fees
or penalties until the expiration of the thirty day prepayment period to
commence on the date that the City Council adopts the resolution
confirming the Engineer's Report on the cost of construction of the
improvements for Assessment District 96-01.
4. Property owner may pay the principal at any time prior to July 1, 2007.
Such payment, if made after the expiration of the thirty day prepayment
period, must include an additional administrative fee of $100 and a three
percent prepayment penalty. Additional interest payments will not be billed
subsequent to such payment.
5. Property Owner shall pay balance as calculated in Items A3 and A4 above
if Property is sold, transferred or conveyed.
6. For payment which is not made by the due date, Property Owner shall pay
a penalty of 10 percent of the delintiuent amount plus 1-1/2 percent per
month in addition to the regular payment.
7. Any changes or amendments at the request of Property Owner regarding
this agreement must be submitted by Property Owner and approved by City
Council prior to July 1, 2007.
B. Dmies of the City: City is to repair and maintain the street improvements
constructed adjacent to Property as needed.
C. Agreement l~un~.with thc Land: The burden of this covenant is for the benefit of
the land owned by the City adjacent to the Property. The burden of this covenant
touches and concerns the Property. It is the intent of the parties, and the parties
agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon both the current Property Owner,
and upon the successors, heir, transferees and assigns of the Property Owner, and
nm with, the ownership of the land which it burdens.
D. ~ For the purpose of secur'mg the faithful performance of the
promises and covenants herein contained, Property Owner hereby grants to the City
~ of Chula Vista a lien ("Lien") upon the Property in an amount equal to a maximum
of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($8300) and which amount shall be
increased or decreased annually at the request of Property Owner in direct
proportion to Property Owners' payment or failure to make payment as herein
agreed upon and the month in which this agreement was entered ("Lien Amount").
1. At any time darin~ the period herein provided, Property Owner, may make
a cash deposit with the City as discussed in Item A3. above. If said cash
payment is made, the City shall rescind the Lien granted by this Agreement,
and shall record a notice of rescission of same. The rescission of the Lien
shall not constitute a rescission of other covenants and property interests
herein granted, and shall not constitute a basis for not recording this
Agreement.
2. The Lien Amount shall operate as a maximum mount of the principal of
this Lien, exclusive of Attorney's Fees and Costs, and interest from the date
of filing of the foreclosure action on the Lien, which interest Property
Owner agrees to pay at the rate of seven (7%) percent per annum,
compounded annually.
E. Remedies: Nothing in rids agreement shall constitute a limitation on the remedies
provided at law or equity. It is understood, agreed and acknowledged by Property.
Owner that, upon failure of the Property Owner to make payments in the manner
specified by this Agreement, the City may, but is not required to, do any of the
following:
1. In the event Property Owner defaults, City may foreclose on said lien, as
provided by law for the foreclosure of mortgages, and Property Owner
agrees that the amount of said lien includes admin/strative and attorneys'
fees which shall be taxed as a cost in any suit or foreclosure. Foreclosure
proceedings may commence after non-payment of two sequential
installments.
2. Foreclose said lien as a mortgage.
3. Pursue any other remedy, legal or equitable by law, for the foreclosure of
a lien, and Property Owner, his/her heirs and assigns, shall pay reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs to be taxed as a cost in said proceedings.
F. Miscellaneous Provisions:
1. AuthoriW of Ci _ty: Property Owner further agrees that, and agrees not to
protest the fact, that the City is vested with the authority to require the
Property Owner to make payments as agreed herewith.
;
2. 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, fn:st-class postage prepaid, addressed to the
address indicated in this Agreement. A party may change such address for
Page 4
the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the
other party.
Ci~;
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Public Works, Engineering Division
Property. Owner:
Michael C. And Tonya M. Arnold
239 Naples Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(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.)
3. Captions: Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this
Agreement or any of its terms.
4. Recitals: Exhibits: Any recitals set forth above are incorporated by
reference into this Agreement.
5, Attorneys' Fees: The prevailing party in any action enforcing the
provisions of this agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees
in addition to any other costs, damages, or remedies.
6. Governing Law: This Agreement has been executed in California and shall
be governed by the laws of the State of California.
, 7. Iy~validity: If any term, covenant condition or provision of this Agreement
'~ is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full
force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated
thereby.
8. Time: Time is of the essence in the performance of the Parties' respective
obligations herein contained.
Page
9. Waivers: The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant,
condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be
considered a waiver by him of any other covenant, condition or promise.
The waiver by either or both Parties of the time for performing any other
act or an identical act required to be performed at a later time. The
exemise of any remedy provided in this Agreement shall not be a waiver of
any consistent remedy provided by law, and any provision of this
Agreement for any remedy shall not exclude other consistent remedies
unless they are expressly excluded.
(End of page. Next is signature page.)
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR
LIEN AGREEMENT (PARCEL NO. 619-122-27-00)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed
the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(City Clerk to attach acknowledgment.)
PROP..ERTY OWNERS
NOTES: a. Each owner as reflected on the preliminary title report must sign.
b. Applicant shah submit a check or money order payable to County of San Diego for
fees required to record this agreement. This fee is estimated at $20.00.
'Approved as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY
(H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ASMTDIST\239NAPL1 .AGR)
Page7 ~ ) ~ ~/ "
'CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKOWLEDGEMENT 4/[
State of California )
County of San Diego )
On ?/~:~//~' before me, Beverly A. Authelet personally
[~personally known to me - OR - I-Iproved 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(les), 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.
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 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
~,~Title or Type of document
Title{si
[] Partners(s) [] Limited 't/
[] General Number of Pages
[] ,, Attorney-in-Fact
[] '~ Trustee(s)
[] Guardian/Conservator
[] Other: Da/re of/Document
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of Person(s) or Entity(ies) Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
This document is being notarized by the City Clerk of
the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Civil Code §1181
· CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKOWLEDGEMENT
State of California )
County of San Diego )
On /~//2/~-~" before me, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
· /
personally appeared Shirley Horton, Mayor
Xl~personally known to me - - rqproved to me on the satisfactory to
OR
basis
of
evidence
be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
i he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
. authorized capacity(les), 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.
~ S~' ignature of Notary
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 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
~_._ Individual ~-.~J~ .
Corporate 0fficer )~ ~_~'~
Mayor / Ti'tie or '~e ~f Document
Title(s)
[] Partners(s) [] Limited
[] General Number of Pages
[] ~ . Attorney-in-Fact
[] ' ! Trustee(s)
[] Guardian/Conservator
[] Other: Date of I~ocument
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of Person(s) or Entity(les) Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
City of Chula Vista
This document is being notarized by the City Clerk of
the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Civil Cede § 1181
RESOLUTION NO. 17980
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O~:' ~H'E ~.I;£Y .OF .CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE DEFERRAL .O~~ '~,.i~:: PAY'I~'£NT i..OF
ASSESSMENTS, ESTABLISHING THE CR&-[,~.f',iA' TQ.QUAEIFY
FOR DEFERRAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE MA'YOR-TOSIGN 'FHE
DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS FOR ASSESSMEN'~ DISTRICT NO. 93-
01
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements fo['. the construc~ion"of alley
improvements from J Street to Keamey Street between Elm Avenue and 'S~cond Avenue are
being financed through the formation of Assessment District No. 93-01 (AD 93-01) pursuant
to the 1911 Block Act; and
WHEREAS, the Act is a financing mechanism which authorizer local agencies
to impose assessments on benefited property to fund. the construct'ion of public
improvements; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on May 25, 1995, Council direc~bd staff to
bring to Council a resolution allowing the. property owners to defer the payment of their
assessments; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have the option of paying the total assessment
during the 30-day pay-off period following the confirmation of assessments, planned for the
end of 1995; and
WHEREAS, if the assessment is not paid at that time, the City shall collect the
'unpaid balance in semiannual installments in conjunction with the collection of City taxes and
in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, the balance shall be paid over a period of ten
(10) years at an interest of 7% per annum; and
WHEREAS, in response to property owners concerns, Council directed staff to
identify additional alternatives that may allow the deferral of the payment of the assessments
and lessen the financial impact of the proposed assessments; and
WHEREAS, according to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the "Improvement Act
of 1911" of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California any deferral of
assessments shall be approved by a Council Resolution; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the following alternatives be approved by
Council:
· Semi-annual payments (interest only) and payment of the principal at the end
of a 10-year term or at the time the property is transferred, whichever occurs
first. At the end of the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis,
a time extension to fulfill the payment obligations.
Resolution No. 17980
Page 2
One payment (principal and accumulated interest) at the end of a 1 O-year term
or at the time the property is transferred, whichever occurs first. At the end of
the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis, a time extension to
fulfill the payment obligations.
WHEREAS, staff also recommends that Council require that property owners
shall meet one of the following Criteria ("Criteria") to qualify for deferral:
1. Have an income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income standards as
contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council. (For example, a senior citizen,
retired, and unable to pay the assessment.)
WHEREAS, qualifying property owners that elect a deferred payment plan shall
enter into a deferral agreement with the City upon confirmation of assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby'approve the Criteria for granting a deferral of the payment of assessments, and
authorizing the Mayor or City Manager in his/her discretion, to sign the deferral agreements
for Assessment District No. 93-01 upon application and proof of satisfaction of the required
Criteria.
Presented!¢.,~/~bY V E~ruce l~1 Bo~o~'ed as to~ bye,
~)iJ~rhe~tPo'r ~fP ¢iut~i~ W o, k s City Att;rneyg~ar~
Resolution No. 17980
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 25th day of July, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NAYES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
' Shirleyd,/Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly ~. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17980 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 25th day of July,
1995.
Executed this 25th day of July, 1995.
Beverly A~' Authelet, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S
REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION, APPROPRIATING $24,851 FROM
TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (TPF) AIgD
SETTING MAY 16, 2000 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATE
A/qD TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 96-01 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TWIN OAKS
AVENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, pursuant to the Improvement
Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the City Council by
Resolution No. 18873 awarded a contract in the amount of $179,755
for Twin Oaks Avenue improvements from Naples Street to Emerson
Street to ABC Construction Company; and
WHEREAS, the work is now completed and improvements have
been accepted by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, a resolution must now be approved to accept
filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to
set the public hearing on the assessments; and
WHEREAS, accepting the Engineer's Report and setting a
date for public hearing on the assessments is the first step in
finalizing the project and setting the assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the filing of the Engineer's
Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction as set
forth in Attachment E, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
set May 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for public
hearing on the proposed assessments for the improvements to Twin
Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street in the City of
Chula vista.
~ ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $24,851 is
hereby appropriated from Transportation Partnership Funds to cover
a portion of the Trunk Sewer Fund loan.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~ M. Kahe~} City Att6~ney
Public Works
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DEFERRAL OF
ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO
QUALIFY FOR DEFERRAL FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
96-01
WHEREAS, the improvements for Assessment District 96-01
were financed by the City and AD 96-01 was formed pursuant to the
Improvement Act of 1911 to obtain reimbursement for the improvement
and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with Council Policy
Number 505-01; and
WHEREAS, the Act is a financing mechanism which
authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitting
properties to fund the construction of public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have an option of paying
local assessments during the 30 day pay-off period following
confirmation of assessments and if the assessments are not paid
during that time or are deferred, the City will collect the unpaid
balance in semiannual installments over a period of ten (10) years
at an interest rate of 7% per annum; and
WHEREAS, property owners may pay the balance of their
assessments at any time during the ten year repayment period
without penalty; and
WHEREAS, in response to property owner's concerns, staff
prepared three payment alternatives which were presented to Council
on July 15 and July 22, 1997:
Alternative 1 is the standard plan most property owners
use to spread payments over 10 years at 7 percent
interest.
Alternative 2 provides for semi-annual payments of
interest only over 10 years, with the principal due at
the end of 10 years or when the property changes
ownership.
Alternative 3 provides for one balloon payment of both
principal and interest at the end of 10 years or upon
change of ownership.
WHEREAS, it is recommended that Alternatives 2 and 3 be
offered only to property owners meeting the criteria set forth
below; and
1
WHEREAS, if approved, staff will receive and review
deferral applications during May and June 2000 and if any property
owner within the district meets one of the financial criteria, an
Alternative 2 or 3 deferral agreement will be prepared and brought
before City Council for approval; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13
of the Improvement Act of 1911 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California, any deferral of assessments shall be
approved by a Council Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the deferral of assessments
for Assessment District 96-01 for improvements to Twin Oaks Avenue
from Naples Street to Emerson Street in the City of Chula vista to
allow payments over ten years at 7% interest.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
establish the following criteria to qualify for an Alternative 2 or
3 deferral:
1. Al/ income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low
Income Standards as contained in the City's Master
Fee Schedule; or
2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by
Council (For example, a senior citizen, retired,
and unable to pay the assessment).
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Joh~ M. K~hen~ city AttOrney
Public Works .... ~J
H:\home\attorney\reso\~9601.eng
2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Vacating the street right-of-way for Olympic
Parkway and East Palomar Street offered for dedication on Map No. 13615
and by Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest recorded as Document # 1998-
0510233.
Resolution Approving the Final "A" Map No. 2 for Chula
Vista Tract No. 96-04 Otay Ranch Village 5, accepting on behalf of the City
of Chula Vista the easements granted on said map within said subdivision,
rejecting on behalf of the public the offers of dedication for Olympic
Parkway, East Palomar Street and a portion of Santa Rosa Drive,
acknowledging on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the irrevocable offers of
dedication of fee interests in lots A, B, C, D, H, J, K, L, O and P for open
space and other public purposes, lot I for public park purposes, and lots Q and
R for transportation, open space and other public purposes, all as shown on
said map within said subdivision, and vacating on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista certain irrevocable offer of dedications for open space lots and park lots
located within the boundaries of the Final "A" Map No. 2.
Resolution Approving a Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 96-04, Otay Ranch Village 5
"A" Map No. 2 and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (0[ ~
~l)[v (4/5tbs Vote: Yes__No ~
Tonight, Council will consider approving "A" Map No. 2 and companion Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Village 5 of the Otay Ranch Project. Said map contains twenty "super
block" lots, which will require the subsequent filing of final "B" maps. Final planning and design
efforts changed slightly the location of the roads, open space, and parks in Village 5; therefore
certain existing irrevocable offers of dedication ("IOD') need to be vacated and replaced by new
dedications. By approving the proposed map, Council will vacate certain IOD for open space lots
~ park lots located within the proposed map. In addition, tonight's agenda also includes a separate
resolution for the summary vacation of an existing IOD for Olympic Parkway and East Palomar
Street. The original right-of-way for Olympic Parkway is partially located outside the boundaries of
the proposed "A" Map No. 2 and, therefore, cannot be vacated on the map. The proposed "A" Map
No. 2 includes a new IOD for accommodating the ultimate improvements in Olympic Parkway, East
Palomar Street, open space lots, and park lots.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the following:
1. Resolution vacating the street right-of-way for Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street
2. Resolution approving the Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map No. 2.
3. Resolution approving a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Otay Ranch
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Village 5 "A" Map No.2.
DISCUSSION:
Vacation of Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street
On August 4, 1998, by Resolution No. 19124, Council approved the Otay Ranch Village 5 "A"
Map (Map No. 13615). Said map contains an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for Olympic
Parkway and East Palomar Street. A separate IOD instrument was also recorded as Document #
1998-0510233. The subsequent final design of Olympic Parkway established a new centerline
aligmnent running north of the previous alignment (see Attachment 1). The new southerly right-
of-way line of Olympic Parkway constitutes the southerly boundary of the proposed "A" Map; as a
result, a portion of the original dedication is offsite of the proposed map and cannot be vacated on
the map. The proposed resolution will vacate the unneeded IOD, which will be replaced by new
IODs granted on the proposed "A" Map. This new dedication will provide the required right-of-way
to accommodate the ultimate improvements of Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street.
Final "A" Map No. 2
On November 19, 1996, by Resolutions No. 18613 and 18398, Council approved the tentative
map for Otay Ranch, Village 1 and a portion of Village 5. One of the conditions of the tentative
map requires filing of an "A" map creating "superblock" lots prior to approval of any map creating
individual residential lots. On August 4, 1998, by Resolution Nos. 19124 and 19125, Council
approved the Otay Ranch Village Five "A" Map No. 1 (Map No. 13615) and associated
agreements (see Attachment 2). Map No. 13615 essentially mapped Phase 1 of Village 5, which
nowadays is being actively developed.
The proposed "A" Map No. 2 will subdivide the remaining area of Village 5 with the exception of
Parcel 35A (see Attachment 3), which is currently owned by the Stephen and Mary Birch
Foundation. Tentative Map 96-04 was approved with Parcel 35A under the ownership of The Otay
Ranch Company. Shortly after approval of the tentative map, Parcel 35A ownership was reverted to
the Foundation. A subsequent final map will be required for the future development of Parcel 35A
per the approved tentative map.
The proposed map consists of the following:
Number of
Number of Lots
Total Number of Private Number of
for Open Space Total
Number "Superblock"' Open Space, Lots for
and other Public Acreage
of Lots Lots Streets, SR-125
Parks Purposes
45 20 (114.5 Ac.) 13 (14.3 Ac.) 2 (16.8 Ac.) 10 (24.6 Ac.) 187.0 Ac
- Requires filing of subsequent "B" maps
The Final Map has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and the Planning and Building
Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. All
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
required fees and/or deposits specific to this map have been collected. Approval of the map
constitutes acceptance by the City of all sewer, drainage, general utility, public access, pedestrian
bridges, trail, landscaping and maintenance easements granted on said map. The Irrevocable Offers
of Dedication ("IOD") for Olympic Parkway, East Palomar Street and portion of Santa Rosa Drive
are being rejected on the proposed map. The City will not accept those IOD's until construction of
these roads has been completed and accepted by the City. The Subdivision Map Act provides that
the City may accept such IODs at any future time. The private streets, private open space, and
private park will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association.
Council's approval of the proposed map will also acknowledge the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication
(IOD) of Fee Interests for the following lots:
Lots A, B, C, D, H, J, K, L, O and P for Open Space and Other Public Purposes. Lots O and P
will remain in private property and will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Lots J, K
and L will contain the future Poggi Canyon Channel and regional trail that runs adjacent to
Olympic Parkway.
· Lots Q and R for Transportation, Open Space and other public purposes. These lots will be
conveyed later to CALTRANS for accommodating SR 125 improvements.
· Lot I for Park Purposes. This lot will be part of Neighborhood Park P-6 (Cottonwood Park)
currently under construction.
The City will not accept lots designated for public uses (i.e., open space and parks) until the
corresponding improvements are completed and accepted by the City. Section 7050 of the
Government Code provides that the City may accept an IOD at any future time.
Approval of the proposed map will also constitute vacation of several open space lots and easements
granted on Map No. 13615. Subsequent planning and design efforts shifted around slightly the
location of these facilities. All these lots and easements are located within the boundaries of the "A"
Map and therefore can be vacated on the map. New open space lots and easements are proposed by
the subject "A" Map.
The proposed "A" Map identifies multifamily site R-39 as a "Not a Part" parcel. In the companion
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement, as a condition precedent to the City issuing any
grant of approval for development of that parcel, the Otay Ranch Company agrees to obtain approval
of a final parcel map for that site. Park Acquisition and Development fees will be required before
pal[eel map approval.
It should be noted that construction of improvements is not required for approving the proposed map.
All the offsite backbone facilities providing service to the project (i.e., Olympic Parkway, East
Palomar, La Media, Paseo Ranchero) will be constructed pursuant to the Olympic Parkway
Agreement approved by Council on April 20, 1999. Also, pursuant to the Development Agreement
with the Otay Ranch Company approved by Council on March 4, 1997, the developer is not required
to provide security for any onsite backbone facilities with the "A" Map. Instead, this agreement
stipulates that the developer shall enter into an agreement to construct and provide security for the
construction of these facilities prior to approval of the first "B" Map for any lot created by the "A"
Map.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement
The developer has ah'early executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SSIA")
to satisfy Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38, 50, 52, 75, 76, 79, 82(c),
83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 113, 117, 120, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,132, 133,
137, 142 and 152 of Resolution No. 18398 and Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 27, 28,
31, 37, 38, 50, 52, 75, 76, 79, 82(c), 83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103,104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117,
119, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 141 and 151 of Resolution No. 18613. Staff
considers that the SSIA satisfies all thc applicable tentative map conditions for final map approval.
All thc conditions, excepting conditions 38 and conditions 126/127 of Resolution Nos. 18613/18398
arc addressed using typical language used in previous agreements. A short discussion on these
conditions follows.
Condition 38 requires that the Developer shall grant on the "B" Map containing the proposed
connection to Eastlake Parkway (between the two existing Otay Water District parcels) a 60-foot
wide easement for street right-of-way and other public purposes along said connection. Prior to
approval of the same map, the Developer shall guarantee the construction of the following
improvements within said 60-foot wide easement:
a. Pedestrian, cart and bicycle improvements as determined by the City
Engineer and Planning Director. The improvement plans shall be prepared in
such a way as to not preclude the option of providing street improvements for
vehicular access in the future.
b. Vehicular access improvements to the existing Otay Water District parcels as
determined by the City Engineer and the Otay Water District.
It should be noted that these improvements would provide a proposed pedestrian connection to
Eastlake via a pedestrian bridge that will be constructed by either CTV or CALTRANS over SR 125
when that facility is completed.
The 60-foot wide easement was granted on Map No. 13615. Approved landscape and irrigation plans
for Phase 1 included construction of the entire length of the pedestrian walkway but only contained
a portion of the landscaping and irrigation improvements. The proposed SSIA requires the developer
to prepare plans and enter into an agreement to construct and secure the missing improvements prior
to approval of the first "B" Map for any lot created by the proposed "A" Map No. 2.
Vehicular access improvements to the existing Otay Water District parcels has already been
approved by the City Engineer and the Otay Water District as part of the grading and landscaping
and irrigation plans for Phase 1 of Village 5.
Conditions 126/127 of Resolution Nos. 18613/18398 requires that if phasing is proposed within an
individual map or through multiple final maps, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval ora
development phasing plan prior to approval of any final map. The SSIA requires the developer to
submit and obtain approval, prior to approval ofa "B" Map for the proposed lots 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14
or 15, of a phasing plan depicting the proposed development for said lots. Said lots are in the
immediate vicinity of Parcel 35A and may restrict that parcel from developing per the approved
tentative map. The developer shall provide all necessary studies and documentation supporting the
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
proposed phasing including the provision of adequate construction access for the future development
of Parcel 35A. Staffwould only approve those phases not restricting development of Parcel 35A.
The proposed SSIA also requires the developer to install and provide security for survey monuments
related to the "A" Map. The developer has already provided bonds to guarantee the monumentation
for said "A" Map.
The SSIA has been approved as to form by the City Attorney and is ready for Cotmcil approval. The
Minutes of the 11/19/96 and 8/4/99 Council meetings and the Developer's disclosure statements
are attached as Attachments 4 and 5, respectively.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. Developer has paid all costs associated with the
proposed Final Map and agreements.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Plat - Olympic Parkway Vacation
Attachment 2: Plat - Map No. 13615 - Village 5 Phase 1
Attachment 3: Plat - Proposed "A" Map No. 2
Attachment 4: Council Meeting Minutes
Attachment 5: Developer's Disclosure Statement
H:\HOM E\ENGINEERXAGENDAW5 2nd A map OR151.doc
04/07/2000 3:24 PM
:evemb 996 ATTACHMENT NO.
Page ,~
c. orr~titiv~e-&s, b"~caus* it is r, om~tim~ not enough to maintai~ the mt* if ~verybody ds* lowers theirs. Them is
a risk of losing busin~ales Ix-w,~*-,. it suald~mly b"..com~s ebeaper lo move next door.
Coun~b~mb~r Rinaone ~,,,a wh~tla~r thc busin*.ss license is maintainS, raised or low~d, the c'm~t scenario
limits the Council in realistic options. He r~quest, ed bringing ba~k the ,,'=~,m' re, sch~clule for 1998 to r~fl~ct the
proposed na~s of 1992, which is tho first y~ar it was abaI~. He roquesi~l staff not only e. onsidet the ahatemmt
next year, lint to consider r, vamping so if th*r~.is an adjmt and a significant busings up-mm, tbem is an
option for Council to reflect it in a modest ra~ sdjustm..~t.
RESOLUTION 18501 Old,Ir;RED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, rifle
read, passed and approved ~manlm0usly.
10. PUI~.IC llEARING ZA¥-96-12; APPEAL FROM PL.iNNING CO/VlMISSION DENL4I, OF A
REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCRKiSE THE 'rr~:'tGHT OF A ROOFTOP SIGN FROM 35 FEET
TO 42 !rEE'f FOR THE COIVI!~ERCIAL BUII.I~ING LOCATED AT 396 ~E' STI~ IN TI:IJ5 C-T
THOROU~I~'ARE COMlViERCI,%I. ZONE - MARTIN ALTBAIJlVl - This is ,m aPl~al from the Planning
Commit'ion's; dmial of a aeqn~t for a variance to allow the e. onstn~fion of a rooftop sign to 42 feet in height for
the ~mm,m:ial building loe'~_ t~'t at 396 'E' StreW., with~ the C-T Thoronglffam Communal zone. The C-T zone
limits fhe height of rooftop sigm to 35 f~t above g~le. At the request or the applicant, stst't recommends that
the public hearin~ be congnued to. the meeting of 12/10/9g. (Director of plan,,ing)
MSC (Horton/Alevy) to continue to the meeting of 12/1019~, approved 4-0.-0-1 with Rindone abstaining.
ll.A. RESOLUTION 18416 At'I'ROglNG t RESOURCE CONVE¥lhlCE AGRlrng_.MENT FOR TI:U~
0TAY RANCH gPA ONE, TRACT 96-04 - (This is a related item, but does not reqnlre a publlc hearir~)
]{..RES. OL..13TION llMl? Ai'PROVING AN INDEM]NIFICATION AGRk"~-MENT V~I-rH VII.Ir&GE
DEVELOPMENT FOR TRACT 964)4 - (Th/~/s a related item, but does not require a public hearing)
C. ?GBLIC HEARING PCS 96-04: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TENTA'I;t VE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR 'I'H.E OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT ~6-04 GENER~.LY LO£ATED SOlYlli OF TW3.W. GRAt'H
CANYON ROAD BEWW1EEN PASEO RANC19'ERO AND 1Til~ FLVlT. JRE SR-L25 ALIGNMENT AND
EXCLUDING 288 ACRES IN ASSESSOR PARcEl, NUMBER (AYN) 642-060-11 ~ l PORTION OF APN
642-080-11 - Adopt a Second Addmdum to P~SIR 95-01 and n~z~'lify FE1R 95-01 and the l:irst Addendum for the
Otay l~mch SPA One and Temtafive Sulxlivision Map for V'fllage One and Phase 1-A of Village Five of the Otay
Randa SPA One, Chnla V'~-ta Txact 96--04, in ar, eordane~ with the findings and subject to the conditions contained
in the draft r~olutinn. Staff r~..ommmds appwval of the resolutions. (Otay Ranch Manager) Continued from
D. RESOLUTION lg398 ADOPTING 'ft:~ SECOND ADDENDUM TO AIqD CERT~G FIN3~L
ENWII~ONMENTAL I/dPACT REPORT FEIR 95-01 (SCH /t95021012) AND FIRST ADDENDUM
READOPTING 'J'H~; STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND TI:rE IVIITIGATION
MONITORING ~ REPORTIN~ FROGRAM FOR TH~ FEIR AND APPROVING A REVI~v
TENTATi~v'E SUBDIVIgIOlq MAP FOR PORTIONS OF 'l'l:h~ OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA
TRACT 964)4, AND ~G TBJ~ NECESSARY FINDINGS AND CONTINUING ALTERNATIVE
TENTATIVE lVI. A_P PROPOSALS
Jerry Jamris1~., Otay P, aneh S~ial Pro~ect~ Manager, gave a presentation regarding the Otay Ranch development.
Cotmcilme. mber Rindone ~,ked why was Section 7.1 of the agr~ment change~t to retie, ct ~e B Map level, = it was
not re. commmde~ for :my oth~ developer.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4~ Novem~r 19, 1996
Page 5
Ann Moore, Acting City A~mey, ~d ~ ~ndifion of ~¢ development a~ment ~ ti~ to ~c ¢onditio~ of
~ ~v¢ ~p approvM, m~ ~ ~ndifion 10g, ~ wor~ h~d ~ ~d wi~ ohs mo~¢r. Bond~g is
~ wh~ ~¢ ~v~m ~ ~gg¢~ by ~¢ P~.
~ne f~fi~, ~ w~ ~ a pl~ for ~ ~g. ~e back'ne ~fi~ would nat ~ ~gg~ by
~nv~ of ~o~ lo~ m s diffe~t pr~ o~. ~ ~gg~ ~m for ~ ba~ne ~e~ti~ o~ when
JY~ ~ppi~ Dff~mr of ~b~c Wor~, gave ~ exile of~t~ke ~, ~t ~ey ~e ~ wi~ ~ ove~
A ~p for ~e ~ne ~ ~d ~me of ~¢ back~a~ f~fi~. ~e)' w~ ~ m ~nd for ~os¢
~ $¢k f~fi~ ~d w¢~ ~ m ~ovid¢ some off-sim ~vemm~. ~ Ci~ would have ~¢ right
~old b~g ~ if ~¢y w~'t done, ~d it ~ m ~om ~ o~ levfl of ~i~ or~
~yor H~n ~'t ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ff~ ~ ~ve ~¢ p~ l~d o~ ~ develo~ sen at a
or ~¢ho del R¢y, ~ it ~y not apply ~ ~s fi~fiom 5he ~ ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢ g~ wh~
it ~ ~ut ~¢ aiff~t mgm; however, it is her ~fl~dhg ~at stuff ~m~ ~¢ pro~fio~
far~fi~ ~ ~ b~
~. M~r¢ ~d S~fion 7.1 ~ ~e ~na ~mmt m ~¢ ~ b~d~, ~ ~¢y ~ ~ ~o~ibl¢ for
S~on 7.1 pu~ it ~ ~ ~e ~ b~fl~ f~ ~ ~mib~, ~d it is b~ ~de~d~g ~t ~nd~g for
for ~o ~emm~ ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~n~fion 108.
~¢m~ M~t ~k~ if ~e m~t b~dem wo~d provide ~e ~nd~g or would V~lage Development
ob~ ~¢ ~nfi~g ~fom ~¢ Ci~ ~lows a ~e m ~¢ m~t bu~dem
Mr. ~ ~id ~ were four b~i¢ im~ ~at n~ m ~ ~nfi~ prior to ~e ~t p~e of ~¢ backbone
~ pm~ly f~ u~n ~e b~ of ei~ ~e ~mr b~ ~d/or ~e m¢~h~t b~d~.
levd wolff ~ ~ ~e ~t b~fler levd. You ~i~er ~ve ~ ~l~m obfig~on m ~ 1~ ~mnt of
b~ue ~fi~ ~ ~e A ~p ~g~ or you have 1~ ~t ~f~ or ~Sff Of ~hut ob~gafion m Se
is a more ~ position for &e Ci~ ~m do~g it at lm~ smg~.
Mr. ~iu ~d it w~ m~s op~on m long ~ ~e wm a ~nflition ~ ~, ~ey ~'t flo ~y B ~ps or ~y
flevdopmmm b~ ~s hm ~ ~ ~olv~. Il is a ~g ~ ~e, but not a s~ ~ flevdopmeut smg~g
Maps A md B.
~¢m~ ~flone ~d if we chmge ~¢ ~e s~ of ~s ~d ~ is some qu~ion of ~o~ibili~
· m wh~ a m~h~t b~de~ ~m~ ~ ~d ~ot affoM ~, ~e ~ budder d~'t have ~e re~o~ib~ity.
He did nm h~ ~e ~ ~at ~e Ci~ ~ im pro~tion, ~ ~¢ m~rehmt build¢~ ~11 not have
r~ou~ ~e m~r band¢~ wo~d have. ~ -j 0
M~u~
~ove~be~ 19, 1~6 ATTACHMENT NO.
Pag~ 6
Mayor Hor~on said it was her understanding from the s'adT report that it is the sole re.~oonsibility of Otay Ranch
Lad., or its su -r. cessors ia int..re'est, to provide or finance the cost of the backbone facilities required in any final map.
in:incline both A and B maps.
Ms. Moore said it vats conn~c.t and what ~mff enuld do to -lafify it would be to ins.ert s/~'ifie language in S~fion
7.1 that ~'ut~'~ the)' shall provide the bonding.
12. Ca>un¢ilmembor Padilla asked what were some of the potential issues if the City allowed the bonding to be at
the t~ map stage, ~ opposed to the A map stage.
Ms. Moore said if you rexluire the bonding at the A map stage, yon have the bonding up front. If something were
to happen to the martyr builder, we would have the bonding to go after ia order to eonstrut, t the improvements.
If we wait until later stages, even though there is that provision in the agrt,~ment that desl~ with its
iatarest, there is always the Potential that we might not be able to get the master builder to a~t,,s~y conmmet the
backbone facilities, and we won't have bonding at that point becav_~ it ,,;'as done at a later stage in development.
We would then try to go to the merchant builder, which would be diffisu]t to have the m~'chent builder acmully
con.m-act major backbone facilities.
Coen~'ilmember Alevy said in rmuiing the minutes of the planning Cornm~x'ion, Couu¢ilmember~lect Mary Sales
exptv, ased the specific couem-as that the ma~ter bm3der is for~r obliguted to do the backbone infrasmurture should
the)' not survive lienholders to become obligated to the backbone ~-'utre, etc. and the timing is the issue
we're talking about, but the reality is that the master builds is required to be able to bond to do that.
Counsilmeraber Rindone said the requirements of funding the backbone facilities is a greater risk. In order to try
to comp~n~t~_ that risk, we've put other safeguards
the backbone facilities are. built. He did not
provided adequate safeguards. He said the bottom line is thai with the size of the Otay Ranch and the projected
buildont, we don't have the as.mrunce from the very front that the backbone imtra.m'uetures are in place, and it will
set the wrong tone for this development. If we had required the bonding at the very beginning as done in the past,
we wouldn't have to come up with all of these conditions.
Ms. Moore said aeenrdiag to the development a_grecment, if language is ~ded to Sl~ifieal]y deal w/th bonding,
it would require VLllage Development, and its su~essors ia interest, to provide the bonding. There is also a
provision in the aRrecment that talks about subordination so it requires the leaders to subordinate to the development
~grecment` It is not the same as having the bonding np front, but there is a provision that holds Village
Development to provide the facRity and the bond.
Coon~--ilmember Padi/la said this issue presented itself at the request of Village Developm~t. There is a rea. mn
economically why they want m be able to sell off paxc. els without making the guarantees up front on this fi2e ora
SPAor at the A Map stage, but the question is whether that is what Council wants. The question here is this was
chan~ed at the request of the applicant, there are reasons for that and the question for Council is whether or not
when we get to the development agreement and we look at the tentative maps, whath~ we will be satisfied, and
we have enough comfort with this level of a gtmrantec. Tho"re is no question that the inann~ ia which staff is
r~omm~mdlng is less security to the City than if we requi~l the bonds at the A map atage.
·Kim IGlkeamy, 11975 E1 Cam[no Real, San Diego, CA, representing Village Developments, atatex:l that City staff
and Village Development staff put a lot of time to m the problems that occurred in SL Claire are not
experienced in Otay Pouch. Village Development is s~king to provide s~ufity consistent with the PFFP, and that
is when a phase of development requires an improvement in order to serve that phase, then adequate security has
to be provided. The development agreement states that Village Development is the entity res~asible. As a general
rule when you have a tentative map approvexl, and that's what Village Development is seeking ia this hearing, there
is not an obligation in State law or Council policy that an applieaut follow-up a tentative map approval with an A
map. What is different about this project is through the development agr~meat cameo proposal from staff that
Village Development be ~.x/uirexl to do an A map on the whole of the SPA, vigage by village. If you look at the
conditions of approva/, the}' have to be bond~ ut
Minutes
ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ~ November 19, 1996
Page 7
to pursue the common practice of allowing Village Developments to do A maps on a less~r area, Village
Developments would be willing to im~vide the security on the improvements associated with that ]ess~r ar~ If they
do aa A map on the whole of the village or aa A map on the whole of the SPA, then the bonding security
requirements becomes burd~asome b,~'m,~, the tentative map is so large. If yon look at the whole of development
agreement ia conjunction with the tentative map requirements, the City is a.~nm~d that facilities will be built in a
tim,~ly maan~, the St. Claire experience will not r~-oecat, and the corn of the facilities will be equitably shared
amongg all benefiting properties in the project.
Couacilmember Rindone asked if ~aff consicL, sred Mr. Kilkenny'z suggestion of the A map for a Small portion of
the project to ~ the backbone fa~lities were part of the A map.
Couucilmembe~ Moot stated staff's proposal was a bett.~ guaraame for the City.
Mr. Lippitt replied it was cortr, ct- Staff tried to come up with a mechaaism that would meet the developer's nee. As
Richard Rosaler, Senior Planner, continued staff's p~tation reganiing the Otay Ranch project.
This be.~g the time and placo as advertised, the public h~aring ~ declared open.
· William Lieb~m~n. 852 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista, CA. D'uecT, or of plaa.;.~ anti Ope'rafio~ with the
Metropolitan Tra~it Developmaat Board, supported the projera lie extn~ssed coac~ras relating to guardezl entries
and d~ities in the villages.
· Rick Willi~,~ 3130 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, with Point Builders, spoke on behalf of West Coast Land Fund,
owner of the 2$$-azre parcel sp~--i-g Villages 1 and 5. West Coast supports staff's recommendation, although
they would like to pa'haps build the enncopt to defer any approvals in Village $ until the City, West Coast, and
Village Development have an oppornmity ta meet and explore issues.
· Kira lGlkenay, representing Village Development, supportixi staff's recommendation with the excrTfion of
modifying a portion of the tentative map in Village 5 to encompass all of their ownership in Village 5, with the
exception of two specific parcels.
* *" Coundlmember Padilla Id't the dais at 11:11 p.m. * * *
· Kent Dayden, 11975 E1 Caml.o Real, San Diego, CA, rap~ting Village Developments, gave a presentation
regarding Otay tLauch and referred to the report by Village Development.
Mr. Kilkenny concluded with the issue of the scope of the tentative map. He indi,-~r,-A Village Development
~isupports staff recomm~mdation with the single modification that the scopo of the tantative map shoald include Village
'Developments owa~nahip in Village 5, except for two pamels thai imm~.~Iiately abut We.st Coast property which is
Parcel P.-29 and Panml P-3. West Coazt haz previously indicatexl they would like to flip a school or park onto our
ownership. The'portion of the property in R-29 and P-3 which should ~ exeluded from the map is approximately
10 to 15 acres, aa ample size to flip those 'kinds of uses, not that they am accepting or advocating that, but at l~ast
it provides the possibility.
There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
CouncLlmember Moot expressed con~ra of the practical effects of delaying the bonding until the B map level. He
asked what assurances were in pla~ that the backbone infrastructures would be constructed.
Mr. Kilkenny answered that the development ag'rcement contain~ a siatem~nt that until releszed by ~e City Council,
Village Dewlopment is obligated to provide for the bazkbone infrastructure. The development agn-~ment also
M~t~s ATTACHMENT NO. 4 &
Nov~mb~r 19, 1996
Pag~ g
rextuir~ th~ provision of a mabordi,~=tion agtr.~m~t by ~ l~d~r on
pro~, ~y ~ ~d by ~e pmv~io~ of ~ d~v~lopm~t agr~m~t, ~ud~g
~ a ~upl~ of l~v~ of ~ ~ ~ p~j~t ~e ~ of ~ffia V~ ~ a v~ agg~iv~ d~elopm~t
~ f~ pro~ ~d ~ b~g ~t ~t go~ ~u~ ~ p~ ~ ~ pay for ~o~ d~opm~t ~t
f~ for a whole ~y of ~fim, ~d ~ Ci~' ~ ~fly ~v~
Mr. J~ expl~ ~e ~ bumps ~ not pro~d~ ~ ~ m ~u~ by ~ Fk~ ~ef ~d ~f of
YoH~ who fMt ~y ~mt m ~ ~ flow wo~d ~d~
along ~ slop~ of T~l~ph ~you Ro~ ~d Omg~ Av~u~ ~ is~ ~h m d~in~g~, ~os~ could ~ ~d
prduably would f~ ~d~ ~ provislom of P~ou 218 w~ m~ ~ ~fi~ h~g would ~ ~t up Mfore
t~s proj~t w~ o~y con~iv~ m ~. ~en you have mifici~ b~=m
w~t m have ~ p~ ~s ~ a g~d ~mm~ ~d ~ ~ have g~ p~fiou ~d mf~, not j~t ~o~
who ~ ~ord to ~ ~ ~ s~gle-f~mHy or ~gher r~idmfiM f~iH~.
~y fo~.
d~v~]opm~t a~m~t ~d ~u ~ck~ne ~cm~, ~d it w~ cl~ ~ ~ ~d not w~t ~ c~te a
D~velopm~t, ~ w~ ~oMd ~ ~t ~d do ~e ~ wi~ g{v~g fi~m ~e op~ from a ~rkeCmg
s~d~ht m ~ow ~d~ ~o~ of ~ d~velopm~t
~C ~o~o~Ale~) to ~low ~ate dos~ from d~k to ~, f~led ~1 ~ Moot ~d ~hdone opposed
Minutc~
ATTACHMENT NO. 44' November 19, 1~96
Page 9
M_SC (Alev3,/Hort~n) ~ ~low ~me fa~lifi~ g~defi f~m d~k to ~, app~ved 3-1-1, ~ ~ndone
1~. PUBLIC HEARING ADOt'£1NG OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREENLENT WI1H VIIJ.AGE DEVELOPIVlEN'T - Aa amendmeat to thc developmeat agree, ment to lumber
guaranlee inf~ improvements where the developer wants to creale panels for sale prior to fmali':,i~g the
final subdivision map. The am~dmsut also addresses fuma-e problems with ~gard to a~y debt paymmt that might
be levied to make publlz improvean~ats or should fievelopm~t be only partially completed on any particular proj~t
due to any stoppage of work e. spezi~y due to a bankruptcy az. don. Staffre~_.ommende Col.~gil plar~ the ofdlnan~
on first reading. Cl2~nty City Manager, ?Dn,i,g Director, and Otay Ranch Manager) Continued from the
meeting of
.ORDINANCE 2591 AMElqDI~G OTAY RANCH PRE-KNNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGR~:Y~MI?,NT
BETWJ=;gN OTAY RANCH, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIiMI'£E,D PAR'YN'EIISH~, VILLAGE
DEVJ~OPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PAR~HIt', AND 'rtl R CITY OF CH tff.,A VZgTA (firSt
reading)
O1LDINANCE 2691 OI~]~tED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, including adding the bonding language to
section 7.1, approved 3-1-;[ with Rindune opposed and Padilla absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*s Bill Braxher, 1'755 Old Gillette Avemtm, Irvine, CA, representing Baldwin Builders, gave ~ upapt~ with the St
Claixe Crossing developmant.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMM]~NDATIONS
None ~bmitled.
ACTION
14. RESOLI3TION lg494 DISSOLVING 'rHJ~ COUNCIL AFPOI!N'r~u EN'f'ERI/VI BECA BOARD - On
8/22195, Coancil approved aa Interim BECA Advisory Board r~preseated by 11 organlzationMindividuals.
or~',-tionsfmflividuals were xecommeeded by staff to provide a mix of publie and private enfifi~ who are
smt:eholder~ ia the re~onal BECA alliance. The Board's contributions include working with staff ia the areas of
coordinati.ng and leveraging regional resource.% enhanced program marketing, and providing teehnimfl advice. 'l'"aese
functions may be be~'t arve3 by the Board continuing to act ia an advisory capacity to the BECA program and staff.
For the purpos~ of legal clarification, staffis recommending the existing In~ Board, as appolated by Council,
be dissolved and the new Board membership be selected by staff. Staff l,'~commands approval of the resolution.
(Dirtier of Commtmity D~elopmen0 Continued from the meeting of 11112196.
Cheryl Dye, .Economic Development Manager, said staffrecommends Council dissolve the Council-appointed BECA
advisory boa.hi, with the understanding that staff would appoint a board.
Coua~.ilmamba. r Moot suo~g~ted constituting an Ad Hoc Council subc..c, rnmiltee on the BECA board and requested
staff v-..seamh the issue of an ad hoc subcommittee with Council serving a~ an ex-officio non-voting member.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Sta~m~nt of Di~clo~~tr~ of c~rtain owmriklp or l~,~-ei~l iui~l-~t~, payment, or c. ampi .,:n
contributions on all matters which will require discretionary action on ~he pan of the City Council, Pla~ J~g
Commission, and all other official bodies. Thc following information toust be disclosed:
1. List thc names of all persu~ having a financial interest in ene properiy which is the subject of
or the Contract, e.g.. owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, toeterial supplier, crc.
South Bay Development:, LLC
Otay Ranch Development, LLC
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporadon or parmersll/p, 1/st the names of ~ indivkh ~
owning more than 10% of the slmr~ in ~ac corporation or ow~in_a any pa.,'nmr~Mp in~r~t in thc pnrmersl ip.
A1 Baldwin ._
Jim Baldwin
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above iz · non-profit orgaoization or a trust, list thc names of. ny
person serving as director of the non-profit or£:ani~ation or as trustr, c or beneficiary or trustor of
4. Have you had toore than $250 worth of business transacted with any toember or,,~¢ City s,*ef, Bo.,a,
Commissions. Commitu~s. and Couwil within the past twelve toonths? Yes__ No. If yes. pleaze indk
person(s):.,.
5. Pie,ua identify each and every persun includi~ agents, etoploy~es, consultants, or independent Contract
who you have assigned ~o represenl you before the Ci'/y in fltis tea!tar.
Jim Baldwin ~obert Cameron Roy P.~_~ce
Klm Kilkenny ..... Ranie Hu.n~er
Kent Aden ~.buak Cater
6. Have you and/or your officers o~ agcnm, in the aggre§are, con~rfou~ed mot= than $!,000 m a
~ me~nb~r in the cuxr~nt or priding election l~riod? Yez__ No___ If yez, ~ta~e whioh Counail m~mb~r
· * * {NOTE: A~ach Addl~0n~ Psg~ a~ Ne~e~ary)
~ The 0tay Ran~C~_~ ff
Da~e:
$1g~amr~ of Conu~u-~frfApplieam
Printed Or T~ed N.m~' of Conlractor/Applicanv
· Paten is defined as: ~,4n2 individual, firm, co-partnerSh(v, joint vent~e, d.~octation, $oci~ club, fra~e~
organiZ~'i~., cor~tion, estate, t~ust, receiver, yy~ticate, thtx and ~ other count, dry, or c~unrO, o.
municipally, district, or other political .wbdlvision, or ~'y other g~up or co~biadlion acting a~ a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA VACATING THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
FOR OLYMPIC P~RKWAY AND EAST PALOMA/{ STREET
OFFERED FOR DEDICATION ON MAP NO. 13615 AND BY
OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST RECORDED
AS DOCUMENT #1998-0510233
WHEREAS, on August 4, 1998, by Resolution No. 19124, the
City Council approved the Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map (Map no.
13615) which Map contains an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD)
for Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street; and
WHEREAS, a separate IOD instrument was also recorded as
Document #1998-051023344; and
WHEREAS, the subsequent final design of Olympic Parkway
established a new centerline alignment running north of the
previous alignment; and
WHEREAS, the new southerly right-of-way line of Olympic
Parkway constitutes the southerly boundary of the proposed "A" Map;
as a result, a portion of the original dedication is offsite of the
proposed map and cannot be vacated on the map; and
WHEREAS, this resolution will vacate the unneeded IOD,
which will be replaced by new IODs granted on the proposed "A" Map;
and
WHEREAS, this new dedication will provide the required
right-of-way to accommodate the ultimate improvements of Olympic
Parkway and East Palomar Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista does hereby vacate the street right-of-way for
Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street offered for dedication on
Map No. 13615 and by Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest recorded
as Document #1998-0510233.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to record a certified copy of this resolution with the
Q~fice of the San Diego County Recorder.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~J M. Kahen~f2 City /7
Public Works Agtorney
H:[home\attorney~reso\vacate.row
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHL~A VISTA APPROVING THE FINAL "A" MAP NO. 2 FOR
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE
OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR OLYMPIC PARKWAY, EAST
PALOMAR STREET AND A PORTION OF SANTA ROSA
DRIVE, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION
OF FEE INTERESTS 1N LOTS "A", "B", "C", "D", "H", "J", "K",
"L", "O" AND "P" FOR OPEN SPACE AND OTHER PUBLIC
PURPOSES, LOT 'T' FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES, AND
LOTS "Q" AND "R" FOR TRANSPORTATION, OPEN SPACE
AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES, ALL AS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND VACATING ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTAIN
IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR OPEN SPACE
LOTS AND PARK LOTS LOCATED WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE FINAL "A" MAP NO. 2
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby finds that certain map survey entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04, OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 5 "A" MAP NO. 2, and more particularly described as follows:
All of Lot 21, a portion of Olympic Parkway and all of Lots "G", "H", "I" and East Palomar
Street, all of Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map No. I, Chula Vista Tract No, 96-04, in the City
of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
13615, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said County on August 12, 1998.
~',' Area: 187.037 acres No. of Lots: 45
Numbered Lots: 20 Lettered Lots: 25
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 rejects on behalf of the public
Olympic Parkway, East Palomar Street, a portion of Santa Rosa Drive, the assignable and
irrevocable easement for pedestrian bridge and pedestrian access purposes and the trail easement all
as shown on said map within said subdivision noting that Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map
Act provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the
City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby has acknowledged on behalf of the
public lots "A", "B", "C", "D", "H", "J", "K", "L", "O" and "P" for open space and other public
purposes, lot 'T' for public park purposes, lots Q and R for open space, transportation and other
public purposes all as shown on said map within said subdivision noting that Section 7050 of the
Govenunent Code of the State of California provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open
and subject to future acceptance by the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby has accepted on behalf of the public
the sewer easement, the drainage and access easements, the landscape buffer easement and the
assignable and irrevocable general utility and access easements, all as shown on said map within said
subdivision noting that Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that
an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby has terminated, vacated and
abandoned the following Irrevocable Offers of Dedication pursuant to Section 7050 of the CA
Government Code and Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code the following:
Document No. 1998-0510234 and 1998-0510235 offered to the City of Chula Vista for
"transportation and other public purposes", and "open space, transportation and other public
purposes" and the irrevocable offers of dedication per Map 13615 recorded August 12, 1998 offered
to the City of Chula Vista in Lot "G" for "public park purposes", in Lot "H" for "transportation and
other public purposes", and in Lot "I" for "open space, transportation, and other public purposes".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista be, and 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 rejected on behalf of the
public as therefore stated and that the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of the fee interest of said lots
be acknowledged and that those certain Assignable and Irrevocable General Utility and Access
Easements, sewer and drainage easements, landscape buffer easement, sidewalk easement,
maintenance easement and regional trial easement as granted thereon and shown on said map within
said subdivision are accepted on behalf of the City of Chula Vista as hereinbefore stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and is hereby directed to transmit said
~ap to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public ~ Johr~ M. Kaheny, Ci~3)Attomey ;/
Works
H:\shared\attomey\or 151F mso.wpd
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA
VISTA TP~ACT NO. 96-04, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5
"A" MAP NO. 2, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the developer of Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04,
Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map No. 2 has executed a Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed said Agreement and determined
that it satisfies all the applicable tentative map conditions for
final map approval and recommends Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04,
Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map No. 2, a copy of which is on file with
the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Joh~ M. Kahen~.~ City Attorney
Public Works / '-
RECORDING REQUEST BY:
City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHI/LAVISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
NO transfe~ tax is due as this is a
conveyance to a public agency of
less than a fee interest for which
no cash consideration has been paid
or received.
Developer
Above Space for Recorder's Use
VILLAGE 5 "A" MAP NO. 2 OF THE OTAY PJINCH PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
(Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 37,
38, 50, 52, 82 (c) , 83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110,
113, 117, 120, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 142 and
152 of Resolution No. 18398 and Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10,
22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38, 50, 52, 82(c), 83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103,
104, 108, 109, 110, 113, 117, 119, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131, 132, 136, 141 and 151 of Resolution No. 18613)
This Supplem~ent al Subdivision Improvement Agreement
("Agreement") is made this __ day of , 2000, by and
between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee"
for recording purposes only) and OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California
limited partnership, ("Developer" or "Grantor"), with reference to
the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this
Agreement:
~CITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property
located in Chula Vista, California, more particularly described on
Attachment "A" and attached hereto and incorporated herein
("Property"). The Property is part of a project commonly known as
village 5 of the Otay Ranch Project. For purposes of this
Agreement the term "Project" shall also mean "Property".
B. Developer has requested a final "A" Map for the Property
hereafter referred to as "A" Map. City is willing, on the premises,
H:\HOME\ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
security, terms and conditions herein contained to approve the "A"
Map for which Developer has applied as being in substantial
conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map described in this
Agreement. Developer understands that subsequent final maps may be
subject to the same or other security, terms and conditions
contained herein.
C. Developer and/or Developer's predecessor in interest has
applied for and the City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map
commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract 96-04 ("Tentative
Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Propertyl
D. The City has adopted Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613
("Resolutions") pursuant to which it has approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly
described in the Resolutions. The conditions are attached hereto
as Schedule "1".
E. On July 28, 1998, City Council, pursuant to Resolution
No. 19125, approved the Village 5 of the Otay Ranch Project
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Previous
Agreement"), which touched and concerned the Property.
F. On April 20, 1999, the City Council, pursuant to
Resolution No. 19410 approved an agreement between the City,
Developer and a third party entitled "Agreement for Financing and
Construction of Olympic Parkway and Related Parkway Improvements
("Olympic Parkway Agreement") .
G. The following defined terms shall have the meaning set
forth herein, unless otherwise specifically indicated:
a. For purposes of this Agreement, "B" Map means any
final map subsequent to the "A" Map and within the "A" Map
boundaries.
b. "Commencing Construction" means when a construction
permit or other such approval has been obtained from the City or a
construction contract has been awarded for the improvement,
whichever occurs first.
c. "Complete Construction" means when construction on
said improvement has been completed and the City accepts the
Improvement°
d. "Guest Builder" means those entities obtaining any
interest in the Property or a portion of the Property, after the
"A" Map has been recorded.
e. "PFFP" means the SPA One Public Facilities Financing
Plan adopted by Resolution No. 18286 as may be amended from time to
time.
f. "Pedestrian Connection Improvements" means all the
H:~HOME~ENG~NEER\LA~DDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
improvements including, but not limited to landscaping and
irrigation improvements for Lots "0" and "P" created by the "A" Map
as depicted in future improvement plans to be approved by the City
in compliance with Condition No. 38 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613.
g. "Owner" or "Developer" means the person, persons or
entity having a legal or an equitable interest in the property or
parts thereof and includes Owner's successors-in-interest and
assignors of any property within the boundaries of the "A" Map.
h. "Backbone Improvement Plans" means all the onsite
and offsite improvements required to serve the lots created by the
"A" Map, in accordance with improvement plans to be approved by the
City. Said improvements shall include, but not limited to, asphalt
concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer,
reclaimed and potable water utilities, drainage facilities, street
lights, signage, landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire
hydrants.
i. "Rough Grading Plan" means the grading plans to be
approved by the City Engineer depicting the grading of pads for the
single-family lots.
j. "Parcel 35A" means the parcel having the assessor's
parcel number of 643-010-10 on April 3, 2000 and is the parcel
located along a portion of the western boundary of the "A" Map
along Lots 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14 and 15. Attachment "D" shows the
location of Parcel 35A.
k. "Civil Improvement Plans" means the improvement
plans to be approved by the City Engineer depicting the
improvements related to the individual "B" Maps.
1. "Otay Ranch Parks Agreement" means the agreement
pertaining to the construction of parks in Otay Ranch SPA One,
McMillin Lomas Verdes and Otay Ranch adopted by Resolution No.
19636 as may be amended from time to time.
m. "Parks Master Plan" means the City-wide Parks Master
Plan, subject to future City Council approval.
n. "Paseo Improvements" means all the improvements
i~cluding, but not limited to grading, landscaping and irrigation
improvements for Lot "H" created by the "A" Map as depicted in
future improvement plans to be approved by the City in compliance
with Condition No. 38 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613.
o. "SPA One Plan" means the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area Plan as adopted by the City Council on June 4, 1996
pursuant to Resolution No. 18286 and amended on February 16, 1999
by Resolution No. 19376.
H:kHOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAYP~NC~\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
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, as
described on Attachment "A", 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 Property and the City, its successors and assigns and any
successor in interest thereto. City is deemed the beneficiary of
such covenants for and in its own right and for the purposes of
protecting the interest of the community and other parties public
or private, in whose favor and for whose benefit of such covenants
running with the land have been provided without regard to whether
City has been, remained or are owners of any particular land or
interest therein. If such covenants are breached, the City shall
have the right to exercise all rights and remedies and to maintain
any actions or suits at law or in equity or other proper
proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach to which it or any
other beneficiaries of this Agreement and the covenants may be
entitled.
c. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If
Developer assigns any portion of the Project to a Guest Builder,
Developer may request to be released from Developer's obligations
under this Agreement, that are expressly assumed by the Guest
Builder. Developer must obtain the written consent of the City to
such release. Such assignment to the Guest Builder 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 Developer under this
Agreement, and demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, its
ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it
~elates to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by
the Assignee.
d. Partial Release of Developer's Assignees. If Developer
assigns any portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this
Agreement, upon request by the Developer 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 to the satisfaction of the City and
such partial release will not, in the opinion of the City,
jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not
be completed.
H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAY~CH\SSIA Vii1 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
e. Release of Individual Lots. Upon the occurrence of any of
the following events, Developer shall, upon receipt of the prior
written consent of the City Manager (or Manager's designee), have
the right to release any lot(s) from Developer's obligation under
this Agreement:
i. The execution of a purchase agreement for the sale
of a residential lot to a buyer of an individual housing unit;
ii. The conveyance of a lot to a Homeowner's
Association;
iii. The execution of a purchase agreement for the sale
of a Commercial or Community Purpose Facility lot as identified in
SPA One Plan; or.
The issuance of a permit for the development of a
multifamily lot as identified in the SPA One Plan.
The City shall not withhold its consent to such release so long as
the City finds in good faith that such release will not jeopardize
the City's assurance that the obligations set forth in this
Agreement will be performed. At the request of the Developer, the
City Manager (or Manager's designee) shall execute an instrument
drafted by Developer in a recordable form acceptable to the City
Manager (or Manager's designee) which confirms the release of such
lot or parcel from the encumbrance of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the close of an individual
homeowner's escrow or conveyance to a homeowner's association of any
lot or parcel encumbered by this Agreement, such lot or parcel
shall be automatically released from the encumbrance hereof.
2. Condition No. I (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 1 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
hereby agrees, to comply with the requirements and guidelines of
the Otay Ranch SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Master Plan; SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan ("PFFP");
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Ranch Wide Affordable
Housing Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan; and the GDP Non-
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as may be amended from time to
~mme, and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms,
conditions and provisions of said documents.
3. Condition No. 2 (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 2 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
hereby agrees, to all of the terms, covenants and conditions
contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer
as to any or all of the Property.
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\L~DDEV~OTAyRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
4. Condition No. 3 (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 3 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
agrees that if any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained
within the Resolution shall fail to occur or if they are, by their
terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such
conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to
their terms, the City shall have the right to deny the issuance of
building permits for the Project, deny, or further condition the
subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. The Developer shall be notified ten (10) days in
advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City
and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies
identified by the City within a reasonable period of time.
5. Condition No. 4 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 4 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
agrees to indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless
from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs,
including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all
entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with
the Project.
6. Condition No. 5 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 5 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
hereby agrees, that Developer shall comply with all the applicable
SPA conditions of approval.
7. Condition No. 8 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 8 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
hereby agrees, that Developer shall comply with the terms of the
Conveyance Agreement, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City
Council on October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
8. Condition No. 9 (CEQA). In satisfaction of Condition
No. 9 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the Developer agrees to
implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-
01, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (on file in the City
Clerk's Office as Document No. C096-056) and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's
~fice as Document No. C096-057) prior to the approval of each "B"
Map.
9. Condition No. 10 (Conveyance). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 10 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, prior to
approval of each "B" Map, the Developer agrees to comply with all
applicable requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
(RMP) as approved by City Council, Resolution No. 18416, on June 4,
1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City. Prior to
approval of the first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for
H:\KOME\ENGI~ER\LANDDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tm~.doc
Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan for the Project, Developer
agrees to convey open space land in accordance with the Phase 2 RMP
approved by Resolution No. 18416, for all applicable streets, open
space lots, paseos, parks, slope areas and for Lot 20 as shown on
the "A" Map.
10. Condition No. 22 (Backbone Improvements). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 22 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, the Developer hereby agrees to construct, at its sole
expense, the Backbone Improvements in accordance with improvement
plans to be approved by the City Engineer. Prior to approval of
the first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for Neighborhood
R-39 of the SPA One Plan, the Developer shall enter into an
agreement to construct the Backbone Improvements and shall secure,
in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, the
construction of the Backbone Improvements.
11. Condition No. 23 - (SR 125 Dedication). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 23 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the
Developer has made Irrevocable Offers of Dedication on the "A" Map
for the right-of-way for SR 125. Said right-of-way is contained in
two lots, lots "Q" and "R" as shown on the "A" Map, Irrevocably
Offered for Dedication (IOD) to the City for open space,
transportation and other public purposes.
12. Condition No. 27 - Street Trees). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 27 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer,
upon request of the Director of Planning and Building, shall plant
trees within all street parkways which have been selected from the
revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village
Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Planning
and Building and Public Works. The Developer shall provide root
control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning
and Building and a deep watering irrigation system for the trees.
An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to
the adjacent parkway. Developer shall submit to and obtain the
approval of the Director of Planning and Building and the City
Engineer of a separate street tree improvement plan which shall
include, but is not limited to, the final selection of trees, the
location of trees within the parkway, and in relation to water
laterals, sewer laterals, dry utilities, driveways, inlets and
pedestrian ramps, prior to or concurrent with the second submittal
o[f the Clvml Improvement Plans or the Backbone Improvement Plans.
Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City may withhold the
issuance of building permits for the Project if the street tree
improvement plan is not submitted as agreed hereinabove.
13. Condition No. 28 - (Transit Stop Facilities). In partial
satisfaction of Condition No. 28 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, Developer agrees to the following:
a. Secondary Transit Stop Facilities. Developer agrees to
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
construct, at its sole expense, two "secondary transit stop
facilities" consisting of all of the following: bus turn-out
improvements near the Community Purpose Facility CPF-5, two bus
shelters, and other related improvements, as described in the PFFP
and as approved by the City Engineer, at locations along East
Palomar Street to be determined by the City Engineer. The bus turn-
out facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the
Improvements Plans approved by the City Engineer. Developer shall
construct the secondary transit stop facilities in two phases; the
first phase shall consist of the turn-out facilities, the second
phase shall consist of the bus shelters and related improvements.
Developer shall commence construction of the first phase
improvements concurrent with the commencement of construction of
the street improvements for that portion of East Palomar Street
containing said improvements. Developer agrees to commence
construction of the second phase improvements within 90 days after
receiving written notice from the Director of Public Works to
commence construction of the second phase improvements. Developer
agrees to Complete Construction of said facilities within two years
after Commencing Construction of such improvements.
i. First Phase Improvement Securities. Developer
shall provide the City with improvement securities, approved as to
form by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to 110% of the cost
of constructing the first phase improvements as estimated by the
City Engineer. The improvement securities shall be provided to the
City prior to Commencing Construction of such improvements and
concurrent with Developer furnishing improvement securities for
that portion of East Palomar Street containing said First Phase
Improvements. The improvement securities shall be released upon
completion of the improvements.
ii. Second Phase Improvement - Cash Deposit. DevelQper
shall provide the City with a cash deposit in an amount equal to
110% of the cost of constructing the second phase of improvements
as estimated by the City Engineer. The cash deposit shall be
provided by the Developer to the City when either requested by the
City Engineer or prior to the Developer Commencing Construction of
that portion of East Palomar Street containing the second phase
improvements, whichever event shall occur first. The cash deposit
shall be released upon completion of the improvements. Upon request
by the Developer, the amount of the cash deposit may be reduced by
~e City Engineer subject to the City Engineer's sole discretion.
b. Agreement Not to Protest. Developer hereby agrees not to
protest the formation and inclusion of the property in a regional
benefit assessment district to finance the construction of the
Light Rail Transit. 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.
E:~HOMEkENGINEER~LANDDEV\OTAyRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
14. Condition No. 31 - (ADA Standards). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 31 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
agrees that in the event the Federal Government adopts ADA
standards for street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the
standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals
conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those
standards. Unless otherwise required be federal law, City ADA
standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal
Regulations, only after construction has commenced.
15. Condition No. 37 (Encroachment Permit). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 37 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, the Developer shall apply and obtain an encroachment permit
prior to the installation of all private facilities within the
public right of way. The Developer shall maintain, in perpetuity,
membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service
and shall cause any private facilities owned by the Developer to be
marked out whenever work is performed in the area.
16. Condition No. 38 - (Pedestrian Connection Improvements).
In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 38 of Resolution Nos.
18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to the following:
a. Improvement Plans. Developer acknowledges and agrees
that, prior to approval of the first "B" Map or the approval of a
parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, the Developer
shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer
and Director of Planning and Building for the Pedestrian Connection
Improvement plans.
b. Construction of Pedestrian Connection Improvements.
Developer agrees to construct, at its sole expense, the Pedestrian
Connection Improvements in accordance with improvement plans to be
approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building. Prior to approval of the first "B" Map or the approval
of a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan,
Developer shall enter into an agreement to construct the Pedestrian
Connection Improvements and shall secure, in accordance with
Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, the construction of the
Pedestrian Connection Improvements. Construction of said
improvements shall commence within 60 days of the approval of the
f~rst "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39
o~ the SPA One Plan. Said construction shall be completed within
six (6) months of commencement, or as approved by the City Engineer
and the Director of Planning and Building.
17. Condition No. 50 (NPDES). In satisfaction of Condition
No. 50 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to
comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program.
18. Condition No. 52 - (As-Built Plans). In satisfaction of
H:~HOME\ENGINEER\L~DDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
Condition No. 52 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
shall submit "as-built" improvement and storm drain plans in DXF
file format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
19. Condition No. 82(c) (%OD). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 82(c) of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
has made an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) to the City, in
accordance with Government Code Section 7050, a fee interest, free
and clear of all encumbrances, in the real properties shown on the
"A" Map as neighborhood park lots and offered to the City for
acceptance on such map. The IOD is attached as part of this
Agreement as Attachment "B"
20. Condition No. 83 - (Community Parks). In partial
satisfaction of Condition No. 83 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, Developer agrees as follows:
a. Prior to the approval of each "B" Map or the approval of
a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, the
Developer shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a
formula of 1 acre per 1,000 residents, until such time as a turn-
key facility has been accepted by the Director of Planning. Said
turn-key facility is subject to a reimbursement mechanism to be
agreed upon by the parties.
b. The parties to this Agreement agree to negotiate in good
faith any subsequent agreements or amendments to this Agreement,
prior to the first "B" Map subsequent to this "A" Map, that may be
needed to fulfill Condition No. 83 of this Resolution, pertaining
to the installation of said park improvements, and pertaining to
the mandatory maintenance period.
c. Developer agrees to pay the PAD Fee obligation in
accordance with the provisions of the Otay Ranch Park Agreement,
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10.100 and Resolution No.
16146, as may be amended from time to time. For the area shown as
Neighborhood R-39 in the SPA One Plan, and included within the
legal description of the land covered by this Agreement, the
Developer shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City
Engineer for a parcel map prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Developer agrees to pay all applicable fees, including the
PAD fee, prior to the approval of said parcel map. Parcel Map
shall be in accord with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
C~apter 18.20.
21. Condition No. 90 - (No Protest of Maintenance District or
Assessment District). In satisfaction of Condition No. 90 of
Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees not to
protest the formation of or the inclusion in, a maintenance
district, including a community facility district or a benefit
zone, for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic
corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject
H:~HOME\ENGINEER~L~DDEV\OTAY~CH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
subdivision. 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.
22. Condition No. 91 - (IOD's of Open Space). In satisfaction
of Condition No. 91 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
hereby agrees to provide the City, prior to execution of this
Agreement, with irrevocable offer(s) of dedication (IOD's), in
accordance with Government Code 7050, a fee interest, free and
clear of all encumbrances, in the real properties shown on the "A"
Map as park lots and open space lots and offered to the City for
acceptance on such map. The IOD's are attached as a part of this
Agreement as Attachment "C".
23. Condition No. 93 - (PFDIF Program). In partial
satisfaction of Condition No. 93 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, Developer agrees to fund the revision of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee ("PFDIF") Program, which shall be
prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his
designee. The Developer shall receive 100% credits towards future
PFDIF fees for funding this update. All cost of revising the PFDIF
shall be borne by the Developer. In partial satisfaction of
Condition No. 93, Developer has deposited $20,000 for commencement
of said revision.
Developer has requested that the City allow full satisfaction
of Condition No. 93 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613 be continued
until such time as the City completes and approves the ("PFDIF")
Program revisions. In order for the City to allow said continuance
of satisfaction of this obligation, Developer agrees to pay the
"PFDIF" in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
24. Condition No. 94 - (Landscape and Irrigation Plans). In
partial satisfaction of Condition No. 94 of Resolution Nos. 18398
and 18613, Developer agrees to place a cash deposit with the City,
to guarantee maintenance of landscape and irrigation improvements
in open space district maintained open space lots, prior to
issuance of any grading permit, which includes landscape and
irrigation improvements. The amount of the deposit shall be
equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots
t~ City standards for a period of six (6) months as determined by
the City Engineer. Developer agrees that any unused portion of
said deposit could be incorporated into the open space district's
reserve at such time as the maintenance of the open space lot is
assumed by the open space district.
25. Condition No. 103 - (Agreements/Financial). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 103 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, Developer agrees to enter into a supplemental agreement with
the City, prior to approval of each "B" Map or the approval of a
parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, where the
H:\NOME\ENGINEER~LANDDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 No. 2 A Map-tme.d0c
Developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the
subject subdivision if any one of the following occurs:
i. Regional development threshold limits set by the
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been
reached.
Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities
and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then
effective Growth Management Ordinance.
iii. The Developer does not comply with the terms of the
Reserve Fund Program.
b. That the City may withhold building permits for any of
the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One Plan if the required
facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual
Monitoring Program, have not been completed.
c. Defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any
approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this
subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that
the City fully cooperates in the defense.
d. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion,
siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project.
e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit
and provide cable television service to each lot on public streets
within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only
those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in
compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise
and which are in further compliance with all other rules,
r~eX3ulations, 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.
f. Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for
the Homeowners Association (HOA) provisions prohibiting the HOA
from dedicating or conveying for public streets, land used for
private streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members.
g. That the City may withhold the issuance of building
permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the
H:~HOME~ENGINEER~IJINDDEV~OTAY~CH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
City to be in breach of any the terms of the Tentative Map
conditions or any supplemental agreement. The City shall provide
the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the
Developer reasonable time to cure such breach.
26. Condition No. 104 - (Congestion Management Program). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 104 of Resolution No. 18398, the
Developer shall enter into a supplemental agreement with the City
prior to approval of the first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel
map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan where the Developer
agrees to:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency
plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the
Congestion Management Program (CMP) and agrees to not protest
formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities
described in the Otay Ranch GDP and Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP. This
agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public improvements
shall not be deemed a waiver of /he right to challenge the amount
of any fee which may be imposed due to these new improvements and
shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a
secret ballot election.
27. Condition No. 108 - (Insurance). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 108 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer
agrees to ensure that all insurance companies are given equal
opportunity to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's Insurance Program.
28. Condition No. 109 - (Backbone Facilities - Paseo
Improvements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 109 of
Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to the following:
a. Improvement Plans. Developer acknowledges and
agrees that, prior to approval of the first "B" Map or the approval
of a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, the
Developer shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building for the Paseo
Improvements.
b. Construction of Paseo Improvements. Developer agrees
t~ construct, at its sole expense, the Paseo Improvements in
accordance with improvement plans to be approved by the City
Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. Prior to
approval of the first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for
Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, Developer shall enter into
an agreement to construct the Paseo Improvements and shall secure,
in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, the
construction of the Paseo Improvements. Construction of said
improvements shall commence within 60 days of the approval of the
first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39
of the SPA One Plan for. Said construction shall be completed
H:~HOME\ENGINEER\Lk~DDEV\OTAY~CH~SSIA Vill 5 No. 2 A Map tme.doc
within six (6) months of commencement.
29. Condition No. 110 (Schools). In partial satisfaction
of Condition No. 110 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the
Developer agrees to the following:
a. The Developer agrees to deliver to the Sweetwater Union
School District a graded high school site including utilities
provided to the site and an all-weather access road acceptable to
said District. The all-weather access road shall also be
acceptable to the Fire Department. The Developer understands and
agrees that the delivery of the graded high school site shall be no
later than October 1, 2000 and that this schedule is subject to
modification by the Sweetwater Union High School District as based
on District facility needs.
30. Condition No. 113 - (Schools). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 113 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the Developer
agrees to deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, a
graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the
site and an all-weather access road acceptable to the District,
located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th
residential building permit. The all-weather access road shall
also be acceptable to the Fire Department. The Developer
understands and agrees that this schedule is subject to
modification by the School District as based on said District's
facility needs.
31. Condition No. 117 (Multi-family Lots). In partial
satisfaction of Condition No. 117 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and
18613, the Developer agrees that in the event the area designated
as Neighborhood R-39 as shown in the SPA One Plan is proposed for
development, a parcel map shall be prepared, submitted and approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
Developer shall satisfy all the applicable conditions of approval
of the Tentative subdivision Map, as determined by the City
Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
32. Condition Nos. 119/120 - (Growth Management Ordinance).
In satisfaction of Condition No. 119 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 120 of Resolution No. 18398, the Developer agrees,
upon the request of the City, to the following:
a. Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the
development of Otay Ranch as described in Chapter 9, "Growth
Management of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan". The annual
report will analyze the supply of, and demand, for public
facilities and services governed by the thresholds.
b. Prepare a five (5) year development phasing forecast
identifying targeted submittal.dates for future discretionary
applications {SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted
threshold standards, and identifying financing options for
necessary facilities as described in Chapter 9, "Growth Management
of the 0tay Ranch General Development Plan".
33. Condition Nos. 122/123 (Cul de Sac Access). In partial
satisfaction of Condition No. 122 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 123 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to the
following:
a. Fully accessible handicap access shall be provided at the
ends of the following cul de sacs on the related "B" Map: Parker
Mountain Road, Geyserville Street, Escalon Court, Sheep Ranch Road,
Meeks Bay Drive and Harrills Mill Avenue.
b. Access via stairs shall be provided at the ends of the
following cul de sacs on the related "B" Map: Cache Creek Road and
Jedediah Road.
34. Condition Nos. 126/127 (Development Phasing Plan). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 126 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 127 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to the
following:
a. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building, prior to approval of a "B" Map
containing any of the following lots; 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 or
16 of the "A" Map, Developer shall submit and obtain approval of
the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, of a
phasing plan depicting the proposed phasing for development of the
above indicated lots. The phasing plan shall include, but is not
limited to, grading, improvements, dedications and easements to be
provided with each phase. Developer shall provide all necessary
studies and documentation, as required by the City Engineer and the
Director of Planning and Building, supporting the proposed phasing
plan. Developer agrees that the City Engineer and the Director of
Planning and Building may, at their sole discretion, require said
improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide
adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of the Police and
Fire Departments. Further, Developer agrees that the City Engineer
and the Director of Planning and Building may, at their sole
discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
~nditions change to warrant such a revision.
b. Developer acknowledges and agrees that as a condition
precedent to approving any subsequent "B" Map or the approval of a
parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan, Developer
shall submit to and obtain the approval, from the City Engineer and
the Director of Planning and Building of a rough grading proposal
for the Project.
c. Prior to approval of any subsequent "B" Map within Lots
1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 or any Rough Grading Plan, Developer
H:\HOME\ENGI~ER\LANDDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
agrees to provide evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer,
demonstrating the existence of adequate access for grading and
constructing improvements in Parcel 35A. Developer further agrees
that the City Engineer may, at his/her sole discretion, require
granting of easements, grading and construction of any improvements
deemed necessary to provide adequate access to Parcel 35A.
d. Developer agrees to grant to the owners of Parcel 35A
future "private access and drainage" easement as indicated on Lots
1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16 of the "A" Map. Developer agrees to grant
said private easement within 90 days after receiving written notice
from the City Engineer requesting to grant said private easements.
35. Condition No. 127/128 - (PFFP). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 127 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 128 of
Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to adhere to the PFFP and
any amendments thereto, approved by the City Council, including but
not limited to the SPA and Tentative Subdivision Map improvements
installed in accordance with said Plan or as required to meet
threshold standards adopted by the City. Developer and City
acknowledge that the PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based
upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the
build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the
assumptions contained in the PFFP (i.e., the development of
EastLake III). Developer understands that neither the PFFP nor any
other SPA One document grant the Developer an entitlement to
develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility
improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP.
Developer acknowledges that compliance with the City's threshold
standards, based on actual development patterns and updated
forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market
conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the
facility improvement requirements to serve said development. In
addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall
correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing
Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance
adopted by the City. Developer understands and agrees that the City
Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revision. Developer agrees
that concurrent with the approval of the first map approved after a
Public Facility Financing Plan has been approved for the EastLake
~I GDP Area, the Developer shall update, at Developer's sole
expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, the SPA One PFFP
and agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of
construction of the public facilities, including without
limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the
construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a
condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including
tentative and final maps.
36. Condition Nos. 128/129 (Code Requirements). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 128 of Resolution No. 18613 and
H:\HOME~ENGINEER\I~NDDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
Condition No. 129 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to
comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code. Developer further agrees that any "B" Map or a parcel map
for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan for the Project shall be
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
37. Condition Nos. 129/130 (Utilities). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 129 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 130 of
Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to underground all utilities
within the subdivision in accordance with the Municipal Code
requirements.
38. Condition Nos. 130/131 - (Fees). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 130 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 131
Resolution No. 18398, Developer shall pay all applicable fees, in
accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to
sewer connection fees.
d. Interim SR 125 impact fee.
e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF.
f. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF.
g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF.
h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2
Undergrounding.
i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee.
j. Pedestrian Bridges DIF.
~ 39 Condition No. 131/132 (Code Requirements) In
satisfaction of Condition No. 131 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 132 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to
comply with 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.
40. Condition No. 132/133 (Disclosure of Special Taxes).
In satisfaction of Condition No. 132 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 133 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to
H:~HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes
and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46,020
regarding projected taxes and assessments. Developer shall submit
disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to
subsequent "B" Map approvals.
41. Condition No. 136/137 (Code Requirements). In
satisfaction of Condition NO. 136 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 137 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to
comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth
Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said
chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards
(19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation
(19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment
procedures (19.0).100). Developer further acknowledges and agrees
that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth
Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to
establish provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted
threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior to construction of
State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street
system capacity to accommodate a proposed development as a
prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the
Developer hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the
Growth Management Ordinance.
42. Condition No. 141/142 (Guarded Entrances). In
satisfaction of Condition No. 141 of Resolution No. 18613 and
Condition No. 142 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees that
guarded entrances will not have physical barriers and that the
entrances will be staffed from dusk until dawn.
43. Condition No. 151/152 (MHOA). In satisfaction of
Condition No. 151 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No 152 of
Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees that future property owners
will be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by
the owners, and approved by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their
estimated annual cost.
44. Monuanentation. The Developer agrees to furnish and
~81iver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the
e~ecution of this Agreement, an approved bond ("Improvement
Security") from a surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by
the City in the total sum of $41,500.00 to secure the installation
of survey monuments ("Improvement Work"), which security is
referenced in Table 1 and made a part hereof.
It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments have
been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that
Developer will install the surveying monuments as shown on the "A"
H:\HOME~ENGINEER\LAN~DDEV\OTAY~CH\SSIA viii 5 No. 2 A Map-tme.doc
Map.
It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not
completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said
Improvement Securities may be used by the City for the completion
of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with
such specifications herein or referred, or at option of the City,
as are approved by the City Council at the time of engaging the
work to be performed. Upon certification of completion by the City
Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after
certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof are
fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for
payment thereof, may be released to Developer or is successors in
interest, pursuant to the terms of the Improvement Security.
Developer agrees to pay to the City any difference between the
total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and
administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation
of overhead), and any proceeds from the Improvement Security.
It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties
hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any
department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of
the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any
officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any
sum or sums of said work or any materials furnished therefore,
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 Chula
Vista Municipal Code.
45. Assignability. Upon request of the Developer, any or all
on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to
Subdividor's successor in interest if the City Manager in his/her
sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not
adversely affect the City's interest. The City Manager in his/her
sole discretion may, if such assignment is requested, permit a
substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place
and stead of the original securities described herein, so long as
such substituted securities meet the criteria for security as set
forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
.. 46. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the
elecution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial
satisfaction as indicated above of Developer's obligation of
Conditions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38,
50, 52, 82(c), 83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 113,
117, 120, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 142 and 152
of Resolution No. 18398 and Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22,
23, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38, 50, 52, 82(c), 83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103,
104, 108, 109, 110, 113, 117, 119, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131, 132, 136, 141 and 151 of Resolution No. 18613}. Developer
further understands and agrees that some of the provisions herein
H:\~OME\ENGINEER\L~DDEV~OTAY~CH\SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
may be required to be performed or accomplished prior to the
approval of other "B" Maps or the approval of a parcel map for
Neighborhood R-39 of the sPA One Plan for the Project, as may be
appropriate.
47. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless
otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all
unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Tentative Subdivision
Map, established by Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613 and shall
remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and
provisions therein.
48. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof shall
be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the "A" Map.
49. Buildin9 Permits. Developer and Guest Builders
understand and agree that the City may withhold the issuance of
building permits for the Project, should the Developer be
determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of this
Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such
determination and allow the Developer with reasonable time to cure
said breach.
50. 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.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Director of Public Works
~ ~ Developer:
Otay Project, L.P.
350 W. Ash St., Suite 730
San Diego, CA 92101
Attn: Chuck Cater
Fax (619) 234-4088
H:~HOME~ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH\SS1A Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
] " · '-1 T
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.
b. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for
convenience of reference and do not define, describe or limit the
scope or intent of this Agreement or any of its terms.
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/or 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 and/or drafted this Agreement. It shall be
conclusively presumed that both parties participated equally in the
preparation and/or drafting this Agreement.
e. Recitals; Attachments. Any recitals and Attachments set
forth above are incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
f. Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences litigation for
the judicial interpretation, reformation, enforcement or rescission
hereof, the prevailing party will be entitled to a judgment against
the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and
court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be
the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought.
g. Olympic Parkway Agreement. The parties do not intend by
this Agreement to modify or amend in any way the Olympic Parkway
Agreement. To the extent of any inconsistencies between this
Agreement and the Olympic Parkway Agreement with regard to
obligations specifically set forth in the Olympic Parkway
Agreement, the Olympic Parkway Agreement shall control.
51. Superceding Previous Agreement. It is the intent of the
parties that this Village 5 "A" Map No.2 of The Otay Ranch Project
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Otay Project,
L~C shall supercede the Previous Agreement only as to those parcels
l~cated within the Property. It is also the intent of the parties
to release that portion of the Olympic Parkway and East Palomar
Street Lot of Map 13615 located south of the boundary of the "A"
Map of the Burden of the Previous Agreement. The terms and
conditions of the Previous Agreement remain in full force and
effect except as to the Property and as to the portion of the
Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street Lot of Map 13615 located
south of the southerly boundary of the "A" Map. If there is any
conflict between the Previous Agreement and this Agreement as to
the Property, this Agreement shall control.
H:~0ME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\0TAy~CH~SSIA vill 5 NO. 2 A Map tme.doc
TABLE 1
Purpose Bond Company Bond Amount Bond Number
Olympic Frontier
Parkway Insurance $3,500.00 SD00101946
Monumentation Company
Subdivision Frontier
Excluding Insurance $38,000.00 SD00035986
Olympic Company
Parkway
[Next Page is Signature Page]
H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 NO. 2 A Map-tme.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set
forth.
CITY OF CNULA VISTA DEVELOPER:
OTAY PROJECT L.P., a California
limited partnership
Mayor
By: Otay Project, LLC,
a California limited liability
company
By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability,
Attest: By: Au~Member
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
~ M. Ka~en~
C?i~y Attorney
23
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of c~.~.-'1 /~/0 ~ ss.
Name and Title of Officer (e.g, "Jane Doe, Notary Public')
personally appeared ~/q~tt~/¢~ '% /~.t~'~.~ __,
Name{s) of Signer(s)
~.personally known to me
~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person0¢~ whose name(,~
subscribed to the within instrument-'-and
to me t___ha~'~s, Ke/tlp~y executed
acknowledged
the same in h~s(.~r/th~ir ~,uthorized
capacity(i~), and that by (J~lh. eflth~r
signature~ on the instrument the person(,s~, or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(~"~
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNES.~/~y hand ~cial seal.
Place Notary Seal Above Sig~e of Notary Public
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by/aw, it may prove va/uab/e to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachrnent of this form to another document.
Description of Attacl~ed Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
{ I Individual Top of thumb here
LJ Corporate Officer -- Title(s):
L~ Partner -- J~ Limited [3 General
E] Attorney in Fact
LJ Trustee
[, Guardian or Conservator
E3 Other:
Signer Is Representing:
LIST OF ATTAC~IMENTS
Attachment "A" Legal description of Property.
Attachment "B" Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for
public parks.
Attachment "C" Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for
public open space.
Attachment "D" Plat showing location of Parcel 35A.
Schedule 1 Conditions of Approval for Chula Vista Tract
96-04.
! -I i'
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL OF LOT 21, A PORTION OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND ALL OF LOTS "G", "H", 'T' AND
EAST PALOMAR STREET, ALL OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5 "A" MAP NO. 1, CHULA VISTA
TRACT NO. 96-04, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 13615, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY ON AUGUST 12, 1998
PAGE 1 OF 1
WO 25-270
............. I · :i[
ATTACHI E T '" 15"
Recording Requested by and
Please Return to: '~
Ci~ Clerk
City of Chula Vista
R.O. Box 1087
'Chula Vista, CA 91912
This Instrument Benefits City Only.
No fee is required. This Space for Recorder's Use Only
APN(s) 643-242-01 & 02 C.V. File No.
IRREVOCABLE OFFER
OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
OTAY PROJECT, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
represents that, as the owner(s) of herein-described real property, (in the case of multiple
owners, collectively referred to as "GrantoF'), Grantor hereby makes an Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication of fee interest, pursuant to Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of
California, to THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, the hereinafter
described real property for the following public purpose:
PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES
The real property referred to above is situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego,
State of California and is more particularly described as follows:
LOT "1" OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04, OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 5, "A" MAP NO. 2,
PER MAP NO. RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
(Contains ?. 725 Acres, more or less)
T~his Offer of Dedication is made pursuant to Section 7050 of Government Code of the State of
C~lifornia and may be accepted at any time by the City of Chula Vista.
This Offer of Dedication of fee interest shall be irrevocable and shall be binding on the Grantor,
its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
SIGNATURE PAGE
Signed this II _-- day of /~¢~z~. ,20 o0
Grantor Signatures: Otay Project LIP., a California limited partnership, as owner:
By: Otay Proiect, LLC, a California limited liability company,
General Partner.
· By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited
. liability company, authorized member.
Chuck Cater, Project Manager
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
. ' State of California ~
,,
On [// ~md , before me, -
pe~onaliy appeared C~
~personalty known to me
- proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~
evidence
to be the person~) whose name~a~
subscribed to the withi~ instrument and
acknowledged to me t~/t~y executed
the same in ~/t~r ~thodzed
capacitY(i~), and that by ~/t~r
si~nature(~ on the instrument the person(~,
the entity upon behalf of which the person~
acted, executed the instrument.
OPTIONAL
Though the i~fo~ation below is not required by law. it may/r~ve valuable to pe~ons relying on lhe document
Description of A~ached Document
x Title or Type of Document
~ Document Date: Number of Pages:
~/ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
~ Capacity(ies) glaimed by Signer
~ Si~nor's Name: - · · :: ....
,; ~ ~ Individua~ ToD of thumb here
: ~ Co.orate O~cer ~ Title(s):
~ '~ PaAner ~ ~ Limited ~ General
~ ~ A~orney in Fact
~ Guardian or Consewator
~ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
This is to certify that the interest in real property offered herein to the City of Chula Vista, a
governmental agency, is hereby acknowledged by the undersigned, City Clerk. on behalf of the
Chula Vista City Council pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 15645 of the Chuia
- Vista City Council adopted on June 5, 1990, and the grantee(s) consent(s) to the recordation
thereof by its duly authorfzed officer.
SUSAN BIGELOW
CITY CLERK
By: Dated:
Recording Requested by and
Please Return to: _To P~- ¢,.~oGl2..i~r~..~
City Clerk As A S~PAf2~'~ ~)~3coJ~_c.3T
City of Chula Vista
' P_O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
...'. ·This Instrument Benefits City Only.
No fee is required. ,,, This Space for RecordeOs Use Only
APN(s) 643-242-01 C.V. File No. O&~ 5'1F'
IRREVOCABLE OFFER
OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
OTA¥ PROJECT, LP., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
represents that, as the owner(s) of herein-described real property, (in the case of multiple
owners, collectively referred to as ~GrantoF'), Grantor hereby makes an Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication of fee interest, pursuant to Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of
California, to THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, the hereinafter
described real property for the following public purpose:
OPEN SPACE AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES
The real property referred to above is situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego,
State of Califomia and is more particularly described as follows:
96-04, OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 5, "A" MAP NO. 2, PER MAP NO. RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY.
(Contains 24.009 Acres, more or less)
This Offer of Dedication is made pursuant to Section 7050 of Government Code of the State of
California and may be accepted at any time by the City of Chuta Vista.
This Offer of Dedication of fee interest shall be irrevocable and shall be binding on the Grantor,
its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
PAGE · .
SIGNATURE
Signed this II day of ,~?¢.,~- ,20 0~
Grantor Signatures: Otay Project L.P., a Califomia limited partnership, as owner:
By; Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company,
General Partner.
By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, authorized member,
By: -~~oject Manager
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
/
On "/ , before me, le.~.,- , ~',~e. N~,~
personally appeared ~--~7~'~'/t~' T- ~
~personally known to me
-- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(~ whose name,{4¢)
subscribed to the within instrument and
~ acknowledged to me t~,hall~/s~/t~y executed
the same in ¢J3J~/f'~/tl~ir _a_uthorized
~ ~ capacity(ii.r), and that by
signature(~ on the instrument the person~, or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(.8'~
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNES,,S'I~y hand aod official seal.
OPTIONAL
and could prevent fraudulent removal and rea~achrnent of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
'-. Signer(s/ Other Than Named Above:
F '
~ Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer
~ Signer's Name:
~,.~ ~ Individual ToD of t~ums n~?
-- Corporate Officer-- Title(s):
~. ~; Partner -- ~_ Limited ~ General
~ Attorney in Fact
~_ Trustee
~ Guardian or Consen/ator
[] Other:
Signer Is Representing:
This is to certify that the interest in real property offered herein to the City of Chula Vista, a
governmental agency, is hereby acknowledged by the undersigned, City Clerk. on behaff of the
Chula Vista City Council pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 7 56~5 of the Chuta
Vista City Council adopted on June 5, ?990, and the grantee(s) consent(s) to the recordation
thereof by its duly authorized officer.
SUSAN BIGELOW
CITY CLERK
By: Dated:
1
"SCHEDULE 1"
Resolution No. 18398
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) . the
conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be
completed prior to the related final map as determined by the
Director of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and the City Engineer
(b) . unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the
appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement
is required the Developer shall be required to provide
subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that
the City has a first priority interest in such land unless
otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or
dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of
all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these
conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the
City Manager or designee.
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
1. Comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks,
Recreation Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Financing
Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, Spa One Affordable
Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan,
unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head,
with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject
to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the
approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications
shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. Ail of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs,
successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term
"Developer" shall also mean "Applicant".
3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein
shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions
fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms,
the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals
herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or
f~rther condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from
the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for
SCHEDULE "1"
their violation. The applicant shall be notified 10 days in
advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City
and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies
identified by the City.
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and
costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all
entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with
the Project.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA conditions
of approval.
6. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter
in hereunder, shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this
tentative map shall be consistent with the Development Agreement
approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on July 16, 1996
("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
8. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance
Agreement, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on
October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
ENVIRONMENTAL
9. Prior to approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall
implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-
01, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (on file in the City
Clerk's Office as Document No. CO96-056) and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's
Office as Document No. CO96-057) .
1~. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the 'applicant
shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Phase 2
Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City Council on
June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City.
11. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant
shall comply with the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve in lieu fee
program to be adopted by the City Council.
SCHEDULE "1"
Sd-SF
12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of
the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of
Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
DESIGN
13. The secondary access in the southern portion of Neighborhood
R-30 shall be surfaced with "grass-crete", "turf-block" or some
other comparable material unless otherwise approved by the Planning
Director and Fire Chief. Bollards shall be provided instead of the
locking gate noted on the map. The bollards shall be located
closer to the terminus of the cul-de-sac (Parker Mountain Road),
rather than adjacent to Santa Rosa Drive.
14. Any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with
the Village Design Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final map.
15. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25
feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to_soften their
appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each
150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub
per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate
groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Landscape and
irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final
map.
16. A comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height
and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director prior to approval of any final "B" Map. Materials and
color used shall be compatible and all walls located in corner
side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or
p~estrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry
an~/or wrought iron material.
A revised acoustical analysis indicating if view fencing, such as a
combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the ends
of cul-de-sacs backing up to Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange
Avenue and Paseo Ranchero, shall be prepared prior to submittal of
the wall plan indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per
SCHEDULE "1"
the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the ends of
the following streets: Parker Mountain Road, Geyserville Street,
Jamestown Drive, Moss Landing Avenue, Porterville Court, Firebaugh
Court, Street C4, San Dimas Court, Hanford Court, Rocklin Court,
Colton Court, Rincon Point, Santa Inez Avenue, Traver Court, Vernon
Court, Lindsay Street, Applegate Street, and Dunsmuir Court. View
fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs
where a sound wall is not required.
Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed 8.5
feet in height. The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross
section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination
walls" which include retaining and free standing walls. Said
detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning
prior to the approval of the first final map. The maximum height
of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined
with freestanding walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot
separation shall be provided between free standing and retaining
walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet.
17. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall
be provided with view fencing, such as three feet of wrought iron
on top of a three foot masonry wall, subject to approval by the
Fire Marshal and the Planning Director.
18. Should the applicant propose an amendment to the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan to reduce density within the Village Cores
at some time in the future, the provision of additional alley
product shall be analyzed and considered concurrently with said
amendment.
19. The Design Review Committee shall review and approve the
elevations of all homes backing and siding onto Telegraph Canyon
Road in Neighborhood R-5.
2~!. A minimum of thirty percent of all 55 x 105 feet lots in each
final map shall be provided with Hollywood driveways. The
applicant agrees to process an amendment to the Planned Community
District Regulations for SPA One to reflect said requirement.
STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE "1"
21. Dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the
tentative map within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the
approval of the applicable "B" Map, the applicant shall enter into
an agreement to guarantee the construction of all street
improvements as required by the PFFP for each particular phase.
22. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal
Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct full street
improvements for all on-site and off-site streets deemed necessary
to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements
shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement,
base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water
and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs,
landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants.
Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections Shown on
the Tentative Map. All other design criteria shall comply with the
current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design
Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise
conditioned or approved herein. Exhibit A indicates the
relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations
and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of
the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design
standards for all streets within SPA One.
Should the City Engineer deem that the construction of sidewalks
along the offsite portions of East Orange Avenue and East Palomar
Street west of Paseo Ranchero is not necessary to provide service
to the subject subdivision, their construction may be delayed.
The developer shall dedicate on the appropriate final "B" Map, the
right-of-way to extend Carmel Avenue, Santa Lucia Road, Santa Flora
Drive, Gold Run Road, Applegate Street, Livingston Avenue and
Grayson Court to the easterly subdivision boundary of Village One.
The City Engineer and the Planning Director may waive this
r~uirement if it is demonstrated that a street does not need to be
ex%ended to provide access to the adjacent property.
Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer shall
provide a cul-de-sac at the end of all proposed street stubs along
the subdivision boundary. The City Engineer may approve the
installation of a temporary turnaround at the end of those streets
that might be extended in the future to provide access to the
adjacent property.
SCHEDULE "1"
23. In accordance with the pre-annexation Development Agreement
the developer shall grant to the City fee title to the right-of-way
for SR 125. Said right-of-way shall be contained in a lot granted
to the City for open space, transportation and other public
purposes. The right-of-way shall be granted at such time as
requested by the City.
24. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B"
Map which triggers the installation of the related street
improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring at the following intersections:
a. East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero
b. East Palomar Street and La Media Road
East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue
d. East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero
East Orange Avenue and La Media Road
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with
construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer.
25. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping
plans for all collector or higher classification streets
simultaneously with the associated improvement plans.
26. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection
sight distances to conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply
with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
27. Plant trees within all street parkways which have been
s~ected from the revised list of appropriate tree species
described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the
Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The
applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements
of the Parks and Recreation Director and a deep watering irrigation
system for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from
each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. The improvement plans,
including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways
SCHEDULE "1"
............. T m
shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and
Recreation and the City Engineer.
28. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of
the first final "A" Map, where the developer agrees to the
following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities when
directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement
plans for said stops shall be prepared in accordance with
the transit stop details described in the Village Design
Plans and approved by the Directors of Planning and
Public Works.
b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit
assessment district to finance the Light Rail Transit.
c. Fund its fair share of the cost of construction of the
two pedestrian bridges connecting Villages One to Village
Two and Village Five to village Six as determined by the
City Engineer based on the proportionate benefit received
from the improvements. The developer shall also identify
the financing mechanism to be used to fund said cost.
29. Grant in fee to the City the right-of-way for the Light Rail
Transit as indicated on the approved Tentative Map. Said right-of-
way shall be contained in lots granted to the City for open space,
transportation, and other public purposes. Said lots shall not
extend across street intersections unless approved by the City
Engineer. Include said lots in an open space district.
30. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to
construct the pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village
Five in accordance with improvement plans approved by the City
prior to approval of the final map that requires construction of La
Ma~ia Road between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue. The
developer shall be responsible for the construction of said bridge
and may seek, with the concurrence of the City, repayment from
other benefiting property owners through a reimbursement district.
31. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for
street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the standards and
SCHEDULE "1"
approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with
those standards shall be updated to reflect' those standards.
Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may
be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only
after construction has commenced.
32. Prior to approval of any final map that requires the
construction of Santa Madera Avenue between Telegraph Canyon Road
and Morgan Hill Drive ("Temporary Roadway"), in order to access the
final map property, the developer shall accomplish the following:
a. Obtain all permits and agreements with the environmental
regulatory agencies required to construct the "Temporary
Roadway".
b. Obtain a construction permit from the City approving the
necessary modifications to the existing improvements in
Telegraph Canyon Road including the provision of a fully
activated traffic signal as directed by the City
Engineer.
c. Enter into an agreement where the developer agrees to:
(1) Perform the following:
(a) Restore the median improvements and remove the
traffic signal as directed by the City
Engineer to provide only right-in/right-out
access at said intersection. This work shall
be performed at such time as La Media Road
between Telegraph Canyon Road and East Palomar
Street is opened for public use.
(b) Remove to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer the remaining "Temporary Roadway"
~ improvements required to close said
intersection, at such time as a permanent road
connecting Filmore Street in Village One to
East Orange Avenue is opened for public use.
(2) Restore the Telegraph Canyon Road improvements and
regrade the area to be consistent with the
streetscape of Telegraph Canyon Road and the
SCHEDULE "1"
drainage channel as directed by the City Engineer
and Director of Parks and Recreation.
(3) Install signs as directed by the City Engineer,
indicating that the "Temporary Roadway" will be
closed once the permanent road connecting Filmore
Street in Village One to East Orange Avenue is
opened for public use.
(4) Provide a Notice in any residential disclosure
document that the "Temporary Roadway" will be
closed once the permanent road connecting Filmore
Street in Village One to East Orange Avenue is
opened for public use.
(5) Provide security acceptable to the City in the
amount determined by the City Engineer to guarantee
the following:
(a) Restoration of the median improvements and
removal of the traffic signal required to
provide only right-in/right-out access at said
intersection. Said bonds shall be provided
prior to approval of the final map requiring
the construction of La Media Road between
Telegraph Canyon Road and East Palomar Street.
(b) Removal of the remaining temporary
improvements required to close said
intersection and restoration of the area as
directed by the City Engineer and Director of
Parks and Recreation. Said bonds shall be
posted prior to approval of the final map for
Village One Core or any unit thereof.
~ (6) Provide for all costs associated with the vacation
of the "Temporary Roadway"
33. As part of the improvement plans associated with the first
final "B" Map which triggers the construction of Paseo Ranchero, La
Media or Santa Paula Drive, provide the necessary modifications to
the applicable existing traffic signals including interconnect
wiring at the following intersections:
SCHEDULE "1"
a. Telegraph Canyon Road at St. Claire Drive
b. Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road
c. Telegraph Canyon Road at Paseo Ranchero
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries
with construction of street improvements, and install mast
arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by
the City Engineer.
34. Include the right of way for the proposed "Temporary Roadway"
(Santa Madera Avenue between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill
Drive) in a separate lot. In the appropriate final "B" Map, as
determined by the City Engineer, grant said lot in fee to the City
for open space, transportation, and other public uses.
35. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to
construct, prior to the approval of any final "B" Map for
Neighborhoods R-15, 16, 17, 18, 19, CPF-1, 2, 3, C-1 or 2 or any
unit thereof, the construction of a permanent public road
connecting Filmore Street in Village One to East Orange Avenue as
depicted on the Tentative Map. This road shall have a right-of-way
width of 40 feet and be designed and constructed to City standards
for residential streets except that it shall have a width (curb to
curb) of 26 feet and sidewalk only on one side.
36. Provide (1) twenty feet setback on driveways from property
line to garage and (2) sectional roll-up type garage doors at all
properties fronting on streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or
less in length except as provided for in the Planned Community
District Regulations or approved by the City Engineer and the
Planning Director.
37. Not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other
u~lities crossing any public street. This shall include the
prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future construction
of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this
requirement if the followin9 is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City
where the developer agrees to the following:
SCHEDULE "1"
(1) Apply for an encroachment permit for installation
of the private facilities within the public right-
of-way.
(2) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as
the USA Dig Alert Service.
(3) Mark out any private facilities owned by the
developer whenever work is performed in the area.
The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the
successors and assigns of the developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are
provided at those locations where private facilities
traverse public streets.
38. Grant on the final "B" Map containing the proposed connection
to EastLake Parkway (between the two existing Otay Water District
parcels) a 60-foot wide easement for street right-of-way and other
public purposes along said connection. Prior to approval of the
same map the developer shall guarantee the construction of the
following improvements within said 60-foot wide easement:
a. Pedestrian, cart and bicycle improvements as determined
by the City Engineer and Planning Director. The
improvement plans shall be prepared in such a way as to
not preclude the option of providing street improvements
for vehicular access in the future.
b. Vehicular access improvements to the existing Otay
Municipal Water District parcels as determined by the
City Engineer and the Otay Municipal Water District.
39. Grant on the final "B" Map containing the paseo between
N~ghborhoods R-8 and R-9 a 60-wide easement for street right-of-
way and other public purposes. The paseo improvements shall be
constructed within said easement. Prior to approval of the same
final map the developer shall accomplish the following:
a. Guarantee the construction of the paseo improvements (if
public) as directed by the Director of Planning, Director
of Parks and Recreation, and City Engineer.
SCHEDULE
b. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer
agrees to construct street improvements for vehicular
access within the 60-foot easement in accordance with
improvement plans approved by the City Engineer if
vehicular access is needed in the future.
40. Include in separate lots the right-of-way required to
accommodate the future grade separation at the intersections of (1)
Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road, and (2) East Orange Avenue
and Paseo Ranchero. These lots shall be granted in fee tO the City
for Open Space, transportation, and other public purposes on the
appropriate final "B" Map, as determined by the City Engineer.
41. Residential Street Condition A as denoted on the cover page of
the tentative map is the preferred section and shall be implemented
on all residential streets, excluding the alley product, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
42. The applicant shall submit a conceptual design for the bridge
connections between Village One and Village Five which indicates
materials, height, location, etc. Said design plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of
the final "B" Map that requires construction of La Media Road
between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue.
43. Requested General Waivers 1, 2, and 3 and Specific Waiver 3,
as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are hereby
approved. Specific Waivers 1 and 2 are approved subject to the
condition that one-way circulation be provided at the north-south
streets adjacent to parks P-4 and P-5, unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
44. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City
Engineer and the Planning Director of a final conceptual design of
~h~ proposed traffic circles prior to approval of the first final
"B" Map. The developer shall submit striping, signage and
landscape plans for all traffic circles indicated on the tentative
map. In the event the traffic circles are not approved, some type
of alternative enhanced landscaping and/or entry statement at those
intersections acceptable to the City Engineer and the Planning
Director, shall be identified prior to approval of the first final
"B" Map.
SCHEDULE "1"
45. Right-of-way for the light rail transit line shall provide for
spiral curves as required by MTDB and approved by the City
Engineer.
46. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer
shall provide sewer stubs extending to the easterly subdivision
boundary of Village One at the following locations: (1) all the
street stubs proposed along said boundary, and (2) at those
locations where right-of-way dedication is required to extend
Carmel Avenue, Santa Lucia Road, Santa Flora Drive, Gold Run Road,
Applegate Street, Livingston Avenue and Grayson Court to said
subdivision boundary.
47. Prior to approval of the first final "B" Map the developer
shall submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a
design study of the connection of the sewerline shown on the
tentative map as ending at the northerly end of Gold Run Road to an
approved public sewer system.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
48. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, between
the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any
slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins
undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City
Engineer shall not approve the creation of any lot that does not
meet the required setback.
The developer shall submit notarized letters of permission to grade
for all off-site grading.
49. Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading
plan indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut
or a transition between the two situations unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
50. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program.
51. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved
by the City Engineer to reduce the quantity of runoff from the
development to an amount equal to or less than the present 100-year
frequency runoff.
SCHEDULE "1"
52. Provide "as built" improvement and storm drain plans in DXF
file format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
53. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 15 feet minimum
drainage and access easement for storm drain lines located between
residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
Ail other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
54, Prior to-approval of (1) the first final "B" Map or grading
permit for land draining into the Poggi Canyon or (2) the first
final "B" Map or grading permit which requires construction of
Santa Madera between Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive
("Temporary Roadway"), the developer shall:
a. Guarantee the construction of the applicable drainage
facility, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer
as follows:
(1) Runoff detention/desilting basin and naturalized
channel in Poggi Canyon; or
(2) Runoff detention Basin in Telegraph Canyon Channel
The City Engineer may approve that these facilities are
constructed at a later time if the developer provides
private temporary runoff detention basins or other
facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which would
reduce the quantity of runoff from the development to an
amount equal to less than the present 100 year flow.
Said temporary facilities shall comply with all the
provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit which approves
any temporary facility, the developer shall enter into an
' ~ agreement with the City to guarantee the adequate
operation and maintenance (O & M) of said facility. The
developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City
to guarantee the 0 & M activities, in the event said
facilities are not maintained to City standards as
determined by the City Engineer.
SCHEDULE "1"
The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all
permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory
agencies required to perform this work.
b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule,
estimate of cost, operations manual and a financing
mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable
facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of
the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and Recreation,
and the applicable environmental agencies.
c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and
the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game,
Fish and Wildlife) wherein the parties agree to implement
the maintenance program.
d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer
agrees to the following:
(1) Provide for the maintenance of the proposed
detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the
proposed naturalized channel and detention basin in
Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such
facilities is assumed by the City or an open space
district.
(2) Provide for the removal of siltation in the
Telegraph and Poggi Canyon Channels (including
detention basins) until all upstream grading within
the development is completed and erosion protection
planting is adequately established as determined by
the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
(3) Provide for the removal of any siltation in the
~ Telegraph and Poggi Canyon Channels (including
detention basins) attributable to the development
for a minimum period of five years after
maintenance of the facility is assumed by the City
or an open space district.
55. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of
the first final "B" Map or grading permit for land draining into
SCHEDULE "1"
the existing Telegraph Canyon Channel, where the developer agrees
to perform the following activities within the portion of said
existing channel extending from Paseo Ladera to the eastern
subdivision boundary:
a. Provide for the removal of siltation until all upstream
grading within the development is completed and erosion
protection planting is adequately established as
determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
b. Provide for the removal of any siltation attributable to
the development for a minimum period of five years after
maintenance of the channel is assumed by the City or an
open space district.
56. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or
running through City Open Space are not routed through private
property and vice versa.
57. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access
easements as required by the City Engineer to all public storm
drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Improved
access as determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to
public drainage structures located in the rear yard of any
residential lot.
58. Provide a protective fencing system around (1) the proposed
detention basins at Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon, and (2)
inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as directed by the
City Engineer. The final design and types of construction
materials shall be subject to approval of the Director of Planning
and the City Engineer.
59. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to
t~ point of connection with public facilities as private.
60. Provide a 6 inch thick concrete access road to the bottom of
the proposed detention basins. This access shall have a minimum
width of 12 feet, a maximum slope of 8%, and a heavy broom finish
on the ramp as directed by the City Engineer.
SCHEDULE "1"
61. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency revising the current National Flood
Insurance Program maps of the Telegraph Canyon Channel to reflect
the effect of the proposed drainage improvements. The LOMR shall
be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the proposed
detention facility.
62. Provide graded maintenance access roads along both sides of
the proposed onsite and offsite portions of the Poggi Canyon
Channel. The width of said roads shall be 12 feet unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location
of the access roads shall be as determined by the City Engineer.
63. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the
approval of the Director of Public Works to any amendment necessary
to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the approved
Tentative Map.
64. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a
fence along those portions of (1) the existing maintenance access
roads along the Telegraph Canyon Channel, and (2) the proposed
maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are
proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The
fence shall be erected only at those locations where its
installation will not interfere with the normal channel
maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be
allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City
Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation.
65. Prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of
Planning, and Director of Parks and Recreation of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan and landscape/irrigation plans as part
of the grading plans.
66. Landform grading, similar to what has been proposed along
T~[~egraph Canyon Road and consistent with City policy, shall be
implemented adjacent to all off-site major roads.
67. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which
are to be maintained by open space districts shall be constructed
entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
68. Prior to the approval of the grading plans proposing the
grading of the area that would accommodate the future grade
SCHEDULE "1"
separated intersections at East Orange Avenue/Paseo Ranchero and
Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, the developer shall submit a
design study, acceptable to the City Engineer, of the grading
required for said grade separated intersections.
69. The grading plans for the intersection at East Orange
Avenue/Paseo Ranchero shall include a partial grading of the area
that would accommodate the eastbound on-ramp and off-ramp and the
westbound on-ramp of the future grade separated intersection. The
elevations and extent of the required grading shall be determined
by the City Engineer to: (1) allow in the future the construction
of any additional grading necessary for the ultimate intersection
configuration, and (2) construct the Poggi Canyon Channel at its
ultimate location.
70. Prior to approval of the grading and/or improvement plans
proposing the construction of the culvert under La Media Road at
the crossing with the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the developer shall
submit a study acceptable to the City Engineer demonstrating that
the proposed culvert will be capable of handling the design flow in
the event said culvert needs to be extended in the future in
conjunction with the grading for a grade separated intersection at
Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road.
71. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer
shall provide an underground storm drain connecting the cleanout in
Park P-9 to the Telegraph Canyon Channel Drainage easements shall
be provided as required by the City Engineer.
SEWER
72. Provide an improved access road with a minimum width of 12
feet 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.
7~. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum
sewer and access easement for sewerlines located between
residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
Ail other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION
General
SCHEDULE "1"
74. The SPA one project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park
Land Dedication Ordinance ~PLDO). The ordinance establishes a
requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks
and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are
comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. Pedestrian
parks are an integral component of the plan and shall receive
partial park credit as defined below. A minimum of two thirds (2
acres/i,000 residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied
through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks
within SPA One. The remaining requirement (1 acre/i,000 residents)
shall be satisfied through the payment of fees.
75. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and
shall be installed by the Applicant. A construction schedule,
requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall be
approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
76. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent
with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related
Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies.
77. The applicant shall enter into a Chula Vista standard three
party agreement with the City of Chula Vista and design
consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood
and community parks in accordance with the Master Plan whereby the
Parks and Recreation Director selects the design consultant(s), to
be funded by 'the applicant. The cost for the consultant(s) shall
be established and said amount deposited into an account prior to
any work being initiated by the consultant. The agreement shall
include, but not be limited to, master planning, design development
phase, construction document phase and construction supervision
phase for the park sites. The construction documents shall reflect
the then current requirements of the City's Code/Landscape Manual
requirements.
7~. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent
the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks,
the town square park and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per
1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized
by the Applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs.
79. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee
reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted
SCHEDULE "1"
construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial
reimbursement during the Construction process. The City may
withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park
has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall
include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the
City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement
program.
80. Grant in fee all designated public park lands at such time as
is necessary to implement the requirements of the PLDO and the
PFFP.
81. Pedestrian Parks (also known as mini-parks): Pedestrian parks
less than five acres, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be
maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund.
Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of
50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and
Recreation pursuant to the City wide small park credit criteria
which shall be approved by the City Council.
82. Neighborhood Parks:
a. In addition to those PAD fees required by Condition No.
83, the Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula
of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling
units. In the City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be
required for units in excess of the first 500 dwelling
units.
b. Prior to the approval of the first final map which
creates residential lots ("B" Map), the applicant shall
enter into a supplemental agreement where the applicant
agrees to construct the first neighborhood park in SPA
One, in a location determined by the Director of Parks
and Recreation, no later than issuance of the building
permit for the 500th dwelling unit. The agreement shall
also provide the following:
(1) The level of amenities required in the first phase
of construction of the first neighborhood park
shall be determined by the Director of Parks and
Recreation in conjunction with the park master
planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista
Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be
SCHEDULE "1"
equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park
improvements as described in the PLDO ordinance and
the Park Master Plan as approved by the Director of
Parks and Recreation. The applicant shall complete
construction of the first phase of the first
neighborhood park within six (6) months of
commencing construction of said park.
(2) Prior to issuance of the building permit for the
l150th dwelling unit, the Director of Parks and
Recreation shall determine the level of amenities
required for the second phase of construction of
this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park
Master Plan, or in lieu of the second phase,
require the construction of another neighborhood
park at a different location. If the applicant
cannot build a park at a different location chosen
by the Director of Parks and Recreation, the City
may require the applicant to pay PAD fees.
(3) At no time following completion of construction of
the first phase of the first neighborhood park
shall there be a deficit in "constructed
neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/i,000
residents. Applicant agrees that the City may
withhold the issuance of building permits should
said deficit occur. For purposes of this
condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park"
shall mean that construction of the park has been
completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and
Recreation as being in compliance with the Park
Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory 9-12 month
maintenance period. This condition is not intended
to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee
requirements.
(4) The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD
fees, proportionate to what has been constructed,
should they deliver a turn-key park which has been
constructed in accordance with the Parks Master
Plan.
SCHEDULE "1"
c. The applicant shall grant to the City, at the "A" Map
stage, an irrevocable offer of dedication for all
neighborhood parks shown on the Tentative Map.
83. Community Parks:
a. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant
shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a
formula of 1 acre per 1, 000 residents, until such time
as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the Director
of Parks and Recreation. Said turn-key facility is
subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below.
b. The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One
demand, shall be located in Village 2 as identified in
the GDP.
c. The Applicant shall identify the relocation, if any, of
the Village 20tay Ranch Community Park prior to issuance
of the building permit for the 1,150th dwelling unit.
Said relocation may require an amendment to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan.
d. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1
acre/i,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the
payment of PAD fees, the Applicant shall commence
construction of the first phase of the Community Park
prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th
dwelling unit. The first phase of construction shall
include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a
graded site with utilities provided to the property line
and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire
Department.
e. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second
phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the
building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit'. Second
phase improvements shall include recreational amenities
as identified in the Park Master Plan.
f. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the
Director of Parks and Recreation for maintenance prior to
SCHEDULE "1"
issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling
unit.
g. If the Director of Parks and Recreation determines that
it is not feasible for the Applicant to commence
construction of the first phase improvements of the
community park prior to issuance of the building permit
for the 2,650th unit, then the Director of Parks and
Recreation shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees
for said improvements, or to construct another park
facility, east of the 1-805 Freeway within an acceptable
service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP.
h. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period of 9-12
months in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Parks
and Recreation Department policy.
i. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees,
proportionate to what has been constructed, excluding the
cost of construction of the all weather access road, for
the community park should they deliver a turn-key
facility to the City in accordance with the Community
Park Master Plan.
Trails/Open Space:
a. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing and/or
proposed trails in neighboring development projects, as
determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. The two connector trails from Neighborhoods R-24 and R-25
in Village Five to Telegraph Canyon Road shall be
combined into one trail in Open Space Lot 37 and shall
connect to the regional trail in one location.
c. The maximum gradient for connector trails shall be 10%.
Steeper grades of up to 12% for short runs of 50 feet may
be permitted subject to the approval by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are
constructed shall be 10 feet in width. Six feet shall be
SCHEDULE "1"
provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder
on either side.
e. Landscape and irrigation plans for the transit right-of-
way shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and
Recreation Director in conjunction with the landscape
plans for East Palomar Street.
85. ~ommunity Gardens:
a. Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines
in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden
Committee and their responsibilities.
b. Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest open space
water meter to the site(s) in order to facilitate
development of the Community Gardens.
c. Community Garden sites shall be consistent with those
identified on the tentative map.
d. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an
Open Space Maintenance District, Homeowner's Association
or other funding mechanism approved by the Director of
Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer.
e. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
86. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the
developer shall:
a. Submit and obtain approval of the SPA One Open Space
Master Plan from the Director of Parks and Recreation.
The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the
approved Concept and A~nalysis Plan, the requirements of
which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape
Manual and include but are not limited to elements such
as final recreational trail alignments and fencing and
phasing.
SCHEDULE "1"
b. Request the formation of an Open Space District pursuant
to the 1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act for the Otay
Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch. This district formation
shall be submitted to Council for consideration prior to
approval of the first final "B" map. Maintenance of the
open space improvements shall be accomplished by the
developer for a minimum period of one year or until such
time as accepted into the open space district by the
Director of Parks and Recreation. If Council does not
approve the open space district formation, some other
financing mechanism shall be identified and submitted to
for consideration prior to approval of the first final
map.
c. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the
Director of Parks and Recreation of the formation of a
Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another
financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager, which
includes all the properties within the approved tentative
map prior to approval of the first "B" Map. The MHOA
shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
improvements listed below. The City Engineer and the
Director of Parks and Recreation may require that some of
those improvements be maintained by the Open Space
District. The final determination of w~ich improvements
are to be included in the Open Space District and those
to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the
Open Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be
structured to allow annexation of future tentative map
areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of
Parks and Recreation require such annexation of future
tentative map areas. The MHOA formation documents shall
be approved by the City Attorney.
d. Submit a list of all Otay Ranch SPA One facilities and
other items to be maintained by the proposed district.
Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements
and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space
District and those to be maintained by a Master
Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity
and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said
improvements. These lists shall include but are not
limited to the following facilities and improvements:
SCHEDULE "1"
(1) Ail facilities located on open space lots to
include but not be limited to: walls, fences, water
fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails,
access roads, drainage structures and landscaping.
Each open space lot shall also be broken down by
the number of acres of turf, irrigated, and non-
irrigated open space to aid in the estimation of a
maintenance budget thereof.
(2) Medians and parkways along East Orange Avenue
(onsite and offsite), Paseo Ranchero, La Media
Road, East Palomar Street (onsite and offsite) and
all other street parkways proposed for maintenance
by the open space district or Homeowners'
Association.
(3) The proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon
and the fair share of the maintenance of the
existing naturalized Telegraph Canyon Channel east
of Paseo Ladera as determined by the City Engineer
based on the proportional benefit received from the
improvements. This includes but is not limited to
the cost of maintenance and all cost to comply with
the Department of Fish and Game and Corps of
Engineers permit requirements,
(4) The proposed detention basin and naturalized
channel in Poggi Canyon. This includes but is not
limited to the cost of maintenance and all cost to
comply with the Department of Fish and Game and the
Corps of Engineers permit requirements.
(5) Community Gardens
(6) Pedestrian Bridges.
(7) The proportional share of the maintenance of the
median and parkways along that portion of Telegraph
Canyon Road adjoining the development as determined
by the City Engineer.
(8) Ail proposed facilities and improvements (excepting
street improvements) within the 60-foot wide
SCHEDULE "1"
easement to be dedicated to the City for right-of-
way at the following locations: (1) between
Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9, and (2) at the proposed
connection to EastLake Parkway (between the two
Otay Water District Parcels.
d. Submit an initial deposit of $15,000 to begin the process
of formation of the open space district. Ail costs of
formation and other costs associated with the processing
of the open space relating to this project shall be
borne by the developer.
e. Provide all the necessary information and materials
(e.g., exhibits, diagrams, etc.) as determined by the
City Engineer to prepare the engineer's report for the
proposed open space district.
87. Include in the CC&Rs, if applicable, the obligation of the
Homeowners' Association to maintain all the facilities and
improvements within the open space lots rejected by the City prior
to the approval of the final map containing said lots.
88. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of
wall to top of slope), along the length of any wall abutting an
open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning
of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the
Director of Parks and Recreation.
89. Ensure that all buyers of lots adjoining open space lots
containing walls maintained by the open space district sign a
statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are
aware that the walls are on City property and that they shall not
modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto City property.
These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each
lot.
90. Agree to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance
district or zone for the maintenance of landscaped medians and
scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject
subdivision.
91. Grant in fee to the City on the appropriate final map, all
open space lots shown on the tentative map and execute and record a
SCHEDULE "1"
deed for each of the lots to be maintained by the City through the
open space district. Provide on the final map a certificate,
pursuant to section 66477.2(a) of the Subdivision Map Act,
rejecting those open space lots to be maintained by the Homeowner's
Association.
92. Provide documentation, prior to the approval of the first
final "B" Map, to the Director of Planning and the City Engineer
that an annexable Mello-Roos District, or other financing mechanism
approved by the Sweetwater High School District and the Chula Vista
Elementary School District has been established to provide for
construction of schools.
93. Fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (PFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as
directed by the City Manager or his designee, and approved by the
City Council prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The
developer shall receive 100% credits towards future PFDIF fees for
funding this update. Provide a deposit of $20,000 to begin this
process. Ail cost of revising the PFDIF shall be borne by the
developer.
94. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes
Landscaping and Irrigation (L & I) improvements to be installed in
an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the
developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will
guarantee the maintenance of the L & I improvements, prior to City
acceptance of said improvements, in the event the improvements are
not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer
and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The amount of the
deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining
the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as
determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said
deposit could be incorporated into the open space district's reserve
at such time as the maintenance of the open space lot is assumed by
t~e open space district.
WATER
95. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water
District indicating that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for
all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid
or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s).
SCHEDULE "1"
96. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a
letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be
provided adequate water service and long term water storage
facilities.
EASEMENTS
97. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility
purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots
offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer.
98. Indicate on the appropriate "B" Map a reservation of easements
to the future Homeowners' Association for private storm drain and
private sewer facilities within open space lots as directed by the
City Engineer.
99. Obtain, prior to approval of any final "B" Map, all off-site
right-of-way necessary for the installation of the required
improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall
also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage
facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any o~her public
facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision.
100. 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:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or
easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the
tentative map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring
said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be
approved by the City Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and
plats prepared and appraisals complete which are
SCHEDULE "1"
necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as
determined by the City Attorney.
d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to
acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for
off-site improvements or work related to the final 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 appropriate
Final Map.
101. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section
18.20.150 of the City Code on any final map that proposes private
utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as
directed by the City Engineer.
102. Grant to City on the appropriate final "B" Map two foot access
easements along the rear and side property line of lots adjoining
walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations
of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Parks
and Recreation and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for
maintenance of said walls.
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
103. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to
approval of each final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the
following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the
subject subdivision if any one of the following occur:
(1) Regional development threshold limits set by the
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing
Plan have been reached.
(2) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public
utilities and/or services exceed the threshold
standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
SCHEDULE "1"
(3) The applicant does not comply with the terms of the
Reserve Fund Program.
b. That the City may withhold building permits for any of
the phases of development identified in the Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One
if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP or
as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not
been completed.
c. Defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval by the City, including approval by its Planning
Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents,
officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision
provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any
claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition
that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
d. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion,
siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from
this project.
e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to
place conduit and provide cable television service to
each lot on public streets within the subdivision.
Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised
cable television companies who are, and remain in
compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the
franchise and which are in further compliance 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.
f. Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for
the Homeowners' Association (HOA) provisions prohibiting
the HOA from dedicating or conveying for public streets,
land used for private streets without approval of 100% of
all the HOA members.
SCHEDULE "1"
3C- 7
104. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to
approval of the first final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to
the following:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency
plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply
with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the formation of any future regional
impact fee program or facilities benefit district to
finance the construction of correctional facilities.
105. Prior to the approval of the first final map after January 11,
2000, as per Section 1 of the Telegraph Canyon Estates Affordable
Housing Agreement adopted by Resolution No. 17737, the applicant
shall grant in fee three (3) acres of buildable land acceptable to
the City of Chula Vista within Village One of SPA One of the Otay
Ranch in order to satisfy the affordable housing implementation
measure contained in the approved Otay Ranch GDP (ref. GDP; Section
B.2, Pg. 242) and the terms of an existing agreement adopted by
Resolution No. 17737. In addition, said existing agreement, dated
December 1, 1995, shall be amended to permit the land dedication
within Village One.
106. Prior to approval of the first "A" Map, or as otherwise
determined by the Director of Planning, within SPA One and
consistent with the City's Housing Element, Ranch-Wide and SPA One
Affordable Housing Plans, the applicant shall enter into and
execute with the City an Affordable Housing Agreement ("SPA One
Affordable Housing Agreement") containing, but not limited to, the
following provisions: (a) The obligation to provide the total
number of low and moderate income units required under the City's
Affordable Housing Program, based on the number of dwelling units
contained within the Master Tentative Map for SPA One; (b)
Identify the overall number of dwelling units within the Master
T~Dtative Map for which the applicant can receive final map
approval prior to the applicant selecting and guaranteeing, to the
City's satisfaction, final affordable housing site(s); (c) The
number of dwelling units within the master tentative map area which
can receive building permit authorizations prior to the applicant
obtaining building permits for a specified number of the required
low income units; and (d.) A description of what information must
be provided in subsequent Project Level Affordable Housing
SCHEDULE "1"
Agreements. Upon its approval by the City, the terms and
conditions of the SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement shall become
conditions of this resolution, and is hereby incorporated herein by
this reference.
107. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first "B"
Map, their proportional share, as determined by the Director of
Parks and Recreation, of a collaborative study analyzing local park
needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway.
108. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City,
prior to approval of each final "B" Map, where the applicant agrees
to ensure that all insurance companies are permitted equal
opportunity to go out to bid to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's
Insurance Program (CHIP).
109. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the
developer shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of
an "Improvement Phasing Schedule" which will identify the timing of
construction of all backbone facilities noted in the following
table. The Improvement Phasing Schedule shall be consistent with
the PFFP.
COST ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN FACILITY
FINANCING PLAN
*Acquisition/Dedication of East Palomar Street between
offsite right of way Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road
*Construction of full street and between La Media Road and
improvements East Orange Avenue
*Acquisition/Dedication of the Paseos in Villages One and Five
offsite portions of open space including the paseo between
lots containing the paseos Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9
*Construction of full paseo
improvements
*Payment of Telegraph Canyon For areas covered by: backbone
Basin Drainage DIF streets and all common areas
which include, but are not
limited to: parks, schools,
paseos and open space lots
*Construction of pedestrian Pedestrian bridge connecting
bridges Village One to Village Five,
SCHEDULE "1"
Village One to Village Two and
Village Five to Village Six
*Removal of temporary "Temporary Roadway" (Santa
improvements Madera Avenue between Telegraph
*Restoration of the area to Canyon Road and Morgan Hill
original conditions Drive
*Construction of full street Permanent public road connecting
improvements Filmore Street to East Orange
Avenue
*Construction of full Transit stop facilities in
improvements Villages One and Five
*Acquisition/Dedication of Poggi Canyon Channel (onsite and
offsite drainage easement offsite) and detention basin
*Construction and maintenance
(prior to City acceptance)
*Construction and maintenance Telegraph Canyon Channel
(prior to City acceptance) detention basin
*Acquisition/Dedication of Poggi Canyon Sewer Interceptor
offsite sewer easement (onsite and offsite)
*Upgrading of the existing Poggi
Canyon Interceptor required to
accommodate C.V.T. 96-04 flows
*Construction of the
improvements required to connect
C.V.T 96-04 to the existing
Poggi Canyon sewer improvements
(near 1-805)
*Installation of interconnect Traffic signals along Telegraph
wiring Canyon Road at the intersections
with St. Claire Drive, Otay
Lakes Road and Paseo Ranchero
*Construction of full Open space lots
landscaping and irrigation
improvements
~onstruction of full trail Regional trail system
improvements
Security satisfactory to the City shall be provided for the above
backbone facilities when their .construction is triggered as
identified in the approved Improvement Phasing Schedule.
SCHEDULE "1"
In addition to the foregoing, security satisfactory to the City
shall be provided to guarantee the construction of the following
First Phase Backbone Facilities:
1) One-half of the improvements in East Palomar Street
between Paseo Ranchero and La Media including the two full traffic
circles in Village One prior to approval of the first "B" Map for
Village One.
2) The remaining improvements in East Palomar Street within
Village One at the time the trigger point is reached in the PFFP
for the corresponding "B" Map.
3) Full improvements in East Palomar Street between La Media
and East Orange Avenue in Village Five at the time the trigger
point is reached in the PFFP for the corresponding "B" Map.
4) Fair share of full improvements for the pedestrian bridge
connecting Village One to Village Five and fair share of one half
of the improvements for the pedestrian bridges connecting Village
One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six, prior to the
approval of the first final "B" Map.
The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall
be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City
Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City, 150%
times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being
processed by the City or 200% times the construction cost estimate
approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have not been
submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if
it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that
sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such
reduction.
s oons
110. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the
applicant shall prepare and submit an application for an amendment
to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan replacing the Village
Seven High School location with a site in either the area west of
Paseo Ranchero in Village One or the northern portion of Village
Two. The applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement prior
to approval of the first final map in which applicant agrees to the
SCHEDULE "1"
-7I
following: The City shall not issue building permits for more than
1,400 units within SPA One until the City has acted on the proposed
plan amendment unless the District consents to the further issuance
of such permits. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District
a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site
and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to
issuance of the 2,650th building permit (504 students) or upon
written request by the District not prior to 1,800 permits. The
all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire
Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School
District as based on District facility needs.
111. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded
elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and
an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located
within Village One, prior to issuance of the 500th residential
building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall
also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is
subject to modification by the School district as based on District
facility needs.
112. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded
elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and
an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located
within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential
building permit (750 students). The all weather access road shall
also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is
subject to modification by the School District as based on District
facility needs.
113. The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded
elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and
an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located west
of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential
building permit (1,350 students). The all weather access road
shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is
subject to modification by the School District as based on District
facility needs.
'MISCELLANEOUS
114. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) provisions assuring maintenance of all
streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private.
SCHEDULE "1'
3d
The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said
Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner
within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall also include language
which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or
conveyance for public purposes of land used for private streets
will require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners'
Association members.
115, Submit copies of Final Maps and improvement plans in a digital
format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final
Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map
based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the
information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks prior to the
approval of each Final Map.
116. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -
Zone VI (1983).
117. Prior to approval of the first final map within each Village,
the developer shall submit and obtain the approval of the City of a
master final map ("A" Map) over the portion of the tentative map
within each Village area showing "super block" lots corresponding
to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing
thereof. Said "A" map shall also show the backbone street
dedications and utility easements required to serve the "super
block" lots. All "super block" lots created shall have access to a
dedicated public street. Said "A" map shall not be considered the
first map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said
map contains single or multiple family lots or a subdivision of the
multiple family lots shown on the tentative map. A lot line
adjustment, if utilized in accordance with City standards and
procedures, shall not be considered the first "A" Map.
The subsequent development of a multiple family lot which does not
require the filing of a "B" Map shall meet, prior to issuance of a
building permit for that lot, all the applicable conditions of
approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple family
lots will not need to be bonded for with the final "A" Map which
created such lot. However, such improvements will be required to
be constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring
SCHEDULE "1"
........ I ITil
construction of street improvements under the design review and
building permit issuance processes.
In the event of a filing of a final map which requires oversizing
(in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City
ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other
properties, said final map shall be required to install all
necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary
oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties.
118. Signage shall be provided at Bouquet Canyon Drive and the
pedestrian paseo in Village Five and at Stanislaus Drive and the
pedestrian paseo in Village One which alerts motorists to a
pedestrian mid-block crossing. A signage plan indicating the
location and content of said signs shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final
"B" Map, as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
119. The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan
for the village One and Village Five Core Areas, prior to
submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family
and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village
Cores.
120. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance
(Section 19.09 of the CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall complete the following: (1) Fund
the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of
the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will
analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and
services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review
shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential
occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter
of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to
those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and
(~) Prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying
targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications
(SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates,
corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold
standards, and identifying financing options for necessary
facilities.
SCHEDULE "1"
121. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining
a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary
permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall
establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to
ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with
standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The
project manager shall have a well rounded educational background
and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and
architecture.
122. The applicant shall submit copies of any proposed C.C. and
for review and approval by the Director of Planning and the City
Engineer prior to approval of each final "B" Map.
123. Fully accessible handicap access shall be provided at the ends
of the following cul-de-sacs: Artesia Street, Glendora Court,
Calistoga Avenue, Monte Sereno Avenue, Antioch Avenue, Coalinga
Court, Westmoreland Street, Cordelia Street, Iowa Hill Court, Live
Oak Street, Marion Court, Lodi Court, Larkspur Court, Santa Lucia
Road, Parker Mountain Road, Geyserville Street, Escalon Court,
Sheep Ranch, Meeks Bay Drive, Harrills Mill Avenue and Volcano
Creek Road.
Access via stairs shall be provided at the ends of the following
cul-de-sacs: Stanislaus Drive, Amador Street, Woodsford Court,
Lockeport Court, Clovis Court, Millbrae Court, Mayfield Court,
Cache Creek Road, Jedediah Road, Kingsburg Avenue, and Lassen Peak
Street
124. The CPF-2 site located within Village One, shall be considered
a floating designation and shall be located in Neighborhood R-15.
Project design for this site will be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Director of Planning concurrently with the Precise
Plan for this area.
125. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after
approval of the tentative map but prior to recordation of the
applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the required
approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved
or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code,
regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a
guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and
SCHEDULE "1"
improvement plans) will be approved. Ail work performed by the
developer prior to approval of the applicable "B" Map shall be at
developer's own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the developer shall
acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B"
Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at
developers cost, to work done under such early permit. The
developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the
City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the
rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not
record.
PHASING
126. If the applicant modifies the SPA One approved phasing plan,
the applicant shall submit to the City a revised phasing for review
and approval prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The PFFP
shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing
plan
127. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through
multiple final maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval
for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements,
facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit
of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to require said
improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide
adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and
fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at
their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction
should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
128. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall
be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements
installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet
threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP
identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions
concerning the location and rate of development within and outside
of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual
development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP
(i.e., the development of EastLake III). Neither the PFPP nor any
other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to
develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility
improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP.
SCHEDULE "1"
Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development pattern's and updated forecasts in reliance on
changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One
development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to
serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which
improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth
Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City
Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revision. Concurrent with the
approval of the first final map approved after the PFFP for the
EastLake III GDP Area, the Applicant shall update, at the
Applicant's expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, the
SPA 1 PFFP and agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing
of construction of the public facilities, including without
limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the
construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a
condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including
tentative and final maps.
COD~ REQUIREMENTS
129. Comply with all applicable sections of the .Chula Vista
Municipal Code. 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 Ordinance and Subdivision
Manual.
130. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance
with Municipal Code requirements.
131. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and
Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to
sewer connection fees.
d. Interim SR-125 impact fee.
SCHEDULE "1"
E-77
e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF.
f. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the
City in the future.
g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF.
h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2
Undergrounding.
i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance
of building permits.
132. Comply with 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.
133. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special
Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020
regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit disclosure form
for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval.
134. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 if pump stations for
sewer purposes are proposed.
135. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of
natural channels within open spaces.
136. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of
Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
137. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula
v~ta Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from
time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited
to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan
implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan
amendment procedures (19.09.100).
The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the
process of amending its Growth Management Ordinance to add a
SCHEDULE "1"
proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions necessary to
ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly
traffic) prior to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions
will require the demonstration, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a
proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for
that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to comply with
adopted amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance.
138. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family
(5,000 square feet or less as defined in the City of Chula Vista
Design 'Manual) residential development, plans shall clearly
indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be
provided.
139. The applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from
the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP
or other equivalent 10(a) permit applicable to the property.
140. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations.
GUARDED AREAS
141. The following locations as proposed by the applicant are
authorized for guarded entrances: Santa Ynez Avenue and Santa
Lucia Road in Village One, including the multi-family neighborhoods
R-20 and R-21; Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Paula Drive in Village
Five. Emergency access locations are authorized at Morgan Hill
Drive between R-10 and R-11 in village One, and Bouquet Canyon Road
between R-24 and R-25 in Village Five.
142. Guarded entrances shall not have physical barriers and shall
be staffed from dusk until dawn.
143. Parks located within guarded areas shall not receive park
c~dit.
144. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as
private. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for
public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the
Tentative Map.
SCHEDULE "1"
145. Ail private streets shall be included in separate lots. The
applicant shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public
utility easement over the entire private street lots on the
appropriate Final "B" Map.
146. Guarded entrances shall:
a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Planning
Director.
b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue
without interrupting traffic on public streets.
c. Provide a turn around. The size and location of said
turn around shall be approved by the City Engineer.
d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and
private streets through the use of distinctive pavements.
e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant.
f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and
exiting vehicles.
147. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets.
The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any
proposal by the HOA to delete staffing or to allow "speed bumps" in
the future shall require prior written approval of 100% of all the
Homeowner's Association members.
148. Physical barriers shall be prohibited at the entrances to
guarded areas unless specifically approved by City Council.
149. Emergency entrances shall be provided with mechanical gates
a~d an "Opticom" system, or some other automated system with backup
and/or fail safe features acceptable to the Police and Fire Chief.
150. Prior to approval of any "B" Map proposing private streets,
the applicant shall initiate and complete the process enabling the
City to enforce the California Vehicle Code on said private
streets.
SCHEDULE "1"
151. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and
operation of all facilities within the common areas and streets
behind the guarded entrance. The facilities to be maintained
include, but are not limited to, pavements, sidewalks, street
trees, street lights including energy, street sweeping, private
drainage facilities and landscaping of private common areas. The
only facilities to be maintained by the City are mainline sewers
and public concrete drainage facilities (i.e., pipes and catch
basins).
152. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a
document to be initialed by the owners, and approved by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning, of the maintenance
responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost.
SCHEDULE "1"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /7~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Electing not to be a part of a Joint Powers
Authority to replace the AFF~RD Group and Metro Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager ~
Director of Public Works~'~.~.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: __ No X~_)
In 1997 Chula Vista entered into an Agreement between the 12 Participating Agencies and the City
of San Diego for the provision of Wastewater Treatment for the parties involved. That Agreement
set up the METRO COMMISSION as an advisory body to the City of San Diego and also set up
rules and processes to pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of Wastewater treatment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City not agree to be a part of a JPA to replace the AFFORD
group and METRO COMMISSION.
BOARDS/COMMISSION: not applicable
DISCUSSION:
Chula Vista has contracted with the City of San Diego for Sewage Treatment since 1963 when Chula
Vista's small plant on the Bayfront was decommissioned. The original agreement of 1960 served
well as a process to treat Chula Vista's wastewater. Chula Vista and other Participating Agencies
each had a similar agreement with San Diego for treatment. The agreement covered such issues as
Capacity rights, spreading the costs of operations, construction of new facilities, construction of
betterments to the system, and how to add new members and capacity to the system.
The agreement worked reasonably well until San Diego City Council withdrew their waiver of
secondary treatment request in 1987, which in effect put them in violation of the Clean Water Act.
San Diego, since 1963, treated the sewage at the Pt. Loma plant at the Primary level only. This was
l~egfectly safe for the Ocean, but not strictly in accordance with the Clean Water Act without a
waiver. San Diego than went on a ten year sewer planning process to build a multibillion dollar
secondary and reclamation system. This had the impact of significantly increasing every
Participating Agency's sewer cost by over 200%. This obviously caused upheaval with the
Participating Agencies and resulted in attempts at forming a Regional Govemment (SPECIAL ACT
DISTRICT) to own and operate the Sewer System. The Regional Government failed over the
decision making process and other reasons and a lawsuit resulted between the Participating
Agencies and the City of San Diego.
Through a two-year process, the Participating Agencies and the City of San Diego developed a
uniform agreement, which replaced the 1960 agreement. (The 1960 agreement would expire in
Page 2, Item ¥
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Through a two-year process, the Participating Agencies and the City of San Diego developed a
uniform agreement, which replaced the 1960 agreement. (The 1960 agreement would expire in
2013). Chula Vista is quite satisfied with the new agreement. It is for a term of 50 years, and can
be extended if San Diego is notified in 40 years. The agreement provides the Agencies with capacity
rights and commitment to treat our wastewater as long as we pay our fair share of the costs of the
system. The costs are paid proportionately based on flow and strength. The agreement also
established an advisory commission (METRO COMMISSION) composed of elected representatives
of each of the 12 Participating Agencies. The Commission's purpose was to give the City of San
Diego input and advice on the construction and operation of the treatment system. In addition to the
METRO COMMISSION the Agencies formed an informal group of Participating Agency staff
members by the name of AFFORD. The AFFORD group meets monthly to go over the
Commission Agenda and then advise the COMMISSION members on matters before them. The
AFFORD group has a budget that is voted on by the membership and each agency is billed annually
for their share of the cost based on flow. Chula Vista presently pays for 20% of the cost of AFFORD
or about $24,000. These funds are used to hire Engineering and Auditing experts to advise the
AFFORD group on Sewage treatment issues.
San Diego finances about 75% to 80% of the capital costs to build the treatment system. The
remainder is paid annually "pay as you go" from sewer revenues collected from San Diego
ratepayers and from charges to the Participating Agencies. Original projections last year indicated
that the "pay as you go" portion would be significantly increased over the prior year. Some of the
Participating Agencies expressed an interest in financing that "spike" year over several years to
soften the impact on their sewer budgets, and impact on the ratepayers. It was proposed that the
Agencies interested in financing the extra amount form a JPA, which could issue bonds to pay a
portion of their annual cost. The bonds could then be paid over a period of years thus eliminating
the "spike" effect in the rates. Chula Vista and a few other Agencies chose not to participate, since
we had adequate revenues and reserve to pay the projected costs. Further costs estimates and receipt
of grants resulted in San Diego not having to "spike" the annual costs to the participating agencies.
Therefore, the immediate push for the JPA was not necessary.
There are several smaller agencies that liked the Special Act District and who have over the past few
years tried to make the District the operator and owner of the Metro Sewer System. The District is
still state law, however, San Diego, E1 Cajon, La Mesa, and Chula Vista are not members, and it has
no assets. The remaining members meet twice a year to keep the District alive and to pay their
,a~t~rney. Other than that the SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT has no purpose.
Proposal for JPA
Several of the Participating Agencies desire to have a JPA because they believe it is more formal
than the METRO COMMISSION. They believe that the City Council of San Diego and the Media
would pay more attention to our concerns under a JPA form of Organization. Attached (Exhibit A)
is a draft document prepared by the AFFORD Chairman August Caries, (General Manager of Padre
Dam Water District) stating his ideas of the Pro and Cons of forming a JPA. Also attached is the
proposed agreement for a JPA prepared by the Padre Dam Attorney Michael Cowett. (Exhibit B).
Page 3, Item '~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
The City Manager, Asst. City Manager Morris, Deputy City Manager Powell, Asst. City Attorney
Googins, and Director of Public Works have reviewed the material and considered the impacts of
joining a JPA. Although there may be some benefit of joining a JPA, staff believes that the same
benefits can be had under the current arrangement if done properly. San Diego owns the METRO
system and contributes 70% of the flow and costs for the system. They also assume liability for
negligently operating the system. San Diego rightfully should have the responsibility and authority
to manage the system. All the Agencies have a good agreement whereby there is a formal process
to give input to San Diego on any capital improvements to the system. We have guarantees for
capacity and treatment and assurances that other major capital facilities beyond the requirements of
the NPDES permit will not be constructed without our input.
On the other hand, a JPA sets up a formal agreement between the Participating Agencies, and
specifically has the statement that the JPA can sue and be sued. Staffbelieves it is stated that there
would be no changes to the agreement between the JPA and San Diego, however, it does cause
concern to Chula Vista staffthat by joining the JPA, JPA decisions and actions not consistent with
the City's best interests might get made, and be ascribed to the City.
In conclusion, staff believes that the current arrangement with the Agreement, METRO
COMMISSION, and AFFORD, works well and on balance of pros and cons, we should not express
interest in joining a JPA at this time. Also staff is aware that many AFFORD members see this as
a first step in reinstituting the SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT which Chula Vista has determined to not
be in our best interest.
FISCAL IMPACT: The known fiscal Impact at this time is not significant. There will be legal
costs for establishment of the JPA and probably additional costs to administer the JPA. Chula Vista
would be required to pay approximately 20% of those added costs. However, there could be
significant fiscal impacts to Chula Vista if the JPA is sued or the group elects to enter into an
expensive endeavor not desired by Chula Vista.
H:\shared\engineer\afford. 113
E.XHIBI3'~.
AFFORD
City of Chula Vista City of Lemon Grove
City of Coronado Agencies for Fair and Objective Rate Determination city of National City
City of Del Mar City of Poway
City of El Cajon County of San Diego
City of Imperial Beach Otay Water Distdct
City of La Mesa Padre Dam MWD
DISCUSSION PAPER
"Formation of the "Regional Wastewater Authority", a Joint'Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the Parlicipat ng Agencies as a replacement
for AFFORD and Metro Commission"
J:listorical Context:
The Metropolitan Wastewater System is a San Diego owned system with Participating
Agencies functioning as renters. Historically, the P~:irticil~ating Agencies held very little
voice in decision-making and governance of the waStewat~r sys!~ AFFORD was formed
in the early 1990's to share the expenses of ant cipated litig~ti0~n with the City of San
Diego. This litigation was successfully av~'i~d:!~af~er a two~'~af negotiation pr,o,,cess,
culminating in the formation of the Regional wa~tewat~ll ,A. gree~ent in 1998. The 'Metro
Commission" was 'the name chosen for'the group r(J~'r~e::i~it~g [he Participating Agencies
in an advisory capacity.
Limitations of AFFORD/Metro CommissioJ3.:
1. No legal status - ad hoc and info,r~al in nature
2. Cannot enter into'~on'~[~acts (all ~CJd~racts are now entered into by a Participating
AgenCies on behalf bf AFFORD/Metro Commission)
3. No f0tm~i recognitiOn by the communities and citizens we serve
4. No reai Cred!bi!ity with t~e media and other public agencies
5. No abilitY t~ j0ihtly finance caPital improvement projects
)J~hy form a Joint Powers Authority Aoreement?:
1, TO create a legal entity representing the twelve Participating Agencies
2% To create a legal status among Participating Agencies consistent with other major
~!~: regional met?politan wastewater organizations in California
To enable [~e Participating Agencies to jointly enter into contracts (such as the
epgineering contract with Powell & Associates)
4-T0:'d:evelop a recognized regional voice representing the interests of the
communities and citizens we serve
5. To enhance credibility in the media and among other public agencies
6. To communicate Participating Agency issues of importance to San Diego and the
region
7. To jointly finance (on a voluntary basis) capital improvement projects
[Discussion Paper] Page 1 of ]/~ ~j [February 11, 2000]
Creating a Regional Voice:
Creating a regional voice is essential for the Participating Agencies;
The Metropolitan Wastewater System is 30 percent funded by the Participating Agencies;
Yet, the governance voice of the Participating Agencies is limited, indeed;
Many decisions which impact the Participating Agencies are made without the benefit of
Participating Agency input;
This input is essential in a "collaborative decision-making process";
With 30 percent of total costs at stake, collaboration is vital;
Therefore, the Participating Agencies seek more direct involvettient in decisions that
impact their communities and citizens;
The Participating Agencies consider themselves "partners" in the Regional Wastewater
System;
And as partners seek a more impactful voice in "regional" issues;
The San Jose mode of governance demonstrates that th s type of partnersh!p' iS, entirely
feasible;
After all, our interests and San Diego's interests are the same - "deliver a cost-effective
service to the region";
In fact, we believe our participation in decision making strengthens the ultimate decisions
that are made;
It also strengthens the credibility of those decisiohs within our COmmunities and with the
media;
Creating a regional voice - a unified voice - among~the Participating Agencies, and San
Diego, can improve the public perception of wastewater service delivery in the region.
Responsibilities Under the Metro Agreement:
The Metro Commission has the following.responSibilities under the Metro Agreement:
1. To represent the Participating Agencies
2. To part cipat9 !n a review of the Metropolitan Wastewater Department programs,
projects~ and ~rvices On behalf of the Participating Agencies
3. TO advise the SanDiego City Council as to those programs, projects, and services
ReSponsibilities Undera Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:
~h~e ,JPA is a public agency representing the Participating Agencies, and assumes the
authority responsibility and obligations of the Metro Commission including those set forth
i~i'th~ ~t[o Agreement. The JPA would replace AFFORD, which is essentially an Ad Hoc
ag~e:~e~t formed for the purpose of paying expenses jointly.
The JPA then is a replacement for the Metro Commission and AFFORD. It is envisioned
that AFFORD would continue to serve as a Technical Advisory Committee to the Board of
the Joint Powers Authority.
[Discussion Paper] Page 2 of L/.. ~" [February 11, 2000]
Does the formation of a Joint Powers Authority create a new layer of governance? No, it
replaces an existing AD-Hoc structure. Does the formation of a JPA increase the costs to
the Participating Agencies? No, it is anticipated that the cost of the JPA would remain
about the same as the cost of AFFORD/Metro Commission. Will the formation of JPA
require the hiring of full time staff? No, the Technical Advisory Committee and Participating
Agency managers will continue to serve as advisors to the JPA Board. If we progressed
to the level of the San Jose model, the City of San Diego would staff the JPA, which would
then also include the City of San Diego. Will the Participating Agencies required to
finance capital improvements through the JPA? No, each financi projects is
voluntary on the part of each Participating Agency. Joint Powers
Authority move us closer to a different kind of governance stru( ,~ "Special
Act District"? Perhaps, in perception only. What it dd~ do a legality
recognized entity with improved credibility to help more
effective in dealing with the City of San Diego in managing the
System·
The twelve Participating Agencies have a significant stake in tl~e Regional Wastewater
System Indeed we believe we are partners in t~is ~y, stem T0:~ ~¢,t, degree we are viewed
as partners and how effecbve ~s our voice ~ W~;i~:,~;;stake as~e, Cfioose an orgamzat~on
structure that will serve the Participating:~eridie~'ibe'st. The AFFORD representatives
recommend the consideration of the r~tro Co~ii~i~ers (b form a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement as a replacement entity for AFFORB/Metro Commission.
[Discussion Paper] Page 3 of /?/. ~ i~~ [February 11, 2000]
EXHIBIT.~
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
SDPUB\CMC~230120
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated , is
entered into by and between thc CITY OF CI-HJLA VISTA, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF
CORONADO, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF DEL MAR, a municipal corporation; the CITY
OF EL CAJON, a municipal corporation; thc CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, a municipal
corporation; thc CITY OF LA MESA, a municipal corporation; thc CITY OF LEMON GROVE,
a municipal corporation, the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a municipal corporation; thc CITY OF
POWAY, a municipal corporation; thc OTAY WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the
State of California; PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the
State of California; and the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO on behalf of Winter Gardens Sewer
Maintenance District, a maintenance district established pursuant to California Streets & Hwys. Code
section 5820 et seq.; Alpine Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California; the
Lakeside Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California; and Spring Valley
Sanitation District, a political subdivision of thc State of'California (the "Participating Agencies").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies are all authorized to own, lease, purchase, receive
and hold property and contract rights necessary or convenient for their governmental operations; and
WHEP.~AS, the Participating Agencies receive sewer treatment services as part of the
Metropolitan Sewerage System pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement en~
into by and among the City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies dated June 25,
i.i~ii~ Agreement requires the Participating Agencies to pay for capital
improvements required by the Metropolitan Sewerage System; and
WHEREAS, the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, Article 4 (commencing with
Section 6584) of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California
(the "Bond Law"), authorizes agencies formed under the Act (as hereinafter defined) to assist in the
financing of public capital improvements to be used by the public agencies which are parties to the
agreements creating such agencies; and
Wl:rE, REAS, in enacting the Bond Law, the Legislature of the State of California declared,
in Section 6584.5 of the Government Code of the State of California, that (a) there is a critical need
within the State of California to expand, upgrade and otherwise improve the public capital facilities
of local government necessary to support the rehabilitation and construction of residential and
economic development; and Co) that it is (was) the intent of the Legislature to assist in the reduction
improvements and promote greater use of existing and new financial instruments and mechanisms
such as bond pooling by local agencies; and
WltEREAS, the Participating Agencies have determined that it is in the best interest of the
communities which they serve that an Authority be formed pursuant to the Act for the purposes of
financing needed public capital improvements and reducing local borrowing costs for financing such
improvements as authorized therein, and that the formation of such an authority will be consistem
with and in furtherance of the intent and purposes of the Bond Law; and
NOW, TI~IEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises
herein contained, the Participating Agencies agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms
defined in this Article shall, for the purpose hereof, have the meanings herein specified.
"Act" means Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5, Division 7,
Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Agreement" means this agreement.
Authority meansthe, ~,o,~,,,,~,~,,,~[~g~Authontyestabhshedpursuant
to this Agreement.
"Bond Law" means the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, being Article 4 of the
Act (commencing with Section 6584 of the Government Code), as now in effect or hereafter
amended, or any other law available for use by the Authority in the authorization and issuance of
certificates of participation, bonds or other evidence of indebtedness to provide for the financing of
Obligations and/or Public Capital Improvements.
"Bond Purchase Agreemem' means an agreement between the Authority and a Participating
Agency, pursuant to which the Authority agrees to purchase Obligations from said Participating
Agency.
"Board." means the Board of Directors referred to in Section 2.04, which shall be the
governing body of the Authority.
"Bonds" means the bonds of the Authority issued pursuant to the Bond Law.
"Directors" means the members of the Board appointed to the Board pursuant to Section
2.03.
"Fiscal Year" means the period from July 1st to and including the following June 30th.
"Government Code" means the Government Code of the State of California.
"Members" and "Participating Agencies" means the City of Chula Vista, the City of
Coronado, the City of Del Mar, the City of El Cajon, the City of Imperial Beach, the City of La Mesa,
the City of Lemon Grove, the City of National City, the City of Poway, the Otay Water District, the
Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the County of San Diego on behalf of the Winter Gardens
Sewer Maintenance District, the Alpine Sanitation District, the Lakeside Sanitation District and the
Spring Valley Sanitation District.
"Metropolitan Sewerage System" or"Metro System" shall mean and consist of those facilities
and contract rights to facilities which are shown and/or described in Exhibit "A" attached to and
incorporated in the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
"Obligations" has the meaning given to the term "Bonds" in Section 6585(c) of the
Government Code, as in effect on the date hereof, and as hereafter amended.
"Public Capital Improvement" has the meaning given to such term in Section 6585(g) of the
Government Code, as in effect on the date hereof, and as hereafter amended.
"Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement" shall mean that certain agreement dated June 25,
1998 by and between the City of San Diego and all of the Participating Agencies relating to the
Metropolitan Sewerage System.
"Secretary_" means the Secretary of the Authority appointed pursuant to Section 3.01.
"Treasurer" means the Auditor and Treasurer of the Authority appointed pursuant to Section
3.02.
SDPUB\CMC~230120 -3- ~
ARTICLE II
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 2.01. Purpose. This Agreement is made pursuant to the Act providing for the joint
exercise of powers common to the Participating Agencies, and for other purposes as permitted under
the Act, the Bond Law The of
this
t~apital
/improvement~, i Sewerage System which are constructed pursuant to the
Section 2.02. Creation of Authority. Pursuant tqth~.~g_~!~.~L..h...~by created a,public
ent,ty to be known as the ~, o~ · ,~tm~ ~.~,~~~ Au or, y. The
Authority shall be a public entity separate and apart from the Participating Agencies, and shall
administer this Agreement.
Section 2.03. Board. The Authority shall be administered by a Board of twelve (12)
Directors, unless and until changed by amendment of this Agreement. The Board shall be composed
of the Authority shall reside in the Board.
Section 2.04. Meetings ofthe Board.
(a) Regular Meetings. The Board shall provide for its regular meetings; provided,
however, that at least one regular meeting shall be held each ye~-~. The date, hour and place
of the holding of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board and a copy of such
resolution shall be filed with each Participating Agency.
, ~ (b) Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with
tl~ provisions of Section 54956 of the Government Code.
(c) Call, Notice and Conduct of Meetings. All meetings of the Board, including without
limitation, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54950 et seq. of the Government Code.
Section 2.05. Minutes. The Secretary shall cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the
Board and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded
to each Director and to each Participating Agency.
Section 2.06. Voting. Each Director shall have one vote.
Section 2.07. Quorum; Required Votes; Approvals. Directors holding a majority of the
votes shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may
adjourn fi.om time to time. The affirmative votes of at least a majority of the Directors present at any
meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required to take any action by the Board.
Section 2.08. Bylaws. The Board may adopt, fi'om time to time, such bylaws, rules and
regulations for the conduct of its meetings as are necessary for the purposes this Agreement.
ARTICLE m
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Section 3.01. Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice
Chair fi.om among the Directors, and shall appoint a Secretary who may, but need not, be a Director.
The officers shall perform the duties normal to said offices. The Chair shall sign all contracts on
behalf of the Authority, or shall appoint in writing a designee to sign contracts on behalf of the
Authority, and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board. The Vice Chair shall
act, sign contracts and perform all of the Chair's duties in the absence of the Chair. The Secretary
shall countersign all contracts signed by the Chair or Vice Chair on behalf of the Authority, perform
such other duties as may be imposed by the Board and cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed
with the Secretary of State within thirty (30) days of the effective date hereof pursuant to the Act.
Section 3.02. Treasurer. Pursuant to Section 6505.6 of the Government Code, the finance
manager or director of one of the Participating Agencies shall be designated as the Auditor and
Treasurer of the Authority. The Auditor and Treasurer shall be the depository, shall have custody
of ail of the accounts, funds and money of the Authority fi.om whatever source, shall have the duties
and obligations set forth in Sections 6505 and 6505.5 of the Government Code and shall assure that
there shall be strict accountability of all funds and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the
Authority.
Section 3.03. Officers in Charge of Records, Funds and Accounts. Pursuant to Section
65~5.1 of the Government Code, the Treasurer shall have charge of, handle and have access to all
accounts, funds and money of the Authority and all records of the Authority relating thereto; and the
Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all other records of the Authority.
Section 3.04. Bonding Persons Having Access to Authority Records, Funds and
Accounts. From time to time, the Board may designate persons, in addition to the Secretary and the
Treasurer, having charge of, handling or having access to any records, funds or accounts and the
respective amounts of the official bonds of the Secretary and the Treasurer and such other persons
pursuant to Section 6505.1 of the Government Code.
Section 3.05. Legal Advisor. The Board shall have the power to appoint the legal advisor
of the Authority who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board. Such legal advisor
shall be legal counsel to one of the Participating Agencies.
Section 3.06. Other Employees. The Board shall have the power to appoint and employ
such other consultants and independent contractors as may be necessary for the purposes of this
Agreement.
All of the privileges and immunities fi.om liability, exemption fi.om laws, ordinances and rules,
all pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation and other benefits which apply to the activities
of officers, agents or employees of the Participating Agencies when performing their respective
functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any
of the functions and other duties under this Agreement.
None of the officers, agents or employees directly employed by the Board shall be deemed,
by mason of their employment by the Board, to be employed by the Participating Agencies or, by
reason of their employment by the Board, to be subject to any of the requirements of the Participating
Agencies.
Section 3.07. Assistant Officers. The Board may appoint such assistants to act in the place
of the Secretary or other officers of the Authority (other than any Director) as the Board shall from
time to time deem appropriate.
ARTICLE IV
POWERS
Section 4.01. General Powers. The Authority shall exercise in the manner herein provided
the powers common to the Participating Agencies, or as otherwise permitted under the Act, and
necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set
forth in Section 4.04.
As provided in the Act, the Authority shall be a public entity separate from the Participating
Agencies. The Authority shall have the power to finance or refinance the acquisition or construction
of, Public Capital Improvements which are acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 4.02. Power to Issue Revenue Bonds. The Authority shall have all of the powers
provided in the Act, including but not limited to the Bond Law and including the power to issue
Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of indebtedness under the Bond Law.
Section 4.03. Specific Powers. The Authority is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do
all the acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers, including but not limited to, any or
all of the following:
SDPUB\CMC~230120 ~ -6- ~
(a) to make and enter into contracts;
(b) to employ agents and employees;
(c) to finance and refinance the acquisition or construction of Public Capital
Improvements acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal
Agreement;
(d) to sue and be sued in its own name;
(e) to issue Bonds and otherwise to incur debts, liabilities or obligations, provided
that no such Bonds, debt, liability or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation
of the Participating Agencies;
(f) to apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other aid from any
agency of the United States of America or of the State of California;
(g) to invest any money in the treasury of the Authority pursuant to Section
6505.5 of the Government Code that is not required for the immediate necessities of the
Authority, as the Authority detennines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same
conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code;
(h) to apply for letters o£credit or other forms of financial guarantees in order to
secure the repayment of Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of
indebtedness and enter into agreements in connection therewith;
(i) to carry out and enforce all the provisions of this Agreement;
to make and enter into Bond Purchase Agreements;
(k) to purchase Obligations of the Participating Agencies; and
(1) to exercise any and all powers which are provided for in the Act and in Section
6588 of the Government Code, as they exist on the date oft}tis Agreement and as they may
hereafter be amended.
Section 4.04. Restrictions on Exercise of Powers. The powers of the Authority shall be
exercised in the manner provided in the Act and in the Bond Law, and, except for those powers set
forth in the Bond Law, shall be subject (in accordance with Section 6509 of the Government Code)
to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers that are imposed upon the Participating
Agencies in the exercise of similar powers.
Section 4.05. Obligations of Authority. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the
Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Participating Agencies or any of
them.
SDPU~B\CMC~230120 -7-
ARTICLE V
METHODS OF PROCEDURE; CREDIT TO MEMBERS
Section 5.01. Assumption of Responsibilities by the Authority. As soon as practicable
after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Directors shall give notice (in the manner required
by Section 2.04) o£the organizational meeting &the Board. At said meeting the Board shall provide
for its regular meetings as required by Section 2.04 and elect a Chair and Vice Chair and appoint the
Secretary.
Section 5.02. Credit to the Participating Agencies. All accounts or funds created and
established pursuant to any instrument or agreement to which the Authority is a party, and any inter-
est earned or accrued thereon, shall inure to the benefit of eanh of the Participating Agendes in their
respective proportions for which such funds or accounts were created.
ARTICLE VI
ELECTION TO FINANCE; CONTRIBUTIONS;
ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS; FUNDS
Section 6.01. Participating Agencies Election to Finance Public Capital Improvements.
Each of the Participating Agencies may elect to have the Authority issue bonds to finance its share
of Public Capital Improvements acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater
Disposal Agreement. Each Participating Agency's share of the Public Capital Improvements acquired
or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement shall be determined by the
procedure set forth in the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 6.02. Contributions. The Participating Agencies may in the appropriate
circumstance when required hereunder: (a) make contributions from their treasuries for the purposes
set forth herein, (b) make payments of public funds to defray the cost of such purposes, and (c) make
advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances to be repaid as provided herein. The
provisions of Section 6513 of the Government Code are incorporated into this Agreement.
Section 6.03. Accounts and Reports. To the extent not covered by the duties assigned to
a~t~rustee chosen by the Authority, the Treasurer shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts
Kg may be required by good accounting practice or by any provision of any trust agreement entered
into with respect to the proceeds of any Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences
of indebtedness issued, created or incurred by the Authority. The books and records of the Authority
in the possession of a trustee or the Treasurer shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by
representatives of each Participating Agency. The Treasurer, within 120 days after the dose of each
Fiscal Year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to each
Participating Agency to the extent such activities are not covered by the report of such trustee. The
trustee appointed under any trust agreement and/or indenture shall establish suitable funds, furnish
financial reports and provide suitable accounting procedures to carry out the provisions of said trust
agreement and/or indenture. Said trustee may be given such duties in said trust agreement and/or
sDP , M ,0,20 -8- ¢'/.5-'
indenture as may be desirable or necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
Section 6.04. Funds. Subject to the applicable provisions of any instrument or agreement
that the Authority may enter into, which may provide for a trustee to receive, have custody of and
disburse funds of the Authority, the Treasurer shall receive, have custody of and disburse Authority
funds as nearly as possible in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices, and shall make
the disbursements required by this Agreement or to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of
this Agreement.
Section 6.05. Annual Budget and Administrative Expenses. The Board may adopt a
budget for administrative expenses, which shall include all expenses not included in any financing
transaction of the Authority, annually prior to July 1 of each year. These expenses shall be designated
Administrative Expenses of the Authority and shall be allocated by the Board proportionately to each
of the Participating Agencies based on its Proportionate Flow in the Metropolitan Sewerage System
and the strength of its wastewater as determined by the City of San Diego pursuant to the Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 6.06. Financing Expenses. The estimated annual expenses of the Authority to
administer any financing transaction of the Authority shall be desigflated Financing Expenses and shall
be allocated by the Board proportionately to each Participating Agency which is a participant in the
financing being administered by the Authority proportionately to each Participating Agency's share
of the amount of the Bonds issued by the Authority.
ARTICLE VII
TERM
Section 7.01. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall
continue in full force and effect so long as any Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other
evidences of indebtedness of the Authority remain outstanding.
Section 7.02. Disposition of Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement, all property of
the Authority, both real and personal, shall be divided among the parties hereto in such manner as
shall be agreed upon by the parties.
ARTICLE VIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 8.01. Notices. Notices'hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficient if
delivered to the notice address of each party hereto for legal notices or as otherwise provided by a
party hereto in writing to the other party.
Section 8.02. Section [leadings. All section headings in this Agreement are for convenience
of reference only and are not to be construed as modifYing or governing the language in the section
refelTed to or to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
Section 8.03. Consent. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required the
same shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 8.04. Law Governing. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the
Constitution and laws of the State of California and is to be so construed.
Section 8.05. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time, or from time to
time, except as limited by contract with the owners of Bonds issued by the Authority or certificates
of participation in payments to be made by the Authority or the Participating Agencies or by
applicable regulations or laws of any jurisdiction having authority, by one or more supplemental
agreements executed by both of the parties to this Agreement or for any other purpose including,
without limitation, addition of new parties (including any legal entities or taxing areas heretofore or
hereafter created) in pursuance of the purposes of this Agreement.
Section 8.06. Enforcement by Authority. The Authority is hereby authorized to take any
or all legal or equitable actions, including but not limited to injunction and specific performance,
necessary or permitted by law to enforce this Agreement.
Section 8.07. Severability. Should any section or provision ohhis Agreement be decided
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of
California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining
sections and provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.
Section 8.08. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the successors of each Participating Agency. None of the Participating Agencies may
assign any right or obligation hereunder without the written consent of all of the others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and their official seals to be hereto
affixed, on the day and year first set forth above.
1.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTEST
by
2.
CITY OF CORONADO
ATTEST
by
3.
CITY OF DEL MAR
ATTEST
by
SDPUB\CMC\230120
-10-
4. CITY OF EL CAJON ATTEST
by
5. CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH ATTEST
by
6. CITY OF LA MESA ATTEST
by
7. CITY OF LEMON GROVE ATTEST
by
8. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ATTEST
by
9. CITY OF POWAY ATTEST
by
10. OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER ATTEST
DISTRICT
by
11. PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL ATTEST
WATER DISTRICT
by
12. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO on behalf of
WINTER GARDENS SEWER
) ) MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
LAKESIDE/ALPINE SANITATION
DISTRICI AND
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT ATTEST
by
SDPUB\CMC~230120 . '-~ - 1 ! - ~ ~
of reference only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language in the section
referred to or to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
Section 8.03. Consent. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required the
same shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 8.04. Law Governing. This Agreement is made in the State of Caiifomia under the
Constitution and laws of the State of California and is to be so construed.
Section 8.05. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time, or ~om time to
time, except as limited by contract with the owners of Bonds issued by the Authority or certificates
of participation in payments to be made by the Authority or the Participating Agencies or by
applicable regulations or laws of any jurisdiction having authority, by one or more supplemental
agreements executed by both of the parties to this Agreement or for any other purpose including,
without limitation, addition of new parties (including any legal entities or taxing areas heretofore or
hereafter created) in pursuance of the purposes of this Agreement.
Section 8.06. Enforcement by Authority. The Authority is hereby authorized to take any
or all legal or equitable actions, including but not limited to injunction and specific performance,
necessary or permitted by law to enforce this Agreement~
Section 8.07. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Agreement be decided
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of
California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining
sections and provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.
Section 8.08. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the successors of each Participating Agency. None of the Participating Agencies may
assign any right or obligation hereunder without the written consent of all of the others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and their official seals to be hereto
affixed, on the day and year first set forth above.
1. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ATTEST
bL
,!
2. CITY OF CORONADO ATTEST
by
3. CITY OF DEL MAR ATTEST
by
SDPUB\CMCX230120 ' 7-' - ] 0- ~. ~
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
REGIONAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
SDPUB\CMCX229655 ~
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
REGIONAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated , is
entered into by and between the CITY OF CHI/LA VISTA, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF
CORONADO, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF DEL MAR, a municipal corporation; the CITY
OF EL CAJON, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, a municipal
corporation; the CITY OF LA MESA, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF LEMON GROVE,
a municipal corporation, the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF
POWAY, a municipal corporation; the OTAY WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the
State of California; PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the
State of California; and the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO on behalf of Winter Gardens Sewer
Maintenance District, a maintenance district established pursuant to California Streets & Hwys. Code
section 5820 et seq.; Alpine Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California; the
Lakeside Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California; and Spring Valley
Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California (the "Participating Agencies").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies are all authorized to own, lease, purchase, receive
and hold property and contract rights necessary or convenient for their governmental operations~ and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies receive sewer treatment services as part of the
Metropolitan Sewerage System pursuant to thc Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement entered
into by and among the City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies dated June 25, 1998 (the
"Metro Agreement")~ and
WHEREAS, the Metro Agreement calls for the creation and operation of the Metro
Comrmssion~ and
WHEREAS, Section VIII of the Metro Agreement provides that the Metro Commission shall
consist of one representative from each Participating Agency, shall act as an advisory body, advising
the City of San Diego on matters affecting the Metro System; and
: ~ WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies have determined that it is in the best interests of the
co~nmunities which they serve that a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency be formed to assume the
authoriw and responsibility of the Metro Commission as described in the Metro Agreement~ and
WI~'F,,REAS, the Metro Agreement requires the Participating Agencies to pay for capital
improvements required by the Metropolitan Sewerage System; and
WHEREAS, the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, Article 4 (commencing with
Section 6584) of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California
(the "Bond Law"), authorizes agencies formed under the Act (as hereinafter defined) to assist in the
financing ofpubhc capital improvements to be used by the public agencies which are parties to the
agreements creating such agencies; and
W[rEREAS, in enacting the Bond Law, the Legislature of the State of California declared,
in Section 6584.5 of the Government Code of the State of California, that (a) there is a critical need
within the State of California to expand, upgrade and otherwise improve the public capital facilities
of local government necessary to support the rehabilitation and construction of residential and
economic development; and Co) that it is (was) the intent of the Legislature to assist in the reduction
improvements and promote greater use of existing and new financial instruments and mechanisms
such as bond pooling by local agencies; and
WltEREAS, the Participating Agencies have determined that it is in the best interest of the
communities which they serve that an Authority be formed pursuant to the Act for the purposes of
financing needed public capital improvements and reducing local borrowing costs for financing such
improvements as authorized therein, and that the formation of such an authority will be consistent
with and in furtherance of the intent and purposes of the Bond Law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises
herein contained, the Participating Agencies agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms
defined in this Article shall, for the purpose hereof, have the meanings herein specified.
"Act" means Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5, Division 7,
Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Agreement" means this agreement.
"Authority" means the Regional Wastewater Authority established pursuant to this
Agreement.
~ ~ "Bond Law" means the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, being Article 4 of the
X~t (commencing with Section 6584 of the Government Code), as now in effect or hereatier
amended, or any other law available for use by the Authority in the authorization and issuance of
certificates of participation, bonds or other evidence of indebtedness to provide for the financing of
Obligations and/or Public Capital Improvements.
"Bond Purchase Agreement" means an agreement between the Authority and a Participating
Agency, pursuant to which the Authority agrees to purchase Obligations from said Participating
Agency.
-2-
SDPUB\CMCL229655 ' V-- - -
"Board" means the Board of Directors referred to in Section 2.04, which shall be the
governing body of the Authority.
"Bonds" means the bonds of the Authority issued pursuant to the Bond Law.
"Directors" means the members of the Board appointed to the Board pursuant to Section
2.03.
"Fiscal Year" means the period from July 1st to and including the following June 30th.
"Government Code" means the Government Code of the State of California.
"Members" and "Participating Agencies" means the City of Chula Vista, the City of
Coronado, the City of Del Mar, the City of El Cajon, the City of Imperial Beach, the City of La Mesa,
the City of Lemon Grove, the City of National City, the City of Poway, the Otay Water District, the
Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the County of San Diego on behalf of the Winter Gardens
Sewer Maintenance District, the Alpine Sanitation District, the Lakeside Sanitation District and the
Spring Valley Sanitation District.
"Metro Agreement" shall mean the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement entered into
by and among the City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies dated June 25, 1998.
"Metropolitan Sewerage System" or"Metro System" shall mean and consist of those facilities
and contract rights to facilities which are shown and/or described in Exhibit "A" attached to and
incorporated in the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
"Obligations" has the meaning given to the term "Bonds" in Section 6585(c) of the
Government Code, as in effect on the date hereof, and as hereafter amended.
"Public Capital Improvement" has the meaning given to such term in Section 6585(g) of the
Government Code, as in effect on the date hereof, and as hereafter amended.
"Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement" shall mean that certain agreement dated June 25,
1998 by and between the City of San Diego and all of the Participating Agencies relating to the
Metropolitan Sewerage System.
"Secretary" means the Secretary of the Authority appointed pursuant to Section 3.01.
"Treasurer" means the Auditor and Treasurer of the Authority appointed pursuant to Section
3.02.
SDPUB\CMCX229655 . ~-_- -3- "~'
ARTICLE 1I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 2.01. Purpose. This Agreement is made pursuant to the Act providing for the joint
exercise of powers common to the Participating Agencies, and for other purposes as permitted under
the Act, the Bond Law and as agreed by one or more of the Participating Agencies. The purpose of
this Metro Agreement is to create a Public Agency to assume the authority, responsibility and
obligations of the Metro Commission, including those responsibilities and obligations set forth in the
Metro Agreement, to provide for the financing of public capital improvements for the Metro
Sewerage Sys~tem which are constructed pursuant to the Metro Agreement and are obligations of the
Participating Agencies and to take such other actions as are necessary for the Participating Agencies
to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities and obtain rights and benefits set forth in the Metro
Agreement.
Section 2.02. Creation of Authority. Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public
entity to be known as the "Regional Wastewater Authority." The Authority shall be a public entity
separate and apart fi-om the Participating Agencies, and shall administer this Agreement.
Section 2.03. Board. The Authority shall be administered by a Board of twelve (12)
Directors, unless and until changed by amendment of this Agreement. The Board shall be composed
of one appointee fi-om each of the Participating Agencies. The Board shall be called the "Board of
Directors of the Regional Wastewater Authority." All voting power of the Authority shall reside in
the Board.
Section 2.04. Meetings of the Board.
(a) Regular Meetings. The Board shall provide for its regular meetings; provided,
however, that at least one regular meeting shall be held each month. The date, hour and place of the
holding of regutar meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board and a copy of such resolution
shall be filed with each Participating Agency.
(b) Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with
the provisions of Section 54956 of the Government Code.
,, (c) Call, Notice and Conduct of Meeting~ All meetings of the Board, including without
li~hitation, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54950 et seq. of the Government Code.
Section 2.05. Minutes. The Secretary shall cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the
Board and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded
to each Director and to each Participating Agency.
Section 2.06. Voting. Each Director shall have one vote.
SDPUB\CMC~229655 -4-
Section 2.07. Quorum; Required Votes; Approvals. Directors holding a majority of the
votes shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may
adjourn from time to time. The affirmative votes of at least a majority of the Directors present at any
meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required to take any action by the Board.
Section 2.08. Bylaws. The Board may adopt, from time to time, such bylaws, rules and
regulations for the conduct of its meetings as are necessary for the purposes this Agreement.
ARTICLE ]311
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Section 3.01. Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice
Chair from among the Directors, and shall appoint a Secretary who may, but need not, be a Director.
The officers shall perform the duties normal to said offices. The Chair shall sign all contracts on
behalf of the Authority, or shall appoint in writing a designee to sign contracts on behalf of the
Authority, and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board. The Vice Chair shall
act, sign contracts and perform all of the Chair's duties in the absence of the Chair. The Secretary
shall countersign all contracts signed by the Chair or Vice Chair on behalf of the Authority, perform
such other duties as may be imposed by the Board and cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed
with the Secretary of State within thirty (30) days of the effective date hereof pursuant to the Act.
Section 3.02. Treasurer. Pursuant to Section 6505.6 of the Government Code, the finance
manager or director of one of the Participating Agencies shall be designated as the Auditor and
Treasurer of the Authority. The Auditor and Treasurer shall be the depository, shall have custody
of all of the accounts, funds and money of the Authority from whatever source, shall have the duties
and obligations set forth in Sections 6505 and 6505.5 of the Government Code and shall assure that
there shall be strict accountability of all funds and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the
Authority.
Section 3.03. Officers in Charge of Records, Funds and Accounts. Pursuant to Section
6505.1 of the Government Code, the Treasurer shall have charge of, handle and have access to all
accounts, funds and money of the Authority and all ~:ecords of the Authority relating thereto; and the
Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all other records of the Authority.
Section 3.04. Bonding Persons ]laving Access to Authority Records, Funds and
Accounts. From time to time, the Board may designate persons, in addition to the Secretary and the
Treasurer, having charge of, handling or having access to any records, funds or accounts and the
respective mounts of the official bonds of the Secretary and the Treasurer and such other persons
pursuant to Section 6505.1 of the Government Code.
Section 3.05. Legal Advisor. The Board shall have the power to appoint the legal advisor
of the Authority who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board. Such legal advisor
shall be legal counsel to one of the Participating Agencies.
Section 3.06. Other Employees. The Board shall have the power to appoint and employ
such other consultants and independent contractors as may be necessary for the purposes of this
Agreement.
All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemption fi-om laws, ordinances and roles,
all pension, relief~ disability, workers' compensation and other benefits which apply to the activities
of officers, agents or employees of the Participating Agencies when performing their respective
functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any
of the functions and other duties under this Agreement.
None of the officers, agents or employees directly employed by the Board shall be deemed,
by reason of their employment by the Board, to be employed by the Participating Agencies or, by
reason of their employment by the Board, to be subject to any of the requirements of the Participating
Agencies.
Section 3.07. Assistant Officers. The Board may appoint such assistants to act in the place
of the Secretary or other officers of the Authority (other than any Director) as the Board shall fi-om
time to time deem appropriate.
ARTICLE 1V
POWERS
Section 4.01. General Powers. The Authority shall exercise in the manner herein provided
the powers common to the Participating Agencies, or as otherwise permitted under the Act, and
necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set
forth in Section 4.04.
As provided in the Act, the Authority shall be a public entity separate from the Participating
Agencies. The Authority shall have the power to finance or refinance the acquisition or construction
of Public Capital Improvements which are acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 4.02. Power to Issue Revenue Bonds. The Authority shall have all of the powers
provided in the Act, including but not limited to the Bond Law and including the power to issue
Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of indebtedness under the Bond Law.
Section 4.03. Specific Powers. The Authority is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do
all the acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers, including but not limited to, any or
all of the following:
(a) to make and enter into contracts;
(b) to employ agents and employees;
SDPIJB\CMC~229655 -'~ -6-
(c) to finance and refinance the acquisition or construction of Public Capital
Improvements acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal
Agreement;
(d) to sue and be sued in its own name;
(e) to issue Bonds and otherwise to incur debts, liabilities or obligations, provided
that no such Bonds, debt, liability or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation
of the Participating Agencies;
(f) to apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other aid from any
agency of the United States of America or of the State of California;
(g) to invest may money in the treasury of the Authority pursuant to Section
6505.5 of the Government Code that is not required for the immediate necessities of the
Authority, as the Authority determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same
conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code;
(h) to apply for letters of credit or other forms of financial guarantees in order to
secure the repayment of Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of
indebtedness and enter into agreements in connection therewith;
(i) to carry out and enforce all the provisions of this Agreement;
(j) to make and enter into Bond Purchase Agreements;
(k) to purchase Obligations of the Participating Agencies; and
(1) to exercise any and all powers which are provided for in the Act and in Section
6588 of the Government Code, as they exist on the date of this Agreement and as they may
hereafter be amended.
Section 4.04. Restrictions on Exercise of Powers. The powers of the Authority shall be
exercised in the manner provided in the Act and in the Bond Law, and, except for those powers set
forth in the Bond Law, shall be subject (in accordance with Section 6509 of the Government Code)
to,the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers that are imposed upon the Participating
genc~es ~n the exercise of similar powers~
Section 4.05. Obligations of Authority. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the
Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Participating Agencies or any of
them.
SDPUB\CMCX229655 -7-
ARTICLE V
METHODS OF PROCEDURE; CREDIT TO MEMBERS
Section 5.01. Assumption of Responsibilities by the Authority. As soon as practicable
after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Directors shall give notice (in the manner required
by Section 2.04) of the organizational meeting of the Board. At said meeting the Board shall provide
for its regular meetings as required by Section 2.04 and elect a Chair and Vice Chair and appoint the
Secretary.
Section 5.02. Credit to the Participating Agencies. All accounts or funds created and
established pursuant to any instrument or agreement to which the Authority is a party, and any inter-
est earned or accrued thereon, shall inure to the benefit of each of the Participating Agencies in their
respective proportions for which such funds or accounts were created.
ARTICLE VI
ELECTION TO FINANCE; CONTRIBUTIONS;
ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS; FUNDS
Section 6.01. Participating Agencies Election to Finance Public Capital Improvements.
Each of the Participating Agencies may elect to have the Authority issue bonds to finance its share
of Public Capital Improvements acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater
Disposal Agreement. Each Participating Agency's share of the Public Capital Improvements acquired
or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement shall be determined by the
procedure set forth in the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 6.02. Contributions. The Participating Agencies may in the appropriate
circumstance when required hereunder: (a) make contributions from their treasuries for the purposes
set forth herein, (b) make payments of public funds to defray the cost of such purposes, and (c) make
advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances to be repaid as provided herein. The
provisions of Section 6513 of the Government Code are incorporated into this Agreement.
Section 6.03. Accounts and Reports. To the extent not covered by the duties assigned to
a trustee chosen by the Authority, the Treasurer shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts
as may be required by good accounting practice or by any provision of any trust agreement entered
itl,to with respect to the proceeds of any Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences
6findebtedness issued, created or incurred by the Authority. The books and records of the Authority
in the possession of a trustee or the Treasurer shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by
representatives of each Participating Agency. The Treasurer, within 120 days after the dose of each
Fiscal Year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to each
Participating Agency to the extent such activities are not covered by the report of such trustee. The
trustee appointed under any trust agreement and/or indenture shall establish suitable funds, furnish
financial reports and provide suitable accounting procedures to carry out the provisions of said trust
agreement and/or indenture. Said trustee may be given such duties in said trust agreement and/or
indenture as may be desirable or necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
SDPUB\CMC%229655 . . . 2 -~~
Section 6.04. Funds. Subject to the applicable provisions of any instrument or agreement
that the Authority may enter into, which may provide for a trustee to receive, have custody of and
disburse funds oft_he Authority, the Treasurer shall receive, have custody of and disburse Authority
funds as nearly as possible in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices, and shall make
the disbursements required by this Agreement or to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of
this Agreement.
Section 6.05. Annual Budget and Administrative Expenses. The Board may adopt a
budget for administrative expenses, which shall include all expenses not included in any financing
transaction of the Authority, annually prior to July 1 of each year. These expenses shall be designated
Administrative Expenses of the Authority and shall be allocated by the Board proportionately to each
of the Participating Agencies based on its Proportionate Flow in the Metropolitan Sewerage System
and the strength of its wastewater as determined by the City of San Diego pursuant to the Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 6.06. Financing Expenses. The estimated annual expenses of the Authority to
administer any financing transaction of the Authority shall be designated Financing Expenses and shall
be allocated by the Board proportionately to each Participating Agency which is a participant in the
financing being administered by the Authority proportionately to each Participating Agency's share
of the amount of the Bonds issued by the Authority.
ARTICLE VII
Section 7.01. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall
continue in full force and effect so long as any Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other
evidences of indebtedness of the Authority remain outstanding.
Section 7.02. Disposition of Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement, all property of
the Authority, both real and personal, shall be divided among the parties hereto in such manner as
shall be agreed upon by the parties.
ARTICLE VIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 8.01. Notices. Notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficient if
delivered to the notice address of each party hereto for legal notices or as otherwise provided by a
party hereto in writing to the other party.
Section 8.02. Section Headings. All section headings in this Agreement are for convenience
of reference only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language in the section
referred to or to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
Section 8.03. Consent. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required the
same shall not be unreasonably witbaheld.
Section 8.04. Law Governing. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the
Constitution and laws of the State of California and is to be so construed.
Section 8.05. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time, or fi-om time to
time, except as limited by contract with the owners of Bonds issued by the Authority or certificates
of participation in payments to be made by the Authority or the Participating Agencies or by
applicable regulations or laws of any jurisdiction having authority, by one or more supplemental
agreements executed by both of the parties to this Agreement or for any other purpose including,
without limitation, addition of new parties (including any legal entities or taxing areas heretofore or
hereafter created) in pursuance of the purposes of this Agreement.
Section 8.06. Enforcement by Authority. The Authority is hereby authorized to take any
or all legal or equitable actions, including but not limited to injunction and specific performance,
necessary or permitted by law to enforce this Agreement.
Section 8.07. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Agreement be decided
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of
California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining
sections and provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.
Section 8.08. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the successors of each Participating Agency. None of the Participating Agencies may
assign any right or obligation hereunder without the written consent of all of the others
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and their official seals to be hereto
affixed, on the day and year first set forth above.
1. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ATTEST
by
2. CITY OF CORONADO ATTEST
3. CITY OF DEL MAR ATTEST
by
4. CITY OF EL CAJON ATTEST
by
[]
5. CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH ATTEST
by
6. CITY OF LA MESA ATTEST
by
7. CITY OF LEMON GROVE ATTEST
by
8. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ATTEST
by
9. CITY OF POWAY ATTEST
by
10. OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER ATTEST
DISTRICT
by
11. PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL ATTEST
WATER DISTRICT
by
I2. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO on behalf of
WINTER GARDENS SEWER
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
LAKESIDE/ALPINE SANITATION
DISTRICT AND
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT ATTEST
by
S~Y
PROPOSED JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
By
C. Michael Cowett, Best Best & Krieger LLP
February 1 l, 2000
Introduction
The proposed Joint Exercise &Powers Agreement among the Participating Agencies has
been prepared at the request of the Metro Commission to assume the authority and responsibility
of the Metro Commission and to enable Participating Agencies to evaluate the desirability of
forming a Joint Exercise o£Powers Authority to help them finance their share of the Capital
Improvements £or the Metro System. This memo summarizes the provisions of the Agreement
and answers specific questions which have been raised.
Purpose
The purpose of the Joint Exercise of Powers Authority (JPA) is to create a Public Agency
to assume the power and authority of the Metro Commission and to enable Participating Agencies
to finance their share of the Capital Improvements for the Metropolitan Sewerage System which
are constructed pursuant to the Metro Wastewater Agreement. (Section 2.01) Each Participating
Agency would have the opportunity to finance its Capital Improvement Obligation rather than
paying cash to San Diego for the construction of said improvements. (Section 6.01)
Members
All participating Agencies are anticipated to be members of the JPA. (Section 1.01) If
some Participating Agencies choose not to participate, the JPA could accomplish its financing
purpose without them, but said Agencies would lose their voice as members of the existing Metro
Commission.
Board of Directors
The Board of Directors would be composed of one representative fi-om each Participating
Agency each with one vote. (Section 2.03)
Replacement of Metro Commission
This proposed JPA has as its purpose the replacement of the Metro Commission. It would
have the specific powers granted to the Metro Commission in the Regional Wastewater Disposal
Agreement between the City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies. As such, the Metro
Commission would cease to exist.
Procedure to Finance Facilities
A. Each Participating Agency would decide whether to elect to have the Authority
issue bonds to finance its share of the Metro System Capital Improvements. (Section 6.01)
B. Each Participating Agency's share of the Capital Improvement Obligation is
determined by the Metro Agreement. (Section 6.01) Distribution of the proceeds of the bonds
and accounting (receipt of debt service payments, payment of each Participating Agencies' Capital
Improvement Obligation to Metro, etc.) would be performed by a trustee appointed upon issuing
the bonds. (Section 6.03)
Expenses
A. Administrative Expenses
All of the Authority's administrative expenses which are not involved in any
financing transaction (payments to Powell & Associates for regular engineering services, etc.)
would be allocated amongst the Participating Agencies' proportionately to each Participating
Agencies' proportionate flow and strength as determined in the Metro Agreement. (Section 6.05)
This is the method by which AFFORD now allocates its costs.
B. Financing Expenses
Ail Authority expenses required to administer any financing transaction of the
Authority would be allocated in proportion to each Participating Agencies' share of the amount of
bonds issued by the Authority. (Section 6.06)
Answers to Specific Ouestions
' ' 1. What would happen to AFFORD?
It is anticipated that AFFORD would be recreated as an appointed technical
committee to the Board of Directors.
2. In the event of a default by one city what is the impact on other cities in the/PA?
a. The impact on cities that are in the financing.
b. The impact on cities that are not in the financing.
SDPUB/CMC~229657 _~ 2 ¢~ ~, -
In order to finance the Participating Agencies' shares of the cost of the Metro
Capital Facilities, the Authority would most likely enter into installment purchase agreements with
the Participating Agencies whereby the Participating Agencies would purchase capacity in the
facilities which are to be financed. These agreements would obligate the Participating Agencies to
pay installment payments to the Authority. These installment payments would be pledged by the
Authority to secure the payment of debt service on its revenue bonds which would be issued to
finance the Participating Agency shares of the cost of the facilities. These installment purchase
agreements would provide that the only obligation of a Participating Agency is to pay its
installment payments and that it is not responsible for the payment of the installment payments of
any other Participating Agency. The Authority would fund the reserve fund out of the bond
proceeds which would be available to pay debt service on its revenue bonds in the event of a
default by any of the Participating Agencies. Furthermore, the Authority would likely secure a
policy of municipal bond insurance guaranteeing the payment of debt service on its revenue
bonds.
The agencies which are not participating in the financing transaction would have no
responsibility for the payment of debt service on the Authority's revenue bonds. The Authority
will be a public agency separate and apart from the agencies which are signatory to the joint IPA.
The Agreement specifically provides that the signatory agencies are not responsible for the debts
of the Authority, Moreover, since those Participating Agencies would not be participants in a
transaction, they would not have any contractual obligation which would result in them being held
responsible in the event of a default by any one of the Participating Agencies.
3. What is the impact of insurance? Would it insure each city's obligation or would it
insure the total obligation?
Insurance would insure the total obligation of the Authority.
4. How does issuing debt through the JPA save each Participating Agency money?
Compare issuance cost for each city with issuance cost for the JPA.
Issuing debt through the pr(~posed JPA is a less expensive option for each Participating
Agency than issuing debt on an individual basis primarily because of the economies of scale.
Some costs, such as trustee and priming costs, are approximately the same no mater what the
transaction size. Other costs, such as rating and professional services, decrease as a percentage
fq~ larger transactions. Therefore economies of scale exist in bond financings and it is generally
lels expensive to have one larger transaction rather than multiple small transactions. For planning
purposes, we generally assume a minimum of $100,000. cost of issuance for any bonds publicly
sold. The average cost of issuance to each of the Participating Agencies, if 10 Participating
Agencies participated would be approximately $29,000.
5. What are the issuance costs for the debt?
Fieldman, Rolapp has estimated the issuance cost at $287,500. on the assumption that ten
agencies would be participating. That amounts to approximately $29,000. per agency. A
breakdown of the estimated costs are set forth on Exhibit 1.
2. May a Participating Agency join as a member after the JPA has akeady formed?
Yes. The IPA could be amended to include a new member after it has been formed. It
would require the approval of each of the existing members.
3. Can the IPA finance a Participating Agency's obligations for debts (sewer debts or other
debts) other than Metro Sewer obligations?
The draft JPA has been written to restrict financing to Metro Sewer obligations. It could
be drat~ed so as to provide for the issuance of other debt if the Participating Agencies so desire.
SDPLrB\CMC~.29657 2 4 ~. ~
Exhibit 1
METRO SEWER PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Estimated Cost of Issuance
Service Fees
Rating Fees $ 40,000
Trustee Fees 7,500
Printing Fees 20,000
Revenue Projections 30,000
Bond Counsel Fee 75,000
Financial Advisor 55,000
Disclosure Counsel 40,000
Expenses 5,000
Contingency 15,000
Subtotal $287,500
Assumptions: Ten agencies participating, Some fees may vary depending upon number of
participants.
Gross proceeds of $28,075,000.
Construction proceeds of approximately $25,508,000.
Date of issuance is during1999
Bonds are insured.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES IN THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM
RECITALS
1. Section VIII of the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement between the City of
San Diego and the Participating Agencies in the Metropolitan Sewerage System
(Metro Agreement) describes The Metro Commission and describes certain
responsibilities and obligations of that Commission.
2. The Participating Agencies seek to replace the Metro Commission with a joint
powers entity called the Metro Sewer Authority.
3. The Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Metro Sewer Authority is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
4. The City of San Diego agrees that said Metro Sewer Authority shall replace the
Metro Commission and serve the purposes of the Metro Commission as described
in the Metro Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein
contained, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The Metro Sewer Authority described in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit A shall replace the Metro Commission and assume all
responsibilities and obligations of the Metro Commission as described in the Metro
Agreement.
SDPUB\CMCL229736
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and year first above written.
Agency
1. City of Chula Vista dated
by
2. City of Coronado dated
by
3. City of Del Mar dated
by
4. City of El Cajon dated
t~y
5. City of Imperial Beach dated
by
6. City of La Mesa dated
by
7. City of Lemon Grove dated
by
8. City of National City dated
by
9. City o£Poway dated
by
I 0. City of San Diego dated
by
1 ~,. Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District dated
by
12. Lakeside/Alpine Sanitation Districts dated
by
13. Spring Valley Sanitation District dated
by
SDPUB\CMCE229736
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ELECTING NOT TO BE A PART OF A
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO REPLACE THE AFFORD
GROUP AND METRO COMMISSION
WHEREAS, in 1997 Chula Vista entered into an Agreement
between the 12 Participating Agencies and the City of San Diego for
the provision of Wastewater Treatment for the parties involved; and
WHEREAS, that Agreement set up the Metro Commission as an
advisory body to the City of San Diego and also set up rules and
processes to pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of
Wastewater treatment; and
WHEREAS, several of the Participating Agencies desire to
have a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) because they believe it is more
formal than the Metro Commission and the City Council of San Diego
and the media would pay more attention to the City's concerns under
a JPA form of organization; and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the material and
considered the impacts of joining a JPA and believes the same
benefits can be had under the current arrangement; and
WHEREAS, staff believes that the current arrangement with
the Agreement, Metro Commission and AFFORD works well and on
balance of pros and cons, we should reject joining a JPA at this
time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista hereby elects not to be a part of a Joint
Powers Authority to replace the AFFORD Group and Metro Commission.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~i~d Morris, Assistant City Joh~M. K~heny, ~l~a-~..~ At~o~ney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -5'
Meeting Date 4118100
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving agreement between County of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista for public transportation services for FY 2000-01.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works (~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~.~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No X )
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $127,830 of County of San Diego
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds for provision of Chula Vista Transit
(CVT) services in the unincorporated area of the County.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving agreement with the County
of San Diego for public transportation services for FY 2000-01
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $127,830 of County TDA Article 4.0
funds for CVT services provided by Routes 705 and 711 in the unincorporated area during FY
2000-01. Route 705 operates between the Bayfront Trolley Station and Southwestern College.
Route 711 operates between Plaza Bonita and Southwestern College. Both these routes pass
through unincorporated areas from their origin points to their destinations.
The estimated net cost (gross operating cost minus revenue credit) for CVT service in the County
next fiscal year is $127,830, a 1.4% reduction from this fiscal year's cost of $129,620. This
decrease is due to a recalculation of both miles operated and projected passenger revenue in the
unincorporated area resulting from adjustments on both routes. This agreement estimates a gross
CVT cost per mile of $3.30, estimated 64,178 passengers, and total revenue credit of $58,903.
The $127,830 represents full cost recovery for CVT services in the unincorporated areas, and
;!nc~ludes the FY 2000-01 San Diego Transit contract cost for CVT operations.
FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will authorize the City of Chula Vista to claim $127,830 of
County of San Diego TDA Article 4.0 funds for CVT services in FY 2000-01
File: DS-037
HAHOME~ENGINEER~AGENDA\COUNTY AGREEMENT FY 01al 13.dec
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
PUBLIC TRD, NSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FY 2000-01
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Transit (CVT) has two routes which
provide service in the unincorporated part of the County; and
WHEREAS, the cost to CVT to provide the service to the
unincorporated area of the County is $127,830; and
WHEREAS, the agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista
to claim $127,830 of County of San Diego Transportation Development
Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds for provision of CVT service in the
unincorporated area of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement between the
County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista for public transpor-
tation services for FY 2000-01, a copy of which shall be kept on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~r~-M. Kahen~, City
Public Works Attorney
H~ \home ~ lorraine ~ r s ~ SDC. tda
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FOR FY 2000-01
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the County of San Diego hereinafter
called "COUNTY" and the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter called "OPERATOR".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, COUNTY is desirous of providing public transit service to areas within the
jurisdiction of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is the OPERATOR of Chula Vista Transit; and
WHEREAS, OPERATOR has the knowledge and expertise to provide the service desired
by the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY recognizes the value of the service to be provided by OPERATOR
to its citizens and is willing to contract with OPERATOR to provide transportation service within
the unincorporated area of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code, Section 99288, authorizes COUNTY and OPERATOR
to enter into a contract for OPERATOR to provide such public transportation service for the
benefit of the COUNTY and permitting OPERATOR, when such contract is entered into, to claim
for local transportation purposes, from the Local Transportation Fund, the apportionment of the
COUNTY or so much thereof as may be agreed upon, in the manner provided in Article 4
(commencing at Section 99260) of the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Ch. 4, Pt. 11, Div. 10 of the
Public Utilities Code);
NOW, THEREFORE, COUNTY and OPERATOR mutually agree as follows:
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 1
A:\COUNTY FY 01 .AGT.WPD
1. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1. t. Public Transportation Services to be Provided
OPERATOR shall provide public transportation services for the benefit of residents
of and visitors to COUNTY, upon those routes, during those times, and at the level of service
specified in Exhibit A.
1.2. Passenger Counts
OPERATOR shall perform at least once annually, a one-day count of passengers
boarding and departing the services provided under this Agreement. The number of counts and
specific methods of counting will be determined by the OPERATOR, upon consultation with the
COUNTY, and in conjunction with the regional transit passenger counting program, where
practicable. A report summarizing the results of the count will be submitted to the COUNTY.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.1. Base Term
The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001,
unless terminated earlier as provided herein.
3. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
3.1. Claim - OPERATOR may, without further authorization, include in any claim filed
with the Local Transportation Planning Agency of San Diego County under the provisions of
Article 4 (commencing with Section 99260) of the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Ch. 4, Pt. 11, Div.
10 of the Public Utilities Code), an amount up to but not exceeding $123,270 of the
apportionment to the unincorporated area of the COUNTY for FY 2000-01.
3.2. Service Actually Performed - OPERATOR shall be compensated for service
provided under this Agreement. If OPERATOR performs only a portion of the services described
in Exhibit A of this Agreement, OPERATOR shall be paid an amount equal to the unit of service
(determined by miles operated) actually provided. Operator shall not be required to perform such
services if the above described claim (paragraph 3.1) is not available to operator for any reasons.
,~ 3.3. It is estimated that in FY 1999-00 OPERATOR shall be compensated based on the
esilmated net operating cost for services as described in Exhibit A.
3.3.1. If COUNTY and OPERATOR agree to change the level or type of service
provided for in this Agreement, or there is a change in the level of service provided by
OPERATOR due to strike, civil disaster or other public calamity, COUNTY and OPERATOR
shall negotiate a mutually agreeable cost rate for the specific additional or reduced service
provided.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 2
A:XCOI3NTY FY 01.AGT.WPD
3.3.2. OPERATOR shall revise and update Exhibit A annually. The level of
public transit service and the rate(s) for service shall be provided by OPERATOR to COUNTY
for approval at least 90 calendar days prior to the beginning of any fiscal year covered by this
Agreement.
3.4. Periodic Payments - Upon submittal of valid invoice, OPERATOR shall be
compensated by periodic payments in advance from the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG), the Local Transportation Planning Agency of San Diego County.
3.5. lfthe amount allocated to OPERATOR by the Local Transportation Planning Agency
is insufficient to meet the cost of services as described in Exhibit A, OPERATOR shall
immediately notify COUNTY. In that event, COUNTY agrees that this Agreement shall be
amended to reduce the services provided or to pay OPERATOR from other sources the amount
necessary to meet the cost of services as described in Exhibits A and B (Route Analysis).
4. INSURANCE
4.1. OPERATOR, through its Agreement with its contractor, shall produce the following
insurance, which may contain self insurance retentions:
4.1.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile
Insurance coverage in the amount of $10,000,000 naming the COUNTY and its employees and
officers as additional insureds. This coverage shall include Comprehensive General Liability
Insurance including contractual liability, and personal injury liability.
4.2. On or before July 1, 2000, OPERATOR shall provide COUNTY a complete copy of
OPERATOR's contractor's Certificate of Insurance indicating that the insurance required above
has been obtained. OPERATOR shall give COUNTY 30 calendar days written notice of
cancellation or material change required by the insurance company in the insurance coverage
required by this Agreement.
4.3. Occurrence means any event or related exposure to conditions which results in
bodily injury or property damage.
4.4. Neither OPERATOR nor its contractors shall cancel or materially change any of the
required insurance coverages.
5 ¢ ~! AUDIT
5.1. At any time during normal business hours and as often as COUNTY may deem
necessary, OPERATOR shall make available to COUNTY for examination all of its records with
respect to all matters covered by this Agreement, shall permit COUNTY to audit, examine and
make excerpts of transcripts of such records, and shall permit COUNTY to perform audit
procedures as deemed necessary with respect to all invoices, payrolls, equipment, materials, and
other data relating to matters covered by this Agreement.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 3
At\COUNTY FY 0l AGT WPD
6. INDEMNITY
6.1. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Agreement, OPERATOR shall
investigate, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers, agents and
employees from any and all claims, demands, loss or liability of any kind or nature whether real
or alleged which COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur, or which
may be imposed upon any kind of or for any acts or omissions by OPERATOR, its officers,
agents or employees hereunder.
7. WHEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED
In no event shall any payment by the Local Transportation Planning Agency as provided
herein constitute or be construed to be a waiver by COUNTY of any breach of conditions or any
default which may then exist. The existence of any such breach or default shall in no way impair
or prejudice any right or remedy available to COUNTY with respect to such breach or default.
8. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT
8.1. This document, including Exhibit A and B, embodies the entire Agreement between
COUNTY and OPERATOR for the transportation service described herein and the terms and
conditions. No verbal agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of
COUNTY prior to the execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or
obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. No such verbal agreement
shall bind COUNTY.
8.2. This Agreement may be changed only by a written amendment signed by both
parties.
9. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS
If any provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid, the remainder of this Agreement
shall not be affected, provided the remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable
law.
10. TERMINATION
10.1. COUNTY may terminate this Agreement at any time for reasonable cause, defined
as;,the failure by OPERATOR to substantially perform in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, by giving written notice to OPERATOR of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least 90 days before the effective date of such termination. OPERATOR
may terminate this Agreement at any time for failure by COUNTY to substantially perform in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement by giving written notice to COUNTY
of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least 90 days before the effective
date of such termination.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 4
A:\COUNTY FY OI.AGT.WPD
10.2. During the time between the written notice of termination and the effective date of
termination, both parties shall work toward remedying the cause or reasons for the intent to
terminate. If COUNTY terminates this Agreement without cause, COUNTY shall pay all
settlement costs, claims and attorneys arising out of such termination.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
For purpose of this Agreement, OPERATOR is an independent contractor, and no
employee of OPERATOR is, for purposes of this Agreement, an employee of COUNTY and
OPERATOR.
12. BUS STOPS
12.1. Specific bus stops shall be established by agreement with COUNTY.
13. REPRESENTATIVES OF CITY AND COUNTY
13.1. The City's Transit Coordinator or designated representatives shall represent CITY in
all matters pertaining to this Agreement and shall administer this Agreement on behalf of the
CITY. The County's Director of Public Works or designated representatives shall represent
COUNTY in all matters pertaining to this Agreement and shall administer this Agreement on
behalf of the COUNTY.
14. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
14.1. In performing under this Agreement, OPERATOR and COUNTY shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex,
or national origin. This performance shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates
of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
i5. NOTICE
15.1. All notices and communications with respect to this Agreement shall be effective
upon mailing thereof by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) and addressed as
follows:
O?ERATOR COUNTY
City of Chula Vista County Dept. of Public Works
707 "F" Street 5469 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 305
Chula Vista, CA 91910 San Die§o, CA 92123
ATTN: Andres Trujillo, Transit Coordinator, ATTN: Chandra Wallar, Assistant Director,
Acting Public Works
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 5
A:\COUNTY FY 01.AGT.WPD
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective representatives thereunto duly authorized on this day of
2000.
APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By_ By:
City Attorney Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By By.
County Counsel Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PAGE 6
A:\COUNTY FY 01.AGT,WPD
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE AND COST SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BUS SERVICE
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT
Gross Cost @ Projected
Route Miles $3.30 Mile Passengers Revenue Credit Net Cost
705 30,433 $100,430 50,079 $46,073 $54,357
711 24,308 $80,216 14,099 $12,830 $67,386
Subtotal TDA Subsidy: $121,743
5 % Administrative Pass-Through Claim: $6,087
TOTAL TDA AMOUNT: $127,830
Route Description
Route 705: Enter County on Bonita Road, eastbound, at the intersection of Bonita Road and
Lynnwood Drive to the Chula Vista City limit line at the eastern boundary of Glen
Abbey Cemetery on Bonita Road. The inbound trip follows the same route in the
opposite direction.
Route 711: From Plaza Bonita, enter County at the intersection of Plaza Bonita Road and
Bonita Mesa Road, east of Bonita Mesa Road, north of Mesa Vista Road, east on
Sweetwater Road, south on Willow and to the Chula Vista City limit line. Re-
enter County on Bonita Road about one-fourth mile east of Otay Lakes Road, turn
northeast on Central Avenue, south on Corral Canyon Road, and enter Chula Vista
City limit at a point approximately 400 feet north of County Vista Lane. The
inbound trip follows the same route in the opposite direction.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT ~ ~} PAGE 7
A:\COUNTY FY 01 .AGT.WPD
/
EXHIBIT B
ROUTE ANALYSIS
ANNUAL M]!,EAGE
FY 2000-01
Roundtrip No. of No. of I Route[ Total GrossCost@ I
Route No. Miles Trips Days Mileage Mileage $3.30/Mile
705 w/Plaza Bonita Loop
Weekdays 4.24 18 254 19,385
Saturdays 4.24 14 54 3,205
Sundays 4.24 14 51 3,027
Holidays 4.24 14 3 178
705 w/o Plaza Bonita Loop
Weekdays 2.44 6 254 3,716
Saturday 2.44 5 54 658
Sunday 2.44 2 51 249
Holidays 2.44 2 3 15
30,433 $100,430
711
Weekdays 8.70 11 259 24,308 [ 24,308 ] $80,126
T O T A L S [ $180,646
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE
Total
Route Passengers Revenue Credit Revenue
705 50,079 $0.92/passenger $46,073
711 14,099 $0.91/passenger $12,830
TOTAL 64,178 $58,902
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
A:\COUNTY FY 01 .AGT.WPD ~ ~/t~ PAGE8
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving submission of FY 2000-01 Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Arti.~/!e 4.0 Claim
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: fillets, '" Vote: Yes No X )
City Manager ~,j ~1ln/ (4/5ths
The FY 2000-01 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT)
operations and capital procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April 1, 2000, as
required by State law. A "TDA Claim" is an application for TDA operating and capital funds for
the upcoming fiscal year. SANDAG issues the TDA guidelines, which includes the City's total
TDA funds available for next fiscal year, during the first week in March. Staff prepares the TDA
claim and submits it both to SANDAG and MTDB by the April 1 deadline. Staff then returns to
· Council in April for ratification on the claim. An amendment to the claim may be made by
direction of Council after submission to SANDAG and MTDB. The total claim is in the amount
of $3,461,320 consisting of $3,333,490 claimed against the City of Chula Vista's TDA funds and
$127,830 claimed against the County of San Diego' TDA funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving the FY 2000-01 TDA Article
4.0 Claim.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The FY TDA 4.0 Claim consists of the following components:
City of Chula Vista County of San Diego
TDA Account TDA Account Total
/'Operations $3,258,490 $127,830 $3,386,320
Capital $75,000 $0 $75,000
Total $3,333,490 $127,830 $3,461,320
The $127,830 from the County's TDA account is for the CVT service in the unincorporated areas
provided by Routes 705 and 711. The $3,333,490 is for the balance of CVT operating and
capital costs claimed against the City of Chula Vista's TDA funds as contained in the preliminary
FY 2000-01 Transit Division budget request.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Following is a breakdown of estimated Transit Division costs and revenues sources for FY 2000-
01:
Estimated Costs:
Contractual Services for CVT Operations $3,949,158
Other Supplies & Services $1,392,662
Capital Outlay $75,000
Total Estimated Costs $5,416,820
Estimated Revenue Sources:
Fare Revenue $1,885,000
TDA Article 4.0 Funds City/County $3,461,320
Investment Earnings $70,500
Total Revenue Sources $5,416,820
The claim is based on estimated costs and revenue for FY 2000-01, and may be modified due to:
changes in the proposed FY 2000-01 Transit Division budget; and differences between actual and
estimated costs and revenues in FY 2000-01.
FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2000-01 TDA Article 4.0 claim contains no City of Chula Vista
General Fund contribution. Transit Division operating and capital costs are funded by City of
Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds, County of San Diego Article 4.0 funds, farebox revenue and
investment earnings.
TI~ FY 2000-01 City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 apportionment is $3,259,273. Total
estimated Article 4.0 funds available, including the FY 2000-01 claim and prior year unallocated
funds, are $6,111,956.
File: DS-022
H:\HOME\ENGINEER~AGENDA\TDA FY 01al 13.doc
1Tr[
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FY 2000-01
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE
4.0 CLAIM
WHEREAS, the FY 2000-01 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds
to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT) operations and capital
procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April 1, 2000, as
required by State law; and
WHEREAS, a "TDA Claim" is an application for TDA
operating and capital funds for the upcoming fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the total claim is $3,461,320 consisting of
$3,333,490 claimed against the City of Chula vista's TDA funds and
$127,830 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve submission of FY 2000-
01 Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 Claim in the amount
of $3,461,320.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~n M. Kabel, City
Public Works A~ct orney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the submittal to California
Department of Transportation of eight (8) applications for the Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1999/00 "Safe Routes to School Program" grants.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works /~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (-0Ir (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X
The Safe Route to School (SR2S) Program is a new federal program that resulted from the passage
and signing of Assembly Bill (AB)1475. Bill (AB)1475 calls for the California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) to establish and administer a "Safe Route to School construction
program" and to "use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety
and traffic calming projects." Current regulation requires that official applications be submitted
in order for projects to be considered for funding. Projects are chosen and then approved for
funding after the applications have been evaluated and assigned a priority by CalTrans.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the submittal of eight (8) applications to Caltrans
for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 1999/00 Safe Routes to School Program
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Safe Route to School (SR2S) Program is a new federal program that resulted from the passage
and signing of Assembly Bill (AB)1475. Bill (AB)1475 calls for the California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) to establish and administer a "Safe Route to School construction
program" and to "use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety
and traffic calming projects." Current regulation requires that official applications be submitted
in order for projects to be considered for funding. Projects are chosen and then approved for
funding after the applications have been evaluated and assigned a priority by CalTrans.
The success of any project application being approved for funding will depend largely on the
applicant's ability to develop a comprehensive and unified approach to improving the safety of
pedestrian and/or bicycle routes to and from schools within the jurisdictional areas of
responsibility. As established by AB 1475, a "Construction Program" bill, all construction
improvements must be made on public property. Other programs or activities related to
"encouragement," "enforcement" or "education" are not eligible unless it can be shown as
incidental to the overall cost of the project. The bill goes on to say that CalTrans "shall make
grants available to local governmental agencies under the program based on the results of a
statewide competition that requires the submission of proposals for funding."
Page 2, Item '!
Meeting Date 4/18/00
The SR2S project criteria will be based on the following factors:
1. Demonstrated needs of the applicant.
2. Potential for reducing child injuries and fatalities.
3. Potential for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students.
4. Identification of bicycle and/or pedestrian safety hazards.
5. Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school.
6. Consultation and support for projects by school-based associations, local traffic
engineers, local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and school officials.
Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program projects are prioritized under two categories. The first
category is for those projects qualifying based on calculated Safety Index. This is calculated by
using accidents directly related to the correction proposed by the project or using all accidents at
the location and applying a "Reduction Factor." Projects are then prioritized statewide by
descending safety indexes. Projects that fail to qualify in this category will be re-categorized as
a Work Type Improvement. The second category is for those projects qualifying based solely
on Work Type Improvement. Work Type funding is used to fund projects with safety needs that
cannot be quantified by Safety Index due to the lack of sufficient accident data. Safety Index
projects will receive approximately 25 percent ($5 million) of available SR2S Funds and Work
Type projects will receive the remaining 75 percent ($15 million).
CalTrans will program approximately $20 million worth of SR2S projects per year, for at least
two years, beginning in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 99/00 and again in FFY 00/01. Projects
submission deadline for this fiscal year is April 27, 2000. Any projects that are not approved for
funding in the FFY 99/00 can be resubmitted in FFY 00/01. The project reimbursement ratio is
determined at the time of the "Authorization to Proceed" phase. Typically, the maximum federal
reimbursement share ratio is 90 percent up to a maximum of $500,000 per project. The
remaining 10 percent must be locally funded. However, Title 23 of the United State Code Section
120(c), allows for a 100 percent federal reimbursement for projects that construct or install traffic
signals, traffic signs, or pavement markings. It has been noted, however, that Caltrans' general
pr~tice is to approve projects that require grant funding of $250.000.00 or less.
The following list describes the Work Type Improvement project applications that will be
submitted to the California Department of Transportation for the Safe Route to School Program
for FFY 1999/00 funding. None of the school area improvement projects that staff evaluated this
year was submitted under the Safety Index category. (The Federal Fiscal Year starts on October
1 and ends on September 30)
Project 1 - Replacement of all Existing School Zone signing with new Fluorescent Green High
Intensity signs. This involves the replacement of school signs at forty three (43)
elementary, middle and high school locations.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
Project 2 - Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of Hilltop Drive and Oxford Street in
the Vicinity of Castle Park Elementary School. This proposed fully-actuated (8
phase) signal is ranked number 2 on the attached "2000 Intersection Evaluation
List- Traffic Signal Warrant."
Project 3 - Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the Vicinity of Lauderbach
Elementary School. This involves the construction of missing street/sidewalk
improvements along Fourth Avenue, Palomar Street and Orsett Street, all are
within the quarter-mile radius area from the elementary school grounds.
Project 4 - Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the Vicinity of Castle Park
Elementary School. This involves the construction of missing street/sidewalk
improvements along Naples Street and Tobias Drive south of Oxford Street as well
as missing pedestrian ramps, all are within the quarter-mile radius area from the
elementary school grounds.
Project 5 - Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of EastLake Parkway and Clubhouse
Drive in the Vicinity of EastLake High School. This proposed fully-actuated (8
phase) signal is ranked number 4 on the "2000 Intersection Evaluation List- Traffic
Signal Warrant."
Project 6 - Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the Vicinity of Rosebank
Elementary School. This involves the construction of missing street/sidewalk
improvements along Minor Avenue north of "E" Street, First Avenue north of
Flower Street, the easterly side of Corte Maria Avenue, and "D" Street between
Corte Maria and Hilltop Drive, all are within the quarter-mile radius area from the
elementary school grounds.
Project 7 - Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the Vicinity of Ella B. Allen
' ~ Elementary School. This involves the construction of missing sidewalk
improvements along the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road from Allen School Lane
to Camino Del Cerro Grande and the installation of missing pedestrian ramps, all
are within the quarter-mile radius area from the elementary school grounds.
Project 8 - Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of East "J" Street and Paseo del Rey.
This proposed fully-actuated (8 phase) signal is ranked number 7 on the "2000
Intersection Evaluation List- Traffic Signal Warrant."
Page 4, Item __
Meeting Date 4/18/00
The following table shows the total cost for each project:
Project Requested Required Total
Number SR2 Funds City Funds Project Cost
Project 1 $125,000.00 $ 0 $125,000.00
Project 2 $197,000.00 $ 0 $197,000.00
Project 3 $195,000.00 $ 21,760.00 $ 216,760.00
Project 4 $ 91,800.00 $10,200.00 $102,000.00
Project 5 $166,000.00 $ 0 $166,000.00
Project 6 $ 203,220.00 $ 22,580.00 $ 225,800.00
Project 7 $181,440.00 $ 20,160.00 $ 201,600.00
Project 8 $ 196,000.00 $ 0 $1~6,000.00
TOTAL ] $1,355,460.00 I $ 74,700.00 I $1,430,160.00
* Based on Caltrans past practices, projects with maximum requested SR2 funds of $250,000.00 could be eligible for grant considerations.
Project costs include preliminary engineering, right-of-way, environmental, construction
engineering, and construction. All of the project elemems and construction improvements must
be eligible to obtain federal reimbursements. Construction improvements must be made on public
property.
Federal funds are considered "allocated" to each project phase when the Office of Local Programs
(OLP) Area Engineer at CalTrans authorizes the work through the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) delegated authorization process. These funds are reserved for the
project, but the local agency will not be reimbursed for any phase until after the contract is
awarded.
A copy of the application package is located in the City Clerk's Office for Council's review.
FISCAL IMPACT: Potential total revenue to the City is $1,355,460.00. The actual amount is
dependent upon which of the projects are approved for funding by CalTrans and the amount that
they approve. It is proposed that matching funds come from the Gas Tax Fund. If the City's
matching requirement is 10% and all projects are approved, the estimated City share would be
$74,700.00.
Page 5, Item .__
Meeting Date 4/18/00
This resolution approves the submittal of the applications, and does not formally approve the
implementation of the projects. These projects will be submitted for approval in the FY 2000-01
CIP.
Attachments: 1) Area Maps of Schools Involved. 2) Area Plats Showing Requested Improvements.
3) 2000 Intersection Evaluation List- Traffic Signal Warrant
File No.: 0740-75-KY026
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\00A-SR2S.DMW
ATTACHMENT lc
ATTACHMENT 2a
ATTACHMENT 2e
IEr~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL TO
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF
EIGHT (8) APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL
YEAR (FFY) 1999/00 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Safe Route to School (SR2S) Program is a new
federal program that resulted from the passage and signing of
Assembly Bill (AB) 1475; and
WHEREAS, AB 1475 calls for the California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) to establish and administer a "Safe Route
to School Construction Program" and to "use federal transportation
funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic
calming projects"; and
WHEREAS, current regulation requires that official
applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered
for funding; and
WHEREAS, projects are chosen and then approved for
funding after the applications have been evaluated and assigned a
priority by CalTrans.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista does hereby approve the submittal to California
Department of Transportation of the following eight (8)
applications for the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1999/00 Safe Routes
to School Program:
Project 1 Replacement of all Existing School Zone signing with new
Fluorescent Green High Intensity signs.
Project 2 Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of
Hilltop Drive and Oxford Street in the Vicinity of Castle
Park Elementary School.
P~pject 3 Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the
Vicinity of Lauderbach Elementary School.
Project 4 Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the
Vicinity of Castle Park Elementary School.
Project 5 Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of
EastLake Parkway and Clubhouse Drive in the Vicinity of
EastLake High School.
1
Project 6 Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the
vicinity of Rosebank Elementary School.
Project 7 Installation of Missing Public/Safety Improvements in the
Vicinity of Ella B. Allen Elementary School.
Project 8 Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of East
~J" Street and Paseo del Rey.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of ~oh~'M. Kaheny,~City At~rney
Public Works
H~ ~home \at t orney\ reso\ sa f erout
2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids and awarding landscape maintenance
contract for Community Facility Districts, Telegraph Canyon Road Medians and
Parkways and City Landscaped Medians and Parkways
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage r~.?, (4/Sths Vote: Yes NoX)
Request for bids to provide landscape maintenance services for new Community Facility Districts (CFD) in
Otay Ranch and Sunbow II were let on January 15, 2000, and received on February 16, 2000. In
addition, requests for bids to provide landscape maintenance services for the Telegraph Canyon Road
Medians and Parkways and City Landscape Roads and Medians were let. Bids were let because of new
landscape areas developed in Otay Ranch, Sunbow II and a new section of Telegraph Canyon Road
landscaped Medians and Parkways. The City Landscaped Medians and Parkways were let to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of contracting versus city staff maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt the resolution and accept bids and award the contracts to
the following low bidders:
DISTRICT CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
CFD 97-1AB, Otay Ranch Acacia Landscaping $ 51,997.00
CFD 97-1AM, Otay Ranch Blue Skies Landscape $ 16,340.00
CFD 97-1 STA B, Otay Ranch Blue Skies Landscape $ 93,055.00
TCR 1-4, Telegraph Cyn Road Blue Skies Landscape $ 27,782.00
CFD 98-3, Sunbow II Blue Skies Landscape $ 97,505.00
Medians and Parkways Blue Skies Landscape $50,050.00
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: Sealed bids were received by the City's Purchasing Agent on February 16, 2000 to
provide landscape maintenance for the Community Facilities Districts, Telegraph Canyon Road Medians
~'~d Parkways and City Medians and Parkways. Following the formal publication of the Notice to Bidders,
42~ landscape maintenance companies were notified. A total of 14 contractors attended the pre-bid
conferences and tours conducted on January 26, 2000 A total of six companies submitted bids. Five of the
six companies had either performed or are now performing landscape maintenance for the City. The
proposals submitted reflect a competitive bidding process. The contract period for the initial year will be
thirteen months for CFD 97-1AB, CFD 97-1AM, and CFD97-1STA B in the Otay Ranch. The contract for
TCR 1-4, CFD 98-3 and the City Medians and Parkways is for fourteen months. The contracts coincide
with the anticipated turnover of these areas on May 1 or June 1, 2000.
The following charts are a summary of the bids submitted for the areas in the bidding process:
Page 2, Item __
Meeting Date 4/18/00
CFD 97-1AB, Otay Ranch
Contractor Bid Amount
Acacia Landscaping $ 51,997.00
Blue Skies Landscape $ 58, 730.00
New Way Professionals $ 75,166.00
Cooley's Landscaping $ 97,897.00
Pac West Land Care $I 11,679.00
CFD 97-1 AM, Otay Ranch
Blue Skies Landscape $16,340.00
Acacia Landscaping $27,998.00
New Way Professionals $36559.00
Pac West Land Care $52,687.00
Cooley's Landscaping $67,296.62
CFD 97-1 STA B, Otay Ranch
Blue Skies Landscape $ 93,055.00
Acacia Landscaping $115,990.00
New Way Professionals $158,701.00
Cooley's Landscaping $161,272.00
Pac West Land Care $207,846.00
~T/CR 1-4, Telegraph Canyon Road
Blue Skies Landscape $ 27,782.00
Acacia Landscaping $ 27,880.00
Cooley's Landscaping $ 28,020.10
Pac West Land Care $ 30,502.00
New Way Professionals $ 42,118.00
Aztec Landscaping $ 49,073.3
Page 3, Item __
Meeting Date 4/18/00
CFD 98-3, Sunbow II
Blue Skies Landscape $ 97,505.00
Acacia Landscaping $ 97,890.00
Aztec Landscaping $119,390.00
New Way Professionals $168,597.00
Pac West Land Care $176,759.00
Coole.y's Landscaping $ 238,554.3~0
Medians and Parkways
Blue Skies Landscape I $ 50,050.00
Cooley's Landscaping ] $ 83,184.00
Pac West Land Care $ 85,777.00
The Iow bid for CFD 97-1AB was submitted by Acacia Landscaping. A background investigation of Acacia
previous contracts found them to be a responsible contractor. Blue Skies Landscaping, who is a current and
past contractor, submitted the low bids for the remaining contracts. Their performance has been
satisfactory.
A letter of protest was submitted by one of the unsuccessful bidders. The Purchasing Agent reviewed the
protest and did not find any irregularities in the winning bids or the procedure. Attached is file protest letter
and the Purchasing Agent's response for Council information.
The terms of these agreements are for a one-year contract and five one-year options. Options are contingent
on the City satisfaction with the level of service. The renewal contract price is based on the annual CPI
percentage. The first year agreements are for thirteen and fourteen months as indicated earlier to coincide
with satisfactory completion of the mandatory maintenance period.
FISCAL IMPACT: All City staff cost to administer and supervise the CFD contracts are borne by the
respective districts. The Telegraph Canyon Road 1-4 is funded by a CFD and Gas Tax. The City
L~d~scaped Medians and Parkways are funded by gas tax.
Attachment: New Way Professionals letter of protest
Purchasing Agent's Response
H:\SHARED\Public Works Operations\CFD Contract awards. Al3.wpd II.wpd
New Way ' ::':
Professional Landscape Services O0 29 .
March 31,2ooo
City of Chula Vista
Atto: Pumhasing Agent, John Coggins
C/o Purchasing Division
276 4th Avenue
Chun Vista, CA 91910
Re: Protest Award for contracts: CFD 97-1AB Otay Ranch
CFD 97-1AM Otay Ranch
CFD 97-1 STAB Otay Ranch
TCR I-4, Telegraph Canyon Rd.
CFD 98-3, Sunbow Il
Dear John,
Regarding the above bids, per Performance Standards, pg. 26 Item #30 Protests, New Way Professional
Landscape Services protests the award of the above bids.
Our protests am based upon the following information:
1.) At the pre bid meeting on 1/26/00 City Staffstated not to bid these bids like all other contracts. These
are high profile jobs for the developers who are trying to sell their homes. These areas are to be
maintained in a high standard. They influenced our firm and others to bid these contracts higher than
all previous contracts. New Way maintains approximately 60% of all LMD contacts in the city. Our
past bids for Category 1 work are approximately .007, .008 and.009 cents per square foot/per month.
These recommendations to award contracts by Purchasing are at the rates of approximately .004 and
.005 cents per square foot/per month. That is approximately 43% to 50% lower than the previous
awarded work. Since our contracts began in July of 1998, there has been a multitude of price
increases in the cost of doing business. Supply and demand of labor has driven the average wage of
labor up approximately 20% plus labor burdens. Gasoline has gone up 46% in the last 2 months
alone.
2,) It was stressed at the pre bid meeting that the city may not consider and does not have to award
contracts to the lowest bidders.
;'3.) It was said at the pre bid meeting that the City will review Tentative Schedule for Maintenance herein
called TSFM, that shows projected labor force for each contract. It notes on the bottom of the TSFM.
"The city reserves the right to disqualify bids based on the correlation of labor intensity required to
perform specifications and the labor intensity listed by the bidder in this tentative schedule for
maintenance."
For CFD 97-1AB Otay Ranch, Acacia Landscape stated on TSFM that they would supply 2 men full
time at the price of $3849.00/mo. We believe that it is not a responsible bid with paying 2 men (1
person has to be a Foreman) with the average between the two, $8.00 per hour and 20% labor burden
(industry standard), those wages total $3328 per month. That rate does not include any overhead, i.e.
trucks, repairs, gas, equipment, tools, supervision, administrative costs, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers or profit, etc.
8045RaythconRoad, San Diego, CA92111 (619)505-8301~ ~X(619)505-8305 · C-27#501032
Every company has to make a profit in order to survive year to year. I know Acacia Landscape and
they do good work. I don't think they provided the city with a responsible bid.
For the entire Blue Skies Landscape recommendations to award contracts, the proposal labor intensity
is grossly underestimated. For CFD 97-1 STAB Otay Ranch contract, these are very large slopes that
total 28 acres. They are proposing only 2 men full time! Our bid is approximately double that
manpower, Compare that to Acacias previous mentioned contract that only has approximately 10
acres with 2 men and you see it is grossly underestimated for labor intensity.
Same as with Sunbow II. Blue Skies estimated 48 man-hours a week and we estimated 140 hours.
Acacia estimated 120 hours. Is 48 hfs by Blue Skies a responsible bid? Once again, I know Blue
Skies Landscape quite well and they do good work as well. 1 don't deny both contractors do good
work, but are these bids responsible based upon hours estimated and actual costs to do business?
We feel New Way proposed the most responsible, responsive bid. We have a strong presence in Chula
Vista. We factored having a strong presence in this area and reduced our costs accordingly. We
currently maintain the Master Associations at Otay Ranch and Lomas Verdes. We know what it takes
to maintain these properties at a high level of maintenance.
That is what the city demanded at the pre bid meeting and that is how we bid these jobs. Please
reconsider your recommendations and Award these contracts to New Way who was the middle bidder
on all these contracts.
Thank your for your time and 1 look forward to your response. I will be at the Council Meeting on
April I 1~ at 6pm.
Sincerely, __ // D
Randy lqo~hard, President
Certified Landscape Technician in Maintenance
Certified Landscape Technician in Irrigation
Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor
c.c. City Manager - David Rowlands
Mayor - Shirley Horton
Council Woman - Patty Davis
Council Woman - Mary Salas
Councilman - Stephen Padilla
~'i' ,' Councilman - John Moot
April 6, 2000 .
Mr. Randy Newhard ~_
New Way Professional Landscape Services
8045 Raytheon Road
San Diego, CA 92111
Subject: Bid #3-99/00, Landscape Maintenance of Open Space Districts
Dear Mr. Newhard,
In response to your protest letter, dated March 3 l, 2000, I would like to clarify the
following points:
1) While it was stressed at the pre-bid conference that the districts to be maintained
are high profile areas, the City's performance standards are no different than those
for other maintenance districts within the City. This is clearly delineated in the
bid specifications.
2) Contracts are awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) meeting
specifications that result in optimum economic benefit to the City. Furthermore,
the two contractors recommended for award are reputable, reliable companies that
the City has successfully done work with in the past.
3) The City has reviewed proposed staffing for each district, as well as both historical
and current costs to maintain the districts. Without any adjustment in pricing,
staffing levels were increased in several districts. Otherwise, proposed staffing in
the remaining districts and all bid prices were determined to be favorable.
Your continued interest in doing business with the City of Chula Vista is appreciated.
Please call if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jp°~urchX,~ing AgentC'P'M'
276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 919'10 * (6t9) 69'1-5'14'1 · FAX (6'19) 691-5174
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY
FACILITY DISTRICTS, TELEGRAPH CA/~YON ROkD
MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS AND CITY LANDSCAPED
MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS
WHEREAS, sealed bids to provide landscape maintenance
services for the Community Facility Districts, Telegraph Canyon
Road Medians and Parkways and City Medians and Parkways were
received by the City's Purchasing Agent on February 16, 2000; and
· WHEREAS, six companies submitted bids as set forth in the
Council Agenda Statement; and
WHEREAS, the following low bids were received:
DISTRICT CONTR3kCTOR AMOUNT
CFD 97-1AB, Otay Ranch Acacia Landscaping $ 51,997.00
CFD 97-1AM, Otay Ranch Blue Skies LandscaPe $ 16,340.00
CFD 97-1 STA B, Otay Blue Skies Landscape $ 93,055.00
TCR 1-4, Telegraph Cyn Blue Skies Landscape $ 27,782.00
Road
CFD 98-3, Sunbow II Blue Skies Landscape $ 97,505.00
Medians and Parkways I Blue Skies Landscape I S 50,050.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the bids and award landscape
maintenance contracts for Community Facility Districts, Telegraph
Canyon Road Medians and Parkways and City Landscaped Medians and
~a~kways as set forth hereinabove.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of J~g~n M. ~h~y, ~i6y Attorney
Public Works
New Way
Professional Landscape Services
City of Chula Vista
Atln: Purchasing Agent, John Coggins
C/o Purchasing Division
276 4e' Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Protest Award for contracts: CFD 97-1AB Otay Ranch
CFD 97-1AM Otay Ranch
CFD 97-1 STAB Otay Ranch
TCR 1-4, Telegraph Canyon Rd.
CFD 98-3, Sunbow il
Dear John,
Regarding the above bids, per Performance Standards, pg. 26 Item #30 Protests, New Way Professional
Landscape Services protests the award of the above bids.
Our protests are based upon the following information:
I.) At the pre bid meeting on 1/26/00 City Staff stated not to bid these bids like all other contracts. These
are high profile jobs for the developers who are trying to sell their homes. These areas are to be
maintained in a high stand~.rd. They influenced our firm and others to bid these contracts higher than
all previous contracts. New Way maintains approximately 60% of all LMD contacts in the city. Our
past bids for Category I work are approximately .007, .008 and.009 cents per square foot/per month.
These recommendations to award contracts by Purchasing are at the rates of approximately .004 and
.005 cents per square foot/per month. That is approximately 43% to 50% lower than the previous
awarded work. Since our contracts began in July of 1998, there has been a multitude of price
increases in the cost of doing business. Supply and demand of labor has driven the average wage of
labor up approximately 20% plus labor burdens. Gasoline has gone up 46% in the last 2 months
alone.
2.)It was stressed at the pre bid meeting that the city may not consider and does not have to award
contracts to the lowest bidders.
'"3.) It was said at the pre bid meeting that the City will review Tentative Schedule for Maintenance herein
called TSFM, that shows projected labor force for each contract. It notes on the bottom of the TSFM.
"The city reserves the right to disqualify bids based on the correlation of labor intensity required to
perform specifications and the labor intensity listed by the bidder in this tentative schedule for
maintenance."
For CFD 97-1AB Otay Ranch, Acacia Landscape stated on TSFM that they would supply 2 men full
time at the price of $3849.00/mo. We believe that it is not a responsible bid with paying 2 men (I
person has to be a Foreman) with the average between the two, $8.00 per hour and 20% labor burden
(industry standard), those wages total $3328 per month. That rate does not include any overhead, i.e.
tracks, repairs, gas, equipment, tools, supervision, administrative costs, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers or profit, etc.
8045 Raytheon Road, San Diego, CA 9211I (619) 505-8300 FAX (619) 505-8305 C-27-~501032
Every company has to make a profit in order to survive year to year. I know Acacia Landscape and
they do good work. I don't think they provided the city with a responsible bid.
For the entire Blue Skies Land~cape recommendations to award contracts, the proposal labor intensity
is grossly underestimated. For CFD 97-1 STAB Otay Ranch eonUact, these are very large slopes that
total 28 acres. They are proposing only 2 men full time! Our bid is approximately double that
manpower. Compare that to Acacias previous mentioned contract that only has approximately 10
acres with 2 men and you see it is grossly underestimated for labor intensity.
Same as with Sunbow Il. Blue Skies estimated 48 man-hours a week and we estimated 140 hours.
Acacia estimated 120 hours. Is 48 hfs by Blue Skies a responsible bid? Once again, I know Blue
Skies Landscape quite well and they do good work as well. I don't deny both contractors do good
work, but are these bids responsible based upon hours estimated and actual costs to do business?
We feel New Way proposed the most responsible, responsive bid. We have a strong presence in Chula
Vista. We factored having a strong presence in this area and reduced our costs accordingly. We
currently maintain the Master Associations at Otay Ranch and Lomas Verdes. We know what it takes
to maintain these properties at a high level of maintenance.
That is what the city demanded at the pre bid meeting and that is how we bid these jobs. Please
reconsider your recommendations and Award these contracts to New Way who was the middle bidder
on all these contracts.
Thank your for your time and I look forward to your response. 1 will be at the Council Meeting on
April I I~h at 6pm.
Sincerely, __ ,/] /3
Randy No,~hard, Presiddnt
Certified Landscape Technician in Maintenance
Certified Landscape Technician in Irrigation
Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor
c.c. City Manager - David Rowlands
Mayor - Shirley Horton
Council Wbman - Patty Davis
Council Woman - Mary Salas
Councilman - Stephen Padilla
Councilman - John Moot
April 6, 2000
Mr. Randy Newhard ~.,~- ~5 Go,e- ~-~
New Way Professional Landscape Services
8045 Raytheon Road
San Diego, CA 9211!
Subject: Bid//3-99/00, Landscape Maintenance of Open Space Districts
Dear Mr. Newhard,
In response to your protest letter, dated March 31, 2000, I would like to clarify the
following points:
1) While it was stressed at the pre-bid conference that the districts to be maintained
are high profile areas, the City's performance standards are no different than those
for other maintenance districts within the City. This is clearly delineated in the
bid specifications.
2) Contracts are awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) meeting
specifications that result in optimum economic benefit to the City. Furthermore,
the two contractors recommended for award are reputable, reliable companies that
the City has successfully done work with in the past.
3) The City has reviewed proposed staffing for each district, as well as both historical
and current costs to maintain the districts. Without any adjustment in pricing,
staffing levels were increased in several districts. Otherwise, proposed staffing in
the remaining districts and all bid prices were determined to be favorable.
Your continued interest in doing business with the City of Chula Vista is appreciated.
;Please call if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely;
Jp°~°ggi nSurchSging AgentC'P'M'
276 FOURTH AVENUE - CHULA VISTA o CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5141 · FAX (619) 691-5174
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/18/00
ITEM TITLE: Report on Brown Field Expansio~,
SUBMITTEDREvlEWED By:BY: CityDirect°rManager/~°f Planning & Buildings,/ 4/5 Vote: Yes No X
After the City of Chula Vista became aware of a proposal to substantially expand
operations at Brown Field, a small municipal airport south of the City, the Chula Vista
City Council hired aviation experts to examine possible impacts to this community
(Attachment A, consultants' qualifications).
At the Chula Vista City Council meeting of 8/31/99, those experts -- Aviation Systems
Consultants, Inc. (ASA) -- reported their findings from their review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the proposed
creation of an Air Commerce Center at Brown Field.
The City then submitted comments on the Draft EIR/EA which reflected Chula Vista's
concerns; principally in the areas of noise and traffic impacts (Attachment B).
The Final EIR was released in January of this year. This document has been reviewed
on the City's behalf by ASA as well as by City staff. The findings from that research
will be presented orally.
RECOMMENDATION: After hearing the presentation by ASA and City staff
regarding impacts to this community from the proposed expansion of Brown Field, and
after taking any public testimony on the proposal, that the City Council give direction
to staff on subsequent actions to be taken by Chula Vista with respect to the project.
B(JARDS/COMMISSlONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
Background
Brown Field, located within the boundaries of the City of San Diego, is a small,
municipal airport used primarily by the pilots of privately-owned aircraft. The airport
runway is 1% miles south of the southern border of Chula Vista. Current activity at
this airport does not appreciably affect Chula Vista either through noise, air quality or
traffic impacts.
page 2, Item No._j~
Meeting Date: 4/18/00
Expansion of Brown Field into an Air Commerce Center has been proposed to the City
of San Diego by private investors which would result in 48 commeroial flights in and
out of Brown Field each day by the year 2016. These flights would carry cargo, rather
than passengers, and would include the use of large commercial jets. Many of the
flights could occur at night, although the project EIR suggests otherwise.
In order to accommodate these types of aircraft, the existing runway would be
extended from 8,000 ft. to 11,500 ft. along with increased operations and expanded
flight patterns. Chula Vista's concerns are the levels of additional noise, air pollution
and traffic that would be generated by this activity-- specifically the negative impacts
that might be imposed on the City's residents and businesses.
The Chula Vista City Council, in an effort to determine impacts to this community, has
retained the services of consultants who are experts in the field of aviation; Aviation
Systems Associates (ASA), Inc.. These consultants reviewed the DRAFT EIR/EA
which was prepared for the proposed expansions, and presented their findings to the
City Council in August of 1999.
Following that presentation, the Council directed staff to prepare extensive comments
on the EIR/EA and submit these to the City of San Diego. Responses to these
comments, and those of other agencies and interested individuals, appear in the Final
EIR/EA which was released for public review in January 2000.
At the City of Chula Vista's direction, ASA conducted another review of the
environmental documents, as did the City's own engineering staff. ASA's ability to
analyze noise impacts was hindered by the project applicants' failure to provide the
noise modeling data which Chula Vista requested. Chula Vista made three separate
requests for specific data, none of which were wholly honored (see attachment C). As
a result, ASA was forced to reconstruct much of the data.
With respect to the Final EIR/EA, a number of key questions from Chula Vista either
were not given an adequate response or were addressed with inappropriate
assumptions in the document.
These include assumptions on:
· road construction schedules,
· the make-up of commercial airline fleets and
· normal landing flight tracks and elevations
The specific results of the consultants' and staff review will be presented at the
Council meeting.
page 3, Item No.~_~
Meeting Date: 4/18/00
Positions of Other Agencies/Developers
In addition to the City of Chula Vista, agencies which have expressed opposition or
significant concerns about the proposal include:
· Cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado,
· United States Navy (operations at Ream Field)
· San Ysidro, South Bay Union and Sweetwater Union High School Districts
· Pardee Construction Company.
In addition, individual home owners and business operators adjacent to the existing air
field (including Kaiser Permanente) have expressed strong opposition to the proposal.
It has been reported by the San Ysidro School District that several area schools would
be negatively impacted by the expansion, and would preclude the planned construction
of a new elementary school in the area.
Pending Actions
The following actions/hearings on the expansion of Brown Field into an Air Commerce
Center are scheduled to take place as noted below:
AGENCY/COMMISSION ACTION SCHEDULED DATE
City of San Diego Hearing to determine whether to certify May 4, 2000
Planning Commission EIR and/or recommend proiect approval
San Diego City Council Hearing to determine whether to certify June 6, 2000
EIR and/or recommend proiect approval
Federal Aviation Air Traffic Impact Analysis Not Known
Administration
SANDAG Hearing to determine project compliance Not Known
with Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Congressional Hearing to determine whether or not to Not Known
Subcommittee on Airport approve privatizing Brown Field
Privatization
FISCAL IMPACT:
Undetermined but probably significant. Traffic impacts from the project could
ov~erwhelm the City's infrastructure if not mitigated in a timely and adequate fashion,
and no mitigation is proposed for Chula Vista roads in the Final EIR/EA. Noise impacts
could result in a degradation of the quality of life in Chula Vista, a reduction in property
values and could significantly impact the City's ability to attract new development or
implement key aspects of the General Plan.
Attachments: · Aviation Systems Association, Inc.; biographies of principals
· Chula Vista comment letter on proposed Brown Field expansion, September 1999
· Chula Vista letter requesting noise modeling data March, 2000
· Attendees at Developer Briefing on proposed Brown Field expansion
,~ ~ ~ c:\...\2000\agenda statements\Brown Field
ATTACHMENT "A!' ~*P. 1
Vi~e Presidea~
IENEBAL QUALB'ICATIONS
Dr. Allen has over 28 years of technical and legal experience in aviation, engineering, and
environmental planning. A substantial part of his career has been devoted to airport compatibility
planning and analysis such as noise/land use, airspace modeling, aircraft accident potential, land
use risk assessment and electromagnetic interference (EMI) studies.
EXPI]PFNCE
Dr. Allen has designed and conducted noise monitoring and computer modeling studies at hundreds
of civilian airports and heliports across the nation including Los Angeles International, San Diego's
Lindbergh Field, John Wayne Airport, Salt Lake City International, Houston Intercontinental, Will
Rogers World and Wiley Post airports in Oklahoma City, Oakland International, and SeaTac
International. Dr. Allen then collaborated with these airport operators to develop noise
abatement/land use compatibility plans that met legal and public acceptability criteria. He has
been similarly involved in Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) studies for military airfields
such as NAS Alameda, NAS Barbers Point, MCAS Kaneohe Bay, and CGSC Elizabeth City. Recently
Dr. Allen completed an extensive airspace modeling using SIMMOD for the civilian reuse of Norton
Air Force Base.
Dr. Allen has conducted many aircraft accident potential and land use risk assessment studies for
land use development projects near such airports as John Wayne, Riverside Municipal, Bermuda
Dunes, French Valley, Los Alamitos Army Airfield, and Camarillo Airports.
Additionally, he has been heavily involved in EMI studies for FM broadcasters around the nation
concerned with inmodulation effects on airport navigation aids. Also, Dr. Allen was a pioneer in
wind turbine noise studies and in community noise and land use planning.
EDUCATION
Dr. Allen holds a law degree from Western State University College of Law and a Ph.D. form
California Western University. He also holds an engineering degree and advanced degrees in
management and environmental sciences from California universities. All of his graduate studies
emphasized aviation and airport operations.
PUBLICATIONS
"Windfarm Noise Issues" Windpower '85 Proceedings (July 1985)
"Environmental Noise Issues," Renewable Energies Symposium Proceedings (June 1985)
"Wind Energy Development Noise Considerations," American Wind Energy Conf. Proceedings (July
~9~4)
"Environmental Evaluation of Airport Site Selection Alternatives," Cai Western Univ. (Dec 1981)
"Consultant's Role in Processing of Airport Environmental Actions," AOCI Proceedings (March 1978)
AFFILIATIGNS
Member, California State Bar Member, Federal Bar Association
Member, Lawyers-Pilots Bar Association Member, ABA Committee on Environmental
Member, American Bar Association Controls and Sub-Committee on Air Quality
Vice President of Air Transportation Systems
GENERAL QUALIFIGATIgNS
Mr. Chavkin has over 40 years of experience as an engineer, pilot, aviation programs administrator, and
consukant. For 27 of those years, Mr. Chavkin held increasingly more responsible positions with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) culminating with his appointment as Regional Administrator of the Western
Pacific Region. He has an extensive technical background and experience in governmental and public relations as
well as a thorough knowledge of the regulatory, security, safety, and air traffic control f~nctions of civil aviation.
Mr. Chavkin is a current commercial pilot and holds single and multi-engine, instrument and jet ratings
EXPEDgNCE
Prior to joining the FAA, Mr. Chavkin served seven years in the U.S. Air Force as Power Plant Project Engineer
at the Air Force Power Plant Laboratory and XB-70 Program Office at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
Mr. Chavkin began his FAA career as Chief Propulsion Engineer and then was assigned as the Manager of Plans
and Programs for the National Supersonic Transport Program. During this six year period, he was responsible
among other things for engine development, preparation of congressional testimony and budget and planning
documentation.
For 16 years, Mr. Chavkin served on the FAA Washington Headquarters staff where his key responsibilities
included executive direction of the FAA National Rotorcraft Program, the Aircraft Engineering and
Certification Program, the System Engineering Office and Associated Airport Capacity and Air Traffic Control
System Development, and the Short Haul Aviation System Development Program.
Mr. Chavkin was then assigned for three years as Deputy Regional Administrator of the FAA Central Region in
Kansas City where he shared direction of the four-state region and was also responsible for small aircraft
certification world wide.
He completed his FAA career as Regional Administrator of the Western Pacific Region headquartered in Los
Angeles where he directed FAA operations for two years in the western states, U.S. Territories in the Pacific and
the Pacific Rim nations. In this role, Mr. Chavkin was principally responsible for relations with state and local
governments, the aviation industry and the military. He also directed major international aviation activities
with Civil Aviation Authorities in the Pacific Rim.
Since 1990, Mr. Chavkin has consulted on a number of major domestic and international aviation projects
induding a new rail transk system through LAX, a proposed bi-national air carrier airport on the U.S./Mexico
border near San Diego, the modernization of the Australian Airspace System and a new Master Plan for the
Guam International Airport. He also consulted on the management and operation of ten privately managed Los
Angeles County and Riverside County general aviation airports. Recently, Mr. Chavkin has been involved in
managing airspace obstruction studies for major wireless communications projects. He has worked with every
ma'tor wireless communications company in the country in management of aeronautical obstruction studies of
their transmission towers. Mr. Chavkin has also provided consulting and expert witness services to a number of
major law firms throughout the U.S.
EDUCATION
Mr. Chavkin holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology
and a Master of Science in Air Transportation from the University of California.
ATi'ACHMENT 'B"
Ci ~Y OF
CHULA VISI'A
OFFICE OF THE CFI'Y MANAGER
September 21, 1999
Mr. Lawrence C. Monserrate
City of San Diego
Office of Land Development Review
1222 First Avenue, MS 501
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear .Mr. Monserrate:
The City of Chula Vista (the "City") appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the Draft Emfi/t0nmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) and the
associated Master Plan for the proposed San Diego Ak Commerce Center at Brown
Field. The City has retained the consulting firm Axdafion Systems Associates and
attorneys R/chard C. Jacobs and Todd E. Thompson from the law firm of Howard, R/ce,
Nemerovskd, Canady, Falk & Rabkdn to assist in the preparation of our comments, and
the folloMng therefore represents their legal and technical work as well as the work of
the City's staff.
Our comments a.re as follows:
1. The future land use assumptions included in the ErR identify the horizon
year for the Otay Mesa area as '~buildout" of the community, while surrounding areas,
inclurting Otay Ranch, were analyzed only as of the year 2015. The EIR should use
co~sistent assumptions throughout, and we request that these issues be reanalyzed using
consistent assumptions.
Moreover, even a cursory review of the %uildout" case in the ErR reveals that
Otay Valley Road is shown to have traffic volumes substantially less than is expected
under the City of Chula Vista projections when full development of Otay Ranch occurs.
As a result, the use of the differing assumptions understates the traffic impacts of the
project. Please revise the ErR and use consistent assumptions and the same horizon year
so that the full impacts of the project are properly presente&
2. The proposed development of the master plan is dependent upon the
availability of various circulation system improvements on Otay Mesa~ The technical
study addresses the type of circulation improvements, the time of need, and who is
responsible for each of the improvements. However, there is no mechanism in the
that links or limits the pace of development of the master plan to the availability of the
necessary improvements. Without such a mecbani.~ra, the project could proceed to full
development without any of the critical circulation improvements in place.
Such a mechanism is required under CEQA in order to ensure that mitigation as
required by CEQA in fact occurs. It is not now provided either in the EIR or in the
proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~arn. Please provide it in specific
terms as an enforceable mechanism.
Much of the project traffic will be related to significant truck terminal
activity associated with cargo coming into and out of the airport. However, the technical
study appears to have calculated all traffic as automobiles, rather than including
additional allowances for the additional impacta, that trucks create. This affects, at a
minimum, the noise, air quality and traffic analyses. Please revise and recirculate the
EIR with appropriate analyses that reflect this anticipated track traffic.
4. Guidelines developed for use in the region by SANDAG require that all
facilities in the regionally sig-nificant arterial system or freeways be analyzed if they
would experience u-affic in excess ora ~inirnum threshold as a result of the project. This
requirement does not appear to have been followed with regard to freeways and other
facilities. Please revise and reciroulate the EIR with that analysis.
5. The traffic analyses in the EIR show traffic volumes on Otay Valley Road
approaching 1-805 from the project dmSng its early years that appear artificially low, as
compared to the same traffic in later years. Please explain this inconsistency.
6. Our consultants have attempted 1o replicate the results of the City of San
Diego's calculations of intersection congestion and LOS. However, they have not been
able to do so. It thus appears that the City of San Diego has not used the same version of
~ts ~oftware for all of its analyses but has instead used differing versions without
disclosing that fact_
Under these circumstances, it is impossible to adequately comment on the traffic
analyses. Please provide the City with the specifics of the software that was used for all
of the traffic calculations. If differing versions were used, please recalculate all of the
traffic analyses using the same version so that the public can analyze the results, and
recirculate the EIR for public comment.
7. In order for the Project m proceed, the BIR concedes that at a minimum: (a)
the current Master Plan for Brown Field will have to be amended, because it does not
now include the proposed project; Co) a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan must be
approved; (c) the City's Otay Mesa Commurfity Plan must be amended; (d) the East
Otay Mesa Specific Plan may have to be amended; and (e) a LAFCO boundary shift may
be required. The Master Plan also reports that a sig-nificant portion of the runways will
require new conslruction and in some cases complete replacement. In addition, the EIR
concedes that numerous approvals must be required from the appropriate state and federal
agencies. Under these circumstances, there is no basis under CEQA for assuming that
Broom Field must be used in the future only for air cargo airport purposes.
Accordingly, CEQA requires that the EIR include a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed project, including different non-aviation uses of Broom Field.
However, the EIR includes only varying runway lengths as altematves and does not
include any non-aviation alternatives. Please provide a reasonable range of other
possible non-aviation uses of the site that may result in a reduction in environmental
hnpacts. Please revise the EIR accordingly, and recirculate it for public comment.
8. CEQA also requires that the EIR include a factual analysis of the impacts
of a reasonable range of off-site alternatives to the proposed project. There are a number
of possible off-site airports that could be used for project purposes, including Lindbergh
Field, March airfield in Riverside, Norton airfield in San Bemardino, LAX itself, Ontario
ASrport, and other general aviation fields, including Gillespie, Palomar, Montgomery and
Ramona. The EIR, at page 6-2, recognizes that development and ~owth in the San
Diego Re,on would not be impaired if a facility other than Brown Field were used, and
that "it is clearly possible to continue development despite having to route most cargo
through airport facilities to the north." The EIP, must therefore/ncinde a full analysis of
each of these alternative sites in order to comply w/th CEQA. Please provide these
necessary analyses and recirculate the EI~R.
9. CEQA specifies that if an EIR rejects possible alternatives as infeasible, it
must explain in me~niugf-ul detail the reasons and facts supporting that conclusion. This
EIR doesn't do that. It includes a conclusory three-page discussion of alternatives that
,x,gre "considered but rejected." This discussion is inadequate under CEQA for at least
the follo~fng reasons:
First, no significant factual detail is provided. For example, the EIR reports on
the Gillespie, Palomar, Montgomery and Ramona re~onal airports but rejects those as
alternatives, because each of these airports has an airfield system that is currently
desig-ned for small general aviation aircraft and has other constraints which would require
major efforts to overcome if those sites were to be used for cargo uses.
However, exactly the same thing can be said about Broom Field. That conclusory
analysis thus does not provide any appropriate basis for developing Brown Field in
preference to those airfields; unsupported factual conclusions are insufficient to advise
the public and the decisionmakers of the necessary facts to determine whether those sites
are in fact feasible. The EIR must discuss the potential development of each of those
other airfields and analyze whether the environmental impacts of the proposed project
would be reduced if placed in those locations.
Second, the EIR for all practical purposes simply ignores other reg/onal cargo
airport possibilities, despite conceding that shipping cargo from these other regional
airports would not sig-nificantly impact the economy of the San Diego Region. The EIR
does not discuss Norton airfield in San Bemarrtino at all, even though currently existing
nmways at that closed base are more than sufficient to pro¼de adequate runway len~h
for long-haul cargo flights. With regard to March airfield in Riverside, the EIR notes
that it is capable of handling B-747-400 operations, has plenty of room to expand, and at
page 2-9 reports that "March is planned to have new air cargo facilities constructed in
2002." Nonetheless, it simply reports that it is "an approximated [sic] three-hour
tracking distance north of San Diego" and apparently rejects the site for that reason
alone, without any discussion of consequences of that n~avel time (which is less than the
travel rime to LAX), or the obvious significant reduction in environmental impacts on the
Otay Mesa if that site were used. That conclusory analysis thus does not provide any
appropriate basis for developing Brown Field in preference to those airfields;
unsupported factual conclusions are insufficient to advise the public and the
decisionmakers of the necessary facts to determine whether those sites are in fact
feasible.
The El[R therefore must also analyze whether the purposes of the proposed project
could instead by met by use of either March a~n-field in Riverside or Norton airfield in San
Bemardino. The EIR must discuss the potential development of each of those other
airfields and maalyze whether the environmental impacts of the proposed project would
be reduced if placed in those locations.
, Third, the EIR like~fse does not appropriately analyze whether use of Ontario
Airport is an adequate alternative, or explain in appropriate factual detail why that airSeld
is not a reasonable alternative and why it was rejected. It notes that this airport has
inexpensive landing fees, plenty of room to expand, handles movements by six of the
largest air cargo processors, and is currently attempting to attract additional air cargo
uses. The EIR must discuss the potential development of Ontario and analyze whether the
enxfronmental impacts of the proposed project would be reduced if air cargo operations
were instead prov/ded at that location.
Fourth, the EIR rejects future expansion of LAX itself as a feasible alternative,
but, like the other sites discussed above, does not provide the necessary factual discussion
4
and analysis to support that conclusion. It reports that LAX offers a si=mfificant level of
cargo serv/ce in terms of markets served, but then in a single sentence rejects LAX
because it "may notbe able to meet full demand levels." That discussion, for all of the
reasons discussed above, is inadequate under CEQA.
Fifth, the E[R is inadequate for the same reasons in its discussion of Lindbergh
Field as a potential alternative. All the E[R reports (again in a single sentence) is that
Lindbergh "may find it difficult to expand to meet existing or future cargo demand,
without sigaificant improvement to the taxiway system and add/tional air cargo
development areas." That is an insufficient analysis under CEQA, because of the lack of
any meaningful substantive analysis and because of the EIR's lack of stated facts to
support the conclusion. Moreover, Brown Field itself~411 have to have sign/ficant
runway and taxiway improvements as well as additional air cargo development areas, and
it is therefore inappropriate to reject an ex"pans/on of Lindbergh for that reason. The
El~'s discussion of the Tijuana/General Rodriguez International Airport as a possible
alternative is inadequate for the same reasons.
Finally, the EIR must include an analysis of using some or all of these facilities in
combination as a means for reducing the proposed use of Brown Field. For example, the
EIR suggests no reason why some cargo traffic cannot go through Ontario, some through
Lindbergh, and the rema'mder t2m-ough LAX. Other combinations of the various re~onal
airfields may also be quite feasible, but the EIR ignores that topic completely. Without
that discussion, it is inadequate.
10. In order to determine whether a project will cause adverse environmental
knpacts and whether those impacts are substantial, there must always be a starting point
for comparative measurement. CEQA prov/des that starting point, by specifying that the
/mpacts ora project must be measured and analyzed by comparison with "the existing
physical environment." Thus, the existing environmental setting is the comparative
baseline against which the impacts of the project must always be measured. If an EIR
assumes the consUmcfion of certain improvements and then calculates impacts on the
basis of those hypothetical improvements, then the comparative baseline is artificially
inflated, resulting in a misleading description ora lower level of project impacts. Such
a~ artificially inflated baseline also affects the level of m/figafion that would othemfse be
required. Cases interpreting CEQA have therefore consistently held that the use of such
an artificially inflated baseline invalidates the EIR.
The EtR xfolates these rules with regard to its analyses in several ways:
First, the EIR uses the a legally incorrect level of significance in making its
determinations. It states that while LOS "C" is acceptable in rural areas, "LOS 'D'... is
acceptable in urban/zed areas" and since the Otay Mesa area would be urbanized "at the
time the project is operating" LOS "D" is the appropriate standard_ However, th/s
5
conclusion is not based on current conditions but on future conditions, and it is for that
reason improper.
Second, the EIR states at page 5.8-1 that it assumes "as a worst case" that the
mile long stretch of Route 905 from I-g05 near Otay Mesa Road to the Otay Mesa Port-
of-Entry" would be changed from its current configuration "as a four-lane expressway
and would ultimately consist of Six travel lanes and two commuter lanes." Since Otay
Mesa Road is '~_he primary route to access Brown Field airport property from the west
and eas%" this assumption thus improperly created an analysis that is not based on current
conditions, but upon assumed future conditions.
Third, the "near-term (Year 2005) scenario" (without the SR-125 tollway or the
Route 905 expressway) analysis beginning at page 5.8-13 "assumed that improvements
for Heritage road, consisting of its widening to four lanes from Otay Mesa Road to
Sikorsky Street, would be conslzucted." TMs is improp~, since this additional
assumption further creates a traffic analysis thai is not based on current conditions but on
the assumed construction of future facilities.
Fourth, the "near-term (Year 2005) scenario" (w/th SR~125 only) makes the same
assumptions with regard to Heritage Road and the 6.5 mile stretch of Otay Mesa Road
noted above. This scenario then assumes even further that in addition to SR-125, "Otay
Mesa Road [would be] six lanes wide from 1-805 to Interim Route 905 and a six-lane
pr/me arterial classification from that point to Alta Road" and La Media Road would be
"a six-lane primary arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Lonestar Roa&" This too is
improper, since these further assumptions create a traffic analysis that is not based on
emTent conditions but on the assumed eonsUmction of future fac-~lities. Further, the
analysis is made even more improper because it makes different assumptions for the
same 2005 year analysis, without any explanation why.
Fifth, the same assumptions are then built into the "near-te~m (Year 2005)
scenario" (without SR-125, but with Route 905 built as a four-lane expressway). This
analysis is yet a farther violation of CEQA for the reasons already ddscussed.
Sixtk, the analysis of traffic impacts in the "year 2010 scenario" makes even
further extensive assumptions without regard to the road network that may or may not
exist in that year. All of those assumptions are described at page 5.8-21. This analysis
also x4olates CEQA for the reasons already cliscusse&
The use of these assumptions regarding possible but as yet unbuilt roadway
improvements is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA and resulted in a highly
misleading traffic and safety analysis. The effect of this assumption was to elevate the
comparative baseline against which the traffic impacts of the project were determ/ned.
This methodology thus improperly rn~n~m~zes the ElK's description of~afSc
impacts, affected the EIR's determinations of significance, and minimized the City of San
Diego's obligation to mitigate traffic impacts. CEQA requires ex~tensive detailed
evaluations of the impacts of the proposed plans on the environment in its curv-ent state.
Each of the analyses in the EIR that determine impacts by comparison with future
conditions is improper. Please completely revise the traffic analyses in the EIR to
comply w/th CBQA, and recirculate the revised document for additional public
examination and comment.
l l.. For a number of reasons, the gro~mh-inducing impacts section of the EIR is
inadequate.
F/rst, the EIR concedes that "it has been forecast that over an additional 4,000 off-
site permanent jobs.., would be created" and that these jobs "would in turn generate the
need for additional housing and services." However, these "over an additional 4,000 off-
site permanent jobs" would occur only if additional businesses are located in the
immediate area of Brown Field which are induced by the airfield. Additional businesses
obviously have impacts (especially in terms of additional traffic), and "additional housing
and senSces" likewise come only with additional environmental impacts. This is
especially so since these reduced off-site jobs are new jobs that were not anticipated
under the 1981-adopted Master plan. These "over an additional 4,000 off-site permanem
jobs" are, as the EIR elsewhere concedes, close to four times greater than the entire non-
prison/nmate population of the Otay Mesa census tract, so on a comparative basis this
fi~re is exm-ernely large.
In addition, the ErR concedes that "ii is considered a probable effect of the airport
development" that it '~would encourage other (off-ah-port) businesses to locate to Otay
Mesa rather than elsewhere, or perhaps more quickly than they would otherwise have
done."
The EIR does not provide any analysis of any sort of these additional impacts, and
it is inadequate for that reason. Farther, it reports--without any substantive analysis of
any sort--that "the proposed project is assessed as fostering economic growth on the
mesa, and (thus) within the San Diego re,on" and that this "is considered a beneficial
effect." CEQA specifies, however, that au agency may never assume that gro~th in an
area is necessarily beneficial or of little Si~onnificance environmentally, but may make such
a judgment only after full and comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts.
This EIR does not do so. Please pro-v/de an appropriate factual and environmental
analysis of the growth-~nduced impacts that will be caused by this project.
12. The Master Plan at page 2-4 refers to 1,800 cargo tons that would be
shipped da/dy from Brown Field by the year 2016. At page 2-7, however, it refers to
2,359 daily tons. Please explain this discrepancy, and correct all statements in the BIR
that rely on or are affected by the incorrect figure.
13. The Master Plan assumes that only a small percentage of operations will
occur between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. However, one of the most important principles of ak
cargo serv/ce (Federal Express is perhaps the best example) is the provision of overnight
serv/ce, and cargo takeoffs and lanrti~gs therefore must most often occur during the
nighttime and early morning hours. Please explain how the cargo purposes of the
proposed airport could possibly be met with only such a small number of nighttime and
early morning operations.
14. Exhibit 3-6 in the Master Plan indicates that a 100% loaded 747-400
(indeed, even an 80% loaded 747-400) c~nuot fly without refueling to either Seoul or
Manila, and that both locations are beyond the range of that aircraft under any
circumstances. However, the EIR rejects any runway that is less than 11,500 feet in
length on the ~ound that a shorter length would not allow such an aircraft to fly to Asia;
for example, the EIR's summary states that only the 11,500 foot runway "would meet the
objective of providing sufficient runway length to accommodate B-747 air cargo aircraft
non-stop from Brown Field to Manila, Pkilippines ....
The ELR is therefore inconsistent with the expert consultants' report. It has
pos/ted a false dichotomy, and it rejects alternatives to the project based on that falsity. If
any fully loaded 747-400 is going to require refueling to reach Asia, then there is no
reason why the runways at Broom Field c~uuot be shorter than the proposed 11,500 foot
project. Please analyze and explain this issue and explain why a shorter runway is not
sufficient, taking into account the fact that a refueling stop at Anchorage has long been a
standard operating procedure for cargo fligJats from the West Coast to Asia.
~ 5. Attached hereto are two sections of corem ents prepared by Aviation
Systems Associates for the City ofChula Vis~ The City requests a detailed factual
response as required by CEQA to each of these comments.
Some of these comments are of great importance on the issue whether the project
is ~ven necessary, and on the issue of the impacts that Mil be caused if it proceeds. In
particular, these comments note that the conversion of Brown Field into a major cargo
airfield rests upon a series of"Critical Assumptions" that must be tree for the project to
succeed. Chula Vista requests a particularly detailed factual response to each of those
"Critical Assumptions" with an identification of any back~ound documentation or
studies on wtfich the response relies and the inclusion of that documentation as exh/bits to
the final EIR.
16. The EIR/EA, by making unsupported and potentially unrealistic
assumptions about airport flight operations, has artificially constrained the scope of the
8
project in its introduction and statement of purpOse and need. More specifically, the
assumed takeoff and landing patterns on which the entire EIR./EA analysis is based may
never be realized, and the true nature of the flight wac'ks that will be used is not
considered in the EIR/EA. Because noise impacts from airport operations are directly
dependent upon the flight U-ac'ks used by the aircraft, the EIR/EA's discussion of noise
impacts relies entirely on the assumptions made about flight tracks. For this reason, this
aspect of the project description is of critical importance.
In its discussion on runway utilization, the EIRfEA states that genera] aviation
operations are expected to continue in a westerly flow (i.e., landing from the east and
taking offto the west). Large cargo aircraft, however, would ]and from the west and
take-offtoward the west. The feasibility of such a "contra-flow" for the cargo aircraft is
highly suspect, not only because it ~s an aberration to general airport operations and air
u-afdc control principles but also because of the airspace utilization constraints west of
the airport.
The EIRfEA states that these "anticipated approach and take-off flight tracks have
been the subject of review by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staff for feasibility
and safety and have been found to be both feasible and safe." No corroborating
documentation end'or elaboration ofth~s statement is prox4ded or appears ~o be available.
(If it is available, please provide it as part of the City's responses to comments.) On the
contrary, the FAA has not yet conducted an ,~rspace Management Study to determine
whether or not the contra-flow or even the landings from the west would be workable.
tn fact, the consultants retained by the City have contacted the FAA staff and been
told that the FAA has taken no position as to the appropriate approach and take-off flight
tracks. As the EI2R/EA's authors ar& undoubtedly aware, and as should be discussed in
the EIR/EA, until the project is approved the FAA will take no official action with
respect to the proposed flight tracks.
There is reason for concern because tiffs "west to east track" opposes normal
traffic on Brown Field (and other airports) under both VFR and IFR conditions.
Approval for this approach would therefore be unusual under any c/rcumstances.
Moreover, there is already substantial air traffic over the coastal San Diego area,
involving flights based not only at Lindbergh field but at two naval air stations and the
Tijuana airport, making the east to west approach more attractive to the FAA. For these
reasons, there would appear to be a sig-rfificant possibility that the FAA will not approve
the west to east track for large cargo aircraft landing at Brown Field.
Tbs is anticipated by the Master Plan for Brown Field Section 3.5.4.3 of the
Master Plan and Exhibit 3-13 describe the Brown Field flight tracks for Category C and
D aircraft, which include the Boeing B-767 and the Boeing B-747. Tk/s section
concludes that such aircraft will require dox~ua-wind traffic pattern flight tracks that will
9
cause them to circle approximately 3.0 miles to the north of the runway, across the City
of Chula Vista, and approach Brown Field from the east. The approach must be made
from the north because the proximity of the Mexican border and the existing flight uae'ks
in and out of Tijuana International Airport preclude sufficient airspace for C and D
aircraft flight tracks to the south of Broom Field. Moreover, the approach cannot be
made wholly from the east because of the presence of the San Ysidro Mountains. The
Master Plan, therefore, appeared to consider the east-to-west track, with a Circle over
Chula Vista, to be a more likely result. Further, even the EIR/EA acknowledges that an
eastern approach will be required 10% of the time. Yet because the project description
excludes the east-to-west approach for large cargo aircraft, an eastern approach is never
discussed in the rema'mder of the EIR/EA, nor are the environmental impacts associated
with that app?oach ever discussed. For that reason, the project description in the
document violates CEQA.
In order to remedy these deficiencies, the following should occur:
A) An FAA Air Traffic Airspace study should be performed. The EIR/EA
discusses a January 1998 "work shop" which generated significant comments related to
the efficient use of the airspace in the San Diego area as a result of the Brown Field
Expansion..Apparently, the FAA has not responded to these comments. The detailed
airspace management study to be conducted by the FAA-Western Pacific Re,on Air
Traffic D/vision, and referenced in the EIR/EA, is necessary to substantiate the akspace
procedures needed to operate the ATC System w/th the proposed Brown Field
Expansion, and in mm to understand the flight track impacts on Chula Vista.
B) Because of the uncertainty of FAA flight track approval, the EIR/EA project
description should be amended to include the poss~ility of a predominance of east-to-
west approaches for large cargo aircraft, using the flight Wacks disclosed in the Master
Plan, regardless of the results of the FAA study.
C) The noise impacts analysis of the EIR/EA must be performed with a
recognition of the possibility that such approaches might predominate.
Please provide all of this add/tional information, and perfo, m the additional
anialyses suggested. Without tiffs additional information and analyses, the EIR is
inadequate.
17. The single most important impact of an airport on its neighborhood is the
noise generated by flight operations. The noise impact section of the EIR/EA is therefore
the most important section in the document. Unfortunately, this section has numerous
deficiencies:
A) Neither the EIRfEA nor the Noise Technical Report disclose all of the basic
information which would have been necessary to develop the CNEL contours and related
]0
impact calculations found in the EIR/EA. For example, there are no flight tracks sho~m
in cfither document, nor are there any distn-bufions of aircraft types and number of
operations or mode of operation and time of day by each aircraft type on each flight
track. The documents do proxfide runway usage, but that is not sufficient to judge the
reasonableness of the contours.
B) The noise impacts appear to be based on the assumption of a wholly west-to-
east approach and east-to-west takeoff flight Wack. However, even the project description
assumes that 10% of the approaches will occur from the east--wi'rich, as discussed above,
will require a flight path over the City of Chula Vista. As further discussed above, there
is a s~g-nificant possibility that the FAA will require the predominant approach to be from
the east (again, with City of Chula Vista overflight). Therefore, the noise impacts
analysis should have included an alternate analysis that addressed the 5'npact of east-to-
west approaches featuring the overflight of Chula Vista.
C) The actual data used by the authors are not consistent with the EIR/EA's
assumptions about the predominant flight path. At the request of the City, the proponent
supplied additional information to the consultants retained by Chula Vista regarding
noise impacts. The additional information consisted of a computer printout of the data
programmed into the Integrated Noise Model used to develop the noise contours. Th/s
printout, called au Echo File, indicated that 80 percent of the transport class aircraft
would be landing on Runway 26R (fi-om the east) and taking offon 26R (to the ~vest),
directly contrary to the EIR/EA's project description assuming that west-to-east
approaches would predominate. Therefore, the noise contours in fact are based on the
opposite pattern of approaches than described in the EIR/EA. In addition, the Echo File
described different flight tracks than found in the A/rport Master Plan; the east-to-west
flight pattern used did not include the overfhght of Chula Vista, shown in the Master
Plan, which will be necessary to avoid the terrain to the east. We have attached a copy
of the Echo File to this letter as an extfibit.
Further, the noise analysis as reflected In the Echo File grossly understates the
number of large cargo aircraft operations assumed in the EIR/EA. Page 2-4 of the
EIR/EA states that there will ultimately be appro 'ximately 48 daily cargo operations (24
a~fivals and 24 departures) by aircraft such as the Boeing 767, Boeing 757 and Boeing
747, w/th the Boeing 757 the primary aircraft at approximately 28 daily operations (14
arrivals and 14 departures). The Echo File, however, shows only 16.08 daily operations
by this group of aircraft (consisting of 8.04 arr/vals and 8.04 departures), w/th the Boeing
757 at 2.02 daily operations (or 1.01 arrivals and 1.01 departures). As a result, the noise
contours, wtfich are based on the Echo File, are undoubtedly greatly understate&
These two factors--the understatement of large cargo aircraft operations and the
use of au incorrect flight track--combine to render the noise contours entirely useless in
understanding the actual noise knpacts of the airport expansion.
11
D) In order to ~ve a more accurate description of the noise impact of the proposed
airport, the EIR/EA should include a 55 dB CNEL contour in all noise impact maps. The
EPA has long advocated using the 55 dB CNEL, instead of the 65 dB CNEL, as the
threshold of excessive noise for residential land uses. This is particularly important
where, as here, the community is rural or low-density residential in nature or the climate
is such that outdoor actvifies or open-window living are prevalent. Further, support is
~ow/ng for the lower standard in the acoustical community, as can be seen in recent
envirournental documents for airport projects, and in professional groups, such as the
Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise, because there are often substantial
complaints about airport-aircraft noise from residents outside the 65 dB CNEL contour.
Many Airport Land Use Comrrfissions around California are revising their standards
downward to 55 dB CNEL for residential land uses for this reason.
E) CNEL measurements alone are insufficient to evaluate properly the impact of
airport noise on residential development. CNEL is a time-averaged measure of sound
prevalence, providing a sense of the average level throughout the day. For noise that is
relatively constant throughout the day--e.g., road noise--the CNEL provides a
reasonable measure of perceived noise level. Airport noise, however, consists of
periodic, intense exposures. Residents near airports but outside the 65 dB CNEL report
that single event noise levels (called SELs) are significant enough to significantly
degrade their quality of life. Despite this, the EIR/EA does not present any information
on SELs, although there is no doubt that sig-rdficant SELs will be generated by the large
cargo aircraft overflying nearby residents. Although there are no local legal standards for
SELs, in community after commtmity across the nation, residents near airports complain
that the SELs are what they hear and what ~nnoy them, rather than the time-averaged
CNEL. Therefore, no meanin~nal measure of in-port noise can be provided in the
absence of SEL data.
F) Much more specific information can and should be developed regarding the
impact of noise on the residential neighborhoods planned and under development to the
west of Brown Field. As discussed in Section 5.1 of the EI2RfEA, several specific
residential developments located west of the airport are in various stages of construction
or perrrfitting. The likely pattern of development is therefore much more specific than
presented/n the Otay Mesa Community Plan, which is used as the basis for all of the
EIR/EA's noise contour maps. The likely noise contours (once those contours have been
correctly determined) should be mapped against the location of development disclosed in
the various proposed plans for these developments. In addition, the number of residences
to be affected should be tabulated, based on these development plans. Both of these will
provide a more accurate presentation of the actual noise impact on these residences.
Similar in/ormafion should be developed for the area of Chula Vista that will be
overflown for the purpose of east-to-west approaches.
G) The EIRYBA's defmi2on of"significancc" in U~s coutcxt is unrealistic and
inadequate. Three measures of signif~caucc for noise impacts arc identified: (]) whether
noise levels would exceed local noise criteria, (2) au increase greater thau 1.5 dB CNrEL
in areas in which noise levels already exceed standards, and (3) an increase in noise
levels of 12 dB CNEL over existing levels in any location.
Under CEQA, the "significance" of any impact must be measured against the
prevailing present-day conditions at the site. Therefore, only measures (2) and (3)
consistent with that requirement. While measure (2) may be appropriate an appropriate
standard for Significance, measure (3) requires far too great an increase in noise levels
before a sigui/ficant impact is foun& As the EIR/EA notes, an increase of 10 dB in sound
pressure is perceived by humans as a doubling in volume. Under the 12 dB CNEL
measure adopted by the EIR/EA, no significant impact is found until the residents'
perceived volume of noise throughout the entire day is more than doubled! Plainly a
much smaller increase in CNEL should be treated as sign/ficant.
H) Even if a proper measure of significance were used, the EIR/EA lacks the
information necessary to apply it. As noted above, significance must be measured
against prevailing conditions. There is no information in the EIR/EA with respect to
prevailing CNEL in the areas affected, particularly those to the west of the airport. There
is therefore no way to determine whether the increases imposed by the airport operations
would result in a sigrfificant increase over current conditions.
I) The airport's conclusion that no sig-n/ficant increase in noise levels will occur
because "noise generated along major new roads through the area could exceed City
standards... [and] any increase in airport noise in the area expected to occur by the year
2016 would not increase the ambient noise environment by 12 dB because ambient noise
would rise ~Sth urbanization" applies an inappropriate measure of sigrfificance.
Significance must be measured against existing conditions, not future, speculative
conditions, even when buildout conditions are considered. The mere fact that certain
neighborhoods rrdght be more noisy in the future--and plaiuly it will only be those
portions of neighborhoods near major roads which will be significantly noisier due to
road noise--does not mean that the addition of airport noise will be insignificant.
On the contrary, if those areas have become more noisy in the interim through non-
airport noise, the added noise of the airport ~5ll simply make them even less livable; that
is, the impact will be comparatively greater. Further, if--as the studies relied on by the
EI[R/EA state--future noise levels will exceed 65 dB CNEL (and therefore violate local
regulations), the EIR/EA should apply its o~xm measure ora 1.5 dB CNEL increase for
determining significance, not the 12 dB CNrEL measure. Alternatively, if (as is assumed)
the future noise levels will be near a violation of local regulations, the increase added by
the airport operations may push them past the legal limits, again triggering the EIR/EA's
own standards for significance. None ofth/s is considered, but it must be before the
EIR/EA could possibly be adequate.
J) The EIK/EA's sole suggestion for off-site noise m/figafion---enforcement of
noise insulation standards by the local jurisdictions--is facially inadequate. First, the
obligation to mitigate is an obligation of the project proponent--not affected local
jurisdictions. Second, even that suggestion is not h3cluded in the clrafl Mitigation and
Monitoring Pro~arn. Th/rd, even ffthe project could evade required mitigation by
stating that noise issues should be dealt w/th by the local jurisdictions, this suggestion
would mitigate only those impacts which occur indoors; no mitigation is even suggested
for affected residents who happen to be outdoors. Fourth, even the noise insulation
suggested would provide only a 15 dB insulation. While tiffs might be adequate against
60 dB CNEL that occurs as a constant noise, it will be wholly ineffective against the
substantial SELs to be expected of aircraft overflights, wb_ich will reach realtime sound
pressure levels well in excess of 60 dB. The EI:R/EA must undertake a serious
consideration of noise mitigation, and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise
impacts must be included.
As the foregoing discussion suggests, a complete revision of the noise impacts
section of the EIR/EA must be undertaken and the EIR must be recirculated. At a
minimum, the proponent must provide the following information in order for the citizens
of Chula Vista (and other surrounding residents) to fully understand the implications of
the Brown Field proposal for the quality of their life:
1. A resolution of the inconsistency of the flight tracks and operational
scenahos described in both the EIR/EA and Master Plan and those
described in the Integ-rated Noise Model Echo File upon which the noise
contours in the EI:R/EA were based. Of course, this will require a realistic
consideration of the manner in wh/ch aircraft will be flying into and out of
Brown Field.
2. A depiction of flight tracks used for the noise modeling and contour
development.
~ 3. The expected distn~bution of aircraft on flight tracks, including aircraft
types, number of operations, time of day, etc.
4. A description of any special profiles or procedures (e.g., noise abatement
procedures) used in the modeling or that could be considered to alleviate
CNrEL or SEL impacts.
5. Development of SELs for the various aircraft types expected to use Brown
Field and which would be overflying Chula Vista. This should include not
only Category C and D aircraft but also any business jet aircraft which may
be used for general aviation flying or air taxi operations (over 4,000 air taxi
operations per year are included in the Master Plan forecast).
6. Number of overflights and population affected at different SEL values in
Chula Vista and west of the airport.
7. Development of a 55 dB CNEL contour.
8. Annoyance analysis using the Schultz contour as modified by Fcingold and
Fidell for areas underlying flight tracks in Chula Vista.
9. Analysis of Speech Interference potential for outdoor and indoor living
areas in Chula Vista under and adjacent to the flight U'acks.
10. Since there is an acknowledged potential for night flights, an analysis of
Sleep Disturbance potential for residents of Chula Vista and west of the
airport.
Only after such an analysis has performed ~511 it be possible to state whether, and on
wh/ch residences, a sigv_ificant noise impact ~511 occur. However, it is simply a matter of
lo~c that ma increase in operations of the ma~nltude proposed for this airport will have a
sig-aificant noise impact upon some nearby res/dents. The EIP, JEA's conclusion to the
contrary is unacceptable and inadequate under CEQA.
18. The EIR/EA's analysis of air quality impacts relies on a standard of
sig-nlficance that is too demanding. The EIR/EA concludes that no significant ak quality
impact ~411 occur unless the add/fional pollutants created by the increased airport
operations ~511 cause a violation of air quality standards in ~e San Diego basin. Tiffs
standard is inadequate for several reasons. First, it entirely ]gnores the local impact on air
quality. Even if the impact on air quality throughout the San Diego basin is not
substantially affected by airport operations, local air quality easily could be.
Second, the standard is unworkable. Since the EIR/EA concludes that the basin is
already in xSolation of federal regulations governing particulates, at least at certain times
of the year (see page 5.7-4), the airport expansion, wtfich ~511 result in the emission of
some add/tional particulates, would appear to create a sign]'ficant impact by definition--
regardless of the absolute level of particulates emissions. Third, the standard adopted is
simply too insensitive. The airport cannot be said not to have a sig'~ificant impact merely
because it alone does not push the entire Sma Diego basin flato air quality violations.
What is important is the airport's incremental contribution to San Diego air pollution.
The EIR/EA's own calculations demonstrate that the airport w/ll result in the release of
over 2,000 tons of pollutants per year fi.om aircraft and automobile operations. Surely
that is a significant mount of pollution that ~411 have a sig-aificant effect in the relatively
remote portion of the basin surrounding Broom Fie]d; as the EIPUBA notes, the airport
will be a "major source" of air pollutants in the re,on.
Further, even this inadequate measure is applied only with respect to a single
pollutant, carbon monoxide. No attempt is made to determine whether the emission of
other pollutants will have a significant environmental impact. Note also that the
poss~flity that the proposed project will produce ]ess pollution than planned under the
] 981 plan (at least, by one definition) is entirely irrelevant, since significant impacts must
be measured against current conditions, not speculated future conditions.
Final]y, because the EIR improperly concludes that there would be no significant air
quality impacts, it completely fails to address mitigation for air quality impacts.
The air quality analysis in the EIR must therefore be completely revised and
recirculated.
19. CBQA Guidelines Section 15154 requires a public agency preparing an BIR
in connection with airport operations to ufitLze the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics. Please confirm that this handbook was
used.
20. Figure 5.1-10 is one of the more important in the EI2~EA. The black-and-
wh/te copy included is nearly indecipherable. Please reprint this figure in color, both
alone and with the airport noise contours (or the AIA, with an added 55 dB CNEL
contour) superimposed upon it.
21. Table 5.2-2 appears to be incomplete. Please provide the complete
information it purports to present.
22. Page 5.1-13 recites the standards for airport expansion in the Re~onal
Transportation Plan. These include allowance only if (1) a demonstrated need exists, (2)
the expansion can be safely inte~ated into the re~onal airspace system, and (3) the noise
will not adversely impact adjacent land uses. Please discuss and analyze the proposed
project in this context. With respect to item (1), please discuss and analyze actual
evidence (through studies, etc.) that San D/ego-area air cargo transport needs cannot be
adequately served by the use of L/_udbergh Field and the various other re~onal airports
now operating. The conclusory statements ~n the EIR/EA are inadequate under CEQA.
With respect to item (2), please discuss and analyze evidence bearing on whether
the increase in westbound coastal air traffic created by the expansion can be safely
inte~ated into present coastal air traffic patterns. With respect to item (3), please discuss
and analyze whether the noise created by the new air traffic will "adversely impact"
surrounding land uses, particularly the proposed residential uses west of the airport.
16
Please discuss and analyze this factor independent of the EIRfEA's inflated standard for
"sig-nificant impact."
23. Section 5.3 and subsequent sections consider only direct impacts on
wildlife from airport construction. That is, if the existing habitat is not disturbed by
construction of the airport, the EIR/EA assumes there will be no impact on wildlife. The
EIR/EA therefore improperly ignores the issue whether on-going airport operations--
e.g., substantially increased daily aircraft flights, using much larger aircraft--will have
any impact on local wildlife. Of particular concern in this regard is the effect of larger
aircraft flight operations on local raptors, such as the Golden Eagle, and any species listed
on the federal or state endangered species lists.
24. The EIY,/EA's conclusion that the airport will have no significant impact on
farmland conversion because the farmland that will be taken by the airport is zoned for
future indusu-iaI use applies the wrong standard_ The EIR/EA must measure impacts
against current conditions, not against future, speculative actions. Please provide an
appropriate evaluation as required by CEQA.
Our conclusion is that the EIR/EA is inadequate under CEQA for alt of these
reasons. Please proxfide all of the information and analyses requested, rev/se the
EIR/EA's discussions appropriately, and recirculate the document for further public
analysis and comment.
Sincerely,
David D. RoMan&s, Jr.
City Manager
cc: Mayor/Council
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Manager, San Diego
Bob Leiter, Dffector of Planning & Building
Duane B~z?.el, Principal Planner
"c"
{:nY OF
CHUI.A VISIA
OFFICE OF THE CiTY MANAGER
March 16, 2000
Mr. Lawrence C. Monserrate
Environmental Review Manager
Planning & Development Review Department
1222 First Avenue, MS 501
SanDiego, CA 92101
Reference: Brown Field Redevelopment; Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment (FEIR/EA)- Receipt of Information
Dear Mr. Monserrate:
On March 6, 2000, the City of Chula Vista received a third computer disk from your office
which, purportedly, contained data that Chula Vista had been requesting since February 2.2000.
The disk was transmitted to our consultant, Aviation Systems Associates, Inc. (ASA). who
received it on March 7, 2000. The consultant has carefully reviexved the computer files
contained on the disk and notes that more data has been made available on this disk than any
other yet received. He also notes, however, that there is still significant data missing from the
computer files.
The missing data is the operational information; the actual files that are created and used by the
model to perform the calculations and generate the contours. It was described in an earlier letter
"the top level INM Study Directory and all case subdirectories including
all of the digital files (*.bin, *.dar, *.dbf, *.err, *.into, *.ms& *.opt, *.out,
*.text, *.xls, etc) which describeflight operations, fleet mix, procedures,
profiles, runways, analysis grids and lNM outputs in creating the noise
contours".
The consultant has indicated that he believes he will be able to reconstruct this data, using the
files which are in place, but notes that this will increase the amotmt of time it will take to analyze
the file data and determine the validity of the flight tracks and noise contours contained in the
FEIRJEA for the proposed expansion of Brown Field.
276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5031 · FAX (619) 585-5612
Brown Field Redevelopment
Draft Final Environmental Impact ReporffEnvironmental Assessment (DFEIR)
Receipt of Information
3/16/00 page 2
It is disappointing that the applicants for this project have failed to comply with the City of
Chula Vista's reasonable and clear request which was set forth in three Requests for Inspection
and Copying of Public Records. This letter should not be construed as a waiver of the City of
Chula Vista's objections to the incomplete response to its Requests.
sinc~y,
l~ax55d D. l~owlan/d~ Jr.
City Manager
Cc: Michael Ubemaga, CiD' Manager, City. of San Diego
City of San Diego Planning Commission
Chula Vista Mayor and CiD, Council
Bob Leiter, Chula Vista Planning Director
Aviation Systems Associates. Inc.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTACHMENT "D"
Developer Briefing on Proposed Brown Field Expansion
April 12, 2000 8:00am-9:00am Chula Vista City Council Chambers
In attendance:
NAME ORGANIZATION
Keith Home Ayres Land Company
Ken Baumgartner McMillin Companies
Kim Kilkenny The Otay Ranch Company
Mark McMillin McMillin Companies
Bill Hamlin Ayres Land Company
Guy Asaro The EastLake Company
Bill Ostrem The EastLake Company
Bob Pletcher McMillin Companies
Denny Cuccarese McMillin Companies
Jerry Livingston Building Industry Association
Marty Keithley Knotts - Soak City USA
Buck Martin Coors Amphitheatre/House of Blues
Chris Bitteflin Coors Amphitheatre/House of Blues
Simon Malk Otay Land Company
Skip Harry Trimark Pacific Homes
Patrice Milkovich Olympic Training Center
Constance Clover McMillin Companies
Liz Jackson Pacific Bay Homes
CITY STAFF:
David D. Rowlands Jr. City Manager
George Krempl Assistant City Manager
Ann Moore Senior Assistant City Attorney
Jim Sandoval Assistant Planning Director
Duane Bazzel Principal Planner
Jeri Gulbransen Public Information Officer
Colleen Kelly Intergovernmental Affairs
I
r '.
~
-
SAN DIEGO AIR COMMERCE CENTER
AT B ROW NFl E L D
April 18,2000
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 41h Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton and City Councilmembers:
Though not asked to make a formal presentation tonight, on behalf of the San Diego Air
Commerce Center (SANDACC), I feel it is important to write this letter and state for the record
again why we believe the San Diego Air Commerce Center will be of great benefit to the people
ofChula Vista, the South Bay area and the entire San Diego region. To recap:
.
SANDACC will take trucks off the 1-5 and I-80S corridors.
SANDACC will create 11,000 high-paying jobs.
SANDACC will host a projected 48 cargo jet operations per day by the year 2016.
The Otay Mesa Planning Council and the Otay Nestor Planning Group support SANDACC.
The Otay Mesa, San Ysidro and National City Chambers of Commerce, the Greater San
Diego Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. and
the World Trade Center of San Diego also support SANDACC.
SANDACC will enable existing industries to compete more effectively by having a San
Diego-based air cargo facility. It will also help the region attract new high quality businesses
by having a facility that helps establish the region as a global commerce center.
SANDACC will also increase sales for all South Bay businesses. Independent analysis
predicts that SANDACC will increase regional revenues by $750 million per year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The City of San Diego provided your hired consultants Aviation Systems Consultants,
Inc. (ASA) with the Echo file data from which to validate our noise studies. Though it hasn't
been made public before your meeting, I am confident ASA's report will confirm the
Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) for our project are accurate. Any other analysis
applied to the project such as Single Event Level (SEL), while interesting, lacks generally
accepted standards for evaluating its significance. CNEL is the adopted FAA, CEQA and City
standard.
According to the information accompanying this item, on April 12, 2000, the city staff
held a Brown Field briefing with local developers and business people, ostensibly to review the
report you will hear tonight. Not one SANDACC representative was invited to this meeting to
Headquarters
Symphony Towers
750 "B" Street, Suite 3130
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 696-3262
(619) 696-964S fax
-",
..
Chula Vista City Council
April 18, 2000
Page 2
provide input. SANDACC has spent more than four years and millions of dollars to study the
impacts of a revitalized Brown Field. SANDACC believes it should have been afforded the
opportunity to present at this meeting the many positive aspects ofthis project and to show how
the perceived negative impacts will be mitigated.
Furthermore, we would like to point out that the City Manager's report for this item
provided before tonight's public meeting did not include our detailed responses to the City's
comment letter of September 21,1999 (included in the report as pages 9-6 thru 9-22.) These
very detailed answers to all ofthe comments are contained in the pending Final Environmental
Impact Report to be considered by the City of San Diego City Council and Planning
Commission. SANDACC spent many months to address these concerns and others in working
with the City of San Diego staff and consultants to develop the current Final EIR for the project,
and we believe that all concerns have been satisfied
We sincerely hope that the council carefully weighs all aspects of this project before
making its decision.
Sincerely,
~:::~c:^~-Jj:CCi( v'-
President
April 18, 2000
CONCERTS'
Tilt HOME Of L1.E MUSIC",
Mayor Shirley Horton
Council Member John Moot
Council Member Mary Salas
Council Member Patty Davis
Council Member Steve Padilla
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Brown Field Expansion
Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council:
The proposed development of Brown Field into a major air cargo facility raises a number of concerns for Coors
Amphitheatre.
To take a look at the history of our venue and its development, one of the sites, which were originally considered by
our company, for Coors Amphitheatre, was in the city of Po way. One of the main conditions, which helped
eliminate that site from consideration, was the proximity of an airport flight path, which would have caused a
number of problems for the operation of a premiere outdoor concert facility.
Among those considerations were the sound requirements of the City of Chula Vista and the surrounding
neighborhoods, the comfort and safety of our patrons and the ability to provide a positive atmosphere for the artist to
perform. Can you imagine having to ask Elton John to "hold up moment until the cargo jet passes over". I know
what his manager would tell me and it wouldn't be appropriate to repeat in these council chambers.
While we have worked hard to ensure that sound from our concerts would not impinge on the local residents, we as
well need control over extraneous sound to ensure the quality of a performance to our p~trons and to ensure OUf
economic well being.
In the area of safety of our patrons, there are concerns of the massive liability we would incur if one of the cargo
planes crashed into the performance area, or even into the parking lot.
The hard work and expense we have gone through together as partners could potentially be for nothing. If
performances are interrupted and ruined by cargo airline noise, word would soon spread through the music industry
that C00TS was not the place to play :l.l1d \ve '\vould fh~d it diffie!!lt to 0btair.. Trtaj0r-hea;dli."le aztstcpcrfOhn at th~
facility. This would have a disastrous [mandaI impact not only on our business, but on the revenue generated on
behalf of the city.
uck Martin
General Manager
2050 ENTERTAINMENT CIRCLE
CHUlA VISTA. CA 91911
PH 619 671 3500
FX 619 671 3550
WWW.HOB.COM
-A,'1f. or , . ~_ '. " ,- _, ~..,,-;i: "~'~:?~~;~t~""":~~.~~'~~::w': <.~^'~~',""~""'''
" MTDB "". ' ~""'-"-"'o"~~'"
/:;, ..~..., "' . " " .. ; "';Jp.,~.tJ'''''''':>l-~''''''f'';-''}~it''!(-~ :i..."':iI"1~.~;':;
- " _ > -. ~ H~ ~ . <,>'.~"" _, wet. '1',- J <!., ~ ~ ~~ ~:-~." ~ '
, ~ -Metropolitan Transit DevetopmentBoard ~f:;.,~~ j "i' ,-. ~::.; ~~ ,~'f~, ~ ~ :;:~~:,v l~~.Jl~~~f'"~~f 'i,"ifft~,~ ~~~<t~
",;t.., -", _. " ^" .. ..,_"--,.,..- . ,,' - ~~T~',__'''~''~ ....,..,'J.;.O ..,.Vt;.~_'..~~"'~~'.I'i.. . .,
--....-.-.
"-
i 255 Impenal Avenue _ Suite '1000
San O,ego. CA 92101-7490
,619,231-1466
FAX (519) 234-3407
April 13, 2000
SRTP 820.13 (PC 20220)
The Honorable Susan Golding, Mayor
San Diego City Council
San Diego City Planning Commission
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission:
Subject: SAN DIEGO AIR COMMERCE CENTER AT BROWN FIELD PROJECT
MTDB has received the latest Design Guidelines and Development Standa,ds for the Brown Field
Project. The document fails to reflect the needed right-of-way for stations within the
development site, and it does not show or describe the alternative right-of-way alignments on the
site and in the street right-of-way. It simply states "The alignment of the future LRT line in the
Otay Mesa Community has not yet been established by the MTDB. However, the City of
San Diego will explore alternatives that can accommodate the LRT, possibly within the Otay Mesa
Road right-of-way" (see Attachment A). That statement is erroneous. In fact, MTDB has
designated and requested an alignment along the full length of Brown Field with two stations on
the site.
The developer and staff seem to be assuming that the LRT alignment will be located outside the
Brown Field Project area, "possibly within the Otay Mesa Road right-of-way." However, there is
no action of the City Council to provide us with a commitment that the LRT alignment will be
accommodated in the Otay Mesa Road right-of-way. Our concern is that, without a commitment
now, prior to any approval of the development, it will be difficult to obtain the right-of-way from
the road or the development when we are ready to construct the LRT in the future. In addition, in
either case, right-of-way dedication up to 75-feet-wide and 360-feet-long will still be needed from
the Brown Field Project area for two LRT station sites, and the documents now being processed
should describe and show that requirement at the very least. Currently, the Design Guidelines
merely shows dots on a street for the station sites (see Attachment B).
This apparent refusal to accommodate the South Bay Light Rail Transit (LRT) alignment following
the November 18, 1999, MTD Board of Director's recommendations to the City has resulted in
follow-up discussion and action from the Executive Committee of the MTD Board of Directors at
its meeting on April 13, 2000.
In order to preserve the ability to serve Otay Mesa with LRT in the future, the Executive
Committee took formal action to reaffirm its position of seeking right-of-way dedication for the
South Bay LRT. The Executive Committee of the MTD Board of Directors is formally requesting
the City Council to:
1. Require the dedication of the 35-foot right-of-way and 75 feet at station locations as a
condition of the Brown Field development approvals; OR
Me~oe~ Aq8'lCleS
S:t'.' Of Gh~ia Vista C~tv o':cyor,B.j:) CHV j; E, CaiO:; 21~'.' cf imD8rra: Beac" -:-(\ 0; i...a Mesa Cit', 0' i...e"l10'i G'O""5 Ci'\ ,:,.f Na,lo:la: Ctv C:ty 0' PQway CI:V ot San Diego
e:tl,' o~ Santee, County 0; San D'ego, S,at8 of CalliOfrllc;
M~!rOPolitall Transit DeVel08fT1ent Board IS Coord!nat0~ 2' the Me"opol:tar: T~ans!; Svst€'TI and ,he ,~ Taxlcat' L,cjn-;r.oS\'c',lor
SiJbSldla'y Co~porations: ,~ Sar. Diego Transit CC'f:Gratlo~l, ,-~, Sarc Diego Troi!e:, !nc" and .San :O,ego & ,A,':zcna E2S1e~n Rail".-ay COr'".:Jan\
For personal trip piannmg or route Information. call 1-BOO-COMMUTE or Vlsil our web site at sdcommutecom.'
Mayor Susan Golding
San Diego City Council
San Diego City Planning Commission
April 13, 2000
Page 2
2. Take formal action to provide a commitment through a Memorandum of Understanding/
Resolution or some form of authoritative legal agreement to provide the necessary 35-foot
right-of-way within Otay Mesa Road after acquisition of the road from the state, and only
require dedication of the two necessary station sites from the development; and
3. Direct staff to include these rights-of-way and station requirements in all future relevant
documents, including the Design Guidelines, Master Plan documents, and subsequent
environmental documents on this project.
We reiterate that our position is not necessarily to request the necessary land dedications for LRT
all from Brown Field property. We are simply seeking a binding commitment that it will be
available either through the development process from Brown Field, or by Council action from
Otay Mesa Road, or a combination of both, and, in either case, station sites will be dedicated by
the development.
We also request that the Design Guidelines suggest and describe how transit use could be
promoted through project design, and identify specific accommodations (with a precise plan as an
exhibit) for the future LRT alignment and stations.
We do not understand why our requests are being met with such apparent resistance. The City
Planning Commission has acknowledged the importance of transit and the regional significance of
the integration of public transit into the project. Again, we are very concerned with the lack of
interest the project development team has shown with regard to the incorporation of public transit
into the future plans of this project.
In summary, it is imperative for the future of the expansion of LRT into Otay Mesa that right-of-
way is preserved now. Otherwise, there is a risk to the viability of the LRT project. The future
cost of land and/or new developments could potentially prohibit LRT development in Otay Mesa.
We strongly believe that great opportunities still exist to closely integrate the proposed Brown
Field redevelopment with existing and future transit services. As a result of this correspondence,
we hope that a greater cooperation can be formed.
Sincerely,
I /'
'-----"
KYarno/SStroh - L-BROWN.MBRUSS
Attachments: A. Design Guidelines and Development Standards, page 11-17, Mass Transit
B. Design Guidelines and Development Standards, page 11-5, Circulation Plan
b .----: .
cc: Mike Uberuaga, City Manager Cc. : I L ~VW I
Gail Goldberg, City Planner JL,V'tbc:
Will Griffith, Director Real Estate Assets LJI I cbe.
Mike Westlake, Development Project Manager ~ L
II'Jih.c.5
~ ~r~~~
~:
It ~:
;:;.
s:
~:
1$
a
<
.
-
'"
.9~
Q. -
1;\0
- '"
:':: .c
;0-
o .5
""=
.!E .;!:
0>-
~~
(fJ g;
15l5.
.~.-=
<..)0::
",-'
.<: '"
-A=
~'*
;0-0
00
:J: E
E
a:i 8
o '"
>- '"
::;; <=
'" rl
;:15
~=
-O~-O
~~~
.~ ~ a:
J5C:m
~$~
Q)(ij~
III
C
It:
<(
C
Z
<(
I-
Ul
I-
Z
OJ
~
ll.
o
..J
OJ
>
OJ
o
c
z
<(
III
OJ
Z
..J
OJ
C
::J
(!)
Z
l!)
III
OJ
o
~
;r
'9
l:
""
.'"
'"
_0..9 J)
aJ-o
~~c:
ill m:2 E
c E :>. Q)
o~..c"'C
.:=cn"Co
"3: <( ~ en
-g-og~
o e - m
a: E-g
~.s -:;: e
~o~i:
>.QlQ.a>
m""C.S! g
0"(;; U) 0
en= ~ ;:
c: <5.s:J ~
iiC:mE
'" <= '"
~=.g.c
":; c: :.c -;
QiO"O_
Vl"'C Ctl Vl
en ]i en :fi
EL.L~e
~~~.:
c: 0 t5 _
~co.5'2
:5-<1>Q>
u CO u >
.~ 0..':; c:
o Q:; 0
~ en en to}
Q)(/)(I)~
..0'=15150
~
Q.
o
u;
..
=
lD
~
g,~ ~"'C
a~ ~~
Q;
~~ OJ Cti
cnt-.~~~
o~""C=o
.z-. E ~ c:( ~
u~~E5
~ cnu;~ c:
_c:>.Vlm
>-._ (/) >- en
..c ~ ,..00 '0
"g C:,~ &~
E; ~:::l.~ C3
i5..ctl VlO Q)
~o ~ ~-=
"'Cro3:"'=
~ ~ Q) 0 .~
Ci c: >- Q)
""C 0...8 .'": I'..)
~ctl..::ll::u~
~.e~~"E
..........c:.::::;:o
c...g _en'~ ~
QlQ.Q)Q)meV
.c_'-=Q)C""C
= c: U) .c .- "S
"i E ~ - ~ ~
>-__.9 c: c:
-g (ij ~ U) .~.~
... _ 0.._ c: U) Q)
s~~~.Q~o
ca.S:!....Q)~Q,)~
~ ro Q)"'C c:..c ~
~16 c: Q)
..0 <c 3: "i 8 "i en
-
-
-
ATTACHMENT A
'"
~
'"
:2
>-
'"
is
""
<=
o
'"
~
<=
.2
1ii
'"
.Q
Q.
o
<;;
~
=
.c
-0
'"
~
o
Q.
e
Q.
.l:1
'"
'"
""
'"
Q.
~
'" .
:;~
.~ 0
u.. 0::
'"
<=
.g tfi
'-5 Cl:>
" E
'" '"
",=
~~
e.2
Q. '"
o .~
- .c
-0 '"
$ (tj
m~
'" -
5i ~
'" 0
.c'E
~ .~
~..Q
<=-0
.~ ~
"Ci) 1:5
15"5-
~c.
"[~
~.S!
'53~
Q)"5
.L: .5
0"
cti ~ 8
~
.....
c:
"
E
"
.::
<
<
0'
"
0:::
"
"llt
r::
~
'lit
ill
00
c
.S!
U
=
-0
e
:E
c~~ Q)
~ "6 "co .0 G:;
(5 ~E(ij 3:
c.. >- Cii 15 "j ~
e c ~ E U'J
CiittlWc~-g
:::!:Ci:e ttI
&~='~~ Q;
.~o~ww~
o 0...- ~ ~ ;-
c.. U'J.,; G)
attl__~U'J&
~.g9:g<G)
o '- "'C ~ C
~.g :s E .!9 c
.- c....c.$: c ttI
u"'O_U'JG)cn
Q) Q) ttI ~Eo
:5~~.2:'>~~
.ee..QC3~C3
c=- c.. -; g>"'O Q)
.g ~ CO ~ .~ =:
$ .~'x &::2
.~.~ ~ Q) ~ ==
~i:=Q)-Q)
~Q).-:5~g
._~~.e~-E
g~-g~uo
>-Q)Ui.52-88
"'CoQ)u"'OttlCLi
~'-...c:::Q)cc:"'O
Q;Ui.$:~2tt1'-a
::Q;~~8~~~
:8 ~ ~ .~ ~ tt1.~.Ci)
U'J ttI Q).,g ~~ Q)
c.i c( s:: c.. U'J._ "'C 0
-
-
.E ~
-go::
.E =
'a; 0
"'C~
~"5
'" ~
05(3
-0 _
en g ~
.!! >- Q;
o..'=c
~a;~
c~5
~'oz
~ c.~
'0"5 -;
c:mQ;
..c<i
<;;
-0
<=
'"
'"
M
~
-c ~ E.. .E ~
~ Iii CO 12.~
W ~.S? U'J'e Q)
Ciio ~~'u;...c:::
Q) :gCi ~
~.EG)i:~~
~ g...c .$: 'i ~
E_(ijc Uic
U'J =..c::'~ 5'w ttI
Cii'C U'J r:n = c:
CI......._.~ 0
-e '0.. 0 'as ~ (.) Co) .$:
W ~.E c."'C ..Q u ~
~ i: Q)...c::: - "'0 Q) '(3
ww~~e~'ew
:So..cQ)~oc..5r
as.EO 5.= CO
'!.:e~~g-~o
ttI == 'C5....c::: "fi ~ i:
-0",' =_ttI :5'i CO c: Q)
o W'n; E
eQ;COC:cac: g-
w..$!cn-!"'C'(8Q;
.~_ 0 Q)'iii.$: E it
MU'JC:~.E"'C
c...9jg8Q;0~
ttI e
U'J g.-g~ ~8 ~
~ ~ ~ -g '0.. "'C
~iU'~:~~.s
..c E or:. C'l E ~
-g ~'i."'5C:s'~
as.!!:! _ Q) Q)
~ -6 j! g ~ .~~
~~o'E.g~ii
~ '"
c:E
'[ 5-
'" Q;
~.c
:50
=
.~
g> .~ -g c:
'c...c::: (ij co"i ~
-6~Q;5e -
"'Cz..a5~r:n ~
Q):o C'lc sq C ~ ..c:
~ ttI.-~'~-o'i
1ii";..-o~as2>
c,-=,-----"5-=c..
o19tUr- ...
u:="'Cui=,,!g5
U'J E c: ~'i.5 u
~ ~'E:::J Q) e.g ~
~.~.5~ ~~ ~~
U:c:5i"5U-i~
c: ttI .~ c.. 0 -c i5>'S
==~ttlQ).!Q5oCT
e;::~cottlo-=~
~ "'C W -g'i ~.g ~
O~€EU'J~c..~
'" '-",_ 3: E "_~_ <= -0 E
:s "'C 0 :::J.$: 0
13 Q) w g.u Q) g u
2:56,tt1"s..c,->o
Ui='Ui.9~ 1i)~
e~~"'C :::J'i 15'"5
C 3:_ W"U.._:-!!!= "'-0
'0, ~ g ~.5 ~ ~
.EQ)~g.~"5 0
'._-:-!!!_~_ ~ =:: 3: ; -E ~ 'i ar
Q)~e..c:S--EO
5~"'C~.Ec:~~f6
~15~ 2a1 ~ E ~cn
C[;)::~~c:c:eo
OQ)- C'lC'lc..>
-o:::!:=:5'i~~.5~
-
-
...
.~
..
c:
..
r=:
...
..
I
'"
-
..
..
..
~
"
'" '"
= E
CO '(ij c ~
.~ C u a: .~ Q)
~~Q)l:(ij..c
ca :c-'[~ ~ ~
~n;Q)~ <5
'- 0 as'- c5 c:
e to.- i$ (f.l
c.._11,-:g~
Q) C E c.. t:::.s:::.
.c:Q) oo~
- " E - "'._
C a..- U'J "'C c:
.- 0 Q) = tU ~
U'J Q;.c: nJ 0 E
B 6i ~c..a: E
'~c';~m8
~:t::=.~ C ~ ttI
"'C ~ c:: e..c:::; U'J
ci)coQ)o,>>Q)
ca':U'J=.l9:E
='15..90>-
~19C:U'JQ)19
'Ui'oe~=o
= ~ -;; CO C'l ttl
jgettl05=
Cii:g ~ as.5
Ci:E~::EQ)Q)
5Q)Q.r:.S?~
1; == to .52 c:: ~
C:OC1:6~a:
:e ~.... "'C_....J
8 ~-:: CO ~ ~
u&!:>...55.2
U'J= -~
~ g ~~~-;
0~5t~.~5=
ai ~U'>~o
=
lD
Cl
....
::Ii
r....
...
..
-
-
,
~
It!
i
;
(J)
c
a:
.:
c
z
.:
I-
1Il
I-
Z
W
::;:
ll.
o
.J
W
>
W
o
c
z
.:
(J)
w
Z
.J
w
C
:J
Cl
Z
Cl
(J)
w
o
.
..
..
ATTACHMENT B
e~
z
"tl
.
o
"'"
" / t, "
_::.z!1~',::Cg -
i'\:~<':::~ E ~.i, ' P"O~
.,~ ~5.&.~~,"
I,' (1)~(,),O::~ pvo~
- g !~ ,"'~
'" E~"tl ,~"'~ <,~t -"~8
'E.!!~8 ~~~""',,",," 't sap.VD
z.6uo:: '~~~" ~~ =
~.,~;- -
~ " "'.~~ " '''': 0
\~",,,,~ ~.~" ,I
\0 ~~~ ~~~ ,'~
\~~~"~,~,, ~~ , :"O~ ( snlO":>
\:::>~~~~ ',','," ''i,~, "
. '-, ~ "'~"" ~" '-, '. " ". '1:) ..,
~,',', . "','" ,', "'.,"1,'. W1l::l ';
" ". "'" " " " " " ',40... ",
- ,-,. ", '" ~ '" '-'" " ':, "" O!j!09d '.
~~~",,,<?~ ~\
" . peo~,,~ ':. a611l!J9H ; I .
_---I ~,,~
-- ,'''II
8!P9V'j 8l
~oe.d
\!e,\\e'l .",.-"""
()\&'/---
~-~--
. .
~ ,j:l
. .-
~ o~
..
..
.
.
.
..
..
~~
i51111ll
!~E
o.
U C
~,gg
w"'E g.
~~j!
'; E.~
'Eo>
. C c
1l.!!L~
h,"Oo
~ i ;
CIl~lli
.!!! 0 ~
.!:1~CO
-:8.1l.!!!
llIE=
5lg'O]
III 0>--
> >B~
.8 Cll >....
llI~~ 8-
. . .
~ E~.8
"tl
.
~
~
.
.
""
<
c
'"
<'Ie:
...!..
- C
ell 0
~ .-
,,-
",.J!!
.- "
LL. u
~
U
=
III
I I
I
1_0*_
"iii ~
"~ 8 ~
.~ i:. ~ (;
. .-
~ E >- ; 1: .m
uC:;iUN'i
, .g .8 .t. ~ ::a
.-g u!5b. ~l 28-
:g;~n~n:Hlll
" "i 2 T T T T ""' ~ :d ~
_1 .s: N ~ co a) i::If u.. :fs li5
.
.
.
-
..
A\~
McMillin 1~1Jo~,,,Q~y,elopment
April 17 , 2000
Mayor Shirley Horton and
City Council Members
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chuta Vista, CA 91910
C 4 - 1 '-
J'
RE: BROWN FIELD IMPACTS
The Corky McMillin Companies has reviewed the Brown Field issues and offer the
following comments for your consideration.
Based upon the presentation made last Wednesday by City staff and your consultants
which discussed (1) the need for an east west approach leg over Otay Ranch to land in a
westerly direction; (2) aircraft type in the cargo fleet; (3) single event noise levels
because of aircraft flying 1500-2500 feet high over the Eastern Urban Center, we believe
that there will be negative impacts upon our ownership at McMillin Lomas Verdes at
Otay Ranch, as well as the surrounding developed communities.
If these facts are correct, these impacts could be disruptive to our future homebuyers,
schools, and other planned land uses. These impacts could have a negative impact on our
land value.
Our company has and will continue to support the economic development of Brown
Field, and the surrounding areas. However, until a more creative solution can be
presented to diminish our concerns, we have difficulty supporting the project as we
understand it today.
Sincerely yours,
The Corky McMillin Companies
~ ~(1~
Ken Baumgartn~
President and COO
McMillin Land Development
KB\cb
cc: Corky McMillin
.\.\.
McMillin Realty
.\.\.
McMillin Mortgage
A\. .\.\.
McMillin Land Development McMillin Homes
.\.\.
McMillin Commercial
CORPORATE OFFICE 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 TEL (619) 477-4117 FAX (619) 336-3112 www.mcmillin.com
/11
BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
#9
1'.0. Box 6746 San Diego, CA 92166 I'hone 718.6550 FAX 619.718.6555
April 18, 2000
Mayor Shirley Horton
Council Member John Moot
Council Member Mary Salas
Council Member Patty Davis
Council Member Steve Padilla
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Brown Field Expansion
Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council:
During a four-year period between 1994 and 1998, Bitterlin Development, in
association with Universal Concerts and Whitewater Canyon pursued the siting,
design, entitlement and construction of the Coors Amphitheatre and the water
park. The City of Chula Vista and our development teams worked diligently to
ensure that the chosen locations and designs would be compatible with the
surrounding land uses in Chula Vista and San Diego. Sound and traffic impacts
created the greatest concern among existing and future residential areas. The most
significant issue during the amphitheatre approval process was the potentiai noise
impact. We carefully oriented the stage and constructed sound walls so that the
impact on surrounding land uses was minimized.
:'-$
With the amphitheatre beginning its third operating season and the water park
beginning its fourth, I believe that we can all say that the mitigation measures
implemented in these projects have served your constituents well. We are proud
that the Coors Amphitheatre and Soak City are part of Chula Vista's exciting
growth.
Ironically, the proposed Brown Field expansion has a significant, unavoidable
noise impact on the amphitheatre and the surrounding area. The future operations
of the Coors Amphitheatre will be put in jeopardy by the proposed project.
Many of the proposed cargo flights will be in the evening and at night. Expected
noise contours at the amphitheatre will range between 65 and 80 dBA during
takeoffs and landings. The Brown Field applicant has suggested 48 flights per
day, but no limit on that number is in place. In the 7:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. time
period, there could be takeoffs and landings every few minutes. These noise levels
will require an Elton John or a Carlos Santana to stop their performances while the
aircraft take off or land. As a result, those artists and many more may not return to
the Coors Amphitheatre.
"'>-.
'.
'"
Chula Vista City Council
April 18, 2000
Page 2
While Brown Field will significantly affect the amphitheatre during its show
season, your current and future residents will be affected 365 days and nights a
year. We all worked hard not to disturb those residents with noise from the
amphitheatre. It is consistent with this Council's policy to oppose any project that
will continuously disturb your citizens with unacceptable noise levels. Therefore,
I respectfully request that you formally oppose the Brown Field expansion project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chris Bitt
President
/
-....-
Patrice A. Milkovich
Director. ARea Training Center
..," "
,. <(~'P &)01'
"'~~ ....'I,
U:oU S A':\
~Q~fI1~$
~~~ fi/~~
"'~ ..;_ 1. ~p
~?~ ",,~t:
~~p
April 18, 2000
The Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vista
Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the Chula Vista City Council,
On behalf of the entire ARCO U.s. Olympic Training Center community-
athletes, coaches, and staff - I write to express our serious concerns and
reservations about the proposed expansion project at Brown Field.
After an expansive site-selection process that occurred throughout San Diego
County in the late 1980's, locating the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista
adjacent to Lower Otay Reservoir has proven to be an ideal choice. Our location
meets all selection criteria and project goals established by the United States
Olympic Committee and are defined in the Olympic Training Center's Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Among
those goals are two critical components that will be compromised by the
proposed Brown Field Expansion Project:
. a superb year-round climate for outdoor sports training, and
. maintaining natural open-space areas and creating "quiet" spaces for
athletes on campus.
These goals significantly enhance the training and living environments for all of
America's athletes that utilize our Center. This environment will be severely
compromised by the conditions created with the proposed Brown Field
Expansion Project.
Specific concerns of the OTC are for the noise impacts; particularly the loud
"single event" noises that mainly characterize the aircraft noises that will be
associated with adjusted flight patterns caused by various weather and air traffic
conditions. As it has been scientifically proven, noise affects one's ability to
concentrate and can cause sleep deprivation, resulting in potentially deleterious
effects on health and well being, thus negatively affecting athletic performance.
United States Olympic Committee
2800 Olympic Parkway
Chula Vista, CA 91915
Tel: 619-482-6101 Fax: 619-482-6109
eI11ail: patrice,milkovich@usoc,org web site: www.olympic-usa.org
flY ~..
~
Relative to training center activities, single event noise levels will have two
critical impacts for our athletes and coaches: interfered communication and sleep
deprivation. Single event noises will significantly interfere with essential
communication that occurs among and between our athletes and coaches in their
various sports venues. Rowing, Canoe and Kayak athletes training on Lower
Otay Reservoir rely heavily upon the verbal instruction and direction given to
them by coaches that are traveling along or beside them, often at distances of up
to 100 ft. Specifically in the sport of Rowing, athletes traveling with their backs
to their intended finish line rely upon their ability to hear coaches or the
coxswain give directions. Safety of these athletes is an issue, particularly when
competing with recreational lake users during the City of San Diego's fishing
season. Noise levels exceeding 65 dB will negatively affect this critical verbal
communication.
Noise induced disturbances of sleep can have substantial affects on subsequent
task performance. Frequent disruptions lead to daytime drowsiness, fatigue and
lack of concentration that may result in a compromise of personal safety, not to
mention athletic performance. Athletes have a performance-driven schedule that
demands quality night-time sleep as well as adequate rest/recovery periods
between their daily training sessions, typically occurring between the hours of
l1:OOam and 2:00pm.
Ultimately, we would like to protect and ensure an atmosphere at the Olympic
Training Center that provides a world-class training and living environment, not
to be compromised by the noise pollution associated with the Brown Field
Expansion Project.
P';: tk
Patrice A. Milkovich
Director
Does the editor at the Union Tribune not know the meaning of
this word, or do they actually think it is a bad thing........
Go, Shirley!
pop-u-lism (pop'y~-n:z'~m) n A political
philosophy supporting the rights and power of the
people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
pOp- U -list (pop'y~-n:st) n. 1. A supporter of
the rights and power of the people.
~,~at4~/~h~~;f; bd7
~dd7-t/d... ~ ~~ ~ U {(. T / ~
~ ~r~d~~~;;C /~~
+: ~~ 1/ /
~{)r'(J- '.
~~~
/; Itf- '/;1 3 - (J /Lj'3
~jj (i) #-& L Cgt1
,,. 'r.
i
JOE CASILLAS REAL TV
1-060 C...lma <'lrive 1aIJ~l9!IlBCXB"
CHULA VYJrrA. CALIFORNIA 91910
" !'HONB: 619/4ZM747 PAX: j_DStdd!
, 421-1841
FAX
,-><...... -
!~~-. fr' \f, r.-:---;-
",' r. ,! L(, l~. i~i i, i
I. ,---- . .
r~)i *'.8 ~
I'
II
.- co1.iN~:CnrT;CtS--._.j
~__f\'~_11f11 y:STf. c'A.
DATB:
APRIL ',8',2000
, .
TO: MAYOR SHrRLEY HORTON AND eouc!~ MEMB~RS
.
PAX Ii (
" i1'1~_"~"Q
FROM: JOE CASILLAS
, .
COMMBHTS:
SSE BEIoOW
,ror,u. NUMBER OF PAClIS INCt.VDINC TilTS COVER SHItET, '
SHIRLEY,
I URGE YOU~ND THE COUCIL MEMOERS TO VOTE TO OPPO~E THE BROWN
PIELD C~RGO hIRPDRT EXPANSION.
THE SD_U_T EDITORIAL THIS MORNING IS ALMOST INSULTING TO YOU
AND TO ALL CONCERNED WITH ENllANCING OR EVEN MAINThING THE QUALITY
OF LIFE IN THE SOUTH RAY.
TilE U_T AGAIN SEES TilE SOUTH DA'~ hS h DUMPING: GROUND FOR SAN
DIEGO'S UNDESIREABLE DEVELOPMEN~~S
VOTE NO AND IIDL!' OTOp THE SAN DXlllGO STEAMROLLER.
J'OE ,"
f
" -, .
CTV
C.dlh"Ii.TlIaqoooIlIll-
.,..",...1...
7lrT Broadway
Suite 1600
San Diego, CalIfom1a
92101
619-33H385
FAX 61!h138-8123
April 18, 2000
The Honorable Shirley Horton
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
We have received and reviewed the Memorandum dated April 14, 2000, from
Smith & Kempton to the City of Chula Vista, explaining the benefits to the City of
acquisition of the SR 125 South Project Franchise. We thank you for the
opportunity to review this document, which was sent to us at the request of the
City Manager and which we understand will be presented to the City Council on
April 18.
As you are aware, California Transportation Ventures Inc. (CTV) currently owns
the SR 125 South Franchise and is planning to finance the project through
privately placed financing. Our current schedule calls for close of financing in the
fall of this year, and construction commencing in late 2000 or early 2001. With
the aid of the recently awarded Federal TIFIA loan and related credit
enhancements, the prospects for expediently moving forward look highly
promising.
The support of the City of Chula Vista throughout the planning, development, and
environmental clearance stages of the SR 125 Project has been exemplary, and
we appreciate the continuing efforts that you and your staff have maintained to
assure that the project moves forward. The project development process to date
has been an exercise of creative public-private partnership of which we can both
be proud. To our mutual credit, the project was touted at the American Road and
Transportation Builders (ARTBA) annual meeting in November 1999 as one of
the two best examples of cooperation between local government and the private
sector currently underway in the United States.
We appreciate and understand the City's potential interest in acquiring the
Franchise as we jointly move forward with implementation of the project. As you
know, CTV has carried forward a public financing option as a complement to the
private financing structure to preserve our options at the time of project financing.
A tax-exempt public financing structure could provide additional benefits to the
traveling public by potentially lowering toll rates or allowing earlier retirement of
project debt. While our nominal public finance option has assumed the common
approach of utilizing a not-for-profit structure as a conduit for tax-exempt
financing, we have also considered the possible acquisition of the Franchise by
an existing government or special-purpose joint powers authority.
\
CTV
Should the public financing option prove to be a more viable financing structure
than the nominal private structure, CN will be amenable to receiving an
appropriate indication of interest or offer for purchase from the City. We
recognize that a partnership with the City of Chula Vista or City-sponsored JPA
could provide substantial positive benefits for both the City and CN. Thus, while
we are continuing to pursue the private financing structure, we will commit our full
cooperation to the City and/or its appointed agents in working toward the
development of a viable public ownership structure upon confirmation by the City
of its interest in purchasing the Franchise.
To consider a public ownership and financing option, a number of factors will, of
course, be important to CN. These factors include, at a minimum (1) overall
monetary value of the Franchise at the time of transfer; (2) contractual
arrangements with CN and its parent organizations to continue project
development and undertake construction management and project operations;
and (3) the timing and structure of payments for acquisition and development.
CN is willing to entertain an indication of interest or offer from the City that
provides benefits commensurate with the value of the Franchise, and we are
willing to enter good-faith negotiations with the City and/or its agents to reach this
goal.
We look forward to receiving a communication or initial offer from the City, and
we reiterate our commitment to seek a financing structure that is mutually
beneficial to the City and to Califomia Transportation Ventures, and ultimately to
the users of SR 125.
SinCereIY~~
Mi~hneider
Chairman
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM /D
MEETING DATE April 15~ 2000
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY 1999/00 Budget to add six (6.00)
positions to the Management and Information Services Department,
associated equipment and furnishings, retitling two existing positions,
and appropriating $13,360 from the unappropriated fund balance of the
General Fund and $20,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (DIF) Fund therefor.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Management and Information Service-~//
Deputy City Manager
REV1EWED BY: City Manager ~ Q~-" (4/5th Vote: Yes X_ No_)
SUMMARY: The Management and Information Services Department is requesting the
addition of six (6.00) full-time positions in order to maintain an adequate level of automated support
for the City's line departments..
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt the Resolution amending
the FY 1999/00 Budget to add six (6.00) positions to the Management and Information
Services Department, associated equipment and furnishings, retitling two existing positions,
and appropriating $13,360 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund and
$20,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (DIF) Fund therefor.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: It is the goal of the Management and Information Services Department to provide
superior customer service to both our internal and external customers. Toward that goal, the MIS
D~epartment reorganized the microcomputer support area in October of 1998. At that time, two (2.00)
n~v~ positions were added and several other positions were reclassified and consolidated into the MIS
Department in order to increase the level of support provided by the department as it related to
microcomputers. That reorganization was very successful and staff from all City departments have
benefited from this change.
However, the level o£ support provided by the MIS Department in recent years has changed and
expanded to include a level of technology never before used in the City. We have transitioned from a
traditional "mainframe" oriented operation to one of diverse technologies melded together to provide
a myriad of traditional as well as modern services.
!
The Unisys V-430 mainframe had been the mainstay of the City's computing environment throughout
the early computing years of the City of Chula Vista. Slowly, microcomputers were added to the
City's mix of computers to supplement the tasks being done on the mainframe and to add new ones
such as word processing, spreadsheet and data base capabilities, graphics, etc. Soon, applications
such as GIS were introduced so that the need for newer and faster microcomputers was needed. In
turn this created' a need for expanded networking capabilities (both local and remote) and an
increased need for both speed and dependability.
Last year the City began a wholesale migration from the Unisys V-430 mainframe for applications
such as Police Computer Aided Dispatch, General Ledger, Payroll, Accounts Payable and others to a
minicomputer that operates under the Unix Operating System. In addition, the new systems operate
under a very robust but complicated database technology from a company called Informix. With the
addition and expansion of networking, the introduction of the Unix Operating system and the
Informix database, the skill level and job duties of the MIS staffmust be changed to reflect the new
way in which we must operate.
The changes undergone in the past few years reflect the way MIS will need to work and adapt for
years to come. The changes are permanent and the need for the level of support provided by MiS
will continue to grow as the City, staffin other departments, and the overall use of computers within
the City continues to grow.
The attached organizational chart shows the result of the organizational change being requested.
Specifically, in order to continue to support the use of computers throughout the City, MIS is
requesting to reorganize the structure of the department by:
1. Re-titling 2 positions to more accurately reflect the new job duties (shown in dark blue in
the attached organizational chart).
2. Adding six new positions in order to support the new systems, reallocate management
functions, and more adequately handle current and future workload (shown in light blue
on the attached organizational chart).
Re-title the Computer Operations Manager Position
With the expansion of communications items such as voice processing, and the expansion of the City's
network to include remote sites such as the recreation Centers, Fire Stations, and the Eastlake Office,
tele,~:ommunications issues have become a major function in the operations area and are handled by
the~:Computer Operations Manager. This action would change the title of this position from
Computer Operations Manager to Operations and Telecommunications Manager. This change is not
intended to have any fiscal impact.
Re-title the GIS Manager Position
This reorganization includes the redistribution of some of the management functions of the
Department. One such redistribution will be to have the programming and application support
personnel report to the GIS Manager. In order to correctly reflect the new job duties of the position,
the title of the GIS Manager will be changed to Applications Manager. This change is not intended to
have any fiscal impact.
Adding (2) two Operating System/Database Administrators
The migration from the Unisys V-430 mainframe to the Data General UNIX system to run the
Integrated Fund Accounting System (IFAS), the Sierra Permits Plus System, Dog License Processing,
Parking Citations, Project Accounting and others has brought new challenges to MIS. The Data
General system runs under the Unix operating system. This operating system is very powerful but
also very complicated. In order to have all of the application programs run efficiently under this
system, Unix must be constantly monitored and adjusted for peak performance. In addition to the
Unix operating system, each of the above applications uses Informix as its database engine. Informix
is a very robust database that provides great flexibility and reliability but also must be constantly
managed for best performance.
Two options for these positions exist, one would be to make these job descriptions and job titles
separate in order to segregate the duties of the positions. The other options is to meld the job duties
such that each position can back up the other in times of need such as vacation, illness etc. The
request is to create one job classification with two openings such that all of the work can be shared
and the two positions can provide backup for each other. Media West, a consulting firm hired by the
Finance Department as part of the IFAS conversion and training recommended positions such as
these in their report. Typical job duties of these positions are as follows:
Unix System Administrator duties include:
· Responsible for system monitoring, troubleshooting, and problem resolution in both a
production and development environment.
· Responsible for the stability of the DG\UNIX environment through performance management
and tuning.
· Capacity Planning.
· Software and hardware installations and upgrades.
· Backup and recovery of mission critical data.
· DG\Unix security.
· Automate routine and repetitive tasks using shell scripting.
· Work closely with, and provide backup support for, the Database Administrator.
· Provide a high level of support to both the MIS staff and user community regarding Unix
issues.
Informix Database Administrator duties include:
· Implement, maintain, and enhance the Informix DBMS
· Monitor, and optimize performance of the Informix DBMS.
· Capacity Planning as it relates to performance, CPU, Memory and Disks.
· Software and hardware installations and upgrades, track and update license agreements.
· Backup and recovery of the databases.
· DBMS security, specify user access levels.
· Automate routine and repetitive tasks using shell scripting.
· Work closely with, and provide backup support for, the Unix System Administrator.
· Provide a high level of support to both the MIS staff and user community regarding database
issues.
The total cost of these positions, including salary and benefits, is $167,462 per year however
some of the work being done by these positions would be reimbursed from non-general fund
sources. Reimbursements would total $58,914 leaving a net general fund cost of $108,548 for
these 2 positions.
Adding one (1) Microcomputer Support Manager
Currently the MIS Department has 17 staff members (not including the Director) with 13 of these
positions reporting directly to the Director. The time to effectively interact with and efficiently
manage and direct these staff members makes it necessary to add this position. MiS has eight
Microcomputer Specialist positions supporting over 700 microcomputers throughout the City. This
position would assume the management duties for these individuals, provide direction, coordinate
work efforts and ensure that microcomputer support is handled efficiently and effectively throughout
the City. During 1999, microcomputer specialists handled about 4000 requests for service, and this
number continues to grow. In order to effectively manage this level of support, a dedicated position
is needed.
In addition to managing the microcomputer staff, this position would be responsible for ensuring that
the City's local area network is properly administered. In many organizations, a LAN Administrator
is a permanent, full-time position dedicated to monitoring network traffic. This function will be part
of the Microcomputer Support Manager's position.
The total cost of this position, including salary and benefits, is $87,224 per year however some of the
work being done by this position would be reimbursed from non-general fund sources.
Reimbursements would total $38,495 leaving a net general fund cost of $48,729 for this position.
Adding two (2) Programmer/Analyst Positions
During the past few years, the City had drastically changed the manner in which mainframe
applications are being delivered to the end-user. In addition, new applications are being used and
existing ones are becoming much more complicated. One such application is the Sierra Permits
processing system. Historically, this system was being operated on the City's local area network
ser'~er and was a standard DOS application. Newer releases of this system have become more
complex as has the operating environment needed to support it. The system has now been converted
to mn on the City's Data General Unix system and operates under the Informix database.
In addition, the new IFAS financial system requires technical personnel to correctly design and
develop reports, handle technical aspects of system performance, and coordinate changes with the
software vendor. These recent changes combined with the expansion of the system to the Planning,
Engineering, and Fire Departments have necessitated more and more intervention by MIS staff for
support. This trend is expected to continue and two additional programmer/analyst positions are
needed to handle this support.
4 .¥
The total cost of these positions, including salary and benefits, is $128,819 per year however most
of the work being done by these positions would be reimbursed from non-general fund sources.
Reimbursements would total $147,193 leaving a net income to the general fund of $18,374 for
these 2 positions.
Adding one (i) GIS Specialist Position
Currently the GIS division has one GIS Specialist and one half-time intern to handle all of the
workload in the ever-growing GIS area. In addition, the GIS Manager shares much of the detailed
work due to lack of resources. With the assumption of additional duties by the GIS Manager, it is
requested to create a second full-time GIS Specialist and eliminate the GIS Intern position.
The total cost of this position, including salary and benefits, is $57,598 per year however most of
the work being done by this position would be reimbursed from non-general fund sources.
Reimbursements would total $50,081 leaving a net general fund cost of $7,518 for this position.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the recommended increases for the remainder of FY 1999-2000 is
$33,360 of which $20,672 will be reimbursed from non-general fund sources leaving a net increase to
the general fund for FY 1999-00 of $12,688. The annualized cost of the six (6.00) additional
positions is $411,103, and will be included in the Management and Information Services Department
FY00/01 Budget. In addition, offsetting reimbursements for thesepositionsof$294,684willalsobe
added to the department's budget therefore, the net cost to the General Fund for these positions will
be $146,420 per year.
5 l0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 1999/00 BUDGET TO
ADD SIX (6.00) POSITIONS TO THE MANAGEMENT AND
INFORSfATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT AI~D FURNISHINGS, RETITLING TWO
EXISTING POSITIONS, AND APPROPRIATING $13,360
FROM THE IINAPPROPRIATED FUND BAJ~ANCE OF THE
GENEPJIL FUND AND $20,000 FROM THE UNAPPRO-
PRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) FUND THEREFOR
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Management and Information
Services Department to provide superior customer service to both
internal and external customers; and
WHEREAS, the level of support provided by MIS in recent
years has changed and expanded to include technology never used and
the City has transitioned from a "mainframe" oriented operation to
one of diverse technologies; and
WHEREAS, the changes undergone in the past few years
reflect the way MIS will need to work and adapt for years to come
as the need for the level of MIS support will continue to grow as
the City grows; and
WHEREAS, in order to support the use of computers
throughout the City, MIS is requesting to reorganize the structure
of the department by:
1. Retitling two positions to more accurately reflect
the new job duties.
2. Adding six new positions in order to support the
new systems, reallocate management functions, and
more adequately handle current and future workload.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY 1999/00 budget to add
six positions to the Management and Information Services
Department, associated equipment and furnishings, retitling two
e~{sting positions, and appropriating $13,360 from the
unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund and $20,000 from
the unappropriated fund balance of the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Fund therefor.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Louie Vignapiano, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Management and Information
Services
H: \home \at t orney\ resok&dd6, mis /0 ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM: ~ /
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2000
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget for
the City Clerk's Department to add two positions, change one
temporary position to permanent status, and appropriate funds
therefor (4/Sths vote required)
SUBMITTED BY: Susan Big¢low, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Approval of the resolution will add two new positions (Deputy City Clerk and Records Technician)
and change one temporary position (Records Technician) to permanent status in the City Clerk's
Office. The two new positions will require an appropriation of $21,902 for salaries and benefits and
$2,000 for related furniture and equipment fi.om the unappropriated fund balance of the General
Fund for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1999-2000; and an appropriation of $6,000 fi.om the
unappropriated fired balance of the Civic Center Development Impact Fee fund for the balance of
related furniture and computer equipment. The temporary position has been funded from the
Records Management Capital Improvement Project (CIP). The CIP (GG-129) will reimburse the
General Fund for the additional benefit costs orS 1,855 for the temporary position being reclassified
to Records Technician and permanent status.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council adopt the proposed resolution amending the City Clerk's
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The City Clerk's Office was staffed with 4 permanent positions fi.om 1985 to 1994, and 3 positions
fi.om 1994 to 1997, when a half-time position was added. The Records Manager position was added
in 1999; thus, the City Clerk's Office currently has 4.5 permanent staff. In addition, there are 1.5
i ~mporary, hourly staffpaid by Records Management Capital Improvement Project fimds to work in
' t~e area of records management. Due to the City s rapid growth, an expansion of mandates required
of the City Clerk's Office, and changing technology, additional staff are needed in order to
expediently process contracts, development agreements and recorded documents, meet legal
deadlines and mandates, and to move forward with the City-wide records management and document
imaging projects, as well as other projects of import to the City. Historically, the Confidential
Administrative Secretary has performed the duties of an Assistant or Deputy City Clerk, a position
which requires a high level of expertise and training; which is required to fulfill legal mandates,
make important decisions, and act independently; and which requires significant external exposure
and contacts to perform the duties. The addition of a second Deputy City Clerk position will place
//-/
the person in the position on an equitable level, since the duties will be interchangeable with those
performed by the person in the existing Deputy City Clerk position. The existing Deputy prepares
the Council tentative, final, and futttre agendas, coordinates agenda packet preparation and
distribution, supervises the finalization of ordinances and resolutions, monitors the conflict of
interest filings, and assists with the election process, campaign statement filings, budget preparation
and other duties as time permits. The person in the proposed Deputy position will prepare action
agendas and minutes for the City Council and Redevelopment Agency; prepare and post or publish
required legal notices; monitor Board and Commission activities, attendance, membership, and
coordinate appointments with the Mayor's Office; coordinate ordinance codification and Municipal
Code and Charter updates; and also assist with the election process, campaign statement filings, and
budget preparation. It is anticipated that both Deputies will be trained to perform all the City Clerk
functions.
The duties of the new Records Technician position will be to track, route for signature and file all
contracts and agreements and prepare and transmit documents for recording. In addition, this
position will participate in the City-wide active records program by reorganizing the City Clerk's
vital and permanent documents, filing all departmental records, and eventually performing document
imaging functions. Finally, the City Clerk's Office is requesting that a current, full-time, temporary
position be titled Records Technician and be granted permanent status with benefits, since it is
anticipated that it will be an on-going position in the department and that funding for the position
will be transferred to the General Fund once the GG-129 funds have been depleted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the resolution will appropriate $21,902 for salaries and benefits and $2,000 for related
furniture and equipment from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to the City
Clerk's budget for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for the new Deputy City Clerk and
Records Technician positions; appropriate $6,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Civic
Center Development Impact Fees fund for the balance of related furniture and computer equipment
for the Records Technician position; and appropriate benefit costs of $1,855 from the Records
Management Capital Improvement Project (GG-129) for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for the temporary
Records Technician position being given permanent status.
During Fiscal Year 2000/01, $51,099 will be required to fund the Deputy City Clerk position. In
addition, $80,141 will be needed to fund two FTE Records Technician positions, although the CIP
project (GG-129) should reimburse the General Fund for one of them.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT TO ADD TWO POSITIONS, CHANGE ONE
TEMPORARY POSITION TO PERMANENT STATUS, AND APPROPRIATE
FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, it is necessary to add two positions, a Deputy City Clerk and a Records
Technician, to the City Clerk's Office in order to expediently process contracts, development
agreements and recorded documents, to meet legal deadlines and mandates, and to progress with
projects of importance to the City; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to designate a current, full-time, temporary position as an on-
going, permanent Records Technician position responsible for records management and document
imaging duties in the City Clerk's Office.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby amend the FY 1999-00 budget to add two new positions (Deputy City Clerk and
Records Technician) and change one temporary position (Records Technician) to permanent status
in the City Clerk's office.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (1) the amount of $21,902 for salaries and benefits and
$2,000 for related furniture and equipment is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated fund
balance of the General Fund to the City Clerk's budget for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1999-2000
for the new Deputy City Clerk and Records Technician positions; (2) the amohnt of $6,000 is hereby
appropriated from the unappropriated fund balance of the Civic Center Development Impact Fees
fund for the balance of related furniture and computer equipment for the Records Technician
position; and (3) benefit costs of $1,855 for the temporary Records Technician position heroin
designated as permanent are appropriated from the Records Management Capital Improvement
Project (GG-129) as a reimbursement to the General Fund for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Susan Bigelow John/M. Kaheny
City Clerk Ci~ Attorney --
:? ): PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 18th day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2000-__ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 18th day of April, 2000.
Executed this ___ day of April, 2000
· Item
Meeting Date: 4/18/00
REPORT: Pros and Cons of Public Ownership of Toll Road SR#125 by Smith
& Kempton, Governmental Relations Consultant
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
This agenda item will be delivered to the City Council on Friday, April 14, 2000 and will
be the subject of a verbal report at the meeting.
~\~
-.-
. - --
=- -
J~
CllY OF
CHULA VISfA
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 2000
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
David D. Rowlands, ~ity Manager
To:
Subject:
SR-125
The attached white paper prepared by Smith & Kempton will be presented by Mark
Watts and Will Kempton at next Tuesday's Council meeting.
The intent of the paper is to allow the Council to fully discuss the ramifications of public
financing of SR-125 and to give the Council the opportunity to give direction to staff on
this issue.
DDRmab
Attachment
APR-14-00 15:07
FROM-
T-S88 P 02/05 F-909
Smith & Kempton
Consulting and Governmental Rclarions
MEMORANDUM
To.
Mr. David Rowlands, City Manager
City of Chula Vista
Will Kempton and Mark Watts
From
Date:
April 14, 2000
Subject Pros and Cons of Public Financing of SR 125
You have requested that we prepare this document to examine the arguments for and
against the public financing of the SR 125 Toll Facility. As we have recently learned, the
present franchise holder for the right to construct and operate the SR 125 Toll Road,
California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV), has indicated that they are considering
the possibility of selling their interest in the franchise. Moreover, they have already
initiated an exploratory effort to seek prospective buyers, including potential non-profit,
public benefit corporations and public entities.
With this development, it is important for the City Council to review and understand the
merits of possible publiC ownership and to further consider the potential of the
participation of the City in such a venture.
BACKGROUND
SR 125 is a ten-mile, four lane (ultimately 10 lane) facility that is intended to connect
I-90S in Otay Mesa with SR 154. The project is being developed under the auspices of
the private developer, CTV, who was awarded a franchise by Caltrans in a statewide
competitive bid process. Legislation approved in 1989 (AB 680) authorized Caltrans to
undertake a public-private demonstration program to explore the receptivity of the
private sector to invest in California infrastructure. Four projects were authorized under
the enabling legislation, producing franchises around the state: (1) SR 91 Express Lanes
in Orange County, (2) Mid-State Toll Way in Contra Costa County, (3) SR 57 Toll Facility
in Orange County and (4) the SR 125. Of these four projects, only the SR 91 Express
Lanes project has become operational, with a start date of 1995.
SR 125 is on-line to become the second project to move into the financing, design,
construction and operational phases. The environmental clearance process is nearing
980 Ninth Stroot, Suite 1560 . Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone (916) 446-5508 . FAX (916) 446-1499
APR-14-00 15:08
FROM-
T-588 P.03/05 F-909
completion with a Record of Decision (ROD) for the NEPA document anticipated to be
approved shortly by the federal government. This was preceded by State approval of
the CEQA document and formal adoption of the highway route.
In the normal sequence for highway/toil way development, the developers would next
begin to pursue financing, design, and construction of the project. With the ROD in
hand, C1V is expected to issue RFQ's for potential design-build contracts. However, at
this juncture the principals are considering selling their interests in the franchise. It is
our view that in addition to responding to re-focusing of priorities by the parent
companies, crv also sees at least two other advantages to a potential this policy shift
at this time: (1) crv has spent about ten years and considerable funds to bring the
franchise to this point and a sale at this time would allow them the maximum
opportunity to capture the investment to datei and (2) transfer to a public benefit
corporation or publiC entity would result in less expensive financing, as will be outlined
below.
One recent development with respect to one of the other AS 680 "demonstration"
projects (the SR 91 Express Lanes) has important ramifications for the Council to
consider. The holders of the SR 91 franchise, forming California Private Transportation
Company, after becoming operational, determined that they wanted to off-load their
interest in the franchise and to re-coup their investment and opportunity costs of lost
future profits. In their case, the approach they chose was to transfer their interests to a
non-profit, public benefit corporation called Newtrac. They were able to obtain Caltrans
approval of the transfer of interest, but as they attempted to finance the exchange,
both the public entities involved and the bond market alike raised significant questions
about the propriety and the viability, respectively, of the project. The resulting
controversy, which drew in the Davis Administration, the Legislature, and the Counties
of Riverside and Orange, became so intense that the CPTC withdrew their offer to sell
and are presently considering their alternatives.
This controversy is fresh in the minds of the Davis Administration and the Legislature,
and it is our belief that a transfer to any entity other than a public entity will raise
considerable alarm and opposition.
CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC FINANONG OF SR 125
Financing
~ Tax-exempt bonding: California state law authorizes governmental entities to
voluntary exercise their existing powers jointly. In doing so the law expressly
declares that such joint powers agencies may issue "tax exempt" bonds to
finance capital costs for building projects. The advantage of this to a public entity
is that the issuer's costs for debt service and related reserves and sinking funds
are less costly, resulting in more flexibility for the public entity. For example, the
APR-14-00 15:08
FROM-
T-688 P04/06 F-909
entity can choose to reduce the redemption period, financing the bonds over 20
years, rather than 30 years. Or, the entity can reduce the costs, in this case, the
tolls, that comprise the revenue stream for redemption purposes.
In contrast, transfer of the franchise contemplated by CTV to another private
entity would bear the relatively higher burden of non-exempt, taxable bonds.
However, there is a special potential mitigating circumstance in this instance, in
that crv has secured a specific federal authorization qualifying them to access a
new federal innovative financing program (flFIA), which offers a line of credit at
reduced rates.
y Property Taxes: Because the projects authorized under the AB 680
demonstration program are private improvements on land that is leased from the
state, they are subject to a possessory interest tax, which is "in-lieu" of the local
property tax. According to Caltrans staff, the County of Orange collects in excess
of $1 million annually for the SR 91 project, and based on the costs for the
improvements to SR 125 will result in taxes on the order of the $3 million.
In contrast, a public entity would be able to construct and operate the SR 125
facility without this "property tax" burden, resulting in a significant cost burden
being lifted of the total costs financed by tolls. California joint powers law
expressly exempts joint powers authorities from property taxes.
.. State participation: One source of potential assistance in reducing the cost
burden for this project would be a grant of state funds. It is well established that
the state is experiencing explosive revenue growth and a legitimate public
purpose could be justified in providing direct funding assistance in the form of a
grant because it would reduce the cost to the general public users of the facility.
However, as discussed above, we believe that the SR 91 project has "poisoned
the well" in the near term for state involvement or assistance for AB 680 projects
in general.
It is not dear that this same level of resistance would exist for a project that has
been taken over by a public entity. At the very least, a good case can be made,
in the event that SR 125 is transferred to a public entity, that this facility should
enjoy the same level of state benefits that are involved in the three toll roads
operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies in Orange County. These roads
are operated by a legislatively authorized joint powers agency and the enabling
legislation expressly provided that the state would assume the responsibility for
costs of maintenance and policing. Clearly this is not a direct benefit that would
flow to a public entity, but this would be an achievable task that would benefit
the project by reducing maintenance and policing costs on an ongoing basis.
APR-J4-00 15:08
FROM-
T-688 P 05/06 F-909
Governance
~ Local control: Any operator of a toll road facility in California, public or private,
will be subject to intense public scrutiny simply due to the unique nature of the
facility in contrast to California's long-standing involvement with toll-free
freeways. Establishing a public entity to control and operate SR 125 will ensure
that the users and the traveling public will have a high degree of responsiveness
to issues of operational flexibility and quality of the toll road experience.
This is not to say that a private operator would not be as responsive, just that
the public entity would have a project that is not perceived to be motivated by
the "bottom-line" only, and the pubic would view local officials as having a
stronger interest in being responsive.
>> Limited city obligation: One benefit to California joint powers law is that it
contains a bar on obligating the "parent" local government agency from
obligations that the joint agency are committed to. This would free the city to
participate in a public acquisition of the SR 125 facility without concern that the
City would be somehow "underwriting" the acquisition. Thus the city can
consider the relative merits of public acquisition, whether as participants or not,
without concern that their decisions would obligate the city to a burden that is
too costly.
POLICY CONTROL
>> Toll rates: The most probable scenario for a publiC acquisition of the SR 125
facility would involve the sale of bonds to purchase the franchise rights and the
financing of the design, construction and initial start-up costs of the toll facility.
The bonds would be paid by the revenue stream from the tolls that would be
imposed. However, as we have seen above, there are several aspects of public
ownership that are beneficial in that they significantly reduce the costs to
operate the facility, and, thus, in the absence of a profit motive, can require tolls
at a lesser rate than would otherwise be required. A locally established public
agency would be in a position to control the toll rates in a manner that is more
responsive to local public interest.
~ Term of Franchise: The franchise term granted under AB 680 for each of the
four franchises is 35 years from the start of operations. Under private ownership,
the franchise holder will be responsible to bond holders and corporate parents to
maximize the return on investment for the maximum allowable period. In
contrast, a public agency will have the opportunity to negotiate a term less than
the fully allowable 35 years, if it is financially sound. This would provide a
APR-14-00 15:09
FROM-
T-saa pas/as F-909
tangible benefit to local residents and toll users to enjoy the benefit of SR 125
free of tolls at an earlier time than would otherwise be possible.
DISCUSSION
The benefit to the City of the advancement of SR 125 as a result of the flexibility
granted under AB 680 cannot be understated. If required to rely on pre-existing state
and local resources, without the involvement of the private sector, local residents would
not be on the verge of receiving the transportation benefit of SR 125 for another
decade or more. Nevertheless, given that the current franchise holders have
determined to explore the possibilities of transferring their interest to a willing buyer, if
available, the question arises as to whether the publiC agencies can organize
themselves to offer to acquire the franchise rights and whether this is of benefit to the
City and local residents.
Clearly, there are major benefits to public acquisition of the franchise and facility,
principally in the ability of publiC agencies to access cheaper financing. This in turn
allows a public agency to turn the reduced costs into a local benefit by possibly offering
access to the facility at reduced rates or freeing up the facility from tolls at an earlier
point in time, both policy considerations not available under private control.