Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 2001/12/17
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 17, 2001 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CHY OF CHUI VISTA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. Stephen C. Padilla City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone 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 17 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA December 17, 2001 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · PRESENTATION BY SAN DIEGO ASSOCICATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) REGARDING TRANPORTATION PROGRESS AROUND THE REGION CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 14) The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 4, 2001. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH DOWNTOWN COPY AND PRINT, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, NEWLIFE ENTERPRISES, AND BAJA SOL, INC. TO PROVIDE PRINT SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FROM JANUARY 1, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENTS FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR OPTION PERIODS Specifications for print services have been developed and sent out as a Request for Proposal. The intent of the proposal process was to canvass the market for the most qualified, cost-effective, and proficient print service providers, and commit to those suppliers over an extended period of time for favorable terms and pricing. (Assistant City Manager Powell) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDiNG A PURCHASE AGREEMENT iN THE AMOUNT OF $230,018.09 TO VILLA FORD FOR NINE POLICE PURSUIT SEDANS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO COOPERATIVE BID #A3044/00 The Fiscal Year 2001/2002 equipment maintenance budget provides for the replacement of nine police pursuit sedans. Chula Vista Municipal Code section 22.56.140 and Resolution No 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the pumhase of materials of common usage. The City has an opportunity to participate in a current City of San Diego bid for favorable terms and pricing. (Director of Public Works, Assistant City Manager Powell) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIViNG THE FORMAL BID PROCEDURE AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO PEOPLES CHEVROLET iN THE AMOUNT OF $202,249.68 FOR THIRTEEN INTERMEDIATE PICKUP TRUCKS Last fiscal year, the City awarded a purchase agreement to Peoples Chevrolet after a competitive bid process. This year, Peoples Chevrolet has offered the new model year trucks configured the same as last year's model at a reduced price. (Director of Public Works, Assistant City Manager Powell) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIViNG THE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENTS AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1N THE AMOUNT OF $91,100 TO SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND iNSTALLATION OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY FREEWAY SIGNS On July 22, 1997, Council approved changing the name of East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway from Interstate 805 easterly to Wueste Road. The estimated cost to implement the name change on all freeway signs was later appropriated from the Transportation Partnership Fund. Staff has designed the new freeway signs and has obtained encroachment permits from CalTrans to have the signs installed; installation is anticipated in mid-February. CalTrans and other municipal agencies utilize the services of Safeway Sign Company for the manufacture and installation of most of their freeway signs. The City received a cost estimate of $91,100 from Safeway to manufacture and install the Olympic Parkway freeway signs. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; EDAW, INC., CONSULTANT; MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC, APPLICANT; AND OTAY PROJECT, LP, APPLICANT, FOR CONSULTiNG SERVICES RELATED TO THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH PLANNiNG AREA 12/FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNiNG AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Page 2 - Council Agenda 12/17/01 The applicants, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP, have filed a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Tract Map application for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/freeway commercial site. The approximately 134.5-acre site would be developed with up to 1,076,030 square feet of freeway-oriented commercial uses. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The proposed resolution approves a contract with EDAW Inc., to provide consultant services for the preparation of the CEQA-required environmental documents for the proposed project, for an amount not to exceed $206,105 and an additional $51,526 for further services should they be needed. (Director of Planning & Building) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $225,000 FROM COPS MORE 2001 TO PURCHASE A WIRELESS LAN FOR PATROL AND pURCHASE TEN MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS FOR TRAFFIC (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The COPS Making Office Redeployment Effective (MORE) 2001 program is one of several grants developed by the U. S. Department of Justice under the 1994 Crime Act to increase the deployment of police officers to community policing via the purchase of technology. COPS MORE awards are very competitive. Chula Vista is one of a very few agencies to receive a COPS MORE 2001 award. The award of $225,000 will be used to expand wireless communication to patrol units and traffic officers, which will allow existing officers to spend additional time in the community. (Chief of Police) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS OF 9.12% FOR WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS (WCE)-REPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS OF SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER, PLAN CHECK SUPERVISOR, AND PLANS EXAMINER IN ACCORDANCE WITH WCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), SECTION 2.01.2 AND THE CITY'S COMPENSATION POLICY; AND AMEND1NG THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003 SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Section 2.01.2 of the WCE MOU requires the City to perform a salary survey, utilizing the position of Civil Engineer as a benchmark. Tt~e survey was done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista's Compensation Policy. The City surveyed municipal agencies located in the southern California labor market. The result of the survey indicated that a 9.12% increase be granted. Section 2.01.2 also stipulates that the current salary spreads within WCE classifications be maintained. Additionally, to maintain the proper salary spread between the Civil Engineer classification and the Senior Civil Engineer classification, it is also necessary to increase the Senior Civil Engineer classification. The classifications of Plan Check Supervisor and Plans Examiner are also being adjusted to maintain current salary ties with WCE positions. The effective date of the increases will be November 30, 2001. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 3 - Council Agenda 12/17/01 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF HUNTE PARKWAY, BETWEEN RIVER ROCK ROAD AND OTAY LAKES ROAD, FOR MASS GRADiNG WORK WITHIN THE EASTLAKE III WOODS AND VISTAS PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING THE DiRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR SAID CLOSURE On behalf of the EastLake Development Company, Darnell & Associates, Inc., EastLake's traffic engineering consultant, has prepared a proposal for the temporary closure of Hunte Parkway, between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road. The temporary road closure is needed in order for earth-moving vehicles to safely haul dirt and rock from the west side of Hunte Parkway to the east side of the roadway for the development of the EastLake III Woods and Vistas projects. Two earthen crossings approximately 80 feet wide are proposed to be created across that segment of Hunte Parkway so that the haul trucks can safely transverse the center median without causing any conflicts with cross traffic and without deteriorating the existing roadway. The southerly crossing is located at an approved future intersection with Hunte Parkway that will provide access to the proposed development east of Hunte Parkway. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING CITY'S iNTENTION TO UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES ALONG FOURTH AVENUE FROM L STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE AND SETTiNG A PUBLIC HEARiNG FOR THE FORMATION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NUMBER 133 FOR JANUARY 22, 2002 AT 6:00 P.M. On November 12, 1991, Council approved Resolution No. 16415, accepting a report on the City's utility undergrounding conversion program, and approving a revised list of utility underground conversion projects. On September 7, 2001, and October 12, 2001, Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) meetings were held at the site to determine the proposed boundary of an underground utility district for the conversion of existing overhead utilities. The district's limits extend along Fourth Avenue from L Street to Orange Avenue. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 11 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ACTING iN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION iN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND iN IMPROVEMENT AREA A AND IMPROVEMENT AREA B THEREOF B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ACTiNG AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN IMPROVEMENTS AREA A AND IMPROVEMENT AREA B OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT Page 4 - Council Agenda 12/17/01 C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AUTHORIZED TO BE INCURRED WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA A On September 25, 2001, Council approved the resolution of intention to establish Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (CFD No. 2001-1) and set the public heating for November 6, 2001. Following the September Council meeting, NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch, LLC requested that the Council continue the public hearing to December 4, 2001. On November 6, 2001, Council approved the continuance. On December 4, 2001, the City considered the approval of resolutions (1) to form and establish the district and (2) to declare the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for each improvement area. On December 12, 2001, a special election of eligible property owners was held at the City Attorney's office for the purpose of voting on the formation of CFD No. 2001-1. Adoption of the proposed resolutions and introduction of the proposed ordinance will continue the formal proceedings by (a) certifying the election results; (b) authorizing the levy of special taxes within CFD No. 2001-1; and (c) setting the date of a public heating to consider an increase in the principal amount of bonded indebtedness for Improvement Area A. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions and place the ordinance on first reading. 12 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-04, VISTA DEL LORO, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC STREETS AND EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-04, VISTA DEL LORO, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT On June 19, 2001, by Resolution No. 2001-200, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 01-04, Vista Del Loro. Adoption of the resolutions will approve the Final Map, Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Supplemental Subdivision Improvement. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 12/17/01 Page 5 - Council Agenda 13. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR $102,760 TO PURKISS ROSE-RSI FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SKATE PARK AT GREG ROGERS PARK, ADJACENT TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AT OLEANDER, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PURK/SS ROSE-RSI (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 4, 2001) The Parks & Recreation Department has long realized that a need for a safe and secure skate park venue exists in Chula Vista. On October 9, 2001, Council approved the design for the skate park at Greg Rogers Park, adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club on Oleander. The approved design and feasibility study were conducted and produced by Purkiss Rose, the successful bidder in the RFP process. Whereas Purkiss Rose performed admirably and successfully completed the design and feasibility study, it is recommended that Purkiss Rose provide consulting services for the creation of the construction documents and assist City staff during the construction project. Staff recommends that the bidding process be waived and the City Manager be authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with Purkiss Rose in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 14. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A NEW OFFICE OF BUILDING AND PARK CONSTRUCTION IN ADMINISTRATION; APPROVING A NEW POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PARK CONSTRUCTION; TRANSFERRING THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PARK DESIGN DIVISIONS AND THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT POSITION FROM PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE BUILDING PROJECTS SECTION, AND A SENIOR ENGINEER POSITION FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO THIS NEW OFFICE; ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE VACANT BUILDING PROJECTS MANAGER POSITION AND RECLASSIFYING THE PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION IN PUBLIC WORKS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER POSITION; AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 ADOPTED SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The City is embarking on the largest capital program in its history to develop new public facilities and parks. During the next five to eight years, the City will be constructing several major facilities, including a police facility, a library, two fire stations, four to six recreational facilities, completing a major remodel/expansion of the Civic Center, in addition to developing eleven parks. The current organizational structure and staffing does not have the capacity to accommodate such an aggressive capital program. A new Office of Building and Park Construction is proposed to be added to Administration. The proposed organizational structure and minimal staffing adjustments should provide the needed direction, oversight and coordination to successfully implement this aggressive public facility and park capital program in the most cost-effective manner possible. (City Manager) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 6 - Council Agenda 12/17/01 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. 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. 15. CONSff)ERATION OF PCA-02-03, A CITY-INITIATED pROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE; THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; AND THE THRESHOLD/STANDARDS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY TO ENACT CORP~CTED THRESHOLD STANDARDS FOR POLICE AND FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND A REVISED LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARD At the May 31, 2001 joint meeting of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), Planning Commission, and City Council, the GMOC presented the 2000 Growth Management Annual Report, which calls for amendments to the threshold standards £or Police, Fire/Emergency Medical Services, and Libraries. The Planning Commission and City Council unanimously accepted the report and directed staff to prepare the proposed changes in the threshold standards for £ormal adoption. (Deputy City Manager Palmer, Chief o£ Police, Acting Fire Chief, Director of Planning & Building) Staff recommendation: Council find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review under General Rule 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, adopt the following resolutions, and place the £ollowing ordinances on first reading: A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.09.040d OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT A REVISED LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARD B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 19.09.040 A AND B OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT CORRECTED THRESHOLD STANDARDS FOR POLICE AND FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 12/17/01 Page 7 - Council Agenda C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG SECTION 3.6.1 OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARD OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD/STANDARDS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 3.3.1 AND 3.4.1 OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE POLICE AND FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD/STANDARDS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY 16. CONSIDERATION OF PCM 02-13, AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 5 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH TENTATiVE SUBDiVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-04, AND SECTION II.5.4.1.15 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FiNANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS Adoption of the resolution will amend a condition of the Tentative Map to ratify the development cap increase for San Miguel Ranch identified in the traffic analysis entitled East H Street Capacity Analys~s 1999-2005 and prevtously considered by the Planning Commission and Council in conjunction with the Rolling Hills Ranch development cap increase. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-02-013) and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, an addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. (Director of Planning & Building, Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 5 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-04, AND SECTION 11.5.4.1.15 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN iNCREASE iN THE NUMBER OF DWELLiNG UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 OPENiNG FOR PUBLIC ACCESS 17. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED USE OF FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 FUNDiNG PER THE CITIZENS OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Page 8 - Council Agenda 12/17/01 The fiscal year 2001/2002 state budget was adopted appropriating $366,595 to the Police Department. State money is allocated for purposes stipulated by the Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. (Chief of Police Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $366,595 FROM STATE COPS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2001 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $85,825 FOR THE COPS MORE 2001 LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT; $80,000 FOR PATROL SCHEDULING SOFTWARE; $10,000 FOR OVERTIME; $27,000 FOR A CRISIS NEGOTIATION TEAM VAN; $50,000 FOR A MANAGEMENT STUDY/AUDIT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; $16,460 FOR SWAT AND OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE (REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL, UNSPECIFIED OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 18. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION REGARDING CITY-INITIATED PROCUREMENT OF PUBLIC ART ON PORT TIDELANDS The San Diego Unified Port District approved a Public Art Program Policy in 1996 for the provision of public artwork on tidelands around San Diego Bay. Under this policy, .375 percent of the Port District's projected revenues is set aside annually, to be expended for specific works of art, or allocated for the acquisition of art for public areas within the Port District. Chula Vista has seen one art piece placed on Port tidelands since the inception of this program. The Commission would like to take advantage of the Port's program to acquire additional public art for the Chula Vista bayfront. (Cultural Arts Commission) Commission recommendation: Council accept the report and direct the Office of Cultural Arts staff to prepare a request for proposal for a public art piece on Port tidelands. 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 Council will consider the items individually, 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. 12/17/01 Page 9 - Council Agenda 19. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE CIVILIAN REVIEW COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN At its May 20, 2001 meeting, Council requested that an ad hoc committee be formed to examine the subject of police civilian review boards. Council determined that the issue warranted further examination, given the diverse composition of the City. The subject report is the result of meetings of the community task force. (City Manager) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTiNG THE REPORT FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE CIVILIAN REVIEW COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN AND REVIEWING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 21. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. Ratification of appointment of Armida Martin Del Campo to the Charter Review Commission. B. Ratification of appointment of Cheryl Cox to the Charter Review Commission. 22. COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on l~ednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957. 7). 23. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C) · Two cases ADJOURNMENT to a Regular Meeting of January 8, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 10 - CouncilAgenda 12/17/01 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM MEETING DATE: 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving pumhase agreements with Downtown Copy and Print, the City of San Diego, NewLife Enterprises, and Baja Sol, Inc. to provide print services on an "as-needed" basis from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to renew the agreements for five (5) additional, one (1) year option periods. City Manager Powell "A~,~ SUBMITTED BY: Assistant REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~l~ o?/ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) Specifications for print services have been developed and sent out as a request for proposal. The intent of the proposal process was to canvass the market for the most qualified, cost-effective, and proficient print service providers; and, to commit to these suppliers over an extended period of time for favorable terms and pricing. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution approving pumhase agreements with Downtown Copy and Print, the City of San Diego, NewLife Enterprises, and Baja Sol, Inc. to provide print services on an "as-needed" basis from January 1,2002 through December 31,2002; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to renew the agreements for five (5) additional, one (1) year option periods. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The City first contracted out print services in 1996. Prior to that, the majority of print service requests were handled through an on-site print shop. Based on a cost analysis done when the Print Shop Manager retired, a determination was made to close the shop and contract out print services. Since the print shop has closed, departments have come to rely on contract vendors to take cam of their printing needs. Both service level and cost have been favorable for the City. As the most current print service contracts expired, new specifications were developed with an emphasis on service delivery. Forty-two (42) potential print shop contractors were contacted; nineteen (19) responses were received. A concerted outreach was made towards local printers. Of the forty-two (42) print shops contacted; fifteen (15) were local printers. An advertisement was also placed in the Star News on September 21, 2001. The City currently spends approximately $400,000 on print services. Print requirements include business cards, letterhead, engineering specifications, informational brochures, newsletters, public notices, and controlled documents (traffic tickets, license forms, etc.). Printing is done primarily on high-speed copiers or with offset presses. Network capability is also now available for transmitting print jobs via modem or through the Intemet. Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 12/17/01 Evaluation of the proposals was based not just on cost; but also, on ability to handle the City's volume of business, resources of firm, business standing, qualifications of staff, quality of product, experience, proximity to City Hall, past performance, and business references. Interviews were conducted with the top respondents and a cost tabulation sheet was prepared for comparative analysis. Four (4) bidders are recommended for award: Downtown Copy & Print - Has provided excellent service over the past five (5) years, submitted competitive pricing, competent on-site graphics design staff, and is capable of fast jobs and rash turnarounds. Has done high volume printing of newsletters, brochures, job announcements, letterhead, business cards, the City budget, and other custom jobs. CityofSanDiegoPrintShop Has also provided excellent service over the past five (5) years, has a large staff, on-site graphics design staff, submitted competitive pricing, and possess high-end equipment capable of receiving network-transmitted jobs. Has successfully handled high volume print jobs, primarily engineering specification packages and custom-designed forms. NewLife Enterprise- A small local firm who, when factoring terms and sales tax return to the City, was most competitive in a number of cost categories. References checked out, has not been in business long, has only four (4) full-time employees on staff, no high speed copiers but good offset press equipment. Will send business card and letterhead orders and price out other jobs to see how they perform. Baja Sol, Inc. - Another small local firm. Has successfully done some work for transit and references are good. Located near new Public Works Corporation Yard. Will continue to use for transit jobs and cost out other custom jobs to see if they are competitive. By contracting with four (4) firms, City staff will continue to receive the level of service they are accustomed to; however, service delivery should be enhanced by providing a local option. In addition, the City will still reserve the right to contract out with other print shops when availability or non-performance are determining factors. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact from approving this resolution in that funds expended will have been approved through the normal budget or appropriation process. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH DOWNTOWN COpy AND PRINT, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, NEWLIFE ENTERPRISES, AND BAJA SOL, INC. TO PROVIDE PRINT SERVICES ON AN "AS-NEEDED" BASIS FROM JANUARY 1,2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002; AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENTS FOR FIVE (5) ADDITIONAL, ONE YEAR OPTION PERIODS WHEREAS, specifications for print services have been developed and sent out as a request for proposal; and WHEREAS, the intent of the proposal process was to canvass the market for the most qualified, cost-effective, and proficient print services providers and to commit to these suppliers over an extended period oftime for favorable terms and pricing; and WHEREAS, forty-two (42) potential print shop contractors were contacted and nineteen (19) responses were received; and WHEREAS, evaluation of the proposals was based not just on cost; but also, on ability to handle the City's volume of business, resources of firm, business standing, qualifications of staff, quality of product, experience, proximity to City Hall, past performance, and business references; and WHEREAS, interviews were conducted with the top respondents and a cost tabulation sheet was prepared for comparative analysis with the following four bidders recommended for award: Downtown Copy & Print; City of San Diego Print Shop; NewLife Enterprise and Baja Sol, Inc. WHEREAS, by contracting with four (4) firms, City staff will continue to receive the level of service they are accustomed and service delivery should be enhanced by providing a local option with the City reserving the right to contract out with other print shops when availability or non-performance are determining factors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve Purchase Agreements with Downtown Copy and Print, the City of San Diego, NewLife Enterprises, and Baja Sol, Inc. to provide print services on an "as-needed" basis from January 1,2002 through December 31, 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to renew the agreements for five (5) additional, one (I) year option periods. Presented by Approved as to form by ()¿ -k.~-- (/ Zffv M. Kaheny lty Attorney 0- Robert Powell Assistant City Manager jolattomeylresolp,;nÜng bid 2-3 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 12/17/2001 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Awarding a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $230,018.09 to Villa Ford for nine (9) police pursuit sedans, in accordance with terms and conditions of City of San Diego cooperative bid #A3044/00. 'k ~ '~ .... SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Wur Assistant City Manager Powell ~' REVIEWED BY: David D. Rowlands, Jr., C;~ty ManageV~,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__ No ~X) The FY 2001-02 Equipment Maintenance Budget provides for the replacement of nine (9) police pursuit sedans. The Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 22.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City has an opportunity to participate in a current City of San Diego for favorable terms and pricing. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution awarding a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $230,018.09 to Villa Ford for nine (9) police pursuit sedans. DISCUSSION: The City of San Diego recently bid out police pursuit sedans. Several local agencies combined requirements and, as a result, received favorable terms and pricing based on volume discounts. The City of Chula Vista has an opportunity to participate in the City of San Diego bid and realize these cost benefits. The nine (9) police pursuit sedans am being replaced in their normal retirement cycle. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in the Equipment Maintenance Budget for the replacement of nine (9) police pursuit sedans, $230,018.09. This represents a savings of $34,014.91 as a result of prices being lower than anticipated. An additional $37,950 bas been budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund for the outfitting of these vehicles. Therefore, them is no impact to the General Fund. File No: 1320-50-DG G:\Bob\eqtfipm~nt~A 113 PD Pursuit S~ans FY02.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $230,018.09 TO VILLA FORD FOR NINE (9) POLICE PURSUIT SEDANS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO COOPERATIVE BID #A3044/00 WHEREAS, the FY 2001-02 Equipment Maintenance Budget provides for the replacement of nine (9) police pursuit sedans; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage; and WHEREAS, the City has an opportunity to participate in a current City of San Diego bid for favorable terms and pricing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby award a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $230,018.00 to Villa Ford for nine (9) police sedans in accordance with terms and conditions of City of San Diego cooperative bid #A3044/00. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works j,lattomeylresolVehicle bid 3-2 COUNC~ AGENDASTATEMENT Item Q~ Meeting Date 12/17/2001 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Waiving the formal bid procedure and awarding a Purchase Agreement to Peoples Chevrolet in the amount of $202,249.68 for 13 intermediate pickup tracks. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works K /l~/ Assistant City Manager Powell"~' ~_ REVIEV~ED BY: David D. owiands, Jr., City Manager~' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) Last fiscal year the City of Chula Vista awarded a purchase agreement to Peoples Chevrolet after a competitive bid process. This year, Peoples Chevrolet has offered the new model year trucks configured the same as last year's model at a reduced price (unit price, with sales tax, this year is $15,565.36 versus $17,030.15 last year). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the formal bid procedure and award a Purchase Agreement to Peoples Chevrolet in the amount of $202,249.68 for 13 intermediate pickup trucks. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: The FY 2001-02 Equipment Replacement Budget provides for the replacement of 10 intermediate pickup trucks as part of their normal retirement cycle. Five (5) trucks will be replaced for Park Maintenance; two (2) for Planning & Building; one (1) for Urban Forestry; one (1) for Wastewater Maintenance; and one (1) for Traffic Engineering. For the current fiscal year, Council approved two (2) additional staff, including trucks for the Planning & Building Department. In addition, Council approved one (1) additional staff, including a truck for the Public Works Department Operations Division. Therefore, three (3) additional trucks will be purchased and utilized by Building Inspections and Wastewater Maintenance. Unit costs were compared with the California State Master Agreement #1-02-23-20 that was competitively bid earlier this year. After factoring in payment terms, delivery, a 1% state administration fee, and local sales tax return, the Purchasing Agent determined that the City would realize an overall cost savings of approximately $3,660 by award to Peoples Chevrolet. Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 12/17/2001 FISCAL IMPACT: The net total cost, including taxes, is $202,249.68. Sufficient funds are available in the Equipment Replacement Fund ($155,653.60), Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (DIF) Fund ($31,130.72, 57200-7406), and Corp Yard DIF ($15,565.36, 57400-7406). Approval of this resolution represents a combined savings of $55,304.32 over the mounts budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund ($40,700.40), Public Facilities DIF ($8,869.28), and Corp Yard DIF ($5,734.64). File No: 1320-50-DG G:~Bob\equipment~A 113 Lnt Pickups FYO2.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2001-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCEDURE AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO PEOPLES CHEVROLET IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,249.68 FOR THIRTEEN (13) INTERMEDIATE PICKUP TRUCKS WHEREAS, the FY 2001-02 Equipment Maintenance Budget provides for the replacement often (10) pickup truck as part of their normal retirement cycle; and WHEREAS, three (3) additional trucks will be purchased and utilized by Building Inspections and Wastewater Maintenance; and WHEREAS, last fiscal year, the City of Chula Vista awarded a purchase agreement to Peoples Chevrolet after a competitive bid process; and WHEREAS, this year, People Chevrolet has offered the new model year trucks configured the same as last year's model at a reduced price (unit price, with sales tax,) of $15,565.36 versus $17,030.15 last year; and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that the City would realize an overall cost savings of approximately $3,660 by awarding the bid to People Chevrolet and recommends waiving the formal bid procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the formal bid procedure and award a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $202,249.68 to People Chevrolet for thirteen (13) intermediate pickup trucks. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works ~:e;~ y Attorney n"ttomeylresolp;ckup truck b;d '1-3 COUNCIl, AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~- Meeting Date 12/17/2001 ltem Title: Resolution Waving the bid requirements and awarding a purchase agreement in the amount of $91,100.00 to Safeway Sign Company for the manufacture and installation of Olympic Parkway freeway signs , Submitted By: Director of Public Works~/(~J Reviewed By: City Manager ~ t~ (4/5ths Vote: No X On July 22, 1997, the City Council approved changing the name of East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway from Interstate 805 east to Wueste Road. The cost to implement the name change on all freeway signs was estimated at $150,000.00, which was later appropriated from the Transportation Partnership Fund (TPF) for implementation during the FY 01-02 C.I.P. Staff has already designed the new freeway signs and has obtained Encroachment Permits from CALTRANS to have those signs installed, with an anticipated mid-February installation date. CALTRANS and other municipal agencies utilize the services of Safeway Sign Company for most of manufacturing and installation of their freeway signs. The City received a cost estimate of $91,100.00 from Safeway Sign Company for the manufacture and installation of Olympic Parkway freeway signs. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution waving the bid requirements and awarding a purchase agreement in the amount of $91,100.00 to Safeway Sign Company for the manufacture and installation of Olympic Parkway freeway signs DISCUSSION: The City Council has authorized the street name change from East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to Wueste Road at the July, 22, 1997 scheduled meeting. The street name change was triggered by the Planning Department and endorsed by the Olympic Training Center (OTC) Committee and the major property developers in the eastern territories. The decision to change roadway signs that reflect the new street name, however, was postponed until the first phase of Olympic Parkway street improvements was completed. In May 2001, the first phase of Olympic Parkway was completed. This phase allowed motorists to travel between 1-805 and the Otay Ranch area via Paseo Ranchero without encountering any significant delays. The current traffic flow on Olympic Parkway, currently estimated at 14,000 vehicles per day, triggered the need to replace all freeway guide signs to add the Olympic Parkway name in order to guide motorists to the newly opened roadway. Therefore, in June 2001, the Council approved a project to replace said signs during the FY 01-02 C.I.P. budget process and appropriated $I 50,000.00 in order to design, manufacture and install those signs. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/2001 Staff has already completed the design of the Olympic Parkway signs and has already obtained an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS to install those signs. Staff has also requested informal quotes from three regional suppliers of freeway signs: Peterson-Chase, Zoomar Sign Company and Safe~vay Sign Compm~y. The later submitted a low bid of $91,100.00 to furnish and install eight freeway overhead sign panels and two off-ramp sign panels, including all applicable permits and inspection fees. Peterson-Chase submitted a bid of $105,500.00, while Zoomar Sign Company elected to not provide for a quote citing the company only manufactures signs, but has no means of installing them. Safeway Sign Company is one of CALTRANS's vendors for manufacturing and installing freeway signs. The City has previously utilized Safeway's services to manufacture and install the "Main Street/Auto Park Drive" freeway and off-ramp signs and found that their services were prompt and adequate and their fees were reasonable. In addition, Safeway Sign Company can ensure quality control by performing the manufacturing, installation, inspection and permitting themselves. Therefore, staff recommends that Council waive the bid requirements and award a purchase agreement in the amount of $91,100.00 to Safeway Sign Company for the manufacture and installation of Olympic Parkway freeway signs FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Purchase Agreement $91, 100.00 B. Contingencies $33,900.00 C. Design and Administration $25,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 Transportation FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION Partnership Fund $150,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 There are no additional annual maintenance costs associated with this project over what are currently being paid. Attachments: Safeway Sign Company quote Peterson-Chase quote C.I.P. detail sheet for the Freeway Signs-Olympic Parkway Prepared By: Majed AI-Ghafry J:'xEngineerXAGENDA\OlympicPkwy FreewaySignsl ma.doc By: SaCeway Slgn; 858 792 1736; Sap-lO-01 5;26PM; P,~e 2/4 Safeway Sign Company Manulacturers of Signs arid Rolated Prc~dtJCtS g875 Yucr;a Road Adelanto, CA 92301 (760}246 7070 FAX (760) 246-5512 September 10, 2001 Majed A Al-Chaffy, PE City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering 275 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: PROPOSAL AND SCOPE OF WORK FOR MANUFACTURING AND INSTALLING EIGHT OVERHEAD AND T~/O ROADSIDE GUIDE SIGNS FOR OLYMPIC PKWY Dear Mr. At-Chaffy: The following is a quote ~o manufacture and install eight Overhead and two Roadside guide signs. The signs will replace existing signs. The following are assumptions for the price quote to be offered: An Encroachment Permit will be issued for this project to The City of Chula Vista The new Overhead signs will remain the same size as existing signs Safeway Sign requests a secure staging area with 24-hour access, possibly an area in your City Yard. The following is a the quote breakdown: Inspection I~eTotal $5'6001 Manufacture ~45,000 t lnsta at on $40,500J $91,100 The manufacturing price is base on a three-week delivery The installation will take ten working days, Caltrans may take two weeks to review the sign drawings and issue a permit to Safeway Sign. Attached is a sample of the sign drawing Safeway Sign Would submit for Caltrans review. Please note that the submitted sign drawings probably will look different than those on the bid package, Billing will be monthly and payment is expected within 30 days. Past due amounts will accrue interest at the rate of 1%% per month on the unpaid balance ortho maximum allowed by law. Please contract me with any questions at 858-792-2823. Sincerely, David Moore Prr~ect Manager Attachments: Scope Sign Drawing "SIGNS OF LIFE" Sen~ By: Safeway Siqn; 858 792 1736; Sep-10 01 5;26PM; Page 3/4 SCOPE OF WORK Manufacturing and Installations of Eight (8) Overhead and Two (2) Roadside Guide Signs Prepare D.P. Encroachment Permit: Submit Caltrans D.P. Encroachment Permit. This includes traffic control plan, installation schedule, sign drawings and bonds. Manufacture: Signs will be in accordance with the latest Caltrans Specifications for Overhead and Roadside Guide Signs. Overhead Signs will be either Laminated or Formed Panel. Roadside Signs will be single sheet and back framed. Type III background reflective sheeting and Type IV copy and border will be used. Installation: New signs will replace existing signs. The installations and traffic control will conform to Caltrans requirements. Beth new and existing mounting beams and frames will be used. New post will be used for Roadside. EXHIBIT A ;ant By: SaCeway Sign; 858 792 1736; Sep-lO-01 5:27PM; Page 4/4 E Orange A v Olympic Pkwy '-10,5 ~ ~.9 ; 8 624 8 ~ 36.5 ~: 10 i 18 65 .... 718-- --~-- 13.3 '~ 47.8 '~ 28.6 ........ 168 FILE No.882 1]./08 '01 ].6:23 ID:PETERSQN CHI4SE FAX:949 252 0266 P~4GE ]./ ;ITY OF CHULA vISTA - PC PETERSON-CHASE GENERAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC 1792 KAISER AVE., IRVINE, CA 92614 phil (949) 252-0441 FAX#: (945) 252-0266 FROM: Dick W. Vogels TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA - TRAFFIC ENG. 276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 DATE: November 7, 2001 ATTN: MAJED A. AL-GHAFRY, P.E. SUBJECT: COST PROPOSAL FOR SIGNAGE FOR OLYMPIC PARKWAY, CHULA JOB#: CONTRACT#: VISTA PH#: FAX#: PH#: (949) 252-0441 FAX~: (949) 252-0266 PROPOSAL FOR INSTALLATION OF OVERHEAD AND ROADSIDE SlGNAGE PETERSON CHASE IS PLEASED TO PROVIDE OUR QUOTATION TO FURNISH AND INSTALL EIGHT EACH OVERHEAD SIGN PANELS AND TWO EACH ROADSIDE SIGN PANELS AS FOLLOWS: INSTALL SiGNAGE LUMP SUM $105,500.00 NOTES: - SIGN PANELS ARE TO REPLACE EXISTING SIGN PANELS ON EXISTING STRUCYURES - NEW SIGNS TO BE SAME SiZE AS EXISTING - PERMITS / INSPECTION FEES INCLUDED - EIGHT WEEK DELIVERY FROM DATE OF ORDER - PAYMENT TERMS 100% NET 30 DAYS. PLEASE CALL iF QUESTIONS ARISE. SINCERELY, COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: ~ Meeting Date: 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving a four-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; EDAW Inc., Consultant; McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant, and Otay Project, LP, Applicant for consulting services related to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Tract Map, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. Director of Planning and Building/¥~ SUBMiTTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Manager fie ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) The applicant, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP has flied a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Tract Map application for the Otay Ranch Plan~g Ar~ea 12/-. Freeway Commercial site. The approximately 134.5 acre site would be developed wiih'up to 1,076,030 square feet of freeway-oriented commercial uses. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The item before the City Council is a request for the City Council to approve the proposed contract with EDAW Inc. for an amount not to exceed $206,105 to provide consultant services for the preparation of the CEQA required environmental documents for the proposed project and an additional $51,526 for additional services should they be necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the City adopt a Resolution approving a four-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; EDAW Inc., Consultant; McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant, and Otay Project, LP, Applicant for consulting services related to the preparation of an EIR for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Map, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Background The applicant, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP have filed a SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Map application for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial Page 2, Item No.: _7 Meeting Date: 12/17/01 site. The approximately 134.5 acre site is located in the north central area of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area, immediately to the east of the (future) SR-125, south of (future) Olympic Parkway, west of (future) EastLake Parkway, and north of (future) Birch Road (see Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map). As required by the Otay Ranch GDP, a SPA Plan is proposed. Processing of the SPA Plan will include all SPA-level documents (such as planned community district regulations, village design plan [design guidelines], public facilities financing and phasing plan, development agreement, etc.). Tentative Tract Maps for the southern 83 acres and noithern 27 acres are being processed with the SPA Plan and will also be addressed in the EIR. The SPA Plan will ref'me and implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP and will establish the planning design parameters for the site. The planning area was recently reconfigured as a result of the approved GDP Amendments processed in October 2001 in conjunction with the Village 11 SPA Plan. The Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial SPA Plan will encompass the reconfigured planning area and will include a description of the development area, development statistics, a generalized map of the land use locations, and individual development policies. Approximately 110.2 acres of the 134.5-acre site would be designated for Freeway Commercial Use, approximately 13.1 acres of the site for open space buffer along roadways, and 11.2 acres would be designated for circulation. The SPA Plan proposes a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.25, for a total of up to 1,076,030 square feet of freeway-oriented commercial uses. A light rail alignment and a station site would be reserved for extension of the San Diego Trolley, and a park-and-ride component would be included to allow for commuter parking. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality (CEQA), the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Planning and Building Department staff does not have the available time or expertise to prepare the needed Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, the applicant ~sing the project must enter into a four-party agreement for the preparation of the CEQA documentation. Consultant Services Selection Process A request for proposal was distributed to the 28 persons or firms included on the City's list of qualified Environmental Consultants, and seven proposals were received. The Selection Cormnittee, designated by the Director of the Planning and Building Department, invited the three top-rated firms to interview. The Selection Committee reviewed and ranked the proposals based on company experience, quality of management team, capacity, to perform the work, project understanding, proposal quality and clarity, local experience, and billing rates. Page 3, Item No.: 7 Meeting Date: 12/17/01 The Environmental Review Coordinator and the Selection Committee have determined that EDAW Inc., through their proposal and the interview process, has demonstrated the ability to perform the services as required for this project. EDAW Inc. represents, and staff concurs, that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the required services within the necessary time frames. The Environmental Review Coordinator has negotiated the details of these agreements in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 6.5.2 of the Environmental Review Procedures. Scope of Work EDAW will function as the Environmental Consultant to the City of Chula Vista under a four- party agreement with the Applicant and under the supervision of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The responsibilities of the Environmental Consultant will include the following: Review of the available Project information; Preparation of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation; Preparation of Screencheck, draft and final EIRs; Preparation of responses to comments received during public review; Preparation of Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program; and Attendance at team meetings and public hearings Contract Payment The total cost of the contract for consulting services is $206,105, with an additional 25% contingency ($51,526) for additional services to cover unforeseen issues that may arise during preparation of the EIR and if determined necessary the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The project applicant will pay all consultant costs, as well as reimburse any City staff time associated with preparation of the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial Second Tier EIR through a separate deposit account. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the form of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no resulting impact to the General Fund. The applicant, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP will fully compensate the consultant. The contract amount for consulting services is $206,105. The contract allows the Contract Administrator to negotiate additional fees, which will be paid by the applicant, not to exceed 25% of the total contract amount ($51,526) to cover unforeseen issues that may be identified during the preparation of the EIR. Page 4, Item No.: 7 Meeting Date: 12/17/01 Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Four-Party Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, EDAW Inc., McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, and Otay Project, LP. J:~Plamfing\MaryL\OR PA12--FC\Contract\A113.doc Vicinity Map PLANNING AREA 12 - FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SITE Four-Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, EDA W, Consultant, and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant Otay Project, LP, Applicant For Consulting Work to be Rendered with regard to Applicants' Project 1. Parties. This Agreement is made as ofthe reference date set forth in Exhibit A, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties hereto, between the City of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation ofthe State of California, the person designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Consultant", EDA W, whose business form and address are indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the persons collectively designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Applicant", McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP whose business forms and addresses are indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following facts: 2. Recitals. Warranties and Representations. 2.1. WarrantvofOwnership. Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner ofland ("Property") commonly known as, or generally located as, described on Exhibit A, Paragraph I, or has an option or other entitlement to develop said Property. 2.2. Applicant desires to develop the Property with the Project described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, and in that regard, has made application ("Application") with the City for approval of the plan, map, zone, or other permits ("Entitlements") described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3. 2.3. In order for the City to process the Application of Applicant, Work of the general nature and type described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will need to be completed. 2.4. City does not presently have the "in-house" staff or resources to process the application within the time frame requested for review by the Applicant. 2.5. This agreement proposes an arrangement by which Applicant shall retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining, Consultant, who shall perform the services required of Consultant by this Agreement solely to, and under the direction of, the City. ]2/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page] ~-(, 2.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the background for this agreement are set forth on Exhibit B. 3. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN THE CITY, CONSULTANT, AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. Employment of Consultant bv Applicant. Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City, and at Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for the primary benefit of, City, and solely at City's direction, all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services", ("General Services"), and in the process of performing and delivering said General Services, Consu1tant shall also perform tò and for the benefit of City all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope of Work", ("Detailed Services"), and all services reasonably necessary to accomplish said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work, and shall deliver such documents required ("Deliverables") herein, all within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6, and if none are set forth, within a reasonable period oftime for the diligent execution of Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this covenant. The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant. In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, the Consultant shall do so in a good, professional manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by the City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services required of the Consultant. 3.2. Compensation of Consultant. Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached by the Consultant, and according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within 15 days of Consultant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit provisions of Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon receipt of such payment by the City, City shall promptly, not later than 15 days, or ]2/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 2 b-7 in accordance with the Bill Processing procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the Consultant. City is merely acting in the capacity as a conduit for payment, and shall not be liable for the compensation unless it receives same from Applicant. Applicant shall not make any payments of compensation or otherwise directly to the Consultant. 3.2.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the concurrence of City, determines that additional services ("Additional Services") are needed from Consultant ofthe type Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to the Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to provide such additional services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon in writing for said Additional Work between the parties. 3.2.2. In the event that the City shall determine that additional work is required to be performed above and beyond the scope of work herein provided, City will consult with Applicant regarding the additional work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional Services, the City may, at its option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's estimate of the costs of the additional work which the City determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any and all additional costs for the additional work. 3.2.3. Reductions in Scope of Work. City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree, the Fixed Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by the amount of time and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted. 3.3. Securitv for Pavrnent of Compensation bv Applicant. 3.3.1. Deposit. As security for the payment of Consultant by Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on Exhibit C as "Deposit Amount" with the City, as trustee for Consultant, the conditions of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as hereinbelow set forth: 3.3.1.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust. 3.3.1.1.1. City shall also be entitled to retain ITom said Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it is entitled to compensation by law or under the terms of this agreement. 3.3. I. 1.2. All interest earned on the Deposit Amount, if any, shall accrue to the benefit of, and be used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu of deposit into a separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in one or more of its various bank accounts, and 12/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 3 10-8 upon doing so, shall proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average interest earned during the period on its general fund. 3.3. I. 1.3. Any unused balance of Deposit Amount, including any unused interest earned, shall be returned to Applicant not later than 30 days after the termination of this Agreement and any claims resulting therefrom. 3.3.1.1.4. Applicant shall be notified witlùn 30 days after of the use of the Deposit in any manner. Nothing herein shall invalidate use of the Deposit in the manner herein authorized. 3.3.1.1.5. At such time as City shall reasonably determine that inadequate funds remain on Deposit to secure future compensation likely due Consultant or City, City may make demand of Applicant to supplement said Deposit Amount in such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon doing so, Applicant shall, within 30 days pays said amount ("Supplemental Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or Amounts shall be governed by the same terms of trust governing the original Deposit. 3.3.2. Withholding of Processing. In addition to use ofthe Deposit as security, in order to secure the duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services rendered under this agreement, City shall be entitled to withhold processing of Applicant's Application upon a breach of Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant. 4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant. 4. I. Insurance. Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of" A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: 4.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10. 4.1.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 0, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). 12/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 4 (¡;-q 4.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. 4.2. Proof ofInsurance Coverage. 4.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates oflnsurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. 4.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additionallnsured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City and Applicant demonstrating same. 4.3. Public Statements. All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of the City and Applicant. 4.4. Communication to Applicant. Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Consultant may request such meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 5. Non-Compensation Duties of the Applicant. 5.1. Documents Access. The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the City, for the use by the Consu1tant and City, such documents, or copies of such documents requested by Consultant, within the possession of Applicant reasonably useful to the Consultant in performing the services herein required of Consultant, including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7. 5.2. Propertv Access. The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and Consultant to enter and access the Property, to take any borings, make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary to deliver the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of the Applicant. Consultant shall 12/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 5 (0 -/0 promptly repair any damage to the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall indemnify, defend, and hold Applicant harmless ITom all loss, cost, damage, expenses, claims, and liabilities in connection with or arising from any such entry and access. 5.3. Communication to Consultant. Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consu1tant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Applicant may request such meetings as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 6. Administrative Representatives. Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators") indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 7. Conflicts ofInterest. 7. I. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report his economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. 7.2. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. ]2/10/0] Four-Party Agreement Page 6 f.? - J I 7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this Agreement. 7.4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 7.5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 7.6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property within 10 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or ("Prohibited Interest"). Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term ofthis Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement. 12/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 7 b -/2- 8. Default of the Consultant for Breach. This agreement may be terminated by the City for default if the Consultant breaches this agreement or if the Consultant refuses or fails to pursue the work under this agreement or any phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its completion within a reasonable period of time. Termination of this agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not relieve the Consultant ITom liability of such default. 9. City's Right to Terminate Payment for Convenience. Documents. 9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this agreement, the City shall have the absolute right at any time to terminate this agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to this agreement. 9.2. In the event of termination of this agreement by the City in the absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall pay the Consultant for the reasonable value of the services actually performed by the Consultant up to the date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to the Consultant for services performed after execution of this agreement and prior to its termination. 9.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damage or compensation arising under this agreement, except as set forth herein, in the event of such termination. 9.4. In the event of termination of this agreement, and upon demand of the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in performance of this agreement, and all such documents and materials shall be the property of the City; provided however, that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the City shall provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such documents to the Applicant. 9.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant, and shall not exercise any control or direction over Consultant's work. 10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures. No suit shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City, unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula V ista Municipal Code, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set fully set forth herein. 12/1 0/0 1 Four-Party Agreement Page 8 b -13 II. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. 11.1. Consultant to Indemnify Citv reo Iniuries. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising ITom the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors and omissions, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, it officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination ofthis Agreement. 11.2. Applicant to Indemnify Citv reo Compensation of Consultant. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against and from any and all claims, losses, damages, expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives ofthe City ("City Indemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant for the performance of services required by this Agreement. 12/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 9 ?:, -lif 12. Business Licenses. Applicant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. Applicant further agrees to require Consultant to obtain such business license and to comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. 13. Miscellaneous. 13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. 13.2. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit A. 13.3. Entitlement to Subsequent Notices. No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any other or furthernotice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances. 13.4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. 13.5. CapacitvofParties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. ]2/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 10 b-15 13.6. Governing LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City ofChula Vista. 13.7. Modification. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which given. 13.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together shall constitute but one instrument. 13.9. Severabilitv. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein. 13.10. Headings. The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions hereof. 13.11. Waiver. No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any such breach. 12/1 0101 Four-Party Agreement Page 1J 6-/6 13.12. Remedies. The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to the contrary. 13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries. Despite the fact that the required performance under this agreement may have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the parties specifically intend no benefit thereITom, and agree that no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a three party agreement and the City is an express third party beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) 12110/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 12 h-/7 Signature Page To Four-Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, EDA W, Consultant, and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant Otay Project, LP, Applicant For Consulting Work to be Rendered with regard to Applicants' Project (Page 1 of 3) NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City ofChula Vista By: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to Form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: / ~flO' 12/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 13 fa-fl? Signature Page To Four-Party Agreement Between City ofChula Vista, EDA W, Consultant, and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant Otay Project, LP, Applicant For Consulting Work to be Rendered with regard to Applicants' Project (Page 2 of 3) Dated: 1~I~OI Applicant: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: LLC, a Delaware By: McMilli limited liabilit Title: Vl<-< ~ '~~ By: Title: ~ 1(.6 ~ I ()¡'....." ]2/10/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 14 b -/q Dated: ]2110101 Signature Page To Four-Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, EDA W, Consultant, and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant Otay Project, LP, Applicant For Consulting Work to be Rendered with regard to Applicants' Project (Page 3 of 3) /)IÍ~¡:' Applicant: Otay Project, LP., a California limited partnership By: Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Authorized Member By: C ~;£; Title: I/¡¿;t!" ¡1U1í0trJ Four-Party Agreement Page 15 6 -20 Exhibit A Reference Date of Agreement: December 18,2001 Effective Date of Agreement: Date of City Council Approval of Agreement City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Consultant: EDA W Inc. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation Address: 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620, San Diego, CA 92101 Applicant: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC Business Form of Applicant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( ) Corporation (X) Other: A California Limited Liability Company Address: 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 Applicant: Otay Project, LP Business Form of Applicant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship (X) Partnership ( ) Corporation Address: 350 W. Ash Street, Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 12/1010] Four-Party Agreement Page 16 b-21 1. Property (Commonly known address or General Description): The Otay Ranch Planning Area I2/Freeway Commercial property is located in the north-central portion ofthe Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area. The Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) project area includes approximately 134.5 acres bounded by the proposed alignment of SR-125 on the west, (future) Olympic Parkway on the north, (future) EastLake Parkway on the east, and (future) Birch Road on the south. 2. Project Description ("Project"): The project consists of the preparation of a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Map (the "Development"). The Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial SPA Plan would refine the goals objectives, and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The SPA Plan wou1d encompass 110.2 acres of freeway-commercial use, 13.1 acres of open space, and 11.2 acres designated for circulation. The SPA Plan proposes a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.25 for up to 1,076,030 square feet ofÍÌeeway-oriented commercial uses. A light rail alignment and station site would be reserved and a park-and-ride component would be included to allow for commuter parking in the commercial area. 3. Entitlements applied for: Proposed discretionary actions for the Property include: Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Tract Maps. 4. General Nature of Consulting Services ("Services--General"): EDA W shall prepare an EIR for Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Maps to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and to meet State and City environmental review requirements. The EIR shall be a second "tier" EIR from the Final Otay Ranch Program £IR #£IR 90-01, SCH #8901 0 154) and Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR (SCH #94041056), (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "previous £IRs"). 5. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"): EDA W shall prepare a Second-tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Maps in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). EDA W shall also work closely with the City of Chula Vista staff to ensure that the EIR for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/ Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Maps EIR shall meet all of the City's needs. The EIR must comply with the current California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.); the current State CEQA guidelines (California Administration Code section 15000 et 12110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 17 b-22 seq.); the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any responsible public agency or any agency with jurisdiction by law. All Detailed Services described herein shall be performed by EDA W to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. EDA W shall consult with all trustee and responsible agencies, agencies having jurisdiction by law and any other person or organization having control over or interest in the Development as necessary to ensure that the EIR is current and complete as to issues raised by such agencies. The Draft and Final EIR shall be prepared in such a manner that they will be meaningful and useful to decision-makers and to the public. Technical data is to be summarized in the body of the report and placed in an appendix. All documents shall be prepared in Microsoft Word 2000. The EIR shall be prepared to include the required sections of an EIR, as set forth in applicable law including State CEQA Guidelines Section 15122 - 15131. The document shall be formatted as directed by the City and shall include, but not be limited to the following sections: . Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Project Description Environmental Setting Environmental Impact Analysis Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducing Impacts Alternatives Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Irreversible Environmental Changes Effects Found not to be Significant References, Persons and Agencies Contacted and EIR Preparation . . . . . . . EDA W shall compile supporting documents into separate volume(s) to be referred to as the Appendices to the EIR. The Appendices shall include the Notice of Preparation (NaP), responses to the Nap and any technical reports and relevant technical information generated for the EIR SPECIFIC TASK DESCRIPTION: In providing environmental services for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Maps EIR, EDA W shall perform the following tasks: 12/]0/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 18 b-23 Task 1- Initial Study and Notice of Preparation Review of Existing Documents EDA W will review previous documents that have been prepared for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Project, including, but not limited to: 1) Otay Ranch General Development Plan, dated October 1993, and as amended June 1996. 2) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-01) for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, prepared by Ogden, dated December 1992. 3) Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-01), prepared by Cotton/Beland/Associates, dated April 1996. 4) Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One and GDP/SRP Amendments (EIR 97-03). 5) Draft Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the General Development Plan Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area, Conceptual Tentative Map (EIR 01-02), prepared by the City ofChula Vista. 6) Transportation Technical Appendix, Final Program Environmental Impact Report, FEIR 90-01, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, dated October 1993. 7) Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study prepared by Cotton/Belandl Associates, dated September 1995. (Appendix B). 8) Otay Ranch Village II Traffic Impact Analysis, prpepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, dated July 5, 2001 9) Preliminary Regional Drainage Study - Major Drainage Patterns and Facilities, Otay Ranch SPA - Freeway Commercial, prepared by P&D Consultants, dated November 7, 2001. 10) Geotechnical Investigation for the Freeway Commercial Site, prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated, dated January 26, 2001, and Geotechnical Investigation, Otay Ranch Village 12, prepared by GEOCON Inc, dated August 30, 200 I. Il)Freeway Commercial Conceptual, Water and Recycled Water Study, prepared by Powell/PBS&J, dated November 2001. 12110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 19 ~ -2L( 12) Freeway Commercial Conceptual Sewer Study, prepared by Powell/PBS&J, dated November 2001. Initial Study EDA W will prepare a draft Initial Study (Deliverable No.1) using the environmental checklist based on the City ofChula Vista's Environmental Checklist Form or the Environmental Checklist Form in the State CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G) to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the Development and to identify those issues that are potentially affected by the proposed Development. The Environmental Checklist will form the basis to support which issues will be addressed in detail in the ElR for the Development and which issues have been identified as not significant and warrant no further discussion. City staff will review the draft Initial Study and, if necessary provide comments to EDA W. EDA W shall incorporate the City's written comments and provide the City with a final Initial Study (Deliverable No.2). Notice of Preparation EDA W will prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NaP) (Deliverable No. I). City staff will review the draft Nap and, if necessary provide comments to EDA W. EDA W shall incorporate the City's comments and provide the City with a final Nap (Deliverable No.2). EDA W shall, in consultation with the City ofChula Vista, distribute the document to the State Clearinghouse, each Responsible Agency, each Trustee Agency, and public agencies, organizations and individuals that may be affected by the project. The final Nap and the Environmental Checklist Form (Deliverable No.2) will be made available for public review at local libraries and other appropriate locations. Comments received during the 30-day public review period will be used to finalize the scope of the Draft EIR. Task 2- First Screen check Draft EIR and Associated Technical Reports EDA W shall prepare a description of existing conditions for, collect data on, and analyze potential impacts to the environmental issues identified in the project-specific Environmental Checklist Form for the Development. The following is an outline ofthe contents for the Draft EIR. The preparation of technical reports and any modeling required to complete these reports is addressed under the individual issue discussions. . Introduction -- This section of the EIR will describe the proposed Development's background, purpose and need, and objectives. The introduction will also provide an overview of the CEQA process and related permits and discretionary actions required for implementation of the proposed Development. . Project Description -- This section ofthe EIR will describe in detail the key features of the proposed Development, including the "worst case" scenario for the Development evaluation. ]2/10/0] Four-Party Agreement Page 20 fo-25 . Environmental Setting -- This section of the EIR will present a discussion of existing conditions within the Property and adjacent land parcels that could be affected by the proposed development. Environmental Issues -- This section of the EIR will present an analysis of each of the environmental issues identified in the project-specific Environmental Initial Study. The analysis will identify potentially significant environmental impacts that could result ÍÌom implementation of the proposed Development and proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. Specific Issues to be Addressed in the Draft EIR: Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Existing plans, policies, and ordinances related to land use that affect the Development site will be identified and reviewed. Documents to be reviewed include, but are not limited to: . The Chula Vista General Plan and all related elements The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the specific property The Otay Ranch General Development Plan and EIR The EIR will evaluate the Development for compatibility with adjacent land uses and surrounding densities; identify whether the Development has substantial conflicts with the established community character; and identify inconsistencies or conflicts between the Development and the goals, objectives, and policies of any applicable plan policy, ordinance, guideline, or regulation, particularly in relation to the Otay Ranch GDP. The EIR will evaluate the impacts of the proposed physical improvements that could result upon implementation of the Development in Planning Area 12. The EIR will include both a plan-to-plan and a plan-to-ground land use analysis. The land use analysis will be contained in the ElR, and a technical report will not be prepared for this issue. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Although the Property is currently disturbed, an evaluation of the proposed grading and the visual impacts of development of the Property must be assessed. The EIR will analyze the impact of the proposed Development on existing landform and community character. The necessary text, maps and photo-documentation will be provided in the EIR describing the appearance before and after the Development. A visual resource analysis will be conducted in conjunction with a site visit evaluation. Key views will be identified and photographed within the viewshed of the site. The identification of the key views will be based on the following criteria: (I) views subject to the greatest degree of change, (2) the location of representative views associated with each type of characteristic landscape unit in the area, and (3) the location of the highly scenic views that could be 12/1 010 1 Four-Party Agreement Page 21 {rZb either enhanced or impacted by the project. Photographic records, line-of-sight cross sections and topographic maps showing locations of significant viewpoints will be depicted from all compass directions, particularly as they relate to Olympic Parkway, a scenic corridor identified in the City of Chula Vista's Circulation Element. This analysis will be contained in the EIR, and a separate technical report will not be prepared. Transportation, Circulation, and Access Subconsultant, Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG), will complete the traffic analysis under the direction of ED A W. LLG will first meet with City staff and the Development team to confirm the ElR's project definition and will obtain prior traffic studies prepared for projects in the area. Based on the project definition, LLG will conduct AMIPM peak hour traffic counts, determine the existing AMIPM peak hour Levels of Service (LOS), and obtain the most recent street segment traffic volumes using City, County, and Caltrans records. LLG will then conduct a project-to-ground and plan-to-plan analysis to determine pre-project traffic volumes at key intersections and street segments with the existing street system, add total project traffic to the baseline condition, analyze intersections and street segments, estimate impacts, and recommend mitigation measures as needed. In terms of cumulative traffic impacts, LLG will determine the future year scenarios that will likely include Year 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and buildout analysis. About 24 intersections and 40 to 50 street segments will be analyzed for each scenario, including AMIPM intersection and street segment LOS for each scenario. A Congestion Management Plan (CMP) analysis on the key arterials and freeways will also be conducted in the cumulative traffic analysis. Additionally, LLG will conduct an access analysis for the Development site, a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) analysis, and will evaluate traffic impacts resulting from the Development. The draft Traffic Technical Report will be reviewed by and subject to the approval of City staff including staff from the Traffic Engineering Section. Comments will be provided by the City to LLG and EDA W. A final Traffic Technical Report will be prepared and summarized in the ElR. If the Development has significant traffic impacts, measures will be proposed to mitigate project impacts. A copy of the final traffic technical report will also be included as an appendix to the ElR. Air Quality The Property is located within the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, which includes all of San Diego County. San Diego County is a non-attainment area for certain criteria pollutants according to state and federal clean air standards. EDA W will conduct air quality modeling to analyze the potential for air quality impacts resulting from short-term construction as well as long- term emissions from implementation of the proposed Development. The air quality analysis will also evaluate the potential for carbon monoxide (CO) "hotspots" to existing nearby existing and future sensitive receptors. The analysis will also identify traffic-generated emissions that may impact sensitive receptors in the absence of mitigation measures. The Development's relationship to 12/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 22 b-Z1 regional air quality and land use assumptions will be presented in the EIR. The modeling results will be summarized in the ElK The air quality technical report will consist only of a summary table of the air quality modeling results and will be included in the EIR appendices. Noise A written noise analysis will be prepared based on existing conditions and existing land uses on the property and in the vicinity. EDA W will assess the projected noise levels and compare them with County, City, and State guidelines, standards and ordinances. The EIR will address potential construction-related noise impacts. In addition, increased traffic anticipated from the proposed Development could result in an increase in noise levels along the street system in the project vicinity. EDA W will prepare an acoustical technical report that will (1) describe the cumulative effect of road noise on surrounding land uses and recommend mitigation measures, if necessary; (2) describe the interior and exterior noise levels for the uses proposed on the site and the specific design and mitigation features needed; and (3) identify the need for and location of noise barriers, including the height, location, and types of barriers capable of achieving the desired mitigation effect. The results of the acoustical analysis, in the form of a technical report, will be prepared by EDA W and provided to City staff for review. City staff will provide any comments on the acoustical analysis to EDA W. The results ofthe acoustical analysis will then be summarized in the ElR and the full written technical report will be included as an appendix to the EIR. Cultural Resources EDA W will conduct archival research at various repositories, and will view aerial photographs, city directories and historic photographs in order to develop a historical perceptive of the Property. EDA W will also perform a record search at local institutions to obtain information concerning the locations of known archaeological resources within or in the vicinity of the project. Previous data will be researched, including the cultural resource report completed for the Otay Ranch GDP project by Ogden Environmental in 1992. A summary of the findings of this survey will be provided in the EIR. These data will be incorporated into a technical report providing a historical context of the project area, as well as a discussion of its archaeological resources. Upon completion of this initial research, a SPA-level cultural resource survey will be conducted for the Development to assess impacts to cultural resources sites located within Planning Area 12, as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures for any identified important resources. A draft cultural resources analysis, in the form of a technical report, will be prepared by EDA Wand provided to City staff for review. City staff will provide any comments on the cultural resources analysis to EDA W. The results of the final cultural resources analysis will be summarized in the EIR ]2/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 23 Ç,-22 and the full written technical report will be included as an appendix to the EIR. Paleontological Resources The Property is located within the upper sandstone unit ofthe Otay Formation, which has produced important vertebrate fossil remains. The EIR will address paleontological impacts and recommend mitigation including but not limited to on-site monitoring during grading, recovery and salvage of remains in a timely manner, and methods for retaining all field notes, photographs, and maps. Biological Resources EDA W will evaluate the Property in the context of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) prepared for the Otay Ranch GDP and for conformance with the City's draft MSCP Plan. A generalized biological reconnaissance will be conducted with detailed fieldwork related to biological services, conducted if necessary. The reconnaissance will include a habitat assessment for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly and a determination of the potential for the species to occur on the site. EDA W's staff biologist will also review previous work conducted on and around the site. EDA W shall prepare a written report oftheir findings. The draft biological report, in the form of a technical report, will be provided to City stafffor review. City staff will provide any comments on the biological report to EDA W. The results of the final biological report will be summarized in the ErR and the full written technical report will be included as an appendix to the EIR. Agricultural Resources EDA W will evaluate an Agricultural Plan prepared as part of the SPA Plan and will identify any additional agricultural impacts that may occur within Planuing Area 12. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts. This information will be summarized in the text of the EIR and will not be a technical report. Hydrology, Drainage, and Urban Stormwater Runoff EDA W will summarize the preliminary drainage study prepared by P&D Consultants, Inc. dated November 2001, for the Property. The ErR will present information concerning surface runoff, including the amount and rate of runoff in the pre-development and post-development scenarios. Other areas to be evaluated include surface water quality as it relates to sedimentation and other pollutants, effects on drainage courses, and off-site effects. In regard to the storm water analysis, the ErR will define the types and sources of construction and "urban" pollutants generated on and off site, and the runoff patterns that would carry these pollutants away from the Property. The EIR will identify appropriate mitigation for significant impacts and will recommend preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) which incorporates the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) both during and after construction. The mitigation 12/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 24 to - 2¿ì measures will be developed consistent with Order No. 2001-01 (NPDES No. CASO1O8758). Geology and Soils The EIR will summarize the geotechnical information prepared for the Property by Geotechnics Incorporated in their report, dated January 2001, and the Geotechnicallnvestigation, Otay Ranch Village 12, prepared by GEOCON Inc., dated August 30, 2001. The summary of the geotechnical reports will include the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the project site. EDA W will summarize the geologic setting, anticipated earth units, faults, and potential geologic hazards. Recommendations for detailed geotechnical evaluations and possible mitigation alternatives (e.g., deep foundations, stone columns) will be included in the EIR. Public Services and Utilities EDA W will evaluate the Conceptual Sewer Service Study, dated November 2001, and the Water and Recycled Water Service Study, dated November 2001, that have been prepared by Powell/PBS&J for the Property. The EIR analysis will address services and facilities related to sewer and water, police, fire, emergency medical service, recreation, schools, library, solid waste disposal, gas and electricity, and telephone and cable. Other public facilities, such as transportation and drainage facilities, will be appropriately referenced. In addition, the need for on-site and off-site public facility improvements will be identified, impacts to public services and utilities will be assessed, and appropriate mitigation, if required, will be recommended. This information will be contained in the EIR text, and no technical report will be prepared for this issue. Compliance with City Threshold and Standards Policy and Findings of Fact EDA W will review the Development for compliance with the City of Chula Vista's growth management standards, to include the following issues: drainage; traffic; fiscal; police; schools; libraries; water; air quality; sewage; fire/emergency medical services; and, parks, recreation, and open space. This information will be contained in the EIR, and no technical report will be prepared. Alternatives EDA W will examine a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic Development objectives, including alternatives that could reduce significant environmental effects as identified in the environmental analysis of the project. Each alternative will be evaluated as to potentially significant environmental effects through a quantitative comparative analysis on an issue- by-issue basis. In addition, the CEQA mandatory "No Project" alternative will be addressed, to include a "plan-to-ground" and "plan-to-plan" analysis. Other project alternatives will be formulated in conjunction with City staff, and could include one reduced scale development alternative. Cumulative Impacts 12110/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 25 " -30 Cumulative effects could result from the incremental impacts of the proposed Development. Environmental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects or plans in the vicinity of the proposed Development will be included in the environmental evaluation. EDA W will focus on the potential for any newly identified cumulative impacts that are associated with Planning Area 12 and which were not addressed in previous EIRs. Indirect cumulative impacts and compliance with the City ofChula Vista's adopted Threshold Standards and other applicable policies and programs will also be evaluated. This information will be contained in the EIR. Other Mandatory CEQA Sections EDA W will address all required CEQA sections, including all sections outlined above, in addition to other mandatory sections, including Growth Inducement and Effects Not Found to be Significant. The Development will be evaluated for its potential to induce economic or population growth through construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment, or by the provision of community services and facilities to serve new development. EDA W will also provide a summary of those Effects Found Not to be Significant, with rationale provided as to how the conclusion of non- significance was reached. Additionally, Irreversible Environmental Changes will be discussed, as will Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The discussion of mandatory effects will be contained in the EIR. DELIVERABLE: Twenty-five (25) copies of the First Screencheck Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, provided in three-ring binders. The First Screencheck Draft EIR shall be prepared in Microsoft Word 2000 and shall be printed at 1.5 spacing. Task 3 - Second Screencheck Draft EIR EDA W will incorporate City staff and legal counsel comments on the First Screencheck EIR and prepare and submit twenty-five (25) copies of the Second Screencheck Draft EIR to the City for review and comment. DELIVERABLE: Twenty-five (25) copies of the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, provided in three-ring binders. The Second Screencheck Draft EIR shall be prepared in Microsoft Word 2000 and shall be printed at 1.5 spacing. ]2/10101 Four-Party Agreement Page 26 h-3/ Task 4 - Third Screen check (Administrative) Draft EIR EDA W will incorporate City staff and legal counsel comments on the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and prepare and submit five (5) copies of the Third Screencheck (Administrative) Draft EIR to the City for review and comment. DELIVERABLE: Five (5) copies of the Third Screencheck Draft ErR and Technical Appendices, provided in three-ring binders. The Third Screencheck Draft EIR shall be prepared in Microsoft Word 2000 and shaU be printed at single spacing. Task 5 - Public Review Draft EIR/NOA/NOC EDA W will incorporate City staff and legal counsel comments on the Third Screencheck (Administrative) Draft EIR and then prepare the public review Draft EIR acceptable to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. EDA W will also prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC). DELIVERABLES: Seventy-five (75) copies each of the NOA, NOC, Draft EIR and Appendices, including ten (10) copies of the documents provided in three-ring binders and the remainder bound. Task 6 - Candidate Draft CEQA Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) EDA W will prepare Draft Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for review by City of Chula Vista staff and legal counsel. The Findings will specify which mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and those measures that have not, and will explain why certain measures have been found to be infeasible. The Findings will also identify feasible project alternatives that could reduce adverse environmental effects but are not being implemented, with an explanation as to why they are considered to be infeasible. DELIVERABLE: Five (5) copies of the draft Candidate Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Task 7 - Response to Comments/Final EIR/MMRPINOD Responses to Comments/Final EIR Following the close of public review, EDA W will meet with City staff and review aU comments received. EDA W shall prepare draft responses to comments and associated revisions to the Draft ]2110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 27 b -32.. EIR. EDA W will submit five (5) copies of the draft responses to comments and amended EIR sections to the City for review by City of Chula Vista staff and legal counsel. EDA W shall revise the draft responses to comments and amended EIR sections based on comments submitted by City staff and legal counsel. EDA W shall then submit the revised draft responses to comments and arnended EIR sections for review by the City. Any changes to the responses to comments and amended EIR sections shall be subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. If additional studies or analyses are requested by the City as a result of the comments received, EDA W shall complete those studies based on the receipt of authorization from the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be developed at the draft EIR stage and finalized after the close of public review. It will list and identify specific monitoring activities that would be required on an issue-by-issue basis, and will establish a reporting system and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. In addition, the MMRP will outline the appropriate time for mitigation of impacts, such as grading permits, final maps, landscape plans, or other discretionary actions. Final Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Should the City determine that additional changes are needed to the draft Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations as a result of the comments received during the public review period, EDA W shall revise the draft Candidate Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to incorporate these changes. Any changes to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be subject to the approval ofthe City's Environmental Review Coordinator. EDA W shall prepare a Final EIR, which includes the Responses to Comments and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). EDA W shall also prepare the final Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. In addition, a draft Notice of Determination and California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) fee certification letter for the project shall be submitted by EDA W to the City in preparation for filing with the County Clerk's office, upon project approval. 12110/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 28 ~-33 DELIVERABLE: Fifty (50) copies of the Final EIR, MMRP, and Appendices, and Candidate CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable), including ten (10) copies of the Final EIR provided in three-ring binders and the remainder bound. One (I) copy of a draft NOD and CDFG fee certification letter. One (I) reproducible master copy of the Final EIR suitable for reproduction on City equipment and not three-hole punched; and One (I) computer disk copy or CD ROM version of the Final EIR and related documents that can be read by Microsoft Word 2000. Task 8 - Hearing/Meetings EDA W's Senior Project Manager will attend, at the direction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, project team meetings throughout the Project duration. These include the following meetings: One (I) project initiation and scoping meeting with the City, Applicant, and others; one (I) project meeting or workshop if requested by the City; weekly meetings with City staff to discuss the EIR and key issues as they arise; one (I) Resource Conservation Commission meeting; one (I) Planning Commission meeting on the DEIR and one (I) Planning Commission hearing on the FEIR; one (I) City Council hearing on the FEIR. EDA W will attend a total of forty-five (45) weekly meetings with City staff. If additional meetings are needed, they will be billed at a time and materials basis at an agreed to cost. Additional meetings requested by the City will be considered additional work pursuant to Section 3.2.2 ofthis Agreement. 6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. I: Draft NOP and Initial Study January 3, 2002 Deliverable No.2: Final NOP and Initial Study January 18, 2002 Deliverable No.3: Draft Technical Reports (traffic, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and biological resources) February 28,2002 Deliverable No.4 First Screencheck EIR April II, 2002 12110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 29 /p -3lf Deliverable No.5: Second Screencheck EIR May 24, 2002 Deliverable No.6: Third Screencheck EIR June 25, 2002 Deliverable No.7: Public Review Draft EIR/NOCfNOA July 16, 2002 July 16, 2002 Deliverable No.8: Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Deliverable No.9: Draft EIR Response to Comments/MMRP September 19, 2002 Deliverable No. 10: Final EIR/MMRP/ Final Findings of Fact and sac Draft Notice ofDetermination/CDFG fee Itr. October 10, 2002 Deliverable No. II: Meetings and Hearings Per Task 8 Dates for Completion of all Consultant Services: Date of City Council approval of environmental documents, or completion of all tasks to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, whichever is later. 7. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant: (X) site plans (X) tentative tract maps ( ) architectural elevations (X) project description. (X) other: SPA Plan, PFFP, Technical Reports (i.e. Geotechnical Investigation, Drainage Study, Water/Recycled Water Service Study, and Sewer Service Study), and related GDP documents 8. Contract Administrators. City: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Applicant: Robert Pletcher, Vice President Engineering, McMillin Otay Ranch LLC Chuck Cater, Vice President, Otay Project, LP Consultant: Sue Buell, Contract Manager, EDA WIne. 9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) Category No.1. Investmentsand sources of income. 12110/01 Four-Party Agreement Page 30 ~-35 ( ) Category No.2. ( ) Category No. 3. ( ) Category No.4. ( ) Category No. 5. ( ) ( ) Category No.6. Category No.7. 10. Insurance Requirements: (X) (X) (X) ( ) (X) Interests in real property. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Business positions. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 11. Permitted Subconsultant: Linscott, Law & Greenspan 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG) will complete the traffic analysis under the direction of ED A W. 12110/0] Four-Party Agreement Page 31 b-3~ Exhibit B Additional Recitals WHEREAS, pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Tract Map requires the preparation of an EIR; and WHEREAS, it was determined by the Director of Planning and Building that staff has neither the available time or expertise to perform the subject work; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited or will deposit funds for the consulting services necessary for the preparation of the environmental documents; and WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was distributed to 28 persons or firms included on the list of qualified Environmental Consultants, and seven proposals were received by the City; and WHEREAS, a Selection Committee was established pursuant to Section 2.56.110 of the Municipal Code to review the proposals and conduct interviews of the most qualified firms based on established evaluation criteria; and WHEREAS, the Selection Committee interviewed the top three firms and recommended EDA W Inc. to perform the required services for the City; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has negotiated the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 6.5.2 of the Environmental Review Procedures; and WHEREAS, the proposed contract with EDA W Inc. to provide consultant services would be in an amount not to exceed $206,105 with an additional $51,526 for additional services should they be necessary. 12110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 32 fo - ,37 Exhibit C Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and Conditions. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth below: (X) Single Fixed Fee Amount: $206,105 EIR for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Tract Maps. Milestone or Event Percent and Amount of Fixed Fee I. Signing of this agreement by all parties and upon the request of the consultant. 10% ($20,610) 2. Submittal ofInitial Study and Nap 10% ($20,610) 3. Submittal of First Screencheck Environmental Document* 30% ($61,832) 4. Commencement of Public Review 25% ($51,526) 5. Completion of Final Environmental Document 15% ($30,917) 6. Retention Percentage - See Section D. below 10% ($20,610) 7.25% Contingency Fee** $51,526 *For purposes of payment the first screencheck shall completely address and analyze all issues identified in the detailed scope-of-work (described in Exhibit "A", Section 5) to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Payment shall not be made until the City's Environmental Review Coordinator determines that a complete screencheck document has been submitted. 12/1010] Four-Party Agreement Page 33 to -3$ **The Environmental Review Coordinator in her discretion independently or upon request from the Consultant, from time to time, may negotiate additional services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement in order to cover unforeseen issues that may be identified during the preparation of the environmental document ("Additional Services"). The cost of Additional Services in connection with the environmental document shall not exceed 25% of the total contract amount ($51,526). ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as are separately identified in Exhibit C, under the category labeled "Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement", Applicant shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth hereinbelow ("Phase Fixed Fee Arrangement"). Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless Applicant shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. ( ) Time and Materials For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time and material spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Consultant for - including all Materials and other "reimburseables" ("Maximum Compensation"). The City will also receive a standard administrative fee amounting to 10% of the contract. . (X) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to $206,105 (plus 25% if negotiated as set forth above) ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City Council. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. ]2110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 34 "-31 Category of Emplovee Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Environmental Engineer Environmental Engineer Senior Environmental Specialist Senior Environmental Planner Environmental Specialist Environmental Analyst Senior Biologist III Senior Biologist I Principal Archaeologist Senior Archaeologist II Senior Archaeologist I Project Archaeologist Staff Archaeologist I Historian Graphic Artist GIS Specialist Senior GIS Specialist Administrative Clerical Technical Editor Word Processor 12/10101 Consultant's Rate Schedule h-lfO $ 65 Hourlv Rate $175 $110 $135 $ 85 $100 $100 $ 75 $ 70 $130 $ 90 $150 $105 $ 85 $ 75 $ 60 $ 75 $ 65 $ 90 $ 65 $ 45 $ 65 $ 55 Four-Party Agreement Page 35 CONSULTANT'S COST BREAKDOWN TASK Task 1 - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation Prepare draft, revise and distribute Task 2 - Prepare Technical Reports and First Screencheck Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Traffic, Circulation, and Access (EIR section only) Traffic Impact Analysis - tech. report by LLG. Air Quality.. Noise" Cultural Resources.. Paleontological Resources Biological Resources.. Agricultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Geology and Soils Public Services and Utilities Thresholds Analysis Other Environmental Sections Alternatives Task 3 - Prepare Second Screencheck Revise Documents Task 4 - Prepare Third ScreenchecklNOAlNOC Revise Documents Task 5 - Public Review Draft EIRINOAINOC Final Edits and Distribution Task 6 - Candidate CEQA Findings/SOC Prepare, Revise, and Finalize Task 7 - Response to Comments/Final EIRlMMRP/NOD Prepare drafts, revise, and finalize documents Task 8 - Meetings and Hearings Attendance Expenses Reproduction, Supplies, Mileage, Postage, misc. SUBTOTAL EIR TOTAL COST $5,500 $2,500 $2,500 $1,400 $69,800 $2,450 $4,500 $8,000 $1,500 $4,960 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $6,200 $4,500 $4,500 $4,000 $9,500 $17,630 $26,660 $16,055 $201,155 EDAW Markup on Subconsultant (5%) EDAW Markup on Expenses TOTAL EIR $3,490 $1,460 $206,105 .EDAW through it's subconsultant Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG) to prepare traffic impact analysis and circulation study for the text of the EIR. LLG will prepare the traffic technical report. ..Includes technical reports prepared by EDAW. 1211010J Four-Party Agreement Page 36 10-'1/ Materials Separately Paid For by Applicant- ( ) Materials Reports Copies ( ) Travel ( ) Printing ( ) Postage ( ) Delivery ( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges (X) Other -SANDAG Model Run Fees Cost or Rate NA NA NA NA NA NA Actual - -------------- ----- --------------- Deposit (X) Deposit Amount: $206,1O5-As agreed to by the Applicant, 75% of the Deposit ($154,579) is to be made by McMillin OtayRanch, LLC and 25% ofthe Deposit ($51,526) is to be made by Otay Project, LP. Applicant agrees to deposit within 10 days if City requests to do so, a sum (estimated to be up to $3,000) for additional Materials separately paid for by the Applicant. (X) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant. Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to pay Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's receipt of billing by Consultant, and determination by City in good faith that Consultant's billing is proper, a judgment for which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive any claim against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing fi:om the amount ofthe Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a billing to City in advance of payment, City shall consider Applicant's protest and any evidence submitted prior to the due date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in making its good faith determination of propriety. ( ) Use of Deposit as Security Only; Applicant to Make Billing Payments. Upon determination by City made in good faith that Consultant is entitled to compensation which shall remain unpaid by Applicant 30 days after billing, City may, at its option, use the Deposit to pay said billing. - ----------------------------- ---- ]2/1010] Four-Party Agreement Page 37 /p -if-¿ (X) Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly (X) Other: Milestone B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month (X) Other: Upon Completion of Milestone c. City's Account Number: To be assigned after agreement is processed. D. Security for Performance () Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ (X ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, the following Retention Percentage until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention Amount: $- Retention Release Event: (X) Completion of All Consultant Services to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. () Other: 12110101 Four-Party Agreement Page 38 fp-l.f3 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; EDAW INC, CONSULTANT; AND MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC, APPLICANT AND THE OTAY PROJECT, LP APPLICANT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12/FREEW A Y COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Tract Map requires the preparation of an EIR; and WHEREAS, it was determined by the Director of Planning and Building that staff has neither the available time or expertise to perform the subject work; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited or will deposit funds for the consulting services necessary for the preparation of the environmental documents; and WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was distributed to 28 persons or firms included on the list of qualified Environmental Consultants, and seven proposals were received by the City; and WHEREAS, a Selection Committee was established pursuant to Section 2.56.110 of the Municipal Code to review the proposals and conduct interviews of the most qualified firms based on established evaluation criteria; and WHEREAS, the Selection Committee interviewed the top three firms and recommended EDA W Inc. to perform the required services for the City; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has negotiated the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 6.5.2 of the Environmental Review Procedures; and WHEREAS, the proposed contract with EDA W Inc. to provide consultant services would be in an amount not to exceed $206,105 with an additional $51,526 for additional services should they be necessary. b-ifLf Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a four-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; EDA W Inc., ("Consultant"), and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC ("Applicant") and Otay Project, LP ("Applicant") for consulting services for preparation and submittal of an Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial SPA Plan And Tentative Tract Map, 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 to execute said agreement on behalf of the City ofChula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by ,{? , (¡/~»J1 ~ Jo . Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building H,IAcrorneyIOR-PA12 Resolution.doc (;;-45 _0 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No --? Meeting Date 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $225,000 FROM COPS MORE 2001 TO PURCHASE A WIRELESS LAN FOR PATROL AND PURCHASE 10 MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS FOR TRAFFIC. SUBMITTED BY: Chief of Police~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~'~'~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No .) The COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) 2001 program is one of several grants developed by the U.S. Department of Justice under the 1994 Crime Act to increase the deployment of police officers to community policing via technology enhancements. COPS MORE awards are very competitive. The City of Chula Vista is one of a very few agencies to receive a COPS MORE 2001 award. The award of $225,000 will be used to expand wireless communication to patrol units and traffic officers, which will allow existing officers to spend additional time in the community. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accept and appropriate $225,000 from COPS MORE 2001 Grant to purchase a wireless LAN system for Patrol and purchase 10 Mobile Data Computers for the Traffic Unit. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A BACKGROUND COPS MORE 2001 is one of several grant programs developed by the U.S. Department of Justice under the 1994 Crime Act to increase the deployment of community policing officers to America's streets. This program is designed to Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 expand the time available for community policing by current law enforcement officers via technology enhancements. The grant allows law enforcement agencies to redeploy officers so that more of their time is spent on community policing activities instead of paperwork. All state and local law enforcement agencies are eligible for grants under COPS MORE. The application process is very competitive. The City of Chula Vista is fortunate to receive one of a very few number of awards this year. This is the fifth COPS MORE award received by the City of Chula Vista. GRANT REQUIREMENTS The grant stipulates that any use of COPS MORE 2001 funds must be in addition to, and not in lieu of, previous funding commitments for law enforcement. The grant also has a 25% local cash match requirement. DISCUSSION The Police Department requested $225,000 from the COPS Office to purchase a wireless LAN system and 10 MDCs that will provide patrol and motorcycle officers with wireless data transmission capabilities while in the field. The wireless LAN system would enable officers to conduct warrant, license, probation/parole status, and other checks on persons and vehicles directly from the field. The police department estimated that this technology would save more than 16,000 hours of sworn officer time. The grant stipulations require a 25% local match. The total project will cost $310,825; COPS MORE funds will be used to pay for $225,000 (75%) of the project, the remaining $85,825 (25%) will be paid for from State Local Law Enforcement funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of the COPS MORE funding would make $225,000 available for purchase of wireless technology and Mobile Data Computers, which will allow for a savings of existing law enforcement officers. The Grant stipulates that law agencies must provide a 25% local cash match. The local match will be provided from the State Local Law Enforcement Grant. The system is estimated to have a useful life of 7 to 10 years. Ongoing replacement costs are estimated at $35,000 beginning in fiscal year 2003/04. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $225,000 FROM COPS MORE 2001 TO PURCHASE A WIRELESS LAN FOR PATROL AND PURCHASE 10 MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS FOR TRAFFIC WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Police Department has been awarded $225,000 from the COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) 2001 program; and WHEREAS, the grant will allow the Police Department to purchase a wireless LAN system for patrol and ten mobile data computers for Traffic Officers; and WHEREAS, the wireless LAN system will enable Officers to conduct warrant, license, probation/patrol status and other checks on persons directly from the field; and WHEREAS, the department estimates the technology would save more then 16,000 hours of sworn officer time; and WHEREAS, the grant stipulates a local match requirement of 25%; and WHEREAS, the totally project will cost $310, 825; and WHEREAS, COPS MORE funds will be used to pay for $225,000 (75%) of the project and the remaining $85,825 (25%) will be paid for from the State local law enforcement grants funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista City Council accepts and appropriates $225,000 from the COPS MORE 2001 grant to purchase a wireless LAN for patrol and purchase 10 mobile computers for traffic. Presented By @me=c Chief of Police Approved as to form by 7 I', .' \ CVt~ John M. Kaheny City Attorney 7-3 COUNCILAGENDASTATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 12117101 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving salary adjustments of 9.12% for Western Council of Engineers (WCE) represented classifications and the classifications of Sr. Civil Engineer, Plan Check Supervisor, and Plans Examiner in accordance with WCE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Section 2.01.2 and the City's Compensation Policy; and amending the FY 2001/02 budget and FY 2002/03 spending plan therefore. SUBMITTED BY: Candy Emerson, Director of Human Resources(~.~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager 9, (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) Section 2.01.2 of the WCE MOU requires the City to perform a salary survey utilizing the position of Civil Engineer as a benchmark. The survey was done in accordance to the City of Chula Vista's Compensation Policy. The City surveyed municipal agencies located in the southern California labor market. The result of the survey indicated that a 9.12% increase be granted. Section 2.01.2 also stipulated that the current salary spreads within WCE classifications be maintained. Additionally, to maintain the proper salary spread between the Civil Engineer classification and the Sr. Civil Engineer classification, it is also necessary to increase the Sr. Civil Engineer classification. The classifications of Plan Check Supervisor and Plans Examiner are also being adjusted to maintain current salary ties with WCE positions. The effective date of the increases will be 11/30/2001. RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the resolution approving the following: 1) Increase the salary scale 9.12% for the following WCE represented classifications effective 11/30/2001 - Civil Engineer, Assistant Engineer I/Il, Land Surveyor, Assistant Surveyor I/Il, Sr. Plans Examiner and Transportation Engineer; 2) Increase the salary scale 9.12% for the classification of Sr. Civil Engineer, Plan Check Supervisor and Plans Examiner effective 11/30/2001; 3) Amend the FY 2001/02 budget of the Public Works Department by appropriating $174,137 from unanticipated revenues from developer fees and ClP reimbursements; Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 121'17/01 4) Amend the FY 2001/02 budget of the Planning and Building Department by appropriating $25,041 from unanticipated revenues from developer fees; 5) Amend the FY 2002/03 adopted spending plan by increasing the Public Works personnel services budget by $308,647. This cost will be fully offset by unanticipated revenues from developer fees and ClP reimbursements; 6) Amend the FY 2002/03 adopted spending plan by increasing the Planning and Building personnel services budget by $44,384. This cost will be fully offset by unanticipated revenues from developer fees; BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The City of Chula Vista recently concluded labor negotiations with the Western Council of Engineers (WCE). Part of the negotiated labor contract was a provision that required the City to conduct a salary survey on the position of Civil Engineer (Section 2.01.2). The survey included municipal agencies in the Southern California labor market in accordance with the City's Compensation Policy. WCE and City representatives met and conferred about the outcome of the survey. Out of the agencies surveyed, 7 were identified as having equivalent positions to that of Chula Vista's Civil Engineer classification. The result of the survey showed that in order for Chula Vista to compensate at the mean, a 9.12% salary increase would be required. Additionally, Section 2.01.2 of the WCE MOU requires that all current salary spreads with other WCE classifications be maintained. This results in an overall 9.12% increase throughout all WCE classifications. There are also 3 non-WCE represented positions that also need to be adjusted. These three positions are Sr. Civil Engineer, Plans Examiner and Plan Check Supervisor. Currently the salary spread between the Civil Engineer and the Sr. Civil Engineer classifications is 15%. Without granting the increase to the Sr. Civil Engineer classification, significant compensation compaction would occur between these two classifications. The positions of Plan Check Supervisor and Plans Examiner have their salary tied to the Civil Engineer and Assistant Engineer II positions respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of these salary adjustments. The total funding increases of $199,178 for FY 2001/02 and $353,031 for FY 2002/03 will be fully offset by unanticipated developer fees and ClP reimbursements. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS OF 9.12% FOR WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS (WCE) REPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS OF SR. CIVIL ENGINEER, PLAN CHECK SUPERVISOR, AND PLANS EXAMINER IN ACCORDANCE WITH WCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) SECTION 2.01.2 AND THE CITY'S COMPENSATION POLICY; AND AMENDING THE FY 2001/02 BUDGET AND FY 2002/03 SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR WHEREAS, Section 2.01.2 of the WCE MOU requires the City to perform a salary survey utilizing the position of Civil Engineer as a benchmark; and WHEREAS, the survey was done in accordance with the City of Chula vista's Compensation Policy; and WHEREAS, the City surveyed municipal agencies located in the southern California labor market and the result of the survey indicated that a 9.12% increase be granted; and WHEREAS, section 2.01. 2 also stipulated that the current salary spreads within WCE classifications be maintained; and WHEREAS, to maintain the property salary spread between the civil Engineer classification and the Sr. civil Engineer classification, it is also necessary to increase the Sr. civil Engineer classification; and WHEREAS, the classifications of Plan Check Supervisor and Plans Examiner are also being adjusted to maintain current salary ties with WCE positions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve salary adjustments of 9.12% for Western Council of Engineers represented classifications and the classifications of Sr. civil Engineer, Plan Check Supervisor, and Plans Examiner in accordance with WCE Memorandum of Understanding section 2.01.2 and the City's Compensation Policy effective 11/30/01. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2001/02 budget of the Public Works Department by appropriating $174,137 from unanticipated revenues from developer fees and CIP reimbursements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2001/02 budget of the Planning and Building Department be amended by appropriating 1 '?-3 $25,041 from unanticipated revenues from developer fees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2002/03 adopted spending plan be amended by increasing Public Works Personnel Services budget by $308,647 with all costs fully offset by unanticipated revenues from developer fees and CIP reimbursements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2002/03 adopted spending plan be amended by increasing the Planning and Building Personnel Services budget by $44,384 with all costs fully offset by unanticipated revenues from developer fees and CIP reimbursements. Presented by Approved as to form by Candy Emerson Director of Human Resources kt K~ J9h, M. Kaheny 0 . y Attorney J. lattorneylre,olwce salary adju'tment, 2 2?-Lf COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 12/17/01 Item Title: Resolution Approving the temporary closure of Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road for mass grading work within the Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Projects and authorizing the Director of Public Works to issue a Temporary Encroachment Permit to Eastlake Development Company for said closure Submitted By: Director ofPublic/~t~Works~f/y ~ Reviewed By: City Manager~>~ (4/5ths Vote:__ No X ) On behalf of the Eastlake Development Company, Damell & Associates, Inc. (D&A), Eastlake's traffic engineering consultant, has prepared a proposal for the temporary closure of Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road. The temporary road closure is needed in order for earth-moving vehicles to safely haul dirt and rock from the west side of Hunte Parkway to the east side of the roadway for the development of Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Projects. Two earthen crossings approximately 80 feet wide are proposed to be created across that segment of Hunte Parkway so that the haul tracks can safely transverse the center median without causing any conflicts with cross traffic and without deteriorating the existing roadway. The southerly crossing is located at an approved future intersection with Hunte Parkway that will provide access to the proposed 'development east of Hunte Parkway. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the closure of Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road and authorizing the Director of Public Works to issue a Temporary Encroachment Permit for said closure. BOARD/COMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: Eastlake Development Company is requesting approval to temporarily close Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road in order to move approximately 130,000 cubic yards of earth from the west side of Hunte Parkway to the east side of Hunte Parkway (see Exhibit "A"). Eastlake will be grading the site to allow for the construction of Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Projects. There are three alternatives by which the earthwork operation can be accomplished. They are: 1. Use large scrapers/loaders with street closure to complete the work quickly. 2. Use haul trucks, i.e., load, haul and unload, via City streets. 3. Use large scrapers/loaders crossing Hunte Parkway with flagger control. Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 Each of these alternatives will have impacts to the traffic circulation in the immediate area during the earth moving operation. A summary of each alternative is outlined below: Alternative 1 (See Exhibits B-1 and B-2) consists of using very large self-contained scrapers/loaders to move dirt from one site to the other in one quick, continuous operation. However, this method requires the complete closure of Htmte parkway during the entire operation. This work is anticipated to last a period of two (2) weeks minimum to four (4) weeks maximum. This time flame assumes 12-hour working days resulting in the movement of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of earth per day. Direct conflict with moving traffic is eliminated by closure of the road, which is also required in order to construct temporary crossings designed to prevent damage to the existing street improvements as a result of the extremely heavy loads carded by the scrapers. The temporary crossing consists of an earth cushion with steel plates to spread the load out and reduce its impact on the street improvements. Alternative 2 (See Exhibit B-3) is based on using trucks carrying street legal loads over the City streets to haul the dirt. This method is less efficient than Alternative 1 because it requires equipment to pick up the dirt, load it in the trucl~s, which will then cross Hunte Parkway, unload at the fill site and make the return trip. Besides being less efficient and more costly, there would most likely be traffic conflicts as the trucks cross Hunte Parkway. Eastlake's traffic engineer estimates 60 potential traffic conflicts per hour as a result of this operation. During this type of operation, flaggers shall be employed. Dirt spilled on City streets along the route would have to be cleaned up numerous times each day of operation. This operation is estimated to last a minimum of eleven (11) weeks with a maximum of fourteen (14) weeks. Alternative 3 (See Exhibit B-3) is similar to Alternative 2, but is based on using scrapers/loaders and flaggers to control traffic on Hunte Parkway. As a result, full street closure would not be necessary. Flaggers would have to stop traffic to allow the equipment to cross Hunte Parkway. This method will result in a potential for up to 60 traffic conflicts per hour in addition to delays and inconveniences to the public. Due to flaggers' control, this method would last a minimum of five (5) weeks with a maximum of eight (8) weeks to complete. In staflYs opinion, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not desirable for the following reasons: a) The trucks and the small scrapers are heavy enough to damage the street improvements with the number of repetitive trips being made, b) traffic on Hunte Parkway would be hindered while the trucks or scrapers are crossing, thereby causing frustrations for the motoring public and c) there is a greater potential for accidents, even though there may be flaggers employed to guide traffic. Alternative 1 creates less confusion to motorists, allows for a more efficient operation, and is less costly. EFFECT ON CITY STREETS Hunte Parkway has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 1140 for the section between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road. Closure of this segment of Hunte parkway will result in the need to detour those trips. Eastlake's traffic engineer has already prepared a detour plan in order to direct southbound traffic on Hunte Parkway to westbound Proctor Valley Road, Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 then southerly on Lane Avenue to Otay Lakes Road. Northbound traffic on Hunte Parkway from south of Otay Lakes Road will be directed westerly on Otay Lakes Road to Lane Avenue, then northerly on Lane Avenue to Proctor Valley Road, and easterly on Proctor Valley Road (See hib~t B-1 ). The total additional travel distance caused by the proposed detour ~s 3000 feet. Assuming a travel speed of 25 miles per hour, this translates into less than two minutes of delay when including a 30 second delay for turning movements at the intersections of Lane Avenue with Otay Lakes Road and Lane Avenue with Proctor Valley Road. Traffic counts on Hunte Parkway between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road as well as counts on Proctor Valley Road, Lane Avenue and Otay Lakes Road are presented on Table 1, which also includes the counts for each impacted roadway segment, Level Of Service (LOS) and estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and LOS for those segments. This is assuming that all motorists, who normally use Hunte Parkway, will utilize the detour. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CONDITIONS Roadway Ex. ADT Ex. LOS Total ADT LOS With Detour With Detour Hunte Parkway - Proctor Valley Road to 1140 A 0 N/A Lane Avenue Lane Avenue - Proctor Valley Road to 3900 A 5040 A Otay Lakes Road Otay Lakes Road - Lane Avenue to 6830 A 7970 A Hunte Parkway No Segment LOS will be adversely impacted by any diversion of traffic as a result of detouring traffic for this closure. Table 1 is a summary of the traffic impact analysis as presented in Exhibit "C". In addition, the closure of Hunte Parkway was examined to determine its impact on the Otay Lakes Road/Lane Avenue signalized intersection. The analysis concluded that the intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service in the AM and PM peak periods. In conclusion, staff recommends the approval of Alternative 1 and the authorization of the Director of Public Works to issue an Encroachment Permit for said closure subject to the following conditions: 1. The closure of Hunte Parkway shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) calendar days. If the grading work is not completed and the encroachment is not restored within 30 days from the start date of construction, Permittee shall be subject to the imposition of a $5,000 per day penalty at the City's sole discretion. Page 4, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 2. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the roadway crossing shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, at no expense to the City. 3. Ail street surface improvements shall be restored to their original condition, or better, upon removal of the temporary crossing. 4. Permittee is required to provide for structural calculations, prepared and signed by a structural engineer, to ensure there will be no potential of damaging the underground utilities. 5. A detour plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineering Section for review and approval prior to issuance of this permit. Said plan shall provide a satisfactory resolution to accommodate vehicular left turn movements from eastbound Otay Lake Road to northbound Lane Avenue. 6. Permittee shall post an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in an amount as determined by the City Engineer to guarantee the removal of the encroachment and repair of any damage to existing public improvements in a timely manner. 7. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and all expenses arising out of the conduct of Permittee, or any agent or employee, subcontractor or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agenda Statement, except only for those claims arising fi-om the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of City, its officers or employees. 8. Permittee agrees to provide for an emergency fire access through the closure area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. Other conditions reasonably required by the City Engineer. Notification of all affected parties, including the motoring public, shall be done by the permittee in the form of advance warning signs placed at all directions leading to that segment of Htmte Parkway affected by the proposed closure, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineering Section. FISCAL IMPACT: All staff costs, including possible public safety costs for traffic control approval and monitoring, will be paid for by Eastlake Development Company under either the Temporary Encroachment Permit application or the deposit for the grading permit. There will be no other affiliated costs, since the Eastlake Development Company is fully responsible for restoring the street to its original condition. Page 5, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 Attachments: Exhibit "A": Location of earthwork/grading operation on Hunte Parkway Exhibit "B-I": Alternative 1 traffic control Exhibit "B-2": Proposed detour route for Alternative 1 Exhibit "B-3": Alternative 2 & 3 traffic control Exhibit "C": Traffic Impact Analysis for Hunte Parkway closure proposal Revised By: Majed AI-Ghafry J:\EngineeCAGENDA\hunte parkway closure2.ma.doc EXHIBIT C · September 10, 2001 Mr. Ralph Levya City. of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 D&A Ref. No: 010811 Subject: Proposal to close Hume Parkway north of Otay Lakes Road for 30 days. Dear Mr. Lexg'a: On behalf of The Eastlake Company, LLC, Darnell & Associates, Inc. (D&A) has prepared the attached sketch showing the closure of Hunte Parkway from Otay Lakes Road to River Rock Road for a maximum of 30 days. The temporary road closure is needed so hauling vehicles can safely haul dirt from the west side of Hunte Parkway to the eastside for the development of Eastlake III. A dirt crossing approximately 100 feet wide is proposed to be created across Hunte Parkxvay such that the haul macks can easily transverse without severely deteriorating the existing pavement. The proposed crossing is located at the new proposed sn-eet access for Eastlake ITl Woods and Vistas. The ~ading plan for the project includes the necessa~, median removals to accommodate the crossing. While the section of Hunte Parkway is closed, a detour route around Hunte Parkway will need to be created. Figare 1 shows the proposed plan to detour traffic. As requested we have prepared sketches showing traffic control requirements for two additional alternatives. Alternative 2- Use street legal trucks and place on City streets with Flagger Control (See Figure 2) Alternative 3 - use large scrapers/loaders crossing Hunte Parkway with Flagger Control (See Figure 3) The closure of Hunte Parkway will result in 1140 vehicles being detoured to Proctor Valley Road, Lane Avenue and Otay Lakes Road. The impact of the closures is presented in Table 1. Table 1 presents daily traffic volumes and Level of Service for existing conditions and w/th the'proposed closure. 1446 FRONT STREET · SUITE 300 · SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 PHONE: 519-233 9373 · FAX: 619-22,3 -*034 Mr. Ralph Levya City of Chula Vista August 21,200t Page 2 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CONDITIONS Roadway Ex. ADT Ex. LOS Total ADT LOS With Detour With Detour Hunte Parkway - Proctor Valley Road to 1140 A 4~- N/A Lane Avenue Lane Avenue - Proctor Valley Road to 3900 A 5040 A Otay Lakes Road Otay Lakes Road - Lane Avenue to 6830 A 7970 A Hunte Parkway Reviexv of Table 1 shows that each roadway is presently operating at LOS A and with Hunte Parkway closure xxSll continue to operate at LOS A. Review o£AM/PM peak hour turning movements at Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road indicate that closure o£Htmte Parkway will have a nominal impact on peak hour mining movements at Otav Lakes Road/Hunte Parkway, Otay Lakes Roa&/Lane Avenue and Lane Avenue/Proctor Valley Roach. Figazre 4 depicts the existing daily and peak hourly traffic volumes and with the proposed closure of Hume Parkway. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, IN.C/I Bill E. DarnelI, P.E. D RCE:22338 BED/dw O10811ExhlbitC wpd\01-09 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEEN RIVER ROCK ROAD AND OTAY LAKES ROAD FOR MASS GRADING WORK WITHIN THE EASTLAKE III WOODS AND VISTAS PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR SAID CLOSURE WHEREAS, on behalf of the Eastlake Development Company, Darnell & Associates, Inc. (D&A), Eastlake's traffic engineering consultant, has prepared a proposal for the temporary closure of Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road; and WHEREAS, the temporary road closure is needed in order for earth-moving vehicles to safely haul dirt and rock trom the west side of Hunte Parkway to the east side of the roadway for the development ofEastiake III Woods and Vistas Projects; and WHEREAS, two earthen crossings approximately 80 feet wide are proposed to be created across that segment of Hunte Parkway so that the haul trucks can safely transverse the center median without causing any conflicts with cross traffic and without deteriorating the existing roadway; and WHEREAS, the southerly crossing is located at an approved future intersection with Hunte Parkway that will provide access to the proposed development east of Hunte Parkway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the temporary closure of Hunte Parkway between River Rock Road and Otay Lakes Road for mass grading work within the Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to issue a Temporary Encroachment Permit for Alternative I for said closure subject to the following conditions: 1. The closure of Hunte Parkway shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) calendar days. If the grading work is not completed and the encroachment is not restored within 30 days from the start date of construction, Permittee shall be subject to the imposition of a $5,000 per day penalty at the City's sole discretion. 2. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the roadway crossing shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, at no expense to the City. 3. All street surface improvements shall be restored to their original condition, or better, upon removal of the temporary crossing. q -/2- 9. 4. Permittee is required to provide for structural calculations, prepared and signed by a structural engineer, to ensure there will be no potential of damaging the underground utilities. 5. A detour plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineering Section for review and approval prior to issuance of this permit. Said plan shall provide a satisfactory resolution to accommodate vehicular left turn movements from eastbound Otay Lake Road to northbound Lane Avenue. 6. Permittee shall post an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in an amount as determined by the City Engineer to guarantee the removal of the encroachment and repair of any damage to existing public improvements in a timely manner. 7. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and all expenses arising out of the conduct of Permittee, or any agent or employee, subcontractor or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agenda Statement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of City, its officers or employees. 8. Permittee agrees to provide for an emergency fire access through the closure area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Other conditions reasonably required by the City Engineer. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works ¡~ C' Attorney nattomeylcesolhonte packway c]os"e 9-/3 2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Declaring City's intention to underground overhead utilities along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue and setting a public hearing for the formation of'Utility Underground District Number 133 for January 22, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works {~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager a~,c~ i)l' (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 164 l 5 accepting a report on the City's Utility Undergrounding Conversion Program and approving a revised list of utility underground conversion projects. On September 7, 2001, and October 12, 2001, Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) meetings were held at the site to determine the proposed boundary of an underground utility district for the conversion of existing overhead utilities. The proposed boundary is shown on attached Exhibit A. The district's limits extend along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That Cottncil approve the resolution declaring the City's intention to underground overhead utilities along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue and setting a public hearing for the formation of Utility Underground District Number 133 for January 22, 2002 at 6:00 p.ln. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of representatives of SD&E, Pacific Bell, Cox Communications, Chula Vista Cable and the City, agreed to propose to the City Council the formation of a district for the conversion of overhead utilities to underground along Fourth Avenue, between "L" Street to Orange Avenue. The proposed utility undergrounding district along Fourth Avenue is about 6,630 feet long (sec Exhibit A). The estimated cost for undergrounding the utilities is $1.15 Million. North of the proposed district, undergrounding of overhead utilities is currently being conducted. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count on Fourth Avenue between "L" Street and Orange Avenue is approximately 14,433. There is currently no date scheduled for the undergrounding of utilities along Fourth Avenue, south of'Orange Avenue. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of Fourth Avenue because: 1. Fourth Avenue is a major North/South thoroughfare in the western portion of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. This segment of Fourth Avenue is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Elements as a Class [ Collector street. 3. Undergrounding has been completed on Fourth Avenue from the North City limit to "H" Street. 4. Undergrounding construction work is currently in progress along Fourth Avenue, from "H" Street to "L" Street, thus making the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded section. it is not yet known if the SDG&E North Otay Substation, which is located within the district, just south of 971 Fourth Avenue, will be included in the underground district. SDG&E is currently completing a preliminary facility design and cost estimate for conversion of the property. Once the evaluation is completed, SDG&E will know if it feasible to include this substation in the underground district. A proposed "up-pole" is required at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue with L Street, approximately 30 feet west of the intersection. The proposed pole is required for connectivity of the subject undergrounding district's underground utilities to the existing overhead utilities along L Street. The "up-poles" are typical for this type of situation encountered during undergrounding. Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municip~-Code requires the City Council to set a public hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City to give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to underground utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the District and to require property owners to convert their service connections to underground. The conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and conduit installation from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a ~nechanism that helps property owners with the cost of the conversion work from the distribution lines to the structure. Said policy provides for the reimbursement of property owners at a rate of $35 per lineal foot of trenching, which is normally sufficient to cover total costs. Exhibit B shows a reimbursement schedule listing reimbursement amount for all 68 affected properties. The total reimbursement is approximately $100,000 and is included in the overall cost estimate of $1.I5 Million. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 Approval of this resolution will set a public hearing to be held during the City Council meeting of January 15, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., in accordance with Section 15.32.130 of the Municipal Code for the formation of this district. Section 15.32. 140 of the City Code requires the City Clerk to notify all affected persons and each utility company of the time and place of the public hearing at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Notice is to be given by mail to all property owners and occupants of property located within the boundaries of the proposed district. The City Clerk is required by said section of the Code to publish the Resolution of Intention, setting the public hearing in the local newspaper no less than five days prior to the date of the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $1.15 Million. SDG&E's allocation fimds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. All staff costs associated with the formation of this district are estimated to be approximately $50,000 and are not reitnbursable from the allocation lands. All staff'costs are borne by the general fund. Altachmcnt: Exhibit A Boundary Map Exhibit B -- Rcimburscment Schedule J:\ENGINEER~AGENDA\UUD 133 Intention jcm.doc 1; :)istrict Boundary Existing Poles UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Proposed Poles Parcels in Underground District FOURTH AVE, L ST TO ORANGE AVE Utilities affected EXHIBIT A c.uuwsr^ E: Electrical ~ T: Telephone OVERVIEW c: Cable /o District Boundary Existing Poles UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Proposed Poles Parcels in Underground District FOURTH AVE, L ST TO ORANGE AVE Utilities affected E: Electrical EXHIBIT A c.uuw~r^ ETC~.. T: Telephone PAGE 1 OF 2 C: Cable lO 1320 , ] ] ORA-G,- AV District Boundar~ Existing Poles UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Proposed Poles I]]] Parcels in Underground District FOURTH AVE, L ST TO ORANGE AVE Utilities affected E: Electrical E X H I B IT A C.UL* v,sr^ iETC~ T:relephone PAGE 2 OF 2 C: Cable 10-7 EXHIBIT "II" FOURTH AVENUE FROM "L" STREET TO ORANGE A VENUE UNDERGROUNG UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 133 (AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS) Chula Vista Elementary School District OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS San Diego Gas & meetrie Co. UUD ADDRESS 350 L St. 1. APN luTiLITIEsl----l ! I' FEET ~$ : I: I , I I I 6t"-OIO-44-IXJ 'ET C I 40 : $ ; I I I I TOTAL I ' 2194 I $ : I ICONTINGENCY ! I REIMBURSEMENT r ~--- - COMMENTS TRENCH METER, COST I 1.400.00 , $ 300.00 I $ 1,700.00 I SDG&E t.4(x),uol$ 3(XUXJI$ 1,7(XUXJ School I ' , : I I 74,690.00 I $ 16,200.00! $ 90,890.00, , $ 9,110,00 I SAY: $ 100,000.00 I I I I I l'IDT.E.:... ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER SUBMISSION OF REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST AND FIELD INSPECTION MAXIMUM REIMBURSABLE TRENCH IS 100 FEET UUD 133 list.xls Page 7 RESOLUTION NO, 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING CITY'S INTENTION TO UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES ALONG FOURTH AVENUE FROM "L" STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FORMATION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NUMBER 133 FOR JANUARY 22, 2002 AT 6:00 P,M, WHEREAS, Chapter 15,32 of the Chula vista Municipal Code establishes a procedure for the creation of underground utility districts and requires as the initial step in such procedure the holding of a public hearing to ascertain whether public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated service in any such district; and WHEREAS, on September 7 and October 12, 2001, Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) meetings were held at the site to determine the proposed boundary of an underground utility district along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that such an underground utility district, hereinafter called "District", be formed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Chula vista as follows: 1, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the city of Chula vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City on Tuesday, the 22nd day of January, 2002, at the hour of 6:00 p,m., to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar associated service in the District hereinabove described, At such hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to be heard, Said hearing may be 1 /0-11 continued from time to time as may be determined by the City Council, 2. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned of the time and place of such hearing by mailing a copy of this resolution to such property owners and utilities concerned at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date thereof, 3, The area proposed to be included in the District is as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J: \attorney\reoo\UUD Intention 133 2 /0-/5" Page 1, Item I I Meeting Date: 12-17-01 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: FORMATION OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT A) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Califomia, Acting in Its Capacity as the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) Declaring the Results ora Special Election in Such Community Facilities District and in Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B thereof' B) Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, Acting as the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) Authorizing the Levy ora Special Tax in Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B of such Community Facilities District C) Resolution of the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista, California, of consideration to increase the principal amount of bonded indebtedness authorized to be incurred within Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) for Improvement Area A SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works {~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~/5 ~ ,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X) On September 25, 2001, Council approved the Resolution of Intention to establish Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (CFD No. 2001-1) and set the public hearing for November 6, 200 I. Following the September Council meeting, NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch, LLC requested that the City Council continue the public hearing to December 4, 2001. On November 6, 2001, the City Council approved the continuance to December 4, 2001. On December 4, 2001, the City considered the approval of two Resolutions; 1) to form and establish a Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 and 2) declaring necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for each improvement area. On December l 2, 200 l a special election of eligible property owners was held at the City Attorney's office for the purpose of voting on the formation of the CFD No. 2001-1. Tonight's action will continue the formal proceedings by (a), certifying the election results, and (b) introducing and waiving the first reading of the Ordinance authorizing the levy of special taxes within CFD No. 2001 - 1, (c) considering to increase the principal amount of bonded indebtedness for Improvement Area A. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 RECOMMENDATION: That Council: · Approve the Resolution acting in its capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), declaring the results of a special election in such Community Facilities District and in Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B thereof, · Approve the Ordinance acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), authorizing the levy of a special tax in Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B of such Community Facilities District, and · Approve the Resolution to increase the principal amount of bonded indebtedness authorized to be incurred within Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) for Improvement Area A. DISCUSSION: Background As noted above, on December 4, 2001, the City Council held two concurrent public hearings pertaining to the formation of CFD No. 2001- l, the establishment of two Improvement Areas within CFD No. 2001-1, the levy of special taxes within each Improvement Area and the necessity to incur a bonded indebtedness of the District for each Improvement Area. Following the public heatings, the City Council adopted resolutions that made preliminary findings, passed upon the protests, approved the Special Tax Report, formed CFD No. 2001-1 and authorized the submittal to the qualified electors of each of the Improvement Areas within CFD No. 2001-1 of ballot measures to authorize the levy of special taxes for each of the Improvement Areas within CFD No. 2001-1, authorize the issuance of bonds of CFD No. 2001-1 for each Improvement Area and establish an appropriations limit for CFD No. 2001-1. Since the December 4'h City Council meeting the City and the Developer have requested that the bonded indebtedness be increased from $13,500,000 to $15,000,000 for Improvement Area A, due to an adjustment to the actual principal amount of bonds necessary to be issued for Improvement Area A to finance the authorized facilities. The adjustment to Improvement Area A up to $15,000,000 combined with Improvement Area B at $6,000,000 will adjust the overall total district bond authorization to $21,000,000 for CFD No. 200 I-1. These concurrent public hearings were held pursuant to the provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982". Community Facilities Districts such as CFD No. 2001-I provide the necessary funding mechanism for the acquisition or construction of public improvements by levying an annual "special tax", which is collected from the property owners in conjunction with the property taxes. On December 12,2001, in the City Attorney's office, the City Clerk, acting as the election official, conducted a special election and the qualified electors of each Improvement Area, i.e., the owners of land within each Improvement Area, voted upon the to authorize the levy of special taxes on Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 property within each Improvement Area of CFD No. 2001-1, to authorize the issuance of bonds of CFD No. 2001-1 for each Improvement Area and to establish an appropriations limit for CFD No. 2001-1. The City Clerk and the Special Tax Consultant presided over the proceedings, verified the eligible voters, signatures, and presented the election ballots. The results of the special election shows 100% of the votes were cast in favor of authoiizing the levy of the proposed special tax within each Improvement Area, the issuance of the bonds secured by such special taxes within the two hnprovement Areas A and B and the establishment of an appropriations limit for CFD No. 2001-1. There is no direct cost to the City. The expenses related to the district administration (including levying and collecting the special taxes) will be funded by the CFD No. 2001-I. The ultimate security for the bonds are the properties located within the district, not the City's General Fund or its ability to tax property within its jurisdiction. CFD No. 2001-1 has been formed in conformance with the "City of Chula Vista Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts" (CFD Policy) as adopted on January 13, 1998 and amended on July 28, 1998. CFD No. 2001-1 is consistent with established Ordinances and Council Policies. In addition, staff has met with the developer to discuss their concerns, clarify the intent of the policies and ordinances, and review the methodology for the apportionment of the special taxes. All of the issues raised by the developer have been discussed and solutions, satisfactory to all parties, have been incorporated in the "Rate and Method of Apportionment" (RMA) for each Improvement Area. District Boundaries Exhibit 1 (See Attachments) represents the recorded boundaries of the proposed CFD No. 2001-1 that include all parcels located within San Miguel Ranch owned by Trimark Pacific Homes. Exhibit A also depicts the boundaries of each of the Improvement Areas (A & B) designated within CFD No. 2001-1. The site is bordered on the north by the existing, unincorporated residential area of Surmyside, and SDG&E's Miguel Substation and transmission line right-of-way. The western boundary is the vacant Bonita Meadows site; while to the south are the existing Estancia single-family subdivision, the Mackenzie Creek neighborhood park, and the Thorgood Marshall Elementary School. The eastern boundary is the developing single-family neighborhoods within Rolling Hills Ranch and the Auld Golf Course. At buildout, the entire San Miguel Ranch will contain within improvement Area A-603 Single Family Detached Residences, 458 Attached Residences, 9.87 commercial acres, 43 acres of Community Facilities, and 13 acres for an Elementary School site. Improvement Area B contains approximately 285 Single Family Estate Residences. In addition there is some 247 acres being dedicated for open space use. There is one large parcel that recently was formed which will be exempt due to the future use as part of the SR 125 extension. This parcel's westerly edge is the dividing line between the two proposed Improvement Areas A and B. Page 4, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 The Improvements On December 4, 2001, Council approved the Special Tax Report, which includes "Rate and Method of Apportionment" for the special taxes authorized to be levied in each Improvement Area of CFD No. 2001-1. A separate "Rate and Method of Apportionment" has been prepared for each of the Improvement Areas A and B. The master developer (Trimark Pacific Homes) has requested that only the bonds for Improvement Area A be issued at this time. The bonds for Improvement Area B will be sold at a later date, given certain City of Chula Vista threshold requirements and other facilities constraints. Preliminary estimates show that the maximum tax revenue (using the proposed taxes) from all the taxable properties within Improvement Area A only, would support a total bonded indebtedness of approximately $14.1 million (assuming a 7.0% interest rate and a 30-year term on the bonds). A bond sale amount of $14.1 million will finance approximately $i 1.2 million in facilities (i.e. grading, landscaping, streets, utilities, drainage, sewer, etc). The maximum tax revenue (using the proposed taxes) from all taxable properties within Improvement Area B only, would support a total bonded indebtedness of approximately $5.3 million (assuming a 7.0 % interest rate and a 30 year term on the bonds). A bond sale amount of $5.3 will finance approximately $4.1 million in facilities (similar to the Improvement Area A). The balance provided by each Improvement Area would provide for a reserve fund, capitalized interest and pay district formation and bond issuance costs. As a result of the formation of CFD No. 2001-1, CFD No. 2001-I is authorized to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e., grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, and utilities) and public facilities DIF improvements. Following is a general description of the proposed facilities including, but not limited to: improvement Area A · Mount Miguel Road East · Proctor Valley Road East · Calle LaMarina · Paseo Vera Cruz · Calle La Quinta · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD No. 2001-I · Interim Transportation Facilities Improvement Area B · Mount Miguel Road West · Proctor Valley Road West · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD No. 2001-i · interim Transportation Facilities Page 5, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 The Acquisition/Finance Agreement between the City and NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch establishes the terms and conditions pursuant to which the authorized public improvements will be financed from the proceeds of bonds issued by CFD No. 2001-1 for each Improvement Area and specifies project priorities for the allocation of bond proceeds for each of the Improvement Areas A and B for the financing of such improvements. NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch has requested that CFD No. 2001-1 proceed to issue the bonds only for Improvement Area A at this time, which will provide an estimated $11.2 million in TDIF and Non-TDIF facilities to be funded by this district. A future bond sale for Improvement Area B will provide an estimated $4.1 million in facilities to be funded by this district. A final priority list by each Improvement Area, preliminary cost estimates of the improvements eligible, definitions, and allocation provisions for CFD No. 2001-1 financing will be stated within the Acquisition/Financing Agreement that is scheduled for the City's consideration. in early January. The actual amount to be financed by CFD No. 2001-1 would depend upon a number of factors including final interest rate on the bonds, and value to lien ratio, and may be higher than the combined total of $15.3 million mentioned above. Ultimately, as subdivision exactions, the developer will finance other improvements that CFD No. 2001-1 cannot finance. CFD No. 2001-1 lies within various Development Impact Fee (DIF) benefit areas, which places a cap on the CFD's ability to finance these DIF improvements. Special Tax Report A copy of the Special Tax Report for the Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) prepared by the Special Tax Consultant, McGill Martin Self, Inc., is included as Exhibit 2, and is on file, and available for public review in the City Clerk's Office. Said report incorporates both of the "Rate and Method of Apportionment" (RMA) for each of the Improvement Areas and establishes the procedures for levying the special taxes in CFD No. 2001-1. The district is divided into the following three Land Use Class classifications within each Improvement Area: Land Use Classes: 1) Applies only to Developed Residential Property; 2) Applies only to Developed Commercial Property; and 3) Applies only to Undeveloped Property The proposed Tax Rates for each Improvement Area are as follows: · Residential Developed Parcels (single family residences) are taxed on the square footage of the building. The proposed residential tax rates are as follows: Page 6, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 Residential Developed Parcels Maximum Annual Special Tax Land Use Class 1 - Improvement Area A $475.00 per Unit plus $.34 per square foot of Residential Floor Area Land Use Class 1 - Improvement Area B $475.00 per Unit plus $.32 per square foot of Residential Floor Area At the time the tax is levied, developed parcels are those parcels for which a building permit has been issued. This tax rate has been determined by a preliminary "2% maximum tax" analysis. Said analysis, which is based on estimated house sizes and prices, sets the amount of the maximum special tax that may be levied by CFD No. 2001-1 on residential parcels. It should be noted that a final test would be required at escrow closing using actual house sale prices. If the 2% limit is exceeded, the developer is required to buy down the lien to an amount sufficient to meet the 2% criteria. · Commercial Developed Parcels are taxed based on the acreage of the parcel. The proposed commercial tax rates are as follows: Commercial Developed Parcels Maximum Annual Special Tax Land Use Class 2 - Improvement Area A $5,091 per acre of Commercial Property Land Use Class 2 - Improvement Area B $5,091 per acre of Commemial Property At the time the tax is levied, developed parcels are those parcels for which a building permit has been issued. ' · The Undeveloped Land category includes all the parcels for which a building permit has not been issued. The tax on Undeveloped Land is based on the total acreage of the parcel (Refer to table below). During buildout, the collection from developed properties is not enough to cover the annual debt service and the undeveloped land taxes will cover the shortfall. The City Administrator will determine whether an undeveloped land tax is needed to meet the annual debt service. If no development occurs and the whole property remains undeveloped, the proposed tax will generate enough tax to cover the debt service on the bonds. The Undeveloped Property rates within both Improvement Areas are similar to the rates approved for other CFDs formed within Otay Ranch's Villages. This is based upon the land use mixes, facilities needs, exempted acreage, and square footage cost. Undeveloped Property Maximum Annual Special Tax Land Class 3 - Improvement Area A $10,376 per acre of Undeveloped Property Land Class 3 - Improvement Area B $4,578 per acre of Undeveloped Property Page 7, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 The RMA determines that no special tax shall be levied up to a net of approximately 122 acres within Improvement Area A and another 104 acres within Improvement Area B of Property Owner Association Property and Public Property. These acreages include all the parcels to be conveyed to a Property Owner Association or dedicated to the City. Any dedication of public property above the exempted acreage stated above would require a discharge of debt such that no public lands would be taxed. On the other hand, any Property Owner Association Property above the exempted acreage will be classified as Taxable Property Owner Association Parcel at the rates of $10,376 per acre for Improvement Area A and $ 4,578 per acre for Improvement Area B. These categories were created to provide additional assurance to prospective bond purchasers that the collectible tax will always cover the annual debt service. Since there will be a separate bond sale for each Improvement Area, the special tax for identical houses in area "A" and "B" will not be the same. Collection of Taxes First, the maximum special taxes will first be levied on the Developed Property within each Improvement Area. Second, if this pool of funds collected from the levy of special taxes within each Improvement Area is not enough to meet the annual debt service on the bonds issued for such Improvement Area, as may be the case in the early years of development, the City Administrator will levy a tax on the Undeveloped Property within such Improvement Area. Again, if additional monies are needed to meet annual debt service and administrative requirements for such Improvement Area after the first two steps have been completed, the special tax shall be levied proportionately on each parcel within such Improvement Area from the Assigned Special Tax to the Maximum Annual Special Tax by the application of the Backup Special Tax. If after these three steps are exhausted and there is still a need for additional monies, then the special tax shall be levied proportionately on each parcel within such Improvement Area for the Assigned Special Tax to the Maximum Annual Special Tax. After build-out of an Improvement Area, if determined by the City Administrator that the annual tax need is less than the collectible tax from the Developed Parcels within such Improvement Area, the special taxes to be levied within such Improvement Area in that specific year will be reduced proportionally. Since the taxable properties within Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B are proposed to be taxed at rates based on the square footage of the home or commercial property, the bondholders require protection in the event that the developer builds less than projected. The RMA for each improvement Area includes a Backup Special Tax where when each Final Map is recorded within an Improvement Area the Backup Special Tax will be applied or modified based on the actual square footage of Developed Property or Commercial Property. The Backup Special Tax formula includes the Backup Special Tax times the acreage (Final Map), divided by the number of lots (Final Map). The Backup Special Tax for Improvement Area A is $10,376 and Improvement Area B is $4,578. The two proposed "Rates and Methods of Apportionment" also include provisions for the prepayment of the special taxes in the event the developer or a future property owner decides to do SO, Page 8, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 Maximum Tax Policy Council Policy establishes that the maximum am~ual CFD special taxes applicable to any newly · developed residential property shall be no more than 1% of the sale price of the house. In addition, the aggregate of all annual taxes and assessments is limited to 2% of the sale price of the house. A preliminary calculation of the maximum tax, using estimated house prices, has been completed and all homes fall within the 2% limit. A final test will be performed at escrow closing using the actual sale price of the house. Council Policy requires that at or pr/or to each closing of escrow, the escrow company shall apply a "calculation formula" previously approved by the City Engineer to determine the aggregate of regular County taxes, Mello-Roos taxes, and assessment installments. If the 2% limit were exceeded, the developer would be required to provide cash to buy down the lien to an amount sufficient to meet the 2% tax ceiling. Compliance with this procedure would ensure that the aggregate tax to be paid by the purchaser of the house meets the City's criteria. Since the 2% limit is a City policy, the limit is not being included in the rate and method of the district. Value to Lien Ration Policy Council policy requires a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio. A ratio of less than 4:1, may be approved, at the sole discretion of Council, when it is determined that a ratio of less than 4:1 is financially prudent under the cimumstances of a particular CFD. A final appraisal and lien ratio analysis would be available for Council consideration prior to bond sale. If the final analysis shows parcels that fail to meet a ratio greater than 3:1, the developer would be required to either: · Provide cash or letters of credit to maintain the lien ratio within the City criteria; or, · The principal amount of the bonds to be issued for CFD No. 2001-1 will be reduced to comply with City policy; or, · Provide sufficient information to convince Council that a lesser lien ratio is prudent. The Resolutions/Ordinance There are two Resolutions and one Ordinance on today's agenda, which, if adopted, will accomplish the following: - Declare the results of a special election in such Community Facilities District, - Authorize the levy of special taxes within each Improvement Area (A & B) of CFD No. 2001-1, - Consider increasing the principal amount of bonded indebtedness authorized to be incurred within Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Page 9, Item Meeting Date: 12-17-01 Notice The property owners within the district have been notified of the election and voting procedures that took place on December 12~' in the City Attorney's office. The summary of the Ordinance has been prepared by the City Clerk and will be published in an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation between the first and second reading of the Ordinances for CFD No. 2001-1. Future Actions January 8, 2002, the City Clerk shall place the second reading on the City Council's agenda and upon approval the City Clerk will then cause the publication ora public notice of the Ordinance, specifying the approval, formation and levy ora special tax. In addition, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the consideration of increasing the bonded indebtedness to be incurred within Improvement Area A of the CFD No. 2001-1. At this meeting or shortly after, the City will be hearing formal actions approving the necessary bond documents pertaining to Improvement Area A. These documents will be Preliminary Official Statement, Bond indenture, Market Absorption Analysis, Appraisal, and other pertinent documents related to the bond sale for Improvement Area A. FISCAL IMPACT: None, the developer will pay all costs and has deposited money to fund initial consultant costs, and City costs in accordance with the approved Reimbursement Agreement. The City will receive the benefit of the full cost recovery for staff time involved in district formation (estimated at $40,000) and administration activities. Staffanticipates that most of the CFD No. 2001-1 administration will be contracted out. The CFD administration cost is estimated to be $75,000 annually thereafter. In accordance with the CFD Policy, as consideration for the City's agreement to use the City's bonding capacity to provide the financing mechanism for the construction of the proposed improvements, the developer will pay one percent (1%) of the principal amount of each bond issue. Since there will be phased bond sales, one for hnprovement Area A in the amount of $14.1 million ($141,000) and the second bond sale for improvement B in the amount of $5.3 million ($53,000). The monetary compensation will total $194,000. Each individual amount shall be paid prior to bond sale (Improvement Area A scheduled for February 2002) and will be deposited into the General Fund. The CFD Policy also stipulates that said compensation is not eligible for financing by CFD No. 2001-I. Attaclmlents: Exhibit 1: Recorded Boundary Map for CFD No. 2001-1 Exhibit 2: Special Tax Report: Corrnnunity Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) J:\engineer\aGENDA\CAS 12-18 cleanrev2 doc ti ..t0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT 1982 SPECIAL TAX REPORT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 IMPROVEMENT AREAS A AND B SAN MIGUEL RANCH For the City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA Prepared by McGill Martin Self, Inc. 344 F Street Suite 100 Chula Vista, California 91910 November 6, 2001 /t TABLE OFCONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 II. PROJECT DESCRiPTION ......................................................................... 2-3 111. DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................ 3 A. Description of Proposed Public Improvements ................................... 3-4 B. Estimated Cost of Proposed Public Improvements .............................. 4-5 IV. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES .................................... 6 A. Projected Bond Sales ............................................................... 6 B. Incidental Bond Issuance Expenses to be Included in the Proposed Bonded Indebtedness .........................................................................6 C. Incidental Expenses to be Included in the Annual Levy of Special Taxes .. 6 V. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX ..................... 7 A. Explanation for Special Tax Apportionment .................................... 7-8 B. Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates ............................................ 8 C. Backup Special Tax ................................................................ 8 D. Accuracy of Information ........................................................... 9 VI. BOUNDARIES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT .................................. 9 VII. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................... 9 A. Substitution Facilities .............................................................. 9 B. Interim Transportation Facilities.., ................................................ 9 C. Appeals .............................................................................. 9 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Recorded Boundary Map Exhibit B-1 Rate and Method of Apportionment - Improvement Area A Exhibit B-2 Rate and Method of Apportionment - Improvement Area B Exhibit C Assigned Maximum Special Tax Rates [. INTRODUCTION WHEREAS, the City of Cbuia Vista did, pursuant to the provision of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (hereinaRer referred to as the "Act"), and specifically Section 53321.$ thereof, expressly order the filing of a written "Report" with the legislative body of the proposed Commanity Facilities District. This Community Facilities District being Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) shall hereinafter be referred to as: "CFD No. 2001-1"; and WHEREAS, the Resolution Ordering and Directing the Preparation of a Report for Proposed Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) did direct that said Report generally contain the following: FACILITIES: A full and complete description of the public facilities the acquisition of which are proposed to be financed through the CFD. COST ESTIMATE: A general cost estimate setting forth costs of acquiring such facilities. SPECIAL TAX: Further particulars and documentation regarding the rate and method of apportionment for the authorized special tax. NOW, THEREFORE, I, John Lippitt P.E., the Director of Public Works of the City of Chula Vista, and the appointed responsible officer directed to prepare this Special Tax Report or cause the Report to be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Act, do hereby submit this Report. ( ~,mmunity Facilities District No. 2001-1 Page 1 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CFD No. 2001-1 encompasses approximately 782.98 gross acres of land located in the portion o£ the south San Diego City of Chula Vista known as "San Miguel Ranch". Refer to Exhibit A - £or a reduced copy of the Recorded Boundary Map. O£this acreage, approximately 257.38 acres is expected to be developed by several merchant buiIders for residential and commercial development, 43 acres for Community FaciIities and 13 acres for an Elementary school site. This Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2001-1) is divided by SR 125 into two separate areas, Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B. Improvement Area A Improvement Area A consists of approximately 474.86 gross acres of land to the east of SR 125 in CFD No. 2001-1. Of this acreage, approximately 125.61 acres is designated for residential housing. Currently Continental Residential Inc., Pardee Construction Company and Trimark Pacific Homes have purchased Planning Areas. Continental Residential Inc. has purchased Planning Area C and will build approximately Il0 single-family attached units. Pardee Construction Company has purchased Planning Area D and will build approximately 107 single- family detached homes. Both of these areas, lots will have a minimum size of 4,000 square feet. Trimark Pacific Homes (related entity to NNP-Trimark San Miguel, LLC) have purchased Planning Area I and will build approximately 105 single-family homes. These lots will have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet. The remaining 348 single-family attached product will be built as part of Planning Areas A and B, and the remaining 496 single-family detached homes will be built as part of Planning Area E, F, G, H and I. These lots will be built out as other merchant builders pumhase units and/or NNP- Trimark San Miguel, LLC proceeds with construction. At build-out, it is expected that Improvement Area A will consist of approximately 603 Single Family Detached Units, 458 Single Family Attached Units, 9.87 acres for commercial development, 43 acres for Community Facilities and 13 acres for an Elementary school site as shown on the approved master Map No. CVT 99-04. The Single Family Uses are anticipated to generate approximately 2,101,125 square feet of residential building square footage. The total exempt acreage for this improvement area including the 10% contingency factor is 352.93 acres. Special taxes for CFD No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) Improvement Area A shall be levied to Taxable Property to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement as follows: First, to Developed Property up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax; · Second, if necessary, to Undeveloped Property up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; o Third, if necessary, Maximum Annual Special Tax derived by the application of the Backup Special Tax increased proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax and Community Facilities District No. 2001 I PaRe 2 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 I/.- · Fourth, if necessary, Special Tax increased proportionately, to Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E of Exhibit B-I up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Improvement Area B Improvement Area B consists of approximately 308.12 gross acres of land to the west of SR 125 in CFD No. 2001-1. Of this acreage, approximately 121.90 acres is designated for residential estate housing. Lots in Planning Area J range from 7,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet and lots in planning Area K and L range from 15,000 to 27,000 square feet for these Estate residences. At build-out it is expected that there will be approximately 285 Single Family Estate Residences as shown on the approved Master Map No. CVT 99-04. The Single Family Uses are anticipated to generate approximately 1,059,432 square feet of residential building square footage. The total exempt acreage for this improvement area including the 15% contingency factor is 204.5 acres. Special taxes for CFD No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) Improvement Area B shall be levied to Taxable Property to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement as follows: · First, to Developed Property up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax; · Second, if necessary, to Undeveloped Property up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; · Third, if necessary, Maximum Annual Special Tax derived by the application of the Backup Special Tax increased proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax and · Fourth, if necessary, Special Tax increased proportionately, to Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E of Exhibit B-2 up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. III. DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED FACILITIES A. Description of Proposed Public Improvements A community facilities district may provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or tangible property, including public facilities and infrastructure improvements with an estimated useful life of five (5) years or longer, which is necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as a result of development or rehabilitation occurring within the community facilities district. In addition, a community facilities district may pay in full all mounts necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the community facilities district. Community Facilities District No 200l-1 Page 3 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 [r'~ The facilities described in this Report are all facilities which the legislative body creating CFD No. 2001-1 is authorized to own, construct, or finance, and which are required, in part, to adequately meet the needs of CFD No. 2001-1. In addition, the facilities meet the criteria for authorized public facilities set forth in the City's Statement of Goals and Policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts. The actual facilities described herein are those currently expected to be required to adequately meet, in part, the needs of CFD No. 2001-1. Because the actual needs of CFD No. 2001-1 arising as development progresses therein may differ from those currently anticipated, CFD No. 2001-1 reserves the right to modify the actual facilities proposed herein to the extent CFD No. 2001-1 deems necessary, in its sole discretion to meet those needs. The Special Taxes required to pay for the construction or financing of said facilities will be apportioned as described in the Rate and Method of Apportiomnent (RMA) of the Special Tax for CFD No. 2001-1 Improvement Area A (Exhibit B-l) and CFD No. 2001- 1 Improvement Area B (Exhibit B-2). Proceeds of the proposed bonded indebtedness of CFD No. 2001-1 will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e., grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), public facilities DIF Improvements and interim transportation facilities. Following is a general description of the proposed facilities: Improvement Area A · Mount Miguel Road East · Proctor Valley Road East · Calle La Marina · Paseo Vera Cruz · Calle La Quinta · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD 2001-1 Improvement Area B · Mount Miguel Road West · Proctor Valley Road West · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD No. 2001-1 In addition to the above improvements, this CFD's bonding capacity maybe used for certain SR-125 interim transportation facilities within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista. These transportation facilities will be traffic capacity adding improvements and could include the following projects: Community Facilities District No. 200[-1 Page 4 San Miguel Rancb November 2001 · Interim SR-125 · 1-805/East "H" Street an additional on-ramp lane to 1-805 B. Estimated Cost of Proposed Public Improvements The facilities and the estimated costs herein are subject to review and confirmation. The costs listed in Table 1, are estimates only, based upon current construction and land costs and actual costs may differ from those estimates herein. Based on the current CFD No. 2001-1 cost estimates of approximately $19.4 million, with $11.2 million set aside for reimbursement of eligible costs for Improvement Area A and $4.1 million set aside for reimbursement of eligible costs for Improvement Area B to be financed with CFD bond proceeds, the balance will be bom by the developers. TABLE 1 IMPROVEMENT AREA A Facilities Improvements Estimated Cost · Mount Miguel Road East $5,710,906 · Proctor Valley Road East $459,153 · Calle La Marina $3,661,229 · Paseo Vera Cruz $717,259 · Calle La Quinta $974,186 · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD No. 2001-1 Community Facilities District No. 2001-I Page 5 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 1i-i7 IMPROVEMENT AREA B Facilities Improvements Estimated Cost · Mount Miguel Road West $3,824,396 · Proctor Valley Road West $l,375,454 · Those Facilities to be financed from the Proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees payable as a condition of development of property within CFD No. 2001-1 IV. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES A. Project Bond Sale For CFD No. 2001-1 there will be two separate issuance of bonds. One for Improvement Area A and one for Improvement Area B each with its own accounting, processing, and specifics to its obligated improvements within the CFD No. 2001-1. The bond mount for CFD No. 2001-1 Improvement Area A will be $14.1 million, which will finance approximately $11.2 million in facilities. The bonds issued by CFD No. 200l-1 Improvement Area B will be $5.3 million, which will finance approximately $4.1 million in facilities. The bonds issued by CFD No. 2001-1 Improvement Areas A and B will meet the terms and conditions of special tax bonds set forth in the City's Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts. B. Incidental Bond Issuance Expenses to be Included in the Proposed Bonded Indebtedness for Improvement Areas A and B Pursuant to Section 53345.3 of the Act, bonded indebtedness may include all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of the purpose for which the proposed debt is to be incurred, including, but not limited to, the costs of legal, fiscal, and financial consultant fees; bond and other reserve funds; discount fees; interest on any bonds of the district due and payable prior to the expiration of one year from the date of completion of the facilities, not to exceed two years; election costs; and all costs of issuance of the bonds, including, but not limited to, fees for bond counsel, costs of obtaining credit ratings, bond insurance premiums, fees for letters of credit, and other credit enhancement costs, and printing costs. The reserve fund is estimated to be the maximum allowable under Federal Tax Law. All other incidental bond issuance expenses are estimated at 4 percent of the face amount of the bonds. Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Page 6 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 C. Incidental Expenses to be Included in the Annual Levy of Special Taxes for Improvement Areas A and B Pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act, the proceeds of any special tax may only be used to pay, in whole or part, the cost of providing public facilities, services and incidental expenses. As defined by the Act, incidental expenses include, but are not limited to, the cost of planning and designing public facilities to be financed, including the cost of environmental evaluations of those facilities; the costs associated with the creation of the district, issuance of bonds, determination of the amount of taxes, collection of taxes, payment of taxes, or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the district; any other expenses incidental to the construction, completion, and inspection of the authorized work; and the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. While the actual cost of administering CFD No. 2001-1 may vary, it is anticipated that the amount of special taxes, which can be collected, will be sufficient to fund at least $75,000 in annual administrative expenses prior to build-out of the project. V. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX All of the property located within CFD No. 2001-1, unless exempted by law, shall be taxed for the purpose of providing necessary facilities to serve CFD No. 2001-1. Pursuant to Section 53325.3 of the Act, the tax imposed "is a Special Tax and not a special assessment, and there is no requirement that the tax be apportioned on the basis of benefit to any property." The Special Tax "may be based on benefit received by parcels of real property, the cost of making facilities or authorized services available to each parcel or other reasonable basis as determined by the legislative body," although the Special Tax may not be apportioned on an ad valorem basis pursuant to Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. As shown in Exhibit B-1 and B-2, for Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B respectively, the amended Rate and Method of Apportionment provides information sufficient to allow each property owner within CFD No. 2001-1 to estimate the maximum annual Special Tax he or she will be required to pay. Sections A through C, below, provide additional information on the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax for CFD No. 2001-1. A. Explanation for Special Tax Apportionment When a community facilities district is formed, a Special Tax may be levied on each parcel of taxable property within the CFD to pay for the construction, acquisition and rehabilitation of public facilities, to pay for authorized services or to repay bonded indebtedness or other related expenses incurred by CFD No. 2001-1. This Special Tax must be apportioned in a reasonable manner; however, the tax may not be apportioned on an ad valorem basis. When more than one type of land use is present within a community facilities district, several criteria may be considered when apportioning the Special Tax. Generally, criteria based on building square footage, acreage, and land uses are selected, and categories Community Facilities District No. 2001 1 Page 7 San Miguel Ranch November 200l /!-lq based on such criteria are established to differentiate between parcels of property. These categories are a direct result of the developer's projected product mix, and are reflective of the proposed land use types within that community facilities district. Specific Special Tax levels are assigned to each land use class, with all parcels within a land use class assigned the same Special Tax rate. The Act does not require the Special Taxes to be apportioned to individual parcels based on benefit received. However, in order to insure fairness and equity, benefit principles have been incorporated in establishing the Special Tax rates for CFD No. 2001-1. The major assumption inherent in the Special Taxes rates set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment is that the level of benefit received from the proposed public improvements is a function of land use. This assumption is borne out through an examination of commonly accepted statistical measures. For example, in measuring average weekday vehicle trip-ends, the Institute of Transportation Engineer's 1995 Trip Generation report identifies land use as the primary determinant of trip-end magnitude. Commercial land uses typically generate more trip- ends than do single family residential land use. Similarly, larger single family detached dwellings typically generate a greater number of trip-ends than do smaller single family detached homes, and therefore, will tend to receive more benefit from road grading, road landscaping and road improvements. Drainage and flood control requirements generally vary with the amount of impervious ground cover per parcel. It follows that larger homes which have more impervious ground cover will create relatively more drainage flow than smaller homes. Special taxes for CFD No. 2001-1 Improvement Areas A and B (San Miguel Ranch) shall be levied to Taxable Property to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement as outlined in the CFD No. 2001-1 Improvement Area A and B RMA's. The Land Use Class Categories of Taxation have been established for CFD No. 2001-1. The categories are defined as follows: > Residential Developed Parcels (single and multi-family residences) are taxed on the square footage of the building; > Undeveloped Parcels are taxed based on acreage of the parcel; and Based on the types of public facilities that are proposed for CFD No. 2001-1 and the factors described above, the Special Taxes assigned to specific land uses are generally proportionate to the relative benefits received by them, and, accordingly, the Special Taxes in CFD No. 2001-1 can be considered fair and reasonable. Conlmunity Facilities District No 2001-1 Page 8 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 B. Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates Exhibit C lists the Maximum Annual Special Tax rates that may be levied against Developed Property, and Undeveloped Property within CFD No. 2001-1. Exhibit C also lists the Backup Special Tax (described later). The City Council will annually determine the actual amount of the Special Tax levy based on the method described in RMA and subject to the maximum Special Tax rates contained in Exhibit C. The City will levy a Special Tax to the extent necessary, sufficient to meet the Special Tax Requirement. C. Backup Special Tax When a Final Map is recorded within each Improvement Area, the Backup Special Tax for Assessors Parcels of Developed Property classified as Residential Property or Commercial Property will be determined pursuant to section c.l.b of Exhibit B-1 for Improvement Area A and c. 1.b of Exhibit B-2 for Improvement Area B. D. Accuracy of Information In order to establish the Maximum Annual Special Tax rates and the Backup Special Tax as set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment for CFD No. 2001-1, McGill Martin Self, Inc. has relied on information including, but not limited to absorption, land- use types, building square footage, and net taxable acreage which were provided to McGill Martin Self, Inc. by others. McGill Martin Self, Inc. has not independently verified such data and disclaims responsibility for the impact of inaccurate data provided by others, if any, on the Rate and Method of Apportionment for CFD No. 2001-1, including the inability to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 2001-1. VI. BOUNDARIES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT The boundaries of CFD No. 2001-I include all land on which the Special Taxes may be levied. The Recorded Map of the area included within CFD No. 2001-1 is provided as Exhibit A. VII. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. SUbstitution Facilities The description of the public facilities, as set forth herein, are general in their nature. The final nature and location of improvements and facilities will be determined upon the preparation of final plans and specifications. The final plans may show substitutes, in lieu or modifications to the proposed work in order to accomplish the work of improvement, and any such substitution shall not be a change or modification in the Community Facilities District No. 2001-I Page 9 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 /t proceedings as long as the facilities provide a service and are of a type substantially similar to that as set forth in this Report. B. Interim Transportation Facilities The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to authorize and make the proceeds of any subsequent series of bonds available to pay the cost of construction or the purchase price for the acquisition of Improvements for Interim Transportation Facilities. This could result in the revision of the facilities priority structure for the utilization of such proceeds. C. Appeals Any landowner who feels that the amount of the Special Tax is in error may file a notice with the City Administrator, appealing the levy of the Special Tax pursuant to the procedure specified in Exhibit B-1 and B-2. As appropriate the City Administrator will then review the appeal and, if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the findings of the representative verify that the amount of the Special Tax should be modified or changed, then, as appropriate, the Special Tax levy shall be corrected. Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Page 10 &m Miguel Ranch November 2001 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) RECORDED BOUNDARY MAP Community Facilities District No 2001 I Page I1 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 EXHIBITS B-1 AND B-2 SEE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA EXHIBIT C CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITiES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 IMPROVEMENT AREAS A AND B (San Miguel Ranch) MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY Maximum Annual Special Tax for Developed Property in Land Use Class 1 Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Residential Developed Parcels Maximum Annual Special Tax $475.00 per unit plus $.34 per square foot of Land Use Class 1 - Improvement Area A Residential Floor Area Land Use Class 1 - Improvement Area B $475.00 per unit plus $.32 per square foot of Residential Floor Area Maximum Annual Special Tax for Developed Property in Land Use Class 2 Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Commercial Developed Parcels Maximum Annual Special Tax Land Use Class 2 - Improvement Area A $5,091 per acre of Commercial Property Land Use Class 2 - Improvement Area B $5,091 per acre of Commercial Property Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Land Use Class 3 Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Undeveloped Property Maximum Annual Special Tax Land Use Class 3 - Improvement Area A $10,376 per acre of Undeveloped Property Land Use Class 3 - Improvement Area B $4,578 per acre of Undeveloped Property Community Facilities District No. 2001 I Page 14 San Miguel Ranch November 2001 RESOLUTION NO.2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND IN IMPROVEMENT AREA A AND IMPROVEMENT AREA B THEREOF WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the "City Council"), has previously undertaken proceedings to create and did establish a Community Facilities District and to designate two separate improvement areas therein pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982," being Chapter 2.5, Part I, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law"). This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) (the "District") and the improvement areas shall be designated as IMPROVEMENT AREA A and IMPROVEMENT AREA B; and, WHEREAS, this City Council did call for and order to be held an election to submit to the qualified electors of each improvement area of the District a proposition relating to the levy of special taxes within such improvement area and the issuance of bonds to be secured by the levy of special taxes within such improvement area and a separate proposition relating to the establishment of an appropriations limit for the District; and, WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measures voted upon and each such measure did receive the favorable 2/3' s vote of the qualified electors, and this City Council desires to declare the results of the election in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are all true and correct. /1-27 SECTION 2. This City Council hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the City Clerk, acting in her capacity as the Election official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes cast in the election, the measures voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measures voted upon. A copy of said Certificate and Statement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit" A" , referenced and so incorporated. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, to enter in the minutes the results of the election as set forth in said STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~~~ John M. Kaheny City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works ¡'\attorney\reso\SMR Deela, Election Results. 12-18-01.doe 2 II - 2l? EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) The undersigned, ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Government Code and Division 12, commencing with Section 17000 of the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) SPECIAL ELECTION in said City, held December 12, 2001. I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in said District in said City, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measures in said District in said City, and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measures are full, true and correct. Improvement Area A 1. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION A: YES NO 2. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION B: YES NO Improvement Area B 3. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION C: YES NO 4. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION D: YES NO 3 Improvement Areas A & B 5. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION E: YES NO WITNESS my hand this day of ,2001. CITY CLERK ELECTION OFFICIAL CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA i:\Engineer\AGENDA\Res Declar Election Results, I2 18-01.doc 4 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN IMPROVEMENT AREA A AND IMPROVEMENT AREA B OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the "City Council"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors authorizing the levy of separate special taxes in separate improvement areas of a community facilities district, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1. Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law"). This Community Facilities District is designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) (the "District") and the improvement areas therein are designated as IMPROVEMENT AREA A and IMPROVEMENT AREA B (individually, an "Improvement Area" and collectively, the "Improvement Areas"). The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. This City Council does, by the passage of this ordinance, authorize (a) the levy of special taxes on taxable properties located in Improvement Area A pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes as set forth in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Improvement Area A - Rate and Method") and (b) the levy of special taxes on taxable properties located in Improvement Area B pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Improvement Area B - Rate and Method"). SECTION 2. This City Council, acting as the legislative body of the District, is hereby further authorized, by Resolution, to annually determine the special tax to be levied within Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B for the then current tax year or future tax years; provided, however, the special tax to be levied in Improvement Area A shall not exceed the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Improvement Area A - Rate and Method and the special tax to be levied in Improvement Area B shall not exceed the /1-3/ maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Improvement Area B - Rate and Method. SECTION 3. The special taxes herein authorized to be levied within the Improvement Areas, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes; provided, however, the District may utilize a direct billing procedure for any special taxes that cannot be collected on the County tax roll or may, by resolution, elect to collect the special taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations. SECTION 4. The special taxes authorized to be levied in each Improvement Area shall be secured by the lien imposed pursuant to Sections 3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall be a continuing lien and shall secure each levy of the special tax. The lien of the special tax shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid, permanently satisfied and canceled in accordance with Section 53344 of the Government Code of the State of California or until the special tax ceases to be levied by the City Council in the manner provided in Section 53330.5 of said Government Code. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. Presented by: Approved as to form by: (À,~~~ John M. Kaheny City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Work ilattorneylOrdlSMR Authorize Special Taxdoc 2 ) J -32 EXHIBIT A RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1, IMPROVEMENT AREA A (San Miguel Ranch) A Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property within the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 ("CFD No. 2001-I, Improvement Area A") and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2002-03, in an amount determined by the City Council through the application of the appropriate Special Tax for "Developed Property," and "Undeveloped Property," as described below. All of the real property in CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to thc extent and in the manner herein provided. A. DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings: "Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, record of survey, or other recorded document creating or describing the parcel. If the preceding maps are not available, the Acreage shall be detemfined by the City Engineer. "Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. "Administrative Expenses" means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A or any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A or any designee thereof of complying with City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A or obligated persons disclosure requirements associated with applicable federal and state securities laws and of the Act; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, CFD No. 2001-1, CiO~ c~f Chula Vista Com~nuni(v Facilitiea District No 2001-1 &~n Miguel Ranch Improvement Area A Page A -I Improvement Area A or any designee thereof related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account, if any. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A for any other administrative purposes of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A, including attorney's fees and other costs related to comznencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes. "Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number. "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number. "Assigned Special Tax" means the Special Tax for each Land Use Category of Developed Property as determined in accordance with Section C. 1.a. "Available Funds" means the balance in the reserve fund established pursuant to the terms of the Indenture in excess of the reserve requirement as defined in such Indenture, delinquent special tax payments, the Special Tax prepayments collected to pay interest on Bonds, and other sources of funds available as a credit to the Special Tax Requirement as specified in such Indenture. "Backup Special Tax" means the Special Tax amount set forth in Section C.1 .b. below. "Bonds" means any bonds or other debt (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more series, issued by CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A under the Act. "CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes. "CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A" means City of Chula Vista, Community Facilities District No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A (San Miguel Ranch). "City" means the City of Chula Vista. "Commercial Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more non- residential structures, excluding Community Purpose Facility Property. "Community Purpose Facility Property" means all Assessor's Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452. City r~['Chula Vista CommuniO, Facilitiex District No 200l I &In Miguel Ranch hnprovement Area A Page A 2 "Council" means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. "County" means the County of San Diego. "Developed Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit for new construction was issued prior to March 1 of the prior Fiscal Year. "Final Map" means a subdivision of property created by recordation of a final map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment, approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352 that creates individual lots for which residential building permits may be issued without further subdivision of such property. "Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. "Indenture" means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same. "Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Section C. "Lot(s)" means an individual legal lot created by a Final Map for which a building permit for residential construction has been or could be issued. "Master Developer" means the owner of the predominant amount of Undeveloped Property in CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. "Maximum Annual Special Tax" means the maximum annual Special Tax, determined in accordance with the provisions of Section C below, that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property. "Occupied Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property which have closed escrow to an end user. "Outstanding Bonds" means all Bonds which remain outstanding. City oj Chula Vi3ta Uommunity Facilities Distric! No. 2001-1 San Miguel Ranch - Improvement Area A Page A 3 "Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A owned by or dedicated to a property owner association, including any master or sub-association. "Proportionately" means for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Assigned Special Tax or Backup Special Tax is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. For Undeveloped Property "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy per Acre to the Maximum Annual Special Tax per Acre is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. "Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A that is used for rights-of-way or any other purpose and is owned by or dedicated to the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City or any other public agency. "Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units. "Residential Floor Area" means all of the square footage of living area within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Residential Floor Area shall be made by reference to appropriate records kept by the City's Building Department. Residential Floor Area will be based on the building permit(s) issued for each dwelling unit prior to it being classified as Occupied Residential Property, and shall not change as a result of additions or modifications made after such classification as Occupied Residential Property. "Special Tax" means the annual special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement "Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A to: (i) pay annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds as defined in Section A.; (ii) pay periodic costs on the Bonds, including but not limited to, credit enhancement and rebate payments on the Bonds; (iii) pay Administrative Expenses; (iv) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve funds for all Outstanding Bonds in accordance with the Indenture; (v) and pay directly for acquisition and/or construction of public improvements which are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A; (vi) less a credit for Available Funds. "State" means the State of Calilbrnia. (7it), q[ Chula l/tsta ('ommunit)' Facilities District No 2001-1 San Miguel Ranch hnp~wvement Area A Page A -4 "Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-i, Improvement Area A which are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. "Trustee" means the trustee, fiscal agent, or paying agent under the Indenture. "Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property. B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and D below. Furthermore, Developed Property shall be classified as Residential Property or Commercial Property. C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE 1. Developed Property The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Commercial Property that is classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (1) the Assigned Special Tax described in Table 1 below or (2) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. a. Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property Land Use Class Description Assigned Special Tax Residential Property $475.00 per unit plus $0.34 per 1 square foot of Residential Floor Area 2 Commercial Property $5,091 per Acre of Commercial Property ('it), qf Chula Vista Cbmmuni(p Facilities District No, 2001-1 3'an Miguel Ranch bnprovement Area A Page b. Backup SpecialTax When a Final Map is recorded within Improvement Area A, the Backup Special Tax for Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property classified as Residential Property or Commercial Property shall be determined as follows: For each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property classified as Residential Property or for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property to be classified as Residential Property within the Final Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be the rate per Lot calculated according to the following formula: $I0,376 x A L The terms above have the following meanings: B = Backup Special Tax per Lot in each Fiscal Year. A- Acreage classified or to be classified as Residential Property in such Final Map. L - Lots in the Final Map which are classified or to be classified as Residential Property. For each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property classified as Commercial Property or for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property to be classified as Commercial Property within the Final Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be determined by multiplying $10,376 by the total Acreage of the Commercial Property and Undeveloped Property to be classified as Commercial Property within the Final Map area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property, Commercial Property or Undeveloped Property for which the Backup Special Tax has been determined are subsequently changed or modified by recordation of a new or amended Final Map, then the Backup Special Tax applicable to such Assessor's Parcels shall be recalculated to equal the amount of Backup Special Tax that would have been generated if such change did not take place. 2. Undeveloped Property The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property shall be the amount shown in Table 2 below: ('it3, r~f Chula Vista Cbmmunity Facilities District No 2001 1 San Ml~,uel Ranch lmprove~nent Area A Page A -6 t t TABLE 2 Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property Land Use Class Description Maximum Annual Special Tax 3 Undeveloped Property $10,376 per Acre D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2002-03 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the mnount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property, excluding any Assessor's Parcels classified as Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E, at up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Assessor's Parcel whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is derived by the application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E at up to 100 % of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Occupied Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent per year as a consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of Special Taxes by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. City oJ Chuh~ Vista Community Facilities District No. 2001-I San Miguel Ranch - hnprovement Area A Page A -7 E. EXEMPTIONS The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property (i) Assessor's Parcels defined as Public Property, (ii) Assessor's Parcels defined as Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Assessor's Parcels which are used as places of worship and are exempt from ad valorem property taxes because they are owned by a religious organization, (iv) Assessor's Parcels defined as Community Purpose Facility Property or (v) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, provided that no such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 121.93 Acres. Notwithstanding the above, the CFD Administrator shall not classify an Assessor's Parcel as exempt property if such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 121.93 Acres. Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as exempt property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than 121.93 Acres will be classified as Undeveloped Property and shall be taxed as a part of the fourth step in Section D. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes exempt property. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any Public Property which cannot be classified as exempt property as described in the first paragraph of Section E shall be prepaid in full by the seller pursuant to Section H.1, prior to the transfer/dedication of such property. Until the Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any such Public Property is prepaid, the property shall continue to be subject to the levy of the Special Tax as Undeveloped Property pursuant to the fourth step in Section D. F. REVIEW/APPEAL COMMITTEE Thc Council shall establish as part of the proceedings and administration of CFD No. 2001- 1, Improvement Area A, a special three-member Review/Appeal Committee. Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error may file a written notice with the Review/Appeal Committee appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. The Review/Appeal Committee may establish such procedures as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all persons. City oj Chu[a Vi3ta C~)mmunity Facilities District No. 2001-/ &tn Miguel Ranch - hnprovement Area .4 Pa~e A -8 G. MANNER OF COLLECTION The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on Assessor's Parcels which are delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes. Tenders of Bonds may be accepted for payment of Special Taxes upon the terms and conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically approved by the Council. H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The following definition applies to this Section H: "Outstanding Bonds" means all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of Maximum Annual Special Taxes. 1. Prepayment in Full The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation may only be prepaid and permanently satisfied by an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, or Public Property. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation applicable to such Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax permanently satisfied as described herein; provided that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this figure. City qf Ohula Pixta CommuniO' Facilities Dixtrict No. 2001 I San Miguel Ranch hnprovement Area A Page A 9 t/- I The Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit less Capitalized Interest Credit Total: equals Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows: Paragraph No.: 1. For Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for that Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has already been issued for that Assessor's Parcel. For Assessor's Parcels of Public Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for that Assessor's Parcel using the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. 2. Divide the Maximum Annual Special Tax computed pursuant to paragraph 1 by the sum of the total expected Maximum Annual Special Tax revenues excluding any Assessor's Parcels which have been prepaid. 3. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount "). 4. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 5. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds. 6. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. Ct'(?,' ~/Chula l/i3ta (Tmlmunit?; Fttciliti(,s District No. 2001-I &m Miguel Ranch lmproveme~t Area A Page A -10 7. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which have not yet been paid. 8. Compute the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the reinvestment of the Prepayment Amount less the Administrative Fees and Expenses from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment. 9. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7 and subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 8 (the "Defeasance Amount"). 10. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A, including the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 11. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. 12. If any capitalized interest for the Outstanding Bonds will not have been expended at the time of the first interest and/or principal payment following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 13. The Maximum Annual Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 9, and 10, less the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 (the "Prepayment Amount"). 14. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to retire Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount computed pursuant to paragraph 10 shall be retained by CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A. Cio~ of Chula Vista CommuniO, Facilitiex Dixtrict No. 2001 I San Miguel Ranch ~. hnprovement Area A Page The Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next prepayment of bonds or to make debt service payments. As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under paragraph 7 above, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is prepaid, the Board shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2001-I, Improvement Area A both prior to and after the proposed prepay~nent is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual debt service on ail Outstanding Bonds. Tenders of Bonds in prepayment of Maximum Annual Special Taxes may be accepted upon the terms and conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically approved by the Council. 2. Prepayment in Part The Maximum Annual Special Tax on an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property or an Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued may be partially prepaid. The amount of the prepayment shall be calculated as in Section H.I; except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated according to the following formula: PP = (P~xF) + A These terms have the following meaning: PP = the partial prepayment PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H. 1, minus Administrative Expenses and Fees pursuant to Step 10. F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the Maximum Annual Special Tax. A= the Administrative Expenses and Fees pursuant to Step 10. CiO q) Chula Vista CommuniO' Facilitie~ Di.~trict No. 2001 1 San Miguel Ranch - Improvement Area A Page A -12 The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Maximum Atmual Special Tax shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax, (ii) the percentage by which the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be prepaid, and (iii) the company or agency that will be acting as the escrow agent, if applicable. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a statement of the amount required for the partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for an Assessor's Parcel within 30 days of the request and may charge a reasonable fee for providing this service. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is partially prepaid, the City shall (i) distribute the funds remitted to it according to Paragraph 14 of Section H.1, m~d (ii) indicate in the records of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area A that there has been a partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax and that a portion of the Maxlmum Annual Special Tax equal to the outstanding percentage (1.00 - F) of the remaining Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to be authorized to be levied on such Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section D. I. TERM OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX Tire Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to thc extent necessary to fully satisfy the Special Tax Requirement for a period no longer than 2037-38. I:\engjneet \AG EN DA',Ord Authorize Icvy ol Special lax, l 2-18 01 doc (:it); of Chula I/i.sta Communiiy F~tcilities District No. 200l~] &In Miguel Ranch Improvement Area A Page A -13 RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1, IMPROVEMENT AREA B (San Miguel Ranch) A Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property within the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 ("CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B") and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2002-03, in an amount determined by the City Council through the application of the appropriate Special Tax for "Developed Property," and "Undeveloped Property as described below. All of the real property in CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided. A. DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings: "Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not sho;vn on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final map, pamel map, condominium plan, record of survey, or other recorded document creating or describing the parcel. If the preceding maps are not available, the Acreage shall be determined by the City Engineer. "Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. "Administrative Expenses" means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B or any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B or any designee thereof of complying with City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B or obligated persons disclosure requirements associated with applicable federal and state securities laws and of the Act; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B or any designee thereof related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account, if any. (70: of Chula Vista C'ommuniO, Facilitie3 District No. 2001 / &m Miguel Ranch hnprovement ,{~x'a B Page B -1 Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B for any other administrative purposes of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B, including attorney's fees and other costs related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes. "Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number. "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number. "Assigned Special Tax" means the Special Tax for each Land Use Category of Developed Property as determined in accordance with Section C. 1.a. "Available Funds" means the balance in the reserve fund established pursuant to the terms of the Indenture in excess of the reserve requirement as defined in such Indenture, delinquent special tax payments, , the Special Tax prepayments collected to pay interest on Bonds, and other sources of funds available as a credit to the Special Tax Requirement as specified in such Indenture. "Backup Special Tax" means the Special Tax amount set forth in Section C.l.b. below. "Bonds" means any bonds or other debt (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more series, issued by CFD No. 2001-i, Improvement Area B under the Act. "CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes. "CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B" means City of Chula Vista, Community Facilities District No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B (San Miguel Ranch). "City" means the City of Chula Vista. "Commercial Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more non- residential structures, excluding Community Purpose Facility Property. "Community Purpose Facility Property" means all Assessor's Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452. City of Chula Fista Co~mnunity Facilitie~ District No. 2001 I San Miguel Ranch Improvement ,4rea B Page B -2 "Council" means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B. "County" means the County of San Diego. "Developed Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit for new construction was issued prior to March 1 of the prior Fiscal Year. "Final Map" means a subdivision of property created by recordation of a final map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment, approvedby the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352 that creates individual lots for which residential building permits may be issued without further subdivision of such property. "Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. "Indenture" means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same. "Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Section C. "Lot(s)" means an individual legal lot created by a Final Map for which a building permit for residential construction has been or could be issued. "Master Developer" means the owner of the predominant amount of Undeveloped Property in CFD No. 2001-1, improvement Area B. "Maximum Annual Special Tax" means the maximum annual Special Tax, determined in accordance with the provisions of Section C below, that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property. "Occupied Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property which have closed escrow to an end user. "Outstanding Bonds" means all Bonds which remain outstanding. "Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-1, improvement Area B owned by or dedicated to a property owner association, including any master or sub-association. ('it), of Chula Vista Communi~ Facilities District No. 2001-/ San Miguel Ranch Improvement/trea B Page B -3 It "Proportionately" means for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Assigned Special Tax or Backup Special Tax is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B. For Undeveloped Property "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy per Acre to the Maximum Annual Special Tax per Acre is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B. "Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B that is used for rights-of-way or any other purpose and is owned by or dedicated to the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City or any other public agency. "Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units. "Residential Floor Area" means all of the square footage of living area within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Residential Floor Area shall be made by reference to appropriate records kept by the City's Building Department. Residential Floor Area will be based on the building permit(s) issued for each dwelling unit prior to it being classified as Occupied Residential Property, and shall not change as a result of additions or modifications made after such classification as Occupied Residential Property. "Special Tax" means the annual special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement "Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B to: (i) pay annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds as defined in Section A.; (ii) pay periodic costs on the Bonds, including but not limited to, credit enhancement and rebate payments on the Bonds; (iii) pay Administrative Expenses; (iv) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve funds for all Outstanding Bonds in accordance with the Indenture; (v) and pay directly for acquisition and/or construction of public improvements which are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B; (vi) less a credit for Available Funds. "State" means the State of California. CiO' (~f Chula Vista Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 San Miguel Ranch lml)rovetnent Area B Page B ~4 "Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2001-l, Improvement Area B which are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. "Trustee" means the trustee, fiscal agent, or paying agent under the Indenture. "Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property. C. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and D below. Furthermore, Developed Property shall be classified as Residential Property or Commercial Property. C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE 1. Developed Property The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Commercial Property that is classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (1) the Assigned Special Tax described in Table 1 below or (2) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. c. Assigned SpecialTax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property Land Use Class Description Assigned Special Tax 1 Residential Property $475.00 per unit plus $0.32 per square foot of Residential Floor Area 2 Commercial Property $2,263 per Acre of Commercial Property CiO' of Chula Vista ('ommunily Facilities District No. 2001-1 San Mt~guel Ranch - Improvemen! Area B Page B -5 d. Backup SpeciaITax When a Final Map is recorded within Improveinent Area B, the Backup Special Tax for Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property classified as Residential Property or Commercial Property shall be determined as follows: For each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property classified as Residential Property or for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property to be classified as Residential Property within the Final Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall be the rate per Lot calculated according to the following formula: $4,578 x A L The terms above have the following meanings: B = Backup Special Tax per Lot in each Fiscal Year. A- Acreage classified or to be classified as Residential Property in such Final Map. L Lots in the Final Map which are classified or to be classified as Residential Property. For each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property classified as Commercial Property or for each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property to be classified as Commercial Property within the Final Map area, the Backup Special Tax shall he determined by multiplying $4,578 by the total Acreage of the Commercial Property and Undeveloped Property to be classified as Commercial Property within the Final Map area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property, Commercial Property or Undeveloped Property for which the Backup Special Tax has been determined are subsequently changed or modified by recordation of a new or amended Final Map, then the Backup Special Tax applicable to such Assessor's Parcels shall be recalculated to equal the amount of Backup Special Tax that would have been generated if such change did not take place. 3. Undeveloped Property The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property shall be the amount shown in Table 2 belo~v: CiO, ~,~/' Chula Vista CommuniO, Facilities District No. 2001 I San Miguel Ranch hnl;rovement Area B Page B-6 TABLE 2 Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property Land Use Class Description Maximum Annual Special Tax 3 Undeveloped Property $4,578 per Acre D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2002-03 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as folloxvs: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Second: If additional monies are needed to satisl~ the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property, excluding any Assessor's Parcels classified as Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E, at up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Assessor's Parcel whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is derived by the application of the Backup Special Tax and shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property pursuant to Section E at up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Not~vithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Occupied Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent per year as a consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of Special Taxes by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B. CiO, of Chula Vixta Community Facilities Dixtrict No. 200l I San Miguel Ranch Improvement ~rea B Page B-7 E. EXEMPTIONS The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property (i) Assessor's Parcels defined as Public Property, (ii) Assessor's Parcels defined as Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Assessor's Parcels which are used as places of worship and are exempt from ad valorem property taxes because they are owned by a religious organization, (iv) Assessor's Parcels defined as Community Purpose Facility Property or (v) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, provided that no such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 103.61 Acres. Notwithstanding the above, the CFD Administrator shall not classify an Assessor's Parcel as exempt property if such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 103.61 Acres. Assessor's Pamels which cannot be classified as exempt property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than 103.61 Acres will be classified as Undeveloped Property and shall be taxed as a part of the fourth step in Section D. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes exempt property. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any Public Property which cannot be classified as exempt property as described in the first paragraph of Section E shall be prepaid in full by the seller pursuant to Section H.1, prior to the transfer/dedication of such property. Until the Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation for any such Public Property is prepaid, the property shall continue to be subject to the levy of the Special Tax as Undeveloped Property pursuant to the fourth step in Section D.. F. REVIEW/APPEAL COMMITTEE The Council shall establish as part of the proceedings and administration of CFD No. 2001- 1, Improvement Area B a special three-member Review/Appeal Committee. Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error may file a written notice with the Review/Appeal Committee appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. The Review/Appeal Committee may establish such procedures as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to ail persons. Cio~ qf Chula Vista (bmmuniO, Facilities District No, 2001-l San Miguel Ranch Improvement Area B Page B -8 G. MANNER OF COLLECTION The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on Assessor's Parcels which are delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes. Tenders of Bonds may be accepted for payment of Special Taxes upon the terms and conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically approved by the Council. H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The following definition applies to this Section H: "Outstanding Bonds" means all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of Maximum Annual Special Taxes. 1. Prepayment in Full The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation may only be prepaid and permanently satisfied by an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, or Public Property. The Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation applicable to such Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax permanently satisfied as described herein; provided that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this figure. Cio; of Uhula Vista Community Facilities District Ne;. 2001-l San Miguel Ranch l~nprovement Area B Page B 9 The Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit less Capitalized Interest Credit Total: equals Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows: Paragraph No.: l. For Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for that Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has already been issued for that Assessor's Parcel. For Assessor's Parcels of Public Property to be prepaid, compute the Maximum Annual Special Tax for that Assessor's Parcel using the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. 2. Divide the Maximum Annual Special Tax computed pursuant to paragraph 1 by the sum of the total expected Maximum Annual Special Tax revenues excluding any Assessor's Parcels which have been prepaid. 3. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). 4. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 15~ Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds. 16. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. (?it) (~f Chula Yixta £'om~nuniO, Facilities District No. 2001-] San Miguel Ranch Improvement Area B Page B 10 17. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which have not yet been paid. 18. Compute the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the reinvestment of the Prepayment Amount less the Administrative Fees and Expenses from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment. 19. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7 and subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 8 (the "Defeasance Amount"). 20. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B, including the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 21. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. 22. If any capitalized interest for the Outstanding Bonds will not have been expended at the time of the first interest and/or principal payment following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 23. The Maximum Annual Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 9, and 10, less the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 (the "Prepayment Amount"). 24. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to retire Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount computed pursuant to paragraph 10 shall be retained by CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B. (Tty of Chula Vista Co~nmunity lVacilities District No. 200l-I San Migue] Ranch - hnprovetnent Area B Page B -I 1 The Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next prepayment of bonds or to make debt service payments. As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under paragraph 7 above, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is prepaid, the Board shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2001-1, Improvement Area B both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds. Tenders of Bonds in prepayment of Maximum Annual Special Taxes may be accepted upon the terms and conditions established by the Council pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as specifically approved by the Council. 2. Prepayment in Part The Maximum Annual Special Tax on an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property or an Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued may be partially prepaid. The amount of the prepayment shall be calculated as in Section H.1; except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated according to the following formula: PP = (P~ xF) + A These terms have the following meaning: PP = the partial prepayment PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H. 1, minus Administrative Expenses and Fees pursuant to Step 10. F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the Maximum Annual Special Tax. A = the Administrative Expenses and Fees pursuant to Step 10. CiO, of Chu[a Vista ('omrnuniO~ Facilities District No. 2001-1 &~n Miguel Ranch - hnprovement Area B Page B -12 The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially prepay the Maximum Annual Special Tax, (ii) the percentage by which the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be prepaid, and (iii) the company or agency that will be acting as the escrow agent, if applicable. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a statement of the amount required for the partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for an Assessor's Parcel within 30 days of the request and may charge a reasonable fee for providing this service. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is partially prepaid, the City shall (i) distribute the funds remitted to it according to Paragraph 14 of Section 1.1, and (ii) indicate in the records of CFD No. 2001-l, Improvement Area B that there has been a partial prepayment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax and that a portion of the Maximum Annual Special Tax equal to the outstanding percentage (1.00 - F) of the remaining Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to be authorized to be levied on such Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section D. 1. TERM OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX The Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to the extent necessary to fully satisfy the Special Tax Requirement for a period no longer than 2039-40. J:\engineer\AGENDA\Ord Authorize Levy of Special Tax, 12 18 01.doc City of Chula Viata ('ommuni(y Facilities District No. 200l l Sa~ Miguel Ranch Improvement Area B Page B -13 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 8, 2002 TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AUTHORIZED TO BE INCURRED WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, (the "City Council") previously has previously undertaken proceedings to fonn Community Facilities District No 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) (the "District"), to establish two improvement areas therein designated as Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B and to authorize the issuance by the District of bonds for each improvement area pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law") to finance the acquisition of certain authorized facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act a ballot proposition was submitted to the qualified electors of the District to authorize the issuance of bonds for Improvement Area A in the maximum principal amount of $13,500,000 (the "Existing Bond Authorization") to be secured by the levy of special taxes on properties within Improvement Area A of the District; and WHEREAS, the qualified electors voted to authorize the issuance of bonds in a maximum principal amount not to exceed the Existing Bond Authorization; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings to authorize the issuance of bonds for Improvement Area A it was determined that the actual principal amount of bonds necessary to be issued for Improvement Area A to finance the authorized public facilities is $15,000,000 rather than $13,500,000; and WHEREAS, the owners of property within Improvement Area A of the District have requested that the City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of the District, initiate proceedings to consider altering the Existing Bond Authorization to increase such authorization to $15,000,000 to ensure that the District may issue bonds in the principal amount necessary to finance the authorized public facilities; and WHEREAS, this City Council desires to initiate such proceedings and to set the time and place for a public hearing on this Resolution. A - 1 / / -51 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA TO BE AFFECTED. The area to be affected by the proposed alteration, if approved, is Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) and is generally described as follows: All property within the boundaries of Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), as shown on a map as previously approved by the City Council of the City, such map designated by the name of such District, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City. SECTION 3. INCREASE IN THE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATION. This City Council hereby declares its intention to consider approval of the increase in the Existing Bond Authorization to increase such authorization from $13,500,000 to $15,000,000 (the Existing Bond Authorization as so altered is referred to as the "Increased Bond Authorization"). SECTION 4. PUBLIC HEARING. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 8th day of January, 2002, at the hour of 4 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council, being the Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Street, Chula Vista, California, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this Resolution and to consider the approval of the Increased Bond Authorization. At such time and place all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the approval of the Increased Bond Authorization will be heard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the public hearing shall be continued from January 8, 2002 to January 22, 2002 unless the City Clerk shall on or before January 8, 2002 have received the written consent /Tom the owners of all of the property within Improvement Area A to the scheduling of this public hearing on January 8, 2002. SECTION 5. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of such public hearing in the following manner: A Notice of Public Hearing shall be published pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 in a legally designated newspaper of general circulation with such publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for such public hearing. 2 / I - roo SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PREPARED BY: John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J:lattomeylresolres of consideration J:IEngineerIAGENDA IRes of Consideration, 12-17.doc 3 / /-6 I APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: JO~K~ ~ City Attorney Rc.\Ii~c:,D f~-17-01 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, OF CONSIDERATION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 15, 2002 TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AUTHORIZED TO BE INCURRED WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, (the "City Council") previously has previously undertaken proceedings to fonn Community Facilities District No 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) (the "District"), to establish two improvement areas therein designated as Improvement Area A and Improvement Area B and to authorize the issuance by the District of bonds for each improvement area pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law") to finance the acquisition of certain authorized facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act a ballot proposition was submitted to the qualified electors of the District to authorize the issuance of bonds for Improvement Area A in the maximum principal amount of $13,500,000 (the "Existing Bond Authorization") to be secured by the levy of special taxes on properties within Improvement Area A of the District; and WHEREAS, the qualified electors voted to authorize the issuance of bonds in a maximum principal amount not to exceed the Existing Bond Authorization; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings to authorize the issuallce u; bonds for Improvement Area A it was detennined that the actual principal amount of bonds necessary to be issued for Improvement Area A to finance the authorized public facilities is $15,000,000 rather than $13,500,000; and WHEREAS, the owners of property within Improvement Area A of the District have requested that the City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of the District, initiate proceedings to consider altering the Existing Bond Authorization to increase such authorization to $15,000,000 to ensure that the District may issue bonds in the principal amount necessary to finance the authorized public facilities; and WHEREAS, this City Council desires to initiate such proceedings and to set the time and place for a public hearing on this Resolution. f . -..sq I NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA TO BE AFFECTED. The area to be affected by the proposed alteration, if approved, is Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) and is generally described as follows: All property within the boundaries of Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), as shown on a map as previously approved by the City Council of the City, such map designated by the name of such District, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City. SECTION 3. INCREASE IN THE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATION. This City Council hereby declares its intention to consider approval of the increase in the Existing Bond Authorization to increase such authorization from $13,500,000 to $15,000,000 (the Existing Bond Authorization as so altered is referred to as the "Increased Bond Authorization"). SECTION 4. PUBLIC HEARING. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 15th day of January, 2002, at the hour of 6 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council, being the Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Street, Chula Vista, California, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this Resolution and to consider the approval of the Increased Bond Authorization. At such time and place all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the approval of the Increased Bond Authorization will be heard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the public hearing shall be continued /Tom January 15, 2002 to January 22, 2002 unless the City Clerk shall on or before January 15, 2002 have received the written consent from the owners of all of the property within Improvement Area A to the scheduling of this public hearing on January 15, 2002. SECTION 5. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of such public hearing in the following manner: A Notice of Public Hearing shall be published pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 in a legally designated newspaper of general circulation with such publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for such public hearing. , I-Coo 2 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PREPARED BY: John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J:lattomeylresolres of consideration J:IEngineerIAGENDA IRes of Consideration.12-17.doc 3 /1-6 I APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: CìL- ~1 ~ John M. Kaheny City Attorney Pagel, Item ~2.- Meeting Date 12/17/01 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: A) Resolution Approving Final Map of Chula Vista Tract No.01-04, Vista Del Loro, Accepting on Behalf of the City of Chula Vista Public Streets and Easements Granted on Said Map within Said Subdivision, and approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the Completion of Improvements Required by Said Subdivision, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement. B) Resolution Approving the SupplementaI Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 01- 04, Vista Del Loro. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works REVIEWED BY: City Manager y (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) On June 19, 2001, by Resolution No. 2001-200, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 01-04, Vista Del Loro (see Attachmentl). The Final Map, Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement are now before City Council for consideration and approval. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the Resolutions approving: A) the Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and B) the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement. DISCUSSION: The Vista Del Loro Subdivision is generally located west of El Lugar Street on E1 Loro Street, between Third and Fourth Avenue. The final map for the subdivision consists of nine (9) single- l:amily lots. A plat of the subdivision is presented in Attachment 1. The final map for said subdivision has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map. Approval of the map constitutes acceptance by the City of ali drainage, and tree planting and maintenance easements within the subdivision. Approval of the map also constitutes acceptance, on behalf of the public, a portion of El Loro Street. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 The developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement, which includes the following provisions: 1. In satisfaction of Condition No. 34 of Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to: Comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and the construction of dwelling units. 2. In satisfaction of Condition No. 38 of Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to maintain private drainage easements at the rear property lines of parcels 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the Tentative Map for the purposes of maintaining a public drainage area via the implementation of percolation landscaping enhancements on private property and to prohibit individual property owners from paving or installing fixed accessory structures on building pads or slabs within said drainage easements. 3. In satisfaction of Condition No. 42 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold ham~less 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 wit regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act 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. 4. In satisfaction of Condition No. 43 of Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. 5. In satisfaction of Condition No. 44 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot 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. 6. In satisfaction of Condition No. 47 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to comply ~vith all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and to prepare the Final Map and all plans in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 7. In satisfaction of Condition No. 53, the Developer agrees to implement the fencing plan for the Property as approved by the City's Landscape Planner. 8. In satisfaction of Condition No. 56 of Resolution 2001-200, prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer agrees to come to an agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District, who is requesting that the project be annexed into the Community Facility District No. 10. 9. in satisfaction of Condition No. 57 of Resolution 2001-200, prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer agrees to pay all school fees and come to an agreement with the Chula Vista Elementary School District who is requesting that the developer annex the project into their new generic Community Facility District No. 10. 10. In satisfaction of Condition No. 60 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to comply with 1998 Energy requirements, 1998 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1998 National Electrical Code. The developer has executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has also provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required public improvements and the subdivision monumentation and benchmarks. The developer has paid all applicable fees. Please note that the developer's disclosure statement and City Council minutes pertaining to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map are included as Attachments 4 and 5, respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. All staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans and fianl map will be reimbursed from developer deposits. Attachments: 1. Vista Del Loro Location Map/Subdivision Plat 2. Developer's Disclosure Statement 3. Excerpt of Minutes of Regarding Resolution No. 2001-200 BVH .I :\Engineer\AGENDA\EY421 FINALMAPCVT01-04 doc lqle No 0600-80-EY-421 ~-~ PROJ~T DBL 0 FISH PROJECT DF-SCRIPT]ON: APPEC~NT: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP N PROJECT El Loro Street __ ,~DI~ESS: Request Proposed conslructlon of (9) single family detached ~ homes on 2.03 acres (minimum 7,000 square foot lots). No Scale LOCATOR rl'"NuuB~: ~ PCS - 01-04 -- THE CITY OF ~I-JULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STA'I~3M~-N"I' S~aIem~t of disclosttre of c~rtaia ownership interests, paymco~s, or campaign contribufiona, on all ma~ters which will r~quire discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, p]~nln~ Comr.~sion, and all other official bodies. The following ixfformndon must be disclosed: i- I.JSI the name: Of ~ll p~'$Ous h~ve a l~nnnci~l int~l."Si i~l th: ~Ont~'d~t, i.e., comi'a~or, aub4:qnlxa~to~, material ~-ppliex. 2. If any p~on identified pm'suant to (1) above is a eorporalion or p~, Iisi the ~n.m~ of all imlividuals ow'ninE more them 10% of the .sha~s ia the corporation or owaiag any parmership imer~ ia the partnership. 3. If any pe~on identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit org.niTation bra trust, list thc .~mes of an}, person scrviag as director of the non-profit organi?atioll or as n-u.ste~ or b~i~fi¢iary or miata, of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of busiaeis ~ted with any member of the City s'un~, Boards. Commissioai, Commirl~s and Cotmcil within the past twelve nlontha? 5_ Please identify each aim every person, including any agtmts, r_.a~loye~-s, con.nultsms or iad~pextd~t contractors who you have assigned to represant you before the City ia this matter. 6, Have you and/or your oifi~rs or agents, in thc aggregam, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the mu-rtmt or preceding election p~riod? Yes [ ] No [/..] If y~s, stat~ which Council member(s): or combination acdng as a unit." Signature of anna'actor/applicant A~FTACHMEN!~ EXCERPT OF-MINUTES FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 6/19/01 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 17. CONSIDERATION OF TESTIMONY ON TH3E FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, BAY BOULEVARD, TOWN CENTRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS, AND EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 The City administers 25 open space districts that have been established over the last thirty years. The districts provide the mechanism to finance the maintenance of common open space areas (canyons, trails, medians, etc.) associated with and benefiting from that particular development. As part of this process, a levy of an annual assessment is necessary to enable the City to collect funds for proposed open space maintenance. The City Engineer has prepared and filed reports on assessments for all existing open space districts. On May 29, 2001, Council approved said reports and set two public hearings. The second hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2001. (Director of Public Works) Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Amy Richter, 2112 Hamden Drive, asked why several residents had been assessed at a higher rote than what she was assessed. Public Works Director Lippitt explained that most of Eastlake has very low maintenance costs because they are for drainage and medians, while those in Zone D had higher assessments and collectibles. Mr. Lippitt stated that staff had received a letter from a resident in District 1 expressing concern over an increase in assessment. He explained that the assessments were based on the reserve levels, which fluctuate from year to year. Councilmembcr Salas stated that she had spoken with Deputy Public Works Director Byers, and that he would be contacting two people who wrote letters but were unable to attend the meeting. Deputy Mayor Davis opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to speak, she then closed the hearing. ACTION: Councilmember Rindone moved to direct staff to return on July 24, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. for the second scheduled public hearing. Councilmember Padilla seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0, with Mayor Horton not present. 18. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO DEVELOP NllqE LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOIvlES AT THE WESTERN EXTENSION OF EL LORO STREET (APPLICANT: DAN IRWIN) The developer has requested approval of a nine-lot subdivision known as Vista Del Loft, a western extension of E1 Lore Street. The project site is located in an existing single- family residential zone, with a Montgomery specific plan land-use designation of low- medium density residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre) and a general plan land-use designation of low-medium residential. (Director of Planning and Building) Page 9 - Council Minutes 06/19/01 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legaJ requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Associate Planner Whipple gave a presentation on the proposed project. Mayor Horton opened the public hearing. With no members of the public wishing to speak, she then closed the bearing. ACTION: Councilmember Padilla offered Resolution No. 2001-200, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-200, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRAmlNG Al'PRQVAL AND .~ CONDITIONS FOR THE VISTA DEL WRO TENTATrVE> SUBDlVSION MAP, A 2.03-ACRE, NINE-LOT SUBDMSION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF EL LORO STREET, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-04 The motion carried 5-0. 19. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING FRIENDSHIP PARK FROM CoO (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE) TO P-Q (PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE) This City-initiated request rezones Friendship Park from CoO (Administrative and Professional Office Zone) to P-Q (Public/Quasi-Public Zone) for the purpose of reflecting the existing land use of the property. The rezoning is consistent with the GeneraJ Plan, brings the property into compliance with Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and amends the Zoning Map. The proposed P-Q zone classification includes public parks as a permitted use. (Director of Community Development) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Mayor Horton opened the public hearing. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, spoke on behalf of 4,000 residents who signed a petition in favor of preserving Friendship Park, and he thanked the Councilmembers for their support. With no further members of the public wishing to speak, Mayor Horton closed the hearing. Councilmember Rindone commended the residents and Friends of the Library for their efforts in preserving the park. Page 10 - Council Minutes 06/19/01 , -- ~------------ 7 RESOLUTION NO.2001-~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-04, VISTA DEL LORO, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE VARIOUS PUBLIC STREETS AND EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby finds that that certain map survey entitled Chula Vista Tract NO. 01-04, VISTA DEL LORO, and more particularly described as follows: Being the easterly 350 feet of Lot 24, Quarter Section 142 ofChula Vista, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 505, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, excepting therefrom the northerly 66 feet, and, excepting that portion of the southerly 99 feet lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the southerly line of the said lot, distant 301.04 feet westerly from the southeast corner thereof to a point on the northerly line of said southerly 99 feet, distant westerly from easterly line of said lot, 309.62 feet. Area: 2.032 acres Numbered Lots: 9 No. of Lots: 9 Lettered Lots: 0 is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision ofland shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted upon receipt by the City of Chula Vista of all improvement securities described in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the public the public street, to-wit: a portion ofEI Loro Street and said street is hereby declared to be a public street and dedicated to the public use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the City ofChula Vista the 5.50 foot street tree planting and maintenance, IS-foot storm drainage easements as shown on said map within said subdivision. /2- -<{ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista 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 street is accepted on behalf of the public as therefore stated and that those certain street tree planting and maintenance easement and IS-foot storm drainage easements 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 is hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ofthe County of San Diego only upon the acceptance by the City of Chula Vista and its City Attorney of the improvement securities described in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated the- day of December, 2001 for the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City ofChula 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 Public Works ~ Jo M. Kaheny ty Attorney nattomey\reso\final map vista del 10m 2 /2 -1 Recording Requested by: CITY CLERK When Recorded, Mail to: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Declarant SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2001, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and DAN IRWIN a/k/ a DBL "0 FISH", 7 4 4 9 Gerard Avenue, La Jolla, CA 92037, hereinafter called "Subdivider" with reference to the facts set forth below, which Recitals constitute a part of this Agreement; RECITALS: WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as VISTA DEL LaRa, CVT No. 01-04, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and recordation of subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the Council for purpose of recording in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an approved improvement J:IAttorneylSIAlVista Del Lora.doc -1- 12 -10 security to insure the performance of said work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements and/or land development work required in said subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed by said Council; and WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities as approved by the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved, subj ect to certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolution No. 2001-200, approved on the 19th day of June, 2001 ("Tentative Map Resolution"); and WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion of said public improvement work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 01053-01 through 01053-03 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements according to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY AND NO CENTS ($134,160.00). NOW, FOLLOWS: THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS 1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause to be done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and adjoining said subdivision, including the improvements described in the above Recitals ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish the necessary materials -2- /2 ~ II therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and as described in the above Recitals this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 2. 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 Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on or before the second anniversary date of Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said building or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement securi ty shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. 5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said work. 6. Subdi vider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTY AND NO CENTS ($ 67,080.00) which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. J:IAttorneylSIA\Vista Del Loro.doc -3- /2-/2 7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTY AND NO CENTS ($67,080.00) to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said public improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "E", and made a part hereof. 8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NO CENTS ($1,700.00) to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. 9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed wi thin the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the 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 Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security. Subdivider 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. 1O. 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 for said work or any materials furnished therefor, except to the limits established by the approved improvement security in accordance with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions -4- /2 -/3 of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by Ci ty in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. 12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove. 13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of J:IAttorneylSIAlVista Del Loro.doc -5- 1'2 -/'-1 the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of the improvements. 14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or 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, an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of California. 15. Assignability. Upon request of the Subdivider, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider'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 securi ties 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. -6- /1-~/5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DAN IRWIN a/kIa, DEL "0 FISHn Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ~~ 1-< - c.... '" I f/2, E.5. OðL ¿;;> ¡=-/S 1-1 ATTEST City Clerk Approved as to form by ~fJr¡þd (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) J:\Attorney\SIAlVìsta Del Low.doc -7- ¡}..-/b CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of SQfI Die,!J° } 55. personally appeared , before me, Safah Mc¡rijQ/l9, Notary P"b/¡ c [)CI(1 Irwin N,m",'"II,ofOffi""eg,'J",Oo,.Not",P'bli") N,m",) of 51 go",,) On /2/0(¡)/OI I 0", 0 g¡¡rsonally known to me M' proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ~ - - - - -~T~~I~ - ~ . Commissiont'321489 z j. Notary Public - California ~ ~ San Diego County ~ My Carm. Expires 5ep 20, 2005 ------------ to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. PloD' Not", 5", Abo," ~y hand and ~fficial seal. Js~ OPT/ONAL Though the information below is not required by taw, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reaffachment 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: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: 0 Individual Corporate Officer ~ Title(s» Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney in Fact IJ Trustee Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: 'op 0' thomb hem Signer Is Representing: ."" N",o,,' N""A,"oc""oo '9350 0, S"oA". po 80> 2402' C"""h. CA'13132402'~.o"'oo"",","g Proo. No. 5907 R",0"C,IIToII-F",'.BOO-876.6B27 rz -/7 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance Form: Bond Amount: $67,080.00 Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor: Form: Bond Amount: $67,080,00 Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments: Form: Bond Amount: $1,700.00 Securities approved as to form and amount by ~ ~~C~ Improvement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. -8- /2 -l~ BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE (To lie Used Prior to Approv;¡j of Subùivision Impro,'emcrll Agrccmcm) File No.: fC-¡J-3D I1ond No::jnM2.i7J¡ l'rcll1iu 111: U....677 ..9Q WHFlŒAS, the City Council ofO1e City ofChula Vista, County of Snn DÜ:go, Stale of California, and DBL D FISH (l1erci[J~fler Principal) desire to enrer il1Îo a SuIXlivision Improvcmcnt Agreement (hercinafter n:feried to -ãs Agrce:menl) whereby J'rindpal agrees to instaU and complete certain designated public improvements for the projt~t~1 known as -____V}STA ~EL LO.R° -. -..--..-: ~nd WIlEREAS, Principal desires to commence Col1Sllllction of said public improvementS prior to approval of said Agreement by the City Council of the City of ClJu]a Vista; and, WHEREAS. thc City of Chula Visla, County of San Diego, State of California, has issllcd 10 Principal ConstJ11clion l'ennit No. (il9-290-16. 18 & 2o(ne:rcinafte:r rcfe:m:d to as Pcrmit) for tlie public improve:mcnt work ~s set forth Ù1 more detail 011 City of Chota Vista Drawing Nos. -'-.-- through ---..-' regarding construction of said public improvements, whkh Permit is hereby referred (Q alld made a part hereof; and, WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said Pcnl1it to furnish a bond for f~ithful perfofln~nce of said Permit. NOW TllElŒFORE, wc, the Principal and -...GI!LF.....lHSIIRANr.R COMPðNV '--.. --"- , a corporation of the SI;¡le of -'"'ëõÑÑECTIëu-r -- , (hereinafter SUl'cty), are held and firmly l>ow1d unto (he City of Chula Visla;ãI1lüñ'icipiiëorpòÌ"ation (J¡creinarter City) in the County of San Diego, State of California, anll to and for the bem:fit of any and all persons who may suffer damages by breach of [he conditions hcleof, in the: ]1el1al sum O~IXTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTY AND No/!,arollars, ($.....QI...O80.0L-). lawful money of till:: UnHcd Slales, for the payment of which sum well and tmly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, suce:essors, cxecntors and administrators, joinl\y and severaUy, firmly by these presents. l1tc condition of Otis obligation is such tlmt if the above. bound Principal, his or its heirs, exccute>rs, adminiSlr;\tors, StlCCCSSOrs or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and tntly keep and perform the tenus, covenants, conditions, and provisions of said Permit and a subsequent Agree:ment and any alleration thereof made as therein provided, on.his or their part, to be kept and perfoJ'lJlL'd at the time and in the manner tlJcrein spccificd, and in all respects according 10 thcir true intent and meaning, and shan indemnify and save harmless City, jLs officers, agents ;md employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall l>ccorne: null and void; otherwise, it shaH be and rcmain in full force and effee!. As part (If the: obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there: shaH bc inc1udcd costs and reasonable expenscs and fees, ine]uding reasonabJc allorney's fees, ineurrcd by City in successfully cllforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and jnc1udcd in any jud£lI1cnt rende:red, 111e Surety hel'cby stípulalcs and agrees tllat no change, extension of tillie, altel'atioH or :1òdiLion to the: terms of the Permit or to U1C work to be perfOlJ11cd thereunder or the specifications acc()/Dpauying the same slwll in Im)lwjse affect iL~ obligations on iliis boud, and it does hereby waivc JJoticc of any such chan[',e:, exte:nsion of tin¡e, alteration or addition to the tcn'ns of the Permit or to tl1e work or to Hie specifications. 12 -/1 In ad(]iljon 10 the acls booded for pUlSu~nt to the Ptrmit incorporated above, t]¡~ following acls and per[ormMccs an: additionally subject to the terms Ofllùs bond: ---._._----~- --.-.---..--. ----.-- --- -'----- --"-- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by 111e Principal and Surcty above named, 011 NOVRMRRl> 1 ST , W.2001 ':'.:,","~:.,'":".."",.,¡.¡;;,,,.,¡ ":i:=;;",:",=;;:,¡~~...H;~"'-;;":~"""'=~""=¡:""'..::::-.;)'."~"~~~,"!;:;;:;;"'!!"='.1 ~>J;~.,':':~'-""':¡:i::':': c',''' -_J).ß ~----E.u N Name of Principal (Applicant) B~~ ?dè'"~ GOLF INSURANÇE c~----- Name of Surety Company By ~ "'---.-....- ATTORBEY-IN-FACT ---U!UŒST "A~.~..T..._...JiTE.1805 Address of Surety Company ---,- Dy B32649378 BolJd/l'or'icy Ñò-:--- ¡¡Alii DTEGO City CA 92101 'Sïãtë-- -. Zip CòëiC-"- ":.$,' ,:::ii.C ,~" '" ;.:::::-.::.. -'!::= ":, > --.:~ 1 !Mk~~ ~ ~{:Q. ~Å. .JlI1ÆEÆ M g IM}I~~} 1." =:. .~",..'.' )!&~ "",;, .c: ",""':.- ,:::: " , . RIDER Bond/PoHcy No.: Principal ------.... AmOlInt____- ----..----.--.... In Favor of- ,- ------_J:i.ty. QLCllu.Ia..Yj51a.......___._-..- ---.'-.....--. '...- This bond, submiUcd for . , Covers construction of puNk jmprove/llents, if any, both prior to and subsequent to: Citÿ- :tpproviI! of l'1im~ipal's Subdivision Improvement Agreement as to the project known as ------.. ---_.-.._~--. --------. This Ridcr is Effcctivc__- -----.-..- NamcofSlJrcty___. ---'-- --'--- BL.____- AllOVE-SIGNATORIES MUST BE NOTARIZlm r..::;.~", :""", ,^-~""",~~';':'~'i'-"!:"":;;¡¡""':_"""'~~=~=-=,;;;.~","=~¡,...".",<""""~""::..:::.;",,~,",,,,,":;)¡;.","'",,;¡ '::::r.:,~.~,., APPROVE}) AS TO FORM: Ciff?v ¿O H:IIJ OME\üNGJNJ iERI!.I\ NDD I iVlFORMSIFI' _!JONti.!U ) /2-20 nOND FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR (To Be Used With Subdivision Improvement Agreement) File No.: f~.=J!-3~ Bond NO':Bn.~~J78 Pr~lIliul1l: .t....L.RZL..Q.o WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vist:l, County of San Diego,' State of California, and DBL D FT!:H (hereinafter .Principal) have entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (he~inafl¡:r '~~fer;;;;] to as Agreement) whereby Principal agrt.'"es to instaU and compJcle certlin designated public improvements, which said Agreement, dated TITTY 11 . 1£2ncu, and identified as project - VIS~ DEL LORD -----.--' is hereby ref¡:rred 10 and made a part hereof; and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said Agreement, Princ:ipal is required, before entering upon the performance of the work, to íIle a good and suffic:ient payment bond ,'lith the City of Chub Vista to sccure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commcncing with Section 3082), Part 4, Divi~ion3, oftheCiviI Code of the State of California. NOW THEREFORE, said Principal and GULF INSURANCE COMPANY , a corporation of tIle State of CONNECTICUT , (hereinafter Surety), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Chub Vis!;, a municipal corporation (hereinafter City) in the County of San Diego, St:lte of California, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other pen;ons employed ill the performance of tlIC aforespjd Agre~ment and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in tbe: ~um lIf ~!!TY SEVEN ~EIGHTv AND NollnD dollars, ($ 67,0111:' Q!l...-). lawful mollt.:y of the Unitcd St:ltes, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts duo under tJle Unclllploymem 1nsurãm:c Act with respect to such work or Jabor, tllat said Surety will pay the samc in an arnouT\L nOL exceedi1Jg tl1C amount hereinabove set fonh, and also in case suit is brought upon tJ¡js bond, will pay, in addition to the face: amount thereof, cost;; and rea.c;onable expcnses am! fcc:s, incJudiug rcasou.abk altorney.s fees, incurred by City in successfully e:nforcing such obligaLion, to lJe awarded :m¡J fixcl] by the court, and lo be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgnu:nt thercin I1:ndc:red. It is hereby cxprcssly stipulat~d and agreed that ws bond .~haU ilmre to tl1e benefit of any and all pc:rso¡t~, companies and corporations entitled 10 fi.Ie c:laims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to thcm or tbc:jr assigns ill any suit brought upon this bond. Should the conåition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, orhelwisc, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, aIteration or l¡ddÏ!ion to the: tenus of th:: Agreement or to the work to be peIformed th::rt'llndcr or th~ speeific:Jlions accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any $'lch change, extension of time. alteration or addition to Ihe terms of the Agreement or to tJ¡¡: work or 10 the specifications. /2-- 2-/ IN WITN.ESS WHEREOF, (his inslrumcnt has been ¡July executed by the Princjp~l and SLJr~ty above narn;::ù, on _NOVRM'RRll 1 , W.2!1!l.L. ,-_.~--~. _.._~'-'~<.._-=,,=.. '~^--':;;:¡¡~'='-~'=-'--_: /~ Lh.'hC~ Ll -~"'_~'-.~----_..-..",.~~, .- ,"-"m,. '~'=-~~'-~'---""-~'~~"fo'.:"':fró.~/¿~-/(" D$ '-.Þ ¡C'/ ~ I-t' Ñ~mc of PI incipal (Applicant) BY~~~_~ r"';! c--.s; GULF ~SUßAN-...Q:....J;QMPANY -"-'---.- Namc of SurclY Company By ~-,_.__..__._- ATTORNEY-IN-FACT I3y---- 110 WKS:J; "~L.... STE,.l..!!.QL.___... Address of Surety Company --B326ill78 nondlPolicy No. SAN DIEGO City . ~,-, 92~!!!... --..- State Zip Code ABOVE-SIGNATORIES MUST BE NOTARlZED .:~,;::;;:¡",,";~:o:-...::. "'-'~==';:=~(!'~-=¡;<4'z",-'J".'::;¡¡:"",;:;;:"'='1!.~;=.~:="::~"",*"L~",,,,~m £&r.!J.x APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,¿;/ 1'2.-22 AL~-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ( ;/1Ib{ IJJ }l.~/;+ ff) State of Califonm.. } County Of~/1 /)j¿;;(jC¡ 55., On '-!YJUClì¿JJf:2, ~;)CO/ before me, ~-fil)JjJl~(~ ,mine! ,=s~ In.v/n SI(N',S¡ ~ed 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 tha(§7.she/they executed the same in ~her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by 6)her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. personally appeared 0 personally known to me - OR- 1) SANDRA ESTRADA ~ - Comm.'1263172 I/) NOTARVPU8.IIC.CALIFORNIA (I) S" 0.." C'"nt! - MyComm.hp"" May IS. 2001 .. OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl- edgement to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLEI5I 0 PARTNER(S) 0 ATTORNEY-IN-FACT 0 0 0 NUMBER OF PAGES TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER: DATE OF DOCUMENT OTHER SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSONiS¡ OR ENTlTY"E" RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER c APA 5199 VALLEY-SIERRA. 800-362-3369 /2 -23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } )ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO} On //~ /. 0/ , before me, F. Griffin, personally appeared David C. Banfer, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/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. I@ F.GRIFFIN I ~ -.. COMM. #1309007 0 U. NOTARY PUBLlC-CALtFORNIA II! en.. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ~ ï ' . My Commission Expires I JUNE 15,2005 Signature. ~-j-. ~ # ~ ****************************************************************************** (THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) /2 -2Lf GULF INSURANCE COMPANY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT POWER OF ATTORNEY ORIGINALS OF THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ARE PRINTED ON BLUE SAFETY PAPER WITH TEAL INK. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the Gull Insurance principal ollice in the city 01 Irving, Texas, pursuant to the loll owing resolufion, the 101h day 01 Augusl, 1993,towi!: a corporation duly organized under the laws 01 the Slate 01 Connecticut, having its by Ihe Finance & Executive Committee 01 the Board 01 Directors ollhe said Company on "RESOLVED, Ihallhe Presidenl, Executive Vice President or any Senior Vice President olthe Company shall have authorily to make. execute and deiiver a Pewer 01 Attorney conslilufing as AttorneY-ln.Facl. such persons, lirms, or corporations as may be selecled Irom lime to time: and any such Attorney-in-facl may be removed and Ihe authority grant- ed him revoked by Ihe President, or any Executive Vice President. or any Seniol Vice President. or by Ihe Board 01 Orrectors or by the finance and Executive Committee oi the Board ot Oireclors. RESOLVED, thai nothing in Ihis Power 01 Altorney shall be construed as a grant 01 authority to the attorney(s)-In-Iaclto sign, execule, acknowledge, deliver or olherwise issue a policy or policies 01 insurance on behall of Gull Insurance Company. RESOLVED, Ihallhe signalure ollhe Presidenl, Executive Vice President or any Senior Vice President, and Ihe Seal ollhe Company may be alii xed 10 any such Power 01 Altorney or any certificate relating Ihereto by lacsimile, and any such powers so executed and certilied by lacsirnile signature and lacsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon Ihe Company in Ihe luture wilh respect to any bond and documenls relating to such bonds to which they are attached." Gull Insurance Company does hereby make, constilute and appoint David C. Banfer ils true and lawful attorney(s)-in-Iact, with lull power and authorily hereby conlerred in its name. place and stead, to sign, execute, acknowledge and deliver in its behalf, as surely, any and all bonds and undertakings ot suretyship, and 10 bind Gull Insurance Company thereby as fully and 10 the same extenl as if any bonds, undertakings and documents relating to such bonds and/or undertakings were signed by the duly aulhomed olticer 01 the Gull insurance Cornpany and all the acts of said attorney(s)-in-fac\, pursuant to the authorily herein given, are hereby ratilied and confirmed The obligation 01 the Company shall not exceed live million (5,000,000) dollars. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Gulf Insurance Company has caused these presents to be signed by any officer of the Company and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed. STATE OF NEW YORK } COUNTY OF NEW YORK SS GULF INSURANCE COMPANY Lp.~ Lawrence P. Miniter Executive Vice President On this 1st day of October, A,D, 200t, before me came Lawrence p, Miniter, known to me personally who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey; that he is the Executive Vice President of the Gulf Insurance Company, the corporation descñbed in and which executed the above instrument: that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instruments is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name, thereto by like order. ~ U~ STATE OF NEW YORK } SS COUNTY OF NEW YORK ~ David Jaffa Notary Public, State of New York No. 02JA4958634 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires December 30, 2001 I, the undersigned, Senior Vice President of the Gull Insurance Company, a Connecticut Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force. Signed and Sealed at the City of New York. 1st day of November 2001 /.-L - ~A .~( /2.- ZG George Biancardi Dated the SURVEY MONUMENT INSTALLATION BOND File No.: Ey- 421 Bond NO":B32-~îl I'rclI1 inm: ...tJ.QJL._(}Q. LET IT BE KNOWN BY TlIESE PIŒ~ENTS, tllat -.1lBL-D.-EISH......._,__.-.--- - '---.. ..._-_._---~-._._-.__._.- as tlH:: subdivider (hLTcitlalkr "Principal"), alld____.-GlJLL.rNsl!RANcE...~,_..- ----...--,.-..- --'-- - "-'-'-'--'-'-"-' a corpor;Jlion oj' Ihe Slate of _._....J::Om1E.CTICIIT....,_,_, (hereinafter "Surcry"), arc hcld ami firmly boum! unto Ihe City of Chub Vista, a lJ1unidpal corporation (hereinalkr "City"), in lhe County of San Diego, Stale of California, ar)d to and for thc bcllelit of any and all persons who lI1ay suffcr damage by reason of 11m brcach of tbe culIllilions hereof, in ¡he penal SUn! of ._..ONE-XBD~MID.ÆQLIOO'S__- dollars ($_,L..ZOo....otL._) Jaw(¡ll lIIoncy or thc Uni¡ed Slatcs, to be paid to City. WHEREAS, Pril)dpal is presently cngagcd in subdividing certain bnrls to be known as -'-"--,-~ ~.~TA DEL...1Q..~L__.._,_,_.-.__.__. '-,,--- -'- subdivision in !1m Cily of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, Principal and City have l'ntcred into :t SublUvision Improvement Agreement approved hy City COuncil Rcsolution No. -----'-- -. (hereinafter refcrred 10 as "Agrecllll'nl") whereby Principal agrees to install <lurahJc survey 1I10lltullents for said SllbdivísíOJl, whi<:h said Agrecment, datcd JoIOY.EM:IIEJL2.L._,_, 20_Q!._, ~nd idcnlilìed lt~ prqject "--- '- -'-.. - VIS.!A.P.E1...!,Qß9_~~__- -----..--- "-'- --_. ---"-.-' is hereby referrcd 10 nod madc a part hereof: and, WIIElŒAS, Principal desires to not instal! durable survey mOIllU\)CJI(S prior 10 Ihe rCCOI'lI<1lioll of Ihe tinalmap of the subdivision nnd desires to install slImc at n later dille, NOW, TlIElW FOIŒ , the condition of tl1C above obligation js [hill if Pril1l:ipa¡ sh;JJl have inSlalled durable monuments of the survey by -'--.DID!l.6!.IL(h_J!AKE~___- --'--'-"'- IN""""rLi"",cJc;"JE"t;""",.,, ""'~S"r"'Ynd in nccord;¡llcc wilh the ün:tI map of said subdivision, :1 copy of which s~Jid map is hcTchy matIc antI snme is iuCOrpOrnled herein as though set forth in run, ami ;Iccording to Ihe ordinances of Ihe Cily of ChuJa Vista in lhil force ilnd effect at the time of the giving of (his bond, On or belbre the Cxpir,¡lion of Ihírty (3D) conscculivc days foJlowing colIJplclion and nccCplanee of plJhlíc im[1rovl'ments within .~:ijd subdivisíl.1l1 itS specified in saitI Agrcemcnt, then Ihc oblígnlion shill! bc void, otherwise hi be and rctl1ail1 ill full force nnd effect. As pan of the obligation sceured hereby nnd in additioll to the face nl110Ullt s[1cL'ilÏcd therl'flJl', ¡here shall be included costs ilud rcasonablc expcII.\eS and fees, ~nd including n:asonablc attorney's fees, incurred by City ill successfully cnforcing such 011ligafion, all to be laxed a~ costs ~Ild included in any judgment rendcrcd, /2-U (¡JIf¡(!h~ Iff - IN \-VITNESS WI!EI{[~O¡;, Ihis inSlrluueJlt has been uuly cxeeuted by IIlc Principii! and Surety above namcd. on_..liOYEMB.ElL.Zfi.__,--, 20J!L_, U.-.. --,~.....- --. . .-lJ!U",,¡:)-ns!l-.. - --- '--- Name of Principal (AppJical1l) ny_Q~ -~ ß ' _?I¿~ BY_.___...-,-- -'---..-, _Jl':W.í(d!!R.._----- Dond/policy No. -GI!LF~CJLç~ANY,_._--- -. .- Name (If Surety Company BY_~--"'-_h___"_- DAVID C. BANFER. ATTORNEY-TN-FACT --.llQ..JœSI.. ~"..J¡:pœ¡;:.L.. STE~.J!!O5.._... --- Ad"rcs~ of Surety Cmnp;\Uy SAN nIEr.,(L_-._~ '- ._..E1J!.~..._--- City Stale 7..ip CoLle AßOVl~-SIGN¡\TOI{lES MUST BE NOT¡\RIZEIJ r'~',""""--""--"'."-~' -, -"', ""'.""""",""""" APPROVED AS TO FORM: Æ~ ç 1. ~~_. ~orney ~~ J:\I;n~jIlCCI'\I,^NI)f)I':V\I'""nS"¡¡mci"I\(JOlldS\l¡"11U Monun¡Cnls.doc /2- -27 .... "~-"'..---, Attachment "A" STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On November 28, 2001, before me, Sandra Estrada, personally appeared Daniel S. Irwin, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument, Witness my hand and official seal J.@ SANDRA ESTRADA ~ - Comm,I1263172 ,. II) NOT ART PUBlIC.CALIFORNIA ~ San 0"'0 Countv ~ UTComm.h"". UaT15.2004 T /2.-2-<i STATE OF CALIFORNIA } )ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO} On NOVRMRF,1! 76 7001 , before me, F. Griffin, personally appeared David C. Banfer, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. . F. GRIFFIN I COMM. #1309007 0 NOTARY PUBLIC-CAliFORNIA ~ SAN DIEGO COUNTY .. My Commission Expores t JUNE 15.2005 Signature '-¿~ ~ ****************************************************************************** (THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) /2-2C) GULF INSURANCE COMPANY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT POWER OF ATTORNEY ORIGINALS OF THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ARE PRINTED ON BLUE SAFETY PAPER WITH TEAL INK. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the Gulf Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws 01 the State 01 Connecticut, having its principal ollice in the city 01 Irving, Texas, pursuant to the tollowing resolution, adopted by the Finance & Executive Commillee ot the BDard DI Directors 01 the said Company on the 10th day 01 August, 1993, to wit: "RESOLVED, that the President, Executive Vice President or any Senior Vice President of the Company shall have aulhorrty to make, execule and deliver a Power 0: Morney constituting as AttDrney-in-Fact, such persons, lirms, or corporatiDnsas may be selected from time to time; and any such Attorney-in-fact may be removed and the aulhorily granl- ed him revoked by the President, Df any Executive Vice President, Dr any Senior Vice President, Dr by the Board 01 Directors or by the finance and Execulive Gammrttee of the Board ot Directors, RESOLVED, that nothing in Ihis Power 01 Attorney shall be construed as a granl 01 authority 10 the attorney(s)-in-Iaclto sign, execute, acknowledge, deliver or otherwise issue a policy or policies 01 insurance on behalf 01 Gull Insurance Company. RESOLVED, thai the signature ollhe President, Executive Vice President or any Senior Vice Presidenf, and Ihe Seal 01 the Company may be affixed to any such Power 01 Marney or any certiticate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such powers so executed and certilied by lacsimile signature and lacsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the tuture with respect to any bond and documents retating to such bonds to which they are attached." Guillnsurance Company does hereby make, constitute and appomt David C. Banrer its true and lawlul atlorney(s)-in-Iact, with lull power and authorily hereby conlerred in its name, place and stead, to sign, execute, acknowledge and deliver in its behall, as surety, any and all bonds and undertakings 01 suretyship, and to bind Guillnsurance Gompany thereby as lully and to Ihe same exlenl as If any bonds, underlakings and documents relating to such bonds and/or undertakings were signed by Ihe duly authorized otlicer 01 the Gull Insurance Company and alilhe acls 01 said altorney(s)-in-Iacl, pursuant to Ihe aulhority herein given, are hereby ratified and conlirmed The obligafion 01 the Company shall not exceed live million (5,000,000) dollars, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Gulf Insurance Company has caused these presents to be signed by any officer of the Company and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed. STATE OF NEW YORK } COUNTY OF NEW YORK 55 Lawrence P. Miniter Executive Vice President On this 1st day of October, A.D, 2001, before me came lawrence p, Miniter, known to me personally who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the County of Bergen, State of New JelSey; that he is the Executive Vice President of the Gulf Insurance Company, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instruments is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the ,.,"""".1.' ............. '... ,. .~, """ "b ""'. Òa,;J ~ David Jaffa Notary Public, State of New York No. 02JA4958634 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires December 30, 2001 GULF INSURANCE COMPANY Lp~ STATE OF NEW YORK } COUNTY OF NEW YORK 5S I, the undersigned, Senior Vice President of the Gulf Insur.."e Compan~, 3 Connecticut Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and affached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force. Signed and Sealed at the City of New York. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-04, VISTA DEL LORRO AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement in order to satisfy the outstanding Tentative Map Conditions Nos. 34, 38,42,43,44,47,53,56,57 and 60 of Resolution No, 2001-200. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 01-04, Vista Del Lorro, 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 to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City ofChula Vista, Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J:lattorneylssia Vista Del Lorro 1'2--31 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City Clerk WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Developer Above Space for Recorder's Use SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO, 01-04 VISTA DEL LORO (Conditions 34, 38, 42, 43, 44, 47, 53, 56, 57, and 60 of Resolution 2001-200) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of ,2001, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and DOUBLE D, FISH ("Developer" or "Grantor"), with reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this Agreement: RECITALS A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in Chula Vista, California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" and as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"), The Property is referred to as Vista Del Loro, Chura Vista Tract No. 01-04 as approved by Resolution No, 2001-200. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Project" shall mean "Property". B. Developer is the owner of the Property, C. Developer has applied for and the City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as the Vista Del Loro Tentative Subdivision map, Chula Vista Tract No. 01-04, ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property, D, The City has adopted Resolution 2001-200 ("TM Resolution") pursuant to which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly described in the TM Resolution, 12--57- G, City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and conditions herein contained to approve the final map for which Developer has applied ("Final Map") as being in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map described in this Agreement. 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. 1.1 Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the parties as to any or all of the Property until released by the mutual consent of the parties, 1.2 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, a. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project, Developer may have the right to obtain a release of any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, provided Developer obtains the prior written consent of the. City to such release. Such assignment shall, however, be subject to this Agreement and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land. The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by the Assignee, Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 01-04, except as modified by this Resolution. b. 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 ofthis Agreement and 2 /2-33 2. such partial release will not, in the opinion of the City, jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be completed. Condition No. 34 of Resolution 2001-200 (NPDES). In satisfaction of Condition No, 340f Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to: Comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and the construction of dwelling units. 3. Condition No. 38 of Resolution 2001-200 (private drainage easements). In satisfaction of Condition No, 38 of Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to maintain private drainage easements at the rear property lines of parcels 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the Tentative Map for the purposes of maintaining a public drainage area via the implementation of percolation landscaping enhancements on private property and to prohibit individual property owners from paving or installing fixed accessory structures on building pads or slabs within said drainage easements, 4. Condition No. 42 of Resolution 2001-200 (Subdivision Map Indemnity). In satisfaction of Condition No. 42 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to 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 Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or employees wit regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act 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, 5. Condition No. 43 of Resolution 2001-200 (Erosion and Drainage Indemnity). In satisfaction of Condition No, 43 of Resolution 2001-200, the Developer agrees to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. 6. Condition No. 44 of Resolution 2001-200 (Cable Television Easements). In satisfaction of Condition No, 44 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot 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 ofChula Vista. 3 /2 ~3'-f 7. 8. 10. 11. Condition No. 47 of Resolution 2001-200 (Comply with all laws). In satisfaction of Condition No.4 7 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and to prepare the Final Map and all plans in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chura Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision ManuaL Condition No. 53 of Resolution 2001-200 (Comply with fencing plan). In satisfaction of Condition No, 53, the Developer agrees to implement the fencing plan for the Property as approved by the City's Landscape Planner, 9. Condition No. 56 of Resolution 2001-200 (Agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District). In satisfaction of Condition No. 56 of Resolution 2001-200, prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer agrees to come to an agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District, who is requesting that the project be annexed into the Community Facility District No.1 0, Condition No. 57 of Resolution 2001-200 (Agreement with the Chula Vista Elementary School District). In satisfaction of Condition No, 57 of Resolution 2001-200, prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer agrees to pay all school fees and come to an agreement with the Chula Vista Elementary School District who is requesting that the developer annex the project into their new generic Community Facility District No.1 0, Condition No. 60 of Resolution 2001-200 (Comply with all Codes). In satisfaction of Condition No. 60 of Resolution 2001-200 the Developer agrees to comply with 1998 Energy requirements, 1998 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1998 National Electrical Code. 12. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial satisfaction of Developer's obligation for this Project of Conditions 34,38,42,43,44,47,53,56,57, and 60 of Resolution 2001-200, 13. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Vista Del Loro, Chula Vista Tract No. 01-04 Tentative Map (adopted by Resolution 2001-200) and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the Resolution, 14. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either or both parties, may be recorded by either party, 4 /2-:35 15. 16. 17. Assignability. Upon request of the Developer, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to subdivider's successor in interest if the City Manager in hislher sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect the City's interest. The City Manager in hislher 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. Building Permits. Developer understands and agrees 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. 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: DBL D Fish 7449 Gerard Avenue La Jolla CA 92037 Attn: Dan Irwin 5 12 ~3b 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 ftom 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; Exhibits, Any recitals set forth above and exhibits referenced herein 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. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) 6 12-37 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR VISTA DEL LORO, CVT 01-04] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first herein above set forth. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DBL D FISH, By: Dan Irwin, President Mayor of the City ofChula Vista BY:U "=~ /2,c..-1 Title: ?/2.. E..£. .o¿$c. D F/-S 1-1 ATTEST City Clerk By: Approved as to form by Title: City Attorney (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) List of Exhibits: Exhibit "A" Legal Description Exhibit "B" Plat of Property J:\Engineer\PERMITS\EYlEY 421 SSIA.doc 7 /2e.?Z CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Die9O } 55. On ('2/ Oft; /0/ a,re , before me, Sqrc¡h Moriiano., Natcl~y P<4blic N,me '"' """,of Offiœ, Ie., . "Joee Ooe. N",~ Po'Ii"') DCln Irwin personally appeared N'mel,)ofSi,"e'I') D pJ'fsonally known to me GY'proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ~@- - - - -~T~~I~ - ~ - Commiaaiont1321469 ¡ Notary Public - Califomia ~ ~ San Diego County I MyCormt, E>cpi.... Sep 20, 2005 ------------ to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. P'"e No"~ Se,' Ab"e OPTIONAL Though the information betow is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and coutd prevent fraudulent removal and reaffachment 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: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Individual Corporate Officer - Title(s» Partner - 0 Limited U General [] Attorney in Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator [J Other: . Top of thomb he'e Signer Is Representing: @ "'" N"i,",'N,",A,~i"i" ,"" 0,5"","" P.o. """""0""'."" 0A91"3.""'_,""""'"'" P,ooN""" Roo"",0.",II-""'_"6'682' ) 2 -3'1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM j~ MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 ITEM TITLE: Resolution waiving the City's formal bidding process as impractical and awarding the contract for $102,760 to Purkiss Rose-RSI for architectural design services for the Skate Park at Greg Rogers Park adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club at Oleander and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Purkiss Rose-RSI. SUBMITTED BY: Director Parks and Recreation REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~5~ DI* (4/5tbs Vote: YES __ NO X ) RECOMMENDATION: That Council waive the City's formal bidding process and award Purkiss Rose-RSI the contract for architectural design services for the Skate Park and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement between the City and Purkiss Rose-RSI, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney's office. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The Parks & Recreation Department has long realized that a need for a safe and secure skate park venue exists in the City of Chula Vista. At the Council Meeting of October 9, 2001 the design for the skate park at Greg Rogers Park adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club on Oleander was approved. The approved design and feasibility study was conducted and produced by Purkiss Rose-RSI, the successful bidder of the RFP process. Whereas Purkiss Rose-RSI performed admirably and successfully completed the design and feasibility study it is recommended that Purkiss Rose-RSI provide consulting services for the creation of the construction documents and assist City staff during the construction project. Due to the status of the project, timing issues, and since Purkiss Rose-RSI has successfully worked with the City previously, staff recommends that the bidding process be waived and the City Manager be authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with Purkiss Rose-RSI, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this item will authorize the expenditure of $102,760 in funds previously budgeted in the newly established CIP for the Skate Park. Attachment: Attachment A - October 9, 2001 Council Item Attachment B - Two-Party Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Purkiss Rose-RSI COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 10/9/01 ITEM TITLE: Report on the Feasibility Study and Final Design for the Proposed Skate Park at Greg Rogers Park. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreation REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X .) The Parks & Recreation Department has long realized that a need for a safe and secure skate park venue exists in the City of Chula Vista. In order to evaluate the viability of a skate park a consultant was hired to produce a feasibility study on a skate park located at Greg Rogers Park on the Campus of the Oleander Boys and Girls Club. The feasibility study, which included two public workshops, and a presentation to a Special Combined Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors has been completed. The presentation tonight will include the final design and the feasibility study's finding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: · Accept the proposed final design as presented, · Direct staff to enter into the process for preparation of the construction documents, · Approve the tentative fi~nding/budget recommendation as outlined in Attachment C, and · Direct staff to develop an operational MOU with the Boys and Girls Club. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: At a special combined meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors on August 16, 2001 it was unanimously approved to go forward with the Skate Park concept (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: B ag_k~proun d Youth Summits conducted in early 1990 highlighted the lack of legal and safe venues for skateboards and skates. ·In 2000 the public meeting for the Parks Master Plan called for skate facilities inclusion in future parks. ,Throughout this period, a history of requests by the public to City leaders for a skate facility has persisted. · In 2000 the Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista postponed receipt of CDBG funding for a soccer facility in favor of exploring the possibility of a skate facility at the Oleander Campus. · Parks and Recreation solicited RFPs for a feasibility study for a skate park and . accepted/selected Purkiss-Rose-RSI, Landscape Architects. Item No. __ Page 2 Meeting Date: 10/9/01 On May 8, 2001 the proposed skate park report was presented to council when they unanimously approved that: o Staff develop a concept plan for a skate park at Greg Rogers Park on the campus of Oleander Boys & Girls Club. o Staff continue with the feasibility study and convene public workshops with respect to the proposed facility. o Staff enter into MOU discussions for the operation of the skate park by the Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista. · On June 7 and July 19, 2001 public work shops were held at the Oleander Boys and Girls club where community members were given the oppommity to ask questions, comment, and help design the skate park. The response was overwhelmingly positive and the elementary school age children through young adults that chose to participate in the design were very excited about being included in the process. · The request for Purkiss Rose to continue on with the preparation of the construction documents is due to their excellent performance during the feasibility study. Issues: · Safety and Liability: The public liability concerns regarding public operated skate parks was addressed by California Assembly Bill 1296. This information and information from other cities was given to the City Attorney for comment (Attachment B). · Financing: The preliminary budget for the skate park is approximately $1,397,509. It is proposed that financing be provided through the Proposition 12 Per Capita Grant fi-om the State of California ($1,185,009) and the Boys and Girls Club approved CDBG funds ($212,500). The proposed budget and funding options are outlined in Attachment C. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. ^ TTACHMENTS: Attachment A Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes - August 16, 2001 Attachment B - City Atturney's Letter on Skateboarding Liability Attachment C - Skate Park Cost Estimate CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Minutes Thursday o 6:30 p.m. August 16, 2001 Mercy Building 430 F Street SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUB 1. ROLL CALL Radcliffe P, Rude P, Salcido P_, Weidner_P_, RamosE_, Perondi P 2. INTRODUCTION OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUB GUESTS 3. PRESENTATION BY PURKISS ROSE Steve Rose of Purkiss Rose (Skatepark Consultant) gave a short presentation on the design for the City of Chula Vista Skatepark at the Boys & Gids Club site on Oleander. A brief question and answer period followed with Mr. Rose's associates responding. Questions and Answers are as follows: What about storage containers? A: They can be moved. Q: What about peripheral lighting? A: Lighting already exists for alley and lighting is planned for the perimeter of the skatepark. How is this design perceived by others? A: The design has been shown to top-flight skaters and their response was top- notch. Q: Will BMX bikes be allowed? A: No. Bikes can gouge pieces of concrete from skate areas and be quite expensive to repair. Q: What will attract skaters to this park? A: It caters to everything the skater likes including a street element. It also will have an event area for non-structured skating and a spectator area as well. What about the liability issues? A: It is planned for an ordinance be established that would require helmets and protective elbow and knee pads to be worn. As well as signs requiring protective gear must be worn and a written release must be on file. Boys & Girls Club will have their own insurance and ID cards are planned. (~ What is the budget? A: The budget is around $1.8 million at this time. We hope to tdm that down before it goes to Council in September/October. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes August 16, 2001 Page 1 Q: What about the MOU with the Boys & Gids Club. A: Negotiations with the Boys & Gids Club will commence after approval is received from the City Council. MSCU (Rude/Ramos) that the proposal for the Chula Vista Skate Park be approved. Adjournment at 7:50 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 20, 2001. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes August 16, 2001 Page 2 . O~f±c~ o~ t~ City D~: A~gu~t i~, ~OO1 TO: Andy Campbell, Director of Parks & Recreation FROM: Bart C. Miesfeld, Assistant City Attorney~2~-~ SUBJECT: Skate Park Proposed Plan This memorandum shall serve as a general discussion concerning liability issues related to the construction, use and maintenance of the proposed Skate Park Facility within the City of Chula Vista. As with many recreational and sports activities, the potential for injury to participants and subsequent liability claims always exists. However, there are three significant legal factors related to the proposed Skate Park and its use which may greatly reduce potential liability to the City and its employees. The following is a brief discussion of each of these three points. I. LIABILITY FOR SKATEBOARDING AS A HAZARDOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY IS LIMITED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 831.7 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 115800 California Government Code section 831.7 provides that a public entity or public employee is not liable to anyone who participates in "hazardous recreational activity" for any damage or injury arising out of the activity. In September 1997, Health and Safety Code section 115800 was established to specifically designate skateboarding at any facility or park owned or operated by a public entity as a "hazardous recreational activity" provided the following conditions are met: (a} The person skateboarding is 14 years of age or older, (b) The skateboarding that caused the injury was a stunt, trick or luge skateboarding, and (c) The skateboard park is on public property that complies with the requirement that no person shall be permitted to ride a skateboard within the park unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads. Furthermore, with respect to any skateboard facility owned or operated by a local public agency, where the Skateboard Facility is designed and maintained for the purpose of recreational skateboard use, and that is not supervised on a regular basis, the requirement that no one shall be permitted to ride a skateboarding unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and knee p:ads maybe satisfied by (1) the local public agency adopting an ordinance requiring any person riding a skateboard at the facility to wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads, and (2) the posting of signs at the facility affording reasonable notice that any person riding a skateboard in the facility must wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads and that any person failing to do so will be subject to citation under the ordinance. If all of the conditions regarding Government Code section 831.7 and Health and Safety Code section 115800 are met, California law would provide a limit to liability against the City of Chula Vista and its employees in relation to the Skateboard Park Facility. Obviously, it would be important the City follow such requirements in the construction and use of this proposed facility. You should also be aware that California law requires that local public agencies maintain a record of all known and reported injuries incurred by skateboarders in a public skateboard park facility. In addition, public entities are required to provide copies of records regarding such information along with other details of the incidents and to file such records with the Judicial Council on an annual basis. Finally, the current Health and Safety Code section 115800 will be repealed by its own provisions on January 1, 2003. II. LIABILITY LIMITATION FOR REASONABLY APPROVED PLAN OR DESIGN As you are aware, potential liability may exist against a public entity where it creates or, after notice, fails to remedy a dangerous cx~:[it~ion of public property. Government Code section 830.6 provides that a public entity may claim immunity from liability for a dangerous condition that is ~nherent in the officially approved plan or design of construction of the public property. For such immunity to be available, the defendant public entity must show (a) the 2 plaintiff's injury was caused by an approved feature of the design, (b) the design was approved by the authorized public body, and (c) substantial evidence exists that the plan or design was reasonably approved. This immunity, commonly referred to as the ~design immunity" would not be available if the actual construction of the facility did not adhere to the approved plan or design. Consequently, construction of a reasonably designed facility such as the facility proposed herein should substantially adhere to the detailed approved plan or design by the City Council. III. LIABILITY RELEASE California law provides that those persons who voluntarily engage or assume risks that are known to them may be precluded from seeking to impose liability against others if they should become injured as a result of such risks. We are all aware that skateboarding involves some risk of injury. Participants in the proposed Skateboard Park Facility would be voluntarily choosing to skateboard at the City facility in light of such known risks. Public entities and other jurisdictions may require that persons using their Skateboard Park Facilities sign a written agreement expressing their voluntary assumption of such risks and thereby releasing the public entity from liability. The use of such a limited release of liability should be considered at this facility. IV. CONCLUSION Although liability related to the construction, use and maintenance of a proposed recreational facility can never be eliminated, consideration of the above noted principals may greatly reduce any potential for liability against the City. The City Attorney's office in conjunction with Risk Management will be working diligently on any procedures and policies related to this facility which would enc©urage the safe recreational use as a Skateboard Park Facility and limit any potential liability to the City. 3 CHULA VISTA SKATE PARK COST ESTIMATE PRELIMINARY COST DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE -MOBILIZATION/MOVE-IN Permits/Fees Equipment Construction Preparation S~ub-Total $ 50,000.00 SITE PREPARATION Clea~rin~/Grubbing $ 1,500.00 Demolition $ 1,000.00 Earthwork - Grading $ 14,962.50 Drainage $ 8,000.00 iTrenching/Backfill $ 6,537.50 Sub-Total $ 32,000.00 SKATE PARK CONSTRUCTION Grading $ 25,000.00 :Drainage $ 16,363.00 Skate Park Constsruction $ 460,000.00 Sub-Total $ 501,363.00 BUILDING/STRUCTURE Restrooms Concession Office Storable Check-in Sub-Total $140,000 SITF~ IMPROVEMENTS Plaza Area Hardscape $ 62,930.00 E~n~t~ Treatment Hardscape $ 32,600.00 Event & Perimeter Area Hardscape $ 119,307.00 ~?a_~?u~_nd Renovation Hardscape $ 8,763.00 ~l~b Tota! $ 223,600.00 i Skate Park Estimate (10/01) -1 SITE AMENITIES Bleachers (2 sets) 3-stack $ 10,000.00 Fumiture/Receptacles $ 19,800.00 Drinkinc¡ Fountains $ 3,000.00 Fencing/Gates (small chain link - 10' x 914') $ 45,700.00 Shade Structure $ 40,000.00 Sub-Total $ 118500.00 ELECTRICAL Service/Underqround $ 32,000.00 Security Lic¡hting $ 12,500.00 Outlets $ 2,500.00 Skate Park Lic¡hting $ 55,000.00 Security System $ 3,000.00 Sub-Total $ 105,000.00 AlE FEES Desion Construction Documents Consultants Sub-total $ 100,000.00 TOTALS Sub-total $1,270,463.00 10% Contingency $ 127,046.30 TOTAL $1,397,509.30 Bovs & Girls Club Contribution (from approved CDBG fund 2000/2001) $ 212,500.00 City's Contribution (from Proposition 12 Per Capita Grant) $1,185,009.30 $1,397,509.30 Skate Park Estimate (10/01) -2 ¡:j RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVII'-G THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR $102,760 TO PURKISS ROSERSI FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SKATE Pl,RK AT GREG ROGERS PARK ADJACENT TO THE BOYS AND GIF:LS CLUB AT OLEANDER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PURKISS ROSE-RSI WHEREAS, the I'arks and Recreation Department has long realized that a need for a safe and secure skate park ver,ue exists in the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, at tl,e Council meeting of October 9,2001, the design for the skatc park at Greg Rogers Park adjace It to the Boys and Girls Club on Oleander was approved; and WHEREAS, the approved design and feasibility study was conducted and produced by Purkiss Rose-RSI, the su:,cessful bidder of the RFP process; and WHEREAS, sinu Purkiss Rose-RSI performed admirably and successfully completed the design and feasibility study, it is recommended that Purkiss Rose-RSI provide consulting services for the creatic,n of the construction documents and assist City staff during the construction project; and WHEREAS, due to the status of the project, timing issues, and since Purkiss Rose-RSI has successfully worked with the City previously, staff recommends that the bidding process be waived and the City Mwlager bc authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with Purkiss Rose-RSI, in a form to b" approved by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREF')RE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the City's formal bidding process as impractical and award the contract for $102,760 to Purkiss Rose-RSI for architectural design services for the Skate Park at Greg Rogers Park adjacent to 'he Boys and Girls Club on Oleander. BE IT FURTHE:~ RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute an agreemt:L1t between the City of Chula Vista and Purkiss Rose-RSI, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk Presented by Approved as to form by Andy Campbell Director of Parks and Rc :rcation J\"Uoll1cy\,'eso\ Sbte ",,1'1, "",'ki" I:oso ~~ 1:S-1I Parties and Recital Page(s) Agreement between City ofChula Vista and Purkiss Rose RSI, Landscape Architects for Landscape Architectural Services This agreement ("Agreement"), dated December 17, 2001 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed tmless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business fonn is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business fonn is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals WHEREAS, City desires Professional Design Services for the Design Development, Construction Documents, and Construction Administration Phases for the Chula Vista Skate Park Project at Greg Rogers Park; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 that competitive bidding is impractical, and waive the nonnal consultant selection process because of Pur kiss Rose, RSI's historic significant time and effort in preparation of the Skate Park Feasibility Study, for which they were chosen through the City's standard bidding process; and WHEREAS, following review of Consultant's perfonnance, the positive working relationship that has been established between the City and the Consultant, the City desires to continue to retain Consultant services to produce the construction documents for the skate park; and WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the tenus and conditions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Director of Parks and Recreation has otherwise negotiated the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Sections 2.56.220-224 of the Chula Vista Mtmicipal Code. 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City of Chula Vista Page 1 /3 ~t2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perfonn all ofthe services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of perfonning and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perfonn all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, within the time frames set forth therein, time being ofthe essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option ofthe City, operate to tenninate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request fÌ"om Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be perfonned by the Consultant tmder this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to perfonning the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perfonn additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perfonn same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (B), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in perfonning any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perfonn in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 2 1~-13 F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverage's, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amotmt set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amotmt set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof ofInsurance Coverage. (I) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Perfonnance. (I) Perfonnance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 20, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Perfonnance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Perfonnance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a perfonnance bond by a surety and in a fonn and amotmt satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 3 1~-ILf Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the tenn, "Perfonnance Bond", in said Paragraph 20, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 20, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their tmfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the tenus of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a fonn and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the tenn, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 20, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 20, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Perfonnance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a fonn and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. 1. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall pennit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the tenn of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the infonnation, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's perfonnance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 19, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day ofthe period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 19, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the tenus and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 4 /3-/5 Paragraph II, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in Paragraph 20 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient infonnation as to the propriety of the billing to pennit the City to evaluate that the amotmt due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 19 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration ofthis agreement. 4. Tenn. This Agreement shall tenninate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amotmt of damages resulting ITom delay in perfonnance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld ITom monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration ofthe specified time. Extensions oftime, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 5 /'?; -Ib If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Refonn Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 16 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Detennine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the tenn is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has detennined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties tmder this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the tenn of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant leams of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles ITom the exterior botmdaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 16. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 6 1'3 -/7 Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's perfonnance ofthis Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Tenn of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Tenn of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written pennission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written pennission of City. 7. Hold Harmless and Indemnification 7.1. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. With respect to any liability, including but not limited to claims asserted or costs, 10sses, attorney fees, or payments for injury to any person or property caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Consultant, or the Consultant's employees, agents and officers, arising out of any services perfonned involving this proj ect, except liability for Professional Services covered tmder Section 7.2 the Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, or employees from and against all liability. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents, or officers, or any third party. The Consultant's duty to indemnify, protect, and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers, or employees. This Section in no way alters, affects or modifies the Consultant's obligation and duties tmder Section I herein and Exhibit A to this Agreement. 7.2. Indemnification for Professional Services As to the Consultant's professional obligation, work or services involving this Project, the Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, losses or payments for injury to any person or property, caused directly or indirectly from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant or the Consultant's employees, agents, or officers; provided, however, that the Consultant's duty to indemnify shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees. 8. Tennination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations tmder this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations ofthis Agreement, City shall have the right to tenninate this Agreement 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 Purkiss8Rose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 7 J?> - W by giving written notice to Consultant of such tennination and specifYing the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such tennination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Tennination, not to exceed the amotmts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator detennines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the perfonnance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions ofthis agreement. 10. Tennination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may tenninate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such tennination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of suchtennination. In that event, all finished and tmfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option ofthe City, become City's sole and exclusive property. Ifthe Agreement is tenninated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such tennination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. II. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Pennitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, infonnation, data, statistics, fonns, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part tmder this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, fonns or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSIICity ofChula Vista Page 8 1'3 -11 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perfonn as an independent contractor with sole control ofthe manner and means of perfonning the services required tmder this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes tmder this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out ofthis agreement, against the City tmless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tenus ofthis Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to 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. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in perfonning the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement ofthe numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSIICity ofChula Vista Page 9 1~-20 B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served ifpersonally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and tmderstanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego COtmty, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and perfonnance heretmder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 2ptyagm Decemher 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSIICity ofChula Vista Page 10 /3-2( Signature Page to Agreement between City ofChula Vista and Purkiss-Rose-RSI, Landscape An:bitects IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and undefStOOd same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ,20°- City ofChula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: ~- By: Steve Rose, Principal Exhibit List to Agreement ( X) Exhibit A ( X) Exhibit B 2ptyagm December 17,200\ Purl<issaRose-RSl/City o{ChuJa Vista Page II cd Wl:!c£:80 1ØØG c, """'G 13 -22 'ON Xl:!j : wo,u Exhibit A to Agreement between City ofChula Vista and PurkisseRose-RSI 1. Effective Date of Agreement: December 17, 2001 2. City-Related Entity: (X) () City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California () Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a () Other: , a ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of ChuIa Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, ChuIa Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: PurkisseRose-RS1 Steve Rose, Principal 801 North Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92832 5. Business Fonn of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( X ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 801 North Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92832 Telephone (714) 871-3638 Fax (714) 871-1188 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 12 1~-23 7. General Duties: 7.1 Greg Rogers Park Improvement Plan for Skate Park Venue - Consultant shall provide professional Design Services for the Master Plan Design Development, Construction Documents, and Construction Administration Phases for the Chula Vista Skate Park Project at Greg Rogers Park as required to prepare, submit, and obtain the approval from the City Cotmcil. All Consultant services shall be perfonned to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Services shall include meeting with staff, master plan design development, construction document phase, and the construction administration phase with accompanying support documents as outlined in Paragraph 8, Detailed Scope of Work. 8. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"): 8.1 Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant shall provide the following services, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation: 8.2 Skate Park Master Plan Design Development (Deliverable No.1): c. Staff Input: Meet with City staff, upon request, (including Boys and Girls Club Representative) (see Paragraph 8.6, Meetings) to review plans, architectural elements, selection of materials, and equipment. Based on the input from City staff, consultant shall refine the design layout, develop architectural floor plans and elevations, select materials, site amenities, site furniture, colors, etc, and shall continue refining the skate park master plan until approved by the City Contract Administrator. Consultant shall perfonn a site survey to include utilities and existing conditions. Perfonn a geotechnical study to tmderstand the history of site, profiles, soil makeup, and any cut and fill properties. a. b. 8.3 Construction Documents (Deliverable No.2): a. Consultant shall prepare construction documents for the skate park at Greg Rogers Park based on City approved final design development plans and budget, in accordance with deliverables schedule (Paragraph 9.3). These construction documents shall include: . Demolition Plans . Grading and Drainage Plans . Site Improvement Plans (drop off area, walks, plaza, event are, fences, signage, etc) . Skate Park Plans, including the following features: One (1) Bowl, 7' to 9' deep . Ramps, 21 split between flat ramps and transitions, 2 to 6 feet high . Two (2) Stairs, one with 6 steps and one with 11 steps . Sixteen Ledges, l' to 3' high . Extended Ledges, averaging 1 foot high 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 13 F3 -2~ . Pyramid, 2 feet high Manual Pad, 18 inches high . Three Roll Overs, 18 inches to 3 feet high . Rails, 18 inches to 36 inches high . Building (760 sq ft) to include ticket sales/office, concession stand, and storage space. . Chain Link (penal style) perimeter of skate park (10' x 914') . Two Sets of3-stack bleachers w/shade structures . Benches . Lighting . Security System . Plaza Area Hardscape . Entry Treatment Hardscape . Event & Perimeter Area Hardscape . Turnaround Renovation Hardscape . Landscape & Irrigation . Electrical Plans . Architectural Plans . Park Amenities Plan . Irrigation Plans . Planting Plans . Construction Details . Specifications Consultant shall review these proposed features and analyze the appropriateness of the features for this skate park and make a written recommendation to the City. b. Estimate of Probable Cost: Consultant shall provide a written itemized analysis of costs of all design elements and features for the Project before final construction documents are produced. Review with City staff and make recommendations. Work with City staff to develop a cost strategy including the budget and/or phasing of improvements. c. Construction Documents shall be in the fonn of scaled, dimensioned drawings as necessary to commtmicate the design intent, sizes and material selection for all scope items. d. Instruments of ServicelElectronic Media shall be produced as hard copy, original drawings and specifications are the deliverable instruments of service. If work is prepared in electronic media fonnat the Consultant will provide electronic copies for convenience only. Electronic media will be prepared in AutoCAD @ Release 14 fonnat. In accepting and utilizing any drawings or other data on any fonn of electronic media generated and provided by the Consultant, the City agrees that all such drawings and data are instruments of service of the Consultant. The electronic files submitted by the Consultant to the City are submitted for an acceptance period of five working days. Any defects the City discovers during this period will be reported to the Consultant and will be corrected. 2ptyagm December 17,2001 1~,2G PurkissoRose-RSl/City orChu!a Vista Page 14 8.4 8.5 8.6 Construction Administration Phase (Deliverable No.3): a. Bidding' Upon receipt by City of contractor's bids to construct Greg Rogers Skate Park, Consultant shall provide the City with input, advice, and assistance in the evaluation of all such bids, including: . Contractor's ability to comply with all bid documents. . Contractor's ability to perfonn detailed scope of work. . Contractor's perfonnance on similar job in the last two years. b. Construction: While construction is in progress on the Greg Rogers Skate Park, with City staff s oversight, consultant shall review and submit recommendations as to the approval of contractor's requested addenda, extra work/change orders, material submittals, color samples and provide clarification to plans and specifications. In addition, Consultant shall attend concrete pre-pour and concrete post-pour operations for the project. Filing Application: Consultant shall prepare, upon request of City's contract administrator, the appropriate plans and documents, which are required by the City and complete and submit the City's Processing Application Fonn for the Greg Rogers Skate Park. Meetings: Consultant shall attend and provide written agendas and meeting notes for all meetings: a. Pre-Application Meeting: Meet with City staff to familiarize the Consultant with City's design issues and expectations related to the development of the skate park. b. Periodic Meetings: Attend a maximum of six meetings as requested by the Contract Administrator in addition to those meetings, presentations, site visits, and similar tasks set forth elsewhere in this agreement. c. Park and Recreation Commission Presentation: Present, upon request of City's Contract Administrator, the Skate Park Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Respond to comments as directed by City Staff and present to Parks and Recreation Commission alternatives until Skate Park Master Plan is found acceptable to the Commission. d. City Council Presentation: Present, upon request of City's Contract Administrator, the Final Skate Park Master Plan to City Council for approval. Provide revisions or response to conditions of approval as directed by City staff. If required by City's Contract Administrator, attend subsequent City Council Meetings to present requested infonnation on the project tmtil the Plan is approved. e. Site visits: Consultant shall be present for the following: . Pre-construction . Shotcrete pre-pour application . Shotcrete post-pour . Final inspection walk through and preparation of punch list 8.7 City Approval - Consultant shall continue working with City staff and the Director of Parks and Recreation to obtain approval of the Skate Park Master Plan from the City Council. PurkissoRose-RSIICity ofChula Vista Page 15 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 13-U 9. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perfonn Services 9.1 Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement 9.2 Deliverables - Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Delive I' abies: Deliverable No. I: Due no later than 14 weeks from date of Commencement of Consultant Services. Draft Skate Park Master Plan Design Development: Consultant shall prepare, based on the input from City staff, the design layout, architectural floor plans and elevations, select materials, site amenities, site furniture, colors, etc. Colored and mounted for presentation to Parks and Recreation Commission,purposes: Site Plan at appropriate scale (1) copy Site Cross Sections at appropriate scale (as needed to commtmicate design intent) Plan view of Buildings with programming completed to define the building footprint and costs (I) copy Elevations (all sides) of buildings at y.," scale (I) copy Entry Sketch perspective drawing (I) copy A construction materials and colors sample board (I) copy First run of construction drawings for staff review Electrical and mechanical drawings On site drawings Grading Plans Waste Water Evacuation Plan Written text providing complete infonnation on concept, implementation, cost estimate, phasing, and all other infonnation necessary to communicate the Draft Park Master Plan (I) each Deliverable No.2: Due no later than 18 weeks from date of Commencement of Consultant Services. Construction Documents: Construction documents for the skate park at Greg Rogers Park shall be prepared based on the approved final design development plans and budget. These construction drawings shall include: Demolition Plans Grading and Drainage Plans Site Improvement Plans (drop off area, walks, plaza, event are, fences, signage, etc) Skate Park Plans Electrical Plans Architectural Plans Park Amenities Plan Irrigation Plans Planting Plans 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 I ?v 2-7 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 16 Construction Details Prepare documents for bidding construction of the skate park using City's standard format and prepare a colored presentation board. Deliverable No.3: Construction Administration: Bidding: Upon receipt of contractor's bids Consultant shall provide assistance during the bidding phase by providing any clarification or infonnation as to the reputation/expertise of the construction companies bidding on the project. Oversight: With City staff's direction, consultant shall review and submit recommendations as to the approval of contractor's addenda, extra work/change orders, material submittals, color samples and provide clarification to plans and specifications. 9.4 Date for completion of all Consultant services: Nine months trom the date of this agreement. Times for perfonnance may be extended in the sole discretion ofthe Director of Parks and Recreation, but in no event will the date for completion be extended beyond one year trom the date of City Council approval of this agreement. 10. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). ( ) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000.00 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). . Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: The City will provide civil engineering drawings for the site providing grades property boundaries, botmdaries, restrictions and easements, adjacent street improvement drawings providing services and utility lines. II. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. 2ptyagm December 17,2001 [3 -'2? PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 17 For perfonnance of all ofthe Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amotmts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee AmOtmt: $102,760.00, payable as set forth in Exhibit B. ( ) I. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest fÌ'ee loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. Ifthe Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back fÌ'om the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made tmless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been perfonned by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( X ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the perfonnance of each phase or portion ofthe Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amotmts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase Fee for Said Phase () 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made heretmder shall be considered as interest fÌ'ee loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amotmt or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back fÌ'om the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and tmfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made tmless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage 2ptyagm December 17,2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 18 1-¿-¿C1 of completion of the phase has been perfonned by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. () Hourly Rate Arrangement For perfonnance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the perfonnance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule, attached as Exhibit B, according to the following tenus and conditions: (1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perfonn all ofthe Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $1 02,760.00 including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation"). (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to anyaddi- tional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after August, 2002, if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the perfonnance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: () None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate () Reports, not to exceed $~: () Copies, not to exceed $~: () Travel, not to exceed $~: (X) Printing, not to exceed $_: (X) Postage, not to exceed $_: () Delivery, not to exceed $_: () Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $~. () Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: Actual Cost Actual Cost 2ptyagm December 17,2001 PurkissoRose-RSIICity ofChula Vista Page 19 /3-30 , not to exceed $~: , not to exceed $_: 13. Contract Administrators: City, Andy Campbell, Director Parks and Recreation Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 409-5966 Consultant: Steve Rose, Principal Purkiss Rose RSI 801 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92832 14. Project Manager: Steve Rose shall be the Project Manager and shall provide overall management services and coordination of subconsultants on behalf of the Consultant and shall remain the Project Manager for the entire tenn ofthis Contract unless City, in writing, agrees to a replacement. 15. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $NA per day. ( ) Other: 16. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code, (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources ofincome. Category No.2. Interests in real property. ( ) ( ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources ofincome subject to the regulatory, pennit or licensing authority ofthe department. ( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. 2ptyagm December 17,2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 20 1:3-3/ ( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 17. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 18. Pennitted Subconsultants: Allwest Geoscience, Inc., Geotechnical Testing 1210 N. Barsten Way Anaheim, CA 92806-1822 Tel: 714.238.9255 Fax: 714.238.1105 Consolidated Engineering, Electrical Engineers 14661 Myford Road, Suite C Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: 714.832.6346 Fax: 714.832.9427 Correia Consulting and Design, Structural Engineers 16912 Bolsa Chica Road, Suite 101 Htmtington Beach, CA 92649 Tel: 714.840.5582 Fax: 714.840.8691 Crane Architectural Group 801 No. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92832 Tel: 714.5525.0363 Land Development Design Corp., Civil Engineers 1910 S. Archibald Ave., Suite N Ontario, CA 91761 Tel: 909.930.1466 Fax: 909.930.1468 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChula Vista Page 21 13-~2.- 19. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( X ) Other: As specified on Exhibit B. B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( X ) Other: As specified in Paragraph 11.B Compensation C. City's Accotmt Number: To be inserted with CIP initiation. 20. Security for Perfonnance ( ) Perfonnance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: AmOtmt: $ (X) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City detennines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: (X) Retention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention AmOtmt: $ Retention Release Event: (X) Completion of All Consultant Services to the satisfaction of, and as solely detennined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. ( ) Other: 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 22 t~ -33 EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE Rate Schedule Design Development, upon completion of Deliverable No.1 to the satisfaction of the City's Contract Administrator Construction Documentation, upon completion of Deliverable No.2 to the satisfaction of the City's Contract Administrator Bidding and Construction Administration, upon completion of Deliverable No.3 to the satisfaction of the City's Contract Administrator $15,444.00 $69,390.00 $7,650.00 TOTAL $92,484.00* *Reflects 10% Retention 2ptyagm December 17, 2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 23 13-3~ EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE Purkiss Rose/RSI Principal........................................................................................................ $ll5/hr Project Manager ................................................................................................ 85/hr Skate Park Designer .......................................................................................... 75/hr Project Captain.................................................................................................. 70/hr Draftsperson...................................................................................................... 65/hr Clerical and Word Processing Staff.................................................................. 35/hr Allwest Geoscience, Inc., Geotechnical Testing Technician....................................................................................................... $49/hr Senior Technician ............................................................................................. 55/hr Field Supervisor ................................................................................................ 65/hr Surveyor Technician ......................................................................................... 45/hr Licensed Surveyor ............................................................................................ 75/hr Senior Project Cost Analyst.............................................................................. 65/hr Field Engineer/Geologist .................................................................................. 55/hr Staff Engineer/Geologist................................ ................................................... 65/hr Project Engineer/Geologist """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"............ 75/hr Senior Engineer/Geologist..........................................................................,..... 85/hr Associate Engineer/GeologistlHydrogeologist............................................... lOO/hr Typist/Clerical Personnel.................................................................................. 35/hr Wordprocessor .................................................................................................. 45/hr Consolidated Engineering, Electrical Engineers Principal Engineer........................................................................................... $95/hr Project Engineer................................................................................................ 80/hr Design Engineer................................................................................................ 70/hr DesignlDrafting................................................................................................. 50/hr Clerical..........................................................................................................,... 30/hr Correia Consulting and Design, Structural Engineers Principal Engineer (Court Dposition) ........................................................... $200/hr Principal Engineer...........................................................................................l50/hr Senior Project Engineer .................................................................................... 90/hr Project Engineer................................................................................................ 75/hr Staff Engineer ................................................................................................... 60/hr Jr. EngineerlDesigner........................................................................................ 60/hr 2ptyagm December 17,2001 PurkissoRose-RSVCity ofChula Vista Page 24 ¡ -3 - 3:; Draftsman.......................................................................................................... 60/hr Clerical..............................................................................................................45/hr Crane Architectural Group Principal........................................................................................................ $110/hr Staff Architect................................................................................................... 90/hr Project Designer..........................................................""""""""""""""""""" 70/hr Project Manager ..................................................................""""""""""""""" 35/hr CADD Draftsman ............................................................................................. 35/hr Draftsman.......................................................................................................... 32/hr Clerical.............................................................................................................. 30/hr Land Development Design Corp., Civil Engineers Design EngineerslPrincipal............................................................................. $75/hr Design Draftsmen ............................................................................................. 55/hr Survey Crew (2-man).........................................................................................................115/hr (3-man).......,................................................................................................. 180/hr 2ptyagm December 17,2001 PurkissoRose-RSI/City ofChuIa Vista Page 25 /3-3b COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a New Office of Building and Park Construction in Administration; approving a new position of Director of Building and Park Construction; Transferring the Landscape Architecture and Park Design Division and the Sr. Management Assistant position from Parks and Recreation, and the Building Projects Section and a Sr. Engineer position from Public Works to this new office; adjusting the salary of the vacant Building Projects Manager position and reclassifying the Principal Management Analyst position in Public Works to an Administrative Services Manager position, and amending the FY02 budget and appropriating funds and amending the FY03 adopted spending plan therefore SUBMITTED BY: C't M ~ ~ y anager (4/5th Vote: Yes X No ) Thc City is embarking on thc largest capital program in its history to develop new public facilities and parks. During thc next five to eight years thc City will be constructing several major facilities including a police facility, a library, two fire stations, 4-6 recreational facilities, completing a major remodel/expansion of the Civic Center in addition to developing 11 parks. The current organizational structure and staffing does not have the capacity to accommodate such an aggressive capital program. A new Office of Building and Park Construction is proposed to be added to Administration. This division will be headed by a new director position reporting directly to the City Manager and will pull in key staff currently located in Parks and Recreation and Public Works to centralize management and coordinate the many efforts needed to bring these projects to successful completion. It is also proposed that the existing vacant Building Project Manager position have its salary upgraded and be made senior management so it can be designated the lead position on building projects and a seasoned veteran of large municipal building projects can be recruited. Lastly it is recommended that the Principal Management Analyst in Public Works be reclassified to Administrative Services Manager and be assigned development and oversight of the City's capital budget and cost control of the projects therein. The new organizational structure and related minimal staffing adjustments should provide the needed direction, oversight and coordination to successfully implement this aggressive public facility and park capital program in the most cost effective manner possible, thus ensuring ail facilities are well-designed and properly constructed within budget and on time. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution: 1) Creating a new Office of Building and Park Construction in Administration and approving an executive position of Director of Building and Park Construction and amending the FY02 budget and appropriating $82,181 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund and amending the FY03 adopted spending plan by adding $171,025 to Administration's Personnel Services budget 2) Moving the Landscape Architecture and Park Development Division and the Sr. Management Assistant from the Parks and Recreation Department to Administration functionally now and amending the adopted FY03 spending plan by transferring $839,003 in Personnel Services and $125,005 in Supplies and Services to Administration 3) Moving the Building Projects Section and one Sr. Engineer from the Public Works Department Item #: Meeting Date: December 17, 2001 functionally now and amending the adopted FY03 spending plan by transferring $648,054 in Personnel Services and $36,079 in Supplies and Services to Administration 4) Reclassifying the vacant Building Projects Manager position and moving it from Middle to Senior Management and adjusting the salary to reflect the newly defined duties and amending the FY03 adopted spending plan by adding $69,260 in Administration's Personnel Services budget based on unanticipated CIP reimbursement revenue 5) Reclassifying the Principal Management Analyst in Public Works to Administrative Services Manager and amending the FY03 adopted spending plan by increasing the Personnel Services budget by $22,039 based on unanticipated CIP reimbursement revenue DISCUSSION: Proposed Organizational and Staffing Changes The following organizational chart depicts the proposed composition of the new Office of Building and Park Construction. Director of Building and ]~lll [ Senior Management Assistant Park ConstructionJ~ (Transfer from Parks and (New Position) Recreation Building Projects Manager (Reclassify and Transfer from Public Works) Senior Civil Engineer Principal Landscape Architect Landscape Architect (2) Senior Building Project Supervisor Landscape Inspector (2) Building Projects Supervisor (2) Landscape Planner I (2) Building Project Coordinator Landscape Planner II (2) Engineering Tech III (All Positions Transfered from Sr. Admin. Office Specialist Parks and Recreation) (All Positions Transfered from Public Works) A new position of Director of Building and Park Construction is being proposed. It ts recommended that Andy Campbell, the current Director of Parks and Recreation, be transferred into this position and be replaced with a new Director of Recreation in January. It is also recommended that the Senior Management Assistant currently assigned to Parks and Recreation be transferred to the new division to provide high-level administrative support to the director and management staff. It is anticipated that upon Andy Campbell's retirement, within the next two years, many of the systems will be set up and staff trained enabling one of the Item #: Meeting Date: December 17, 2001 higher level management positions to be left vacant thus eventually resulting in zero net increase in staffing. It is recommended that the Landscape Architectural Division of Parks and Recreation that is responsible for landscape architecture and park development throughout the City be transferred to the new office. This transfer includes 9 positions. The proposed structure transfers the vacant position of Building Projects Manager from Public Works to this office and reclassifies it from a mid-manager to a senior manager who will report to the Director and be responsible for the building side of the office. It is intended that this upgraded position be filled with someone with expertise in design-build of public facilities. This building section of the office will be staffed with the Sr. Engineer currently responsible for building projects as well as the 6 other staff from the Building Projects Section of Public Works that will be transferred to the new office. Lastly, it is proposed that the Principal Management Analyst position in Public Works be reclassified to Administrative Services Manager. There are a multitude of reasons for this reclassification. It is proposed that this position be tasked with developing the Capital Improvement Plan and budget and cost control systems, in conjunction with Finance and Budget and Analysis staff. In addition to monitoring the capital budget, it is proposed that this position supervise and manage the Engineering Assessments Unit staff and functions as current development workload in the department precludes the Sr. Engineer from devoting adequate supervisory time to this function. This unit is directly responsible for the development and monitoring of assessment and open space districts; a function that has and will continue to grow significantly in workload and fiscal importance. Although these functional changes wiI1 take place within the next few weeks it is being recommended that the transfer of personnel as well as the supporting personnel and supply and service budgets be transferred effective July 1, 2002 as budgetary transfers are much cleaner at the start ora fiscal year and postponing the transfers will greatly reduce the staff time needed to effect the change. Benefits of Proposed Changes During the next five to eight years numerous public buildings and parks will be constructed. Historically, building and park construction was accomplished through staff from various specialties in different departments working with a project manager from the lead department. While this approach was relatively successful for intermittent construction projects, continued success is unlikely given the numerous complex and costly facilities and parks scheduled to come on line within a relatively short time period. The organizational changes and the addition of a new position and two reclassifications recommended will provide the resources needed to manage this aggressive building and park project program slated for the next 5-8 years. The creation of a new centralized Office of Building and Park Construction reporting to the City Manager that pulls in all the critical staff from throughout the City will greatly improve accountability. All staff will receive the same direction and be located together at the Corporation Yard to facilitate cooperation and communication. The reclassification of the Building Projects Manager will enable the City to recruit outside talent with experience in design build projects for project administration and staff management. By locating the new office at the corporation yard all staffrelated to open space, park development and construction, landscape design and park maintenance will be co-located improving coordination and planning. Item #: Meeting Date: December 17, 2001 FISCAL IMPACT: ~ae fiscal impact for the remainder of FY02 is $82,181, which represents the FY02 cost of the Director position. No appropriations are needed in FY02 for the reclassifications of the Building Project Manager and Administrative Services Manager as these costs can be absorbed through salary savings in the Public Works Department. It is recommended that this amount be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund. he Fiscal Impact in FY03 is $262,324. Of this cost the $22,039 associated with the reclassification of the Administrative Services Manager in Public Works and the $69,260 associated with the reclassification of the Building Projects Manager can be covered through unanticipated CIP reimbursement revenue. This agenda statement currently contemplates covering the FY03 cost of $171,025 for the Director of Building and Park Construction from General Fund reserves, although staff will continue exploring the potential of offsetting these costs with program revenue. Utilizing reserves to fund this staffing augmentation is within budgetary guidelines as the expense is not anticipated to go beyond FY04 and is in response to staffing needs of limited duration associated with the capital program. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A NEW OFFICE OF BUILDING AND PARK CONSTRUCTION IN ADMINISTRATION; APPROVING A NEW POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PARK CONSTRUCTION; TRANSFERRING THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PARK DESIGN DIVISION AND THE SR. MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT POSITION FROM PARKS AND RECREATION, AND THE BUILDING PROJECTS SECTION AND A SENIOR ENGINEER POSITION FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO THIS NEW OFFICE; ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE VACANT BUILDING PROJECTS MANAGER POSITION AND RECLASSIFYING THE PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION IN PUBLIC WORKS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER POSITION, AND AMENDING THE FY02 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FY03 ADOPTED SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City is embarking on the largest capital program in its history to develop new public facilities and parks and during the next five to eight years the City will be constructing several major facilities including a police facility, a library, two fire stations, 4-6 recreational facilities, completing a major remodel/expansion of the Civic Center in addition to developing II parks; and WHEREAS, the current organizational structure and staffing does not have the capacity to accommodate such an aggressive capital program, therefore, a new Office of Building and Park Construction is proposed to be added to Administration; and WHEREAS, this division will be headed by a new director position reporting directly to the City Manager and will pull in key staff currently located in Parks and Recreation and Public Works to centralize management and coordinate the many efforts needed to bring these projects to successful completion; and WHEREAS, it is also proposed that the existing vacant Building Project Manager position have its salary upgraded and be made senior management so it can be designated the lead position on building projects and a seasoned veteran of large municipal building projects can be recruited; and WHEREAS, lastly it is recommended that the Principal Management Analyst in Public Works be reclassified to Administrative Services Manager and be assigned development and oversight of the City's capital budget and cost control of the projects therein; and WHEREAS, the new organizational structure and related minimal staffing adjustments should provide the needed direction, oversight and coordination to successfully implement this aggressive public facility and park capital program in the most cost effective manner possible, thus ensuring all facilities are well-designed and properly constructed within budget and on time. I /'1 -ç NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby create a new Office of Building and Park Construction in Administration and approve an executive position of Director of Building and Park Construction and amend the FY02 budget by appropriating $82,181 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund and amend the FY03 adopted spending plan by adding $171,025 to Administration's Personnel Services budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Landscape Architecture and Park Development Division and the Sr. Management Assistant from the Parks and Recreation Department be moved to Administration functionally now and amend the adopted FY03 spending plan by transferring $125,005 in Supplies and Services to Administration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Building Projects Section and one Sr. Engineer from the Public Works Department be moved functionally now and amend the adopted FY03 spending plan by transferring $648,054 in Personnel Services and $36,079 in Supplies and Services to Administration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the vacant Building Projects Manager position be reclassified and moved from Middle to Senior Management and adjust the salary to reflect the newly defined duties and amend the adopted FY03 spending plan by adding $69,260 in Administration's Personnel Services budget based on unanticipated CIP reimbursement revenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Principal Management Analyst in Public Works be reclassified to Administrative Services Manager and amend the adopted FY03 spending plan by increasing the Personnel Services budget by $22,039 based on unanticipated CIP reimbursement revenue. Presented by: Approved as to form by: 4-t K-t> Ó David D. Rowlands, Jr. City Manager J:lattomeylresolpark reorg 2 /LI -b CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-02-03, City-initiated proposal to amend the Growth Management Ordinance; the Growth Management Program; and the Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy, to enact corrected threshold standards £or Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services, and a revised Libraries threshold standard a) Ordinance Amending Section 19.09.040 D of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to enact a revised Libraries threshold standard b) Ordinance Amending Sections 19.09.040 A and B o£the Chula Vista Municipal Code to enact corrected threshold standards For Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services c) Resolution Amending Section 3.6.1 o£the City's Growth Management Program, and the Libraries threshold standard of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy d) Resolution Amending Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 of the City's Growth Management Program, and the Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services threshold standards of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City M-a~ager and Library Director(c~k~ Police Chief ~,c'~ Acting Fire Chief~ Director of Planning and Building ff_~/~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~!t. 9?. (4/Sths Vote: Yes No x ) At the May 31, 2001 joint meeting of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), Planning Commission, and City Council, the GMOC presented the 2000 Growth Managemem Annual Report, which calls for amendments to the threshold standards for Police, Fire/Emergency Medical Services, and Libraries. The Planning Commission and City Council unanimously accepted the report and directed staff to prepare the proposed changes in the threshold standards for formal adoption. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review under General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA guidelines. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Find that the proposed amendments are exempt kom environmental review under General Pule 15061 (b) (3) of'the CEQA guidelines. 2. Adopt the attached Ordinance amending Section 19.09.040 D of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to enact a revised Libraries threshold standard. 3. Adopt the attached Ordinance amending Sections 19.09.040 A and B of' the Chula Vista Municipal Code to enact corrected threshold standards for Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services. 4. Adopt the attached Resolution amending Section 3.6.1 of' the City's Growth Management Program (Exhibit A of' the attached Resolution), and the Libraries Threshold Standard of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy (Exhibit B of the attached Resolution). 5. Adopt the attached Resolution amending Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 of the City's Growth Management Program (Exhibit A of the attached Resolution), and the Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services threshold standards of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy (Exhibit B of the attached Resolution). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: After lengthy deliberation the GMOC recommended the proposed threshold changes in their 2000 Annual Report. The GMOC Annual Report was reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a joint GMOC workshop meeting on May 31, 2001. On November 14, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public heating and voted (5-0- 1-1) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment for Libraries. The Planning Commission, however, citing both the need for further clarification and the adoption of broader performance standards that rely on more than growth related standards, did not recommend approval of' the proposed amendments for Police and Fire/Emergency Services but did not oppose the adjustments (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission's draft minutes are attached as Attachment 2. In addition, the GMOC intends to forward to Council a memo reiterating their position. DISCUSSION: Police and Fire Threshold Standard Amendments The original Police and Fire response time threshold standards, established in 1988, were calculated incorrectly, as they were set during a pre-Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) period when record keeping was rudimentary at best. Due to the lack of automation, dispatch times (and also turnout times for Fire) were estimated and calculated manually. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 Three factors in particular led to the development of erroneous original thresholds: · Inaccurately low baseline dispatch times were used to set the standards. Because dispatch time was recorded manually by punch cards, and dispatchers were often extremely busy, card punching often occurred after the fact, which created a disproportionate number of "zero" dispatch times. As a result, the estimated average Police and Fire dispatch time in 1988 was 18 and 20 seconds shorter, respectively than it likely was. · Zero call times were not deleted from the database used to calculate response times. Some emergency calls have zero dispatch, travel and/or response times, which give a false picture of within-threshold calls. These data errors should have been deleted from the database before calculating averages, but this was not always done. As a result, dispatch time for Police and Fire in 1988 was measured as being shorter than it likely was by as much as 22 seconds. · Natural fluctuations were not accounted for. Data typically fluctuates from year to year, or from one measurement to another. Any threshold should account for this natural, random statistical variation. A widely accepted factor of 2.5% should be (and was) applied to the 1988 percentage thresholds, but not the average response time thresholds. As a result, dispatch time for Police and Fire in 1988 was measured as being shorter than it likely was by as much as 8 seconds. For comparison purposes, below and on the next page are two tables for Police and one for Fire that show the original and proposed corrected threshold standards. Current Threshold 84.0% 4:30 Proposed Corrected Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:50 Page 4, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 ~ °f C~I['ReS~ Current Threshold 85.0% Proposed Corrected Threshold 80.0% The proposed corrections to the threshold standards are based on a more precise calculation from the CAD system implemented in 1998. The system tracks and accurately reports response times, thus minimizing human error. In addition, the proposed thresholds reflect statistical methods omitted in calculating the original thresholds. Correction to the thresholds do not lower quality of life in Chula Vista and are not growth-related. They correct flaws in the calculation of the existing threshold standards established in 1988. As always, the departments will continue to provide a proactive and professional level of service to the community despite the proposed change in thresholds. The Police Department continues to see improvement in response times. Response times to emergency (Priority One) calls for service have improved dramatically and are expected to be in compliance with the proposed threshold standard for the FY 00-01 reporting period. Response times to urgent (Priority Two) calls also appear to have improved. Fire Department Threshold performance has been very consistent over the last ten years. There has been a consistent pattern of Fire Department response times from 1990 to 1999. It is important to note that the proposed corrected Threshold Standard (80% within 7 minutes) is not recommended in anticipation of lower future performance levels. To the contrary, as reported this year there has been an improvement in performance from the previous year's data. It is anticipated that Fire Department performance will continue to improve in future years. '/o og ~all R~nse ~ ~e~ Current Threshold 62.0°/0 7:00 Proposed Corrected Threshold 57.0% 7:30 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 Page 5, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 Libraries Threshold Standard Amendments The current threshold standard is 500 gross feet (GSF) per 1,000 population. Thc 1987 Library Master Plan called for a range of 500 to 700 GSF of library per 1,000 population. Based on that range, new libraries were being designed to provide 600 GSF per 1,000 population. However, the range created confusion among staff and developers. After considering several options, the proposed threshold standard now reads as follows: In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. Thc construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below thc city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities arc to be adequately equipped and staffed. It should be noted that three minor changes have been made to the wording from the GMOC report. The phrase "by buildout (approximately year 2030)" has been added to better define when the additional library space will be needed. In addition, the phrase "beyond the June 30, 2000 GSF total" has been added, to more clearly define the intent for new development to provide more library space over a base year amount. Finally, the word "new" has been deleted from the last sentence to better describe the intent for all library facilities, rather than just new library facilities, to be adequately equipped and staffed. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed corrections to the Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Service threshold standards do not have a fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. The proposed revision to the Libraries threshold standard also does not have a financial impact. However, as was the case with the previous Libraries threshold standard, the construction of additional library facilities does impact the General Fund through the need to budget funds for the ongoing operating expenses to rrm these facilities once they are constructed. Attachments: 1 Council Information Memorandum from Russ Hall, Planning Commission Vice Chair 2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes from November 14, 2001 COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5, 2001 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Russ Hall, Planning Commission Vice Chair (Serving as Chair at the 11/14/2001 Planning Commission Meeting) SUBJECT: Planning Commission Action Regarding GMOC Threshold Adjustments At the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 a public heating was held to present proposed adjustments to the City's Growth Management Program Threshold Standards for Library, Police, and Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Commission voted to recommend approval of the threshold modification for Library, but failed by a vote of 2- 3-1-1, to recommend the proposed "correction" to the Police and Fire/EMS threshold. There were two fundamental reasons why the Planning Commission failed to reconmaend approval for the Police and Fire/EMS threshold adjustments. 1. The response time thresholds are recognized as an appropriate measure for GMOC purposes. However, the Planning Commission felt that a full measure of Police and Fire/EMS performance needs to be established on broader non-growth related criteria for a more accurate reflection of actual service levels. After the motion to approve the resolution for support of the Police and Fire/EMS GMOC threshold adjustments failed, a motion to recommend to Council that other non-growth related performance measures regarding Police and Fire/EMS be recommended to Council was passed. That motion will be transmitted separately. 2. While the Planning Commission did not dispute the veracity of City staff in preparing the underlying analysis supporting the threshold adjustment, issues remained concerning technical details. These lingering issues were sufficient that, although not opposing the threshold "correction", sufficient numbers of the Plaiming Commission present that evening could not support the GMOC recommended adjustments at this time. In summary, the Planning Commission endorsed the adjustment to the Library threshold but did not endorse or oppose the "correction" to the Police and Fire/EMS thresholds. The Planning Commission does believe additional broader measurement tools for Police and Fire cffectiveness is warranted. In short, some on the Commission felt that the public safety thresholds established by the ordinance were insufficient to serve as the only citywide measurement of public safety performance. Additionally, GMOC's response for threshold unattainment, cessation of permit issuance, was inadequate to resolve deficiencies. Those commissioners felt that an independent and comprehensive city-wide standard should be GMOC Threshold Adjustment Page 2 established to give public safety officials, decision-makers and the public a more accurate picture of public safety needs and the areas where they should be improved. We want to be clear that we as a Conunission are not suggesting that the GMOC standards for Police/Fire/EMS be done away with. Rather, we are suggesting that an augmentation of standards outside of the GMOC process be enacted that have broader measures to assess response effectiveness. cc: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Jim Sandoval, Deputy Director of Planning and Building Growth Management Oversight Commission Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - November 14, 2001 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-03; Amending the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code, Title 19, Sections 19.09.040 A,B, and D; the Growth Management Program Sections 3.3.1,3.4.1, and 3.6.1; and the Fire/EMS, Police, and Library Threshold Standards of the City's Threshold / Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy. Commissioner Cortes stepped down from the dais. Background: Dan Forster, Associate Planner stated that a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Growth Management Oversight Commission was held on May 31, 2001 to review the 2000 GMOC Annual Report, which called for amendments to the threshold standards for Police, Fire/Emergency Medical Services and Libraries. The report was unanimously accepted and staff was directed to prepare the proposed changes in threshold standards for formal adoption. The Police and Fire response time threshold standards that were established in 1988 were calculated incorrectly as they were set during pre-Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) automation. The current Library threshold standard is 500 (GSF) per 1,000 population and the 1987 Library Master Plan called for a range of 500 to 700 GSF per 1,000 population. Based on that range new libraries were being designed to provide 600 GSF p/1,000 popl. After further review staff felt that the threshold should be defined as the total square footage required at buildout. The 1998 Library Master Plan calls for the construction of 2 library branches of 30,000 GSF each, one in Rancho Del Rey and the other in Otay Ranch. The proposed threshold standard is now 60,000 GSF of additional library space east of 1-805 by buildout over the June 30, 2000 GSF total. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 02- 03 recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft City Council Ordinance amending Sections 19.09.040 A,B, and D of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Draft City Council Resolution amending Sections 3.3.1,3.4.1, and 3.6.1 of the City's Growth Management Program, and the amendments to the Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy to enact corrected threshold standards for Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services, and a revised threshold standard for Libraries. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - November 14, 2001 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on why the percentages and response times are recommended to be lowered. Mr. Forster responded that the change reflects a correction to an erroneous calculation; had there been a better mechanism to analyze data in 1988, those standards would have been set at what is being recommended today. Irascema Quilantan, Administrative Services Manager for the Police Department stated that the change does not compromise the quality of life threshold set in 1988, but rather, corrects it. Ms. Quilantan further stated that a couple of years ago the City purchased a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), which precisely measures the amount of time that dispatch takes in handling calls, as well as the amount of response time from officers. Therefore, staff believe that CAD provides an accurate reflection of what threshold standards should have been in 1988 had such automation been available at the time. Doug Perry, Acting Fire Chief further clarified that the computers have done nothing to change the responses; what the computer has done is to accurately document what is taking place. The only thing that CAD has done is to allow emergency services to "get out the door" sooner. What will always be the unknown is the travel time because it is impacted by external conditions over which there is no control, such as, traffic and weather conditions. He further stated that the threshold is not truly being changed and what staff is saying is that from this day forward, hold us accountable to respond to a fire 80% of the time within 7 minutes. CAD will track whether the standards are being met or not, or being exceeded. Commissioner McCann asked when the "stop watch" starts clicking and how it is that the existing standards were established. Mr. Perry stated that the clock starts ticking the minute the 911 call is answered. Additionally, the GMOC consensus in setting the threshold is based on the existing seven minute/80% standard, and what they are saying is that growth shall not impact emergency service response time and the standard shall be maintained and not degraded. Commissioner Castaneda asked if the City's Growth Management Ordinance is the only means by which to measure on a Citywide basis response times for emergency services. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - November 14, 2001 Ms. Quilantan responded that to her knowledge there is no other City policy by which to measure these standards, however, there are other measures used in the Police Department such as a resident survey that is conducted by SANDAG that measures both how the City is doing in policing and provides data from residents as to what areas need more concentration. There is also a patrol staffing study that is updated annually, which takes into account available officer time, response times, and time for writing reports. From the staffing study there is an allocation formula, which indicates whether staffing levels are where they should be or whether you are short or over-staffed. Commissioner Hall stated he is more comfortable with what he's heard tonight than what he read in the initial GMOC report several months ago. Staff has demonstrated that they have a good handle on the direction they're going with the aid of technology that can accurately measure any deficiencies in meeting the standards. He further stated that the Commission will be observant of how growth and design patterns of new development (i.e. cul-de-sacs and narrow streets) impact the response times for emergency services. Cmr. Hall inquired if it was within the Commission's purview to recommend that Police and Fire provide a quarterly or bi-annual update on how these departments are meeting the threshold. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning responded that it would be appropriate for the Commission to make that recommendation by way of a motion directing staff to relay that recommendation to the GMOC. Acting Chief Perry stated that he was confident in saying that there will most likely be no changes in their responses due to the location of the Fire Stations. The only thing that will improve the response time is when the seventh station is built in 2003 in Otay Ranch. Ms. Quilantan stated that they are currently assessing GMOC thresholds on an on- going basis and would have no problem doing a quarterly or bi-annual report. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he understands the rationale behind the requested changes and how the Growth Management Ordinance was designed and created in 1988. However, with respect to Police, the City of Chula Vista and the tax- payers have made a substantial investment in new technology, equipment and additional staffing and the only thing that is available to the public to gauge how the City is doing with respect to public safety is this threshold, and the numbers indicate / -4? Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - November 14, 2001 that we are retreating, which sends the wrong kind of message to the constituency. Cmr. Castaneda further stated that as a Planning Commissioner, as it relates strictly to growth management, he will support these changes with reservation. He strongly urged that the City decide what is going to be used as a standard for emergency services and have some sort of guideline that states that if these standards are not met, that the commitment will be there on the part of the City to make the necessary investment to accomplish the standard. MSC (Hall/VVillett) (2-3-1-1) that the Planning Commission approve amending the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code Title 19 Section 19.09.040 A and B (Fire and Police, the Growth Management Program Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 and the Police and Fire/EMS threshold standards of the City's threshold standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy. Motion failed with Commissioners Castaneda, McCann and Thomas voting against the motion. MSC (Hall/VVillett) (5-0-1-1) to amend the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code Title 19 Section 19.09.040 Subsection D and the Growth Management Program Sections 3.6.1 (Library) and the Library threshold standards and City threshold standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: r~ that they look at creating a City-wide standard for emergency service response and operation in the City that would not be related to growth management that would establish a guideline for investment and improvement of police and fire services in the City of Chula Vista, and [] that the Planning Commission Chair send a letter to the City Council that indicates the concerns and intent of the motions made tonight. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (3-2-1-1) that the Planning Commission reconsider the original first motion. Motion failed. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 19.09 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 19.09.040 Quality of Life Threshold Standards D. Libraries Population ratio: SOO square feet (gress) of ad@E¡uat@ly @E¡uipp@d and staffed li[¡rary facility per 1,000 population. In the area east on-80S, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of SOO GSF per 1,000 population. The new library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption. Prepared by Approved as to fonn by David Palmer Deputy City Manager Robert Leiter, Director Planning and Building Dept. J: IAttorneylOrdinancelgmoc2.doc 1 /6-/2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 19.09 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE POLICE, FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 19.09.040 Quality of Life Threshold Standards A. Police l. Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to &4 n percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of4á 5.5 minutes or less. 2. Respond to é2 ~ percent of "Priority Two YfgMt" calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of +!J 7.5 minutes or less. B. Fire and Emergency Medical l. Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in &g4, 80% ~ service to B@ H@rified) of the cases (measured annually). SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption. Prepared by Approved as to form by þ Doug Perry Acting Fire Chief Robert Leiter, Director Planning and Building Dept. Richard P. Emerson Chief of Police J:IAttorneylOrdinancelgmoc I.doc 1 /5 -/3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 3.6.1 OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND THE LIBRARY THRESHOLD STANDARD OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD/STANDARDS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY WHEREAS, at the initial request of the City of Chula Vista Library Department, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has evaluated the need for amendment of the Library Threshold Standard as part of its annual review process; and, WHEREAS, the GMOC, with the concurrence of the Library Department, presented a revised Library Threshold Standard as part of its 2000 Annual Report; and, WHEREAS, at the May 3],200], joint workshop with the GMOC, the Planning Commission and City Council unanimously accepted the GMOC 2000 Annual Report, and directed staff to prepare the proposed change and return for formal public hearing and adoption; and, WHEREAS, on November ]4, 200], the Planning Commission voted (5-0-]-]) to recommend that the City Council enact the amendment in accordance with its Resolution PCA-02-03 ; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment to the Growth Management Program, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely December ]7, 200], at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: SECTION I: That the amendment is exempt ftom environmental review pursuant to General Rule ]506] (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. SECTION II: That the proposed, revised standard is well-reasoned, and forms a workable and logical foundation for annual progress/compliance reporting on Library efforts. SECTIONlli: That the City Council hereby adopts the proposed amendments to 3.6.] of the City's Growth Management Program as shown on Exhibit "A", and the Library Threshold Standard of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. H:\ATTORNEYICC RESOLUTION LIBRARY.DOC /6 -/4- Presented by David Palmer Deputy City Manager and Library Director Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building H:\ATTORNEYICC RESOL!lTION LIBRARY.DOC /5 -/5 Approved as to form by ~ Exhibit A 3.6 Libraries 3.6.1 Existing Threshold Policy Goal To provide a high quality, contemporary library system which meets the varied needs of the community. Objective Supplement the ~4~'..~.~,., .... libraries at 365 "F" Street and 389 Orange Avenue by providing additional library facilities a~ ,~,~ ~,,~,~,~, ........ /c~ ......... ~ · .............. ~ ...... ~ .... ~ ....... in the area east of Interstate 805. As presently configured in the cu~ent Libra~ Master Plan (1998), this will entail construction ora 30,000 GSF library in R~cho del Rey and a 30,000 GSF libra~ in the Otay Ranch. Threshold Standard ...... ~ ....... ~ ~r ..... ~on. In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of libraW space ~eyond the city wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fill below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. The new libra~ facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall focally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into confom~ance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. H:/Attomcy\GMOC program Library exA.doc Exhibit B LIBRARIES (Revised by City Council on ) Goal To provide a high quality, contemporary library system which meets the varied needs o£ the community. Obiective Supplement the ~u.,,v.~.j ..... libraries at 365 "F" Street and 389 Orange Avenue by providing additional library facilities ;'- ~'~ ~-~ ....... /r~, .........,~ · .............. ~, ...... j .... ~ ....... in the area east of Interstate 805. As presently configured in the current Library Master Plan (1998), this will entail construction of a 30,000 GSF library in Rancho del Rey and a 30,000 GSF library in the Otay Ranch. Threshold Standard i;h ....co,.il;, .....1 trna ..... ~,;.,. In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 607000 GSF of library space beyond the city wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000_population. The new library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. Note: The City Council is encouraged to designate a percentage of RCT or other currently collected fees on new development for construction of new library f~acilities. H:xAttornc?,GMOC policyLib cxB.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 3.3.1 A AND B, AND 3.6.1 OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND THE POLICE AND FIRE/EMS THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD /STANDARDS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY WHEREAS, at the initial request of the City of Chula Vista Police and FirelEMS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has evaluated the need for amendment of the respective Police and FirelEMS Threshold Standards as part of its annual review process; and, WHEREAS, the GMOC, with the concurrence of the Police and Fire Departments, presented revised Police and FirelEMS Threshold Standards as part of its 2000 Annual Report; and, WHEREAS, at the May 31, 2001, joint workshop with the GMOC, the Planning Commission and City Council unanimously accepted the GMOC 2000 Annual Report, and directed staff to prepare the proposed changes and return them for formal public hearing and adoption; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment to the Growth Management Program, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely December 17,2001, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW TIIEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: SECTION I: That the amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. SECTION ll: That the proposed, revised standards are well-reasoned, and form a workable and logical foundation for annual progress/compliance reporting on Police and FirelEMS. SECTION ill: That the City Council hereby adopts the proposed amendments to Sections, 3.3.1 A and B, 3.4.1, of the City's Growth Management Program as shown on Exhibit "A", and the Police and Fire/EMS, Threshold Standards of the City's Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy as shown on Exhibit "BOO attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~þet Attorney Richard P. Emerson Chief of Police H:\ATTORNEYICC RESOLUTION POLICE FIRE.DOC /5 -/8' Doug Perry Acting Fire Chief Robert A. Leiter Director, Planning and Building H:\ATTORNEVICC RESOLUTION POLICE FlRE.DOC /5-/Cj Exhibit A 3.3 Police 3.3.1 Existing Threshold Policy Goal To maintain or improve the current level of police service in the City of Chula Vista. Objective Ensure that police staff, equipment, and training levels are adequate to provide police service at the desired level throughout the City. Threshold Standard A. Emergency response: properly equipped m:d staffed police units shall respond to 84 81 percent of"Priority One" emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls old.5 5.5 minutes or less. B. Respond to 62 57 percent of"Priority Two Urgent" calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of ge0 7.5 minutes or less. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That a moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. 3.4 Fire and Emergency Medical Service 3.4.1 Existing Threshold Policy Goal To maintain and improve the current level of fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS) in the City of Chula Vista. Objective Ensure that Fire/EMS staff are properly equipped, trained, and funded to provide the desired level of service throughout the City. Threshold Standard Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes in e~ ...... ~ 80 percent (cu~ent ..... ~0,~ ,,, ~'~v ..... · v--..~-,;c'~a~ of the cases (measured annually). Implementation Measures Should the GMOC determine that the threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applicatious, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorinm is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorimn provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption, which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Exhibit B POLICE (Revised by City Council on August 22, 1989) (Revised by City Council on ) Goal To maintain or improve the current level of police service in the City of Chula Vista. Objective Ensure that Police staff, equipment, and training levels are adequate to provide police service at the desired level throughout the City. Threshold Standard Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 84 8~1% of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within 7 minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of four five minutes and thirty seconds (4,8 5.5 mim~tes) or less (measured annually). [P]* Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 62 57% of the Priority II urgent calls throughout the City within 7 minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.0 7.~5 minutes) or less (measured annually). [P]* hnplementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That a moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption, which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. *[PI Denotes a Threshold Standard which shall be applied on a project-by-project basis (see page 21 ). FIRE (Revised by City Council on FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE Goal To maintain and improve the current level of fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS) in the City of Chula Vista. Objective Ensure that Fire/EMS staff are properly equipped, trained and funded to provide the desired level of service throughout the City. Threshold Standard Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 85% 80% (cuaent sen, ice to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Implementation Measures Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein .a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption, which are intended to bring the condition into confom~ance. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-13: Consideration of an amendment to Condition 5 of the San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04, and Section I1.5.4.1.15 of the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving amendment to Condition 5 of the San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04, and Section II.5.4.1.15 of the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building//~_~/.57 Director of Public Works REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~9~v (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) This item is a request to amend a condition of the Tentative Map to ratify the development cap increase for San Miguel Ranch identified in the Traffic Analysis entitled "East "H" Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005," and previously considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the Rolling Hills Ranch Development Cap increase. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study IS-02-013 and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, an Addendum to Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 12, 2000 the Planning Commission voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Hall and Castancda opposed, Commissioner Ray excused) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed development cap increase for Rolling Hills Ranch. This increase was based npon background traffic analysis which assumed San Miguel Ranch could develop 984 EDU's prior to SR-125 being completed and open for public access. Page 2, Item ]No.: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution ratifying the development cap increase for San Miguel Ranch from 675 to 892 EDU's, in accordance with the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION: Background: On October 19, 1999 the City Council considered and approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents, for the 1,394 unit development known as San Miguel Ranch. On February 29, 2000 the City Council approved the Tentative Map for San Miguel Ranch authorizing the development of 1,394 dwelling units, 14 acres of commemial site and support land uses. As in the case of the Rolling Hills Ranch, the San Miguel Ranch Master Plan Community is subject to a development cap, limiting construction to a specific number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) prior to the availability of certain traffic facilities. For San Miguel Ranch this cap equates to a maximum of 675 EDU's until SR-125 freeway is completed and open for public access. An EDU is equivalent to one single family residence; a multi-family unit is equivalent to .80 EDU's; and one acre of commercial property is equivalent to 25 EDU's. The developer may choose any combination of development within the above EDU cap. It is important to note that San Miguel Ranch and Rolling Hills Ranch are the only two master planned corrm~unities with development caps tied to completion of SR-125. On June 13, 2000, City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-190 increasing the development cap for Rolling Hills Ranch from 1137 EDU's to 1665 EDU's. The basis of this decision were two extensive traffic analyses of East "H" Street, which were performed specifically for determining the possibility for additional capacity on East "H" Street and the respective allowable development increase. All development activity in eastern Chula Vista was addressed in the analyses, although the focus was on those communities like San Miguel Ranch, which have direct impact on East "H" Street._ San Miguel Ranch, like Rolling Hills Ranch, is subject to a specific development cap (675 EDU's). The analyses concluded that additional traffic capacity could be obtained on East "H" Street, contingent upon the availability of Olympic Parkway open for public access from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. This eastward extension of Olympic Parkway is currently under construction, making the adjustment of the EDU caps for both projects feasible. Since the approval of the Rolling Hills Ranch EDU cap increase by Council was contingent upon the easterly extension of Olympic Parkway, staff believes this approval can be applied in a consistent and equitable fashion to San Miguel Ranch's existing development cap in order to increase it to 892 EDU's. Analysis: In 1999, Linscott, Law and Greenspan Traffic Engineers conducted segment analysis of East "H" Street from 1-805 to the Southwestern College entrance. This was followed by a subsequent intersection analysis within the subject segment in 2000. The analyses were intended to determine Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 the intersection and segment levels of service using additional development beyond the development caps originally imposed on Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. The following table fi.om the "East H Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005 (dated May 17, 1999) outlines the traffic analysis land use scenario: Table 3 Proposed Ma or Eastern Territory Projects 1999-2005 Proposed Single Multi Family Total ADT Assignment ADT on Development Family (units) on East H East H (units) Street Street Bonita Meadows~ 290 0 2,900 30%z 870 Eastlake Trails~ 957 186 11,058 18%8 1,990 Eastlake Ill Vistas2 140 250 3,400 18%a 612 Eastlake Ill Woods= 0 0 0 18%a 0 Otay Ranch SPA I & SPA I Westa 4,178 2,519 61,932 11%3 6,813 Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and III2 262 0 2,620 90%7 2,358 Salt Creek 12 0 0 0 23%9 0 Salt Creek Ranch4 (Roiling Hills 2,080 300 23,200 23%g 5,336 Ranch) San Miguel Ranch5 719 113 8,094 23%9 1,862 Sunbow II1 1,066 740 16,580 11%3, 1,824 ~sidential ~g99~2005 SUb~tOtal 9,692 ; 4 ~08 ; 129783 ~&~ide~tiai~ra~ ~r yea~ i;~8~ ~ ~6,54~ Commercial - East Lake Vistas~ 14.8 Acres @ 700/AC 10,360 2%7 207 Commercial - Otay~ 3.3 Acres @ 1200/AC 3,960 1%7 40 Commercial - Rancho Del Rey2 0.5 Acres @ 1200/AC 600 90%7 540 Commercial - San Miguel2 7 Acres @ 1200/AC 8,400 2%7 168 Commercial - Sunbow IF 11 Acres @ 700/AC 7,700 1%7 77 industrial- Eastlake~ 204,500 S.F. 818 15%7 123 Industrial - Rancho Del Rey2 4 Acres @ 80/AC 320 90%7 288 Residential, Commercial and Industrial 1999-2005 Totals 161,942 NA 23,108 Residential, Commercial and Industrial Average per Year 23,135 NA 3,301 Sources: 1City of Chula Vista staff, February 1999 ZSANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table 12/1/97 3Otay Ranch SPA I Amendment, LLG 6/30/98 4Pacific Bay Homes staff, February 1999 5San Miguel Ranch SPA Transportation Study, BRW Inc. 8/10/98, 6LLG Leviton Report, ZAssignment based Based on the above development scenario the traffic reports conclude that with the completion of Olympic Parkway to Hunte Parkway, the development cap imposed on San Miguel Ranch could be increased to the level shown in the above table without exceeding the adopted GMOC traffic threshold standards for East "H" Street. Based on these traff~c analyses and the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission, the City Council approved the development cap increase from 1,137 to 1,665 EDU's for Rolling Hills Ranch. An integral part of this increase was the conservative assumption of Eastern Chula Vista housing growth to derive development thresholds. Due to the fact that both projects use East "H" Street as their primary arterial for traffic access and to maintain parity and consistency in the application of development caps, staff is recommending that the land use assumption for San Miguel Ranch used in the subject traffic studies be used as a basis Page 4, Item No.: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 for an adjusted development cap on San Miguel Ranch. The subject table in these traffic studies assumed a total of 984 EDU's to be generated from San Miguel Ranch. Staff recommends an approximately 10% reduction from 984 EDU's to 892 EDU's as a safety factor and to maintain consistency with Rolling Hills Ranch. It is important to note that the Eastern Chula Vista development limitation of 9,429 dwelling units, adopted as part of the entitlement process for EastLake III and other projects, was derived from traffic capacity limitations on Telegraph Canyon Road. Should Council ratify and approve the subject development cap adjustment for San Miguel Ranch from 675 EDU's to 892 EDU's, all major projects in Eastern Chula Vista will end up with either specific or Eastern Chula Vista-wide development limitations based on a consistent set of traffic studies and land use projections. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the traffic analyses and determined that the previously approved Rolling Hills Ranch development cap increase clearly assumed a development cap increase for San Miguel Ranch, and that San Miguel Ranch development cap increase does not exceed the adopted GMOC traffic thresholds. For this reason, staff recommends that the City Council ratify the development cap increase for San Miguel Ranch as stated above. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Developer will still be responsible for paying the City's impact fees and other standard development and processing fees, as they may be amended from time to time. The Project infrastructure requirements as referenced in respective public facility finance plans and entitlement conditions remain unchanged. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-O0-05) J:\Planning~JEFF\San Miguel Ranch TM AmendLAl 13forSanMiguelRancltAmendmentl0.doc ATTACHMENT 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO :ITY OF CHULA VISTA LIMITS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROCTOR VALLEY RD COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA LIMITS ROLLING HILLS RANCH EASTLAKE LOCATOR MAP ATTACHMENT 2 ADDENDUM TO FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-00-05) PROJECT NAME: An amendment to San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 99-04 Condition of Approval #5 and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) PROJECT LOCATION: 743-acres located east and west of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of East "H" Street/Proctor Valley Road PROJECT TRIMARK: NNP- Trimark San Miguel Ranch, LLC CASE NO: Case No. IS-02-013 DATE: December 10, 2001 I. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1999 the City Council considered and approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents, including a Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report (SEIR 97-02) for the 1,394-nnit development known as San Miguel Ranch. On February 29, 2000 the City Council approved the Tentative Map for San Miguel Ranch authorizing the development of 1,394 dwelling units, 14 acres of commercial site and support land uses. As in the case of Rolling Hills Ranch, the San Miguel Ranch Master Plan Community is subject to a development cap, limiting construction to a specific number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) prior to the availability of certain traffic facilities. For San Miguel Ranch this cap equates to a maximum of 675 EDU's until SR-125 freeway is completed and open for public access. On June 13, 2000, City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-190 increasing the development cap for Rolling Hills Ranch from 1,137 EDU's to 1,665 EDU's and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05). The basis of this decision was two extensive traffic analyses of East "H" Street, which were performed specifically to determine the possibility of additional capacity on East "H" Street and the respective allowable development increase for Rolling Hills Ranch. All development activity in eastern Chula Vista was addressed in these analyses, although the focus was on those communities like San Miguel Ranch, which have direct impact on East "H" Street. The traffic analyses in the H Street analyses were based on a land use scenario for the development of the eastern Chula Vista communities from 1999 to 2005. The land use scenario for San Miguel Ranch assumed the development of 984 EDU. Based on this land use scenario, the traffic analyses concluded that additional traffic capacity could be obtained on East "H" Street contingent upon the availability of Olympic Parkway being open for public access from 1- 805 to Hunte Parkway. II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting a development cap increase from 675 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) to 892 EDU to be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access from Olympic Final MND IS-00-05 Addendum #1 1 12/12/01 Parkway to SR-54. This request would require an amendment to Condition #5 of the San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04, and Section I1.5.4.1.15 of the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan. III. CEQA REQUIREMENTS A Notice of Initial Study was distributed to property owners within 500 feet of these projects, City departments, responsible public agencies and businesses on October 19, 2001. One letter was received from a resident in the vicinity of the project site. The letter addressed the current mass grading operations on the San Miguel Ranch property. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15162) establishes the conditions under which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared. A. When an SEIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent SEIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which wilt require major revisions of the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SEIR was prepared. B. If changes to a project or its cimumstances occur or new information becomes available after preparation of an SEIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further documentation (Guidelines § 15162). CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 establishes conditions under which an addendum to a certified EIR or adopted negative declaration shall be prepared: A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions am necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Final MNDlS-00-05Addendum #1 2 12/12/01 C. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. D. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. E. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis herein, the proposed development cap increase would not result in substantial changes or new significant enviromnental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would require major revisions to the MND IS-00-05 or SEIR 97-02. Further, no new information of substantial importance has been identified which was not known and could not have been known at the time MND iS-00-05 or SEIR 97-02 were prepared. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this addendum to MND IS-00-05. III. ANALYSIS An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the proposed project would change any of the analyses contained in MND IS-00-05 or SEIR-97-02. Based on the analysis herein, previously identified environmental impacts would not be intensified as a result of the proposed project, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached. 1V. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the MND IS-00-05 adequate under CEQA for this project. Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator Attachments: Environmental Checklist Form References: City of Chula Vista Enviromnental Review Procedures San Miguel Ranch SPA and TM SEIR (SEIR 97-02) San Miguel Ranch TM Conditions of Approval (2/29/00) Final MND IS-00-05 Addendum # 1 3 12/12/01 Case No. IS-02-013 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: NNP- Trimark San Miguel Ranch 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch 85 Argonaut, Suite 205 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 4. Name of Proposal: An amendment to San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 99-04 Condition of Approval #5 and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) to grant an increase in the building cap from 675 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) to a maximum of 892 EDUs prior to SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access and provided that Olympic Parkway is completed and open for traffic from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. 5. Date of Checklist: December 10, 2001 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., [] [] [] [] impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [] [] [] [] established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 Comments: The proposal constitutes a change in development phasing and would not result in a change in general plan designation or zoning. The proposal is in conformity with the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and the Chula Vista General Plan. Land use impacts associated with the development of San Miguel Ranch were adequately addressed in the Final EIR for the Rancho San Miguel GDP, the Subsequent EIR for the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment (GPA) and GDP Amendment and a Final Subsequent EIR for San Miguel Ranch (FSEIR 97-02). 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastmcture) ? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] housing? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would allow an increase in building cap prior to the opening of SR-125 to the public as addressed in MND IS-00-05. Growth inducing impacts were adequately addressed in FSEIR 97-02. IlL GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic [] [] [] [] substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] [] overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any [] [] [] [] unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, [] [] [] [] or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? 2 g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] [] hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development, and would not affect the development footprint shown on the approved TM. The proposal would not result in changes to geology and soils beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] [] or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related [] [] [] [] hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration [] [] [] [] of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of [] [] [] [] water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [] I"1 [] [] h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] [] [] [] j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in any additional impacts to water beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] [] [] [] an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or [] [] [] [] cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] 3 -// e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- [] [] [] [] stationary soumes of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in any additional air quality impacts beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] [] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [] [] [] uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] [] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] [] t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: On June 13, 2000, City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-190 increasing the development cap for Rolling Hills Ranch from 1137 EDU's to 1665 EDU's and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05). The basis of this decision were two extensive traffic analyses of East "H" Street, which were performed specifically for determining the possibility for additional capacity on East "H" Street and the respective allowable increase in the development cap prior to the opening of SR-125 for Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. These two traffic studies, the "East H Street Capacity Analysis" (April 14, 1999) and "East H Street Intersection Analysis" (March 8, 2000) both prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, included all development activity in eastern Chula Vista in the analyses, although the focus was on those communities like San Miguel Ranch, which have direct impact on East "H" Street. The traffic studies were based on a land use development scenario for the cumulative projects from 2000-2005. The traffic analyses assumed a greater development potential for San Miguel Ranch than the existing 675 EDU cap. Specifically, the studies assumed a total of 984 EDUs to be generated from San Miguel Ranch prior to the opening of SR-125. Note that the applicant is requesting an increase to 892 EDU, 92 less EDU than assumed in the traffic analyses. Based on the 984 EDU development potential, the traffic analyses concluded that additional traffic capacity could be obtained on East "H" Street, contingent upon the availability of Olympic Parkway being open for public access from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. This eastward extension of Olympic Parkway is currently under construction making the proposed increase in the EDU cap for San Miguel Ranch feasible. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] [] concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [] [] [] [] c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak [] [] [] [] forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal [] [] [] [] pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development, and would not affect the development footprint shown on the approved TM. As such, the proposal would not result in any additional biological impacts beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [] inefficient manner? 5 c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. As such, the proposal would not result in additional impacts to energy consumption or conservation beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. The proposal would not affect mineral resources. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] [] potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] [] brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development, would not involve the use of hazardous substances and would not result in the exposure of the public to potential health or safety hazards. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not result in additional noise impacts beyond those addressed in FSEIR 9%02. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [] [] [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? [] [] [] [] Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other govemmentalservices? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not result in additional impacts to public services beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Public services will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the Ci~ 's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not result in additional impacts to fire and emergency medical services beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Fire and emergency medical services will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. b) Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. 7 Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not result in additional impacts to police services beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Police service will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. c) Traffic [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. Comments: As discussed in Section VI, two traffic studies were prepared specifically to determine capacity on East H Street based on cumulative development potential of eastern Chnia Vista communities through 2005. These studies were the basis for the traffic analysis in MND IS-00-05. The focus of the analyses were on East H Street and the development potential of Rolling Hill~ Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. Based on the land use scenarios studied in the reports, which assumed a total of 984 EDUs to be generated by San Miguel Ranch prior to SR-125, the development cap imposed on San Miguel Ranch of 675 EDU could be increased to the level assumed in the reports without exceeding the adopted GMOC traffic threshold standards for East H Street. Note that the applicant is requesting an increase in the development cap to 892 EDU, 92 EDU less than assumed in the reports. [] [] [] [] d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/i,000 population. Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not generate additional population and parks/recreation demand beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Parks and recreational facilities will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. e) Drainage [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the changes to drainage patterns or storm water flows or volumes beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Storm water drainage systems will be provided to accommodate bnildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. f) Sewer [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not generate additional sewage flows or volumes beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Sewer service and transmission systems will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. [] [] [] [] g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chuta Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not generate additional demand for water storage, treatment or transmission facilities beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Water service and transmission systems will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Cmrm~unications systems? [] [] [] [] c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution [] [] [] [] facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] [] 9 Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. The proposal would not result in additional demand on utilities and services beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. Utility and service systems will be provided to accommodate buildout of the approved development thereby accommodating the proposed development cap increase. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] [] public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic [] [] [] [] route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] [] [] increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the changes to aesthetics or landform beyond the affects addressed in FSEIR 97-02. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the [] [] [] [] destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] [] sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] [] EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development, and would not affect the development footprint shown on the approved TM. As such, the proposal would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] [] [] [] proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development, and would not affect the development footprint shown on the approved TM. As such, the proposal would not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. XVII. RECREATION. WouM the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] [] c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans [] [] [] [] or programs? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in the development of additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02 and approved by Resolution No. 2000-068. As such, the proposal would not result in additional demand on recreation beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. XVII1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: . a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] [] the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not affect the development footprint shown on the approved TM. As such, the proposal would not affect biological, cultural or paleontological resources. In accordance with two traffic analyses (see Section VI), the circulation system can accommodate the additional 217 EDU prior to the opening of SR-125 for public access and conditioned upon Olympic Parkway being open for public access from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. As such, the proposal would not create new environmental effects or intensify the environmental effects identified in the MND (IS-00- 05) or FSEIR 97-02. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-tem~, environmental goals? 11 Comments: Short- and long-term environmental impacts were adequately addressed by FSEIR 97- 02. The proposal would not create new short-or long-term environmental effects or intensify the environmental effects identified in the FSEIR 97-02. c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future pro~ects.) Comments: Cumulative impacts were adequately addressed in FSEIR 97-02. The proposed change to the phasing of residential development would not create new cumulative effects or intensify the cumulative effects identified in the FSEIR 97-02. d) Does the project have environmental effect [] [] [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposal would affect the phasing of residential development and would not result in direct or indirect effects on human beings beyond those addressed in FSEIR 97-02. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: No additional mitigation measures are required, XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] Population and Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 12 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, [] and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [] there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an [] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to [] applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to [] applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. ~~/(~,~O'lt~ ~.~' Date Ma~ilyn R.~F. Pon~eggi Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS NO 5 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-04, AND SECTION II.5.4.1.15 OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY FROM OLYMPIC P ARKW A Y TO SR-54 OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as, San Miguel Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 743 acres located east and west of the future SR-125 fTeeway, and north of East "H" Street/ Proctor Valley Road ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista initiated an application requesting approval of amendments to conditions No.5 ofthe San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04 and Section 11.5.4.1.15 of the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) to allow an increase in the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) that may be built prior to SR-125 opening for public access from 675 to 892 ("Amendment"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (uGDpU), previously approved by City Council Resolution No.18532; 2) a Sectional Planning Area (USP AU) plan, San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan; 3) Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP), San Miguel Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan; 4) Water Conservation Plan (WCP), San Miguel Ranch Water Conservation Plan; 5) Design Guidelines, San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines; 6) Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 7) Planned Communities District Regulations, San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations all previously approved by City Council Resolution No.19631, and Ordinance 2799 on October 19, 1999; Tentative Subdivision Map, San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04, and, (referred to collectively herein as "Previous Entitlements"); and, /h-2'2- Page 2 WHEREAS, the project consist of amending Condition No.5 of the San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04, and Section II.5.4.1.15 of the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan to ratify the development cap increase from 675 to 886 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) prior to completion of SR-125 ("Project"), and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had previously held an advertised public hearing on the Project on April 12,2000 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Hall and Castaneda opposed, Commissioner Ray excused) to recommend that the City Council approve the Traffic Analysis entitled "East 'H' Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005" which assumed San Miguel Ranch development to be 984 EDU's prior to SR-125 being completed and open for public access. E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Amendment was held before the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista on December 17, 2001, on the Amendment and to receive the recommendations ofthe Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Amendment application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on April 12, 2000, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefTom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. liP -23 Page 3 III. PREVIOUS FEIR-89-03 AND FSEIR-91-3 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR-91-03 for the Project Entitlements. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study IS-02- 013 and determined that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, an Addendum to Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista, and, V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Addendum to Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures ofthe City ofChula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-05) reflects the independent judgment of the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. VI. ADOPTION OF SPA In light of the findings described herein, the amendment to the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved. VII. SPA FINDINGS/APPROV AL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH (AS AMENDED) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amended San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance, which is a component of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, is consistent with the adopted San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista General Plan. lIP -2'1 E. Page 4 B. THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, as amended is consistent with the Air Quality Improvement Plans, and Water Conservation Plans and will, therefore, promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan areas. c. THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses are not proposed to be changed within the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and therefore will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER- ALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The amendments do not involve modifications to the adopted land use plan and therefore do not affect the overall design and development standards adopted for the San Miguel Ranch planned community. IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER -ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The Public Facilities Finance Plan provides mitigation measures to insure the installation of all necessary public facilities and amenities prior to or in conjunctions with development. Thus, the additional development authorized before SR -125 is open for public access will not adversely affect the surrounding developments. /(¡;-2£ F. Page 5 THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendments do not involve amendments to the planned circulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element and therefore, the circulation system will be improved in accordance with the General Plan concurrent with the proposed development. G. ANY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING UNITS OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S). The proposed amendments to the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan do not involve new residential development. However, the adopted residential uses reflect the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and will provide needed housing to future residents in the area. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The proposed amendment does not involve changes in the land use plan VIII. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TENTATIVE MAP In light ofthe findings described herein, the City Council does hereby approve amendments to Condition No.5 ofthe San Miguel Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04 in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". All remaining conditions of Tentative Map No. 99-04 are not modified by this Resolution and shall remain in full force and effect. IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions 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, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with /h-2b Page 6 said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. x. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning & Building k~~ John M.Kaheny City Attorney ",lpl,",;,gllu;<hISMRIPCM-O2-IJ I to -2-7 ~ ~ == ..... t:O ..... ""Ì > .. ch --I m -. .c :j --u r : § ;\~ ~ ~!- u "0 ,'" r " . ~ J> ~ ,è: Z :;: Traffic EXHIBIT B 11.5.4.1.15 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored through the annual intersection- monitoring program and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan updates. Based on tbe Traffic Analysis entitled "East "H" Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, and pursuant to the City Council Resolution No. Due to the limited capacity of East H Street prior to SR-125, thee San Miguel Ranch project sSo'-'!d be is allowed prior to the portion of SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access, but after completion of Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway *~'t~ ................ ., .................. ,~,~.~ ...... ,., ~ r,,~ ~,c ~ ~n ,,,~;, .... ear for a total of 500 ~"°;~-*;a' ,,.;,o in add/t/an to 7 acres ~c ....... ;~, Therefore, the maxim'am al!owab!~ EDUs for San Miguel ......~-~"-~h ~-~o~-~;~°* ~--~-~;~ ,~.~ ~.q~ ~o~._~ ;~ r.v~,~ 892 EDUs, including commercial in accordance with the City's ordinance EDU rate for i EDU per single-family unit and 25 EDUs per acre of commercial. S~ Miguel Ranch shall be conditioned to pay Transportation DIF Fees and Interim Pre- SR-125 DIF Fees at the rate in effect at the time building pe~its are issued. Olympic Parkway Feasibility and Financing Study The City has completed a feasibility and financing study for the construction of Olympic Parkway east of 1-805. San Miguel Ranch project will be required to participate with its fair share in any subsequent Olympic Parkway financing district. In the event the construction of Olympic Parkway is not completed as scheduled and the City's traffic threshold are exceeded, the City may withhold issumme of building pemfits until such time thc traffic impacts are mitigated. Mt. Miguel Road Mt. Miguel Road shall be constructed by San Miguel Ranch as a 4-lane roadway with raised median within the project limits. The construction phasing shall be as noted in the project phasing section of this repo~. This 4-lane collector will provide access between the City of Chula Vista and the County roadway network. This roadway will also provide a direct access For the project to SR-125 via a diamond interchange. Proctor Valle~ Road Proctor Valley Road shall be constructed per City standards (CVDS-3) by S~ Miguel Rancb as a 40-foot wide curb-to-curb, 2-lane Class III collector in two phases. Proctor San Miguel Ranch Public Facilittes Fl'na~ce Plut~ 1[.5.4.1 - 34 Traffic EXHIBIT B Valley Road Phase 1 is that segment along the frontage of the school site (Reach 4 on Figure 4) and it shall be constructed with Phase II of the San Miguel Ranch project. Proctor Valley Road Phase 2 is that segment between the school site and Mt. Miguel Road at the westerly limit of the San Miguel Ranch project (Reaches 1, 2 and 3 on Figure 4) and it shall be constructed with Phase III of the San Miguel Ranch project. This 2-lane Class 1ti collector will provide additional access between the City of Chula Vista and the County roadway network and the elementary school site as well as pedestrian access. This roadway will not have a direct access for the project to SR-125. San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan 11.5.4.1 - 34 EXHIBIT C San Miguel Ranch Tentative Map Conditions of Approval February 18, 2000 Pursuant to Project's approved PFFP, The Project is limited to construction within the area east of SR-125 only (Phase areas l, Ii and/or IV) of not more than 675 892 EDUs prior to the censtm:tien of the portion of SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR- 54 opening for public access, but after completion of Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. The EDU's shall be calculated per the methodology stated in the "East "FI" Street Focus Capacity Analysis 1999-2005" study prepared by Willdan Associates, dated June 8, 1999. It is recognized that Applicant may request an amendment to this condition subject to future traffic analysis to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No /y Meeting Date 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO NOTICE THE USE OF FY 01/02 COPS FUNDING PER THE CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $366,595 FROM STATE COPS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDING THE FY 01/02 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $85,825 FOR THE COPS MORE 2001 LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT; $80,000 FOR PATROL SCHEDULING SOFTWARE; $10,000 FOR OVERTIME; $27,000 FOR A CRISIS NEGOTIATION TEAM VAN; $50,000 FOR A MANAGEMENT STUDY/AUDIT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; $16,460 FOR SWAT AND OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE (REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. SUBMITTED BY: Chief of Police~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage ~ 2'~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No__.) The FY 01 - 02 State Budget was adopted appropriating $366,595 to the City of Chula Vista Police Department. State money is allocated to the Police Department for purposes stipulated by the Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. RECOMMENDATION: 1, That the Council hold a public hearing to notice the use of COPS funding to pay for police services; and, Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 2. That the Council adopt the Resolution accepting $366,595 from the State Budget and appropriate the funds as follows: $85,825 for the COPS MORE 2000 local match requirement; $80,000 for patrol scheduling software; $10,000 for proactive overtime; $27,000 for a Crisis Negotiation Team van; $50,000 for a management study/audit of police operations; $16,460 to purchase SWAT and Officer Safety Equipment. 3. That the Council authorize the Chief of Police to reprogram savings resulting from the equipment procurement process for additional officer safety equipment and resources. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS The State appropriation requires a Regional Oversight Committees' approval of the funds prior to disbursement. In accordance, an Oversight Committee was established in San Diego County. The Committee recommends approval of the State Local Law Enforcement funds as proposed. The San Diego County Oversight Committee is comprised of the following: Municipal Police Chief Richard P. Emerson County Sheriff William B. Kolender District Attorney Paul Pfingst County Administrative Officer Walter Ekard City Manager Michael T. Uberuaga BACKGROUND During FY 96/97 the State appropriated funds for local law enforcement services per AB 3229, Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996. In accordance with this legislation, the State has appropriated funds annually to local law enforcement agencies since FY 96/97. The City of Chula Vista's proportionate share of these funds for FY 2001 is $366,595. These funds are to be deposited in the City's Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund (SLESF) and used for law enforcement personnel and equipment needs as prescribed by the original legislation (AB 3229). Use of these funds must supplement and not supplant. These funds have a twenty-five percent (25%) in kind contribution requirement. In kind funds will be staff time associated with procurement, technology intergration, hiring and training of new personnel. The allocation of future funds is subject to annual state budget deliberations. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 DISCUSSION The Police Department recommends that the City Council accept the State allocation and approve use of the funds for personnel and equipment costs related to the expansion of police services as stipulated by the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Local Match Requirements - Staff is recommending meeting Local Match requirements of the COPS More 2001 Grant ($85,825). This will minimize the impact to the general fund. SRO Sergeant and Agent - Earlier this year Council approved the addition of supervisory staff to the SRO program. The addition of these positions will allow the department to implement a team approach to mirror those in Patrol, integrate the Tough on Crime program, and to develop problem oriented policing projects. Staff will continue to evaluate the program to address emerging trends effectively. A total of $97,310 has been dedicated for the support of this program; $77,310 was allocated in the current fiscal year with the remaining $20,000 to be allocated in the FY 02 - 03. Both the expenditure and revenue have been budgeted, thus do not require Council action. Patrol Scheduling Software - The Patrol division currently uses Excel to generate schedules for Patrol; this process is cumbersome and cannot be accessed by all patrol staff. Staff is recommending purchasing scheduling software that is specifically designed for this purpose making scheduling an easier process. An additional benefit is that this software can be tied to the IFAS, which will reduce duplication of data entry and allow supervisors to easily access information about particular employees. Proactive Overtime - To support the hotel/motel project staff is proposing allocating overtime to be spent for a variety of proactive activities designed to reduce crime and disorder in Chula Vista. Such activities would include developing and administering offender interviews to determine why certain motels attract problem guests; environmental surveys/motel manager interviews to determine whether certain physical features of motels and business practices contribute to problems at the motels. Overtime funds would also be used to analyze data on the types of guests who patronize the motels. These funds will also be used to support similar problem oriented policing projects such as auto theft. Crisis Negotiation Team Van - The Crisis Negotiation Team is in need of a secure transport vehicle to store and transport equipment. CNT needs to be able to deploy to callouts in a timely manner, currently the team is hampered by the time it takes to load the negotiation system into a vehicle. While this state of the art system has greatly improved the team's capabilities it is cumbersome and Page 4, Item Meeting Date '12/17/01 somewhat unwieldy. The new system weighs over two hundred pounds and it can take as many four trips from the basement to the back lot of the police department to Icad the equipment. A properly equipped van would reduce wear and tear on sensitive equipment, reduce the response time of CNT and serve as a distinct and self-sustaining negotiation environment. Given the time it will take to purchase and customize the Crisis Negotiation Team Van there are no replacement or maintenance cost associated with this purchase for the current year. It is estimated that the van will be used primarily for CNT callouts and training which limits the times the van is used throughout the year, thus the van can be on a ten year replacement cycle. Management Study/Audit of Police Department - The department is in the process of commissioning a comprehensive management study that will review, evaluate, and document all aspects of the Department's administration and operations. The study will be conducted in accordance with the most advanced approaches to policing currently being implemented throughout the United States and abroad, the study will assess overall Department operations and focus areas in terms of their contribution to the goal of increasing the effectiveness of the Department's response to community crime and disorder problems. The study would pay special attention to the following issues - Management styles and roles of executive, command, and mid-management staff, as well as first-line supervisors; equipment needs; communication of information to Department personnel; exceptional community and organizational growth. At this time it is anticipated the study will cost approximately $100,000; the remaining $50,000 will come from reprogrammed grant savings and the police budget. SWAT and Officer Safety Equipment - Earlier this year the Research and Development Unit worked with SWAT to conduct an informal survey of the team. While the report has not been completed one of the recommendations will be to establish an equipment replacement schedule for this unit. At this time staff is recommending replacing some of the team's older equipment. Additionally, funds will be used to purchase some officer safety equipment like helmets, batons, and body armor. FISCAL IMPACT Acceptance of the State COPS funding would make $366,595 available for local law enforcement needs. $97,310 will be used to minimize the impact to the General Fund for the addition of a sergeant and agent to the School Resource Program. Subsequent years will be paid for by the General Fund. Given the time it will take to purchase and customize the Crisis Negotiation Team Van there are no replacement or maintenance cost associated with this purchase for the current year. It is estimated that the van will be used primarily for CNT callouts and training which limits the times the van is used throughout the year, thus the van can be on a ten year replacement cycle. Accordingly replacement charges are estimated at $2,700 a year and maintenance charges are estimated at Page 5, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 $1,600. The remaining projects one-time expenditures and will result in no impact to the General Fund. 17 -6 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $366,595 FROM STATE COPS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDING THE FY 01/02 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $85,825 FOR THE COPS MORE 2001 LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT; $80,000 FOR PATROL SCHEDULING SOFTWARE; $10,000 FOR OVERTIME; $27,000 FOR A CRISIS NEGOTIATION TEAM VAN; $50,000 FOR A MANAGEMENT STUDY/AUDIT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; $16,460 FOR SWAT AND OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE (REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED OFFICER SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. WHEREAS, the FY 01 - 02 State Budget was adopted appropriating $366,595 to the City of Chula Vista Police Department; and, WHEREAS, said bill allocates state money to the Police Department for purposes stipulated by the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 18, 2001 to notice use of COPS funding to pay for police services; and, WHEREAS, $80,000 will be used to pay for patrol scheduling software, $10,000 for proactive overtime for POP projects, $27,000 for a van for the Crisis Negotiating Team, $50,000 for a department management study/audit, $16,460 for SWAT and officer safety equipment and $85,825 to meet the COPS MORE 2000 local match requirement; and WHEREAS, if savings result from competitive procurement for the 2001 State COPS, it is recommended that the Chief of Police be authorized to utilize savings for additional unspecified officer safety equipment and supplies. /7-b NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept $366,595 from State COPS funds for local law enforcement. Presented by: £~ Police Chief Approved as to form by: - /\C% b~'. John M. Kahény .) City Attorney , " 17-7 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Item [~ Meeting Date: 12/18/01 ITEM TITLE: Report: City-Initiated Procurement of Public Art on Port Tidelands SUBMITTED BY: Cultural Arts Commission REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~¢r~ (4/sthVote: Yes__No X ) In 1996, the San Diego Unified Port District (hereafter called either the Port District or the Port) approved a Public Art Program Policy (BPC Policy No. 609), the purpose of which is to enable the provision of artwork on the tidelands around San Diego Bay for the enjoyment of residents and visitors (policy is attached as Attachment A). Under this policy the Board of Port Commissioners annually sets aside .375 (3/8) percent of the Port District's projected revenues for that year. The set-aside amount is no less than $160,000 annually. This money is expended for specific works of arts or allocated to an art fund for the acquisition of art for public areas within the Port District. Since the inception of the 1996 program, the City of Chula Vista has seen one art piece placed on Port tidelands. On January 17, 2001, a wind harp sculpture by artist Ross Barrable was dedicated as a memorial to honor the late Ronald J. McElliott. The San Diego Port Tenants Association and the San Diego Unified Port District collaboratively funded this piece of public art. The wind harp joins one other piece of tidelands public art. Artist Kenneth Capps' "Konoids" was installed in Harborside Park in 1985, under a previous Port Public Art Program Policy. The City's Cultural Arts Commission would like to take advantage of the Port's Public Art Program to acquire additional public art for the Chula Vista Bayfront. Indeed, the Port has been encouraging the City to bring forward public art proposals for the Port's consideration. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the report and direct the Office of Cultural Arts staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a public art piece on Port tidelands, using the procedure outlined in this report. On November 12, 2001, the Commission approved this procedure, which would guide the Commission and City's Office of Cultural Arts on ensuring that public art is placed on the Port's tidelands within the City of Chula Vista. DISCUSSION: During the past few years, the Port's Public Art Program has been revitalized and as a result, numerous pieces of art having been acquired for San Diego Bay tidelands. These include numerous pieces at the airport, the San Diego Convention Center, and Martin Luther King Promenade in San Diego. In addition, the City of Imperial Beach has Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 received 7 pieces, the City of Coronado 1 piece, and the City of National City 3 pieces since the program was initiated in 1996. These three cities initiated all of the public art proposals to the Port. Of course, Chula Vista has also been trying to get additional pieces of art. In 1998, the Cultural Arts Commission voted to approve a proposal fi.om Port Commissioner David Malcolm that Olympic themed artwork be placed on the Bayfront to promote Chula Vista as the home of the all-weather Olympic Training Center. After much discussion with the United States Olympic Committee, Port Art Director Catherine Sass recently informed the City's Cultural Arts Coordinator that this effort is officially "dead." As a result, the Cultural Arts Commission has once again taken the initiative to bring public art to the tidelands through the Port Art Program. The Commission formed a special subcommittee, the Public Art Committee, which has drafted a set of procedural guidelines for City-initiated requests that dovetail with the Ports' own policies and procedures, as shown below. The Commission would now like to actively work to acquire an additional public art piece for Chula Vista during the next year. The Office of Cultural Arts staff is ready to work with the Commission on moving for, yard with this process. PROJECT INITIATION: Under the Port District's policies, public art on tidelands can be procured in a variety of ways: A. The San Diego Unified Port District may, unilaterally, place a specific piece of artwork on the tidelands located within the city. Such pieces may be purchased, donated or loaned. The rules outlining donations and loans are covered in the Port's Donated/Loaned Item Policy (BPC Policy No. 611). B. The Port may ask the City if it would like a specific piece of artwork on tidelands located within the city. Such pieces may be purchased, donated, or loaned. C. The City may request that the Port place a specific piece of artwork on tidelands located within the city. D. Any individual or organization having obtained community and City support may request, accept or acquire a piece and request that the Port place it on tidelands located within the city. The Cultural Arts Commission, its Public Art Committee, and the City's Office of Cultural Arts would now like to utilize "Option C" as outlined above. In order to accomplish this objective, the Commission proposes that the City's Office of Cultural Arts use the following procedure: > The Office of Cultural Arts will release a Request for Proposals for a public art piece to be located on Port tidelands. Four potential sites have been identified by the Commission's Public Art Committee, including three in Bayside Park and one Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 on the Port controlled half of Marina View Park (please see attached map- Attachment B). >~ Under the auspices of the City's Office of Cultural Arts, the Cultural Arts Commission's Public Art Committee shall be used as the selection committee, reviewing the responses and selecting no more than five semi-finalists. The Committee, which was appointed by the Commission, may consist of representatives from local arts organizations, local individual artists, citizens and business leaders, as well as Chula Vista's appointed representative to the Port District's Public Art Committee. The Committee will have a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of(9) members. As part of the selection process, the Commission's Public Art Committee shall hold a community forum allowing residents the opportunity to comment. The Public Art Committee shall refer the recommended semi-finalist(s) to the Cultural Arts Commission, who will select a finalist for recommendation to the City Council. >~ The Cultural Arts Commission shall then refer the selected art piece to the City Council, which must approve it. ~ After Council's approval the City's Office of Cultural Arts shall forward the recommended artwork to the Port for final approval and funding. 1 The following guidelines are proposed to be used as part of this process: )~ Artist(s) whose piece is recommended for acquisition shall be active artist/artist teams who are recognized in their field, locally, nationally or internationally. They may be required to provide the Commission's Public Art Committee with references relative to their work. ~ The Office of Cultural Arts may contact or solicit artist/artist teams as follows: A. Mailing lists: To receive notification of new public art projects, artist/artist teams may send their name, mailing address and indication of ~ The Port has established a Public Art Committee, which serves in an advisory capacity providing recommendations for art placement and aesthetic opinion. The Committee is composed of ten members, consisting of one member from each of the five member cities, one member from the San Diego Port Tenants Association and four members at large. Melody Cernitz is the representative from Chula Vista. The Committee is specifically charged with the responsibility to review artist proposals for placement in the Port's public art collection, making recommendations for fabrication and acquisition, and to serve as a jury for artwork competition. Page 4, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 the medium in which they work to the Chula Vista Office of Cultural Arts to be placed in a registry. Notices of new projects and application requirements will be mailed as appropriate; B. Press Announcements: Open Competitions for public art projects shall be advertised in local arts media and shall be announced as appropriate to arts organizations, college and university art departments, galleries and museums; C. Art agents; D. Referrals from the local professional community. The City's Office of Cultural Arts shall adequately advertise the competition and conduct the competition under the auspices of the City's Office of Cultural Arts. ~ The recommended works of art shall be based upon artistic merit and the appropriateness of the artwork to the site where it is to be located. This recommendation is based upon the following criteria as established by the Port District: A. Artistic excellence and innovation; B. Appropriateness of the artwork to the project/site in terms of scale, form, content and materials; C. Safety of the artwork; D. Durability of the artwork relative to theft, vandalism and the environment; E. Demonstrated community support; F. Public visibility; G. Public accessibility; H. Accurate budget; I. Short and long-term maintenance and conservation requirements are defined; J. Maintains a variety of style, medium, size and type for Port collection; K. Ability of the artist/artist team to work closely and compatibly with the project architect(s), engineers, commissions, committees, Port staff and conununity members. )~ Prior to making its recommendations, the Chula Vista Public Art Committee, early in its site selection process, shall confer with the City's Cultural Art Coordinator and the Port's Public Art Director to insure that the sites under consideration are compatible with soils, operations and logistical requirements; redevelopment plans; utility lines; and supervening regulations and future planning for the area. NEXT STEPS: The Office of Cu~ltural Arts, in conjunction with the Cultural Arts Commission, is ready to initiatie an RFP process as outlined above. It is important to point out that this selection process in no way precludes additional public art from being selected and/or Page 5, Item __ Meeting Date 12/18/01 installed on Port tidelands either simultaneously or in the near future. Chula Vista can receive more than one piece, just as other Port Cities have done. The Public Art Committee of the Cultural Arts Commission will act as the selection committee. Their recommendation will be referred to the full Arts Commission for their approval and then to the City Council. If Council accepts the recommendation, it will then be referred to the Port for final approval. It is hoped that a recommendation will reach City Council by the end of March 2002. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the City for the acquisition of public art on Port tidelands. The cost to purchase, install and maintain an art piece will be paid for fi~om the Port District's art fund. However, should there be any landscape installed as a part of the art piece, the cost to maintain the landscape will be contracted by the Port back to the City. It is estimated that the cost to conduct the selection process will be approximately $250 and will be paid for by the Office of Cultural Arts and the Cultural Arts Commission. However, the Port will reimburse these costs once they have approved the art piece. Public ~ Policies laage I o1'6 ATTACHMENT A PU~L!C ART PROGRA~'¢ (BPC Policy No. 609) P-urpo-se I Ana!y~ I ~ohcy I A~rt,.,v_orl~ I PAC Commtttee I Terms I Artist Selection Artwork Location I Ar~vork Identification j Artwork_Selection [ ~c~u_~i~qn J F~ro~ct Ip_~_i~t_ion Procedure [ Related Public_A~P_olioLe_s PURPOSE: To promote aesthetic enhancement of tideland development projects. ANALYSIS: 1. The visual setting of the tidelands under the control of the Port District is important to both visitors and citizens of the San Diego region who may depend upon the special and unique characteristics of the Port Distdct for their livelihoed, enjoyment and financial success. 2. The Port Distdct has devoted an increasing amount of its financial resources to the visual and aesthetic betterment of the tidelands area. 3. The inclusion of art in public and private areas throughout the country has proven beneticial to the general citizenry, as well as to businesses and employees in the vicinity of such artworks. 4. Establishment of this Public Art Program will promote the general welfare through balancing the Port's physical growth and revitalization and its cultural and adistic resources. POLICY STATEMENT: This policy shall become effective upon adoption by the Board. 1. The Board of Port Commissioners each year shall set aside .375 (3/8) percent of the District's projected gross revenues for that year. For the purpose of this calculation, gross revenue shall not include anticipated grants from any source. Such amount set aside shall not be less than $160,000.00 annually. Such money set aside shall be expended for specific works of art or allocated to an art fund for the acquisition of art for public areas within the Port District. Money so set aside may be accumulated for more than one (1) year. 2. Monies placed in the art fund shall be kept separate from other Port Distdct funds and any earnings thereon shall accrue to the art fund. Monies accumulated in this fund shall, at the discretion of the Board, be made available for the acquisition, design, fabrication, installation, improvement, and maintenance of artwork displayed on Port lands. ART~/VORK: 1. Artworks are defined in terms of the visual arts as distinguished from the performing arts, media arts, literary or cultural arts. The artwork should be permanent in nature and installed in public view. The selection of each work of art will be site specific and be selected based on the character and aesthetics of the landscape and architecture of that site. 2. The matedal to be used for fabrication of the work shall be of a type http://www, port ofsandiego, org/sandiego_more/public_art/papolicies, btm 7/31/01 appropriate to the theme or concept of the proposed artwork and should respect the surrounding natural and building environments. The material shall be permanent in nature and require iow maintenance. Accessories to the artwork, i.e. lighting, shall not distract from the artwork or create glare for passing drivers or pedestrians. All accessories shall be durable and require Iow maintenance. 3. The Board recognizes that there may be occasion to have temporary art, temporar7 exhibits or controlled limited editions and this section does not preclude consideration of such proposals on an individual basis PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE: An ar[ advisory committee shall be established called the Public Art_Committee (PACi. The committee's task will be to review and recommend which projects fit within the mission of the Port's Public Art Program and which projects will best achieve the project's own objective. The Board recognizes that this policy cannot contemplate ail the creative possibilities for art projects and it is the intent that this committee provides for wide latitude in review of proposed artworks. 1. The committee shall be composed of ten (10) members consisting of one member from each of the five member cities, one member from the San Diego Port Tenants Association and four members at large. The committee shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Board with the concurrence of the Mayor and Commissioner of the member city from which the candidate is from, and staff recommendation of the two at large members. The San Diego Port Tenants Association. member appointment will be at the pleasure of the Board. 2. The committee serves in an advisory capacity providing recommendations for art placement and aesthetic opinion to the District. 3. Membership shall be made up of arts professionals and members of the community. Arts professionals for these purposes are defined as: curators; visual artists; art cdtics; art historians; art collectors; art fabricators; architects; landscape architects; art educators; and other persons with visual arts backgrounds, respected in their field and willing to engage effectively in a panel process. 4. It is the Port's goal to allow as many qualified and willing individuals as possible an opportunity to serve their community. 5. It is the desire that terms be limited so as (1) to promote equal opportunity to the membership to serve in a leadership role; (2) to bdng a diverse aesthetic; (3) to bdng diverse ethnic and cultural perspectives to the program; and (4) to most precisely match the project's program to the expertise of the panelists. 6. The Public Art Committee is charged with the responsibility to: Review artist proposals for placement in the Port's public art collection, making recommendations for fabrication and acquisition. Serve aS a jury for artwork competitions, making recommendations of finalists to the Board. Provide technical advisement to staff throughout the commission process. TERMS: 1. Committee members shall serve for three-year terms. Said three-year terms shall commence October 1 of the year in which the appointment/reappointment is made. No member shall serve for more than two, three-year terms. Should a committee vacancy occur pdor to the end of its scheduled http://www portofsandiego, or~sandiego_more/public_art/papolicies.htm 7/31/01 l'ubiic/Mt Poilcles gage .5 o~ 0 three-year term, the Board shall appoint a replacement for the unexpired term. Appointment pursuant to this section shall not preclude re, appointment for t~ full three-year terms, specified in Section 1 above. For the initial formation of the committee, and to provide for ongoing staggered terms, the odginal seven-member committee at its first meeting in 1996 shall draw lots to determine two slots to be available for appointment/reappointment in October 1997, two slots for 1998, and three slots for 1999. Thereafter all terms shall be for three years. The District Clerk shall maintain a record of the current committee members and their term expirations. The Board shall be promptly advised of any vacancy occurring so that the appointmentJreappointment can be timely made. Should the appointment/reappointment not be made prior to October 1, the existing member shall hold over until such appointment/reappointment is made. 2. Additionally, ad hoc, ex-officio members may be appointed by the Public Art Coordinator should the situation warrant. 3. The committee's purpose is to review proposals to determine the feasibility, practicality and the aesthetic value of artwork to be included in Port projects, and to prepare a recommended art acquisition and placement program and otherwise to advise the Board as may be required. 4. Committee members shall receive no compensation for their services. 5. Committee members must declare a conflict of interest when monetary gain could occur as a result of their participation in a committee project. Commiftee members must abstain from discussion and voting on projects where such conflict exists. 6. Committee members shall be required to file Statements of Economic Interest pursuant to the Board's adopted Conflict of Interest Code. 7. Meetings of the Public Art Committee shall be noticed and held in places reasonably convenient to the public. Minutes of the meetings shall be prepared. 8. The committee is advisory in nature and shall have no authority to negotiate for, or commit, the Port of San Diego in any respect. 9. Three absences in any twelve-month pedod constitute automatic resignation from the committee. 10. A chairperson and vice-chairperson will be elected at the first meeting by the membership of the committee for a one-year term. ARTIST SELECTION: Artists chosen by the committee shall be active artists who are recognized in their field, either locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally. They may be required to provide the committee with references relative to their work. Commissioned artwork shall be subject to the artist entedng a contract with the Port. Artists can be contacted through the following methods: 1. Mailing list: To receive notification of new public art projects, artists may send their name, maiiiog address and an indication of the medium in which they work to the Public Art Coordinator. Notices of new projects and application requirements will be mailed as appropriate. 2. Press announcements: Open competitions for public art projects may be advertised in local arts media and may be announced to local, regional and national arts organizations, college and university art departments, galleries, and museums. http://www.porto fsandiego.org/sandiego_more/public_art/papolicies.htm 7/31/01 17 .? l*uDllc Art Policies l:'age 4 otb 3. Advertisements in art magazines 4. Art agents 5. Referrals from the local professional community ARTWORK LOCATION: Artwork shall be located in an area specifically designated for such purpose. Installation of the artwork shall be planned and implemented to enhance the work and allow for unobstructed public viewing from as many points of view as possible. Potential obstruction of growing trees, shrubbery, or future construction shall be taken into account. The artwork shall be a permanent, fixed asset to the property. ARTWORK IDENTIFICATION: Each artwork shall be identified by a plaque stating the artist's name, afl, york title, the names of port commissioners, and the date the artwork was dedicated. The plaque will be placed in an appropriate location near the artwork that can be easily accessed by pedestrians. ARTWORK SELECTION: The Public Art Committee recommends w~rks of art for the Port based on artistic merit and the appropriateness of the artwork to the site where it is to be located. The selection of artists and artwork is based on the following criteria: 1. Artistic excellence and innovation; 2. Appropriateness of the artwork to the project/site in terms of scale, form, content, and materials; 3. Safety of the artwork; 4. Durability of the artwork relative to theft, vandalism and the environment; 5. Demonstrated community support; 6. Publicly visible; 7. Publicly accessible; 8. Accurate budget; 9. Short and long-term maintenance and conservation requirements, are defined; 10. Maintains a variety of style, medium, size, and type for Port collection; 11. Ability of the artist to work closely and compatibly with the project architect (s), engineers, commissions, committees, Port staff, and community members; and 12. Selection of the artwork is subject to the artist(s) completing a contract as http://www.porto fsandiego.org/sandiego rnore/public_art/papolicies.htm 7/31/0l set forth by the Port Attomey. ARTWORK ACQUISITION: ArC. york may be acquired in the following manner: 1. Open competition 2. Limited competition 3. invitation 4~ Direct purchase PROJECT INITIATION: There are two ways that projects can be initiated: by the Port through its staff or the Public Art Committee; and through a request from a member city. Community-initiated proposals must first seek a recommendation of approval from the city of jurisdiction. PROCEDURE: 1. The following procedures shall be followed for inclusion of art in new construction projects undertaken by the District: a. After selection by the Board of the architect for the project, the project architect shall, early in the design program, prepare a report suggesting appropriate location(s), if any, within the project for inclusion of art. The report shall be submitted to the Public Art Coordinator as early as possible in the design of the project. b. The Public Art Committee shall promptly consider the report and recommend approval, rejection or amendment to the architect's recommendations. c. Upon receipt of the committee's recommendations, the Board shall approve, reject or amend the recommendations. The architect and Port staff shall then proceed to cam/out the Board's direction dudng the course of the Port project developments. 2. The Board recognizes that, in addition to inclusion of art in new Distdct construction projects, there are public places within the District's jurisdiction appropriate for the location of significant works of art. The following procedures shall be followed in the designation of sites for public art and for the acquisition of appropriate artworks. a. Each year, as part of the budget process, the Public Art Committee will present the Board with an Annual Acquisition Plan for its consideration for inclusion in the annual budget. The program shall include recommendations regarding sites, costs, selection processes, project priorities, and other pertinent information. b. The Public Art Committee will receive city-initiated proposals each December for review for inclusion in the Annual Acquisition Plan. http://www.porto fsandiego.org/sandiego_more/public_art/papolicies.htm 7/31/01 Art Pol~cles Page 0 oi6 c. Prior to making its recommendations to the Board, the PAC, early in its site selection process, shall confer with the Executive Director to insure that the sites under consideration are compatible with soils, operations and logistical requirements; redevelopment plans; utility lines; and supervening regulations and future planning for the area. RESOLUTION NUMBER AND DATE: 96-236, 24 September 1996 (Supersedes BPC Policy No. 609~ Resolution Nos. 82-343 dated 14 December 1982, 86-63 dated 18 February 1986 and 86-234 dated 5 August 1986) RELATED PUBLIC ART POLICIES: BPC Policy No. 610 - Monuments, Memorials & pJacLues - (Available in PDF format:) BPC Policy NO. 611 - Denoted Items Policy - (Available Jn PDF formatj Purpose [ AnalYsis [ PolLC~VI Artwork] PAC Cornm~i/ee [ Terms] Artist Selection http://www portofsandiego, org/sandiego_more/pu blic_artJpapolicies, htm 7/31/01 ATTACHMENT B . arina View Park COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: /~ Meeting Date: 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE CIVILIAN REVIEW COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN AND REVIEWING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. SUBMITTED BY: City Manager ~ ~/ Mana er~ .~'j~ REVIEWED BY: City g .~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X ) At its May 29, 2001 meeting, the Chula Vista City Council requested an ad hoc committee be formed to examine the subject of police civilian review boards. Council determined that the issue warranted further examination given the diverse composition of the city. Attached is the report that resulted from the Community Task Fome. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Civilian Review Component of the Community Enhancement Plan, and review its recommendations. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, Council requested an ad hoc committee be formed to examine the subject of police civilian review boards. As a result, an ad hoc committee comprised of community members was established to study the issue in detail and formulate a recommendation to Council. DISCUSSION: The Community Task Force that resulted from Council's request was a 7-member committee, which met eight times over a four-month period. They reviewed the nature and intent of the request for a civilian review board; reviewed numerous reports, policies, and statistics; reviewed the procedures currently used to investigate allegations of police misconduct; reviewed police academy and in-service training on ethics and police conduct; familiarized themselves with police department policies and procedures by participating in the Citizens' Academy and in "ride-alongs" as necessary; and, formulated a recommendation regarding the subject of a civilian review board in Chula Vista. Page 2,Item: Meeting Date: 12/17/01 FISCAL IMPACT: Accepting the report and reviewing recommendations will result in no fiscal impact. Attachments: Ad Hoc Committee Report on Civilian Review Boards CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN TASK FORCE REPORT ON CIVILIAN-POLICE REVIEW DECEMBER 4, 2001 Table of Contents 1. Summary of Recommendations 1 2. Background & Process of Selecting Task Force 3 3. Methodology and Data Collection 4 4. Public Meeting 7 4, Findings &,Recommendations 14 5. Appendix A. Public Hearing Notice B. Complaint Form C. Samples of Complaint Forms from other jurisdictions D. Agenda of Public Safety Meeting by San Diego Police Department SUMMARY The seven-member Citizen's Task Force on Civilian Review submits the following report and recommendations for consideration by the City Council's designee, the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista. On May 29, 2001, the City Council requested a Citizen Task Force be formed to review the subject of Civilian-Police Review Boards. The Citizen Task Force was asked to determine whether the City of Chula Vista should establish a Citizen Police Review Board to review police practices and policies and investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct. Recommendation: After careful review of the police departmenfs existing policies, procedures, and practices, and consideration of community input on this subject, the Citizen Task Force finds there is no demonstrated need for a Civilian Police Review Board. Additional Recommendations: 1. In lieu of a Civilian Police Review Board, the Citizen Task Force strongly recommends the formation of an Advisory Citizen Board on Police Practices and Procedures. The purpose and scope of an advisory board would be to work in partnership with the Chief of Police on matters related to public safety and community-related issues. An advisory board would advise and consult with the Chief of Police concerning police department policies and procedures that involve the department's interaction with the public. The advisory board would meet regularly with the Chief of Police to discuss relevant public safety and community-related issues. 2. The Citizen Task Force recommends the citizen complaint form be revised to make it user-friendly. In addition, it is recommended a police officer liaison be assigned for all citizen-police complaints. One officer should be designated to contact and relay information to citizen-complainants concerning the process, and the approximate time it will take to review and resolve a complaint. 3. The Citizen Task Force proposes an Annual Community Public Safety Meeting between the Police Department and community members. The purpose would be to increase citizen familiarity with police services and programs and provide an additional opportunity for citizens and the police department to interact in a positive manner. An Advisory Board would be instrumental in assisting the police department in developing its first annual community public safety meeting. 4. Chula Vista Police Department's Web Site should include a description of the citizen complaint process that would provide information how, where, and to whom a complaint may be made, and the name and phone number of the person to contact within the department for further information about the complaint process. The report contains a discussion of materials and community comments considered by the Task Force members in reaching their recommendations. The Task Force commends the City Council for authorizing the City Manager, David Rowlands Jr. to form a Citizen Task Force to study and address the issue of a Citizen Review Board. The Citizen Task Force appreciates the openness and willingness of Chief Rick Emerson and his staff to readily provide material on police policies, procedures and other information requested by the Citizen Task Force which it needed to prepare its report and recommendations. The Citizen Task Force also thanks Josie Calderon, who in her capacity as a consultant and facilitator greatly assisted the Task Force in obtaining, compiling and sorting the required information and material for preparation of this report. Dated: December 4, 2001, at Chula Vista, California Respectfully submitted, Lilia E. Garcia Chairperson Citizen Task Force on Civilian Review BACKGROUND ,at the City Counsel meeting on May 29, 2001, some community members proposed that the council create a citizen board to review police practices and procedures concerning citizen complaints of police misconduct. The City Council authorized a citizen task force be formed to review and make findings on the subject of Citizen-Police Review Boards. TASK FORCE MEMBERS The following seven (7} members were invited by the City Manager, and agreed, to serve on the Citizen Task Force: Gte§ Alabado Council of Philippine American Organizations (COPAO) Chuck Hamilton Bonita Business and Professional Association Doug Harrell Chula Vista E~ementary School District Lilia Garcia Mexican American Business and Professional Association Ben Richardson Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Yolanda Salcido South Bay Forum Barbara Worth Lutheran Social Services - Shared Housing Project At its first meeting, the members of the CTF selected Lilia Garcia to serve as their Chairperson. PROCESS USED TO SELECT TASK FORCE MEMBERS In an effort to involve the community, the City retained Josie Calderon of JLC Consultants to help facilitate the formation of the Citizen Task Force (CTF). Ms. Calderon assisted the City Manager in selecting the Task Force Members. In order to obtain maximum community input and diverse representation, the City contacted over twenty community organizations and invited them to nominate a member to serve on the CTF. From this pool of nominees a seven-member task force was formed. Each member lives and/or works in Chula Vista and represents an active community stakeholder organization, i.e., business, civic, ethnic, senior citizen, or youth groups. By involving community advocates nominated by their participating organization the City gained the added experience and historical value that each member brought to the task force. CYF members shared pertinent information provided by their respective group members with the Task Force. CTF members also relayed activities of the task force to their organizations such as the planning of the public meeting. METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION Meetings The CTF met eight times over a four-month period commencing on August 29, and ending on November 28, 2001. Based on an aggressive time schedule and an enormous amount of information to review, the Task Force chose to keep its working meetings closed and to schedule a public meeting for citizen input on October 30, 2001. The Task Force members also spent a considerable amount of individual time on tasks relative to the CTF such as review of printed materials, viewing videos, reading reports, and conducting interviews of community members and of representatives of police groups, including the Police Officer's Association and Latino Peace Officers Association. In addition, several CTF members attended the Citizen's Academy and participated in ride-alongs with Chula Vista police officers. An estimated collective total of 656-plus hours were volunteered by the CTF members. The CTF Reviewed and Considered the following information and materials: 1. Reviewed Chula Vista Police Department's historical statistics on the types of citizen complaints. 2. Reviewed CVPD's current policies and procedures used to investigate and resolve citizen complaints of police misconduct 3. Reviewed the nature and purpose of civilian review boards and examined favorable and unfavorable characteristics and results of civilian review boards. 4. Reviewed Citizen Opinion Survey of CVPD by SANDAG in 2000 5. Conducted Individual Review of each of fourteen (14) citizen formal complaints filed with the CVPD within last 12 months 6. Reviewed process for filing a citizen complaint 7. Reviewed Police academy and in-service training on ethics and police conduct 4 8. Reviewed Policies, Procedures, Programs, Equipment and Organizational Safeguards Currently in Place in the CVPD 9. Participated in Citizen's Academy and in ride-alongs with officers 10. Viewed Video Tape of Council Meeting of May 29, 2001, item 17. 11. Conducted a Public Hearing and Took Public Comment 12. Solicited and obtained comments and input from police group organizations The CTF Considered Four Types of Civilian Review Boards; 1. Civilian Investigators: Civilians investigate complaints against the Police Department and make recommendations to the Chief of Police 2. Civilian Reviewers: Police investigate complaints and make findings; civilians review police findings and recommend acceptance or rejection of those findings 3. Citizens Appeals Board: Complainants may appeal police findings to the civilian review board 4. Civilian Auditors: an independent auditor investigates the process used by police to investigate citizen complaints and the auditor reports on the thoroughness and fairness of process to department and public In addition to the various types of Civilian Review Boards (CRBs), the CTF reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of CRBs, the cost of CRBs, the types of citizen complaints that qualify for investigation by a CRB, and the reasons cities establish them. For, example citizen complaints that would qualify for civilian review and investigation typically involve allegations involving serious police misconduct such as use of excessive force or other egregious conduct. The CTF Viewed the Videotape of Item #17 of City Council Meeting of May 29, 2001 A copy of the above video tape was provided to each member of the Task Force and reviewed in its entirety by CTF members. The viewing of the video tape was considered important since several citizens proposed the creation of a citizen-police review board. After viewing the tape, the CTF members discussed the statements made on the tape and considered public comments made at May 29th meeting as part of their review. The CTF members found the public comments on May 29th to be too general to provide a fair assessment of police conduct. For this reason, the CTF invited the individuals who had provided public comment and/or letters to the City Council to attend the CTF Community Public Meeting to support their earlier comments to the City Council with specific examples and experiences, if any, with the CVPD. Review of Citizen Complaint Process The CTF was given a detailed presentation describing the Citizen Complaint process. The presentation included the type of complaints received, the investigation and review process [on average a citizen complaint is resolved within 2.5 months], information about disciplinary action, safeguards to ensure reliability of the complaint resolution process, and progressive policing. The Task Force found the CVPD's policies and procedures related to the investigation and disposition of citizen complaints to be clear and consistent in their application. The Task Fome found no evidence of a disproportionate number of individuals and/or groups being targeted. Departmental and Citizen Complaints There are two types of complaints: departmental complaints which in 2000 · comprised 74% of all complaints and citizen complaints which comprised 26% of all complaints. Departmental complaints are those initiated by a department employee based on personal observation or knowledge of misconduct or policy violation, or information received from another department employee. The Task Force found the departmental complaint process to be consistently and fairly applied. The success of the departmental complaint process is attributable in part to team policing which provides for improved supervision and greater accountability of officers' conduct. The Task Force's conclusions the departmental procedures in place afford reliable fact- finding and resolution of internal complaints and that implementation of team policing has resulted in greater supervision is supported by the comments and opinions received from members of the Chula Vista Police Officers Association and the Latino Peace Officers Association. Citizen complaints are of two types: formal and informal. A formal complaint is one that is initiated by a citizen. Complaints are submitted by telephone, field contact, speaking directly with a supervisor, or completing a complaint form and submitting it at the front desk of the police station. A complaint can also be made by a written letter, anonymously, or by a third party. A documented investigation is made and a finding is recommended. If the complaint is sustained a report remains in the officer's file for five years as required by law. Discipline imposed for a sustained finding of misconduct ranges from a reprimand letter to termination. The complainant is advised by letter of the disposition of the complaint. An informal citizen complaint does not rise to the level of a formal complaint and is often an inquiry that can be resolved with an explanation of policy or procedure. A supervisor who is responding to an informal complaint may determine the complaint should become a formal one, in which case, the procedures for investigating and resolving the complaint will apply. The types of citizen inquiries or complaints that do not become formal complaints are not logged or tracked by the CVPD. The Task Force Conducted An Independent Review Of All Fourteen (14) Citizen Complaints Filed Within 12 Months. Pursuant to the CTF request, copies of the fourteen citizen formal complaints filed with the CVPD during the last 12 months were provided to the Task Force. The names of the citizen and police officer were whited-out to protect their privacy. The CTF was interested only in reviewing the type of complaint, the time it took to resolve it, how it was resolved, what the final disposition was, and if there was a true finding of misconduct what type of disciplinary action, if any, was imposed on the officer. The Task Fome determined that on the average complaints took about 2.5 months to resolve. The police department's targeted goal is to resolve citizen complaints within 30 days. Of the fourteen citizen complaints, eleven involved alleged rude behavior by an officer during a traffic stop, illegal parking, and other traffic violations. Two complaints involved alleged racism and a third alleged sexual misconduct. Only three of the fourteen citizen complaints reviewed would have risen to the category for a civilian review investigation under the rules and guidelines set for local civilian review boards, in comparison, the County of San Diego Civilian Review Board investigates an average of 45 to 55 complaints a month that qualify as complaints requiring a civilian review investigation. The Task Force also reviewed the number of claims (250) filed against the City/Police Department, from a risk-management perspective. Most of the complaints related to vehicle impounds. Of these, forty-one became lawsuits. The court dismissed twenty-six, and six required payment by the City. The greatest amount paid out was $12,000 involving a traffic accident. The sole claim involving an allegation of excessive force resulted in a settlement of $1,500. PUBLIC MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 2001 On October 30, 2001, the Task Force held a noticed-meeting at Lauderbach Community Center on Oxford Street in Chula Vista from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. The purpose of the public meeting was to obtain input from Chula Vista residents on how they 7 perceive their contacts with the CVPD based on their personal experiences, and to obtain their opinion whether the CVPD has a fair and effective means of registering and resolving citizen complaints against its officers. Timely notice of the meeting was provided to the community through press releases which were sent to seventeen (17) newspapers announcing the time and place of the meeting and inviting public comment on the subject of citizen review boards. See Appendix A. Notification was also given to business, educational, youth recreations centers, homeowner associations, community service centers, libraries and other stakeholder organizations interested in public safety. The public meeting announcement was also posted in various City departments. Also, individual letters of invitation were sent, and/or phone calls made to those individuals who had provided comments at the City Council Meeting of May 29, 2001. In response to the notification of the public meeting, one community organization (the Chicano Federation) that had provided comments to the City Council on May 29th, responded that they did not have any information of police conduct relevant to the CVPD. Three individuals who had provided earlier comments to the City Council, and who also addressed the CTF at the public meeting, failed to provide material evidence of police misconduct and/or examples of their own personal experience with the CVPD. Approximately fifty local residents, as well as students from colleges and high school government classes attended the meeting. Diverse cultures, age groups and backgrounds were represented. The public meeting was taped and the comments of the speakers who addressed the Task Force are available for review. ©f those in attendance, eleven individuals addressed the Task Force: 6 individuals supported establishing some type of citizen review board; 5 individuals opposed establishing a citizen review board. 3 of the 6 individuals supporting a citizen review board did not provide any personal unfavorable experience with the CVPD. Four of the speakers also addressed the meeting in their capacity as a representative of a stakeholder organization: 1 reported the members of their organization were in favor of the establishment of a citizen review board, and 3 reported the members of their organization were in opposition to the establishment of a citizen review board. Of the 6 individuals who spoke in support of establishing a citizen review board: 1 person reported experiences involving a towing incident two years ago; 1 person reported experiencing repeated parking citations one and one-half years ago; 1 person reported receiving repeated harassment by the CVPD after an incident in which he had pleaded guilty and filed a lawsuit against the CVPD, which was settled in favor of the CVPD; 1 person reported a number of different incidents. He reported that his information of these incidents was based on newspaper articles and not on personal experience. He related the following: One incident occurred two years ago where a pregnant woman and some children were reportedly mistreated by police officers during a search of their home; One incident in 1987, which he believed was a fatal shooting at Palomar St and 3,d Avenue by CVPD officers; One incident occurred some years ago where a man was hit and killed by a police vehicle; and One incident occurred six months ago, where an African-American male was shot at Naples and L Streets. There was a discrepancy as to whether the shooting in this incident involved the CVPD. One member of the task force recalled the shooting involved the SDPD. 1 person stated while he has not had a negative experience with law enforcement officers in Chula Vista in over thirty years, in principle he supports a Civilian Review Board as a deterrent to bad policing. The Task Force members engaged in an informal dialogue with several individuals and speakers during and after the meeting. With the exception of one of the speakers, all of the speakers agreed the City of Chula Vista has an very good police department and that it is perceived the CVPD is doing a good job. However, most speakers wanted a process where the community could provide input into decisions by the police department that affect the public. There was general consensus that an advisory group comprised of community members to advise the police department would be beneficial to the community and would continue to promote confidence and trust in the CVPD. There also appeared to be a lack of understanding by several individuals of how to file a police complaint and the process used by the police department to address and resolve complaints, particularly in those cases where use of force is an issue. Several individuals expressed frustration in not being contacted in a timely manner by anyone in CVPD after they had filed a request for information and/or a complaint. Qne individual went to the police station to file a complaint only to be told that the Sergeant in charge of taking the complaint was not available. That individual left without filing a complaint. Comments from Police Officer Groups The CTF also invited and received comments from police officer association groups. A representative of the Latino Peace Officer's Association addressed the CTF and commented on the internal, i.e, departmental, and external, i.e., citizen complaint policies and procedures from the perspective of an experienced officer. In particular, the LPOA representative provided positive comments regarding the recent implementation of team policing and its effect on the improved morale of the officers. Representatives of the Chula Vista Police Officers Association also provided the CTF with comments on the departmental and citizen complaint processes. The CVPOA opined that the existing internal investigation process of reviewing police misconduct was fairly and consistently applied. The Chula Vista Police Officers Association opposes the creation of a civilian review board. Comments made to the Task Force included, "CRB's can lead to conflict between officers and the oversight board. The establishment of a CRB would likely polarize the two entities." However, both the LPOA and CVPOA were open to the creation of an advisory citizen board that would act in advisory capacity to the Chief of Police on issues relating to public safety and community relations. Other Information Considered by The CTF The Task Force also considered comments from individuals actively involved with existing citizen review boards. Specifically, the three individuals who provided comments concerning their experiences with civilian review boards were of the opinion that the City of Chula Vista did not need a civilian review board. The specific reason cited was !;hat there was no evidence the CVPD was viewed by distrust by the community. On the contrary, the CVPD enjoys a reputation as a police department that has maintained positive community relations. Another reason cited was that the City of Chula Vista has up to this point in time been fortunate not to have had a history of cases involving high profile police brutality or excessive force cases which have been perceived by the community as not having been properly addressed or investigated. 10 Review of the Chula Vista Police Department and Facilities To obtain a baseline knowledge of how the police department operates and to become familiar with the police services, programs, policies and practices, the Task Fome members reviewed the CVPD's history, mission statement, organizational description (344 authorized law-enforcement and civilian workfome) and its thirty-one million annual budget. The CTF's review revealed that seeking community input is not new to the CVPD. The department is currently in the middle of a five-year strategic plan period, 1999-2003, that has set goals, objectives and strategies to guide budgetary, operational, and organizational decisions throughout the five-year plan period. This plan was the result of an eleven-month community partnership planning process. The planning process identified and evaluated in-depth strategic priorities, i.e., those issues of the greatest concern to the police department and the community of Chula Vista. This joint planning process afforded the department with unique opportunities to work with the community to address community concerns. This resulted in new and enhanced programs such as the Citizen Academy and programs which targeted specific issues such as graffiti reduction, anti-speeding initiatives, and residential burglary prevention that have enhanced community partnerships for crime prevention, problem solving, and community education. Also in response to the strategic plan, the CVPD created the Community Relations Unit (CRU) to work closely with the city's residents. The CRU is primarily responsible for improving dialogue between the community and the department. An important role of the CRU is soliciting and receiving citizen input through community meetings, surveys, and personal contacts. Other successful programs and partnerships that have been implemented include the School Resource Officer Program and volunteer programs such as the Citizen's Adversity Support Team, the Senior Volunteer Patrol, the Reserve Officers and Mounted Reserve Officers Program, and the Cadet and Explorer Scouts Program. The CVPD's strategic plan also initiated the planning phase for a new police facility. The $60 million project is expected to be ready by February of 2004. The Task Force toured the police department facility and received demonstrations of the CVPD's state-of-the-art evidence tracking system, its communication system that integrates the County of San Diego Regional Communications system, and its new mobile substation, which is fully equipped and self-sufficient. Review and Analysis of Resident Opinion Survey One of the initial activities undertaken by the Task Force was a review and analysis of the Resident Opinion Survey of the Chula Vista Police Department conducted by SANDAG in 2000. As an independent third party, SANDAG randomly surveyed a sample of 3000 households in Chula Vista. Of those that responded to the survey, 9 out of 10 residents were satisfied with the police department personnel and the delivery of services. Respondents rated their experience with the police department as excellent (47%) or good (34%). More than 85% of the survey participants agreed police officers responded in a reasonable amount of time and were knowledgeable, professional, respectful, pleasant, courteous, fair, helpful, and caring. The survey revealed that speeding continues to be of most concern, followed by burglary and graffiti. The data gathered from the ~;itizen survey provided the Task Force with an information base from which to determine what components needed further review. For example, while the survey of 3000 households in Chula Vista produced a response of 39%, Hispanic residents were under-represented in the survey. This prompted the Task Force's decision to site its Community Public Meeting in South Chula Vista, (West of 1-805), an area known to be heavily populated by Latino residents. .Review of Policies, Procedures, Programs, Equipment and Organizational Safeguards Currently in Place in the CVPD The CTF found that the CVPD spends a significant amount of time evaluating their own programs and searching for best practices. Greater accountability of police conduct has resulted from the implementation of team policing. Management and line officers both told the CTF that team policing has resulted in more effective supervision, and has placed a greater emphasis on training and professional development. The Task Force concluded that intensive and on-going training is provided to police recruits and on duty officers. Police recruits attend a 27-week program at the Police Academy that includes ethics training, communication skills, diversity training, and force-options simulators. Upon completion of the Academy, recruits participate in a 16-week program of field training. All officers receive 10 hours of training per month (120 hours per year - this is 5 times greater than the 24 hours per year recommended by the California Peace Officer Standards Training (POST).) Recent training sessions have included the following topics: Use of Force Options; Defensive Tactics, and Driving Simulations. Training sessions that are scheduled for this Spring include Interpersonal Skills and Police Ethics. Officers receive additional training that is specific to their duty assignment, as well as the training given at daily roll calls. The CVPD has a clear "Use of Force" Policy. Any use of force by an officer must be documented and then signed off and reviewed by three (3) supervisors: Watch Commander - the lieutenant on duty at the time Report Reviewer - the direct supervisor of the officer Use of Force Coordinator - the Professional Standards Unit Sergeant Micro cassette recorders are issued to all officers and a 24-hour audio-video recording of holding and detention areas is used to upgrade and increase self- policing. Officers are issued less lethal equipment to use when necessary. All patrol vehicles in the field are equipped with an Advanced Air Taser and all officers have received training on the use of less lethal equipment. In addition to the 46 Advanced Air Tasers, the CVPD has purchased shotguns and rifles capable of shooting "bean bag" rounds and "sponge" rounds. Pepper spray, nunchakus, and batons are also issued to officers, and training in their use is also provided. Also, currently 7 patrol cars vehicles are equipped with in-car video cameras. As budget allows, the CVPD adds equipment such as in-car video cameras to police cars. Citizen's Academy The CVPD created the Citizen's Academy to bridge communication and increase awareness of the role of the police depadment within the community. During an eleven- week program citizens learn about a police officer's job and are given a unique opportunity to see first-hand the in ner workings of the police department, the intricacies of responding to police calls, preventing crime, and investigating criminal activity. Topics covered in the Citizen's Academy include: Recruitment and Training, Defensive Tactics and Firearms; Community Oriented Policing; Traffic Procedures; Pursuit Driving; Code-3 Operations; Ethics; the Complaint Process; and Criminal Investigations. Three members of the Task Force participated in the Citizen's Academy and ride- along program. Those members shared their experiences and observations with the other members of the CTF. Each of the three members found their participation in the program to be worthwhile in that it provided a greater understanding of police practices. The members who participated in the academy found the training officers to be excellent and enthusiastically recommend participation in this program. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: I. The Task Force members unanimously agreed there is no demonstrated need for a civilian police review board. Reasons: 1. There is no history of mistrust of the Chula Vista Police Department; to date, no high profile incidents of misconduct by police has occurred which would warrant citizen oversight. 2. Police officers receive on-going training to improve and upgrade their education and skills. CVPD officers receive 10 hours of training per month (120 hours a year - 5 times the required training by POST.) Team policing has resulted in greater supervision of officers and allows for better self-policing of officer conduct. 3. The Chula Vista Police Department has established clear guidelines and uses a process that appropriately and fairly evaluates and resolves internal, i.e., departmental complaints of police misconduct. 94% of departmental complaints are sustained. 4. The average time to investigate and resolve citizen complaints is two and one-half months, which the Task Force found to be reasonable. 5. The rate of citizen complaints is Iow. During the last 12 months, 14 citizen formal complaints were received by the police department. The city of Chula Vista averages 13.4 formal citizen complaints per year, an extremely Iow number considering that each year CVPD officers average more than 75,000 official contacts with the public and arrest nearly 5,000 individuals. In comparison, in a four-year period between 1996 and 2000, 2,684 citizen complaints were filed with the San Diego Police Department, an average of 671 citizen complaints a year. In contrast, in a five-year period between 1996-2001, only 67 citizen complaints were filed with the CVPD, an average of 13.4 complaints. 6. The citizen complaints filed with the CVPD have not involved egregious conduct, such as allegations of police brutality or high-profile incidents of excessive force. Typically, citizens who filed complaints have alleged rudeness or unprofessional demeanor by an officer, or complained about an officer's failure to take a police report. 7, The cost of funding a civilian review board was not a factor - The Task Force agreed that the cost of creating a civilian review board was not relevant to its decision whether to recommend a civilian review board. The CTF members agreed that if there had been a demonstrated need for a civilian review board, cost would not be a valid reason for 14 not creating a civilian review board. The Task Force also considered and compared the existence or non-existence of the following factors in concluding that the City of Chula Vista would not benefit from a Civilian Review Board: Reasons cited by CRB Cities Current Status of Chula Vista History of problems No history of community-relations problems High-profile incidents of misconduct No high profile incidents of misconduct Perception of unfair treatment 87% of people surveyed in 2000 that had contact with CVPD said they were treated fairly Perceived lack of internal controls Clear policies and officer training on use of force and alternate less lethal force Perceived or actual difficulties in filing complaints CVPD publishes brochure on how to file complaints [filing procedure could use improvement] Lack of trust 92% of citizens surveyed in 2000 were satisfied with CVPD ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. A CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD 0N POLICE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED The purpose of an advisory board would be to work in partnership with the police department on matters related to civilian and public issues. The scope of the advisory board's power would be to advise, consult with, and review policies and procedures that involve the police department's interaction with the public. It would not include review of individual citizen police complaints, but would include review of, and proposals for improving the process and procedures relating to citizen complaints. Because an advisory board would be knowledgeable of, and ]5 familiar with police practices and policies, should circumstances change, it would be available to revisit the issue of a citizen review board. An advisory board would also serve to provide advisory input concerning the police department's hiring, recruitment, promotion and retention policies. Those policies have a direct effect on community relations. Reasons and Observations Supporting an Advisory Board: ]. The steady growth of the city makes it imperative for the city and the police department to take a proactive approach by involving the public. Forecasts for population growth for Chula Vista shows an above average increase compared to other jurisdictions in the county. 2. A Citizen Advisory Board would accomplish the primary goal of a civilian review board in a positive and non-adversarial role by providing an ongoing process for civilian and/or community input and comment on police policies and procedures. 3. A Citizen Advisory Board would be an independent and unbiased group which would serve to enhance the image of, and promote confidence in the police department. 4. Citizen Advisory Board members would serve as volunteers. Therefore, the costs involved in creating a Citizen Advisory Board would be minimal. 5. Community input through an Advisory Board is consistent with the CVPD's strategic planning goals to develop outreach and community partnerships. In forming its five-year strategic plan the CVPD solicited and obtained community input and recommendations. By working in partnership with a Citizen Advisory Board the CVPD would continue to proactively address community needs and involve citizens positively in public safety and crime prevention issues. d. As one of the task force members aptly stated as a reason for forming an advisory board, "The public needs to have confidence in the police and thankfully we have seen statistics that show the public does have confidence in our police department. A pro-active approach to keep the public informed, offering user friendly public response, and engaging in community activities at the grass roots level on an ongoing basis would further help in fostering the positive relationship which the police department is striving for, and which the public is deserving of." 7. A Citizen Advisory Board would be supported by CVPOA and LPOA. Both police associations observed that an Advisory Board, unlike a Review Board, would be in a partnership role versus an adversarial role to the police department. Thus, an advisory board can potentially be more effective in enhancing community/police relations. 8. A Citizen Advisory Board would provide constructive comment and input and increase communication between the public and the police department The Advisory Board would hold public meetings throughout sectors of community to take citizen input concerning the police department. Conducting public forums may provide an opportunity to obtain input from under- represented segments of the community that did not respond or participate in the SANDAG survey of 2000. The Advisory Board would meet on a regular and scheduled basis with the Police Chief and also work closely with the Community Relations Unit. 9. Selection Process for the Citizen Advisory Board The Citizen Advisory Board should be selected in a similar process as the Citizen Task Force. The advisory board should reflect the diversity of the community and be comprised of community stakeholders. Community organizations should be solicited for nominations. In order to instill the public's confidence in the selection of the board members, appointments should be made by the City Manager with the assistance of an independent consultant to assist in identifying potential nominees. In order to avoid the appearance of political appointments, and maintain an unbiased and independent advisory board, the CTF recommends the City Council should not appoint the Advisory Board members. Number: The number of Advisory Board members should be an odd number, no less than 7, no more than 11. Term: in order to provide continuity and an adequate time to see implementation of recommended proposals a term of no less than two years, and no more than four years, is recommended. An optimum term would be three years. Staggered terms is also recommended to allow a balance of new and seasoned board members. 17 B. THE INITIAL FILING PROCESS FOR CITIZEN COMPLAINTS NEEDS REVISION AND IMPROVEMENT While the CVPD's investigations of citizen complaints appear to be fairly and efficiently reviewed and resolved, the part of the citizen complaint process that needs fine tuning is the initial filing of the complaint. This includes information about how to file a complaint. The CTF recognizes the CVPD is making concerted efforts in this area and is currently revising brochures and information about how to file a citizen complaint. However, what needs revision is the current complaint form that a citizen fills out at the police station. The complaint form, which is attached as appendix B to this report, is not user friendly and is intimidating. A significant portion of the complaint form is devoted to the language in Penal Code section 148.6b, which advises the complainant that a false complaint will be prosecuted. The CTF suggests the manner in which the statutory language is emphasized and highlighted be revised so that it does not overwhelm the complaint form. In addition, the input received at the community meeting revealed that the current citizen complaint process is not clearly understood. To address these issues the Task Force recommends: ]. The citizen complaint form should be revised to make it user-friendly. While the law requires a complainant to be advised per the language of per Penal Code section 148.6b, the advisement should not take half a page of the complaint form: The manner in which current advisement is placed on the complaint has a potential to intimidate a citizen from filing a valid complaint. See, Appendix B. Not all law- enforcement agencies citizen-complaint forms contain this advisement in the complaint form or highlight the language of the advisement in such a prominent manner. The citizen complaint form used by the San Diego Police Department, attached as Appendix C, is an example of a format that may be considered in revising the current citizen complaint form. It should be noted that the validity of this advisement has been challenged. Recently one appellate court found the language in penal code section 1408.6b unconstitutional. See People vs. Stanistreet, filed 10/31/01,2001 D.A.R. 11563. 2. improve the CVPD Web Site. The web site should include information explaining the process of filing a citizen complaint and printing a complaint form, which is now only available at the front desk of the police station. At this time the CTF does not propose any changes in the process of filing of a citizen complaint which currently requires personal contact, i.e., the complaint must be filed in person or in writing at the police station, or by a telephone call to the police station. The CTF recognizes the CVPD does consider and investigate anonymous and third party complaints. Further study on the feasibility of allowing citizens to file complaints by using the CVPD web site is needed. On a positive note, the web site could provide an excellent opportunity for public commendations, comments, and/or suggestions for improving police relations with the department. An improved web site with readily accessible information about the complaint process would greatly complement the information process already in place. In addition, the CTF report and recommendations on civilian- police review may be a suitable subject to include in the web site. 3. Develop and implement a tracking system to monitor informal citizen inquiries that do not rise to the level of formal complaints. Currently, the only tracking that is done is for formal citizen complaints. However, there is no tracking of informal inquiries or complaints that do not rise to the level of formal complaints. There are occasions when a citizen contacts the police department about a particular incident, officer, or simply to ask for clarification about a police practice or policy. These public contacts with the police department are not tracked by the CVPD in a manner that identifies the caller, the nature or purpose of the inquiry or how the question or inquiry was resolved. This is one area where a Citizen Advisory Board could assist the CVPD in formulating a protocol and implementing an informal tracking process that balances both the public's and police officer's interests. The benefit of logging these informal type of public inquiries would allow the CVPD to make needed changes before issues become problems. In other words, monitoring and logging informal inquiries would allow the CVPD to be proactive in heading off potential problems. 4. Police Liaison. The CVPD should designate one police officer as a liaison to respond to complaints. He or she would not investigate complaints. Instead the liaison officer would personally contact complainants by phone or letter to inform them their complaint has been received and is being reviewed, to explain the complaint process ir needed, and advise the complaint of the approximate time it will take to review and resolve the complaint. This would be in addition to what is already currently done to notify the complainant of the disposition of the complaint. This is simply a recommendation for a courtesy letter or phone call after the complaint has been filed to let the complainant know that the complaint is being reviewed. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ~,. The CFT commends the Chula Vista Police Department for creating a Community Relations Unit. The CRU has a great potential for promoting greater involvement by the CVPD with all segments of the community. An Advisory Board and the CRU would complement each other. 19 2. Annual Community Public Safety Meeting bythe CVPD would be an excellent opportunity to provide the public with information about its services and programs and enhance public relations. In particular those sectors of the community that traditionally do not seek on their own initiative the services and programs of the police department would greatly benefit from such a program. It would provide citizens an opportunity to interact with the police department in a positive manner. An agenda describing topics discussed at a Public Safety Meeting recently sponsored by the San Diego Police Department with members of the Asian and Pacific Islander Communities is attached as Appendix D. 3. Increase presence and positive interaction by the CVPD at community activities and events. Two members of the Task Fome observed that in their personal experience too often officers attending community events and activities do not take the opportunity to talk with and relate to citizens. Friendly exchanges, initiated by police officers, with citizens at community events would promote positive community relations and allow an officer to connect in a positive and favorable manner with citizens. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A CHULAVISTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Community Task Force On Civilian Review As part of the City's continuous effort to review and improve its public safety services, the Citizen Task Force on Civilian Review will be conducting a community public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments and suggestions from Chula Vista residents regarding the Chula Vista Police Department's policies, practices and civilian review. The Citizen's Task Force welcomes comments on the following: · Do you believe the Chula Vista Police Department has a fair and effective means of registering and resolving complaints against its officers? · Do you have any suggestions to improve the taking of and resolving of citizenpolice complaints by the Chula Vista Police Department? · Do you have suggestions for additional steps that the Chula Vista Police Department could take to reach out across ail sectors of the City to ensure a safe community for all residents, visitors and businesses through proactive and fair policing? DATE: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Lauderbach Center 330 Oxford Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 This will be an open meeting for public comment only. No discussion, decisions or vote will be carried out. There will be a 5-minute limit on individual comments. For additional information concerning the meeting, please contact Josie Calderon, at (619) 475-8524. APPENDIX B i. A. Number: City of Chula Vista Citizen/Department Complaint Form Complainant: Phone: Address: Date Received: Time: AM/PM By Phone: In Person: By: By Mail: __ Complaint Details: Allegation: I hereby certify that the above facts are true and correct. I acknowledge that under California Civil Code 47.5, civil action can be brought against me for knowingly filing a false complaint. Per 148.6(b) California Penal Code: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS= COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHTTO AWRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. I have read and understood the above statement. Complainant Date PD-103 (9-98) Office of The City Manager OFFICE USE ONLY Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices Received: Form or sA. D. Go t..omp,a,m To IA: INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING COMPLAINT FORM: Please descdbe the incident that led to this complaint, telling what happened from beginning to end. Be as clear and specific as you can be. What aspect(s) of the incident was improper (your specific complaint). How could it be resolved to your satisfaction? COMPLAINANT NAME HOME PHONE ( ) ADDRESS BUS. PHONE ( ) CITY STATE ZIP DOB INCIDENT LOCATION: DATE TIME SDPD PERSONNEL INVOLVED: NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION, NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION WITNESS(ES): NAME HOME PHONE ( BUS. PHONE ( ) ADDRESS DOB NAME HOME PHONE ( BUS, PHONE ( ) ADDRESS DOB NAME HOME PHONE ( BUS. PHONE ( ) ADDRESS DOB INCIDENT DESCRIPTION/COMPLAiNT: Send complaint to: Scoff D. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices, 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 916, San Diego, California 92101. For more information, please call (619) 236-6296. (USE BACK OF FORM IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED) APPENDIX D Crime, Public Safety and the Asian and Pacific Islander Co~m~unities Saturday. Nowmb~ 10, Student Center ~00 un l~u, GlgIlt~T[ON ~ Co~nen,-I 1 ~ ~ ~'~G ~~G ~ O~G~ON OF ~ ~ D~O D~~ ~t ~y. ~ D~, ~ ~ P~ ~nt 1~ ~ ~A~ ~ ~I~ D~~; ~, ~ ~d HOW ~ ~-~. ~~s ~.~ 1 1:10 ~ ~ C~ ~e, S~P~ Pat t~ ~t~ SDPD ~N~ - p~ S~m ~ 1:15~ ~U~ ~ D~. SDPD 1:45 pm SPE~ ~NS ~ TA~O ~ ~ ~ ~ SWAT ~ ~, SDPD ~15 ~ M~'I2C~'IU~ C~'I~ STO~O~ ~JO~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE REPORT FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE CIVILIAN REVIEW COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN AND REVIEWING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. WHEREAS, at it's May 29, 2001 meeting, the Chula Vista City Council requested an ad hoc committee be formed to examine the subject of police civilian review boards; and, WHEREAS, Council determined that the issue warranted further examination given the diverse composition of the city; and, WHEREAS, a seven member committee met eight times over a four- month period and reviewed the nature and intent of the request for a civilian review board and formulated a recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the attached report is a result of the work of the Community Task Force; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Civilian Review Component of the Community Enhancement Plan, and review its recommendations. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~d~ avid D. Rowlands, Jr. City Manager ¡Q-20 CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN TASK FORCE REPORT ON CIVILIAN-POLICE REVIEW DECEMBER 4, 2001 Table of Contents 1. Summary of Recommendations 1 2. Background & Process of Selecting Task Force 3 3. Methodology and Data Collection 4 4. Public Meeting 7 4. Findings & Recommendations 14 5. Appendix A. Public Hearing Notice B. Complaint Form C. Samples of Complaint Forms from other jurisdictions D. Agenda of Public Safety Meeting by San Diego Police Department SUMMARY The seven-member Citizen's Task Force on Civilian Review submits the following report and recommendations for consideration by the City Council's designee, the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista. On May 29, 2001, the City Council requested a Citizen Task Force be formed to review the subject of Civilian-Police Review Boards. The Citizen Task Force was asked to determine whether the City of Chula Vista should establish a Citizen Police Review Board to review police practices and policies and investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct. Recommendation: After careful review of the police department's existing policies, procedures, and practices, and consideration of community input on this subject, the Citizen Task Force finds there is no demonstrated need for a Civilian Police Review Board. Additional Recommendations: 1. In lieu of a Civilian Police Review Board, the Citizen Task Force strongly recommends the formation of an Advisory Citizen Board on Police Practices and Procedures. The purpose and scope of an advisory board would be to work in partnership with the Chief of Police on matters related to public safety and community-related issues. An advisory board would advise and consult with the Chief of Police concerning police department policies and procedures that involve the department's interaction with the public. The advisory board would meet regularly with the Chief of Police to discuss relevant public safety and community-related issues. 2. The Citizen Task Force recommends the citizen complaint form be revised to make it user-friendly. In addition, it is recommended a police officer liaison be assigned for all citizen-police complaints. One officer should be designated to contact and relay information to citizen~complainants concerning the process, and the approximate time it will take to review and resolve a complaint. 3. The Citizen Task Force proposes an Annual Community Public Safety Meeting between the Police Department and community members. The purpose would be to increase citizen familiarity with police services and programs and provide an additional opportunity for citizens and the police department to interact in a positive manner. An Advisory Board would be instrumental in assisting the police department in developing its first annual community public safety meeting. 4. Chula Vista Police Department's Web Site should include a description of the citizen complaint process that would provide information how, where, and to whom a complaint may be made, and the name and phone number of the person to contact within the department for further information about the complaint process. The report contains a discussion of materials and community comments considered by the Task Force members in reaching their recommendations. The Task Force commends the City Council for authorizing the City Manager, David Rowlands Jr. to form a Citizen Task Force to study and address the issue of a Citizen Review Board. The Citizen Task Force appreciates the openness and willingness of Chief Rick Emerson and his staff to readily provide material on police policies, procedures and other information requested by the Citizen Task Force which it needed to prepare its report and recommendations. The Citizen Task Force also thanks Josie Calderon, who in her capacity as a consultant and facilitator greatly assisted the Task Force in obtaining, compiling and sorting the required information and material for preparation of this report. Dated: December 4, 2001, at Chula Vista, California Respectfully submitted, Lilia E. Garcia Chairperson Citizen Task Force on Civilian Review 2 BACKGROUND At the City Counsel meeting on May 29, 2001, some community members proposed that the council create a citizen board to review police practices and procedures concerning citizen complaints of police misconduct. The City Council authorized a citizen task force be formed to review and make findings on the subject of Citizen-Police Review Boards. TASK FORCE MEMBERS The following seven (7) members were invited by the City Manager, and agreed, to serve on the Citizen Task Force: Greg Alabado Council of Philippine American Organizations (COPAO) Chuck Hamilton Bonita Business and Professional Association Doug Harrell Chula Vista Elementary School District Lilia Garcia Mexican American Business and Professional Association Ben Richardson Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Yolanda Salcido South Bay Forum Barbara Worth Lutheran Social Services - Shared Housing Project At its first meeting, the members of the CTF selected Lilia Garcia to serve as their Chairperson. PROCESS USED TO SELECT TASK FORCE MEMBERS In an effort to involve the community, the City retained Josie Calderon of JLC Consultants to help facilitate the formation of the Citizen Task Force (CTF). Ms. Calderon assisted the City Manager in selecting the Task Force Members. In order to obtain maximum community input and diverse representation, the City contacted over twenty community organizations and invited them to nominate a member to serve on the CTF. From this pool of nominees a seven-member task force was formed. Each member lives and/or works in Chula Vista and represents an active community stakeholder organization, i.e., business, civic, ethnic, senior citizen, or youth groups. By involving community advocates nominated by their participating organization the City gained the added experience and historical value that each member brought to the task force. CTF members shared pertinent information provided by their respective group members with the Task Force. CTF members also relayed activities of the task force to their organizations such as the planning of the public meeting. METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION Meetings The CTF met eight times over a four-month period commencing on August 29, and ending on November 28, 2001. Based on an aggressive time schedule and an enormous amount of information to review, the Task Force chose to keep its working meetings closed and to schedule a public meeting for citizen input on October 30, 2001. The Task Force members also spent a considerable amount of individual time on tasks relative to the CTF such as review of printed materials, viewing videos, reading reports, and conducting interviews of community members and of representatives of police groups, including the Police Officer's Association and Latino Peace Officers Association. In addition, several CTF members attended the Citizen's Academy and participated in ride-alongs with Chula Vista police officers. An estimated collective total of 656-plus hours were volunteered by the CTF members. The CTF Reviewed and Considered the following information and materials: 1. Reviewed Chula Vista Police Department's historical statistics on the types of citizen complaints. 2. Reviewed CVPD's current policies and procedures used to investigate and resolve citizen complaints of police misconduct 3. Reviewed the nature and purpose of civilian review boards and examined favorable and unfavorable characteristics and results of civilian review boards. 4. Reviewed Citizen Opinion Survey of CVPD by SANDAG in 2000 5. Conducted Individual Review of each of fourteen (14) citizen formal complaints filed with the CVPD within last 12 months 6. Reviewed process for filing a citizen complaint 7. Reviewed Police academy and in-service training on ethics and police conduct 8. Reviewed Policies, Procedures, Programs, Equipment and Organizational Safeguards Currently in Place in the CVPD 9. Participated in Citizen's Academy and in ride-alongs with officers 10. Viewed Video Tape of Council Meeting of May 29, 2001, item 17. 11. Conducted a Public Hearing and Took Public Comment 12. Solicited and obtained comments and input from police group organizations The CTF Considered Four Types of Civilian Review Boards; 1. Civilian Investigators: Civilians investigate complaints against the Police Department and make recommendations to the Chief of Police 2. Civilian Reviewers: Police investigate complaints and make findings; civilians review police findings and recommend acceptance or rejection of those findings 3. Citizens Appeals Board: Complainants may appeal police findings to the civilian review board 4. Civilian Auditors: an independent auditor investigates the process used by police to investigate citizen complaints and the auditor reports on the thoroughness and fairness of process to department and public In addition to the various types of Civilian Review Boards (CRBs), the CTF reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of CRBs, the cost of CRBs, the types of citizen complaints that qualify for investigation by a CRB, and the reasons cities establish them. For, example citizen complaints that would qualify for civilian review and investigation typically involve allegations involving serious police misconduct such as use of excessive force or other egregious conduct. The CTF Viewed the Videotape of Item #17 of City Council Meeting of May 29, 2001 A copy of the above video tape was provided to each member of the Task Force and reviewed in its entirety by CTF members. The viewing of the video tape was considered important since several citizens proposed the creation of a citizen-police review board. After viewing the tape, the CTF members discussed the statements made on the tape and considered public comments made at May 29th meeting as part of their review. The CTF members found the public comments on May 29th to be too general to provide a fair ;? assessment of police conduct. For this reason, the CTF invited the individuals who had provided public comment and/or letters to the City Council to attend the CTF Community Public Meeting to support their earlier comments to the City Council with specific examples and experiences, if any, with the CVPD. Review of Citizen Complaint Process The CTF was given a detailed presentation describing the Citizen Complaint process. The presentation included the type of complaints received, the investigation and review process [on average a citizen complaint is resolved within 2.5 months], information about disciplinary action, safeguards to ensure reliability of the complaint resolution process, and progressive policing. The Task Force found the CVPD's policies and procedures related to the investigation and disposition of citizen complaints to be clear and consistent in their application. The Task Force fou nd no evidence of a disproportionate number of individuals and/or groups being targeted. Departmental and Citizen Complaints There are two types of complaints: departmental complaints which in 2000 comprised 74% of all complaints and citizen complaints which comprised 26% of all complaints. Departmental complaints are those initiated by a department employee based on personal observation or knowledge of misconduct or policy violation, or information received from another department employee. The Task Force found the departmental complaint process to be consistently and fairly applied. The success of the departmental complaint process is attributable in part to team policing which provides for improved supervision and greater accountability of officers' conduct. The Task Force's conclusions the departmental procedures in place afford reliable fact- finding and resolution of internal complaints and that implementation of team policing has resulted in greater supervision is supported by the comments and opinions received from members of the Chula Vista Police Officers Association and the Latino Peace Officers Association. Citizen complaints are of two types: formal and informal. A formal complaint is one that is initiated by a citizen. Complaints are submitted by telephone, field contact, speaking directly with a supervisor, or completing a complaint form and submitting it at the front desk of the police station. A complaint can also be made by a written letter, anonymously, or by a third party. A documented investigation is made and a finding is recommended. If the complaint is sustained a report remains in the officer's file for five years as required by law. Discipline imposed for a sustained finding of misconduct ranges from a reprimand letter to termination. The complainant is advised by letter of the disposition of the complaint. An infbrmal citizen complaint does not rise to the level of a formal complaint and is often an inquiry that can be resolved with an explanation of policy or procedure. A supervisor who is responding to an informa~ complaint may determine the complaint should become a formal one, in which case, the procedures for investigating and resolving the complaint will apply. The types of citizen inquiries or complaints that do not become formal complaints are not logged or tracked by the CVPD. The Task Force Conducted An Independent Review Of All Fourteen (14) Citizen Complaints Filed Within 12 Months. Pursuant to the CTF request, copies of the fourteen citizen formal complaints filed with the CVPD during the last 12 months were provided to the Task Force. The names of the citizen and police officer were whited-out to protect their privacy. The CTF was interested only in reviewing the type of complaint, the time it took to resolve it, how it was resolved, what the final disposition was, and if there was a true finding of misconduct what type of disciplinary action, if any, was imposed on the officer. The Task Force determined that on the average complaints took about 2.5 months to resolve. The police department's targeted goal is to resolve citizen complaints within 30 days. Of the fourteen citizen complaints, eleven involved alleged rude behavior by an officer during a traffic stop, illegal parking, and other traffic violations. Two complaints involved alleged racism and a third alleged sexual misconduct. Only three of the fourteen citizen complaints reviewed would have risen to the category for a civilian review investigation under the rules and guidelines set for local civilian review boards. In comparison, the County of San Diego Civilian Review Board investigates an average of 45 to 55 complaints a month that qualify as complaints requiring a civilian review investigation. The Task Force also reviewed the number of claims (250) filed against the City/Police Department, from a risk-management perspective. Most of the complaints related to vehicle impounds. Of these, forty-one became lawsuits. The court dismissed twenty-six, and six required payment by the City. The greatest amount paid out was $12,000 involving a traffic accident. The sole claim involving an allegation of excessive force resulted in a settlement of $1,500. PUBLIC MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 2001 On October 30, 2001, the Task Force held a noticed-meeting at Lauderbach Community Center on Oxford Street in Chula Vista from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. The purpose of the public meeting was to obtain input from Chula Vista residents on how they perceive their contacts with the CVPD based on their personal experiences, and to obtain their opinion whether the CVPD has a fair and effective means of registering and resolving citizen complaints against its officers. Timely notice of the meeting was provided to the community through press releases which were sent to seventeen (17) newspapers announcing the time and place of the meeting and inviting public comment on the subject of citizen review boards. See Appendix A. Notification was also given to business, educational, youth recreations centers, homeowner associations, community service centers, libraries and other stakeholder organizations interested in public safety. The public meeting announcement was also posted in various City departments. Aisc, individual letters of invitation were sent, and/or phone calls made to those individuals who had provided comments at the City Council Meeting of May 29, 2001. In response to the notification of the public meeting, one community organization (the Chicano Federation) that had provided comments to the City Council on May 29th, responded that they did not have any information of police conduct relevant to the CVPD. Three individuals who had provided earlier comments to the City Council, and who also addressed the CTF at the public meeting, failed to provide material evidence of police misconduct and/or examples of their own personal experience with the CVPD. Approximately fifty local residents, as well as students from colleges and high school government classes attended the meeting. Diverse cultures, age groups and backgrounds were represented. The public meeting was taped and the comments of the speakers who addressed the Task Force are available for review. Of those in attendance, eleven individuals addressed the Task Force: 6 individuals supported establishing some type of citizen review board; 5 individuals opposed establishing a citizen review board. 3 of the 6 individuals supporting a citizen review board did not provide any personal unfavorable experience with the CVPD. Four of the speakers also addressed the meeting in their capacity as a representative of a stakeholder organization: I reported the members of their organization were in favor of the establishment of a citizen review board, and 3 reported the members of their organization were in opposition to the establishment of a citizen review board. Of the 6 individuals who spoke in support of establishing a citizen review board: 1 person reported experiences involving a towing incident two years ago; 1 person reported experiencing repeated parking citations one and one-half years ago; 1 person reported receiving repeated harassment by the CVPD after an incident in which he had pleaded guilty and filed a lawsuit against the CVPD, which was settled in favor of the CVPD; 1 person reported a number of different incidents. He reported that his information of these incidents was based on newspaper articles and not on personal experience. He related the following: One incident occurred two years ago where a pregnant woman and some children were reportedly mistreated by police officers during a search of their home; One incident in 1987, which he believed was a fatal shooting at Palomar St and 3r~ Avenue by CVPD officers; One incident occurred some years ago where a man was hit and killed by a police vehicle; and One incident occurred six months ago, where an African-American male was shot at Naples and L Streets. There was a discrepancy as to whether the shooting in this incident involved the CVPD. One member of the task force recalled the shooting involved the SDPD. 1 person stated while he has not had a negative experience with law enforcement officers in Chula Vista in over thirty years, in principle he supports a Civilian Review Board as a deterrent to bad policing. The Task Force members engaged in an informal dialogue with several individuals and speakers during and after the meeting. With the exception of one of the speakers, all of the speakers agreed the City of Chula Vista has an very good police department and that it is perceived the CVPD is doing a good job. However, most speakers wanted a process where the community could provide input into decisions by the police department that affect the public. There was general consensus that an advisory group comprised of community members to advise the police department would be beneficial to the community and would continue to promote confidence and trust in the CVPD. There also appeared to be a lack of understanding by several individuals of how to file a police complaint and the process used by the police department to address and resolve complaints, particularly in those cases where use of force is an issue. Several individuals expressed frustration in not being contacted in a timely manner by anyone in CVPD after they had filed a request for information and/or a complaint. One individual went to the police station to file a complaint only to be told that the Sergeant in charge of taking the complaint was not available. That individual left without filing a complaint. Comments from Police Officer Groups The CTF also invited and received comments from police officer association groups. A representative of the Latino Peace Officer's Association addressed the CTF and commented on the internal, i.e, departmental, and external, i.e., citizen complaint policies and procedures from the perspective of an experienced officer. In particular, the LPOA representative provided positive comments regarding the recent implementation of team policing and its effect on the improved morale of the officers. Representatives of the Chula Vista Police Officers Association also provided the CTF with comments on the departmental and citizen complaint processes. The CVPOA opined that the existing internal investigation process of reviewing police misconduct was fairly and consistently applied. The Chula Vista Police Officers Association opposes the creation of a civilian review board. Comments made to the Task Force included, "CRB's can lead to conflict between officers and the oversight board. The establishment of a CRB would likely polarize the two entities." However, both the LPOA and CVPOA were open to the creation of an advisory citizen board that would act in advisory capacity to the Chief of Police on issues relating to public safety and community relations. Other Information Considered by The CTF The Task Force also considered comments from individuals actively involved with existing citizen review boards. Specifically, the three individuals who provided comments concerning their experiences with civilian review boards were of the opinion that the City of Chula Vista did not need a civilian review board. The specific reason cited was that there was no evidence the CVPD was viewed by distrust by the community. On the contrary, the CVPD enjoys a reputation as a police department that has maintained positive community relations. Another reason cited was that the City of Chula Vista has up to this point in time been fortunate not to have had a history of cases involving high profile police brutality or excessive force cases which have been perceived by the community as not having been properly addressed or investigated. Review of the Chula Vista Police Department and Facilities To obtain a baseline knowledge of how the police department operates and to become familiar with the police services, programs, policies and practices, the Task Force members reviewed the CVPD's history, mission statement, organizational description (344 authorized law-enforcement and civilian workfome) and its thirty-one million annual budget. The CTF's review revealed that seeking community input is not new to the CVPD. The department is currently in the middle of a five-year strategic plan period, 1999-2003, that has set goals, objectives and strategies to guide budgetary, operational, and organizational decisions throughout the five-year plan period. This plan was the result of an eleven-month community partnership planning process. The planning process identified and evaluated in-depth strategic priorities, i.e., those issues of the greatest concern to the police department and the community of Chula Vista. This joint planning process afforded the department with unique opportunities to work with the community to address community concerns. This resulted in new and enhanced programs such as the Citizen Academy and programs which targeted specific issues such as graffiti reduction, anti-speeding initiatives, and residential burglary prevention that have enhanced community partnerships for crime prevention, problem solving, and community education. Also in response to the strategic plan, the CVPD created the Community Relations Unit (CRU) to work closely with the city's residents. The CRU is primarily responsible for improving dialogue between the community and the department. An important role of the CRU is soliciting and receiving citizen input through community meetings, surveys, and personal contacts. Other successful programs and partnerships that have been implemented include the School Resource Officer Program and volunteer programs such as the Citizen's Adversity Support Team, the Senior Volunteer Patrol, the Reserve Officers and Mounted Reserve Officers Program, and the Cadet and Explorer Scouts Program. The CVPD's strategic plan also initiated the planning phase for a new police facility. The $60 million project is expected to be ready by February of 2004. The Task Force toured the police department facility and received demonstrations of the CVPD's state-of-the-art evidence tracking system, its communication system that integrates the County of San Diego Regional Communications system, and its new mobile substation, which is fully equipped and self-sufficient. Review and Analysis of Resident Opinion Survey One of the initial activities undertaken by the Task Force was a review and analysis of the Resident Opinion Survey of the Chula Vista Police Department conducted by SANDAG in 2000. As an independent third party, SANDAG randomly surveyed a sample of 3000 households in Chula Vista. Of those that responded to the survey, 9 out of 10 residents were satisfied with the police department personnel and the delivery of services. Respondents rated their experience with the police department as excellent (47%) or good (34%). More than 85% of the survey participants agreed police officers responded in a reasonable amount of time and were knowledgeable, professional, respectful, pleasant, courteous, fair, helpful, and caring. The survey revealed that speeding continues to be of most concern, followed by burglary and graffiti. The data gathered from the citizen survey provided the Task Force with an information base from which to determine what components needed further review. For example, while the survey of 3000 households in Chula Vista produced a response of 39%, Hispanic residents were under-represented in the survey. This prompted the Task Force's decision to site its Community Public Meeting in South Chula Vista, (West of 1-805), an area known to be heavily populated by Latino residents. Review of Policies, Procedures, Programs, Equipment and Organizational Safeguards Currently in Place in the CVPD The CTF found that the CVPD spends a significant amount of time eva. luating their own programs and searching for best practices. Greater accountability of police conduct has resulted from the implementation of team policing. Management and line officers both told the CTF that team policing has resulted in more effective supervision, and has placed a greater emphasis on training and professional development. The Task Force concluded that intensive and on-going training is provided to police recruits and on duty officers. Police recruits attend a 27-week program at the Police Academy that includes ethics training, communication skills, diversity training, and force-options simulators. Upon completion of the Academy, recruits participate in a 16-week program of field training. All officers receive 10 hours of training per month (120 hours per year - this is 5 times greater than the 24 hours per year recommended by the California Peace Officer Standards Training (POST).) Recent training sessions have included the following topics: Use of Force Options; Defensive Tactics, and Driving Simulations. Training sessions that are scheduled for this Spring include Interpersonal Skills and Police Ethics. Officers receive additional training that is specific to their duty assignment, as well as the training given at daily roll calls. The CVPD has a clear "Use of Force" Policy. Any use of force by an officer must be documented and then signed off and reviewed by three (3) supervisors: Watch Commander - the lieutenant on duty at the time Report Reviewer - the direct supervisor of the officer Use of Force Coordinator - the Professional Standards Unit Sergeant Micro cassette recorders are issued to all officers and a 24-hour audio-video recording of holding and detention areas is used to upgrade and increase self- policing. Officers are issued less lethal equipment to use when necessary. All patrol vehicles in the field are equipped with an Advanced Air Taser and all officers have received training on the use of less lethal equipment. In addition to the 46 Advanced Air Tasers, the CVPD has purchased shotguns and rifles capable of shooting "bean bag" rounds and "sponge" rounds. Pepper spray, nunchakus, and batons are also issued, to officers, and training in their use is also provided. Also, currently 7 patrol cars vehicles are equipped with in-car video cameras. As budget allows, the CVPD adds equipment such as in-car video cameras to police cars. Citizen's Academy The CVPD created the Citizen's Academy to bridge communication and increase awareness of the role of the police department within the community. During an eleven- week program citizens learn about a police officer's job and are given a unique opportunity to see first-hand the inner workings of the police department, the intricacies of responding to police calls, preventing crime, and investigating criminal activity. Topics covered in the Citizen's Academy include: Recruitment and Training, Defensive Tactics and Firearms; Community Oriented Policing; Traffic Procedures; Pursuit Driving; Code-3 Operations; Ethics; the Complaint Process; and Criminal investigations. Three members of the Task Force participated in the Citizen's Academy and ride- along program. Those members shared their experiences and observations with the other members of the CTF. Each of the three members found their participation in the program to be worthwhile in that it provided a greater understanding of police practices. The members who participated in the academy found the training officers to be excellent and enthusiastically recommend participation in this program. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: I. The Task Fome members unanimously agreed there is no demonstrated need for a civilian police review board. Reasons: 1. There is no history of mistrust of the Chula Vista Police Department; to date, no high profile incidents of misconduct by police has occurred which would warrant citizen oversight. 2. Police officers receive on-going training to improve and upgrade their education and skills. CVPD officers receive 10 hours of training per month (120 hours a year - 5 times the required training by POST.) Team policing has resulted in greater supervision of officers and allows for better self-policing of officer conduct. 3. The Chula Vista Police Department has established clear guidelines and uses a process that appropriately and fairly evaluates and resolves internal, i.e., departmental complaints of police misconduct. 94% of departmental complaints are sustained. 4. The average time to investigate and resolve citizen complaints is two and one-half months, which the Task Force found to be reasonable. 5. The rate of citizen complaints is Iow. During the last 12 months, 14 citizen formal complaints were received by the police department. The city of Chula Vista averages 13.4 formal citizen complaints per year, an extremely Iow number considering that each year CVPD officers average more than 75,000 official contacts with the public and arrest nearly 5,000 individuals. In comparison, in a four-year period between 1996 and 2000, 2,684 citizen complaints were filed with the San Diego Police Department, an average of 671 citizen complaints a year. In contrast, in a five-year period between 1996-2001, only 67 citizen complaints were filed with the CVPD, an average of 13.4 complaints. 6. The citizen complaints filed with the CVPD have not involved egregious conduct, such as allegations of police brutality or high-profile incidents of excessive force. Typically, citizens who filed complaints have alleged rudeness or unprofessional demeanor by an officer, or complained about an officer's failure to take a police report. 7. The cost of funding a civilian review board was not a factor- The Task Force agreed that the cost of creating a civilian review board was not relevant to its decision whether to recommend a civilian review board. The CTF members agreed that if there had been a demonstrated need for a civflian review board, cost would not be a valid reason for 14 not creating a civilian review board. The Task Force also considered and compared the existence or non-existence of the following factors in concluding that the City of Chula Vista would not benefit from a Civilian Review Board: Reasons cited by CRB Cities Current Status of Chula Vista History of problems No history of community-relations problems High-profile incidents of misconduct No high profile incidents of misconduct Perception of unfair treatment 87% of people surveyed in 2000 that had contact with CVPD said they were treated fairly Pemeived lack of internal controls Clear policies and officer training on use of force and alternate less lethal force Perceived or actual difficulties in filing complaints CVPD publishes brochure on how to file complaints [filing procedure could use improvement] Lack of trust 92% of citizens surveyed in 2000 were satisfied with CVPD ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. A CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD ON POLICE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED The purpose of an advisory board would be to work in partnership with the police department on matters related to civilian and public issues. The scope of the advisory board's power would be to advise, consult with, and review policies and procedures that involve the police department's interaction with the public. It would not include review of individual citizen police complaints, but would include review of, and proposals for improving the process and procedures relating to citizen complaints. Because an advisory board would be knowledgeable of, and 15 familiar with police practices and policies, should circumstances change, it would be available to revisit the issue of a citizen review board. An advisory board would also serve to provide advisory input concerning the police department's hiring, recruitment, promotion and retention policies. Those policies have a direct effect on community relations. Reasons and Observations Supporting an Advisory Board: ]. The steady growth of the city makes it imperative for the city and the police department to take a proactive approach by involving the public. Forecasts for population growth for Chula Vista shows an above average increase compared to other jurisdictions in the county. 2. A Citizen Advisory Board would accomplish the primary goal of a civilian review board in a positive and non-adversarial role by providing an ongoing process for civilian and/or community input and comment on police policies and procedures. 3. A Citizen Advisory Board would be an independent and unbiased group which would serve to enhance the image of, and promote confidence in the police department. 4. Citizen Advisory Board members would serve as volunteers. Therefore, the costs involved in creating a Citizen Advisory Board would be minimal. 5. Community input through an Advisory Board is consistent with the CVPD's strategic planning goals to develop outreach and community partnerships. In forming its five-year strategic plan the CVPD solicited and obtained community input and recommendations. By working in partnership with a Citizen Advisory Board the CVPD would continue to proactively address community needs and involve citizens positively in public safety and crime prevention issues. 6. As one of the task force members aptly stated as a reason for forming an advisory board, "The public needs to have confidence in the police and thankfully we have seen statistics that show the public does have confidence in our police department. A pro-active approach to keep the public informed, offering user friendly public response, and engaging in community activities at the grass roots level on an ongoing basis would further help in fostering the positive relationship which the police department is striving for, and which the public is deserving of." 7. A Citizen Advisory Board would be supported by CVPOA and LPOA, Both police associations observed that an Advisory Board, unlike a Review Board, would be in a partnership role versus an adversarial role to the police department. Thus, an advisory board can potentially be more effective in enhancing community/police relations. 8. A Citizen Advisory Board would provide constructive comment and input and increase communication between the public and the police depar[ment The Advisory Board would hold public meetings throughout sectors of community to take citizen input concerning the police department. Conducting public forums may provide an opportunity to obtain input from under- represented segments of the community that did not respond or participate in the SANDAG survey of 2000. The Advisory Board would meet on a regular and scheduled basis with the Police Chief and also work closely with the Community Relations Unit. 9. Selection Process for the Citizen Advisory Board The Citizen Advisory Board should be selected in a similar process as the Citizen Task Force. The advisory board should reflect the diversity of the community and be comprised of community stakeholders. Community organizations should be solicited for nominations. In order to instill the public's confidence in the selection of the board members, appointments should be made by the City Manager with the assistance of an independent consultant to assist in identifying potential nominees. In order to avoid the appearance of political appointments, and maintain an unbiased and independent advisory board, the CTF recommends the City Council should not appoint the Advisory Board members. Number: The number of Advisory Board members should be an odd number, no less than 7, no more than 11. Term: in order to provide continuity and an adequate time to see implementation of recommended proposals a term of no less than two years, and no more than four years, is recommended. An optimum term would be three years. Staggered terms is also recommended to allow a balance of new and seasoned board members. B. THE INITIAL FILING PROCESS FOR CITIZEN COMPLAINTS NEEDS REVISION AND IMPROVEMENT While the CVPD's investigations of citizen complaints appear to be fairly and efficiently reviewed and resolved, the part of the citizen complaint process that needs fine tuning is the initial filing of the complaint. This includes information about how to file a complaint. The CTF recognizes the CVPD is making concerted efforts in this area and is currently revising brochures and information about how to file a citizen complaint. However, what needs revision is the current complaint form that a citizen fills out at the police station. The complaint form, which is attached as appendix B to this report, is not user friendly and is intimidating. A significant portion of the complaint form is devoted to the language in Penal Code section 148.6b, which advises the complainant that a false complaint will be prosecuted. The CTF suggests the manner in which the statutory language is emphasized and highlighted be revised so that it does not overwhelm the complaint form. In addition, the input received at the community meeting revealed that the current citizen complaint process is not clearly understood. To address these issues the Task Force recommends: 1. The citizen complaint form should be revised to make it user-friendly. While the law requires a complainant to be advised per the language of per Penal Code section 148.6b, the advisement should not take half a page of the complaint form. The manner in which current advisement is placed on the complaint has a potential to intimidate a citizen from filing a valid complaint. See, Appendix B. Not all law- enforcement agencies citizen-complaint forms contain this advisement in the complaint form or highlight the language of the advisement in such a prominent manner. The citizen complaint form used by the San Diego Police Department, attached as Appendix C, is an example of a format that may be considered in revising the current citizen complaint form. It should be noted that the validity of this advisement has been challenged. Recently one appellate court found the language in penal code section 1408.6b unconstitutional. See People vs. Stanistreet, filed 10/31/01,2001 D.A.R. 11563. 2. Improve the CVPD Web Site. The web site should include information explaining the process of filing a citizen complaint and printing a complaint form, which is now only available at the front desk of the police station. At this time the CTF does not propose any changes in the process of filing of a citizen complaint which currently requires personal contact, i.e., the complaint must be filed in person or in writing at the police station, or by a telephone call to the police station. The CTF recognizes the CVPD does consider and investigate anonymous and third party complaints. Further study on the feasibility of allowing citizens to file complaints by using the CVPD web site is needed. On a positive note, the web site could provide an excellent opportunity for public commendations, comments, and/or suggestions for improving police relations with the department. An improved web site with readily accessible information about the complaint process would greatly complement the information process already in place. In addition, the CTF report and recommendations on civilian- police review may be a suitable subject to include in the web site. 3. Develop and implement a tracking system to monitor informal citizen inquiries that do not rise to the level of formal complaints. Currently, the only tracking that is done is for formal citizen complaints. However, there is no tracking of informal inquiries or complaints that do not rise to the level of formal complaints. There are occasions when a citizen contacts the police department about a particular incident, officer, or simply to ask for clarification about a police practice or policy. These public contacts with the police department are not tracked by the CVPD in a manner that identifies the caller, the nature or purpose of the inquiry or how the question or inquiry was resolved. This is one area where a Citizen Advisory Board could assist the CVPD in formulating a protocol and implementing an informal tracking process that balances both the public's and police officer's interests. The benefit of logging these informal type of public inquiries would allow the CVPD to make needed changes before issues become problems. In other words, monitoring and logging informal inquiries would allow the CVPD to be proactive in heading off potential problems. 4. Police Liaison. The CVPD should designate one police officer as a liaison to respond to complaints. He or she would not investigate complaints. Instead the liaison officer would personalty contact complainants by phone or letter to inform them their complaint has been received and is being reviewed, to explain the complaint process if needed, and advise the complaint of the approximate time it will take to review and resolve the complaint. This would be in addition to what is already currently done to notify the complainant of the disposition of the complaint. This is simply a recommendation for a courtesy letter or phone call after the complaint has been filed to let the complainant know that the complaint is being reviewed. 3, COMMUNITY RELATIONS i. The CFT commends the Chula Vista Police Department for creating a Community Relations Unit, The CRU has a great potential for promoting greater involvement by the CVPD with ail segments of the community, An Advisory Board and the CRU would complement each other. 2. Annual Community Public Safety Meeting bythe CVPD would be an excellent opportunity to provide the public with information about its services and programs and enhance public relations. In particular those sectors of the community that traditionally do not seek on their own initiative the services and programs of the police department would greatly benefit from such a program. It would provide citizens an opportunity to interact with the police department in a positive manner. An agenda describing topics discussed at a Public Safety Meeting recently sponsored by the San Diego Police Department with members of the Asian and Pacific Islander Communities is attached as Appendix D. 3. Increase presence and positive interaction by the CVPD at community activities and events. Two members of the Task Force observed that in their personal experience too often officers attending community events and activities do not take the opportunity to talk with and relate to citizens. Friendly exchanges, initiated by police officers, with citizens at community events would promote positive community relations and allow an officer to connect in a positive and favorable manner with citizens. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Community Task Force On Civilian Review As part of the City's continuous effort to review and improve its public safety services, the Citizen Task Force on Civilian Review will be conducting a community public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments and suggestions from Chula Vista residents regarding the Chula Vista Police Department's policies, practices and civilian review. The Citizen's Task Force welcomes comments on the following: · Do you believe the Chula Vista Police Department has a fair and effective means of registering and resolving complaints against its officers? · Do you have any suggestions to improve the taking of and resolving of citizenpolice complaints by the Chula Vista Police Department? · Do you have suggestions for additional steps that the Chula Vista Police Department could take to reach out across all sectors of the City to ensure a safe community for all residents, visitors and businesses through proactive and fair policing? DATE: Tuesday, October 30, 200t TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Lauderbach Center 330 Oxford Street Chula Vista, CA 9t911 This will be an open meeting for public comment only. No discussion, decisions or vote will be carried out. There will be a 5-minute limit on individual comments. For additional information concerning the meeting, please contact Josie Caideron, at (619) 475-8524. APPENDIX B I. A. Number: City of Chula Vista Citizen/Department Complaint Form Complainant: Phone: Address: Date Received: Time: AM/PM By Phone: __ In Person: By: By Mail: Complaint Details: Allegation: I hereby certify that the above facts are true and correct. I acknowledge that under California Civil Code 47.5, civil action can be brought against me for knowingly filing a false complaint. Per 148.6(b) California Penal Code: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS= COM PLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. I have read and understood the above statement. Complainant Date PD-103 (9-98) Office of The City Manager OFFICE USE ONLY Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices Received: Complaint Form To INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING COMPLAINT FORM: Please descdbe the incident that led to this complaint, telling what happened from beginning to end. Be as clear and specific as you can be. What aspect(s) of the incident was improper (your specific complaint). How could it be resolved to your satisfaction? COMPLAINANT NAME HOME PHONE ( ) ADDRESS BUS. PHONE ( ) CITY STATE ZIP DOB INCIDENT LOCATION: DATE TIME SDPD PERSONNEL INVOLVED: NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION NAME BADGE # ID # DIVISION WITNESS(ES): NAME HOME PHONE ( ) BUS, PHONE ( ADDRESS DOB NAME HOME PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( - ADDRESS DOB NAME HOME PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ADDRESS DOB INCIDENT DESCRIPTION/COMPLAINT: I Send complaint to: Scott D. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices, I 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 916, San Diego, California 92101. For more information, please call (619) 236-6296. (USE BACK OF FORM IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED) c~,1 ~ 586 (Rev 4*99) //'~ ~ . / ~ ~=,~,d ~ ~,q~ ~W~, Ttlis inforrnaifon is available in alternative formats upon request. APPENDIY D Crime, Public Safety and the A~ian and Pacific Isl~mder Cofixmunitie~ Sat%udmy, Nowmi~r 10, ~ ~00 ara RF_.GI~T[ON md Con~n~n~l 1~ Pat ~y. P~ D~, ~ ~ P~c~ ~n~ 1~S ~ ~A~G ~ ~I~ D~~; ~, ~ ~d HO~ 11~ ~ DO~C ~0~ ~u~ ~ D~~, SDPD 1:45 ~ SPEC~ ~NS ~ ~ ~ SWAT ~ ~, ~PD ~iS ~ M~'I~C~'I~ C~ STO~O~ ~JO~