HomeMy Public PortalAboutA1999-11-02 CC r . .
�� D � . %
��� ; ��+�`y o�. �YN�VOOI� �
, ���.�,� • .«.. ,.�,�..
�-n� �� i :� City �.iUeeting CtiaQQen9es i I I I' �
I 11330 BULLIS ROAD
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL
PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM PROVIDED
AT THE DOOR, AND TO TURN IT IN TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START
OF THE MEETING. FAILURE TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM WILL PROHIBIT YOU
FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE UNANI � US���
CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
I R 6 ED I
AGENDA CITY Of �YNWOOU
ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION CITY ClERK3 OFFICE
AT THE MEETING OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL OCY 2� I4�19
TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999 qy p�
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7�8i9i10�1iffiili2i3i4i5i6
6:00 P.M. �,
�.�.. � � ,(�-�-�--
RICARDO SANCHEZ (%�� ,�.(�c�-!e�
MAYOR
LOUIS BYRD ARMANDO REA
MAYOR PRO-TEM COUNCILMEMBER
ARTURO REYES PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY
RALPH DAVIS SHAN THEVER & ASSOCIATES
CITY CLERK `,, CITY TREASURER
ANDREA L. HOOPER IRIS PYGATT
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. INVOCATION
4. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
LOUis Byrd
Armando Rea
Arturo Reyes
Paul H. Richards, II
Ricardo Sanchez
I 5. CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY CITY CLERK
6. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATION
a) Marilyn Cabaret
7. COUNCIL RECESS T0: LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
LYNWOOD INFORMATION INC.
LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
�
I
� � — - --- --
�
� --- --- - - . �_I
� �
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS '
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIVE
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE COUNCIL, BUT IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR
COUNCIL TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR SCHEDULE
SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
(The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54962, Part
III, Paragraph 5.)
8. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
Special Meeting, October 13, 1999
Special Meeting, October 14, 1999
Regular Meeting, October 19, 1999
Special Meeting, October 21, 1999
Special Meeting, October 22, 1999
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BETWEEN THE
AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SELAC), A NON PROFIT CORPORATION
Comments:
To conduct a joint public hearing regarding a proposed
Disposition, and Development Agreement (DDA) between the
Agency and Southeast Los Angeles County Community
Development Corporation (SELAC), a non-profit Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) for the purpose of
redeveloping the Agency owned property located at 11300.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully request that after consideration and
conducting a public hearing, the City Council approves the
following:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING
i DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
I THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS
; ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A
I NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
I (See LRA Agenda)
�
i
I
` z
I
I - _ -----
� �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPME�IT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, A NON PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION. (See LRA Agenda)
10. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BETWEEN THE
AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
Comments:
To conduct a joint public hearing regarding a proposed
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the
Agency and Hub City Construction and Development Company
for the development of the property located at the southeast
corner of Muriel Dr. and
Thorson Ave.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully request that, after consideration and
conducting a public hearing, the City of Lynwood approves the
following:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. (See LRA Agenda)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB
CITY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. (See LRA Agenda)
3
� �
11. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("DDA") BETWEEN
AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC ("DEVELOPER")
Comments:
To conduct a joint public hearing between the Lynwood City
Council (the "City") and the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency
("Agency") on a request to consider approval of a DDA by and
between the Agency and 3100 E. Imperial Highway LLC.,
("Development") for the development of the final phase for
the Marketplace expansion project located at 3100 E. Imperial
Highway.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully requests that, after review and consideration
of the facts presented, that the Agency and City respectfully
adopt the following resolutions:
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E.
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC. (See LRA Agenda)
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL
HIGHWAY, LLC. (see LRA Agendal
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC. FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL PHASE OF THE MARKETPLACE OF
LYNWOOD EXPANSION PROJECT. (See LRA Agenda)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPEIAL HIGHWAY, LLC. FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL PHASE OF THE MARKETPLACE OF
LYNWOOD EXPANSION PROJECT.
12. BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION FOR ALL YELLOW TAXI, INC.
Comments:
This is a business license application to offer taxi cab service in
the City of Lynwood. All Yellow Taxi, Inc. is proposing to
operate three cars in the Lynwood.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve
the application for a business license to operate the cab
company within the City and direct business license staff to
issue the business license.
�
� 4
� �
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by
one motion affirming the action recommended on the agenda.
There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to voting
unless members of the Council or staff request specific items be
removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
13. AMENDMENT TO SERVICES CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR DAPEER,
ROSENBLIT AND LITVAK, LLP
Comments:
To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving the amendment to the Services Contract
Agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit, and Litvak, LLP to provide
City Prosecutor Services for ongoing code enforcement cases.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully requests that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution approving the amendment to the Services
Contract Agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP and
authorizing the Mayor to execute the amendment.
14. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Comments:
To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving the Contract Change Order for All
American Asphalt, for additional work on Lorrain St., Norton
Ave. 11t" St. Improvement Project, Project No. 5-5196 & 5-5199.
Recommendation:
To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolution approving the Contract Change Order for All
American Asphalt, and authorize the City Manager or his
designee to execute the Contract Change Order.
15. MEDIAONE/AT&T CABLE FRANCHISE AND FCC FORM 394
Comments:
To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING AND CONSENTING TO THE
TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BY
MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO AT&T CORP."
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution entitle: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING AND CONSENTING TO THE
TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BY
MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO AT&T CORP."
i
i
1
I S
i
�
� �
16. WARRANT REGISTER:
Comments
City of Lynwood warrant register for November 2, 1999.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrant
register.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
17. FIREWORKS STANDS - DECEMBER 1999
Comments:
Assembly Bill 2090, signed by the Governor on August 24, 1999,
authorizes the sale of safe and sane fireworks from 9:00 a.m. on
December 26, 1999, through 12:00 midnight on January 1, 2000,
provided that the local jurisdiction adopts a resolution or
ordinance authorizing such sale.
Per Councils request, my office sent a questionnaire to all
organizations regarding their past July 4, 1999 sales and the
possibility of a December sale.
Recommendation:
The City Council review and direct staff accordingly.
'18. SPECIAL PERMIT - STREET CLOSURE
Comments:
Per the attached Special Permit, Otis Lockett is requesting a
street closure on Elm Street between Fernwood and Brewster
Avenues for a wedding reception November 6, 1999.
Recommendation:
The City Council review and direct staff accordingly.
19. SPECIAL PERMIT - CHURCH PARADE
Comments:
Per the attached Special Permit, Msgr. Dennis 0'Neil of St.
i Emydius Church is requesting a street closure from Norton to
California Avenue, to the Church entrance for the Parade of the
virgin Image.
Recommendation:
The City Council review and direct staff accordingly.
�
I
�
I 6
I
I
� �
COUNCIL ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
RICARDO SANCHEZ, MAYOR
LOUIS BYRD, MAYOR PRO-TEM
ARMANDO REA, COUNCILMEMBER
ARTURO REYES, COUNCILMEMBER
PAUL H. RICHARDS, II, COUNCILMEMBER
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CLOSED SESSION
20. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
A. With respect to every item of business to be discussed in
closed session pursuant to Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: Gail L. Black
Employee Organization: All Bargaining Units
ADJOURNMENT �
MOTION TO ADJOURN TO A REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER
16, '1999 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS' OF THE CITY HALL,
11330 BULLIS ROAD, CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
�
# •
CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 13, 1999
The Council of the City of Lynwood met in a Special Meeting in City Hall, 11330
Bullis Road on the above date at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Sanchez presiding.
Councilmen Byrd, Richards, Sanchez answered roll call.
Councilmen Rea, Reyes were absent.
Also present were City Manager Davis, Special Counsel William Rudell, City
Clerk Hooper.
City Treasurer Pygatt was absent.
City Clerk Hooper announced the Agenda had been posted in accordance with
The Brown Act.
CLOSED SESSION
Item #4A: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9: Number of cases: One (1)
It was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Richards and
carried to recess to closed session at 6:35 p.m.
Reconvened at 7:38 p.m.
Special Counsel Rudell stated Council met in closed session on the
aforementioned matters and stated there was no reportable action taken.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd and
carried to adjourn at 7:40 p.m.
MAYOR RICARDO SANCHEZ
CITY CLERK ANDREA L. HOOPER .
I ( �-� -. . ... �n .r.. _
I ' _ _.,.
� ' —�
� :
I � -- -- :
i ,
,.
� �
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL. OCTOBER 14, 1999
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in a Special Session at Bateman
Hall, 11331 Ernestine Avenue on the above date at 10:30 a.m.
Mayor Sanchez presiding.
Councilmen Byrd, Rea, Reyes, Richards, Sanchez answered roll call.
Also present were City Manager Davis, City Attorney Thever, City Clerk Hooper
and City Treasurer Pygatt.
City Clerk Hooper announced the Agenda had been posted in accordance with
The Brown Act.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
PUBLIC ORALS
Dale Jones stated that the Mayor is saying that the SherifFs are using drugs and
prostitutes. The Mayor is passing out business cards with false statements.
Asked the Mayor to produce the proof that claims he has on all his statements.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #4: Law Enforcement Services.
Sheriff Leroy Baca stated he oversees al� calls and that all calls are being
responded to properly. He encourages all staff and elected officials to make
these calls. Spoke on their Core Values: 1) pledge to perform duties honorably
2) endeavor to do what is right 3) apply common sense in all doing 4) fight
against sexism, racism etc. The fact is the Sheriffs belong to everyone. Also
commented on the program that helps problem kids between the ages of 10 - 18
years old.
Councilman Reyes requested Sheriff Baca, investigate the charges that have
been brought against him.
Sheriff Baca asked for the City Manager Davis to put this request in through the
official channels.
Councilman Richards congratulated Sheriff Baca. Also stated there are
problems going on the City on a everyday basis which involve the Sheriffs.
City Clerk Hooper stated how very helpful the Sheriffs have been with her office.
Mrs. Jones questioned the training the kids do for the program.
Sheriff Baca stated parents attend the training which is an 8 hour session. This
program is available for Lynwood residents, free of charge, and supervised by
the courts. This program will be opened by the beginning of the year.
Sheriff Baca stated he needs to recruit more young African-American men for the
Explorer Program, there are not enough.
City Manager Davis stated this Friday October 15, 1999, there will be a luncheon
with the Sheriffs at 12:30 p.m.
I Sheriff Baca also stated that he is working with Senator Barbara Boxer in
f regards to gun control with a program called "shot tocator". Which means if any
single shot is fired, the Sheriff's can pin point the shot.
� It was moved by Counciiman Reyes, seconded by Councilman Rea to:
l RECEIVE AND FILE
� �
Item #5: Fiscal Years 1999 - 2004 Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Agreement.
Councilman Rea stated the Sheriffs have had a contract with the City since
1977. Also stated there is a need for the Sheriffs to target the Part 1 crimes,
look at personnel, services to citizens, patrol, etc.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Reyes to adopt
resolution and:
RESOLUTION NO. 99.172A ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY-COUNTY MUNICIPAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY".
and
COORDINATE STRATEGIC PLANNING WITH THE SHERIFF'S FOR THE
MASTER PLAN.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, REYES, RICHARDS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN REA, SANCHEZ
Item #6: Special Permit - St. Francis Medical Center.
It was moved by Councilman Reyes, seconded by Councilman Byrd and carried
to direct:
City staff to work with the staff from St. Francis Medical Center to ensure
all maintenance and precautionary measures.
CLOSED SESSION
Item #7A: With Respect To Every Item Of Business To Be Discussed In Closed
Session Pursuanf To Section 54957 Public Employment Title: Director Of
Recreation And Community Services.
It was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Rea and carried to
recess at 11:15 a.m.
Councilman Rea left at 11:30 a.m.
Councilman Reyes left at 11:30 a.m.
Reconvened at 11:35 a.m.
City Attorney Thever stated Council met in closed session on the above
aforementioned matters and stated there was a motion moved by Councilman
Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd and carried to approve: Jim Givens as
Director of Recreation and Community Services.
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded
by Councilman Byrd and carried to adjoum at 11:40 a.m.
MAYOR RICARDO SANCHEZ
CITY CLERK ANDREA L. HOOPER
�
� �
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 19, 1999
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in Regular Session at City Hall,
11330 Bullis Road on the above date at 621 p.m.
Mayor Sanchez presiding.
Members Byrd, Rea, Reyes, Richards, Sanchez answered roll call.
RECESS
It was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Richards and
carried to recess to Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Lynwood Information Inc.,
and Lynwood Public Finance Authority at 6:24 p.m.
Councii reconvened at 6:41 p.m.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATION
A) Character Counts
B) Toastmaster'
C) National Breast Cancer Awareness Month
It was moved by Councilman Rea, seconded by Councilman Richards and
. carried to accept the presentations.
PUBLIC ORALS
J.W. Elston from Remaxx in Long Beach was in the process of purchasing 11402
State Street. The escrow started in April, which they stated was going to close in
three (3) days and it has been six (6) months since then staff was assigned to
' work with Mr. Elston.
Maria Romero 11041 Hulme Avenue feels ashamed of tactics being done on
national television and radio by candidates who are misleading the residents.
Waldo Guzman stated there are gangs racing their cars on the corner of Spruce
and Lugo. Would like patrol to be increased in that area.
Lawrence Marques finds most signs repulsive. Would like an ordinance for
political signs.
Jose Igera 3697 Lugo, has problems with gangs and drugs being sold too close
to the school. Would like a four (4) ft. fence for his property.
Mayor Sanchez stated the Ordinance came into effect before he was on
Council, but will try his best to assist him.
Mel Brown 3258 Palm Ave. stated the eastside of Lynwood is a lawless section
of the City. Would like more patrol.
PUBLIC ORALS - AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
Item #8: Minutes
It was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Richards and
carried to accept the following minutes:
a) Special Meeting, October 1, 1999
b) Regular Meeting, October 5, 1999
c) Special Meeting, October 7, 1999
I
� �
ADDENDUM
Item #1: Fireworks Stands - December 1999
Mayor Sanchez stated there is a difference with fireworks on the 4th of July and
New Year's Eve.
Councilman Reyes has a problem with gun shooting on New Years Eve.
City Clerk Hooper stated the stands will only be selling until the 30th of
December, and could bring back the resolution to help better explain.
Councilman Richards does not think the fireworks sales will be that great on the
31 st.
Councilman Byrd is also concerned with gun fire and the Millennium Parties.
Fire Chief Ibanez stated it is Councils choice to approve or not approve.
Councilman Rea stated there will be cities participating in selling fireworks. This
bill was approved by the Governor. Public did not have a chance to comment on
this matter and we need to hear their opinion.
City Clerk Hooper suggested that the people that answered the questionnaire
should get first choice.
Councilman Rea asked the Mayor to pull this item and bring back.
It was moved by Councilman Rea, seconded by Councilman Reyes and carried
by general consent to bring back with alterations and resolution.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar wilt be acted upon by one motion
affirming the action recommended on the agenda. There will be no separate
discussion on these items prior to voting unless members of the Council or staff
request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
Councilman Reyes requested item #9: Request To Waive Application Fee For A
Fence Appeal Application To The Planning Commission.
It was moved by Councilman Reyes, seconded by Byrd to approve:
Item #10: Acceptance Of Sidewalk Improvement Project Various Locations,
Project No. 05-5199.
RESOLUTION NO. 99.1726 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ACCEPTING THE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PROJECTS NO. 5-5199,
AS BEING COMPLETE".
Item #11: Acceptance Of Wheelchair Ramp Installation Project, Project No. 5-
5199.
RESOLUTION NO. 99.173 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ACCEPTING THE WHEELCHAIR
RAMP INSTALLATION PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 5-5199, AS BEING
COMPLETE".
�
� �
Item #12: Street Improvement Project, Minnesota Avenue, Alma Street,
Beechwood Avenue, Virginia Avenue, Duncan Avenue and Elm Street Project
No. 05-5199.
RESOLUTION NO. 99.174 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD AWARDING A CONTRACT TO ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $187,487.00 FOR THE MINNESOTA AVENUE, ALMA
STREET, BEECHWOOD AVENUE, VIRGINIA AVENUE, DUNCAN AVENUE
AND ELM STREET, STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 5-5199,
FISCAL YEAR 199/2000".
Item #13: Recycled Project Procurement Policy and AB 939 Compliance.
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH DR. EUGINE TSENG
RELATIVE TO IMPLEMENTING TASKS TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD FAITH
EFFORTS IN COMPLYING WITH AB 939 AND RELATIVE TO THE
RECYCLED PROJECTS PROCUREMENT POLICY.
Item #14: Warrant Register
RESOLUTION NO. 99.175 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ALLOWING AND APPROVING THE
DEMANDS AND WARRANTS DRAWN THEREFORE".
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, REA, REYES, RICHARDS, SANCHEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Item #9: Request To Waive Application Fee For A Fence Appeal Application To
The Planning Commission.
Councilman Reyes requested this item for voting purposes only. After
discussion, it was moved by Councilman Reyes, seconded by Councilman Byrd
to waive application fee for a fence permit at 11420 Spruce Street.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, REA, REYES, RICHARDS, SANCHEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
COUNCIL ORALS
Councilman Rea stated in regards to the crime activity on Spruce, his suggestion
is to put more bike patrol. He will instruct the City Manager Davis and Code
Enforcement to get the bike patrol in the field.
Councilman Byrd is concerned with the eastside of the City. Also stated that
Lynwood was number #4 on the crime reduction.
Councilman Reyes is concerned with the gang activity on 108th Street. Lights
have been shot out. Also asked in regards to the answer he had requested from
the City Attorney Thever that has not been answered on the Lynwood
Redevelopment Agency orals. There is a dump site on the Cal-Trans property
along Fernwood by Wilson Elementary School.
Councilman Richards stated there is great stuff going on in Lynwood, Cesar
Chavez Lane, Rosa Parks re-dedication, new tennis courts, Business Expo and
Sheriff Leroy Baca coming here last week, Block Watch activity and the parade
to say no to drugs.
3
• i .
Mayor Sanchez stated the parade was a good turn out, would have liked the
media to be there. There was a candidate which stated how the media came out
to see the benches removed, questioned why doesn't the media come for
positive activities. The Mayor also stated he was present during a shooting, and
no media came out to televise about the incident. The Mayor was also involved
in a incident that had also happened to Councilman Richards, there was a
shooting of exactly six shots, in both incidents. Also stated that as soon as
Maria Romero's signs are put up they go down.
CLOSED SESSION
Item #15A: With Respect To Every Item Of Business To Be Discussed In Closed
Session Pursuant To Section 54957•6: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR
NEGOTIATOR Agency Negotiator : Gail L. Black Employee Organization: All
Bargaining Units
B: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure To Litigation Pursuant To Subdivision (b) Of Section
54956.9: Number of Cases: 2(two) cases
It was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Richards and
carried to recess at 8:07 p.m.
Council reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
City Attorney Thever stated Council met in closed session on the aforementioned
matters and stated in regards to 15A: no reportable action and 156: one case
was discussed, no reportable action.
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Byrd, seconded by
Councilman Rea and carried to adjourn at 9:03 p.m.
MAYOR RICARDO SANCHEZ
CITY CLERK ANDREA L. HOOPER
a
� �
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL. OCTOBER 21, 1999
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
I_YNWOOD INFORMATION INC..
LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in a Special Session at Bateman
Hall, 11331 Ernestine on the above date at 9:00 a.m.
City Clerk Hooper stated Due to lack of Quorum, the meeting was adjourned at
9:15 a.m.
MAYOR RICARDO SANCHEZ
CITY CLERK ANDREA L. HOOPER
� �
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 22. 1999
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in a Special Session at Bateman
Hall, 11331 Ernestine on the above date at 12:25 p.m.
Mayor Sanchez presiding.
Councilmen Byrd, Richards, Sanchez answered roll call.
Councilmen Rea, Reyes were absent.
Also present were City Manager Davis, City Attorney Thever, City Clerk Hooper
and City Treasurer Pygatt.
City Clerk Hooper announced the Agenda had been posted in accordance with
The Brown Act.
RECESS
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Counciiman Byrd and
carried to recess to Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Lynwood Information Inc.,
and Lynwood Public Finance Authority at 1226 p.m.
Reconvened at 12:30 p.m.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion
affirming the action recommended on the agenda. There will be no separate
discussion on these items prior to voting unless members of the Council or staff
request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
Councilman Richards requested Items #4: Rectification Of The Agreement With
Lynwood Chamber of Commerce, Item #5: Media Promotions, and Item #6:
Retention Of Professional Services For Nuisance Abatement.
Item #5: Media Promotions.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd to have a
joint meeting with Lynwood Redevelopment Agency on Item # 5 on Council and
Item # 2 on Lynwood Redevelopment Agency.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd to adopt
the resolution with corrections:
RESOLUTION NO. 99.176 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR
MEDIA PROMOTIONS".
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, RICHARDS, SANCHEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN REA, REYES
i
� �
Item # 4: Ratification Of The Agreement With The Lynwood Chamber Of
Commerce.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd to adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 99.177 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE AGREEMENT
WITH THE LYNWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR.ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION SERVICES" as corrected:
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, RICHARDS, SANCHEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN REA, REYES
Item #6: Retention Of Professional Services For Nuisance Abatement.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd to adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 99.178 ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION F THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD OF THE LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MR. BEVAN THOMAS". with corrections
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BYRD, RICHARDS, SANCHEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN REA, REYES
CLOSED SESSION
Item #8A: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION Significant Exposure To Litigation Pursuant To Subdivision (b) Of
Section 54956.9: Number of Cases: 2(two) cases
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd and
carried to recess at 12:38 p.m.
Council reconvened at 1:20 p.m.
City Attorney Thever stated Council met in closed session on the above
aforementioned matters and stated on case 1) TC012726 authorize City Attorney
Thever to file appropriate defense and all that is necessary to defend the action
2) authorize City Attorney Thever to reject the claim.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #7 Budget.
It was moved by Councilman Richards, seconded by Councilman Byrd to bring
the item back next Wednesday morning, October 27, 1999, with a full Council
present.
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Richards, seconded by the Mayor
and carried to adjourn at 1:25 p.m.
MAYOR RICARDO SANCHEZ
CITY CLERK ANDREA L. HOOPER
�
! •
DATE: November 2, 1999
TO: HONOR4BLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY
. FROM: Ralph Davis, City Manager/Executive Director
BY: Gary Chicots, Community Development Director
Donyea Adams, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BETWEEN
THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST
LOS ANGELES COiSNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (SELAC), A NON PROFIT CORPORATION
Purpose:
To conduct a joint public hearing regarding a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) between the redevelopment Agency and the Southeast Los Angeles County Community
Development Corporation (SELAC), a non-profit Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) for the purpose of redeveloping the Agency owned property bcated at
� 11300 Atlantic Avenue. �
Facts•
I. On September 20, 1999, SELAC submitted a proposal to conveR an existing motel (Kai
Aloha) located to 11300 Atlantic Averme into Senior-Housing Project The proposal called
for a joint venture with the Agency.
2. On September 21, 1999, the Agency reviewed and approved the developmental concept
p7esented by the Developer and directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
("ENA") with the Developer to be brought back for Agency consideratio�.
3. On October 1, 1999, the Agency approved an ENA with SELAC and directed staff to work
with the Developer and prepare a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).
4. A draft Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) has been prepared for City
Council review and approval based on the proposal that has been submitted.
Anal,�
Project Proposa!
A preliminary concept proposal and budget has been submitted by SELAC. The
Developer proposes to convert the existing 30-unit motel into a 23-unit senior citize�
� housing complex. The project will include the rehabilitation of the existing 30 units into �
15 one-bedroom apartments and the construction of a new structure for an addition 8- .
units for a total' of 23 senior housing units�.
� Project Development
The basic remodeling of the existing structure consist of converting the 30 unit building
into 15 one and two bedroom apartments that will include 1 full bath, full kitchen, and
� � living �room. Each unit will be approximately 600 to 750 square feet. The new
constructio❑ will indude an attached two-story building with eight (8) two-bedroom
apartments, a recreation room, and full service kitchen two elevators, with two elevators
' for accessibility purposes.
Additional site improvements include a new exterior design and fapade improvements,
two laundry rooms, an electronic security gate, new concrete walkways and new
landscaping.
The Developer will submit the fina] construction drawings and plans to the appropriate
Departments for final approval.
; __�:_'�.. rt.i I'"r_,_
; �
t ___�,_.�-------
� �
The estimated project costs are as follows:
New construction of the 7650 square foot building $668,250
Conversion and rehabilitation of the existing 8050
Square foot building $325,000
Architectural & engineering, plans and permit $ 30,000
Land Cost 77 0
Total Project Cost: $1,798,250
The project Income is projected as such:
1S units @ $550.00 per month $8,250
8 units @ $700 per month $5,600
Laundry Income $190 per month �
Gross Monthly Income $14,040
An appraisal was conducted on the property and the building and land appraised for
� $725,000. (See the attached Section 33433 Document)
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
The following information is a summary of the terms and conditions of the DDA:
I. The Ciry must approve all plans and all work must be performed according to
�� � approved plans and specificalions. � �
2. The Agency contribution to t6e project at this time is the land and� building
� ($775,000). Additional financing may be included at a later time, subject to
amending the DDA.
3. The Agency will evaluate and approve all contract agreements related to the
� construction, development, and management of the project.
4. The project will be construction in two phases. Phase one will be the rehabilitation
of the 15 units with a minimum of 600 square feet per unit. Phase two will be the
,� new construction of the two-story �building consisting of the recreation room, kitchen,
restrooms and 8 two-bedroom apartments.
5. The Developer must begin phase one within 60 days of execution of the agreement
� and comple[ed within l20 days. �
� 6. The Agency has the right to terminate the Agreement in the event of a default or
failure to perform.
Project Summary:
� The SELAC redevelopment of this existing motel: � �
1. Community Development goals and objectives regarding new land devclopment
� � will be realized.
2. The City will comply with the Redevelopment Plan regarding [he removal of
blight and providing a decent, safe and sanitary living environment for senior
citizens in the Ciry.
3. Affordable housing opportunities will be provided for ]ow to moderate-income
persons.
' 4. New housing wil] be a positive impact and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully request that, after consideration and conducting a public hearing, the
� City Council approves the following: �
� �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAHING CERTAIN FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPNSENT
CORPORATION, A NON PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions
2. DDA
3. Concept Proposaland Proposed Budget �
4. Section 33433 Summary Report
� �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 8Y AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the Agency and Southeast Los Angeles County Community
Development Corporation, A non-profit Community Housing Development
Organization; and
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the ..
1980 Amendment to Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goa{s of the 1980
Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 Amendment")
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the decline and decay
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viable centers serving
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the
development pursuant to the proposed agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and found and
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the following
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred:
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involvement of new
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and
New information of substantial importance to the project has
become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project.
Section 3. The 1980 EIR was considered prior to the approvai of the
Agreement. The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the
proposed Agreement is within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously
approved; the effects of the redevelopment pursuant to the propose Final
Environmental Impact Report together with all other development. All feasible
� �
mitigation measures and alternative developed in the previous Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project are incorporated in this
Development. No new information of substantiai importance to the Project has
become available. The final Environmental Impact report, therefore, is
determined to be adequate to serve as the environmental impact report for the
Development and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA.
Section 4. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmentai Impact Report have been incorporated into this Development
which mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and monitoring
the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6:
A. The developer selected by the Agency shail enter into an
Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shall
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation measures
as are the responsibility of the Developer;
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City")) and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be constructed by the Agency;
C. The Agency will report to the City Council of the City not less than
annually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 33080.4;
D. The City hereby authorizes and di�ects that a Notice of
Determination with respect to the acquisition and development of the Site
pursuant to the proposed DDA, and all other Agency actions taken in furtherance
thereof, be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2" day of November, 1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph W. Davis III,
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Shan Thever, Gary D. Chicots, Director
City Attorney Community Development
� �
LRA RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the Agency and Hub City Construction and Development Company (the
"Developer") for the sale of the property located at 11300 Atlantic Boulevard,
and;
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
1980 Amendment to Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goals of the 1980
Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 AmendmenY')
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the decline and decay
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viable centers serving
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the
development pursuant to the proposed agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and found and
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the following
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred:
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involveme�t of new
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and
New information of substantial importance to the project has
become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency hereby
resolves as follows:
' Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project.
Section 3. The 1980 EIR was considered prior to the approval of the
Agreement. The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the
proposed Agreement is within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously
approved; the effects of the redevelopment pursuant to the propose Final
Environmental Impact Report together with all other development. All feasible
� �
mitigation measures and alternative developed in the previous Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project are incorporated in this
Developmenfi. No new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available. The final Environmental Impact report, therefore, is
determined to be adequate to serve as the environmental impact report for the
Development and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA.
Section 4. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report have been incorporated into this Development
which mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and monitoring
the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6:
A. The Developer selected by the Agency shali enter into an
Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shall
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation measures
as are the responsibility of the Developer;
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City")) and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be constructed by the Agency;
C. The Agency wilf report to the City Council of the City not less than
annually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
- recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 3308�.4;
D. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination with respect to the acquisition and development of the Site
pursuant to the proposed DDA, and all other Agency actions taken in furtherance
thereof, be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph W. Davis III,
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS 70 CONTENT:
Shan Thever, Gary D. Chicots, Director
Agency Attorney Community Development
� �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency has 20% Low and Moderatc Income
Set-Aside funds for Fiscal Year 1999 to carry out certain eligible activities in accordance with
the established goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency engages in affordable housing opportunities and projects for
low and moderate income persons as part of the Redevelopment Plan and in order to implement
a redevelopment project the City proposes to enter into a Disposition and Development
Agreement with Southeast Los Angeles County Community Development Corporation, which
provides for the development of affordable hosing, and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider the disposition of Agency property in
connection with the development of the Site by the Developer, and
WHEREAS, the proposed DDA contains all the provisions, terms, conditions, and
obligations required by state and local law, and
WHEREAS, the Developer possesses the qualifications necessary to ensure development
of the Site proposed in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the City, and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed DDA
based on the best interest of the City of Lynwood and in accordance with the goals and
objectives of thc City;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lynwood City Council as follows:
Section L That the City Council approves the Disposition and Developmcnt Agreement with
Southeast Los Angeles Counry Community Development Corporation for thc redevelopment of
twenty three affordable rental units at the project site located at 1 1300 Atlantic Boulevard.
Section 2. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricardo Sanchcz, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clcrk Ralph W. Davis III, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM : APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Shan Thever Gary Chicots
Ciry Attomey Director of Community Development
� r ., �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A
DISPOSITION AlYD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYN�i'OOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES
- COUNTY COMM[1NITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A NON PROFIT
COMb1UNITY HOUSING D�VELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
WHEREAS, The Lynwood Redevelopment has 20% Low and Moderate Income Set-
, Aside funds for Fiscal Year 1999 to carry out eertain eligible activities in accordance with the
established goals and objcctives of the Redevelopment plan.
' WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency engages in affordable housing
� opportunities and projects for low and modcratc income persons as par[ of the Redevclopmcnt�
Plan and in ordcr to impicmcnl a rcdcvclopmcnt projcct thc Agcncy proposcs to cntcr into a
�� Disposition and Dcvclopmcnt Agrccincnt wilh Acccss Community l lousing, ���hich provides for
� thc dcvclopment of singlc family homcs, and
WHEREAS, tl�e Agency desires to consider the disposition of tl�e Agency property in
connection� with the development of the Site by the Developer, and
WHEREAS, thc proposcd DDA contains all tl�e provisions, terms, conditio�is, and
ubligations required by state and local law, 1nd �
� � WHEREAS, the Devcloper possesses the qualifications necessary to cnsurc dcvelopment
of the Site proposed in accordanec widi thc purposes and objcetives of tl�e Redcvclopmcnt Plan, �
, WHEKE'AS, thc Agcncy has conducicd n public hcaring �ind considcrcd thc proposcd �
DDA based on the best interest of the City of Lynwood and in accordance with thc goals and
objecti��cs of thc.Lynwood Rcdcvclopmcnt Agcncy; �
NOW, THEItEPOI2L, IT IS R6SOLVEll by tl�c Lynwood Ciry Council� as Collows:
Scction L That thc City Cuuncil approvcs thc Disposition and Dcvclopmcnt Agrccmcnt with
� Southcast Los Angcics County Cominunity Dcvelopmcnt Coiporution for thc redevclopment of
� t���cnty thrcc af�ordablc rcntal wiits tu thc projcct sitc locatcd at 11300 Atlantic Avcnuc
Qoulc��ard.
� tion 2. This Rcsolulion sh.�ll go intu cll�ca inui�cdiatcly upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVLD tin�l ADOP'I'LD Ihis 2nd day of Novcmbcr, 19J9.
IZicardo S�nchcr, Chuirmnn �
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph W. Davis, Execulive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM : APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
' Shan Thever � Gary Chicots
Agcncy Attomey Community Development Dircctor
� �
33433 SUMMARY REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 33433 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE SOTHEAST LOS ANGELES
' COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SELAC)., A NON-
PROFIT COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.
The Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") proposes to sell for redevelopment
purposes certain real property in the Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area A(the "Site"),
pursuant to the Califomia Community Redevelopment Law.
The Site is owned by the Agency and is located at 11300 Atlantic Ave and is proposed to be sold
, to SELAC (the $uyer)") pursuant to a disposition and development Agreement.
1. PUBLIC COSTS
, The proposed Agreement calls for the Agency to sell the Site, subject to certain terms contained
in the proposed Agreement. The Agency's cost to implement the proposed Agreement is limited
to staff time involved with the implementation of the project.
The estimated wst of the Site to the Agency is:
Real.Property Value $775,000
_ Developer Purchase amount $775,000
Total cost or subsidy $0
The Agency proposes to contribute the land cost toward the development of the project, with the
intent of being reimbursed with the sale of the property to a third party. The developer will
attempt secure additional financing for the rehabilitation and the new construction.
❑. ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE INTEREST TO BE CONVEYED
A qualified appraiser has prepared an analysis of the estimated value of the real property interest
to be conveyed pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health & Safety Code. The estimated
value of the real property interest can be calculated in two ways.
One such way is to estimate the value of the interest based upon the highest and best use of the
subject real property where the only permitted restrictions are those imposed by zoning. When
determined at the highest and best use permitted under the Lynwood Redevelopment Project
Area A Plan, the appraiser has determined that the value of the interest 10 be conveyed is Seven
Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand DolVars ($725,000).
A second such way to estimate the value of the interest to be conveyed is to value the interest
based upon controls in addition to zoning which are placed upon the subject real property by the
Agency in the proposed Agreement and limit the type of uses to which the real property can be
devoted. When determined at the use and with the conditions, covenants, and development costs
required by the sale as proposed in the Agreement, the appraiser has determined the value to be
Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($725,000).
III. VALUE OF THE INTEREST PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED
The proposed Agreement calls for the developer to defer the cost of the land until the project is
sold to a [hird party
IV. ELIMINAT[ON OF BLIGHT
The development of the site is a continuation of the Agency's efforts to eliminate blight in the
area. The previous uses on the Site consisted of a 30-unit motel,
The Site is currently zoned G3 Commercial Zone that complies with the General Plan
designatiomof Multifamily housing. The proposed use (residential) is a permitted use under both
the zoning and the General Plan. Moreover, the proposed project will be designed to maximize
its efficiency with respect to parking, landscaping, and overall aesthetics. The proposed housing
will be designed to architecturally enhance the housing stock in the surcounding area.
. . ' � � � 37a0 East knpenai hip•
� � LYnwooC:CA 9Q262
(31016353924 '
��ty �ff}�/ �'��i�i, (310) �` 72at Fu
���°'.� •a�
�/�O�It16�it COfl7�/
October 21, 1949
Concept Proposal and Proposed Budget
11300 Atlantic Ave, Lynwood Project
The Southeast Los Angeles County Communiry Development Corporation, respeclfully present the
following outline ta serve as our corxept of how we can rehabilitate and refurbish the existing Motel
irrto a Senior Citizzen Housing Complex Our plans inGude the rehabiidation of the existing
structure and attadling a new two-story structure on the existing site.
The rehabilitation will indude:
• We propose that we convert the existing 30 �sits into 20 one bedroom apartrnents with 1 full -
Bath and a kitdienette, and living room. Each Unit will be appro�mately 500 square Feet.
• The mnvers�on of one of the exibng bedroom in what is now the managers apartment into a
laurxiry room, and what is now the patio area over the bedroom into a upstairs laundry area.
Each Iaisdry mom wilt have a minimum of 2 washing machines and Mro Dryers
• We will convert the existing laundry room irrto a boiler room and storage area for equipment
and deani�g supplies.
• We will cover ihe ebsting managers quarters into an off�ce and check in center for visitors and
staff.
• We will give the exterior a face-Irft induding Sand Basting 8 re- stucco the building
The New construdion will indude:
• The endosure oF ihe walkways fw security and privacy for the seniors.
• Building arxl attaching a new hvo story building to the exisling structure
• The first floor wiil have reaeation roorn, arxJ full service kitchen, equipped with men and
women's resuoom, and Two 2 bedroom rental units
• The second floor will consist of siu Mro bedroom rental units equipped wsth one tull bath and
kitchenefte each unit will be approwmately 600 square feet.
�:.
• We will install two elevators on both sides of the building.
• We will ir�stall an electronic security gate to gain entry to the parking area.
' • Page 2 • • October 21, 1999
• The new structure wili be approximately 7,650 square feeL
Proposed Budget
. New ConsVuction of tlie 7,650 square foot buiWin9 $668.250.00
Conversion and Rehabiiita6on of ebsting 8050 building $325,000.00
Archdectural & Engineering, Pla�s & Pertnits g3p,ppp,pp
Total cost . $7,023,250.00
20 unds @ 550.00 per morrth rent $� �,ppp.pp
8 units @$700.00 per month for rent gs,gpp.pp
Monthty Payment on loan $7,458.00
Monthly income oF $16,600.00
.�_
� �
DATE: November 2, 1999
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY
FROM: Ralph Davis, City Manager/Executive Director
BY: Gary Chico[s, Community Development Director
Donyea Adams, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BETWEEN
THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
PurQqse:
To conduct a joint public hearing regarding a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Hub City Construction and Development
Company for [he development of 5 new single family dwellings on the Agency owned property
located at the southeast comer of Muriel Drivc and Thorson Avenue.
FACTS:
l. On July 13, 1999, Hub Ciry �Construction and Development Company met with the
Redevelopment Committee and presented a preliminary concept plan for a proposed
• housing development.
2. The Agency Committee reviewed and approved the developmental concept presented by the
Developer and directed staff to pursue an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") with
the Developer to be brought back for Agency eonsideration.
3. On July 2Q 1999, the Agency approved an ENA with Hub City Construc[ion and
Developmcnt Company and directed staff [o prepare toward a Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA).
4. A draft Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) has been prepared for City
Council review and approval based on the proposal that has been submitted.
Anal�
Project Proposal
Hub City Construction and Development Co. is a loca] builder who has established their place of
business in the City of Lynwood for the past 10 years. The Developer has undertaken a variety of
development, redevelopment and rehabilitation projects within the City and surrounding
- � communities. �
The subject site is comprised of eight (8) separate non-conforming vacant lots and is
approxima[ely 36,540 square feet (see attached Assessor's Map). The Developer proposes [o
constmct, market, and sell five (5) new single family detached dwellings on the subject property.
, Once the units are developed, they will be sold to families whose income does not exceed 120%
of [he Los Angeles Counry Area median income.
The Developer is proposing an equity partnership with [he Agency, which includes a defertal of
the land cost, and development financing package by the Agency. The Developer will construct,
manage, provide marketing services and deliver five (5) tum-key units ready for sale. The
- Agency and Developer will split the sales proceeds minus land cost and development financing
cost.
Staff has determined that [he Agency can utilize the Redevelopment Agency 20% Set Aside low
and moderate-income housing funds as the vehicle to finance the development of the project.
These funds are set aside annually by the Agency for investment in housing activities such as this
proposed project
,:Gx'.'7llA ITEM
. i
! !
Property Size and Location
The project site includes eight (8) non-conforming lots that are owned by the Lynwood
" Redevelopment Agency, and located south of the I-]OS/710 connecting route. The eight (8) lots
are located at the southeast corner of Muriel Drive and Thorson Avenue. The lots are located
within the flood plain zone. The total lotsize of the property is 36,540 square feet. (see attached
site map). '
Project Development
The development will consist of 5 new single family detached dwellings, with two separa[e floor
plans (Plan A and Plan B). Each floor plan will have 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, with a split or
tri level design, 1800 square feet per unit, and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The
target sales price for each home is $188,000.
The Developer will submit the final construction drawings and plans to the appropriate
Departments for final approval.
The estimated development cost is as follows:
On/Off site developme�t cost �$ 11,500
Project development cost
� (Insurance, plans, marketing, escrow) $100,900
Land Cost $210,000
Construction Cost $450,000
10% contingency � 4 0
Total project cost $817,400
The project cash flow is as such: �
Sales Price per unit � $] 88,000
Total number of units to build 5
Total gross profit from sale of units
($188,000 x 5 units) $940,000 �
Net profit to be split between the developer and Agency
Total project cost ($817,400)
Total gross profit $940.000
Net Profit $122,600
Agency profit $ 61,300
� Developer profit � 61 00 � �
� � 22,600i2: 6 i�,soo� � iz2,600
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
The following information is a summary of the terms and conditions of the DDA:
1. The Developer is to submit detailed signed arofiitectural, and engineering to the
appropriate City Departments.
2. Developer to build 5 new single family detached dwellings on the project site.
3. The Developer will provide construction management and marketing services
_ throughout the duration of [he project.
4. The Developer and the Agency are to split the net profit from the sale of the 5 homes.
5. The Agency is to receive a minimum profit of $61,300 from the sales proceeds.
6. The Agency wi11 provide financing from the Redevelopmen[ Agency 20% Se[ Aside
Low Income Housing Fund for the development of the project. The Agency
contribution will not bear finance charges or fees.
7. The Agency will contribute a minimum of $817,400 that includes the land cost of
$210,000 and the development cost of $607,400. It should be noted that the
development cost might be amended prior to the beginning of construction.
8. The Agency will be repaid for construction financing and land cost out of the
proceeds of the sale of the five units.
9. The Agency is to review and approve all contract agreements related to construction,
financing and property management, marke[ing, engineering, architectural and all
other Agreements or contracts related to this development.
� �
10. The Agency will establish an escrow account for the disbursement of the
development cost. The Agency will deposit the necessary funds in a neutral escrow
account established by a Lynwood based FDIC insured financial institution. The
Developer will be required to provide copies of contracts, drawdown request,
invoices associated with the development prior to payment for work comple[ed and
inspected.
Project Summary:
The Hub City construction and development project will allow the Agency to accomplish
the following:
1_ The City will comply with the Redevelopment Plan regarding the removal of
- blight and providing new housing to a community that has an aging housing
- stock andan expanding population growth.
2. Affordable housing opportunities will be provided for low to moderate-
income families.
3. New housing will be a positive impact and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood.
4. The Agency will be able to use its inventory of developable land to participate
in the development process and��thereby financially inhance the Agency's
position.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully request that, after consideration and conducting a public hearing, the
City Council Agency approves the following:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND HUB C[TY CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAK[NG
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB C[TY CONSTRUCTION
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCT[ON AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HUB CITY
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Attachments:
' 1. Resolutions
2. DDA
3. Concept Proposa] and Proposed Budget
4. Section 33433 Summary Report
, � �
RESOWTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the Agency and Hub City Construction and Development Company (the
"Developer") for the sale of the property located at 11300 Atlantic Boulevard,
and;
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
1980 Amendment to Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goals of the 1980 '
" Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 AmendmenY')
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the decline and decay
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viable centers serving
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the
development pursuant to the proposed agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and found and
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the foflowing
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred:
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involvement of new
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances '
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and
' New information of substantial importance to the project has
become avaiiable.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood City Council hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
� covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project. �
Section 3. The 198� ElR was considered prior to the approval of the
Agreement. The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the
proposed Agreement is within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously
approved; the effects of the redevelopment pursuant to the propose Final
Environmental Impact Report together with all other development. All feasible
mitigation measures and alternative developed in the previous Final
� �
Environmental Impact Report for the Project are incorporated in this
Development. No new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available. The final Environmental Impact report, therefore, is
determined to be adequate to serve as the environmental impact report for the
Development and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA.
Section 4. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmenta� Impact Report have been incorporated into this Development
which mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and monitoring
the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6:
A: The developer selected by the Agency shall enter into an
Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shall
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation measures
as are the responsibility of the Developer;
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City")) and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be constructed by the Agency;
C. The Agency will report to the City Council of the City not less than
- annually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 33080.4;
D. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination with respect to the acquisition and development of the Site
pursuant to the proposed DDA, and ail other Agency actions taken in furtherance
thereof, be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph W. Davis III
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Shan Thever, Gary D. Chicots, Director
City Council Community Development
� �
LRA RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the Agency and Hub City Construction and Development Company (the
"Developer") for the sale of the property located at 11300 Atlantic Boulevard,
and;
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
1980 Amendment to Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goals of the 1980
Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 AmendmenY')
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the dedine and decay
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viable centers serving
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the
developrnent pursuant to the proposed agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and found and
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the following
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred:
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involvement of new
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and
New information of substantial importance to the project has
become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project.
Section 3. The 1980 EIR was considered prior to the approval of the
Agreement. The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the
proposed Agreement is within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously
approved; the effects of the redevelopment pursuant to the propose Final
. � �
Environmental Impact Report together with all other deve{opment. All feasibie
mitigation measures and alternative deveioped in the previous Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project are incorporated in this
Development. No new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available. The final Environmental Impact report, therefore, is
' determined to be adequate to serve as the environmental impact report for the
Development and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA.
Section 4. Applicabie mitigation measures identified in the Finat
Environmental Impact Report have been incorporated into this Development
which mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and
monitoring the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6:
A. The developer selected by the Agency shall enter into an
' Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shail
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation
measures as are the responsibility of the Developer;
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City")) and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be constructed by the Agency;
C. The Agency will report to the City Council of the City not less than
annually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 33080.4;
D. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination with respect to the acquisition and development of the Site
pursuant to the proposed DDA, and all other Agency actions taken in furtherance
thereof, be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph W. Davis,
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Shan Thiever, Gary D. Chicots, Director
Agency Attorney Community Development
� �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency has 20% Low and Moderate Income
Set-Aside funds for Fiscal Yeaz 1999 to carry out certain eligible activities in accordance with
the established goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency engages in affordable housing opportunities and projects for low
and moderate income persons as part of the Redevelopment Plan and in order to implement a
redevelopment project the Agency proposes to enter into a Disposition and Development
Agreement with Hub City Construction and Development Company, which provides for the
development of single family homes, and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider the disposition of the Agency property in
connectioo with the development of the Site by the Developer, and
WHEREAS, the proposed DDA contains all the provisions, terms, condi[ions, and
obligations required by state and local law, and
WHEREAS, the Developer possesses the qualifications necessary to ensure development
of the Site proposed in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan,
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing and considered the
proposed DDA based on the best interest of the City of Lynwood and in accordance with the
goals and objectives of the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency;
" NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lynwood City Council as follows: �
, � Section 1. That the City Council approves the Disposition and Development Agreement between
the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency and H�b City Construction and Development Company,
and commits $607,400 of Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income 20% Set-Aside
�� � allocation to be used for the development single family housing units at the Muriel Estates
Housing Project. �
Section 2. That the Executive Director or his designee is authorized to make the necessary budget
amendment for the allocation of the $607,400 from an unappropriated agency account to the
necessary appropriated agency account
Section 3. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph Davis, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM : APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
City Attomey Gary Chicots, Community Development Director
� �
LRA RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency has 20% Low and Moderate Income
Set-Aside funds for Fiscal Year 1999 to carry out certain eligible activities in accordance with
the established goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency engages in affordable housing
opportunities and projects for low and moderate income persons as part of the Redevelopment
' Plan and in order to implement a redevelopment project the Agency proposes to enter into a
Disposition and Development Agreement with Hub City Construction and Development
Company, which provides for the development of single family homes, and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider the disposition of the Agency property in
connection with the development of the Site by the Developer, and
WHEREAS, the proposed DDA contains all the provisions, terms, conditions, and
obligations required by state and local law, and
WHEREAS, the Developer possesses the qualifications necessary to ensure development
of the Site proposed in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan,
WHEREAS, the Agency has conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed
DDA based on the best interest of the City of Lynwood and in accordance with the goals and
' objectives of the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency; �
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency as follows:
Section 1. That the Agency approves the Disposition and Development Agreement with Hub City
- Construction and Development Company and commits $607,400 of Redevelopment Agency Low
and Moderate Income 20% Set-Aside allocation ro be used for the development single family
housing units at the Muriel Estates Housing Project.
Section 2. That the Executive Director or his designee is authorized to make the necessary budget ,
amendment for the allocation of the $b07,400 from an unappropriated agency account to the
necessary appropriated agency account
Section 3. This Resolution shall go inro effect irrimediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 1999.
Ricazdo Sanchez, CHAIRMAN �
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph Davis, Executive Direc[or
APPROVED AS TO FORM : APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
City Attomey Gary Chicots, Communiry Development Director '
.� � ,
. 10844 8. A7'I,/W'17C AVF..
• I,YN W( A)D, CA. 9U362
(1101537-997G
. (31OX35-R41
-, .. . _ . /'^ �, /'''� . T . /'� Q �� .� .....
� , .. ., . •• , '' � .� .�:./1� h.J�����.✓���V� ,�+�I ..� � .. .
r
DEVEL�PI�'�NT
Octo6er 21, 1999 �
CONTRACT PROPOSAL AND BUDGET NOR THF, MURfEL ES7'ATF, PROJECT
1. We propase lhat the partnership agreement is draftcd establishing a partnerahip bctwecn
LcPrancie Arnoid d.b.a. FlUB CITY CONS'1'1LUCT'ION & DF,VELOPM�.NT COMPANY.
Hub Ciry Construction & Developmem Co will nct as the managing General partner oriead
agency.
,, „ 'Ihe proporty will ba transferred to the Partnarohip subject to the pnnnership, subject to the
_ .. pannership agcement
3: ` �Acknowledgement, assuming chat the agency is in agreement with the wncept uf a minimum
of 3;000 syuare foot bu. Contrncts are let to start the ouhdivision process of the tive (5) new .
, . . : ' .. , ,, pqreefs.
;.
4 a Applications wiil be obtaiaed from the planning depanment Por the varience, site plan review
'"and tho tentative trect map. Off site improvements, water and xwer connect fire hydrantn and
� '� .: '; ���; Iight polca will nll be establiehed during this process,
3; -;.. The prbperty is located in a flood area the new design will 6e a hi• level with the garage on
„ the firs[ flooc Squere fa��age ofthe homes will be appruxima[ety I,BQO sq.R. Each.
6. Upon completion and rxording of the final map, the grading permi[s will be pulled, the
school ts�ces will be paid and acwal construction will begin.
' 7. We wiq begin marketing the new homes once tTa Final Mays are apprnvcd. We suggeet t6at
the ciry offer First Time for individuals meetings the 120% of inedium income requirements.
Each propeny will have a con�truction warranty and will meet FHA Requirements. The
- current FHA Meximum loan limits are S208,000. We will alw make available other Hume
Buyer financiel programs that offer up to 100% fimncing for thnse npplicants that meet the
credit guide lines.
8. Eech property will be aggreseively matketed and eold on a fust come first serve bavis. The
Managing Goneral Pertners will be paid a Conswciion Managemem Fee and facilitece [he
merkoting The managing General Partnars will also receive and equal slmre of the proFta
that are generated from �he sale of the each propmty.
� . 9r � t.�l�,.....
!9 IiI n � ' 61 . .
, � tl6 .. �I Y •.L� • ♦ • • � • � • • • • • • • • • • • • • � •
..� x�� ... � �
'tr.r
. . . .. ..s ' . . . 3 S .n'....
� �
Ocrubrr 17, /999
Page 2
The City can opt to purchase ehe properties from tht paMers6ip beforo the sell of the propenies.
Alterna[ively, tha Parmership betwcen the City and liub City Constructian and soll tlie propenies
thmuyh tho partnerehip and share the profits upon ciosing.
Tha City of I,ynwood will rccoive 50% of the ntt profit of 5108,OS0 in addition to the cost of the land
5210,000. The �otal protit and Land cou equele S318,250, We proµ�se Wee the City use agency
funding for 120% medium income Buyers, through thc 9ilent 2nd program. The amaunt of Ponding
could be reatricted ro the amount of money thc city wants to spend on Huusing Assistance. The City
will have over 5100,000.00 in profit t�� spend on the 120% medium income buyers.
Propo�ed fludgc�
• Onsi[e & Offaite Developmem Cost 3 I 1,t00.00
• Course of Gonstrucrion lnsurance Y 3,000,00
' Subdivieion Cost S 6,UOU.00
' Nc6i[cecural Plans S 9,OOU.00
" Engincering Swctural S 5,000.00
• Marketing Co9I S 23,000.00
' Conetruction Cost. (5 �ts) 345U,OW.OU
• Overhead & adminisera[ion S 50,000.00
• Land Coet 5210,W0.00
• Fscrow & clnsing Cos[ S 6,900.00
�" � 10% Coirtingency & Misc. Y 45,OUO.OU
� Totel llevelopers Cost 5817,400.00
Sales Pnce per unii S 186,000.00
� Gros� Profit S 940,000.00 ..
Net Rofit S 122,600.00
� �
33433 SUMMARY REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 33433 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
The Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") proposes to sell for redevelopment
purposes certain real property in the Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area A(the "Site"),
pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law.
The Site is owned by the Agency and is identified as assessors parcel 6174-008-901 land is
proposed to be sold to Hub Ciry Construction and Development Company (the Buyer)") pursuant
to a disposition and development Agreement.
I. PUBLIC COSTS
The proposed Agreement calls for the Agency to sell the Site, subject to certain terms contained
in the proposed Agreement. The Agency's cost to implement the proposed Agreement is limited
to stafftime involved with the implementation of the project.
The estimated cost of the Site to the Agency is:
Real Property Value $210,000
Developer Purchase amount $210,000
Total cost or subsidy $0 ,
The Agency proposes to contribute the land cost [oward the development of the project, with the
intent of being reimbursed with the sale of the property to a third party.
The developer will finance the development project with a loan from the Agency's
Redevelopment 20% Set-Aside Housing fund. The use of these funds to develop this project will
cause the developer to sell the units to families who's income does not exceed 120% of the Los
Angeles Area Median Income as es[ablished by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
IL ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE INTEREST TO BE CONVEYED
A qualified appraiser has prepared an analysis of the estimated value of the real property interest
to be conveyed pursuant to Section 33433 of [he California Health & Safery Code. The estimated
value of the real property interest can be calculated in two ways.
One such way is to estimate the value of the interest based upon the highest and best use of the
subject real property where the only permitted restrictions are those imposed by zoning. When
determined at the highest and best use permitted under the Lynwood Redevelopment Project
Area A Plan, the appraiser has determined that the value of the interest [o be conveyed is Two
Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000).
A second such way to estimate the value of the interest to be conveyed is to value the interest
based upon controls in addition to zoning which are placed upon the subject real property by the
Agency in the proposed Agreement and limit the type of uses to which the real property can be
devoted. When determined at the use and with the conditions, covenants, and development costs
required by the sale as proposed in the Agreemen[, the appraiser has detertnined the value to be
Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000).
lll. VALUE OF THE INTEREST PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED
The proposed Agreement calls for the developer to defer the cost of the land until the project is
sold to a third party
N. ELIM(NATION OF BLIGHT
The development of the site is a continuation of the Agency's efforts to eliminate blight in the
area. The previous uses on the Site consisted of a single family residence prior to the
construction of the 1-105 freeway, however the Site has been maintained as a vacant lo[ for
several years depriving the City and Agency of any sales tax and tax increment.
� �
The Site is currently zoned Rl Single family Residential Zone that complies with the General
Plan designation of Single Family. The proposed use (residential) is a permitted use under both
the zoning and the General Plan. Moreover, the proposed project will be designed to maximize
its efficiency with respect to parking, landscaping, and overall aesthe[ics. The proposed housing
will be designed to architecturally enhance the housing stock in the surrounding area.
� �
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1999
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Ralph W. Davis, Interim Executive Director/City Manager
. BY: Gary D. Chicots, Director
Community Development Department
Louis Morales, Interim Manager
Planning & Redevelopment
, SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("DDA") BETWEEN
THE AGENCY AND 3100 , E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC
, ("DEVELOPER").
Purpose:
To conduct a joint public hearing between the Lynwood City Council (the "City") and the
Lynwood Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") on a request to consider approval of a DDA
by and between the Agency and 3100 E. Imperial Highway LLC., ("Development") for the
development of the final phase for the Marketplace expansion project located at 3100 E.
Imperial Highway.
facts:
1. On August 17, 1999 the Agency and City apptoved an Owner Participation
Agreement ("OPA") between the Agency and the Developer for the purposes of
developing Phase I of the Marketplace expansion project (the "ProjecY').
2. On August 17, 1999, the Agency and City approved a Cooperation Agreement
between the Agency and City that would allow the Agency to complete its financial
obligations under the OPA with the Developer.
3. The Developer proposes to expand the Marketplace and is now ready to enter into
a DDA to complete the final phase of the proposed project. The final phase with
entail the assembly of the remaining parcels located between the Marketplace and
the Towne Center and will include the acquisition of the Towne Center.
4. The development of the final phase will be consistent with the redevelopment
goals in Project Area "A".
• 5. � A draft DDA has been prepared and is attached for Agency and City review and
consideration. An environmental determination will also be considered and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for Agency review.
Disposition and Development Agreement SummaPy:
The purpose of the proposed DDA is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan for �ynwood
" Redevelopment Project Area A. The Site is comprised of the those properties located in
between the existing Marketplace and the Towne Center. The Site also includes the
Marketplace and Towne Center respectFully. The estimated cost to assemble the
necessary properties is approximately $9,795,000. Relocation has been estimated at
$485,000.
� �H:WORD/REDEVELP/LMORALES/MKTPLDDA
AGENllA IT'EM
� --�
. -�---.--.
� �
The Agency proposes to participate by purchasing the site and contributing $5,200,000
towards the acquisition of the Site while the Developer shall pay $5,079,000 which
includes any relocation benefits. The Developer will advance and deposit into escrow
$5,079,000 which the Agency will draw from as the necessary to acquire the Site.
Recommendation
Staff respectfully requests that, after review and consideration of the facts presented, that
the Agency and City respectfully adopt the following resolutions:
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY,
LLC.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN
� ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY,
LLC.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC. FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL PHASE OF THE MARKETPLACE OF
' • LYNWOOD EXPANSION PROJECT.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC. FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL PHASE OF THE MARKETPLACE OF
LYNWOOD EXPANSION PROJECT.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions
� H:WORD/REDEVELPlLMORALES/MKTPLDDA .
� � .
RESOWTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKlNG
CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDWGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E.
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA")
by and between the Agency and 3100 E. Imperial Highway, LLC (the
� "Developer") for the disposition of certain reai property located at and around
3100 E. Imperial Highway (the "Site"); and
WHFRFAS, � Pmjer,t Envir�nment�l Im�nct Re��rl was pr���red (nr thr�
1Ut30 nmencJment to Redevelopmenl Project Area "A" ("1980 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goals of the 1980
Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 AmendmenY')
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the decline and decay
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viabie cente�s serving
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the
development pursuant to the proposed DDA; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared an Initial Study and found and
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the following
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred:
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involvement of new
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and "
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and
New information of substantial importance to the project has
become available.
' NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project.
Section 3. The 1980 EIR was considered prior to the approval of the DDA.
The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the proposed DDA is
� H:word/redevelp/Imorales/resolrae
� �
within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously approved; the effects of the
redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report
together with all other development. All feasible mitigation measures and
altematives developed in the previous Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Project are incorporated in this Development. No new information of substantial
importance to the Project has become available. The final Environmental
Impact report, therefore, is determined to be adequate to serve as the
environmental impact report for the Development and satisfies ali the
requirements of CEQA.
Section 4, Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmentai Impact Report have been incorporated into this Development
which mitigate any potentiai significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and
monitoring the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6:
A. The Developer selected by the Agency shall enter into an
Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shall
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation
measures as are the responsibility of the Developer,
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City") and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be constructed by the Agency;
C. The Agency will report to the City Council of the City not less than
an�ually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
� report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health ,
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 33080.4;
D. The City hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination (Negative Declaration) with respect to the acquisition and �
development of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA, and all other Agency I
actions taken in furtherance thereof, be filed. '
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2n day of November, 1999.
I
- RICARDO SANCHEZ, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: �
, f
Andrea L. Hooper, Secretary Ralph Davis, Interim I
Executive Director �
�
I
�
i
i
i
I
�
H:wordlred evelp/I moraleslresol rae �
I
� �
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Agency Counsel Gary D. Chicots, Director
Community Development
I
I
I
�
i
�
�
�
I
�
i
�
�
�
I
�
I
�
i
�
�
I
i
;
i
�
H:word/redeve I p/Imora I es/resol rae �
I
I
! !
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E.
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") wishes
to consider the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA")
by and between the Agency and 31 E. Imperial Highway, LLC, (the "Developer")
for the disposition of certain real property located at and around 3100 E. Imperial
Highway (the "Site"); and
WH�REnS, � Pmjnr,t Enviromm�nt�l Im�nct R��nrt w�s nrn��r��l f�x Ihn
19E30 Amenclmenl to Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("19£i0 EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the development advances the goals of the 1980
Amendment to Lynwood Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("1980 Amendment")
described in the 1980 EIR which goals are to (1) arrest the decline and decay I
and the spread of blight throughout the project area, (2) restore and revitalize '
existing residential, commercial and industrial areas to viable centers serving i
community and regional needs, and (3) stimulate and attract private investment '
thereby improving the City's economic health, employment opportunities and tax '
base; and
WHEREAS, the 1980 EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the I
development pursuant to the proposed DDA; and �
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared an Initial Study and found and i
determined that a subsequent EIR is not needed because none of the following
condition of Section 15162 of Guidelines for the Implementation of the California i
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") has occurred: ;
Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require ,
important revisions to the 1980 EIR due to the involvement of new �
significant impacts not considered in the 1980 EIR; and �
Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances i
under the project was undertaken due to the involvement of the
new significant impacts not covered in the 1980 EIR; and '
New information of substantial importance to the project has �
become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood City Council hereby resolves as ,
follows: �
Section 1. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA is
covered by the 1980 EIR which serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report i
for the entire Amendment, which Amendment constitutes the "ProjecY'.
Section 2. The redevelopment of the Site provided for by the DDA was i
considered in the 1980 EIR as part of the Project. �
Section 3. The 1980 EIR was considered prior to the approval of the DDA. �
The Agency hereby finds: the redevelopment pursuant to the proposed DDA is
� H:word/redevelpllmoraleslresoccev - ��
�
,
� �
within the scope of the 1980 Amendment previously approved; the effects of the
redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Final Environmentaf Impact Report
together with ali other development. All feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives developed in the previous Final Environmental impact Report for the
Project are incorporated in this Development. No new information of substantial
importance to the Project has become available. The final Environmental
Impact report, therefore, is determined to be adequate to serve as the
environmental impact report for the Development and satisfies all the
requirements of CEQA.
Section 4. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report have been incorpora4ed into this Development
which mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts thereof.
Section 5. The Final Impact Report incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,
and the Agency hereby adopts the following program for reporting and
- monitoring the impleme�tation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6:
A. The Developer selected by the Agency shall enter into an
Agreement with the Agency to submit all plans and specifications for the
Development to the Agency for its approval, at which time the Agency shall
review the plans and specifications for compliance with such mitigation
measures as are the responsibility of the Developer,
B. The Agency shall comply with all requirements of the City of
Lynwood (the "City") and all public agencies having jurisdiction in any demolition
and construction of public works are to be construcYed by the Agency;
C. The Agency will report to the City Council of the City not less than
annually on the implementation of the mitigation measures and make any
recommendations it deems necessary to further implement said measures, such
report to be included in the Agency's annual report pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 33089.5 and 33080.4;
D. The City hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination (Negative Declaration) with respect to the acquisition and
development of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA, and all other Agency
actions taken in furtherance thereof, be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2n day of November, 1999.
RICARD� SANCHEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk Ralph Davis, Interim
City Manager
, H:word/redevel pll mora I eslresoccev ,,
!
� �
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attomey Gary D. Chicots, Director
Community Development
. H:word/redevelp/Imorales/resoccev -
y �� � �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (°DDA") BY AND BETWEEN THE
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LLC.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for Lynwood Project Area "A"
("Redevelopment Plan"), was duly approved and adopted on July 3, 1973 by Ordinance
No. 945 and subsequently amended on December 27, 1973 by Ordinance No. 960, on
August 19, 1975 by Ordinance No. 990, on June 1, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1000, on
December 7, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1010, on December 16, 1980 by Ordinance No.
1111, and on July 19, 1988 by Ordinance No. 88-1308; and
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is engaged in
activities necessary to execute and implement the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("Redevelopment ProjecY') in the City of Lynwood and in
order to do so the Agency proposes to enter into a DDA with 3100 E. Imperial Highway,
LLC ("Developer'), which provides for the development of the final Phase of the
Marketplace expansion project on developer and Agency/City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider the disposition of the Agency property
in connection with the development of the Site by the Developer; and
WHEREAS, the proposed DDA contains all the provisions, terms, conditions and
obligations required by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the Developer possesses the qualifications and parcels necessary to
insu�e development of the Site proposed in accordance with the purposes and objectives
of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and City Council of the City of Lynwood have held a duly
noticed joint public hearing on the proposed DDA and related agreements,
WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have duly considered the proposed
DDA and believe that development pursuant thereto is in the best interest of the City of
Lynwood and in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Lynwood Redevelopment
Agency to reduce blight in the Project Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lynwood
and the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency as follows:
Section 1. The Agency and City Council hereby find and determine that the
development of the Site pursuant to the DDA is in the best interest of the City of Lynwood
and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public
purposes and provisions of applicable State and local law.
Section 2. The Agency and City Council hereby find and determine that the
developrnent of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA is necessary to effectuate the
purpose of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project.
Section 3. The Agency and the City Council hereby find and determine that the
, development of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA witl be consistent with the
development perrnitted at that location by Lynwood's Zoning Ordinance.
� H:word/redevelp/Imorales/resolra �
- �i
�
i
� �
Section 4. The Agency has held a joint public hearing with the City Council and
has received, heard and considered all oral and written objections to the proposed DDA
and to the actions connected therewith, and hereby overrules all such oral and written
objections.
Section 5. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute
the DDA.
Section 6. The Executive Director of the Agency, or his designee, is hereby
authorized, on behalf of the Agency and the City, to sign all documents necessary and
appropriate to carry out and implement the DDA, and to administer and implement the
Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed under the DDA.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2n day of November, 1999.
RICARDO SANCHEZ, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: I
'
Andrea L. Hooper, Secretary Ralph Davis, Interim �
Executive Director
t
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
I
Shan Thever., Esq. Gary D. Chicots, Director i
Agency Counsel Community Development ,
�
i
�
i
i
H:wordlredevelp/imorales/resolra �
I
� �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("DDA") BY AND BETWEEN THE
' LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND 3100 E. IMPERIL HIGHWAY, LLC.
� WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for Lynwood Project Area "A"
("Redevelopment Plan"), was duly approved and adopted on July 3, 1973 by Ordinance
No. 945 and subsequently amended on December 27, 1973 by Ordinance No. 960, on
August 19, 1975 by Ordinance No. 990, on June 1, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1000, on
December 7, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1010, on December 16, 1980 by Ordinance No.
1111, and on Juiy 19, 1988 by Ordinance No. 88-1308; and
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Redevelopment llgency ("Agency") is engageri in
activities necessary to execute and implemenl the Redevelopment Plan (or
Redevelopment Project Area "A" ("Redevelopment ProjecY') in the City of Lynwood and in
order to do so the Agency proposes to enter into a("DDA") with 3100 E. Imperia(
Highway, LLC ("Developer'), which provides for the development of final Phase of the
Marketplace expansion project on developer and Agency/CiYy-owned property; and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider the disposition of the Agency property
in connection with the development of the Site by the Developer; and
WHEREAS, the proposed DDA contains all the provisions, terms, conditions and
ob(igations required by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the Developer possesses the qualifications and parcels necessary to
insure development of the Site proposed in accordance with the purposes and objectives
of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and City Council of the City of Lynwood have held a duly
noticed joint public hearing on the proposed DDA and related agreements,
� WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have duly considered the proposed
DDA and believe that development pursuant thereto is in the best interest of the City of
Lynwood and in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Lynwood Redevelopment
Agency to reduce blight in the Project Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lynwood
and the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency as follows:
Sec_tion 1. The Agency and City Council hereby find and determine that the
development of the Site pursuant to the DDA is in the best interest of the City of Lynwood
and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public
purposes and provisions of applicable State and local law.
Section 2. The Agency and City Council hereby find and determine that the
development of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA is necessary to effectuate the
purpose of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project.
Section 3. The Agency and the City Council hereby find and determine that the
" development of the Site pursuant to the proposed DDA will be consistent with the
development permitted at that tocation by Lynwood's Zoning Ordinance.
. . H:word/redevelpllmorales/resocc � . ',
, i
�
�
� �
Section 4. The Agency has held a joint public hearing with the City Council and
has received, heard and considered all oral and written objections to the proposed DDA
and to the actions connected therewith, and hereby overrules all such oral and written
objections.
Section 5. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute
the DDA.
Section 6. The Executive Director of the Agency, or his designee, is hereby
authorized, on behalf of the Agency and the City, to sign all documents necessary and
appropriate to carry out and implement the DDA, and to administer and implement the
Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed under the DDA.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2n day of November, 1999.
RICARDO SANCHEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST: •
� Andrea L Hooper, City Clerk Ralph Davis, interim
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Shan Thever., Esq. Gary D. Chicots, Director
City Attomey Community Development
� H:wordlredevelp/Imorales/resocc � � �
� �
DATE: November 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
fROM: Ralph Davis, City Manager
Gary Chicots, Community Development Director
BY: Shirley Wolf, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Business License appiication for All Yellow Taxi, Inc.
PROPOSAL
This is a business license application to offer taxi cab service in the City of Lynwood.
All Yellow Taxi, Inc. is proposing to operate three cars in the Lynwood.
ANALYSIS
The Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) requires the City Council to hold a public hearing
to approve new business license applications for a taxi cab company that is requesting
to operate within the City of Lynwood. The LMC aiso requires the taxi company to pass
a background check through the Sheriff's Department.
Attached is a copy of the approval from the Sheriff's License Unit. The report indicates
approval with conditions. The conditions of the approval are standard including the
license plate and registration numbers of the three cars permitted to operate in the City.
The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and has accepted these
conditions. The applicant has met all other requirements of the Lynwood Municipal
Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the application for a
business license to operate the cab company within the City and direct business license
staff to issue the business license.
�
� AC}ENllA I'I'E?,: �
--- I �
. ��h:lwortl�plann�ing�swolFlSr�taxicaoCOC � � �' �
. • . __... _ __ _' "--__I
� �
� � � Clutttttt► i1f 1�!ittx� �tt�jCli��• „�.,„
' ��� �hrriff's Lirp;rrtuirnt �irnlqu;irtrr. `��`�'� �`�'
� ��)
4 �,� -17'lill 3�'�;ununa iduulrli:ir,l ��i����
w�,i
�9iuntrn�tt �'llarl:. I��tlifnriti�t 917?�1-^1G�1
i.eROV o. oncn. s�eH�FF
July 28, 1999
LICENSE UNIT INVESTIGATION REPORT
199-00813-3410-446
� City of Lynwood
Application for Business License and/or Permit Taxi Cab Operator
Business Name: All Yellow Taxi, Inc.
Address: 14325 South Figeroa Street, Gardena, CA. 90248
Applicants: Oswaldo Guidos - President
Phillipe Girard - Secretary
San won Kim- Treasurer
� Result of investigation fails to indicate a basis for protest.
Result of investigation indicates a basis for protest. -
.1.�_ See narrative report attached in clarification of recommendation.
Investigating Officer S. Willkomm Report Approved R. Kenealy, Sergeant
#283316 #048866
Departmental Recommendation Approval Wth Conditions (see attached)
i
, LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF �� ',
� M�t- � �
� , �� '� �` � �L.L{�fi�--, .. . �` � I
� John M. Bauer, Captain � i
Major Crimes Bureau e ��� o
f
� ✓`� `J�a�7ioa o� cSeruice �
i
�
i
I
� �
, ----�
�j
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDED TAXI-CAB BUSINESS LICENSE CONDtTiONS
DBA; ALL YELLOW TAXI, INC. �
14325 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
� lOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90248
�, No ta n d eles f Coun Sher'�s DepartmenUCi y of�LynwoodPrThe dp ers
Los A g
being recommended for approval are:
1) Wilfredo Aguirre;
California Driver's License number A7168903
2) Jose Baltazar Gonzalez;
California Driver's License number A6907127
3) Americo Atexander Rosales;
California Drivers's License number A6871248
2. No ta e CounPy Shenff's p ntlCity of lynwood'�ThePaxiacabs currently
Angel
being recornmended for approval are:
1) Cab number 52; vehicle license number 5U40670; vehicie identification
number 2FACP71 W4RX152577
2) Cab number 54; vehicle license number 4T86893; vehicle identification
n umberlGIBL54 73 LR 133705
3) Cab number 56; vehicle license number 5H69519; vehicle identification
n umberlGIBL53 76 PR 135021
3. All approPriate City licenses must be posted in/on taxi cab vehicle operating in
the City of Lynwood. The taxi driver must also possess the appropriate City
license and a valid California Driver's License and present to any law
enforcement official upon demand.
4. Any yiolation of the adopted conditions or any applicabie laws shall be grounds
for suspension or revocation of the business license.
�
� � � . . � I
i
. I
I
� � �
- � _ -
I AGREE WITH AND ACCEPT THESE BUSINESS LICENSE CONDITIONS
� � Q�'�< L,b� �vi�`�_r
� � Pnnt
A Yeilow Taxi, Inc. epresentative
��� J ���'� (7]��� Dat � l� 9 9
Titl " � li' � _C � /
�. ^
� ' Date
L.A.S. . ep
resentative Print
I .
(
I
I �
�
I
�
• �
DATE: November 2, 1999
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Ralph Davis, City Manager
BY: Joseph Y. Wang, P.E., Director of Public Works r`
SUBJECT: Contract Change Order
PURPOSE:
To recommend Ihat the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Con[ract
Change Order for All American Asphal4 for additional work on the Lorrain St.. Norton Ave..
1 l Or�� & 1 I 1 ih Street Improvement Project, Project No. 5-� 196 &�-� 199.
BACKGROUND:
On Juh• 20, 1999. Ciq� Council adopted Resolution Na 99.1I? awarding a contract to All
� American Asphalt, in the amount of $ I 13,6A7.00 for the L.orrain St., Norton Ave., I I Ot�� & I 1 l�t��
Street Improvement Project Project No. 5-5196 &�-�199. Staff has identitied additional
necessary improvements within the projec[ location.
ANALYSIS:
The staff has estimated the total cost of the additional improvement to be $38,OOQ00. Per
ordinance No. 1392. Ci[y Council approval is required for Contract Change Orders in eacess of
20% of [he original contract amount ($22.T7.40) or $�0.000.00, whichever is less.
RECOMMENDATION:
To recommend that the City Council adopt thc attachcd Resolution approvine the ConVact
Change Order for All American Asphalt, and authorizc the City Manager or his designee to
esecute the Contract Change Order.
I
i
I
' AGE'i•71J9 "'- ,
,I I
Couev � o � --..._..
_l
� �
�
—.. �
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CITY OF LYNWOOD
—� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Date: 19 Order No.: Job No.: �""�� � 5 '�� I
.bn nne: �0►YG�111 `� , Of�oll �VG. I I 0 � _S� � I I I � �t
Plan Reference: Item Relerence:
The cherroee or Interpretationa descrlbed end noted hereln ere hereby authorized.
The slgned originel ot this order Is on flle at the OHice ot the Clty Engineer.
Show as separate numbered paragrephs: (1) Reason for change; (2) Descriptlon of chenge; (3) Change in contract cast;
(a) Extension of coniract, It warranted. (5) New contract total Including all change orders.
�)�+►ona1 Impro�em�s I�c¢ssar� � eomple}c Pro�ecf.
� �,.� a. R�r►oral � cons��c�on o-F eurbs � yc�tlars
b. (�moVal � ��sh'�tc�ian o-F �o�C�e{e , �osS u+Iers
�. F�moral � �o�s�uctio►� o� P.e.C. �rre a��roaches
a. Co�siruction a� P.�.e. s�deu�alK
�� 3� Co��faCf Chan ordex nlo. � �3�,moo. o0
L
�.� (�o �C�Sion �f �o�acf is �arr�
5� f�c�l eo�aG� ��� is � 15; � 8 �, �
(uee Feveree Slde lor Sketch)
� Approved:� . .19_ /WProved: .19_
Praecl Enqineer Contrector
�
� �—. DI�xIOt Of Publlt Works � Apent
G1N Me�e9er .
. o�waw� wHih — o��pn.imcann.c�a
uwm _ co�n.o�er
OOIDENX00 — fl�p .
RNI! — 011�e�
T00/TOOI�J Q�Itld S}RIOM�I19Rd E6fi0 S£9 OT£�Qi 4£�5T 68/9Z/Oi
� --- ---'--'----._ _.
- f,
�:
I
I � 1.
i
� �
RESOLUTION NO.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING A
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$38,000.00 FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE LORRAIN ST., NORTON AVE., 1 IOTH ST.
& I 1 ITH ST.. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 5-5196 & 5-5199, FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER".
WHEREAS, the Lorrain St., Norton Ave., 110�h St. & I1lth St. Improvement Project,
Project Number 5-5196 & 5-5199 is scheduled for completion during FY 1998-1999: and
WHEREAS, the Lorrain St., Norton Ave., 1 IOt�� St. & I l l�h St. Improvement Project is
funded by the Community Development Block Grant funds; and
WHEREAS, On July 20, 1999, the project was awarded to All American Asphalt: and
WHEREAS, During construction, the staff has iden[ified additional necessary
improvements within the project location, in the amoun[ of $38,000.00, which can be added to
the existing contract as a contract change order, and
WHEREAS. Cit}• Council approval is required for contract change orders of 20% of the
orieinal contract price, ($22.T7.40) or $50,000.00, whichever is less.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of die City of Lynwood does hereb�- find,
proclaim, order and resolve as follows:
Section I. That the Contract Change Order for All American Asphalt in the amount
of $38,000.00 bc approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract
change urder between [he Cih� of Lynwood and All American Asphalt.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED this da�� of
1999.
ATTEST:
RICARDO SANCHEZ, Mayor
Citv of Lvnwood
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk RALPH DAVIS
Ciry of Lynwood City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED THIS CONTENT:
Citv Attornev JOSEPH Y. WANG
Cit�- of Lvnwood Director of Public Works
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
Cou99101
� �
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I. the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood. do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Cih� Council of the Cih� of Lynwood at
a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said City on the day of , and
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: .
ABSENT:
Ciri Clerk, Citv of Lvnwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I. the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City Council of
said City, do herebvi certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct cop� of
Resolution No. on file in m�� office and that said resolu[ion �aas adopted on [he date
and bv the vote therein stated.
Dated this dav of . 1999.
Cirv Clerk. Citv of Lvnwood
Cou99101
• �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE
AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICES CONTRACT
AGREEMENT WITH DAPEER, ROSENBLIT, AND
LITVAK, LLP, FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES
IN SUPPORT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on October 11, 1998, the City of Lynwood (City) entered into
an agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP (Contractor) which set
froth the terms and conditions for the services of the City Prosecutor Services;
and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, City Council approved the extension
of said contract for a two-year period, which shall terminate on June 30, 2001;
and
WHEREAS, the City is satisfied with services provided by Contractor and
extend the services agreement for a two-year period.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lynwood that:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lynwood approve the
extension of the service contract wilh Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak LLP for a
two-year period.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute the amendment to the
Services Contract Agreement.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of
, 1999.
_ RICARDO SANCHEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ANDREA HOOPER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY COUNCIL RALPH DAVIS, CIT1F-#RNAG€�`___
>�
;\
. CITY PR0.5ECUTOR RESO 11 2 99 ' 1 '` -
�
. � �
STATE OF CAUFORNIA )
) �
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting thereof held in the City Hall of said City on this day of
, 1999, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A65ENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CAUFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
1, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said
resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of , 1999.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
�
I
I
I
�
i cm �xosecuroa r�so» 2 es
I
1
�
� �
DATE: November 2,1999
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CTI'Y COUNCIL
FROM: Ralph Davis III, City Manager
gy; Joe Wang, Public Works Director
Kathy Beal, Code Enforcement Ma g r
SUBJECI': Amendment to Services Contract Agreement
Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP
PURPOSE:
To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resoluHon approving the
amendment to the Service Contract Agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP
to provide City Prosecutor Services for ongoing code enforcement cases.
BACKGROUND:
On October 11, 1998, the City entered into an agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit
and Litvak, LLP for City Prosecutor Services for ongoing codc enforcement cases. The
service contract (Attachment A) expired on June 30, 1999.
The Citv Prosecutor has been providing temporary services on a month to month
basis since the expiraHon of their contract, as indicated in (Attachment B), observing the
terms and condiHons of their original contract for the fiscal year 1998-99.
ANALYSIS:
The Conhactor has been responsive, responsible, and very flexible to
accommodate thc City's requests. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve
the extension of the current contract for a two-year period. A copy of the contract
amendment is attached herewith for City Council, (Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfull}' requests that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the amendment to the Services Contract Agreement with Dapeer, Rosenblit
and Litvak, LLP and authorizing the Mayor to execute the amendment.
� A:CityPrnsecutor Rpt 17 299
I
�
, � CONTRACNAL AGREEMENT •
FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES
This agreement entered inro by and benveen the CITY OF LYNWOOD, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred
to u"City" and Dapeer , Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP (hereinafter referred to as "Contracror").
WIT'NESS
WHEREAS, Contractor, by reason of training and experience, is qualified to perform the duties and
func[ions of the City Prosecutor; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is familiar with State and local laws and regulations relating to the
prosecution of municipal code violations; and
WHEREAS, the Ciry does not have anyone available within iu employ qualiFied to perform the duties
and functions of Ciry Prosecutor; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is willing and qualified ro perfortn such duties and functions from time to
time, as needed by the City, and as required by the City; and
W}iEREAS, the Ciry desires to contract with Contractor to perform such service to be funded with
Community Development Block Grant funds and City funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND
CONDITION, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Contractor shall perform all duties, functions and services requested by the Ciry to be performcd
hereunder as an independent Contractor;
2. The rerms of this contract shall commence October I1, 1998 and shall end on ]une 30, 1999.
however, this agreement may be terminated by thir[y (30) days notice in writing by either party.
3. Contractor shall review all cases pertaining to violations of municipal code sections; hold informal
hearings in order to negotiate voluntary compliance and, when necessary, complete the legal proced�res for prosecuting
violators through the Municipal Court: �
4. Contractor shall also make himself available to the staff of the City in order ro give legal advise and
� make recommendations regarding changes altera[ions or modifications ro[he municipal codes, in order to make [hem more
effective;
5. lt is Ihe parpose and intent of this agreement [hat Conhactor shall be compensated at the rate of S
105.00 (one hundred and five dollars) per hour.
6. Contracror performing duties of City Prosecutor shall be Mrssrs Steven Rosenblit, Kenneth Dapeer,
and William Litvak, or a designee if mutually acceptable to the City Manager and Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvah
7. Contracror shall submit a detailed statement, by addresses, describing services rendered
(particularly identifying each case or matter worked on) and time spent at the end of each month, and payment shall be made
approximately within thirty (30) days upon receipt of statement and invoice without discrepancies.
8. Contractor and City hereby convenant and agree that the Departrnent of Housing and Urban
Development, the Ciry of Lynwood, or any of their duly authorized representatives, upon reasonable notice, shall have access ro
all reports, records, papers and files pertaining to the subject matter thereof for the purpose of making audits, examinations, and
esperts for a period of frve years after final payment and transcription is received and all pending matters are closed;
9. Contractor agrees ro compty with the terms and wnditions of Executive Order I 1246 titled "Equal
Employment Opportunities" as amended by Executive Order I 1375;
10. Contractor further agrees ro comply with the terms and coditions of ExecutiveTiNe IV of the Civil
Righcs of 1964, Section 3 of the Housing and Communiry Development Act (HCDA) of 1968and Section 109 of the HCDA of
1974;
1 l. The parties acknowledged and the Contractor shall cooperate fully to assure that no officer, agent,
or employee of the Ciry shall have any personal or financial interest in the Agreement or the renumeration paid pursuant ro this
Agreement to the Contract;
12. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be addressed az hereinafrer set forth, deposited in
the United States mail, with postage fully prepaid theron, and shall be deemed delivered on the fifth day following the date of
mailing.
iN WI7'NESS WHEREOF, the Goveming bodies of the parties hereto have authorized this agreemem
and have caused said agreement to be executed by their respective officer - Clerks thereof as of the day month and year first
above written. �
`� 1 � 1�- C-Irt' r"�� !v T ���
l
� �
Ciry Prosecutor Agreement
��T-y CONTRACTOR
Ciry of Lynwood DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LI'I'VAK, LLP
1 1330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
r � "'L�l �
ARMAN REA,MAYOR
DATE: I I I � � � DATE: / I - �O ^ � �
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ,�/"`'v "
Ci A ORN Y
DATE: /
Codc/Proposal/CP/CONTRACT
2
� �
SEF-15 IB:42 FROM:DAPEER ROSENBLI? & LI'I'VAH ID:2735079190 F4GE 2i2
L 4 W O F C I C E 6
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT � LtTVAK, LLP
� MEIROPOL17.W CfilE30'F10E: Pt_.a9! DiREtt+w�_ ;�:
2l-c E. suuLOn nKw�a 'NV� �OS 4f:GEL�'$ OFF��E:
IM1llf'iwJ�ON foRK U OJ:SS.>O!s DFi� M.iIL ."�.EH1EP, i:�00 W J.:MM1C dLW.. sLIIS cso
1 L�Ch1CtiE.1���!.g -$�il �TCT�.�LDOT2C0> IOLYI',1C�Cl.C49GVBC.1324
fAC81MILC (�LJI �.5�f-91�'j ��'' C�'JOT».3�JB �[LEOMp1E I.]101 S'l:`�S'.�75
fG�$IMII�[ I�IOI I'1].�QPJ
$iE/EN M. RULCIlBV:
RN��EM E. WCEFA 3.N_N E. w�NNr
+�L_i�v+ �IN:.w ME��Oe?E B. Krrai
u+r� Luc l�xnwi
� N. FlZpqtµp
P.W.O. !P
xHrs c ecu.vr
crostwn rEU-
September 1�, 1999
Cit}' of Lynwood
Via Fax (310j 637-81X15
Atm: Karhy Beal, C.E.1�1.
Re: Code Enzorcement Services
Dear Ms. Beal:
This le[ter confirms that our fzrm agrees to pzovide setvices on a month-tp-
month basis until such time as a ne�v contrect is executed (or, ii appropriate, our
tusung agreement is extended). In [his regard, we shall observe the tcrms of our
employment as 5tated in our iecendy expircd agreement.
Please contact me if you have arry quesrions concerrung this lettcr, or if you
require additiona] infonnation.
S r ly s,
Steve . Ros blit
Cit}� Prosccutor \,
Mle+�fV9.I5i
�1 ��
� T T 1'� L l-t ��� �!`'• I �
� �
AMENDMENT TO SERVICES
CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR
CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES BY
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT AND LITVAK, LLP
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood, hereinafter called City, and Dapeer,
Rosenblit and Litvak, LLP, hereinafter called Contractor, have entered into
certain services agreement, dated November 2, 1999, which Agreement sets
forth the terms and conditions for the services of Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak,
LLP; and
WHEREAS, the City is satisfied with the services provided by Contractor
and wishes to e�end the Services Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is wiffing to continue providing services to the
City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do hereby agree as
• follows:
1, The terms of this Agreement is extended to June 30, 2001.
2. In the event of any termination of this Agreement by the City, the
Contractor shall be entitled to no other compensation except in
accordance with their original contract for the fiscal year 1998-99.
3. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement and amendments
remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Services
Agreement this day of , 1999.
CITY OF LYNWOOD
DATED: By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
,
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney Joseph Y. Wang , P.E
Director of Public Works
CONTRACTOR
Date: By:
Title:
Attachment "C°
CITY PROSECUTOR CONTRACT AMEND 11 2 99 �
� �
,.
DATE: November 2, 1999
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ralph W. Davis, III, City Manager
BY: Christian Valtierra, Project Manager
SUBJECT: MediaOne/AT&T Cas�e F�+NCHise nNO FCC FoRM 394
PURPOSE:
To recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
AND CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE BY MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO AT&T CORR."
BACKGROUND:
On May 18; 1999, Kent Leacock, MediaOne Cable's representative, spoke regarding
AT&T's take over of MediaOne Cable. He also informed the Lynwood Information Inc.
Board that the Board/Council would be required to review, comment and approve
MediaOne's Form 394 that will be filed with the Federal Communications Commission
. as part of the merger approval process.
On June 1, 1999, the Lynwood Information Inc. Board approved staffs recommendation
to pursue the possibility of joining with other cities in reviewing FCC Form 394 and
report back to the Board with its findings.
On July 26, 1999, MediaOne/AT&T submitted FCC Form 394 to the City of Lynwood.
At that time, the law office of Richards, Watson and Gershon has contacted the City
regarding Form 394. At that time, Richards, Watson and Gershon represented four (4)
other cities that are served by MediaOne as the fcanchised cable operator.
The estimated cost for review of Form 394 for the City was estimated at $15,000. It was
determined that it would be more economical for the City to enter into an agreement
with other cities in reviewing FCC Form 349. This way, the cost and time of the review
can be shared with the other cities. The estimated cost to the City of Lynwood under
this agreement would be approximately $3,750. The law firm of Richards. Watson and
Gershon was given approval to proceed with the review of Form 394.
The City of Corona subsequently agreed to join with the other city's and agreed to share
in the cost, bringing Lynwood's share to approximately $3,000. Staff directed Richards,
Watson and Gershon to include in the transfer resolution, the condition that the
applicant (AT&T) reimburse the city's for their share of costs and expenses associated
with the review of the document and the transfer.
ANALYSIS:
Richards, Watson and Gershon have completed the review of FCC form 394. Their
review reveals that AT&T has the "financial, technical, and legal qualifications" to ensure
� the performance of all of the obligations required under the existing cable television
franchise.
They have prepared a resolution for the Lynwood Information tnc. Board review and
- approval. The main points of the resolution are as foliows:
✓ Approves the cable fcanchise transfer from MediaOne to AT&T.
✓ That the City will be reimbursed for all costs and expenses in processing form
394 (approximately $ 2,500).
✓ Reserves the City's right to impose conditions regarding access by'third parties
to the Franchisee's cable system for the delivery of high-speed Internet access
service. _._---_ ._ _._
� � �
-_ �
I � _.._. _ —.
� �
✓ Does not extend the current franchise, which has been extended to
December 7, 1999.
As reported earlier some cities have required that MediaOne/AT&T provide open
access as part of the meryer. Subsequently cities such as Portland Oregon and
Broward County Florida imposed "open access" restriction and are currently invoived in
litigation with MediaOne/AT&T over this requirement. Therefore, in order to proceed,
the proposed resolution does not make "open access" a requirement. Instead, it
reserves the City's right to impose that restriction if the courts determine that Cities do
have the right to impose that restriction.
The City's Cable consultant, Telecommunications Management Company (TMC) has
also reviewed form 394. They concur that AT&T has the "financial, technical, and legal
qualifications" needed to approve the transfer. A copy of the report is attached for
review.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
AND CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE BY MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO AT&T CORP."
. Cm/misdLLL99-17
� �
CITY OF LYNWOOD
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING AND CONSENTING TO THE
TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE BY MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO AT&T
CORP.
RECITALS
A. MediaOne of Los Angeles, Inc., a California
corporation ("Franchisee"), is the duly authorized holder of a
franchise ("Franchise") that authorizes the construction,
operation, and maintenance of a cable television system within
the City of Lynwood ("Franchise Authority").
B. On July 26, 1999, the Franchise Authority received
from MediaOne Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Transferor"),
and from AT&T Corp., a New York corporation ("Transferee"), an
application for the transfer of control of the existing
Franchise, which application included FCC Form 394 entitled
"Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or
Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise." Supplemental
information was provided to the Franchise Authority by the
Transferor and the Transferee on September 10, 1999, and on
October 14, 1999.
C. In accordance with Section 16-3 of Chapter 16 of
the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Franchise Authority has the right
to review and to approve the financial, technical, and legal
qualifications of the Transferee in connection with the proposed
change of control of the Franchise.
D. The staff of the Franchise Authority has reviewed
the documentation that accompanied FCC Form 394 and, based upon
the representations set forth in that documentation, has
concluded that the proposed Transferee has the requisite
financial, technical, and legal qualifications to adequately
perform, or to ensure the performance of, all obligations
required of the Franchisee under the Franchise previously granted
by the Franchise Authority to the Franchisee.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In accordance with Section 16-3 of Chapter
16 of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Franchise Authority
consents to and approves the proposed transfer of control of the
Franchise by MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp.
Section 2. The authorization, consent and approval of
the Franchise Authority to the proposed change of control is
conditioned upon compliance by the Transferor or the Transferee
with the following requirements, as to which they are jointly and
severally responsible:
: 1. An original or conformed copy of the written
instrument evidencing the closing and consummation of the
proposed change of control of the Franchise must be filed in the
office of the City Clerk within 30 days after that closing and
consummation.
- 1 -
� �
2. Regardless of whether the transaction
described in the FCC E'orm 394 actually closes, the Franchise
Authority will be reimbursed for all costs and expenses
reasonably incurred by the Franchise Authority in processing and
evaluating the infor.mation relating to the proposed transfer of
control of the Franchise; provided, however, that those costs and
expenses will not exceed the sum of $2500 and will be set forth
in an itemized statement transmitted by the City Manager, or the
City Manager's designee, to the Transferor and the Transferee
within'60 days after the effective date of this resolution.
Section 3. In authorizing this change of control, the
Franchise Authority reserves all rights that it may have to
impose conditions regarding access by third parties to the
� Franchisee's cable system for the delivery of high-speed Internet
access service. The Franchise Authority's approval of this
change of control will not be deemed a waiver of those rights to
impose such conditions at a later date, regardless of whether a
transfer or renewal is pending at that time. Franchisee likewise
does not waive any rights it may have with respect to the
imposition of such a condition. Prior to the enactment or
enforcement of any such requirements, Franchisee will be provided
with reasonable notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an
� opportunity to present evidence on any findings made or required
� to be made with respect to such a requirement.
Section 4. Nothing contained in this resolution may be
" construed to extend the term of the Franchise, which had an
" original expiration date of October 14, 1996, and which has been
periodically extended by the Franchise Authority to December 7,
. 1999.
Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a
. certified copy of this resolution to the following persons:
° Mr. David Condit
AT&T CoYp.
795 Folsom Street
Room 2153
San Francisco, California 94107
. Mr. James K. Petro
, Vice President, Corporate and Legal Affairs
MediaOne Group, Znc.
550 N. Continental Blvd., Suite 250
E1 Segundo, California 90245
Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to certify to
the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1999.
MAYOR
' ATTEST: �
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY ATTORNEY
- z -
, I , � �
� _ �� �I CLCC0��1MUNICI�� ��,1;��fJ:'\C�C_P.1C! i i C:UI;f
- 5757 Wilshire Blvd. • Suite 635 • Los Angeles. CA 90036 •(323) 931-2600 • Fax (3231 93 7-7355
CITY OF LYNWOOD
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF
CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISE
August 1999
C��iHnllSf[HSl.le�].aO�o..fSfPepc.•sL.^..::^_?�i�.� .._[ . .
; � . .. . ... ._ .
r . .�
� � ;::
., , .
r ., �
', �� _ � . . � .
I ', 1' �. �� . . . . �_' . , .
f 3
��
�
. ' :Y . . - - _ . . ' � � . . .
� } . . �l�! . .. . � .
,� v �
� - 'K' . . . � - . . . . .
• �
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . I NTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................
' II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TRANSFER ............................................... 2
A. Transfer and Ownership Structure ....................................................2
B. Transferee Qualifications .................................................................. 5
(1) Legal Qualifications ................................................................6
(2) Financial Qualifications ...........................................................6
' (3) Technical Qualifications ................................................:......... 7
� C. Compliance with Existing Franchises ............................:................... 7
. D. Other lssues .............................:...............................:........................ 7
(1) Impact upon Subscribers and the City ....................................8
' (2) City Reservation of Rights ...................................................... 11
(3) Reimbursement of Costs ........................................................ 12
III. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 13
IV. TRANSFER RESOLUTION .......................................................................... 14
APPENDICES
A 120-DAY LIMITATION ON TRAN$FER ACTION
B ATBT ACQUISITION OF MEDIAONE TRADE ARTICLES
C POSSIBLE FUTURE CABLE SYSTEM TRANSFER `
D AT&T INCOME STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW (1998)
E "OPEN ACCESS" ISSUES
� F TRANSFER RESOLUTION
.�- - -
f � r •
I
.�
- .'.�',. '_ . ... , " . �
� . .
! ".h '
x
r �
�< �
� �
� � ' '
r ��
sr �
� :�
R
� �
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Lynwood (the City) currently is provided with cable television
service by MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne).
Recently, the City received a request for consent to transfer control of the
cable franchise from MediaOne to ATBT Corp. (ATBT). The request was
submitted on Federal Communications Commission Form 394, which is the form
o�cially designated as "Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Transfer
Control of Cable Television Franchise." The Form 394 provides specific
information to locaf franchise authorities to assist them in evatuating the transfer
request
The City has retained Telecommunications Management Corp. (TMC) to
evaluate the requested transfer. TMCs evaluation is provided in this report.
The Form 394 is dated July 13, 1999 but was received by the City on July
26, 1999. The date the Form was received is of some significance, since the
1992 Cable Act requires a local franchising authority to take action on a franchise
transfer request within 120 days of receipt of the Form 394 (see Appendix A).
Consequently, if July 26, 1999 is assumed as the starting date, the deadline for
taking action (usually by means of a Council resolution) would be November 23,
1'999.
It should also be noted that the 120-day deadline depends on the receipt
of "such information as is required in accordance with Commission requlations
and bv the franchising authoritv" (emphasis added). Consequently, if a
franchising authority requests relevant information regarding the transfer and
does not receive it, or the operator fails to provide all franchise-required transfer
documentation, the deadline for review may be extended. Many cable operators
dispute this position, however, and claim that the 120-day period cannot be
"tolled." '
_ �
x z�
� � r _ . . . .
i f .iJ �E. � �'' . � � .
,�.
, �
K �
Y �"� . _ � . �
� !"���1 '
� 4
T r .�
` :� -.
`+ T _
� �
P � ! ��< j f / �
i
(i �
. 9 ? s w _ - i � - . _
, J e.C. �`" .C ,- ' '
.. i� _ .. . ..
x �'
�? > -
< ? '� . . ". . _ _" � � � .
• �
": II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TRANSFER
In any franchise transfer, a number of considerations must be taken into
account, including the following:
. Whether the transferor has been, and currently is, in
compliance with the requirements of the existing franchise.
. Whether the transferee agrees to comply with the
requirements of the existing franchise, or wishes to change
any of the franchise terms.
. Whether the transferee is legally, financially and technically
qualified to operate the cable system.
. What impact the transfer may have on cable subscribers and
the franchising municipality (e.g., the impact upon subscriber
rates or quality of service). .
. What conditions, if any, the franchisor can legitimately
impose upon the transfer.
These issues are reviewed in this report.
A. Transfer and Ownership Structure
The FCC Form 394 lists the transferor of the franchise as:
' Med'+aOne Graup, Inc.
188 Inverness Drive West
Englewood, CO 80112.
The transferee is listed as:
, AT&T Corp.
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10013-2412.
Appendix B contains a number of articles from leading trade journals
which describe the proposed AT&T/MediaOne acquisition. The Merger
Agreement between AT&T and Media One was executed May 6, 1999, and as
can be noted, has generated considerable interest and speculation within the
cable and telecommunications industries.
Figure 1 indicates the basic structure of the proposed merger and
acquisition.
2 ,
,: _
_ — �;. • _
, �;: . _
�=, —
�
�
; `s
: �,
".< -
J :',�,
.� x . : .
J, :' - _ � ., .
�
C .�� ' , . � . .
1 1 �.�:( �, . . ' " _ . .
� �
FIGURE 1
MERGER STRUCTURE
Before the Merqer ATBT Coro. and MediaOne Grouo. Inc. are seoarate and
unrelated coroorate entities.
MediaOne
ATB�T Corp. � Group, Inc.
�
MediaOne Group Inc merqes into Meteor Acquisition Inc with Meteor
Acauisition Inc survivina the Merger and MediaOne Groua Inc ceasina to
exist:
� � MediaOne � Meteor Meteor
_ � Group, Inc. � Acquisition, Acquisition.
� j fnc. � Inc.
i '
After the Merqer Meteor Acquistion. Inc. becomes a subsidiar� of ATBT
Cor .
AT&T Corp.
I
Meteor
� Acquisition,
Inc.
3
, � . _>- ..
„
� �"��� �,
x . �
� ; :�
�
�1
� . �
�� p �
.l�'..:.. _ ' .. .
J: iI.
.., ,,. . '. . , .
. / �.'.;.; . . ':� ' ...:- .. _ ' .
M �
> ��
��
!J -
1� ~� _ - ... .
/Y �
F . � f � .
' . '�} .. .. . ' . . . '
� �
AT&T has fo�med a new wholly-owned subsidiary, Meteor Acquisition,
Inc., into which MediaOne Group, Inc., will be merged. The surviving entity will
be Meteor Acquisition. Inc., and at the transaction closing MediaOne Group will
cease to exist.
Meteor Acquisition wifl then operate as an AT&T subsidiary, perheps with
a new name. In any event, AT&T will have 100% ownership and full control over
MediaOne's cable systems, including the cable system serving the City.
• While the proposed acquisition is relatively simple in form, a number of
complex issues will arise at the federal, state and local levels, including the
- following:
(1) When AT&T Corp. acquired TCI some months ago, it
indicated that a priority objective is to utilize TCI's cable
systems (upgraded as appropriate) to deliver "last mile"
' interconnection for AT&T's �ong-distance voice and data
services. Currently, as an example, a long-distance call
from New York to San Francisco uses AT&T's network for
most of the route, but must interconnect with local Bell
carriers at the origination and termination areas, which are
served by the local exchange carriers. The Bell companies
extract a substantial charge (about one-third of AT&T's
revenues) for this interconnection, and AT&T has
investigated a number of options to reduce these charges,
and has concluded that cable systems can serve as this "last
mile," and, further, ihat if AT&T owned these systems, it
effectively could greatly minimize or even eliminate local
interconnection charges.
P�esumably, this objective also would appiy to the pending
acquisition of MediaOne. Ownership of both cable
operators' systems theoretically would allow ATBT to offer
local telephone service, in competition with the local Bell
operating company or GTE, to about 16-19,000.000 cable
' subscribers, which in tum represents about 50-60,000 000
households. Furthermore, ATBT has agreements with Time
Warner and Comcast to offer telephony services on their
cable systems, and is negotiating agreements with other
major cable operators.
(2) AT&T has indicated that it is prepared to invest substantial
funds into accelerating the upgrade of both TCI's a�d
MediaOne's cable systems (at least those in metropolitan
area "clusters"). Estimates of such funds range up to S10
a
� -- - --- •,
`��
�-
r - - .
�
, �, • -
; .��, _
� Y
' .. �� �
S L
�.� . . � ... � .
/�
l� ,
. . . �. .... .. - .. . . I
I
, �
billion dollars in the next few years.
Generally, such upgrades include constructing 750
Megahertz (MHz) "fiber-to-the-node" systems, plus
' installation of appropriate switching and control equipment
where local telephony service will be offered.
(3) While AT&T's acquisition of TCI proceeded relatively quickly,
the proposed acquisition of MediaOne may encounter more
regulatory delays. For exampie, the number of househoids
that AT&T would serve might exceed the limits that
' previousiy have been imposed (but not enforced) by the
Federa! Communications Commission. Furthermore,
intense lobbying by the local Bell Operating Companies and
GTE has a�ready begun, in an attempt to have the
MediaOne acquisition disapproved or substantially modified.
(4) Extraneous issues have arisen with respect to AT&T which.
while not directly related to the proposed MediaOne
acquisition, could result in further delays. Prominent in this
category is the question of "open access" to other Internet
Service Providers (ISP's), that first arose during the ATBT
acquisition of TCt (see Section E. below).
(5) The acquisition of MediaOne may lead to a number of
subsequent cable system transfers. AsAppendix C
indicates, "AT&T has agreed to a swap in which Charter
� would get the Los Angeles and St. Louis cable systems
owned by MediaOne Group." If true, this means that ATBT's
acquisition of MediaOne in the City would be the first step of
a two-step process, and a subsequent request to the City to
consent to a second step franchise transfer to Charter, will
- be forthcoming.
B. Transferee Qualifications
Since for the time being, MediaOne will remain in place as the cabie
• system operating entity (although under a different name), and it is being
acquired by an entity with greater fi�ancial resources, it would be di�cult, if not
impossible, to demonstrate that the transferee does not possess the necessary
financial and technical qualifications to manage the MediaOne cable systems.
Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of the City's "due diligence"
responsibilities, and also to provide information as to the possible scope of
� activities of the newly merged organization, it is useful to examine AT&T's
qualifications and experience.
. 5
.,_ ..,-.. . _... __...,_ .
ti
,,� �
's '
i _
.� �.:s
i �
r .� `
,�
'2
�
�
�. .
�•: ..
.. k:, � . � - , - ' �..
��-
., �_' _ , - ' i .
�
�
• #
(1) Leqal Qualifications
' The Telecommunications Act of 1996 repealed the 1992 Cable AcYs
prohibition of transfer of cable systems owned for less than three years. Thus,
MediaOne can legally sell any system it acquired less than three years ago,
subject to each City's consent to transfer the franchise.
With respect to AT&T, the transferee, so long as the operating entities are
qualified to do business in California, and are not subject to media cross-
ownership or FCC size prohibitions, no legal barrier exists to the assumption of
the franchise. '
. (2) Financial Qualifications .
AT&T is one of the largest U.S. corporations, Extracts from its most
recent financial statement, for the 1998 calendar year, are contained in Appendix
D, and indicate the following performance:
Figures Rounded
Revenue � 53.2 billion
Eamings before interest, taxes.
depreciation and amortization g 13.4 billion
(EBITDA)
Operating Income $ 7.5 billion
Net Income $ 6.4 billion
Operating Cash Flow $ 10.2 billion
ATBT's balance sheet, as of December 31, 1998 (see Appendix D) lists
the following:
Total Assets 5 59.6 billion
Total Liabilities S 34.0 billion
Shareholders' Equity 5 25.6 billion
(Assets minus Liabilities)
Thus, AT&T's sales, operating cash flow and net worth are approximately
an order of magnitude greater than those of MediaOne. AT&T must be
considered as financially qualified to operate MediaOne's cable systems.
g .
r -.m�+�- �... : , ,.r —� �- - - - ,
,r ..,, +��� �. . . � .
4 2. � _ . _ . . .
se' t ., .
:,h ``
1, � �= /� _
, 'i
r �, fi
'" .4 ..,', � . .
h+
� .. .'� . _ � " , �
?k :
. : i ,
� ti _
-�""} _ . . , .
.�✓� ��",� � lnyl - �.
I � �
� 1 ..
/ 7 ♦ ! _ ✓'i � . � .
� z f u .�' � "
� _ >
'. � ` _. , �� . .- .
.,
� �
(3) Technical Qualifications
" AT&T, in addition to its core long-distance voice and data services, has
substantial interests in a number of telecommunications areas, including the
following:
. Management of cable systems previously operated by TCI.
. Wireless and wired voice and data services. 1n 1997, ATBT
- acquired Teleport Communications Group. Inc. (Teleport)
which has fiber optic network facilities in 66 U.S.
metropolitan areas.
. On-line computer data and Internet Protocol services.
. Network technology and integration, including the
deployment of Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) .
facilities.
. Intemational telecommunications.
, With this background, it is clear that AT&T has the technical qualifications
, to operate the MediaOne cable systems. It should be noted, however, that prior
to the TCI acquisition, AT&T's core services have not included video
programming and distribution, which are the key characteristics of cable systems.
In the future, as a possibility, there may be some conflict in priorities as to which
� services receive the most resources.
For the short-term, however, the acquisition by ATBT should be .
"transparenP' to cable subscribers.
C. Comaliance with Existinq Franchises
It is beyond the scope of this report to determine whether issues exist with
respect to possible MediaOne non-compliance with the requirements of the
� existing franchise. If, in the City's opinion, any significant non-compliance issue
exists, this should be settled prior to or concurrent with, the City's granting of �
consent. A less desirable option is for the City, in the transfer resolution, to .
specifically reserve all rights to determine whether a non-compliance issue has
existed, and resolve the issue with the transferor or the transferee or both.
Y D. Otherissues
A number of other issues are related to the transfer, including the
following:
�
� :-� -, . i . . � , -
� ,_� _ .�_ �-.
.� _
.. ; .�... _ .
7 3 , �
_ }_-:
_ . .
, ... .. . , .
s_: .. . , , _, : _ . . - . .. �
#. : .
,�
. �.
. ; . .
�. " - _ _ . .
F . ' �
, 'F s . l
�. . � r: i .. ' . .
[ �' �' .. . - � ' . . ' ,.
� �
(1) Imaact uaon Subscribers and the Citv
' (a) Cable Rates
In the past, when cable systems have been sold, almost universally the
sales have been followed by increases in subscriber rates, by which the buyer
attempted to recover as much of the purchase cost as rapidly as possible. Since
rates were unregulated, substantial rate increases were not uncommon. In fact,
` many systems were sold at abnormally high prices, with the buyer's expectation
that almost any price could be recovered relatively quickly.
With the passage of the 1992 Cable Act and the FCC rate regulations
implementing the AcYs policies, some limited constraints have been placed on
� basic service rates, at least. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, has
deregulated rates for all "upper tiers" of basic service on March 31, 1999.
Consequently, MediaOne and ATBT are free to charge what the market
will bear for all levels of service beyond the basic tier, without the City having any
� significant ability to influence rates. The intent of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act was to encourage competition, and if this occucs, cable rates may be limited
by market forces. If no meaningful competition occurs, substantial rate increases
may well take place. However, these increases could come whether or not
MediaOne is acquired by AT&T.
Trade journal articles (Appendix B) value the AT&T acquisition of
MediaOne at about �4 600 aer subscriber. This is substantially higher than
cable systems were selling for, even as recently as one year ago. Much of the
increase in asset value can be attributed to the anticipated development of new ,
revenue streams from Internet access and telephony services. These new
services, however, may take considerable time to develop. In the interim, there
may be some significant upward oressure on cable subscriber rates. Where
competition exists, such as the availability of Direct Broadcast Sateltite (DBS)
service, rate increases may be held in line, to a limited extent.
It should be noted that the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act gives
local governments the right to consider the potential impact on subscriber rates in
considering whether to grant consent to a franchise transfer. The Report of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce (June 29, 1992) contains the
legislative history of Congressional intent with regard to the 1992 Cable Act. The
portion of the Report addressing Section 617 (Sales of Cable Systems) states:
"The Committee intends that the FCC Regulations will be designed
to ensure that every franchising authority receive the information
required to begin an evaluation of a request for approval of a sale
or transfer. Such information mav include detailed financial
information showinq the effect of the hansfer or sale on rat and
services, the contracts and agreements underlying the sale or
8
'l F : � l ' T . .r��r '. - . .
f t
�
' �
. S` :. . . - . . ..
�
r
, � x �
r� '� .. ' . . .
l, �
i - . r_ � . - � � �.
! .�+� _ - . . . ' . '
l'
r �
L
� ,�
1 .
� �
transfer; information concerning the legal, financial and technical
qualifications of the transferee, and information concemina the
transferee's olans for expandina (or eliminatinal services to
subscribers This amendment is not intended to limit, or give the
FCC the authority to limit, locai authority to require cable operators
provide additional information or guarantees with respect to a cable
sale or transfer" (emphasis added).
� It is reasonable to conclude that Congress would not say that a franchising
authority may examine the impact on rates (or services), but is then powerless to
act upon the results of that examination.
(b) Qualitv of Service
Afthough the personnel operating the MediaOne cable systems, in the
main, are expected to continue in place for the short term, on a longer term basis
the quality of service will reflect AT&T, as well as its subsidiaries.' Compared to
most cable operators, AT&T's perceived delivery of high quality of service
exceeds that of the cable industry.
Furthermore, if and when AT&T offers telephone services over its cable
system, the reliability and quality of such service will have to match that of the
telephone industry, particularly in a competitive environmenL
' � (c) New Services
As noted', ATBT intends to provide new services over its acquired cabie
- systems. At this time, the services of most interest are hyh-speed (cable
modem) Intemet access services and local telephone service to complement its
lonq-distance service.
With respect to Internet access, a controversy has arisen as to whether
AT&T (and other cable operators) should be reauired to provide "open access" to
other ISP's. AT&T, for example, offers the "@Home" Internet service, but some
consumer organizations and some cable industry competitors (most notably,
America Online, GTE and the Bell Companies) want the cable systems to permit
other ISP's to be the provider of choice (e.g., the consumer would not have to
purchase @Home and AOL in order to have AOL service).
When AT&T acquired TG, the City of Portland, Oregon and surrounding
Multnomah County conditioned their consent to the franchise transfer upon AT&T
"opening" its cable systems to other Internet access providers, apart trom the
proprietary @Home service that TCl/AT&T offers. AT&T sued in �ederal court to
' This assumes lhat, at least for the short term, the cable syslem wi�l not be trans(erred to another
operator, such as Charter.
9
, �,... - - - _
� _,
`' -':� "
� r
^' - I
r. �
: "� . ' ' - � ti� �
y �
: t - : �,
t i''�' - :�7 � � .
"s.:' _ " �. l
rr... f
s. ',� - . � . � ..
r .:� � _ - .. ..
� � _
� � .
� � �
.. - � .. . . . � �
�
� �
invalidate this condition un the transfer consent. The District Court ruled that the
Gity and County did have the authority to impose this condition. Specifically, the
Court ruled that "local franchising authorities have the power to determine
whether a change of ownership or control would 'eliminate or reduce
competition'," and further, that "The franchising authority's power to prohibit a
change of control includes the lesser power to impose conditions under which it
will permit a change of control."
AT&T is appealing this decision. Regardless of the outcome, it appears to
open the door for greater local authority with respect to a city's transfer consent
decisions. Rather than simply rubber-stamping a transfer request, as the cable
industry prefers, a city can legitimately take into account such factors as
competitiveness, as well as community impact. This would lead logically to the
City's ability to question a potential transferee on these issues, and to expect
responsive answers.
Since the Portland decision, other cities have entered inta the argument.
Appendix E indicates the type of discussions now going on in such Cities as San
Francisco and Denver.
While any municipality can determine whether it wishes to be proactive on
this issue, it should be noted that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court has scheduled an
expedited hearing of AT&T's appeal, beginning in October 1999, with a decision
- anticipated by years' end.
(d) Impact uoon the Citv
With respect to potential impact upon the City, one major area of
uncertainty is whether the franchise fee will apply to revenues generated from
non-video (i.e., telecommunications) services delivered over cable system
facilities.
Cable operators in general, including MediaOne, have agreed that Internet
access provided on a cable system can be considered a"cable service" and
subject to franchise fees, but only until a court of competent jurisdiction or federal
; government agency decides otherwise. The reason that virtually all cable
operators agree to this is to counter a finding that such services are
telecommunications services and, quite possibly, that cable operators should
therefore be classified as common carriers and regulated at the State level. The
°'open access" issue has the potential to fall into this category.
When AT&T offers telephonv over its cable systems, however, the issue
cannot be delayed since telephone service historically is a common carrier
service. Consequently, there may be new regulatory determinations that define
� This is consistent with Caiifomia Revenue and Taxalion Code, Section 65004�c).
10
/} ' � TT � ,
I Y G
9 . !
/ � �� �
��.�^a .. � , 'Il�. ��1���`AyC1i^' �
J'�.� _ ... �
ij _, -
, ' i t i i `,Q . . .
. . ., t - . _ ' , .
i .r�, � �.�_ . . .
4 .. -
r
' • � !''' ' . ' _ .
� �
cable systems as common carriers, at least where those systems offer
telecommunications services.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local governments to treat
a11 telecommunications providers in a competitivefy neutral and nondiscriminatory
manner. Therefore, the argument goes, if the municipality cannot collect
franchise fees from the local Bell Operating Company (and this is the case in
, California), then it cannot collect franchise fees from any competitor of the BOC.
such as a cable system offering telephone service.
A"worst case" scenario for the City might be, therefore, a determination
that tioth Internet access and telephony services are telecommunications
services rather than cable services and, in Califomia, preempted from local
' regulation. If this occurs, it is likely that the City wili not be able to collect
franchise fees on this new revenue.
: (e) Increased Competition
if AT&T's objectives are implemented, there would be significant
competition in some geographic areas to the local BOCs in tefms of voice and
' data services. This may well result in rate reduction and, perhaps, better quality ,
of service to the consumers.
In the area of video programming deiivery, however, it is not expected that
this acquisition will affect MediaOne's near-monopoly in the franchise area of
interest. Therefore, unless and until new competitors exist, cable service
apparently will continue on a"status quo" basis. ,
' (2) Citv Reservation of Riahts
Even if it appears that MediaOne is in substantial compliance with the
terms of the current franchise, there could be some contingent liabilities that are
� not immediately apparent. For example, there may be some past franchise fee
underpayment.
Since the transfer consent request contains timetables that are primarily
' for the'convenience of the transferor and transferee, if the City accommodates
�. these timetables, it should not be expected to waive its rights to recover any
monies due. Conseque�dy, a reservation of rights, as part of the transfer
consent, appears to be appropriate. Altematively, if the transferee will agree to
assume any potential liability, this would resolve the issue.
' It is noted that "traditional" telephone service over cable systems is already regulated at the �
State IeveF in California. For exampie, MediaOne has already obtained a"certificate of
convenience" from the State Public Utilities Commission to provide telephone service Service
provided under the certificale (using the facilities of lhe cable system) would not be regulated by
the City.
11
� � .-.. - �-r� r .! "' �
y: ;e
r�� �� ti ' ' - .
f/r(y�. 3 �.'. C � � . .
n l � 'i � �-{i I T ,' �ft
� Kr,�^'.. r . . L _ •
7 +� � 1 y� '
l r t; ,
♦
l �
� 4
Zi
I yy4
I s �.' � ' _ . . ,
`,�.
( . `� �� /
` ," �
' r�� - f �,� ' . . � ' .
i �
� ._'�
r „ t ,.... . . .
� �
(3) Reimbursement of Costs
Franchise transfers are becoming much more frequent than in the past,
and probably will be even more frequent in the foreseeable future, because of
rapidly changing technology and �egulation, and the development of new
' services that are aimed at large "clusters" of subscribers, rather than individual
communities. As noted, the City may receive another franchise transfer request
in the near future.
There is an ongoing trend for the larger cable companies (or new entrants)
to acquire smal�er systems that can enhance their coverage in selected
geographic areas, and also for the large companies to "swap" systems that they
own, that might be located away from their major seroice areas, for other
systems that are closer. Furthermore, even a very large cable operator may be
acquired, as in the recent case of TCI and, currently, MediaOne.
Since a transfer is primari{y for the benefit of the buyer and seller, and
since municipalities have no control over when such a transaction may occur, or
how many times it occurs during a franchise term, this process can hardly be
termed a normal regulatory function, whose costs would be absorbed by
franchise fee revenue. Because of this, it appears perfeclVy justifiable for the City
to require reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket costs to evaluate and
� process the transfer, as a condition of the transfer.
' 12
� Y•- -e• -= _
. `��
� 6 r ; , :; .
I ? ' �� / � �� ✓ K T • •
N. 1 � .
1 � .'.� � < ' t�...
t � �
.� r - �-` � . . � , -
� f
i � � -
S ~`
I � �� ,-� � , � � � � � � .
I "� �` ± �" ; - � _ .
�, � l b r,i/
.'� r�i �_�� �' . ' '��'�t �
; ' 1
,, ; � r
�e . ` „ s�. „
�
. e . , �: � � ' i t
. ;� - v n �' E
,-, ^, � �
. J: ; a.., r.. � ` ..� r � _ - . .
t', `��.j� 1 r � .. . •� . ,
Y
�t ' v�
�
� �. '.�'�v�,`" : � . �"�` . ' . . .,. " .
. !
� �
Iil. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the preceding evaluation, the following conclusions are reached:
(t) The City should confirm that the current franchisee,
MediaOne, is in full compliance with the requirements of the
existing franchise. If any significant non-compliance is
perceived, this should be resolved prior to the City granting
consent to the transfer.
, (2) Neither the transferor (MediaOne) nor the transferee (AT&T)
has requested any change to the existing franchise
agreement.
(3) AT&T, the transferee, is qualified to continue to operate the
MediaOne cable system. Indeed, the current MediaOne
operational structure is expected to remain in place, at least
for the near future.
(4) The apparent benefits of the proposed acquisition include:
. A probable shortening of the time required for
MediaOne cable system upgrades due to AT&T
investment of funds, and possibly an improvement in
, upgrade reliability and quality.
. In some areas; the introduction of competition into the
local telephone markets.
(5) The possible downside of the acquisition is the issue of
whether telecommunications revenues provided over the
AT&T cable systems will be subject to tranchise fees, and
whether certain competition may be diminished (e.g.,
Internet access services).
(6) Taking all the factors of this review into consideration, there
appears to be no significant justification to deny consent to
the proposed transfer. The resolution granting such
" consent, however, should contain a reservation of rights.
(7) The City should require reimbursement of its processing and
evaluation costs connected with the transfer. ,
� MediaOne has completed an upgrade in Lynwood, but additional improvements would be
necessary to be able to offer telephony services.
13
.r l �lC'� .l�' �< . '
/ i V . � �� V " S . �. _
w r��:)Y� �"�.. :� Y�= . . � .
•Y N �f ,. MhM�,�nJ�.•i / % v , . . '
. F r '/.. _� .
l. _ �
".i�
!'�� r . . . ' � � � -
. .
<�� �
� �-� 4 _ � . ,
f
y j i
� � *
A�
�C�Jj . � J
,�, � .
A �
J.� � r
� _.
.
+�,� � , .
�`
���s4 .� -
� f-i �' �n � � .
b� ' " 1 n . / . - - .
��r _ _
f '�� T --:.: �� :^.��� � - -
� �
' IV. TRANSFER RESOLUTION
Appendix F contains a proposed transfer resolution submitted by
MediaOne.
The provisions appear to be routine. TMC recommends the following
. modifications:
(a) A specific reservation of City rights should be included in the
resolution, particularly with respect to any unknown
MediaOne non-compliance issues.
(b) The consent should be conditioned upon reimbursement of
the City's out-of-pocket processing and evaluation costs.
` �a
�., ,, t ..��--�- - . S _ .
{ 1 q �.� r ,_�. ' . 7 ;� - r , r < .. . . ' � . � . � ' .
r :'e .y r . . i .
ri/4 .�.:13 �, - L ' .
i ��
r ., i y
) S ' � 1 � .
.� -M1w
/I ;� _
J
aJ ti ; ;
� ..��:� , t . . � � - .
��
i
f f r :� �
� . � � �� �' . . , . �
L� ;� �-
� hj4� ' .. . �� . . .
l I ,�
�, �'.�� � .';� ' .
•� J
. /, '!� . � . - _ ` � .
� �� $ _
• !
'
APPENDIX A
' 120-DAY LIMITATION ON TRANSFER ACTION
,. _ ,__� _.___, - -
r� .
�x -
�µ ,
r �
,;,
�� :.�� _ - � �
.:
�'
,�, _ .
�. - .
�
�
. •.
�. �� : � ,: �.
,
. � - :;
.. , ... - , _
�. . .
�
,
� �
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
§617 j47 USC 537] Sales of Cable Systems
� A franchising authority shall, if the franchise requires frenchising authority approval of a sale or transfer.
have 120 days to act upon any request for approval oF such sale or transfer that contains or is
accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations and by'he
franchising authority. If the franchising authority fails to render a final decision on the request wlthin 120
_ days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the �ranchisinq authority
agree to an extension of time.
r c � T _._.. .
. -
�,
4 '. �,_� ' _ '
! :�' r . _ � � .
_' '� . - . . � , �
�,
.�} ' � . � .. .
.' q : . � ( i . . . .
.'�S - r ' . 1 .
� ..�� , � t !,' .
� > ,`
"`ir :., s _ � �':� .. ` .
t
: :..� �.S .. ' ' . . � �.
{+ - �
� c � � -
, � �
APPENDIX B
, - ATBT ACQUISITION OF MEDIAONE
TRADE ARTICLES
� •
• <Fr- �..,. --_ _
,
� f ' � �`
� �� �i
. ,. � �
�� /
r. ' " r . - =
/j '.'.,� �.. ' ' . .
�
� 1 [
! , '�q'�� � , - . . , .
' '� . �\t���� •
t { f � �.
{, "r°1 _ � .
i 4.'.;� - ' . .
,'�
°, 14�N " . .. . ' .
Y :
p *f-. �
f�
.. _��X . . � � . ' . � ' �
[vlultichannel News: Search Results Yage 1 ot�
• �
: Multichannel
ONLINE
Document 11 of 25: [Previous Document�[Next Documentj [Retum to Results Listl L`e�� Ouen l
AT&T TRUIVIPS COMCAST BID
TCI's Buyer Nlakes $62B Unsolicited Offer for MediaOne
. By MIKE FARRELL April 26, 1999
AT&T Corp. Is trying to wrest MediaOne Group Inc. away from Comcast Corp., submitting an unsolicited bid
that ATST figures is 17 percent higher than what Comcast agreed to pay a month ago.
AT8T said last Thursday that its offer was S62 billion, made up of a mix of cash, stock and assumed debt.
� There were other sweeteners, too. Unlike ComcasPs proposal, the ATBT bid includes stock with voting
, privileges. ATB�T also said it would raise the cash component by up to 53.5 billion if ATBT's stock price falls.
The Comcastbid had no such provision.
The nonvoting nature of the stock and the absence of downside protection had put off a key hlediaOne
shareholder -- Amos Hostetter, the former Continental Cablevision Inc. chairman, who sold that A1S0 to what
was then called U S West Media Group in 1996.
Hostetter revealed last week that he opposed the Comcast offer and he backs the AT&T bid. He would become .
lhe AT&T cable unit's nonexecutive chairman if its offer prevails.
' Comcast had no public response at press time.
The drama -- lhe first such situalion in memory for the cable industry -- could play out unt�l D.1ay 26: �lediaOne
has until May 6 lo accept or reject AT&T's offer, and Comcast would have five days to match it. hlediaOne
could then wait until May 26 to decide which offer to accept, officials said last week.
AT&T made its surprise offer April 22, one month after Comcast announced its agreement !o buy MediaOne for
what was calcutated then at about 360 biilion.
As part of that agreement, MediaOne had 45 days in which to accept a competing offer. �Vhile ATBT and olher
MSOs were known to be interesled in MediaOne, most analysls thought it unlikely that a rival bid would
emerge.
"This was a bold move," said Scott Cleland; managing director of legg �lason Wood \Valker's Precursor
Group, "but it fits with their wantirig to have a larger cable footprint."
AT&T said the main driver behind the deal was increasing its presence in the broadband m2�ket. VJith
- MediaOne, lhe long-distance carrier could be a major force in local telephony and high•sDeed Internet service
virtually overnight.
The deal would create a cable powerhouse with 16 million subscribers -- 18.5 miilion countino htediaOne's 25
percent stake in Time Warner Entertainment -- as well as a signifiwnt presence in the high-speed Internet
http://ww�v.multichannei.comhveekly/1999/18!att l8.htm 3 . %99
_� `
��` � ; �
� ,� � p �
.
'�'� .,.� :,
ja �
, � -
. -
� �
� �� �:
V i;€ - ;- `
T ; � ,
�� , �._�. . ; 1 .. .. . . .
�.�
� fi'� �
� l ..0 .� . . .
;��4� . .. ..
_.� ti
F �.�-' t .. y - . / ' .
_. ��,,;•. ...�t. ... . . _. . .'�V.
Multichannel News: Search Results Fa�e ? of �
� �
market and a growing presence in digital telephoriy.
, MediaOne is a paRner in the Road Runner high-speed Intemet service, whlch has about 250.000 subscribers.
Coupling that with AT8Ts interest in @Home Network, which has 460,000 subscribers in North America, ATBT
coufd become even more of a dominanl force in the market.
And although the company may have been able to get the same synergies by forming a joint venwre with
MetliaOne, rather than buying it outright, that apparently wasn't a consideration here.
ATBT has struck deals to form several joint telephony ventures, including an agreement with Time Warner Inc.,
but chairman C. Michael Armstrong said they are not working out as expected.
"Joint ventures are running into di�culty in defining the scope,' Armstrong said. 'We're having problems
separating the voice and data applications. Technology and time are converging them. ICS very difficult to
structure a joint venture around any single one of these. We did not try to negotiate a joint venture with
MediaOne."
Armstrong did say that the negotiations with Time Warner are going smoothly, and that the deal is expected to
ciose soon. The MediaOne deal could even strengthen that relationship, he added.
SG Cowen Securities Corp. cable analyst Gary Farber was asked last Friday whether he thought that Comcast
would try to top ATBT.
"ThaPs the big question," he said. "IPs hard to know what they wouid come back with. If I had toguess. I would
say that they come back with something. Ifs more logical that they would come b2ck with a coupie of panners."
Farber noted that ComcasPs stock rose modestly Friday -- an indication that investors were uncertain about
ComcasCs next move.
"The one thing that you can say is once you let go of these properties, you can't get them back." he added.
Janco Partners analyst Ted Henderson said in a report last Fnday that he didn't expect Comcast to cet into a
bidding war with AT&T. "Now: this is like the AT&T of old -- the one wilh the 'Reach out and crush someone'
. attilude," he wrote.
., MediaOne confirmed receipt of AT&T's proposal, but it declined further commenL
"We have received the proposal from ATBT, and it is currently under review.' MediaOne spokesman Steve
Lang said.
` If MediaOne accepts the offer, AT&T would add about 5 million subscribers clustered in some of !he 12rgest
markets in the country. MediaOne also has a significant digita6telephony operation, with about 24,000 �
subscribers, that should lit in well with ATBT's telephony goals.
The combined ATBT/MediaOne would have 72 percent of its subscribers in the top 15 markets in the natic+n.
In addilion, those rop 15 markets would average about 300.000 subscribers apiece. with the top 10 averaging
500,000.
ATBT would also get MediaOne's 25 percent stake in TWE, the cable and programming partnership with Time
' Warner. TWE has about 10 million cable subscribers.
One source familiar with discussions beriveen Time Warner and AT&T said Time Wamer would not attempt to
blockAT&T's bid for MediaOne.
� http:/hvw�v.multichannel.com/weekly/1999/18%attl8.htm 3`_i99
-r,..�_ � , .. , , .. �-- �
�t : �
,, -
Y'
F .5.4 �.5. - .
� i.
? ���,� �' �� -
' ^ . .' . � _ - ... .
a .
Y -
, � . . . � �__ .
:,. :p� . - - .
'� r... _ .
i e
K _ - �
�: . F
'Y � . �. . , ' t . .
- {
' Multichannel Ivews: �earcn tcesu��s .�= �: ,
• •
The source said the TWE partnership might get dissolved, with Time Warner taking full control of the content
assets, including Home Box O�ce. Time Warner and MediaOne had talked about restructuring the partnership,
6ut they could not agree on terms.
The proposal',works out to about $87.38 per MediaOne share, with 530.85 in cash and 0.95 shares of AT&T
' stock for each share of MediaOne. AT&T also would assume $4.5 biilion in MediaOne debt.
MediaOne has about 660 million shares outstanding, making the deal worth S58 billion, not including
assumption of debt. If MediaOne accepts the deal, it would also have to pay Comcast a 51.5 billion breakup
fee.
AT&T is partly financing the deal through a 530 billion credit facility arranged by Goldman Sachs & Co.'s
Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. and Chase Manhattan Corp. Goldman and Chase have each committed
$5 billion
The AT&T shares would also pay dividends, unlike the Comcast stock that was offered_
' There would be some dilution to AT&T shareholders — something that Armstrong and AT8T Broadband 8
Internet Services president Leo J. Hindery Jr. had said might deter them from making other deals as big as
ATBT's 555 billion buyout of Tele-Communications Inc.
' Armstrong said the profit impact would be about 30 cents per share for existing shareholders -- an amount that
he characteriied as insignificant.
Comcast had proposed to swap 1.1 shares of its class A special common stock for each btediaOne share. At
the lime, the deal was valued at 572.88 per share.
ATBT's oFfer also includes a collar of S85 per share, protecting MediaOne stockhoiders in the event of a
decline in the price of AT8T stock. That could add 53.5 billion in cash to the purchase price.
" ComcasCs ofier had no collar protecting MediaOne shareholders from a Cecline in Comcast's stock
Although many analysts touted the Comcast deal as a good one for both companies. RlediaCne's largest
shareholder -- Hostetter, with 9.3 percent of the company's outstanding stock -- apparently objected to the lack
of voting power.
In a documenl filed with the U S. Securities and Exchange Commission April 22. Hostetter stated that he
approached ATBT April t about making a counteroffer for MediaOne.
' According to Uie (iling, Hostetter wrole to MediaOne management hlarch 25. expressinq his dispieasure that
Ihe Roberts family — the majoriry shareholders in Comcast -- would fiave 80 percent voting control of the
cornbined cornpany while holding less than 1 percent economic interest
Hostetter also objected to the lack of collar protection for MediaOne shareholders.
, If AT&T buysMediaO�e, Hostetter would become nonexecutive chairman of ATBT Broadband. and he would
gel a seat on AT&T's board of directors. .
Hostetler's role in lhe deal would mark the relurn of one of the most respected members of the cable
community, after a long absence.
'. Hostetter sold his Continenlal systems to U S West hledia Group �or about 510 billion Shortiy after the de21
went through; friction developed between Hostetter and U S West management, as the latter reneged on an
agreement lo keep the cable headquarters in Boston, Continental's base of operations.
. http://�v�vw.multichannel.com/�ceeklv/1999/18iatt18.htm 8.=%99
"'.�-'.
-..- _._._ _-, —
F
, .:�
�
'�� - .
`'.` •k:. , . _ . , _ ..
''' ,� . . . . .. . .
}'
1 1 '�
t .�
�'
�
�
�.. �� _. . - _
htultichannel News: Seazch Results r�-� � �� �
• �
Hostetter resigned from the company, which became MediaOne Group Inc. in 1997.
Armstrong said in a conference cali with analysts that Hostetter's role would be substantiai.
"The lhing that we have to deliver on is the execution of the company," Armstrong added. Brinoina Amos on.
board should be viewed as very much helping it to realize that execution. He will be involved in strategy going
forward and staKng gaing forward."
Hostetter's old friend, Hindery, was also happy to see him come on board.
"This probably is the best day oF my career in a long time,' Hindery said during the analyst call. 'Working with
Amos is like coming home."
Document t 1 of 25: [Previous Dacumentj_[Nect Documentl jRetum to Results Listl (Ne�ti Ouen•1
http://w�vw.multichanneLcom/weekly/1999/18/att I S.htm 8%3.99
v - . .f -� -- -
Y � _
, �,FS... . � .. • . . .
[� -
A. .
)• .�� .. ,/� `\ . .
I
( 1
.;�� L
:. � ,`
y _ �
.
, �..�� �' __
;� � .. __ .
. � _ _, .
Battle ofthe "I itans i�a�� i o� -c
, • �
� PROMO Mas�r�e�rtoflromotionMarketi�g �
� medi� 1 en�r�l � , < . . , . . �.�1i�1�16a1lE.CIM
�`v�is�or�d Battle of the Titans
AT8�T vs. Comcast
• By Cable World Staff
When AT&T Corp. CEO C. Michael Armstrong gave a lone-planned speech in
Philadelphia last week, no one knew whether he'd discuss his compan�'s last minute run to
outmaneuver Comcast Corp. with a$58 billion bid to acquire �IediaOne Corp.
But Amistrong, who appeared to be enjo}'ine his new role as a Cable Don. dre�� lauehter
with his opening reference to his hlediaOne bid: It was eood to be in Philadelphia. he said.
but "[ can honestly say [ cannot afford to come back."
� Atier Armstrone concluded his brief remazks. Comcast Corp. chairman Ralph J. Roberts .
approached the podium and offered his hand to Armstrone. a man .tiho has e� er. intent of
ripping M1lediaOne rieht out of Philadelphia-based Comcast's erasp.
The moment �casjust one small out-take from one of cable's best soap operas to dare.
Indeed, ro beat ATR I�, �chich last �tieek secured S30 biliion in financing that it needs to
" �;;�c thc cash portion of its bid for �lediaOne. Robens needs to find a deep-pocketed
tinanci:il tinancial partner, and soon.
l he companies most frequendc mentioned as potential partners for Roberts are :\meric❑
Online, Vulcan Ventures and �[icrosoft Corp.. �chich t.ro �ears aeo imested 51 billion in
ComcasC Comcast, controlled b� the Roberts famil}, aereed last month to purchase
`tediaOne in a deal estimated to be «orth about 5�1� billion.
''If Comcast ��ants to he a major placer." said Mark Carleton. a panner ��ith E�P\IG Peat
Mana'ick. "it's eoine ro have to come back ��'ith a counteroffer. 1 can see this becomine a
nast��. drawn-out battle."
� ln Phil��icl�hi:i. Arm�trong said his effort to outbid Comcast «as not moti� atcd h�
ancthine personal against the Roberts famil�. "I ha�e a huee respect for Brian and Ralph
Roberts. �� e«ork �en �tiell toeethec And I hace the hiehest reeard for Comcast."
Amistrone said. "This is not about Comcast. This is about �lediaOne and .-�TRT's passion
to be in the telephone business in a nationaf presence."
! Ic also denied that AT&:T pursued.�fediaOne because it had not been able to neeotiate
telephon}�/data deal �vith Comcast, hlediaOne and Cor Cable. Those \1SOs had in recent
months indicated that the}• ��'ouldn't sign such a deal, although Armstrone hinted last ��eek
that Ma Cable, as .AT&T is beine called b}� industr} pundits. ��ill continue to seek such
partnerships.
hltp;//w�vw.cable«•orld.com�articles/Ne�vs99/19 8•�'
_ , . . : .. . -:- - - _ .
i
f� .,:� � _ � � '-• -
r '. '�. . . . . , -
' _ . . .. . t . . . .
- . .. - . . � . i �
"� `
. . . . ._ . ..
` � . � .. . �} .
� :
r _� .�� - ._ _ - . . i .
' }' '
? .
. ' .c: * . . . - _ ' - � , .
ti , ,
13attic of thc 'I itans i-�'` - ui �
: � • .
"Going for MediaOne was based upon the very fundamental principle that to compete in
' the local (phone) market you must be facilities-based, and beine facilities-based then }ou ;
can control the architecture, access to the mazket, and the cosu and prices." rlrms[rone
said. "Can you fashion or form through a joint venture somethine that is similar? That
would be my hope, because I obviously can't affotd to buy all the cable companies in
America."
A key player in the saea could be Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures. «hich o�tirs s�stems
counting 3.4 million customers through Charter Communications. Vulcan made an
unsuccessful bid for MediaOne last summer and Allen o�tins 3°.'0 of hlediaOne's stock.
A co-founder of bticrosoft, Allen ceRainly is rich. Equall}• important ro the Roberts clan:
A deal with Allen mieht force them ro give up some equin� in Comcast, but it is unlikeh
they'd have to give up controL
Meanwhile, AOL chairman Steven Case hinted last week he's �villine to come to
Comcast's aid if it means curtailing AT&Ts burgeoning sveneth.
And althoueh Microsoft, which o�ms I I% of Comcast's stock. «•as mentioned as a
possible confederare, well-placed soutces said chairman Bill Gates alreadc has assured '
AT&T president Leo Hindery that Microsoft ��ill steer clear of the deaL
Arnistrone said on April 27 that. "In terms of AOL or �licrosoft or other companies. I sa��
them in the paper the last several da}•s. I onl}� tell }ou «e ha�e a territic relationship �vith
Microsott and we have been, from time ro time, in discussions �cith AOL."
tilediaOne and AT&T have until May 6 to come to a definiti�e aereement on a deal.
Comcast would have tive days to respond and another 21 da} s to draft a counter attack.
[f AT&T's bid shocked Comcast it didn't shock some ATR T insiders. �� ho said it «as
onh a matter of time before AT&T's Hinden� and Libert} \[edia chairman John \lalone
settled �chat mam� consider a long-standine score.
That sa�re d;ues hack to 19Q7. �chen TCI's founder Boh \lacness died and C��mca�t and
�licros���t maile a run at gainine control of TC[. Malone, considered to he the sinele must
powerlul man in the c�ble industn, tumed his back on the Roberts' clan as a result.
rind althoueh sources say �[alone e�•entuall}� softened his stand, the� also sa� Hinden and
Ma(one have continued to simmer over the Roberts' po«er pla}.
r\nother ke}� pla} er. Amos Hostetter. founder of Boston-based Continental Cable� ision.
��hicli he sold to ti(ediaOne in 199� for Sl 1.6 billion. If the ATRT deal eoes throueh.
Flostcttcr �could gain a seat on ATRT's board and «ould be named chairman of one oL its
Intemet-communications units.
:�n outsroken critic of AlediaOne's operations Hostetter -«ho «ith hi� �i�ter o��ns 1�° � of
NciliaOne shares - beean seeking a better proposal shortl� after the Roberts' offer. ! Ic
diddt ha�•e to look far.
http://��1vw.cable«�orld:com!articles/Ne�rs99l1999050302.htm 8 3%99 -
�, � -_ _
., ; � �:,
i
, ,�[ ' . .. . . .
. . . .�. _ � . . .. . . �
, . � . �� .. _ . .. � . .
� ;« ` _ � � ' .. .
�
. f �!� _ . ' ' .
�
:�
.'fl� • � � ' . . � . .
• n -
q
Battle of the Titans � '��'L� -' "� "
� � V
By April l, Nosretter - last year listed by Forbes as amone the nation's 400 ��ealthiest
Americans with a ne[ woRh of $2.6 billion - began talks with various other potential
bidders. including AT&T, accordine ro recent SEC filines. AT&T, w�hich had been
'. . snapping up cable properties over the past year, had wanted to bu}' �IediaOne. but failed
tu bea6 Comcast to the punch.
The combo of Hostetter's indusw ties and status as a stockholder, combined «ith
Armstrong's ability to raise money is a formidable partnership.
. That could be a bitter pill for MediaOne chairman Chuck Lillis, �rho frequentl} sparred
with Hostetter over how to run MediaOne. That dispute ended in 1996, «�hen Lil(is
severed Hostetter's ties to MediaOne and moved the companv s headquarters from Bosron
to Denver, leaving Hostetter without a company to run and displacing countless
employees.
"Amos Hostetter is a supporter." Armstrone said in a recent press conference regarding the
deal. °He will become part of the team. We have communicated this to \iediaOne."
Finativ. there's Time Warner Inc. chairman Gerald Le��in, a peripherai character, but
inteeral to the contesPs outcome. Time Warner and !�tediaOne aze uneas� partners in a
� alliance that dates back to when MediaOne boueht a 2�°% stake in Time «'amer
Entertainment in 1992. A key blo�v to that partnership «�as �IediaOne's attempt to derail
Time Wamei s acquisition of Tumer Broadcastine.
While Levin alreadv has a telephony deal �cith AT&T, he ma� be uncomfortahle ��ith the
company's ever-growine size and po�ver. StiIL Le� in. Hostetter and Hinden are
contempuraries, �chich may alleviate some of his discomfort.
Some analysts expect Comcast to seli [�IediaOne's stake in T«�E to help up its bid for
' hlediaOne. And AT�T has said that it'll do �chate� er it tal:es to ¢et federal appro� al for
.' the deal. including jettisonine the T�4'E stake. The most likel} bu�ec Time �� amer. ��hich
�vould tinall}' reeain control of assets that it has reeretted selfing.
� All this corporate �tiTaneline has dra��n federal reeulators' attention. .-�TRT's bid ��ould
overstep current FCC o«rership standards, a(thoueh those rules are under re� ie« b} the
- agenc}�.
The FCC's attrihution measures couid also hamper an} deals. l`nder those rules. �+hich
• also are under re� ie�c. an operator can't put more than �0°% of its o��n proeramming on its
s�•stems. The lustice Department and FTC are also espected to ��eigh in on the proposed
dcal.
�� mereer of am kind could also tbrce the FCC to address the open access issue.
GovemmenE o(iicials should �catch ATR I careCulh, said Greg Simon. tounder �f Simon
Strategies and the OpenNet Coalition. a eroup that's lobb} ine to force cable operators to
�'. open their net��orks to competinc lntemet access pro�'iders.
' R�hat's more, many analysts predict a mereer for Road Runner and 'a Home if :�T&T nins
http://ww�v.cableworld.corTU'articles�'News99/1999050302.htm 3 3,99
....._ .------°-- ----._-
_.. ...�.,-.,�.. .
r .,'.� ; .: `�
�
.i;�.. ,/
r
-. �S.
, '; -} .: '. , _-: _..
� �. . _. -
M ' .. .. . � . �
'�'� \ _ __._. . . . .
�:'i - . . . . . ' . _ .
4F
t ������ '� ��.. . . ..
�k
\ . ' :�;' � . . . .. . .
� �..4 T�: . . . . . ' ...
' . r `�,' . . .. ' ... . .
Battle of [he Iltans ' �� t'�'�'� ' �' ,
� �
the war for MediaOne. It could also spell the end of Road Runner, somc added. Still. a
Comcast triumph could turn the tables on @Home, particulazh• if �{icrosoft or AOL back
the MSO.
"Mike Armstrong could do what Wile E. Coyote couldn't do-kill the Road Runner."
quipped Gary Arlen, a new media analyst and consultant.
Microsofr remains a wild card, owning chunks of both Comcast and Road Runner, and the
software giant wants to maintain Road Runner's independence, broadband anal� st C�nthia
Brumfield said. Even if a Microsoft-backed effort by Comcast lost, she said. hticrosoft
, might try to use its influence in Road Runner to block a mer¢er of the high-speed access
. services.
If AOL gets involved, things could be even more n�isted. �Vith a stake in both �tediaOne
and Road Runner, as well as possibly Comcast, AOL could use its influence to s��itch
Corricast data subscribers from their current @Home sen�ice to a re��amped Road Runner.
That would give Road Runner the upper hand over @Home.
, Certainly, MediaOne has been more aegressive with its data stratee} than TCUATRT
° which had to cede some control of @Home lastmonth afrer it failed to meet subscriber
goals. MediaOne, on the other hand, added 30,000 ne«� Road Runner customers in the first
quarter for a total of 114,000.
, But in the end. some analysts say no one �cill benefit from an all-out biddine ��ar. Such a
battle could have a negatice impact on both Comcast and AT&T.
"Biddine ��ars are eood for no one but the selier," said Stephens [nc. anal} st John
� Corcoran. "AT&:T has to make an offer that thev perceice uodt cause the other side to
come back and better. They are eoine to �cant to a�oid a biddine ��az at all costs. You
don't �vant to be potential bu}ers in a biddine �caz."
K.0 ��'eel. Jim Bnrthold. Eric Glick and .dlan 8re=nick conrribiueci ro this storr.
(May 3, 1999)
More Cable World
I ��.�^i� premium incentives.
• Search � Contact Us � Home
' C�n�•ri;ht I')y9lntertec PunlishingC�rPoration,_,-1 �RI�IF.nla_CamPan}
http:/hv�v�v.cable«�orld.con�/articlesMe�cs99/ 1999050302.htm 3- 3199
r ... .� .. _ . -•- - .. . �-. . . .
� 1 y .
I � .•� . { . - . . �
/
1 �
a ( �
� � •�
) � I i
� s,Y, .
,�.'� :.i....:. , . ...:�... . . . .
� �� - . . � � • � .
j �
�
., ,�. i�. � . � ,
� . ��1 � . i � .. . . .
fvlultichaimel News: Jearch Kesuus .. ,'�-� � �' -
� �
� Your query ""2 million subscribers to ComcasY"' matched one out of � 15223 documents, sho«n
here.
��1e�y_Qu_errv•J f— —
AT&T WINS BATTLE FOR NIEDIAONE
Comcast Signs Off, Buys 2M Subs
By MIKE FARRELL May 10, 1999
Comcast Corp. and AT8T Corp. managed to avoid a melee in their battle for MediaOne Group Inc.. fashioning,
a deal that will put the Englewood, Colo.-based MSO in AT&Ts hands and transfer about 2 million subscribers
to Comcast.
Cnmc�st Gets:
• Nel 750,000 subscribers lor about 53 billion. or 54.500 per .
� . Subscnber. .
• Optlon on 125 million more subSCri�ers br aboul 35.6 Eillion.
� • Right to manage 1.5 million suCSCnben in Lenlest
. Communicalions �nt. syslems.
�� • Favorab�e tarms br ATST IeleOhony venWre.
• Breakup lee o� 51.5 6illion �
. :��StT �ifl5:
• MetliaOne antl several smaller systems.
• Attess �o Comcast customers �or IeleOhony. ,
- • MuCh Of ils Own 51ock Irom COm[a51 in SyStem tleal5. '
� • Totafconlrol of Lenlesl for 52.2 bipion in slock. -
TFie deal ends what could have escalated into an ugly fight for MediaOne. which, with 5 million subscribers,
was considered one of the cable industry's last remaining jeweis. MediaOne said last Thursday that �t signed a
definilive merger agreement to sell out to AT8T for about 556.4 billion in cash, srock and assumed debl.
The Comcast deal is a complicated one, involving system swaps and management agreements for anolher
MSO, lenfest Communications Inc.
In a separate move, ATBT purchased the half-interest in Lenfest it didn't already own for about 522 billion in
stock.
All in all, Comcast gets a group of highly clustered cable systems along the lucrative Philadelphia-to-
Washington, D.C., corridor, as well as a 51.5 billion deal-breakup fee from MediaOne.
' ATBT gets the prize it has long coveted MediaOne. The addition of that h1S0 vaults ATBT to the top of the
cable heap and furthers its strategy to provide bundled video, voice and data services to a vast number ot
consumers.
Once lhe MediaOne deal is closed, which is expected by the first quarter of next yezr. AT&T �.vill have access
to roughly 35 percent of the nation's cable customers. Inc�uding AteCiaOne and lenfest, ATBT w�ll have about
16.6 million subscribers, and its cable systems will pass 25 million homes.
� Considering the prize, ATBT didn't give up much. According to AT&T Broadband & Internet Services president
http:/hv�v�v.riiultichannel.com/weekly/1999'20/media20.htm 8:='99
� r _ -.
'� .
,�
� r; , _
� � . -
,
� =�
�
�
�� �
�. ;�; :� . r . . .
°6' c
A s. `
: r �
a r
i , � ( �`� _ .. �
� �
,� _
�. �,;._� - . ' - ..
1 ..s� ' ` .. l . ..
Multichannel News: Search Results �"�'-� = O "
• •
Leo J. Hindery Jr., AT&T will part with a net of about 800,000 subscribers upfront.
The olher 125 million customers will be delivered to Comcast over time, and they could be comprised of both
' existing subscribers and new acquisitions, including Lenfest.
'This is not emasculating at all to the MediaOne opportunity," Hindery said in a conference call with analysts
and reporters last week. "This wiil have a very strong and positive impact on our balance sheet. We are
disposing of nonstretegic assets at very effective pricing."
Comcast president Brian RobeRs was equally pleased with the outcome.
"This Is a marvelous resolulion for Comcast a�d our shareholders, as well as for AT8T,' Roberts said in the
conference call. "This is a very elegant win-win outcome.'
RobeRs added that the deal would increase the 5ize of Comcast's dusters, enabling the company ro accelerate
the rollout of new services.
SG Cowen Securities Corp. media analyst Gary Farber said the deal appears to be quite a coup (or Comcast.
'Comcast walks away with a great deal," Farber said. 'They get more cable customers at a similar valuation
(for MediaOnej, they get a cable-telephony agreement and they walk away with some cash. They are
substantially better off."
Farber added that the deal also shows the intelligence ofboth ATBTs and Comcast's management teams in
not wanting to get involved in a bitter, protracted battle for MediaOne.
Insight Communications Co. chairman Michael Willner agreed: "This had the potential [to be a bitter fightj
Level heads prevailed. Everybody got what they wanted.'
- The fight for MediaOne began last month when AT&T made an unsolicited 556.4 billion cash, stock and debl
bid, besting ComcasPs all-stock offering by an estimated 17 percent. In the time since the ATBT oHe�. Comcast
was rumored to be pairing with Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc. lo come up with a counteroHer. AO�
was then reported to have dropped out of the running earty.
Comcast needed to ally with a partner mainly to come up with a sweeter cash component than AT&Ts, which
was about 520 billion.
According to onesource �amiliar with the deal, Microsoft and Comcast were deep in negotiations when HinCery
made a call to Roberts.
"The call (from AT&T] didn't come until Sunday night (hlay 2�." the source said. 'Sunday and �.londay leaves
them all going down parallel paths. Obviously, on Monday night and Tuesday morning, Comcast decided the
� ATBT path was the better one to follow."
: One sticking point in the negotiations between A,licrosoft and Comcast was Microsoft's insistence on receiving
exclusive rights to provide software for digital set-top boxes.
"That was pretty hard to swallow' the source said.'The notion of exGusivity is a tough concession to accepl
as an operator."
In contrast, ATBT and Comcast were able to hammer out a compromise at a lightning-fast pace, complicated
by Ihe fact that ATBT was negotiating with MicrosoR and Lenfest at the same time.
Microsoll agreed May 6 to invest about SS blliion in ATBT stock and to expand a previous re!a!ionship with
ATBT to provide software for digilal set-top boxes in between 2.5 million and 5 million cable homes. That deal
http://���vw.multichannel.com/weekly/1999/20/media20.htm 8'3.99
_ „__,_�, _ _
��� _ _ '' �'
,
,
a,' x :
� -
,. . .
s: ,
�
. ,�-
T..
.. ^ 4'.. . . _ . .
. 'Y:' � -' � � - ' .
. . �'�+� ' c � - i ' .
� 1
� _ 2 .. 1 '
� }� �i �
:�_>2 � _ � . �' .
��. `
� ..
�
.--:it � ' ,- �� '''y-'. � .
btultichannel News: Searcli Kesults ra�c � u; -,
• �
. is not exclusive.
� Hindery, ATBT chief financial o�cer Daniel Somers and Roberts hunkered down for a series of closed-door,
round-the-clock meetings until an agreement could be reached, the sou�ce said.
What resulted from those discussions was a complicated deal that wiil bring Comcast about 750.000 to
800,000 subscribers in markets in Michigan; Naples, Fla.; New Jersey; Baltimore-Washington, D.C.; and New
Mexico. Comcast has agreed to exchange systems in Pittsburgh; Richmond, Va.; Atlanta: Sacramenro, Calif.;
Broward County, Fla.; Chicago; and Colorado, as well as about 54.550 per subscriber, or between 53 billion
and $3.5 billion.
Comcast also received !he right to purchase another 1.25 million subscribers irom AT&T at the same 54.550-
per-customer price, or $5.7 billion.
And Comcast gets to manage systems witfi about 1.5 mifiion subscribers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey
' forinerly owned by.Lenfest.
The addilion of the Lenfest properties may have made the deal too good to resist for Comcast. By getting
management control of those systems, Comcast essentially consolidates the Philadelphia market -- its
hometown -- and it gains access to other properties near its own major mid-ANantic dusters.
Bear, Steams 8 Co. analyst Raymond Katz noted that the deal makes Comcast the dominant opereror in the
mid-Atlantic region, especially when the Lenfest properties are added to the mix.
"Lenfest is the'hole in the donuP of [Comcast's] mid-Atlantic supercluster.' Katz wrote.
Comcast has had its eye on the Lenfest systems for a while, and it was close to landing a deal with Lenfest
chairman H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest, but the deal fell through.
That falling out also created some bad blood behveen Lentest and the Roberts family - so bad that many
analysts believe a deal belween the two couid not have happened without a third party.
Although Comcast wilF only manage the Lenfest systems, many analysts believe Comcast will eventually gain
control of the company as part of the ATBT agreement.
Corr�cast can linance the deal in several ways. by exchanging 26.fi million shares o� ATBT stock it alreaCy
owns as a rosult ol its 20 percent investment in Teleport Communicalions Group, a privale-line telephony
carrier purchased by ATBT in 1998; through issuing its own nonvoting class-A shares: or Ihrough a .
combination of its own shares, ATBT shares and shares it owns in At Home Corp. (parent of @Home
, Network).
Aside from the additional subscribers -- which could boost Comcast to more than 8 million customers once all
of the deals go through — Comcast also gels favorable status in a future telephony deal with AT&T. That piece
will kick in after two other non-ATBT-aHiliated MSOs reach similar telephony agreements with ATBT.
That part of the deal was ot utmost importance to Comcast, as it had feared it wouid receive less-than-stellar
' lerms compa�ed with Time Wamer Inc., which is in the middle of closing a 20-year telephony agreement with
ATBT.
"That was a huge plus for Comcast." said the source, who asked not to be named. "Brian Roberts had been
looking (or ways to do a de2l .vith ATBT, but it didn't sit well with Comcast to be treated in a way that was not
as good as what someone else might get."
Time Warner is in the middle o/ closing a 20-year telephony agreement with ATBT. The Comc2stiAT&T pact
does not assure that a Comcast telephony deal will be better than Time Wamer's — it just won't be worse.
' http:/hvww.multichannel.com/weekly/1999/20/media20.htm 8/3�99
-_-.--�- • -
,� ^ , ; _ �
� �, w �: . � t- .
i +.
, ,,j, ,; -�,
� . '� �'
l �
�'
I` -� 1
/ Y . {
1 '✓��' (}. 1" -
� - �~ -
��.� _ ,� -�' 3 . . .
�
:J'S'. . � f - _ - • _
l �
�L .: . �' � ..
z .. _ , � �,
�• -
5`� _ ..d ! � . . .
��i '. �.: . . .
t t � � � ' ' ' , , '
L� �.c' _ .. ,
� � v . :�
� * '�
w
i
I , h ` � Y � . . .
'• hlultichannel News: Search Results , Naee a ot a
• •
"Comcast will be on a parity with Time Wamer," AT&T Broadband executive vice president of wireline
:_ Ielephony Gerald DeFrancisco said.
Another MSO -- Cox Communications 4nc. — is separately negotiating a telephony deaf with the long-distance
_ gianL
Cox had been part of a consortium, also including Comcast and MediaOne, that was planning to joinNy
negotiale with ATBT. But while that triumvirate has been disbanded, Cox does not believe the Comcast deal
' will have any effect on its future telephony negotiations.
' Cox spokeswoman Amy Porter said her company has been pursuing its own circuit-switched digital-telephony
strategy with about 42,000 subscribers. Md although it is looking for other telephony partners, signing a deal
with ATBT is.not as critical to Cox as it is to other MSOs.
"We continue to look for other [telephony} partnerships," Porter said. "This [AT&T/Comcast agreement] doesn't
, make us any more or less likely to do that."
, -. Only matchine document among 415228 total documents: [\e��,(luen j
http:/hv�vw.multichanneLcom/weekly/ 1999/20/media20.htm 8/3i99
, -.,,�.� , ,-->--- .--� -- - - - .
, :.,,F �. _
r 'y'� � :-� r > - � '
.�./ �, : � .
; `�re ..�� r z M'. . '� �. " .. "
_+ .; .� i
�f i
r J j �'
� �i ,
i,
i. '��° ,��� _ _
4 � � -
tf , .r . ..' . .
�.� :s s -;,c' •s '_ ..
/�, �✓:.. w .r �i .
yY � . A � n � : ' _ ' . � . .
� . 1y{ .... f h. '.l l 'w: . .
� - � ,• s i *r . .
J t . •'K J .!�
z � -- J ' - . .
� i;', ,'.. .c- :, .�.`c � ,:-�- � :.. -� .
Amistrong Cable's �lastcr Uealmakcr �'�i:'� � �t '
� �
PR�MO M
meclia�Jentral • , �. . ' � . • WI�.�IIMIMIf�iQE.CIM
. �'inao� Armstrong Cable's Master Dealmaker
By K.0 Neel
A'I�.C1 Carr. chairman C. Alichael Armstmng solidified his position as king nf thc
telecommimications worid last �veek «ith a series of bold transactions ei�'ine [he compam
. 3 million MediaOne Group subscribers, a coveted tetephon� deal ��ith Comcast Corp.. and
a deep-pocketed partner in Nficrosoft Corp.
Pirst. AT&T aveRed a costiv and drawrt-out biddine ��ar for �tediaOne b} crattine a
' multi-faceted aereement that gives Comcast an additional 2 million customers and .-�TRT
access to Comcast's 8 million homes to deliver phone sen ices.
The next da�. ATRT announced it's teamin¢ «�ith Microsoft to de�elop ne�� interactice
services in a deal that �cill net �ticrosoft a 3°'o stake in :�TRT and ei�•e .�TRl� S� billion
to fund the projects (see storv, paee 42).
- \(rdialh�c ��'ill hr :\ F�CT's last hig acquisition. .-\rrttstrong said last ��eek. hut �3on't ex�rc[
' thr trlrn tu sit still. :\l.� l h:is hccn L•tlkine to ti�c :\meric� l)nlinr Inc ah��ut :��mr kiml ��(
` arr:ingrmrnt that ��ould gi�e the Intemet access pro�ider acces� to .\1 �C7"s c:�hlc lines �m
ta�orable temis. Such an aereement could be pi�otal to �ettine the \lediaOne acqui�ition
completed. :\OL has been ureine regulators to tal:e a critical look at .-�Tk I"s bur��eunim_
, pu��er.
Che compan} also �� ili continue its quest for cable operator telephom deals and to scap
s� stems to bctter cluster its operations. said ATR:T Broadband R Intemet Sen ices
presidcnt Lcu ilinden.
��Ithuueh :\'I �� I c:�me a��'a� ��ith �tediaOne. Corttcast didn t��alk a��a� a lo:er last ��rek.
an:�lcsts s.�i�f. "I he Philadel�hi�-based \ISO «ill eet a S I.� billi�n hreaku�+ t�e and �+ill
u�cn s� strms that c��unt 7�O.U00 customers cia �eceral trades :tn� �urch;i�e�. ('„mc:i:t al<<�
��ill hu� :\ fR l pruperties countine another I.'_> million cu.tocners ���er the nr�t thrce
. �ears tbr'S�J billion, a S-1.6U0 per subscriber fee that mirrors :\ 1�� I's per subscriber cost
, for titediaOne.
� Some an:�l�sts belic�c the`��orld of hundled digital communications sen ices ��ifl he e�en
more of :i h� than ntam' «'all St�cet anal�'sts currentl�' e�pect. "The�'re coin�� tn nee�l a
. hucket t�� r,ike a��:n all the moneJ" compviies «ill make, said State Street Kesearch S� P
Larn f la�crt�, during a Paul F:agan :\ssociates Inc. seminar in \e�� l ork last ��eek.
' �\ I�'l• f'mu�t n�•�c ect d����n t�� thr nitt� eritt� ��ork of � rceul�t��n �r�rn�:il ti�r it<
, �lediaOne J�al. :\rmstronc ��:is contident last ��eek that :\ l�� l��oul�i get tlic nrres.an
� Ol�s. � �
htlpJi�vw�v.cable��'orld.convarticles S-? 99
. „-.-- —..._.. . - ,
.'( i, � � ' � .
, ' Y, �-. " .. �� . . . . • �
. C _ ' .
V-:
_. � . .
, ; .
t'.
rlmistrong ('able's �`daster Uealmaker !'y-� = �� =
. • �
But the blediaOne deai may be the impetus that determines ho�� the FCC re��rites iu lon��-
' anticipated cable o��nership rules. The reeufations. which «�ere sta�ed b} a federal court
rulinc four }ears ago. limit MSOs to more than 30°0 of homes of ('.S. homes passed.
Al ��'1� ��ill rass 3>°0 of U.S. homes «�ith the \tediaOne deaL :\t the same time. :\1 �2T�
' could :�Isu ha�e proMems «ith "attributable interest" rules that restrict \ISOs' o��nershi�
in other cable systems.
"I�he PCC detines an attributable interest as �°o �•otine stock or more. .4T�T's proposed
: strucnire means it «'ould control three of the top fice U.S. MSOs. The TC[ acquisition
gave AT&T a 37°,'o stake in Cablevision S��stems Corp. and the \[ediaOne deal �tiould gi� e
the long-distance giant a 2�% de facto stake in Time Warner Cable. «hich �lediaOne
bought years ago. �
' Some f3elt�vay attomeys believe AT&T �cill be able ro skirt these problems pointine out
' there aren't subscriber and o�cnership limits on loca( telcos. Still. Ro} `leel, president-
� CEO of the U.S. Telephone Association. oudined his concems about the deal in a se� en-
paee letter to FCC Chairman William Kennard last ���eek and suegested the commission
lighten telcos' regulatory load so "they� can compete effecti�el}� for �oice and data
customers :�e:�inst :\"1'��T and other broadband companies."
1'he Senate Antitrust Subcommittee «ill hold hearings in June on :�TRT's proposed
acquisition of �fediaOne. And Rep. Bilh Tauzin (R-La.) ur¢ed I�ennard last ��eek to �eto
the mercer sa}ine the deal «ould be "anti-competiti�e.
The peace treat}� bet«een AT&T and Comcast ends nhat ��as shapine up to be one of the
most expensi�e bidding «ars in U.S. history. Comcast, «hich had aereed to bu�
�1cdi:�Onc in Alarch for S�8 billion. «'as usurped after AT&T's surprise 56�-hillion ot;fer
in ApriL Comc:ist talked to seceral potential ��hite kniehts abaut putting t�eether a
a�unter oRer. But in the end. [he compan} chose to «ork «ith . I� rather than :ieain>t
it.
"('��mrast c��ul�P�e r:+ised the rmine� te incre�se their oft�r.° sai�l onr �e�urce cl���t t�• th�
cump:ui�. "f�ut the�' just couldn't rationalize the cost. Ihe economics iust didNt «ork. ,
Cumcast «ill tr�dc its operations in Georeia: Richmond. �'a.: Sacrunento: Calif.: fire��ard
Count�. Fla.: Chicaco: Colorado. and suburban Pittsbureh for :�Tc�T s�stems in
' �lichigan: Naples. Fla.: Penns�l�ania: Ne��' Jerse�: tie�� \(exico. and
Raltimore!��'ashincron. D.0 E3ecause it's cettine more s.stems than it's tradin2. Comcast
«iil p;n ;�"I���"[ S� hillion for the properties. Comcast has se�eral pa}ment options: the
� I.� billion breakup fee. ATRT stock Comcast o��ns � ia its Teleport sale and u Home
stuck.
1 hc cnm� :il.�� ��ill m:�n;ite the Lenfrst Comn�unir:vi� Inc. �mperties that rnunt I.�
. ItIIIIIOiI CUtiI0I11Cfti 1I1� NC\\� .ICfSC��. PCII(1S��I��QI111 :1I1(� Dtlfl�\�;lfC. :� I� i� bu��in�_ thc ���° ��
uf Len�cst it duesn'[ alrcad�' o��n - it inherited the Lenfest stake �chen it boucht I CI - tor
$Z' billion in stock.
Fo be sure. Comcast ��ill no« hace one of the, lareest concentrated clusters in the l�.S.
http://�v�cw.cableworlcl.com/articlesNe��s99'19990�1002.htm S ' ���
�...
;�
f.
.\..� " . . . .
`f . .
\:.
� . S.' . ' ' . �
i .
' Y':
t .
a.
1.
� � � �; ' � . . . .
Armstrong Cable's i�laster Dealmaker � t��_� = 01 '
• •
oper.uing a corriclor that runs from northern Ne�� Jerse�• to f3altimore accordin!_ t��
' Comcast president Hrian Roberts. It's uncleaz «'hat properties Comcast �� ill ncyuire ne�t
but most anahsts believe the NiSO would surel}� try to eet its hands on the I.eniest
s� strms. largcl� contieuous to Comcast's Philadelphia ope�ations.
Comcast also aereed to offer AT&T-branded telephon} sen ices in all iU markets �c soon
as AT&T cuts two other MSO aereements. AT&T must eice Comcast its best temis as
part of the deal. Tfiat surprised some analysts gi�'en AT&T's pre� ious assenion that onl�
Time �Vamer Inc. would get its best offer.
"This is a different outcome than our NiediaOne proposal." Roberts said. "But it is an
elegant win-win result." ,
� Alost industry �aatchers agreed, but some said the outcome had to be bitters��eet for �
('amcast. "I ��'ouldn't necessaril� call it a win-��'in." said F:P�tG Peat \tarnick �:irtncr
Alark Carleton. "hecausr Comcast �canted those �lediaUne properties. f3ut it ��as a
prudent move on Comcast's part ei�'en the per subscriber prices it �could'� e had to pa�
' compared to the re��enues they'd eet from them."
Thines couldn't ha��e «orked out betrer for ATRT. obser�ers said last ��eek. E�en thou��h
it'll lose about 2 million customers over the next three ��eazs. :�T&.T comes a��a� �� ith a
critical telephom� partner in Comcast.
I:�Iks «idi l ime ��:�mer nili likeh chance in the �tiake af:\ I R i's aere:ment t�� hu.
i�irdi;�One, IiinJrn said, notine that the existing agreement "«ould he mo.litied to rrtlrrr
uur [ne�c) ,tatus" as 2� : o shareholder in T�1"E. "�� e«ill begin com ersation� t�c.m �
diCfercnt vantaee point." he said.
(May 10, 1999j
, More Cable World
. Tap the Power of Magazines ,
www_foliomag.com ] •t) I 1
Search � Contact Us � Home
('op�ri�ht I')991ntcrtcc 1'ublishin;;(;nrpi�ration,:\ PRI\11:1)L� ('ump:�n�
� hu��:',������w�.cablc�corid.com%articles/IVc«'s99.'19990�1Oq?.htm � � `�`�
.'
�".
�
_.
,1
,
i�lultichannel Ne��'s: Search IZesuits � :'='� ' ""
• .
1'our yuery ""SS billion into"" matched one out of 415228 documents, sho�� n liere.
[_ve�� Ouer.�� - - —
l�licrosoft Buys $SB AT&T Stake
- By BILL MENEZES May 10. i°99
Powertully underlining its cable ambitions. Microsoft Corp. will pump 55 billion into AT&T Corp to cement its
` role as the dominant software platform on the largest U.S. broadband' network.
Using the bargaining position it got from stepping into ATBTs pursuit of h4ediaOne Group Inc . �ticrosoft �
„ agreed to buy a 3 percent equity stake in the telecommunications giant
In retum, Microsoft got commitments by ATBT to possibly double the number of digit2l set-top boxes running
the Windows CE operating system and to license Microsoft's client-server sofM+are for its headends.
� Accompanying those deals were plans for a new joint ATBT/Microsoft iniGative to gauce c^es�:mer preferences
and drive demand for advanced broadband voice. video and data services by launching three "showcase"
markets next year, with rebuilt AT&T cable systems deploying WinCE-powered digital set-tops.
Some analysls cautioned that the agreements appeared to be put together in a hurry, adCing that an earlier
deal between Tele-Communiwtions Inc. (now ATBT Broadband 8 Intemet Servicesl and Microsoft ;o license
' WinCE took months to close alter a letter of inlent was announced at the 1997 Westem Sho�v
• Even the showcase concept has bombed once before: TCI and Microsoft hzd said �n ?99a !hz' ehey �veuld
conduct a large interactive-N trial in Seattle, but it was later abandoned because of development costs •
"I've seen this movie before, and 1 hope it has a better ending this time," Paul Kagan Assoc!ates Inc senior
analyst (or broadband technologies Leslie Ellis said last week.
Stili, the arrangement does seem to bring more of a stretegic beneft !han hlicrosoft's 199% investment in
Comcast Corp., which helped to jump-start a cable-stock rally that has continued to this day
"�licrosolCs 51 billion [investment� in Comcast has been very good for !hem from an equ ty st2ndpo�nt, but 1rom
a strategic standpoint, you can argue that il didn't necessarily bear a lot of frwL" saiC Ted Hendeison, cable
analyst for Denver-based Janco Partners "ATBT provides more cnticaf mass to get !he�r OS !n more boxes."
�T3T snid it would add 2 5 million to 5 million units to Ihe year-old comm�tme^: b}' TGI to buv'.':�nCE �or 5
rnillion digdal sebtop boxes Based on ATBT's goal of 80 percenbpenetration (or �ts dig�tal ser��ces. th�s couid
account (or 10 million of the h1S0's projected 14 million digital subscribers
�nalysts said this kind o( scale creates a huqe incentive for the massive 2rmy o� 1`Jindo:vs-so`T.a2re deve�ooers
to design applications for the platform, generating new applications that couiC ercourage other oaerators to
_ ' adopt WinCE
"I don't think iCs as strategically important for AT8T as it is for P.licrosot'." sa�C Gerry Kz�.:`��•oid. a s^�':�:are .
analyst for Gahners InStal Group (a sister comp2ny to P.fultichannel fle�ss �"They ::oui�^.'' Se droppinq !his
k�nd of money in ATBT if they didn't expect to get Ihe (ull beneft ot that commdmenL"
AiBT stressed th�t even wiBi closer Microsolt ties, it remains commdted to usm� ope^-ne!::o�k pi�tforms and
multiple hardware and so(tware vendors. For example. ATBT said, one o�!he three unnameC shos•:case cities
would deploy Ihud-party ser�er sothvare to work with �.licrosoft's client platform.
http:/hc�cw.multichannel.con�/weeklyil999i?O�micr20.htm S ='
: �
..
�. ,
.-:; - .
�
t
1
i
' y
.,
, ` .. , t
S' .
�9ultichannel News: Search Results �"y=� - ""
� �
"The denominator we're shooting at is very high penetration, hopefully in relatively shoR perioCs of time." AT&T
Broadband presidenl Leo J. Hindery Jr. told reporters. "This arrangement is a wonderful start in that direction,
but it certainly doesn't cover all of the needs we have by far in this area."
�- Analysts said the equity commitment and the sheer scope of the expanded relationship clea��y s,gnaled where
Microsoft will be in the future pecking order.
"The truth was that there wasn't much fiscal foundation to that [ATST Broadband-MicrosoftJ relationship prior to
today,' said Richard Doherty ot Seaford, N.Y.-based consulting firm Envisioneering Group "Now you have a
SSbillion investmeM and 5 miltion to 10 miliion boxes committed. That is a major change ovemight "
Analysts said an equally significant element was ATBTs plan to license Microsoft's 'NPack" -- a combination
of Windows NT server software for digital-video and data services with a migration path to telephony, all tied to
the WinCE client.
NPack enables end-to-end Windows solutions that could diminish the potential roles of rival AT&T vendors
' such as Sun Microsyslems Inc. .
"The W�nCE substantialion this week suddenly changes everythino for even the next half-dezen suppliers to
ATBT " Doherty said. "There are very few times in this planet'S history when there were 7.5 m�llion un�ts o�
anything ordered at one time •- maybe in World War II with the M-1 riBe. Everyone who doesn't develop for it is
suddenly in a second-class situation."
Microsoft has been trying (oF years to broaden its inFluence in new digit2l platforms !hrouch `,VinCE. z stricped-
down version of its Flagship Windows operating system designed for small electronic Cevices such as hand-
held computers, mobile phones or embedded products.
Sega Enterprises Ltd 's new "Dreamcast" video game, for examole, runs on a`+VinCE opera!ing sys!em that
may someday be used to enable other applications. such as e-commerce or Intemet access, through the same
- rtiachine. �
But, Kaufhold said. "WinCE has quite a bit more work to be Cone in deve!ooment before ifs rezdy icr set-too
' boxes -- nol unlike �Sun'SJ Java, which nobody is using as an operating system yet. either "
nnalysls also said the deal migh! not necessarily diminish Sun's �nvelvemen! in set-tops. Cenc�.ir�ent ,vith its
� .M�crosoft deal last year, TCI also agreed to incorporate Sun's'PersonalJava" apolications-so(tware platform
mto its advanced set-tops -- a relaUOnship Sun said has not chaneed.
Sun's director of product marketing for its consumer and embedded division. Curtis Szs2ki. szid TCI-ATBT had
committed to PersonalJava because of its ability to run on top of various operating systems. incluCing WinCE.
✓� He also noted Sun's strength on the server side, but he would not say whether the company h2d been trying ro -
get ATBT server business, as well.
We continue to work very closely wifh them. As a matter o( fact. vre had a biq meeting with them today."
S:lsaki seid. "I think�iCs preUy clear it.you listen to �AT&T chairman C.J t.tichael Armstrong tt,at he wants to
h;rvc multiple vendors Oiat �re inleroperable participating in his neC.vork.'
Further, advanced set-tops will generally use a variery of sofC.vare soluuons siCe by s�Ce Gener2f b�,strument
Corp last week reilerafed its plans for U�ird-quarter, multiple-operatcr Cealoyments o� its "CCT-5000�"
aAvanced set-top, along with a new. more streamlined look (or the proCuc;ion model.
Denton Kanouff, GI's vice president of marketing fo� digital systems. said OS 2nd sofhvare cenfic,uraCOns
_ would vary from operator to onerator, AT8T included
• ht�tp'/i��'w��'.multichanncl.com.'«eekly!1999%20/micr2Qhtm S ? `�`�
�
i
. ., t.
' ? � �. .
i:
htultichannei News: Search Results E':i°-� = �� :'
� �
'Their softworestack iucludes dif(erent elements -- an operating system, home-i�etwork�nn eicments." he sa�d
, "They'll be atile to use the WinCE operating system. PersonalJava and Sony [Corp.'s] home-nenvorking
software."
Microsoft's investment in AT&T will be for 30-year preferred securities paying a 5 percent Cividend and
convertible into 66.7 million AT&T common shares at a price of 575 — a premium of more than 20 percent over
ATBT's market price at the time the deal was announced.
Microsoft also gets three-year warrants to buy 40 million more common shares at 575 apiece, giving the
company a potential total stake of roughly 3 percent in ATBT.
In addition, Microsoft will buy MediaOne's 29.9 percent stake in U.K. cable and telephony operator Telewest
' Communications plc -- the latest in the Redmond, Wash.-based giant's string of major international cable
investments.
The new ATBT/Microsoft relationship sprouted after the software company emerged as a possible whde knigM
for Comcast, which saw its 548 billion buyout deal with MediaOne topped by AT&T.
Armstrong admitted that the situation was a catalyst for "brinoinq our resources toaether." althouch analysts
speculated that Microsoft probably used the implied threat of a bidding war to do so.
Onl� matching document amone �11�'_'_3 total documents: (�e�•� C!���•��• �
http:Na��c«�.muitich�nnel.comiweekh�'1999.'30�micr3Qhtm S ` 99
, `;..
, i,.. -•,
",i'
� �'�
� ��,� . . , _
�_
<
I -. . --
� �
APPENDIX C
POSSIBLE FUTURE CABLE SYSTEM TRANSFER
- �,
- • l _ . ;�
�.
, :
-
.
c _ ..
4'.
Charter Communications Plans:4�-Billion IPO . Ya_e 1 oC3
h.,
��
: . � . �u :l r'� � . visa
� � - ��
Site Index � ��o
Thursda��, 1u1�� ?9. 1999
° Charter Communications Plans S3.d5-Billion IPO
■ Media: Stock sale could be among largest ever. L.A. could benefit as
' company expands. °
B� S.-I LLlE HOF,IfE/STER. Times Stafj tD}irer
SECTIONS n�� hat could be one of the lareest initial S7'OCK LOOF:I P
CUT7ING EDGE • Pubiic offerings e��er, Charter �—
Tcch S Compueine Communications [nc., the cable tele�•ision Q,�ate
wALL STREET Ca company contro(led bv computer billionaire
Paul �Ilen, said �Vednesdaythat it plans to °'""""'"'""""`
Financc S Im�cstmc �
SMALL BUSINESS raise S?.-1� billion through the sale of stock. BUSINESS
Resources for Gro�rth The [PO could be a boon for Los .�.ngeles, TODAY
- ADV.&MARKETING
�� here Charter pians to increase its cable Latest �e�.s
�r� of �t,e atrssace s� stems holdines to become one of the area's Lur�_�s_�)Fr^�:.^._
COMPANYTOWN
lareest operarors. Charter is earmarkin� at least P«�!i•-_E}�at� �r_;?
It��ll���ood n�z some of the proceeds from the offerine for ��„�� i-�,..mi�;�l,
WoRKBCAREERS ��F!'-radine cable s�stems for ne« hich-tech l„��m i_�rn��_r
t>f�ic� �'ie�� sen ices such as hieh-speed Intemet access, oe�ails
COMMERCIAL Phone calline and interacti�'e rele�'ision. .
The St. Louis-bascd compan}•. «hich «ould F•��-_ ��m�, i;�z ,
REAL ESTATE \rrdc �r«__I__�irnt
I��•,Is � t�c�rlopn,enc he thc nation's fourth-lareest cable operaror and
COLUMNS `� '- �n Los :�neeles after pendino acquisitions Toda.'c Times
I�I�:�s :,nd Iss���s and custortier s�vaps, did not specif} the t�mmg F�� Intcmet IN �<, et,�
of the [PO: Ihe number of shares it «ill issue: or l,e�;rti��n_.-�:t.is
' ho�c much srock Allen. ��'ho controts 950� �, f g�er
the equit}, will sell in the offerine. F.ccire �: I+.��R_,� ,
The IPO, ��hich anal}sts expect sometime _F.rFl.ore_s_�pmo�ti oi
+u;c�:rurr.��_�,: this fall, could be the second-largest e�e�, after Sr�r:h_F_nginr
Conoco's 54.4-billion offerine last Octobcr. [t
w. ioW ,. �� H��a�in • I�anm ���rn
(� ,� wsn I could ri�al Goldman Sachs' S3. i-billion �
�hni�aim,y0f! Rate �
2■ 7 ci�<a offerine in 11a}, Lucent Technoloeies' S�- -' -'
' - muowva Hcre HI{:eS
H,,,<„e•i�,.��.ew. billion offcring in 199( and Infinit�
tooking f3n,;ulcasiin�'s S_'.�� issuc in [)cccmhcr.
- for a (�hartcr is ho�ing to c�sh in on the hi__h �'alucs of cahlc strck�.
� new or. used but somc anal}sts question thc puhlic's appetitc for this offenne.
� ? "�1�� initiai concem is that Charter has boueht cahle subscribers
at the most expensi�'e prices o�'er the last �ear and has spent so
�� `�_ _ much for thcir cash flo�t'." said Tom Eagan. a cable anal� st at
- Paine�Vebber.
Charter, ��hich_filed a reeistration statement «ith the Securitie�
' I�tt���;%�������'.I:uimcs.com'CNS_D:Al'S%990i29,'t0000673�6.html S -� 9 � ) �
�
i: .
z � ,
Charter Communications Plans 53.�1�-Billion IPO Page ' ui :_
• �
and Exchange Commission last Thursda}�. ��oul�l not conunrnt
because of aeency rules that forbid company executi�es' discuscin�> -
a stock before a pubfic offering.
A successful offering could benefit cable customers in Los
Angeles, which is expected to become a sho��case market for
` Charter.
Sources say AT&T has aereed to a s«ap in ��hich Charter «ould
get the Los Angeles and St. Louis cable systems o�tined b��
MediaOne Group, which the phone giant agreed to purchase in
M av.
7'hat �could more than double Charter's subscribers in the arca.
gi��ing the company more than 1 million of the'_.8 million cable
subscribers in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
Adelphia Communications «'ould ha�•e 1.4 million subscribers
aRer a pending acquisition of Century Communications. a s�� ap
with Comcast and another swap under negotiation in «hich it
would pick up 410,000 customers from Time �Varner.
In the IPO reeistration statement, Charter said it «ould use
proceeds from the offering to accelerate the uperade of its cable
systems.
As of �tarch, only 3546 of its systems had been uperaded to
provide advanced sen•ices. The company proposes spendin� S'_.9
billion o��er the next three years to bring uperade 9d°o of its '
svstcros.
Chartcr Jid not specif}'. ho«'e�'er, hoa much mone� �could he
camiarkcd for uperades :uid tto« much �� ould eo for pa} ine fi�r
pendine acquisitions
Since .4pril 1998, Alien has boueht six of the nation's '_0 leadin�
cable operators and six smaller companies ro fulfill his � ision of a
"« ired «orld" in �s�hich consumers can access data and
enteRainment any«here, any time. The bu��in� bin�e has brousht
Charter 6? million subscribers natiom� ide.
` .�ithoueh cable scstems represent :\Ilen's big�est bet, the
!�licrosoR co-founder has also, throueh his Belle� ue. «�ash.-hase�i
' Vulcan Ventures. imested in a host of other technolo�ies, including
ne�v television recording de� ices such as Ti��o. the �l'ink
intcracti�'c T\' tiroup and thc flieh Spcccl :\ccess cahlc Intcrnct
scn icc. �'ulr.ui �`entures is also puttine mone�' into a ero�� ing
stable oPcontent pro� iders, including the O�� aen �tedia �comen's
� cable and Intemet net��ork, the ZDT\ cable channel, the
Dream�Vorks SKG studio and USA 1et�tiorks.
Cabie srocks ha� e soared o� cr the last h� o� cars as ne��
in�'esrors such as ?�ficrosoft, AT�CT and :\Ilen ha� e endorscd thc
indiistry's hieh-speed pipelinc as the preferred path« a} for
dcli�ering �oice, data and enrertainment proerammin� to the
nation's IOOmillionhouseholds.
1'et dic IPO's timine could be a risk.
- (�ablc srocks ha� c rcccntl}� fallen from thcir pcaks hccausc nf
' rceulaton� uncertainties stemmine fmm the "open access" initiati� r.
the Amenca Online-led erass-roots crusade that seeks ro force cable
http:l/w«��•.Iatimes.comiCNS_DAt'S%990729-t00006;�3�6.html S -t 99
. . .-..... _ _..... _.._.. --
.µ�� :. " � . � .
C . •. � _ � . ' _
i(�' .. .. .. .. � .
[M1 1
1,
�. .):�. . . .
I
,f.
. 4 . .... ... . .. . .. . . .
1
.. �.. ' . . . .
r ;:''.
Chatter Communications Plans 53.4�-Billion iP0 r1�'�' °r '
� •
operators to lease space on their nenvorks to outsiders such as
[ntemet service providers. Cable companies have been countin� on
exclusive sale of high-speed cable Intemet access to recoup the
billions of dollars they have invested in their nenvorks to deli� er
these new sen•ices.
In addition, Charter has one of the cosdiest structures amonti thc
industry's five leadine companies.
Eagan estimated that Charter's average cost per subscriber is
� benveen 53,000 and 54,000:
, That compazes with less than 52.000 for No. 2-ranked Time
Wamer. Time Wamer acquired most of its systems in the early and
mid-'90s, when cable subscribers went for benveen 51,000 and
52,000.
As a result, Eagan said, Chazter's debt-to-cash-flo« ratio is
higher than the industry average.
[ndustry executives have also questioned Charter's abilit�� to
recoup its investments when so many of its 6? million subscribers
are in rural and other small markets. !�tost of Charter's subscribers
are scattered among suburban and rural markets in the South. Thcsc
• more sparscly populated markets are eeneralh� costlier to sen ice
than those in big cities, where the populations are more
concentrated.
Charter officials ha��e in the past defended their purchases.
, arguine Ihat rural customers are stan�ine for entertainment choices
and that there is bound to be less competition there.
Aithoueh Allen has bid ageressi��ely Cor Charter's cable
acquisitions, he has been beaten out in se��eral bidding «ars in part
because he ���as offerine cash, lackine the publich� traded stock that
- many cable pioneers hace preferred for tar reasons.
C��p}_rsht 1999 Los Aneeles Times AII Rights Rezrn eA
� � i� Scatch dic archiccs of dic Los :\necics iimcs for cinul:v stoncs ahouC .
, Cfi.\_RT[R CO�t�ll_`IC,\TIQ\S I�C. I�[[I F'l'!}_I.li'_C)Ff:F,F21�'� ��.
tilOCh Of FEftl\�;5 SfCIRITIF.S. 1'ou «ill not be chareed to look for
stories. onl�� to rcme��t one. .
Business � �o Site Index � �o
http:"�v���c.latimes.com/CNS_DAl'S;990729it000067356.html 3 �l 99
`�
-�,: . �
�.. ..
. `r ,
`.
. . 1.' . .. � .
�. i�' ... . . . � '
� �
APPENDIX D
AT&T INCOME STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET
, AND CASH FLOW (1998)
y .
.�- . _ .. _
, t q ..
, ' •y . . . . . ' � .
�;
`' .
�. . � ' . � . . . i� .
. . ,S` . . . ' . . �
.. �:.` . '`� . . . .
J�,�... n�ii. . .i. �G.'.1 �Zt: � ': �' � .. i ._ , .. . , : . .
r'.is� , ` , � `' ' y'-`=`� � �' x < .' i
'f'� t� y � a.s�.r�e��il�'9.�oWC+�Y,nahv L ;; - . .' o�+sn ��^-'rr i �i.ry _ ' .
r*�ef+1� � .�M MLi�RYi7 1. .. .. . �'' '�.�- .I
.. � .7'k`:�'� "�...: ,.+ �^i Ka' ..- ' .. ' .. _ ..
. .. ., .. �..c�� ..�.� ;'��.>�_�el; ... . . �= . .
_ ' .. .i�.... i• ��. 4 • . . . - . . . . .
, ' a1SiCoro anaSubs�oia��es
. . �-'-
' „1Ylyrs�nMnIMS ,� --
Auate . -.
,. CdsnandCdSh?C,urvalent5 .. _ �,� ; _ p
Marke!abie secunties
— _r-
Rece�vaoles. �ess�anowances ci SI.C60 and 5988 . -
� _ . �c:rounts rece�vabie ' g �.�. a „-_
� Cther �ecervables . ,�� _ ;,�
Oe�errea �ncome ta.es :.,, . __ �
� � Ctnercurrentassets � - - -
� � Total ounent aaxb : . g _ -- �
p�CCeRy, plant and 24u�Ome�F�2! - q - � -n;
c �_ ` '"'
- l�cens�ng �os�s. ne! of accumwatea amemzanen .r? I?So ar.o 51_7, � -�sg a,,;;,
- mvestments , _;�. : �
. Lenq-term �e_e�vacies _- -- �
- P�ecr�a cens�on;,sts - -
. , ^tner assets - _ _`_ �_ -_
� N et assets o� asco ec e•auo� s _ � j�,
' Total aeeeb ' " "� "� - _. �=
, - LiaEilltlee � . .
, � A�]^�unt5 CdYdC�P �' ' ' `_ _ ' - J
, . P�� ,, .J.tni1 l•.. , .nqLr� , ���a �.d^ �.✓5 _
�ca
• - _ ,. '.fUr.•q nq^i.. :ra ;N? ' . . _. '
, _ , �:c:
:���r.e^cs cavaC�e -
='' _'_
' Ct � � ;_-
. � Total cunent Ilahllltlea � � _ �- : - ; -
� �. cebt ' ' - ' - .
- L.�q..e�mCeneht. � '�"- J_ � .
, � � Ce!e•rec �riceme !a+es = �_ : - � .
� � C!^.e� �c rg.•. r r� !i ac�i�nes 3 ^e'e• c•ea�^ .. - .
' Total Ilabllltlee__ _. _'___—"__—___ "_ .` J ' _ .
Shnreownnrf' Epulty _�--"� �—'--� �-'—"_�'- - -- �
. . '..n���r,�, .;r�.m ::.v �d��.� i! t. .'�ar. . _ . _c.�
� � .�,::'•����:e:! sr.ara5 o':UlJ'_��'J C1�2 . ' _.
. r.:!5�.1'�(!1I�KSh�lIP$ 1 �S] _vC. �I'�P.._Fr�n�a. ]' ._CC
� L?89L'I3.CCO3ICe..:=mCe•?I �cc-
.�caco"ai �vr-�r ..,.
., . G��a�.ni�.edESr`c�or,i�q3r.,�� '-�-- .-._. .
Pn!�inP(! n.lmirC^ . 0 _'� ! 2'A
A[:'JTUIa�Ed OICPf �_Of.' IC�,^,T.0 -
� Total shareawnen' equlty __ -, _`_ _ ___
. Total IlaCllitlee and ehareownme' epulty � -- - -
� :............... r..i2.,s j., ��vec5" ". r.. ,, ,.:�r.q.a� c.r. ,,..., ..,..,..,.......,__ r _
��-.'. _ . .. .. ... ... .. . .
)..
� .�: . ' . . - .
. � . � - -
�
Oc.t. .. �-; - '- ' � '
.,� :r. . . . . . � � .
, ;: . . . ,� - .
.. - a,' � � � .
. . .i�... . . .. � ; . .. . .
. � �'�' ' ' . . . � ' .
� i� . . . � .. ..- -
� , !-�_� . ... . � .
.
. _..
Consolidated Statements �income -. - .
,�i6t rn ana Suosin�a � .
!'S_ -
:au la^.g . :oc' 'o�.: .
Rerenue• S :3.��; . _. _" _ , , ,, "
. Operetln� E:pemes �
ACC?SS.andOthPrm[B!COnneCUOC !j?�8 ._.?1; ._?_?
. Networp and otner commumcauons serv�ces - 1Q.2�C ="?? ? ZE�
Depreaanon and amomzanon 4.6ro ?._E� Z?l4 - �
� , $elhng..general antl�admm6trahve � 13.015 .� 5"^� .- `__?
� � Restructunng and othe c ri a rg_ s Z.51c - �
. totaloparatlngexpenses .45.i .'-_ - .._�_
� � Opsratin(Ineome . .. . ;.1g' _"' ?'�
� Othe!��COme-npt . j --_ �_ '
� ime . � � ?^' _-
income���omconnnu�nq ocerauo�s �rore ��rome ta.es G 30' __'_ __?'
� ��ov�9on �or inCOme Ia+eS ' � '- "'_' , ;"
- Incom�lromcontlnulneoperetlom '."' ---���-���'__-
Dlscontinued ODeratlons � .
, In�pme��rOm tl�S:,OntinueC oce'at�Or`.5 (ne' o' IazeS ^� .c. ���
antlSf353U _„ ,__ : _
� Ga�n on�sale ol y�uonunuec ororahors (net o' a.=s c� 5?�.
� - S 3 3 a nd 5138; : "_ .-'
� � income beio�e e=uac�ama� �css ; 5?_ _ _._ _ --, � .
E�traorc�riary ics I ne' :' ca.es c'> � ,�' - _ �
Net Income � �.??F _ _ _, _ - _ -_ _
� 'fve.Rnter,�averag=�oromeos�aresa�eee•e�na�c_mmonsna•esimdi�ers'�• ;g„'r : :�--
� Per Cammon S�ere - Batic:
� In.'pmni. ��nllrtUrt'CnCp.��� _ ` ..
�^:^n.a . .� OrSSnhnt. .. .r..� . _' "" "'
' .o;l... ,, ti . �I �]��.[J^,. ..._ .._ �'�0^_ - __ " " _ ' _
, � rrJV'7�nd'1i^55 ' '. _ � ..
� Net Income—_—__—__. . ' ' ' _ ' ' '- ____�_ __._ , .
� Pa Common Shara - Dllutee:
� IrOm COnfinwnq pCp•g•�n.n5 ' _ _ - ' ' "G ' _ _ �i
. ir - '_ " �
, � '}.vn , Jn ..IIC o! (7i5COnl�nuCd O[,a ' " ' ' ' ' '_
f �'•,9OrUin.l�V IOSS ' _ ^a _ _.
. � Net Incame _ n c? _ _- _
. • 1,. rqc n.prr<r t 1 .
. � .v , � ��., ..r i < i �, .,.. ..., �. ..,. . , , �
. ,..:...� . a- , n�.,. ...� . .,... .
. . . . . . 'C ..' , . '. . � .
_. ... ..
,.
�..�,.;n . g � .P., i il.i'ri ', '9� r.l II vi.Ir.. . - ..
. . .. ... J b � . .. . . . . ... . .
• I.��. ...,,r..� ...� t .- 0C ...� �., r.,r ,�:\' � : .1'., �., ..v..,. �. _ �.. .r .., - . � ' � .
..d•.�.� �.�.....�,.. 5 .�.�...�_..,_
"
;
$
b..
. �'., _ .. .. . .
.. h... .. .� ,
. ' .�.�N . . . . . i
_ � f:'_. . . . � . . . _
;
... .�- ." . ...�.....�.....,. ... .
R
l
�•.` . � �. . '' , . . _ _._ _' _ . , _ ,,��
' =��G'onso�i`dated Stat�ents of Cash Flo�vs � '• ` °
,l.k,rr +�+a ,s; • Y ��'
�a— �h ��. . ., . .�...� ..� �. . _.: . .��
'�IR`r r . , , �
, �_-..�...:: — .. __ . ...... . .- . ._.
�`.� ,:,:F,,. _�..�. . ..��•.,•, ' , . .�� �;�:
. .' ... . . .. . .. .. . :t-:..
� afdifpo arMSubS�dianes
+ '<"'
. �n 4tllqn� _ _
.. OperaHng ActlHtlea � . ""
- Net mcome - -
' 5.a=E - ---- - =.-?-
� Deaucc �ncome from ��sconnnuetl opeiations � :n :_� -
. Ga�n on saie oi asco�nnuec ooeranens i;�c� - .,;�
Atltl: Eatraordmary loss on rehrement o�ae0t . ��q _ _
. � Intomelromcontinwng�F?rations :�:c _:_ _��
Ad�us;ments :o reconcde net �ncome ro ne! casn provice: �y ^ceranng . �
dC!ivipe5 Of COn�mwng �CErgti0�5 �
Ga�nsonsales -- _ , �
� Res;nxtur�ng ara otne �«a,g°S � : �-� 1 "
� Ceweaatwnanoamee��anon :�� _ a �„
. p�ov�s:on for uncenr_;�bies _
:.?E9 ____ �3'.g
increase m accounts �=c>:�abie ---� � .
- iDecrease! �nr=ase �n ac-^unes ^avac�? --
-- - ' � .-_ _..
Ne!�nange _ �a:-�� , �,5
' Otnei ad�us;ments !o� �cncasn 4ems-ne� --- _ _ _
_2S :`: ___
Net oash provlded Oy oparating actlritlea of contlnuing opentlons :^ �_' ?-r' ?
Inw�Hn( Activiflef .
. Caoitai �e[?na�tures � .
a: ' " _'�'
o'O�PP^S'rCm c3iP ^ ....n<.i � 2r^Cn...� =1dn: ?^,-':. ...... � _ _'_
. L'P'�P.)SP'�I'�C'C.3SP��...:IYPr.p�e..�e��.iPe ���.� _� ' .
' AC:U�S�IiC�S ^ ,C�' _ ___
. SdIQS CI_nd�MP!�O�C SPCUnf�PS � �� _ _
P'�lC' "_"" ___ �� .
� E . ;:c� '�,� : �, c � �
� � � -G _.�_ ,__
NB! 9i5Lr,Ltlr,n5 r,f ^USin25SE5 ^a!:f ^25^ a^:U:ta� ._ � �_ "_
Othe•:nvesnng acuv�nes�ne: .�,. "V -
Ne[ caah prarlded 6y (used in) investlng actlrltles af contlnuing operatioro ?,?�� _-__ -_;�.
.. Flnancing AcNvHlm �
n. !nna,�'. . ...�5s._�< _, "
� n�,��,�Pnt;-��cnq..p.m..,�� - --- ..°�:.
. - _._:: • .f__
�S4:.lr..�o ;f r�mmnn S^.Vc9.qigtP^ "J Cnpa��i ��,+r5�"'. ° - .. -
' � hnJ9U! �_< . . __-
1 Shdro•� dCqui�n.. nannr �I,...S u
� :�
���nfln.dS:'.Lr. , ta' ' , _
11'� � ..15v1 �.ni r _.� �n �; . . r. . . �i)wn�Qs � � , . . . . ._.
(itr.er!�nanr.rq ,c!rv�t�es. "�� . ._- _ _�^;
. . _ ..____—.- . — :.98_
Net wsh ueed In Maneing actlrltles of contlnuing operatlons „_. : __ __- �
� Net cafh provlded by (used In) dlscontlnued operatlom -- .__ �
__--__._ __ -< ` "__.
- Net Increa�e In cash and cash � __` •�
�d5�h dnd Cd5/1 ?�UrvdIe�IS dt �-:; r`nmg ^1 �p�. �. j __
.— _-__ . '__ �'
Cashand caeM1 equlvalenle at end of year : __ __
. irr n�i� r.n a�r�.. = r �n.C ':.r.. , .rte -
. q�t� c.Y' _ . . -..s:, Catt^' ....-r y.•e_°"'y
*
�'
i ' '
� �t.• . . ' ' . ' . .
t�
S .
. 3 ....�.' <'. ' - .
� . ' . ' . —��_ii.�l��:ry[N•.' ♦
. � �}_.. ' . . � .
Fi��e-�'eac� Summarp of Sel�ed Financial Data (linaudited�
Q
� .A1diCac a�CSoDS�a�S��es '
� :o�n:�m��ims,mcr.:o!�s�arcamcu�iz� 1998' '.�� .___ .>__ .-2-
.. Re�ulb ol Operatlonr
� �e�enues 5 53.223 5 51.57' _ 5_�� 5 �8 ::c :__.___
� � " �oe�anng �ncome 7.497 5.836 3."_`S '_ 'E� ' '=- � � .
� in co m e ir co ooe 5,235 a1-4 : �°_P� ; 9°: --- ,
- . Earnlnp Per Common Sharo -
IncOme from ;Oniinuing oce�dPOnS
� Bas�c S 2.ov c 2.39 ' -" - � c ' _-_
� Dduied . 2.91 2 38 3 � _ -. _ -- -
� D���oe deua ce co s 132 1.32 : 3Z i 3� . _�
- ' Aesete and Ca0tta1 �
P'oce�ty. olantanaeowomenFne! S 25.W3 _ ; _ _, g°g _ __ ___ _ ._ _: .
Ta'dId552!S�CO�h�wn80p2reU0n5 59.SjQ ??�1 __c�o c_ _c _'_' �,
� ' i�:ai asse!s 59550 5I nc: g ___ -_ g_ • -- _,-
. lir�.�nrm�eb[ j5c5 ?a_' ac'c '_'_ .'__
� lotai �ebl , 5 72' .: 9�' " ". ; . "' " "
Snarop�yne•s eawtv 2`_522 ='_ - °_ . ;: `�: : .' " ' _'
- L�.�ss caortai.e.cene�w�es 7.981 � .- � :.� ' -_ - _-
. i.�•�Cn:vees-.OnbnuingeDerations 10.'.900 :? :�°_'•__ ,_c ;v .._ __ �
� Other Inlormatlon � �
. . _r^rannq �ncnr as a ��ce�tage -, .e�;e^ues Id � i ._ _ - ' ' . " . . . .
- �r;,,m< �rnm �pnpnwn� pC?�aho�5
� asa�•_emag^o�•ewenu^s =v°- ": __' : c' . . _ -
' ..�.:•� 9n dvP'dfjB LOmmOn aOUi:Y �S � '" ' ' ' " ' __ " ' '
, _a' C A - � " _ ..- " _ _ _ " '
� . _a;.np... 13.d1� .. _� .. ___ "" '
�d;d dI /a3r'o�C
. . �In_.Y D'iCP �." S�d�P j -°_ _' _' " ". � _ "
_ �., �,a�ue �e• common sna�= , 1- =' -- - " — ' ' _ -
. .,_!� 2no� a?=- ' _� - . `---- -:
� �o?g. _, nom. c.^.nunu�na soe�anons ��•iuces 5! ^ ��mc^ ^ ' -`- - - _ . _ __ ._ .- _ - c .-' -'_ .'.. ;. _ ...
�, r.�...n� Irn... �d�^S l�n •.l�n� .l'it! I��n dttnOlnln M !1'�Pw df 'Ul• i]^,.d' 1 �
•• �tY1�.. pe•n..in h t ^�1 nl � �i��. �nr - - a - _
_ '^ ^..�y,.�.. �i.�r. ....., i .... .... . . ���.+�
. "rl , f u nc±�lM�di . 5 _lu^?c o. . _ . _ . .
.. :n�i �P2r�inRS inU�uO�nR _n•Ora�n."?Sf., ' __ro9 ," ' __ _ __ _ __ _'_'_ . ' _ _ .'; ._."' -..__ .. _ .
��Ilr^,^ dr0.<� r`. pilhrr C� , .. ^_. _�d'C�o<'" ' _ _� 2 ...' ""_ ". . _ _ _] "_ 'c ". "'" _. _ ' _ _ -_ __ " '
.. = aiipn Ir� ioog w�•e Sln _+o mdl�on an. : f- :�g ..,,u,�... •osc?[t,.,e,. • ��' _"� _ -' ' ' "_ '- "_ _ . . .
� _...a�F w�•e SA a5i m�n�nn anc S I ! ! 3� m�ni�� .Ps�a_.,.,o... _ - � --- ' - -- - - - -_ - _ _ `. _
....� .................aj•�o..fioc:n�dvo.,n�n,ns;aL,.,,�opn�.�...,a�.__..�_, _ .
;
' i
gc I
�
� : .: . . --
• a -
, a, , .
4� .. -
&i..- .
:
y` _
�
�, . . . .
a? ;
. s
�,'
,
� �
APPENDIX E
"OPEN ACCESS" ISSUES
i
„
� � �Y. ' ..., � _. ' . .
r ':i�. . . . � - .
' �3_ .. . � ............ .
. .. i- , - � - �
. . �; ' . - � . . . � � -
,'
S� -
y _
:� --.
S.P. Puts Off Decision on Open�ccess Cabl...iAT&T holds rcins on hi:speed \et ser� ic Paec 1 of -i
�^`,�"��'�,� J � •
� • 1 • � � •
� ' �• • '
S.F. Puts Off Decision on Open- T°es°a z'.'as9
SF Gate Home �.in �ronrisro L�I�ronirlr
Access Cable Lines CMAONICLE 5=�-�ov.
Today �5_NewS AT&T holds reins on high-speed Net
Sports S@NIC@
Entertainment
TeChnoloc,�y �bo'a7 SQ9?lo� GhrqniplQ�t�R Wdt4!
live_Views San Francisco supervisors approc•ed the transfer Get a �nnrer-frie ndh
' of the city's cable system franchise to ATRT � ersion of this article
Traffic yesterday but delayed for se��eral months the
Weather question ofwhether AT&.T's competitors can �RELATEDARTIClES:'y.
Health share those cable lines to oFfer hieh-speed Do+�snd br Autonomy :__:
' Business Intemet access. q_z;_'Yi�_�c_c����?_��
�=gs3?_ -_-_._`:.
Bay Area 7ravel Consumer eroups, America Online and other ^
Columnists o�_.°54�2as�� ^e .
[ntemet sen�ice pro��iders had been pressing the C�er r+ow Co�sumers acGSi;
Ciassifieds ciry to adopt a policy of'�open access" as a '"—�` '"—�`
Conterences condition to approvin2 the transfer of TCI's �_2 .g c c A�a�C
Soarch cable system franchise to AT&T. p�n��e��s..sses.�'s'_.���e
_a_
Index So far, only t«'o other communities -- Portland.
- >rmg�rBJa_CC.d:. .
= Ore., and Broward County, Fla., ha� e imposed
� =';�`�' '`' open access. and industn� ��'atchers �t�ere fookine
�— to San Francisco to set a national trend b}
,;, becoming the third. T e y're
But instead of forcing AT&T to open its cable �e�� f
lines immediately to competitors, the
. supen'isors c�oted 9 to 2 ro eo slo«'. The� a�recd
, to moniror thc opcn-access issuc in Ore�,on and
, Florida and perhaps force :\T&T to share its
nct��ork in thc fi�wrc. Thc issuc �� ill bc
considered aeain December 1�.
tlnder the citv's cable franchise a�reement, the
" supervisors can impose conditions -- such as
open access — further do«�n the road.
Consumer eroups dismissed �esterda�'s
decision, sayine it does nothine ro help
customers ��ho «ant high-speed access.
"C'ustomers lost out toda� hecause ATRT still
h:�s a lot of room to stifle open access." said
Rceina Costa, telecommunications anal� st �� ith
http://«���'��'sCgate.com/cei-bin/article.cei'file='chronicle.�archi�e'1999'0%_'i'\Iti3n3??.DTL %'_-'99
F .,. .... ,.. _
,:
� :
� ;:,- .
?'. .. � t' .
. ,. . . -:c .
�.�: .
. .r: . ' - � . , .
..�_ . _ ' ' . .
S.F. Puts Off Decision on Open�cess Cabl.../AT&T holds reins on hi�� peed \et sen ic, Yagc ? of �i
The Utility Reform Netwo�k, a consume� group.
: "AT&T was basically in control here.°
The San Francisco debate, which spurred a
multimillion-dollaz lobbying campaien. means
that local consumers will have to wait se��erai
' months ro leam whether they can get hieh-speed
cable modem service &omjust AT&T or from a
� multitude o£ Intemet service providers.
"AT&T is obviously in the driver's seat, and I
think that's a shame," said board President Tom
Ammiano, whose proposal supporting
immediate open access failed on an 8-to-3 vote.
, lnstead, on a 7-to-4 vote,the supercisors passed
a �eatered-do�vn resoiution sponsored b��
Supervisor Ntichael Yaki. It supports open ,
•. acccss hut does not force AT&T to open its San
i rancisco net«ork to competitors -- e�•en if it is
ordered to do so elsewhere by a court.
The board was debating whether to impose open
access as a condition of approving AT&T's
merger with TCI. Last year, AT&T bought TCf
for S48 billion and had to apply for transfer of
_ control ofTCl's approximately 800 cable
franchises across the country. As part of the
, aereement to transfer control, San Francisco
- could have forced .AT&T to open its net« orks to
competirors. Last month. a federai judge in
Portiand rulcd that officials in that cit}� had the
right to impose open access.
Critics have chareed that AT8cT has a monopol}
over hieh-speed Inremet access because
customers �cho want to get a cable modem in the
• Hav Area must use ExciteAtHome, an AT&T
a(tiliate.
:�nvone ��'ho ���ants to use AOL or another
Intemet sen ice pro��ider must sien up �t ith
, P.rcitcAtE{omc for SJ� a month and thcn pa� an
extra Sd0 a month t6 access an altemati�e
' procidcc
Open access ���ould allo«� any [ntemet sen ice
provider to offer its own brand of cable modem
service without customers having to go throu2h
FxciteAtHome.
http://�cwwsfeate.com/cgi-bin/article.egi?file=/chronicle.�archi�e.'1999 Q7-'2 %�1\30?"_.DTL ? 27'99
° ; ;,_...._ . ............ ..__.
Y; ..
.. .
s�...
3
r' . „
;� .. . _ _
�
. . q.. . . ' " . . . .
.t _ ' ' �. .. ,.
: D ' _ . '' - . ' '
. , �,� . . , .. . . . . .
� . $:� , . .. . - . � � �
. ' �.� - i ' � � . e .
S.F. Puts Off Decision on Open-jccess Cabl.../AT&T holds reins oa hi�speed \et sen ic Page ? of -t
, �
While the board's ruling puts off the issue of
open access, yesterday's decision requires
AT&T to convert its cable lines ro handle hi¢h-
speed Intemet access and local phone sen•ice
_ within four yeazs. AT&T executives warned that
if thev were forced ro shaze their nenvork, they
' might not convert Sari Francisco's cable system.
Supervisor Leslie Katz said that getting .4TRT
to commit itself to the conversion is a��ictory
for consumers and that open access should be
decided later -- after federal regulators and the
courts weigh in on the issue.
The U.S. CouR of Appeals in San Francisco is
currently hearine AT&T's appeal of the Portland
' decision. If the Portland ruling is upheld. San
Francisco coutd impose something similaz.
San Francisco is also looking ro the Federai
° Communications Commission, «�hich ma�� set a
national policy on open access. FCC Chairman
�4illiam Kennard has said he «ants a federal
policy that would prevent go��emments from
' imposing open access.
Kennard and the San Francisco supen isors «ant
� more time to see «hat competition to cable
modem sen ice de� elops. Technoloeies such as
dieital subscriber lines and sateUite technolog}
are viewed as viable hi¢h-speed altematices.
"Thc ruline buvs us some time, and in the
meantime, we eet a built-out, state-of-the-art
system," Katz said.
' ' fiundrcds ofcompa�ro supportcrs attcndcd
vcstcrdav's mcctine -- so mam� that thc firc
alarm brietly went off, forcing peopte to mo� e
into an overflo«� room. bfany of the supporters
«�ere seniors, «'ho ��ore stickers and «a�ed
placards readine ��Hands OffThe Intemet."
ATRT's competitors had fe�cer supporters, «ho
�� ore ' �Support Open Access" hats.
Rut «•hile thev did not n in. .�Tc2T's competitors
called it a step in the rieht direction.
� http:"w�vw.sfgate.com/cei-bin/article.cgi'file=-chronicic!arehi��e'1999 n,,?711\SO?'_'.pTL 7 ?7 99� �
.' . _... ,. ._.. _ , _.... . _ , .
. r.. ..� . . . ' _ .
. . �'.., ; �. "_ - _- . _.
..� . � .. .' . . .
%
�:�.� . .. - . . .
, ��. .. �. � _ . ' - .
, . . T,. . ' . - ., -
7;
;_�, ' .:..... . _ ' . � ,.
��•'. '
� .'�� F . � . . ` .
. t
�.: ' " ' . ' . .
3
..'� . -. " , .
� �. . � � . . . . ..
� 5.�. Yuts Off Decision on Open-Access Cabl...lAT&T holds reins on hi�,h-specd \et s�n ic P:i�c -i o( -i
• •
"We're pleased (the supervisors) support open
access, and we really hope that once they study
the issue a little bit, they will take action and
, impose open access," said Katie Roper,
president of the Bay Area Open Access
Coalition.
Others promised to start a petition dri� e ro eet
open access on the San Francisco ballot in time
for [he 2000 presidential e(ection.
John Raposa, assistant counsel for GTE Corp..
said pressure from a referendum «'ould eet the
city to impose open access.
"Thev would ha��e no choice if it passes as a
' ballot initiative;' Raposa said.
But AT&T and its supporters said the}� are
confident what they term "forced access" �� ill
never be the policy in San Francisco.
• "�4'e're certain that the Ninth Circuit «i{I rvle
aeainst Portland." said h(ilo �iedin, chief
technology officer of ExciteAtHome. �tedin
. said forcine open access would be prohibiti� el��
•. expensive and complex and would hurt
, competition by stifling im�estment in ATRT's
nenvork.
"If the supen isors decide they a�ant open
' :�cccss, thcn thcq nccd to bc rrcparcd to hirc >��
to 100 lawycrs and cconomists to ficurc out
n�hat ever}• element costs and ho��' this «ill all
be done," Medin said:
� 1999 San Erancisco Chronicle Page .�1
Chronicle Sections � �
Fr.edback �
, . � � v
. .:'�i = i' �'(f f Y:,f �- -
� � hltp://wwwsfeate.com/egi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archivel1999;0%:2%:tiIN8037?.DTL '?'r'99 �
_, . ,,,,,___----.- — ___ --- ..__
Y � _ . _ . _ ' . � - , .
.� _ . . '�11�� �h�Cf�=� • ,
�� � . . � � � . . . . . '. . . .
r ...
; �.. . .
;.
r' -
. .
�-� � - � _
�.
s -, _
AOL, GTE Team Up on DSL Yage 1 ot ?
• �
. �+s�vs �
M��t��han�e� Just how MESMERIZING �n a channel be? �
ONLINE ����
Home July 27, 1999:
Weekly Preview AOL GTE Team Up on Search The Archive
DTop Stories � �
DThrough The'Nire 71cT .
' DProgramming LOL Go
DPay Per View
DMarke�ing Dulles, Va. -- As it continues its fight for �aa��os
Diniemationai open access to cable's broadband pipe.
- Dop-Ed America Online. [nc. said Tuesday that it has
eroadband week fomicd an alliance �� ith telco pro��ider GTE
DTop Stor�es Corp. to offer AOL subscribers hieh speed Top Stories
Internet access ria the phone line.
Industry C�x =cre=s :c °uy
DEvents Asvmmetrical dieitaf-subscriber-line sen ice ���urime_�a
DPeople will be available ro AOL members in an}� �
DAssociations AC! GTc i eam (,o en
DOperators market where GTE offers �SL sen pc�
DNetworks GTE currenth� provides ADSL in parts of 17
Dvendors states across the councry, including Czb!e Cutdraws 9roaecast
Washineton, Oregon, Califomia, Florida. Nets
Services Hawaii and Texas.
� DSubscribe RC`! :r'e!erztA� 5csr_n
DAdvertise Railcuts
DEditorial Calandar As a part of the multiyeaz pact, GTE �vill
DCc�sromer Service provide AOL «�i[h "ah�ays-on" ADSL ATBT ReSran�s?.C!
DMasthead connccti�'ity at specds as hieh as 76S kbps,
DContact Us O more than 26 times faster than [he standard T_�c ��Yns l,�p Ne_y
DFeedback ?g.8 kbps modem. This translates into eackers
quicker do«nloads for AOL members tr}ina qTBT Gels r��j n S F
to extract ��ideo clips, graphics, and other
--- ---_ __ __
online muitimedia. '•iCRE?>
The .ADSL rollout is expected to cost AOL
subscribers an additional 520 per month.
"Our goal is to deli�er on the promise of the
interactive medium and help make broadband
access a realitv for the mass market-
consumer," said Bob Pit[man. AOL's
rresident and COO. "«'c are pleased to ��ork
«ith a telccommunications leader like GTE
to provide .ADSL technoloey to AOL
members ��'ho want access to a hieh-speed
feature." �
- 7; 27/99
' http�Nw�v�v.multichannel.com/daily/13dshtml '"-� `��
.. . � _ . _ ....._ -
�
' �^
.;, �
�
�
�>
, �-; _ .. _ .. .
1 .:.
, ;;..
r
�� � � . �. .. . �
.. -1-� . . � . .
. S;: . . . . . .
d '
. ,... .�:. . ' . .
�- , .Q � . . . . . � . _ ".
. , �-' � . - � .
Open Access Batdes Ignite in Denver Yage t of �i
• •
_.. . . ,
Multicha�nel � � �
ONLINE .- ::�:_, :.-: -. : . � ���
_ _ __
Hame Weekly Preview for August 2, 1999
Weekly Preview Open Access Battles Ignite Search The Archive
DTop Stories �
- ' DThrough The Wire � Denver
DProqramming �
DPay Per View
DMarkeling By J. ESTRELLA & l. HAUGSTEO Auqust 2. 1999 Searcn r�os
� PlnleFnahonal
DOp-Ed Denver -- Proponents of unfettered access ro
cable's high-speed pipe umei{ed a new strategy
Broadband Week last week, which industry watchers characterized '
DTop Stones as a potential winner. Top Stories
Industry A coalition of Internet-service providers are Charter Files fo! iF!J
DEvents backing a November ballot initiative here
DPeople designed to coincide with a citywide vote on Cox Snags hlul6media
DAssociations whelher to renew the cable franchise held by
DOperalors AT&T Broadband and Intemet Services. Cable Center Frezks
DNetworks Grcund �
DV�indors The measure would amend AT&TS proposed �. �
Busy fCr R,,,J
- new franchise by declaring Internet services
Services � °essenlial lo consumers,� and order that the
� DSubscr�be Y N9C CirecP� In4 �e21
made available "in a competitive atmosphere."
DAd+ertise
DEd�tonal Cale�,dar USa Tces Julv Rahncs
DCustomer Serv�ce If approved, it could force ATBT BIS, which is
phlasihead headquartered in Denver, to allow unaKliated ACL Partners w�th GTE
DC��tact Us O ISPs to offer their services over its
DFeedback ATBT@@Home Network. Going directly to the �pen Access Bat�es �n
voters may signal a new approach for open- penver
access supporters, who so far have failed to talk —
scores of local and state officials into unbundling NTL As�en�s to Threre
cable's high-speed plaHorm. -
F:r:ianC Ccen ��cess
And Denver is not !he only community facing a Issue
possible re(erendum. Supporters of open access
� � in S2n. Francisco are vowing to launch a similar �,��Rr ,>
. petition drive following their defeal last hlonday
belore the city and county board of supervisors.
' The Colorado coalition, reportedly headed by U S
' West Inc., is aligned with OpenNet, a Washington
D C.-based consortium that wants to force open
access nationwide.
On July 23, it submitted some 4,500 signatures ro
the Denver Election Commissian, which ceRifed
2,763 of lhem, or 305 more than needed to place
the initiative on the ballot.
ATBT has 25 days to challenge the initiative,
http://w�v«.multicha�inel.com/3shtmi s -' 99
.. :t- - --�-�_-_., .
a:- _
�.. 3: . :� . . _ .
� y
.' ' � � . _ .. , , �
, :�` " . � _ ' ' '
' }_.:. . . . .
t
- tih: . -.. . . � . � - ,
' t _
j ,
. �.`�. . . . �
y
�: .
� . x�.. : . . � � � .
. T- "
A
, �_. . _ , ..' .. _ _ . .
Opcn Access Battles Ignite in Denver ragc : ut -i
. �
which sources said could tie up the issue up courf
° for years. The Denver City Council has scheduled
a final vote on the AT&T franchise for August 16. .
Experts, meanwhile, called the ballot initiative a
"fallback" stralegy in case the U.S. 9m Circuit
Court of Appeals overtums a lower court decision
upholding a local franchising authority's right ro
require open access as a way of promoting
competition.
Analysts predicted AT�T faces an uphill struggle
to sway Denver voters, noting that ATBT and
_ Tele-Communications Inc. (now ATBT BIS) make
"good villains."
"When people think of ATBT, they think
monopoly," said Janco Partners cable analyst
Ted Henderson. "When they think of TCI, they
think of not a lot of service. Combine those two
things in the consumer's mind, and it paints a big
target on the chest."
Meanwhile, legal experts said even if the appeals
court overrules the lower-court decision that
•;rould net vacate an election victory for the -
Denver coalition. ATBT would have to sue to
overtum the election results, said Joe Van Eaton.
a partner with Washington D.C.-based firm Miller
- & Van Eaton.
Even worse for AT&T, any Colorado court hearing
lhe case would have to consider the election
results, said John T. Soma, professor of law at
the University of Denver.
- "This (initiative) changes the dynamics,' Soma
said. "A court has got to give more latitude to
voters wanting open access than to a bunch of
city council people."
That won't prevent AT&T from taking its case to
the voters, said Thomas C. Pe�to, vice president
'. of law and government affairs.
Pelto said the company will stress that the city
council rejected calls for open access during the
transfer of Denver's cable iranchise from TCI to
AT87, and that it now proposes to spend 5200
. � rnilGOn upgrading its local network.
However, Chris 6lelcher, vice president and
general counsel for RMI.Net, said the equal
access coalition will concentrate on informing
voters that recent developments indicate that
other jurisdictions "are taking this seriousiy. and
are no longer worried about AT&Ts threats of
http://����c�e.multichannel.com/8.shtml 8''_r99
--�. _ _..,.____ _ _ -
�-..:.. .
. -.
;r . _ " , .
!�-
; �-.
:
_ 3 - ,
� = :.
� -�� ' -
1 ��.
' # ' � '
�,
�;_
;` � •
- Open Access Battles Ignite in D�ver Pase 3 of-t
•
tawsuits.
"Since the (Denver) franchise was transferred,
Portland has voled against this type of monopoly
arrangement, and a Federal District Court has
' defeated AT&Ts argument,' he said. 'And now
Broward County (Fla.) has voted to open up the
cable. We believe that once voters know the
facts, there will be a very different result."
In San Francisco, meanwhile, the board of
supervisors voted 7-4 last week to transfer TCI's
• system to ATBT without an open access
provision. The majority was more interested in
assuring that the city finally got an upgrade of its
antiquated, 54-channel, system than delaying
basic video improvements over Internet issues.
' As promised, board president Tom Ammiano
supported an amended version of the transfer
that required immediate open access. It failed on
an 8-3 vote. A more conservative proposal by
Supervisor Michael Yaki gained the support of the
majority, which approved it, 7-d.
That version includes re-openers. which allow the
board to revisit technological issues, if necessary.
but does not demand that ATBT open its plaHorm,
even if local jurisdiction is upheld by the Court of
Appeals.
In retum, San Francisco gets a system upgraded
to 750 megahertz, with hvo-way capability
throughouL ATBT will invest 550 million and
anticipates completing the upgrade in four years.
'I think this is a fair outcome. This really serves
' the best interest of the citizens of San Franc�sco,"
said Jim Cicconi, AT8T general counsel.
9ut San Francisco opponents of ATBT vow the ,
issue is not dead. Katie Roper, president of the
Bay Area Open Access Coalition, said her
organization collected 25,000 signatures from
area residents during the unbundling debate.
Those petitions soliciled signatuces From people
who supported a choice in high-speed data
providers.
An initiative would require 15.000 new signatures.
But given the interest in the issue, Roper
expressed confidence that competitors couid
coilect the minimum necessary within 30 days
The goal is to place the issue on the November
ballol.
AT&T officials would not offer a time (rame for
hltp:/!«•��w.multichanncl.com/8.shtml S �;y`
��
"' _
:
,', -
r - ,
��
_ � '
r � ,
Y � .
Open Access, Batdes Ignite in D�nver Ya�e -1 of �
• �
deployment of telephoriy and Internet seivices
throughout the community, but added they
anlicipate launching AT&T@Home in some areas
by year-end.
Cicconi. meanwhile, said he didn't expect
opponents to "fold their tents and go away " but
predicted that competitors will enjoy'limited
. success" persuadingiocal govemments to intrude
on the issue.
So far, ATBT has funded media blitzes and
marched out the lobbying troops in PoRland,
Broward County, ios Mgeles, Dade County and
San Francisco. In fact, it convinced so many
supporters to jam the boardroom in San
Francisco that the fire alarms went off and part of
the crowd had to be moved to an overNow room.
NEXTD
. . J . : I • .1 �
D
�
. U., .
• �.
Home Weekly Preview Broadband Week IndusW Services
�� � Ali contents mt999 Cd��ers Bus�ness InfOrtnalion.
� � PJI nghts reserveE.
- � Multichannel News is a registered
� IradBmark 01 Cahners Bu3i�e53 �nlOrmalioo. �
� � . Lael UpCateO: 07l3019908.J5 PA1 �
http://www.multichannel.com/8.shtml 8 ? 99
, �r . , � _ -'---�-� • --
,c :::; _ _ -
A' '� � .
� � '
' � -
�` . .
� _ -
;; _ _
..r2��, —! J .
} �_ .. y .. : . .
'. ' � :
%���.: _
.,r, ..��� :_s�.�='• .. ,
j'_
i � .!.^,� " — - _ ' - ,
- '� _ " � . � -- � . .
. . . . j . . .. . . . .. � . , . .. .. . ..
' . . . . I . . . . � . ' .. ._.. _... .
I � . � . . .. . .
I '
. CITY.OF LYNWOOD -�.
� � WARRANT RECISTER TOTAL �
- COUNCIL MEETING: LL-02-99
_ ,�
��' WARRANT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT .j',
. � L1-02-99 CITY OF LYNWOOD $1,456,079.28
� ���� TOTAL $1,456,079.28 � ���
. � � - � . . . ..
- G) - ---� � .
J
.::�" .H .� � : . ��
�'-�+ _
� ' ___.. . . . . . _
> „
�. ::> 8:� . • . ..
�-.'' .' �'... , .. v , i
�� .1 ... _?.' _ . I n
r 'i , __"" _. .... _ . . . . . . ._ . ' i�
�-.. . - . . . . . .. . _. _
. v
..'', E�� . ' —__. . ___ —_" ' ' __""_"_ ___ — _._. _..._._—._ . _._..____ "'__ _ _ __ .
. .. " ' . . . . i .. ' . . . . . . �
c i r v � i_ v N w o 0 0 �
WARRANT DA?E�. 1 1 = 02-99� � ' U A R R A N T �q E G I 7 E R � � �-"-- """-�"�
___ -_.___-
-, . . �` I . � . PAGE' � i ,� .
- . . ' .�� PREPqIDS AND VO105 � . . -.. �
' . . . . ' _ _ _ .. . _ . . . . . . . . ._ . . . - . __ _. .. . . '_ _ _ .._. _ . . .. _'_- . __ _--
�
r
�� �. . _ � . � WAHRAtJiN AP7pUNT VENb4RN VENDOR NAME �ESCRf�PTItlN � � - � INV DA7E INVOf�E AMO(1NT`�"�� ���-� ���
� � � � 91648 -144.93 � 99999 BNI/�OORS � VOI�-OPERATING SUPPLIES 11-02-g9 �-144.93 �
�' . � - � 927SB � - 435. O4 ---- 170 LVNW006 RENTAI CENTER � ... . - �._ --------...------ �'
' - '; VOi�-RFNTAL SERVICES� I1-6�� ---- -- =435. OA •
� 93271 -5�+5 pp V494y ICA Vflll]-HF (:-I PVGATT I1-i)2..yq -595. UO � "'
94973 . 6�5.00 99999 NEXTEL TELEPHONE SERVICES 11-02-99 628-00��� �--"�� '� -� --���
. �,� 94976 274.73 1080 RITE A[D POLAROID FILM II-02-q9 27q.73
�!
„ 94977 130.00 3997 PAYASITO RENTAL ENTERTAINMENT SVCS - II-02-94 130.00 ")
� � -�- -�- � � 94978 - ' ��� - 3945. - �Ob �-' --- 329 NATIONAC LEaGUE OF CITFES - � MEMOERSHIP 6UEff - - ""' "�"� � 11-62=q9 �---� " � -��"-�-�--�-��- �-"-"-- -��- �.
� 1 94979 14p.9q 99999 AIRiOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICES I1-02-99 �40,99 �
� ' � 94980 900.00 49999 RITA MARTINEZ � REFUNU-OAIEMAN HALL� Il-O -99 500.00
. . .... . . . 90981 -. " - 190- 29 -'- 99999 ART � GO . .-. . .. . . - . . .. � -_�_-
-� OPERATING 5UPPLIE5�" �-� "" I1=02-99 - -- 19Q:23 �-�-�""��-- ----
� � '� 94982 9484.48 172 CI7V OF LVNWOaD
. ld_^ WORRER'S COMP REIMO 11-02-99 5484.48
� ��� 94983 99L 52 1117 SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS DENTAL PREMIUM 10/99 � II-02 99 991.52
;
, . --"..... .94984 . .. .- - 199:�99 .. " SAM'S CLU�" .. .. ... . .. . .. . . ---.----.-_.._.__.___
� . ' OPERATING SVPPLIES "...' . 1i=02 99 -.-....- " ..,.
� ' � ��� � 99989 200.00 99999 MARfI�J HORTA ENT[FTAINMENT SVCS 11-0c 99 200.00 �-'�
9498b 192 53 371 PITNEY DOWES POSTAGE MACHINE METER 11-02-99 142.53 "�
� '' _. _ . _ �.I
94987 � � - Bb6" A1 294 SMART k FINAL iRiS C❑. � " �" OPEFATING SUPPCIES ---- �� �"" � - f f"=02 -��-�-�- - BbO: �1 - - ""- --�-"-"- " "� -�-� -'-� ------ „i
. �.��. 94988 300.00 99999 LON'EL GREEN� ENTERTAINMENT BERVICES 1t-02-99 300.00
- �. . � :� 94989 2592.59 1399 ASTRO CANON �USINE55 OPERATINO 5VPPLIES 11-02-99 2�92.69 :�
� _ � . �� 949q6 - --- 5-03. 7 f '" � 37 .MONA� AMERICAN - pUSINE55 �ARD � "�--- DANILCARD 1"1=02 99" ----- "933 S 1 � �� � � � , I
�� 94991 12000 00 166 �VNWOOD CNAHI3ER OF LOMMEFtCE �NU ORT.PAVMENT ' 11-02�99� 12000.p0
� » 94992 V27.77 9999g MASTFfl pC1�V WORHS INC. REPAIRS & MAINT 11-02�99 1727.7?
. � �� ��� - - 94993 �- - " - �52�.38 99999 AIRTOUCH CE4�UCAF-LA -' "- - - TELEPHONE SERVICE5 �" If=02-qg -- g2"�3B - -.'
_ ___._.._.. __ _____. . __ _
��; � � ' ' � � 94999 289.00 1285 �VRD INDUSTFIAL ELEC. ����
� � F OPERA7IN6 SUPPLIEB 11-02-99 2B9.00
�- � �� 94999 t2259.15 205 PAVROLL FUND PAVROLL P.E. 30/16/99 1t-02-g9 12259.1s a ,
__
-.... 9A99ti . .'... - 1769. - 95 '� -- 37 M�NA UUSINESS�tARU :..... pANKCARb ---��--�� -�----�----�
�� ' (j��. 94997 137.90 393 PETTV CASH/CM F7EPL[NISHMENT 11--02-99 137.90
'-� `. - ��, 94998 1180.OU 3486 TRACV UERAS HOUSING SERVICES 11-02-99 1180.00 j�
. . � . . -- __ - -. 94949 "-_ _ b0 " 650 OEVAN YHOMAS _ . ._ -_. _ _..___ __._ _____-. - ._
. � ' �� HOUSiNG ----�------- Ii�02-99 - ���
�. � V+ d � 99000 1299.00 879 CON7RACTORS E�UIP. CONTRAC7ING SERVI[;ES 1I-02-99 1299.00
� �, 95001 2800.00 1019 JOHN CATHER ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES 71-02 99 2800.00 _•
_____ ,
-- 950b� - -- - ""p740. - 50 ��- � 7 CALIFOqN[A�SECURITV� INC. �-'-- 5ECURIN �" q9�� �-��-�--� ----��"---�- �
. _ ;_ 95003 , 669 38 1306 [IISTHIC7 ATTORNEV'S OFFICE UISTRICT ATTORNEV FEE 11-02-99 6t4.3�3
, ��� "' : 95004 92.01 34B4 L011ITq.FLOR75T >> 6IFT SHOP FLURAL ARRANGEMENTS � II-02-99 � 92.01 `�
. : ___.__. 4�
� � . .. „ � � - '� - 156 LOS -. ...---� � ` SODSCFIPTIDN -- 1 - 1=02=99 -..- � - " --- "6�1:85 . ...-.-.. . ..-�-"---
, �� � . . ;y �� � 95006 478.36 940 JAV'S CATERING CATERING BERVICE3 11-02-99 478.36
.' ., 95007 44.10 99999 AIRTOUCH CELWLAR TELEPHONE SERVICES 11-02-9q 44.t0 '°
. . .. e -.._....-..-- 95bDB .... � . _ .--...- b�«:6b ... 143 FHW�£ . . .. . ii=62 99 - � --.....- 6?2:6�J -„
_ _. - .__...___...___.____.__.-_ fi _
�.. '�� � � .,:y1., 95009 1291.00 �1209 STAR PHOTO UNLIMITED PHO�iOGHAPHV SERVICES 11-02�-99 1291.00
. .' « 95010 250Q 00 3402 MARN A. FULLEf770N HOUStNG SERVICFS 11-U2-99 2500 00 ;;�
" � � - � ---- "A7i� 44 - 207 PETTV --. -.... . -.. qEPLENISHMENt .. -.. ... i1=02-99 ---� "� 471.44 .. -.....-�----- ."�"--".. -'-- --..
, ,� _ � • .}�� 950f2 2693.75 0157 BPENOA J. PETERSON � PRINTING SERVICES 1t-02-99 2693.75
��� . �� ! :� 95013 . 2000.00 164 LYNGATE PRINTING CO PRINTING SERVICE3 � 11-02-99 2000.00 � F;
, � . ::� - ,:. --._. ' aICC7HONRS -_. _�;H676CI�aPNV 5ER�7fCES'__ -----
.' " � �� � 95015 100.00 99999 SVWIA PENA ENTER7AINMENT SERVICES 11-02-g9 !00 OG
�. �� '°, N 95016 260.00 99999 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES REG-DAVIS,HEMPE ll-02-99 260.00 ;�
.. .. .. .� --�----95Di7_.- ------ ISII'DO ---499 94tOCRV - ERTERTFlNMENT --------- � -- pRTEFTAINNENT SVC6__ _.__. 1t=62-99 �--- 156�.60 �--... -----.....--------- -
- � �- �. � . �ass 98018 71.99 979 PAGENET �F ORANOE COUNTV PAGEH SERVICE5 (i-02-99 71.49
,�
,:
� - �' � .� � 95019 13600.00 3606 SHONDREE BOBBITT/DAVID MORIEL LIABILITY CLAIM I1-02-99 t3�00.00 "
. '� '.a . - . ________ _______ ._________._- _.___ _____- ______._______.___ +a
.. . . ':� � ' � - . . ..
. . • . ' .... .i:a ..� . . . . . . . �
.. C I 7 Y bf L Y fJ U 0 O D
_ -""______" __-_'____—..
� � �' �. . . � WARRAIJT GATE; 11-02-99 ' W A R R A N T R E G I S T E A �.... .. .. ..." '� -�" -- PAGE� 2 �
' PflEPAIOS.NND VO[DS �
. . . . � . .. . . . . ......... _"__-____" ___-_'_-___-_"______— [
. - ' . ,. � . , . . . . . . .
. . � . _ _ . __...____-_ ___ �e
. WARRANTq AMOUN7 VENUORq VENDOH NAME � �DESCqIPTION � INV DATE - INVOICE AMOUNT '�
�, � . 95020 500.00 . 36(JS WI��IE KANARD/DAVID MORIEL � L[ADILI�V CLAIM . 11-02-qq 500.00 �
. _. . ._ .. . ' _ _'_ . .._'_.__ ' _______ _ _"'__- _'-__ �'�
- � ��� 95021 93.12 0197 AMF.RICAN REN7ALS RENTAL EOUIFMENi 11-02�-99 -� 93.12
95022 1204 50 1254 JOSE WIS ESPINOZA pFIOTOCHAPHV 5[RVICES I1-02--99 1204.50
95023 I10 00 95999 GARUEN STHEE7 INN �_(IDGiNG-4.HEMPE 11-02-99 Id0.00 '
. . . .. _ _ ' _"'___' "` .".'_'.___ _"'_'__.___.
.: <' " _ _ " . _ . .. _- - _' . - 16
. � � . . ��� 95024 302947.75 205 PAVROLL FUND pqVROLL P.E. 10/16�99 11-02-99 302947.75 ��
� � - , ' 95025 �� t50.00� 99999 CITV TRAFFIC ENC WEERS ASSOC. REG-�E[MER,NGUVEN I1-02-q9 150.00
. . ���� 95026 917.98 t022 5VSC0 - CATERING SERVICES I1-02-99 917.98 ,�
. . . _.. _ ...._ _-.. - - - - '
_-_._.... . __-___
� . ��� 95027 247.89 940 JAV'S CATERING CATERING SERVICES 11-02-99 - ^47.89
- ��� ' 95028 700.00 99999 LEUNARU ALVAREZ ENTENTAINMENT SVGS 11-02-99 700.00 �'�
. ��• 95029 3500.OU 99999 HERNANUF.Z PRODUCTIONS INC ENTER��AINMENT SVC5 11-02-44 3500.00 ;;
' . . . . _ . . .. - _ ______-'_" __ _.____" .--' _
� . .. �..� . . . . , � - - ' � TOTAL PREPAVS�, � 391455. �92 :�
_ -� . � TOTAL VUI05: -12?4.97
', . � '. . . ' . . _ _ .. . _. . . _ _. _.._ ____-__-_;:
�� � � "' � � TOTAC. . . .-. - � 3901�0. 49 -.. . . ,!
._ ... . . , ��
� �.. � . _ ..__ _ . . , . _ -: _ . __. ... _ ..._.'__-__ •'___- _ _..."____._'_.- _ _
t _ _ _
' ' . _ _ . ____ _._._ _ '_-___.- ___ 7�
. .. _ . .. _. . .._ . _ _..._. .___ '_.._ .
_
__ _.
. . .. . y _.____ _
M
�
.
�
, _ . t _ . . . .. . - . . _—._—_
'S
� . . . .. . . �� � . .. . � . -
. . . . , . . „ . �- . . . . .
„
,'. .' r :.. , . ,, � . ' � . ,- . . . . .
- —__—___—____ _ ____- ______ __ . _______. ____'—_ __._.__-__ ___ —__'-_ ____-- ._-___ . 9
� . C I 1 Y of L V W W U O D .
' i . . .WARRANT DAiE'. . 1 1-02-99 W A it it A N T R E G I� 5 T E R . .. .-. . --� ' pA � E'. .. 3 __..._"'___-______'______� �,
. . . . . . _ _ __.____._ "_'____.'_'__- __"' - --'
,. . � WARRFNTH �AMUUNT VENDORq VENDOR NAME UESCRIPIIUN INV DATE INVOICE AMOUNT -
. „ , ' '.__.. .--' _.'_._ '
. , 99030 ..- � - � -- �'1456.7�2�� - 616 AA EOUIPMENT�CO UPERATING SUPPLIES -' �ii�-62-94 � - � �---.--�...�-....---.._..---- � �
,. , ' 95031 . 25.00 3253 HECTOR ADARCA pLANN[NG COMM MTC LO/99 I1-02-99 2�.00
- � „ 99032 68.67 1334 AOC HARDWARE ' pW LDING MATERIALS 11-02-99 68.67 � .,,-
, __ .. . . _ . _ _ _._._ _.____.__ -_________,_ _
�-� . � � ���� � 95033 IB20.00 - 257 ACCOUNT TEMP. � � - 7EMP HELP - 11�-b2-99 � 1820 06 ��
' . , 95034 184.63 b82 ADT SFCURITY SERVICES - BECUHITY SERV[C£5 71-02-99 �H4.63
�� S
. ' . �. 95039 205.00 3527 ALFA CARBURETORS AUTO PAHTS . I1-02-99 205.00 � ,5
� �� �-� -� � 93b36 7�9.�68 - -�826 ALL �tiUt�D1NG NATERIAL5 � -� 11-02-49 � ��-�� � ��
� - 99037 822.70 061 ALLSTAq FINE EOUIPMENT pIRE EOUIPMENT 11-02-99 8�2.70
� �, �e
� � �. 99038 9.95 3968 AM UEST COMPANV. lNC. � OPERATING SUPPlIE5 11-02-99 4.95 r,
. . - � --�---- ..."95039 .. . .... "� 152�AMERIPRIb��UNIF6RM SERVIt'CS - UNIFORh RENTALS _ ... . - - 11=a2=q9 - ...� ���AS. .. - � �--�---
' 99090 483.57 1271 AME7'RON AMEFICAN ELECTRON[C FIL07' INTERPRETING SVCS 11-02-99 483.57 �+ '-�
. . � � ���e 95041 688.96 760 ARGO E�.EC7RIC SUPPLY CO. ELECiNICAL SUPPLIES 11-02-99 688.96 � ;;
..._._. . ..98048 . .`.. . ... 99999 ATkT . _..- _ .._ _ . . . . . 7ELEPHONE SERVICES . ." 11=02 .. . . .. ..._ .. .... ........ .."-`--
� � 99093 72.94 9q999 ATkT WIHELE55 SERVICES TELEPHONE SERVICES 11-02-99 72.44
.�� e
. � '- ,� 99044 29.00 3500 JAMINq BARNES PLANNING COMH MTG !O/99 It-02-99 29.00
� . . . .--...__.. - 95043 _.- __ ...257. ._.. 35i3 UUO05 - NnqDWARD .. . _ . . _ bpERATTNG�SUpPCI€5___ ._` Il�=t�2-99 "-----257.-25___� . -_- _----
- �� i� 98046 24660.00 3586 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE!DEiIGN LANDSCAPE SERVICES 11-02-99 24660.00
M
- ��
� � 95047 250.00 99999 CELSOC REG-PAUI_ NGVVEN 11-02-99 250.00 ,-�
. .-___... _.__ _..___.____.. ___
� �. 99046 � �-�� 743.81 � 41 CEN7RAL DASIN MEMOERSHI�'�DUES -����-� - It-b�-9fi � ���iA3�.�1
.,.. , . 99099 16746.87 822 CIVIL NOHHS CORP. CONSTRUC710N SERVICES It-02-99 16796.87 -
�- �� .� �, 99050 606.50 53 CLINICAL LAU OF SAN OERN �ACTERIA TE97 SERVICES II-02-99 606.50 L-
'. . . ___ _._. _. _ __ .
- :•� -95051- _. ..._._ 1633.34 � �35b2 C�RDA% _ .._._._.. _.. ...-..._. - COMPUT�R��UP�FiAI3@ 1i-02-99 .__- Ib33_3�.__ __. .
•� - . � 95052 7179.07 698 COUNTV OF L.. A. ANIMAL CUNikOI ANIMAI_ CON7R0�- SENVICES 11-02-99 7179.07
�� _�- 95053 575.36 3032 COUNTY ❑F LO5 ANGELES PRISON MAINTENANCE 11--02-99 979.36
� „ T,
„ .., . .__-_._. 9Sb54 ._ _ 99999 CSKa . .._.. _. ...... .. -. _. - MEH6ERSHTP DUES ..._.__...,.11-02-99�------90�b0 _ __ __._.__. _---._ _ _ .
�, �� _ � � 99095 200.00 99999 CSMFO � MEMDERSHIP DUES 11-02-99 200.00
.,�..��' . -`��� ;� 95086 4.9B 560 CUDAHV DUILDING MATERIAL5 UUIL�ING MATERIALS 11-02-99 4.98 ;;
,.' ,;,,:: _ '. . __._.__. . _ . .
�- .... 95097 -. ' 83 � 74r DANGECO .. ....... .. .. . . .....OPEftAT1NG SUPPL7€S ..---. � .. 1 . 1-Q2-99 �----- 9d7d:83"---._.._.._._ ..._. ___.____:;
-. -. -- 99058 563.89 635 DANNA OFFICE IMAGING CO. %ERD% MA1NT AGREEMENT 11-02-99 963.89
�. �. . � ,. ��.
. . ... .;. . . . li
�, '.. ". � ,,.,:����' '.,,��� ,e 95059 1086 00 543 OEE-MAR, INC. TEMP HELP 11-02-99 1086.00 ,-„�
� � � � �� � �- 95060� - � � 194. 85 966 DIAZ B� uePR3Nt 6� � 6RAF7INC - �' p131N7INC� SEqV10E5 -� � � � - �11-D2=99 � � 19a 95� � -
�� � •�� �� � 99061 339.57 2�Oq DIAZ �LUE PFINT PRINTING SERVICES � ll-Q2-99 339.97
i. � �� ��� � 950b2 12-11 1107 DICN'S LOCK !. HEV LOCKSMITH SERVICES I1-02-99 t^.11
� ��� �� ��� � - 95063 �- -� 23.00 � � 73 D�NALO OOVE - � ���- - � �� � PLANNIN6�'COMM F1TG f0%44� � I�� ��-9� � � �9 Ob - � � � �-- ����� +
�. �� � .�� 95064 372 11 66 E. M. 5. ME�ICAL PRUUUC MED[CAL SUPPLIES 11-G2-99 � 372.11 .
��� ,� ,.- �� . � 95065 440 00 979 EMPIRE PIPE CLEANING REPAIRS G MAINT. 11-02-q9 440 OU -
: . .. ' . ,: y:
, , .., �, � --_. _ . 95b6S� -------- 3522�.51_ . - 937 �zC�C NUit5ERV -- -- 1�7R7GA71tiN�MATERIACB ` _._ ..._...--- --------- �t
� � �. � , �,. 95067 154.50 096 FED E% COURIER SERVICEB 11-D2-99 � 154.50 �
_ � , � 95068 58.90 99999 FIREHOU5E MARNETPLACE,INC SUBSCRIPTI�N UUES 11-02-99 38.40
,� .. �,. . �' � ��., . '_' _____ ..___._ 3A7�i9 .. � .. 0i18 FIRST _--- _.._- tOFKE[-SUPPL[ES _____.._ -i1=62=99__.__.__343:�99._... _. ____.._ __._- __- _._` _
�� � �, �.. " -� � „fi 95070 30 16 OI18 FIRST CHaICE COFFEE COFFEE 3UPFLIES- 11�-02-99 30.16 -
� , �-� 95071 173 00 898 FIRST COURIER SERVICE COURIFR SERVICES II-02-99 173.OU
J `: _ 't. .� � :.: `�.'., , � „ ____'_IA7b: bb_ . 99999 FitE6�FCQRES_______ _ __ .._. _. .- ftEFUN6AiilE DEPOSIT ,.. __. 11=62=99 __.._.lA7b.-00. __ ._._..__'_ ____ .._._
� � � ���, 99073 55��77 917 GOS LINEN LINENS CLEANINO SVCS 11-02-99 607.77 ""
� ' . ��� 95074 25-00 f09 NANCV GILPEN PERSONNEL BRD MTO 10/99 11-02-99 27.00 ,'-„�
�. b. _ . _ . . .
;:. z,
. . "+. -J---- ��95b75 - --------- 2i3.�"6q�"" --- �492��OL6EN - �OFFIZE'�TRAIlER5 -...-.-.. nFFICE"TRAILER�RENTFC� 11-02=99 ------�---�""---�------�--"--
'� �. � 95076 350.00 99999 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS REG-A.EARNEST ]t-02--99 390.00
- .. � , 95077 2075.00 00q8 GRACE MACHINE ppERATING SUPPLIES 11-U2-99 2075.00 � -
:�.'. �. � :` - s' �.
,. ., . , .,., , --- 95678" ----- � - 3bSb6 -........ CRiFFITH TtlDL___._.�----- ._- tlpERATfNG 6VPPLSE9 1i=02=q9-----305�"bb..__.- . ...____...------
.., , . _ . ,. . .. .,
� � . .�.. �.. �, -„ . . .
�. ..,, , . ------- ---- �------------..---------�-- - - � ---� --- �
_ 'i .
.. ..� ' . , . . , .. . .. - . . . , � � , . � � . . . , . .. . . -
{
� C I T V oF L v N�W O O D � � . - �
WARqANT DATE: fi-02-99. W A F R A N T R E G�I 5 T"E �R " . -. ..�-- --" '�---- `" ��4' ...-.. ---""-�-------�"--------�
.. . . .. � . . . _. .. _ . . ._ . ....__.. _ .;._ _.__.'_____ _-- ___.-_ ____.-__ __ _
WARpANTq �AMOVN7 .VENDOHp VENDOR NAME UESCRIPTiON INV DA7E INVOICE RHOUNT
. 1 . - " _'___'___'__'_'___ '______'__-____--..-.__.__._..._.--'_'_ __ �-'"" __ '_' -
� 450)9 053.75 - ' 953'NILLVAqD SANITARY 5VPPC1E5 '� �� � �--"-"-"--- -�--"------'---"
� � _ 95080 166.75 526 HONEVWELL INC ENERGV SAV[NG FEE � lI-02-99 - 166.75
�o
� �
� '� . 95081 318.29 99999 HVAT7 ISLANDIA LODGING-GFOl+ SEMINAR I1-02-99 318.24 - ;,
' . �---- �� 95682 � - b4.47 --- �051 iCl DULUX CENTERS � � bUILDING MATERIALS � -- 11-62--qq `"�� "- -- "-��"--�- -� �--"-- �-""�-- --
. � 95083 2332.79 940 JAY'S CATERING CATEF WG SERVICES 11-02-99 2332.79
_ ` � � � 99084 25.00 3300 fi00FRT JOHNSTON PEHSONNEL �RD MTG 10799 11--02-99 25.OG ;;
� � � ,� � � � - 95b89 � -� 57. 42 - 671 KELLEV �LUE� D60N -� � -� � - SUBSCRIP7ION DUES - - - �- 11-02-99 -- �' - 37. � -�- - � " - �- -�--��--- `� ""
�. . 95086 �3.02 100 KEVS70NE FOHD qUTO PARTS 11-02-99 53.02 �
��. 95087 3395.95 3319 H7NG'S DIESEL SERVICE. INC AUTO PARTS 11-02-99 3�95.95 �w
� ' _-.___._.... _ . .__ _.._ __.____.._
- - � 9908A �- � � 1639��09 ' 1 i55 K2NG5� DIES@L SERV2CE �- ��� �� 'AUY6 PRRTS ��� � � � � -� 11=02-99 �� � iS34.�03 �� �� �---- - -
-� . 9308`� 250.00 36 HOPPL COMPANV � OPERATING SUPPLIES 11-�2�-99 250.00 • 42
. - 99090 69.28 �q3 L& M PR WTING �PRINTING SERVICES 11-02-99 69.2d
.. � . .`..-. � 9'041 . .....389: 59 0125 C & N UNIFORMS . . . .- UNIFORM IiENTACS .- .. 11=02=99 _ .".. 399 95'"" --- ...." . .--. .._._.._.. .._.•,
, � . � 95092 2262.47 ,398 L.N. CURTIS R SONS OPERATING SUPPLIES 11-02-q9 2262.47 .
-; . �� � � 95093 140.00 1304 LANGUAGE NETWORK PILOT TRANSLATION FEE 11-02-99 140.00 ;
� _ � ;�--- -- ' q9094 � 672d27.24 - 691 - COUNTV�OF C A: SHERIFF'S 6EPT - LAW FNFORCEMENT -""-� - 11 '" �4 ��� '"' � "'---- �
� � � 95093 25.00 1062 GEORGE LEWIS PERSONNFL ORD MTG 10/99 11-02--99 25.00 �
- �. � � � 99096 25.00 153 ARNULD LITIIE PERSONMEL ORD MTG 10/99 11-02-99 25.00 -
�' "-���- 98097 - -� � � �5 2097 JOSEPNINE �fTTLEJOHN � � ' �- pER50NNEC ORD MTG 10799 ' 11-62-99 --�- � � ------ --� --� �"��-""�--��- ` ��"
, � . . - 99098 1120.00 99999 LLSC� INC. REFUNDA�LE DEPOSIT 11-02-99 1120.00
,�- ' , 95099 24.11 740 L N. CURTIS E. SONS OPERATING SUPPLIES 11-02-99 e4.11 .
_:
. - --�- - � 9S10b � ���--� 8960.bb - �BO LOS ANGELES METIiOPOEITAN -- �OUS -- - �---���- � I1 ��
��� . _- � 95101 2830.75 3600 L.VNWOUD UNIFIED SCHDOL O15L 5UMMER FOOD PRpGRAM 11-U2-99 2830.75 .
' � ,' 95i02 199.17 164 LYNGAI'F. PRINTING CO. PRINTING SERVICES II-02��99 199.17 � -
�� ... . _ .. _ .���
� - � 45103 �28069�. 10 - 346 LVNW606 UNIFIEbBCHO�L bT57. --- �SUHMER� MEAC �-- --�" - 11=02=99 - �� - ��2B6S9. - f0"�� --�- �-�""�--- -- "---�-- �- "-
, � 95104 25.00 3489 ALLAN MACIEL � PLANNING COMM MTG ]O/99 11-02-99 26.00
:� . .� ; 95f05 690.00 1548 MAIN STREET TOVRS TRANSPORTATION SVCS 11-02-99 690.00 „
� ' � ' -� -°�� � � �95Ip6 � � 1594 MAFJAG�D HEFiLTH NETWORI( ' - pryPLOVEE Pl70GRATi -�"-� -
` -, -- .�' 95107 25 00 3355 DR. CAH�OS MANLAPAZ PLANNING CDMM MTG 10/99 II-02--99 28.00
� !+ �"
� ' ��"-� � 95108 975 00 304 MANUEL R. MEJIA PRINTING SERVICES t1-�2-99 975 00
•, � . � °��" ----. .. 95169 ... .. 1955A.97 '� O�5 MICR�LINK ....... .. . . . .... . ... .COMPUTER�PURCHA5E . II �03=99 ---- . - 195SA.97 .... -.-..-" - �--
!'. � �',��:��. 95110 �14.06 3426 MISSION MANAGEMENT COMPUTER SERVICEB 11 02-99 �14.06
�: �� �� � �, 95111 t1B4.15 827 M G�M AUTO PARTS AUT❑ PARTS 11 02-99 1164.15
�� ' --"-"�� " - '- �����IIS. 1B7 O7AL MODILE ��"�TWO-WRV RAOIOS SEROiCE --� � �i�1=02=99 - " - � -- I15 - .�00"�� '"---- ---��•„
, . � - 95I13 98.90 1266 MOOILECOMM PAGER SERVICES II-02-99 9B.q0
� , ,.
� . .� : ��• ,: 95114 1750 00 1012 MOD SVS7[MS SOUND SV5TEM�RENTAL 11-02--99 I750.00 -
:: „
---� -� - ���991 - 19� - � - --- �--� - 156:' 60 ' 99999 NACE❑ `--- -- - - ... . . - MEMOERSHIP�� OUE5 '-..._.. -.`.. 1�1=02=99 -�"- - 190. - 00' "- "----....."--- u �
�� .. �� ��� 95116 850.00 `1�3 NATIONWIUE ENVIRONMEN�AL SVCS. ALLEV CLEAN-UP 3ERVICES 11-02-99 830.00 �
� .�. . . 95117 330.19 3553 NEXTEL COMMUM CATION TELEPHONE SERVICES 11-02--99 330.19
` _ _ L,
• ---- . . NORWALN�POWER @iSUIPMFNTCO...... '. .II=02=99"� -----"-...--�-"""----"- ""--
.� .. �� r ,6 q5119 3l 44 1�6 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPlIES 11-�2-99 31.94
�.� . �.. 95120 48304.84 486 P.E.R.S. REiIREMENT 1�0/16/99 11-U2-99 48304.E34 R;
�� � � ' . - ----- -- � - q5121 - - �� - 683: 3b � 202 PAGEANTRV PR06UCTIONS �� pROM0T1tlNAL ITEMS� --- i1=02=99 --- - 583. 3S ` "�"'�--�� -- - -- --"- - � --
,-� . ��.b 9512� 59.20 OB PAGI�NG NE7WORN PAGER SERVICES 11-a2-99 5`7.20 -
_• '' 95123 420.23 207 pETTV CASH REPLENISHHENT t(-02-99 420.23
_ i�
; .
. ,� ... �r� - "95i�A - 3066:�6b_ . __3338PITNEVWORKS .. _ . ______ ._______PtlSTAGE-HETER��FEE......_=...-I1-=02=99.___"_3060�:-06_'_ ____�.________..___ _
`� � 95125 1281.64 3584 POOL SUPPIV/ORANGE CUUNTRY P�OL SUPPLIES I1-�2-99 1281.64
: �, 35 95126 547.65 �13 PRESS TELEGRAM PUDLICA7ION SERVICES ll-D2-99 547�.65 �
. � �! '';'� r ' : '. ;�:!,. .+. -� --- � - �951�7" ------ �� -- 566:60 -..-- 555 PURf{I55 ROSE=R57 �--"��- C6FI5TRUGTIOfl�SERVICES� --- 1f=0�=99 --.-... 506:60 ".-..-�- .-"."--- �-'�"-----
j u
... . �: �: �... ..., . v .
: _ _ ... ..: -:i ' _-_--- . �
.. ��.. . ., . , . . - _-_-'_'-.___'_"-__ _'__'--_- _-__-_- -___--`-._-_.---__.____-- _
, . .
�
� � �
� . ' . C I T Y df L Y N�W O O D �
. ,:. - --____'_____-__...__'_
- - � � I� WARRANT DATE: 1 t-02-99 - W A R R A N T R E C I 5 - T E R - � .. ...-.. . ... .. -.- .. . - �pAbE � �� 5 � �
, . . . . � . . . . . .. .. . . _ .. _ _ .__ __.. ____. . _ _ .____._ '_ _... .- __._._ .__ _
� � � WARRANTp �AMOUPoT VENDORp VENUCIR NAME � UESCHIPJION _ �NV�DATE IPlVpICE AHUUNT
_'__'___"___'_'__ � -_ ___'___- '_'____-._'--'- ".. ._. . __'__"'______ � .
� q5t28 - 171q �O IOB4 OUALI7V AU70 TRUCK PAPTS � AU70 PAhiS � 11=02-q9 -- i719. 2b -�- -��"���""-�- -- '"'---- -"---- "
95129 25.00 3257 WILLARD H. REED PI_ANNING COMM MTG IO/99 11-02-99 25.OU
.� �. - 95130 151.69 225 RENTERIA AUTO PAR75 AU7U PARTS 1]-02-99 151.64
. 95131 2242.00 122ti RkCHAPDS, WATSON F. GERSHON LECAL K 11-02--'3q "'�22A2.DC� �----�- -"--- `��-----��--
� 95132. 4757 OI 1230 S 7.. J SUPFLY CO. pPfdRAi[N9�SUPPLIES 11-02-99 4757.01 -
�. 95133 124 90 3303 S P.U. AU70 PAF7T5 I1�-02-99 129.50 �
���� �i5134 3b0.59 - 23� SAFETV-HLEEN CORP6RATtON OPERA7IN6 SUpPL�lE5 �� � -� 1t-b2-49 �-- �� 3bb.34 ���� �" � -����� � - -�-
' 95139 32 48 99999 SAM'S CLU� - MEM�ERSHIP DUEe� .� 11-Oa-99 32 48
- � � 95136 19750.41 005 SHAN R THEVER & ASSOCIATES LEGAL FEE5 I1 02-9q 19750.91 �,°�
� �� � -� - 45137 B67 87 �244 SMAhT d< tR75� C❑: � � tlPERATiNG SUpPL1E5 � 11 -� - � SOT. �"' � -�-- ---�"� "�- ""---��--
' 9513� 756.00 3509 SPONSORED MKT INSURANCE CAFFTFRIA PLAN FEE I1 OP--99 75h.0O i+;
95139 4l"2.00 1209 S1AR�PHOTO UNLIMITEU PIIOTUGRAPHY SERVICES 1i--02-99 412.OU -
�� :.
-� � 95140 41A.05 3421 SUPEf7 UOLCAR WISE � - AUTO PARTS� - � 15-02-99 � 419:�05 - ���---- -' -'�--�--- --�-- �:
� 95141 983.2L 1022 SVSCO CATERING SERVICES i1-02-99 983.21
� :� 951q2 540.4q 666 TAJ OFFICE SUPPLV OFFICE SUPPLIES 13-02-99 540.44 .�.
, .. --..�. 95f43' . �" 535. 50 26A TE%ACO; TNC: ...-. . FUEL PURCHASE . .-.. 11-G2=99 - ��- "939:�50 .."�"�- ---� -'- "'--�...-�---�
95f49 I50.00 99999 THE PUI3LIC RE7'IREMENT JOUHNAI- REG-MFlY TAN I1�-U2-99 150.00
- 95149 695.59 265 �ILL TFiOMA5 PHOTOG(7APHV SERVICES 11--02-99 696.Sy -
, ;.
>. - 9914b � - � 150. Ob 99999 TOWNHALI CO5 AN6ELE5 �- MEM�ERSHIP DUES � --��-� - -- - 11-0�-99 - - - 156: �66 � - ---� -"" ��� --- �-""'� -��- -
- � � 99347 � 1974.19 239 7RENCH SHORING � OPERATING SUPPLIES 11-02-99 1�74.14 -
�. �.
,.
�� 99t98 12000.00 3963 TRILEK ELECTRIC POLE LIGHTS INSTALLATION 11-02-99 12000.00 ,;,
- �---� - � �95i99 ..... 12 `� 3391 7qIANGCE�SpOI7TS fNC . .. L�AGUF�AUAp65 ... f�1=02-99 - � - �-- - --.".... - ---" - �----" -
� 93150 1665.60 290 1'RUEVINF COPIMUNI7V OUTREACH COMMUNITV SERVICES II-02-99 1669.60
•- � 95151 124449.17 279 U.S. �ANK LEASE PAVMENT 12/99 it-02-99 124449.17
� � �� - �-� -� � - - 95152 � � �'- I Ib: 55 254 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT - - UN6ERGRtlUNU SERVICES "� SS " --" � -- -" � - -�--`-" `"-- �- p
95I53 687.57 219 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC OUS STOP COLLECTION 11-02-99 687.�7
.:
� 99154 4950.00 3469 WEST GROUP DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 11-02-99 4990.00 ���
-- - � �- �95I55 ��----�-- 39.65 - 295 WESTERN HIGHWAO ' -� - STREETSICNS PURCHASE 11 65� """---- - ""
- 95156 375.50 306 XERUX CURPURATION %.F.HO% LEA9E AGREEMENT il-02-q9 379.5�
. _ 95157 4972.50 307 VOUNG FE�PLE �F LYNWOO� AI.LEV CIEAN-UP i1-02�-99 4972.9G ;;
� .__....__ . _ .__ _ . .
.. . _ _ .. ._ _ _ _ _' ' __' '
__.. __.. _ ._"_ __. '___
.' _-_ . . ....___ _ _ _.. _.
. .. _.. ...... ______'_. _ _
..1496079. 28 � "�
, 1456079 28
I
.. ._____."_' _'___'
' ' PNEPAID�. 94975-q5029 �
� � SPOILED: �
, .:
`. . . . . ._._ . ._.___ . _.. _- _... _ _. __ _. ___. ..' __ _'__.... ._ . _ , .
. .' -- -... . .. . ' . -. ... .. VOIbS:� . 91699,� 92768� 93271 . . -.. . - ..,
, . _ , _�,• , _ . .
� �
�� � c�t o,� �YNWOOD �
, .,�. �...
{�� �� � City vt�leeting C6aQPenges � I I I' �
11330 BULLIS ROAD .
� � � LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262 �
� �, (310) 603-0220 �
Date: November 2, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Ralph Davis, III, City Manage
By: Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerl�!
SUBJECT: Fireworks Stands - December 1999
FACTS/SUMMARY
Assembly Bill 2090, signed by the Governor on August 24, 1998, authorizes the
sale of safe and sane fireworks from 9 a.m. on December 26, 1999 through
12:00 midnight on January 1, 200�, provided that the local jurisdiction adopts a
resolution or ordinance authorizing such sale.
� My office recently surveyed surrounding cities. The following are participating in
the sale of fireworks as follows:
Cities Allowing Fireworks Sales
, City of Bellflower
City of Carson
City of Cudahy
City of Huntington Park
City of Pico Rivera
Cities Not-Allowing Fireworks Sales
CiCy of Bell
City of Bell Gardens
City of Downey
City of Lakewood
� � City of Norwalk
The cities of Compton and Maywood have not made decisions as of this time.
:-'-: ��.rz�n �r�.n�
i •
BACKGROUND
At Councils regular meeting of September 21, 1999, Resolution No. 99.155 was
: approved for a New Years Eve Millennium Party for December 31, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION
After Councils review of the attached resolution, direct staff accordingly.
. CLERK332 '
. A RESO�UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O�HE CITY
� OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE SALE OF SAFE AND
SANE FIREWORKS FOR THE YEAR 2000 NEW YEARS
CELEBRATION
WHEREAS, existing law authorized the sale of safe and sane fireworks
from June 28 through July 6 annually pursuant to a license issued by the State Fire
Marshall, unless otherwise prohibited or regulated by law or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Governor on August 24, 1999, authorized Assembly
Bill 2090 for the sale of safe and sane fireworks from 9 a.m. December 26, 1999
through midnight January 1, 2000; and
WHEREAS, these provisions would become inoperative on January 2,
2000, and would be repealed on January 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Jicense issued by the State Fire Marshall, if
authorized by a city, county, or city and county ordinance or resolution that may also
restrict the hours of use of those fireworks; and
. WHEREAS, local jurisdictions must adopt a resolution authorizing such
sales; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynwood authorizes such
sales being December 26, 1999 through December 30, 1999, 9 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
and
WHEREAS, the organizations eligible for a license will only be the
fouReen (14) organizations that were issued licenses to operate fireworks stands
during this past season, and who maintained their good standing during the season.
Any organizations opting not to sell during this special period will not lose their
eligibility standing.for the July 4, 2000 season; and
WHEREAS, any vacant slots will not be filled for this special sales
• period and no new organizations will be considered. Licenses will not be granted
without the fnancial reports for the July 4, 1999 sale having been appropriately
submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, proclaim, order and resolve:
. Section 1. That City Ordinance No. 1183 and 1482 be adhered ta
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Passed, Approved and Adopted this day of ,
1999.
Ricardo Sanchez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk .
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, City of Lynwood Ralph Davis, III, City Manager
� - CLERK333
� �
� ci��� � �YN�VOOD �a
. < <..
����� � c�t ..,uFe►�� c���rf�g� � I � � �
� 11330 BULLIS ROAD
. , LVNWOOD, CAIIFORNIA 90262 � ,
� (310� 603-0220 . �
Date: November 2, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
, From: Ralph Davis, III, City Manager
gy. Andrea L. Nooper, City Clerk�
SUBJECT: Special Permit - Street Closure
Per the attached Special Permit. Otis Lockett is requesting a street cl^sure on
Elm Sireet between Fernwood and Brewster Avenue for a wedding reception
November 6, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
After Council review, direct staff accordingly.
CLERK334
n"lT�Y S h � �, � �w�� t � � _ � !J � V . . .
Y +�'.��, F {SYS � - _
> � -r. � �`"',-',; � �.� _ j
,�.� � } i ' r'ti�4 w`� � . . .
i, t�4
. v � � ._ . . - ,
'� I ��. ' .I <f /� �.♦ . .. ' �— '
Z � ).�.� � �� �� _ . � . A
/ 1-
t .'. ' � ..� . ._..__.... , .
'/ L t � � �: < . . .
i���� v'♦ ii . � r �� y . _ . .
,y � �. � . ..� �,
~•J i ! .f' .x � � �'L �f " ' ' . � ,
/d ��Yll J JT— Y ' ' ' ._.__.
.�r �!;-� . ,� _
� ��� �'�'- ��✓ 1'ti ,�^ � `-a - . � .. .. ';:� :
�s 1/ �f �> S � ..� '' �Y' . `{� i „r' ' ' �
f ��' °" F I. i; •r , ' � '. Y ,. 3ar _ . ' . . .
r il� _ K 5 �'NC� ` ' �
t
k-K %T7.+-�rrJ`"�Ft�a
+ i.1 Y � :J�$" �. � . -" � � _ .
. r � t �- � . . _ r ^c f .. . . � � __—
y - , � rr , , . .
• • CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT 11330 BULLIS ROAD
LYNWOOD CA 9C252
� 310-603-C220
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
NAME�� ��' 1._ L-C1GY�L j j CDLx PHONc���C�"16�SISS
ADDRESS ` � �p ( q � ` M �' '�' . CITY �21P � C d� �
OCCUPATION ' ' e r c Acr�� � � l—ti�-�' S�.� �C; �, - 7 �
�r��
NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED SBE
� � � IState Boartl of Eouai¢auon Numoer
EVENT INFORMATION
TYPE OF PERMIT REQUESTED: � p L�� � D �� �j 1 �� A r-t� � w' n
DATE(SI OF EVENT �� ni�c� m�� t � � Q O � � �
,
HOURS OF OPERATION �'�,' � �� m \ Ll �(` O G m -
ADDRESS OF PROPOSED EVENT LOCATION i 1 I., I.,Q C 1 ry� r I _
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGNATED FOR EVENT � � p n � � � c k k I M S 7' b!�1a=��.. acla�. ��S `e
IS STREET CLOSURE BEING REQUESTED YES JO� ICIRCLE ONEi
fIF YES BRIEFLY EXPLA REASON FOR EVENT AND CLO 1 r.-, �} , � p b 1 n � k W;1 I
�� b P. 1 f�1 R"t"� i° N('J� Q N C '� C� T. l,L� o C^ C7� 1�J C. 'r e C 4 P i � G r.� ��� ��; er��
' _ � _
IF INDOORS. APPROXIMATE TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA OF STRUCTURE � r 1 _
HAVE YOU MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THIS TYPE OF PERMIT BEFORE� YES NO
IF YES. WHERE AND WHEN N/ I\
IS THIS A FOR-PROFIT O NO PROFIT EVENT� (CIRCLE ONEI
IF THIS IS A NON-PROFIT EVENT OR A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS BENEF�T A
NON•PROFIT AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING
NAME OF ORGANIZATION BEING BENEFITED �/�
STATE NON-PROFIT NUMBER
ADDRESS OF ORGANIZATION. PHONE
IS A WAIVER OF FEES BEING RE�UESTED YES � NO
IF YES. EXPLAIN —
�� � � � � 1 � � �, '� , �
� � ( t-1 t 1� , � v- � y..i r c1 .� e-• 1 R� �. l
A NEGOTIATED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS IS RE�UESTED TO BE DONATED TO THE CITY
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND
COMPLETE AND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS WILL CAUSE A
FORFEITURE OF FEES AND DENIAL OF PERMIT
�,-a � `� `��-�EC i b ;n � 9 `�
`siLiNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
. RECEIVED I �ir� � �.��1� ��E�
I C17Y OF LYNW�OU
CITY CLERKS OFFICE SIGNATURE O APPLICAN� DATE
OC 1 2/ qCCEPTAI� OF THIS APPL�CATION FOR REVIEW OOES NOT IMPLV APPROVAL THIS � � . �� .
' AY ,n � N p F�EOyY��11RES CITV COUNCIL APPROVAI YOU WILL BE NOTIFIE� ACCORDINGLV •
�4 a �ll�lf� 1{�tv��
f
� �;:�. . _ �
.� �. :.
: �
;.:�,;;"!�1!,�� .
;��. �
;;� : :
„ �
�;�
:::.�
-:s
,r _ , , . .
,`'� /c� `�r l��is�Il.^.��7`� �+=� �' C�� �1� /��. ,
� r/ r/
� � ��� `j o�/Ce� f'C._'-�=�C�:� �` �;;,(
//�� 9 �ic �'f ��s /9,�a� 2 x • ,�'.2'�« �: >4 �
� ��.0 ilL� �' c��°l� <` ; ' G-���' �f -, //�>c��
�'�� �, ,/��
B , � ' �� ltu�vz � 02 ; �.� �/��j•.�d.77'c,' cl�- �
c�Q�uc ; l� �/l�a�/e.� /�� �, , e i � z�tiK �� ,�-1 S�,
��� ��� � 7� �L%G�x-c1'-� n� � �-; < �_ �.,{,
'� �� � �
�
� IX /�y� ��,��;E:::� `��� �r.�v `f'�...' i - �L-:�f�.�s
� a.;, �l� `��,� `.� .s�.S4�:� ���` y<<<� «z�.i .;.�.,y
/ „ ��� l/ �"' /
'. ..C"�'� L� Q�lt `f p�Lt.��'CX�-vc TC' c�� %�-C.' � YiL�4l: . c
� �, � GC i
�/rc�-i-� . r� aj;e.e�c���eYr y�>�, a�, ��C� ��
� � � � �tT ��,e . (nt �� o,t ,wrc,z2� �� �%c�,� . �
� U/E', / 2.c cl-zl �L�r'�� La�,r f�' �-a� ,1�C�1 � z�'/c/I.� u.
`� � / � /.
„e�'� r,� a�. t �Gr_ oE a�a.� � �„ , �
�� LL7.cCr-,L /LU
��GL'L� t�y�GL� . i�
�) ����'! r% .�,..� ���� 7 E c��� s�
. � ..7, . �! � / il � l��r � � L'LL7 S/ .
li .
3 !�(/, „��� ��I //��6 ��'-'� -�
y �/�-�'���- .�iaw �i���� �,i�l� Sr
s i'�z� %C����Y� /I�US �; � f.
�'��..�,�.�. I_.r.� �c~ 1 I� 7 3 c��t -��.
. . . � � � � .��-/ ,.-Gl�-,wu.�� �-l-L
8 '� �Ol.���S �1Z� /-�s"xt/iST�.? �;�
; — ,
� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS APPUCATION ARE TRUE AND
3 COMPLETE AND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS WILL CAUSE A
1 FORFEITURE OF FEES AND DENIAL OF PERMIT.
� �;- ' a�,�Y . `�. ��E� i h :� - 9 `�
! , ��NATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
� RECEIVED � _
� � CITY OF LYNWOOU � � ���
/ rl � � � � A
CITY CLERKS OFFICE SIGNATURE O�A PLICAN� DATE
?� OC 1 2 7 qCCEPTAI� OP THIS APPUCATION FOR REVIEW �OES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL THIS
- AY_ tn � N' p ' �E����IIRES CITY COUNCII APPROVAL VOU WILL BE NOTIFIED ACCORDINGL� .
•� D {ll Y 1'vl��z
{
i "
:��
. � �
...�
� '
;' � f
; �
,
' �/ - S
:�
:� .
:j
.�'.�
.: r. j �
.. .{
>:a'
;�
.� ,
', :! \
::'� �\
-; � \�
I { � � � � I � � I .
.�j I �
� I
, ,
, � �= 5� �f
. __�.�
,
� ��
: �► �
� 1�
� °
�, �
� �� ,
,
;
;
��
,
;
1
'' RECREATION DEPT. APPROVED/ O CONDITION APPR VED WITH C NDITIONS
! COMMENTS:ICONDITIONS FOR APPRO L:
\ ,
. , �
SIGNATURE ATE
`, .; APPROVED/ ENIED BY ITY COUN IL ON
APPUCA T NOTIFIED:
'`, . y
. �'� '
, ::j ��
� �
� cit � �YNWOOD �
�'� ��\ K (��� .
�"°',�� �� �4 City �IAeeting CtioQQenges '' I � �'
11330 9U1L15 ROAD ,
LYNWOOD. CALIFORNIA 90262
(3t0) 6030220 .
Date: November 2, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Ralph Davis, III, City Manage,4- ,
By: Andrea L. Hooper, City Cier ��-1:Y
SUBJECT: Special Permit - Church Parade
Per the attached Special Permit, Msgr. Dennis O'Neil of St. Emydius Church is
requesting a street closure from Norton to California Avenue, to the Church
entrance for the Parade ofthe Virgin Image.
RECOMMENDATION:
After Council review, direct staff accordingly.
CLERK335
��'�""�-.x. � 1 � . �� r �,r .�� � . ' . .;� " .. .
J ;' 1 � �r� ��� . 'T �'� � ' - ' J
�� ��� �
bF � � `yT G��� '�+. f �'s:K. ' ' } . .
3 �
1 w ��r �
!'I' � � Y�!'y_ . ' � � -
y �'„d'C�r�'t ti f � r�-' �ti ; � . " ' _ . . �
rs / p � f �__" '`.
� "�.+� � ,.r � � i� .( ;- _ .: - -
r i y>'.' C' ,.. . q t.. �� �i� %'' - � __-' '" . . .
�� ft
�����'� S`� t' � ` t G',}x !"� - <... '
r � ., _� ��� ~� r
f r � r�'_ ;r ^"�`�_' ° _
` � � , � ,
'i N� ,s w� ���� d'�"i��?:' r = AGENllA ITEM .
�' -� � + _ �
�,�F �,:`�����.�.: Y.� '
�
� "� . r�'F� �i� !.,`� , Y x s�-'� . . . � . � .
�' ��; F.`?�7�..�yi���� ���-. � .. _ _
S �� � Y �.r� . � �M��X,�.1.� 7 _
ir� �� :4 ` ""'"-, �'��r, , .� >r .. r ' - Y«� ,= . - � . . .
�y y�.� � � �' .'
4..a: jiy'�. V: s .�._ . <n."I ...: _ -
� � CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT 11330 BULIIS ROAD
- LYNWOOD, CA 90262
- 310-603-0220
.�LI�A.. I �qR��ON, ��r�
NAME MSGr JL �.J N�II. CDl#: PHONE: j�0 (03� 7��
ADDRESS: JOROO AL�FORAIIA A ��T�' LYu�xcr,� Z�P 90�:6�
OCCUPATION: �S7(�i' G�' .h EM�1171tSS t HU�IN
NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED: l S SBE:
' (SUte Board W EQUa�¢alion Ntrtnber)
TYPE OF PERMIT RE�UESTED: �a�,AT)� �
DATE(S) OF EvENT: N C. q I G q`�
� HOURS OF OPERATION: _ 3'' J� P �1 4'� J� P F1
ADDRESS OF PROPOSED EVENT LOCATION: '
,
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGNATED FOR EVENT: �� ��'� �
IS STREET CLOSURE BEING REQUESTED: < YES NO ( IRCLE ONE)
pF YES; BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR EVENT AND CLOSURE:) VI 2 E- �!! ?"1 1(-E Iti'. L L_
IV� COM J ��' 1 "1 0 'M; �C
IF INDOORS, APPROXIMATE TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA OF STRUCTURE:
NAVE YOU MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THIS TYPE OF PERMIT BEFORE? YES NO
IF YES, WHERE AND WHEN:
IS THIS A FOR-PROFIT O NON-PROFI VENT? (CIRCLE ONE)
IF THIS 1S A NON-PROFIT EVENT OR A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS BENEFIT A
NON-PROFIT AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION, PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOVVING
NAME OF ORGANIZATION BEING 9ENEFITED'. �7 E�l `i 171 U� �H L� K r� - N � F(Z� �� E D S
STATE NON-PROFIT NUMBER: pHON
' ADDRESS OF ORGANIZATION:
IS A WAIVER OF FEES BEING RE�UESTED: YES NO
IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND
� COMPLE7�E AND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENTS OF MATER , ACT � LL C USE A
�FE I�URE OF FEES AND DENIAL OF PERMIT. �
� RECE � � � �_ ; /L�'-/S-9i
I ��TY Of L Y N W 0 0 � SIG TURE OF APPLICA T DA T E
CITY CLERKS OFfICE
�CS 2 7 19yy
PM SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
�, 7��9���
�" � ACCEkfANCE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL. THIS
' � � PERMIT REDUIRES CfT' COUNGL APPROVAL YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED ACCOROINGLY.