Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-18 Agenda Packet I I declare under penalty of perjury that I am empioyed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Cterk and that i posted this document on the bulletin board according to - Brown Act requirements. �—�-� `L _ —�~ —J;�:�'- Dated �� Signed ��'r� � _ '' � ''�'„� ,.. �T�� L •f� � ". -° ��. CfTYOF -- A, ,,,, , • � - CHUTA VISTA -, f;:-.,-�.,�.. _ o • � �����.��2� � Cheryl Cox, Mayor Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Gary Halbert, City Manager Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Clerk Mary Salas, Councilmember Tuesday, November 18; 2014 2:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. 14-0567 EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION HONORING STAFF WITH MILESTONE SERVICE ANNIVERSARIES B. 14-0657 RECOGNITION OF LOMA VERDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIFTH GRADER GEORGIA MAGALLAN, WINNER OF THE ANNUAL LADIES AUXILIARY MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART, UNIT 49 AND CHULA VISTA MARINE CORPS LEAGUE DETACHMENT 1207'S CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL FIFTH GRADE ESSAY CONTEST: "WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO THANK OUR VETERANS." . Ciryo/ChWaYsta Page1 PnnletlonHHY20fa City Council Agenda November 18,2014 C. 14-0658 PRESENTATION BY CITIZENS ADVERSITY SUPPORT TEAM (CAST) DIRECTOR MARIA ZADOROZNY DEDICATING FORMER CAST DIRECTOR DR. EMERALD RANDOLPH WITH A WRITING TABLE TO BE POSITIONED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS D. 14-0633 PRESENTATION BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SOUTH BAY CONGREGATION DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS JENNI BURNETT REGARDING A RECENTLY LAUNCHED FREE WEBSITE CALLED JUSTSERVE.ORG TO HELP CITIES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND NON-PROFITS FIND VOLUNTEERS IN THE COMMUNITY E. 14-0637 HONORING UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM'S SUCCESS, RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ICMA) WITH ITS 2014 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE AWARD F. 14-0634 PRESENTATION OF A SPECIAL AWARD BY CIRCULATE SAN DIEGO TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCMILLIN COMMUNITIES FOR PLANNING EFFORTS FOR INNOVATIVE LAND USE AND WALKABLE COMMUNITIES IN THE FUTURE MILLENIA EASTERN URBAN CENTER G. 14-0659 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (TAVA) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LUANNE HULSIZER AND CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT JAY NORRIS PROCLAIMING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2014 AS SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY H. 14-0655 PRESENTATION BY PORT COMMISSIONER ANN MOORE OF A PROCLAMATION TO MAYOR CHERYL COX RECOGNIZING HER FOR HER EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HER DEDICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHULA VISTA'S BAYFRONT City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 I. 14-0660 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER ANNE STEINBERGER, PROCLAIMING WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 AS SAN DIEGO SOUTH COUNTY HOST DAY CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 8) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. 14-0652 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 4, and November 6, 2014. Staff Recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. 14-0647 ORDINANCE NO. 3324 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the Ordinance. 3. 14-0648 A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR 26 NEIGHBORHOODS AND 10 PLANNING AREAS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, BALDWIN AND SONS, LLC AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS FOR PORTIONS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the Ordinances. City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 3 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 4. 14-055 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-214 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ON HILLTOP DRIVE BETWEEN PALOMAR STREET AND MAIN STREET FOR TRAFFIC CALMING PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING A BIKE LANE ON HILLTOP DRIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CALMING AREA Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. 14-0631 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-215 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FY13/14 (OVERLAY) (STM379)" PROJECT TO ATP GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,659,705.50, WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574-01 , AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $398,955.83 Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. 14-0651 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-216 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF REVISED LIMITS FOR THE REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 4 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 4 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 7. 14-0612 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-217 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO REFLECT THE ADDITION AND REMOVAL OF VARIOUS POSITION TITLES, AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION COUNT IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS , AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-218 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-219 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDED COMPENSATION SUMMARY FOR ALL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REFLECT THE CHANGE TO THE VACATION SELLBACK OPTION FOR EXECUTIVE AND SENIOR MANAGERS FROM TWO WEEKS TO THREE WEEKS D. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO ADD POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, CHIEF OF STAFF, POLICY AIDE AND TREASURY AND BUSINESS MANAGER AND DELETE TREASURY MANAGER (FIRST READING) (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Department: Human Resources Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions and place the ordinance on first reading. 8. 14-0644 INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 Department: Finance Department Staff Recommendation: Council accept the report. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR City of Chula Vista Page 5 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 5 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 9. 14-0231 CONSIDERATION OF UPDATING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA, AMENDING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BENEFIT AREA, AND ESTABLISHING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-220 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE NEXUS STUDY RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE TO THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND ACCEPTING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA UPDATING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA, AMENDING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BENEFIT AREA, ESTABLISHING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.55 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING) Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. City of Chula Vista Page 6 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 6 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 10. 14-0418 CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING AN UPDATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.54 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-221 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY STAFF RECOMMENDING AN UPDATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.54, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES (FIRST READING) Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. 11. 14-0624 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING CHULA VISTA'S PORTION OF THE 2014 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 2014-222 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014/2015 THROUGH 2018/2019 FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM , AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY STATEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN TRANSNET FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 BUDGET ACCORDINGLY (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 7 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 7 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 12. 14-0617 SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC INPUT ON CHULA VISTA'S HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND ITS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANTPROGRAMS Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, accept the verbal report and hear public testimony on the City's housing and community development needs. 13. 14-0640 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 19.09 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE), AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL; TO REPLACE THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE POLICY AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council open the public hearing and continue the item to December 16, 2014. 14. 14-0656 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 12 (SEWER FEES) OF THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council open the public hearing and continue the item to December 16, 2014. ACTION ITEMS The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 15. 14-0639 REPORT ON A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE HOMEFED CORPORATION REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY PARK AND INNOVATION DISTRICT Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: No action required. City of Chula Vista Page 8 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 8 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 16. 14-0590 CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE ACQUISITION OF A 3.94-ACRE PARCEL OF PARKLAND PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO. 2014-223 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH DAN FLOIT ON THE ACQUISITION OF A 3.94-ACRE PARKLAND PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Time Certain 3:30 p.m. 17. 14-0608 CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATING THE CHULA VISTA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 2014-224 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ACCORDINGLY FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORTS 18. 14-0650 RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MARIE ZHIVAGO TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION 19. 14-0662 CONSIDERATION OF REINSTITUTING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2014 COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS City of Chula Vista Page 9 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 9 City Council Agenda November 18,2014 CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act(Government Code 54957.7). 20. 14-0661 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b): One Case 21. 14-0580 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 Title: City Clerk ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting on December 9, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during normal business hours. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at(619) 691-504 1(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. City of Chula Vista Page 10 Printed on 11/19/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 10 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0567, Item#: A. EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION HONORING STAFF WITH MILESTONE SERVICE ANNIVERSARIES City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 11 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0657, Item#: B. RECOGNITION OF LOMA VERDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIFTH GRADER GEORGIA MAGALLAN, WINNER OF THE ANNUAL LADIES AUXILIARY MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART, UNIT 49 AND CHULA VISTA MARINE CORPS LEAGUE DETACHMENT 12071S CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL FIFTH GRADE ESSAY CONTEST: "WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO THANK OUR VETERANS." City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 12 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0658, Item#: C. PRESENTATION BY CITIZENS ADVERSITY SUPPORT TEAM (CAST) DIRECTOR MARIA ZADOROZNY DEDICATING FORMER CAST DIRECTOR DR. EMERALD RANDOLPH WITH A WRITING TABLE TO BE POSITIONED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 13 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0633, Item#: D. PRESENTATION BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SOUTH BAY CONGREGATION DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS JENNI BURNETT REGARDING A RECENTLY LAUNCHED FREE WEBSITE CALLED JUSTSERVE.ORG TO HELP CITIES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND NON-PROFITS FIND VOLUNTEERS IN THE COMMUNITY City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 14 M6111 i 4o USYSERYEARG Dear Community Service Organization: We recognize and appreciate the work that your organization does to help those in need and to enhance the quality of life for all residents; we would like to help. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) has launched a website called JustServe.org to help organizations like yours find volunteers in the community. We would like to assist individuals, families, youth programs, and congregations in finding worthwhile service opportunities that benefit the community. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has JustServe provides cities, schools, nine congregations in the South Bay area and one of churches and non-profits o our challenges has been to know where we can platform to list volunteer needs provide service in the community. JustServe matches and seek volunteers in the volunteer opportunities with people willing to help. It links members of the community with service in the community community so that they can make a difference. How does JustServe work? 1. Register yourself on JustServe.org . It's free to all and will let you see what volunteer opportunities are already listed. 2. Submit a project: When you identify your volunteer needs, complete the attached form and send to the e-mail address below. 3. Once approved, your project will be placed on the website for volunteers to see. JustServe projects should not directly involve volunteers in fund-raising, have a political focus, or be for profit. Once your project is approved, it will be available for viewing on the JustServe website; while we hope to generate interest, we cannot guarantee the number of volunteers who will sign up. We hope that you will join us in our efforts to link volunteer projects with volunteers in South Bay! Sincerely, enni Bumett Director of Public Affairs for Chula Vista The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints JenBurnett(cDcox.net (619) 587-0142 cell "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matthew 22: 39 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 15 9ustServe.Org Project Application N Project Information Project Title: Project Teaser(short synopsis): Project Details: Recommended Skills:(skills that may be useful to this project): What categories apply to this project? ❑ Arts&Entertainment ❑ Community& People ❑ Education ❑ Environment ❑ Health&Fitness Sponsoring Organization Information Organization: Organization Description: Organization Website: Sponsoring Organization Representative Contact Email: (you must be registered on JustServ.org) Scheduling a Project Project type: ❑ Check for On-going Project ❑ One-Time project ❑ Check for All Day Project ❑ Recurring/Ongoing project ❑ Multi-location project ❑ Multi-shift Project Initial Date: End Date: Beg Time: End Time: Location(s) Address: City: State/zip: Volunteers ❑ Re-direct volunteers to sponsor Website If number of volunteers needed is reached: ❑ Allow groups to volunteer ❑ Allow additional volunteers to continue to join for the project. Total Volunteers needed: ❑ Do not allow additional volunteers to join the project.(We Number of volunteers already signed up: will hide the volunteer button...) Participant Notes: 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 16 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0637, Item#: E. HONORING UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM'S SUCCESS, RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ICMA) WITH ITS 2014 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE AWARD City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 17 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE AWARD This award recognizes the innovative and successful local government programs or processes that have significantly affected a local government organization's culture or strategic direction. ft&&m .Go 1 111 ' � . . . . r Strategic Business Plan o Batavia, New York ,S= Jason Molino, city manager ` Early in the 21 st ing the current state of the city,reviewing = I century, Batavia suf- past financial challenges,participating in I_4 fered a significant a SWOT analysis,creating a vision state- - economic downturn. In 2010,to ensure ment, and revising the extant mission a healthy future for the city,the council statement,the council identified seven and administration began a strategy strategic priorities(financial health,gov- rooted in three major goals:restoring ernment efficiency,economic develop- public trust in city leadership; using data ment and job creation, neighborhood �� 1 to measure success; and being alert to revitalization,environmental sustainability, Developing a strategic business plan emergent trends and conditions. public safet)6 and healthy and involved So that all stakeholders were involved community members),developed state- developing the strategic business plan in the planning process,city leaders first ments to further define each prionty,and was the hours spent by council and staff. surveyed citizens to determine their inter- identified key intended outcomes(KIOs) The factors that ultimately proved ests and concerns.The results,as well as against which to measure progress.Lastly, essential to the city's success were provid- empirical and percentage-based data it drew up a strategic business plan to ing citizens with multiple access points to from daily operations,short-and long- help accomplish the KIOs and allocate the survey;being willing to refine the city's term factors affecting the city,and staff resources to best meet residents'needs. data-driven plan to foster sound decision feedback,were reviewed and analyzed While facilitating the planning pro- making; and showing employees how in a series of workshops.After examin- cess cost$9,000,the primary cost for their daily work links to the bigger picture. .E Committed to Continuous Improvement o Chula Vista, California Gary Halbert, city manager o James D. Sandoval, retired city manager Amanda Mills, organizational development director ;I 3_ An early victim of the started with Cl through a collabora- " I Halbert 2006 recession,Chula tion with UTC Aerospace Systems Vista saw its general (formerly Goodrich).After it saw how Cl 1 fund budget drop from could help streamline processes, save _ +� more than$160 million resources,and strengthen strategic in FY 2006 to$125 mil- partnerships and staffing models while Clion in FY 2013. Bold, improving the bottom line, it arranged proactive steps were for Goodrich staff to share its Cl training needed for the city to (free of charge)with key city employees. Working toward continuous improvement j Sandoval climb out of that finan- With more than 100 staff now trained cial hole.Chula Vista in Cl,the city is operating more leanly on five core goals to ensure a high gual- turned to Continuous and efficiently. Since 2011, it has imple- qty of life for residents and businesses- Improvement(CI). mented nearly 20 process improvements operational excellence, economic vitality, Based on Toyota's to eliminate waste,such as healthy community,strong and secure Production System neighborhoods,and connected com- y .Preventive fleet maintenance g " introduced in Japan • Apublic-private partnership fora munity.Cl(under operational excellence), Mills in the late 1940s to branch library is defined by the citywide strategy to identify and eliminate waste,Cl typi- • Expedited accounts payable "Excel in service delivery by continu- cally reduces the steps in a process or • Reengineered ADA ramp installation. ously improving." It's not about working process time by 25%-50%. Chula Vista Chula Vista's Strategic Plan centers harder; it's about working smarter. 04-11-18 Agenda Packet 2014 ICMA Local Government Excellence Award- 18 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0634, Item#: F. PRESENTATION OF A SPECIAL AWARD BY CIRCULATE SAN DIEGO TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCMILLIN COMMUNITIES FOR PLANNING EFFORTS FOR INNOVATIVE LAND USE AND WALKABLE COMMUNITIES IN THE FUTURE MILLENIA EASTERN URBAN CENTER City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 19 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0659, Item#: G. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (TAVA) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LUANNE HULSIZER AND CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT JAY NORRIS PROCLAIMING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2014 AS SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 20 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0655, Item#: H. PRESENTATION BY PORT COMMISSIONER ANN MOORE OF A PROCLAMATION TO MAYOR CHERYL COX RECOGNIZING HER FOR HER EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HER DEDICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHULA VISTA'S BAYFRONT City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 21 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0660, Item#: I. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER ANNE STEINBERGER, PROCLAIMING WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 AS SAN DIEGO SOUTH COUNTY HOST DAY City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 22 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0652, Item#: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 4, and November 6, 2014. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approve the minutes. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 23 City of Chula Vista Meeting Minutes - Draft Tuesday, November 4,2014 2:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 2:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Deputy Mayor Aguilar, Councilmember Bensoussan, Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember Salas and Mayor Cox Deputy Mayor Aguilar arrived at 2:07 p.m. Also Present: City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, Assistant City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy City Clerk Kansas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Office Specialist Brauning led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY * 14-0643 PRESENTATION BY CHULA VISTA ANIMAL CARE FACILITY ANIMAL ADOPTION COUNSELOR LINDA SEPTON OF LADY, A DOG AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION AT THE FACILITY Animal Adoption Counselor Septon presented Lily, a Poodle-mix available for adoption at the Animal Care Facility. A. 14-0616 OATH OF OFFICE Yoana Bandala, International Friendship Commission Assistant City Clerk Bigelow administered the oath of office to Commissioner Bandala, and Councilmember Ramirez presented her with a certificate of appointment. B. 14-0627 PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR KELLY BROUGHTON OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH BEVERLY BRAUNING, OFFICE SPECIALIST Development Services Director Broughton introduced employee of the month, Beverly Brauning. Mayor Cox read the proclamation and Deputy Mayor Aguilar presented it to Ms. Brauning. City of Chula Vista Page 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 24 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 8) Item 5 was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of staff. 1. 14-0620 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 28, 2014. Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes. 2. 14-0615 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter of resignation from Charlaine Carter, Commission on Aging Recommended Action: Council accept the resignation. 3. 14-0622 ORDINANCE NO. 3323 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-13-006 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE A 4.68 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 3875 MAIN STREET FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (ILP) ZONE TO APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL (R3) ZONE (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Recommended Action: Council adopt the ordinance. 4. 14-0571 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE (FIRST READING) Recommended Action: Council place the ordinance on first reading. Item 5 was removed from Consent Calendar. 6. 14-0588 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-202 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $475,376 FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND APPROPRIATING $358,581 TO THE POLICE GRANT FUND FOR THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 7. 14-0598 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-203 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 BUDGET TO ADJUST FOR VARIANCES, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council accept the report and adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 2 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 25 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 8. 14-0563 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-204 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION BARGAINING UNIT ("CVPOA") RELATED TO COMPENSATION AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND/OR MOU AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING B. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-205 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 BUDGET TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROPOSED SALARY INCREASE FOR CHULA VISTA POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-206 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolutions. Approval of the Consent Calendar ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Cox, seconded by Councilmember Salas, to approve staff's recommendations on the above Consent Calendar items, headings read,text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5- Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox No: 0 Abstain: 0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 14-0587 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-201 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE FORMAL BID PROCEDURE AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT ("TASER QUOTATION") BETWEEN THE CITY AND TASER INTERNATIONAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS, EVIDENCE STORAGE, AND RELATED PRODUCT SUPPORT SERVICES Chief Bejarano provided additional information regarding the item. ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Cox, seconded by Councilmember Ramirez, that Resolution No. 2014-201 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5- Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox No: 0 Abstain: 0 City of Chula Vista Page 3 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 26 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 PUBLIC COMMENTS Jason Paguio, representing the Parade Band Foundation, and Lisa Cohen, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, gave a presentation and spoke regarding an upcoming parade festival. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. 14-0582 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OTAY RANCH VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, FOUR ASSOCIATED TENTATIVE MAPS AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-207 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN; AND APPROVING FOUR TENTATIVE MAPS AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-208 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN; OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP), OTAY RANCH VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF VILLAGE FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO ADD 1,562 UNITS AMONG THIRTY SIX NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING AREAS WITHIN VILLAGE 2 LOCATED SOUTH OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND WEST OF LA MEDIA ROAD C. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR 26 NEIGHBORHOODS AND 10 PLANNING AREAS (FIRST READING) D. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-209 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 NORTH - CHULA VISTA TRACT 12-02 City of Chula Vista Page 4 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 27 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 E. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-210 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 WEST - CHULA VISTA TRACT 12-03 F. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-211 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 - CHULA VISTA TRACT 12-04 G. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-212 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 SOUTH - CHULA VISTA TRACT 12-05 H. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, BALDWIN AND SONS, LLC AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS FOR PORTIONS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO (FIRST READING) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice. Senior Planner Donn presented information on the item. Stephen Hasse, applicant, representing Baldwin&Sons, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing. The following members spoke in opposition to staffs recommendation: -David Danciu, Chula Vista resident -Mark Rheaume, Chula Vista resident The following members spoke in support of staffs recommendation: -Kevin O'Neill, Chula Vista resident -Lisa Cohen, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Tom Story, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of staffs recommendation and also suggested that the project be approved with the condition that Heritage Road be widened from two lanes to four lanes. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Councilmember Salas, Mr. Hasse, applicant, stated that the Council would direct the use of the community impact funds that would be paid by Baldwin & Sons as part of the project. He stated that construction of Jacaranda Park would be completed around December 2015. He also clarified that the proposed swim club would be available for use by single-family homeowners and that the multi-family complexes would have their own facilities. City of Chula Vista Page 5 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 28 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Cox, seconded by Councilmember Bensoussan, that Resolution No. 2014-207(Item 9 A) be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4- Aguilar, Bensoussan, Salas and Cox No: 1 - Ramirez Abstain: 0 ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Cox, seconded by Councilmember Bensoussan, that Resolution Nos. 2014-208, 2014-209, 2014-210, 2014-211, 2014-212, be adopted and the above ordinances be placed on first reading (Item 9 B-H), headings read,text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4- Aguilar, Bensoussan, Salas and Cox No: 1 - Ramirez Abstain: 0 ACTION ITEMS 10. 14-0574 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PARKS RESOLUTION NO. 2014-213 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF PARKS P-1, P-2, P-3, P-5 AND P-6 IN A PORTION OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 BETWEEN THE CITY AND OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 MASTER DEVELOPER ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Bensoussan, seconded by Councilmember Salas, that Resolution No. 2014-213 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5- Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox No: 0 Abstain: 0 CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Cox announced the following upcoming community events: the Parade Band Festival and the Veteran's Benefit Book Fair. COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS Councilmember Bensoussan acknowledged the opening of the west end of H Street. Councilmember Ramirez reported on a recent Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) meeting he attended, at which the Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)project was discussed. Mayor Cox paid tribute to Joan DeMunbrun of Chula Vista. City of Chula Vista Page 6 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 29 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 4,2014 Mayor Cox announced that the Council would convene in closed session to discuss the items listed below. Mayor Cox recessed the meeting at 4:38 p.m. The Council reconvened in Closed Session at 4:53 p.m., with all members present. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346-03, Official Minutes and records of action taken during Closed Sessions are maintained by the City Attorney. 11. 14-0592 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a): Name of case: Donald Sipple v. City of Hayward, et al., (including the City of Chula Vista), Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number BC462270 ACTION: No reportable action. 12. 14-0605 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): One Case Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): One Case ACTION: No reportable action. ADJOURNMENT At 5:38 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to a City Council Workshop on November 6, 2014, at 4:00 p.m., and thence to the next Regular City Council Meeting on November 18, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. Kerry K. Bigelow, Assistant City Clerk City of Chula Vista Page 7 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 30 City of Chula Vista Meeting Minutes - Draft Thursday, November 6,2014 4:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER A Regular Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 4:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Deputy Mayor Aguilar, Councilmember Bensoussan, Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember Salas and Mayor Cox Councilmember Ramirez arrived at 4:09 p.m. Also Present: City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, City Clerk Norris, and Assistant City Clerk Bigelow PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Councilmember Salas led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. WORKSHOP 14-0621 HOMELESSNESS IN OUR REGION Staff will present an update on the homeless population within the City of Chula Vista, the complex social issues associated with homelessness, and the City's current efforts to improve the lives of those at risk or experiencing homelessness and reducing the impacts of homelessness on the community. City Manager Halbert and Deputy City Manager Kachadoorian introduced the item. Housing Manager Hines presented information on the homeless population within Chula Vista and the San Diego County region. Lieutenant Redmond presented information on the impacts of homelessness in the Chula Vista community. He provided information on calls for service and transient hotspots. Housing Manager Hines spoke regarding the homeless services offered through the Development Services Department and local service organizations. She presented information on alternative housing best practices. City of Chula Vista Pagel 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 31 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft November 6,2014 Housing Manager Hines stated that four issues associated with unsheltered persons are: congregation and use of public facilities, littering, panhandling and solicitation, and public misconduct. She and Lieutenant Redmond spoke regarding the following best practices implemented to address the issues: educating the community and staff, community policing through environmental design, cleanup and shut down of encampments, and restricting public feeding of transients. Lieutenant Redmond also spoke regarding other efforts to address issues associated with unsheltered persons. Housing Manager Hines presented information on how community members could get involved to help address the issues. Councilmember Ramirez expressed concern regarding the resources used to address issues related to homelessness and suggested staff investigate ordinances and other potential tools to address the issues. Chief Bejarano spoke regarding the Police Department response and programs related to addressing homelessness issues in the community, such as the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT) program. City Attorney Googins provided information regarding the importance of enforcing laws consistently. Councilmember Salas spoke regarding the social cost and impact on City and other community services, such as hospitals. Councilmember Bensoussan acknowledged the Police Department and its work with the PERT program. She suggested investigating the cost of providing housing in relation to the cost of providing services to members of the homeless population. In response to a question from Deputy Mayor Aguilar, Chief Bejarano stated there was not a significant change in the level of homelessness due to AB 109, Public Safety Realignment. In response to Deputy Mayor Aguilar, City Attorney Googins and Chief Bejarano discussed potential impacts based on the passage of Prop 47, the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative. She requested a report in six to twelve months on the impact of Prop 47. Councilmember Ramirez spoke regarding the need to consider new, innovative programs and services. Councilmember Salas suggested investigating potential funds available to assist homeless veterans. Mayor Cox commended staff on its efforts to address the issues related to homelessness. ADJOURNMENT At 5:32 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting on November 18, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Kerry K. Bigelow, Assistant City Clerk City of Chula Vista Page 2 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 32 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0647, Item#: 2. ORDINANCE NO. 3324 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the ordinance. SUMMARY Since 2009 certain building permit fees have been collected prior to final inspection rather than at building permit issuance. This has been termed the "Fee Deferral Program" and was an effort to not unfairly burden those willing to develop during the recession while at the same time not impacting the quality and timing of City services and facilities. The Fee Deferral Program was a trial program and is set to expire at the end of this year. Staff recommends amending the Fee Deferral Program to extend the Fee Deferral Program until such time as City Council determines, in accordance with California Government Code §66007, that payment of fees should occur at a time earlier than building permit final inspection. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a fiscal action that will not result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION On January 6, 2009, City Council passed Ordinance No. 3120 (Attachment 1) establishing the Development and Processing Impact Fee Payment Plan Program ("Fee Deferral Program") to encourage the construction of residential and non-residential development projects within the City. This Ordinance allowed Developers to pay all fees subject to the Fee Deferral Program up to 12 months from the date of issuance of building permits, in addition to limiting the duration of the Fee Deferral Program to December 31 , 2010. Later, on April 21 , 2009, City Council expanded the Fee Deferral Program to include Park Fees by the adoption of Ordinance No. 3126 (Attachment 2). On September 14, 2010, Ordinance No. 3163 (Attachment 3) obtained its second reading and City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 33 File#: 14-0647, Item#: 2. adoption by City Council modifying the Fee Deferral Program. Ordinance No. 3163 allowed for the payment of the fees subject to the Fee Deferral Program prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy upon request of the Developer and the determination by the City that such fees were not needed at an earlier time. This Ordinance took into effect 30 days after final passage and was set to expire automatically on December 31, 2011 . To continue the support of development during the economic downturn, City Council adopted three additional ordinances to extend the life of the Fee Deferral Program: the first extension of the program to December 31 , 2012 was done by Ordinance No. 3220 (Attachment 4); the second extension to December 31 , 2013 with Ordinance No. 3242 (Attachment 5); and the final to December 31 , 2014 with Ordinance No. 3280 (Attachment 6). Without this amendment to the Fee Deferral Program, the Fee Deferral Program will expire on December 31 , 2014. Building permits issued prior to that date will be required to pay all fees not previously paid, prior to a final inspection. Building permits issued after December 31 , 2014 will be required to pay all fees at building permit issuance or final map approval as required for their project approvals. Recommended Changes The recommended changes to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3163 follow: Section 8. Expiration of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after final passage. and shall autematiGagy ewe on QQr-,QmhQ 24-44, and as e# 4:�a-t dam is deemed Fepealed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building permit issued prior to expiration of this Ordinance shall not be required to pay fees until Final Inspection er OertifirQte of spy , provided none of the events identified in Section 6(8) have occurred. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Fee Deferral Program supports the Economic Vitality goal as it seeks to incentivize development opportunities within the City of Chula Vista while keeping Operational Excellence constant. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The adoption of this proposed Ordinance will not have an impact to the General Fund. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the general fund. There is also no impact created by deferring fees until City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 34 File#: 14-0647, Item#: 2. final inspection. City fees have an automatic cost inflator "built in" so, if the fees have increased between issuance of a building permit and the date the fees are paid, the applicant is subject to the higher fees. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 : Ordinance No. 3120 - Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Establishing the Development and Processing Impact Fee Payment Plan Program. Attachment 2: Ordinance No. 3126 - Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Amending Title 17, Section 17.10.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to Facilitate the Deferral of In-Lieu Park Fees. Attachment 3: Ordinance No. 3163 - Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Modifying the Fee Deferral Program. Attachment 4: Ordinance No. 3220 - Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Amending Section 8 of Ordinance 3163 in Order to Extend the Fee Deferral Program. Attachment 5: Ordinance No. 3242 - Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Extending until December 31 , 2013, the Fee Deferral Program for Certain Development Fees to Allow Payment Prior to Building Permit Final Inspection Instead of at Building Permit Issuance. Attachment 6: Ordinance No. 3280 - Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Amending City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 3163 to Extend Term of the Fee Deferral Program Which Allows for Certain Development Fees to be Paid Prior to Building Permit Final Inspection Instead of at Building Permit Issuance. Staff Contact: Sandra Hernandez, Associate Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 35 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE WHEREAS, on January 6, 2009, City Council passed Ordinance No. 3120 establishing the Development and Processing Impact Fee Payment Plan Program ("Fee Deferral Program") to encourage the construction of residential and non-residential development projects within the City. This Ordinance allowed Developers to pay all fees subject to the Fee Deferral Program up to 12 months from the date of issuance of building permits, in addition to limiting the duration of the Fee Deferral Program to December 31 , 2010; and WHEREAS, on April 21 , 2009, City Council expanded the Fee Deferral Program to include Park Fees by the adoption of Ordinance No. 3126; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2010, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3163 modifying the Fee Deferral Program to allow for the payment of the fees subject to the Fee Deferral Program prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy upon request of the Developer and the determination by the City that such fees were not needed at an earlier time; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011 , City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3220 to extend the Fee Deferral Program to December 31 , 2012; and WHEREAS, on December 11 , 2012, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3242 to extend the Fee Deferral Program to December 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3280 to extend the Fee Deferral Program to December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance to permanently require the fees subject to the Fee Deferral Program prior to final inspection. If at a later date, City Council determines that these fees are needed at a time earlier than final inspection, it can take another Council action per Government Code 66007 to establish a new timing for payment. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3163 to be amended as follows: C:AUsers\GRAlVIC-l\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL @7C054909\@BCL @7C054909.doc 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 36 Ordinance Page 2 Section 8. Expiration of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after final passage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building permit issued prior to expiration of this Ordinance shall not be required to pay fees until Final Inspection, provided none of the events identified in Section 6(B) have occurred. Section II. All other provisions of Ordinance No. 3163 shall remain in full force and effect. Section III. This amendment of Ordinance No. 3163 shall take effect 30 days after its second reading and approval. Section IV. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section V. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section VI. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section VII. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 37 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. A. ORDINANCE NO. 3325 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR 26 NEIGHBORHOODS AND 10 PLANNING AREAS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) B. ORDINANCE NO. 3326 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, BALDWIN AND SONS, LLC AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS FOR PORTIONS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the ordinances. SUMMARY Baldwin & Sons, LLC ("Applicant" or "Developer") is proposing to add 1 ,562 residential units within only the Otay Ranch Village 2 portion of the Village of Montecito & Otay Ranch Business Park Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan ("Village 2 SPA Plan"), including 1 ,632 new multi-family units and a reduction of 70 single family units. In order to do so, amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Village 2 SPA Plan, the associated Planned Community (PC) District Regulations and regulatory documents, Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) and the Village Design Plan components, including provision of elementary schools, Community Purpose Facilities, Parks, etc. to support the requested units must be approved. In addition, a Supplemental EIR and previous EIR must be considered. The project also includes four new Tentative Maps to accommodate the 1 ,562 unit addition ("Village 2 Comp SPA"). On July 9, 2012 the applicant filed applications to process all of the subject items. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment as identified in previous FEIR 02-02; therefore, the City of Chula Vista has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SEIR-12-01 / SCH 2003091012 pursuant to CEQA. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On October 8, 2014 the proposed Project was presented to the Planning Commission. A motion was City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 38 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. made to recommend that the City Council make certain Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; Adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Certify the Final Supplemental Environment Impact Report (FSEIR 12-01/SCH 2004091012 for amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan, four associated Tentative Maps pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. The Planning Commission then heard a motion that the City Council reject the project by not making certain findings of fact ; not adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; not adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and not Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR 12-01/SCH 2003091012) for amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan, four associated Tentative Maps pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This motion carried 5-1-0-1. The Planning Commission expressed concerns with traffic primarily with cumulative impacts of the proposed project as well as from other recently adopted and future SPA plans in Otay Ranch. The Planning Commission found that the benefits of the project did not outweigh the impacts of the project. Based on the outcome of their vote, no votes on the other actions before the Planning Commission were taken. DISCUSSION Environmental Impact Report Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid those significant effects. This Supplemental EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with implementing the proposed Village 2 Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment. The subject EIR has been prepared as a Supplemental EIR, as defined in pursuant to Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. As defined in CEQA, a Supplemental EIR examines the impacts and alterations to a previously approved project with a certified EIR. The Supplemental EIR is required to only include information necessary to support the adequacy of the previous FEIR in accordance with CEQA 15163 (b), focusing primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed alterations when compared to the previously approved project that was analyzed in FEIR 02-02. The major issues that are addressed in the Supplemental EIR were determined based on review by staff, and public comment received on the Notice of Preparation (distributed in March 2013). The issues analyzed in the Supplemental EIR include land use, geology and soils, biological resources, housing and population, hydrology, traffic, circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services, public utilities, and global climate change. The Draft Supplemental EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on May 20, 2014. Public comment letters were received. The Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) includes all comments received, and responses to them. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs identify that the proposed project would result in significant and unmitigated impacts related to air quality, energy and traffic. All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts have been included in the Final City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 39 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. Supplemental EIR. As the Project would have significant and unmitigated impacts, Findings of Fact would need to be made in order to support the approval of a Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Project as proposed by the Applicant. The Findings of Fact have been attached for the Planning Commission's review and to support its recommendation to the City Council's that City Council consider the Findings, determine that the Supplemental EIR together with the previous FEIR are adequate for the project, and certify the FEIR. For those impacts with associated mitigation, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided with the FSEIR (See Attachment 11 , disc). The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the proposed project described in the Final SEIR. The alternatives are a reduced density project and no project. The reduced density project would result in a proposed increase of 484 additional residential units rather than 1 ,562 as proposed. The no project alternative would result in the continued development of the SPA Plan as it is currently without the proposed project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the project. Summary of Environmental Impacts The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions from the FSEIR. Significant and Unmitigated Impacts: Transportation, Circulation, and Access • Under the Year 2020 conditions, the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts to the Interstate 805 (1-805) SB Ramps/Olympic Parkway intersection; Orange Avenue, between Melrose Avenue and 1-805 SB Ramps; 1-805, from Market Street to Imperial Avenue; and 1-805, from Imperial Avenue to E Division Street. • Under the Year 2025 conditions, the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts to the 1- 805 SB Ramps/Olympic Parkway intersection; Orange Avenue, between Melrose Avenue and 1- 805 SB Ramps; 1-805, from State Route 94 (SR-94) to Market Street; 1-805, from Market Street to Imperial Avenue; and 1-805, from Imperial Avenue to E Division Street; 1-805, from Plaza Boulevard to SR-54; and 1-805 from Bonita Road to East H Street. • Under the Year 2030 (Buildout) Conditions, the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts to the 1-805 SB Ramps/Olympic Parkway intersection; Orange Avenue, between Melrose Avenue and 1-805 SB Ramps; 1-805, from SR-94 to Market Street; 1-805, from Market Street to Imperial Avenue; and 1-805, from Imperial Avenue to E Division Street; 1-805, from Plaza Boulevard to SR-54; and 1-805 from Bonita Road to East H Street; 1-805, from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. 1-805 SB Ramps/Olympic Parkway - There are right-of-way constraints that would make widening this intersection infeasible and, in addition, there is no plan or program in place that the project applicant could pay its fair-share of this improvement. Mitigation is, therefore, infeasible and the impact will City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 40 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable at this location. Orange Avenue, between Melrose Avenue and 1-805 SB Ramps - Potential recommendation for improvements would require widening Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway between Melrose Avenue and the 1-805 SB Ramps; however, there are right-of-way constraints that would make such improvements infeasible. In addition, there is no plan or program in place that the project applicant could pay its fair-share towards the cost of this improvement. The impact, therefore, will remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable at this location. 1-805, from SR-94 to Market Street, from Market Street to Imperial Avenue from Imperial Avenue to E Division Street, from Plaza Boulevard to SR-54, from SR-54 to Bonita Road, from Bonita Road to East H Street, from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road - The second phase of the 1-805 South Project would further expand transportation choices by building out the HOV lanes into Express Lanes for a total of four lanes, two in each direction. Phase 2 also includes the addition of in-line transit stations and freeway-to-freeway direct connectors. However, on December 16th, 2011 , SANDAG Board of Directors approved the purchase of SR-125 and the Addendum to SANDAG's 2030 RTP EIR. The Addendum consists of a swap of the two planned HOV lanes on 1-805 between SR-54 and SR-905 (Phase 2 of the 1-805 South Project discussed above) for the purchase costs of SR-125, which requires an amendment to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. It also concluded that while the reduction in tolls would result in a shift of traffic from 1-805 to SR-125, freeway operations on both facilities would remain acceptable. The proposed project was modeled with Phase 2, however in order to remain consistent with the 2030 RTP Addendum, the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project (prepared by Chen Ryan) is analyzed with one HOV lane in each direction (Phase 1) along 1-805. At this time, neither Caltrans nor SANDAG has plans to construct additional lanes on the impacted facilities, nor is there a plan or program in place into which the project applicant could pay its fair-share towards the cost of these improvements. Mitigation is, therefore, infeasible and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures that the City can impose at this time to reduce impacts to level of service performance to below a level of significance, impacts to transportation, circulation, and access would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Air Quality • During construction, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact because construction activities, while less than significant at a project level, would potentially combine with other cumulative projects and exceed federal and state air quality emissions threshold standards for criteria pollutants. • During operation, the proposed project would result in significant direct and cumulative impacts for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and significant cumulative impacts for Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO X ), and particulate matter(PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), because operational activities would exceed the federal and state air quality City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 41 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. emissions threshold standards for criteria pollutants. • The proposed project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact due to inconsistency with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). Because the proposed project would require amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Otay Ranch Core Master Precise Plan, the proposed project is not accounted for in the current RAQS and SIP emissions budget. Utilities: Energy • The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact to energy resources because of the uncertainty regarding long-term energy supply to buildout of the proposed project in combination with cumulative projects. Although City programs, policies, and ordinances would result in more efficient use of energy within the proposed project, they do not ensure that increased energy resources will be available when needed. All feasible mitigation measures have been required of the proposed project with respect to these impacts. It should be noted that significant and unmitigated impacts for the three issue areas identified above were also identified within FEIR 02-02. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. As a Lead Agency, the City must make findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091 , and 15093 for each significant and unmitigated impact. The attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared specifically for the project actions for which the City has authority to approve or carry out (see Attachment 11 , Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, dated August, 2014). Sections 15043, 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines state that the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" and a Lead Agency can approve a project that will result in significant effects when, based upon substantial evidence, findings have been made that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR, and benefits of a proposed project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding the significant environmental effects of the project. Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas, and mitigation measures were required in the SEIR to reduce the impacts to less than significant. A MMRP (see Attachment 11) has been prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with specified monitoring requirements. Transportation, Circulation, and Access • Under Year 2025 conditions, the proposed project would result in potentially significant direct impacts to the Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway intersection and Heritage Road, between East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway, and potentially significant cumulative impacts to the La City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 42 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. Media Road/Olympic Parkway intersection, La Media Road (SB)/Main Street (WB) intersection, La Media Road (NB)/Main Street (WB) intersection, La Media Road (SB)/Main Street (EB) intersection, La Media Road (NB)/Main Street (EB) intersection, Magdalena Avenue/Main Street intersection, and Olympic Parkway, between Heritage Road and Santa Venetia Street. Mitigation measures MM-TCA-3, MM-TCA-5 through MM-TCA-11 , and MM-TCA-13 would reduce these identified potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts to level or service standards and congestion management to a less than significant level. Noise • The proposed project would result in potentially significant direct impacts due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of established City of Chula Vista thresholds due to traffic generated noise, park related noise, industrial related noise, and proposed and existing (off- site) school related noise. Mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-9 would reduce these identified potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Biological Resources • The proposed project would result in potentially significant direct impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including the least Bell's Vireo and the burrowing owl. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-4 and MM-BIO-5 would reduce these identified potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. • The proposed project would directly impact wetlands vegetation communities and jurisdictional wetlands, including mulefat scrub, disturbed mulefat scrub, freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, open water, and disturbed habitat swale. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM- BIO-6, and MM-BIO-7 would reduce these identified potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. • The proposed project would potentially result in a significant impact due to interference with the movement and nesting of migratory birds if construction occurs during the migratory bird nesting season. Mitigation measure MM-BIO-3 would reduce this identified potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils • The proposed project would result in potentially significant direct impacts due to the surficial soils within the project site consisting of topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and the compressible portions of the landslide debris, which are not considered suitable for development; additionally, portions of the surficial and underlying soils (bentonite claystone) have "high" to "very high" expansion potential resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would reduce these identified potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Public Services: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space • The proposed project would not satisfy the Parkland Dedication Ordinance requirements and would result in a potentially significant impact to the provision of adequate parkland and City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 43 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. recreational facilities. Mitigation measure MM-PUB-1 would reduce this identified potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Please see Parks discussion on pages 16-17 of this report for explanation of actual park acreage requirement and provision. Utilities: Sewer • The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to existing sewer infrastructure, specifically the Salt Creek Interceptor and Poggi Canyon Interceptor, resulting in the exceedance and the need for the expansion of existing sewer facilities. Mitigation measures MM-UTIL-1 thought MM-UTIL-3 would reduce these identified potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Less than Significant Impacts Less than significant direct impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas: Land Use Transportation, Circulation, and Access Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Water Quality and Hydrology Public Services: Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, and Library Utilities: Water, Recycled Water, Solid Waste Disposal, and Energy Climate Change Housing and Population 1. Village 2 Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership The Village 2 SPA Plan area is generally located south of Olympic Parkway, north of the Wolf Canyon Preserve, east of Heritage Road and west of La Media Road (see Locator Map). The southern portions of the Village are currently vacant and generally comprised of rolling terrain devoid of natural vegetation due to historic farming activities. The northerly portions of the site are partially graded, developed or currently under development. Neighborhoods within the Village with projects completed or in progress (independent from the proposed project) include R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8a, R-8b, R-9a, R-10, R-11, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-29 and R-30. These neighborhoods are being developed with a variety of product types, including detached and attached residential units, and alley loaded single family homes. Village 2 includes approximately 765 acres under multiple ownerships (See Exhibit A in Attachment 9). Proposed amendments to the Village 2 SPA Plan represent properties owned by Baldwin & Sons, LLC and affiliated companies. The 36 neighborhoods and planning areas subject to the proposed GDP and SPA amendments comprise approximately 325.7 acres. Neighborhoods include residential units while planning areas do not (e.g. Schools, industrial sites, parks, etc.) (See Areas of Change exhibit on page 6 of Attachment 9). The areas of the four Tentative Maps comprise approximately 260.4 acres and include 27 neighborhoods and planning areas. Although the proposed City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 44 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. SPA amendments are only for a portion of Village 2, some planning considerations, particularly context, community structure and infrastructure, must be evaluated in the context of the overall planning area. This report describes the SPA Plan and contextual considerations as part of the following discussion of each applicable SPA Plan component. 2. Project Description The proposed project seeks to enhance Otay Ranch Village 2 by directing higher-density residential within and proximate to the Village core, further establishing a unified, pedestrian-oriented, amenity- rich village plan with the addition of parks and schools within walking distance of residents. It is consistent with the goals and vision of Village 2 and intended to enhance living, working, learning, shopping, and transit options in the Village while increasing residents' opportunities for social interaction and recreation. The project also brings residential housing typologies/products in line with current market conditions and the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policy objectives for Village 2 (i.e. provision of balance and mixed-housing choices). To implement this, the project requires approval of amendments to the General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Village 2 SPA Plan. Additionally, four new tentative maps and a supplemental EIR (SEIR) are required. The project proposes 1 ,562 additional dwelling units, converting 14.0 acres of dedicated commercial to mixed use, adding 7.8 acres of CPF, 12.2 acres of parkland, providing a second elementary school (9.5 acres), and use of 9.0 acres as a vocational school/CPF site). The project also involves relocation of an existing City of San Diego water pipeline that currently bisects Village 2. The proposed additions will result in Village 2 on-site totals of 4,545 dwelling units, 22.5 acres of mixed use, 82.5 acres of industrial, 12.6 acres of CPF, approximately 24.1 acres of parks (not including the 46.5 acres located in the Community Park in Village 4), and 2 elementary schools. Of the proposed 1 ,562 additional dwelling units, 141 are proposed in V2 north, 631 are proposed in V2 east, 318 are proposed in V2 west, and 472 are proposed in V2 south. Increasing the number of dwelling units from 2,981 to 4,545 allows for the creation of neighborhoods with densities ranging between approximately 4 du/ac and almost 24 du/ac. Overall density in Village 2 will increase from 3.9 du/ac to 5.9 du/ac. Average densities across the residential neighborhoods increases from 8.6 to 13.1 du/ac. The proposed dwelling units will generate an additional obligation of approximately 12.2 acres of Parkland and 7.0 acres of CPF. The proposed project will provide Parkland/CPF acreage that meets these obligations by increasing the size of existing facilities, creating new ones, and/or paying in-lieu fees. A proposed Development Agreement includes certain mutual benefits for the City and Applicant from the proposed Project, and further described in item 5 of the Analysis section of this report. 3. Proposed Amendments: The following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan. The area of the proposed amendments are depicted on page 2 of the City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 45 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. proposed GDP and SPA Plan amendments booklet entitled "Otay Ranch Village of Montecito General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendments" (See Attachment 9). Chula Vista General Plan Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in land use designations as necessary to implement the additional 1 ,562 residential units as well as additions in CPF, schools and parkland areas. The proposed land use changes are as follows: Expansion of the Residential Medium designation north of the Village Core; addition of Residential Medium (6-11 dwelling units per acre), Residential High (18-27 dwelling units per acre) and a Neighborhood Park within Village 2 West; and addition of Residential Medium High, Residential High, an Elementary School and a Neighborhood Park to the west and south of the Village Core. Otay Ranch GDP: Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in land use designations as necessary to implement the additional 1 ,562 residential units as well as additions in CPF, schools, and parkland areas. The GDP follows the same proposed land use changes as the GP, including the introduction of a High Density Residential (H) land use category (18-27 du/ac) consistent with the General Plan to accommodate the additional higher-density within and proximate to the existing and expanded village core. Village 2 SPA Plan: Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in zoning necessary to implement the additional 1,562 residential units as well as additions in CPF, schools and parkland areas. More specifically: a. Rezone neighborhood R-21 b from SF2 to SF3 b. Rezone neighborhood R-23 from SF3 to SF4 c.Rezone neighborhood R-24 from SF3 to RM2 d. Rezone neighborhood R-1 9b from SF4 to RM1 e.Rezone neighborhood R-25a from SF4 to RM2 f. Rezone neighborhoods R-11 and R-27 from RM1 to RM2 g. Rezone neighborhood C-1 from Commercial to Mixed Use h. Replace neighborhood R-4b, zoned SF2, with neighborhoods R-4b(a) and R-4b(b), zoned RM 1 and RM2 respectively i. Replace neighborhood R-12, zoned RM1/RM2 combined, with neighborhoods R-12a City of Chula Vista Page 9 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 46 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. and R-12b, both zoned RM2 j. Replace neighborhood R-17b, zoned RM1 , with neighborhoods R-17b(a) and R-17b(b), zoned RM 1 and RM2 respectively k. Create neighborhood R-8c with an SF4 zoning 1. Create neighborhood R-31 with RM2 zoning M. Create a second elementary school site (S-2) n. Create two new public parks (P-5 and P-6) o. Eliminate neighborhoods R-25b and R-26 (converted to school and P-5 Park sites) Village 2 Tentative Maps Four (4) associated Tentative Maps: Total of 1480 units (See Attachment 10). a. PCS 12-02 Village 2 North: Amend lotting to accommodate 88 residential units; b. PCS 12-03 Village 2 West: Amend lotting to accommodate 386 residential units; c. PCS 12-04 Village 2 R-1 5b & R-31: Amend lotting to accommodate 31 residential units; and d. PCS 12-05 Village 2 South: Amend lotting to accommodate 975 residential units Total units shown on the TM's include a portion of the proposed 1 ,562 new units along with existing units previously approved for those areas. • ANALYSIS 1. Chula Vista General Plan • The General Plan identifies Village 2 as being within the Western District of the Otay Ranch Subarea. The General Plan designates a mix of land uses in Village 2 including a larger Village Core than the typical Village Core in Otay Ranch. The existing land uses include Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre), Residential Medium (6-11 dwelling units per acre), Mixed Use Residential, two Neighborhood Parks (NP), and an Elementary School (ES). A High School (HS) and a Fire Station (FS) are also located adjacent to Village 2 along Olympic Parkway and La Media Road, respectively. • The Chula Vista General Plan (GP) provides the vision and policy direction for the planning of Village 2. The GP includes numerous policies (starting on page LUT-254) with regard to Village 2, some of these that relate directly to design and land use are: • Provide diverse housing types, including single-family and multi-family dwellings. • Allow a linear design for Village Two with primary access from Heritage Road and La Media Road, creating a walkable Village Core that extends in an east/west direction across the village and provides pedestrian links between community- serving land uses in the core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Provide high-density residential uses arranged in and around a commercial retail, mixed use City of Chula Vista Page 10 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 47 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. development at the eastern end of the Village Core. • Enable the intensification of multi-family residential densities and commercial uses to enhance transit use, reduce automotive dependency, and promote social interaction. The proposed project is consistent with the GP policies listed above. The majority of the proposed unit increase is directed within the Residential Medium High, Residential High and Mixed Use Residential areas surrounding and proximate to the Village Core. Of the 1,562 total new units, 1,132 (72%) are located within the village core. The addition of Residential-High (18-27 du/ac) adjacent to the existing Mixed-Use residential village core places higher density residential uses proximate to schools, parks, and nearby neighborhood commercial. The increased densities will also "activate" the Village Core; encourage walking and transit use; and reduce automotive dependency. The placement of a Neighborhood Park at the corner of Heritage Road and Santa Victoria Road creates a pedestrian-oriented gateway into the Village, and provides for a well-distributed pedestrian link between Village 2 West and the rest of the Village. The applicant will provide pedestrian features such as enhanced pavement, trellises, seating areas, and low monument signage surrounding the Neighborhood Park that will accentuate a pedestrian-oriented "gateway" entry to the Village 2. 2. Otay Ranch GDP The Otay Ranch GDP provides a vision and direction for the planning of the Village 2 SPA Plan. The vision of the GDP for this area is that the Village 2 serves as an `Urban Village.' According to the GDP/SRP, Urban Villages are " adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores." Key goals and objectives within the Otay Ranch GDP include: Goal: Develop comprehensive, well integrated and balanced land uses which are compatible with the surroundings. (Page 64) Objective: Provide a well-integrated land use pattern which promotes both housing and employment opportunities, while enhancing the unique environmental and visual qualities of the Otay Ranch. Objective: Provide a wide range of residential housing opportunities, from rural and estate homes to high-density multi-family projects. Provide a balanced and diverse residential land use pattern for the Otay Valley Parcel which promotes a blend of multi-family and single- family housing styles and densities, integrated and compatible with other land uses in the area. Objective: Provide development patterns complementary to the adopted plans and existing development of the adjacent communities. The SPA Land Use Plan supports these GDP goals and objectives by providing a range of housing and employment opportunities. The plan adheres to the GDP specific directives for Village 2 that create a village core (composed of commercial, community purpose, elementary school, high school, neighborhood park, town City of Chula Vista Page 11 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 48 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. square, and higher-density residential land uses) and residential neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing styles and densities. The proposed project expands the core, offers potential employment opportunities therein, and adds density both in and around the core. The proposed increase in density will also allow for the provision of more small lot single family product and a wide range of multi-family residential units that provides a balanced and diverse residential land use pattern. 3. Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment The proposed Village plan is intended to maintain Village 2 goals/objectives as originally defined in the Otay Ranch General Development and the Montecito SPA Plan. At the same time, the proposed plan for Village Two seeks to enhance the Village by bringing housing typologies/products in line with current market conditions, increasing commercial viability, responding to today's home buyer preferences, and conforming to GDP policy objectives. As defined in the Otay Ranch GDP and Montecito SPA, residential density is focused in/around the V2 core. A future BRT transit stop near the intersection of La Media Road and State Street and additional transit stops within the Village (determined by the Metropolitan Transit System) will promote transit ridership and provide residents with alternatives to automobile use. The core is extended southward to Santa Liza Street to now include a second elementary school (S-2), another park (P-5) and additional residential (R-25a) in V2 south. This expansion adds almost 30 acres and 450 units to the core. Density still decreases with distance from the village core. Creating residential density near the village core makes commercial uses more viable. Increased density also creates activity/vibrancy at the street level, which will increase the urban, pedestrian- oriented `feel' originally planned in Village Two. Public Parkland and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) are focused in and around areas with highest densities (village core). CPF-9 is located at the westerly portion, adjacent to the village core, P-5 is centrally located within the expanded village core, and P-6 is located adjacent to the higher density Neighborhoods R-4b ("a" and "b"). This puts the majority of Village Two residents in direct proximity to Parkland/CPF amenities. Additional facilities are distributed throughout the Village and are within walking distance for most residents. Park and CPF facilities provide diversity in recreational, social, and learning options available to residents. Due to the diversity and distribution of these facilities, a resident may be able to enjoy a private swim club, a community garden, a private recreational facility, and a public park - all within a short walk. To further activate the Village entry/core, the C1 district (originally planned as stand-alone commercial) is changed to mixed-use residential. The addition of residential promotes multi-hour activity, and a lively `main street' environment. This also encourages residents to meet and gather in the public realm, or in semi-private gathering areas. Increasing density and revising dwelling unit product/typology in the R4 neighborhood from only existing large lot single family (5-8,000 sf lots) type with an additional mix of smaller lot and multi- family allows the neighborhood to establish a varied rather than "monotone" character. Adding a public park puts residents closer to public facilities and eliminates their need to cross Heritage Road for park access. Changing land use from single family detached to multi-family, project specific amenities such as common open space areas, tot-lots, and recreational areas, including pools, may City of Chula Vista Page 12 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 49 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. be implemented. This provides residents opportunities for recreation and social interaction. This approach is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP description of V2 west. The location of the new elementary school (S2) extends the village core south, and makes the elementary school more proximate to V2 south residences. This encourages students/parents walking to school. The proposed vocational school (CPF#9) will serve the City and Southbay region, connecting to the western portion of Village Two with the core and other portions of the Village, and will help to foster the development of the surrounding industrial area. Village 2 PC District Regulations Amendments The PC District Regulations function as the zoning regulations for Village 2. Because the product and zone types with the amendment are consistant with those in the village as currently approved, no substantative change to the District Regulations was required. An update to the zoning map (Exhibit 1 in the Planned Community District Regulations) is the only change to the approved document. Village 2 SPA Plan Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines set forth design parameters that pertain to site planning, landscape architecture, architecture and signage for all developments within Village 2. The Design Guidelines contain illustrations and requirements to implement the design ideas presented therein. The Village 2 predominant design theme is Santa Barbara, Spanish architecture. The Design Guidelines consist of various single and multi-family conceptual lotting and spatial orientation illustrations. The proposed project will comply with these existing design guidelines. Edits have been made only to implement the existing standards across the new land use plan. The land use plan has been updated to reflect the new neighborhoods and the new zoning of existing neighborhoods that are proposed to change. Additionally, seven exhibits have been updated to show the new land use plan, to provide details for new and revised parks, and to show village core information to reflect the expanded core. The exhibits in the document have all been updated to show the required design elements and how they will be incorporated within the new plan. Special attention is paid to the new public facilities such as CPF and parkland. Additionally, detailed design requirements are added for the new proposed parks (P-5 and P-6) and updated information is provided for P-3 which will now surround the homeowner's association swim club facility. Village Core Master Precise Plan (MPP) As part of the project, modifications are proposed to neighborhoods within the village core. Neighborhood C-1 is changed from commercial to mixed use and units are added to the three existing mixed use areas. An area that was originally designated for CPF uses, now will be multi- family residential (R-31). Additionally, the west end of the village core is extended southward to Santa Liza Street to include a second elementary school (S-2), another park (P-5) and additional residential (R-25a) in V2 south. The modifications and expansion add almost 30 acres and 450 units to the core. The Montecito Village Core Master Precise Plan has been updated to reflect these additions and changes. Detailed design requirements and guidelines have been added for the areas that were not City of Chula Vista Page 13 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 50 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. previously covered by the plan (R-25a, R-31 , S-2 and P-5) and the requirements for existing core neighborhoods that receive additional units (R-11 , R-27, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and C-1) have been updated. Components addressed for each of these neighborhoods are planned use, permitted use, mandatory site plan elements, building design & siting, and urban character. Additionally, architectural and design details consistent with the Village Design Plan have been added for placement of a monument sign within the median of State Street at La Media Road. The proposed monument sign will be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department. Parks, Open Space & Trails The proposed project meets the open space requirements per the existing Village 2 SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations. The project generates a demand for an additional 12.16 acres of park land. This obligation will be met through the Applicant's dedication of parkland. To achieve this, two new public parks have been created (P-5 and P-6) and two within the existing plan have been expanded (P-3 and P-4). See Exhibit 40 of the SPA Plan. The FSEIR analyzed the "worse case" scenario for the project with an increase of 311 single family units, which resulted in a deficit of 1 .4 acres. However, the actual project decreases single family by 70 units. Thus, the parkland provided meets the required 12.16 acres. As part of the current Village 2 SPA Plan, 109 acres of open space were required to meet the Otay Ranch GDP threshold of 12 acres per 1000 residents. The proposed project, with the 5,061 new residents will generate an additional 67.7 acre requirement, increasing the open space demand for Village 2 to 176.7 acres. The 213.6 acres provided in the village exceeds the Otay Ranch GDP open space requirement by nearly 37 acres. The trails in the Village remain consistent with the approved 2006 Village Two SPA Plan. No changes have been made as a result of this amendment. See Exhibit 40 of the SPA Plan. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1 .188 acres of preserve land for every acre of development area. The applicant will be responsible for satisfying this requirement concurrently with the processing of the final maps. The proposed amendment does not expand the footprint of the area previously planned for development, therefore, the total dedication required does not change from the original project. Community Purpose Facilities CVMC Section 19.48 requires the provision of 1.39 acres of land per 1 ,000 persons be zoned for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) when creating a SPA Plan. This requirement may be reduced or complied with in an alternative manner based on the availability of shared parking for the use, or through the provision of an extraordinary public benefit provided certain requirements are met. The proposed amendment requires an additional 7.0 acres of CPF. The project proposes to eliminate a total of 2.7 acres of CPF (CPF-3 and CPF-5) and create a total of 10 acres of new CPF (CPF-7 and CPF-9). The net increase of 7.3 acres exceeds that obligation attributable to the new 1 ,562 units. The new CPF-7 site is located at the end of the primary village entry (State Street) and is intended to be a swim club (a private recreation facility) for the residence of the Montecito Homeowners Association. CPF-9 will be located in the industrial portion of Village 2 South and is intended to be a City of Chula Vista Page 14 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 51 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. vocational school (although other uses consistent with the City's CPF ordinance would be allowed). The vocational school is intended to provide job training for residents to meet employment opportunities in the local economy. See Exhibit 44 of the SPA Plan. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) and Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) A PFFP has been prepared as a supplemental document to the original PFFP dated February 28, 2006. Another Supplemental PFFP's was approved for two separate SPA amendments in January and April of 2012. The Otay Ranch Village 2 Supplemental PFFP for this project analyzes the proposed 1,562-unit addition, any potential impacts on public facilities and services, and identifies the facilities, phasing and timing triggers for the provision of facilities and services to serve the project, consistent with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The PFFP describes in detail the cost, financing mechanism and timing for construction of necessary public facilities based on the project's proposed phasing. The public facilities needed to serve the project will be guaranteed by placing conditions of approval on the Tentative Map, requiring payment of various fees at the building permit stage, and/or continuing payment of bond payments under the approved Community Facilities Districts to finance or maintain public facilities. The PFFP included an analysis of transportation, drainage, water, sewer, fire, schools, libraries, parks, and fiscal impacts of the project. • The supplemental PFFP also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the Village 2 plan and phasing program. The Village 2 FIA has been prepared using the City's Fiscal Impact Framework to provide a consistent evaluation with those of other Chula Vista SPAs. Based on the FIA and the assumptions contained therein, annual fiscal impacts, as compared to the currently approved project, are negative in Year 0 & 1 and Years 6 through 12. In the first year there is a net fiscal deficit of approximately $109,000. The project operates the next four years at a total surplus of almost $640,000. The total deficit in Years 7 through 12 is just under $290,000. The fiscal surplus grows to an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $540,000 by build out, Year 20. Beyond year 17 (future build out), the fiscal impact is anticipated to be net positive in the amount of $429,149. Residential units are primarily constructed during the early years of the project which produce greater costs than revenues, creating the early years' deficit. With more non-residential development underway between years 5 and 9, the deficit declines. From Year 10 to buildout (Year 20) revenues exceed expenditures due to the significant increases in retail and office/industrial development during those years. On a comparative to the current adopted SPA Plan, the current Village 2 SPA's net impact is negative $117,343 Year 0-1, and positive $5.5 million Years 2-17. Beyond Year 17 the current Village 2 SPA is expected to be net positive $832,672 annually. As indicated above, the proposed project would generate a positive net impact of approximately $429,149 annually. Please refer to the PFFP, which includes the fiscal impact analysis, for additional details (Appendix D, SPA Plan). CVMC Section 19.09.060(J) states that "projects shall be conditioned to provide funding for periods where expenditures exceed projected revenues." A condition has been added to the Tentative Map conditions requiring that the applicant enter into an agreement to provide such funding to offset the negative fiscal year impacts. City of Chula Vista Page 15 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 52 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. Not accounted for in the FIA deficit and surplus calculations, the Applicant will provide a public benefit contribution in the amount of $5,000 per new residential unit (up to the 1 ,562 proposed with this project) to the City at the time of building permit issuance. This would be additional revenue benefitting the City. The additional monetary contribution would be applied to a "civic-type" use within the City. Affordable Housing Plan • The Chula Vista General Plan Housing Element contains objectives, policies and action programs to accomplish key affordable housing objectives. Key among these is the affordable housing policy which requires that residential development with fifty (50) or more dwelling units provide a minimum of 10% of the total dwelling units for low and moderate income households; one- half of these units (5% of the total project) being designated for low income, and the other half (5%) to moderate income households. • An Affordable Housing Plan was approved with the original Village 2 SPA Plan and has been updated to account for the additional 1 ,562 units. With approval of the proposed project, the total required affordable units will increase from 298 to 454. Of these 454 units, 227 will be low income affordable units and 227 will be moderate income affordable units. • Due to the ownership fragmentation within Village 2, a Village-wide Affordable Housing Agreement was prepared and signed by all ownerships, stating that each of the respective ownerships would be responsible for the provision of affordable housing units for their developments. Upon approval of the proposed project, Baldwin & Sons would be required to provide 343 affordable housing units including for low income. The requirement for these 172 affordable low income units are to be commenced at the 50% building permit issuance for all units owned by Baldwin & Sons in accordance with the July 26, 2011 allocation letter. Water Conservation Plan • The City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance requires that all development of 50 units or more prepare a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) as part of the SPA Plan. This plan presents a review of presently available technologies and practices that result in water conservation. This plan identifies water conservation measures that will be incorporated into the project as a condition of approval on the SPA Plan. A WCP was prepared for the project as a part of the original approval in 2006. A new WCP, consistent with the current City standards, has been prepared as a part of the proposed project. • This new WCP covers already approved units and land uses along with those proposed by this amendment. • The Village 2 WCP requires that residential development provide hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves and water efficient dishwashers. In addition, to comply with the City's current water conservation requirements, the developer will also include dual flush toilets and water efficient landscaping. Together these three measures annually save approximately 28,850 gallons per single-family unit and approximately 8,850 gallons per multi-family unit. • The WCP also provides a discussion of the local water conservation requirements related to City of Chula Vista Page 16 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 53 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. the use of reclaimed water. The City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual requires the use of recycled water for irrigation of parks, median landscaping, open space slopes, and common landscaped areas. The Landscape Manual also requires some drought tolerant plant selection in the landscaping plan and the use of evapotranspiration controllers for parks and common landscaped areas. Additionally, the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance is expected to reduce outdoor water consumption due to the setting of strict water budgets on City approved landscape plans that must not be exceeded. The proposed conservation measures outlined above, and identified in the Village 2 WCP, comply with the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance and the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. See Water Conservation Plan section of the SPA Plan. Air Quality Improvement Plan • The City has included a Growth Management Element (GME) in its General Plan. One of the stated objectives of the GME is to actively plan to meet federal and state air quality standards. This objective is incorporated into the GME's action program. In addition, the City's Growth Management Ordinance (CVMC 19.09) requires that an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) be prepared for all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater) as part of the SPA Plan process. An AQIP was prepared for the project as a part of the original approval in 2006. Due to updates in City policy and the requirements for the AQIP in 2010, the existing document was determined to no longer be adequate. A new AQIP has been prepared for Village 2 (including the proposed project) to comply with the City's current AQIP Guidelines. The purpose of the AQIP is to provide an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result from development of Village 2 and to demonstrate how the design for Village 2 reduces vehicle trips, maintains or improves traffic flow, reduces vehicle miles traveled and reduces direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions. A computer model (INDEX), prepared by Criterion Engineers & Planners was used to analyze the project's land use plans wherein certain threshold scores must be met for a set of key indicators. These "key indicators" include: Land Use • Use Mix • Use Balance • Neighborhood Completeness Housing • School Proximity to Housing • Transit Proximity to Housing Employment • Transit Proximity to Employment Recreation • Park Proximity to Housing Travel • Internal Street Connectivity • Intersection Density • Pedestrian Network Coverage City of Chula Vista Page 17 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 54 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. • Residential Multi-Modal Access • Daily Auto Driving (3Ds Methodology) Climate Change • Residential Building Energy Use • Non-Residential Building Energy Use • Residential Building CO2 • Non-Residential Building CO Because of the project's mix of uses and other project design features, compact development pattern, walkability, provision of transit facilities, and bicycle network, the project's INDEX analysis met the required Threshold Scores and complies with the City's adopted strategies for improving air quality and energy conservation. See the Air Quality Improvement Plan section of the SPA Plan. Fire Protection Plan • The City requires the preparation and approval of a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) with every new SPA Plan. In addition, the California Fire Code requires a FPP with all new development based on its proximity to the Urban Wildland Interface. A FPP was prepared for the project as a part of the original approval in 2006. Minor modifications have been made to the FPP as part of the proposed project to add plant species to the approved plant list, adjust the maximum allowable plant height, and modify the irrigation requirements for certain zones (changing from permanent irrigation to temporary irrigation). These changes have been made with the intent of preserving areas of established landscaping and to allow for the slope landscaping to have a more natural appearance. The FPP was reviewed by and approved by the Fire Marshall. See the Fire Protection Plan section of the SPA Plan. 4. Tentative Subdivision Map WCS 12-02, 12-03, 12-04, 12-05) • A Tentative Subdivision Map is required for a division of land resulting in four or more lots or condominium units, pursuant to Section 2 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Maps has been designed to comply with the lot design criteria of the Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Maps would be consistent with surrounding development and would complement the area with the design for more compact single family lotting clusters in Village 2 north and traditional, linear lotting maintained in Village 2 west and south. Overall the subdivision design is in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual, Zoning Ordinance and other associated regulatory documents. The Tentative Maps are consistent with the amended General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan densities established for the respective areas. • The following four new Tentative Maps are associated with the proposed project adding 1 ,562 units to Village 2. The Tentative Maps cover 27 of the 36 neighborhoods/planning areas affected by the GDP and SPA amendments; a total of 1,480 units are shown on these four Tentative Maps. The analysis presented in the PFFP discussion, which addresses transportation, circulation, drainage, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks on pages 11-13 of this staff report are also applicable to the four proposed Tentative. City of Chula Vista Page 18 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 55 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. • The Tentative Maps are listed and described below in chronological order with descriptions particular to that map such as access, subdivision design and grading. A. PCS 12-02 (Otay Ranch Village 2 North): Proposes to subdivide 7 existing lots totaling approximately 40 acres into 51 single family lots, 28 multi-family, one (1) HOA open space lot, one (1) public park, and one (1) CPF lot. The Tentative Map covers a total of 88 residential units. • Project Access. • Access to the project area is provided from existing Santa Diana Road, Santa Alexia Avenue, and Pershing Road. An extension of Pershing Road and Stow Grove Avenue provide access within the project area. These streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. Subdivision Design: The subdivision design consists of 79 residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) public park, and one (1) CPF lot. Fifty one (51) of the lots will be single family and range from 4,250 sf to 17,107 sf in size. Twenty seven (27) of the lots are small lot single family (each intended for a single detached product) that are categorized as multi-family due to their density. The final multi- family lot is an extension of the existing Neighborhood R-10b and will increase the total number of residential units in that project by 10. Grading: In conjunction with approval of the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-05) and in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP, a grading approach was established for the Village 2 SPA Plan. Implementation of the proposed map conforms to and enhances the approved grading approach goals by further concentrating urban development on mesa tops and gently rolling terrain, while retaining sensitive natural topographic features. The proposed plan allows for substantial conformance to the grading plan for Village 2 north, which was approved in conjunction with the original Village 2 Tentative Map (CVT 06-05). Most of the site is currently in a graded pad condition and slopes gently northwest toward Olympic Parkway. The most significant change to the existing grading plan will be the expansion of pad and slope areas along the northern portion of the map into an area previously identified for future development. Grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. B. PCS 12-03 (Otay Ranch Village 2 West): Proposes to subdivide approximately a 48.2 acre lot into 113 multi-family lots, one (1) public park, four (4) open space lots, and two (2) HOA lots. The Tentative Map covers a total of 386 residential units. • Project Access. • Vehicular access to the site will be provided from Heritage Road and Santa Victoria Road. Natoma Court, Barranca Avenue and Occidental Road will provide primary access within the project area. These streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan, and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. City of Chula Vista Page 19 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 56 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. Subdivision Design: • The subdivision design consists of 113 residential lots, four (4) open space lots, one (1) public park, and two (2) HOA lots. One hundred eleven (111) of the residential lots will be small lot single family (each intended for a single detached product) that are categorized as multi-family due to their density. The final 2 residential lots are multi-family and create the R-4b(b) neighborhood, which will allow up to 275 residential units. • Grading: The proposed map allows for a grading approach consistent with that established for the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-05). Although grading plans have yet to be finalized for Village 2 West, the proposed plan locates development on gently rolling terrain, while maintaining steep slopes to the north and east toward Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road. Neighborhood orientation and street alignments are intended to minimize the necessity for grading and retaining walls. This allows for the implementation of a grading approach substantially similar to that which was intended for the original Tentative Map. Any grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. E. PCS 12-04 ( Otay Ranch Village 2 R-15b & R-31) : Proposes to subdivide two (2) existing lots totaling approximately 1.8 acres into six (6) single family lots and one (1) multi-family lot. The Tentative Map covers a total of 31 residential units. • Project Access. • Access to the project area is provided from existing Santa Victoria Road and Anapamu Avenue. Ortega Street will provide access within the project area. All streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. Subdivision Design: • The subdivision design consists of 7 residential lots. Six (6) of the lots will be single family and range from 5,270 sf to 6,083 sf in size. The multi-family lot is 1.1 acres in size and will allow up to 25 residential units. • Grading: Implementation of the proposed map conforms to and enhances the approved SPA grading approach by further concentrating urban development on mesa tops and gently rolling terrain, while retaining sensitive natural topographic features. The proposed plan allows for substantial conformance to the grading plan for Village 2 East, which was approved in conjunction with the original Village 2 Tentative Map (CVT 06-05). Minor changes to the existing grading plan will be required, but the grading footprint will substantially conform to the originally approved plan. Grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. City of Chula Vista Page 20 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 57 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. D. PCS 12-05 (Otay Ranch Village 2 South): Proposes to subdivide 2 existing lots totaling approximately 170.4 acres into 226 single family lots, 77 multi-family lots, one (1) HOA lot, four (4) open space lots, one (1) public park, two (2) industrial lots, and three (3) CPF lots. The Tentative Map covers a total of 975 residential units. • Project Access. Access to the project area is provided from Heritage Road and Santa Victoria Road. Numerous streets will provide access within the project area, with Santa Liza Street, Santa Carolina Road, and Santa Christina Avenue being primary among these. All streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. • Subdivision Design: • The subdivision design consists of 303 residential lots, one (1) HOA lot, four (4) open space lots, one (1) public park, two (2) industrial lots, and three (3) CPF lot. Two hundred twenty six (226) of the lots will be single family and range from 5,060 sf to 14,064 sf in size. Seventy three (73) of the lots are small lot single family (each intended for a single detached product) that are categorized as multi-family due to their density. The remaining 4 multi-family lots are 4.7 acres (R- 1713(b)), 2.5 acres (R-24), 14.1 acres (R-25a) and 8.7 acres (R-27). These lots are planned to allow a maximum of 95 units, 59 units, 330 units and 175 units respectively. • Grading: The proposed map allows for a grading approach consistent with that established for the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-05). Although grading plans have yet to be finalized for Village 2 south, the proposed plan locates development on gently rolling terrain, while maintaining steep slopes to the south toward Wolf Canyon. Neighborhood orientation and street alignments are intended to minimize the necessity for grading and retaining walls. This allows for the implementation of a grading approach substantially similar to that which was intended for the original Tentative Map. Any grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. 5. Development Agreement State and City Requirements for Development Agreements California Government Code sections 65864 through 65868.5 authorize cities to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property. A development agreement is a contract negotiated between the project proponent and the public agency that specifies certain mutual benefits negotiated for a particular project and vests, subject to certain conditions in the agreement, the rights of the project applicant to develop the property under current land use regulations for a specified term. Through City Resolution No. 11933 (adopted in 1985), the City Council has determined that development of large projects within the City create unique and complex development considerations and that, in addition to the minimum requirements for development agreements contained in the Government Code, additional procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements shall be contained within each individual agreement. The Development Agreement City of Chula Vista Page 21 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 58 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. presented here includes the minimum requirements for development agreements contained in the Government Code, as well as additional procedures and requirements designed to address the unique and complex development considerations presented by the Project. The following discussion focuses on the benefits of the Development Agreement to both the City and the Applicant, and a description of the fundamental terms of the Agreement. Public Benefits Beyond the basic benefits of developing a project of the size and scope of Village Two, including the development of necessary infrastructure, providing a cumulative positive fiscal impact at build out, and enhancement of the City's image as a leader in sustainable community building, the City will receive the following benefits from entering into the Development Agreement, which is presented in draft in Attachment 8: • Complete the construction of two lanes of Heritage Road (one in each direction) between Santa Victoria Road and Main Street prior to issuance of the Master Developer's 155 th building permit for a residential unit sewering south to the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor. Per the requirements of the original approval, the Applicant bonded for this facility with the 1 ,276 th mapped unit in the Village. This requirement will further their obligation and be the first trigger identifying the opening of the road. In addition to the circulation benefits that the completion of this segment of Heritage Road will provide, the City will also recognize an economic benefit through the provision of a direct connection between Otay Ranch and the auto dealerships located on Main Street. • Relocation of the City of San Diego's Otay #2 Pipeline from its current location bisecting the Community Park to within La Media Road. The relocation of this line will allow for the development of the Community Park without any encumbrances. Additionally, once relocated to La Media Road, any necessary repairs or maintenance will be able to be performed without disruption to that park, open space, or the internal village circulation roads which cross the current alignment. • Public benefit contributions equal to $5000 for each of the 1 ,562 new units (up to $7.8M total) to be used for enhancements to, or a new public facility in the City. These public benefit contributions will be made as development proceeds on the Master Developer's future neighborhoods as identified in Exhibit A. • Second elementary school site with funding commensurate to construct the facility. This will allow the elementary school needs of all village residents to be met within the village. • Option to construct a public swimming pool facility located on one of Village Two's neighborhood park sites. City of Chula Vista Page 22 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 59 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. Benefits to the Master Developer • Predictability in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use, and timing and phasing of development consistent with the Village Two SPA Plan and existing land use laws, regulations and policies for up to twenty (20) years. • Use of the City's Development Impact Fee Deferral Policy for the life of the Development Agreement (up to 20 years). Pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Deferral Policy, the Master Developer may defer the payment of Development Impact Fees until the request for final inspection of each individual residential unit upon satisfaction of specified conditions (Attachment 1 , Section 2.7). • Ability to satisfy 9.0 acres of Master Developer's CPF obligation within the IND-3 site. Additionally, City agrees that a vocational school or adult school will be deemed to be an approved CPF use. • Option to process an application to rezone the CPF-5 site in Village Seven to a residential site (rather than converting it to a CPF site) and to rezone the CPF-2 site in Village 2 South to low- density residential forup to six single family lots. These benefits are subject to the Applicant exercising its option to construct a public swimming pool facility on one of the neighborhood park sites in Village 2 as described above. • Ability to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Project utilizing multiple phases or bond series. Upon formation of such a CFD, the City shall charge a single "priority administration cost" that provides for full cost recovery for City administrative activities. • Ability to build the public facilities in Community Park P-4 with the right to reimbursement from public benefit contributions previously made and credits against public benefit contributions not yet made. Other Terms of the Agreement The Development Agreement will contain the following additional major points: • The term of the Development Agreement, all tentative maps and other development approvals will be twenty (20) years. • For the Term of the Development Agreement, the Master Developer and its merchant builders shall have the vested right to develop the property pursuant to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and existing land use laws, regulations and policies. The Development Agreement will vest permitted uses, density, intensity, timing and phasing of development, and reservations and dedications of land. • As described above, the Development Agreement will allow for the continuation of the City's Development Impact Fee Deferral program, which allows for the payment of development impact fees upon request for final inspection rather than at issuance of building permits. City of Chula Vista Page 23 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 60 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. • The Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual written consent of the City and Master Developer and the Owner of any affected portion of the property. • The City shall accept and process with reasonable promptness all completed applications for subsequent approvals. • Development Agreement shall run with the land and benefit and bind future owners should the Master Developer sell or transfer ownership. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT No Property within 500 feet Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Planning Commission member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Village 2 Project supports the Economic Vitality goal, particularly City Initiative 2.1 .3 (Promote and support development of quality master-planned communities). The Village 2 implementation documents (the SPA Plan and TMs) support the development of a quality master-planned community (as described above) with schools, parks, jobs, transit, shopping, and other amenities, all within walking distance for residents. A vocational school will provide access to job training and education opportunities for citizens of Chula Vista and south bay. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The processing for the GP, GDP and SPA Plan amendments, SEIR, Tentative Maps and all supporting documents were funded by a developer deposit account. This account funded city staff and consultants representing the city on the Village 2 Comp SPA project. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project results in an increase of 1 ,562 units within Village 2. The applicant was required to conduct a separate Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). The Supplemental FIA for the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment estimates that both projects yield annual positive impacts to the City at build- out. The proposed amended project is estimated to generate $429,000 annually at build-out versus the approved project that is estimated to generate $832,672 annually at build-out. A comparison of City of Chula Vista Page 24 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 61 File#: 14-0648, Item#: 3. the fiscal impacts of the two projects is over the build-out period is summarized in the following table: Approved S 5.388.126 2 $36.921 - $80. Because the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that "projects shall be conditioned to provide funding for periods where expenditures exceed projected revenues", a condition of approval has been added to the Tentative Map that requires the applicant enter into an agreement to provide funding to offset the negative fiscal impact prior to approval of the first Final Map in the project. This agreement must be approved by the City. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution FSEIR 12-01 3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes 4. Draft City Council Supplemental to FSEIR 02-02 Resolution 5. Draft City Council GPA/GDP/SPA Plan Resolution 6. Draft City Council PC District Regulations Ordinance 7. Draft City Council TM Resolutions- Otay Ranch Village 2 North- Chula Vista Tract 12- 02; 8. Draft City Council TM Resolutions Otay Ranch Village 2 North- Chula Vista Tract 12-03; 9. Draft City Council TM Resolutions Otay Ranch Village 2 North- Chula Vista Tract 12-04; 10. Draft City Council TM Resolutions Otay Ranch Village 2 North- Chula Vista Tract 12-05; 11 . Draft Development Agreement Ordinance 12. Disclosure Statement 13. Village 2 GPA/GDP/SPA Plan Amendments booklet (disc) - on file at the City Clerk's Office. 14. Tentative Maps (PCS 12-02; PCS 12-03; PCS 12-04; PCS 12-05) (disc) - on file at the City Clerk's Office. 15. Village 2 Supplemental EIR 12-01 (disc) -on file at the City Clerk's Office. Staff Contact: Stan Donn, Senior Planner or Caroline Young, Associate Planner City of Chula Vista Page 25 of 25 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 62 T- p- Nro. 3 - i/isiors CHULAVISR Memorandum Development Services Department TO: City Council of the City Of Chula Vista FROM: Kelly Broughton, FSALA, Development Services Director Stan Donn, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Otay Ranch Village 2 Development Agreement DATE: November 18, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Based on the direction of City Council at the meeting of November 4,2014,the attached three pages were revised to address the restrictions on the vocational school use(Section 4.9.1);the commitment to complete Jacaranda Park (Section 4.9.5), the timing for construction of the swim club (Section 4.9.3)), and the timing for construction of the P-3 park (Section 5.2.2). As presented before you,these edits are incorporated into the final Development Agreement,and can be approved at the second reading of the Ordinance. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 63 agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowledge and provide that, subject to express terms of this Agreement including, without limitation, Sections 4.5.5 and 4.5.6, Owner shall have the right. but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such order. at such rate; at such times, and in as many development phases and sub-phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment. 4.9 Community Purpose Facilities. 4.9.1 Owner shall have the right to satisfy 9.0 acres of its community purpose facilities (CPF) requirements (Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.025) for the Project through the provision of a CPF facility on a 9 acre site located within the industrial area in Village 2 South (i.e., either IND-2 or fND-3 as depicted on Chula Vista Tentative Map 12-05). The City agrees that, subject to the approval of the City Manager, a vocational or adult education school may qualify as a permitted CPF use. The CPF site would require a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the SPA Plan's PC District Regulations. 4.9.2 Owner, with written approval from the City Manager, shall have the option, at its sole expense, to construct a swim facility in one of the future planned Neighborhood Parks (P-2. P-5 or P-6) as more particularly described on Exhibit "E" attached to this Agreement, funding that portion of the cost above what the normal PAD fees would otherwise cover. If Owner elects to construct the swim facility: 4.9.2.1 The swim facility will be a public facility owned and operated by the City; 4.9.2.2 To exercise its option to construct a swim facility; Owner shall submit to the City Manager a preliminary facility plan and a preliminary budget for the facility, including ongoing operation and maintenance; in sufficient detail to allow the City Manager to assess whether the facility will be sustainable and will meet the amenities outlined in Exhibit "E" to this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of the City Manager's receipt of the preliminary facility plan and preliminary budget, the City Manager shall either provide Owner with written approval to construct the facility or notify Owner of any deficiencies in the preliminary facility plan and preliminary budget that will need to be resolved to obtain the City Manager's written approval. 4.9.2.3 Upon x%Titten approval of City Manager to pursue construction of the swim facility; City shall relieve Owner from the 60093.0002519324655.4 -10- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 64 obligation to provide 3.9 acres of CPF in Village 7 as identified in the agreement between the City and Otay Project, LP dated August 22, 2012 and allow Owner to process an application to re-zone that land from open space and low density single family residential to a higher density single family or multi-family residential. Owner will be allowed to apply for a transfer of approved units from Village 2 to Village 7; and 4.9.2.4 Owner shall have the option to process an application to rezone the 0.9 acre CPF-2 site in Village 2 South to a single family zone consistent with the surrounding zoning. 4.93 Owner shall begin construction of the Montecito Swim Club (located on the CPF-7 site) prior to December 31, 2014, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 4.9.4 Prior to approval of a Design Review application for any project in neighborhood MU-2, Owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, the means by which the CPF-4 obligation will be met. Provision of a facility will be consistent with the SPA Plan and the Montecito Village Core Master Precise Plan. 4.9.5 Owner shall facilitate the construction of CPF-1 (Jacaranda Park) by causing construction to commence by June 1, 2015 and be completed by December 1, 2015. 4.10 Community Facilities District. Owner may choose to use a phased Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Project, which may have multiple improvement phases or bond series. City and Owner shall meet and confer regarding reasonable ways to lower the amount, if feasible. Owner must pay for the City's administration costs associated with such a phased CFD approach while providing the City with sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with the phased approach. 4.11 Fiscal Impact Fee. The 2.479 units w=ithin the Project which are subject to the Public Benefit Contribution as defined in Section 5.1.1 and as shown in the Public Benefit Contribution Table attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "F'' shall be subject to an additional fiscal impact fee of eighty dollars ($$0), payable at the time of building permit issuance, in complete satisfaction of all fiscal impact funding requirements of the City Municipal Code, including CVMC 19.09.060(J), for the Project (the "Fiscal Impact Fee"). The Neighborhoods shown as exempt from the Public Benefit Contribution on the Public Benefit Contribution Table shall also be exempt from the Fiscal Impact Fee and any other fiscal impact funding requirements. 60093.00025\93 24655.4 -1 1- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 65 Date shall be extended because of events that cannot reasonably anticipated or controlled as described in Section 11.16 of this Agreement. 5.2.1.1 City shall reimburse Owner for the costs of all TDIF improvements within the Portion of Heritage Road in an amount equal to the cost of the improvements within the Portion of Heritage Road estimated in the establishment of the TDIF fee. as it may be amended from time to time. In the event that Owner anticipates the costs to exceed the amount estimated for the improvements, Owner shall seek to have the TDIF amended such that the estimated costs equals that which the Owner anticipates. At the time of the execution of this Agreement. City shall have collected a certain dollar amount for a portion of such reimbursement from projects previously constructed within Villase 2. Owner shall be entitled to reimbursement from such funds. As additional TDIF funds are collected by the City, such funds shall be available for reimbursement. This reimbursement shall be in lieu of TDIF credits for the amount reimbursed from TDIF funds and subject to the verification/approval process specified in the TDIF ordinance. City shall give Owner TDIF credits, subject to the verification/approval process specified in the TDIF ordinance; to the extent of any difference between the full cost of the TDIF improvements and the amount of TDIF funds available to reimburse Owner. 5.2.1.2 Upon request from Owner, City shall establish a reimbursement district or reimbursement agreement for all costs (both TDIF and non-TDIF) of the entire Heritage Road within six (6) months of the request. All owners and properties benefiting from the construction of Heritage Road shall be included in the reimbursement district or agreement and shall be required to contribute their fair share portion of the construction costs. 5.2.2 Owner shall work with the City, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, to begin construction of the P-3 park by July 31. 2015. Prior to the start of construction it will be necessary for the City to approve a reimbursement agreement for the costs incurred by Owner associated with the design and construction of the park: City and Owner will work cooperatively to select a consultant to prepare the necessary construction documents, and the City will work diligently to approve those construction documents to facilitate the July 31. 201 start date. 60093.0002519334655.4 - a" 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 66 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR 26 NEIGHBORHOODS AND 10 PLANNING AREAS L RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in"Exhibit A"attached to and incorporated into this Ordinance,and commonly known as Village 2 SPA Amendment ("Project"), and for the general purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 325.7 acres located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road within the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on July 9, 2012 by Baldwin & Sons ("Applicant, Owner, and Developer"), requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District(PC) Regulations and Land Use Districts Map; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, SPA Plan and associated Design Guidelines,PFFP,WCP,AQIP and Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 2006-156 on May 23, 2006, amended City Council Resolution No. 2012-009 on January 24, 2012, and City Council Resolution No.2012-056 on April 3,2012;2)Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 3036 on June 6, 2006, amended by City Council Ordinance No. 3225 on February 14,2012, and amended by City Council Ordinance No.3228 on April 17,2012; 3)Tentative Subdivision Map(CVT 06-05) approved by City Council Resolution 2006-157 on May 23, 2006; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-02) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-10; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-03) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-11; Tentative Subdivision Map(CVT 11-04)approved by City Council Resolution 2012-12;and Tentative Subdivision Map(CVT 11-05) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-13 on January 24,2012; and Tentative Subdivision Map(CVT 11-01)approved by City Council Resolution 2012-057 on April 3, 2012; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 67 Ordinance No. Page 2 D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on October 8, 2014, and the Planning Commission did not act on the resolution since the Planning made a motion that the City Council reject the project by not making certain findings of fact;not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations;not adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and not Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(FSEIR 12-01/SCH 2003 091012)for amendments to the General Plan,Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan, four associated Tentative Maps pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This motion carried 5-1-0-1; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on September 24, 2014, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom,are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding;and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS,the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notices of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project at least ten(10) days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 4, 2014,in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, City of Chula Vista Civic Center,276 Fourth Avenue,at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading on November 4, 2014 the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution , by which it approved amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 GDP, SPA Plan, Design Guidelines, the Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan, the Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan, and Tentative Map; and G. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and has determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment as identified in previous FEIR 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 68 Ordinance No. Page 3 02-02;therefore,the City of Chula Vista has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SEIR-12-01/SCH 2003091012 pursuant to CEQA 15163; and NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan.The residential nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted residential designations for this project site and compatible with the surrounding residential and village-related land uses of the Otay Ranch area. B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The City Council approves the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit B and Attachment 6, on file in the office of the City Clerk. III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelly Broughton, FSALA Glen R. Googins Development Services Director City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 69 ►� . // Q�• ' ♦♦ ���0 ���►►au111►►Ipj�Iq . ♦u1 ►1---. .. - ��� ►uuw• �����. I�� • ♦ ��♦ �� �� II I �i �i� :::-►.i �II/I/I/1111D /�/�pu.► ► � i i�� �p �Q��p ♦//IIIIII►IIj �I�I�I,�♦♦♦♦♦ ► 111�:c:.: ' ___ � i I��p► ►1� i�1�•� ♦i��`���Qp� �Q�;► �i� I♦� ♦♦♦i►� Ins�a ►►r _ _- _I ����' ► o�� �i� • �i 00 OO O o �1 '�i�! ��i iii .�.�'� ►u► :'� ' ��O � �� ►►/III//�p1���,�.��,O�p`���i\I ���I� �i��I�����:`�"�,r//, : ��,��� lis oil 47 POW io �Jm��i���Illll���� .; \GIB . �~ 4 �;, i�► !'': MINE-OH .Oi�i 'o��i'�.::: ��-; ►�����%� 111111 �♦ �� ♦ �♦ � . ♦�� �i::�i O ��a��n�aaalal��aaua�� .• .',,,, ., . � I�I� ♦ �i i•. • 1/11►► - \�� _2 rI'I 11�I�I1�Ci��► 11111 ��,`�I i'O�����►►11` r�►p►'11 �♦ � ig nuu __uni_c � IQ�► I� p►►� 510- 1j►►IV ,,`p O ��i '•�ll�i ♦//I/ 1 ♦ ► ♦:Gi 1►►►► ♦ 1 r J v� ���� ♦ I� �j/•j1 11111111 • • • „„„n nnwnu u =-i �� �� o►► �� ` G O I ►q ►►u1 w►►p►► � i �� .1 �up1 �G � �►qQ 11111 : � 11 �— p_� �; p111111 i 1 \\\\\\�� \' �1► p4►i`i �A►iii�►�►�►�� ■ ,v►►`1���IIIr�s�`� t�.o�►►vM11D�U//��QI//►�`iii►ru► o,�•.', _ uululurrrurru ONO- • • I 1 1 Exhibit B Montecito ea'Otay Ranch Business Park Otay Ranch Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District Map RM2 Chula Vlata Fire Station#7 f Otay Ranch RMI VILLAGE OF HERITAGE High School VILLAGE OF (Village 1) SANTAVENETIA Ile Village 6) ❑ Arms cf Change 0 S1� ••�,•`..�, CPF RM2 '--SF4 P MU Road CPF RMi CPF MU MU OS1 RM1 RM2 RM2 RM2 RM2 RM2 F4 HERITAGE HILLS a RM2 P (Village One West} SF3 RM1 m MU RM1 P RM2 051 P -0 RM2 RM SF4 SF2 .0 BP2 P 051 RM2 RM2 l 051 ` SF3 CPF OTAY f CPF P LANDFILL O CPF 5F4 North , Landfill Buffer Line F VILLAGE 4 J) BP2 .. �,,;r•• LEGEND os1 •!" TL:-7 032 .,% SF2 Single Family 2 0, 500' low -:::% n��s��sn� Single Family 3 mApprokinme. BP2 ', /` SF3 9 (CPF PSI F-S-F-41 Single Family 4 v ` ' RMi Multi Family 1 BP1 RM2 Multi Family BPIF J' , cPF Community Purpose BPI --I MU Mixed Use i r BP2 Bpi 1 Business Park I. Bp2 I Business Park 5 OS1 _ BP2 s �`� - BP2 ® Park O$1 1 osi Open Spada OS2• :1.•: OS2 Preserve Open Space Ownership Landfill Buffer Boundary 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 71 Village of Montecito and Otay Ranch Business Park Zoning District Map SECOND READING AND ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,BALDWIN AND SONS,LLC AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS FOR PORTIONS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this ordinance is identified in the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit"A" attached hereto and commonly known as portions of Otay Ranch Village Two ("Property"); and WHEREAS,the Project relied in part on the original Otay Ranch General Development Plan Program Environmental Impact Report 90-01,the Otay Ranch Villages Two,Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report("EIR 02-02")(SCH 92003091012), and the Village Two Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report("EIR 12-01")(SCH No.200.30.91.012)the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Development Agreement and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. October 8,2014, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,and the Planning Commission did not act on the ordinance since the Planning made a motion that the City Council reject the project by not making certain findings of fact;not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations;not adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and not Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(FSEIR 12-0I/SCH 2003091012)for amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan, four associated Tentative Maps pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This motion carried 5-1-0-1; and, WHEREAS,the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on October 8, 2014 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to consider adopting the ordinance to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin & Sons, LLC and Sunranch Capital Partners,LLC for portions of Otay Ranch Village Two(the"Development Agreement");and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 72 Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS,THE City staff has reviewed the Development Agreement and determined it to be consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby order and ordain as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on October 8, 2014 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. IL COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of the ordinance approving the Development Agreement for the Project,as described and analyzed in the Final SEIR 12-01,would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final SEIR(Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). III. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN(GDP) The City Council finds that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The Development Agreement implements the General Plan and GDP by providing a comprehensive program to implement the SPA Plan and Tentative Map. Those plans provide design incorporating a mixture of land uses connected by a walkable system of public streets and pedestrian paths, neighborhood parks and plazas, retail opportunities, and commercial activities designed to promote a safe pedestrian environment. The Village Two site utilization plan,including the density,number of residential units,industrial acreage,and mixed use area,is consistent with the General Plan and GDP, as amended. IV. ACTION The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin and Sons, LLC and SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC for portions of Otay Ranch Village Two(a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office),finding it consistent with the California Government Code,adopted City policies,the General Plan, and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 73 Ordinance No. Page 3 Presented by Approved as to form by Gary Halbert,AICP, PE Glen R. Googins City Manager City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 74 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-055, Item#: 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-214 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ON HILLTOP DRIVE BETWEEN PALOMAR STREET AND MAIN STREET FOR TRAFFIC CALMING PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING A BIKE LANE ON HILLTOP DRIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CALMING AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Staff completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (survey) for a segment on Hilltop Drive in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, which indicates that the posting of speed limits be determined by a survey for each street with a posted speed limit within the City. Based on the results of this survey, the speed limit on Hilltop Drive, between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street should be increased from 30 mph to 35 mph. However, city staff recommends the implementation of traffic calming strategies along this segment of Hilltop Drive as recommended by the Safety Commission. After the traffic calming measures have been implemented, a new survey will be conducted to determine and verify the appropriate posted speed limit along this segment of Hilltop Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1(c) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Safety Commission, at their public meeting on April 2, 2014, requested the city staff to consider implementing various traffic calming measures including bike lanes and restriping in lieu of raising the speed limit along Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street . Additionally, one resident at the meeting voiced opposition to raising the speed limit at the meeting. The Safety Commission, at their meeting on September 3, 2014, reviewed city staffs' proposal for traffic calming measures. Two alternatives were presented and both were deemed acceptable. The two-lane alternative was more favorable overall to the Safety Commission . In addition, several public speakers and written comments were received that voiced opposition to raising the speed limit. City staff also met with Paul Woods, Director of Planning and Construction, Sweetwater Union High School District, and his feedback was neutral towards the options proposed in front of Castle Park City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 75 File#: 14-055, Item#: 4. High School. DISCUSSION Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and Main Street is 5,769 feet (1 .09 miles) long and 64' - 68' curb-to-curb wide. The street is classified as a Four Lane Major, with no bike lanes and parking on only portions of the west side between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street. This roadway is a designated bike route and the "Bike Route" signage is in place. South of E. Rienstra Street, parking is allowed on both sides. North Segment The north segment on Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street (0.4 miles in length) is being repaved as part of an existing CIP project, STL-397. The funding for the striping modification would be included with this project; however, additional striping cost north of Palomar Street and South E. Rienstra Street for striping transitional purposes would need to be added via change order. The adjacent land uses in this segment include Castle Park High School on the east, single family dwellings with driveway access on the west and multi-family units. On April 2, 2014, staff presented to the Safety Commission an Engineering and Traffic Survey on Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street for approval. It was determined in the Engineering and Traffic Survey that the proposed speed limit should be increased from 30 mph to 35 mph. At the meeting, the Safety Commission requested further review of the proposed increase and to research whether any traffic calming measures could be implemented. The Safety Commission discussed traffic calming measures such as re-striping and reducing the number of travel lanes and adding bike lanes. Middle Segment The middle segment on Hilltop Drive is between E. Rienstra to Orange Avenue (0.3 miles in length) and is not part of the existing pavement project. The adjacent land uses in this segment include a commercial strip mall, very close proximity to Loma Verde Elementary School and single family dwellings with direct driveway access. The current posted speed limit is 35 mph. South Segment The south segment on Hilltop Drive is between Orange Avenue and terminating at Main Street (0.37 miles in length). This is also not part of the existing pavement project. The adjacent land uses in this segment include a few commercial properties, single family dwelling with direct driveway access and industrial properties closer to Main Street. The current posted speed limit in this segment is 35 mph. The Safety Commission discussed traffic calming implementation but never made a motion which addressed the limits of implementing the measures. To provide continuity along the entire Hilltop Drive corridor, staff developed alternatives that cover all three segments. On September 3, 2014, city staff presented two traffic calming striping modification alternatives (see attached) to the Safety Commission. Striping modifications can be used to reduce the traveled lane width, reduce the number of lanes and add bike lanes. By narrowing the traveled lane width, City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 76 File#: 14-055, Item#: 4. motorists sense that the roadway feels tighter and narrower. Motorists tend to slow down and try to stay within the striped lane. The two alternatives are: Narrow 4-Lane Alternative No. 1 This first alternative maintains the existing 4 lanes, 2 lanes in each direction. Bike lanes in each direction will be added throughout the corridor. Parking will only be allowed on the west side of the North Segment. The Middle and South segments will have parking on both sides of the street. In order to accommodate the proposed bike lanes, the traveled lane widths were reduced to 10 feet in width. 2-Lane Alternative No. 2a and 2b The second alternative reduces the total number of lanes from 4 to 2, one lane in each direction. It also adds bike lanes and a two-way left turn lane median throughout the corridor. A buffer will be added to provide separation between the vehicles and the bike lanes. Parking will only be allowed on the west side of the North Segment. The Middle and South segments will have parking on both sides of the street. The traveled lane width will be 12 feet. This alternative was striped in eastern Chula Vista on Rutgers Avenue between Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road. Based on the review of each alternative, it was determined that the second alternative, one-lane of traffic in each direction, should provide the best traffic calming technique. In 2013, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Hilltop Drive, between Palomar Street and Orange Avenue, was measured to be 8,553, which is below the design ADT of 12,000. Based on volume to capacity "design standards", the anticipated level of service (LOS) for the two-lane alternative is "A", but as volumes exceed 12,000 ADT, the LOS could be closer to LOS "D". Per SANDAL, the 2020 Year projected ADT along this segment of Hilltop Drive is 12,200. These striping changes would be considered a pilot implementation, rather than permanent, of calming and complete streets concepts. The pilot program is intended to be a five year program, extending through FY 2019-20; however, in order to ensure that the LOS remains at acceptable levels during the interim period, staff will monitor the Hilltop Drive corridor on an annual basis as part of the GMOC annual Traffic Monitoring Program to determine whether this segment of Hilltop Drive would need to revert back to a 4-lane facility prior to the 2019-20. If the program continues through the FY 2019-20, staff will study the segment of Hilltop Drive would need to revert back to a 4-lane facility. The study will take into account land uses, trip generations and current ADT volumes over this period of time. Staff will evaluate the LOS of this corridor utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) travel time methodology. This is the similar method we use for the annual Growth Management Oversight Commission report. The HCM methodology is a more accurate measure of traffic congestion. Currently, using the HCM methodology, the segment of `L' Street to Orange Avenue is at LOS "B". Once the community has had a chance to adjust to the striping changes, staff will conduct another survey and will present a report to the Safety Commission and the City Council recommending the appropriate posted speed limit. As part of the City's Bikeway Master Plan amendments and adoption, bike lanes along Hilltop Drive and the conversion of urban four-lane undivided roadway to a three lane cross section (one lane in City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 77 File#: 14-055, Item#: 4. each direction and a two-way left turn lane) will be evaluated and addressed. The FY 2014/15 CIP includes a budget for the Master Plan update to be completed by early 2016. In order to allow installation of bike lanes at this location, a resolution is needed regarding the temporary reclassification of Hilltop Drive's bike route to a bike lane within the same limits as the traffic calming segment. This segment of roadway is not being reclassified. This modification is also in alignment with typical "complete streets" guidelines. CONCLUSION: City staff recommends implementation of Alternative 2 with traffic calming limits of Palomar Street to Main Street. The striping changes will provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures through FY2019-20. Once the community has had a chance to adjust to the striping changes, city staff will conduct another survey and present a report to the Safety Commission and the City Council, if needed, indicating the recommended posted speed limit. Traffic calming techniques have proved to be an effective method in reducing speeds on a roadway. By narrowing the widths of traveled lanes, reducing the number of lanes, incorporating bike lanes and making the corridor pedestrian friendly, it tends to make the dynamics of the roadway more user friendly for everyone. This project also provides another opportunity to implement and evaluate "complete streets" strategies in the City. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The goal of this action item is to support the Strong and Secure Neighborhood strategy identified in the City's Strategic Plan by providing safer roadways. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT North Segment The proposed project to re-stripe the segment of Hilltop Drive, from Palomar Street to E. Rienstra Street would be part of an existing pavement project, STL-397. Funding would be provided through this project. The estimated cost is $35,000. An additional $2,000 would be required to provide the transitional striping north of Palomar Street and south of E. Rienstra Street. There are sufficient Gas Tax and State Grant funds in the CIP. Therefore, there is no additional impact to the Gas Tax and City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 78 File#: 14-055, Item#: 4. State Grant funds. Middle and South Segments The proposed traffic calming measures on Hilltop Drive between E. Rienstra Street and Main Street, which includes removal of existing striping and the new striping, is estimated to be $55,000. The costs for extending the traffic calming beyond E. Rienstra Street to the south will also be funded by the existing pavement project. There are sufficient funds available in STL-397 to complete this work. Therefore, there is no additional impact to the Gas Tax and State Grant funds. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City maintenance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Hilltop Drive Alternative No. 1 3. Hilltop Drive Alternative No. 2a (North Segment, parking on west side only) 4. Hilltop Drive Alternative No. 2b (Middle and South Segments, parking on both sides) City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 79 • �ar+ 3><f'{�r iii�=i.f`�;� -�. 4 r1 1 1 Az too INo'r ■�� 1 & 4 INf. •�, J4 � 71.f� ., r � 1 W S - RW • �p7isur ian�ldlq . i 1 FA 1 RY R or F J. x • •�•Vii! • Ago, all Owil 606 a 1,. �' s. r Amt d` r �+ 1 +�•'�� r. X11 � _� ��"', ait��•� a.�.. ��' '� � �~�A°• '-'e�° � �}r F IF El NINE, a � ` N d z v ' rn t0 r'1 � • •- w •- L � zoo b te o � e 0 0 � Q � o s x U V U 0 N N d L a 0 _ m J C/) JQ _ O O � •— � L to ry } c L n LU O •- � V � r U a 0a - Z n O Ow � •o � O } O O U o N O d U d r � U� N _ � M v pip r a � z •— � rl 1 tJ ' • � m J > O � Q O O Ocr� � •� JQ O Q z W U �. O Q d x U Q a N RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ON HILLTOP DRIVE BETWEEN PALOMAR STREET AND MAIN STREET FOR TRAFFIC CALMING PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING A BIKE LANE ON HILLTOP DRIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CALMING AREA WHEREAS, staff completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (survey) for a segment on Hilltop Drive in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, which indicates that the posting of speed limits be determined by a survey for each street with a posted speed limit within the City; and WHEREAS, based on the results of this survey, the speed limit on Hilltop Drive, between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street should be increased from 30 mph to 35 mph; and WHEREAS, following staffs' presentation of the results of the survey to the Safety Commission at their public meeting on April 2, 2014, the Safety Commission requested that city staff consider implementing various traffic calming measures including bike lanes and restriping along Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and E. Rienstra Street; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Safety Commission request, staff created two proposals for traffic calming measures along Hilltop Drive (a 4-narrow lane alternative and a 2-lane alternative) and presented them to the Safety Commission at their meeting on September 3, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Safety Commission reviewed the proposals for traffic calming measures; and WHEREAS, based on the review of each alternative, it was determined that the 2-lane alternative, one-lane of traffic in each direction, was more favorable overall to the Safety Commission and would provide the best traffic calming technique; and. WHEREAS, the preferred alternative reduces the total number of existing through lanes from 4 to 2, one lane in each direction. It also adds bike lanes and a two- way left turn lane median throughout the corridor; and WHEREAS, in order to allow installation of bike lanes at this location, a resolution is needed regarding the temporary reclassification of Hilltop Drive's bike route to a bike lane within the same limits as the traffic calming segment; and WHEREAS, the striping changes will provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures on an annual basis until FY2019-20; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 84 Page 2 WHEREAS, once the community has had a chance to adjust to the striping changes, city staff will conduct another survey and present a report to the Safety Commission and the City Council, if needed, indicating the recommended posted speed limit; and WHEREAS, this recommendation and other information in the staff report has been fully considered by the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the City Staff's recommendation to implement striping modifications on Hilltop Drive between Palomar Street and Main Street for traffic calming purposes and authorize a bike lane on hilltop drive within the limits of the temporary traffic calming area. Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 85 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0631, Item#: 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-215 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FY13/14 (OVERLAY) (STM379)" PROJECT TO ATP GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,659,705.50, WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574- 01 , AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $398,955.83 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On October 22, 2014, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) ( STM379)" project. The project consists of the removal and replacement of failed asphalt concrete pavement, reconstruction of street pavement using the 16" Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) process, placement of pavement reinforcement fabric and application of asphalt concrete (AC) on various streets in the City. Additional scope of work on this project includes the installation of stormwater treatment systems; installation or replacement of concrete pedestrian ramps; curb, gutter, and sidewalk; traffic control; striping and markings, and other miscellaneous items of work necessary to complete the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The Public Works Department utilizes a Pavement Management System (PMS) and pavement preservation program to develop the priority list of streets to rehabilitate and preserve throughout the city. This preservation program is designed to extend the roadway life and serviceability through the removal and replacement of deteriorated localized sections of pavement (dig-outs) or entire street sections using various methods of reconstruction and the application of suitable types of surface treatments. The street segments and preventive maintenance strategy are identified in Attachment City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Leg 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 86 File#: 14-0631, Item#: 5. 1. Some street segments in this project are severely deteriorated beyond the scope of an AC overlay. This is the case for First Avenue between G Street and H Street where dig-out repairs alone are not sufficient to correct underlying breakdown of the pavement base material. A Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) process will be employed. FDR has been used successfully in the Montgomery area of the City. FDR requires 16" of existing pavement and base material to be ground up and mixed in place, adding a binder (cement) for rigidity. It is capped with asphalt concrete to provide smooth riding surface. Four (4) locations would receive a complete removal and replacement (R&R) of existing AC pavement (Attachment 1, Alternate Bid Items). In addition to applying the asphalt overlay, the scope of work also includes the removal or replacement of pedestrian ramps; Stormwater facilities, pavement reinforcing fabric, weed removal; herbicide treatment, crack filling, various traffic control items, and other miscellaneous work necessary to successfully complete the project. On October 22, 2014, the Director of Public Works received six (6) bids for the "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) (STM379)" project. The following bids were received: CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL RESULT BID TOTAL SUBMITTED 1 ATP General Engineering All requirements met $2,659,705.50 Contractors - Chula Vista, CA 2 TC Construction Co., Inc. - All requirements met $2,666,633.50 Santee, CA 3 Ramona Paving & Const. All requirements met $2,686,303.65 Corp. - Ramona, CA 4 PAL General Engineering - All requirements met $2,759,718.65 San Diego, CA 5 SRM Contracting & Paving - All requirements met $2,767,367.00 San Diego, CA 6 PCI, Portillo Concrete Inc. - All requirements met but with $2,833,987.91 Lemon Grove, CA $4,557.16 Mathematical error. New total is $2,829,430.75 Staff reviewed the low bid submitted by ATP General Engineering Contractors and determined that their bid package met all the submittal requirements. The bid submitted by ATP General Engineering Contractors is below the Engineer's estimate of $3,098,026.85 by $438,321.35 (or approximately 14.15%). The biggest factor in the price difference appears to be the continuing decrease in oil prices, a significant material used in the manufacture of asphalt concrete. The Contractor has satisfactorily performed construction projects of similar scope for the City in the City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 87 File#: 14-0631, Item#: 5. past. The Contractor's License No. 502506, as well as all listed sub-contractors' licenses, are current and active. Staff recommends awarding a contract including the alternate bid in the amount of $2,659,705.50 to ATP General Engineering Contractors. Additionally, City Council Policy No. 574-01 allows the Director of Public Works to authorize a maximum cumulative change order(s) amount of $73,000 plus 5% of the original contract over $1,000,000 without City Council prior approval. Based on the contract amount, the maximum aggregate contract increase that may be approved by the Director of Public Works under Policy No. 574-01 is $155,985.28. The proposed resolution would increase the Director of Public Works' cumulative change order authority to approve change orders, as necessary, up to the 15% contingency amount of$398,955.83, which is an increase of$242,970.55 over Policy No. 574-01. Increasing the contingency funds will allow staff to continue the project without delay should unforeseen circumstances resulting in increased project costs arise during the course of construction, as well as make adjustments to bid item quantities. Unforeseen conditions include such items as utility conflicts, hazardous materials, unexpected underground conflicts, etc. Any remaining unused contingency funds will be returned to the project fund balance. Disclosure Statement Attachment 2 is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement. Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is TransNet funds. Contractors bidding this project are not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid in the Notice Contractors for various trade publications. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it solely concerns the repair, replacement or maintenance of existing streets, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities and, as such, the financial effect of the decision on real property is presumed to be not material, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2, sections 18704.2(b)(2).Consequently, this item does not present a conflict under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100,et seq.). Staff is not independently aware,and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The goal of the "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) ( STM379)"project is to support the Strong and Secure Neighborhood strategy identified in the City's Strategic Plan. The maintenance and rehabilitation of public infrastructure is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient roadway system for residents, businesses and visitors alike. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The following is a summary of anticipated project costs: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 88 File#: 14-0631, Item#: 5. A. Contract Amount B. Contingencies (Approx. 15%) C. Staff Time, Material $2,659,705.50 $ Testing &Other Costs (Approx. 15%) 398,955.83 $ 398,955.83 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $3,457,617.16 FUNDING SOURCES (ROUNDED) A. STM379 (TransNet Funds) $3,457,618 TOTAL $3,457,618 There is no additional impact to the TransNet fund as sufficient funding is available to cover the construction and staff costs associated with STM379. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. Since the improvements are anticipated to increase the life of the streets included, there should be a positive long term fiscal impact. Staff Contact: Roberto Juan, Associate Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 89 PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FY13/14 STM379 I LOCATION STREET BEGIN END I 1 FIRST AVENUE G ST HST 2 EL CAPITAN DR HILLTOP DR IT CRS 3 EL CAPITAN DR W CDs MONSERATE AV 4 EL CAPITAN DR MONSERATE AV E END 5 HELIX AV E PALOMAR ST E PAISLEY ST i 6 HELIX AV N CDs E PALOMAR ST 7 JAMUL AV E NAPLES ST SAN MARCOS PL 8 JAMUL AV MONSERATE AV _ MELROSE AV 9 JUDSON WY QUEEN ANNE DR E OXFORD ST 10 JUDSON WY E OXFORD ST E ONEIDA ST � 11 JUDSON WY E ONEIDA ST E ORLANDO ST 12 JUDSON WY E ORLANDO ST E PALOMAR ST 13 JUDSON WY E PALOMAR 5T E PAISLEY ST �� 14 JUDSON WY E PAISLEY ST E PROSPECT ST 15 _JUDSON WY _ �E PROSPECT ST E QUINTARD ST 16 E LEANNA CT MYRA AV E CDS 17 MARIA WY E L ST E MOSS ST 18 MAX AV E PROSPECT ST E QUINTARD ST 19 MAX AV _E QUINTARD ST E RIENSTRA ST 20 MONTCALM ST NEPTUNE AV NACION AV 21 MONTCLAIR STµ MELROSE AV MONTEREY AV 22 MONTCLAIR ST NEPTUNE AV NACION AV _.___.�______.._ 23 E MOSS ST MELROSE AV NOLAN WY 24 MYRA AV _ E L ST I�MOSS ST 25 MYRA AV E NAPLES ST S CDS 26 MYRA AV N CDS E OXFORD ST 27 NILE CT E OXFORD ST S CDS 28 NOLAN AV 313 QUAIL PL QUINOA CT 29 NOLAN AV QUINOA CT E RIENSTRA ST 30 NOLAN WY ROMAN WY E MOSS ST 31 E ORLANDO ST MONSERATE AV _MELROSE AV~ ~~ ~ 32 E PROSPECT ST HILLTOP DR HELIX AV 33 E PROSPECT ST HELIX AV THERESA WY 34 E PROSPECT ST THERESA WY MAX AV 35 E PROSPECT ST MAX AV MONSERATE AV 36 E QUEEN ANNE DR W CDS I JUDSON WY � 37 E QUEEN ANNE DR THERESA WY MONSERATE AVE 38 E RIENSTRA ST MELROSE AV NACION AV j 39 ROMAN _ NOLAN WY 1 NACION AV 40 TEL.CYN.SERV.RD MELROSE AVE 1 80'NIO EAST L ST 41 THERESA WY E PROSPECT ST E QUINTARD ST 42 VIA TRIESTE N E NAPLES ST W CDs ALTERNATE BI©M._,.�.....�_ 43 JAMUL AV SAN MARCOS PI= MONSERATE AV 44 MONTCLAiR ST MONTEREY AV NEPTUNE AV 45 E QUEEN ANNE DR JUDSON WY THERESA WY 46 SAN MARCOS PL � JAMUL AV ' �SE CDS �� ' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 1 OF 9 ATTACHMENlgd 90 loll�ingirl PIPE �3 IL PAVEMENT MAJOR REHAENLITATION FY13/14 SHEET 1 (ASPHALT OVERLAY) OF J SHTS. VARIOUS LOCATIONS MST OF 1-805 BETH CHOPP �Afj LID BE r-IRMUMTo F1 1M, WINE, PRO N—al ME MEMO' halo DRAWN B K 77TLE. CITY OF CHULA \ASTA PREPARED BY- R D JUAN R D JUA N PAVEMENT MAJOR REHAERLITATION FY13/14 SHEE T 2 (ASPHALT OVERLAY) APPROVED BY.- OF J SH TS. VARIOUS LOCATIONS WEST OF 1-805 BETH CHOPP ... ...... ....... i I 5� E P�ZS�E R LA E PALO P PZS�E� S� 3 vL E z G EpOp is 2 F'A a QVP�L IDR I I v G SCR N E R1E i c a Ul z � -c 0 zNO� o� � z D AC 0VERLAY PROJECT FILE #S7M379 DRAWN BY- TITLE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY- -R D JUAN R D JUAN PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FYI3/14 DATE- SHEET 3 (ASPHALT OVERLAY) APPROVED BY- 9-19-14 OF 3 SHTS VARIOUS LOCATIONS WEST OF 1-505 BETH CHp �OPPP 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet ATTACHM�IV 1 3l I City of C ula'Vista 9129/2014 j i Cr Y OF CR-OLA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEAUNT ' I i Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01,prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action 'by the Council,Plagning Commission and all other official bodies of the City,a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or fman6al interests, payments, or campaign ooniributians for a City of Chula.Via#a election must-be filed.The following hiformation must be disclosed: 1 i 1, List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract,-e,g„owner,applicant,contractor,subcontractor,material supplier. } NIA 2, if any person*identified pursuant to(1)above is a corporation or partnership,list the names of all individuals with a$2000 investment in the business(corporation/partnorsbip)entity, NIA t i i i If any person* identified pursuant to (1)above is a non-profit organization or trust,list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the irust. F ' N/A i 4. please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent I contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. NIA i 5. Jas any person*associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an officials`* of the � City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? YES No X N/A__ --- 24 Pavement Major R6abilitation FYI U14(Asphalt(Overlay) ! STM379 f ATTACHMENT 2 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet - Page 94 -------- - --- ._ .. . . ... _.. - City of Chula Vista 9129/2414 If Yes,briefly deson`be the nature of the financial interest the official may have in this contract.. NIA b. Have you made a colitribirtion of more than$Z50,within the past twelve(I2)montbs to a current - member of the Chula Vista City Council?No X Yes_If yes,which Council member? NIA 7. Have you provided more than $344(or an item of equivalent value)to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12)months? (This includes being a source of income,Money to retire a legal debt,gifts loan,etc,)Yes_ No X If Yes,which official**.and what was the nature of item provided? - _ j NIA I Date:_ October 22, 2034 Signature of ContractorlApplicant Frank C Coakley, Secretary ATP General Engineeriing Engineering Contractors i Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant _ Porson is defined as: any individual, firm, co partnersbip,joint venture, association, social club, � fraternal organization, owporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district,or other political subdivis"tor4-or any other group or combination acting as 1 a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to, Wyor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,commission,or committee of the City,employee,or staff members. j j ' - 25 Pavement Wjor Rehabiliiatiou FYI 3/14(Asphalt Overlay) E STM379 ATTACHMENT 2 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 95 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FY13/14 (OVERLAY) (STM379)" PROJECT TO ATP GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,659,705.50, WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 574-01 , AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $398,955.83 WHEREAS, City staff prepared specifications for the "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) (STM379)" and advertised the project on September 26, 2014-land WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014, the Director of Public Works Engineering received six (6) sealed bids for the project as follows: CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL RESULTS BID TOTAL SUBMITTED ATP General Engineering 1 Contractors — Chula Vista, All requirements met $2,659,705.50 CA 2 TC Construction Co., Inc. — All requirements met $2,666,633.50 Santee, CA 3 Ramona Paving & Const. All requirements met $2,686,303.65 Corp. — Ramona, CA 4 PAL General Engineering — All requirements met $2,759,718.65 San Diego, CA 5 SRM Contracting & Paving All requirements met $2,767,367.00 — San Diego, CA PCI, Portillo Concrete Inc. — All requirements met but with 6 Lemon Grove, CA $4,557.16 Mathematical error. $2,833,987.91 New total is $2,829,430.75 WHEREAS, the low bid submitted by ATP General Engineering is below the Engineer's estimate of $3,098,026.85 by $438,321 .35 (or approximately 14.15% below the Engineer's estimate); and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 96 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the total "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) (STM379)" project is anticipated to cost $3,457,617.16 including $797,911.66 for contingencies, staff time, material testing and other cost; and WHEREAS, staff has verified the references and the work performed by the contractor on previous City projects and has found their work to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, under Council Policy No. 574-01, the Director of Public Works may approve a contract increase up to $155,985.28, based upon the base contract amount. It is recommended that the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve change orders, as necessary, up to the maximum 15% contingency amount of $398,955.83, which is an increase of $242,970.55 over Policy No. 574-01 in order to continue the project without delay; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids, award the contract for the "Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY13/14 (Overlay) (STM379)" project to ATP General Engineering in the amount of $2,659,705.50, waive City Council Policy 574-01 and authorize the Director of Public Works to spend all available contingency funds in an amount not to exceed $398,955.83. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 97 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0651, Item#: 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-216 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF REVISED LIMITS FOR THE REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Starting on July 1, 2008, each agency in the San Diego region was required by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) to contribute a minimum of $2,000 in exactions (updated annually) for each residential single family home (or equivalent) to contribute to the upgrade of the Regional Arterial System (RAS), as defined in SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan. This amount was increased to $2,254 on July 1 , 2014. The current list of streets does not include any streets west of the 1-5 freeway. In order for the Bayfront Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) to comply with SANDAG's fee requirements, the RAS list must include additional streets west of the 1-5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the activity is not a "Project"as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines because the activity consists of administrative/fiscal actions that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved the new TransNet Ordinance, which included the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to insure that new development directly invests in the Regional Arterial System (RAS) to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. SANDAG subsequently prepared a report titled, "RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study - Final Report", dated November 26, 2007. The RTCIP stated, "Starting on July 1 , 2008, each local agency in the San Diego region shall contribute $2,000 in exactions from the private sector, for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP." This amount has been escalated on an annual basis to reflect cost of living increases, and most recently has been increased to $2,254 per unit as of July 1 , 2014. In June 2007, SANDAG staff presented a revised list of streets to be included in the RAS. This list City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/1812014 powered by Le c 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet �Page 98 File#: 14-0651, Item#: 6. had been modified with the participation of the SANDAG member agencies. Additions to the list needed to meet one of the following criteria: • The arterial is already included in the RAS. • Parallel capacity is provided in high volume corridors to supplement freeways, state highways and/or other regional arterials. • It provides capacity and a direct connection between freeways or other regional arterials, ensuring continuity of freeway, state highways, and arterial network throughout the region without duplicating other regional facilities. • It provides all or part of the route for existing or planned regional and/or corridor transit service that provides headways of 15 minutes or less during the peak period. • It provides access to intermodal facilities (rail, freight, tourist attractions) None of the streets added in 2007 were listed under the City of Chula Vista as the jurisdiction. However, one of the streets listed under the City of San Diego is located at least partly in the City of Chula Vista. This location is: Beyer Way - Main Street to Palm Avenue (Main Street to City of Chula Vista City limits is within the City boundaries). Another roadway needing a revision to the jurisdiction is Proctor Valley Road. It is listed within the (unincorporated) County of San Diego but it is within the City of Chula Vista through the San Miguel Ranch and Rolling Hills Ranch subdivisions. Mobility 2030, which is the SANDAG report that provides a program of major street and highway improvements to be completed by the year 2030, listed 18 streets within Chula Vista as regional arterials. Some of these streets will serve as important arterials for development of the Chula Vista Bayfront. These streets include E Street and H Street. J Street from Bay Boulevard to Broadway should also be included, since it has a direct connection to the I-5 freeway and is part of the arterial network in western Chula Vista. Since Marina Parkway serves as a continuation and link between the H Street and J Street access to the freeway, it should also be included as a major arterial. Bay Boulevard provides parallel capacity to the I-5 freeway. Main Street, which is in the TDIF, should also be extended from Heritage Road to SR-125, instead of using the name "Otay Valley Road". Currently, the limits of the regional arterial streets end at Interstate 5. Staff recommends that SANDAG change the description of these streets to extend westward to San Diego Bay or Bay Boulevard, as applicable. The proposed Revised Regional Arterials in Chula Vista list is provided in Attachment 1. The portion of Beyer Way that is within Chula Vista has also been added to the list. Compliance with SANDAG's policy for the RTCIP depends on the westward expansion of the Regional Arterial System (RAS). For the Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee, only $1 ,104.71 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) is contributed to the streets on the current RAS list. However, if this list is expanded to include streets to the west of I-5, the total contribution to the RAS will be $4,542.99, which considerably exceeds the requirement of$2,254 per EDU. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by Le c 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet �Page 99 File#: 14-0651, Item#: 6. Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries which are the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. This item supports the Strong and Secure Neighborhood Strategy because it supports the City's Transportation Development Impact Fee programs. These programs finance the construction of new and upgraded transportation infrastructure, which is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient roadway system for residents, businesses and visitors. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct impact on the General Fund or any other funding sources from approving the proposed resolution. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct future fiscal impacts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Regional Arterials in Chula Vista Staff Contact: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 100 ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED REGIONAL ARTERIALS IN CHULA VISTA ARTERIALS LIMITS Bay Blvd. E Street to Stella Street Beyer Way Main Street to City of San Diego Bonita Road First Ave. to I-805 Broadway C Street to Main Street E Street San Diego Bay to Bonita Road East H Street Hilltop Drive to Mt. Miguel Road H Street San Diego Bay to Hilltop Drive Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to SR125 J Street Marina Parkway to Broadway L Street Bay Blvd. to I-805 La Media Road Telegraph Canyon Road to City of San Diego Main Street West City Boundary to SR125 Marina Pkwy. H Street to J Street Olympic Parkway I-805 to Hunte Parkway Orange Avenue Palomar Street to 1-805 Otay Lakes Road Bonita Road to Wueste Road Palomar Street Bay Blvd. to Orange Avenue Paseo Ranchero (Heritage Road) E. H Street to City of San Diego Proctor Valley Road Mt. Miguel Road to Hunte Pkwy. Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Otay Lakes Road Willow Street Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 101 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF REVISED LIMITS FOR THE REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, in 2007, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) presented a revised list of streets to be included in the Regional Arterial System (RAS) of roadways. Additions to the list needed to meet one of the following criteria: • The arterial was already included in the RAS • Parallel capacity is provided in high volume corridors to supplement freeways, State highways and/or other regional arterials • A direct connection between freeways or other regional arterials is provided • All or part of a route for existing or planned regional and/or corridor transit service is provided • Access to intermodal facilities (rail, freight, tourist attractions) is provided; and WHEREAS, the 2007 list did not include the westward extensions of several Chula Vista arterials. Due to the Bayfront Master Plan environmental approval for the area west of Interstate- 5, it is necessary to extend the RAS limits into this area; and WHEREAS, the Unified Port District of San Diego has provided the City of Chula Vista with cost estimates and a description of the streets that will be extended to facilitate Bayfront development, including extensions of E Street and H Street; and WHEREAS, each of these streets meet SANDAG's RAS criteria and, as such, these streets should be added to SANDAG's proposed list of RAS streets within Chula Vista and are shown on Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it does hereby recommend adoption of revised limits for the Regional Arterial System to the San Diego Association of Governments. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Richard A. Hopkins Glenn Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney Exhibit A 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 102 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED REGIONAL ARTERIALS IN CHULA VISTA ARTERIALS LIMITS Bay Blvd. E Street to Stella Street Beyer Way Main Street to City of San Diego Bonita Road First Ave. to I-805 Broadway C Street to Main Street E Street San Diego Bay to Bonita Road East H Street Hilltop Drive to Mt. Miguel Road H Street San Diego Bay to Hilltop Drive Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to SR125 J Street Marina Parkway to Broadway L Street Bay Blvd. to I-805 La Media Road Telegraph Canyon Road to City of San Diego Main Street West City Boundary to SR125 Marina Pkwy. H Street to J Street Olympic Parkway I-805 to Hunte Parkway Orange Avenue Palomar Street to I-805 Otay Lakes Road Bonita Road to Wueste Road Palomar Street Bay Blvd. to Orange Avenue Paseo Ranchero (Heritage Road) E. H Street to City of San Diego Proctor Valley Road Mt. Miguel Road to Hunte Pkwy. Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Otay Lakes Road Willow Street Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 103 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-217 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO REFLECT THE ADDITION AND REMOVAL OF VARIOUS POSITION TITLES, AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION COUNT IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-218 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-219 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDED COMPENSATION SUMMARY FOR ALL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REFLECT THE CHANGE TO THE VACATION SELLBACK OPTION FOR EXECUTIVE AND SENIOR MANAGERS FROM TWO WEEKS TO THREE WEEKS D. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO ADD POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, CHIEF OF STAFF, POLICY AIDE AND TREASURY AND BUSINESS MANAGER AND DELETE TREASURY MANAGER (FIRST READING) (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolutions and place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY As part of the City's ongoing effort to maintain the classification plan, Human Resources staff completed several department and employee-initiated classification reviews. Human Resources staff also conducted classification reviews that were agreed upon during the most recent labor negotiations for a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Western Council of Engineers (WCE) for the Plans Examiner and Surveyor classifications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project"as defined under Section 15378(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it is a personnel related action; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 104 File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. The Civil Service Commission adopted the amendments to the classification plan, subject to the final approval of the City Council, at their November 6, 2014 meeting. DISCUSSION Civil Service Rule 1.02(A), which applies to the City's classified positions, provides for necessary reviews and changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in the classification plan. Human Resources staff conducted several department and employee-initiated classification reviews on various positions assigned to the Development Services, Finance Department, Fire Department, Library Department, Office of the Mayor, Police Department, Public Works Department and Recreation Department to determine if the permanent and on-going duties and responsibilities of the positions were assigned to the appropriate classifications. The following identifies the affected positions, departments and proposed changes. City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 105 File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. Department Posidon Title FTE Plans Examiner -3.00 Development Services Associate Plan Check Engineer 3.00 Finance Treasury Manager -1 00 Treasury and Business Manager 1 00 Secretary -1 00 Fire Trainin l Programs Specialist 1 00 Firefighter -2.G0 IF ireficlhter/Pararnedc 200 Administrative Analyst ll -100 Library Management Analyst 1.00 Librarian 1 -100 Librarian 11 1.00 Administrative Services Manager -1.00 Pol i ce Admi n i strat i ve SerricesAdrninisrator 1 00 - Parking Enforcement Officer -1 00 Ranqe Master -0.50 Senior Police Technology Specialist 1 00 Construction and Repair Manager -1 00 Facilities Manager 1 00 Custodial and Facilities Manager -1.00 Construction and RepaifSupervisor 1 00 Custodial Supervisor -1 00 Public Winrks Lead Custodian -1 00 Custodian 2 00 Administrative Analyst 11 -2.00 Management Analyst 2.00 Assistant Surveyor II -1 00 Associate Land Surveyor 1 00 Recreation supervisor II -2.00 Recreation Recreation supervisor 111 2.00 Constituent services Manager -2 00' Office of the Mayor Chief of Staff 1 0 Policy Aide 1 0 TOTAL (0 501 Effectivie ember 10. 204 In addition to the changes listed above, the Human Resources Department also recommends the following changes to titles that are included in the Compensation Schedule and Classification Plan but are not currently budgeted positions. These classifications (Assistant Surveyor I, Land Surveyor and Senior Plans Examiner) are not included in the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget; no changes to the authorized position count are needed at this time. However, the re-titles of these classifications (e.g., City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by LegistarTr 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 106 File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. Senior Plan Check Engineer, Assistant Land Surveyor and Senior Land Surveyor) may be used in future budgets. Current Position Title Proposed Position Title Assistant Surveyor I Assistant Land Surrevor II Land Surveyor Senor land Surveyor Senior Plans Examiner Senor Plan, Check Engineer Summary of New Classifications Position Title Bargaining 81-Weekly E- Step Group Associate Plan Check Engineer WZE $3,665.31 Senior Plan Check Engineer V-`U E 54.031.84 Assistant Land Surveyor � CE 53,187,22 Senior Land Surveyor � CE 54,215,10 Facilities Manasler MM $3,905.47 Treasury and Business Manager SM $5.175.98 Police Administrative Services Manager SM 54.885.47 Construction and Repair Supervisor GVEA 53-218 89 Senior Police Technology Specialist GVEA 53-821 65 Chief of Staff MMUC 52.845 12 Policy Aide PRUC $230045 California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires that, for purposes of determining a retiring employee's pension allowance, the pay rate be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule that meets certain requirements and be approved by the governing body in accordance with the requirements of the applicable public meeting laws. The Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule ("Compensation Schedule") was originally approved by the City Council at their meeting of July 8, 2014. Approval of Resolution D will approve the revised Compensation Schedule to reflect the addition of the Facilities Manager, Police Administrative Services Administrator, Treasury and Business Manager, Associate Plan Check Engineer, Senior Plan Check Engineer, Assistant Land Surveyor, Associate Land Surveyor, Senior Land Surveyor, Senior Police Technology Specialist, Construction and Repair Supervisor, Chief of Staff and Policy Aide titles and salaries and the removal of the Administrative Analyst 11, Construction and Repair Manager, Treasury Manager, Plans Examiner, Senior Plans Examiner, Assistant Surveyor I, Assistant Surveyor II and Land Surveyor position titles. Human Resources staff is requesting an amendment to Executive Management Group, Section I B (8) Annual Leave (b) Vacation Sellback and to Senior Management Group, Section 11 B (8) Annual Leave (b) Vacation Sellback of the Compensation Summary for All Unrepresented Employees and City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 istarl 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 107 File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. Elected Officials. If approved, the amendment will change the vacation sellback option for Executive and Senior Managers from two weeks to three weeks. Due to the significant reductions taken at the Executive level, it has become more difficult to take time off and thus many are reaching their maximum accrual. This would allow for the Executive and Senior Managers the opportunity to sell back an additional week and avoid losing vacation accruals. Additionally, staff has analyzed the vacation balances of Senior and Executive Managers and has determined that allowing a greater sellback during the course of their employment could potentially reduce the amount of payouts at retirement. Lastly, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 also needs to be updated to reflect the position changes impacting the unclassified positions. Chula Vista City Charter Section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned specifically in Charter Section 500 be adopted by ordinance. Adoption of the ordinance will add the position title of Police Administrative Services Administrator, Chief of Staff, Policy Aide and Treasury and Business Manager to Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 and delete the position title of Treasury Manager. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that the action contemplated by this item is ministerial, secretarial, manual, or clerical in nature and, as such, does not require the City Council members to make or participate in making a governmental decision, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.4 (a). Consequently, this item does not present a conflict under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The reclassifications and proposed new classifications support the City-wide strategic goal of Operational Excellence by providing more accurate position titles that better reflect the needs of the City's workforce. Furthermore, approval of the revised Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule and its posting on the City's internet website supports the goal of Operational Excellence as it enhances disclosure and transparency of employee compensation and, as a result, fosters public trust through an open and ethical government. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The proposed changes in the Fire, Library, and Recreation departments result in a fiscal impact of approximately $22,000. Approval of this resolution will result in the appropriation of $22,000 to the General Fund. This appropriation will be offset by unanticipated General Fund revenues. No budget amendments are needed for the proposed changes in City Council, Public Works, Finance, Police, and Development Services. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The annualized costs of these personnel changes will be incorporated into the fiscal year 2015-16 proposed budget, which will be considered by the City Council as part of the normal budget process. City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 108 File#: 14-0612, Item#: 7. ATTACHMENTS Revised Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule Staff Contact: Erin Dempster City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 6 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 109 -`f/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule �CHULAVISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E ACCOUNTANT 3633 CONF $31.30 $32.86 $34.51 $36.23 $38.04 $2,503.77 $2,628.96 $2,760.40 $2,898.42 $3,043.35 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT 3641 CVEA $19.14 $20.10 $21.11 $22.16 $23.27 1$1,937.34$1,531.49 $1,608.07 $1,688.47 $1,772.90 $1,861.54 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT(HRLY) 3640 UCHR $19.14 $20.10 $21.11 $22.16 $23.27 $1,531.50 $1,608.07 $1,688.48 $1,772.89 $1,861.54 ACCOUNTING TECH(HOURLY) 3676 UCHR $24.22 $25.43 $26.70 $28.03 $29.44 $1,937.34 $2,034.21 $2,135.91 $2,242.71 $2,354.85 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 3643 CONF $24.22 $25.43 $26.70 $28.03 $29.44 $2,034.21 $2,135.92 $2,242.72 $2,354.85 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 3675 CVEA $24.22 $25.43 $26.70 $28.03 $29.44 $1,937.34 $2,034.21 $2,135.92 $2,242.71 1$2,354.85 ADMIN AIDE 0201 CVEA $16.11 $16.92 $17.76 $18.65 $19.58 $1,288.99 $1,353.44 $1,421.12 $1,492.17 $1,566.78 ADMIN ANALYST 1 0203 CVEA $26.60 $27.93 $29.33 $30.79 $32.33 $2,127.90 $2,234.28 $2,346.00 $2,463.30 $2,586.47 ADMIN SERVICES MANAGER 0215 SM $42.86 -- -- -- $52.09 $3,428.62 $4,167.50 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 0149 CONF $23.66 $24.84 $26.08 $27.39 $28.76 $1,892.59 $1,987.22 $2,086.58 $2,190.91 $2,300.45 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 0179 CVEA 1$23.66 $24.84 $26.08 $27.39 $28.76 $1,892.59 $1,987.22 $2,086.58 $2,190.91 $2,300.45 ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN 0147 CONF $23.66 $24.84 $26.08 $27.39 $28.76 $1,892.59 $1,987.22 $2,086.58 $2,190.91 1$2,300.45 ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN 0181 CVEA $23.66 $24.84 $26.08 $27.39 $28.76 $1,892.59 $1,987.22 $2,086.58 $2,190.91 1$2,300.45 ANIMAL ADOPTION COUNSELOR 5310 CVEA $20.47 $21.49 $22.57 $23.70 $24.88 $1,637.70 $1,719.58 $1,805.56 $1,895.84 1$1,990.63 ANIMAL CARE AIDE(HRLY) 5316 UCHR $11.32 $11.91 $12.55 $13.20 $13.90 $905.56 $953.01 $1,003.78 $1,056.21 $1,111.98 ANIMAL CARE FAC ADMINISTRATOR 5327 SM $49.94 $52.43 $55.05 $57.81 $60.70 $3,994.85 $4,194.59 $4,404.32 $4,624.54 $4,855.77 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY MANAGER 5330 MM 1$43.15 $45.30 $47.57 $49.95 $52.44 $3,451.72 $3,624.31 $3,805.53 $3,995.80 $4,195.59 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY SUPVR 5317 MM $34.01 $35.71 $37.50 $39.37 $41.34 $2,720.73 $2,856.76 $2,999.60 $3,149.58 $3,307.06 ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST 5343 CVEA $17.17 $18.02 $18.93 $19.87 $20.86 $1,373.23 $1,441.90 $1,514.00 $1,589.69 $1,669.18 ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST(HRLY) 5344 UCHR $17.17 $18.02 $18.92 $19.87 $20.86 $1,373.24 $1,441.90 $1,513.99 $1,589.69 $1,669.18 ANIMAL CARE SUPERVISOR 5319 CVEA $23.84 $25.03 $26.28 $27.59 $28.97 $1,906.90 $2,002.25 $2,102.35 $2,207.48 $2,317.85 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 5303 CVEA $20.60 $21.63 $22.71 $23.85 $25.04 $1,647.88 $1,730.28 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER(HRLY) 5305 UCHR 1$20.60 $21.63 $22.71 $23.85 $25.04 $1,647.88 $1,730.27 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 ANIMAL CTRL OFFCR SUPERVISOR 5304 CVEA $23.69 $24.87 $26.12 $27.42 $28.79 $1,895.05 $1,989.82 $2,089.30 $2,193.77 $2,303.46 ANIMAL SERVICES SPECIALIST 5309 CVEA $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.07 $1,572.98 $1,651.63 $1,734.21 $1,820.92 APPLICATIONS SUPP SPEC HRLY 3078 UCHR $32.53 $34.16 $35.87 $37.66 $39.54 $2,602.54 $2,732.67 $2,869.29 $3,012.76 $3,163.40 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER 3083 MM $39.76 $41.75 $43.84 $46.03 $48.33 $3,180.88 $3,339.92 $3,506.92 $3,682.26 $3,866.38 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPEC 3088 PROF $32.53 $34.16 $35.87 $37.66 $39.54 $2,602.54 $2,732.67 $2,869.30 $3,012.76 $3,163.40 AQUARIST 77411 CVEA 1$21.32 $22.39 $23.51 $24.68 $25.92 $1,705.79 $1,791.08 $1,880.64 $1,974.67 $2,073.40 AQUATIC SUPERVISOR 7579 CVEA $21.87 $22.961$24.11 $25.311 $26.58 $1,749.43 1$1,836.89 $1,928.74 $2,025.18 $2,126.44 AQUATIC SUPERVISOR II 7577 CVEA $24.05 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $1,924.37 $2,020.58 $2,121.61 $2,227.70 $2,339.08 AQUATIC SUPERVISOR III 7575 CVEA $27.66 $29.05 $30.50 $32.02 $33.62 $2,213.02 $2,323.67 $2,439.87 $2,561.86 $2,689.95 ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 2210 SM $36.22 $38.03 $39.93 $41.93 $44.03 $2,897.57 $3,042.45 $3,194.57 $3,354.29 $3,522.01 ASSISTANT DIR OF DEV SERVICES 4040 SM $63.15 -- -- -- $76.76 $5,051.90 $6,140.61 ASSISTANT LAND SURVEYOR 62891 WCE $32.78 $34.42 $36.14 $37.94 $39.84 $2,622.14 $2,753.24 $2,890.91 $3,035.45 $3,187.22 ASSOCACCOUNTANT 3635 CONF $34.43 $36.15 1$37.96 $39.85 $41.85 $2,754.13 $2,891.84 $3,036.43 $3,188.25 $3,347.67 ASSOC ENGINEER 6017 WCE $37.69 $39.58 $41.56 $43.63 $45.82 $3,015.46 $3,166.24 $3,324.54 $3,490.77 $3,665.31 ASSOC PLANNER 4437 CVEA $31.03 $32.58 $34.21 $35.92 $37.72 $2,482.54 $2,606.66 $2,737.00 $2,873.85 $3,017.54 ASSOC PLANNER(HOURLY) 4438 UCHR $31.03 $32.58 $34.21 $35.92 $37.72 $2,482.53 $2,606.66 $2,736.99 $2,873.85 $3,017.54 ASSOCIATE LAND SURVEYOR 6287 WCE $37.69 $39.58 $41.56 $43.63 $45.82 $3,015.46 $3,166.23 $3,324.54 $3,490.77 $3,665.31 ASSOCIATE PLAN CHECK ENGINEER 4747 WCE $37.69 $39.58 $41.56 $43.63 $45.82 $3,015.46 1$3,166.23 $3,324.54 $3,490.77 $3,665.31 ASST CHIEF OF POLICE 5011 SM $61.95 -- I -- -- $75.30 $4,955.71 $6,023.69 ASST CITY ATTORNEY 2405 SM $66.14 $69.45 $72.92 $76.53 $80.39 $5,291.23 $5,555.80 $5,833.59 $6,122.02 $6,431.53 ASST CITY MANAGER/ADMIN 2707 EXEC $85.57 -- -- -- $103.37 $6,845.94 $8,269.53 ASST DIR HUMAN RESOURCES 3304 SM $57.61 $69.14 $4,609.10 $5,530.92 ASST DIR OF FINANCE 3604 SM $57.27 $69.14 $4,581.25 $5,530.92 ASST DIR OF PUBLIC WORKS 6322 SM $57.27 $69.14 $4,581.25 $5,530.92 ASST DIR OF RECREATION 7401 SM $47.31 $57.50 $3,784.40 $4,599.97 ASST DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING 6008 SM $57.27 $69.14 $4,581.25 1$5,530.92 ASST ENGINEER 6015 WCE $32.78 $34.42 $36.14 $37.94 $39.84 $2,622.13 $2,753.25 $2,890.90 $3,035.46 $3,187.22 ASST PLANNER 44391 CVEA $28.21 $29.62 $31.10 $32.66 $34.29 $2,256.85 $2,369.69 $2,488.18 $2,612.59 $2,743.22 AUTOMATED FINGERPRINTTECH 5123 CVEA $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.08 $1,572.98 $1,651.62 $1,734.20 $1,820.92 BENEFITS MANAGER 3404 MMCF $39.32 $41.29 $43.35 $45.52 $47.80 $3,145.81 1$3,303.10 $3,468.26 $3,641.67 $3,823.76 BENEFITS TECHNICIAN 3401 CONF $22.39 $23.511$24.69 $25.92 $27.22 $1,791.39 $1,880.96 $1,975.01 1$2,073.76 $2,177.45 BENEFITS TECHNICIAN HOURLY 3400 UCHR 1$22.39 $23.51 $24.69 $25.921 $27.22 $1,791.39 $1,880.96 $1,975.01 1$2,073.76 1$2,177.44 BLDG PROJECT MANAGER 16412, PROF 1$36.54 $38.37 $40.29 1$42.301 $44.42 $2,923.26 $3,069.43 $3,222.90 1$3,384.04 1$3,553.25 BLDG PROJECTS SUPERVISOR 164041 PROF 1$33.23 $34.89 $36.63 1$38.471 $40.39 $2,658.21 $2,791.12 $2,930.68 1$3,077.21 1$3,231.07 All position titles designated as Executive("EXEC")or Senior Management("SM")have salary bands with a minimum("Step A")and maximum("Step E")salary;salary appointments and subsequent adjustments within the approved salary range may be made by the position's appointing authority. Approved and adopted: Res2ll0f4uit-18 Agenda Packet Page 110 -`f/ cm of Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule CH U LA VISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E BUDGET&ANALYSIS MANAGER 2222 SM $53.62 -- -- -- $64.70 $4,289.25 $5,175.98 BUILDING INSPECTOR 1 4771 CVEA $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.61 $33.21 $2,185.42 $2,294.69 $2,409.43 $2,528.74 $2,656.40 BUILDING INSPECTOR 11 4773 CVEA $30.05 $31.55 $33.13 $34.79 $36.53 $2,403.97 $2,524.17 $2,650.38 $2,782.90 $2,922.05 BUILDING INSPECTOR 11 HRLY 4774 UCHR $30.05 $31.55 $33.13 $34.79 $36.53 $2,403.97 $2,524.18 $2,650.39 $2,782.90 $2,922.05 BUILDING INSPECTOR 111 47751 CVEA $33.05 1$34.71 $36.441$38.26 $40.18 $2,644.37 $2,776.59 $2,915.42 $3,061.19 $3,214.25 BUILDING OFFICIAL/CODE ENF MGR 4780 SM $60.14 -- -- -- $73.10 $4,811.33 $5,848.20 BUILDING PROJECT COORDINATOR 6407 CVEA $30.05 $31.55 $33.13 $34.79 $36.53 $2,403.97 $2,524.17 $2,650.38 $2,782.90 $2,922.05 BUSINESS LICENSE REP 4505 CVEA $19.14 $20.10 $21.11 $22.16 $23.27 $1,531.49 $1,608.07 $1,688.47 $1,772.90 $1,861.54 CARPENTER 6444 CVEA $23.84 $25.03 $26.28 $27.60 $28.98 $1,907.05 $2,002.41 $2,102.53 $2,207.65 $2,318.03 CBAG DEPUTY DIRECTOR SD LECC 5269 SM $44.20 -- -- $51.17 $53.72 $3,535.87 $4,093.21 $4,297.87 CBAG DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5273 SM $46.68 $58.46 $3,734.34 $4,676.66 CBAG DIR OF IV-LECC 5268 SM $44.20 $53.72 $3,535.87 $4,297.87 CBAG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5272 EXEC $54.91 -- $60.54 -- $68.76 $4,392.69 $4,842.94 $5,501.14 CBAG PROGRAM MANAGER 5285 MM $44.20 $46.41 $48.73 $51.17 $53.72 $3,535.87 $3,712.66 $3,898.29 $4,093.21 $4,297.87 CHIEF OF POLICE 5001 EXEC $79.37 -- -- $94.47 $96.47 $6,349.47 $7,557.71 $7,717.83 CHIEF OF STAFF 2011 MMUC $29.26 $30.72 $32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.68 $2,457.72 $2,580.60 $2,709.63 $2,845.12 CHIEF SERVICE OFFICER 4030 SM $30.86 -- -- -- $37.51 $2,469.06 $3,001.16 CIP PROJECTS SUPV 6405 MM $25.30 $26.56 $27.89 $29.28 $30.75 $2,023.61 $2,124.79 $2,231.03 $2,342.58 $2,459.71 CITY ATTORNEY(ELECTED) 2400 CATY -- -- -- -- $103.00 $8,240.16 CITY CLERK 2201 CCLK -- $68.68 $5,494.10 CITY ENGINEER 6010 SM $57.67 $70.10 $4,613.96 $5,608.29 CITY MANAGER 2710 CMGR -- $114.07 $9,125.83 CIVIL BCKGRND INVEST(HOURLY) 5430 UCHR $22.66 $23.79 $24.98 $26.23 $27.54 $1,812.67 $1,903.30 $1,998.46 $2,098.38 $2,203.31 CIVILIAN BACKGROUND INVEST 5429 CVEA $22.66 $23.79 $24.98 $26.23 $27.54 $1,812.67 $1,903.30 $1,998.46 $2,098.38 $2,203.30 CIVILIAN POLICE INVESTIGATOR 5431 UCHR $25.79 $27.08 $28.43 $29.85 $31.35 $2,063.15 $2,166.32 $2,274.63 $2,388.36 $2,507.78 CLERICAL AIDE 0241 UCHR $10.55 $11.07 $11.63 $12.21 $12.82 $843.66 $885.84 $930.14 $976.64 $1,025.47 CODE ENF OFFICER 1 4777 CVEA $23.73 $24.91 $26.16 $27.47 $28.84 $1,898.28 $1,993.19 $2,092.86 $2,197.50 $2,307.38 CODE ENF OFFICER I(HOURLY) 4776 UCHR $23.73 $24.91 $26.16 $27.47 $28.84 $1,898.29 $1,993.19 $2,092.86 $2,197.50 $2,307.38 CODE ENF OFFICER 11 4779 CVEA $26.10 $27.41 $28.78 $30.22 $31.73 $2,088.11 $2,192.52 $2,302.14 $2,417.25 $2,538.11 CODE ENF OFFICER 11(HOURLY) 4778 UCHR $26.10 $27.41 $28.78 $30.22 $31.73 $2,088.11 $2,192.51 $2,302.15 $2,417.25 $2,538.11 CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 4757 SM $47.32 -- -- -- $57.52 $3,785.89 $4,601.77 CODE ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN 4789 CVEA $20.63 $21.67 $22.75 $23.89 $25.08 $1,650.68 $1,733.22 $1,819.88 1$1,910.87 $2,006.41 COLLECTIONS SUPERVISOR 3683 MM $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $40.10 $2,639.43 $2,771.41 $2,909.98 $3,055.48 $3,208.25 COLLECTIONS SUPERVISOR HOURLY 3687 UCHR $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $40.10 $2,639.43 $2,771.41 $2,909.98 $3,055.48 $3,208.25 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM MGR 5161 MM $29.73 $31.21 $32.77 $34.41 $36.13 $2,378.22 $2,497.13 $2,621.99 $2,753.09 $2,890.74 COMMUNITY SERV OFFICER 5141 CVEA $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.07 1$1,572.98 $1,651.63 $1,734.21 $1,820.92 COMPUTER PROG/ANALYST 30211 CVEA $31.07 $32.62 $34.25 $35.97 $37.76 $2,485.44 $2,609.71 $2,740.19 $2,877.20 $3,021.06 COMPUTER PROGRAMMER 30231 CVEA $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.70 $34.33 $2,259.49 $2,372.46 $2,491.09 $2,615.64 $2,746.42 CONSERVATION SPECIALIST 1 6200 CVEA $21.57 $22.65 $23.78 $24.97 $26.22 $1,725.70 $1,811.99 $1,902.59 $1,997.73 $2,097.61 CONSTITUENT SERVICES MANAGER 2038 PRUC $26.89 $28.24 $29.65 $31.13 $32.69 $2,151.42 $2,258.99 $2,371.93 $2,490.53 $2,615.06 CONSTRUCTION&REPAIR SUPERVISOR 6427 CVEA $33.10 $34.76 $36.50 $38.32 $40.24 $2,648.18 $2,780.59 $2,919.62 $3,065.60 $3,218.88 COUNCIL ASSISTANT 2023 UCHR $22.91 $24.06 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $1,832.86 1$1,924.50 $2,020.73 $2,121.76 $2,227.85 COUNCILPERSON 2003 CL -- -- -- -- $23.43 $1,874.50 CRIME LABORATORY MANAGER 5101 MM $42.72 $44.86 $47.10 $49.46 $51.93 $3,417.88 $3,588.78 $3,768.22 $3,956.63 $4,154.46 CUSTODIAL&FAC MANAGER 6654 MM $37.46 $39.33 $41.30 $43.36 $45.53 $2,996.62 $3,146.46 $3,303.78 $3,468.97 $3,642.42 CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR 6667 CVEA $21.90 $23.00 $24.15 $25.35 $26.62 $1,752.09 $1,839.69 $1,931.68 $2,028.26 $2,129.68 CUSTODIAN 6661 CVEA $17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.04 $21.04 $1,385.05 $1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 CUSTODIAN(HOURLY) 6662 UCHR $17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.04 $21.04 $1,385.04 1$1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 DELIVERY DRIVER 71911 CVEA $15.87 $16.66 $17.50 $18.37 $19.29 $1,269.63 $1,333.11 $1,399.77 $1,469.75 $1,543.24 DELIVERY DRIVER(HOURLY) 7192 UCHR $15.87 $16.66 $17.50 $18.37 $19.29 $1,269.63 $1,333.11 $1,399.76 $1,469.76 1$1,543.24 DEP CITY MANAGER 2705 EXEC $88.51 -- -- -- $97.59 $7,081.12 1$7,806.93 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 1 2410 PRUC $38.66 $40.59 $42.62 $44.75 $46.99 $3,092.81 $3,247.46 $3,409.83 $3,580.32 $3,759.34 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II 2408 PRUC $46.39 $48.71 $51.15 $53.70 $56.39 $3,711.37 $3,896.94 $4,091.79 $4,296.38 $4,511.20 DEPUTY CITY ATTY 111 2411 SM $59.54 $62.52 $65.64 $68.92 $72.37 $4,763.09 1$5,001.24 $5,251.31 $5,513.87 $5,789.53 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 22021 PRUC $26.89 $28.24 $29.65 $31.13 $32.69 $2,151.41 $2,258.98 $2,371.93 $2,490.53 $2,615.06 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1 2245 PRUC $24.45 $25.67 $26.95 $28.30 $29.72 $1,955.83 $2,053.62 $2,156.30 $2,264.11 $2,377.32 DEPUTY CITY CLERK II 2243 PRUC $26.89 $28.24 $29.65 $31.13 $32.69 $2,151.41 $2,258.98 $2,371.93 $2,490.53 1$2,615.06 DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 5505 SM $59.53 -- -- -- $72.35 $4,762.11 $5,788.37 DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF(INTERIM) 5504 SM $59.53 -- -- -- $72.35 $4,762.11 $5,788.37 DESIGN REVIEW COORDINATOR 14472 PROF $32.48 $34.10 $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $2,598.44 1$2,728.36 $2,864.78 $3,008.02 $3,158.42 DETENTION FACILITY MANAGER 151301 MM 1$42.72 $44.86 $47.10 $49.461 $51.93 0$3,417.88 1$3,588.78 $3,768.22 $3,956.63 $4,154.46 Approved and adopted: Res2ll0f4uit-18 Agenda Packet Page 111 -`f/ cm of Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule CH U LA VISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH 1 4542 CVEA $19.52 $20.49 $21.52 $22.59 $23.72 $1,561.43 $1,639.50 $1,721.48 $1,807.55 $1,897.93 DEVELOPMENT SVCS DEPT DIR 4039 EXEC $73.90 -- -- $88.41 $89.84 $5,912.04 $7,072.72 $7,187.08 DEVELOPMENT SVCS TECH 11 4541 CVEA $21.47 $22.54 $23.67 $24.85 $26.10 $1,717.58 $1,803.45 $1,893.63 $1,988.31 $2,087.72 DEVELOPMENT SVCS TECH 111 4543 CVEA $24.69 $25.92 $27.22 $28.58 $30.01 $1,975.21 $2,073.97 $2,177.67 $2,286.55 $2,400.88 DEVLPMENT SVCS TECH 11(HRLY) 4544 UCHR 1$21.47 $22.54 $23.67 $24.85 $26.10 $1,717.57 $1,803.46 $1,893.63 $1,988.31 $2,087.72 DEVLPMT SVCS COUNTER MGR 4547 MM $35.69 $37.48 $39.35 $41.32 $43.38 $2,855.35 $2,998.12 $3,148.02 1$3,305.42 $3,470.70 DIR OF ECON DEVELOPMENT 2734 EXEC $56.00 -- -- -- $79.82 $4,479.69 $6,385.74 DIR OF ENG/CITY ENGINEER 6006 EXEC $65.49 $79.60 $5,238.85 $6,367.85 DIR OF FINANCE 3601 EXEC $74.43 $89.83 $5,954.60 $7,186.12 DIR OF INFO TECH SVCS 3001 EXEC $64.59 $71.211 $78.51 $5,167.37 $5,697.03 $6,280.97 DIR OF LIBRARY 7002 EXEC 1$69.14 -- $83.40 $5,531.32 $6,671.61 DIR OF PUBLIC WORKS 6320 EXEC $73.25 $86.36 $89.83 $5,860.03 $6,908.65 $7,186.12 DIR OF RECREATION 7405 EXEC $59.72 $62.71 $65.84 $69.14 $72.59 $4,777.81 $5,016.70 $5,267.53 $5,530.91 $5,807.46 DIR OF REDEVLPMENT&HOUSING 4201 EXEC $65.49 -- -- -- $79.60 $5,238.85 $6,367.85 ELECTRICIAN 6438 CVEA $25.03 $26.281$27.60 $28.981 $30.42 $2,002.41 $2,102.53 $2,207.66 $2,318.04 $2,433.95 ELECTRONIC/EQUIP INSTALLER 6492 CVEA $22.75 $23.89 $25.09 $26.34 $27.66 $1,820.37 $1,911.39 $2,006.96 $2,107.31 1$2,212.67 ELECTRONICSTECH SUPERVISOR 6472 CVEA 1$31.66 $33.25 $34.91 $36.65 $38.49 $2,533.10 1$2,659.75 $2,792.74 $2,932.38 $3,079.00 ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN 6475 CVEA $27.53 $28.91 $30.36 $31.87 $33.47 $2,202.69 $2,312.83 $2,428.47 $2,549.89 $2,677.39 EMERGENCY SRVCS COORD(HRLY) 5565 UCHR $35.60 $37.38 $39.25 $41.21 $43.27 $2,848.15 $2,990.55 $3,140.08 $3,297.08 $3,461.94 EMERGENCY SVCS COORDINATOR 5563 MM $35.60 $37.38 $39.25 1$41.21 $43.27 $2,848.15 $2,990.55 $3,140.08 $3,297.08 $3,461.94 EMERGENCY SVCS COORDINATOR 5564 PROF $35.60 $37.38 $39.25 $41.21 $43.27 $2,848.15 $2,990.55 $3,140.08 $3,297.08 $3,461.94 EMS NURSE COORDINATOR 55671 PROF $45.03 $47.28 $49.65 $52.13 $54.74 $3,602.57 $3,782.69 $3,971.83 $4,170.42 1$4,378.94 ENGINEERING TECH 6081 CVEA $23.75 $24.94 $26.19 $27.50 $28.87 $1,900.37 $1,995.39 $2,095.16 $2,199.92 $2,309.91 ENGINEERING TECH II 6071 CVEA $26.13 $27.44 $28.81 $30.25 $31.76 $2,090.41 $2,194.93 $2,304.68 $2,419.91 $2,540.91 ENVIRON SVCS FROG MGR 6201 MM $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $41.45 $43.52 $2,864.46 $3,007.68 $3,158.07 $3,315.97 $3,481.77 ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH SPECIALIST 6129 CVEA $31.42 $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $2,513.25 $2,638.91 $2,770.86 $2,909.40 $3,054.87 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SPEC 4464 CVEA $31.42 $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $2,513.25 $2,638.91 $2,770.86 $2,909.40 $3,054.87 ENVIRONMNTL RESOURCE MGR 44631 MM 1$35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $41.451 $43.52 $2,864.46 1$3,007.68 $3,158.07 $3,315.97 1$3,481.77 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGER 6505 MM $35.26 $37.03 $38.88 $40.82 $42.86 $2,820.97 $2,962.02 $3,110.11 $3,265.62 $3,428.90 EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 6542 CVEA $23.62 $24.80 $26.04 $27.34 $28.71 $1,889.57 $1,984.05 $2,083.25 $2,187.41 $2,296.78 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 6361 CVEA $25.14 $26.40 $27.72 $29.10 $30.56 $2,011.09 $2,111.64 $2,217.22 $2,328.09 $2,444.49 EVIDENCE CONTROL ASST 5115 CVEA $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.07 $1,572.98 $1,651.63 $1,734.21 $1,820.92 EVIDENCE CONTROL ASST(HRLY) 5117 UCHR $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.08 $1,572.98 $1,651.63 $1,734.21 $1,820.92 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 01871 CONF 1$28.63 $30.06 $31.56 $33.14 $34.79 $2,290.03 1$2,404.53 $2,524.76 $2,651.00 1$2,783.55 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY(HOURLY) 0188 UCHR $28.63 $30.06 $31.56 $33.14 $34.79 $2,290.03 $2,404.53 $2,524.76 $2,650.99 $2,783.55 FA ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 5270 CONF $24.22 $25.43 $26.70 $28.03 $29.44 $1,937.35 $2,034.21 $2,135.92 $2,242.72 $2,354.85 FA ADMIN ANALYST 1 5297 CONF $26.60 $27.93 $29.33 $30.79 $32.33 $2,127.90 $2,234.28 $2,346.00 $2,463.30 $2,586.48 FA ADMIN ANALYST II 5296 CONF $29.26 $30.72 $32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.68 $2,457.73 $2,580.60 $2,709.63 $2,845.12 FA ANALYST 5277 CONF $20.33 $21.34 $22.41 $23.53 $24.71 $1,626.07 $1,707.38 $1,792.75 $1,882.38 $1,976.50 FA DIRECTOR OF SD LECC 5274 SM $57.30 -- -- -- $68.76 $4,584.28 -- -- I -- $5,501.13 FA EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 5286 CONF $26.041$27.34 $28.71 $30.15 $31.65 $2,083.29 $2,187.45 $2,296.83 $2,411.67 $2,532.25 FA GEOSPATIAL INTEL ANALYST 5439 PRUC $37.89 $39.78 $41.77 $43.86 $46.06 $3,031.15 $3,182.73 $3,341.86 $3,508.95 $3,684.40 FA GRAPHIC DESIGNER/WBMSTR 5289 CONF $27.51 $28.89 $30.33 $31.85 $33.44 $2,201.15 $2,311.21 $2,426.60 $2,548.11 $2,675.51 FA INFO SECURITY PROGRAM MGR 5453 MMUC $44.20 $46.41 $48.73 $51.17 $53.72 $3,535.87 $3,712.66 $3,898.29 $4,093.21 $4,297.87 FA LECC IT MANAGER 5440 MMUC $40.42 $42.44 $44.56 $46.79 $49.13 $3,233.24 $3,394.91 $3,564.65 $3,742.88 $3,930.03 FA MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT 5278 CONF 1$24.80 $26.04 $27.34 $28.71 $30.15 $1,984.09 $2,083.30 $2,187.46 $2,296.83 $2,411.68 FA MICROCOMPUTER SPECIALIST 5443 PRUC $32.86 $34.50 $36.23 $38.04 $39.94 $2,628.82 $2,760.27 $2,898.28 $3,043.19 $3,195.35 FA NTWRK ADMINISTRATOR 1 5292 PRUC $33.07 $34.72 $36.46 $38.28 $40.20 $2,645.62 $2,777.90 $2,916.79 $3,062.63 $3,215.77 FA NTWRK ADMINISTRATOR 11 5294 PRUC $36.38 $38.20 $40.11 $42.11 $44.22 $2,910.18 $3,055.68 $3,208.47 $3,368.90 $3,537.34 FA PROGRAM ANALYST 5444 PRUC $39.20 $41.16 $43.22 $45.38 $47.65 $3,136.28 $3,293.09 $3,457.75 $3,630.63 $3,812.17 FA PROGRAM ASSISTANT 5451 CONF $19.81 $20.80 $21.84 $22.93 $24.08 $1,584.92 $1,664.16 $1,747.37 $1,834.74 $1,926.48 FA PROGRAM MANAGER 5445 SM 1$44.20 $46.41 $48.73 $51.17 $53.72 $3,535.87 $3,712.66 $3,898.29 $4,093.21 $4,297.87 FA PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5265 CONF $29.26 $30.72 $32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.67 $2,457.69 $2,580.59 $2,709.61 $2,845.09 FA RCFL NETWRK ENGINEER 5284 CONF $31.93 $33.53 $35.201$36.96 $38.81 $2,554.36 $2,682.08 $2,816.19 $2,957.00 $3,104.85 FA SR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5414 PRUC $32.35 $33.97 $35.67 $37.45 $39.33 $2,588.25 1$2,717.65 $2,853.54 $2,996.22 1$3,146.02 FA SR SECRETARY 5477 CONF $20.38 $21.40 $22.47 $23.59 $24.77 $1,630.43 $1,711.96 $1,797.56 $1,887.43 $1,981.80 FACILITIES MANAGER 6425 MM $40.16 $42.17 $44.28 $46.49 $48.82 $3,213.04 $3,373.69 $3,542.38 $3,719.50 $3,905.47 FACILITY&SUPPLY SPECIALIST 56481 CVEA 1$20.35 $21.37 $22.44 $23.56 $24.74 $1,628.20 $1,709.61 $1,795.09 $1,884.85 $1,979.09 FACILITY&SUPPLY SPEC(HRLY) 5646 UCHR $20.35 $21.37 $22.44 $23.56 $24.74 $1,628.20 $1,709.61 $1,795.09 $1,884.84 $1,979.09 FAMILY&YOUTH LITERACY COORD 7035 CVEA $24.05 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $1,924.37 $2,020.58 $2,121.61 $2,227.69 $2,339.08 FIELD MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST 7471 CVEA $18.50 $19.43 $20.40 $21.42 $22.49 $1,480.18 $1,554.20 $1,631.90 $1,713.50 $1,799.18 Approved and adopted: Res21N1 it-18 Agenda Packet Page 112 -`f/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule ' CHULAIASTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 1 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E FINANCE MANAGER 3623 SM $45.93 -- -- -- $55.83 $3,674.27 $4,466.09 FIRE APPARATUS MECH 6521 CVEA $28.33 $29.75 $31.23 $32.79 $34.43 $2,266.30 $2,379.62 $2,498.60 $2,623.53 $2,754.71 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF(112 HR) 5511 IAFF $46.49 $48.81 $51.25 $53.82 $56.51 $3,718.99 $3,904.94 $4,100.20 $4,305.20 $4,520.46 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF(80 HR) 5513 IAFF $46.49 $48.81 $51.25 $53.82 $56.51 $3,718.99 $3,904.94 $4,100.20 $4,305.20 $4,520.46 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF(INTERIM) 5540 IAFF 1$46.49 $48.81 $51.25 $53.811 $56.51 $3,718.99 1$3,904.94 $4,100.19 $4,305.19 1$4,520.47 FIRE CAPTAIN(112 HR) 5583 IAFF $37.32 $39.18 $41.14 $43.20 $45.36 $2,985.30 $3,134.57 $3,291.29 $3,455.86 $3,628.65 FIRE CAPTAIN(80 HR) 5581 IAFF $37.32 $39.18 $41.14 $43.20 $45.36 $2,985.30 $3,134.57 $3,291.29 $3,455.86 $3,628.65 FIRE CAPTAIN(INTERIM) 5580 IAFF $37.32 $39.18 $41.14 $43.20 $45.36 $2,985.30 $3,134.57 $3,291.29 $3,455.86 $3,628.65 FIRE CHIEF 5501 EXEC $71.43 -- $84.67 -- $86.83 $5,714.52 $6,773.65 $6,946.05 FIRE CHIEF(INTERIM) 55021 EXEC $71.43 -- -- -- $86.83 $5,714.52 $6,946.05 FIRE DIVISION CHIEF 5507 MMUC $54.27 $56.99 $59.84 $62.83 $65.97 $4,341.96 $4,559.06 $4,787.01 $5,026.37 $5,277.68 FIRE ENG(112 HR) 5603 IAFF $31.82 $33.411$35.08 $36.83 $38.67 $2,545.33 $2,672.60 $2,806.23 $2,946.54 $3,093.87 FIRE ENG(80 HR) 5601 IAFF $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.83 $38.67 $2,545.33 $2,672.60 $2,806.23 $2,946.54 $3,093.87 FIRE ENGINEER(INTERIM) 5602 IAFF $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.83 $38.67 $2,545.33 $2,672.61 $2,806.23 $2,946.54 $3,093.87 FIRE INSP/INVEST I 5530 IAFF $26.91 $28.25 $29.67 $31.15 $32.71 $2,152.66 $2,260.29 $2,373.31 $2,491.97 $2,616.57 FIRE INSP/INVEST II 55311 IAFF 1$29.60 $31.08 $32.63 $34.261 $35.98 $2,367.92 $2,486.31 $2,610.63 $2,741.15 $2,878.22 FIRE INSP/INVEST II HRLY 5532 UCHR $30.19 $31.70 $33.29 $34.95 $36.70 $2,415.28 1$2,536.04 $2,662.84 $2,795.97 1$2,935.78 FIRE PREV ENG/INVEST 5528 IAFF $35.70 $37.49 $39.36 $41.33 $43.39 $2,855.99 $2,998.80 $3,148.73 $3,306.17 $3,471.48 FIRE PREVENTION AIDE 5533 UCHR $13.43 $14.10 $14.80 $15.54 $16.32 $1,074.12 $1,127.82 $1,184.22 $1,243.43 $1,305.60 FIREFIGHTER(112 HR) 5623 IAFF $27.04 $28.39 $29.81 $31.30 $32.87 $2,163.26 $2,271.43 $2,385.00 $2,504.25 $2,629.46 FIREFIGHTER(80 HR) 5621 IAFF $27.04 $28.39 $29.81 $31.30 $32.87 $2,163.26 $2,271.43 $2,385.00 $2,504.25 $2,629.46 FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC(112 HR) 56131 IAFF $31.10 $32.65 $34.281$36.00 $37.80 $2,487.75 $2,612.14 $2,742.75 $2,879.89 $3,023.88 FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC(80 HR) 5611 IAFF $31.10 $32.65 $34.28 $36.00 $37.80 $2,487.75 1$2,612.14 $2,742.75 $2,879.89 1$3,023.88 FISCAL&MANAGEMENT ANALYST 0216 PRCF $40.49 $42.51 $44.64 $46.87 $49.21 $3,238.94 $3,400.89 $3,570.93 $3,749.47 $3,936.95 FISCAL&MGTANALYST(HOURL) 0218 UCHR $40.49 $42.51 $44.64 $46.87 $49.21 $3,238.94 $3,400.89 $3,570.93 $3,749.47 $3,936.94 FISCAL OFFICE SPEC(HOURLY) 0170 UCHR $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $21.50 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.85 $1,719.74 FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALIST 0169 CVEA $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $21.50 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.85 $1,719.74 FISCAL SERVICES ANALYST 36101 PROF $40.09 $42.09 $44.20 $46.41 $48.73 $3,207.18 $3,367.54 $3,535.92 $3,712.72 $3,898.35 FLEET INVENTORY CONTROL SPEC 6513 CVEA $23.41 $24.58 $25.80 $27.09 $28.45 $1,872.43 1$1,966.05 $2,064.35 $2,167.57 1$2,275.95 FLEET MANAGER 6501 MM $39.17 $41.13 $43.19 $45.35 $47.61 $3,133.79 $3,290.48 $3,455.00 $3,627.75 $3,809.14 FORENSICS SPECIALIST 5114 CVEA $28.05 $29.45 $30.92 $32.47 $34.09 $2,243.72 $2,355.91 $2,473.70 $2,597.39 $2,727.26 GARDENER(SEASONAL) 6629 UCHR $17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.04 $21.04 $1,385.04 $1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 GARDENER I 6627 CVEA $17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.04 $21.04 $1,385.05 $1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 GARDENER II 66231 CVEA $19.04 $20.00 $21.00 $22.05 $23.15 $1,523.56 $1,599.73 $1,679.72 $1,763.71 $1,851.89 GIS MANAGER 3079 MM $40.15 $42.16 $44.27 $46.48 $48.81 $3,212.37 1$3,373.00 $3,541.64 $3,718.73 1$3,904.66 GIS SPECIALIST 3081 CVEA $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.70 $34.33 $2,259.49 $2,372.46 $2,491.09 $2,615.64 $2,746.42 GIS SPECIALIST(HOURLY) 3092 UCHR $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.70 $34.33 $2,259.49 $2,372.47 $2,491.09 $2,615.64 $2,746.42 GRAPHIC DESIGNER 2775 CVEA $25.02 $26.27 $27.58 $28.96 $30.41 $2,001.60 $2,101.68 $2,206.76 $2,317.10 $2,432.96 GYMNASTIC SPECIALIST 7543 UCHR $15.10 $15.86 $16.65 $17.481 $18.36 $1,208.09 $1,268.50 $1,331.92 $1,398.52 $1,468.44 HOUSING MANAGER 4093 SM $49.43 -- -- -- $59.61 $3,954.52 $4,769.12 HOUSING REHAB SPEC 4791 CVEA $26.10 $27.41 $28.78 $30.22 $31.73 $2,088.11 1$2,192.52 $2,302.14 $2,417.25 1$2,538.11 HR ANALYST 3310 PRCF 1$29.09 $30.551$32.07 $33.68 $35.36 $2,327.38 $2,443.74 $2,565.93 $2,694.23 $2,828.94 HR OPERATIONS MANAGER 3317 SM $45.47 -- -- -- $55.27 $3,637.89 $4,421.88 HR TECHNICIAN 3315 CONF $22.47 $23.60 $24.78 $26.02 $27.32 $1,797.96 $1,887.86 $1,982.25 $2,081.36 $2,185.43 HUMAN SERVICE COORD 7551 CVEA $24.05 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $1,924.37 $2,020.58 $2,121.61 $2,227.69 $2,339.08 HVACTECHNICIAN 6430 CVEA $25.03 $26.28 $27.60 $28.98 $30.42 $2,002.41 $2,102.53 $2,207.66 $2,318.04 $2,433.95 INFO TECH MANAGER 5104 SM $48.85 -- -- -- $58.62 $3,908.30 1 1$4,689.97 INFO TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3014 PROF 1$32.86 $34.501$36.23 $38.04 $39.94 $2,628.82 $2,760.27 $2,898.28 $3,043.19 $3,195.35 INFORMATI0NSYSTECH 3041 CVEA $21.98 $23.08 $24.24 $25.45 $26.72 $1,758.73 $1,846.67 $1,939.00 $2,035.95 $2,137.75 INTERN I 0261 UCHR $9.25 $9.71 $10.20 $10.71 $11.25 $740.11 $777.12 $815.98 $856.77 $899.61 INTERN II 0263 UCHR $10.20 $10.71 $11.25 $11.81 $12.40 $815.99 $856.79 $899.62 $944.61 $991.84 INTERN III 0265 UCHR $11.22 $11.78 $12.37 $12.98 $13.63 $897.24 $942.10 $989.20 $1,038.66 $1,090.60 IT SUPPORT SPECIALIST(HOURLY) 3002 UCHR $32.86 $34.50 $36.23 $38.04 $39.94 $2,628.83 1$2,760.26 $2,898.28 $3,043.19 1$3,195.35 LAND SURVEYOR 6251 WCE 1$43.35 $45.511$47.79 $50.18 $52.69 $3,467.77 $3,641.16 $3,823.22 $4,014.38 $4,215.10 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4480 PROF $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $41.451 $43.52 $2,864.46 $3,007.69 $3,158.07 $3,315.98 $3,481.77 LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR 6291 CVEA $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 $2,185.43 $2,294.70 $2,409.44 $2,529.91 $2,656.41 LANDSCAPE PLANNER I 4482 CVEA $28.21 $29.62 $31.10 $32.66 $34.29 $2,256.85 $2,369.70 $2,488.18 $2,612.59 $2,743.22 LANDSCAPE PLANNER II 4483 CVEA $31.03 $32.58 $34.21 $35.92 $37.72 $2,482.54 $2,606.66 $2,737.00 $2,873.85 $3,017.54 LATENT PRINT EXAMINER 151111 CVEA $32.25 $33.87 $35.56 $37.34 $39.20 $2,580.29 1$2,709.30 $2,844.77 1$2,987.00 1$31136.35 LATENT PRINT EXAMINER HRLY 151121 UCHR 1$32.25 $33.871$35.56 $37.34 $39.20 E$2,580.29 1$2,709.30 $2,844.76 1$2,987.00 1$3,136.35 LAW OFFICE MANAGER 2465 MMUC $29.93 $31.43 $33.00 $34.65 $36.38 $2,394.47 $2,514.19 $2,639.91 $2,771.91 $2,910.50 Approved and adopted: Res21N'1 it-18 Agenda Packet Page 113 -`f/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule CH U LA VISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E LEAD CUSTODIAN 6663 CVEA $19.04 $20.00 $21.00 $22.05 $23.15 $1,523.56 $1,599.73 $1,679.72 $1,763.71 $1,851.89 LEGAL ASSISTANT 0183 CONF $23.89 $25.09 $26.34 $27.66 $29.04 1$1,649.82$1,911.33 $2,006.89 $2,107.24 $2,212.60 $2,323.23 LIBRARIAN 1 7075 CVEA $22.69 $23.82 $25.01 $26.26 $27.57 $1,814.80 $1,905.54 $2,000.82 $2,100.86 $2,205.91 LIBRARIAN I(HOURLY) 7076 UCHR $22.69 $23.82 $25.01 $26.26 $27.57 $1,814.80 $1,905.54 $2,000.82 $2,100.87 $2,205.91 LIBRARIAN 11 7073 CVEA $24.95 $26.20 $27.51 $28.89 $30.33 $1,996.29 $2,096.10 $2,200.91 $2,310.95 $2,426.50 LIBRARIAN 11(HOURLY) 7074 UCHR $24.95 $26.20 $27.51 $28.89 $30.33 $1,996.29 $2,096.10 $2,200.91 $2,310.95 $2,426.50 LIBRARIAN 111 7071 CVEA $27.45 $28.82 $30.26 $31.78 $33.36 $2,195.92 $2,305.71 $2,421.00 $2,542.05 $2,669.15 LIBRARY ADMIN COORDINATOR 7018 PROF $34.91 $36.65 $38.48 $40.41 $42.43 $2,792.40 $2,932.02 $3,078.62 $3,232.55 $3,394.18 LIBRARY AIDE 7181 UCHR $10.55 $11.07 $11.63 $12.21 $12.82 $843.66 $885.84 $930.14 $976.64 $1,025.47 LIBRARY ASSISTANT 7157 CVEA $16.32 $17.13 $17.99 $18.89 $19.83 $1,305.36 $1,370.63 $1,439.15 $1,511.11 $1,586.67 LIBRARY ASSOCIATE 7091 CVEA $20.62 $21.65 $22.74 $23.87 $25.07 $1,649.82 $1,732.31 $1,818.93 $1,909.88 $2,005.37 LIBRARY ASSOCIATE(HOURLY) 7092 UCHR $20.62 $21.65 $22.74 $23.87 $25.07 $1,732.31 $1,818.93 $1,909.88 $2,005.37 LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MGR 7025 MM $34.91 $36.65 $38.48 $40.41 $42.43 $2,792.40 $2,932.02 $3,078.62 $3,232.55 $3,394.18 LIBRARY OPERATIONS MANAGER 7029 MM $44.79 $47.02 $49.38 $51.84 $54.44 $3,582.80 $3,761.93 $3,950.03 $4,147.54 1$4,354.91 LIBRARY TECHNICIAN 7121 CVEA $18.76 $19.70 $20.69 $21.72 $22.81 $1,501.17 $1,576.23 $1,655.04 $1,737.79 1$1,824.68 LIBRARY TECHNICIAN(HOURLY) 7122 UCHR $18.76 $19.70 $20.69 $21.72 $22.81 $1,501.17 $1,576.23 $1,655.04 $1,737.79 $1,824.68 LIBRARY VISITOR ASSISTANT 7185 UCHR 1$13.25 $13.92 $14.61 $15.341 $16.11 $1,060.32 1$1,113.34 $1,169.01 $1,227.46 $1,288.83 LIFEGUARD 1 7587 UCHR $13.82 $14.52 $15.24 $16.00 $16.80 $1,105.96 $1,161.26 $1,219.33 $1,280.29 $1,344.31 LIFEGUARD 11 7585 UCHR $15.21 $15.97 $16.77 $17.60 $18.48 $1,216.59 $1,277.42 $1,341.29 $1,408.36 $1,478.77 LITERACY&PROGRAMMING COORD 7034 MM $34.91 $36.65 $38.48 $40.41 $42.43 $2,792.40 $2,932.02 $3,078.62 $3,232.55 $3,394.18 LITERACY TEAM COORD 7036 PROF $30.35 $31.861$33.46 $35.13 $36.89 $2,427.78 $2,549.16 $2,676.62 $2,810.45 1$2,950.98 LOCKSMITH 6443 CVEA $23.84 $25.03 $26.28 $27.60 $28.98 $1,907.05 $2,002.41 $2,102.53 $2,207.65 $2,318.03 MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 6377 CVEA 1$17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.041 $21.04 $1,385.05 1$1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 MAINTENANCE WORKER I(HRLY) 6379 UCHR $17.31 $18.18 $19.09 $20.04 $21.04 $1,385.04 $1,454.30 $1,527.01 $1,603.36 $1,683.53 MAINTENANCE WORKER II 6373 CVEA $19.04 $20.00 $21.00 $22.05 $23.15 $1,523.56 $1,599.73 $1,679.72 $1,763.71 $1,851.89 MAINTENANCE WORKER II HRLY 6381 UCHR $19.04 $20.00 $21.00 $22.05 $23.15 $1,523.55 $1,599.74 $1,679.72 $1,763.70 $1,851.89 MANAGEMENT ANALYST 0225 CVEA $29.26 $30.721$32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.68 $2,457.72 $2,580.60 $2,709.63 1$2,845.12 MARKTNG&COMMUNCTNS MGR 2780 MMUC $41.07 $43.13 $45.28 $47.55 $49.92 $3,285.80 $3,450.09 $3,622.59 $3,803.72 1$3,993.91 MARKTNG&COMMUNICATIONS MGR 27811 SM 1$52.07 -- $53.54 -- 1 $63.30 $4,165.96 $4,283.46 1$5,063.75 MAYOR 2001 MY -- -- -- -- $58.58 $4,686.25 MECHANIC ASSISTANT 6550 CVEA $19.02 $19.97 $20.97 $22.02 $23.12 $1,521.83 $1,597.92 $1,677.82 $1,761.71 $1,849.79 MUSEUM ATTENDANT 7215 UCHR $10.94 $11.49 $12.06 $12.67 $13.30 $875.38 $919.15 $965.11 $1,013.36 $1,064.02 OFFICE SPECIALIST 0161 CVEA $16.84 $17.691$18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.83 OFFICE SPECIALIST(HOURLY) 0160 UCHR $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 1$1,559.86 $1,637.82 OFFICE SPECIALIST(MYR/@WILL) 01621 CVEA $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.47 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 1$1,559.86 $1,637.82 OFFICE SPECIALIST(MYR/AW/HR) 0156 UCHR $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.47 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.82 OPEN SPACE COORD 6301 MM $32.61 $34.24 $35.95 $37.75 $39.64 $2,608.80 $2,739.24 $2,876.20 $3,020.01 $3,171.02 OPEN SPACE INSPECTOR 6311 CVEA $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 $2,185.43 $2,294.70 $2,409.44 $2,529.91 $2,656.41 OPEN SPACE MANAGER 6302 MM $35.96 $37.76 $39.65 $41.63 $43.71 $2,876.83 $3,020.67 $3,171.70 $3,330.29 $3,496.80 OPS&TELECOM MGR 3025 MM $40.15 $42.16 $44.27 $46.48 $48.81 $3,212.37 $3,372.99 $3,541.64 $3,718.72 $3,904.66 PAINTER 6434 CVEA $22.75 $23.89 $25.09 $26.34 $27.66 $1,820.37 $1,911.39 $2,006.96 $2,107.31 $2,212.68 PARK RANGER 7434 UCHR $13.25 $13.91 $14.61 $15.34 $16.10 $1,059.90 $1,112.89 $1,168.53 $1,226.96 $1,288.31 PARK RANGER SUPERVISOR 7441 CVEA $29.03 $30.48 $32.00 $33.60 $35.28 $2,322.07 $2,438.31 $2,560.22 $2,688.23 $2,822.64 PARKING CONTROL OFFICER 5151 CVEA $17.02 $17.87 $18.77 $19.71 $20.69 $1,361.89 $1,429.98 $1,501.48 $1,576.55 $1,655.38 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 5154 CVEA $17.02 $17.87 $18.77 $19.71 $20.69 $1,361.89 $1,429.98 $1,501.48 $1,576.55 $1,655.38 PARKING METER TECH(HOURLY) 3694 UCHR $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.08 $1,572.98 $1,651.62 $1,734.21 $1,820.92 PARKING METER TECHNICIAN 3693 CVEA $18.73 $19.66 $20.65 $21.68 $22.76 $1,498.08 $1,572.98 $1,651.62 $1,734.20 $1,820.92 PARKS MANAGER 6604 MM $35.26 $37.03 $38.88 $40.82 $42.86 $2,820.97 $2,962.02 $3,110.11 $3,265.62 $3,428.90 PARKS OPERATIONS MANAGER 6610 MM $44.53 $46.76 $49.10 $51.55 $54.13 $3,562.60 $3,740.73 $3,927.77 $4,124.15 $4,330.36 PARKS SUPERVISOR 6605 CVEA 1$29.03 $30.48 $32.00 $33.60 $35.28 $2,322.20 1$2,438.31 $2,560.22 $2,688.23 1$2,822.65 PEACE OFFICER 5061 POA $32.33 $33.95 $35.65 $37.43 $39.30 $2,586.52 $2,715.84 $2,851.64 $2,994.22 $3,143.93 PERFORMANCE&ORG DEV MGR 2758 SM $49.68 -- -- -- $59.61 $3,974.30 $4,769.12 PERMITS PROCESSING SUPERVISOR 4719 MM $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $40.10 $2,639.43 $2,771.41 $2,909.98 $3,055.48 $3,208.25 PERSONNEL TECHNICIAN 3341 CONF $21.98 $23.08 $24.23 $25.45 $26.72 $1,758.45 $1,846.37 $1,938.69 $2,035.62 $2,137.40 PLAN CHECK SUPERVISOR 4731 MM $43.85 $46.05 $48.35 $50.77 $53.31 $3,508.37 $3,683.79 $3,867.98 $4,061.38 $4,264.45 PLANNING MANAGER 47271 SM 1$51.31 -- -- -- $61.90 $4,105.18 1$4,952.25 PLANNING TECHNICIAN 4527 CVEA $21.47 $22.54 $23.67 $24.85 $26.10 $1,717.58 $1,803.45 $1,893.63 $1,988.31 1$2,087.72 PLANS EXAMINER HOURLY 4744 UCHR $37.69 $39.58 $41.56 $43.63 $45.82 $3,015.46 $3,166.23 $3,324.54 $3,490.77 $3,665.31 PLUMBER 6432 CVEA $25.03 $26.28 $27.60 $28.98 $30.42 $2,002.41 $2,102.53 $2,207.65 $2,318.03 $2,433.94 POLICE ADMIN SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR 5025 SM $50.24 -- -- -- $61.07 $4,019.29 $4,885.47 POLICE AGENT 15051 POA $35.60 $37.38 $39.25 $41.21 $43.27 $2,848.18 $2,990.58 $3,140.11 $3,297.12 $3,461.97 Approved and adopted: Res2ll0f4uit-18 Agenda Packet Page 114 -`f/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule CH U LA VISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E POLICE CADET 5427 UCHR $11.22 $11.78 $12.37 $12.98 $13.63 $897.24 $942.10 $989.20 $1,038.66 $1,090.60 POLICE CAPTAIN 5022 SM $61.93 -- -- -- $75.27 $4,954.10 -- -- -- $6,021.74 POLICE COMM REL SPECIALIST 5258 CVEA $21.98 $23.08 $24.24 $25.45 $26.72 1$1,347.46$1,758.57 $1,846.51 $1,938.83 $2,035.78 $2,137.56 POLICE COMM SYSTEMS MANAGER 5185 MM $39.76 $41.75 $43.83 $46.02 $48.33 $3,180.63 $3,339.65 $3,506.64 $3,681.96 $3,866.07 POLICE DATA SPECIALIST 0163 CVEA $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.85 POLICE DISPATCHER 5181 CVEA $25.28 $26.54 $27.87 $29.26 $30.73 $2,022.25 $2,123.36 $2,229.53 $2,341.01 1$2,458.06 POLICE DISPATCHER(HOURLY) 5180 UCHR $25.28 $26.54 $27.87 $29.26 $30.73 $2,022.25 $2,123.37 $2,229.53 $2,341.01 $2,458.06 POLICE DISPATCHER SUPERVISOR 5183 CVEA $29.07 $30.52 $32.05 $33.65 $35.33 $2,325.59 $2,441.86 $2,563.96 $2,692.16 $2,826.76 POLICE DISPATCHER TRAINEE 5179 CVEA $22.98 $24.13 $25.34 $26.60 $27.93 $1,838.41 $1,930.33 $2,026.84 $2,128.19 $2,234.60 POLICE LIEUTENANT 5031 POA $49.15 $51.60 $54.19 $56.89 $59.74 $3,931.80 $4,128.39 $4,334.81 $4,551.55 $4,779.13 POLICE REC&SUPPORT SUPV 5203 CVEA 1$22.28 $23.39 $24.56 $25.79 $27.08 $1,782.02 $1,871.12 $1,964.67 $2,062.91 $2,166.06 POLICE REC TRANSCRIPT(HRLY) 0168 UCHR $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 1$1,637.85 POLICE RECORDS SPEC(HOURLY) 0166 UCHR $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 1$1,637.85 POLICE RECORDS SPECIALIST 0165 CVEA $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 1$1,637.85 POLICE RECORDS TRANSCRIPTION 0167 CVEA $16.84 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $1,347.46 $1,414.84 $1,485.58 $1,559.86 $1,637.85 POLICE RECRUIT 5071 CVEA $24.79 $26.03 -- -- -- $1,983.34 $2,082.51 POLICE SERGEANT 5041 POA 1$40.95 $43.00 $45.15 $47.41 $49.78 $3,276.25 $3,440.07 $3,612.07 $3,792.67 $3,982.31 POLICE SERVICES OFF(HOURLY) 5133 UCHR $22.66 $23.79 $24.98 $26.23 $27.54 $1,812.67 $1,903.30 $1,998.46 $2,098.38 $2,203.31 POLICE SERVICES OFFICER 5131 CVEA $22.66 $23.79 $24.98 $26.23 $27.54 $1,812.66 $1,903.30 $1,998.46 $2,098.38 $2,203.31 POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN 5415 CVEA $21.62 $22.70 $23.83 $25.02 $26.28 $1,729.36 $1,815.82 $1,906.61 $2,001.95 $2,102.04 POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES MGR 5205 MM $33.66 $35.35 $37.11 $38.97 $40.92 $2,692.98 $2,827.63 $2,969.01 $3,117.46 $3,273.33 POLICE SVCS OFFICER SUPERVISOR 5132 CVEA $26.06 $27.37 $28.73 $30.16 $31.67 $2,084.56 $2,189.83 $2,298.22 $2,413.14 $2,533.79 POLICE SVCS TECH(HOURLY) 5416 UCHR 1$21.62 $22.70 $23.83 $25.02 $26.28 $1,729.36 $1,815.82 $1,906.61 $2,001.95 $2,102.04 POLICE TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST 5107 CVEA $34.17 $35.88 $37.68 $39.56 $41.54 $2,733.98 $2,870.67 $3,014.20 $3,164.93 $3,323.17 POLICE TRAINING&DEV SUPV 5264 PROF $33.13 $34.78 $36.52 $38.35 $40.27 $2,650.24 $2,782.75 $2,921.90 $3,067.99 $3,221.39 POLICYAIDE 2013 PRUC $23.66 $24.84 $26.08 $27.39 $28.76 $1,892.59 $1,987.22 $2,086.58 $2,190.91 $2,300.45 PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER 6021 MM $47.93 $50.33 $52.85 $55.49 $58.26 $3,834.56 $4,026.29 $4,227.60 $4,438.98 $4,660.94 PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC DEV SPEC 2724 PROF $42.97 $45.12 $47.37 $49.74 $52.23 $3,437.36 $3,609.23 $3,789.69 $3,979.17 $4,178.13 PRINCIPAL HR ANALYST 3306 PRCF 1$36.80 $38.64 $40.57 $42.60 $44.73 $2,944.14 $3,091.35 $3,245.92 $3,408.21 $3,578.63 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4486 MM $42.72 $44.86 $47.10 $49.46 $51.93 $3,417.89 $3,588.78 $3,768.22 $3,956.63 $4,154.46 PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN 7051 MM $34.91 $36.65 $38.48 $40.41 $42.43 $2,792.40 $2,932.02 $3,078.62 $3,232.55 $3,394.18 PRINCIPAL MANAG EM ENT ANALYST 0208 PROF $37.16 $39.02 $40.97 $43.02 $45.17 $2,973.00 $3,121.66 $3,277.74 $3,441.62 $3,613.71 PRINCIPAL MGMTANALYST(CONF) 0214 PRCF $37.16 $39.02 $40.97 $43.02 $45.17 $2,973.00 $3,121.66 $3,277.74 $3,441.62 $3,613.71 PRINCIPAL MGTANALYST(HOURLY) 02001 UCHR $36.05 $38.26 $40.18 $42.18 $44.29 $2,883.75 $3,061.04 $3,214.09 1$3,374.79 $3,543.54 PRINCIPAL MGTANALYST(INTERIM) 0212 PROF $36.76 $39.02 $40.97 $43.02 $45.17 $2,940.86 $3,121.66 $3,277.74 1$3,441.62 $3,613.71 PRINCIPAL PLANNER 4431 MM $42.97 $45.12 $47.37 $49.74 $52.23 $3,437.36 $3,609.23 $3,789.69 $3,979.17 $4,178.13 PRINCIPAL PROJECT COORDINATOR 4212 PROF $42.97 $45.12 $47.37 $49.74 $52.23 $3,437.36 $3,609.23 $3,789.69 $3,979.17 $4,178.13 PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER 7410 MM $36.23 $38.04 $39.95 $41.94 $44.04 $2,898.54 $3,043.46 $3,195.64 $3,355.42 $3,523.19 PRINCIPAL REVENUE ANALYST 3608 PROF $32.48 $34.10 $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $2,598.44 $2,728.36 $2,864.78 $3,008.02 1$3,158.42 PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST 37211 CVEA $26.56 $27.89 $29.28 $30.75 $32.29 1$2,598.44$2,124.87 $2,231.12 $2,342.67 $2,459.81 $2,582.80 PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3090 PROF $32.53 $34.16 $35.87 $37.66 $39.54 $2,602.54 $2,732.67 $2,869.30 $3,012.76 $3,163.40 PROJECT COORDINATOR 4217 CVEA $28.21 $29.62 $31.10 $32.66 $34.29 $2,256.86 $2,369.69 $2,488.18 $2,612.58 $2,743.21 PROJECT COORDINATOR I(HRLY) 4218 UCHR $28.21 $29.62 $31.10 $32.66 $34.29 $2,256.86 $2,369.69 $2,488.18 $2,612.58 $2,743.22 PROJECT COORDINATOR II 4215 CVEA $31.03 $32.58 $34.21 $35.92 $37.72 $2,482.54 $2,606.66 $2,736.99 $2,873.85 $3,017.54 PROJECT COORDINATOR II(HRLY) 4216 UCHR $31.03 $32.58 $34.21 $35.92 $37.72 $2,482.54 $2,606.66 $2,736.99 $2,873.85 $3,017.54 PUB WORKS SPECIALIST 6712 CVEA $21.78 $22.86 $24.01 $25.21 $26.47 $1,742.01 $1,829.11 $1,920.56 $2,016.59 $2,117.42 PUBLIC INFO OFFICER(HRLY) 5032 UCHR $35.72 $37.50 $39.38 $41.34 $43.41 $2,857.23 $3,000.09 $3,150.09 $3,307.59 $3,472.98 PUBLIC INFO OFFICER(PD) 5034 PROF $35.72 $37.50 $39.38 $41.35 $43.41 $2,857.23 $3,000.09 $3,150.09 $3,307.60 $3,472.98 PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST 2782 CONF $23.89 $25.09 $26.34 $27.66 $29.04 $1,911.33 $2,006.89 $2,107.24 $2,212.60 $2,323.23 PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5254 CVEA $29.26 $30.72 $32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.69 $2,457.72 $2,580.61 $2,709.64 $2,845.12 PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST(HRLY) 5256 UCHR $29.26 $30.72 $32.26 $33.87 $35.56 $2,340.69 $2,457.72 $2,580.61 $2,709.64 $2,845.12 PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR 6324 PROF $32.48 $34.10 $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $2,728.36 $2,864.78 $3,008.02 $3,158.42 PUBLIC WORKS INSP 1 6123 CVEA $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 1$1,647.88$2,185.43 $2,294.70 $2,409.44 $2,529.91 $2,656.41 PUBLIC WORKS INSP 11 6121 CVEA $30.05 $31.55 $33.13 $34.79 $36.53 $2,403.97 $2,524.17 $2,650.38 $2,782.90 $2,922.05 PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER 6336 MM $35.96 $37.76 $39.65 $41.63 $43.71 $2,876.83 $3,020.67 $3,171.70 $3,330.29 $3,496.80 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR 6337 CVEA $29.03 $30.48 $32.00 $33.60 $35.28 $2,322.20 $2,438.31 $2,560.22 $2,688.23 $2,822.65 PUMP MAINTTECHNICIAN 6396 CVEA $24.80 $26.04 $27.34 $28.71 $30.14 $1,983.87 $2,083.06 $2,187.22 $2,296.58 $2,411.41 PUMP MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 6392 CVEA $29.06 $30.51 $32.04 $33.64 $35.32 $2,324.89 $2,441.14 $2,563.20 $2,691.35 $2,825.92 PURCHASINGAGENT 3711 SM $45.47 -- -- -- $55.27 $3,637.89 -- -- -- $4,421.88 RANGE MASTER 5417 CVEA $20.60 $21.63 $22.71 $23.85 $25.04 $1,647.88 $1,730.28 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 RANGE MASTER(HOURLY) 5418 UCHR $20.60 $21.63 $22.711$23.851 $25.04 $1,730.27 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 Approved and adopted: Res2ll0f4uit-18 Agenda Packet Page 115 -cif`cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule �CHULAVISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E RCFL NETWORK ENGINEER 5450 UCHR $31.93 $33.53 $35.20 $36.96 $38.81 $2,554.37 $2,682.08 $2,816.19 $2,956.99 $3,104.84 REAL PROPERTY MANAGER 6037 MMUC $41.68 $43.76 $45.95 $48.25 $50.66 1$1,749.42$3,334.40 $3,501.12 $3,676.17 $3,859.98 $4,052.98 RECAIDE 7605 UCHR $9.55 $10.03 $10.53 $11.06 $11.61 $764.21 $802.42 $842.54 $884.67 $928.90 REC SPECIALIST 7601 UCHR $15.10 $15.86 $16.65 $17.48 $18.36 $1,208.09 $1,268.50 $1,331.92 $1,398.52 $1,468.44 REC SUPERVISOR I(HOURLY) 7426 UCHR $21.87 $22.96 $24.11 $25.31 $26.58 $1,836.90 $1,928.74 $2,025.18 $2,126.44 RECORDS MANAGER 2211 MM $30.95 $32.50 $34.13 $35.83 $37.62 $2,476.26 $2,600.08 $2,730.09 $2,866.59 1$3,009.92 RECORDS SPECIALIST 2217 CVEA $18.53 $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $1,482.22 $1,556.33 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 RECREATION LEADER 1 7609 UCHR $10.94 $11.49 $12.06 $12.67 $13.30 $875.38 $919.15 $965.08 $1,013.36 $1,064.02 RECREATION LEADER 11 7607 UCHR $12.58 $13.21 $13.87 $14.56 $15.29 $1,006.13 $1,056.44 $1,109.27 $1,164.73 $1,222.97 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 1 7425 CVEA $21.87 $22.96 $24.11 $25.31 $26.58 $1,749.42 $1,836.89 $1,928.74 $2,025.18 $2,126.43 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 11 7423 CVEA 1$24.05 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $1,924.37 $2,020.58 $2,121.61 $2,227.69 $2,339.08 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 111 7422 CVEA $27.66 $29.05 $30.50 $32.02 $33.62 $2,213.02 $2,323.67 $2,439.87 $2,561.86 1$2,689.95 RECYCLING SPECIALIST 1 2742 CVEA $21.57 $22.65 $23.78 $24.97 $26.22 $1,725.70 $1,811.99 $1,902.59 $1,997.72 1$2,097.61 RECYCLING SPECIALIST 11 2744 CVEA $23.73 $24.91 $26.16 $27.47 $28.84 $1,898.28 $1,993.19 $2,092.86 $2,197.50 1$2,307.38 REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER 4045 SM $46.78 -- -- -- $56.86 $3,742.50 $4,549.02 REDEVLP COORDINATOR 4042 PROF $44.86 $47.10 $49.46 $51.93 $54.53 $3,588.78 $3,768.22 $3,956.63 $4,154.47 $4,362.19 REGISTERED VETTECH(HOURLY) 5312 UCHR 1$20.60 $21.63 $22.71 $23.85 $25.04 $1,647.88 $1,730.27 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 REGISTERED VETERINARY TECH 5307 CVEA $20.60 $21.63 $22.71 $23.85 $25.04 $1,647.88 $1,730.28 $1,816.79 $1,907.63 $2,003.01 RESERVE OFFICER 5081 UCHR $14.24 $14.95 $15.69 -- -- $1,139.42 $1,195.85 $1,255.53 REVENUE&RECOVERY MANAGER 3680 PROF $32.48 $34.101$35.81 $37.601 $39.48 $2,598.44 1$2,728.36 $2,864.78 $3,008.02 1$3,158.42 RISK ANALYST 3380 PROF $24.63 $25.87 $27.16 $28.52 $29.94 $1,970.72 $2,069.26 $2,172.72 $2,281.36 $2,395.42 RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 3386 PROF $28.81 $30.25 $31.76 $33.35 $35.02 $2,304.56 $2,419.78 $2,540.78 $2,667.82 $2,801.21 RISK MANAGER 3361 SM 1$45.93 -- -- -- $55.83 $3,674.27 -- -- -- $4,466.10 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD 5143 UCHR $10.05 $10.55 $11.08 $11.64 $12.22 $804.19 $844.39 $886.62 $930.94 $977.49 SEASONAL ASSISTANT 0231 UCHR $9.55 $10.03 $10.53 $11.06 $11.61 $764.21 $802.42 $842.54 $884.67 $928.90 SECRETARY 0171 CVEA $18.53 $19.451$20.43 $21.451 $22.52 $1,482.21 1$1,556.32 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 1$1,801.64 SECRETARY(HOURLY) 0152 UCHR $18.53 $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $1,482.21 $1,556.32 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 SENIOR POLICE TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST 5109 CVEA $39.30 $41.27 $43.33 $45.50 $47.77 $3,144.08 $3,301.28 $3,466.35 $3,639.67 $3,821.65 SIGNAL SYSTEMS ENGINEER 1 61691 CVEA 1$31.41 $32.98 $34.63 $36.36 $38.17 $2,512.48 $2,638.11 $2,770.01 $2,908.52 $3,053.94 SIGNAL SYSTEMS ENGINEER II 6170 CVEA $34.55 $36.27 $38.09 $39.99 $41.99 $2,763.74 $2,901.92 $3,047.02 $3,199.37 $3,359.33 SIGNING&STRIPING SUPERVISOR 6355 CVEA $29.03 $30.48 $32.00 $33.60 $35.28 $2,322.20 $2,438.31 $2,560.22 $2,688.23 $2,822.65 SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR 2799 PRUC $35.72 $37.501$39.38 $41.34 $43.41 $2,857.23 1$3,000.09 $3,150.09 $3,307.59 $3,472.98 SPECIAL EVENTS PLANNER 2762 PROF $32.36 $33.98 $35.68 $37.46 $39.34 $2,588.92 $2,718.37 $2,854.28 $2,997.00 $3,146.84 SPECIAL PLANNING PROJ MGR 4101 SM $42.88 -- -- -- $52.13 $3,430.78 $4,170.14 SR ACCOUNTANT 36301 MMCF $38.07 $39.97 $41.97 $44.07 $46.27 $3,045.44 $3,197.71 $3,357.60 $3,525.48 $3,701.75 SR ACCOUNTING ASST 3651 CVEA $22.02 $23.12 $24.27 $25.49 $26.76 $1,761.22 $1,849.29 $1,941.75 $2,038.84 $2,140.78 SR ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 0145 CONF $26.02 $27.32 $28.69 $30.13 $31.63 $2,081.85 $2,185.94 $2,295.24 $2,410.00 $2,530.50 SR ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 0185 CVEA $26.02 $27.32 $28.69 $30.13 $31.63 $2,081.85 1$2,185.94 $2,295.24 $2,410.00 1$2,530.50 SR ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST 5345 CVEA $19.74 $20.73 $21.76 $22.85 $23.99 1$2,474.12$1,579.22 $1,658.18 $1,741.09 $1,828.14 $1,919.54 SR APPLICATIONS SUPPORTSPEC 3089 PROF $36.15 $37.95 $39.85 $41.84 $43.94 $2,891.71 $3,036.30 $3,188.11 $3,347.52 $3,514.89 SR ASST CITY ATTORNEY 2403 EXEC $71.43 -- -- -- $86.83 $5,714.52 $6,946.05 SR BENEFITS TECHNICIAN 3403 CONF $25.45 $26.72 $28.06 $29.46 $30.93 $2,035.87 $2,137.66 $2,244.55 $2,356.78 $2,474.61 SR BUILDING INSPECTOR 4781 CVEA $34.56 $36.29 $38.10 $40.00 $42.00 $2,764.57 $2,902.80 $3,047.93 $3,200.33 $3,360.35 SR BUSINESS LICENSE REP 4507 CVEA $22.02 $23.12 $24.27 $25.49 $26.76 $1,761.22 $1,849.29 $1,941.75 $2,038.84 $2,140.78 SR CIVIL ENGINEER 6019 WCE $43.35 $45.51 $47.79 $50.18 $52.69 $3,467.77 $3,641.17 $3,823.23 $4,014.39 $4,215.10 SR CODE ENF OFF(HOURLY) 4764 UCHR $33.02 $34.67 $36.40 $38.22 $40.13 $2,641.45 $2,773.54 $2,912.21 $3,057.82 $3,210.71 SR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFF 4763 CVEA $33.02 $34.67 $36.40 $38.22 $40.13 $2,641.46 $2,773.53 $2,912.21 $3,057.82 $3,210.71 SR COUNCIL ASST 2027 CONF $16.05 $16.86 $17.70 $18.58 $19.51 $1,284.24 $1,348.45 $1,415.87 $1,486.67 $1,561.00 SR COUNCIL ASST 2025 UCHR $25.45 $26.73 $28.06 $29.47 $30.94 $2,036.31 $2,138.13 $2,245.03 $2,357.28 $2,475.15 SR DEPUTY CITY CLERK 2208 PRUC $30.93 $32.47 $34.10 $35.80 $37.59 $2,597.83 $2,727.72 1$2,864.10 $3,007.31 SR ECONOMIC DEV SPEC 2725 PROF $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.69 $34.33 1$1,556.32$2,259.44 $2,372.42 $2,491.04 $2,615.59 $2,746.37 SR EDUC SERVICES SUPERVISOR 7457 CVEA $27.66 $29.05 $30.50 $32.02 $33.62 $2,213.02 $2,323.67 $2,439.87 $2,561.86 $2,689.95 SR ELECTRICIAN 6442 CVEA $28.78 $30.22 $31.74 $33.32 $34.99 $2,302.77 $2,417.91 $2,538.81 $2,665.75 $2,799.03 SR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 6059 CVEA $30.05 $31.55 $33.13 $34.79 $36.53 $2,403.97 $2,524.17 $2,650.38 $2,782.90 $2,922.05 SR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPV 6503 MM $31.06 $32.61 $34.24 $35.95 $37.75 $2,484.57 $2,608.80 $2,739.24 $2,876.20 $3,020.01 SR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 6512 CVEA $27.16 $28.52 $29.95 $31.44 $33.02 $2,173.00 $2,281.66 $2,395.74 $2,515.52 $2,641.30 SR EVIDENCE CONTROL ASST 5119 CVEA $21.53 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $1,722.79 $1,808.93 $1,899.37 $1,994.35 $2,094.06 SR FIRE INSP/INVEST 5529 IAFF $34.38 $36.10 $37.91 $39.80 $41.79 $2,750.61 $2,888.15 $3,032.55 $3,184.17 $3,343.39 SR FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALIST 0141 CONF $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $23.65 $1,556.32 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 $1,891.72 SR FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALIST 0175 CVEA $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $23.65 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 $1,891.72 SR GARDENER 6621 CVEA $22.85 1$24.001$25.20 1$26.46 $27.78 E$1,828.27 1$1,919.68 1$2,015.67 1$2,116.45 1$2,222.28 Approved and adopted: Res21NWit-18 Agenda Packet Page 116 -`f/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule ' CHULnwSTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E SR GIS SPECIALIST 3080 CVEA $31.07 $32.62 $34.25 $35.97 $37.76 $2,485.44 $2,609.71 $2,740.19 $2,877.20 $3,021.06 SR GRAPHIC DESIGNER 2764 PROF $32.36 $33.98 $35.68 $37.46 $39.34 $2,588.92 $2,718.37 $2,854.28 $2,997.00 $3,146.84 SR HR ANALYST 3308 PRCF $33.46 $35.13 $36.89 $38.73 $40.67 $2,676.48 $2,810.30 $2,950.83 $3,098.37 $3,253.28 SR HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3316 CONF $25.85 $27.14 $28.50 $29.92 $31.42 $2,067.88 $2,171.28 $2,279.83 $2,393.84 $2,513.52 SR HVAC TECHNICIAN 6441 CVEA $28.78 $30.22 $31.741$33.32 $34.99 $2,302.77 $2,417.91 $2,538.81 $2,665.75 $2,799.03 SR INFO TECH SUPPORTSPEC 3012 PROF $36.15 $37.95 $39.85 $41.84 $43.94 $2,891.71 $3,036.30 $3,188.11 $3,347.52 $3,514.89 SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR 6295 CVEA $31.42 $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $2,513.25 $2,638.91 $2,770.86 $2,909.40 $3,054.87 SR LEGAL ASSISTANT 2463 CONF $26.28 $27.59 $28.97 $30.42 $31.94 $2,102.46 $2,207.59 $2,317.97 $2,433.86 $2,555.56 SR LIBRARIAN 7053 MM $30.35 $31.87 $33.46 $35.14 $36.89 $2,428.18 $2,549.59 $2,677.07 $2,810.92 $2,951.47 SR LIFEGUARD 7589 UCHR $16.72 $17.55 $18.43 $19.35 $20.32 $1,337.40 $1,404.27 $1,474.48 $1,548.21 $1,625.62 SR MAINTENANCE WORKER 6371 CVEA 1$22.85 $24.00 $25.20 $26.46 $27.78 $1,828.27 $1,919.68 $2,015.67 $2,116.45 $2,222.28 SR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 0206 PROF $33.78 $35.47 $37.25 $39.11 $41.06 $2,702.72 $2,837.86 $2,979.76 $3,128.74 $3,285.18 SR MANAGEMENT ANALYST(HOURLY) 0210 UCHR $33.78 $35.47 $37.25 $39.11 $41.06 $2,702.72 $2,837.85 $2,979.76 $3,128.74 $3,285.18 SR OFFICE SPECIALIST 0173 CVEA $18.53 $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $1,482.21 $1,556.32 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 SR OFFICE SPECIALIST(HOURLY) 0174 UCHR $18.53 $19.45 $20.43 $21.45 $22.52 $1,482.21 $1,556.32 $1,634.14 $1,715.85 $1,801.64 SR OPEN SPACE INSPECTOR 6309 CVEA $31.42 $32.99 $34.64 $36.37 $38.19 $2,513.25 $2,638.91 $2,770.86 $2,909.40 $3,054.87 SR PARK RANGER 7439 CVEA 1$22.85 $24.00 $25.20 $26.46 $27.78 $1,828.27 $1,919.68 $2,015.67 $2,116.46 $2,222.27 SR PLAN CHECK ENGINEER 4745 WCE $41.46 $43.54 $45.71 $48.00 $50.40 $3,317.01 $3,482.86 $3,657.00 $3,839.85 $4,031.84 SR PLANNER 4432 PROF $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $41.45 $43.52 $2,864.46 $3,007.69 $3,158.07 $3,315.98 $3,481.77 SR PLANNING TECHNICIAN 4529 CVEA $24.69 $25.92 $27.22 $28.58 $30.01 $1,975.21 $2,073.97 $2,177.67 $2,286.55 $2,400.88 SR POLICE DATA SPECIALIST 0164 CVEA $19.37 $20.34 $21.36 $22.42 $23.54 $1,549.59 $1,627.07 $1,708.42 $1,793.84 $1,883.54 SR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST 3728 PROF $29.37 $30.84 $32.38 $34.00 $35.70 $2,349.62 $2,467.10 $2,590.46 $2,719.98 $2,855.98 SR PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3091 PROF 1$36.50 $38.33 $40.25 $42.26 $44.37 $2,920.34 $3,066.36 $3,219.68 $3,380.66 $3,549.69 SR PROJECT COORDINATOR 4214 PROF $35.81 $37.60 $39.48 $41.45 $43.52 $2,864.47 $3,007.69 $3,158.07 $3,315.97 $3,481.78 SR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5260 PROF $32.35 $33.971$35.67 $37.451 $39.33 $2,588.26 1$2,717.67 $2,853.56 $2,996.23 1$3,146.05 SR PUBLIC WORKS INSP 6101 CVEA $34.56 $36.29 $38.10 $40.00 $42.00 $2,764.57 $2,902.80 $3,047.94 $3,200.33 $3,360.35 SR PUBLIC WORKS SPECIALIST 6702 CVEA $26.13 $27.44 $28.81 $30.25 $31.76 $2,090.41 $2,194.93 $2,304.68 $2,419.91 $2,540.91 SR RECORDS SPECIALIST 2215 CVEA $21.31 $22.37 $23.49 $24.67 $25.90 $1,704.54 $1,789.77 $1,879.26 $1,973.23 $2,071.89 SR RECREATION MGR 7421 MM 1$31.20 $32.76 $34.39 $36.11 $37.92 $2,495.76 $2,620.54 $2,751.57 $2,889.15 $3,033.61 SR RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 3385 PROF $33.46 $35.13 $36.89 $38.73 $40.67 $2,676.48 $2,810.30 $2,950.83 $3,098.37 $3,253.28 SR SECRETARY 0139 CONF $20.38 $21.401$22.47 $23.591 $24.77 $1,630.43 1$1,711.95 $1,797.55 $1,887.43 1$1,981.80 SR SECRETARY 0177 CVEA $20.38 $21.40 $22.47 $23.59 $24.77 $1,630.43 $1,711.95 $1,797.55 $1,887.43 $1,981.80 SR SECRETARY(HOURLY) 0178 UCHR $20.38 $21.40 $22.47 $23.59 $24.77 $1,630.44 $1,711.96 $1,797.55 $1,887.43 $1,981.80 SR TREE TRIMMER 6573 CVEA $25.14 $26.40 $27.72 $29.10 $30.56 $2,011.09 $2,111.64 $2,217.22 $2,328.09 $2,444.49 STOREKEEPER 37341 CVEA $19.04 $20.00 $21.00 $22.05 $23.15 $1,523.56 $1,599.73 $1,679.72 $1,763.71 $1,851.89 STOREKEEPER SUPERVISOR 3732 CVEA $22.85 $24.00 $25.20 $26.46 $27.78 $1,828.27 $1,919.68 $2,015.67 $2,116.45 $2,222.28 STORMWTR COMPLNCE INSP 1 6127 CVEA $24.83 $26.081$27.38 $28.75 $30.19 $1,986.75 1$2,086.09 $2,190.39 $2,299.91 1$2,414.91 STORMWTR COMPLNCE INSP II 6125 CVEA $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 $2,185.44 $2,294.70 $2,409.44 $2,529.91 1$2,656.41 SURVEY TECHNICIAN 1 6151 CVEA $23.75 $24.94 $26.19 $27.50 $28.87 $1,900.37 $1,995.39 $2,095.16 $2,199.92 $2,309.91 SURVEY TECHNICIAN II 6141 CVEA $26.13 $27.44 $28.81 $30.25 $31.76 $2,090.41 $2,194.93 $2,304.68 $2,419.91 $2,540.91 SYSTEMS/DATABASEADMINISTRATR 30151 PROF $36.14 $37.95 $39.85 $41.84 $43.93 $2,891.47 $3,036.05 $3,187.85 $3,347.24 $3,514.60 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST 3027 CVEA $21.98 $23.08 $24.24 $25.45 $26.72 $1,758.74 $1,846.66 $1,939.00 $2,035.95 $2,137.75 TINYTOTAIDE 7503 UCHR $12.58 $13.21 $13.87 $14.561 $15.29 $1,006.13 1$1,056.44 $1,109.27 $1,164.73 $1,222.97 TINY TOT SPECIALIST 7505 UCHR $15.10 $15.86 $16.65 $17.48 $18.36 $1,208.09 $1,268.50 $1,331.92 $1,398.52 1$1,468.44 TRAFFIC DEVICES TECH 6177 CVEA $27.53 $28.91 $30.36 $31.87 $33.47 $2,202.69 $2,312.83 $2,428.47 $2,549.89 $2,677.39 TRAFFIC DEVICES TECH SUPV 6175 CVEA $31.66 $33.25 $34.91 $36.65 $38.49 $2,533.10 $2,659.75 $2,792.74 $2,932.38 $3,079.00 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 6024 PROF $37.37 $39.24 $41.20 $43.26 $45.42 $2,989.46 $3,138.93 $3,295.88 $3,460.68 $3,633.71 TRAFFIC OFFICER(HOURLY) 5293 UCHR $14.24 $14.95 $15.69 -- -- $1,139.42 $1,195.84 $1,255.53 TRAINING PROGRAM SPEC(HRLY) 5250 UCHR $21.98 $23.08 $24.24 $25.45 $26.72 $1,758.57 1$1,846.51 $1,938.84 $2,035.78 $2,137.56 TRAINING PROGRAMS SPECIALIST 5262 CVEA $21.98 $23.08 $24.24 $25.45 $26.72 $1,758.57 $1,846.51 $1,938.83 1$2,035.78 $2,137.56 TRANS ENGINEER W/CERT 6031 WCE $43.35 $45.51 $47.79 $50.18 $52.69 $3,467.77 $3,641.16 $3,823.22 $4,014.38 $4,215.10 TRANS ENGINEER W/O CERT 60331 WCE $41.28 $43.35 $45.51 $47.79 $50.18 $3,302.64 $3,467.77 $3,641.16 $3,823.22 $4,014.38 TRANSIT MANAGER 6218 MMUC $44.79 $47.031$49.39 $51.85 $54.45 $3,583.49 $3,762.67 $3,950.80 $4,148.34 $4,355.76 TRANSIT OPERATIONS COORD 6224 PROF $36.62 $38.45 $40.37 $42.39 $44.51 $2,929.22 $3,075.68 $3,229.46 $3,390.94 $3,560.48 TREASURY AND BUSINESS MANAGER 3611 SM $53.23 -- -- -- $64.70 $4,258.29 $5,175.98 TREE TRIMMER 6575 CVEA $20.95 $22.00 $23.10 $24.25 $25.46 $1,675.91 $1,759.70 $1,847.69 $1,940.07 $2,037.08 TREE TRIMMER SUPERVISOR 6572 CVEA $28.91 $30.36 $31.87 $33.47 $35.14 $2,312.76 $2,428.40 $2,549.82 $2,677.31 $2,811.17 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGER 3891 MM $35.26 $37.03 $38.88 $40.82 $42.86 $2,820.97 $2,962.02 $3,110.11 $3,265.62 $3,428.90 VETERINARIAN 5321 PROF $36.69 $38.52 $40.45 $42.47 $44.59 $2,934.87 $3,081.61 $3,235.69 $3,397.48 $3,567.37 VETERINARIAN(HOURLY) 5308 UCHR $45.85 $48.15 $50.56 $53.09 $55.74 $3,667.78 $3,852.02 $4,044.62 $4,246.85 $4,459.19 VETERINARIAN(PERMITTED) 5331 PROF $51.65 $54.24 $56.95 $59.80 $62.79 $4,132.31 $4,338.92 $4,555.87 $4,783.66 $5,022.84 Approved and adopted: Res2110401!V-18 Agenda Packet Page 117 _wf/ cmoF Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule M'CHULAVISTA Effective June 27,2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E VETERINARIAN-PERMITTED 5322 UCHR $64.84 $68.08 $71.48 $75.06 $78.81 $5,186.99 $5,446.34 $5,718.66 $6,004.59 $6,304.82 VETERINARY ASSISTANT 5325 CVEA $17.17 $18.02 $18.93 $19.87 $20.86 $1,373.23 $1,441.90 $1,514.00 $1,589.69 $1,669.18 VETERINARY ASSISTANT(HOURLY) 5323 UCHR $17.17 $18.02 $18.92 $19.87 $20.86 $1,373.24 $1,441.90 $1,513.99 $1,589.69 $1,669.18 VOLUNTEER COORD(DEPT) 7131 CVEA $18.76 $19.70 $20.69 $21.72 $22.81 $1,501.17 $1,576.23 $1,655.04 $1,737.79 $1,824.68 VOLUNTEER COORD(DEPT)(HOURLY) 7132 UCHR 1$18.76 $19.701$20.69 $21.721 $22.81 $1,501.17 1$1,576.23 $1,655.04 $1,737.79 1$1,824.68 WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS MGR 6334 MM $40.98 $43.03 $45.18 $47.44 $49.81 $3,278.51 $3,442.44 $3,614.56 $3,795.29 1$3,985.05 WEBMASTER 2777 CVEA $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.70 $34.33 $2,259.49 $2,372.46 $2,491.09 $2,615.64 1$2,746.42 WEBMASTER(HOURLY) 2790 UCHR $28.24 $29.66 $31.14 $32.70 $34.33 $2,259.49 $2,372.47 $2,491.09 $2,615.64 $2,746.42 YOUTH COORDINATOR 7481 CVEA $24.05 $25.26 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $1,924.37 $2,020.58 $2,121.61 $2,227.69 $2,339.08 Chula Vista Police Officers'Association(POA)Represented Classifications Salaries Effective 12/26/2014 Hourly Rate Bi-Weekly Rate POSITION TITLE PCN BARG Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E PEACE OFFICER 5061 POA $33.30 $34.97 $36.71 $38.55 $40.48 $2,664.11 $2,797.32 $2,937.19 $3,084.05 $3,238.25 POLICE AGENT 5051 POA $36.67 $38.50 $40.43 $42.45 $44.5 $$2,933.62 $3,080.30 $3,234.31 $3,396.03 $3,565.83 POLICE LIEUTENANT 5031 POA $50.62 $53.15 $55.81 $58.60 $61.53 $4,049.76 $4,252.24 $4,464.86 $4,688.10 $4,922.50 POLICE SERGEANT 5041 POA $42.18 $44.29 $46.51 $48.83 $51.27 $3,374.54 $3,543.27 $3,720.43 $3,906.46 $4,101.78 Revised: July 25,2014 August 8,2014 November4,2014 Approved and adopted: Res21N1 it-18 Agenda Packet Page 118 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO REFLECT THE ADDITION AND REMOVAL OF VARIOUS POSITION TITLES, AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION COUNT IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, Human Resources staff completed several department and employee- initiated classification reviews; and WHEREAS, Human Resources staff also conducted classification reviews that were agreed upon during the most recent labor negotiations for a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Western Council of Engineers (WCE) for the Plans Examiner and Surveyor classifications; and WHEREAS, the recommended changes include a number of new classification titles that are not currently reflected in the Compensation Schedule and Classification Plan; and WHEREAS, the recommended changes to the Compensation Schedule and Classification Plan include the addition of the following new titles of Facilities Manager, Police Administrative Services Administrator, Treasury and Business Manager, Associate Plan Check Engineer, Senior Plan Check Engineer, Assistant Land Surveyor, Associate Land Surveyor, Senior Land Surveyor, Senior Police Technology Specialist, Construction and Repair Supervisor, Chief of Staff and Policy Aide titles. The E Step salaries for these positions are as follows: Position Title Bargaining Bi-Weekly E- Step Group Associate Plan Check Enqineer V;CE $3 665 31 Senior Plan Check Engineer WCE 54.031 84 Assistant Land Surveyor WCE 53.187 22 Senior Land Surveyor WCE $4.215 10 Facilities Manager MM S3 90547 Treasury and Business Manager SM 55 175 98 Police Administrative Services Manager S $4.885 47 Construction and Repair Supervisor CVEA 53 218 89 Senior Police Technology Specialist CVEA $3 821 65 Chief of Staff MMUC 52 845 12 Policy Aide PRUC 52.300 45 WHEREAS, the recommended changes to the Compensation Schedule and Classification Plan include the removal of the titles of Administrative Analyst II, Construction and Repair Manager, Treasury Manager, Plans Examiner, Senior Plans Examiner, Assistant Surveyor I, Assistant Surveyor II and Land Surveyor; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 119 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the addition and removal of various position titles will result in a net decrease of 0.5 FTE in the authorized staffing for fiscal year 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the amendments to the Compensation Schedule and Classification Plan to reflect the changes described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the following changes to the fiscal year 2015 authorized position count: Department Position Title FTE Plans Examiner -3 00 Development Services Associate Plan Check Engneer 3 00 Finance Treasury Manager -1 00 Treasury and Business f.1anager 1 00 Secretary -1 00 Fire Traininq Proqrams Specalist 1 00 Firefighter -2 00 Fire fighter/Paramedic 2 00 Administrative Analyst II -1 00 Library Management Analvst 1 00 Librarian 1 -1 00 Librarian II 1 00 Administrative Services Manager -1 00 Police Administrative Services Administrator 1 00 Police Parking Enforcement Officer -1 00 Range plaster -0 50 Senior Police Technology Specialist 1 00 Construction and Repair Manaqer -1 00 Facilities Manager 1 00 Custodial and Facilities Manager -1 00 Construction and Repair Supervisor 1 00 Custodial Supervisor -1 00 Public V;orks Lead Custodian -1 00 Custodian 2 00 Administrative Analyst II -2 00 Management Analyst 2 00 Assistant Survevor II -1 00 Associate Land Survevor 1 00 Recreation Recreation Supervisor II -2 00 Recreation Supervisor 111 2 00 Constituent Services Manager -2 00' Office ofthe Mayor Chief of Staff 1 0 Policy Aide 1 0 TOTAL (0 50) Effective December 10.2014 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves an appropriation totaling $22,013 to the Personnel Services budgets of the following departments — Recreation ($15,165), Fire ($4,670), and Library ($2,178) to be offset by unanticipated General Fund revenues. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 120 Resolution No. Page 3 Presented by Approved as to form by Kelley K. Bacon Glen R. Googins Director of Human Resources City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 121 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires that, for purposes of determining a retiring employee's pension allowance, the pay rate be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule that meets certain requirements and be approved by the governing body in accordance with the requirements of the applicable public meeting laws; and WHEREAS, the most recent Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule ("Compensation Schedule") was approved by the City Council at their meeting of November 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, any changes including but not limited to, across-the-board increases, classification changes and salary adjustments approved subsequent to this date, will be reflected on a revised Compensation Schedule and submitted to Council approval; and WHEREAS, the Compensation Schedule will be revised to add the classifications of Facilities Manager, Police Administrative Services Administrator, Treasury and Business Manager, Associate Plan Check Engineer, Senior Plan Check Engineer, Assistant Land Surveyor, Associate Land Surveyor, Senior Land Surveyor, Senior Police Technology Specialist Construction and Repair Supervisor, Chief of Staff and Policy Aide and remove the classifications of Administrative Analyst II, Construction and Repair Manager, Treasury Manager, Plans Examiner, Senior Plans Examiner, Assistant Surveyor I, Assistant Surveyor II and Land Surveyor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it hereby does adopt the revised Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Compensation Schedule as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelley K. Bacon Glen R. Googins Director of Human Resources City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 122 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDED COMPENSATION SUMMARY FOR ALL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REFLECT THE CHANGE TO THE VACATION SELLBACK OPTION FOR EXECUTIVE AND SENIOR MANAGERS FROM TWO WEEKS TO THREE WEEKS WHEREAS, the City has set forth the compensation for all unrepresented employees and elected officials as set forth in a Compensation Summary via prior resolution; and WHEREAS, due to the significant reductions taken at the Executive level, it has become more difficult to take time off and thus many are reaching their maximum accrual; and WHEREAS, changing the vacation sellback option would allow Executive and Senior Managers the opportunity to sell back an additional week and avoid losing vacation accruals; and WHEREAS, staff has analyzed the vacation balances of Senior and Executive Managers and has determined that allowing a greater sellback during the course of their employment could potentially prevent the very large payouts at retirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the amendments to the Compensation Summary for All Unrepresented Employees and Elected Officials to reflect the change to the vacation sellback option for Executive and Senior Managers from two weeks to three weeks. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelley K. Bacon Glen R. Googins Director of Human Resources City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 123 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO ADD POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, CHIEF OF STAFF, POLICY AIDE AND TREASURY AND BUSINESS MANAGER AND DELETE TREASURY MANAGER (FIRST READING) (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has created new classifications to better reflect the needs of the City's workforce and to provide greater service to the community; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista City Charter Section 500(a) requires that all new unclassified management level positions be adopted by ordinance and a four-fifths vote of the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section L That Section 2.05.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.05.10 Unclassified positions established. In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in Section 500 of the Charter of the City, there are established the unclassified positions entitled: Administrative Services Manager, Animal Care Facility Administrator, Animal Care Facility Manager, Assistant Chief of Police, Assistant Director of Development Services, Assistant Director of Engineering, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Assistant Director of Finance, Assistant Director of Public Works, Assistant Director of Recreation, Budget and Analysis Manager, Building Official/Code Enforcement Manager, California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) Deputy Executive Director, CBAG Director — IV LECC, CBAG Executive Director, Chief of Staff, Chief Service Officer, City Engineer, Constituent Services Manager, Deputy City Manager, Deputy Fire Chief, Development Services Department Director, Director of Conservation and Environmental Services, Director of Economic Development, Fire Division Chief, FA Accounting Technician, FA Administrative Analyst I, FA Administrative Analyst II, FA Analyst, FA Director of San Diego Law Enforcement Coordination Center, FA Executive Assistant, FA Geospatial Intelligence Analyst , FA Graphics Designer/Webmaster, FA Information Security Program Manager, FA Law Enforcement Coordination Center Information Technology Manager, FA Management Assistant, FA Microcomputer Specialist, FA Network Administrator I, FA Network Administrator II, FA Program Analyst, FA Program Manager, FA Public Safety Analyst, FA Network Engineer, FA Senior Public Safety Analyst, FA Senior Secretary, Finance Manager, Housing Manager, Human Resources Operations Manager, Information Technology Manager, Law Office Manager, Office Specialist (Mayor's Office), Performance and Organizational Development Manager, Planning Manager, Police Administrative Services Administrator, Police Captain, Policy Aide, Purchasing Agent, Real 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 124 Ordinance No. Page No. 2 Property Manager, Redevelopment and Housing Manager, Risk Manager, Senior Council Assistant, Traffic Engineer, Transit Coordinator, Transit Manager, and Tfeasffizy Manage Treasury and Business Manager. Section IL Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid,unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section III. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section IV. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelley K. Bacon Glen R. Googins Director of Human Resources City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 125 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0644, Item#: 8. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council accept the report. SUMMARY Transmitted herewith is the City's investment report for the quarter ended September 30, 2014. A separate information memo was distributed to the City Council in October to meet the reporting requirements set forth in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and the City of Chula Vista Investment Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" in accordance with Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only acceptance of the Quarterly Investment Report; therefore it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION The total cash and investment portfolio held by the City as of September 30, 2014 was $217,141,209. For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the earned interest yield was 0.68%, which is unchanged from the previous quarter. The weighted average maturity as of September 30, 2014 was 1 .69 years which is a decrease from the previous quarter's 1 .88 years and is within the Council Policy of less than 5.0 years. The weighted average maturity remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2 (a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 126 File#: 14-0644, Item#: 8. The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The investment portfolio supports the Operational Excellence goal as it seeks to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City's cash while contributing investment earnings to the bottom line. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Considering the projected timing of cash receipts and disbursements and the structure of the Pooled Investment Portfolio, the City should be able to comfortably meet overall cash flow needs over the next six months. There is no direct fiscal impact by this action. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact by this action. ATTACHMENTS Investment Report for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014 Staff Contact: Phillip Davis, Assistant Director, Finance Department City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 127 CITY OF CHULAV[STA Finance Department Investment Report for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014 November 18, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am pleased to present this report of investment activity for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 in compliance with the reporting requirements as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and the City of Chula Vista Investment Policy. The information presented in this report highlights the investment activity for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 as well as provides a comparison to the quarters ended September 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014. Market Overview The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) continues to maintain the key Fed Funds rate at a target range of 0.00% to 0.25% in hopes of stimulating the economy. Two-year Treasuries yielding 0.46% at the beginning of the quarter ended slightly higher at the end of the quarter at 0.59%. The overall consumer price index (CPI) rose 1.7% on a year-over-year basis, and the core CPI (excluding food and energy) also rose 1.7% increase year-over-year. The Federal Reserve continues to monitor these increases to ensure that inflation remains under control. Portfolio Composition The table below provides a summary of the City's total investment portfolio as of June 30, 2014. The Investment Portfolio ($190,813,695), Cash/Time Deposits ($26,646,089) and Bank Trustee/Fiduciary Funds ($66,052,519) continue to be invested in accordance with the Government Code, bond covenants and the Council Investment Policy as adopted on October 28, 2014. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 128 Investment Report Quarter ended 9/30/2014 Page 2 of 4 Summary of Cash and Investments as of September 30,2014 % of Investment Type Par Value Market Value Book Value Portfolio Investment Portfolio Federal Securities 110,885,000 110,210,546 111,003,375 39.18% Pooled Investments 76,928,695 76,935,318 76,928,695 27.15% Corporate Bonds 3,000,000 2,993,340 2,998,755 1.06% Subtotal 190,813,695 190,139,204 190,930,826 66.33% Cash/Time Deposits $26,327,514' $26,327,514 $26,327,514 9.29% Total Cash&Investments Held by the City $217,141,209 $216,466,718 $217,258,340 76.69% Held by Bank Trustee/Fiduciary Funds(1) U. S. Government 0 0' 0' 0.00% Investment Ag reeme nts 13,288,533 13,288,533 13,288,533 4.69% Mutual Funds ' 51,965,007 51,965,472' 51,965,007 18.34% Cash with Fiscal Agents 42,345 42,345 42,345 0.01% Restricted Cash 756,634 756,634 756,634 0.27% otal Held by Bank Trustee/Fiduciary Funds $66,052,519 $66,052,984 $66,052,519 23.31% Total Portfolio $283,193,729 $282,519,702 $283,310,859 100,00% (1)Reflects Mond proceeds held bytrustee in accordance with bond covenants. The graph below provides a snapshot of the portfolio composition by investment type for that portion of the portfolio not held by the bank trustee or in a fiduciary fund. Portfolio Composition as of September 30,2014 ($190.8M Total Par Value) US Government Agency US Treasuries 54.5% 3.6% Corporate Bonds 1.6% LAIF (State Pool) 19.1% CalTrust SD County Pool 0.5% 20.6% 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 129 Investment Report Quarter ended 9/30/2014 Page 3 of 4 Portfolio Performance The summary information provided below includes the total portfolio income recognized for the last quarter as compared to the prior quarter and the same quarter one year ago. Total Portfolio Income Recognized Accrual Basis September 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 September 30, 2013 Quarter-End Net Interest Earnings $ 325,768 $ 335,343 334,257 Net Gains (Losses) from Sales $ - $ - Net Total Income Recognized $ 325,768 $ 335,343 $ 334,257 Fiscal Year-to-Date Net Interest Earnings $ 325,768 $ 1,344,119 $ 334,257 Net Gains (Losses) from Sales $ $ $ Net Total Income Recognized $ 325,768 $ 1,344,119 $ 334,257 Investment Activity During the quarter, three investments totaling $10,000,000 were redeemed by the issuers prior to their maturity dates. Public Financial Management (PFM), the City's investment advisor, recommended the purchase of two U.S. Treasuries in August having a par value of $6,885,000. PFM also recommended the purchase of two corporate securities having a par value of $3,000,000 in September. The corporate bonds were issued by General Electric Corporation ($1.5 million) and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ($1.5 million). All investments were purchased in accordance with the City's Investment Policy guideline to ensure safety, liquidity and yield. There is no further activity to report on other than routine investments by the City's fiscal agents. Conclusion The total cash and investment portfolio held by the City as of September 30, 2014 was $217,141,209. For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the earned interest yield was 0.68%, which is unchanged from the previous quarter. The weighted average maturity as of September 30, 2014 is 1.69 years which is a decrease from the previous quarter's 1.88 years and is within the Council Policy of less than 5.0 years. The weighted average maturity remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. Considering the projected timing of cash receipts and disbursements and the structure of the Pooled Investment Portfolio, the City should be able to comfortably meet overall cash flow needs over the next six months. There is no direct fiscal impact by this action. I certify that this report reflects the City of Chula Vista and related agencies pooled investments and is in conformity with the State of California Government Code on authorized investments and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 130 Investment Report Quarter ended 9/30/2014 Page 4 of 4 with the Investment Policy of the City of Chula Vista as stated in Resolution No. 2014-191 dated October 28, 2014. Respectfully submitted, Maria Kachadoorian Deputy City Manager/Chief Financial Officer I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 131 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. CONSIDERATION OF UPDATING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA, AMENDING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BENEFIT AREA, AND ESTABLISHING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-220 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE NEXUS STUDY RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE TO THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND ACCEPTING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA UPDATING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA, AMENDING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BENEFIT AREA, ESTABLISHING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.55 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY The City's Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) Program was established on March 18, 2008, by Ordinances 3106 through 3110. This program is similar to the Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program, which was established on January 12, 1988. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the western portion of the City, these ordinances were required to be enacted by the City in order to continue to receive annual TransNet funds for local streets. Since this fee was established over five years ago, an update and revision is now due. In addition, it has been determined that the Bayfront, previously included in the WTDIF, should be removed from the WTDIF and a new DIF area covering only the Bayfront be established. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the activity is not a "Project"as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines because the activity consists of administrative/fiscal actions that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. Although environmental review is not required at this time, once the scope of potential individual projects has been fully defined, environmental review will be required for each project and the appropriate environmental determination will be made. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 132 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION New developments place demands on the existing transportation infrastructure, which can be mitigated by upgrading existing and/or constructing new transportation facilities. Chula Vista's original Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program, which was established on January 12, 1988, by Ordinance 2251 , has functioned as a system to distribute the cost of constructing certain infrastructure facilities in an equitable manner among new development in Eastern Chula Vista. The proceeds from the fee are used to construct new transportation improvements or expand existing facilities. The Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Program was established in 2008 in order provide a similar program to distribute the cost of infrastructure needed in order to accommodate new development in Western Chula Vista. The second reason to establish a Western TDIF was stated in the TransNet Ordinance approved by the San Diego County voters in November 2004, which states, "Any local agency that does not provide its full monetary contribution required by Section 9(A) in a given fiscal year will not be eligible to receive funding for local streets and roads...for the immediately following fiscal year." Starting on July 1 , 2008, each agency in the San Diego region was required to contribute a minimum of $2,000 in exactions (updated annually) from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). On July 1 , 2014, the amount was increased to $2,254. This ensures that future development contributes its proportionate share of funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System, as defined in SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan. The RTCIP requirement does not apply to the Eastern TDIF because it was established prior to the 2004 TransNet ordinance requirement. The Western TDIF must comply with the 2004 TransNet ordinance requirements. Basis and Methodology for the Establishment and Value of the Original WTDIF The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this update is consistent with the basis and methodology used in the "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Report" presented to City Council on March 4, 2008, and adopted on March 18, 2008, through passage of Ordinances Nos. 2008-3106 through 3110 (Attachment 1). One of the primary assumptions in the formulation of the original WTDIF is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development and the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development in proportion to the traffic generated by said development. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generation rates published by SANDAG for different land use categories were used to determine the trip generating characteristics on the transportation system. The first step in determining the original WTDIF was to determine the future growth-related traffic impacts from development west of I-805. Various approved City documents, such as the City's General Plan, the Urban Core Specific Plan, the 1991 Mid-Bayfront Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 133 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. and related traffic studies were used (collectively "City Documents"). Based on these impacts, a list of recommended road improvements from the Bayfront to 1-805 was generated. These improvements would need to be constructed in order to maintain an acceptable level of service, not to remedy any deficiencies already existing, on the City's circulation system west of 1-805. The improvements will serve the entire benefit area by either providing roads for residents, employees, or customers to use, or by providing new streets for existing traffic, thus freeing up capacity on existing streets that can be used by new development. The improvement locations were subdivided into the following categories: • Interstate 5 Improvements • Interstate 805 Improvements • State Route 54 Improvements • Regional Arterial System (RAS -as defined by SANDAL) Improvements • General Plan Impacts and Mitigation • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improvements • Mid-bayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways • Bayfront Roadways • Other Roadways (signalization projects) The next phase in the process involved calculating an impact fee to address the traffic impacts identified in the City Documents. The original WTDIF looked at associated costs for all eligible projects in Year 2007 dollars, the number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) and the corresponding Level of Service (LOS) for each affected street segment and intersection proposed for improvement. Anticipated traffic volumes for Year 2030 were retrieved from the City Documents and their impacts on existing infrastructure were analyzed to determine the impacts attributable solely to future development. This information establishes the nexus between future development and the need for future traffic-related improvements. The WTDIF fee is based on estimated trips for residential, commercial and industrial development. The City of Chula Vista, like other cities in San Diego County, uses the SANDAG Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region as the resource for specific land use trip generation. Trips were then converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) which are units of measure that standardize all land use types to the level of demand created by one single-family dwelling unit (SFDU). In 2008, it was also estimated that the western area of the City had a total of 19,914 future EDUs. Applicable costs for all eligible projects were summed up and divided by the number of remaining EDU's on the west side of the city. The initial baseline costs per EDU were determined to be $3,148.11 . To this sub-total, the WTDIF City administrative cost of 2% ($62.96/EDU) and a SANDAG administrative cost of 1% were added. The final fee was calculated at $3,243 per EDU. This fee has been collected and monitored separately for Regional facilities and local roadways. City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 134 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. Regional arterials comprise 78.92% or $2,559 of the total fee, while 21 .08% or $684 of the total fee remains for local roadways. The initial schedule of fees for the WTDIF is presented on Table 1 (Attachment 2). Land uses that are classified as Community Purpose Facilities are exempt from payment of the WTDIF. "Community Purpose Facility" means a facility which is used for social service activities, public or private schools, day care, senior care or recreation or worship and spiritual growth. The WTDIF program allows for the construction of eligible transportation projects by developers in lieu of paying the WTDIF at building permit issuance similar to the existing Eastern TDIF program. Any projects constructed by a developer would be audited and credits issued incrementally as the facility is constructed. The TransNet Ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2% or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, whichever is higher. The program collects an additional 2% of the total improvement cost estimate for City staff administration. Originally, it was also anticipated that an additional 1% would be collected for SANDAG administrative costs, particularly for the cost of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) annual audits. Changes Since 2008 There have been several changes that affect the WTDIF since it was originally established in March 2008. City staff had never been invoiced for the 1% administrative fee by SANDAL. Staff was subsequently informed by SANDAG in a letter dated December 15, 2010, that this fee would not be collected. The City subsequently went to Council on October 25, 2011 , and November 15, 2011 , to enact Ordinance No. 3214, which deleted the 1% SANDAG fee from the WTDIF rates. City staff has also processed refunds of the 1% administration fee to all permit holders who had paid it. The WTDIF fee has been increased every year on July 1 . Ordinances 2008-3106 through 2008-3110 provided that the fee be adjusted by either the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index or 2%, whichever is higher. During Fiscal Year 2011-12, the Caltrans Index increased by 9.38%. The SANDAG Ordinance allows flexibility in choosing a comparable index, and SANDAG staff felt that a 2% increase, which reflected the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Index of 1 .93%, more accurately reflected the actual change in regional construction costs. Subsequently, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2012-3246 on December 11 , 2012 (Attachment 3). The new ordinance allows the City to use the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, the ENR 20 -City Index (Los Angeles) or an index of at least 2 %. Annual adjustment of the fee shall be automatic in accordance with action taken by the SANDAG Board of Directors. The WTDIF may also be reviewed and amended by City Council as necessary. The most recent increase on July 1 , 2013, increased the WTDIF fee to $3,546 per EDU. The entire City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 135 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. schedule of fees is shown on Attachment 4. The minimum portion of this that must be allocated to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) is $2,208 per EDU. Although the fee was not increased in July 2014, the required RAS allocation was increased to $2,254 on July 1 , 2014. Since the establishment of the WTDIF, two documents relating to the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities were completed and approved by Council. This includes the City's first Pedestrian Master Plan, which was approved by Council on June 22, 2010. The revised Bikeway Master Plan was approved by Council on February 1, 2011 . The priority projects identified in these two reports were reviewed to identify those projects that were within the area covered by the original Western TDIF and located on Regional Arterials. Four new or amended projects were added from these documents. Establishing a Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) Since the establishment of the WTDIF, all properties to the west of the I-805 freeway have been included in the program. With the exception of the Bayfront area's new master plan, most of the development in western Chula Vista is infill development. Since most of the infrastructure has already been constructed, those WTDIF facilities unrelated to the Bayfront consist of expanding existing infrastructure and adding new and modified traffic signals. The Bayfront facilities are significantly different, because they will serve new large developments on predominantly vacant land. The infrastructure includes completely new streets and new traffic signals. Due to the large amount of new infrastructure needed on the Bayfront, it could be perceived as disproportionate for the developers in the largely developed area between the I-5 and the I-805 to be required to pay for the entire infrastructure needed in the Bayfront area. In light of this and with the agreement of the Bayfront developers, it was determined that a separate DIF should be established for the Bayfront area. To establish a Bayfront DIF (BFDIF) requires the existing WTIDF area be divided into two separate areas, as shown on the attached map (Attachment 5). The BFDIF area roughly includes the area west of I-5 between E Street and Naples Street. A Nexus Study has been prepared for the establishment of the BFDIF (Attachment 6). This study considers the new development being proposed for the Bayfront area (a total of 7,248 new Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). This number of EDUs excludes public facilities as they are not charged development impact fees. The Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (CVBMP EIR), dated April 2010, presents a detailed traffic analysis of the impacts to be generated by the new development. This analysis determined that certain transportation-related facilities are required solely because of the impacts from Bayfront development (Bayfront Roadways). Other facilities, such as those identified along the I-5 freeway, the Bayshore Bikeway, and Regional Arterial System Projects are required due to impacts from both the area of the original WTDIF east of the I-5 and the Bayfront (Shared Facilities). These costs of these Shared Facilities are required to be City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 136 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. divided between the two areas based on the relative impacts from those areas. The final spreadsheet in the BFDIF Nexus Study is attached to the Agenda Statement (Attachment 7). It includes project costs from the original WTDIF (Original Project Costs), those costs escalated to July 2014 dollars, and the portion of those costs that are attributable to Bayfront impacts. In addition to the projects identified in the original WTDIF, the CVBMP EIR identified need for additional projects that would be required to fully mitigate the impacts from development within the Bayfront. Some of these additional projects are regional projects, while others are local. The total cost of improvements attributable to Bayfront (i.e. Bayfront share of Original Project Costs and costs of the additional projects) is $68,438,679.98. The rate per EDU is $9,442. Updating Western Transportation Development Impact Fee The calculation of the updated Western TDIF began with the list of projects included in the initial 2008 report. The Mid-Bayfront category was eliminated, as it will now be included in the BFDIF. Some projects included in the 2008 report have been eliminated, because they have been completed or other funding sources have been identified. A new evaluation was done on the number of EDUs to be developed in the Western area. The number of EDUs identified in the 2008 report was 19,914. From this number, those EDUs attributed to the Bayfront were deducted. In addition, it was determined by City staff that the development in the WTDIF area would not reach the original estimate of 12,666 EDUs, but instead would be 10,365 (a reduction of 2,301 EDUs). The decrease in the number of EDUs is attributed to the use of a more realistic growth potential in the Western area. A Nexus Study was prepared to amend and update the WTDIF (Attachment 8). The final spreadsheet in the Nexus Study is also attached (Attachment 9). It includes the original project costs, costs escalated to July 2014, the WTDIF share (i.e. deducting the BFDIF share), and existing and projected traffic conditions. Additionally, specific references to traffic impacts discussed in the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) or traffic monitoring that was perfomed as directed by the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) are provided. The total cost of improvements attributable to growth in the WTDIF area is $40,597,039.50. The fund balance in this account is $96,406.01 . Therefore, the total amount which will need to be financed by future fees is $40,500,633.49. This cost includes both local and the WTDIF share of regional projects. The total proposed rate is $3,907 per EDU. This also includes the 2 percent administrative fee, which is applied to hard costs only. If compared to the WTDIF amount of $3,617 which would have been otherwise effective on July 1, 2014, this is a total increase of $290, or approximately 8.0 percent. Since this rate did not take effect on July 1 , 2014, the current rate is $3,546 per EDU. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 137 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subjects of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Western transportation Development Impact Fee supports the Strong and Secure Neighborhood strategy. The western TDIF finances the construction and upgrading of public infrastructure, which is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient roadway system for residents, businesses and visitors. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct impact on the General Fund from approving the proposed resolution and ordinance. All staff costs associated with preparation of this action are borne by the administrative components of the BFDIF and WTDIF programs. Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) Adoption of the proposed ordinance increases the WTDIF from $3,546 to $3,907 per EDU. This is an increase of approximately 10.2 percent (or $361). This rate increase will generate additional revenue for the WTDIF fund of $361 per EDU. Actual fiscal impact to the WTDIF fund will vary based on the number of building permits issued within the WTDIF program boundaries. Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) Adoption of the proposed ordinance establishes the new BFDIF fee program, at a rate of $9,442 per EDU. Actual fiscal impact to the BFDIF fund will vary based on the number of building permits issued within the BFDIF program boundaries. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The proposed WTDIF fee increase and the new BFDIF fee provide funding to construct the new and expanded transportation facilities needed in order to accommodate new development in western Chula Vista. After subtracting out the current fund balance of $96,406.01 , the future WTDIF program cost of $40,500,633.49, when spread over the remaining 10,365 EDUs generates the proposed WTDIF rate of$3,907. The future BFDIF program cost of$68,438,679.98, when spread over the remaining 7,248 EDUs, generates the proposed BFDIF rate of$9,442. The facilities constructed under this fee program will result in routine maintenance. Attachments: 1 . Ordinance 2008-3106 2. 2008 WTDIF Schedule of Fees 3. Ordinance 2012-3246 4. 2013 WTDIF Schedule of Fees 5. WTDIF/BFDIF Map 6. BFDIF 2014 Nexus Study City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 138 File#: 14-0231, Item#: 9. 7. BFDIF Cost Calculations 8. WTDIF Nexus Study 9. WTDIF Cost Calculations Staff Contact: Elizabeth Chopp City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 139 ORDINANCE NO. 3106 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT (TF-358) PREPARED BY STAFF AND ESTABLISHING A WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA EXCLUDING PROJECTS - I-5-17, STM-361, RAS-15, BP-5, 1-805-2, RAS-l7, BP-4, BP-2, AND OR-4 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of I-805; and WHEREAS, the traffic studies for the City's General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan show the City's transportation network will be impacted by new development within the western portion of the City unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development, and WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the financing of street improvements in the area east of 1-805; and WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report establishes that the transportation facilities necessitated by development within the western portion of the City comprise an integrated network; and WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee is solely based upon that portion of the project costs which are attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee could be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 66000, et. seq., the City Council has accepted a report entitled "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" (Engineer's Report) dated February 2008 that analyzed the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee necessary to fund transportation facilities needed to serve future development within the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 140 Ordinance 3106 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista is placing this ordinance on its first reading which will establish a development impact fee per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to finance transportation facilities within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its second reading. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to . transportation development impact fees to pay for various transportation facilities located on the west side of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" dated February 2008, that the creation of a transportation development impact fee is necessary in order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west of I-805; and The City Council finds that new development within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the construction of transportation facilities; and The City Council finds, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, and consistent with the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of traffic impact fees on all development within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing for the public transportation facilities to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council finds that the amount of the proposed fees levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the transportation facilities. SECTION 2: Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby adopted and shall read as follows: 3.55.010 General intent. The City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element requires that adequate public facilities be available to accommodate increased population created by new development within the City of Chula Vista. The City Council has determined that new development will create adverse impacts on the City's existing public transportation facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public transportation facilities which are the subject of this chapter. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 141 Ordinance 3106 Page 3 New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular traffic and population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development. The City Council has determined that a reasonable means of financing the public transportation facilities is to charge a fee on all developments within the western portion of the City. Imposition of the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee on all new development for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, thereby ensuring effective implementation of the City's General Plan. 3.55.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined herein, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. A. `Building permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. B. "City Engineer" means the City Engineer, the City Engineer's designee or the City Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map or as determined by the City Manager's designee. D. "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. E. "Development permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. F. "Development project" or"development" means any activity described as the following: 1. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land; 2. Any new commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on non-vacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(1) and (2) of this section, if the result is a net increase in dwelling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 4. Any new or expanding special land use project; 5. Any special purpose project developed on vacant land or non-vacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 6. Any other development project not listed above but described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. "Community purpose facility" means a facility which serves one of the following purposes: 1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools-, 4. Day care; 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 142 Ordinance 3106 Page 4 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. G. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista" generally means that area of the City located between the City boundary on the west, Interstate 805 on the east, the City boundary on the north and the City's boundary on the south, as shown on the map entitled "Figure I" of the Engineering study. H. "Engineering study" and "Engineer's Report" means the Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee dated February, 2008 and prepared by City staff on file in the Office of the City Clerk. I. "Regional Arterial System" (RAS) RAS roadways are generally described as those facilities that act as a critical link in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan J. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non- commercial/office or non-industrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. K. "Special purpose project' means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). _3.55.030 Public transportation facilities to be financed by the fee. A. The public transportation facilities (facilities) which are the subject matter of the fee, are listed below as detailed in subsection C of this section and in the Engineer's Report on file in the Office of the City Clerk. B. The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects in order to maintain compliance with the circulation element of the City's General Plan. C. The facilities are as follows: 1. (1-5-1) I-51E Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane 2. (1-5-2) I-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp re-striping add lane 3. (I-5-3) I-5/NB ramp widening at E, H, 3, Ind., Palomar& Main Sts 4. (I-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 5. (I-5-5) F Street bridge widening over I-5 6. (1-5-6) I-5/H Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane 7. (I-5-7) I-5/H Street SB off-ramp re-striping add lane 8. (1-5-8) H Street bridge widening over I-5 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 143 Ordinance 3106 Page 5 9. (1-5-9) 1-5/3 Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane 10. (I-5-10) I-5/7 Street under-crossing widening add EB-NB 11. (I-5-11) L Street bridge widening over I-5 (S/W for peels) 12. (1-5-12) I-5/Bay Blvd (south of L St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (I-5-13) 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening 15. (1-5-15) I-5/Main Street NB on/off ramps traffic signal 16. (1-5-16) 1-5/Main Street bridge widening Interstate-805 Improvements 17. (I-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (Project I-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) State Route 54 Improvements 18. (SR-54-1) SR-54 WB off-ramp re-stripe at Broadway 19. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue - add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 20. (RAS-1) Bonita Road from First Avenue to I-805 21. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 22. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower St 23. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, I-5 to 300' east of NB ramp 24. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 25. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 26. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 27. (RAS-8) H Street 14'-wide median & street light improvements 28. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 144 Ordinance 3106 Page 6 29. (RAS-10) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 30. (RAS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to I-805 31. (RAS-12) L Street/Bay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes 32. (RAS-13) L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd 33. (RAS-14) Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk 34. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to I-805 35. (RAS-18) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes 36. (RAS-19) H StAth Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes General Plan Impacts and Mitigations 37. (GP-1) E. St. from Marina Parkway to I-5 38. (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E St. to J St. 39. (GP-3) L St. from Hilltop Drive to 1-805 40. Parkway (GP-4) Main St. from 1-5 to Broadway 41. (GP-5) Main St. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. 42. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L St. to Palomar St. 43. (GP-7) H St. from Marina Parkway to 1-5 44. (GP-8) J St. from Marina Parkway to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21% WTDIF share per GPU) 45. (BP-1) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 46. (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main Street 47. (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 48. (Mid-1) E Street re-stripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 on-ramp. 49. (Mid-2) I-5/E St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane 50. (Mid-3) Bay Blvd 15' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E St. approach for 1 SB/3NB 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 145 Ordinance 3106 Page 7 51. (Mid-4) 1-5/E St. NB widen off-ramp to add 3rd lane for Right Turn only lane 52. (Mid-5) E St revisions to median and North Curb Line east of 1-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 53. (Mid-6) Marina Parkway 4-lane from E St. to J St. 54. (Mid-7) E St./Woodlawn Ave EB-SB RT lane plus a Traffic Signal 55. (Mid-8) E St. at Broadway add WB & EB LT lane + WB & EB RT only lane plus a Traffic Signal &No R/W costs. 56. (Mid-9) F St/Broadway re-striping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane 57. (Mid-10) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. Other Roadways 58. (OR-1)N. 4" Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 59. (OR-2) Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation 3.55.040 Territory to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista (territory) as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 Establishment of a fee. A development impact fee (fee) is hereby established to pay for the facilities within the territory. The fee shall be paid upon the issuance of building permits for each development project within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. The WTDiF fee in the amounts set forth in CVMC 3.55.030 is hereby established to pay for transportation improvements and facilities within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. 3.55.060 Determination of fees by land use category_ A. For purposes of this fee, single-family dwelling units shall include single-family detached homes and detached condominiums; multifamily dwelling units shall include attached condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments. The density of the development type shall be based on the number of dwelling units per gross acre for single-family or multifamily residential and shall be based upon the densities identified on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map entitling the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager's designee. B. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 146 Ordinance 3106 Page 8 this fee, gross acreage and/or square footage as it applies to the commercial, industrial and office development types, means all land area that the City Manager's designee deems necessary within the boundary of the parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are being requested. C. The fee multiplied by the total number of dwelling units, square footage or acres within a given development project represents a developer's fair share ("fair share") for that development project. 3.55.070 Time to determine amount due. The fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time, and not when the tentative map or final map were granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. No building permit shall be issued unless the development impact fee is paid. The fees shall be deposited into a WTDIF fund, which is hereby created, and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the fund for the various improvements and facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make expenditures from the fund for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the City Council. The City Council finds that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 3.55.080 Purpose and use of fee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined by the City Council: I. To pay for the construction of facilities by the City, or to reimburse the City for facilities installed by the City with funds from other sources. 2. To reimburse developers who have been required by CVMC3.55.150 A to install improvements that are major streets and are listed in CVMC 3.55.030. 3. To reimburse developers who have been permitted to install improvements pursuant to CVMC 3.55.150 B. 3.55.090 Amount of fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. The fee shall be adjusted on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2 % or based on Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. The program collects 2% of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration and an additional 1% for SANDAG Administrative costs. B. Adjustments of the fee based upon the annual inflation adjustment or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index shall be automatic and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIF may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Table I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 147 Ordinance 3106 Page 9 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: $3,243.00 Land Use Classification EDUS TDIF:Rase RESIDENTIAL Residential LOW 0-6 dwelling units per acre 1 per EDU $3,243/DU Residential(MED) 6.1 To 20 dwelling units per acre .8 per EDU $2,594/DU Residential HIGH Over 20 dwelling units Rer acre .6 per EDU $1,946/DU Mobile Home .5 per EDU $1,622/DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept. stores&usually have more than 50 tenants. Typically larger than 40 Regional Commercial acres. 20 EDU/Acre $64,860 /Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior Dept. Store or variety Store,(i.e. Target Center with other commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Community Commercial Smaller in size 8-20 acres. 28 EDU/Acre $90 804/Acre Less than 10 acres.Includes supermarket and Neighborhood Commercial drug store. May include offices aces. 48 EDU/Acre $155 6641Acre Neighborhood Commercial Same as above but in Square Footage_ 4.8 EDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Commercial activities found along major streets,not in a planned center with limited on- Street Front Commercial site parking. 16 EDU/Acre $51,888/Acre Retail Commercial Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 16 EDU/Acre $51,888/KSF Usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of the parcel. Examples are clothing and Wholesale Trade suppd also includes swa meet areas. 24 EDU/Acre $77,832/Acre OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+Stories 60 EDU/Acre 5194,580/Acre Low Rise Office <6 Stories 30 EDU/Acre $97,290/Acre Low Rise Office(in thousands<6 Stories of square feet) 2 EDUIKSF $6,486/KSF Medical Office Medical and Dental Facilities 50 EDU/Acre $162,150/Acre LODGING Low Rise Hotel/Motel <4 Stories 20 EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel <4 Stories I EDU/Room $3 243/Room High Rise Hotel >°4 Stories 30/EDU/Acre $97 290/Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding,airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually located next to transportation facilities and commercial areas. Heavy Industry Parcels are typically 20-50 Acre. 12 EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Usually large buildings located near freeways, Warehouse/Storage industrial or strip commercial areas. 6 EDU/Acre $19,458/Acre Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high percentages of other uses in service or Industrial Park Iretail activities. 9 EDU/Acre $29,187/Acre All other industrial uses and manufacturing Light Industrial not included in categories above. 20 EDU/Acre $64 860/Acre 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 148 Ordinance 3106 Page 10 3.55.100 Development projects exempt from the fee. A. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of the fee if those projects are designed to provide the public service for which the agency is charged (public purpose). B. Community purpose facilities which are not operated for profit (nonprofit community purpose facilities) are also exempt inasmuch as these institutions provide benefit to the community as a whole, including all land use categories which are the subject matter of the fee. The City Council hereby determines that it is appropriate to spread any impact such nonprofit community purpose facilities might have to the other land use categories subject to the fee. In the event that a court determines that the exemption herein extended to community purpose facilities shall for any reason be invalid, the City Council hereby allocates the nonprofit community purpose facilities' fair share to the City of Chula Vista and not to any of the land use categories which are the subject matter of the development impact land use categories. C. Development projects which are additions or expansions to existing dwelling units or businesses, except special land use projects, shall be exempt if the addition or expansion does not result in a net increase in dwelling units or commercial/industrial acreage. 3.55.110 Authority for accounting and expenditures. A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee financing fund (WTDIF fee fund, or fund), which is hereby created and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. B. The director of finance is authorized to establish a single fund for the various facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make expenditures from the fund for the purposes set forth herein. 3.55.120 Findings. The City Council finds that: A. Collection of the fee established by this chapter at the time of the building permit issuance is necessary to provide funds for the transportation facilities identified in CVMC 3.55.030 and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public transportation facilities; and B. The purpose of the Fees hereby enacted prevents new development from reducing the quality and availability of public transportation infrastructure facilities provided to residents of the City by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of additional capital transportation infrastructure improvements needed to meet the growth generated by such development; and C. The revenue from the fees hereby enacted will be used to construct public facilities and infrastructure and pay for other capital expenditures needed to serve new development as identified in the Engineer's Report dated February, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between 1. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 149 Ordinance 3106 Page 11 3. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and charees. This fee is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments 3.55.150 Developer construction of transportation facilities. A. Whenever a developer of a development project would be required by application of City law or policy, as a condition of approval of a development permit to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in Section 3.55.030 the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. If such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer, or give a credit against the fee otherwise levied by this chapter on the development project, or some combination thereof. B. Whenever a developer requests reimbursement, or a credit against fees, for work to be done or paid for by the developer under subsection (A) of this section, the request shall be submitted in writing to the City Manager's designee. 1. The request shall contain a description of the project with a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction attributable to the transportation facility project and excludes any work attributable to a specific subdivision project. The estimate is preliminary and the amount of reimbursement or credit against fees is subject to final determination by the City Manager's designee. Additional information shall be provided to the City by the developer upon request of the City. 2. Such reimbursement or credit against fees shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Requirements of Developer. i. Preparation of plans and specifications for approval by the City; ii. Secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the transportation facility proj ect; iii. Secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for the transportation facility project; iv. Provision of performance bonds (where the developer intends to utilize provisions for immediate credit, the performance bond shall be for 100 percent of the value of the transportation facility project); v. Payment of all City fees and costs. b. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the transportation facility project. The developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 150 Ordinance 3106 Page 12 related work and award one construction contract for the combined work based on a clearly identified process for determining the low bidder, all as approved by the City Manager's designee. Should the construction contract be awarded to a qualified bidder who did not submit the lowest bid for the transportation facility project portion of the contract, the developer will only receive transportation development impact fee credit based on the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2)(a) of this section as determined by the City and upon approval of the estimated cost by the City Manager's designee, the developer shall be entitled to immediate credit for 50 percent of the estimated cost of the construction attributable to the transportation facility project. Once the developer has received valid bids for the project which comply with subsection (B)(2)(c) of this section, entered into binding contracts for the construction of the project, and met the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) and (13)(2)(a) of this section as determined by the City, all of which have been approved by the City Manager's designee, the amount of the immediate credit shall be increased to 75 percent of the bid amount attributable to the transportation facility project. The immediate credits shall be applied to the developer's obligation to pay transportation development impact fees for building permits issued after the establishment of the credit. The developer shall specify these building permits to which the credit is to be applied at the time the developer submits the building permit applications. e. If the developer uses all of the immediate credit before final completion of the transportation facility project, then the developer may defer payment of development impact fees for other building permits by providing to the City liquid security such as cash or an irrevocable letter of credit, but not bonds or set-aside letters, in an amount equal to the remaining amount of the estimated cost of the transportation facility project. £ When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall submit verification of payments made for the construction of the transportation facility project to the City. The City Manager's designee shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. g. After final determination of eligible expenditures has been made by the City Manager's designee and the developer has complied with the conditions set forth in subsection (B) of this section, the final amount of transportation development impact fee credits shall be determined by the City Manager's designee. The developer shall receive credit against the deferred fee obligation in an amount equal to the difference between the final expenditure determination and the amount of the 75 percent immediate credit used, if any. The City shall notify the developer of the final deferred fee obligation, and of the amount of the applicable credit. If the amount of the applicable credit is less than the deferred fee obligation, then the developer shall have 30 days to pay the deferred fee. If the deferred fees are not paid within the 30-day period, the City may make a demand against the liquid security and apply the proceeds to the fee obligation. h. At the time building permits are issued for the developer's project, the City will incrementally apply credit which the developer has accrued in lieu of collecting the 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 151 Ordinance 3106 Page 13 required transportation development impact fees. The amount of the credit to be applied to each building permit shall be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit issuance. The City Manager's designee shall convert such credit to an EDU basis for residential development and/or a gross acre basis for commercial or industrial development for purposes of determining the amount of credit to be applied to each building permit. i. if the total eligible construction cost for the transportation facility project is more than the total transportation development impact fees which will be required for the developer's project, then the amount in excess of development impact fees will be paid in cash when funds are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will be executed; or the developer may waive reimbursement and use the excess as credit against future transportation development impact fee obligations. The City may, in its discretion, enter into an agreement with the developer to convert excess credit into EDU and/or gross acre credits for use against future development impact fee obligations at the fee rate in effect on the date of the agreement. j. The requirements of this subsection (B) of this section may, in the City's discretion, be modified through an agreement between the developer and the City and approved by City Council. C. Whenever a transportation development impact fee credit is generated by constructing a transportation facility using assessment district or community facilities district financing, the credit shall only be applied to the transportation development impact fee obligations within that district. 3.55.160 Procedure for fee waiver or reduction. A. Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the fee imposed by this chapter is unconstitutional, or unrelated to mitigation of the traffic needs or burdens of the development, may apply to the City Council for a waiver, reduction, or deferral of the fee. A development which is designed and intended as a temporary use (10 years or less) and which is conducted in facilities which are, by their nature, short-term interim facilities such as a portable or modular building (including mobile homes, trailers, etc.) may qualify for a waiver, reduction, or deferral. In addition, a deferral may be granted on the basis of demonstrated economic hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market rate so as to constitute an approximate value equivalent to a cash payment; and (3) the amount deferred is adequately secured by agreement with the applicant. Unless the requirement for timely filing is waived by the City, the application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than 10 days after notice of the public hearing on the development permit application or the project is given, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 152 Ordinance 3106 Page 14 building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or reduction. B. The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing on same, notice of which need not be published other than by description on the agenda of the meeting at which the public hearing is held. Said public hearing should be held within 60 days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a deferral, reduction or waiver is granted, it should be granted pursuant to an agreement with the applicant, and the property owner, if different from the applicant, providing that any change in use within the project shall subject the development to payment of the full fee. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Assessment districts. If any assessment or special taxing district is established for any or all of the facilities listed in Section 3.55.030 the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for a credit against the fee in an amount equal to the development's attributable portion of the cost of the authorized improvements as determined by the City Manager's designee, plus incidental costs normally occurring with a construction project, but excluding costs associated with assessment district proceedings or financing. 3.55.180 Economic incentive credit. The City Council may authorize the City to participate in the financing of transportation facility projects or portions of transportation facility projects as defined in Section 3.55.030 at the time of the appropriation of funds by City Council for the construction of an eligible transportation facility, the City shall be eligible to receive a credit known hereafter as an economic incentive credit. Such economic incentive credit may be applied to development impact fee obligations for those projects which the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, to be beneficial to the City. The use of the economic incentive credit may be subject to conditions which shall be set forth in a written agreement between the developer of the project and the City and approved by City Council. The City may receive economic incentive credit only for those eligible projects identified in Section 3.55.030 for amounts of funding not identified in the financial and engineering study "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" report dated February 2008. 3.55.190 Fund loans. A. Loans by the City. The City may loan funds to the fund to pay for facilities should the fund have insufficient funds to cover the cost of said facility. Said loans, if granted, shall be approved upon the adoption of the annual City budget or upon resolution of the City Council and shall carry interest rates as set by the City Council 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 153 Ordinance 3106 Page 15 for each fiscal year. A schedule for repayment of said loans shall be established at the time they are made and approved by the Council, with a maximum term not to exceed the life of the fund. B. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. The City may repay said developer loans with interest, under the terms listed in subsection (A) of this section. 3.55.200 Effective date. This chapter shall become effective May 17, 2008. SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by tG n Ann Moore nee g and General Services Director City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 154 Ordinance 3106 Page 16 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 18th day of March 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers- Castaneda, Ramirez, Rindone, and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: McCann ABSENT: Councilmembers: None n �4 Cheryl Co or ATTEST: Donna R. Norri , CM , nterim City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) 1, Donna R. Norris, Interim City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 3106 had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of March 2008 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of March 2008; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the City Charter. Executed this 18th day of March 2008. a Donna R. Norris, CMC, nterim City Clerk 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 155 ATTACHMENT TABLE I PROPOSED WESTERN TDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION(2008) Proposed Western TDIF Fee per EDU: $3,243 Land Use Classification EDUs TDIF Rate RESIDENTIAL Residential (LOW) 1-6 dwelling units per 1per EDU $3,243per DU acre Residential (MED) 7 to 20 dwelling units per .8per EDU per DU acre $2,594 Residential (HIGH) Over 20 dwelling units .6per EDU per DU per acre $1,946 Mobile Home .5per EDU $1,622per DU COMMERCIAL Regional Commercial 19EDU/Acre $61,617/Acre Community Commercial 26EDU/Acre $84,318/Acre Neighborhood Commercial 45EDU/Acre $145,935/Acre Neighborhood Commercial 5EDU/KSF $16,215/KSF Street Front Commercial 15EDU/Acre $48,645/Acre Retail Commercial 15EDU/KSF $48,645/Acre Wholesale Trade 22EDU/Acre $71,346/Acre OFFICE igh Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. 60EDU/Acre $194,580 and 6+ Stories /Acre Low Rise Office(in Acreage) < 6 Stories 30EDU/Acre $97,290/Acre Low Rise Office(in Square < 6 Stories 2EDU/KSF $6,486/KSF Footage) Medical Office Medical and Dental 50EDU/ACRE $162,150Acre Facilities LODGING Low Rise Hotel/Motel(in < 4 Stories 20EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre Acreage) Low Rise Hotel or Motel(in < 4 Stories 1.OEDU/Room $3,243/RM umber of rooms) igh Rise Hotel >4 Stories 30/EDU/Acre $97,290/Acre INDUSTRY Heavy Industry 12EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Warehouse/Storage 6EDU/Acre $19,458/Acre Industrial Park 9EDU/Acre $29,187/Acre Light Industrial 20EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre SF=Thousands of Square Feet 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 156 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 157 ORDINANCE NO. 3246 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.55.090 FOR THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE'S ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT INDEX METHODOLOGY WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the traffic studies for the City's General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan show the City's transportation network will be impacted by new development within the western portion of the City unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development; and WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a program in place for the collection of transportation development impact fees for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" (Engineer's Report) Program adopted on March 4, 2008, by Ordinances No. 3106 through 3110 establishes that the transportation facilities necessitated by development within the western portion of the City comprise an integrated network; and WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) is solely based upon that portion of the project costs which are attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the WTDIF could be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq., the City Council has accepted the Engineer's Report that analyzed the WTDIF necessary to fund transportation facilities needed to serve future development within the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the WTDIF Program is subject to an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, whichever is higher, effective every July I st; and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance requires the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to annually adjust the minimum Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee amount on July 1st of each year, based on an analysis of construction cost indices, but never less than 2%; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 158 Ordinance No. 3246 Page No. 2 WHEREAS, SANDAG has stated that the TransNet Extension Ordinance allows for flexibility in choosing an appropriate index; and WHEREAS, SANDAG staff evaluation of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20-City Average has increased 1.93% while the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index has increased 9.38%, but on February 24, 2012, the SANDAG Board of Directors has approved a recommendation that all RTCIP, an element of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, approve an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2%, which is the minimum inflation adjustment increase allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2012 the WTDIF program was required to implement the higher annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, which is at 9.38%; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista would like to amend the WTDIF annual inflation adjustment factor to be more consistent with the flexibility allowed in the TransNet Extension Ordinance and concurs with the action taken by the SANDAG Board of Directors that the ENR 20-City Average inflation adjustment factor of 1.93% for the year better represents the costs on local agencies and Chula Vista also concurs with the 2% minimum increase as required by the TransNet Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, City Council must take action to amend the Municipal Code to amend the annual construction inflation adjustment factor to be used as long as it is at least a 2% increase and as such would defer to the annual action taken by the SANDAG Board of Directors to choose the most appropriate inflation factor to use for the City of Chula Vista's WTDIF program. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Section's 3.55.090 A and B of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to transportation development impact fees to pay for various transportation facilities located on the west side of the City as follows: 3.55.090 Amount of fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. The fee shall be adjusted on July 1 st of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be two percent or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, or Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Average, or an increase of at least two percent. The program collects two percent of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration. B. Adjustments of the fee based upon the annual inflation adjustment or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, the ENR 20-City Average or an increase that is at least 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 159 Ordinance No. 3246 Page No. 3 two percent shall be automatic in accordance with annual action taken by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIF may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Section II. Effective Date This Ordinance amendment shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section III. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by R' and A. Hopk' len R. gins Director of Public Works ey 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 160 Ordinance No. 3246 Page No. 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California,this 11 th day of December 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Cheryl Cox, M or ATTEST: A&" K "4�/�-� Donna R. Norris, CMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Donna R. Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 3246 had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of December 2012 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 11th day of December 2012; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the City Charter. D �a D ed Donna R. Norris, CMC, City Clerk 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 161 ATTACHMENT 4 NOTICE OF UPDATED FEES The Western Transportation Development Impact Fee is subject to an annual automatic rate increase, as determined by a given published index. These fees are updated in July of each year. ■ WESTERN TRANSPORTATIONDEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(WTDIF) Development Type Current Fee Fee Effective 07/01/13 Low Density Residential (per DU) $3,476 $3,546 Medium Density Residential (per DU) $2,781 $2,836 High Density Residential (per DU) $2,086 $2,127 Mobile Home (per DU) $1,736 $1,773 Regional Commercial (per Acre) $69,523 $70,910 Community Commercial (per Acre $97,332 $99,275 Neighborhood Commercial (per Acre) $166,856 $170,185 Neighborhood Commercial (per KSF) $16,686 $17,018 Street Front Commercial (per Acre) $55.619 $56,728 Retail Commercial (per Acre) $55,619 $56,728 Wholesale Trade (per Acre) $83,428 $85,092 High Rise Office (per Acre) $208,570 $212,731 Low Rise Office (per Acre) $104,285 $106,366 Low Rise Office (per KSF) $6,952 $7,091 Medical Office (per Acre) $173,808 $177,276 Low Rise Hotel/Motel (per Acre) $69,523 $70,910 Low Rise Hotel/Motel (per Room) $3,476 $3,546 High Rise Hotel (per Acre) $104,285 $106,366 Heavy Industry (per Acre) $41,714 $42,546 Warehouse/Storage (per Acre) $20,857 $21,273 Industrial Park(per Acre) $31,285 $31,910 Light Industrial (per Acre) $69,523 $70,910 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 162 wM II U) Aeg o6e14 ueS =xi ' tit+ IL IL IL - w- tip;; 4, - • - .. i yr 0 0 1 IMMIMMIFIl EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista has prepared this Engineer's Report (report) to analyze the impacts of development on certain transportation facilities located west of Interstate 1-5 and to calculate development impact fees for those facilities in the Bayfront project area of Chula Vista. This report represents the 2014 Chula Vista Bayfront Area Transportation Development Impact Fee Program for Streets, also known as the Bayfront Transportation DIF, or "BFDIF". The report includes a discussion of the rationale behind development of these impact fees, an analysis of the proposed fee program, the Average Daily Trip (ADT) rate assignments for each land use and associated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) and the transportation facility projects to be funded by future Bayfront development in accordance with this fee program. The methods used in the report to calculate fees satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution and California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the "California Mitigation Fee Act", "Mitigation Fee Act" or "Act"). The Bayfront area was originally included as part of the Western Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) area. This area included the portion of Chula Vista west of 1-805 to the San Diego Bay. The WTDIF Program was originally established on March 18, 2008 by Ordinances 3106 through 3110. This program was intended to be similar to the Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program, which was established on January 12, 1988. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the western portion of the City, these ordinances were required to be acknowledged by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) in order to continue to receive annual Transnet funds for local streets. Since the establishment of the WTDIF fee in 2008, the main change in western Chula Vista has been the completion and certification of the Bayfront planning process. In April 2010, the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed. This document was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on May 10, 2010. This document includes estimates of new Equivalent Dwelling Units planned in the Bayfront development area, traffic to be generated, significant impacts caused and proposed mitigation measures. These documents make it clear that the traffic impacts caused by the Bayfront development as noted in the CVBMP EIR, are significantly different than the impacts caused by development in the rest of western Chula Vista. For this reason, staff recommends that a separate Bayfront Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) program be established and separated from the WTDIF program. The BFDIF is a single program with two separate funding roles. The first portion of the fee is to be used to fund traffic impact mitigations as noted in the CVBMP EIR. The second role of this program is to fund Regional Arterial System (RAS) and non-RAS roadway projects. These roadways generally lie within the area of Chula Vista along and west of Interstate 5 but outside of and separate from the CVBMP area. RAS roadways are generally described as those roads that act as critical links in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. Non-RAS roadways are typically smaller in classification and of less importance to the region. Most of the existing RAS projects, such as E Street, H Street do not extend west of the 1-5, so staff recommends that certain RAS roadways be extended to the bayfront area in order to comply with San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAL) minimum RAS fee 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 165 requirements and to provide a comprehensive vehicular circulation system. Staff also recommends that some CVBMP roadways be included in the new list of RAS roadways, such as Marina Parkway and sections of J Street. The BFDIF will be charged to residential as well as non-residential units. The exact amount charged per dwelling unit varies based on the type of residential and non-residential unit type. The exact amount charged per non-residential land use also varies by type. The fees calculated in this study for all land uses provide for the regional component of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The focus of this report is as follows: • To provide justification for the establishment of the BFDIF and memorialize the source of information for the new program as the CVBMP EIR. The process includes describing the area to be removed from the existing WTDIF benefit area, delineating the new boundaries of the BFDIF service area, and the fee to be charged. ■ To document the average daily trip (ADT) traffic volumes, Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) values projected for residential and non-residential land uses, due to planned growth in the BFDIF area again based on the CVBMP EIR. ■ To provide justifications, descriptions and cost estimates for BFDIF projects all of which have been provided by the San Diego Unified Port District. ■ To provide for the justification for future automatic increases of the fee based on construction cost indices. Additionally, the report will discuss the principles and requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 concerning how any proposed fees will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the new transportation improvements, i.e., the Reasonable Relationship Requirement. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that for fees subject to its provisions, the following findings must be made: • Identify the purpose of the fee. • Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 166 TRANSNET In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved local Proposition A extending the TransNet 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation programs through 2048. Included in Proposition A and the TransNet Extension Ordinance is the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. The RTCIP provides for the collection of a fee for each new residential unit. The RTCIP originally documented the need to collect a County- wide fee of $2,000 per residential unit for roadways that are determined to be Regional Arterial System (RAS) facilities. This amount has been updated annually; on July 1 , 2014, this amount was $2,254. RAS roadways are listed in San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), dated November, 2007. The ordinance states, "Revenue collected through the Funding Programs shall be used to construct transportation improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new arterial roadway lanes, turning lanes, reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services, or similar types of improvements, preliminary and final engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand generated by new development throughout the San Diego region. A reasonable portion of the program revenue, up to a maximum of three percent, may be used for fund administration." 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 167 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Development impact fees are imposed upon development in an area of benefit, often containing a number of different properties, property owners, and land use types. The BFDIF has two main purposes: (1) To fund the construction of facilities needed to mitigate traffic impacts, including but not limited to, direct and cumulative impacts resulting from development within the benefit area as shown in the "The Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) and Port Master Plan Amendment Volume 2: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)", dated April 2010" (CVBMP EIR); and (2) To spread the costs associated with construction of the facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area. The amended benefit area described herein is that area within the jurisdictional area of the bayfront portion of the City of Chula Vista, generally meaning that area of the city located between 1-5 on the east, San Diego Bay on the west, the Sweetwater Marsh on the north and Naples Street on the south, as shown on the map and attached as Exhibit 1 . In the environmental review process, such as in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, a project's potential impacts are identified and, where feasible, a method of mitigating those impacts (reducing the actual impact to a level of insignificance) is identified. In the case of larger projects, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies direct and cumulative traffic impacts resulting from the project. In the case of the Bayfront area, most of the property is undeveloped and currently owned by the San Diego Unified Port District or other public agencies. The development of this area is covered under the CVBMP EIR. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in phases and broken down into individual projects. Each project's fair share of the impact will be based upon the amount of traffic the proposed project generates as measured by ADT and by EDU's. B . BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ( BFDIF ) A transportation development impact fee is an impact fee designed to mitigate direct and cumulative impacts on the local transportation network as a result of new development, in this case the CVBMP. Generally, development of property produces impacts on the local road network resulting in decreased available traffic capacity on the street system. To measure the effects of traffic, cities establish capacity or Level of Service (LOS) standards that they each consider appropriate for their jurisdictions. Where potential impacts resulting from development are projected to reduce the capacity on streets to the point where the identified LOS will not be maintained, the impacts are deemed to be significant, and should be mitigated. Typical mitigation for traffic related impacts to the system would provide improvements designed to restore capacity and maintain the desirable level of service. Examples of capacity-increasing improvements include but are not limited to such enhancements as constructing entirely new roads in the circulation network, widening or improving existing roads, installing new traffic signals or improving signalization, freeway interchange improvements, and improving signal coordination (management of traffic operations). For the City of Chula Vista, other non-traditional improvements were included in the calculation of the fee as a result of the City's goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle capacities as shown below from the City's General Plan. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 168 GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The following discussion of Goals, Objectives and Policies is taken from the City's General Plan approved on December 13, 2005 in the Land Use and Transportation (LUT) section and is the basis for including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the fee calculation. GOAL 7.9 - Improving Vehicular and Transit Mobility The City of Chula Vista will continue its efforts to develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system with adequate roadway capacity; however, the City's ability to widen roads to accommodate increased demand from automobile traffic is limited. Additionally, road widening in some areas is not consistent with goals to create streets that are pedestrian- friendly and safe. Therefore, the City must seek alternative ways to increase the capacity to move both people and cars. This includes more efficient use of roadways, traffic demand reduction, and increased use of transit, bicycles, and walking. Objective - LUT 18 Reduce traffic demand through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, increased use of transit, bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures. POLICY LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible alternatives to the automobile, such as bicycling and walking, and encourage public transit ridership on existing and future transit routes. GOAL 7.11 - Increase Mobility Through Use of Bicycles and Walking Bicycles are an alternative to driving, accommodating longer trips than walking, especially when combined with transit. Every trip begins and ends with walking, so the pedestrian environment becomes the primary transportation element that connects all travel modes. For walking and bicycling to be viable alternatives to travel by car, the bicycle and pedestrian systems must efficiently and conveniently connect residential areas and activity centers in a safe and comfortable manner, and within an interesting environment. Objective — LUT 23 Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of transportation. POLICY LUT 23.1 Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to driving. POLICY LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system of inter-connecting bicycle routes throughout the City and region. Non-vehicular Travel The City has two additional documents that pertain to pedestrian and bicycle mobility. First, the latest version of the City's Bikeway Master Plan was adopted by Council on February 1 , 2011 . This document recommended and prioritized Class I (bike path), Class II (bikeway along the roadway) and Class III (bike route) bicycle facilities. Second, the City's first Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by Council on June 22, 2010. Twenty seven street corridors in western Chula Vista and three intersections in eastern Chula Vista were recommended and prioritized for pedestrian improvements. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 169 C . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CHULA VISTA' S TRANSPORTATION DIF PROGRAM In February 1986, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a schedule of development impact fees (DIF) for the Eastlake I development. Eastlake was the first major planned development that added significant traffic to the street system. Fees were established to ensure that Eastlake contributed to the cost of certain street improvements, including a four-lane interim facility in the State Route 125 (SR-125) corridor. Also included in the development impact fee was the cost of constructing a fire station and a community park in Eastlake I. While the fees were imposed as a condition of development on Eastlake, City staff recommended to the Council that a development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of transportation improvements by all of the developments that would benefit from the improvements. Therefore, in January 1987, the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact fee program for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. In December 1987, a report entitled "The Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets" was completed. The "Area of Benefit" included all of the undeveloped lands that benefited from the proposed transportation improvements, within the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, east of Interstate 805. The Council adopted an Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee in January 1988 by Ordinance Number 2251 (TDIF). The fee was established at $2,101 per EDU. In October 1993, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment for the Otay Ranch. As a result, the TDIF program was updated in December 1993, including the first phase of the Otay Ranch. For the first time since the adoption of the original TDIF in 1988, a comprehensive general plan of land uses and circulation system requirements was in place in the Otay Valley area. The TDIF program was subsequently updated again in 1999, 2002 and 2005 to reflect changes to the circulation element of the General Plan, land use changes and to adjust the construction cost estimates. The TDIF will also be revised in 2014. On March 18, 2008, Council adopted the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) by Ordinances 3106 through 3110. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the Western portion of the City, these ordinances were required to be enacted by the City in order to continue to receive annual TransNet funds for local streets. The original rate was established at $3,243 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). In a letter dated December 15, 2010, SANDAG informed the City that a one percent administrative fee would not be collected. This fee had been included as part of the WTDIF since its inception. The City subsequently went to Council on October 25, 2011 and November 15, 2011 to enact Ordinance 3214, which deleted the one percent SANDAG fee from the WTDIF rates. City staff subsequently processed refunds of this fee to all permit holders who had paid it. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 170 SECTION 2 FEE DEVELOPMENT A . PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING BFDIF FEE A fundamental principle in the formulation of a development impact fee is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development, and thus the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development. Generally, existing facilities have adequate capacity to support the existing state of development, and any capacity that is added to the street network is in response to the need created by subsequent development, i.e. new demand. It is, therefore, incumbent upon new development to fully mitigate these impacts. In the case of transportation development impact fee programs, the accepted method of distributing costs in an equitable manner is to compare traffic generated by each project that will potentially affect the overall system. This can be done by establishing a uniform list of trip generation factors typical for the types of uses contemplated for the developments. In preparation of this Engineer's Report, City staff reviewed and relied on the CVBMP EIR, April 2010 (see http//www.portofsandiego.org/chula-vista-bayfront-master-plan.html). The CVBMP EIR utilized the "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by SANDAG in 2002, Exhibit 2. Staff also reviewed the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Traffic Impact Report and Environmental Impact Report. A variety of issues had to be addressed as part of the calculation process. Existing Development The calculation of trips for existing Bayfront development is shown on Exhibit 3 and taken from the CVBMP EIR. Existing development is not responsible to pay BFDIF fees. The fee can only be charged to new development therefore these land uses were subtracted from the fee calculations. The existing land uses (4,627 ADT) plus an existing but relocated RV Park [S-1] (1 ,185 ADT), generate 5,812 daily trips (ADT) and are subtracted from the fee calculation (Exhibit 4). Public Facilities Table A calculates the amount of ADTs that are associated with public facilities, such as parks and public buildings that will not be charged these fees. As shown below, the number of exempt ADT's totals 2,111 trips, or 211 EDU's. Table A below lists the public land uses taken from the CVBMP EIR. TABLE A DEDUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES EXISTING LAND EXISTING BUILDOUT LAND PROPOSED DIFFERENCE USE USE ADT ADT S-5 Park 5 S-2 Park 900 895 H-17 Open Space 9 H-17 Fire Station 400 391 HP-07 Marina Park 330 H-1/H-8 Park 900 570 HP-15 Bayfront Park 440 OP-1/OP-3 South Park 255 (-185) 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 171 HP-28 H Street Pier 40 40 H-23 Cultural 400 400 TOTAL 784 2,895 2,111 Parcel Relocation As part of the WTDIF fee calculation, the city relocated one parcel that was originally in the WTDIF calculation and moved it into the BFDIF calculation, due to its physical location. The parcel is located at the southwest corner of Bay Boulevard and F Street i.e. west of I-5 and is owned by the adjacent United Technology Aerospace Systems Company (UTAS) (previously the ROHR Corporation). It includes 6.7 acres of Industrial land use (603 trips). This same UTAS parcel was then subtracted from the WTDIF calculations. Shared Roadways WTDIF — BFDIF The new roadways west of Bay Blvd. are intended for the uses associated with the Bayfront, so they are solely the responsibility of the BFDIF. However, other roadways are shared between the WTDIF and the BFDIF. These roadways are associated with improvements to the Interstate-5, certain Regional Arterial System improvements (such as the grade separation projects), and the Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) parallel to Bay Blvd. In order to fairly reflect the shared benefit of these facilities, it is appropriate to allocate project costs to both the WTDIF and BFDIF programs. Projected new ADTs reasonably reflect future facility use, and have therefore been used to calculate the proportional cost sharing between the two fee programs. With 74,593 projected new trips in the BFDIF area and 103,649 projected new trips in the WTDIF area, the BFDIF's share is calculated as follows: 74,593 ADT = 42% 74,593 + 103,649 ADT I-5 Shared Calculation Not all facilities planned for the BFDIF program area are required solely to serve new development. As discussed above, in order to fairly reflect the shared benefit of these facilities, it is appropriate to allocate costs between existing development and new development. These "joint impetus" projects serve not only new development, but may also be related to the need to upgrade for less than satisfactory traffic levels (below LOS C) or to keep pace with technological improvements. Table B presents the calculation of the fair share allocated to new development based on traffic along the I-5 corridor within the jurisdiction of the city of Chula Vista. As above, ADTs have been used to calculate proportional cost sharing. The ADT volumes reflect the change in traffic attributable to new development, in both the WTDIF and BFDIF areas. Therefore, of the 883,500 in buildout ADTs, 74,593 are associated with the Bayfront increase, while 809,644 are attributed to the WTDIF area (see WTDIF Nexus Study for additional information). The percentage shown (38%) will subsequently be multiplied by the percentage attributable to the BFDIF alone (42%). 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 172 Table B 1-5 Traffic Volume Growth Estimate Trips Change 2008 Report Buildout Volumes (ADT) 546,850 883,500 336,650 Percent of Total 38% Non-Vehicular Improvements Certain improvements, such as bikeways and pedestrian facilities, are not proportional to average daily traffic. For these improvements, the increase in population was used. The existing population used in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study was 110,493. Since there were no permanent residents in the Bayfront area, the existing population of the Bayfront is zero. Section 4.17 of the 2010 CVBMP EIR states that the planned residential development on the Bayfront consists of a maximum of 1 ,500 mixed low rise, medium rise and high rise residential units on approximately 14 acres of land. This is expected to increase the population in the Bayfront to approximately 3,780 people or 2.71%. Bikeway and pedestrian projects will be shared with existing users based on population increase from the 2008 Nexus Study. The projected buildout population for the WTDIF area, as shown below in Table C is 135,733, an increase of 25,240 over the 2008 population of 110,493. The Bayfront population is projected to increase by 3,780, which results in a total buildout population of 139,513, an increase of 29,020. The City of Chula Vista's share for bicycle and pedestrian projects is calculated as a percentage of 110,493 divided by the buildout population of 139,513 or 79.20%. The WTDIF's share for bicycle and pedestrian projects is calculated as a percentage of the increase in population within the WTDIF area of 25,240 divided by the buildout population of 139,513 or 18.09%. The fractional portion of the shared bicycle and pedestrian facilities that shall be paid by the BFDIF is 2.71%, as shown. 3,780 = 2.71% (3,780 + 25,240+110,493) Table C Population Growth Estimate DIF Benefit Area Existing Population at Net Increase in Percentage of Total Population Buildout Population WTDIF 110,493 135,733 25,240 18.09% BFDIF 0 3,780 3,780 2.71% TOTAL 139,513 20.8% 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 173 B. Proposed Project Costs (The Numerator) City staff determined which projects are to be included in the program. The entire process for calculating impact fees involves two steps and is likened to a fraction with the numerator or top number representing the total cost of infrastructure improvements divided by the lower number (denominator) which is allocated to the various land use types and their consequent trips/EDU's as discussed below. The following is staff's method for calculating the total cost of infrastructure improvements. The following categories of improvements are included in the BFDIF. • Interstate 5 Improvements: These improvements are shared with the WTDIF and were originally included in the 2008 WTDIF report. • Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects: These improvements are also shared with the WTDIF. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The Bayshore Bikeway projects BP-1 and BP-9 are shared with both current and existing users in the WTDIF area. The Bayfront Loop is entirely within the Bayfront area and will be 100% funded by the BFDIF. • Bayfront Roadways — RAS: These new streets are shown in CVBMP but are not currently in the RAS network approved by SANDAL. They are backbone collectors/arterials west of 1-5 that are, in most cases, extensions of streets already in the RAS. It is important for them to be shown in SANDAG's RAS listing. A resolution will be taken to Council to recommend inclusion of these streets in the RAS network. Cost estimates and locations are provided in Appendix A. • Bayfront Roadways — non-RAS: These streets are all west of the 1-5 and are shown in the CVBMP and are local streets that would not be considered eligible for inclusion in the RAS. Cost estimates are provided in Appendix B. A discussion of the roadways above follows. Interstate 5 Improvement Projects All the projects in this section were originally included in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study. Most of these projects were considered to be mitigation for deficiencies cited in the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) or by the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). Because of the creation of the new BFDIF program they are now split proportionally by the increase in respective traffic, at 42%/ 58% BFDIF to WTDIF as discussed previously. 1-5-11: L Street bridge widening over 1-5 including a sidewalk for pedestrians — (300' x 12)(2.71%) Since this project is intended to benefit pedestrians, which includes existing users, only 2.71 percent is payable through the BFDIF funds as determined above. 1-5-17: 1-5 HOV& Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54 This project was originally in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus study. At that time, it was determined that approximately 50 percent of this portion of 1-5 is within the City of Chula Vista. It was 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 174 also calculated that 8.2 percent of the traffic in this area within the City was due to new development. Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects All the projects in this section were originally included in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study. The grade separation projects are considered to be mitigation for deficiencies cited in the CVBMP EIR and other previous noted documents. RAS-5 and RAS-6: E Street and H Street LRT grade separation projects: Environmental and Preliminary Engineering (PE) costs only are included at an estimated cost of$950,000 for each project. RAS-9: H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate 5 to Broadway $500,000 of the total cost is included under the BFDIF to cover the cost of preparing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for this project. The GPA will determine whether it is necessary to widen H Street to six lanes or if a lesser improvement is warranted. It will also determine the cost of the improvements and how much of the improvements should be payable by the BFDIF. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities BP-1: Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Street Costs for this facility were split among existing EDUs, the WTDIF and the BFDIF based on population as described above. The revised cost estimate from the 2011 Bikeway Master Plan (Class 1 Rank #1) was used. This cost is $449,165.75 in 2014 dollars (including the Administrative fee). The cost estimate is included in Exhibit 5, Bayshore Bikeway Cost Estimates. BP-9: Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between F Street & H Street Costs for this facility were split among existing EDUs, the WTDIF and the BFDIF based on population. This project includes a 12-foot wide AC bike path with parallel 24-inch gravel paths on either side. Fencing, drainage and a pedestrian signal crossing at H Street are included. This is the third ranking bike path in the Bikeway Master Plan. This cost is $669,278.46 in 2014 dollars (including the administrative fee). The cost estimate is included in Exhibit 5. BAY-15: Lagoon Drive Bike and Pedestrian Trail (950 LF) This facility includes demolition of an existing portion of Lagoon Drive to E Street and conversion to a bicycle and pedestrian trail. The cost estimate and map are found in Appendix B. BAY-27: Bayshore Bikeway Bayfront Loop (14,400 LF) with bike bridge This is a new facility which begins and ends on Bay Blvd. and loops around various new streets in the Bayfront area, including E Street, Marina Parkway, and several local streets. It primarily consists of bike paths, although bike trails and a pedestrian/bike bridge are included. The cost estimate and map are found in Appendix B. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 175 Bayfront Roadways The summary of the estimates prepared for the Bayfront projects is included as Exhibit 6. These estimates were prepared in 2013 and 2014. The following streets are considered to be Regional Arterial System (RAS) Roadway Projects and will be included in the list of streets that the City will request SANDAG to add to the approved RAS list. The cost estimates and location maps for the RAS roadways are included in Appendix A. RAS • BAY-9: 1-5/J Street NB on ramp add EB-LT and WB-RT lanes • BAY-1I E Street extension Bay Blvd. to H Street • BAY-17: H Street from E Street to Marina Parkway • BAY-18: Marina Parkway 2-lane from H Street to C Street • BAY-20: Marina Parkway 2-lane from J Street to C Street • BAY-22: J Street to Marina Parkway to Bay Blvd. • BAY-29: Pump Station and Sewer Relocation Costs (Marina Pkwy. And J St.) The following projects are considered to be non-Regional Arterial System Projects, since they are local streets and facilities that serve local streets. The cost estimates and location maps for the non-RAS roadways are included in Appendix B. NON-RAS • BAY-14: F Street from railroad to west cul-de-sac • BAY-15: Lagoon Drive • BAY-16: G Street (300 LF) • BAY-19: "Street A" from H Street to C Street • BAY-21 : "Street A" from C Street to J Street • BAY-23: Street C from Marina Parkway to Bay Blvd. • BAY-24: Marina Way (1100 LF) • BAY-25: Street "A" — South of J Street to Street "B" • BAY-26: Street "B:" — "A" Street to Bay Blvd. • BAY-27: Bayshore Bikeway • BAY-28: Traffic Signals (seven) 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Sage 176 All of the CVBMP projects are listed as mitigation measures for specific traffic impacts addressed in Section 4.2 of the CVBMP EIR. These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in the Executive Summary of the CVBMP EIR and are included in Appendix C. ADDITIONAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES The new cost estimates are included in Appendices A and B and were obtained from the San Diego Unified Port District. Hard costs relate to the actual construction costs paid to a contractor. Contingency costs are a percentage of the construction cost and relate to the amount of uncertainty of the cost estimate. The following percentages of the hard costs were used to calculate "soft costs" for the Bayfront cost estimates obtained from the Port District, with the exception of Project BAY-9. 1 . Design Fees: 7.814% 2. Permitting and Plan Check Fees: 1 .5% 3. Construction Management Fees: 4.0% 4. Misc. Consultant Fees: 1 .0% 5. Owner's Contingency: 10.0% Summary Cost Estimates for the projects that were originally included in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study are provided in Appendix D. COST ESCALATION AND OTHER FACTORS The base year for the cost estimates was 2013. Therefore, all estimates prepared during 2013 and 2014 are current. The escalation factor for the BFDIF rate is intended to approximate the rate of inflation in the construction industry. The construction cost indices to be used shall be either the CalTrans Highway Construction cost index or the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles. The current ENR index is assumed to be the index for July 2014 (10737.43), and estimates prepared prior to 2014 used the index for July of the year of preparation/approval. The index for July 2007 (8861 .27) was therefore used for projects that were estimated in the original WTDIF Nexus Study, and the index for July 2011 (10062.80) was used for the projects estimated in the 2011 Bikeway Master Plan (BP-1 and BP-9). Because this program is being established and run in conjunction with the TransNet program, fee adjustments have been set in line with the RTCIP. The RTCIP states "Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fee... Local agencies may add up to 2 percent for their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs." Therefore, the following costs to the BFDIF program will be included: BFDIF Proiect Administration: Two (2%) percent of the program's direct construction costs to fund activities related to general administration of the BFDIF including the following: ■ Strategic planning and funding advocacy; 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 177 • Staff time spent in administering the fee program and the various credits of each developer; • Growth Management Activities; • Geographic Information System (GIS); • BFDIF program updates; • Supplies and equipment used to administer the program; and • Feasibility studies. The final calculation includes a discussion on additional costs to the program. Two spreadsheets are included as part of Exhibit 6: Project Cost Categories — one for the bayfront projects and one for shared projects. This exhibit breaks down the total project estimate into hard costs, soft costs, and the 2% administrative fee. Since the administrative fee percentage is based on only the hard cost, its percentage of the total cost is less — approximately 1.6%. This percentage may be used at the time the fee is collected to determine the amount to be placed in the account for the administrative fee. C . Equivalent Dwelling Units ( EDUs) (The Denominator) One of the more common methods used to compare trip generation potential among the different land uses involves the conversion of trips from a particular land use type into "Equivalent Dwelling Units" or EDUs. Residential dwellings of 0 — 6 dwelling units per acre (LOW density) are assigned one (1.0) EDU per unit and become the base for assigning EDU factors to other land uses by comparing the relationship and nature of vehicular trips generated by those land uses to the ADTs generated by this residential density category. In other words, EDUs are units of measure that standardize all land use types (housing, retail, office, etc.) to the level of demand created by one single-family housing unit. For example, in the case of traffic generation, one EDU is equivalent to the amount of two-way traffic (i.e., ADT) generated from and attracted to a single-detached household. A small business calculated to generate three times as much traffic as an average single-detached dwelling unit would have a value of three EDUs in terms of traffic; a large industrial complex that generates a thousand times as much traffic each day would have a demand of 1,000 EDUs. The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this Engineer's Report is consistent with the basis and methodology used in previous Western and Eastern TDIF reports and Western and Eastern TDIF ordinances as amended. As shown at the bottom of Exhibit 4, the total number of trips at buildout of the CVBMP is estimated to be 79,802 trips. The final number of trips after adding the relocated parcel is 80,405 (79,802 plus 603). From this value we subtracted existing land uses and public facilities as discussed above. The total number of remaining EDUs that can be charged the BFDIF Fee is then 7,248 EDUs. D. Final Fee Discussion Exhibit 7 is the summary conclusion table that determines the final CVBMP "BFDIF" costs. This spreadsheet sums the new applicable infrastructure costs and applies the appropriate factors to each project. The sum total of all new costs is $68,438,679.98. This value is divided by the total number of applicable EDU's, as calculated above, 7,248, (Exhibit 4) and calculates the fee to be $9,442.42, rounded to $9,4421EDU. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page I�age 178 Note that the total contribution to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) will be $3,438.28 + $1 ,104.71 = $4,542.99. This will meet SANDAG's requirements as long as the streets west of 1-5 are accepted into the RAS. E. Fee Adjustments and Collection The WTDIF program will allow for the construction of eligible transportation projects by developers in lieu of paying the WTDIF at building permit issuance with approval of City Engineer. Any projects constructed by a developer would be audited and credits issued incrementally as the facility is constructed. If the total construction costs amount to more than the total WTDIF fees for the developer's project, the developer is entitled to receive WTDIF credits in the amount of the excess of construction costs over the required WTDIF fees. The same builder can use this WTDIF credit to satisfy the fee obligations for a future development, or the developer will receive cash reimbursement when funds are available, as determined by the City Manager. The fee shall be collected as a condition of building permit issuance. The TransNet ordinance currently provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. In the future, the WTDIF and BFDIF will be adjusted on October 1 based on July indices in order to keep the timing consistent with the City's other impact fee programs. The annual inflation adjustment will be an increase of at least 2 per cent or based on the Caltrans highway construction cost index or the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost 20-City Index for Los Angeles. All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest-accruing fund, and shall be expended only with the approval of the City Council for the Proposed Projects listed in this report. These automatic adjustments do not require further action by the City Council. The TransNet ordinance states, "Each jurisdiction shall have up to but no more than seven fiscal years to expend Funding Program revenues on the Regional Arterial Systems projects. The seven year term shall commence on the first day of July following the jurisdiction's receipt of the revenue. At the time of the review and audit by the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, each jurisdiction collecting a development impact fee to meet the requirements of its Funding Program shall provide the Committee with written findings for any expended, unexpended and uncommitted fees in their Program Fund and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq." 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 179 Exhibits 1 . Transportation DI Benefit Areas Map 2. Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) in 2002 3. Traffic Generated by Existing Land Uses 4. EDU Calculations - Bayfront 5. Bayshore Bikeway Cost Estimates 6. Project Cost Categories: Shared Projects and Bayfront Projects 7. Bayfront TDIF Cost Calculations Appendices A. Bayfront Roadways RAS Estimates B. Bayfront Roadways non-RAS Estimates C. Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures D. Cost Estimates from the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 180 COO r � J % Aeg o6a14 ueS EXHIBIT 2 (NOT SO) €ilBRIEFr�GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES S�1NDaG FOR l SAN DIEGO REGION 401 8 Street.Suile 600 .a Diego,Callramia 92101 APRIL 2002 015)69!)-1900,Fax(6191699-1954 NOTE:This){sling only represents n gur'dcof average,oresemahlo,tmfie gcneratinn"driveway"rates and some very general trip data for land uses{emphasis an acreage and building square footage) in the San Diego region. These rates(bolh local and national)are subject to change as futrue ddeumeniatian t:Comcs available,or as regional sources are updated. For mate specific information regarding traffic data and trip rates,ple-a refer to the San Diego Traffic Generators manual.AAvays check evith local jurisdictions for their preferred or applicable rates. LAND USE TRIP CATEGORIES ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR% (plus IN:OUT ratio) TRIP LENGTH (pRIMARY:DIVERTEDvPASS-6Y1' TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) netween 6:009:10 A.M. Oak-3:00.6:30 P.M. {Mas41` AGRICULTURE(Open Space)..........................180:16:21 21acm•' 10.6 AIRPORT........................................................178:20:2; 12.5 Crs_Cdal 601aae.1001night.7011000 sq.ft."• 56 (6:4) MI (5:51 GanatalAviatidrl Glaue,2lfhghl.6Rlased ainrart'•• 97; (7:3) 15:6 (5:51 Heliports 10(Uacse•• AUTOMOBILE' Car Wash Automatic 9001site.00011ve" 416 15:5) 2v ;5:5) Setf.serve 1001washs1z11•' 475 (5:51 4Th (5:51 Gasoline...................................................[21:51:281 16 withlFbad Mart 160fvchiclefuolingspace•• 7i; [5:5] 66 (5:51 withlFo'a Mars&Car Wash 155fvehictafurang Space•' Fib [5:5) 916 45:5) Older Service Station Design I501vehicic fueling space.9001station'• 716 (5:5) ?6 15;51 Sales(Doalw&Repair) 5011 COO sq.ft..3001-0.6015MI.0 stall'•' S6 (7:3) R•6 14:6) Auto Repair Center 2011000 sq.ft..400fave.2olsemice stall• 876 (7:3) it% ICE) Auto Parts Sales 6011000 sq.ft.'• 436 1016 Quick Lube 401service stall'• 7,16 (6;4) IC% (5:5) Tire Storrs 25/700{1 sq,ft,.301serviee slap• 76 (6:4) 11% (5:5) CEMETERY 5latxc• CHURCH(or Synagogue)................................(64:25:171 911 Ono Sq,ft..3014sco••(quadruple rotas a^6 (6:4) W'. 15:5) 5.1 for Sunday.or days of assembly; COMMERCIA€IRETAV 5upor Regional Shopping Center 3511000 sq. ft.e 400fhera• 476 (7:3) 10:6 (5:51 (More than 80 acres.more than 800.000 sq,ft., fusually 3- major scores) Regional Shapping Center.........................154:35:111 5011000 sq.ft."5001acm• 436 Q:3) 9:6 (5:5) 5.2 (40-a0 aues. 400.000-800.000 sq.f6.wlusuany 2+major slams) Community Shopping Center......................147:31:221 8017000 sq,rt..7001xcfe' '• C. (6:4) IQ% (5:5) 3.6 (15-40 acres,125,000.400,000 sq.ft., wlusuany 1 major start,detached restaurangsl,grouryantldmgstorcl Neill htAW=d Shopping Center 120M 000sq.ft..12001aaa" 4€6 (6:4) 10:6 (5:51 (Less than 15 acres,less than 125,000 sq.ft.,wlusuany grocery &drugstore,cleaners.beauty&barovr shop, &fast food services) Commercial Shops......................................[45:40:75) Spcctalty RetailiSVip Commercial 4011000 sq.ft..4001naa• 3.0 (6:4) 9,6 15:5) 4,3 Electrorucs$uperstwo 5011000 Sq.fi•• 111% (5:5) FaetoryOutlet 4011000sq.h." 56 7:3) 976 {5:5) Super ket 150,1000 Sq.ft..2000faae••' 4:n (7:3) 111':6 Drugstore 9011000 Sq.fL" 416 (6;4) 1036 (5:51 C-orflenco Market (i5-76hotus] 500/1000 Sq.ft.•' 1Lti (5:5) rib (5:51 Carvveniencalvtarket (24 hours) 70071[700 sq,rt." 'T.6 (5:5) 776 (5:5) CanvardGncG Market(wlgasnhna pumps) 65017000 sq,h.,5501uoacie fr;ang space" 616 (5:5) 776 [5:51 Oiscaunt Club GQI1000 sq.ft..6QOfzao•" H6 (7:31 0+6 (5,S) Or c-,Store 6Wi000 sq.rt..60Q1oan•• 3;6 (6:4) tiv (5:51 Furniture Store 611000 sq.ft..1001acre•• 4:6 (7:3) 56 (5:5) Lumbar 5twc 30110OO sq.R.,1501aaa•' 776 (6:41 916 (5:5) Home lmprovemem Superstore 4011 000sq.A.'• 56 (6:4) 66 (515) HardwnrelPaim Stem 6on000sq.ft.,6001acre•• 2:; (6:4) 9'. (5:5) Garden Nursery 4011000sq.ft..901auc" 2D6 (6:4) 1076 (5:5) Mixed Use:Commerc ial(wlsupesmarkGH/Residential 11011000 aq.ft..20001aun•(=ammerc€ai only) T. (6:41 2u (5:5) 51d.00nq unit,2001acrc'(residential only) 9:v (3:7) 13% (6:41 EDUCATION University(4 years). ..................................191:9:0; 2AISTriaant. 100 acm• 1016 (8:21 9'u R:7) 6-9 Junior College(2 years)................................[92:7.1) 1.2/student.2411000 sq.R..1212laae• •' 12`Yo 18:2) 9% (6:4) 9.0 High School...............................................175:19:6; 1.31student.1511000 sq.R.,Gofacre• •• 2036 (7:3) 10;6 (4:6) 4.8 Midd le/Junior Hlgh.... [fi7:26r32) 1.4/student, 1211000 sq.R.5DIAche'• 3016 (6:4) 936 (4:6) 5.0 Eiomentary...............................................[57:25:101 1.61stbdcnt.1411600 sq.ft..901acre' •• 32b (6:4) 916 (4:61 3.4 Day Care.................................................[28:56;14) 5fchSd.8011000 sq,ft,*' 17?6 15:5) 1636 (5:5) 3.7 FINANCIAL'..................................................135:42:23) 3.4 Bank[Wnik-Inanly) 16011000sq.H..t000facr0•• 476 (7:31 Fib (4;6) withblve-Through 20011000 sq.h..1500racre• S'-6 (6:4) 10:6 (5:5) Drive-Thmu,honly 25D(125 one-way)lianc• 3Y• 15:5) 13"-6 (5:51 Savings&Loan 6011000Sq.R.,6D01.r:e•• Z16 9;•; 06 -Throvghonly too(56nne-wny)llana'• 416 1''x76 HOSPITAL......................................................173:25:2) 4.3 General 20(bed, 2511000 sq. ri., 2501arae• 0% 47:3) 10'.6 (4:6) CanvalescentfNursinq 311".. 716 16:4) 7:6 (4:6) INDUSTRIAL Indus61aE16usinnss Park lcrnxne uAiaeiuded]........179:19:2) 1611600 sq.h.,200facre* 12% (8:21 1216 (2:81 9.0 Indusulal Park fro canmacu0 011000 sq.ft.,DClaac" 11% 49:1) 1236 (2:01 Iad.,E Plant[muhipla Stmt".............................[92:5:3) 1011000 sq.M.1201acre• 14% 10:21 1616 (3:71 17.7 ManulacturinglAssembly 411000 Sq.ft..SOlacrt'• 19? ....................... ......... ........ ....... ......... ...... . ......... ......... ......... ...... SAND USE TRIP CATEGORIES ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR 75(plus IN:OUT ratio) TRIP LENGTH (PRIMARY:D1VERTED:PA55-UYI' TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) 11iia n 0:00-9:10 AAA tlalween 3:00-6:10 P.M. LIBRARY..........................................................144:44:x2( 5011000 sq,R.,4001acre'• 2Y, (7:31 101116 (5:5) 3.9 LODGING.............................................................158:38:4) 7.6 Hotel(wfco'venaen rac,kuesfrrss4rrarn) 10104cupled loom,3001acrc W. (6:4) ICS (6;4) Motel 91occupied room,2001aae' MU (4:61 24 (GA) Resort Hmcl 51ac61ipied room,1001acr'e T. (6:41 7Y. (4:6) Business Hatef 71occupledroona" B6 (4:6) %o (5:4) MILITARY............................................................[02:16:21 2.5f"litary 8 civilian personnel• 9;4 (9:1) iti (2:8) 11.2 OFFICE $umda rdCo mmcrc€atOt6cc.................................177x9:4] 20/F0GO sq,ft.?3(101arrt• 14% (4:1) 130 42:8) 8.6 (less than 100.000 sq.tt.1 Large(lith-Rise)Commerdnl Office.......................€82:15:31 1711000 sq.ft-1 6001-ac 1396 (911) 1415 (2:8) 10.0 [ni than 100.400 sq.ft.,6-stories) Office Park(400,000-Sq.ft.) 1211000 sq.ft..200ftcre'•' 1356 (9:1) 13% (2:81 Single Tenant Office 1415000 sq.ft.- 180lacre• 15% (9:tj 15% (2:6) 8.0 Corporate Headquarters 711000 sq,ft.,1101han' 17'0 49:1) 1696 (1:9) Govnmment(Civic Center)- - --[50:34:161 3011000 sq.ft." 354 (9:1) 12% (3:7) 6.0 Post orrice CentrallWaIR,hi Onty 9011000 sq.R.•• Sn 716 Community oeitinrSunng mast drop tans; 20011000 sq.ft..1300facre' ti`s 46:4) 916 (5:5) Community(.!matt dry,€are) 30011000 sq.rt..20001acre' 7:6 [5:5) 1096 (5:5) Mail Drop Lane only 1500(750 one-way)Aane• 7)5 15:51 IT% (5:5) Department or Motor Vehicles 18011000sq.ft..9001acre•' E6 (6:41 1076 (4:6) Medic'd-Demnl..................................................[60:30:101 5011000 sq.ft.,50olarrc• IT. (8:21 11% (1:7) 6.4 PARKS........................................ .[66:26;61 4.4 E4 5.4 City(developed wlmeming roams aaJ sports faciiiticsl 50facte' 13% (6:51 936 (5:5) Regional(dtveloped) 201acre' NdghborhoodlCRUn[y(undeveiaped) Slacre(add ter specific sport usesl.61picuic sue'" State(average 1000 acres) 11nrre,l 0fplcnic site' Amusamcnt(Theme) 60faac,130)=n(summer only)" C-6 (6:4) Son Diego Zoo 11514-' Sea world 6010crc' RECREATION coach.Ocean or Bay...........................................(52:34:9] 60011000 ft.shoreline.60)ncre• 6.3 Beach.Lake(fresh waterl 5011000 ft.shoreline.51ac4e' Dowling Center 3015000 sq.ft..3001aae.3DAam,•• 7'•6 (7:31 11:6 (44) Campground 4 1campsite1 1 4)6 M. Ga€r Course Wacre.40maie,7001catuse' 711, (B2) 915 (3:71 Driving Range only 70facre. 141goe box. 31b (7:3) M (5:51 Marinas 41ocrth,201acre• 3% (3:7) 714 (6:4) wo-purpose(miniature golf.video arcade-hailing cage,o1c.) 90facre 2)0 0; RacquetbahtHeauh C1uh 30!1000 sq.ft.. 3001auo.401court• 414 46;4) 914 (6:41 Tennis Courts 161aere.lVcaurt" 5%v 11% (5:5) Sports Faaliets Oadonr5tadium SOfacrc.0.21seat• Indoor Arena 30laue.0.11sent' Pace.. 401ano,0.6-at' Theaters(muttiplex wlmtinee)...........................[65:17:17] 0011000 sq.ft..1.61seat.3601sfrcen• Me (0:4) 61 RESIDENTIA3... ......................186:11:3] 7-9 Estate,Urban or Rural 121dwef3ing unit•" E6 (3:71 101. (7:3) {average 1.2 OU1aac) Single Family Detached SDldweding unit'" IC6 (3:71 4Ti6 (7:3) (average 3.0 Dulauc) Condominium 0lawclung unit•" S. (2:8) 10,E (7-3) (or toy multi-ramNy 8.20 DUlacrel Apartment 61dweihng unit'" 0'4 [2:6) 9:'4 (70) (or any maul-ramify,units more than 20 DUlacre) Military Housing(off-base,multi-family) pass than 6 DUlacre) 81e ling unit T% (3:7) S. (6:41 46-20 OUfacrc) G1dwe€sing unit 76 (3;7) 05 (5:4) Mehile Home Family 5ldwelling unit.4ofacre' lib (3:7) 111. (0:4) Adults Only Xchvellin9 unit.201acro' 9:6 (3:7) 1014 (B:4) Reririnnat Community 41dweingunit•• 51.b (416) 735 (6:41 Congregate Care Foci€ity 2.Sldwalling unit" % (6:4) 816 (5:5) RESTAURANT'................... (51:37:121 4.7 quality 10011000 sq,ft..31seat,5001acre••• 135 (6,41 E6 (7:31 Sit-down,hightumover 16011000 sq.ft..61seat.1000faore•'• E6 (5:5) #L6 (6;4) Fast Food(wldilve-through) 65DI10DO sq.ft..20lseat,300010ae••• 71.4 (5:5) A'o (5:5) Fast Food(without Jnve•through) 70011DOOsq.ft.•' aa, (5:4) 7)6 [5:5) Dv9icatnsscn(lam-4pm) 150/1000 sq.ft..I lhent' 96 46:4) 3S (3:7) TRANSPORTATION Bus Depot 2511000sq.R.' Tmck Termhsai SO17000sq.rL,Whey,801aua" E6 (4:61 E5 (5:5) WaterpatlManne Terminal 1701bcrth,121arrc" Transit Station(isght Rad wlparking) 300lave.211lparkmn space(4loccupicd)" 14% (7:3) 15% (3:7) Park L Ride Lots 4001acre(6001paved nap), 1414 (7:31 15). (3:7) f 5lparkingzpace(8/occupicdj'" •Pr,ma,y5parc�:s4nor�yarrarraeeneramrs, 1 • od,arapuraaa:rrerpca.>crat,wrarnorrlernee.r;n„1.Tr,pc�,Groboe,RaEa:mtnMaga:uia5endn�htation:I.raaprr:snNOncbeAErRANSswa,aa.r.po.tsandeetEm,laS. • Tnp category pererntage ratios are daay Rpm€peal hwsrheid surveys,ohen tarripl be applied to very SpeclfVC Earn€Ines,and dp hat,nGUtic nunres,dtnt d'ove's I�a py v mhardc5E n�i PRIM RY-ne,Td�cxl helween Daoin 4 P' DNERTED w lrart. stars altre the way to a pnmary deWrial-)whale da'ance compared tp darer d Stance L 1 rule_ PASS-BY-und-lcdo,divrned�Iten. ' Tipp€Gnglhs are 4-aga weighted terse Uys la antl him genital land usG Vtl,(Ai up,SySrCm w[a[4�tmi�c lrm]lh+G.9 m,:C51 = Fiaedcurve equation: JoiM-9.502 tr,(.i -6.'145 T„total rips,:-1.00a Sq.(L = F,ltad c-equ..ti�r; irsM-0.75E Lnirl 3.950 ' FnicderuvC Cgaauod: t--2.169 LnItl1�t2.65 t-[:apsRlU.d•densrty(OWanG1.DU-tlwei[issxl unit ' Sug9estedPA550Y(undvrrlydtrdavumd clmr€elp raantages forvip rateresAreslansaNy 'Trop neduclims•In miler tohm!pp,wnoteregionai'smart grov.ui pW,ncs, 'kungg P.h ROALcnodlb4sed ngcomhmatiot atlotal datalrewewana uursourees•'1: agaaGkadpvnedge San Dkgn's e.p ntlng mass uanvt sysrem,cws,dxr C©M1tEliOAVRETML vclueietnprafe reductiogs{+nU,proper daeumentaLim and necessary Regipna35inpping Censer XF:6 adJustnxrtsru pe5kpn,atl4}.The rpilaw,ng ale some exanqut5: C--;y 335 rtngh,bar,totl 4011+ 111 AS%daily u,pretluctian fw land asC4 wain transit aeca55 pr near SpeaaRy Reta,uSU,p Coarmcrc:aE{other! 1Q!6 IranhL StaliCllS aeCG55ibfCwiltUn ltd nSiEC. 5.gxm'4d-.el ea76 Corroo g MaAel sr76 RI Drmto m4ybapredacurn rprmi.td•u5teprelelxr,eat:when Oisc-ritelulu5la a Yak r5idm9al and epmmrrral ses4dl am epmh,ned{acmanstmm mane rI1LVlCIAL spl,tnrwalkig8 tr,pt to rrplaceveruaW ar atoll. [ink 254 AUTO-*, ELE Gasoline State Z. L MSfAURNiT EQ,a4ay IDY Sit•tlewmrnghturnpver 2Eyr6 Fast Food am;, 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Paye 34 Page 183 0 000uao oLO CO N o 1� L- d N r0 r N O 67 }-� fly..0 V 'a 0. o oFnom It wcD r N u7 N C> 4K O O M IO C "I C14 r. cp LO O N M' LN O o s Q_ Q C7 C, M� r V) O o Co M r . �.Q N CV Co C � CH C N O CL CV c+7 d' Co CD to Q rA z� m m m -0 M m to c a, cCL _ o n i° U') d o co er ro W � o �. m (z -0 ro cc F CO [70 o CQ N 0 M U 4.) O) r M 30 ro � � o & o o ° Z m C U w lQ W. a C/) L) QO N U Cu � CS Co ca. Cu d C°l (Y � Cn Co o Co c o Q c C �. c •� r�cn � Cz Co M (o +p c`nc o Q 0. O M p y N y u n n m c ca Q LX w 'u�t � wm° =S2 C] V C x .=v o rn i •�i H � Ll1 C C r M CSC O h ': y c C7 Cy. w:.d `•tea r Co Q CL •L Cu r O G7 m w�O+ 0zPN Q m ' I I i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 184 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o o m c �o �o 0 o ro o ro o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O1 Io n n o o m O o O N N C o o N C 0 w ro ro � a �o N w c w ,� m o w c n o ro w o Iri .n m m o ai �ro c ro � � N W O N M C O W C W W ri O of W of W �O N W W �O C C C Vl W V 0 W _ 10 _ F O �y E E E " 0 0 F o � m o ro ro o c o o ro o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w o o a °? � � ^ °� m vri vri - ro vri vri vri " vri ry ti vri vri ry a r a ro � D v m 0 m UM L a o O n 10 W W W - - '- O a+ F VI d i p o o of O O p p O O O O O O p O p O 0 0 0 p N o o y� 10 f p W C C . O O p p C O N 0 0 0 0 p O N 0 O O N O O W y� M O O W Ol O O O O . 'D ni 16 Lo m C 10 L _ O C � 0 = N = a um O ~ F m m m N = VI F F W Q w Q J — N N — c O O m Y Y � Y Y � y. Y O Y m Y Y p N O � J Y d v ~ W ti O K O = c V j u O 9 E u - N ry K > Y E a Y E V a m a° a ,w' - a° c o E o v w v LL w o - v ° 0 0 0 0 x o m ca a '61 a `m a u `oN a s in a s `o m o m a m '`• > ° m LL 3 Im in 0 s s 2 s i 0 2 u M ~ 3 CL a � NnNaNa ,-, a ,-, md asp 2 x 2 x x x x 2 O O O m j 0 E 0 0 v 0 m r o m y F Z c0 w e a o 0 0 o j a F r` 0 3 a > m Exhibit 5 :3 Bayshore kew a y Cost Estimates 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 186 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-1 Bayshore Bikeway(bike path) between E Street& F Streets ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Bike Path strip inglsigning MI 0.25 $ 3,300.00 $ 825.00 2 144" (12')AC path (3"thick)WCAB (3116") SF 10,560 $ 3.50 $ 36,960.00 3 2-24" parallel DG side paths(3") SF 10,560 $ 2.10 $ 22,176.00 4 Clear&grub SF 10,560 $ 1.00 $ 10,560.00 5 Subgrade preparation/excavation CY 587 $ 16.50 $ 9,685.50 6 Drainage(PVC drainage system) LF 1,320 $ 5.50 $ 7,260.00 7 Fencing or guardrail LF 1,320 $ 35.00 $ 46,200.00 8 Pedestrian signal crossing including ADA ramps LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 283,667.00 Admin (2%hard costs) $ 5,673.34 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 289,340.34 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 131,621.00 TOTAL SOFT"COSTS &CONTINGENCIES $ 131,621.00 PROJECT COST $ 420,961.34 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.067 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 449,165.75 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 187 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-9 Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between F Street& H Streets ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Bike Path striping/signing MI 0.51 $ 3,300.00 $ 1,683.00 2 144"(12')AC path(3"thick)wICAB(3116") SF 21542 $ 3.50 $ 75,397.00 3 2-24"parallel DG side paths(3") SF 21542 $ 2.14 $ 45,298.20 4 Clear&grub SF 21542 $ 1.00 $ 21,542.00 5 Subgrade preparationlexcavation CY 1197 $ 16.50 $ 19,750.50 6 Drainage(PVC drainage system) LF 2693 $ 5.50 $ 1.4,811.50 7 Fencing or guardrail LF 2693 $ 35.00 $ 94,255.00 8 Pedestrian signa[crossing including ADA ramps LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 422,677.00 Admin(2% hard costs) $ 8,453.54 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 431,130.54 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 196,122.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS &CONTINGENCIES $ 196,122.00 PROJECT COST $ 627,252.54 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.467 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 669,278,46 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 188 P bA a F ovC L(1 L(1 C C O C O of of l0 �(1 C O O l0 C Il n of ri ri of of o of ri ri ri o of LD o o C oo N w w N N l N N O O m I� O O L(1 N N L(1 L(1 O L(1 .ti Ol Ol n N � O O�(1 l0 l0 �(1 �(1 of �(1 of l0 l0 Ol I� O O O O Ol Ol w .-I .-I .-I m m C l0 Ili m m c l0 T lD o LD LD N � M M N M M Ol Ol O l0 C N N N C c-I I� N LD uj m m N M u W } m A A A A A l0 l0 O O l0 l0 O l0 O O O O c-I C T I, C C O O C C O C O O O M M O O M M O M O N N N w w O O C M M l(1 l(1 M M O M 0 0 0 l0 N l0 O O of of of of O of n Ol Ol L C C O O I, N Ol IA N N w w N N L N w .--I .-I .--I l0 m O O .ti n O n w .-I l0 l0 l0 m l(1 C l(1 l(1 .-I N N IA .-I .-I C l(1 N N Ol Ol .-I Ol Ol l0 l0 C lD O N N W N N �H k J-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - O M - O O C O O M M O O M M O M O l0 l0 U( C C O O l0 O O m m O O m m O m O N N N .-I w O O .ti .--i � � .--i .--i O .--i O M M .--I N C O O O N N U M M n n M M O M l(1 M M a l(1 O O O l(1 .--� l0 N N m m N N O N m N N N M LD O O of a Ol Ol M OJ C C OJ l(1 OJ l(1 l(1 Ol Ol M Q + O N } M bD d 'u v C C o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U l0 l0 O O l0 l0 O l0 O Ol Ol O C l0 � C C O O O c-I O LD LD O c-I LD ol � M .ti c-I O O .--i .-I O .-I O N N � � .--i c-I M C L(1 L(1 O O L(1 L(1 O L(1 N L(1 L(1 Il CK 1 N c-I M O O O O l0 O C T of N m m .--I Ol of of .-I .-I l .-I of .-I .-I O O l .-I M of I� n CK N N N Ol LD M Lr C N C .--I O Ol oo oo .-I 0 oo M U * 0 X bA o ib C O LL C O O O m x N N O M Lu �p .. l0 O. L O co O N N O O X O K OJ V1 V1 !� a X X N X N O l(1 x y0 N C C O Cl"O ti o Q a T OJ OJ OJ a+ ul O C C OJ OJ V bA v N N pp bA N V1 ° ° bA Q C C l(1 C C V1 C C OQ. — — �- a = 'Q = m° do "00 C EO C C p Oi OJ OJ '� +' aY+ OJ Vt .� C O O U L L > > OJ > 3 v `� w OJ i� O O v O v p O "°_ N d C N N (� N Q m bA bA Q Q bA J C bOA C "O W V C C f0 C E E m N Y Y OJ OJ i i v v ° Lu d ° m 3 3 ° 3 0 io a E Z a a Z m Z a aE2 v r r c Y Y p m v v v v v > y E H W Z v v v v v m E CC u w w w X = w H 0 a o z .-I N M l0 I� l(1 LD Ol 6 l0 I,� OJ L� L� L� f f fL� � � � a s a d d - - - - - - - - - - - - - O T rl O X l0 N N X M M 'zT O O N 'zT c-I M M N Il X N a l dt0 O N M N X c-I M N l0 c-I zT O O O m O Il ci Ol N N tv O l0 O Ol zi L!l M Ol ci L!l I-� qi L!l U! qi O Ol l0 ci O O 0. O O O O Ln ci 00 l0 00 Ln 00 Ln M N I- n O N n Ol l0 O 'zZ Ol O l0 'zZ N l0 00 ci M 00 l0 M l0 ci l0 l0 N O M Ln -i Ol Ol c-I d l0 c-I I, Ol Ln -i O Ol l0 N Ol O a-I ci l0 N O 'zT O l0 N O O O N 00 Il n 00 N n ci 00 O Ln M r M lc al Ol I� Ol -zT lfl n Ln 'zT lO N ci Ol R:r R:r Ol qT N N M ci -:r N ci N N N ci I� 00 N N Lr O N M l0 tB O F O O O O O M M O O O O N I- M ci N ci N Tr N O O O O N M N O O O O lfl Cl N O Cl r ci l0 a-I l0 Ln Ln r� lfl 00 N O 00 n M O qT 00 M O N O 00 l0 M Il ci N l0 M a-1 'zT 'zT c-I ci l0 O N l0 N O O M a-1 N M lfl Ol Ln I, Ln 00 O M A N c-I O O ci qT N O N -:r N M N c-I 'z M - c-I L!l 00 l0 l0 L!l M O M 00 N 0) � N O O � n Ol 00 O N l0 Il O M Ol 00 00 00 ci l0 N M O 00 Ol � lfl M N Ln M Ln Ln � N � Ln � Ln 00 Ln U w c-I c-I c-I l0 a-I O N if} if}I if}I iR O X l0 N N X O l0 �zT O O N N 'zT O 'zT O l0 l0 00 R:r Y O N Cl N 00 Ol O N l0 ci lz� Olz� O M O 00 lz� 00 O M O O m zT n 00 m N Ii I, O 1-I zT O l0 n 00 M c-I N Tr O O I- N M N 'zT X N 'zT O n 'zT n N 'zT O X N Il 0) Tr U O O N O ci l0 l0 00 00 N Ol l0 N l0 M Ln Co -zT lfl a-1 O O O ci l0 00 00 zF n N L!l L!l 00 M Ol l0 I- Ol N zF I� rl n ci l0 ci Ln I, ci I, a-1 00 M N N 'zT n 00 O -zT Ln Ln N l0 Ln L!l 00 00 Ol Ol L!l N ci L!l M ci N O ci N 1-0 n M 10 00 <Q n M c-I c-I N cI O N ci N N N ci l0 l0 ci N N N Tr t tB 2 f6 �+ O H H a C m O Q u Ln d N V) C (n J N op 41 Q } m N v m m O 4 O y N ry 0D -p N ZA Q Q "" 00 c-I Y >, O O N m °° C, � U o Q d 111 ci Ln cb co m t it C o O -' � `� C J } r-+ CO GJ —° T 'D X X L - _ Q Ln M '� O O X X LNn o 0000 F Ln LL o Ln Ln 4- N ci a m y L!l N N N u (6 X O - J O > m N m ^ O m > J Y Nm -6 v m v N T 00 2 C x N m u u -0 N y, m N -O O 00 O C O X -6 0 E E 4J Q 4J U o m �-+ U W O O >, K K >� Y O >, >' CO'D 0 K >, �' C C 2i C }' m 4J aJ >j N O T 2 (6 m 41 c c (B 41 � LL L1 L1 L LL — �-+ (B M J �-+ Y M J �-' CO 41 > C N rV r4 -O cTa o O 2 U d o O >, > m O .0 >, >, m C _ Ln ca O ca 4J LLB m m 2 m O1 E E ' §3 N v 0 z X 0 Y Y O O -P or 0 EO j 00 c (0 Q Ym- Y 11J Y �-+ O_ O_ +m' Yom.., �-+ Q Q Q 41 u 5 J-+ Y L 'L J-+ O Y L L � L L a N t fS tao V) 4z E m I Lu 2 a CO LL � C7 cn cn N cn N m F ou Ol M Il 00 O N Ol m LO m ci M m LO Il 00 4 O ci ci ci N N N ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N OD m d' H O N N� u�v rn My H bA U a O x_ < ¢ U 2 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ o LL� N O � U m E v v v v v v v tj'j F Q ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ui iri a iri iri a iri iri iri a "' a � � a a F F F F F F F F F F ¢ID F m m a a U a a U a a a U 0 U O O U U co U co U co U co U co U Q m m D D U D D U D s s U co U U U N 0 Z W LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 W O O O O O O O O Q O N N le w w N o w U D a0U Da0 wU0 D O LL z O 0 0000 O O O O N N 0 V V U N w m 7 _ D M W W W N V V V V m V 6 of of of N X O O O 0 0 0 NM m m MO W U U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 N N M of Z N fA fA n U3 fA fA N Z °a O ry N LL�LL� m m LL�co m V m m O W O O O O W N O � co co � —mm r ro w w o a6 <cnc (aj i m in in in in o0 0000000 0 00 0 r O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O (O LL W V V V V V V N V V V V M U gym= W LU rn rn o o rn rn o rn o rn rn M n M o o m N O O CO u� ro ro n n ro ro o ro n n n o ro co 0 o v d V H U LL LL N N L6 L LL6 p O LL�LL�m m— W LL�W(O(O n O O O O OD N M M U IL U W U fA fA fA N fA fA fA M }w U 9 O H a Z o 0 ooCOOOCOOU�u�onN v v oovvovoMMU�u� o W m m oori rio riorrC�iroro v M M u�u�MMOMOOOCO NCO �N ro ro nnrorooronrnrnu�vv n Q d N N of of N N(O N of (O O) Z° «nn��m�COOOrnu�v O U U3 U3 U3 U3 V fA LL�N N O)D)� (O U w H N N M LL� O J 0 U U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 N U3 W I - / \ °0 W a 0 Z LL O s H m a 16 E LL O « o tDt > S V) UU o o o ° U w a m w v a o o a« m w r m C C °N C C O O Z N O O V O ` A N O N N ww N ww o- x D U U a p m N LL a °x K o 0 o f K E a c o 0 o m m o m o 0 3 m ° '° m N w m w n m m o y Q m a T o z E E U E E E E °-o x . C' m E o m."oa .- °0 10oma-o aOi n N m m mo a o 3 goo 3 o 3 5-o m a m m oo m m 2 ¢ O zm zcn z ink e, rFF w Q m maa m ma mom n EU°5 w :�m LL (n (n N N O > �Yn m-o m m0 E o w w w��xx� m-a =m " O1in w m m u� ww�,�,=u� u�u�u�u�u� www = = N O N co CO co Q LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL�LL� ¢¢ ¢ Y n' rn N V O 0. co O N O ^ 0 v v u� = y u o o ` d rn a O N ° in m v F V N O N D Z ¢O V O V l0 N H N O N O rL V M V V O 0 O LL� N m LL�N O Z N W N N (O N N O N (� 0 M } N m N N ON ON N N O O p O N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N - N N z Uv vvvvv vvv vvvzvv a N O � LL 6 o _ Z ti O O w m M W LY o 0 0 (O of (O N N O of O V N N V V O O(O O O(O V O O LL� N m of O V m LL�V O LL� V of N LL� O W O N V N o U m O O o O ^N N N m�� �O V of V(O of O I�O N�V�O O m(O(O Z m m v ^mm�u�m vvv NvmN V<» �/� N U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3�U3�U3 U3 VI � U3 U3 U3 Z °a O N O 0 0 O O O O O O O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M OD N N Q 3 0 m O O V O O O O O O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V M W 0 V O W N J (O m LL� N W O O O LL�O of f0 of LL�m I�N I�^W W f0 I W V F (O O V O O(O O V N ll of of V mm _m m m O O lc lc W W V V fn LL�N W N V m LL� 0 0 0 O (O O LL�O O O O^n O OD N W W V O N M N pp f9 O co�U3 U3 O r m ^m v-O O W ^(O^(O Lo N V O V 4 i0 W V M U NU m N v O V NN�m�v N N N N W�N� v vOD^v J (y U3 U3 W EA EA EA EA EA EA N� EA EA EA EA EA EA EA U3 MN MN NN fON M a Wo o ,m v W 0000 0 000000 000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o o n ^o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° VI LL W N N N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C6 U m= m v LU s LLB N O LL s u� co 0 o O 0000 Om 000000000 y� ^ v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m(O^W O (O(O U _m mm p O N U U N W-7 N- O d W U a <» <» <» <»<»<» <»<» <»<»<»<»<»<»<»<» o >LL, w z M O 5 Z v v o v o 0 0 0 Ir m Ir W � N (O /G J N d1 N O (O V of(O m O li Z° ON N Om V rn 0 U » o» N »°� m»m» - J m W E» i» E W 00 o w LLB o 0 0 a 9) Z o O (n O H j� CL o a} m� o v m« O mm to O -a« N } N m C N N a. LL d N � �N N m as (nQ -O C � �. V) m o o d LL cQo � ro3 m m 0 w Z m u d Y m ° mLL S -L E w co 00 ��a v }� m m s m Q W C r LL N N l0 O.i° N X F J l0 G1 m O m J - N 0 f0 D Y F J y x o E m r m m� V, �O O O Y/1 N X o- N J l0 U oJ' Y /0/ z ^ wp wp �y O .N...G G w w(n.- J m O C"00 N omN l0 N LL a as o � 3xm n�mmm = o�nmo m o _ o - ¢ m 2 U cm 01 -O °m KYnU om U y O 3 7! � E E Y t t W m a a O m m!n m m m A m N o til E a m J > y w ° w y Y 3 3 W N N o N-O 3.�=U y C OO w J 3 U N Q d ° OY Y Y m m E Ems° m E E -�� m E Y3 m a > o 0 o z E o J O E o o co LL m m Q m Q U K m w m m o:.Q w o O o LL U O O H ll ° C C V, N O-H N N N N N d' 01 0 V l0 l0 l0 l0 7 « N N l0 l0 (n 3 7 N(n N N N O o (n o N p V - m aom m J m w m wx n��-maw mw n n�FC� zm� Q 4 in ^ m ^moo NO vrn�u�mcovmco O N N N N N N N N N N - ¢ d d} } } }}}}}} }}}}}}}}} W mmmm m mmmmmm mmmmmmmmm 0 Appendix A Bayfront Roadways RAS 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 193 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-9 It{TEAS -TTF S AN BLVD m z 03 1{ ���•::`_- ,',�- �<___. r THEE- - -! j l Qy�L �rRF.E'�R�"���rA SrR�� FRIAR!,hc'!in 4 v R3 =,N u�u:i�.r-� E„ FINAL DRAFT 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 194 SAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) October 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-9 Intersection of J Street and Interstate 5 North-bound This project includes improvements to improve circulation from west to north. ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL Construction of improvements at J Street and 1-5 $500,000 City Project Administration(2 56) $10,000 PROJECT COST $ 510,000 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not Included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (51 Cost does not include property acquisition. (Gi Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 195 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACUTY NO. BAY-13 INTERS TE 5 rasrar�s ,r 4r7� r: TREET—p "1Rg$7q STq '�i �` Lbp STREET _� FsT�FFT �) t 1fiRILa Y ¢ Q r: �I. } Cr ES f SAN DIEGO.CA =t 11 FINAL DRAFT 1111114 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 196 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 11,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-1.3 E STREET This project includes construction of a new two-lane road from Bay Blvd to H Street to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length([.F)w 5,450 1.F ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 116.600 2 Demolition $ 320,258 3 Earthwork $ 994,098 4 Irrigation $ 10,746 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 695,618 6 Street Lighting $ 471,743 7 Roadways $ 2,329,272 8 Streetscape $ 1,638,738 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 46,035 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 60,100 11 Water Quality $ 517,216 12 Dewatering $ 212,390 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 7,412,814 SOFT CCt5T5 Soft Costs $ 1,802,336 City Project Administrations(2%of total hard costs) $ 148,256 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,950,592 PROJECT COST $ 9,363,406 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 197 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-17 INTERS TE 5 � [ •'�-4- TVT�gs�.A7C 5 �—J: ��� _•.._ m s�8q y etyma TRE£TA_ Gam:,_ A yl f l a E F.G.•iCE[r'i: jrASlr,1-1.?`1[.4€45 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 198 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID; BAY-17 H STREET This project includes construction of a two to three lane road from E street to marina Parkway and a five lane Major Road from Street A to Bay Boulevard to integrate with the new segment of H Street that is currently under construction for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista 8ayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include stre=_tscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF) 7„650 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 54,140 2 Demolition $ 191,046 3 Earthwork $ 411,583 4 irrigation $ 3,107 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 372,198 6 Street Lighting $ 142,821 7 Roadways S 1,391,842 8 Streetscape $ 960,782 9 Ha7mat Earthworl, S 22,468 10 Haainat Disposal Fee $ 29,332 11 Water Duality S 113,417 12 Dewatering $ 48,661 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 3,741,398 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 909,675 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 74,828 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 984,503 PROJECT COST $ 4,725,901 Notes; (1) The source of this=estimate is Cunning Corp. (2)€aewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sevier dewate6ng is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. 14)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups, (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.110 escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 199 CHULA VISTA BFDII= FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-18 INFERS /RTES MTE F— Y B1.v� yTREFT rA srgFEr �lL3llFlft�{—P F1K _I—.-.....— 3 y ti C _ z I cc in�1 FMAR}IF[FAD s,,nf DfEcci.r_A!I-']III FINAL DRAFT 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 200 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: SAY_1 MARINA PARKWAY This project includes improvements to Marina Parltway by contructing a three-lane road from H Street to Street C to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula vista Bayfront lviaster Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length{LF)= 1.104 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 30,259 2 Demolition $ 231,814 3 Earthwork $ 242,035 4 Irrigation $ 2,233 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 228,448 6 Street Lighting 5 95,214 7 Roadways $ 644,571 8 streetscape $ 289,532 9 Hazmat Earthworl; S 15,956 10 Haz€nat Dispersal Fee $ 20,831 11 Water Quality $ 12 Dewatering $ 20,718 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,821,661 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 442,915 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 36.438 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 479,348 PROJECT COST $ 2,301,009 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Devmterin„cost prorated based on Icngth of storm drain,Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor marl:ups. I5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 201 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-20 Ay r � sue—__=8gra rH ECr�.nA.;a � A srRr STREET �� rgFE�'rN'•—�_ :+ � r1B_�9�9�Y t 4 ^1 � �`,�I,. d ! a �ZL 51,20R, I:S�,�IAD FiNAL DRAFT F.i:r•1::EC�� it;zn-,r,.�,i.�w5 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 202 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-20 MARINA PARKWAY This project includes improvements to Marina Parkway by contructing a three-lane road from Street C to J Street to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements wii€include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF)= 1,450 LE ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 35,947 2 Demolition $ 187,321 3 Earthwork $ 284,174 4 Irrigation $ 2,233 S Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 132,338 6 Street Lighting $ 125,510 7 Roadways $ 770,499 8 Streetscape S 352,404 9 Hazmat Earthwork S 18,051 10 I-lazmat Disposal Fee $ 23,566 11 Water Quality $ 12 dewatering S 7,2294 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,939,341 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 471,527 City Project Administration(2%of total Bard costs) $ 38,787 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 510,324 PROJECT COST $ 2,449,655 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Server dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. IS)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 203 CI- ULA VISTA BFIDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY No. BAY-22 INTERS ATE 5 TREETA� ``�4 SrgEr � T. ( ��� + STREET g" i Lu Rt 7 a 3 i ® FINAL DRAFT F,i.."::£[i:u lFAS}(,I't. '11,4 V,5 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 204 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-22 1 Street This project includes improvements to J Street by contracting a four-six lane road from Marina Parl way to Bay Boulevard to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting, furnishings,etc. Length(Lf 1,650 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 43,797 2 Demolition $ 355,417 3 Earthworl-, $ 352,753 4 Irrigation $ 3,225 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 126,696 6 Street Lighting $ 142,821 7 Roadways $ 1,136,899 8 Streetscape $ 497,057 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 15,799 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 20,626 11 Water Quality $ 119,232 12 Dewatering $ 63,178 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,857,499 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 694,766.20 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 57,150 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 751,916 PROJECT COST $ 3,6€9,415 Notes' (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dawatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Ward costs include General Contractor marl,-ups. (S)Cast dues not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 205 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BAY-29 Pump Station and Sewer Relocation Costs (Marina Pkwy. and J St.) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Relocation, Pump Station 11 - Marina Parkway $ 575,000.00 2 Sewer and force main relocation-J Street $ 270,000.00 3 Sewer and force main relocation-Marina Parkway(C St to J St) $ 500,000.00 Subtotal hard costs $ 1,345,000.00 Hard costs contingencies (15%) $ 201,750.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 30,935.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,577,685.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs (24.314%) $ 383,598.33 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 383,598.33 PROJECT COST $ 1,961,283.33 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,961,283,33 Source: Psomas Engineering 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 206 Appendix front Roadways� Non-RAS Agenda Packet Page 207 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO BAY-14 INTERS TE 5 �.—.--........ ---- - T-!R "y .,••,—p Tg P �LV THE-- ETA 5TRsEt[J /�FFlrN 1 �rA lL1AAflL�!NA.Y uj to �I � TOAD r r,Io.'91Wo- F/AIAL DRAFT E�Ci51::E ENt1,1i FA\1619.,2,'114 Ifs; f�l��l•'- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 208 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY- 14 F STREET This project includes construction of a new two-lane road from the railroad to the cul-de-sac to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length ILF)= 1,700 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 31,834 2 Demolition $ 3 Earthwork $ 416,139 4 Irrigation $ 3,256 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 111,075 6 Street Lighting $ 147,149 7 Roadways $ 792,493 8 Streetscape $ 436,849 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 7,036 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 9,185 11 Water Quality $ 146,286 12 Dewatering $ 41,669 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,142,982 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 521,040 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 42,860 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 563,900 PROJECT COST $ 2,706,882 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cu€yi€ning Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. {3)Storm[Train cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 209 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NQ. BAY-15 E INTERSTATE 5 Y BLVD f 5� TREETA SETA SrgE STREET 581�IA...P�RIUNPY a i uc�I r,SI!I.A) FINAL _DRA I >;,,E;;Ee�:��E„{c•.�I'= Irgx�€,I!1_�9I,iIfS 1191/14 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 210 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY- 15 LAGOON DRIVE This project includes demolition of the existing road from Street to E Street to a bicycle and pedestrian access road as part of the Ch€la Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Length(LF)= 950 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 2 Demolition $ 3 Earthwork $ - 4 Irrigation $ 11,789 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 6 Street Lighting $ 7 Roadways $ 8 Streetscape $ 1,493,315 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ - 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 11 Water Quality $ 12 Dewatering $ TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,505,105 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 365,948 City Project Administration(2%of total Lard costs) $ 30,102 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 396,050 PROJECT COST $ 1,901,155 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is C€IFTIMing Corp. (2l Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not ind€Icled. (3)Storm drain cost does not inclUde cost of site drainage.only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor marls-€JPs. (5)Lost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 211 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NQ BAY-16 INTERS ATE S �.T-BEET a Ay PSr ���� STRITE•T S. x r r EG 0 FINAL DRAFT Fi:r.i::¢Erir-�c�:<••.Et•=.:� IPIXIG[h,"tl.alf,� j��l/�1� 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 212 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-16 G STREET This project includes construction of a new two-lane commercial driveway off of E-Street to allow for access to the UTC property as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Length(LF)= 300 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 4,422 2 Demolition $ 26,109 3 Earthwork $ 31,699 4 Irrigation $ 577 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 12,750 6 Street Lighting $ 25,968 7 Roadways $ 116,969 8 Streetscape $ 71,491 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 1,170 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 1,527 11 Water Quality $ 26,678 12 Dewatering $ 3,1S9 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 322,520 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 78,417 City Project Administration(2°&of total hard costs) $ 6,450 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 84,867 PROJECT COST $ 407,387 Notes: {1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. {2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage,Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. (7)Cost does not include property acquisition. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 213 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NQ BAY-19 kNTEFiS T 5 -� Y BLVD TREET A Q uwj ~ STREET B a r �1 e WAWA"),"J1, 165 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 214 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-19 STREET A This project includes construction of a four-lane road from H Street to Street C to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street IniproVenlents will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF)= 1,150 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL. 1 Site Preparation $ 36,298 2 Demolition $ 201,454 3 Earthworl, $ 274,214 4 Irrigation $ 2,397 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 118,040 6 Street Lighting $ 99,542 7 Roadways $ 898,883 8 Streetscape $ 308,392 9 Haznmat Earthworl: $ 6,442 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 8,410 11 Water Quality $ 108,491 12 Dewatering $ 19,436 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,082,001 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 506,213 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 41,640 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 547,853 PROJECT COST $ 2,629,855 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Server dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. {4)Hard costs include General Contractor rnarlc-LIPS. (5)Cost does not inCiude property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates,No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 215 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NCB. BAY-21 rdTERS �s ffl p� m ,• $q ISSR ETAte" _AEi�7rA — STS 87' I _ � 4 - STREET� a } uj a G�9,3e1�3-ir FIN 4L D_R7Ar7T 1FAW,11).-19 1.4 165 ✓`l1�/l;T 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 216 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-21 STREET A This project includes construction of a four-lane road fro€n Street C to J Street to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Sayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF)= 1,400 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 41,633 2 Demolition $ 173,471 3 Earthworl, $ 526,532 4 Irrigation $ 2,700 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 187,221 6 Street Lighting $ 121,182 7 Roadways $ 591,097 8 streetscape $ 379,056 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 12,517 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 16,341 11 Water Quality $ 146,731 12 Dewatering $ 6,689 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,2135,171 SOFT-COSTS Soft Costs $ 536,160.62 City Project Administration(2%of total Lard costs) $ 44,103 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 580,264 PROJECT COST $ 2,785,435 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated Based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-LIPS. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 217 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO BAY-23 INTRRS TE 5 _ Y BLVD Lu STRE 1 RKWky l -" � a < w x FINAL DRAFT Err.ir:e[rus�:i'r•.u�-s'' I FAX 1(,19-"11A1C, 7/17/1 ' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 218 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-23 STREET C This project includes construction of a two-lane road from Marina Parkway to Bay Boulevard to allow for redevelopment of the area as Part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length{l-F)= 1,350 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 26,224 2 Demolition $ 119,055 3 Earthwork` $ 196,404 4 Irrigation $ 3,080 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 240,083 6 Street Lighting $ 116,854 7 Roadways $ 750,661 8 Streetscape $ 379,598 9 Hazmat Earthwork: $ 7,629 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 9,960 11 Water Quality $ 134,759 12 Dewatering $ 51,595 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,035,902 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 495,004.97 City Project Administration#2%of total hard costs) $ 40,718 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 535,723 PROJECT COST $ 2,571,625 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. {2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.lVo escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 219 CHULA VISTA BFI]IF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-24 INTFRS T 5 If lq ,, l STREET BI �TR ET -- fn _ } =1 < ,n'u FI:L�hti Rf)1C3 619.2101,0 0 1lV/-t�, DRAFT IFAX1619'V1.�1G, 7/17/1- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 220 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-24 MARINA WAY This project includes improvements to J Street by contructing a two-lane road from!Marina Way West to J street to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista 8ayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF)= 1,100 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 18,335 2 Demolition $ 70,808 3 Earthwork $ 147,310 4 Irrigation $ 2,218 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 88,467 6 Street Lighting $ 95,214 7 Roadways $ 450,370 8 Streetscape $ 268,585 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 8,851 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 11,555 11 Water Quality $ - 12 Dewatering $ 2,350 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,164,065 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 283,028.29 City Project Administration(2 0X of total hard costs) $ 23,281 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 306,310 PROJECT COST $ 1,470,375 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 221 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-25 i INTERS TE 5 Y BLVD L� � y�•�' TREET STE7E�rT FST � ����� � •. STREET 114A �fl.kClhlAYt�, r i Lu — �- it - .�; Si,sn ERI�;ItS Rc?AD Gov IEc n,c,1 1€l' FINAL DRAFT F�:c.i;:EEP.h�r.i4'•su-.s'' IFA\iG 14.',91.�16� �llf/�'�' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 222 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-25 STREET A This project includes construction of a two-lane road from J Street to Street B(Otay District)to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. This project also includes a vehicular bridge Length(LF)= 1,70D LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 41,633 2 Demolition S 173,471 3 Earthwork: $ 526,532 4 Irrigation $ 26,021 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 187,221 6 Street Lighting $ 147,149 7 Roadways $ 510,446 8 Streetscape $ 717.071 9 Hazmat Earthwork: $ 12,517 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 16,341 11 Water Quality $ 146,731 12 Dewatering $ 33,663 13 Vehicle Bridge $ 3,548,955 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 6,087,752 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 1,480,163.01 City Project Administration(2°5 of total hard costs) $ 121,755 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,601,918 PROJECT COST $ 7,689,670 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor marts-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are baser!on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 223 CHULA VISTA BFIDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NC) BAY-26 IlJTEEiS TE 5 �INF I81.4Y BEND -..•,-. �y�. ,,.—� TRH TA . -- .4 37 R� r Ctrp STREET�.. T��J 1 w lD6 iulA-PABLCYYAY t o Lu cc FINAL Dj-'k'AFT I -n�lr fGirl;y R[?.,D E r•rd_S Er,uani'ce.0=.r;7 1 AA161').-91,.1H,, 7/11/12 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 224 SAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY-26 STREET B This project includes construction of a two-lane road from Street A to Bay Boulevard(Otay District)to allow for redevelopment of the area as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, Street Improvements will include streetscape enhancements such as street trees,lighting,furnishings,etc. Length(LF)= 2,600 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Site Preparation $ 66,175 2 Demolition $ 275,731 3 Earthwork $ 862,033 4 Irrigation $ 41,360 5 Storm Drainage for Roadway $ 352,718 6 Street Lighting $ 225,052 7 Roadways $ 832,193 8 streetscape $ 3,503,967 9 Hazmat Earthwork $ 29,153 10 Hazmat Disposal Fee $ 38,062 11 Water Quality $ 249,887 12 Dewatering $ 36,109 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 6,512,440 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 1,583,420.92 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 130,249 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,718,670 PROJECT COST $ 8,226,110 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. {2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 225 CHUL.A VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT" FACILITY N4. BAY-27 INTERS L-- Y BLVD TREETA °rR� 1 q S7 "C STREET U) a FINAL DRAFT I FAX EA P)-"11 A I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 226 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: BAY- 27 BAYSHORE BIKEWAY This project includes construction of new bikeway spur route from the North End of the Project Boundary at Bay Blvd,to the South End of the Project Boundary at Bay Blvd.to tie into the existing Bayshore Bikeway as part of the Chula vista Bayfront Master Plan. The new Bayfront Loop includes bicycle trails and a pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge in Parcel HP 1(N), Length(LF)= 14,400 LF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 E Street(Bay Blvd to H Street' $ 318,391 2 H Street(E Street to Marina Parkway) $ 67,740 3 Marina Parkway(H Street to Street C) $ 55,886 4 Marina Parkway(Street C to 1 Street) $ 55,886 5 J Steet(Marina Parkway to Street A) $ 7,173 6 Street A(Otay) $ 80,652 7 Street B $ 137,352 8 Pedestrian Bridge $ 703,666 9 Earthwork $ 167,588 10 Drainage $ 125,691 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,720,423 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 418,202.71 City Project Administration(2%of total hard costs) $ 34,400 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 452,603 PRO)ECT COST $ 2,172,626 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)Dewatering cost prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is not included. (3)Storm drain cost does not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition, (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 227 CHULA VISTA BFDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. BAY-28 - 1 THROUGH 7 INTERS 5 '^'r�'RSrar�s BAY 9� TS a TS TS �yt PC r� eTA TSB 4�' STREET Sr9FF�,(H TS � A A TS a a 2 cc 4 E TS = Troff i c S i gno I 2 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO,CA 921 t0 FINAL DRAFT 6i 9.x9t.o�o� FKONIFFRIN(l COMPANY (FAX)619.291.4165 7191114 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 228 BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (BFDIF) July 10,2014 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY ID: Bay 28- 1 through 7 TRAFFIC SIGNALS This Project includes construction of new traffic signals to facilitate increases{traffic that will be generated by the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL 1 Traffic Signal at H Street and Resort Conference Center truck driveway $ 177,803 2 Traffic Signal at H Street and Street A $ 355,607 3 Traffic Signal at J Street(H15)and Street A $ 355,607 -4 Traffic Signal at J Street(H14)and Marina Parkway $ 355,607 -5 Traffic Signal at J Street(HP-126)and Bay Blvd $ 355,607 -6 Traffic Signal at L St.& Bay Blvd $ 355,607 -7 Traffic Signal at 1-5 S6 Ramps&Bay Blvd $ 355,607 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,311,443 SOFT COSTS Soft Costs $ 562,000.12 City Project Administration(2 0Z10 of total hard costs) $ 46,229 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 608,229 PROJECT COST $ 2,919,672 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is Cumming Corp. (2)0ewatering cost Prorated based on length of storm drain.Sewer dewatering is riot included. (3)Storm drain cost floes not include cost of site drainage.Only roadway drainage is included. (4)Hard costs include General Contractor mark-ups. (5)Cost does not include property acquisition. (6)Costs are based on 2013 estimates.No escalation factor has been applied. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 229 Appendix C : Traffic Impacts and N Measures 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 230 O L al En CJ U u°i C1 : N = Cl o c 03 a) c Cu CL m a] ro U to .�C R i[S ° .C? .0 • C C C, N .jm @ � CS r Cu (D CD Co L.L 0 U U ,? zm.. r W TM ""5 ro C U") R O AR :CD M 1�' y In CL ° Q � > E tiJ R C3 c Cu i; CS Cm R �f Cu � U C`n E° as R �O c a a �t : ° CL 1 > C O (T6 C R N -C O 0 y C •� U C @ 27 ,° X N @ •�', U @ G ° .� Ll...... 47 N to �'. N • a = T O """" R u7 'L7 C? 7 sn-C7 [U D W N �w 0 — C,3 . 0 its r�i b Co R Q. C � C 0 @ m `n 0 Cl) m ran .Q n w ra U E m ui in CD w m Lo CL 0 Cu c' Co U a °o _ W r C Q fU to C 1 R o 0.7 .0 C 0 _ N []..i!1 O Cl)C14 Cu M! C) as as cu r» c� ° ° a (D m d R v o ca Co 5 o u v c ..o`s '..�^ .m chi O �? W O -� d C C m to N c cn cra Un rn 2 � m � = = � m — m i° m cn c m ° Co Co ti3 o m r� a. c � ul ° Co ° is -, 0 ° c .S t/) w IM ° d n en CD -6 0 0 Cu -0 ca— o U U °u U `o • C� 51 r° C o rL CL n ci c° • • • c°a IL � CD u7 ru a E 0 Co m c 0 ro Co o Cn U m c n m 0 m o c o L1.. o © � © >•C/) o ro m mro W M 0 c m m W Ca U a as @ c ci CO i m a? E (a 0 €Y j v U •• CV u N v r-- ° E rL Co R Cm � .� V Cn @ O t4 co x CO CD '20 u C U pro w b U a cy rn m Lli Cm O L� 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 231 � � C7� C7 e-• v O U s u m Co Co V] = cn r c cis rn zlf W, _ a gm W u, c E v v -M,a co tu m c° ham° rc �,-°m a ri —� M-co c JCL © o ° •� m N O p4 c to 0 °0 'W rte : ° > cD c a? L u L a Ln ° m c h O cu ° m c» 0 O O �. oco o w �3 o Uj m c m O .Yw ,.. V •C7 ul cm [KS tU rn N cn 0 Co Qi c3 Q? O U O O U cv- N [g .� C�9 c0 cc m r i U 2 C� cD t= co A u3 0 C N IE N W co ro ° d �F °; AMC) ° u� m o ca 0 et o o m a O O `s c cuv °w co-5 I-0 co w ca cc ° i° E ar o �. .5: as ul m 0 y ul ° N m � 0 r - ° m CD > ai o �- 3 is is `n d .gy CL m ° © c `° n`� p m °' c o G O •m m as 0 cc a= M, y m „x 0 C CSI m d O O -- w N T '� iL P cU o W E ch U] m cc M CD p cm tea" Cori q�mj 'wn E [a CD CO ceai ' `° mCLE md, ia LL Qmm rc ca a) r3 axi ci o c> a c a ° a co cc C) _ cs c v co v 0 m N LX -O GL 7 o CL -0 C •� m uj. .� � co F- as a o to o co ° �" Vi o cn ,c v m O cn ca rn° 3 m ac6i c° N fCf Z1 N @ N •C7 N [] O CL `et o ° �Y CIS 4 , «. f].. - R a cs o •O O v c Q -{3 O p Cl.. Q• Lx.1 V7 m 'C7 p •� Cn 0 q? .E v 7. C •p > Jw. C 0. L_A CY'f 0O (c6 'p � a O 6 R c t..1 U! a Q) Ln U) to ,Ti Co t7. CO co Q LL 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 232 0 C? A j m Y , G'ib CO -C LO .. G `ca' Lm _ .� C C C C a C Co C Cu U [33 CU to j -. N to � 'C y C C .'a a) J LO C!J D "r3 Ica C N -= CU c Ca z rn i Ms CL m as tm .= ca m .C? ,- ° m > m Im w ° m m m ° CCs D c n c m c E Cl) Cn .n CC) CL a t= � > x' rcat � cnv' � � c c p � E � ma °rnn ° O m n a.:3 N� M CO a 0 c } o n.o w- u a -0 � Cn � ° .m ,_ c°i CO m � .m . c ro s0 r .my E m uct D N `p =o tit N 0 © T- m c �_ e c 7, ccn Y. D .,... -EVE= D Lo U Q2 M rSl _ U C CD U C C3� G ! C 4] tl N CD m N aNY W T.�Ln ca � d D -� �7,. O ..0 CL° f7,. DU ° T, n DU C 3 cz iU Co C 0 j N �° C a) N 47 -" ? -1 Cis O L Cll i 0. Lu. .: 7 N U (j 67 p in C O CL C Can Q a N :..�;.. rid - a) y CL 0 «-s ° _ (D iU p7.. a CD �� � M•U CU Cq m o n 3 m° Ca .N a m m � z c C•, Co U Ctl CV Cmn CV r7 �.d •„�,. p •U S] p C1Y gyp.. C ID N D Cam' C N d- E p .1 parr •u-) 0 . a a3 a rt� �Cl a Z5 1T to 'n .N r D U D a tJ V p C a T. CV C m tU N CV U N G C9 CL) = N D - CAE t -M- Co 0 a) C-4 CV ca r-I a e� n =3 ca c m to ca ° CD � &D O M o n o Co rm !m CN CD CD u� c C u, ° C Q ° C C T _ v c rn = c d as f1. H c°i c a m m Co w m tB ° m m u01i v c m c"i N °w Co E m N v, ch o m o r C3 a}to "m ° Cu ° co w •- 4i o cm is c `= c`? o Co v u' ,°� v o m ro > m Cc © o r`i s n`u m .r a o . c ic7 4_7 v ,� C6 D U N C1 O Cu 0 � � en CO Sm p C m p L7.. CO 0 r C1 CS3 - m y m [tl C]. 1= [a m °n' °ii7 rcv ca m N �' Co m° rCn cn 9 Hon m i [7] CD N U N t? d. Cm•z7 Cq ED ..p.. -0 CiJ U- D) C C?7 N tC] C3 w u c rn o CO o `n m p CLl L) U) a) Cn Un ° rn C. vi.� .,..a m m (D r�CL w U, M 0 a c E o .ca � �i � � a'a � � � EL � c � � o a � = cu m w c m m a c co '� w nt - w D ° CA ° C( .-CO 4] m a C p7 C9 -r7 ..... .0 O = t1 � = = CO E2 E ca 0 .G 'H' aai cis Ccu a°i Fes,- c D !-- 'CS `� ~ ° .c a c ~ a°a ua 11 {Y ra 0 �0 a-� M ) � ai o N LL' a EJ ` '° d0. a CDM Qd mtt tV = m _ tV a c m c `n-� w v sn • 3 a. o "E `t Q> m Q E Ca CO CL Co ca sa r m ca. c. c' c 0- E.n rL w c ° a. Ca -0 ° p m } c c E (1) '= .� m a— � • o can rn m 0 -0 U, (D c m w m M -c � m a Co rain aDS C7 o a CrI is oG] Cf] o Cp c m °o �? cmi •c Q 5 D ° a E .d t`] rte— m .Q Cf3 r? -0 0 .� [L a CU LL CV LU � m 0 �m o rn c � u`> .� c rn c EW = m C3 c» v arn � os . °-� o c me o mn a>> Q m a r-i fA Ca c� CL EL in Ccr ° !� w Q 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 233 � C) y ux � u m yS a a m Las n a E v cn c sU C= m 0 rn c W Co .m a� 0 C ._ (D P tU us 'ics .C� :a .a •C] Cp G = C 7 C CZ. X C� aJ r ° °m � `�' o o m o" CD ami LEJ Cu E ro`a .Cm c m - zN Co CM— i 'ca m �� C) W = as E = n o 7 ' 0 15 °o a� m C o o o Co __r CL a o a� © Ca O _ N =• C7? _ C,Cn q Co C m o a0 Q nN _x,n % ,a SD 'C .c Co C» '� C cCD =3 m O a? (D 0 CV] P _ p _ �? cn c z3 � Cu E o m m C in o E a c .Q m � m p c cts o,, o CU = tCU ° E °- p Co •.°a w ,,�„ o.. m N •io m ° UwY as U; © `� E °' a nQi �•°- X ° Q Y m � Q) c 5 �o © p u"i a) c c ° d3 O LJ 0 v voi `= O CD 7 .� [a a) z as E w C C U C7 `m Q. "." OJ Co �? � � — � ' Fu ° tea of C ° c � , � o m r� E m cx ti m a� -o m Co o c� 0 0 �, ; a e a aci CL= � Co o — - C% m 'a, 0 c ° ,�, o � a) Co "Cl CO C CL to d E D E ms-. m CA.- Co 0 C Ca �.-. a) IU 6 Cat v a) to 7 0 � CU � c = C N y Ca vs � T"C3 0 q Lo E — E a = rn c Cti m , iU v ° p m CO is °' '-= -- - /'\ C C N 0 .,,.. •V) LU C Q ,a) tl "" Ca .� @ � C C '' c Ya •°- C "' E 'n �o ocC°LU @E rs m ? Q "' caW tni a� Co 0 p k na i� U0 mss. = � oCD -o y '0o tCU - Co Co vi �u � aa)i CD rte.. -0 M p v o c iu = ea m m (A C � :_ E = m to Vca Co o a? _ u! m ra U a=a a) o E a E CD s'= '0 v ra v c' 0 '`n m a E ° ni ca °.' t� o _ o ca �o a—' bra , Cl o = c `, o ci 0 o �� C E m o � n V' o W M m as � _ � ° n CO °� c o w n aCi m ry C '_ U7 ca o y m cd o c _ m 3'= s E Cu 3 0 Co Co m > _ C m ° c a E ° - is m _ = o Co ui C13 H m ° as c •� w = `� '°� = = CL = rn E w -o c 4- (L zi 5 ID Q m u°i ° m in m 'n y c m Qs E c=u w o o o a to U) c o Q w Co C -0 � C as a) m om as CL rCn m CD a`ni a) -o 0 `rya m � 0 -0 in 7 m c3. � 0. C] c s' m m C m E o C c = C c c m c CD 2 4 LL_ — n t- m c1 N^ Cs I— m _o m o v U) 4 aiQcac _ oaz U3 m ub 2 v E to n i� r� w C-- m • 0 's t m " 5 E a > N LU C _ Co `n 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 234 C C? C? Cl) U m-Cn s_. •- ro Co cj U) u5` .o,Lo Co CD c P m irr ° U c ' ro U x iv m 0 "- ro CL C3 ro r" g m ._ "U, CO Q � a' U p) L7 C^ m U C � .c% s c �, in c ( � m E - Z= crn CD ca o w •C' EU " n `o N c� E mEri a Cn CL CD °1 a) m Cn m ro P = n .n ° - o c c°'a c° © = 0) © a) O m CA CCa (°� `,,.° 7 'cs O 'm .E c- U �j 3 Q T C m CD E ICJ N a P m _ ° o ' m 3 E via Cu P E o c° �' ° c °'_' c 5 lv ° {P) can CL= °o `° a�i Co a m 45 ° 7 c c ° a) ° - ro -Cl L) as cv P t� -0 D m c c ? m c C ' E m � CU CD n fl' P w C0 = U) aci ' cn v CO ca r- Cs O E i ro iM D d) i-' i m 7. © t1 ca IU 7,CL w = - U vim) - co„t C ti P o CL O c N c E ro �_ P_ c - u c a) E m m CZ - Iv �... 3 M a -Co c CD ro ca rx1 : ° � L= a) a) W u Co u m F a`� o .` � o `n �- a Co � 3^ �.�. Ql � C].. V1 C nL1-.ca C P LL � P ro CL L.� 0 ro C � a) (D � � Ia �- O a) E m c ° m ( ° °a Q c a°) E �' o ro aci LT ci ° = ' P U 13- ° con- . o � to 0 m � (D o � w co E � im- ?m N ) . v w C Cl) v a 10 "Si�, n� C3 E ' p ._ Q o m �.m � v c a) v) D CL CU P n - u m a c CS . m •c c n c ._ E m `m Cu E v -�„ Q A 't7 C t4 m W a.:. M Ia C CL. C ro O C: `= 0 � . o . Im-0 15L� � c C� a E o ° . ro � � c�i ° ��” - =1 c •.0 n •C .0 a) C a) x CD -� Cu � ►."' C m P E E N O 'ZS rn N Cf) 0 W11 - N O CD � 'L9 "O L) G) C Cu U p) CU f].. d C CV v Rol Co CU N 'C P N ° � U°7 C1."C:S ��W. d ° — M CD m ro E � �'X ro a) � c) ro � � ctl ° E sW � E � � � m tB � ° c 3 m o �, nroi m m v w ? ° � m umi m � w u, M rt w is rn i[S Q CL a 4 m ro '. n ro ro N 0 m Cis � CL W ro I; v, ny c3 7 _ c ca q) lv N cn c {- � CO 'v) c E m c a c ° m U m E E v, s� w n C .m v cQ7a Co [L c"Cn ro U Q_ •� C N N N 43 O P CJ O m t1 cCU °) � voi n � c '� �� c E '�' 'm n a 2 a n � °' C? E �, E cu I^ o ! .E ° w . N Iv � m L1 N'u, `p C > ° "� o m 7 7777 Cn fA -60 P > CO 7 6 75 C/) .0 us — C aa) in L? o "n, m R r c m Rs U ro L] 0 LS) V7 CC fn c Uj V ° U_ C 4? _= a-- C 0 - O Y 9) C) .— 1p iZ S— a CL 0 CL' M Co n ° C U ,I.. 3;: C1,.%) V p. 0 CD V' C •�„ N C17 � l9 Ill CJj.` C e G G L� Z7 D E - - C D Q C � UJ C7 87 sue,) [n CL c ti fn m LU CL. 4 LL 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 235 % l o M A ro 'C7 LL~'7 C C C C -j:! CO CO Cc CO w Cu t/ a .m ass. , rn °!c - }d r V sr e. 11 y ri N C4 N N F d 41 N 4f to of U? 0.G C C L =' 0 w w ° W w m w i N � m w �' ro e° m� W cv CS uz � a - m as ° o []' (!ju o Cl) LL N � -� tn o ....stn �' 0 m ° ' o h m o ° ° c m .J N ° .a U- 0 C .G] U tZ [� ro in sv 0 'C:3 © ro c ° o o ° crime m n Ca A o m ° s x ° c°a LL m o CU :E m:^c 1- res w ° r� Q `� t- `' a� am F" w 3 m w; Sri w n ro ° m %3 o N c N --- -0 Li- m {n N -t= O CL ' .0 t 3 e� rn x $ o c iu o� d m [n 0. � Lu a� .� cx. � E o- ° a� ov -0 � a� n Ca --j 0 � Q o � = A-- ° . ' ro C- � c— � CLEF o ` Qm ° m M c =: tIj m .R :0 m CO ° 0'rn _ =tj Z %5 cct _ .� °' v ` °n �f C°,= lu ` m c °7 rn c m c c � 2 E2 as its ° to � rs� c m p ° ro ° •�W ° Cr c try m 0 `—� cil E w °m c°� �!' ED c°n to u°a v 0 u] rn us'� � cx ° a con a rl ¢ it 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 236 © r? c_° Co:CAS rn v -_ Ci rn Q , N W ° E ° ro m -0 -0 o _� ca cisU .� }, Co V3 C C C a c 5 c o E O U Cn "C@ CT CU y W C aUy Cl '(n C CL7 U v C @ Cn •'C7 CJ -0 �.- O — 0 CO @ C ta E2 Cm m !L C ° © 0 0 ' C CD aj q3 coi to @ n n. °' ° D E u' �' Q, c 0 CD C i9 C1. C ...@„ U Ck5 C o o o CJ o o m C c? C O rn Cc o @ CL ca DL o p rn o m_rn C s, � . ct C� x _ _ CD In .� ° O O N m CD y as v -0 v •0 CD N CD n � . . ci U a C m V @ U as c i ° %p a cs as o a yr — cn , w cu N Cu 0 o uJ its CU m �; ° ro W 6 0 @ „ n � � @ n 4 � CL U) 04, E Q' y _ Co Q, o �7 = °o c v cis v m Cn °' m Ca Co E o o � 0 � o '� Qa) t% C a) C1 Ca o t= v ED Cu 2 10 E2 N :.+ at OW7 ,Cn C aT a CL. C3. O 0 T Co (a N_ U C Cu Co Co ° w Co LU Q ° s. � [!a W n C3 Cc m a 0 o o = o C D � � �' 0 CL rn Co Cn CD:_ c ED @ -Q..a C o 3 0 0 01 d 0 ClJ� @ NCO.. D7� to L- Cf] tlI @ r+ N CL C] U) J ° C as .G C a CU Cr X Na) i3 ,� i,j M C O -Up aT m al CG .p d Co U .tW _ _m /b P ° C Co Co CD N rn 7 N C ., in C cc o ». c a, ' w a) a)Q �' CD y_ 0 0 [J a, _ N Co U q 0 N iL3 ID I Co CU fir. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 237 r Co Ca Co P r Rt i31 ti Ef) W U3 (V to CD G77 y d7 y CL O v C7 -. CL 0 0 0 y CD 0 v d Q N o a) m _ CD M co a) A c°a -0 2- [1 ¢ m d c «° a) CM r < 25 c a) o c c ° �� n M ° u ° C� mow- C].. qj .:� C @ M ca. �' .�cV Cmcn 0 ° m —° min » n °i .rod L 0 7 ft3 C' C 7 -R7 0 � .Cu 0 d 0 0 � 0 0 y cU 0 W 0 y .w Cu 0 to co q3 Cu 4= "CJ .0 4) •Q�,—.. -0 .S] Co O�.^ 'C7 ° �y., a CL rn c ai y j c w 2 0 a CD m c ° m co•c c � v � v � °) ca •a � as CIL I—t02 R d O U v tl C0] io G0j 9 �O U � [y0 .70. = C ° m is—o ±v ° 'cs m ° N 'c) m ° U 0 ca 2 r 0 y Cu o ° 10 -° o u y cp p o to d1 w .0 O y in p O W CD j U rn ° co ° g; m C�1 ,µ. _,. U L� SB N U Q- ° ht 0 CL 0 0 N WON o cu cot = 0 0 to v N `L CL �4 ch `� rt cn v QI 0 r- CD� co c u � � o r N 0t W "v ti a) 0 Co CCD•- a r N c (j is cq N cu iu w cy t� c ° ny a LL 0 Em ; ter o W a) CL er 0 'o Ca Q- o � a, m o. � 0 a co c 7` c C n. L p° a°i C� c E H N co O co C y c0 m co C y M co m cq C cam!) tC6 ca y c y C1 cts Co w w CL Ca i« CD w Li � a) v) � � grn c � � ° cn mm � p � w Q C7 c Cn 'rQ—+ ° 0 C c © EE '� �'•.,. ;:_. 0 'C ? •C7 :.:+ 0 Co p�ujl'x3 y C] C1D T7 ,O 0 C , Ll CA. Cn zo :> �s a°i a ca o,o) z; o c ° tz ' �.- Co 2 � Cl, U5 ca d -w cn y n m �m rw ^^ Cr u7 p m [] 0 EL N ca p 0 O C 0 C] O 0 CU Co M. Q y CD ca Lo CL ca Co Co hl E l 20 CD 0 .0 CV N 3 N tW o d a N 'c 4 cz c w c a N Lll "• . r im E a mm cxt rnmE 'C 1i CL m Vs u i%� y m u7 Co co cn tun q) 2 d LL 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 238 v-- p CS w 0 O `_ M=T 'U V.. C C C C C CU ..� U'- rn a) In CM ai . m . � . ..,� ..pl 'i ....E in C) C7 NCu Cl; CO p 4 LC? w .�m Co Cb G W M U ...• .° ° U U T _ s-.. ° Cl) � Cl Q ':: C 4 p C 41) [CS N C U cc 0 CL CO Q) t0 n to U 7 41, [-C/i ° U iC9 [NO �a en [4) ca a) C m U ° _n m ro m L ° Co o 5 w O '- w U .0 •_ C3 N C ESN ocna? � a CL S) CDcC, c � 0 o ai n ° O a)cn `m C ° 0 ca " 4 T c, (n m Co C13 o �U m - -o � — N .,> ) '= Cu R S . O 5 CI. p _ a LLJ 7, m c a c c c, c M.1 u) c ca o n ca o co o ca cwctp ro rs `° en ° � O o v) U n ._ U U C U U U C U O'Im j. m U Cu p n m c�a Co p cu rn ca _ ° c u) 0-._ G o �—'—' c� c� m cis o U n •° o ° ca U7 IV ams w a o c� '° nr q cnd -0 w o 2s ° v°ias ° »°�) =nc, In — cn c u, - a mom_ `m In �wi - sn 'C 3 m tz Cm Co •a p N o N '� °.i.° �7p •m .. NU L �+ CT N U CL C: U �' d U C N U ""• in z:,L7.[ a �• O �".7.• W �' © C p 'C.. s� <.t' ° 'E; VJ CAS) "� �' p -t ..4.. p �_ (� d U 4 +w. C Q1 a) ° 2= 4 0 4 0 C � U Q ca 11 sn ai Q3 LL L © r_n G1 cc) '°) c m ° coo E C N 4 `� n ..4 N Co � � � � y N m C4 4 � � N [4 � � U N 0 � s�v ° R ° ° ° 4 R 5 ° u) co _1 El ca U sn N C () N C w a) o 'in m o Etc° rn o � cenro o � EE2 'o, a, o mod °—)�" �, o ca ° u) is © o n �* n •m ° 0 4 ° as o ° cn m A En CD Cl) d � E GL aUtL! CL n rn cv m 0 0C.. m Ck LL co CO CF) Q Cn ° c U tn fn .0 Q U) .0 v) L U) .- O p G — D Cn ca �o E1' U) v c0.) C 0 a) n w N w o M w w O �Cr W Cn Lu 'e tiJ " Co U- � �p -V a � TCn N -, CO E � Mcn E y -'' N o oai 04 -b v' N •O S�j Cq p ,p c i .0 ca C m crt u e) �' cV m -0 '- cV L) -o rt U`S w pN - U =5 M CL gyp.. CCtl L CO {Cp 'C4.• N r- - w CI. Q cn CJ) N fL a � cxo c m m c .c Co n U. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 239 kmz C? CO U �� CO CO ~ CO t0 'ti7 tr) G tip C C CO m Cu m y E5 �s E r� CD CD .� tip u7 ° v 1 �' Cu c a C° ° m 02 QCfj _ q) p CO V ° [i] U7 N C f Ak CL -� A c A f1.. U C fU C C E Cam E N Cu p •aJ tp C3 Cr) 4S •C C J Cn (00 .4 N a C1 en n C1 a) d O C3."'.'Q C3 L cv ID ° qj i27 «� .� CJ AD Q ° CD � �� .Z} N C N .9 QX O C .� m -Z a) = _ ... = E Cu CD 0 tti ! La C tJ w O C6 Cts a) Q -0 — G7 -U Q W CD V Cri CL ° Cn m ca c a o ao Co to Q-o -0 Q �r uj i..�—.. w�. C a7 N CV sV s,,, CU •p Lei r-L ID 0 q j �... [D ��:. i N to C o 'CO Cf) x © m a CD fn rn 'Co C�j CD D o o n Co m CV o d c o p a � C m �ID y = tm as o C�.. m m o U a o S V) ° Q fn to CL rn = C► ca Cq m r a w Co Co CD CD 0 to m� (n w ° T Cr 'U CD Lin ° �' m ,m � a a) —° m 2 CL Cu W co c Lt- Ci �' p 10 p m ° m o H o trt c� 0 rn cis a) Co m Mme:: tai CJ Q C N Q ° N tC7 s- p N T] C �' sx CU ...A CU _ 0-- CO E .�..ti '� .�.r Cam.. ?. .'"' Q O 3 Cam.! ... C� � -� 05 L] tom» Cp Cm Cm 42 o CO Ctl !V' w Co 1p C1 = N � 0 7 N Cu� W c c� = ° w c Q m Q ° c in u s ro to g 9 . o us m xa rn ca Q ' Fes- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 240 r N 0 q. CO C1 ro m �° v Cn U Cm M (7 -j � J in 'N 63 U7 o W V) O N y .. Q m `a a) 0 .c "- X 75 iU q O O O ff.. 9? M O 0 E Tr ..O.. C co N co Sa m [ql�i U n7 LJ {n q) Vi •V O CQ7 i� C r0) O a c m Q] 31 c CL a O CS i C C N 'O O L.3 O) c O COO C 0 U 0 Cy () Co m . O a) "C3 Lu CL CD Rq) v D a?.,..) .....CD CD 7 N OCR..15 d O .O -0 7 .- 0 � O C] �. QO 7, 7. O OLD 0 0 O . C2 t4 — G C1" C co Co -: ,:. U C O C rj C U ,Co F--- C CD N ca m 0 ca Kn CD O^CL rn •� Q." C W y.+ CJ tt7 tt7 .O 0 Ca � U � O O a p U Co O 0 0 m N O CD O LLl qj } } C a MI C-C" I Z6 " - G p O .�0.. C �'�.' O W ^^'a m. M •� U R Cu a gci cma LIJ 0 Cl) 0 C m r� N N O iQI CM N 0) O (,.� C N C O Q t; •l'i• O LLI �} ..U_ Q' C O 4? CAF U C= C) O 16 in mac 0 c m m 0 c g is U CL n) m .cCO) o o` c 'cn qi o '� co CD .p tlOi C c yvj r a2 aa)i .0 U w > (D O v) .a �° N Co ca `� CO - n o v ie ° o o r.; Va c CD m L)C71 0 Ts as o v -cm. o > m o m o j "o O) t0 N q7 C W O N v n T EL zn in cC.'u� d m m ca CL e� E° a v v3 u7 ro -v ca Co rn � coo. m _ Z s� N = W Cn O Q Cn rr ca _ CL O ca CL r3 0 o � �- O C1 � o - zs o Co a o a p c a c w a c �� o c Q c _IZD o © - 4) to C2 L w ca Co SC3 tC�I a C[3 .0U itI Cq U N O a) -� Q o F o_U:) 3 tom- iZ LU c i c� i*� ... N Q q) -N 0 O CL ]N t 'L 5 N U')N L]Co CL Co x 0 N O u 0 a is N fn 0- v "' a -0 -0 U '". O LL- != t Cm N o vi cs c tri m m � • c 0 au c e m e CD a m c 0 c p U a L. o ° ~ c o c) a -0 .0 �0 v w mto i c— �a r0i w O CA c v3 c m e 0 m m e C c - t71 m , M ca iv m ° a 5 r..i inc°ao � in ° � a usc0ac ° in �. t— iTi _ ) a ¢ ii 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 241 m er � Lo u m s v ro v CU tm.� -c%. cc CIO Qc "'m .� m m . w to -, rn 1 u) 'sn � ua f [r1 v C 03 0 .-2 0 2 - m W C) a7 0 d W O _ fn ca C..) N C U N 0.— _ v n .>= ro m `.~_ tU0 U] va 'h ro W - c 1,11 - x 0 a � c� - 0) of ay a � 0 � a� o m CL E - ro cu _ o � � c� a •c° o a ca Co m ro � v W r° a c`� croi C-3 0 ca a) Co ca ° v n° M .0 t j Co c°a W a� w ? c 2! c � 'm c� rv� c r- to W ro Li- Ca vci m m a) u) 0 E N �" C� ° C°CD p ai `p A a m a ° m m= v = D > > iE lQ CL Vu° ° m �° C °' to �a E sin m `� 1— ca Co 01 ro ° p° cm� .2_ Ci cram rcn ro eW ° CD co c CV L1. a) N +•-� U C C O N � W � v � � Cn M ro� v m n_ •� c e7 m i N m . 0 -0 C a) N ? .] N C q m 1C. ,..0 p Gf Cl) © a s C ° U ° — �' m H roa ra wQ ° m m e Wpp c W o i! Cu al � W cq U C O 7.•— Q m 1= a o o c o o vi - ca o c5 >1 c? to c a' _ m e ca c v c m v aXi u m t^ c .a W CO � c � m cv En E a� o a) o 4:- E c .Q ra gs m ©" is n m o - ° Cm^y 4� �7 rn N U c3.�• tWU .� •m a a1 W e m (r a� m N. c o m W 5 u- ` Co u in . -o c ut U F-- �r t� c� cr) cn ca ui M ro r 0 LU N M j a) LL Q m m m ca m W � j 0 Q c ° W ' `` U3 En o m c� c c x✓a y O [.� p cc O = ° V U []- W C.T.. t w P CJ7 VS Cm _ aui 0 '7 C u Qc' a ° N" cc CD C =1 o ro o cu ° ca W Cn 0 rn Lv T-1 m . F- 0Eci � wa m . ¢ on m0— L>r E q -0 Cc1 - E Qf r W C x 'j c- X'� � C] O N W CV •WO C N — Cr-o N "m (D a ` _ of m ° ca m v c zs � 0 � i v v v oo v=i ei V a ro Nw E W FO E E ,, cn E E a c E � c E =� c c nci ¢ c c ui cron r»tic., Cn o c ca ° EW m E m o ro c o = ca c c o > c' �^ a� Q +� c m ca o Ca o �' o ° o c s:. m = o Cr s LE Ul es m a c zs z� `1' O tM U5 ca o M o• E a� E c tm c m c CST c c = Co o a- Fn.� u] VT c°a to c°� O r°2 Vi v U7 C, ¢ LL r ' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 242 c ca y L. o 0 CO m ti CO to CO m [q m a) Cu C::..ti: v U V� rn.a) p m c s' CU En En o - m 'o F m a ra a a; W a CL } f- o m ° ul c x 1- o q,,, is ca > c CO m v ca m CD m o c . ° ° v n N U) � to Div ra sa c ' °n [ c a- � O Zu-CU Qv) o � O °— G1 °c v 'in _ � u? `° a) Cu ai m e 0 a) ca °' m � a 7, a) o o c c w M. w m p _ 'a o - o W m c o ° m — n CD ° Cl) LL M C13 n ` m m E n n U a) p E -0 7•. P [O ')7 Zn O a. as 'u) O N C C2. ['.� '� C m 0 'NN E O [a �' in m O COQ Eg Off_. � � �� �f— O CO � y b d N O a) ca •T � C •"O to a C p O O U) � Vi � 0 � `7 a) to] ca SII T •c�• m..0 .� O Co OV T .ZI � c q) �^ '-fl m a) >+ _ m '-; n r 'm a) o f a mO v) Z5 .°m.. a.� m c a a—m) ° v U p � 't) U) c"n U) ip) d C o a2 U a O O .�' [u.) O. O CO o CO c o c a) n m p m = = cn -0 ° m m c p CO Q � R in E O O C cma •E o- a> ,C9 Q. N d ¢. �O.• O to .en O W 97D (D 0 CO m ' a m c m e a) cy r c c c ° c V_ °)-0 L= u ° m ill ca 0 � � .� s) ° e� a) a) a) rs a) ° ,w H Cs ° u a °n a o is CO 'a—i ° Q en ca a !? °—� ci C W N a) Q C7 p O [a 5 N a) O cv a) O a1 V m cn a) C? N To n 16 a 0 � " E p � v P ? p m - .N d v O ff.: C U Q cu � " m - E w °ca m =.° C) +�- c°) @° E m (L _ c°i CL e c m CO C U) U a) v) p °y a) _ 6) p N m a)• cII• °-C7 O •? ") °) C v d) -a cn Q) C p Cu Cc C •Cy (D CV C O O C G CD N CO n CO en E as ° s) g E ca ° "'iu] O B E � v o E E � 0 c m r) as u) «- [i �? cs h n ca ci m �' t% cn °) Cl- c°n m ° [i u°i U U N } m n o ED CL © m m U) .2 �s o mp jm � - > m 7U) C ":" ca ..,.I m v, N o n CL 0 L] a) [] w ° Q) C C w V m C Li LU N --) C!7 -"'7 C Ct) fa. < EC7 0 O V b O © U _ Cr a) � o m c v Q n � q o � E m m m 0 ca � � �' 0 Q..... 'C7 •a N E Q3 CU N En CL Ca •C so .) M C a) ca ° "3 E _ a ° c 0.. •° m a) a ut t? p t7. a] O N p In c°a O m -C�l iii v a <n v °?Q °c ¢ U- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 243 L .Cw G'L m m Cu fa LO r.' .0.. C w Co Cu Cu Cu Cu m CG 4= Cn Cn Z; U3 U) =1 (1) =I CU.1 °?N ' a M ^fir M k Gi Ltixj. 7 U 'N RO, d 's ? Co lX3 Co Co C'O Cq 1A w " SD N y N N m �4j " CD QS Q1 N C as (n Cn [n 01 fA m s3 CJ W O U > a, CoCL m m _¢ E m w _Q a m ' m as Q .E Ca _ c`hn Cl)a) Z u' � � uy rn arm 3 c`n .c .rn m o a� ° o c c a cu a c c o c a. m crs i� p n t- sa .� c I- Ca �' m 0 CL ° o o tia °ca o 2 c'v ° c'v 4 j CL v c U q . c Q.Lu Q E c fl a c a) c C L O t» a) c to Q E c C L c a) a v+ n as . .p 0 n 'o -0 CD m- (D � Q a) 4 Cn L1 1tJ w m o LY_ is as CO .= m o UJ w a5 °G7 . ca a> °Cn '� 0 C a = L ca.Cn c Lu m s= s m c ca .m c ca m _..:. ca a) O N CL ti N o "C7 _� CO N 0 'C7 _� � � � N CL N r cv! cu r a? a a � C%l 'n m . °o a CeV l U=.) n o L yet 'C7 = o Co o C Co� o u C C2, - = u y o cn a . cs _ cs » ° u cn Co c its � •-- ar - M CO rL C4 CL p Era co E w �- E a E ct Co E a as �. -0 a -S3 a)-� a w 'a 0)-� a ..'^. w -0 Ch O - ... To S)--j 0. C C� a Co m ea. :� m w `" y. m u) a _ Cu I== W -0 ° to C C ads ° a'}s c7 ° Q 'D ° N CL Gl. [A CL in r'... . .c t!1 CL Q LL 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 244 3 A-*-%"endix Cost Estimates From the 2008 WTDIF Nexu Study 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 245 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-1 I-51E Street NB Ramp restriping to add lane ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 I-51E Street NB Ramp restriping to add lane $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.15 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.45 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 246 COST ESTIMATE 1=AGILITY I-5-2 1-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB of-ramp restriping add lane ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB off ramp restriping add lane $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 247 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-4 E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250'X 20') ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 E Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20') $ 1,750,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 35,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,785,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 393,750.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 383,750.00 PROJECT COST $ 2,778,750.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,636,287.50 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 248 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-5 F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20') ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250'X 20') $ 1,750,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 35,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,785,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 393,750.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 393,750.00 PROJECT COST $ 2,178,750.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,636,267.60 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 249 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-6 I-51H Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 I-51H Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 250 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-7 1-5M Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-511-1 Street S13 off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% bard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 251 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-8 H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'): ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'): $ 2,800,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 56,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,856,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 630,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 630,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 3,486,000.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 4,218,060.00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 252 COST ESTIMATE FAC1LlTY I-5_9 1-51J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 I-51J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 253 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-11 L Street bridge widening over 1-5(SIW for peels 300' X 12')(38%)(58%): ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 L Street bridge widening over 1-5(SNV for peds 300' X 12')(38%)(58%):- $ 1,260,000.00 Admin (2% bard costs) $ 25,200.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,285,200.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 283,500.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 283,500.00 PROJECT COST $ 1,568,700.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,898,127.00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 254 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-12 I-5 1Bay Blvd (south of L St.) SB onloff ramps traffic signal: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Bay Blvd (south of L St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal: $ 210,367.35 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 4,207.35 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 214,574.70 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 47,332.65 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 47,332.66 PROJECT COST $ 261,607.36 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 316,907.89 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 255 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-13 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL. 1 1-5/industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal: $ 215,367.35 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 4,207.35 TOTAL. HARD COSTS $ 214,574.70 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 47,332.65 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 47,332.66 PROJECT COST $ 261,907.35 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 316,907.$9 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 256 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-14 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751f X 5010'. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751f X 50ft $ 4,812,500.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 96,250.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 4,908,750.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 1,082,812.50 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 1,082,812.50 PROJECT COST $ 5,991,562.50 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,249,790.63 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 257 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-16 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751f X 20ID: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751f X 2016 : $ 1,571,428.57 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 31,428.57 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,602,857.14 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 353,571.43 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 353,571.43 PROJECT COST $ 1,956,428.57 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,367,278.57 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 258 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-17 1-5 HOV& Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CV)** ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5 HOV& Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CV)** $ 176,826,882.02 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 3,536,537.64 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 180,363,419.66 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 39,786,048.46 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 39,786,048.46 PROJECT COST $ 224,149,468.12 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 266,380,856.43 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 259 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-5 E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)****: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 E= Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)****: Admin (2% hard costs) $ - TOTAL HARM COSTS $ - SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 950,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 950,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 " Environmental and PE Costs only 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 260 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-6 H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)****: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)****: Admin (2% hard costs) $ TOTAL HARD COSTS $ - SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 950,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 954,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 TOTAL. PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 Environmental and PE Costs only 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 261 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-9 H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway: $ 9,326,678.40 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 186,533.57 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 9,513,211.97 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,098,502.64 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,098,502.64 PROJECT COST $ 11,611,714.61 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 14,050,174.68 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 262 Y F a � O x_ a o 2 Q Q Q Q ° N O_ 3 U tk tk tk tk tk tk tk (n E E J ° ° N z F F F T U Z z Z z Z z Z Z Z Z 2 E v v v v v v v F Q ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ui ui a ui ui a ui ui ui a 1° a m m a a F F 0 F F 0 F F F F Q ~ N N a a 0 a a 0 a a a 0 0 0 O O O O U U U U U U U Q d d D D O s s O D D D O U) O O O N 0 Z W LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 U) U)U) U) U)U) 0 r o O 00 q 00 O M N N o w O U o m U 0 m w U 0 0 n 0 0000 woo 0 0 0 O 0 2222 O O O O N N 0 V V U y 7 U W °W W_ a U) n n n n N n m o ` N V V V V O V(O of of of N r O m m of M V of (O O aU fA fA fA fA�fA fA N N M of _/ Z N fA fA n fA V/ Q O N (O(O m m N O N O c0 v N M M m N V O O O O V O O O O O M N O O O O N O n J � cB cB cd cB -cB�m m r ro w w o ao co n W M_M_ m o rn rn o m o n <» in n M M in N O U N O A A v A A A W V >m io in io U) '^ 00 0000000 0 00 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O (O O O N V N V N V N N V N V N n o o m LL W V V V N V V M O p°a U m2 W IJ,J rn rnoornrnornornrnMnM o o m N LL v v u�u�vvo vo mm co u�v o o co u) ro ro r r ro ro d ro r r r d ro co 0 o v d r LL�LL�N N LL�LL�O LL� O O n N of O O M U N 0 LL LL M M LL LL co LL O O V W 66 O a U fA fA(O(O fA fA N fA of M M N M M m m O O ^ U W U f A f A f A I N N fA fA 4 C }W A 9 0 � a co co 0o co coo coo u�u�onN Z v v oo vvo vo MM u�u� co W m moo ri rio rio rr�iroro v M M..MMO M000 m NCO y ..n n..0 co n m m Lo v v n ^ Z D N N W W N N N O O O) V OU F fA fA N N fA fA M fA LL7 NM NM O)O (O J U fA fA fA fA fA fA N 0 w W 0 W w 0 Z W O o LL m a ^ N r N V O 0 d U) N m O O Z ° o o 1° / 1°M` o° �� > m m b b ui ui- ui N y ° 3 @� Z `-° �XX!°!°X!°° m �inNin° a"immUo /O�y/ Z l0 N N N lO lO N l0 O r LL'W a N N — O 3 o.LL o U �n Tn `m `m `m - Xo K o 0 o o a � � 000 � � o � o�o �� o d m 3 � d � 2 m z dn.=_ gEE= Eg� o, � x � � � m o 2 m m m L° m m m °z a-° N n N m m m m d E ° w a ° u m > °-`o m33 o`0 m 3 o3 °> O E m m m m m m m m Z m m m d m -p m z "O Z.° N�� CF F C J fQQq d m aian >. o d LL y u) u) m m u) ° m O E E o m m 3 O J p d w w S S m_a S m 'm w m u)6) �u�� � u) N V LL�O n of O) �2 c) Q .LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. rn a u� Y rn N V O LL� � O N 0 l r v � v = d n o o U d rn a N N O j 6 N LL V N U) E T N O N O N o N u m v O N V LL N r N XF V N O N D N Q Z O. UH N n)N . N N N N E N V V V o Z O d W N N N 0 N N N O N N 6,N U `m o-v v vv Sv E T O N N m N N cN °N d N Q M } o N N N N N N N N N N N N o N N - N N O 3 Z O 0 U X W U o F V ` N r V V N O W 0 W W O V of N io O_ N V N of O r r N N N V Q U Z a f A � N fA fA fA QN Z e U O N O 0 0 O O O O O O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M OD N N m N of (o O O V O O O O O O m M 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 O V M W fV O.O W N W.m IAN rrro moon w v J F M O O V O O m O V N f0 of of V co co m m m 0 0 T f0 W W V N of N m LL� O O O (O LL� (O O I�n O OD y N pj 1 V V1 w U 0 A A r m m v LL O O W O r O LL N V O V V N W V ry U M N co V N N m N N N I�N W�N� J m 7 w LL r m W }m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 999 � U m= y 2 W w N o W co 0 o O OOOOOm 000000000 W r v o 0 0 0 000 o m o 00 000 000 o r l0 N (O V O O(O O V N of of V mm m m m U N 0 =m m O r mo N O V m o m N W W r N O C U Q^ U -p N O V N N m N N N N W N I.i W U m fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA ------fA- oo W }0 O - m z Z W co m �u rn N O o v cOm m I.i Z O °N N � mm r a m m N c\i O U 2 U aM (OM N NN. m E. 0 U » » E J ow W o o > m W o o Q m E S Z o O U o a ) �a cn d S h c 2 N N N m d U Q 9 C aa0 ii�Qb UU c? `m c> m N L L o N O X X V LL Q} u) L _ y N m J.L y m Q J 'n E d 1p dU X �N�O� mcmo°m o y a° y�r u r m m U l0 l0 N N T m(o v E m J m J \ o Y ew w °o a m Z u) � o o Tw I w UU°a�U O �3 3 a Q m ayi in o Moo c-°o m omN a aIo X3510 in�mm� - mminm LL Q ° m e°� S wmo c'i�w om°> U c 01 o y Y N= o o o o c 3 22 d o m y y m H LL N N m } m Q m m o Z c Y n J� Q � m B m m E m 3 c Q m m U W A D m � N m(n N , p C o N. l0 N N y CO LL W N l0 l0 m N Y > 10 o w N N a I o(nUL A wm NU U 00 'G p a ° m m E m m o m E E .-in A E NN `o� O o. e5 m m O m Q U�_ o a K o Q m ° w O � o m d L s° s° 0 o c m m a s m w 6 H . 4; Q U< u U c >; LL v o H w m 0 . .u) m � w o m m m m m o. o V ° T T T o T m « T U m N N N LL U N N J N 7 « N U N l0 l0 (n 7 A U N N U o m 'mm m m y m w Scn��-tea u) mwininininin�� D zm� Q 4 mo NN v rn�u�m co c me o O N N p N N N N N N N N Q a a > > > »>}» »»»»> w e: m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 ' ►�' Jf v x 4805 a y. x. 3 is p l it uN - / 1 t. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista has prepared this Engineer's Report (report) to analyze the impacts of development on certain transportation facilities located west of Interstate 1-805 and to calculate development impact fees for those facilities in western Chula Vista. This report represents the 2014 Chula Vista Western Area Transportation Development Impact Fee Program for Streets, also known as the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee, or "WTDIF". The report includes a discussion of the rationale behind development of these impact fees, an analysis of the proposed fee program, the Average Daily Trip (ADT) rate assignments for each land use and associated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) and the transportation facility projects to be funded by future development in accordance with this fee program. The methods used in the report to calculate fees satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution and California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the "California Mitigation Fee Act", "Mitigation Fee Act" or "Act"). The WTDIF Program was originally established on March 18, 2008 by Ordinances 3106 through 3110. This program was intended to be similar to Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program, which was established on January 12, 1988. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the western portion of the City, these ordinances were required to be enacted by the City by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) in order to continue to receive annual Transnet funds for local streets. Since the establishment of the fee in 2008, the main change in western Chula Vista has been the progress of the Bayfront planning documents. In April 2010 the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (BFEIR) was completed. This document was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on May 10, 2010. This document included estimates of new Equivalent Dwelling Units planned in the Bayfront development area, traffic to be generated, significant impacts cased and proposed mitigation measures. These documents made it clear that the impacts caused by the Bayfront development would be significantly different than the impacts caused by development in the rest of western Chula Vista, where most of the required improvements consist of improvements to existing infrastructure. For this reason, staff recommends that a separate Bayfront Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) be established and separated from the WTDIF. The WTDIF is a single program with two separate funding roles. The first portion of the fee is to be used on Regional Arterial System (RAS) roadway projects, and arterial street projects within the western jurisdictional boundary of the City of Chula Vista. RAS roadways are generally described as those roads that act as critical links in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The second portion of the fee will be used to make improvements to non-RAS facilities. Non-RAS roadways are typically smaller in classification and of less importance to the region. The WTDIF will be charged to residential as well as non-residential units. The exact amount charged per dwelling unit varies based on the type of residential unit. The exact amount charged per non-residential land use also varies as described below. A portion of the fees calculated in this study for all land uses provide for the regional component of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 266 The focus of this report is as follows: • To update the fee program based on a revised benefit area. • To document the average daily trip (ADT) traffic volume increases and Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) values for residential and non-residential land uses due to planned growth. • To update cost estimates for existing WTDIF projects and provide justifications, descriptions and cost estimates for new eligible WTDIF facilities. • To provide for the justification for future automatic increases of the fee based on construction cost indices. Additionally, the report will discuss the principles and requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 concerning how any proposed fees will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the new transportation improvements, i.e., the Reasonable Relationship Requirement. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that for fees subject to its provisions, the following findings must be made: • Identify the purpose of the fee. • Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 267 TRANSNET In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved local Proposition A extending the TransNet 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation programs through 2048. Included in Proposition A and the TransNet Extension Ordinance is the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. The RTCIP provides for the collection of a fee for each new residential unit. The RTCIP originally documented the need to collect a County- wide fee of $2,000 per residential unit for roadways that are determined to be Regional Arterial System (RAS) facilities. This amount has been updated annually; on July 1 , 2014, this amount was $2,254. RAS roadways are listed in SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), dated November, 2007. The ordinance states, "Revenue collected through the Funding Programs shall be used to construct transportation improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new arterial roadway lanes, turning lanes, reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services, or similar types of improvements, preliminary and final engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand generated by new development throughout the San Diego region. A reasonable portion of the program revenue, up to a maximum of three percent, may be used for fund administration." 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 268 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Development impact fees are imposed upon development in an area of benefit, often containing a number of different properties, property owners, and land use types. The WTDIF has two main purposes: (1) To fund the construction of facilities needed to reduce, or mitigate, potential impacts, including but not limited to, direct and cumulative impacts resulting from development within the benefit area; and (2) To spread the costs associated with construction of the facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area. The amended benefit area described herein is that area within the jurisdictional area of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista, generally meaning that area of the city located between I-5 on the west, Interstate 805 on the east, the city boundary on the north and the city's boundary on the south, as shown on the map and attached as Exhibit 1 . In the environmental review process, such as in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, a project's potential impacts are identified and, where feasible, a method of mitigating those impacts (reducing the actual impact to a level of insignificance) is identified. In the case of larger projects, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies cumulative impacts resulting from the project, as well as direct impacts. Cumulative impacts are impacts created by overall development, of which individual projects do not create a significant impact directly, but contribute to an impact through the additive effect. Since future individual development projects located on the westside of Chula Vista are not solely responsible for the entire impact on any single segment of roadway, intersection, pedestrian or bicycle facility, they are only required to contribute a portion of the mitigation costs based on that project's fair share. Each project's fair share of the impact is based upon the amount of traffic the proposed project generates as measured by ADT and by EDUs. B . WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (WTDIF ) A transportation development impact fee is an impact fee designed to mitigate cumulative impacts on the local transportation network as a result of new development. Generally, development of property produces impacts on the local road network resulting in decreased available traffic capacity on the street system. To measure the effects of traffic, cities establish capacity or Level of Service (LOS) standards that they each consider appropriate for their jurisdictions. Where potential impacts resulting from development are projected to reduce the capacity on streets to the point where the identified Level of Service will not be maintained, the impacts are deemed to be significant, and should be mitigated. Typical mitigation for cumulative impacts to the system would provide a host of improvements designed to restore capacity and maintain the desirable level of service. Examples of capacity-increasing improvements include but are not limited to such enhancements as adding new roads to the circulation network, widening or improving existing roads, installing new traffic signals or improving existing signalization, freeway interchange improvements, and improving signal coordination (management of traffic operations). For the City of Chula Vista, other non-traditional improvements were included in the calculation of the fee as a result of the City's goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle capacities as shown below from the city's General Plan. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 269 GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The following discussion of Goals, Objectives and Policies is taken from the City's General Plan approved on December 13, 2005 in the Land Use and Transportation (LUT) section and is the basis for including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the fee calculation. GOAL 7.9 - Improving Vehicular and Transit Mobility The City of Chula Vista will continue its efforts to develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system with adequate roadway capacity; however, the City's ability to widen roads to accommodate increased demand from automobile traffic is limited. Additionally, road widening in some areas is not consistent with goals to create streets that are pedestrian- friendly and safe. Therefore, the City must seek alternative ways to increase the capacity to move both people and cars. This includes more efficient use of roadways, traffic demand reduction, and increased use of transit, bicycles, and walking. Objective - LUT 18 Reduce traffic demand through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, increased use of transit, bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures. POLICY LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible alternatives to the automobile, such as bicycling and walking, and encourage public transit ridership on existing and future transit routes. GOAL 7.11 - Increase Mobility Through Use of Bicycles and Walking Bicycles are an alternative to driving, accommodating longer trips than walking, especially when combined with transit. Every trip begins and ends with walking, so the pedestrian environment becomes the primary transportation element that connects all travel modes. For walking and bicycling to be viable alternatives to travel by car, the bicycle and pedestrian systems must efficiently and conveniently connect residential areas and activity centers in a safe and comfortable manner, and within an interesting environment. Objective — LUT 23 Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of transportation. POLICY LUT 23.1 Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to driving. POLICY LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system of inter-connecting bicycle routes throughout the City and region. The City has two additional documents that pertain to pedestrian and bicycle mobility. The latest version of the City's Bikeway Master Plan was adopted by Council on February 1 , 2011 . This document recommended and prioritized Class I (bike path), Class II (bikeway along the roadway) and Class III (bike route) bicycle facilities. The City's first Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by Council on June 22, 2010. Twenty seven street corridors in western Chula Vista and three intersections in eastern Chula Vista were recommended and prioritized for pedestrian improvements. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 270 C . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CHULA VISTA' S TRANSPORTATION DIF PROGRAM In February 1986, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a schedule of development impact fees (DIF) for the Eastlake I development. Eastlake was the first major planned development that added significant traffic to the street system. Fees were established to ensure that Eastlake contributed to the cost of certain street improvements, including a four-lane interim facility in the State Route 125 (SR-125) corridor. Also included in the development impact fee was the cost of constructing a fire station and a community park in Eastlake I. While the fees were imposed as a condition of development on Eastlake, City staff recommended to the Council that a development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of transportation improvements by all of the developments that would benefit from the improvements. Therefore, in January 1987, the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact fee program for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. In December 1987, a report entitled "The Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets" was completed. The "Area of Benefit" included all of the undeveloped lands that benefited from the proposed transportation improvements, within the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, east of Interstate 805. The Council adopted an Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee in January 1988 by Ordinance Number 2251 (TDIF). The fee was established at $2,101 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). In October 1993, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment for the Otay Ranch. As a result, the TDIF program was updated in December 1993, including the first phase of the Otay Ranch. For the first time since the adoption of the original TDIF in 1988, a comprehensive general plan of land uses and circulation system requirements was in place in the Otay Valley area. The TDIF program was subsequently updated again in 1999, 2002 and 2005 to reflect changes to the circulation element of the General Plan, land use changes and to adjust the construction cost estimates. The TDIF will also be revised in 2014. On March 18, 2008, Council adopted the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) by Ordinances 3106 through 3110. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the Western portion of the City, these ordinances were required to be enacted by the City in order to continue to receive annual TransNet funds for local streets. The original rate was established at $3,243 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). In a letter dated December 15, 2010, SANDAG informed the City that a one percent administrative fee would not be collected. This fee had been included as part of the WTDIF since its inception. The City subsequently went to Council on October 25, 2011 and November 15, 2011 to enact Ordinance 3214, which deleted the one percent SANDAG fee from the WTDIF rates. City staff subsequently processed refunds of this fee to all permit holders who had paid it. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 271 SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT A . POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT FORECAST A fundamental principle in the formulation of a development impact fee is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development, and thus the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development. Generally, existing facilities have adequate capacity to support the existing state of development, and any capacity that is added to the street network is in response to the need for capacity and other improvements created by subsequent development, i.e. new demand. It is, therefore, incumbent upon new development to fully mitigate these impacts. In preparation of this Engineer's Report, City staff reviewed a variety of previously approved reports that dealt with western Chula Vista traffic issues, their consequent impacts and mitigations. These sources included the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Traffic Impact Report. These sources also utilized the "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) in 2002, Exhibit 2. This table provides Average Daily Traffic estimates for various commercial, industrial and residential land uses. Since the area of benefit has been changed to delete the bayfront and the method of estimating has become more conservative, it is necessary to recalculate the estimated population increase and the increase in development. The Residential Population and Dwelling Unit Estimates are shown on Exhibit 3. This table reflects the latest available population estimates and the estimate for Build out (approximately 2030). The existing population used in the 2008 WTDIF report was 110,493. A variety of issues had to be addressed as part of the calculation process: Existing Development The calculation of current and buildout trips and Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) is shown on Exhibit 4. As defined by SANDAL, one EDU is defined as 10 Average Daily Trips (ADTs), the amount of trips expected from a single family dwelling. Current EDUs cannot be used to determine the EDUs that are used for calculation of the fee per EDU, because these facilities will not pay the WTDIF. Public Facilities Public facilities do not pay DIFs. Although there are existing public facilities within the WTDIF area, no additional public facilities are planned. Therefore, no additional EDUs needed to be subtracted from the projected future EDUs. Parcel Relocation. As part of the WTDIF calculation, the City relocated one parcel that was originally in the WTDIF calculation and moved it into the BFDIF calculation, due to its physical location. The parcel is located at the southwest corner of Bay Blvd. and F Street i.e. west of I-5 and is owned by the adjacent United Technology Aerospace Systems Company (UTAS)(previously the Rohr Corporation). It includes 6.7 acres of currently undeveloped light industrial land use (1340 trips). This same UTAS parcel was then added to the BFDIF calculations. Shared Roadways WTDIF — BFDIF Certain roadways are shared between the WTDIF and the BFDIF. These roadways are associated with improvements to the Interstate-5, certain Regional Arterial System improvements (such as the grade separation projects), and the Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) parallel to Bay Blvd. In order to fairly reflect the shared benefit of these facilities, it is appropriate to allocate project costs to both the WTDIF and BFDIF 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 272 programs. Projected new ADTs reasonably reflect future facility use, and have therefore been used to calculate the proportional cost sharing between the two fee programs. With 74,593 projected new trips in the BFDIF area and 103,649 projected new trips in the WTDIF area, the WTDIF's share is calculated as follows: 103,649 ADT = 58% WTDIF 74,593 + 103,649 ADT I-5 Shared Calculation Not all facilities planned for the WTDIF program area are required solely to serve new development. As discussed above, in order to fairly reflect the shared benefit of these facilities, it is appropriate to allocate costs between existing development and new development. These "joint impetus" projects serve not only new development, but may also be related to the need to upgrade for less than satisfactory traffic levels (below LOS C) or to keep pace with technological improvements. One example is Project I-5-17: HOV (high volume occupancy) and managed lanes from SR905 to SR54, which will provide carpool only lanes for both current and existing traffic. Based on traffic estimates done for the 2008 Nexus Study, a portion of this traffic is also estimated to benefit traffic outside the City. Table A was used to determine the fair share allocated to new users based on traffic along the I-5 corridor within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. These values represent the change in traffic attributable to both the WTDIF and BFDIF areas. The percentages shown will subsequently be multiplied by the percentage attributable to the BFDIF alone. Therefore, 74,593 of the buildout ADT are associated with the Bayfront increase, while 808,907 total ADT are attributed to the WTDIF area (see BFDIF Nexus Study for additional information). If the projected buildout of the Bayfront (74,593) is added to the WTDIF buildout (808,907), a total buildout ADT of 883,500 is derived. Table A 1-5 Traffic Volume Growth Estimate Trips Change 2008 Report Buildout Volumes (ADT) 546,850 883,500 336,650 Percent of Total 38% Non-Vehicular Improvements Certain improvements that benefit both existing and future users, such as bikeways and pedestrian facilities, are not proportional to average daily traffic. For example, BP-1 and BP-9: The Bayshore Bikeway is a "joint impetus" project, which will be used by both existing and future cyclists. Project I-5-11 : L Street Bridge widening, also falls into this category. The bridge will be widened to provide pedestrian access on the south side of the bridge and widen the pedestrian access on the north side (the current width does not meet City standards). For these improvements, the increase in population was used. The existing population used in the 2008 WTDIF Nexus Study was 110,493. Since there were no permanent residents in the Bayfront area, the population of the Bayfront area was zero. Section 4.17 of the 2010 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 273 CVBMP EIR states that the planned residential development on the Bayfront consists of a maximum of 1 ,500 mixed low rise, medium rise and high rise residential units on approximately 14 acres of land. This is expected to increase the population in the Bayfront to approximately 3,780 people. The projected buildout population for the WTDIF area, as shown below in Table B is 135,733, an increase of 25,240 over the 2008 estimated population of 110,493. Adding this to the projected Bayfront population of 3,780, results in a total buildout population of 139,513. The City of Chula Vista's share for bicycle and pedestrian projects is calculated as a percentage of the existing population of 110,493 divided by the buildout population of 139,513 or 79.20%. The WTDIF's share for bicycle and pedestrian projects is calculated by taking the increase in population within the WTDIF area of 25,240 and dividing by the buildout population of 139,513 which equals 18.09%, as shown below. 25,240 = 18.09% 139,513 Table B Population Growth Estimate DIF Benefit Existing Population at Net Increase Percentage of Area Population Buildout in Population Total WTDIF 110,493 135,733 25,240 18.09% BFDIF 0 3,780 3,780 2.71% TOTAL 110,493 139,513 29,020 20.80% B. PROPOSED PROJECT COSTS (THE NUMERATOR) City staff determined which projects are to be included in the program. The process for calculating impact fees involves the determination of two significant numbers and is likened to a fraction. The numerator or top number represents the total cost of infrastructure improvements divided by the lower number (denominator) which is the EDU's determined from the various land use types and their consequent trips/EDU's. The following is staff's method for calculating the total cost of infrastructure improvements (the numerator). The following categories of improvements are included in the WTDIF: • Interstate 5 Improvements: These improvements are shared with the BFDIF and were originally included in the 2008 WTDIF report. • Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects: Some of these improvements are also shared with the BFDIF, depending on the location. These facilities were also originally included in the 2008 WTDIF report. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 274 • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The Bayshore Bikeway projects BP-1 and BP-9 are shared with both current and future users in both the WTDIF and BFDIF areas. Other bikeways and pedestrian facilities on F Street, Industrial Blvd., Main Street, H Street and Broadway are entirely within the WTDIF area, but will be shared with existing users. • Other Roadways: There are two additional RAS roadways: one along 1-805 at Main Street and one along SR-54 at North Fourth Avenue. Non-RAS projects include the Transportation Demand Management Center and an all-way stop installation at Second Avenue and D Street. Since this is an amendment and most of the projects have been described and estimated in the original Engineer's Report of 2008, this discussion will not repeat those project descriptions and estimates. Instead, this discussion will focus on the following items: • Cost breakdown between WTDIF and BFDIF • Projects deleted or amended since the 2008 report • New projects and estimates • Cost escalation for new and existing projects PROJECTS DELETED OR AMENDED SINCE THE 2008 REPORT Interstate 5 Improvement Projects 1-5-3: 1-5 1NB ramp widening at E, H, J, Industrial, Palomar& Main This project will be funded as part of the Caltrans SHOPP Mobility Program (MPO ID CAL46A) (#11-24400) in Fiscal Year 2016/17. Therefore, no City or DIF funding is required. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. 1-5-15: 1-51 Main St. NB on/off ramps traffic signal This project has been completed and there are no additional costs to the City, the Traffic Signal Fund, or the DIF. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. STM-361: 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study This project has been completed and there are no additional costs to the City or the DIF. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. Interstate 805 Improvements 1-805-1: NB on ramp widening & metering at Bonita, E. H St. (EB-NB) This project was 100% funded and completed by Caltrans. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 275 SR-54 Improvements SR-54-1: SR-54 WB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue add ramp lane This project will be financed through a developer exaction. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects RAS-2: C Street to Main Street bikeway improvements There is a separate CIP project for Broadway south of Main Street. This project is split into an estimate for bikeway improvements and an estimate for pedestrian improvements. This project includes a bike lane along Broadway between C Street and L Street (approximately 11 ,880 linear feet) and a bikeway from L Street to Main Street (approximately 8,580 LF) for an estimated cost of$523,637.21 . The estimate is included in Appendix A. RAS-5: E Street LRT Grade Separation and RAS-6: H Street LRT grade separation Environmental and Preliminary Engineering costs only are included at an estimate of $950,000 per project. Costs are shared with the BFDIF. RAS-9: H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate 5 to Broadway All costs will be included in the WTDIF, except for $500,000 to cover Environmental costs, which will be included in the BFDIF. RAS-12: L Street/Bay Boulevard traffic signal & turn lanes — deleted, since other funding will be used. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities BP-1: Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Street The revised cost estimate from the 2011 Bikeway Master Plan (Class 1 Rank #1) was used. This estimate is included in Appendix A. The cost was escalated to $449,165.75 and the DIF share was split between the WTDIF and the BFDIF. BP-3: Industrial Blvd. Improvements & Bike Lanes from L Street to Main Street Grants have been received for construction of the missing improvements between Moss Street and Ada Street Grant applications were submitted for construction of the bike lanes between L Street and Moss Street and pedestrian improvements and bike lanes between Ada Street and Main Street. The total estimated cost is $986,240. Because these estimates are relatively recent, the costs have not been escalated. This estimate is included in Appendix A. BP-4: Main St. bike lanes from Industrial Blvd. to 1-805 The revised estimate from the 2011 Bikeway Master Plan (Class 2 Rank #1) was used. This estimate is included in Appendix A. The cost was escalated to $903,049.33. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 276 BP-5: Orange Avenue bike lanes from Palomar St. to Hilltop Drive This project is complete. No additional funding is required. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. BP-6: Develop bike paths and pedestrian access to Third Avenue This project is complete. No additional funding is required. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways These projects were originally taken from the "Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment", Final Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I and II, dated July 1991 . This document has been superseded by the "Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan", Final Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I and II, dated April 2010. Some of these projects are included in other categories. However, this category has been deleted because the Mid-bayfront report is obsolete. Other Roadways OR-1 North Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Avenue traffic signal modifications This project is complete. No additional funding is required. It has been deleted from Exhibit 5. OR-3: Traffic signal and upgrades Projects have still not been determined. Therefore, costs have not been identified. This project is not included on Exhibit 5. OR-4 Transportation Demand Management A new cost estimate has been prepared in the Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), Project #65. The total Citywide project hard cost was $5,931 ,371 . Including a 15 percent contingency on the total hard amount and the 2% administrative fee, the total project cost is $6,939,704.07. Forty percent ($2,775,881 .63) is payable by the WTDIF. The remaining amount is payable by the Eastern Chula Vista TDIF. Bayfront Roadways BAY-3: H Street add WB through & right turn lane at 1-5 NB ramp This work is included under RAS-9. BAY-4: H Street at Woodlawn Ave. add WB & EB through lanes This work is included under RAS-9. BAY-5: H Street at Broadway add EB queue jumper& WB This work is included under RAS-7. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Sage 277 NEW PROJECTS Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects BP-7: H Street: 1-5 to Second Avenue Pedestrian Improvements H Street and Broadway is a high priority intersection in western Chula Vista for pedestrians. Project 15 in the Pedestrian Master Plan includes enhanced crosswalks, sidewalk widening, and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian ramps. The estimate is included in Appendix A. The cost has been escalated to $170,495.56. BP-8: Broadway: H Street to Main Street This project is broken down into two segments in the Pedestrian Master Plan. Project 13 includes pedestrian improvements between Moss Street and Main Street and Project 19 includes pedestrian improvements between H Street and Moss Street. Improvements include ladder crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals at intersections. Estimates are included in Appendix A. The total cost has been escalated to $283,603.72. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements BP-9: Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between F Street & H Street This project includes a 12-foot wide AC bike path with parallel 24-inch gravel paths on either side. Fencing, drainage and a pedestrian signal crossing at H Street are included. This is the third ranking bike path in the Bikeway Master Plan. The estimate is included in Appendix A. The total cost has been escalated to $669,278.46. A summary of the total cost estimates for all projects is included in Exhibits 5 and 6. The cost categories include hard costs, soft costs (including contingencies), the 2 percent administrative fee and an escalation factor to the year 2014. These categories are explained below. Individual cost estimates are provided for each project in Appendix A. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Hard costs relate to the actual construction costs paid to a contractor. Contingency costs are a percentage of the construction cost and relate to the amount of uncertainty of the cost estimate. The contingency amounts used vary between 10% and 20%. Most of the bicycle facilities use a 20% contingency factor. Some grant programs specify a maximum contingency. The estimate for the Industrial Blvd. bike and pedestrian facilities from Ada Street to Main Street is very detailed and includes a 10% contingency factor. Most of the other estimates use a 15% contingency factor. Since these estimates have all been previously approved by Council, whether in a report or grant application, it is recommended that these percentages be retained. In addition to direct construction costs, the following "soft costs" associated with construction of the projects are included in the calculation of the WTDIF fee. The maximum total percentage allowed for all the categories below is 37.5%. However, the percentages vary, with the bicycle projects including a total of 22%. Smaller projects also tend to have a higher percentage design cost. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 278 Civil Engineering: Civil engineering includes the cost of preparatory planning, initial surveying, and design of a project. Construction/Soils Engineerinq: This includes construction inspection and soils testing. Landscape Architecture: This includes eligible landscaping, landscape design and irrigation within the TDIF improvement. Surveying: This includes surveying during the construction phase not performed by the contractor, such as for staking. Utility Engineering/Coordination: This includes coordination and work on eligible dry utilities related to the WTDIF improvement. Environmental Consulting: The work required to conduct, obtain and monitor all necessary environmental clearances required to construct the WTDIF facility. COST ESCALATION AND OTHER FACTORS The base year for the cost estimates was 2013. Therefore, all estimates prepared during 2013 and 2014 are current. The escalation factor for the WTDIF rate is intended to approximate the rate of inflation in the construction industry. The construction cost indices to be used shall be either the CalTrans Highway Construction cost index or the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles. The current ENR index is assumed to be the index for July 2014 (10737.43), which is consistent with the TDIF and BFDIF, and estimates prepared prior to 2014 used the index for July of the year of preparation/approval. The index for July 2007 (8861 .27) was therefore used for projects that were estimated in the original WTDIF Nexus Study. The index for July 2011 (10062.80) was used for the projects estimated in the 2011 Bikeway Master Plan and the index for July 2010 (9968.69) was used for the projects estimated in the 2010 Pedestrian Master Plan. Because this program is being established and run in conjunction with the TransNet program, fee adjustments have been set in line with the RTCIP. The RTCIP states "Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fee... Local agencies may add up to 2 percent for their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs." Therefore, other costs to the WTDIF program are as follows: WTDIF Proiect Administration: Two (2%) percent of the program's direct construction costs to fund activities related to general administration of the WTDIF including the following: • Strategic planning and funding advocacy; • Staff time spent in administering the fee program and the various credits of each developer; • Growth Management Activities; 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 279 • Geographic Information System (GIS); • WTDIF program updates; • Supplies and equipment used to administer the program; and • Feasibility studies. Since the administrative fee percentage is based on only the hard cost, its percentage of the total cost is less — approximately 1.3%. This percentage may be used at the time the fee is collected to determine the amount to be placed in the account for the administrative fee. The final summary spreadsheet for the WTDIF is attached as Exhibit 6. This spreadsheet applies the percentage of each project applicable to the WTDIF and calculates the fee to be collected. Note that the total contribution to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) will be $3,390.61 per EDU. This will meet SANDAG's requirements for contribution to the RAS. C . EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS (THE DENOMINATOR) One of the more common methods used to compare trip generation potential among the different land uses involves the conversion of trips from a particular land use type into "Equivalent Dwelling Units" (EDUs). Residential dwellings of 0 — 6 dwelling units per acre (LOW density) are assigned one (1.0) EDU per unit and become the base for assigning EDU factors to other land uses by comparing the relationship and nature of vehicular trips generated by those land uses to the ADTs generated by this residential density category. In other words, EDUs are units of measure that standardize all land use types (housing, retail, office, etc.) to the level of demand created by one single-family housing unit. For example, in the case of traffic generation, one EDU is equivalent to the amount of two way traffic (i.e, ADT) generated from and attracted to a single-family detached dwelling unit. A small business calculated to generate three times as much traffic as an average single-family detached dwelling unit would have a value of three EDUs. Similarly, a large industrial complex that generates a thousand times as much traffic each day would have a demand of 1,000 EDUs. The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this Nexus Study is consistent with the basis and methodology used in previous Western and Eastern TDIF reports and Western and Eastern TDIF ordinances as amended. As shown at the bottom of Exhibit 4, the total number of trips at buildout of the WTDIF area is estimated to be 808,907 trips. From this value existing land uses were subtracted as discussed above. The total number of remaining EDUs that can be allocated to the WTDIF is 10,365 EDUs. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 280 D. FINAL FEE DISCUSSION Exhibit 8 is the summary conclusion table that determines the final WTDIF costs. This exhibit sums the new applicable infrastructure costs and applies the appropriate factors to each project. The sum total of all new costs is $40,597,039.50. This is reduced to $40,500,633.49 after subtracting the fund balance. This value is divided by the total number of applicable EDUs (10,365) and is calculated to be $3,907.44, which is rounded to $3,907 per EDU. Note that the total contribution to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) will be $3,392.36 per EDU. This will meet SANDAG's requirements. E. FEE ADJUSTMENTS AND COLLECTION The City has on file some bonds and liens for completion of minor segments of WTDIF facilities. These bonds and liens will be used to construct facilities once the CIP program is underway for a given improvement. As with all construction projects, there will be variations in each project cost so that the actual cost may vary. It is recommended when the WTDIF program is comprehensively updated, at a minimum of every 5 years, that any monies collected for deferral for WTDIF listed streets and facilities be added to the fund balance so that the fee will be lowered in a corresponding amount. The WTDIF program allows for the construction of eligible transportation projects by developers in lieu of paying the WTDIF at building permit issuance with approval of City Engineer. Any projects constructed by a developer would be audited and credits issued incrementally as the facility is constructed. If the total construction costs amount to more than the total WTDIF fees for the developer's project, the developer is entitled to receive WTDIF credits in the amount of the excess of construction costs over the required WTDIF fees. The same builder can use this WTDIF credit to satisfy the fee obligations for a future development, or the developer will receive cash reimbursement when funds are available, as determined by the City Manager. The fee shall be collected as a condition of building permit issuance. The TransNet ordinance currently provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. In the future, the WTDIF and BFDIF will be adjusted on October 1 based on July indices in order to keep the timing consistent with the City's other impact fee programs. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2 per cent or based on Caltrans highway construction cost index or the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost 20-City Index for Los Angeles. SANDAG will calculate the fee adjustment for RAS arterials. Fees for non-RAS arterials may also be annually adjusted based on updated information regarding land use or the type, size, location, or cost of proposed facilities pursuant to City ordinances and policies. All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest-accruing fund, and shall be expended only with the approval of the City Council for the Proposed Projects listed in this report. These automatic adjustments do not require further action by the City Council. The total fund balance in the WTDIF as of October 31, 2013 is $96,406.01. This amount has been subtracted from the total project amount in order to derive the new fee amount. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 281 TransNet ordinance states, "Each jurisdiction shall have up to but no more than seven fiscal years to expend Funding Program revenues on the Regional Arterial Systems projects. The seven year term shall commence on the first day of July following the jurisdiction's receipt of the revenue. At the time of the review and audit by the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, each jurisdiction collecting a development impact fee to meet the requirements of its Funding Program shall provide the Committee with written findings for any expended, unexpended and uncommitted fees in their Program Fund and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq." Exhibits 1. Transportation DIF Benefit Areas Map 2. Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) in 2002 3. Residential Population Estimates 4. WTDIF Land Use Table 5. WTDIF Project Cost Categories 6. WTDIF Cost Calculations Appendices A. Project Cost Estimates 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 282 COO r � J % Aeg o6a14 ueS EXHIBIT 2 (NOT SO) €ilBRIEFr�GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES S�1NDaG FOR l SAN DIEGO REGION 401 8 Street.Suile 600 .a Diego,Callramia 92101 APRIL 2002 015)69!)-1900,Fax(6191699-1954 NOTE:This){sling only represents n gur'dcof average,oresemahlo,tmfie gcneratinn"driveway"rates and some very general trip data for land uses{emphasis an acreage and building square footage) in the San Diego region. These rates(bolh local and national)are subject to change as futrue ddeumeniatian t:Comcs available,or as regional sources are updated. For mate specific information regarding traffic data and trip rates,ple-a refer to the San Diego Traffic Generators manual.AAvays check evith local jurisdictions for their preferred or applicable rates. LAND USE TRIP CATEGORIES ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR% (plus IN:OUT ratio) TRIP LENGTH (pRIMARY:DIVERTEDvPASS-6Y1' TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) netween 6:009:10 A.M. Oak-3:00.6:30 P.M. {Mas41` AGRICULTURE(Open Space)..........................180:16:21 21acm•' 10.6 AIRPORT........................................................178:20:2; 12.5 Crs_Cdal 601aae.1001night.7011000 sq.ft."• 56 (6:4) MI (5:51 GanatalAviatidri Glaue,2lfhghl.6Rlased ainrart'•• 97; (7:3) 15:6 (5:51 Heliports 10(Uacse•• AUTOMOBILE' Car Wash Automatic 9001site.00011ve" 416 15:5) 2v ;5:5) Setf.serve 1001washs1z11•' 475 (5:51 4Th (5:51 Gasoline...................................................[21:51:281 16 withlFbad Mart 160fvchiclefuolingspace•• 7i; [5:5] 66 (5:51 withlFo'a Mars&Car Wash 155fvehictafurang Space•' Fib [5:5) 916 45:5) Older Service Station Design I501vehicic fueling space.9001station'• 716 (5:5) ?6 15;51 Sales(Doalw&Repair) 5011 COO sq.ft..3001-0.6015MI.0 stall'•' S6 (7:3) R•6 14:6) Auto Repair Center 2011000 sq.ft..400fave.2olsemice stall• 876 (7:3) 11% ICE) Auto Parts Sales 6011000 sq.ft.'• 436 1016 Quick Lube 401service stall'• 7,16 (6;4) IC% (5:5) Tire Storrs 25/700{1 sq,ft,.301serviee slap• 76 (6:4) 11% (5:5) CEMETERY 5latxc• CHURCH(or Synagogue)................................(64:25:171 911 Ono Sq,ft..3014sco••(quadruple rotas a^6 (6:4) W'. 15:5) 5.1 for Sunday.or days of assembly; COMMERCIA€IRETAV 5upor Regional Shopping Center 3511000 sq. ft.e 400fhera• 476 (7:3) 10:6 (5:51 (More than 80 acres.more than 800.000 sq,ft.,wlusuany 3- major scores) Regional Shapping Center.........................154:35:111 5011000 sq.ft."5001acm• 436 Q:3) 9:6 (5:5) 5.2 (40-a0 aues. 400.000-800.000 sq.f6.wlusuany 2+major slams) Community Shopping Center......................147:31:221 8017000 sq,rt..7001xcfe' '• C. (6:4) IQ% (5:5) 3.6 (15-40 acres,125,000.400,000 sq.ft., wlusuany 1 major start,detached restaurangsl,grouryantldmgstorcl Neill htAW=d Shopping Center 120M 000sq.ft..12001aaa" 4€6 (6:4) 10:6 (5:51 (Less than 15 acres,less than 125,000 sq.ft.,wlusuany grocery &drugstore,cleaners.beauty&barovr shop, &fast food services) Commercial Shops......................................[45:44:75) Spcctalty RetailiSVip Commercial 4011000 sq.ft..4001naa• 3.0 (6:4) 9,6 15:5) 4,3 Electrorucs$uperstwo 5011000 Sq.fi•• 111% (5:5) FaetoryOutlet 4011000sq.h." 56 7:3) 976 {5:5) Super ket 150,1000 Sq.ft..2000faae••' 4:n (7:3) 111':6 Drugstore 9011000 Sq.fL" 416 (6;4) 1436 (5:51 C-orflenco Market (i5-76hotus] 500/1000 Sq.ft.•' 1Lti (5:5) rib (5:51 Carvveniencalvtarket (24 hours) 70071[700 sq,rt." 'T.6 (5:5) 776 (5:5) CanvardGncG Market(wlgasnhna pumps) 65077000 sq,h.,5501uoacie fr;ang space" 616 (5:5) 776 [5:51 Oiscaunt Club GQI1000 sq.ft..6QOfzao•" H6 (7:31 0+6 (5,S) Or c-,Store 6Wi000 sq.rt..60Q1oan•• 3;6 (6:4) tiv (5:51 Furniture Store 611000 sq.ft..1001acre•• 4:6 (7:3) 56 (5:5) Lumbar 5twc 30110OO sq.R.,1501aaa•' 776 (6:41 916 (5:5) Home lmprovemem Superstore 4011 000sq.A.'• 56 (6:4) 66 (515) HardwnrelPaim Stem 6on000sq.ft.,6001acre•• 2:; (6:4) 9'. (5:5) Garden Nursery 4011000sq.ft..901auc" 2D6 (6:4) 1076 (5:5) Mixed Use:Commerc ial(wlsupesmarkGH/Residential 11011400 aq.ft..20001aun•(=ammerc€ai only) T. (6:41 2u (5:5) 51d.00nq unit,2001acrc'(residential only) 9:v (3:7) 13% (6:41 EDUCATION University(4 years). ..................................191:9:0; 2AISTriaant. 100 acm• 1016 (8:21 9'u R:7) 6-9 Junior College(2 years)................................[92:7.1) 1.2/student.2411000 sq.R..1212Iaae• •' 12`Yo 18:2) 9% (6:4) 9.0 High School...............................................175:19:6; 1.31student.1511000 sq.R.,Gofacre• •• 2036 (7:3) 10;6 (4:6) 4.8 Midd le/Junior Hlgh.... [fi7:26r32) 1.4/student, 1211000 sq.R.5DIAche'• 30:6 (6:4) 936 (4:6) 5.0 Eiomentary...............................................[57:25:101 1.61stbdcnt.1411600 sq.ft..901acre' •• 32b (6:4) 916 (4:61 3.4 Day Care.................................................[28:56;14) 5lchSd.8011000 sq,ft,*' 17?6 15:5) 1636 (5:5) 3.7 FINANCIAL'..................................................135:42:23) 3.4 Bank[Wnik-Inanly) 16011000sq.H..t000facr0•• 476 (7:31 Fib (4;6) withblve-Through 20011000 sq.h..1500racre• S'-6 (6:4) 10:6 (5:5) Drive-Thmu,honly 25D(125 one-way)lianc• 3Y• 15:5) 13"-6 (5:51 Savings&Loan 6011000Sq.R.,6401.r:e•• Z16 9;•; 06 -Throvghonly too(56nne-wny)llana'• 416 1''x76 HOSPITAL......................................................173:25:2) 4.3 General 20(bed, 2511000 sq. ri., 2501arae• 0% 47:3) 10'.6 (4:6) CanvalescentfNursinq 311".. 716 16:4) 7:6 (4:6) INDUSTRIAL Indus61aE16usinnss Park lcrnxne uAiaeiuded]........179:19:2) 1611600 sq.h.,200facre* 12% (8:21 1216 (2:81 9.0 Indusulal Park fro canmacu0 011000 sq.ft.,DC7aac" 11% 49:1) 1236 (2:01 IaduSVial Plant[muhipla Stmt".............................[92:5:3) 1011000 sq.M.1201acre• 14% 10:21 1616 (3:71 11.7 ManulacturinglAssembly 411000 Sq.ft..SOlacrt'• 19? ....................... ......... ........ ....... ......... ...... . ......... ......... ......... ...... SAND USE TRIP CATEGORIES ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR 75(plus IN:OUT ratio) TRIP LENGTH (PRIMARY:D1VERTED:PA55-UYI' TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) 11iia n 0:00-9:10 AAA tlalween 3:00-6:10 P.M. LIBRARY..........................................................144:44:x2( 5011000 sq,R.,4001acre'• 2Y, (7:31 101116 (5:5) 3.9 LODGING.............................................................158:38:4) 7.6 Hotel(wfco'venaen rac,kuesfrrss4rrarn) 10104cupled loom,3001acrc W. (6:4) ICS (6;4) Motel 91occupied room,2001aae' MU (4:61 24 (GA) Resort Hmcl 51ac61ipied room,1001acr'e T. (6:41 7Y. (4:6) Business Hatef 71occupledroona" B6 (4:6) %o (5:4) MILITARY............................................................[02:16:21 2.5f"litary 8 civilian personnel• 9;4 (9:1) iti (2:8) 11.2 OFFICE $umda rdCo mmcrc€atOt6cc.................................177x9:4] 20/F0GO sq,ft.?3(101arrt• 14% (4:1) 130 42:8) 8.6 (less than 100.000 sq.tt.1 Large(lith-Rise)Commerdnl Office.......................€82:15:31 1711000 sq.ft-1 6001-ac 1396 (911) 1415 (2:8) 10.0 [ni than 100.400 sq.ft.,6-stories) Office Park(400,000-Sq.ft.) 1211000 sq.ft..200ftcre'•' 1356 (9:1) 13% (2:81 Single Tenant Office 1415000 sq.ft.- 180lacre• 15% (9:tj 15% (2:6) 8.0 Corporate Headquarters 711000 sq,ft.,1101han' 17'0 49:1) 1696 (1:9) Govnmment(Civic Center)- - --[50:34:161 3011000 sq.ft." 354 (9:1) 12% (3:7) 6.0 Post orrice CentrallWaIR,hi Onty 9011000 sq.R.•• Sn 716 Community oeitinrSunng mast drop tans; 20011000 sq.ft..1300facre' ti`s 46:4) 916 (5:5) Community(.!matt dry,€are) 30011000 sq.rt..20001acre' 7:6 [5:5) 1096 (5:5) Mail Drop Lane only 1500(750 one-way)Aane• 7)5 15:51 IT% (5:5) Department or Motor Vehicles 18011000sq.ft..9001acre•' E6 (6:41 1076 (4:6) Medic'd-Demnl..................................................[60:30:101 5011000 sq.ft.,50olarrc• IT. (8:21 11% (1:7) 6.4 PARKS........................................ .[66:26;61 4.4 E4 5.4 City(developed wlmeming roams aaJ sports faciiiticsl 50facte' 13% (6:51 936 (5:5) Regional(dtveloped) 201acre' NdghborhoodlCRUn[y(undeveiaped) Slacre(add ter specific sport usesl.61picuic sue'" State(average 1000 acres) 11nrre,l 0fplcnic site' Amusamcnt(Theme) 60faac,130)=n(summer only)" C-6 (6:4) Son Diego Zoo 11514-' Sea world 6010crc' RECREATION coach.Ocean or Bay...........................................(52:34:9] 60011000 ft.shoreline.60)ncre• 6.3 Beach.Lake(fresh waterl 5011000 ft.shoreline.51ac4e' Dowling Center 3015000 sq.ft..3001aae.3DAam,•• 7'•6 (7:31 11:6 (44) Campground 4 1campsite1 1 4)6 M. Ga€r Course Wacre.40maie,7001catuse' 711, (B2) 915 (3:71 Driving Range only 70facre. 141goe box. 31b (7:3) M (5:51 Marinas 41ocrth,201acre• 3% (3:7) 714 (6:4) wo-purpose(miniature golf.video arcade-hailing cage,o1c.) 90facre 2)0 0; RacquetbahtHeauh C1uh 30!1000 sq.ft.. 3001auo.401court• 414 46;4) 914 (6:41 Tennis Courts 161aere.lVcaurt" 5%v 11% (5:5) Sports Faaliets Oadonr5tadium SOfacrc.0.21seat• Indoor Arena 30laue.0.11sent' Pace.. 401ano,0.6-at' Theaters(muttiplex wlmtinee)...........................[65:17:17] 0011000 sq.ft..1.61seat.3601sfrcen• Me (0:4) 61 RESIDENTIA3... ......................186:11:3] 7-9 Estate,Urban or Rural 121dwef3ing unit•" E6 (3:71 101. (7:3) {average 1.2 OU1aac) Single Family Detached SDldweding unit'" IC6 (3:71 4Ti6 (7:3) (average 3.0 Dulauc) Condominium 0lawclung unit•" S. (2:8) 10,E (7-3) (or toy multi-ramNy 8.20 DUlacrel Apartment 61dweihng unit'" 0'4 [2:6) 9:'4 (70) (or any maul-ramify,units more than 20 DUlacre) Military Housing(off-base,multi-family) pass than 6 DUlacre) 81e ling unit T% (3:7) S. (6:41 46-20 OUfacrc) G1dwe€sing unit 76 (3;7) 05 (5:4) Mehile Home Family 5ldwelling unit.4ofacre' lib (3:7) 111. (0:4) Adults Only Xchvellin9 unit.201acro' 9:6 (3:7) 1014 (B:4) Reririnnat Community 41dweingunit•• 51.b (416) 735 (6:41 Congregate Care Foci€ity 2.Sldwalling unit" % (6:4) 816 (5:5) RESTAURANT'................... (51:37:121 4.7 quality 10011000 sq,ft..31seat,5001acre••• 135 (6,41 E6 (7:31 Sit-down,hightumover 16011000 sq.ft..61seat.1000faore•'• E6 (5:5) #L6 (6;4) Fast Food(wldilve-through) 65DI10DO sq.ft..20lseat,300010ae••• 71.4 (5:5) A'o (5:5) Fast Food(without Jnve•through) 70011DOOsq.ft.•' aa, (5:4) 7)6 [5:5) Dv9icatnsscn(lam-4pm) 150/1000 sq.ft..I lhent' 96 46:4) 3S (3:7) TRANSPORTATION Bus Depot 2511000sq.R.' Tmck Termhsai SO17000sq.rL,Whey,801aua" E6 (4:61 E5 (5:5) WaterpatlManne Terminal 1701bcrth,121arrc" Transit Station(isght Rad wlparking) 300lave.211lparkmn space(4loccupicd)" 14% (7:3) 15% (3:7) Park L Ride Lots 4001acre(6001paved nap), 1414 (7:31 15). (3:7) f 5lparkingzpace(8/occupicdj'" •Pr,ma,y5parc�:s4nor�yarrarraeeneramrs, 1 • od,arapuraaa:rrerpca.>crat,wrarnorrlernee.r;n„1.Tr,pc�,Groboe,RaEa:mtnMaga:uia5endn�htation:I.raaprr:snNOncbeAErRANSswa,aa.r.po.tsandeetEm,laS. • Tnp category pererntage ratios are daay Rpm€peal hwsrheid surveys,ohen tarripl be applied to very SpeclfVC Earn€Ines,and dp hat,nGUtic nunres,dtnt d'ove's I�a py v mhardc5E n�i PRIM RY-ne,Td�cxl helween Daoin 4 P' DNERTED w lrart. stars altre the way to a pnmary deWrial-)whale da'ance compared tp darer d Stance L 1 rule_ PASS-BY-und-lcdo,divrned�Iten. ' Tipp€Gnglhs are 4-aga weighted terse Uys la antl him genital land usG Vtl,(Ai up,SySrCm w[a[4�tmi�c lrm]lh+G.9 m,:C51 = Fiaedcurve equation: JoiM-9.502 tr,(.i -6.'145 T„total rips,:-1.00a Sq.(L = F,ltad c-equ..ti�r; irsM-0.75E Lnirl 3.950 ' FnicderuvC Cgaauod: t--2.169 LnItl1�t2.65 t-[:apsRlU.d•densrty(OWanG1.DU-tlwei[issxl unit ' Sug9estedPA550Y(undvrrlydtrdavumd clmr€elp raantages forvip rateresAreslansaNy 'Trop neduclims•In miler tohm!pp,wnoteregionai'smart grov.ui pW,ncs, 'kungg P.h ROALcnodlb4sed ngcomhmatiot atlotal datalrewewana uursourees•'1: agaaGkadpvnedge San Dkgn's e.p ntlng mass uanvt sysrem,cws,dxr C©M1tEliOAVRETML vclueietnprafe reductiogs{+nU,proper daeumentaLim and necessary Regipna35inpping Censer XF:6 adJustnxrtsru pe5kpn,atl4}.The rpilaw,ng ale some exanqut5: C--;y 335 rtngh,bar,totl 4011+ 111 AS%daily u,pretluctian fw land asC4 wain transit aeca55 pr near SpeaaRy Reta,uSU,p Coarmcrc:aE{other! 1Q!6 IranhL StaliCllS aeCG55ibfCwiltUn ltd nSiEC. 5.gxm'4d-.el ea76 Corroo g MaAel sr76 RI Drmto m4ybapredacurn rprmi.td•u5teprelelxr,eat:when Oisc-ritelulu5la a Yak r5idm9al and epmmrrral ses4dl am epmh,ned{acmanstmm mane rI1LVlCIAL spl,tnrwalkig8 tr,pt to rrplaceveruaW ar atoll. [ink 254 AUTO-*, ELE Gasoline State Z. L MSfAURNiT EQ,a4ay IDY Sit•tlewmrnghturnpver 2Eyr6 Fast Food am;, 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Paye 34 Page 285 z co N cu b0 m ( ti H rn C OD m � � M N r W O C O L Cl) U �n O Cp o `V N L O LO N N � Y cn c W 0 E Q > a .o o M c� Z L6 ti w co co ai LO CD LO � � v a o � � v Q v a M m co Q1 N N lilt v LL O N p L CL O 0 w = c •3 v n o txo v C � L �N V a CL O � w 0 � f) T �v Y U _ O o 0 v a w s o X N(� �W w M M w c Q1 M ° o L ^+ Q v � v v N LIB O (� v ° ++ u m N T \ N C N 2 A` W W ai O v L O 3 3 u U C _ -00 Q a v L .0 O O •T T C '° ai OJ O } \V U -6 -6 C7O ai OJ U O 00 d' H O N r- co N bD f� O O p O O Cfl O'IT 00 CD fn O O 00 O 00 Cfl O o) V co O w P- O O Cfl O O C(') LO V O f`7 N O x W "t O O (r � O O CO() O O Lo W SL m O V 00 00 Cfl M Lo Cl)cy)O o v O Cfl o Lo v (�f f� O O M V N O O M O C(') N O CO LO MO W _ C y W Lo O 00 r O O M (D Cm Cm'IT oc,! 'a V O n Co m r O O) O) O CN Cl) co m V M Cf7 r N r 00 7 M V O) N co CD T 0 O (n ON ON m O O O O O Co M r � L f a V O M N a Cl) V O co l(} V O V N O O LU v } O n � Cl) N On M N O) o O A l O O O O O O O O O O O t VJ a o 00 Lo o o C5 C) o O o c0 C) O o C14 N r- � a u 7 M N V a N O o n_ � O � LO oo M o w o0 0 W fq O Cr O �,.� r N O) N n O u( � r O v N o) V M N N M V Cc O u a io V V! 0 C� N V 'IT N 0o N M M O co M s N O - m N M c6 M V N M M M 6 m r n M N o v — O � U c c f0 CD a /�� T V N co Lo N N M M Cl) M O O M s a J O V 6 N C(') N � O O O � NN M N c4 f— N m o) N o) M E } L c � Q 3 > 2 X N N L O. E y N N Q7 i is 2 3l 0 E N ( VJ f u7 O E E E U E U v la m m Y o U Of E j -o 0 O o U 0 0 E x Q)w v - v -r- O o o v o o o) m o o Z 7 U) v ' > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z O C( O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Q U N N ai o < Cl) m _ Z CO H H d' H O N N d Oq 01 01 O O m m O m m O m m M Il M O O l0 11 O l0 O O O 00 11 M M M m r1 m O V V V1 Lq V V O V ry O 00 00 l0 Lq V O 00 I- ry V1 01 O O I� <0 l0 01 01 00 I- l0 ry 00 00 00 Il- � 00 00 O 00 rl Il rl rl O 00 <0 O O m Il m m O O m V ry I, r, ry O1 c-i Ln O ry ry 00 00 ry ry l0 ry O ry O O m Il m m 11 O M V V O O Ln I, � rl rl i V ry I, r1 V1 V1 ry ry V1 V1 O V1 V rl 17 17 Il ry 00 O Ilirl l0 V 00 O O l0 rl 01 l0 l0 V 17 V V1 Ili Ln Ln l0 l0 Ln Ln 00 Ln Ln W l0 l0 01 I- O r, V V M O Ln O O I- O O 00 00 <0 m N l0 V rl 11 M M 11 11 11 11 V m 11 11 V l0 00 ry r1 00 ry O r1 m m Il m M Il rl rl r1 M r1 r1 l0 l0 ry 00 00 M M ry M M M c-I V m O ry 01 01 Ln O ry ry r1 l0 Ln M r1 ry ry V rl rl Il ry l0 l0 rl V m l0 r1 N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lni -Ln I-Ln I-Ln I-Ln 1J. JJ I H. I l0 l0 O O l0 l0 O l0 O O m m O 11, ry O O 11 O l0 m O O 11 11 O m m M 00 l0 11, O V V O O V V O V O O M M V1 V1 r1 O l0 I- r1 V O O O I- <0 N I- � � M W O1 l0 M M O O M M O M m O 11, � ry 00 00 O 11, O m V m O O V V I� ry ry m m 11, W 11, M M m m M M O M ry O O O l0 N l0 O l0 m V 11 00 O O O rl m l0 l0 m V 11 V l0 00 00 I� � W 00 O 00 rl I� Ili Ili L' V V O Ol O O W M O O V I� Ln ry ry I� O O l0 Ili N N 00 00 N N l0 N m 00 rl rl rl l0 m m V O N l0 00 O O I� rl m O O m m O m V rl rl I� rl 11 00 11 ry l0 l0 l0 m m V ry m O O ry 11, m m I� rl ry M M V O V m m rl rl V V1 V1 ry ry Ili Ilirl ry V m 00 c-I m m V l0 N N rl m V l0 ry ry M rl rl Ln i O Ln rq ry Ln L Lnl-Lnl-Lni Ln Ln I Ln I I Ln LN Lni LN LN', I I I LN Lni LN LN Ln I I 0 o o o o o o o o o Ln Ln O M l0 O ry Ln O O I, O O l0 V O Ln Ln M 00 O M f V M M O O M M O M O O l0 l0 V1 V V O 00 V1 r1 M ry O O Cl l0 O I- � <0 W M 00 00 01 01 O O Ol 01 O m Ln O ry ry ry rl 00 O ry Ln M V 00 O O Il ry l0 M M 00 l0 rl ry ry r1 i Ln Ln i i O i ry O M M rl I, V O l0 O 11 ry M O O I, O ry 11 11 V 0) ry O l0 M M Il � M M O M l0 V1 M M 00 V1 O O rl M ry V ry O O ry Ln l0 l0 l0 M Ili V1 Lr rl N N M M N N O N V1 M Izt � ry M l0 V1 Ii ry m 01 m O O l0 m 00 V 11 11 l0 m O1 m I,11 m m M rq W V V 00 M 00 V rl I, Q1 V M V1 V1 00 C V V N Q1 I, 01 rl V M M <0 N N O M � Q1 rl Ol Q1 O M = rl m ry rl (Q M t d V C d C Y l0 l0 O O l0 l0 O l0 O O m m O V l0 O 00 l0 O l0 r4 Ln I, o o o o o to V oo r1 r1 O O r1 r1 O r1 O O to to O r1 to O r1 O r1 00 rn ry O O r1 Lq Lq r1 v v O O v v O v O O v v O m rn O v 00 m O to to r1 r1 rn rn � m m m v r1 r1 0 o r1 11 o 11 0 0 � � m m 11 0 0 00 m rn v ry 11 � v v v � rn v o in Lr O O Lri Lr O Lri Lri ry Lri Lr rl� m v o Oo r- m M r r ry Ili m m v O v r o0 O O oo oo O O l0 O O1 oo V V o 00 o M 00 Il r4 0 Il <0 m M O 00 00 O1 I1 O 00 Il 11 rl rl 00 00 rl rl cl rl V 00 r1 r1 O O l0 00 Il m O I o V m Lr N 00 00 I 11 m O Il � � oo ry ry ry ry rn m m ry m y to r1 m in ti ti ti v m m r1 r1 ry r1 r1 V 11 O V Ol l0 00 Q � L n Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln.-Ln -Ln -Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln -n Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln .. ... O O on > 0o m .. v O Q M N ° Ln m Ln L O r4 v v .. E 3 ai op v (n Ln X 'bn ° c LL - c c m Y v W m o u O �0 �° c~il Lu Q •O '�n m n m ,> c -- M _ Ln i Q E n o 0 0 3 LL O CO o v y E n m m o o = o O Ln m .. .. z +' 00p Ln a.+ E O m H 2 - -O '� O W aJ LL C7 aJ 0n O O � v aJ m Q Q X O N - 'O 0n Z J J +�-' aj W ,c ry ry m M � c W E •l.i �-` N o m -° C _m-+ m am.+ -O o H - 9 x x - x m ° w Ln x z m - o - i E ° '� _ v Q o o �° p m w m V w Ln m aj Ln -n o v n o- ai ai Q o v ° 0 c U m n in in m m o y r, 0 c m E m m v n v = - m H on on = m s V o v - y o v � -o E c y 3 ° v E o S n c c ocn •c c n c N > o o c c E ° c a) o U •Q v O E 'c on on Q E v o ° O v ai Ln w Ln y LU °- m = = a - •Q -a = m � v c E c � v � > m V � w n E 'n O in ,� v v in ;� v ` v cn .� •c 'c ° >, Q O c o v ,n v m OTC v o 0 0 v o v on o 0 3 - o v ,n c cr c o o ° m E ai O ' d n CO on on fl n °A c on n c ovn 3 c 3 " ¢ LL _ o m m Q o o f m LL E n .E c E E .E ° •c J o � v m on z ^ n c o W to y E ^ �o a > y z m e 'c m m c E O c m on J c o c c v ai > c •- O o c m Q i > � w w i y Z '6 '� m i.L aJ aJ vi N m aJ '6 aJ O Q OJ o CO 3 ° ? E E v v m c m > n v o E m m v v CO CO v CO c v o m v c 1, m o > > 0 0 c O y > > v O m 1A z o o Z n a bn z 6 �- i v m v w -0 v C- n on H '> m -0 Q o o c c v n ai m c v H n v ai > H v v v v v v m E N o2S ° o > E E „c, 3 E Q i E Q N >, O O .� � m m n n v v n n n v m n m 3 v v v c v n = W W v v = = v N \ v m c a c Y v v v v m v v v x v ocn Eo c Y aj X n n N N n n ^ n n n n n n Ln m o ° n n n n a n in n N ai m 'm n Y F c v W — — W LL — — 2 — — J — — — — — c V7 CO m W W W 2 iE 2 2 2 W J O LL c 2 d rC ry ry O 11 M V m l0 Il 00 W O rl N M V <o rl rl N M V V1 l0 I� Ql rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl Q N V V1 l0 I� 00 Cif rl rl rl rl rl rl rl r1 O V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 Lit Lit 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 1.i1 L. 00 i= Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ti 0 N N d Oq V m m to O m to N to m I, W N IZ N I� 00 O m Lq I- V V O lD V V m m O m m m 00 00 V Ol O i lD Ln V V Ql O I, N O M 00 V c-I N N O V l0 N Lf1 I- m' O Ql O lD m' O m Ql Ln Ql V V Lf1 QY1 Q01 c-I N lD Q1 M N l0 c Q� M VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT i? Il Q1 V m 0 l0 O O V l0 I, Lf1 N m V O N O Lq Lq V O cI V V c-I V O V l0 I, N m V N 11 lD Lmn V V O N m m O LA Lf1 Il Q1 O N M M M N 00 I, I, Lf1 O Ql _ l0 00 M I, N Q1 I, Ln N m 00 V Ln to N c-I m M V m Q1 00 c1 N to Q1 O l0 N c-I c-I N N VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT i? I� cl O '1 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N V I� O 00 O O O O O rq lq n O m c-I m O m O to N m m 11 00 N O O N Il V N cl O M O N l0 Lf1 l0 l0 l0 N c-I m I, N 11 to m to m to to m m N 00 ,I 00 N N cl 00 n c N O H an d V C d tu C Y c-I Il V " O to O O V to N c-I Lq m lq O N O Lq Lq ri V V 00 O O O m to 11 O V 00 11 N V m V cl m 00 m cl m M V m Lf1 l Il l O c-I Lf1 17 m c-I m O Ln ci m l6 ci O Ql to Q1 00 Il- Q1 00 Ql to m 11 V N N V Co Ln cl V O 00 �o Q � Q C_ cLLc LL LL_ G Y O N LL LL N v Ln v LL � N v v x LJJ v �i °2S > 0 v v oZS O m m v y o - 2 o v o m v _ v n fl- n Y — W LL ICLI 2 '— •— LL Vt Q C O m m v V 0A N N f 9' N ILI CL —C O N U m O N Q N N N LU m j Q 0� N b O W N L sue+ L Qf O M N E O m = m CL d z O N CL E O N N N -O LL Y N a O O Y N O Co y Y O T LE m O LE " Q OJ Y E OJ m L n t v v m v -m mo 1, 3 m '- i LA Y 3 5 3 v Y-0 m m '7 F S 0 Q Q v o;aj 'y Q o S i v c v o t c X n v m N o m - O u m 0 u W 2 m LL 0 2 2 m m N H H O ra v 00 on r � r ry m v op T ry v m N 0 N P bA a� - o `m w a 5 F F F F F F ti F F F o> F F z z z z z z 2 z z z _ z z w m via vi a vii h vi a a Y F F F F F F ti F ¢ F ° F 5 F F m m U m a U m m 4 m U p U m o U a U U v U a s 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 Z O 0 O � � O O o 0 - wo U U 2E U U 2E U U U U 2E Q 2E U U 2E 2E Z 2E U U oa a - W u u LL u w 0 0 0 0 0 U y 0 0 � w o w o 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 z J 7 r U r - U m 0 m U o m w W U o o U U o U U m U 0 U o 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 w o �0�w 0 �vi � o00 00000 000 0 0 0 00 oaoo 0 J J Dt oIm = O w w Z F x F a ^ LU Z zz a O ry m (n U 0 a c LU w a LLI N N M N qU U r O U LU LU w LL w U u Q oo�� 0000 �000 � � o 0 0 000000 000000000000000 d w W S S S H 3 Z H a 0 � LU v > U a W w 0 Z S �So � ao 0 Z2 n O °u CL a U) z � q z LU LU o v° A� o^c? �� ° o a do f ro � o o o a o9 ¢ af-. .� �o t, t, v.� .�I b-�a.9 ¢`� 0� �.5 � .N� � �°i 3 a" ww x a a"� y� aw°wwwwx xxx�aHOa�xx3� xw �P I'!1'�,P k����������Hrororo �LL aQ a C G` Q w` E _ ! FL ` ) � m k ~ � 6 z 0 - § § 2 \ , LU j \ ~ ) J I ® 2\ \]k \ § CN z a § ° �§e E 00 E \ § 2§ } \ /& w > ` )[/ § 00 } w � £ ! § : t * � �u 0 to ; ° \ 2 z ® � ? \ \ \ , \ - - - ( \ \\ \\ WTDIF APPENDIX 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 292 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-1 1-5/E Street NB Ramp restriping to add lane ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY, UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/E Street NB Ramp restriping to add lane $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 293 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-2 1-51E StreetlBay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL. 1 1-51E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 205.15 TOTAL. HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 NR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 294 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-4 E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20') ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY, UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20') $ 1,750,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 35,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,785,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 393,750.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 393,750.00 PROJECT COST $ 2,178,750.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,636,287.50 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 295 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-5 F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20') ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 F Street bridge widening over 1.5 (250' X 20') $ 1,750,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 35,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,785,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 393,750.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 383,750.00 PROJECT COST $ 2,178,750.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,636,287.50 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 296 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-6 I-51H Street NB off-ramp restriping acid lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-511-1 Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft casts $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,399.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,$33.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 297 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-7 1-5/H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-51H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 298 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-8 H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'): ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'): $ 2,800,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 56,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,856,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 630,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 630,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 3,486,000.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 4,218,060.00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 299 COST ESTIMATE F ACILITY I-5-9 1-51J Street NB Off-Tamp restriping add lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-51J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard casts) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,614.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 300 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-10 1-51J Street undercrossing widening add EB NB (175x20) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 I-51J Street undercrossing widening add EB NB (175x20) $ 1,225,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 24,500.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,249,500.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 275,625.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 275,625.00 PROJECT COST $ 1,525,125.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,845,401.25 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 301 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-11 L Street bridge widening over 1-5 (SM for peds 300' X 12')(38%)(58%): ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 L Street bridge widening over 1-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12')(38°/x)(58%):, $ 1,260,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 25,200.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,285,200.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 283,500.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 283,500.00 PROJECT COST $ 1,568,700.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,898,127,00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 302 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-12 I-51Bay Blvd (south of L St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Bay Blvd (south of L St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal: $ 210,367.35 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 4,207.35 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 214,574.70 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 47,332.55 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 47,332.65 PROJECT COST $ 269,907.35 FNR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 316,907.89 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 303 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-13 1-5/industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal: $ 210,367.35 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 4,207.35 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 214,574.70 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 47,332.65 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 47,332.65 PROJECT COST $ 261,907.35 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 316,907.89 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 304 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-14 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751f X 5010: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751f X 501f): $ 4,812,500.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 96,250.00 TOTAL.HARD COSTS $ 4,945,750.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 1,082,812.50 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 1,082,812.50 PROJECT COST $ 5,991,562.50 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,249,790.63 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 305 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 1-5-16 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751f X 20ID: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751f X 20ID: $ 1,571,428.57 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 31,428.57 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,602,857.14 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 353,571.43 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 353,571.43 PROJECT COST $ 1,856,428.57 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,367,278.57 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 306 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-5-17 1-5 HOV& Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54(63.4% in CV)** ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. KNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 1-5 HOV &Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CV)** $ 176,826,882.02 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 3,536,537.64 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 180,363,419.66 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 39,786,048.46 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 39,786,048.46 PROJECT COST $ 220,149,468.12 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.29 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 266,380,856.43 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 307 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY I-805-2 Main St undercrossing widening for EB-NB It. turn lane***: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Main St undercrossing widening for EB-NB It. turn lane***: $ 4,200,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 84,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 4,284,000.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 945,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 945,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 5,229,000.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 6,327,090.00 h 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 308 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY SR-54-2 SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue add ramp lane: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY, UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue add ramp lane: $ 76,279.20 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 1,525.58 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 77,804.76 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 17,162.82 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 17,162.82 PROJECT COST $ 94,967.60 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 114,910.80 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 309 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY TF-358 West Side Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDI ) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 West Side Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) $ 285,714.29 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 5,714.29 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 291,428.58 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 64,285.71 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 64,285.71 PROJECT COST $ 355,714.29 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 43 0,414.29 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 310 COST ESTIMATE 1=AGILITY BP-1 Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street& F Streets ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL. 1 Bike Path striping/signing MI 0.25 $ 3,300.00 $ 825.00 2 144" (12')AC path (3"thick)WCAB (3116") SF 10,560 $ 3.50 $ 36,960.00 3 2-24"parallel DG side paths (3") SF 10,560 $ 2.10 $ 22,176.00 4 Clear&grub SF 10,560 $ 1.00 $ 10,560.00 5 Subgrade pre parationlexcavation CY 587 $ 16.50 $ 9,685.50 6 Drainage(PVC drainage system) LF 1,320 $ 5.50 $ 7,260.00 7 Fencing or guardrail LF 1,320 $ 35.00 $ 46,200.00 8 Pedestrian signal crossing including ADA ramps LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 283,667.00 Admin (2%hard costs) $ 5,67334 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 289,340.34 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft casts $ 131,621.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS&CONTINGENCIES $ 131,621.00 PROJECT COST $ 420,961.34 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.067 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 449,165.75 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 311 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-2 F Street sidewalk/bike lane impts 1-5 to Fourth Avenue: ITEM DESCRIPTION KNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 F Street sidewalk/bike lane impts 1-5 to Fourth Avenue: $ 8,304,461.39 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 166,089.23 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 8,410,550.62 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 1,868,503.81 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 1,868,503.81 PROJECT COST $ 10,339,054.43 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 12,510,255.86 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 312 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-3 Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main St.: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL. 1 Clearing &grubbing LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 2 Removal & disposal of existing improvements LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 3 Excavation and grading LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 4 PCC curb &gutter, SDRSD G-2, east side ft 3,450 $ 35.00 $ 120,750.00 5 Monolithic PCC sidewalk, SDRSD G-3, west side ft 2,510 $ 70.00 $ 175,700.00 6 ADA ped ramps EA 6 $ 3,500.00 $ 21,000.00 7 AC pavement(--6") TON 660 $ 200.00 $ 132,000.00 8 Crushed aggregate base(--12 inches) CY 690 $ 100.00 $ 69,000.00 9 PCC driveway(4 EA)(4x15x15) ft2 900 $ 11.00 $ 9,900.00 10 Bike lane signs EA 6 $ 600.00 $ 3,600.00 11 Pavement striping (bike lane) ft 9,800 $ 1.00 $ 9,800.00 12 Pavement markings & legends LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 13 Regulatory signs EA 6 $ 600.00 $ 3,600.00 14 Public convenience and traffic control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 15 Filtera pre-cast bio-retention unit EA 2 $ 13,000.00 $ 26,000.00 16 Adjustment of utility covers EA 12 $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 17 Chain link gate &fence LF 30 $ 35.00 $ 1,050.00 18 Wing and U type headwalk EA 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 19 Curb inlet type B EA 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 20 Storm drain clean-out EA 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 21 Rip-rap energy dissipator EA 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 22 SWPP compliance LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 23 Road construction signs EA 4 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 24 Public convenience& safety (traffic control) LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 682,000.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 13,640.00 TOTAL.HARD COSTS $ 696,640.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 290,600.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 290,600.00 PROJECT COST $ 986,240.00 No escalation required TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 986,240.00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 313 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-4 Main Street bike lanes from Industrial Blvd & I-805 (RAS) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Bike lane striping/signing Ml 2.88 $3,300.00 $9,497.75 2 Stripe removal LF 15259 $1.50 $22,888.50 3 Restripe centerline w/raised markers LF 15259 $2.25 $34,332.75 4 Pavement markings EA 51 $300.00 $15,300.00 5 Curb & gutter LF 15259 $32.00 $488,294.00 SUBTOTAL $ 570,313.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 11,406.26 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 581,719.26 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 264,625.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 264,626.00 PROJECT COST $ 846,344.26 ENR Index Increase to 2034: 1.067 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 903,049,33 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 314 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-7 H Street: Broadway to Second Ave. ped improvements(PMP) (RAS) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 2 Countdown Signal Heads EA 8 $ 800.00 $ 6,400.00 3 Crosswalk- High Visibility EA 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 4 Crosswalk-Traverse EA 12 $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 5 Curb Extension EA 2 $ 20,000.00 $ 40,000.00 6 Curb Ramp Retrofit (diagonal) EA 2 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 7 Sidewalk Widening LF 300 $ 46.00 $ 13,800.00 8 Truncated Domes (retrofit plastic) EA 2 $ 400.00 $ 800.00 SUBTOTAL $ 91,800.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 1,836.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 93,636.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 64,670.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 64,670.00 PROJECT COST $ 158,306.00 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.077 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 170,495.56 201-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 315 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-8 Broadway: D Street to Main Street ped improvements (PMP)(RAS) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Countdown Signal Heads EA 88 $ 800.00 $ 70,400.00 2 Crosswalk- High Visibility EA 44 $ 1,200.00 $ 62,800.00 3 Sidewalk- 5' Wide LF 405 $ 45.00 $ 18,225.00 4 Truncated Domes (retrofit plastic) EA 16 $ 400.00 $ 6,400.00 5 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 162,825.00 Admen (2% hard costs) $ 3,256.50 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 166,081.50 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 97,246.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 97,246.00 PROJECT COST $ 263,327.50 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.077 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 283,603.72 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 316 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY BP-9 Bayshore Bikeway(bike path)between F Street& H Streets ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Bike Path striping/signing Ml 0.51 $ 3,300.00 $ 1,683.00 2 144"(12')AC path (3"thick)WCAB(3116") SF 21542 $ 3.50 $ 75,397.00 3 2-24"parallel DG side paths(3") SF 21542 $ 210 $ 45,238.20 4 Clear&grub SF 21542 $ 1.00 $ 21,542.00 5 Subgrade preparationlexcavation CY 1197 $ 16.50 $ 19,750.50 6 Drainage(PVC drainage system) LF 2693 $ 5.50 $ 14,811.50 7 Fencing or guardrail LF 2693 $ 35.00 $ 94,255.00 8 Pedestrian signal crossing including ADA ramps LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 422,677.00 Admin(2%hard costs) $ 8,453.54 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 431,130.54 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 196,122.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 196,122.00 PROJECT COST $ 627,252.54 ENR Index Increase to 2014-. 1.067 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 665,278.46 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 317 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY OR-2 Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL. ITEM TOTAL 1 Second AvenuelD Street all-way stop installation: $ 10,308.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 206.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 10,514.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,319.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,319.30 PROJECT COST $ 12,833.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 15,528.49 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 318 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY OR-4 Transportation Demand Management ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Transportation Demand Management $ 5,931,371.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 118,627.42 TOTAL BARD COSTS $ 6,049,998.42 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 889,705.65 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 889,705.65 PROJECT COST $ 6,939,704.07 No cost escalation TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 6,939,704.07 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 319 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAs-1 Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 $ 321,358.00 Admen (2% hard costs) $ 6,427.16 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 327,786.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 72,305.55 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 72,305.55 PROJECT COST $ 400,090.71 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 484,109.76 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 320 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-2 Broadway:C Street to s. City Limits missing imp, (STM367&381) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL. Removal of existing striping or raised markers,C St to L St LF 11,880 $ 2.50 $ 29,700.00 install pavement markings&legends(161mi), C St to L St EA 36 $ 400.00 $ 14,400.00 Pavement striping&markers(travel and bike lanes), C St to L St MI 13.50 $ 5,000.00 $ 67,500.00 Bike lane signs C St to Main St EA 31 $ 600.00 $ 18,600.00 Pavement chip seal to cover existing striping only, C St to L St SF 475,200 $ 0.50 $ 237,600.00 Construction signs EA 4 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Public convenience and traffic control LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 401,800.00 Admin(2%hard costs) $ 8,036.00 TOTAL_HARD COSTS $ 469,836.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 92,213.10 TOTAL SOFT COSTS&CONTINGENCIES $ 92,213.10 PROJECT COST $ 502,049.10 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.043 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 523,637.21 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 321 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS_3 E Street improvements First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower St: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 E Street improvements First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower St: $ 664,108.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 13,282.18 TOTAL. HARD COSTS $ 677,394.16 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 149,424.30 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 149,424.30 PROJECT COST $ 826,814.46 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,000,445.50 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 322 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-4 E Street improvements 1.5 to 300' east of NB ramp(15%): ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 E Street improvements 1-5 to 300' east of NB ramp(15%): $ 143,281.20 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 2,865.62 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 146,146.82 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 32,238.27 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 32,238.27 PROJECT COST $ 178,385.09 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 215,845.96 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 323 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-5 E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)'": ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL. 1 E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)": Admin (2% Lard costs) $ TOTAL HARD COSTS $ - SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 950,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 950,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 Environmental and PE Costs only 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 324 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-6 H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option)****: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) Admin (2% hard costs) - TOTAL_ HARD COSTS $ SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 950,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 950,000.00 PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 950,000.00 ***` Environmental and PE Costs only 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 325 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-7 H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane &tr. signal mods.: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane &tr. signal mods.: $ 383,457.60 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 7,669.15 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 391,126.75 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 86,277.96 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 86,277.96 PROJECT COST $ 477,404.71 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 577,659.70 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 326 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-9- H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway: $ 9,326,678.40 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 186,533.57 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 9,513,211.97 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 2,098,502.64 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 2,098,502.64 PROJECT COST $ 11,611,7'14.61 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 14,050,174.68 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 327 COST ESTIMATE FAC1L[TY RAS-10 H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive $ 20,560.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 411.20 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 20,971.20 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 4,626.00 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 4,626.00 PROJECT COST $ 25,597.20 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 30,972.61 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 328 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-11 East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr.to 1-805 $ 184,950.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 3,699.00 TOTAL. HARD COSTS $ 188,649.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 41,6113.75 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 41,613.75 PROJECT COST $ 230,262.75 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 278,617.93 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 329 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-13 L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd $ 184,950.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 3,699.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 188,649.00 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 41,613.75 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 41,613.75 PROJECT COST $ 230,262.75 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 278,617.93 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 330 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAs-14 Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL. ITEM TOTAL 1 Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk $ 117,105.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 2,342.10 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 119,447.10 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 26,348.63 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 26,348.63 PROJECT COST $ 145,795.73 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 176,412.83 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 331 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS115 Orange Avenue from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Orange Avenue from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive $ 408,875.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 8,177.50 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 417,052.50 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 91,996.88 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 91,996.88 PROJECT COST $ 509,049.38 EMNR Index Increase to 2014: 121 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 615,949.76 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 332 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-16 Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Palomar Street improvements from 1--5 to 1-805 $ 353,428.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 7,068.56 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 360,496.56 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 79,521.34 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 79,521.30 PROJECT COST $ 440,017.86 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 532,421.61 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 333 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-17 Main St. improvements from I-5 to 1.805(See GPU Table 5.10-6) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Main St. improvements from 1-5 to I-805 (See GPU Table 5.10-6) $ 6,184,457.00 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 123,689.14 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 6,308,146.14 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 1,391,502.83 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 1,391,502.83 PROJECT COST $ 7,699,648.97 ENR Index Increase to 201.4: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 9,316,575.25 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 334 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RA718 H St/5th Ave add WB-NB right turn lane & P--P signal for 5th Ave ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL. 1 H St15th Ave add WB-NB right turn lane & P-P signal for 5th Ave $ 76,279.20 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 1,525.58 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 77,804.78 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 17,182.82 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 17,162.82 PROJECT COST $ 94,967.60 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 114,910.80 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 335 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY RAS-19 H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & B-SB right turn lanes $ 02,268.73 Admin (2% hard costs) $ 1,245.37 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 53,514.10 SOFT COSTS Contingencies and soft costs $ 14,010.47 TOTAL SOFT COSTS & CONTINGENCIES $ 14,010.47 PROJECT COST $ 77,524.57 ENR Index Increase to 2014: 1.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 93,804.74 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 336 n en a� � a o a _ w 5 'r' x x ax ax ax ax u ax ax ax ax ax cc F F F F F F h F F z o `m z z z z z z z z 2 z z z '06 > z z via via vii vi via v' a y a as!E r m o FF� FF�FF I�F � ¢ F F PP vP FF a a U a a U a a 4 m U p U a r U a 00 U a s 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 y� 0 Z O � o O � � 0 0 Z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 a U U < _ U U a _ ' W u u LL u — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 w o w o 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 z U N p w a U m 0 m U o m w W U o o U U o U U m U o U 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 w o ,.,w 0 0 000 00000 000 0 0 0 00 0x00 0 >> J� 0 LLl U W 0 Q v oo 0a Q 0 z~ ~ 0 U <a <a W <� K� w N Q H $o O � z W H U) h�Me O a wo m uJ w o W 0 LL w Q e o0 0000 000 � � � o 0 000000 oS0000000000000 d ww z w G I m °m M � H CL o � O � LU J v a�G u > U a W w 0 z 0 wl.1 H ap m oS 11 8 8Z�m M CL U) z 9 w_ z LU W S 11 39 0 .A o m ro m o DS y m b R o m �q�q q b e ro o°o .s w .3 0 o z ¢ o.N y m E A w ??.2 o 0 0 w o '> v9 a 09 �Z� v ` � ywv66v � �o� v� o33 � v D v .� .' 3 a� .. aw w.. axe tea .. a�� » h� aw°wwwwx» xxxr�aHOw�xx3� xw ° "� �v v� ¢m my E d / _ . � § o = § ® % k \ FL a § �\ \ \ § / LU w (]k § ® 2§ _ LL 7 % z , ° § �) § 2( \ \ \\ ) w > ` )[ - § § { ) _ ) § ( \ ; ® ` 5 / ( } RP 2 ! J g \ J \ : LU § \ \ 4 LU \ '2 ( 06 ° ` - • ° ) m ) ! )4 � ) ) ) ) ) RESOLUTION NO. 2014- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE NEXUS STUDY RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE TO THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND ACCEPTING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) was established in March 2008 to finance transportation improvements in Chula Vista west of I-805 and has not been comprehensively updated since then; and WHEREAS, in April 2010, the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report(CVBMP EIR)was completed. The CVBMP EIR included a detailed traffic analysis and identified facilities required to mitigate new development proposed for the Bayfront; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the City has caused two studies to be conducted by staff entitled "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update" ("the WTDIF Study") and the "Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study" ("the BFDIF Study") dated October 2014; and WHEREAS, the WTDIF Study reanalyzes and reevaluates the impacts of development on the transportation system for the area of the City generally between the I-805 and I-5 freeways as shown on Exhibit 1 and further calculates the development impact fee necessary to pay for the required transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the BFDIF Study analyses and identifies the impacts on existing transportation facilities and identifies new transportation facilities needed to mitigate the new development in the area of the City generally west of the I-5 freeway as shown on Exhibit 1. The BFDIF Study also calculates the development impact fee necessary to pay for the required transportation facilities; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it does hereby accept the nexus study recommending an update to the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee and accept the Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 339 Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney Exhibit 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 340 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA UPDATING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA, AMENDING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BENEFIT AREA, ESTABLISHING THE BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.55 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2008, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) was established by adoption of Ordinances 3106 through 3110. The WTDIF was codified in Chapter 3.55 of the Municipal Code. In addition to preparing the City for future growth in the western portion of the City, SANDAG required San Diego County cities to enact a Citywide TDIF program in order to continue receiving annual TransNet funds for local streets; and WHEREAS, starting on July 1, 2008, each agency in the San Diego region was required to contribute $2000 in exactions (updated annually) from the private sector per Equivalent Dwelling Unit to improve the Regional Arterial System (RAS). Starting on July 1, 2014, the required SANDAG contribution to the RAS became $2254; and WHEREAS, subsequent to adoption of the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee, the Pedestrian and Bikeway Master Plans were adopted and the Bayfront Development Master Plan was developed and prepared in 2013; and WHEREAS, due to the amount of new streets and infrastructure needed in the Bayfront, the type and quantity of improvements needed in the Bayfront area is significantly different from the improvements needed in the rest of the Western area. Staff therefore recommends that a separate Development Impact Fee (DIF)be established for the Bayfront area; and WHEREAS, due to new development projections and projects that have been completed or received funding since 2008, as well as the change in benefit area (i.e. removal of the Bayfront from the existing WTDIF area), an update of the WTDIF is needed; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) and the Bayfront Development Impact Fee (BFDIF) could be made; and ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 341 NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. Amend Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 3.55 WESTERN AND BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 3.55.010 General intent. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element requires that adequate public facilities be available to accommodate increased population created by new development within the City of Chula Vista. The City Council has determined that new development will create adverse impacts on the City's existing public transportation facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public transportation facilities which are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular traffic and population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development. The City Council has determined that a reasonable means of financing the public transportation facilities is to charge a fee on all developments within the area of the City east of Interstate I-805. Imposition of a transportation development impact fee would be placed on all new development in the Western portion of the City of Chula Vista (WTDIF) and a separate development impact fee would be placed on all new development Bayfront area of the City of Chula Vista (BFDIF). These fees (WTDIF and BFDIF) would only be applied to new development for which building permits have not yet been issued. The imposition and collection of the WTDIF and the BFDIF are necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, thereby ensuring effective implementation of the City's General Plan. Prior to the development of the Bayfront Development Master Plan, the Western and Bayfront portions of the City of Chula Vista were considered a one area for which a single development impact fee was charged. However, subsequent to the development of the Bayfront Development Master Plan, it became apparent that a significant difference in the type of infrastructure needed in the Bayfront area as compared to the rest of western Chula Vista exists and equity requires that the two areas, previously combined, be separated such that each area will only be required to mitigate the transportation- related impacts caused by development within the respective area; therefore,two separate benefit areas are hereby established with different rates, the Western Transportation Impact Fee (WTDIF) and Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee (BFDIF), to be applied to the Western Area and the Bayfront Area, respectively. (Ord. 3110 § 2, ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 342 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.020 Definitions. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined herein,unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. A. "Building permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the California Building Code. B. "City Engineer" means the City Engineer, the City Engineer's designee or the City Manager's designee. C. "Density"means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map or as determined by the City Manager's designee. D. "Developer"means the owner or developer of a development. E. "Development permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. F. "Development project" or "development" means any activity described as the following: 1. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land; 2. Any new commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on non-vacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(1) and (2) of this section, if the result is a net increase in dwelling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 4. Any new or expanding special land use project; 5. Any special purpose project developed on vacant land or non-vacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 6. Any other development project not listed above but described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. G. "Community purpose facility" means a facility which serves one of the following purposes: ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 343 1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club,Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western Area" generally means that area of the City of Chula Vista located between Interstate 5 on the west, Interstate 805 on the east, the City boundary on the north and the City boundary on the south, also including the area to the north of E Street, south of Naples Street and to the west of Interstate 5, as shown on the map entitled "Attachment 6" of the Council agenda statement for this ordinance, on file in the office of the City Clerk. L "Bayfront Area"means that area of the City of Chula Vista generally west of Interstate 5 and between E Street and Naples Street, excluding the United Technologies parcels, as shown on the map entitled "Attachment 6" of the Council agenda statement for this ordinance, on file in the office of the City Clerk. J. "Engineering study" and "Engineer's Report" means the Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee prepared by City staff, dated February 2008; and the Engineer's Report (Nexus Study) for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee dated October, 2014, and the Engineer's Report (Nexus Study) for the Bayfront Transportation Development Impact Fee, both prepared by City staff on file in the office of the City Clerk. K. "Regional Arterial System (RAS)." RAS roadways are generally described as those facilities that act as a critical link in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or have been accepted for inclusion into the RTP. L. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, noncommercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. M. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.030 Public transportation facilities to be financed by the WTDIF. ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 344 A. The public transportation facilities (facilities) which are the subject matter of the WTDIF are listed below as detailed in subsection (C) of this section and in the Engineer's Report on file in the office of the City Clerk. B. The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects in order to maintain compliance with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. C. The facilities are as follows: Interstate 5 Improvements 1. (I-5-1) I-5/E Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 2. (I-5-2) I-5/E Street/Bay Boulevard SB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 3. (I-5-4) E Street bridge widening over I-5 (250'X 20') 4. (I-5-5) F Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20') 5. (I-5-6) I-5/H Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 6. (I-5-7) I-5/H Street SB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 7. (I-5-8) H Street bridge widening over I-5 (200'X 40') 8. (I-5-9) I-5/J Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 9. (I-5-10) I-5/J Street under-crossing widening, add EB-NB (175' X 20' X$350.00/sf) 10. (I-5-11) L Street bridge widening over I-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12') (18%) 11. (I-5-12) I-5Bay Boulevard(south of L Street) SB on-/off-ramps traffic signal 12. (I-5-13) I-5/Industrial Boulevard NB on-/off-ramps, traffic signal 13. (I-5-14) I-5/Palomar Street bridge widening 14. (I-5-16) I-5/Main Street bridge widening (275 if X 20 if) 15. (I-5-17) I-5 HOV add managed lanes from SR 905 to SR 54 (50% in CV Interstate-805 Improvements 16. (I-805-2)Main Street under-crossing widening for EB-NB left turn lane State Route 54 Improvements 17. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue-add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 18. (RAS-1) Bonita Road from First Avenue to I-805 19. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street(City Limits) 20. (RAS-3) E Street improvements-First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower Street 21. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, I-5 to 300 feet east of NB ramp 22. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 23. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation(underpass LRT option) 24. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane and traffic signal modifications 25. (RAS-9) H Street widening to six lanes from I-5 to Broadway 26. (RA S-10) H Street improvements from Second Avenue to Hilltop Drive 27. (RA S-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Drive to I-805 28. (RAS-13) L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Boulevard 29. (RAS-14) Telegraph Canyon Road at I-805 south side sidewalk 30. (RAS-15) Orange Avenue from Palomar Street tpo Hilltop Drive 31. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from I-5 to I-805 ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 345 32. (RAS-17)Main St. improvements from I-5 to I-805 (See GPU Table 5.10-6) 33. (RAS-18) H Street/4th Avenue add WB-NB and EB-SB right turn lanes 34. (RAS-19) H Street/4th Avenue add WB-NB and EB-SB right turn lanes 31. TF-358 Western Transportation Development Impact Fee 32. (RAS-21) Palomar Street LRT Grade Separation 33. (BP-4)Main Street bike lanes from Industrial Boulevard and I-805 34. (BP-7) H Street: Broadway to Second Ave. ped improvements 35. (BP-8) Broadway: D Street to Main Street ped improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improvements 36. (BP-1) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path)between E Street and F Streets 37. (BP-2)F Street sidewalk/bike lane improvements from I-5 to Fourth Avenue 38. (BP-3) Industrial Boulevard improvements and bike lanes from L Street to Main Street 45. (BP-9) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) Other Roadways 39. (OR-2) Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation 40. (OR-4) Traffic Management Center (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.035 Public transportation facilities to be financed by the BFDIF. A. The public transportation facilities (facilities) which are the subject matter of the BFDIF are listed below as detailed in subsection(C) of this section. B. The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects in order to maintain compliance with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. C. The facilities are as follows: Interstate 5 Improvements I. (I-5-1) I-5/E Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 2. (I-5-2) I-5/E Street/Bay Boulevard SB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 3. (I-5-4) E Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20') 4. (I-5-5) F Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20') 5. (I-5-6) I-5/H Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 6. (I-5-7) I-5/H Street SB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 7. (I-5-8) H Street bridge widening over I-5 (200'X 40' ) 8. (I-5-9) I-5/J Street NB off-ramp re-striping, add lane 9. (I-5-11) L Street bridge widening over I-5 (S/W for peds 300' X IT) 10. (I-5-12) I-5Bay Blvd. (south of L Street) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 11. (I-5-13) I-5/Industrial Blvd. NB on/off ramps traffic signal 12. (I-5-14) I-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (275 if X 50 If) 13. (I-5-16) I-5/Main Street bridge widening (275 if X 20 If) 14. (I-5-17) I-5 HOV add managed lanes from SR 905 to SR 54 (50% in CV) ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 346 Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 15. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 16. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 17. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6 lanes from I-5 to Broadway Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21% WTDIF share per GPU) 18. (BP-1) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path)between E Street and F Street 19. (BP-9) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path)between F Street and H Street 20. (BAY-15) Lagoon Drive (9501f)bike and pedestrian trail 21. (BAY-27) Bayshore Bikeway Bayfront Loop (14,4001f) Bayfront Roadways—RAS 22. (BAY-13) E Street extension Bay Blvd. to H Street(52'x5450') 23. (BAY-17) H Street from E Street to Marina Pkwy. (52'x1650')(BAY-6) 24. (BAY-18) Marina Pkwy. 2-lane from H Street to C Street(52'xI I00')(GP-2)(BAY-8) 25. (BAY-20)Marina Pkwy. 2-lane from J Street to C Street(52'x1450') (GP-2)(BAY-8) 26. (BAY-9) I-5/J Street NB on-ramp add EB-LT&WB-RT lanes (also I-5-10) 27. (BAY-22) J Street from Marina Pkwy. to Bay Blvd. (16501f) (GP-8)(BAY-10) 28. (BAY-29) Pump Station and Sewer Relocation Costs (Marina Pkwy. And J Street) Bayfront Roadways—non-RAS 28. (BAY-14) F Street from Bay Blvd. to west cul-de-sac (1863 If) 29. (BAY-19) "Street A" from H Street to C Street(74'x1150') (BAY-11) 30. (BAY-21) "Street A" from C St. to J St. (1400 If) (BAY-11) 31. (BAY-25) "Street A"— South of J Street to Street"B" 32. (BAY-23) "Street U—Marina Pkwy. To Bay Blvd. (26001f) 33. (BAY-16) G Street(3001f) 34. (BAY-26) "Street B"—"A Street" to Bay Blvd. (26001f) 35. (BAY-24)Marina Way (1100If) 37. (BAY-28) Traffic Signals (seven) 38. (BAY-16) G Street(3001f) 3.55.040 Territory to which fee..applicable........................................................................................................................................................ The areas of the City of Chula Vista to which the fees herein amended and established shall be applicable are as follows: the WTDIF shall apply to the territorial limits of the Western Area and the BFDIF shall apply to the Bayfront Area as such areas are defined above, or as they may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.050 Establishment of a Western and a Bayfront Development Impact Fee. Development impact fees (fees) are hereby established to pay for the facilities within the territories. The fees shall be paid upon the issuance of building permits for each development project within the Western Area and the Bayfront Area. The WTDIF and the BFDIF fees in the amounts set forth in CVMC 3.55.090 are hereby established to pay for transportation improvements and facilities within the Western and Bayfront Areas. ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 347 (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.060 Determination of fees.by land use cate.gory... A. For purposes of these fees, single-family dwelling units shall include single-family detached homes and detached condominiums; multifamily dwelling units shall include attached condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments. The density of the development type shall be based on the number of dwelling units per gross acre for single-family or multifamily residential and shall be based upon the densities identified on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map entitling the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager's designee. B. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and/or square footage as it applies to the commercial, industrial and office development types means all land area that the City Manager's designee deems necessary within the boundary of the parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are being requested. C. The fee multiplied by the total number of dwelling units, square footage or acres within a given development project represents a developer's fair share ("fair share") for that development project. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.070 Time to determine amount due. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time, and not when the tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. No building permit shall be issued unless the development impact fee is paid.The City Council finds that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.080 Purpose and use of fee. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined by the City Council: A. To pay for the construction of facilities by the City, or to reimburse the City for facilities installed by the City with funds from other sources. B. To reimburse developers who have been required by CVMC 3.55.150(A) to install improvements that are major streets and are listed in CVMC 3.55.030 or 3.55.035. ORD# 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 348 C. To reimburse developers who have been permitted to install improvements pursuant to CVMC 3.55.150(B). (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.090 Amount of fees. . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The fees shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. The amount of a fee shall be adjusted on October 1, 2015 and on each October 1St thereafter. The annual inflation adjustment will be based on the one-year change (from July to July) in the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index or the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index as published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), or an increase of at least two percent. The program collects two percent of the total hard project cost estimate for program administration. B. Adjustments to the fees based upon the annual adjustment authorized in CVMC 3.55.090(A) shall be automatic in accordance with annual action taken by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIF and BFDIF may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF/BFDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: $3,907 $9,442 BFDIF Land Use Classification EDUs WTDIF Rate Rate RESIDENTIAL Residential (LOW) 0 to 6 dwelling units per acre I per EDU $3,907/DU $9,442/DU Residential (MED) 6.1 to 20 dwelling units per acre 0.8 per EDU $3,125/DU $7,554/DU Residential (HIGH) Over 20 dwelling units per acre 0.6 per EDU $2,344/DU $5,665/DU Mobile Home 10.5 per EDU $1,953/DU $4,721/DU CONIMERCIAL Regional Commercial Contain 1 —5 major dept. stores and usually have more than 50 20 EDU/Acre $78,140/ $188,840/ tenants. Typically larger than 40 Acre Acre acres. Community Smaller in that size than regional. Commercial Contain junior dept. store or $109,396/ $264,376/ variety store, (i.e., Target Center 28 EDU/Acre Acre Acre with other commercial stores) as a ORD# 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 349 major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, 8— 20 acres. Neighborhood Less than 10 acres. Includes Commercial supermarket and drug store. May 48 EDU/Acre $1Acre / $4Acre / include office spaces. Acre Acre Neighborhood Same as above but in square $45,322/ 4.8 EDU/KSF $18,753/KSF Commercial footage. KSF Street Front Commercial activities found along Commercial major streets not in a planned $62,512/ $151,072/ center with limited on-site 16 EDU/Acre Acre Acre parking. Retail Commercial Specialty retail/strip commercial. 16 EDU/Acre $62,512/ $151,072/ Acre Acre Wholesale Trade Usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover $93,768/ $226,608/ majority of the parcel. Examples 24 EDU/Acre Acre Acre are clothing and supply; also includes swap meet areas. OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ 60 EDU/Acre $234,420/ $566,520/ Stories Acre Acre Low Rise Office < 6 Stories 30 EDU/Acre $117,210/ $283,260/ Acre Acre Low Rise Office (in < 6 Stories thousands of square 2 EDU/KSF $ SF $18,884/ K feet) KSF KSF Medical Office Medical and dental facilities 50 EDU/Acre $195,350/ $472,100/ Acre Acre LODGING Low Rise Hotel/Motel < 4 Stories 20 EDU/Acre $78,140/ $188,840/ Acre Acre Low Rise Hotel/Motel < 4 Stories I EDU/Room $3,907/ $9,442/ Room Room High Rise Hotel >=4 Stories 30/EDU/Acre $117,210/ $283,260/ Acre Acre INDUSTRY Heavy Industry Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually 12 EDU/Acre $ Acre / $1Acre / located next to transportation Acre Acre ORD# 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 350 facilities and commercial areas. Parcels are typically 20—50 acres. Warehouse/Storage Usually large buildings located $23,442/ $56,652/ near freeways, industrial or strip 6 EDU/Acre commercial areas. Acre Acre Industrial Park Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high 9 EDU/Acre $35,163/Acre $ Acre / A percentages of other uses in Acre Acre service or retail activities. Light Industrial All other industrial uses and manufacturing not included in 20 EDU/Acre $ / $1 / Acre Acre categories above. Acre Acre (Ord. 3246 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3214 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.100 Development projects exempt from the fee. ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... A. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of the fee if those projects are designed to provide the public service for which the agency is charged (public purpose). B. Community purpose facilities which are not operated for profit (nonprofit community purpose facilities) are also exempt inasmuch as these institutions provide benefit to the community as a whole, including all land use categories which are the subject matter of the fee. The City Council hereby determines that it is appropriate to spread any impact such nonprofit community purpose facilities might have to the other land use categories subject to the fee. In the event that a court determines that the exemption herein extended to community purpose facilities shall for any reason be invalid, the City Council hereby allocates the nonprofit community purpose facilities' fair share to the City of Chula Vista and not to any of the land use categories which are the subject matter of the development impact land use categories. C. Development projects which are additions or expansions to existing dwelling units or businesses, except special land use projects, shall be exempt if the addition or expansion does not result in a net increase in dwelling units or commercial/industrial acreage. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.110 Authority for accounting and expenditures. ............................................................... ................................................. ........................................................................................................................... A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a specific fund based on the area within which the development occurs. Fees collected for development within the Western Area shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee financing fund and a fees collected from development within the Bayfront Area shall be deposited in a ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 351 Bayfront Development Impact Fee financing fund (WTDIF and BFDIF fee funds, or funds), which funds are hereby created. B. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish two separate funds for the facilities identified in this chapter, to establish accounts within the funds for the various improvements and facilities identified in this chapter, and to periodically make expenditures from the funds only for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the City Council. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.120 Findings.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The City Council finds that: A. Collection of the fee established by this chapter at the time of the building permit issuance is necessary to provide funds for the transportation facilities identified in CVMC 3.55.030 and 3.55.035 and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth-impacted public transportation facilities; and B. The purpose of the fees hereby enacted prevents new development from reducing the quality and availability of public transportation infrastructure facilities provided to residents of the City by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of additional capital transportation infrastructure improvements needed to meet the growth generated by such development; and C. The revenue from the fees hereby enacted will be used to construct public facilities and infrastructure and pay for other capital expenditures needed to serve new development as identified in the Engineer's Report dated February, 2008, the 2014 WTDIF Nexus Study, the 2014 BFDIF Nexus Study and as provided by the San Diego Unified Port District (collectively "Fee Studies"); and D. Based on analyses presented in the Fee Studies there is a reasonable relationship between: 1. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed; and 3. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.130 Fee additional to...other fees and charges................................................................................................................................ ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 352 This fee is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.150 Developer construction of transportation facilities. ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... A. Whenever a developer of a development project would be required by application of City law or policy, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in CVMC 3.55.030 or 3.55.035, the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. If such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer, or give a credit against the fee otherwise levied by this chapter on the development project, or some combination thereof. B. Whenever a developer requests reimbursement, or a credit against fees, for work to be done or paid for by the developer under subsection (A) of this section, the request shall be submitted in writing to the City Manager's designee. 1. The request shall contain a description of the project with a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction attributable to the transportation facility project and excludes any work attributable to a specific subdivision project. The estimate is preliminary and the amount of reimbursement or credit against fees is subject to final determination by the City Manager's designee. Additional information shall be provided to the City by the developer upon request of the City. 2. Such reimbursement or credit against fees shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Requirements of Developer. i. Preparation of plans and specifications for approval by the City; ii. Secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the transportation facility project; iii. Secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for the transportation facility project; iv. Provision of performance bonds (where the developer intends to utilize provisions for immediate credit, the performance bond shall be for 100 percent of the value of the transportation facility project); v. Payment of all City fees and costs. ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 353 b. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the transportation facility project. The developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award one construction contract for the combined work based on a clearly identified process for determining the low bidder, all as approved by the City Manager's designee. Should the construction contract be awarded to a qualified bidder who did not submit the lowest bid for the transportation facility project portion of the contract, the developer will only receive transportation development impact fee credit based on the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (13)(1) and (13)(2)(a) of this section as determined by the City and upon approval of the estimated cost by the City Manager's designee, the developer shall be entitled to immediate credit for 50 percent of the estimated cost of the construction attributable to the transportation facility project. Once the developer has received valid bids for the project which comply with subsection (13)(2)(c) of this section, entered into binding contracts for the construction of the project, and met the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) and (13)(2)(a) of this section as determined by the City, all of which have been approved by the City Manager's designee, the amount of the immediate credit shall be increased to 75 percent of the bid amount attributable to the transportation facility project. The immediate credits shall be applied to the developer's obligation to pay transportation development impact fees for building permits issued after the establishment of the credit. The developer shall specify these building permits to which the credit is to be applied at the time the developer submits the building permit applications. e. If the developer uses all of the immediate credit before final completion of the transportation facility project, then the developer may defer payment of development impact fees for other building permits by providing to the City liquid security such as cash or an irrevocable letter of credit, but not bonds or set-aside letters, in an amount equal to the remaining amount of the estimated cost of the transportation facility project. f. When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall submit verification of payments made for the construction of the transportation facility project to the City. The City Manager's designee ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 354 shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. g. After final determination of eligible expenditures has been made by the City Manager's designee and the developer has complied with the conditions set forth in subsection (B) of this section, the final amount of transportation development impact fee credits shall be determined by the City Manager's designee. The developer shall receive credit against the deferred fee obligation in an amount equal to the difference between the final expenditure determination and the amount of the 75 percent immediate credit used, if any. The City shall notify the developer of the final deferred fee obligation, and of the amount of the applicable credit. If the amount of the applicable credit is less than the deferred fee obligation, then the developer shall have 30 days to pay the deferred fee. If the deferred fees are not paid within the 30-day period, the City may make a demand against the liquid security and apply the proceeds to the fee obligation. h. At the time building permits are issued for the developer's project, the City will incrementally apply credit which the developer has accrued in lieu of collecting the required transportation development impact fees. The amount of the credit to be applied to each building permit shall be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit issuance. The City Manager's designee shall convert such credit to an EDU basis for residential development and/or a gross acre basis for commercial or industrial development for purposes of determining the amount of credit to be applied to each building permit. i. If the total eligible construction cost for the transportation facility project is more than the total transportation development impact fees which will be required for the developer's project, then the amount in excess of development impact fees will be paid in cash when funds are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will be executed; or the developer may waive reimbursement and use the excess as credit against future transportation development impact fee obligations. The City may, in its discretion, enter into an agreement with the developer to convert excess credit into EDU and/or gross acre credits for use against future development impact fee obligations at the fee rate in effect on the date of the agreement. j. The requirements of this subsection (B) of this section may, in the City's discretion, be modified through an agreement between the developer and the City and approved by City Council. C. Whenever a transportation development impact fee credit is generated by constructing a transportation facility using assessment district or community facilities district financing, the credit shall only be applied to the transportation development impact fee obligations within that district. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 355 3.55.160 Procedure for fee waiver or reduction. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A. Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the fee imposed by this chapter is unconstitutional, or unrelated to mitigation of the traffic needs or burdens of the development, may apply to the City Council for a waiver,reduction, or deferral of the fee. A development which is designed and intended as a temporary use (10 years or less) and which is conducted in facilities which are, by their nature, short-term interim facilities such as a portable or modular building (including mobile homes, trailers, etc.) may qualify for a waiver, reduction, or deferral. In addition, a deferral may be granted on the basis of demonstrated economic hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market rate so as to constitute an approximate value equivalent to a cash payment; and (3) the amount deferred is adequately secured by agreement with the applicant. Unless the requirement for timely filing is waived by the City, the application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than 10 days after notice of the public hearing on the development permit application or the project is given or, if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or reduction. B. The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing on same, notice of which need not be published other than by description on the agenda of the meeting at which the public hearing is held. Said public hearing should be held within 60 days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a deferral, reduction or waiver is granted, it should be granted pursuant to an agreement with the applicant and the property owner, if different from the applicant, providing that any change in use within the project shall subject the development to payment of the full fee. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.170 Assessment districts. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If any assessment or special taxing district is established for any or all of the facilities listed in CVMC 3.55.030 or 3.55.035, the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for a credit against the fee in an amount equal to the development's attributable portion of the cost of the authorized improvements as determined by the City Manager's designee, plus incidental costs normally occurring with a construction project, but excluding costs associated with assessment district proceedings or financing. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.180 Economic incentive credit. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The City Council may authorize the City to participate in the financing of transportation facility projects or portions of transportation facility projects as defined in CVMC 3.55.030 or 3.55.035 at the time of the appropriation of funds by City Council for the construction of an eligible transportation facility; the City shall be eligible to receive a credit known hereafter as an economic incentive credit. Such economic incentive credit ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 356 may be applied to development impact fee obligations for those projects which the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, to be beneficial to the City. The use of the economic incentive credit may be subject to conditions which shall be set forth in a written agreement between the developer of the project and the City and approved by City Council. The City may receive economic incentive credit only for those eligible projects identified in CVMC 3.55.030 and 3.55.035 for amounts of funding not identified in the most recent engineering study. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.190 Fund loans. . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. Loans by the City. The City may loan funds to the funds to pay for facilities should the funds have insufficient funds to cover the cost of said facility. Said loans, if granted, shall be approved upon the adoption of the annual City budget or upon resolution of the City Council and shall carry interest rates as set by the City Council for each fiscal year. A schedule for repayment of said loans shall be established at the time they are made and approved by the Council,with a maximum term not to exceed the life of the fund. B. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. The City may repay said developer loans with interest,under the terms listed in subsection (A) of this section. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). 3.55.200 Effective date. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. This chapter shall become effective January 18, 2014. (Ord. 3110 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3109 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3108 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3107 § 2, 2008; Ord. 3106 § 2, 2008). Section IL Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section III. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. ORD#1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 357 Section IV.Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney ORD# 1 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 358 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING AN UPDATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.54 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-221 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY STAFF RECOMMENDING AN UPDATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.54, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY The City's Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program was established on January 12, 1988, by Ordinance 2251. Since its inception, the program has been updated several times to reflect new land use approvals, proposed changes to the General Plan, and updated project cost estimates. The TDIF has been updated on August 13, 2002, and May 10, 2005. Staff recommends the approval of the 2014 TDIF update and a change in the current fee from $12,494 to $13,035 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The public hearing has been duly noticed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a governmental fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project, which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA review. Although environmental review is not required at this time, once the scope of individual projects to be funded through Transportation Development Impact Fees have been defined, environmental review will be required for each project and the appropriate environmental determination will be made. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City of Chula Vista Pagel of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar TM 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 359 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. Not applicable. DISCUSSION 2014 TDIF Update New developments place demands on the existing transportation infrastructure, which can be mitigated by upgrading existing and/or constructing new transportation facilities. Chula Vista's TDIF Program functions as a system to distribute the cost of constructing infrastructure facilities in an equitable manner amongst new development in Eastern Chula Vista. The proceeds from the fee are used to construct new transportation improvements or expand existing facilities. The existing TDIF rate is $12,494 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The 2014 update recommends a TDIF increase of 4.3%, or $541 to $13,035 per EDU. Table 1 below presents the rates for the different land uses. TABLE 1. Proposed Fee Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: $ 13,035.00 Land Use Classification Current Fee Proposed Fee Residential(LOW)(0 to 6 DU/Acre) $ 12,494.00 $ 13,035.00 per DU Residential(ME D)(6.1 -18 DU/Acre) $ 9,995.20 $ 10,428.00 per DU Residential(HIGH)(+18.1 DU/Acre) $ 7,496.40 $ 7,821.00 per DU Senior Housing 0.4 EDU(8 EDU/Acre) $ 4,997.60 $ 5,214.00 per DU Residential Mixed Use"0.4 EDU(+18 DU/Ac.) $ 4,997.60 $ 5,214.00 per DU Commercial Mixed Use"16 EDU/20ksf $ 199,904.00 $ 208,560.00 per 20,000 Sq ft General Commercial(Acre)16 EDU/Acre(6 stories+) $ 199,904.00 $ 208,560.00 per Acre Regional Commercial(Acre)11 EDU(+60 Ac or+800 ksf) $ 137,434.00 $ 143,385.00 per Acre High Rise Commercial(Acre)28 EDU/Ac(6 stories+) $ 349,832.00 $ 364,980.00 per Acre Office(Acre)9 EDU/Acre(up to 5 stories height) $ 112,446.00 $ 117,315.00 per Acre Industrial(Acre)(9 EDU/Gross Acre) $ 112,446.00 $ 117,315.00 per Gross Acre Regional Technology Park(Acre)8 EDU/Gross Acre $ 99,952.00 $ 104,280.00 per Gross Acre 18-Hole Golf Course(70 EDU per golf course) $ 874,580.00 $ 912,450.00 per Golf Course Medical Center 65 EDU per Gross Acre $ 812,110.00 $ 847,275.00 per Gross Acre "Based on gross acreage —Project is considered commercial mixed use only if qualifying residential mixed use is located on second floor,or higher,above commercial project. Basis and Methodology The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this update is consistent with the basis and methodology used in the "Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" report adopted in January 1988 and also the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees For Streets" report adopted in January 1990, amended in May 2005 and amended in the September 2014 Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Engineer's Report (Attachment 1). One of the primary assumptions in the formulation of the previous fees is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istarl 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 360 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. new development and the cost of the facilities should be borne by that new development. The first step in this update was to determine which road improvements are required to be constructed in order to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's circulation system east of 1-805. The improvements that are to be constructed will serve the entire benefit area. The next step was to determine the method upon which the costs for the improvements would be spread. One of the most common tools used to equate benefit impact fees among the different land uses and densities is the "Equivalent Dwelling Unit" or "EDU". There is a clear relationship between the use of transportation facilities and the generation of traffic trips based on the land use and density of a specific parcel. As in previous methodologies, this update relies on the report "San Diego Traffic Generators", published by SANDAG. This report details the traffic trips generated by various classes of land use. The proposed street improvements are based on an analysis of the circulation system for various levels of development within the entire area of benefit, which is discussed below. All of the proposed street projects included are consistent with the Preferred Plan of the proposed General Plan Update and Specific Plans that have been adopted by the City Council. In addition, the street projects are required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance as a condition to all development within the area of benefit in order to maintain acceptable levels of service on the major roadways. The absence of contiguity to the proposed street projects is not essential to conferring a benefit to properties. The area of benefit is based on an analysis of impacts on the total circulation system east of 1-805 for various stages or increments of cumulative development within the total area of benefit. The circulation system must be viewed as a whole. Each of the proposed street projects will mitigate the adverse traffic impacts generated by new development; because every development will create traffic; which will utilize the entire system to access work, commerce, schools, residences and the other land uses throughout the City. A failure in any part of the system will have a negative impact in other parts of the system and traffic from the development closest to an impacted segment of street will be just as affected as traffic from a more distant development. The analogy of a water system is sometimes used where constrictions or breaks in any part of the system will have significant impacts on the whole system. Area of Benefit The TDIF program encompasses most properties within the City's jurisdiction located east of 1-805 inclusive of the Bonita Gateway site at Bonita Road/1-805 then south towards Otay Valley Road, excluding the Otay Valley Road Assessment District area and the County landfill site, then east to the easterly city limits. As of October 1, 2013, the proposed Area of Benefit (Attachment 2) contains a total of 19,545 future EDU's. The TDIF program includes transportation facilities required to serve the proposed University Campus and Innovation District site in the Otay Ranch. It is anticipated that the University, once approved, would be responsible for constructing suitable on-site transportation facilities required to mitigate the university's on site traffic impacts (i.e. access and frontage impacts). The EDUs for the 85-acre Innovation District portion of the University Campus and Innovation District will pay TDIF fees and are in the new TDIF fee calculations. However, the new TDIF fee calculations exclude the EDUs City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 361 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. contained within the proposed university portion and no TDIF fees will be paid by the university. The proposed TDIF update does include one facility that passes through the University Campus and Innovation District, Discovery Falls Drive between Hunte Parkway and Street "B" in Village 9. This is a new road added to the Eastern TDIF program, and while it will be constructed on the future university property, construction of the facility is required in order to provide primary project access for Village 10. Transportation Facilities Projects completed since 2005, include (TDIF #): 52A. La Media Road from Birch Road/State Street to Santa Luna Street. 55A. Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street (Phase 11) 55B. Otay Lakes Road from Canyon Drive/Ridgeback Road to East H Street (Phase 1). 59B. Proctor Valley Road from Coastal Hills Dr. to Agua Vista Drive/Northwoods Dr. Projects that have been revised are: 65. Traffic Management Center has been renamed to Traffic Demand Management/Transportation System Management since it also includes arterial equipment besides traffic operations center equipment. Thus, TDIF # 66 Transportation Demand Management has been closed out. Current projects under construction include; 57. Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. Interim 2-lane facility is completed from Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road. A grading permit will be issued soon for the segment from Santa Victoria Road to Main Street. Completion of the interim improvements to Main Street is expected in FY15/16. Uncompleted projects include 28 remaining major arterial and system-wide projects including numerous traffic signals (TDIF # 63) within the proposed TDIF program. The cost estimate for constructing these remaining TDIF facilities is $294,011,801, including soft costs. This update includes all roads in the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan in addition to capacity enhancement projects. There are several new roadways, traffic signals, a new Main Street bridge across Wolf Canyon (TDIF # 60B), as well as updated costs of completed projects since 2005 and remaining roadways which will be updated as part of the 2014 TDIF Program Update. At this point in time, the 2014 TDIF update does not include Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds for one Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bridge, which is pending inclusion into the HBP. The Heritage Road Bridge project (STM-364) (TDIF # 58B), near the amphitheater, may be able to receive approximately $20 million in HBP funds. The federal paperwork has been submitted, but the authorization process is not yet completed. We expect that we will be authorized for HBP funds sometime in mid-FY14/15. What the Federal HBP authorization would mean to the TDIF obligation for this project is that it could reduce the future TDIF program obligation by approximately $20 million (7%). As a comparison, existing grants that have been received on the TDIF eligible projects to date have already saved the TDIF program at least $1,000 per EDU. New Facilities With the 2014 TDIF update, the following new facilities are proposed to be included into the TDIF City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 362 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. program (TDIF #): 69. Millenia Avenue within the Millennium project from Birch Road to Hunte Parkway. 70. Discovery Falls Drive from Hunte Pkwy south to Street "B" (Village 9). 71. Street "B" (Village 9) from Hunte Pkwy south to Otay Valley Road. 72. Otay Valley Road from east of SR-125 to Village 9 easterly subdivision boundary. In addition to those projects above, the 2014 TDIF update also includes the SR-125 interchange ramps at Main Street/Hunte Parkway (TDIF #67) and at Otay Valley Road (TDIF #68). These interchange ramps were added to the TDIF program since it is not expected that the region would construct these improvements until sometime around Year 2040. As future updates to the TDIF occur, we will have more current phasing from the region (Caltrans & SANDAG) regarding these two interchanges. Multiple Species Conservation Plan The Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) was approved in 2003. The requirement to create the Preserve Management Endowment Fund (PMEF) is described in our MSCP Subarea Plan and committed through our Implementing Agreement (IA) with the Wildlife Agencies. Both the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and our IA with the Wildlife Agencies were approved by City Council through Resolution 2003-197 (Attachment 3). Per the funding obligation in our Subarea Plan and IA, the PMEF will create an endowment program of approximately $1.85 million, funded through the following capital improvement programs: Salt Creek Sewer (including access roads and trails): $1,000,000 (SW-219)-Completed Wolf Canyon Sewer (including access roads and trails): $500,000 Main Street Bridge at Wolf Canyon: $250,000 (TDIF # 60C) La Media Road: $100,000 (TDIF # 52B) Thus, as Main Street is extended east of Heritage Road across Wolf Canyon on a new bridge, an amount of $250,000 will be paid out of the TDIF to create the (PMEF). The Wolf Canyon Bridge is TDIF Project # 60C. Similarly, the southerly extension of La Media Road (TDIF#52B) includes $100,000 in environmental endowment funds. The PMEF will be used for enhanced management programs within the North City (Rolling Hills Ranch and Bella Lago) and Otay Ranch Preserve Management Areas (PMA). The endowment is anticipated to generate, over time, a perpetual annual budget of $50,000 to over $92,000 (2002 dollars) specifically dedicated to Preserve Management activities as funding becomes available through the PMEF program. TDIF Credits There are a number of developers who have constructed TDIF roads in the past and maintain a credit against future TDIF fees in the estimated total amount of $15,304,432. The credits are summarized in Attachment 4. EDU Rates Government Code 66000 requires, among other things, that the City establish a reasonable relationship between the projects to be funded and the amount of the fee. The TDIF program uses the Average Daily Trip (ADT), which is converted to the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) as the tool to City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 363 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. equate impact fees among the different land uses. As indicated above, ADT generation rates published by SANDAG are primarily used to determine the impacts of the different land use categories on the transportation system. Each land use category is assigned a specific EDU rate. A single family, detached residential unit is equal to 10 ADT or 1 EDU. Table 2 presents the current rates. Table 2. EDU Rates CONVERSION OF ADTs TO EDUs Land Use Classifica EDU's Residential (LOVE 0-6 dwelling units per acre* 1. EDU/ 0 DU Residential (MED) 6.1-18 dwelling units per acre* 0. EDU/ 8 DU Residential (HIGH) >18.1 dwelling units per acre* 0. EDU/ 6 DU Senior Housing 0. EDU/ 4 DU Residential Mixed Us>18 dwelling units per acre* 0. EDU/ 4 DU Commercial Mixed U! 16.0 EDU/20,000 Sq ft General Commercial< five (5) stories in height 16 EDU/ .0 Acre Regional Commercial> 800,000 sq ft 11.0 EDU/Acre High Rise Commerci�> five (5) stories in height 28 EDU/ .0 Acre Office (Acre) < five (5) stories in height 9. EDU/ 0 Acre Industrial (Acre) 9.0 EDU/Acre Regional Technology Park(Acre) 8. EDU/ 0 Acre 18-Hole Golf Course 70.0 EDU/Course Medical Center 65.0 EDU/Acre *Based on gross acreag **Project is considered commercial mixed use only if qualifying residential mixed use is located on second f As a background, the following is a brief discussion on the EDU rate schedule: • The SANDAG Report ("San Diego Traffic Generators") identifies several categories of residential land use generating average daily trips (ADTs) ranging from 12 to 4 ADTs. The City historically had refined the SANDAG approach, identifying four categories based on the type of residential structure whether attached, detached, multifamily or senior housing, which also related to the density of the residential development according to the SANDAG Report. Since the 2002 TDIF update, this product-type basis was replaced with system based upon the density of the residential development, as a more accurate reflection of housing development within the Area of Benefit. Following this methodology, the TDIF is also based on the density of the residential development. City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 364 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. Staff, therefore, uses the following: 10 ADTs generated from a residential unit with densities ranging on average from 0 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre; 8 ADTs from a residential unit with densities ranging from greater than 6 to 18 dwelling units per gross acre; 6 ADTs from a residential unit with greater than 18 dwelling units per gross acre; and 4 trips from a unit in a senior housing complex or mixed use residential with commercial. • Commercial Mixed Use generates the equivalent to 16 EDU's for every 20,000 square feet of floor space. Annual Index Based Adjustment The TDIF is subject to adjustment each October 1 st , based on the one-year change (July to July) in the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI increase from July 2013 to July 2014 supports an October 1, 2014 automatic TDIF increase to $12,864; an increase of $370, or 3%, over the current fee of $12,494 per EDU. Instead of implementing this automatic increase, staff recommends adopting the proposed comprehensive fee update; increasing the fee to $13,035 per EDU, an increase of $541 or 4.3%. If the proposed comprehensive update is approved, the next index based adjustment would go into effect in October 2015 (no index based adjustment in 2014). Proposed Ordinance By amending Chapter 3.54 of the Municipal Code, Council will establish a new TDIF rate of $13,035 per EDU and will amend the existing TDIF program to include all the properties and transportation facilities identified in the report. This ordinance will become effective 60 days after the second reading due to this TDIF update. The next automatic rate adjustment will be deferred until October 1, 2015. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee supports the Strong and Secure Neighborhood strategy. The eastern TDIF finances the construction and upgrading of public infrastructure, which is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient roadway system for residents, businesses and visitors CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed ordinance increases the TDIF rate from $12,474 to $13,035 per EDU, an increase of $541 per EDU. This rate increase will generate additional revenue for the TDIF fund of $541 per EDU. Actual fiscal impact to the TDIF fund will vary based on the number of building permits pulled for new development east of Interstate-805. There is no direct impact on the General Fund from approving the new rate. All staff costs associated with preparation of the 2014 update is City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 365 File#: 14-0418, Item#: 10. borne by the administration component of the TDIF. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The fee increase should allow the City to be able to construct all the new and expanded transportation facilities needed in order to accommodate new development in eastern Chula Vista. The facilities constructed under this fee program will result in routine maintenance. The future program cost of $254,780,493, when spread over the remaining 19,545 EDUs generates the proposed TDIF rate of $13,035 per EDU. ATTACHMENTS 1. Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Report dated Sept. 2014 2. Area of Benefit 3. City Council Resolution 2003-197 dated May 13, 2003 4. TDIF credits Staff Contact: Prepared by Francisco X. Rivera P.E., T.E. Principal Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 8 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar TM 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 366 - - - - - - ----...... - - - - - - ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... ................ ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... '"74w CITY OFy,� w� "+fir' CHULA VISTA 4 s , Public Works Department W SEPTEMBER 2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 367 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................iii Section1 — Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 A. Development Impact Fees ..............................................................................................2 B. Transportation Development Impact Fees.......................................................................2 C. Historical Background .....................................................................................................3 Section2 — Development................................................................................................................5 A. Revised Development Forecast ......................................................................................6 Section3— Fee Methodology........................................................................................................ 10 A. Average Daily Trips (ADT's).......................................................................................... 11 B. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's)................................................................................. 13 C. Program Costs.............................................................................................................. 13 1. Proposed Projects.............................................................................................. 13 2. Additional Costs................................................................................................. 14 Section 4— Program Facilities....................................................................................................... 16 A. Revised Program Facilities............................................................................................ 17 B. Project Cost Estimates..................................................................................................22 1. Direct Construction Costs...................................................................................22 2. Soft Costs ..........................................................................................................22 3. Project Estimate Methodology............................................................................23 Section 5— Program Administration..............................................................................................24 A. Fee Updates .................................................................................................................25 1. Annual Fee Adjustments....................................................................................25 Section 6— Proposed Fee Summary.............................................................................................26 A. Proposed Fee Calculation.............................................................................................27 1. Developer Credits..............................................................................................27 2. Program Funding Summary...............................................................................28 3. Rate by Land Use Summary..............................................................................30 Section 7—Transportation Facility Maps.......................................................................................31 Appendix "A"—Transportation Facility Cost Estimate Details........................................................35 J:\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\TDIF\TF364 FY13\2014 TDIF ENGINEERS REPORT\FINAL SEPTEMBER25 2014 TDIF ENGINEERS REPORT FXR.DOC 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Jage 368 Figure I Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee Benefit Area and Major 8 Projects Figure II Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee Completed Projects 32 Figure III Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee Current and Added 33 Projects LIST OF TABLES Table A Land Use Summary 9 Table B Assigning Average Daily Trips (ADT's) to Land Uses 12 Table C Converting Land Uses to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) 13 Table D Facility Cost Estimate Summary 15 Table E TDIF Program Facility List 18 Table F Remaining Cash Credits 27 Table G Program Funding Summary 28 Table H Combined Fund Balance Calculation 29 Table I Program Revenue Adjustment 29 Table J Proposed TDIF Fee Per Land Use Classification 30 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Vage 369 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents the 2014 update of the Chula Vista Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets, also known as the Transportation DIF, and herein referred to as simply the "TDIF". The report includes a discussion of the rationale behind development impact fees, a brief history of the local TDIF Program, an analysis of the proposed fee program including updates to the development forecast, the average daily trip (ADT) rate assignments for each land use and associated EDUs, the street projects included in the program and some changes in fee calculation methodology. The focus of this report is fivefold: • To refine the current fee program to include changes to land uses and facilities within the benefit area; • To update costs and scope of work for the facilities currently within the TDIF program, as well as provide cost estimates for newly added facilities. • To add Discovery Falls Drive adjacent to Village 10, Millenia Avenue in the Eastern Urban Center and Street "B" in Village 9 and additional ramps at SR-125 to the TDIF program. • To refine the cost calculation for Main Street from Heritage Road to La Media Road including a bridge over Wolf Canyon and to document that this road is now part of the Regional Arterial System (RAS) This update represents an increase in the cost of the remaining transportation facilities to be built to $294,011,801 in 2014 and a corresponding decrease in equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) from 20,543 in 2005 to 19,545 in 2014. The resulting recommended fee increases from the current $12,494 per EDU to $13,035 per EDU, an increase of$541 (4.3%). 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Tage 370 fx .; , CITY OF CHULAVIS P hc Works Department DEVELOPMENT M cT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Section i Introduction 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 371 DEVELOPMENT 1 MPA C T FEES Development impact fees are imposed upon development in an area of benefit, often containing a number of different properties, property owners, and land use types. Such fees are governed by the regulations and requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. of the State of California. The Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) has two main purposes: (1) To fund the construction of facilities needed to mitigate potential direct and cumulative impacts and (2) To spread the costs associated with construction of the facilities equitably among the developing properties. In the environmental review process, such as in the California Environmental Quality Act process (CEQA), a project's potential impacts are identified and, where possible, a method of mitigating those impacts (reducing the actual impact to an insignificant level) is identified. In the case of larger projects, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) usually identifies cumulative impacts resulting from the project, as well as direct impacts. Cumulative impacts are impacts created by overall development, of which individual projects do not create a significant impact directly, but contribute to an impact through additive effect. Since the individual development projects are not completely responsible for the entire impact on any single segment of roadway, for instance, they are required to contribute a portion of the mitigation based on each project's fair share of the overall impact to the roadway system. Each project's fair share of the impact is based on the amount of traffic as measured by Average Daily Trips (ADTs) that the project places on the overall street system. A development impact fee is an ideal mechanism for identifying and ultimately funding the fair share contribution to the overall mitigation program. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) A transportation development impact fee is a typical impact fee designed to mitigate cumulative impacts on the local transportation network as a result of development. Generally, development of property produces impacts on the local road network resulting in decreased traffic capacity on the street system. To measure the effects of traffic, cities establish capacity or level of service standards that they each consider appropriate for their jurisdictions. Where potential impacts resulting from development are projected to reduce the capacity on streets to the point where the identified level of service will not be maintained, the impacts are deemed to be significant, and should be mitigated. Typical mitigation for cumulative impacts to the system is designed to restore capacity and maintain the desirable level of service. Examples of capacity-increasing improvements include adding new roads to the circulation network, widening or improving existing roads, installing new traffic signals or improving existing signalization, freeway interchange improvements, and improving signal coordination (Management of traffic operations). In the case of transportation development impact fee programs, the accepted method of distributing costs in an equitable manner is to compare traffic generated by each project that will potentially affect the overall system. This can be done by establishing a uniform list of trip generation factors typical for the types of uses contemplated for the developments. Usually such an analysis is performed when information on the proposed developments is general in nature. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 372 The actual number of trips generated by the final development of individual parcels may vary from the projections. 0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In February 1986, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a schedule of development impact fees (DIF) for the Eastlake I development. Eastlake was the first major planned development that added significant traffic to the street system. Fees were established to ensure that Eastlake contributed to the cost of certain street improvements, including a four-lane interim facility in the State Route 125 (SR-125) corridor. Also included in the development impact fee was the cost of constructing a fire station and a community park in Eastlake I. While the fees were imposed as a condition of development on Eastlake, City staff recommended to the Council that a development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of transportation improvements by all of the developments that would benefit from the improvements. In January 1987, the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact fee program for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. In December 1987, a report entitled "The Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets"was completed. The "Area of Benefit" included all of the undeveloped lands that benefited from the proposed transportation improvements, within the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, east of Interstate 805. The Council adopted an Eastern Area Development Impact Fee in January 1988 by Ordinance Number 2251 (TDIF). The fee was established at $2,101 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). On August 8, 1991, the City Council authorized the preparation of an "Interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study." The purpose of this study was to identify an interim SR-125 facility that would meet the transportation needs of the region until a permanent facility could be constructed. The interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study report recommended the establishment of a new fee (separate from the existing TDIF) to specifically finance the construction of interim facilities that would temporarily postpone the need for a permanent freeway/toll road facility. Consequently, projects dealing with the SR-125 construction were excluded from the TDIF program and were included in the Interim SR-125 DIF program. In October 1993, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment for the Otay Ranch. As a result, the TDIF program was updated in December 1993, including the first phase of the Otay Ranch. For the first time since the adoption of the original TDIF in 1988, a comprehensive general plan of land uses and circulation system requirements was in place on the Otay Valley parcel. The TDIF program was subsequently updated twice in 1999 and 2002 to reflect changes to the circulation element of the General Plan, land use changes and to adjust the construction cost estimates. The purpose of the 2005 update to the TDIF was fourfold: 1. Comply with the 2005 General Plan changes including the revised Circulation Element and related Land Uses in Eastern Chula Vista. 2. Review all previous projects and update the costs and land uses which affect the adequacy of the current fee to construct the facilities. 3. Evaluate costs and credits as several TDIF projects had been completed. 4. Re-evaluate the average daily trip (ADT) rates for commercial land uses by 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page age 373 considering only trips generated outside the benefit area and to introduce office and mixed-use residential as separate designations. Since its inception, the amount of the TDIF fee has been revised several times, as follows: Date of Action Ordinance Number Fee/EDU January 9, 1990 2349 $ 2,850 December 11, 1990 2431 $ 3,060 January 4, 1994 2580 $ 3,998 November 30, 1999 2802 $ 5,920 September 10, 2002 2866 $ 8,180 October 1, 2004 ENR Index $ 8,825 October 1, 2005 3029 $10,050 October 1, 2006 ENR Index $10,455 October 1, 2007 ENR Index $10,777 October 1, 2008 ENR Index $11,317 October 1, 2009 ENR Index $11,836 January 26, 2010 Resolution 2010-017 $11,317 October 1, 2010 Resolution 2010-017 $11,317 October 1, 2011 ENR Index $12,198 October 1, 2012 ENR Index $12,480 October 1, 2013 ENR Index $12,494 This report recommends changing the fee to $13,035 per EDU. This report represents the 2014 update of the TDIF and, where appropriate, makes adjustments to the development impact fee based upon completed street construction, revised development projections and new unit costs. The report adds several new arterial projects and updates the scope of work for other projects. New to the program are the addition of Millenia Avenue in the Eastern Urban Center, Discovery Falls Drive in Village 10, Street "B" in Village 9 and Otay Valley Road east of State Route 125. In addition, the scope of work has been revised on three projects: 1. East H Street from Buena Vista Way to Southwestern College will have a revised cross-section plus an east-to-south right turn lane into the college. 2. The Main Street/Hunte Parkway Overcrossing project at SR-125 will include costs for the on-ramps and off-ramps, and; 3. The Otay Valley Road Overcrossing project at State Route 125 will also include costs for the on-ramps and off-ramps. Lastly, the inclusion of Main Street into the Regional Arterial System is recommended. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 374 -. , _ # F S_ ' k' CITY OF CHULAVISTA, 4i.i t 71. Pubhc Works Department - { DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Section2 Fee Development 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page gage 375 aREVISED DEVELOPMENT FORECAST A fundamental principle in the formulation of a development impact fee is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development, and thus the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development. Generally, existing facilities have adequate capacity to support the existing state of development, and any capacity that is added to the street network is in response to the demand created by that subsequent development. It is, therefore, incumbent upon new development to fully mitigate these impacts. The street projects proposed in this Update ("Proposed Street Projects") ensure that the remaining streets in the city's General Plan are fully funded for construction. The proposed boundary identifying the "Area of Benefit" for this Update is illustrated in Figure I. As shown in the figure, the northerly boundary of the Area of Benefit generally begins in the vicinity of Bonita Road east of I-805. The northern boundary of the Area of Benefit continues in an easterly direction to encompass the developments of Bonita Long Canyon, San Miguel Ranch, and Rolling Hills Ranch. The easterly boundary of the Area of Benefit generally encompasses the eastern portions of Rolling Hills Ranch, Eastlake, and Otay Ranch. The southerly boundary follows the easterly city limits to Otay Valley excluding the Otay Landfill owned by the County of San Diego, and those properties within Assessment District 90-2. The westerly boundary is generally I-805. The proposed Area of Benefit is the area served by the proposed street projects that are determined to be necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's circulation system as well as completing the city's General Plan Circulation Element east of I-805. The need for improvements is related to development through changing traffic patterns on the overall system. Once constructed, the proposed street projects will serve the area by providing a system of roads for residents, employees, or customers. Proposed new development in the City is generally described in the adopted General Plan. Further refinements are conducted through the enhanced CEQA review process and the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans. Table A identifies the "Remaining" development within the Area of Benefit as of October 1 st, 2013. Future development is categorized by land use type and further characterized by the following; residential low density (0-6 du/acre), residential medium density (>6-18 du/acre), residential high density (> 18 du/acre), senior housing units, mixed-use residential, general commercial acres, regional commercial acres, commercial high-rise acres, office acres and industrial acres. In the columns labeled "Proposed", the table lists the most recent submittals for the number and type of development proposed in each development area, based on a General Plan designation, submitted Sectional Plan Area (SPA) plans, or Tentative Maps. The columns labeled "Built" identify the units and acres that have been issued building permits as of October 1St, 2013. Those figures are subtracted from the "Proposed" columns, resulting in the "Remaining" units and acres to be constructed. The "Summary" columns convert the individual units to EDUs for direct comparison of the impact on the roadway system. "Remaining EDUs" are found by subtracting "Built EDUs" from "Proposed EDUs". Some EDUs are within an assessment district, etc., that has built, and received credit for a proposed street project eligible under previous versions of this Ordinance. These "Less Credit EDUs" are subtracted from the "Remaining EDUs" to give the "Total Aggregate EDUs" that will be 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 376 required to pay the fee. Finally, the percentage of total EDUs is calculated for each development project. With this 2014 Update, the proposed Area of Benefit will contain an "Aggregate Total of Remaining EDUs" of 19,545. The TDIF program includes transportation facilities required to serve the proposed University Park and innovation District (UPID) site in Otay Ranch. It is anticipated that the University, once approved, would be responsible for constructing suitable on-site transportation facilities required to mitigate the university's on site traffic impacts (i.e. access and frontage impacts). The EDU's for the 85-acre Innovation District portion of the UPID will pay TDIF fees and are in the new TDIF fee calculations. However, the new TDIF fee calculations exclude the EDU's contained within the proposed University portion of the UPID and no TDIF fees will be paid by the University. The proposed TDIF update does include one facility that passes through the UPID, Discovery Falls Drive between Hunte Parkway and Street "B" in Village 9. This is a new road added to the Eastern TDIF program, and while it will be constructed on UPID property, construction of the facility is required in order to provide primary access for Village 10. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 377 Figure I Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee Benefit Area t .N k L N 1 } �. t �1 1 i ` 1 1 ❑ ► r r yr � [�I t + y Q I v 1 r' CD k E 47 # An O .: > o6 i C LL . o m a o (D LL LL:, o a 3 CL C CO a LL � E m 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page Page 378 Table A. Land Use Summary Q �_ 1� n pp7 fV N1 N uj 00 O O N O u1 c ~ 0 n v1 O v1 ^ 7 M O CO ~ N CO V1 CO M 7 Q1 tOD 1� Q1 '� M Q1 M M E O E W .� v ^ .� �n CO Op a, `� N a v M 00 o •` � H � 7 .'-I .ti N N '-I N w N N LL 00 a W H ¢ c N � Ln ai rn o �O j Yj D Co N .~-I N N .4 V1 N t�D lD C r r o r o � ¢ U_ E m v O � 01 N _ U w N 0) M M M E E Di Q 0 01 LL _ w 01 O C C £ E O C O N O d u U 01 m� •C ¢ M ll1 00 tD V1 LD W Z E E d o - - N M M o o M Ep ,2 J s mL � � � _ � o jCO M a a 1D tD a W y D N U' Q in m 00 �o v Q O v W m Ln a) vhf 00 00 j N L l ^ Q � — U W m O N ci N E Ol LL •• _ a N ? N S M M .-I tMD N N N Z ~ Y LL o o d _ a C N < U W Q 7 M V CO l�D V V7 M 1� O of 0 O O O O O O C OtD 7 M .N-I N M V1 ti O O O O ti ti Oi Oi of a a � o o � v L1I o 0 0 W o Q W _ N C d< d< a C) O a E ti v Y a o m 0 d a 7 N Z O N c .L N y > Z _ o U E a` v ° ° o ° ' z o LL O m (U �_ w v v m m v v o m O O_ O v v v a U N U C '_^ _ x l7 z 2 o t N M M 7 tD 1� CO CO M - - Q .0 LL o v v v m m m m v v v v i 3 c -6 v 3 = -a ¢ u u u y v 0 y co co co co co co co co co co co i d 00 c O O a a a a a E E o v Paa 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet e 379 :n fx � ti--boo CITY OF CHULA V ry, ks. I STIR TIRANSPOIRTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Fee Methodology 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1gage 380 aAVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT's) One of the most common tools used to distribute the cost of traffic related improvements among different land uses involves the use and assignment of vehicular trips. Vehicle trips are further equated to the equivalent dwelling unit or EDU as described in the following Subsection B. In the report dated April 2002 entitled "NOT SO BRIEF GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION" ("SANDAG Report"), published by San Diego Association of Governments, traffic trips generated by various classifications of land use are detailed. For example, the SANDAG Report identifies several categories of residential land use generating average daily trips (ADTs) ranging from 4 to 12 ADT's. The City historically has refined the SANDAG approach and has identified four residential categories. Similarly, this report also aggregates residential land uses to utilize four residential land use categories and recommends the following: 10 ADTs generated from a residential unit with densities ranging on average from 3 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre, the Single Family Dwelling Unit; 8 ADTs from a residential unit with densities ranging from 6 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre; 6 ADTs from a residential unit with densities greater than 20 dwelling units per gross acre; and 4 trips from a unit in a retirement complex. For commercial development, as in previous updates, the "pass-by" trip phenomenon was included in setting the generation rate. Pass-by trips (also called undiverted linked trips) are trips in which a stop at a retail commercial facility is one part of a linked trip to or from home or work. Past analysis found that approximately 72 percent of the commercial trips are generated from within the City of Chula Vista TDIF area and 28 percent are from outside the TDIF area. To preclude double counting of residential trips to and from commercial land uses, the commercial trip rate was reduced by 72 percent. The traffic analysis concluded that the commercial trip generation rate varies depending on the type and size of the commercial land use. The analysis was supported by SANDAG studies and verified by an independent Select Zone(s) Analysis forecast for a representative Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) that had a commercial trip rate of 575 trips per acre for general commercial and 400 trips per acres for regional commercial. Therefore, the recommended TDIF commercial trip rates were established at 28 percent of the given 575 trips per acre for general commercial use which led to a rate of 161 trips per acre or 16 EDU. For Regional Commercial, the trip rate remains at 28 percent of 400 trips per acre or 112 per acre (11 EDU's/ACRE). Regional commercial use is defined as large shopping center larger than 60 acres and containing more than 800,000 square feet of commercial space. The same process was applied to High Rise Commercial and High Rise Office based on the high- rise office commercial uses proposed for the Eastern Urban Center, Millenia, in Otay Ranch. The initial trip generation rate of 1000 trips per acre was multiplied by 28 percent to reach a reduced high-rise rate of 280 trips per acre or 28 EDU. The previous 2005 TDIF update included three new land use designations based on the 2005 General Plan. These rates remain in the updated TDIF program. The standard Office (less than 5 stories) is based on SANDAG's trip generation rates of 90 trips per acre or 9 EDU. Since similar offices are constructed within both Industrial and Commercial zones, this rate applies to the standard office use regardless of the underlying zoning. The mixed-use residential rate is based on SANDAG's trip generation rates of 4 trips per unit or 0.4 EDU. Mixed-use residential is defined as residential units constructed above commercial space. The general commercial rate of 16 EDU per acre shall apply to the commercial portion of such mixed use by the following formula: 20,000 square feet of commercial use underlying a residential use equals 1 acre of general commercial or 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1lage 381 16 EDU. This rate is selected to account for the internal capture of trips and to the corresponding reduction of pass-by trips for such use. Table B identifies the ADTs assigned to the various land uses. TABLE B ASSIGNMENT OF ADTs (Average Daily Trips) Land Use Classification ADT's Residential (LOW) 0-6 dwelling units per acre* 10 ADT/DU Residential (MED) 6.1-18 dwelling units per acre* 8 ADT/DU Residential (HIGH) >18.1 dwelling units per acre* 6 ADT/DU Senior Housing 4 ADT/DU Residential Mixed Use** >18 dwelling units per acre* 4 ADT/DU Commercial Mixed Use** 161 ADT/20,000 Sq ft General Commercial (Acre) < five (5) stories in height 161 ADT/Acre Regional Commercial (Acre) >800,000 sq ft 112 ADT/Acre High Rise Commercial (Acre) > five (5) stories in height 280 ADT/Acre Office (Acre) < five (5) stories in height 90 ADT/Acre Industrial (Acre) 90 ADT/Acre Regional Technology Park (Acre) 80 ADT/Acre 18-Hole Golf Course 700 ADT/Course Medical Center 650 ADT/Acre *Based on gross acreage **Project is considered commercial mixed use only if qualifying residential mixed use is located on second floor, or higher, above commercial project. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1?age 382 0 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) A common method used to compare ADT trips among different land uses involves the conversion of ADTs to "Equivalent Dwelling Units" or EDUs. Residential dwelling units are assigned a value of 1.0 EDU and become the base for assigning EDU factors to other land uses by comparing vehicle trips generated by those land uses to the ADTs generated by the single family residential category. The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this update is consistent with the basis and methodology used in the previous TDIF reports and TDIF ordinances as amended. Table C identifies the EDUs assigned to the various land uses. TABLE C CONVERSION OF ADTs TO EDUs Land Use Classification EDU's Residential (LOW) 0-6 dwelling units per acre* 1.0 EDU/DU Residential (MED) 6.1-18 dwelling units per acre* 0.8 EDU/DU Residential (HIGH) >18.1 dwelling units per acre* 0.6 EDU/DU Senior Housing 0.4 EDU/DU Residential Mixed Use** >18 dwelling units per acre* 0.4 EDU/DU Commercial Mixed Use** 16.0 EDU/20,000 Sq ft General Commercial (Acre) < five (5) stories in height 16.0 EDU/Acre Regional Commercial (Acre) > 800,000 sq ft 11.0 EDU/Acre High Rise Commercial (Acre) > five (5) stories in height 28.0 EDU/Acre Office (Acre) < five (5) stories in height 9.0 EDU/Acre Industrial (Acre) 9.0 EDU/Acre Regional Technology Park (Acre) 8.0 EDU/Acre 18-Hole Golf Course 70.0 EDU/Course Medical Center 65.0 EDU/Acre *Based on gross acreage **Project is considered commercial mixed use only if qualifying residential mixed use is located on second floor, or higher, above commercial project. BProgram Costs 1. PROPOSED PROJECTS The next step in developing the fee was to determine which of the Proposed Street Projects are required to be constructed in order to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's circulation system east of I-805. After reviewing the circulation element of the approved General Plan and a variety of subsequent SPA plan traffic studies and CEQA documents, the remaining as yet unconstructed roads, were 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1t age 383 selected as the Proposed Street Projects, shown in Table D and Figure III. The Proposed Street Projects are based on an analysis of the circulation system for the Year 2030 build out within the entire Area of Benefit. All of the Proposed Projects are consistent with the General Plan and SPA plans that have been adopted by the City Council, and are required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance as a condition to all development within the Area of Benefit. The recommended fee is based on an equitable distribution of the estimated cost of the proposed program funding requirements, divided by the number of future EDUs to be developed in the Area of Benefit. 2. ADDITIONAL COSTS In addition to the sum of project costs, an overall TDIF program-monitoring factor of 3% has been added. This factor represents the estimated cost of monitoring and evaluating the overall fee program, including traffic monitoring and growth management studies, as well as costs associated with periodic updates to the TDIF program. The proposed 2014 Update monitoring program cost is $6,441,274 or 3% of the program's direct construction costs of$214,709,133. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1fage 384 Table D Facility Cost Estimate Summary Proposed Street Projects a` _ _ '66 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o _ a a v o v ° N16 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E a _ _ m w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o � o U o .v.U _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ili v zE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N u'1 N c U t Q N f Q O F 10-1 v - N - �. v o W m K o m m 3 3 3 3 c v v v v v v v v v v v v v v m v v v v v v v w 3 a` z z z z z z z z z z z in z z z v z z z z z o m m a a � x x E o E r _ v ° rn v w m o 0 0 n ' a U >, 3 3 U m° o m` E 3 3 v J a 45 v U Q "i N a -,.5 v t'n m° a — 3 w 3 �n 2 7 v � �n m e _ m rn w = t0i� 2 0 0 x 2 U w o w � fn w w z � x' S o w x 0 x 0 c E 8 z° r z o o v U m m o o °v v o 0 N 0�N4J� 0�N4J� m xa' xs' w n w w` S ¢ _ ° 'v D 7 a w w w o > > Q o ° o a y E y m � w m y o v m m c ' m m` Uy a v - ,o , _ w rn E w v ¢ -, — w omw" 03o oo � xxxa � � � � w" � x' M � oono x" pp U F a n m o 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1gage 385 ry, ks. A. CITY OF 'p- CHULAVISTA . I STIR TIRANSPOIRTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Program Facilities 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1 aage 386 aREVISED PROGRAM FACILITIES A comprehensive listing of all deleted, completed, current, and modified (split) projects is provided in Table E. This listing also includes all new facilities to be added to the program via this update. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1Tage 387 Table E TDIF Program Facility List N — Y E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E � E E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CO a 0 CL Y L V N N 0 U ul U E m � m U) J O C _ > D) (n a3 a) O M N M -0 -0 p N N -O W a) �p -OM O N N N ~ J U o a) m as U j ° m c� �6 o c� ° �_ 7 a) C 2i O Y a3 a3 (6 a3 t � Y a3 u) y a3 N o > a) `m 3 o a) w _ ul Cu `m o `as Cu O CO > p Y E a3 L Y -O — = a) a) O Y W E a5 Qf E a � Q o 0CL `as ° — Cu Y ula `uUJ Oa ° o y O N N a3 .0 C a a) J � a- Y J 0 .0 a- a .0 N -6 d O a) a3 t N u) a) a_ N �C a) a5 O O O a3 N a) n o n m a) n E N 3 '— u) n ° E N E N w ° wQ � � a wOw � = = ain = wOUO = 0wOcq w Q a) a) S U) (1) as Of as as as as as o 2s s s ° o o O CO o N U o (n u) Cu a) ai " 0 O - LL L O O of O > a)> C m '°O N a a) w u l ° -o °m > �6 -0 E i E o as a' M 0 a) a) ) — Y > Y N w Y o o N Y a a N a_ _ _ °a LO LO LO LO s rn O O w as o o n E a) n as O CM a) M M M O as 0 n ' ul (n a0o0o � aQ � 0o0owU Hw0 u�i � m` � awOn OU � cq w = a � J H N J M Y (i L) a, a E M MM � COO C C C C 9 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O M `qfJ U U U U U U aoi aoi aoi aoi M M Q? aoi L ? � U �6 m m ° ° m m m ssssss w M M o > a O Ora a- CL CL a- _ `as `as `as O 2 2 2 2 J J 2 O U a_ a- 1' a_ a_ a_ .0 U a) a) U U U ig a) a) a) W a) a) n n n n as as '� n 0 E n n a) n E E ._ _ E E E 2 2 M M M M M M 0 (u as as as a) a) w a a, a, a, a, 00 a, a oa, a, a, = = = oo = = 000 J LL Q Q M M I- r— IU p) a3 a3 00 O) O N N N N N N NI N N III rF (N (h V N (fl 00 O O IM N N (h (h V V H H a 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 1gage 388 ] ] 2 ] ] ] ] ] ] 2 ] 22 ] ] . - 2E / / / / / / § / / / / / / / / / / / / § / § § / / / / / / $ 3 3 3 3 3 ° 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ° 3 ° ° 3 3 3 3 3 \ § \ \§ o ° CL \ / R } \ \ ) 2 2 \ \ \ \ } z ] , $ F § \ � � 2 § } o ( \ 2 6 2 2 5 / k \ - / R ) ] ƒ ƒ 2 e o o ) § 7 ) 2 2 j § $ = k = 5 \ \ ) / Of 3622 ) / ) \ .2 -0 ® \ \ � � % ) $ � � � \ f f b 2 E § Q E t - a p t \ \ \ 3 § ) \ ) ) Lu ƒ @ / 10 EL a \ ) ± ) \ } ) ± 2 ± ] � / z § \ \ ƒ Cm Cu Cm LL { { { { g E 0 = > 0 { { � { ( § � 0 2 � � 7 � G / \ � 2 $ � � k = u C:- � � R 'L \ j { \ � � � � \ ® Jw \ . Cu Cu }~ Bkf ff ) - BB B 3 22 § � � E ) « � / / Ep ) ya ƒ ¥ ¥ ] ) \ § yy 9 J o � _ ) ] m aa ƒ mo 6623 � 2 r U E \ j 2 3 LL Q$ \ � / / � � � ° ° ~ kj jjj § ) ) ) j ) } \ \ } - / 2 } } Ofw ) ) ) ) \ ] ) ] 0 e e ) 2 & 2 0 2 2 - }lu ) ) ) ) 0 0 0 0 0 o e e e o e ) } 0 0 : 2 2 . « « « «ci- � - « z z z « z o af af/ / / E7 \ \ \ � 0477 / - � � { 7 $ ) ) ) ) W a 6662 333a3uj22 / � � � 2 � � ' � � $ § ¥ � o o ® = oo � ® = r » oo mr ro ® = o ® = m D I § / Na)NN mmmrrRR / \ $ r $ rrr9 � � � 7 � � \ \ � SG § § r »G41-q Agenda Packet Page l Page lm E Lo E E m U U U U m E R O D U U (1) o o U o x U U U o o U U U x 0 0 0 U U Q Q Q Q U U U U W U U W U J Q_' m M U1 U1 O m m LU E E > Cu Cu C Cu U m m m m m m a Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu m m E m m m m m m a) a) m m Cu a) O ° ° m m m m � O O O O � O � ' N � m O O O O Q Q o_ o_ C C C o_ C o_ Q C m o_ Q Q Q m Q C C Q LL d m m of of of o_ -6 -6 -6 �i -6 �i �i -6 �i �i �i �i �i �i �i U z z z z � � � 1 zi� z zi� z z z z z z z QM� in z z z z z z z z z m p of of o �, N Cl Cu N Cu m a) t c m E a) > J o 0 3 0 2 z o o U z � r O of of W LU Cu i c a Cu m g o o o M o m Cu m Cu m t N U ° m ° C (1)i m m m a) of Cu o a a) 3 �' 3 3 U) a) " 3 c c m m a) a) m `m J m m O , a) a) Cu i5 m °� U) U) Cu m Woo U 2 2 = N m U m z z a) O O N N p C a) > a) N a) ' N o_ o_ w 2E — a) t C -O -O fp '- . N 7 N C (6 m fp m m c c a) a) Cu a) m z z m ° Cu o o Cu m SS = m (n W W H H W U 2 U W of of W > J U U U W Z S 2 > O w +� m M CU a) J m 0 a) 0 N >m m �C Cu 0 0 w w N (n 0 Z W oo O w N a) ate-+ N N m C C t LL (n O Ul Ul 2 N O N _6 Ul Cu i 0 O M _6 _6 O O Q. � Ul o_ -O Ul a) U z a) m m -6 >m >, In m m 7 Y Cu = Cu > i i m m N c\n i C) (0 E c U a) O Q O 0 a) O) C a3 L U O a3 O a) E 7 C U a) O n U U O a) '0 a3 a3 � O N (O a) - (O - a3 LO O i O (O a) a) E O J J U U -2 -2 a) a) _0 U) O O a) U U U) Q 0 -0 O . ! D cn -o J O O °> E o J 000 U) a) a) Q orn a) a) (O LL v m (o E E E Z) -O U U U 'n O O a) a) a) V W O Y ) J -J D D D ILNLL U W a (n D, C Z -N J LL m _ QD H H 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2lage 391 0 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 1. DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction costs for individual projects were calculated in a number of ways. Typically, if no new engineering information was available for the roadway in question, a growth factor was applied to the original cost based on the ENR report as described more fully below. For these roads, the costs of grading, drainage facilities, and landscaping are all estimated according to project length and complexity. These costs differ according to the scope of the facility. However, for roadways that were in the design stage and consequently had more detailed information, the developer's engineers were tasked with providing more accurate cost estimates. All projects and their associated costs are shown in Appendix "A". For those roads prepared without benefit of detailed construction drawings a 15% contingency factor is applied to the estimated construction costs, to cover anticipated minor engineering issues that are not quantifiable at this level of study. 2. SOFT COSTS In addition to direct construction costs, the following "soft costs" associated with construction of the projects are included: Civil Engineering: Reimbursement will not exceed 7.5 percent of the TDIF eligible improvement cost or actual cost, whichever is less. Civil engineering includes the cost of preparatory planning, survey, and design of a project. Soils Engineering: Reimbursement will not exceed 15 percent of the cost or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible grading as defined in the directive. Landscape Architecture: Reimbursement will not exceed 10 percent of the cost or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible landscape and irrigation within the TDIF improvement. Surveying: Reimbursement will not exceed 2 percent of the cost or actual cost, whichever is less, of the TDIF eligible improvement. Utility Engineering/Coordination: Reimbursement will not exceed 3 percent of the cost or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible dry utilities within the TDIF improvement. Environmental Consulting: Reimbursement will be for the actual work required to conduct, obtain and monitor all necessary environmental clearances required to construct the TDIF facility. In addition to the above-identified "soft costs" associated with construction of the projects, the City imposes two other costs of the TDIF program as follows: TDIF Program Monitoring: Three (3%) percent of the program's direct construction costs to fund activities related to general administration of the TDIF including the following: ■ Strategic planning & funding advocacy; 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2?age 392 • Staff time spent in administering the fee program and the various credits of each developer; • Growth Management Activities; • Geographic Information System (GIS); • TDIF program updates; • Supplies and equipment used to administer the program; and • Feasibility studies. TDIF Proiect Administration: Two (2%) percent of each improvement project cost to fund activities related to the City's administration of each TDIF project including the following: • City supervision of developers' contract administration; • Performing an audit of the project to determine the eligibility for TDIF credits; and • Any other task related to the administration and coordination of a TDIF project by City staff. 3. PROJECT ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY The cost estimates were reviewed and updated with current cost estimates, based on recent local experience. Table D presents the projects and costs being funded by the fee. A complete description, cost breakdown, and location map are included in Appendix "A". With many of the new projects, topography from the GIS database was used to provide conceptual-level grading estimates. In other situations, grading was approximated by comparison with similar projects. Landscaping costs were included in the cost estimates where appropriate; since review of similar projects indicated that this was a very significant component of the overall costs. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2t age 393 f+ F a •� CITY OF CH U LA V1 STA . , ry, ks. I EASTEIRN TIRANSPOIRTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Program Administration 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2fage 394 aFEE UPDA TES The fee shall be collected as a condition of building permit issuance. The fee is subject to an automatic annual adjustment based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Index each fiscal year during the month of October. Fees may also be adjusted based on updated information regarding land use or the type, size, location, or cost of proposed facilities pursuant to City ordinances and policies. All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest-accruing fund, and shall be expended only with the approval of the City Council for the Proposed Projects listed in this Update. 1. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENTS Starting with the 1999 TDIF Update and Ordinance, an automatic annual adjustment to the fees was included to reflect any changes in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. The amount of the fee has been adjusted each October 1, based on the one-year change, if any, from July to July in the ENR 20-City Los Angeles Construction Cost Index. These automatic adjustments do not require further action by the City Council. The CCI increase from July 2013 to July 2014 supports an October 1, 2014 automatic TDIF increase to $12,864; an increase of $370, or 3%, over the current fee of $12,494 per EDU. Instead of implementing this automatic increase, staff recommends adopting the proposed comprehensive fee update; increasing the fee to $13,035 per EDU, an increase of$541 or 4.3%. If the 2014 proposed comprehensive update to the TDIF is approved, the next index based adjustment would go into effect October 1, 2015. There is no index based adjustment required on October 1, 2014 if the $13,035 rate is approved. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 29age 395 f+ F a •� CITY OF CH U LA V1 STA . , ry, ks. I STIR TIRANSPOIRTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Proposed Fee Summary 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 20age 396 PROPOSED FEE CALCULATION 1. DEVELOPER CREDITS As specified in Section 4(c) of Ordinance 2289, which amended Ordinance 2251, a developer may request authorization from the City to construct TDIF facilities. If the total construction cost amounts to more than the total TDIF fees which will be required for the developer's development project, the developer is entitled to receive TDIF credits in the amount of the excess of the Proposed Street Project costs over the required TDIF fees. The same builder can use this TDIF credit to satisfy the fee obligations for a future development, or the developer will receive cash reimbursement when funds are available, as determined by the City Manager. Table F lists remaining estimated credits for facilities constructed by developers. The amount of these accumulated credits totals $ 15,304,432.08. This amount has been added to the proposed overall program cost to obtain the total project cost to be collected through this Update. TABLE F REMAINING CASH CREDITS - ESTIMATED Sunbow $ 148,053.97 Brookfield-Shea Otay $ 625,967.37 Eastlake $ 8,633,623.58 McMillin $ 405,024.31 Otay Ranch $ 4,692,471.11 Rancho Del Rey $ 70,986.54 Rolling Hills Ranch $ 728,305.20 Total Credits $ 15,304,432.08 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2Tage 397 2. PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY A summary of the program funding components is given in Table G, including the overall funding requirement. TABLE G PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY Program Costs Total Impro\,ement Cost (Table D) $ 214,709,133.00 Total Soft Cost (Table D) $ 79,302,668.16 Approximate Subtotal Facility Costs(Table D) $ 294,011,801.16 Less: HPB Contribution (Willow) Improvement Cost (Table D) $ 15,039,835.00 Soft Cost (Table D) $ 3,665,593.00 Less: SAFETEA-LU Funds/DEMO (Heritage) Soft Costs(Table D) $ 2,519,720.00 Approximate Total Grant Contribution $ 21,225,148.00 Approximate Subtotal Facility Costs(Table D) $ 272,786,653.16 Credits Due Developers (Table H) $ 15,304,432.00 TDIF Program Admin $ 6,441,273.99 Total Program Costs $ 294,532,359.15 Program Assets Credits Assigned to Developers for Current Projects $ (6,337,142.00) Funds Appropriated to Current Projects $ (7,486,447.00) Revenue Adjustment (Table K) $ (25,928,277.25) Total Program Assets $ (39,751,866.25) Future Program Cost $ 254,780,492.90 Future EDU's $ 19,545.00 Program Cost per EDU $ 13,035.58 Proposed Rate per EDU $ 13,035.00 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 29age 398 TABLE H COMBINED FUND BALANCE CALCULATION Transportation DIF Fund 591 Fund Assets*+ $ 24,473,314.00 Interest Receivable $ 1,538,702.24 Total Assets $ 26,012,016.24 Liabilities Contract Retention Payable $ (21,306.99) Total Liabilities $ (21,306.99) Budgeted Expenditures CI P $ (2,356,310.00) Other Expenses $ (682,448.00) Total Expenditures $ (3,038,758.00) Available Fund Balance $ 22,951,951.25 *As of October 1, 2013 +Available Fund Balance reflects $10,500,000 loan from TDIF fund to PFDIF. TABLE I PROGRAM REVENUE ADJUSTMENT Balance Combined Fund Balance (Table J) $ 22,951,951.25 Future Revenue Adjustments Deferred Permit Fees $ 2,976,326.00 Total Future Revenue $ 2,976,326.00 $ 25,928,277.25 Program Revenue Adjustment $ 25,928,277.25 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 2Rage 399 3. RATE BY LAND USE SUMMARY Applied to the EDU rates shown in Table C, the proposed fee per land use is shown in Table J below: TABLE J PROPOSED TDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: $13,035.00 Land Use Classification EDU's TDIF Rate Residential (LOW) 0-6 dwelling units per acre' 1.0 EDU/DU $ 13,035.00 per DU Residential (MED) 6.1-18 dwelling units per acre' 0.8 EDU/DU $ 10,428.00 per DU Residential (HIGH) >18.1 dwelling units per acre' 0.6 EDU/DU $ 7,821.00 per DU Senior Housing 0.4 EDU/DU $ 5,214.00 per DU Residential Mixed Use" >18 dwelling units per acre' 0.4 EDU/DU $ 5,214.00 per DU Commercial Mixed Use" 16.0 EDU/20,000 Sq ft '$208,560.00 per 20,000 Sq ft General Commercial (Acre) < five (5)stories in height 16.0 EDU/Acre $208,560.00 per Acre Regional Commercial (Acre) > 800,000 sq ft 11.0 EDU/Acre $143,385.00 per Acre High Rise Commercial (Acre)> five (5)stories in height 28.0 EDU/Acre $364,980.00 per Acre Office (Acre) < five (5)stories in height 9.0 EDU/Acre $117,315.00 per Acre Industrial (Acre) 9.0 EDU/Acre $117,315.00 per Acre Regional Technology Park (Acre) 8.0 EDU/Acre $104,280.00 per Acre 18-Hole Golf Course 70.0 EDU/Course $912,450.00 per Course Medical Center 65.0 EDU/Acre $847,275.00 per Acre "Based on gross acreage "Project is considered commercial mixed use only if qualifying residential mixed use is located on second floor, or higher, above commercial project. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 39age 400 5 '� /Poo M.- �T ■ -A CHULAVISTA . A d DEVELOPMENT IMPACT r SEPTEMBER 2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 3lage 401 Transportation Facility Maps 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 3?age 402 _ L ._ . E LU ` _ -� / - � 0 | � ■ �� / / ] � � a- \ CL LU 2 @ E ' W \ ( 0 0 . _ k CL ' / / 40 � ,., \ / e ` E CD � E LL \ CL CL § § t « � ■ # � / 2 , LL - . 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 3 qe403 § « \ � 2. . . . � .. 2 � , a © - - -• _ ` IL % , c ¥ x \ / . a 2 \ Ca � Ln � % _ Cu k ' � �, � ` G � � . . � § r ] \ L.L ; ) � • S � E E CL § 8 CD L / c - / _ � @ � 2 2 k � IL - IL � k ° � LL 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 3 qe404 f+ F a •� CITY OF CH U LA V1 STA . , ry, ks. I STIR TIRANSPOIRTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SEPTEMBER 2014 Transportation Facility Cost Estimate details 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 39age 405 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 28B Otay Lakes Road Lake Crest Drive to Wueste Road ELV Widen to 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 1,082 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY, UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 1,082 $ 680.00 $ 735,760 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 1,082 $ 168.00 $ 181,776 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 1,082 $ 408.00 $ 441,456 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 1,082 $ 78.00 $ 84,396 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 1,082 $ 194.00 $ 209,908 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 1,082 $ 13.00 $ 14,066 7 Special Items $ 617,810 Habitat mitigation $ 617,810 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,285,172 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 342,776 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 171,388 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 110,364 Landscape Architecture (10%of landscaping costs) $ 20,991 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 45,703 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 2,532 InspectionlAdministration (6%of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 137,110 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 39,991 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 45,703 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 916,558 f PROJECT COST $ 3,201,730 (Votes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) *indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 406 it CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. 28B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: E OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM LAKE CREST DRIVE TO WUESTE ROAD, I WIDEN TO 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL. (LENGTH = 1,082) CHULA VISTA CITY LIMIT 4 WOAD Gt" \ N D tS'J, D,p 128' 64' 64' 12' 44' 44' 12' 8' 8' , 7, 7' S' i 2:1 MAX. 2:1 MAX. 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK ,` 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK 6" TYPE "G" C&G 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 6" TYPE "G" C&G f - LANE PRIME j NO SCALE i i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 407 it COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 43 Birch Road SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway (south curb line to south PL ONLY) EUC Widen 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 1,750 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork $ - 2 Drainage Items $ - 3 Surface Improvements $ 240,827 4 Dry Utilities $ - 5 Landscape & Irrigation $ 141,663 6 Misc. Construction Logistics $ 5,667 7 Special Items $ - Habitat mitigation $ - TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 388,157 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 58,224 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 29,112 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ - Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 14,166 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 7,763 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ - Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 23,289 f Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 6,793 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 7,763 I TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 147,110 PROJECT COST $ 535,267 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) The scope of work includes the southerly curb line only. The estimate of construction costs was based on a percentage of the total costs for the entire roadway project. Twenty five percent(25%)of the surface improvements, landscape and irrigation,and miscellaneous construction logistics was assumed. It was also assumed that the earthwork,drainage items, dry utilities,and habitat mitigation were completed with the initial construction of the roadway. (4) * indicates developer/village number. j 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 408 I CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY N4. 43 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIRCH ROAD FROM SR-125 TO EASTLAKE PARKWAY. CONSTRUCT.6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL ROAD (SOUTHERLY CURB LINE ONLY). (LENGTH = 1,750') f N � � PARKWA Y BIRCH Rpga i i h I 64' 64' 12' 44' 44' 12' 8' 8' 5' 7' 7' 5' II 2.1 MAX, 2:1 MAX. .r 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK l i 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK E 6" TYPE "G� C&G 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 6" TYPE "G" CBcG 6 - LANE PRIME NO SCALE i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 409 i COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 46 Eastlake Parkway Birch Road to Hunte Prkwy/Main St (west curb line to westerly PL ONLY) EUC Widen 6 Lane Major Arterial Length (LF): 4,714 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork $ - 2 Drainage Items $ - 3 Surface Improvements $ 648,718 4 Dry Utilities 5 Landscape & Irrigation $ 381,598 6 Misc. Construction Logistics $ 15,264 7 Special Items $ - Habitat mitigation $ - TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,045,580 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 156,837 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 78,419 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ - Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 38,160 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 20,912 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ - Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 62,735 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of--way) $ 18,298 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 20,912 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 396,271 PROJECT COST $ 1,441,851 Notes: l (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. i (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) The scope of work includes the southerly curb line only. The estimate of construction costs was based on a percentage of the total costs for the entire roadway project. Twenty five percent(25%)of the surface improvements, landscape and irrigation,and miscellaneous construction logistics was assumed. It was also assumed that the earthwork,drainage items, dry utilities,and habitat mitigation were completed with the initial construction of the roadway. (4) * indicates developer/village number. j 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 410 EASTLAKE PARKWAY FROM BIRCH ROAD TO HUNTiE PARKWAY1 MAIN STREET: � 8TERLY CURS.SINE��'i v -EN .- IAL ROAD. Owk I i s f r AN , gin:. m.kk"'I.P. I I III i i I 5 i SlO.EWi4_ . !` ,,, -•. ..,' _a°}h`�y��t Xf hr• d� - -. .� �. �t�i:rr,....:%33Yr�' �r'51, 4! ' ''�} : I 1 - 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 411 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 47A San Miguel Ranch Road (CY-105) Proctor Valley Road (N)to SR-125 (westerly intersection improvements at Proctor Valley Road) Construct 4 Lane Class I Collector (wl raised median) Length (LF): 500 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork $ 124,521 2 Drainage Items $ 85,198 3 Surface Improvements $ 206,442 4 Dry Utilities $ 39,322 5 Landscape& Irrigation $ 98,306 6 Misc. Construction Logistics $ 6,553 i TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 560,342 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 84,051 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 42,026 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 18,678 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 9,831 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 11,207 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 1,180 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 33,621 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 9,806 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 11,207 i TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 221,606 PROJECT COST $ 781,948 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) The scope of work includes the westerly intersection improvements only. The estimate of construction costs was based on a percentage of the total costs for the entire roadway project. Eleven percent(11%)of the total construction costs were assumed. The total length of roadway improvements was based on a 100 foot north leg,150 foot south leg,and 350 feet east leg. It is also assumed that all right-of-way has been acquired. (4) Existing all way stop. Traffic signal cost not included in estimate above nor in Facility#63 since it may not be warranted. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 412 i I CHULA VISTA TDZF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILJTY NO. 47A F Q«ECT DESCRIPTjt SAN WGUEL RANCH ROAD FROM PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD (NORTH) TO SR-125 (WESTERLY INTERSEC770N IMPROVEMENTS AT PROCTOR '`VALLEY ROAD). CONS7RUCT 4 LANE CLASS I COLLECTOR ROAD (W TH RAISED MEDIAN). (LENGTH = 500') CL i i I 42' 42' 10' 32' 32' i0' TYR TYP i i E � I f 2:1 MAX. 2:1 MAX I I 4" P.C.0 SIDEWALK 4" P.CC. gDE'WALK " rr A p-G pf _. tr�I qr�k r firyr �7J t 61' Jr rt Tf�C .U.'-,-C& V IL-. ..14 _IV_ .N iL G U U TYPE i..? LfiGU PARKING PARKING IC OR BIKE OR DI LANE LANE 4-LANE OOLLEC3R NO SCALE I i 2014=11-18 Agenda Packet Page 413 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 52B La Media Road V7 Santa Luna Street to La Media Rd Couplet Intersection New 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 1,629 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 3,661,968 2 Special Items $ 1,374,600 Habitat mitigation Acres 15.8 $ 87,000 $ 1,374,600 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 5,036,568 (Source- Hunsaker&Associates) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 755,485 Design (12%) $ 604,388 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 302,194 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 88,140 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 100,731 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,850,939 i PROJECT COST $ 6,887,507 Notes: (1) The construction cost for this roadway section was established based on a proration of the total cost of La Media Road from Birch Road to Santa Luna as estimated by Hunsaker and Associates(i.e. 1,629/5,393 If). It is assumed that all of the habitat mitigation is in this segment(i.e. none was in the segment from Birch to Santa Luna Street). (2) * indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 414 f I I it CHULA VISTA TIME FACILITY EXHIBIT f FACILITY NQ. 52B PROJECT PESCRPTIOE: LA MEDIA ROAD FROM SANTA LUNA S7REET TO MAIN STREET COUPLET INTERSECTION. CONSTRUCT 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL ROAD. (LENGTH = 1,629) E OTAY VALLEY RD. j MFDI ROAD 128' 64' 64' 12' 44' 44' 12' s' T' „' .7' 2:1 MAX, s 2:1 MAX, i 4" P.C.C. gEnLK/ 4.0 P.C.C. SfDEWAL#C 6" TYPE "G'" C&G 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 6" T !TYPE "Q,'° ,r&G 3 LANE PME NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda,PackeY Page 415 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 53A La Media Road - One Way Couplet Road (within Village 8W) VSW La Media Road Couplet from south of Santa Luna Street to end of couplet north of Otay Valley Road Construct 2X2-Lane One Way Couplet Road Length (LF): 4,050 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 4,050 $ 247.00 $ 1,000,350 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 4,050 $ 168.00 $ 680,400 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 4,050 $ 408.00 $ 1,652,400 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 4,050 $ 77.00 $ 311,850 5 Traffic Signal Modification Each 0 $ 129,520.00 $ - 6 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 4,050 $ 194.00 $ 785,700 7 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 4,050 $ 13.00 $ 52,650 8 Special Items $ - Habitat mitigation $ - TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 4,483,350 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 672,503 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 336,251 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 150,053 Landscape Architecture (10%of landscaping costs) $ 78,570 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 89,667 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 9,356 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 269,001 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 89,667 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,695,067 PROJECT COST $ 6,178,417 Notes: (1) The cost of this facility was estimated using the unit prices identified in Table G and an approximate length of the roadway as shown on the Otay Ranch,Village 8 West Tentative Map. The roadway sections was assumed to be equivalent to a 4 lane major roadway. (2)The developer's estimated cost of this facility at approximately$5,500,000. Difference in cost is due to soft cost percentages. (3) The habitat mitigation for the Couplet Road will be satisfied as part of the environmental clearance for the subdivision. (4) *indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 416 i f E CHULA VISTA. TDZF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY Nth. 53A PROUCT DESCRIP-TIO - ONE—WAY COUPLET ROAD (WTHIN WLLAGE SW), LA MEDIA ROAD. CONSTRUCT 2 LADE (ENE—WAY COUPLET. (LENGTH 4,05[1) s ti L.A MEDIA E � I E I � to'' 19, 24` 100"7 j 2,1 MAX i .�,1 MAX. 4" P.C.C 57DEWALK ' . 4f.P.CC. SIDEWALK 6' TYPE G C&C 17 8 _ f 1 11 5 8 6 TYPE G C&C PARKING 61KE �PARKING LANE NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 417 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 53B Main Street- One Way Couplet Road (within Village 8W) V8W " From Main St Couplet Intersection west of SIB La Media Rd to end of Couplet east of NB La Media Rd Construct 2X2-Lane One Way Couplet Road = 4-lane couplet Length (LF): 5,500 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL i 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 5,500 $ 247.00 $ 1,358,500 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 5,500 $ 168.00 $ 924,000 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 5,500 $ 408.00 $ 2,244,000 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 5,500 $ 77.00 $ 423,500 5 Traffic Signal Modification Each 0 $ 129,520.00 $ - 6 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 5,500 $ 194.00 $ 1,067,000 7 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 5,500 $ 13.00 $ 71,500 8 Special Items $ - Habitat mitigation $ - TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 6,088,500 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 913,275 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 456,638 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 203,775 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 106,700 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 121,770 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 12,705 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 365,310 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 121,770 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 2,301,943 PROJECT COST $ 8,390,443 Notes: (1) The cost of this facility was estimated using the unit prices identified in Table G and an approximate length of the roadway as shown on the Otay Ranch,Village 8 West Tentative Map. The roadway sections was assumed to be equivalent to I I a 4 lane major roadway. (2) The developer's estimated the cost of this facility at approximately$8,250,000. Difference is due to soft cost percentages. (3) The habitat mitigation for the Couplet Road will be satisfied as part of the environmental clearance for the subdivision. (4) *indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 418 I i CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FAMM NO. 631 PROMT CRIP a : i ONE-WAY COUPLET ROAD (WITHIN WLLAGE BW). ! MAIN STREET. CONSTRUCT 2 LANE ONE-WAY COUPLET_ � (LENGTH = 5,500') <) ! LA MED#A RD. l ! 'I U-1 ' ? f i 66 10' 19' 27` 10' TYP. TYP. 2:1 MAX 2,1 MAX 4" P.C.C. SIDE WAI Y 4" P.C.0 DDEWALK fi" TYKE "G" C&G &' 1]' 1l' 5' 11' 6" TYPE "C" CMG PARKING BIKE PARKING LANE 2 - WAY NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet. Page 419 14 I COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 56C Otay Valley Road V8W La MedialCouplet Road to SR-1251RW Construct 4 Lane Major Arterial Road Length (LF): 4,900 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 4,900 $ 246.00 $ 1,205,400 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 4,900 $ 168.00 $ 823,200 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 4,900 $ 408.00 $ 1,999,200 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 4,900 $ 78.00 $ 382,200 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 4,900 $ 194.00 $ 950,600 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 4,900 $ 13.00 $ 63,700 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 5,424,300 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 813,645 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 406,823 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 180,810 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 95,060 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 108,486 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 11,466 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 325,458 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 94,925 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 108,486 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 2,145,159 PROJECT COST $ 7,569,459 Notes: (1) The cost of this facility was estimated using the unit prices identified in Table G and an approximate length of the roadway as shown on the Otay Ranch,Village 8 East and West Tentative Maps. (2) The total length of roadway was based on 2,750 LF within Village 8W and 2,150 LF within V8E. (3) * indicates developer/village number, - - i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 420 i }f� t CHULA 'VISTA TBIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. 66C ' PROJECT D�CRIPTION, OTAY VALLEY ROAD FROM LA UEDIA ROADICOUPLET ROAD TO SR-125IRW. CONSTRUCT 4 LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD. j (LENGTH = 4,900') r .y p 7oQ VA 4-Y to I E r � I 104' 52' 52' 12'w 32' 32' 12' 5.5' i TYR C 2:1 MAX, 2:1 MAX. .ss 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK 6" TYPE "G° C&G S' 12 12' 12 12 8' �6" TYPE V C&G PARKING PARKING OR BIKE OR BIKE I LANE LANE 4 LANE MA" NO SCALE NbTE, THE SIDEWALKITRAIL LOCATION IS SHOWN CONCEPTUALLY AND SUBJECT TO CHANCE DI1MDE OF THE RIGHT—OF—INAY.PENDING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet -Page 421 i i I COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 56E Main Street STM-364 Nirvana Avenue to Heritage/Main Street Widen South Side to a 6 Lane Major Length (1-0: 3,695 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 947,579 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 947,579 (Source- Darnell&Associates, July 18, 2012) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 142,137 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 71,068 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 9,270 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 7,300 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 18,952 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ - InspectionlAdministration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 56,855 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 16,583 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 18,952 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 341,116 PROJECT COST $ 1,288,695 E Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Darnell&Associates Preliminary Cost Estimate,dated July 18,2012. I (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2012 costs using the construction index inflation factor. (3) The costs identified herein include both Facilities 56a and 56e as identified in the 2005 TDIF Update(i.e.both facilities are combined in this estimate). i I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 422 1 1 - 1 I CHULA 'VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACURY NO. 56E PEmcT-=0 310ItC MAIN STREET FROM NIRVANA AVENUE TO HERITAGE ROADIMAIN STREET. . WIDEN SOWN SIDE TO A SIX LANE MAJOR. (LENGTH = 3,695'} I . I MAIN ? CHUL.A VISTA CITY-LIMIT 0 T Y � RIVER BRIDGE i i j 64' 12' 44' 44' i 12' j 5' 7' 7' S' f 2:1 MAX l :1 fvlA [ 4' P.C,G. SIDEWALK 4 I.C.C. SIDEWALK 6" TYPE c' C&G 6" TYPE "G" C&G 6- L W MAJOR NO SCALE 1 E1 I I - I 2014-11-18 Agenda.Packet Page 423 j COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 57 Heritage Road V2 and V3 Olympic Parkway to Main Street Construct 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 9,438 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Costs $ 17,480,000 2 Special Items $ 1,240,000 Habitat Mitigation $ 1,240,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 18,720,000 (Source - Hunsaker& Associates) SOFT COSTS i Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 2,808,000 Design (12%) $ 2,246,400 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 1,123,200 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 327,600 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 374,400 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 6,879,600 PROJECT COST $ 25,599,600 Notes: (1) *indicates developer/village number. I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 424 i I CHULA. VISTA. TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NDN Y7 PROJECT DMC-RIPTION: HERITAGE ROAD FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO MAIN STREET. CONSTRUCT 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL ROAD (LENGTH = 9,438') i r' NE".RITAGE I - OTAY �c � U RIVER i a' BRIDGE OTAY LAND FILL o � I 128' 64' 64' 12' 44' 44' 12' $' 8, 5' 7' 7' S I 2--1 MAX. 2:1 MAX. r 4" RC.C, SIDEWALKi 40 P.C.C. SIDEWALK 6" TYPE '°G" C&G B' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' " 8" TYPE "C" C&C L FFM N(} SCALE I f 2014-11-1$Agenda Packet. Page 425 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 58A Heritage Road STM-364 Entertainment Circle North to Southerly City Boundary Widen to 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 3,000 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 3,000 $ 211.00 $ 633,000 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 3,000 $ 110.00 $ 330,000 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 3,000 $ 358.00 $ 1,074,000 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 3,000 $ 50.00 $ 150,000 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 3,000 $ 211.00 $ 633,000 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 3,000 $ 8.00 $ 24,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,844,000 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 426,600 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 213,300 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 94,950 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 63,300 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 56,880 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 4,500 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 170,640 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 49,770 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 56,880 E TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,136,820 i PROJECT COST $ 3,980,820 I Notes: (1) The estimate of costs herein is based on the length of the facility and 65%of the unit costs for a 6-lane prime arterial roadway as identified in Table G. I I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 426 E I fqTTV NO 58A 10 IL L = t `YN 5�i - -2A LAW ME 1 I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 427 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 58B Heritage Road Bridge STM-364 Otay River Bridge (includes Main Street to Entertainment Circle North) New Bridge on 6 Lane Prime Arterial (includes north and south roadway approaches) Length (LF): 1,320 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL HARD COSTS 1 Roadway Items $ 7,600,000 2 Structure Items $ 12,300,000 3 Right-of-Way $ 400,000 4 Environmental Mitigation $ 500,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 20,800,000 SOFT COSTS 1 Construction Engineering $ 1,600,060 2 Contingencies $ 2,000,000 3 Preliminary Engineering(+SAFETEA-LU) $ 4,200,000 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 7,800,000 (Source-City of Chula Vista Staff, November 22, 2013) TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 28,600,000 i SHARED FUNDING Less Funds Expended for Prelinary Engineering Fed SAFETEA-LU Funds- 80% $ 2,519,720 City's Local Match -20% $ 629,930 $ (3,149,650) Remaining Costs $ 26,080,280 11TOTAL TDIF FUNDED $ 26,080,280 i I Notes: i (1) The source of this estimate is the City of Chula Vista Heritage Road Bridge Improvements Estimate,dated November 22,2013. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 428 Facility 58B(Heritage Road)-Mario 15 Oct 2014 rev.xlsx 1 I 1 ' CHULA VISTA TD B' FACILITY" EXHIBIT EBOMECT I HERITAGE ROAD BRIDGE GROSSING THE OTAY RIVER (INCLUDES MAIN STREET TO ENTERTAINMENT CIRCLE NORTH), CONSTRUCT 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL BRIDGE (INCLUDES NOR7H AND SOUTH ROADWAY' APPROACHES). (LENGTH 1,320) RFR1TAGE OTAY q, RIVER BRIDGE I OTAY LANn FILL pg c5 66 p133'--4" BRIDGE STRUCTURE C - 44' 44' 12' 12' Tdr-6, r f l 2� 2r. - 1 P.C. SIDE-WALK 8 1 ' 12' 1.12, 1 1XI (BOTH SIDES) EMERGENCY PARKING/ BIKE LANE (TYP.) 6-- NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 429 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 59C Proctor Valley Road RHR Agua Vista Drive/Northwoods Drive to Easterly City Boundary Construct 4 Lane Major Road Length (LF): 1,750 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL i 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 1,750 $ 680.00 $ 1,190,000 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 1,750 $ 168.00 $ 294,000 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 1,750 $ 408.00 $ 714,000 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 1,750 $ 78.00 $ 136,500 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 1,750 $ 194.00 $ 339,500 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 1,750 $ 13.00 $ 22,750 7 Special Items $ 1,171,508 Habitat mitigation Acres 6.03 $ 194,280.00 $ 1,171,508 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 3,868,258 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 580,239 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 290,119 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 178,500 Landscape Architecture (10%of landscaping costs) $ 33,950 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 77,365 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 4,095 l Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 232,096 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 67,695 E City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 77,365 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,541,424 PROJECT COST $ 5,409,682 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) indicates developer/village number. I i _ I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 430 I 'L VISTA TDIF FACILITY EMBIT FACIUVf"NO. i i WA&'rRU,CF4-LANEMAJOR ROAD is fLEN67H'=1750ft� s A s`r�e�r...-�.,o...---•.:,..1. sr�..�....,..,:. :-^mm�nmr-ne t r r . . Wes' IW ' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 431 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 60A Main Street STM-357 Heritage Road to Wolf Canyon Bridge (Village 3 Frontage) Construct 6 Lane Prime Length (Lf): 4,330 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 9,246,187 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 9,246,187 I (Source- Hunsaker&Associates, dated May 10,2013) SOFT COSTS i Contingency (15%) $ 1,386,928 Design (12%) $ 1,109,542 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 554,771 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 161,808 City Project Administration (2%) $ 184,924 i TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,397,974 PROJECT COST $ 12,644,161 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Hunsaker&Associates Fstimate dated May 10,2013. I E i i i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 432 i I CHULA VISTA' TIME FACILITY EXHIBIT F'AMUTY NO. 60A MAW STREET FROM HERITAGE ROAD TO WOLF CANYON BRIDGE. CONSTRUCT 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL. l (LENGTH = 4„331) � VILLAGE 14LLAGE 4 WOLF 1N pct nQ CANYON VILLAGE Qt BRIDGE 4 64' 64' 4 k 12' 44' 44' 12' S' 8' 5' 7' 7' 50 2-1 MAX. 2:1 MAX I � I ! 4' P.C.C. SIDEWALK 4" P.C.G SI!]Ek!'ALK � 6" TYPE "G" C&G S` 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 6" TYPE "G"�C&G LAW MM NO SCALE 3 ' 3 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet, Page 433 II COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 60B Main Street V4 Wolf Canyon Bridge to La Media Road (Village 4 Frontage) Construct 6 Lane Prime Length (Lf : 4,880 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 9,698,795 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 9,698,795 i (Source-Hunsaker&Associates, May 10, 2013) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 1,454,819 Design (12%) $ 1,163,855 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 581,928 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 169,729 City Project Administration (2%) $ 193,976 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,564,307 PROJECT COST $ 13,263,102 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Hunsaker&Associates Estimate dated May 10,2013. (2) * indicates developer/village number. I €€E f€ I i 1 `I E 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 434 CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT I FACIUTY -N0. 6OB - PROJECT DES-CR.PTION: i MAIN 6TREET FROM THE WOLF CANYON BRIDGE TO LA MEDIA ROAD. . CONSTRUCT 6 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL. (LENGTH = 4,880') ckt WLLAGE i � p i OLLAOE 3 i CANYON VILLAGE 7d BRIDGE ¢ o I E i 64' 64' 12' 44' 44' 42r pt p 7' G7l 61 l ' I 241 MAX. 2,1 MAX 4" P.0«C- SIDEWALK � 4'� P.C.C, SYUEWALK 6" TYPE "G" C&G B' 12' 12' 12' 12 12' y //) /Y p j� -«-- _ 6" l ITS "/ " C&O NO SCALi-. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 435 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 60C Main Street V3 and V4 Construct Bridge over Wolf Canyon Construct 6 Lane Prime Length (1-fl: 1,225 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS Q TY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 32,302,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 32302,000 I r (Source- Hunsaker&Associates, May 22, 2013 and Moffatt& Nichol, dated May 21, 2013) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 4,845,300 Design (12%) $ 3,876,240 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 1,938,120 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 565,285 City Project Administration (2%) $ 646,040 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 11,870,985 PROJECT COST $ 44,172,985 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Hunsaker&Associates Estimate dated May 22,2013 and Moffatt&Nichol,dated May 21,2013. (2) *indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 436 E CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NO. eoc PROJECT DESCRIP710N: MAIN STREET BRIDGE OVERCROSSING WOLF CAN YON. ' i CONSTRUCT C LANE BRIDGE (LENGTH = 1,225) I WLLAGE sQ 4 YJLLAGE _ LfI CANyopj PILLAGE Q BRIDGE 4 i . i 1 � 118' BROGE STRUCTURE 59, x, 44' 44' 2' S, � �• 5' 2' i I L�xI 2% .. I i P.C.C. SIDEWALK B' f2' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12'1.8'1 (BOTH SIDES) EMERGENCY PARKING BIKE LANE (zYP.) � � PRW NO SCALE i - 3 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 437 j i COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 60D Main Street V7 and V8 La Media Road to SR-125 Construct 6 Lane Prime Length (Lf: 1,900 i ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL i 1 Construction Cost $ 5,247,060 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 5,247,060 (Source-2005 TDIF Update/Hunsaker&Associates) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 787,059 Design (12%) $ 629,647 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 314,824 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 91,824 City Project Administration (2%) $ 104,941 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,928,295 PROJECT COST $ 7,175,355 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update($6,825,000) (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs rasing the construction index inflation factor ($8,463,000)and adjusted to address the partially completed roadway. (3) A portion of the roadway(1,450 LF)has completed half width improvements(i.e.westbound lanes)excluding the median. The cost associated with the remaining portion of the roadway was based on a proration of the total cost. The remaining portion of the € roadway was estimated at 62%of the total lineal footage identified above. (4) * indicates developer/village number. I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 438 I I CtL.A. VISTA TDTF FACILITY Fa3IBIT FACILITY NO. CAD PROJECT DEFzQEWEQN,. MA)N STREET FROM LA MEDIA ROAD TO SR-125. CONSTRUCT & LANE PRIME ARTERIAL. j (LENGTH W 1,900')- V84V V8E 1 rY1ilY S ' p[N � � i II e 128' A' } S4' 6q- (J' (ft 5' 7' 5' 21 MAX_: 2:f MAX ; � I f P.C.C. SIDEWALK 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK I � 6„ TWE "G" C&GI 1 8' 12' 12' 12' 12` 12 12' 8' C !+ t p TYPE i f LAW PFW NO SCALD' I i i i 2'014=11-18 Agenda Packet Page 439 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 61 Willow Street (STL-261) Bonita Road to Sweetwater Road Reconstruct Bridge on 4 Lane Major Road Length (ft): 1,000 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY, UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Roadway Items $ 5,400,000 2 Structure Items $ 7,800,000 3 Right-of-Way $ 1,815,850 I I TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 15,015,850 SOFT COSTS 1 PE-Engineering &Environmental Administration 1 Mitigation (80%120%) $ 4,581,991 2 CON-Construction Engineering (88.53%) $ 1,972,555 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 6,554,546 (Source-July 17, 2014 City of Chula Vista) TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 21,570,396 * NON-PARTICIPATING COSTS Paid by TDIF $ 298,000 TOTAL PROJECT PARTICIPATING COST 21,272,396 SHARED FUNDING Federal Funding PE (80% of$4,581,991) $ 3,665,593 Local Funding PE(20%) $ 916,398 Federal Funding CON (88.53% of$16,988,405) $ 15,039,835 Local Funding CON (11.47%) $ 1,948,570 * Non-Participating Costs $ 298,000 CITY OF CHULA VISTA TDIF COST 14.7 % $ 3,162,968 *Not eligible Capital Items for Federal Highway Bridge Program Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the City of Chula Vista Willow Street Bridge Replacement Estimate,dated July 17,2014. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 440 i I I CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACTL TY NC. 61 PPS T DESCR0TI 1 WILLOW S77?EET BRIDGE FROM BONITA ROAD TO SKEI<TWAT:ER ROAD. RECONSTRUCT BRIDGE 4 LANE MAJOR ROAD (LENGTH 1,000) I I [ m � 82'-8" BRIDGE STRUCTURE 41'-4" 32` 32' I 1'-10, 5.5' 2' 20 5.5' 1'-10" i � I . I ? ' 1 P.C.C. SIDEWALK 8' 72 12' 1 ' 12' 8' (807P SIDES) EMERGENCY PARKINCI BIKE I i LANE (TYP.) I E I 4- LANE MAJOR NO SCALE" I • I I 'i i' 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 441 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 62 East H Street STM-382 500 LF west of Buena Vista Way to Southwestern College Entrance Road Widen existing road to provide WB & EB bike lanes and an EB-SB right Length (LF): 2,100 turn only lane to Southwestern College entrance ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 2,100 $ 39.00 $ 81,900 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 2,100 $ 26.00 $ 54,600 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 2,100 $ 291.00 $ 611,100 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 2,100 $ 78.00 $ 163,800 5 Traffic Signal Modification Each 2 $ 129,520.00 $ 259,040 6 Landscape& Irrigation Linear ft. 2,100 $ 194.00 $ 407,400 7 Misc, Construction Logistics Linear ft. 2,100 $ 13.00 $ 27,300 8 Special Items $ 54,398 Habitat mitigation . $ 54,398 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 1,659,538 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS h Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 248,931 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 124,465 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 12,285 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 40,740 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 33,191 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 4,914 Inspection/Administration (6%of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 99,572 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 29,042 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 33,191 I e TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 626,331 PROJECT COST $ 2,285,869 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) The length of the project was adjusted to reflect previously completed improvements. i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 442 i i CHULA. VISTA. TDIF FACILITY FXHlBYT FACILITY NO. &2 PBQ04C' USCRIPTIOR: EAST 'H' STREET FROM 500' WEST Or BUENA VISTA WAY TO SOU1�fWS7E'RN COLLEGE i ENTRANCE ROAD, WIDEN EXISTING ROAD TO 7 LANE PRIME ARTERIAL ROAD WITH ADDITIONAL EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE:. (LEI (;M 2,100'} E� T t , EE3 � S v I WAY i I i 11f�' 55' 55 10.5' 39.5 S 5' 39.5' 10.5' 5.5' 5' 5' S,5' 2:1 MAX. 2:1 MAX. 4 P.C.C. SIDEWALK 4' AC SIDEWALK PATH WAY 6" TYPE "G" C&G 5' 12' 71 11.5 11.5 11' 12' 5' B!I( BIKE . NO SCALE � I 46.5 s6 5 i 5' 35.5' 4' 59.5 ARES I MIN.4 RETAINING WALL 2:1 MAX -^_ 2:1 MAX 4" P.C.C. 4" AC SIDEWALK SIDEWALK r PA Ttl WAY 5' 12' 11' 11.5 70 11.5 11 12' 4' 11' S" TYPE "C" C&O i 6� TYPE °C" BffKE DIKE C&G 7- LA (SECTM � NO SCALE I I I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 443 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 63 System Wide Intersection Traffic Signalization ITEM INTERSECTION TDIF% UNIT COST TOTAL TDIF PN 2 Olympic Pkwy Sunbow it Phase 3 West 67 $ 172,345.00 $ 115,471 3 Olympic Pkwy @ Sunbow II Phase 3 East 67 $ 172,345.00 $ 115,471 4 Olympic Pkwy @ Santa Victoria Rd 67 $ 172,345.00 $ 115,471 6 E Palomar St @ Medical Center Ct 67 $ 172,345.00 $ 115,471 7 E Palomar St @ Santa Maria Dr 50 $ 172,345.00 $ 86,173 8 Main St @ Village 3 East Entrance 67 60A 9 Heritage Rd @ Santa Victoria Rd 50 57 10 Heritage Rd @ Main St 100 56E, 57 11 Main St @ Quarry Entrance 50 60A 12 Main St @ Village 3 West Entrance 67 60A 13 La Media Rd @ Otay Valley Rd 50 56C 14 Otay Valley Rd @ Magdalena Ave 50 56C 15 Otay Valley Rd @ Village 8 West Entrance 50 56C 16 La Media Rd @ Main St(x4 Couplet) 100 60B, 60D, 52B 17 Main St @ Magdalena Ave(x2 Couplet) 50 60D 18 La Media Rd @ Santa Luna St and Park Ent. 50 52B 30 Proctor Valley Rd @ Coastal Hills Dr 50 $ 141,010.00 $ 70,505 31 Proctor Valley Rd @ A ua Vista/Northwoods 50 590 32 Otay Lakes Rd Wueste Rd 67 $ 125,342.00 $ 83,979 35 Olympic Pkwy @ Olympic Training Ctr 50 $ 141,010.00 $ 70,505 41 Hunte Pkwy @ Millenia Ave 100 64 43 Eastlake Pkwy @ Crossroads St 50 46 44 Birch Rd @ Town Center/Millenia Ave 50 43 45 Birch Rd @ Orion Ave 50 43 46 Main St @ Village 4 and Park Ent. 50 60B 47 Hunte Pkwy @ Orion Ave 50 64 48 Otay Valley Rd @ Village 9 Street 1 50 72 49 Otay Valley Rd @ Village 9 Street A 50 72 [ I 50 10tay Valley Rd @ Village 9 Street B 50 72 51 Discovery Falls Dr @ Universit y Dr 75 70, 71 52 Discovery Falls Dr @ Villa a 10 Entrance 67 70 53 Heritage Rd @ Village 2 Entrance 67 57 54 Heritage Rd @ Village 4 D 1 50 57 55 Heritage Rd @ Vi I lag e 4 Dwy 2 67 57 56 Heritage Rd @ Villa e 4 Dwy 3 67 57 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 773,046 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 115,957 Design (12%) $ 92,766 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 46,383 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 13,528 City Project Administration (2%) $ 15,461 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 284,094 PROJECT COST $ 1,057,140 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division (2) If no"UNIT COST"is shown above,the cost of the traffic signal is already included in the separate TDIF roadway 2014-11-1t# VMrB dDIFPNIcostestimate. Page 44 i C HULA VISTA TD IF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY N0. 63 IGEIEI_ RO I f PROC7-OR V Y R 30 31 c OTAY 6�\�P� LAk�s Rp O,tQ'� N fR n E H ST m 35 a �L�CRApy N RO CA �(ON ti e\G Q� 44,45 yt 7 43 �4 P(� O 39 g B 6 4 9 � � 47 3 ""� a 41 18 a 52 17 51 53 1& 48 50 64 13 15 48 49 5 56 8 14 OTAY 11P 1a � 10 11 N LEGEND: i a SIGNALS AT 4-WAY INTERSECTIONS ASIGNALS AT "T° INTERSECTIONS SIGAALS AT COUPLETS E f E I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 445 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 64 Hunte Parkway 1 Main Street V9 SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway New 6 Lane Prime Arterial Length (LF): 2,700 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL, 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 2,700 $ 324.00 $ 874,800 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 2,700 $ 168.00 $ 453,600 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 2,700 $ 550.00 $ 1,485,000 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 2,700 $ 78.00 $ 210,600 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 2,700 $ 324.00 $ 874,800 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 2,700 $ 13.00 $ 35,100 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 3,933,900 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 590,085 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 295,043 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 131,220 Landscape Architecture (10%of landscaping costs) $ 87,480 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 78,678 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 6,318 Inspection/Administration (6%of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 236,034 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 68,843 E City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 78,678 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,572,379 PROJECT COST $ 5,506,279 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. (3) *indicates developer/village number. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 446 i I i FACWTY NO-, DA A 1 t ' t r5 iglk� ✓ ��-x[1 9 13� fit!. 4T TZ POW . trli r•w i .±�r_„ fir x�yr fi�5 -F:{eC4 -tl 7. 9DEWALF i 1 I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 447 i COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 65 Traffic Demand ManagementfTransportation System Management TDIF ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 TMC Operations Room $ 1,010,825 2 Equipment Room $ 344,515 3 General Application Servers, Workstations, Computer Hardware $ 267,657 4 TMC Software Applications& Integration $ 822,551 5 Video/Traffic Surveillance System, SCATS Optimization $ 2,311,868 6 Traffic Monitoring System with Video Surveillance-Arterial Monitoring Completed (TF-379) SUB-TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 4,757,416 TDIF PORTION (60%) $ 2,854,450 WTDIF PORTION (40%) (OR-4) $ 1,902,966 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 4,757,416 TOTAL TDIF HARD COSTS $ 2,854,450 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) TDIF SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total TDIF hard costs) $ 428,168 City Project Administration (2% of TDIF hard costs) $ 57,089 TOTAL TDIF SOFT COSTS $ 485,257 TDIF PROJECT COST $ 3,339,707 E t f Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the City of Chula Vista's estimate dated December 17,2013. (2) The TDIF percentages are based on geography. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 448 I CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY No. 65 I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: i EASTERN TERRITORIES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER& FIBER OPTIC SYSTEM I RELATED FIELD COMMUNICATIONS EXPANSION I UPGRADES �P Q� Pb PROCTOR VALLEY RD �d 00 "`kQjCNO gyp R� w PD 0 4P��� i Too 1 r 0 L Tn PNCATJy ! ON RD �v 3S 1 ni Q tAQ� r' A m z � m ! � � 1 4] z I# � MAIN ST j E 3 E i I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 449 I i COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 67 Main Street/Hunte Parkway STM-359 Bridge over SR-125 and NB and SB Interchange Ramps New 6 Lane Bridge(118 ft wide) Length (Lf): 1,000 (450 LF bridge and 550 LF roadway) New NB&SB on/off ramps ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Bridge Cost $ 13,859,100 (53,100 sq. ft. bridge @$261/sq. ft.) New on ramps &off ramps EA 6 $ 1,436,210 $ 8,617,260 2 Roadway Cost(e.g., Approaches) Earthwork Linear ft. 550 $ 324.00 $ 178,200 Drainage Items Linear ft. 550 $ 168.00 $ 92,400 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 550 $ 550.00 $ 302,500 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 550 $ 77.00 $ 42,350 Landscape& Irrigation Linear ft. 550 $ 324.00 $ 178,200 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 550 $ 13.00 $ 7,150 $ 9,418,060 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 23,277,160 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 3,491,574 Design (12%) $ 2,793,259 InspectionlAdministration (6%) $ 1,396,630 City Project Administration (2%) $ 465,543 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 8,1.47,006 PROJECT COST $ 31,424,166 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update and adjusted based on the scope of work including roadway and bridge 3 improvements. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. I �I I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 450 Ham , VISTA rDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT F AGILITY NO;, 67 mAIN.ST/HUNTE PARKWAY BRIDGE OVERGROSSI NG SR125& RAMPS I c N `Ir U r -IAN E sl�lDOE(45oft) AN D.NB &SB kAMP5 (550 f�� LENGTH= 1000 ft I WE � 5 . T 3 a 64`. fir' 4 - FN i { 3..�'� :'• ..uFy✓wY !1�-: � lr�l�\ may ! 4" C W {l x fi �+(I ,•a#S irk- � ...,...� -�".:�... ..:....... ..::.. ....-- I [i E" ' W MA : i i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 451 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 68 Otay Valley Road STM-359 Bridge over SR-125 and NB & SB ramps within the State RIW area New 4 Lane Bridge(94 ft wide) Length (Lf): 600 (450 LF bridge and 150 LF roadway) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost $ 11,040,300 (42,300 sq. ft. bridge @$261/sq. ft.) 2 Roadway Cost(i.e. Approaches) Earthwork Linear ft. 150 $ 247.00 $ 37,050 Drainage Items Linear ft. 150 $ 168.00 $ 25,200 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 150 $ 408.00 $ 61,200 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 150 $ 77.00 $ 11,550 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 150 $ 194.00 $ 29,100 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 150 $ 13.00 $ 1,950 $ 166,050 Two direct ramps f two loop ramps LS 1 $ 7,833,871 $ 7,833,871 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ '19,040,221 (Source-2005 TDIF Update) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 2,856,033 Design (12%) $ 2,284,827 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 1,142,413 City Project Administration (2%) $ 380,804 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 6,664,077 PROJECT COST $ 25,704,298 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the 2005 TDIF Update and adjusted based on the scope of work including roadway and bridge improvements. (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2005 costs to 2014 costs using the construction cost index. i i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 452 I It ITY 8 i OTAY VALLEY RD BRI DG E Q,VE4C K'S-S1 NG,S 812.5 bNSTRU CT-4-, ANERRIDGE.(L�454ft)ANDNB&SB MPS(750ft) '(LENGTF 600ftj k k� T E_ -..�,0 3� Z7 f 1 { I Tr spia -�� ��-'���•��'"w'" '�A�t - 'ice' _ ..I:L�p.. -� �, �'��' -.�A ����`��4�„�uifi�_C�f V i I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 453 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 69 Millenia Avenue Birch Road to Hunte Parkway EUC and V9 " Construct 4 Lane Major Length (LF): 4,290 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Earthwork $ 494,395 2 Drainage Items $ 984,792 3 Surface Improvements $ 3,646,897 4 Dry Utilities $ - 5 Landscape & Irrigation $ 297,111 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 5,423,195 (Source- Rick Engineering, dated January 2012) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 813,479 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 406,740 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 74,159 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 29,711 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 108,464 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ - Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 325,392 Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 94,906 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 108,464 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,961,315 PROJECT COST $ 7,384,510 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Rick Engineering Estimate,dated January, 2012. This estimate determined the hard cost of a portion of this facility(i.e.from Birch Road to Bob Pletcher). The hard costs per lineal foot for this portion of the facility were applied to the total lineal footage of this facility. The contingencies were applied to the total hard cost. [ (2) The costs identified herein are based on an escalation of the 2012 costs using the construction cost index inflation. (3) * indicates developer/village number. i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 454 I CHHLA VISTA TIFF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACILITY NCB. 69 3 3 PROJECT DESCRI '1`i(3N MILLENIA AVENUE FROM BIRCH ROAD.TO HUNTE PARKWAY. CONSTRUCT 4 LANE MAJOR ROA0. (LENGTH = 4,290') I ROAD 9 pp 117' i 12' ' 3' 33' 12' TYR 27' 'TYF'. I 2;1 lAX, a 21 MAX i R ,e- 4" P.C.C. SIDEWALK � 4" P.C.L SlDEWALK PE "{�" C&G 6" TY 12' fi3' 8` CC ff �. il" TYPE nV" C8tt9 i 4 LANE MAJOR NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda.Patket Page 455 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 70 Discovery Falls Drive V10 */University Hunte Parkway to Village 9/Street"B° New 4 Lane Collector transitioning to a 2 Lane Collector Length (LF): 5,340 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL_ 1 Earthwork $ 2,194,347 2 Drainage Items $ 931,492 3 Surface Improvements $ 2,822,611 4 Dry Utilities $ 623,194 5 Landscape & Irrigation $ 457,905 6 Misc. Construction Logistics 7 Special Items $ - Habitat mitigation TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 7,029,549 (Source- Hunsaker and Associates, May 13, 2013) SOFT COSTS Contingency (15%) $ 1,054,432 Design (12%) $ 843,546 Inspection/Administration (6%) $ 421,773 Developer Administration (1.75%) $ 123,017 City Project Administration (2%) $ 140,591 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 2,583,359 PROJECT COST $ 9,612,908 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Hunsaker&Associates Estimate dated May 13, 2013. (2) *indicates developer/village number. I - _ I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 456 i i CHULA VISTA TDIF FACILITY EXHIBIT FACIL'IT`Y NO. 70. i ERQUECT DESCRIPnOR- DISCOVERY FALLS FROM HUNTS PARKWAY TO VILLAGE 91STREET 18" CONSTRUCT 4 LANE COLLECTOR TRANS ONING TO 2 LANE COLLECTOR, (LENGTH 5,340') N 117' 69' L48 23' 25' 8' 8' (29 5' 10' 8' �PK t 2:1 MAX 1 MAX) 4" P,C.C. � SIDEWALx 7' 12'+ 11 f 1') - (#2) (5) 6" TYPE #G" C&G 81KE 81fiF 6" TYPE "G" CdtG) 4- LANE COMECTORS1 =T/W-LAGEOMSTFEET NO SCALE E € R/W 48` 48 18' 25' S' ,�. 25 13' 5' 10 8' PKWYi U.A 2.1 2:1 MAX, 4" P.C.C. 4" P.C.O. 9DEWALK SIDEWALK � ~ 8' 5' 12' 12' 5' 8' 6° TYPE "G" C&G PKG BIKE BIKE PKG 8° TYPE "G" C&G. NO SCALE 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 457 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 79 Street B Village 9 Hunte Parkway to Otay Valley Road Town Center Street(2 plus 2 BRT) Length (L�: 3,770 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL 1 Construction Cost 3,854,376 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 3,854,376 (Source- Hunsaker&Associates, dated June 10,2013) SOFT COSTS Consultants $ 460,683 Fees/ Bonds $ 240,832 Contingeny(10%) $ 455,589 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,157,104 PROJECT COST $ 5,011,480 Notes: (1) The source of this estimate is the Hunsaker&Associates Estimate dated June 10,2013. (2) *indicates developer/village number. I I I i i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 458 CHULA VISTA T1 IF. FACILITY EXEIBIT FACILITY PTO. 71 P> OJECT DE SCRIP..` 10�#: -STREET`H :FROM HUNTE F`ARK AYTO O.TAY VALLEY.ROAD LENOTN:3 7U` i - I i - � s E -V upw Mrt I t - _ OAHE "' '0 4aA a = , ��T�^;Yr 1RT1 +1 `d - - -- i 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 459 COST ESTIMATE FACILITY 72 Otay Valley Road V9 East of SR125 ROW to Easterly Subdivision Boundary Construct 4 Lane Major Arterial Road Length (LF): 2,700 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM TOTAL I 1 Earthwork Linear ft. 2,700 $ 236.00 $ 637,200 2 Drainage Items Linear ft. 2,700 $ 161.00 $ 434,700 3 Surface Improvements Linear ft. 2,700 $ 391.00 $ 1,055,700 4 Dry Utilities Linear ft. 2,700 $ 74.00 $ 199,800 5 Landscape & Irrigation Linear ft. 2,700 $ 186.00 $ 502,200 6 Misc. Construction Logistics Linear ft. 2,700 $ 12.00 $ 32,400 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,862,000 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 429,300 Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 214,650 Soils Engineering(15% of earthwork costs) $ 95,580 Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) $ 50,220 Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) $ 57,240 Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utility costs) $ 5,994 Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 171,720 E Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 50,085 City Project Administration (2% of total hard costs including right-of-way) $ 57,240 i i TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 1,132,029 PROJECT COST $ 3,994,029 Notes: (1) The cost of this facility was estimated using the unit prices identified in Table G and an approximate length of the roadway as shown on the Otay Ranch,Village 9 Tentative Map. (2) * indicates developer/village number. I I 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 460 i E CHULA VISTA TDIF. FACILITY EXHIBIT FA.CILrff NO. 72 PROJECT DESGRIPno-N: C1TAY VALLEY ROAD FRQlv1 EAST OF SR-125 TO EASTERLY SUBI]AVON BOUNDARY OF WLLAGF 9. CONS3RUCT 4 LANE" MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD, (LENGTH = Z700') 3 1� i 104' 50' 50' I 12' g2' 3V 12' ! 5.5' T?p. 2:1 MAX F 2:1 MAX. I .� 4" P.C,C. SIDEWALK �r y4" TYPE P..CC. �S0EWA�sLK R n r ' ' r ' 6" "C" 4[7Gt7 fi TYPE C' C&G 8 12 f2 12 ?2 8 PARKING PARKING OR BIKE OR 131KE LANE LANE . 4-LANE MAJOR NO SCALE ' I 2014-1148 Agenda Packet Page 461 �I I I � 1 I .00:t I ' �L l� I � I � I 1 6%,ox . �C 28 06914 u9g \ RESOLUTION NO. 2003-197 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NO. 03-01) PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MULLTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) SUBAREA PLAN; ADOPTING THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN; FINDING THAT THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 2003, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL FORM OF THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 2003, WITH MINOR CHANGES APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER WITH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID AGREEMENT CONDITIONED AS STATED HEREIN; AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AS PART 2, CHAPTER 7A; APPROVING THE REVISED MSCP MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM, DATED FEBRUARY 2003 WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional Plan was developed as a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan which addressed multiple species and the preservation of natural habitat within a 900 square mile study area in south San Diego County; and WHEREAS, MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions, including the City of Chula Vista ("City"), would participate in the MSCP Subregional Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August, 1996, for inclusion in the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species due to urban growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program planning area ("FinaI EIR/EIS") in January, 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP Subregional Plan in August, 1998; and WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista ("City') participated in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS through consultation and comment; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 463 Resolution 2003-197 Page 2 WHEREAS, after the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") further negotiated a number of aspects of the 1996 Draft Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and infrastructure to be allowed in the Preserve, and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the Preserve; and WHEREAS, following a review by the Wildlife Agencies and public comment period, the City issued a draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the general public; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000, the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an application for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October 17, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 were discretionary actions covered by the Final EIR/EIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City had a more limited role than does a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Addendum dated September 11, 2000, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible agency; and WHEREAS, the City issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000, in conformance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which enabled the City to make full use of the Final EIRIEIS and the Addendum (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15101, 15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and WHEREAS, the City considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared by the lead agency together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and reached its own conclusion about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City also prepared an MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 464 Resolution 2003-197 Page 3 WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January, 1997, the Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS (October 2000), the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (October 2000) and found that the documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and also found that the Final EIR/EIS (January 1997) and Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2000, the City Council approved the MSCP Subregional Plan dated August, 1998, as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; conditionally adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000, and the Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources dated October, 2000; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council conditional approval on October 17, 2000, the City decided to make further changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000, including but not limited to additional information not previously available about the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species. The City believed it was prudent to add coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly into the draft MSCP Subarea Plan prior to the Subarea Plan and associated implementing documents being published in the Federal Register; and WHEREAS, since October 2000, changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan have been made as necessary to complete a final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, including 1) measures to provide coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) the preparation of three implementing ordinances; 3) final revisions to the Implementing Agreement, 4) conservation of additional lands not previously anticipated to be preserved; and 5) other revisions to address unresolved issues including, but not limited to, changed circumstances, wetlands, and funding for long term management; and WHEREAS, the City determined that as part of the implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan would be amended to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as a separate element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01) to address all of the changes to the revised final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the City submitted a revised application to the Wildlife Agencies for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with all of the required application materials including the Draft Supplemental EIR and EA, revised Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, and the revised Draft Implementing Agreement, Draft Implementing Ordinances (hereinafter referred to collectively as "implementing Documents"); and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 a Federal Register notice was published commencing a 60-day public comment period on the Incidental Take Applications, Public Review Draft MSCP 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 465 Resolution 2003-197 Page 4 Subarea Plan, dated October 2002, implementing documents and associated environmental documents. A public notice was also published on October 11, 2002 announcing the availability of the Draft SEIR and EA to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, public review of the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing documents closed on December 9, 2002. The City received 12 letters of comment from the public and has prepared responses to the comments and made changes to the Public Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002 and implementing documents, and has prepared a final City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and final draft implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a public hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 9, 2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of the MSCP Subarea Plan and associated implementing documents; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 13, 2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council; and WHEREAS, the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and associated implementing documents will not constitute a binding set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affirms and is consistent with the in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and the Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, 2) take permits and its conditions are issued by both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, and Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and 3) the City and Wildlife Agencies approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and WHEREAS, implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also require an amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as an element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7A) and adoption of three MSCP Implementing Ordinances, including the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance and revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills Ordinance. These ordinances will only take effect after issuance of the take permits and the necessary timelines for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter have passed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, recommend, determine, resolve and order as follows: 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 466 Resolution 2003-197 Page 5 A. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at the public hearing on this project are hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings. These proceedings, evidence and documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act claims. B. The City Council has reviewed and analyzed and considered the Supplemental EIR and EA, the environmental impacts therein identified, and the Mitigation Monitoring Ad Reporting Program, a copy of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. C. The City Council does hereby find that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment and the Revised MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. In addition, the City Council finds the Final Supplemental EIR and EA reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. D. The City Council does hereby consider that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01) adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as revised; and E. The City Council does hereby approve the Revised MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program, dated February 2003; and F. The City Council reviewed and finds that the Chula Vista Subarea Plan (dated February 2003) addresses the economic feasibility of preserve assembly for the proposed plan in light of current and forecasted economic ad fiscal factors. Issues that was considered in this analysis included, but not limited to the completion of key infrastructure. G. The City Council does hereby adopt the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (dated February 2003) and does hereby find that the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan is consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and will provide for the conservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of biological resources for protected species while at the same time allowing the City to carry out its development plans, and conditions the adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan on all of the following: 1. The issuance of a biological opinion that is consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (February 2003) and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February, 2003; and 2. The issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the State of California Endangered Species Act with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (February 2003) and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003; and 3. The execution by the Wildlife Agencies and the City of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form as determined by the City Attorney of the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 467 Resolution 2003-197 Page 6 H. The City Council does hereby approved the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and find said agreement is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and does hereby affirm the submittal and execution of the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003, to the Wildlife Agencies. The City Council does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementing Agreement, in substantially the form of the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, with minor changes approved by the City Attorney. I. The City Council does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 as a new element of the General Plan, Part 2, Chapter 7A,based upon the following findings: Findings of Consistency with the General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that the MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that will be consistent with the general plan as amended by this Resolution based on the following: Land Use The MSCP Subarea Plan Element, prepared pursuant the Government Code Section 2800 et. al., is a habitat conservation plan and would not change land use designations established in the General Plan but instead would act to compliment the existing general plan polices with regard to open space conservation. In addition the Subarea Plan reflects the land uses, open space, circulation, active recreational uses, and public facilities uses anticipated by the General Plan. The MSCP Subarea Plan Element consists of policies and guidelines that will provide direction for the protection of sensitive open space areas and are generally consistent with the adopted Land Use Diagram of the general plan Land Use Element (Fig. 1-2). Objective 21 of the Land Use Element calls for the preservation of"natural open space areas and corridors, particularly the major canyons and valleys," and this reinforces the Chula Vista Greenbelt concept of an open space system that encircles the city identified in Section 7.3. The Land Use Element identifies three general categories- -of land in the city, including urban development, transportation corridors, and open space. This element states that "the open space areas are established to protect and preserve sensitive natural land forms, vegetation, wildlife habitat, canyons, drainage courses, and mountains." Public Facilities The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that are consistent with policies of the Public Facilities Element of the general plan, including Section 5.3(6) that states that "the city shall discourage disruption of the natural landforms and encourage the maximum use of natural drainage in new development." Growth Management The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that implement the Growth Management Element of the general plan, including Section 2.3 which recognizes that "Chula Vista is particularly blessed with significant vistas and open spaces with a variety of natural resources, and the City has taken a multiple-track approach to their conservation and management: preservation of critical landforms, such 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 468 Resolution 2003-197 Page 7 as Mother Miguel Mountain, requirements for open space dedication as part of large- scale development in the Eastern Territories, incorporating natural resource preservation in Bayfront redevelopment plans, and integration of open space elements in a City-wide Greenbelt and Trail System around the City from the Otay Lakes to the Bay." Conservation and Open Space The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that are consistent with the policies contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the general plan. Policy 6.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (Undeveloped Natural Areas) calls for the retention of natural open space and "...other areas actively managed for enhancement of wildlife and plant habitat..." Policy 6.7 (Plant and Animal Resources) is further implemented by the policies and guidelines of the MSCP Element stating that "designated wildlife and plant habitat areas are to be retained in their natural state or are to be subject to a program of preservation and/or enhancement for educational or recreational purposes." Parks and Recreation The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that are consistent with the policies contained in the Parks and Recreation Element of the general plan. Policy 6.1 (Chula Vista Greenbelt) of the Parks and Recreation Element) addresses the formation of a regional system of open space surrounding the City. The MSCP Element contains policies that reinforce this open space concept. Policy 6.2 (Regional Parks) recognizes the formation of regional parks within the Chula Vista Greenbelt and provides guidelines that are consistent with those policies and guidelines of the MSCP Element. Safety Element The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that address the issue of fire prevention and protection within open space preserve areas. These policies and guidelines are not in conflict with the Safety Element and address fire protection adjacent to open space preserves where the Safety Element is silent on this type of protection. Eastern Territories Area Plan The MSCP Subarea Plan Element contains policies and guidelines that are consistent with open space preservation policies of the Eastern Territories Area Plan of the general plan, including the Chula Vista Greenbelt concept. J. The amendment to the City of Chula Vista Plan shall become effective upon all the conditions of paragraph G of this resolution occurring. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 469 Resolution 2003-197 Page 8 Presented by Approved as to form by Ck— Robert Leiter Ann Moore Planning and Building Director City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 13th day of May, 2003,by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Rindone, Salas, McCann and Padilla NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Davis �Steph Padilla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-197 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 13th day of May, 2003. Executed this 13th day of May, 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 470 TABLE H REMAINING CASH CREDITS - ESTIMATED Sunbow $ 148,053.97 Brookfield Shea Otay $ 625,967.37 Eastlake $ 8,633,623.58 McMillin $ 405,024.31 Otay Ranch $ 4,692,471.11 Rancho Del Rey $ 70,986.54 Rolling Hills Ranch $ 728,305.20 Total Credits $ 15,304,432.08 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 471 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY STAFF RECOMMENDING AN UPDATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES WHEREAS, the amount of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) has not been comprehensively updated since 2005, however during this time infrastructure and land uses have been modified; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the City has caused a study to be conducted by staff entitled "Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee ("the Report") dated September 2014; and WHEREAS, the Report analyzes and evaluates the impacts of development on the transportation system for the City's eastern territories and sets the development impact fee at a level necessary to pay for the transportation facilities required to mitigate the impacts of such development; and WHEREAS, the 2014 update incorporates the following major changes: • Cost estimates updated to reflect 2014 industry prices • Updates remaining Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU) count within benefit area to account for land use changes since 2005 • Updates title and scope of work for: 965 Transportation System Management (formerly Traffic Management Center) to include signal systems equipment for adaptive signals, vehicular detection equipment and fiber optic system. 967 Main Street/Hunte Parkway Overcrossing at SR-125 to include the on-ramps & off-ramps. 468 Otay Valley Road Overcrossing at SR-125 to include the on-ramps &off-ramps. • Includes addition of 4 new projects: 969. Millenia Avenue from Birch Road to Hunte Parkway. 970. Discovery Falls Drive from Hunte Parkway to Village 9 "Street B". 971. Street"B"from Hunte Parkway (Main Street) to Otay Valley Road. 972. Otay Valley Road from east of SR-125 to easterly subdivision limit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it does hereby accept the report prepared by staff recommending an updated Transportation Development Impact Fee to mitigate transportation impacts within the City's eastern territories. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 472 Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TDIF\TF364 FY13\Resolutions\TDIF Sept 2014 Resolution 2 Rev.doc 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 473 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.54, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES WHEREAS, in January 1988, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Ordinance No. 2251 establishing a development impact fee for transportation facilities in the City's eastern territories; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251, the City has commenced the collection of development impact fees to be used to construct transportation facilities to accommodate increased traffic generated by new development within the City's eastern territories; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2251 as amended by Ordinance Nos. 2289, 2348, 2349, 2431, 2580, 2604, and 2671 were repealed by Ordinance No. 2802 in January 1999; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 2802, the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) was placed in Municipal Code Chapter 3.54; and WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 3.54 was amended by Ordinance 2866; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 3029, on May 10, 2005, the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program was updated to include new costs and facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code, California Government Code Sections 66000, et. seq., and in accordance with City Council direction, City staff, has prepared a report entitled "Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee" dated September 2014, in which the impacts of development on the transportation system for the City's eastern territories, previously analyzed in the respective eastern territory traffic studies for each of the master planned communities have been reanalyzed and reevaluated to identify capital improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts on the transportation system caused by new development in the eastern territories of Chula Vista and establish the costs associated therefor; and WHEREAS, the financial and engineering studies and the City's General Plan show the transportation network will be adversely impacted by new development within the eastern territories unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development; and WHEREAS, the financial and engineering studies and the City's General Plan establish that the transportation facilities necessitated by development in the eastern territories comprise and integrated network; and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to amend or modify the list of projects to be financed by the fee; and 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 474 Ordinance XXXX Page 2 WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code 3.54.060 Development Impact Fee program support will be at a rate equal to three percent (3%) of the program's hard project costs consistent with the nexus study; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the development impact fee for the City's eastern territories could be made; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA, and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds that developers of land within the Eastern Territory should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the construction of transportation facilities within the boundaries of the development, the construction of those transportation facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with City standards and the payment of a development impact fee to finance the development's portion of costs of the transportation network; and The City Council finds that the legislative findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance No.2802 continue to be true and correct; and The City Council finds, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the "Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee" dated September 2014, that certain amendments to Chapter 3.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are necessary in order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve the eastern territories by the development impact fee; and The City Council finds, based on the evidence presented at the meeting, the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of traffic impact fees on all development in the eastern territories for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in order to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council finds that the amount of the amended fees levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the transportation facilities; and The City Council finds that it is appropriate to refine the fees for office and commercial land uses, including high rise commercial, to reflect the findings of the analyses of the commercial trip 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 475 Ordinance XXXX Page 3 origination and destination whereby only estimated trips generated from outside the Transportation Development Impact Fee boundary shall be used in determining the fee for commercial land uses; and The City Council finds it is necessary to ensure the timely payment of the "DIF program monitoring" cost item, included in Table H "Program Funding Requirements" of the financial and engineering study, "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets" dated September 2014, to adequately fund ongoing and future administration activities and studies. SECTION 2: That the Development Impact Fee Schedule set forth in Section 3.54.010(C) of the Municipal Code, and as adjusted annually by the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index as published monthly in the Engineering News Record, shall be amended to read as follows: C. The amount of the fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance based upon the following schedule: TABLE J PROPOSED TDIF FEE PER LAND +_SSE GLASSIF;GATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: $73,435,44 Land Use Classification EUUJ l TDIF Rate Residential(LCf%N) 0-6 dwelling units per acre* 1.0 ECU,DU $ 13,035.---- oer DU Residential(MED) 6.1-18 dwelling traits per acre* 0.8 EDUiDU $ 10,428.00 per DU Residential(HIGH) >18-1 dwelling units per acre,' 0.6 EDUADU $ 7,821.00 per DU Senior Housing 0.4 EDUMU $ 5,214.00 per DU Residential Mixed Use k >18 dwelling units per acre,' 0.4 EDUMU $ 5,214.01) per DU Commercial Mixed Use" 16.0 EDUF20,000 Sq ft $2081560.00 per 210,000 Sq ft General Commercial(Acre) <five(5)stones in height 16.0 EDUfAcre $208,560.00 per Acre Regional Commercial(Acre) >800,000 sQ ft 11.0 EDUTAcre $143,385.00 per Acre High Rise Commercial (Acre) >five(5ti stories in height 28.0 EDUTAcre $364,980.00 per Acre Office(Acre) <five(5j stories in height 9.0 EDUfAcre $117,315.00 per Acre Industrial(Acre) 9.0 EDUfAcre $117,315.00 per Acre Regional Tecl-mlogy Park(Acre) 8.0 EDUTAcre $104,280.00 per Acre 18-Hole Golf Course 70.0 EDU omae $912,450.00 per Course Medical Center 65.0 EDUTAcre $847,275.00 per Acre Based on grass acreage "Project is considered commercla;rro&ed arse only d grralr&y rag residential mixed rise is located on second floor_ or higher, above commercielprq�ecf- 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 476 Ordinance XXXX Page 4 The density of the development type shall be based on the number of dwelling units per gross acre for single-family or multi-family residential and shall be based upon the densities identified on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map entitling the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the city manager's designee. Gross acreage as it applies to the commercial, high rise commercial, industrial and office development types, means all land area that the city manager's designee deems necessary within the boundary of the parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are being requested. The amount of the fee shall be adjusted, starting on October 1, 2015, and on each October Ist thereafter, based on the one-year change (from July to July) in the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index as published monthly in the Engineering News Record. For reference purposes, this update is based on the July 2014, Los Angeles Construction Cost Index of 10,737.43. Adjustments to the above fees based upon the Construction Cost Index shall be automatic and shall not require further action of the city council. The city council may adjust the amount of the fee as necessary to reflect changes in the type, size, location or cost of the transportation facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in land use designations in the city's general plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above fees resulting from the above reviews may be made by resolution amending the master fee schedule. SECTION 3: A. That Section 3.54.020 of the Municipal Code, shall be amended to read as follows: 3.54.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined herein, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. H. "Financial and engineering studies" means the "Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" study prepared by George T. Simpson and Willdan Associates dated November 1987; the "Eastern Area Development Fee for Streets" study prepared by Willdan Associates dated November 19, 1990; the Eastern Development Impact Fee for Streets - 1993 Revision" study prepared by city staff dated July 13, 1993; the study prepared by Project Design Consultants ("Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets, 1999 Update") dated October 25 1999; the study prepared by Willdan ("Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets" dated July 2002); the study prepared by city staff ("Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fees" dated March 2005) and; the study prepared by city staff("Eastern Area Development Impact Fees"dated September 2014, which are on file in the office of the city clerk. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 477 Ordinance XXXX Page 5 B. That Section 3.54.030(A) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: 3.54.30 Transportation facilities to be financed by the fee. A. The transportation facilities &programs to be financed by the fee established by this chapter are: I. SR 125 f e San AiTigttel Read to Telegfaph Canyon Read, 2. 3.** Telegraph Canyon Road from Paseo Del Rey to east of Paseo Ladera north side 3a.** Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 interchange, Phase II. 3b.** Telegraph Canyon Road from I-805 interchange to 200' east of Telegraph Canyon Shopping Center 4.** Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase L Rutgers Avenue to Eastlake Boundary. 5.** Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase II: Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive. 6.** Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase III: Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue. 7a.** East H Street through Rancho Del Rey 7b.** East H Street/I-805 interchange modifications, Phase I 7c.** East H Street/I-805 interchange modifications, Phase II 8.** East H Street from Eastlake Drive to SR-125. 9a.** Otay Lakes Rd intersection with East H Street 9b.** Otay Lakes Road from Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Road. 10.** Central Avenue from Bonita Road to Corral Canyon Road I Oa.** La Media Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street. I Ob.** La Media Road from East Palomar Street to Olympic Parkway. 11.** Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Willow Street. i3.San Migtiel Read f em Bonita Read to SR its 14.** East H Street from SR-125 to San Miguel Road(Mt. Miguel Road). 15.** Proctor Valley Road (East H Street) from San Miguel Road(Mt. Miguel Road) to Hunte Parkway. 16.** Olympic Parkway from Brandywine Avenue to Paseo Ranchero. 17.** East Palomar Street from Oleander Avenue to Medical Center Drive. 17a.** East Palomar Street from Medical Center Drive to Paseo Ladera. 17b.** East Palomar Street from Paseo Ladera to Sunbow eastern boundary. 18.** Telegraph Canyon Road, Phase IV: from eastern boundary of Eastlake to Hunte Parkway. 19.** Eastlake Parkway from Otay Lakes Road to Eastlake High School southern boundary. 20.** Hunte Parkway from Proctor Valley Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. 21.** Hunte Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to Club House Drive. 21a.** Hunte Parkway from Club House Drive to Olympic Parkway. 22a.** Olympic Parkway, Phase IV: from SDG&E easement to Hunte Parkway. 22b.** Olympic Parkway, Phase V: from SR-125 to SDG&E easement. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 478 Ordinance XXXX Page 6 23a.** Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street. 23b.** Paseo Ranchero from East Palomar Street to Olympic Parkway. 24a.** Olympic Parkway, Phase L from Paseo Ranchero to La Media Road. 24b.** Olympic Parkway, Phase II: from La Media Drive to East Palomar Street. 24c.** Olympic Parkway, Phase III: from East Palomar Street to SR-125. 24e.** Olympic Parkway, Phase VI: from Heritage Road to SR-125 25a.** Olympic Parkway /I-805 interchange modifications. 25b.** Olympic Parkway from Oleander Avenue to Brandywine Avenue. 26.** East Palomar Street from Heritage Road to the Sunbow eastern boundary. 28a.** Otay Lakes Road from Hunte Parkway to Lake Crest Drive. 28b. Otay Lakes Road from Lake Crest Drive to Wueste Road 29.** Olympic Parkway from Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road. 30.** Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway. 31.** Eastlake Parkway from Fenton Street to Otay Lakes Road. 32a.** East "H" Street(westbound) from I-805 to Hidden Vista Drive. 32b.** East "H" Street(eastbound) from I-805 to Terra Nova Shopping Center. 33a.** Bonita Road at Otay Lakes Road intersection. 33b.** Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 interchange modifications, Phase I 34. Otay Lakes Read at Rlmhttfst Dfive intefseefien. 35.** East "H" Street at Otay Lakes Road intersection. 37.** Eastlake Parkway from CWA Easement to Olympic Parkway. 38.** East "H" Street from Paseo Del Rey to Tierra del Rey. 39.** Bonita Road from I-805 to Plaza Bonita Road. 40. Alta Read ffem SR 125 te Eastlake Pafk-wery. 41.** Brandywine/Medical Center Drive from Medical Center Court to Olympic Parkway. 42.** Birch Road from La Media Road to SR-125. 43. Birch Road from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway. 45.** Eastlake Parkway from Olympic Parkway to Birch Road. 46. Eastlake Parkway from Birch Road to Hunte Parkway/Rock Mountain Road. 47a. San Miguel Ranch Road (formerly Mt. Miguel Road) from Proctor Valley Road North to SR-125. 47b.**Mt. Miguel Road from SR-125 to Proctor Valley Road(South),previously named East "H" Street. 48.** Hunte Parkway from Olympic Parkway to Eastlake Parkway. 50. ha Media Read bfidge efessing the Otay Rivef(ene half t4e eest) 51 a.** La Media Road from Olympic Parkway to Santa Venetia Street. 51b.** La Media Road from Santa Venetia Street to Birch Road. 52. La Media Read fFefn Bifeh Read to Reek Metintain Read. 52a.** La Media Road from Birch Road to Santa Luna Street 52b. La Media Road from Santa Luna Street to Main Street Couplet intersection. 53. ha Media Read Getiplet f+em Reek Metifitaiii Read to Ot&y 3.1'alley Read. 53a. La Media Road Couplet within Village 8 to Otay Valley Road. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 479 Ordinance XXXX Page 7 53b. Main Street Couplet Road within Village 8W. 53c. Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125 R/W. 55a. Otay Lakes Road from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. 55b.** Otay Lakes Road from Canyon Drive to East H Street 56a.** Main Street from Nirvana Avenue to 1600' West of Heritage Road/Rock Mountain Road. 56b. Main StFeet fr-efn Reek Metintain Read to has Media Read. 56c. Otay Valley Road (formerly Main Street) from La Media Road to SR 125. 56d.** Main Street at I-805 Underpass widening 56e. Main Street from 1600' west of Heritage Road/Rock Mountain Road to Heritage Road/Rock Mountain Road (Main Street extension). 57. Heritage Road (formerly Paseo Ranchero) from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. 58a. Heritage Road (formerly Paseo Ranchero) from Main Street to southern City boundary (excludes bridge crossing the Otay River). 58b. Heritage Road Bridge (formerly Paseo Ranchero) crossing the Otay River. 59a.** Proctor Valley Road from Hunte Parkway to Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 9 west entrance. 59b.** Proctor Valley Road from Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 9 west entrance to Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 9 east entrance. 59c. Proctor Valley Road from Agua Vista Drive/Northwoods Drive (Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 9 east entrance) to easterly city boundary. 60a. Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Rd) from Heritage Rd to La Media Rd. 60b. Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) from Wolf Canyon Bridge to La Media Road. 60c. Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) Bridge across Wolf Canyon. 60d. Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) from La Media Road to SR-125. 61. Willow Street Bridge from Bonita Road to Sweetwater Road. 62. East H Street from 500 LF west of Buena Vista Way to Otay Lakes Road. 63. System Wide Intersection signalization area within the Eastern Territories. 64. Hunte Parkway (Main Street) from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway. 65. Transportation Demand Management/Transportation System Management (formerly Traffic Management Center). 66.** Transportation Demand Management(TDM) 67. Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) Bridge Overcrossing and interchange ramps at SR-125. 68. Otay Valley Road Bridge Overcrossing and interchange ramps at SR-125. 69. Millenia Avenue from Birch Road to Hunte Parkway(Main Street). 70. Discovery Falls Drive from Hunte Parkway to Village 9/ Street`B". 71. Street`B"from Hunte Parkway(Main Street) to Otay Valley Road. 72. Otay Valley Road from east of SR-125 R/W to easterly subdivision boundary. **Project has been completed. Current projects are listed in bold 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 480 Ordinance XXXX Page 8 C. That Section 3.54.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: The "DIF program support" shall, with no exceptions, be paid in cash concurrently with the development impact fee at a rate equal to three percent (3%) of the DIF program's hard project costs, as identified in the most recent financial and engineering study, subject to the adjustment authorized by CVMC 3.54.010(C). D. That Code Section 3.54.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal shall be amended to read as follows: The City may receive economic incentive credit only for those eligible projects (i) identified in CVMC 3.54.030 and (ii) for amounts of funding not identified in the most recent financial and engineering study. SECTION 4: Expiration of this ordinance This ordinance shall be of no further force when the City Council determines that the amount of fees which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the transportation facilities or reimbursements. SECTION 5: Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its adoption. In the event that the City Council does not approve the second reading of this ordinance by NUMDD, 2014 the first reading of this ordinance shall no longer be effective. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney PASSED,APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 18th day of November, 2014, by the following vote: YAYES: Councilmembers: XX,YY, ZZ NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: XX,YY XXXXX ,Mayor ATTEST: 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 481 Ordinance XXXX Page 9 Donna Norris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. #### had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of November, 2014 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of November, 2014. Executed this 18th day of November 2014. Donna Norris, City Clerk J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TDIF\TF364 FY13\Ordinance\TDIF Ordinance 14-0418 111014fxr.doc 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 482 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0624, Item#: 11. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING CHULA VISTA'S PORTION OF THE 2014 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 2014-222 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014/2015 THROUGH 2018/2019 FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY STATEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN TRANSNET FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 BUDGET ACCORDINGLY (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Every quarter, local agencies are allowed to make budget adjustments to locally TransNet funded projects. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) has notified the local agencies that requests for the January 2015 amendment to the 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) may be submitted beginning October 24, 2014. Signed resolutions must be submitted to SANDAG by December 5, 2014. Staff recommends several adjustments to the TransNet allocations adopted as part of the 2014 RTIP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity, consisting of approval to submit a funding request for various TransNet Projects to SANDAL, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary at this time. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, once the scope of the individual projects proposed to be funded have been more specifically defined, environmental review will be required for each project and the appropriate environmental determination will be made. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 483 File#: 14-0624, Item#: 11. TransNet History and Regulations The voters of San Diego County approved the TransNet Program as Proposition A in November 1987. This proposition enacted a half-cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects. One third of the revenues generated by the tax were allocated by SANDAG to the local agencies for local streets and roads purposes. These funds have been distributed to cities annually and programmed by cities into local projects. In November 2004, 67 percent of County voters supported Proposition A, which extends TransNet from 2008 to 2048. The TransNet Extension Ordinance states that at least 70 percent of the funds allocated to local agencies for local road projects should be used to fund Congestion Relief (CR) projects. CR projects include the construction of new or expanded facilities, major rehabilitation and reconstruction of roadways, traffic signalization, transportation infrastructure to support smart growth, capital improvements for transit facilities, and operating support for local shuttle and circulator transit routes. No more than 30 percent of TransNet funds allocated to local agencies for local road projects are permitted to be used for local street and road maintenance. Projects included under the Congestion Relief portion of TransNet are required to accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists in accordance with the TransNet Ordinance and Rule 20 of SANDAG Board Policy 31 , "Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians". This rule states that "All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the cost of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use." Evaluating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation is required for all major reconstruction projects included under Congestion Relief under the 70-30 requirement. The decision not to provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in a construction or major reconstruction project must be made for good cause, such as severe topographic or biologic constraints, unreasonable cost, lack of sufficient right-of-way, or missing curb and gutter (for sidewalks). Cities may use a bicycle or pedestrian master plan adopted by the City Council and approved by SANDAG within the last five years to determine the appropriate means of accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians in a given project. Since Chula Vista's Bikeway Master Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on February 1 , 2011 , and the Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted on June 22, 2010, they qualify under this provision. On May 6, 2014, Council adopted the Chula Vista portion of the 2014 RTIP through adoption of Resolution 2014-066 (Attachment 1). SANDAG provided the member agencies with the most recent version of the financial projection for Fiscal Years 2014-15 through 2018-19. This projection was used to plan the City's TransNet allocation program for the next five years. The 2014 RTIP was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors on September 26, 2014 and is scheduled to be adopted by the Federal government on December 17, 2014. The first amendment to the 2014 RTIP is scheduled for approval by the SANDAG Transportation Committee on January 16, 2015. Council resolutions and all project data must be submitted to City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 484 File#: 14-0624, Item#: 11. SANDAG by December 5, 2014. Changes are proposed for the following projects as part of the first amendment. Congestion Relief(CR) Projects CHV41: West Side Transportation DIF (TF358) This project is complete and closed out. The balance of $193,689 was transferred back into the TransNet fund to be reprogrammed. Tonight's action will acknowledge to SANDAG that this project has been completed and the funds reprogrammed. CHV44: 1-805, SR-54 and Otay Mesa Transportation System Improvements (TF344) This project includes coordination with SANDAG for interchange modifications and improvements on I-805 for carpool (HOV) lanes. Phase I includes construction of a direct access ramp at East Palomar Street and this is the only phase under construction at this time. For Fiscal Year 2014-15, an additional $100,000 is needed to pay for construction inspection costs. The project is expected to be completed later this fiscal year. Funds will be transferred from CIP STM- 383. CHV48: Pavement Major Rehabilitation (STM373, STM379, STM383, SW266) The Major Pavement Rehabilitation for FY14/15 (CIP STM383) will be reduced by tonight's action by $1,143,780. However, the funding will be restored out of the available balance of the TransNet fund later this fiscal year when STM383 is awarded or reprogrammed as part of the FY2015/16 CIP Program. Thus, STM383 will be reduced temporarily to fund three CIP's (STL406, STM379 &TF344) that can utilize the funds immediately. The Major Pavement Rehabilitation project for FY13/14 (CIP STM379) requires $838,505 and the funds will be transferred from the FY14/15 project (CIP STM383). However, one segment included in the project for STM379 is not currently on the list that the city submitted to SANDAG as one of our TransNetfunded streets listed in the current RTIP under Chula Vista project # 48 (CHV48)nor is it on our CIP list of streets shown for STM379. This segment is San Marcos Place, a cul-de-sac that extends southeast from Jamul Avenue. Thus tonight's action will add San Marcos Place to both the SANDAG RTIP list of streets and to the Chula Vista CIP Since San Marcos Place is less than 200-feet in length, and requires similar pavement rehabilitation, it is recommended that the City add San Marcos Place to the list for CHV48 and rehabilitate this street with the STM379 project. The contract will be awarded shortly and very good bids were received. Paving work should commence in about two months. Oxford Street from the west cul-de-sac to Broadway is currently on the list for CHV48, and it was originally included as part of the Pavement Major Rehabilitation project for Fiscal Year 2012-13(STM373). However, due to the work needed on the sewer in this area, the pavement work was postponed. Staff recommends transferring $180,000 in TransNet funds for the paving work that will not be done outside of the sewer trench be transferred from STM373 into the sewer CIP SW266. That way, the sewer line contractor will repave not only the area over the sewer line trench but the entire street from curb too curb so that the pavement and sewer work can be done at the same time. Since Oxford Street is already included in CHV48, but the sewer work that is on this street is not in CHV48, SANDAG requires the local agency to add the SW266 CIP to the SANDAG RTIP listing for CHV48. Thus, staff recommends including the sewer work and sewer funding ($670,000 from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund) to be shown in the RTIP under the listing for CHV48. The RTIP amendment will show a new local fund increase of$670,000 for the addition City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 485 File#: 14-0624, Item#: 11. of SW226 to CHV48. CHV54: South Broadway Improvements South of Main Street(STM381) This project is being advertised currently and will have $94,725 in TransNet funds replaced with WTDIF funds from the available balance of the WTDIF. This action will transfer $94,725 In TransNet funds to the Third Avenue Improvements Phase III(STL406). WTDIF is paying for a portion of the cost of the improvements on Broadway. The total amount of the CIP budget remains unchanged, as a new fund source is now added to the project. CHVNEW: Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project - Phase 3 (STL406) Since work has begun on the second phase of this project, it is advisable to begin design on the third phase of improvements on Third Avenue which has project limits of E Street to just north of F Street. The Third Avenue Phase III improvements design phase requires $300,000 for design this fiscal year. Construction will not be funded until the FY15/16 CIP program since there is an opportunity to pursue grant funding later in FY14/15 through the SANDAG Smart Growth Incentive Grant program. The TransNet transfers required for these projects are shown on Attachment 2. The $300,000 is from two sources. The first is from the transfer of $94,725, from STM381 while the remaining $205,275 is from STM383. Tonight's action creates a new SANDAG RTIP project: Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project - Phase 3 (STL406). DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT For CHV48: Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2 (b) (2), there is no material effect on any economic interests in real property as the "decision solely concerns repairs, replacement, or maintenance of existing streets, water, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities." For STL406: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a property-related conflict of interest exists, in that, Councilmember Salas has real property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware,and has not been informed by any Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. For other projects: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council on the site specific portions of this action and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The TransNet Local Street Improvement Program supports the Strong and Secure Neighborhood strategy in the City's Strategic Plan. It provides funding for the maintenance and rehabilitation of public infrastructure,which is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient transportation system for residents, businesses and visitors. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The proposed changes to the Transportation Sales Tax Fund result in no net fiscal impact to this fund. The following table reflects the budget amendments needed to be consistent with the proposed RTIP amendment. Approval of the resolution will result in the appropriation of$94,725 to the Western TDIF fund; there is sufficient fund balance in this fund for this appropriation. City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 486 File#: 14-0624, Item#: 11. MProject Transportation Sales Tax STh+989 $ (1,149,780) Transportation Sales Tax TF-344 $ 100,000 Transportation Sales Tax STM-979 $ 898,505 Transportation Sales Tax 5TL-406 $ 205,275 Transportation Sales Tax STM-979 $ (180,000) Transportation Sales Tax SW-266 $ 180,000 Transportation Sales Tax 5TM-981 $ (94,725) Transportation Sales Tax 5TL-406 $ 94,725 Subtotal Fund 227 $ - Western TDIF 5TM-981 $ 94,725 Subtotal Fund 588 $ 84,725 Total Appropriations $ 914,725 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. Since the improvements are anticipated to increase the life of the streets included, there should be a positive long term fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2014-066 2. TransNet Fund Transfers Staff contact: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/18/2014 powered by LegistarTr 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 487 Item 11 Revised Exhibit A EXHIBIT A TRAINNSNET FUND TRANSFERS TO FROM =PROJECT_ -_TYPE' MP07WI� A-NlOttlN—Tl::l. PROJECT}- =TEI'PE_ :MfO ID,_ AMOU;NT7' STM379 CR CHV48 S838,505 STN43)83) CR CHV48 5838,505 7- --.CM'48,' .---7TF34:4" �4 STM383:� ---XCR,- ' S100,000 SW266 CR CHV48 5180,000 STN43373 CR CHV48 5180,000 z 2' .. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 488 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-066 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014/2015 THROUGH 2018/2019 FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATION AND INDEMN IITY STATEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN` TRANSNET FUNDS WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission ("Commission"), shall approve a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (TransNet) funds; and WHEREAS, in February 2014 the City of Chula Vista ("City") was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2019; and WHEREAS, staff recommends adopting the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 through 2018/2019 for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) as shown on the attached table (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS. Section 5(A) of the TransNet Ordinance ("Section 5A") requires each local agency to hold a public hearing on the proposed list of projects prior to submitting the project list to the Commission for approval; and WHEREAS. the City published notice that it would hold a public hearing to consider the approval of the amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2014/2016 through 2018/2019 for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Program ("Notice"); and 'vVHEREAS. on the time, date, and at the location identified in the notice. namely May 6th; 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, and in accordance with Section 5(A) and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31. the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing agenda item on the City Council Agenda clearly identified the purpose of the hearing and the proposed list of projects; and WHEREAS, prior to approval of the Amendment. City Council considered all of the evidence presented in written and oral form. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 489 Resolution No. 2014-066 Page 2 NOW_ THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance; the City of Chula Vista certifies that no more than 30 percent of its annual revenues shall be spent on maintenance-related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that all new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed shall be clearly noticed as part of the City of Chula Vista's public hearing process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that the required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be expended for street and road purposes will be met throughout the 5- year period consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAL. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 9A of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that it will collect $2,209, plus all applicable annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to comply with the provisions of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 13 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that it has established a separate Transportation Improvement Account for TransNel revenues with interest earned expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 18 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that each project of$250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with TransNet project funding identification signs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista does hereby certify that all other applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 3l have been met. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista agrees to indemnify; hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to City of Chula Vista's TransNet funded projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopts the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 through 2018/2019 as shown on Exhibit A for inclusion in the RTIP. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 490 Resolution No. 2014-066 Pase 3 Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. GooQing Director of Public Works Ci r Anorne� PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City_ of Chula Vista. California, this 6th day of May 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox NAYS: Council members: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Cheryl Cox, i' avor ATTEST: i 0 Donna R. Norris, CMC. City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF SALT DIEGO } CITY OF CHULA VISTA } I. Donna R. Norris. City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-066 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 6th day of May 2014. Executed this 6th day of May 2014. Donna R. Norris, CMC, City Clerk 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 491 N T d' d bq 0. zp;ck q O O O O CD 0 O O O O O o O p o c Cl O o O o q O O O O o It p o C? o C> C? o 0 0 0 9', ry cD O O O O co N Lr O O vi O O C O O N _ O O �r N O 1n p 1-1 O V1 C- N tn r. LO Cl 69 LO LrI 'Ili Lf bR m eA b4 b4 6R — • 'T Lf) 6H 69 64 -qr In 69 64 6f3 69 6q 64 to tR to O O O O CS O Q O O O O O O O O O O p O i O O co O O 0 0 Q O O O C7 O O O O O O p H9 O O O O (D 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O p O O V) O c> O O •7 "t p q N N It LO LC) mr co n O V% L— O w L— k/% — ..+ p e� N N 64 69 m O 69 m —o�j 64 69 64 N 6F� ca LL 6 q W V 64 p O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD C) O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O q to O O O O l( C Q C? O O Q O O C? O O O ED C7 O O LO co O CT vl� O O O O O T Ln to 17) O V O N M C` V) N r` O 00 I` W% O N CO t'7 ft} 6')- 64 6R 69 69 Ft? 64 6R 6R r to ;tL-3 fA 44 t/} 64 q p O O O O O O O V O O O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 Q N O O O O O O O 1D O O C? O N O O O O O N C,4 "9, O O O O O O C 0 O_ O Ca O N O O O O C N N �jJ O1 pj C) LO O O O O O w LO O Vj O N Vl O O O O N ti fir{ C..) M Ln N LC) IT O U) Lo Ln CD V7 L-- O N L-- V) oc (� � [� m O r Ln 64 LO N N t. 69 M 69 64 64 ^� D) �} {,y fR 6R 69 64 64 b9 6y 69 69 69 .-i 61? V). to 6r, ('7 O O tlD O N O C� O � O Cl O O O M w O Q ti O O O O M/ N O N O O O C? O O O e7 0 C4 O O (D CD V) O N OV% O r-' O O Ca C� C) 00 O N rte. O Cn C6 V C, -I O O O O Oi p co N q u's R O 1+ 4 co co ^-' b C- O M O O ms's O 7 .,4 LO to CD CA �r Ll- LO ^-' &R N ^ 69 M N 00 tR C'4 69 _ ff3 64 V W 64 69 69 6/? &9 6R 6R fD tlY W 6g 69 69 ff} Et3 to 609 to V- O N LL O IT co N � � CD `M � V) M M O N � (n 1 c— z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U D O T 00 LL- O U) C H cn Q M 00 C M co LL Fv F- t {L .� Jn. i-. ❑ op Z Lr7 U) N .0 F-' M 75 -' } _O — LPL v u S; F^ I 0=4 V' 0 v flC ol -O j 0 � cM C L• @ o6 u O � N -C p ~C lj Li. M O Z � L-- r i J O p ' Q ffoj wd b O N C H CA In YS w v v �0 a aEi m u.. x L c �" G o - O ? °" u Z _ 9 O � a o o ^, C a J a ro v o 33 _0 fl U N G r L `? U �n Q can :: Q v E cn x o c� o m c. oC O LL O �,—_ �_ JT C„ v'i cs 4= cFi rp r%] v (n } 7+ ?+ "O U) Q- '� sr .y �:, 00 `' cs C C C L L' 'C" Z C co U 3 co w Y m U) ui y U O 2 C F F O ° cc4 rn LL T m E iu -¢ c m m z c, E C LL Co ¢� 3 c*) a Q c rr r c 'n = o c0 rn ai w Q C7 U} m Uj O :2 {n Z oo O v ZZ y o E Lc o to v E CO m °' en aLua a ca o ° °- ¢ G a x-1 cn h o o ° ° v o o co '-` E r cs ,L i Q O w W U F- cn z z V ltq!q x3 co co t a2Pd 990-t7[OG 'ON UOIMIOSaN o N ATTACHMENT 2 TRANSNET FUND TRANSFERS TO FROM PROJECT TYPE MPOID AMOUNT PROJECT TYPE MPOID AMOUNT STM379 CR CHV48 $838,505 STM383 CR CHV48 $838,505 TF344 CR CHV44 $100,000 STM383 CR CHV48 $100,000 SW266 CR CHV48 $180,000 STM373 CR CHV48 $180,000 STL406 CR CHV73 $300,000 STM381/ CR CHV54 $94,725 RAS-2 STM383 CR CHV48 $205,275 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 493 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014/2015 THROUGH 2018/2019 FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY STATEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN TRANSNET FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 BUDGET ACCORDINGLY WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that SANDAL, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (TransNet) funds; and WHEREAS, in February 2014, the City Of Chula Vista was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for fiscal years 2015 through 2019; and WHEREAS, staff adopted the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 through 2018/2019 for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) on May 6, 2014 through passage of Resolution 2014-066; and WHEREAS, San Marcos Place is located adjacent to Jamul Avenue, which is part of a pavement overlay project (STM379) being funded by CHV48. San Marcos Place is currently not included on the list for either STM379 or the RTIP under project CHV48. Staff recommends that San Marcos Place be added to the STM379 list and CHV48; and WHEREAS, staff recommends various fund transfers between projects funded by TransNet in order to cover costs to be incurred during Fiscal Year 2014-15. These proposed transfers are shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista has held a noticed public meeting on November 18, 2014, with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed list of projects prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body in accordance 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 494 Resolution No. Page 2 with Section 5(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City Of Chula Vista certifies that no more than 30 percent of its annual revenues shall be spent on maintenance-related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that all new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed shall be clearly noticed as part of the City of Chula Vista's public hearing process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that the required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be expended for street and road purposes will be met throughout the 5-year period consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAL. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 9A of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that it will collect $2,209, plus all applicable annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to comply with the provisions of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 13 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that it has established a separate Transportation Improvement Account for TransNet revenues with interest earned expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 18 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista certifies that each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with TransNet project funding identification signs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista does hereby certify that all other applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAL, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to City of Chula Vista's TransNet funded projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopts the amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 495 Resolution No. Page 3 for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 through 2018/2019 for inclusion in the RTIP and authorize the transfer of funds as shown on Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approves the following budget appropriations and/or transfers in the CIP Projects expense category in the fiscal year 2015 budget to reflect the proposed changes to the RTIP: Transportation Sales Tax STNV383 (1,143,780) TransportationSalesTax TF-344 IM,000 Transportation Sales Tax .MTh-379 838,505 Transportation Sales Tax STL-406 $ 205,275 Transportation Sales Tax STNV373 $ (180,000) Transportati on Sal e s Tax S -266 $ 180,000 Transportation Sales Tax STNV381 $ (94,725) Transportation5alesTax STL-406 $ 94,725 Subtotal Fund 227 $ - Western TDIF STNV381 $ 94,725 *Subtotal Fund 593 $ 94,725 Total Appropriations $ 94,725 Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney Exhibit A 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 496 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0617, Item#: 12. SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC INPUT ON CHULA VISTA'S HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND ITS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, accept the verbal report and hear public testimony on the City's housing and community development needs. SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista receives, on an annual basis, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to contribute towards a number of diverse programs and services to enhance the quality of life for Chula Vista's low to moderate income residents. The City prepares a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) for these HUD funds describing the housing and community development needs of the City's low and moderate income residents and outlining strategies to address those needs over a five year period. Engaging residents and community members in defining and understanding the current housing and community development needs and prioritizing resources to address these needs is a key component of the development of the Con Plan. The public hearing is to solicit input additional from the community prior to preparation of the Con Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a reporting action, is not for a site specific project(s) and will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environmental. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Under NEPA, the activity qualifies for a Certification of Exemption pursuant to Title 24, Part 58.34(a)(2)&(3) of the Code of Federal Regulations and pursuant to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Environmental Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at this time. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, once a project(s) has been defined, environmental review will be required and a CEQA/NEPA determination completed prior to implementation. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/13/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 497 File#: 14-0617, Item#: 12. Not Applicable. DISCUSSION The City of Chula Vista receives, on an annual basis, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to contribute towards a number of diverse programs and services to enhance the quality of life for Chula Vista's low to moderate income residents. The City prepares a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) for these HUD funds describing the housing and community development needs of the City's low and moderate income residents and outlining strategies to address those needs over a five year period. The Con Plan provides the necessary policy guidance for implementation of programs and services to be funded by the HUD grants in addressing the needs and is detailed in its Annual Action Plan prepared each year and submitted to HUD as its application for funding. The City is currently in the last year of its 2010- 2015 Con Plan. Housing staff has initiated the development of the Con Plan for the July 1 , 2015 to June 30, 2020 period. Citizen Participation Engaging residents and community members in defining and understanding the current housing and community development needs and prioritizing resources to address these needs is a key component of the development of the Con Plan. The City is required by HUD to gather input from its residents, including minorities, non-English-speaking persons, Low and Moderate Income (LMI) residents, persons with disabilities, advocates for senior, disabled, illiterate, homeless, and other low- income populations, whom the CDBG program is designed to serve. Public input is then used to establish strategies and funding priorities to ensure that the City is allocating grant funding for the most appropriate uses. Activities which will improve the community by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and growing economic opportunities, especially for low and moderate income residents. Residents and stakeholders were encouraged to be involved in the development of the Con Plan. In addition to tonight's Public Hearing, staff held two public outreach meetings and conducted an on-line needs survey in English and in Spanish. The meetings were held on October 6 and 8 at the South Chula Vista Library and in City Hall. The survey was released on September 26, 2014. To date, 358 surveys and 53 comments have been submitted. The Con Plan will contain a strategic plan which details the highest needs identified through the outreach process. City Funding Priority Needs These priorities are broken into two categories: Housing and Community Development. • Housing o Production of Affordable Housing: New construction of rental housing. o Affordable Housing Opportunities : Programs that provide affordable housing options (First-time Homebuyers Program, Tenant-based rental Assistance Program). City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 11/13/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 498 File#: 14-0617, Item#: 12. • Community Development o Public Services : Services that support the needs of low/moderate income persons including; special needs, disabled, youth, elderly and homeless. o Infrastructure Improvements : ADA improvements, new street/sidewalk improvements, debt service payments for Section 108 loan. o Public Facility Improvements : Facilities serving youth, park and recreational facilities, neighborhood facilities and fire stations. Next Steps • The City Funding Priority Needs results will be available for public review until November 21 , 2014 to allow for additional input. Once the public review period concludes the priority needs list will be incorporated into the draft Consolidated Plan. • In January of 2015, a Notice of Funding Availability will be released for the 2015/2016 CDBG, HOME and ESG program year. • Staff will return in March of 2015 to City Council with the draft Five-Year Consolidated Plan and 2015/16 Annual Action Plan. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Not Applicable. Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS Strategy 5.1: Encourage Residents to Engage in Civic Activities Initiative 5.1 .2 Fosters an Environment of Community Involvement The City has developed a detailed Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that requires the participation of the community. The CPP requires the City to provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to meetings, information, and records related to the grantee's proposed and actual use of funds. A minimum of two public hearings are held annually to obtain citizen participation at all stages of the Five- Year Consolidated Plan. Strategy 52. Provide Opportunities that Enrich the Community's Quality of Life Initiative 5.2.1 Provide Services and Programs Responsive to Residents Priorities Consistent with the funding priorities established in the Consolidated Plan, the CDBG, HOME and ESG activities selected are aimed at providing decent City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/13/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 499 File#: 14-0617, Item#: 12. affordable housing opportunities and a suitable living environment with adequate public facilities, infrastructure and services. Services that support the elderly, disabled, homeless, and youth all contribute to community's quality of life. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS o Housing and Community Needs Survey Results Staff Contact:Angelica Davis, Development Services Project Coordinator City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 500 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q1 Zip Code Answered:332 Skipped:23 Zip Code Select your zip code fro... 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 91910 M 91911 91912 M 91913 M 91914 91915 M 91902 Zip Code 91910 91911 91912 91913 91914 91915 91902 TIM Select your zip code from the drop-down menu. 39.16% 27.71% 0.00% 15.66% 4.52% 10.54% 2.41% 130 I 92 0 52 15 35 8 I 332 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 1 / 15 Page 501 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q2 Senior? (62+) Answered:349 Skipped:E Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 23.50% 82 No 76.50% 267 Total 349 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 2 / 15 Page 502 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q3 Do you have children (17 years of age or younger) living in your home? Answered:353 Skipped:2 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 46.74% 165 No 53.26% 188 Total 353 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 3 / 15 Page 503 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q4 Do you have a disability? Answered:352 Skipped:: Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 16.76% 59 No 83.24% 293 Total 352 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 4 / 15 Page 504 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q5 Do you rent or own your home? Answered:352 Skipped:3 Rent Own 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Rent 22.73% 80 Own 77.27% 272 Total 352 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 5 / 15 Page 505 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q6 There are 6 basic eligible categories where Chula Vista could invest its federal grant funds.What do you consider to be the highest priority for the Chula Vista community? Answered:322 Skipped:33 3)Community 21.43% Services(ie... 5)Businesses 18.32% and Jobs... 2) 16.77% Streets/Side... 1)Community 15.22% Facilities(... 6)Housing 14.91% (ie.Rehab,... 4) 13.35% Neighborhood... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choice Responses 3)Community Services(ie.Senior,Youth,Disabled,Homeless) 21.43% 69 5)Businesses and Jobs(Business Assistance,Job Creation/Retention) 18.32% 59 2)Streets/Sidewalks(ie.ADA Curb Cuts,Streets,Sidewalks) 16.77% 54 1)Community Facilities(ie.Recreation Centers,Parks) 15.22% 49 6)Housing(ie.Rehab,Construction,HomebuyerAssistance) 14.91% 48 4)Neighborhood Svcs.(ie.Grafitti Removal,Code Enforcement) 13.35% 43 Total 322 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 6 / 15 Page 506 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q7 1) Under, COMMUNITY FACILITIES what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Park and 24% Recreational... Fire 17% Stations/Equ... Homeless 17% Centers Health Care 10% Facilities dIIIIIIIIIIIIII Youth Centers 8% Community 7% Centers Libraries . 7% Senior Centers 6% Child Care , 5% Centers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Park and Recreational Facilities 24% 78 Fire Stations/Equipment 17% 54 Homeless Centers 17% 54 Health Care Facilities 10% 31 Youth Centers 8% 26 Community Centers 7% 22 Libraries 7% 21 Senior Centers 6% 20 Child Care Centers 5% 16 Total 322 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 7 / 15 Page 507 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q8 2) Under, STREETS/SIDEWALKS what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Street/Alley 28% Improvements Street Lighting z::25% Sidewalk 21% Improvements Water/Sewer 18% Improvements Accesibility 5% Improvements... Drainage 3% Improvements 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Street/Alley Improvements 28% 89 Street Lighting 25% 82 Sidewalk Improvements 21% 69 Water/Sewer Improvements 18% 57 Accesibility Improvements(ADA Ramps) 5% 16 Drainage Improvements 3% 9 Total 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 8 / 15 Page 508 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q9 3) Under, COMMUNITY SERVICES what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Anti-Crime 26% Programs Youth Services 2 16% Homeless 15% Services Health Care 8% Services Transportation 7% Services 0 Food Programs 7% Child Care . 7% Services Senior 5% Activities i Victims of 4% Domestic... Services for 3% Disabled Substance Abuse 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Anti-Crime Programs 26% 83 Youth Services 16% 52 Homeless Services 15% 48 Health Care Services 8% 27 Transportation Services 7% 22 Food Programs 7% 22 Child Care Services 7% 21 Senior Activities 5% 17 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 9 / 15 Page 509 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Victims of Domestic Violence 4% 13 Services for Disabled 3% 9 Substance Abuse 2% 8 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 10 / 15 Page 510 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q10 4) Under, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Graffit Removal M 27% Cleanup of 21% Abandoned... Trash and 20% Debris Removal Code 19% Enforcement Tree Planting 8% Parking 4% Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Graffit Removal 27% 86 Cleanup of Abandoned Lots/Buildings 21% 69 Trash and Debris Removal 20% 66 Code Enforcement 19% 62 Tree Planting 8% 25 Parking Facilities 4% 14 Total 322 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 11 / 15 Page 511 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q11 5) Under, BUSINESSES AND JOBS what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Job 40% Creation/Ret... Job Skill 25% Training Start-Up 12% Business... Commercial/Indu . 7% strial... Small Business . 7% Loans Small Business 5% Facade... Business ' 3% Mentoring 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Job Creation/Retention 40% 130 Job Skill Training 25% 81 Start-Up Business Assistance 12% 40 Commercial/Industrial Rehabilitation 7% 22 Small Business Loans 7% 21 Small Business Facade Improvement 5% 17 Business Mentoring 3% 11 Total 322 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 12 / 15 Page 512 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey 6) Under, HOUSING what do you think has the highest priority? Answered:322 Skipped:33 Affordable I 25% Rent.-Gen. Energy 18% Efficiency... tMM Homeownership 15% Assistance Rehab - 13% (Owner-Occup... Housing for 12% Homeless 6% Affordable Rent.-Seniors Housing for 6% Foster Youth 0 Affordable ' 2% Rent.-Specia... Rehab(Rentals) 1% Lead-Based I 1% Paint... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Re Affordable Rent.-Gen. 25% 82 Energy Efficiency Improvements 18% 57 Homeownership Assistance 15% 49 Rehab(Owner-Occupied) 13% 41 Housing for Homeless 12% 40 Affordable Rent.-Seniors 6% 20 6% 20 Housing for Foster Youth Affordable Rent.-Special Needs 2% 7 Rehab(Rentals) 1% 4 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 13 / 15 Page 513 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Lead-Based Paint Test/Abatement 1% 2 Total 322 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 14 / 15 Page 514 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q13 Please write in any needs not listed above. Answered:53 Skipped:302 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet 15 / 15 Page 515 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0640, Item#: 13. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 19.09 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE), AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL; TO REPLACE THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE POLICY AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION Council open the public hearing and continue the item to December 16, 2014. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 516 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0656, Item#: 14. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 12 (SEWER FEES) OF THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDED ACTION Council open the public hearing and continue the item to December 16, 2014. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 517 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. REPORT ON A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE HOMEFED CORPORATION REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY PARK AND INNOVATION DISTRICT RECOMMENDED ACTION No action required. SUMMARY The report and attached memorandum of understanding between the City Manager and the Chief Executive Officer of the HomeFed Corporation is provided as an informational item to the City Council. The MOU outlines the progress of the negotiations and proposed business terms between the parties toward development of a Master Development Agreement for the University Campus and Innovation District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because it involves only an information item with no action to be taken at this time; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. The City Manager's execution of the MOU is also not an action subject to CEQA because the MOU reflects the status of negotiations on a project and is non-binding. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION In 2012, the City entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with the HomeFed Corporation to pursue negotiations for HomeFed to become the master developer of the University Campus and Innovation District properties. When considering development partners who are highly qualified to serve in the master developer capacity, City staff concluded that HomeFed is uniquely qualified to fill this role due to the following facts: • HomeFed has been a significant landowner in Chula Vista for many years. The company owns approximately 2,800 acres in the Otay Ranch Planning Area, including 700 acres of developable land and 2,100 acres of open space for environmental mitigation. The company's core business in master-planned development gives it an understanding of demographic trends, sustainability, leveraging economic capacity and incubating small business. • HomeFed has an approved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Village 9, which is City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 518 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. adjacent to the proposed university acreage and commonly known as University Village. That SPA Plan provides for up to 4,000 residential units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial development. The infrastructure of the university and University Village are planned to be fully integrated. • HomeFed's interests are substantially aligned with the City's interests. HomeFed representatives and counsel have been working closely with city staff for almost three years and has utilized the professional consulting services of Baltimore-headquartered Ayers Saint Gross (ASG), one of the most respected architectural and planning firms for higher education institutions in the country. ASG has completed projects for dozens of leading universities, including Duke, John Hopkins, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Emory, and the Universities of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. HomeFed has also contracted with U3 Ventures, a Philadelphia-based multi-disciplinary firm that specializes in integrating universities with their surrounding neighborhoods to achieve economic vitality and cultural vibrancy. • The HomeFed team - along with staff from the City - have visited the campus and the president of Arizona State University in Tempe to study ASU's innovative educational model. In addition, the team has participated in campus tours and conferences with leaders from the University of Southern California, Claremont McKenna College, the University of California Los Angeles and Auraria Higher Education Center, Denver, University of British Columbia, Pennsylvania State University, Cornell Tech University, New York, Johns Hopkins University, Point Loma Nazarene College, University of California San Diego and San Diego State University. They have also attended the national conference of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to study public-private partnerships and university structures and are part of the ULI University Development and Innovation Council. HomeFed Corporation has a proven track record of successful development. • In contrast to many private companies, HomeFed Corporation's financial condition, executive compensation, and sources of income are all highly transparent. The company files quarterly and annual audited financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that include enhanced financial disclosure and forward-looking statements about the company. These reports facilitate the City Council and Chula Vista community monitoring the company's financial situation and ability to perform. The purpose of the ENA was to provide adequate time to explore and negotiate the terms and conditions of a Master Development Agreement (MDA). The MDA is anticipated to be the instrument that will define how the University property will be planned, conveyed, controlled, financed and potentially disposed of in order to secure an institution(s) of Higher Education and an Innovation District. However, the development of the MDA has proven to be complex because of its need to define the roles, responsibilities and compensation of the master developer and the City without a university end user already identified or specific development plans for the University Campus or the Innovation District. In order to document the status of negotiations between the City Manager and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Homefed, the parties have drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU is a non-binding outline of business terms for the MDA. City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 519 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. Memorandum of Understanding The MOU is a written expression of terms between the City Manager and the Homefed CEO that serves to guide the parties in the development of a formal contractual relationship between the City of Chula Vista and the HomeFed Corporation regarding the exclusive right to develop 85 acres of Innovation District and a preferred right to develop the University Campus. While negotiating a contractual relationship, the city will continue to process a SPA Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR") for the approximately 375 acres that make up the University Park and Innovation District (UPID). The city anticipates completing SPA Plan and PEIR for this total acreage by mid-summer/fall 2015. Organizational Structure The MOU identifies an organizational structure for the recruitment and development of the University Campus and Innovation District that involves the creation of three new entities. The three entities include: (1) a nonprofit corporation to hold title to the City's land (Land Trust), (2) a development corporation formed by HomeFed (UDA), and (3) a non-profit university recruitment entity ("Chula Vista University Partners or CVUP). The proposed three entities will be formed in a manner to ensure each entity is focused on its core mission and responsibility, and subject to applicable legal requirements. The Land Trust will hold fee title to the City's property and will be responsible for the conveyance of City land to UDA or third parties for the development of University Campus and/or Innovation District eligible projects, in accordance with the master development agreement and certain goals to be approved by the City as part of the SPA and PEIR. CVUP will be responsible for (a) facilitating development of the University Campus, (b) preparing a comprehensive plan for founding or attracting an institution of higher education, (c) seeking and attracting potential projects for the University Campus, and (d) seeking philanthropic capital to help fund university development, all in accordance with certain goals to be approved by the City as part of the SPA and PEIR. UDA will be charged with the development and recruitment of partners for the Innovation District with an exclusive right to develop the Innovation District and a preferred right to develop the University Campus should the university need a development partner. All three entities are discussed in greater detail below: A development corporation, University Development Associates (UDA) HomeFed will form a separate legal development entity that will be given (1) an exclusive right to develop the Innovation District, and (2) a preferred right to develop the University Campus. In exchange for this opportunity UDA will commit not less than $5 million for funding all activities associated with the recruitment of a university or universities and development of the Innovation District, including certain City expenses up to $200,000 per year. In addition to this $5 million contribution, UDA will also share in the profit generated from approved development projects on a 90/10 split with the City receiving the ten percent (10%) share. Innovation District Exclusive Right to Develop: HomeFed's exclusive right to develop the Innovation District will be for an initial term of ten (10) years. During the initial 10- year term, UDA will be required to continue to fund the certain efforts of UDA, CVUP, the Land Trust, city staff and consultant's work on the project. The MDA will provide express guidelines and categories of expenses to be funded by UDA, which will be reflected in City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 520 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. budgets to be approved by both parties. In addition, during this 10 year period, UDA will have the exclusive option to process projects for the Innovation District that meet specific goals for economic and public benefits to be described in the SPA. Upon approval of an eligible project and satisfaction of the conditions precedent, the Land Trust will convey that portion of the property required for development of the project to UDA, at no cost. The 10 year term can be extended for up to two (2) consecutive five (5) year periods provided UDA has met all of its performance obligations per the M DA. University Campus Preferred Right to Develop: In addition to having an exclusive right to develop the Innovation District, UDA will also have the preferred right to negotiate with CVUP for the development of the University Campus project. For example, should CVUP decide to select a master developer to develop the University Campus, or a portion of the campus, UDA will have a six-month exclusive negotiating period to attempt to reach an agreement for UDA to be the developer of the University Campus project. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, then CVUP or the identified university can select an alternate development partner. Should UDA incur expenses for planning, development or other items that add value to the University Campus property, and these expenses were approved by the City Manager prior to the expense(s) occurring, than these costs would be treated as Recoverable Costs. Recoverable costs would be reimbursed to UDA upon conveyance of the University Campus property to third parties. A non-profit University Recruitment Corporation, Chula Vista University Partnership (CVUP) CVUP's main focus will be to recruit, solicit and attract institutions of higher learning to the Chula Vista University Campus. In addition to the University Development Goals to be included in the SPA, U3 Advisors and CVUP will develop University Recruitment Guiding Principles for consideration and approval by the City Council. Development of the University Campus must satisfy nine (9) University Development Goals to achieve a university campus for 20,000 students. These goals are set forth in section 1 of the MOU and will be included in the SPA. CVUP will (i) facilitate development of the University Campus and ensure implementation of the University Development Goals, (ii) prepare a comprehensive plan for founding or attracting one or more institution(s) of higher education, (iii) seek and attract potential projects for the University Campus, (iv) adopt the University Guiding Principles, subject to approval by the City Council, (v) evaluate proposed projects to determine in its discretion whether such projects meet the University Development Goals in the SPA, and (vi) seek philanthropic capital to help fund university development. The City and UDA will participate with CVUP in evaluating the feasibility and development proposals for the University Campus. The conveyance of University Campus property will be subject to the approval of CVUP based upon the approved University Development Goals in the approved SPA. The initial board of directors of CVUP will be appointed by the City Council from a pool of qualified applicants that will be compiled by the City Manager and CEO of HomeFed. Current elected or appointed officials or employees of the City or HomeFed will not be eligible to serve on the CVUP board of directors. After the initial appointment, the CVUP Board of Directors will be responsible for appointing future directors who meet the required qualifications of being recognized civic and/or business leaders or have significant experience in the higher education field. City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 521 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. CVUP's initial staffing will be U3 Advisors. U3 Advisors is nationally-recognized consulting firm that provides real estate and economic development solutions to universities and colleges, medical centers, non-profit organizations, foundations, local governments, developers and businesses pursuing public-private partnerships. U3 Advisors was formed through the merger of U3 Ventures and K. Backus & Associates (KBA). KBA was established in New York City in 1997 with a core focus on providing project management services and expert real estate advice to academic and non-profit clients - including Columbia, Princeton, Cornell and the YMCA of Greater New York. KBA provides consulting services for Cornell on the development of New York Cities, Roosevelt Island, Cornell Tech University and Research center. Recently KBA was hired by the City of Carlsbad who is looking to recruit a graduate school that would offer upper level programs in engineering, software development, business management and life sciences. U3 Ventures was founded in Philadelphia in 2006 by Omar Blaik, a former Senior Vice President at the University of Pennsylvania. U3 Ventures established its anchor strategy practice in the University City neighborhood of Philadelphia and quickly expanded across the country, working with philanthropic and anchor institutions to develop and implement place-based economic development strategies. Strategies implemented by U3 Ventures have contributed to the resurgence of Midtown Detroit, College Park, Maryland, and University City in Philadelphia. The MOU contemplates that the City will enter into a contract with U3 Advisors for the preparation of the University Recruitment Guiding Principles that will eventually be approved by CVUP and the City Council. Upon formation of CVUP, it will enter into a three-year contract with U3 Advisors to provide principal staff support to CVUP and for preparation of a comprehensive plan for attracting institutions of higher learning. All costs incurred by CVUP will be paid for by the for-profit UDA, pursuant to approved annual budgets. The CVUP board of directors can terminate the agreement with U3 for failure to perform; however, during the initial 10- year term of the MDA the City together with UDA will recommend replacement staffing/management agent or the hiring of staff for the board's consideration. The CVUP board will make the final decision to pursue the recommendations made by the City and UDA or pursue their own staffing model based on available resources. Land Trust The Land Trust will be a non-profit corporation, formed by and under the control of the City, which will accept the conveyance of city land for University Campus and Innovation District developments. The Land Trust will hold title to the land and convey property, in phases, to the UDA for development of Innovation District property, based on the City's confirmation that the proposed project(s) satisfy the goals described in the SPA and PEIR. The Land Trust will also convey University Campus property, at the discretion of CVUP, either in phases or in total, to a university, to UDA for development of the university or to other third party developers for development of a university. The conveyance of land by the Land Trust is anticipated to be ministerial. The Land Trust will act in a capacity similar to that of an "escrow" company in that its function will be to review and certify that all required approvals have been received and conditions precedent to conveyance of Innovation District or University Campus property, as applicable, have been fully satisfied. Upon all conditions precedent being met the Land Trust will then convey the applicable property to the third party in accordance with the terms of the MDA. City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 522 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. The Land Trust initial board of directors will be appointed by the City Council from a pool of qualified applicants that were compiled by the City Manager and CEO of Homefed. The board will consist of no more than five directors and members cannot be current or former, elected or appointed officials or employees of the City or Homefed. Subsequent directors will be selected by the City Council from a pool of nominees submitted by the San Diego Foundation. Next Steps: There is still significant work to be completed in negotiating and drafting a final Master Development Agreement for City Council and HomeFed Board of Directors' consideration. The subject MOU represents a considerable effort of analysis, negotiation and cooperation toward the formation of an unprecedented public-private partnership that will be tasked with the successful visioning and development of the 375-acre Chula Vista University Campus and Innovation District. City staff and HomeFed will continue to diligently pursue the completion of the Master Development Agreement and city staff will continue the preparation of the SPA and PEIR for the University Campus and Innovation District property and proposed developments. Staff anticipates bringing the Master Development Agreement and entitlement documents to the City Council for consideration in mid- summer/early fall 2015. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that the action contemplated by this item is ministerial, secretarial, manual, or clerical in nature and, as such, does not require members the City Council to make or participate or other discretionary in making a governmental decision, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.4(a). Consequently, this item does not present a conflict under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code 87100, et seq. and FPPC administrative regulations thereto). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The MOU presented in this item contemplates a project that strongly supports the City's economic vitality goals facilitating the General Plan's vision for a university and innovation district (Strategy 2.1, Initiative 2.1.4) that provides educational and job opportunities for its residents. The project contemplated by the MOU also supports the promotion of quality master planned communities by creating a planning structure that integrates the university and innovation district with adjacent village SPA plans. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no current year fiscal year impact as a result of this report. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no on-going fiscal impact as a result of this report. ATTACHMENTS Memorandum of Understanding City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 523 File#: 14-0639, Item#: 15. Staff Contact: Eric Crockett, Assistant Director of Development Services City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 7 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 524 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (this"MOU")reflects the basis on which negotiations will be undertaken between is entered into as of , 2014, by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), and HOMEFED CORPORATION, a California corporation ("HomeFed") (the City and HomeFed are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties")- RECITALS A. The City owns or expects to own in fee approximately 375 acres of real property located in the eastern portion of the City ("City Property"). B. The City is in the process of preparing a Sectional Planning Area ("SPA Plan") for the City Property and a Program Environmental Impact Report("PEIR")for the SPA Plan. The SPA Plan will govern the land uses and development permitted at the City Property, will establish the Economic and Public Benefit Goals and the University Development Goals for development of the City Property, and will set forth the requirements for issuance of land use entitlements for development of the City Property. C. The City and HomeFed desire to plan for and implement the development of approximately 85 acres of the City Property with various commercial and/or industrial uses that meet the Economic and Public Benefit Goals (defined below) ("Innovation District"). The City and HomeFed further desire to plan for and implement the development of approximately 290 acres of the City Property as a university campus that meets the University Development Goals (defined below) ("University Campus"). The specific locations of the City Property included in the Innovation District and University Campus, respectively, have not yet been determined. The proposed development of the University Campus and Innovation District is referred to generally as the "Project." D. The City intends to engage an affiliate of HomeFed, defined below as UDA, (1) as master planner and developer of the Innovation District on terms that will allow for periodic acquisition by UDA of parcels in the Innovation District for development that is consistent with the Economic and Public Benefit Goals, and (2) as master developer of all or portions of the University Campus pursuant to its Preferred Rights (defined below) and consistent with the University Development Goals, provided HomeFed funds certain initial start-up and ongoing planning and implementation activities for the Project. E. The City expects to create and form a nonprofit corporation that will lead the recruitment efforts for a university, prepare a comprehensive proposition for founding or attracting a higher education institution(s), solicit proposals and evaluate feasibility, and implement development of the University Campus in a manner that is consistent with the SPA Plan and the PEIR and satisfies the University Development Goals. The City expects that HomeFed will participate with the non- profit corporation in evaluating feasibility and proposals for, and implementing development of, the University Campus. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 525 F. The City and HomeFed desire to negotiate the terms of a "Master Agreement" and other binding contracts to provide for the development of the Project. These agreements will provide for the formation of separate legal entities (described below as UDA, CVUP, and the Land Trust) to perform certain functions relative to the ownership, conveyance, marketing, development and operation of the Project, development of the City Property with Eligible Projects (defined below),the funding of the foregoing activities, and other matters as set forth in this MOU. G. This MOU represents a statement of intent by the City and HomeFed and, as further provided in Section 9 below, it is not, and shall not be construed as, a binding agreement. The particular business terms and legal obligations of the Parties will be detailed in a Master Agreement to be negotiated by the City's and HomeFed's authorized representatives and presented to the City Council and the HomeFed Board of Directors or other authorized representative(s) of HomeFed for approval and execution. 1. Definitions. "Economic and Public Benefit Goals" means goals for development of the Innovation District to achieve high quality job generation and/or other public goals of the City. The Economic and Public Benefit Goals will be set forth in and governed exclusively by the SPA Plan and the PEIR. "Eligible Project"means, with respect to the Innovation District, developments that satisfy the Economic and Public Benefit Goals. With respect to the University Campus, "Eligible Project" means a development that satisfies the University Development Goals and is approved by CVUP. "University Development Goals"means goals for development of the University Campus to achieve the City's desire for development of a university campus for an estimated 20,000 students on approximately 290 acres as follows: 1. Provide education opportunities and accessibility for residents of Chula Vista and the region 2. Serve as an economic engine and contribute to the growth of the city and region 3. Prepare students for post-university careers that allow for lasting personal and professional growth 4. Provide a source of high-quality jobs and contribute to diversifying the city's economy 5. Develop into a financially viable university entity 6. Become an integral part of the fabric of the community providing cultural enrichment for residents of Chula Vista and the region 7. Develop into an institution that is physically well integrated and connected to the surrounding neighborhood and region 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 526 8. Serve the shifting demographics of the San Diego region, and the United States in general 9. Attract a wide range of educational and industry partners, regionally, nationally, and internationally 2. Planning Activities; Master Agreement. a. SPA: PEIR. The City will continue to prepare and process for City Council consideration the SPA Plan and the corresponding PEIR, all at the City's expense. The City currently estimates that the SPA Plan and PEIR will be completed and considered by the City Council by midsummer 2015. The SPA Plan will specify the required land use entitlements and conditions of approval for the development and use of the City Property, provided conveyance of University Campus City Property will be further subject to CVUP approval. The City will involve HomeFed in the SPA Plan preparation process. The City will give HomeFed the opportunity to review the Draft PEIR, prior to distribution for public comment. The City will pay the cost of preparing and processing the SPA Plan and PEIR through City Council approval of the SPA Plan and certification of the PEIR. As between the City and HomeFed, the City shall also be responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, associated with any legal challenges to the SPA Plan or PEIR, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), to the extent the City incurs such costs. The Master Agreement will address the basis, if any, on which the City will be obligated to defend the SPA and/or PEIR from third party challenges. b. Master Agreement. The Parties will negotiate the terms of the Master Agreement. The Master Agreement is anticipated to be completed and, if acceptable to the Parties, executed, 30 days following the later of (1) City Council approval of the SPA Plan, or (2) City Council certification of the PEIR. The Master Agreement and the development of the City Property pursuant to the Master Agreement shall be subject to the SPA Plan and the PEIR. Approval of the Master Agreement will be subject to compliance with CEQA and other applicable law. 3. Separate Legal Entities to be Formed. The Parties contemplate the formation of three new legal entities to undertake specified tasks in furtherance of the Project, as follows: a. Land Trust, Inc. Land Trust, Inc. ("Land Trust") will be a nonprofit corporation formed by the City to accept conveyance from the City and to hold title to all or portions of the City Property from time to time as provided in the Master Agreement and subject to applicable laws governing the conveyance, ownership,use and development of City-owned property. (1) Land Trust Board. The initial board of directors of the Land Trust shall be appointed by the City Council from a pool of qualified applicants/nominees compiled by the City Manager (or his designee) and HomeFed's CEO (or his designee), after the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO solicit interested persons,jointly screen applications, select and conduct interviews of candidates interested in and qualified by their background and experience to serve on the Land Trust board. The City Manager and HomeFed's CEO shall mutually agree on the reasonable and required qualifications for applicants interested in serving as Land Trust board members. The Land Trust board of directors shall consist of up to five directors. In the event the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO are unable to agree on the initial pool of nominees from qualified applicants, the San Diego Foundation will be asked to submit a pool of nominees to the City Council, including any nominees agreed to by both the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO. Subsequent Land Trust 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 527 directors will be selected by the City Council from a pool of nominees submitted by the San Diego Foundation. No current or former (i) elected or appointed officials or employees of the City or (ii)officers, directors or employees of HomeFed will be eligible to serve on the Land Trust board of directors. The Land Trust will be subject to all applicable federal, state and local statutes, rules and regulations applicable to the City and other local public agencies including, without limitation, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, the California Political Reform Act and Government Code Section 1090, et seq. (collectively,the "Public Entity Requirements"). (2) Purpose. The sole purpose of the Land Trust will be to take title to, hold, and eventually convey, in phases,the City Property to UDA or other third parties as provided in Section 4(b), for development of the Project. The City will convey City Property owned by the City to the Land Trust upon approval of the SPA Plan and PEIR. As the City acquires additional City Property after approval of the SPA Plan and PEIR,the City will convey such additional City Property to the Land Trust. The Master Agreement will specify the mechanism by which the precise location of the Innovation District portion of the City Property will be fixed for purposes of the Master Agreement. With respect to the Innovation District, the City expects the Land Trust will convey property from time to time to UDA for development of the Innovation District in accordance with the Master Agreement. The Land Trust will convey University Campus property to UDA and/or other third parties, all in accordance with Sections 4(b) and 5 and any additional requirements set forth in the Master Agreement. The authority and obligation of the Land Trust to receive and convey City Property shall be ministerial based on expressly defined criteria set forth in the Master Agreement and reflected in Land Trust charter documents. No transfers of City Property shall be allowed by the Land Trust under the Master Agreement except for Eligible Projects. b. Chula Vista University Partnership, Inc. Chula Vista University Partnership, Inc. ("CVUP") will be formed as a nonprofit corporation for the purposes of (i) facilitating development of the University Campus and ensuring implementation of the University Development Goals, (ii)preparing a comprehensive plan for founding or attracting an institution of higher education, (iii) seeking and attracting potential projects for the University Campus, (iv)adopting the University Recruitment Guiding Principles (defined below), (v)recommending revisions to the University Recruitment Guiding Principles, subject to approval by the City, (v) evaluating proposed projects to determine in its discretion whether such projects meet the University Development Goals, and(vi)seeking philanthropic capital to help fund university development. (1) CVUP Board. The initial board of directors of CVUP shall be appointed by the City Council from a pool of qualified applicants/nominees compiled by the City Manager (or his designee) and HomeFed's CEO (or his designee), after the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO solicit interested persons,jointly screen applications, select and conduct interviews of candidates interested in and qualified by their background and experience to serve on the CVUP board. In the event the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO are unable to agree on the initial pool of nominees, the San Diego Foundation will be asked to submit a pool of nominees to the City Council, including any nominees from qualified applicants agreed to by both the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO. The CVUP board of directors will thereafter be responsible for appointing future directors independently from the City or HomeFed or UDA; provided that all CVUP directors (including the initial board members) shall meet reasonable and required qualifications agreed to by the City Manager and HomeFed's CEO, which qualifications are expected to include the requirement that CVUP directors be recognized civic and/or business leaders or have significant experience in the 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 528 higher education field. No current (i) elected or appointed officials or employees of the City or (ii)officers, directors or employees of HomeFed will be eligible to serve on the CVUP board of directors. The required qualifications for CVUP directors will be incorporated into the CVUP bylaws and/or other documents governing the operation of CVUP. The CVUP board of directors shall act independently from any influence of the City, HomeFed or UDA. Subject to further review, CVUP may be subject to applicable Public Entity Requirements. (2) U3 Advisors to Manage CVUP. The Parties contemplate that upon approval of this Memorandum of Understanding by the City and HomeFed, the City will engage U3 Advisors, at City expense, to advise it with respect to aspects of development of the University Campus (the "U3 Agreement"). The U3 Agreement will include quantifiable performance obligations on the part of U3 Advisors. U3 Advisors will be required to develop "University Recruitment Guiding Principles" during the first year of the U3 Agreement for eventual consideration by the CVUP board of directors. The University Recruitment Guiding Principles, once adopted by CVUP will set forth criteria that will be used by CVUP in its search for a suitable university end user. The University Recruitment Guiding Principles will also identify the universities CVUP will target for recruitment for the University Campus. The University Recruitment Guiding Principles will be subject to approval by the City Council. Upon formation of CVUP following final approval of the SPA and certification of the PEIR,the parties expect CVUP will engage U3 Advisors to provide principal staff support to CVUP. In order to provide continuity and consistency of effort, the City and HomeFed expect U3 Advisors' engagement by CVUP to be for an initial three-year term, and for the cost associated with that engagement to be funded by UDA pursuant to UDA's funding obligations under Section 3(c), and subject to the budgets adopted thereunder. The Parties expect that the agreement between CVUP and U3 Advisors will include quantifiable performance obligations on the part of U3 Advisors. Failure to perform such obligations will entitle the CVUP board of directors to terminate the U3 Advisors contract. During the Exclusive Term (defined in Section 4(a) below), if the contract with U3 Advisors is terminated, the City and UDA will recommend a replacement staffing/managing agent to the CVUP board or will recommend the hiring of CVUP employees, as the Parties deem appropriate. U3 Advisors will agree to act for CVUP in all respects independent of the City, HomeFed, and UDA. C. University Development Associates. HomeFed will form University Development Associates ("UDA")to act as the development entity responsible to control, entitle, and develop the Innovation District, and to participate in development of the University Campus, in accordance with the SPA Plan and the Master Agreement. Concurrently with execution of the Master Agreement, HomeFed shall commit not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) to UDA on a basis satisfactory to the City for the purpose of funding the activities of UDA, including without limitation UDA's obligation set forth in Section 4(a) to fund activities of the City, Land Trust and CVUP with respect to the Project during the entire Exclusive Term. (1) Land Use Plans: Tentative Man. In cooperation and consultation with CVUP, UDA will prepare a site plan and tentative map, as and when appropriate, for the Innovation District. The Master Agreement and related budgets will address UDA's involvement and obligations in the development of site plan(s) for the Innovation District, and specifically the location of the various properties making up the Innovation District. UDA may undertake similar planning efforts with respect to the University Campus pursuant to arrangements with CVUP.. The cost of those efforts may be reflected in approved budgets, or may constitute Recoverable Costs (as defined below)whether or not a university end user is recruited to undertake the planning efforts with respect 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 529 to the parcels within the City Property making up the University Campus. The Parties contemplate that the articles of incorporation for CVUP will include provisions about CVUP's ongoing communications and good faith collaborations with the City and UDA with respect to the planning and development of the City Property that may ultimately comprise the University Campus parcels. (2) Ownership of Data. UDA will own all plans, including record drawings, specifications, estimates, and other documents ("Project Materials") that UDA, or its consultants or architects,prepares or causes to be prepared in relation to the Project,but shall have no interest in Project Materials prepared or caused to be prepared by the City, Land Trust, or CVUP, whether or not funded by UDA. UDA will retain all rights to all copyrights, designs and other intellectual property embodied in the Project Materials that UDA, or its consultants or architects, prepares or causes to be prepared in relation to the Project, but shall have no interest in Project Materials prepared or caused to be prepared by the City, Land Trust, or CVUP, whether or not funded by UDA. (3) Assignment of HomeFed Rights to UDA. The Master Agreement will provide for the assignment of certain HomeFed rights thereunder relating to the development of the City Property (in particular HomeFed's exclusive right to develop the Innovation District during the Exclusive Term and HomeFed's preferred development rights with respect to the University Campus)to UDA. d. Ongoing Evaluation of Legal Restrictions. During the negotiation of the Master Agreement, the Parties will continue to evaluate the application of various laws to the Land Trust, CVUP and UDA and the Parties' activities hereunder, including issues relating to conflicts of interest, private enurement, delegation of authority and other legal requirements and restrictions, and to the extent such application makes implementation of the terms of the MOU impractical, unlawful, or imprudent,the Parties will negotiate alternative terms in good faith. 4. UDA Rights to Develop City Property. The Parties contemplate that the Master Agreement will provide the following basic terms related to UDA and the development of the City Property: a. Exclusive Rights re Innovation District. Subject to compliance with the obligations described below, UDA shall have the exclusive right to acquire the Innovation District property from the City to develop such property with Eligible Projects ("Exclusive Rights") for an initial term of ten (10) years ("Exclusive Term") so long as UDA remains in compliance with all of the Ongoing UDA Requirements described below during the entire Exclusive Term. The Exclusive Term shall be subject to extension by the Parties for two (2) consecutive five (5) year periods upon the request of UDA and subject to its compliance for the extended period with the Ongoing UDA Requirements. Any such extension will be considered part of the Exclusive Term. The Ongoing UDA Requirements will include at least the following: (1) Commencing with the execution of the Master Agreement, UDA will continuously fund, in advance on a basis to be specified in the Master Agreement, specified activities of the City, to include City non-executive staff time, related non-personnel expenses, and consultant charges ("City Expenses"), relating to the Project. UDA will also fund all activities of the Land Trust and CVUP, to the extent those activities are not funded by philanthropic and other sources, relating to the Project. UDA's funding obligations will be based on an initial three-year budget and subsequent annual or longer budgets and business/work plans for the City approved by the City 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 530 Manager and UDA for each of the City Expenses, Land Trust, and CVUP. CVUP or Land Trust approval, as the case may be, will be required for any budget addressing CVUP or Land Trust expenses to be paid by UDA following the initial three-year budget. The Master Agreement will provide express guidelines and categories of expenses to be funded by UDA,to form the basis for the annual budgets of the Land Trust, CVUP, and the City. In no event will UDA be obligated to approve a budget providing for City Expenses in excess of$200,000.00 per year, exclusive of City review and processing expenses for specific UDA-proposed projects. UDA expenses to be funded from the commitment described in this section will be identified in the budgets or as otherwise specified in the Master Agreement.With respect to CVUP, the Parties anticipate that UDA will fund the following categories of expense to the extent that philanthropic and other sources of funding are insufficient to cover such expenses: (a) Executive Management and Staff. U3 Advisors is anticipated to provide executive management and staffing services to CVUP during the first three years of CVUP operations. (b) Stipends for CVUP board members (if any). (c) All administrative costs, including copiers, paper and other office supplies, and mailings, etc. (d) All consultant costs, including costs of studies and reports and solicitation of interest from university end users. (2) UDA's obligation to provide funding pursuant to this Section 4(a)(1) during the initial ten-year Exclusive Term shall be subject to a cap of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and in connection with any extension of the initial term shall be subject to the maintenance of the activities of the City, the Land Trust, CVUP and UPDA on such basis as is identified in the Master Agreement, which effort may be subject to an additional cap as identified in the Master Agreement. UDA must use reasonable efforts to satisfy periodic planning, entitlement, permitting and development goals to be described in the Master Agreement to be funded from UDA's initial $5 million commitment. (3) UDA will continue to meet certain minimum"maintenance of efforts" requirements, which will include maintaining minimum UDA operational capabilities including minimum capitalization and staffing requirements, maintaining a presence in the City (i.e. availability for in-person meetings with City and CVUP staff). b. Preferred Rights re University pus. To the extent described in this Section 4(b), UDA shall have a preferred right to acquire and/or develop the University Campus property from the Land Trust and develop such property with Eligible Projects under the Master Agreement during the Exclusive Term so long as UDA is in compliance with all of the Ongoing UDA Requirements at the time the University Campus property is conveyed to it from the Land Trust. If CVUP decides to select a master developer to develop the University Campus project or any portion thereof, CVUP will first negotiate in good faith with UDA regarding such development for up to six months ("Negotiation Period"). If during the Negotiation Period CVUP and UDA are unable to reach an agreement regarding development of the University Campus or such portion, CVUP will have no further obligation to negotiate with UDA or HomeFed regarding the University Campus or such portion, as the case may be. In such event, CVUP will be free to negotiate with 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 531 other developers, end users or others to perform such development. From time to time, UDA may incur expenses for planning, development or other items which add value to the University Campus. To the extent the City Manager determines in advance of the expenditure that such items shall be recoverable, such expenses shall be treated as "Recoverable Costs" under the Master Agreement, to be paid to UDA upon eventual development of the University campus or portion so affected. Upon such designation, CVUP and the Land Trust will cause Recoverable Costs to be paid to UDA upon conveyance of affected University Campus Property. The term "Preferred Rights"herein shall mean and refer solely to the rights described under this Section 4(b). C. The City may enter into arrangements with CVUP regarding the basis on which the City Property within the University Campus will be reconveyed to and fully revested in the City following termination of the Master Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this MOU, CVUP shall have and will retain the right to negotiate with any end user directly for the development of the University Campus and such end user will have no obligation to negotiate with or provide any rights or preference to HomeFed, UDA or any affiliate of either of them as a result of this MOU or the Master Agreement. All actions of CVUP related to the City Property and the Master Agreement must be in furtherance of the City Council-approved University Development Goals and University Recruitment Principles and all applicable City land use requirements and development standards (including the SPA and PEIR). Notwithstanding the prior approval of University Development Standards and/or University Recruitment Standards, the City and HomeFed may, at any time, mutually agree to evaluate, develop and/or implement different development plans and standards for the University Campus. In no event will HomeFed or UDA have a lienable interest in City Property comprising the University Campus solely by reason of the Master Agreement. d. Responsibilities of CVUP. CVUP will have the exclusive right to approve proposed University Campus projects as consistent with the University Development Goals. CVUP will also have the exclusive right to direct the conveyance of University Campus property from the Land Trust to UDA or a university end user, consistent with UDA's Preferred Rights and the City Council's approval authority over land use entitlements and CEQA compliance. CVUP will have the following responsibilities in exercising said exclusive rights and carrying out the purposes of CVUP set forth in Section 3(b)herein: (1) CVUP will develop proposed University Recruitment Guiding Principles for approval by the City Council. The Master Agreement may address rights and remedies of UDA in the event it disapproves of the University Recruitment Guiding Principles as adopted or amended by CVUP with the approval of the City. (2) CVUP will undertake to identify existing or proposed higher education institutions satisfying the University Recruitment Guiding Principles, and will lead efforts to recruit such institutions. (3) Pursuant to its exclusive right to approve University Campus projects, CVUP will evaluate proposed developments of the University Campus based on the approved University Development Goals and University Recruitment Guiding Principles. Once CVUP determines that a proposed development of the University Campus constitutes an Eligible Project, 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 532 and that the development's end user satisfies the University Recruitment Guiding Principles, as applicable, it shall have the authority to approve the development, subject to the City Council's non- delegable project approval authority. (4) All actions of CVUP related to the City Property and the Master Agreement must be in furtherance of the City Council-approved University Development Goals and University Recruitment Guiding Principles and all applicable City land use requirements and development standards (including the SPA Plan and PEIR). In no event will HomeFed or UDA have a lienable interest in City Property comprising the University Campus by reason of the Master Agreement. e. Termination of Master Agreement and Exclusive Term. In the event of a material breach of the Ongoing UDA Requirements described in Section 4(a) (and following lapse of any notice or cure rights in the Master Agreement), City may terminate the Master Agreement for cause. In the event City elects to terminate the Master Agreement for cause,the Exclusive Term will automatically expire. Upon termination of the Master Agreement by the City other than for cause, under such circumstances as may be identified in the Master Agremeent, the City will first use diligent efforts to seek a new master developer. The new master developer shall be bound by the Economic and Public Benefit Goals and the University Development Goals when developing projects on the City Property. If no new master developer is selected by the City Council, the Land Trust will be obligated to promptly convey all City Property then held by the Land Trust to the City. The City may also enter into other arrangements with the Land Trust regarding the basis on which the City Property will be reconveyed to the City following termination of the Master Agreement. HomeFed will also have the right to terminate the Master Agreement for cause in the event the City breaches its material obligations under the Master Agreement, following lapse of applicable notice and cure rights under the Master Agreement. . The Master Agreement will set forth specific events of default,rights of termination with and without cause, and remedies for breach, including specific performance, which remedies shall in every case limit the City's exposure to an appropriate portion of the Innovation District property, prorated for partial HomeFed performance of its $5 million funding obligation, but in no event money damages. HomeFed's exposure will in every case be limited to the amount of its $5 million funding obligation during the initial Term and, following any extension, such additional funding commitment to fund City, UDA, CVUP and Land Trust activities up to the Ongoing UDA Requirements as set forth in the Master Agreement. 5. Conveyance of City Property to UDA. Conveyance of any portion of the City Property from the Land Trust to UDA will be conditioned upon satisfaction of the following requirements described below in subdivisions a.,b. and c., and other requirements described in the Master Agreement(collectively, "Conditions Precedent"). a. Conditions Precedent to Conveyance of Innovation District Property. The following conditions precedent described in subsections (1) through (5) will constitute Conditions Precedent to the Land Trust's obligation to convey Innovation District property to UDA. (1) Issuance by the City of land use entitlements for an Eligible Project. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 533 (2) The City Manager reasonably approves evidence that UDA has available financing (which may include self-financing or internal financing) to construct the entire proposed Eligible Project. (3) The City has been given adequate security for completion of all public improvements required by the Eligible Project. (4) The City reasonably approves evidence of UDA's insurance as required by the Master Agreement. (5) Confirmation by the City that all statutory reporting, documentation, notice, hearing, and other requirements imposed on the City with respect to the conveyance of real property and/or granting of subsidies for development shall have been satisfied by the City, UDA and/or Land Trust, as applicable. This includes compliance with CEQA, SB 470, and AB 562. b. Conditions Precedent to Conveyance of University pus Property. In the event CVUP in its discretion negotiates the terms of a development agreement or other agreement with HomeFed or UDA regarding the conveyance, development and operation of an Eligible Project at the University Campus, the Parties expect the following conditions precedent described in subsections (1) through (7) will constitute Conditions Precedent to the Land Trust's obligation to convey University Campus property to such developing entity. As noted in Section 4(c), CVUP will retain all rights to cause conveyance of all or part of the University Campus to university end users (or other developers, in the event negotiations with UDA do not result in an executed development agreement within the Negotiation Period) for development of an Eligible Project thereon. (1) Issuance by the City of land use entitlements for an Eligible Project. (2) CVUP delivers confirmation to the Land Trust that the proposed development constitutes an Eligible Project for the University Campus in accordance with the Master Agreement. (3) CVUP reasonably approves evidence that UDA has available financing (which may include self-financing or internal financing) to construct the entire proposed Eligible Project. (4) The City has been given adequate security for completion of all public improvements required by the Eligible Project. (5) CVUP reasonably approves evidence of insurance as required by the Master Agreement or other development agreement relating to the University Campus. (6) All statutory reporting, documentation, notice, hearing, and other requirements imposed on the City with respect to the conveyance of real property and/or granting of subsidies for development shall have been satisfied by the City, UDA, other transferee(s) and/or Land Trust, as applicable. This includes compliance with CEQA, SB 470, and AB 562. (7) To the extent UDA has incurred any Reimbursable Cost, payment to UDA of such Reimbursable Cost. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 534 C. Additional Conditions Precedent. Each and every conveyance of City Property by the Land Trust to UDA or any third party shall be subject to the following additional conditions and requirements: (1) Each such conveyance and the ultimate development of the City Property (and each portion thereof) will be subject to the terms of the Master Agreement, SPA and PEIR, or subsequent, superseding agreements, planning documents or CEQA documents, as applicable. (2) Each conveyance will be on an"as is"basis and the grantee will agree to release and indemnify the City and the Land Trust (and CVUP, as applicable) and assume all liabilities, arising from the condition of the land (environmental and physical such as soils, groundwater, etc.), insurance obligations, assumption of risk, etc. (3) Payment of any and all customary and reasonable costs incurred by the Land Trust, City, CVUP and/or UDA with respect to the conveyance of any portion of the City Property to UDA. Neither the City nor the Land Trust shall be put to any expense (including customary closing costs) in connection with any conveyance to UDA, HomeFed or any other entity of any portion of the City Property. (4) In the event UDA desires (at any time before or after closing) to record CC&Rs, reciprocal easement agreement(s) or other recorded covenants and/or restrictions against any portion of the City Property,the form and content of all such instruments shall be subject to approval of the City Manager and City Attorney. 6. Profit Participation. Each Eligible Project will be subject to a 90/10 profit allocation to be described more fully in the Master Agreement. In the event the Parties desire to modify the SPA Plan to permit different uses,this profit participation or other terms of conveyance shall be subject to such terms of conveyance as may be determined by the parties at the time in their discretion. 7. Limited City Financial Contribution to Project. The Parties expressly acknowledge that the City's financial contribution to the Project will be limited to (1) the cost to prepare and process the SPA Plan and PEIR through City Council approval of the SPA Plan and certification of the PEIR, including all costs (including attorneys' fees) incurred by the City in accordance with its rights and duties under the Master Agreement associated with any legal challenges to the SPA Plan or PEIR, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA").and(2)the contribution of land in the Innovation District at no cost to UDA and the University Campus to UDA or other third party at no cost. 8. Ongoing Evaluation of Legal Restrictions. Implementation of this MOU is subject to all applicable laws and the Parties will continue to evaluate the impact of applicable laws to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and in the event such applicable laws limit,make impractical or unlawful any of the provisions contemplated by this MOU the Parties will negotiate in good faith alternate terms. The Master Agreement is intended to address the terms of this MOU in light of applicable legal requirements and restrictions. 9. Non-Binding Effect. This MOU is intended to serve as a general basis for one or more definitive agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters referenced herein. This 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 535 MOU reflects the current mutual intentions of the Parties with respect to the future negotiations of a Master Agreement but at this time lacks various material terms which the Parties expect to be included in an enforceable agreement regarding the use, development,conveyance and/or implementation of the Project at the City Property. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this MOU,the Parties shall not have any legal obligation under or by virtue of this MOU, including any obligation to enter into the Master Agreement or other contract,to provide any services,to disclose any information,to make any investment or pay any consideration or compensation,whether or not expressly described herein; provided that the Parties expect to cooperate in good faith along the lines described in this MOU. HomeFed and the City each acknowledge and agree with the other that any funds expended or costs incurred by such Party prior to the time the Master Agreement is executed and delivered are incurred without expectation or right of reimbursement from the other Party. This MOU is acknowledged by the following officers of the Parties,respectively. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city By: Gary Halbert, City Manager HOMEFED CORPORATION, a California corporation By: Paul Borden, HomeFed CEO 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 536 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0590, Item#: 16. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE ACQUISITION OF A 3.94-ACRE PARCEL OF PARKLAND PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO. 2014-223 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH DAN FLOIT ON THE ACQUISITION OF A 3.94-ACRE PARKLAND PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The Floit Option Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (Option Agreement) was originally executed in 2011 with Mr. Dan Floit, Managing Member of Mid-City LLC, and is due to expire on December 6, 2014. Although the Option Agreement provides for up to two 1-year extensions, the City Manager has chosen not to extend the agreement. Mr. Floit may choose to exercise his option at any time prior to the December 6 expiration date, and the exchange of land will take place as planned. If he does not exercise his option, Council could direct the City Manager to negotiate to purchase Mr. Floit's 3.94-acre parkland property in the Lower Sweetwater Valley. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed activity, consisting of direction from Council to acquire land, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. Should the property be acquired and a Community Park be developed on the site, a full Environmental Review will be conducted at that time. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION Background Currently, Western Chula Vista has an imbalance of parkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805. The General Plan Update (2005) designated over 20 acres in the Lower Sweetwater Valley as future parkland, with the intention of later building a community park. In 2010, the City acquired 14.25 acres (Attachment 1) of parkland in that area and began acquiring other land adjacent to this site. In 2011 , the City was presented with an opportunity to obtain additional parkland acreage from an adjacent land owner, Mid-City LLC. A deal was structured that granted the City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 537 File#: 14-0590, Item#: 16. City fee title to 1 .89 acres (Floit Parcel A - Attachment 2) and also provided an opportunity to later acquire another 3.94 acres (Floit Parcel B - Attachment 3), yielding a community park site of 20.08 acres. Council executed the "Floit Option Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions" on December 6, 2011 (Resolution 2011-243), entering into an option agreement with Mr. Dan Floit, Managing Member of Mid-City LLC, to exchange a city-owned 9.3-acre parcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive (City Parcel) for the 3.94-acre Floit Parcel B in the Lower Sweetwater Valley. The terms of the Option Agreement include the following: • Mr. Floit was given an Option Period of three years (and two one-year options to extend) to pursue entitlements on the City-owned 9.3-acre remnant parcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive (See Attachment 4). • At any time during the Option Period, Mr. Floit had the right to exercise the option to acquire the City site by exchanging his 3.94-acre site located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley (See Attachment 3). • The City retains all of its discretion and is under no obligation to approve any of the entitlements sought by Mr. Floit. • Mr. Floit is responsible for all costs associated with pursuing his entitlements. Although the size of the City Parcel is over twice the size of Floit Parcel B, the exchange is equitable. The site is constrained by the SR-125 to the east, a 300' SDGE easement to the west (approximately 3 acres), topographic/access issues, and a lack of utility connections. There is currently no water, sewer or electric service to the site. Floit Parcel B offers a unique opportunity for the City to add to its existing parkland in an area already designated by the General Plan for a community park. Parkland acreage in western Chula Vista is difficult to acquire, due to the cost and the limited availability of large tracts of land. The Option Agreement gives the City the opportunity to exchange a remnant parcel of limited civic value for public parkland in Western Chula Vista. Provided the option is exercised by Mr. Floit, the City will have over twenty acres of land for future development of a planned Community Park. Current Status and Proposed Action Options After exploring development alternatives for the City Parcel, Mr. Floit submitted a pre-application package to the Development Services Department in early 2012. The proposal included plans for 156 multi-family apartment units and associated garage and surface parking on the site. After meetings with staff and making revisions to the project, the developer met with the Eastlake I Community Association in March 2013, to present a proposed project of 132 units. Based on the feedback, the number of units was further reduced to 116 units. A full project submittal was made in August 2013. In accordance with the City's Public Participation City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 538 File#: 14-0590, Item#: 16. Policy (400-02), a community meeting was held in January 2014, at the Eastlake Pavilion. During the community meeting, local residents voiced concerns about the project, including: traffic, parking, impact to schools, trash, graffiti, and use of their community facilities. The developer recognized that additional community meetings would be necessary to address these concerns and to incorporate changes to his proposal. Knowing that this could take some time and that the Option Agreement was due to expire in less than a year, an extension request was submitted, per the terms of the agreement. Per the terms of the Option Agreement, an extension does not obligate the City in any way in terms of approving the project, yet it does allow the developer additional time to complete his due diligence and the entitlement process, and to determine whether he wishes to pursue his option to acquire the property. Due to the passage of time and to community concern over the proposed project, the City Manager decided not to extend the Option Agreement. Instead, a Council Resolution has been prepared directing staff to negotiate the acquisition of Floit Parcel B. The Resolution would authorize staff to move forward with the negotiation process, which would include a current appraisal, among other considerations. Acquisition of the property would provide the City with additional parkland in an area that is currently park deficient. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT No Property within 500 feet Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The purchase of Floit Parcel B would result in additional parkland in an area already designated by the General Plan for Community Park purpose. Floit Parcel B is in an area that is currently park deficient, and expansion of parks supports the goal of a Healthy Community. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Should Council adopt the Resolution, a purchase price would be negotiated with the developer and brought back to Council for approval, and a Fiscal Impact Statement would be prepared at that time. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Should Council direct staff to negotiate the acquisition of Parcel B, and Council approves the acquisition, the ongoing fiscal impact would be prepared at that time. City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 539 File#: 14-0590, Item#: 16. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Map of Existing Parkland Attachment 2: Map of Floit Parcel A Attachment 3: Map of Floit Parcel B Attachment 4: Map of City Parcel Staff Contact: Janice Kluth, Senior Project Coordinator, ikluth(a-)-chula vista ca.pov <mailto:ikluth(a-)-chula vista ca.pov> City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 540 Attachment 1 — Existing Parcels I lop u• Vim. fi r `` i � ��1�1,ri IJII or 2E a 393 i 42 Existing 47 ,•46 41 3 Parcels 4S 4 .� ,, 50 4 3'• • y ` 45 37 49 54 4 19 14.25 Acre! S9 58 r ?l ` 4 7 47 1- t 63 62 4 ?3 6 27 25 58, 6S 6 ' 31 29 '•�ti 70 4 46 S? C - .f' 62 71 3.3 r •�! ' ��1 74 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 541 Attachment 2 — Floit Parcel A 111 Y ' o70o o » Floit Parcel A 1.89 Acres 2E f 38 34 47 46 41. --- 50 4 45 rW- . 3.7, 43 •� , 49 34 59• 23 +, 1 66 1� 27 25 i+ '' S3 38 6S t 70 . . 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 542 Attachment 3 — Floit Parcel 6 fro f .Y• ` \ t � w' r 1 v 22 t , 26 r 34 • - 42 3 7 33 29 47 46 ql 48 Floit Parcel 6 37 33 3.94 Acres s0 4� :I 28 54 49 54 �t� �• 39 S8 32 72 47 47 63 62 40 '36 19 IS 80 7S 66 7I 53 38 6S 23 71 70 7 88 S ./� 7� Sl 61 62 . 79 �22`t 12 ' b 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 543 Attachment 4 — City Parcel 4ia -� w R City Parcel 9.3 Acres F. y � r w 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 544 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH DAN FLOIT ON THE ACQUISITION OF A 3.94-ACRE PARKLAND PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY WHEREAS, Western Chula Vista has an imbalance of parkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the 2005 General Plan update identified the Lower Sweetwater Valley as an appropriate location for a new twenty (20) acre community park; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been proactive in securing available acreage for the development of a new community park in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista acquired 14.25 acres (2010) and an additional 1.94 acres (2011) of parkland in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the City of Chula Vista approved an Option Agreement with Dan Floit, to exchange a 9.3-acre parcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive for a 3.94-acre parcel located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley for park purposes (Resolution 2011-243); and WHEREAS, the Option Agreement was for a term of 3 years, during which term Mr. Floit could pursue entitlements for the site. The Option Agreement could be extended by the City Manager, in his discretion, an additional two years by granting two 1-year extensions; and WHEREAS, the initial three year term expires on December 6, 2014, and the City Manager has chosen not to grant any extensions; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of property in a park-deficient area already designated by the General Plan for Community Park purpose supports the City's Strategic Goal of Healthy Communities; and WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity, consisting of an agreement to exchange land, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, additional environmental review and determination will be required as applicable, prior to the approval of any future project-specific park development. C:AUsers\GRAlVIC-l\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 71,@BCL@E405DFDD\@BCL @E405DFDD.doc 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 545 Resolution No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it authorizes the City Manager to negotiate with Dan Floit on the acquisition of his 3.94-acre parkland property located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelly G. Broughton Glen R. Googins Development Services Director City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 546 r- It N N SEEMS b0 fE O S SEEMS cr V O Ln U N co 74 O L Ua � E > - L U .� a O ra n , r cn cu tm Z x a t 0 N co i N �4 0. . f r • ee - r � , ry of ham . I• h M1 • 11 1• co NOL ' `' �, U Ln cu tm N d' N O N Yr w WAV, DR ti '416 AM. A1 O N N cu b0 + -J + cr U ate-+ r C6 O C)L0 . . O O � O � N ` 4 1 `; I U CU in_ D O cu tm O U a t O N Lo N j Lo cu tm `� O • n r as � , S6 a ,• .• '�: co Iq dO l_ r� J L.n i 1 (/n : ♦ l `�' i f i -40 R" ..- •y,.. a 0 N N N N w U m a f a }'• © a t 1 FFF • r •r r• ' � 1 Ln � a r Ln CA 4j N a Q � Ln N - kin r � R• ♦ :.. r�•�t�+,?�`� 111 ti cu 0 N M N N N U fE O .l f ` • , 4-0 cr E E O U CIO O M CO C�0 z Q cn •> > 4—j 4- U). p E Q L • a (� .� p X O O ca +-' Z U C- 0- cu tm V 0 x a t 0 N It i N Lo Om �4 0. . f r • ee - r do co , ry of `a N do NOL ham . I• h M1 • 11 1• ' `' �, U Ln cu tm N d' N O N N N N N b0 fE + + r + + O r c 4—j + + O W O i ca C/1 . xcu tm a t r 0 N z N N N b0 fE + + r Y + + + F k + + O � V cry 0 r/ f 4M1* f f A4 cu tm V_l � t 0 N City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0608, Item#: 17. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATING THE CHULA VISTA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 2014-224 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ACCORDINGLY FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Since 2000, Chula Vista has been a nationally-recognized leader in implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected climate change impacts. To align the CAP with new state planning and tracking tools, the City Council directed staff to reconvene a Climate Change Working Group to develop recommendations for updating the Climate Action Plan. As such, the group - comprised of residents, business, non-profit, and utility representatives - held 10 public meetings since February to evaluate over 170 different strategies and to ultimately recommend 12 action areas to expand the City's greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The recommended actions will need to be further refined by City staff to outline specific implementation steps, costs, and timelines and to be incorporated into an updated Climate Action Plan for future City Council review and consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the action qualifies for a Class 8 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15308 [Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment] of the State CEQA Guidelines because, the contemplated action proposes adoption of climate protection strategies designed to reduce harmful greenhouse gas or "carbon" emissions. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Climate Change Working Group presented their recommendations to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on November 10, 2014 for review and feedback. The RCC supported the recommendations and advised City Council to direct staff to update the Climate Action Plan accordingly for future consideration. DISCUSSION For almost 15 years, Chula Vista has been a nationally-recognized leader in implementing a Climate City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 557 File#: 14-0608, Item#: 17. Action Plan (CAP) to address the threat of climate change to the local community. The current CAP includes 7 climate "mitigation" measures, which are designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 11 climate "adaptation" measures, which are designed to lower Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected local climate change impacts. In addition to addressing climate change, these climate action measures create numerous community co-benefits such as utility cost savings, better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic development, and improved quality of life. To continue the City's leadership and align the Chula Vista CAP with new state guidance and tools, City Council adopted a "roadmap" in January 2014 (Resolution #2014-006) for formally updating the City's Climate Action Plan. Through the update process, the City would (1) redefine its baseline year for GHG emission purposes to 2005, (2) recalibrate its GHG reduction target in relation to the new baseline year, (3) quantity and select new greenhouse gas reduction strategies, and (4) create a single, updated Climate Action Plan document. A key component of the CAP update process was also reconvening a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to help evaluate and recommend new greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. As such, a Climate Change Working Group was reconvened in February 2014 and included residents, business, non-profit, education, and utility representatives. The CCWG, which was chaired by a Resource Conservation Commission member, met 10 times over a 9 month period to develop recommendations by consensus. In addition to their publicly-noticed meetings, the CCWG held a special public forum on October 14 th to solicit additional community feedback. Through this process, the CCWG evaluated over 170 different options for new policies and programs that the City could adopt to help reach its GHG emission reduction goal. As a result, the CCWG has recommended 12 different action areas covering topics such as water conservation and reuse, renewable and efficient energy, zero waste, and smart growth and transportation. If supported by City Council, staff will further develop the recommended actions over the next 6 months. Specifically, staff will outline potential implementation steps, costs, and timelines for each action as well as refine their associated greenhouse gas emission reduction estimates. This additional information will be incorporated into an updated Climate Action Plan for future City Council review and consideration. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2 (a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Climate Action Plan update process is identified under the Strategic Plan's Healthy Community goal as a near-term priority. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 558 File#: 14-0608, Item#: 17. Staff costs and resources required to further develop the Climate Change Working Group's recommended actions and update the Climate Action Plan would be supported by existing departmental budgets, the San Diego Gas & Electric Local Government Partnership program, the San Diego Foundation (in-kind), and University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center (in- kind). ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT City staff will prepare and present an updated Climate Action Plan to the City Council in spring 2015 for consideration. Any ongoing fiscal impact associated with implementing the plan will be included to inform the City Council's decision at that time. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Climate Change Working Group's Recommendations Attachment 2 - Climate Action Plan Update Roadmap Staff Contact: Brendan Reed City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/18/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 559 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ACCORDINGLY FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION WHEREAS, Chula Vista has been a nationally-recognized leader in implementing a Climate Action Plan to address the threat of climate change to the local community; and WHEREAS, to continue the City's leadership and align the Chula Vista Climate Action Plan with new state guidance and tools, City Council adopted a "roadmap" in January 2014 (Resolution 92014-006) for formally updating the Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, a key component of the update process was reconvening a Climate Change Working Group to help evaluate and recommend new greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies; and WHEREAS, the Climate Change Working Group, which included residents, business, non-profit, education, and utility representative, met 10 times over a 9 month period to develop recommendations by consensus; and WHEREAS, the Climate Change Working Group evaluated over 170 different options for new policies and programs that the City could adopt to help reach its GHG emission reduction goal; and WHEREAS, the Climate Change Working Group has recommended 12 different action areas covering topics such as water conservation and reuse, renewable and efficient energy, zero waste, and smart growth and transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it accepts the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations, in the form presented, and directs staff to update the Climate Action Plan accordingly for future City Council review and consideration. Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 560 Director of Public Works City Attorney 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 561 CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP ! _ y 2014 Climate Action Plan Update— Recommendations CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUMMARY The Climate Change Working Group — comprised of residents, business, education, non-profit, and utility representatives — has been evaluating new opportunities to help reach the Chula Vista Climate Action Plan's greenhouse gas reduction goal of 30% below 2005 levels. As such, we have identified 12 action areas that could generate up to 166,000 metric tons in reductions by 2020, while improving local air quality, generating utility savings, reducing traffic congestion, and promoting a healthier community: WATER CONSERVATION 6,000 MTCO2e #1 Water Education & Enforcement Expand education and enforcement (through fines) targeting landscape water waste. #2 Water Efficiency Upgrades A) Use sewer ratepayer funds to incentivize indoor water conservation and provide on-bill financing opportunities. B) Update the City's Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance to promote more water-wise landscaping designs. C) Require water-savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time (not point of sale). #3 Water Reuse Plan & System Installations A) Develop a Water Reuse Master Plan to maximize the use of storm water, recycled water (such as indoor commercial use), and onsite water reclamation. B) Promote graywater through a Laundry-to-Landscape installation program and by simplifying complex systems' permit review. Estimated WASTE REDUCTION Annual GHG Reductions: MINNOW ••• MTCO2e #4 Zero Waste Plan Develop a Zero Waste Plan (with special emphasis on zero waste events, business certifications, and building deconstruction) to supplement statewide green waste, recycling, and plastic bag ban efforts. RENEWABLE & EFFICIENT ENERGY Estimated Annual GHG Reductions: ja • ••• MTCO2e #S Energy Education & Enforcement A) Expand education targeting key community segments (ex. DIY & Millennials) and facilitating energy performance disclosure (ex. Green Leases & Home Energy Ratings). B) Leverage the building inspection process to distribute energy-related information and to deter unpermitted, low performing energy improvements. 2014-11-18rAkFt2"I>! itagTe Working Group Recommendations- 11/6/14 1 of 4 Page 562 RENEWABLE & EFFICIENT ENERGY .d #6 Clean Energy Sources A) Incorporate solar photovoltaic into all new residential and commercial buildings (on a project level basis). B) Provide more grid-delivered clean energy (up to 100%) through Community Choice Aggregation or other mechanism. #7 Energy Efficiency Upgrades A) Expand the City's "cool roof' standards to include re-roofs and western areas. B) Streamline the permit process for energy-saving improvements by offering bundled and over-the-counter options. C) Facilitate more energy upgrades in the community through tax breaks, rebates, and more local energy efficiency programming. D) Require energy-savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time (not at point of sale). #8 Robust Urban Forests Plant more shade trees to save energy, address heat island issues, and improve air quality. GROWTH SMART • • • • 49,000 IVITCO2e #9 Complete Streets & Neighborhoods A) Incorporate "Complete Streets" principles into the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans and Capital Improvement Program. B) Encourage higher density and mixed-use development in Smart Growth areas, especially around trolley stations and other transit nodes. C) Synchronize traffic signals to help ensure efficient traffic flow. #10 Flexible Parking Requirements Allow flexibility in meeting parking requirements by incorporating bike facilities, transit access/passes, and other Transportation Demand Management offerings. #11 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness A) Support the installation of more local alternative fueling stations and designate preferred parking for alternative fuel vehicles. B) Design all new residential and commercial buildings to be "Electric Vehicle Ready." #12 Multi-Modal Options A) Amend the Growth Management Ordinance to include considerations for alternative transportation options and to de-emphasize vehicular level of service. B) Expand bike-sharing, car-sharing, and other "last mile" transportation options, especially in eastern areas. 2014-11-180knaurQaage Working Group Recommendations- 11/6/14 2 of 4 Page 563 BACKGROUND In January 2014, the City Council tasked the Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) with identifying new opportunities - through a consensus-building process - to reduce Chula Vista's carbon footprint as part of the broader Climate Action Plan update effort. The City has had a Climate Action Plan since 2000, which was subsequently updated in 2008 and 2010. The Climate Action Plan acts as a roadmap for various policies and programs aiming to ultimately reduce our community's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 30% below 2005 levels (recalibrated from 1990 goal). This goal, after accounting for state and federal activities, equates to reducing local emissions by approximately 185,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS The CCWG was established as a subcommittee of the City's Resource Conservation Commission and included a diverse membership of residents, business, education, non-profit, and utility representatives: Climate Change Working Group Members &Alternates Residents Transportation - Sassan Rahimzadeh -CCWG Chair Allison Wood-SANDAG(Anna Lowe) - Bob Coleman-CCWG Vice Chair Lindsey Hawes-Center for Sustainable Energy - Ellen Kappes Community Services Waste Management Lisa Davis-High Tech High - Carlos Jaime-Republic Services Debbie Discar-Espe-CV Charitable Foundation - Pauline Martinson-I Love a Clean SD (Samantha Russo) New Development Utilities - Sean Kilkenny-Otay Ranch Company(Nick - Josh Brock-SDG&E{Dinah Willier] Lee) Sue Mosburg-Sweetwater Authority(Doug - Rich D'Ascoli-Pacific SW Assoc.of Realtors Roberts) (Tracy Morgan Hollingsworth) Existing Buildings&Infrastructure Staff - Hugo Mora-Mocard Group Brendan Reed - Lynn France - Todd Galarneau-CV Chamber of Commerce - Robert Beamon Janice Kluth (Steve Miesen) - Cory Downs - Brenden Seki Over the past 10 months, the CCWG held 10 meetings to further explore Climate Change- related topics, hear from various experts, tour local facilities, and receive community feedback. Through this process, the Climate Change Working Group evaluated over 170 different options for new policies and programs that the City could adopt to help reach its goal. Some of the criteria that we used to help guide our evaluations were (1) focusing on actions that were in the City's control, (2) limiting actions' negative fiscal impacts to the City, and (3) prioritizing actions that could be fully implemented within the next 5 years. Finally, the CCWG's proposed recommendations were presented to community members at a public forum on October 14th at the Civic Library to solicit additional input before finalization. FINDINGS Climate change is real and immediate and could negatively impact Chula Vista's high quality of life. By responding to climate change proactively, we hope to lower its associated risks and 2014-11-18(NonafRIQstage Working Group Recommendations- 11/6/14 3 of 4 Page 564 costs, while helping to improve local air quality, lower utility costs, reduce traffic congestion, and design healthier, more connected neighborhoods. Based on our discussions and careful deliberations, we are recommending 12 different action areas (as outlined on pages 1-2) that we believe could contribute up to 166,000 metric tons of local greenhouse gas emission reductions towards the City's goal by 2020. It should be noted that these actions are mainly focused on the community, since the City has already adopted an ambitious "City Operations Sustainability Plan" to address emissions from municipal buildings and fleet. Our recommendations are high level and, if supported by City Council, should be further developed by City staff. Implementation steps, cost estimates, timelines, and refined GHG reduction estimates for the various actions should be outlined for future consideration by City Council. Special attention should also be given to assessing the cost-benefit of future actions to help ensure that they do not impair Chula Vista's economic vitality. From our discussions over the last 10 months, it is clear that it will take a concerted effort between numerous public and private partners to successfully address climate change in Chula Vista. Collaboration with partners must be ongoing and at all levels (staff and executives) to be effective. It is also paramount that the City leverages its numerous communication and outreach efforts to continue this important dialogue about climate change with community members. We feel that comprehensive education is the key to fostering more "climate- friendly" behaviors in the community with efficiency and conservation being the best practices. Similarly, the City should continue to actively engage community members and stakeholder groups as it further develops any of our recommendations. The Climate Change Working Group would like to acknowledge the generous financial and technical support provided by San Diego Gas & Electric, the San Diego Foundation, and the University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center throughout the planning process. Without them, we would not have been able to work as effectively or efficiently. 2014-11-180knaurQaage Working Group Recommendations- 11/6/14 4 of 4 Page 565 CITY OF CHULA VISTA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE Roadmap For almost 15 years, Chula Vista has been a nationally-recognized leader in implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the threat of climate change to the local community. The current CAP includes 7 climate "mitigation" measures, which are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and II climate "adaptation" measures, which are designed to reduce Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected local climate change impacts. In addition to addressing climate change concerns, these climate action measures offer numerous community co-benefits such as utility savings, better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic development, and improved quality of life. As outlined in the City of Chula Vista Strategic Plan, updating the CAP is a major near-term priority under the City's "Healthy Community" core goal. The main reasons for updating the CAP include aligning it with new climate action planning and tracking tools as well as redefining its baseline year and greenhouse gas reduction target. In addition, an updated CAP will be more responsive to recent California Office of Planning & Research guidance on climate action planning. It is anticipated that the majority of new climate measures recommended through the CAP update process will be focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. climate mitigation). Expected Outcomes Specifically, the City of Chula Vista will update its CAP to achieve the following: (a) Redefine the City's baseline year for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission purposes to 2005 (calendar year). The unavailability of certain data for Chula Vista's current 1990 baseline year is limiting City staffs use of new GHG emission inventory methodologies and mitigation strategy planning tools. The new 2005 baseline year will also match the State of California's baseline period under Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). (b) Recalibrate the City's GHG reduction target, in relation to the new baseline year, for both community and municipal operations. The City's current target was based on an international goal, which expired in 2012, and uses 1990 as the baseline year. The re- calibrated GHG reduction target will be compared to other local, regional, and state agencies' adopted targets and will be used to guide the selection of new climate mitigation strategies (see below). (c) Quantify and select new mitigation strategies that could, in concert with current mitigation and adaptation strategies, assist the City of Chula Vista in reaching its Climate Action Plan Update—Roadmap 1 of 3 City of Chula Vista 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 566 recalibrated GHG reduction target. It is expected that the new strategies will generally fall into one of the following categories: Energy Use& Generation Water Use Waste Reduction & Recycling Transportation Municipal Operations (d) Incorporate previous climate-related documents, as appropriate, into a single Climate Action Plan with clear goals, quantifiable objectives, and key implementation tasks. Community-Based Planning Process To develop formal updates to the City's CAP, the City will reconvene a community-based "Climate Change TABLE 1: Sectors & Potential Working Group," which proved successful in creating Representatives climate mitigation and adaptation recommendations in Residents the past. The Climate Change Working Group (CCWG), — Resource Conservation which will be comprised of Chula Vista residents, Commission member(s) businesses, community group, and regional partner — Civic association member representatives, will be tasked with informing the New Development development of the above-mentioned deliverables and — Development company will be chaired by a representative from the City's — Real estate firm Resource Conservation Commission. Existing Buildings & Infrastructure — Local contractor Based on the scope of climate action planning topics and — Business association to ensure equitable and diverse viewpoints, staff Transportation proposes to recruit 2-3 representatives for the — Regional transportation reconvened CCWG from each of the sectors outlined in agency Table 1. All CCWG meetings will be open to the public, — Non-profit organization who will be encouraged to participate in the discussions. Waste Management In addition, it is anticipated that up to 2 public forums — Trash hauler will be organized by the CCWG to solicit additional — Non-profit organization community feedback. Utilities — SDG&E The CCWG's recommendations, developed through — Water districts consensus, will be presented to the City Council for formal review and consideration. Based upon City Council's direction, these recommendations would be further developed into a single,more detailed CAP document by staff. Timeline TASK TIMELINE Milestone #1 -Initiate Climate Action Plan Update A. Council approval of"roadmap" for updating Climate Action January 2014 Plan Climate Action Plan Update—Roadmap 2 of 3 City of Chula Vista 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 567 B. Reconvene Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to January—February 2014 include required representation& technical expertise Milestone #2—Develop New Climate Mitigation Target& Strategies A. Organize approximately 12 publicly-noticed CCWG meetings February—November 2014 to set a new GHG emission target and prioritize new CAP strategies B. Host 2 public forums to seek broader community feedback June—November 2014 Milestone #3—Finalize New Climate Mitigation Target& Strategies A. Present CCWG recommendations to the Resource November 2014 Conservation Commission and the City Council for review and consideration B. Create a single,updated Climate Action Plan with clear goals, December 2014 —April quantifiable objectives, and key implementation tasks. 2015 Milestone #4—Implement& Track Climate Action Plan A. Begin implementation of updated Climate Action Plan and May 2015 (Ongoing) track performance Climate Action Plan Update—Roadmap 3 of 3 City of Chula Vista 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 568 LEVITO-N-2 Date: November 18, 2014 Subject: Climate Change Working Group recommendation of EV ready Commercial Buildings To whom it may concern: Leviton is directly involved in sales and marketing of products and services that are impacted by the recommendation from the Climate Change Working Group. The successful grog;rth of the plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market is important to both the automotive and electrical utility industries with whom we work closely and proactively to seek sustainable energy and environmental solutions for the State of California. Leviton is a leading manufacturer of electrical wiring devices. Our EVSEs are primarily designed and tested at our engineering center in Chula Vista. California. Leviton EVSEs are used in 3,000 dealerships. by 4 major automakers and in over 10.000 consumer- homes. We are active on many industry task forces throughout North America and lead efforts in code and standards development. As a privately held company; our top priority is to provide reliable products to the market. The Leviton mission is to manufacture electrical devices that promote safety and are easy to use. That being said- we feel strongly that our position as an industry leader in electrical devices should be communicated. To meet the needs of the Climate Chang Working Group. Leviton has developed a proprietary plug in kit to enable consumers and commercial buildings to be plug in ready at an affordable price. Our kits enable customers to make parking spaces plug in ready. At the time that the consumer wishes to charge an electric vehicle; they can "hang" the EVSE without any special tools. This system has been tested extensively and is in use across North America. At a low cost it offers the ability to lock the EVSE and the safety cover to prevent unauthorized use. The kit system eliminates the need for a second electrician visit and provides the unique option to have the EVSE movable. This kit system is used by four major automakers and is actively promoted across l l electric vehicle platforms. We believe this solution supports the Climate Change Working Group initiative and will lower the overall cost of installation and potentially inspection without sacrificing safety or ease of use. As a long time resident of the southern California market we support the Climate Chance Working Group initiatives to make commercial buildings EV ready. We believe this recommendation will promote the adoption of electric vehicles and the subsequent economic, social and environmental benefits. Regards. Leviton EVSE Customer Service %v,.vw.leviton.com/evrgreen (877) 338-7473 Leviton Manufacturing Co.. Inc. 201 North Service Drive lklelville. New York t 1747 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 569 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0650, Item#: 18. RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MARIE ZHIVAGO TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 570 Mayor and City Council City Of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue ►-�- Chula Vsta,Ca 91910 C[iY OF 619.691.5044—619.476.5379 Fax ��� CHUTA VISTA November 7, 2014 TO: Kerry Bigelow, Senior Deputy City Clerk Sheree Kansas, Deputy City Clerk CC: Jill Maland, Assistant City Attorney FROM: .Jennifer Quijano, Constituent Services Mana e RE: Cultural Arts Commission Mayor Cox would like to recommend Marie Zhivago for appointment to the Cultural Arts Commission. Marie will replace Willie Harris. Please place these items on the November 18, 20. 14 Council agenda for ratification and schedule the oaths of office for the next available City Council meeting. Thank you. 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 571 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0662, Item#: 19. CONSIDERATION OF REINSTITUTING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2014 City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 572 City of Chula Vista OF CHU�LAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0661, Item#: 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b): One Case City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet Page 573 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0580, Item#: 21. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 Title: City Clerk City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/13/2014 istar 2014-11-18 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 574