Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 2002/03/26
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 26, 2002 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CI'IY OF CHULA VISI'A City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. Stephen C. Padilla City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone John M. Kaheny Mary Salas City Clerk Shirley A, Horton~ Mayor Susan Bigelow The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 68 AGENDA March 26, 2002 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, led by Girl Scouts of the San Diego- Imperial Council, followed by MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR HORTON TO ALICIA MARTINEZ, MEMBERSHIP COMMUNITY COORDINATOR OF THE GIRL SCOUTS OF SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL, PROCLAIMING THE YEAR 2002 AS GIRL SCOUT YEAR PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR HORTON TO WILL MAGNAN, SENIOR VOLUNTEER PATROL PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVE, PROCLAIMING APRIL 6, 2002 AS SENIOR VOLUNTEER PATROL APPRECIATION DAY CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 9) The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ° Letter of resignation from Kenneth J. Culver, member of the Board of Ethics. Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignation and direct the City Clerk to post immediately in accordance with Maddy Act requirements. 2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM-PHASE XI - SEWER LATERAL REPLACEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIRD AVENUE, BETWEEN DAVIDSON STREET AND "E" STREET (PROJECT SW-227A) On February 20, 2002, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for this project. The work to be done includes the replacement of existing, broken and deteriorating sewer laterals, installation of new, 4-inch sewer laterals, all labor, material, and equipment necessary for completion. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,214.12 FOR SEVEN, FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE, INTERMEDIATE-SIZE, AND EXTENDED CAB PICKUP TRUCKS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE BID WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CONTRACT #1-02-23-20) The Fiscal Year 2001/2002 equipment maintenance budget provides for the replacement of four, four-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks. Three additional pickup trucks were approved during the budget process for Survey, Construction Inspection, and Open Space Maintenance sections. Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City, therefore, is participating in a current State of California bid from the Lasher Auto Group. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT TO SPECIAL DISTRICT FINANCING & ADMINISTRATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MELLO-ROOS) DISTRICTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT During Fiscal Year 1998/1999, the City established six new Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) in the Otay Ranch and Sunbow II developments for the construction of public facilities and for the maintenance of open space areas. The City subsequently established, or is in the process of establishing, five new CFDs in the Sunbow Il, Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch developments. The City requires the services of a consultant to perform tasks necessary to the administration of these districts, including calculating special taxes and charges to be levied on each parcel, and providing Works/Assistant City Manager Powell) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED EVEN START GRANT AUGMENTATION FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,500 TO THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM'S EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY GRANT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 2 - Council Agenda 03/26/02 The California Department of Education has advised the Chula Vista Public Library that our four-year Even Start grant, in the amount of $195,800, has been augmented by $24,500 for the purpose of providing project staff with professional development activities and providing participating families with books to start their own home libraries. (Deputy City Manager Palmer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYING CITY STAFF'S ACTION ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCESS UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $250,000 1N CHANGE ORDERS B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR HANSON SJH CONSTRUCTION FOR $90,045 AND F. J. WILLERT, INC. FOR $118,099, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDERS The City Council has approved multiple contracts for the construction of the Corporation Yard. On September 26, 2000, City Council amended Policy #574-01, authorizing the City Manager to approve all change orders pertaining to this job with a single change order, not exceeding $50,000, and a cumulative value of up to $250,000. Adoption of the resolutions ratifies Staff's actions in approving change orders; approves the change orders for Hanson SJH Construction and F. J. Willert, Inc.; and authorizes staff to process up to an additional $250,000 in change orders. (Director of Building and Park Construction) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $125,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND INTO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PS-149 FOR ADDITIONAL RELOCATION COSTS FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN POLICE FACILITY (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED) Council, to date, has acted to appropriate a total of $1,500,000 for the Police Headquarters site relocation costs. This appropriation is expected to be completely expended during March 2002. Settlements have been reached with 11 of the 13 hu';ines~es e~her ~brcm~h '~e~catio*, setqerm~: offers or the provisio~ ,~ ~eYv b~siP~ess sites. Several final relocation settlements and payments are now pending. In order to proceed with the remaining relocation payments, two additional appropriations for costs associated with the relocation is necessary. Eligible funds from the available fund balance in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund will be appropriated into Capital Improvement Project PS-149 for approximately half of the remaining costs. Under a separate item at the next available Redevelopment Agency meeting, appropriation of an additional $125,000 will be requested from the 2000 Tax Allocation Bond issue, for a total additional relocation appropriation of $250,000. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutiom Page 3 - Council Agenda 03/26/02 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH CROSS CURRENT CORPORATION FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMATED INTERFACE BETWEEN THE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM (CAD) AND THE ORION MAPPING SUITE In August 1998, City staff convened the Police and Fire dispatch system to a new CAD system to facilitate dispatching of emergency personnel and equipment. Part of that system included mobile data computers in the Police vehicles to allow officers in the field to check license plates, view call data from dispatchers, and automatically send their status back to the dispatchers. The Police Department received funding through a COPS MORE grant for an interface to the CAD system. The department also received a technology grant, which will allow an upgrade to their phone system. This system utilizes the Orion Mapping suite to provide real-time displays of the location of callers to the 911 system on a map on both the field unit and dispatcher screens. (Director of Management and Information Services) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO EXPRESSWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SDELP) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE-ROUTE 125 THROUGH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT California Transportation Ventures, Inc., general partner of San Diego Expressway Limited Parmership, builder of State-Route 125 (SR-125), have been negotiating an agreement with staff for the construction of SR-125 through the City of Chula Vista. Adoption of the resolution will approve the agreement. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak' form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Page 4 - Council Agenda 03/26/02 10. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND A NEW ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA In June 2000, City Council increased the total Public Facilities Impact Fees (PFDIF) from $2,150 to $2,618 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) -- the first significant update to the PFDIF in nine years. The increase was based on the "Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities, 1999 Update", which included very preliminary versions of the new police facility, corporation yard, and civic center expansion master plans. Subsequently, the design firm of Highland Partnership, Inc. was hired to provide a rigorous needs- assessment and cost analysis for the police and civic center projects. Council approved new master plans on July 17, 2001, containing updated costs that necessitate a fee increase from $2,618 to $4,888 per EDU. The police and civic center projects account for over 71 percent of this increase. Fee adjustments for all PFDIF components are included in the "Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update". (Director of Budget and Analysis) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the following urgency ordinance and place the ordinance on first reading. A. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020, 3.50.030, 3.50.050, 3.50.070, AND 3.50.090 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020, 3.50.030, 3.50.050, 3.50.070, AND 3.50.090 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY 11. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN TO DESIGNATE NEIGHBORHOOD R-7A FROM SF-4 TO RM-2 AND REALLOCATE 47 DWELLING UNITS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD R-9A TO NEIGHBORHOODS R- 7A AND R-7B (PCM 02-20); AND CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CREATING 1,392 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 201.1 ACRES OF VILLAGE SIX OF OTAY RANCH - APPLICANT: OTAY RANCH COMPANY (PCS 02-05) Page 5 - Council Agenda 03/26/02 Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to re-designate neighborhood R-7a from single-family SF-4 to residential multi-family RM-2, and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from neighborhood R-9a to neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b. The overall number of dwelling units in the Village Six SPA area will remain the same. Otay Ranch Company has also applied for a tentative subdivision map to subdivide approximately 201.1 acres of Village Six in the Otay Ranch. The tentative map subdivides Otay Ranch Company's portion of Village Six into 309 single-family lots, four neighborhoods containing 1,083 multi-family units, 7.7 acres for a public elementary school site, a 2.9 acre mixed-use site in the Village Core, a park site, a 4.4-acre community purpose facility site and 2.3 acres of common usable open space. (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, place the following ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolutions: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR VILLAGE SIX C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PORTION OF VILLAGE SIX OF THE OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 02-05 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A Scheduling of meetings. 13. MAYOR'S REPORTS 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 27, 2002 at 4:15 p.m. in the Council Conference room, and thence to the Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 6 - Council Agenda 03/26/02 KENNETH J. CULVER P.O. Box 144 Bonit~,F~,~J~(~Sl~144 E-mail: theculvers~et~e~mp CITY OF CHULA VIS CITY CLERK'S OFFICi: March 18, 2002 Susan Bigelow, City Clerk City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Bigelow: In the next few days, I will be reassigned to new duties by my employer. I will be assigned to a work location in the north county, and will have considerably more responsibility than I previously did. As a result of this change, it will be impractical for me to continue serving on the Board of Ethics. Accordingly, I will resign my position on the Board effective at the end of its March 19, 2002 meeting. I have completed the Financial Disclosure form (FPPC 700) for the period January 1,2001 through March 19, 2002. That form is attached. Thank you for the privilege of serving on the Board of Ethics. Sincerely, Kenneth J. Culver COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date: 3/26/2002 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the "Sewer Rehabilitation Program-Phase XI, Sewer Lateral Replacement on the West Side of Third Avenue, between Davidson Street and "E" Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA (SW-227A)' Project. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~'~'~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (fl~5)'~'~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes x No ) On February 20, 2002, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Sewer Rehabilitation Program-Phase XI, Sewer Lateral Replacement on the West Side of Third Avenue between Davidson Street and "E" Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA (SW-227A)" Project. The work to be done includes the replacement of existing broken and deteriorating sewer laterals, install new 4" sewer laterals, install new sewer cleanouts, shoring, sewer lateral connection, control of sewage flows, installation of root barrier, trenching, striping, installation of survey monuments and asphalt concrete pavement in the City of Chula Vista. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization, traffic control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and other miscellaneous work necessary for the project. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and Award the Contract for the "Sewer Rehabilitation Program-Phase XI, Sewer Lateral Replacement on the West Side of Third Avenue between Davidson Street and "E" Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA (SW-227A)" Project to Jimencz Inc. DBA MJC Construction, in the amount of $109,070.00. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Funds for this project were budgeted in the FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budget for the sewer rehabilitation program. The work shall be designated as Sewer Rehabilitation Program Phase XI. Based on the result of the inspection, including those performed with a closed circuit television camera, a rehabilitation of existing sewer laterals are needed. Certain sections of existing laterals are deteriorating, cracking and need to be replaced to prevent groundwater infiltration or leaching of raw sewage into the ground. Page No. 2, Item ~ Meeting Date: 3/26/2002 The general scope of the project involves the replacement of existing deteriorating sewer laterals, install new 4" laterals, install new sewer cleanouts, trenching, and asphalt concrete pavement. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization, control of sewage flows, installation of root barrier, traffic control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and other miscellaneous work necessary for the project. Engineering staff prepared plans, specifications, and advertised the project. Staff received and opened bids on February 20, 2002. The City received bids from one contractor as follows: CONTRACTOR Bm AMOUNT 1. Jimenez, Inc, DBA MJC Const.-Chula Vista, California. $10%070.00 The bid by Jimenez Inc. DBA MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of$111,210.00 by $2,140.00 or approximately 2%. Staff's bid estimate was based on average prices for similar type of work completed during the last two years. Engineering staff checked the references provided by the contractor. Jimenez Inc. DBA MJC Construction done other work for the City and that work have been satisfactory. All references were verified and their work has been satisfactory. Staff has reviewed the bid and is recommending awarding the contract to Jimenez Inc. DBA MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 ( c ) of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures). Wage Statement Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications. Page No. 3, Item g..t,.. Meeting Date: 3/26/2002 Fiscal Impact FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $109,070.00 B. Contingencies (15%) $16,361.00 C. StaffCosts (Design & Inspection) $25,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $150,431.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. SewerFunds SW-227 $150,431.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $150,431.00 Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require onlyroutine City sewer maintenance. Attachments: Contractor's Disclosure Statement File No. 0735-10-SW227A CVM:cvm J:\Engir)eer~Agenda\SW227A-Al 13CM.DOC ¢~' ~ 4. THE CITY OF CHULA VIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any a tion upon matters which will require discretionary action by e Council, Planning Commission and II other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure f certain ownership or [mandai interests payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vis election must be filed. The following inti rmation must be disclosed: 1. Lis the names of all persons having a finan ial interest in the property that is the subject of the app ication or the contract, e.g., owner, appli ant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. '-- 3. If y person* identified pursuant to (1) abo is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of y person serving as director of the no -profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trus or of the trust. A Pie e identifY every person, including an agents, employees, consultants, or independent con ctors you have assigned to represent yo before the City in this matter. 15 1;>-'1 J:\EngineerlAD IN\CONTRAC1ìSW227-a.DOC 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes No ~ If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes__No ~ If Yes, which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives, non-profit Board of Directors made conWibutions totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4) years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~>~ If Yes, which Council member? -- 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of ~hula Vista in the past twelve (I2) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes __ No %,~ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? "-8ignature of Contractor/Applicant Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, --or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member ora board, commission, or corramttee of the City, employee, or staffmembers. 16 J:~EngineerXADMINXCONTRACTXSW227_a. DOC /,} . ~,.,, RESOLUTION N(. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTIN BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 'SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM-PHASE XI, SEW R LATERAL REPLACEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIRD AVENUE, BETWEEN DAVIDSON STREET AND " " STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (SW 227A) " PROJECT WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002, the Director of Public Works r ceived the following seal d bid for "Sewer Rehabilitation Program Phase XI, Sewer Lateral Replacement on the west side of Third A enue between Davidson St eet and "E" Street in the City of Chul Vista, CA (SW-227A) " preject: Contractor Bid Amount Jimenez, Inc. DBA MJC Const.-Chul Vista, Ca. $109,070.00 WHEREAS, the bid by Ji enez, Inc. DBA MJC Construction is belo the Engineer's estimate of $111,210 by $2,140 or 2% and Jimenez, Inc. has previously perf rmed work for the City which has been satisfactory; and WHEREAS, staff has revi wed the bid and is recommending awardin, the contract to Jimenez, Inc.; and WHEREAS, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents ar d no special minority or women owned b siness requirements were necessary as part of the bid document s, however, disadvantagee businesses were encouraged to bid thr ugh the sending of the !:iotice to Contractors to various trade pëblications; and WHEREAS, the Environn ental Review Coordinator has reviewec the work involved in thi¡ project and has determined that this pre ject is categorically exe pt under Section.15301, Class 1 (c) of the California Environmentil Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does a cept the bid and aw rd the contract for" Sewer Rehabilitation Program-Phase XI, ewer Lateral Replacement on the west si e of Third Avenue, bet een Davidson Street and "E" 1 ;1-rÞ I I Street in the City of Chula V sta, CA (SW-227A)" Project to Jimenez, Inc. DBA MJC Const., in he amount of $109,070.00. i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of Chula ista is hereby authoriz d to execute said contract on behalf f the City of Chula Vista Present d by Approved as to form by ! V~ ï. ~ ",,-- John P. Lippitt Directo of Public Works John M. Kaheny City Attorney rehab bid 2 ,;2.1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 03/26/2002 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Awarding a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $143,214.12 for seven 4-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks through a cooperative bid with the State of California (Contract # 1-02-23-20) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ Assistant City Manager Powell ""M er ,~,iz- ?- REVIEWED BY: c~ty anag ~o~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) The FY 2001-02 Equipment Maintenance Budget provides for the replacement of four 4-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks. Three additional pickup trucks were approved during the budget process for Survey, Construction Inspection, and Open Space Maintenance Sections. The Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City, therefore, is participating in a current State of California bid from the Lasher Auto Group. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution awarding a Purchase Agreement to the Lasher Auto Group for seven 4-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks. DISCUSSION: In the past, the City of Chula Vista has entered into purchasing agreements with the State of California for various pieces of equipment. The FY 2001-02 Equipment Replacement Budget provides for the replacement of four (4) intermediate pickup trucks as part of their normal retirement cycle. Three (3) trucks will be replaced for the Construction Inspection Section and one (1) will be replaced for the Survey Section. Three (3) additional trucks, approved by Council during the budget process, will be utilized by the Survey, Construction Inspection, and Open Space Maintenance Sections. FISCAL IMPACT: The net total cost, including taxes, is $143,214.12. Sufficient funds are available in the Equipment Replacement Fund ($94,335), Corporation Yard Development Impact Fee (DIF) ($50,000, 57400-7406) and Open Space budget ($25,000 16791-7406). Approval of this resolution represents a combined savings of $26,120,58 over the amounts budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund ($12,498.36), Corp Yard D[F ($9,081.68), and Open Space budget ($4,540.84). H:\Public Works Operations/Al 13 4WD pickups F02.doc -~ ~, / RESOLUTION NO. 2002-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA A WARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,214.12 FOR SEVEN 4-WHEEL DRIVE, INTERMEDIATE-SIZE, AND EXTENDED CAB PICKUP TRUCKS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE BID WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CONTRACT #1-02-23-20) WHEREAS, the FY 2001-02 Equipment Maintenance Budget provides for the replacement of four 4-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks; and WHEREAS, three additional pickup trucks were approved during the budget process for Survey, Construction Inspection, and Open Space Maintenance Sections; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage; and WHEREAS, the City is participating in a current State of California bid fTom the Lasher Auto Group. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby award a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $143,214.12 to Lasher Auto Group for seven 4-wheel drive, intermediate-size, and extended cab pickup trucks through a cooperative bid with the State of California (Contract #1-02-23-20). Presented by Approved as to form by D~ 7. ~ ~(t. John M. Kaheny City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works Jlattomeylresolpickop trock bid ,9-;)- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 3/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Awarding a three-year contract to Special District Financing & Administration for performance of Special District administration services for Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Worksz,~//~./g//'-- Director of Finance ~J~ ' f" REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No X~ During Fiscal Year 1998-99, the City established six new Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) in the Otay Ranch and Sunbow II developments for the construction of public facilities and for the maintenance of open space areas. The City subsequently established, or is in the process of establishing, five new Community Facilities Districts in the Sunbow II, Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch developments. The City requires the services of a consultant to perform tasks necessary to the administration of these Districts, including calculating special taxes and charges to be levied on each parcel and providing this inforumtion to the County prior to the August 10 deadline. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution awarding a three-year contract for a maximum amount of $325,000 to Special District Financing & Administration, LLC for the performance of Special District administrative services, and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable. DISCUSSION: The City established six new Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) during Fiscal Year 1998-99 in accordance with the Community Facilities Act of 1982 for the construction of public facilities and for the maintenance of open space areas. The City subsequently established, or is in the process of establishing, five new Community Facilities Districts. These Districts are as Folloxx s: Community Facilities Number of Parcels District (CFD) No. Name for FY 2001/2002 97-1 Open Space Maintenance District (Otay Ranch SPA One, Villages 1 & 5) 3,448 97-2 Preserve Maintenance District 3,727 97-3 Otay Ranch McMillan SPA One 1,103 98-1 Interim Open Space Maintenance District (Otay Project, LLC- 18 OVP, Villages 1 West, 2, 2 West, 6, 7 & Planning Area 12) (for FY2000/2001) 98-2 Interim Open Space Maintenance District (McMillan - D.A. 3 (as per 1998 America, Otay - SPA Two, Villages 6 & 7) Special Tax Report) Page 2, ltem~ Meeting Date 3/26/02 98-3 Open Space Maintenance District No. 35 (Sunbow II) l, t 64 99-1 Otay Ranch SPA One - Portions ofVillages I & 5 and Village 1 West 2,I21 99-2 Otay Ranch Spa One - Village 1 West 260 2000-1 Sunbow II Villages 5 through 10 609 2001-1 Improvement Areas A and B (San Miguel Ranch) 513' 2001-2 McMillin Otay Ranch Village 6 694* *CFDs 2001-1 and 2001-2 have not yet been formed but are anticipated to be approved by the City Council with bonds issued during Fiscal Years 2001/2002. These numbers are estimates. Six of these Districts (CFDs 97-I, 97-2, 98-1, 98-2, 98-3 and 99-2) provide funds for the maintenance of open space or preserve areas. One District (CFD 97-3) is an acquisition district for the construction of public improvements. Four Districts (CFDs 99-1, 2000-1, 2001-1 and 2001-2) provide funds for the construction of backbone streets and associated improvements, Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) improvements, and pedestrian bridges. Community Facilities Districts offer more flexibility in the methodology for assessing fees than Landscape Maintenance, Municipal Improvement, Open Space or Assessment Districts, all of which have been previously established by the City. Separate rates have been established for developed and undeveloped properties. Single-family residences in Otay Ranch are assessed based on square footage of the residence, in order to keep the rate of assessment roughly proportional to the value. In order to establish the annual rate for each District and to include each parcel on the tax roll prior to August 10, several steps are necessary. The budget and reserve requirements for these Districts will need to be established. All building permits for single-family residences in Otay Ranch will need to be reviewed in order to determine the square footage. Final Maps and Site Development Plans will need to be reviewed in order to determine acreage for Exempt Areas and rates for commercial/ multiple family properties. Delinquency information will need to be obtained and spread to undeveloped parcels in CFDs 97-1 and 97-2. In order to reflect changes in density and land use, Backup or Extraordinary Special Taxes must be calculated for CFDs 97-3, 98-3, 99-1, 2000-1, 2001-1 and 2001-2. Additionally, the administration of CFDs 97-3, 98-3, 99-1, 2000-1, 2001-1 and 2001-2 involves other tasks, such as performance of bond call spreads, early redemption of outstanding bonds, releasing of liens associated with early payoffs, and arbitrage calculations. Backup or Extraordinary Special Taxes must be recalculated upon permit issuance in order to reflect changes in proposed density and land use. Consultant Selection Process Staffreviewed the methods o f accomplishing the work, including performing the activities in-house and using a consultant. Current staff is busy during a portion of each year (April through August) working on existing Open Space Districts. Additional staff would need to be hired and trained in order to do the work in-house. This would not be practical due to time constraints (the August 10 deadline) and the fact that most of the work involved in this contract needs to be done during a four- month period. The hiring ora consultant would therefore be more practical and cost-effective. Page 3, Item_~__ Meeting Date 3/26/02 Public Works/Engineering staff followed Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.110 in the consultant selection process. As required, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared and sent to fourteen firms known to have expertise in the administration of Community Facilities Districts. Additionally, an advertisement inviting proposals was published in the December 14, 2001 Chula Vista Star-News. The RFP included a description of the scope of work and the time frames for completion. Each firm was asked to indicate in its proposal: 1) proof of general familiarity with Community Facilities Districts, especially the Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Act of 1982, 2) proof of capacity, resources and specialized equipment or expertise to perform the work, 3) names and qualifications of all key personnel to be used in the project, including any subconsultants, 4) past record of performance and references, 5) the location of the office where the work is to be performed, and 6) a cost estimate. The following four firms responded to the RFP mailing and invitation and sent proposals: Firm Name Location David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Newport Beach, California Muni Financial/A Willdan Company Temecula, California NBS Government Finance Group Temecula, California Special District Financing and Administration, LLC Escondido, California Consultant Selection Process The Selection Committee was appointed by the City Manager in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.230 and consisted of the following members: Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Engineer Dino Serafini, Civil Engineer Thomas L. Magness, Engineering Technician II The Selection Committee members were provided with individual copies of the proposals from the four firms. All or'the firms were invited to participate in ~he interview process and all four accepted On January 16, 2002, the Selection Committee interviewed the firms, which were ranked in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Qualifications of personnel (20 points) 2. Resources available to perform tasks on time and within budget (20 points) 3. Firm experience directly related to the contract (20 points) 4. Quality of presentation (15 points) 5. Response to interview questions (25 points) 6. Total cost and justification (30 points) Page 4, Item if Meeting Date 3/26/02 Each member of the Selection Committee awarded points to the four finns, with 130 points per member being the maximum and 390 points being the total maximum awarded by the entire committee per firm. The firms were ranked as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Special District Financing & Administration (349 total points) Muni Financial/A Willdan Company (347 total points) NBS Government Finance Group (338 total points) Davis Taussig & Associates (335 total points) The Selection Committee felt that Special District Financing & Administration, our current consultant, was the best overall choice of the four firms for this new contract. The City's estimate of the annual cost using the existing number of parcels ranged from $50,250 to $67,350 for Activities I through 9 and II, with Muni Financial presenting the most economical package. However, the Selection Committee felt that the cost differential was not great enough to warrant using the cost as the overriding criterion. The decision was based on evaluating many criteria, including project team and area knowledge, experience handling similar matters for other agencies and municipalities, and quality of work based on results achieved through similar contracts. In regard to all of these factors, and also based upon previous experience with several City departments, the Selection Committee concluded that the case for Special District Financing & Administration was the strongest among the competing firms. Special District Financing and Administration has a three-year contract with the City for CFD Administration (SDFA) which expires on March 31, 2002. During the past year, the City has paid SDFA $66,726.50 under the terms ofthis contract. Contract Issues Since expenses associated with Community Facilities District administration will be recovered from the billings to parcels within each District, each firm responding to the RFP was asked to break down costs for each District separately. Additionally, because the amount of work involved varies with the number of parcels and/or the number of building permits issued in each District, the firms applying had the option of including a variable cost factor in the contract. The number of parcels included on the tax roll for each District for Fiscal Year 2002-03 will not be known until shortly before the County's August 10 deadline, since that number will depend on the parcels split by the County as of the deadline. Staffs estimate for Activities I through 9 and 11, based on the current number of parcels, was $61,106. However, since as many as 2500 new parcels may be added to the districts each year, an additional increase of$5000 per year will be added to the estimated contractual cost for Fiscal Year 2002-03. There are additional variable costs that need to be considered as part of the total authorization. Specifically, the consultant will need to calculate written prepayment quotes and prepare lien release documents as required for the bonded districts such as CFD 97-3, 99-1, and 2000-1 (Activity 10). Prepayment is required when the property tax and bonded indebtedness for a property is greater than 2 percent of the purchase price. Based on previous experience, we can expect as many as 25 buydowns per fiscal year, at a cost of $10,000 to process. Lf-Lf Page 5, Item-1- Meeting Date 3/26/02 It is anticipated that six new CFDs will be added to the contract for the Fiscal Year 2003-04 and 2004-05. These are all anticipated to be maintenance districts. Fixed costs will be $4350 to $5100 per district. Assuming that the increase in the number of parcels will be greater in the second and third year of the contracts due to these new districts, and because parcels may be in more than one district, the estimated additional variable amount should be increased to $7500 in Fiscal Years 2003- 04 and 2004-05. Certain services by the Consultant will be payable on an hourly rate basis. This will include attendance at more than two staff meetings per year and Council meetings and public information calls over 10 hours per year. The City may also require the Consultant to provide additional services beyond the scope of this contract, such as reviewing and providing comments on draft special tax reports for new districts. It is uncertain what the exact cost of these services will be; however, the contract allows for a maximum of $7500 per year in additional services. The fees for the above services shall be based on the following rates (which include overhead and secretarial/clerical support). The rates shown are effective for the term of this contract: Principals (Jeffrey A. Hamill and Barbara Hale-Carter) - $115.00 per hour Programmer - $95.00 per hour Associate - $70.00 per hour Data Entry/Secretarial - $55.00 per hour The total annual contact authorization for the first year of the contract will be: Fixed costs: $46, I 00 Variable costs: $30,000 Hourly costs: $ 7,500 $83,600 For the second year of the contract, maximum costs are estimated to be as follows: First year total: $83,600 Six new districts (fixed costs): Additional parcels: $26,100 $ 7,500 $117,200 For the third year of the contract, maximum costs are estimated to be $]] 7,200 + $7500= $]24,700. FISCAL IMPACT: As itemized above, the total estimated maximum contract amount for all three years is $325,500. The cost of processing buydowns for newly sold homes will be paid to the City during the escrow process, along with the funds needed to buy down debt on a particular parcel. The administration costs will be financed out of the revenue obtained from the individual Districts for each year. Invoices for the bonded districts (CFDs 97-3, 99-], 2000-], 2001-] and 200]-2) will be sent directly to the district's trustee for payment. The maximum contractual amount is estimated to be $83,600 for Fiscal Year 200212003, the beginning year of this contract. Attachment A: Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Special District Financing and Administration hENGINEERIAGENDAICFDADMINDOC F;]e' 0725.]0 CFDOO RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT TO SPECIAL DISTRICT FINANCING & ADMINISTRATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MELLO-ROOS) DISTRICTS (CFDs) AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, during Fiscal Year 1998-99, the City established six new Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) in the Otay Ranch and Sunbow II developments for the construction of public facilities and for the maintenance of open space areas; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently established, or is in the process of establishing, five new Community Facilities Districts in the Sunbow II, Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch developments; and WHEREAS, the City requires the services of a consultant to perform tasks necessary to the administration of these Districts, including calculating special taxes and charges to be levied on each parcel and providing this information to the County prior to the August ]0 deadline; and. WHEREAS, stafffollowed Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.1 ] 0 in the consultant selection process and a Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared and sent to fourteen firms known to have expertise in the administration of Community Facilities Districts; and WHEREAS, four firms responded to the RFP mailing and invitation and sent proposals; and WHEREAS, a Selection Committee was appointed by the City Manager in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.230; and WHEREAS, based on evaluating many criteria, including project team and area knowledge, experience handling similar matters for other agencies and municipalities, and quality of work based on results achieved through similar contracts, the Selection Committee concluded that Special District Financing & Administration, City's current consultant, was the best overall choice of the four firms; and WHEREAS, in regard to all of these factors, and also based upon previous experience with several City departments, the Selection Committee concluded that Special District Financing & Administration was the strongest among the competing firms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista does hereby award a three-year contract for a maximum amount of $325,000 to Special District Financing & Administration, LLC for the performance of Special District administration services 4- {¡ for Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs), a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~dìJ1~ John .Kaheny City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J :I#ttomcylresolcfd Special D;strict Financ;ng. 2 ~-1 THE A TT ACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL ~~c~ ohn M. Kaheny City Attorney Dated: --3- .s 0 - O.s. Lf- ~ Parties and Recital Page(s) Agreement between CityofChula Vista and Special District Financing & Administration, LLC for Special District Administration Services This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph I is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, the City formed, or is in the process of forming, eleven (1 ]) Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts (CFDs) to provide funding for the construction of infrastructure or for the maintenance of open space areas in accordance with the Community Facilities Act of ]982; and, Whereas, the City requires a consultant for the performance of administrative services which shall include, but not be limited to, calculation of the maximum and actual annual special tax rates for developed and undeveloped properties, submittal of all special tax levies per parcel to the County, preparation of an annual report for all CFDs, and performance of bond services (where applicable) as described herein; and Whereas, the Request for Proposals was prepared and advertised, proposals were received and reviewed, and firms were interviewed and ranked in accordance with City policies; and Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.) 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page] 4-1 Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: ] . Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and Deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, ifthey are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph] I (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care 2pty]4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 2 '1- /0 Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (I) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 3 4-1/ H. Security for Performance. (I) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adj acent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. L Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives ofthis agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 4 Lf-I ~ and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understandingthat delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day ofthe period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph II, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 5 1./.-13 Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or haye withheld tram monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 6 Lf./~ Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or othèr reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct ofthe 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 7 if-IS Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Consultant is legally responsible in. connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors or omissions, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. For those professionals who are required to be licensed by the state (e.g. architects and engineers), the following indemnification provisions should be utilized: 1. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. With respect to any liability, including but not limited to claims asserted or costs, losses, attorney fees, or payments for injury to any person or property caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Consultant, or Consultant's employees, agents, and officers, arising out of any services performed involving this project, except liability for Professional Services covered under Section X.2, the Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, or employees from and against all liability. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. The Consultant's duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. This section in no way alters, affects or modifies the Consultant's obligation and duties under Section Exhibit A to this Agreement. 2. Indemnification for Professional Services. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7,2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 8 4-/~ As to the Consultant's professional obligation, work or services involving this Project, the Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, losses or payments for injury to any person or property, caused directly or indirectly from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant or Consultant's employees, agents or officers; provided, however, that the Consultant's duty to indemnify shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option ofthe City, become City's sole and exclusive property. Ifthe Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 9 t-j-/1 termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. II. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subcol1sultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7,2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 10 4-1 ¥ Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page II 'i- ~ /0, requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. [end of page. next page is signature page.] 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 12 4.-r!) 0 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Special District Financing & Administration, LLC for Special District Administration Services IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ,2002 City ofChula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: Special District Financing and Administration, LLC Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. By: W6 #ÞJ¡J Jeffery Hamill, Principal 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 13 4,~1 Exhibit A to Agreement between City ofChula Vista and Special District Financing & Administration, LLC 1. Effective Date of Agreement: April!. 2002 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City ofChula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California () Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California () Industrial Development Authority of the City ofChula Vista, a () Other: form] , a [insert business 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Special District Financing & Administration, LLC 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship (X) Partnership ( ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 333 South Juniper Street, Suite 208 Escondido, California 92025 Voice Phone (760) 233-2630 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 14 /..f - ';fd- Fax Phone (760) 233-2631 7. General Duties: Consultant shall provide special district administration services relating to the billing of property owners for Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), including CFD 97-1, CFD 97-2, CFD 97-3, CFD 98-1, CFD 98-2, CFD 98-3, CFD 99-1, CFD 99-2, CFD 2000-1, CFD 2001-1 and CFD 2001-2, all to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Public Works. Additional CFDs may be added to the contract at City's option. This work shall commence with the 2002-2003 tax year (commencing on date of City approval of contract), and will continue through the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 tax years to March 31, 2005. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant will be responsible for providing special district administration services for Mello- Roos Community Facilities Districts, including CFD 97-1, CFD 97-2, CFD 97-3, CFD 98-1, CFD 98-2, CFD 98-3, CFD 99-1, CFD 99-2, CFD 2000-1, CFD 2001-1, CFD 2001-2, and additional CFDs at the City's option, in accordance with the following activities: ACTIVITY 1 Review all relevant documents The City will provide the Consultant with final maps (including information on lot area), site dcvelopment plans (for commercial, industrial and multiple family developments), and information on all building permits issued during the periods specified in the Methods of Apportionment within the planning areas included in the above CFDs. Such information will be in electronic form if possible and will include building square footage and issue date for residential properties (with the exception of properties only in CFD 98-3). Note that building permits may refer to lot numbers and development/ project numbers rather than parcel numbers or addresses. The City will also provide the Consultant with a list of development and project names and numbers. The Consultant will review the above information for all CFDs. Current Asscssor Parcel listings shall be obtained by the Consultant. The City will also provide the Consultant with copies of approved documents on annexations that have occurred in existing CFDs and approved documents on formation of new CFDs, such as the Special Tax Levy Report, Omcial Statement and Bond Indenture. After reviewing these documents, the Consultant wi11 attend a minimum c"-qne meeting with the Special Tax Consultant who prepared the formation documcnts and City staff to discuss administration issues. Review of draft documents prior to formation is not coyered under this actiyity. The Consultant shall provide the City with a list of any discrepancies, such as incomplete or CIToneous permit rccords, including multiple occurrences. It will be the City's responsibility to provide corrected information for thcse records. The City may request the consultant to assist in 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard FonTI Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 15 the retrieval of such corrected information or modifications; however, such work will be considered additional services. ACTIVITY 2 Update parcel database/spreadsheets Based on information provided by the County and the City on currently valid parcels, Consultant shall update the database for each CFD. The databases used for rate calculations will need to be separated where there is more than one billing area (such as Area A and Area B in CFD 97-1 and 97-2). Changes in billing category (from "Undeveloped" to "Developed") must be inputted by Consultant. Acreage for developed areas shall be subtracted from the undeveloped acreage. ACTIVITY 3 Determine charges on each parcel Consultant shall calculate the maximum Special Tax rates by adjusting, if applicable, the previous year's rates by the lesser of the increase in the San Diego Consumer Price Index or the California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Income. Based on information provided by the City regarding budget requirements for the following fiscal year, fund balances, actual historical data on year-end expenditures, and reserve requirements, the actual Special Tax rates for each billing category shall be determined 'by Consultant and the costs distributed in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment included in the Special Tax Report for each CFD. ACTIVITY 4 Calculate Backup or Extraordinary Special Tax On an annual basis, Consultant shall determine if payment of the Backup or Extraordinary Special Tax will be requircd for CFDs 97-3, 98-3, 99-1, 2000-1, 2001-1, 2001-2 and other new CFDs as requested by the City. This will be calculated using information obtained from approved maps and building permits over the past year and compared to the tables provided in the Rate and Method for each CFD to detennine if there is any loss in units or residential floor area. If the Extraordinary Special Tax is required, Consultant will provide a list of parcels and amounts owed. For CFD 98-3, the Extraordinary Special Tax shall be calculated and included in the billing in accordance with the Rate and Method. The Extraordinary Special Tax will be calculated by Consultant for all other specified districts within 30 days ofreceiving a written request from the City. ACTIVITY 5 Provide disk for property owner mailing (at City's request) If requested by the City, provide to the City a computer disk or other mutually agreed upon format which will include the CFD number, parcel number and maximum Special Tax charge on each parcel, as well as property owner name and mailing address, in a format which will be acceptable to the City's printer. ACTIVITY 6 Prepare and submit charges 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 16 Consultant shall, for each ycar of this contract, compile and transmit a complete list of the actual special tax levies for each assessor's parcel in each CFD to the County in format required by the County prior to the last working day of July. Since there will be a separate fund for each CFD, the list for each CFD must be kept separately. The Consultant shall make any corrections to the information requested by the County prior to the deadline of August 10 of each year. ACTIVITY 7 Prepare and submit annual report to City Consultant shall prepare a draft and final annual report to submit to the City. Report shan include information and assumptions used to derive the maximum and annual rates; a report on the Extraordinary Special Taxes owed, with parcel numbcrs and amounts given; the amount of delinquent taxes in CFD 97-1 and 97-2 to be spread over the undeveloped parcels; and a list of an parcels in each CFD with the following information: acreage, residential square footage, rate category, area (where applicable), and actual charge. The Consultant shan also provide computer files of the parcel listing for each district in Excel format or other format mutually agreeable to Consultant and the City. ACTIVITY 8 Prepare delinquency report (for CFDs 97-1 and 97-2) Based on information obtained from the County, Consultant shan prepare an annual delinquency report in order to determine the amount of delinquent taxes which will need to be spread to the undeveloped parcels. ACTIVITY 9 Perform bond services for CFDs 97-3, 99-1, 2000-1, 2001-1 and 2001-2 Consultant shall perform all required bond calls and coordinate the early redemption of outstanding bonds. Each year after the sale of any bonds, Consultant shall prepare an annual report to be submitted no later than October 30 to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission as required by Section 55359.5(b) of the Califomia Government Code as amended. ACTIVITY 10 Perform services regarding individual special tax liens for CFDs 97-3,99-1, 2000-1,2001-1 and 2001-2 Consultant shall perform verbal estimates of prepaymcnt amounts for individual property owners. These estimates will be based on calculations for three sample homes in eaeh district revised annually ami provided to thc CIly,lhe home sizes WIIJ be based on sIzes constructed and/ or planned for each district. Consultant shall calculate written prepayment quotes for individual special tax liens. For parcels prepaying the special tax, Consultant shall prepare the documents required to release the liens. 2pty14 for CFDs.doc March 7, 2002 Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) Page 17 ACTIVITY l 1 Meetings with City staff The Consultant shall attend an initial kickoff meeting and a meeting upon completion of the dra~ annual Special Tax Report with the City's staff. The Consultant shall also attend meeting(s) on new CFDs as specified in Activity 1. ACTIVITY 12 Respond to property owners' inquiries The Consultant shall be the initial contact for all questions from property owners and developers regarding the CFDs included in this contract. Information requested by property owners and developers shall be provided by Consultant within three working days of the date of the original request. ACTIVITY 13 Attendance at City Council meetings (optional) At the City's request, the Consultant shall attend City Council meetings at which the special taxes for the Community Facilities Districts are to be discussed. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: On or before July 31 of each year, commencing in 2002, two draft copies of Special Tax Report and delinquency report for CFD 97ql and 97-2. Deliverable No. 2: On or before July 31 of every year, commencing in 2002, parcels and billable amounts for each Community Facilities District shall be submitted to the County of San Diego in format required by the County. Deliverable No. 3: On or before August 10 of every year, commencing in 2002, final corrections to the tax roll shall be submitted to the Connty~ Deliverable No. 4: On or before September 16 of every year, commencing in 2002, submittal of four copies of each Final Special Tax Report with corrected printouts and computer files shall be delivered to the City. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 18 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: March 31, 2005 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance ( ) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000 each accident. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident (for cars owned by Consultant). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Items E, and F will be provided to the Consultant in draft form by May 1 and in final fom~ by June 1. Items A and B will be provided to the Consultant by May 1 or as soon as possible after adoption. A. Copy of the Final Special Tax Report for all Community Facilities Districts, B. Copy of the Final Official Statement, bond indenture, arbitrage certificate and other documents as required for Community Facilities Districts involving a bond issue (CFD 97-3, 99-1,2000-1,200I-1, 2001-2), C.Access to the City's computerized permit tracking system, D. Copies of site development plans (for commercial and multiple family properties) for CFD 98-3, Final Maps which have been approved prior to March 1 of the previous fiscal year, and building permit information as discussed in Activity I. E. (After first fiscal year of formation) Copies of tax reapportionment forms completed by City for parcels which have been segregated by the County during the previous fiscal year. F.Budget information as discussed under Activity 3. 11. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. l"or perl0nnance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 19 Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or pementage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion ora phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase Fee for Said Phase 1. $ 2. $ 3. $ ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase 2ptyl 4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 20 only the compensation £or that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion ora phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (1) ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other 'reimbursables' ("Maximum Compensation"). (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such l/me as Constllta~t shall have incurred time and mnteri~l~ equal ~ umonzatlon Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. (3) (X) Additional Services Upon Request 2ptyl 4 tbr CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fonrteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 21 At any time during the term of this agreement the City Engineer may request the Consultant to perform Additional Services. The Consultant shall perform the same on an hourly basis at the rates listed below, in an amount not to exceed $7,500 per year. Rate Schedule Category of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate Principal Jeffery Hamill $115.00 Principal Barbara Hale-Carter $115.00 Programmer $95.00 Associate $70.00 Data Entry/Secretarial $55.00 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20 , if delay in providing services is caused by City. D. (X) Other Work shall be paid on the following basis per Community Facilities District, with all costs, materials, expenses and labor included in said costs. Costs are per year unless otherwise indicated. (1) CFD 97-I, 97-2, 99-2 a. Fixed fee for Activities 1 through 7: $3,850; and b. $0.50 per parcel (2) CFD 98-3 a. Fixed fee for Activities 1 through 7:$3~850 (3) CFD 98-1 and 98-2 a. Fixed fee for Activities 1 through 7: $3,850; and b. $2.00 per parcel (4) CFD 97-3 and 99-1 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 22 a. Fixed fee for Activities 1 through 7: $4,600; and b. $0.50 per parcel c. Activity 9:$500 per bond call (maximum two per year), $200 per annual repor~ prepared d. Activity 10: No charge for verbal prepayment estimates except as provided under Activity 12. Partial Prepayment: $250 for prepayment procedures, $200 for lien release and recording of documents Full Prepayment: $250 for all work necessary for prepayment and lien release (5) CFD 2000-1, 2001-1, 2001-2 a. Fixed fee for Activities 1 through 7: $4,600; and b. $2.00 per parcel c. Activity 9: See (4)c. d. Activity 10: See (4)d. (6) New CFDs a. Fixed fee for Activities 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7: $4,350; and b. $2.00 per parcel c. Activity 4: For districts with Extraordinary (Backup) Special Tax only, $750 d. Activity 9: For bonded districts only, see (4)c. e. Activity 10: For bonded districts only, see (4)d. (7) Overall Expenses a. Activity 11: No charge for first two meetings; hourly rate per meeting over two meetings based on actual time spent in meeting. Trips required to pick up or deliver items required in order to perform this contract will not be counted as meetings. There will also be no additional charges under Activity 11 for meetings included under Activity l for new CFDs. b. Activity 13 (optional): Hourly rate per attendance at a Council meeting based on actual time at Council meeting c. Activitv 12: First 10 hours at ~m additional cost. Additional time at hourly rates 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 23 (X) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate ( ) Reports, not to exceed $ : ( ) Copies, not to exceed $ : ( ) Travel, not to exceed $ : ( ) Printing, not to exceed $ : ( ) Postage, not to exceed $ : ( ) Delivery, not to exceed $ : ( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ ( ) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: ., not to exceed $ : , not to exceed $ : 13. Contract Administrators: City: Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Engineer, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, (619) 691-5258 Consultant: Barbara Hale-Carter, Special District Financing and Administration (SDFA), 333 South Juniper Street, Suite 208, Escondido CA 92025, (760) 233-2630 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $__ per day. ( ) Other: 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No. 2. Interests in real property. 2ptyl4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 24 Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and soumes of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 17. Permitted Subconsultants: None 18 Bill Processimz: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly 2ptyl 4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 25 (X) Other: Upon completion of all duties within Deliverables 1 through 4, quarterly thereafter B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 19. Security for Perfonnancc ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ ( ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Pementage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: _ % ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: 2ptyl 4 for CFDs.doc Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourteenth Revision) March 7, 2002 Page 26 COUNCILAGENDASTATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 3/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution amending the FY 01/02 budget by appropriating unanticipated Even Start grant augmentation funds in the amount of $24,500 to the Library Department budget for expenditures associated with the Chula Vista Literacy Team's Even Start Family Literacy grant. SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager/Library Director~C::~)- City Manager ~c'~)~' (4/5ths Vote: YES X NO __.) REVIEWED BY: In October 1999, the Chula Vista Public Library, in collaboration with the Chula Vista Elementary Schoot District, was awarded a four-year California Department of Education Even Start Family Literacy ProRram grant. Even Start is a federally funded, intergenerational family literacy program. It is designed to provide intensive in-home and center-based services to parents and their young children considered at high risk for future academic failure and continuing cycles of poverty. Council approved funding of the third year grant of $195,800 in August 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution amending the FY 01/02 budget by appropriating unanticipated Even Start grant augmentation funds in the amount of $24,500 to the Library Department budget for expenditures associated with the Chula Vista Literacy Team's Even Start Family Literacy grant. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The California Department of Education recently advised the Chula Vista Public Library that our Even Start grant in the amount of $195,800 has been augmented by $24,500 specifically for the purpose of providing project staff with professional development activities, and to provide participating families with books to start their own home libraries. (ATTACHMENT 'A') The Library partners with the Chula Vista Elementary School District, which is the primary agency providing Even Start family literacy services. The Library intends to pass the funds through to the District to pay for the training programs indicated in the professional development plan prepared by the Even Start staff and approved by the State. FISCAL IMPACT: An additional $24,500 will be appropriated into the current year Even Start grant budget. These funds may not be used to supplant existing support for Literacy Team Center activities. As stated in the original grant award letter, all Even Start grant funds must be spent or encumbered by June 30, 2002. Attachment A 2001-2002 EVEN START BUDGET ACCOUNT: 18342 Original Amended 6401 Other Contractual Services $189,925. $214,425. (P.O. Contract with CVESD) 6543 Traininq/Travel $2,000. $ 2,000. 6842 Instructional Resources $3,875. $ 3,875. TOTAL $195,800. $220,300. RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 01/02 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED EVEN START GRANT AUGMENTATION FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,500 TO THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATION WITH THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM'S EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY GRANT WHEREAS, the California Department of Education recently advised the Chula Vista Public Library that the City's Even Start grant in the amount of $195,800 has been augmented by $24,500 specifically for the purpose of providing project staff with professional development activities; and WHEREAS, the Library partners with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Library intends to pass the funds through to the District to pay for the training programs indicated in the professional development plan prepared by the Even Start staff and approved by the State. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY 01/02 budget by appropriating unanticipated Even Start grant augmentation funds in the amount of $24,500 to the Library Department for expenditures associated with the Chula Vista Literacy Team's Even Start Family Literacy Grant. Presented by Approved as to form by '219W_~ City Attorney David Palmer Deputy City Manager [JTTORNEY\RESO\ "",tort IM,coh 14,2002 1"16AM)1 J::-3 ....; COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: :3/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Ratifying City staff's action on approving change orders associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard, listed on Attachment A, and authorizing staff to process up to an additional $250,000 in change orders Resolution Approving Change Orders for Hanson SJH Construction for $90,045 and F J Willert, Inc. for $118,099 associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard and authorizing City Manager or his designee to execute said Change Orders SUBMITTED BY: Director of Building and Park Constmction~ City Manager ~ ~f~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: On September 26, October 20, October 17, October 24 and November 14, 2000 the City Council approved the award of multiple contracts on the construction of the Corporation Yard Project. Highland Partnership, Inc., the City's construction Manager, along with City Staff has been overseeing the construction work. On September 26, 2000 City Council amended Policy #574- 01 authorizing the City Manager to approve all change orders pertaining to this job with a single change order value not exceeding $50,000.00 and a cumulative value of up to $250,000.00. Said policy allows the City Manager to exceed these limits if a substantial claim could be submitted by the contractor(s) for delays. In an effort to avoid delays or potential claims, staff has approved the change orders listed on Attachment A, and hereby presents them to Council for ratification. Approval of tonight's resolutions will ratify City Staff's actions in approving change orders valued at $312,012 listed on Attachment A, and approve the two change orders listed on Attachment B totaling $208,144. The total amount of change orders to be ratified and approved is $520,156. Tonight's action will also authorize staff to process up to an additional $250,000 in change orders in accordance with the policy. RECOMMENDATION: That Council 1) ratify City Staff's actions in approving change orders valued at $312,012 listed on Attachment A and authorize staff to process up to an additional $250,000 in change orders, 2) approve change orders for Hanson SJH Construction for $90,045 and F J Willert, Inc. for $118,099, both associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard and authorizing City Manager or his designee to execute said change orders. BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: City Staff and Highland Partnership continue to scrutinize every change order requested by the Specialty Contractors. City Staff has approved change orders totaling $312,012 listed on Attachment A and now present them for Council's ratification. City Staff's analysis included a ~ / Page 2, Item: ff-~ Meeting Date: _3/26/02 determination that failure to process these change orders would have resulted in a delay in the critical path schedule of the project. Staff is also forwarding two change orders for Hanson SJH Construction for $90,045 and F J Willert, Inc. for $118,099 for Council's approval. City Staff's analysis included a determination that failure to process these change orders would have resulted in a delay in the critical path schedule of the project. Since Council ratification and approval of previous change orders, on February 5, 2002, Staff has identified several enhancements, design clarifications, correction of field conditions and original scope necessary to complete Corporation Yard facilities. In each and every instance these items were researched for cost effectiveness, utility, ease of maintenance and the possible impact to the Construction Schedule. During the past month construction at the Corporation Yard has focused on final installation of finishes and equipment for the shops, central receiving, fuel building and the maintenance building. Concrete and asphalt paving has been completed with final striping scheduled for the end of March. Landscaping has been completed around the administration building and lower parking areas. The focus of landscaping efforts has shifted to completion of plantings on the surrounding slopes. The CNG facility is near completion and once completed this facility will immediately be utilized to fuel City NG powered vehicles. Public Works Operations is anticipating shitting operations to the Corporation Yard at the end of the month. Dedication of the Corporation Yard has been scheduled for April 20, 2002. Completion of this complex and multi-faceted project has taken longer than staff anticipated. During the course of construction several factors combined necessitated the extension of the projected project completion. After extensive analysis, staff has determined the following reasons for extension of the project: (I) Unsatisfactory performance of a critical path specialty contractor, and (2) Staff recommended post design enhancement of key systems such as electrical, landscaping, paving and security. These elements have contributed to establishment of projected project completion during the last week of March. Highland will have personnel available through April for any final touch ups or corrections that may be needed. Due to this, staff is recommending that Highland Partnership and RNL's original contracts be modified to cover additional construction management and architectural services through the revised project completion date. These recommended modifications are presented separately. In addition to the Highland Partnership and RNL contract modifications, two change orders, exceeding the value of staff's authorization to approve, are necessary to properly complete the project and are presented to Cmmcil separately for approval. These change orders, in the mounts of $90,045 for extensive trench repair associated with the revised asphalt paving plan and $118,099 pertaining to the export of unsuitable soils associated with the paving work. The items listed below represent individual change orders that are in excess of $18,000 in value. After exhaustive analysis, staff and Highland continue to categorize these changes as staff additions, plan clarifications, unsuitable soils, value engineering, unanticipated field conditions and identification of original project scope completed through the change order process. As previously reported, due to integration of the work of the numerous trades, plan clarifications and value engineering efforts, numerous change orders are required in order to continue and complete the project. To this end staff has approved change orders up to the limits contained within the Council's authorization to do so and now presents this latest list of staff approved Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 3/26/02. change orders for Council's ratification. Those change orders, totaling $312,012, arc listed on Attachment A. The following is a general description of said Change Orders: AGRA Geotechnical ($18~958) This change order is for professional Services associated with soils and asphalt testing. Based on Staff's estimate the amount will be sufficient to complete the project. SOLPAC, Inc. ($21~S0S) This amount covers additional concrete paving that was not included in thc previous paving plan revision. After careful survey of the area directly behind the Central Receiving Building Staff decided that concrete paving would be more serviceable due to the location of two large communications and data in ground vanlts in this area. Saturn Electric~ Inc. ($21~006} This change order is for various corrections to existing underground electrical piping damaged during the course of construction. In those individual instances where the responsible contractors were determined, appropriate costs were back charged. Thc resulting credits are included on Attachment A. L. Faber Masonry~ Inc. ($39~003) This change order is for dry packing of beams and truss pockets. This scope was not included in any contract scope during thc initial bidding process. The original plans and specifications allowed for the successful structural steel bidder to design thc trusses instead of purchasing approved prefabricated units. Based on this eventuality thc scope for dry packing was unknown at bid time and could be more economically accomplished through the change order process. Pecoraro Painting~ Inc. This Change Order is for repainting of areas within the Administration Building that required extensive drywall and rctcxturing work not in the original plans. Penn Equipment, Inc. (-$28~095} This is the deductive change order for deletion of the originally specified Dynamometer and re-specification of a Dynamometer more suited to the City's requirements. Pacific Coast Steel~ Inc. {$20~215) The Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility was revised to include concrete paving and installation of an Operator's Trailer. The plan revision directed construction of a concrete pit and associated concrete slab in which to install the Operator's Trailer. This change order is for the reinforcing steel associated with this work. Because Staff and Highland Partnership are aware of the possibility of further change orders, which are in the process of being evaluated, staff is also requesting authorization to process up to an additional $250,000 in change orders. The same complete and thorough review and documentation of the need for these additional change orders will continue to be followed. Staff may also return to Council for ratification and/or request approval of these potential future change orders. Page 4, Item: q~ Meeting Date: 3/26/02 In addition, two change orders, exceeding the value of Staff's approval authorization, are necessary to properly complete the project and are presented to Council for approval. These change orders are for Hanson SJH Construction and F J Willert, Inc. F.J. Willert~ Inc. {$118~099'} Al~er an extensive review of anticipated traffic patterns and operations at specific areas of the Corporation Yard, Staff, HPI and appropriate consultants revised the paving plan to maximize paving utility, maintainability and service life at various areas to be paved. This change order is for the final demolition, removal, excavation, grading, and import and placement of base material associated with the revised paving plan. A substantial portion of this change order is to cover soils export fees. Hanson S.J. Harris~ Inc. {$90~045) During revision of the paving plan, the amount of trench repair necessary to complete the project was estimated. Large areas of the existing paving were inaccessible due to storage of stockpiled material, which made estimation of repairs inaccurate. This change order covered the repair of all new trench lines throughout the entire site. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of tonight's resolutions will ratify City Staff's actions in approving change orders valued at $312,012 listed on Attachment A, and approve the two change orders listed on Attachment B totaling $208,144. The total amount of change orders to be ratified and approved is $520,156. As of Febrnary 5, 2002, the cumulative value of all change orders approved by the City Council was $3,424,879. Following tonight's action on both resolutions, the cumulative total value of all change orders approved to date will be $3,945,035. Also, with tonight's authorization of $250,000, the new contingencies budget will be $4,195,035. The cost of these change orders is within the budget appropriation for the project. H:'Od)MIN~Building and Park Construction\Corporation Yard\ChangeOrders.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYING CITY STAFF'S ACTION ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCESS UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $250,000 IN CHANGE ORDERS WHEREAS, on September 26, October 20, October 17, October 24 and November 14, 2000 the City Council approved the award of multiple contracts for the construction of the Corporation Yard Project; and WHEREAS, Highland Partnership, Inc., the City's Construction Manager, along with City staff have been overseeing the construction work; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council amended Policy #574-01 authorizing the City Manager to approve all change orders pertaining to this project with a single change order value not exceeding $50,000 and a cumulative value of up to $250,000; and WHEREAS, the policy permits the City Manager to exceed the limits if delay of the approval, would cause a delay in the "Critical Path" schedule of the project; and WHEREAS, this resolution will ratify staff's recent actions in approving change orders valued at $312,012 listed on Attachment A; and WHEREAS, staff is seeking authorization to process up to an additional $250,000 for change orders in accordance with policy outlined above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ratify City staff's action on approving change orders valued at $428,760 associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard listed on Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized to process up to an additional $250,000 for change order approval in accordance with the policy outlined above. Presented by Approved as to form by ~he~~ IL.Æef!. w--) City Attorney Andy Campbell Director of Building and Park Construction [J, \ATTORNEY\RESO\ CorpYard15 [March 14, 2002 [2,34PMJ] &-5 Change Orders For Ratification by City Council March 26, 2002I Attachment A Chula Vista Corp Yard Highland Partnership, Inc ].S00 Maxwell Rd Chula Vista, CA 9].93.0 006 9201050-02 AGRA Geotechnical Suppliment To Complete 18,956 Deduct - Conduit Hit During Scarification between 011 09202211-01 FJWILLERT New Shops & Bus Wash -674 001 09201000.03 GAZA Additional Cleaning Services 3,300 013 09205120-01 C&S DOC Sub~rade Destroyed (~ Maintenance & Shops Building Due to Delay in Trusses -4,064 014 09205120.01 C&S DOC Deduct - Additional setup and take down for re-craning air handlers. -2,899 010 09206100-01 HELIX CON Added Framin9 (~ Maintenance BIdg 17,180 008 9202520-01 SOLPAC Epoxy Tie (~ New Footings 4,029 009 9202520-01 SOLPAC Misc Site Concrete Repair 7,79? 010 9202520-01 SOLPAC 6" Concrete Paving ~ Central Receivin9 21,808 Deduct - Benchmark Landscape performed work - Reinstall Lateral Line for Hunter 025 9202660-01 SHERWOOD Head. -700 Raise storm drain manhole to grade/Install bollard poles to protect fire hydrant behind 026 9202660-01 SHERWOOD shops building -1,176 027 9202660.01 SHERWOOD Deduct - Kicker installed by Sherwood was removed by Alpha Mechanical. -1,765 028 9202660-01 SHERWOOD Repair of Existing 4" Sewer Line ~ Admin 8,457 029 9202660-01 SHERWOOD Administrative CORRECTION 3,317 030 9202660-01 SHERWOOD Connection to Sewer Lateral ~ Maint Bldg -1,515 009 09208110-01 BRADY CO Power Supply CREDIT -5,716 017 9202685-01 SATURN Reinstall Electrical Service ~ Vending Area 1,999 018 9202685-01 SATURN Various U/G Dr,/Corrections 21,006 019 9202685-01 SATURN Repair of 2" NG Line -1,265 017 9203300-01 SOLPAC Transformer Pad 7,977 018 9203300-01 SOLPAC Epoxy ~ Windows - Admin 4,326 019 9203300.01 SOLPAC Structural Concrete Changes ~ Bus Wash 9,343 020 9203300-01 SOLPAC Misc Structural Concrete 7,378 021 9203300-01 SOLPAC Electrical Room (~) Maintenance Building 4,051 022 9203300-01 SOLPAC Deduct - Due to negotiation With Soltec on 01/28/02 -1,696 023 9203300-01 SOLPAC Repair,of Existing 4" Sewer Line ~ Admin -3,588 002 09210400-01 STANFORD SJ~na~e- Moaumen[ Lei~ers & Pla(lue 2,110 022 9204150-01 FABER Dry Packing Beam & Truss Pockets 39,003 023 9204150-01 FABER Credit - CIP wall Elevation Change (~ Maintenance 1,698 024 9204150.01 FABER Masonry Inflll ~ CNG Retaining Wall 2,247 025 9204150-01 FABER Added Retaining Walt ~ Maint 1,013 026 9204150-01 FABER Added Retaining Wall/Footing (~ Maxwell 11,579 003 9209255-01 WRCHAVEZ Deduct - Replace Damaged Ceiling Tile - Administration Buildin9 -3,43? 004 9209255-01 WRCHAVEZ Deduct - 1/2 of all carpet banding replaced do to damage by paint -841 001 9209300-01 AM T&B Ceramic Tile Changes 7,436 004 9209900-01 PECORARO Admin Painting A~ssociatad w/Retaxture 26,991 05 9209900-01 PECORARO Deduct- 1/2 of all carpet banding replaced do to damage by paint -841 001 9211000-01 PENN EQUIP Dynamometer Chan~le in Specification -28,095 002 9211000-01 PENN EQUIP Brake Lathe Deleted from Scope -10,097 003 09211000-01 PENN EQUIP CNG Tank Maintenance Equipment 15,600 001 9212500-01 DBC Additional Blinds in the Administration Building 1,737 002 9213120-01 SAFETY Administrative Correction To Contract -85d 004 9209610-01 HOWARDS Remove and Reinstall Carpet Banding due to damage by paint. 1,687 015 9203200-01 PCS Added Concrete Reinforcement 20,215 019 9203200-01 PCS Revised Reinforcing Steel ~ Maint 1,816 020 9203200-01 PCS Structural Steel for Added Retaining Wall East of Maintenance Building 1,211 ,304 09207500-01 ROE JACK Remediation of Admin Existing - Ponding 2,500 002 0928300-01 COOKSON Rollup DoorView Lites 10,725 006 9210000-01 DGA Replace Dama~le Ceiling Tile - Admin 3,432 003 9213202-01 WESTERN Electrical Work for the Fueling System and Lubrication equipment at the fuel islands. 23,749 Addition of (4) wall mounted, enclosed hose reels in the small engine repair bay and 004 9213202-01 WESTERN extendin~ piping to the reels. 8,805 002 9215195-01 ALLSUP CNG ElectdcalChanges -3,31R 016 9215000-01 LGSMTL Roof platform covers for exhaust fans and boiler 7,723 017 9215000-01 LGSMTL Additional setup and take down for re-craning air handlers. 2,899 028 9215400-01 MHP Site House Gas Distribution - Install New Gas Service 12,532 029 9215400-01 MHP Add Isolation to Hose Bib Water Supply ~ Maint 2,09R 030 9215400-01 MHP Brooks Box(~ Maint Bldg Dyno 3,317 ' 031 9215400-01 MHP Repair of 2" NG Line 1,265 032 9215400-01 MHP CREDIT- Delete Odginal Dyno-Plumbing -2,614 033 9215400-01 MHP F/I 25' NG Line ~ Maint BId~l Area C 791 Deduct - Damage to Conduit between Parking Lot 034 9215400-01 MHP Lights @ Bus Turn Around -1,854 035 9215400-01 MHP Vadous Plumbing Changes to Complete 2,849 001 9215500-01 ALPHA MECH Relocate Existing Fire Sprinkler Heads (~ Admin 3,061 002 9215500-01 ALPHA MECH Extra Work on Installation of 6" pipe at fuel building. 1,765 003 9215500-01 ALPHA MECH Fire Sprinkler Corrections @ Shops & Admin 2,546 Added Fire Sprinkler Coverage @ Shops, Central 004 9215500-01 ALPHA MECH Receiving & Maint 6,379 003 9207100-01 SADDLEBACK Added Water Proofincj ~ Maintanance Bldg Retaining Wall 784 042 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC Electrical Adds (~ Bus Wash & Admin 7,585 043 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC Add Receptacles in Bus Wash Control 1,902 344 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC Security Revisions ~ Admin Employes Parkin.~ 6,258 045 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC Power to ADA Admin Restroorn Openers 2,455 046 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC CNG ElectricalChanges 3,316 049 9216000-01 HELIX ELEC D~uct- Saturn Electric Unable to Locate Stubout -4,978 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR HANSON SJH CONSTRUCTION FOR $90,045 AND F. J. WILLERT, INC. FOR $118,099 ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDERS WHEREAS, the Corporation Yard Project involves the renovation and expansion of an existing facility that the city intends to use as its future Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, this Project is being constructed through the Construction Manager Constructor (CMC) process through which the city awards multiple individual contracts to each specific trade rather than to one general contractor; and WHEREAS, change orders for Hanson SJH Construction in the amount of $90,045 and for F. J. Willert, Inc. in the amount of $118,099 are necessary to cover the final demolition, removal, grading and import and placement of base material associated with the revised paving plan and the repair of new trench lines throughout the entire site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of vista does hereby approve Change Orders for Hanson SJH Construction for $90,045 and F. J. Willert, Inc. for $118,099, both associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard listed on Attachment B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute said change orders on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ JJ~ /-.!.J¡¿ (1J¿) John M. Kaheny City Attorney Andy Campbell Director of Building and Park Construction J,\Attorney\Corp Yard CO Hanson.doc (é-g Change Orders For Approval by City Council March 26, 2002I Attachment B Chula Vista Corp Yard Highland Partnership, Inc ~.800 Maxwell Rd Chula Vista, CA 9~.9~.0 010 09202211-01 FJWILLERT Grading for Paving Changes, Misc 118,099 002 9202510-01 HANSON Added Trench Repair - AC Pavin~ 90,045 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: ~ MEETING DATE: 03/26/02 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $125,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND INTO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PS 149 FOR ADDITIONAL RELOCATION COSTS FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN POLICE FACILITY SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REVIEWED BY: CiTY MANAGER BACKGROUND RECOMMENDATION BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: 7 MEETING DATE: 03/26/02 businesses, several final relocation settlements and payments are expected. In order to continue, an additional appropriation is necessary to fund negotiated relocation costs. The additional appropriation of $250,000 has been set based on estimated total costs. One half of that amount is being appropriated with this action from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF.) The remaining $125,000 is planned to be appropriated at the first available Redevelopment Agency Board meeting in April. The relocation process has been reasonably smooth. Eleven of 13 businesses are now relocoted and/or accepted settlement offers. The remaining costs are associated with final contractor billings that are expected in the next several weeks and potential loss of goodwill claims. Funding for relocation will continue to be provided by the available fund balance in the Public Facilities Impact Fee Fund and by the 2000 Agency Tax Allocotion Bond proceeds. FISCAL IMPACT Funding of up to $125,000 will be drawn down from CIP PS149. The source of funding is from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. There will be no direct impact on the General Fund. An additional $125,000 is planned to be appropriated from Redevelopment Agency 2000 Tax Allocation Bond proceeds at the first available hearing date in April. j,\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\O3-26-02\Relocation Appmpc;ation #3.doc COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $125.000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND INTO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PS 149 FOR ADDITIONAL RELOCATION COSTS FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN POLICE FACILITY WHEREAS, the use of the available fund balance in the Public Facilities Impact Fee Fund is a suitable funding source for a major public project like the new Police Department facility which will serve the entire City; and WHEREAS, the relocation of business tenants from the proposed new Police Department facility is facilitating the redevelopment of an underutilized commercial site and further the cause of downtown revitalization through the development of a major new infill facility; WHEREAS, the new Police Department facility development requires that the City provide a comprehensive package of relocation services, pursuant to State Redevelopment Law, to business tenants that have been displaced by the project; and WHEREAS, the initial appropriations of $1,500,000 are inadequate to accommodate the relocation settlements as proposed and additional funding is required; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a Resolution appropriating $125,000 from the Available Fund Balance in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund into Capital Improvement Project PS 149 for relocation costs for the new downtown police facility. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development J:\COMMDEVlRESOS\pd relocation approp #3 reso.doc tf-S COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item f Meeting Date 0:5/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Waiving the formal bidding process as impractical, approving a contract with Cross Current Corporation for the design and development of an automated interface between the Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) and the ORION Mapping Suite. In August 1998, City staff converted the Police and Fire Dispatch system to a new CAD system in order to facilitate the dispatching of emergency personnel and equipment to the proper locations. Part of that system included mobile data computers (MDC's) in the Police vehicles to allow officers in the field to check license plates, receive call data from dispatch on their screens, and automatically send their status back to the dispatcher. The Police Department received funding through a COPS MORE grant for an interface to the CAD system in order to increase the effectiveness of officers, thereby allowing additional time for community oriented policing and problem solving. Further, as part of a series of technology upgrades, the Department has also received a State commitment for a technology grant, which will upgrade their E911 telephone system. This system utilizes the ORION Mapping suite, which includes Map Star, Map Manager, and Map Mobile, to provide real-time displays of the location of callers to the 911 system on a map on both field unit MDCs and dispatcher screens. The interface is the first step in implementing a technology plan that will increase the effectiveness of the existing systems and add new technologies that help the department by improving emergency service response times. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution, waiving the formal bidding process as impractical and approving a contract with Cross Current Corporation for the design and development of an automated interface between the Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) and the ORION mapping suite. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS ~ECOMI~EN~ATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: In August 1998, City staff converted the Police and Fire Dispatch system to a new CAD system in order to facilitate the dispatching of emergency personnel and equipment to the proper locations. This is a proprietary system whose rights are owned by the Cross Current Corporation. Since this is the case, they must make all changes to the system, which makes the bidding process impractical. Part of that system included mobile data computers (MDC's) in the Police vehicles to allow officers in the field to check license plates, receive call data from dispatch on their screens, and automatically send their status Page 2 Item ~ Meeting Date 03/26/02 back to the dispatcher. The Police Department received funding through a COPS MORE grant for an interface to the CAD system in order to increase the effectiveness of officers, thereby allowing additional time for community oriented policing and problem solving. Further, as part of a series of technology upgrades, the Police Department has also received State commitment for a technology grant, which will upgrade their E911 telephone system. This system utilizes the Orion Mapping suite to provide real-time displays of the location of callers to the 911 system on both field unit MDC's and dispatcher screens. Recognizing the importance of keeping current technology, the Police Department has developed a plan for technology upgrades. In addition to the upgrade to the E911 system, the addition of Global Positioning (GPS) hardware for the Police vehicles is also planned. This hardware, along with related software, will allow the mapping system in the dispatch center to show the actual location of all Police vehicles in the field, thereby making it easier to dispatch the nearest officer to the location of an incident. The interface will also display the status of all Police vehicles in the field, either available, assigned, or en-route, thereby allowing dispatchers to have better information from which to make decisions. This interface between the mapping suite, the GPS system and the CAD system will greatly assist in this effort. Additionally, the passage of this recommendation will be instrumental in the planned addition of AVL (Automated Vehicle Location) software that will interface with the CAD system. AVL will take the actual location of 911 calls passed from the E911 system, route them through the mapping system and into CAD. AVL then makes a recommendation to the dispatcher, based upon the location of the nearest officer. AVL will also prioritize each officer's status, assigned or unassigned to a call, and recommend the best solution by call priority~ These tasks are currently performed manually. By automating these tasks, AVL promises to improve response times of emergency services. Fiscal Impact: The department was awarded funding through a COPS MORE technology grant for this project, thus there is no immediate impact to the General Fund. The necessary $212,419 was appropriated in CIP project PS153 'Police Department Technology Enhancements' as part of the normal budget process. Ongoing maintenance for this new interface module will be $5,000 per year beginning sometime in FY 2002-03 and will be included in the MIS operating budget. Further, the department has received a commitment from the State for E-911 upgrades Additional grant funds have been identified for mapping solutions and system integration. These planned technology upgrades will allow the department to integrate GPS, AVL with the mapping in CAD solutions. RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH CROSS CURRENT CORPORATION FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMATED INTERFACE BETWEEN THE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM (CAD) AND THE ORION MAPPING SUITE WHEREAS, in August 1998, City staff converted the Police and Fire Dispatch system to a new CAD system in order to facilitate the dispatching of emergency personnel and equipment to the proper locations; and WHEREAS, part of that system included mobile data computers (MDC's) in the Police vehicles to allow officers in the field to check license plates, receive call data from dispatch on their screens, and automatically send their status back to the dispatcher; and WHEREAS, the Police Department received funding through a COPS MORE grant for an interface to the CAD system in order to increase the effectiveness of officers, thereby allowing additional time for community oriented policing and problem solving; and WHEREAS, as part of a series oftechnology upgrades, the Department has also received a State commitment for a technology grant, which will upgrade the E911 telephone system; and WHEREAS, this system utilizes the ORlON Mapping suite, which includes Map Star, Map Manager and Map Mobile, to provide real-time displays of the location of callers to the 911 system on a map on both field unit MDC's and dispatcher screens; and WHEREAS, the interface is the first step in implementing a technology plan that will increase the effectiveness of the existing systems and add new technologies that help the department by improving emergency service response times; and WHEREAS, this is a proprietary system whose rights are owned by the Cross Current Corporation, thereby, rendering bidding impractical. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the CityofChula Vista does hereby waive the formal bidding process as impractical and approves a contract with Cross Current Corporation for the design and development of an automated interface between the Computer Aided Dispatch System and the ORION Mapping Suite, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said contract on behalf ofthe City of Chula Vista. 1 ~~3 Presented by: Approved as to form by: Louie Vignapiano Director of Management and Information Services J]}~ah~ ~R City Attorney J:\attorney\reso\cross current (,If THE A TT ACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL :JJ~ ~ John M. Ka eny City Attorney Dated: ~/ dOV~ ~,5 Chula Vista, California ccCAD - ORION MapStar Interface Statement of Work Prepared December 14, 2001 by Cross Current Corporation I. Overview Chula Vista, CA has requested a mapping solution for their existing ccCAD Computer- Aided-Dispatch (CAD) system. Cross Current will add an ORION MapStar interface to ccCAD. This new interface entails enhancement to the core messaging functionality of ccCAD and development of a ccMapRouter module. This document details the scope of the ORION MapStar Interface solution and implementation of ORION MapStar Interface solution in Chula Vista. II. ORION MapStar Interface Solution The ORION MapStar Interface application provides a map-based view of ccCAD incident and resource information using existing GIS streets data. The integrated ORION MapStar/ccCAD solution will display a read-only map of the following information in real-time. Type Events/Display Functions Incidents Marked by Incident Icon with Incident #, Location, CFS, and Priority Select an incident to be viewed on map Routed incidents Reproduced incidents . Transferred incidents Resource Initiated events Icons are removed when the following CAD functions are performed . Cancel an incident Finish/Clear an incident Resources Marked by Resource Icon with Resource #, Status, Type Dispatch resource to an incident Dispatch resource to a staging area Resources en route Resource arrive Switch resource assignments Emergency status (with special icon) Resource in 'Subject to Call' status Reassign resource Icons are removed when the following CAD functions are performed Free resource Finish/Clear resource Cross Current Corporation g,t, Page lof6 ORION MapStar Interface Implementation in Chula Vista In addition to the real time mapping functionality, refresh functionality will be added to the ccCAD to populate the MapStar with active incidents and resources when MapStar is brought up from the workstation initially. III. MapStar Interface Technology The MapStar Interface solution leverages ORION MapStar in conjunction with existing ccCAD functionality and modules. The existing ccCAD will be enhanced to generate Incident and Resource activities that are applicable to MapStar. In addition, a new module, ccMapRouter will be developed to capture ccCAD activities and relay these messages to ORION MapStar. The ccMapRouter will be installed on a standalone NT workstation. Chula Vista is responsible for providing the standalone workstation. ORION MapStar is manufactured by Plant Equipment Inc ("PEl"), which was recommended by Chula Vista as the map engine. ORION MapStar will be hosted on the VEST A workstations on a separate physical network segment; all messages targeted for MapStar from ccCAD will be routed via the ccMapRouter. PEl has required that ccCAD network traffic be kept separate from the Vesta network. As such, PEl has suggested the installation of dual network cards in each Vesta workstation. The bridge between the ccCAD system and the ORION MapStar will be the ccMapRouter workstation. Due to the fact that the Vesta workstations will be running dual network cards, effectively being multi-homed on the Vesta network and the ccCAD network, the ccMapRouter workstation will only require one network interface card. Cross Current is not responsible for purchase, installation, configuration, maintenance or troubleshooting of the Vesta network or any of its components. ccCAD or ~ ccMapRouter ~ ORION MapStar (VESTA) IV. Scope CCC will be responsible for development of the MapStar Interface solution; deployment of the actual ORION MapStar product is out of scope for this SOW and is the responsibility of Chula Vista.. Any functionality or requirement not explicitly specified in writing in this Statement of Work is out of scope. Once software development coding has begun, any activity or requirement not explicitly specified in writing in the SOW is out of scope. Any changes to this SOW must be submitted in writing to Cross Current Corporation ("CCC") to avoid potential misinterpretations of requirements. CCC and Chula Vista will discuss and evaluate each requested change to determine if the change is within the context of the agreed SOW. If CCC and Chula Vista determine that the requested change is not within the scope of the SOW, CCC and Chula Vista will negotiate an amendment to the SOW based on the change in scope. Both parties must agree in writing to the requested change, whether or not it impacts cost or timeline, before the work can begin. Cross Current Corporation g;1 Page2of6 ORION MapStar Interface Implementation in Chula Vista Upon signoff of this SOW, a Functional Specification document will be written detailing MapStar Interface functionality. This document will require Chula Vista's signoff before detailed design and development commences. V. Quality Assurance QA test scripts will be written to validate MapStar Interface functionality. These scripts will be executed at the end of the development cycle as well as during the integrated testing phase. The MapStar Interface will be thoroughly tested prior to delivery. VI. Deployment CCC will perform two days of onsite testing in a test environment prior to implementation into production. CCC will provide Chula Vista ccCAD System Administrator with the necessary MapStar Interface software to deploy MapStar Interface. Chula Vista will be responsible for obtaining a workstation that will host the ccMapRouter. Prior to deployment, Chula Vista must deploy ORION MapStar (manufactured by Plan Equipment, Inc) for each ccCAD position that will support mapping. CCC will provide one day of onsite support for the implementation of MapStar Interface into production. If CCC personnel are required by Chula Vista to be on site for additional support beyond the one day of onsite deployment support, Chula Vista will be charged for time spent in full day (eight-hour) increments at the applicable hourly rate as specified in the 2002 annual maintenance contract as "Optional Services." To reduce unnecessary travel time, CCC will attempt to combine the onsite testing and deployment into one trip; CCC personnel will perform on site testing and then deploy the MapStar Interface upon successful testing of the MapStar interface. VII. Training As part of the deliverable, CCC will provide "train-the-trainer" training for a designated Chula Vista person or persons for use and interaction of ccCAD with MapStar. Prior to the deployment of the Interface, CCC will send end user documentation and a one-day telephone discussion session will be allocated to educate the trainer(s) of the new functionality. VIII. Deliverables During the ORION MapStar Interface project for Chula Vista, Cross Current shall deliver the following. . Functional Specification Document Cross Current Corporation '6;~ Page30f6 ORION MapStar Interface Implementation in Chula Vista . MapStar Interface executable(s) . Modified ccCAD executables - new versions of the existing ccCAD executable files as required for the MapStar Interface User's Manual- A document describing the set-up and usage of the MapStar Interface. Acceptance Test Plan - A document describing the step-by-step testing procedure and expected results to validate that the application meets the functional requirements described in Section II, ORION MapStar Interface Solution. CCC will coordinate with Chula Vista in the development of the test plan. Both parties must agree to the Acceptance Test Plan. IX. Post Delivery Support CCC will provide support for the CCC developed and delivered functionality for 90 days beyond delivery. Once the software is delivered, CCC will fix any bugs that are defined below: . A reproducible bug that is critical in nature, i.e., makes critical features of the system unusable. Reproducible means consistently repeatable by following the same steps each time. A reproducible bug in the software that causes the application not to function properly as described in this SOW or in an accompanying functional requirements document. The following are not included in post-delivery support and will be billable as additional development or services under either an additional Statement of Work or on a Time and Materials basis, to be determined if required: . Installation of the application in Production unless specifically included in this SOW. Production configuration issues. Functionality that was not defined in this SOW or was not an agreed upon change during the development period. . CCC is not providing production application support under this SOW beyond the initial 90-day warranty period. Additional yearly maintenance fees will be required to support the modification as described in Section X, Maintenance below. X. Maintenance Maintenance support for the ORION MapStar Interface is out of scope of the current maintenance contract between Chula Vista and CCC. There will be a supplemental annual maintenance cost of $5,000 to support the ORION MapStar Interface. The t:~Cj Cross Current Corporation Page 4 of 6 ORION MapStar Interface Implementation in Chula Vista maintenance cost does not include the cost for maintaining a valid ORION MapStar license for CCC's ongoing maintenance. Chula Vista will need to provide CCC with a legal ORION MapStar license if necessary. Should any additional or ongoing fees payable to Plant Equipment Inc. by Cross Current Corporation for purposes of ongoing support and maintenance of the ccCAD ORION MapStar interface for the life of the aforementioned interface be necessary, they will be charged to Chula Vista at cost. These fees include but are not limited to the following: phone and technical support, media, manuals, documentation, subscriptions, software development kits, royalties, and licensing fees, Cross Current is not responsible for maIGng changes to the ccCAD ORION MapStar Interface to correct functionality due to changes to the MapStar product. If any component of the installed Orion MapStar product changes at Chula Vista, including but not limited to version changes, upgrades, patches, fixes and enhancements, that cause the ccCAD ORION MapStar Interface to cease functioning as specified in the functional specification, it may require an additional development effort by Cross Current to modify the interface to function properly with the ORION product(s). In this case, a new development effort will need to be executed requiring the drafting of a new Statement of Work that will include, requirements gathering, functional specification, design and implementation. XI. Indemnification CCC warrants that the MapStar Interface application provided in this Statement of Work is the property of CCC, that it does not infringe or violate any patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or other proprietary rights of any third party. CCC indemnifies Chula Vista against any copyright or patent infringements. The City of Chula Vista, California hereby indemnifies and holds Cross Current Corporation harmless from any liabilities claims, losses, damages, costs, charges and expenses including reasonable attorney fees which may arise or be caused by its use of the ccCAD ORION MapStar Interface except for those liabilities, claims, losses, damages, costs, charges and expenses including reasonable attorney fees which are directly attributable to the services performed by Cross Current Corporation pursuant to this Agreement. Price and Schedule 1. Fixed Price The cost for completion of this modification as defined in this Statement of Work is $212,419. This price is valid for 90 days from the date of this Statement of Work. Normal business expenses and travel are not included in the fixed price and, if they become necessary, will be billed at cost. This estimate does not include any computer Cross Current Corporation g~/o Page50f6 ORION MapStar Interface Implementation in Chula Vista hardware or third party software. Changes in requirements are changes in scope and may affect the cost and/or delivery schedule. 2. Payment Terms The Milestone Payment Schedule is presented below. When the final deliverables are submitted and the Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) is successfully executed, the final invoice will be submitted. Our terms are net 30. CCC will charge interest at the rate of I V2% per month for overdue invoices. At Approval Upon Completion of Detailed Functional Specification At Delivery and Acceptance of ATP $ 70,806 $ 70,806 $ 70,806 3. Schedule Based upon the development and testing effort described in this SOW, it is anticipated that the project will take approximately six months to complete. The estimated calendar schedule is dependent upon timeliness of responses from Chula Vista and Plant Equipment Inc. (PEl) when required. Delays by either Chula Vista or PEl may cause project delays beyond the control of Cross Current. 4. Assumptions . Plant Equipment Inc. and Chula Vista will provide full cooperation and timely responses to. Cross Current Corporation. Approval Please sign below to indicate acceptance ofthis Statement of Work: ------------------------ ----- Chula Vista Date 3-(Ó-';<Ù°;L Sam Hirsh, Cross Cur Vice-President Date Cross Current Corporation ~~/I Page6of6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 3/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the agreement with San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership (SDELP) for the construction of SR- 125 through City of Chula Vista and and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works /~1// REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5tbs Vote: __ No x ) California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) general partner of San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership (SDEL?),builder of SR-125, have been negotiating an agreement with staff for the construction of SR-125 through City of Chula Vista. The agreement is now ready for Council approval. RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the agreement with San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The SR-125 Toll Road is a major part of Chula Vista's Circulation element in our General Plan. It is crucial for the development of eastern Chula Vista that this facility be constructed in the next few years. Due to lack of regional funding, it is necessary that this freeway be constructed by a private entity and operate as a toll road. The facility will be constructed between the connector at San Miguel Road in Bonita to the SR-95 interchange in Otay Mesa. The connector between San Miguel Road and SR-54 will be paid for by SANDAG. The total cost for the toll road is $390 million. The connector and gap on SR-54, to be built by SDELP for SANDAG, will cost another $140 million. The business plan of SDELP is based on the contribution of fight-of-way through Chula Vista by the City and/or developers. Chula Vista has enticed developers to dedicate fight-of-way to the City by making it part of a development agreement or separate a~eement. The a~eements gave certain fights to the developers, but it also allowed the City to get exactions from the developers in excess of the standard exactions thru the subdivision process. Chula Vista chose to make a condition of the development agreements that the developers dedicate the necessary fight-of-way through their development for the SR-125 toll road. Chula Vista and its developers have many interactions between the toll road and City facilities. In exchange for free fight-of-way, the City and developers wanted SDELP to agree to several · issues. Items in the agreement cover the following issues: Page 2, Item__ Meeting Date 3/26/02 1. What happens with the right-of-way if CALTRANS receives fight-of-way, but then SDELP defaults on completing the toll road? Will the City be able to build an interim facility in the fight-of-way? 2. What entity will own the fight-of-way during the different phases of the project? 3. What streets in Chula Vista will have access to the tollway? Both initially and ultimately? 4. What landscaping treatment will SDELP provide? 5. Who will be responsible to do the environmental work for future interchanges? 6. How will SR-125 interact with certain City facilities: drainage, utility relocation, signage, noise attenuation, noise 7. How will the project handle noise impacts on Chula Vista developments? 8. Who will build Rock Mountain Interchange and under what critefia? 9. How will disputes be handled? Chula Vista and SDELP are signatures to the agreement, but the agreement also has to have the approval of CALTRANS. This agreement is also critical to SDELP in their quest to obtain financing. Without the commitment for right-of-way, investors would be hesitant to finance this project. The agreement is very important to Chula Vista, SDELP, CALTRANS, the developers, and for traffic in the South Bay. 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 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. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AGREEMENT Default by SDELP and construction of interim facility. No right of way will be transferred to CALTRANS from the City or its developers until the project receives financing by December 31, 2002. After financing is obtained and if for some reason work is stopped on the Tollway, Section 2.1.4 and Article 5 will apply. Section 2.1.4 provides that if the project is not completed, then SDELP will transfer any fight-of-way under its control to the City and will also request CALTP,_A2qS to transfer property under CALTRANS' control to the City. If portions of the road are constructed and opened, CALTRANS may choose to operate the facility and retain the right- of-way. Section 5 of the agreement also provides a procedure for the City to construct an interim facility should the toll road not be completed within certain time parameters provided, however, the details and the ability to do so will need to be worked out with CALTRANS in a Cooperative Agreement. Riaht-of-way transfer and Encroachment permits for utilities. No transfer of right-of-way will occur until financing by December 31, 2002 is obtained for the project. Once financing is obtained by December 31, 2002, City will transfer all its interest in properly to CALTRANS. Section 2.1 of the agreement is extensive and covers this topic. CALTRANS will issue separate perm/ts for City Utilities and easaments required for facilities crossing the Toll Road after its construction. These crossings will be addressed in a separate Cooperative Agreement with Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 3/26/02 CALTRANS. The Cooperative agreement between CALTRANS and City Of Chula Vista will need to be finalized within the next few months. Interchanges. During the initial phase of construction, interchanges will be constructed at the following City streets, 1) Mount Miguel Road, 2) East H Street, 3) Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, 4) Olympic Parkway, and 5) Birch Parkway. (Section. 3.2.1) ("Initial Project") Environmental. The environmental for the Initial Project has already been completed. Chula Vista will be responsible at the City's cost, to obtain environment permits for the Rock Mountain interchange. If additional permits are required for Birch Parkway or Mt. Miguel interchange, SDELP will be responsible to provide mitigation for up to 3% of the cost of this addition. After the 3% has been expended, the City and SDELP will share in mitigation costs. CEQA approval for Birch Parkway road was obtained through a developer EIR. Rock Mountain interchange. This interchange will be located between Birch Parkway and Otay Valley and will not be part of the Initial Project under construction. Section 3.2.3 discusses the cr/teria for SDELP to construct and finance this interchange. SDELP's requirement to finance the interchange states that revenue generated by that interchange must exceed the costs to operate the interchange (including debt payments) by 18%. However, if the financial test is not met under Section 3.2.3.1, the City may decide to finance the cost of constructing the interchange (now estimated at $12 million). The City would be reimbursed over time from a portion of the revenues generated from that interchange. Landscaping. Section 3.6, provides that the landscaping for the right-of-way will be done in conformance with a manual prepared by City's consultant and approved by the City. It will be the sole cost of SDELP to construct and maintain the landscaping unless the City requests turf and part of the plan. In that case, City will be responsible for the cost. Construction standards. All work on the road will be to CALTRANS standards. However, where work is being done to City streets, or impacting City utilities such as sewer and storm drain facilities, the work shall be done to City standards. City Plan Review. City staffwilI have the opportunity to review all the plans and specifications for the toll road. City does a~ee to give immediate attention and not unduly hold up approvals. Future Transit. The a=oreement provides that transit can cross the toll road without charge provided there are no additionaI costs to SDELP. SDELP will also work with the City and MTDB for future lines that may cross the toll road or parallel it across Otay Valley. Schedule. SDELP hopes to have financing by this fall and to start construction shortly after that. It is estimated that the construction will last 39 months. Page 4, Item __ Meeting Date 3/26/02 FISCAL IMPACT: There is minimal impact for the construction of the toll road. However, if the project is not constructed or greatly delayed, there will be major fiscal impacts on the developers and City funds. There may also be a requirement for the City and the developers to front the cost of Rock Mountain Interchange. (Cost estimate 5;12 million) In addition, although very remote, the City may be forced to construct an inter/m facility should the project stop after financing is obtained. File: 0795-95~HT003 JSEngineerLhGENDA\SDELP agreement for SR125.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2002-~- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO EXPRESSWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SDELP) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SR-125 THROUGH CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the SR-125 Toll Road is a major part of Chula Vista's Circulation element in our General Plan; and WHEREAS, it is crucial for development of eastern Chula Vista that this facility be constructed in the next few years; and WHEREAS, due to lack of regional funding, it is necessary that this freeway be constructed by a private entity and operate as a toll road; and WHEREAS, the facility will be constructed between the connector at San Miguel Road in Bonita to the SR-95 interchange in Otay Mesa with the connector between San Miguel Road and SR-54 being paid for by SANDAG; and WHEREAS, the total cost for the toll road is $390 million and the connector and gap on SR-54, to be built by SDELP for SANDAG, will cost another $140 million; and WHEREAS, California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) general partner of San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership (SDELP), builder of SR-125, have been negotiating an agreement with staff for the construction of SR-125 through City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the agreement is now ready for Council approval; and WHEREAS, 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 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) ofthe State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA, thus, no environmental review is necessary.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement with San Diego Expressway Limited partnership (SDELP) for the construction ofSR-125 through City ofChula Vista, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. ......--- 9-::; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City ofChula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City. Presented by Approved as to form by JO~~~ ~~ City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works (HAttomeyIRESOISDELP SRI25 (Ma"h 25, 2002 (II :23AM)] 2 q-& RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership c/o California Transportation Ventures, Inc. 707 Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, California 92101 The undersigned declares that this document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Chula Vista and the State of California and is therefore exempt ITom the payment of the recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 6103. By: Authorized Representative for City (Space above this line for Recorder's use) CITY OF CHULA VISTA TOLL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO EXPRESSWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY THIS CITY OF CHULA VISTA TOLL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO EXPRESSWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this - day of March, 2002, by and between the City of Chula Vista ("CITY"), and San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership ("SDELP"), through California Transportation Ventures, Inc., its general partner ("CTV"). RECITALS A. SDELP, as assignee ofCTV, has entered into that certain Development Franchise Agreement, dated January 6,1991 (the "Development Franchise Agreement"), between CTV and the State of California, Department of Transportation ("CALTRANS") to plan, develop, acquire, design, finance, install, construct and operate a ten-mile private toll road facility (the "Project") to be incorporated when completed into the California Highway System as part of State Route 125 ("SR 125"). chulavistaclean I 1 if-? B. By entering into this Agreement, CITY intends to facilitate development of the Project within the geographic boundaries of the City ofChula Vista (the "City"). Residents of the City will receive substantial direct and indirect benefits from the Project. C. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a map depicting the Project as presently configured. Portions of the Project will pass through the City, and will pass in, on, under, over or along streets, highways, bridges and other public rights of way of CITY. The Project will also pass through areas of the City owned by private landowners. D. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a list of parcels of Project right-of-way that are already owned by CITY (the "CITY-Owned Parcels"), and parcels of proj ect right-of-way that have been irrevocably offered for dedication to the CITY but which the CITY has not yet accepted as of the date of this Agreement (the "Dedicated Parcels"). Exhibit B also identifies the owners of fee title to the Dedicated Parcels as of the date of this Agreement. The information in Exhibit B is accurate to the best knowledge of CITY and SDELP based upon title information available as of the date of this Agreement, and will be revised from time to time to reflect current title information. E. SDELP anticipates entering into agreements with the landowners identified in Exhibit "c" pursuant to which such landowners will irrevocably offer to dedicate to the CITY, in the form ofIrrevocable Offer of Dedication attached hereto as Exhibit "D," or such other form as may be approved by CITY, the Project right-of-way that passes through their respective private properties. Exhibit C also describes the parcels that will be dedicated to the CITY pursuant to such agreements. Additionally, from and after the date hereof, certain other landowners may seek development entitlements from the CITY, and CITY may be entitled to require such landowners to dedicate Project right-of-way to the CITY. The parcels of Project right-of-way identified in Exhibit C, and any other parcels of Project right-of-way within the City's jurisdiction that may be subject to future dedication, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Future Dedication Parcels." The private landowners identified in Exhibits Band ç are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as a "Private Landowner," and collectively as "Private Landowners." F. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the actions that they have agreed to take with respect to completing the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 Scope, Duration and Definitions 1.1 Scope of Agreement. Among other things, this Agreement specifies (a) the procedures that SDELP and CITY will follow in planning for and coordinating efforts related to Design and approval ofthe Project, (b) the mariner in which the Parties will cooperate to facilitate Construction of the Project, including acquisition and transfer of rights-of-way, location of easements and issuance of permits, and (c) the manner in which the Parti'es shall address chulavistaclean1 2 tJ-ð certain future improvements to CITY's existing infrastructure that may be planned and developed in connection with the Project. The Parties agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this Agreement. 1.2 Duration of the Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate automatically upon the sooner to occur of: (i) December 31, 2002 if the Close of Toll Road Financing has not occurred (in which case SDELP shall, within 10 days of such termination, notifY the Escrow Holder that this Agreement has been terminated, and the Escrow Holder shall promptly return to each Party all documents previously delivered by it into the Escrow), or (ii) termination of the Development Franchise Agreement. Upon termination of the Development Franchise Agreement, SDELP shall comply with the provisions contained in Section 2.1.4. 1.3 Conditions Precedent. The existence of each of the following shall be a condition precedent to SDELP's obligations hereunder with respect to construction of the Project:. 1.3.1 CAL TRANS shall have consented to all provisions of this Agreement regarding the transfer oftitle to Project right-of-way from the CITY to CAL TRANS, and any reservations from such title transfer to be provided for in the Grant Deeds. 1.3.2 The Close of Toll Road Financing shall have occurred. 1.4 Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. 1.4.1 Business Day means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or banking holiday. 1.4.2 Transportation. CALTRANS means the State of California, Department of 1.4.3 State of California. CITY means the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation of the 1.4.4 City Facility means a Facility under the ownership or the exclusive operation of CITY. City Facility shall include, but not be limited to, public streets, highways, bridges, alleys, storm drains, sanitary sewers, water lines and appurtenances, parks, public landscaping and trees, traffic control devices, and street lights. 1.4.5 City-Owned Parcel means any parcel or portion of a parcel of real property owned by CITY within the right-of-way necessary for the Project. 1.4.6 Close of Escrow has the meaning assigned in Section 4.4. 1.4.7 Close of Toll Road Financing means the execution and delivery of all operative documents necessary to create binding obligations for the financing of the design and Construction of the Initial Project and acquisition of all Facilities needed for operation or maintenance of the Initial Project. chulavistaclean1 3 '1- 9 1.4.8 Construction means any work of grading, removal, demolition, replacement, alteration, realignment, building, fabrication, landscaping, supporting or relocation. 1.4.9 Construction Contractor means any contractor or subcontractor retained by SDELP for the purpose of performing Project Construction. 1.4.10 Cost means all direct and indirect costs and expenses associated with an activity undertaken by a Party in connection with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 1.4.11 CTV means California Transportation Ventures, Inc., a California corporation, the general partner of SDELP. 1.4.12 Debt Trustee(s) shall mean the trustee under any Indenture of Trust created in connection with any debt financing of the Project, which Trustee is empowered to act on behalf of the beneficiaries of such debt instruments issued in connection with the Initial Project. 1.4.13 Dedicated Parcels has the meaning assigned in Recital D. 1.4.14 Design means that engineering, architectural and other design work and the resulting production of maps, plans, special provisions, drawings, computer software, estimates and/or specifications which are needed for Project Construction. 1.4.15 Design Build Contract means that certain SR 125 Toll Road Contract No. 2000-543 entered into between SDELP and Design Build Contractor, dated as of January 12, 2001. 1.4.17 Design Build Contractor means Washington Group International, Inc., and its successors and assigns in and to the Design Build Contract, 1.4.18 Development Franchise Agreement has the meaning assigned in Recital A. 1.4.19 Disapproved Matters has the meaning assigned in Section 2.1.3.3. 1.4.20 Dispute has the meaning assigned in Section 6.1. 1.4.21 Dispute Notice has the meaning assigned in Section 6.1. 1.4.29 Escrow has the meaning assigned in Section 4.1. 1.4.21 Escrow Holder has the meaning assigned in Section 4.1. 1.4.22 Escrow Instructions has the meaning assigned in Section 4.2. 1.4.23 Facility means real or personal property located in, on, under, or over, the Project, such as structures, improvements, fixtures, installed equipment and other properties. chulavistaclean I 4 rJ - /¿J 1.4.24 Final Project EIR/EIS means the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report State Route 125 South certified for the Project in January 2000, consisting of the July 1996 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report State Route 125 South with Technical Appendices, the April 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Report State Route 125 South, and the January 2000 Responses to Comments on the foregoing draft and supplement. 1.4.25 Force Majeure has the meaning assigned in Section 7.13. 1.4.26 Future Dedication Parcels has the meaning assigned in Recital E. 1.4.27 General Provisions. General Provisions has the meaning set forth in Section 4.2. 1.4.28 Grant Deed means an instrument of conveyance of Proj ect right-of-way from CITY to CAL TRANS, substantially in the form of Exhibit "E" hereto, duly executed and delivered by an authorized representative of City. 1.4.29 Independent means, with respect to the selection of professional advisors for purposes of performing the tests provided for in Section 3.2, an advisor that is not affiliated with SDELP, its successors and assigns, or with CITY, and whose selection is approved by both SDELP and CITY. For purposes of this Section, an advisor shall be deemed to be affiliated with SDELP if the general partner or any limited partner of SDELP owns or controls more than 25% of the economic interest in such advisor, or is under more than 25 % common ownership with such advisor. 1.4.30 Initial Project means the four lanes of the Project approved for construction by the Final Project EIR/EIS, including the interchanges listed in Section 3.2.1, and the Birch Parkway interchange, with capacity for expansion to six or eight lanes depending upon the location, plus 2 high occupancy vehicle lanes. 1.4.31 Interim SR 125 Improvements has the meaning assigned in Section 5.2. 1.4.33 Lender means any person that extends credit for purposes of financing the Design, Construction and operation of the Project, including but not limited to the providers of Federal loans and/or guarantees and contractual commitments for supplemental financing. 1.4.34 Partial Design Submittal means an SDELP submittal to CITY for any particular component of the Project in order to secure CITY comment with respect to the Design and the commencement and/or continuation of Construction of such component prior to the Design of the entirety of the Project. 1.4.35 CITY and SDELP. Parties means CITY and SDELP, and a "Party" is defined as each of 1.4.36 Project means the ten-rrlile private toll road facility to be built pursuant to the Development Franchise Agreement and incorporated when completed into the California Highway System as part of State Route 125. chlilavistaclean I 5 '/-// 1.4.37 Record of Decision means the final environmental approval for SR 125 South issued by the Federal Highway Administration on June 9, 2000. 1.4.38 limited partnership. SDELP means San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership, a California 1.4.39 Toll Road Financing means debt and equity financing for the design and construction of the Initial Project. 1.4.40 Toll Road Schedule means a critical path method schedule addressing the planning, design, construction, development and completion of the Toll Road prepared by the Design Build Contractor and approved by SDELP in accordance with Article 4 of the Design Build Contract, including all milestone completion deadlines specified in the Design Build Contract. ARTICLE 2 CITY'S Obligations 2.1 Right-of-Way. 2.1.1 Preservation of City-Owned and Dedicated Parcels. CITY agrees that, from and after the date hereof until the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, it shall not sell, assign transfer, convey, release or otherwise relinquish its interest in, or control with respect to, any right-of-way necessary for completion of the Project, to any person other than SDELP, CALTRANS, or the respective successors or assigns of either of their interests under the Development Franchise Agreement. 2.1.2 Future Dedication Parcels. C1TY agrees to make a good faith effort to the extent that it can legally do so, and as it may deem appropriate, to require Private Landowners to irrevocably offer to dedicate the Future Dedication Parcels to the CITY. To the extent that CITY does not have legal authority to require a Private Landowner to irrevocably offer to dedicate Project right-of-way owned by such Private Landowner, CITY shall reasonably cooperate with SDELP in its negotiations with the Private Landowner for the dedication, donation and/or acquisition of such right-of-way. 2.1.3 Transfer of Title to CAL TRANS. CITY shall transfer fee title in the CITY-Owned Parcels, the Dedicated Parcels and any Future Dedication Parcels that are hereinafter irrevocably offered for dedication to CITY by a Private Landowner and which are accepted by the CITY, to CAL TRANS in accordance with the Escrow provisions set forth in Section 4, below. 2.1.3.1 City-Owned Parcels and Dedicated Parcels. Within 30 Business Days following execution of this Agreement, CITY shall deliver to Escrow Holder (i) the CITY's Certificate of Acceptance of title to all Dedicated Parcels which have been approved for acceptance by CITY, and (ii) duly executed Grant Deeds conveying to CALTRANS the CITY's title in all CITY-Owned Parcels, and in all Dedicated Parcels which have been approved for acceptance by CITY, it being understood that the effectiveness of said acceptance of the Offers, chulavistacleanl 6 f-/~ and conveyance by the Grant Deeds to CALTRANS, shall be conditioned upon the satisfaction of all other conditions to the Close of the Escrow. CITY has reviewed and approved of the form of all Irrevocable Offers of the Dedicated Parcels submitted to the CITY for those Dedicated Parcels listed in Exhibit "F". Within 20 days of execution of this Agreement, CITY shall review and notify SDELP and Landowner of its approval or disapproval of all Phase I Hazardous Materials Reports (each a "Phase 1 Report") that have been submitted to the CITY for the Dedicated Parcels and Future Dedication Parcels, set forth in Exhibit F. From and after the date of execution of this Agreement, CITY shall review and notify SDELP and the Landowner of its approval or disapproval of the Phase 1 Reports submitted to CITY for any Dedicated Parcels or Future Dedication Parcels within 20 Business Days of submittal of such Phase I Report to the City; provided, however, that CITY shall be allowed a reasonable extension of time in the event that the number or length of Phase 1 Report submittals to the CITY at any point in time is unduly burdensome, as reasonably determined by the City. CITY shall approve acceptance of any Dedicated Parcel within 20 Business Days of the later to occur of its approval of the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (which shall be deemed approved for purposes of this Agreement provided that the form and substance of the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication does not materially differ from the form of Exhibit D, as reasonably determined by CITY) or Phase 1 Report for such Parcel. 2.1.3.2 Future Dedication Parcels. SDELP shall provide CITY with copies of all proposed Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Future Dedication Parcels to CITY for CITY's review and approval prior to the delivery of any such Irrevocable Offers of Dedication to Escrow Holder. CITY shall use its best efforts to provide its comments to SDELP within 15 business days of its receipt of SDELP's request for review, and shall not unreasonably withhold its approval of any such Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. Subject to the CITY's approval of a satisfactory Phase 1 Report as hereinafter provided, CITY shall approve for acceptance any Irrevocable Offer of Dedication that is in the form of Exhibit D. To the extent that an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication varies from the form of Exhibit D, CITY and SDELP agree to cooperate with the Private Landowner(s) to address CITY's concerns in a reasonable manner. CITY shall not condition its acceptance of any Irrevocable Offer of Dedication upon SDELP's providing any additional financial consideration or improvements over and above what is provided for in this Agreement provided that SDELP is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that CITY shall not be required to approve any variation in the form of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the extent that such variation would effectively modifY or waive CITY's rights under this Agreement (other than with respect to the approved form of the Offer of Dedication), or any existing development agreement or development condition between CITY and the Private Landowner. CITY shall review and notifY SDELP and the Private Landowner of its approval or disapproval of the Phase 1 Report submitted to CITY for any Future Dedication Parcel within 20 Business Days of submittal; provided, however, that CITY shall be allowed a reasonable extension of time in the event that the number or length of Phase I Report submittals to the CITY at any point in time is unduly burdensome, as reasonably determined by CITY. Within 30 days of the date that CITY has both received a copy of the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication in the form approved by CITY, and CITY has approved the Phase I Report for the property subject to such offer, CITY shall deliver to the Escrow Holder: (i) the CITY's Certificate of Acceptance of such Irrevocable Offer of Dedication ofthe Future Dedication Parcel(s), and (ii) a duly executed Grant Deed(s) conveying the CITY's title in the chulavistaclean1 7 f-/3 Future Dedication Parcels to CAL TRANS, it being understood that the effectiveness of said acceptance and Grant Deeds shall be conditioned upon the satisfaction of all other conditions to the Close of the Escrow. 2.1.3.3 Title. CITY shall use its best efforts to work with SDELP to remove any disapproved title matter fÌom the record title to Project right-of-way so that the right- of-way may be transferred to CAL TRANS fÌee and clear of any liens, encumbrances or restrictions on use except as are approved in advance by CAL TRANS, including the rights reserved to CITY in the approved form of Grant Deed. The Grant Deeds shall include a waiver of all abutter's rights and rights to compensation in form and substance acceptable to CAL TRANS. CITY shall have no financial responsibility for clearing any liens or encumbrances against Project right-of-way; provided, however, that to the extent that it legally may do so, City shall request the Private Landowners to clear any disapproved title matters in accordance with llsual and customary CITY practices and procedures. 2.1.4 Reversions to CITY. (a) Upon termination of this Agreement, ifSDELP has not completed Construction of the Project, SDELP shall quitclaim all of its interest, if any, and shall request CALTRANS to quitclaim, in a form acceptable to CITY, any interests in Project rights-of-way that have been obtained from CITY for the Project pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent that any such Project rights-of-way have been improved with improvements that CALTRANS, in its sole discretion, desires to retain and incorporate into SR 125, subject to any rights reserved to the CITY in the Grant Deed(s), or by separate Agreement between CITY and CAL TRANS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Project right-of-way was dedicated to the CITY by a Private Landowner pursuant to an agreement requiring such Project right-of-way to revert to the Private Landowner if the Project is not bllilt, and such Private Landowner is not otherwise subject to a development condition or other obligation to provide such right-of-way to CITY, then upon termination of this Agreement, SDELP may quitclaim, and CALTRANS may provide a Director's deed, of their respective interests in such property directly to the Private Landowner. SDELP shall have no responsibility with respect to the reconveyed right-of-way from and after the date of quitclaim. (b) Upon request of CITY, SDELP shall quitclaim all of its interest, if any, and shall request CAL TRANS to quitclaim to CITY, in a form acceptable to CITY, any legally described real property interest that was acquired for Project Construction from CITY pursuant to this Agreement but which is not part of the final Project right-of-way, except to the extent that any such property interest is required to be quitclaimed to a Private Landowner pursuant to agreement between SDELP and such Private Landowner, and such Private Landowner is not otherwise subject to a development condition or other obligation to provide such right-of-way to CITY. SDELP shall have no responsibility with respect to the quitclaimed right-of-way fÌom and after the date of quitclaim. 2.2 Design and Construction. CITY shall cooperate reasonably in the Design and Construction processes for the Project through timely review of submittals, and the assurance of a timely approval process for plans, specifications, and any other submittals reasonably required by CITY with respect to which CITY's approval is required. SDELP shall cooperate with the chlilavistaclean I 8 f-/I CITY in complying with the CITY's applicable submittal requirements, and shall provide plans in accordance with applicable CITY requirements for Project interfaces with CITY Facilities. CITY recognizes that certain portions of the Project may involve Partial Design Submittals to facilitate Construction of components of the Project prior to final Design approval of the entire Project. 2.3 Utilities. CITY shall provide to SDELP reasonable assistance in negotiations with utility companies for utility relocations or installations necessary for completion of the Project. ARTICLE 3 SDELP's Obligations 3.1 Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Project. SDELP's Design, Construction, operation and maintenance of the Project shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Franchise Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of the Development Franchise Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Development Franchise Agreement shall control. SDELP shall not agree to any amendment of the Development Franchise Agreement that wolild prevent SDELP fÌom performing its obligations hereunder, or would materially prevent CITY from receiving its benefits or exercising its rights hereunder. 3.2 Access. SDELP shall provide local points of access to and from SR 125 as described in the Final EIR/EIS and required by the Record of Decision in effect upon commencement of Construction. 3.2.1 Initial Project Construction. In conjunction with the Initial Project Construction, SDELP will provide interchanges, including grade separation, at the following locations within the City: (i) Mollnt Miguel Road (northbound ramps and bridge, provided that all necessary Project right-of-way within the San Miguel Ranch is dedicated at no Cost to the Project), (ii) East H Street, (iii) Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, (iv) Olympic Parkway, and (v) Birch Parkway (within the footprint described in the Final Project EIR/EIS, which location connects with the Birch Parkway arterial analyzed in the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report 98-0 I, December 2001, approved by CITY on January 22, 2002). 3.2.1.1 Responsibility for Mitigation Costs of Mount Miguel Road and Birch Parkway. SDELP shall implement all environmental mitigation required by the existing approvals of state and federal regulatory agencies for the interchanges at Mount Miguel Road and Birch Parkway, at SDELP's sole Cost. SDELP shall include such interchanges and mitigation in the final Project plans submitted in conjunction with the Initial Project to the regulatory agency in connected with such approvals. If any additional approvals or authorizations are reqllired or its existing approvals or authorizations require amendment, CITY shall be responsible for preparing all studies, applications and other documents in connection therewith, and submitting such documents and requests for approval to the appropriate regulatory agencies, at CITY's sole Cost. Prior to making any such submittal, CITY shall provide draft chlilavistaclean1 9 ......--- ç-/'::J documents to SDELP, and the Parties shall cooperate reasonably with each other to process the amendments or obtain any required approvals. SDELP shall be solely responsible for the Cost of any additional environmental mitigation or other type of mitigation required for the Mount Miguel Road and Birch Parkway interchanges, up to an amount per interchange not to exceed 3% of the Cost of building such interchange projected in the Project plan of finance, and any mitigation Costs in excess of such amount shall be paid 50% by SDELP, and 50% by CITY or such other entity determined by CITY, provided, however, that CITY may elect in its sole discretion not to contribute to such additional Costs, in which case SDELP shall have no further obligation hereunder to build the interchange. 3.2.1.2 The parties shall work together in good faith to develop a plan for obtaining any other necessary environmental approvals, permits or authorizations or amendments that may be required by the relevant regulatory agencies, and shall also establish a schedule and process for reviewing and commenting on proposed submittals. SDELP shall cooperate.in good faith with CITY in connection with the processing of CITY's application for any such necessary permits, authorizations or amendments to SDELP's existing Project permits and approvals, provided that such proposed amendments will not, in SDELP's reasonable judgment, jeopardize or invalidate SDELP's existing permits and approvals. 3.2.2 Additional Improvements. 3.2.2.1 Limitations on SDELP's Obligations. SDELP's obligations hereunder to construct additional improvements to the Project (other than the Rock Mountain Road Interchange as described in Section 3.2.3, below) are conditioned upon satisfaction of the following: (a) The funding of such additional improvement is permitted as additional debt under any outstanding indebtedness, be it senior or junior; (b) A report of an Independent financial advisor acceptable to the Lender(s) or the Debt Trustee(s), as applicable, which asserts that the additional expenditure of funds will not impair the credit of any outstanding indebtedness, be it senior or junior; (c) A report of an Independent professional engineer establishing the cost and revenue implications of the requested improvements, for use by the independent financial advisor in its assessment; and (d) A conclusion by an Independent financial advisor that the additional capital expenditure will generate, a rate ofreturn on that capital of at least 18.5% based on the net revenues generated by the additional improvement over the remaining life of the Development Franchise Agreement. 3.2.2.2 Potential Additional Improvement. Provided that all of the conditions described in Section 3.2.2.1 are satisfied, SDELP shall in good faith work with CITY to construct an interchange at Otay Valley Road at no cost to the CITY. SDELP contemplates that it will construct a Promenade Street crossing south of Birch Parkway pursuant to an agreement between SDELP and McMillan Companies as part of the Initial Project. City agrees to review proposed plans for such crossing promptly in accordance with the terms for City's' chulavistacleanl 10 tl-/C:> review of submissions under this Agreement. If the Promenade Street crossing is not built as part of the Initial Project, then subject to satisfaction of all ofthe conditions described in Section 3.2.2.1, above, SDELP shall in good faith work with CITY upon CITY's request to build the Promenade Street crossing, provided that SDELP shall be responsible for no more than 50% of the Cost to build the crossing, and SDELP shall not be required to build the crossing unless CITY shall have secured a source of funding obligated to pay the balance of such Cost, and any necessary CALTRANS' approvals are obtained by SDELP, at SDELP's Cost. 3.2.3 Rock Mountain Road Interchange. 3.2.3.1 Financial Test. SDELP shall be obligated to finance and build the Rock Mountain Road Interchange when directed by CITY if an Independent financial advisor selected by SDELP and approved by CITY determines that the net increased annual revenues resulting from the total number of vehicles entering and exiting at the Rock Mountain Rpad Interchange (which shall be calculated taking into account expected adjustments in revenues at the Olympic, Birch and Lonestar interchanges resulting from the proposed Rock Mountain Interchange) are a minimum of 118.5% of the sum of (i) incremental operating and maintenance Costs for the Rock Mountain Interchange, and (ii) debt service on the Cost of funds to build the Rock Mountain Road Interchange (assuming 100% debt financing of Construction and reasonable and customary soft Costs, including but not limited to the right of way if such right- of-way will need to be secured monetarily, design, engineering, financing and legal costs to be incurred in connection with the interchange) in each year that the debt financing for the Rock Mountain Road Interchange will be outstanding (the "Rock Mountain Financial Test"), provided that such obligation shall be subject to SDELP's obtaining any necessary CALTRANS' approval, which it shall attempt in good faith request at its own Cost. The preliminary design shall be completed by SDELP, at CITY's Cost, within sixty days of CITY's request that SDELP perform the Rock Mountain Financial Test. SDELP shall complete its estimate of the Cost of Construction and incremental operating Cost of the Rock Mountain Interchange, which will be based upon the usual operating and maintenance Costs of other similar interchanges for the Project, within 30 days after its receipt of the preliminary design. SDELP shall provide CITY with the estimates for the Cost of Construction and incremental operating Cost. CITY shall review the estimates for approval or disapproval within 20 days of receiving the same. Once the estimate of the Cost of Construction and incremental operating Costs are agreed to by the Parties, SDELP shall forward the same to the Independent Financial Advisor. The Independent financial advisor shall complete the Rock Mountain Financial Test based upon the design and Cost information supplied by SDELP within 3 months ofreceiving such information. If, based upon the Rock Mountain Financial Test, it is determined that SDELP is required to build the Rock Mountain Road Interchange, SDELP shall prepare a plan of finance within 60 days of completion of the Rock Mountain Financial Test. CITY shall assist SDELP in securing the right-of-way to build the Rock Mountain Interchange by joining in discussions with landowners, obtaining offers of dedication if possible, and exercising its right of eminent domain if necessary. CITY shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies as provided in Section 3.2.4, below. Subject to the right-of- way for the Rock Mountain Interchange being secured, SDELP shall commence construction of the Rock Mountain Interchange within one year of completion of the Rock Mountain Financial Test, and shall thereafter diligently pursue such construction to completion. SDELP shall complete construction within 2 years from the date on which SDELP has both (i) access to all chlilavistaclean I II ;-/7 necessary right-of-way, and (ii) all approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies necessary to build the Rock Mountain Interchange. SDELP shall include the Cost of the Rock Mountain Financial Test (including the Cost of the preliminary design-engineering) in the debt financing for the Rock Mountain Road Interchange, and shall repay the CITY's actual cost incurred with respect to the Rock Mountain Road Financial Test promptly upon the close of such financing. CITY may request that SDELP perform the Rock Mountain Financial Test as many times as it deems appropriate, provided that SDELP shall not be required to reperform the Rock Mountain Test sooner than two years from the date of the CITY's last request. 3.2.3.2 CITY's Option to Finance Rock Mountain Interchange. (a) If, based upon the Rock Mountain Financial Test, SDELP is not then obligated to fund and build the Rock Mountain Road Interchange, CITY shall have the option to finance the design and Construction of the Rock Mountain Road Interchange itself, provided that any necessary CALTRANS' approvals are obtained (which approvals SDELP shall request in good faith). Within 90 days of the CITY's notice to SDELP that it intends to exercise this option, SDELP shall provide CITY with a proposed budget based upon an approved preliminary design engineering estimate, a proposed Construction schedule, and a proposed set of terms and conditions for the contract(s) to design and build the interchange, including a proposed schedule for monthly payments based upon the contractor's completion of discrete components of the design and/or construction of the interchange. The proposed Construction schedule shall provide for completion of Construction not later than two years fÌom the date on which SDELP has both (i) access to all necessary right-of-way, and (ii) all approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies necessary to build the Rock Mountain Interchange. CITY shall have the right to approve of the terms and conditions of the proposed construction contract, and any change orders thereto. SDELP agrees to negotiate in good faith with the contractor to include terms in the construction contract that include customary retention provisions, terms for payment consistent with CITY procedures and unconditional release of liens by the contractor. CITY shall be responsible for payment to SDELP of the actual cost of Construction ofthe Rock Mountain Interchange; provided, however, that CITY shall not be responsible for the Cost of any work or owner-directed change order not approved in advance in writing by CITY. SDELP shall submit the contractor's monthly invoices, along with all supporting documentation to CITY for payment. CITY shall pay such invoices, less the applicable retention (not to be less than 10%) directly to the contractor(s) within 30 days after the date of the City Engineer's approval of the invoice in accordance with CITY procedures. CITY shall cooperate with and assist SDELP in securing the right-of-way for the Rock Mountain Road Interchange in the same manner as described in Section 3.2.3.1, above. CITY shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies as provided in Section 3.2.4, below. SDELP shall complete the design and Construction of the Rock Mountain Road Interchange in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule. SDELP agrees to repay the CITY for the actual Cost paid by CITY of designing and building the Rock Mountain Road Interchange by either (i) incorporating the Costs paid by the CITY in a refinancing of the senior debt initially raised to finance the Project and repaying the CITY for its Costs incurred upon the close of such refinancing, or (ii) paying the CITY (A) 25% of all revenues generated at the Rock Mountain Road Interchange when the number of average daily transactions at such interchange in any calendar month is between 10,000 and 20,000, or (B) 50% of all revenues generated at the Rock Mountain Road Interchange if the number of chulavistaclean I 12 Çl-/cf average daily transactions at the Rock Mountain Road Interchange is greater than 20,000 in any calendar month, until the total Cost funded by City, plus accrued interest, has been repaid. Costs funded by CITY shall accrue interest at CITY's actual cost of funds to finance the Rock Mountain Road Interchange. SDELP shall make such payments to CITY, together with an accounting supporting its calculation of amounts owed to CITY, if any, monthly in arrears, on or before the 20th calendar day of each month. Without limiting SDELP's sole discretion with regard to its toll policy, SDELP agrees that it shall in good faith maintain the same toll policy at the Rock Mountain Road Interchange that maintains for the Project as a whole. (b) In addition to CITY's rights under 3.2.3.2(a), above, if the Independent Financial Advisor determines, based upon the Rock Mountain Financial Test, that SDELP is not then obligated to fund and build the Rock Mountain Road Interchange but that SDELP could reasonably finance a portion of the Cost of the Rock Mountain Road Interchange that would satisfy the Rock Mountain Financial Test, the Parties shall in good faith negotiate the basis upon which the CITY may finance at least the portion of the Cost of design and Construction of the Rock Mountain Road Interchange that does not meet the Rock Mountain Financial Test. Within 90 days of the CITY's notice to SDELP that it desires to discuss a plan for financing the Rock Mountain Road Interchange in this manner, SDELP shall provide CITY with a proposed budget and Construction schedule, based upon the preliminary design engineering prepared by SDELP and approved by CITY, indicating the amount of the Cost that satisfy the Rock Mountain Financial Test that SDELP will agree to pay at that time, and a schedule for the CITY's payment of the portion of the cost of designing and building the Rock Mollntain Interchange to be paid by CITY. The Parties shall meet and confer to reasonably agree upon the same. The proposed Construction schedule shall provide for completion of Construction not later than two years from the date on which SDELP has both (i) access to all necessary right-of-way, and (ii) all approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies necessary to build the Rock Mountain Interchange. If the Parties reach an agreement for financing the Construction, CITY shall cooperate with and assist SDELP in securing the right-of-way for the Rock Mountain Road Interchange in the same manner as described in Section 3.2.3.1, above. CITY shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals of state and federal environmental regulatory agencies as provided in Section 3.2.4, below. SDELP shall complete the design and Construction of the Rock Mountain Road Interchange in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule. SDELP agrees to repay the CITY for the cost of designing and building the Rock Mountain Road Interchange paid by CITY by either (i) incorporating the costs paid by the CITY in a refinancing of the senior debt initially raised to finance the Project and repaying the CITY for its Costs incurred upon the close of such refinancing, or (ii) making monthly payments to the City in the manner provided in Section 3.2.3.2(a)(ii) above, provided that such payments shall be reduced by the percentage of the Cost of building the Rock Mountain Road Interchange that is paid by SDELP. 3.2.4 Environmental Review of Additional Improvements. CITY shall be responsible for obtaining all environmental approvals and permits, at CITY's sole Cost, for all additional improvements described in this Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.3, in accordance with the same procedure and provisions provided in Section 3.2.1.2, above. If the environmental approval of the additional improvement is not issued until after the reports of the Independent advisors described in Section 3.2.2.1 have already been issued, when the environmental approvals are chlilavistaclean1 13 ;? - /7 issued, the conditions described in paragraphs 3.2.2.1 (c) and (d) shall be reassessed taking into account the cost of the conditions and required mitigations in the environmental approvals as issued. 3.2.5 Books and Records. SDELP shall maintain full and complete books, ledgers, journals, accounts or records (collectively "Records") in which are kept all entries reflecting it operations relevant to the financial tests and payment obligations described in this Section 3.2. CITY shall have the right, at any reasonable time during regular business hours, but not more £Tequently than annually, upon at least 48 hours notice, to audit all Records that directly relate to SDELP's performance under Section 3.2 of this Agreement. Such Records shall be made available at SDELP's offices in San Diego, California. CITY shall not have the right to copy the Records or remove them £Tom SDELP's place of business. If, in the course of such audits, representatives of CITY note any deficiencies or discrepancies in the Records, they shall be reported to SDELP promptly. 3.3 Evaluation of East H Street Undercrossing. SDELP shall direct its Construction Contractor during final Design to evaluate the option of having the Project pass under East H Street. CITY and SDELP shall work together to determine the feasibility of this change. This change will only be implemented ifthere are no environmental delays and no increase in Cost of the Project to SDELP. 3.4 Standards. SDELP's Design, Construction and operation of the Project shall comply with CALTRANS'standards for engineering design and maintenance. SDELP further agrees that the Project's design shall be in accordance with the provisions of the SR 125 design guidelines dated June 21, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit "J" to the extent that the same do not conflict with any of the Project's environmental and water quality permits. SDELP shall notify CITY of any such conflicts. SDELP shall design, construct and operate the Project using CALTRANS' design and maintenance standards as the minimum standards. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where there is an interface with CITY-owned Facilities, CITY standards, requirements, permits and approvals, as reasonably determined by the CITY engineer, shall apply unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise. Design and maintenance activities to which this Section shall apply include, but are not limited to: (a) drainage basin; Drainage design, which shall accommodate ultimate development of the (b) (c) Utility relocation; Signage; (d) (e) Location and design of noise attenuation, including berms and walls; Traffic signals and ramps; (f) Other Project improvements to the extent of their physical interconnection with a CITY Facility. chulavistaclean I 14 f-c2fJ 3.5 Noise Attenuation. SDELP shall provide Project noise attenuation consistent with the requirements for environmental mitigation defined in the Final Project EIS/EIR. Where no development exists on property adjacent to the Project right-of-way at the time of Construction, if sufficient land is provided by any such adjacent property owner at no cost to SDELP, SDELP agrees that it will construct, at no Cost to CITY, a raised earthwork berm at the time of Project grading, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Parties agree that where land is not provided without cost to SDELP for the raised earthwork berm, SDELP shall not be responsible for noise attenuation beyond what is required ofSDELP in the Final EIR/EIS. SDELP agrees that this Agreement does not create any obligation on the part of CITY to provide noise attenuation for the Project. Ifno development exists on property adjacent to the Project right-of-way at the time that the Project is under construction at such location, and if there is not sufficient land for a raised berm, upon CITY's request, SDELP shall take reasonable steps to secure CAL TRANS' permission for placement of sound attenuation structures within the Project right-of-way, if needed and effective for noise attenuation, at no cost to SDELP or CITY. If requested by CITY and the relevant Private Landowner, and approved by CALTRANS, SDELP will build such structures on the Project right-of-way to CALTRANS' standards, or CITY standards if approved by CAL TRANS, at the Private Landowner's sole Cost except as may be otherwise agreed to by SDELP and such Private Landowner in a separate agreement. SDELP agrees to in good faith apply for a design exception waiver from CALTRANS for the construction of sound attenuation structures in order to construct such structures in accordance with CITY standards, however CITY acknowledges that such waiver will be granted or withheld by CAL TRANS in its sole discretion, and SDELP shall not have any liability to the CITY for CAL TRANS refusal to grant any such waiver. 3.6 Landscaping. SDELP shall design, plant and maintain landscaping on the SR 125 right-of-way and at local interchanges at SDELP's own cost and expense as described in Exhibit !. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SDELP shall not be required to incur any cost or expense to install or maintain any areas of lawn or turf that CITY may request. CITY may request that SDELP install lawn and/or turf areas as a part of such landscaping, provided that CITY pays all costs and expenses for installation and maintenance of the lawn and/or turf areas installed at its request. 3.7 CITY Review. SDELP shall provide CITY with all plans, specifications, and engineering drawings for portions of the Project that are within the CITY's geographical boundaries. If CITY's review and comments or approval are required with respect to any submittal of plans, specifications or other relevant engineering and Design documents, CITY shall provide its comments or approval within 20 Business Days of such submittal. For large submittals that cannot reasonably be reviewed within such 20 Business Days period, CITY may request, and SDELP shall in good faith agree to, a reasonable extension of the review period. If CITY does not provide its comments within the 20 Business Day review period and CITY does not in good faith request additional time, then SDELP shall be entitled to proceed as proposed in the submittals, provided that the submitted documents otherwise comply with applicable CAL TRANS standards, and with applicable CITY standards for any Project improvements that connect with CITY Facilities. If, before the expiration of the 20 Business Days review period, CITY raises any issues with respect to the submittals, the Parties shall work together in good faith to resolve the issue(s) raised by CITY. If the Parties cannot reach agreement and the submittal relates to a Project improvement that connects to a CITY Facility. for which CITY's chulavistaclean1 15 f-2/ approval is required, the Parties shall refer the issue to dispute resolution in accordance with Section 6, below. If the CITY's comments relate to a Project improvement that does not require CITY approval, SDELP shall take CITY's comments into account in good faith, but SDELP shall be entitled to proceed with such improvement notwithstanding the CITY's comments. 3.8 Use of Right of Way for CITY Improvements Permitted by Cooperative Agreement. SDELP acknowledges that CITY may from time to time request a permit or approval from CAL TRANS to locate, install, alter, construct or use certain improvements on the Project right-of-way as identified in a Cooperative Agreement that CITY intends to enter into with CALTRANS. CALTRANS may request that SDELP review plans for such construction, location, installation, alteration or use of such improvements, and SDELP agrees to cooperate in good faith with CITY and CAL TRANS when so requested, by reviewing and providing comments within 20 days of receiving such a request. 3.9 Traffic. SDELP shall design and construct Project ramp intersection connections with CITY streets in accordance with CALTRANS and CITY street standards. At SDELP's request, CITY shall assume maintenance responsibility for signal operation at local access points, and the Parties shall share the cost of such maintenance during the term of the Development Franchise Agreement. SDELP's responsibilities under this Section 3.8 shall terminate upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Development Franchise Agreement. CITY shall invoice SDELP for its portion of such costs monthly in arrears, which invoices shall be payable net 30 days from date of invoice. CITY and CALTRANS shall coordinate post- Construction timing of signal systems at SR 125 connections with CITY streets. 3.10 Maintenance. SDELP shall, at no cost or expense to CITY, maintain and modifY, if required by CALTRANS during the term of the Franchise, all ramps and improvements within the Project right-of-way. SDELP's responsibilities under this Section 3.9 shall terminate upon expiration or earlier termination of the Development Franchise Agreement. SDELP shall not be responsible for maintaining improvements to CITY's streets that CITY required SDELP to construct. Responsibility for maintenance of underpasses and overpasses shall be allocated between the Parties in accordance with CAL TRANS' standard procedures. 3.11 Traffic Impacts. SDELP shall take reasonable steps to avoid recurring traffic congestion at intersections of off-ramps and on-ramps from/to the Project and local streets. SDELP further agrees to take reasonable steps to correct, in a manner mutually acceptable to SDELP and the City, such traffic impacts that may develop over the term of the Development Franchise Agreement. 3.12 Mitigation. SDELP shall comply with all applicable CITY, State and Federal environmental mitigation requirements with respect to the Project, including, but not limited to, noise ordinances, traffic impacts, detours, road closures and hours of Construction operations. 3.13 SR 125 Crossing. If CITY desires to construct any crossings over or under SR 125, SDELP shall, upon CITY's request, cooperate in good faith in seeking CALTRANS' approval for CITY to construct such crossing within the Project right-of-way at no right-of-way cost to CITY, provided, however, that SDELP shall not be required to incur any Cost to secure CAL TRANS' approval. SDELP further agrees to reasonably cooperate and to reasonably chulavistaclean1 16 f-02.~ provide any of its own necessary approvals for such crossings or access rights, at no cost to CITY. SDELP's foregoing obligations shall be subject to the condition that the proposed crossings will not, in its good faith analysis and judgment, interfere with or impair the Project's toll operations. 3.14 Future Transit. SDELP shall reasonably and in good faith cooperate with CITY and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board ("MTDB") in the review and consideration of the possible accommodation of a future transit crossing of the Project between Olympic Parkway and Birch Parkway. SDELP shall request that CAL TRANS grant to MTDB any excess rights- of-way which are not needed for the Project and which may be needed by MTDB for transit construction and operations, at no cost to MTDB other than reimbursement to SDELP and/or CAL TRANS of any costs each of them respectively may have incurred with respect to ownership of such excess rights-of-way. Prior to offering for sale to any other person any excess rights-of-way that were purchased for the Project, SDELP shall offer to sell, or if title to.such excess property is held by CALTRANS, request that CALTRANS offer to sell, such excess rights of way to MTDB for transit construction and operations purposes at a price equal to SDELP's acquisition cost, plus costs incurred by SDELP and/or CAL TRANS respectively with respect to ownership of such excess rights of way from the date of acquisition until transfer to MTDB. ARTICLE 4 Escrow 4.1 Establishment of Escrow. The Parties hereby agree that the escrow with Chicago Title Insurance Company, 925 B Street, San Diego, California 92101 ("Escrow Holder") that SDELP shall establish pursuant to its agreements with Private Landowners regarding Future Dedication Parcels, shall serve as the "Escrow" for purposes of this Agreement. The appointment of Escrow Holder shall be designated by the delivery to Escrow Holder ofa completely executed copy of this Agreement. 4.2 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement, together with the General Provisions of Escrow Holder attached hereto as Exhibit "K" (the "General Provisions") collectively shall constitute escrow instructions, and a copy hereof shall be deposited with Escrow Holder for the purposes of enabling Escrow Holder to record the CITY's Certificates of Acceptance of the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of the Dedicated Parcels which shall transfer title to the Dedicated Parcels from the Private Landowners to the City, and to record the Grant Deeds conveying title to the City-Owned Parcels and the Dedicated Parcels from the CITY to CAL TRANS. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the General Provisions and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail to the extent of such inconsistency. 4.3 Recordation of Irrevocable Offers of Dedication. Upon a Private Landowner's delivery to Escrow Holder of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the CITY, Escrow Holder shall record the offer in the Official Records of the San Diego County Recorder. Escrow Holder shall provide conformed copies of any such recorded offer to CITY and SDELP. chulavistaclean1 17 if-;<3 4.4 Close of Escrow. "Close of Escrow" with respect to any parcel of Project right- of-way shall mean the recordation of the City's Certificate of Acceptance of such parcel, and recordation of the Grant Deeds transferring title to the CITY-Owned Parcels and the Dedicated Parcels from the CITY to CALTRANS. The Close of Escrow shall occur upon the satisfaction of the Conditions set forth below in Section 4.5. The Escrow shall terminate without closing if each ofthe conditions to the Close of Escrow has not been satisfied or waived on or before December 31,2002. 4.5 Conditions to Close of Escrow. The Close of Escrow shall not occur until each of the following conditions has been satisfied or waived by the party for whose benefit the condition exists: 4.5.1 CITY shall have deposited with Escrow Holder Certificates of Acceptance of the Dedicated Parcels duly executed by an authorized officer of the CITY. 4.5.2 CITY shall have deposited with Escrow Holder the Grant Deeds, duly executed by an authorized officer of CITY, which when recorded will convey the CITY's fee title in the CITY-Owned Parcels and the Dedicated Parcels to CALTRANS. 4.5.3 SDELP shall have deposited with Escrow Holder a certificate addressed to CITY and Escrow Holder and executed by a duly authorized officer of SDELP to the effect that the Toll Road Financing has closed and that SDELP is prepared to commence construction, together with evidence that SDELP has delivered a copy of such certificate to CITY in accordance with the notice provisions in Section 7.2 of this Agreement. 4.5.4 SDELP shall have deposited with Escrow Holder a statement of the Fair Market Value of the CITY-Owned Parcels and the Dedicated Parcels for purposes of determining the amount of insurance to be provided by the Title Policy. 4.5.5 Escrow Holder stands ready to issue the Title Policy. 4.5.6 Escrow Holder shall have received all other sums and documents reasonably required by Escrow Holder to be deposited to the Escrow. 4.5.7 Escrow Holder shall have received from CITY confirmation that CITY and CAL TRANS have entered into a cooperative agreement related to the subject matter of this Agreement; provided that this condition shall be deemed to have been waived by CITY automatically, without further action required on the part of CITY to evidence such waiver, if not satisfied on or before the day that is 40 days after the date that the Close of Toll Road Financing occurs, as certified by SDELP in accordance with Section 4.5.3, above. 4.5.7 As a condition of the Close of Escrow only with respect to those parcels offered for dedication by Trimark Pacific Homes, LP., Escrow Holder shall have received a certificate ITom SDELP confirming that CALTRANS (or SDELP as its designee), CITY and Trimark Pacific Homes, LP. have entered into an agreement regarding the property that is the subject of the irrevocable offer(s) of dedication. chulavistaclean I 18 1-;2. c¡ 4.6 Recordation of Certificates of Acceptance and Grant Deeds. Upon receipt of the documents and sums described in Section 4.5, and upon satisfaction or waiver of the contingencies specified in Section 4.5, Escrow Holder shall cause the Certificates of Acceptance to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and immediately thereafter Escrow Holder shall cause the Grant Deeds to be recorded in the office ofthe County Recorder of San Diego County. Escrow Holder shall deliver conformed copies of such recorded Certificate of Acceptance and Grant Deeds to CITY and SDELP promptly after recording. 4.7 Title Policies. Upon the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder is hereby instructed to deliver to CAL TRANS, American Land Title Association standard owner's policies of title insurance with regional exceptions dated the date and time of the closing with liability in the Fair Market Value of the insured property (the "Title Policy") for each City-Owned Parcel and each Dedicated Parcel. The Title Policies shall name CAL TRANS as the owner of good, marketable and indefeasible fee title to the CITY -Owned Parcels and the Dedicated Parcels, subject -only to (i) the standard printed Title Company exceptions, (ii) the Permitted Title Exceptions, and (iii) matters approved in writing by SDELP or otherwise permitted by this Agreement. 4.8 Prorations. (a) All prorations shall be as of 11:59 p.m. on the day preceding the Close of Escrow. (b) Real property taxes and all payments on general and special bonds, taxes and assessments shall be prorated based on the latest available tax information as provided in the escrow instruction from SDELP and the Private Landowners to Escrow Holder. CITY and CAL TRANS shall not be responsible for any taxes, bonds or special assessments against the Dedicated Parcels or Future Dedication Parcels. 4.10 Costs of Escrow. SDELP shall pay all costs of the Escrow, including the Escrow fee, the premium for the Title Policies and all recording fees or documentary transfer taxes, if any. 4.11 Termination of Escrow Without Closing. In the event of termination of this Agreement prior to the Close of Escrow, upon request of a Party accompanied by the Parties mutual written certification that this Agreement has been terminated, Escrow Holder shall promptly return to each Party all documents that each Party respectively has deposited with Escrow Holder pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE 5 Interim SR 125 Improvements 5.1 Option to Build Interim SR 125 Improvements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the CITY's General Plan provides for highway improvements within the general location of the Project as a result of planned growth within the CITY. Accordingly, CITY intends to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with CALTRANS that will provide the CITY with the right to access the Project right-of-way to build and use for road public road purposes certain "Interim SR-125 Improvements" (hereinafter defined) if: (i) SDELP materi¡¡lly fails to progress chulavistaclean 1 19 ---- f-:L;S Initial Project Construction in accordance with the Toll Road Schedule to be prepared by the Contractor within 60 days from the Close of Toll Road Financing, as described in Article 4 of the Design Build Contract, for a continuous period of 12 months, and (ii) measured traffic exceeds the levels that indicate that the SR-125 improvements are required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance and Element of the General Plan, as determined by CITY in its sole discretion. 5.2 Description ofInterim SR 125 Improvements. The "Interim SR 125 Improvements" shall consist of highway improvements between Olympic Parkway and San Miguel Road within the CITY, and shall be suitable for incorporation into the Project as may be required by CAL TRANS in accordance with the written approval of CAL TRANS, provided, however, if such improvements are not suitable for incorporation into the Project, the CITY shall be solely responsible for removing such improvements. CITY shall design and build any such Interim Improvements to the applicable CAL TRANS or CITY standards, in accordance with the terms agreed to by CALTRANS and the CITY. CITY shall obtain CALTRANS' written approval of the proposed Interim SR 125 Improvements prior to commencing Constmction. 5.3 Exercise of Right to Construct Interim SR 125 Improvements. CITY's right to construct the Interim Improvements shall be subordinate to the rights of the Project's Lenders, and shall be exercised only if the conditions established in Section 5.1 are met, and if the Lenders do not exercise their rights to cure the cause of the delay within the 12 month period provided above, and diligently pursue completion of such cure. CITY shall provide at least 90 days prior written notice of its intent to construct Interim Improvements to CAL TRANS, SDELP and the Lenders. CITY's reservation of the right to build the Interim SR-125 Improvements shall expire automatically upon substantial completion of the Construction of the Initial Project Improvements within the area described in Section 5.2, above. In the event that after CITY has exercised its right to build and operate the Interim Improvements the cause of SDELP's delay is cured, SDELP shall have the right to recommence Project Construction in the area of the Interim improvements upon 30 days notice to CITY. CITY shall promptly remove any Interim Improvements that are not suitable for incorporation into the Project. To the extent reasonably feasible, SDELP shall coordinate Project Construction in a manner permitting CITY's continued use of any part of the Interim Improvements that will be incorporated into the Project, provided that CITY shall be responsible for any additional cost or expense to be incurred with respect thereto. ARTICLE 6 Dispute Resolution 6.1 Cooperation and Dispute Notice. The Parties agree to schedule regular meetings. at least on a monthly basis, and upon reqllest of either Party, for monitoring the progress of the Parties' respective performance of their obligations hereunder. In the event of any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement ("Dispute"), the complaining Party shall provide a notice of the Dispute ("Dispute Notice") to the other Party describing the facts surrounding the Dispute in sufficient detail to apprise the other Party of the nature of the complaint. chulavistacleanl 20 9-~ 6.2 Negotiation. The Parties shall attempt to settle all Disputes. To this effect, the Parties shall conduct at least one face-to-face meeting of an Executive Review Committee in which they shall consult and negotiate with each other, and, recognizing their mutual interests, attempt to reach a solution satisfactory to both Parties. The Executive Review Committee will consist of the City Manager, the City's Director of Public Works, a representative of the City Attorney's office, the President or a Vice President ofSDELP's general partner, at SDELP's election such senior representatives of SDELP's contractors that may be necessary to resolve such dispute, and at SDELP's election, SDELP's counsel with respect to such matter. Such meeting shall take place within ten (10) calendar days following delivery of a Dispute Notice. Except with respect to Provisional Relief (as defined below), compliance with the Dispute Notice and negotiation provisions hereof shall be a condition precedent to the filing of any action involving a Dispute. 6.3 Provisional Remedies. Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 6. I. and 6.2 hereof, a Party may seek from a court of competent jurisdiction any interim or provisional relief that may be necessary to protect the rights or property of that Party ("Provisional Relief') without first serving a Default Notice or first attempting to settle the Dispute.6.4 Complaint. If the Parties do not reach a resolution to their Dispute within 7 calendar days following service of a Dispute Notice, then either Party may file in a State Court of competent jurisdiction and serve upon the other in the manner prescribed by law, a complaint concerning and limited to the Dispute as described in the Dispute Notice. 6.5 Continuing Performance. The Parties agree that they will continue their respective performance required hereunder notwithstanding any Dispute, and that such continued performance shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses. ARTICLE 7 Miscellaneous 7.1 Approvals. 7.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, where this Agreement requires approval, consent, permission, satisfaction, agreement or authorization by either Party, such approval, consent, permission, satisfaction, agreement or authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 7.1.2 The Parties agree to execute such further documents, agreements, instruments and notices as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 7.2 Notices. 7.2.1 Unless otherwise provided herein, any notices required or permitted to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and hand delivered, telecopied, or sent by registered or certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested: chulavistacleanl 21 9-27 To CITY: City ofChula Vista [address] Attention: Telephone: Facsimile: with a copy to: City ofChula Vista Office of the City Attorney 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attention: Ann Y. Moore, Esq., Senior Assistant City Attorney Telephone: (619) 691-5037 Facsimile: (619) 409-5823 To SDELP: San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership c/o California Transportation Ventures, Inc. 707 Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Telephone: (619) 338-8385 Facsimile: (619) 338-8123 with a copy to Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, 31 st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attention: Geoffrey S. Yarema, Esq. Telephone: (213) 612-7800 Facsimile: (213) 612-7801 Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of receipt. Notice by telecopy shall be confirmed by telecopy machine confirmation. Either Party may change its addressee(s) for notice by providing written notice of such change in accordance with the requirements of this Section of the Agreement. 7.2.2 The Parties may also designate other procedures for the giving of notice as required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement, but alternate procedures shall be as described in writing and signed by the CITY and SDELP. chulavistacleanl 22 f-fl 7.3 Waiver. The failure of any Party at any time or times to require performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right at a later time to enforce the same. No waiver by any Party of any condition, or of any breach of any term, covenant, representation, or warranty contained herein, in anyone or more instances, shall be deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such condition or breach, or as a waiver of any other condition or of any breach of any other term, covenant, representation or warranty. 7.4 Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and discussions, whether written or oral, express or implied. Further, except as expressly set forth herein, the Parties acknowledge and agree that no representations of any kind, oral or otherwise, express or implied, have been made by either of them, their attorneys or other representatives relating to the subject matter hereof, and that, by executing this Agreement, the Parties warrant and represent that this Agreement is made' and entered into without reliance upon any statements or representations of the other Party or any of its attorneys or other representatives, except as such statements and representations of the other Party or any of its attorneys or other representatives expressly are set forth herein. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, superseded or canceled, and none of the covenants, representations, warranties or conditions hereof may be waived, except by a written instrument executed by the Party against which such amendment, modification, novation, cancellation or waiver is to be charged. 7.5 Time of Essence. In performing all obligations required under this Agreement, time is of the essence. 7.6 Legal Rights. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The rights and remedies of CITY and SDELP for default in performance under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights or remedies provided by law. 7.7 Severability. In the event that any portion hereof is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to produce an amendment to this Agreement that will effectuate the original intent of the Parties respecting the portion hereof determined to be illegal or unenforceable. If the Parties cannot reach agreement, the matter shall be submitted for dispute resolution in accordance with Article 6 hereof. 7.8 Gender and Tense. As used in this Agreement, the masculine, feminine and neuter genders, and the singular and plural shall each be deemed to include the other or others whenever the context so indicates. 7.9 Headings. The headings that appear at the commencement of each Section are descriptive only and for convenience in reference in this Agreement. Should there be any conflict between any heading and the Section itself, the Section itself and not the heading shall control as to construction. 7.10 Incorporation of Exhibits. Every exhibit to which reference is made in this Agreement is hereby incorporated in this Agreement by reference. chulavistaclean I 23 7Î --~'J 7.11 Counterpart Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 7.12 Force Maieure. Except with respect to any obligation to pay money when due, neither Party shall be held liable for any loss or damage due to delay or failure in performance of any part of this Agreement from any cause beyond its control and without its fault or negligence; such causes may include acts of God, acts of civil or military authority, government regulations (except those promulgated by the Party seeking the benefit of this section unless promulgated as a result of federal or state mandate), embargoes, epidemics, war, terrorist acts, riots, insurrections, fires, explosions, earthquakes, nuclear accidents, floods, strikes, power blackouts of duration exceeding forty-eight (48) hours, volcanic action, other major environmental disturbances or unusually severe weather conditions (collectively, "Force Majeure"). In the event of a Force Majeure likely to cause any such delay or failure, the Party suffering such Force Majeure shall give notice to the other Party hereto, stating the particulars of such Force Majeure and shall to the extent it is capable of doing so, remove such cause with all reasonable dispatch, except that no Party shall be required to settle any strike, walkout, labor dispute or disturbance by acceding to the demands of the opposing party when such course is deemed inadvisable by such Party. 7.13 Authority of Signatories. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other Party that it has the legal authority and capacity and direction fÌom its principal to enter into this Agreement, that all resolutions and/or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement, and that upon execution of this Agreement it shall be legally valid, binding and enforceable with respect to such Party, without any further approval, ratification, resolution or other act required. 7.15 Assignment. Except for an assignment to CALTRANS or as necessary in connection with SDELP's financing the Project, which shall not require CITY's approval, the obligations of SDELP under this Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or in part, without the express written approval of CITY, which approval shall not be umeasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. 7.16 Recording. The Parties shall cooperate in taking reasonable steps to enable the recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records of San Diego County. 7.17 Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for so long as either Party has executory obligations hereunder, except as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. 7.18 Exhibits. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, each of which is incorporated herein by reference: Exhibit A - Map of Project Exhibit B - List of City-Owned Parcels and Dedicated Parcels Exhibit C - List of Future Dedication Parcels Exhibit D - Approved Form ofIrrevocable Offer of Dedication Exhibit E - Approved Form of Grant Deed chulavistaclean I 24 tJ--30 Exhibit F - Intentionally Omitted Exhibit G - Intentionally Omitted Exhibit H - Intentionally Omitted Exhibit I - Intentionally Omitted Exhibit J - SR 125 Design Guidelines dated June 21,1999 Exhibit K - Escrow Holder's General Provisions [SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE] chulavistaclean1 25 f-3/ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY, and SDELP have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first above set forth. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: Name: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: By: Name: Title: City Attorney ATTEST: By: Name: Title: City Clerk Date: March -' 2002 SAN DIEGO EXPRESSWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership By: CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION VENTURES, its general partner By: Name: Title: Date: [Add notary acknowledgements for each signatory] chulavistaclean I 26 f-3~ EXHIBITS EXHIBITS TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT. f-33 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Page 1, Item l~ Meeting Date 03/26/02 ITEM TITLE: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND A NEW ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE {PFDIF) TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY. AN ORDINANCE NO. OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY. (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Budget and Analysis REVIEWED BY: City Manager 5 BACKGROUND: In June 2000, City Council increased the total Public Facilities Impact Fees (PFDIF) from $2,150 to $2,618 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) - the first significant update to the PFDIF in nine years. The increase was based on the "Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities, 1999 Update", which included very preliminary versions of the new police facility, corporation yard and civic center expansion master plans. Subsequently, the design firm of Highland Partnership, Inc. was hired to provide a rigorous needs assessment and cost analysis for the police and civic center projects. The new master plans were approved by Council on July 17, 2001, containing updated costs that necessitate a fee increase from $2,618 to $4,888 per EDU. The police and civic center projects alone account for over 71% of this increase. Fee adjustments for all PFDIF components are included in the attached "Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update': The fee update was developed in conjunction with developers and the Building Industry Page 2, Item Meeting Date 03~26~02 Association (BIA) over a three-month period. Staff would like to thank all participants for the myriad of ideas they generated which helped to improve the PFDIF program. RECOMMENDATION: That City Coundl adopt an urgency ordinance amending Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, to increase the fee from $2,618 to $4,888 per equivalent dwelling unit, effective for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption; and that City Council place a measure to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 3.50 on its first reading, to take effect and be in full force on the sixtieth (60t') day from and after its second reading and adoption. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Formal presentations were provided to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), the Economic Development Commission (EDC), and the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC). In general, commissioners understood the necessity for the increase. The GMOC had no objections to the increase. The EDC expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all City fees on commercial and industrial development. Staff plan to address this issue in separate studies prior to October 2002. The HAC expressed concern about the impact of the increase on affordable housing projects. Staff have worked to mitigate these potential problems through March 2005 and HAC proposals are being discussed that will address this issue thereafter~ DISCUSSION: This discussion represents a brief recap of more detailed information contained in the attached "Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update". Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Increase: Overall, projects included in the PFDIF total slightly more than $265 million, of which 68%, or $181 million is the responsibility of the PFDIF program. To date, approximately $40 million in fee and interest revenue has been collected. The proposed impact fee is calculated solely on the PFDIF's remaining obligation for project costs. Thirty-one percent of project costs ($62 million) is the City's share for correcting pre- existing deficits and for joint-impetus projects. Approximately 33% ($27.1 million) of the City share has already been expended. The remaining City share will be paid over the next 20-30 years· The largest remaining component of that share will be the Police Facility. The PFDIF is proposed to increase from $2,618 to $4,888, an increase of $2,270 per equivalent dwelling unit. The proposed increase for commercial/industrial development is also shown below. The fee increase, adjusted for financing costs and earned interest, is broken down as follows: Page 3, Item t C Meeting Date 03/26/02 PFDIF Component Current Fee Proposed Change Fee per EDU Civic Center $480 $1,202 + $722 Police $735 $1,635 + $900 Corporation Yard $386 $707 + $321 Libraries $638 $716 + $78 Fire Suppression System $203 $449 + $246 Administration $134 $149 + $15 GIS, Computer Systems, Records Management System, Telecommunications $42 $30 - $12 Residential $2,618 $4,888 + $2,270 I $20,860 + $1,554 Commercial/Industrial $13,090 I Major component changes are highlighted below. Police Facilities and Equipment Component: The fee is proposed to increase from $735 per EDU to $1,635 per EDU, representing the largest increase of any component. The increase is attributable to revised estimates suppoded by more detailed information now available from the new Police Facility Master Plan, in the key areas of building construction, design, project management and construction administration. A change in facility location also increased site acquisition costs. The new Master Plan, approved by City Council in July 2001, reflects increased staffing requirements generated by higher-than-expected call for service demand in newly developed areas. The Master Plan also added new planned facilities such as a quartermaster area, a larger short-term holding space, and an indoor vehicle exam area. These significant cost increases required the financing period for the new facility to be increased from 20 to 30 years, further contributing to the fee increase. The police facility will be constructed as a design-build project with future project costs not expected to change significantly, with the possible exception of changes in borrowing rates in the very near future. The PFDIF share of the new Police Facility has been capped at 48.5% of the basic $63 million project, plus applicable financing charges. The cap does not include extraordinary costs (costs that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time the project budget was developed, such as the significant increase in insurance costs after 9/11), possible inflationary changes, and extraordinary EDU changes as defined in the following "Prepayment of Fees" section. ~ Commercial/industrial is assessed at the rate of 5 EDUs per acre. The table presents the proposed increase per acre, expressed as a "per EDU" increase ($20,860 - $13,090 = $7,770 + 5 = $1,554/EDU). Page 4, Item / il Meeting Date 03/26/02 DISCUSSION (continued): Civic Center Expansion Component: The $722 increase in this fee component is attributable to increases in construction-related costs similar to those for the Police Facility, and costs not included or underestimated in the 1997 Civic Center Master Plan, but identified in the more detailed Master Plan update, approved by Council in July 2001. Increases reflect added costs to relocate Fire Station #1, rewiring and telecommunication upgrades padicularly in the existing Police building, and additional modifications to common and public areas. Financing costs for the Civic Center expansion add significantly to the overall project. It is important to note that the proposed fee increase also incorporates a number of cost savings due to re-use of the vacated police building and reductions in square footage and parking-related needs. Corporation Yard: The fee is proposed to increase from $386 to $707 per EDU, primarily reflecting increases in site preparation requirements, and the addition of 11,000 square feet of office space to accommodate the staff to be relocated from the Civic Center. The PFDIF share of the new corporation yard has been capped at 47.1% of the basic $35.1 million project cost, plus applicable financing costs. Libraries: The fee for the Library component is proposed to increase from $638 to $716 per EDU, principally attributable to spreading costs only to residential units. Previously, library costs had been spread to both residential and commercial/industrial Jand uses which lowered the cost per EDU. The update reflects changes in library usage since the 1990's. The full Library component fee increase has, however, been partially offset and may be reduced even further. The City will be submitting a State Libraries grant application for the Rancho del Ray library (under Proposition 14). If obtained, the grant would pay for 65% of construction costs, thereby providing an offset to the PFDIF of $4.4 million. The proposed fee already incorporates half of this projected offset. Future fee adjustments will depend on whether the grant is awarded. ?i;'e ~uppressio;'~ Svslem: The fee is proposed to increase from $203 ~o $449 per EDU. The increase primarily reflects updated construction costs for future fire stations and a 51% increase in the cost of fire apparatus. There were no additional costs for external financing. Administration: The fee is proposed to increase by $15 per EDU. The major factors in this change include an enhanced need to develop financial tracking systems for the various building projects detailed above. Page 5, Item Meeting Date 03/26/02 DISCUSSION (continued): Prepayment of Fees: As requested by developers it is proposed that, at the discretion of the City Manager, developers be allowed to prepay the Police Facility component fee at a reduced rate of $865 per EDU, and/or to prepay the Civic Center Expansion component fee at a reduced rate of $708 per EDU. The prepaid fee is lower than the standard fee because it does not include financing. However, since financing costs are removed from both the prepaid fee and the total project cost, the standard fee remains unchanged for developers who do not elect to prepay. The prepaid EDU fee will be adjusted to account for any of the following events: · extraordinary costs as defined previously; a change in EDU totals in excess of 2,000 EDUs, which would have a substantial effect on fee levels; normal annual adjustments which are not already incorporated into project totals. Such adjustments would be for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or for construction costs increases according to the Building Construction index (BCI) as published by the ENR. Developers who transfer prepaid EDUs to merchant builders are still solely responsible for ensuring that such cost adjustments are remitted to the PFDIF fund in a timely manner. Prepayment of Police Facility fees must be made to the City Finance Department by April 16, 2002 in order to facilitate staff planning for the required bond issuance. Similarly, Civic Center Expansion fees must be paid three months prior to the date the City solicits financing which, based on current plans, could be as early as June 30, 2003. As with all other PFDIF fund balances, the City will retain any earned interest on the prepaid funds, to be used for any allowable PFDIF purpose. As part of the prepayment process, an agreement stipulating to the terms above, must be entered into with the City. Recreation Facilities: The addition of a new PFDIF component to fund public recreation facilities has not been included with this update pending further study and adoption of the Parks Master Plan. The master plan is scheduled for presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 27, 2002. City staff have determined that the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee, calculated in 1991, has for some time been insufficient to meet the costs of planned major recreation facilities such as community centers, gymnasiums, and swimming pools. These facilities are needed to serve the growing City population due to new development. Staff have also determined that funds to pay for those facilities may be more suitable for collection through the PFDIF than through the PAD. Developers were informed of the City's intention to establish the new PFDIF component in October 2001. At that time, staff and developers agreed to delay discussions on the new Recreation Facilities component until after an update of the existing 10 components (the subject of this report) was adopted by the City Council. Discussions concerning the new Recreation Facilities component are targeted to commence in late April 2002. When implemented, the new Recreation Facilities fee will not be spread to commercial/industrial development due to the absence of an appropriate nexus. Affordable Housing The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) has raised concerns with regard to the impacts of a significant fee increase on affordable housing project costs. Municipal Code section 3.50.070 currently allows developers of Iow and/or moderate-income housing projects to prepay up to 500 EDUs as approved by the City Manager. Staff have been working with the Housing Division to ensure that developers of affordable housing projects that are planned to commence before March 2005 (a 3-year period), will be able to lock in the existing fee rate ($2,618 per EDU) and to pay said fees over a 5-10 year period. Because housing costs and thus related fees are projected to rise over the long term, it is expected that the HAC will develop proposals for future Council consideration which would help offset fee increases that occur after March 2005. PageT, Item l~~ Meeting Date 03/26102 URGENCY: It is necessary that the City's development impact fee increases for public facilities go into effect immediately in order that all developers of properties in the Eastern territories of the City pay their fair share of the cost of public facilities improvements relating to the impacts caused by their development. In addition, GMOC thresholds call for timely analysis of development impact fee activity, including fee adjustments, to ensure that funding is available when facilities need to be built. Furthermore, immediate implementation of this fee increase is necessary due to the current and immediate threat to public safety that will result should there be a shortfall in the amount of money necessary to pay for the various needed public facilities, thereby resulting in a decline in police and fire service levels. The prospect of a shortfall and the inadequacy of public safety facilities constitute a current immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety justifying the immediate imposition of this fee. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends increasing the total Public Facilities Development Impact Fee by $2,270 - from $2,618 to $4,888 per EDU. Current and future projects included in the PFDIF total $265,109,171 of which 68% ($181,086,819) is the responsibility of the PFDIF program. To date, 24% or $50,471,027 of the PFDIF obligation, including earned interest, has been paid. Financing: Of the four major building projects that are planned to commence between 2002 and 2006, the PFDIF share for the new Police Facility and the Civic Center expansion will require external financing. Conversely, the PFDIF obligation for the Rancho del Rey Library and the Otay Ranch Village 2 Fire Station are planned to be directly financed from fund balances, as are all building projects targeted for 2006 and beyond. Currently, the annual PFDIF debt service is $1.5 million. By the year 2004, the PFDIF debt service is projected to rise to $3.3 million, and reach $5.7 million in 2006. The annual PFDIF debt service will be approximately $4.2 to $5.5 million through the year 2022 for all projects. Police Facility debt service will extend to 2030 at approximately $1.8 million annually. At the direction of the Assistant City Manager, staff conducted a "worst case" growth scenario to assess the City's risk should development slow. The study concluded that at the new fee level, the City could withstand a significant slowdown in building activity (down to approximately 1,000 EDUs per year) over several years. Such a slump would, of course, necessitate a change in project phasing and a fee adjustment to account for lower interest earnings on PFDIF fund balances. ORDINANCE NO. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020, 3.50.030, 3.50.050, 3.50.070, AND 3.50.090 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY WHEREAS, the City Council is placing an ordinance on its first reading which will increase the development impact fee to finance public facilities within the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees increased by that ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its second reading; and WHEREAS, developments in the City which will impact various public facilities will be applying for building permits during the interim period before the development impact fee increase becomes effective; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66017(b) authorizes the City to adopt an interim fee as an urgency measure upon making a finding describing the current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, state law requires said urgency ordinance to be adopted by a four-fifths vote; and WHEREAS, cost estimates for the current list of needed public facilities, have been updated; and WHEREAS, new master plans for the police facility and civic center expansion - the two most costly PFDIF projects - were approved by Council on July 17, 2001, containing updated costs that necessitate a fee increase; and WHEREAS, current developers of low/moderate-income housing may need to defer or prepay impact fees at the current rate for up to 500 EDUs, in order to financially protect the public-purpose project; 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 Chula Vista's General Plan area boundary should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the payment of an impact fee for construction of public 10' r¡ facilities within the boundaries of the development and for public facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with City standards; and The City Council finds that the legislative findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance No. 2810 continue to be true and correct; and The City Council finds, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the "Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update", that certain amendments are necessary in order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance police and fire facilities necessary to maintain public safety service levels; 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 public facilities 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 public facilities. SECTION 2: Findina of Uraencv That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that it is necessary that its development impact fee for public facilities go into effect immediately in order that all developers of properties in the eastern section of the City pay their fair share of the cost of public facilities improvements relating to the impacts caused by their development. Immediate implementation of this fee is necessary due to the current and immediate threat to public safety that will result should there be a shortfall in the amount of money necessary to pay for the various public facilities thereby resulting in a decline in police and fire service levels. The City Council finds that the prospect of a shortfall, inadequacy of public safety facilities and concerns about an increased charge to remaining property owners constitutes a current immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety justifying the immediate imposition of this fee. SECTION .3: That Sections 3.50.020, 3.50.030, 3.50.050, 3.50.070 and 3.50.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: /0 -Cf 3.50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this section, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. A. B. C. "Building permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by reference by this city. "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. "Development permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the city. D. "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 1 and 2 above, if the result is a net increase in EDUs. The fee shall be based solely on this net EDU 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 EDUs. The fee shall be based solely on this net EDU increase. 6. Any other development project not listed above but described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. E. "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, Alcoholic Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Daycare; /0-/0 5. 6. Senior care and recreation; Worship, spiritual growth and development; F. "Special land use" means any non-residential, non-commercial/office or non-industrial development project (e.g. Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. G. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g. daycare). H. "Engineer report" refers to the April 20, 1993 "development impact fees for public facilities" report. I. "Extraordinarv proiect cost increases" means increases resultina from costs that could not have been reasonablv foreseen at the time a proiect budaet was established. J. "Extraordinary EDU chanae" means an increase or decrease in the number of remainina planned equivalent dwellina units lEDUs) for which building permits have not vet been pulled. which chanaes the existina total bv more than 2,000 EDUs. 3.50.030 Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee. A. The public facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee include buildings, equipment and related one-time start-up costs or portions thereof, as detailed in Subsection C below and in the engineer report on file in the office of the city clerk. B. The city council may modify or amend this list of facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the city's general plan or the capital improvement program. The facilities are as follows: C. 1. Civic Center Expansion 2. Police Department Facilities and Equipment 3. Corporation Yard Relocation/Expansion 4. Library System Expansion 5. Fire Suppression System Expansion 6. Geographic information system oom 3l:Jter system expansion; 7. Computer svstem expansion; 7-.JL Telecommunication system ~ expansion; 8-.~ Records management system expansion. /0-11 3.50.050 Establishment of Fee. A development impact fee ("fee"), to be expressed on a per equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") basis, 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 city of Chula Vista, except that. at the discretion of the citv manaaer, a developer mav prepav all or part of civic center expansion and/or police facilities fees that would be applicable to the developer's future development proiects. Prepavment would occur at the then current rate; however. the developer has sole responsibility for pavina subsequent fee increases resultina from (1) "extraordinarv proiect cost increases". (2) normal annual adiustments in the Consumer Price Index (CPIJ or Buildina Construction Index (BCIJ, or (3) "extraordinarv EDU chanaes". 3.50.070 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, except that a developer of a development project providing low and/or moderate-income housing in accordance with Section III, Objective 1 of the 1991 housing element of the general plan may request authorization to prepay or defer the fee for up to 500 EDUs and said request may be approved at the sole discretion of the city manager. ~ pFC 3aYFRent, the Etevelopcr of said development 3Fejec-t SA all receive EDU oreEtit boscEt an the tAcn current fee. In order to facilitate those low and/or moderate- income proiects which are planned for construction throuah March 24, 2005, the fee for said proiects shall be the fee existina as of March 25, 2002. 3.50.090 Amount of Fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts set forth in Section 3.50.090.B and C. The city council may adjust the amount of this fee as necessary to reflect changes in the costs of the facilities as may be reflected by such index as the council deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, or such other basis; 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. Adjustments to the fee may be made by resolution amending this section. /0,1:;' B. The fee shall have p,ortions which are, according to the engineer report, allocated to a specific facility ("fee components") which correspond to the costs of the various facilities, plus the administration cost for the fee, which is a percentage of the fee components' total cost divided by total EDUs, as indicated In Section 3.50.090. The fee shall be the following, depending on land use: c. Land Use Residential Commercial/Office Industrial Special land use Olympic Training Center Public purpose Nonprofit community purpose facility Special purpose project, including for-profit day care Fee $ ¥4-8 4,888/dwelling unit 4-3;OOG 20,860/acre 4-3;OOG 20,860/acre 4-3;OOG 20,860/acre ~ 6,110/acre Exempt Exempt 7-;8§4 14,664/acre /0 ' /3 SECTION 5: Expiration of this ordinance This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 30 days after its adoption. SECTION 6: Time limit for protest and iudicial action Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by law. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the ninety day approval period in which parties may protest begins upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 7: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon four-fifths vote, Presented by Approved as to form by Cheryl Fruchter Director of Budget and Analysis K. 10-/'1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020, 3.50.030, 3.50.050, 3.50.070, AND 3.50.090 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY WHEREAS, in June 2000, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Ordinance No. 2810, increasing the Public Facilities Impact Fee (PFDIF) from $2,150 to $2,618 - the first significant increase in nine years; and WHEREAS, the increase was based on very preliminary versions of the new police facility and civic center expansion master plans; and WHEREAS, the design firm of Highland Partnership, Inc. was subsequently hired to provide a rigorous needs assessment and cost analysis for the police and civic center expansion projects; and WHEREAS, new master plans for the police facility and civic center expansion - the two most costly PFDIF projects - were approved by Council on July 17, 2001, containing updated costs that necessitate a fee increase; and WHEREAS, the impact fee is solely based upon that portion of project costs which are attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, under limited circumstances, developers of low/moderate- income housing may need to defer or prepay impact fees at the current rate for up to 500 EDUs, in order to financially protect the public-purpose project; and WHEREAS, the fee increase was developed in conjunction with developers and the Building Industry Association (BIA); and WHEREAS, development is considered to take place in accordance with the Phasing Plan established by the City's Planning Department which is subject to change depending on actual development phasing; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: /0.../5 SECTION 1. That the existing Ordinance Nos. 2432, 2320, 2554 and 2810 are hereby superseded, and a new Chapter 3.50 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 3.50 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.50.010 General Intent. The city's general plan land use and public facilities elements require 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 facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public facilities which are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public facilities in direct relationship to the amount of 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 facilities is to charge a fee on all developments in the city of Chula Vista. Imposition of the public facilities development impact fee on all new development for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare in order to ensure effective implementation of the city's general plan. 3.50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this section, 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 as adopted by reference by this city. B. C. "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. "Development permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the city. /()-It:? D. "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 1 and 2 above, if the result is a net increase in EDUs. The fee shall be based solely on this net EDU 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 EDUs. The fee shall be based solely on this net EDU increase. 6. Any other development project not listed above but described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. E. "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, Alcoholic Anonymous and services for the homeless; 4. F. 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; Daycare; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development; "Special land use" means any non-residential, non-commercial/office or non-industrial development project (e.g. Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. G. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g. daycare). /1J-/1 H. "Engineer report" refers to the April 20, 1993 "development impact fees for public facilities" report. I. "Extraordinarv proiect cost increases" means increases resultina from costs that could not have been reasonablv foreseen at the time a proiect budaet was established. J. "Extraordinarv EDU chanae" means an increase or decrease in the number of remainina planned equivalent dwellina units lEDUs) for which building permits have not vet been pulled, which chanaes the existina total bv more than 2,000 EDUs. 3.50.030 Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee. A. The public facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee include buildings, equipment and related one-time start-up costs or portions thereof, as detailed in Subsection C below and in the engineer report on file in the office of the city clerk. B. The city council may modify or amend this list of facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the city's general plan or the capital improvement program. The facilities are as follows: C. 1. Civic Center Expansion 2. Police Department Facilities and Equipment 3. Corporation Yard Relocation/Expansion 4. Library System Expansion 5. Fire Suppression System Expansion 6. Geographic information system ooFRputer systeFR expansion: 7. Computer system expansion; 7-.JL Telecommunication system ~ expansion; 8-.~ Records management system expansion. 3.50.040 Territory to which Fee Applicable. The area of the city of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable shall be the territorial limits of the city of Chula Vista ("territory") as they may from time to time be amended. (Ord 2554 '1, 1993). /(),/ð' 3.50.050 Establishment of Fee. A development impact fee ("fee"), to be expressed on a per equiyalent dwelling unit ("EDU") basis, 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 city of Chula Vista, except that. at the discretion of the city manaaer, a developer may prepay all or part of civic center expansion and/or police facilities fees that would be applicable to the developer's future development proiects. Prepayment would occur at the then current rate: however, the developer has sole responsibility for payina subsequent fee increases resultina from 11) "extraordinarv proiect cost increases", 12) normal annual adiustments in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Buildina Construction Index IBCI), or (3) "extraordinarv EDU chanaes". 3.50.060 Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units. Each new single family detached dwelling, single family attached dwelling, or unit within a multi-family dwelling or mobile home dwelling in a development project shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this fee. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged at the rate of 5.00 EDU's per gross acre of land. The EDU rate for each special land use development project, as defined in Section 3.50.020, shall be charged at the rate of 5.00 EDUs per gross acre of land, except that the Olympic Training Center shall be charged at the rate of 1.25 EDU's per gross acre of land. The EDU rate for each special purpose project, as defined in Section 3.50.020, shall be charged at the rate of 3 EDUs per gross acre of land. The charges shall be those outlined in Section 3.50.090.C. The fee multiplied by the total number of EDUs within a given development project represents a developer's fair share ("fair share") for that development project. (Ord 2554 '1, 1993). 3.50.070 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, except that a developer of a development project providing low and/or moderate-income housing in accordance with Section III, Objective 1 of the 1991 housing element of the general plan may request /f)-Ie¡ authorization to prepay or defer the fee for up to 500 EDUs and said request may be approved at the sole discretion of the city manager. ~ pre 3aYFRent, tAD Etevelo 3er of said EtcvelOpFRCRt projec-t sAall rcoeive EDU crcdit basee OR the then 6I:Jrront fcc. In order to facilitate those low and/or moderate- income proiects which are planned for construction throuah March 24, 2005. the fee for said proiects shall be the fee existina as of March 25, 2002. 3.50.080 Purpose and Use of Fee. The fee collected shall be used by the city for the following purposes in such order and at such time as determined by tne city council: A. To pay for such of the facilities that the city council determines should be constructed, installed or purchased at that time, or to reimburse the city for facilities funded by the city from other sources. To reimburse developers who have been required or ¡:>ermitted by Section 3.50.140.A to construct, install or purchase approved facilities listed in Section 3.50.030.C, in such amounts as the council deems appropriate. To repay: any and all persons who have, pursuant to prior fee ordinance 2320 or 2432, or pursuant to this ordinance, advanced or otherwise loaned funds for the construction of a facility identified herein. D. To repay the city for administration costs associated with administration of the fee. B. C. 3.50.090 Amount of Fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts set forth in Section 3.50.090.B and C. The city council may adjust the amount of this fee as necessary to reflect changes in the costs of the facilities as may be reflected by such index as the council deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, or such other basis; 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. Adjustments to the fee may be made by resolution amending this section. The fee shall have p,ortions which are, according to the engineer report, allocated to a specific facility ("fee components") which correspond to the costs of the various facilities, plus the administration cost for the fee, which is a percentage of the fee components' total cost divided by total EDUs, as indicated In Section 3.50.090. The fee shall be the following, depending on land use: B. C. /o-~o C. 3.50.110 Land Use Residential Commercial/Office Industrial Special land use Olympic Training Center Public purpose Nonprofit community purpose facility Special purpose project, including for-profit day care Fee $ ¥4-8 4,888/dwelling unit 4-3;OOG 20,860/acre 4-3;OOG 20,860lacre 4-3;OOG 20,860/acre ~ 6,110/acre Exempt Exempt 7-;8§4 14,664/acre 3.50.100 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 ("non-profit 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 non- profit 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 non-profit 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. 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 EDUs. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures. A. Fees collected before the effective date of the ordinance codifying this section. /O-{)./ 1. All fees which have accrued shall remain in separate accounts ("accounts") corresponding to the facilities listed in Section 3.50.030, as established by the director of finance, and shall only be expended for the purposes associated with each facility account. 2. The director of finance is authorized to maintain accounts for the various facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make expenditures from the accounts for the purposes set forth herein. B. Funds collected on or after the effective date of the ordinance codifying this section. 3.50.120 1. The fees collected shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund ("public facilities development impact fee fund," or alternatively herein "fund") which is hereby created and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. 2. 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. Findings. The city council finds that collection of the fee established by this chapter at the time of the building permit issuance is necessary to provide funds for the facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities. (Ord 2554 '1, 1993). 3.50.130 Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges. 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. 3.50.135 Mandatory Oversizing of Facility; Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer. Whenever a developer of a development project is required as a condition of approval of a development permit to cause a facility or a portion of a facility to be built to accommodate the demands created by the development project, the city may require the developer to install, purchase or construct the Facility according to design specifications approved by the city, that being with such I () - ;;, supplemental size or capacity required by the city ("oversized capacity requirement"). If such a oversized capacity requirement is imposed, the city shall offer to reimburse the developer from the fund either in cash or over time, with interest at the fair market value of money, as fees are collected, at the option of the city, for costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular facility as included in the calculation and updating of the fee. The city may update the fee calculation as city deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the fee. 3.50.140 A. Developer Construction of Facilities. 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 a facility, or if a developer proposes to design and construct a portion of a facility in conjunction with the prosecution of a development project within the territory, and follows the procedure for doing same hereinbelow set forth, the city council shall, in the following applicable circumstances, tender only the credit or reimbursement hereinbelow identified for that circumstance. 1. If the cost of the facility, incurred by the developer and acceptable to the city, is less than or equal to that portion of the developer's fair share related to the fee component for that facility, the city may only give a credit ("developer credit") against that portion of the developer's fair share related to the fee component for that facility ("fair share of the fee component"); or, 2. If the cost of the facility, incurred by the developer and acceptable to the city, is greater than that portion of the developer's fair share related to the fee component for that facility, but less than or equal to the developer's total fair share, the city may give a credit which credit shall first be applied against that portion of the fair share related to the fee component for that facility, and the excess costs for the facility shall then be applied as credits against such other fee components of the developer's total fair share as the city manager, in his sole and unfettered discretion, shall determine; or, 3. If the cost of the facility, incurred by the developer and acceptable to the city, is greater than the developer's total fair share, the city may give a credit against the developer's total fair share as the city manager, in his sole and unfettered discretion, shall determine; and/or, the city may tender to the developer a reimbursement agreement to reimburse said developer only from the fund as monies are available, over time, with interest at the fair market value of money, at the option of the city. /0-;;3 B. Unless otherwise stated herein, all Developer Credits shall be calculated on a dollar basis and converted into EDUs at the time building permits are pulled, based on the then current Fee. 3.50.150 Procedure for Issuance of Credits or Tender of Reimbursement Offer. The city's extension of credits or tender of a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to Section 3.50.140 shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the terms and conditions of this section: A. c. B. 6. Written authorization shall be requested by the developer from the city and issued by the city council by written resolution before developer may incur any costs eligible for reimbursement relating to the facility. The request for authorization shall contain the information listed in this section and such other information as may from time to time be requested by the city. If the council grants authorization, it shall be by written agreement with the developer, and on the following conditions among such other conditions as the council may from time to time impose: 1. Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit same for approval by the city. Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the facilities. 2. 3. Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for construction of the facilities. 4. Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount, and with a surety satisfactory to the city (where the developer intends to utilize provisions for immediate credit, the performance bond shall be for 100 percent of the value of the project). 5. Developer shall pay all city fees and costs; The city shall be held harmless and indemnified, and upon tender by the city, defended by the developer for any of the costs and liabilities associated with the construction of the facilities. /o-.;;i 10. 11. 7. The city will not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the facilities. The developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the facilities. 8. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lowest qualified bidder. If qualified, the developer may agree to perform the work at a price equal to or less than the low bid. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges during construction shall be justified and shall be documented to the satisfaction of the director of public works. 9. The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction attributable to the facilities and excludes any work attributable to a specific subdivision project. The estimate is preliminary and subject to final determination by the director of public works upon completion of the facilities. The city may grant partial credit for costs incurred by the developer on the facility upon determination of satisfactory incremental completion of a facility, as approved and certified by the director of public works, in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the construction completed to the time the partial credit is granted, thereby retaining 25 percent of such credits until issuance by the city of a notice of completion. 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 facility to the city. The director of public works shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for credit or reimbursement. Sec. 350.140 Developer Transfer of Credits A developer who, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.50.140 and 3.50.150, receives credits against future payments of the Fee for one or more Fee Components may transfer those credits as provided herein to another Developer. fill The Developer shall provide the City with written notice of such transfer within thirty (30) days. The notice shall provide the following information: . The name of the Developer to whom the credits were transferred: /0- ;;¡S . The dollar value of transferred credits: . The Fee Component(s) against which the credits will be applied: and . The projected rate, by Fiscal Year, that the credits will be applied, until said credits have been fully redeemed. (b) Credits received by a Developer of a low-and/or moderate-income project, in accordance with Section 3.50.70, can only be transferred to another low-and/or moderate-income Development Project. 3.50.160 Procedure for Fee Modification or Reduction. Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of this fee is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may apply to the city council for a modification or reduction of the fee. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk not later than ten days after notice of the public hearing on the development permit application for 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 modification or reduction. The city council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty days after its filing. The decision of the city council shall be final. If a reduction or modification is granted, any change in use within the project shall subject the development to payment of the fee. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law for protection or challenging this fee. 3.50.170 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 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. Developer loans. B. A developer may loan funds to the city as outlined in Sections 3.50.140 and 3.50.150(c)(14). The city may repay said developer loans with interest, under the terms listed in A. above. /0 -;Jft:7 3.50.180 Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective sixty days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Cheryl Fruchter Director of Budget and Analysis /O-d/ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: 03/26/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-02-20: Consideration of Amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan to Adjust the Boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, Re- designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and Reallocate 47 Dwelling Units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R- 7b. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving Amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving the Amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planned Community District Regulations modifying the Zoning District Map for Village Six PCS 02-05: Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map creating 1,392 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres of Village Six of Otay Ranch. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Village Six of the Otay Ranch, Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Chula Vista Tract 02-05. Applicant: Otay Ranch Company SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ~7~//~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X~_) Otay Ranch Company (ORC) has applied to amend the Village Six SPA Plan to re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from Single-family SF-4 to Residential Multi-family RM-2, and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and 7b. The overall number of dwelling units in the Village Six SPA area will remain the same. Otay Ranch Company has also applied for a tentative subdivision map to subdivide approximately 201.1 acres of Village Six in the Otay Ranch. The tentative map will subdivide ORC's portion of Village Six into 309 single-family lots, four neighborhoods containing 1,083 multi-family units, 7.7 acres of a public elementary school site, a 2.9 acre mixed use site in the Page No. 1 of 15 Item: // Meeting Date: 03~26~02 Village Core, a park site, a 4.4 acre Community P~rpose Facility (CPF) site and 2.3 acres of Common Usable Open Space. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed Projects have been previously identified in the Village Six SPA EIR 98-01; therefore, an addendum to the Village Six SPA EIR 98-01 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Village Six SPA Plan Amendment to adjust the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from Single-family SF-4 to Residential Multi-family RM-2, and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and 7b; and, 2. Adopt the attached Ordinance adjusting the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, re-designating Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and reallocating 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b; and 3. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Tentative Subdivision Map C.V.T. 02-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 13, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Village Six SPA Amendments and Tentative Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission voted 6-1-0 (Thomas opposed) recommending that the City Council approve the Village Six SPA Amendments and the Tentative Subdivision Map with amended and added conditions. Commissioner Thomas voted against the Projects based on his belief that too much traffic was being generated for the carrying capacity of the road network. The Planning Commission disagreed with staff's recommendation that the guarded and gated entrances adjacent to Neighborhoods R-g, CPF-i and R~9 be deleted because they conflict with Council direction and are hindrances, and opinioned that the entrances in the SPA One area (Villages One and Five) have proven to function as designed. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the guarded and gated entrances as proposed by the Otay Ranch Company on View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue north of East Palomar Street, with an amended Condition 39 requiring two points of access for Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9b, and additional Conditions of Approval similar to the SPA One guarded entrance conditions (Conditions 184 to 193 in Exhibit "C" attached to the Resolution approving PCS-02-05). DISCUSSION: Page No. 2 of 15 Item: // Meeting Date: 03126102 a. Existing Site Characteristics Village Six, located at the north-central section of the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch, consists of 386.4 acres of gently rolling hills. ORC owns approximately 201 acres which represents approximately 52% of Village Six. All of Village Six is currently vacant and is used for grazing and dry farming. Otay Ranch Village Five is located directly to the north of the Project across Olympic Parkway. Future Village Two is located on the western boundary of the Project separated from Village Six by the southern extension of La Media Road. To the south of the Project is Village Seven while to the east, across proposed SR-125, is the Freeway Commercial area of Planning Area 12. b. General Plan/General Development Plan, Zoning and Land Use General Plan/General Development Plan The General Plan designates residential land uses in Village Six as Low-Medium Village (LMV) at 3-6 dwelling units per acre, Medium-High (MH) at 11-18 dwelling units per acre and a Mixed Use (MU) land use. Other land uses for parks and recreation, an elementary school, a mixed-use village core and open space are also listed; all are consistent with the land use designations for the Otay Ranch GDP. The changes proposed as part of the Village Six SPA Amendment and the attributes of the Tentative Subdivision Map conform to and implement both the General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) outlines the number of single- and multi- family dwelling units for each village, the target dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and generalized design guidelines. The GDP specifies that LMV at 4.8 du/ac could produce 990 single-family dwellings and that MH at 18.0 du/ac could produce 1242 multi-family dwellings. The proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan, including the overall number of dwelling units and the change in land use designation to Neighborhood R-7a, continue to fall within the scope specified in the General Plan and the GDP. The Tentative Map further refines the SPA Plan and implements the General Plan and GDP. Zoning and Land Use The Otay Ranch project, within the City, is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities such as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan. The Village Six PC District Regulations establish separate zoning districts for the village land uses as described in Section II.3.1.4 of the PC District Regulations, which is shown in Table A below: Page No. 3 of 15 Item: // Meeting Date: 03/26/02 TABLE A: VILLAGE SIX SPA LAND USE DISTRICTS DEFINITIONS SYMBOL GENERAL DESCRIPTION SF3 Single-Family Three: District which permits single-family housing located on lots >5,000 square feet. SF4 Single-Family Four: District which permits single-family housing located on lots <5,000 square feet. RM1 Residemial Multi-Family One: District which permits housing ranging from 8 units/acre up to 14.9 units/acre including small lot single-family, alley, duplex, townhouse and stacked flats product types. RM2 Residential Multi-Family Two: District which permits housing at densities from 15+ units/acre. CPF Community Purpose Facility: District which permits uses established pursuant to the Community Purpose Facilities requirements of the P-C Planned Community Zone. MU Mixed Use: District which permits commercial uses such as, but not limited to, retail shops, professional offices and service commercial within a village core. Transfer of residential uses into this district may be permitted above or connected to the commemial uses. OS/P1 Open Space/Park One: District which permits developed or usable open space and park uses, and may include naturalized open space. Table A is the key to the following Land Use Districts map. The unshaded areas show the portion of Village Six that are included on ORC's Village Six SPA Plan Amendment (Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b), PCM-02-20, and Tentative Subdivision Map, PCS-02-05: Page No. 4 of 15 Item: Meeting Date: 03126102 I Item: Meeting Date: 03/26/02 As part of Village Six, the Chula Vista Elementary School District will build an elementary school on a 10.0-acre site owned by both the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin that is in the center of Village Six on a piece of land designated RM-1. c. Village Six SPA Plan Amendment The proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan by ORC fall within the guidelines of the land use districts currently contained in the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations. The proposal is for a slight realignment of the boundary line between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, a re-designation of the land use district for Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and a shifting of 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9b to both R-7a and R-7b. The two main issues related to the Village Six SPA Plan Amendment are the overall number of dwelling units, and the land use designation. Within ORC's ownership the SPA Plan provides for 1,392 dwelling units (401 single-family and 968 multi-family). The overall number of dwelling units remains unchanged with the amendment, but the number of units in Neighborhood R-9b will be reduced by 47 units while Neighborhood R-7a will increase by 23 units and Neighborhood R-7b by 24 units. The land use designation for Neighborhood R-7a is proposed to change from SF-4 (Single-Family Four) to RM-2 (Residential Multi-Family Two), consistent with Neighborhood R-7b. The boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b is also being adjusted to account for the increase in the number of dwelling units in these two neighborhoods. This change is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) because the overall number of dwelling units on ORC-owned land, as well as Village Six as a whole, is within the number allowed by the GDP. Table B shows the changes proposed by ORC to the Village Six SPA Plan (modified Neighborhoods shown in bold) for the residential neighborhoods only: TABLE B: COMPARSION OF PROPOSED AND ADOPTED SPA PLANS (Residential Only) ORC Proposed Village Six Site Adopted Village Six Site Utilization Utilization Plan IORC Ownership Plan IORC Ownership Onl}0 Differences Parcel Land Use Acres du/acl DU Land Use Acres du/ac DU Acres DU Parcel R-2a Single Family 19.7 4.4 87 Single Family 19.7 4.4. 87 0.0 0.0 F{-2a R-2b Single Family 21.3 5.4 115 Single Family 21.', 5.4 115 0.0 0.0 Fl-2b R-5 Single Family 16.6 6.7 111 Single Family 16.6 6.7 111 0.0 0.0 ~-5 R-7a Multi-family 7.(~ 15.9 111 Single Family 12.-q 6.8 88 -5.9 23.0 R-7a R-7b Multi-family 10./] 17.5 189 Multi-family 5.8 28.4 165 5.0 24.0 R-Tb R-8 Multi-family 11.7 28.8 337 Multi-family 11.7 28.8i 337 0.0 0.0 R-8 R-9a Multi-family 21.8 7.5 163 Multi-family 21J 7.5! 163 0.0 0.0 R-ga R-9b Multi-family 12.7 22.0 279 Multi-family 12.7 25.7 326 0.0 -47.0 R-9b Proposed Adopted SPA SPA Total 121.6 11.4 1,392 Total 122.5 11.4 1,392 -0.9 0.0 Page No. 6 of 15 Item: Meeting Date: 03/26102 The ~).9 acre difference in the acres results from more refined survey information. This does not change the overall character of Village Six. d. Proposed Tentative Map The Tentative Map will subdivide ORC's portion of Village Six into 309 single~family lots on 70.$ acres, 1,083 multi-family units in four neighborhoods on 32.9 acres, 7.7 acres of a 10.0-acre elementary school site (the remainder is currently owned by the McMillin Company), a 2.9 acre mixed use site in the Village Core, a 7.5 gross (7.0 net) acre park site, a 4.4 acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, 2.3 acres of Common Usable Open Space and approximately 32.9 acres of recreational trails, open space and other amenities authorized by the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The tentative map also includes a 35.9-acre potential borrow/import site outside the Village Six SPA boundary. The McMillin Company and the Catholic Diocese own the remaining portion of Village Six and have processed a tentative subdivision map under separate application for their ownership as PCS-02-03 which was approved by Council on February 26, 2002. Village Six is one of the least constrained villages in the Otay Ranch. The are no easements or sensitive habitat areas in or crossing Village Six, however, ownership boundaries have caused some difficulty in ensuring that Village Six is treated as a single community rather than the individual ownership areas. Staff's review of the tentative map related to design, circulation, locations of pathways and interface between boundary walls, among other issues to ensure consistency between the three ownerships. Mobility, urban design, pedestrian orientation, landform grading and maintenance responsibility in Village Six are issues that received the most attention. As related to ORC's Tentative Map, the primary issues deal with the proposed guarded entrance between Neighborhood R-8 and CPF-1 on Park View Way and a gate between Neighborhood R-9b and CPF-1 on Magdalena Avenue, and entrances and secondary access to Neighborhoods R-7a, R-7b, R-8 and R-9b. Land Use On their Tentative Map ORC proposes four single-family and four multi-family residential neighborhoods of varying products and densities. Neighborhoods R-2a, R-2b and R-5 are proposed to be detached singte-fmnily products, with R-9b proposed as an alley product. Neighborhoods R-7a, R-7b, R-8 and R-9b are proposed to be a multi-family apartment and townhouse developments. The SPA Plan's Site Utilization Plan lists Neighborhood R-ga in the multi-family category because of its density, not because its product type is multi-family. Neighborhood R-9a is proposed to be an alley product. By way of comparison, the Tentative Map statistics are compared to the SPA Plan in each of the neighborhoods under ORC's ownership as shown in Table C below: //. r-/ Page No. 7 of 15 Item: J/ Meeting Date: 03/26/02 TABLE C: TM & SPA PLAN COMPARISON m mImOmIOOOI LA VSE ITM oSSlSPA gOSS SPArtaI m I SPA I AW. LOq AREA I I ACR~AGEI ACREAGE DU'S IOUS/ACIOUS/ACI SQ.FT. I SIZE Residential Land Uses R-2a SF 13.6 19.7 87 6.4 4.4 6,184 5,356 R-2b SF 13.8 21.3 115 8.3 5.4 5,499 4,818 R-5 SF 10.7 16.6 111 10.4 6.7 4,122 3,757 R-7a MF 7.0 7.0 111 15.9 15.9 N/A N/A R-7b iMF 10.8 10.8 189 17.5 17.5 N/A N/A R-8 iMF 10.7 11.7 337 31.5 28.8 N/A N/A R-9a MF 13.2 21.8 163 12.3 7.5 2,955 2,935 R-9b MF 13.2 12.7 279 21.1 22.0 N/A N/A TOTAL RES. 93.0 121.6 1,392 15.0 11.4 Dther Land Uses CPF-1 CPF 6.7 6.0 N/A N/A MU-1 MIXED-USE 2.9 3.0 N/A N/A S-1 (Elem. School*) PUB E.S. 7.7 10.0 N/A N/A P- 1 Park 7.5 7.6 N/A N/A Open Space OS 32.9 21.1 N/A N/A Circulation Cftc 68.3 68.3 N/A N/A Borrow Site N/A 35.9 N/A N/A N/A TOTAL (part/ Village 6 254.9 237.6 17392 N/A Otay Ranch Company's proposed Site Utilization Plan follows: Page No. 8 of 15 Item: Meeting Date: 03126102 2.14-02 J ~ I1.2.1-16 Item: Meeting Date: 03/26/02 Circulation Vehicular traffic, while important for the circulation in all Otay Ranch villages, is considered secondary in importance to pedestrian traffic in the village core. Streets are designed to be narrower to reduce vehicle speeds and are in a grid pattern that is conducive to pedestrian circulation. The use of dead-end cul-de-sacs is discouraged but allowed in small numbers because of the topography. Design speed within Village Six is 25-miles per hour, depending on the type of street. Access to Village Six is provided from three Village Entry Streets: East Palomar Street, which serves as the main entry point from Olympic Parkway, Santa Venetia Street (Street "J" on the SPA Plan) from La Media Road and Magdalena Avenue (Street "R" on the SPA Plan) from Birch Road. Access to SR-125 is provided from the future Olympic Parkway and Birch Road interchanges. The Village Six SPA Plan has four street types: arterial, village entry, promenade and residential, described as follows: · Arterial Highways: There are two types of arterials: Olympic Parkway and La Media Road are Prime Arterials/Ranch Theme Streets, while Birch Road is a Six-Lane Major Street. These six-lane roads are designed to carry heavier loads of traffic outside the Village and connect Village Six to the rest of the City. · Village Entry Streets: The Secondary Village Entry Streets are approximately the first 500 to 600 feet of Santa Venetia Street off La Media and Magdalena Avenue off Birch Road. At their intersections with La Media Road and Birch Road, respectively, they are both 106-foot right-of-way (ROW) widths with 12-foot wide medians and 29-foot to 39- foot curb-to-curb street sections with two travel lanes, turn pockets and no parking. · Promenade Streets: There are three types of Promenade Streets: Village Promenade, Residential Promenade and Core Promenade. Both Santa Venetia Street and Magdalena Avenue eventually narrow to Village Promenade Streets with 68 foot ROW. View Park Way west of East Palomar and Well Brook Place are Residential Promenade Streets with 59 foot ROW. These streets are 32 feet curb-to-curb with two 12- foot travel lanes ami an 8-foot parking lane on one side of the street. View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue east of East Palomar are Core Promenades with two-10 foot driving lanes and two-8 foot parking lanes on both sides of the street. · Residential Streets: Neighborhoods are served by two types of streets: Residential Streets and the Alleys. Residential Streets have a 58-foot ROW with 32-foot curb-to-curb section, two 10-foot travel lanes with parking on both sides of the street. Alleys are 20 feet wide with no parking. Only Neighborhood R-6 is served by alleys, which will be publicly maintained. Page No. 10 of 15 Item: II Meeting Date: 03/26/02 With the exception of alleys and cul-de-sacs, all streets within Village Six have 8-foot parkways, as measured from front-of-curb to from-of-sidewalk. This allows a 7.5-foot clear planting area for parkway trees and a larger choice of tree types to be planted in the parkways. Due to the relatively light traffic loads on Village Six streets and the fact that it is a transit-oriented village, it is not anticipated that the parkways will ever be used to widen any of the streets in Village Six to allow higher vehicular traffic loads. Off-site arterial street improvements are necessary to provide adequate transportation facilities for the Project as well as other surrounding planned communities and to maintain compliance with the Transportation threshold standards prescribed in the City's Growth Management Program. The same thresholds that have been established for other master planned communities are also required for the Village Six. The conditions of approval contain the same limit on the issuance of building permits as the other master planned communities until additional traffic capacity has been provided with the construction of SR-125 (see Condition No. 9). Grading The grading indicated on ORC's tentative map is designed to comply with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies for landform grading. The slopes facing Olympic Parkway meet the criteria, as do the slopes along La Media. The grading of the Otay Ranch Company's ownership has been coordinated with the approved tentative map for the McMillin Company. Parks, Trails and Open Space ORC's tentative map makes provision for the "Village Pathway", a 15-foot wide hardscape pathway, that will connect Village Six to Village Five to the north, Village Two to the west and Village Seven to the south. (SR-125 precludes extending the Village Pathway from Village Six to the Freeway Commercial area to the east.) The Village Pathway, which allows for pedestrian, bicycle and electric cart travel, eventually connects most village cores in the Otay Ranch. South of the Village Core, the Village Pathway is ten feet wide along Santa Venetia Street and Magdalena Avenue. The 5-foot difference in width will be landscaped so the pathway can be widened to the full 15' paved width in the future if needed. Regional Trails, which are 8 to 10 feet wide, parallel Village Six along Olympic ?arkway and La Media, but on the opposite sides of the streets. A pedestrian bridge is located at the northern edge of Village Six on the west side of East Palomar Street where it crosses Olympic Parkway. Another pedestrian brid~e is located at the western edge of Village Six on the north side of Santa Venetia in McMillin's ownership, which connects the Village Pathway to Village Two. The Village Six Project contains a variety of open space areas to promote the overall open space element of Otay Ranch. A 75-foot average open space corridor surrounds Village Six along all the major arterials and SR-125. //_ ,/[ Page No. 11 of 15 Item: // Meeting Date: 03/26/02 Two Common Usable Open Space (CUOS) sites are being provided in ORC's ownership. One, R-2x, is 0.8 acre in size and will serve Neighborhoods R-2a and R-2b. The second one, CPF-2x, is located adjacent to the CPF-1 parcel and is about 1.5 acres in size. It will serve Neighborhoods R-5, R-8, R-9a and R-9b. Consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, the Village Six Project will convey land to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The development of one acre of land in Otay Ranch requires a conveyance of 1.188 acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve with the approval of each final subdivision map. Pursuant to the requirements and based on a development area of 122.5 acres, ORC's portion of the Village Six obligation is approximately 145.5 acres of land to be dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve. Village Six is part of the Preserve Maintenance District. Community Purpose Facility The Community Purpose Facility (CPF) requirement for ORC's portion of Village Six is 5.8 acres. This acreage is based on thc required ratio of 1.39 acres per 1,000 population. The tentative map for ORC's portion of Village Six will fulfill the CPF obligation as required in the SPA Plan by providing one CPF site - a 4.4-acre facility (CPF-1) adjacent to the Village Six Core. The additional acreage will be made up with the two Common Usable Open Space areas described earlier which are 1.5 acres and 0.8 acre in size. The total CPF acreage is 6.7 acres. Village Six Core Master Precise Plan Prior to consideration of any of the neighborhoods in the Village Core, Otay Ranch Company will be submitting a Village Six Core Master Precise Plan which will be more specific than the adopted Village Six Design Plan insofar as it will list design details and criteria for the core neighborhoods. The Design Review Committee must adopt the Core Master Precise Plan. d. Analysis City staff and the Otay Ranch Company have worked closely in order to resolve the vast majority of issues related to the proposed Village Six SPA Amendment and Tentative Map. The only remaining area of disagreement is over the proposed usage of gated and guarded entrances into their northeasterly portion of Village Six. Village Six SPA Plan Amendment The proposed Village Six SPA Amendment is consistent with and implements the approved Otay Ranch General Development Plan (as amended) and the Village Six SPA Plan. Some changes are still needed in the other supporting SPA Plan documents such as the Village Design Plan, but these changes are more "clean-up" in nature. The real substance is contained within the Land Page No. 12 of 15 Item: /t Meeting Date: 03/26/02 Use District Map and the Site Utilization Plan. In addition, both Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b will bc within the Village Core, whereas before ordy R-7b was in the Core. ORC has a higher density town_honse/single-family condominium proposal they wish to pursue on Neighborhood R-7. At this time, no dwelling units are allocated to the Mixed Use area in the Village Six Core. If ORC eventually wishes to include a residential component in the Village Six Core, units would have to be re-allocated from another neighborhood in order to keep the overall housing unit count balance. Tentative Subdivision Map The proposed tentative map for Otay Ranch Company's portion of Village Six is consistent with the approved Otay Ranch General Development Plan policies (as amended). As demonstrated in Table B, the tentative map also implements the Village Six SPA Plan and related documents. The tentative map has addressed previous City Council concems regarding vehicular access, narrower streets and multiple points of access to each neighborhood. Vehicular access has been improved on the tentative map with a significant reduction in the number of cul-de-sacs and the provision of a grid system that interconnects the neighborhoods within Village Six. With the proposed street layout in ORC's portion of Village Six, the circulation pattern is a "grid-street" pattern consistent with the policies described in the Otay Ranch GDP, and consistent with the needs of the Fire and Police Departments. The Entry and Promenade streets in this portion of Village Six provide sufficient vehicular movements to a variety of land uses within and outside of Village Six including the two school sites, the mixed-use core, multi- family neighborhood and the Common Usable Open Space site. Unresolved Issue: Guarded and Gated Entrances Proposal: The Otay Ranch Company is proposing both a guarded entrance on View Park Way and a gated entrance on Magdalena Avenue, the two Core Promenade Streets, east of East Palomar Street. The gated entrance is on Magdalena Street between CPF-1 and the multi-family project in Neighborhood R-9B. The guarded entrance is proposed on View Park Street between the CPF-1 site mid the Neighborhood R-8 multi-family site. Background: In 1996 the Otay Ranch Company proposed gating the entrances to the neighborhoods in Villages One and Five. Staff analyzed the request and found that gated entrances create a sense of exclusivity within a community, increased property values, gave residents a false sense of security and created response problems for emergency vehicles. The Council decided during the SPA One Plan process to prohibit physical barriers across any road but allow guarded entrances. The Council further decided that access could only be restricted from dusk to dawn. The public was to have full access during daylight hours. / [~- /~ PageNo. 13 of 15 Item: // Meeting Date: 03/26/02 In staff's opinion, the guarded entrances constructed in Otay Ranch Company's portion of Villages One and Five have had mixed results: The entrance at Santa Ynez had sufficient distance for stacking but only allows enough room for one entrance into the multi-family project on Neighborhood R-20. The Fire Department no longer accepts emergency-only access and requires two full accesses into any project of 120 units or more. · The guarded access on Santa Lucia between Heritage Elementary School and Neighborhood R-21 has restricted exiting out of the elementary school to right turns only because of the amount of traffic and the proximity of the entrance into Neighborhood R- 21 which is directly across from the main entrance from the school. The right-turn-only exit is controlled daily by the guard attendant who places cones in the private street to direct traffic. This situation, even at present before the multi-family project in R-21 is open to occupancy, is a bottleneck. · The guarded entrance at Santa Rita also limited access to the multi-family project in Neighborhood R-19. The main entrance to this apartment project is beyond the guarded entrance with a gated secondary entrance to the project before the attendant cottage. This gated entrance was the only solution for secondary access because of the location of the guarded entrance. The other guarded entrance at Santa Alicia with an adjacent multi- family neighborhood has sufficient secondary access from interior streets on two other sides. · The Santa Rosa guarded access in Village Five at certain times of the day may create a bottleneck situation in regards to access to multi-family projects in Neighborhoods R-30a and R-30b. · The Santa Paula guarded entrance in Village Five off Otay Lakes Road and the guarded entrances in Village One West have single-family neighborhoods adjacent and do not have access problems (see Attachment 6). Analysis: For several reasons, the Village Six proposal for the gated entrance is not consistent with the decisions made by the City Council on Otay Ranch Company's Village One and Five. Based upon experiences with Villages One and Five, it is staff's opinion that the location of the gated and guarded entrances in this portion of Village Six will create access problems for the multi-family proiects in Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9B. In order to provide sufficient mm around areas, the guarded entrance is at least 370 feet long as measured from the major cross street. The frontage of R-8 is approximately 490 feet leaving space for only one entrance off View Park Street. The secondary entrance to R-8 is proposed between two single-family homes at the north end of Sutter Buttes Street. The guarded entrance also causes access problems into the CPF-1 site. Staff has found this design to be unacceptable and has proposed a condition that will eliminate the guarded entrance and require two entrances on View Park Street to Neighborhood R-8. The gated entrance does not meet the direction given by the City Council policy set during the 1996 approval on the SPA One Tentative Maps. The gated entrance Mil have the same design Page No. 14 of 15 Item: J[ Meeting Date: 03/26/02 constraints limiting access to Neighborhood R-9B to just one driveway on Magdalena Street. The secondary access is proposed off the alley between R-9A and R-9B. This solution could overburden the alley with multi-family traffic. Due to its length, the guarded entrance design takes greater frontage, so switching the design from a gated entrance to a guarded will not solve the access design issue. Recommendation: Due to the design constraints of the guarded entrance and the other issues raised in this agenda statement, staff, including the City Managers' Office, Police Department, Fire Department, Planning and Building Department and Public Works, do not recommend approval of either the gated or guarded entrance. Memos from both the Police Department and the Fire Department stating their reasons for opposition are attached (Attachments 7 and 8). Staff recommends the guarded entrance should be deleted from the tentative map and two accesses to Neighborhood R-8 off View Park Way should be provided. Since the gated entrance does not meet City Council policy and the guarded entrance has the same design constraints, staff is proposing the gate be eliminated and two accesses to Magdalena Street be provided to the multi-family project in Neighborhood R-9B. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with processing the Village Six SPA Amendment and Tentative Map are covered by the Applicant's deposit account. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission's March 13, 2002 Public Hearings 3. Planning Commission Village Six SPA Amendment Resolution (PCM-02-20) 4. Planning Commission Resolution (PCS-02-05) 5. Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 02-05) 6. Guarded Entries in Villages One and Five 7. Police Department Memo of 3/15/02 Opposing Gated Entrances 8. Fire Department Memo of 3/20/02 Opposing Guarded and Gated Entrances 9. Disclosure Statement H:~PLANNING\Otay_Ranch\Village _6\V6_TM_SmffkORC's_TM~ORC V6 TM & PCM AGENDA STATEMENT CC.doc j /-/~' Page No. 15 of 15 EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 1t Neighbo~hOOdR_7I VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION VILLAGE 7 ' EASTERN ~ URBAN CENTER HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN' LOCATOR ~o~c'r APPUC,~,r¢: OTAY RANCH COMPANY FILE NUMBERS: SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & ADDRESS: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 ;c.,~: Village 6 Tentative Map NORTH No sCale C:\DAIFIL E S\localors~CS0205.cdr 02/22/02 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, March 13, 2002 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Thomas, McCann, willett Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Martin Miller, Associate Planner Mary Hofmockel, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-20: Consideration of Amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan to adjust boundary between Neighborhood R- 7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and re-allocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-0a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b. PCS 02-05; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map creating 1,392 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres of Village Six of Otay Ranch. Applicant: Otay Ranch Company Background: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner reviewed the proposal as described in the staff report and stated that what is being considered tonight is Otay Ranch's portion of Village 6; the Commission having recently reviewed McMillin's portion of the Tentative Map for Village 6. The proposal calls for amending Village Six SPA Plan to redesignate Neighborhood R-7a Single-family to Residential Multi-family and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 13, 200? Neighborhood R-9a to R-9a and 7b. Additionally, the Tentative Subdivision Map creates 1,392 sing[e-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres. The McMillin project had an access provided in Neighborhood R-3 to R-7b when it was a Single Family neighborhood. Since this is being changed to a multi-family, staff believes that that access should be deleted on McMillin's Final Map to eliminate multi-family traffic traveling through the single-family neighborhood. There will be two accesses to Neighborhood R-7 off of View Park Way. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing both a guarded and gated entrances on the two Core Promenades, which are 36 feet wide. The gated entrance is proposed on Magdalena Street and the guarded entrance on View Park Street. In 1996 the Otay Ranch Company proposed gating in Villages One and Five. Staff prepared the Gated Communities Po[icy Paper to analyse the issues; the findings were: 1 ) that gated entrances create a sense of exclusivity with a community, 2) increased property values, 3) gave residents a false sense of security, and 4) created response problems for emergency vehicles. Council decided during the SPA One Plan process to prohibit physical barriers across any road but allow guarded entrances. Furthermore, access could only be restricted from dusk to dawn. Guarded entances in Otay Ranch Company's portion of Village One and Five have had mixed results. The guarded access on Santa Lucia between Heritage Elementary School and Neighborhood R-21 has restricted exiting out of the elementary school to right turns only because of the amount of traffic and proximity of the entrance into Neighborhood R- 21 which is directly across from the main entrance from the school. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan to adjust boundary between Neighborhood R-Ta and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and re- allocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-Oa to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, and approve Tentative Subdivision Map creating 1,392 single-family and muFti-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres of Village Six of Otay Ranch. Commission Discussion: Chair O'Neill inquired if the streets behind the gated/guarded entranced are private or public streets. Mr. Rosaler, responded that the City's policy is that if you restrict access through a street, the streets behind it then become private. If there is full public access, they are then public streets. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 13, 2002 Commissioner Thomas stated that previously when the McMillin project was reviewed, his main objection was the manner in which the affordable housing element was addressed. He asked if the same situation applies to Otay Ranch's projecL Mr. Rosaler responded that, in fact, the SPA Plan for McMillin granted them 100 units of secondary accessory units to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. However, ©tay Ranch Company has satisfied their affordable housing obligation in the mixed-use project in Village I. Commissioner Castaneda asked for clarification on the hours that the guarded/gated entrances would be restricted. Mr. Rosaler responded that according to the existing Council Policy, the entrances would be restricted only from dusk to dawn; any other time would be open to the public. Commissioner Castaneda further stated that the restricted hours would take effect after the peak 5:00 hour when residents are coming home from work and was concerned with potential impacts on East Palomar Street with vehicle queing. Cmr. Castaneda asked if any traffic analysis was done. Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that there are design standards for gated entrances. Add itional ly another look will be taken at the traffic plan when it comes time to approving improvements and final plans. Cmr. Castaneda suggested implementing specific hours, instead of dusk to dawn. Commissioner Hall inquired about the status of the Park Master Plan. He further asked if there are any new elements contained within the Plan that could potentially impact the developers where the City would then be placed in a predicament where they would need to go back to the developers and re-negotiate parks development within the Planned Communities. Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect, responded that the Draft Parks Master Plan, ~xc!uding the financia! Dnrfion, will be pregented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 21, 2002, and it will then follow its course, ultimately for Council approval. Ms. Hofmockel further stated that a Needs Assessment was conducted and an allocation of facilities based on that assessment. This park site will take into consideration what was identified as the program elements that we would like to see incorporated into that site. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 13, 2002 Public Hearing Opened 7:25 Kent Aden, Otay Ranch Company, 350 W. Ash Street, San Diego, CA stated that the project compliments McMillin's Tentative Map. The project provides: the site for the 7-acre park, [] the balance of the site for the lO-acre elementary school, the commercial core to serve the Village, the right-of-way and transit station for the future lite-rail transit, the pedestrian bridge, which gives access to Village V to the north, [] the right-of-way for a portion of future SR-125, a funding mechanism for the balance of the first three phases of Olympic Parkway, [] additional access to the private high school site approved on the McMillin Plan, and [] this project is accommodating the excess dirt from Eastlake for the balance of Olympic Parkway that will complete the length from 1-805 to the the Olympic Training Center by the end of this year. Mr. Aden stated that out of 183 conditions of approval, the only one where this is disagreement with staff's recommendation is the guarded/gated entrances. Their experience is that there is overwhelming approval from the communities where they exist and to their knowledge there have not been any complaints. Furthermore, for clarification purposes, the gate design is proposed to be like the old-fashioned wooden traffic arms that liff up and down, not an ominous gate, but rather another method of slowing down traffic in the community. Mr. Aden further stated that a better generic Condition #39 would be to provide two access points to R-8 and R9b, which are acceptable to staff. If that condition cannot be met, than clearly the guarded/gated entrances would be removed. Close public hearing 7:30. Commissioner McCann stated that while walking precincts and speaking with residents that live with in a gated/guarded community, their comments were favorable and they were s(~pportive of gated/guarded entrances Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 13, 2002 MSC (Willett/Cortes) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Village Six SPA Plan Amendment to adjust the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from Single-family SF-4 to Residential Multi-family RM-2, and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and 7b. Motion carried. MSC (Willett/Castaneda) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Subdivision Map C.V.T.02-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Resolution PCS 02-05 modifying Condition #39 recommending approval of the guarded/gated entrances subject to approva~ of a site plan that depicts two points of access to the multi-family neighborhood and is consistent with the additional conditions imposed on Village 1 and 5 which are per[inent guarded entrances. Motion carried. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PCM-O2-20 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03 and 02-05, and is commonly known as Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Districts Map ("Project")(PCM-02-20) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 18,2002 by Otay Project, LP. ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to Reallocate 47 Dwelling Units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b and amend the Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Districts Map to Re-designate Neighborhood R- 7a from SF-4 to RM-2; and, WHEREAS, Village Six is located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR-125; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, 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 property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 13, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, this Project is considered a subsequent action in the program of development evaluated under the Village Six SPA Plan Final ErR 98-01 (Final ErR 98-01); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Final EIR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to Final ErR 98-01 has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. I \ - .;2~ Resolution No. PCM-02-20 Page No. 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission hcreby rccommends that thc City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the amcndmcnts to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan and the attached Ordinance adjusting the boundaries between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b and rezoning Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES: ABSEN I': ABSTENTIONS: I)iana Vargas, Secretary Kevin O'Neil, Chairperson II:\PI zXNNING\OIay Ranch\Village 6\ORC V6 SPA AnfV6 Sl A Amend IC Rcs() doc EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 11 Neighborhood R-7 VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION EASTERN VILLAGE 7 ~ URBAN CENTER [HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN LOCATOR ~RO.~CT ..OJECTDESC~,~mO~. FILE NUMBERS: ,~mPUC~rT: OTAYRANCH COMPANY SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & PROJECT ADDRESS: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 ~ Village 6 Tentative Map ~, NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFILE S\locators\PCS0205.cd r 02/22/02 RESOLUTION NO. PCS-02-05 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PORTION OF VILLAGE SIX OF THE OT A Y RANCH, VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 02-05 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. - and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-05, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch Company's Portion of Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, the Otay Project, LP., ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as "Otay Ranch Village Six, Chula Vista Tract 02-05", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista on October 16, 200 I; and, WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately 201.1 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR-125; and, WHEREAS, the Project is also the subject matter of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), as amended, originally approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on October 23,2001, by Resolution No. 2001-362 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the envirònmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments/Village Eleven SPA Plan Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR 0 1-02")(SCH#200 I 031120), the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR 98-01"(SCH#2001041033), and the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Village Six SPA Plan Final EIR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to Final EIR 98-0 I has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and, ¡ 1- d-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village Six, Chula Vista Tract 02-05", (PCS-02-05) and notice of hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property oxvners 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, nmnely 6:00 p.m. March 13, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the Otay Ranch Village Six Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 02-05) is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good plamfing practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION reco~nmends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village Six Tentative Map involving 201.1 heres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR- 125 in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of March, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Kevin O'Neill, Chair ATTEST: 1)tuna Vargas? Secretary EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 1'1 NeighborhoodR_7 ] VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION I~s-~2-°3 I VILLAGE 7 * EASTERN URBAN CENTER HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN LOCATOR PROJECT PROd ECT DESCRIP'IrlON: Ac, PUC. ANT: OTAY RANCH COMPANY FILE NUMBERS: SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & PROJECT aDORESS: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 sc~: Village 6 Tentative Map NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFILES\locators\PCS0205.cdr 02/22/02 Li CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RELATIONS UNIT PLAN REVIEW Date: March 15, 2002 To: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner From: Richard E Preu~onmmnity Relat~ns Via: David Eisenberg, Sergeant.~ / ,.(~ [J~C Jim Zoll, Assistant Project: Otay Ranch Village 6, Guarded and Gated Entrances _ The Commun/ty Relations Unit does not have any comments at tltis time. ~ Infbrmation on this project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit crime prevention analysis ~X .. See comments below legarding this project COMMENTS: The Police Department is opposed to gated communities The major areas of concern are: Reduc;ion in response times: When responding to emergency calls tbr service at gated con~munities Officers must stop at the gate and open the gate using a Knox Box system. The time lost in opening the gate could be critical. The time taken to open the gate can also adversely aff~ct the Department's ability to meet GMOC thresholds. ~ Reduction in patrol: While increased ~olice presence in residential e.ommuni/ies is desired tr~ help prevem crime, gated entrances wilI impede Officers ability to patrol False sense of security: Residents in guarded and gated communities ot~en feet they are safer because of the guarded or gated entrances wlfich cause them to be /ax about locking their homes and closing garage doors with an increase in the incident of burglaries. Cl~,' OF CHULA VISTA Memo TO: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner FROM: Jim Geering, Fire Marshal -~'¢¢¢'~ BATE: March 20, 2002 RE: Emergency Responses It has been brought to my attention that guarded and gated entrances have been proposed in portions of Otay Ranch Village Six. The Fire Department continues to have issues that oppose this method of restricting access. The following explains the reasons for such opposition. The Fire Department is required to respond to calls for service within certain threshold times. Guarded and gated entrances lengthen response times, which are critical in extreme emergency situations. Without guarded or gated entrances, emergency response vehicles are allowed to proceed without slowing or coming to a complete stop and therefore will not impact response times in these neighborhoods. ,, Fire Department statistics show that 75% of emergency responses are medical related and require paramedic response and ambulance transport. There is no assurance that ambulance vehicles are equipped to remotely open these gates. A delay in the arrival of paramedics will mean the difference between definitive care and failure to provide critical treatment such as CPR with airway intubation and electric cardio defibrillation. · Due to the narrow street widths in the Otay Ranch area, fire apparatus are at ~ disadvantage in terms of access and response. This is compounded by additional access restrictions such as gates. · A potential traffic problem is noticed from streets where entrances into R-8 & R-gb are located. Multi family residential entry access is off the same road as the guarded entrances. Due to the road length and proximity of the entrances into R-8, and the guarded entrance, emergency fire apparatus may experience delays. THE CITY OF CHULA V1STA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ~ You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contribution~, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Otay 'Project, L.P. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the padnership. James P. Baldwin A1 Baldwin 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes Nox If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. James Baldwin Kent Aden A] Baldwin Chuck Cater Kim Kilkennny Ranie Hunter 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election pedod? Yes __ No × If yes, state which Counciiraember(s): (NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NEC~ESSARY) . Signature of cantrac~or/applicant Ranie Hunter, Vice President Pdnt or type name of contractor/applicant * Person is defined ox: "Any individual, firm. co-partnerxhiF, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization, corporation, estate, tcust, receiver, syndicote, this and a~y other county, city a~d country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03 and 02-05, and is commonly known as Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan ("Project") was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 18,2002 by Otay Project, LP. ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to Re-designate Neighborhood R-7a trom SF-4 to RM-2 and Reallocate 47 Dwelling Units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b; and, WHEREAS, Village Six is located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR-125; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, 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 property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, this Project is considered a subsequent action in the program of development evaluated under the Village Six SPA Plan Final ErR 98-01 (Final ErR 98-01); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Final ErR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental ErR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to Final ErR 98-01 has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan conform to the policies found in the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and, 11-31 Resolution No. ~ Page No.2 of 4 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 13, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said public hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-1-0 (Thomas opposed) the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on March 13, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting there from, 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. II. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit "B"). III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Addendum to FErR 98-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Addendum (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from FErR 98-01 which would require revisions of said environmental report; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the previous environmental report; and (3) no new information of substantial importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior environmental report; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the FErR 98-01 (Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)). 11-3~ Resolution No. ~ Page No.3 of 4 V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One ErR 98-01, identified as Exhibit "C" in this resolution reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One ErR 98-01. VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch SPA One FErR 98-01. VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Addendum to FErR 98- 01, which adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA (Guideline 15168(e)). VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings: A. THE PROPOSED PROJECT rs IN CONFORMITY WrTH THE CHULA VrSTA GENERAL PLAN. The Project, which is intended to reallocate dwelling units ITom Neighborhood R- 9b to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan in that goals and policies in both documents allow for such reallocation, and the overall number of dwelling units is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. B. THE AMENDMENTS WrLL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VrLLAGE FrVE CORE. The Amendments contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of Village Six in that all required and necessary changes have been condition to be made to the applicable documents to ensure orderly development. \ 1- 31 Resolution No. ~ Page No.4 of 4 C. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS wrLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, crRCULATION OR ENVrRONMENTAL QUALITY. At present the portion of Village Six where Neighborhoods R-7a, R-7b and R-9b exist is not adjacent to any existing land uses. The proposed changes are of the same scope and impact as the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto. x. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Section vr and Section rx listed above and based upon the findings and determinations on the record for this Project. XI. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS rf any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Leiter Planning and Building Director ~ ~c~ ;~~aheny City Attorney I tIPLANNINGIOtay_Ra"ch\V;llage _610RC V6 SPA Am\V6 SPA Ame"d CC Roso.doc \ \ - 40 EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE Ne½ghborhood R-7 VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION VILLAGE 7 EASTERN URBAN CENTER :HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN LOCATOR ..o~c'r .aoa~r ~sc~,~ A~PUCAm: OTAYRANCH COMPANY FILE NUMBERS: SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & Pf~OJECT ~ss: OTA¥ RANCH WLLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 ~ :Village 6 Tentative Map NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFIL ES\locators\PCS0205.cdr 02/22/02 Site Utilization Plan" Village Six Exhibit 5 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN EIR-98-01 SCH #2001041033 PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area Plan PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICA_NT: Otay Project L.P. DATE: March 7, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION This addendum has been prepared to provide additional information to the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report 98-01 ("FEIR") for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning .area Plan Prnj ect ("Project"). As the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City") has prepared and conducted an environmental analysis of the Project. A Notice of Preparation was issued on April 5, 2001. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was publicly circulated on September 28, 2001. After a 45-day public comment period, the City prepared responses to those comments and included them in the FEIR. The City. Council approved the Project and certified the FEIR on January 22, 2002. The FEIR evaluates the environmental effecls of the adoption of the Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan for Village Six and the amendment of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP"). Specifically, this amendment was for the redesignation of Birch Road 1o a six-lane major arterial between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. The FEIR also included an evaluation of two Conceptual Tentative Maps and the use of an area as a church and private high school. A previous addendum was prepared by the City of Chula Vista to address the mass grading of I51] mater/al on the Otay Ranch Company property of the Village Six project silc. This 5ll matehaI was extracted during drmnage and roadway improvements on Olympic Parkway between SR-125 and the SDG&E easement and mass graded on the Otay Ranch Company portion of the Village Six project site, raising the site's elevation approximately 3 to 8 feet. The addendum concluded that the mass grading for the placement of fill on the Village Six site did not cause any new or more severe physical impacts nor did it require any additional mitigation that was not already addressed in the DEIR. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions presented in the FEIR did not change as a result of the mass ~m-ading. .& modification to the SPA Plan for Otay Ranch Village Six has been proposed which would permit the development of multi-family units in Neighborhood 7a. Figure 1 shows the proposed tentative map for the Otay Ranch Company property on Village Six. This addendum has been prepared 1o provide additional environmental information and analysis concerning the proposed modification of the SPA Plan. II. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report ("EIR"). Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) When an EER has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EJR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial e'Adence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due 1o the im'olvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in lhe severi~ of previously identified sig-nificant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new si~nificant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev/ously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the pre','ious EIR was certified as complete or 'the negati've d?-clm-ation was adopted, shows any of the following: (.&) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the [Final] EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project ~ Proposed Tentative Map for the 1 o ~e~t zoo Otay Project L.P. Portion of Village Six proponems decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altemalive; or (b) (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final] ELR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the lead agency could choose instead to issue a supplement to the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163, subd. (a).) Thus, the City must consider under the standards articulated above whether there will be previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a).) As the discussion below demonstrates, implementing the Project with the modificalions to the SPA Plan for Village Six would result in no new environmental impacts, or no more severe impacls, than xvere disclosed in the FEIR for the Project. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to prepare an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15164. Section 15164 states that an addendum should include a "br/ef explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162" and that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd_ (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the Final EIR. (Ibid.; CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (c).) Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following Addendum to the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the Olay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. III. PROJECT SETTING The Village Six project area is located in the north-central portion of the Olay Valley Parcel of the Olay Ranch General Development Plan. The Village Six SPA project area includes approximately 386.4 acres and is bounded by the proposed alignments of 5R-125 on ~he ~ast, Olympic Parkw~'ay on the north, La Media Road on the '.',,est, and Birch Road on the south. The Village Six SPA impact area as addressed in the EIR totals 442.7 acres. This includes 386.4 acres within the project area and 56.3 acres in two borrow/storage areas. One borrox~/sto[age area is east of the SR-I25 alignment at the northeastern comer of the site and the second is south of Birch Road in the'south central portion of the site. The property is mostly comprised of fallow fields, with intermittent dirt roads, disturbed drainages, and a few fences. Recent use of the site includes ranching, ~azing, dry f-,x~Tning, and track farming activities. The project site is currently vacant. The land surrounding the project area is also mostly undeveloped. The northern boundary of the project site is Olympic Parkway, which is under construction. Just north of the Olympic Parkway construction, Village Five is also currently under consl~uction. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Otay Project L.P. proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan to modify the dwelling unit densities within neighborhoods R-7a, 7b,and 9b. These changes are reflected in Tentative Tract No. 02-05 and include the following: 1. A modification of the zoning of Neighborhood R-7a from SF4 (single family) to RM2 (multi family) to permit the development of multi family homes in Neighborhood R-7a; 2. A modification of the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b; 3. The transfer of 23 units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhood R-7a; and 4. The transfer of 24 units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhood R-7b. This amendment proposes 941 single family and 1,291 multi family units, reflecting an 88-unit change in the residential mix. The revised land use designations for the Village Six SPA Plan and neighborhood boundaries between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b are shown in Figure 2. V. ANALYSIS l-he proposed modifications to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan addressed in this addendum (and described above) would result in some changes to the Village Six project that have the potential to result in new or different impacts than that which were described in the FEIR for the SPA Plan. In all but one case, the changes to the project would reduce the potential effects that were described in the FEIR. None of the proposed changes to the Village Six SPA plan would result in either a change in si~maificant impacts or the adopted rn/figation measures. A summary, of the potential impacts due to the modifications to the Village Six SPA plan are discussed below. Land Use The land use changes addressed in this addendum would have no effect on the impacts and conclusions described in the Land Use section of the FEIR. The proposed SPA amendment increases the number of multi-family units within the village core at a density that provides a transition between the higher density multi-family and the single-family neighborhood to the west. The proposed modification lo the SPA Plan ~vould be consistent with The City of Chula Vista General Plan designations. The proposed Proposed Site Utilization Plan for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan //-¥~ amendment would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and lhe land use designation identified in the Village Six SPA Plan as described in the FEIR. The modified zoning designations would not result in any new land use compatibility issues and would not conflict with any applicable management or conservation plans. Population and Housing The elimination of 88 single family units and the addition of 88 multi family units, as proposed by the SPA Plan amendment, would not result in a change in the total number of units in Village Six. In addition, the same population generation rate (3.01 persons/unit) is used for both single family and multi family homes in the FEIR. As a result, the anticipated population would remain the same a-nd the proposed changes would therefore, have no impact on the potential for exceeding area population and growth projections. Traffic The Traffic Impact Analysis for Olay Ranch Village 6, prepared by Linscott, Laxv, & Greenspan and dated September 20, 200t, establishes a traffic generation rate of ten trips per unit per day for single-family homes and eight trips per unit per day for mu]ti family homes. Given the numbers above as provided in the FEIR, lhis proposed SPA amendment would result in a total decrease of 176 trips per day. Broise The FEIR determined lhat residential development within the Village Six area would be exposed to significant impacts from roadway noise and requires mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The changes associated with the proposed SPA amendment would not affect the noise determinations made in the FEIR. The construction of multi family homes adjacent to Olympic Parkway in the area originally designated for single family homes has the potential to place balconies overlooking the roadway. It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to require that balconies be designed so that noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL. The application of noise mitigation measures 5.12-1 through 5.12-5, as detailed in the FEIR, including the requirement for multiple story buildings with balconies, would ensure that there is no sisnificant noise impact. Public Services and Utilities In addition to traffic, several other issues xvould have a decreased effect as a result of the propssed SPA Plan amendment. The environmental issues of sewage generation, potable water demand, and recycled water demand, as presented in the FEIR, are also contingent upon the number of single family and multi family units. According to the FEIR, single- family homes have a higher generation rate for sewage generation and potable water than do multi family homes. Sewer: As noted in the iMcMillin-Otay Ra~ch IZillage Six Gravir), Sewer Stud), and the 6~'ctn'iew of Sewer Ser~'ice for O~ay .Ranch CompaKv Dllage SIX, the sewage generation rate is 265 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for single-family homes and 199 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment would result in a decrease of approximately 5,808 gpd in sewage generation as compared to the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. This represents a one percent decrease in the total amount of anticipated sewage generation for the entire Village Six project. The degree of.this reduction is negligible. Therefore, the impacts associated with this issue would remain ' unchanged from those presented in the FEIR. ~ffater: According to lhe Subarea Master Plan for Otay Ranch I/illages Six. Se~,en, and Planning .~rea .12, IZolume 1: Conceptual Facilities Plan and the McMillin Village SIX IFater Facilities Plan prepared by John Powell and Associates, the potable water generation rate is 420 gpd per unit for single-family homes and 294 gpd per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment would result in an overall decrease in water use by approximately 11,088 gpd decrease in the potable water generation would result from the proposed SPA Plan modification. This represents a 1.3 percent decrease in the total amount of anticipated sewage generation for all of Village Six. The degree of this reduction is negligible. Therefore, the impacts associated with xvater resources would remain unchanged from lhose presented in the FEIR. Recycled water: The issue of recycled water is based upon the number of acres of multi family use. Since single-family homes do not use recycled water, the modifications to the gPA plan wou]d result in an increased demand for recycled water. According to the FEIR, multi family units have a recycled water generation rate of 2,232 gallons per day (gpd) per irrigmed acre. The proposed addition of 1.8 acres of multi family units results in a 4,018 gpd per irrigated acre increase in the recycled water demand. This increase represents a 3.3 percent r/se in the recycled water demand for the entire SPA Plan area. This increase is negligible_ As stated in the FEIR, the use of recycled water has been plarmed for by the Otay Water District. Implementation of mitigation measures 5.13.2-I through 5.I 3.2-3 of the FEIR reduces the impacts on recycled water to beloxv a level of si_2xnificance. The proposed change from single family to multi family units would not affect the overall conclusions and mitigation measures presented in the FEIR. Demands for the public services used by Village Six, including law enforcement, parks, and libraries, are projected based upon population and student generation rates are based on the total number of units. Since the FEIR used the same population generation rate ('~.0! persons/uni~) for single ~amily and multi fmmily homes a~nd the total number of units remains unchanged w/th the proposed changes to the SPA Plan, the conclusions concerning these public sen'ice issues would no! vau from those made in the FEIR. The pr~oposed modification to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in any impacts to other issues that were addressed in the FEIR. The modifications to the Village Six SPA Plan would change the designs for Neighborhood R-7a, 7b, and 9b. The changes would increase the number of multi-family units within the village core to a density that provides a transition between the higher density multi-family and the single-family neighborhood Io the west. The foolprint of the project sile would remain the same and the changes in design would not result in a subslantial change to the drainage pattern of the site, or in any new impacts to previously unidentified geophysical, agricultrrral, or paleontological conditions as analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, the impacts to landform alteration and aesthetics, geology and soils, paleontology, aghculture, water quality,'and air quality would not be affected due to the proposed SPA amendment. As a result, the modifications to the Village Six SPA Plan would result in no changes lo the significance. or,he impacts or mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. VI. CONCLUSION The proposed modification to !he Olay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan would not cause any new or more severe physical impacts nor require any additional mitigation measures that were not already addressed in the FEIR. As such, the analysis and conclusions presented in the FEIR are not changed by the proposed action. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the Stale CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the revisions to the proposed Project will result in only minor technical changes or additions to the Project, and that none of the conditions for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified by Sections 15162 and 15163, exist. Therefore, the preparation of this Addendum is approphate to make the FEIR adequate under CEQA. . 4mffn onseggi Environmental Review Coordinalor March 7, 2002 ? Case No. IS-02-034 E.NWIRON.~. IENTAL CHECKLIST FORUM 1. Name of Proponent: Otay Project L.P. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 350 W. Ash Street, Ste. 730 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 2344088 (619) 234-4050 (fax) 4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Second Tier FEIR 98411 5. Date of Checklist: March 7, 2002 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Sigmficanl Unless Signifimnl No lrapa~ Mitigaled Impact Impact I. LAND USE _&ND PLANNING. Would the propoxal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict wjih applicable em, ironmentat plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agrirulmraI resources or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of [] [] [] [] an established communi~ (including a low- income or minority, communJtv~? Comments: Development of the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan was evaluated in the Final Second Tier EIR 98-01 for the Otav Ranch Village Six SPA Plan (FE1R) that was certified on JanuaD, 22, 2002. The SPA amendment proposed here would modify the zuning on Neighborhood R-7a from SF4 (single family) to RM2 (multi family), permitting the development of multi-family units in R-7a. The proposed project also modifies the boundaD, between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b to realtocate 47 multi- family units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b (23 units to R- 7a and 24 units to R-Tb). This proposed SPA amendment increases the number of I multi-family uniIs ~ ithin the village core at a densit.x thal provides a transition betx~cen the higher densily multi-family and the single-family neighborhood to the west. The Vdlage Six SPA Plan approved on Januao' 22, 2002 authorized 1,029 single family and 1.203 multi family units. This amendment proposes 941 single family and 1,291 multi family units, reflecting an 88 unit change in the residential mix. It should be noted that, according to the FEIR, the original total of 1,029 single family units includes 146 additional single family homes that would be constructed should a high school not be built in Neighborhood R-I 1/S-2. The City of Chula Vista General Plan designates Otay Ranch Village Six as ~ low- medium density village residential area with three to six dwelling units per acre, distributed around a village core which includes higher density single- and multi-family residential use, an elementary school site, a mixed-use site, and a neighborhood park site. The proposed modification to the SPA Plan would be consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan designations· The proposed amendment would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the land use designation identified in the Village Six SPA Plan as described in the FEIR. The modified zoning designations would be compatible with adjacent land uses. The FEIR also concluded that agricultural impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the Agricultural Plan in the Village Six SPA Plan. The proposed changes would not disrupt an established community because the area is currently undeveloped. Potentially II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Less than proposal: Significanl Unless Significant No lmpac~ MJtigaled Impact Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of m~ior infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] Comraents: The elimination of 88 single family units and the addition of 88 multi family units, as proposed by the SPA Plan amendment, would not result in a change in the total number of units in Village Six. In addition, the same population generation rate (3·01 psrs0nsiunit) is gixen for both siugle family and multi family homes in the FEIR. As a result, the anticipaled population would remain the same and the proposed changes would therefore, have no impact on the potential for exceeding area population and growth projections. Since the project site is currently vacant, the changes associated with the proposed amendment would not result in the displacement of existing housing. Ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would tire,proposal re$ult in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a)Unsuable earth conditions or changes in geologic mbstrucmres? b)Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c)Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e)Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or take? g) Exposure of people or properly to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not result in any previously unidentified geophysical impacts or require new any mitigation measures. No major geologic conditions would constrain the development of the site as proposed in the modified SPA Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-1 throueh 5.5-6 in the FEIR would reduce any potential geophysical impacts to below a level oCsignificance. Potentially impazt Mitigated Impact impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage panerns, [] [] [] [~ or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or proper:y To water [] [] [] [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissoived oxygen or mrbidiD-)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] [] water body? · :~Chan,_'es :n currrms, or ubs course of direction ~ : ~ Of ,.x aI~r-.. ,~m-"'~"~ mt~., in t'i~er marine or fresh fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] {~ [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] [] . [] groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood [] [] [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six, as implemented as a part of the Tentative Map for the Otay Ranch Company ownership would not result in a substantial change to the drainage pattern of the site as analyzed in the FEIR. The var/ed uses proposed by the amendment would also have no additional adverse affect on runoff quality. Potentially significant hydrolog3,/water quality impacts identified in the FEIR would be mitigated to a less than significant level by mitigation measures 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. Modifications to the SPA Plan for the Village Six project would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR would be equaily applicable to the proposed new configuration of land uses. I¥. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: PotentiallySignificant Less than a) Violate an5, air quality, standard or contribute to [] [] [] [] an existing or projected air quality violation7 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. [] [] [] [] or cause an), change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationa~, or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality7 Comments: The FEIR determined that significant, unmitigated air qualiry impacts would occur as a result of implementing the entire Village Six SPA Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted at the time the FEIR was certified. Modifications to the project which include the change in the designation of 88 single family units to multi family units would not result in any substantial additional air quality impacts. .According to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), traffic trip generation rates are calculated to be I0 trips per unit per day for single family homes and 8 trips per unit per day for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment ',~ ouid resuh in approximately 176 less vehicle trips titan the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. Due Io the reduction in vehicle trips, air quatiD' impacm would be slightly reduced from ~ose previously addressed ~ ~e FEIR. Shon4e~ co~cfion ~pacB lo air qualiD' are not expected ~o ~ exacerbated by ~e proposed m~ifications. Pote~y V. T~NSPORTATION/CIRC~ATION. Would Po~n~ly si~fi~ ~ ~ the proposal result in: Si~fimt U~s Si~fimt No Im~ Mifi~t~ ~ lm~c: a) Increased vehicle trips or ~affic congestion? ~ ~ ~ . ~ b) Hazards to ~fe, from design features (e.g., ~ ~ ~ ~ sha~ cu,'es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., hrm equipment)? c) lnadequa,e emergency access or access m ~ ~ ~ ~ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capaciv on-site or off-site? ~ ~ ~ ~ e) Hazards or ba~iers for pedesxians or ~ ~ ~ ~ bicyclisu? ~ ConflicB wi~ adopted policies suppo~g ~ ~ ~ ~ alternative ~anspomtion (e~.,. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ~ ~ ~ ~ Managemem Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle uips or 2~ or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: Accord~g to S.~AG. single family uni~ generate an estimated 10 raps per unit per day and multi family homes generate an estimated 8 ~ps per unit per day. ~e proposed SPA amendmmm for Village Six calls for the elimination of 88 sintle_ family homes ~d the creation of 88 mu ti hmily homes. ~e proposal SPA amendment would result ~ approximately 176 less vehic e trips ~an ~e adopted Village Six SPA Plan. As a result, all ~affic-re reed impacts anal~ed in the FE~ are expected to be slightly less xxS~ ~e implementation of~e proposed SPA amendm~t. Oth~ ~ffic/circulation impac~ associated wi~ ~e proposed modification to ~e SPA Plan for Village Six would not differ from those pres~ted in ~e ~. Potentially VI. BIOLOGIC.~ ~SO~CES. Would zhe vo~*n~ny sibilant Less ~ Fro~osal F~S~J[ ~ i~aCIS tO: Sigmfig~ Uffiess Si~fi~ No a) noon .... a. sensitive, species. ,ecies of ~ ~ ~ ~ concern or ~s ~at are candidates for listing? b) L~ally desi~ated species (e.g., heritage ~ ~ ~ ~ trees)? c) Locally; desk,noted_ natural co--unities (e.~.,o ~ ~ ~ ~ oak forest, coastal habitat. ~tc.)* 5 ~ . vernal ' ~ ei Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [~ fl Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: The site is devoid of any sensitive plant or animal species or habitats. The modifications proposed in the Village Six SPA Plan would not change any of the conclusions or mitigation measures of the FEIR with respect to biological resourcesi VI1. ENERGY AN~ MINERAL RESOURCES. Potentially Signifieam Less than Would the proposal: Significam Unless Significant No a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [] inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed amendment to SPA Plan for Village Six would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans or use any non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. T;aerefore, no impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated with implementation of the modifications to the Village Six SPA Plan. VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Pmenual}y silmificam Less than a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of an), health hazard or potential [] [] [] [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] [] potential health hazards? e) . Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] [] - brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The FEIR did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with the proposed development of the Village Six area. The amendment to the SPA Plan would transfer the density in an area already designed for development. The modifications to the SPA Plan would not result in or interfere with any public safety plans, or create or mcrease any health hazards. 1X. NOISE. WoMd file propose! resell it~: Pol~n'aalb SigmfizanI Less than a) Increases in existmg noise levels? [] [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [] Comments: The FEIR determined that residential development within the Village Six area would be exposed to significant impacm from roadway noise and requires mitigation measaires to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The changes associated with the proposed SPA amendment, would not affect the noise determinations made in the FEIR. The construction of multi family homes adjacent to Olympic Parkw,,ay in the area originally designated for single family homes has the potential to place balconies overlooking the roadway. It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to require that balconies be designed so that noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL. The application of noise mitigation measures 5.12-1 through 5.12-5, as detailed in the FEIR, including the requirement for multiple story buildings with balconies, would ensure that there is no significant noise impact. PolcnfiMly X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have po~,,n;my sigmfic-am Les$ mn an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Sigraficam Unless Sigrfificanl No Impact Mitigated impact Impact altered govern, mere sen,ices in any of the following a) Fire protection? [] [] [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? [] [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] [] Comments: Demands for fire protection, police protection, maintenance of public facilities, and other governmental sen, ices are based on the projected population eslimales. Demands for schools are based on the number of units. Since the FEIR used the same population generation rate (3.01 persons/unit) for single family and multi family homes and the total number of units does not change with the amendment, the projected demands for these sen'ices would not change as a result of the proposed project modification. Xl. Thresholds. Will the proposal adverse~' impact [] [] [] [] the City's Threshold Standard. s? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] [] The CiD"s Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond Io calls within seven minutes or less in 85 percent of the cases and within five minutes or less in 75 percent of the cases. The City of Chuta Vista has determined that this threshold standard would be met because fire services would be provided in accordance with the Olay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS Master Plan. Comments: The FEIR states that potential impacts to fire protection and emergensy medical services would be mitigated by compliance with the Fire Station Master Plan and payment of fees. Since the population generation rate and the total number of units would remain the same, the proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in substantial changes in the abilky to deliver adequate services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are anticipated v, fth the proposed changes. The Findings of Fact adopted for the FEIR found that the Village Six SPA Plan and the Olay Ranch Village Six SPA Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would meet projected demands for fire and EMS services. No additional impacts to fire and EMS ser,'ices are anticipated. Signific.~mt Unless Sitmificam No b) Police [] [] [] [] The CiU,'s Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 percent of Priority 1 calls within 7 reputes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priori~' 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10 percent of Prioriw 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all PrioriU, 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The FEIR states that potential impacts to law enforcement services would be mitigated by compliance with the Law Enforcement Services Master Plan for Olay Ranch and payment of mitigation fees. Since the population generation rate and the total number of units would remain the same, the proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in substantial changes in the ability to deliver adequate law enforcement services to the project area. No significant impacts to law enforcement services are anticipaled with the proposed changes. The Findings of Fact adopted for the FEIR found that the Village Six SPA Plan, and the PFFP and/.he developmen! impact fee program would meet projected demands for law enforcement services. No additional impacts to law enforcement se~'ices are anticipated. The Ci~,'s Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a L~vel of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. Comments: According Io SANDAG, the trip generation rates for single family and multi family homes are 8 trips per unit and 10 trips per unit, respectively. As a result, the proposed SPA amendment would result in the generation of approximately 1'76 less total trips. As a result, no additional traffic impacts associated with the proposed SPA Plan modification are anticipated. The application of traffic mitigation measures 5.10-12 through 5.10-18, as presented in the FEIR, would be required for the modified project and would reduce the potential for exceeding the Ci .ry's Threshold Standards for traffic to a less than significant level. d) Parks/Rezreation [] [] [] [] The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,000 population. Comments: Since the projected population is expected to be the same with or without the proposed changes, there is no affect on the demand for additional parkland or recreational Significant Unless Si_u:nifizam No The Ci~"s Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed C~b En__m~rm= Standards. Individual projects would provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposed amendment of the \'il]age Six SPA Plan would not substantially aller the drainage over that analyzed in the FEIR. The modifications to the SPA Plan would not impede the project's ability to comply with City Engineering Standards, and would not result in any impact~ not previously considered. The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Sewage generation rates as listed in the FEIR are 265 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for single family units and 199 gpd per unit for multi family units. The proposed SPA amendment would result in an estimated 5,808 gpd decrease in sewage demand. It should be noted that the projected sewer demand for the entire SPA as presented in the FEIR is 581,692 gpd. The 5,808 gpd decrease in the sewage demand resulting from the proposed SPA Plan modifications represents approximately a 1.0 pement decrease in the total sewage demand. Therefore, the amendment to the SPA Plan is not anticipated to cause any additional impacts to sewage flows and volumes. Pmentially Poten~ially Sigmficant Le~s ~han Significant Unless Significant No lmpam Mitigaled Impact Impact g) Water [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jsopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed SPA amendment is calculated to result J.n a decrease in the total daily usage of potable water and an increase in the total daily usage of recycled water. According to the FEIR, the potable water generation rate is 420 gpd per unit for single family homes and 294 gpd per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment is calculated to result in an 11,088 gpd decrease in the potable water demand. This reduction represents a ] .31% decrease in the SPA-wide potable water usage as prQected in the FEIR. The proposed SPA Plan amendment would result in an increase in the generation rate for recycled water. According to the FE[R, single family units do not use recycled water. Therefore, the addition of 88 multi family homes would result in a 4,018 gpd per acre increase over the 1.8 acre-total area containing these homes. This increase represents a 3.30% increase in the SPA-wide demand for recycled water as projected in C~ FEIR. qq~e increase in the demand for recycled water is negligible. As stated in the FEIR, the use of recycled water has been planned for by ~e Olay Water District. ~plemenmtion of ~tigation measures 5.13.2-1 through 5.13.2-3. as listed in ~e FEIR would reduce · e impacm on recycled water m below a level of signific~ce. Portly XII. UTILITIES ~ SER~CE SYSTEMS. Would Pot,n~y the proposal result in a need for n~ ~'s~e~, or si~o~ u~s si~fi~ . No substantial alterations to the following ulilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Co~onicafions systems? c)Local or regional water trea~ent or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic ta~s? e) Storm water drainage? 0 Solid waste disposal? Comments: ~blic sen, ice demands were analyzed in ~e FEIR. ~e proposed modification to ~e SPA Plan for Village Six would not require new systems or substantial alterations to any of ~e planned sen'ice systems. ~e population generation rates would remain ~e same wi~ the proposed changes and ~e project site would continue to be se~ed by utili~ and sen, ice syslem infrastructure provided ~rough ~e development of Viltage Six. No additional impac~ m utilities and se~ice systems would be anticipated. Potentially Polentially Significant Less than XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Siimificant No Impact Mitigated lmpa:t Impact a) Obstruct an,,' scenic ,'ism or view open to the [] [] [] [] public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] [] [] [] scenic rome? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] [] [] increase the level of sk?, glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section -'19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] C(m~ments: 'I~e ?roposed SPA a::.aendment re-desi~mates Neighborhood 7a from single farni]> m mu!i; family lo allow for the replacement of SS single family units with 88 multi family units. The proposed change would replace approximately 13 acres of single family homes with 12 acres of multi family homes and approximately 1 acre of open space. These changes are considered negligible with respect to landform alteration and aesthetics. No additional impacts to aesthetics are anticipated. po{cntizliy X'IX~. CULTURAL R.ESOURCE~. Would l}1~ Polentially £igrfificant Le~s than proposal: $igmfi~,~t uffits~ sig.', fi~ant No lmpact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] [] [] [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] [] sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] [] EIR as an area of high potential for archeologicat resources? Comments: Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3 of the FEIR would reduce any potential impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance. The proposed revisions to the project would no~ result in any new impacts. As a result, with mitigation, cultural resource impacts would remain below a level of significance. Potentially potentially Significam L~s than Si~ficam Units Si~m~ificam No Impact Mitigmed tmpa~ Impact XW. PALEONvrOLOGICAL RESOURCES. grill the [] [] [] [] ]~roposal resul~ in the alteration of or the desmzcrion o_f paleontological resources? Comments: The Village Six SPA Plan si~e is underlain by alluvium (Qal), Otay Formation (To), and San Diego Formation (Tsd). Both To and Tsd formations are likely to contain fossil resources. Implementation of rnJfigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-4 of the FEIR would reduce potential impacts to below &level of significance. The proposed amendment would not result in any new impacts to potential paleontological resources. XVI. RECREATION. Would ',he ?roposal: Potzna:ab Sigmfi:am l_=ss man a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] . [] c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation [] [] [] [] plans or programs? Comments: The projected demand for parks and other recreational facilities is based on the population. Since the FErR used the same population generation rate (3.01 persons per unit) for single family and multi family homes, the projected demand for these services would not change as a result of the proposed project modifications. Potentially XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF PotentiallySignificant Leu man SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for Si~mincant Unless sigmfieant NO impazt Mitigated lmpam Impact mandatory fin&'ngs of significance, lf an E1R is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] [] the quali~' of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory7 Comments: T-ne proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not degrade the quali~' of the environment because the changes are consistent with the issues analyzed in the FEIR. Polentially Potentially Si~ificant Less ~ Significant Unless Significant No lmpacl Mitigated Irn~ lmpacn b) Docs the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental ooals? Comments:' The proposed modification to ;.he SPA Plan for Village Six would be consistent with the issues analyzed in the FEI]R, with respect to relationship of short-term and long- term environmental goals. No impacts are anticipated. indiv/dually limited, but cumulative])' considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when v/ewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Cumulative effects related to the development of Village Six were cons/tiered in the FEIR. The potentially significanI cumulative impacts associaled w/th the proposed project are land use, planning and zoning, pateontolo~cal resources, cultural resources, landform alteration/aesthetics, biolo~cal resources, agricultural resources, water resources and water quality, transportation, circulation and access, public services and utilities, and hazards/risk of upset. The proposed SPA amendment for Village Six would not result in additional cumulative effects that were nol considered in the FEIR. Potemially Potentially Significant Le~s than Significant Unless Significanl No Impacl Mitigated Impact Impact which w/Il cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed modificatUon to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not resull in any adverse effects on human beings that were not consid~ed in the FEI~R. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS ORMITIGATION MEASURES: No additinnaI mitigation measures are required. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By s/maino_, the line(s) proxSded below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company(s) authority to and do a~ee Io the m/figafion measures contained herein and within EIR 98-01, and w511 implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Re'dew Coordinator. Applicant shall also specifically aclmowledge acceplance of noise nmigation measures 5.I2-1 throug.h 5.I2-5, as detailed in the FEIR~ which w/Il apply to all multiple s-tory buildings xx4th balconies, including those proposed under this SPA amendment. Failure to sign the line(s) proxSded beloxv prior to consideration of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) desire that the Project be held in abeyance v, fithout approval. Ranie L. Hunter? Vice President O~ay Project L.P. Exhibit '~D" Otay Ranch Company's Village Six SPA Amendment (PCM-02-20) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed as determined by the Direclor of Planning and Building. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERAL/PRELIMINARY To the satis£action of the Director of Planning and Building, Applicant shall submit to the City amendments to all other Village Six SPA Plan associated documents for review and approval. Said amendments shall be submiued within thirty (30) days of the approval of lhis Amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan. 2. Applicant shall submit all changes to the Village Six SPA Plan in an electronic format as directed by the Director of Planning and Building within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR VILLAGE SIX WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of' this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03 and 02-05, and is commonly known as Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Districts Map (~'Project")(PCM-02-20) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 18, 2002 by Otay Project, L.P. ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Village Six SPA Plan's Planned Community District Regulation's Land Use Districts Map to reflect neighborhood boundary adjustments between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, and to and re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2; and, WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Planned Community District Regulations are established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC) Planned Community Zone, and are applicable the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Land Use Districts Map of the amended Village Six SPA Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October, 23, 1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, November 10, 1998, and October 23, 2001; and, WHEREAS, Village Six is located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR- 125; and, WHEREAS, this Project is considered a subsequent action in the program o£development evaluated under the Village Six SPA Plan Final EIR 98-01 (Final EIR 98-01); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Final EIR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or Ordinance No. Page No. 2 of 3 supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to Final EiR 98-0l has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing before the Chula Vista Planning Commission on the Project, 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 property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 13, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing before the Chula Vista City Council on the Project, 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 property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 26, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said public hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan conform to the policies found in the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and, WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-1-0 (Thomas opposed) the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the amended Village Six SPA Plan held on March 13, 2002 and the minutes and resolutions 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. Ordinance No. - Page No.3 of3 II. ACTION The City Council hereby adopts the modifications to the Land Use Districts Map (Exhibit "B") ofthe Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations, finding that they are consistent with the City ofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council found that the Project, as described and analyzed in the addendum to Final EIR 98-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)] pursuant to Council Resolution No. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Leiter Planning and Building Director ~~ City Attorney V(. SPA O,ddoc j¡..{¡;9 EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 11 Neighborhood R-7 VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION VILLAGE 7 · EASTERN ~ URBAN CENTER ;HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN LOCA/OR ~o~c¥ ~Roj~c~ ~sc~o.: V'~UC.,~'~T: OTAY RANCH COMPANY FILE NUMBERS: SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & PROJECT ~ORESS: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 sc,~ i Village 6 Tentative Map NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFILES\locators\PCS0205.cdr 02/22/02 Land Use Districts SF4 ; ' RM2 RM1 ! RM2 · OS]P1 RM2 Rh~l SF4 SF3 SF4 ~ ' CPF : Village Six Exhibit 2-14 02 11.3 _ d / RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PORTION OF VILLAGE SIX OF THE OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 02-05 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified on the locator map (Exhibit "A") attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-05, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch Company's Portion of Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, Otay Project, L.P. ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as "Otay Ranch Village Six, Chula Vista Tract 02-05", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on October 16, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately 201.1 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west ofthe future SR-125; and, WHEREAS, the Project is also the subject matter of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), as amended, originally approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on October 23,2001, by Resolution No. 2001- 362 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) AmendmentsNillage Eleven SPA Plan Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR 01-02")(SCH#2001031120), the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR 98- 01 ")(SCH#2001041033), and the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new enviromnental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Village Six SPA Plan Final EIR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to FEIR 98-01 was prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP Phase 2 Resource Management Plan requires the conveyance of 1.188 acres of Otay Ranch Preserve land to the Preserve Owner/Manger for every acre of development and the proposed tentative map contains approximately 133.6 acres of / /-Î;}- ~---'---- development in applicants portion of Village Six which will require the conveyance of 158.7 acres to the Preserve Owner/Manager; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on Otay Ranch Company's portion of Otay Ranch, Village Six Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 02- 05) 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. March 13, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on Otay Ranch Company's portion of Otay Ranch, Village Six Tentative Subdivision Map, PCS-02-05, namely 6:00 p.m. March 26, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on March 13, 2002, 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. 11. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Addendum to FEIR 98-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Addendum (Guideline 15 ! 68 (c)(2)). II1. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the resolution approving Otay Ranch Company's portion of Otay Ranch, Village Six Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 02-05 involving 201.1 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" in this resolution, finding it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Village Six SPA Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the "Otay Ranch Village Six Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 02- 05)" as conditioned, attached as Exhibit "B" to this resolution, hereto for Otay Project, L.P., is in con£ormance with all the various elements of'the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use The Project is in a planned community that provides single-family and multi- family residential uses, schools, mixed-use, community purpose facilities and common usable open space and other uses authorized by the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. 2. Circulation All of the on-site and off-site public and private improvements required to serve the subdivision are part of the project description or are conditioned consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Village Six SPA Plan. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in accordance with City and Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan standards. 3. Housing An affordaNe housing agreement between the City and Otay Ranch Company will be executed subsequent to the approval of the Tentative Map and is applicable to subject Project providing £or low and moderate income households. 4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Parks, recreation and open space will be conditioned under Tentative Map conditions to provide local parkland and dedicate additional Community parkland (Applicant obligation) for the Project elsewhere in Otay Ranch. Construction of parkland and common usable open space and programmable recreation facilities are the responsibility of the Applicant. 5. Conservation The Program EIR and FEIR 98-01 addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. The Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.188 acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve for every one-acre of developed land prior to approval of any Final Map. (Pursuant to thc RMP Phase 2, Page 60, EIR 98-01 Section 5.3.3) 6. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults have been identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report. 7. Public Safety All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the threshold response times for fire and police services. 8. Public Facilities The Applicant will provide all on-site and off:site streets, sewers and water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major projects in the eastern territories. 9. Noise The Project will include noise attenuation xvalls based on the results of an acoustic study prepared for the Project. in addition, all units are required to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. 10. Scenic Highway The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic Parkway the only General Plan, GDP/SRP scenic highway adjacent to the Project. 11. Bicycle Routes The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes on the Project as indicated in the regional circulation system of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. 12. Public Buildings Public buildings are not proposed on the Project site as part of the community purpose facility locations. The Project is subject to appropriate residential fees prior to issuance of building permits. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C", attached hereto. VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is' the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by ~6vt JIo . Kaheny ~ City Attorney Robert Leiter Planning and Building Director HIPLANN1NG\Otay_RanchIVillagc ßV6_TM_Stoff\ORC's_TM\ORC V6 TM CC RESO.doc JI-1Þ EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS IVERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 11 Neighborhood R-7 VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION EASTERN VILLAGE 7 ~_ URBAN CENTER :HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN' LOCATOR ~,RO~CT PROJECTDESCRIpT1ON: FILE NUMBERS: Ap~Jc.~rr: OTAY RANCH COMPANY SU BDIVI$1ON PCM-02-20 & PROJECT ~I~ORE~: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 sc~: Village 6 Tentative Map NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFIL ES\locators\PCS0205,cdr 02/22/02 ~Z Exhibit "C" Otay Ranch Company's Village Six Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 02-05) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERAL/PRELIMINARY 1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". (Planning) 2. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual; Chula Vista Design Manual; Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan; Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01); Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting documents including: Public Facilities Finance Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA Affordable Housing Plan; and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, ~vith the approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council. (Planning) 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, Page 1 of 43 or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City. (Planning) 4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. (Planning) 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Village Six SPA conditions of approval, (PCM 99-15) as may be amended from time to time. (Planning) 6. Prior to the approval of the first "A" map for the Proj eot, Applicant shall prepare and submit, to the satisfaction of, and as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Building, an updated Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and supporting regulating documents including, but not limited to text, exhibits, and tables for the Village Six SPA Plan; Planned Community District Regulations; Village Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Plan Air Quality Improvement Plan; Water Conservation Plan; Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; and applicable envirommental documents. (Planning) ?. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. (Planning) 8. A reserve fund program has been established by Resolution No. 18288 for the funding of the Fiscal Impact of New Development (F.I.N.D.) Model for the Otay Ranch Project. The Applicant shall provide funds to the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall participate in the funding of the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs in the Project and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP. (Planning) 9. Prior to approval of the first "A' map, Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and agrees that, prior to the construction of SR- 125, the City shall stop issuing new building permits for Village Six when the City, in its sole discretion, determines either: Page 2 of 43 a. Building permits for a total 9,429 dwelling units have been issued for projects east ofi-805 (the start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January 1, 2000); or, b. An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. Developer shall also acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the foregoing thresholds, the City may issue building permits if the City Council decides, in its sole discretion, that any of the following has occurred: 1) the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMOC traffic threshold standards based upon traffic studies 2) other improvements are constructed which provide additional necessary capacity; or 3) the City selects an alternative method of implementing the GMOC standards. These traffic studies would not require additional environmental review under CEQA; however, any improvements proposed in these traffic studies would be subject to additional environmental reviews as required. The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the Project. (Engineering) 10. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, as may be amended from time to time, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement"), to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. (Planning) 11. Should any of these conditions conflict with the Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement approved by Council Resolution 19410, the Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement shall control. (Planning) ENVIRONMENTAL 12. The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, all environmental impact mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 98-01 (SCH#2001041033), the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Final EIR 98-01) for this project. (Planning) 13. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Department ofFish and Game, the California State Water Resources Quality Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any activity that may potentially impact biological resources, such as clearing and grubbing, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements prescribed in the Otay Ranch Village Six Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01)(SCH#2001041033), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Planning) Page3of43 i' ~i- ~' 14. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit/authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department ofFish and Game, or comply with the approved City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, if applicable to the Project. (Planning) 15. Prior to the approval of each final "B" map, the Applicant shall comply with all requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on October 28, 1993, and Otay Ranch, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP2) and "Preserve Conveyance Schedule," as approved by City Council on Jtme 4, 1996, and as may be amended from time to time by the City. (Planning) 16. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit (including clearing and grubbing) for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the RMP, Phase Two, Range Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. (Planning) 17. Simultaneously with conveyance of land to the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) in fee title or by easement, the Applicant shall cease all cattle grazing on the land to be conveyed. In addition, the Applicant shall ensure through the maintenance of existing fencing or gating, if sufficient, or the construction of new fencing or gating, if deemed necessary by the City, that cattle from adjacent areas cannot access the land being conveyed. In addition, Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the RMP, Phase Two, Range Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. (Planning) 18. Prior to the approval of each final "B" map for the Project, Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Village Six SPA Plan Agricultural Plan. (Planning) 19. The Applicant shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) and any lien holder, an easement restricting use of the land to those permitted by the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve. Where an easement is conveyed, the Applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first priority interest in such land. Where consent and subordination cannot be obtained, the Applicant shall convey fee title. Where fee title or an easement is conveyed, access to the satisfaction of the POM shall also be conveyed, and each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the Applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Where an easement is granted, each tentative map is subject to a condition that fee title shall be granted upon demand by the POM. The Applicant shall irrevocably offer for dedication to the City or its designee, fee title, upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve. The Applicant shall maintain and manage the conveyed parcel until the Preserve Community Facilities District (CFD) has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance and management responsibilities. (Planning) Page 4 of 43 ~.~ · 20. Upon request of the Director of Planning and Building, applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City or its designee for the Otay Ranch Preserve. (Planning) 21. Prior to approval of the first "B" map for the Project, at the request of the City Engineer, Developer shall take all necessary steps to include the Project area within Improvement Area "A" of the Otay Ranch Preserve Maintenance District (CFD. No. 97-02). (Engineering) SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 22. A noise barrier plan shall be submitted for review and receive approval of the City prior to issuance of the first grading permit for the Project. This noise barrier plan shall be incorporated into the wall and fence plan, a component of the Landscape Master Plan. Should Developer request modification of the approved wall and fence plans, Developer shall provide additional acoustical analysis if required by the Director of Planning and Building. Noise barriers shall be constructed within dedicated open space lots and shall not be constructed on private property. (Environmental, Engineering) 23. Noise barriers shall be secured to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to approval of the first "B" map for the Project. Bonds securing noise barrier construction may be released upon determination by the City's Director of Public Works that an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, California Transportation Ventures (CTV) or its successor in interest, and Applicant contains sufficient securities for construction of the noise barriers. (Environmental, Engineering) 24. Unless required noise barriers are constructed, no building permits shall be issued for those lots within the noise contour of 65 CNEL or greater as described in the Noise Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village Six, dated September 24, 2001, unless earlier modified by agreement with the City of Chula Vista, CTV or its successor in interest, and Applicant. All noise barrier design and construction adjacent to SR-125 shall be coordinated with the City of Chula Vista, CALTRANS, and CTV or its successor in interest. Noise barrier design and construction adjacent to SR-125 may be modified should a subsequent acoustical study demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building that the applicable noise standards will be achieved by a modified design. (Environmental, Engineering) 25. Applicant shall make a good-faith effort to coordinate development and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan Area with all other developers/applicants within Village Six including phasing, grading, improvements and dedication of right-of-way. (Planning) 26. The following conditions of approval are based upon the project having multiple Final Maps for the entire subdivision, which shall be referenced hereinafter as "Final 'B' Maps". A Final "B" Map is defined as a final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which proposes to subdivide land into individual single or multi-family lots, or contains a subdivision of the multi-family lots Page 5 of 43 shown on the Tentative Map. The "B" Map shall be in substantial conformance with the related approved final "A" Map. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City's reasonable satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final 'B' Map. (Engineering) 27. Prior to approval of the first final "B" map within the tentative map, the developer may submit and obtain the approval of the City ora master final map ("A" Map) over the portion of the tentative map within each area showing "super block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said "A" map shall also show open space lot dedications, the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to serve the "super block" lots created by this "A" Map. All "super block" lots created by this "A" Map or parcel map shall have access to a dedicated public street. A lot line adjustment, if utilized in accordance with City standards and procedures, shall not be considered the first "A" Map. The "A" Map may contain single-family residential units. An "A" map shall not be considered the first final map as indicated in the conditions of approval unless said map contains single family lots, stock co-operative, community apartment, condominium lots or multi-family lots as shown. (Engineering) 28. The subsequent development ora multi-family lot which does not require the filing ora "B" map shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 29. in the event of a filing of a final 'B' map which requires oversizing of the improvements necessary to serve other properties within the Project, said final map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances). (Engineering) DESIGN 30. Any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with the Village Six Village Design Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the appropriate final map. (Planning) 31. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall submit for revie~v and approval a sign program to the director of Planning and Building. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall post temporary signs on all neighborhoods within the Project indicating the future land use(s) for said sites ~vith signage consistent with the sign program. Temporary signs shall be maintained in place until such time as a project is approved for any such future land use site. (Planning) 32. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to Page 6 of 43 , , ~ ~ soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 1,500 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the corresponding final map. (Planning) 33. Residential street parkways shall be no less than 7.5 feet in width for the planting area, except as approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall plant trees within said parkways which have been selected from the list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Six Design Plan, Village Six SPA Plan and Landscape Master Plan and shall be approved by the Directors of Planning and Building, Building & Park Construction and Public Works. The Applicant shall provide root barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for the trees, as approved by the Director Building and Park Construction and the Director of Public Works. (Planning) 34. The Applicant shall install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. All street trees shall be planted in parkways, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building. Street trees, which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Six Village Design Plan, Village Six SPA Plan and Landscape Master Plan, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. Prior to the installation of any dry utilities, including but not limited to cable, telephone, gas or electric lines, Applicant agrees to complete preliminary street improvement plans that show the location of all futura street trees, which will be subject to the review and approval of the Director Building & Park Construction and the Director of Planning & Building. Prior to any utility installation, wood stakes shall be placed by the Applicant on site according to approved preliminary street tree plans and shall be painted a bright color and labeled as future street tree location. Applicant further agrees to provide City documentation, acceptable by the Director Building & Park Construction and the Director of Planning and Building, that ail utility companies have been given notice that no dry utility line shall be located within five feet of the wood stake in any direction. Applicant will maintain street tree identification stakes in location as shown on approved preliminary plans until all dry utilities are in place. A street tree improvement plan, including mailbox locations, shall be submitted for review and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement plans within the subdivision. Approval of the street tree improvement plans shall constitute final approval of the selection of street trees for the street parkways. (Engineering, Planning, Building and Park Construction) 35. Prior to the first "A" map for the Project, Applicant shall submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building a SPA-wide signage plan addressing cart and off-street bicycle circulation and street crossing. Such plan shall include sign colors, materials, heights, location and lighting. Applicant shall install approved signs concurrent with related improvements or upon request by the City. (Engineering, Planning) Page 7 of 43 36. Developer shall install, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, two vehicular access points from View Park Way to Neighborhood R-7, as directed by the City Engineer. (Planning, Engineering) 37. Developer shall align the fifteen foot (15 ') wide pedestrian access from Neighborhoods R-7 to R-3 to ensure a continuous, smooth connection of this pedestrian access between property owners, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, or designee, and the City Engineer. There shall be no off-sets in the pedestrian access' joining points between property lines. The 15' wide pedestrian access shall contain a six foot (6') wide, paved sidewalk, which shall also be aligned between properties, connecting the two Neighborhoods and shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. (Planning, Engineering) 38. Developer shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, pedestrian access which aligns with the approved, joint access point between Neighborhoods R-3 and R-7 to the East Palomar Street Village Pathway, as directed by the Director of Planning and Building and as approved by the City Engineer. (Planning, Engineering) 39. Maps~..~-~ ''~v ...... ...... ~..-~.w~'-';**'~'~ ~-,~v**-°' ,,~ ....... , ,~..~ ,h~_.~ first Tentative .Map shall not eenta;.n guarded or ~,/I,..~l.~l,~,~,~ A ........ Ai .... * ?O lxY,~ghl...-,.-h,.¢Ao D Oh .~...A CDI2 1 Applicant shall submit plans for Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9b which show two (2) entrances into each neighborhood in locations satisfactory to the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. (Planning, Engineering) ,~;~oo,oa~.._~.~ by ,h.....v r,;.,~..; ~"";~--t.---~-, .... No vehicular accesses shall be provided between Neighborhood R-8 and Sutter Buttes Street. (Planning, Engineering) 41. Developer shall install, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, two vehicular accesses from Magdalena Avenue to Neighborhood R-9b, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer, (Planning, Engineering) PUBLIC FACILITIES~ UTILITIES~ IMPROVEMENTS AND PHASING (Streets~ Transit~ Sewer~ Water~ Drainage~ Grading) 42. Developer shall dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the first "A" map and those "B" maps which trigger improvements as set forth in the Village Six PFFP, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure all street improvements as required by the PFFP, as may be amended from time to time. The Developer shall construct Page8of43 '. ~.) the public improvements and provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney. (Engineering) 43. Construct a protective fencing system around all proposed permanent detention basins, and the inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as and when directed by the City Engineer. The final fencing design and types of constrnction materials shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 44. Construct energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities. (Engineering) 45. Prior to approval of each final map, acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of- way and easements necessary for the installation of required street improvements and/or utilities, subject to the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act. (Engineering) 46. Concurrent with approval of each final map for the Project, the Applicant shall submit Improvement Plans for the applicable neighborhood for review and approval by the City Engineer, Director Building and Park Construction and the Director of Planning and Building. Applicant shall secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as identified in the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA PFFP, as may be amended from time to time and as deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing, fire hydrants and street light locations, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 47. Provide security in accordance ~vith Chapter 18.16 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, dedicate, and construct full street improvements for all public streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer to provide service to the subject subdivision, in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and approved Tentative Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said street improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, stripping, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer. The amount of the security for required improvements, including landscape and irrigation plans, shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and the Director Building & Park Construction if related plans have been approved by the City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if related plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and the Director Building & Park Construction if related plans have not been submitted for City review. A Page 9 of 43 lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director Building & Park Construction that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. (Engineering) 48. Upon: 1) approval of the final "B" map that triggers the Cumulative DU's, ("Table 'A'") below; or, 2) approval of the first map for a specific Planning Area, (Table'B'") below, whichever occurs earlier, consistent with the Village Six PFFP, as may be amended from time to time, Developer shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, the required street improvements: (Engineering) Table "A" Village Six Public Facilities Matrix Public facilities required to be constructed by Village Six and cumulative unit triggers Facility Description Cumulative Roadway Unit Triggers~ 1 La Media Road - Olympic Parkway to Santa Venetia Street 750 2 ;anta Venetia Street - Easterly Boundary of R-1 to La Media Road 750 3 Santa Venetia Street - Magdalena Avenue to La Media Road 750 4 Magdalena Avenue - Santa Venetia Street to Southerly Boundary of R-4 1500 5 Magdalena Avenue - East Palomar Street to Santa Venetia Street 750 6 East Palomar - Olympic Parkway to Magdalena Avenue 750 7 Santa Venetia Street - Easterly Boundary of R-2 to La Media Road 750 8 Magdalena Avenue - Northerly Boundary of R-2 to Birch Road 1500 9 Birch Road - Magdalena Avenue to La Media Road4 1500 10 La Media Road - Santa Venetia Street to Birch Road4 1500 11 Birch Road - SR125 to Magdalena Avenue3 1500 12 Magdalena Avenue - Birch Road to South Boundary of R-6 1500 13 Otay Lakes Road - East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Rd2 944 (1) Developer shall agree to construct and to secure the facility prior to the Final Map that triggers the cumulative DU's or EDU's as defined in this Table. (2) Improvement will be required only if the cumulative trigger is reached prior to the construction of SR 125. (3) Improvement shall be secured prior to the cumulative unit trigger, or with an "A" Map including CPF 2 and/or R-11/S-2, whichever occurs first. The time to perform the construction of this facility may be extended by the Director of Public Works. (4) Full-width improvements for these facilities shall be secured prior to the first final map containing the 1500th DU. The time to perform the construction of these facilities may be extended by the Director of Public Works. Page 10of43 ~9 r Table "B" Village Six Specific Planning Area Triggers Roadway Required for Access ("A") Or Area Roadway Frontage ("F")2 R-1 1,2 A,F R-3 1, 3 A(1), F R-4 1, 3, 4 A(1), F R-6 1, 3, 5, 64 A(1,3, 6), F R-10 1, 3, 5, 64 A(1,3, 6), F R-2 1, 7, 8, 9~,103 A(1), F R-5 6 A CPF- l 6 A, F R-7 6 A,F R-8 6 A,F R-9 6 A CPF-2 1, 3, 4,11s, 12 A(1,3), F R-I 1/S-2 1, 115, 12 A(1), F C-1 6 A,F (1) Agree to construct and to secure the facility prior to the first final map in this planning area. (2) Numbers in Parenthesis in this column refer to the facility. (3) Half-width improvements for these facilities shall be secured prior to the first final map in this plarming area. The time to perform the construction of these facilities may be extended by the Director of Public Works. Full-width dedication for these facilities shall be offered on an "A" Map containing this planning area. (4) Only emergency access along this facility shall be required prior to the first final map in either of these planning areas. (5) The time to perform the construction of this facility may be extended by the Director of Public Works. 49. Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the tentative map, unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. (Engineering) 50. The Applicant shall participate in the funding of revisions of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed and requested by the City Manager or his designee and subject to the approval of the City Council. The Applicant will receive appropriate credit for such participation. (Engineering) 51. Prior to approval of any final map which triggers the installation of the related street improvements, Applicant shall enter into an agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to construct and secure fully activated traffic signals, including interconnected wiring, at the following intersections: Page 11 of 43 INTERSECTIONS · La Media Road and Santa Venetia Street · Santa Venetia Street and Magdalena Avenue · Magdalena Avenue and Birch Road · Birch Road and La Media Road · Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street · Olympic Parkway and La Media Road · Birch Rd and Entry to S-2/R-11 The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signal in conjunction with the improvement plans for the related streets. The developer shall install undergrotmd improvements, standards and luminaires in conjunction with the construction of the applicable street improvements. In addition, the applicant shall install mast arm, signal heads, and associated equipment when traffic signals warrant as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 52. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all promenade, collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. (Engineering) 53. The Applicant shall comply with the Fire Department's codes and policies for Fire Prevention, as may be amended from time to time. The Applicant shall provide the following items either prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for the Project, or prior to delivery of combustible materials on any construction site on the Project, whichever occurs earlier: a. Water supply consisting of fire hydrants as approved and indicated by the Fire Department during plan check to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Any temporary water supply source is subject to prior approval by the Fire Marshal. b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer of hard asphalt surface or concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of 20 feet. c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Temporary street signs shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. Locations and identification of temporary street signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering) Page 12 of 43 / ~.] , / 54. Depending on the location of improvements such as cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways or when special circumstances exist in a subdivision design, as determined by the Fire Marshal, the applicant shall install additional fire hydrants upon request and to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering) 55. Waiver No. 4 on the Tentative Map is approved only at intersections and only where required to achieve the sidewalk gradient in compliance with Americans with Disability Act standards. The super-elevation rate shall not exceed 2% and gutter flow shall be intercepted by a curb inlet prior to the transition from normal to the super-elevated section. Waiver No. 9 is approved with the provision that each such intersection with streets entering the intersection in a horizontal curve or with a less than standard tangent section shall meet minimum sight distance requirements. 56. Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, upon the request of and as determined necessary by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end of temporarily stubbed streets greater than 150 ft. in length (as measured from the nearest street centerline intersection). (Engineering) 57. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. Sight distance easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City of Chula Vista policies, where a conflict exists, the City of Chula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted SAG vertical curves may be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at intersections per American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. (Engineering) 58. Prior to approval of each final map, the Engineer-of-Work shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer a waiver request for all subdivision design items not specifically waived on the Tentative Map, and not conforming to adopted City standards. The Engineer-of-work request shall outline the requested subdivision design deviations from adopted City standards and state that in his/her professional opinion, no safety issues will be compromised. The waiver is subject to approval by the City Engineer in the City Engineer's sole discretion. (Engineering) 59. Prior to approval of the first map for the Project, Applicant shall agree to construct and secure, and thereafter construct and secure, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the following improvements: a. All necessary improvements for providing ingress and egress to the Elementary School (S-l). This requirement shall also include but is not limited to any required modification to medians, storm drainage system, street lights, and irrigation improvements; and, Page 13 of 43 ~ b. If warranted and upon the request of the City Engineer, traffic signal improvements for providing vehicular ingress and egress to the Elementary School S-1. (Engineering) 60. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the approval of the first map whereby the developer agrees to the following: a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities within the tentative map boundary when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the Village Six Design Plan and Village Six PFFP and as approved by the Directors of Planning and Building and Public Works. b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance the MTDB San Diego Trolley LRT System. (Engineering) 61. Alleys shall be constructed to City of Chula Vista standards. 62. The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way, which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. (Engineering) 63. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Applicant shall enter into an agreement to fund half of the cost of constructing a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Six with Village Two over La Media Road north of Santa Venetia Street. Applicant shall further agree: a. To cooperate with the City in order to establish, concurrently with the approval of the first final "B" map within Village Six, a development impact fee program, or other funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to fund Applicant's fair share of said bridge; b. To not object to being included in any development impact fee program established to fund Applicant's said fair share; c. That the timing of the construction of said bridge shall be determined by the City and shall be a condition of approval of the first tentative map in Village Two. Page 14 of 43 ~3 d. As part of the bridge design, funding and construction, a 10'- wide concrete walkway shall be provided from the Village Pathway on the north side of Santa Venetia to the bridge landing on the east side of La Media. (Planning, Engineering) 64. As directed by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, the Applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Six to Village Five in the vicinity of East Palomar Street crossing over Olympic Parkway at a location directed by the Directors of Planning and Building, and Public Works. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall coincide with the improvement of East Palomar Street between Olympic Parkway and the Village Six Core. In addition, developer(s) responsible for the construction of East Palomar Street shall: a. Prior to approval of the first final map that triggers the construction of improvements of East Palomar Street, enter into an agreement to construct said bridge; b. Further agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the pedestrian bridge and shall cooperate with the City in order to establish, concurrently with the approval of the first final "B" map within Village Six, a development impact fee, or other funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to fund Developer(s') fair share of said bridge. The Applicant shall not object to being included in said development impact fee program. The developer(s) responsible for construction of East Palomar shall be solely responsible for the construction of said bridge. c. The bridge shall be constructed in a location as directed by the Directors of Plarming and Building and Public Works. (Engineering, Planning) d. As part of the rough grading plan that includes the southerly bridge landing, Applicant shall submit to for approval by the Director of Public Works and the Director Buildings and Park Construction, a plan for the connection of the bridge to the Village Six Pathway along East Palomar Street and the sidewalk on Olympic Parkway trail. The Developer shall further acknowledge and agree that the connection between the Olympic Parkway sidewalk and the southerly bridge landing may require that a route through adjacent neighborhoods be established using connector trails to Olympic Parkway. 65. Prior to the approval of the first "B" map, Applicant shall provide at Applicant's own expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer a Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report, that: 1) determines the constmction cost estimate for the bridges; 2) establishes the DIF area of benefit; and 3) establishes the DIF amount. At the sole discretion of the City, the Developer(s) may submit for approval by the City Engineer an update to the existing SPA One Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report dated November 6, 1998 that adds the Village Six project to the area of benefit and adjusts the fee as necessary and takes account of bridge design, including style, color, lighting, etc., in all cost calculations, said Page 15 of 43 bridge design being the same as the bridge connecting Village One to Village Five over La Media Road. 66. The Applicant shall not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street. The installation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities may be allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer if the follo~ving is accomplished: a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: i. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way; and, ii. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service; and, iii. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is performed in the area; and, iv. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the developer. b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. (Engineering) 67. Street names shall be as on the approved tentative map, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer. (Planning, Engineering) 68. Prior to issuance of any grading permit based on plans proposing the creation of down slopes adjacent to public or private streets, Applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's approval ora study to determine the necessity of providing guardrail improvements at those locations. Applicant shall construct and secure any required guardrail improvements in conjunction with the associated construction permit as determined by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The guardrail shall be installed per CalTrans Traffic Manual and Roadside Design Guide requirements and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering~ 69. Prior to approval of each final map, Applicant shall agree to install permanent street name signs, and shall install such signs prior to the issuance of the first building permit for production homes for the applicable final map. (Engineering) 70. Applicant shall construct and secure the installation often permanent traffic count stations, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, as indicated below: Page 16 of 43 Traffic count station Construct and secure construction prior to approval of General location La Media Road (4 count stations) Final map that triggers const~mction of the applicable section of La Media Road (2) Olympic Parkway (4 count stations) (1) Birch Road (2 count stations) Final map that triggers construction of applicable section of Birch Road (2) (1) Prior to approval of the first "A" map, Applicant shall submit plans to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer for the count stations on Olympic Parkway. (2) The traffic count stations shall be installed at such specific locations as determined by the City Engineer during processing of the applicable improvement plans. (Engineering) GRADING AND DRAINAGE 71. The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements in accordance with the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Preliminary Regional Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village Six, dated July 18, 2001, or as otherwise approved Study: Major Drainage Patterns and Facilities, dated August 28,2001 and Preliminary Hydrology by the Director of Public Works. The Applicant shall maintain all such drainage improvements until said improvements are formally accepted by the applicable maintenance district, or other mechanism as approved by the City. Said maintenance shall ensure that drainage facilities will continue to operate as designed. (Engineering) 72. Prior to approval of any grading permit or any other grant of approval for constructing the proposed retention/detention basins, whichever occurs earlier, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed retention/detention basins would reduce the 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year post-development peak flows, to any natural drainage course to an amount not exceeding pre-development conditions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. For purposes of this paragraph, "natural drainage course" does not include any portion of Poggi Canyon which receives drainage runoff from the Project. (Engineering) 73. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public system or to the point at which storm water that is collected from public street right-of-way, public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed and approved by the City for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or within C.F.D. maintained Open Space lots. (Engineering) 74. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. (Engineering) Page 17of43 / ,_ ~ [! 75. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit which impacts off-site property, the applicant shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of permission to grade and drain for all off-site grading. (Engineering) 76. Storm drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. (Engineering) 77. Provide improved all-weather access with H-20 loading to all public storm drain clean-outs or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 78. Provide a minimum of 6-inch thick PCC (reinfomed with #4 BAR at 18" on center each way) designed for H-20 loading and heavy broom finish for any access road with grades of 10% or greater. All other access roads must be asphalt concrete designed to carry H-20 loading. In addition, maintenance pads adjacent to the inlet structures shall be a minimum of6-inch PCC (reinforced with #4 bar at 18" on center each way) designed for H-20 loading with a heavy broom finish. (Engineering) 79. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. (Engineering) 80. Grant on the appropriate final "B" map a 15 foot minimum drainage and access easement for public storm drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All other public easements shall meet City standards for required width. (Engineering) 81. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. The Developer, and successors in interest, shall comply with all the provisions of the N.P.D.E.S. and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The applicant shall design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Page 18of43 . ~. ,.~)~')j Board has issued a new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01). The permit includes regulations such as implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS) and Numeric Sizing Criteria for new residential development. The Applicant shall comply with all relevant City regulations and policies including, but not limited to, incorporation into the design and implementation of the Project temporary and permanent structural Best Management Practices and non-structural mitigation measures that would reduce pollution of storm water runoff to the maximum extent practicable. (Engineering) 82. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director Building & Park Construction for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 83. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 84. Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 3:1 gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via underground storm drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet connected to an underground storm drain. The applicant shall ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property. Brow ditches and channels from private property shall not be routed through City open space unless approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 85. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by open space districts shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City. (Engineering) 86. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as shown on the Tentative Map or as approved by the City Engineer and Director Building & Park Construction. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 87. Provide a minimum of three (3) feet of flat ground access from the face of any wall to the beginning of the slope rounding for wall maintenance, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 88. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer based, on Applicant's Soils Engineer recommendations, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer will not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. (Engineering) Page 19 of 43 89. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for the Project the Applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer, a horizontal and vertical alignment study for Birch Road from La Media Road to SR- 125. A copy of the approved study shall be forwarded by Applicant to Caltrans and California Transportation Ventures. (Engineering) 90. Construct temporary de-silting basins to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The exact design and location of such facilities shall be based on hydrological modeling and determined pursuant to direction by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 91. Developer shall submit a drainage study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with each grading permit application showing that any interim conditions do not adversely impact downstream flows. (Engineering) 92. Prior to issuance of grading permits, applicant shall demonstrate that the grading plans are in substantial compliance with the grading concepts outlined in the Village Six SPA Plan consistent with the landform grading policies described in the City's General Plan. Said grading concepts will ensure that manufactured slopes are contoured to blend with and refiect adjacent slopes. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 93. Prior to the approval of the first map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Applicant agrees to the following: a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board including revision of plans as necessary. b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non- compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for the Project, whether the non- compliance results from any action by the Applicant, any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City. c. That the City Engineer may require incorporation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements during the implementation period preceding the adoption of the local SUSMP by the City, for all priority projects or phases of priority projects undergoing approval process, in accordance with Order No. 2001- 01, NPDES No. CAS0108758 Municipal Permit as determined by the City Engineer. d. To not protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other funding mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation, maintenance, inspection, Page 20 of 43 and monitoring of NPDES facilities. This agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. Such Applicant obligation may be reassigned to a Master Homeowner's Association or other appropriate Maintenance District subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) SEWER 94. Sewer access points shall, unless other~vise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works: a. Be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs; and, b. Not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas of maintenance equipment; and, c. Not be in the wheel tracks on Promenade Streets and higher street classifications; and, d. Meet Regional Standard Drawing M-4 (Locking) if located within intersections of Class I Collectors and above; and, e. Have improved all-weather paved 12-foot wide minimum access to withstand a H-20 vehicle load as approved by the Director of Public Works; and, f. Be provided at all changes of alignment of grade. (Engineering) 95. Prior to the first final "A" map, the Applicant shall agree to participate and shall thereafter participate in any necessary funding for implementing a Poggi Canyon sewer trunk monitoring program, as determined by the City Engineer. The sewer trunk monitoring program shall include an analysis of the remaining capacity of the Poggi Canyon/Date-Faivre sewer system. The analysis shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient capacity exists for the number of EDUs contained in all final map for the Project submitted to the City pursuant to the limits set forth in the PFFP and the memorandum from the Director of Public Works entitled "Threshold Capacity of Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer", dated February 19, 2001. The analysis shall include all flows, including pumped flows, entering the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer, not just from Village Six, or from within the Poggi Canyon gravity basin. 96. The Village Six sewer improvements shall be consistent with the following technical studies: McMillin - Otay Ranch Village Six Sewer Study, dated August 2001; Addendum Summary Sewer Technical Studies for Otay Ranch Village Six, dated September 20, 2001; and the Page 21 of 43 Overview of Sewer Service for the Otay Ranch Company Village Six, dated August 31, 2001. (Engineering) 97. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1% and/or a velocity of 2' per second, or as approved by the City Engineer. Sewer lines shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering) 98. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20-foot minimum sewer and access easement for sewer lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. (Engineering) PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 99. The Village Six Project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. The Project's Neighborhood Park portion of the local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of a 7.0 net-acre Neighborhood Park (P-l). The remaining requirement shall be satisfied in a future Community Park through the payment of fees, dedication of land, or a combination thereof in a manner acceptable to the Director Building and Park Construction. Common useable open space (CUOS) Lots CPF-Ix and R-2bx shall not receive park credit. (Building and Park Construction) 100. Developer shall satisfy its community parkland obligation in a manner consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17. The community parkland obligation will be included within a proposed community park to be located within a service radius of Village Six. The location of the community parkland obligation is subject to the approval of the Director Building and Park Construction. (Building and Park Construction) 101. Prior to approval of each final "B" Map, or prior to issuance of building permits for condominiums, community apartments, or stock-cooperatives not requiring the filing of a final "B" Map, the Applicant shall pay all applicable parkland acquisition and development fees (PAD Fees) and/or dedicate land to the City in accordance with C.V.M.C. Chapter 17.10, subject to the approval of the Director Building and Park Construction. (Building and Park Construction) 102. Prior to approval of the first "A" map for the Project, the applicant shall submit a letter to the Director Building and Park Construction acknowledging that the City is in the process of preparing and adopting a City-wide Parks Master Plan, and agreeing to comply with the Page 22of43 ~ _ ,,~ ¢ provisions of said plan as adopted and as it affects facility and other related requirements for the Project's parks. (Building and Park Construction) 103. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Planning and Building Department specifications and policies. 104. Prior to the approval of the first "A" Map for the Project, Applicant shall have prepared, submitted to and received approval from the Director Building and Park Construction ora comprehensive "Project Landscape Master Plan". Such approval shall be indicated by means of the Director Building and Park Construction signature and date on said Plan. The contents of the Landscape Master Plan shall conform to the City staff checklist and include the following major components: a. Landscape Concept; b. Trail Plan; c. Wall and Fence Plan to include the previously approved noise barrier plan; d. Brush Management Plan, identifying three zones and treatment, if any; e. Maintenance Responsibility Map which delineates of private and public property and indicates the maintenance responsibility for each; fi Planting Concept Plan; and g. Master Irrigation Plan Upon request of the Director Building and Park Construction, Applicant shall update the Project's Landscape Master Plan to conform to any substantial changes made subsequent to the initial approval of the Plan. (Building and Park Construction, Planning and Building, Engineering) 105. The wall and fence plan for the Project shall be included in the Project's Landscape Master Plan and shall indicate color, materials, height and location. Materials and color used shall be compatible and all walls located in comer side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de- sacs where a sound wall is not required. All walls shall be constructed pursuant to EIR 98-01 and the Village Six SPA Plan. (Engineering, Planning, Building and Park Construction) 106. Within 90 days of approval of the applicable final "B" map, enter into a maintenance agreement and grant easements as necessary for landscaping and improvements maintained by a Homeowners Association within City right-of-way or such other public areas required by the City. (Engineering, Building and Park Construction) 107. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall prepare, obtain the approval of and secure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building all landscape, trail and irrigation slope erosion control plans. All plans shall be prepared in Page 23 of 43 ~ , , ~.- accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time. Applicant shall install landscape, trail and irrigation slope erosion control in accordance with approved plans no later than six months from the date of issuance of the grading permit. If the work cannot be completed within the specified time, the Applicant may request an extension, which may be granted at the discretion of the Director of Planning & Building. Such a request shall be submitted for approval in writing to the Planning & Building Department sufficiently in advance of the end of the six-month timeframe to allow processing of the extension. Notwithstanding the time of installation of landscape, trail and irrigation slope erosion control, Applicant shall remain in compliance with NPDES. (Planning, Building and Park Construction) 108. Applicant shall install underground utilities to the property line of the Project's park site (P- 1) to the satisfaction of the Director Building and Park Construction and the City Engineer concurrently with the installation of underground utilities for any portion of the Project adjacent to the park site or upon request of the Parks and Recreation Director, whichever occurs earlier. (Building and Park Construction, Engineering) 109. Upon request of the Directors Building and Park Construction, Public Works and Recreation, the applicant shall enter into a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with the City of Chula Vista and design consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood park (P-l). The Directors Building and Park Construction, Public Works and Recreation shall have the right to select the design consultant(s), to be funded by the applicant. The cost for the consultant(s) shall be established and said amount deposited into an account prior to any work being initiated by the consultant. All design work products shall reflect the then current requirements of the City's Municipal Code, Building and Park Construction, Public Works and Recreation policies, the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual requirements, and other requirements as deemed necessary by the Directors Building and Park Construction, Public Works and Recreation. (Building and Park Construction) 110. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 250th dwelling unit for the Project, Applicant shall provide the City with either a letter of credit or a certificate of deposit naming the City as beneficiary in the sum equal to two-thirds of the full cost of park P-1 construction, pursuant to the PAD Fees in effect at that time. The letter of credit or certificate of deposit shall be in a form acceptable to the City. The letter of credit or certificate of deposit shall be released upon applicant's fulfillment of its obligation for the park P-1 but may, upon request, be incrementally reduced in value as park construction progresses in the discretion of the Director Building and Park Construction. (Building and Park Construction) 111. Prior to approval of the first "A" Map for the Project, Applicant shall provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) to the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the project park site identified as (P- 1). Park site shall include public access to the satisfaction of the Director Building and Park Construction. The park net acreage and the park Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) credit to be received by the applicant is based on net usable park acreage as determined solely by Director Building and Park Construction. Upon request Page 24 of 43 from the Director Building and Park Construction, Applicant shall provide an all weather access road to the park site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Chief of Police and at no cost to the City. (Building and Park Construction) 112. Prior to the Approval of the first "A" Map for the Project, Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein Applicant agrees to comply with the following schedule for commencement of construction and delivery to the City of the project's park (P-l): a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the 300th dwelling unit for the Project, Applicant shall have commenced construction of Project's Park (P-l), to the satisfaction of the Director Building and Park Construction. Applicant shall complete construction of the park within nine (9) months of commencement of construction. The term "complete construction" shall mean park construction has been completed according to the City approved construction plans and accepted by the Director Building and Park Construction. Furthermore "complete construction" shall mean prior to and shall not include the City's established maintenance period required prior to acceptance by the City for Public use. b. At any time the Director Building and Park Construction may, at his sole discretion, modify the neighborhood development phasing and construction sequence for the Project's park should conditions change to warrant such revision. c. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree upon a reimbursement process and schedule regarding park P-I costs. (Building and Park Construction) 113. Applicant shall rough grade the Project's park site (P-l) at no cost to the City, which costs shall not be credited toward the PLDO, to conform to the approved Village Six Park Master Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director Building and Park Construction and at no cost to the City. (Building and Park Construction, Engineering) I 14. Except as provided for elsewhere in these conditions, Developer agrees that at no time shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park". Developer further agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should said deficit occur. For purposes of this paragraph the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean the construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the City as being in compliance with the Village Six Park Master Plan and the City approved construction documents, but prior to the City's required mandatory maintenance period. This is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. (Building and Park Construction) 115. Applicant shall submit grading and/or construction plans for that portion of View Park Way which borders Park P-1 to show that View Park Way meets elevation requirements as approved by the City Engineer and as generally shown on the School and Park Concept Plan dated February 23, 2002. Applicant acknowledges that should the Park P-1 site fail to accommodate a 7.0 net usable acre park based on the approved Village Six Park Master Plan, Page 25 of 43 then the deficiency shall be provided at a location approved by the Director Building and Park Construction. Developer shall be responsible for paying one-half(I/2) of all costs of any walls, precise grading and ramps required by the City to accommodate park improvements, which costs shall not be credited towards PLDO fees, and all of which shall be built at no cost to the City of Chula Vista. (Building & Park Construction, Engineering) TRAILS 116. Prior to the approval of any final "B" map for the project containing a trail, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to secure and construct the following trails: 1) A 6' wide neighborhood trail connector within a 12' easement from the Orinda Court cul-de-sac in R2a down to La Media Road. 2) A 6' wide neighborhood trail connector within a 12' easement from the Castaic Place cul-de-sac in R-2b down to Birch Road. 3) A 6' wide neighborhood trail connector within a 12' easement from Mount Bullion Drive in R-5 down to Olympic Parkway. Final trail design, alignment and construction details, including fencing and signage, shall be shown on grading plans and shall be subject to approval by the Director Building & Park Construction and the Director of Planning & Building. (Building and Park Construction, Planning & Building) 117. Prior to the approval of any "B" map with open space lots for the Project, Applicant shall provide an easement to the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for all trail alignments. (Building & Park Construction) 118. Prior to approval of the first "A" map, the applicant shall submit a letter to the Director Building & Park Construction acknowledging that the City is in the process of preparing and adopting a City-wide Greenbelt Trails Master Plan, and agreeing to comply with the provisions of said plan, and modify the project as necessary to comply and remain in compliance with the adopted Greenbelt Trails Master Plan. (Building & Park Construction) 119. Applicant shall keep any necessary retaining walls to a minimum and/or ifa grading solution can be found, retaining walls will not be used to gain additional space for the street corridor unless approved as shown on the Tentative Map. The retaining walls are to be located and detailed on all applicable grading plans for the Project, and subject to the approval of the Directors of Planning and Building, Public Works and Building and Park Construction. Slopes gradients may be increased to the maximum permitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to accommodate constraints such as maintenance access ways. Landform grading policies shall be observed and followed. Ifa combination of low retaining walls and modified landform grading cannot accommodate any constraints or maintenance access areas, the top of slope shall be adjusted, as City deems necessary. (Building and Park Construction) Page 26 of 43 120. The graded section upon which six-foot wide connector trails, located within the Project, are constructed shall be 12 feet in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on one side (shoulder graded at 2% max.) and a 4' graded shoulder on the side of the trail bed adjacent to the down slope (shoulder graded at 2% max.). Trail construction materials shall be subject to the approval of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Building. (Building and Park Construction, Public Works) 121. Applicant shall obtain the approval of the Director Building and Park Construction for appropriate signage indicating location of trail connections, handicap access, and bikeway locations to the Regional Trail, Village Pathway, and Chula Vista Greenbelt. Said signage shall be included on the Landscape and Irrigation Improvement Plan. Signage shall be installed upon the request of the Director Building and Park Construction and Director of Planning and Building. (Building and Park Construction, Planning and Building) 122. Applicant agrees to comply with the current Regulatory Negotiation Committee Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, as may be amended from time to time, developed for: U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board when designing all trails and trail connections. (Building & Park Construction) 123. Prior to the issuance of each street construction permit for the Project, the Applicant shall prepare and secure, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director Building & Park Construction, for parkway and median landscape and irrigation plans. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the Village Six SPA Plan, as may be amended from time to time. Applicant shall install all improvements in accordance with approved plans to the satisfaction of the Director Building & Park Construction and the City Engineer. (Building & Park Construction, Engineering) OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 124. In the event Developer wishes to request the formation of a Maintenance District or similar funding mechanism, the Developer shall submit an application packet for formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), and submit the request for CFD formation to the City Council for consideration. The CFD shall be formed prior to approval of the first "B" map for the Project. Subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works, Developer shall submit a list of amenities, acreage and costs for all Open Space District lots including but not limited to the cost of any detention basin maintenance and structural storm water quality BMP's within the Project. Developer shall maintain the open space improvements for a minimum period of one year or until such time as accepted into the open space district by the Director of Public Works. If Council does not approve the CFD formation, another financing mechanism such as a Master Homeowners Association, or an endowment shall be established and submitted to the City Council for consideration prior to approval of the first map Along with submission of the application package for formation of the CFD, Developer shall submit an initial cash deposit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer to Page 27 of 43 begin the process of formation of the Open Space District. All costs of formation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space relating to this project shall be borne by the Developer. The Developer shall provide all the necessary information and materials (e.g., tables, diagrams, etc.) required by the City Engineer for processing the formation of the proposed open space district. (Public Works) 125. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall: a. Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building of the formation of a Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping improvements that are not to be included in the proposed financial mechanism. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the Open Space District. The final determination of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA formation documents shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney; and, b. The developer shall submit for City's approval the CC&Rs, grant of easements and maintenance standards and responsibility of the MHOAs for the open space areas within the Project area. Developer shall acknowledge that the MHOAs maintenance of public open space, trails, parkways, and like areas, may expose the City to liability. Developer agrees to establish a MHOA that will hold the City harmless from any actions of the MHOA in the maintenance of such areas; and, c. Submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building ora list of all Otay Ranch Village Six SPA and MHOA facilities and other items to be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and improvements: i. All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres of: 1) turf, 2) irrigated, and 3) non- irrigated open space to aid in the estimation ora maintenance budget thereof. Page 28of43 ~ :.. / ,~ ii. Medians and parkways along Olympic Parkway, La Media and Birch Road (onsite and offsite) and all other street parkways proposed for maintenance by the applicable Community Facilities District or Homeowners' Association. iii.The proportional share of any proposed detention basin (temporary or permanent) located in the Poggi Canyon Basin. iv. The proportional share ofthe maintenance ofthe median and parkways along that portion of Olympic Parkway adjoining the development as determined by the City Engineer. v. All storm-water quality structural BMP's serving the Project. (Engineering) 126. Developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication in fee interest to the City on all applicable final maps, those open space lots shown on the tentative map to be maintained by an open space district. (Engineering) 127. Prior to the approval of each Final "B" Map, Declaration or Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The CC&R's shall include the following obligations of the Master Homeowners Association: a. A requirement that the MHOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against liability incident to o~vnership or use of the following areas: i. All open space lots that shall remain private, ii. Other Master Association property. b. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The MHOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA. c. The MHOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the MHOA. d. The MHOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA. e. The MHOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one Page 29 of 43 million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and name the City as additionally insured to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. f. The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. g. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. h. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring MHOA membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. i. The CC&R's shall include provisions that provide the City has the right but not the obligation to enforce the CC&R provisions the same as any owner in the project. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions may not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City. k. The MHOA shall not dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members or holder of first mortgages within the MHOA. 1. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA to allow "speed bumps" in the future shall require prior ~vritten approval of 100% of all the Homeowners Association members. (Engineering) 128. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the owners, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost. Developer shall submit the document and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to distribution through escrow, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. (Engineering, Planning and Building) 129. Lots CPF-5 and CPF-6 shall be maintained by a maintenance entity as determined by the Director of Planning and Building based on City Council policy. The facilities in Lots CPF- 5 and CPF-6 to be maintained by a maintenance entity include, but are not limited to: pavements, sidewalks, street lights including power supply, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common areas. Lots CPF-5 and CPF-6, Common Usable Open Space areas as described in the Chula Vista Design Manual, shall be landscaped, graded and contain amenities to the satisfaction of the Director Building and Park Construction. Construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of the final building permit: Page 30 of 43 a. In either Neighborhoods R-2a or R-2b for CPF-5, which ever occurs earlier; or b. In either Neighborhoods R-5 or R-9a for CPF-6, whichever occurs earlier. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 130. Lots CPF-5 and CPF-6 shall have a minimum usable area of 0.8 acre each and shall be maintained by the Master Home Owner's Association and will, therefore, receive CPF credit. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 131. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning of slope. Said area shall be as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. (Engineering, Planning and Building) 132. Developer shall ensure that all buyers ofindividuaI lots adjoining open space lots, containing walls maintained by the open space district, sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are aware that the walls are on City or HOA property and that they shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto the property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&R's for all lots. (Engineering) 133. Prior to approval of each Final Map, provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director Building & Park Construction that all improvements located on open space lots are incorporated into and maintained by a Home Owner's Association or an Open Space District. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) 134. The developer agrees to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within or adjacent to the subject subdivision. (Engineering) 135. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes permanent Landscaping and Irrigation (L&I) improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the Community Facility District (CFD), the developer shall place a cash deposit, or other funding mechanism acceptable to the City, in the City's sole discretion, with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L&I improvements until the City accepts said improvements. In the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and the Director Building & Park Construction, the deposit shall be used to perform the maintenance. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months, ("Minimum Deposit Amount"), as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said deposit may be incorporated into the CFD's Reserve Account, or returned to the Developer, according to the following: a. If, six months prior to the scheduled date of acceptance of Landscape and Irrigation improvements for maintenance by the CFD, the Reserve Account is less than the Page 31 of 43 ~ Minimum Deposit Amount, the difference between these two amounts shall be incorporated into the Reserve Account, or; b. If the Reserve Account is at or above the Minimum Deposit Amount, the unused portion of the deposit may be returned to the Developer in 6 equal monthly increments over the last six month's of the maintenance period if the maintenance is being accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director Building & Park Construction. (Engineering, Building & Park Construction) WATER 136. Prior to City acceptance of any open space lots, the Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). (Engineering) 137. Prior to approval of each Final Map, present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage facilities. The Applicant shall phase and install water system improvements as required by the Otay Water District. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 138. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Applicant shall present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that Otay Water District is able to provide sufficient water supply pursuant to Section 66473.7 of the California Government Code, as may be amended from time to time. EASEMENTS 139. Grant to the City a l 0' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Ensure that sufficient room is available for street tree planting when locating utilities within this easement. (Engineering) 140. Indicate on all appropriate "B" Maps a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, all off-site right-of-~vay necessary for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. (Engineering) 14 l. Grant on the applicable Final Maps sight distance easements to the City of Chula Vista for comer lots, as required by the City Engineer to keep such areas clear of any obstructions. Page 32 of 43 / I : t ~ / Sight distance easements shall be shown on applicable grading plans, improvement plans, and final maps, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 142. Design landscape and irrigation plans such that street tree placement is not in conflict with the visibility of any traffic signage. The Developer shall be responsible for the removal of any obstructions of said traffic signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 143. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 144. Grant to City on all appropriate final "B" Map, a 2-foot access easements along the rear and side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls. (Engineering) 145. Storm drain easements shall be private unless the storm drain systems therein are public. (Engineering) 146. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements shall be delineated separately on the final map and on the grading and improvement plans. If any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to the common portion of the easements. (Engineering) 147. Prior to the approval of each final map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way. (Engineering) 148. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the first map by City if any off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of Approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification, the developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way and/or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative map. b. Deposit xvith the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way and/or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as determined by the City Attorney. Page 33 of 43 : * d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. e. Acquire and bond for offsite rights-of-way and easements to be dedicated to the City in order to comply with the PFFP schedule. Applicant shall bond for the off-site improvements as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering 149. Grant on the final maps minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista as required by the City Engineer for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities. (Engineering) 150. Provide minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista as required by the City Engineer for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities. (Engineering) 151. Provide easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of each final map requiring those facilities. The easements shall be sized as required by the City of Chula Vista Standards, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 152. Grant on all applicable final maps, easements along all public streets within the subdivision as shown on the tentative map and in accordance with City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. The City Engineer may require either the removal or the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way. (Engineering) 153. Grant on the appropriate final map, a 20-foot minimum sewer and access easement for sewer lines located between residential units, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. (Engineering) AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 154. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the Project if any one of the following occur: i. Regional development threshold limits set by a Chula Vista transportation phasing plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program, as may be amended from time to time. Page34of43 _/ / & ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then effective Growth Management Ordinance, and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. iii. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City's Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch Village Six SPA if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed. b. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the Applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. c. Permit all cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the Tentative Map area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the final map only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista, the condition of such grant being that: i. Such access is coordinated with Developer's construction schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of such conduits; and ii. Any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and Page 35 of 43 ? / rT~ ; / affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated the conditions of grant. (Engineering, Planning&Building) d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. (Engineering) 155. The Applicant shall enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. (Engineering) 156. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Applicant shall comply with all previous agreements as they pertain to this tentative map. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 157. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Applicant shall contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final residence, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after the completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. The developer further agrees to provide the City Special Operations Manager with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service, which memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the s~veeping will begin. (Public Works) 158. The Applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for regional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first map, with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation Page 36 of 43 of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance regional facilities. (Engineering) 159. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first "A" map, to fund the cost of Chula Vista Transit's transit facilities. Said facilities, including but not limited to "transit stops" shall be designed and constructed in a manner as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building. (Planning and Building, Engineering) 160. Prior to approval of the applicable final map, Applicant shall construct and secure, or agree to construct and secure, the construction of transit stop facilities as set forth in the PFFP. The schedule for constructing the transit stops shall be approved or determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of the aforementioned final map. Applicant shall design, subject to the approval of the City Engineer said transit stops in conjunction with the improvement plans for the related street. The City Engineer may require that Applicant provide security guaranteeing the construction of said transit stops in a form of cash or any other form approved by the City Engineer at his/her sole discretion. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the Applicant shall install said improvements when directed by the City. (Public Works/Transit) 161. No final "B" maps may be recorded within Village Six SPA area until such time that an annexable Mello Roos District, or some other financing mechanism approved by the school district, to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle and high schools is established. (Engineering) 162. Prior to approval of the first final "A" Map for the project in order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the transit system, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the transit system. (Engineering) 163. Prior to the approval of any final map for the Project that contains open space, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure open space landscape improvements within the map area. All landscape improvements shall be secured in amounts as determined by the Director Building & Park Construction and approved in form by the City Attorney. (Engineering) SCHOOLS 164. Pursuant to the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan, the applicant shall deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, a 1 O-net useable acre graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, prior to issuance of the 1,050Ih residential building permit (352 students) within Village Six SPA. The all-weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Page 37of43 ~ ~_. ;, ,~ Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. (Planning and Building) MISCELLANEOUS 165. The applicant shall install all public facilities in accordance with the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), or as required to meet the Growth Management Threshold standards adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The applicant further agrees to comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said Chapter includes but is not limited to Threshold Standards (19.09.040) Public Facilities Plan Implementation (19.09.090) and Threshold Compliance Procedures (19.09.100). (Engineering) 166. The Applicant agrees that the maintenance and demolition of all interim facilities (public facilities, utilities and improvements) is the Applicant's responsibility, and that construction, maintenance and demolition bonds will be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 167. Within thirty (30) days of the City Council approval of these map conditions, or prior to the submittal of the first map for the project, whichever occurs earlier, the Developer shall submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved form. The drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers: a. Tentative Map Limits (closed polygons) b. Lot Lines (closed polygons) c. Street Centerlines (polylines) d. Easements (polylines) e. Street Names (armotation) f. Lot Numbers (annotation) The digital drawing file shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 ½" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 168. Submit copies of all subsequent tentative maps, final maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital format. The dra~ving projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file of the maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers: Page 38 of 43 , , a Tentative and/or Final Map Boundaries (closed polygons) b. Lot Lines (closed polygons) c. Street Centerlines (polylines) d. Easements (polylines) e. Street Names (annotation) f. Lot Numbers (annotation) The tentative map, final map, grading plan and improvement plan digital files shall also conform to the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore. The digital drawing files shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 V2" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 169. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). (Engineering) 170. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and as they may be amended from time to time, the Applicant shall complete the following: (1) Fund thepreparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2) Prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPA's and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. (Engineering) 171. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. (Planning and Building) 172. If Developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map but prior to recordation of the applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work performed by the Developer prior to approval of the Page 39 of 43 ~~ / applicable "B" Map shall be at the developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the Developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not record. (Engineering) 173. Street parkways within the Project shall be maintained by an entity such as a Master Home Owner's Association (MHOA) or a Community Facilities District (CFD); private home owners shall not maintain the parkways. Street parkways shall be designated as recycled water use areas, if approved by the Otay Water District and San Diego County Health. 174. Prior to Applicant constructing a solid masonry, view wall or like wall which will adjoin a wall constructed by a different developer, a transition wall plan shall be submitted to the City and is subject to the approval of the Director of Plarming and Building. Applicant shall work together with other developers of Village Six to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building in order to construct transitions between adjoining walls. PHASING 175. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan. (Planning and Building, Engineering) 176. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The developer agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of construction of the public facilities. (Engineering) 177. The Public Facility Finance Plan or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative maps with improvements installed by Applicant in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of Village Six SPA, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFFP nor any other Village Six SPA Plan document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the Village Six SPA's facility Page 40 of 43 .-~ '-~ '3 improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern Village Six SPA development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any transportation phasing plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment and design of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. (Engineering) 178. Unless access, drainage and utilities are shown on the master Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, prior to approval of any final map proposing the creation of multi-family housing for the Project, including any condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative, as defined in the applicable sections of the Government Code, Developer shall agree to process, and thereafter process, a subsequent tentative map for said proposed condominium, community apartment, or stock cooperative project within the Project pursuant to Section 66426 of the Subdivision Map Act, unless waived in writing by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. (Engineering, Planning & Building) CODE REQUIREMENTS 179. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. (Engineering) 180. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. a. Signal Participation Fees. b. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. c. Interim SR-125 impact fee. d. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. (Engineering) 181. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 182. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. (Engineering) 183. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). (Engineering) GUARDED/GATED ENTRANCES 184. Entrances into Village Six neighborhoods shall not have physical bar~iers except on Magdalene Street east of East Palomar Street. Guarded entrances shall be staffed from dusk until dawn, unless the Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) or the Applicant determines it is economically impractical and submits acceptable proo£to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building establishing such impracticality. Physical barriers shall be prohibited at the entrances to guarded areas except as specifically approved by City Council for Magdalene Street east of East Palomar Street. (Planning) 185. The gated access on Magdalene Street east of East Palomar Street shall remain open from dawn to dusk. (Planning} 1 $6. Applicant shall install redundant oven'ide gate-opening systems on the gated access on Magdalene Street to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal, Chie£of Police and Public Works Director. (Fire, Police, Public Works) 187. The operation and design of the gate structure on Magdalene Street and guard cottage on View Park are subject to review by and approval of the Director of Planning and Building through the administrative design review process. (Planning) 185. Parks located within guarded or gated areas shall not receive park credit. (Building & Park Construction) 189. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as private. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and as shown on the tentative map. (Engineering, Planning) Page 42 of 43 , ~ ~7/' 190. All private streets within Final "B" Maps shall be included in separate lots. The Applicant shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private street lots on the appropriate Final "B" Map. All private streets shall be owned as an equal and undivided interest by each subsequent property owner within the subdivision. (Engineering) 191. Guarded entrances shall: a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without interrupting traffic on public streets. c. Provide a turn-around. The size and location of said turn-around shall be approved by the City Engineer. d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and private streets through the use of distinctive pavements or entry features. e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant to be shown on appropriate grading and/or improvement plans, which is to be retained as a parking space for so long as the guarded entrance is in place. f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and exiting vehicles. (Engineering Planning) 192. Developer shall establish a Homeowners Associations (HOA) to provide for the maintenance of private open space lots, slope areas, landscape and irrigation and walls within each subdivision prior to the approval of the associated final "B" maps. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer of the proposed CC&R's for each subdivision prior to the approval of the corresponding final map. (Planning Engineering) 193. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all facilities within the common areas and streets behind the guarded and gated entrances. The facilities to be maintained include, but are not limited to: pavements, sidewalks street trees, street lights including power supply, street sweeping, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common areas. The only facilities, which will be maintained by the City are mainline sewers and public drainage facilities (i.e., pipes, inlets, clean-outs and catch basins) which convey drainage from public areas. (Engineering) H:\PLANNING\Otay_Ranch\Village _6\V6_TM_Stuff~ORC'sTM\ORC V6 TM Conditions.doc Page 43 of 43 Table of Contents Pa~e A. Overview A. 1. PFDIF Program Scope ................................................................................... 1 A.2. Recreation Facilities ....................................................................................... 1 ^.3. Key Elements ................................................................................................. 2 B. Fees B.1. The Residential and Commercial/Industrial Fee Increases ............................. 6 B.2. The PFDIF Share for all Projects .................................................................... 8 B.3. Project Timetines ............................................................................................ 12 B.4. Prepayment of Fees ....................................................................................... 13 C, Other Issues C.1. The City's Commitment to Growth .................................................................. 14 C.2. Does New Development Pay for Itself? .......................................................... 14 C.3. Building Industry Association ......................................................................... 15 C.4. Economic Development and Housing ............................................................. 15 C.5. Cost Containment .......................................................................................... 16 D. Com =onent 1, Civic Center Expansion ............................................................. 17 E. Com=onent 2. Police .......................................................................................... 24 F, Com =onent 3, Corporation Yard ........................................................................ 27 G, Com =onent 4, Libraries ..................................................................................... 29 H. Com ~onent 5. Fire ........................................................................................... 31 I, Component 6. GIS ............................................................................................ 33 J, Com ~onent 7, Computer System Expansion ................................................... 34 Com ~onent 8, Telecommunications System Expansion ................................ 34 K, Component 9, Records Management System ................................................. 37 L. Component 10. Administration ......................................................................... 38 M, Changes to Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 .......................................................... 40 N. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 42 O, Implementation ................................................................................................... 49 Appendices 1. Cash Flow Analysis 2. Cost Breakdown: Police Facility Project 3. Cost Breakdown: Civic Center Expansion Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section A. Overview A.1. PFDIF Program Scope The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program consists of 10 project components: ;* Com3onent 1: Civic Center Expansion > Com3onent 2: Police Facilities and Equipment > Com3onent 3: Corporation Yard Relocation ~ Com3onent 4: Libraries ~ Component 5: Fire Suppression System ~ Com3onent 6: Geographic Information System (GIS) ~ Corn:orient 7: Computer Systems ~ Com)onent 8: Telecommunications Systems ;~ Component 9: Records Management System ~ Component 10: Administration Individual PFDIF components may include multiple projects. For example, Component 5: Fire Suppression System includes various fire stations (e.g. Rancho del Rey, Otay Ranch - Village 2, Otay Ranch - EUC, etc.); the expansion and relocation of the fire training tower and training classroom; the purchase of a brush rig for combating off-road fires; and similar fire-related projects. Similarly, Component 4: Libraries includes the proposed Rancho del Rey and Otay Ranch libraries as well as projects to expand the library automation system to accommodate growth. A,2, Recreation Facilities This update does not include a planned fee component for major public recreation facilities at this time. (Major recreation facilities include competitive swimming pools, community centers, gymnasiums, teen/senior annexes, skateboard facilities, and performing arts centers.) Currently in development is a new 11th component of the PFDIF that will eventually serve as a mechanism for collecting fees for major recreation facilities through the PFDIF rather than through the existing Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fund. Developers were informed of the City's intention to establish the new PFDIF component in October 2001. These facilities are needed to serve the growing City population. In October 2001, staff and developers agreed to delay discussions on the new Recreation Facilities component until after an update of the existing 10 components (the subject of this report) was City of Chula Vista, March 2002 1 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update adopted by the City Council. Discussions concerning the new Recreation Facilities component are targeted to commence in late April 2002. When implemented, the new Recreation Facilities fee will not be spread to commercial/industrial development due to the absence of an appropriate nexus. A.3. Key Elements The following elements/factors were used in preparation of this report: · Development is considered to take place in accordance with the Phasing Forecast established by the City's Planning Department. This plan reflects information supplied by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and by the City's developer community. The phasing forecast is detailed in the Cash Flow Analysis (Appendix 1 ). · SANDAG's "Smart Growth" plan projects the City's buildout population to be 275,000. The plan was adopted by the City Council in 2001 and will be incorporated into the City's current General Plan update. SANDAG's 275,000 population projection for Chula Vista includes development of 3,432 dwelling units on the mid-Bayfront, 4000 additional dwelling units within the Otay Ranch, approximately 171 additional dwelling units in western Chula Vista, and 370 dwelling units in the planned Bonita Meadows Estates development. All except Bonita Meadows Estates have been included here in the EDU totals used for calculating fees. Bonita Meadows Estates was not included because that area has been acquired by the state for mitigation purposes. It is also important to note that the "Smart Growth" projection reflects the planned University site and not the residential land use alternative. · For the purposes of assigning benefit and apportioning fees, a common Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) factor is used. A City of Chula Vista, March 2002 2 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update single-family dwelling unit is equal to one EDU, as are all other residential dwelling unit types (e.g., duplexes, multi-family units). Other land uses are a ratio of this base measure - commercial and Industrial land uses count as 5 EDUs per acre. Currently, PFDIF fees are divided into only these two primary categories. Prior to the next PFDIF update, it is the City's intent to determine the efficacy of further breaking down the land use allocation factors into four categories: multi-family residential, single family residential, commercial, and industrial. · Facility construction costs are based upon the best cost estimates available at this time, and are detailed in current dollars. These costs were NOT adjusted for projected inflation (Consumer Price Index, CPI) or building construction index increases (BCI). PFDIF costs are to be reviewed annually (as required by law) and updated as applicable. · Facility costs were adjusted, as applicable, to include financing charges, as determined by the Cash Flow Analysis. · For the sake of clarity, PFDIF cost shares listed in each component's "Fee Calculation" Table, are presented separately by "principal amount" and "amount financed". · The fee revenue needed to fund facilities was adjusted to account for interest to be earned on fund balances, as also projected by the Cash Flow Analysis. PFDIF interest is calculated using the actual or projected rate earned by all other City funds for the relevant investment period. · The cost of capital projects has been apportioned in accordance with the needs created by new development. This subject is discussed in more detail in the Methodology section of the PFDIF 1999 Update. It is important to emphasize that the impact fee is solely based upon that portion of project costs that are attributable to new development. · Certain projects are considered to be "joint-impetus" projects. These projects are necessitated by both (a) the growing demands on City services generated by new development and (b) the need to keep up with new technology. The need for the City of Chulo Vista, March 2002 3 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update computer-aided dispatch system is an example of a joint-impetus project. The methodology for determining the PFDIF cost share on joint- impetus projects is to calculate the proportion of new EDUs (PFDIF share) to the citywide EDUs projected for build out. These EDU totals have been calculated in accordance with the City's General Plan and the Planning Department's Land Use Inventory System (for the pre-PFDIF baseline period). The calculations, as well as a more complete discussion of joint- impetus projects, are detailed in the Methodology Section of the PFDIF 1999 Update. Once again, it is important to emphasize that the PFDIF share represents the total cost to be allocated to new development. To the extent that other developer-based fees have been used to fund a project (e.g., TransDIF), the PFDIF share has been reduced by a like amount. · Current law requires the City to make a finding of continued need if a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted after five (5) years. Since the City's development timeline runs through the year 2030, it will often be the case that fees remain unexpended after five years, whether committed or not, the City shall make the following findings with respect to the unexpended funds: > Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put; > Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose; > Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the improvement; and > Designate the approximate date on which such funding will be available. The expenditure plans detailed in each PFDIF component (see pages 17-39) and summarized in the overall Cash Flow Analysis serve the purpose of identifying the planned use of all PFDIF funds and committing those funds which will not be expended within the next five years. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached resolution making the finding that the Public Facility Development Impact Fees continue to be needed for the purposes detailed in the individual PFDIF program project components; and adopting the Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update and the preliminary Cash Flow Analysis, project timelines and funding sources (City and PFDIF shares) that are detailed in said documents. The project timelines are naturally subject to change depending on actual development phasing. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 5 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section B. Fees B.1. The Residential Fee will increase from $2,618 to $4,888 per Dwelling Unit AND the Commercial/Industrial Fee will increase from $13,090 to $20,860 per Acre. The existing PFDIF 1999 Update, completed in April 2000, was developed over a three- year period: 1997-2000. That time frame was needed because it had been five years since the prior update, which itself had focused only on minor adjustments, pending the Otay Ranch annexation. The existing PFDIF was based on preliminary plans for a new Police Facility and for a remodeled and expanded Civic Center. These plans were developed as "placeholders" until, as mentioned in the PFDIF 1999 Update, more professional studies could be completed in the near future. Subsequently, the design firm of Highland Partnership, Inc. was hired to provide a rigorous needs assessment and cost analysis for the police and civic center projects. New master plans for the Civic Center Expansion and the Police Headquarters Facility were approved by the Chula Vista City Council on July 17, 2001. The expanded civic center and new police facility headquarters are designed to accommodate the amount of staff that will be needed to serve the City's build-out population. In the preliminary master plans, costs for those facilities were understated due to a variety of factors, including an understatement of police staffing and space needs at buildout, significant increases in construction-related costs, higher site acquisition costs, and changes in underlying financing plans. Given these changes, staff calculated what the new fee schedule should be. The study finds that it will be necessary to increase the current fee per residential unit, from $2,618 to $4,888. The commercial/industrial fee increases from $13,090 to $20,860 per acre. The new fee includes projected financing costs through the year 2030 as well as offsets for projected interest earnings on PFDIF fund balances. Table 1 details the existing and updated fee for each of the 10 PFDIF components. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 6 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Table 1. Fee Comparison: Current vs. New Current % PFDIF Component Fee New Fee Change 1. Civic Center $480 $1,202 150% 2. Police $735 $1,635 122% 3. Corporation lard $386 $707 83% 4. Libraries (residential units onlyd $638 $716 12% 5. Fire Suppression System $203 $449 121% 6. GIS $16 $9 - 44% 7. Computer Systems $7 $7 0% 8. Telecommunications $13 $6 - 54% 9. Records Management System $6 $8 33% 10. Administration $134 $149 I 1% I TOTAL per Residential Unit $2,618 $4,888 87% I TOTAL per CommFIndustrial Acre I $13,090 $20,860 59% Important points to note about the table are: * Financing costs total $53.6 million and add $1,226 to the residential fee and $5,232 to the commercial/industrial fee2. Financing costs include the Police component ($25.6 million), the Civic Center component ($18.4 million), the Corporation Yard ($9.6 million), the Computer Mainframe/Fiscal System component ($23K), and the Telecommunications (800 MgHz) component ($29K). · As of February 28, 2002, the PFDIF's fund balance was approximately $4.8 million. PFDIF fund balances are maintained to directly fund projects (fire stations and libraries) as well as provide a reserve to pay off PFDIF debt service during periods of slower growth. This annual PFDIF debt service will range from $1.5 million to $5.7 million for most of the remaining years through buildout. ~ The commercial/industrial fee does not include costs for libraries, where demand is residential based. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 7 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update · PFDIF fund balances will generate interest income. Using a cash flow model, the interest earned on PFDIF fund balances was projected to be $4.9 million over the period 2002-2030. The interest credit reduced the residential and commercial/industrial fees by $145 per EDU. More detailed breakdowns for each PFDIF component are provided in Sections D through L of this report. It is important to note that, in comparison to transportation-related fees, the new PFDIF fee will still represent a small percentage of development fees (see figure below, representing the relative impact fee structure for residential development 2). INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE SCHOOLS PFD~ PARKS sc ~oo LS /' CURRENT PROPOSED B.2. The PFDIF Share for all Projects Totals $181.1 million. The total cost for all projects, including financing, is $265 million. 68% of the cost ($181 million) is the responsibility of the PFDIF while 31% ($82 million) is the City's share3. Important things to note about the City Share are: 2 Infrastructure includes fees for transportation, traffic, roads, sewers, drainage, water and bridges. 3 The remaining 1% of the cost represents funding from potential grants and other developer-related funds. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 8 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update · The City share principally reflects: (1) the cost of correcting pre-existing space and equipment deficiencies. These deficiencies generally resulted from the addition of staff to serve the annexed area of Montgomery, without any concurrent increase in building space; (2) the City's proportionate share on "joint-impetus" projects, such as the GIS and CAD systems; (3) the City's cost for replacement of an existing system, such as the replacement of the mainframe computer system. On these types of replacement projects the City is obligated to pay for replacement of the basic system; the PFDIF is obligated to pay for the marginal system costs related to growth. · Through FY 2001, approximately 33% of the City share had already been expended. Approximately 80% of the City's remaining share relates to three projects: the new Police Facility, the new Corporation Yard, and the expansion and remodeling of the Civic Center complex. Table 2 on the following page details the PFDIF and City shares for various projects. Project shares include financing costs. It is important to emphasize that the impact fee is calculated solely on the PFDIF's remaining obligation. The accompanying footnotes detail the primary reasons for City shares. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 9 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Table 2. PFDIF and City ~roject Shares - Includes Financing Costs Component PFDIF Share CITY Share Other Share TOTAL Notes 1. Civic Center Expansion $54,503,572 $10,301,985 $64,805,557 1. 2. Police: Facility & Equipment $66,263,936 $64,971,330 $131,235,266 2. 3. Corp Yard/Animal Shelter $34,471,370 $27,052,487 $61,523,857 3. 4. Libraries $31,296,033 $10,619,673 $2,200,000 $44,115,706 4. 5. Fire $17,844,070 $1,070,836 $18,914,906 5. 6. GIS $1,040,293 $1,254,437 $185,987 $2,480,717 6. 7. Computer Systems $555,998 $2,995,158 $483,812 $4,034,968 7. 8. Telecommunications $634,352 $8,940,670 $9,575,022 8. 9. Records Management Sys $367,062 $300,746 $667,808 9. 10. Administration $6,942,811 $0 $6,942,811 10. TOTAL $213,919,497 $127,507,322 $2,869,799 $344,296,618 Less City/Other Expenditures for completed work ($20,659,321) ($42,630,201) ($375,000) ($79,187,447) LESS PFDIF CREDITS: Projected Fees/Interest Earned ($4,947,948) (2002 - 2030) Other Revenues ($7,225,409) VJ~J~JJ~JJ.~//~"/"~"~J~J~J~/~/, ~JJ~/JJJ~JJ~J(,~ 11. REMAINING OBLIGATION $181,086,819 $81,527,553 $2,494,799 $265,109,171 12. NOTES 1. City share principally reflects (a) the correction of pre-existing space and equipment deficiencies, and (b) non-growth related costs associated with the main expansion/remodeling project. 2. City share principally reflects (a) 1990/91 building remodel to mitigate pre-existing space deficiencies ($2,466,063); (b) share in CAD system ($2,375,206); (c) share in the new 800 MgHz system ($1,307,731); (d) share of new Police building including financing cost ($25,566,019); and (e) pre-existing equipment deficiencies ($1,089,963). 3. City share is for the new Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter. (NOTE: PFDIF/City financing shares for these projects differ from the base share of 51.5% due to the amounts funded from existing balances rather than financed.) City of Chula Vista, March 2002 10 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update NOTES (continued): 4. City share principally reflects a pre-existing space deficiency, which was corrected with the building of the South CV Library. Other share represents potential state grant funding. 5. City share principally reflects share of training tower, training classroom and the remodel of Fire Station #1. 6. The GIS is considered a "joint-impetus" project, with City and PFDIF shares based on proportionate EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build out. THE PFDIF share of the basic system was 40.75%, since 7.75% came from other developer-related funds. 7. City share reflects replacement of existing systems; PFDIF share principally represents marginal impacts on replacement costs to accommodate growth. The PFDIF share for the fiscal system was 4.2%. An additional 18.2% of the funding for the fiscal system came from other developer- related funds. 8. City share principally reflects cost for replacement system. 9. The RMS is considered a "joint-impetus" project, with City and PFDIF shares based on proportionate EDUs at build out. (The PFDIF has additional cost for future expansion of the system.) The PFDIF share of the basic system was 45.62%, since 2.88% came from other developer-related funds. 10. PFDIF costs reflect City/consultant staff time for tracking and accounting for revenues/expenditures, EDU credits, annual PFDIF updates, GMOC reporting and similar activities over a 41-year period (1989-2030). 11. Includes developer advances and loan interest. 12. Approximately 80% of the City's remaining obligation relates to current or future debt service for 3 projects--the civic center expansion project, the new police facility and the new corporation yard. This obligation will be paid over a 20-30 year period. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 '11 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update B.3. Project Timelines Table 3 summarizes the increments (see Appendix 1, Cash Flow Analysis, Expenditures) in which major projects are expected to be constructed. The table also indicates the proposed funding mechanism for each project. The actual timelines will vary, depending on buildout rates and the City's growth management thresholds. Table 3. Project Timelines PFDIF Funding Source Project External Fund Component Project Completed Financing Balance Other Notes Civic Center Expansion 2004-08 X Police Facility 2002-04 X X Corp Yard Facility 2002 X X Library Rancho del Rey 2005 X X 1. Otay Ranch 2011-15 X Fire Otay Ranch Viii 2 2003 X 2. Rolling Hills 2004-05 X X 2. Otay Ranch EUC 2006-10 X 2. Eastlake Trails 2011-15 X X 2. 1. The funding may include State grant. 2. Other funding may include developer advances of remaining fire component fees. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 12 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update B.4. Prepayment of Fees Developers may elect to prepay fees for two components - Police Facility fees and Civic Center Expansion fees - at a reduced rate, described in greater detail in each component. Prepayment may be arranged under the following conditions: · The fee may be prepaid for all or a portion of EDUs (permits) remaining to be pulled at the time the fee is prepaid; · From time to time, the prepaid fee will be adjusted to account for any extraordinary costs and BCI/CPI adjustments. Cost increases related to these two factors will be spread over all remaining EDUs. This includes those prepaid EDUs on which permits have not yet been pulled. Cost increases not related to these two factors will be spread over all remaining EDUs, except for prepaid EDUs. · The prepaid fee may also be adjusted to account for any extraordinary changes in the EDU total. Extraordinary EDU changes are defined as increases or decreases in the remaining EDU total, not related to pulled permits, which exceed 2,000 EDUs. For example, should the University site revert to its underlying 2,584-DU residential plan, then these DUs would be added to the remaining EDU total, thereby lowering the fee. This savings would, in turn, be passed back to those prepaid EDUs on which permits have not yet been pulled. Conversely, should the Bayfront plan result in 2,000 fewer EDUs than presently planned, the remaining EDU total would be lower, thereby increasing the fee. The fee increase that is solely due to this extraordinary change in EDUs would similarly be spread to all remaining EDUs, including prepaid EDUs on which permits have not yet been pulled. · Prepayment of Civic Center component and Police Facility component fees must be made to the City Finance Department by the dates indicated in each of the two components. · The City shall retain any interest earned on the prepaid funds. Said earned interest shall be used for any allowable PFDIF purpose. · If a developer transfers prepaid EDUs to a merchant builder, then the developer has sole responsibility for ensuring that accepted cost adjustments, as detailed above, shall be remitted to the PFDIF fund by either the developer or the merchant builder in a timely manner. As part of the prepayment process, an acceptable agreement must be entered into with the City. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 13 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section C. Other Issues C.1. The City's Commitment to Growth Will Increase Once Major PFDIF Projects Are Financed. The City has and will be financing major PFDIF projects, such as the new Corporation Yard, the new Police Facility, and the expansion and remodeling of the Civic Center complex. These projects are projected to be financed over a twenty or thirty year period. For the period 2004-2025, the annual PFDIF debt service (principal + interest) is projected to range between $4.2 - $5.7 million. Since development impact fees cannot be bonded, it is the City's General Fund which is the final guarantor that the debt will be repaid. The Cash Flow Analysis shows sufficient PFDIF reserves forecasted to sustain periodic economic downturns. However, once major project financing occurs, the City will be dependent on a reasonably steady stream of impact fee revenue for debt service and thus more tangibly committed to the development detailed in the General Plan. As part of the Cash Flow Analysis, a "worst case" growth scenario was conducted to assess the City's risk should development slow. The study concluded that at the new fee level, the City could withstand a four-year slump in building permits. Such a prolonged slump would, of course, necessitate a change in project phasing and/or a fee adjustment to account for lower interest earnings on PFDIF fund balances. C.2. Does New Development Pay For Itself? Chula Vista has implemented numerous impact fee programs for roads, public facilities, sewers, and drainage systems. As such, the City has done a reasonable job of ensuring that the capital costs associated with new development are covered. Over the long term however, it remains to be determined if new development will generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating budget costs. Three factors should raise concerns regarding the long-term fiscal health of the City, despite various fiscal impact studies: · Commercial development has historically lagged behind the schedules projected in General Development Plans. · While no definitive study has been done, the shopping patterns of many current residents living east of 1-805 appears to be north, out of the City. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 14 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update - Sales tax accounts for 20% of the City's General Fund revenue and is critical to the City's financial well-being. It is believed that there is currently significant sales tax leakage from new developments to shopping centers outside of Chula Vista. The regional shopping center planned for the Otay Ranch is projected to not only capture sales tax dollars from the development's residents but to also serve as a magnet for other eastern residents. If this sales tax revenue source is not fully developed, or not developed in a timely manner, there could be significant gaps in the City's ability to finance services. Development schedules for the center need to take into account not only buildout of the Otay Ranch but also the existing and future buildout in surrounding developments, both in and outside of the City. In 1999, the State Controller unveiled a proposal to distribute future increments in California's sales tax revenue on the basis of population. The current distribution of these revenues is based on point-of-sale. The proposed sales tax distribution formula would most certainly be beneficial to Chula Vista in the short-run. Long- term effects would depend on both the specific definitions of "population" (e.g. residents only or day-time population) and the City's land-use decisions. Decisions, which would be favorable under the current sales tax distribution system, may not be in the City's best interest in the long run. The General Plan update is expected to assess this issue. C.3. BIA Issues The BIA continues to state their opposition to "the use of development funds to purchase or upgrade items such as (the City's) main computer and telecommunications systems". This issue is discussed Section J of this report, which covers these specific projects. Sections D-L summarize the individual PFDIF components. C.4. Economic Development and Housing Issues Staff has met twice with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to discuss commission concerns about the cumulative impact of all fees, including Public Facilities fees, on commercial and industrial development. Staff plan to address this issue in separate studies prior to the next update. The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) raised concerns with regard to the impacts on affordable housing project costs. Staff have been working with the Housing Division to ensure that developers of affordable housing projects planned City of Chula Vista, March 2002 1 5 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update to commence before March 2005 (a 3-year period), will be able to lock in the existing fee rate ($2,618 per EDU) and to pay said fees over a 5-10 year period. Because housing costs and thus related fees are projected to rise over the long term, it is expected that the HAC will develop proposals for future Council consideration which would help offset fee increases that occur after March 2005. C.5. Cost Containment Issues A number of PFDIF construction projects have gone over budget, some quite substantially. These budget overruns have resulted in increased impact fees. A major reason for the overruns was the previous availability of only preliminary cost estimates. Developers, City budget staff and the new Director of Building & Park Construction have all expressed the need to keep projects within budget. Toward this end, the City has: · Hired the firm, Highland Partnership, Inc., to prepare the initial budgets for major projects such as the new Police Facility and the Civic Center Expansion/Remodel, thereby providing more detailed and reasonable cost estimates at the outset (see Appendices 2 and 3, respectively). · Hired the firm of Allegis Development Services, Inc. to oversee the design- build process and represent the City's (and PFDIF's) interests regarding the construction of all aspects of the new Police Facility. · Developed the position of Director, Building and Park Construction. This position is solely responsible for capital projects and reports directly to the City Manager. Working with the Director will be a Building Projects Manager, a new position presently being filled. The hired staff will be experienced in the design-build and construction management fields and will, in conjunction with the Director, review all change orders. Lastly, an Administrative Services Manager will be responsible for overhauling the City's CIP budget system and developing an improved tracking system to ensure that project managers have the information necessary to manage responsibly. Staff believe that these changes will significantly improve project management and avoid the very substantial cost overruns which have occurred in the past. In addition, the changes will better ensure that any cost savings generated because of value engineering will be returned to the City and to the PFDIF. It will be important to keep the development community fully informed on the status of major projects as we proceed through the various construction phases. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 16 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section D Component 1. Civic Center Expansion D.1. Pre-Existing Conditions In FY 1988/89 the City had a space deficiency of 10,145 SF. This deficiency generally arose after the Montgomery annexation, when staff were added to serve the annexed area without the creation of extra building space. The City similarly experienced a parking deficiency of 72 spaces at the Civic Center. Between FY 1989 and 2001, the City financed the addition of 8,558 SF and 30 parking spaces, leaving a remaining space deficiency of 1,587 SF and a remaining parking deficiency of 42 spaces. The remaining pre-existing deficiencies will be eliminated through the use of the soon to be vacated police building and police parking areas. The remodeled police building will also be used to meet a substantial portion of the increased Civic Center space needs resulting from growth. D.2. The Major Expansion/Remodeling Project: FY2004-2008 The basic project cost for the major Civic Center expansion has increased by $18.0 million, from $19.6 million to $37.6 million 3. Financing costs add $18.4 million to this total. A cost breakdown of the expansion/remodeling plan is provided in Attachment 3. The $18.0 million increase in the base project cost reflects: > An increase in building construction/remodeling costs and construction-related costs such as design, project management and contract administration (+$9.3million). ~ Costs not included in the preliminary (1997) plan but identified in the more detailed Highland update (+$8.7 million). These items include relocating Fire Station #1, which will enable all parking needs to be met at grade (+$4.3 million); building, rewiring and telecommunication upgrades, particularly in the existing Police building ($1.3 million); additional hardscape ($1.3 million), lighting ($0.7 million), revisions to Memorial Way ($0.4 million), street modifications ($0.3 million); and a fueling station ($0.4 million). 3 Although overall FF&E costs remained the same, the City's original share of $0.4 million increased to $1.1 million and development's share fell from $1.1 million to $0.4 million. City of Chulo Vista, March 2002 17 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update In addition to these cost increases, several cost savings are incorporated into the updated project: > A 17.7% reduction in the square footage needed (-$1.$ million) The updated project also incorporates additional savinqs that have not been specifically calculated: > Use of the vacated police building for expansion rather than construction of new space. > Project phasing which will provide a substantial reduction in interim relocation costs. In the initial project, the City's cost share was calculated at 2.8% of the project, representing $0.6 million. For the updated project, the City share has been recalculated at $8.9 million, representing 23.6% of basic project costs. City of Chub Vista, March 2002 18 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update D.3. Why isn't the City's cost share for the major expansion 51.5% (similar to the police project)? The police project entails construction of an entirely new facility. The project will provide new space for both pre-existing and new police staff. As such, the formula of relative EDUs at buildout (51.5% City and 48.5% Development) was applied. This relative formula is used for a number of PFDIF projects. Conversely, the Civic Center expansion project is principally concerned with constructing additional space and remodeling existing space to accommodate the staff added by new development. As such, the City share only consists of pre-existing space deficiencies and other, non-growth related costs. If an entirely new Civic Center was being constructed, the relative EDU formula would have been applied. 4 Project costs and City/PFDIF shares will be further fine-tuned in the next major update as more detailed cost breakdowns become available for analysis. D.4. Why is the entire PFDIF project share for the Civic Center expansion being financed? Five major building projects are planned to commence between 2002 and 2005: · The Police Facility · The Civic Center Expansion · The Otay Ranch Fire Station in Village 2 · The Rolling Hills Fire Station · Rancho del Ray Library Of the five projects, the PFDIF share for the Police Facility and the Civic Center expansion will require external financing. The current and projected PFDIF fund balance will not be sufficient to build all projects being phased in during that time. PFDIF fund balances are used to directly finance projects and to provide security to cover PFDIF debt when growth rates fall below projected levels (the current PFDIF fund balance, as of March 8, 2002 was $4.8 million). Therefore, of all the projects planned to be built now, only smaller projects such as the Rancho Del Ray Library and the two fire stations can be directly financed from available fund balances, while the multi-million dollar projects will be financed over time. In the current phasing plan, all building projects targeted for 4 See "Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities, 1999 Update"for a description of the 48.5%/51.5% formulation. In the preliminary (1997) plan, the City's space deficiency was calculated to be 1,587 SF. This deficiency has been eradicated by use of the police facility square footage. Other, non-growth related costs have, however, increased significantly. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 19 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update 2006 and beyond (e.g., the Otay Ranch Library) are proposed to be financed from fund balances. It is proposed that the fee for the Civic Center Expansion Component be increased from $480 to $1,202 per EDU. D.5. Prepayment of the Fee As discussed in Section C, developers may elect to prepay the fee for this component. All conditions apply as detailed in Section C, with two additions: · The proposed standard fee for the Civic Center component is $1,202 which includes a financing component. The prepayment fee is calculated as the standard fee, plus a 5% prepayment premium, less financing costs associated with the expansion project. For this update the prepayment fee is $708. · Prepayments must be made to the City Finance Department three months prior to the date the City solicits financing. Based on current plans, that date could be as early as June 30, 2003. D.6. Co-generation plant project A study is presently being conducted as to the costs and benefits of developing a co- generation system for the Civic Center complex. If that study indicates that sufficient operating savings exist to offset capital costs, the PFDIF share of the project will be zero. Conversely, if the analysis indicates that costs will exceed benefits, the City may still decide to go ahead with a co-generation plant project for public policy purposes. In this scenario, a PFDIF obligation for its share of excess costs will be calculated. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 20 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - CIVIC CENTER COMPONENT CIP # Project Status TOTAL Cost* PFDIF PFDIF Share % Note FY 1987- FY 2002 Projects GG125 Expansion-City Hall Complete $57,064 $28,627 50.2% GG126 Expansion-Com Dev Bldg Complete $163,863 $0 0% GG141 Expansion-City Hall Complete $129,291 $0 0% GG153 Expansion-El Dorado Bldg Complete $1,064,550 $1,064,550 100% GG102 Master Plan-Civic Center Complete $50,042 $50,042 100% Master Plan-PFDIF 1991 Complete $65,250 $65,250 100% CC100 Remodel-CU Complete $9,594 $9,594 100% GG154 Remodel-Leg Bldg Complete $38,564 $0 0% GG105 Remodel-PSB Complete $37,393 $0 0% GG107 Remodel-City Hall Complete $31,000 $0 0% GG137 Remodel-PSB Complete $73,979 $46,695 63.6% RS63 Remodel-PSB Complete $13,160 $0 0% GG157 Remodel-PSB Complete $29,300 $0 0% GG139 Remodel-Civic Center Complete $11,659 $10,563 90.6% Leased Space Complete $127,587 $115,594 90.6% GG139 Expansion - Mercy property Complete $1,060,641 $1,060,641 100% GG138 Relocation-Purchasing Div Complete $7,621 $6,905 90.6% GG146 Relocation-Open Space Div Complete $75 $68 90.6% GG168 Relocation-Recreation Div Complete $20,281 $20,281 100% GG130 Parking Expansion-Adamo Complete $651,876 $651,876 100% GG132 Parking Expansion-Main Lot Complete $174,993 $174,993 100% GG142 Telecommunications Expansion Complete $39,175 $39,175 100% GG167 Renovation-City Hall Complete $530,000 $8,675 1.6% GG177 Remodel-PSB Complete $449,000 $384,920 85.8% OPl13 Engineering Automatn Upgrade Complete $298,000 $10,000 3.4% 1. OPl14 Planning Automation Upgrade Complete $52,500 $24,250 46.2% 1. City Staff Services Complete $300,000 $300,000 $5,490,447 $4,072,699 FY 2002 - 2006 Projects GG139 Major Expansion and Remodel Pending $37,630,332 $28,746,095 76.4% 2. GG139 Major Expansion Financing Cost $18,401,472 $18,401,472 100% 3. GG139 Interim Expansion Pending $1,064,000 $1,064,000 100% Ongoing Projects (thru buildout) I Equipt & Furnishings: New Staff I Ongoing I $2,219,306 $2,219,306 100% 4. TOTAL OBLIGATION $54,503,572 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($10,809,981) Fees Collected/Interest Earned projected 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($180,000) Transfer In from CFD ($1,573,394) REMAINING OBLIGATION $41,940,197 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 5. UNADJUSTED FEE $1262.38 USE $'1,262 Fee Adjustment: Future Interest - $60 ADJUSTED FEE $'1,202 * Completed projects include financing cost. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 21 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update NOTES: 1. These costs should have been charged to Component #7 - Computer Systems. 2. Reference "Civic Center Shares", following this table. 3. The City's project share will be funded directly. 4. Approximately 61% of the needed expenditures have already been made. 5. Remaining EDUs/DUs may differ between components. These differences reflect the inclusion/exclusion of commercial/industrial acreage and adjustments made for developments that have advanced certain remaining component fees. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 22 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Civic Center Shares PFDIF Share City Share Total $ Section 1. Construction % $ % $ 3uilding Improvements -- excluding FS#1 $19,458,032 100.0% $19,458,032 0.0% $0 ~uilding Improvements-- FS#1 $2,832,000 65.1% $1,844,803 34.9% $987,197 2.ity Share not yet Identified 0.0% ~$1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 .~ity Share of FS#1 Relocation: See Section 3 Total Construction $22,290,03; $21,302,836 $987,19; Section 2. On-Site Improvements Parking and Associated Landscaping-Existing Lot $361,20[ 0.0% $( 100.0% $361,20. Parking and Associated Landscaping $1,669,17.~ 48.5% $809,55( 51.5% $859,62.~ Civic Plaza Landscape $214,57[ 48.5% $104,06.c 51.5% $110,50( Civic Plaza Hardscepe $1,419,25C 48.5% $688,33( 51.5% $730,914 Exterior Structures $756,87[ 48.5% $367,08~ 51.5% $389,791 Civic Art $21,80¢ 0.0% SC 100.0% $21,80£ Signage $56,30£ 48.5% $27,30( 51.5% $28,99.~ Water Features & Vehicular Drep-Off Area $244,063 0.0°/ $£ 100.0% $244,063 Outside Benches, etc $67,20C 48.5% $32,592 51.5°/ $34,608 Flag Poles $59,43(; 0.0% $¢ 100.0% $59,43(; MetaITree Grates $46,752 48.5% $22,675 51.5% $24,077 Pavillion Improvements $0 0.0°/< $C 100.0% Lighting $735,433 48.5°/< $356,685 51.5°/< $378,748 Fueling Area $266,680 48.5% $129,340 51.5°/< $137,340 Hazardous Materials Storage $177,000 48.5°/, $85,845 51.5% $91,155 City Share of FS#1 Relocation: See Section #3 Total On-Site Improvementz $6,095,741 $2,623,481 $3,472,26(~ Section 3. City Share of FS#1 Relocation -$1,663,178 $1,663,178 Total Project: City Share of Building, Site Improvements & Allowances Total Construction + On-Site Improvements $28,385,77." 78.4% $22,263,139 21,6% $6~122,63z Section 4. City Budgeted Allowances ~ermits, Fees, City Staff Services, Contingencies, Special Inspections $6,799,56( 78.4% $5,332,94; 2t.6% $1,466,62z :F&E $1,535,801 26.6% $408,49.c 73.4% $1,127,30; Felecemm unications Allowance $368,59; 100.0% $368,59~- 0.0% JPS for Telephone/Computer Systems $122,864 48.5% $59,58.¢ 51.5% $63,27~ Other Equipment $184,297 48.5% $89,38,~ 51.5% $94,91~: Computer Network Wiring $215,012 100.0% $215,012 0.0% Televisions $18,427 48.5% $8,937 51.5°/, $9,49C Total Budgeted Allowances $9,244,55§ $6,482,95(] $2,761,603 PFDIF Sham City Share Total Proiect $37,630,332 76.4% $28.746.095 23.6% $8,884.237 City of Chula Vista, March 2002 23 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section E Component 2. Police The basic cost for the new police facility project increased by $31.9 million, from $31.1 million to $63 million ($48.4 million of which is to be financed). Financing costs add $52 million to this total. 5 The $31.9 million increase in the base project cost reflects: · Increases in building construction and construction-related costs such as design, project management and staff services (+$15.4 million). · Additional building space requirements (+13.3 million) due to: (1) an underestimation of buildout staffing needs, resulting from CAD problems at the time the rudimentary plan was developed; (2) the addition of square footage for a shooting range; (3) the addition of a quartermaster area; (4) larger short-term holding space; and (5) the addition of an indoor vehicle exam area. · Site acquisition costs increased by $3.2 million over preliminary estimates, reflecting a change in facility location. In addition to these cost increases, several cost savings are incorporated into the updated project: > The use of $6.272 million from available PFDIF cash balances reduces project financing costs. > A PFDIF credit of $494,675 for purchase of the El Dorado building reduces the PFDIF share of the basic project from 48.5% to 47.7%, and also reduces project financing costs. The City has recently added $0.5 million to the Police Facility project for energy conservation enhancements. These costs will be 100% City share. Unlike the Civic Center expansion project, in which all of the PFDIF's share will be financed, only 77.5% of the PFDIF's share of the police facility will be financed. $6.3 million of the PFDIF share will be directly paid from fund balances in order to reduce financing costs. On the City side, 76.3% of its share of the project will be financed. 5 Financing costs increased in relation to the increase in base costs and the extension of the financing period from 20 to 30 years. The extended financing period was needed to reduce the City's and PFDIF's annual debt service for all projects to a manageable level. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 24 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update The Police Facility will be constructed as a design/build project. The overall project costs are not expected to change, except for possible changes in borrowing rates over the next several months. Under the design/build contract, the City has committed that the basic project will not exceed $63 million. Except for cost increases due to extraordinary events or EDU changes, or due to normal annual adjustments in cost of living (CPI) or construction (BCI) costs as discussed previously, project costs which exceed $63 million will incur no incremental DIF share. It is proposed that the fee for the Police Component be increased from $735 to $1,635 per EDU. Prepayment of the fee As discussed in Section C, developers may elect to prepay the fee for this component. All conditions apply as detailed in Section C, with two additions: · The proposed standard fee for the Police Facility component is $1,635, which includes a financing component. The prepayment fee is calculated as the standard fee less the new facility financing costs. For this update, the prepayment fee is $865 per EDU. · Prepayments must be made to the City Finance Department by April 16, 2002. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 25 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - POLICE COMPONENT ClP # Project Status TOTAL Cost PFDIF PFDIF Note Share % Pre - FY 2002 Projects Misc Capital Projects: 1988-92 Complete $29,821 $18,081 60.6% Major Building Remodel Complete $4,970,714 $2,229,354 44.8% 1. PS144 Locker Room Expansion Complete $48,672 $17,279 35.5% Minor Remodel: FY 1998 Complete $16,515 $8,010 48.5% Minor Remodel: FY2000 Complete $487,619 $487,619 100% PSl15 CAD/MDT(incl. Financing) Complete $4,612,051 $2,236,845 48.5% Strategic Plan Complete $222,013 $107,676 48.5% Rolling Stock Credit Complete $130,395 $130,395 100% New Facility Master Plan Complete $517,115 $250,801 48.5% FY 2002-2005 Projects Minor Remodel Pending $15,000 $15,000 100% i!: !:: i~P~ding $63;000ii000 : New Police Facility financing $52,047,819 $25,566,019 49.1% On-going Projects (thru buildout) Vehicles: New Staff On-going $3,821,808 $3,821,808 100% 3. Personnel Equipment: New Staff On-going $1,315,724 $1,315,724 100% 4. TOTAL OBLIGATION $66,263,936 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($6,711,742) Fees Collected/Interest Earned projected 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($275,625) Transfer in from CFD ($2,143,363) REMAINING OBLIGATION $57,133,206 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 UNADJUSTED FEE $1,719.69 USE $1,720 Fee Adjustment: Future Interest - $85 ADJUSTED FEE $1,635 NOTES: 1. Includes CIPs: GF35, GF36, PS102, PS102C, PS102D PS103C. PS105, PSl10, RS46, RS54, RS61 and RS62. 2. The El Dorado property was originally purchased by the PFDIF to provide additional square footage for Civic Center staff until the expansion project was completed. Upon completion, the El Dorado property was to be sold with proceeds being credited to the PFDIF. However, current plans call for the new Police facility to utilize that property. As such, since the PFDIF share of the new police facility is only 48.5%, the City is obligated to refund 51.5% of the original acquisition cost ($1,175,000 X 51.5% = $605,125). To date, the City has paid $110,450 of this amount, leaving $494,675 to be paid, shown here as a credit to the PFDIF. 3. For the vehicles needed to serve the developing areas of the City. 4. Approximately 61% of the needed expenditures have already been made. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 26 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section F Component 3. Corporation Yard Project costs for the Corporation Yard expansion have increased from $29.6 million to $35.1 million. This total does not include financing costs which add $13.8 million to the project total. The $5.5 million increase in base project costs reflect: An increase in site work/demolition and changes in paving and asphalt requirements (+$2.9 million). · The addition of 11,000 SF of office space to accommodate the staff to be relocated from the Civic Center (+ $2.1 million). * An increase in furnishings and equipment costs (+ $0.5 million). The City has committed that the PFDIF share of the basic project will not exceed $16,502,014 which is 47.1% of the total project cost ($35,051,986). It is proposed that the fee for the Corporation Yard component be increased from $386 to $707 per EDU. Cily of Chula Vista, March 2002 27 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - CORPORATION YARD PFDIF PFDIF Note CIP # Project Status TOTAL Cost Share % Master Plan I Complete $68,685 $68,685 100% Interim Expansions to Old CY: GG135 GG142 Telecommunication Expansion Complete $65,225 $65,225 100% GG143 GG171 Information Systems Expansion Complete $1,179,292 $234,875 19.9% GG148 Old CY Parking Expansion Complete $177,347 $177,347 100% Roiling Stock Credit Complete $264,834 $264,834 100% New Corporation Yard GG131 New Corporation Yard Pending $35,051,986 $16,502,014 47.1% 1. New Corp Yard Financing $13,817,760 $9,630,152 69.7% Non-Public Safety Vehicles Ongoing $4,828,919 $4,828,919 100% 2. Staff Equipment: 1986-2030 Ongoing $365,913 $365,913 100% 3. GG158 New Animal Shelter Open $3,904,168 $1,891,408 48.5% New Animal Shelter Financing $888,392 $0 0% Staff Services Open $911,336 $441,998 48.5% 4. TOTAL OBLIGATION $34,471,370 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($9,057,870) Fees Collected/Interest Earned projected 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($144,750) Interest on Loan ($888,392) Transfer In from CFD ($881,562) REMAINING OBLIGATION $23,498,796 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $707.31 USE $707 NOTES: 1. The DIF share for the Corporation Yard project is actually 47.1% rather than 48.5% due to a zero PFDIF share on one or more items. 2. For new vehicles needed to maintain the City's infrastructure and park system, which are expanding due to new development. 3. It is estimated that approximately 73% of needed expenditures have been made. 4. Associated with the construction of the new yard and animal shelter. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 28 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section G Component 4. Libraries The PFDIF obligation is to construct 60,000 SF of library space. The plan is to build one 30,000 SF library in Rancho del Rey and one 30,000 SF library in the Otay Ranch. The City will submit a State Libraries grant application for the Rancho del Rey library (under Proposition 14). The grant, if obtained, would pay for 65% of construction costs thereby providing a projected PFDIF offset of $4.4 million. Library staff believe there is approximately a 50% chance of receiving the grant. In order to be fair to current and future development projects, the updated PFDIF already includes partial credit for the potential grant. The credit is equal to the current, expected value of $2.2 million. 6 When this potential offset is factored in, the library component increases by slightly more than 7% since the last update, from $41.1 million to $44.1 million. State grants will be awarded in three installments over several years. Under the current plan, it is the City's intent not to build the Rancho del Rey library until the City receives a grant or until all grant funds have been distributed to others. New projects added to the Library component include: · Automation System Expansion. Development's share of the $1,103,120 expansion project is based on the marginal increase in project cost associated with growth. This has been estimated at 27.18%, representing $299,828. · Civic Center Library Improvements. Development's share of the $1.5 million project is 10% ($150,000), for the remodeling to accommodate new staff. · Demand Manaqement at Civic Center and South C.V. Libraries. $462,102 in equipment needed to handle the increased demand at these west side libraries caused by east side residents, until their new Rancho del Rey Library opens. An important change in fee allocation for library facilities is being implemented in this update. In the past, library costs were spread to all remaining EDUs, representing residential, commercial and industrial development. Changes in library usage since the 1990s indicates that commercial and industrial usage has all but been eliminated. Thus, library component costs are only being spread to residential dwelling units in this and future updates. It is proposed that the fee for the Library Component be increased from $638 to $716 per EDU. 6 The expected value is simply calculated by multiplying the potential grant of $4.4 million by the probability of receiving the grant (50%). City of Chula Vista, March 2002 29 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - LIBRARY COMPONENT PFDIF PFDIF ClP # Project Status TOTAL Cost Share % Note Master Plan- 1987 Comprete $30,900 $30,900 100% LB132 Master Plan Update-1998 Complete $65,077 $65,077 100% LB125 South CV Library Complete $13,175,617 $4,765,266 36.2% LB127 LB129 Interim Library- Eastlake Complete $320,983 $160,983 50.2% Demand Management at Civic Pending $462,103 $462,103 100% 1. Center & South CV Libraries LB124 Rancho del Rey Library Pending $12,963,953 $10,806,441 100% 2. Ota¥ Ranch Library Pending $14,311,663 $14,311,663 100% LB122 Automation Sys Expansion #1 Complete $643,774 $243,153 37.8% LB133 Automation Sys Expansion #2 Pending $1,103,120 $299,828 27.18% Civic Center Improvements Pending $1,500,000 $150,000 10% Unallocated Complete $619 $619 100% 3. TOTAL OBLIGATION $44,115,706 $31,296,033. CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($10,007,687) Fees Collected/Interest Earned projected 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($239,250) Transfer In from CFD ($891,788) REMAINING OBLIGATION $20,157,308 REMAINING DUs 28,172 4. FEE $715.51 USE $716 NOTES: 1. Equipment needed to handle the increased demand at west side libraries by east side residents, until their new Rancho del Rey Library opens. 2. A PFDIF offset has been included to account for the potential State grant. 3. Old expenditure not identified with a specific project within the Library component. 4. Remaining EDUs/DUs may differ between components. These differences reflect the inclusion/exclusion of commercial/industrial acreage and adjustments made for developments that have advanced their remaining component fee when a facility needed to be constructed. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 30 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section H Component 5, Fire Suppression At the time of the last update, the City had not recently built a permanent fire station.7 As such, construction costs for future fire stations were underestimated. Also, between 1997 (when the Fire Master Plan was developed) and the planned 2002 update, the cost for major fire apparatus increased by 51% 8. The new Sunbow fire station (built in 2001 ) provides a good base for projecting future costs. Using this model and factoring in new equipment costs, the fire component increased by $7.9 million, from $11.0 million to $18.9 million, of which $17.8 million is the responsibility of the PFDIF. All of the needed fire facilities are expected to be directly financed by PFDIF fund balances. As such, there are no additional costs for external financing. It is proposed that the fee for the Fire Suppression component be increased from $203 to $449 per EDU. ? The Eastlake fire station (#6), constructed in 1991, is an interim facility. 8 Actual vendor price quotes were used in both years. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 31 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - FIRE COMPONENT CIP # Project Status TOTAL Cost PFDIF PFDIF Share % Note Master Plans #1 & #2 Complete $72,932 $72,932 100% PSl12 Fire Training Tower-Relocation Complete $653,168 $231,875 35.5% PS107 PSl14 FS #1 Expansion/Remodel Complete $422,370 $77,885 18.4% FS#1-Fire Prevention Expansion Complete $34,000 $34,000 100% FS#6-1nterim Easflake Complete $855,552 $855,552 100% PS120 Rancho del Rey FS Complete $1,117,640 $1,117,640 100% PS129 Sunbow FS Complete $1,416,124 $1,416,124 100% 1. Otay Ranch Village 2 FS Pending $6,047,071 $6,047,071 100% 1. Police storefront ~ Village 2 FS Pending $70,428 $70,428 100% Rolling Hills FS Pending $1,859,792 $1,859,792 100% 1. Otay Ranch EUC FS Pending $2,491,942 $2,491,942 100% 1. Eastlake Trails FS Pending $2,491,942 $2,491,942 100% 1. PS127 Training Classroom Complete $592,345 $287,287 48.5% Reserve Pumper #1 Complete $81,000 $81,000 100% Reserve Pumper #2 Pending $101,000 $101,000 100% Reserve Telesquirt Complete $146,000 $146,000 100% PS134 Brush Rig #1 Complete $197,850 $197,850 100% Brush Rig #2 Pending $262,745 $262,745 100% PS130 Radio Communications Complete $1,005 $1,005 100% TOTAL OBLIGATION $17,844,070 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($2,354,262) Fees Collected/Interest Earned 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($76,125) Advance for site credit (Sunbow) ($64,289) 2. Transfer in from CFD ($560,166) REMAINING OBLIGATION $14,789,228 REMAINING EDUs 32,906 3. FEE $449.44 Use $449 NOTES: 1. Cost variances between fire stations reflect differences in construction costs (e.g. for 2-bay versus 3-bay stations) and differences in station apparatus needs. 2. Remaining credit for turnkey fire facility provided by the developer in 2001. 3. Remaining EDUs/DUs may differ between components. These differences reflect the inclusion/exclusion of commercial/industrial acreage and adjustments made for developments that have advanced their remaining component fee when a facility needed to be constructed. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 32 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update SECTION I Component 6. GIS In the mid-1980s the demands for mapping and general geographic information processing were increasing. The growing volume of work was creating project delays. Furthermore, the manual nature of the work was restricting output to standard map scales and features. A consultant study of the City's overall information needs completed in the late 1980's recommended the acquisition of a geographic information system (GIS) to handle the expanding workload. In addition to meeting the needs for processing development projects and overall planning activities, the study detailed that the proposed GIS would also enhance general City operations. Cost-Sharinq: Given both the growth and non-growth needs for the GIS, it was agreed that the system should be considered a "joint-impetus" project. Acquisition and implementation costs were $2,400,660. Using the agreed upon formula for such projects (previously discussed in the Overview section of this report), new development's overall share for the basic system is 48.5%. Correspondingly, the City share for the basic system is 51.5%. Since various developer funding was allocated to the project, the PFDIF's share is approximately 40.75% or $978,304. An additional PFDIF share of $61,989 was added for future system expansion and upgrades ($41,822) and a GIS training reom and LAN upgrade ($20,167). It is proposed that the fee for the GIS component be reduced from $16 to $9 per EDU. FEE CALCULATION - GIS COMPONENT TOTAL PFDIF PFDIF ClP # Project Status Cost Share % Note Basic System Complete $2,400,600 $978,304 40.75% System Expansion Complete $24,750 $24,750 100% System Upgrade Complete $35,200 $17,072 48.5% Training Room/LAN Expansion Complete $20,167 $20,167 100% TOTAL OBLIGATION $1,040,293 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($720,165) Fees Collected/Interest Earned 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($6,000) Transfer In from CFD ($11,358) REMAINING OBLIGATION $302,770 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $9.1'1 USE $9 City of Chula Vista, March 2002 33 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section J Component 7. Computer System Expansion Component 8. Telecommunications System Expansion Overview In a letter dated February 22, 1999 the BIA stated their opposition to "the use of development funds to purchase or upgrade items such as the computer and telecommunications systems." These "upgrades", the BIA stated, "reflect the cost of maintaining an updated system rather than the result of the addition of new homes to the community". Staff's response to the BIA was that it has always been stated, "New development pays for itself". Therefore, when the City must expand its telecommunications systems to accommodate the demands of growth, it has been presumed that these capital costs will be borne by new development. EXAMPLE: In the early 1990's, the City had to retrench and add telephone cables between the Public Services Building and the Police Building and install new boards to the PBX system in order to expand telephone capacity at the civic center. This capital project is 100% PFDIF obligation since the need was solely growth-related. Staff's letter further noted, "only the marginal costs of expansion would be allocated to new development - the cost of replacing the existing capacity, if needed, would be borne by the City." System expansion to serve a larger population or an expanded City workforce has nothing to do with the costs of maintaining an updated system, as the BIA suggests. EXAMPLE: By late 1989, no additional memory could be added to the City's mainframe computer. The mainframe itself was becoming obsolete and needed to be replaced. Staff obtained two price quotes: one for a new system with identical capacity to the existing system (totaling $659,400); the second for the additional capacity needed to serve projected growth (totaling $960,300). In the ensuing CIP, the PFDIF share of the replacement project was for $300,900 ($960,300-$659,400), equivalent to 31.33% of the total cost. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 34 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update PFDIF Shares For the Telecommunications Component, the PFDIF-related projects include: expansion of the civic center phone system and upgrades to the PBX system; installation of a voice processing system (48.5% PFDIF share); and upgrades to the City's radio communication system to mitigate transmission problems caused by the canyon terrain in parts of the eastern territories. For the Computer System Expansion Component, the PFDIF related projects include: Expansion of the City's mainframe computer system to accommodate growth (31.33% PFDIF share); purchase and implementation of a mini-computer based financial system (4% PFDIF share); and upgrading the City's local area computer networks to serve the needs of expanded staff (100% PFDIF share). It is proposed that the fee for the Computer System Expansion component remain at $7 at this time, and that the fee for the Telecommunications System Expansion component be reduced from $13 to $6 per EDU. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 35 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - COMPUTER SYSTEM COMPONENT TOTAL Cost CIP # Project Status (Includes PFDIF PFDIF Note financin~l) Share % GG120 Mainframe Upgrade Complete $858,337 $268,917 31.3% GG140 Mainframe Enhancements Complete $242,124 $75,785 31.3% GG152 Fiscal System Upgrade #1 Complete $2,658,307 $112,546 4.2% GG 172 LAN Expansion/Upgrade #1 Complete $276,200 $98,750 35.8% TOTAL OBLIGATION $555,998 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($325,644) Fees Collected/Interest Earned 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($2,625) Transfer In from CFD ($8,234) REMAINING OBLIGATION $219,495 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $ 6.61 USE $7 FEE CALCULATION - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPONENT TOTAL Cost CIP # Project Status (Includes PFDIF PFDIF Share % Note financing) GG128 Phone System Expansion #1 Complete $265,821 $265,821 100% PBX System Upgrade #1 Complete $350,900 $170,187 48.5% Voice Processing Complete $166,135 $80,576 48.5% Adjustment ($85,596) ($60,637) Radio Communication Upgrade Complete $1,477,987 $178,405 N/A 1. PS151 New 800 MgHz System Partial $7,399,775 $0 0% 1. TOTAL OBLIGATION $634,352 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($430,146) Fees Collected/Interest Earned 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($4,875) Transfer In from CFD ($7,208) REMAINING OBLIGATION $192,123 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $ 5.78 Use $6 NOTES: 1. The PFDIF's share for this project was fixed, based on specific growth-related costs. The PFDIF does not have a share in the new 800 MgHz system, which is a non-growth-related upgrade required because of surrendered public frequencies. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 36 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section K Component 9. Records Management System In the late 1980s, Chula Vista did not have a citywide program to manage its records. In response to the burgeoning storage problem and the growth-related increase in transactions and records, the City developed a records management system (RMS). The principal objective of the new system was to reduce the space needed to store active and inactive records. The keystone of the system is an imaging system which, when fully implemented, will reduce the need for departments to maintain duplicate records. Cost Sharing Similar to GIS, the RMS is considered a "joint-impetus" project, the need for which derives both from the demands placed on the City by additional growth and the demands of general City operations, independent of new development. As such, the PFDIF is responsible for 55%, or $367,062 of the overall project cost ($667,808). It is proposed that the fee for the Records Management System component be increased from $6 to $8 per EDU. FEE CALCULATION - RMS COMPONENT TOTAL Cost CIP # Project Status (Includes PFDIF PFDIF Share % Note financing) GG129 Basic System #1 Complete $347,428 $158,502 45.62% System Expansion #1 Complete $66,018 $66,018 100% GG174 Document Imaging, Citywide Complete $217,127 $105,307 48.5% System Expansion #2 Pending $33,735 $33,735 100% GG 156 LAN Expansion Complete $3,500 $3,500 100% TOTAL OBLIGATION $367,062 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($92,356) Fees Collected/Interest Earned - 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($2,250) Transfer In from CFD ($9,852) REMAINING OBLIGATION $262,604 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $ 7.90 USE $8 City of Chula Vista, March 2002 37 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section L Component 10. Administration Aspects of the Current Fee The fee covers the following cost areas: · Finance and Engineering department staff time involved in tracking and reporting PFDIF revenue and expenditure transactions and EDU credits; · Consultant and stafftime related to establishing and updating the PFDIF; · Staff time related to various growth-related automation projects which overlap several PFDIF components; and · Staff costs associated with various growth management projects, such as monitoring/reporting threshold performance, updating the City's Development Phasing Plan and tracking housing units at various map stages. It would be reasonable to collect reimbursements for these services through deposit accounts with each active developer. However, since this approach would be more cumbersome and costly for the City to administer (and hence more expensive for individual developers), these growth-related costs are being recovered through the PFDIF. The Administration component fee is proposed to increase by $15 per EDU. The major factors in this change are: · The need to develop financial tracking systems for the complex building projects about to commence; · Substantial increases in city staff salaries over the last several years, principally to maintain competitive balance; and · Increases in consultant costs. It is proposed that the fee for the Administration component be increased from $134 to $149 per EDU. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 38 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update FEE CALCULATION - ADMINISTRATION COMPONENT CIP # Project Status TOTAL Cost PFDIF PFDIF Share % Note 1989-2000 Complete $1,338,823 $1,338,823 100% 2001-2030 Ongoing $5,603,988 $5,603,988 100% TOTAL OBLIGATION $6,942,811 CREDITS: Fees Collected/Interest Earned thru 1/23/02 ($1,754,015) Fees Collected/Interest Earned - 1/24/02 thru 3/12/02 ($50,250) Transfer In from CFD ($185,803) ' REMAINING OBLIGATION $4,952,743 REMAINING EDUs 33,223 FEE $149.08 USE $149 City of Chula Vista, March 2002 39 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section M Proposed Changes to Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 3.50.020 Definitions. I. "Extraordinary project cost increases" means increases resulting from costs that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time a project budqet was established. J. "Extraordinary EDU change" means an increase or decrease in the number of remaining planned equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for which building permits have not yet been pulled, which changes the existing total by more than 2,000 EDUs. 3.50.030 Public facilities to be financed by the fee. 6. Geographic information system ...... ~ ...... *~-- ' · ,.,..,,,~,~,.., .,~,.,,..,,, expansion, 7. Computer system expansion; ~ 8. Telecommunication system ...... '~ ' · __ ..~.~, ,~,~.. expansion, ~ 9. Records management system expansion. 3.50.050 Establishment of fee. A development impact fee ("fee"), to be expressed on a per equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") basis, 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 city of Chula Vista, except that, at the discretion of the city manager, a developer may prepay all or part of civic center expansion and/or police facilities fees that would be applicable to the developer's future development projects. Prepayment would occur at the then current rate; however, the developer has sole responsibility for paying subsequent fee increases resulting from (1) "extraordinary project cost increases", ('2) normal annual adjustments in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Building Construction Index (BCl}, or (3)"extraordinary EDU changes". 3.50.070 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, except that a developer of a development project providing Iow and/or moderate-income housing in accordance with Section III, Objective 1 of the 1991 housing element of the general plan may request City of Chula Vista, March 2002 40 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update authorization to prepay or defer the then current fee for up to 500 EDUs and said request may be approved at the sole discretion of the city manager...~....," ............. ~....r.~,....,..,* ;.ho currcr, t fcc. In order to facilitate those Iow and/or moderate-income projects which are planned for construction through March 24, 2005, the fee for said projects shall be the fee existing as of March 25, 2002. 3.50.090 Amount of fee. Land Use Fee Residential $,.,,, '~ ~o,,, 4,888/dwelling unit Commercial/Office ~ '~ rmn ...... 20,860/acre Industrial ~, ..,...... '~ nnr~ 20,860/acre Special land use ~, ..,,..... '~ ,~nr~ 20,860/acre Olympic Training Center ..,._° °'~°, .. 6,110/acre Public purpose Exempt Nonprofit community purpose facility Exempt Special purpose project, including for-profit day care ~z~ra4 14,664/acre City of Chula Vista, March 2002 41 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section N Methodology N.I. Development Forecast As of March 16, 2002 a total of 28,409 residential units, 486 commercial acres and 525 industrial acres remain to be permitted citywide. These projections reflect SANDAG's Smart Growth plan and City Planning Department forecasts. Developers and City staff agree this is the best estimate of total EDUs at this time. N.2. Cost Spreading Methodology It is required that the apportionment of costs and resulting fees be based upon benefit received. The nine project components making up the PFDIF program are principally based upon providing a people-related public service to the community, (e.g., fire protection, police protection, public works services, etc.). There is a general correlation between the number of people living in a residential unit or the number of people assembled in a commercial or industrial development and the level of facilities and related capital needed to serve these populations. For example, a fire suppression system is designed to deal with the various densities of residential uses as well as high risk/high valuation industrial and commercial uses; demands for police services is similarly affected by high concentrations of people; and facilities such as the civic center and corporation yard are used by and designed to serve people and the associated infrastructure. Given these general relationships, the cost of the PFDIF projects has been spread to new development based upon the population generated by the specific land use. According to the Chula Vista Planning Department, the population density factor for future residential development is projected to average 3.01 persons per household (PPH). San Diego Traffic Generation reports stipulate that daily population is also affected by industrial and commercial land. Each non-residential land use (e.g., commercial/industrial) generates an average of 15 employees per acre. To calculate citywide Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs): The residential unit is used as the basis for assignment of EDUs. A residential unit (at 3.01 PPH) represents one EDU with respect to the demand for services and related public facilities. A commercial/industrial land use (at 15 employees per acre) is therefore counted as five (5) EDUs (15 ~ 3.01 ). Applying these factors, residential units and commercial/industrial acres remaining to be permitted total 33,223 EDUs. The fee charged to new development is based upon these remaining EDUs, except for the library component, which is only spread to residential units (28,172) and the fire component, which is adjusted for developer credits (32,906 paying EDUs remaining). City of Chula Vista, March 2002 42 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update N.3. Joint-Impetus Projects Scenario The Police Department has a "paper" dispatch system. Workload studies show that the increase in call for service volume resulting from new development will overwhelm that system. As such, the City will have to replace the "papeF' system with a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. N.3.1. Who pays for the new CAD system? One argument is that new development should pay 100% of the CAD system's cost since it is growth-related, which is the primary impetus for change. Indeed, it was this contention that held sway when capital projects such as CAD were first added to the PFDIF Program. At that time, the CAD system was expected to be 100% funded by impact fees. In subsequent updates, City developers and the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) argued that the City would have possibly replaced its "paper" dispatch system with a CAD system sometime in the future, independent of workload considerations. According to their argument, organizations often update systems with faster, more efficient technology even when such upgrades are not solely necessitated by workload increases. The desire to keep up with new technology can often serve as an impetus for change in and of itself, although future growth certainly impacts the capacity needed. N.3.2. Joint-Impetus Projects and Proportionate Benefit Ratios Based on discussions with developers and the CIF, City staff agreed that various capital projects such as CAD and GIS did have a "joint impetus" aspect. While the initial impetus for these projects came from the projected workload increases generated by development, the desire for these systems may have also evolved from the desire to keep pace with technological change. Once the concept of "joint impetus" projects was adopted, the next issue was how to determine what cost share would be borne by new development and what cost share by the City. It was decided that the most straightforward method for calculating proportionate benefits was to use the equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factors that were already being calculated in the PFDIF. Thus, new development's share of the CAD system costs was determined by dividing the total new EDUs (31,375 in the 1991 report) by the citywide total EDUs (old + new) at build out (86,254 in the 1991 report). In 1991, this calculation yielded a new development share of 36.4%. The corresponding City share for joint-impetus projects like CAD was calculated to be 63.4% (100% - 36.4%, new development's share). In the 1993 report, EDU calculations were updated yielding a slightly lower new development share of 35.5%. The corresponding City cost share was thus a slightly higher 64.5% (100% - 35.5%). In 1999 the proportionate benefit factors were updated to reflect the Otay Ranch annexation. The new shares were recalculated to be 48.5% PFDIF and 51.5% City. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 43 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update NOTE The proportionate EDU methodology, above, calculates the maximum percentage to be charged to new development. In some instances, these charges will be divided between various impact fees (e.g., PFDIF, TransDIF, etc). It is important to remember that the total amount charged to the various DIF accounts cannot exceed the overall proportionate share percentage. The current joint-impetus projects which use proportionate EDUs to determine City/net development cost shares are: Component Project POLICE The New Facility Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) Communication Consoles Mobile Data Terminals FIRE Training Tower Training Classroom GIS Geographic Information System RMS Records Management System~ TELECOMMUNICATIONS Voice Processing S~Y2stem PBX Replacement N.3.3. Joint-Impetus Projects and Marginal Costing There are two types of "joint impetus" projects. Type I projects, discussed above, generally relate to systems that are new to the City. Type II projects involve the replacement and expansion of pre-existing City systems. The expansion of the City's mainframe computer is an example of the second type of joint-impetus project. In 1990, the mainframe had reached its maximum memory capacity and no additional memory could be added to that system. As such, a new mainframe computer system had to be purchased, with enough memory to serve an expanded population and employee base. In assessing the project, it was determined that the City would have been replacing its mainframe in the near future for technological reasons, independent of growth. Thus, this became a "joint-impetus" project. ~0 On this project, new development's share of cost is spread over several funds. As such, the percentage charged to the PFDIF is less than the overall share based on proportionate EDUs. Reference 'NOTE' above. ~ Ibid. 42 Project proposed to be added as part of 1977 update. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 44 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update In this instance, the City was able to readily separate the marginal project costs due solely to growth (e.g., the expanded memory, additional tape drives, etc.) Separate vendor quotations for the basic system and an expanded system were obtained. The marginal cost attributable to growth was simply the difference in cost between the two systems. For the mainframe expansion project, new development's share of cost (calculated by dividing the marginal cost due to growth by the total project cost) came to 31.3%. The corresponding City share for the project was 68.7% (100% - 31.3%) and covered the costs of replacing the basic system. Other examples of Type II joint-impetus projects include the expansion of the Library automation system (37.7% PFDIF share) and the remodeling/expansion of Fire Station #1 (18.44% PFDIF share). The current joint-impetus projects which use a methodology other than proportionate EDUs to spread costs (e.g., a marginal cost analysis) are: Component Project LIBRARY Automation System Expansion I Automation System Expansion II Automation System Expansion III COMMUNICATIONS 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade COMPUTER SYSTEMS Replacement/Upgrade of Mainframe Computer Mini-Computer Fiscal System FIRE Remodeling/Expansion of FS#1 N.3.4. All Oranges Are Fruit BUT all Fruit Are NOT Oranges, OR Why is the City's share of cost on projects such as the Civic Center Expansion (9.4% in 1993) much lower than the 1993 proportionate benefit ratio (64.5%)? Although all joint-impetus projects have a City share and a new development share of costs, all projects with a City share and new development share are NOT joint-impetus projects. In the case of the Civic Center expansion project, the City share reflects the need to correct pre-existing deficiencies. In the 1993 analysis, the deficiency corrections represented 9.4% of the project's total cost. The Civic Center Expansion is NOT a joint-impetus project - the City had no independent intention to expand the Civic Center outside of the need to accommodate the additional employees needed to serve new development. To repeat, the only factors which determine whether a City cost share should be calculated are: 1 ) if there was a pre-existing City deficiency that has to be corrected as part of the overall project, or 2) if there was a joint-impetus to undertake the project (i.e., would the City have likely undertaken the project in the near future independent of needs City of Chula Vista, March 2002 45 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update generated by growth?) If, in the second instance, it is determined that a project should be classified as "joint-impetus", then proportionate benefits or marginal costs are calculated to determine cost shares. Current projects which have a City share reflecting a pre-existing deficiency are: Component Project CIVIC CENTER Remodeling and Expansion CaRP YARD Yard Relocation and Expansion LIBRARIES South Chula Vista Library OPERATING GUIDELINE COST SHARES ON JOINT-IMPETUS PROJECTS Cost shares that are based on proportionate EDUs are fixed, once a project is completed. When the fire training tower project was first established in the PFDIF program in 1990, the proportionate PFDIF cost share was 36.4% (63.6% City share). In 1993, the ratio of new EDUs to the projected citywide total at buildout declined to 35.5%, with a corresponding increase in the City share to 64.5%. In the 1993 PFDIF update, the then-current ratios (35.5% PFDIF/64.5%City) were applied to the training tower project. With the annexation of the Otay Ranch, the ratios for joint-impetus projects changed to 48.5% PFDIF and 51.5%. However, given that the training tower was already completed, the PFDIF cost share was fixed at 35.5% in the PFDIF program. Conversely, the PFDIF cost share for the CAD system was increased to 48.5% in the 1999 update, since that project had not been completed. This guideline is intended to lend stability to the PFDIF program and to minimize the need for on-going accounting/funding adjustments. Cost shares that are based on proportionate EDUs shall not exceed 48.5%. In the 1999 PFDIF update, developers and the Building Industry Association (BIA) agreed with the City's determination that development's share for the new Police Facility and Corporation Yard would be based on the ratio of new EDUs to citywide EDUs at buildout. In the 1999 update, as previously noted, this ratio was 48.5% PFDIF and 51.5% City. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 46 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update OPERATING GUIDELINE COST SHARES ON JOINT-IMPETUS PROJECTS (continued) The Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update incorporates significant increases in costs for the Police and Corporation Yard facilities. As such, developers requested that an alternative method be assessed for apportioning new development's remaining obligation for these projects. An alternative methodology, based on the amount of square footage remaining to be added through buildout to accommodate future staff, was therefore evaluated. An analysis of the new methodology showed that developer costs would be substantially reduced on the front-end. However, other costs associated with the methodology, such as the need to finance additional projects, would more than offset these gains. The City would be at a similar financial disadvantage. Therefore, both the City and developers have agreed to retain the current shares with the understanding that the City shall not recalculate the cost sharing formula to reflect the new EDUs added for Bayfront and the Smart Growth plan in this update. As such, the PFDIF share of basic project costs will not exceed 48.5%. With regard to the Police and Corporation projects, the following conditions apply: 1. The Police Facility The new Police Facility is budgeted to cost $63 million, excluding financing costs. New development's initial share for the basic project shall be calculated at 48.5% of $63 million, plus their share of financing costs. Additionally, development's share of the $63 million project shall be reduced by $494,675, to account for a City share of the purchase of the El Dorado building. This credit reduces the PFDIF share for the project to $30,059,325, or 47.7%. The PFDIF share of basic project costs for the new Police Facility shall remain at $30,095,325, with the following exceptions: · "Extraordinary costs", defined as costs which the City determines could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time the project budget was established, can be added. The PFDIF share of said extraordinary costs would be calculated at 48.5%. (The PFDIF share of the revised basic project would increase from the 47.5% total cited above, but would always remain below 48.5%.) City of Chula Vista, March 2002 47 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update OPERATING GUIDELINE COST SHARES ON JOINT-IMPETUS PROJECTS (continued) · An annual increase reflecting published Building Cost Index (BCI) adjustments for construction-related items, and/or Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments for non-construction items, will be added as appropriate. 2. New Corporation Yard Based on the current Corporation Yard Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget, new development's share of the $35.1 million project (excluding financing) is $16.5 million. New development's share shall be capped at this amount, irrespective of any future cost increases. (The PFDIF's share for this project is actually 47.1% based on growth/non-growth related expenditures.) N.4. Cash FIowAnalysis The actual cash flow analysis is detailed in Appendix 1 to the main PFDiF Report. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 48 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Section O Implementation O.1. Overview The public facility fee is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or financing within subdivisions or developments. Future fee updates may be undertaken to reflect changes in the type, size, location or cost of the various projects to be funded by the fee; changes in the proposed funding mechanism; changes in the land use designations in the City's General Plan; changes in the methodology by which costs are spread to land use types; changes in the EDUs remaining to be permitted; the addition of new PFDIF component (e.g., for recreation facilities); and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. 0.2. Payment of the Fee The fee for each development is calculated at the time of building permit application and is the amount as indicated at that time. The fee is not calculated on the tentative or final map. 0.3. Advance Construction of Projects As discussed in the City's Growth Management Program, a developer/builder may request authorization from the City to construct one or more of the PFDIF projects. Upon application by an owner/developer to construct a fee project, an agreement shall be prepared for City Council action which contains at least the following information and requirements: A. Detailed description of the project with a preliminary cost estimate. B. Requirements of developer/builder: · Prepare plans and specifications for approval by the City; · Secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project; · Secure all required permits including environmental clearances necessary for construction of the project; · Provide performance bonds; and · Pay all City fees and costs. C. The owner/developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the project unless said condition is modified by the City Manager. The City will not be responsible for any construction costs beyond those agreed to in advance by the City. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 49 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update D. The developedbuJlder shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for the construction. Any extra work charges during construction shall be justified and documented. E. When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer/builder shall submit verification to the City of payments made for the construction. The City Manager shall make the final determination on expenditures eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. F. The City shall inspect all construction and verify quantities, in accordance with City and State codes to ensure that the final improvement complies with all applicable standards and is constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. G. The developer/builder will receive a credit against payment of the applicable component fee of the PFDIF program during the issuance of building permits for the development. If the total construction cost amounts to more than the development's total impact fees for that component, the owner/developer will, as determined by the City Manager, either receive a further credit against the development's remaining portion of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee or enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. 0.4. Ordinance The proposed PFDIF ordinance, with the changes highlighted, is enclosed on following pages, without pagination. City of Chula Vista, March 2002 50 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Appendix 1 Cash Flow Analysis The cash flow model tracks PFDIF revenue and expenses in order to project the interest that will be earned on PFDIF fund balances through buildout. Interest earnings are then applied to offset the amount of revenue needed to be collected through the impact fee. As detailed in the model (attached), PFDIF interest earnings are projected to total $4,948,014. This results in an overall fee reduction of $145 per EDU, which has already been incorporated into the proposed fee. ~ The cash flow model is also used to determine the PFDIF debt service over the buildout period (through the year 2030). In order to mitigate the need for external financing, the City's PFDIF was amended in 1993, in concurrence with the City's developers, to allow the City to use funds from one PFDIF component (e.g., libraries) to fund needed projects in a different PFDIF component (e.g., fire stations). The co-mingling of PFDIF funds has significantly reduced the necessity to finance PFDIF projects. It has not, however, eliminated that need. Two major projects are targeted for future financing: the new Police facility (30 year) and the Civic Center expansion/remodel (20-year). As detailed in the Table on the following page, annual PFDIF debt will run between $5.2 and $5.7 million between 2006-2019. (A breakout of the debt service obligations for individual PFDIF projects is provided in the Cash Flow Model which follows.) Lastly, the model is used to assess whether the City will have adequate security to cover PFDIF debt from PFDIF fund balances during periods of slower growth. As noted elsewhere in the report, the City's General Fund is the guarantor of PFDIF debt, since impact fees cannot be bonded. The projected fund balances over the 29-year period are shown below. Important points to note are: · The build-up of reserves during 2002-05 results from (1) financing significant portions of the Police and Civic Center projects and (2) deferring initial debt service payments for two years after the bonds are sold. · Debt service during 2002-05 is forecasted to be $9.6 million. Based on an analysis of the data, staff feel that there will be sufficient fund balances to withstand a building slowdown during the period, without having to use general fund reserves to pay off PFDIF debt. · Projected balances during 2006-2015 generate most of the interest earnings that are used to offset the fee. · Lastly, some portion of the projected balances will be allocated to build recreation facilities when that component is added to the PFDIF. Table. Proiected PFDIF Fund Balances 2002-2005 $14.6 million 2006-2010 $28.5 million 2011-2015 $28.8 million 2016-2020 $19.2 million 2021-2025 $ 3.8 million 2026-2030 $0 ' The savings have been spread over the two largest components, Police and Civic Center. PFDIF Debt Service Summary Year PFDIF Debt Se~ice (Millions) 2OO2 $1.5 2OO3 $1.5 2OO4 $3.3 2005 $3.3 2006 $5.7 2007 $5.6 2008 $5.5 2OO9 $5.5 2010 $5.5 2011 $5.5 2012 $5.5 2013 $5.5 2014 $5.5 2015 $5.5 2016 $5.5 2017 $5.5 2018 $5.5 2019 $5.2 2020 $4.2 2021 $4.2 2022 $4.2 2O23 $4.2 2024 $4.2 2025 $4.2 2026 $1.8 2O27 $1.8 2028 $1.8 2029 $1.8 2030 $1.7 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Appendix 2 Police Facility Costs GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE SUMMARY CHULA VISTA POLICE HEADQUARTERS REVISED: NOVEMBER 15, 2001 GMP TOTALS 1 Hard Construction Costs: 2 Direct Cost / Design To Budget - Demolition, Facility and Site Improvements 32,596,878 3 Design Builder's Construction Contingency Fund 1,680,000 4 Subtotal - Hard Construction Costs 34,276,878 5 Desiqn Builder's Fixed Fee: (Excludes Off-Site Work) 8 General Conditions - Design and Construction Management Costs 2,516,002 7 Design & Engineering Staff & Expenses - Facility and Site 3,202,184 8 Overhead and Administration - Development Staff Costs 446,628 9 Design Build Portion of Fee 893,256 10 Genera/Contractor Portion of Fee 1,607,861 11 Subtotal - Fixed Fee Scope Items 8,665,931 12 Desiqn Builder's Reimbursables: 13 Building Permits; Plan Check Fees; Capacity Charges & Utility Fees Allowance Cit~ 14 Design Builder's Performance and Payment Bond 270,000 15 Contractor Controlled Insurance Program - (General Liability, Professional Liability, Workmen's Compensation) 1,950,000 17 Subsurface investigation Allowance 15,000 18 City's Field Offices, Video Documentation and Website Allowance 50,000 19 Warranty Extensions - Bid as Additive Alternates (Funding Source Unknown) Add Alternates 20 Subtotal - Original Design Builder's Reimbursable Costs 2,285,000 ~1 Off-Site Public Biqht-of-Way Work 22 Off-Site Allowance - Includes Design, DB's CC's, Staff Costs, Fee, Ins, & Bond 3,500,000 23 Subtotal - Off-Site Allowance 3,500,000 24 SubTotal Design Build Guaranteed Maximum Price 48,727,809 27 City Fees/Administration Costs/FF&E/Relocations/Owner's Continqency 28 Remediation and Demolition Allowance In Construction Above 29 Properly Site Acquisition and Relocations 7,000,000 30 Construction Inspection & City Oversight 3,250,000 31 Building Permits; Plan Check Fees; Capacity Charges & Utility Fees Allowance 200,000 32 FF & E 1,635,000 33 FF & E - Relocate Communications Equipment 327,000 34 Relocation - Equipment & Services 250,000 35 City Contingency 1,610,191 36 Co~Generation 7,000,000 37 Subtotal - City Budgets 21,272,191 38 Adjusted City Budgets SubTotal 39 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET I 70,000,000 Highland Partnership, Inc. Printed: 11/15/2001 @ 2:42 PM GMP Summary; Final Fixed Fee Schedules 1 11501 B.xls ~ar-18-2002 16:ZG From-HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP iht, 81949829T0 T-R?5 P.OO2/OOZ F-~80 Public Facilities DIF, 2002 Update Appendix 3 Civic Center Expansion Costs ~ ~w 0 ~w ~< z mw z =wo ~ 05o~ oz~ ~