Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1986-12845 RESOLUTION NO. 12845 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 FOR HILLTOP PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM RENOVATION, PARKWAY POOL & GY~4 LOCKER ROOM RENOVATION AND TERRA NOVA PARK TOT LOT DEVELOPMENT The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Community Parklands Act of 1986, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring and developing facilities for public recreational and historical purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the state; and I~HEREAS, said application contains assurances that the applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant agency will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition, development, rehabilitation or restoration of the projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for Community Parklands Act of 1986 state grant assistance for the above projects. 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certification in the application form. 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the projects. -1- 4. Certifies that said agency will complete the projects within three years from date of approval by the state. 5. Appoints the Director of Parks and Recreation as agent of the City of Chula Vista to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned projects. Presented by Approved as to form by Manuel Mollinedo, Director of Th?fma§ J. !a~ron, City Parks and Recreation ~_j~torney !/ 2252a ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this... 16th day of.. December 19, 86 , by the following vote, to--wit: AYES: Counci]members_HcCandliss, Cox, ~4oore, Nader, Ma]calm NAYES: Councilmembers None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None ABSENT: Councilmembers None Mayor(~of t~l~e City of Ct~ulo Vista STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Visto, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the obove and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 12845 ,and that the some has no/ been amended or repealed DATED City Clerk CllY OF CHULA VISi'A CC-~O APPLICATION AND PROJECT SUMMARY FORM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987/1988 Anticipated Grant Requests for Fiscal Years 1988/89 and 1989/90 Community Parklands Act of 1986 (;rant funds under this program are budgeted by agency, not individual project. The amount of grant funds to be appropriated to your agency each fiscal year will depend upon your estimate of the amount needed to complete acquisition or develop- ment for each of the projects you list. You may request your total program alloca- tion in a single year or have it budgeted over a two or three-year period, as long as each individual project listed is $20,000 or more. Please complete the following: Name of Local Agency CITY OF CHULA VISTA Amount of Total Program Allocation $ 313,000 Amount Requested for 1987/88 $ 313,000 Project (Park) Name Dollar Amount (1987/88) 1. Hilltop Park Irrigation System Renovation 181,000 2. Parkway Pool & Gym Locker Room Renovation 82,000 3. Terra Nova Park Tot Lot Development 50,000 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Attach extra sheet if you are applying for more than ten projects. 1987/88 Total $ 313,000 Intended Request for 1988/89 $ 0 Intended Request for 1989/90 $ 0 [ h~ve read and understand the assurances on the reverse side of this form. (Authorized ~pr6~entative of Agency) ASSURANCES 1. The grant recipient hereby gives assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that: It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance, acquire and construct the proposed project; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identi- fied as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It understands that grant funds must be appropriated by the State Legislature before costs can be incurred against the grant. 3. It will cause work on the project to be couunenced within three years of appro- priation and agrees to make the property to be acquired or developed open to use by the public by the DATE SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH WILL NOT BE MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE STATE. 4. It will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectural/engineering supervision and Inspection at the construction site to insure that the completed work conforms with the plans and specifications; that it will furnish progress reports and such other information as the State may require. 5. It w~ll give the State's authorized representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to the grant. 6. It w,ll not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities without permissIon from the State Legislature. 7. For each individual project listed on the front of this form, it will submit appropriate California Environmental Quality Act documents, a project infor- mation form, cost estimates for development projects, an acquisition schedule for acquisition projects, site and location map and appropriate engineering and/or acquisition certifications. [This information must be submitted before grant funds are disbursed.] 8. In cases involving leased property, it agrees to maintain and operate the prop~rty and/or facilities acquired or developed for an agreed to period com- mensurate with the type of project and the proportion of State grant funds and local funds allocated to the capital costs of the project. United States Soil Department of Conservation Agriculture Service Sublecl: Hilltop Park Da{e: Oct 17, 1986 Irrigation system evaluation Parks and Recreation Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 The following irrigation system observations, evaluation and recommendations are based on field conditions present at the time of the evaluation. A random sampling of catches was performed on stations 1,3 and 5 at Hilltop Park in Chula Vista on September 9, 1986 to determine the distribution uniformity and depth of application of the present system. OBSERVATIONS WATER APPLICATION: The sprinkler system tested consisted of three stations, sta- tion i and 5 operating together and station 3, which overlapped the area covered by station 1 and 5. For the test, the duration of station l&5 was 20 minutes and station 3 was 25 minutes. Using a network of 94 catch cans placed in a 10 ft by 10 ft pattern, the combined average application rate of stations 1,3 and 5 was determined to be .19 inches per hour (in/hr). To determine how uniformly water is being distributed onto the grass, an average of 25% of the lowest application rate~ measured was calculated. This amount is known as the low quarter and for all three stations combined was .12 in/hr. The low quarter flow was found to be 63% of the combined average application rate. This percentage is called the distribution uniformity (DU) of the tested area and indicates how evenly water is being distributed throogh- out the wetted area. A DU less than 72% is generally considered low. It is recommended to have values greater than 80%. Several factors affect the DU of a sprinkler system and are as follows: adequate and consistent operating pressures throughout the system, consistency of sprinkler orifice size, sprinkler location and time of operation. For this evaluation, it was assumed that all sprinklers were operating at adequate pressures, the discharge from each sprinkler was the same and most obvious, the sprinkler locations are constant. Therefore, the time of operation would be the key factor. With this in mind, DU's were calculated for the system with station l&5 operating for both 20% longer and 20% shorter lengths of time than station 3. Both calculations gave significantly lower DU values than 63% (sta- tions l&5 and 3 operating for equal lenths of time). SOIL-WATER RELATIONSHIPS: Between irrigations, water is stored in the soil for use by the grass. The soil, like a sponge, has a limited capacity to store moisture, and if water is applied in excess of this capacity, it flows down beyond the root zone and is lost to deep percolation. If water is applied faster than the so~l can absorb it, it is lost to surface runoff. Therefore, it is important to have the correct application rate and duration for your turf. At Hilltop Park, run- off was observed in at least two places. The small walkway heading uphill from the bridge had a small stream flowing into the concrete swale. This runoff had two sources: that which fell directly on the concrete, which is negligible and dificult if not impossible to prevent; and excess water applied to adjacent areas, by far the greater of the two. Water also precipitated into the concrete swale for much of its length in the tested area. However, this is mostly because water was originally applied there. Turfgrass uses water through a process called transpiration which when com- bined with soil evaporation, can collectively be called evapotranspiration (ET). This water useage can be quantified by monitoring such factors as sunlight, humidity, temperature and wind. Currently, the California Department of Water Resources is installing a network of remote weather stations called CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information Service) that will provide daily ET information for farmers and other irrigation managers to use in improving their irrigation efficiency. San Diego County has two stations, but the program is still in its early stages and the private sector is unable to directly access this information. However, Table I shows the daily average ET rates in in/day for turf grass for each month in the Chula Vista area. IRRIGATION SCHEDULING: The time of application for your system is dependent om the amount of water needed to satisfy the ET rates and the application rate of your sprinkler system. However, the DU is important also because with a poor DU, some areas may receive too much water and others may receive not enough. For sta- tions l&5 and 3, the time required to satisfy the July ET rate of .18 in/day is 58 minutes every day (neglecting the soil available water holding capacity), but since the system has a DU of 63%,to effectively irrigate the least watered areas (the lowest 25%), the time must be increased to 92 minutes per day.To determine the length of time to effectively irrigate stations 1,3,5, use the following formula: ET x 60 Where Length of daily irrigation = .187 x DU ET= in/day DU= decimal form Example in July : Length of time to irrigate - .18 x 60 .187 x .63 @ 63% DU - 92 minutes per day It must be kept in mind that some areas will experience runoff or deep percola- tion. Those areas with deep percolation will also lose fertilizers with the added leaching affect that will occur. This loss of fertilizer and water is in essence, a loss of money. 3 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS This section summarizes the findings of the evaluation and discusses the possible solutions and the recommended alternative to improve the efficiency of the Hilltop Park sprinkler system. Basically, the section tested (stations 1,3,5) was operating with a combination of Rainbird sprinklers that were operating correctly (adequate pressure and discharge, no obstructions and full movement). Yet the current system at Hilltop is not as efficient as could be, as evidenced by the prob- lems plaguing the park now. These problems include areas with poor ground cover, excess runoff, high maintenance and water bills and a time constraint problem. The length of time needed to irrigate the entire park with the curr- ent system and schedule apparently causes problems with park users. With this in mind, three possible alternatives are discussed below. Alternative A - Improve the current irrigation Distribution Uniformity by adjusting schedules. Lower precipitation rates on areas experiencing runoff, and reduce overspray by installing where applicable, sprinklers with reduced throw distance and/or different patterns. The area tested can have a DU of no more than 63% and can be attained by operating all three stations for the same length of time. The park's remaining stations would need to be evaluated and the corresponding DU's calculated, then, the operating times to achieve the best DU's would need to be determined. If the area tested (stations 1,3,5) has the best DU and/or the best ground cover, then the rest of the park would probably not have a DU greater than 63%. This poor DU directly contributes to high water bills. This alternative could reduce both the overspray and excess runoff problems, however, the time con- straint problem would still exist. The short term costs would be minimal, but over the long run, this would be an extremely costly action as the expenditure for expensive water would continually add up. Alternative B - Install a booster pump and upgrade existing system as outlined in the current proposal submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation. This alternative was discussed by SCS staff and is explained below why it may not be the best alternative for this situation. - By increasing pressure with a booster pump, the pressure rating of the existing pipelines may be exceeded. According the SCS specifications, working head should not exceed 72% of the pipe pressure rating, as this is a safety factor against surge and water hammer. - Pressure increases may improve the distribution uniformity where current working pressures are low, but may actually decrease the DU where pressures are adequate. Therefore, on those portions or, the system where pressures are adequate, pressure r§gulators may be requred. - The current time constraint problems may not be solved. Simply increasing the application rate may ~ncrease runoff problems on sloping areas if new sprinkler heads are not used. Increasing the application rate and decreasing the time of application simultaneously will result in even less water infiltrating the soil in areas currently baying runoff. - Increased pressures will cause an increase in pipeline velocity upstream of valves which may exceed the 5 feet per second maximum standard. - If only the pressure is boosted, then this may neglect the current waste of water in the concrete swale and other areas of oversray. - If a pump is installed, there will be a perpetual cost for electricity and maintenance in addition to installation cost. These costs should be considered when comparing to the recommended solution. RECObhMENDED ALTERNATIVE - Evaluate further the need for a complete ~ystem redesign. A~ redesigned system has several advantages, even though it appears to have a high installation cost compared to the other alternatives. First and most important, is that a new system can be designed for a desired DU (75-80% and possibly greater than 80%). With a higher DU, runoff and deep percolation losses as well as time constraint problems can be reduced and in some places, eliminated. - b~inlines can be sized to operate the maimum number of stations per set, thus avoiding any problems with maximum velocity and pressure standards. The more stations per set, the shorter the total time of irrigation, therefore, the time constraint problems can be overcome. - On areas with steeper slopes, a new system can utilize lower precipitation rates to reduce runoff problems and allow sufficient time for adequate infil- tration, thereby meeting the ET demands. - Sprinklers can be placed in locations to decrease the amount of water falling into the concrete swale and other places where overspray currently occurs. This will save money over a long period of time. - Finally, a redesign can be accomplished in phases over a period of several years and not require a total investment the first year. ,,'~,% UmtedStates Soil 1132 North Second St. }~l.~}i Departmen~ of Conservation E1 Cajon, CA 92021 · 1..~->.~./ ^gricul~ure Sorv,ce Phone: (619) 442-0559 T32~LE I AVERAGE DAILY EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FOR TURF GRASS IN THE CHULA VISTA AREA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA * Month ET (inches/day) January 07 February 09 March 1] April 13 May ]6 June ]6 July 18 August 16 September .15 October .11 November .08 December .06 * : These values are net water needs. Add water for inefficiencies and occassional leaching. These values are based on 20 or more years of average water use. Actual use values may be higher or lower for early or late seasons or for unusually hot periods. Taken from Calif. DWR.